enixa est, semel nuptura post partum.” (De Monog. c. 8). This belief
was founded on the words of Matthew (I. 25), “καὶ οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτὴν
ἔως ὁυ ἔτεκετον ὑιὸν ἀυτῆς τὸν πρωτοτόκον, καὶ ἐκάλεσε τὸ ὄνομα ἀυτοῦ
ἰησοῦν.”—“And he knew her not till she had brought forth her first-born
son; and he called his name JESUS.” The restrictive “till” and the
characterization of Jesus as the first-born of the Virgin (though the
latter is omitted in the Sinaitic and Vatican MSS.) are certainly not
easily explicable on any other supposition; nor is the difficulty
lessened by the various explanations concerning the family of Joseph,
by which such expressions as ἡ μήτηρ αὐτοῦ καὶ οἱ ἀδελφοί αὐτοῦ—fratres
et mater ejus (Marc. III. xxxi.), or the enumeration of his brothers
and sisters in Matt. XIII. 55-6, Mark VI. 3, or the phrase ἰάκωβον τὸν
ἀδελφὸν τοῦ κυρίου—Jacobum fratrem Domini (Galat. I. 19)—are taken by
commentators in a spiritual sense, or are eluded by transferring to
the Greek a Hebrew idiom which confounds brothers with cousins. In
the Constitutiones Apostolicæ occurs a passage—“Et ego Jacobus frater
quidem Christi secundum carnem, servus autem tanquam Dei”—which seems
to place it in an unmistakable light, if it be an extract from some
forgotten Gospel, although it may only reflect the opinions of the
third century when the collection was written or compiled.
The Bonosiacs were also sometimes called Helvidians.—S. Augustin. de
Hæresibus § 84.—Isidor. Hispalens. Etymolog. Lib. VIII. c. v. § 57.
In an age which was accustomed to such arguments as “per mulierem
culpa successit, per virginem salus evenit” (Rescript. Episcopp. ad
Siricium), it is easy to appreciate the pious horror evoked by such
blasphemous heresies.
St. Clement of Alexandria alludes to a belief current in his day that
after the Nativity the Virgin had to submit to an inspection _ab
obstetrice_ to prove her purity (Stromat. Lib. vii.)—a story which
continued to trouble the orthodox until the seventeenth century.
The Buddhists eluded all these troublesome questions by making Queen
Maya die seven days after the birth of Sakyamuni, and asserting that
this was the case with the mothers of all the Buddhas.—Rgya Tch’er Rol
P (Ed. Fou-a aux, p. 100).
[116] Epist. Siric. ap. Batthyani Legg. Eccles. Hungar. T. I. p. 210.
[117] Hieron. de Perpet. Virgin. B. Mariæ adv. Helvidium.
[118] Epist. XX.
[119] Concil. Arelatens. II. can. 17.—Concil. Aurelian. III. can. 31.
[120] Panar. Hæres. 78.—At the time of the Reformation the Bonosiac
heresy naturally was revived. In 1523, at the Diet of Nuremberg, the
Papal orator accused Osiander “quod prædicasset Beatam Virginem Mariam
post Christi partum non mansisse Virginem” (Spalatini Annal. ann.
1523), but Osiander found few followers. At the Colloquy of Poissy,
in 1561, the learned Claude d’Espense, doctor of Sorbonne, in arguing
that there were many things the authority of which rested solely on
tradition, and yet which were admitted as undoubted by all parties,
instanced “que la Vierge Marie demoura vierge après l’enfantement, et
plusieurs autres semblables par conséquent; ce qui a esté baillé de
main en main par nos pères, ores qu’il ne soit escript, n’est pourtant
moins certain et approuvé que s’il estoit temoigné par l’Escripture”
(Pierre de la Place, Liv. VII.).
[121] Siricii PP. Epist. ii.
[122] Rescript. Episcopp. ad Siricium. (Harduin. Concil. I. 853.)
[123] Hieron. adv. Jovin.—Augustin. de Hæres. No. lxxxii.
[124] Augustin. Retractt. II. xxii. 1.
[125] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. V. l. 53. It is generally assumed from
this law that Jovinian lived until 412. An expression of St. Jerome,
however, (adv. Vigilant. cap. i.) would seem to show that he was
already dead in 406, and critics have suggested either that there is an
error in the date of the law or that another heresiarch is referred to.
