II. MONASTICISM, CLERICALISM AND HIERARCHISM.

§ 44. MONASTICISM.[121]

Disgusted with worldly pursuits and following an impulse of the

oriental character in favour of the contemplative life, many ascetics

withdrew into deserts and solitudes, there as Anchorets (ἐρεμίται,

μοναχοί, μονάζοντες), amid prayer and labour, privation and self-denial,

wringing out of the wilderness their scanty support, they strove after

holiness of life which they thought they could reach only by forsaking

the accursed world. The place where this extravagant extreme of the

old ascetism arose was the Thebaid in Upper Egypt (§ 39, 3). The first,

and for a long time isolated, examples of such professional abandonment

of the world may be traced back to the 3rd century; but they had wider

spread first in the post-Constantine Age. The example of St. Anthony was

specially influential in leading a number of like-minded men to betake

themselves to isolated dwellings, λαῦραι, in his neighbourhood and to

place themselves under his spiritual direction. In this we have already

the transition from a solitary anchoret life to a communal cœnobite

life (κοινὸς βίος), and this reached maturity when Anthony’s disciple

Pachomius gathered the scattered residents in his district into one

common dwelling, _Claustrum_, _Cœnobium_, _Monasterium_, _Mandra_=fold,

and bound them under a common system of ascetic practice in prayer and

labour, especially basket making and carpet weaving. This arrangement,

without, however, any tendency to displace the anchoret life properly

so-called, won great favour, and this went on for some decades until

first of all in the East, then also in the West about A.D. 370, the land

was covered over with monasteries. The monastic life under its twofold

aspect was now esteemed as βὶος ἀγγελικός (Matt. xxii. 30), φιλοσοφία

ὑψηλή, _melior vita_. Yet even here corruption soon spread. Not merely

the feeling of spiritual need, but ambition, vanity, slothfulness

and especially the desire to avoid military service and villainage,

taxes and imposts, induced men to enter the monasteries. The Emperor

Valens therefore issued an order in A.D. 365 that such men should be

dragged out by force from their retreats. Spiritual vices too were not

wanting--extravagance and fanaticism, spiritual pride, etc. All the

more did the most distinguished bishops, _e.g._ Basil the Great, feel

it their duty to take the monasteries under their special supervision

and care. Under such direction, besides serving their own special

purpose, they became extremely important and beneficial as places of

refuge for the oppressed and persecuted, and as benevolent institutions

for the sick and the poor. Sometimes also by the introduction of

theological studies as seminaries to prepare candidates for the higher

ecclesiastical offices. Other prelates, however, preferred to use their

monks as a trusty horde for the accomplishment of their own ambitious

party ends. The monks were always reckoned among laymen, but were

distinguished from the _Seculares_ as _Religiosi_ or _Conversi_.

§ 44.1. =The Biography of St. Anthony.=--According to the _Vita

s. Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius, Anthony was sprung from a

wealthy Coptic family of the country town of Coma in Upper Egypt,

and was born in A.D. 251. At the age of eighteen he lost his

parents, and, being powerfully affected by hearing the story of

the rich young ruler in the gospel read in church, he gave away

all his goods to the poor and withdrew into the desert (A.D. 285).

Amid terrible inward struggles, which took the form of daily

conflicts with demons, who sprang upon him from the sides of his

cave in the shape of all sort of beasts and strange creatures,

he spent a long time in a horrible tomb, then twenty years in the

crumbling ruins of a castle, and finally he chose as his constant

abode a barren mountain, afterwards called Anthony’s Mount,

where a well and some date palms afforded him the absolutely

indispensable support. His clothing, a sheep’s skin and a hairy

cloak, was on his body day and night, nor did he ever wash

himself. The fame of his holiness attracted a multitude of

like-minded ascetics who settled in his neighbourhood and

put themselves under his spiritual direction. But also men of

the world of all ranks made pilgrimages to him, seeking and

finding comfort. Even Constantine and his sons testified in

correspondence with him their veneration, and he answered “like

a Christian Diogenes to the Christian Alexander.” Pointing to

Christ as the only miracle worker, he healed by his prayers

bodily maladies and by his conversations afflictions of the soul.

Amid the distress of the persecution of Maximian in A.D. 311 he

went to Alexandria, but found not the martyrdom which he courted.

Again, in A.D. 351, during the bitter Arian controversy (§ 50),

he appeared suddenly in the great capital, this time gazed at

by Christians and pagans as a divine wonder, and converting

crowds of the heathen. In his last days he resigned the further

direction of the society of hermits gathered about him to his

disciple Pachomius, himself withdrawing along with two companions

into an unknown solitude, where he, bequeathing to the author his

sheepskin, died in A.D. 356, in his 105th year, after exacting a

promise that no one should know the place of his burial.--Until

the appearance of this book, which was very soon translated into

Latin by a certain Evagrius, no single writer, neither Lactantius,

nor Eusebius, nor even Athanasius in any of his other undoubtedly

genuine writings, mentions the name of this patriarchal monk

afterwards so highly esteemed, and all later writers draw only

from this one source. Weingarten has now not only proved that

this _Vita s. Ant._ is not a biography in the proper sense, but

a romance with a purpose which was intended “to represent the

ideal of a monkish life dovetailed into the ecclesiastical system

and raised notwithstanding all popular and vital elements into

a spiritual atmosphere,” but has also disproved the Athanasian

authorship of the book, without, however, seeking to deny the

historical existence of St. Anthony and his importance in the

establishment of monasticism, as this is already vouched for

by the fact that even in the 4th century in the days of Rufinus

pilgrimages were made to _Mons Antonii_.--The most important

witness for the Athanasian authorship is Gregory Nazianzen, who

begins his panegyric on Athanasius delivered in Constantinople

only a few years after that father’s death, which occurred in

A.D. 373, with the wish that he could describe brilliantly the

life of the highly revered man, as he himself had portrayed the

ideal of monasticism in the person of St. Anthony. But, on the

other hand, Jerome in his _Vita Pauli_ and Rufinus in his _Hist.

eremit._ seem not yet to have known the author of the book,

and the former, first in his _De scriptoribus ecclst._, written

twenty years later, knows that Athanasius was the author. Internal

reasons, too, seem with no small weight to tell against the

authenticity of the book, the biographical contents of which are

largely intermixed with fabulous and legendary elements.

§ 44.2. =The Origin of Christian Monasticism.=--From the fact

that not only Lactantius, but also Eusebius, whose history

reaches down to A.D. 324, have nothing to say of a monasticism

already developed or then first in process of development, it

may perhaps be concluded that although in a general way such

an institution was already in existence, it had not yet become

known beyond the bounds of the Thebaid where it originated.

But from the fact that Eusebius, who died in A.D. 340, in his

_Vita Constantini_ reaching down to A.D. 337, never makes any

mention of monasticism, we cannot with like probability infer

a continuance of such ignorance down to the above-mentioned

year, but must attribute it to the limited range of the book

in question. In his commentary on Ps. lxviii. 7 and lxxxiv. 4

he distinctly speaks of a Christian monasticism. The fugitive

Athanasius, too, so early as A.D. 356 betakes himself to the

monks of the Thebaid, and stays for a year with them (§ 50, 2, 4),

which presupposes a certain measure of organization and celebrity

on the part of the community of that region. In his _Hist.

Arianorum ad monachos_, written about A.D. 360, he declares that

already monasticism had spread through all the τόποι or districts

of Egypt. Of a monasticism outside of Egypt, however, even this

writing still knows nothing. We shall not, therefore, greatly

err if we assume that the latter years of Constantine’s reign

are to be taken as the period of the essential origin of Egyptian

monasticism; though from this it is not to be concluded that

the first isolated beginnings of it, which had not yet won

any special recognition, are not to be assigned to a very much

earlier period. Even the Old and New Testaments, in the persons

of Elijah, John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, tell of

temporary withdrawals, from religious and ascetical motives, into

the wilderness. But even the life-long professional anchoretism

and cœnobitism had their precursors in the Indian _gymnosophists_,

in the East-Asiatic Buddhism and the Egyptian Serapis worship,

and to a certain extent also in the Essenism of Palestine

(§ 8, 4). From the place of its origin and the character of

its development, however, Christian monasticism can have been

influenced only by the Egyptian Serapis worship, and that in

a very general sort of way. That this actually was the case,

Weingarten especially has sought to prove from various analogies

based upon the learned researches of French Academicians.

