Baus, Karl. From the Apostolic Community to Constantine // History of the Church. Ed.H.Jedin, J.Dolan. Vol. I.

Content

CHAPTER 22 Manichaeism

A f^w decades after the great Gnostic movement of the second century had passed its peak, there was born the founder of a new religion, which came on the stage with a definite claim to be the most universal of all religions, and promised true redemption to all nations. It took its name from its founder, the Persian Mani or Manes, who is called in the Greek and Latin sources MaviyaLO? or Manichaeus. Until the beginning of the present century, our knowledge of Manichaeism was mainly dependent on information from non-Manichaean sources, since a large part of the abundant Manichaean literature was destroyed as a consequence of the struggle waged against it by civil authorities and ecclesiastical circles, both in the Latin West and in the Byzantine East, and later also in lands under Islamic rule. Since the beginning of the present century, however, a number of discoveries have brought to light authentic Manichaean sources which permit a much more exact and comprehensive idea of this religion to be formed. The first in order of time among these are the texts which were discovered about 1900 in the caves of Turfan in the Chinese province of Turkestan and which contain fragments from Mani's Book of Giants, liturgical documents, confession formularies, a type of catechism, and dogmatic texts. But far more important was the 1930 finding of a Manichaean library in Medinet Madi in Upper Egypt, which contained letters and sermons of Mani, the so-called Cephalaea-fragments of a textbook of Manichaeism and an important large volume of psalms. These texts had been translated from Syriac into Coptic about the year 400 and they give an insight into the religious world of a Manichaean group which had created a powerful centre of propaganda in Upper Egypt about one generation after Mani's death. On the basis of these newly-discovered sources, the life and teaching of the Persian religious founder can now be represented more or less as follows.

Mani was born on 14 April A.D. 216, probably in the Parthian capital Seleucia-Ctesiphon, and belonged to a family related on both his father's and his mother's side to the Persian princely house of the Arsacides. Mani's father belonged to a religious sect, perhaps the Mandaeans, in which strict abstinence from meat and wine was combined with purification ceremonies of many kinds. Mani was at first brought up in this sect, too, but repeated visions revealed to him very early that he was destined to be the missionary and herald of a new universal religion, the content of which was made known to him through further revelations. Mani quickly undertook a

innCA liN 1 nr. iniAU UtniUM

missionary journey to India, where, he preached with particular success in the province of Baluchistan. After his return home to Persia, he won the favour of his king, Shapur I (241-73), who permitted him freely to preach his religious message throughout the Sassanid kingdom. Mani now developed a comprehensive missionary activity, was himself engaged as a missionary in the West, as far as Nisibis, and sent out on a systematic plan other messengers of his faith, who, even during his lifetime, gained entry for his teaching into Egypt and the eastern provinces of Iran. Under King Bahram I, however, a radical change occurred affecting Mani's favour at court. It is probable that the priests of theZoroastrian religion accused him of subversive plans and heresy; and, after a short imprisonment, Mani died in captivity in 277. His followers described his manner of death as crucifixion, but by the term was meant only his martyr's death for his beliefs. Upon Mani's death there ensued a powerful wave of persecution against his adherents, some of whom fled to the West, while others emigrated to India and China, where they secured great influence which persisted as late as the fourteenth century.

Mani set down the content of his missionary teaching in a series of writings which soon attained canonical force. The most important of these are: The Great Gospel from Alpha to Tau, which was provided with an album of pictures; the Treasure of Life, from which Augustine frequently quoted; the Book of the Mysteries, in twenty-four chapters; and finally his letters discovered in Upper Egypt. According to these works, a radical dualism in the doctrine concerning God characterizes Manichaeism: there are two highest beings or principles of equal rank, the one of light and the other of darkness. Both are unbegotten and eternal; both possess equal power but stand in irreconcilable opposition to one another, each in a realm of his own: the region of light or the good, which lies in the North, and the region of evil, which lies in the South. Each realm has a king: the realm of light is ruled by the Father of greatness; the realm of evil by the Prince of darkness who commands numerous demons. Between the two primary principles and their realms a conflict breaks out: the realm of matter seeks to swallow up the light; and, to defend the latter, the Father of greatness creates the first man, who with his five sons goes out to battle, but is conquered by evil. The first man becomes aware of his fate, and begs the Father of greatness for help. The latter emits from himself, after a series of intermediary emanations, the Living Spirit, who frees the first human being from evil matter and so redeems him.5

MAINH-HAfclSM

This mythical occurrence is a symbol and image of the way of redemption for man, who is a mixture of light and darkness. As soon as a man becomes aware of this fact, that is to say knows himself, his redemption begins. And thereafter the Father of light helps him to free himself more and more from the darkness in him. For this purpose he sends the heralds of true religion to earth, who give men correct knowledge about themselves. These messengers are Buddha, Zoroaster, Jesus, and Mani. They are representatives of the Manichaean redeemer, the emissary of light, and each of them brings to a part of mankind the true religion or gnosis, whose spread, however, is impeded from the opposite side. Before Mani, the heralds of religion had been assigned only certain parts of the world to which they were to bring true gnosis: Buddha worked in India, Zoroaster restricted himself to Persia, and Jesus to Judaea, or at least to the West. Neither did these three establish their message in writing; and consequently the religions they founded, especially the Christian religion, quickly fell to pieces or were falsified. Against such a background, Mani's mission stands out more sharply in its uniqueness: he is the last envoy of light, the apostle of the ultimate generation, the "seal of the prophet";6 his message is the last summons to salvation; the world can now only be converted or for ever perish. Mani preached the highest, the perfect, gnosis; to reject it, is definitively to refuse salvation. The movement founded by Mani is, therefore, also the most universal religion ever known, comprising all earlier religions in itself, and at the same time leading beyond them. It will conquer the East and the West, and will be heard preached in all languages.7

From this Manichaean doctrinal system Manichaean ethics necessarily follow, the fundamental characteristic being the demand for abstinence from everything which links men to matter. In man light and darkness mingle; anyone who forgets this condition, or who does not repent, adheres more to matter, persists in a-p/wcia, determined not to recognize his situation, and so rejects gnosis and thereby salvation. Consequently, the perfect Manichee renounces this world, seeks to possess nothing in it and subdues all his appetites; he binds himself by the triple seal of the mouth, the hands, and the womb; that is to say, he refrains from impure words and pleasures, and rejects menial work, for by these things the world of light, fragments of which are present in all visible, tangible things, is violated; he exercises absolute sexual continence and rejects marriage. In practice these lofty demands of Manichean ethics could not be fulfilled, a condition which led to the division of Manichaean believers into the elect, or electi, and the hearers, or andientes;8 and there were special commandments for each

0 Ibid. No lb.

7 Adam, op. cit. Nos. 3 and 17.
8
9 Ibid. No. 16.
10
according to their capacities. The hearers or catechumens served the elect, gave them food and clothing, and so hoped to be born sometime in the body of an elect and then to attain salvation.

In addition to being divided into such categories as these, the followers of the Manichaean religion were united in a well-organized church," and this factor ensured them considerable impact in their missionary work. At the summit of the Manichaean church was a supreme head, the head of the apostles or the king of the religion, who had his residence in Babylon. The first head was naturally Mani himself, from whom every successor derived his authority. Subject to this supreme head was a hierarchy with numerous members comprising, in a series of grades, twelve apostles, seventy-two bishops or teachers of truth, and three hundred and sixty priests to whom all other members of the elect, both men and women, were attached as deacons. The great mass of hearers represented the last and lowest grade. The elect, particularly in China, were assembled in monastic communities, which were supported by the alms of the hearers. The ascetic exercises of Manichaeism included an elaborate practice of fasting. By fasting they prepared for a sort of confession,10 in which they acknowledged transgressions of the commandments of abstinence. In their temples the Manichaean faithful gathered for a pure divine service of the word, which consisted of readings from Manichaean writings and the singing of their own hymns,11 often possessed of high qualities of form. Other rites were rejected, since in them the body, which is bound to matter, is active, and only true gnosis brings salvation.

Of special importance is the marked dependence of Manichaean doctrine on Christian ideas. The high rank that is attributed to the person of Jesus is particularly striking. It is true that Mani lists the heralds of true gnosis, whc had preceded Mani himself, as Buddha, Zoroaster, and Jesus and likewise his brethren; but the chief role is ascribed to Jesus. At the beginning of his letters, Mani emphatically calls himself "apostle of Jesus Christ".12 This Jesus, as a heavenly "aeon", had appeared on earth with the semblance of a body, in order to teach mankind its real origin and true way of redemption. According to Arius, the Manichees called Christ "a part of the Father having the same nature as he";18 and this use of the homoousios idea made the Arians their determined opponents. Thus, Jesus has become the guide of souls, whom the Manichees praised in many of their hymns. These sound in places so like purely Christian prayers, that the ear of a simple Christian could scarcely detect the Manichaean undertone when,

* See Widengren, op. cit. 97-100. " Adam, op. cit. No. 48.

11 For examples of such hymns, ibid. Nos. 24-30.
12
13 Adam, op. cit. Nos. 10 and 12.
14
15 Letter of Arius to Bishop Alexander in Epiphanius, Panar. 69, 7-8.

for instance, he heard: "Come to me, living Christ! Come to me, O light of the day! O merciful one, O comforter, I cry to you so that you may turn to me in the hour of tribulation. Your sweet yoke I have taken upon me in purity. Honour and victory be to our Lord, the comforter and to his holy elect and to the soul of the blessed Mary." Finally, this Jesus has sent the Paraclete promised by him, in order to free his teaching from falsification. The Paraclete came down upon Mani, and revealed hidden mysteries to him; and Mani became one with him, so that Mani could now come forward and teach as the promised Paraclete: from Mani and through him there speaks the Spirit sent by Jesus. Neither does Mani pass over and ignore the Holy Scripture of Christianity. It is true that he adopts a critical attitude to the Old Testament, because, in striking similarity to Marcion, he did not recognize the God of the Old Testament as the God of light; nevertheless, angels of light laid down some isolated truths even in the Bible of the Jews. But more important for Mani are the Gospels and Paul's letters: these also he considers as interspersed with Jewish errors, but they contain a rich store from Jesus' message regarding the profound structure of the world, the meaning of human destiny, the battle between light and darkness, and the liberation of the soul from the fetters of matter. Mani recognized these truths in the New Testament writings, singled them out and absorbed them into his preaching. Mani- chaeism showed particular interest also in New Testament apocrypha, such as the Gospel of Thomas and the legend of Abgar, and made use likewise of a version of the Shepherd of Hermas. This considerable adaptation of Christian elements in Manichean preaching was intended by Mani to facilitate contact with Christians in the West, and to win them over to his movement, just as he made similar use of the ideas of Zoroastrianism or Buddhism for his missionary work in the East. By taking over these various elements, Manichaean doctrine was intended to show that it was the fulfilment of all the religious aspirations of mankind.

The syncretic character of the new religion certainly ensured those initial successes which were everywhere apparent. The doctrines which Mani's zealous missionaries had to proclaim did not sound alien and did not come from a distant and unknown world. The fundamental ideal of a safe way to liberation from the evil in the world and of redemption through true gnosis was familiar to men of the third and fourth centuries. The Manichaean religion quickly spread in Mesopotamia, pressed on from there to Syria and Arabia, and soon found a particularly firm base in Egypt which was developed into a propaganda centre for the Mediterranean countries.

It clearly had marked success in Rome and North Africa, for the extremely severe edict which the emperor Diocletian issued in 297 to the proconsul of Africa, against this "pernicious innovation",17 was based on the official complaints of the Roman authorities of that area. Death at the stake was ordered for leaders of the movement; their followers were to be beheaded, and Roman citizens of rank among them were to be punished by forced labour in the mines. Such measures, however, could not prevent the spread of Manichaeism. It can be shown to have existed in Rome under Pope Miltiades (311-14); from there it probably found its way to Gaul and Spain, also appearing in the Balkans.

The emperor Constantine was likewise disturbed by the doctrines of the movement, and had special reports drawn up on the subject.18 Synods of the fourth century had to deal with Manichaeism repeatedly. A law of the emperor Valentinian I in the year 372 ordered the confiscation of houses in which the Manichees held their assemblies.19 Theodosius II intensified the sanctions against them, and Justinian I reintroduced the death penalty for the profession of Manichaeism.20 In North Africa Manichaeism exercised a peculiar fascination, to which the young Augustine succumbed for ten years, as did both with him and after him many members of the African upper classes. Augustine's fight against his earlier coreligionists introduces us to a number of Manichaean bishops, and reveals their extensive ecclesiastical organization which is confirmed by archaeological finds in North Africa. After the Vandal invasion, persecution affected them just as harshly as it did the Catholics; the formulas of abjuration for former Manichees on reception into the Church testify to their continued existence in the West extending into the sixth century. The Byzantine church in the East had to fight against them much longer, and the neo-Manichaean movements of the Middle Ages, especially in the Balkans, once again strikingly manifest the vitality of Mani's foundation.

Since Mani did not allow his followers to belong to another religion, the position of the Church in relation to Manichaeism was different from her defensive struggle against the Gnosticism of the second century. The penetration by individual Manichees into Christian communities, and the destruction of these from within, was less to be feared than direct apostasy or the conversion to the Manichaean religion, for which its missionaries openly strove. Its claim to sole possession of true and unfalsified Christianity, forced the Church authorities to take up a definite attitude and to put the faithful on their guard. Moreover, the Church could not but experience the Manichaean movement as a dangerous rival in her own missionary endeavour among the pagan population; thus a Christian defence was initiated relatively early. In a letter to his community41 about the year 300 a bishop of Alexandria, perhaps Theonas, issued a warning against Manichaean doctrines of marriage and against their elect. Like Cyril of Jerusalem, Afrahat and Ephraem in the East, and like Leo the Great later in the West, other unnamed bishops must have combated the movement by their preaching. The Church enjoined particular vigilance when a Manichee wished to become a Catholic; and an attempt was made to ensure the genuineness of such a conversion by precisely-worded formulas of abjuration. Just as Augustine himself signed such a formulary, so also it was imposed on others. He himself decreed that trust should be placed in the Manichee Victorinus only when he had given the names of all the Manichees known to him; and Cyril of Jerusalem showed similar circumspection. Very detailed formulas of abjuration, which had often to be signed even on the mere suspicion of Manichaeism, were in use both in the Latin West and in the Greek East.

