Chapter IV. The Empire And The Imperial State Church

In the period extending from the accession of Constantine (311 or 324) to the death of Theodosius the Great (395), the characteristic features of the Church’s organization took definite form, and its relations to the secular authorities and the social order of the Empire were defined. Its constitution with its hierarchical organization of clergy, of courts, and synods, together with its intimate union, at least in the East, with the imperial authority, became fixed (§ 72). As the Church of the Empire, it was under the control and patronage of the State; all other forms of religion, whether pagan or Christian, schismatical or heretical, were severely repressed (§ 73). The Christian clergy, as officials in this State Church, became a class by themselves in the society of the Empire, not only as the recipients of privileges, but as having special functions in the administration of justice, and eventually in the superintendence of secular officials and secular business (§ 74). By degrees the Christian spirit influenced the spirit of the laws and the popular customs, though less than at first sight might have been expected; the rigors of slavery were mitigated and cruel gladiatorial sports abandoned (§ 75). Meanwhile popular piety was by no means raised by the influx of vast numbers of heathen into the Church; bringing with them no little of their previous modes of thought and feeling, and lacking the testing of faith and character furnished by the persecutions, they lowered the general moral tone of the Church, so that Christians everywhere were affected by these alien ideas and feelings (§ 76). The Church, however, endeavored to raise the moral tone and ideals and to work effectively in society by care for the poor and other works of benevolence, and in its regulation of marriage, which began in this period to be a favorite subject of legislation for the Church’s councils (§ 76). In monasticism this striving against the lowering forces in Christian society and for a higher type of life most clearly manifested itself, and, beginning in Egypt, organized forms of asceticism spread throughout the East and toward the end of the period to the West as well (§ 78). But monasticism was not confined to the private ascetic. The priesthood, as necessarily presenting an example of higher moral life, began to be touched by the ascetic spirit, and in the West this took the form of enforced clerical celibacy, though the custom of the East remained far less rigorous (§ 79). In presenting these lines of development, it is at times convenient to pass beyond the exact bounds of the period, so that the whole subject may be brought together at this point of the history.

§ 72. The Constitution of the State Church

The Church’s constitution received its permanent form in this period. The conciliar system was carried to its logical completion in the ecumenical council representing the entire Church and standing at the head of a system which included the provincial and patriarchal councils, at least in theory. The clergy were organized into a hierarchy which rested upon the basis of the single bishop in his diocese, who had under him his clergy, and culminated in the patriarchs placed over the great divisions of the State Church, corresponding to the primary divisions of the Empire. The Emperor assumed the supreme authority in the Church, and the foundation was laid for what became under Justinian Cæsaropapism. By the institution of the hierarchical gradation of authority and jurisdiction, for the most part corresponding to the political and administrative divisions of the Empire, the Church both assumed a rigidly organized form and came more easily under the control of the secular authority.

(A) The Ecumenical Council

The Council of Nicæa was held before there was any definition of the place of an ecumenical council. Many councils were held during the Arian controversy that were quite as representative. It was taken for granted that the councils were arranged in a scale of authority corresponding to the extent of the Church represented. The first clear statement of this principle is at the Council of Constantinople A. D. 382.

Council of Constantinople, A. D. 382, Canon 2. Text, Hefele, § 98.

The so-called second general council was held in 381, but in the next year nearly the same bishops were called together by Theodosius (cf. Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V. 9). In a letter addressed to the Western bishops at a council at Rome this council speaks of their previous meeting at Constantinople in 381 as being an ecumenical council. The query suggests itself whether, considering the fact that it actually only represented the East and did represent more than one patriarchate, “ecumenical” might not be understood as being used in a sense similar to that in which the African bishops spoke of their councils as universalis. See Hefele, § 100, note.

The following canon is printed as the sixth canon of Constantinople, A. D. 381, in Hefele and the other collections, e.g., Bruns and Percival.

… If persons who are neither heretics, nor excommunicated, nor condemned, nor charged with crime claim to have a complaint in matters ecclesiastical against the bishop,(124) the holy synod commands such to bring their charges first before all the bishops of the province, and to prove before them the charges against the accused bishop. But should it happen that the comprovincials be unable to settle the charges alleged against the bishop, the complainants shall have recourse then to the larger synod of the bishops of that diocese,(125) who shall be called together on account of the complaint; and the complainants may not bring their complaint until they have agreed in writing to take upon themselves the same punishment which would have fallen upon the accused, in case the complainants in the course of the matter should be proved to have brought a false charge against the bishop. But if any one, holding in contempt these directions, venture to burden the ear of the Emperor, or the tribunals of the secular judges, or disturb an ecumenical synod,(126) dishonoring the bishops of their patriarchal province, such shall not be admitted to make complaint, because he despises the canons and violates the Church’s order.

(B) The Hierarchical Organization

(a) Council of Nicæa, A. D. 325, Canons. Text, Hefele, § 42. Cf. Kirch, nn. 364-368.

Canons of organization.

Canon 4 regulates the ordinations of bishops; Canon 5 orders that excommunications in one diocese shall hold good everywhere; Canon 6 defines the larger provincial organization which eventually resulted in the patriarchates; Canon 7 defines the position of the bishopric of Jerusalem; Canons 15 and 16 place the bishops permanently in their sees and the clergy under their own proper bishop.

Canon 4. It is by all means proper that a bishop should be appointed by all the bishops in the province; but should this be difficult, either on account of urgent necessity or because of distance, three at least should assemble, and the suffrages of the absent should also be given and communicated in writing, and then the ordination should take place. But in every province the ratification of what is done should be left to the metropolitan.

Canon 5. Concerning those, whether of the clergy or of the laity, who have been excommunicated in the several provinces, let the provisions of the canon be observed by the bishops which provides that persons cast out by some be not readmitted by others.… Nevertheless, inquiry should be made whether they have been excommunicated through captiousness, or contentiousness, or any such like ungracious disposition in the bishops. And that this matter may have due investigation, it is decreed that in every province synods shall be held twice a year, in order that when all the bishops of the province are assembled together, such questions may be thoroughly examined by them, that so those who have confessedly offended against their bishop may be seen by all to be for just causes excommunicated, until it shall appear fit to a general meeting of the bishops to pronounce a milder sentence upon them. And let these synods be held, the one before Lent (that the pure gift may be offered to God after all bitterness has been put away) and let the second be held about autumn.

Canon 6. Let the ancient customs in Egypt, Libya, and Pentapolis prevail, that the bishop of Alexandria shall have jurisdiction in all these, since the like is customary for the bishop of Rome also.(127) Likewise in Antioch and the other provinces, let the churches retain their privileges. And this is to be universally understood, that if any one be made bishop without the consent of his metropolitan, the great synod has declared that such a man ought not to be bishop. If, however, two or three bishops shall, from natural love of contradiction, oppose the common suffrage of the rest, it being reasonable and in accordance with the ecclesiastical law, then let the choice of the majority prevail.

Canon 7. Since custom and ancient tradition have prevailed that the bishop of Ælia [i.e., Jerusalem] should be honored, let him, saving its due dignity to the metropolis, have the next place of honor.

Canon 15. On account of the great disturbance and discords that occur, it is decreed that the custom prevailing in certain places contrary to the canon must wholly be done away; so that neither bishop, presbyter, nor deacon shall pass from city to city. And if any one, after this decree of the holy and great synod, shall attempt any such thing or continue in such course, his proceedings shall be utterly void, and he shall be restored to the church for which he was ordained bishop or presbyter.

Canon 16. Neither presbyters, nor deacons, nor any others enrolled among the clergy, who, not having the fear of God before their eyes, nor regarding the ecclesiastical canon, shall recklessly remove from their own church, ought by any means to be received by another church; but every constraint should be applied to restore them to their own parishes;(128) and, if they will not go, they must be excommunicated. And if one shall dare surreptitiously to carry off and in his own church ordain a man belonging to another, without the consent of his own proper bishop from whom, although he was enrolled in the clergy list, he has seceded, let the ordination be void.

