Columba came to Britain in the ninth year of the reign of Bridius, the son

of Meilochon, the very powerful king of the Picts, and he converted by

work and example that nation to the faith of Christ; whereupon he also

received the aforesaid island [Iona] for a monastery. It is not large, but

contains about five families, according to English reckoning. His

successors hold it to this day, and there also he was buried, when he was

seventy-seven, about thirty-two years after he came into Britain to

preach. Before he came into Britain he had built a noble monastery in

Ireland, which from the great number of oaks is called in the Scottish

tongue(218) Dearmach, that is, the Field of Oaks. From both of these

monasteries many others had their origin through his disciples both in

Britain and Ireland; but the island monastery where his body lies holds

the rule.

That island always has for its ruler an abbot, who is a priest, to whose

direction all the province and even bishops themselves are subject by an

unusual form of organization, according to the example of their first

teacher, who was not a bishop, but a priest and monk; of whose life and

discourses some writings are said to have been preserved by his disciples.

But whatever he was himself, this we regard as certain concerning him,

that he left successors renowned for their great continency, their love of

God, and their monastic rules. However, they followed uncertain

cycles(219) in their observance of the great festival [Easter], for no one

brought them the synodal decrees for the observance of Easter, because

they were placed so far away from the rest of the world; they only

practised such works of piety and chastity as they could learn from the

prophetical, evangelical, and apostolical writings. This manner of keeping

Easter continued among them for a long time, that is, for the space of one

hundred and fifty years, or until the year of our Lord’s incarnation 715.

§ 97. The Conversion of the Franks. The Establishment of Catholicism in

the Germanic Kingdoms

Chlodowech (Clovis, 481-511) was originally a king of the Salian Franks,

near Tournay. By his energy he became king of all the Franks, and,

overthrowing Syagrius in 486, pushed his frontier to the Loire. In 496 he

conquered a portion of the Alemanni. About this time he became a Catholic.

He had for some time favored the Catholic religion, and with his

conversion his rule was associated with that cause in the kingdoms subject

to Arian rulers. In this way his support of Catholicism was in line with

his policy of conquest. By constant warfare Chlodowech was able to push

his frontier, in 507, to the Garonne. His death, in 511, at less than

fifty years of age, cut short only for a time the extension of the

Frankish kingdom. Under his sons, Burgundy, Thuringia, and Bavaria were

conquered. The kingdom, which had been divided on the death of Chlodowech,

was united under the youngest son, Chlotar I (sole ruler 558-561), again

divided on his death, to be united under Chlotar II (sole ruler 613-628).

In Spain the Suevi, in the northwest, became Catholic under Carrarich in

550. They were conquered in 585 by the Visigoths, who in turn became

Catholic in 589.

(_a_) Gregory of Tours, _Historia Francorum_, II, 30. 31. (MSL, 71:225.)

Gregory of Tours (538-593) became bishop of Tours in 573. Placed

in this way in the most important see of France, he was constantly

thrown in contact with the Merovingian royal family and had

abundant opportunity to become acquainted with the course of

events at first hand. His most important work, the _History of the

Franks_, is especially valuable from the fifth book on, as here he

is on ground with which he was personally familiar. In Book II,

from which the selection is taken, Gregory depends upon others,

and must be used with caution.

The baptism of Chlodowech was probably the result of a long

process of deliberation, beginning probably before his marriage

with Chrotechildis, a Burgundian princess, who was a Catholic.

While still a pagan he was favorably disposed toward the Catholic

Church. About 496 he was baptized, probably on Christmas Day, at

Rheims, by St. Remigius. The place and date have been much

disputed of late. The earliest references to the conversion are by

Nicetus of Trier (_ob. circa_ 566), _Epistula ad Chlodosvindam

reginam Longobardorum_ (MSL, 5:375); and Avitus, _Epistula_ 41,

addressed to Chlodowech himself. (MSL, 59:257). A careful

examination of all the evidence may be found in A. Hauck,

_Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_, fourth ed., I, 595 _ff._ Hauck

concludes that “the date, December 25, 496, may be regarded as

almost certainly the date of the baptism of Chlodowech. The

connection as to time between the first war with the Alemanni and

the baptism may have given occasion to seek for some actual

connection between the two events.” The selection is therefore

given as the traditional version and is not to be relied upon as

correct in detail. It represents what was probably the current

belief within a few decades of the event.

Ch. 30. The queen (Chrotechildis) ceased not to warn Chlodowech that he

should acknowledge the true God and forsake idols. But in no way could he

be brought to believe these things. Finally war broke out with the

Alemanni. Then by necessity was he compelled to acknowledge what before he

had denied with his will. The two armies met and there was a fearful

slaughter, and the army of Chlodowech was on the point of being

annihilated. When the king perceived that, he raised his eyes to heaven,

his heart was smitten and he was moved to tears, and he said: “Jesus

Christ, whom Chrotechildis declares to be the Son of the living God, who

says that Thou wilt help those in need and give victory to those who hope

in Thee, humbly I flee to Thee for Thy mighty aid, that Thou wilt give me

victory over these my enemies, and I will in this way experience Thy

power, which the people called by Thy name claim that they have proved to

be in Thee. Then will I believe on Thee and be baptized in Thy name. For I

have called upon my gods but, as I have seen, they are far from my help.

Therefore, I believe that they have no power who do not hasten to aid

those obedient to them. I now call upon Thee and I desire to believe on

Thee. Only save me from the hand of my adversaries.” As he thus spoke, the

Alemanni turned their backs and began to take flight. But when they saw

that their king was dead, they submitted to Chlodowech and said: “Let not,

we pray thee, a nation perish; now we are thine.” Thereupon he put an end

to the war, exhorted the people, and returned home in peace. He told the

queen how by calling upon the name of Christ he had obtained victory. This

happened in the fifteenth year of his reign (496).

Ch. 31. Thereupon the queen commanded that the holy Remigius, bishop of

Rheims, be brought secretly to teach the king the word of salvation. The

priest was brought to him secretly and began to lay before him that he

should believe in the true God, the creator of heaven and earth, and

forsake idols, who could neither help him nor others. But he replied:

“Gladly do I listen to thee, most holy Father, but one thing remains, for

the people who follow me suffer me not to forsake their gods. But I will

go and speak to them according to thy words.” When he met his men, and

before he began to speak, all the people cried out together, for the

divine power had anticipated him: “We reject the mortal gods, pious king,

and we are ready to follow the immortal God whom Remigius preaches.” These

things were reported to the bishop, who rejoiced greatly and commanded the

font to be prepared.… The king first asked to be baptized by the pontiff.

He went, a new Constantine, into the font to be washed clean from the old

leprosy, and to purify himself in fresh water from the stains which he had

long had. But as he stepped into the baptismal water, the saint of God

began in moving tone: “Bend softly thy head, Sicamber, reverence what thou

hast burnt, and burn what thou hast reverenced.”…

Therefore the king confessed Almighty God in Trinity, and was baptized in

the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Ghost, and was

anointed with the holy chrism with the sign of the cross. Of his army more

than three thousand were baptized. Also his sister Albofledis was

baptized.… And another sister of the king, Lanthechildis by name, who had

fallen into the heresy of the Arians, was converted, and when she had

confessed that the Son and the Holy Ghost were of the same substance with

the Father, she was given the chrism.

(_b_) Gregory of Tours, _Hist. Francorum_, II, 35-38. (MSL, 71:232.)

Clovis at the head of the anti-Arian party in Gaul.

Ch. 35. When Alarich, the king of the Goths, saw that King Chlodowech

continually conquered the nations, he sent messengers to him saying: “If

my brother wishes, it is also in my heart that we see each other, if God

will.” Chlodowech was not opposed to this and came to him. They met on an

island in the Loire, in the neighborhood of Amboise, in the territory of

Tours, and spake and ate and drank together, promised mutual friendship,

and parted in peace.

Ch. 36. But already many Gauls wished with all their heart to have the

Franks for their masters. It therefore happened that Quintianus, bishop of

Rhodez, was driven out of his city on account of this. For they said to

him: “You wish that the rule of the Franks possessed this land.” And a few

days after, when a dispute had arisen between him and the citizens, the

rumor reached the Goths who dwelt in the city, for the citizens asserted

that he wished to be subject to the rule of the Franks; and they took

counsel and planned how they might kill him with the sword. When this was

reported to the man of God, he rose by night, and with the most faithful

of his servants left Rhodez and came to Arverne.…

Ch. 37. Thereupon King Chlodowech said to his men: “It is a great grief to

me that these Arians possess a part of Gaul. Let us go forth with God’s

aid, conquer them, and bring this land into our power.” And since this

speech pleased all, he marched with his army toward Poitiers, for there

dwelt Alarich at that time.… King Chlodowech met the king of the Goths,

Alarich, in the Campus Vocladensis [Vouillé or Voulon-sur-Clain] ten miles

from Poitiers; and while the latter fought from afar, the former withstood

in hand to hand combat. But since the Goths, in their fashion, took to

flight, King Chlodowech at length with God’s aid won the victory. He had

on his side a son of Sigbert the Lame, whose name was Chloderich. The same

Sigbert, ever since he fought with the Alemanni near Zulpich [in 496], had

been wounded in the knee and limped. The king killed King Alarich and put

the Goths to flight.… From this battle Amalrich, Alarich’s son, fled to

Spain, and by his ability obtained his father’s kingdom. Chlodowech,

however, sent his son Theuderic to Albi, Rhodez, and Arverne, and

departing he subjugated those cities, from the borders of the Goths to the

borders of the Burgundians, to the rule of his father. But Alarich reigned

twenty-two years.

Chlodowech spent the winter in Bourdeaux, and carried away the entire

treasure of Alarich from Toulouse, and he went to Angoulême. Such favor

did the Lord show him that, when he looked on the walls, they fell of

themselves. Thereupon when the Goths had been driven from the city he

brought it under his rule. After the accomplishment of these victories he

returned to Tours and dedicated many gifts to the holy Church of St.

Martin.

Ch. 38. At that time he received from the Emperor Anastasius the title of

consul, and in the Church of St. Martin he assumed the purple cloak and

put on his head a diadem. He then mounted a horse and with his own hand

scattered among the people who were present gold and silver in the

greatest profusion, all the way from the door of the porch of the Church

of St. Martin to the city gate. And from this day forward he was addressed

as consul, or Augustus. From Tours Chlodowech went to Paris and made that

the seat of his authority.(220)

(_c_) Third Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, _Acts_. Mansi, IX, 992.

This council is the most important event in the history of the

Visigothic Church of Spain, marking the abandonment of Arianism by

the ruling race of Spain and the formal acceptance of the doctrine

of the Trinity or the Catholic faith and unity. The Suevi had

accepted Catholicism more than thirty-five years before; see Synod

of Braga, A. D. 563, in Hefele, § 285 (_cf._ also Hahn, § 176, who

gives the text of the anathematisms in which, after a statement of

the Catholic doctrine of the Trinity, the balance of the

anathematisms are concerned with Priscillianism). Reccared, the

Visigothic king (586-601), became a Catholic in 587, and held the

council of 589 to effect the conversion of the nation to his new

faith. For a letter of Gregory the Great on the conversion of

Reccared, see PNF, ser. II, vol. XII, pt. 2. p. 87, and two from

Gregory to Reccared himself (_ibid._, vol. XIII, pp. 16, 35). The

creed, as professed at Toledo, is the first instance of the

authorized use of the term "and the Son" in a creed in connection

with the doctrine of the “procession of the Holy Spirit,” the form

in which the so-called Nicene creed came to be used in the West,

and the source of much dispute between the East and the West in

the ninth century and ever since.

I. From the Speech of Reccared at the Opening of the Council.

I judge that you are not ignorant, most reverend priests [_i.e._, bishops]

that I have called you into our presence for the restoration of

ecclesiastical discipline; and because in time past the existence of

heresy prevented throughout the entire Catholic Church the transaction of

synodical business. God, who has been pleased by our action to remove the

obstacle of the same heresy, warns us to set in order the ecclesiastical

laws concerning church matters. Therefore let it be a matter of joy and

gladness to you that the canonical order is being brought back to the

lines of the times of our fathers, in the sight of God and to our glory.

