Chapter IV: The Empire And The Imperial State Church (2)

According to Roman law many cases were frequently decided by an
arbitrator, according to an agreement between the litigants. The
bishops had long acted as such in many cases among Christians. As
they did not always decide suits on authorization by the courts,
their decisions did not have binding authority in all cases. But
after Constantine’s recognition of the Church they were given
authority to decide cases, and according to an edict of 333 their
decisions were binding even if only one litigant appealed to his
judgment. But this was reduced to cases in which there was an
agreement between the parties. The following law, the earliest
extant, though probably not the earliest, may be found, curtailed
by the omission of the second sentence, in _Cod. Just._, I, 4, 8.

An episcopal judgment shall be binding upon all who chose to be heard by the priests.(138) For since private persons may hear cases between those who consent, even without the knowledge of the judges, we suffer it to be permitted them. That respect is to be shown their decisions which is required to be shown your authority,(139) from which there is no appeal. By the court and the officials execution is to be given the sentence, so that the episcopal judicial examination may not be rendered void.

(_d_) _Codex Theodosianus_, II, 1, 10; A. D. 398.

Law of Arcadius and Honorius.

The following law is cited to show that in the legalization of the
_Audientia Episcopalis_ the legislation followed a principle that
was not peculiar to the position of the Church as the State
Church. The Jews had a similar privilege. The conditions under
which their religious authorities could act as arbitrators were
similar to that in which the bishops acted. This edict can also be
found in _Cod. Just._, I, 9, 8.

Jews living at Rome, according to common right, are in those cases which do not pertain to their superstition, their court, laws, and rights, to attend the courts of justice, and are to bring and defend legal actions according to the Roman laws; hereafter let them be under our laws. If, indeed, any by agreement similar to that for the appointment of arbitrators, decide that the litigation be before the Jews or the patriarchs by the consent of both parties and in business of a purely civil character, they are not forbidden by public law to choose their courts of justice; and let the provincial judges execute their decisions as if the arbitrators had been assigned them by the sentence of a judge.

(_e_) _Codex Justinianus_, I, 4, 26.

The following law of the Emperor Justinian, A. D. 530, is one of
many showing the way in which the bishops were employed in many
duties of the State which hardly fell to their part as
ecclesiastics.

With respect to the yearly affairs of cities, whether they concern the ordinary revenues of the city, either from funds derived from the property of the city, or from legacies and private gifts, or given or received from other sources, whether for public works, or for provisions, or public aqueducts, or the maintenance of baths or ports, or the construction of walls and towers, or the repairing of bridges and roads, or for trials in which the city may be engaged in reference to public or private interests, we decree as follows: The very pious bishop and three men of good reputation, in every respect the first men of the city, shall meet and each year not only examine the work done, but take care that those who conduct them or have been conducting them, shall manage them with exactness, shall render their accounts, and show by the production of the public records that they have duly performed their engagements in the administration of the sums appropriated for provisions, or baths, or for the expenses involved in the maintenance of roads, aqueducts, or any other work.

§ 75. Social Significance of the State Church

The Church at no time degenerated into a mere department of the State. In spite of the worldly passions that invaded it and the dissensions that distracted it, the Church remained mindful of its duty as not merely a guardian of the deposit of faith but as a school of Christian morality. This was the principle of the penitential discipline of the ante-Nicene period. It was saved from becoming a mere form, or lost altogether by the custom which became general after 400, of having the confession of sin made in private. In matters of great moral concern, such as the treatment of slaves, marriage, and divorce, and the cruel sports of the arena, the Church was able to exert its influence and eventually bring about a change in the law. And in standing for righteousness, instances were not lacking when the highest were rebuked by the Church, as in the great case of Ambrose and Theodosius.

(_a_) Leo the Great, _Epistula_ 168, ch. 2. (MSL, 54:1210.) _Cf._ Denziger, n. 145.

Confession should no longer be public, but only private. From the
tone of the letter it would appear that private confession had
been customary for some time and that public confession had so far
gone out of use as to appear as a novelty. _V. supra_, § 42.

I direct that that presumptuous violation of the apostolic rule be entirely done away, which we have recently learned has been without warrant committed by some; namely, concerning penance, which is demanded of the faithful, that a written confession in a schedule concerning the nature of each particular sin be not recited publicly, since it suffices that the guilt of conscience be made known by a secret confession to the priests alone. Although that fulness of faith appears to be laudable which on account of the fear of God is not afraid to blush before men, yet because the sins of all are not such that those who demand penance would not be afraid to publish them, let a custom so objectionable be done away; that many may not be deterred from the remedies of penitence, since they are ashamed or are afraid to disclose their deed to their enemies, by which they might be ruined by the requirements of the laws. For that confession suffices which is first offered to God, then further to the priest, who intervenes as with intercessions for the sins of the penitent. In this way many can be brought to penitence if the bad conscience of the one making the confession is not published in the ears of the people.

(_b_) _Codex Theodosianus_, IV, 7, 1; A. D. 321. _Cf._ Kirch, n. 749.

Edict of Constantine granting the privilege of manumission to take
place in churches.