(b) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341. Canons, Bruns, I, 80 f., Cf. Kirch, nn. 439 ff.

For the Council of Antioch, see § 65, c. These canons on discipline were held in highest authority in the Church, although enacted by Arians whose creed was rejected. They obtained this position in the law of the Church because they carried further the natural line of development long since taken in the ecclesiastical system. Cf. Hefele, § 56.

Canon 2. All who enter the Church of God and hear the Holy Scriptures, but do not communicate with the people in prayers, or who turn away, by reason of some disorder, from the holy partaking of the eucharist, are to be cast out of the Church until, after they shall have made confession, have brought forth fruits of penance, and have made earnest entreaty, they shall have obtained forgiveness; and it is unlawful to communicate with excommunicated persons, or to assemble in private houses and pray with those who do not pray in the Church; or to receive in one church those who do not assemble with another church. And if any one of the bishops, presbyters, or deacons, or any one in the canon shall be found communicating with excommunicated persons, let him also be excommunicated, as one who brings confusion on the order of the Church.

Canon 3. If any presbyter or deacon or any one whatever belonging to the priesthood shall forsake his own parish and shall depart, and, having wholly changed his residence, shall set himself to remain for a long time in another parish, let him no longer officiate; especially if his own bishop shall summon and urge him to return to his own parish, and he shall disobey. And if he persist in his disorder, let him be wholly deposed from his ministry, so that no further room be left for his restoration. And if another bishop shall receive a man deposed for this cause, let him be punished by the common synod as one who nullifies the ecclesiastical laws.

Canon 4. If any bishop be deposed by a synod, or any presbyter or deacon, who has been deposed by his bishop, shall presume to execute any part of the ministry, whether it be a bishop according to his former function, or a presbyter, or a deacon, he shall no longer have any prospect of restoration in another synod, nor any opportunity of making his defence; but they who communicate with him shall be cast out of the Church, and particularly if they have presumed to communicate with the persons aforementioned, knowing the sentence pronounced against them.

Canon 6. If any one has been excommunicated by his own bishop, let him not be received by others until he has either been restored by his own bishop, or until, when a synod is held, he shall have appeared and made his defence, and, having convinced the synod, shall have received a different sentence. And let this decree apply to the laity, and to the presbyters and deacons, and all who are enrolled in the clergy list.

Canon 9. It behooves the bishops in each province to acknowledge the bishop who presides in the metropolis, and who has to take thought of the whole province; because all men of business come together from every quarter to the metropolis. Wherefore it is decreed that he have precedence in rank, and that the other bishops do nothing extraordinary without him, according to the ancient canon which prevailed from the time of our fathers, or such things only as pertain to their own particular parishes and the districts subject to them. For each bishop has authority over his own parish, both to manage it with piety, which is incumbent on every one, and to make provision for the whole district which is dependent upon his city; to ordain presbyters and deacons; and to settle everything with judgment. But let him not undertake anything further without the bishop of the metropolis; neither the latter without the consent of the others.

Canon 10. The holy synod decrees that those [bishops] living in village and country districts, or those who are called chorepiscopi, even though they have received ordination to the episcopate, shall regard their own limits and manage the churches subject to them, and be content with the care and administration of these; but they may ordain readers, subdeacons, and exorcists, and shall be content with promoting these; but they shall not presume to ordain either a presbyter or a deacon, without the consent of the bishop of the city to which he and his district are subject. And if he shall dare to transgress these decrees, he shall be deposed from the rank which he enjoys. And a chorepiscopus is to be appointed by the bishop of the city to which he is subject.

(c) Council of Sardica, A. D. 343 or 344, Canons, Bruns, I, 88. Cf. Mirbt, n. 113, and Kirch, nn. 448 ff.

The Council of Sardica was intended to be composed of representatives from the entire Empire who might be able to settle once and for all the Arian question. It met at Sardica on the boundary between the two divisions of the Empire as they were then defined. The Eastern ecclesiastics, strongly Arian, found themselves outnumbered by the Western bishops who supported Athanasius and the Nicene definition of faith. The Eastern representatives withdrew to Philippopolis near by, and held their own council. The following canons were intended to provide a system of appeal for cases like that of Athanasius, and although they do not seem to have been acted upon enough to have become a part of the Church’s system, yet they were of great importance inasmuch as subsequently they were used as late as the ninth century for a support to a wholly different system of appeals. These canons were very early attributed to the Council of Nicæa A. D. 325.

Canon 3. Bishop Hosius said: This, also, it is necessary to add—that bishops shall not pass from their own province to another province in which there are bishops, unless perchance they are invited by their brethren, that we seem not to close the door to charity. But if in any province a bishop have an action against his brother bishop, neither shall call in as judge a bishop from another province. But if judgment shall have gone against any bishop in a case, and he think that he has a good case, in order that the question may be heard, let us, if it be your pleasure, honor the memory of St. Peter the Apostle, and let those who have tried the case write to Julius, the bishop of Rome, and if he shall decide that the case should be retried, let it be retried, and let him appoint judges; but if he shall be satisfied that the case is such that what has been done should not be disturbed, what has been decreed shall be confirmed.

Is this the pleasure of all? The synod answered: It is our pleasure.

Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, it is necessary to add to this sentence, which full of sincere charity thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who happened to be in the vicinity, and he asserts that he has fresh matter in defence, a new bishop is not to be settled in his see, unless the bishop of Rome judge and render a decision as to this.

Latin Version of Canon 4. Bishop Gaudentius said: If it please you, there ought to be added to this sentence, which full of holiness thou hast pronounced, that if any bishop has been deposed by the judgment of those bishops who dwell in the vicinity, and he asserts that the business ought to be conducted by him in the city of Rome, another bishop should in nowise be ordained in his see after the appellation of him who appears to have been deposed, unless the cause shall have been determined by the judgment of the bishop of Rome.

Canon 5.(129) Bishop Hosius said: Let it be decreed that if a bishop shall have been accused and the assembled bishops of the same region shall have deposed him from his office, and he, so to speak, appeals and takes refuge with the bishop of the Roman Church and wishes to be heard by him, if he(130) think it right to renew the examination of his case, let him be pleased to write to those of fellow-bishops who are nearest the province that they may examine the particulars with care and accuracy and give their votes on the matter in accordance with the word of truth. And if any one demand that his case be heard yet again, and at his request it seems good to the bishop of Rome to send presbyters from his own side, let it be in the power of that bishop, according as he judges it to be good and decides it to be right, that some be sent to be judges with the bishops and invested with his authority by whom they were sent. And be this also ordained. But if he thinks that they [the bishops] are sufficient for the hearing and determining of the matter of the bishop, let him do what shall seem good in his most prudent judgment.

The bishops answered: What has been said is approved.

(d) Gratian and Valentinian, Rescript; A. D. 378. (MSG, 13:586.) Mirbt, nn. 118, f.

This rescript was sent in answer to a petition addressed to the emperors by a Roman council under Damasus. It is, therefore, found connected with an epistle in the works of Damasus. It does not seem to have been the foundation of any claim or to have played any considerable part in the development of the Roman primacy. It is of importance in the present connection as illustrating the part emperors took in the internal affairs of the Church. For Damasus and the disturbances in connection with his election, v. infra, § 74, a. The rescript may be found in Mansi, III, 624; Hardouin, I, 842; and in Gieseler, I, 380.