[126] Exortus est subito Vigilantius, seu verius Dormitantius, qui
immundo spiritu pugnat contra Christi spiritum, et martyrum neget
sepulchra veneranda, dammandas dicat esse vigilias; nunquam nisi in
Pascha alleluia cantandum; continentiam hæresim; pudicitiam libidinis
seminarium. Et quomodo Euphorbus in Pythagora renatus esse perhibetur,
sic in isto Joviniani mens prava surrexit; ut et in illo et in hoc
diaboli respondere cogamur insidiis.—Hieron. adv. Vigilant. c. 1.
[127] Proh nefas! episcopos sui sceleris dicitur habere consortes: si
tamen episcopi nominandi sunt qui non ordinant diaconos nisi prius
uxores duxerint; nulli cœlibi credentes pudicitiam, immo ostendentes
quam sancte vivant qui male de omnibus suspicantur; et nisi prægnantes
uxores viderint clericorum, infantesque de ulnis matrum vagientes,
Christi sacramenta non tribuant.... Hoc docuit Dormitantius, libidini
fræna permittens, et naturalem carnis ardorem, qui in adolescentia
plerumque fervescit, suis hortatibus duplicans, immo extinguens coitu
fœminarum, ut nihil sit quo distemus a porcis, etc.—Hieron. adv.
Vigilant. c. 2.
[128] Præterea quod dignum, pudicum et honestum est, tenere ecclesia
omnino debet, ut sacerdotes et levitæ cum uxoribus non misceantur....
Maxime ut vetus regula hoc habet ut quisquis corruptus baptizatus
clericus esse voluisset, spondeat uxorem omnino non ducere.—Innocent.
PP. I. Epist. ii. c. 9, 10.
[129] Ut incontinentes in officiis talibus positi, omni ecclesiastico
honore priventur, nec admittantur ad tale ministerium, quod sola
continentia oportet impleri.—As for those who could be proved
to have seen the epistle of Siricius—“illi sunt modis omnibus
submovendi.”—Innocent. PP. I. Epist. iii. c. 1.
[130] The observance of the rule and its effects are well illustrated
in the story of Urbicus, Bishop of Clermont, and his unhappy wife, as
naïvely related by Gregory of Tours (Hist. Franc. L. I. c. 44).
[131] Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Omnibus placet, ut episcopi,
presbyteri et diaconi, vel qui sacramenta contrectant, pudicitiæ
custodes etiam ab uxoribus se abstineant.—Concil. Carthag. II. can. 2
(Cod. Eccles. African. can. 3).
[132] Aurelius episcopus dixit: Addimus fratres carissimi præterea,
cum de quorundam clericorum, quamvis lectorum, erga uxores proprias
incontinentia referretur, placuit, quod et in diversis conciliis
firmatum est, ut subdiaconi, qui sacra mysteria contrectant, et diaconi
et presbyteri, sed et episcopi, secundum priora statuta etiam ab
uxoribus se contineant, ut tanquam non habentes videantur esse: quod
nisi fecerint, ab ecclesiastico removeantur officio. Ceteros autem
clericos ad hoc non cogi, nisi maturiori ætate. Ab universo concilio
dictum est: Quæ vestra sanctitas est juste moderata, et sancta et Deo
placita sunt, confirmamus.—Concil. Carthag. V. c. 3 (Cod. Eccles.
Afric. c. 25).
The councils thus alluded to are probably the Roman Synods under
Damasus and Siricius.
I give the version most favored by modern critics, but it should be
observed that there is doubt concerning several important points. In
the older collections of councils (_e. g._ Surius, Ed. 1567, T. I. p.
519-20) the canon indicates no compulsion for the orders beneath the
diaconate, commencing “Placuit episcopos et presbyteros et diaconos”
and ending “Cæteros autem clericos ad hoc non cogi sed secundum
uniuscujusque ecclesiæ consuetudinem observari debere,” and this has
probability in its favor, since the subdiaconate was not included in
the restriction for nearly two centuries after this period, and the
lower grades were never subjected to the rule.
The expression “secundum priora statuta” is probably the emendation
of a copyist puzzled by the obscurity of “secundum propria statuta,”
which latter is the reading given by Dionysius Exiguus. That it is the
correct one is rendered almost certain by the Greek version, which is
κατα τους ἰδιους ὁρους (Calixt. Conjug. Cleric, p. 350) which would
seem to leave the matter very much to the preëxisting customs of the
individual churches.
[133] De Adulterin. Conjug. Lib. II. c. 20.