The Church does not seem to have been opposed to slavery as an
institution. It recognized it as a part of the social order,
following the advice of St. Paul. But, at the same time, also
following his advice, it endeavored to inculcate Christian love in
the treatment of slaves, and legislated frequently on the matter.
The edict of Constantine was in favor of this humane teaching of
the Church to the extent that it enabled it to forward the
tendency toward manumission of slaves, which the Church taught as
a pious act. This edict is to be found in _Cod. Just._, I, 13, 2.

Those who from the motives of religion shall give deserved liberty to their slaves in the midst of the Church shall be regarded as having given the same with the same legal force as that by which Roman citizenship has been customarily given with the traditional solemn rites. But this is permitted only to those who give this liberty in the presence of the priest. But to the clergy we concede more, so that, when they give liberty to their slaves, they may be said to have granted a full enjoyment of liberty, not merely in the face of the Church and the religious people, but also, when in their last disposition of their effects they shall have given liberty or shall direct by any words whatsoever that it be given, on the day of the publication of their will liberty, without any witness or intervention of the law, shall belong to them immediately.

(_c_) Canons bearing on Slavery:

Synod of Elvira, A. D. 309, _Canon_ 5, Bruns, II, 1.

If a mistress seized with furious passion beat her female slave with whips so that within three days she gives up her soul in suffering, inasmuch as it is uncertain whether she killed her wilfully or by chance, let her, if it was done wilfully, be readmitted after seven years, when the lawful penance has been accomplished; or after the space of five years if it was by chance; but if she should become ill during the appointed time, let her receive the communion.

Synod of Gangra, A. D. 343, _Canon_ 3, Bruns, I, 107.

If any one, under the pretence of piety, advises a slave to despise his master and run away from his service and not with good will and full respect serve his master, let him be anathema.

Synod of Agde, A. D. 509. _Canon_ 7, Bruns, II, 147.

As slaves were a valuable possession, bishops could no more
alienate them than any other property, or only under the same
conditions. This canon lays down principles generally followed in
the relation of the Church toward the unfree of every sort on
lands belonging to the endowments of the Church.

The bishops should possess the houses and slaves of the Church in a faithful manner and without diminishing the right of the Church, as the primitive authorities direct, and also the vessels of their ministry as intrusted to them. That is, they should not presume to sell nor alienate by any contracts those things from which the poor live. If necessity requires that something should be disposed of either as a usufruct(140) or in direct sale, let the case be first shown before two or three bishops of the same province or neighborhood, as to why it is necessary to sell; and after the priestly discussion has taken place, let the sale which was made be confirmed by their subscription; otherwise the sale or transaction made shall not have validity. If the bishop bestows upon any deserving slaves of the Church their liberty, let the liberty that has been conferred be respected by his successors, together with that which the manumitter gave them when they were freed; and we command them to hold twenty solidi in value in fields, vineyards, and dwellings; what shall have been given more the Church shall reclaim after the death of the one who manumitted.(141) But little things and things of less utility to the Church we permit to be given to strangers and clergy for their usufruct, the right of the Church being maintained.

(_d_) _Apostolic Constitutions_, IV, 6. (MSG, 1:812.)

Cruelty to slaves was placed upon the same moral level as cruelty
and oppression of other weak and defenceless people.

The Apostolic Constitutions form an elaborate treatise upon the
Church and its organization in eight books, which appear,
according to the consensus of modern scholars, to belong to the
early part of the fifth century. The Apostolic Canons are
eighty-five canons appended to the eighth book.

Now the bishop ought to know whose oblations he ought to receive, and whose he ought not. For he is to avoid corrupt dealers and not receive their gifts.… He is also to avoid those that oppress the widow and overbear the orphan, and fill the prisons with the innocent, and abuse their own slaves wickedly, I mean with stripes and hunger and hard service.

(_e_) _Apostolic Canons_, _Canon_ 81, Bruns, I, 12.

This deals with the question of the ordination of a slave. Later,
if a slave was ordained without his master’s consent, the
ordination held, but the bishop was obliged to pay the price of
the slave to his master. _Cf._ Council of Orleans, A. D. 511,
_Can._ 8.

We do not permit slaves to be ordained to the clergy without their masters’ consent; for this would wrong those that owned them. For such a practice would occasion the subversion of families. But if at any time a servant appears worthy to be ordained to a high office, such as Onesimus appears to have been, and if his master allows it, and gives him his freedom, and dismisses him free from his house, let him be ordained.

(_f_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Montanam et Thomam_. (MSL, 77:803.)

Gregory and others approved of manumission of slaves as an act of
self-denial, for therein a man surrendered what belonged to him,
as in almsgiving; but he and others also justified the practice of
manumission upon lines that recall Stoic ideas of man’s natural
freedom. Yet, at the same time, Gregory could insist upon the
strict discipline of slaves in the administration of the Church
property.

The following is a letter of manumission addressed apparently to a
man and his wife.

