Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) III. Growth of the Church (107-248)
15. Reaction to Simplification: Monarchianism
III
Growth of the Church
15. REACTION TO SIMPLIFICATION: MONARCHIANISM
A. Introduction: Speculative Reaction
Gnosticism had peopled the theological world with a confusing horde of eons. Despite its
Christian terms, practically it amounted to a relapse into polytheism. Then during the latter part of
the second century, just when Gnosticism was at its height, there appeared a severe monotheism
which virtually denied the Trinity. Dearth of documents prevents categorical affirmation of a link
between these two religious trends. Yet it can safely be presumed, by analogy with subsequent
theological controversies, that deviation from the Catholic via media in one direction is ever apt to
prompt a reaction which will veer to the opposite extreme. Thus against Nestorianism arose
Monophysitism; and Fideism attacked Rationalism. It seems legitimate to assume, then, that the
ultramonotheism of Monarchianism was to a degree a speculative reaction to Gnostic polytheism;
that its rationalizing tendency represented surfeit of "superior knowledge."
Monarchianism is the term applied to these heresies which tried to simplify" the divine
Trinity into a Unitarian monarchy, either by denying or subordinating two of the Persons. This
general tendency is sometimes subdivided into Dynamic Monarchianism or Adoptionism, and
Modalistic Monarchianism or Modalism. The first form, which contemporaries, indeed, did not
term Monarchianism, considered the Son as the dynamis or power of the Father, and Christ as
but an adopted son of God. The second group held that the Son and the Holy Ghost were only
modes or phases of the Father. The system of Paul of Samosata, finally, may be considered as a
composite of various elements of the foregoing systems.
B. Adoptionism
(1) ORIGIN
Theodotus the Tanner. According to St. Epiphanius (Panarion, LIV, 1) the founder of
Adoptionism was Theodotus, a rich tanner of Byzantium, who enjoyed a reputation for learning
and piety among his fellows. During persecution, however, he had the weakness to deny the
Faith. Unable to endure the loss of prestige, he moved to Rome. Even here a Byzantine visitor
reproached him for his apostasy. Theodotus made excuse by saying: "It is not God I have
denied, but a man." This assertion be tried to justify by the text, "If anyone blasphemes the Son of
Man, it will be forgiven him, but be who blasphemes the Holy Spirit, it will never be forgiven."
From these efforts at self-justification, the first version of Adoptionism seems to have arisen.
Theodotus claimed that Jesus was but a just man, born of a Virgin, upon whom "Christ"
descended in the form of a dove. This divine descent, attributed to the Holy Ghost, made Jesus
the adopted Son of God. Theodotus, then, certainly denied the divinity of the Second Person of
the Blessed Trinity; whether be held that the Holy Ghost was distinct from the Father is not
entirely clear (Eusebius, History, V, 28).

(2) HISTORY OF ADOPTIONISM
Pope St. Victor excommunicated Theodotus the Tanner about 190, but the latter
organized disciples into a church of his own. Hellenic philosophy was mustered to the defense of
Adoptionist doctrines; in particular, the heretics are said to have made use of the Stoic
development of Aristotelian disjunctive and conjunctive propositions. St. Hippolytus flatly accused
them of rationalism.
Natalis, a Roman cleric, presently appeared to act as bishop of the sect at the reported
salary of 150 denarii a month. But St. Hippolytus says that Natalis eventually perceived his error,
deserted the sect, and after much difficulty was reconciled to the Church under Pope Zepherinus
(199-217) (Eusebius, History, V, 28).
Theodotus the Younger, sometimes called the banker, is said to have been a disciple of
the founder of Adoptionism. To his master's errors he added the assertion that Melchisidech was
greater than Christ, because whereas Christ was priest merely "according to the order of
Melchisidech" and mediator between God and men, Melchisidech was "heavenly power of the
chief grace" and mediator between God and angels. Theodotus's Melchisidechites went so far as
to address prayers to Melchisidech.
Asclepiades and others introduced new variations on this theme. Some identified
Melchisidech with the Holy Spirit, thus reconciling the views of the two Theodoti. At any rate, all
Adoptionist sects denied at least one of the Persons of the Trinity. The original sectaries were
combated at Rome by St. Hippolytus, though the latter's writings seem to have been chiefly
directed against a later member, Artemon.
Artemon is the last Adoptionist known to history. Apparently he taught at Rome between
225 and 235. All that is known of him is that he also denied Christ's divinity, probably with a
different explanation. His chief importance lies in the fact that he links the earlier form of
Adoptionism with the composite variation elaborated by Paul of Samosata, for the Council of
Antioch condemned the latter for following Artemon. Thereafter Artemon disappears from history,
but Adoptionism seems not so much to have ceased as to have evolved into new forms.
C. Modalistic Monarchianism
(1) PATRIPASSIANISM
Noahtus of Smyrna is designated by St. Hippolytus as founder of the "Patripassian" form
of Monarchianism. In contrast to Theodotus, Noahtus began by affirming Christ's divinity. This,
however, did not prevent him from identifying Christ with the Father. For Noahtus, St. John's
Prologue is a mere allegory: the Word is but another name for the Father, who at first unseen,
unknowable, and uncreated, became the Son of Mary and as such seen, known, and created.
Noahtus asserted: "The Father is Christ; He is the Son; He was born; He suffered; He rose
again." Noahtus defended his doctrine by accusing St. Justin and his disciple Tatian of
Gnosticism, a charge not without truth in regard to the latter. Twice Noahtus expounded his views
to the clergy of Smyrna. Upon his refusal to recant, he was excommunicated, Apparently he
continued to
enlist disciples at Smyrna.
Praxeas, according to Tertullian (Against Praxeas, 3), was the first Noahtan disciple to
appear at Rome. Apparently be remained undetected during Pope Victor's pontificate, or was
guilty of material rather than formal heresy. When Praxeas appeared at Carthage, Tertullian was
instrumental in having him sign a retraction. Tertullian's testimony is not in entire accord with that
of St. Hippolytus, and it has been suggested that Praxeas was in reality an anti-Montanist, vilified
by Tertullian, himself on the verge of embracing Montanism.
Epigonus and Cleomenes, according to St. Hippolytus (Refutation, IX, 7-12) were the real
propagators of Patripassianism at Rome. But neither is the testimony of the first antipope above
reproach. St. Hippolytus claims that Epigonus and Cleomenes deceived Pope Zepherinus, ill
advised by his deacon, Calixtus. What clouds this testimony is the suspicion that Hippolytus and
Calixtus were rivals for the pope's favor and for the next papal election; when Calixtus was
actually chosen to succeed Zepherinus, Hippolytus went into schism. Even then the latter admits
that Calixtus did condemn some heretics, the Sabellians to be noted presently, but he implies that
this was done out of fear of his, Hippolytus's criticisms. But no precise heretical expressions are
cited from Epigonus and Cleomenes, and we have no proof that they actually taught the doctrine
of Noahtus, or if they did teach it, did not retract at papal command. Certainly if Zepherinus and
Calixtus opposed the Sabellian type of Monarchianism, as Hippolytus admits, it is not reasonable
to accuse them of countenancing Patripassianism. It is suspected that Hippolytus, however
sincere, became something of a heresy hunter, and that his judgment may have been warped in
the severe clash of personalities between himself and Calixtus. Patripassianism seems to have
merged with the ensuing form of Sabellianism.
(2) SABELLIAN MODALISM
Sabellius was a Libyan from the Pentapolis in North Africa. During St. Zepherinus's
pontificate, be is said to have appeared at Rome and become involved in the suspicions attaching
to Epigonus and Cleomenes. According to St. Epiphanius, there was no basic doctrinal
difference between Noahtus and Sabellius, but the latter used a greater felicity of expression.
After the pope had tried in vain to convert Sabellius to orthodoxy, about 220, Calixtus
excommunicated him-" fearing me," Hippolytus must needs add. Ten years later Sabellius is
reported still at Rome, but is supposed to have subsequently traveled through Asia Minor and
Egypt, dying some time before 260. Though the Sabellians became extinct in the fourth century,
the Arians would attach the stigma of their heresy to Catholic defenders of the Nicene Creed.
Modalism, in brief, asserted that the three Persons of the Blessed Trinity were but three
modes or phases: "The Father is identical with the Son, and the Son is identical with the Holy
Ghost; these three terms are but three different names of one hypostasis person." Sabellius
himself used the word monad for these modes: according to him, God was in the beginning the
hidden and unrevealed monad. When He revealed Himself at creation He took on the modality of
a father; when He worked out redemption by union with the man Christ, He assumed the modality
of Son; now that He continues the work of sanctification and enlightenment in the Church, He
exercises the modality of Holy Spirit. Sabellius, therefore, reduces the three Persons to a single
person with three offices or functions. By using the term hypostasis to designate his Unitarian
divinity with three modalities Sabellius rendered this word suspect for a long time in Catholic
circles.
St. Denis of Alexandria opposed Sabellianism in his own diocese but was in turn
denounced to Rome as guilty of subordinationism. It is true that in good faith be expressed
himself somewhat incorrectly, relying on Origen's faulty theology. When this was brought to the
attention of his namesake, Pope St. Denis, Sabellian teaching was re-examined. About 262 the
pope issued the following condemnation: "We must neither divide the wonderful and divine
Monad into three divinities, nor destroy the dignity and exceeding greatness of the Lord by
thinking him a creature; but must have faith in God the Father Almighty, and in Christ Jesus His
Son, and in the Holy Spirit, and in the union of the Word with the God of the universe, for He
says, 'I and the Father are one,' and, 'I am in the Father, and the Father is in Me.' Thus both the
divine trinity and the holy preaching of the monarchy will be safeguarded." This remarkable papal
definition, which used the controverted terms in a legitimate sense, was loyally accepted by St.
Denis
of Alexandria.
D. Composite Monarchianism
(1) PAULIANIST ADOPTIONISM
Paul, surnamed from his native city of Samosata in Syria, appears about 260 as bishop
of Antioch. Following Emperor Valerian's defeat by the Persians, the Arabian chief Odenathus of
Palmyra occupied northern Syria. His wife and successor, Zenobia, named Paul city treasurer.
As civil prefect of the Syrian capital, Paul assumed unprecedented pomp, while his proximity to
court life led to relaxation of clerical discipline: women not above suspicion were admitted to the
episcopal residence.
Paulianism, as his theology was later called, declared that Father, Son, and Holy Ghost
constituted but a single person: prosypon. The Son was only the reason (logos) or wisdom
(sophia) of God, just as man's intellect is not a separate person. The Son may be said to be
consubstantial (homoöusios) with the Father in the sense that He is but a faculty of a Unitarian
deity. Through this faculty God spoke by the prophets and at length through the man Christ.
Mary brought forth merely a man, with whom at the baptism in the Jordan was united this "
reason" of God, though qualitatively, not essentially. Though Father and Son are essentially one
person, in Christ there are two persons: the Word or rational divine faculty, and the human
individual derived from Mary. This Word dwells in the man Christ as in a temple, making him
sinless and giving him miraculous powers. After death, Christ as judge of men is so closely
identified with God, so adopted as his son, that he can be called what be is not-god.
(2) PAULIANIST CONDEMNATION
Conciliar censure. After remonstrance from his suffragans failed to alter Paul's views,
seventy bishops met in provincial council (268 A.D.). They agreed to anathematize Paul's
theology including his use of the term homoöusios. Paul himself was declared deposed, Domnus
chosen in his place, and a report of the conciliar acts sent the Holy See. Though the homoöusios
was correctly censured in the meaning given it by Paul, Rome would later impose it in an
orthodox sense at Nicea some sixty years later-to the perturbation of many eastern theologians.