§ 44.3. =Oriental Monasticism.=--For centuries Egypt continued

the central seat and training school of Christian monasticism

both for the East and for the West. The most celebrated of all

the Egyptian hermit colonies was that founded by Pachomius,

formerly perhaps a monk of Serapis, († 348), at Tabennæ, an

island of the Nile. To the mother monastery were soon attached

numerous daughter monasteries. Each of these institutions was

under the direction of a president called the abbot, _Abbas_,

_i.e._ “father,” or Archimandrite; while all of them together

were under the superior of the parent monastery. Similar unions

were established by Ammonius among the Nitrian mountains, and by

Macarius the Elder (§ 47, 7) in the Scetic desert. Hilarion, a

disciple of St. Anthony († 371), is celebrated by Jerome as the

founder of Palestinian monasticism. The _Vita Hilarionis_ of

the latter, richly adorned with records of adventurous travels

and wonderful events, most extravagant wonders and demoniacal

apparitions, like the life of Paul of Thebes (§ 39, 4), has

been recently shown to be a romance built upon certain genuine

reminiscences. Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen with

youthful enthusiasm sought to introduce monasticism into their

native Asia Minor, while Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste († 380),

carried it still further east. But though among the Syrian

discourses of Aphraates (§ 47, 13) there is found one on

monasticism, which thus would seem to have been introduced into

Mesopotamia by A.D. 340, this is in contradiction to all other

witnesses and awakens a suspicion of the ungenuineness of the

discourse, which is further confirmed by its being wanting

in the Armenian translation, as well as in the enumeration

of Gennadius.--The zeal especially of Basil was successful in

ennobling monasticism and making it fruitful. The monastic rules

drawn up by him superseded all others in the East, and are to

this day alone recognised in the orthodox Greek Church. According

to these every monastery had one or more clerics for conducting

worship and administering the sacrament. Basil also advanced

the development and influence of monasticism by setting down

the monasteries in the neighbourhood of the cities. In the

5th century two of the noblest, most sensible and talented

representatives of ancient monasticism did much for its elevation

and ennobling; namely, Isidore, who died about A.D. 450,

abbot and priest of a cloister at Pelusium in Egypt, and his

contemporary Nilus, who lived among the monks of Sinai. The not

inconsiderable remnants of their numerous letters still extant

testify to their far-reaching influence, as well as to the noble

and liberal spirit which they manifested (§ 47, 6, 10).[122] A

peculiar kind of cœnobite life is found amongst the =Acoimetæ=,

for whom the Roman Studius founded about A.D. 46O the afterwards

very celebrated monastery _Studion_ at Constantinople, in which

as many as a thousand monks are said to have lived together

at one time. They took their name from the divine service

uninterruptedly continued in their cloister night and day. From

the 5th century the legislative Synods undertook the care of the

monasteries. The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 put them under

the jurisdiction of the bishop. Returning to the world was at

first freely permitted, but was always regarded as discreditable

and demanding submission to penance. From the 6th century,

however, monastic vows were regarded as of life-long obligation,

and therefore a regular canonical age was fixed and a long

novitiate prescribed as a time of testing and consideration.

About this time, too, besides the _propria professio_, the

_paterna devotio_ was also regarded as binding in accordance

with the example of 1 Sam. i. 11.

§ 44.4. =Western Monasticism.=--The West did not at first take

kindly to the monastic idea, and only the combined exhortations

of the most respected bishops and teachers of the Church, with

Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine at their head, secured for it

acceptance there. The idea that already the universally revered

Athanasius who from A.D. 341 resided a long time in Rome (§ 50, 2),

had brought hither the knowledge of Egyptian monasticism and

first awakened on behalf of it the sympathies of the Westerns,

is devoid of any sure foundation. Owing, however, to the free

intercourse which even on the side of the Church existed between

East and West, it is on the other hand scarcely conceivable that

the first knowledge of Eastern monasticism should have reached

Italy through Jerome on his return in A.D. 373 from his Eastern

travels. But it is certain that Jerome from that time most

zealously endeavoured to obtain recruits for it in the West,

applying himself specially to conspicuous pious ladies of Rome

and earning for this scant thanks from their families. The

people’s aversion, too, against monasticism was so great that

even in A.D. 384, when a young female ascetic called Blasilla,

the daughter of St. Paula, died in Rome as some supposed from

excessive fasting, an uproar was raised in which the indignant

populace, as Jerome himself relates, cried out, _Quousque genus

detestabile monachorum non urbe pellitur? Non lapidibus obruitur?

non præcipitatur in fluctus?_ But twenty years later Jerome could

say with exultation, _Crebra virginum monasteria, monachorum,

innumerabilis multitudo, ut ... quod prius ignominiæ fuerat,

esset postea gloriæ_. Popular opposition to the monks was longest

and most virulently shown in North Africa. Even so late as

about A.D. 450, Salvianus reports the expressions of such hate:

_Ridebant, ... maledicebant ... insectabantur ... detestabantur

... omnia in monacho pœne fecerunt quæ in Salvatorem nostrum

Judæorum impietas_, etc. Nevertheless monasticism continued

to spread and therewith also the institution grew in popular

esteem in the West. Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established it

in Northern Gaul in A.D. 370; and in Southern Gaul, Honoratus

[Honorius] about A.D. 400 founded the celebrated monastery of

Serinum, on the uninhabited island of Lerina, and John Cassianus

(§ 47, 21), the still more celebrated one at Massilia, now

Marseilles. The inroads of the invaders well nigh extinguished

Western monachism. It was Benedict of Nursia who first, in

A.D. 529, gave to it unity, order, and a settled constitution,

and made it for many centuries the pioneer of agricultural

improvement and literary culture throughout the Western empire

that had been hurled into confusion by the wars of the barbarians

(§ 85).

§ 44.5. =Institution of Nunneries.=--Virgins devoted to God, who

repudiated marriage, are spoken of as early as the 2nd century.

The limitations of their sex forbade them entering on the life

of anchorets, but all the more heartily did they adopt the idea

of the cloister life. St. Anthony himself is said to have laid

its first foundations when he was hastening away into solitude,

by establishing at Coma for the sake of his sister whom he

was leaving behind, an association of virgins consecrated unto

God. Pachomius founded the first female cloister with definite

rules, the superior of which was his own sister. From that time

there sprang up a host of women’s cœnobite unions. The lady

superior was called _Ammas_, “mother;” the members, μοναχαί,

_sanctimoniales_, _nonnæ_, which was a Coptic word meaning chaste.

The patroness of female monachism in the West was St. Paula

of Rome, who was the scholar and friend of Jerome. Accompanied

by her daughter Eustochium, she followed him to Palestine, and

founded three nunneries at Bethlehem.

§ 44.6. =Monastic Asceticism.=--Although the founders of the

Eastern monastic rules subjected themselves to the strictest

asceticism and performed them to a remarkable extent, especially

in fasting and enduring privations, yet the degree of asceticism

which they enjoined upon their monks in fasting, watching, prayer

and labour, was in general moderate and sensible. Valorous acts

of self mortification, so very congenial to the oriental spirit,

are thus met with in the proper monastic life seldomer than among

ascetics living after their own fancy in deserts and solitudes.

This accounts for the rare appearance of the =Stylites= or pillar

saints, by whom expression was given in an outward way to the

idea of elevation above the earthly and of struggle toward heaven.

The most celebrated of these was _Simeon Stylites_, who lived in

the neighbourhood of Antioch for thirty years on a pillar seventy

feet high, and preached repentance to the people who flocked to

him from every side. Thousands of Saracens who roamed through

those regions sought baptism, overcome, according to the legend,

by the power of his discourse. He died A.D. 459. After him the

most celebrated pillar saints were one _Daniel_ who died at

Constantinople in A.D. 489, and a younger _Simeon_ who died at

Antioch in A.D. 596.

§ 44.7. =Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.=--Even

after the regulating of monachism by Pachomius and Basil, there

were still isolated hermit societies which would be bound by no

rules. Such were the =Sarabaites= in Egypt and the =Remoboth=

in Syria. Crowds of monks, too, under no rule swarmed about,

called Βοσκοί, _Pabulatores_ or Grazers, because they supported

themselves only on herbs and roots. In Italy and Africa from

the 5th century we hear of so-called =Gyrovagi=, who under the

pretence of monachism led a useless vagabond life. Monasticism

assumed a decidedly heretical and schismatical character among

the Euchites and Eustathianists in the second half of the 4th

century. The =Euchites=, called also from their mystic dances

_Messalians or Chorentes_, not to be confounded with the pagan

Euchites (§ 42, 6), thought that they had reached the ideal of

perfection, and were therefore raised above observance of the law.