6. If any one shall have been condemned by the judgment of Damasus, which he shall have delivered with the council of five or seven bishops, or by the judgment or council of those who are Catholics, and if he shall unlawfully attempt to retain his church,(131) in order that such a one, who has been called to the priestly judgment, shall not escape by his contumacy, it is our will that such a one be remitted by the illustrious prefects of Gaul and Italy, either by the proconsul or the vicars, use having been made of due authority, to the episcopal judgment, and shall come to the city of Rome under an escort; or if such insolence of any one shall appear in parts very far distant, the entire pleading of his case shall be brought to the examination of the metropolitan of the province in which the bishop is, or if he himself is the metropolitan, then of necessity he shall hasten without delay to Rome, or to those whom the Roman bishop shall assign as judges, so that whoever shall have been deposed shall be removed from the confines of the city in which they were priests. For we punish those who deserve punishment less severely than they deserve, and we take vengeance upon their sacrilegious stubbornness more gently than it merits. And if the unfairness or partiality of any metropolitan, bishop, or priest is suspected, it is allowed to appeal to the Roman bishop or to a council gathered of fifteen neighboring bishops, but so that after the examination of the case shall have been concluded what was settled shall not be begun over again.

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 2; Feb. 27, A. D. 380. Cf. Kirch, n. 755.

The following edict was issued by Gratian, Valentinian and Theodosius, requiring the acceptance of the orthodox faith by all subjects. In other words, the emperors, following the example of Constantius and Valens in enforcing Arianism, are now enforcing the Nicene theology. Sozomenus, Hist. Ec., VII, 4, gives the circumstances under which this edict was issued.

It is our will that all the peoples whom the government of our clemency rules shall follow that religion which a pious belief from Peter to the present declares the holy Peter delivered to the Romans, and which it is evident the pontiff Damasus and Peter, bishop of Alexandria, a man of apostolic sanctity, follow; that is, that according to the apostolic discipline and evangelical doctrine we believe in the deity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost of equal majesty, in a holy trinity. Those who follow this law we command shall be comprised under the name of Catholic Christians; but others, indeed, we require, as insane and raving, to bear the infamy of heretical teaching; their gatherings shall not receive the name of churches; they are to be smitten first with the divine punishment and after that by the vengeance of our indignation, which has the divine approval.

(f) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 1, 3.

Gratian, Valentinian, and Theodosius to Auxonius, proconsul of Asia.

To enforce still further the principles of Nicene orthodoxy certain bishops were named as teachers of the true faith, communion with whom was a test of orthodoxy.

We command that all churches be forthwith delivered up to the bishops who confess the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost to be of one majesty and power; of the same glory and of one splendor, making no distinction by any profane division, but rather harmony by the assertion of the trinity of the persons and the unity of the Godhead, to the bishops who are associated in communion with Nectarius, bishop of the Church of Constantinople, and with Timotheus in Egypt, bishop of the city of Alexandria; in the parts of the Orient, who are in communion with Pelagius, bishop of Laodicæa and Diodorus, bishop of Tarsus; in proconsular Asia and in the diocese of Asia, who are in communion with Amphilochius, bishop of Iconium, and Optimus, bishop of Antioch; in the diocese of Pontus, who are in communion with Helladius, bishop of Cæsarea, and Otreius, bishop of Melitina, and Gregory, bishop of Nyssa, Terennius, bishop of Scythia, Marmarius, bishop of Marcianopolis. Those who are of the communion and fellowship of approved priests(132) ought to be admitted to possess the Catholic churches; but all who dissent from the communion of the faith of those whom the special list has named ought to be expelled from the churches as manifest heretics; and no opportunity whatsoever ought to be allowed them henceforth of obtaining episcopal churches(133) that the priestly orders of the true and Nicene faith may remain pure and no place be given to evil cunning, according to the evident form of our precept.

(g) Council of Constantinople, A. D. 381. Address to Theodosius. See Mansi, III, 557.

The following letter illustrates the relation of the councils in the East to the imperial authority. The emperors called the various general councils, directed their discussions and confirmed the results. In this way their findings were given the force of laws and authority throughout the Church. V. infra, §§ 90, 91.

To the most religious Emperor Theodosius, the holy synod of bishops assembled in Constantinople out of different provinces.

We begin our letter to your Piety with thanks to God, who has established the Empire of your Piety for the common peace of the churches and for the support of the true faith. And, after rendering due thanks unto God, as in duty bound, we lay before your Piety the things which have been done in the holy synod. When, then, we had assembled in Constantinople, according to the letter of your Piety, we first of all renewed our unity of heart each with the other, and then we pronounced some concise definitions, ratifying the faith of the Nicene Fathers, and anathematizing the heresies which have sprung up contrary thereto. Besides these things, we also framed certain canons for the better ordering of the churches, all which we have subjoined to this our letter. We therefore beseech your Piety that the decree of the synod may be ratified, to the end that as you have honored the Church by your letter of citation, so you should set your seal to the conclusion of what has been decreed. May the Lord establish your Empire in peace and righteousness, and prolong it from generation to generation; and may He add unto your earthly powers the fruition of the heavenly kingdom also. May God, by the prayers of the saints, show favor to the world, that you may be strong and eminent in all good things as an Emperor most truly pious and beloved of God.

(h) Synod of Antioch, A. D. 341, Canons, Bruns, I, 80.

The following canons passed at Antioch are the first touching a habit which they did little to correct. The so-called sixth canon of Constantinople, 381, in reality a canon of the council of the next year, took up the matter again. All through the great controversies appeals were constantly made to the emperors because, after all, they alone had the authority. Cf. Hefele, § 56.

Canon 11. If any bishop, or presbyter, or any one whatever of the canon shall presume to betake himself to the Emperor without the consent and letters of his bishop of the province and particularly of the bishop of the metropolis, such a one shall be publicly deposed and cast out, not only from the communion, but also from the rank which he happens to have had; inasmuch as he dares to trouble the ears of our Emperor, beloved of God, contrary to the law of the Church. But, if necessary business shall require any one to go to the Emperor, let him do it with the advice and consent of the metropolitan and other bishops in the province, and let him undertake his journey with the letters from them.

Canon 12. If any presbyter or deacon deposed by his own bishop, or any bishop deposed by a synod, shall dare trouble the ears of the Emperor, when it is his duty to submit his case to a greater synod of bishops, and to refer to more bishops the things which he thinks right, and to abide by the examination and decision made by them; if, despising these, he shall trouble the Emperor, he shall be entitled to no pardon, neither shall he have opportunity of defence, nor any hope of future restoration.

§ 73. Sole Authority of the State Church

When Theodosius had successfully forced upon the East the theology of Nicæa, his policy as to religious matters was manifest. No longer was heresy to be allowed. Laws were to control opinion in the same way that they did conduct. The old plea of the persecuted Christians under the heathen Roman Empire, religio non cogi potest, was completely forgotten. As Christianity was the one sole religion of divine character, based upon the unique divine act of the incarnation, it was folly to allow men to continue in heathenism—it might even be dangerous to the State to allow them, as it might bring down the just vengeance of God. With this policy the populace was completely in accord, especially when it led to the plunder and destruction of heathen sanctuaries, and many of the more zealous of the clergy were willing to lead in the assault. In these ways the State Church obtained a two-fold exclusive authority: as regards heathenism, and as regards heresy.

(a) Codex Theodosianus.

Laws regarding heathenism.

XVI, 10, 14; A. D. 399.

Whatever privileges were conceded by the ancient laws to the priests, ministers, prefects, hierophants of sacred things, or by whatsoever name they may be designated, are to be abolished henceforth, and let them not think that they are protected by a granted privilege when their religious confession is known to have been condemned by the law.

XVI, 10, 16; A. D. 399.

If there are temples in the fields, let them be destroyed without crowd or tumult. For when these have been thrown down and carried away, the support of superstition will be consumed.

XVI, 10, 15; A. D. 399.

