170

Theological Studies

birth? The time chosen for her departure is all the mort
surprising, as Elizabeth, too, on her part must have desired
to have Mary near her as long as possible, particularly after
her confinement. Her baby needed tending and so did Eliza­
beth herself. It was her first child and Elizabeth was "we
advanced in years.” (Lk. 1, 7) The physical consequences of
such a birth were far greater for her than for a woman in the
prime of life; there is absolutely no reason why Elizabeth should
not have been subjected to these laws of nature. Again, why
did Mary leave her then and there?
The conclusion suggested by these deliberations is this: The
date of departure did not depend either on Mary or on Eliza­
beth. It was, in all probability, Mary’s family who willed it so.
But even this solution does not answer our question in full.
They too, being sensible people, must have foreseen what it
meant to both the Virgin and to Elizabeth to have Map
returning in such circumstances. There was something in the
conditions concerning Mary and her family that caused such
a decision, some factor which was independent of them. As a
solution we can only offer here a suggestion which we shall,

however, be able to confirm subsequently.
The factor in the conditions which fixed the time of Mao *
departure from Elizabeth, and which neither the two women
nor any one of Mary’s family was able to change and to adapt
to personal desires was Mary’s period of engagement. By the
date of Mary’s betrothal the time, if not the day, of her wed­
ding became fixed, as will be seen shortly. If we suppose that
the day of Mary’s wedding drew near, we fully understand
the puzzle of her departure. Mary was bound to leave Eliza­
beth by that time. On the other hand, that she returned
immediately after Elizabeth’s confinement and against her own
and Elizabeth's natural desire suggests that Mary had remained
with Elizabeth to the last possible day. She would, of course,
be back at Nazareth at a date early enough to allow her rn
a

SOCIAL ACTION IN THE EARLY CHURCH,
30-180 A.D.
Paul Hanly Furfey
Catholic University
Washington, D. C.

I. The Church and the World

Historians of social thought have frequently stated that the
i.r.y Church was little concerned with the problems of social
t: nn. Thus Barnes and Becker write: "Although the
rides were well aware of the suffering caused by the prevail“g social system, and were not willing to adapt themselves
•.j it without some protest, they did not dream of social
reform, much less of making any radical social change.”1
L.wood says of the Fathers: "Social and political thinking
jtcame again subservient to religion. To this extent the
.■.r.stian movement must be considered a retrograde moveBeach believes that early Christian social thought was
little concerned with the association of men with each
cher, their institutions, and their competitive-co-operative
tiens to live together.”3 Bogardus writes: "The Church
fathers directed the attention of the people to the next world
co preparation therefor.. .. The importance of a changing
’Xui order was underrated. In fact, the injustices of the
urrent social order were considered as disciplinary measures
r the soul in its preparation for the next world.”1
At tint glance there seems to be much to be said for this
ew. In those days human slavery was a burning shame;
r the Church was not aggressively abolitionist. At times
"ere was widespread political corruption and bad government;
’.“A the Church did not agitate for constitutional reform,
'acre was little protest against repeated wars of conquest. The
Un» H E. lad B«ckcr. H.: Sociol Thought front Lore io Science.

·**/ ΙΛΜ.
WT—-4 G Λ.. A Hstory of Sored Phdœoph?·

(Boston, Heath,

iNew York, Prentice-Hall, 193t.)

172

Theological Studies

Church fostered no labor unions to help protect the nascen:
proletariat against exploitation.
These are admitted facts; yet before returning a verdict t<
the plaintiffs, we must note one glaring error made by the
*
critics of early Christian social action. They have tried :
evaluate the work of the early Church by the standards t
modern social reform. When they found that the earb
Fathers did not talk and act exactly like modern social re torn
*,
ers, they hastily concluded that the early Christians were call» u
to the ills of society. Admittedly our modern ways of socn
reform were absent in the early Church. Therefore, conclude
the critics, all social action was absent. In so concluding the
*
betray a badly anachronistic historical sense.
It is, therefore, imperatively necessary to understand wîut
social action means in our own day, what it meant in the
two centuries of our era, and what are the differences between
these two meanings. Unless these points become wholly tie-­
in one’s mind, it is altogether useless to try to appreciate tht

influence of the early Church on society.
What then is the ontogeny of a modern reform movent :
Usually something like this: Some theoretician has a scheme
for rebuilding society. His ideas are not too unreali't
*·*
*’
others accept them. A group is formed and become» ftC^nized as a school of social thinking. Sooner or later though»
passes into action. This action may take various forms, o
which the following are perhaps the three principal. FmJ·
action may be entirely voluntary and unofficial, requiring no
new legislation. Or, secondly, the action may take the term
of social legislation for the passage of which the group agitate»
by legal means. Finally, in the most extreme cases the reform
group may become a révolutionary party and force the
acceptance of their ideas by armed revolt.
Take the history of socialism as an illustration. Saint-Simon
is usually considered the founder. He was a theoretician. H»
ideas attracted followers, hazard. Enfantin, Fourier. Proudhon
Then theory passed into action in all three ways above men
*

Early Church Social Action

173

■cd. There was voluntary and unofficial action sucli as the
ntic experiments of Cabet, Owen and others. There were
rts to reform by social legislation. Think, for example,
L uis Blanc and his national workshops of 1848. Indeed
«Aulism had a considerable part in promoting the excellent
< i. Lgislation which European countries began to adopt
virds the end of the nineteenth century. Finally, the Bol: : Revolution of 1917 in Russia represents a successful
r~pt to impose socialistic ideas by violence.
Such is the modern scheme of social action; it would hardly
: .·.· aeen feasible in the early Roman Empire. True enough,
•e was considerable freedom of thought and theoreticians
pian their Utopias; but there was very little freedom of
It was difficult even to band together for voluntary
- -nodicial activities. The government was very suspicious
•
licita. Trajan even forbade the younger Pliny to
i volunteer fire brigade in Nicomedia, writing on this
.
Whatever name we give them and for whatever
men who unite for a common purpose will all the same
become a political faction.”6 It would have been
more futile to dream of agitating for social legislation.
■"·' v<t of thing is not done in a totalitarian state such as
•
wm. As in Germany and Russia today, whatever little
j; legislation was enacted, came into being as a result of
emperor’s gracious pleasure and emphatically not as a result
**ne pressure group organized by social reformers. Finally,
"sed revolution had little chance. Remember we are dis- the most brilliant period of the empire when the Roman
tar machine was functioning perfectly. Revolt against
' ~e
pretty futile. We know at what a fearful cost the
rwi learned that lesson.
.nç the young Augusta» again» the demoralizing influence of philoso-