Hand in hand with these pastoral efforts to immunize the faithful against this heresy, there developed the theological defence carried on by writers. This was waged not only as occasion arose in theological studies, but also in special monographs, of which some have been lost. The success which the Manichaean mission very early enjoyed in Egypt especially roused Egyptian authors to counter-measures. Even if Alexander of Lycopolis and his anti-Manichaean polemical treatise cannot be considered as Christian, the work of Bishop Serapion of Thmuis represents an achievement against the Manichees which won special approval from Jerome, and deserved it. In many of his writings, Didymus of Alexandria attacked this work, and wrote in addition a short treatise Ka-ra Mavixauov. The four books of the Arabian bishop, Titus of Bostra, against the Manichees have been preserved, as have the Acta Archelae of a certain Hegemonios who came presumably from Syria. Written in the form of a debate, these severely attacked Mani, the founder of the religion, and are a rich source for the early history of Manichaeism. The anti-Manichaean works of Eusebius of Emesa, George of Laodicea, and Diodorus of Tarsus do not survive. In the Latin West, anti-Manichaean writers were less numerous; but, on the other hand, the West produced in Augustine the theologian who overcame the threat to the Church through years of reflection and argument, and in so doing made profitable use of Manichaean modes of thought, transposing suggestions derived from them into Christian terms. From the evidence of his dialogue with Manichaeism, it is quite clear that the followers of the latter in Africa did not constitute a mass movement but were mainly recruited from intellectual circles. The Church's defensive struggle derived much benefit from the persecution of Manichaeism by the State. With Diocletian this persecution was still partly motivated by anti- Persian feeling; but, when the empire had itself become Christian, it represented a defence against heresy by means of the civil authority. So the Manichaean religion won its greatest successes in the Asiatic East; while, in the Mediterranean area proper, from the fourth century onwards, despite its obstinate persistence in individual cases, it never again became a danger to the Church as a whole in the way earlier Gnosticism had been.

CHAPTER 23 Further Development of the Liturgy

THE growth of theological literature within the Church of the third century was accompanied by an equally important development in the liturgical domain. Here, too, new creative impulses are perceptible, from which the forms of divine worship grew, and which answered the needs of the communities of the great Church as they increased in strength.

Easter and the Easter Controversy

In the first place the feast of Easter was given an elaboration which made it in the minds of the faithful the central and pre-eminent celebration and memorial of Christian redemption. Two factors are especially responsible for this development: first of all the unfolding of the previous Easter festival itself, by increasing the duration of preparation and celebration; and, secondly, the bringing of the administration of the sacrament of Christian initiation into the Easter liturgy. The beginnings of this double movement extend back probably into the second century, since they are already apparent in an advanced stage early in the third. The sources which show this development most clearly, such as the Syrian Didascalia, some writings of Tertullian and the Apostolic Tradition of Hippolytus, belong in all instances to the third century. The homilies on the Psalms by Asterius the Sophist were in fact written in the early fourth century, but often reflect a state of liturgical development which can be ascribed to> the late third century.

Despite differences of emphasis in detail, considerable similarity of view concerning the root idea of the celebration of the Easter festival can be assumed in both the East and West. It commemorated the fundamental truths and facts of Christian redemption, which were conferred upon mankind by the death and triumphant resurrection of the Lord. In second- century Asia Minor and a few neighbouring regions, a Christian Passover was kept which naturally placed the thought of the Lord's passion in the foreground, but also included the idea that this passion leads to the resurrection. In accordance with Jewish custom, 14 Nisan was kept as the date for this Passover, by the Quartodecimans of Asia Minor and perhaps generally at first; it was prepared for by a strict fast and included a homily on Exodus 12 (as did the Jewish Passover). It was not exclusively a day of mourning nevertheless, and had a joyous conclusion with the agape and celebration of the Eucharist early on 15 Nisan. The Sunday Passover, the celebration of Easter on the Sunday following 14 Nisan, such as was known for instance in Syria, Egypt, Pontus, and the Latin West, likewise in no way excluded the thought of the Lord's passion from the fundamental idea of the feast. This thought was in fact incorporated into it by explicit commemoration, linked in this case also with a strict fast, because the recollection of the passion was the necessary condition for significant celebration of the triumphal resurrection of the Lord. The Easter vigil brought this Easter fast to an end, and constituted the bridge to Easter joy in the redemption perfected by the resurrection.
The so-called Easter controversy at the end of the second century is therefore misconstrued, if its basis is thought to have been a dispute over Easter festivals with fundamentally different content between the Quartodecimans and the supporters of the Sunday pasch. It was rather a dispute about the date of the same Easter festival, and about the nature and duration of the same Easter fast. It led initially to no agreement, for both groups thought they could appeal to apostolic tradition in support of their own view. It is no longer possible to determine when and by whom this Sunday Passover was introduced in Rome, but it must have become established there early in the second century, for Irenaeus plainly assumes the festival to have existed in the time of the Roman Bishop Xystus. And the practice referred to by him is unlikely to have been a special creation in Rome itself, for such a supposition finds no support in the sources. Furthermore, the common elements shared by the Sunday celebration of the «Easter festivities and the Passover feast of the Quartodecimans are very clear: the introductory strict fast; the reading of Exodus 12 with a homily appended; and, incorporated into a vigil celebration, a concluding eucharistic supper. These are best understood if we take the Sunday Easter celebration as a further development of the original Quartodeciman custom, but one which made the Sunday after 14 Nisan the culmination of the festival. This was done in order to emphasize more strongly the contrast with Judaism, and at the same time to bring more vividly into consciousness faith in the resurrection of the Lord as the crown of his work of redemption.

The remaining differences in the manner of keeping the feast, whether according to the Sunday Easter rite or the Quartodeciman practice, were certainly felt and also disputed, as Irenaeus reports with reference to Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna and Anicetus of Rome; but they did not at first burden the relations of the communities to one another in such a way as to endanger peace within the Church. That the differences in practice easily caused controversy is proved by the debate between Melito of Sardes and Bishop Claudius Apollinaris of Hierapolis about the year 170 in Asia Minor: a debate in which Clement of Alexandria also intervened. The latter based his argument on the Johannine chronology so as to criticize, in a work of his own, the custom of the Quartodecimans, and emphasized that Jesus, the true Paschal lamb, died and was buried on one day, the day of preparation of the Passover. In his reply, Melito justified the Quartodeciman practice by the dating of the Synoptics, according to which Jesus had celebrated the Passover before his death; and he asserted that this was what should still be maintained.6

A few years before the turn of the century, the dispute over the date of the Easter celebration assumed graver forms. The immediate occasion is most probably found in Rome, where the priest Blastus sought to introduce the Quartodeciman custom, and managed to secure support among the Christian immigrants from Asia Minor.7 About 195 the Roman Bishop Victor wished to establish a uniform regulation for the Church as a whole, and caused synods to be held everywhere for this purpose. Later Eusebius still possessed the results of the deliberations of some of these synods, which took place in Palestine, Pontus, and Osrhoene; and he also knew the corresponding resolutions of a Roman synod, as well as the decisions of the churches of Gaul and of some individual bishops. The majority expressed itself in favour of the Sunday practice; but determined contradiction came from the stronghold of the Quartodecimans, the province of Asia, for whose communities Bishop Polycrates of Ephesus made himself the spokesman. In accordance with a Roman request, he had likewise summoned the bishops of the province to a synod. This assembly came to the conclusion that the traditional practice was to be retained, as in Asia it was founded upon apostolic tradition. The decision of the majority of all the synods moved Pope Victor to more severe action against the churches of Asia Minor, which he "attempted", as Eusebius emphasizes, to exclude from the ecclesiastical community. But his action did not meet with general approval; and Irenaeus of Lyons resolutely advocated a course of tolerant treatment towards the followers of the divergent practice, which was evidently adopted. The bishops of Palestine, too, strove for a uniform manner of celebrating Easter in accordance with the majority decision. The Quartodeciman minority remained faithful to their previous practice throughout the whole of the third century, and the Novatians in Asia Minor followed them in this. The first canon of the Synod of Aries in 314 imposed the Sunday Easter, and the Council of Nicaea expelled the Quartodecimans from the ecclesiastical
INNER CONSOLIDATION IN THE THIRD CENTURY

community.13 Thereafter, their numbers continually declined, though even into the fifth century the great Church had to deal with them on occasion.14 According to the most important sources for the third century, the pattern of the Easter celebration itself was also largely uniform in East and West. It was introduced by a strictly obligatory fast, which was viewed as an integral part of the Easter festival. The length of the fast was different from place to place, and could last for one, two, or even more days, as Irenaeus already attests. It was kept most strictly in the East, where from the Monday of the appropriate week onwards, only bread, salt and water were taken, and on Friday and Saturday all food was dispensed with. Fasting on these last two days was also demanded by the Traditio apostolica, but could be restricted to the Saturday in special cases. Tertullian emphasizes that this fast gave special character to the days on which the Church was deprived of the Bridegroom.18 Consequently, it was felt to be inseparably linked with the festival which had the whole occurrence of redemption as its content, the passage of the Lord and his community from death to life and from sorrow to joy.

The heart of the Easter celebration was the nocturnal vigil, for which all the Christians of a community assembled, so that it was not a family rite like the Jewish Passover, but essentially a social rite for all members of a congregation. Participation in it was a strict duty, so that Tertullian was afraid that the pagan husband of a Christian wife might have hesitation in allowing her to go to such a nocturnal festival. The community assembled first of all for a service of prayer and readings, which occupied the first hours of the night; psalms, readings from the prophets and the Gospel are specially mentioned. According to the Didascalia, the vigil belonged essentially to Easter day and consequently had a joyful conclusion;21 and this aspect came increasingly to the fore with the further elaboration of the vigil celebration, such as must have occurred at the beginning of the third century. The solemn baptism must particularly be mentioned here, since about this time it was incorporated as a new element into the framework of the Easter liturgy. Tertullian had already regarded Easter, on account of its festive character, as being a particularly suitable date for baptism, without actually indicating the vigil in particular. But if Easter were really, as he says, the "dies baptismo solemnior", the liturgical location of the administration of baptism on this day could scarcely be sought outside the vigil celebration. Although Hippolytus's Church Order does not formally name Easter day as a date for baptism, its statements concerning the immediate preparations for baptism make sense only if they refer to the last days of what was later to become Holy Week. The observation that people "must keep watch all night and have readings and instructions given to them (that is, to those to be baptized)" clearly points to the baptismal rite as part of the Easter vigil. Asterius in the early fourth century speaks so much as a matter of course of the baptismal liturgy as an integral part of the festival of Easter night that the introduction of this liturgical custom must be ascribed to the third century according to him also. In one of his homilies there is a hymn of praise to Easter night, which may rightly be described as a prefiguration of corresponding parts of the later Latin Exsultet. It gives authentic expression to the high place which the liturgy of the Easter vigil already occupied in the religious devotion of the early Christian Church: "O night, brighter than day! O night, more radiant than the sun! O night, whiter than snow! O night, more dazzling than lightning! O night, more shining than torches! O night, more precious than Paradise! O night, freed from darkness! O night, filled with light! O night, which banishes sleep! O night, which teaches us to watch with the angels! O night, terror of the demons! O night, longing of the year! O night, which brings the Bridegroom to the Church! O night, mother of the newly baptized!" The crown and conclusion of the vigil was formed by the eucharistie celebration of Easter Sunday, which in all probability was very early distinguished in the East by the Trishagion.
The third century also produced the first outline of a paschal season which then became the nucleus and the first ritual cycle, of the developing ecclesiastical year. For fifty days after Easter the faithful commemorated with joyful hearts the resurrection of theLord and their own salvation which this bestowed; the joyful character of this pentecost was emphasized by refraining from fasting and from kneeling at prayer.27 The development of a definite octave of Easter is perhaps to be assigned to the end of the third century or the beginning of the fourth, since Asterius takes it for granted as a well-established custom. Several of his extant homilies were pronounced on various days of Easter week to the newly-baptized, and consequently represent the earliest known example of mystagogic catechetics. He also accepts the Sunday after Easter as the conclusion of the octave.28

The final day of Pentecost at first had no festive character. A single reference indicates that in Spain, about the year 300, no uniform practice was followed regarding the final date of Eastertide: one group of Christians kept the fortieth day after Easter, while others kept the fiftieth. The Synod of Elvira disapproved of the former of these customs, and expressly declared that the fiftieth day after Easter was to be celebrated as the feast which ended the Easter cycle.29 Since the feast of the Epiphany cannot be shown with certainty to have existed in the universal Church before the fourth century, its possible pre-Constantinian roots in Egypt must be discussed later.

The basis for the development of a third-century Christian calendar of feasts can be observed in the commemoration of the martyrs, which was already customary in the Church at that time. This practice sprang from the general honour paid to the dead which was also shown by the Christians to their own departed. On their private initiative, Christians often had the eucharistic oblation made for their dead at the grave-site on the anniversary of death, and customarily remembered them in their prayers. Tertullian repeatedly attests this custom at the beginning of the third century.30 That such commemoration was emphatically held in honour of the Christian martyrs can easily be understood from the deep veneration which was very early shown them by the faithful. In the East a commemoration for the martyrs, as can be seen from the account of the martyrdom of St Polycarp of Smyrna, which in its concluding report speaks of the celebration on his "birthday", that is, the anniversary of his death.31 In the West, such a development is perceptible from the sources only much later. The commemoration of a martyr, officially celebrated by the Church, is found in Rome in the first half of the third century: the Depositio martyrum, the

• W»*«*»«. i-»*^ » A.1.V» JUH-« X ur 1 nc i.11 UJVlj 1

Roman calendar, names the Roman Bishop Callistus (t 222) as the earliest example of a martyr honoured in this way, perhaps because it was only then that the Roman community acquired its own cemeteries, and so obtained by this legal right the possibility of organizing a commemorative ceremony.

For North Africa, Cyprian testifies to a cult of the martyrs, regulated by the Church, in which the confessores were also included. He ordered that the days of their deaths also should be carefully noted, so that the eucharistic sacrifice might be offered on those days, too, as well as on those of the martyrs. The giving of special prominence to the grave of a martyr by the architectural elaboration of his tomb probably occurred in places even in the third century, but only the Memoria apostolorum on the Appian Way outside Rome can be said with certainty to be a construction in that period, of a kind which was later generally called martyrion.S4 There are reasons for thinking that the pre-Constantinian memorial under the Confessio in St Peter's which must be identified with the Tropaion on the Vatican Hill mentioned by the Roman presbyter Gaius, should also be mentioned here." At all events, the organization of a cult of the martyrs as a whole becomes in the third century a matter for ecclesiastical authority, that is, of the bishop of the community, whose influence on the development of liturgical worship is here particularly evident.