This law appears again in the Cod. Just., I, 13, 3, for it appears to have been necessary even as late as the sixth century to prevent unauthorized destructions of temples which were in the cities and might be fairly regarded as ornaments to the city.

We prohibit sacrifices yet so that we wish that the ornaments of public works to be preserved. And that those who attempt to overthrow them may not flatter themselves that it is with some authority, if any rescript or, perchance, law is alleged, let these documents be taken from their hands and referred to our knowledge.

XVI, 10, 21; A. D. 416.

Those who are polluted by the error or crime of pagan rites are not to be admitted to the army nor to receive the distinction and honor of administrator or judge.

XVI, 10, 23; A. D. 423.

Although the pagans that remain ought to be subjected to capital punishment if at any time they are detected in the abominable sacrifices of demons, let exile and confiscation of goods be their punishment.

XVI, 10, 24; A. D. 423. (Retained in Cod. Just., I, 11, 16.)

The Manichæans and those who are called Pepyzitæ [Montanists] and also those who by this one opinion are worse than all heretics, in that they dissent from all as to the venerable day of the Easter festival, we subject to the same punishment, viz.: confiscation of goods and exile, if they persist in the same unreason. But this we especially demand of Christians, both those who are really such and those who are called such, that they presume not, by an abuse of religion, to lay hands upon the Jews and pagans who live peaceably and who attempt nothing riotous or contrary to the laws. For if they should do violence to them living securely and take away their goods, let them be compelled to restore not merely what they have taken away but threefold and fourfold. Let the rectors of provinces, officials, and provincials know that if they permit these things to be done, they themselves will be punished, as well as those who do them.

(b) Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 29. (MSG, 82:1256.)

The destruction of temples.

The following passage is illustrative of the temper of those who took part in the destruction of heathen sanctuaries. The imperial edicts for these acts were obtained in 399. Chrysostom, the leader in the movement, fairly represents the best thought and temper of the Church.

On receiving information that Phœnicia was still suffering from the madness of the demons’ rites, he [John Chrysostom] got together some monks fired with divine zeal and despatched them, armed with imperial edicts, against the idols’ shrines. He did not draw from the imperial treasury the money to pay the craftsmen and their assistants who were engaged in the work of destruction, but he persuaded certain faithful and wealthy women to make liberal contributions, pointing out to them how great would be the blessing their generosity would win. Thus the remaining shrines of the demons were utterly destroyed.

(c) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 15. (MSG, 67:768.)

The murder of Hypatia.

The fearful murder of Hypatia represents another aspect of the opposition to heathenism, in which the populace seconded the efforts of the authorities in a policy of extirpating paganism.

There was a woman in Alexandria named Hypatia. She was the daughter of the philosopher Theon, and she had attained such a proficiency in literature and science as to surpass by far all the philosophers of her own time. Having succeeded to the Platonic school, which had come down from Plotinus, she explained all the principles of philosophy to her auditors. Therefore many from all sides, wishing to study philosophy, came to her. On account of the self-possession and ease of manner which she had acquired by her study, she not infrequently appeared with modesty in the presence of magistrates. Neither did she feel abashed in entering an assembly of men. For all men, on account of her extraordinary dignity and virtue, admired her the more. Against her envious hostility arose at that time. For as she had frequent interviews with Orestes [governor of Alexandria] it was calumniously reported among the Christian populace that it was she who prevented Orestes from being reconciled to the bishop [Cyril]. Some men of this opinion and of a hot-headed disposition, whose leader was a reader named Peter, waylaid her returning home. Dragging her from her carriage they took her to the church called Cæsareum. There they completely stripped her and murdered her with tiles. When they had torn her in pieces, they took her mangled limbs to a place called Cinaron, and there they burnt them. This affair brought no little opprobrium, not only upon Cyril but also upon the whole Alexandrian Church. And surely murders, fights, and actions of that sort are altogether alien to those who hold the things of Christ. These things happened in the fourth year of the episcopate of Cyril .

(d) Socrates, Hist. Ec., VII, 11. (MSG, 67:757.)

Novatians and the Church at the beginning of the fifth century.

Socrates is the principal authority for the later history of the Novatians. It is probable that his interest in them and evident sympathy for them were due to some connection with the sect, perhaps in his early years, and he gives many incidents in their history, otherwise unknown.

After Innocent [401-417], Zosimus [417-418] governed the Roman Church for two years, and after him Boniface [418-422] presided over it for three years. Celestinus [422-432] succeeded him, and this Celestinus took away the churches from the Novatians at Rome and obliged Rusticula, their bishop, to hold his meetings secretly in private houses. Until this time the Novatians had flourished exceedingly in Rome, having many churches there and gathering large congregations. But envy attacked them there, also, as soon as the Roman episcopate, like that of Alexandria, extended itself beyond the limits of ecclesiastical jurisdiction, and degenerated into its present state of secular domination. And for this cause the bishops would not suffer even those who agreed with them in matters of faith to enjoy the privileges of assembling in peace, but stripping them of all they possessed, praised them merely for these agreements in faith. The bishops of Constantinople kept themselves free from this sort of conduct; in so much as in addition to tolerating them and permitting them to hold their assemblies within the city, as I have already stated,(134) they treated them with every mark of Christian regard.

(e) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 5, 40; A. D. 407.

Edict of Arcadius and Honorius against the Manichæans and other heretics. (Retained in Cod. Just., I, 5, 4.) Cf. Mirbt, n. 155.

What we have thought concerning the Donatists we have recently set forth. Especially do we pursue, with well-merited severity, the Manichæans, the Phrygians, and the Priscillianists,(135) since men of this sort have nothing in common with others, neither in custom nor laws. And first we declare that their crime is against the State, because what is committed against the divine religion is held an injury of all. And we will take vengeance upon them by the confiscation of their goods, which, however, we command shall fall to whomsoever is nearest of their kindred, in ascending or descending lines or cognates of collateral branches to the second degree, as the order is in succession to goods. Yet it shall be so that we suffer the right to receive the goods to belong to them, only if they themselves are not in the same way polluted in their conscience. And it is our will that they be deprived of every grant or succession from whatever title derived. In addition, we do not leave to any one convicted of this crime the right of giving, buying, selling, or finally of making a contract. The prosecution shall continue till death. For if in the case of the crime of treason it is lawful to attack the memory of the deceased, not without desert ought he to endure condemnation. Therefore let his last will and testament be invalid, whether he leave property by testament, codicil, epistle, or by any sort of will, if ever he has been convicted of being a Manichæan, Phrygian, or Priscillianist, and in this case the same order is to be followed as in the grades above stated; and we do not permit sons to succeed as heirs unless they forsake the paternal depravity; for we grant forgiveness of the offence to those repenting. We will that slaves be without harm if, rejecting their sacrilegious master, they pass over to the Catholic Church by a more faithful service. Property on which a congregation of men of this sort assemble, in case the owner, although not a participator in the crime, is aware of the meeting and does not forbid it, is to be annexed to our patrimony; if the owner is ignorant, let the agent or steward of the property, having been punished with scourging, be sent to labor in the mines, and the one who hires the property, if he be a person liable to such sort of punishment, be deported. Let the rectors of provinces, if by fraud or force they delay the punishment of these crimes when they have been reported, or if conviction have been obtained neglect punishment, know that they will be subject to the fine of twenty pounds of gold. As for defensors and heads of the various cities and the provincial officials, a penalty of ten pounds is to compel them to do their duty, unless performing those things which have been laid down by the judges in this matter, they give the most intelligent care and the most ready help.

(f) Leo the Great, Epistula 7. (MSL, 54:620.)

Manichæanism in Rome.

This epistle, addressed to the bishops throughout Italy, shows the way in which zealous bishops could, and were expected to, co-operate with the secular authorities in putting down heresy.