Imperial expulsion. Secure in Zenobia's protection, Paul of Samosata defied the conciliar
verdict. But when Emperor Aurelian had reconquered Syria in 272, he rightly regarded Paul as a
collaborationist with Rome's foes. The emperor accordingly awarded the church property in
Antioch to that ecclesiastical authority deemed legitimate by "the Roman bishop and Italian
prelates." Imperial troops expelled Paul from the episcopal residence, and he disappears in exile
(Eusebius, History, VII, 30).
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) III. Growth of the Church (107-248)
16. Growth of "Superior Virtue": Montanism, Encratism
III
Growth of the Church
16. GROWTH OF "SUPERIOR VIRTUE ": MONTANISM ENCRATISM
A. Introduction: Pragmatic Reaction
Gnosticism may perhaps be accused of provoking yet another reaction. Besides
reversing the trend toward one of dogmatic simplification, it may have contributed to the growth of
moral rigorism. Against the excessive philosophical speculation of Gnostics, in any event, there
appeared a movement which sought a "superior teaching" not so much for enlightenment of the
intellect by abstruse speculation, as for inspiration of the will toward practical asceticism. What
the varying forms of this movement had in common was the proclamation of a rigoristic code of
morality, supposedly superior to that of the Catholic Christian Church. They would put Catholics
to shame by commanding those evangelical counsels left to the option of orthodox Christians. In
one important respect, however, these new sects were akin to Gnosticism. They as well as the
Gnostics claimed revelations directly obtained from superior powers. Both appealed to the spirit
of emulation in men; both enticed converts under the specious pretext of placing them on a
pedestal whence they might look down on their fellows as either less intelligent or less virtuous
than themselves.
Species of Rigorism. Rigorism is here applied as a common denominator for the
essentially different systems of Marcionitism, Montanism, and Encratism. The first has a Gnostic
origin; indeed, it could justifiably be rated as a species of Gnosticism. The second would seem to
have been an adaptation of a pagan doctrine to Christianity. The third appears less a sect than
an attitude within the Church. Marcionitism had some of the bizarre attractiveness of Gnosticism,
combined with careful organization. The Montanist heresy succeeded in drawing from the
Church the most learned theologian for that day, the austere Tertullian. Encratism is closely
linked with the problems of primitive penitential discipline, treated in the next topic.
B. Marcionitism
(1) ORIGINS
Marcion of Sinope (c. 110-60) was the son of the bishop of Sinope in Pontus. Rhodon
(Eusebius, V, 13) and Tertullian (Against Marcion, IV, 4) describe him as a wealthy ship owner
who gained a reputation for asceticism before becoming involved in a scandal. It has been
suggested that Marcion was his father's auxiliary, a circumstance which would explain the
severity of the bishop's sentence: excommunication without prospect of pardon. Marcion fled to
Rome where he made a donation of 200,000 sesterces to Pope Hyginus. For a time he kept in
the background while attending the lectures of the Gnostic Cerdon. Then be sounded out the
Roman priestly college, probably during the sede vacante following St. Hyginus's death. At first
he was merely refuted, but when Pope Pius I refused to accept him, he left the Church in July,
144, designated as the beginning of a new era by Marcionites. The Roman pontiff-after refunding
his money-excommunicated him.
(2) MARCIONITE TEACHING
Antitheses, title of Marcion's chief work, suggest the basic dogmas of his system, for
Marcion introduced opposition between the Old and New Testaments. According to him, the God
of the Jews was not the God of the Christians. By forced interpretation and deliberate deletion of
biblical texts, Marcion presented the creator of the visible world as Demiurge. Ignorantly
believing himself the supreme being, Demiurge tyrannized over the Jews during the Old
Testament. Though he had given man a spiritual soul, this had been mixed with and degraded by
matter. Envious of his deficient creature, Demiurge denied him knowledge of good and evil,
turned him out of Eden, and kept him in slavery by means of the Mosaic precepts. Finally the
invisible, sovereign Good God, hitherto a "Stranger God," sent His Son, distinct from Himself only
in name, to descend to earth in the synagogue at Capharnaum. According to Docetist notions,
this Son had no human birth and no material body; he merely seemed to die. But when he came
to Sheol, the just of the Old Testament, deceived by Demiurge, refused his call; only Cain and the
wicked were liberated. Similarly all the apostles save St. Paul mistook the Savior for a prophet of
Demiurge. Marcion therefore rejected the whole New Testament except ten selected Pauline
Epistles and a truncated version of St. Luke's Gospel.
Morality. On the principle that matter is essentially evil, Marcion professed to erect an
austere asceticism. Men should abstain from pleasure and practice mortification: they ought to
avoid certain foods and lead a celibate life. Those who do so will constitute a moral elite
according to Marcion's dictum: "Demiurge is with the crowd; the Lord is only with the chosen
ones." It is only this Marcionite elite which shall enjoy immortality in company of the Good God; as
for the majority of men, they will fall back into Demiurge's power when he destroys the world by
fire. Some indication of the severity of Marcionite penitential discipline is gained from the fact that
it was ridiculed by Tertullian, himself excessively rigorous. To evade this penitential burden, many
Marcionites remained neophytes most of their lives.
(3) MARCIONITE HISTORY
Apelles, Marcion's disciple, reduced Marcion's dualism to monism, and mitigated his
asceticism.
Syneros and Lucanus, other disciples, altered Marcion's teaching by introducing an evil
deity. Gradually the concept of Demiurge was lost sight of in favor of Manichaean opposition
between good and evil deities. Marcion had been a careful organizer, and St. Justin describes
his sect as already widespread by the middle of the second century. At the close of the fourth
century St. Epiphanius (Panarion, XLII, 1) still regarded it as important. But by this time it had
already begun to lose some of its members to the Manichees. It is not beard of as a distinct
organization after the seventh century; presumably it merged with the Manichaean sect.
C. Montanism
(1) MONTANIST ORIGINS
Montanism, unlike Marcionitism, was at first merely a movement of religious enthusiasm
within the Church: a sort of revival that professed to retain the entire Christian doctrine.
Montanist votaries harked back to the charismata of the apostolic age. Presently they became
interested in an imminent parousia or second coming of Christ. Once Montanist prophets began
to compute accurately the time of an event that Christ had refused to give, they were tempted to
imagine or invent visions which led the way to heresy. In its developed form, Montanism
professed to introduce a Third Testament of the Holy Ghost, which would supplant the New
Testament of the Son, just as the latter had superseded the Old Testament of the Father.
Montanism took its rise in a pagan Phrygian environment where the natives were predisposed to
acceptance by their cult of Cybele. Pagan priests of Cybele reported her oracles in states of
ecstasy or reverie.
Montanus, founder of the sect, had perhaps been one of these pagan priests. He was
converted to Christianity but was still under instruction when he came into prominence during the
proconsulship of Gratus. This is dated 157 by St. Epiphanius, but Eusebius's Chronicle seems
more plausible in giving the year 172. Then Montanus began to "prophesy" in the remote village
of Ardabou on the border of Mysia and Phrygia. At first be merely claimed to be a prophet
promised by Christ; later he admitted that he was the Paraclete Himself. It was his duty, he
asserted, to announce terrible chastisements, attendant upon Christ's imminent return. Moments
of ecstasy began to seize him; whereupon he excused himself: "It is the Holy Ghost who speaks;
I must take leave of my senses.
Montanist disciples. After Montanus began a tour of Phrygia, he won disciples, notably in
Pepusa. Maximilla and Prisca, two rich ladies who deserted their husbands to join the new
prophet, soon began to experience similar ecstasies. While most, if not all, of the Gnostic
prodigies may be attributed to chicanery, some of the phenomena accompanying Montanism bear
close resemblance to cases of demoniacal possession. The sect made rapid progress
throughout Phrygia and spread to other
provinces of Asia Minor.
Millenarianism or Chiliism in some instances had prepared the way for Montanism by
claiming that Christ's second coming would bring about a thousand year reign of the just in an
earthly Eden. This residue of exaggerated Jewish Messianism was sometimes given a spiritual
meaning by certain fathers, such as Sts. Justin and Irenaeus; more commonly, however, it was
interpreted in a grossly sensual fashion.
(2) MONTANIST DOCTRINE
The teaching presented by Montanus and his prophetesses professed to be a
supplement to Christianity. Maximilla claimed: "After me the end will come." But she proved less
of a prophet than Louis XV with his, apres moi, le deluge, for she died before 180. Yet if the end
were at band, other Montanists argued, there was no time for worldly occupations: marriage was
discouraged, second marriages forbidden, all goods were to be held in common. Montanists
should fast on bread, water, and dried meat. All study was to be forsaken-here a reaction to
Gnosticism seems manifest. Under persecution Montanists should never flee; rather they ought
to offer themselves to the officials Anyone who committed a single grievous sin after baptism was
forever denied pardon.
The practice of the sect, however, soon revealed a caste, if not a racket." Montanist
illuminati were styled "pneumatic"-from the Spirit -and Catholics contemptuously dismissed as
merely "psychic." Soon booths were set up to which converts might bring their worldly goods in
keeping with their profession of the common life. Malicious psychics began to remark that soon
after the leading prophets appeared in fine clothes, amused themselves at dice, and lent money
at interest. But pneumatics ignored such innuendoes to continue gazing serenely at the sky in
expectation of the second coming; sometimes they went part of the way by levitations.
(3) MONTANIST OVERTHROW
Ecclesiastical condemnation. The bishops of the East were not slow in censuring
Montanism, but their action failed to check the progress of the heresy. Thyatira went over entirely
to the sect, despite St. John's warning (Apocalypse, 2:20). The oriental hierarchy accordingly
sent warnings to Pope Eleutherus (176-89) and the bishops of the West. We learn that the
church of Lyons sent St. Irenaeus, then a priest, to inform the pope personally. Later as bishop of
Lyons, St. Irenaeus succeeded in averting the spread of Montanism in Gaul. At first the Holy See
seems to have left the repression of the heresy to diocesan initiative, but when Montanist leaders
appeared in Rome itself, Pope Zepherinus condemned the sect about 200.
Montanist schisms completed the destruction begun by episcopal censure. Tertullian,
indeed, bowed himself out of the Church, but his haughty spirit refused to take a subordinate
position in Montanism. Hence Montanists of Carthage separated from the parent body to become
the Tertullianist sect. Surviving members of this group were reconciled by St. Augustine two
centuries later. Elsewhere schism disrupted Montanist unity, for the trend to private inspiration
became irresistible. The Alogi denied the divinity of the Word; the Artotritae insisted on cheese
and bread as the Eucharistic matter; the Tasco-drungitae called for attention at liturgical services
by placing their forefinger to their nose. These and kindred sects played themselves out by the
sixth century. As in the case of Marcionitism, many devotees were absorbed by Manichaeism
during the third century.
D. Encratism
(1) NATURE
Tatian of Syria, a disciple of St. Justin, is associated with Encratism by St. Irenaeus (A.
H., 1, 28), but he does not say whether he founded the movement. Eusebius (History, IV, 28)
does add this assertion. We know from Clement of Alexandria (Stromata, III, 13) that Tatian
condemned marriage and is believed to have mingled some Gnostic elements in his later
teaching.
Encratism means continence; Encratites so exalted virginity as virtually to deny the liceity
of matrimony. The aversion to marriage may have been derived from Tatian's Gnostic tenet that
matter is evil, though Tixeront would seek the source of this attitude in a misinterpretation of St.
