In the West it is likely that the Church never assigned any ecclesiastical functions to women, as they were deemed in every respect inferior to men, and it was regarded as dishonourable to a man to receive any instruction, direction, or ecclesiastical blessing from a woman. But it is possible that even in some of the orthodox churches of the East, probably in remote regions, women may have been entrusted with the duty of teaching. In the ‘Testamentum of our Lord,’ recently published by Rahmani, and translated into English by Canon Maclean, “the widows who had front seats” were enjoined to instruct women, to prove deaconesses, and to exercise a general superintendence over the conduct of all the women in the Church.[124] They also seem to be included in the clergy. But this honour shown to women, some scholars deem to be indicative of heresy. Bishop Wordsworth[125] regards it as a proof of semi-Montanism. It is not certain that the Testament was ever used by any part of any Church called orthodox, or that it represents actual institutions, though it is more probable that it did represent the Church order of some small division which considered itself to be among the orthodox.
The entire exclusion of women from every sacred function stands in striking contrast with both heathen and heretical practice. The contrast was present to the minds of the early Christians. “But if,” says the ‘Constitutions,’[126] “we have not permitted them [women] to teach, how will any one allow them, contrary to nature, to perform the office of a priest? For this is one of the ignorant practices of the atheism of the Greeks (Gentiles) to appoint priestesses to the female deities.” Priestesses had a high and honoured position among the Greeks. In early times the Argives dated the events of their history from the priestesses of Hera, and erected statues to them. Equal honours were paid to priestesses of Hera in other Doric states, and to those of Athena Polias, Demeter and Core and many more divinities. These priestesses took part in the celebrations of festivals, and were treated with every mark of respect.[127] In Rome the wife of the Pontifex Maximus took the lead in the worship of Bona Dea, and in the religious rites which specially concerned women. The most honoured priest attached to a particular god in Rome, the Flamen Dialis, must be married, and must resign his office when his wife died, for his wife was also a priestess, and his family were consecrated to the service of the god. And the vestal virgins received every mark of respect that could be bestowed on them, and the amplest liberty. The highest officials made way for them as they passed along the streets, they banqueted with the College of Pontifices, they viewed the games in the company of the Empress, and statues were erected in their honour. The same respect is accorded to women by many of the heretical Christians. Nearly every founder of a sect has a woman to aid him. Simon Magus has his Helene, Montanus his Maximilla, Apelles his Philumene, and so in the case of other sects. One sect[128] belonging to the Montanists deserves special notice for the energy with which it supported the claims of women. It bore various names, such as the Quintiliani, the Pepuziani, the Priscilliani, and the Bread-and-Cheesites because they celebrated their mysteries with bread and cheese. They gave special thanks to Eve because she first ate of the tree of knowledge. They lauded the sister of Moses and the four daughters of Philip, because they asserted the right of women to prophesy—that is, to speak in public the message of God. Frequently in their church seven virgins, clothed in white and bearing torches, stood up and addressed the people, and spoke so eloquently that tears of repentance ran down the cheeks of the audience. In this sect women held the place of bishops and elders and deacons as well as men,[129] and they appealed to St. Paul for their practice: for he says, “In Christ Jesus there is neither male nor female.” It is against this sect that Tertullian, or one assuming his name, launches his thunderbolts. “The very women,” he says, “of these heretics how wanton they are! For they are bold enough to teach, to dispute, to enact exorcisms, to undertake cures, it may be even to baptize.”
In describing another sect, Epiphanius states the reasons why women should have no priestly functions. The sect was that of the Collyridians. Epiphanius[130] asserts that there are some who make the Virgin God. “For they relate,” he says, “that some women in Arabia [ἐκεῖσε, not intelligible][131], from the parts of Thrace have introduced this new dogma, so as to offer up a cake (κολλυρίδα) to the name of the Ever-Virgin, and assemble together and attempt—going beyond all bounds—to perpetuate an unlawful and blasphemous deed to the name of the Holy Virgin, and to her name to perform sacrifice through women, which is an action entirely impious and unlawful, alien to the preaching of the Holy Spirit; so that the whole is an energy of the devil, and the teaching of an unclean spirit.” He then mentions[132] that worship was paid in some places to the daughter of Jephtha and the daughter of Pharaoh, and Thermutis, the daughter of Amenoph, the Pharaoh, because she reared Moses. In ‘Haer.’ 79, c. i., he says that those who exalted Mary above humanity are none else than women: “for the race of women is prone to slip, and is unstable and low in their thoughts.” The thought comes from the devil, as formerly the devil inspired Quintilla, Maximilla, and Priscilla. And he proceeds, “For some women, adorning a curicum or four cornered seat, and covering it with a cloth on some special day of the year, place out bread on some days and offer it to the name of Mary; and all of them partake of the bread, as we have already explained partially in the letter which we wrote to Arabia.” He then refutes the heresy, the principal point attacked being that the heretics made women priestesses. No woman was at any time a priestess to God: Eve herself was not; none in the Old Testament, none in the New. No woman was ever made a bishop or presbyter, and a deaconess is not a priestess, but a servant of the Church appointed for special purposes. Christ made none of the women who served Him priestesses—not Salome, not even His mother, nor Martha, nor Mary, &c.
