Read your PDF for free
Sign up to get access to over 50 million papers
By continuing, you agree to our Terms of Use
Continue with Email
Sign up or log in to continue reading.
Welcome to Academia
Sign up to continue reading.
Hi,
Log in to continue reading.
Reset password
Password reset
Check your email for your reset link.
Your link was sent to
Please hold while we log you in
Academia.eduAcademia.edu

Augustine in England

Christianity probably came to Britain with soldiers in the Roman army guarding the frontier province that had been incorporated into the empire by Claudius in 43 AD and possibly also merchants doing business there. There are references to Britain in the works of Origen and Tertullian. 1 The entry in the Liber Pontificalis that a British king Lucius wrote to Pope Eleutherius (2nd half of 2nd cent.) asking to be received into the Church cannot be verified. 2 The first Christian martyr in Britain was St Alban, a victim of Diocletian's persecution of the early 4th cent. 3 Three British bishops, a priest and a deacon are known to have attended the Council of Arles in 314. Other Christians of note include Patrick, who evangelized Ireland, and Pelagius, whose concept of free will was rejected by prominent Christians such as Augustine of Hippo. The material remains of Christianity are discussed in F. Haverfield Romanization of Britain (1915), who concludes that Britons seem to have responded positively to the new culture notwithstanding resistance warriors such as Caractacus and Boudicca, and David Petts 'Christianity in Roman Britain' Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain (2014). According to Gildas (chapters 66-110), the British Church seems to have been best by moral decay: the gradual Roman evacuation of Britain in the early 5th cent. and the arrival of increasing numbers of settlers/invaders from the northern coastal regions of Germany, who were not Christian and brought new languages with them, may have accelerated this decay, and by the end of the 6th cent. Pope Gregory I is said by Bede Ecclesiastical History of the English People Bk 2 §1 to have been so impressed by the appearance of non-Christian English youths on sale in a Roman slave market that he authorized a mission led by Augustine to re-christianize the island.

Augustine in England Anthony Alcock Christianity probably came to Britain with soldiers in the Roman army guarding the frontier province that had been incorporated into the empire by Claudius in 43 AD and possibly also merchants doing business there. There are references to Britain in the works of Origen and Tertullian.1 The entry in the Liber Pontificalis that a British king Lucius wrote to Pope Eleutherius (2nd half of 2nd cent.) asking to be received into the Church cannot be verified. 2 The first Christian martyr in Britain was St Alban, a victim of Diocletian's persecution of the early 4th cent. 3 Three British bishops, a priest and a deacon are known to have attended the Council of Arles in 314. Other Christians of note include Patrick, who evangelized Ireland, and Pelagius, whose concept of free will was rejected by prominent Christians such as Augustine of Hippo. The material remains of Christianity are discussed in F. Haverfield Romanization of Britain (1915), who concludes that Britons seem to have responded positively to the new culture notwithstanding resistance warriors such as Caractacus and Boudicca, and David Petts 'Christianity in Roman Britain' Oxford Handbook of Roman Britain (2014). According to Gildas (chapters 66-110), the British Church seems to have been best by moral decay: the gradual Roman evacuation of Britain in the early 5th cent. and the arrival of increasing numbers of settlers/invaders from the northern coastal regions of Germany, who were not Christian and brought new languages with them, may have accelerated this decay, and by the end of the 6th cent. Pope Gregory I is said by Bede Ecclesiastical History of the English People Bk 2 §1 to have been so impressed by the appearance of non-Christian English youths on sale in a Roman slave market that he authorized a mission led by Augustine to re-christianize the island. The English king who received Augustine on the island of Thanet, now part of Kent in SE England, was called 1 Origen Homily on Ezekiel 4 ch. 6 and Tertullian Adversus Judaeos 7. 2 Hic accepit epistulam a Lucio, Brittanio rege, ut christianus efficeretur per eius mandatum (He, Eleutherus, received a letter from Lucius king of Britain to be made a Christian by his command). The reliability of this statement was challenged by A. Harnack 'Der Brief des britischen Königs an den Papst Eleutherus' Sitzungsberichte der preussischen Akademie 1904 pp. 99ff. : he preferred (1) to understand Lucius as a rather unusual but legitimate way of identifying the king of Edessa Abgar IX, who had added various Latin names to his own Syriac name, and (2) to understand Britannia as a corruption of 'britha' (Syriac ‫ ܒܪܬܐ‬for 'palace'), so that Abgar king of Edessa becomes Lucius of Britha (Britannia). If this were a genuine request from Abgar, one might expect to find his explicit