Paul's teaching on virginity. One of their maxims is reported as: "There is no resurrection but for
such as preserve their virginity." Baptism would accordingly involve a vow of chastity. Meat was a
forbidden food for the Encratites, and they are also represented as the first prohibitionists, some
going so far as to substitute water for wine in the Mass. Encratites also are believed to have
stressed good works over theological speculation. They tried to support their views by
composing apocryphal Acts which they attributed to Paul, John, Peter, and Andrew.
(2) INFLUENCE
Encratite rigorism left its impress on Christian discipline from the second to fourth
centuries. Though the Encratites themselves may have been a small group within the Church,
their rigoristic attitude, like that of the Janenists centuries later, unconsciously influenced the
practice of many Catholics who repudiated their teachings. The restriction of the exercise of the
sacrament of penance seems to be associated with Encratism in much the same way as
abstention from Holy Communion accompanied Jansenist influence. Hermas, Tertullian, and St.
Hippolytus all manifested certain Encratite tendencies in this broad sense of a mental attitude.
Encratite Puritanism constrained other Catholics to unwonted severity.
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) III. Growth of the Church (107-248)
17. Penitential Discipline
III
Growth of the Church
17. PENITENTIAL DISCIPLINE
A. The Penitential System
(1) GENERAL SCOPE
Exomologesis, etymologically confession, came to designate the primitive penitential
system which seems to have been in full observance between the second and fifth centuries.
Those who were undergoing this discipline formed a class of public penitents, debarred in varying
degrees from participation in the liturgy. The condition of public penance involved exclusion from
Holy Communion, although this abstention did not itself constitute the penance, as Sts. Ambrose
and Augustine pointed out. The exomologesis was normally required for all,,capital sins." Now all
capital sins were mortal sins, but all mortal sins were not necessarily capital. They were specially
reserved crimes and their number seems to have varied with different dioceses. St. Pacian of
Barcelona restricted the capital sins to idolatry, murder, and fornication; St. Augustine would
suggest that they included all major sins against the Decalogue, especially those listed by St.
Paul as excluding the sinner from heaven. But St. Pacian's enumeration seems to have been the
one more commonly received, perhaps amounting to a general norm (Paranaesis, 4-5).
(2) ELEMENTS OF THE EXOMOLOGESIS
Confession was necessarily required. This we know from the Tridentine canon
anathematizing those denying the divine institution of "the mode of secret confession to a priest
alone which the Catholic Church has observed from the beginning" (xiv, 6: D. 916). The
existence of confession is also clear from the fathers. From their testimony it suffices to select
two references. St. Cyprian says: "I entreat you, beloved brethren, that each one confess his own
sin while be who has sinned is still in this world, while his confession may be received, while the
satisfaction and remission made by the priests are pleasing to the Lord" (On the Lapsed, 26-29).
St. Augustine, moreover, argued: "Let none say: I do penance secretly, I perform it in God's sight
and He who is to pardon me knows that I repent in my heart. . . . Was it then said to no purpose:
'What you shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven?' Was it for nothing that the keys are
given to the Church?" (Sermon 392:3.)
Public confession, however, would seem to be indicated in some patristic documents.
Care must be taken, however, to distinguish public declaration of sins from public satisfaction: the
normal procedure was to confess secretly, but to make satisfaction in public. Even where public
declaration for sins is certainly meant, it must be remembered that the practice was optional.
Sometimes, it is true, pressure may have been brought by the clergy or the community to enjoin
public confession, but this was an abuse, severely castigated by Pope St. Leo I in a letter to the
bishops of Campania: "That presumption against the apostolic rule, which I recently learned is
committed by some with illegitimate usurpation, I decree must be by all means removed. . . . It
suffices that the guilt of conscience be manifested to the priests alone in secret confession"
(Letter 168:2).
Satisfaction consisted in the fulfillment of the penance imposed by the bishop or priest at
the time of the confession. Normally it preceded absolution, and for its duration placed the sinner
in a class of penitents denied the society of the faithful to a certain degree. The penitent was not,
however, excommunicated in the strict or modern sense; indeed, if he had been so censured in
punishment for his crime, this ceased with the inception of the exomologesis.
In the West, we have no indication of degrees among penitents. All were excluded from
communion. They seem to have been assigned a special place at the entrance of the church,
and periodically came forward for imposition of hands and prayers for their repentance.
Tertullian's description gives the procedure at Carthage about 200: "Exomologesis is the
discipline which obliges a man to prostrate and humiliate himself and adopt a manner of life that
will draw down mercy. As regards dress and food, it prescribes that he shall lie in sackcloth and
ashes, clothe his body in rags, plunge his soul in sorrow, correct his faults by harsh treatment of
himself, use the plainest meat and drink for the sake of his soul and not of his stomach; usually
he shall nourish prayer by fasting, whole days and nights together shall be moan, weep, and wail
to the Lord his God, casting himself at the priests' feet, and failing on his knees before those dear
to God beseech them to plead in his behalf" (On Penance, ix).
In the East, especially in Asia Minor, four parts of this public penance are distinguished by
St. Basil, bishop of Neo-Caesarea. St. Basil mentions four "stations" or degrees of penitents:
weepers, hearers, kneelers, and co-standers. He gives an estimate of the duration of the
exomologesis for various crimes: "An intentional homicide, who afterwards repented, will be
excommunicated from the sacrament twenty years. These twenty years will be appointed for him
as follows: for four he ought to weep, standing outside the door of the house of prayer,
beseeching the faithful as they enter to offer prayer in his behalf, and confessing his own sin.
After four years he will be admitted among the hearers, and during five years will go out with
them. During seven years he will go out with the kneelers, praying. During four years he will only
stand with the faithful and will not take part in the oblation. On the completion of this period he
will be admitted to participation in the sacrament" (Letter 217).
Reconciliation, then, terminated the exomologesis. If general absolution from censure
was imparted, it was the Roman custom that this take place on Holy Thursday before Mass, after
recitation of penitential psalms, litanies, and prayers. Then after an exhortation the bishop would
give absolution. But no ironclad rule was to be kept to the detriment of the penitent, as we may
learn from Pope Innocent 1 (401-17): "it is the business of the priest to judge the gravity of crimes
so that he should attend to the penitent's confession and to the weeping and tears of the one
corrected, and then order remission when he sees that satisfaction is fitting. But if anyone
becomes sick and is despaired of, be is to be absolved before paschal time, lest be depart this
world without communion" (Letter 25). Gradually "more urgent cases" sanctioning the advance of
absolution multiplied until it came to be normally imparted before satisfaction.
B. Penitential Problems
(1) THE UNIQUE EXOMOLOGESIS
Public penance, it would seem, could be performed but once. Already in 150 Hermas
asserted: "If after that great and holy vocation (baptism), anyone should be tempted by the devil
and sin, he has penance once. if, however, he sins again and does penance, such penance will
not profit him" (Shepherd: Precepts, iv, 3). Tertullian also concedes repentance after baptism,
"but now once for all . . . for is not even this once enough?" (On Penance, vii.) "In graver faults,"
says Origen (On Leviticus, xv) "opportunity for penance is conceded but once." These do not
seem to be the warped views of rigorists, for St. Ambrose says: "As there is but one baptism so
there is but one course of penance: I mean that which is performed in public" (On Penance, ii).
Only once, then, might one guilty of capital sins perform the exomologesis; did this mean also
that he could be absolved but once? If be sinned a second time was be left without other
recourse than an act of perfect contrition?
Absolution for the dying, surely, was always available. St. Cyprian assures us of this
even in rigoristic Africa (Letter 12/17). It is unnecessary, however, to survey the Christian
churches, for in 325 we have the Nicene Ecumenical Council: "With regard to those dying, the
ancient canon law shall continue to be observed; namely, that if anyone be near death, let him not
be deprived of the last and most necessary Viaticum. But if he recovers after having been
absolved and admitted to communion, be is to be placed among those permitted to take part in
the prayers only. In general, and in the case of anyone dying who wishes to receive the
Eucharist, let the bishop give it to him after due investigation" (Canon 13). It is clear, then, that in
danger of death sacramental absolution was always obtainable to reconcile a penitent in the
internal forum of conscience; yet in the external forum of legal discipline he remained subject to
the penalties of the exomologesis in case of recovery.
Private penance of some sort, moreover, must have existed even if dearth of documents
makes it difficult to determine its precise scope. But it certainly existed for noncapital sins; that is,
for all but the customary reserved crimes of idolatry, murder, and adultery. Origen would seem to
confirm this in a passage immediately after the one cited from him above: "But the common
(faults) which we incur often always receive penance and are remitted without intermission" (On
Leviticus, xv). In the case of more serious, even capital, sins, there always existed a sacerdotal
discretion which could temper the severity of the general norm, at least in regard to the forum of
conscience. To pass over a few earlier testimonies, Pope St. Leo's instruction should suffice:
"The length of penance, with due regard to moderation, is left to your judgment, as you shall see
the penitents' minds disposed; you must not forget to consider old age, illness, and other risks"
(Letter 159). It may be argued that if the priest ought always to take cognizance of the penitent's
needs, even by exemption from public penance, he could at least absolve in the internal forum a
relapsed but truly contrite sinner who found it hard to remain in the state of mortal sin.
(2) THE "IRREMISSIBLE SINS"
Tertullian accused a Roman pontiff, probably St. Calixtus (217-222) Of presumption in
absolving from serious sexual sins: "The Pontifex Maximus-that is the bishop of bishops-issues
an edict: 'I remit to such as have performed penance sins both of adultery and of fornication.' 0
edict on which it cannot be inscribed: approved." Tertullian then proceeds to declare that the
Church could not forgive the "irremissible sins" of adultery, idolatry, and murder (De Pudicitia, 1,
2, 5, 21). St. Hippolytus, moreover, objects that "during Callistus's episcopate they have for the
first time presumptuously administered second baptism" (Refutation of Heresies, ix, 7). "Second
baptism" here seems to mean penance, Tertullian's "second plank after shipwreck."
Catholic tradition nonetheless rejects the biased statements of Tertullian, then a
Montanist rigorist, and of Hippolytus, temporarily estranged as antipope. As a Catholic, Tertullian
had admitted universal pardon: "To all sins, then, whether committed by flesh or spirit, whether by
deed or will, the same God who has destined penalty by means of judgment has also engaged to
concede pardon by means of penance" (De Paenitentia, iii). Nor does be deny that he changed
this opinion: "I blush not at an error that I have ceased to hold" (De Pudicitia, i). What Tertullian
the Montanist pronounces error, be should well have known to be Catholic tradition. St. Paul had
absolved the incestuous man (II Cor. 2:5). Pope St. Clement declared that "in every generation
God gave place of penance to all those who wished to be converted to him" (Corinthians, 7, 8).
St. Ignatius of Antioch stated that: "God forgives all penitents if they are converted to the unity of
God and the council of the bishop" (Philadelphians, 8). Hermas had announced "penance for all,"
including apostates (Similitudes, 8). St. Irenaeus recorded the admission to the exomologesis of
Cerdon the Gnostic and women who had sinned carnally with the Gnostic Mark (A. H., I, 13; III,
4). We need not fear, then, to conclude with St. Augustine: "Let us not listen to those who
deny that the Church of God has power to forgive all sins" (De Agone Christi, 4).