Leo the Great [440-461], the greatest of the popes before Gregory the Great, was equally great as an ecclesiastical statesman, as theologian, and universally acknowledged leader of the Roman people in the times of the invasions of Attila and Genseric. Without being the creator of the papal idea, he was able so to gather up the elements that had been developed by Siricius, Innocent, and others, as to give it a classical expression that almost warrants one in describing him as the first of the popes in the later sense of that term. His literary remains consist of sermons, of which ninety-six are genuine, in which, among other matters, he sets forth his conception of the Petrine prerogative (see below, § 87, b), and letters in which he deals with the largest questions of ecclesiastical politics, especially in the matter of the condemnation of Monophysitism at the Council of Chalcedon. See below, § 91.

Our search has discovered in the city a great many followers and teachers of the Manichæan impiety, our watchfulness has proclaimed them, and our authority and censure have checked them: those whom we could reform we have corrected and driven to condemn Manichæus with his preachings and teachings, by public confession in the Church, and by the subscription of their own hands; and thus we have lifted those who have acknowledged their fault from the pit of their impiety, by granting them opportunity for repentance. But some who had so deeply involved themselves that no remedy could assist them have been subjected to the laws, in accordance with the constitutions of our Christian princes, and lest they should pollute the holy flock by their contagion, have been banished into perpetual exile by the public judges. And all the profane and disgraceful things which are found, as well in their writings as in their secret traditions, we have disclosed and clearly proved to the eyes of Christian laity, that the people might know what to shrink from or avoid; so that he that was called their bishop was himself tried by us and betrayed the criminal views which he held in his mystic religion, as the record of our proceedings can show you. For this, too, we have sent you for instruction; and after reading them you will be able to understand all the discoveries we have made.

And because we know that some of those who are involved here in too close an accusation for them to clear themselves have fled, we have sent this letter to you, beloved, by our acolyte; that your holiness, dear brothers, may be informed of this, and see fit to act more diligently and cautiously, lest the men of Manichæan error be able to find opportunity of hurting your people and of teaching these impious doctrines. For we cannot otherwise rule those intrusted to us unless we pursue, with the zeal of faith in the Lord, those who are destroyers and destroyed; and with what severity we can bring to bear, cut them off from intercourse with sound minds, lest this pestilence spread much wider. Wherefore I exhort you, beloved, I beseech and warn you to use such watchful diligence as you ought and can employ in tracking them out lest they find opportunity of concealment anywhere.

(g) Leo the Great, Epistula 15. (MSL, 54:680.)

An account of the tenets of the Priscillianists. Leo is answering a letter sent him by Bishop Turribius of Asturia, in which that bishop had given him statements about the faith of these sectaries. It appears that these statements which Leo quotes and refutes in brief are not wholly correct and that the Priscillianists were far from being as heretical as they have been commonly represented. See articles in the recent encyclopædias, e.g., New Schaff-Herzog, and Encyclopædia Britannica, 11th ed. The change in opinion is due to the discovery of writings of Priscillian himself. Nevertheless, these statements, defective as they may be, represent the opinion of the times as to these heretics and the general attitude toward what was regarded as heretical and savoring of Manichæanism.(136)

1. And so under the first head is shown what impious views they hold about the divine Trinity; they affirm that the person of the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost is one and the same, as if the same God were named now Father, now Son, now Holy Ghost; and as if He who begat were not one, He who was begotten another, and He who proceedeth from both yet another; but an undivided unity must be understood, spoken of under three names, but not consisting of three persons.…

2. Under the second head is displayed their foolish and empty fancy about the issue of certain virtues from God which He began to possess, and which were posterior to God in His own essence.…

3. Again the language of the third head shows that these same impious persons assert that the Son of God is called “only begotten” for this reason that He alone was born of a virgin.…

4. The fourth head deals with the fact that the birthday of Christ, which the Catholic Church venerates as His taking on Him the true man, because “the Word became flesh and dwelt among us,” is not truly honored by these men, but they pretend that they honor it, for they fast on that day, as they do also on the Lord’s Day, which is the day of Christ’s resurrection. No doubt they do this because they do not believe that Christ the Lord was truly born in man’s nature, but maintain that by a sort of illusion there was an appearance of what was not a reality.

5. Their fifth head refers to their assertion that man’s soul is a part of the divine substance, and that the nature of our human state does not differ from its Creator’s nature.…

6. The sixth points out that they say that the devil never was good and that his nature is not God’s handiwork, but that he came forth of chaos and darkness.…

7. In the seventh place follows that they condemn marriage and are horrified at begetting children, in which, as in nearly all things, they agree with the profanity of the Manichæans.

8. Their eighth point is that the formation of men’s bodies is the device of the devil and that the seed of conception is shaped by the aid of demons in the womb.…

9. The ninth notice declares that they say that the sons of promise are born, indeed, of women, conceived by the Holy Spirit; lest the offspring that is born of carnal seed should seem to share in God’s estate.…

10. Under the tenth head they are reported as asserting that the souls which are placed in men’s bodies have previously been without a body and have sinned in their heavenly habitation and for this reason have fallen from their high estate to a lower one alighting upon ruling spirits of divers qualities, and after passing through a succession of powers of the air and stars, some fiercer, some milder, are enclosed in bodies of different sorts and conditions, so that whatever variety and inequality is meted out to us in this life, seems the result of previous causes.…

11. Their eleventh blasphemy is that in which they suppose that both the souls and bodies of men are under the influence of fatal stars.…

12. The twelfth of these points is this: that they map out the parts of the soul under certain powers and the limbs under others; and they suggest the characters of the inner powers that rule the soul by giving them the names of the patriarchs; and on the other hand, they attribute the signs of the stars to those under which they put the body.

§ 74. The Position of the State Church in the Social Order of the Empire

The elevation of the Church exposed the Church to worldliness whereby selfish men, or men carried away with partisan zeal, took advantages of its privileges or contended fiercely for important appointments. The clergy all too frequently ingratiated themselves with wealthy members of their flocks that they might receive from them valuable legacies, an abuse which had to be corrected by civil law; factional spirit occasionally led to bloodshed in episcopal elections. But on the other hand the Church was employed by the State in an important work which properly belonged to the secular administration, viz., the administration of justice in the episcopal courts of arbitration, for which see Cod. Just., I, tit. 3, de Episcopali Audientia; cf. E. Loening, Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts, vol. I; and in the supervision of civil officials in the expenditures of funds for public improvements. These are but instances of their large public activity according to law.

(a) Ammianus Marcellinus, Hist. Rom., XXVII, 3, §§ 12 ff. Cf. Kirch, nn. 607 ff.

Damasus and Ursinus.

The strife which attained shocking proportions in connection with the election of Damasus seems to have been connected with the schism at Rome occasioned by the attitude of Liberius in the Arian controversy. Damasus proved one of the ablest bishops that Rome ever had in the ancient Church. For aid in overcoming the partisans of Ursinus a Roman council appealed to the Emperor Gratian, whose answer is given in part above, § 72, e.

12. Damasus and Ursinus, being both immoderately eager to obtain the bishopric, formed parties and carried on the conflict with great asperity, the partisans of each carrying their violence to actual battle, in which men were wounded and killed. And as Juventius, prefect of the city, was unable to put an end to it, or even to soften these disorders, he was at last by their violence compelled to withdraw to the suburbs.

13. Ultimately Damasus got the best of the strife by the strenuous efforts of his partisans. It is certain that on one day one hundred and thirty-seven dead bodies were found in the Basilica of Sicinus, which is a Christian church. And the populace who had thus been roused to a state of ferocity were with great difficulty restored to order.