II. From the Statement of Faith.

There is present here all the famous nation of the Goths, esteemed for

their real bravery by nearly all nations, who, however, by the error of

their teachers have been separated from the faith and unity of the

Catholic Church; but now, agreeing as a whole with me in my assent to the

faith, participate in the communion of that Church which receives in its

maternal bosom a multitude of different nations and nourishes them with

the breasts of charity. Concerning her the prophet foretelling said: “My

house shall be called the house of prayer for all nations.” For not only

does the conversion of the Goths add to the amount of our reward, but also

an infinite multitude of the people of the Suevi, whom under the

protection of Heaven we have subjected to our kingdom, led away into

heresy by the fault of an alien,(221) we have endeavored to recall to the

source of truth. Therefore, most holy Fathers, I offer as by your hands to

the eternal God, as a holy and pleasing offering, these most noble

nations, who have been attached by us to the Lord’s possessions. For it

will be to me in the day of the retribution of the just an unfading crown

and joy if these peoples, who now by our planning have returned to the

unity of the Church, remain founded and established in the same. For as by

the divine determination it has been a matter of our care to bring these

peoples to the unity of the Church of Christ, so it is a matter of your

teaching to instruct them in the Catholic dogmas, by which they may be

instructed in the full knowledge of the truth, that they may know how to

reject totally the errors of pernicious heresy, to remain in charity in

the ways of the true faith, and to embrace with fervent desire the

communion of the Catholic Church.… As it is of benefit to us to profess

with the mouth what we believe in the heart … therefore I anathematize

Arius with all his doctrines … so I hold in honor, to the praise and honor

and glory of God, the faith of the holy Council of Nicæa.… I embrace and

hold the faith of the one hundred and fifty Fathers assembled at

Constantinople.… I believe the faith of the first Council of Ephesus …

likewise with all the Catholic Church I reverently receive the faith of

the Council of Chalcedon.… To this my confession I have added the holy

constitutions [_i.e._, confessions of faith] of the above-mentioned

councils, and I have subscribed with complete singleness of heart to the

divine testimony.

Here follows the faith of Nicæa, the so-called creed of

Constantinople, with the words relating to the Holy Ghost, _ex

Patre et Filio procedentem_ (proceeding from the Father and the

Son); the actual form _filioque_ does not here occur.

III. From the _Anathemas_, Hahn, § 178.

3. Whosoever does not believe in the Holy Ghost and will not believe that

He proceeds from the Father and the Son, and will not say that He is

co-essential with the Father and the Son, let him be anathema.

IV. From the _Canons_, Bruns, I, 212.

Canon 1. After the damnation of the heresy of Arius and the exposition of

the Catholic faith, this holy council ordered that, because in the midst

of many heretics and heathen throughout the churches of Spain, the

canonical order has been necessarily neglected (for while liberty of

transgressing abounded, and the desirable discipline was denied, and every

one fostered excesses of heresy in the protection and continuation of evil

times, a strict discipline was far off, but now the peace of the Church

has been restored by the mercy of Christ), everything which by the

authority of early canons may be forbidden is forbidden, discipline

arising again, and everything is required which they order done. Let the

constitutions of all the councils remain in their force, likewise all the

synodical letters of the holy Roman prelates. Henceforth let no one aspire

unworthily to ecclesiastical promotions and honors against the canons. Let

nothing be done which the holy Fathers, filled with the Spirit of God,

decreed should not be done. And let those who presume to violate the laws

be restrained by the severity of the earlier canons.

Canon 2. Out of reverence for the most holy faith and to strengthen the

weak minds of men, acting upon the advice of the most pious and glorious

King Reccared(222) the synod has ordered that throughout the churches of

Spain, Gaul, and Gallicia, the symbol of the faith be recited according to

the form of the Oriental churches, the symbol of the Council of

Constantinople, that is, of the one hundred and fifty bishops; and before

the Lord’s prayer is said, let it be pronounced to the people in a clear

voice, by which also the true faith may have a manifest testimony, and the

hearts of the people may approach to the reception of the body and blood

of Christ with hearts purified by faith.

§ 98. The State Church in the Germanic Kingdoms

So long as the Germanic rulers remained Arian, the Catholic Church in

their kingdoms was left for the most part alone or hindered in its

synodical activity. But as the kingdoms became Catholic on the conversion

of their kings, the rulers were necessarily brought into close official

relations with the Church and its administration; and they exercised a

strict control over the ecclesiastical councils and the episcopal

elections. The Merovingians, on their conversion from paganism, at once

became Catholics, and they consequently assumed this control immediately.

With the extension of the Frankish kingdom, the authority of the king in

ecclesiastical affairs was likewise extended. In Spain the Visigoths were

Arians until 589. On the conversion of the nation at that date, the king

at once assumed an extensive ecclesiastical authority (for Reccared’s

confirmation of the Third Synod of Toledo, 589, see Bruns, I, 393), and in

the development of the system the councils of Toledo became at once the

parliaments of the entire nation, now united through its common faith, and

the synods of the Church. This system was cut short by the Moslem invasion

of 711, and the development of the Church and its relation to the State is

to be studied in the Frankish kingdom in which from this time the

ecclesiastical development of Western Europe is to be traced. The best

evidence for the legal state of the Church under the Germanic rulers is

chiefly in the acts of councils.

But there was also in the Catholic Church in the Germanic kingdoms a

strong monastic spirit which was by no means willing to see the Church

become an “establishment.” This fitted in poorly with the condition of the

State Church. It is illustrated by the career of St. Columbanus.

(_a_) Council of Orleans, A. D. 511, _Synodical Letter_. Bruns, II, 160.

The king summons the council and approves its findings. Extract

from the synodical letter in which the canons are sent to

Chlodowech.

To their Lord, the Son of the Catholic Church, Chlodowech, the most

glorious king, all the priests(223) whom you have commanded to come to the

council.

Because your great care for the glorious faith so moves you to reverence

for the Catholic religion that from love of the priesthood you have

commanded the bishops to be gathered together into one that they might

treat of necessary things, according to the proposals of your will and the

titles [_i.e._, topics] which you have given, we reply by determining

those things which seem good to us; so that if those things which we have

decreed prove to be right in your judgment, the approval of so great a

king and lord might by a greater authority cause the determinations of so

many bishops to be observed more strictly.

(_b_) Council of Orleans, A. D. 549, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 211.

Canons regarding Episcopal elections. The first instance in

canonical legislation in the West recognizing the necessity of

royal consent to the election of a bishop. For the relation of the

Pope to metropolitans, see in § 99 the Epistle of Gregory the

Great to Vigilius of Arles.

Canon 10. That it shall be lawful for no one to obtain the episcopate by

payment or bargaining, but with the permission of the king, according to

the choice of the clergy and the people, as it is written in the ancient

canons, let him be consecrated by the metropolitan or by him whom he sends

in his place, together with the bishops of the province. That if any one

violates by purchase the rule of this holy constitution, we decree that

he, who shall have been ordained for money, shall be deposed.

Canon 11. Likewise as the ancient canons decree, no one shall be made

bishop of those who are unwilling to receive him, and neither by the force

of powerful persons are the citizens and clergy to be induced to give a

testimonial of election.(224) For this is to be regarded as a crime; that

if this should be done, let him, who rather by violence than by legitimate

decree has been ordained bishop, be deposed forever from the honor of the

episcopate which he has obtained.

(_c_) Council of Paris, A. D. 557, _Canon_. Bruns, II, 221.

Canon 8. No bishop shall be ordained for people against their will, but

only he whom the people and clergy in full election shall have freely

chosen; neither by the command of the prince nor by any condition whatever

against the will of the metropolitan and the bishops of the province shall

he be forced in. That if any one with so great rashness presumes by royal

appointment(225) to reach the height of this honor, let him not deserve to

be received as a bishop by the bishops of the province in which the place

is located, for they know that he was ordained improperly. If any of the

fellow bishops of the province presume to receive him against this

prohibition, let him be separated from all his brethren and be deprived of

the charity of all.

(_d_) Gregory of Tours, _Hist. Francorum_, IV, 15. (MSL, 71:280.)

The difficulty of the Church in living under the Merovingian

monarchs with their despotism and violence is illustrated by the

following passage. The date of the event is 556.

When the clergy of Tours heard that King Chlothar [511-561; 558-561, as

surviving son of Chlodowech, sole ruler of the Franks] had returned from

the slaughter of the Saxons, they prepared the consensus(226) that they

had chosen the priest Eufronius bishop and went to the king. When they had

presented the matter, the king answered: “I had indeed commanded that the

priest Cato should be ordained there, and why has our command been

disregarded?” They answered him: “We have indeed asked him, but he would

not come.” And as they said this suddenly the priest Cato appeared and

besought the king to command that Cautinus be removed and himself be

appointed bishop of Arverne.(227) But when the king laughed at this, he

besought him again, that he might be ordained for Tours, which he had

before rejected. Then the king said to him: “I have already commanded that

you should be consecrated bishop of Tours, but, as I hear, you have

despised that church; therefore you shall be withheld from the government

of it.” Thereupon he departed ashamed. But when the king asked concerning

the holy Eufronius, they said that he was a nephew of the holy Gregory,

whom we have mentioned above.(228) The king answered: “That is a

distinguished and very great family. Let the will of God and of the holy

Martin(229) be done; let the election be confirmed.” And after he had

given a decree for the ordination, the holy Eufronius was ordained as the

eighth bishop after St. Martin.(230)

(_e_) Gregory of Tours, _Hist. Franc._, VIII, 22, (MSL, 71:464.)

Royal interference in episcopal elections was not infrequent under

the Merovingians. Confused as the following account is, it is

clear from it that the kings were accustomed to violate the canons

and to exercise a free hand in episcopal appointments. See also

the preceding selection. The date of the event is 585. For the

Synod of Maçon, A. D. 585, see Hefele, § 286.

Laban, Bishop of Eauze,(231) died that year. Desiderius, a layman,

succeeded him, although the king had promised with an oath that he would

never again ordain a bishop from the laity. But to what will not the

accursed hunger for gold drive human hearts? Bertchramnus(232) had

returned from the synod,(233) and on the way was seized with a fever. The

deacon Waldo was summoned, who in baptism had also been called

Bertchramnus, and he committed to him the whole of his episcopal office,

as he also committed to him the provisions regarding his testament, as

well as those who merited well by him. As he departed the bishop breathed

out his spirit. The deacon returned and with presents and the

consensus(234) of the people, went to the king(235) but he obtained

nothing. Then the king, having issued a mandate, commanded Gundegisilus,

count of Saintes, surnamed Dodo, to be consecrated bishop; and so it was

done. And because many of the clergy of Saintes before the synod had, in

agreement with Bishop Bertchramnus, written various things against their

Bishop Palladius to humiliate him, after his(236) death they were arrested

by the bishop, severely tortured, and stripped of their property.

(_f_) Chlotar II, Capitulary, A. D. 614. MGH, Leges, II. _Capitularia

Regum Francorum_, ed. Boretius, I, 20, MGH, Leges, 1883.

Not only did the councils admit the right of the king to approve

the candidate for consecration as bishop, but the kings laid down

the principle that their approval was necessary. They also

legislated on the affairs of the Church, _e.g._, on the election

of bishops. The text may also be found in Altmann und Bernheim,

_Ausgewählte Urkunden_. Berlin, 1904, p. 1.

Ch. 1. It is our decree that the statutes of the canons be observed in all

things, and those of them which have been neglected in the past because of

the circumstances of the times shall hereafter be observed perpetually; so

that when a bishop dies one shall be chosen for his place by the clergy

and people, who is to be ordained by the metropolitan and his provincials;

if the person be worthy let him be ordained by the order of the prince;

but if he be chosen from the palace(237) let him be ordained on account of

the merit of his person and his learning.

Ch. 2. That no bishop while living shall choose a successor, but another

shall be substituted for him when he become so indisposed that he cannot

rule his church and clergy. Likewise, that while a bishop is living no one

shall presume to take his place, and if one should seek it, it is on no

account to be given him.

(_g_) Fredegarius Scholasticus, _Chronicon_, 75_f._ (MSL, 71:653.)

The Chronicon of Fredegarius is important, as it continues in its

last book the _History of the Franks_ by Gregory of Tours. The

best edition is in the MGH, _Scriptores rerum Merovingicarum_ II,

ed. Krusch. An account of the work may be found in DCB, art.

“Fredegarius Scholasticus.” In the Frankish kingdom the higher

clergy, especially the bishops, assembled with the great men of

the realm in councils under the king to discuss affairs of State.

These councils have been called _concilia mixta_. They are,

however, to be distinguished from the strictly ecclesiastical

assemblies in which the clergy alone acted. A change was

introduced by Charles the Great. The following passage shows the

king consulting with the bishops, along with the other nobles.

§ 75. In the eleventh year of his reign Dagobert came to the city of Metz,

because the Wends at the command of Samo still manifested their savage

fury and often made inroads from their territory to lay waste the Frankish

kingdom, Thuringia, and other provinces. Dagobert, coming to Metz, with

the counsel of the bishops and nobles, and the consent of all the great

men of his kingdom, made his son, Sigibert, king of Austrasia, and

assigned him Metz as his seat. To Chunibert, bishop of Cologne, and the

Duke Adalgisel, he committed the conduct of his palace and kingdom.(238)

Also he gave to his son sufficient treasure and fitted him out with all

that was appropriate to his high dignity; and whatsoever he had given him

he confirmed by charters specially made out. Since then the Frankish land

was sufficiently defended by the zeal of the Austrasians against the

Wends.

§ 76. When in the twelfth year of his reign a son named Chlodoveus was

born by Queen Nantechilde to Dagobert, he made, with the counsel and

advice of the Neustrians, an agreement with his Sigibert. All the great

men and the bishops of Austrasia and the other people of Sigibert, holding

up their hands, confirmed it with an oath, that after the death of

Dagobert, Neustria and Burgundy, by an established ordinance, should fall

to Chlodoveus; but Austrasia, because in population and extent it was

equal to those lands, should belong in its entire extent to Sigibert.

(_h_) Jonas, _Vita Columbani_, chs. 9, 12, 17, 32, 33, 59, 60. (MSL,

87:1016.)