name and title. There is no evidence that any of the Abgar kings of Edessa ever became Christian, despite the charming tale of Abgar V and his letter to Jesus related in Eusebius Ecclesiastical History Bk 1 §13 and the 5th cent. Syriac Doctrina Addai, cf. S. Brock 'Eusebius and Syriac Christianity' in H. Attridge and G. Hata (ed.) Eusebius, Christianity and Judaism (1992) pp. 212-234. In my view, Harnack's suggestion is not entirely convincing.Since the early history of Britain under Roman domination is patchy, there is no way of knowing whether there was in fact a king of some part of Britain with a Latinized name who may have been seeking the formal approval (per mandatum) of Rome to become Christian in the 2nd cent. AD. Thus, while the statement in the LP cannot be verified, one has either to accept it at face value or question its presence there. 3 Gildas de excidio Britanniae ch. 10. Gildas was a Briton writing in the 5th cent. Aethelbert, and he provided the papal legate and his entourage with a place to live (mansio) in his capital, Durovernon (Canterbury), and the necessities of life. It may have helped that the king's wife, Bertha daughter of the Merovingian king Charibert I, was a Christian. In order to carry out his mission satisfactorily Augustine solicited the replies to nine questions or requests for further information from Gregory, and the exchange between the two is recorded by Bede in EH Bk 1 chapter 27. The following is a translation of that exchange. The longest questions and answers are 8 and 9, almost half the text, which deal with the delicate subject of carnality. 27. Meanwhile, Augustine, man of the Lord, came to Arles4 and was ordained Archbishop of the English by the archbishop of that city, Aetherius, in accordance with the order of the holy father Gregory. He returned to Britain and forthwith sent Laurence the presbyter and Peter the monk to Rome to tell Gregory that the faith had been accepted and he himself had been made bishop and wanted advice on certain matters that seemed necessary. Without delay he received appropriate answers, and we append these to our narrative. 1. Augustine: How are bishops to treat their clerics ? And those of the faithful who bring offerings to the altar, how are their offerings to be apportioned and how is the bishop to behave in church ? Gregory: You are doubtless familiar with the testimony of the holy scripture, especially the letters of Paul to Timothy, in which he was at pains to teach Timothy how to behave in the house of God. It is a custom of the apostolic see to hand down precepts to ordained bishops that all tribute to the church is to be divided into four parts: one for the bishop and his houshold for the purpose of hospitality and lodging, one for the clergy, a third for the poor and a fourth for the upkeep of church buildings. But because you and your brothers are well versed in monastic rules, you are not to live apart from the English clergy, which has recently found its way to the faith under God's guidance, but you are to follow the life of our fathers in the early days of the Church, in which no-one claimed any of his possessions as his own but regarded them as common property. If there are clerics not yet ordained who cannot live a celibate life, they must marry and seek their livelihood outside, for we know from the fathers already mentioned that each one receives what he needs. It was necessary to think of and provide for their remuneration, and they were bound by church law to live morally good lives, be scrupulous in reciting the psalms and with God's help keep their heart, tongue and body free from all that was forbidden. As for those who live communally, what more is there to say 4 Gregory's letter to Aetherius about Augustine is ch. 24 of Bede's work. about sharing goods, displaying hospitality and fulfilling charitable duties ? And what remains is to be spent on good and religious causes, as the Lord teaches us: What remains, give to the poor, and everything for you is pure.5 2. Augustine: Though there is only one faith, there are various practices: there is one practice of the Mass in Rome and another in Gaul. Gregory: You are familiar with the practice of the Roman Church, in which you were nurtured. I am content, whether you are in the Roman, Gallic or any other Church, that you should carefully choose whatever pleases Almighty God, and in the English Church, which is new to our faith,6 that you should instil with care and attention what you have been able to learn from many Churches. For things are not to be loved because of their places but rather places because of their good things. Therefore, choose from the various chhurches what is devout, religious and right.And all of this, collect it together as in a bundle and inculcate it as a practice for the English to follow. 