174

Theological Studies

Under the Roman Empire therefore, social reform had to
proceed along different lines. Actually what happened was
somewhat as follows: The theory was thought out just as it is
today; but there was no attempt to put this theory into practice
by organized action. Instead, the followers of the new school
tried to practise in their own lives the principles which the
school held. If their example was convincing, others might
join. As the group grew, their influence still remained unoffi­
cial; but there was always the chance that some man powerful
in public affairs, even an emperor, might be converted. In this
case at last the school’s theories began to influence the whole
community. This, for example, was the history of Stoicism. It
began as a purely personal philosophy of life, but it grew in in­
fluence as men of affairs like Seneca and finally even the em­
peror, Marcus Aurelius, became converts. Through the power
of such men Stoicism had a real importance in social reform.
The condition of women, children, and slaves was improved.
We must also give Stoicism some of the credit for the idea, so
fundamental in Roman law, that in a certain restricted legal
sense all men are equal.
In considering the social action of the early Church it is only
fair to keep the foregoing facts in mind. We must judge the
early Christians in the light of their contemporary possibilities.
Wc must not seek in the first century a type of social action im­
possible then, but possible now. The early Church influenced
society profoundly, but it did so only by using the reform
techniques which the prevailing conditions allowed, that is, by
doing three things: by teaching a consistent doctrine on social
relationships, by putting this doctrine into practice in the per­
sonal lives of individual Christians, and finally by winning to
the Faith persons in authority until finally the emperor and his
empire were converted. One must remember these facts, or else
fail completely to understand the social thought and social
action of the early Church.
With the preceding principles in mind we now turn to the
study of Christian social action during the first century and a

Early Church Social Action

175

half of the Church’s existence, that is to say, from 30 to 180
.ID. A few words may be in order in explanation of this
choice of dates. The terminus a quo, the year 30, calls for little
«planation. It is the date when the Church began her inde­
pendent career.7 For the terminus ad quem the year 180 is a
utural choice. It marked the end of a period of unparalleled
prosperity for Rome and the beginning of a century of rapid
decline and revolution. The date also marks roughly a change
v:rhin the Church. Previously Christians had been an insignifi­
cant minority. Ecclesiastical organization had been elastic and
informal. The writings of the early Fathers were brief and
topical and always in Greek. After 180 the Church was grow-ig rapidly. The hierarchy was more formally organized. Men
like Tertullian and Irenaeus began to compose longer and more
r.stematic works of theology and Latin became an ecclesiastical
.anguage. The years 30-180 A.D., therefore, form a fairly
unitary and very interesting period. In those days the Apostles
or their first successors were alive. The tradition of the Lord’s
teaching was still fresh in men’s minds. Therefore even the
rwn-inspired writings of the period have a unique value for the
student of Christian social thought.
Among the sources available for the study of this period the
New Testament
*
naturally holds first place. All the canonical
books are included in this study except the Gospels. They are
nutted because, although they were written within our time
limits, they are historical works and refer to events previously
xcurring. The non-Biblical sources embrace the Apostolic
*
Fathers,
the second-century apologists,10 the Apocrypha,11 the
i&iiul scholar
*

generally date Oar Lord’s death in the year 29 or 30. For a good

% Greek text of Merk (Rome, Pontifical Biblical Institute, 1936) has been used.

Übrrraâoa W refers to the Westminster Version of the Sacred Scriptures (New
ri, Longnunt, 1,27-1331) and Spen refers to Father Spencer’s translation (New York,

*Ied ή Goodspeed’s edition (Gottingen, Vandenhoeck 4 Ruprecht, 1,14) or. for writers
■nd by Goodspeed, in Otto’s Corpus (Jena. Mauke. 1131-1179) or in other editions

176

Theological Studies

few surviving acts of the early martyrs,12 and various minor
sources. Christian epigraphy and archaeology1’ furnish a cer­
tain amount of evidence. On the other hand the papyri and
ostraka14 give practically no assistance.
To understand the early Christians’ view of society in gen­
eral, we must first understand what they thought about the
society which they themselves constituted, the Church, the
Kingdom of God, the Mystical Body of Christ. This was the
society they most discussed. This was the society they best un­
derstood. From their analysis of this society they learned to
criticize other societies.
The early Christians did not philosophize much about them­
selves. That was reserved for a later and more self-conscious
age. It is, therefore, vain to look for any systematic presenta­
tion of the theory of the Christian social group. W hat we do
find is a series of analogies by which the Christians explained
their social unity to themselves. Five of these analogies are of
prime importance and merit discussion here, namely, the build­
ing, the Kingdom of God, the ecclesia, the family, and the
Mystical Body.15
We begin therefore with the analogy of the building. Saint
Peter said to his converts, "Be you also as living stones built up.
a spiritual house.” (I Pet. 2:5) H and Saint Paul wrote to the
1:Read. except as otherwi
*

specified, in Knopf and Kruger
*»

An»«rnrfA/«r MMyrntAtt·'
*

Aufl. (Tubingen. Mohr, 1929).
,5Poeitblr «be best practical wurce u Cabrol and Leclercq »
* a-rAfoiep
*
ibrttirvu ft Je liturgie (Parii, Letouzey et Ané, 1924- ), herein aUwenated DA<
See aim Vacant and Mingenot, DKfto··
'
**
théologie cot bolide (Paris. Letouey «
And, 1W· ), herein abbreviated DTC, Kaufmann’s Headbacb 1er cbritflicbe· Are Wot
*

(Paderbonn. Schôningh, 1922), the same author’s Headbach der eltc bratIif he·
(Fretburg u B., Herder. 1917) and Marucchii Meaaele di ercbeoiogi· crbhtae (Root.
Deader, 19»). Of course De Rom's monumental Kowa totterme
*
(Rome, CronwLitografia Pontihcia. 1964-1147) remains indispensablel’See Leclercq. H-: “Papyne," DAC. 15:1570-152®, and ’Ostraka.’’ DAC, 15:70-112.
l5There are ocher minor analogies. The Church is symbolized by a ship in a paiaoag in
the cemetery of Callarm (De Rom*-. OpV«d. Π. PI. VX) but this is rare· So also is
the analogy at th
*
vine and the branches (J®- 15:1-4). It is true that Saint Paial i w
of the dive CM® (Rom. 11:14-24) is somewhat parallel, but not completely sn The nae
pictured on the walls of the catacomb· «η th
*
VestiboU dei Flatt and in the region or
Ampliare» in th
* Cemewy <rf Dom«ÜU are peeUHv purdr decorar.ve Sa
*
Boor. DTV
5:1193’•The analov wa. dm
.le«
*

mggrned b» *

»57 23 and fa.

which faint Fet,f

I

Early Church Social Action

177

Corinthians, "You are God’s building.” (I Cor. 3:9) If the
ndividual Christians are the building stones, Christ Himself is
the foundation. "Other foundation can no man lay but that
which is laid which is Christ Jesus.” (I Cor. 3:11) Writing to
the Ephesians, Saint Paul varies the figure slightly. "You are
fellow citizens with the saints and the domestics of God, built
upon the foundation of the Apostles and prophets, Jesus Christ
himself being the chief cornerstone.” (Eph. 2:19-20) The
analogy is developed at considerable length by Hermas who
represents the Church under the figure of a tower.1,
That does the analogy of the building teach us about Christan social thought? It teaches us that the early Christians condered themselves an organized social whole, not merely an un­
organized crowd. They were like stones carefully fitted to­
gether, not like a pile of loose stones in random arrangement.
Just as the stones of a building rest one upon another, so there
was mutual dependence among the Christians. To be accepted
is a member by the Church one must prove oneself worthy,
UK as a stone must be a good stone to be accepted by the builder
—a point which Hermas emphasizes. Finally the element
which gives character to the Church is Christ’s presence. He is
he cornerstone whose position determines the position of stones
nd above it. He is the foundation which gives the whole buildng permanence and strength.
Again, the Christian group is conceived as forming a king­
dom, the Kingdom of God. This figure had a long history. In
‘■he Old Testament Messianic prophecy had made familiar the
concept of Christ as king. The Kingdom is emphasized in the
r noptic Gospels. It formed an important part of the Apostc teaching. Saint Paul, meeting with the chief Jews in
fome, for example, "expounded, testifying the kingdom of
God. and persuading them concerning Jesus” (Acts 28:23).’’
Christians, in their turn, were conscious of their privileges
« subjects of Christ, the King. The aged Polycarp chose death
'ither than disloyalty to his divine King.
For eighty and six
an have I been his servant and he has done me no wrong and
'U Vs. > usd Sm. 9.
%» ώο Act
*
1:5, t.ll, 19:8, 29:25, 2»:J1-

