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

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

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 

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

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:

He says, “to know how you ought to answer each person.” (Colossians 4:6) For one must speak one way to the ruler, another to the one under authority; one way to the rich man, another to the poor man. Why? Because the souls of the rich and of rulers happen to be weaker, more inflamed, more unstable; so there one must be more condescending. But the souls of the poor and of those under authority are firmer and more sensible; so there one must also use greater boldness, looking to one thing only: edification. Do not think that because one man is rich and another poor, the one should be more honored and the other less; rather, because of weakness the one must be borne with more, and the other not in the same way. For example, when there is no occasion for it, do not call the Greek “defiled”, nor be insulting; but if you are asked about his doctrine, answer that it is defiled and impious. But when no one asks and no one compels you to speak, it is not fitting simply to take up hostility. For what need is there to create unnecessary enmities? Again, if you are instructing someone, speak when there is a proper occasion laid down; otherwise, keep silence. If “your speech is seasoned with salt,” then even if it falls upon a loose and unstable soul, it will tighten what is slack; and if upon a rough one, it will smooth what is hard. While being gracious, let him be neither burdensome nor, on the other hand, lax; but let him have both sternness and pleasantness. For if one be immoderately stern, he does more harm than good; and if he be immoderately complaisant, he gives more pain than pleasure. Therefore moderation is needed everywhere. Do not be gloomy and grim, for that is unpleasant; nor be lax and unrestrained, for that is easy to despise and tread underfoot. But taking what is good from each, avoid what is bad in each, like the bee—taking from one its cheerfulness, and from the other its seriousness. For if a doctor does not use the same treatment on every body, much more should a teacher not do so. And yet bodies can bear unsuitable medicines more easily than a soul can bear an unsuitable word. For example, if a Greek comes to you and becomes your friend, do not speak to him about this matter at all until he has become a very close friend; and when he has, then do it gently. For see also Paul, when he came to Athens, how he spoke with them. He did not say, “O vile and utterly vile men.” But what did he say? “Men of Athens, I perceive that in every way you are very religious” (Acts 17:22). Again, when it was necessary to speak insultingly, he did not draw back, but said with great severity to Elymas, “O full of all deceit and all villainy, son of the devil, enemy of all righteousness” (Acts 13:10). For just as it would have been foolishness to insult those men, so it would have been cowardice not to insult this man. Again, have you been brought before a ruler because of some matter? Give him the honors that are fitting. – John Chrysostom, Homily 11 on Colossians, Migne PG 62.376-77

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

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)

Severus of Antioch:

Note – This is when the one nature or two natures “controversy” was going on, Faustus above talks about the one nature as a heresy and briefly says why, but Severus talks about the Golden mean.