3. Augustine: Please tell me what the punishment should be for theft of church property ? Gregory: It is up to you to decide how the thief is to be punished. There are some who steal, though they have property, and others who steal because they have nothing. And so it is necessary that some be fined. some be scourged. some quite strictly and others more leniently. In the case of those to be punished a little more strictly, their punishment should be administered out of love and not anger, because it is a corrective for them so that they are not consigned to the fires of hell. Thus, discipline is to be mild, like that of a father with his children, whom he beats for bad behaviour but still wants them as the heirs who will inherit his property, even though he appears to be angrily assaulting them. And love should be at the forefront of your mind and determine your mode of correction so that your state of mind does not stray from the rule of reason. You should also specify how they should return that which they have stolen from the church. And, under no circumstances is the church to profit from the theft and seek recompense for no reason. 4. Augustine: Are two brothers permitted to marry sisters who are distant family relatives ? Gregory: Yes, by all means. There is nothing in Holy Scripture that prevents this. 5 Lk 11, 41 6 Gregory may have been unaware of the previous manifestation of Christianity in Britain. 5. Augustine: To what degree of kinship is marriage is permissible ? Is marriage with stepmothers and relatives allowed ? Gregory: A certain secular law in the Roman republic allows a brother and sister, whether children of two brothers or the son and daughter of two sisters, to marry. But we have learned from experience that a union of this sort cannot produce children. The law God prohibits uncovering the shame of a close relative.7 It is thus permissible only to those of the third or fourth generation to marry; the second generation is explictly forbidden, as we have said. It is a serious offence to marry a stepmother, for Scripture says that 'you will not uncover the shame of your father.'8 A son may not uncover the shame of a father. Because it is written: They will be two in one flesh, he who has been so bold as to uncover the shame of the stepmother, who is of one flesh with the father, has surely uncovered the shame of the father. It is forbidden to marry a relative who has been made the flesh of the brother by a previous union.9 It was for this reason that John the Baptist was beheaded10 and died a holy martyr: he was not told to deny Christ and yet was executed for confessing Christ, for it was Our Lord Jesus Christ who said I am the truth,11 and John died for the truth, that is, for Christ. Now there are many Englishmen who so far have been living as pagans in an illicit marriage and they as converts to the faith have to be warned to refrain from this and acknowledge that this a grave sin, to fear the awful judgement of God lest they suffer the eternal torments of hell for carnal pleasure. They are, however, not to be deprived of the sacred body and blood of the Lord, lest this appear vindictive punishment for an act committed before they were baptized. Now the holy church corrects certain things with fervour, tolerates them with gentleness, overlooks them with consideration, and this tolerance and consideration often help to suppress the evil it faces. All who convert must be warned not do anything of the sort. If they do, they are to be deprived of the Eucharist. For just as those who do these things in ignorance are to be tolerated, those who are knowingly unafraid to sin are to be punished severely. 6. Augustine: If long distances are an obstacle that prevents bishops from assembling, may a bishop be consecrated without the presence of others ? Gregory: In the English church, where it happens that you are so far the only bishop, you have no choice but to ordain a bishop in the absence of other bishops. Do you expect bishops to come from Gaul to witness the ordination ? But we want you to ordain the bishops so that they are not far from each other so that an emergency does not arise and other bishops and pastors, whose presence would be very useful, may easily come together for an ordination. When therefore the bishops have 7 8 9 10 11 Lev. 18,6 Lev. 18,7 Presumably the sister-in-law. Matth. 14, 1ff. Jo. 14, 6. been ordained in their sees, by the grace of God, an ordination without three or four bishops, in general, may not take place. So that matters may be rationally and intelligently regulated, we can apply an example drawn from matters carnal to matters spiritual: when marriages are performed, the bride and groom come together so that, as they start on their journey, they may continue to enjoy each other's fellowship in subsequent years. So why in this spiritual ordination, by which man is bound to God, do the parties not come together to celebrate the advancement of the ordained bishop and pray together to Almighty God to protect him ? 