(3) NONSACERDOTAL ABSOLUTION
Martyrs' certificates, libelli pacis, often mention that penitents have been absolved by
Christians under sentence of death, though these were by no means always priests (Eusebius,
History, V, 2; VI, 42). But these certificates, examined more accurately, are but recommendations
by the Martyrs to the hierarchy that the penitents be duly absolved. Despite abuses, the bishops
usually honored these by way of indulgence. Confession to deacons, to martyrs, to the simple
faithful in the absence of priests, mentioned in certain documents, were optional practices lasting
far into the Middle Ages: "So great is the power of confession that if a priest be not at band, let
him confess to his neighbor. Although be to whom confession is made has no power to absolve,
yet be who confesses to his fellow becomes worthy of pardon by his desire of confessing to a
priest" (Pseudo-Augustine, De Vera et Falsa Paenitentia).
(4) COMMENTARY ON PRIMITIVE SEVERITY
Historical perspective is required to appreciate the exomologesis. Though it may appear
harsh to Catholics of the twentieth century, neither was the environment the same as that of
today. The world was pagan, not even leavened by the residue of Christian convention in modern
secularism. Christian converts had often contracted lax views of morality and habits of sin from
pagan upbringing. The pagan world still surrounded them, threatening to overwhelm them. If
converts were permitted great indulgence, they would quickly relapse into their old habits and the
morality of the whole Christian community would be threatened. The gravity of relapse had to be
impressed on them by painful and humiliating penance; for the good of the general body, then on
war footing, repeated backsliding could not be tolerated. If this fell heavily on individuals, the
severity was necessary in the interests of public morality. Some analogy may be drawn from the
Church's determined stand regarding contraceptives today in the face of general laxity outside
her fold.
Extraordinary motives, moreover, tended to inspire Christians of primitive times to
strictness of life. The standard of holiness was high, The memory of Christ, His apostles, and of
men who had spoken with the latter had not yet become dim. At the same time Christians lived
hourly in danger of torture and death from the hands of the state. Serious sins, at least those
designated as capital, were probably a rare occurrence at -first. If primitive discipline was severe,
it was imposed on an austere generation. It is true that with the accession of fair-weather
Christians during lulls in the persecutions and the passage of time this discipline came to be
regarded as relatively severe. Encratite mentality then demanded that no concessions be made
to pleas of "modern weaklings." But the vicars of the Good Shepherd thought otherwise, and they
braved Encratite sneers to mitigate primitive discipline. This process, begun with the decree of
St. Calixtus, proceeded gradually during the imperial period, more rapidly under the changed
conditions of the feudal era when Teutonic neoconverts and turbulent missionary conditions
dictated further relaxation. In substantiation of the reasons for this trend to mitigation, we may
conclude with Pope Innocent I's explanation to Bishop Exuperius of Toulouse regarding
absolution of penitents at the hour of death: "Regarding these, earlier practice was more severe,
the latter more tempered with mercy. The former custom was that penance should be granted but
Communion denied; for in those days persecutions were frequent. Hence lest easy admission to
Communion should fail to bring back from their evil ways men who were sure of reconciliation,
rightly Communion was refused, but penance was granted that refusal might not be total: the
condition of the time rendered remission more difficult. But after our Lord had restored peace to
His churches and terror had ceased, it was judged well that Communion should be given the
dying lest we should seem to follow the harshness and sternness of the heretic Novatian in
denying pardon. Communion, therefore, shall be given at the last, along with penance" (Letter vi,
6).
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) III. Growth of the Church (107-248)
18. Crystallizing Christian Life
III
Growth of the Church
18. CRYSTALLIZING CHRISTIAN LIFE
A. Jurisdiction
(1) PAPAL POWER
Papal primacy had been manifested during the apostolic or primitive period of
ecclesiastical history; now incidents of its exercise multiply. Subsequent documents indicate that
recourse to Rome in matters of faith was of immemorial institution, but disciplinary matters were
left more to episcopal supervision than now. Yet even on this score there is evidence that
variance from later practice was one of degree rather than of kind. St. Clement's classic
instruction to the Corinthians had set a precedent for future intervention in case of need.
Ordinary details may have been entrusted to the patriarchs, but the popes held their intervention
in reserve for extraordinary circumstances.
Various controversies brought this to light. About 155 St. Anicetus had not seen fit to
insist upon St. Polycarp's abandonment of the Oriental tradition in regard to the date of Easter.
But within forty years Pope St. Victor had insisted upon universal observance of the Roman
tradition despite the opposition of Bishop Polycrates of the apostolic see of Ephesus, together
with many other prelates of Asia Minor. Even excommunication was threatened or used to
enforce papal demands, which eventually were met, at least by the fourth century. The
Penitential Controversies also revealed papal leadership. Pope Calixtus persisted in sanctioning
absolution from the capital sin of immorality despite the criticism of the Church's foremost
theologians, Tertullian and Hippolytus. Neither schism nor apostasy swayed the determination of
the Holy See to uphold a moderate penitential discipline. At the end of the period St. Cyprian,
despite his independent attitude, continually consults the Holy See which continues to steer a
middle way between the laxism of Novatus and the rigorism of Novatian. Nor can it fail to be
noted bow various heresiarchs, Valentinian, Marcion, Sabellius, tried to secure the sanction of
Rome for their doctrinal innovations.
The Roman curia remains in obscurity, though there is increasing evidence that the
popes delegated many important matters. St. Hippolytus appears as archpriest and St. Calixtus
as archdeacon under Pope Zepherinus at the beginning of the third century. At this time there is
evidence that at Rome priests still concelebrated with the pope, receiving Communion before
distributing it to the laity. But by the middle of the century chapels of ease had developed into a
permanent parochial system. The earliest of these subordinate chapels were known as tituli, and
their rectors occupied the "cardinal" or "binge" posts in pontifical administration; in modern
parlance, these cardinals were the pope's key men. Even after cessation of persecution
permitted the erection of many new churches, these rectors of the titular churches retained a
privileged position among the Roman clergy and evolved into the college of cardinals, senate of
the Holy Roman See.
(2) EPISCOPAL POWER
The hierarchy. What is the case at Rome continues to be the practice of other churches.
Each has its bishop. Though at first confined to Roman civitates, the bishops eventually followed
the evangelization into the countryside. It is not entirely certain whether these chor-episkopi,
.country bishops," had the plenitude of the priesthood, but they certainly had considerable
autonomy. In some places rural needs were met by periodeutai, apparently itinerant missionary
priests. Lest the episcopal dignity be lessened by excessive multiplication of the office and its
attachment to insignificant hamlets, the parochial and deanery system eventually developed. The
better to preserve ecclesiastical unity despite this multiplication of prelacies, the offices and
prerogatives of patriarchs and metropolitans seem to have been enhanced during this period.
Since the Holy See did not normally concern herself with the choice of bishops outside the Latin
patriarchate, these patriarchs, primates, and metropolitans had important functions in the
selection, consecration, and supervision of suffragan bishops.
Local councils also appear within this period. Aside from the Apostolic Council of
Jerusalem, the first known provincial council was held by Bishop Apollinaris of Hierapolis and 26
other bishops against Montanism about 172. Toward the end of the second century the Easter
controversy evoked other councils in the East, while provincial councils seem to have been a
regular feature in Northern Africa during the third century. At least in the case of the Council of
Antioch in 268 we know that a report of the decrees was forwarded to Rome. About 250,
moreover, a considerable number of Italian bishops rallied around the Roman See during the
second Penitential Controversy, and declared: "We are not ignorant that in the Catholic Church
there ought to be one God, and one Lord Jesus Christ whom we have confessed, and one Holy
Spirit, and one bishop" (D. 44).
The clergy. Priests and deacons now came into greater prominence. The former are no
longer merely assistants at the cathedral, but are placed in charge of local churches. At first they
do not seem to have possessed full pastoral jurisdiction, but by the middle of the third century real
parishes appear. About 259 Pope St. Denis declared: "We have given over the charge of
individual churches to individual priests and have entrusted to them the church buildings and
rectories so that each shall have his rights and no one may overstep the boundaries of his
parish." The deacons' administration of funds and charities required help, and Pope St. Fabian
(236-50) named seven subdeacons to assist the seven regionary deacons of Rome. The next
pope, St. Cornelius (251-53) states that the Roman clergy included 46 priests, 7 deacons, 7
subdeacons, 42 acolytes, and 52 exorcists, lectors, and porters. Lay assistants were chanters,
sextons, diggers, and deaconesses. The latter, the Apostolic Constitutions later affirmed (VIII,
28), "does not bless"; she merely "guards the doors and ministers to the priests when women are
baptized for sake of decorum."
B. Magisterium: Early Patristic Teaching
(1) WITNESSES OF TRADITION
The Apostolic Fathers of the first century from the life of Christ have special importance
as witnesses to the faithful transmission of the Master's doctrine to His Catholic Church. They
are in a pre-eminent degree the "fathers" of Christian theology. Their writings resemble the New
Testament in simplicity of style, and they rank next to the inspired writings in ardor of faith, longing
for the second coming of Christ, and charity.
Individual witnesses. In this category, allusion has often been made already to the
Apostolic Creed and the Didache, which are resumes of apostolic teaching; to St. Clement's
Letter to the Corinthians on hierarchy and obedience; and to the hortatory letters of St. Ignatius of
Antioch, acknowledging Roman primacy and stressing obedience to the hierarchy, while warning
against Judaizers, Docetae, and other heretics. St. Polycarp of Smyrna, addressee of one of St.
Ignatius's letters and echo of his thought, has also been mentioned. He survived until the middle
of the second century to confirm the testimony of his Philippian letter-or letters-by martyrdom.
The Epistle of Pseudo-Barnabas is in part probably copied from the Didache; written before the
Jewish Revolt of 132, it contains a severe indictment of Jewish obstinacy. St. Papias of
Hierapolis, who may have written between 130 and 150, gave valuable testimony on the
composition of the Gospels and the transmission of apostolic tradition, though be entertained
misconceptions about a millennium. Hermas, brother of Pope Pius I (141-55), wrote an
exhortation to penance on the basis of alleged visions delivered by an angel under guise of a
Shepherd-whence the title of his treatise. The work of an earnest Christian, it contains amid
certain exaggerations and inaccuracies, valuable evidence of the penitential discipline in the
second century. About the name of St. Clement are grouped a number of works: a Second
Corinthians, certainly not by St. Clement but conceivably the letter of Pope St. Soter alluded to by
St. Denis of Corinth; and two Letters to Virgins, second or third century ascetical treatises. The
foregoing treatises are to be distinguished from the apocryphal Pseudo-Clementines, composed
either by ancient heretics or medieval canonists. Finally the precious teaching of the canonical
Scriptures and authentic patristic writings is illustrated more clearly in contrast to a host of
apocryphal "Gospels," "Acts," "Epistles," and even "Apocalypses." At best these are pious but
fantastic tales; at worst they are crass or insidious heresy.
(2) THE APOLOGISTS
The Apologists argued legal issues, exposed the absurdities of pagan mythologies,
appealed to truths of natural philosophies, and expounded the less recondite Christian tenets in
an effort to exculpate the faithful from calumnies and obtain from them governmental toleration.
All these writers experienced difficulty in expressing Christian truths in terms understandable to
their pagan audience. Thus they occasionally used some theologically inaccurate expressions,
but for the most part gave an effective case for the Church.