[134] Faustinus episcopus ecclesiæ Potentinæ, provinciæ Piceni, legatus
Romanæ ecclesiæ, dixit: Placet ut episcopus, presbyter et diaconus
vel qui sacramenta contrectant pudicitiæ custodes ab uxoribus se
abstineant. Ab universis episcopis dictum est: Placet ut in omnibus
pudicitia custodiatur qui altari inserviunt (Cod. Eccles. African. can.
iv.).
That strict rules were not enforced in the African church is rendered
probable by another circumstance. Faustus the Manichæan, in defending
the tenets of his sect on the subject of marriage and celibacy,
enters into an elaborate comparison of their doctrines and practices
with those of the Catholic church. In ridiculing the idea that the
Manichæans prohibited marriage to their followers, he could not have
omitted the argument and contrast derivable from prohibition of
marriage by the Catholics, had such prohibition been enforced. His
omission to do this is therefore a negative proof of great weight.—See
Augustin. contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c. iv.
[135] Concil. Toletan. I. ann. 400 can. 1, 3, 4, 6, 7, 18, 19.
[136] Hi autem qui contra interdictum sunt ordinati, vel in ministerio
filios genuerunt, ne ad majores gradus ordinum permittantur synodi
decrevit auctoritas.—Concil. Taurinens. c. 8.
[137] Concil. Arausic. I. c. 22, 23, 24.
[138] Leon. PP. I. Epist. clxvii. Inquis. iii.
[139] Catalogus Sanctt. Hibern. (Haddan & Stubbs II. 292)—Confessio
S. Patricii (Ibid. 308, 310)—Epist. S. Patricii (Ibid. 317)—Synod. S.
Patricii can. 6 (Ibid. 329). The date of all these documents is of
course somewhat conjectural, but I have assumed it safe to follow the
conclusions of the painstaking and lamented Mr. Haddan.
[140] Innocent. PP. I. Epist. v.
[141] Greg. Turon. Hist. Franc. Lib. II. c. 1.
[142] Greg. Turon. de Glor. Confess. c. 76.
[143] Sunt alii (de mei ordinis hominibus loquor) qui ideo
presbyteratum et diaconatum ambiunt ut mulieres licentius
videant.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 28.
[144] Epist. CXXV. ad Rusticum, cap. 6.
[145] Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. l. 44.
[146] Concil. Andegav. ann. 453 c. 4.
[147] Nullus diaconus vel presbyter vel episcopus ad cellarii secretum
intromittat puellam vel ingenuam vel ancillam.—Concil. Arelatens. II.
c. 4.
[148] Epist. Lupi et Euphronii. (Harduin. II. 792.)
[149] Whatever interest there might be in exhibiting in detail the
varying legislation and the expedients of lenity or severity by turns
adopted, would scarcely repay the space which it would occupy or
relieve the monotony of retracing the circle in which the unfortunate
fathers of the church perpetually moved. I therefore content myself
with simply indicating such canons of the period as bear upon the
subject, for the benefit of any student who may desire to examine the
matter more minutely.
Concil. Turon. I. (ann. 460) c. 2, 3.—Agathens. (506) c.
9.—Aurelianens. I. (511) c. 13.—Tarraconens. (516) c. 1.—Gerundens.
(517) c. 6, 7.—Epaonens. (517) c. 2, 32.—Ilerdens. (523) c. 2, 5,
15.—Toletan. II. (531) c. 1, 3.—Aurelianens. II. (533) c. 8.—Arvernens.
I. (535) c. 13, 16.—Aurelianens. III. (538) c. 2, 4, 7.—Aurelianens.
IV. (541) c. 17.—Aurelianens. V. (549) c. 3, 4.—Bracarens. I. (563) c.
15.—Turonens. II. (567) c. 10, 12, 13, 15, 19, 20.—Bracarens. II. (572)
c. 8, 32, 39.—Autissiodor. (578) c. 21.—Matiscon. I. (581) c. 1, 2, 3,
11.—Lugdunens. III. (583) c. 1.—Toletan. III. (589) c. 5.—Hispalens. I.
(590) c. 3.—Cæsaraugustan. (592) c. 1.—Toletan. (597) c. 1.—Oscensis.
(598) c. 2.—Egarens. (614) c. unic.—Concil. loc. incert. (a. 615)
c. 8, 12.—Toletan. IV. (633) c. 42, 44, 52, 55.—Cabilonens (649)
c. 3.—Toletan. VIII. (653) c. 4, 5, 6, 7.—Toletan. IX. (655) c.
10.—Toletan. XI. (675) c. 5.—Bracarens. III. (675) c. 4.—Augustodunens.
