RISE OF THE PAPACY
OUTLINE: I.--Favourable conditions when the Christian era
began. II.--Forces at work up to 313. III.--Description of the
Roman Church in 313. IV.--Growth of the Papacy from 313 to
604. V.--Condition of the Papacy at the close of this period,
604. VI.--Sources.
To see how a handful of outlawed, persecuted Christians in Rome became
the omnipotent hierarchy of the Middle Ages is to comprehend the most
marvellous fact in European history. But when the conditions and forces,
which produced this wonderful organisation, are clearly understood, the
miracle becomes a natural and an inevitable product.
In the first century of the Christian era Rome was the heart and
mistress of the world.[148:1] The Apostle Paul gloried in having
introduced Christianity into the great metropolis.[148:2] The Roman
Empire had developed an imperial and provincial system of government
which was to serve as the model for the organisation of the Christian
Church. This decaying Empire, after a futile contest with Christianity,
was to become its servant. The mighty Catholic Church was little more
than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as
converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the
Christian Empire. The office of Pontifex Maximus was continued in that
of Pope. The deeply religious character of the Romans on the one hand,
and the inadequate and degenerate religion which they held on the other,
were positive and negative forces enabling the Christian Church to make
rapid conquests in territory and numbers. Even the Roman language has
remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through
the ages. Christianity could not grow up through Roman civilisation and
paganism, however, without in turn being coloured and influenced by the
rites, festivities, and ceremonies of old polytheism. Christianity not
only conquered Rome, but Rome conquered Christianity. It is not a matter
of great surprise, therefore, to find that from the first to the fourth
century the Church had undergone many changes. During the first half of
the third century the hierarchical scheme of Church government appeared
to reach a very advanced stage of organisation. Cyprian gives us the
boldest and broadest claim of the Bishop of Rome to the heirship of
Peter. By the fourth century the hierarchical and monarchial principles
were fully developed, and the Papacy had begun its wonderful career.
The leading forces operating to develop the Roman hierarchy up to 313
will now be indicated.
1. The fundamental factor which first attracts attention in the
consideration of this problem is the obvious advantage in location. In
the origin of the civilisation of Western Europe three cities have been
conspicuous for their contributions--Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome.
Jerusalem, the sacred city, gave Christianity to the West and through
the West to the world. Athens, the city of culture, bequeathed
philosophy, art, ideals, and science to the Romans, and through them to
the Celts, Teutons, and all peoples. Rome, the city of power, overthrew
Jerusalem, took Athens captive, received the contributions of both as
her right, and on the ruins of both built up her universal sovereignty.
The rise of Rome to world dominion is one of the deepest mysteries in
history. Rome possessed the matchless capacity of appropriating
everything on earth that would contribute to her greatness. When Jesus
appeared to give the world Christianity, Rome was the centre of all
power and influence.
Rome was in the highest degree adapted to spread civilisation abroad.
From Rome influences could be sent out into the world which could not
possibly have emanated from Jerusalem or Athens. In fact anything
connected with Rome assumed, in consequence, an importance by virtue of
Rome's greatness that no other part of the world could give.