Catechumenate and Baptism
With the introduction of the catechumenate under ecclesiastical direction, as an institutional preparation for the reception of baptism, the growing Church at the end of the second century and beginning of the third accomplished one of its most important achievements and one very rich in consequences. Several causes were decisive in the Church's gradual construction of a carefully planned and organized course of instruction, containing provision for moral and religious training of those seeking baptism. The first impulse must have come from the considerable missionary success of the Church which developed towards the end of the second century. Such progress must have suggested the idea of an intensive probation of the pagan neophytes, if the previous level in the Christian communities was to be maintained. The urgent need for better instruction in the faith and deeper knowledge of it, was also increased by the threatening growth of propaganda from heretical groups, especially from the powerful Gnostic movement which penetrated even into the communities of the great Church. Finally, a systematic introduction on firm principles into the world of the Christian sacraments of initiation was found desirable, in view of the rival mystery cults, whose influence on pagan religious inquirers is not to be minimized.

In the development of the ecclesiastical institution of the catechumenate, certain earlier forms must be taken into account, which at first lay principally in the domain of private initiative. In particular, the first instruction in the faith must generally have been given on a private basis, but it was placed at a later stage under ecclesiastical supervision or made to depend on ecclesiastical authorization. Often an individual Christian was the first teacher of a pagan who had become acquainted with the new faith, and whose subsequent community membership was in question. Later it was the educated convert who came forward on his own initiative as a private teacher of the Christian religion, as the activity of Justin and of the earlier Alexandrian teachers shows; and who could then be taken into service by the Church.86 These forms of private preparation of candidates for baptism were gradually incorporated by the Church, until by the beginning of the third century the organized institution was in existence, as it is found in the Church Order of Hippolytus. Concurrently, the development in North Africa was just reaching completion, as Tertullian testifies. These sources indicate the following general picture of the catechumenate in its standard form.

The admission of catechumens to instruction was controlled by the Church, who submitted the candidate for baptism to a strict examination, especially of his moral qualities. For this reason she first of all required that the candidate should name a Christian acquaintance as guarantor, who could vouch for the seriousness of his intention in conversion.87 One may generally consider this guarantor to have been an apostolically active Christian, to whom the candidate for baptism owed his acquaintance with the Christian religion, and who now introduced him to the leader of the Christian community. There was as yet no special name for these witnesses in the catechumenate; they were not identical with a godfather in the later sense, since they undertook to guarantee only the worthiness of the candidate, and assumed no responsibility for his future manner of life. The acceptance into the catechumenate depended, moreover, on an examination of the candidate by the teacher of the catechumens, who might be a cleric or layman,38 and whose inquiry' extended to the motives of the candidate's

" See above, pages 229ff., and Justin, Apol. 61, 1. 37 Trad, apost. 16 (44 Botte).

18 Ibid. 16 and 19. According to Origen, Contra Ccls. 3, 51, it was still the Christians as a whole who had the duty of examining the candidates for baptism.

request, his marital status, profession, and social position. In the case of the slave of a Christian master, the latter's agreement and testimonial were required; and if this was unfavourable, the candidate was rejected. A number of professions were forbidden to the Christian of the third century, and therefore a candidate for the catechumenate might have to abandon his previous trade. Those occupations in particular were incompatible with his future status as a Christian which stood in a direct or highly potential connexion with pagan worship, such as those of a sacrificial priest, temple guard, actor, astrologer, or magician, to which the Synod of Elvira added that of a charioteer in the circus . Service in the army or in the civil administration gave rise also to hesitation. Tertullian could not believe that soldiers or officials could avoid every situation in which participation in pagan sacrifice and worship would be required of them, or in which they would come into contact with the service of the temples, or have to employ violence or weapons against others. Anyone who joined the army after being accepted into the catechumenate was, according to Hippolytus's Church Order, immediately to be excluded from further instruction. The Christian attitude to sexual offences in the candidate for baptism was quite uncompromising: every prostitute was to be rejected and, if need be, the marital situation was to be regularized before admission to instruction. It is clear that, in the investigation of all these questions, decisive weight was attributed to the testimony of the guarantor. The precision of all these regulations shows the mentality of a Church conscious of her responsibility, who took her moral ideal seriously and courageously laid down clear conditions for those who wanted to become her members.

A favourable outcome of this initial inquiry opened the way to the catechumenate, into which the candidate was then received by a special rite, the marking with the sign of the cross; and thus became a Christianas or catechumenus. A detailed set of rules regulated the life and activity of the catechumens. They were placed under the doctor audientium for three years, though this period could be shortened in particularly zealous individual cases. Their time was now occupied with special instruction, introducing them to the world of Christian belief, and with practical training in Christian spiritual life. The teaching was based on Holy

Scripture, with which attendance at the service of the Word and the homily also made them more familiar. Every lesson ended with a prayer and imposition of hands by the catechist. The three-year period of the catechumenate was concluded by yet another examination of the candidate for baptism extending over his moral and religious performance during that time. The examination took place a few weeks before Easter, the principal date for baptism, and was conducted probably by the bishop. Once again a guarantor was required to appear for the candidate;47 and the latter's performance was measured by "good works", among which visiting the sick and respect for the widows were expressly included.48 An eminent form of excellence in a catechumen was arrest for Christ's sake; and if thereby death was suffered without baptism, the catechumen was nevertheless saved, because he had been "baptized in his own blood".

A satisfactory outcome of the second inquiry led to the second and final stage of the catechumenate, which served directly to prepare the candidates, now called electi, for the reception of baptism soon to ensue. This stage was characterized by a greater use of liturgical prayers of purification or exorcisms, intended to heal and liberate more completely from Satanic power.80 The bishop as leader of the community came even more prominently into the foreground. As the day of baptism approached, he tested once more by an exorcism the purity of the candidates and excluded the energumens. He prayed with them on the Saturday before baptism, laid his hands on them, and blessed their senses with the sign of the cross.61 Perhaps the beginning of this second stage of the catechumenate was also the special time for the first renunciation of Satan, of which Tertullian speaks.54 He also mentions that the weeks of final preparation included more intense practices of penance and frequent prayer and fasting,53 which emphasized the importance of the event which was to come. A baptismal fast was imposed on the candidates on the Friday and Saturday preceding the Sunday when baptism was to be conferred.54 In addition to this preparation of a liturgical kind, Hippolytus also mentions as a special task of the electi that "they are to hear the Gospel".55 This comment probably means that they were now strictly obliged, and no longer merely authorized, to be present at the service of the Word at the celebration of the Eucharist, and there to hear readings from the Gospels and the homily.58

The act of baptism was enclosed in the impressive framework of a nightlong vigil, which time was occupied with readings and final liturgical instructions. It was chiefly during the Easter vigil that the greatest number of candidates were baptized; otherwise it was during a Saturday to Sunday night that the ceremony took place, if a special reason required a different date for baptism. The break of day, signalized by the crowing of a cock, brought the beginning of the baptismal action proper.67 The candidates had set aside their clothes and all ornaments, and advanced to a font with a flow of clear water. The bishop had first of all consecrated the oils to be used at the baptism: the oil of thanksgiving and the oil of exorcism, which were each held ready by a deacon on the left and right of the priest. The sequence of candidates was prescribed as follows: children were baptized first, with their parents or perhaps a member of their family giving the answers to the priest's questions for them; the men came next and then the women. The priest required each candidate individually to say the words of baptismal renunciation, turning to the West as he did so: "I renounce you, Satan and all your pomp and all your works"6fl Then followed the anointing with the oil of exorcism, together with the formula: "Every evil spirit go forth from you." Thereupon the candidate went to the priest by the font, and a deacon accompanied him into the water. The officiating bishop or priest laid his hands on him, and asked in sequence three questions regarding his belief: "Do you believe in God the Father almighty? Do you believe in Jesus Christ, the Son of God who was born by the Holy Spirit of the virgin Mary, who was crucified under Pontius Pilate, died, and was buried, who rose alive from the dead on the third day, ascended into heaven, sitteth at the right hand of the Father, who will come again to judge the living and the dead? Do you believe in the Holy Spirit, Holy Church, and the resurrection of the flesh?" To each question the candidate answered "I believe"; and as he did so the officiant poured water over his head.41 A priest then anointed him with the oil of thanksgiving: "I anoint you with the oil in the name of Jesus Christ"; the baptized person now put his clothes on again, and after the end of the baptisms all went from the baptistery into the church. There a new rite was carried out with each of the baptized individually, the consignation performed by the bishop. The latter placed

IXNNtK CONSOLIDATION IN THE THIRD CENTURY

his hand on the baptized person, and said a prayer as he did so, imploring the grace of God for the newly-baptized that he might serve God according to his will. Then he anointed the head of each with oil, made the sign of the cross on their brows, and gave each a kiss with the words: "The Lord be with you"; whereupon the confirmed person answered: "And with thy spirit." Then the newly-baptized joined the congregation of the faithful and celebrated the Eucharist with them for the first time.

The foregoing account of the catechumenate and the baptismal liturgy are derived from the Church Order, or Liturgy, of Hippolytus, a document which is by far the most advanced ritually and, one might say, rubricistically, in the period. Since this is now considered to have been an ideal liturgical plan, originating in the East and suitable for adoption by any community, it can no longer be viewed with complete confidence as the typical baptismal liturgy of the Roman church.48 The only informative material on the subject apart from this source and in any way comparable to it, concerns the North African church. Tertullian's occasional, but nevertheless valuable observations about the baptismal liturgy and practice of his country show points both of agreement and difference with those described above. The agreement is found mostly in factual details: chiefly in the existence of the catechumenate, the form of administration of baptism, and the way baptismal symbolism was employed. The differences consist less in the absence of particular features than in a different kind of assessment of the significance of preparation for, and administration of this sacrament. There seems to be no second stage in Tertullian's version of the catechumenate; the days of immediate preparation before the date of baptism are not described in detail; the special work De baptismo gives not a single text of the prayers used in the administration of baptism: all of these elements being necessarily related to a stage of organization of the ritual which had not yet been reached in North Africa. On the other hand, in the catechumenate of North Africa, the moral and ascetical training of the candidates had clearly greater weight than their introduction to a knowledge of the faith; the demand made on their moral quality was very high. The rejection of failures or dubious candidates was inexorable. The "juridical" evaluation of the act of baptism was especially marked; the latter appears as the "sacramentum militiae" or "sacramentum fidei", as the "pactio fidei" and "sponsio salutis"; a binding pact is concluded with the Church, which enrols the baptized in the "militia Christi."64

Broadly speaking, at the beginning of the third century the early Christian

M Cf. J. M. Hanssens, La liturgie d'Hippolyte (Rome 1959).

94 Cf. Tertuluan, De cor. 11; De spect. 24; Ad mart. 3; De bapt. 6; De pud. 9. On the whole question cf. F. J. Dolger, "Sacramentum militiae" in AuC, II (1930), 268-80. Fundamentally the pactio is also present for Hippolytus in the baptismal renunciation.

Church as a whole had laid down the essential pattern regulating baptism which remained in force for the two centuries that followed. That pattern was still capable of completion, and underwent considerable modifications when peace came, but these only emphasized the quality of the foundations.

The Celebration of the Eucharist

In order to be able to survey more clearly and better estimate the development reached in the eucharistic liturgy by the end of the third century, it is well to start with the description given by Justin Martyr about the year 150. He first sketches the course of the ritual linked to baptism, then speaks of the common ceremony to which all came "on the day named after the sun".65 From this double description, it can be seen that the service of readings which opened the liturgy had kept its place on Sundays: "The memoirs of the apostles or the writings of the prophets are read aloud"; the reading is followed by the homily of the man presiding; and then come the prayers in common "for ourselves, for the newly- baptized and for all others wherever they may be". The reference to prayer for the newly-baptized permits the supposition that it was possible to insert prayers at this point for some special purpose, their formulation being left to the leader. The service of prayers and readings was terminated by the kiss of peace.46 The second part of the ceremony stands out in clear contrast: it began with the bringing in of the sacrificial gifts though it is not said who brought the bread and the chalice with wine and water to the president. The essential element of this part is the prayer of the man presiding, which is called sir/apia-ria, and in which he sends up praise and honour to the Father of all things through the name of the Son and the Holy Spirit, and gives thanks that the faithful had been given those gifts. The whole congregation taking part confirmed and ratified the eu/apicrria of the president with the Hebrew word "Amen". The consecrated eucharistic gifts were then given by the deacons to all present, to be consumed, and portions were also taken to those who were absent. Justin emphasizes that only the baptized could receive this food, which was itself called Eucharist.87

Two features stand out in an especially clear manner in this eucharistic liturgy: firstof all, there was its social character, drawing all the participating faithful into the actual liturgical action; they ratify expressly the thanksgiving uttered by the leader, and also share as a whole in the eucharistic meal. Moreover, the eucharistic great prayer is primarily one of thanksgiving. Justin insists on this idea in other contexts too, as other writers of the second

,s Apol. 65 and 67. M Only mentioned in c. 65. •7 Ibid. c. 66.
and third centuries do after him,®8 so that the word "eucharistia" could now become a technical term for the Christian celebration of Mass.69 The absence of explicit mention in Justin's Apology of the idea of sacrifice in the eucharistic liturgy may be due to the fact that he does not quote a complete text of the prayer. The concept was by no means unknown to him,70 and euxaPl°fia could certainly include for him the idea of sacrifice.71 Irenaeus speaks more clearly on this point, emphasizing especially that the gifts of bread and wine, which by God's word have become Christ's flesh and blood, represent the pure sacrifice of the New Covenant.72

The elaboration which the eucharistic liturgy underwent between the period of the Apologists and the first half of the third century is again most clearly revealed by Hippolytus's Church Order, which also records a double description of the celebration of Mass, explaining firstly how it is carried out in connexion with the consecration of a bishop, and secondly how the Christian community celebrates Mass with its newly-baptized members.73 The chief value of this source lies in the formulary of the eucharistic great prayer, of which a text is provided in full. The first of these two Mass liturgies starts with the introduction of the sacrificial offering carried by the deacons; the bishop, with the presbyters, stretches out his hands over the offering as he begins the great prayer of thanksgiving; the latter is introduced by a prayer of versicle and response between him and the whole congregation, just as it is found to the present day in the liturgy of the Roman Mass. The thanksgiving of the great prayer is addressed to the Father "through his beloved Son Jesus Christ", whom he has sent as saviour and redeemer. Christ is the Father's Word through which he created all things; he took flesh in the womb of the Virgin and was born of the Holy Spirit and of her; he took suffering freely upon himself to break the power of death and of Satan, and made known his resurrection. The congregation is following his example and command at the Last Supper (here the words of Christ are quoted), when it is mindful of his death and resurrection, offers to the Father the bread and the chalice, and gives thanks to him for considering them worthy to stand in his service. The bishop also prays that the Father may send down his Holy Spirit on the sacrificial offering of Holy Church, so that they may strengthen their faith in truth, "so that we may praise and glorify thee through thy Son Jesus Christ, through whom is glory and honour to thee, the Father and the Son with the Holy Spirit, in thy Holy Church, now and for ever." The Amen of the whole congregation here, too, ratifies the bishop's prayer.