Since our Redeemer, the Maker of every creature, vouchsafed to assume human flesh for this end, that when by the grace of His divinity the chain of slavery wherewith we were held had been broken He might restore us to our pristine liberty, it is a salutary deed if men, whom nature originally produced free, and whom the law of nations has subjected to the yoke of slavery, be restored by the benefit of manumission to the liberty in which they were born. And so moved by loving-kindness and consideration of the case, we make you Montana and Thomas, slaves of the holy Roman Church, which with the help of God we serve, free from this day and Roman citizens, and we release to you all your private property.(142)

(_g_) _Codex Theodosianus_, XV, 12, 1; A. D. 325. _Cf._ Kirch, n. 754.

Constitution of Constantine regarding gladiatorial shows.

This edict was by no means enforced everywhere. In a shorter form
it passed into the _Cod. Just._ (XI, 44, 1), but only after the
edict of Honorius had stopped these shows.

Bloody spectacles are not pleasing in civil rest and domestic tranquillity. Wherefore we altogether prohibit them to be gladiators(143) who, it may be, for their crimes have been accustomed to receive this penalty and sentence, and you shall cause them rather to serve in the mines, that without blood they may pay the penalty of their crimes.

(_h_) Theodoret, _Hist. Ec._, V, 26. (MSG, 82:1256.)

Honorius, who had inherited the Empire of Europe, put a stop to gladiatorial combats, which had long been held in Rome, and he did this under the following circumstances. There was a certain man named Telemachus who had embraced the ascetic life. He had set out for the East and for this reason had repaired to Rome. There, when the abominable spectacle was being exhibited, he went himself into the stadium, and stepping down into the arena endeavored to stop the men who were wielding their weapons against one another. The spectators of the slaughter were indignant and, inspired by the mad fury of the demon who delights in these bloody deeds, stoned the peacemaker to death. When the admirable Emperor was informed of this he numbered Telemachus in the army of the victorious martyrs, and put an end to that impious practice.

(_i_) Ambrose, _Ep. 51_. (MSL, 16:1210.) _Cf._ Kirch, nn. 754 _ff._

Letter to the Emperor Theodosius after the massacre at
Thessalonica in 390.

The Emperor had ordered a general massacre of the inhabitants of
Thessalonica because of a sedition there. Ambrose wrote to him the
following letter after having pleaded in vain with him before the
massacre to deal mercifully with the people. (The well-known story
of the penitence of Theodosius may be found in Theodoret, _Hist.
Ec._, V, 17.) His residence at the seat of the imperial government
at that time, Milan, made him the chief adviser to the court in
spite of the fact that the Arian influence was strong at court, as
the empress mother Justina was an Arian, _cf._ Ambrose, _Ep._ 20,
21. (PNF, ser. II, vol. X.)

4. Listen, august Emperor, I cannot deny that you have a zeal for the faith; I confess that you have the fear of God. But you have a natural vehemence, which, if any one endeavors to soothe it, you quickly turn to mercy; and if any one stirs it up, you allow it to be roused so much that you can scarcely restrain it. Would that it might be that, if no one soothed it, at least no one inflamed it. To yourself I willingly intrust it, restrain yourself and overcome your natural vehemence by the love of piety.…

6. There took place in the city of the Thessalonians that of which no memory recalls the like, which I was not able to prevent taking place; which, indeed, I had before said, would be most atrocious when I so often petitioned concerning it(144) and which as you yourself show, by revoking it too late, you consider to be grave, and this I could not extenuate when committed.…

After citing from the Bible several cases of kings exhibiting
penance for sins, Ambrose continues:

11. I have written this, not to confound you, but that the examples of kings may stir you up to put away this sin from your kingdom, for you will put it away by humbling your soul before God. You are a man, temptation has come to you; conquer it. Sin is not done away but by tears and penitence. Neither angel can do it, nor archangel. The Lord himself, who alone can say “I am with you,” if we have sinned, does not forgive any but those who do penance.

12. I urge, I beg, I exhort, I warn; for it is grief to me that you who were an example of unheard-of piety, who were conspicuous for clemency, who would not suffer single offenders to be put in peril, should not mourn that so many innocent persons have perished. Though you have waged war most successfully, though in other matters too you are worthy of praise, yet piety was ever the crown of your actions. The devil envied that which you had as a most excellent possession. Conquer him whilst you still possess that wherewith you can conquer. Do not add another sin to your sin by a course of action which has injured many.

13. I, indeed, though a debtor to your kindness, for which I cannot be ungrateful, that kindness which I regard as surpassing that of many emperors, and has been equalled by one only, I have no cause, I say, for a charge of contumacy against you, but have cause for fear. I dare not offer the sacrifice if you intend to be present. Is that which is not allowed after the shedding of the blood of one innocent person allowed after the shedding of the blood of many? I think not.

(_j_) _Codex Theodosianus_, III, 16, 2; A. D. 421.

The later Roman law of divorce.

The Roman law under the Empire was extremely favorable to divorce,
making it easy for either party to become rid of the other for any
cause that seemed sufficient. The Christian Church from the first,
following the teaching of Christ, opposed divorce. Marriage was an
indissoluble relation; see § 39 _f_, _g_. It was only by degrees
that much change could be introduced into the civil law. The
following law of Theodosius II gives the condition of the law in
the fifth century. It shows that to some extent the Christian
principles regarding marriage had affected legislation.