Columbanus (543-615) was the most active and successful of the

Irish missionary monks laboring on the continent of Europe. In 585

Columbanus left Ireland to preach in the wilder parts of Gaul, and

in 590 or 591 founded Luxeuil, which became the parent monastery

of a considerable group of monastic houses. He came into conflict

with the Frankish clergy on account of the Celtic mode of fixing

the date of Easter [see Epistle of Columbanus among the Epistles

of Gregory the Great, to whom it is addressed, Bk. IX, Ep. 127,

PNF, ser. II, vol. XIII, p. 38; two other epistles on the subject

in MSL, vol. 80], his monastic rule [MSL, 80:209], and his

condemnatory attitude toward the dissoluteness of life prevalent

in Gaul among the clergy, as well as in the court. Banished from

Burgundy in 610 partly for political reasons, he worked for a time

in the vicinity of Lake Constance. In 612, leaving his disciple

Gallus [see _Vita S. Galli_, by Walafrid Strabo, MSL, 114; English

translation by C. W. Bispham, Philadelphia, 1908], he went to

Italy and, having founded Bobbio, died in 615. Gallus (_ob. circa_

640) subsequently founded the great monastery of St. Gall in

Switzerland, near Lake Constance. The Celtic monks on the

continent abandoned their Celtic peculiarities in the ninth

century and adopted the Benedictine rule.

Jonas, the author of the life of Columbanus, was a monk at Bobbio.

His life of Columbanus was written about 640; see DCB, “Jonas

(6).” In the following, the divisions and numbering of paragraphs

follow Migne’s edition. There is an excellent new edition in the

MGH, _Script. rerum Merovin._, ed. Krusch, 8vo, 1905.

Columbanus sets forth.

Ch. 9. Columbanus gathered such treasures of divine knowledge that even in

his youth he could expound the Psalter in polished discourse and could

make many other discourses, worthy of being sung and useful to teach.

Thereupon he took pains to be received into the company of monks, and

sought the monastery of Benechor [in Ulster] the head of which, the

blessed Commogellus, was famous for his many virtues. He was an excellent

father of his monks and highly regarded because of his zeal in religion

and the maintenance of discipline according to the rule. And here he began

to give himself entirely to prayer and fasting and to bear the yoke of

Christ, easy to those who bear it, by denying himself and taking up his

cross and following Christ, that he, who was to be the teacher of others,

might himself learn by teaching, and by mortification to endure in his own

body what he should abundantly show forth; and he who should teach what by

others ought to be fulfilled, himself first fulfilled. When many years had

passed for him in the cloister, he began to desire to wander forth,

mindful of the command which the Lord gave Abraham: “Get thee out of thy

country and from thy kindred and from thy father’s house unto a land that

I will show thee” [Gen. 12:1]. He confessed to Commogellus, the venerable

Father, the warm desire of his heart, the desire enkindled by the fire of

the Lord [Luke 12:49]; but he received no such answer as he wished. For it

was a grief to Commogellus to bear the loss of a man so full of comfort.

Finally Commogellus began to take courage and place it before his heart

that he ought to seek more to advance the benefit of others than to pursue

his own needs. It happened not without the will of the Almighty, who had

trained His pupil for future wars, that from his victories he might obtain

glorious triumphs and gain joyful victories over the phalanxes of slain

enemies. The abbot called Columbanus unto him and said that though it was

a grief to him yet he had come to a decision useful to others, that he

would remain in peace with him, would strengthen him with consolation, and

give him companions for his journey men who were known for their

religion.…

So Columbanus in the twentieth(239) year of his life set forth, and with

twelve companions under the leadership of Christ went down to the shore of

the sea. Here they waited the grace of Almighty God that he would prosper

their undertaking, if it took place with His consent; and they perceived

that the will of the merciful Judge was with them. They embarked and began

the dangerous journey through the straits, and crossed a smooth sea with a

favorable wind, and after a quick passage reached the coasts of Brittany.…

Columbanus founds monasteries in Gaul.

Ch. 12. At that time there was a wide desert called Vosagus [the Vosges]

in which there lay a castle long since in ruins. And ancient tradition

called it Anagrates [Anegray]. When the holy man reached this place, in

spite of its wild isolation, its rudeness, and the rocks, he settled there

with his companions, content with meagre support, mindful of the saying

that man lives not by bread alone, but, satisfied with the Word of Life,

he would have abundance and never hunger again unto eternity.

Ch. 17. When the number of the monks had increased rapidly, he began to

think of seeking in the same desert for a better place, where he might

found a monastery. And he found a place, which had formerly been strongly

fortified, at a distance from the first place about eight miles, and which

was called in ancient times Luxovium.(240) Here there were warm baths

erected with special art. A multitude of stone idols stood here in the

near-by forest, which in the old heathen times had been honored with

execrable practices and profane rites. Residing here, therefore, the

excellent man began to found a cloister. On hearing of this the people

came to him from all sides in order to dedicate themselves to the practice

of religion, so that the great crowd of monks gathered together could

hardly be contained in the company of one monastery. Here the children of

nobles pressed to come, that, despising the scorned adornments of the

world and the pomp of present wealth, they might receive eternal rewards.

When Columbanus perceived this and that from all sides the people came

together for the medicines of penance, and that the walls of one monastery

could not without difficulty hold so great a body of converts to the

religious life, and although they were of one mind and one heart, yet it

was ill fitted to the intercourse of so great a multitude, he sought out

another place, which was excellent on account of its abundance of water,

and founded a second monastery, which he named Fontanæ,(241) and placed

rulers over it, of whose piety none doubted. As he now settled companies

of monks in this place, he dwelt alternately in each and, filled with the

Holy Ghost, he established a rule which they should observe that the

prudent reader or hearer of it might know by what sort of discipline a man

might become holy.

The quarrel of Columbanus with the Court.

Ch. 32. It happened one day that the holy Columbanus came to Brunichildis,

who was at that time in Brocariaca.(242) When she saw him coming to the

court she led to the man of God the sons of Theuderich, whom he had

begotten in adultery. He asked as he saw them what they wanted of him, and

Brunichildis said: “They are the king’s sons; strengthen them with thy

blessing.” But he answered: “Know then that these will never hold the

royal sceptre, for they have sprung from unchastity.” In furious anger she

commanded the boys to depart. The man of God thereupon left the royal

court, and when he had crossed the threshold there arose a loud roar so

that the whole house shook, and all shuddered for fear; yet the rage of

the miserable woman could not be restrained. Thereupon she began to plot

against the neighboring monasteries, and she caused a decree to be issued

that the monks should not be allowed to move freely outside the land of

the monastery, and that no one should give them any support or otherwise

assist them with offerings.

Ch. 33. Against Columbanus Brunichildis excited the mind of the king and

endeavored to disturb him; and she encouraged the minds of his princes,

his courtiers, and great men to set the mind of the king against the man

of God, and she began to urge the bishops that by vilifying the religion

of Columbanus they might dishonor the rule he had given his monks to

observe.…

Columbanus founds Bobbio.

§ 59. When the blessed Columbanus learned that Theudebert had been

conquered by Theuderich, he left Gaul and Germany,(243) which were under

Theuderich, and entered Italy where he was honorably received by Agilulf

the Lombard king, who gave him permission to dwell where he wished in

Italy. It happened by the will of God that, while he was in Milan,

Columbanus wishing to attack and root out by the use of the Scripture the

errors of the heretics, that is, the false doctrine of the Arians,

lingered and composed an excellent work against them.(244)

§ 60. While things were thus going on, a man named Jocundus came before

the king and reported to him that he knew of a church of the blessed

Peter, prince of the Apostles, in a desert region of the Apennines, in

which he learned that there were many advantages, being uncommonly

fruitful and supplied with water full of fish. It was called in old time

Bobium(245) on account of the brook which flowed by it; another river in

the neighborhood was called Trebia, on which Hannibal, spending a winter,

suffered great losses of men, horses, and elephants. Thither Columbanus

removed and restored with all possible diligence the already half-ruined

church in all its former beauty. The roof and the top of the temple and

the ruins of the walls he repaired and set to work to construct other

things necessary for a monastery.

§ 99. Gregory the Great and the Roman Church in the Second Half of the

Sixth Century

Gregory the Great was born about 540. In 573 he was appointed prefect of

the city of Rome, but resigned the following year to become a monk. Having

been ordained deacon, he was sent in 579 to Constantinople as papal

apocrisiarius, or resident ambassador at the court of the Emperor. In 586

he was back in Rome and abbot of St. Andrew’s, and in 590 he was elected

Pope. As Pope his career was even more brilliant. He reorganized the papal

finances, carried through important disciplinary measures, and advanced

the cause of monasticism. His work as the organizer of missions in

England, his labors to heal the Istrian schism, his relations with the

Lombards, his dealings with the Church in Gaul, his controversy with

Constantinople in the matter of the title “Ecumenical Patriarch,” and

other large relations and tasks indicate the range of his interests and

the extent of his activities. As a theologian Gregory interpreted

Augustine for the Middle Ages and was the most important and influential

theologian of the West after Augustine and before the greater scholastics.

He did much to restore the prestige of his see, which had been lost in the

earlier part of the sixth century. He died 604.

Additional source material: Selections from the writings of

Gregory, including many of his letters, may be found in PNF, ser.

II, vols. XII and XIII; see also _A Library of the Fathers of the

Holy Catholic Church_ (Oxford).

The selections under this section are arranged under four heads: (1)

Relations with Gaul; (2) Relations with Constantinople; (3) Relations with

the Schism in Northern Italy; (4) Relations with the Lombards; for English

mission, v. infra, § 100.

1. Relations with Gaul.

(_a_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Vigilium_, Reg. V, 53. (MSL, 77:782.)

The following letter was written in 595 in reply to a letter from

Vigilius, bishop of Arles, asking for the pallium (DCA, art.

“Pallium,” also _Cath. Encyc._) and the vicariate. For the

relation of the Roman see to the bishop of Arles as primate of

Gaul, see E. Loening, _Geschichte des deutschen Kirchenrechts_.

The relation of the vicariate to the papacy and also to the royal

power is indicated by the fact that the pallium is given in

response to the request of the king. The condition of the church

under Childebert is also shown; see § 98 for canons bearing on

simony and irregularities in connection with ordination.

As to thy having asked therein [in a letter of Vigilius to Gregory]

according to ancient custom for the use of the pallium and the vicariate

of the Apostolic See, far be it from me to suspect that thou hast sought

eminence of transitory power, or the adornment of external worship, in our

vicariate and the pallium. But, since it is known to all whence the holy

faith proceeded in the regions of Gaul, when your fraternity asks for a

repetition of the early custom of the Apostolic See, what is it but that a

good offspring reverts to the bosom of its mother? With willing mind

therefore we grant what has been requested, lest we should seem either to

withhold from you anything of the honor due to you, or to despise the

petition of our most excellent son, King Childebert.…

I have learned from certain persons informing me that in the parts of Gaul

and Germany no one attains to holy orders except for a consideration

given. If this is so, I say it with tears, I declare it with groans, that,

when the priestly order has fallen inwardly, neither will it be able to

stand outwardly for long.…

Another very detestable thing has also been reported to us, that some

persons being laymen, through the desire of temporal glory, are tonsured

on the death of bishops, and all at once are made priests.…

On this account your fraternity must needs take care to admonish our most

excellent son, King Childebert, that he remove entirely the stain of this

sin from his kingdom, to the end that Almighty God may give him so much

the greater recompense with himself as He sees him both love what He loves

and shun what He hates.

And so we commit to your fraternity, according to ancient custom, under

God, our vicariate in the churches which are under the dominion of our

most excellent son Childebert, with the understanding that their proper

dignity, according to primitive usage, be preserved to the several

metropolitans. We have also sent a pallium which thy fraternity will use

within the Church for the solemnization of mass only. Further, if any of

the bishops should by any chance wish to travel to any considerable

distance, let it not be lawful for him to remove to other places without

the authority of thy holiness. If any question of faith, or it may be

relating to other matters, should have arisen among the bishops, which

cannot easily be settled, let it be ventilated and decided in an assembly

of twelve bishops. But if it cannot be decided after the truth has been

investigated, let it be referred to our judgment.

2. Relations with Constantinople.

(_b_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Johannem Jejunatorem_, Reg. V, 44. (MSL,

77:738.) _Cf._ Mirbt, n. 180.

On the title “Ecumenical Patriarch.”

The controversy over the title “Ecumenical Patriarch” was a result

of Gregory’s determination to carry through, as far as possible,

the Petrine rights and duties as he conceived them. The title was

probably intended to mark the superiority of Constantinople to the

other patriarchates in the East, according to the Eastern

principle that the political rank of a city determined its

ecclesiastical rank. It seemed to Gregory to imply a position of

superiority to the see of Peter. As it certainly might imply that,

he consistently opposed it. But it had been a title in use for

nearly a century. (_Cf._ Gieseler, KG, Eng. trans., vol. I, p.

504.) Justinian in 533 so styled the patriarch of Constantinople

(Cod. I, 1, 7). For the difference in point of view between the

East and the West as to rank of great sees, see Leo’s letters on

the 28th canon of Chalcedon, A. D. 451, _supra_, in § 86.