Under pretext of engaging in constant prayer and being favoured

with divine visions, they went about begging, because work was

not seemly for perfect saints. Every man they taught, by reason

of his descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an

evil demon who can be overcome only by prayer, and thus evil

can be torn out by the roots. Then man is in need neither of the

law, nor of holy scripture, nor of the sacraments, and may be

unconditionally left to himself, and may even do that which to

a legal man would be sinful. The mystic union of God and man they

represented by lascivious acts of sensual love. They understood

the gospel history only as an allegory and considered fire the

creative light of the universe. By craft and espionage Bishop

Flavian of Antioch, in A.D. 381, came to know their secret

principles and proceedings. But notwithstanding the persecution

now directed against them, they continued in existence till the

6th century. The =Eustathianists= took their name from Eustathius,

Bishop of Sebaste, the founder of monasticism in the eastern

provinces of the empire. Their fanatical contempt of marriage

went so far that they regarded fellowship with the married impure

and held divine service by themselves alone. They repudiated the

Church fasts and instead ordained fasts on Sundays and festival

days, and wholly abstained from eating flesh. The women dressed

in men’s clothes. From the rich they demanded the surrender of

all their goods. Servants forsook their masters, wives their

husbands, in order to attach themselves to the associations

of these saints. But the resolute interference of the Synod of

Gangra in Paphlagonia, between A.D. 360 and A.D. 370, checked

their further spread.--More closely related to the old ascetic

order than to the newly organized monasticism was a sect which,

according to Augustine, had gained special acceptance among the

country people round about Hippo. In accordance with the example

of Abel, who in the Old Testament history is without children,

its members, the so-called =Abelites=, indeed married, but

restrained themselves from marital intercourse, in order that

they might not by begetting children contribute to the spread of

original sin, and maintained their existence by the adoption of

strange children, one boy and one girl being received into each

family.

§ 45. THE CLERGY.

The distinction between clergy and laity was ever becoming more

and more clearly marked and in the higher church offices there grew

up a spiritual aristocracy alongside of the secular aristocracy. The

priesthood arrogated a position high above the laity just as the soul

is higher than the body. There was consequently such a thronging into

the clerical ranks that a restriction had to be put upon it by the

civil laws. The choice of the clergy was made by the bishops with the

formal consent of the members of the church. In the East the election

of bishops lay ordinarily with the episcopal board of the province

concerned though under the presidency of the metropolitan, whose duty

it was to ordain the individual so elected. The episcopal chair of the

imperial capital, however, was generally under the patronage of the

court. In the West on the other hand the old practice was continued,

according to which bishops, clergy and members of the church together

made the election. At Rome, however, the emperor maintained the right

of confirming the appointment of the new bishop. The exchange of one

bishopric for another was forbidden by the Nicene Council as spiritual

adultery (Eph. v. 33 ff.), but was nevertheless frequently practised.

The monarchical rank of the bishop among the clergy was undisputed. The

_Chorepiscopi_ (§ 34, 3) had their episcopal privileges and authority

always more and more restricted, were made subordinate to the city

bishops, and finally, about A.D. 360, were quite set aside. To the

Presbyters, on the other hand, in consequence of the success of the

anti-episcopal reaction, especially among the daughter and country

churches, complete independence was granted in regard to the ministry

of the word and dispensation of sacraments, with the exception of the

ordination of the clergy, and in the West also the confirmation of the

baptism, which the bishop alone was allowed to perform.

§ 45.1. =Training of the Clergy.=--The few theological seminaries

of Alexandria, Cæsarea, Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis could not

satisfy the need of clerical training, and even these for the

most part disappeared amid the political and ecclesiastical

upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries. The West was entirely

without such institutions. So long as pagan schools of learning

flourished at Athens, Alexandria, Nicomedia, etc., many Christian

youths sought their scientific preparation for the service of

the church in them, and added to this on the Christian side by

asceticism and theological study among the anchorets or monks.

Others despised classical culture and were satisfied with what

the monasteries could give. Others again began their clerical

career even in boyhood as readers or episcopal secretaries,

and grew up under the oversight and direction of the bishop or

experienced clergymen. Augustine organized his clergy into a

monastic association, _Monasterium Clericorum_, and gave it the

character of a clerical seminary. This useful institution found

much favour and was introduced into Sicily and Sardinia by the

bishops driven out by the Vandals. The _Regula Augustini_, so

often referred to the Latin Middle Ages, is of later and

uncertain origin, but is based upon two discourses of Augustine,

“_De Moribus Clericorum_” and an Epistle to the Nuns at

Hippo.--The age of thirty was fixed upon as the canonical age

for entering the order of presbyter or priest; twenty-five for

that of deacon. Neophytes, those who had been baptized on a

sickbed (_Clinici_), penitents and energoumeni, _Bigenie_, the

mutilated, eunuchs, slaves, actors, comedians, dancers, soldiers,

etc., were excluded from the clerical office. The African church

even in the 4th century prescribed a strict examination of

candidates as to their attainments and orthodoxy. Justinian

at least insisted upon a guarantee of orthodoxy by means of

episcopal examination.--=Ordination=[123] made its appearance

as an appendage to the baptismal anointing as a sacramental

ordinance. The one was consecration to the priesthood in the

special sense: the other in the general sense; both bore a

_character indelibilis_. Their efficacy was generally regarded

as of a magical kind. The imparting of ordination was exclusively

an episcopal privilege; but presbyters could assist at the

consecration of those of their own order. The proposition:

_Ne quis vage ordinatur_, was of universal application; the

missionary office was the only exception. The anniversaries of

episcopal ordinations, _Natales episcoporum_, were frequently

observed as festivals. Legally no one could be ordained to a

higher ecclesiastical office, who had not passed through all the

lower offices from that of subdeacon. In earlier times ordination

consisted only in imposition of hands; but subsequently, after

the pattern of baptism there was added an anointing with _Chrism_,

_i.e._ oil with balsam. The Lord’s Supper was partaken of

before ordination, the candidate having previously observed a

fast.--From the 5th century it was made imperative that the party

ordained should adopt the =Tonsure=.[124] It had been introduced

first in connection with the penitents, then as a symbol of

humility it found favour among the monks, and from these it

passed over to the clergy. Originally the whole head was shaved

bare. At a later period the Greek tonsure, _Tonsura Pauli_, which

merely shaved the forehead, was distinguished from the Romish,

_Tonsura Petri_, which left a circle of hair round about the

crown of the head, as a memorial of Christ’s crown of thorns or

as the symbol of the royal priesthood, _Corona sacerdotalis_.

The shaving of the beard, as an effeminate foppish custom, seemed

to the ancient church to detract from the sternness and dignity

of the clerical rank. In all Eastern churches the full beard was

retained, and the wearing of it by-and-by made obligatory, as it

is to this day. In the West, however, perhaps to mark a contrast

to the bearded clergy of the Arian Germans, shaving became

general among the Catholic clergy, and by papal and synodal

ordinances became almost universally prevalent. The adoption

of the custom was also perhaps furthered by a desire to

give symbolic expression by the removal of the beard to the

renunciation of the claims of the male sex on the part of a

celibate clergy.--A solemn =Investiture= with the insignia of

office (§ 59, 7) was gradually introduced, and was that which

marked distinctions between the consecrations to the various

ranks of clerical offices.

§ 45.2. =The Injunction of Celibacy.=--In accordance with a hint

given by the Spanish Provincial Synod of Elvira in A.D. 306 in

its 32nd canon, the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 was

inclined to make the obligation of celibacy at least for the

_Ordines Majores_ a binding law over the whole church. But on the

other hand the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, a confessor and from

his youth an ascetic, stoutly maintained that the fellowship of

married persons too is chastity. His powerful voice decided the

matter. The usual practice, however, was that bishops, presbyters

and deacons should not contract a second marriage (1 Tim. iii. 2),

after ordination should contract no marriage at all, and if

previously married, should continue to live with their wives

or not as they themselves should find most fit. The Easterns

maintained this free standpoint and at the Synod of Gangra in

A.D. 360 contended against the Eustathianists (§ 44, 7) for

the holiness of marriage and the legitimacy of married priests;

and in the 5th Apost. Canon there was an express injunction:

_Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam non rejiciat

religionis prætexti; sin autem rejecerit segregetur, et si

perseveret deponatur_. Examples of married bishops are not

rare in the 4th and 5th centuries; _e.g._ the father of Gregory

Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Ptolemais, etc.

Justinian I. forbade the election of a married man as bishop.

The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) confirmed this

decree, interdicted second marriages to all the clergy, but, with

an express protest against the unnatural hardness of the Roman

church, allowed to presbyters a single marriage with all its

privileges which, however, must have been entered upon before

consecration, and during the period of service at the altar all

marital intercourse had to be discontinued. In Rome, however, the

Spanish principles were strictly maintained. A decretal of the

Roman bishop, Siricius, in A.D. 385, with semi-Manichæan abuse

of marriage, insisted on the celibacy of all bishops, presbyters

and deacons, and Leo the Great included even subdeacons under

this obligation. All the more distinguished Latin church

teachers contended zealously for the universal application of

the injunction of clerical celibacy. Yet there were numerous

instances of the contravention of the order in Italy, in Gaul,

and in Spain itself, and conformity could not be secured even by

the most emphatic re-issue of the injunction by successive Synods.