If a woman leave her husband by a repudiation made by her and prove no cause for her divorcing him, the gifts which she received as bride shall be taken away and she shall likewise be deprived of her dowry, and be subjected to the punishment of deportation; and to her we deny not only the right of marriage with another man, but also the right of post-liminium.(145) But if the woman opposed to the marriage prove faults of morals and vices, though of no great gravity, let her lose her dowry and pay back to her husband her marriage gift, and let her never join herself in marriage with another; that she may not stain her widowhood with the impudence of unchastity we give the repudiated husband the right of bringing an accusation by law. Hereafter if she who abandons her husband prove grave causes and a guilt involving great crimes, let her obtain a control of her dowry and marriage gifts, and five years after the day of repudiation she shall receive the right of remarrying; for it would then appear that she had acted rather out of detestation of her husband than from desire after another. Likewise, if the husband bring a divorce and charge grave crimes against the woman, let him bring action against the accused under the laws and let him both have the dowry (sentence having been obtained) and let him receive his gifts to her and let the free choice of marrying another be granted him immediately. But if it is an offence of manners and not of a criminal nature, let him receive the donations, relinquish the dowry, and marry after two years. But if he merely wishes to dissolve the marriage by dissent, and she who is put away is charged with no fault or sin, let the man lose the donation and the dowry, and in perpetual celibacy let him bear as a penalty for his wrongful divorce the pain of solitude; to the woman, however, is conceded after a year the right to remarry. Regarding the retention of the dowry on account of the children we command that the directions of the old law shall be observed.

(_k_) Jerome, _Epistula_ 78, _ad Oceanum_. (MSL, 22:691.)

Divorce and remarriage.

The principle here laid down by Jerome was that which ultimately
prevailed in the Church of the West, that after divorce there
could be no remarriage, inasmuch as the marriage bond was
indissoluble, though the parties might be separated by the law.
But another principle was also made a part of the code of
Christian morality, that what was forbidden a woman was also
forbidden a man, _i.e._, the moral code as to chastity was the
same for both sexes.

§ 3. The Lord hath commanded that a wife should not be put away except for fornication; and that when she has been put away, she ought to remain unmarried [Matt. 19:9; I Cor. 7:11]. Whatever is given as a commandment to men logically applies to women also. For it cannot be that while an adulterous wife is to be put away, an incontinent husband must be retained.… The laws of Cæsar are different, it is true, from the laws of Christ. Papinian commands one thing; our Paul another.(146) Among them the bridles are loosened for immodesty in the case of men. But with us what is unlawful for women is equally unlawful for men; and both are bound by the same conditions of service. She(147) then put away, as they report, a husband that was a sinner; she put away one who was guilty of this and that crime.… She was a young woman; she could not preserve her widowhood.… She persuaded herself and thought that her husband had been lawfully put away from her. She did not know that the strictness of the Gospel takes away from women all pretexts for remarriage, so long as their former husbands are alive.

(_l_) Jerome, _Adversus Jovinianum_, I, 7. (MSL, 23:229.)

The inferiority of marriage to virginity.

While the Church teachers insisted on the indissolubility of
marriage and its sanctity, in not a few cases they depreciated
marriage. Of those who did this Jerome may be regarded as the most
characteristic and representative of a tendency which had set in,
largely in connection with the increase of monasticism, regarded
as the only form of Christian perfection.

“It is good for a man not to touch a woman.”(148) If it is good not to touch a woman, it is bad to touch one; for nothing is opposed to goodness but the bad. But if it be bad and the evil is pardoned, it is conceded that a worse evil may not happen. But what sort of good is that which is allowed only because there may be something worse? He would have never added, “Let each man have his own wife,” unless he had previously said, “But because of fornication.”… “Defraud ye not one another, except it be by consent for a season, that ye may give yourselves unto prayer.” What, I pray, is the quality of that good thing which hinders prayer, which does not allow the body of Christ to be received? So long as I do a husband’s part, I fail in continency. The same Apostle in another place commands us to pray always.(149)

9. “It is better to marry than to burn.” If marriage itself be good, do not compare it with fire, but simply say, “It is good to marry.” I suspect the goodness of that thing which must be only the lesser of two evils. What I want is not the smaller evil, but a thing that is absolutely good.

(_m_) Chrysostom, _Hom._ 66 _in Matth._ (XX, 30). (MSG, 58:630.)

The Church took the lead in philanthropy and not only organized
relief of poor but constantly exhorted people to contribute to the
cause. See above, § 68, _d_.

If both the wealthy and those next to them in wealth were to distribute among themselves those in need of bread and raiment, scarcely would one poor person fall to the share of fifty men, or even a hundred. Yet, nevertheless, though in such great abundance of persons able to assist them, they are wailing every day. And that thou mayest learn their inhumanity, recall that the Church(150) has a revenue of one of the lowest among the wealthy, and not of the very rich; and consider how many widows it succors every day, how many virgins; for indeed the list of them amounts to the number of three thousand. Together with these she succors them that dwell in prison, the sick in the caravansaries, the healthy, those that are absent from their homes, those that are maimed in their bodies, those that wait upon the altar; and with respect to food and raiment, those that casually come every day; and her substance is in no respect diminished. So that if ten men only were thus willing to spend, there would be no poor.