(690) c. 10.
[150] Salvian. De Gubernat. Dei Lib. VI. VII.
[151] Expurgat. Sixti Papæ c. VI. (Harduin. Concil. II. 1742).—Pagi
(ann. 433, No. 19) casts doubt on the authenticity of the proceedings
of this trial, and modern criticism (see “Janus” The Pope and the
Council, p. 124) assumes it to be a fabrication of the early part of
the sixth century, made for the purpose of vindicating the immunity of
the clergy from secular law.
[152] Concil. Chalcedon. Act. X. (Harduin. II. 518-9).
[153] The strictness with which the Nicene canon was enforced is
shown by an epistle of St. Basil, about the middle of the fourth
century, in which he sternly reproves a priest named Paregorius, who
at the age of 70 had thought himself sufficiently protected against
scandal to allow to his infirmities the comfort of a housekeeper.
The unlucky female is ordered to be forthwith immured in a convent,
and, until this is accomplished, Paregorius is forbidden to perform
his priestly functions. The whole is based on the authority of the
council of Nicæa.—“Nec primo nec soli (tibi Paregori) sancivimus, non
debere mulierculas cohabitare viris. Lege canonem, a sanctis patribus
nostris in Nicæna synodo constitutum: qui manifeste interdixit, ne quis
mulierculam subintroductam habeat. Cœlibatus autem honestatem suam in
eo habet, si quis a nexu mulieris secesserit.”
[154] Hæres. LIX. c. 4.
[155] Quid faciunt Orientis ecclesiæ? Quid Ægypti et sedis Apostolicæ,
quæ aut virgines clericos accipiunt, aut continentes: aut si uxores
habuerint, mariti esse desistunt.—Lib. adv. Vigilant. c. 2.
[156] Sextum, quod dimissa uxore sua cum ea rursus congressus est,
filiosque ex ea procreasset.—Palladii Dial. de Vit. S. Joan. Chrysost.
cap. xiii.
[157] Synesii Epist. cv.
[158] Ejusd. Epist. cviii.
[159] Et si placet, quanto etiam melior sit addam, quanto cœlum terra,
quanto hominibus angeli.—Lib. de Virgin. c. x.
[160] Socrat. H. E. Lib. V. c. 21.
[161] S. Isidor. Pelusiot. Epist. Lib. III. No. 75.
[162] Constit. 45 Cod. I. 3. This law is preserved by Photius (Nomoc.
Tit. IX. c. 29), but Balsamon (Schol. ad. loc.) says that it is omitted
in the Basilica.
[163] “Nihil enim sic in sacris ordinationibus diligimus quam cum
castitate viventes, aut cum uxoribus non cohabitantes, aut unius uxoris
virum, qui vel fuerit vel sit, et ipsam castitatem eligentem.” The
lector could, by forfeiting his prospects of promotion, marry a second
time, if pressed by overmastering necessity, but he was not allowed,
under any excuse, to take a third wife.—Novell. VI. c. 5.—These
provisions were repeated the following year in Novell. XXII. c. 42.
[164] Novell. CXXIII. c. 12.
[165] Basilicon III. i. 26.
[166] Balsamon. Schol. ad Nomocanon. Tit. I. c. 23.
[167] Novell. CXXIII. c. 14.
[168] Const. 42 § 1. Cod. i. 3.—Basilicon III. i. 26.
[169] Novell. VI. c. 1.
[170] Novell. CXXXVII. c. 2.—Basilicon III. i. c. 8.—Balsamon. Schol.
ad Nomocan. Tit. i. c. 23.
[171] Leonis. Novell. Constit. II.
[172] Quinisext. can. 3.
[173] Ibid. c. 6.
[174] Ibid. can. 12, 48.—“Hoc autem dicimus non ad ea abolenda et
evertenda quæ Apostolice antea constituta sunt, sed ... ne status
ecclesiasticus ullo probro efficiatur.”
[175] Quinisext. c. 13, 30.
[176] Quinisext. c. 33.—The Armenian church in the middle ages, was
excessively severe as to the chastity of its ministers. A postulant
for orders was obliged to confess, and if he had been guilty of a
single lapse, he was rejected. So a priest in orders if yielding to the
weakness of the flesh out of wedlock was expelled, though they were
not obliged to part with their wives, and the Greek rule permitting
marriage in the lower orders was maintained.—Concil. Armenor. ann. 1362
Art. 50, 53, 93 (Martene Ampl. Collect. VII. 366-7, 403).