In the British and Iro-Scottish church the right of the clergy

and even of bishops to marry was insisted upon (§ 77, 3).[125]

§ 45.3. =Later Ecclesiastical Offices.=--In addition to the

older church offices we now meet with attendants on the sick or

=Parabolani=, from παραβάλλεσθαι τὴν ζωήν, and grave-diggers,

κοπιαταί, _Fossarii_, whose number in the capital cities rose to

an almost incredible extent. They formed a bodyguard ever ready

to gratify episcopal love of pomp. Theodosius II. in A.D. 418

restricted the number of the Parabolani of Alexandria to six

hundred and the number of the Copiati of Constantinople to nine

hundred and fifty. For the administration of Church property

there were οἰκόνομοι; for the administration of the laws of the

church there were advocates, ἔνδικοι, σύνδικοι, _Defensores_; for

drawing up legal documents in regard to church affairs there were

_Notarii_, ταχύγραφοι, besides, Keepers of Archives, χαρτοφύλακες,

Librarians, _Thesaurarii_, σκευοφύλακες, etc. None of these as

such had clerical consecration. But also within the ranks of the

_Ordines Majores_ new offices sprang up. In the 4th century we

meet with an =Archdeacon= at the head of the deacons. He was the

right hand of the bishop, his representative and plenipotentiary

in the administration and government of the diocese, frequently

also his successor in office. The college of presbyters, too, had

as its head the =Arch-Presbyter= who represented and supported

the bishop in all acts of public worship. A city presbyter

was entrusted with the supervision of the country churches

as =Visitor=. The African _Seniores plebis_ were mere lay

elders without clerical ordination. The office of =Deaconess=

more or less lost its significance and gradually fell into

disuse.--Justinian I. restricted the number of ecclesiastical

officers in the four great churches of Constantinople to 525;

namely, in addition to the bishop, 60 presbyters, 100 deacons,

40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 24 singers, and

100 doorkeepers.

§ 45.4. =Church Property.=--The possessions of the church

regularly increased by presents and bequests was regarded

down to the 5th century generally as the property of the poor,

_Patrimonium pauperum_, while the cost of maintaining public

worship and supplying the clergy with the means of livelihood

were defrayed by the voluntary contributions, _Oblationes_,

of the church members. But the growing demands of the clergy,

especially of the bishops, for an income corresponding to their

official rank and the increasing magnificence of the service, led,

first of all in Rome, to the apportioning of the whole sum into

four parts; for the bishops, for the subordinate clergy, for the

expenses of public worship (buildings, vestments, etc.), and for

the needs of the poor. With the introduction of the Old Testament

idea of priesthood the thought gradually gained ground that the

laity were under obligation, at first regarded simply as a moral

obligation, to surrender a tenth of all their possessions to the

church, and at a very early date this, in the form of freewill

offerings, was often realised. But the Council at Macon in

A.D. 585, demanded these tithes as a right of the church resting

on divine institution, without, however, being thereby able to

effect what first was secured by the Carolingian legislation

(§ 86, 1). The demand that all property which a cleric earned in

the service of the church, should revert to the church after his

death, was given effect to in a Council at Carthage in A.D. 397.

§ 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.[126]

A hierarchical distinction of ranks among the bishops had already

made its appearance even in the previous period by the elevation of

the metropolitan see and the yet more marked precedency given to the

so-called _Sedes apostolicæ_ (§ 34). This tendency got powerful support

from the political divisions of the empire made by Constantine the

Great; for now the bishops of capital cities demanded an extension

of their spiritual superiority corresponding to that given in secular

authority to the imperial governors. The guarding of earlier privileges

along with respectful consideration of more recent claims prevented

the securing of a perfect correspondence between the political and

hierarchical distribution of ranks. The result of giving consideration

to both was the development of the Patriarchal Constitution, in which

the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem

were recognised as heads of the church universal of equal rank with

jurisdiction over the patriarchates assigned them. The first place in

this clerical Pentarchy was claimed by the Roman see, which ever more

and more decidedly strove for the primacy of the whole church.

§ 46.1. =The Patriarchal Constitution.=--Constantine the Great

divided the whole empire into four prefectures which were

subdivided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. Many

bishops then of the capitals of these dioceses, especially in the

East, under the title of =Exarchs=, assumed a rank superior to

that of the metropolitans, just as these had before arrogated a

rank superior to that of provincial bishops. The first œcumenical

Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 (§ 50, 1) affirmed on behalf of the

bishops of the three most prominent _Sedes apostolicæ_, =Rome=,

=Alexandria= and =Antioch=, that their supremacy had been already

established by old custom. The so-called second œcumenical

Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4) exempted the

bishop of =Constantinople=, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην (since

A.D. 330), from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea,

and gave him the first rank after the bishop of Rome. To these

distinguished prelates there was given the title of honour,

=Patriarch=, which formerly had been given to all bishops; but

the Roman bishops, declining to take common rank with the others,

refused the title, and assumed instead the exclusive use of the

title =Papa=, Πάπας, which had also been previously applied to

all of episcopal rank. The fourth œcumenical Council of Chalcedon

in A.D. 451, in the 28th canon, ranked the patriarch of the

Eastern capital along with the bishop of Rome, granted him

the right of hearing complaints against the metropolitans of

all dioceses that they might be decided at an _endemic_ Synod

(§ 43, 2), and as an equivalent to the vast dominions of

his Roman colleague, gave him as an endowment in addition to

his own patriarchal district, the three complete dioceses of

Thrace, Pontus and Asia. The Exarchs of Heraclea in Thrace, of

Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus, and of Ephesus in Asia, thus placed under

him, bearing the title of _Archbishops_, ἀρχιεπίσκοποι, formed

a hierarchical middle rank between him and the metropolitans of

these dioceses, without, however, any strict definition of their

status being given, so that their preferential rank remained

uncertain and gradually fell back again into that of ordinary

metropolitans. But even at Nicæa in A.D. 325 the bishopric of

=Jerusalem= had been declared worthy of very special honour,

without, however, its subordination under the Metropolitan of

Cæsarea being disputed. Founding on this, Juvenal of Jerusalem

in the 3rd œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 claimed

the rank and privileges of a patriarch, but on the motion of

Cyril of Alexandria was refused. He then applied to the Emperor

Theodosius II. who by an edict named him patriarch, and assigned

to him all Palestine and Arabia. Maximus, however, patriarch

of Antioch, who was thereby deprived of part of his diocese,

persisted in protesting until at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 at

least Phœnicia and Arabia were restored to him.--Within his own

official district each of these five prelates exercised supreme

spiritual authority, and at the head of his patriarchal Synod

decided all the affairs of the churches within the bounds. Still

many metropolitans, especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of

Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna maintained a position, as Αὐτοκέφαλοι,

independent of any superiority of patriarchate or exarchate.

Alongside of the patriarchs in the East there were σύγκελλοι as

councillors and assistants, and at the imperial court they were

represented by permanent legates who were called _Apocrisiarians_.

From the 6th century the Popes of Rome began by sending them the

_pallium_ to confer confirmation of rank upon the newly-elected

metropolitans of the West, who were called in these parts

_Archiepiscopi_, Archbishops. The patriarchs meeting as a

court represented the unity of the church universal. Without

their consent no œcumenical Council could be held, nor could any

decision be binding on the whole church.--But first Jerusalem

in A.D. 637, then Antioch in A.D. 638, and next Alexandria in

A.D. 640, fell under the dominion of the Saracens.