(_n_) Gregory of Nazianzus, _Panegyric on Basil_, ch. 63. (MSG, 36:577.)

Gregory of Nazianzus was the friend and schoolmate of Basil. The
action of Basil in forcing upon him the bishopric of Sasima led to
an estrangement and brought about the tragedy of Gregory’s
ecclesiastical career, his forced resignation of the
archiepiscopal see of Constantinople. See Gregory’s oration, “The
Last Farewell” (PNF, ser. II, vol. VII, 385). Nevertheless, the
death of Basil was an occasion for him to deliver his greatest
oration. It was probably composed and delivered several years
after Basil’s decease and after Gregory had retired from
Constantinople to his home at Nazianzus.

Go forth a little way from the city, behold the New City,(151) the storehouse of piety … where disease is regarded in a philosophic light, and disaster is thought to be a blessing in disguise, and sympathy is tested. Why should I compare with this work Thebes having the seven gates, and the Egyptian Thebes and the walls of Babylon … and all other objects of men’s wonder and of historic record, from all of which, except for some slight glory, there was no advantage to their founders? My subject is the most wonderful of all, the short road to salvation, the easiest ascent to heaven.(152) There is no longer before our eyes that terrible and piteous spectacle of men dead before their death, in many members of their body already dead, driven away from their cities and homes and public places and fountains, ay and from their dearest ones, recognizable by their names rather than by their features.… He, however, it was who most of all persuaded us men, as being men, not to despise men nor to dishonor Christ, the head of all, by inhuman treatment of them; but in the misfortune of others to establish well our own lot and to lend to God that mercy, since we ourselves need mercy. He did not therefore disdain to honor disease with his lips; he was noble and of noble ancestry and of brilliant reputation, but he saluted them as brethren, not out of vainglory, as some might suppose (for who was so far removed from this feeling?), but taking the lead in approaching to tend them in consequence of his philosophy, and so giving not only a speaking but also a silent instruction. Not only the city, but the country and parts beyond behave in like manner; and even the leaders of society have vied with one another in their philanthropy and magnanimity toward them.

§ 76. Popular Piety and the Reception of Heathenism in the Church

When vast numbers poured into the Church in the fourth century and the profession of Christianity no longer involved danger, morals became less austere, and the type of piety became adapted to the religious condition of those with whom the Church had now to deal. This is shown in the new place that the intercession of saints and the veneration of their relics take in the religious life of the times. Yet these and similar forms of devotion in popular piety were not new and cannot be attributed in principle to any wholesale importation of heathenism into the Church, as was charged at the time and often since. In principle, and to some extent in practice, they can be traced to times of persecution and danger. But, on the other hand, no little heathenism was brought into the Church by those who came into it without any adequate preparation or real change of religious feeling. With this heathenism the Church had to struggle, either casting it out in whole or in part, or rendering it as innocuous as possible. In spite of all, many heathen superstitions remained everywhere in Christendom, though playing for the most part such an inferior rôle as to be negligible in the total effect.

Additional source material: Eusebius, _Vita Constantini_ (PNF),
III, 21, 28; IV, 38, 39, 54.

(_a_) Ambrose, _De Viduis_, ch. 9. (MSL, 16:264.)

The importance and value of calling upon the saints for their
intercessions.

When Simon’s mother-in-law was lying sick with violent fever, Peter and Andrew besought the Lord for her: “And He stood over her and commanded the fever and it left her, and immediately she arose and ministered unto them.”…

So Peter and Andrew prayed for the widow. Would that there were some one who could so quickly pray for us, or better still, they who prayed for the mother-in-law—Peter and Andrew his brother. Then they could pray for one related to them, now they are able to pray for us and for all. For you see that one bound by great sin is less fit to pray for herself, certainly less likely to obtain for herself. Let her then make use of others to pray for her to the Physician. For the sick, unless the Physician be called to them by the prayers of others, cannot pray for themselves. The flesh is weak, the soul is sick and hindered by the chains of sins, and cannot direct its feeble steps to the throne of that great Physician. The angels must be entreated for us, who have been to us as guardians; the martyrs must be entreated whose patronage we seem to claim by a sort of pledge, the possession of their body. They can entreat for our sins, who, if they had any sins, washed them in their own blood; for they are the martyrs of God, our leaders, the beholders of our life and of our actions. Let us not be ashamed to take them as intercessors for our weakness, for they themselves knew the weakness of the body, even when they overcame.

(_b_) Jerome, _Contra Vigilantium_, chs. 4 _ff._ (MSL, 23:357.)

A defence of the worship and practice of the Church, especially in
regard to veneration of relics against the criticism of
Vigilantius.

Jerome’s attack on Vigilantius is in many respects a masterpiece
of scurrility, and unworthy of the ability of the man. But it is
invaluable as a statement of the opinions of the times regarding
such matters as the veneration of relics, the attitude toward the
departed saints and martyrs, and many other elements of the
popular religion which have been commonly attributed to a much
later period.

