Holiness and separation in the early centuries

Robert B. Eno S.S.

doi:10.1017/S0036930600030052

Holiness and separation in the early centuries

Published online by Cambridge University Press: 02 February 2009

Robert B. Eno S.S.

Show author details

Robert B. Eno S.S.: Affiliation:
The Catholic University of AmericaWashington, D.C., U.S.A. 20064

Article contents

Extract
References

Get access

Rights & Permissions

Extract

The second letter of Peter follows the usual sequence of proclamation and exhortation. But it is also typical when it betrays a melancholy realisation of the gap between hope and reality. First, there comes the proclamation of salvation. ‘He has bestowed on us the great and precious things he promised, so that through these you who have fled a world corrupted by lust, might become sharers of the divine nature.’ (1.4) Yet, evidently this initial conversion by no means gives irreversible thrust and momentum. Thus an exhortation to keep working must be added. ‘Be solicitous to make your call and election permanent.’ (1.10) Finally, beyond the exhortation, there is need to confront the discouraging reality reflected in the mockery of the sceptics. ‘They will ask: Where is that promised coming of his? Our forefathers have been laid to rest, but everything stays just as it was when the world was created.’(3.4)

Type: Research Article
Information: Scottish Journal of Theology , Volume 30 , Issue 6 , December 1977 , pp. 523 - 542

DOI: https://doi.org/10.1017/S0036930600030052 [Opens in a new window]
Copyright: Copyright © Scottish Journal of Theology Ltd 1977

Access options

Get access to the full version of this content by using one of the access options below. (Log in options will check for institutional or personal access. Content may require purchase if you do not have access.)

References

^{page 523 note 1} Brown, P., ‘Pelagius and his Supporters’ in Religion and Society in the Age of Augustine (London, 1972), pp. 199–200Google Scholar.

^{page 524 note 1} Vincent of Lérins, Commonitorium 1.4.

^{page 524 note 2} Bori, P. C., Chiesa primitiva (Brescia, 1974)Google Scholar; Preus, J., ‘Theological Legitimation for innovation in the Middle Ages’, Viator 3 (1972), pp. 1–26CrossRef Google Scholar.

^{page 524 note 3} Salvian of Marseille, De Gubernatione Dei 3, 9.44.

^{page 525 note 1} John Chrysostom, Hom. 10 on I Tim. 3.1–4 (MPG 62, 551); Augustine, Enarr. 2 on Ps. 25.14 (CC 38, 151); Enarr. 1 on Ps. 70.17 (CC 39, 954).

^{page 525 note 2} Salvian, De Gub. Dei 3, 11.60; 9.46; 8.30; 9.48; 7, 23.108.

^{page 525 note 3} Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 2.8; 84.

^{page 526 note 1} Origen, Contra Celsum 4.9; Comm. in joh. 10, 23.133–7; Comm. in Matt. 16.21.

^{page 526 note 2} Ward, William George, cited in Ward, Wilfred, William George Ward and the Oxford Movement (2nd ed., London, 1890)Google Scholar. Tertullian expressed the same thought more succinctly: Doctrinae index disciplina est (De Praescr. Haer. 43.2).

^{page 526 note 3} Anselm of Havelberg, Dialogues 1.10.

^{page 527 note 1} Bernard, Sermo XXXIII super Cantica Canticorum 7.14ff.

^{page 527 note 2} Coleman, C. B., Constantine the Great and Christianity (New York, 1914), p. 179Google Scholar.

^{page 527 note 3} Gregory of Tours, The History of the Franks, trans. Thorpe, L. (London: Penguin, 1974), 4.48; 8.30Google Scholar.

^{page 527 note 4} John Chrysostom, Hom. 7 on Acts (MPG 60, 67–8).

^{page 528 note 1} Salvian, De Gub. Dei 7, 17.75; 6, 1.4–5; Ad Ecclesiam 1, 1.3–4.