Christianity in its cosmopolitan character resembled Rome and was drawn
thither irresistibly as the best centre for propagandism. Hence, from
the outset, the Roman Christian Church was a church of world-wide
importance and power, and her bishop the most influential. Out of the
ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the "giant
form" of the Roman Church. In the marvellous rise of the Roman Church is
seen in strong relief the majestic office of the Bishop of Rome.[150:1]
2. In addition to the favourable location and extraordinary opportunity
that site gave, the fact that the Church, planted in Rome and there
organised by Peter and Paul, was thus established on a double apostolic
foundation gave to the Bishop of Rome a respected and commanding
position from the very outset.[151:1] No other church west of the
Adriatic could claim such a distinguished origin. It was both easy and
logical, therefore, to make the Bishop of Rome not only a commanding
leader in the universal Church, but more particularly the conspicuous
head of the Church of the West.[151:2]
3. The theory about Peter's primacy,[151:3] asserted certainly as early
as the second century and generally accepted in the third century, gave
an indelible character to both the person and office of the Bishop of
Rome, and elevated him high above all other officers in the Church. The
actual _belief_ in this theory, a fact which cannot be questioned, made
possible the realisation of the papal hierarchy. It seems to be an
actual fact, likewise, that before the end of the second century the
pontiffs of Rome had assumed a title implying a jurisdiction over the
whole Christian world as successors and representatives of Peter, the
Prince of Apostles. Irenæus said: "Because, therefore, of her apostolic
foundation, and the regular succession of bishops, through whom she hath
handed down that which she received from them [the Apostles], all
churches, that is, all the faithful around her and on all sides, must on
account of her more powerful pre-eminence resort to this church, in
which the tradition, which is from the Apostles, is preserved."[151:4]
Tertullian, after he had joined the heretical Montanists, accused the
Bishop of Rome of assuming the titles of "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop
of Bishops."[152:1] He complains also that the "Supreme Pontiff" was in
the habit of quoting the decisions of his predecessors as conclusive on
all disputed questions, and that he furthermore claimed that he himself
sat in the chair of St. Peter. These charges show how early the Petrine
claims were made and recognised.[152:2]
4. The missionary zeal of the Roman Church soon led to the formation of
a number of suburban branches and within a comparatively short period to
the spread of Christianity throughout Italy and to other sections of
Western Europe.[152:3] These local churches naturally looked to the head
of the Church in the great capital for assistance and instruction, and
were willing to acknowledge his jurisdiction and pretensions. The
episcopal organisation of the Church in the West, which was probably
present from the beginning,[152:4] made the transition to the hierarchy
comparatively simple. At Rome the process may be more plainly traced
than in connection with any other church.
5. The persecutions of the Christians[152:5] centred in Rome and,
consequently, made the Bishop of Rome a conspicuous leader, with social
and political, as well as religious duties, whose office was frequently
sanctified by martyrdom. The persecutions helped to emphasise the
necessity of a better organisation on a monarchio-episcopal basis. That
organisation became very exclusive,[153:1] and made a responsible head
imperative. Who else but the Bishop of Rome could meet the demands? To
him was given, by general consent in the West, the headship of the
Church and he began to act as the conscious Pope of Christendom.
6. The Bishop of Rome was the only official organ of communication
between the East and West. He was the sole Patriarch of all the united
West, while the East had four Patriarchs,[153:2] and the sixth canon of
the Council of Nicæa confirmed his jurisdiction as an "ancient custom."
From Clement (95), whose writings are the earliest of any Bishop of Rome
preserved, onward, he speaks in an authoritative tone, not only to the
churches of Carthage, Italy, and Gaul, but also to Greece, Asia Minor,
Palestine, and Alexandria. Notwithstanding the fact that Alexandria and
Antioch also claimed Peter for their founder, yet not one of the four
patriarchates attempted to contest Rome's claim to priority of
rank.[153:3]
7. The head of the Roman Church was the champion of orthodoxy and kept
the Western Church free from schism. The Church of Rome stood
consistently for purity in doctrine and steadfastly opposed that
Oriental mysticism which polluted the Eastern churches with a host of
heretic and theosophic jugglers. Epiphanius gives a list of forty-three
distinct heresies in his day. It was no easy matter for the Church of
Rome to faithfully combat all these theological vagaries and point out
the straight but narrow way. As a reward of her fight for the simple
gospel-truth the provincial churches bestowed upon her their affection,
confidence, and obedience. They frequently referred for their own
guidance to her spiritual experience, in deference and respect they
sought her counsels, they watched her course with anxiety and faithfully
imitated it, and all these things gave her a singular spiritual
influence and authority in this early period, which was not unlike the
political power exercised by the city of Rome. Again and again the
Bishop of Rome was requested to pass judgment on the various heresies.