Chief defenders. Of the score or so of men known as apologists, only a few are known
from complete extant works. This is the case of the first known apologist, St. Quadratus of
Athens, who presented his Apology to Emperor Adrian in 124; his work has been lost-unless it
survives as the anonymous Letter to Diognetus. The competent Apologies of two other
Athenians, St. Aristides and Athenagoras, do survive, however, and the latter includes a forceful
defense of the resurrection. Greatest of apologists for his testimony to Christian Faith, if not for
his technique, is St. Justin, who wrote both against Jews and Pagans, and gave a valuable
exposition of mid-second century liturgy at Rome. In his adaptation of Platonic philosophy to
Christology, however, this writer, apparently a layman, was somewhat obscure, and his disciple
Tatian fell into Gnostic and Encratite errors. On the other band, the bishops, St. Theophilus of
Antioch and Blessed Melito of Sardis, were original but more accurate writers on the basis of
surviving fragments. Probably the most technically perfect of the apologies is the Octavius of
Marcus Minucius Felix, who, staying largely within the natural order, vindicated Christianity in
literary debate. Whether this work preceded or followed Tertullian's Apologeticus (197 A.D.)
remains a disputed point. Tertullian, who, indeed, is more than an apologist, presented a learned
legal case for Christians. Written in forceful, if intricate, style, his Apologeticus is another
Christian classic. Here the fiery Tertullian is at best in the most legitimate of his pleas. He
exposed the fallacies of inconsistent imperial policy toward Christianity, and demanded for it
"freedom of religion," since there was already the utmost license for irreligion and caricatures of
religion. Christians are loyal citizens; not "enemies of the human race." Theirs is a sober,
virtuous, patriotic, law-abiding society which elicits even from pagans the exclamation: "Look, bow
they love one another; how they are ready to die for each other." True, Tertullian seems rather
pessimistic of averting further persecution, but he has no doubts as to its outcome. Rather, he
throws down to Roman magistrates an immortal ringing challenge: "Nothing is achieved by your
cruelties, one more severe than the last. They serve as bait to attract men to our camp.
Whenever we are mown down by you we multiply; the blood of Christians is seed" (Apologeticus,
29, 50).
(3) PIONEER THEOLOGIANS
Polemicists of note against the heresies of the second and third centuries include St.
Hegesippus of Palestine, most of whose writings have perished, and the redoubtable Sts.
Irenaeus and Hippolytus, already frequently cited. In Against Heresies, the former does more
than provide an arsenal against the Gnostics; be gives an outstanding exposition of the doctrine
on the Church, and a primitive Christology. Characteristic of him is his thesis of the
"recapitulation" of all things truly human in Christ that what was wounded in Adam might be
healed in Jesus. St. Hippolytus's Refutation of Heresies is little more than that, but the author
made a more positive contribution to tradition in his valuable Apostolic Tradition with its liturgical
data, subsequently elaborated in a variety of works. Perhaps he also compiled the famous
"Muratorian Canon" of the Scriptures.
The African School contributed the mighty Tertullian, the heroic St. Cyprian of Carthage,
and the lay defenders, Arnobius and Lactantius. It was individualistic and original, if not always
excelling in prudence and submission. Tertullian contributed enduring terminology to the Latin
theology of the Blessed Trinity, the Incarnation, and the sacraments, but unfortunately his haughty
sarcasm, impatience, and puritanical rigorism paved the way for his defection to Montanism. St.
Cyprian, indeed, remained true to the Church unto martyrdom, but his obstinacy in defending a
speculatively erroneous practice of baptizing heretics anew brought him into clashes with the
Holy See. But he gave the Church valuable writings, especially De Unitate Ecclesiae, with its
maxim: "He cannot have God for a father who has not the Church for a mother." As for Arnobius
and Lactantius, they had more zeal than theological accuracy.
The Alexandrian School as a whole was incontestably superior in pure speculation and
learned research. The founder, Pantaenus, left no writings, but his successor Clement was a
voluminous compiler. Though be never had the time to put his works into a completed synthesis,
he prepared for that undertaken by his disciple Origen. Clement composed a classic treatise on
Christ the Teacher and made an original analysis of the ascetical-mystical life, laying a basis for
the familiar "three ways." Unfortunately his excessively intellectual tradition of the "true Gnostic"
and his overly allegorical use of Scripture were but accentuated in Origen. This most learned of
ante-Nicene writers was a voluminous author and brilliant, if rash speculator. His prodigious
labors on the text of Holy Scripture rendered valuable aid to his successor, St. Jerome. Origen's
Peri Archon, On Principles, is a first essay at a Christian summa theologica. This attempt to
express Christian revelation in philosophic terms anticipated some of the questions treated by
medieval Scholastics, but also included rash errors and material heresy. In his later and wiser
years, Origen put his talents to good use by composing a very effective and "modern" treatise on
apologetics, Against Celsus. Connected with the Alexandrian Academy were Origen's disciples,
Sts. Denis of Alexandria and Gregory Thaumaturgus, both important, if not outstanding writers. A
series of rectors of the catechetical school continued down to Didymus the Blind, who died at the
end of the fourth century. Theology as a technical science had gotten under way.
C. Liturgy
(1) SACRAMENTAL LITURGY
In baptism nothing is changed from the apostolic period, save that the catechumenate
became more elaborate. The Council of Carthage in 252 directed that infants be baptized within
eight days of birth, and Tertullian affirmed that laymen could baptize in case of necessity. St.
Justin described the Roman baptismal rite about 150, and testimonies multiply to the use of
sponsors, imposition of a white garment, and anointing with oil. In the West, public baptism of
converts was eventually confined to Easter and Pentecost, whence the ceremonies
accompanying the vigils of these feasts. In the East, the rite was attached to Epiphany.
Confirmation is mentioned both by St. Theophilus of Antioch and Tertullian, and the latter
mentions unction with chrism and signing with the cross (De Baptismo, 7, 8). Usually the
sacrament was administered immediately after baptism so that it is difficult to distinguish
descriptions of the combined rites.
Penance has been treated at length in the preceding topic.
Holy Eucharist. Tertullian, St. Justin, and St. Irenaeus leave no doubt as to the Real
Presence and the sacrificial character of the Mass. From St. Justin we can reconstruct some of
the Mass of the second century at Rome. It began with a reading from Scripture, taking certain
books in succession. Then came the Gospels according to a fixed cycle. Long prayers or
collects were followed by the bishop's sermon. "Then bread and a chalice with water and wine
are brought to the president of the brethren," and the canon proceeded. St. Justin mentions a
Eucharistic canticle or preface, at first composed ad libitum by the "president of the brethren."
Communion was distributed by priests and deacons. About 200 St. Hippolytus adds the details of
a kiss of peace and mentions that the congregation recited the preamble to the preface with the
celebrant: " and with thy spirit . . . we have unto the Lord . . . it is worthy and just." Communion is
distributed with the words, "the heavenly Bread in Christ Jesus." There is breaking of the Host
and an Eucharistic fast.
Extreme Unction is seldom distinguished by patristic writers from penance. Origen,
however, cited the words of St. James (v, 14) in his Second Homily on Leviticus (J. 495).
Holy Orders are conferred by imposition of hands and recitation of a prayer in form of a
preface. St. Hippolytus gives detailed formularies for the ordinations of bishops, priests, and
deacons; all performed by the bishop alone (Apostolic Tradition).
Matrimony, according to Tertullian (Ad Uxorem, ii, 9) ought to be blessed by the Church.
In case of adultery, there is separation but no divorce. Second marriages were prohibited by the
Montanists, but not by the Catholic Church (De Monogamia, 7). Mixed marriage, Tertullian
warned, had many dangers: a pagan spouse will become suspicious when the Christian arises at
night to pray; takes the Eucharist, conserved at home, before other meals; makes the Sign of the
Cross (Ad Uxorem, ii, 9).
(2) LITURGICAL DEVELOPMENT
Festivals were already observed by Christians. Sunday was to be free from labor and
from fasting. Wednesday and Friday were fast days, the meal being delayed until three o'clock in
the afternoon. At Rome, Saturday was later added to the days of penance. Lent at first
comprised merely Holy Week, and was only subsequently extended to forty days. In the West,
Sundays were excluded from Lenten observance; in the East they were included. Except on
Sundays, the primitive fast was rigorous, but there were many exemptions, and the laity were
usually unable to observe the strict fast except on a few days.
Mass was universally celebrated on Sunday, and usually included the communion of the
entire congregation present, with the deacons seeing to the sick who were absent. Daily Mass
and Communion, if the custom in apostolic times, seem generally to have been impossible during
days of persecution. Only Sunday Mass is clearly mentioned at Rome, though there is evidence
of celebration on various fast days at Carthage and Jerusalem,
Churches or chapels were built during intervals between the persecutions. At first these
were not elaborate, though late in the third century Eusebius speaks of what he terms sumptuous
buildings. Probably there was no standard style, though a common feature would be an elevated
sanctuary at one end. The altar stood at the center of the sanctuary, and behind it was placed the
bishop's chair, flanked by seats for the priests. Deacons are described as standing during divine
services. Separate sections for men and women in the congregation are indicated.
(3) DISCIPLINARY STANDARDIZATION
Liturgical formulas began to be standardized during this period. St. Justin allows the
celebrant to improvise, but St. Hippolytus, while not suppressing all initiative, gives defined
formulas for consecration of bishops, ordination of priests, deacons, subdeacons, and lectors;
blessings of confessors, virgins, and widows; for administration of baptism, for blessing oil,
cheese, olives. A standard doxology is enjoined for each blessing: "To Thee be glory, Father and
Son, with the Holy Spirit, in the Holy Church, now and always through ages of ages" (Apostolic
Tradition).
Catechumenate. During the first century no formal course of instruction seems to have
been required: Christian numbers were small and prospective converts were introduced by
proven sponsors. But as membership increased and persecution exposed the congregations to
informers and spies, it became necessary to adopt safeguards. A species of disciplina arcani
appeared to prevent exposure of Christian mysteries to the profane, and a definite course of
instruction and probation was imposed upon prospective converts. These were assigned a
special place in the church and dismissed before the principal part of the Mass. Tertullian knew
of such discipline about 200 (Prescriptions, 41), and a little later the "Canons of Hippolytus"
prescribe that catechumens shall spend three years in learning the doctrine; however if a
candidate is docile and well behaved, one need not oblige him to a fixed duration, but decision
can be made according to his conduct.
A biblical canon also begins to be drawn up. The Muratorian Canon seems to have been
a quasi-official list of the Roman Church, not inconceivably compiled by St. Hippolytus at the
beginning of the third century. Its language is apodictic, though there seems to have been as yet
no intention of imposing a uniform canon upon all of the churches.
The penitential system, elsewhere described, also began to take organized form during
this period.
(4) CHRISTIAN LIFE
Civil communication with pagans continued; indeed, it was a necessity. Christians
frequented the market place, the baths, even some shows and festivals for which Tertullian
upbraids them. They continued to care for the poor, and pagans often admired their mutual
charity. St. Lawrence, Roman deacon, is remembered as a martyr to his service of the poor.
Converts were made from all classes of the population, and from all walks of life, as diversified
penalties in the persecuting edicts and inscriptions of the catacombs reveal. Though there were
conscientious objectors, most Christians served in the army, even as volunteers. The Church
was growing in all respects, in numbers, in organization, in extent; both good and bad members
would soon be revealed under persecution.