14. I do not deny, when I consider the ostentation that reigns at Rome, that those who desire such rank and power may be justified in laboring with all possible exertion and vehemence to obtain their wishes; since after they have succeeded, they will be secure for the future, being enriched by offerings of matrons, riding in carriages, dressing splendidly, and feasting luxuriously, so that their entertainments surpass even royal banquets.

15. And they might be really happy if, despising the vastness of the city which they excite against themselves by their vices, they were to live in imitation of some of the priests in the provinces, whom the most rigid abstinence in eating and drinking, and plainness of apparel, and eyes always cast on the ground, recommend to the everlasting Deity and His true worshippers as pure and sober-minded men.

(b) Codex Theodosianus, XVI, 2, 20; A. D. 370. Cf. Kirch, n. 759.

The following law is only one of several designed to correct what threatened to become an intolerable abuse.

Ecclesiastics and those who wish to be known by the name of the continent(137) are not to come into possession of the houses of widows and orphan girls, but are to be put aside by public courts if afterward the affines and near relatives of such think that they ought to be put away. Also we decree that the aforesaid may acquire nothing whatsoever from the liberality of that woman to whom privately, under the cloak of religion, they have attached themselves, or from her last will; and all shall be of no effect which has been left by one of these to them, they shall not be able to receive anything by way of donation or testament from a person in subjection. But if, by chance, after the warning of our law, these women shall think something is to be left to them by way of donation or in their last will, let it be seized by the fisc. But if they should receive anything by the will of those women in succession to whom or to whose goods they have the support of the jus civile or the benefit of the edict, let them take it as relatives.

(c) Codex Theodosianus, I, 27, 2; A. D. 408.

Edict of Arcadius, Honorius, and Theodosius II concerning the Audientia Episcopalis.

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

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

(d) Codex Theodosianus, II, 1, 10; A. D. 398.

Law of Arcadius and Honorius.

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

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

(e) Codex Justinianus, I, 4, 26.

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

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

§ 75. Social Significance of the State Church

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

(a) Leo the Great, Epistula 168, ch. 2. (MSL, 54:1210.) Cf. Denziger, n. 145.

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

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

(b) Codex Theodosianus, IV, 7, 1; A. D. 321. Cf. Kirch, n. 749.

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

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

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

(c) Canons bearing on Slavery:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(d) Apostolic Constitutions, IV, 6. (MSG, 1:812.)

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

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

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

(e) Apostolic Canons, Canon 81, Bruns, I, 12.

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

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

(f) Gregory the Great, Ep. ad Montanam et Thomam. (MSL, 77:803.)

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

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

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

(g) Codex Theodosianus, XV, 12, 1; A. D. 325. Cf. Kirch, n. 754.

Constitution of Constantine regarding gladiatorial shows.

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

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

(h) Theodoret, Hist. Ec., V, 26. (MSG, 82:1256.)

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

(i) Ambrose, Ep. 51. (MSL, 16:1210.) Cf. Kirch, nn. 754 ff.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(j) Codex Theodosianus, III, 16, 2; A. D. 421.

The later Roman law of divorce.

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

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

(k) Jerome, Epistula 78, ad Oceanum. (MSL, 22:691.)

Divorce and remarriage.

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

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

(l) Jerome, Adversus Jovinianum, I, 7. (MSL, 23:229.)

The inferiority of marriage to virginity.

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

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

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

(m) Chrysostom, Hom. 66 in Matth. (XX, 30). (MSG, 58:630.)

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

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

(n) Gregory of Nazianzus, Panegyric on Basil, ch. 63. (MSG, 36:577.)

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

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

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

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

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

(a) Ambrose, De Viduis, ch. 9. (MSL, 16:264.)

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

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

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

(b) Jerome, Contra Vigilantium, chs. 4 ff. (MSL, 23:357.)

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Council of Laodicæa, A. D. 343-381, Canons 35. f., Bruns, I, 77.

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

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

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

(d) Augustine, Epistula 29. (MSL, 33:117.)

Heathenism in the Church.

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

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

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

§ 77. The Extension of Monasticism Throughout the Empire

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

(a) Palladius, Historia Lausiaca, ch. 38. (MSG, 34:1099.)

The Rule of Pachomius.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

(b) Basil the Great, Regula fusius tractata, Questio 7. (MSG, 31:927.)

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

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

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

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

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

(c) Council of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, Canon 4. Bruns, I, 26.

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

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

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.

See also Canon 1 of the same council.

Canon 2. Bishop Aurelius said: “When in a previous council the matter of the maintenance of continence and chastity was discussed, these three orders were joined by a certain agreement of chastity through their ordination, bishops, I say, presbyters, and deacons; as it was agreed that it was seemly that they, as most holy pontiffs and priests of God, and as Levites who serve divine things, should be continent in all things whereby they may be able to obtain from God what they ask sincerely, so that what the Apostles taught and antiquity observed, we also keep.” By all the bishops it was said: “It is the pleasure of all that bishops, presbyters, and deacons, or those who handle the sacraments, should be guardians of modesty, and refrain themselves from their wives.” By all it was said: “It is our pleasure that in all things, and by all, modesty should be preserved, who serve the altar.”

(d) Leo the Great, Ep. 14, ad Anastasium; Ep. 167, ad Rusticum. (MSL, 54:672, 1204.)

The final form of the Western rule, that the clergy, from subdeacon to bishop, both inclusive, should be bound to celibacy, was expressed in its permanent form by Leo the Great in his letters to Anastasius and Rusticus. From each of these letters the passage bearing on the subject is quoted. By thus following up the ideas of the Council of Elvira and the Council of Carthage as well as the decretal of Siricius, the subdeacon was included among those who were vowed to celibacy, for he, too, served at the altar, and came to be counted as one of the major orders of the ministry.

Ep. 14, Ch. 5. Although they who are not within the ranks of the clergy are free to take pleasure in the companionship of wedlock and the procreation of children, yet, for the sake of exhibiting the purity of complete continence, even subdeacons are not allowed carnal marriage; that “both they that have wives be as though they had none” [I Cor. 7:29], and they that have not may remain single. But if in this order, which is the fourth from the head, this is worthy to be observed, how much more is it to be kept in the first, the second, and the third, lest any one be reckoned fit for either the deacon’s duties or the presbyter’s honorable position, or the bishop’s pre-eminence, who is discovered as not yet having bridled his uxorious desires.

Ep. 167, Quest. 3. Concerning those who minister at the altar and have wives, whether they may cohabit with them.

Reply. The same law of continence is for the ministers of the altar as for the bishops and priests who, when they were laymen, could lawfully marry and procreate children. But when they attained to the said ranks, what was before lawful became unlawful for them. And therefore in order that their wedlock may become spiritual instead of carnal, it is necessary that they do not put away their wives(159) but to have them “as though they had them not,” whereby both the affection of their married life may be retained and the marriage functions cease.

Period II. The Church From The Permanent Division Of The Empire Until The Collapse Of The Western Empire And The First Schism Between The East And The West, Or Until About A. D. 500

In the second period of the history of the Church under the Christian Empire, the Church, although existing in two divisions of the Empire and experiencing very different political fortunes, may still be regarded as forming a whole. The theological controversies distracting the Church, although different in the two halves of the Græco-Roman world, were felt to some extent in both divisions of the Empire and not merely in the one in which they were principally fought out; and in the condemnation of heresy, each half of the Church assisted the other. Though already marked lines of cleavage are clearly perceptible, and in the West the dominating personality of Augustine forwarded the development of the characteristic theology of the West, setting aside the Greek influences exerted through Hilary, Ambrose, Rufinus, and Jerome, and adding much that was never appreciated in the East—yet the opponent of Augustine was condemned at the general council of Ephesus, 431, held by Eastern bishops in the East; and at the same time in the East the controversies regarding the union of the divine and human natures in Christ, although of interest almost entirely in the East and fought out by men of the East, found their preliminary solution at Chalcedon in 451 upon a basis proposed by the West. On the other hand, the attitudes of the two halves of the Church toward many profound problems were radically different, and the emergence of the Roman See as the great centre of the West amid the overturn of the Roman world by the barbarians, and the steadily increasing ascendency of the State over the Church in the East tended inevitably to separate ecclesiastically as well as politically the two divisions of the Empire. As the emperors of the East attempted to use dogmatic parties in the support of a political policy, the differences between the Church of the East, under the Roman Emperor, and the Church of the West, where the imperial authority had ceased to be a reality, became manifest in a schism resulting from the Monophysite controversy and the attempt to reconcile the Monophysites.