8. After the apostolic days, the multitudes who embraced Christianity
seemed in many instances to lack the original fervour and spirituality.
Hence to control the erring, to correct the heretical, to expel those
who brought disgrace to the society, and to protect the faithful, it
became necessary to develop some more efficient form of
government.[154:1] The Roman model of imperial and local government
naturally suggested itself and was either consciously or unconsciously
imitated. The gradual transformation of the Bishop of Rome into the Pope
of Rome was the product.
9. In the apostolic days the practice generally prevailed of referring
all civil, as well as ecclesiastical, disputes between Christians to the
arbitrament of their superior ecclesiastical officials. St. Paul even
went so far as to forbid his converts to resort to the pagan
tribunals.[154:2] This work devolved upon the bishop, as a matter of
course, who acted, however, rather with paternal authority and through
moral influence, than in accordance with fixed Church law. Thus special
duties were laid upon the Bishop of Rome because of his superior rank
and extended jurisdiction.
So rapidly did his prerogatives develop that he was early recognised
both East and West as, practically, a court of appeal. About 95 A.D.,
Clement of Rome wrote letters of remonstrance and admonition to settle a
wrangle in the church at Corinth, and so respected were these epistles
that for a century they were publicly read in the churches. About the
year 150 one Marcian was excommunicated by his bishop and appealed to
Rome for admission to communion. The petition was refused but it shows
the influence of the Bishop of Rome. Polycarp of Smyrna showed at least
a dutiful deference in going to Rome to lay before Bishop Anicetus (152)
the disputed paschal question. When the East and the West were divided,
about 190 A.D., upon the proper day for celebrating Easter, Bishop
Victor of Rome assumed the authority to decide on the correct day and
insisted that all Christendom conform to his decision. The Eastern
churches refused to obey him, it is true, but the Council of Nicæa
enforced universal conformity to the day chosen by Victor.[155:1] When
Fortunatus and Cyprian of Carthage quarrelled over the former's claim to
the title of bishop, Fortunatus appealed to the Bishop of Rome,
Cornelius, for official recognition. Cornelius assumed the right to
remonstrate with Cyprian and to demand an explanation of his conduct.
Cyprian repudiated foreign jurisdiction in the domestic affairs of the
African Church, but at the same time recognised Rome as "the chair of
Peter--that principal Church whence the sacerdotal unity takes its
rise."[156:1] In 252, two Spanish bishops, Basileides and Martialis,
were deposed for misconduct by a synod of their province. They appealed
to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who peremptorily ordered that both be
reinstated.[156:2] The bishops of Gaul applied to Stephen for advice as
to what to do with Marcian, the Bishop of Arles, who had embraced
Novatianism.[156:3] In the West, it seems, therefore, that practically
all disputes and misunderstandings were referred to the recognised head
of the Church for advice and settlement. Again and again the Eastern
Patriarchs appealed to the Patriarch of the West for support and his
support was usually decisive. Likewise the various factions in the many
Eastern schisms strove for favourable decisions from the Roman Bishop.
In 260 Bishop Dionysius of Rome called the Patriarch of Alexandria to
account for false doctrines. Even a Roman Emperor, Aurelian (270),
declared that no one, not appointed by the "bishops of Italy and Rome,"
should remain in the See of Antioch.[156:4] As a result of these
appeals, the power and authority of the Roman Bishop were magnified so
that, gradually, he came to claim this exercise as his right, and, in
addition, precedents were set which were to become ecclesiastical laws
in the next period.[156:5]
10. The idea of one Catholic Church seems to have resulted from the
intense struggle against the various forms of heresy, which had divided
the early Christians into sects somewhat like the various Protestant
denominations of to-day. This conception of ecclesiastical unity and
universality had two sides: doctrine and ceremony. To teach the true
doctrine and to perpetuate sacramental unity the priesthood was created.