178

Theological Studies

how can I blaspheme my King who saved me?” (Mart. Pol.
9:5) Writing to the Colossians Saint Paul thanks God, the
Father, who "hath translated us into the kingdom of the son of
his love.” (Col. 1:13)19 while Saint Justin points out that the
kingdom of which the Christians speak is no earthly kingdom
but the Kingdom of God. (Just. Apol. I, 11:1) The boldness
of the martyrs before their judges proves the otherworldliness
of their hope. Abercius of Hierapolis, in the epitaph prepared
for himself, declared: "He who taught me faithful scriptures
was the one who sent me to Rome to observe the kingdom (?)
*
and to see the queen with golden robes and golden sandals.
There I saw a people having a shining seal.” The language is
purposely obscure, which is not surprising in the case of a pub­
lic inscription in penal times. It is still uncertain whether the
kingdom and the queen refer to the Church and the Kingdom
of God as personified or whether they designate the Roman Em­
pire and the empress.21 There can be no doubt, however, that
the people having a shining seal were the Christians with their
seal of Baptism. The Christians were a people; a social unity.
The Kingdom of God is not of this world. It is "not meat
and drink, but justice and peace and joy in the Holy Ghost.”
(Rom. 14:17) It is "not in speech, but in power." (I Cor.
4:20) To enter this unwordly kingdom one must free oneself
of vices. In one place” Saint Paul lists seventeen vices which
disqualify for entrance. The Kingdom of God is for "the poor
of this world, rich in faith," (Jas. 2:5) who pass through many
tribulations, (Acts 14:21, II Thess. 1:1) practising good works.
(II Pet. 1:10-11) The kingdom is supernatural; it is unattain­
able by the merely natural man. "Flesh and blood cannot
possess the kingdom of God” (I Cor. 15:10).
Contrasting the figure of the building with the figure of the
kingdom we maj note first of all the dynamic character of the

Early Church Social Action

179

zter. The stones in a building cooperate merely passively, by
-mining in position. The subjects of a kingdom cooperate
actively under the sovereign guidance of their ruler. In the
reriod we are studying Roman citizenship was a precious privil­
ege. Men strove for it eagerly on account of the many valuable rights it bestowed. So too, citizenship in the Kingdom of
God must be earned by personal merit and gives the recipient
priceless rights.
A third term for the Christian group was ecclesia
αχλησία. This soon became the ordinary Latin and Greek
vord for church; yet we must not forget that originally it
meant a duly summoned public assembly—a meaning it still
xan in Acts 19:39. It was natural to transfer the meaning
from a civil to a religious assembly. "In assembly έν έκκλησίςι
mou shalt confess thy transgressions.” (Did. 4:14) Then it
meant all the Christians of a given locality. "The church
Γζζλησία) that is in Antioch in Syria,” (Ig. Sm. 11:1) Finally
: came to mean the universal church, the sum-total of all
Christians.
The Christians’ choice of the word ecclesia for their group
aggests a comparison with the Greek city-state, the πόλις. Thus
iamt Paul tells the Ephesians, "You are fellow-citizens
σνμπολίται) with the saints.” (Eph. 2:19) To the Philip­
pins be says, "Our commonwealth ( πολίτευμα ) is in heaven.”
Phil. 3:20)” The author of the Epistle to Diognetus writes
: the Christians, "They pass their time on earth, but have
meir citizenship (πολιτεύονται) in heaven.” (Diog. 5:9)
The figure of the Kingdom of God shows that the Christian
COup was somehow analogous to a state governed by a king.
; ris was a characteristically eastern form of political organizax®. But the use of words like ecclesia and πόλις (city-state)
.zgests a comparison with the usual form or organization in
ie Greek cities. Christian felt themselves as subjects of a Great
King: but they also felt themselves comparable to citizens of
i Greek city-state, gathered in assembly (έν εκκλησία ) to
a perfectly good translation. the sense

180

Theological Studies

transact oificial business, like citizens of a free city. The analogy
of the kingdom brings out the unquestioning obedience, the
utter personal loyalty which Christians owe to Christ, the
King. The analogy of the ecclesia shows that Christians have
duties other than passive obedience. There is room for per­
sonal initiative in the Church as the lives of the saints abun­
dantly prove.
The family furnishes a fourth analogy. Christians are the
sons of God.” (Rom. 8:16). Consequently they stand to
each other in the relation of brothers and sisters and all form
one family. The Christians showed their vivid consciousness
of this fact by calling one another brother. In the New Testa­
ment this usage is too well known to require quotation. It is
common, too, in the Apostolic Fathers,'* and in the apologists,
as well as in early sepulchral inscriptions. In fact, the term
brother became a technical term for Christian. So that when
Saint Paul speaks of "the brother Quartus,” (Rom. 16:23)
"the brother Sosthenes,” (I Cor. 1:1)“ he means practically,
"Quartus, the Christian” and "Sosthenes, the Christian.” The
term denoted not physical, but spiritual relationship.' Since
the whole human race is called to membership in the Church
and to salvation, even the enemies of the Church are brothers
in a sense, and are so called by Saint Justin. They are "of hke
nature with ourselves and brothers.”'’'
The analogy of the family brings out the close unity of the
Christians and the necessity of common action. These are
points already shown in the other analogies; but in addition the
analogy of the family adds something new. It calls attention
to the intimacy of Christians with one another. Theirs is not
2*For example. Cksu
Λ-Clew. 2«:2, Sar,. 2:io, Is. Ko·». 6:2.
“For example. Am. (Gr) 11.7, Jwt. Afol. I, iJ I, 6i:5, Jest. Dui. !M:1, Atk.
>.
*
S
J2:>. Mehto. in
HE. 4:26. I J. For Eosebius we follow Lake’s edition (London.
Heinemann. 1926-19J2) which reprint» the text of the Berlin Cor/uu.
“ Kwôpvo; i ÆôrMpo;. ΣεχτΛντ,; &
. Tbc
thow of the
WeMmtmter Viriia·. See parallel «tances tn I Cor.: 16:12 and 2 Or, 1:1.
w, C>U am another brother not m a bwloycal (of χατά
Ut · a
ipsiit—l mm < MTÀ Wrt»r Am (Gr) 117
»
&VTMW Mi
Jwm. AfoL II |.| W
f|.,
«♦2. Uhl.