^{page 528 note 2} Jerome, , Vita Malchi Monachi Captivi 1Google Scholar.

^{page 528 note 3} Eusebius, H.E. 8, 1.7; Cyprian, De Unitate 26.

^{page 529 note 1} Tertullian, De Pudicitia 7; Pacian, Ep. 3.14.

^{page 529 note 2} Origen, Hom, in Josue 21.1; Hom, in Jeremiam 3.3; Augustine, Sermo XXV (Mai), Miscellanea Agostiniana (Rome, 1930) 1.317. See Refoulé, F., ‘Situation des pécheurs dans l'Église d'après saint Augustin’, Studia Theologica 8 (1955), pp. 86–102CrossRef Google Scholar; Borgomeo, P., L'Église de ce temps (Paris, 1972), pp. 279–298Google Scholar.

^{page 530 note 1} The question still attracts theologians, e.g. K. Rahner, chs. 17–18 of Theological Investigations, vol. 6 (Baltimore, 1969), with bibliography, pp. 293–4. More recently there has been more written on the ‘sinfulness’ of Church structures and their operations—e.g. Küng, H., Truthfulness (New York, 1968)Google Scholar; Kasper, W., Einführung in den Glauben (Mainz, 1972), ch. 8Google Scholar.

^{page 530 note 2} Augustine, Sermo CLXXXI 5; De Gestis Pelagii 12.28.

^{page 530 note 3} Augustine, De Cat. Rud. 25.48; Ep. 93.30.

^{page 530 note 4} Origen, Comm. in Matt. 12.12; 17.24; Hom, in Jeremiam 4.3.

^{page 531 note 1} H. J. Vogt, Das Kirchenuerständnis des Origenes (Cologne, 1974), pp. 70–80. Origen does not deny the reality or the importance of the institutional Church and its hierarchy, but they are not the center of his attention or his love. See also Bori, op. cit., p. 58.

^{page 531 note 2} Tertullian, De Monogamia 2; De Ieiunio 1; De Virg. Vel. 1.

^{page 531 note 3} Basil, Ep. 295; 42. This is definitely considered not to be Basil's—Geerard, Clavis Patrum Graecorum 2.161.

^{page 532 note 1} John Cassian, Conlatio 18.5; 21.30. See de Vogüég, A., ‘Monachisme et Église dans la pensée de Cassien’, Théologie de la vie monastique (Paris, 1961), pp. 213–240Google Scholar, esp. pp. 217–25; also Bori, op. cit., pp. 158–9.

^{page 532 note 2} De Malis Doctoribus 7.1; 4.1; 11.1; Augustine, De Gestis Pelagii 12.27.

^{page 532 note 3} Lactantius, Div. Inst. 4.30; Origen, Horn, in Jeremiam 4.3; Salvian, Ad Ecclesiam 1, 1.4; Augustine, Ep. 93.25; Pacian, Ep. 3.27.

^{page 533 note 1} Novatian, De Trinitate 29.10; 29.26. The most recent study is that of H. J. Vogt, Coetus Sanctorum (Bonn, 1968). He stresses the significance of Novatian's preference for the image of the Church as virgin rather than as mother.

^{page 533 note 2} Codex Theod. 16, 5.2; P. Coleman-Norton, (ed.), Roman State and Christian Church, vol. 1, p. 158Google Scholar. See Vogt, Coetus Sanctorum, p. 292. According to the account in Socrates, H.E. I.IO, Constantine regarded the Novatianist bishop Acesios with a mixture of admiration and incredulity.

^{page 533 note 3} Pacian, Ep. 3.3; 4; 21.

^{page 534 note 1} Pacian, Ep. 3.3; 5; 25.

^{page 534 note 2} Gregory Nazianzen, Oratio 39.18.

^{page 534 note 3} Socrates, H.E. 2.38; 4.28.

^{page 534 note 4} Socrates, H.E. 1.13; 4.9; 6.22.