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) IV. Ordeal of the Church (249-313)
19. Persecution by Roman Renaissance
IV
Ordeal of the Church
19. PERSECUTION BY ROMAN RENAISSANCE
A. Revival of Persecution
(1) CAUSES
Roman Renaissance was imperatively demanded in 248 when the city celebrated its
millenary anniversary. On the north the Germans attacked, while from the east the new Persian
kingdom which had replaced decadent Parthia was a constant threat. Within, ancient Roman
traditions of public service were disappearing with the incorporation of alien and servile elements,
and government by law was threatened by military insubordination and feudal self-sufficiency. In
249 the supposedly Christian emperor, Philip the Arab, was succeeded by Gaius Messius
Trajanus Decius, the first Roman aristocrat for a century. He was prone to lay the blame for
imperial decline to neglect of ancient traditions, and set out to re-Romanize by a return to the old
ways. This involved, in his view, renewed insistence on the official paganism. Christians, who
alone opposed the state religion, must accordingly be dealt with severely, and no longer
according to Trajan's opportunist policy. The Empire was fighting for its life and nothing short of
total prosecution and extermination of all its foes could be contemplated. Thus was inaugurated
a new imperial attitude toward Christianity which, with one notable respite, endured for 65 years.
The issue was no longer whether the Church was to grow or not; now her very survival was at
stake. On the other band, should she emerge victorious from this ordeal, should imperial
resources fail to crush her, she was likely to capture Roman society on the rebound.
(2) TECHNIQUE
Methodical procedure, corresponding to a modern police "dragnet," characterized the
new persecutions. For the first time prosecution was to be universal in enforcement as well as
law. Not only every Christian, but every person whose paganism was in any way suspect was
directed to perform a "patriotic test," that is, signify his allegiance to the state religion by offering
worship to the recognized pagan deities. As in the past, the objective was less to punish
individuals for adherence to Christianity than to secure abjurations. Torture was freely applied to
this end, and records of the official inquest were to be preserved. One of these has survived: "To
the Commissioners of Sacrifice of the village of Alexander's Island, from Aurelius Diogenes, the
son of Satabus, of the Village of Alexander's Island, aged 72 years, scar on eyebrow: 'I have
always sacrificed to the gods, and now in your presence in accordance with the edict, I have
sacrificed and poured the drink offering, and tasted of the sacrifices, and I request you to certify
the same. Farewell! Handed in by me, Aurelius Diogenes.' 'I, Aurelius Syrus, certify that I saw
Diogenes sacrificing. Done in the first year of the Emperor, Caesar Gaius Messius Quintus
Trajanus Decius."' The Church, then, faced an ordeal that would sift wheat from chaff, revealing
heroes and apostates.
B. Military Prosecution (249-61)
(1) THE DECIAN PHASE (249-51)
Emperor Decius set to work promptly after his accession. He had two assistants,
General Gallus Trebonian and Senator Valerian, who were to continue his policy after his death.
The persecution raged methodically and fiercely throughout Decius's reign, but a certain
relaxation became necessary when the emperor began preparations in 251 for the defense of
Dacia against the Goths. His death in the summer campaign brought respite.
Martyrs at Rome suffered almost at once. Pope St. Fabian was executed on January 20,
250, and the rigor of imperial surveillance prevented election of a successor for over a year.
Decius is reported to have remarked that "he would rather hear of a rival to his throne than of the
choice of a new bishop of Rome." During the vacancy of the Holy See it was administered by the
priests, with Novatian apparently acting as archpriest or camerlengo. Other martyrs reported by
name at Rome were Moises, Calocerius, Parthenius, Abdon, Sennen, and possibly St. Agatha.
In the West persecution extended widely though few precise details are given. St.
Saturninus of Toulouse was put to death, and two bishops in Spain apostasized. St. Cyprian of
Carthage was able to escape by flight, though he continued to direct his flock by letter from a
place of refuge.
In the East St. Denis of Alexandria reports that persecution was particularly thorough. He
himself escaped only because he was rescued against his will by some of the militant members
of his flock. Origen, director of the catechetical school, first at Alexandria and later at Caesarea,
was imprisoned and died later of his hardships. St. Babylas, bishop of Antioch, beaded a number
of episcopal martyrs in Asia and Syria: Carpus of Pergamus, Alexander of Jerusalem; St. Gregory
Thaumaturgus of Neo-Caesarea survived. At Smyrna, the priest Pionius redeemed his bishop's
apostasy by a glorious martyrdom. These are of course but a few of the vast number of victims;
St. Denis declares that "there were others, firm and blessed pillars of the Church and strong in
the strength of the Lord, who became glorious witnesses of His Kingdom."
Apostates, however, also appeared in unusual numbers, for the preceding period of
comparative calm had witnessed relaxation of primitive fervor among many, and accession of
converts with mixed motives. The same St. Denis reported that "many of the most distinguished,
losing courage, presented themselves before the judge. Some were either summoned or waited
upon, and others who were well known were obliged to come forward, and when bidden to do so,
took part in the impure and impious sacrifices. . . . Many held out until frightened by sight of
chains and prison; others, after having endured a few days' confinement, abjured Christianity
when about to enter the tribunal, and still others did not renounce their faith until they had borne
torture a length of time" (Eusebius, History, VI, 41; VII, 1).
(2) RENEWAL UNDER GALLUS (251-53)
Emperor Gallus found that the persecution had practically ceased by the time that he
assumed charge of the administration after Decius's death. During the autumn of 251, however,
an extensive plague excited popular superstitions and Gallus yielded to the demand for a
scapegoat by renewing the persecution of the Christians.
Persecution, however, found Christian courage aroused by the martyrs' fortitude and
stiffened by the apostates' defection. When St. Fabian's successor, Pope Cornelius, was
arrested, so many of his flock appeared in his defense that Gallus deemed it prudent to commute
the pope's death sentence to exile at Civita Vecchia. After St. Cornelius's death, his successor,
St. Lucius, was also exiled, If the object of the persecution was to secure apostates, it seems to
have been less successful than the preceding. It was brought to an end by Aemilian's usurpation
of the imperial throne during 253.
(3) RENEWAL UNDER VALERIAN (253-60)
Valerian, though he soon gained control of the government from the usurper, did not at
first return to a persecuting policy. But in his council Macrinus, devotee of Oriental syncretism,
urged renewal of the edicts of persecution, and, to re-enforce his demands, he used the renewed
invasions by Goths, Berbers, and Persians. Valerian's first edict of August, 257, was directed
against the clergy and the public exercise of Christian worship. Possibly the imperial court
entertained some hope of converting the laity to syncretism once they had been deprived of their
leaders. Both St. Denis of Alexandria and St. Cyprian of Carthage were arrested, and the latter
was subsequently executed. In 258 a second edict was directed against the laity, threatening
them with confiscation of goods, forced labor, exile, and death. Access to Christian cemeteries
was prohibited.
Martyrs were again numerous. Pope St. Stephen was put to death in 257 and during the
following year his successor, Sixtus 11, suffered together with his famous deacon, St. Lawrence,
whose sense of humor lasted until death. Other martyrs known by name were St. Fructuosus of
Tarragona and the clerics, James and Marienus of Cirta. Patroclus of Troyes and Denis of Paris
are said to have been martyred in the same persecution. But it was impossible for Christians to
complete records of their martyrs: at Utica some 153 victims were thrown into a lime kiln; since
their relics were indistinguishable, they were venerated as the "White Mass."
Cessation of actual persecution came about through foreign difficulties. Emperor
Valerian, who had gone to the East to lead the campaign against the Persians, was defeated,
captured, and died in captivity. His son and successor, Gallienus, threatened by foreign foes and
domestic rivals, could not have continued the persecution had he desired.
C. Relaxation of Persecution (260-85)
(1) DECLINING IMPERIAL FORTUNES
Emperor Gallienus (260-68) broke with the policy of his father's advisor Macrinus, Not
content with ceasing to enforce the edicts, he issued in 261 a formal Rescript of Toleration,
probably the first official document of its kind. Addressing himself to Patriarch St. Denis of
Alexandria and his suffragans, the emperor declared that: I have enjoined that the benefit of my
bounty be put into execution throughout the world, that they may keep away from places of
worship; therefore you may act upon the order contained in my rescript so that no one shall
molest you. What you are now legally permitted to do has already for a long time been conceded
by me. Therefore Aulus Cyrenius, the chief administrator, will observe this order that I have
given" (Eusebius, History, VII, 13). Apparently this rescript authorized restoration of confiscated
Christian property, at least in part. Despite the official toleration, Macrinus and other pretenders
continued to persecute.
The lull in persecution inaugurated by the rescript of 261 lasted without serious
interruption until the first edict of Diocletian in 303. During this long period the Church prospered.
Eusebius remarked: "In all the cities large and great churches began to rise from the soil. No
hatred intervened to prevent us from progressing with the times, and each day saw an increase in
our numbers." Many apostates returned to communion and new converts were made, though
once again worldliness began to infiltrate Christian ranks. The shadow of persecution faded as
churches were openly erected, parishes established, and imperial officials began to recognize the
bishops' social functions (History, VIII, 1).
Emperor Claudius 11 (268-70) momentarily halted the anarchy besetting the Roman
world during the mid-third century. Though there were certain instances of mob violence against
Christians, no edict seems to have been issued.
Emperor Aurelian (270-75) also ruled ably and succeeded in restoring imperial frontiers.
His syncretist designs failed to enlist Christian support, and he was preparing a new edict of
persecution when he was assassinated.
Mediocre rulers continued for a decade the apparently hopeless struggle for law and
order against military revolts and barbarian invasions. Tacitus (275-76), a senatorial nominee,
was murdered by his troops, and his successor Probus (276-82) perished in a mutiny. Carus
(282-83) and his sons, Carinus and Numerian, also contended with continual revolts and inroads.
The whole fabric of imperial administration began to break down; the principate of Augustus had
failed, and it remained to be seen whether anything could be found to replace it. Emperors during
this time of "thirty tyrants" had little time to persecute, though popular chagrin at disasters
occasionally vented itself in riots against the Christians.
(2) RESULTS OF THE FIRST ORDEAL
Apostasy during this unparalleled series of persecutions reached unprecedented
proportions. Those who gave up the Faith completely were called lapsi; those who sacrificed or
offered incense were termed sacrificati or thurificati respectively; those fraudulently procuring
certificates of sacrifice were branded as libellatici; still others who registered in obedience to the
edicts were called acta facientes; finally those who delivered the Sacred Scriptures to pagan
desecration were known as traditores. The reconciliation of these classes of apostates would
presently produce a grave disciplinary problem. The attempt to formulate a norm for their
rehabilitation led to the Sacramental Controversies treated in the next topic.
Relaxation in persecution and growth of Christian corporate and private wealth posed new
difficulties for penitential discipline and maintenance of supernatural standards. As the ascetical
ideal of the community was lowered, those aspiring to observance of the evangelical counsels
were attracted to monastic retirement, where they reinforced those who had fled from the
persecutions. Finally, Diocletian's persecution would be the more difficult to sustain in that it
followed upon a lengthy period of comparative peace and relaxation.
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 A.D.) IV. Ordeal of the Church (249-313)
20. The Sacramental Controversies
IV
Ordeal of the Church
20. THE SACRAMENTAL CONTROVERSIES
A. Theological Background
(1) THE PROBLEM OF RECONCILIATION
Reconciliation of apostates in the foregoing persecution posed a problem for bishops
both during and after the storm. On what conditions, if any, were those apostates entitled to
readmission to communion? The issue was complicated, both at Alexandria and Carthage, by
the practice of the libelli pacis. Those who had weakened under the persecution sought the good
offices of those who had confessed the Faith and lay under sentence of death. These "martyrs
by anticipation" often "received those of the brethren who fell away and had been convicted of
sacrificing; and when they saw their conversion and repentance . . . having proved them, received
and met with them, communing with them in prayer and at their feasts" (St. Denis, cited by
Eusebius, History, VI, 42). Abuses often resulted from this indulgence by the martyrs, many of
whom must have been laymen ill informed of penitential norms. Penitents either acted as if they
had already been dispensed from the exomologesis, or they tried to stampede the hierarchy into
issuing blanket ratifications of these libelli pacis given by the martyrs. This was a challenge to the
power of the keys given to the bishops and priests; what attitude ought the hierarchy to adopt?