Ch. 4. Among other words of blasphemy he [Vigilantius] may be heard to say: “What need is there for you not only to reverence with so great honor but even to adore I know not what, which you carry about in a little vessel and worship?” And again in the same book, “Why do you adore by kissing a bit of powder wrapped up in a cloth?” and further on, “Under the cloak of religion we see really a heathen ceremony introduced into the churches; while the sun is shining heaps of tapers are lighted, and everywhere I know not what paltry bit of powder wrapped in a costly cloth is kissed and worshipped. Great honor do men of this sort pay to the blessed martyrs, who, as they think, are to be glorified by trumpery tapers, but to whom the Lamb who is in the midst of the throne, with all the brightness of His majesty gives light.”

Ch. 5. … Is the Emperor Arcadius guilty of sacrilege, who, after so long a time, conveyed the bones of the blessed Samuel from Judæa to Thrace? Are all the bishops to be considered not only sacrilegious but silly as well, who carried that most worthless thing, dust and ashes, wrapped in silk and in a golden vessel? Are the people of all the churches fools, who went to meet the sacred relics, and received them with as much joy as if they beheld the living prophet in the midst of them, so that there was one great swarm of people from Palestine to Chalcedon and with one voice the praises of Christ resounded?…

Ch. 6. For you say that the souls of the Apostles and martyrs have their abode either in the bosom of Abraham, or in some place of refreshment, or under the altar of God, and that they cannot leave their own tombs and be present where they will. They are, it seems, of senatorial rank and are not in the worst sort of prison and among murderers, but are kept apart in liberal and honorable custody in the isles of the blessed and the Elysian fields. Do you lay down laws for God? Will you throw the Apostles in chains? So that to the day of judgment they are to be kept in confinement and are not with the Lord, although it is written concerning them, “They follow the Lamb whithersoever He goeth.” If the Lamb is present everywhere, then they who are with the Lamb, it must be believed, are everywhere. And while the devil and the demons wander through the whole world, and with only too great speed are present everywhere, the martyrs after shedding their blood are to be kept out of sight shut up in a coffin(153) from whence they cannot go forth? You say in your pamphlet that so long as we are alive we can pray for one another; but after we are dead the prayer of no person for another can be heard, and especially because the martyrs, though they cry for the avenging of their blood, have never been able to obtain their request. If Apostles and martyrs, while still in the body, can pray for others, when they ought still to be anxious for themselves, how much more must they do so after they have their crowns and victories and triumphs? A single man, Moses, won pardon from God for six hundred thousand armed men; and Stephen, the follower of his Lord and the first martyr for Christ, entreats pardon for his persecutors; and after they have entered on their life with Christ, shall they have less power? The Apostle Paul says that two hundred and seventy-six souls were given him in the ship; and after his dissolution, when he began to be with Christ, must he then shut up his mouth and be unable to say a word for those who throughout the whole world have believed in his Gospel? Shall Vigilantius the live dog be better than Paul the dead lion?

(_c_) Council of Laodicæa, A. D. 343-381, _Canons_ 35. _f._, Bruns, I, 77.

The Council of Laodicæa is of uncertain date, but its earliest
possible date is 343 and the latest 381, _i.e._, between the
Councils of Sardica and Constantinople. See Hefele, § 93. It owes
its importance not to any immediate effect it had upon the course
of the Church’s development, but to the fact that its canons were
incorporated in collections and received approval, possibly at
Chalcedon, A. D. 451, though not mentioned by name in Canon 1, and
certainly at the Quinisext, A. D. 692, Canon 2. In the West the
canons were of importance as having been used by Dionysius Exiguus
in his collection. That the Canon of Holy Scripture was settled at
this council is a traditional commonplace in theology, but hardly
borne out by the facts. The council only drew up one of the
several imperfect lists of sacred books which appeared in
antiquity. The following canons show the influx of heathenism into
the Church, resulting from the changed status of the Church.

Canon 35. Christians must not forsake the Church of God and go away and invoke angels and gather assemblies, which things are forbidden. If, therefore, any one shall be found engaged in secret idolatry, let him be anathema; for he has forsaken our Lord Jesus Christ and gone over to idolatry.

Canon 36. They who are of the priesthood and of the lower clergy shall not be magicians, enchanters, mathematicians(154) nor astrologers; nor shall they make amulets, which are chains for their own souls. And those who wear such we command to be cast out of the Church.

(_d_) Augustine, _Epistula_ 29. (MSL, 33:117.)

Heathenism in the Church.

An Epistle of Augustine, written when Augustine was still a
presbyter of Hippo, concerning the birthday of Leontius, formerly
bishop of Hippo. In it he tells Alypius that he had at length put
an end to the custom among the Catholics of Hippo of taking part
in splendid banquets on the birthday of saints, as was then the
custom in the African churches.