[177] Leonis Novell. Constit. III.—It is not improbable that this
custom resulted from the iconoclastic schism of Leo the Isaurian
and Constantine Copronymus, which occupied nearly the whole of the
eighth century. These emperors found their most unyielding enemies in
the monks. In the savage persecutions which disgraced the struggle,
Constantine endeavored to extirpate monachism altogether. The accounts
which his adversaries have transmitted of the violence and cruelties
which he perpetrated are doubtless exaggerated, but there is likelihood
that his efforts to discountenance celibacy, as the foundation of the
obnoxious institution, are correctly reported. “Publice defamavit et
dehonestavit habitum monachorum in hippodromo, præcipiens unumquemque
monachum manutenere mulierem, et taliter transire per hippodromum,
sumptis injuriis ab omni populo cumulatis” (Baronii Annal. ann. 766,
No. 1). He ejected the monks from the monasteries, which he turned into
barracks; some of the monks were tortured, others fled to the mountains
and deserts, where they suffered every extremity, while others again
succumbed to threats and temptations, and were publicly married—“alii
corporeis voluptatibus addicti, suas etiam uxores circumducere non
erubescebant” (Ibid. No. 28, 29).
[178] Synod. Montis Libani ann. 1736 P. II. c. v. No. 16, 17, Tab. I.
No. 11; P. III. c. i. No. 11; P. IV. c. ii. No. 16.—Synod. Ain-Traz
ann. 1835 c. xii. (Concil. Collect. Lacens. II. 134, 138, 262, 263,
366, 367, 585).
[179] London “Academy,” Nov. 13th, 1869, p. 51.—See also “The Russian
Clergy,” by Father Gagarin, London, 1872 (London Athenæum, No. 2334. p.
72-3).
[180] For these details from the collection of Asseman I am indebted
to the Abate Zaccaria’s Nuova Giustificazione del Celibato Sacro, pp.
129-30.
[181] The strange similarity between some of the teachings of the
Bhagavad-gita and Christianity, and the apparent identity of the name
and of some of the story of Krishna with those of Christ, would seem
to need some such explanation as the above. The problem however is
too complicated for discussion here.—See Weber’s Indian Literature p.
238 and Monier Williams’s Indian Wisdom p. 136. For the question of
St. Thomas’s Indian Apostolate see Hohlenberg’s learned tract, “De
Originibus et Fatis Eccles. Christ. in India Orientali.” Havniæ 1822.
[182] Hi omnes Nestoriani ... cum Jacobinis longe plures esse dicuntur
quam Latini et Græci.—Jac. de Vitriaco Hist. Hierosol. cap. lxxvi.
[183] Calixt. de Conjug. Cleric. p. 415.—Osorii de Rebus Emmanuelis
Regis Lusit. Lib. IX. (Colon. 1574 p. 305_a_).
[184] Parkyns’s Life in Abyssinia, chap. xxxi.—Mr. Parkyns sums up
about 260 fast days in the year, most of them much more rigid than
those observed in the Catholic church.
[185] Davids & Oldenberg’s Vinaya Texts, Part I. pp. 4, 8, 14, 16, 32,
35-7, 42, 47, 56.—Cf. Beal’s Catena pp. 209-14.—Burnouf, Introduction à
l’histoire du Buddhisme indien. 2e Éd. pp. 245-8.
[186] Beal’s Chinese Pilgrims pp. xxxviii., xl., 155-9.—Schlagintweit’s
Buddhism in Tibet, pp. 164-5.—Wheeler’s Hist. of India, III. 270.—Proc.
Roy. Geog. Society, in London “Reader” Nov. 17, 1866.
[187] I. Tim. v. 3-14. cf. Act. IX. 39-41. In the time of Tertullian
these women were regularly ordained (Ad Uxor. Lib. I. c. 7). This was
forbidden by the council of Nicæa (can. 19) and by that of Laodicea
(can. 11) in 372. In 451, however, we see by the council of Chalcedon
(can. 15) that the ancient practice had been revived. The authorities
on the question will be found very fully given by Chr. Lupus (Scholion
in Can. 15 Concil. Chalced.—Opp. II. 90 sqq.). Even as late as the
middle of the ninth century stringent rules were promulgated to punish
the marriage of deaconesses (Capitul. Add. III. Cap. 75.—Baluz. I.
1191).
[188] Volo ergo juniores [viduas] nubere, filios procreare,
matresfamilias esse, nullam occasionem dare adversario—I. Tim. v. 14.
