Golden Mean

The golden mean is the balanced perspective on any given topic held by Christians, we do not go to one end of the spectrum and end up in heresy, or go far in the other end of the spectrum and also end up in heresy. “The truth is in the middle,” doctrinal truth (orthodoxy) is always in the middle between the extremes. Truth is never found at the extremes, or in the simplistic, ‘either or’ answers. It is always found in a place of balance between the extremes, or in other words, the ‘both and’ answer to the question.

Here is one example.

Mary:

The Excessive Swing: Those who exalt Mary to an unwarranted degree, which is the Catholic and Orthodox sects.

The Diminishing Swing: Those who demean or dishonor Mary altogether, which is the Protestant position.

The Balanced belief is that, Yes, Mary was an ever-virgin who was given the privilege of bearing Christ, but her surpassing sexual purity did not mean she was completely sinless. She committed some sins and was forgiven like the rest of us.

The Fathers who praise Mary’s virginity and call her a perpetual virgin are the same ones who on the other hand explicitly say she committed sins. They took the ‘middle’ ground, affirming both positions but never going to one extreme.

Church Fathers:

Clement of Alexandria:

“For the extremes of ignorance are atheism and superstition, from which we must endeavour to keep.” – Clement of Alexandria, Exhortation to the Heathen, chapter 2

Tertullian:

But I must take some further pains to rebut their arguments, when they make selections from the Scriptures in support of their opinion, and refuse to consider the other points, which obviously maintain the rule of faith without any infraction of the unity of the Godhead, and with the full admission of the Monarchy. For as in the Old Testament Scriptures they lay hold of nothing else than, “I am God, and beside me there is no God;” Isaiah 45:5 so in the Gospel they simply keep in view the Lord’s answer to Philip, “I and my Father are one;” John 10:30 and, “He that has seen me has seen the Father; and I am in the Father, and the Father in me.” John 14:9-10 They would have the entire revelation of both Testaments yield to these three passages, whereas the only proper course is to understand the few statements in the light of the many. But in their contention they only act on the principle of all heretics. For, inasmuch as only a few testimonies are to be found (making for them) in the general mass, they pertinaciously set off the few against the many, and assume the later against the earlier. The rule, however, which has been from the beginning established for every case, gives its prescription against the later assumptions, as indeed it also does against the fewer. – Tertullian, Against Praxeas chapter 20

Origen:

Let us see whether they (two circumcisions) could perhaps refer to the two general sins, in respect to which to be uncircumcised is not advantageous, that is to say, in respect to faith and works. This would mean that the one who does not have faith would be uncircumcised in the heart and the one who does not have works would be uncircumcised in the flesh. For one without the other is condemned, seeing that faith without works is called “dead”; and that no one is justified before God by works without faith. Thus I am convinced that the prophetic word shall be properly applied to that people which is made up of believers, to whom it is being said, “No foreigner who is among you in the midst of the house of Israel, who is uncircumcised in heart and uncircumcised in flesh, shall enter my sanctuary.” Doubtless this is what the Lord also says in the Gospel, “He who believes in me keeps my commands”;387 and again, “he who hears these words of mine and does them”; and likewise, “Why do you say to me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ and do not do what I say?” You see, then, that everywhere faith is joined with works and works are united with faith. Accordingly, circumcision of the heart means to hold no base and unworthy opinions concerning the faith; circumcision of the flesh means to commit nothing unclean and defiled in our works and actions. – Origen, Commentary on Romans 2.13.23

But we must realize that at the divine tribunal we are not judged for faith alone, as if our life were left unexamined, nor for our life alone, as if our faith were not subject to scrutiny. We are justified on the ground that both are correct. We are punished for both if both are incorrect. There are some, however, who will not be punished for both, but for one of the two: some for their faith because it is defective, but not because their life is lacking in right conduct; others, again, will not be punished for their faith, but will be for their life, on the ground that they have lived a life contrary to right reason… If then we wish to be saved, let us not be concerned about faith to the neglect of practical conduct of life, nor again let us place our confidence in our life. Let us realize, let us comprehend, let us believe that it is on the ground of both that we either receive our acquittal or blessedness, or receive the opposite of these. The things that are liable to punishment, therefore, are not merely the terrible and fearful sins which should not even be named, whether sins of life or of thought, but also sins commonly thought to be of less importance. That is why, it seems, the apostle puts side by side with acts which are abominable, infamous, and revolting (if I may so say) things which are regarded by most people as of little significance. What does he say? “Be not deceived; neither fornicators, nor adulterers, nor effeminate men, nor homosexuals, nor thieves, nor drunkards, nor revilers, shall inherit the kingdom of God.” You see that together with such gross sinners as the homosexual person, the effeminate man, the adulterer, the fornicator, he enumerates the drunkard, the reviler—sins thought by all of us to be of small account, so that we may be taught that it is not for the great sins alone that we are excluded from the kingdom of God, but also for these which are commonly supposed to be of minor significance. Therefore, let us not revile, nor be drunkards, nor extort, nor steal, nor do anything wrong, even if we are “deceived.”  Dialogue of Origen with Heraclides 140-142

Novatian:

“We must not then lean to one side and evade the other side, because any one who should exclude one portion of the truth will never hold the perfect truth.” – Novatian, On the Trinity, chapter 11

Novatians examples:

“In this place I may be permitted also to collect arguments from the side of other heretics. It is a substantial kind of proof which is gathered even from an adversary, so as to prove the truth even from the very enemies of truth. For it is so far manifest that He is declared in the Scriptures to be God, that many heretics, moved by the magnitude and truth of this divinity, exaggerating His honours above measure, have dared to announce or to think Him not the Son, but God the Father Himself. And this, although it is contrary to the truth of the Scriptures, is still a great and excellent argument for the divinity of Christ, who is so far God, except as Son of God, born of God, that very many heretics— as we have said — have so accepted Him as God, as to think that He must be pronounced not the Son, but the Father. Therefore let it be considered whether He is God or not, since His authority has so affected some, that, as we have already said above, they have thought Him God the Father Himself, and have confessed the divinity in Christ with such impetuosity and effusion — compelled to it by the manifest divinity in Christ — that they thought that He whom they read of as the Son, because they perceived Him to be God, must be the Father. Moreover, other heretics have so far embraced the manifest divinity of Christ, as to say that He was without flesh, and to withdraw from Him the whole humanity which He took upon Him, lest, by associating with Him a human nativity, as they conceived it, they should diminish in Him the power of the divine name. This, however, we do not approve; but we quote it as an argument to prove that Christ is God, to this extent, that some, taking away the manhood, have thought Him God only, and some have thought Him God the Father Himself; when reason and the proportion of the heavenly Scriptures show Christ to be God, but as the Son of God; and the Son of man, having been taken up, moreover by God, that He must be believed to be man also. Because if He came to man, that He might be Mediator of God and men, it behooved Him to be with man, and the Word to be made flesh, that in His own self He might link together the agreement of earthly things with heavenly things, by associating in Himself pledges of both natures, and uniting God to man and man to God; so that reasonably the Son of God might be made by the assumption of flesh the Son of man, and the Son of man by the reception of the Word of God the Son of God. This most profound and recondite mystery, destined before the worlds for the salvation of the human race, is found to be fulfilled in the Lord Jesus Christ, both God and man, that the human race might be placed within the reach of the enjoyment of eternal salvation.” – Novatian, On the Trinity chapter 23

“If God is one, and Christ is God, Christ is the Father, since God is one. If Christ be not the Father, because Christ is God the Son, there appear to be two Gods introduced, contrary to the Scriptures. And they who contend that Christ is man only, conclude on the other hand thus:— If the Father is one, and the Son another, but the Father is God and Christ is God, then there is not one God, but two Gods are at once introduced, the Father and the Son; and if God is one, by consequence Christ must be a man, so that rightly the Father may be one God. Thus indeed the Lord is, as it were, crucified between two thieves, even as He was formerly placed; and thus from either side He receives the sacrilegious reproaches of such heretics as these.” – Novatian, On the Trinity chapter 30

Novatian is talking about the two extremes of Modalism and Adoptionism. Jesus being crucified between two thieves is like what Heretics try doing to Christ, One thief steals away his divinity, while the other thief tries to steal away his humanity. The heresies are those Christological alternatives at the extremes and the extremes are thieves!

Lactanius:

Does wisdom therefore nowhere exist? Yes, indeed, it was among them, but no one saw it. Some thought that all things could be known: these were manifestly not wise. Others thought that nothing could be known; nor indeed were these wise: the former, because they attributed too much to man; the latter, because they attributed too little. A limit was wanting to each on either side. Where, then, is wisdom? It consists in thinking neither that you know all things, which is the property of God; nor that you are ignorant of all things, which is the part of a beast. For it is something of a middle character which belongs to man, that is, knowledge united and combined with ignorance. Knowledge in us is from the soul, which has its origin from heaven; ignorance from the body, which is from the earth: whence we have something in common with God, and with the animal creation. Thus, since we are composed of these two elements, the one of which is endowed with light, the other with darkness, a part of knowledge is given to us, and a part of ignorance. Over this bridge, so to speak, we may pass without any danger of falling; for all those who have inclined to either side, either towards the left hand or the right, have fallen. But I will say how each part has erred. The Academics argued from obscure subjects, against the natural philosophers, that there was no knowledge; and satisfied with the examples of a few incomprehensible subjects, they embraced ignorance as though they had taken away the whole of knowledge, because they had taken it away in part. But natural philosophers, on the other hand, derived their argument from those things which are open, and inferred that all things could be known, and, satisfied with things which were manifest, retained knowledge; as if they had defended it altogether, because they had defended it in part. And thus neither the one saw what was clear, nor the others what was obscure; but each party, while they contended with the greatest ardour either to retain or to take away knowledge only, did not see that there would be placed in the middle that which might guide them to wisdom. – Lacantius, The Divine Institutes, Book 3, chapter 6

Eusebius:

The children of the Jews first received the confession of the one God in opposition to the polytheistic error of the Greeks. But the saving grace of recognizing that the same [God] is also Father of an only-begotten Son has been given to the Church as a special privilege. For as Son it knows Jesus Christ alone and no other, not according to the generation of the flesh that he assumed (for it has been taught to call this flesh the “form of a slave” and “Son of Man”), but according to his [generation] before all ages from God himself and the Father, [which is] unknowable to all. According to this [generation from God] the fullness of the paternal divinity also made him, the Son, God, and so as a result he possesses a divinity that is not his own, one separated from that of the Father, nor one that is without source and that is unbegotten, nor one that is foreign, from somewhere else, and different from the Father’s. Rather, he is filled with divinity by participating in the paternal [divinity] itself, which pours into him as from a fountain. For the great Apostle taught that “in him alone dwells all the fullness” of the paternal “divinity” (Colossians 2:9). For this reason, then, one God is proclaimed by the Church of God, “and there is no other besides him” (Isaiah 45:5), but also one only-begotten Son of God, the image of the paternal divinity, who, because of this, is God. So then, not having succeeded in understanding this theology, many contrived various pathways of error: [1.] those who granted that the Son is God, but who denied the man whom he has assumed; [2.] those who have supposed that [Christ] is a mere man, but did not recognize that God was in him; [3.] those who, from fear of seeming to have introduced a second God, defined Father and Son as the same [God]. The Church of God, having rejected these men, glories in the gospels’ proclamation of the truth. On the one hand, it boasts that there is one God who is over all; on the other, it affirms one only-begotten Son, God from God, Jesus Christ. It confesses that the same became Savior and Son of Man, being Son of God before he also became Son of Man, and that he became this, which he was not, because of the ineffable abundance of the Father’s love for humankind. The word of truth, indeed, proclaims this through the voice of the Church. – Eusebius, On Ecclesiastical Theology 1.2-4

Cyril of Jerusalem:

Hilary of Poitiers:

[How “One God” can be interpreted by two extremes:]