The persecutions emphasised the fundamental doctrines which united all
Christians and made them conscious of this unity of belief. In order to
enforce this uniformity the Bishop of Rome exercised the power of
excommunication. Victor took it upon himself to excommunicate the Bishop
of Ephesus and his fellow-officials for refusing to conform to the mode
of celebrating Easter in the West (190). Irenæus emphasised the
necessity and value of a spiritual unity in the Church,[157:1] and to
"the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church" of Rome
he conceded the most accurate apostolic tradition.[157:2] He declared
that it was "a matter of necessity that every church should agree with
this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority."[157:3] Tertullian
spoke of the Catholic Church as if its eternal unity were a common
concept.[157:4] It was left to Cyprian, however, to boldly hold up the
occupant of the See of Rome as the representative of both the organised
and the sacramental unity of the Church beyond which there could be no
salvation. In his book on the _Unity of the Church_, Cyprian asked:
He that abideth not in the unity of the church, doth he
believe that he holdeth to the faith? He that struggleth
against and resisteth this church, he that deserteth the Chair
of St. Peter, upon which the church is founded, can he have
any assurance that he is in the church? . . . Likewise . . .
Paul teacheth the sacrament of unity saying: "There is one
body and one spirit and one hope of our calling; one Lord, one
faith, one baptism, one God." . . . The episcopate is indeed
one . . . the church also is one . . . there is also but one
head and one source. . . . Whoever is excluded from the church
. . . is severed from the promises of the church. . . . He is
a stranger, an outcast, and enemy. He cannot have God for his
father, who hath not the church for his mother. . . . He that
doth not hold this unity doth not hold the law of God . . . he
partaketh not of life or of salvation.[158:1]
The power of excommunication to preserve the doctrinal unity and purity
of the Church implied some share in appointment and administration. From
the very beginning, no doubt, the Bishop of Rome had ordained all
provincial bishops, and few matters of great importance had been
transacted without his consent or approval.[158:2]
The same tendencies and influences that led to the evolution of the
bishop in the early local churches for the sake of order and efficiency,
produced a centralisation of power in the universal Church. With the
growth of the idea that the Church had an outward organisation developed
the conscious need of a supreme bishop who could rule the Church
somewhat as the Emperor ruled the state. That such a unifying authority
was generally understood to exist by the time of Cyprian seems very
clear from contemporary testimony. But it took two hundred and fifty
years to develop that leadership. There were not wanting, either, on all
sides evidences of earlier local independence. The rise of the Papacy
was the logical culmination of the episcopal system. It must be
remembered that by the time of Bishop Cyprian the Church had undergone a
series of wonderful changes. The Church had spread outwardly until the
whole Empire was covered and included all ranks. The Church had come to
be naturalised in the Empire and was gradually compromising with
conditions. Some conception of the part Christianity was to play in the
world began to dawn on men's minds. The ascendency of the See of St.
Peter was regarded, therefore, quite generally as a necessity.
11. The centralisation of wealth in Rome rendered the Church there the
wealthiest in Christendom. These riches were lavishly used, during the
first three hundred years, to aid the poorer communities.[159:1] Such
favours could not be solicited, or received, without an appreciable
sacrifice of independence on the part of the recipients. Ignatius,
considering the munificence of the Roman Church, and wishing to confer
some special distinction, calls her "the fostering mistress of
charity."[159:2]
12. From the time of Peter to Constantine the Great, thirty-two bishops
occupied the chair of the Prince of Apostles. The number and character
of the members of the Roman Church led to the selection of the ablest of
the Western Christians to occupy that important office. These successive
bishops, from the weight of their personal influence, transmitted a
gradually increasing power. The labours of a few of these remarkable
men who filled the Roman See, like Clement, Victor, Callistus, and
Stephen, helped powerfully to lay the foundations for the Papacy.