Chapter I. The Church At The Beginning Of The Permanent Separation Of The Two Parts Of The Roman Empire

Although Theodosius the Great had been the dominating power in the government of the Empire almost from his accession in 379, he was sole ruler of the united Roman Empire for only a few months before his death in 395. The East and the West became henceforth permanently divided after having been united, since the reorganization of the Empire under Diocletian in 285, for only three periods aggregating twenty-eight years in all. The imperial authority was divided between the sons of Theodosius, Arcadius taking the sovereignty of the East and Honorius that of the West. Stilicho, a Vandal, directed the fortunes of the West until his death in 408, but the Empire of the East soon began to take a leading part, especially after the barbarians commenced to invade the West about 405, and to establish independent kingdoms within the boundaries of the Empire. The German tribes that settled within the Empire were either Arians when they entered or became such almost immediately after; this Arianism had been introduced among the West Goths from Constantinople during the dominance of that creed. The Franks alone of all the Germanic tribes were heathen when they settled within the Empire.

§ 79. The Empire of the Dynasty of Theodosius.

Emperors of the West:

Honorius; born 384, Emperor 395-423.

Valentinian III; born 419, Emperor 425-455; son of Galla Placidia, the daughter of Theodosius the Great, and the Empress of the West 419-450.

Emperors of the East:

Arcadius: born 377, Emperor 395-408.

Theodosius II: born 401, Emperor 408-450.

Marcianus: Emperor 450-457; husband of Pulcheria (born 399, died 453), daughter of Arcadius.

The greatest event in the first half of the fifth century, the period in which the degenerate descendants of Theodosius still retained the imperial title, was the Barbarian Invasion, a truly epoch-making event. In 405 the Vandals, Alans, and Suevi crossed the Rhine, followed later by the Burgundians. August 24, 410, Alarich, the king of the West Goths, captured Rome. In 419 the West Gothic kingdom was established with Toulouse as a capital. In 429 the Vandals began to establish themselves in North Africa, and about 450 the Saxons began to invade Britain, abandoned by the Romans about 409. Although the West was thus falling to pieces, the theory of the unity of the Empire was maintained and is expressed in the provision of the new Theodosian Code of 439 for the uniformity of law throughout the two parts of the Empire. This theory of unity was not lost for centuries and was influential even into the eighth century.

(a) Jerome, Ep. 123, ad Ageruchiam. (MSL, 22:1057.)

The Barbarian Invasions in the opening years of the fifth century.

Jerome’s letters are not to be considered a primary source for the barbarian invasion, but they are an admirable source for the way the invasion appeared to a man of culture and some patriotic feeling. With this passage should be compared his Ep. 60, ad Heliodorum, § 16, written in 396, in which he expresses his belief that Rome was falling and describes the barbarian invaders. The following letter was written 409.

§ 16. Innumerable savage tribes have overrun all parts of Gaul. The whole country between the Alps and the Pyrenees, between the Rhine and the ocean, have been laid waste by Quadi, Vandals, Sarmatians, Alans, Gepidi, Herules,(160) Saxons, Bergundians, Allemans and, alas for the common weal—even the hordes of the Pannonians. For Asshur is joined with them (Psalm 83:8). The once noble city of Mainz has been captured and destroyed. In its church many thousands have been massacred. The people of Worms have been extirpated after a long siege. The powerful city of Rheims, the Ambiani [a tribe near Amiens], the Altrabtæ [a tribe near Arras], the Belgians on the outskirts of the world, Tournay, Speyer, and Strassburg have fallen to Germany. The provinces of Aquitaine and of the Nine Nations, of Lyons and Narbonne, with the exception of a few cities, all have been laid waste. Those whom the sword spares without, famine ravages within. I cannot speak of Toulouse without tears; it has been kept hitherto from falling by the merits of its revered bishop, Exuperius. Even the Spains are about to perish and tremble daily as they recall the invasion of the Cymri; and what others have suffered once they suffer continually in fear.

§ 17. I am silent about other places, that I may not seem to despair of God’s mercy. From the Pontic Sea to the Julian Alps, what was once ours is ours no longer. When for thirty years the barrier of the Danube had been broken there was war in the central provinces of the Roman Empire. Long use dried our tears. For all, except a few old people, had been born either in captivity or during a blockade, and they did not long for a liberty which they had never known. Who will believe it? What histories will seriously discuss it, that Rome has to fight within her borders, not for glory but for bare life; and that she does not fight even, but buys the right to exist by giving gold and sacrificing all her substance? This humiliation has been brought upon her, not by the fault of her emperors, both of them most religious men [Arcadius and Honorius], but by the crime of a half-barbarian traitor,(161)

(b) Jerome, Prefaces to Commentary on Ezekiel. (MSL, 25, 15:75.)

The fall of Rome.

Jerome’s account of the capture of Rome by Alarich is greatly exaggerated (see his Ep. 127, ad Principiam). By his very exaggeration, however, one gains some impression of the shock the event must have occasioned in the Roman world.

Preface to Book I. Intelligence has suddenly been brought to me of the death of Pammachus and Marcella, the siege of Rome [A. D. 408], and the falling asleep of many of my brethren and sisters. I was so stupefied and dismayed that day and night I could think of nothing but the welfare of all.… But when the bright light of all the world was put out,(162) or, rather, when the Roman Empire was decapitated, and, to speak more correctly, the whole world perished in one city, “I became dumb and humbled myself, and kept silence from good words, but my grief broke out afresh, my heart was hot within me, and while I was musing the fire was kindled” [Psalm 39:3, 4].

Preface to Book III. Who would believe that Rome, built up by the conquest of the whole world, had collapsed; that she had become both the mother of nations and their tomb; that all the shores of the East, of Egypt, of Africa, which had once belonged to the imperial city should be filled with the hosts of her men-servants and maid-servants; that every day holy Bethlehem should be receiving as mendicants men and women who were once noble and abounding in every kind of wealth?

(c) Theodosius II, Novella I, de Theodosiani Codicis Auctoritate; Feb. 15, 439.

The Emperors Theodosius and Valentinian, Augusti, to Florentius, Prætorian Prefect of the East.

Our clemency has often been at a loss to understand the cause of the fact that, although so many rewards are held out for the maintenance of arts and studies, so few and rare are they who are fully endowed with a knowledge of the civil law, and that although so many have grown pale from late studies, scarcely one or two have gained a sound and complete learning. When we consider the enormous multitude of books, the diversity in the forms of process, and the difficulty of legal cases, and, further, the huge mass of imperial constitutions which, hidden as it were under a veil of gross mist and darkness, precludes man’s intellect from gaining a knowledge of them, we have performed a task needful for our age, and, the darkness having been dispelled, we have given light to the laws by a brief compendium. Noble men of approved faithfulness were selected, men of well-known learning, to whom the matter was intrusted. We have published the constitutions of former princes, cleared by interpretation of difficulties so that men may no longer have to wait formidable responses from expert lawyers as from a shrine, since it is quite plain what is the value of a donation, by what action an inheritance is to be sued for, with what words a contract is to be made.… Thus having wiped out the cloud of volumes, on which many wasted their lives and explained nothing in the end, we establish a compendious knowledge of the imperial constitutions since the time of the divine Constantine, and permit no one after the first day of next January to use in courts and daily practice of law the imperial law, or to draw up pleadings except from these books which bear our name and are kept in the sacred archives.…

To this we add that henceforward no constitution can be passed in the West or in any other place by the unconquerable Emperor, the son of our clemency, the everlasting Augustus Valentinian, or possess any legal validity, except the same by a divine pragmatica be communicated to us. The same rule is to be observed in the acts which are promulgated by us in the East; and those are to be condemned as spurious which are not recorded in the Theodosian Code [certain documents excepted which were kept in the registers of bureaux].

