vants and masters, distinctions among individuals? No: we call ourselves brethren for no other reason than that we hold ourselves all equal. For since we measure every thing human, not by its outward appearance, but by its intrinsic value, we have, notwithstanding the difference of outward relations, no slaves; but we call them brethren in the Spirit and fellow-servants in religion." A very explicit statement of the same sentiment had been given by Clement of Alexandria. "Domestics," he writes, "are to be treated like ourselves; for they are human beings, as we are. For God is the same to free and bond."2 Ignatius gives this exhortation: "Despise not slaves, either male or female." 3 "Am I a slave," says Tatian, "I endure servitude. Am I free, I do not make a vaunt of my good birth. I see that the same sun is for all, and one death for all, whether they live in pleasure or destitution." 4 Christianity did not make direct war upon slavery as an institution, for that would have been to engage in social and political revolution at an unseasonable era. But it greatly ameliorated slavery in practice, and inculcated principles whose logical issue could be nothing less than emancipation. There is, it is true, only scanty reference to the practice of manumission before the time of Constantine; but it may be inferred that there was a growing sentiment in its favor. In pursuance of this principle of equality, all classes received a proper share in the offices of brotherly love. The poor in each congregation were provided for by weekly contributions. The rendering of these offer 1 Instit. Div., v. 16. 8 Epist. ad Polycarp., iv. 2 Pæd., iii. 12. 4 Orat. ad Græcos, xi. ings, according to Irenæus, was esteemed not so much a burdensome requirement, as a free and welcome fulfilment of a high and holy vocation. "The Jews," he says, "had the tithes of their goods consecrated to Him; but those who have received liberty set aside all their possessions for the Lord's purposes, bestowing joyfully and freely, not the less valuable portions of their prop erty, since they have the hope of better things." Strangers were awarded free hospitality. From however distant a quarter a brother might come, he had only to show a certificate from his bishop to secure attention to his wants. Duties of hospitality and charity were made by Tertullian a strong argument against mixed marriages. "Who [being a heathen]," he asks, "would suffer his wife, for the sake of visiting the brethren, to go round from street to street to other men's, and indeed to all the poorer cottages? Who will suffer her to creep into prison to kiss a martyr's bonds? If a pilgrim brother arrive, what hospitality for him in an alien home? If bounty is to be distributed to any, the granaries, the storehouses, are foreclosed."2 One reason for fasting, as regarded by Hermas, was the saving of means which might be bestowed upon "a widow or an orphan, or some person in want." For the same 1 Cont. Hær., iv. 18. 2. It should be noticed, however, that the spontaneous character of Christian giving was not kept up to its proper standard throughout the period. With Cyprian and Origen we find a disposition to favor the Jewish idea of the binding obligation of tithes. At the same time, there was a more serious deterioration, in that the relief of the recipient was no longer made the sole consideration, and almsgiving was held up as a work of merit, a means of special benefits to the giver. See Uhlhorn, Christian Charity in the Early Church. 2 Ad Uxorem, ii. 4. 8 Simil., v. 3. Compare Origen, Hom. in Lev., x. end, Clement of Alexandria inculcated plainness of dress. While Christian simplicity, he argues, inculcates that "our life ought to be any thing rather than a pageant," Christian charity is likewise positive in its prohibition of needless display. "It is monstrous for one to live in luxury while many are in want. How much more glorious is it to do good to many than to live sumptuously! How much wiser to spend money on human beings than on jewels and gold! How much more useful to acquire decorous friends than lifeless. ornaments! The strong contrast between the Christians and the heathen, in respect of the offices of brotherly love, was strikingly exhibited amid the ravages of a pestilence in Carthage and in Alexandria. While the latter deserted their sick friends and left the dead unburied, the former cared for their plague-stricken brethren with all tenderness, and paid due respect to the remains of the dead. At the same time an illustration was given of how easy it was for Christian benevolence to overflow the bounds of the Church. Cyprian exhorted his people to extend their ministrations to their heathen neighbors, reminding them, that as children of God they ought to imitate that divine clemency which bestows blessings upon the just and upon the unjust.2 Another marked application of Christian principles appeared in the domestic field. We find, it is true, the beginnings of that abnormal asceticism which finally culminated in monastic extremes. The feeling of dual 1 Pæd., ii. 13. 2 Life of Cyprian by Pontius. Compare the language of Dionysius of Alexandria in Eusebius, vii. 22. ism so strongly characteristic of the age came, in spite of theoretical inconsistency, to influence in a measure the thought and practice of the Church. "The heathen Gnostic principle," says Schaff, "of separation from the world and from the body as a means of self-redemption, after being theoretically exterminated, stole into the Church by a back-door of practice, directly in face of the Christian doctrine of the high destiny of the body and perfect redemption through Christ." This growing tendency toward asceticism naturally affected the conception of marriage. Before the end of the second century a strong prejudice had arisen against second marriages. This, however, may have been due in the first instance to a desire to emphasize the sacredness of the marriage relation, rather than to any contrary motive. It was helped on also by a very natural disposition to regard as a proper ideal for the laity the same restraint which a current interpretation of 1 Tim. iii. 2 imposed upon the clergy, this passage being thought to prohibit second marriages.2 From this objection to a renewal of the conjugal relation, some went on to a species of disparagement even of a first marriage, at least to the extent of praising the superior virtue of the virginal state. As early a writer as Athenagoras not only reprobates second marriage as a "specious adultery," but bestows a special commendation upon those who choose the unmarried state as a means of living in closer communion with God. A similar exaltation of virginity appears with Tertullian, Cyprian, and Origen. Their theoretical preference on this point, however, is not to 1 Church History, ii. § 105. 2 Origen, Cont. Celsum., iii. 48. be overestimated. They did not question the propriety of marriage that extreme was left to the heretics. It was not till the latter part of the period, that the right even of the clergy to marry began to be seriously questioned. As already indicated, the first synodal restriction in this direction, that is on record, came from the Council of Elvira. This was only a provincial council, and adopted a rigor that was not yet insisted upon by the entire Church. As respects Christians generally, no more radical principle found acceptance in the Church than appears in the following utterance of Tertullian: "There is no place at all where we read that nuptials are prohibited, of course on the ground that they are a 'good thing.' What, however, is better than this 'good,' we learn from the apostle, who permits marrying indeed, but prefers abstinence." And even this much of preference would seem not to have been universally entertained at the close of the second century. At least, we find Clement of Alexandria giving his preference to the man who enters into family relations, and makes a good use of the discipline which they impose. Speaking of the true Gnostic, or the ideal Christian, he says, "He eats and drinks and marries, not as principal ends of existence, but as necessary. I name marriage even, if the Word prescribe, and as is suitable. For having become perfect, he has the apostles for examples. And one is not really shown to be a man in the choice of a single life; but he surpasses men, who, disciplined by marriage, procreation of children, and care for the house, without pleasure or pain, in his solicitude for the house, has been 1 Ad Uxorem, i. 3. |