The heretics have ingeniously contrived that this folly, which passes for wisdom, shall be their engine. They employ the confession of One God, for which they appeal to the witness of the Law and the Gospels in the words, “Hear, O Israel, the Lord your God is One”. They are well aware of the risks involved, whether their assertion be met by contradiction or passed over in silence; and, whichever happens, they see an opening to promote their heresy. If sacred truth, pressed with a blasphemous intent, be met by silence, that silence is construed as consent; as a confession that, because God is One, therefore His Son is not God, and God abides in eternal solitude. If, on the other hand, the heresy involved in their bold argument be met by contradiction, this opposition is branded as a departure from the true Gospel faith, which states in precise terms the unity of God, or else they cast in the opponent’s teeth that he has fallen into the contrary heresy, which allows but one Person of Father and of Son. Such is the deadly artifice, wearing the aspect of an attractive innocence, which the world’s wisdom, which is folly with God, has forged to beguile us in this first article of their faith, which we can neither confess nor deny without risk of blasphemy. We walk between dangers on either hand; the unity of God may force us into a denial of the Godhead of His Son, or, if we confess that the Father is God and the Son is God, we may be driven into the heresy of interpreting the unity of Father and of Son in the Sabellian sense. Thus their device of insisting upon the One God would either shut out the Second Person from the Godhead, or destroy the Unity by admitting Him as a second God, or else make the unity merely nominal. For unity, they would plead, excludes a Second; the existence of a Second is destructive of unity; and Two cannot be One. But we who have attained this wisdom of God, which is folly to the world, and purpose, by means of the sound and saving profession of true faith in the Lord, to unmask the snake-like treachery of their teaching; we have so laid out the plan of our undertaking as to gain a vantage ground for the display of the truth without entangling ourselves in the dangers of heretical assertion.We carefully avoid either extreme; not denying that God is One, yet setting forth distinctly, on the evidence of the Lawgiver who proclaims the unity of God, the truth that there is God and God. We teach that it is by no confusion of the Two that God is One; we do not rend Him in pieces by preaching a plurality of Gods, nor yet do we profess a distinction only in name. But we present Him as God and God, postponing at present for fuller discussion hereafter the question of the Divine unity. For the Gospels tell us that Moses taught the truth when he proclaimed that God is One; and Moses by his proclamation of One God confirms the lesson of the Gospels, which tell of God and God. Thus we do not contradict our authorities, but base our teaching upon them, proving that the revelation to Israel of the unity of God gives no sanction to the refusal of Divinity to the Son of God; since he who is our authority for asserting that there is One God is our authority also for confessing the Godhead of His Son. – Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 5, chapter 1-2

We have set forth God from God, and at the same time confessed One true God; showing that this presentation of the faith neither falls short of the truth by ascribing singleness of Person to the One true God, nor adds to the faith by asserting the existence of a second Deity. For we confess neither an isolated God, nor yet two Gods. Thus, neither denying that God is One nor maintaining that He is alone, we hold the straight road of truth. – Hilary of Poitiers, On the Trinity, Book 7, chapter 2

Gregory of Nyssa:

“They therefore do not understand that all virtue is found in moderation, and that any declension to either side of it becomes a vice. He, in fact, who grasps the middle point between doing too little and doing too much has hit the distinction between vice and virtue. Instances will make this clearer. Cowardice and audacity are two recognized vices opposed to each other; the one the defect, the other the excess of confidence; between them lies courage. Again, piety is neither atheism nor superstition; it is equally impious to deny a God and to believe in many gods. Is there need of more examples to bring this principle home? The man who avoids both meanness and prodigality will by this shunning of extremes form the moral habit of liberality; for liberality is the thing which is neither inclined to spend at random vast and useless sums, nor yet to be closely calculating in necessary expenses. We need not go into details in the case of all good qualities. Reason, in all of them, has established virtue to be a middle state between two extremes. Sobriety itself therefore is a middle state, and manifestly involves the two declensions on either side towards vice; he, that is, who is wanting in firmness of soul, and is so easily worsted in the combat with pleasure as never even to have approached the path of a virtuous and sober life, slides into shameful indulgence; while he who goes beyond the safe ground of sobriety and overshoots the moderation of this virtue, falls as it were from a precipice into the doctrines of devils, having his conscience seared with a hot iron. In declaring marriage abominable he brands himself with such reproaches; for if the tree is corrupt (as the Gospel says), the fruit also of the tree will be like it ; if a man is the shoot and fruitage of the tree of marriage, reproaches cast on that turn upon him who casts them. These persons, then, are like branded criminals already; their conscience is covered with the stripes of this unnatural teaching. But our view of marriage is this; that, while the pursuit of heavenly things should be a man’s first care, yet if he can use the advantages of marriage with sobriety and moderation, he need not despise this way of serving the state. An example might be found in the patriarch Isaac. He married Rebecca when he was past the flower of his age and his prime was nearly spent, so that his marriage was not the deed of passion, but because of God’s blessing that should be upon his seed. He cohabited with her till the birth of her only children , and then, closing the channels of the senses, lived wholly for the Unseen; for this is what seems to be meant by the mention in his history of the dimness of the Patriarch’s eyes.” – Gregory of Nyssa, On Virginity chapter 8

“Faith without the works of justice is not enough to save one from death, nor again is the justice of one’s life a guarantee of salvation if it is on its own, divorced from faith. Thus by weaving together faith and justice as raw materials for this armour he protects the hoplite’s body completely over the heart; for the heart is understood a s in the breast. He protects the warrior’s head with hope, signifying that it should be the good soldier’s business to wave aloft his hope of things above like a plume.” – Gregory of Nyssa, Homily 8 on Ecclesiastes 

“My heart has uttered a good word,” the psalmist recently said. This good word of God, those following Arius and Achilles, uttering a most impious statement, dared to proclaim a creature and a product and have drawn many into their own error; while those following Sabellius, thinking the opposite of these things, try to abolish the hypostasis of the Son, and thinking to honor the Father himself, being one, with two names, they call him Son-Father. And both these opinions have been set like two traps by the aforementioned; but a certain middle way runs between, narrow and afflicted, which leads to life according to the gospel. Many men, turning away from this, become the prey of the one or the other; but you seem to me to fear falling into either of them and to avoid the very way of truth, thinking one ought not to engage in discourse about God. See, therefore, that in cautiously avoiding the error of the two, you might not incur the penalty of impiety. The Savior himself, standing before the true way, cried out, saying: “I am the way and the truth”; do not turn to the right or to the left, so that you may not run into either of them. And again: “I am the door of the sheep; he who does not enter through me, but climbs in by another way is a thief and a robber,” who, being caught in a trap, will also perish. Therefore, let them hear, those who have turned their mind to the error of either party, that according to nature our Savior Jesus Christ is and is called Son of God, and is not called a son by adoption, being a created thing, as we are, and that he has no beginning, but is eternal; for this reason also in endless ages he will reign together with the Father in his own hypostasis. – Gregory of Nyssa, Against Arius and Sabellius on the Father and Son