Just as Hippolytus's liturgy of the Mass was intended as a guide, which the leader of a community could keep to a greater or less extent, so too the eucharistic great prayer, in particular, was not intended as an obligatory text for all churches and all purposes, but as a model formulary, the structure and fundamental ideas of which could be retained, but which might be varied and developed in detail. The bishop could therefore still on occasion freely create and shape the text, so that various types of eucharistic prayers of thanksgiving were possible for the celebration of Mass in the third century; and they can still be traced in the formularies which have been preserved in more recent liturgies. It is not possible to decide whether the Trishagion was already present in some of them. Hippolytus does not mention it; and the way in which Tertullian, and before him Clement of Rome, speak of the liturgy does not require the assumption that the Trishagion was always used in the Mass at that time. But the "form of Mass" presented by Hippolytus can be regarded as a basic outline of the eucharistic liturgy as it was generally celebrated in the Church in those days: it is a liturgy still quite clear in structure and without much detailed elaboration. But when Pope Anicetus could invite Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna, during the latter's visit to Rome about the year 154, to celebrate the liturgy in the Roman community, and when in the Syrian Didascalia, about a hundred years later, it is said that an episcopal guest should be given the honour of "offering the sacrifice", such evidence presupposes in different geographical regions a regulation of the ritual of the Mass which was uniform at least in its main features.

Occasional observations by other writers confirm and complete this picture of the eucharistic liturgy drawn by Hippolytus. Tertullian's writings in particular show on many points the identity or similarity of the African Mass liturgy with it.78 In Tertullian's record also bread and wine were the gifts which the faithful provided for the sacrifice.78 The eucharistic great prayer was addressed to the Father "per Christum Jesum"; but Tertullian does not expressly quote from it, though many echoes can be detected in his style and thought. He explicitly stresses that Christ, with the words "Hoc est corpus meum", makes the bread his body; but he does not clarify the position of the Our Father and the place of the kiss of peace in the Mass liturgy. His remarks about the communion ritual are more informative:62 the Eucharist was received under both kinds, as in Hippolytus's rite; but while the latter cites the formulas with which the species were distributed by the bishop or priests to the faithful, that is "panis caelestis in Christo Jesu", "In Deo patri omnipotenti", and "Et Domino Jesu Christo et spiritu sancto et sancta ecclesia", with a confirmatory "Amen" from the communicant, Tertullian mentions only the Amen, which certainly presupposes that there was some preceding formula. He demanded reverent care in handling the consecrated bread and wine; the faithful could take the former home, in order to receive the Eucharist privately when they were prevented from attending divine worship. Tertullian also implies the existence of a formula for dismissing the congregation when he speaks of the people being sent away at the end of the eucharistic ceremony. He does not name Sunday as the day preferred for celebrating the Eucharist, but he does mention Wednesday and Friday as days of the Stations, together with Mass. That Mass was also celebrated at the funeral and on the anniversary of the death of one of the faithful has already been made clear. Since the second century, the time for Mass had been in the early morning before sunrise, as Tertullian clearly testifies.83 Therefore, it was not linked, or was no longer linked, with the agape, which persisted as an independent meal.

The first beginnings of the so-called "discipline of the secret" can also be traced in the third century. This is a modern term for the early Christian custom of keeping secret from the uninitiated the most important actions and texts of liturgical worship, especially baptism, the Eucharist, the Our Father, and the creed, or of referring to them in the presence of unauthorized persons in veiled terms only. In particular, the nature and form of liturgical initiation were to be kept secret, and "discovered" solely through the initiation itself. As this attitude took shape slowly, its beginnings cannot be discerned with complete clarity. It is scarcely possible to refer to Tertullian for elucidation since his occasional relevant remarks are obscure, and he moreover speaks ironically of the passion for secrets in the pagan mystery cults, in a manner which would hardly have been possible if the North African Christians had observed a similar custom in his time. But the attitude is apparent in Hippolytus's Church Order, according to which an unbeliever was not to be instructed about baptism and the Eucharist before he had been baptized or admitted to communion. The use of the language of the mysteries was also probably in conformity with a growing discipline of the secret. Similary, in Origen, formulas are found which may be interpreted as echoes of this thinking when he refrains from disclosing details to his hearers concerning the Eucharist, or when he tells the future candidate for baptism that he would later "be initiated into the exalted mysteries already known to those for whom such knowledge is appropriate". Since most of this evidence comes from the East, the place of origin of the discipline of the secret is perhaps thus indicated. It attained its real force only in the fourth and early fifth centuries; consequently, its deeper motives and relation to the pagan mysteries will be discussed in greater detail later.

The Beginnings of Christian Art

A Christianity which had increased in numbers and self-awareness was provided for the first time in the third century with the possibility of engaging in artistic activity inspired by a Christian spirit, for only the longer periods of peace coming at that time afforded the special conditions required. Christian art was, however, initially opposed by a trend of considerable strength within the Church itself that stood in irreconcilable opposition to artistic activity as such. The Old Testament prohibition of images (in Exod 20:4) was influential in this respect. Origen, for example, refers to it in saying that the Christians abominated temples, altars and images. The pure spirituality of the Christian God was also felt by Minucius Felix to be an obstacle that obstructed worshipping Him in a special building. The close connexion between the art of antiquity and pagan worship was in the forefront of Tertullian's mind when he radically rejected Christian activity in this domain. The devil alone, he says, had sent sculptors and painters into the world.98 Even at the beginning of the fourth century the synod of Elvira decreed for the territories of the Spanish bishops that: "Images are forbidden in Church; what is honoured and worshipped must not be represented on the walls."97 This hostile tendency to art and images could not, however, prevail over the positive trend which succeeded in making an important advance in the third century. Tertullian knew Christians who possessed drinking vessels bearing the image of the Good Shepherd.98 Clement of Alexandria, for all his reserve regarding a representation of God, nevertheless suggested to the Christians of his day some symbols which their signet rings might bear, as the dove, fish, ship, anchor, and fisherman.'9 Giving due regard to such a favourable attitude towards art in the private domain, it was nevertheless the needs of liturgical worship in the stronger communities of the Church as a whole which finally obtained for art an official recognition by ecclesiastical authority. Another contributory factor was the inclination of the Christians, surrounded by a widespread pagan cult of the dead, to express in artistic form on the tombs of their dead whatever their faith proclaimed to them concerning death and resurrection.

First of all, the desire must have developed among the Christians for a place of worship of their own where the worthy celebration of the eucharistie liturgy would be possible, when the size of the congregations made this increasingly difficult in private houses. The written evidence for the existence of specifically Christian places of worship appears at the beginning of the third century.100 About 205 a flood in Edessa in the East of Syria destroyed, among other things, "the temple of the Christians".101 Hippolytus reports in his commentary on Daniel that the enemies of the Christians forced their way "into the house of God", just when the faithful had gathered there for prayer.102 About the same time, Tertullian spoke of the "house of our dove", in a context which most probably indicates that the Christian place of worship in Carthage was referred to.103 For the second half of the third century, evidence is available of Christian "churches" in Palestine104 and Sicily.105 About the end of the third century and the beginning of the fourth, the Christian churches had become very numerous.

m De idol. 3. 97 Synod. Illib., can. 36. 88 De pud. 7, 10.

99 Paed. 3, 59, 2, and cf. L. Eizenhofer in JbAC 3 (I960), 51-69.
100
101 Cf. J. R. Laurin, "Le lieu du culte chretien d'apres les documents litteraires primitifs" in AnGr 70 (1954), 39-57, and W. Rordorf in ZNW 55 (1964), 110-28.
102
103 Chronicum Edessenum in C5CO 4, 3.
104
105 In Dan. comm. 1, 20.
106
108 Adv. Val. 3, and cf. F. J. Dolger in AuC, II (1930), 41-56. See also Tertullian, De fuga 3; De idol. 7.

104 Euseb. HE 7, 15, 1-5.
105
106 Porphyry, Fragment 76.
107
Eusebius indicates that the earlier places where the Christians had worshipped, prior to Diocletian, were everywhere replaced by more spacious buildings106. Christian places of worship were destroyed in Bithynia, Galatia and Pontus, Thracia, Africa, Spain, and Gaul, as a result of the Diocletian decree of persecution107. In contrast to these abundant and plain statements of the written sources, archaeological findings have not until now been rich. It has of course been thought, that the remains of older Roman houses found during excavations under some of the most ancient titular churches of Rome, such as San Clementc, St Pudenziana, St Martino ai Monti and others, are the remnants of the pre-Constantinian domus ecclesiae in each case;108 but definite proof of the liturgical character of these earlier buildings has not been discovered. An undoubted example of a pre- Constantinian Christian church has, however, been brought to light by excavations in Dura-Europos, a Roman frontier garrison on the west bank of the Euphrates, built about 232. The Christian character of this private house, adapted for use in divine worship, is clearly demonstrated by the frescoes of a room which was perhaps used as a baptistery: they depict the Good Shepherd among tombs, the healing of the man born lame, and Christ walking on the water.

New possibilities of Christian artistic activity presented themselves when the Church in the first half of the third century came into possession of her own burial-grounds, which were at first called cemeteries. In Rome from the ninth century onwards these were called the catacombs; this appellation deriving from the name of the field in or ad catacumbas, at the cemetery of St Sebastian on the Appian Way. The cemeterium Callisti must be considered the earliest purely Christian underground burial-place; it stood on land which Bishop Zephyrinus (199-217) donated to the Roman Church from his private estate, and the administration of which he entrusted to the deacon Callistus. The wall and ceiling surfaces in the grave-chambers of the catacombs were furnished with pictures. The painters were naturally dependent in form on contemporary secular art, but their choice of themes was mostly determined by Holy Scripture or other Christian sources. Among the earliest subjects were, for instance, Daniel between two lions in the den, Noah in the Ark, Jonah swallowed by the fish and cast out again, or the

1 iN .N I^IX OUINSULIUAUUIN UN 1 HC. I niAU LC1N1URL

New Testament scene of the resurrection of Lazarus. They must all be understood as references to the biblical accounts of the saving of a man from deadly peril, and consequently aim at proclaiming the Christian hope of entering into an eternal life, safe from all peril and threat from the powers of evil. Proceeding from the same current of ideas is the figure of the Good Shepherd, which is found in the early catacomb paintings and in epitaphs. In this instance Christ is seen as the saviour who, as shepherd, brings life and, as teacher, brings true knowledge of God. Christ appears also as a teacher in the early Christian carvings on sarcophagi. The image of Christ in pre-Constantinian times was enriched by a representation in mosaics in a mausoleum under St Peter's in Rome. These show the Christ- Helios journeying from Hades to the Father.113 And so the third century had already in various ways laid the foundations of the flourishing art of the Christian empire in the following century.

CHAPTER 24

Spiritual Life and Morality in the Communities of the Third Century

IF THE sources are studied for the essential concepts and convictions which characterized the piety of the third century, two ideas and realities stand out, namely baptism and martyrdom. All writers of the period, who discuss in any detail Christian perfection and its actual realization, speak so insistently of baptism as the well-spring, and of readiness for martyrdom as the touchstone of the genuineness of a Christian way of life, that devotion to baptism and to martyrdom must be generally considered to be the fundamental twofold attitude to religious life in the early Christian Church.

Baptismal Spirituality

The first attempts of any magnitude to develop a theory of Christian perfection were undertaken by the early teachers of Alexandria. Clement of Alexandria tried to trace such a theory in the portrait of the Christian Gnostic which he sketched in the Paedagogus and the Stromata. There is no mistaking, in his account, the fundamental importance, theoretical and
SPIRITUAL LIFE IN THE THIRD-CENTURY COMMUNITIES

practical, which baptism held for perfection. Using the terminology of the pagan mystery-cults, but in no way abandoning his conviction of the reality of the Christian sacrament of baptism, he describes its profoundly transforming effects: it brings complete forgiveness of sins, and liberates from the dark power of the demons. In its positive aspect, it is a rebirth to new life in the kingdom of the Father, and so grants immortality; and, by the infusion of the Holy Spirit into the soul, gives also true knowledge of God, or gnosis. Essentially, this gnosis is imparted to every baptized person, not merely to pneumatikoi, or spiritually endowed persons; and by it the grace-given root of all perfection is in principle implanted; this must grow throughout life. For, even if the gnosis received in baptism cannot increase in its essential nature, it can nevertheless grow in extent within the baptized person; and above all it must stand the test in the struggle with evil. In baptism there is a real, not merely a symbolic, repetition for the Christian of what baptism in the Jordan once effected for Christ. Consequently, the life which springs from baptismal grace is an imitation of Christ, with whom the believer is indissolubly united at his baptism.4

What is expressed by Clement quite plainly, but with some reserve and a certain formulary concision, is developed by Origen in rich abundance. This is particularly evident in his homilies, in an ardent metaphorical style with insistent kerygmatic appeal. It was in this way that Origen became the most zealous preacher of a deep-felt baptismal spirituality for the early Christian Church generally. He lays the foundation first of all in a theology of baptism, which bases all exhortations to live in accordance with baptismal grace on the supernatural sacramental event which occurs at baptism. He prefers to explain that event by reference to those principal Old Testament prefigurations of baptism which were to play such an important part in the mystagogical preaching of the fourth century. He regards the whole path of the person seeking baptism from his first wish for instruction in the Christian faith through his acceptance into the catechumenate and his introduction to the law of God, to the day when in the midst of the priests he is initiated into the mysteries of baptism as prefigured in the exodus of Israel from Egypt, the passage of the Red Sea, the stages of the wandering in the desert and the crossing of the Jordan, after which the Promised Land is opened to him. Jesus instead of Moses is his guide on his further paths. Just as Israel was then freed from the power of Pharaoh, so the baptized person is liberated from the dominion of Satan; and just as Israel journeyed through the wilderness, guided by the column of cloud and fire, so also the believer, who with Christ passed through Christ's death and burial, will rise on the third day through baptism in water and the Holy Spirit; and God will henceforth lead him on the way of salvation: "You become healthy, sound, and cleansed from the stains of sin; you come out a new man, ready to sing the new song." By this act the Christian is summoned to follow Christ, the new guide who has been given him in baptism. Before, he was an imitator diaboli; now in baptism he has found a new example to follow: the Logos with whom and in whom he sets out on the paths of his spiritual life which is to lead him to the Father. Baptism is, therefore, the beginning of this new life, since its life-giving power has its source in the death of Christ on the cross, and the life of baptismal grace derives ultimately from the crucifixion.

