Jews living at Rome, according to common_A Source Book for Ancient Church History

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.

They who lead a true and worthy monastic life shall enjoy the honor that

belongs to them. But since there are some who assume the monastic

condition only as a pretence, and will upset the ecclesiastical and civil

regulations and affairs, and run about without distinction in the cities

and want to found cloisters for themselves, the synod therefore has

decreed that no one shall build a cloister or house of prayer or erect

anywhere without the consent of the bishop of the city; and further, that

also the monks of every district and city shall be subject to the bishop,

that they shall love peace and quiet and observe the fasts and prayers in

the places where they are assigned continually; that they shall not cumber

themselves with ecclesiastical and secular business and shall not take

part in such; they shall not leave their cloisters except when in cases of

necessity they may be commissioned by the bishop of the city with such;

that no slave shall be admitted into the cloister in order to become a

monk without the permission of his master. Whoever violates this our order

shall be excommunicated, that the name of God be not blasphemed. The

bishop of the city must keep a careful oversight of the cloisters.

(_d_) Jerome, _Epistula_ 127, _ad Principiam_. (MSL, 22:1087.)

The introduction of monasticism into the West during the Arian

controversy.

5. At that time no high-born lady at Rome knew of the profession of the

monastic life, neither would she have dared, on account of the novelty,

publicly to assume a name that was regarded as ignominious and vile. It

was from some priests of Alexandria and from Pope Athanasius(155) and

subsequently from Peter,(156) who, to escape the persecution of the Arian

heretics, had fled for refuge to Rome as the safest haven of their

communion—it was from these that she [Marcella] learned of the life of the

blessed Anthony, then still living, and of the monasteries in the Thebaid,

founded by Pachomius, and of the discipline of virgins and widows. Nor was

she ashamed to profess what she knew was pleasing to Christ. Many years

after her example was followed first by Sophronia and then by others.… The

revered Paula enjoyed Marcella’s friendship, and it was in her cell that

Eustochium, that ornament of virginity, was trained.

(_e_) Augustine, _Confessiones_, VIII, ch. 6. (MSL, 32:755.)

The extension of monasticism in the West.

Upon a certain day … there came to the house to see Alypius and me,

Pontitianus, a countryman of ours, in so far as he was an African, who

held high office in the Emperor’s court. What he wanted with us I know

not. We sat down to talk together, and upon the table before us, used for

games, he noticed by chance a book; he took it up, opened it, and,

contrary to his expectations, found it to be the Apostle Paul, for he

imagined it to be one of those books the teaching of which was wearing me

out. At this he looked up at me smilingly, and expressed his delight and

wonder that he so unexpectedly found this book, and this only, before my

eyes. For he was both a Christian and baptized, and in constant and daily

prayers he often prostrated himself before Thee our God in the Church.

When, then, I had told him that I bestowed much pains upon these writings,

a conversation ensued on his speaking of Anthony, the Egyptian monk, whose

name was in high repute among Thy servants, though up to that time

unfamiliar to us. When he came to know this he lingered on that topic,

imparting to us who were ignorant a knowledge of this man so eminent, and

marvelling at our ignorance. But we were amazed, hearing Thy wonderful

works most fully manifested in times so recent, and almost in our own,

wrought in the true faith and the Catholic Church. We all wondered—we that

they were so great, and he that we had never heard of them.

From this his conversation turned to the companies in the monasteries, and

their manners so fragrant unto Thee, and of the fruitful deserts of the

wilderness, of which we knew nothing. And there was a monastery at Milan

full of good brethren, without the walls of the city, under the care of

Ambrose, and we were ignorant of it. He went on with his relation, and we

listened intently and in silence. He then related to us how on a certain

afternoon, at Treves, when the Emperor was taken up with seeing the

Circensian games, he and three others, his comrades, went out for a walk

in the gardens close to the city walls, and there, as they chanced to walk

two and two, one strolled away with him, while the other two went by

themselves; and these in their ramblings came upon a certain cottage where

dwelt some of Thy servants, “poor in spirit,” of whom “is the kingdom of

heaven,” and they found there a book in which was written the life of

Anthony. This one of them began to read, marvel at, and be inflamed by it;

and in the reading to meditate on embracing such a life, and giving up his

worldly employments to serve Thee.… Then Pontitianus, and he that had

walked with him through other parts of the garden, came in search of them

to the same place, and, having found them, advised them to return as the

day had declined.… But the other two, setting their affections upon

heavenly things, remained in the cottage. And both of them had affianced

brides who also, when they heard of this, dedicated their virginity to

God.