Reconciliation of heretics was an analogous problem which came increasingly to the fore
as the sects already noted went into their second or third generation. Whereas earlier heretics
seeking reconciliation were originally baptized in the Catholic Church, now persons sought
admission who had been born and baptized in some heretical sect. Formerly it had been enough
to "impose hands in penance," but could the baptism of these newer converts be trusted? A
considerable number of bishops under St. Cyprian's leadership responded in the negative and
insisted that they must be rebaptized.
Validity of ordination conferred by an alleged traditor, one species of apostate, was later
challenged in Africa when opponents of Bishop Caecilian of Carthage denied his consecration on
this ground. Though the ensuing Donatist controversy lies outside the present period, it is
mentioned here as a remote by-product of the persecutions and as involving a similar dogmatic
principle.
(2) COMMON THEOLOGICAL TRAITS
Sacramental validity. Though the controversies arising from the three foregoing historical
problems concerned different sacraments, they seem to have a common theological denominator
not clearly perceived by all the participants. For if the sanctity of martyrs could substitute for
penitential absolution; if the validity of baptism depended on the baptizer's faith; if the valid
reception of holy orders depended on the sanctity of the ordaining prelate, then the sacraments
operated ex opere operantis, and the Church was essentially invisible since dependent on an
invisible state of grace. Papal authority rejected such erroneous solutions, though the explicit
definition of the ex opere operato efficacy of the sacraments would await the Council of Trent.
B. The Penitential Controversy
(1) LAXISM OF NOVATUS
Carthaginian apostasy. When the Decian persecution reached Africa in 250, St. Cyprian,
bishop of Carthage, went into biding and remained outside his cathedral until relaxation of the
edicts before Easter, 251. Though he continued to administer his see by letter, rigorists:
condemned his flight and denounced him to Rome. St. Cyprian defended himself successfully,
but experienced greater trouble in readmitting apostates during the persecution. Many of these
secured the good offices of sturdier confessors in prison. The latter's charity was not always
enlightened, for they often issued libelli pacis indiscriminately. The apostates, with the
connivance of certain lax members of the Carthaginian clergy, assumed the confessors'
declaration to be equivalent to reconciliation. St. Cyprian, forced to formulate a provisional policy
during the persecution, decreed that libelli pacis would be accorded purely intercessory value and
would require, in urgent cases, ratification by himself or one of his delegates. Apostates in good
health must await the decisions of a council.
Laxist schism. Novatus, one of the Carthaginian priests, probably belonged to a faction
which had opposed St. Cyprian's episcopal election in 249. Against the bishop's express orders,
Novatus and Deacon Felicissimus honored the libelli pacis as virtual certificates of absolution,
and indiscriminately reconciled all apostates who brought them. Against Novatus and his party,
St. Cyprian convened a provincial council at Carthage in the spring of 251. Though the acts are
lacking, it is clear that St. Cyprian's policy was substantially upheld. Apostates must confess and
perform the exomologesis before obtaining reconciliation; libelli pacis, tolerated during the
persecution, were no longer to be honored. Apostate clerics should be deposed; the libellatici
might obtain absolution after relatively short penance, but thurificati were obliged to lengthy,
sometimes lifelong, exomologesis.
Laxist merger. Novatus responded neither to this legislation nor to St. Cyprian's
arguments in De Unitate Ecclesiae, though St. Cyprian's stand was endorsed by the Roman
clergy, sede vacante, and eventually by the next pope, St. Cornelius. Thereupon Novatus placed
politics before principle. Though Novatian of Rome who now opposed St. Cornelius as antipope
was an extreme rigorist, Novatus joined him in his opposition to the legitimate hierarchy. Novatus
and Felicissimus supported Maximus, named antibishop of Carthage by Novatian, but St. Cyprian
rallied the majority of African Christians to his own authority,
(2) RIGORISM OF NOVATIAN
Novatian had been administering the Roman See since St. Fabian's martyrdom in
January, 250. He enjoyed the prestige of his authorship of a creditable treatise, De Trinitate, and
the reputation of great austerity. Presumably he concealed his rigoristic views in joining the
Roman clergy in endorsing St. Cyprian's stand, but when St. Cornelius was elected pope on
March 5, 251, the disappointment proved more than Novatian could bear. He connived with
certain disaffected Italian bishops to procure episcopal consecration in opposition to the
legitimate pope. "Suddenly," the latter wrote St. Cyprian, "he appeared as a bishop as if shot
forth from some machine." Once in opposition, Novatian developed his rigorism to the extent of
excluding all apostates from any hope of reconciliation forever.
Contest for the East. Though Sts. Cornelius and Cyprian foiled Novatian's ambitions in
the West, he made efforts to win over eastern prelates. Bishop Fabius of Antioch was disposed
to listen to him, but St. Denis of Alexandria would have nothing to do with rigorism. At Alexandria
also apostates were seeking readmission by the aid of the libelli pacis. Whereas Novatian would
refuse them reconciliation, and St. Cyprian proved severe, St. Denis was more lenient.
Absolution was to be granted in danger of death, but not restricted to that case. St. Denis
pleaded: "If we listen to Novatian . . . we shall do the contrary of what was done by Christ. He
was good, He went out to the mountains to seek the lost sheep; if the sheep fled away, He called
it; if He found it, He brought it back with difficulty on His shoulders. We would see the sheep
coming and harshly repel it with kicks" (Eusebius, History, VI, 42, 45). St. Denis, then, was
disposed to accept the martyrs' recommendations by way of indulgence. He expostulated with
Fabius of Antioch for some inclination toward Novatianism: "These martyrs of God who were
among us and are now seated with Christ share His royalty, judge with Him, and pronounce
sentence with Him. They have taken under their protection some of our fallen brethren, guilty of
having offered sacrifice. . . . Let us observe their judgment and charity; let us receive kindly those
whom they treated with such compassion" (ibid., VI, 42).
Repulse of Novatianism. Evidently St. Denis was successful in uniting most of the Orient
against Novatianism, for he presently informed St. Cornelius's successor, Stephen I (254-57):
"Know that all these churches of the East and of more distant countries, which were formerly
divided, are now united; all their beads are unanimous and greatly rejoice at the peace which is
established" (Eusebius, History, VII, 5). The Novatian Schism, nourished by Encratism, continued
nonetheless to exist for some two centuries; Pope Innocent I mentions it at the beginning of the
fourth century.
C. The Baptismal Controversy
(1) CARTHAGINIAN PHASE
Episcopal question. In 254 St. Cyprian strained his relations with the new Pope St.
Stephen I (254-57). Consulted by the communities of Leon and Merida in Spain, he sustained
them in their deposition of their bishops, Basilides and Martial, for defection during the recent
persecution. When he learned that Basilides' appeal had been sustained by the pope, St.
Cyprian not only pronounced the bishop's plea subreptitious, but approved the electors' action in
deposing unworthy prelates. Here St. Cyprian almost anticipated Donatism in seeming to make
episcopal order depend on sanctity. This interpretation is not certain, however, for when similarly
consulted by the people of Arles regarding their Novatianizing Bishop Marcian, St. Cyprian
advised recourse to Rome. Though the precise outcome of these disputes is not known, Pope
St. Stephen can hardly have been pleased.
Rebaptism crisis. St. Cyprian may thus already have been out of papal favor when he
replied on three occasions during 255 that converts from Marcionism and Montanism should be
rebaptized. On the authority of Tertullian and a Carthaginian synod about 220, St. Cyprian
argued that heretical baptism must be regarded as null, and hence ought to be repeated in the
Catholic Church. Though this seems to have been the prevalent opinion in North Africa, more
than one bishop in Mauretania followed the Roman usage of noniteration. To determine a
general norm, St. Cyprian convened a provincial council during May, 256. Here some 71 bishops
upheld his views, which he reported confidently to the pope. In keeping with his mistaken notion
that only a disciplinary question was involved, St. Cyprian termed the conciliar verdict merely
advisory, and allowed each bishop, even St. Stephen, to follow his conscience (Letter 72).
Roman intervention. What survives of St. Stephen's reply is a categorical repudiation of
St. Cyprian's opinion: "If any persons come to you from any heresy whatsoever, let there be no
innovation beyond the rule that has been handed down; namely, that hands be laid on them in
penance." Invoking the power of the keys, the pope directed the bishop of Carthage to
communicate the Roman decision to the African Church. St. Cyprian obeyed, but appended his
own refutation and bitter criticism of St. Stephen's view. Another provincial council in September,
256, moreover, gained the votes of 87 bishops for St. Cyprian's stand. This time his envoys to
Rome were repulsed and we know from a letter of Bishop Firmilian of Caesarea that the pope
talked of excommunication. There is no certainty, however, that St. Stephen put his threat into
execution before his death in August, 257. St. Cyprian's biographer Pontius relates that
subsequently "a messenger came to him from Sixtus, the good and peace-making priest." This
allusion may be taken as evidence that whatever his previous status, St. Cyprian was in
communion with St. Stephen's successor, Pope Sixtus II, at the time of his own martyrdom,
September, 258.
(2) ORIENTAL PHASE
Firmilian of Neo-Caesarea, a disciple of Origen, sustained the bishop of Carthage in his
dispute and surpassed him in violence of language. Defying the pope's claim to Peter's power
and likening St. Stephen to Judas, Firmilian railed against him: "What quarrels and dissensions
you have provoked in the churches of the whole world! What great sin you have committed in
withdrawing yourself from so many flocks! . . . You thought you could excommunicate the whole
world; you have merely excommunicated yourself" (Letter 75 in St. Cyprian's Correspondence).
St. Denis of Alexandria, rather than Firmilian, spoke for the East. He interposed as
peacemaker and it is probably his intervention that brought about St. Cyprian's reconciliation. St.
Denis, when asked to rebaptize one baptized among heretics, "did not dare perform the rite and
told him that his long communion would suffice." Alexandrian tradition was in accord with Roman
practice, and so also, it seems, was the case at Jerusalem (Eusebius, History, VII, 5, 7).
Conclusion: The immediate outcome of the controversies is shrouded in obscurity, but in
314 the Plenary Council of Arles in canons ratified by the Holy See upheld St. Stephen against St.
Cyprian. The eighth canon explicitly revoked the African custom of Rebaptism in favor of the
Roman tradition of penance, except in case of defect of the Trinitarian form. And the thirteenth
canon vindicated the same principle in regard to ordination against the Donatists. In 325 the
Nicene General Council directed that Novatianist converts be reconciled by penance (canon 8),
though Paulianist Adoptionists should be baptized (canon 19) because of their error on the Trinity.
With the development of more precise theological terminology the basic issues involved in these
sacramental controversies were perceived more clearly.
