Primary source documents

chapter 5: Christianity becoming the religion of the empire

Eusebius, Church History. Book VIII, Chapter 17 – The Edict of Galerius

Source: Eusebius. The Church History. Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel 1999, 279.

The Edict of Galerius in 311 (it may have been 312) brought a radical change in religious policies, and the edict was therefore included in Eusebius’ Church History. Eusebius presents the policy change as Galerius’ reaction to a painful illness. Indeed, Galerius may have been convinced to end his efforts at persecution by the Christian claim that his suffering was divine punishment for persecuting Christians. The wording of the edict shows something of the reluctance with which Galerius offered toleration. It is a good example of how politicians, even at this early date, felt compelled to give a positive spin to an embarrassing change of policy.

The Edict of Galerius was one important step in the process of ending several centuries of persecution. The other two were the Battle of the Milvian Bridge and the Edict of Milan. However, persecution in the early history of Christianity continued despite these edicts, coming to a complete end only after Constantine’s victory over Licinius in 324.

Wrestling with this awful malady, he felt pangs of conscience over his cruelties against the godly. After composing himself, he first publicly confessed to the God of the universe and then ordered his officers to halt the persecution against the Christians immediately. By imperial law and edict, they were now to build their churches and perform their customary rites, offering prayers in behalf of the emperor. Action followed immediately, and imperial ordinances were announced in each city with the following recantation.

The Emperor Caesar Galerius [… with a long list of names and titles of Galerius].
And the Emperor Caesar Flavius Valerius Constantine [… another long list of names and titles].

Among the other measures that we take for the use and benefit of the state, we have previously desired to correct anything not in accord with the ancient laws and public order of the Romans, so we made provision that also the Christians who had abandoned the beliefs of their own ancestors should return to sound opinions. Through some strange reasoning, such presumptuousness and folly had possessed them that rather than following ancient principles laid down possibly by their own forefathers, they made laws for themselves to suit their own inclinations and observed them as each one wished, assembling crowds in various places.

Therefore, when we issued an edict that they were to return to the practices of the ancients, vast numbers of them were placed in jeopardy, and many were harassed and endured death of all kinds. Most of them shared the same folly, neither paying the gods in heaven the worship due them nor honoring the god of the Christians. Thus, in view of our clemency and our consistent practice of granting pardon to all men, we thought it right also in this instance to offer our concession most cheerfully, so that Christians may exist again and restore the houses in which they used to assemble, provided that they do nothing against the public order. In another letter we shall show the judges how they are to proceed. Accordingly, in view of this concession, [the Christians] will be obligated to implore their own god for our welfare and that of the state and of themselves, so that the welfare of the state may be preserved in every way and they may live unburdened in their own homes.

So read the edict in the [original] Latin, translated into Greek as best I could. It is now time to consider what happened subsequently.

Lactantius, Of the Manner in which the Persecutors Died, Chapter 44 – about the Battle of the Milvian Bridge

Source: Philip Schaff (ed.), Ante-Nicene Fathers. Volume 7. Grand Rapids, MI: Christian Classics Ethereal Library, 2000-, 739-40.

Lactantius (c.250-c.325) was a Christian apologist, a historian, and a contemporary of Eusebius of Caesarea. In contrast to Eusebius, however, he wrote in Latin and was a native of North Africa. His book Of the Manner in which the Persecutors Died or On the Deaths of the Persecutors (Latin De Mortibus Persecutorum) describes the deaths of those who persecuted Christianity, from Nero, the “forerunner of the devil” (Chapter 2) to Maximinus. The main body of the book is dedicated to the Diocletian-Galerian persecution. The moral of Lactantius’ narrative is that the divine Judge punished the persecutors for their actions.

The events of the Battle of the Milvian Bridge are also recorded in Eusebius’ Church History (Book 9:9).