And what could be harder to know, the day of the consummation or God the Father himself? but if he knew the Father by saying: That you may know me, just as the Father knows me and I know the Father, how would he not know the day, of which he himself has also become the creator? For without him nothing was made. And the argument having been demonstrated how it is with these brief points, may it not become a hindrance to anyone towards the right faith. You therefore, followers of both Sabellius and Arius, you who have come into such great disagreement, having recognized all the truth from what has been said, come together with me in friendship and, having come to the middle ground between both snares, you will find the way of truth, by which, having journeyed, you will see eternal life. – Gregory of Nyssa, Against Arius and Sabellius on the Father and Son

What then should be done, is a difficult question; for the choice is easily misrepresented in either direction by those fond of accusations, whether, having leaped over the empty talk as if it were some ravine, we direct our discourse to what is steep and accessible, engaging through refutation with those things that seem to have some force against the truth, or whether we extend our battle against vanities to all the nonsense; for in this way our effort will be burdensome to the indolent and unprofitable, being prolonged through many thousands of words for no useful purpose. But if we should take up only those things that seem to have some force against the truth, we will provide a pretext for accusation to our opponents as if we had yielded on some points that do not admit of refutation. Since, therefore, two courses are set before us, that of going through everything in our discourse and that of touching only upon the more necessary points, the one being burdensome to the hearers, the other suspect to slanderers, I say that it is good to turn to some middle way and thus escape, as far as possible, blame from either side. – Gregory of Nyssa, Answer to Eunomius’ Second Book

Basil the Great:

Especially, we urge you to remember the faith of the Fathers, and not to be shaken by those who are attempting to confuse you in your solitude, knowing that strictness of life in itself, if not illuminated by faith in God, is of no advantage, nor will a right profession of faith, if bereft of good works, be able to commend us to the Lord; but it is necessary for both to be present, so that the man of God may be perfect and our life may not be incomplete because of any deficiency. For, the faith which saves us, as the Apostle says, is ‘the faith which works through charity.’ – Basil the Great, Letter 295

Therefore, you might truly find many words there which furnish the greatest support to the heretics, such as ‘creature’ and ‘thing made’ and the like. Then, too, many words spoken concerning the union with man are referred to the doctrine of the divinity when heard by those lacking instruction in the writings, and of such a sort is this expression which is being bruited about by them. It must be well understood that, as he who does not confess a community of substance falls into polytheism, so he who does not grant the individuality of the Persons [i.e Sebellianism] is carried away into Judaism. – Basil the Great, Letter 210

For this reason too before His passion our Lord deprecates the designation of “Jesus Christ,” and charges His disciples to “tell no man that He was Jesus, the Christ.” Matthew 16:19 For His purpose was, after the completion of the œconomy, after His resurrection from the dead, and His assumption into heaven, to commit to them the preaching of Him as Jesus, the Christ. Such is the force of the words “That they may know You the only true God and Jesus Christ whom you have sent,” John 17:3 and again “You believe in God, believe also in me.” John 14:1 Everywhere the Holy Ghost secures our conception of Him to save us from falling in one direction while we advance in the other, heeding the theology but neglecting the œconomy, and so by omission falling into impiety. – Basil the Great, Letter 8, chapter 3

You ask for the writings of Dionysius [of Alexandria]; they did indeed reach me, and a great many they were; but I have not the books with me, and so have not sent them. My opinion is, however, as follows. I do not admire everything that is written; indeed of some things I totally disapprove. For it may be, that of the impiety of which we are now hearing so much, I mean the Anomœan, it is he, as far as I know, who first gave men the seeds. I do not trace his so doing to any mental depravity, but only to his earnest desire to resist Sabellius. I often compare him to a woodman trying to straighten some ill-grown sapling, pulling so immoderately in the opposite direction as to exceed the mean, and so dragging the plant awry on the other side. This is very much what we find to be the case with Dionysius. While vehemently opposing the impiety of the Libyan, he is carried away unawares by his zeal into the opposite error. – Basil the Great, Letter 9, chapter 2

Gregory Nazianzen:

“For its beginning is not its nature, any more than the being without beginning is the nature of the other. For these are the accompaniments of the nature, not the nature itself. That again which is with that which has no beginning, and with the beginning, is not anything else than what they are. Now, the name of that which has no beginning is the Father, and of the Beginning the Son, and of that which is with the Beginning, the Holy Ghost, and the three have one Nature — God. And the union is the Father from Whom and to Whom the order of Persons runs its course, not so as to be confounded, but so as to be possessed, without distinction of time, of will, or of power. For these things in our case produce a plurality of individuals, since each of them is separate both from every other quality, and from every other individual possession of the same quality. But to Those who have a simple nature, and whose essence is the same, the term One belongs in its highest sense. Let us then bid farewell to all contentious shiftings and balancings of the truth on either side, neither, like the Sabellians, assailing the Trinity in the interest of the Unity, and so destroying the distinction by a wicked confusion; nor, like the Arians, assailing the Unity in the interest of the Trinity, and by an impious distinction overthrowing the Oneness. For our object is not to exchange one evil for another, but to ensure our attainment of that which is good. These are the playthings of the Wicked One, who is ever swaying our fortunes towards the evil. But we, walking along the royal road which lies between the two extremes, which is the seat of the virtues, as the authorities say, believe in the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost, of one Substance and glory; in Whom also baptism has its perfection,…” – Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 42, chapter 15-16

And whenever I say “God,” be illuminated by one Light and by three: by three according to the individual properties—that is, the hypostases, if anyone prefers to call them that, or persons. For we will not quarrel over names, so long as the words lead to the same meaning. But by one according to the account of the essence, that is, the Godhead. For the Godhead is divided indivisibly, so to speak, and united while remaining distinct. For the Godhead is one in three, and the three are one: those in whom the Godhead is—or, to speak more precisely, those who are the Godhead. But let us avoid both excess and deficiency: neither making the unity into confusion, nor the distinction into separation. For equally far from us must be both the contraction of Sabellius and the division of Arius—evils standing at opposite extremes, yet equal in impiety. For why should God either be wrongly blended together or cut apart into inequality? – Gregory Nazianzen, Oration 39, chapter 11, Migne PG 36.345, 48