7. Augustine: How are we to act with Gallic and British bishops ? Gregory: You have no authority over the Gallic bishops. The bishop of Arles received the pallium 12 from my predecessors, and we may not deprive him of the authority conferred. If it should happen that you cross over to Gaul, you will have to act with the bishop of Arles in the matter of dealing with episcopal misconduct. If by chance his discipline is lacking in vigour, you have permission to spur him on. We have written to him that, when you are in Gaul, he is to be fully committed to checking any episcopal behaviour contrary to the command of Our Creator. You will have no jursidiction among the bishops of Gaul, but persuasion, flattery and a display of virtues to be imitated may help you to bring the deviant back to the pursuit of sanctity. It is written in the Law that if one enters the harvest field of another, one may not use a sickle but one may rub the ears by hand and eat them.13 One may not use the sickle of judgement in a field that appears to belong to another, but by performing good works one may liberate the fruits of the Lord from the chaff of its faults, and by warnings and persuasion one may bring them back, as if by eating, to the body of the Church. In matters of exercising discipline, you must defer to the bishop of Arles so as not to violate the prescriptions of our fathers. We commit all the bishops of Britain to your care that their ignorance may be schooled, their weakness strengthened by persuasion and their perversity corrected by discipline. 8. Augustine: Can a pregnant woman be baptized ? How long after giving birth before she is able to enter a church ? After how many days can the child be baptized as a precaution against early death ? How long must a man wait before he can resume sexual relations with his wife ? If she is menstruating, may she enter a church or receive communion ? Is a man who has had sex with his wife before washing permitted to enter a church or receive communion ? The inexperienced English need to know these things. 12 The garment of episcopal investiture. 13 Deut. 23, 25 Gregory: I have no doubt that you have been asked these questions, to which I think I have responded. But it is clear from what you say and feel that you wish to be sure of what I have said. Why would it not be permitted to baptize a pregnant woman ? Fertility of the body is not a sin in the eyes of God. When our first parents sinned in paradise, it was divine judgement that they lose the immortality conferred on them. Because God did not want the human race to die out for their sin, he took away their immortality and in his mercifulness conferred on them the gift of fertility. How therefore can a divine gift be responsible for denying the grace of holy baptism ? It would be quite foolish to think that the mystery by which guilt is completely removed conflicts with the gift of grace. As to the length of time before a woman after childbirth may enter a church, you have learned from the Old Testament that this is 33 days for a male child and 66 for a female. You must understand that this is symbolic. For if at the time she gives birth she enters the church to give thanks, this is not a sin. For it is the pleasure of the flesh not the pain that generates sin. For the union of the flesh brings pleasure, whereas childbirth brings pain. Thus, the first mother was told that giving birth would be painful.14 So, if we forbid a woman after childbirth to enter a church, we are making the source of her pain a sin. It is by no means forbidden to baptize a woman during or after childbirth or to baptize the newborn child if it is at risk of dying, for as the grace of the holy mystery is to be provided with great discretion for the living and the discerning, so also it is to be offered without delay to those in danger of imminent death: while there is time to administer the mystery of redemption, there should be as little delay as possible so that the one to be redeemed does not become irredeemable. The husband may not be intimate with her while the newborn child is being weaned. A bad habit has arisen among married couples for women to reject weaning their sons and to hand them over to other women for this, and the only reason for this seems to be lack of self-control: because they refuse to be continent, they spurn breastfeeding their babies. These women who give their babies to wet nurses may not have sex with their husbands until the period of purification is over. For, even without childbirth, they may not be intimate with their husbands while they are menstruating. Sex with a menstruating woman, according to divine law, is punishable by death. She may not be prevented from entering a church during her period. Natural discharges are not a crime for which she is to be held responsible, so it is not right to bar her from church attendance. For we know that a woman with an issue of blood followed the Lord and touched the hem of his garment, and immediately her illness stopped. If therefore she could be praised for touching the garment of the Lord when her blood was flowing, why is a menstruating woman not allowed to enter a church ? You may say: 'One was beset by an infirmity, but in the case of menstruating women it is a regular 14 Gen. 3, 16 event.' Consider, my dear brother, that everything we suffer in this mortal flesh is from the infirmity of nature and was ordained by the righteous judgement of God after the Fall. Hunger, thirst, heat, pain and tiredness are