   And now a civil war broke out between Constantine and Maxentius. Although Maxentius kept himself within Rome, because the soothsayers had foretold that if he went out of it he should perish, yet he conducted the military operations by able generals. In forces he exceeded his adversary; for he had not only his father’s army, which deserted from Severus, but also his own, which he had lately drawn together out of Mauritania and Italy. They fought, and the troops of Maxentius prevailed. At length Constantine, with steady courage and a mind prepared for every event, led his whole forces to the neighbourhood of Rome, and encamped them opposite to the Milvian bridge. The anniversary of the reign of Maxentius approached, that is, the sixth of the kalends of November, and the fifth year of his reign was drawing to an end. Constantine was directed in a dream to cause the heavenly sign to be delineated on the shields of his soldiers, and so to proceed to battle. He did as he had been commanded, and he marked on their shields the letter ?, with a perpendicular line drawn through it and turned round thus at the top, being the cipher of Christ. Having this sign (??), his troops stood to arms. The enemies advanced, but without their emperor, and they crossed the bridge. The armies met, and fought with the utmost exertions of valour, and firmly maintained their ground. In the meantime a sedition arose at Rome, and Maxentius was reviled as one who had abandoned all concern for the safety of the commonweal; and suddenly, while he exhibited the Circensian games on the anniversary of his reign, the people cried with one voice, “Constantine cannot be overcome!” Dismayed at this, Maxentius burst from the assembly, and having called some senators together, ordered the Sibylline books to be searched. In them it was found that:—

   “On the same day the enemy of the Romans should perish.”

   Led by this response to the hopes of victory, he went to the field. The bridge in his rear was broken down. At sight of that the battle grew hotter. The hand of the Lord prevailed, and the forces of Maxentius were routed. He fled towards the broken bridge; but the multitude pressing on him, he was driven headlong into the Tiber. This destructive war being ended, Constantine was acknowledged as emperor, with great rejoicings, by the senate and people of Rome. And now he came to know the perfidy of Daia; for he found the letters written to Maxentius, and saw the statues and portraits of the two associates which had been set up together. The senate, in reward of the valour of Constantine, decreed to him the title of Maximus (the Greatest), a title which Daia had always arrogated to himself. Daia, when he heard that Constantine was victorious and Rome freed, expressed as much sorrow as if he himself had been vanquished; but afterwards, when he heard of the decree of the senate, he grew outrageous, avowed enmity towards Constantine, and made his title of the Greatest a theme of abuse and raillery.
Imperial ordinances of Constantine and Licinius: The Edict of Milan

Source: Eusebius. The Church History. Book 10:5. Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel 1999, 322-4.

A previous emperor, Diocletian, had introduced a system of two senior emperors, called ‘Augustus’, who were each supported by a junior emperor, called ‘Caesar’. The Roman Empire was thus effectively ruled by four supreme leaders. In the year 311, the ruling system looked as follows:

West East
Constantine (ruling over Gaul, Spain and Britain) Licentius (ruling over the Balkan peninsula)
Maxentius (ruling over Italy and Africa) Maximin Daia (ruling over Asia Minor [present-day Turkey], Syria, Egypt)


Although the system was stabilized through intermarriage among the different ruling families, it is not surprising that tensions between the rulers were common. Around 310, Constantine and Licinius both engaged in military conflicts with their caesars. Constantine defeated Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, and Licinius gained victory over Maximin Daia. Now, only the two senior emperors, Constantine and Licinius, remained. Both were favorable towards Christianity. The Edict of Milan was their joint declaration granting Christians freedom of religion and restitution of property previously seized from them. It was officially announced in 313 at Nicomedia, then the capital, near the later capital Constantinople. This edict differed from the earlier Edict of Galerius in that it accorded freedom to all religious beliefs.

Copy of Imperial Ordinances, translated from Latin

   We have long intended that freedom of worship should not be denied but that everyone should have the right to practice his religion as he chose. Accordingly, we had given orders that both Christians and [all others] should be permitted to keep the faith of their own sect and worship. But since many conditions of all kinds had evidently been added to that rescript in which such rights were accorded these same people, it may be that some of them were shortly thereafter deterred from such observance.