§ 80. The Extension of the Church about the Beginning of the Fifth Century

The most important missionary work in the early part of the fifth century was the extension of the work of Ulfilas among the German tribes and the work of the missionaries of the West in Gaul and western Germany. Of the latter the most important was Martin of Tours.

(a) Socrates, Hist. Ec., II, 41. (MSG, 67:349.)

Ulfilas.

Additional material for the life of Ulfilas may be found in the Ecclesiastical History of Philostorgius, fragments of which, as preserved, may be found appended to the Bohn translation of Sozomen’s Ecclesiastical History.

After giving a list of creeds put forth by various councils, from Nicæa down to the Arian creed of Constantinople, 360 (text may be found in Hahn, § 167), Socrates continues:

The last creed was that put forth at Constantinople [A. D. 360], with the appendix. For to this was added the prohibition respecting the mention of substance [ousia], or subsistence [hypostasis], in relation to God. To this creed Ulfilas, bishop of the Goths, then first gave his assent. For before that time he had adhered to the faith of Nicæa; for he was a disciple of Theophilus, bishop of the Goths, who was present at the Nicene Council, and subscribed what was there determined.

(b) Ulfilas, Confession of Faith. Hahn, § 198.

This confession of faith, which Ulfilas describes as his testament, is found at the conclusion of a letter of Auxentius, his pupil, an Arian bishop of Silistria, in Mœsia Inferior; see note of Hahn. It should be compared with that of Constantinople of 360.

I, Ulfilas, bishop and confessor, have always thus believed, and in this sole and true faith I make my testament before my Lord: I believe that there is one God the Father, alone unbegotten and invisible; and in His only begotten Son, our Lord and God, the fashioner and maker of all creation, not having any one like him—therefore there is one God of all, who, in our opinion, is God—and there is one Holy Spirit, the illuminating and sanctifying power—as Christ said to his apostles for correction, “Behold I send the promise of my Father to you, but remain ye in the city of Jerusalem until ye be indued with power from on high”; and again, “And ye shall receive power coming upon you from the Holy Spirit”—neither God nor Lord, but a minister of Christ in all things; not ruler, but a subject, and obedient in all things to the Son, and the Son himself subject and obedient in all things to his Father … through Christ … with the Holy Spirit.…(163)

(c) Socrates, Hist. Ec., IV, 23. (MSG, 67:551.)

The barbarians dwelling beyond the Danube, who are called Goths, having been engaged in a civil war among themselves, were divided into two parties; of one of these Fritigernus was the leader, of the other Athanaric. When Athanaric had obtained an evident advantage over his rival, Fritigernus had recourse to the Romans and implored their assistance against his adversary. When these things were reported to the Emperor Valens [364-378], he ordered the troops garrisoned in Thrace to assist those barbarians against the barbarians fighting against them. They won a complete victory over Athanaric beyond the Danube, totally routing the enemy. This was the reason why many of the barbarians became Christians: for Fritigernus, to show his gratitude to the Emperor for the kindness shown him, embraced the religion of the Emperor, and urged those under him to do the same. Therefore it is that even to this present time so many of the Goths are infected with the religion of Arianism, because the emperors at that time gave themselves to that faith. Ulfilas, the bishop of the Goths at that time, invented the Gothic letters and, translating the Holy Scriptures into their own language, undertook to instruct these barbarians in the divine oracles. But when Ulfilas taught the Christian religion not only to the subjects of Fritigernus but to the subjects of Athanaric also, Athanaric, regarding this as a violation of the privileges of the religion of his ancestors, subjected many of the Christians to severe punishments, so that many of the Arian Goths of that time became martyrs. Arius, indeed, failing to refute the opinion of Sabellius the Libyan, fell from the true faith and asserted that the Son of God was a new God; but the barbarians, embracing Christianity with greater simplicity, despised this present life for the faith of Christ.

(d) Sulpicius Severus, Vita S. Martini, 13. (MSL, 20:167.)

Sulpicius Severus was a pupil of Martin of Tours, and wrote the life of his master during the latter’s lifetime (died 397), but published it after his death. He wrote also other works on Martin. The astounding miracles they contain present curious problems for the student of ethics as well as of history. As St. Martin was one of the most popular saints of Gaul, and in this case the merits of the man and his reputation as a saint were in accord, the works of Sulpicius became the basis of many popular lives of the saint. The following passage illustrates the embellishment which soon became attached to all the lives of religious heroes. It is, however, one of the least astounding of the many miracles the author relates in apparent good faith. Whatever may be the judgment regarding the miracle, the story contains several characteristic touches met with in the history of missions in the following centuries: e.g., the destruction of heathen temples and objects of worship. This sacred tree also finds its duplicate in other attacks upon heathen sanctuaries.

Ch. 13. When in a certain village he had demolished a very ancient temple, and had set about cutting down a pine-tree, which stood close to the temple, the chief priest of that place and a crowd of other heathen began to oppose him. And though these people, under the influence of the Lord, had been quiet while the temple was being overthrown, they could not patiently allow the tree to be cut down. Martin carefully instructed them that there was nothing sacred in the trunk of a tree; let them rather follow God, whom he himself served. He added that it was necessary that that tree be cut down, because it had been dedicated to a demon [i.e., to a heathen deity]. Then one of them, who was bolder than the others, said: “If you have any trust in the God whom you say you worship, we ourselves will cut down this tree, you shall receive it when it falls; for if, as you declare, your Lord is with you, you will escape all injury.” Then Martin, courageously trusting in the Lord, promised that he would do this. Thereupon all that crowd of heathen agreed to the condition; for they held the loss of their tree a small matter, if only they got the enemy of their religion buried beneath its fall. Accordingly when that pine-tree was hanging over in one direction, so that there was no doubt as to what side it would fall on being cut, Martin, having been bound, was, in accordance with the decision of these pagans, placed in that spot where, as no one doubted, the tree was about to fall. They began, therefore, to cut down their own tree with great joy and mirth. At some distance there was a great multitude of wondering spectators. And now the pine-tree began to totter and to threaten its own ruin by falling. The monks at a distance grew pale and, terrified by the danger ever coming nearer, had lost all hope and confidence, expecting only the death of Martin. But he, trusting in the Lord, and waiting courageously, when now the falling pine had uttered its expiring crash, while it was now falling, while it was just rushing upon him, with raised hand put in its way the sign of salvation [i.e., the sign of the cross]. Then, indeed, after the manner of a spinning top (one might have thought it driven back) it fell on the opposite side, so that it almost crushed the rustics, who had been standing in a safe spot. Then truly a shout was raised to heaven; the heathen were amazed by the miracle; the monks wept for joy; and the name of Christ was extolled by all in common. The well-known result was that on that day salvation came to that region. For there was hardly one of that immense multitude of heathen who did not desire the imposition of hands, and, abandoning his impious errors, believe in the Lord Jesus. Certainly, before the times of Martin, very few, nay, almost none, in those regions had received the name of Christ; but through his virtues and example it has prevailed to such an extent that now there is no place there which is not filled with either very crowded churches or monasteries. For wherever he destroyed heathen temples, there he was accustomed to build, immediately, either churches or monasteries.