Early Church Social Action

181

the impersonal cooperation of fellow-citizens, but the intimate
ind loving cooperation of brothers and sisters. Again, the
family is a natural and stable group. We are born into our
family without our knowledge or consent. If two men are
brothers in blood, then it is utterly impossible that they should
cease to be so. So too, we are called to membership in the
Christian family without our initiative. Many of us were bap­
tized when we were too young to consent. Nothing we can do
can erase the mark of Baptism from our souls. Thus the Christ­
ian group, like the family, is intimate and inevitable and stable.
Among the various comparisons which the early Christians
used to explain the social group they constituted, probably the
most important is the figure of the Mystical Body. This was a
very common analogy, and one very suggestive to the social
thinker. Saint Paul was explicit in his doctrine that the Church
was a body, Christ being the head, the individual Christians
being the members.29 Saint Ignatius of Antioch talks about
the one body of His Church.”30 Saint Clement, speaking of
the Church, prays, "Let our whole body be saved in Christ
Jesus.” (38:1) "The Church of God shall be one body,” says
Hennas (Sim. 9:18, 4) and again, "There shall be one body of
those who are purified.”5 Saint Justin refers to the doctrine.
Dm/. 42:3) Even the Apocryphal Odes of Solomon32 contain
a couple of references. "Glory be to thee, our Head, the Lord
Messias," (17:16) and "They became to me as my own mem­
bers and I was their head.” (17:13)
From this doctrine it followed that all Christians were very
dosely united to each other. "You are all one in Christ Jesus.”
Gal. 3:28) "We, being many, are one bread, one body.” (I
Cor. 10:17)53 The close unity thus established is not disturbed
by racial or social differences. "We are all baptized into one
»Sa, for example, I Cor. 12:15, Eph. 1:22-25, 5:6, 4:12, 4:15-16, 5:30, Col. 1:1«, 1:24,
1-Λ7, 2:19, 5:15. Note that the doctrine of the Mystical Body is implicit in the account

·/ Seat Paul’r conversion. Acts 9:5, 22:t, 26:15.
■ig. S
.
*
1:2. See also Ig. Trell. 1:1.
•So·. 9:1«, J- See also Sm. 9:15, 5, Si
.
*
9:15, 7, and Six». 9:17. 5.
«Hama, R. and Mingana, A.: Tbe Oder enJ Points of Soiomon. (Manchester, Univereity
hw, 192·.)
3$ee also I- Cor. 1:15, Eph. 2:15-16, 4:4, Col. 2:19, I Jn. 1:7.

182

Theological Studies

body, whether Jews or Gentiles, whether bond or free.” (I Cor.
12:13) Saint Paul preached the startling mystery that "in
Christ Jesus, through the gospel, the Gentiles are coheirs and
concorporate (σύσσωμα ) and comparticipant in the prom­
ise.” (Eph. 3:6, WV) However, the fundamental equality of
the Christians and their intimate unity is not inconsistent with
diversity of function. The classical passage illustrating this is
the twelfth chapter of First Corinthians. Saint Paul is dis­
cussing the charismata. Evidently there had been disorder
among the charismatics at Corinth. Some were vain about
their spiritual gifts. Others, less well endowed, were jealous
and unduly discouraged. The Apostle points out that the
necessary inequality of endowment should lead neither to pride
nor to discouragement, and he proves his point by the analogy
of the body. Here there is inequality of dignity; yet even the
humblest members play their necessary part. "The eye cannot
say to hand: I need not thy help; nor again, the head to the
feet: I have no need of you.” (I Cor. 12:21). It is foolish,
then, for a member to take a too individualistic attitude. His
welfare depends not solely on himself, but also on the healthy
functioning of the whole. "If one member suffer anything,
all the members suffer with it; or if one member glory, all the
members rejoice with it.” (I Cor. 12:26)14 A generation later
a factious spirit broke out again at Corinth and Pope Saint
Clement used the same arguments: "The great cannot exist
without the small; nor the small without the great. There is
a certain blending among all and there is an advantage in this.
Let us take our body. The head is nothing without the feet ;
likewise the feet, without the head. The smallest members of
our body are necessary and useful to the whole body; but all
agree and are united in a common subjection to save the whole
body.” {Clem 37:4-3)
The Mystical Body receives its surpassing dignity from the
fact that Christ is its head. "He is the head of the body, the
church.” (Col. 1:18) God, the Father of glory "hath made
him head over all the church which is his body.” (Eph. 1:22«I HaactMB

dw

Bc4r ■ rtriiaj .bo

i2:4-f iad

Early Church Social Action

183

23) The result of this mystical union is sometimes expressed by
nying that we are "in Christ.”35 We are to "walk in him.”
(Col. 2:6) In Him the Christian attains his fullness. (Col.
2:10) "In Christ all shall be made alive.” (I Cor. 15:22)
The early Christians found the doctrine of the Mystical Body
i very compelling motive for virtue. We must not sin against
our fellow Christians because we are "every one members one
of another.” (Rom. 12:5) These considerations are a motive for
chastity. (I Cor. 6:15) They are motives for telling the truth.
(Eph 4:25) Above all, they are motives for practising charity.
Because the community at Jerusalem had but "one heart and
one soul,” (Acts 4:32) they were very ready to share their pos­
sessions. Saint Clement was amazed that the Christians at Cor­
inth should so far forget the doctrine of the Mystical Body as
to quarrel with one another. "Why do we drag apart and rend
the members of Christ and be at odds against our own body and
reach such a pitch of madness as to forget that we are members,
one of another?” (Clem. 46:7) Again, the same writer, after
discussing the mutual dependence of the members, goes on to
say: "Let each be subject to his neighbor according to the posi­
tion granted him. Let the strong care for the weak and let the
weak respect the strong. Let the rich aid the poor and let the
poor man thank God that He gave him one to supply his needs.”
(Clem. 38:1-2)”
The analogy of the Mystical Body throws into relief several
important facts about the Christian social group. First, it pre­
sents the Church as a living thing. The Church has a life of its
own, the common life of grace which flows from the Head
through the members. Again, this analogy shows more clearly
than any of the others the nature of the relationship existing
among the members. The members are not equal in dignity;
but each plays his necessary part. This doctrine is opposed to
the unrealistic egalitarianism of the French Revolution. It is
Paul uses this or equivalent expressions 164 times. See an excellent discussion in

Fnt, F.: Le théologie ie
’’Note dut the mutual
ferbg pray foe the dead;
rridence for this has been

itmt Pnl. (Paris, Beauchesne, 190?.) 1:454-456.
obligations of the Christians perse vexed beyond the grave. The
the dead pray for the living. The very interesting epigraphic
excellently assembled by Baur. DTC. 5:414-410.