   When under happy auspices I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, had come to Milan and were discussing all matters that concerned the public good, among the other items of benefit to the general welfare – or rather, as issues of highest priority – we decided to issue such decrees as would assure respect and reverence for the Deity; namely, to grant the Christians and all others the freedom to follow whatever form of worship they pleased, so that all the divine and heavenly powers t that exist might be favorable to us and all those living under our authority. Here, therefore, is the decision we reached by sound and prudent reasoning: no one at all was to be denied the right to follow or choose the Christian form of worship or observance, and everyone was to be granted the right to give his mind to that form of worship that he thinks suitable to himself, so that the Deity may show us his usual care and generosity in all things. It was appropriate to send a rescript that this is our pleasure, so that with all conditions canceled in the earlier letter sent to Your Dedication about the Christians, whatever seemed unjustified and foreign to our clemency might also be removed and that now everyone desiring to observe the Christians' form of worship should be permitted to do so without any hindrance. We have decided to explain this very thoroughly to Your Diligence, so that you may know that we have granted to these same Christians free and limitless permission to practice their own form of worship. And when you note that we have granted them this permission unrestrictedly, Your Dedication will understand that permission has also been given to others who wish to follow their own observance of worship – something clearly in accord with the tranquility of our times – so that everyone may have authority to choose and practice whatever form he wishes. This we have done so that we might not appear to have belittled any rite or form of worship in any way.

   As regards the Christians, in the previous letter sent to Your Dedication, definite instructions were issued regarding their places of assembly. We now further resolve that if any should appear to have bought these places either from our treasury or from any other source, they must restore them to these same Christians without payment or any demand for compensation and do so without negligence or hesitation. If any happen to have received them as a gift, they must restore them to these same Christians without delay, provided that if either those who have purchased these same places or those who have received them as a gift appeal to our generosity, they may apply to the prefect of the district, so that they may also benefit from our kindness. All this property must be handed over to the body of the Christians immediately, through zealous action on your part and without delay.

   And since these same Christians not only owned places of assembly, but are also known to have had others belonging not to individuals but to the corporation of the Christians, all such property, under provisions of the above law, you will order restored without any question whatever to these same Christians, that is, to their corporation and associations provided, again, that those who restore the same without compensation, as mentioned above, may seek to indemnify their losses from our generosity. 

   In all these matters you should expend every possible effort in behalf of the aforesaid corporation of the Christians so that our command may be implemented with all speed, in order that here also our kindness may promote the common public tranquility. In this way, as mentioned earlier, the divine care for us that we have known on many prior occasions will remain with us permanently. And in order that our generosity and enactment may be known to all, what we have written should be announced by your order, published everywhere, and brought to the attention of all, so that the enactment incorporating our generosity may escape the notice of no one.

Constantine, Imperial epistle in which money is granted to the churches

Source: Eusebius. The Church History. Book 10:6. Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel 1999, 326-7.

The last book of Eusebius’ Church History contains a long speech by Eusebius in which he praises the Emperor Constantine as well as various legal imperial documents that outline the new religious policies benefitting the Christian church. The following extract is an imperial law promulgated in a letter of Constantine to Bishop Caecilian of Carthage. It shows how Constantine made generous financial contributions to the church.

   Constantine Augustus to Caecilian, Bishop of Carthage. Since it has been our pleasure that in all provinces – namely, Africa, Numidia, and Mauretania – certain specified ministers of the legal and most holy catholic religion should receive some contribution for expenses, I have sent a letter to Ursus, the most eminent finance officer of Africa directing that he pay three thousand folles to Your Constancy. When you have received this sum, you will arrange that is distributed among all the above-named persons according to the schedule sent you by Hosius. If later on you find that you lack anything to fulfill my intentions regarding them, do not hesitate to ask Heraclides our procurator for whatever you need. When he was here I gave him orders that if Your Constancy should ask any money from him, he was to hand it over without question.

   And since I have learned that certain people of unstable mentality are eager to lead the laity of the most holy catholic church astray by foul inducements, know that when they were here, I instructed Anulinus, the proconsul [of Africa] and also Patricius, the vicar of the prefects, that especially in this matter they are not to overlook such incidents. Therefore, if you observe any such men persisting in this madness, you must not hesitate to bring this matter before the aforementioned judges so that, as I instructed them when they were here, they may turn these people from their error. May the divinity of the great God keep you safe for many years.

Eusebius, Church History. Book VIII, Chapter 16 – The End of Persecution

Source: Eusebius. The Church History. Translation and commentary by Paul L. Maier, Grand Rapids, Mich.: Kregel 1999, 278.