Origen bases his doctrine of the spiritual life as a baptismal one on these truths of the faith concerning the nature of baptism. That element which received its foundation by what happened sacramentally in baptism, must further develop; the new life then received must prosper in the spiritual life of the soul, but can do so only if it is renewed daily. The Logos must be able to act in the soul of the baptized person like a vine, whose grapes reach their full sweetness gradually. The Logos already exercises this purifying power in a soul which is preparing for baptism; the whole ascetical struggle of the catechumen to train himself in the life of Christian virtue receives its effectiveness from the anticipatory radiance of the grace of baptism. But the spiritual life receives its accomplishment and stamp after baptism, and from the sacrament. The apotaxis of Satan pronounced in baptism must be constantly repeated if the grace of baptism is to be preserved. Its corresponding syntage, or covenant with Christ, imposes an obligation of absolute fidelity to the baptismal vow, which some keep without faltering, but which others break and so bear with them the shame of Egypt. The task set every Christian in his religious life can be expressed, according to Origen, in the concise phrase T?)peiv TO pa7rn.a(i.a, that is to preserve baptismal grace. But the obligation of fidelity to the baptismal vow does not derive simply from the renunciation of Satan's world. By baptism Christ becomes the bridegroom and spouse of the soul, and marital fidelity must be preserved; a return to the impure spirits of the pagan period of life would break this fidelity and sully the white robe of baptism. Fidelity to baptismal vows and to the divine espousals can be kept solely by a perpetual fight against the powers of the evil one. In this combat the baptized persons follow once more the example of their master, who was likewise tempted after his baptism in the Jordan; and so the daily practice of a baptismal spirituality is an actual imitation of Christ.18 Viewed positively, the fidelity to baptism ensured by perpetual combat leads to the abundant development of all virtues. Two attitudes, which early Christianity held in particularly high esteem grow from a baptismal piety truly lived. These are genuine love of one's neighbour and readiness for martyrdom. Brotherly love is a transmission of the Father's love for us, which we receive in baptism: we imitate him when we give our love to our neighbour.19 And, further, the Spirit conferred by baptism bestows the courage to suffer:20 baptismal renunciation includes a willingness for martyrdom.

In their doctrine of baptismal spirituality as the development of the grace of baptism and the imitation of Christ's example, the Alexandrian teachers were not framing the demands of an esoteric teaching on perfection addressed merely to an elite. Indeed, because in this context Origen was speaking to all Christians, he was therefore aware of the failure of many in the face of this lofty religious ideal; and that is precisely what led him to preach repeatedly on a right understanding of the mystery of Christian baptism, and to call for its realization in daily life. Other pastors and writers of the third century speak in a similar way to the Alexandrians, if not with equal force. For Cyprian, Christian life is the continuance of the renuntiatio saeculi, which, once expressed in baptism, must now be made effective by following our Lord when God tests the Christians through persecution. Cyprian's biographer Pontius reveals the same notion of Christian life as the carrying out of the obligations of baptism by not beginning his description of the bishop's life until the latter's baptism: "The deeds of a man of God should be counted only from the moment when he was born to God." He expressly emphasizes that Cyprian always preached during persecution that Christians must prove themselves worthy of their birth, and that a man born again of God could not belie his origin.24 It was in accord with this judgment on the importance of baptism for the daily religious life of the Christian that such care was taken by the leaders of the Christian communities to provide a preparation for baptism in the catechumenate, and to organize a solemn celebration of it. The whole impact of initiation into the mysteries of the Christian faith was to work itself out in a religious life which never forgot the radiance of that hour nor the gravity of the solemn baptismal vow. When Christian art, in the previously-mentioned baptistery of the house church of Dura- Europos, represented the Good Shepherd among his sheep,23 (signifying in this case Christ among the newly baptized Christians), it sought to inculcate forcefully in the faithful the importance and meaning of the baptismal sacrament.

Devotion to Martyrdom

Whereas the preaching of baptismal spirituality was to increase in extent and depth in the spiritual doctrines of the fourth century, devotion to martyrdom as the second fundamental attitude in the striving for Christian perfection reached its height in the third. Closely linked with the idea of the imitation of Christ, esteem for martyrdom as the summit and crown of all perfection became the most widespread, and ascetically fruitful, watchword in the world of early Christian spirituality. At the end of the second century, when the Church increasingly made it a theme of preaching to her own members, there was already a rich tradition on which to build. With Ignatius of Antioch the connexion between martyrdom and imitation of Christ was already clearly grasped and forcefully expressed: a man is a true disciple of Christ only if he dies for Christ's sake; anyone who does not accept death willingly with eyes fixed "on his Passion" has not the life of Christ within him.26 The recorder of the martyrdom of Bishop Polycarp of Smyrna expressly drew a parallel between Christ and the martyr; he saw the justification for the honour which was beginning to be paid to martyrs in the fact that they are the authentic disciples and imitators of the Lord. Similarly, the communities of Lyons and Vienne said proudly that their martyrs of the year 177 were emulators and imitators of Christ. They expressed the idea in biblical terms, saying of Vettius Epagathus that "he was a true disciple of Christ, because he followed the Lamb wherever he went", even to the death of martyrdom. Origen declared the same view, and the pastor Cyprian took advantage of the persecutions to remind his flock that they had at such times to imitate Christ as a teacher of patience and suffering, and that in the daily celebration of the Eucharist they drank the Blood of Christ in order to be able one day to give their blood for him.28 Anyone who suffers for confessing the name of Christ becomes thereby a "sharer and companion of his Passion", as Roman priests stressed in a letter to Cyprian. The concept of following Christ and of imitating him occurs with especial frequence in the accounts of the martyrs and in the pronouncements of Christian writers concerning martyrdom.31 Devotion to martyrdom received a particular force of attraction from the idea that a martyr's violent death led in a unique way to union with Christ. It was a widespread conviction in the third century that this union with Christ is already manifest when a Christian confesses his fidelity to his Lord under torture. At that moment it is Christ who strengthens him, and so fills him with his presence that, in a kind of exaltation, he scarcely feels the pain of torture and execution. Thus, the Christian captive Felicity replied to the jailer who derided her for groaning at the birth of her child: "Now it is I who suffer what I suffer; but there (that is, at her martyrdom), it will be another in me who will suffer for me, because I too will be suffering for him." Cyprian comforted and strengthened Christians facing martyrdom with the assurance that the Lord "himself contends in us, goes to battle with us, and in our hard struggle himself gives the crown and receives it." It was this idea which culminated in the custom of honouring the martyrs with the title of Christophorus: union with Christ attains perfection by suffering martyrdom. The martyrs were convinced that nothing united them with Christ as directly as a violent death while bearing witness to him. From this belief sprang the aspiration, found as early as Ignatius of Antioch, precisely for this kind of death, which is described by Cyprian as "the baptism which, after our departure from the world, unites us directly to God",39 and which consequently, as a baptism in blood, completely replaces the other baptism, and in fact surpasses it in efficacy, because there is no danger of later relapse. Ultimately, the value set on martyrdom as absolute perfection was based on the double conviction that martyrdom represents the highest form of imitation of Christ and unites us in a unique way with him. Clement of Alexandria equates martyrdom with xeXeiwaic, since anyone who dies for his faith "has accomplished the work of perfect love".37

There is no plainer way of proving love of God and of Christ than by suffering violent death under persecution. Consequently, the exhortatio ad martyrium was a regular part of early Christian preaching and literature; not a dull cliche, but a very real factor in the actual realities of the third century itself. Origen and Cyprian are its purest and most convincing exponents. Origen's work on the meaning and dignity of martyrdom is the expression of a genuine readiness and desire for martyrdom, exhorting his own father in prison not to be dissuaded by the thought of the fate of his family from bearing witness unto death, and pointing with pride to friends and pupils who had travelled the road to the end.38 Origen regarded the times of persecution as the truly great age of the Church because of the martyrs, whereas he had to recognize with sorrow that long periods of peace quickly led to slackening of enthusiastic faith.39 Cyprian's letters to his flock during persecution present the same picture. In his own behaviour the Bishop of Carthage displayed the balanced and wise prudence that the Church demanded, which did not foolishly and fanatically seek martyrdom,40 yet did not fail in the hour of trial. When, during the Decian persecution, an alarmingly large number of lapsed Christians created no small problem for the Church authorities, Cyprian had also to observe that readiness for martyrdom was found only in an elite.

Devotion to martyrdom is also clearly seen in the efforts of Christian circles to find substitutes for actual death by martyrdom, when for various reasons this was not in fact attainable. In very early times there were those who considered a serious striving for moral purity as an attitude which, though certainly not equal in value to real martyrdom, nevertheless revealed in a way a martyr's mentality which put God first.41 Origen was convinced that in a community there are Christians "who have taken up their cross and follow Christ and are ready to shed their blood for him",

*• Ad Fortun. praejat. 4.

" Strom. 4, 4, 14.

18 Euseb. HE 6, 2, 3-6; 6, 3, 4.

In 1er. horn. 4, 3.

40 Like the Montanists, cf. Tertullian's De fuga in persecutione.
41
42 Already in Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 4, 7, 43.
43
and so are martyrs before God. Cyprian clearly expressed the difference between actual martyrdom and martyrdom of desire, and worked out a spirituality centred on martyrdom. What was of essential importance here was the evolution of martyrdom into a criterion for Christian perfection, even if in detail only a greater or lesser resemblance to martyrdom was retained. Dionysius of Alexandria judged the self-sacrifice of some Christians who died in the time of the plague in the service of the sick almost on the same level as a martyr's death. But a new development took place when certain ascetic modes of live, such as the state of virginity and retirement from the world, became considered as real substitutes for actual death by martyrdom, and were praised as a new way of following Christ.

The Asceticism of the Third Century

Christians of both sexes who renounced marriage, who dissociated themselves more than others from secular life, yet remained with their families and put themselves at the service of the Christian community, are not found for the first time in the third century. The biblical basis for such a mode of life and the example of a celibate life given by Christ and St Paul produced at a very early date their effect, for the letter of the Roman Bishop Clement presupposes the existence of celibates, and the Didache refers to a type of wandering ascetic which was commonly active in the missionary field. Ignatius of Antioch and Hermas of Rome knew of groups of virgins in their communities who enjoyed high esteem. The apologists, in their descriptions of the life of the Christian communities, did not fail to point out to the pagans that a notably high number of men and women leading celibate lives testified to the high moral quality of the followers of Christianity; and the pagans themselves were impressed by this feature of Christian spiritual life. Occasional references in second-century texts are followed in the third century by a series of writings which expressly concern Christian asceticism, and provide a detailed account of its ideals and of the dangers which beset it. Its adherents had become so numerous in the meantime that they represented an important factor in Christian daily life in the churches of both East and West. They were not yet committed to a definite mode of life with a fixed rule; and so they mostly remained with their families and still disposed of their own private property. Only the pseudo-Clementine letters Ad virgines indicate a tendency in that period for closer groupings, just as they also refer to missionary and charitable activity by the ascetics. Moreover, there was still no set rite by which the Church herself received them into their state of life; they simply bound themselves by a very serious promise to a life of continence. That promise, however, was known to the community authorities, who punished its transgression very strictly, namely by excommunication. On the other hand, the promise did not bind for ever; the ascetic for special reasons could forego his mode of life and contract matrimony.

Within the community and among its rulers, the ascetics enjoyed unique esteem. For Clement of Alexandria, they were the "elect of the elect", while Cyprian saw in them "the more splendid part of Christ's flock, the flower of Mother Church". A new element with increased prestige was ascetic virginity, since this was connected with the idea of the soul's espousal to Christ. Tertullian was already acquainted with the title "bride of Christ", used to honour virgin ascetics, both men and women; and the term later became part of the customary official language of the Church. Origen's exposition of the Song of Songs, in terms of the individual's conception of it as a description of the relationship between the particular soul and its heavenly bridegroom, Christ, inaugurated the triumphant progress of this idea through the centuries which followed. At first this notion was at the service of the ideal of virginity; Methodius of Olympus meant by his lyrical praise of virginity that it is not to be separated from espousal to Christ. The records of the martyrdom of virgins consecrated to God, such as Agnes, Pelagia, and Caecilia, are pervaded by this idea. A theological basis was sought for the worth of the ascetics. Their mode of life was declared to be the worthiest substitute for death by martyrdom; like the latter, it called for total self-sacrifice, and consequently, according to Cyprian's warning, the spirit of the martyrs must be living in the ascetics also. Methodius directly compares virginity with martyrdom, while others list the ascetics immediately after the martyrs: the latter bearing fruit a hundredfold, the former sixtyfold. The corona virginitatis is accorded to the virgines utritisque sexus, just as the corona martyrum is to the martyrs, for their life is a true following of Christ. Such a lofty ideal is liable to particular perils. Tertullian warned the ascetics especially against pride, to which the high esteem in which they were held in the community might tempt them; the pseudo-Clementine letters show a similar awareness of the threat of vanity and empty show. Cyprian saw clearly the practical dangers which life in the world involved for the ascetics, and consequently demanded of them a high degree of all the virtues. Methodius tried to strengthen them positively by directing their minds to meditation and the wealth that lies therein; virginity should be a means of individual sanctification.