At the time when your fraternity was advanced in sacerdotal dignity, you

recall what peace and concord of the churches you found. But, with what

daring or with what swelling of pride I know not, you have attempted to

seize upon a new name for yourself, whereby the hearts of all your

brethren would be offended. I wonder exceedingly at this, since I remember

that in order not to attain to the episcopal office thou wouldest have

fled. But now that thou hast attained unto it, thou desirest so to

exercise it as if thou hadst run after it with ambitious desire. And thou

who didst confess thyself unworthy to be called a bishop, hast at length

been brought to such a pitch that, despising thy brethren, thou desirest

to be named the only bishop. And in regard to this matter, weighty letters

were sent to thy holiness by my predecessor Pelagius, of holy memory, and

in them he annulled the acts of the synod,(246) which had been assembled

among you in the case of our former brother and fellow priest, Gregory,

because of that execrable title of pride, and forbade the archdeacon whom

he sent according to custom to the feet of our Lord(247) to celebrate the

solemnities of the mass with thee. But after his death, when I, an

unworthy man, succeeded to the government of the Church, I took care,

formerly through thy representatives, and now through our common son and

deacon, Sabianus, to address thy fraternity, not indeed in writing, but by

word of mouth, desiring thee to refrain thyself from such presumption; and

in case thou wouldest not amend I forbade his celebrating the solemnities

of the mass with thee; that so I might appeal to thy holiness through a

certain sense of shame, and then, if the execrable and profane assumption

could not be corrected through shame, I might resort to canonical and

prescribed measures. And because sores that are to be cut away should

first be stroked with a gentle hand, I beg of thee, I beseech thee, and,

as kindly as I can, I demand of thee that thy fraternity rebuke all who

flatter thee and offer thee this name of error, and not consent to be

called by a foolish and proud title. For truly I say it weeping, and out

of deepest sorrow of heart attribute it to my sins, that this my brother,

who has been placed in the episcopal order, that he might bring back the

souls of others to humility, has, up to the present time, been incapable

of being brought back to humility; that he who teaches truth to others has

not consented to teach himself, even when I implore him.

Consider, I pray thee, that by this rash presumption the peace of the

whole Church is disturbed, and that it is in contradiction to the grace

poured out on all in common; in which grace thou thyself wilt be able to

grow so far as thou thyself wilt determine to do so. And thou wilt become

by so much the greater as thou restrainest thyself from the usurpation of

proud and foolish titles; and thou wilt advance in proportion as thou art

not bent on arrogation by the humiliation of thy brethren.… Certainly

Peter, the first of the Apostles, was a member of the holy and universal

Church; Paul, Andrew, John—what are they but the heads of particular

communities? And yet all are members under one Head. And to bind all

together in a short phrase, the saints before the Law, the saints under

the Law, the saints under grace, all these making up the Lord’s body were

constituted as members of the Church, and not one of them has ever wished

himself to be called “universal.”…

Is it not the fact, as your fraternity knows, that the prelates of this

Apostolic See, which by the providence of God I serve, had the honor

offered them by the venerable Council of Chalcedon of being called

“universal”?(248) But yet not one of them has ever wished to be called by

such a title, or seized upon this rash name, lest, if in virtue of the

rank of the pontificate, he took to himself the glory of singularity, he

might seem to have denied it to all his brethren.

(_c_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Phocam_, Reg. XIII, 31. (MSL, 77:1281.)

Epistle to Phocas congratulating him on his accession.

Phocas (602-610) was a low-born, ignorant centurion whom chance

had placed at the head of a successful rebellion originating in

the army of the Danube. The rebellion was successful, and the

Emperor Maurice was murdered, together with his sons. Maurice had

been unsuccessful in war, unpopular with the army, and his

financial measures had been oppressive. Phocas was utterly

incompetent as a ruler, licentious and sanguinary as a man. His

reign was a period of horror and blood.

Gregory to Phocas. Glory to God in the highest, who, according as it is

written, changes times, and transfers kingdoms, because He has made

apparent to all what He has vouchsafed to speak by His prophet, that the

most High ruleth in the kingdom of men, and giveth it to whomsoever He

will [Dan. 4:17]. For in the incomprehensible dispensation of Almighty God

there is an alternating control of human life, and sometimes, when the

sins of many are to be smitten, one is raised up through whose hardness

the necks of subjects may be bowed down under the yoke of tribulation, as

in our affliction we have long had proof. But sometimes, when the merciful

God has decreed to refresh with His consolation the mourning hearts of

many, He advances one to the summit of government, and through the bowels

of His mercy infuses in the minds of all the grace of exultation in Him.

In which abundance of exultation we believe that we, who rejoice that the

benignity of your piety has arrived at imperial supremacy, shall speedily

be confirmed. “Let the heavens rejoice and let the earth be glad” [Psalm

96:11], and let the whole people of the republic, hitherto afflicted

exceedingly, grow cheerful for your benignant deeds. Let the proud minds

of enemies be subdued to the yoke of your domination. Let the sad and

depressed spirit of subjects be relieved by your mercy. Let the power of

heavenly grace make you terrible to your enemies; let piety make you kind

to your subjects. Let the whole republic have rest in your most happy

times, since the pillage of peace under the color of legal processes has

been exposed. Let plottings about testaments cease, and benevolences

extorted by violence end. Let secure possession of their own goods return

to all, that they may rejoice in possessing without fear what they have

acquired without fraud. Let every single person’s liberty be now at length

restored to each one under the yoke of the holy Empire. For there is this

difference between the kings of the nations and the emperors of the

republic: the kings of the nations are lords of slaves, but the emperors

lords of free men. But we shall better speak of these things by praying

than by putting you in mind of them. May Almighty God keep the heart of

your piety in the hand of His grace in every thought and deed. Whatsoever

things should be done justly, whatever things with clemency, may the Holy

Ghost, who dwells in your breast direct, that your clemency may both be

exalted in a temporal kingdom and after the course of many years attain to

heavenly kingdoms. Given in the month June, indiction six.

3. Gregory and the Schism in North Italy.

Among the results of the Fifth General Council of Constantinople,

553, was a wide-spread schism in the northern part of Italy and

adjacent lands. The bishops of the western part of Lombardy, under

the lead of the bishop of Milan, together with the bishops of

Venetia, Istria, and a portion of Illyricum, Rhætia Secunda, and

Noricum, under the bishop of Aquileia, renounced communion with

the see of Rome, and became autocephalic. Even bishops in Tuscany

abandoned communion with the see of Rome because the council and

Vigilius had condemned Theodore, Theodoret, and Ibas (_v. supra_,

§ 93). Justin II attempted to heal the schism, and his verbose

edict may be found in Evagrius, _Hist. Ec._, V, 4. A serious

problem was presented to the Roman see. In dealing with them,

however, it was possible to treat each group separately. On

account of the Lombard invasion the bishop of Aquileia removed his

see to Grado. Gregory the Great had some success in drawing the

schismatics into more friendly relations. But not till 612 was the

see of Aquileia-Grado in communion with Rome. A rival bishop was

elected, who removed his see to old Aquileia. See extract from

Paulus Diaconus (_f_). And the opposition was maintained until

about 700. The Milanese portion of the schism had long since

ended. Of Gregory’s epistles several bearing on the schism are

available in PNF, ser. II, vols. XII and XIII: Reg. I, 16; II, 46,

51; IV, 2, 38, 39; V, 51; IX, 9, 10; XIII, 33.

(_d_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Constantium_, Reg. IV, 2. (MSL, 77:669.)

Gregory to Constantius, Bishop of Milan. My beloved son, the deacon

Boniface, has given me information from a private letter of thy

fraternity: namely, that three bishops, having sought out rather than

having found an occasion, have separated themselves from the pious

communion of thy fraternity, saying that thou hast assented to the

condemnation of the three chapters and hast given a solemn pledge. And,

indeed, whether there has been any mention made of the three chapters in

any word or writing whatever, thy fraternity remembers well; although thy

fraternity’s predecessor, Laurentius (_circa_ 573), did send a most strict

security to the Apostolic See, and to it a legal number of the most noble

men subscribed; among whom, I also, at that time holding the prætorship of

the city, likewise subscribed; because, when such a schism had taken place

about nothing, it was right that the Apostolic See should be careful to

guard in all respects the unity of the universal Church in the minds of

priests. But as to its being said that our daughter, Queen

Theodelinda,(249) after hearing this news has withdrawn herself from thy

communion, it is perfectly evident that though she has been seduced to

some little extent by the words of wicked men, yet when Hippolytus the

notary and John the abbot arrive, she will seek in all ways the communion

of the fraternity.

(_e_) Gregory the Great, _Ep. ad Constantium_, Reg. IV, 39. (MSL, 77:713.)

In reply to a letter from Constantius of Milan informing Gregory

that the demand had been made upon him by the clergy of Brescia

that he should take an oath that he, Constantius, had not

condemned the Three Chapters, _i.e._, had not accepted the Fifth

General Council, Gregory advises him to take no such oath.

But lest those who have thus written to you should be offended, send them

a letter declaring under an imposition of an anathema that you neither

take away anything from the faith of the synod of Chalcedon nor receive

those who do, and that you condemn whatsoever it condemned and absolve

whatsoever it absolved. And thus I believe that they may soon be

satisfied.… As to what you have written to the effect that you are

unwilling to transmit my letter to Queen Theodelinda on the ground that

the fifth synod is named in it, for you believed that she might be

offended, you did right not to transmit it. We are therefore doing now as

you recommended, namely, only expressing approval of the four synods. Yet

as to the synod which was afterward called at Constantinople, which is

called by many the fifth, I would have you know that it neither ordained

nor held anything in opposition to the four most holy synods, seeing that

nothing was done in it with respect to the faith, but only with respect to

three persons, about whom nothing is contained in the acts of the Council

of Chalcedon;(250) but after the canons had been promulgated, discussion

arose, and final action was ventilated concerning persons.

(_f_) Paulus Diaconus, _Historia Langobardorum_, IV, 32, 33, 36. (MSL,

95:657.)

The continuation of the schism in Istria and the rise of the two

patriarchates of Aquileia. The Emperor Phocas and the title “Head

of All the Churches.”

32. In the following month of November [A. D. 605] King Agilulf concluded

peace with the Patrician Smaragdus for a year, and received from the

Romans twelve thousand solidi. Also the Tuscan cities Balneus Regis

[Bagnarea] and Urbs Vetus [Orvieto] were conquered by the Lombards. Then

appeared in the heavens in the months of April and May a star which is

called a comet. Thereupon King Agilulf again made a peace with the Romans

for three years.

33. In the same days after the death of the patriarch Severus, the abbot

John was made patriarch of old Aquileia in his place with the approval of

the king and Duke Gisulf. Also in Grados [Grado] the Roman(251)

Candidianus was appointed bishop. In the months of November and December a

comet was again visible. After the death of Candidianus, Epiphanius, who

had formerly been the papal chief notary, was elected patriarch by the

bishops who stood under the Romans; and since this time there were two

patriarchs.

36. Phocas, as also has been related above, after the murder of Maurice

and his sons, obtained the Roman Empire and ruled for eight years. At the

request of Pope Boniface(252) he decreed that the seat of the Roman and

Apostolic Church should be the head of all churches [_caput omnium

ecclesiarum_], because the Church of Constantinople in a proclamation had

named itself first of all. At the request of another Pope Boniface,(253)

he commanded that the idolatrous rubbish should be removed from the old

temple which bore the name of the Pantheon, and from it a church should be

made to the holy Virgin Mary and all martyrs, so that where formerly the

service not of all gods but of all idols was celebrated, now only the

memory of all saints should be found.

4. Gregory the Great and the Lombards.

The Lombards entered Italy 568, and gradually spread over nearly

all the peninsula. The territories retained by the Emperor from

the conquests of Justinian were only the Exarchate of Ravenna, the

Ducatus Romanus, and the Ducatus Neapolitanus, the extreme

southern parts of the peninsula and Liguria. The Lombards were the

last Germanic tribe to settle within the Empire, and like so many

others they were Arians. Theodelinda, the queen of the Lombards,

was a Bavarian princess and a Catholic. Her second husband,

Agilulf, seems to have been favorably disposed to Catholicism, far

more so than Authari, her first husband.

(_g_) Paulus Diaconus, _Historia Langobardorum_, IV, 5-9. (MSL, 95:540.)

Paulus Warnefridi, known as Paulus Diaconus (circa 720-circa 800),

was himself a Lombard, and in writing his _History of the

Lombards_ shows himself the patriot as well as the loyal son of

the Roman Church. To do this was at times difficult. The work is

one of the most attractive histories written in the Middle Ages.

For nearly all of his history, Paulus is dependent upon older

sources, but he restates the older accounts in clear and careful

fashion. The connection between the various extracts is not always

felicitous, yet he has succeeded in producing one of the great

books of history. For an analysis of the sources, see F. H. B.

Daniell, art. “Paulus (70) Diaconus” in DCB. The best edition is

that by Bethmann and Waitz in the MGH, _Scriptores rerum

Langobardorum et Italicarum sæc._ VI-IX, also in the 8vo edition.