natural infirmities. Food against hunger, drink against thirst, wind against heat, clothing against cold, rest against tiredness - what else are they but remedies that we have found to combat these infirmities ? Such is the infirmity of women, the flow of menstrual blood. If therefore it is conceded that the woman touching the Lord's garment was infirm, then why is the same concession not made to all women, whose infirmity is a fault of nature ? Holy communion is not to be denied to these women, but if a woman is prevented by her own great religiosity from receivng it, she is to be praised; and if she does receive it, she is not to be censured. Indeed, it is the sign of a truly good person to acknowledge culpability even where there is none. For our actions, though without fault, often proceed from fault. When we are hungry, we eat without guilt, even though hunger itself proceeds from the guilt of the First Man. Menstruation is not the fault of women but rather a function of nature. But beccause nature itself is vitiated in such a way that it is manifestly polluted without any effort of will, the fault by which human nature recognizes how it was formed by divine judgement proceeds from sin. The person who willingly sins should unwillingly bear the guilt of the sin. And so women should decide for themselves: if they choose not to receive communion during menstruation, they are to be praised for their decision. But if they are seized by a desire to receive the mystery, they are not, as I have said, to be repimanded. The Old Testament focuses on external physical matters, whereas the New Testament pays more careful attention to internal spiritual concerns where the punishment is more discriminating. Fr though the Law prohibits the consumption of unclean food, the Lord says in the Gospel: It is not what enters the mouth that pollutes people, but what comes out of it.' 15 And a little later: Many wicked thoughts come from the heart. It is abundantly clear that what is shown by God to be polluted in fact has been generated from the root of polluted thought. Paul says: Everything is pure to the pure and nothing is pure to the depraved and unfaithful.16 He then quickly adds the cause of depravity: For their mind and conscience are depraved. If therefore the food is pure, who will think of it as impure ? Why, if a woman suffers naturally with a pure mind, would anyone attribute impurity to her ? A man unwashed after conjugal relations may not enter a church and, even after washing, may not enter straightaway. The Law specifies that a man who has copulated with his wife must wash and may not enter a church before sunset, which can be understood spiritually. If a husband has sex with his wife for mere pleasure and pleasure is uppermost in his mind, he who knows that he is burdened by the sin of lust must know that he is not worthy to be in the congregation. Different peoples have different views of this, but it has always been Roman custom to wash and purify 15 Matth. 15, 11 16 Tit. 1, 15 oneself after copulation and to enter a church only a seemly interval. In saying this, we do not blame marriage, but because lawful copulation in marriage without desire is not possible, sacred places should not be entered. Desire without fault itself is not possible. He who said Behold I was conceived in wickedness and my mother bore me in sin 17was born of legitimate marriage, not of fornication and adultery. He who knew that had been conceived in sin lamented his condition, because the moisture of the branch is drawn from the root. By this he does not mean that copulation of married couples is wicked, only the pleasure of copulation. For there are many things that are lawful and legitimate, and yet to some extent we are sullied in the performance of them. Just as when we often become angry with faults, we disturb our peace of mind. And even though this may be right, it is still not acceptable to lose one's temper. Let us recall the words of the one who became angry with sinners: My eye is blurred from anger.18 Only a tranquil mind can apprehend the light of contemplation, and a disturbed mind regrets anger, for brooding on evils is a source of confusion and distraction from the contemplation of more important things. So, while anger with faults is laudable, it is also annoying because the angry person may feel guilty. Therefore, copulation is permissible for the generation of offspring, but not for pleasure. Those who copulate solely for procreation and not for pleasure can decide for themselves whether to enter a church or receive communion; those in the fire who cannot burn will not be prevented by us from receiving the mystery of the body and blood of Christ. If the principal goal of copulation is pleasure and not procreation, there is something lamentable in the marriage. While scriptural provision is made for this, it nevertheless strikes the soul with fear. For when Paul said He who is unable to contain himself should marry, he immediately added I say this not as a command but as an indulgence. What is permissible because it is just is not an indulgence. When he used the