§ 46.2. =The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.=--From the

time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 the patriarch of

Constantinople continued to claim equality in rank and authority

with the bishop of Rome. But the principle upon which in either

case the claims to the primacy were based were already being

interpreted strongly in favour of Rome. In the East the spiritual

rank of the bishoprics was determined in accordance with the

political rank of the cities concerned. Constantinople was the

residence of the ruler of the οἰκουμένη, consequently its bishop

was œcumenical bishop. But in the eyes of the world Old Rome

still ranked higher than the New Rome. All the proud memories of

history clustered round the capital of the West. From Byzantium,

on the other hand, dated the visible decline, the threatened

overthrow of the empire. Moreover the West refused even to

admit the principle itself. Not the will of the emperor, not the

fortunes of the empire, ever becoming more and more deplorable,

should determine the spiritual rank of the bishops, but the

history of the church and the will of its Divine Founder and

Head. Measured by this standard the see of Constantinople stood

not only lower than those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem,

but even below many other sees which though they scarcely had

metropolitan rank, could yet boast of apostolic origin. Then,

Rome unquestionably stood at the head of the church, for here

had lived, confessed and suffered the two chief apostles, here

too were their tombs and their bones; yea, still further, on the

Roman chair had Peter sat as its first bishop (§ 16, 1), whom the

Lord Himself had called to the primacy of the Apostles (§ 34, 8),

and the Roman bishops were his successors and heirs of his

privileges. The patriarch of Constantinople had nothing to

depend upon but his nearness to the court. He was backed up

and supported by the court, was only too often a tool in the

hands of political parties and a defender of heresies which

had the imperial favour. The case for the Roman bishop was

incomparably superior. His being a member of the West-Roman

empire, A.D. 395-476, with emperors for the most part weak and

oppressed on all sides by the convulsions caused by the invasions

of the barbarians, secured to him an incomparably greater

freedom and independence of action, which was little, if at

all, restricted by the Rugian and Ostrogoth invaders of Italy,

A D. 476-536. And even in A.D. 536, when the Byzantine empire

again obtained a footing in Italy, and held out with difficulty

against the onslaught of the Longobards from A.D. 569 to A.D. 752

within ever narrowing limits, the court could only seldom exercise

an influence upon his proceedings or punish him for his refusal

to yield by removal, imprisonment or exile. And while the East

was rent by a variety of ecclesiastical controversies, in which

sometimes the one, sometimes the other party prevailed, the

West under the direction of Rome almost constantly presented the

picture of undisturbed unity. The controversialists sought the

mediating judgment of Rome, the oppressed sought its intercession

and protection, and because the Roman bishops almost invariably

lent the weight of their intellectual and moral influence to the

cause of truth and right, the party in whose favour decision was

given, almost certainly at last prevailed. Thus Rome advanced

from day to day in the eyes of the Christian world, and soon

demanded as a constant right what personal confidence or pressure

of circumstances had won for it in particular cases. And in

the course of time Rome has never let a favourable opportunity

slip, never failed to hold what once was gained or even claimed

with any possibility of success. A strong feeling in favour of

strict hierarchical pretensions united all parties and found

its rallying point in the chair of St. Peter; even incapable and

characterless popes were upborne and carried through by means of

this idea. Thus Rome advanced with firm step and steady aim, and

in spite of all opposition and resistance continually approached

nearer and nearer to the end in view. The East could at last hold

on and save its ecclesiastical independence only by a complete

and incurable division (§ 67).

§ 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS

TO THE PRIMACY.[127]

The history of the Roman bishopric during the first three centuries is

almost wholly enveloped in a cloud of legend which is only occasionally

broken by a gleam of historical light (see § 33, 3, 4, 5, 7; § 35, 5;

§ 37, 2; § 40, 2; § 41, 1, 3). Only after the martyr church became in

the 4th century the powerful state church does it really enter into

the field of regular and continuous history. And now also first begins

that striving after primacy, present from the earliest times among its

bishops and inherited from the political supremacy of “eternal Rome,”

to be prosecuted with success in political and ecclesiastical quarters.

Its history, for which biographies of the popes down to the end of the

9th century in the so-called _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) are most

instructive sources, certainly always in need of critical sifting in

a high degree, permits therefore and demands for our purposes at this

point earnest and close consideration.

§ 46.3. =From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.=--At

the time when Constantine’s conversion so completely changed the

aspect of things =Melchiades= occupied the bishopric of Rome,

A.D. 310 to A.D. 314. Even in A.D. 313 Constantine conferred on

him as the chief bishop of the West the presidency of a clerical

commission for inquiry into the Donatist schism (§ 63, 1). Under

=Sylvester I.=, A.D. 314 to A.D. 335, the Arian controversy

broke out (§ 50), in which, however, he laid no claim to be

an authority on either side. That by his legates, Vitus and

Vincentius [Vincent], he presided at the first œcumenical

Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325 is a purely Romish fabrication; no

contemporary and none of the older historians know anything of it.

On account of the rise in Egypt of the Meletian schism (§ 41, 4)

the 6th canon of the Council prescribes that the bishop of

Alexandria “in accordance with the old customs shall have

jurisdiction over Egypt, in Libya and in Pentapolis, since it

is also according to old custom for the bishop of Rome to have

such jurisdiction, as also the churches in Antioch and in the

other provinces.” The Council, therefore, as Rufinus also and

the oldest Latin collection of canons, the so-called _Prisca_,

understand this canon, maintains that the ecclesiastical

supremacy of the Roman chair extended not over all the West but

only over the ten _suburbicarian_ provinces belonging to the

diocese of Rome according to Constantine’s division, _i.e._ over

Middle and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sardinia, Corsica

and Sicily. The bishop of Rome, however, was and continued by

the wider development of the patriarchal constitution the sole

patriarch in all the West. What more natural than that he should

regard himself as the one patriarch _over_ all the West? But,

even as the only _sedes apostolica_ of the West, Rome had already

for a long time obtained a rank far beyond the limits of the

Nicene canon. In doubtful cases application was made from all

quarters of the West to Rome for instruction as to the genuine

apostolic tradition, and the epistolary replies to such questions

assumed even in the 4th century the tone of authoritative

statements of the truth, _epistolæ decretales_. But down to

A.D. 344 it was never attempted to claim the authority of Rome

over the East in giving validity to any matter. In this year,

however, the pressure of circumstances obliged the Council

of Sardica (§ 50, 2), after most of the Eastern bishops had

already withdrawn, to agree to hand over to the bishop of

Rome, =Julius I.=, A.D. 337-352, as a steadfast and consistent

confessor of the orthodox faith in this age of ecclesiastical

wavering, the right of receiving appeals from condemned bishops

throughout the empire, and if he found them well supported, of

appointing a new investigation by the bishops of the neighbouring

province. But this decree affected only the person of Julius and

was only the momentary makeshift of a hard-pressed minority. It

therefore attracted no attention and was soon forgotten,--only

Rome forgot it not.

§ 46.4. =From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to

A.D. 402.=--Julius’ successor =Liberius=,[128] A.D. 352 to

A.D. 366, maintained with equal steadfastness as his predecessor

the confession of the orthodox Nicene faith, and was therefore

banished by the Emperor Constantius in A.D. 355, who appointed

as his successor the accommodating deacon Felix. But the members

of the church would have nothing to do with the contemptible

intruder, who moreover on the very day of the deportation of

Liberius had solemnly sworn with the whole clergy of Rome to

remain faithful to the exiled bishop. He succeeded indeed in

drawing over to himself a considerable number of the clergy. The

people, however, continued unfalteringly true to their banished

bishop, and even after he had in A.D. 358 by signing a heretical

creed (§ 50, 3) obtained permission to return, they received him

again with unfeigned joy. It was the emperor’s wish that Liberius

and Felix should jointly preside over the Roman church. But

Felix was driven away by the people and could not again secure

a footing among them. Liberius, who henceforth held his position

in Rome as a Nicæan, amnestied those of the clergy who had

fallen away. But the schism occasioned thereby in the church of

Rome broke out with great violence after his death. A rigorist

minority repudiated =Damasus I.=, A.D. 366 to A.D. 384, who had

been chosen as his successor by the majority, because he too at

an earlier date had belonged to the oath-breaking party of Felix.

This minority elected Ursinus as anti-bishop. Over this there

were contentions that led to bloodshed. The party of Damasus

attacked the church of Ursinus and one hundred and thirty-seven

corpses were carried out. Valentinian III. now exiled Ursinus,

and Gratian in A.D. 378 by an edict conferred upon Damasus the

right of giving decision without appeal as party and judge in

one person against all bishops and clergy involved in the schism.

In consequence of this victory of Damasus as partisan of Felix

there was now formed in Rome a tradition which has passed over

into the lists of the popes and the martyrologies, in which

Liberius figures as the adherent of a heretical emperor and a

bloody persecutor of the true Nicene faith and Felix II. as the

legitimate pope. He is also confounded with the martyr Felix who

suffered under Maximian and was celebrated in song by Paulinus

Nolanus, and is thus represented as a holy martyr.[129] To the

pontificate of =Siricius=, A.D. 384 to A.D. 398, the western

church is indebted for the oldest extant papal decretals dating

from A.D. 385 which contain a reply to various questions of

the Spanish bishop couched quite in the hierarchical form and

insisting in strong terms upon the binding obligation of clerical

celibacy. Subsequently the same pope, burdened with “the care of

all the churches,” feels himself obliged to issue an _encyclical_

to all the churches of the West, denouncing the frequent

neglect of existing ecclesiastical laws. In the Origenist

controversy between Jerome and Rufinus (§ 51, 2) he favoured

the latter;--whereas his successor, =Anastasius=, A.D. 398 to

A.D. 402, took the side of Jerome.