There is an English translation of the entire work in the

_Translations and Reprints of the Historical Department of the

University of Pennsylvania_.

5. At that time the learned and pious Pope Gregory, after he had already

written much for the benefit of the holy Church, wrote also four books

concerning the lives of the saints; these books he called _Dialogus_, that

is, conversation, because in them he has introduced himself speaking with

his deacon Peter. The Pope sent these books to Queen Theodelinda, whom he

knew to be true in the faith in Christ and abounding in good works.

6. Through this queen the Church of God obtained many and great

advantages. For the Lombards, when they were still held by heathen

unbelief, had taken possession of the entire property of the Church. But,

induced by successful requests of the queen, the king, holding fast to the

Catholic faith,(254) gave the Church of Christ many possessions and

assigned to the bishops, who had theretofore been oppressed and despised,

their ancient place of honor once more.

7. In these days Tassilo was made king of Bavaria by the Frankish king

Childebert. With an army he immediately marched into the land of the

Slavs, and with great booty returned to his own land.

9. At the same time the patrician and exarch of Ravenna, Romanus,(255)

went to Rome. On his return to Ravenna he took possession of the cities

which had been taken by the Lombards. The names of them are: Sutrium

[Sutri], Polimarcium [near Bomarzio and west of Orte], Horta [Orte], Tuder

[Todi], Ameria [Amelia], Perusia [Perugia], Luceoli [near Gubbio], and

several others. When King Agilulf received word of this, he at once

marched forth from Ticinus with a strong army and pitched before the city

of Perusia. Here he besieged several days the Lombard duke Marisio, who

had gone over to the side of the Romans, took him prisoner, and without

delay had him executed. On the approach of the king, the holy Pope Gregory

was so filled with fear that, as he himself reports in his homilies, he

broke off the explanation of the temple, to be read about in Ezekiel; King

Agilulf returned to Ticinus after he had settled the matter, and not long

after, chiefly on account of the entreaties of his wife, Queen

Theodelinda, who had often been advised in letters by the holy Father

Gregory to do so, he concluded with Gregory and the Romans a lasting

peace. To thank her for this, the venerable priest sent the following

letter to the queen:

Gregory to Theodelinda, queen of the Lombards. How your excellency has

labored earnestly and kindly, as is your wont, for the conclusion of

peace, we have learned from the report of our son, the abbot Probus. Nor,

indeed, was it otherwise to be expected of your Christianity than that you

would in all ways show assiduity and goodness in the cause of peace.

Wherefore, we give thanks to Almighty God, who so rules your heart with

His lovingkindness that, as He has given you a right faith, so He also

grants you to work always what is pleasing in His sight. For you may be

assured, most excellent daughter, that for the saving of much bloodshed on

both sides you have acquired no small reward. On this account, returning

thanks for your good-will, we implore the mercy of God to repay you with

good in body and soul here and in the world to come. Moreover, greeting

you with fatherly affection, we exhort you so to deal with your most

excellent consort that he may not reject the alliance of the Christian

republic. For, as I believe you yourself know, it is in many ways

profitable that he should be inclined to betake himself to its friendship.

Do you then, after your manner, always strive for what tends to good-will

and conciliation between the parties, and labor wherever an occasion of

reaping a reward presents itself, that you may commend your good deeds the

more before the eyes of Almighty God.

§ 100. The Foundation of the Anglo-Saxon Church

The Anglo-Saxon Church owes its foundation to the missionary zeal and wise

direction of Gregory the Great. Augustine, whom Gregory sent, arrived in

the kingdom of Kent 597, and established himself at Canterbury. In 625,

Paulinus began his work at York, and Christianity was accepted by the

Northumbrian king and many nobles. On the death of King Eadwine, Paulinus

was obliged to leave the kingdom. Missionaries were brought into

Northumbria in 635 from the Celtic Church, the centre of which was at

Iona, where the new king Oswald had taken refuge on the death of Eadwine.

Aidan now became the leader of the Northern Church. As the

Christianization of the land advanced and Roman customs were introduced

into the northern kingdom, practical inconveniences as to the different

methods of reckoning the date of Easter, in which the North Irish and the

Celts of Scotland differed from the rest of the Christian Church, came to

a settlement of the difficulty at Streaneshalch, or Whitby, 664. Colman,

Bishop of Lindisfarne, the leader of the Celtic party, withdrew, and

Wilfrid, afterward bishop of York, took the lead under the influence of

the Roman tradition. The Church of the Anglo-Saxon kingdoms, now in

agreement as to custom, was organized by Theodore of Canterbury (668-690),

and developed a remarkable intellectual life, becoming, in fact, for the

first part at least of the eighth century, the centre of Western

theological and literary culture.

Additional source material: Bede, _Ecclesiastical History of the

English People_, for editions, _v. supra_, § 96. This is the best

account extant of the conversion of a nation to Christianity. H.

Gee and W. J. Hardy, _Documents Illustrative of English Church

History_, London, 1896; A. W. Haddan and W. Stubbs, _Councils and

Ecclesiastical Documents_, 1869 _ff._

(_a_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, I, 29. (MSL, 95:69.)

The scheme of Gregory the Great for the organization of the

English Church A. D. 601.

Gregory, in planning his mission, seems not to have been aware of

the profound changes in the kingdom resulting from the Anglo-Saxon

invasion. He selected York as the seat of an archbishop, because

it was the ancient capital of the Roman province in the North, and

London, because it was the great city of the South. The rivalry of

the two archbishops caused difficulties for centuries, and was a

hinderance to the efficiency of the ecclesiastical system. By this

letter, the British bishops were to be under the authority of

Augustine, a position which was distasteful to the British, who

were extremely hostile to the Anglo-Saxons, and incomprehensible

to them, as they saw no reason or justification in any such

arrangement without their consent. They withdrew from all

intercourse with the new Anglo-Saxon Church and retired into

Wales.

To the most reverend and holy brother and fellow bishop, Augustine,

Gregory, servant of the servants of God.

Although it is certain that the unspeakable rewards of the eternal kingdom

are laid up for those who labor for Almighty God, yet it is necessary for

us to render to them the benefits of honors, that from this recompense

they may be able to labor more abundantly in the zeal for spiritual work.

And because the new Church of the English has been brought by thee to the

grace of Almighty God, by the bounty of the same Lord and by your toil, we

grant you the use of the pallium, in the same to perform only the

solemnities of the mass, in order that in the various places you ordain

twelve bishops who shall be under your authority, so that the bishop of

the city of London ought always thereafter to be consecrated by his own

synod and receive the pallium of honor from the holy Apostolic See, which

by God’s authority I serve.(256) Moreover, we will that you send to York a

bishop whom you shall see fit to ordain, yet so that if the same city

shall have received the word of God along with the neighboring places, he

shall ordain twelve other bishops, and enjoy the honor of metropolitan,

because if our life last, we intend, with the Lord’s favor, to give him

the pallium also. And we will that he be subject to your authority, my

brother. But after your decease he shall preside over the bishops he has

ordained, so that he shall not be subject in anywise to the bishop of

London. Moreover, let there be a distinction of honor between the bishops

of the city of London and of York, in such a way that he shall take the

precedence who has been ordained first. But let them arrange in concord by

common counsel and harmonious action the things which need to be done for

the zeal for Christ; let them determine rightly and let them accomplish

what they have decided upon without any mutual misunderstandings.

But you, my brother, shall have subject to you not only the bishops whom

you have ordained and those ordained by the bishop of York, but also, by

the authority of our Lord Jesus Christ, the priests [_i.e._, the bishops]

of Britain; so that from the lips of your holiness they may receive the

form both of correct faith and of holy life, and fulfilling the duties of

their office in faith and morals may, when the Lord wills, attain to the

kingdom of heaven. May God keep you safe, most reverend brother. Dated the

22d June in the nineteenth year of the reign of Mauritius Tiberius, the

most pious Augustus, in the eighteenth year of the consulship of the same

Lord, indiction four.

(_b_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, III, 25 _f._ (MSL, 95:158.)

The Easter dispute and the synod of Whitby. The triumph of the

Roman tradition.

The sharpest dispute between the Celtic and the Roman churches was

on the date of Easter as presenting the most inconveniences. The

principal points were as follows: Both parties agreed that it must

be on Sunday, in the third week of the first lunar month, and the

paschal full moon must not fall before the vernal equinox. But the

Celts placed the vernal equinox on March 25, and the Romans on

March 21. The Celts, furthermore, reckoned as the third week the

14th to the 20th days of the moon inclusive; the Romans the 15th

to the 21st inclusive. The Irish Church in the southern part of

Ireland had already adopted the Roman reckoning at the synod of

Leighlin, 630-633 [Hefele, § 289]. The occasion of the difference

of custom was, in reality, that the Romans had adopted in the

previous century a more correct method of reckoning and one that

had fewer practical inconveniences. For a statement by a Celt, see

Epistle of Columbanus to Gregory the Great, in the latter’s

_Epistolæ_, Reg. IX, Ep. 127 (PNF, ser. II, vol. XIII, p. 38). In

the following selection space has been saved by omissions which

are, however, indicated.

At this time [_circa_ 652] a great and frequent controversy happened about

the observance of Easter; those that came from Kent or France asserting

that the Scots kept Easter Sunday contrary to the custom of the universal

Church. Among them was a most zealous defender of the true Easter, whose

name was Ronan, a Scot by nation, but instructed in ecclesiastical truth,

either in France or Italy, who disputed with Finan,(257) and convinced

many, or at least induced them, to make a stricter inquiry after the

truth; yet he could not prevail upon Finan … James, formerly the deacon of

the venerable archbishop Paulinus … kept the true and Catholic Easter,

with all those that he could persuade to adopt the right way. Queen

Eanfleda [wife of Oswy, king of Northumbria] and her attendants also

observed the same as she had seen practised in Kent, having with her a

Kentish priest that followed the Catholic mode, whose name was Romanus.

Thus it is said to have happened in those times that Easter was kept twice

in one year;(258) and that when the king, having ended the time of

fasting, kept his Easter, the queen and her attendants were still fasting

and celebrating Palm Sunday.…

After the death of Finan [662] … when Colman, who was also sent out of

Scotland, came to be bishop, a great controversy arose about the

observance of Easter, and the rules of ecclesiastical life.… This reached

the ears of King Oswy and his son Alfrid; for Oswy, having been instructed

and baptized by the Scots, and being very perfectly skilled in their

language, thought nothing better than what they taught. But Alfrid, having

been instructed in Christianity by Wilfrid, a most learned man, who had

first gone to Rome to learn the ecclesiastical doctrine, and spent much

time at Lyons with Dalfinus, archbishop of France, from whom he had

received the ecclesiastical tonsure, rightly thought this man’s doctrine

ought to be preferred to all the traditions of the Scots.…

The controversy having been started concerning Easter, the tonsure, and

other ecclesiastical matters, it was agreed that a synod should be held in

the monastery of Streaneshalch, which signifies the bay of the lighthouse,

where the Abbess Hilda, a woman devoted to God, presided; and that there

the controversy should be decided. The kings, both father and son, came

hither. Bishop Colman, with his Scottish clerks, and Agilbert,(259) and

the priests Agatho and Wilfrid. James and Romanus were on their side. But

the Abbess Hilda and her associates were for the Scots, as was also the

venerable bishop Cedd, long before ordained by the Scots.… Then Colman

said: “The Easter which I keep, I received from my elders who sent me

hither as bishop; all our fathers, men beloved of God, are known to have

kept it in the same manner; and that the same may not seem to any to be

contemptible or worthy of being rejected, it is the same which St. John

the Evangelist, the disciple especially beloved of our Lord, with all the

churches over which he presided, is recorded as having observed.…”

Wilfrid, having been ordered by the king to speak, said: “The Easter which

we observe we saw celebrated by all at Rome, where the blessed Apostles,

Peter and Paul, lived, taught, suffered, and were buried; we saw the same

done in Italy and France, when we travelled through those countries for

pilgrimage and prayer. We found the same practised in Africa, Asia, Egypt,

Greece, and in all the world, wherever the Church of Christ is spread

abroad, through several nations and tongues, at one and the same time …

except only those and their accomplices in obstinacy, I mean the Picts and

the Britons, who foolishly, in these two remote islands of the world, and

only in part of them, oppose all the rest of the universe.… John, pursuant

to the custom of the law, began the celebration of the feast of Easter on

the fourteenth day of the month, in the evening, not regarding whether the

same happened on a Saturday or any other day.… Thus it appears that you,

Colman, neither follow the example of John, as you imagine, nor that of

Peter, whose traditions you knowingly contradict.… For John, keeping the

paschal time according to the decree of the Mosaic law, had no regard to

the first day after the Sabbath [_i.e._, that it should fall on Sunday],

and you who celebrate Easter only on the first day after the Sabbath do

not practise this. Peter kept Easter Sunday between the fifteenth and the

twenty-first day of the moon, and you do not do this, but keep Easter

Sunday from the fourteenth to the twentieth day of the moon, so that you

often begin Easter on the thirteenth moon in the evening … besides this in

your celebration of Easter, you utterly exclude the twenty-first day of

the moon, which the law ordered to be especially observed.”