Knowing this therefore, brethren, let us neither be sluggish toward what is good, but let us be fervent in the Spirit, lest we sleep little by little unto death, or, while we sleep, the enemy sow the evil seeds; for sluggishness is yoked with sleep; nor let us be fiery with irrationality and self-love, that we may not be carried away, nor fall outside the royal road; stumbling in some one way at least, either needing goads because of sluggishness, or being cast down from a cliff because of heat. But having taken from both what is useful, from the one gentleness, from the other zeal; let us flee from what is harmful in both, from the one sloth, from the other rashness; that we may neither be fruitless through deficiency, nor be in danger through excess. For equally useless are both inactive sluggishness, and an undisciplined zeal; the one not approaching the good, the other overshooting it, and making something more right than the right itself. Which the divine Solomon, understanding well, says, “Do not turn aside to the right, nor to the left;” lest through opposites you fall into an equal evil, which is sin. And yet, praising what is by nature right, he says, “For God knows the ways on the right; 36.181 but those on the left are perverse.” How then does he praise the right, and again turn us away from the right? Clearly, from this which seems right, but is not. Looking to this, elsewhere he says, “Do not be overly righteous, nor be overly wise.” For the same affliction applies to both righteousness and wisdom, a zeal concerning action and speech, which through excess falls outside of the good and of virtue. To which both deficiency and excess are equally ruinous, just as addition or subtraction is to a rule. – Gregory of Nazianzen, Oration 32, On Moderation In Disputation, chapter 6

 For seeing that those whom the active life delights, while being useful to others in the community, are useless to themselves and tossed about by evils, from which their smooth character is agitated, while those who are withdrawn are somehow more stable and look to God with a quiet mind, but are useful only to themselves in a narrow love and live a strange and harsh life, I came to a middle way between the solitary and the social, taking from the one their contemplation and from the other their usefulness. – Gregory of Nazianzus,  His Own Life Story 

Epiphanius:

But what is it that you’re about to say, Mister? “‘This is our God, and none can be accounted God besides him?’ ” And that was quite right! The apostle too affirms it by saying, “Whose are the fathers and of whom, according to the flesh, came Christ, who is God over all.” Since Christ teaches us this himself by saying, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father,” this makes him God over all. And he expounds it marvelously: Christ is He Who Is, God over all. For John testifies to this by saying, “That which was from the beginning, which we have seen with our eyes and our hands have handled.” And again, in Revelation he says, “He who is from the beginning and is to come, the Almighty.” He was absolutely right; for when he said, “All things are delivered unto me of my Father,” he appended <“the Father”> precisely as he should have. Though he is God over all, he has a Father of his own. And < this becomes apparent > when he says, “I go unto my Father.” To which Father could he go, Brainless, if he were the Father himself ? Or again, he says, “That they may be one, as thou and I are one.” The scripture constantly guards against men’s falls into extremes, and recalls their minds from all places to the middle way of the truth.To those who think that the Son is different from the Father—I mean as Arius and other sects do—it says, “I and the Father are one.” But to those who think that the Father and the Son are the same because it has said, “I and the Father are one,” the scripture says, “Make them to be one as I and thou are one,” shaming Noetus and his school by the reference to oneness of the disciples. – Epiphanius, The Panarion 57.9.1-10.3

John Chrysostom:

For there it often happens that the combat with one set of enemies secures a victory for others who never engaged in battle at all, nor took any trouble, but were sitting still all the while; and he who has not much experience in such occurrences will get pierced, so to say, with his own sword, and become the laughing-stock of friends and foes alike. I will try by an example to make clear what I am saying. They who receive the wild doctrines of Valentinus and Marcion, and of all whose minds are similarly diseased, exclude the Law given by God to Moses from the catalogue of the Divine Scriptures. But Jews so revere the Law, that although the time has come which annuls it, they still contend for the observance of all its contents, contrary to the purpose of God. But the Church of God, avoiding either extreme, has trodden a middle path, and is neither induced on the one hand to place herself under its yoke, nor on the other does she tolerate its being slandered, but commends it, though its day is over, because of its profitableness while its season lasted. Now it is necessary for him who is going to fight with both these enemies, to be fully conversant with this middle course. For if in wishing to teach the Jews that they are out of date in clinging to the old law, he begins to find fault with it unsparingly, he gives no little handle to those heretics who wish to pull it to pieces; and if in his ambition to stop their mouths he extols it immoderately, and speaks of it with admiration, as necessary for this present time, he unseals the lips of the Jews. Again they who labor under the frenzy of Sabellius and the craze of Arius, have both fallen from a sound faith for want of observing a middle course. The name of Christian is applied to both these heretics; but if any one examines their doctrines, he will find the one sect not much better than the Jews, and differing from them only in name, and the other very nearly holding the heresy of Paul of Samosata, and that both are very wide of the truth. Great, therefore, is the danger in such cases, and the way of orthodoxy is narrow and hemmed in by threatening crags on either side, and there is no little fear lest when intending to strike at one enemy we should be wounded by the other. For if any one assert the unity of the Godhead, Sabellius straightway turns that expression to the advantage of his own mental vagary, and if he distinguish the Persons, and say that the Father is one, and the Son another, and the Holy Spirit a third, up gets Arius, ready to wrest that distinction of Persons into a difference of substance; so we must turn and flee both from the impious confounding of the Persons by the one, and the senseless division of the substance by the other, confessing, indeed, that the Godhead of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, is all one, while we add thereunto a Trinity of Persons. For then we shall be able to fortify ourselves against the attacks of both heretics. I might tell you besides these, of several other adversaries against which, except we contend bravely and carefully, we shall leave the field covered with wounds. – John Chrysostom, On the Priesthood, Book 4, chapter 4