^{page 535 note 1} Martyrs of Abitina 18; 20: Fugienda est ergo et execranda pollutorum omnium congregation vitiosa, et appetenda omnibus beatissimorum martyrum successio gloriosa quae est ecclesia sancta, una et vera catholica ….

^{page 535 note 2} Passio Marculi (MPL 8, 760); Passio SS. Donati et Advocati 2 (MPL 8, 753); Augustine, Contra Gaudentium 1, 26.29.

^{page 535 note 3} Passio SS. Donati et Advocati 3–4; Passio SS. Maximiani et Isaac (MPL 8, 768); Augustine, Contra Gaudentium 1, 28.32.

^{page 536 note 1} Gesta Conlationis Carthaginiensis (CC 149a) 3.102; Augustine, Contra Cresconium 3, 66.75; 4, 18.21; Breviculus Collationis 3, 10.20.

^{page 536 note 2} Augustine, Contra Epistulam Parmeniani 2, 1.2. Because of evidence that the Donatists reproached Catholics for the deeds of the monks, it has been maintained that the Donatists rejected monasticism. The context seems to suggest simply this: that the misdeeds of some monks were used as a counter-charge when Catholics brought up the crimes of the Circumcellions. Recall the statement of Theodosius to Ambrose concerning the Callinicum affair: ‘The monks commit many crimes.’ (Ambrose, Ep. 41.27; Augustine, Enarr. In Ps. 132.3—CC 40, 1927–8.)

^{page 536 note 3} Gesta Conlationis Carth. 3.249; 258. (The presentation of the Donatist bishop Habetdeum.)

^{page 536 note 4} Augustine, Contra Litteras Petiliani 1, 4.5.

^{page 537 note 1} Augustine, op. cit. 3, 52.64; Gesta Conlationis Carth. 3.235.

^{page 537 note 2} Augustine, Contra Cresconium 2, 17.21; 3, 37.41.

^{page 538 note 1} Lucifer, De Non Parcendo in Deum Delinquentibus 2.6; De Non Conveniendo cum Haereticis 2, 4.11; De Sancto Athanasio 1, 27.36. Few studies have been done on Lucifer. See G. Krüger, Lucifer, Bischof von Calaris und das Schisma der Luciferiancr (1886, repr. Hildesheim, 1969). For a study of Lucifer's relations with the emperor, see Setton, K., Christian Attitudes towards the Emperor in the 4th Century (New York, 1941), ch. 4Google Scholar.

^{page 538 note 2} Gregory of Elvira, In Canticum Canticorum 2.15–17; 3.20; De Fide Orthodoxa 65. The last remark, that the separation of good and evil is made in the Church, is unusually explicit. Buckley simply says that Gregory has not yet fully thought out the problem— Buckley, F., Christ and the Church according to Gregory of Elvira (Rome, 1964), p. 137Google Scholar.

^{page 538 note 3} Jerome, Altercatio Luciferiani et Orthodoxi 1.1; also 5; 15; 21; 22; 28; Lucifer, De Sancto Athanasio 2.7.

^{page 539 note 1} Faustinus, De Conf. Verae Fidei (LibellusPrecum) 5.16; 6.17–9; 7.2O; 8.28; 11.43; 19.72; 29.103; 32.112.

^{page 539 note 2} Faustinus, De Trinitate 11; Jerome, Altercatio 14; Faustinus, De Conf. 7.24; 8.31; 10.35; 13.49; 15.57; 18.69; 34.121

^{page 541 note 1} J. H. Newman, letter to Emily Bowles, dated November 11, 1866, cited in. Misner, Papacy and Development Leiden, 1976), p. 144.

^{page 542 note 1} Origen, Contra Celsum 3.11; Irenaeus, Adv. Haer. 4, 33.7.

Article contents

Holiness and separation in the early centuries

Extract

Access options

References

Save article to Kindle

Save article to Dropbox

Save article to Google Drive

Reply to: Submit a response

Your details

You have entered the maximum number of contributors

Conflicting interests