To this Colman rejoined: “Did Anatolius, a holy man, and much commended in

ecclesiastical history, act contrary to the Law and the Gospel when he

wrote that Easter was to be celebrated from the fourteenth to the

twentieth? Is it to be believed that our most reverend Father Columba and

his successors, men beloved of God, who kept Easter after the same manner,

thought or acted contrary to the divine writings? Whereas there were many

among them whose sanctity was attested by heavenly signs and the workings

of miracles, whose life, customs, discipline I never cease to follow, not

questioning that they are saints in heaven.”

Wilfrid said: “It is evident that Anatolius was a most holy and learned

and commendable man; but what have you to do with him, since you do not

observe his decrees? For he, following the rule of truth in his Easter,

appointed a cycle of nineteen years, which you are either ignorant of, or

if you know yet despise, though it is kept by the whole Church of Christ.…

Concerning your Father Columba and his followers … I do not deny that they

were God’s servants, and beloved by Him, who, with rustic simplicity but

pious intentions, have themselves loved Him.… But as for you and your

companions, you certainly sin, if, having heard the decrees of the

Apostolic See, or rather of the universal Church, and the same confirmed

by Holy Scripture, you refuse to follow them. For though your Fathers were

holy, do you think that their small number in a corner of the remotest

island is to be preferred before the universal Church of Christ throughout

the world? And if that Columba of yours (and, I may say, ours also, if he

was Christ’s servant) was a holy man and powerful in miracles, yet could

he be preferred before the most blessed prince of the Apostles, to whom

our Lord said: ‘Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I will build my Church,

and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it, and to thee I will

give the keys of the kingdom of heaven’?”

When Wilfrid had thus spoken, the king said: “Is it true, Colman, that

these words were spoken to Peter by our Lord?” He answered: “It is true, O

king.” Then he said: “Can you show any such power given to your Columba?”

Colman answered: “None.” Then the king added: “Do you both agree that

these words were principally directed to Peter, and that the keys of

heaven were given to him by our Lord?” They both answered: “We do.” Then

the king concluded: “And I also say unto you that he is the doorkeeper

whom I will not contradict, but will, as far as I know and am able in all

things, obey his decrees, lest, when I come to the gates of the kingdom of

heaven, there should be one to open them, he being my adversary who is

proved to have the keys.” The king having said this, all present, both

small and great, gave their assent, and renounced the more imperfect

institution, and resolved to conform to that which they found to be

better.… [ch. 26]. Colman, perceiving that his doctrine was rejected and

his sect despised, took with him such as would not comply with the

Catholic Easter and the tonsure (for there was much controversy about that

also) and went back to Scotland to consult with his people what was to be

done in this case. Cedd, forsaking the practices of the Scots, returned to

his bishopric, having submitted to the Catholic observance of Easter. This

disputation happened in the year of our Lord’s incarnation, 664.

(_c_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, IV, 5. (MSL, 95:180.)

The Council of Hertford A. D. 673. The organization of the

Anglo-Saxon Church by Theodore.

As the important synod of Whitby marks the beginning of conformity

of the Anglo-Saxon Church under the leadership of the kingdom of

Northumbria to the customs of the Roman Church, so the synod of

Hertford brings the internal organization of the Church into

conformity with the diocesan system of the Continent and of the

East, where the principles of the general councils were at this

time most completely enforced. Theodore of Canterbury was a

learned Greek who was sent to England to be archbishop of

Canterbury by Pope Vitalian in 668. The Council of Hertford was

the first council of all the Church among the Anglo-Saxons. For

the council, see also Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and

Ecclesiastical Documents_, III, 118-122. The text given is that of

Plummer.

In the name of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the perpetual

reign of the same Lord Jesus Christ and His government of His Church. It

seemed good that we should come together according to the prescription of

the venerable canons, to treat of the necessary affairs of the Church. We

are met together on this 24th day of September, the first indiction in the

place called Hertford. I, Theodore, although unworthy, appointed by the

Apostolic See bishop of the church of Canterbury, and our fellow priest

the most reverend Bisi, bishop of the East Angles, together with our

brother and fellow bishop Wilfrid, bishop of the nation of the

Northumbrians, present by his proper legates, as also our brethren and

fellow bishops, Putta, bishop of the Castle of the Kentishmen called

Rochester, Leutherius, bishop of the West Saxons, and Winfrid, bishop of

the province of the Mercians, were present. When we were assembled and had

taken our places, each according to his rank, I said: I beseech you,

beloved brethren, for the fear and love of our Redeemer, that we all labor

in common for our faith, that whatsoever has been decreed and determined

by the holy and approved Fathers may be perfectly followed by us all. I

enlarged upon these and many other things tending unto charity and the

preservation of the unity of the Church. And when I had finished my speech

I asked them singly and in order whether they consented to observe all

things which had been canonically decreed by the Fathers? To which all our

fellow priests answered: We are all well agreed readily and most

cheerfully to keep whatever the canons of the holy Fathers have

prescribed. Whereupon I immediately produced the book of canons,(260) and

pointed out ten chapters from the same book, which I had marked, because I

knew that they were especially necessary for us, and proposed that they

should be diligently observed by all, namely:

Ch. 1. That we shall jointly observe Easter day on the Lord’s day after

the fourteenth day of the moon in the first month.

Ch. 2. That no bishop invade the diocese of another, but be content with

the government of the people committed to him.

Ch. 3. That no bishop be allowed to trouble in any way any monasteries

consecrated to God, nor to take away by violence anything that belongs to

them.

Ch. 4. That the monks themselves go not from place to place; that is, from

one monastery to another, without letters dismissory of their own

abbot;(261) but that they shall continue in that obedience which they

promised at the time of their conversion.

Ch. 5. That no clerk, leaving his own bishop, go up and down at his own

pleasure, nor be received wherever he comes, without commendatory letters

from his bishop; but if he be once received and refuse to return when he

is desired so to do, both the receiver and the received shall be laid

under an excommunication.

Ch. 6. That stranger bishops and clerks be content with the hospitality

that is freely offered them; and none of them be allowed to exercise any

sacerdotal function without permission of the bishop in whose diocese he

is known to be.

Ch. 7. That a synod be assembled twice in the year. But, because many

occasions may hinder this, it was jointly agreed by all that once in the

year it be assembled on the first of August in the place called Clovesho.

Ch. 8. That no bishop ambitiously put himself before another, but that

every one observe the time and order of his consecration.

Ch. 9. The ninth chapter was discussed together: That the number of

bishops be increased as the number of the faithful grew;(262) but we did

nothing as to this point at present.

Ch. 10. As to marriages: That none shall be allowed to any but what is a

lawful marriage. Let none commit incest. Let none relinquish his own wife

but for fornication, as the holy Gospel teaches. But if any have dismissed

a wife united to him in lawful marriage, let him not be joined to another

if he wish really to be a Christian, but remain as he is or be reconciled

to his own wife.

After we had jointly treated on and discussed these chapters, that no

scandalous contention should arise henceforth by any of us, and that there

be no changes in the publication of them, it seemed proper that every one

should confirm by the subscription of his own hand whatever had been

determined. I dictated this our definitive sentence to be written by

Titillus, the notary. Done in the month and indiction above noted.

Whosoever, therefore, shall attempt in any way to oppose or infringe this

sentence, confirmed by our present consent, and the subscription of our

hands as agreeable to the decrees of the canons, let him know that he is

deprived of every sacerdotal function and our society. May the divine

grace preserve us safe living in the unity of the Church.

(_d_) Bede, _Hist. Ec._, IV, 17. (MSL, 95:198.)

Council of Hatfield, A. D. 680.

At the Council of Hatfield the Anglo-Saxon Church formally

recognized the binding authority of the five general councils

already held, and rejected Monotheletism in accord with the Roman

synod A. D. 649. It seems to have been, as stated in the

introduction to the Acts of the council, a preventive measure. In

Plummer’s edition of Bede this chapter is numbered 15.

At this time Theodore, hearing that the faith of the Church of

Constantinople had been much disturbed by the heresy of Eutyches,(263) and

being desirous that the churches of the English over which he ruled should

be free from such a stain, having collected an assembly of venerable

priests and very many doctors, diligently inquired what belief they each

held, and found unanimous agreement of all in the Catholic faith; and this

he took care to commit to a synodical letter for the instruction and

remembrance of posterity. This is the beginning of the letter:

In the name of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, in the reign of our most

pious lords, Egfrid, king of the Humbrians, in the tenth year of his

reign, on the fifteenth day before the Kalends of October [September 17]

in the eighth indiction, and Ethelred, king of the Mercians, in the sixth

year of his reign; and Adwulf, king of the Kentishmen, in the seventh year

of his reign; Theodore being president, by the grace of God, archbishop of

the island of Britain and of the city of Canterbury, and other venerable

men sitting with him, bishops of the island of Britain, with the holy

Gospels laid before them, and in the place which is called by the Saxon

name of Hatfield, we, handling the subject in concert, have made an

exposition of the right and orthodox faith, as our incarnate Lord Jesus

Christ delivered it to His disciples, who saw Him present and heard His

discourses, and as the creed of the holy Fathers has delivered it, and all

the holy and universal synods and all the chorus of approved doctors of

the Catholic Church teach. We therefore piously and orthodoxly following

them and, making our profession according to their divinely inspired

teaching, believe in unison with it, and confess according to the holy

Fathers that the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are properly and

truly a consubstantial Trinity in unity, and unity in Trinity; that is, in

one God in three consubstantial subsistencies or persons of equal glory

and honor.

And after many things of this kind that pertained to the confession of the

right faith, the holy synod also adds these things to its letter:

We have received as holy and universal five synods of the blessed Fathers

acceptable to God; that is, of the three hundred and eighteen assembled at

Nicæa against the most impious Arius and his tenets; and of the one

hundred and fifty at Constantinople against the madness of Macedonius and

Eudoxius and their tenets; and of the two hundred in the first Council of

Ephesus against the most wicked Nestorius and his tenets; and of the six

hundred and thirty at Chalcedon against Eutyches and Nestorius and their

tenets; and again of those assembled in a fifth council at Constantinople

[A. D. 553], in the time of the younger Justinian, against Theodore and

the epistles of Theodoret and Ibas and their tenets against Cyril.

And a little after: Also we have received the synod(264) that was held in

the city of Rome in the time of the blessed Pope Martin in the eighth

indiction, in the ninth year of the reign of the most pious

Constantine.(265) And we glorify our Lord Jesus Christ as they glorified

Him, neither adding nor subtracting anything; and we anathematize with

heart and mouth those whom they anathematized; and those whom they

received we receive, glorifying God the Father without beginning, and his

only begotten Son, begotten of the Father before the world began, and the

Holy Ghost proceeding ineffably from the Father and the Son, as those holy

Apostles, prophets, and doctors have declared whom we have mentioned

above. And we all who with Theodore have made an exposition of the

Catholic faith have subscribed hereto.

Chapter III. The Foundation Of The Ecclesiastical Institutions Of The

Middle Ages

In the period between the conversion of the Franks and the rise of the

dynasty of Charles Martel, or the period comprising the sixth and seventh

centuries, the foundation was laid for those ecclesiastical institutions

which are peculiar to the Middle Ages, and found in the mediæval Church

their full embodiment. In the Church the Latin element was still more or

less dominant, and society was only slowly transformed by the Germanic

elements. In the adjustment of Roman institutions to the new political

conditions in which Germanic factors were dominant, the Germanic and the

Roman elements are accordingly found in constantly varying proportions. In

the case of the diocesan and parochial organization, only very slowly

could the Church in the West attain that complete organization which had

long since been established in the East, and here Roman ideas were

profoundly modified by Germanic legal principles (§ 101). But at the same

time the Church’s body of teaching and methods of moral training were made

clearly intelligible and more applicable to the new conditions of

Christian life. The teaching of Augustine was received only in part at the

Council of Orange, A. D. 529 (_v. supra_, § 85), and it was profoundly

modified by the moralistic type of theology traceable to Tertullian and

even further back (_v. supra_, § 39). It was, furthermore, completed by a

clearer and more precise statement of the doctrines of purgatory and the

sacrifice of the mass, and to the death of Christ was applied

unequivocally the doctrine of merit which had been developed in the West

in connection with the early penitential discipline, and which was seen to

throw a new light upon the sacrifice of Christ upon the cross. These

conceptions served as a foundation for new discussions, and confirmed

tendencies already present in the Church (§ 102). Connected with this

theology was the penitential discipline, which, growing out of the ancient

discipline as modified by the earlier form of monastic life, especially in

Ireland, came under the influence of the Germanic legal conceptions (§

103). In the same period monasticism was organized upon a new rule by

Benedict of Nursia (§ 104), and the need of provision for the education of

the young and for the training of the clergy was felt and, to some extent,

provided for by monastery schools and other methods of education (§ 105).

§ 101. Foundation of the Mediæval Diocesan and Parochial Constitution

An outline of some of the legislation is here given, whereby the parish as

organized in the West was built up, and the diocese was made to consist of

a number of parishes under the bishop, who, however, did not exercise an

absolute control over the incomes and position of the priests under him.

The selections are given in chronological order.