Ascetical excess and a disproportion between the individual's moral strength and such lofty idealism explain a grave aberration in Christian asceticism, especially in the third century. Christian ascetics lived together as "sister and brother" in a sort of spiritual matrimony, and so imperilled the virginity they had vowed to keep. Not only did they expose themselves to the insinuations and derision of the people around them, but they also failed grievously themselves. The sources leave no doubt about the existence and considerable extent of the aberration. The system of agapetae extended through the East, in Syria and Egypt as well as in North Africa,58 and forced the ecclesiastical authorities to decisive action. In Cyprian's time a deacon who was guilty in this matter was excommunicated. Cyprian's clearsightedness and freedom from illusion made him intervene even where there were as yet no serious lapses. The De singularitate clericorum, an anonymous treatise of the third century, could not conceal the fact that the evil had penetrated certain clerical circles, which sometimes employed biblical texts to justify their attitude. Already in the third century some synods imposed heavy sanctions on the guilty, but the custom persisted obstinately in East and West, surviving in Spain down to the sixth century.

The asceticism of the third century not only continued in its previous form, but also provided the source of two new developments which were rich in consequences. From this practice sprang the early monasticism of the East, which, in its first eremitical phase, was merely a transference of the life and activity of the ascetics from the Christian community into solitude, such as Athanasius's account of the eremitical period of St Antony's life records for the end of the third century. The baptismal spirituality and devotion to martyrdom of the second and third centuries, in conjunction with ascetical virginity, continued to exert influence as fundamental ideas of monasticism, and so proved their intense vitality. The vows taken by the monk were compared in value with a second baptism, and his life with a spiritual martyrdom which made him, like the actual martyr, an athleta Cbristi, while his continence ranked him in the company of those who are the brides of Christ.61 The ideal of virginity additionally prepared the way for the concept of priestly celibacy.62

Within the Church as a whole the manner of life of the ascetics was an highly esteemed ideal, but nevertheless one which was always freely accepted, and only by a minority. As soon as individual Christians or groups attempted to make it a norm binding on all Christians, it inevitably led to conflicts between them and the ecclesiastical authorities. The Encratites, followers of the Syrian Tatian, represented such an ascetic ideal carried to extremes; they characteristically named themselves not after their teacher but after the ascetical principle of their life.63 The Encratites of Mesopatamia admitted no one to baptism who did not observe absolute sexual continence, and thus forced married people who did not want to renounce matrimony into a perpetual catechumenate existence.64 It is true that the other heretical views held by Tatian were decisive in his expulsion from the great Church about 172, but his ascetical rigorism certainly contributed to that judgment. Encratite tendencies are perceptible in many apocryphal acts of apostles, as well as in the lives of individual Christians. As long as encrateia was not imposed by these on every Christian as necessary for salvation, the Church could tolerate them or excuse individual cases, such as Origen's self-castration, as ascetical enthusiasm carried too far. The intense attachment of the third-century Church to the ascetical ideal can certainly be taken as a general proof of her high moral quality.

" Cf. E. E. Malone, The Monk and the Martyr (Diss. Washington 1950); J. Schmid, "Brautschaft (heilige)" in RAC II, 561.

" Cf. Origen, In Lev. horn. 1, 6, which demands continence of the priest, for he serves the altar.

" Ot ?yxparstc; according to Irenaeus, Adv. haer. 1, 28, 1; and cf. Origen, Contra Cels. 5, 65.

84 See A. Voobus, Celibacy a Requirement for Admission to Baptism in the Early Syrian Church (Stockholm 1951).

Prayer and Fasting in Early Christian Spirituality

Prayer not only maintained, as a matter of course, its position in the third century as an indispensable element in Christian worship of God, but to an increasing extent became the subject of theological reflection and practical concern for its right performance both liturgical and private. Alexandrian theologians worked devotedly at a theological interpretation of Christian prayer and endeavoured to incorporate it into their conception of Christian perfection as a whole. The Latins, Tertullian and Cyprian in particular, display in their expositions of the Our Father the greater interest of the Latin mind in questions of the actual practice of the life of prayer and in its importance for the detail of Christian daily life. For Clement of Alexandria the Christian's duty to pray is self-evident, for the soul must thank God without ceasing for all his gifts; and in the striving for perfection, prayer of petition is likewise indispensable, and it must be used to implore true gnosis and the forgiveness of sins.65 After the example of his master, brethren and enemies are included in this prayer of the Christian, and he is mindful, too, of the conversion of the whole world to the true God. Prayer accompanies him in all he does, binds him most closely to God, makes him "walk in God".66 Clement's best answer to the pagan reproach of aa^fteia (impiety) addressed to the Christians, is to point out that for them, prayer is the most holy and precious sacrifice with which to honour God.67 With a certain hesitation he hazards the definition that prayer is "intercourse with God".68 So the Christian consecrates his everyday life to God when he conscientiously keeps the hours of prayer and in this way bears witness to the Lord throughout his life.69 The highest form of prayer for the true Gnostic is interior mental prayer, which Clement clearly distinguishes from vocal prayer. He does not, of course, reject the latter, but unquestionably assigns the highest rank to interior prayer: it needs no words; it is unceasing; it makes the whole life a holy day; and gives Oewpia, the vision of divine things.70 In this distinction between vocal and mental prayer the later division of the spiritual life into active and contemplative is already indicated in a purely Christian sense. Clement is its first important pioneer.
Where Clement provided an outline sketch of prayer, Origen gives a whole monograph, which deepens and carries farther what Clement had begun. In order to gain a full view of Origen's teaching on prayer one must draw upon his theoretical exposition and upon the lively observations and the spontaneous prayers found in his homilies and biblical commentaries. Like Clement, Origen is profoundly aware that the life of the Christian must be a perpetual prayer, in which daily prayers have their indispensable place. To be blessed, such prayer requires a certain disposition in the soul. Origen very definitely includes in this a continual defence against sin, lasting freedom from emotional disturbance, and finally interior recollection and concentration, which excludes all from without and within that cannot be consecrated to God. Under such conditions, a Christian's prayer develops in an ascent by stages. The first stage being prayer of petition, which should request the great and heavenly things: the gift of gnosis and growth in virtue. At the stage of the repoosu/v], the praise of God is linked with prayer of petition.74 The summit of Christian prayer is reached in interior, wordless prayer which unites the soul to God in a unique way.75 This mirrors Origen's basic conception of a spiritual ascent by stages, ending in the loving knowledge of God in which the soul is "divinized".76 A more concrete view of Origen's practice of prayer is given by the many actual texts of prayers which occur frequently in his homilies. Somewhat surprisingly, they are often addressed to Christ, though in his treatise on prayer, Origen always maintains that prayer is to be addressed to the Father; theoretical conviction was overborne by the spontaneous devotion to Christ which is also apparent in many other ways in the homilies. Not only does Origen repeatedly exhort his hearers to pray to Jesus, but in his addresses, he himself continually turns to him in supplications of his own composition which reveal a rich and heartfelt devotion to Jesus. It is an eminently important fact in the history of spirituality, and consequently in the history of the Church, that the theory and practice of prayer represented by the Alexandrian Origen exercised an extensive influence. His teaching on prayer decisively affected the spirituality of the Eastern Church, particularly in its monastic form, and the practice of devotion to Jesus formulated in his prayers influenced, by way of Ambrose, Western mystical devotion to Jesus down to St Bernard's day.78

The commentaries on the Our Father by the two Latins, Tertullian and
Cyprian, introduce us to a view and atmosphere of Christian prayer that is both independent of, and very different from that of the Greeks. Both of them, of course, are like the Alexandrians, profoundly convinced of the obligation of prayer. Both they and the Greeks are inspired through the example given by Christ, who prayed himself and taught how to pray; they know the same times for prayer and the biblical grounds for them, and have similar ideas about the mental conditions necessary for proper prayer. But the two Latins are very far removed from the lofty idealistic strain of the Greeks. Deeper speculation about the nature and dignity of interior prayer and its significance for growth in the spiritual life is alien to them, and there is certainly no hint in their writing of a theory about the various stages of prayer. Their urgent concern is with the actual concrete form of prayer and its place in the daily life of the Christian community. For them the form of prayer to be preferred is the Our Father, the new form of prayer taught by Christ, and known to the Christians alone, because they alone have God as their Father. Both understand the petition for daily bread in a predominantly eucharistic sense, which Cyprian expresses with warmth and emphasis. For both, humility is the right attitude in which to pray; all passions and faults must be laid aside if the prayer is to find acceptance with God. A trait of the Latin organizing spirit is evident in Tertullian's detailed treatment of questions concerning the external order of prayer, such as the times for prayer — morning prayers, evening prayers, grace, prayer at the third, sixth, and ninth hours — and the physical posture of those at prayer: they are to pray with hands raised and extended, in imitation of their suffering Lord on the cross. Tertullian propounds an actual theological feature in what he says about the unlimited efficacy of Christian prayer, and in his exposition of the second petition of the Our Father, which like Origen he understands in a directly eschatological sense: "Yes, very soon, Lord, may thy kingdom come; that is the longing of Christians, the confounding of the pagans, the joy of the angels."88 Perhaps Cyprian's undeniable dependence on Tertullian has sometimes caused the original contribution of the African bishop in his exposition of the Our Father to be too easily overlooked. The much greater religious warmth and persuasiveness with which he speaks of prayer are to be appreciated, and he deserves further recognition for his emphatic identification of the Kingdom of God with Christ: "For whose coming we daily long, and whose early arrival we desire and long for." Of paramount importance however, is the ecclesio- logical emphasis which he would like to see in the prayers of Christians: "When we pray, we do not pray for one but for the whole people, for we are all one"; the Christian people at prayer is joined together in the unity of the Father and the Son and the Holy Spirit; anyone who breaks this unity sins grievously, and lacks an essential condition for genuine prayer. Besides the Our Father, Tertullian and of course, Cyprian too, freely recognize improvised prayers. Early Christianity had also at its disposal a collection of set prayer texts in the Old Testament Psalter. Its liturgical and private use presupposed, of course, its christianization, which must have taken place in the second century, as the singing of the psalms in divine worship and at the agape was an established custom by the beginning of the third century.90 This christianization took place by way of a typological interpretation of the psalms, which either viewed the speaker in the psalms as Christ himself addressing the Father, or heard in them the voice of the Church recognizing in the Dominus psalmorum her glorified Lord and speaking directly to him. A particularly striking example of the first kind is Psalm 3, verse 6: "ego dormivi et soporatus sum et exsurrexi", which was already regarded by Justin as spoken by the Risen Christ on Easter morning. This interpretation is also found in Irenaeus and was taken over by Hippolytus and Cyprian. Origen, too, has examples of praying the psalms to Christ and thus illustrates the strength of the trend, for despite theoretical hesitation he cannot refrain from it. The christianization of the Psalter, which made it the prayer and hymn book absolutely preferred by the early Church, was furthered and facilitated by the importance and extent of prayer to Christ in early Christian popular devotion. This is strikingly evident in those prayers which rose spontaneously to the lips of martyrs when they were summoned to bear last testimony to their Lord. Most of these are words of gratitude to Christ for giving them the grace of bearing witness to him, or protestations that they accept death for his name's sake, or cries of supplication for Christ's strength and support in that hour of trial. A comparison of the number of prayers addressed to Christ by the martyrs with those addressed to the Father reveals their overwhelmingly Christocentric character.9® In the domain of popular piety there are the strikingly numerous prayers to Christ in the apocryphal acts of apostles, and many of the above-mentioned prayers to Christ in Origen's homilies must have been an echo from private popular piety.

Finally, prayer addressed to Christ was expressed by turning to the East when praying. The first signs of this custom appear at the beginning of the second century, and it established itself widely in East and West in the third century. The grounds adduced for the custom are theologically notable: people prayed facing the East because the return of the Lord was awaited from that direction and because Paradise, the desire of all Christians, lies there. This manner of praying to Christ therefore had an eschatological significance. For some Christian circles in the Greek and Syrian East, it was also a way of expressing the theological contrast to Judaism, whose followers prayed facing the Temple in Jerusalem. Another custom had been associated with it since the second century, that of praying before a crucifix, wooden or painted, so arranged that those praying stood facing the East. Here too the early Christian texts plainly indicate an eschatological motive for this custom: as a sign of the Lord's triumph, the cross will precede him, on his second coming, from the East. This emphasis on the crucifix in the Christian's position at prayer was probably based on the extensive use of the sign of the cross in both private devotion and the liturgy, many testimonies to which are found in the writers of the third century. Tertullian's statement can stand for many: "Whenever we go out or depart, at the beginning or end of anything, when we dress or put on our shoes, before the bath or before sitting down to table, when putting on the lights, when we lie down to rest or sit down on a chair, in every action of daily life, we sign our foreheads with the sign of the cross." The texts of prayers and the position adopted for prayer therefore show private prayer in the early Christian Church as a whole that was centred to a large extent on Christ and on the cross.

iiNiir.j\. wnsuufftiiUN 1IN 1 Hh TH1KD CENTURY

The ascetical enthusiasm of the third century also led to a considerable practice of fasting both in connexion with liturgical worship and in the private devotion of Christians. The weekly fasts on Wednesdays and Fridays that had descended from apostolic times" became more firmly established and received a further development in the statio of the North African church. In Tertullian's time the statio was still quite definitely an ascetical exercise freely undertaken; it lasted until the ninth hour (3 p.m.), and was linked with a special divine service. This latter, however, must be understood to have been the celebration of the eucharist, which would take place at the usual time before sunrise. The high esteem of Station fasting among Christians of North Africa can be judged from the refusal of many of the faithful to take part in the celebration of the Eucharist on Station days, because they thought the reception of Communion would break the fast. In the East, the observation of the weekly fasts was, according to the evidence of the Syrian Didascalia, early imposed as an obligation. In Carthage, Station fasting was sometimes extended to Saturday; the Roman church must also have known this custom, and it is encountered in Spain at the end of the third century. The Church had to defend the voluntary character of Station fasting against the rigorism of Montanists and Encratites who represented it as an obligation strictly binding on all Christians. At this period, too, the motive for the choice of the two fast days in the week changed; while earlier it emphasized the independence of the Christian custom from the Jewish one (the Jews kept Monday and Thursday as fast days), now it was the connexion of the two days with the events of our Lord's Passion that was indicated: the betrayal by Judas on a Wednesday and death on the cross on a Friday. Thus fasting on these days was understood to be a fast of mourning and grief.
The high value placed on fasting by the Church authorities is particularly evident from the various ways in which they incorporated it into the liturgy. As preparation for the feast of Easter, a Passover fast had been early introduced, but its duration differed from local church to local church and could extend over one, two, or even six days. The baptismal fast of which there is evidence as early as the Didache, and in Justin, and which at first only lasted one or two days, was now extended further; in the first period of preparation for baptism it consisted of restriction to bread, water, and salt, but in the days immediately preceding baptism it involved total abstention from food and drink. The baptismal fast was envisaged in close relation to prayer, which fasting effectively supports; it was also considered a means of atoning for former sins and of preparing for the reception of the Spirit. Finally, fasting became an extremely important factor in the penitential discipline of the early Christian Church generally, which imposed on the sinner for the duration of his penance restrictions on food and drink and sometimes days of strict fasting as well. Here, too, the significance of the fast was seen to be in the support it gave to the atoning prayer with which the sinner turned to God; but the Church always stressed in addition the salutary character of such penitential fasts in themselves. Fasting as a means to gaining mastery over concupiscence and unregulated sense pleasure and consequently as a way to higher perfection, found special favour in early Christian ascetic circles. It brought with it the danger of over-emphasis, and this sometimes found expression in heroic record- breaking performances such as are reported repeatedly from the monastic groups which superseded the ascetics. As opposed to such aberrations, Christian authors very early emphasized that what was decisive was the spirit, a genuine penitential attitude and self-denial, which alone give bodily fasting its value. Others stressed corporal works of mercy to the neighbour as a motive for fasting, for by its means a brother in need could be given more help. The most valuable views here also are those that envisaged fasting in close conjunction with prayer; which can be given greater efficacy by this ascetical attitude. Similarly efficacious was the widespread conception of fasting as an important preparation for every kind of reception of the Spirit, so that fasting became an indispensable requirement for men of the Spirit, prophets, teachers, and bishops. This explains the inner link between prophecy and fasting which is encountered in Montanism; fasting there became an absolutely necessary condition for the gift of prophecy, and Tertullian in his work De ieiunio bitterly attacked from his own standpoint the great Church which should not approve such overrating of an ascetical practice.