And to prove this, mark how again going forward, and laying aside the “by whom,” he assigns to Him absolute power. For after he had effected what he wished by the use of it, thenceforward leaving it, what says he? “Thou Lord in the beginning hast laid the foundation of the earth, and the heavens are the works of Your hands.” Hebrews 1:10 Nowhere is there the saying “by whom,” or that “by Him He made the worlds.” What then? Were they not made by Him? Yes, but not, as you say or imaginest, “as by an instrument:” nor as though He would not have made them unless the Father had reached out a hand to Him. For as He “judges no man” John 5:22, and is said to judge by the Son, in that He begot Him a judge; so also, to create by Him, in that He begot Him a Creator. And if the Father be the original cause of Him, in that He is Father, much more of the things which have been made by Him. When therefore he would show that He is of Him, he speaks of necessity lowly things. But when he would utter high things, Marcellus takes a handle, and Sabellius; avoiding however the excess of both, he (Paul) holds a middle [way]. For neither does he dwell on the humiliation, lest Paul of Samosata should obtain a standing place, nor yet does he for ever abide in the high sayings; but shows on the contrary His abundant nearness, lest Sabellius rush in upon him. He names Him “Son,” and immediately Paul of Samosata comes on him, saying that He is a son, as the many are. But he (Paul) gives him (Paul of Samosata) a fatal wound, calling Him “Heir.” But yet, with Arius, he is shameless. For the saying, “He appointed Him heir,” they both hold: the former one saying, it comes of weakness; the other still presses objections, endeavoring to support himself by the clause which follows. For by saying, “by whom also He made the worlds,” he strikes backwards the impudent Samosatene: while Arius still seems to be strong. Nevertheless see how he smites him likewise, saying again, “who being the brightness of His glory.” But behold! Sabellius again springs on us, with Marcellus, and Photinus: but on all these also he inflicts one blow, saying, “and the express image of His person and upholding all things by the word of His power.” Here again he wounds Marcion too; not very severely, but however he does wound him. For through the whole of this Epistle he is fighting against them. – John Chrysostom, Homily 2 on Hebrews

What then? Does nothing depend on God? All indeed depends on God, but not so that our free-will is hindered. ‘If then it depend on God,’ (one says), ‘why does He blame us?’ On this account I said, ‘so that our free-will is not hindered.’ It depends then on us, and on Him. For we must first choose the good; and then He leads us to His own. He does not anticipate our choice, lest our free-will should be outraged. But when we have chosen, then great is the assistance he brings to us. – John Chrysostom, Homily 12 on Hebrews

The admonition however, and the counsel, such as it is, appears to some to give authority for drinking wine too freely. But this is not so. If indeed we closely investigate this very saying, it rather amounts to a recommendation of abstinence. For just consider that Paul did not at first, nor at the outset give this counsel. But when he saw that all strength was overthrown, then he gave it; and even then not simply, but with a certain prior limitation. He does not say merely, Use wine, but “a little wine;” not because Timothy needed this admonition and advice, but because we need it. On this account, in writing to him, he prescribes the measure and limit of wine-drinking for us; bidding him drink just so much as would correct disorder; as would bring health to the body, but not another disease. For the immoderate drinking of wine produces not fewer diseases of body and of soul, than much drinking of water, but many more, and more severe; bringing in as it does upon the mind the war of the passions, and a tempest of perverse thoughts, besides reducing the firmness of the body to a relaxed and flaccid condition. For the nature of land that is long disturbed by a superabundance of water, is not thereby so much dissolved, as the force of the human frame is enfeebled, relaxed, and reduced to a state of exhaustion, by the continual swilling of wine. Let us guard then against a want of moderation on either side, and let us take care of the health of the body, at the same time that we prune away its luxurious propensities. For wine was given us of God, not that we might be drunken, but that we might be sober; that we might be glad, not that we get ourselves pain. Wine, it says, makes glad the heart of man, but you make it matter for sadness; since those who are inebriated are sullen beyond measure, and great darkness over-spreads their thoughts. It is the best medicine, when it has the best moderation to direct it. The passage before us is useful also against heretics, who speak evil of God’s creatures; for if it had been among the number of things forbidden, Paul would not have permitted it, nor would have said it was to be used. And not only against the heretics, but against the simple ones among our brethren, who when they see any persons disgracing themselves from drunkenness, instead of reproving such, blame the fruit given them by God, and say, Let there be no wine. We should say then in answer to such, Let there be no drunkenness; for wine is the work of God, but drunkenness is the work of the devil. Wine makes not drunkenness; but intemperance produces it. Do not accuse that which is the workmanship of God, but accuse the madness of a fellow mortal. But you, while omitting to reprove and correct the sinner, treat your Benefactor with contempt! 12. When, therefore, we hear men saying such things, we should stop their mouths; for it is not the use of wine, but the want of moderation which produces drunkenness, Drunkenness! That root of all evils. Wine was given to restore the body’s weakness, not to overturn the soul’s strength; to remove the sickness of the flesh, not to destroy the health of the spirit. Do not then, by using the gift of God immoderately, afford a handle to the foolish and the impudent. For what is a more wretched thing than drunkenness! The drunken man is a living corpse. Drunkenness is a demon self-chosen, a disease without excuse, an overthrow that admits of no apology; a common shame to our kind. The drunken man is not only useless in our assemblies; not only in public and private affairs; but the bare sight of him is the most disgusting of all things, his breath being stench. The belchings, and gapings, and speech of the intoxicated, are at once unpleasant and offensive, and are utterly abhorrent to those who see and converse with them; and the crown of these evils is, that this disease makes heaven inaccessible to drunkards, and does not suffer them to win eternal blessedness: for besides the shame attending those who labour under this disease here, a grievous punishment is also awaiting them there! Let us cut off then this evil habit, and let us hear Paul saying, Use a little wine. For even this little he permits him on account of his infirmity; so that if infirmity had not troubled him, he would not have forced his disciple to allow himself even a small quantity, since it is fitting that we should always mete out even the needful meat and drink, which are given us, by occasions and necessities; and by no means go beyond our need, nor do anything unmeaningly and to no purpose. – John Chrysostom, Homily 1 on the Statues

Let us then so live, that the name of God be not blasphemed. Let us not, on the one hand, look to human reputation; nor on the other, subject ourselves to an evil report, but on both sides let us observe moderation; as he says, “Among whom you shine as lights in the world.” – John Chrysostom, Homily 10 on First Timothy

Let us keep nothing old, nothing outward, nothing that is corrupt. Virtue is not toilsome, she is not difficult to attain. Do you not see them that are in the mountains? They forsake both houses, and wives, and children, and all preëminence, and shut themselves away from the world, and clothe themselves in sackcloth, and strew ashes beneath them; they wear collars hung about their necks, and have pent themselves up in a narrow cell. Nor do they stop here, but torture themselves with fastings and continual hunger. Did I now enjoin you to do the like, would ye not all start away? Would ye not say, it is intolerable? But no, I say not that we must needs do anything like this:— I would fain indeed that it were so, still I lay down no law. What then? Enjoy your baths, take care of your body, and throw yourself freely into the world, and keep a household, have your servants to wait on you, and make free use of your meats and drinks! But everywhere drive out excess, for that it is which causes sin, and the same thing, whatever it be, if it becomes excessive, becomes a sin; so that excess is nothing else than sin. For observe, when anger is excited above what is meet, then it rushes out into insult, then it commits every sort of injury; so does inordinate passion for beauty, for riches, for glory, or for anything else. – John Chrysostom, Homily 13 on Ephesians