Ch. 8. When the day dawned on which they were accustomed to prepare themselves for excess in eating and drinking, I received notice that some, even of those who were present at my sermon, had not yet ceased complaining, and that so great was the power of detestable custom among them that, using no other argument, they asked: “Wherefore is this now prohibited? Were they not Christians who in former times did not interfere with this practice?”…

Ch. 9. Lest, however, any slight should seem to be put by us upon those who before our time either tolerated or dared not put down such manifest wrong-doings of an undisciplined multitude, I explained to them the necessity by which this custom seems to have arisen in the Church; namely, that when, in the peace which came after such numerous and violent persecutions, crowds of heathen who wished to assume the Christian religion were kept back because, having been accustomed to celebrate the feasts connected with idols in revelling and drunkenness, they could not easily refrain from these pleasures so hurtful and so habitual; and it seemed good to our ancestors that for a time a concession should be made to this infirmity, that after they had renounced the former festivals they might celebrate other feasts, in honor of the holy martyrs, which were observed, not with the same profane design, although with similar indulgence. Now upon them as persons bound together in the name of Christ, and submissive to the yoke of His august authority, the wholesome restraints of sobriety were laid; and these restraints, on account of the honor and fear of Him who appointed them they might not resist; and that therefore it was now time that those who did not dare to deny that they were Christians should begin to live according to Christ’s will; being now Christians they should reject those things conceded that they might become Christians.

§ 77. The Extension of Monasticism Throughout the Empire

Asceticism arose within the Christian Church partly as the practical expression of the conviction of the worthlessness of things transitory and partly as a reaction against the moral laxity of the times. As this laxity could not be kept entirely out of the Church, and Christians everywhere were exposed to it, those who sought the higher life felt the necessity of retirement. From the life of the isolated hermit, asceticism advanced naturally to the community type of the ascetic life. There were forerunners in non-Christian religions of the solitary ascetic and the cenobite in Egypt, Palestine, India, and elsewhere, but all the essentials of Christian monasticism can be adequately explained without employing the theory of borrowing or imitation. For the principal points of development, _v._ §§ 53, 78, 104. When monasticism had once made itself a strong factor in the Christian religious life of Egypt, it was quickly taken up by other parts of the Church as it satisfied a widely felt want. In Asia Minor Basil of Cæsarea was the great promoter and organizer of the ascetic life; and his rule still obtains throughout the East. In the West Athanasius appears to have introduced monastic ideas during his early exiles. Ambrose was a patron of the movement. Martin of Tours, Severinus, and John Cassian did much to extend it in Gaul. Augustine organized his clergy according to a monastic rule which ultimately played a large part in later monasticism.

(_a_) Palladius, _Historia Lausiaca_, ch. 38. (MSG, 34:1099.)

The Rule of Pachomius.

Palladius, the author of the history of monasticism, known as the
_Historia Lausiaca_, was an Origenist, pupil of Evagrius Ponticus,
and later bishop in Asia Minor. He is not to be confused with
Palladius of Helenopolis, who lived about the same time, in the
first part of the fifth century. The work of Palladius receives
its name from the fact that it is dedicated to a high official,
Lausus by name. Palladius made a careful study of monasticism,
travelling extensively in making researches for his work. He also
used what written material was available. It is probable that the
text is largely interpolated, but on the whole it is a trustworthy
account of the early monasticism. It was written about A. D. 420,
and the following account of Pachomius should be compared with
that of Sozomenus, _Hist. Ec._, III, 14, written some years later.
Text in Kirch, nn. 712 _ff._

There is a place in the Thebaid called Tabenna, in which lived a certain monk Pachomius, one of those men who have attained the highest form of life, so that he was granted predictions of the future and angelic visions. He was a great lover of the poor, and had great love to men. When, therefore, he was sitting in a cave an angel of the Lord came in and appeared to him and said: Pachomius you have done well those things which pertain to your own affairs; therefore sit no longer idle in this cave. Up, therefore, go forth and gather all the younger monks and dwell with them and give them laws according to the form which I give thee. And he gave him a brass tablet on which the following things were written:

1. Give to each to eat and drink according to his strength; and give labors according to the powers of those eating, and forbid neither fasting nor eating. Thus appoint difficult labors to the stronger and those who eat, but the lighter and easy tasks to those who discipline themselves more and are weaker.

2. Make separate cells in the same place; and let three remain in a cell. But let the food of all be prepared in one house.

3. They may not sleep lying down, but having made seats built inclining backward let them place their bedding on them and sleep seated.

4. But by night let them wear linen tunics, being girded about. Let each of them have a shaggy goatskin, made white. Without this let them neither eat nor sleep. When they go in unto the communion of the mysteries of Christ every Sabbath and Lord’s Day, let them loose their girdles and put off the goatskin, and enter with only their cuculla [_cf._ DCA]. But he made the cuculla for them without any fleece, as for boys; and he commanded to place upon them certain branding marks of a purple cross.

5. He commanded that there be twenty-four groups of the brethren, according to the number of the twenty-four letters. And he prescribed that to each group should be given as a name a letter of the Greek alphabet, from Alpha and Beta, one after another, to Omega, in order that when the archimandrite asked for any one in so great a company, that one may be asked who is the second in each, how group Alpha is, or how the group Beta; again let him salute the group Rho; the name of the letters following its own proper sign. And upon the simpler and more guileless place the name Iota; and upon those who are more ill-tempered and less righteous the letter Xi. And thus in harmony with the principles and the life and manners of them arrange the names of the letters, only the spiritual understanding the meaning.

6. There was written on the tablet that if there come a stranger of another monastery, having a different form of life, he shall not eat nor drink with them, nor go in with them into the monastery, unless he shall be found in the way outside of the monastery.