Eusebius’ report about the end of the persecutions takes some delight in giving a detailed medical account of the end of Galerius, who is described as the main instigator of the persecutions that began with Diocletian. To understand the geography of the persecutions at that time, it is necessary to know that the Roman Empire was governed in two halves by separate emperors (see above). This is the reason why the Great Persecution under Diocletian and Galerius was felt much more in the East, where Diocletian and Galerius ruled, than in the West, which was under the authority of Constantius, the father of Constantine.

Chapter 16 – The End of Persecution

   By the grace of God, the persecution came to a complete end in its tenth year, though it began to die down after the eighth. For when divine grace showed that it watched over us, our rulers changed their minds and recanted in a most amazing manner – the very men who had long waged hostilities against us – and they quenched the blazing fire of persecution through humane edicts and ordinances. This, however, was not due to human initiative or to the compassion or humanity of the rulers, as one might assume. Quite the contrary. From the start they were daily plotting more and harsher measures against us, fresh attacks through a greater variety of schemes. It was rather due to divine providence, which became reconciled with the people but attacked the perpetrator of these crimes [Galerius], angry with him as the prime instigator of the whole evil persecution. Even if it was destined that it should take place as a divine judgment, the Scriptures says, “Woe to him through whom the offense comes.” [Paraphrase of Luke 17:1.]

  Divine punishment overtook [Galerius], which started with his flesh and went on to his soul. An abscess suddenly appeared in the middle of his genitals, then a deep ulcerous fistula that ate into his inner intestines incurably. From them came a great mass of worms and a deadly stench, since gluttony had transformed his whole body, even before the disease, into a great blob of flabby fat that then decayed, offering a revolting and horrendous spectacle. Some of the doctors could not endure the excessive, unearthly stench and were executed. Others, who could give no help because the mass had swollen beyond any hope of recovery, were put to death without mercy.

Theodosius, Codex Theodosianus 16:10,12 – The Emperor Prohibits Pagan Worship as a Crime (392)

Source: Joseph Cullen Ayer, A Source Book for Ancient Church History. From the Apostolic age to the Close of the Conciliar Period, New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons 1941, 346-48.

Theodosius’ prohibition of pagan worship inaugurates a time in which faith expressions other than Christianity were fully repressed. Still, alternative beliefs – both heretical forms of Christianity and non-Christian religious practices – survived underground.

   Hereafter no one of whatever race of dignity, whether placed in office or discharged therefrom with honor, powerful by birth or humble in condition and fortune, shall in any place or in any city sacrifice an innocent victim to a senseless image, venerate with fire the household deity by a more private offering, as it were the genius of the house, or the Penates, and burn lights, place incense, or hang up garlands. If any one undertakes by way of sacrifice to slay a victim or to consult the smoking entrails, let him, as guilty of lese-majesty, receive the appropriate sentence, having been accused by a lawful indictment, even though he shall not have sought anything against the safety of the princes or concerning their welfare. It constitutes a crime of this nature to wish to repeal the laws, to spy into unlawful things, to reveal secrets, or to attempt things forbidden, to seek the end of another’s welfare, or to promise the hope of another’s ruin. If any one by placing incense venerates either images made by mortal labor, or those which enduring, or if any one in ridiculous fashion forthwith venerates what he has represented, either by a tree encircled with garlands or an altar of cut turfs, though the advantage of such service is small, the injury to religion is complete, let him as guilty of sacrilege be punished by the loss of that house or possession in which he worshipped according to the heathen superstition. For all places which shall smoke with incense, if they shall be proved to belong to those who burn the incense, shall be confiscated. But if in temples or public sanctuaries or buildings and fields belonging to another, any one would venture this sort of sacrifice, if it shall appear that the acts were performed without the knowledge of the owner, let him be compelled to pay a fine of twenty-five pounds of gold, and let the same penalty apply to those who connive at this crime as well as those who sacrifice. We will, also, that this command be observed by judges, defensors, and curials of each and every city, to the effect that those things noted by them be reported to the court, and by them the acts charged may be punished. But if they believe anything is to be overlooked by favor or allowed to pass through negligence, they will lie under a judicial warning. And when they have been warned, if by any negligence they fail to punish they will be fined thirty pounds of gold, and the members of their court are to be subjected to a like punishment.
Athanasius (295-373), Life of Saint Anthony, his early ascetic life

Source: Athanasius, Life of Antony (Vita Antoni), 3 and 5. In: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 4, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995, 196-7.