Early Christian Morals

The ideals of Christian perfection just described, represented, as has already been emphasized, maximum demands, the achievement of which was only possible to an elite and consequently to a minority among the Christians. There arises, therefore, the question how the great majority of the community members in town and country lived their daily religious lives in pagan surroundings and within a secular civilization determined by pagan principles. Unfortunately the sources, even for the third century, still do not provide very much information on this, and do not make it possible to draw a complete picture of Christian life valid for all the territories where Christianity had spread at that time. Most informative are the sources for North Africa, where the leading writers Tertullian and Cyprian, because of their marked concern with the practical questions of daily religious life reveal much that is interesting. In addition to these men, the Alexandrian teachers Clement and Origen must be mentioned, for they frequently speak of similar features in the Christian daily life of the Egyptian communities.

Any attempt to estimate objectively the achievements of Christianity in this domain must indicate very plainly the difficulties that the implementation of Christian moral ideals inevitably met with day after day. First of all, there were the afflictions to which Christian minorities are liable in any period of Christian missionary activity when forced to form and establish themselves in the midst of a pagan environment encompassing every section of private and public life. A large number of professions and trades directly served the polytheism of later antiquity and the Christians had to exclude themselves from these if they were not to imperil their own religious convictions.118 The whole pagan atmosphere further presented a perpetual temptation to relapse into former habits of life, and this demanded of all Christians a renunciation that had to be continually and precisely renewed in daily life. The sexual licentiousness which characterized moral life in later antiquity particularly necessitated a very high degree of self-discipline. This itself created a test case where the Christian moral ideal had to prove its real quality.

The sources show that precisely in the third century, the Christian communities were exposed to searching trials which they did not entirely withstand. In the longer periods of peace which that age provided, the poison of the surrounding pagan atmosphere could exercise its slow but enduring effect. This became terrifyingly evident when a powerful wave of persecution such as those of Decius and Diocletian broke upon the Christian communities as exceptional tribulations. The large number of

1,1 See page 277 above, in the description of the catechumenate.
those who lapsed in the years 249-50 revealed a considerable slackening of Christian self-discipline, a condition which could oppose no decisive resistance to the tempting amenities of a pagan civilization. The picture which Cyprian had to draw speaks for itself.111 Eusebius too, in his description of the general situation of Christianity before the outbreak of the Diocletian persecution was forced to indicate many suspicious features. Among these were especially the slackening of moral discipline and not a few lamentable quarrels of Church leaders among themselves. The Christians "like so many pagans... piled sin upon sin", and Eusebius was moved to explain the persecution as a divine judgment. What we have to say about the question of penance will presently show that grave transgressions by Christians, especially those of a sexual kind, again and again moved the Church authorities to serious admonition and strict measures regarding atonement. But despite these undeniable dark shadows in the picture of general Christian life in the third century, it is indisputable that Christianity succeeded at that time in raising the moral level of the various churches and communities high above that of the pagan world around them.

Marriage and the Family

This is particularly striking in the matter of marriage and the family. It is true that Tertullian's description of the beauty of Christian marriage is an ideal picture which transfigures reality, but it proves that this ideal was recognized and that earnest efforts were made to realize it. Ignatius of Antioch had already recommended that the contracting of matrimony be sanctioned by the bishop. In Tertullian's time, too, Christians celebrated their marriage in the presence of the ecclesia, and had it sealed with a blessing, although this cannot have signified an actual liturgical rite or an indispensable participation of the bishop at the marriage in that period. The inner harmony of such a marriage derived from the common religious convictions of the two partners, and it drew its strength in good days and bad from a common sharing in the eucharistic repast.119 As such conditions could not be present in marriages between Christians and pagans, these were disapproved of by the Church. Furthermore the Christian party was exposed all too easily to contact with pagan worship and the accomplishment of many religious duties and customs of the faith was made difficult by such an arrangement. When Cyprian lists the abuses in the North African church which called down the judgment of the Decian persecution, he assigns a special place to the marriages between Christians and unbelievers, through which "the members of Christ were abandoned to the pagans". Consequently, such marriages were expressly forbidden by the Church, and parents who gave their consent to the marriage of their daughter to a heretic, a Jew, or a pagan priest, incurred heavy ecclesiastical punishment.120 The indissolubility of Christian marriage which had since St Paul found its deepest ground in its symbolical representation of the union of Christ and the Church (Eph 5:32; 1 Cor 7:10if.), is emphasized by most writers of the third century.121 The Church was also concerned with maintaining the sanctity of matrimony by preserving conjugal fidelity and reverence for children. Adultery was strictly punished by ecclesiastical penitiential discipline, any kind of abortion was proscribed as murder, and the exposing of children after birth was condemned. It was here that the demands of Christian ethics came into sharpest conflict with pagan lasciviousness or the Roman legal view, which regarded only the born child as a human being.122

Within Christian marriage of this kind, the position of the wife was that of a partner with equal rights, and Christianity thereby showed in principle a far higher regard for her than most of the pagan religions held at that time. Second marriages were not looked upon with favour; they were not of course forbidden as they were among the Montanists, but in accordance with the trend of the age towards asceticism, they were viewed as signs of diminished moral effort and even stigmatized by the apologist Athenagoras as "a respectable adultery". This opinion is not merely an isolated one, it corresponded to the Church's view which, on account of it, forbade clerics to take part in the celebrations of such marriages and treated a second marriage as an impediment to the assumption of or continuance in the clerical state. A third or fourth marriage was very definitely held to be a serious failure regarding the demands of Christian discipline and excluded one, as Origen said, from the circle of the perfect.123

Early Christian Works of Mercy

A criterion of the value of Christian ethical principles in daily life is provided by the way in which the commandment of Christian love for one's neighbour is fulfilled. Practical exercise of active charity towards a needy

120 Tertullian, Ad ux. 2, 4-6; Cyprian, De laps. 6; Synod. Illib., canons 15-17; Synod. Arel. canon 11.
121
122 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2, 23; Origen, In Matth. horn. 14, 16; Tertullian, Adv. Marc. 4, 34; De pat. 12; De monog. 9.
123
124 Synod. Illib., canons 14, 47, 64, 70, 78. Athenagoras, Suppl. 35; Tertullian, Apol. 9, 8; Min. Felix, Oct. 30, 2; Hippolytus, Rejut. 9, 12, 25, and cf. F. J. Dolger in AuC, IV (1934), 23-55.
125
126 Athenagoras, Suppl. 33; cf. Hermas, Pastor. Mand. 4; Theophilus, Autol. 3, 15; Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 2, 23; 3, 11; Origen, In Luc. horn. 17, 10; In ler. bom. 20; In Matth. comm. 14, 22; Synod. Ancyr., can. 19; Neocaes., can. 3 and 17.
127
brother in the faith or towards a pagan afflicted with illness or misfortune was, in very striking contrast to the corresponding pagan attitude, an undeniable title of glory in the early Christian Church. One of the earliest forms of charitable activity was the "agape", meals in the Christian community which were intended to strengthen community spirit among their members of different social rank, but which at the same time provided the possibility of extending effective material help, in a tactful way, to the poor and needy within the community. They were held either in the private dwelling of a well-to-do member of the congregation or in premises belonging to the church with the bishop presiding — he could also be represented by a priest or a deacon — and inaugurating the meal with a prayer said over the gifts that had been brought. The bishop discussed with those in charge questions concerning the life of the community, and made sure that the absent sick and widows also received their share of the gifts. Sometimes the widows were invited separately by a fellow-Christian or foodstuffs were taken to them in their houses. The abuses that occurred here and there in connexion with the agape do not lessen the value of these meetings which, according to Clement of Alexandria, represented an original form of Christian sociability in marked contrast to pagan custom, and were intended to prevent social conflicts arising within the churches.

Tertullian in his Apologeticum gives an instructive glimpse of the beginning of the third century. There was a sort of common fund for the voluntary contributions of members and from it the poor were fed, old people in need looked after, orphans and destitute children cared for, brethren in prison helped, and those condemned to forced labour in the mines given support. A special kind of early Christian charitable work was hospitality, taking in and looking after, with warm generosity, brethren in the faith who were travelling through. This custom was already praised in apostolic and subapostolic times and was no less esteemed and recommended in the third century. Origen made hospitality the theme of two of his homilies. Cyprian left money with one of his priests to be spent on strangers in need during his absence. The Syrian Didascalia insistently urges care for strangers on the bishop, and the Synods of Elvira and Aries stress it too. In the fourth century there grew from this charitable obligation a comprehensive organization which established hostels and hospices. The impression made on pagan circles by this kind of practical charity is confirmed, despite himself, by Emperor Julian when he wrote that Christianity had been most lastingly furthered "by philanthropy to strangers and care for the burial to the dead". The last-mentioned feature, concern for the worthy burial of poor brethren in the faith, was felt to be a duty of love, and was specially praised as something that characterized Christianity as opposed to paganism. Whenever possible, the dead were buried among their deceased brethren in the faith, and love was shown them beyond the grave by having the eucharistic sacrifice offered for them and by being mindful of them at prayer.

Pre-Constantinian Christianity had, of course, no slave problem in any sense that would have made it work for the abolition of slavery, but early Christian charity could not fail to be interested in the lot of the slaves. It contributed decisively to the improvement of their condition by recognizing slaves who became Christians as equal brothers and sisters with the rest of the faithful and by according them complete equality of rights . Ecclesiastical offices, including that of bishop, were open to a slave. It did not detract at all from the reputation of the Shepherd that its author Hermas had been born a slave. Slaves among the martyrs, both men and women, were held in unqualified esteem; Blandina, for instance, in Lyons and Felicity in Carthage. Degrading treatment of slaves by Christian masters was severely censured and, if need be, punished with ecclesiastical penalties. On the other hand, slaves who patently misunderstood "Christian freedom" and tried to have their freedom purchased from the common fund of the community were reminded of the deeper sense of Christian service which made it possible for them to bear their position for the honour of God.

Christian brotherly love had really to prove itself in the times of extraordinary catastrophes which were not lacking in the third century. Dionysius of Alexandria sang a paean to the Christian readiness for sacrifice which distinguished the laity as well as the clergy in Alexandria during an epidemic about the year 250. Without fear of infection, they had cared for their sick brethren and given their lives thereby, while the pagans had avoided their sick relatives and abandoned their dead without burial. When plague was raging in Carthage, Cyprian summoned his flock by word and example to organized relief action which did not deny care and attention to the pagans. And once again the attitude of the Christians contrasted honourably with that of their pagan fellow-citizens during an epidemic in Maximinus Daia's time, when they cared for the hungry and the sick without distinction of creed.132

Practical Christian charity also extended to any communities which were in special need in any of the territories to which Christianity had spread. They were helped with an impressive, matter-of-fact spontaneity which reveals a sense of community among the faithful of the whole Church, and which was shown by no other religious group of the time. The sources give the strong impression that the conduct of the Roman church was felt to be exemplary in this regard. Apparently the church of Rome was immediately ready to give active assistance whenever news was received of special need in any community no matter how remote. What Dionysius of Corinth praised in this respect in 170 is also valid for the third century: "From the beginning it was your custom to do good to all the brethren in many ways and to send assistance to many communities in towns everywhere. In this way you have lightened the poverty of the needy, supported the brethren in the mines and so, like Romans, held fast to a custom handed down from of old by your fathers. Your blessed bishop Soter not only maintained this custom but carried it further."133 For Dionysius of Alexandria reports about a hundred years later that Rome regularly sent relief to the churches in Arabia and Syria, and in Cappadocia it was not forgotten in the days of Basil that the Roman church under Bishop Dionysius (259-69) sent funds there so that Christian prisoners might be ransomed from pagan rulers. A remark by Eusebius implies that Rome gave similar help during the Diocletian persecution also.134 A similar sense of responsibility for other churches distinguished Cyprian of Carthage; he had a collection made among his flock for the communities in Numidia and its considerable yield was employed in caring for their prisoners.135

The practical accomplishment of the tasks imposed by the duties of brotherly love required, in the bigger communities of the third century, a certain administrative organization and personnel. Women were increasingly employed in order to supplement the efforts of deacons who were the appointed helpers of the bishops in charitable welfare work; they were in any case indispensable in the care of their own sex. Widows were the ones first considered for such work; they were regarded as a special order within the community and held in high regard on account of Timothy 5:3-16. Only approved women were received — a judgement on this was a task of the bishop — without consecration and without prescribed vows. They were

151 Euseb. HE 7, 22, 7-10 and 9, 8, 1; Cyprian, De mortal, passim; Pontius, Vita Cypr. 9.

iss Euseb. HE 4, 23, 10; cf. Ignatius, Ad Rorrt. proem.: fj :rpoxaib]nev/) -tij; ?yamr]?. "4 Euseb. HE 7, 5, 2; 4, 23, 9; Basil, Ep. 70. 155 Cyprian, Ep. 76-79, especially Ep. 62.

particularly employed in private pastoral work in the home and in missionary work among women. They devoted themselves to educating orphans, worked as nurses, and sometimes undertook the care of those in prison. From the second century onwards, unmarried women were also admitted for such purposes, and later for them as well as for the widows engaged in charitable works the title of deaconess was used. When the order of widows and virgins, through its adoption of an ascetical manner of life, detached itself more and more from this kind of task, the function of the deaconess became, especially in Syrian territory, a definite office in the community; she was now especially concerned in looking after women catechumens and candidates for baptism, in domestic pastoral work with Christian women in pagan families, and in caring for sick women. In the fourth century, as a consequence of the entry of the pagan masses into the Church, the office of deaconess increased even more in importance and attained its definitive form and full development.