Clement's attitude was "almost imperious." Victor in his presumption on
the Easter question, Zephyrinus on the assumption of his proud title of
Pontifex Maximus and Bishop of Bishops, Callistus concerning lapsed
heretics, and Stephen on the baptism of heretics, were all guilty of
"hierarchical arrogance."[160:1] Cyprian (d. 258) looked upon Rome as
the _Cathedra Petri_ and the Roman Church as the head of the universal
Church.[160:2] Thus it may be accepted as an established fact that the
Bishop of Rome was generally accepted as Peter's successor, at least in
the West, when Emperor Constantine legalised the Christian religion and
made it free to complete its organisation and to carry on its
propagandism openly. He also increased the wealth and power of the Roman
See and made its bishop the undisputed head of the Western Church. At
the same time, in removing his capital to Constantinople, Constantine
permitted the Roman Bishop to assume imperial prerogatives and
encouraged the completion of the Church organisation after the imperial
model.
A comparison of the Church in 313 with the Apostolic Church reveals the
fact that many pronounced changes and developments had occurred. In
extent the Roman Church had spread from the Eternal City over the entire
Italian peninsula and then to Spain, France, England, Germany, and
Africa, and numbered perhaps 10,000,000 members. In organisation the
Church had changed from a democracy to an absolute monarchy, from many
local centres of authority to one great world power based on an
imperial hierarchy, from communism to paternalism, from decentralisation
to centralisation, from apostolic simplicity to worldly grandeur, and
from a spiritual organisation to one largely political. The spiritual
shepherd of the flock at Rome had come to claim and to exercise superior
prerogatives over Western Europe and to serve the Roman Emperor as
virtually his spiritual adviser. In wealth and culture, too, the Church
had become a powerful social, industrial, and educational factor.
In institutions, rites, and ceremonies, as well as in organisation, the
Church of the third and fourth centuries was very different from that of
the first. A pompous ritualism with suggestions of image worship had
been introduced.[161:1] Great emphasis had come to be laid upon the
sanctity and power of holy water,[161:2] sacred relics and places,
pilgrimages, and the use of the cross.[161:3] The development of new
ideas in reference to the merit of external works resulted in asceticism
and a celibate priesthood, fanatical martyrdom, indiscriminate
almsgiving, and various patent methods for spiritual benefits. At the
same time the number of Church festivals had greatly increased and now
included Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, and various saints' days.[161:4]
These new ideas and practices naturally gave the priest the lofty
position of mediator between God and man. A differentiation in the
ministry gradually crept in as an outcome of the hierarchical spirit.
The Bishop of Rome was elevated above all bishops as God's chosen
representative on earth. The bishops were exalted above all the
presbyters or priests. The priests in turn held a position far superior
to the subordinate officials, who had now come to include sub-deacons,
readers, acolytes, precentors or cantors, janitors, exorcists,[162:1]
and other officials of minor importance.[162:2] These under officers
likewise were cut off from the laity by a pronounced gulf.[162:3]
To conduct the general affairs of the Church, synods and councils of the
clergy came into existence as early as the second century.[162:4] Roman
or Greek assemblies may have suggested the form of the synod, though it
is more probable that they sprang spontaneously out of the needs of the
Church. These meetings at first were irregular and very informal and
resulted either in resolutions with no binding force on the dissentient
minority, or in a letter. There were four classes of councils: (1.) The
synod of a single diocese which probably existed from the beginning.