Athanasius was one of the most famous theologians of the fourth century. He was not only an important defender of the faith, as in the controversy with Arian Christians, but also (and perhaps even more importantly) an important spiritual teacher. One of his most influential writings was his biography of Saint Anthony, the first hermit who withdrew into the desert. The following two paragraphs from the Life of Antony tell about his early ascetic life, including his conflicts with the devil. The descriptions of the devil’s temptations are particularly vivid.

   3. And again as he went into the church, hearing the Lord say in the Gospel, ‘be not anxious for the morrow,’ he could stay no longer, but went out and gave those things also to the poor. Having committed his sister to known and faithful virgins, and put her into a convent to be brought up, he henceforth devoted himself outside his house to discipline, taking heed to himself and training himself with patience. For there were not yet so many monasteries in Egypt, and no monk at all knew of the distant desert; but all who wished to give heed to themselves practised the discipline in solitude near their own village. Now there was then in the next village an old man who had lived the life of a hermit from his youth up. Antony, after he had seen this man, imitated him in piety. And at first he began to abide in places outside the village; then if he heard of a good man anywhere, like the prudent bee, he went forth and sought him, nor turned back to his own place until he had seen him; and he returned, having got from the good man as it were supplies for his journey in the way of virtue. So dwelling there at first, he confirmed his purpose not to return to the abode of his fathers nor to the remembrance of his kinsfolk; but to keep all his desire and energy for perfecting his discipline. He worked, however, with his hands, having heard, ‘he who is idle let him not eat’ and part he spent on bread and part he gave to the needy. And he was constant in prayer, knowing that a man ought to pray in secret unceasingly. For he had given such heed to what was read that none of the things that were written fell from him to the ground, but he remembered all, and afterwards his memory served him for books.
   […]
   5. But the devil, who hates and envies what is good, could not endure to see such a resolution in a youth, but endeavoured to carry out against him what he had been wont to effect against others. First of all he tried to lead him away from the discipline, whispering to him the remembrance of his wealth, care for his sister, claims of kindred, love of money, love of glory, the various pleasures of the table and the other relaxations of life, and at last the difficulty of virtue and the labour of it; he suggested also the infirmity of the body and the length of the time. In a word he raised in his mind a great dust of debate, wishing to debar him from his settled purpose. But when the enemy saw himself to be too weak for Antony’s determination, and that he rather was conquered by the other’s firmness, overthrown by his great faith and falling through his constant prayers, then at length putting his trust in the weapons which are ‘in the navel of his belly’ and boasting in them—for they are his first snare for the young—he attacked the young man, disturbing him by night and harassing him by day, so that even the onlookers saw the struggle which was going on between them. The one would suggest foul thoughts and the other counter them with prayers: the one fire him with lust, the other, as one who seemed to blush, fortify his body with faith, prayers, and fasting. And the devil, unhappy wight, one night even took upon him the shape of a woman and imitated all her acts simply to beguile Antony. But he, his mind filled with Christ and the nobility inspired by Him, and considering the spirituality of the soul, quenched the coal of the other’s deceit. Again the enemy suggested the ease of pleasure. But he like a man filled with rage and grief turned his thoughts to the threatened fire and the gnawing worm, and setting these in array against his adversary, passed through the temptation unscathed. All this was a source of shame to his foe. For he, deeming himself like God, was now mocked by a young man; and he who boasted himself against flesh and blood was being put to flight by a man in the flesh. For the Lord was working with Antony—the Lord who for our sake took flesh and gave the body victory over the devil, so that all who truly fight can say, ‘not I but the grace of God which was with me.’

Sozomen (c. 450) on Pachomius’ Call to Community Life

Source: From ‘The Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen. Comprising a History of the Church from A.D. 323 to A.D. 425.’ Book 3, Chapter 14. In: Philip Schaff, Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers Series II Volume 2, Peabody, Massachusetts: Hendrickson Publishers, 1995, 291-2.