(_f_) Sulpicius Severus, _Life of St. Martin of Tours_, ch. 10. (MSL,

20:166.)

Monasticism in Gaul.

St. Martin, bishop of Tours, was born 316, became bishop of Tours

in 371, and died 396. He was the most considerable figure in the

Church life of Gaul at that time. Sulpicius Severus was his

disciple and enthusiastic biographer. For John Cassian and his

works on monasticism, see PNF, ser. II, vol. XI.

And now having entered upon the episcopal office, it is beyond my power to

set forth how well and how much he [Martin] performed. For he remained

with the utmost constancy the same as he had been before. In his heart

there was the same humility and in his garments the same simplicity; and

so full of dignity and courtesy, he maintained the dignity of a bishop,

yet so as not to lay aside the objects and virtues of a monk. Accordingly

he made use for some time of the cell connected with the church; but

afterward, when he felt it impossible to tolerate the disturbance of the

numbers of those visiting it, he established a monastery for himself about

two miles outside the city. This spot was so secret and retired that he

did not desire the solitude of a hermit. For, on one side, it was

surrounded by a precipitous rock of a lofty mountain; while the river

Loire has shut in the rest of the plain by a bend extending back for a

distance. The place could be approached by only one passage, and that very

narrow. Here, then, he possessed a cell constructed of wood; many also of

the brethren had, in the same manner, fashioned retreats for themselves,

but most of them had formed these out of the rock of the overhanging

mountain, hollowed out into caves. There were altogether eighty disciples,

who were being disciplined after the example of the saintly master. No one

there had anything which was called his own; all things were possessed in

common. It was not allowed either to buy or sell anything, as is the

custom amongst most monks. No art was practised there except that of

transcribers, and even to this the more youthful were assigned, while the

elders spent their time in prayer. Rarely did any of them go beyond the

cell unless when they assembled at the place of prayer. They all took

their food together after the hour of fasting was past. No one used wine

except when illness compelled him. Most of them were dressed in garments

of camel’s hair. Any dress approaching softness was there deemed criminal,

and this must be thought the more remarkable because many among them were

such as are deemed of noble rank, who though very differently brought up

had forced themselves down to this degree of humility and patience, and we

have seen many of these afterward as bishops. For what city or church

could there be that would not desire to have its priest from the monastery

of Martin?

§ 78. Celibacy of the Clergy and the Regulation of Clerical Marriage

The insistence upon clerical celibacy and even the mere regulation of the

marriage of the clergy contributed not a little to making a clear

distinction between the clergy and the laity which became a marked feature

in the constitution of the Church. The East and the West have always

differed as to clerical marriage. In the East the parish clergy have

always been married; the bishops formerly married have long since been

exclusively of the unmarried clergy. The clergy who do not marry become

monks. This seems to have been the solution of practical difficulties

which were found to arise in that part of the Church in connection with

general clerical celibacy. In the West the celibacy of the clergy as a

body was an ideal from the beginning of the fourth century, and became an

established principle by the middle of the fifth century under Leo the

Great, though as a matter of fact it was not enforced as a universal

obligation of the clerical order until the reforms of Gregory VII. In the

following canons and documents the division is made between the East and

the West, and the selected documents are arranged chronologically so as to

show the progress in legislation toward the condition that afterward

became dominant in the respective divisions of the Empire and the Church.

(A) _Clerical Marriage in the East_

(_a_) Council of Ancyra, A. D. 314, _Canon_ 10. Bruns, I, 68. _Cf._ Mirbt,

n. 90.

The following canon is important as being the first Eastern

regulation of a council bearing on the subject and having been

generally followed long before the canons of this council were

adopted as binding by the Council of Constantinople known as the

Quinisext in 692, Canon 2; _cf._ Hefele, § 327. For the Council of

Ancyra, see Hefele, § 16.