184

I
I

Theological Studies

also opposed to any theory which would deprive the humblest
citizen of his dignity as a human person. Finally, the figure of
the Mystical Body makes it clear how and why the Christian
society is supernatural. It is so because Christ, the Head, is
Himself part of the body and because as Head, He supplies the
body’s life. The supernatural life, then, which Christ gives,
makes the Church a living organism; and the fact that it is a
living organism accounts for the mutual dependence of mem­
bers characteristic of the Christian social group.
Let us stop at this point to recapitulate briefly. We have
considered five analogies by which the early Christians ex­
plained their own group to themselves. Putting these together
what picture do we get? We may answer that the early
Christians conceived of themselves as constituting a unit. They
were not a crowd; they were a society. This society was
dynamic, not merely static. It performed public common acts
like an ecclesia. It obeyed Christ, as subjects obey their king.
There was a mutual dependence of member on member, so that
each played his part toward making the whole a good society.
The members were not equal in dignity, but each had his in­
dispensable place and deserved affection and respect from the
others, like a member of a family. In a word, the Church was
an organic unity and this unity received life and meaning from
Christ, the Head of the body which is the Church.
The force which welded the early Christians into a social
unity and which governed all their human relations was charity,
αγάπη. This is evidently a very fundamental concept for
understanding the social thought of the New Testament.
The word αγαπη has had an interesting history.17 In the
Hebrew Old Testament the most common word for lore was
'abeb. This verb covered a wide range of meaning, love be­
tween the sexes, betwen relatives, between intimate friends. It
was also used for love as a duty imposed by the Law. "Thou
shalt love (w
ahabta)
**
thy neighbor3* as thyself.” (Lev. 19:18)
^Ser the acûd« w άγη»», αγά,-ηι, άγα.τητΰς by G. Quell n
* d E Sunder. tn
Κκιχ!. G.: Tfcrofctterbr
*
saw
V. Kohlfununer,
**r/*Jb *
«»
Version rranJx·*

rwher than

hinT
V.rxMy.)
.hr» the .imt test j,

The Dooty

Early Church Social Action

185

The love of the Old Testament was a discriminating love which
chose its beloved out of thousands. (CC. 5:10) Therefore
when the Old Testament was translated into Greek, the word
αγαπάν was generally chosen to render ’abeb, because it means
rhe love of intelligent and discriminating free choice as opposed
to the blindly passionate love implied by έραν.
When the New Testament writers took over the words,
αγαπάν, to love, and αγάπη, charity, they were already rich
with meaning. In the New Testament this meaning was
not altered; but it was deepened and intensified. When the
Jewish lawyer quoted Deut. 6:5 and Lev. 19:18 on love of God
and neighbor as a summary of man’s duty, Our Lord approved
warmly, saying, "Thou hast answered right ; this do, and thou
halt live.” (Lk. 10:28) However, in the Gospels, charity re­
ceived enormously more emphasis than it had in the Old Testa­
ment. Our Lord insisted that His followers must love even
their enemies and strangers. He revealed for the first time the
true nature of charity. It is a participation by man in the
mutual love which exists among the Three Persons of the
Blessed Trinity (Jn. 17:26). Charity is the queen-virtue.
In our literature charity naturally occupies an extremely
important place. Saint Paul’s panegyric is familiar. Compared
• to the charisms, charity is "a far more excellent path.” (I Cor.
12:51, Spen) Without charity the charisms, faith, and natur­
alistic philanthropy are nothing. (I Cor. 13:1-3) Fifteen good
qualities of charity are enumerated by Saint Paul in I Cor.
15:4-7. Charity, finally, is eternal. (I. Cor. 13) Hardly less
s doquent is Saint Clement. "The bond of the charity of God
who can explain? The greatness of its beauty who is competent
to tell? The height to which charity lifts us is inexpressible,”
Clem. 49:2-4) and again, "See, beloved, how great and won­
derful is charity, and that of its perfection there is no expres« son.” {Clem. 50:1) Charity is the "bond of perfection,”
Col. 3:14) that is, either the bond which binds the virtues to­
gether into a unified whole, or the perfect bond between the
He who has charity has fulfilled the Law, (Rom.
3:8-10, Gal. 5:14) walks in the light, (I Jn. 1:7, 2:9-11)
»

< .,1

186

abides in God, (I Jn. 4:12 and 16) and has passed from death to
life. (I Jn. 3:14) Fraternal charity is an echo of God’s love.
(I Jn. 4:7-8) Faith and charity are respectively the beginning
and end of life. (Ig. Eph. 14:1) By charity our sins are for­
given and heaven is opened to us.39
Charity being the supremely important virtue, it is not sur­
prising that the Christians were constantly exhorted to practise
it. They were to love one another even unto death. (I Jn.
3:16) They were to observe the golden rule,40 to seek their
neighbor’s good rather than their own, (I Cor. 10:24) to love
unceasingly. (Clem. 33:1) and with an undivided heart. (Ig.
Trail. 13:2) The duty of charity comes "before all things;”
(I Pet. 4:8) for lack of charity injures my brother "for whom
Christ died.” (Rom. 14:15) Such charity welds the Christians
together "in harmony,” (Ig. Trail. 12:2) and " in love without
human partisanship.” (Clem. 50:2) They are "knit together
in charity,”41 "solicitous to preserve the unity of the Spirit.
(Eph. 4:3 Spen)i:
The result of this mutual charity was to bind the brethren
together in a "profound and rich peace.” (Clem. 2:2) Nothing
is better than this; (Ig. Eph. 13:2) therefore, if anyone finds
that sedition and strife have arisen in the community on his
account, he ought to be willing to go away for the sake of peace.
(Clem. 54:1-3) Not only do Christians strive for peace among
’’Heb 4:10. Clem. 30:3 and f.
·* 1 his rule b stated negatively in oar literature.

(Eth) I*

Early Church Social Action

Theological Studies

).
*
(2

"Whatsoever thou would,t not haw

Thea 2:34. There e e well known variant reading in Act» 13:29 winch

187

themselves but they are more ready than anybody else to cor operate with the public authorities for the preservation of
peace. (Just. I Apol. 12:1) The thought of peace was constant
among the early Christians during life and, from the first
century on they inscribed on their graves the words in Pace.
*
3
Of course this beautiful idea of constant peace and unity
within the Mystical Body was not always followed in practice.
The early Christians were subject to human weakness, just like
jurselves. Saint Paul was forced to rebuke the Corinthians
sharply for their party spirit in the opening chapters of First
Corinthians. Some forty years later Pope Saint Clement was
forced to repeat the same admonitions to the same church. The
Corinthians should be "without any human partisanship,”
Clem. 50:2) for sedition is "abominable and unholy, alien and
foreign to the elect of God.” (Clem. 1:1) Their disunity, he
notes, "has turned aside many, has cast many into discourage­
ment, many to doubt, all of us to grief.” (Clem. 46:9) All this,
ays the Pseudo-Clement, is very disedifying to the pagans who,
vhen they hear the Christian doctrine of loving enemies, "won­
der at this extraordinary degree of goodness ; but when they see
2iat not only do we not love those that hate us, but even those
that love us, they laugh us to scorn and the name is
blasphemed.” (Ps-Clem. 13:4)
However distressing these occasional dissensions were, the
Christians could still afford to boast of their "holy and seemly
practice of brotherly love.” (Clem. 48:1) Diognetus is told
wt fervent love (φιλοστοργία) for one another” (Ep.
3aog. 1) The Christians have. The first believers in Jerusalem
Tiad but one heart and one soul” (Acts 4:32) Christians
ore one another (Arist. (Syr.) 15:7), love their neighbor
Amt. (Gr.) 15:4). Catacomb inscriptions reflect the same
'4nder love.44 Saint Justin contrasts the conduct of the Chris®For further tau on peace, see Rom. 12:11, Eph. 4:3, I Then. 3:13, Heb. 12:14,

^ea. 13:1. 2A.I-H, 42:2.
VmH,- “Obnmus
Or the
gjve
. >,11 OMOÜB, 2

to hi
*
dearest (
ΓΛΥΚΥΤΑΤΟ
) cou«n and fellow rtudenc.
epitaph from the Cemetery of Corn modi Ila: "Marcu
*
*
Orbiu
Heinaa, hu
*
thi
grave a* a resting place for Tkue Flavius Eutychiua, who lived !»
days- Farewell, dear.” Both imcnptæes belong to the second century.