Pachomius (c.286-346) became known as the founder of communal monasticism. Whether he really was the first is questionable, as we know from the Life of Anthony that at the beginning of Anthony’s withdrawal into the desert, monasticism was already known even though not many monasteries existed. The account in the Ecclesiastical History of Sozomen tells how Pachomius received instruction from an angel to set up his monastic community.

Chapter XIV.—Of the Holy Men who flourished about this time in Egypt, namely, Antony, the Two Macariuses, Heraclius, Cronius, Paphnutius, Putubastus, Arsisius, Serapion, Piturion, Pachomius, Apollonius, Anuph, Hilarion, and a Register of many other Saints.
   […]
   It is said that Pachomius at first practiced philosophy alone in a cave, but that a holy angel appeared to him, and commanded him to call together some young monks, and live with them, for he had succeeded well in pursuing philosophy by himself, and to train them by the laws which were about to be delivered to him, and now he was to possess and benefit many as a leader of communities. A tablet was then given to him, which is still carefully preserved. Upon this tablet were inscribed injunctions by which he was bound to permit every one to eat, to drink, to work, and to fast, according to his capabilities of so doing; those who ate heartily were to be subjected to arduous labor, and the ascetic were to have more easy tasks assigned them; he was commanded to have many cells erected, in each of which three monks were to dwell, who were to take their meals at a common refectory in silence, and to sit around the table with a veil thrown over the face, so that they might not be able to see each other or anything but the table and what was set before them; they were not to admit strangers to eat with them, with the exception of travelers, to whom they were to show hospitality; those who desired to live with them, were first to undergo a probation of three years, during which time the most laborious tasks were to be done, and, by this method they could share in their community.

The Benedictine Rule

Source: Ray C. Petry, A History of Christianity. Readings in the History of the Early and Medieval Church, Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, Inc. 1962, 157-9.Ante-Nicene Fathers, Vol. 4. Edited by Alexander Roberts, James Donaldson, and A. Cleveland Coxe; translated by William Wilson (Grand Rapids, Michigan 1956), 408 and 486.
(Regula Monachorum (ed. E. Woelfflin), trans. ThM, No. 251, pp. 434-59.)

he Benedictine tradition is by far the most important monastic tradition in Western Europe. Written in the middle of the 6th century, the Benedictine Rule is based on an earlier anonymous text called The Rule of the Master. Features of the Benedictine Rule are its simplicity and its emphasis on obedience to the abbot, clear discipline, and a balance between individual asceticism and communal life. Benedictine monasticism became particularly famous for the principle of work and prayer (‘ora et labora’). It should be noted, however, that work was soon understood as including scholarship. The Benedictine Rule was deeply critical of the wandering hermits that were popular in the Eastern Churches and also in Irish monasticism.

Benedict of Nursia (c.480-c.547) was from Italy and founded several monastic communities, among them the monastery of Monte Cassino, where he eventually died.
The Benedictine Rule consists of 73 chapters – some of the more interesting material is presented below.

   Ch. 8. Divine worship at night [vigils]. — During the winter; that is, from the first of November to Easter, the monks should rise at the eighth hour of the night; a reasonable arrangement, since by that time the monks will have rested a little more than half the night and will have digested their food. Those brothers who failed in the psalms or the readings shall spend the rest of the time after vigils (before the beginning of matins) in pious meditation. From Easter to the first of November matins shall begin immediately after daybreak, allowing the brothers a little time for attending to the necessities of nature.

   Ch. 22. How the monks should sleep. — The monks shall sleep separately in individual beds, and the abbot shall assign them their beds according to their conduct. If possible all the monks shall sleep in the same dormitory, but if their number is too large to admit of this, they are to be divided into tens or twenties and placed under the control of some of the older monks. A candle shall be kept burning in the dormitory all night until daybreak. The monks shall go to bed clothed and girt with girdles and cords, but shall not have their knives at their sides, lest in their dreams they injure one of the sleepers. They should be always in readiness, rising immediately upon the signal and hastening to the service, but appearing there gravely and modestly. The beds of the younger brothers should not be placed together, but should be scattered among those of the older monks. When the brothers arise they should gently exhort one another to hasten to the service, so that the sleepy ones may have no excuse for coming late.