Canon 10. Those who have been made deacons, declaring when they were

ordained that they must marry, because they were not able to abide as they

were, and who afterward married, shall continue in the ministry because it

was conceded to them by the bishop. But if they were silent on the matter,

undertaking at their ordination to abide as they were, and afterward

proceeded to marry, they shall cease from the diaconate.

(_b_) Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325, _Canon_ 3. Bruns, I, 15. _Cf._ Mirbt,

n. 101, Kirch, n. 363.

The meaning of the following canon is open to question because of

the term _subintroducta_ and the concluding clause. Hefele

contends that every woman is excluded except certain specified

persons. But the custom of the East was not to treat the rule as

meaning such. See E. Venables, art. “Subintroductæ,” in DCB; and

Achelis, art. “Subintroductæ,” in PRE. Hefele’s discussion may be

found in his _History of the Councils_, §§ 42 and 43; in the

latter he discusses the question as to the position of the council

as to the matter of clerical celibacy.

Canon 3. The great synod has stringently forbidden any bishop, presbyter,

deacon, or any one of the clergy whatever, to have a _subintroducta_

(συνείσακτος) dwelling with him, except only a mother, sister, or aunt, or

such persons only as are beyond all suspicion.

(_c_) Council of Gangra, A. D. 355-381, _Canon_ 4. Bruns, I, 107.

The canons of this council were approved at the Quinisext together

with those of Ancyra and Laodicæa and others. This canon is

directed against the fanaticism of the Eustathians.

Canon 4. If any one shall maintain, concerning a married presbyter, that

it is not lawful to partake of the oblation that he offers, let him be

anathema.

(_d_) Socrates, _Hist. Ec._, V, 22. (MSG, 67:640.)

That the custom of clerical celibacy grew up without much regard

to conciliar action, and that canons only later regulated what had

been established and modified by custom, is illustrated by the

variation in the matter of clerical marriage noted by Socrates.

I myself learned of another custom in Thessaly. If a clergyman in that

country should, after taking orders, cohabit with his wife, whom he had

legally married before ordination, he would be degraded.(157) In the East,

indeed, all clergymen and even bishops abstain from their wives; but this

they do of their own accord and not by the necessity of law; for many of

them have had children by their lawful wives during their episcopate. The

author of the usage which obtains in Thessaly was Heliodorus, bishop of

Tricca in that country, under whose name it is said that erotic books are

extant, entitled _Ethiopica_, which he composed in his youth. The same

custom prevails in Thessalonica and in Macedonia and Achaia.

(_e_) Quinisext Council, A. D. 692, _Canons_ 6, 12, 13, 48. Bruns, I, 39

_ff._

Canons on celibacy.

The Trullan Council fixed the practice of the Eastern churches

regarding the celibacy of the clergy. In general it may be said

that the clergyman was not allowed to marry after ordination. But

if he married before ordination he did not, except in the case of

the bishops separate from his wife, but lived with her in lawful

marital relations.

Canon 6. Since it is declared in the Apostolic Canons that of those who

are advanced to the clergy unmarried, only lectors and cantors are able to

marry, we also, maintaining this, determine that henceforth it is in

nowise lawful for any subdeacon, deacon, or presbyter after his ordination

to contract matrimony; but if he shall have dared to do so, let him be

deposed. And if any of those who enter the clergy wishes to be joined to a

wife in lawful marriage before he is ordained subdeacon, deacon, or

presbyter, let it be done.

Canon 12. Moreover, it has also come to our knowledge that in Africa and

Libya and in other places the most God-beloved bishops in those parts do

not refuse to live with their wives, even after consecration, thereby

giving scandal and offence to the people. Since, therefore, it is our

particular care that all things tend to the good of the flock placed in

our hands and committed to us, it has seemed good that henceforth nothing

of the kind shall in any way occur.… But if any shall have been observed

to do such a thing, let him be deposed.

Canon 13. [Text in Kirch, nn. 985 _ff._] Since we know it to be handed

down as a rule of the Roman Church that those who are deemed worthy to be

advanced to the diaconate and presbyterate should promise no longer to

cohabit with their wives, we, preserving the ancient rule and apostolic

perfection and order, will that lawful marriage of men who are in holy

orders be from this time forward firm, by no means dissolving their union

with their wives nor depriving them of their mutual intercourse at a

convenient season.… For it is meet that they who assist at the divine

altar should be absolutely continent when they are handling holy things,

in order that they may be able to obtain from God what they ask in

sincerity.