§ 46.5. =From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.=--In

consequence of the partition of the empire into an eastern and

a western division in A.D. 364 (comp. § 42, 4), the claims of

the Roman chair to ecclesiastical supremacy over the whole of the

West were not only confirmed but also very considerably extended.

For by this partition the western half of the empire included not

only those countries which had previously been reckoned western,

namely, Africa, Spain, Britain, Gaul and Italy, but also the

prefecture of Illyricum (Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, Dalmatia,

Pannonia, Mœsia, Dacia) with its capital Thessalonica, and thus

events played into the hands of those who pressed the patriarchal

claims of Rome. Even when in A.D. 379 Eastern Illyria (Macedonia,

Mœsia and Dacia) was attached to the Eastern empire, the Roman

bishops continued still to regard it as belonging to their

patriarchal domain. These claims were advanced with special

emphasis and with corresponding success by =Innocent I.=,

A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. When in A.D. 402 he intimated to the

archbishop of Thessalonica his elevation to the chair, he at the

same time transferred to him as his representative the oversight

of all the Illyrian provinces, and to his successor, in A.D. 412,

he sent a formal document of installation as Roman vicar. Not

only did he apply to the Roman chair that canon of the Council

of Sardica which had referred only to the person of Julius, but

in a decretal to a Gallic bishop he extended also the clearly

circumscribed right of appeal on the part of condemned bishops

into an obligation to submit all “_causæ majores_” to the

decision of the apostolic see. From Africa a Carthaginian Synod

in A.D. 404 sent messengers to Rome in order to secure its

intercession with the emperor to put down the Donatists. From the

East Theophilus of Alexandria and Chrysostom of Constantinople

solicited the weighty influence of Rome in the Origenist

controversy (§ 51, 3); and Alexander of Antioch (§ 50, 8)

expresses the proud satisfaction he had, as only Western bishops

had done before, in asking the Roman bishop’s advice on various

constitutional and disciplinary matters. During the Pelagian

controversy (§ 53, 4) the Palestinian Synod at Diospolis in

A.D. 415 interceded with the Pope in favour of Pelagius accused of

heresy in Africa; on the other hand the African Synods of Mileve

and Carthage in A.D. 416 besieged him with the demand to give the

sanction of his authority to their condemnation of the heretic.

He took the side of the Anti-Pelagians, and Augustine could

shower upon the heretics the pregnant words: _Roma locuta ...

causa finita_.--The higher the authority of the Roman chair rose

under Innocent, all the more painful to Rome must the humiliation

have been, which his successor =Zosimus=, A.D. 417-418, called

down upon it, when he, in opposition to his predecessor, took

the part of Pelagius and his companion Cœlestius, and addressed

bitter reproaches to the Africans for their treatment of him, but

afterwards in consequence of their vigorous remonstrances and the

interference of the emperor Honorius was obliged to withdraw his

previous judgment and formally to condemn his quondam protegé.

And when a deposed presbyter of Africa, Apiarius, sought refuge

in Rome, the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418, in which Augustine

also took part, made this an excuse for forbidding under threat

of excommunication any appeal _ad transmarina judicia_. Zosimus

indeed appealed to the canon of the Sardican Synod, which he

quoted as Nicene; but the Africans, to whom that canon was quite

unknown, only said that on this matter they must make inquiries

among the Eastern churches.[130]

§ 46.6. =From Boniface I. to Sixtus III., A.D. 419 to

A.D. 440.=--After the death of Zosimus, 26th Dec., 418, a minority

of the clergy and the people, by the hasty election and ordination

of the deacon Eulalius, anticipated the action of the majority

who chose the presbyter Boniface. The recommendation of the city

prefect Symmachus secured for the former the recognition of the

Emperor Honorius; but the determined remonstrance of the majority

moved him to convene a Synod at Ravenna in A.D. 419 for a final

settlement of the dispute. When the bishops there assembled

could not agree, he called a new Synod to meet at Spoleto at the

approaching Easter festival, and ordered, so as to make an end

of disturbances and tumults in the city, that both rivals should

quit Rome until a decision had been reached. Eulalius, however,

did not regard the injunction but pushed his way by force of arms

into the city. The Emperor now banished him from Rome on pain of

death, and at Spoleto the bishops decided in consequence of the

moderation he had shown, to recognise =Boniface I.=, A.D. 419 to

A.D. 422, as bishop of Rome. His successor was =Cœlestine I.=,

A.D. 422 to A.D. 432. Apiarius, who meanwhile, because he

professed repentance and besought forgiveness, had been restored,

began anew to offend, was again deposed, and again obtained

protection and encouragement at Rome. But an African Synod at

Carthage energetically protested against Cœlestine’s interference,

charging him with having often referred to a Nicene canon

warranting the right of appeal to Rome which the most diligent

inquiries among the churches of Constantinople, Alexandria and

Antioch, had failed to discover. On the outbreak of the Nestorian

controversy (§ 52, 3) two opponents again sued for the favour

of the Roman league; first of all, Nestorius of Constantinople,

because he professed to have given particular information

about the Pelagian-minded bishops driven from Italy who sought

refuge in Constantinople (§ 53, 4) and had immediately made a

communication about the error of confounding the two natures of

Christ which had recently sprung up in the East. The brotherly

tone of this writing, free from any idea of subordination,

found no response at Rome. The letters of Cyril of Alexandria

proved more acceptable, filled as they were with cringing

flatteries of the Roman chair and venomous invectives against the

Constantinopolitan see and its occupier. Cœlestine unreservedly

took the side of Cyril, commanded Nestorius under threat of

deposition and excommunication within ten days to present to

a Roman Synod, A.D. 420, a written retractation, and remitted

to Cyril the carrying out of this judgment. To his legates at

the Council of Ephesus, A.D. 431, he gave the instructions:

_Auctoritatem sedis apostolicæ custodire debere mandamus.... Ad

disceptationem si fuerit ventum, vos de eorum sententiis judicare

debetis, non subire certamen._ The Council decided precisely

according to Cœlestine’s wish. The proud Alexandrian patriarch

had recognised Rome as the highest court of appeal; a Western

educated at Rome, named Maximian, thoroughly submissive to

Cœlestine, was, with the pope’s hearty approval, raised to the

patriarchal see of Constantinople as successor of the deposed

Nestorius; only John of Antioch opposed the decision. Cœlestine’s

successor =Sixtus III.=, A.D. 432 to A.D. 440, could already

boast in A.D. 433 that he had put himself superior to the decrees

of the Council, and in commemoration of the victory dedicated

a beautiful church newly built to the mother of God, now called

_S. Maria Maggiore_.[131]

§ 46.7. =From Leo the Great to Simplicius, A.D. 440 to

A.D. 483.=--=Leo I.=, A.D. 440 to A.D. 461 (comp. § 47, 22),

unquestionably up to that date the greatest of all the occupants

of the Roman chair, was also the most powerful, the worthiest and

most successful vindicator of its authority in the East as well

as in the West; indeed he may be regarded as properly the founder

of the Roman papacy as a universal episcopate with the full

sanction of the civil power. Even the Western Fathers of the 4th

and 5th centuries, such as Hilary, Ambrose, Jerome and Augustine,

as also Innocent I., had still interpreted the πέτρα of Matt.

xvi. 18 partly of the confession of Peter, partly of the Person

of Christ. First in the time of Cœlestine an attempt was made to

refer it to the person of Peter. The legates of Cœlestine at the

Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 had said: ὅστις, ἕως τοῦ νῦν καὶ

ἀεὶ ἐν τοῖς αὐτοῦ διαδόχοις καὶ ζῇ καὶ δικάζει. Thus they claimed

universal primacy as of immediately Divine authority. Leo I.

adopted this view with all his soul. In the most determined

and persistent way he carried it out in the West; then next

in proconsular Africa which had so energetically protested in

the times of Innocent and Cœlestine against Romish pretensions.

When news came to him of various improprieties spreading there,

he sent a legate to investigate, and in consequence of his

report addressed severe censures which were submitted to without

opposition. The right of African clerics to appeal to Rome was

also henceforth unchallenged. In Gaul, however, Leo had still to

maintain a hard struggle with Hilary, archbishop of Arles, who,

arrogating to himself the right of a primacy of Gaul, had deposed

Celedonius, bishop of Besontio, _Besançon_. But Leo took up his

case and had him vindicated and restored by a Roman Synod. Hilary,

who came himself to Rome, defied the Pope, escaped threatened

imprisonment by secret flight, and was then deprived of his

metropolitan rights. At the same time, in A.D. 445, Leo obtained

from the young Emperor of the West, Valentinian III., a civil

enactment which made every sort of resistance to the divinely

established universal primacy of the Roman see an act of high

treason.--In the East, too, Leo gained a higher position than had

ever before been accorded to Rome on account of his moderation

in the Eutychian controversy (§ 52, 4). Once again was Rome

called in to mediate between the two conflicting parties. At the

Robber-Synod of Ephesus in A.D. 449, under the presidency of the

tyrannical Dioscurus of Alexandria, the legates of Leo were not,

indeed, allowed to speak. But at the next œcumenical Council at

Chalcedon in A.D. 451 his doctrine won a brilliant victory; even

here, however, much objection was raised to his hierarchical

pretensions. He demanded from the first the presidency for his

legates, which, however, was assigned not to them, but to the

imperial commissioners. The demand, too, for the expulsion of

Dioscurus from the Synod, because he dared _Synodum facere sine

auctoritate sedis apostolicæ, quod mumquam licuit, numquem factum

est_, did not, at first at least, receive the answer required.

