Western monasticism at its best. In spite of theory and logic, the social monastery supplanted the loosely attached hermit gatherings, and almost entirely displaced the anchorite. The keen psychological analysis that marks both the "Institutiones" and the "Collationes" 1 is superior to anything the writer knows in classic literature, and reflects the process by which the inwardness and immediacy of the sense of sin came to its own in human thinking. Amidst all the unnatural perversions of the monastic ideals, common-sense comes often to its rights. The familiar story of John, who defends his playing with his tame partridge on the ground that the bow must not always be bent, reveals the human side.2 In the ethical ideals we see the almost extreme emphasis upon the inner life as the determining element in conduct. Angry acts may be wholly avoided and the soul be in mortal sin because of angry thoughts. All hate and passion must be banished, and love must hold absolute sway as the source of all goodness.* Moreover, this love is independent of either the fear of hell or the longing for heaven, and becomes the strong barrier against all sin. 5 In spite of the dualistic remains in theory, at least, the Manichean estimate of body is overcome and the substantive character of sin is denied. As with Augustine, so in Cassianus and in the popular ethical estimate, sin is negative and not created by God, but only permitted. The character of God is, of course, drawn far too much as Judge and Law-giver and too little as loving and forgiving Father. Yet this description is never wholly lacking, and such a passage as "Collatio," III: 7, leaves nothing to be desired in the way of evangelical fervor. God is longing for the salvation of the 1Cf. such passages as “De Cœnob. Instit.,” XII : 27, 29, 30. 2 "Collatio," XXIV : 21. "Collatio," XI: "De Cœnob. Instit.," lib. VIII: 20. "Collatio," XI :8, “Et est quidem in illis gradus cujusdam profectus imbuens nos, ut dum vel pœnarum metu, vel præmiorum spe incipimus vitia declinare, ad charitatis gradum transire possimus." (MPL, 49, 854 c.) sinner, and all the most familiar passages of loving grace and forgiveness are beautifully grouped together. The practical consequences of Augustinianism are avoided, even if the resulting synergism is philosophically as unsatisfactory as a similar attempt on the part of Melanchthon.1 On the religious and ethical side, moreover, all the really important elements are carefully guarded. Fasting has no merit in itself, but is only a means to an end, and merit cannot be acquired as over against God. Man is responsible, but all good things come from God, including the gift of penitence, which must be from the heart, and is faithfully and even beautifully described. Language is, of course, used whose import is very different. The vulgar conception, however, of work-righteousness is constantly disowned, and God's free grace constantly proclaimed. Here, however, as elsewhere, two completely different views are brought together in no vital union either philosophically or religiously. And the component parts of the Catholic synthesis often creak against each other in great disjointment. Perhaps one of the most instructive comparisons between classic paganism and the Christian-catholic synthesis is furnished by Cassianus's treatise on friendship as compared with Cicero's "De Amicitia." Everything that Cicero has Cassianus almost entirely lacks. Form, wit, grace, beauty of expression, and gentle dalliance with feeling, all are missing. But Cassianus has, beneath all the conventional devotionalism, that of which Cicero had no conception, namely, the union of souls in the eternal purpose of redeemed life. Even the Protestant critic, utterly out of accord with all the sacramentarian and, from his point of view, pagan monasticism, must feel the warm, solemn earnestness of the religious life that pulses through the “friendship" of Cassianus, but which is utterly lacking in Cicero. We have dwelt on Cassianus just because, while he is not original, nor yet a leader, nor even a new formulator of the thought of his day, he does so abundantly, clearly, and deliber'Cf. "Collatio," XIII : 18. 2 "Collatio," XXI: 14. "Collatio," XX : 1-12. ately reflect what the great, nay, overwhelming, mass of the Christian church officially thought about God, conduct, and the world. In him we see how the ethical ideal has a synthesis, into X which elements from Judaism, Neo-platonism, Aristotelianism, Roman Stoicism, African paganism, Persian dualism, Egyptian and oriental mystery-worship all entered; but that the strength and unity of this synthesis was the imperial hope of a kingdom of righteousness, and the real inwardness and glow came still from the life of Jesus of Nazareth, even though that life was only known in interpretations of it that varied in character and power from Paul to the superstitious anchorite of the Egyptian desert. We must begin to seriously regard Christianity, as we know it, as the greatest and most successful of the great syncretistic religious movements in human history, and freely recognize the fact that we are debtors to the Greek and the Roman, to the bond and the free, and equally seriously begin to segregate the weak and beggarly elements, whatsoever