Such, then, was the position which woman occupied in the Church in the course of the first three centuries of Christianity. The highest post to which she rose was to be a doorkeeper and a message-woman, and even these functions were taken away from her during the Middle Ages. Was there a reason for this? Perhaps we may find some clue to this phenomenon in the conceptions which the Fathers of the Church formed of the nature of woman.
It is one of the curious features of early Christianity that it did not discuss some of those social problems which would naturally have suggested themselves. Thus no objection is taken to slavery, though the Therapeutæ had already denounced it as unlawful and inhuman. Christianity proclaimed a gospel of love, which had no limit but that of the human race. And it applied this gospel to all classes. The Christian slave thus became the brother of all members of the community, received kindness from all, and was admitted to equal rights and privileges. But Christianity also enjoined on him submission to the will of his proprietor urging the belief that man is bound to be content with the position in which he is, to bear patiently all the ills of this life in the certain hope of a glorious future. The marriage laws and customs prevalent throughout the Roman world in the first ages of Christianity ought to have created difficulty, but nothing is said of this difficulty. Thus a Christian slave woman was the property of her master, her children were a source of gain to him, and he took entire control over this matter, as over the breeding of cattle. Yet we do not hear of any discussion in regard to this arrangement, nor of any attempt to rescue the slave woman from the treatment to which she must have been subjected. Again, the Roman law recognized marriages only between citizen and citizen; but a very large number of the early Christians had not the rights of citizenship until the beginning of the third century, and if they made associations of the nature of marriage, their children were deemed illegitimate by the civil law. Probably the Church defied the civil law. It became a maxim that Christians were not to go to law with each other, and the Church established laws and a jurisdiction of its own. In the case of marriage this was peculiarly necessary, as the marriage of a believer with an unbeliever caused to the former great inconvenience in carrying out his faith, and, indeed, supplied strong temptations to apostasy. Such marriages were therefore from the first forbidden, on pain of expulsion. It is likely, then, that any Christian man and woman were regarded as duly married, notwithstanding the civil law, if they had got the consent of the bishop; and secret connexions—that is, connexions not first professed in the presence of the Church—were considered akin to vice.
The questions that occupied the Christian mind related rather to the moral character of marriage. These questions were raised first of all by the heretical sects, which applied philosophy to the tenets and practice of the Church. And it is one of the most interesting facts in early Christian history that the Church, in combating these sects, succeeded in defeating them, but always carried off a large portion of their heretical opinions for its own permanent use. The sects may be divided into two classes. Some[133] affirmed that marriage was unnecessary, that full liberty had been conceded to them of indulging the passions, and that, indeed, the way to rise to perfection was by a practical acquaintance with all forms of action possible to man. Others[134] held that marriage was immoral, that the flesh was corrupt, that those who sowed to the flesh must reap corruption, and that in the kingdom of God on earth, as in heaven, there is neither marrying nor giving in marriage. It is difficult to trust all that is said about these heretical sects—for our accounts are derived from the orthodox alone—and in regard to this matter of marriage the orthodox invariably accuse the heterodox of licentiousness. But there was no class of people who ought to have been more careful in their assertions than the orthodox, as they themselves were accused of the vilest crimes.