When, notwithstanding the opposition of the legates the question

of the relative ranks of the patriarchs was dealt with, they

withdrew from the session and subsequently protested against the

28th canon agreed upon at that session with a reference to the

6th Nicene canon which in the Roman _translation_, _i.e._ forgery,

began with the words: _Ecclesia Romana semper habuit primatum_.

But the Council sent the Acts with a dutiful report to Rome for

confirmation, whereupon Leo strictly repudiated the 28th canon,

threatening the church of Constantinople with excommunication,

and so finally gained his point. The emperor annulled it in

A.D. 454, and Anatolius, patriarch of Constantinople, was obliged

to write a humble letter to Leo acquiescing in its erasure; but

this did not prevent his successor from always maintaining its

validity (§ 63, 2).--When the wild hordes of Attila, king of the

Huns, spread terror and consternation by their approach, Leo’s

priestly form appeared before him as a messenger of God, and

saved Rome and Italy from destruction. Less successful was his

priestly intercession with the Arian Vandal chief Genseric,

whose army in A.D. 455 plundered, burnt and murdered throughout

Rome for fourteen days; but all the more strikingly after his

withdrawal did the pope’s ability display itself in restoring

comfort and order amid scenes of unutterable destitution and

confusion.

§ 46.8. =From Felix III. to Boniface II., A.D. 483 to

A.D. 532.=--Under Leo’s second successor, the Rugian or Scyrrian

Odoacer put an end to the West-Roman empire in A.D. 476 (§ 76, 6).

As to the enactments of the Roman state, although himself an

Arian, after seventeen years of a wise rule he left untouched the

orthodox Roman church, and the Roman bishops could under him, as

under his successor, the Ostrogoth Theodoric, also an Arian, from

A.D. 493 to A.D. 526, more freely exercise their ecclesiastical

functions than under the previous government, all the more

as neither of these rulers resided in Rome but in Ravenna.

=Pope Felix III.=, A.D. 483 to A.D. 492, in opposition to the

Byzantine ecclesiastical policy, which by means of the imperial

authority had for quite a hundred years retarded the development

of the orthodox doctrine (§ 52, 5), began a schism lasting

for thirty-five years between East and West, from A.D. 484 to

A.D. 519, which no suspicion of disloyal combination with the

Western rulers can account for. On the appointment of Felix III.

Odoacer assumed the right of confirming all elections of Popes,

just as previously the West Roman emperors had claimed, and Rome

submitted without resistance. The Gothic kings, too, maintained

this right.--=Gelasius I.=, A.D. 492 to A.D. 496 (comp. § 47, 22),

ventured before the Emperor Anastasius I., in A.D. 493, to

indicate the relation of _Sacerdotium_ and _Imperium_ according

to the Roman conception, which already exhibits in its infant

stage of development the mediæval theory of the two swords

(§ 110, 1) and the favourite analogy of the sun and the moon

(§ 96, 9). His peaceable successor =Anastasius II.=, A.D. 496 to

A.D. 498, entered into negotiations for peace with the Byzantine

court; but a number of Roman fanatics wished on this account to

have him cast out of the communion of the church, and saw in his

early death a judgment of heaven upon his conduct. He has ever

since been regarded as a heretic, and as such even Dante consigns

him to a place in hell. After his death there was a disputed

election between =Symmachus=, A.D. 498 to A.D. 514, and Laurentius.

The schism soon degenerated into the wildest civil war, in which

blood was shed in the churches and in the streets. Theodoric

decided for Symmachus as the choice of the majority and the first

ordained, but his opponents then charged him before the king as

guilty of the gravest crimes. To investigate the charges brought

against the bishop the king now convened at Rome a Synod of all

the Italian bishops, _Synodus palmaris_ of A.D. 502, so called

from the porch of St. Peter’s Church adorned with palms, where it

first met. As Symmachus on his way to it was met by a wild mob of

his opponents and only narrowly escaped with his life, Theodoric

insisted no longer on a regular proof of the charges against

him. The bishops without any investigation freely proclaimed him

their pope, and the deacon Eunodius of Pavia, known also as a

hymn writer, commissioned by them to make an apology for their

procedure, laid down the proposition that the pope who himself is

judge over all, cannot be judged of any man. Bloody street fights

between the two parties, however, still continued by day and

night. Symmachus’ successor =Hormisdas=, A.D. 514 to A.D. 523,

had the satisfaction of seeing the Byzantine court, in order

to prepare the way for the winning back of Italy, seeking

for reconciliation with the Western church, and in A.D. 519

submitting to the humbling conditions of restoration to church

fellowship offered by the pope. A sharp edict of the West Roman

emperor Justin II. against the Arians of his empire caused

Theodoric to send an embassy in their favour to Constantinople,

at the head of which stood =John I.=, A.D. 523 to A.D. 526, with

a threat of reprisals. The pope, however, seems rather to have

utilized his journey for intrigues against the Italian government

of the Goths, for after his return Theodoric caused him to

be cast into prison, in which he died. He was succeeded by

=Felix IV.= A.D. 526 to A.D. 530, after whose death the election

was again disputed by two rivals. This schism, however, was only

of short duration, since Dioscurus, the choice of the majority,

died during the next month. His rival =Boniface II.=, A.D. 530

to A.D. 532, a Goth by birth and favoured by the Ostrogoth

government, applied himself with extreme severity to put down

the opposing party.

§ 46.9. =From John II. to Pelagius II., A.D. 532 to

A.D. 590.=--Meanwhile Justinian I. had been raised to the

Byzantine throne, and his long reign from A.D. 527 to A.D. 565,

was in many ways a momentous one for the fortunes of the Roman

bishopric. The reconquest of Italy, from A.D. 536 to A.D. 553, by

his generals Belisarius and Narses, and the subsequent founding

of the Exarchate at Ravenna in A.D. 567, at the head of which a

representative of the emperor, a so-called Roman patrician stood,

freed the pope indeed from the control of the Arian Ostrogoths

which since the restoration of ecclesiastical fellowship with the

East had become oppressive, but it brought them into a new and

much more serious dependence. For Justinian and his successors

demanded from the Roman bishops as well as from the patriarchs of

Constantinople unconditional obedience.--=Agapetus I.=, A.D. 535

to A.D. 536, sent as peacemaker by the Goths to Constantinople,

escaped the fate of John I. perhaps just because he suddenly died

there. Under his successor =Silverius=, A.D. 536 to A.D. 537,

Belisarius, in December, A.D. 536, made his entry into Rome,

and in the March following he deposed the pope and sentenced

him to banishment. This he did at the instigation of the Empress

Theodora whose machinations in favour of Monophysitism had been

already felt by Agapetus. Theodora had already designated the

wretched =Vigilius=, A.D. 537 to A.D. 555, as his successor. He

had purchased her favour by the promise of two hundred pounds

of gold and acquiescence in the condemnation of the so-called

_three chapters_ (§ 52, 6) so eagerly desired by her. Owing

to his cowardliness and want of character Africa, North Italy

and Illyria shook off their allegiance to the Roman see and

maintained their independence for more than half a century.

Terrified by this disaster he partly retracted his earlier

agreement with the empress, and Justinian sent him into exile.

He submitted unconditionally and was forgiven, but died before

reaching Rome. =Pelagius I.=, A.D. 555 to A.D. 560, also a

creature of Theodora, subscribed the agreement and so confirmed

the Western schism which Gregory the Great first succeeded in

overcoming.--The fantastic attempt of Justinian to raise his

obscure birthplace Tauresium, the modern Bulgarian Achrida, to

the rank of a metropolis as Justinianopolis or _Prima Justiniana_,

and its bishop to the rank of patriarch with Eastern Illyria as

his patriarchate, proved, notwithstanding the consent of Vigilius,

a still-born child.