(2.) The provincial council of the bishops of several dioceses. This
type began early in the second century. (3.) General councils consisting
of the bishops of several provinces. (4.) Universal councils
representing the whole Church. When Constantine gave Christianity legal
recognition, councils became more common for the purpose of formulating
common rules and dogmas, as for instance Arles (314). After the Council
of Nicæa in 325 the validity of earlier decisions was recognised and
given the force of imperial law. Thus had the councils changed in a few
years from local to general, from recommending to sovereign
bodies.[163:1]
Paralleling this remarkable evolution in the organisation of the Church
was a marked departure from the simplicity and purity of the early
Christian life on the part of both clergy and laity. The "Apostolical
Constitutions," the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," and the decrees of
the councils of Elvira (306), Arles (314), Neo-Cæsarea (314), and Nicæa
(325) all reveal the worldliness of the clergy in the laws passed
against their engaging in worldly pursuits, frequenting taverns and
gambling houses, accepting usury, habits of vagrancy, taking bribes, and
immorality. Because the multitude of pagan converts were carrying their
ideas and practices into the Church, many corrective measures were
enacted against this degeneration. The licentiousness of the clergy
became a still more crying sin among the laity, for it was unreasonable
to expect the rank and file to be better than their leaders.
FOOTNOTES:
[148:1] Acts xix., 21; xxiii., 11; xxv., 11; xxviii., 14 _ff._
[148:2] Rom. i., 8.
[150:1] Gregorovius, i., 5.
[151:1] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 104, 107.
[151:2] The East had four Patriarchs: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria,
and Constantinople.
[151:3] See Chap. VI.
[151:4] _Against Heresies_, iii., c. 3.
[152:1] _On Modesty_, § 1.
[152:2] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 107-108.
[152:3] Gibbon, i., 579 _ff._ See Chap. V.
[152:4] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 175.
[152:5] See Chap. VII.
[153:1] Origen said: "_Extra hanc domum_, i.e., _extra ecclesiam nemo
salvator_." _Hom._ 3.
St. Cyprian of Carthage asked: "Do they that are met outside of the
Church of Christ think that Christ is with them when they meet? . . . It
is not possible for one to be a martyr who is not in the church." _Unity
of the Church_, ch. 13, 14.
[153:2] Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, and, later,
Constantinople. The four early patriarchates were of apostolic
foundation.
[153:3] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 193.
[154:1] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 164, 165.
[154:2] 1 Cor. vi., 1, 13.
[155:1] See Smith and Cheetham, _Dict. of Christ. Antiq._, for a full
discussion of the paschal controversy.
[156:1] Cyprian, _Ep._ 49, 55. Greenwood, i., 168, thinks this quotation
a later interpolation.
[156:2] Cyprian, _Ep._ 68.
[156:3] _Ibid._, _Ep._ 67.
[156:4] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vii., 30.
[156:5] It must be remembered that Rome had no monopoly of these appeals
and that her decisions were not always accepted in these early days.
_Cf._ Greenwood, i., 171 _ff._
[157:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, v., 23-25.
[157:2] Irenæus, _Against Heresy_, iii., 3.
[157:3] _Library of Ante-Nic. Fathers_, v.
[157:4] _Ibid._, xv.
[158:1] _Library of Ante-Nic. Fathers_, viii.
[158:2] Greenwood, _Cathedra Petri_, i., 192.
[159:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, iv., 23; vii., 6.
[159:2] _To Corinth_, Ep. i., c. 44.
[160:1] Schaff, iii., 351.
[160:2] _Ep._, 43: 5; 55: 8; 59: 14; _Lib. of Ante-Nic. Fathers_, viii.
[161:1] _Apost. Const._, viii., 6-15; Alzog, i., §§ 92, 93.
[161:2] _Apost. Const._, viii., 28.
[161:3] Alzog, § 95.
[161:4] _Ibid._, § 93.
[162:1] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, vi., 43.
[162:2] Alzog, i., 393.
[162:3] Hatch, _Org. of the Early Christ. Churches_, 143 _ff._
[162:4] Euseb., _Eccl. Hist._, v., 16; Tertullian, _De Jejunus_, 13;
Cyprian, _Ep._ 75; Hatch, _Org. of the Early Christ. Churches_, 169,
170.
[163:1] _See_ Hefele, _Hist. of Ch. Councils_, i., § 1-17.