(_a_) Council of Agde, A. D. 506, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 145.

This is one of the most important councils of the period. Its

various canons have all been embodied in the Canon Law; for the

references to the Decretum of Gratian, in which they appear, see

Hefele, § 222. It is to be noted that it was held under Alarich,

the Arian king of the Visigoths. The preface is, therefore, given

as being significant.

Since this holy synod has been assembled in the name of the Lord and with

the permission of our most glorious, magnificent, and most pious king in

the city of Agde, there, with knees bent and on the ground, we have prayed

for his kingdom, his long life, for the people, that the lord who has

given us permission to assemble, may happily extend his kingdom, that he

may govern justly and protect valiantly; we have assembled in the basilica

of St. Andrew to treat of the discipline and the ordination of pontiffs

and other things of utility to the Church.

Canon 21. If any one wishes to have an oratory in the fields outside of

the parishes, in which the gathering of the people is lawful and

appointed, we permit him to have a mass there with the proper license on

the other festivals, on account of the weariness of the family [_i.e._, in

going to the distant parish church], but on Easter, Christmas, Epiphany,

Ascension Day, Pentecost and the Nativity of St. John the Baptist, or if

there are any other very high festival days observed, let them hold no

masses except in the cities and parishes. But if the clergy, without the

command or permission of the bishop, hold and perform the masses on the

festivals above mentioned in the oratories, let them be driven from the

communion.

Canon 30. Because it is appropriate that the service of the Church be

observed in the same way by all, it is to be desired that it be done so

everywhere. After the antiphones the collects shall be said in order by

the bishops and presbyters, and the hymns of Matins and Vespers be sung

daily; and at the conclusion of the mass of Matins and Vespers,(266) after

the hymns a chapter of the Psalms shall be read, and the people who are

gathered shall, after the prayer, be dismissed with a benediction of the

bishop until Vespers.

Canon 38. Without letters commendatory of their bishops, it is not

permitted to the clergy to travel. The same rule is to be observed in the

case of monks. If reproof of words does not correct them, we decree that

they shall be beaten with rods. It is also to be observed in the case of

monks that it is not permitted them to leave the community for solitary

cells, unless the more severe rule is remitted by their abbot to them who

have been approved in the hermit life, or on account of the necessity of

infirmity; but only then let it be done so that they remain within the

walls of the same monastery, and they are permitted to have separate cells

under the authority of the abbots. It is not permitted abbots to have

different cells or many monasteries, or except on account of the inroads

of enemies to erect dwellings within walls.

(_b_) I Council of Orleans, A. D. 511, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 160.

Canon 15. Concerning those things which in the form of lands, vineyards,

slaves, and other property the faithful have given to the parishes, the

statutes of the ancient canons are to be observed, so that all things

shall be in the control of the bishop; but of those things which are given

at the altar, a third is to be faithfully given to the bishop.

Canon 17. All churches which in various places have been built and are

daily being built shall, according to the law of the primitive canons, be

in the control of the bishop in whose territory they are located.

(_c_) IV Council of Orleans, A. D. 541, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 208.

Canon 7. In oratories on landed estates, the lords of the property shall

not install wandering clergy against the will of the bishop to whom the

rights of that territory belong, unless, perchance, they have been

approved, and the bishop has in his discretion appointed them to serve in

that place.

Canon 26. If any parishes are established in the houses of the mighty, and

the clergy who serve there have been admonished by the archdeacon of the

city, according to the duty of his office, and they neglect to do what

they ought to do for the Church, because under the protection of the lord

of the house, let them be corrected according to the ecclesiastical

discipline; and if by the agents of these lords, or by these lords

themselves of the place, they are prevented from doing any part of their

duty toward the Church, those who do this iniquity are to be deprived of

the sacred rites until, having made amends, they are received back into

the peace of the Church.(267)

Canon 33. If any one has, or asks to have, on his land a diocese [_i.e._,

parish], let him first assign to it sufficient lands and clergy who may

there perform their duties, that suitable reverence be done to the sacred

places.

(_d_) V Council of Orleans, A. D. 549, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 208.

At this council no less than seven archbishops, forty-three

bishops and representatives of twenty-one other bishops were

present. It was, therefore, a general council of the Frankish

Church, although politically the Frankish territory was divided

into three kingdoms held respectively by Childebert, Chlothar, and

Theudebald. Orleans itself was in the dominion of Childebert.

_Cf._ preface to the canons of II Orleans, A. D. 533, which states

that that council was attended by five archbishops and the deputy

of a sixth, as well as by bishops from all parts of Gaul, and was

called at the command of the “Glorious kings,” _i.e._, Childebert,

Chlothar, and Theudebert.

Canon 13. It is permitted to no one to retain, alienate, or take away

goods or property which has been lawfully given to a church, monastery, or

orphan asylums for any charity; that if any one does do so he shall,

according to the ancient canons [_cf._ Hefele, §§ 220, 222], be regarded

as a slayer of the poor, and shall be shut out from the thresholds of the

Church so long as those things are not restored which have been taken away

or retained.

(_e_) Council of Braga, A. D. 572, _Canons_. Bruns, II, 37.

Canon 5. As often as bishops are requested by any of the faithful to

consecrate churches, they shall not, as having a claim, ask any payment of

the founders; but if he wishes to give him something from a vow he has

made, let it not be despised; but if poverty or necessity prevent him, let

nothing be demanded of him. This only let each bishop remember, that he

shall not dedicate a church or basilica before he shall have received the

endowment of the basilica and its service confirmed by an instrument of

donation; for it is a not light rashness for a church to be consecrated,

as if it were a private dwelling, without lights and without the support

of those who are to serve there.

Canon 6. In case of any one who builds a basilica, not from any faithful

devotion, but from the desire of gain, that whatsoever is there gathered

of the offerings of the people he may share half and half with the clergy,

on the ground that he has built the basilica on his own land, which in

various places is said to be done quite constantly, this therefore ought

hereafter to be observed, that no bishop consent to such an abominable

purpose, that he should dare to consecrate a basilica which is founded not

as the heritage of the saints but rather under the condition of tribute.

(_f_) II Council of Toledo, A. D. 589, _Canons_. Bruns, I, 217.

Canon 19. Many who have built churches demand that these churches,

contrary to the canons, shall be consecrated in such a way that they shall

not allow the endowment, which they have given the church, to belong to

the control of the bishop; when this has been done in the past, let this

be void, and in the future forbidden; but let all things pertain to the

power and control of the bishop according to the ancient law.

§ 102. Western Piety and Thought in the Period of the Conversion of the

Barbarians

In the century following Augustine, the dogmatic interest of the Church

was chiefly absorbed in the Christological controversies in the East.

There were, however, some discussions in the West arising from the

manifest difficulty of reconciling the doctrine of predestination, as

drawn from Augustine, with the efficacy of baptism. For the adjustment of

the teaching of Augustine to the sacramental system of the Church and to

baptism more particularly, see the Council of Orange, A. D. 529, of which

the principal conclusions are given above (§ 85). In the sixth century and

in the early part of the seventh, doctrines were clearly enunciated which

had been abundantly foreshadowed by earlier writers, but had not been

fitted into an intelligible and practical system. These were especially

the doctrine of purgatory and the sacrifice of the mass. The doctrine of

purgatory completed the penitential system of the early Church by making

it possible to expiate sin by suffering in a future existence, in the case

of those who had died without completely doing penance here. By the

sacrifice of the mass the advantages of Christ’s death were constantly

applied, not merely to the sin of the world in general, but to specified

objects; the believer was brought into closest contact with the great act

of redemption, and a centre was placed around which the life of the

individual and the authority of the hierarchy could be brought into

relation.

Additional source material: The works of Gregory the Great, PNF.

(_a_) Cæsarius of Arles, _Sermon_ 104. (MSL, 39:1947, 1949.)

Cæsarius presided at the Council of Orange A. D. 529. He died in

543. Not a few of his sermons have been mixed up with those of

Augustine, and this sermon is to be found in Appendix to the works

of Augustine in the standard editions of that Father. It should be

noted that this conception of purgatory is not wholly unlike that

of St. Augustine; see his _Enchiridion_, chs. 69, 109 (_v. supra_,

§ 84); also _De Civ. Dei_, 20:25; 21:13.

Ch. 4. By continual prayers and frequent fasts and more generous alms, and

especially by forgiveness of those who sin against us, we diligently

redeem our sins, lest by chance when collected together against us at once

they make a great mass and overwhelm us. Whatsoever of these sins shall

not have been redeemed by us is to be purged by that fire concerning which

the Apostle said: “Because it will be revealed by fire, and if any man’s

work is burned he will suffer loss” (I Cor. 3:15). If in tribulation we do

not give thanks to God, if by good works we do not redeem our sins, we

will remain so long in that fire of purification(268) until the little,

trifling sins, as hay, wood, and stubble are consumed.

Ch. 8. All saints who serve God truly strive to give themselves to reading

and prayer, and to perseverance in good works, and building no mortal sins

and no little sins, that is, wood, hay, and stubble, upon the foundation

of Christ; but good works, that is, gold, silver, and precious stones,

will without injury go through that fire of which the Apostle spoke:

“Because it will be revealed by fire.” But those who, although they do not

commit capital sins, yet are prone to commit very little sins and are

negligent in redeeming them, will attain to eternal life because they

believed in Christ, but first either in this life they are purified by

bitter tribulation, or certainly in that fire of which the Apostle speaks

they are to be tormented, that they may come to eternal life without spot

or wrinkle. But those who have committed homicide, sacrilege, adultery and

other similar sins, if there does not come to their aid suitable

penitence, will not deserve to go through that fire of purification to

life, but they will be thrown into death by eternal fire.

(_b_) Gregory the Great, _Dialogorum libri IV, de Vita et Miraculis Patrum

Italicorum_, IV, 56. (MPL, 77:425.)

The sacrifice of the mass.

See also the selection below on the doctrine of purgatory.

It should be considered that it is safer to do to men, while one is

living, the good which one hopes will be done by others after one’s death.

It is more blessed to depart free than to seek liberty after chains. We

ought, with our whole mind, despise the present world, especially since we

see it already passing away. We ought to immolate to God the daily

sacrifice of our tears, the daily offerings of His flesh and blood. For

this offering peculiarly preserves the soul from eternal death, and it

renews to us in a mystery the death of the Only begotten, who, although

being risen from the dead, dieth no more, and death hath no more dominion

over Him (Rom. 6:9); yet, while in Himself He liveth immortal and

incorruptible, for us He is immolated again in this mystery of the sacred

oblation. For it is His body that is there given, His flesh that is

divided for the salvation of the people, His blood that is poured, no

longer into the hands of unbelievers, but into the mouths of the faithful.

For this let us ever estimate what this sacrifice is for us, which for our

absolution ever imitates the passion of the only begotten Son. For what

one of the faithful can have any doubt that at the very hour of the

offering [_immolatio_], at the word of the priest, the heavens are opened,

the choirs of angels are present at the mystery of Jesus Christ, the

lowest things are united to the highest, earthly things with heavenly, and

from the invisible and the visible there is made one?

(_c_) Gregory the Great, _Dialog._, IV, 39. (MSL, 77:393.)

The doctrine of purgatory.

Gregory hardly adds anything to Augustine more than a clearer

definition after the lines laid down by Cæsarius of Arles.

From these sayings [John 12:35; II Cor. 6:2; Eccles. 9:10] it is evident

that as one left the earth so one will appear before the judgment. Yet

still it is to be believed that for certain slight sins there is to be

before that judgment a fire of purification, because the Truth says that,

if one utters blasphemy against the Holy Ghost, his sin will be forgiven

him neither in this world nor in the future [Matt. 12:31]. From this

saying one is given to understand that some sins can be forgiven in this

life, others in a future life.

(_d_) Gregory the Great, _In Evangelia_, II, 37, 8. (MSL, 76:1279.)

The application of the sacrifice of the mass to persons in

purgatory.

Not long before our time the case is told of a certain man who, having

been taken captive, was carried far away [_cf. Dialog._, IV, 57], and

because he was held a long time in chains his wife, since she had not

received him back from that captivity, believed him to be dead and every

week she had the sacrifice offered for him as already dead. And as often

as the sacrifice was offered by his spouse for the absolution of his soul,

the chains were loosed in his captivity. For having returned a long time

after, greatly astonished he told his wife that on certain days each week

his chains were loosed. His wife considered the days and hours, and then

knew that he was loosed when, as she remembered, the sacrifice was offered

for him. From that perceive, my dearest brothers, to what extent the holy

sacrifice offered by us is able to loose the bonds of the heart, if the

sacrifice offered by one for another can loose the chains of the body.