188

Theological Studies

tians before and after conversion: "We hated one another. We
murdered one another. On account of their different manners
we refused to live with men of other tribes. But now, after the
coming of Christ, we live the common life. We pray for our
enemies and try to win over those who unjustly hate us.” (Just.
I Apol. 14:3)
This sublime charity stands out in many of the individuals
who appear in our literature. Saint Ignatius of Antioch calls
Onesimus "a man of inexpressible love.” (Ig. Eph. 1:3). Of
himself, Saint Ignatius says to the Philadelphians, "My brethren.
I am overflowing with love for you and I am exceedingly joy­
ful in watching over your safety.” (Ig. Phil. 5:1) Saint Paul,
however, is the man whose strong personal love shows up most
unmistakably in our literature. The welfare of his converts
was his very life. "Now we really live if ye but stand fast in
the Lord.” (I Thess. 3:8 W) The mutual love of the Philippians made his joy full. "Fill up my joy by thinking alike, and
loving the same things, with one soul and one mind. ’ (Phil.
2:2 WV) He could not bear to wound the feelings of the Cor­
inthians because, if he alienated them there would be no one to
whom to turn. "If I make you sorrowful, who is he then that
can make me glad, but the same who is made sorrowful by me?
(II Cor. 2:2) The twenty-four salutations to individuals in the
sixteenth chapter of Romans are an excellent proof of Saint
Paul’s capacity for warm friendship.
It is worth noting that there was a close relationship between
this intense charity of the early Christians and their devotion
to the Holy Eucharist. We remember how Saint Paul was
shocked that the Corinthians dared approach the Holy Table
while there were divisions and factions among them and a lack
of concern for the needy. (I Cor. 11:18,19,22) The Didaclx
warns, "Let none who has a quarrel with his fellow join in your
meeting until they are reconciled.” (Did. 14:2) At Mass,
says Saint Justin, the Christians take occasion to show their
charity by almsgiving (Just. Apol. I, 67:1,6). Thus are veri­
fied the words of Leo XIII who, after speaking of the exquisite
charity of the early Christians, added, "There can be no shadow

Early Church Social Action

189

of doubt that this immense blessing was due to their frequent
meetings at the divine table.
Thus we receive a picture of the early Christian community.
It was a social whole, a true society, comparable in many re­
spects to other human societies, to a family, to a kingdom, to an
assembly. Yet at the same time it was unique by its super­
natural quality, and this supernatural quality was most mani­
fest in the intense mutual charity, nourished by the Holy
Eucharist, which welded the Christians into a close unity. Thus
men of different ages, races, and socio-economic status be­
came one in Christ.
The social unity formed by the Christians was not un­
opposed. It met fierce antagonism from another social unity
which the writers of this period call the world. Christians try
to spread the social doctrines of Christ. The world offers or­
ganized opposition to this program. The world, one might say,
represents evil in its social aspect. It is important, therefore,
to know what the early Christians meant by this term. If we
understood precisely what the term connoted to them, then
we would understand precisely what they found to criticize.
The English word, world, used in this sense translates two
Greek words, αιών, saeculum, and κόσμος, mundus. The former
» used to translate the Hebrew 'olam—a word whose meaning
has received considerable attention.46
In the Hebrew Old Testament 'olam signified an unknown
period of time, either the forgotten past or the unpredictable
‘uture. In rabbinical Hebrew and Aramaic it came to mean
:be uorld, the only sense preserved by the cognate ralam
*
‘ in
cE
ydkal,
*
Mrree ceriietis, May 28, 1902.
‘iocwet, W.: Die Religion des Judentums im spdtbellenisiischen Zeitalter.

3. Aufl.

'-Singea, J. C. B. Mohr, 1926). Pp. 243-249. Dalman, G.: Die VPbrte Jesn. (Leipzig,
ηώηώι, 1930). Pp. 120-127 and 132-146. Lagrange, M.-J.: Le messianisme cher les Jnifs.
Par», Gabaîdi. 1909). Pp. 162-173. Messel, N.: Die Ejnbeitliebkeit der jidischen
Lebtolope. (Giessen, Tôpelmann, 1913). Pp. 44-60. Prat, F.: La théologie de Saint Panl.
Par». Beaucheme, 1912). 2:492-493. Sasse, H.:
αιών, αΐώ«ος
in Kittel's Tbeo-

«rnrArt Wirterbucb znm Neuen Testament (Stuttgart, Kohlhammer, 1933), 1:197V». Scherer, E.: Gescbichte des jidiscben Volkes. 3. Aufl. (Leipzig, Hinrichs, 1898).
1.347-fîl.
* World as the totality of created things or world as all humanity.

190

Theological Studies

modern Arabic. This shif t of meaning is natural enough ; for, as
Prat remarks, “Il y a un rapport étroit entre la durée du monde
et le monde qui dure.” (loc. cit.)
**
Finally, in eschatological writings, the distinction appeared
between "this world” (ba 'olam haze) and “the world to come”
(ha 'olam haba) J9 In the Greek New Testament these expres­
sions appeared as ό αίων ούτος and ό αιών μέλλων respective­
ly. The contrast with the glories of the world to come threw
into sharp relief the sins and miseries of this present world.
Therefore the expression, “this world” came to mean, not
precisely the present condition of things as such, but rather
the present order as positively evil or at least naturalistic and
forming a social unity actively or passively opposing the reign
of Christ.
The word κόσμος underwent a somewhat similar trans­
formation except that the starting point was different, κόσμος
is related to the verb κοσμέω , to put in order, to adorn. Its
original meaning was order, then adornment, decoration. Then
it meant the ordered universe, a philosophical use of the word
due either to Pythagoras or Parmenides. In the New Testament
(rarely in profane Greek) κόσμος was used for the known or
inhabited world, then, by a natural transition, for the human
race. Finally, since the contrast with heaven emphasizes the
evils of the present order, the world acquired a pejorative sense,
and came to mean the totality of men who did not know Christ
or who refused to accept Him and the world which such men
control. St. John particularly emphasizes this pejorative usage.
It will be seen that both αιών and κόσμος acquired the same
special sense. But the two words have different backgrounds.