It is one of the most striking facts in all history that in the second century the Christians were universally believed by Pagans to be secret conspirators combined for immoral purposes, and at their trials it was sufficient for a man to confess that he was a Christian to be condemned as a licentious villain. The assertions made in regard to them were that they met in secret, that slaughtering an infant they poured his blood into a cup, and that passing this cup round they all drank of it; that then the lights were extinguished, and the men and women proceeded to indiscriminate licentiousness. How could such ideas have arisen? An explanation of this reveals to us marked peculiarities of the early Church in the treatment of women, and may help us to see how the later opinions arose. Christianity came at first in the fervour of an overpowering love—love to God and love to man, irrespective of his race, position, or belief. But this fervour of love directed itself with special force to those who accepted the same faith. They called each other fathers and sons, mothers and daughters, brothers and sisters. They were in the habit of assembling before dawn or at night, men and women together, in private houses, to conduct their worship. The assembly consisted of a strange assortment of characters and grades. The Apostle Paul,[135] in writing to the Corinthian Church, says to them: “Be not deceived: neither fornicators, nor idolaters, nor adulterers, nor effeminate, nor sodomites, nor thieves, nor cheats, nor drunkards, nor revilers, nor plunderers, shall inherit the Kingdom of God: and these things were some of you.” And there were in the assembly the bond and the free, the rich and the poor, the high and low, but with a large preponderance of the low. It was natural for a heathen to suppose that an assembly composed, as he would consider it, of the dregs of society, and meeting in hours of darkness, had no good object in view. And the account which they themselves gave of their worship sounded to a Pagan equally contemptible. The Christians affirmed that they worshipped a poor carpenter, a son of despised Galilee, the child of a husbandless mother. Then they spoke of eating a body and drinking blood. But perhaps colour was given to the accusation most of all by two institutions which have now passed away, except in the case of one or two small sects.
In the days of the first fervour the Christian brethren set up a plan of voluntary socialism, and wished to have all things in common; but the plan did not work, and they had recourse to a systematic relief of the poor. One feature of this relief was what were called Love-feasts. It was not unusual in ancient times for large bodies of men to dine together, and large dinner-parties were often made up by each man bringing his contribution to the feast. With some such idea as this the Christians met, men and women together, the rich bringing the supplies, and they all dined together. Probably they did this every day at the earliest period, and some think that these meals constituted the celebration of what is called the Lord’s Supper. The love-feasts were unquestionably associated with this institution; but in the course of time they became less frequent, and generally took place after the administration of the Eucharist. They continued till the fifth century at least, and were often held in the churches after churches were erected. These dinners were not always scenes of perfect propriety, as St. Paul’s First Epistle to the Corinthians shows, and on some occasions intoxication and riotousness prevailed. These feasts went by the name of Loves, or Love-feasts, as we now translate the word. We need not wonder that Pagans should suspect that the Loves were not of the purest.
Then there was another practice, still more foreign to our Christian ideas. There is no command in the New Testament to keep the Sunday, or to stand or sit at singing, or to repeat the Creed or to keep Good Friday or Christmas, or to do a hundred other things about which Christians have wrangled with all earnestness; but there is a commandment five times repeated in the Apostolic Epistles, and indicative of the strong bond of brotherhood which bound Christian brothers and sisters to each other, to this effect: “Salute the brethren with a holy kiss,” or in another form, “Salute the brethren with a kiss of love.” It is likely that at first this kiss was imparted at every meeting, but gradually it became limited to the great sacramental occasions, such as baptism and the Eucharist. At first, too, and for a considerable time, the Christian brothers and sisters kissed each other. It is easy to see that such a practice would give rise to scandalous reports, and there is evidence in the ecclesiastical writers that the early Christians did not always make it a holy kiss, as it should have been. Athenagoras[136] quotes a saying which he attributes to our Lord, and which evidently deals with an abuse of this practice. It is to this effect: “Whoever kisses a second time, because he has found pleasure in it, commits a sin.” And Clement[137] of Alexandria thus speaks of the matter: “Love is not tested by a kiss, but by kindly feeling. But there are those that do nothing but make the churches resound with a kiss. For this very thing, the shameless use of the kiss, which ought to be mystic, occasions foul suspicions and evil reports.”
These customs prove that considerable freedom prevailed among the earliest Christians, and doubtless sometimes this freedom was abused. In the very first epoch some of the Corinthian Christians sided with a man who committed incest and persisted in it after rebuke, and the Apostle had to exert himself to the utmost to repress the sympathy and the sin, but the accusations, speaking generally, were hideously false and unfounded. They are of some consequence for our purpose, for they must have acted powerfully on the minds of Christians in inducing them to avoid everything that might furnish even the semblance of justification for them.