   Ch. 30. The manner of correction for the young. — The forms of punishment should be adapted to every age and to every order of intelligence. So if children or youths, or those who are unable to appreciate the meaning of excommunication, are found guilty, they should be given heavy fasts and sharp blows for their correction.

   Ch. 33. Monks should not have personal property. — The sin of owning private property should be entirely eradicated from the monastery. No one shall presume to give or receive anything except by the order of the abbot; no one shall possess anything of his own, books, paper, pens, or anything else; for monks are not to own even their own bodies and wills to be used at their own desire, but are to look to the father [abbot] of the monastery for everything. So they shall have nothing that has not been given or allowed to them by the abbot; all things are to be had in common according to the command of the Scriptures, and no one shall consider anything as his own property. If anyone has been found guilty of this most grievous sin, he shall be admonished for the first and second offence, and then if he does not mend his ways he shall be punished.

   Ch. 38. The weekly reader. — There should always be reading during the common meal, but it shall not be left to chance, so that anyone may take up the book and read. On Sunday one of the brothers shall be appointed to read during the following week. He shall enter on his office after the mass and communion, and shall ask for the prayers of all, that God may keep him from the spirit of pride; then he shall say this verse three times, all the brethren uniting with him: “O Lord, open thou my lips, and my mouth shall show forth thy praise;” then after receiving the benediction he enters upon his office. At the common meal, the strictest silence shall be kept, that no whispering or speaking may be heard except the voice of the reader. The brethren shall mutually wait upon one another by passing the articles of food and drink, so that no one shall have to ask for anything; but if this is necessary, it shall be done by a sign rather than by words, if possible. In order to avoid too much talking no one shall interrupt the reader with a question about the reading or in any other way, unless perchance the prior may wish to say something in the way of explanation. The brother who is appointed to read shall be given the bread and wine before he begins, on account of the holy communion which he has received, and lest so long a fast should be injurious; he shall have his regular meal later with the cooks and other weekly servants. The brothers shall not be chosen to read or chant by order of rotation, but according to their ability to edify their hearers.

   Ch. 48. The daily labor of the monks. — Idleness is the great enemy of the soul, therefore the monks should always be occupied, either in manual labor or in holy reading. The hours for these occupations should be arranged according to the seasons, as follows; From Easter to the first of October, the monks shall go to work at the first hour and labor until the fourth hour, and the time from the fourth to the sixth hour shall be spent in reading. After dinner, which comes at the sixth hour, they shall lie down and rest in silence; but anyone who wishes may read, if he does it so as not to disturb anyone else. Nones shall be observed a little earlier, about the middle of the eighth hour, and the monks shall go back to work, laboring until vespers. But if the conditions of the locality or the needs of the monastery, such as may occur at harvest time, should make it necessary to labor longer hours, they shall not feel themselves ill-used, for true monks should live by the labor of their own hands, as did the apostles and the holy fathers. But the weakness of human nature must be taken into account in making these arrangements. From the first of October to the beginning of Lent, the monks shall have until the full second hour for reading, at which hour the service of terce shall be held. After terce, they shall work at their respective tasks until the ninth hour. When the ninth hour sounds they shall cease from labor and be ready for the service at the second bell. After dinner they shall spend the time in reading the lessons and the psalms. During Lent the time from daybreak to the third hour shall be devoted to reading, and then they shall work at their appointed tasks until the tenth hour. At the beginning of Lent each of the monks shall be given a book from the library of the monastery which he shall read entirely through. One or two of the older monks shall be appointed to go about through the monastery during the hours set apart for reading, to see that none of the monks are idling away the time, instead of reading, and so not only wasting their own time but perhaps disturbing others as well. Anyone found doing this shall be rebuked for the first or second offence, and after that he shall be severely punished, that he may serve as a warning and an example to others. Moreover, the brothers are not to meet together at unseasonable hours. Sunday is to l>e spent by all the brothers in holy reading, except by such as have regular duties assigned to them for that day. And if any brother is negligent or lazy, refusing or being unable profitably to read or meditate at the time assigned for that, let him be made to work, so that he shall at any rate not be idle. The abbot shall have consideration for the weak and the sick, giving them tasks suited to their strength, so that they may neither be idle nor yet be distressed by too heavy labor.

 
Copyright 2015 Tobias Brandner. All rights reserved.
Back to Top