Canon 48. The wife of him who is advanced to the episcopal dignity shall

be separated from her husband by mutual consent, and after his ordination

and consecration to the episcopate she shall enter a monastery situated at

a distance from the abode of the bishop, and there let her enjoy the

bishop’s provision. And if she is deemed worthy she may be advanced to the

dignity of a deaconess.

(B) _Clerical Celibacy in the West_

(_a_) Council of Elvira, A. D. 306, _Canon_ 33. Bruns, II, 6. _Cf._ Mirbt,

n. 90, and Kirch, n. 305.

This is the earliest canon of any council requiring clerical

celibacy. For the Council of Elvira, see Hefele, § 13; A. W. W.

Dale, _The Synod of Elvira_, London. 1882. For discussion of

reasons for assigning a later date, see E. Hennecke, art. “Elvira,

Synode um 313,” in PRE, and the literature there cited. The

council was a provincial synod of southern Spain.

Canon 33. It was voted that it be entirely forbidden(158) bishops,

presbyters, and deacons, and all clergy placed in the ministry to abstain

from their wives and not to beget sons: whoever does this, let him be

deprived of the honor of the clergy.

(_b_) Siricius, _Decretal_ A. D. 385. (MSL, 13:1138.) Mirbt, nn. 122 _f._;

_cf._ Denziger, nn. 87 _ff._

Clerical celibacy: the force of decretals.

In the following passages from the first authentic decretal, the

celibacy of the clergy is laid down as of divine authority in the

Church, and the rule remains characteristic of the Western Church.

See Canon 13 of the Quinisext Council, above, § 78, _c_. The

binding authority of the decretals of the bishop of Rome is also

asserted, and this, too, becomes characteristic of the

jurisprudence of the Western Church.

Ch. 7 (§ 8). Why did He admonish them to whom the holy of holies was

committed, Be ye holy, because I the Lord your God am holy? [Lev. 20:7.]

Why were they commanded to dwell in the temple in the year of their turn

to officiate, afar from their own homes? Evidently it was for the reason

that they might not be able to maintain their marital relations with their

wives, so that, adorned with a pure conscience, they might offer to God an

acceptable sacrifice. After the time of their service was accomplished

they were permitted to resume their marital relations for the sake of

continuing the succession, because only from the tribe of Levi was it

ordained that any one should be admitted to the priesthood.… Wherefore

also our Lord Jesus, when by His coming He brought us light, solemnly

affirmed in the Gospel that He came not to destroy but to fulfil the law.

And therefore He who is the bridegroom of the Church wished that its form

should be resplendent with chastity, so that in the day of Judgment, when

He should come again, He might find it without spot or blemish, as He

taught by His Apostle. And by the rule of its ordinances which may not be

gainsaid, we who are priests and Levites are bound from the day of our

ordination to keep our bodies in soberness and modesty, so that in those

sacrifices which we offer daily to our God we may please Him in all

things.

Ch. 15 (§ 20). To each of the cases, which by our son Bassanius you have

referred to the Roman Church as the head of your body, we have returned,

as I think, a sufficient answer. Now we exhort your brotherly mind more

and more to obey the canons and to observe the decretals that have been

drawn up, that those things which we have written to your inquiries you

may cause to be brought to the attention of all our fellow-bishops, and

not only of those who are placed in your diocese, but also of the

Carthaginians, the Bætici, the Lusitani, and the Gauls, and those who in

neighboring provinces border upon you, those things which by us have been

helpfully decreed may be sent accompanied by your letters. And although no

priest of the Lord is free to ignore the statutes of the Apostolic See and

the venerable definitions of the canons, yet it would be more useful and,

on account of the long time you have been in holy orders, exceedingly

glorious for you, beloved, if those things which have been written you

especially by name, might through your agreement with us be brought to the

notice of all our brethren, and that, seeing that they have not been drawn

up inconsiderately but prudently and with very great care, they should

remain inviolate, and that, for the future, opportunity for any excuse

might be cut off, which is now open to no one among us.

(_c_) Council of Carthage, A. D. 390, _Canon 2_. Bruns, I, 117.

Jews living at Rome, according to common right, are in those cases which