Early Church Social Action

191

αιών is temporal; κόσμος is spatial. This difference is still per­
ceptible. All in all, however, there is little loss of meaning if
both are translated world as in the Douay Bible. Both terms
refer to the organized forces of evil or naturalism together with
the resources they control, opposing the Kingdom of God.
The Christian viewpoint is succintly summarized by St. John,
The whole world (κόσμος) lieth in the evil one.” 0 Just as
Christians can be said to be "in Christ,”31 so worldlings are "in
the evil one.” This establishes a sort of parallelism. As the
Church is in Christ, so the world is in Satan. The world
( κόσμος) is the antithesis of God.52 It is condemned by God.
I Cor. 11:32) The choice between God and the world is a
choice between life and death. (Ig. Mtfg. 5:2) Its wisdom is
sterile (I Cor. 3:19, I Jn. 3:11) and characterized by deceit,53
d$ts,M fornication, (I Cor. 5:10) and pollutions. (II Pet.
2:20) The world will pass away.55 This is fortunate; (Ig. Rom.
2:2) for life in this world is slavery (Tat. 29:2). What the
early Christians said of the alo'rv was closely parallel to what
they said of the κόσμος. The world ( αιών ) is a place of vani­
** sterile occupations (Her Mand 10:1,4), lusts,57 wicked­
ties,
ness (Her Sim 6:1,4), deceits (Her Sim 6:3,3), vain wisdom
(I Cor. 2:6, 3:18), and allurement (II Tim. 4:10) ; it is evil
and Christ will deliver us from it (Gal. 1:4).
The writers of the period studied used various synonyms for
αιών and κόσμος. From the above descriptions of the two
▼ords these synonyms should be easily recognizable. A very
obvious synonym for αιών is καιρός, time. "The present time,”
*1 Ja. 1:19, Revised Version. The Douay Version mistakes the masculine πονηςχμ
•r the equivalent Vulgate mjigno) for a neuter. In the Westminster Version ("beth in
-st power of the evil one”) and in Father Spencer’s translation ("lies under the power of
the Evi One”) the words I have italicized correspond to nothing in the Greek and un«eearily obscure the sense. Cf. also I Jn. 4:4.
R“The apostles who also were in Christ before me.”

(Rom. 16:7) "Whoever is in

CkriK.” (Π Cor. 1:17, Speir) "The dead who are in Christ.” (I Thess. 4:11)
Cor. 2:12, II Cor. 7:10, I Jn. 4:4-1.
^Just. Diol. 115:4, Ep. D
*>g.

*2 Per. 1:4, I Jn. 2:14, Tat. 19:2.
* Car. 7:51, I Jn. 2:17, Her. Vis. 4:5, 5, ZW. ή
»
*

10:7.

Pi-Ctew. 5:L

“Her Mm/. 9:4, Sim. 1:5, 4.
"Her Mm/. Ι1:ί, Sm. 4:2, 5, Sm. 7:1, Sim, ·:!!. 5.

.·

.

-

192

Theological Studies

ό νυν καιρός (Barn. 4:1) corresponds to ό vûv αιών \ The
"lawless time”"9 has obviously the same meaning. The Didacbe
speaks of "the way of death”' evidently meaning the "way of
the world.” The Apocalypse represents Christ and His follow­
ers at war with certain mundane forces represented under a
varied and complicated symbolism, the Beast of the Sea, the
Beast of the Earth, Babylon the Great, and so forth. Under
this symbolism we must again recognize the "world.” Finally,
when writers draw a sharp contrast between the Church and
contemporary paganism, emphasizing the malignity and organ­
ized evil of the latter, then once more we must accept this evil
and systematic paganism as synonymous with the "world.'
To the sociologist it is extraordinarily interesting to find that
the world is uniformly presented as an organized social entity,
not as a random group of evil men. It is "the kingdom of this
world.” ( Apoc. 11:15) This kingdom acquires its cohesiveness
from the fact that it has an efficient ruler, "the prince of this
world,””1 "the wicked prince,82 "the prince of this time of in­
quiry”81 or even "god” of this world.84 Saint Paul calls him
"the prince of the power of the air,” (Eph. 2:2 Spen), that
is to say, a prince who holds power in the atmosphere, hovering
there, as it were, on the lookout for opportunities to do evil.
A somewhat similar picture is presented by Saint Paul’s expres­
sion, "the rulers of the world of this darkness . . . the spirits of
wickedness in high places.” (Eph. 6:12) These spirits evidently
form the court of the ruler of this world. Hermas (Sn
*.
6:2,1) represents the "angel of luxury and deceit” as shepherd­
ing a flock of well-fed and frisky sheep whom he intended to
destroy. Here the prince of this world is recognizable as a sort
Tim. 6:17, Π Tim. 4:10, Pol. PArf. 9:2.
M ό άνομος zatQOÇ (Ben·, 4:9).
** T| τον Βίτνότου οδός . Note that the Pirsdo-Clrtne»f, talking of hi
* state as >

pagan, says, "Our whole life was nothing other than death.” (1:6)
« i
τον αχώνος τούτου , Ig. Eph. I7:i, 19:1; Ig. Treli. 4:2. Ig.
yj.
Ig. Phil. 4:2. Ig. Meg. 1:2. In the plural. I Cor. 2:6, ·. Cf. Asm
.
*
fuses, lt:!2,
w
Hennecke. t: A'rntofeaMwrfÀr Ae Apakryphe
.
*
2. Ανβ. (Tübingen. Mohr. 1927)
>97-114·
« & ά&ζο; (Mart Pei. 19:2 and the apocryphal I// Cor. II) or Λβνηρύ; β
,»
*
4 n
W C~i.fom.di
.
*
Harnack·» «htMx, (Bonn. Marcu« and Weber. „„ „
12>.
eB»ro 1
2.
*
cf. Barn |gs,.
·»2
4;<

Early Church Social Action

193

of malign antithesis to the Good Shepherd. From his position
opposed to Christ, and in a sense parallel to Christ, we can easily
identify the prince of this world with Satan. He gives unity,
organization, and cohesiveness to the world, just as Christ, the
King, gives the same qualities to the Kingdom of God.
Long lists of the characteristic sins of the world are quite
common in the writers of this period. Saint Paul’s long de­
scription (Rom. 1:18-32) is well knowm. It may be interesting
to quote one somewhat less familiar. The author of the Didache
thus describes the Way of Death, “In the first place it is evil
and full of cursing; murders, adulteries, lusts, fornications,
thefts, idolatries, witchcrafts, charms, robberies, false witnesses,
hypocrisies, double heartedness, guile, pride, malice, self-will,
avarice, foul speech, jealousy, impudence, haughtiness, boast­
fulness. Persecutors of the good, haters of truth, lovers of
falsehood, knowing not the reward of righteousness, not cleav­
ing to good, nor to just judgment, lying awake not for good
but for evil, from whom meekness and patience are far, loving
vain things, seeking reward, unmerciful to the poor, not work­
ing for him who is oppressed by toil, without knowledge of
Him who made them, murderers of children, corrupters of
God’s creatures, turning away the needy, oppressing the disrtressed, advocates of the rich, lawless judges of the poor, com­
pletely sinful.””
It is natural to compare these judgments with the verdict
Ά history on the period. As a matter of fact the years 30-180
AD. marked the very height of Rome’s prosperity. Never was
her territory so widespread. Never was her wealth so impresnve. Yet signs of decay were not wanting. The old Roman
sense of civic duty had disappeared. The political apathy of the
citizens had made Augustus’ totalitarian state possible.
Augustus wished to share at least some of his power with the
Senate; yet even the senatorial nobility became apathetic.
•fW. 5:1-2. For other more or less parallel passages, see Her. MjbJ. 8:J-5, Theo. 1:2,
♦. nsd the lift of Pauline texts in Prat, op. cit. 2:474. Somewhat similar are the passages
■ *
hkh the apologists satirize the immorality of the Greek gods. See, for example, Aris.

Ml. Jan. Apol. I. 52, Theo.

Tat. 54.