Let us not therefore accuse riches, nor revile poverty absolutely, but those who do not will to use these virtuously; for the things themselves lie in the middle. But as I was saying (for it is good to return to the former subject), both rich and poor enjoy the benefit of the medicines administered here with the same boldness and freedom; and often the poor with more earnestness. For the special excellence of the medicines is not this only, that they heal souls, that their virtue is not destroyed by length of time, that they are not worsted by any disease, that the benefit is publicly offered gratuitously, that the healing treatment is on a footing of equality both for rich and poor — but they have another quality also not inferior to these good points. – John Chrysostom, Homily Against Publishing the Errors of the Brethren

So, if all things were level to our understanding, the soul would not find wherein to exert itself: if it had to be carried about everywhere, it would be an unsightly object. See you not, that we exhort nurses not to make a practice of carrying children always, that they may not bring them into a habit (of wanting to be carried) and so make them helpless? This is why those children which are brought up under the eyes of their parents are weak, in consequence of the indulgence, which by sparing them too much injures their health. It is a good thing, even pain in moderation; a good thing, care; a good thing, want; for they make us strong: good also are their opposites: but each of these when in excess destroys us; and the one relaxes, but the other (by overmuch tension) breaks us. Do you see not, that Christ also thus trains His own disciples? If they needed these things, much more do we. But if we need them, let us not grieve, but even rejoice in our afflictions. For these are remedies, answering to our wounds, some of them bitter, others mild; but either of them by itself would be useless. Let us therefore return thanks to God for all these things: for He does not suffer them to happen at random, but for the benefit of our souls. – John Chrysostom, Homily 54 on Acts

Augustine:

“For men go astray when they do not keep to a middle course in their thinking, when they eagerly take up one line of thought and do not consider other statements of divine authority, statements which would keep them from going astray and would direct them in the way of truth and moderation. This is true not only of the matter at hand but of other matters also. Some persons, having considered only those passages of Scripture which prescribe the adoration of one God only, have thought that the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit are one and the same. Others, on the other hand, suffering, as it were, from a different kind of disease, having fixed their attention on those passages which speak of the Trinity, and not being able to understand how there can be only one God, since the Father is not the Son, nor the Son the Father, nor the Holy Spirit either the Father or the Son, have thought that there is a difference also of nature in the three divine Persons. Some, seeing how the Scriptures praise holy virginity, condemn marriage. Others, on the contrary, reflecting on those passages which praise chaste marriages, put marriage on a par with virginity.” Some, in reading “It is good, brethren, not to eat flesh and not to drink wine” and other similar statements, think therefore that the creature of God and certain foods are unclean. Others, however, on reading the words “Every creature of God is good, and nothing to be rejected that is received with thanksgiving,” have allowed themselves to fall into drunkenness and greed, not having it in their power to free themselves from sin. On the contrary, they fall into as great or even greater sins.” — Augustine, On Faith and Works 4.5

John Cassian:

“For these shoots of an unnatural seed are no new thing in the churches. The harvest of the Lord’s field has always had to put up with burrs and briars, and in it the shoots of choking tares have constantly sprung up. For hence have arisen the Ebionites, Sabellians, Arians, as well as Eunomians and Macedonians, and Photinians and Apollinarians, and all the other tares of the churches, and thistles which destroy the fruits of good faith. And of these the earliest was Ebion, who while over-anxious about asserting our Lord’s humanity robbed it of its union with Divinity. But after him the schism of Sabellius burst forth out of reaction against the above mentioned heresy, and as he declared that there was no distinction between the Father, Son and Holy Ghost, he impiously confounded, as far as was possible, the Persons, and failed to distinguish the holy and ineffable Trinity. Next after him whom we have mentioned there followed the blasphemy of Arian perversity, which, in order to avoid the appearance of confounding the Sacred Persons, declared that there were different and dissimilar substances in the Trinity. ….. – John Cassian, On the Incarnation, Book 1, chapter 2 

Jerome:

To distinguish between those who are sent from men and he himself, who was sent by Christ, he commenced the letter in the following manner: “Paul an apostle, not from men, nor through a man.” …From this the heresy of Ebion and of Photinus is likewise shown to be refuted. For our Lord Jesus Christ is God, since the apostle, who was sent by Christ to preach the gospel, denies that he was sent by a man. Other heresies sneak in with claims that are based upon this passage and say that Christ’s flesh is putative, that Christ is God, but not man. And besides these there is the new heresy that asserts that Christ’s dispensation is divided in half. So it is that the faith of the church is set in between two great shipwrecks of false doctrines: if it­ admits that Christ is man, Ebion and Photinus sneak in; if it contends that he is God, Manicheus, Marcion, and the author of a new doctrine start babbling. And so, let them universally hear that Christ is both God and man. It is not that there is one God and another man, but he who was always God deigned to be man for the sake of our salvation. — Jerome, Commentary on Galatians 1.1.1

Rufinus:

Caesarius of Arles:

“There are two vices of the human race, whereby some men perish through hope and others through despair. Now, it is no wonder that a man perishes through despair, but it is more marvelous that he does so by hope. For this reason let us see and briefly consider who is lost by hope, who through despair, and what remedy God offers to them both. A man perishes from despair when he says: “I know my evil deeds, I realize my crimes; how can it be that God will forgive me for what I have done?” He perishes by despair when he says: “What is the good of what you say? I will do now whatever I can: I will lose whatever I fail to do. God will condemn me for one sin just as well as for many; so, if I will not have that life, I do not want to lose this one. So, why should I not follow my wishes? Why not fulfill my passions?” This man is lost through despair. Another man fears the abyss of despair and begins to perish through hope. How? In the way I mentioned a little while ago. Whenever I am converted, he says, God promises to forgive me everything; I hope in His mercy, because He will pardon me all. He postpones it from day to day, and suddenly the final day of his death comes; the deferring is gone, and damnation remains. The Scriptures speak to both classes. You would perish through despair? Listen to the Lord say: “I desire not the death of the wicked, as much as that he be converted and live” (Ezekiel 33:11). You wished to die? Return and live. If God wanted you to perish, He would take you away when you were sinning. Since you have sinned so much and still live, you are invited to repentance. These words God speaks to you if you despair: “I desire not the death of the wicked” (Ezekiel 33:11). Even if you want your death, I do not. You did not make yourself, but by despair you have perished. God, however, created you when you did not exist, afterwards sought you when you were lost, found you through the Blood of His Son, and redeemed you. He Himself exclaims to you: Return from the abyss of despair. Return, because “I desire not the death of the wicked, as much as that he be converted and live” (Ezekiel 33:11). You have begun to return from the abyss of despair, but now stand as though in the middle path; I do not want you to go in the opposite direction. Do not lose confidence through despair over your sins, but do not trust in a longer life. Therefore, be converted. “Tomorrow I shall be converted,” he says. Why not today? What is the matter with tomorrow? Rather, what is wrong with today? “I know that my life will be a long one.” I am sure God did not promise that to you. Did an astrologer perhaps promise you a long life, looking for someone to perish with him?” – Caesarius of Arles, Sermon 18.3-4

Faustus of Riez:

Concerning the grace of God and the weakness of freewill, with the Holy Spirit giving light, and as we are about to speak in accordance with the teachings of the Gospel and the apostolic rules, we judged that in the first place the blasphemies of Pelagius must be briefly and necessarily set forth—blasphemies which long ago were exposed by the faith of the Catholic Church, confounded by sound teaching, and trampled down by authority. For among the other abominations of his doctrine, he also tried, with damnable pride, to affirm that man’s effort can avail without grace. And for this reason we will take care to bring forward at least some part of his wicked opinions, so that every careful reader may recognize how different it is to join man’s labor to the work of saving grace, and how different it is, on the other hand, to rashly assert bare labor without the support of grace. Thus, while he exalts human frailty too highly, forgetful of divine fear, he lost the soundness of his own judgment. In this way he fell on the other side as well, while preaching the freedom of the will as whole and unharmed, just like those who claim that it has been entirely destroyed. Therefore, in this matter two errors struggle against one another: one sets forth grace alone, the other labor alone, both abandoning the path and measure of truth. Different in the kind of sect, yet alike in impiety. Different indeed in their zeal, but they hiss with the spirit of one serpent. Of these two, one—that is, the preacher of grace alone—at first glance hides his poison under an appearance of piety; the other—that is, the defender of labor—immediately shows the swelling pride that stands out in him by his wicked arrogance. This profession, by setting forth labor alone, is detestable by its very title; that other is all the more to be feared because of its religious coloring. This one betrays its sacrilege to the very ears of its hearers; that one pours its poison into the deepest inward parts, almost before it is even perceived. You might think them two rocks besieging a narrow strait, of which one lies sunken down in the depth, while the other rises up threatening toward heaven. One is plainly seen as hostile to sailors, the other works unseen and causes blind shipwrecks without warning. That one speaks of grace, this one of labor. Divine utterances confirm both. If you remove those who set them at odds, and join the sayings together, the full purity of the faith will appear. But because, like rash rowers without a master, they commit their sails to an uncharted sea, and do not know how to govern the helm or how to handle the rudder, this one is carried, as it were, into the danger of Scylla on the right hand, while that one heads into the leftward abyss of Charybdis. And if you ask what they ought to do amid these things: let them entrust the ship to the waves with a skilled pilot in command, let them hold to the middle course, and both will be carried by a favorable wind to the harbor. Let us see to what impiety we may compare or liken this twofold error. In the same way, they strike against the rock of stumbling—both those who, having lost the light of discernment, have presumed to assert that Christ the Lord is only God, and those who have presumed to assert that He is only man. Almost both excesses incur an equal guilt, because they do not know how to preserve discernment and distinction. Accordingly, whoever says that Christ is only man has denied the power of the Creator; whoever says that He is only God has lost the mercy of the Redeemer. And so those who confess one substance in the Lord the Savior are driven into this necessity: that they must either say that only a man fell from heaven, or that only God was crucified. But it is not so. For neither could God alone undergo death, nor could man alone overcome it. And therefore, according to the twofold reality of His substance, man took it upon himself and God conquered it. If therefore you assign to each part its own properties, and believe and confess Christ as both God and man together, it is just as though you join grace with labor and do not cast away man’s striving from the help of God. Yet this must be done in such a way that you do not at all mix the fault of pride into the devotion of the one who strives. For as great as the harm is in not laboring, so great is the danger in presuming upon labor. Pelagius therefore says that, for obtaining salvation, the nature of man is sufficient by itself. Thus this pestilent teacher speaks, as though the workmanship of our condition still remained uninjured in its original state. But I judge that the freedom of the will could not have been sufficient by itself without the help of grace, even before transgression violated the privilege that belonged to it. – Faustus of Riez, On Grace and Freewill, Book 1, chapter 1 (c. 474 AD)

Philo of Alexandria (20 BC-50 AD):

On which account, the law has also, by a very felicitous appellation, called virtue Leah, which name, being interpreted, means “wearied;” for she very naturally thought the life of the wicked heavy and burdensome, and in its own nature wearisome; and did not choose even to look upon it, turning her eyes only on what is beautiful; (146) and let the mind labour not only to follow God without any relaxation or want of vigour, but also to walk onwards by the straight path, turning to neither side, neither to the right nor yet to the left, as the earthly Edom did, seeking out of the way lurking places, at one time being full of excesses and superfluities, and at another of differences and short comings; for it is better to proceed along the middle road, which is that which is really the royal road, and which the great and only King, God, has widened to be a most suitable abode for the souls that love virtue. (147) On which account some also of those who prosecute a gentle kind of philosophy, which is conversant chiefly about the society of mankind, have pronounced the virtues to be means, placing them on confines between two extremes. Since, on the one hand, excessive pride, being full of much insolence is an evil, and to take up with a humble and self-abasing demeanour is to expose one’s self to be trampled upon; but the mean, which is compounded of both, in a gentle manner is advantageous. – Philo of Alexandria, On the Migration of Abraham XXVI.145-147