§ 103. The Foundation of the Mediæval Penitential System

The penitential system, as it was organized in the Western Church in the

sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries, was but the carrying out of

principles which had appeared elsewhere in Christendom and were involved

in the primitive method of dealing with moral delinquents by the

authorities of the Church. [See the epistles of Basil the Great to

Amphilochius (Ep. 189, 199, 217) in PNF, ser. II, vol. VIII.] Similar

problems had to be handled everywhere whenever the Church came to deal

with moral conduct, and much the same solution was found everywhere. There

is, however, no known connection between the earliest penitentials of the

Western Church, those of Ireland, and the similar books of the East. There

is no need of supposing that there was a connection. But in the case of

the works attributed to Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury,

himself a Greek and probably a native of Tarsus, there is a provable

connection which is evident to any one reading his work, as he refers to

Basil and others. The characteristics of the Western penitentials are

their minute division of sins, their exact determination of penances for

each sin, and the great extent to which they were used in the practical

work of the Church. They serve as the first crude beginnings of a moral

theology of a practical character, such as would be needed by the poorly

trained parish clergy of the times in dealing with their flocks. On

account of the nature of these works, it is hardly necessary or expedient

to give more than a few brief extracts in addition to references to

sources. Much of the matter is extremely offensive to modern taste.

(_a_) King Æthelberht, _Laws_. Thorpe, _Ancient Laws and Institutes_

(Rolls Series), 1 _ff._

The Early Germanic Codes are full of regulations whereby for an

injury the aggrieved party, or his family in case of his death,

could be prevented from retaliating in kind upon the aggressor and

his family. This was effected by a money payment as compensation

for damages sustained, and the amount for each sort of injury was

carefully regulated by law, _i.e._, by ancient custom, which was

reduced to writing in the sixth century in some cases. The _Laws

of Æthelberht_ are written in Anglo-Saxon and are probably the

earliest in a Teutonic language. For a translation of

characteristic portions of the _Salic Law_, which should be

compared with the _Laws of Æthelberht_ to show the universality of

the same system, see Henderson, _Select Historical Documents of

the Middle Ages_, p. 176, London, 1892; also Hodgkin, _Italy and

Her Invaders_, VI, 183, for the Lombard law of Rothari, a little

later, but of the same spirit.

21. If any man slay another, let him make bot with a half leod-geld of 100

shillings.

22. If any man slay another at an open grave, let him pay 20 shillings and

pay the whole leod within 40 days.

23. If a stranger retire from the land, let his kindred pay a half leod.

24. If any one bind a freeman, let him make bot with 20 shillings.

25. If any one slay a ceorl’s hlaf-aeta,(269) let him make bot with 5

shillings.

38. If a shoulder be lamed,(270) let bot be made with 12 shillings.

39. If the ear be struck off, let bot be made with 12 shillings.

40. If the other ear hear not, let bot be made with 25 shillings.

41. If an eye be struck out, let bot be made with 50 shillings.

51. For each of the four front teeth, 6 shillings; for the tooth that

stands next to them, 4 shillings; for that which stands next to that, 3

shillings, and then afterward 1 shilling.

(_b_) Vinnian, _Penitential_. Wasserschleben, _Die Bussordnungen der

abendländischen Kirche_, 108 _ff._

This is one of the earliest of the penitentials and belongs to the

Irish Church.

1. If one has committed in his heart a sin of thought and immediately

repents of it, let him smite his breast and pray God for forgiveness and

perform satisfaction because he has sinned.

2. If he has often thought of the sins and thinks of committing them, and

is then victor over the thought or is overcome by it, let him pray God and

fast day and night until the wicked thought disappears and he is sound

again.

3. If he has thought on a sin and determines to commit it, but is

prevented in the execution, so is the sin the same, but not the

penance.(271)

6. If a cleric has planned in his heart to smite or kill his neighbor, he

shall do penance half a year on bread and water according to the

prescribed amount, and for a whole year abstain from wine and the eating

of meat, and then may he be permitted again to approach the altar.

7. If it is a layman, he shall do penance for a whole week; for he is a

man of this world and his guilt is lighter in this world and his

punishment in the future is less.

8. If a cleric has smitten his brother [_i.e._, a clergyman] or his

neighbor and drawn blood … he shall do penance a whole year on bread and

water; he may not fill any clerical office, but must with tears pray to

God for himself.

9. Is he a layman, he shall do penance for 40 days, and according to the

judgment of the priest or some other righteous man pay a determined sum of

money.

(_c_) Theodore of Tarsus, _Penitential_, I. Haddan and Stubbs, III, 73

_ff._

For Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, see W. Stubbs,

art. “Theodorus of Tarsus” in DCB. That he wrote a penitential is

not certain. But that he was regarded as the author of a

penitential is clear enough. In fact, his name is attached to

penitentials in much the same way as David’s name is attached to

the whole book of Psalms. For a discussion of the various works

attributed to Theodore, see Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and

Ecclesiastical Documents_, _loc. cit._ This is a characteristic

penitential and may be regarded as following closely the decisions

and opinions of Theodore. Much of it is unprintable in English.

Cap. I. _On drunkenness._ 1. If any bishop or other person ordained is

customarily given to the vice of drunkenness, let him cease from it or be

deposed.

2. If a monk vomit from drunkenness, let him do 30 days’ penance.

3. If a presbyter or deacon do the same, let him do 40 days’ penance.

4. If any one by infirmity or because he has abstained for a long time,

and it is not his habit to drink or eat much, or for joy at Christmas or

at Easter, or for the commemoration of any of the saints, does this, and

he has not taken more than is decreed by the elders, he has done no wrong.

If the bishop should have commanded, he does no harm to him unless he

himself does likewise.

5. If a believing layman vomits from drunkenness, let him do 15 days’

penance.

6. He who becomes drunk against the commandment of the Lord, if he has a

vow of holiness let him do penance 7 days on bread and water, and 70 days

without fat; the laity without beer.

7. Whoever out of malice makes another drunk, let him do penance 40 days.

8. Whoever vomits from satiety let him do penance 3 days.

9. If with the sacrifice of the communion, let him do penance 7 days; but

if out of infirmity, he is without guilt.

Cap. II. _On fornication._

Cap. III. _On theft._

Cap. IV. _On the killing of men._ [This should be compared with the

secular laws.]

1. If any one out of vengeance for a relative kill a man, let him do

penance as for homicide 7 or 10 years. If, however, he is willing to

return to relatives the money of valuation [Weregeld, according to the

secular rating], the penance will be lighter, that is by one-half the

length.

2. He who kills a man for vengeance for his brother, let him do penance 3

years; in another place he is said to do penance 10 years.

3. But homicides 10 or 7 years.

4. If a layman kills another man with thoughts of hatred, if he does not

wish to relinquish his arms, let him do penance 7 years, without flesh and

wine 3 years.

5. If any one kills a monk or a clergyman, let him relinquish his arms and

serve God(272) or do 7 years’ penance. He is in the judgment of the

bishop. But he who kills a bishop or a presbyter, the judgment concerning

him is in the king.

6. He who by the command of his lord kills a man, let him keep away from

the church 40 days; and he who kills a man in a public war, let him do

penance 40 days.

7. If out of wrath, 3 years; if by chance, 1 year; if by drink or any

contrivance, 4 years or more; if by strife, let him do penance 10

years.(273)

Cap. V. _Concerning those who are deceived by a heresy._

Cap. VI. _Concerning perjury._

Cap. VII. _Concerning many and various wrong acts and those necessary

things which are not harmful._

Cap. VIII. _Concerning various failings of the servants of God._

Cap. IX. _Concerning those who are degraded or cannot be ordained._

Cap. X. _Concerning those who are baptized twice, how they shall do

penance._

Cap. XI. _Concerning those who violate the Lord’s Day and the appointed

fasts of the Church._

Cap. XII. _Concerning the communion of the eucharist or the sacrifice._

Cap. XIII. _Concerning reconciliation._

Cap. XIV. _Especially concerning the penance of those who marry._

Cap. XV. _Concerning the worship of idols._

(_d_) Bede, _Penitential_, ch. XI. Haddan and Stubbs, _Councils and

Ecclesiastical Documents_, III, 32.

The Penitential of Bede is to be distinguished from the _Liber de

Remediis Peccatorum_ attributed to him, _cf._ Haddan and Stubbs,

_op. cit._, who print the genuine penitential. It belongs to the

period before 725. In not a few points it closely resembles that

of Theodore. The concluding passage here given is to be found in

many penitentials with but little variation. It is probably as

early as the work itself, although apparently not by Bede. It is a

method of commuting penances. In place of fasting inordinate or

impossible lengths of time, other penances could be substituted.

In later ages still other forms of commutation were introduced.

Even money payments were used as commutation of penance.

XI. _On Counsel to be Given._

We read in the penitential of doing penance on bread and water, for the

great sins one year or two or three years, and for little sins a month or

a week. Likewise in the case of some the conditions are harsh and

difficult. Therefore to him who cannot do these things we give the counsel

that psalms, prayers, and almsgiving ought to be performed some days in

penance for these; that is, that psalms are for one day when he ought to

do penance on bread and water. Therefore he should sing fifty psalms on

his knees, and if not on his knees seventy psalms inside the church or in

one place. For a week on bread and water, let him sing on his knees three

hundred psalms in order and in the church or in one place. And for one

month on bread and water, one thousand five hundred psalms kneeling, or if

not kneeling one thousand eight hundred and twenty, and afterward let him

fast every day until the sixth hour and abstain from flesh and wine; but

whatsoever other food God has given him let him eat, after he has sung the

psalms. And he who does not know psalms ought to do penance and to fast,

and every day let him give to the poor the value of a denarius, and fast

one day until the ninth hour, and the next until vespers, and after that

whatsoever he has let him eat.

§ 104. The New Monasticism and the Rule of Benedict of Nursia

In the first centuries of monasticism in the West, the greatest variety

was to be found among the constitutions of the various monastic houses and

the rules drawn up by great leaders in the ascetic movement. This variety

extended even to the nature of the vows assumed and their obligation.

Benedict of Nursia (circa 480 to circa 544), gave the rule according to

which for some centuries nearly all the monasteries of the West were

ultimately organized. The first great example of this rule in operation

was Benedict’s own monastery at Monte Cassino. For a time the rule of

Benedict came into conflict with that of Columbanus in Gaul.(274) But the

powerful recommendation of Gregory the Great, who had introduced it in

Rome, and the intrinsic superiority of the rule itself made the

Benedictine system triumphant. It should be noted that the Benedictine

cloisters were for centuries independent establishments and only formed

into organized groups of monasteries in the great monastic reforms of the

tenth and following centuries. It is a question how far the Benedictine

rule was introduced into England in the early centuries of the Anglo-Saxon

Church, although it is often taken for granted that it was introduced by

Augustine. Critical edition of the Benedictine rule by Wölfflin, Leipsic,

1895; in Migne’s edition there is an elaborate commentary with many

illustrative extracts and formulæ, as well as traditional glosses.

Additional source material: An abbreviated translation of the

Benedictine rule may be found in Henderson, _Select Historical

Documents_, 1892, and in full in Thatcher and McNeal, _A Source

Book for Mediæval History_, 1905.

(_a_) Benedict of Nursia, _Regula_. (MSL, 66:246.)

1. _Concerning the kinds of monks and their modes of living._ It is

manifest that there are four kinds of monks. The first is that of the

cenobites, that is the monastic, serving under a rule and an abbot. The

second kind is that of the anchorites, that is the hermits, those who have

learned to fight against the devil, not by the new fervor of conversion,

but by a long probation in a monastery, having been taught already by

association with many; and having been well prepared in the army of the

brethren for the solitary fight of the hermit, and secure now without the

encouragement of another, they are able, God helping them, to fight with

their own hand or arm against the vices of the flesh or of their thoughts.

But a third and very bad kind of monks are the sarabites, not tried as

gold in the furnace by a rule, experience being their teacher, but

softened after the manner of lead; keeping faith with the world by their

works, they are known by their tonsure to lie to God. Being shut up by

twos and threes alone and without a shepherd, in their own and not in the

Lord’s sheepfold, they have their own desires for a law. For whatever they

think good and choose, that they deem holy; and what they do not wish,

that they consider unlawful. But the fourth kind of monk is the kind

called the _gyrovagi_, who during their whole life are guests for three or

four days at a time in the cells of different monasteries throughout the

various provinces; they are always wandering and never stationary, serving

their own pleasures and the allurements of the palate, and in every way

worse than the sarabites. Concerning the most wretched way of all, it is

better to keep silence than to speak. These things, therefore, being

omitted, let us proceed with the aid of God to treat of the best kind, the

cenobites.

2. _What the abbot should be like._ An abbot who is worthy to preside over

a monastery ought always to remember what he is called and to carry out in

his deeds the name of a superior. For in the monastery he is believed to

be Christ’s representative, since he is called by His name, the Apostle

saying: “We have received the spirit of adoption of sons, whereby we cry

Abba, Father” [Rom. 8:15]. And so the abbot ought not (and oh that he may

not!) teach or decree or order anything apart from the precepts of the

Lord; but his order or teaching should be sprinkled with the leaven of

divine justice in the minds of his disciples.… No distinctions of persons

shall be made by him in the monastery. One shall not be loved by him more

than another, unless the one whom he finds excelling in good work and

obedience. A free-born man shall not be preferred to one coming from

servitude, unless there be some reasonable cause. But when it is just and

it seems good to the abbot he shall show preference no matter what the

rank shall be. But otherwise they shall keep their own places; for,

whether we be bound or free, we are all one in Christ, and under God we

perform an equal service of subjection; for God is no respecter of persons

[Acts 10:34].…