194

Theological Studies

Their power slipped from their grasp under succeeding emper­
ors. In a word, this was a period of external well-being and
latent decay. On the death of Marcus Aurelius, the Empire
headed rapidly toward anarchy.
Morality was at a low ebb. It is true that there were men and
women who took the moral life seriously, Seneca, Pliny, Marcus
Aurelius, Arria, Annia Pollitta, but their virtue certainly com­
pares unfavorably with that of the Christian saints. On the
other hand, there were public examples of immorality which
few civilizations before or since would tolerate. The luxury of
the upper classes often went to extraordinary lengths,* and was
in stark and bitter contrast to the widespread slavery. It is true
that the slave might hope for manumission and after manumis­
sion, rise, like Pallas or Narcissus, to great wealth and political
power (a privilege which the American Negro does not share
seventy-five years after emancipation) but the lot of the aver­
age slave could be miserable indeed. The condition of the poor
was probably not much better. Sexual immorality was ram­
pant. The most repellant abnormalities were considered fit sub­
jects for light verse, as every reader of Martial’s Epigrams
knows. The same attitude was reflected on the stage. (Tat.
22) The widespread enjoyment of gladiatorial combats betrays
a surprising popular cruelty. Tatian taunts the pagans for
their enjoyment of such spectacles. "He who misses the
murderous show is downcast because he was not condemned to
be a witness to evil and abominable deeds. You slaughter ani­
mals to eat their flesh and you buy men to furnish a cannibal
banquet for the soul . . . The robber murders for the sake of
plunder; but the rich man buys gladiators for the sake of
murder.’’7 War was widespread and very cruel. It was often
waged to the point of extermination. Marcus Aurelius was a
model emperor yet he did not hesitate to kill off whole tribes of
enemies when their resistance was exceptionally stubborn—for
example in the Sarmatian War of 175. All in all, it seems true
*For a baiincwi new oi Rcrrtin luxurr. « FrâedUoder. L:
tbr Etrif
(London, Kovdedgr. New York. Dutxaa.
Πμ. 21:2. Foc tb
* Ckrmian attende. «m Ath. $·>. >Stt>2.

lif, „4

Mewwm
2111-210

Early Church Social Action

195

that the gloomiest descriptions of paganism by the early Chris­
tians can be confirmed by the sober pages of history.
Such being the character of the world, it is not surprising
that Christians were commanded to keep themselves free from
it On them the duty of non-participation™ was incumbent.
Saint Paul bids the Romans (12:2) not to be "conformed to
±is world” (τφ α’ιώνι τούτο) ). There is an irreconcilable
enmity between this world and the world to come. Forced to
make a choice, we should choose the latter {Ps-Clem. 6:3,5).
The man with the proper spirit "refrains from all the wicked­
ness and vain desires of this world” (Her Mand 11:8). We
must "hate the deceit of this world.”69 The rich must rid them­
selves of this world {hoc saeculum) before they can qualify for
the kingdom (Her Sim 9:31,2 ).
The preceding words warn against the world as αιών (καιρός
wculum). Even more numerous are the warnings against
ώβζόσμος. The New Testament passages are well known. We
must not love the world, (I Jn. 2:15) but rather deny wordly
desires (Tit. 2:12) and remain unspotted from the world.
' Jas. 1:27) Saint Paul vigorously asserts that he is "crucified” to
it (Gal. 6:14) For we have "received not the spirit of this world
but the spirit that is God.” (I Cor. 2:12)70 The Apostolic
Fathen and the apologists repeat the same message. The Christun must "die to the world.” {Tat. 11:2) He must regard the
things of this world as "alien” and not desire them. 1 We must
not "speak of Jesus Christ and yet desire the world.” (Ig. Rom.
7:1) As a matter of fact the good Christian fulfilled these
rrecepts. "The soul dwells in the body, but is not of the body,
rd Christians dwell in the world, but are not of this world.” '
*As the present author has ventured to term it. See his Fire on the Eerib.

(New York,

tfsc-ûlan, 193 6.) Chapter VII.
• xec TV
*
xcuQOÎ’ Bern, 4:1.
’*It it perhap* appropriate to mention here a logion of Christ from Os. y < Lynch us
~
you fjjt towards the world you shall not find the Kingdom of God.
white,
H. G E-: The Seyings of Jems from Oxyrbyncbus. (Cambridge, University Press, 1920.)

~KGem. 1:4. See also J:l.
D»og. 4:J. See also Bern. 10:11.

1 Mm

196

Theological Studies

Martyrdom was a supreme proof of this unworldliness. (Just.
Dial 119:6)
It must not be supposed that this principle of non-participa­
tion forces all Christians to be hermits. We cannot avoid all
worldly contacts. Otherwise we would simply have “to leave
the world altogether.” (I Cor. 5:10 WV) The Christian,
therefore, must use this world but "as not using it to the full.’
(I Cor. 7:31, WV) In the present order, then, Christians and
worldlings are exteriorly barely distinguishable just as in winter
dead and live trees look alike, both being bare, (Herm. Sim.
3:3). Christians therefore "do not dwell in cities of their own
nor do they use some strange dialect nor practice some outland­
ish manner of life.” (Ep. Diog. 5:2) On the contrary, they
"live in Greek and barbarian cities according as each has ob­
tained his lot, and follow the local customs both in clothing
and food and the rest of life.” (Ep. Diog. 5:4)
The essential opposition between Christians and wordhngs re­
sults in a mutual aversion. It is not surprising that the world
should hate us. (I Jn. 3:13) The world understands us no
more than it understood our leader, Christ. (I Jn. 3:1) The
world hates the Christians, though it has suffered no evil, be­
cause they are opposed to its pleasures.” (Ep. Diog. 6:5) In
their turn, Christians hate the world. The blessed martyrs d»d
so, (Pol. Phil. 9:2) for the world is only a prison to the follower
of Christ. (Ep. Diog. 6‘.7) On the other hand, for a Christian
to love the world is a sign of unworthiness.
The world’s opposition causes the Christian much suffering
and persecution, even martyrdom. He has no reason to be dis­
couraged, however, for the victory is inevitable. There is a fre­
quent theme in the New Testament/1 and it is particularly in
the Apocalypse that the point is developed. In fact, this is the
main thesis of the book and is developed under a rich variety of
figures, familiar to every reader of the New Testament. The
apocryphal Christian apocalypses carried the same message.

Early Church Social Action

197

The Ascension of Isaias represent God, the Father, saying to the
Son that He "is to judge and destroy the princes and their angels
ind their gods of this world and the world which was ruled by
them.” (10:2). The Apocalypse of Peter (Akmtm Fragment)
predicts that "God shall come unto my faithful ones that
hunger and thirst and are afflicted and prove their souls in this
life and shall judge the sons of iniquity.” 0
The doctrine of the world is a feature of Christian social
thought the importance of which may easily be overlooked.
Yet it is very important indeed. Without the doctrine of the
world Christian social thought would be very beautiful and
idealistic but it would not be in contact with the realities.
This doctrine adds the necessary realism to make the Church’s
social teaching properly balanced. Some have accused the
Fathers of being dreamy idealists unfit to understand their con­
temporary world order. Those who make this charge should
study the Christian doctrine of the world. Then they would
<now that the Fathers realized all the sin, strife, hatred and in­
justice of their time. They accepted these things as facts and
took them into account in their social thinking. The Fathers
vere both realists and idealists. Therein lies their strength.
■ fet. 1:5. Found in Kkxtermann’i edition (Berlin, DeGruyter, 1955, Kl. Texte, 5).