Catholic Church History
Pagan Imperialism (49 B.C.-313 AD) IV. Ordeal of the Church (249-313)
21. Reaction of Despair: Manichaeism
IV
Ordeal of the Church
21. REACTION OF DESPAIR: MANICHAEISM
A. Introduction: Background for Manichaeism
(1) IMPERIAL DISASTERS
War dominated the Roman Empire during the third century. Pressure on the northern
and eastern frontiers made the army all-important. During the first two centuries military service
had been an honorable, well paid, and not unduly onerous career. The army had been composed
of citizen volunteers or ambitious noncitizens who aspired to the civil rights generally accorded
with honorable discharge. But by the third century all this had changed. Citizens dodged service;
drafted, they deserted in large numbers. Resort was now had to barbarian troops for the first time
on a large scale, and as imperial resources dwindled it became customary to quarter the
mercenaries on the populace and support them by extensive requisitioning. Such troops would
be unruly and easily rallied to ambitious military leaders who kept the Empire in almost
continuous civil war by their bids for the throne.
Regimentation recast Roman society into new classes. The ideal of public service,
expressed in the unpaid "liturgies," broke down utterly. Men had to be obliged by law to assume
public office, especially in local communities, and such officials were made responsible for the
financial needs of the government at the expense of their own fortunes. Wealthy townsmen
became refugees in other parts of the Empire, or even outside its boundaries. Their
communication by code with friends reminded Dr. Rostovtzeff of the guarded missives of Russian
aristocrats and kulaks under threat of Communism. "Force and compulsion were applied both to
the city bourgeoisie and to the lower classes, and the embittered each against the other. The
result was the collapse of citycapitalism and the acute economic crisis of the third century which
brought about the rapid decline of business activity in general, the resuscitation of primitive forms
of economy, and the growth of statecapitalism. . . . These were the salient features of life in the
fourth and following centuries."
(2) PSYCHOLOGICAL REACTION
Despair and pessimism, needless to say, were fostered by these repeated blows.
Pagans would blame fate; weak Christians were led to question Providence; all would be induced
to examine the problem of evil. Such prolonged affliction, weariness, and satiety of trouble could
not, many felt, be regarded as mere accidents of human life. Rather evil must have a more
positive cause: there was some evil principle involved in the composition of the world which in
turn would be ultimately derived from some malign deity. Pagans would be more susceptible to a
homeless surrender to religious pessimism, but lukewarm and fair-weather Christians would also
be worn out if not by one, at least by a succession of persecutions. Manichaeism offered an
explanation of the problem of evil. It was both a philosophy and a religion; and modern research
has confirmed what was long questioned, that it was also a Christian heresy. Hence it may be
regarded as a reaction to the disasters, secular and religious, afflicting the Roman Empire during
the third century.
B. Manichaean History
(1) ORIGINS
Problem of sources. "Down to the first years of the twentieth century, the history of early
Manichaeism remained very obscure: the writings of Mani and his disciples had been numerous
and widely distributed, but everywhere proscribed and destroyed by Catholics, by
Mohammedans, by Buddhists, by Chinese officials. Toward the end of the last century, numerous
fragments which had escaped destruction were found in Turkestan. . . . These documents were
certainly of value, but they were of comparatively late date and difficult to interpret. . . . We are,
however, already able to establish some points which determine the general lines of the history of
Mani, his preaching, and his doctrine . . ."
Mani is the most commonly used name among Orientals for the founder of the sect. He
is said to have been born at Ekbatana, Persia, about 215. His early history is obscure. Various
legends make him the son of a pagan priest, the slave of the widow of a Buddhist sage, and a
Christian convert and cleric. He seems to have elaborated upon the national Zoroastrianism by
borrowings from Indian and Syrian religions. About 240, in the reign of King Ardaschir (224-41),
he appeared as a preacher in India. In the reign of Shapur (241-72) he transferred his energies
to his native country, where he obtained great prestige at court.
Manichaeism, then, seems to have been spread shortly after the Persian conquest of the
Parthian kingdom in 227. The new Persian monarchy promoted a revival of the native
Zoroastrianism. Mani evidently participated in this movement, though he treated the tenets of
Zoroaster in an eclectic spirit by mingling Christian, Buddhist, Mithraist, and Gnostic elements.
His, then, was a "bigger and better" syncretism. if his account can be accepted, he became a sort
of royal chaplain and toured the realm up to the Roman frontier. Though he does not seem to
have come into the Empire, he is said to have disputed with the Christian Bishop Archelaus of
Cascar. But Mani's views antagonized the Persian Magi who denounced him to the court, already
annoyed at his failure to cure one of the royal family. Bahram I, Shapur's successor, took the side
of the Magi, and had him put to death. We are told that his skin was flayed and put on exhibition,
perhaps in the same museum with the later Emperor Valerian. The date would be between 272
and 275.
(2) DOCTRINES
Dualism of good and evil principles was the basis of Mani's teaching. Even more
definitely than Marcion, whose disciples he eventually absorbed, Mani held that there are two
supreme deities, Hridzai or Light, and Archai or Darkness. The former, like his prototype the
Zoroastrian Ormuzd, was a good principle, represented by the sun. The latter, derived from the
Persian Ahriman, was an evil genius, author of matter and darkness. Hridzai had formed out of
his own essence a First Man, corresponding to Philo's Logos. This Man, about to be vanquished
by material and therefore evil elements infused by Archai, was saved by Pneuma or Spirit,
another emanation from Hridzai. All concrete worldly beings are a mixture of mind and matter.
Adam is begotten of Archai, but composed of elements from Hridzai as well. This gives him two
souls: one, the logike, is formed of luminous particles; the other, alogos, is fashioned of a superior
type of matter. Adam's evil instincts were evoked by Eve, sent for this purpose by Archai.
Christian elements were mingled by Mani who styled himself apostle of Jesus Christ."
According to Mani, Christ was son of Hridzai and took a merely apparent body to free the spiritual
element in man from matter. Christ's passion in this conception was not real; its chief purpose
was to instruct mankind in the Manichaean soteriology. The Manichees, then, were to be purged
by a diminution of the material element in the course of a series of trans-migrations through
bodies successively less material. Like the Marcionites, Mani claimed to have exclusive
knowledge of Christ's real mission, information hidden from the apostles. Like Montanus, he
associated himself with the Holy Spirit, and finally asserted his identity with this emanation from
Hridzai. For Mani, then, Christianity was but another religion to be incorporated into his personal
synthesis.
Morality was to be conditioned by classes. Naturally the Manichaean teachers were "the
perfect ones," distributed among apostles, bishops, priests, and deacons. The "perfected" were
supposed to observe three seals; signaculum oris, manuum et sinus. The first forbade
blasphemy and enjoined abstinence from wine and meat; the second banned handling of certain
objects, and especially slaying of animals and plants which might be souls in migration; the last
prohibited sexual intercourse as ordinated to reproduce matter. But an inferior group of "bearers"
was not obliged by this rigorous code. They might marry, though forbidden to have children.
"They were bound to keep the ten commandments of Mani: to avoid idolatry, lying, greed, murder,
adultery, theft, bad teachings, witchcraft, religious doubt, and laziness. On the whole, their life
resembled that of all men; therefore after their death they had to undergo a whole series of
cleansings, before joining the Elect in the place appointed for their rest. As for unbelievers and
sinful Manicheans, they were condemned after their death to wander until the end of time, then to
be cast into hell. In any hypothesis . . . there was no salvation for the body."
(3) MANICHAEAN SURVIVAL
Manichaean organization prevented dissipation of the heresy into rival sects. In St.
Augustine's day their hierarchy was headed by twelve doctors, one of whom was the leader. Next
in rank were 72 "sons of knowledge" or administrators; the elders or presbyteroi, and finally the
deacons or missionaries. These grades are in obvious imitation of the primitive hierarchy of the
Christian Church.
Manichaean worship was at first simple, for internal cult was at first exalted almost to a
denial of external. They had no temples, altars, images, or sacrifices. But beginning with the
feast of the Bema (chair) to commemorate Mani's death, festivals were introduced or adapted
from Christianity. A baptism with oil and a Eucharist with water were developed. Prayers and
readings from Mani's letters in time formed a part of the liturgy.
Far Eastern expansion. Mani himself had supervised his sect's organization in Persia
and personally chosen Sisinnios as his successor. But the Persians served him the same way as
his predecessor and Manichees were forced to flee. Some went to the Orient, to India, Armenia,
Turkestan, and eventually as far as Tibet and China. They were readmitted to Persia after the
Saracen conquest, and enjoyed toleration under the caliphate of Bagdad. But there is no
probability that the Manichees ever constituted a majority in any of the eastern lands.
Western Manichaeism. The Manichees appeared within the Roman Empire as early as
280. Their antisocial tenets incurred prosecution quickly: on March 31, 296, Emperor Diocletian
ordered the African pronconsul to prosecute them, not sparing the death penalty. But the sect
survived underground to reappear in imperial favor under Julian (361-63). Valentinian I renewed
the edicts against Manichaeism in 372, and these were repeated by Theodosius (381) and
Honorius (407), and Valentinian III (445). Yet Faustus and Felix could circulate with comparative
freedom in St. Augustine's time. African Manichaeism survived both Roman and Vandal
persecution into the more favorable Mohammedan regime. Colonies of Armenian Manichees
were deported by the iconoclast emperors of the eighth century to the Balkans, where they reemerged
under the name of Bogomiles. Violent persecution during the tenth and eleventh
centuries drove the latter into Lombardy and Languedoc. In the latter area they came to be
known as Albigenses or Cathari, and provoked large scale missions, a military crusade, and
finally the Holy Inquisition. The friars seem at long last to have converted the rank and file, one
weighty friar meditating deeply on his arguments "to fix the Manichees."
C. Appendix on Priscillianism
Introduction: Though it lies somewhat outside the present period, an alleged Manichaean
survival, Spanish Priscillianism, may be conveniently surveyed here.
"Priscillian . . . was a restless, excitable man, endowed with brilliant gifts of wit and
eloquence, but too much addicted to unprofitable studies. He interested himself in Manichean
and Gnostic literature, prosecuted researches in astrology, and was a diligent reader of
apocryphal writings. Yet though somewhat puffed up with his intellectual attainments, Priscillian
bore a stainless character and was, indeed, a person of sincere and austere piety. . . . The
society which he founded was undeniably eccentric. Its members aspired to a perfection beyond
that attained by ordinary members of the Church, from whom they accordingly tended to
separate. They were rigidly ascetic. They practiced continence, subsisted on a vegetarian diet,
and perhaps fasted on Sundays. Lent and the three weeks before Epiphany they observed with
special strictness, absenting themselves from public worship and shutting themselves up at home
or in hermitages among the mountains. It was their custom to bold meetings by night in private
dwellings, whereat apocryphal books were read and instruction was given by unlicensed
teachers; to these conventicles women were admitted. . . . They preserved a mysterious silence
about their practices and doctrine . . ."
Prosecution. If Priscillianists were not Manichees, the Christian authorities could hardly
be blamed for their suspicions. The Spanish hierarchy condemned Priscillianism at Saragossa in
380. When the sectaries failed to obey, the bishop of Merida denounced them as Manichees to
the imperial government. Though Emperor Gratian contented himself with imposing sentence of
exile, the Gallic pretender Maximus advertised his orthodoxy by torturing and executing Priscillian
and several disciples in 385. Pope St. Damasus had rejected an apology of Priscillian, but
neither he nor St. Ambrose of Milan had sanctioned the imperial penalty. In fact, St. Ambrose and
St. Martin of Tours sharply criticized those members of the Spanish hierarchy who had
prosecuted the Priscillianists unto death. Quite possibly the punishment had been unnecessarily
severe, but the West would yet revise its judgments on the expediency of capital punishment
against the Catharist version of Manichaeism.