7. But do not receive for three years into the contest of proficients him who has entered once for all to remain with them; but when he has performed the more difficult tasks, then let him after a period of three years enter the stadium.

8. When they eat let them veil their faces, that one brother may not see another brother eating. They are not to speak while they eat; nor outside of their dish or off the table shall they turn their eyes toward anything else.

9. And he made it a rule that during the whole day they should offer twelve prayers; and at the time of lighting the lamps, twelve; and in the course of the night, twelve; and at the ninth hour, three; but when it seemed good for the whole company to eat, he directed that each group should first sing a psalm at each prayer.

But when the great Pachomius replied to the angel that the prayers were few, the angel said to him: I have appointed these that the little ones may advance and fulfil the law and not be distressed; but the perfect do not need to have laws given to them. For being by themselves in their cells, they have dedicated their entire life to contemplation on God. But to these, as many as do not have an intelligent mind, I will give a law that as saucy servants out of fear for the Master they may fulfil the whole order of life and direct it properly. When the angel had given these directions and fulfilled his ministry he departed from the great Pachomius. There are monasteries observing this rule, composed of seven thousand men, but the first and great monastery, wherein the blessed Pachomius dwelt, and which gave birth to the other places of asceticism, has one thousand three hundred men.

(_b_) Basil the Great, _Regula fusius tractata_, Questio 7. (MSG, 31:927.)

The Rule of St. Basil is composed in the form of question and
answer, and in place of setting down a simple, clearly stated law,
with perhaps some little exhortation, goes into much detailed
argument, even in the briefer Rule. In the following passage Basil
points out the advantages of the cenobitic life over the solitary
or hermit life. It is condensed as indicated.

Questio VII. Since your words have given us full assurance that the life [_i.e._, the cenobitic life] is dangerous with those who despise the commandments of the Lord, we wish accordingly to learn whether it is necessary that he who withdraws should remain alone or live with brothers of like mind who have placed before themselves the same goal of piety.

_Responsio_ 1. I think that the life of several in the same place is much more profitable. First, because for bodily wants no one of us is sufficient for himself, but we need each other in providing what is necessary. For just as the foot has one ability, but is wanting another, and without the help of the other members it would find neither its own power strong nor sufficient of itself to continue, nor any supply for what it lacks, so it is in the case of the solitary life: what is of use to us and what is wanting we cannot provide for ourselves, for God who created the world has so ordered all things that we are dependent upon each other, as it is written that we may join ourselves to one another [_cf._ Wis. 13:20]. But in addition to this, reverence to the love of Christ does not permit each one to have regard only to his own affairs, for love, he says, seeks not her own [I Cor. 13:5]. The solitary life has only one goal, the service of its own interests. That clearly is opposed to the law of love, which the Apostle fulfilled, when he did not in his eyes seek his own advantage but the advantage of many, that they might be saved [_cf._ I Cor. 10:33]. Further, no one in solitude recognizes his own defects, since he has no one to correct him and in gentleness and mercy direct him on his way. For even if correction is from an enemy, it may often in the case of those who are well disposed rouse the desire for healing; but the healing of sin by him who sincerely loves is wisely accomplished.… Also the commands may be better fulfilled by a larger community, but not by one alone; for while this thing is being done another will be neglected; for example, by attendance upon the sick the reception of strangers is neglected; and in the bestowal and distribution of the necessities of life (especially when in these services much time is consumed) the care of the work is neglected, so that by this the greatest commandment and the one most helpful to salvation is neglected; neither the hungry are fed nor the naked clothed. Who would therefore value higher the idle, useless life than the fruitful which fulfils the commandments of God?

3. … Also in the preservation of the gifts bestowed by God the cenobitic life is preferable.… For him who falls into sin, the recovery of the right path is so much easier, for he is ashamed at the blame expressed by so many in common, so that it happens to him as it is written: It is enough that the same therefore be punished by many [II Cor. 2:6].… There are still other dangers which we say accompany the solitary life, the first and greatest is that of self-satisfaction. For he who has no one to test his work easily believes that he has completely fulfilled the commandments.…

4. For how shall he manifest his humility, when he has no one to whom he can show himself the inferior? How shall he manifest compassion, cut off from the society of many? How will he exercise himself in patience, if no one opposes his wishes?

(_c_) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _Canon_ 4. Bruns, I, 26.

The subjection of the monastery and the monks to the bishop.

Asceticism of the solitary life was apart from the organization of
the Church; when this form of life had developed in cenobitism it
still remained for a time, at least, outside the ecclesiastical
organization. Athanasius, who was a patron of the monastic life
and often found support and refuge among the monks, did much to
bring Egyptian monasticism back to the Church, and in the fifth
century monks became a great power in ecclesiastical affairs,
_cf._ the Origenistic controversy, _v. infra_, § 88. Basil, at
once archbishop of Cæsarea and leading exponent of monastic ideas,
brought the two to some extent together. But always the episcopal
control was only with difficulty brought to bear on the monastic
life, and in the West this opposition of the two religious forces
ultimately became embodied in the principle of monastic exemption.
The Council of Chalcedon, in 451, aimed to correct the early abuse
by placing the monasteries under the control of the bishop.