[189] See Leon. I. Epist. lxxxvii. cap. 2. (Harduin. I. 1775). This
was not so in the earlier periods. Tertullian (De Præscription. iii.),
in alluding to the various classes of ecclesiastics, places the widows
immediately after the order of deacons, and before the virgins.
[190] Nothing is so illogical as the logic resorted to in order to
prove foregone conclusions. Donato Calvi (_apud_ Panzini, Pubblica
Confessione di un Prigioneiro, Torino, 1865, p. 111) quotes the
texts Matt. XIX. 12, Luke XIV. 33 and Matt. XIX. 21, 27, and then
triumphantly concludes—“Ben lice conchiudere chiaramente da’sacri
Vangeli raccogliersi fossero gli Apostoli veri religiosi coi tre voti
della religione legati.”
[191] If further proof of this be required, beyond what has already
been incidentally adduced, it is to be found in the 19th canon of
the council of Ancyra, held about the year 314. By this, the vow of
celibacy or virginity when broken only rendered the offender incapable
of receiving holy orders. He was to be treated as a “digamus,” showing
evidently that no punishment was inflicted, beyond the disability which
attached to second marriages.
Even in the time of St. Augustin monks were frequently married, as we
learn from his remarks concerning the heretics who styled themselves
Apostolici and who gloried in their superior asceticism—“eo quod in
suam communionem non reciperent utentes conjugibus et res proprias
possidentes; quales habet Catholica [ecclesia] et monachos et clericos
plurimos.”—Augustin. de Hæresib. No. XL.
Even Epiphanius, the ardent admirer of virginity, when controverting
the errors of the same sect, declares that those who cannot persevere
in their vows had better marry and reconcile themselves by penitence
to the church rather than to sin in secret—“Melius est lapsum a cursu
palam sibi uxorem sumere secundum legem et a virginitate multo tempore
pœnitentiam agere et sic rursus ad ecclesiam induci, etc.”—Panar.
Hæres. LXI.
We shall see hereafter how long it took to enforce the strict
segregation of the cenobite from the world.
[192] St. Jerome vindicates for Paul the priority which was commonly
ascribed to Antony, but he fully admits that the latter is entitled
to the credit of popularizing the practice.—“Alii, autem, in quam
opinionem vulgus omne consentit, asserunt Antonium hujus propositi
caput, quod ex parte verum est: non enim tam ipse ante omnes fuit,
quam ab eo omnium incitata sunt studia,” etc.—Hieron. Vit. Pauli cap.
1.—Epist. XXII. ad Eustoch. cap. 36.
Jerome also asserts that monachism was unknown in Palestine and
Syria until it was introduced there by Hilarion, a disciple of St.
Antony.—Vit. Hilarion. cap. 14.
[193] Instit. Divin. Lib. VI. cap. 10.—Cf. c. 17.
[194] As early as the commencement of the fourth century, we find
Faustus, in his “tu quoque” defence of Manichæism, asserting that in
the Christian churches the number of professed virgins exceeded that of
women not bound by vows.—Augustin, contra Faust. Manich. Lib. XXX. c.
iv.
[195] Propter luxum vanitatemque præsumptam.—Concil. Cæsaraug. I. ann.
381 c. vi.—Disobedience to the prohibition is threatened with prolonged
suspension from communion.
[196] Cassiod. Hist. Tripart. Lib. I. c. 9.
[197] See Lib. XVI. Cod. Theod. Tit. ii. ll. 9, 10, 11, 14, etc.
This evil had become so great by the time of Valens that in 365
that emperor declares “Quidam ignaviæ sectatores desertis civitatum
muneribus, captant solitudines ac secreta, et specie religionis cætibus
monizonton congregantur.” The most vigorous measures were requisite,
“erui e latebris consulta præceptione mandavimus,” and he orders the
culprits to be subjected again to their municipal duties under pain
of forfeiture of all their property (Lib. XII. Cod. Theod. Tit. i.
l. 63). In 376 the same emperor endeavored to enforce the obligation
of military service on the crowds of vigorous men who filled the
monasteries, and on their resistance a persecution arose in which many
were killed—Hieron. Euseb. Chron. ann. 378.
[198] The lamentations of St. Cyprian have already been alluded to.
In 305 the council of Elvira found it necessary to denounce perpetual
excommunication against the “virgines sacratæ” who abandoned themselves
to a life of licentiousness, while those guilty only of a single lapse
were allowed restoration to communion on the deathbed, if earned by
continual penitence (Concil. Eliberit. c. 13).