As the office of deaconess cannot be shown to have existed in the Latin West before the fourth century, the widows who were already known to Hermas in Rome as a special order, probably retained the same functions.137 The deliberate creation of an institution so adapted to the talents and disposition of women is to that extent a praiseworthy original achievement of the early Christian Church. The benefits it brought caused later centuries to maintain it in principle even if in ever-different forms.
Christian charitable activity inevitably confronted the Church with a series of social problems, such as those of property and wealth, labour and poverty, which obliged her to adopt definite positions. The most detailed treatment of these is found in Clement of Alexandria, though his views cannot be taken as those of the Church as a whole. He maintains in principle the New Testament detachment from property and wealth, though his estimate of these is not so pessimistic as that of some other Christians. Wealth in itself does not exclude from the kingdom of heaven, just as poverty alone cannot guarantee access to it, but Clement is also profoundly convinced of the serious danger which wealth brings to any Christian. Whether wealth and property prove a curse to a Christian depends on whether or not he is the slave of these possessions and makes them the business of his life. Those who possess inner freedom in regard to them and bear their loss calmly, belong to the poor in spirit whom the Lord declared to be blessed. A right use is made of them when they are put to the use of the brethren.188 Hence the high praise of almsgiving that is found in most writers of the age culminates, as far as pre-Constantinian times are concerned, in Cyprian's special treatise on this subject. Already in the so-called Second Letter of Clement, almsgiving had been ranked higher than fasting and prayer and with Cyprian it attains the rank of a means of grace by which the Christian can atone for daily faults committed after baptism.139 Without doubt the bishop's exhortations to benevolence were willingly followed by many Christians, as is proved by the forms of Christian charitable action which we have just described. Some in ascetical enthusiasm gave all they had or distributed their gifts without discretion, so that Origen for example utters the warning that the situation of anyone in need should be carefully investigated and appropriate help given.140

For all her welfare work, however, the Church in no way failed to proclaim the high personal worth of labour and she opposed the view of antiquity which regarded manual labour as an evil and a bitter necessity, as a sign of lack of freedom and of slavery. She followed the Jewish and New Testament pattern in this and emphasized that even simple work was estimable and was preferable to the idle luxury of many pagans. Church ordinances simply regarded work as a duty and proclaimed that a Christian who was capable of working should not receive any relief from the community.141 It is only with Augustine that deeper reflection on the moral and religious meaning of labour began and led to the formation of a Christian ethic of work. The contribution which the Church of the third century made to the practical solution of the problem of labour was so comprehensive that it attracted the attention of the pagans. Tertullian reports how many of them, in light of this, said with ironic disdain, "Look how they love one another!"142 What was meant as derision, was in the last analysis high praise.

The Attitude of Early Christianity to Secular Civilization and Culture

It was in accord with the fundamentally ascetical attitude of early Christianity that it regarded with marked reserve the amenities of late- antiquity civilization. Though Tertullian's rigorism may have gone too far in its radical rejection of most of civilization's benefits as the inventions of pagan demons, even level-headed men condemned pagan luxury. Clement of Alexandria, for example, repudiated everything that served an exaggerated

Clement, Ad Cor. 2, 16; Cyprian, De op. et eleem. 1.

140 Cf. Hermas, Pastor. Mand. 4-6; Origen, In Matth. comm. 61.
141
142 Did. 12, 2-5; Aristides, Apol. 15; Tertullian, De idol. 5, 12; Apol. 41; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 3, 11; Didasc. 2, 4, 3.
143
i« Apol. 39.

cultivation of beauty and the body and which degenerated into pleasure- seeking luxury, though he by no means opposed reasonable care for health and a moderate use of jewellery.143 The great threats to the Christian ideal of morality represented by pagan entertainments, gladiatorial contests, theatrical shows, and dances, were deliberately shunned if for no other reason than their connexion with idolatry, even though this was often no longer very perceptible. But the discussions which Tertullian and Novatian had to engage in on the subject show that many Christians found it difficult to free themselves from their deep-rooted liking for these things.144

The estimate of pagan literature and learning by Christian writers of the third century is very mixed. The Greeks with some reservations show themselves far readier than the Latins (excepting Lactantius) to attribute importance to them. Clement of Alexandria could not concur in the opinion of those who regarded philosophy as an invention of the devil. He even accorded to Greek philosophy a providential significance as a preparation for Christianity, while admitting that some of its representatives, in their preoccupation with words and style, had let themselves be misled into losing sight of the relevant content. Philosophical thought, even in Christianity, can still help to prepare the way for faith. In literature, Clement sets a positive value on tragedy because it teaches men to raise their eyes heavenwards.145 Origen, too, felt and expressed open-minded sympathy with many achievements of secular learning. In his controversy with Celsus he defended himself against the latter's accusation that he was illogical in adducing the testimony of pagan philosophers in favour of the immortality of the soul; he also contested the assertion that the dialectical method was rejected by Christians. Origen recognized the importance of secular studies for Christian instruction, but compared unfavourably the sophistry and rhetoric of many teachers with the simplicity and conscientiousness of the evangelists.148 The attitude of Hippolytus was much more reserved. He explained the rise of heresies by their dependence on Greek philosophies, though he still gave Greek literature preference over the wisdom of Egypt, or of Babylon and the Chaldees.147

On the Latin side, Minucius Felix arrived at a radical repudiation of pagan poetry and literature, the mythological content of which rendered it unsuitable, he considered, for use in Christian education of young people. He was just as unwilling to overlook philosophical scepticism in the question

Tertullian, De cor. passim; De cultu fern, passim; Clement of Alexandria, Paed. 2, 8 and 11-12; 3, 2 and 10-11; Min. Felix, Oct. 12, 38; Cyprian, De laps. 6. 144 De sped, passim, especially 1; Novatian, De sped. 2-3.

1,5 Clement of Alexandria, Strom. 6, 17, 156; 6, 8, 66; 6, 17, 153; 1, 5, 28; 6, 16, 151; 5, 14, 122; Protr. 4, 59.

146 Origen, Contra Cels. 3, 81; 6, 7; 6, 14; 3, 39.
147
148 Hippolytus, Refut. 1 proem.; 10, 5; 10, 34.
149
of knowledge of God, though he passes a favourable judgment on the endeavours of other thinkers to arrive at a true conception of God.148 Tertullian's attitude was of a particularly complex nature and was, of course, expressed with varying intensity and differently based according to his theme and the moment of writing. In his early apologetic works, the possibility of attributing some value to philosophical endeavour is at least indirectly conceded when Tertullian himself quotes the critical works of pagan philosophers on religion for the purposes of his own argument.149 In his polemical works of controversy against heresies his judgment on the value of philosophy is more sceptical; he makes philosophy at least partly responsible for erroneous doctrine and its theses are only utilizable when they agree with Christian truth.150 His practical, ascetical writings then reveal intense pessimism in his judgment of all pagan literature, which can make scarcely any contribution to the formation of Christian moral life. Consequently, the profession of teacher in pagan schools is intolerable for a Christian; Tertullian could not conceive of anyone teaching something of which he was not genuinely convinced.151 Here something of the contradictions in Tertullian's soul become apparant. He himself possessed a comprehensive knowledge of pagan literature and learning which he often placed in a very distinguished manner at the service of his work as a Christian writer. Yet he contested in an increasingly radical manner, and as it were despite himself, the idea that these studies possessed any worth whatsoever for the culture of a Christian. Cyprian, as a man of deeds, only expressed himself sporadically on these questions; according to him, the truths of Christian faith have no need of rhetoric; pagan tragedy only taught immoral behaviour, pagan ethics failed to provide motives for virtue and dealt with empty words, "but we are philosophers not in words but in deeds".152 Even more incisive in form is the uncompromising rejection of pagan literature found in the apocryphal writings of the third century that are attributed to Cyprian. It is only shortly before the turning-point under Constantine that in Lactantius there is found a Christian writing in Latin whose regard for the greatness of the past of Rome made possible a more favourable estimate of its literary achievements. As a former teacher of rhetoric, he also saw some value in this branch of knowledge, and he found more in philosophy, which teaches how to distinguish truth and falsity, even though pagan philosophy had often failed. Cicero remained for him eloquentiae unicum exemplar, and he esteemed Virgil as the poeta summits

"8 Min. Felix, Oct. 23, 1; 23, 8; 38, 5; 20, 1-2; 14, 2; 31, 1. »» Ad nat. 1, 10; 2, 4-7; 2, 16; Apol. 14, 19, 24, 46-47.

150 De praesc. 7; 43; De resurr. earn. 3; De an. 2.
151
152 De spect. 30; De pat. 1; De paen. 1; De cor. 10.
153
154 Ad Don. 2; 8-9; De bono pat. 2-3.
155
1 Hi, ^Vl^avLlUAlXV/iX ur int V^n UlW^rl

of Latin literature, but in regard to the theatre he expressed certain reservations.m

The counterpart to the predominantly unfavourable estimate of pagan literature and philosophy made by the majority of third-century Christian writers was their proud awareness that in the the Old Testament, the Gospels, Epistles and other documents of apostolic tradition, they possessed an intellectual patrimony far superior to the wisdom of the Greeks. The works of the apologists and exegetes and the achievements of the writers of Alexandria and North Africa who professed the Christian faith, represented in the eyes of their fellow-believers an intellectual life which provided a perfectly adequate substitute for what they had given up. If Christianity in the third century was not yet able to develop any systematic and specifically Christian ideal of culture, it nevertheless laid foundations upon which a later age could build.

The Early Christian Church and the Pagan State

Of particular interest is the relation which developed in the third century between the pagan State and the Church. The Christian society became clearly aware of her growing inner strength and felt herself to be the "great Church". This increase in strength within and without was not hidden from the pagan State either, and it now reckoned with her as a power that required the adoption of a new attitude. This consciousness existed on both sides and is most strikingly revealed by Cyprian's proud remark that the emperor Decius heard the news of the rebellion of a rival usurper much more calmly than the announcement of the election of a new Bishop of Rome.154 Both sides considered the relationship afresh and the outcome was of far- reaching importance for the period that followed. Among the Christians there was really only one voice at the beginning of the century that expressed a radical rejection of the Roman State; Hippolytus saw the power of Satan behind the Roman imperium, he envisioned it as represented by the first beast in the Apocalypse (13:1 f.) and the fourth beast in Daniel (chapter 7); in diabolical imitation the Roman empire copied the faithful Christian people which the Lord had gathered together from all nations and tongues.158 Such a judgment expresses the overwhelming pressure that sometimes weighed upon a Christendom fixed within a structure of power that worshipped its emperor as a god. The position of the Alexandrian teachers was quite different. Clement was fundamentally loyal to the pagan
State when he affirmed the obligation of taxes and military service and recognized Roman law; if that State persecuted the Church, the hand of Providence was to be worshipped.158 The only limit to this recognition was set by the cult of the emperor and the idolatry encouraged by the State. Origen is the first to attempt to cope theoretically with the relation between the Church and the pagan State. On the basis of Romans 1:13 ff., he derives the power of the Imperium Romanum from God, who has conferred judicial authority on it in particular. To the intrusive and insistent question of how a State authority that came from God could combat the faith and religion of the Christians, he answered that all the gifts of God can be abused and that those who held the power of the State would have to render an account before the judgment-seat of God. God's providence permitted persecutions but always gave back peace again.158 In principle the Christian showed loyalty to this State and followed all its laws as long as they did not stand in contradiction to the clear demands of his faith, as, for instance, the required recognition of the cult of the emperor did.139 Origen, however, thought that a special providential mission had been assigned to the Roman empire; its unity which comprised the civilized world of that time and the pax Romana effective within it, had according to God's will smoothed the way for the Christian mission and so the empire acted, ultimately, in the service of the faith.160 Tertullian, too, for all his bold defence of the freedom of the Christian conscience in the face of the Roman State, was profoundly convinced that it was under the authority of God. As the God of the Christians is therefore also the God of the emperor, they pray for the emperor's well-being and in fact for the continuance of the Roman Government.181 Tertullian's positive affirmation of the Roman State, in principle, is not altered by the frequent reservations he has to express regarding political activity by Christians. These latter spring from his conception of a considerable permeation of public life by Satanic influences which make Christians strangers in this world despite their loyalty as citizens.162

It is not surprising that with so much recognition in principle of the authority of the Roman State, contacts in practice between it and the Church became frequent in the third century. Origen could lecture to the womenfolk of the Syrian rulers in Antioch; his correspondence with Emperor Philippus Arabs is a significant sign of tolerance. At the beginning of the reign of Valerian many Christians worked in the Roman imperial palace. Emperor Gallienus ordered by rescript that the Christians should be restored their consecrated places and he forbade further molestation.104 The Christian community of Antioch could even dare to appeal directly to Caesar Aurelian for an edict in a lawsuit between itself and the deposed Paul of Samosata. All this shows that in the third century the relation between State and Church cannot in many spheres be regarded as one of hostility nor, from the point of view of the Church, even as a matter of indifference. A process is perceptible which may be described as one of gradual mutual approach even though the Church unmistakably expressed the limits of her recognition of Roman power. Only twice, under Decius and Diocletian, was this development harshly interrupted. This occurred because both still believed in the possibility of a violent solution. How completely their opinions failed to recognize the signs of the times was shown by the enormously rapid change after Constantine's victory. A view of the exhaustive way the foundations of a reconciliation between Church and State were laid even in the third century shows that the events following the failure of the Diocletian persecution were not as revolutionary a turning-point as they have often been interpreted to be.