may be their source, and to strengthen those things that remain as the gift of God from whatever quarter he sends them. The tests being the appropriate tests for the discovery of truth; and on the ethical field the final test being fitness for the promotion of individual and social righteousness in the divine-human fellowship of the kingdom of God. VII. THE ETHICS OF THE COUNCILS The division between the East and West was long postponed. The intense feeling that organic unity furnished a guarantee for the truth handed down, as well as political considerations, made both the great wings of the church careful about division. Yet the two churches had most distinctly different aims and methods. The real intellectual leadership long remained with the East. The political leadership was almost as undisputed by a possession of the West. The councils that settled the great dogmatic questions were all under Eastern influence, but were then accepted by Rome as the authentic formulators of her teachings. Not, indeed, that Rome's interest was ever primarily dogmatic or theological. Indeed, it is quite evident that in many cases Rome had no very intelligent interest in many of the questions at issue. Even when such a bishop as Leo interposed to lead a dispute, it is easy to see in that leadership the predominance of the political over the abstract intellectual interest. With the dogmatic development of the councils we have nothing to do, but the infallible authority of the council was not confined to dogma, but covered also matters of discipline; and the development of canon law was, according to the faith of the early church, a divinely inspired development. That is to say the authority was based on the divine leadership supposed to be assured to the bishops in council, and therefore different in character from the ordinary results of human intelligence, so that when the ecumenical council spoke, it spoke with inspired wisdom. Interesting as are the canons of the councils,1 both to the student of the historical development and the social investigator, the dogmatic interest is so overwhelming that the student of ethics comes away from the study disappointed. We have already glanced at the canons of Bishop Basil (pp. 209, 210), and in them is reflected the same organization interest which appears throughout. A few characteristic touches, however, may be noticed in passing. In the ecumenical synod of Nice all interest is for 'The classic work is Hefele, "Conciliengeschichte," 1890 (English translation by Wm. R. Clark, "History of the Christian Councils," 1871, seq.), where abundant bibliographical material is given. See also Schaff's "Creeds of Christendom," three vols., 1877. We have also thankfully used Bishop Beveridge's “Zuvódikov, sive Pandectæ Canonum S. S. Apostolorum, et Conciliorum ab Ecclesia Græca receptorum," tomi I et II, 1672 (Greek and Latin). One or two of our references are also to Mansi's "Concilia," 1759, simply because at hand. The translation of the canons and decrees by Dr. Henry R. Percival and his coworkers is well done ("The Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers," second series, vol. XIV: "The Seven Ecumenical Councils," 1900), but the notes and omissions betray the unconscious bias of one who can say: "I accept all the doctrinal decrees of the Seven Ecumenical Synods as infallible and irreformable,” p. ix of Preface. bidden on money loaned by the clergy. Increasingly the canons restrict the prophetic freedom. As soon as the church could she forbade free religious assembly,' and appealed, alas, to the civil authority to suppress those "meetings for private worship" which had been her own life so long! At the same council access to the emperor is reserved for the higher ecclesiastics, and wandering teachers are hindered from proclaiming their message. According to canon VI of Laodicea heretics were not permitted to enter the house of God while in heresy, and the same council decreed that "no one shall join with heretics or schismatics in prayers." " In Chalcedon the monastery is finally subjected to the bishop;" and secret societies and conspiracy are forbidden as dangerous, no doubt, to episcopal authority. There are some interesting glimpses at the ethical level afforded by the canons. "Those who forcibly carry away women under pretext of marriage, and the abettors of such ravishers, if they be clergymen, shall be degraded."" Simony has constantly to be enacted against, and covetousness, secular occupation, and absorption in money-getting are constantly rebuked. Some superstitions are also denounced; as, for instance, the giving of the sacraments to the dead and the wearing of amulets. The playing with dice, the attendance upon hunts, theatric performances, theatric dances are forbidden to clerics,10 who are also ordered to wear clerical dress." One curious provision forbids the taking of the testimony of "slaves, freedmen, actors, heretics, heathen or Jews." 12 'I Nice, Canon XVII; see also Laodicea, Canon IV, and cf. also African Codex, Canon V. * Antioch, Canons II and V, and Gangra, VI. 'Antioch, XI. ' Canon IV. • Canon XXXIII. • Canon XXXIV. Cf. Chalcedon, Canon XVIII. • Laodicea, Canon XXXVI. 10 Trullan L and LI. 12 African Code, Canon CXXIX. 11 Trullan XXVII. |