§ 46.10. =From Gregory I. to Boniface V., A.D. 590 to

A.D. 625.=--After the papal chair had been held by three

insignificant popes in succession =Gregory the Great=, A.D. 590

to A.D. 604 (comp. § 47, 22), was raised to the Apostolic

see, the greatest, most capable, noblest, most pious and most

superstitious in the whole long series of popes. He took the

helm of the church at a time when Italy was reduced to the most

terrible destitution by the savage and ruthless devastations of

the Arian Longobards lasting over twenty years (§ 76, 8), and

neither the emperor nor his exarch at Ravenna had the means of

affording help. Gregory could not allow Italy and the church to

perish utterly under these desperate circumstances, and so was

compelled to assume the functions of civil authority. When the

Longobards in A.D. 593 oppressed Rome to the uttermost there

remained nothing for him but to purchase their withdrawal with

the treasures of the church, and the peace finally concluded

with them in A.D. 599 was his and not the exarch’s work. The

exceedingly rich possessions of lands and goods, the so-called

_Patrimonium Petri_, extending throughout all Italy and the

islands, brought him the authority of a powerful secular prince

far beyond the bounds of the Roman duchy, in comparison with

which the rank of the exarch himself was insignificant. The

Longobards too treated with him as an independent political power.

Gregory, therefore, may rightly be regarded as the first founder

of the temporal power of the Papacy on Italian soil. But all

this as we can easily understand provoked no small dislike of

the pope at Constantinople. The pope, on the other hand, was

angry with the Emperor Maurice because he gave no consideration

to his demand that the patriarch, Johannes Jejunator, should

be prohibited from assuming the title Ἐπίσκοπος οἰκουμενικός.

Gregory’s own position in regard to the primacy appears from

his Epistles. He writes to the bishop of Syracuse: _Si qua culpa

in episcopis invenitur, nescio, quis Sedi apostolicæ subjectus

non sit; cum vero culpa non existit, omnes secundum rationem

humilitatis æquales sunt_. And with this reservation it was

certainly meant when he, in a letter to the patriarch of

Alexandria, who had addressed him as “_Universalis Papa_,”

most distinctly refused this title and readily conceded to

the Alexandrian as well as to the Antiochean see, as of Petrine

origin (the Antiochean directly, § 16, 1; the Alexandrian

indirectly through Mark, § 16, 4), equal rank and dignity with

that of Rome; and when he denounced as an anti-Christ every

bishop who would raise himself above his fellow bishops. Thus

he compared Johannes Jejunator to Lucifer who wished to exalt

himself above all the angels. Gregory, on the other hand, in

proud humility styled himself, as all subsequent popes have done,

_Servus servorum Dei_. When he extolled the Frankish Jezebel

Brunhilda [Brunehilda] (§ 77, 7), who had besought him to send

her relics and at another time a pallium for a bishop, as an

exemplary pious Christian woman and a wise ruler, he may, owing

to the defective communication between Rome and Gaul, have had

no authentic information about her doings and disposition. The

memory of the otherwise noble-minded pope is more seriously

affected by his conduct in reference to the emperor Phocas,

A.D. 602 to A.D. 610, the murderer of the noble and just emperor

Maurice, whom he congratulates upon his elevation to the throne,

and makes all the angelic choirs of heaven and all tongues on

earth break forth in jubilees and hymns of thanksgiving; but even

here again, when he thus wrote, the news of his iniquities,--not

only the slaughter of the emperor, but also of his queen, his

five sons and three daughters, etc., by which this demon in

human form cut his way to the throne,--may not have been known to

him in their full extent.--Phocas, however, showed himself duly

thankful, for at the request of pope =Boniface III.=, A.D. 606

to A.D. 607, he refused to allow the patriarch of Constantinople

to assume the title of Universal bishop, while at the same time

he formally acknowledged the chair of Peter at Rome as _Caput

omnium ecclesiarum_. To the next pope =Boniface IV.=, A.D. 608 to

A.D. 615, he presented the beautiful Pantheon at Rome, which from

being a temple dedicated to Cybele, the mother of the gods, and

to all the gods, he turned into a church of the mother of God and

of all the martyrs.[132]

§ 46.11. =From Honorius I. to Gregory III., A.D. 625 to

A.D. 741.=--For almost fifty years, from A.D. 633 under

=Honorius I.=, A.D. 625 to A.D. 638, the third successor of

Boniface IV., the _Monothelite controversy_ (§ 52, 8) continued

its disastrous course. Honorius, a pious and peace-loving man,

had seen nothing objectionable in this attempt of the Emperor

Heraclius (A.D. 611 to A.D. 641) to win the numerous Monophysites

back to the unity of the church by the concession of _one_ will

in the two natures of Christ, and was prepared to co-operate in

the work. But the conviction grew more and more strong that the

doctrine proposed in the interests of peace was itself heretical.

All subsequent bishops of Rome therefore unanimously condemned as

an accursed heresy (§ 52, 9), what their predecessor Honorius had

agreed to and confessed. This explains how the exarch of Ravenna

delayed for more than a year the confirmation of the election

of the next pope, =Severinus=, A.D. 638 to A.D. 640, and granted

it only in A.D. 640 as amends for his wholesale plundering of

the treasury of the Roman church to supply his own financial

deficiencies. In the time of =Martin I.=, A.D. 649 to A.D. 653,

the Emperor Constans II., A.D. 642 to A.D. 668, sought to make

an end of the bitter controversy by the strict prohibition of any

statement as to one will or two wills. The determined pope had to

suffer for his opposition by severe imprisonment and still more

trying banishment, in which he suffered from hunger and other

miseries (A.D. 655). The new emperor Constantinus Pogonnatus,

A.D. 668 to A.D. 685, finally recognised the indispensable

necessity of securing reconciliation with the West. In A.D. 680,

he convened an œcumenical Council at Constantinople at which the

legates of the pope =Agatho=, A.D. 678 to A.D. 682, the fifth

successor of Martin I., once more prescribed to the Greeks what

should henceforth be regarded throughout the whole empire as

the orthodox faith. The Council sent its Acts to Rome with the

request that they might be confirmed, which Agatho’s successor,

=Leo II.=, A.D. 682 to A.D. 683, did, notwithstanding the

condemnation therein very pointedly expressed of the heretical

pope Honorius, which indeed he explicitly approved.--Once again

in A.D. 686, the Roman church was threatened with a schism by a

double election to the papal chair. This, however, was averted

by the opposing electors, lay and clerical, agreeing to set

aside both candidates and uniting together in the election of

the =Thracian Conon=, A.D. 686 to A.D. 687. Precisely the same

thing happened with a similar result on the death of Conon.

The new candidate whom both parties agreed upon this time was

=Sergius I.=, A.D. 687 to A.D. 701, but he was obliged to purchase

the exarch’s confirmation by a present of a hundred pounds of gold.

His rejection of the conclusions of the second Trullan Council

at Constantinople in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2), which in various points

disregarded the pretensions of Rome, brought him into conflict

with the emperor Justinian II., A.D. 685 to A.D. 711. The result

of this contest was to show that the power and authority of the

pope in Italy were at this time greater than those of the emperor.

When the emperor sent a high official to Rome with the order

to bring the pope prisoner to Constantinople, almost the whole

population of the exarchate gathered out in the pope’s defence.

The Byzantine ambassador sought and obtained protection from the

pope, under whose bed he crept, and was then allowed to quit Rome

in safety, followed by the scorn and abuse of the people. Soon

thereafter, in A.D. 695, Justinian was overthrown, and with slit

ears and nose sent into exile. In A.D. 705, having been restored

by the Bulgarian king, he immediately took fearful revenge upon

the rebel inhabitants of Ravenna. Pope Constantine I., A.D. 708

to A.D. 715, intimidated by what he had seen, did not dare to

refuse the imperial mandate which summoned him to Byzantium

for the arrangement of ecclesiastical differences. With fear

and trembling he embarked. But he succeeded in coming to an

understanding with the emperor, who received and dismissed him

with every token of respect. Under his successor, =Gregory II.=,

A.D. 715 to A.D. 731, the Byzantine iconoclast controversy

(§ 66, 1) gave occasion to an almost complete rupture between

the papacy and the Byzantine empire; and under =Gregory III.=,

A.D. 731 to A.D. 741, the papacy definitely withdrew from the

Byzantine and put itself under the Frankish government. Down to

the latest age of the exarchate of Ravenna the confirmation of

papal elections by the emperor or his representative, the exarch,

was always maintained, and only after it had been given was

consecration allowed. This is proved both from the biographies

of the papal books and from the relative formulæ of petition in

the _Liber diurnus Rom. Pontificum_, a collection of formulæ for

the performance of the most important acts in the service of the

Romish Church made between A.D. 685 and A.D. 751. The election

itself was in the hands of the three orders of the city (_clerus_,

_exercitus_ and _populus_).--Continuation § 82.