term 'indulgence', he showed that it was a fault. The attentive should consider that on Mount Sinai the Lord, when about to address the people, instructed them to abstain from women. And if, where the Lord spoke to people through a subject creature, purity of body was required in such a way that those who heard the words of the Lord would not copulate with women, then how much more do women who receive the body of Almighty God have to keep themselves in bodily purity so that they are not burdened by the greatness of the ineffable mystery ? For this reason David too was told by a priest about his servants19 that if they were sexually pure, they would receive shew-bread,20 but would not receive it unless David declared them to be pure. So a man who has washed after relations with his wife may receive holy communion, for he has been permitted to enter the church in accordance with the 17 18 19 20 Ps. 50, 7 Ps. 6, 8. I Kg. 21, 4. First mentioned in Ex. 25, 30. previously determined judgement. 9. Augustine: If a man has a vision21 that often occurs in sleep, may he receive communion, or may a priest celebrate mass ? Gregory: The Old Law22 declares him, as we said earlier, to be polluted and does not allow him to enter the church without washing until the evening. This will be understood more spiritually in the same sense as we have already said: he who is deceived in his sleep by impurity and polluted by real images is to wash himself in order to cleanse himself of depraved thoughts with tears; and if the fire of temptation is not re-ignited, his culpability will be extinguished by evening. However, a certain discrimination is required in assessing the vision, and it must be considered what has given rise to it. Sometimes a vision is caused by excessive alcohol, sometimes by a superfluity or infirmity of nature, sometimes by thought. If it is due to natural causes, the vision is relatively harmless, and it is to be regretted that the spirit is unwittingly more the victim than the perpetrator. But when it is a matter of excessive consumption, where the arteries are overburdened, then the spirit is also culpable, but not to the point where the Eucharist can be denied or Mass celebrated, if by chance a feast day requires it or there is some need to perform the mystery and there is no other priest to perform it. For if there are others who can discharge this office, visions caused by drunkenness need not preclude receiving the Eucharist, but one ought to be humble enough, in my opinion, to abstain from offering it, unless of course the mind of the sleeper has been beset by base images. For there are those who are often beset by visions in which their spirit, even when the body is asleep, is polluted by vile thoughts. Accordingly, it is clear that the mind is guilty, but, not even in its own judgement, entirely innocent: it remembers nothing of what it has seen while asleep, but yet remembers that it has fallen into gluttony while awake. But if the vision of the sleeping one proceeds from the base thought of the wakeful one, he is clearly guilty, for he sees from what source the vileness proceeds and his conscious thought is responsible for what unconsciously happens to him. But it must be considered whether the thought itself comes from suggestion, from pleasure in the suggestion, or even worse, from consent to the sin. For these are the three elements of sin; suggestion, pleasure and consent. Suggestion comes fom the devil, pleasure from the flesh and consent from the spirit. It was the serpent who suggested the first sin, which pleased Eve as flesh and to which Adam as spirit consented. A good deal of discernment is required for the spirit to judge between suggestion and pleasure and between pleasure and sin. For there may be a malign spirit in the mind, but if no pleasure results from it, there is no sin; but when the flesh begins to enjoy it, a sin is engendered; if, however, there is deliberate consent, a sin is indisputably committed. The seed 21 Which causes a 'nocturnal emission' 22 e.g. Deut. 23, 10 of sin is in the suggestion, the nutriment in the pleasure and the flowering in the consent. It often happens that what is sown by the malign spirit in thought produces pleasure in the flesh, even if the soul does not consent to the pleasure. And though the flesh is unable to enjoy without the spirit, the spirit itself, fighting with desires of the flesh, is somehow unwillingly caught up in carnal pleasure, so that it prevents it from rationally agreeing, and even though bound by pleasure, vehemently bemoans this condition. This is why the outstanding soldier of the celestial army lamented: I see another law resisting in my limbs the law of my mind and leading me a captive in the law of sin that is in my limbs.23 If he was captive, he fought, however little; he fought against the law of the mind which was under attack from the law of the body. Because he resisted, he was not captive. So, as I have said, man is free and captive: free by virtue of justice, which he loves, and captive by virtue of pleasure, which he carries with him unwillingly. 23 Rom. 7, 23