The ancient Church was the church of the Roman empire. It is true that
from the 4th century onwards it expanded beyond the borders of that
empire to east and west, north and south; but the infant churches which
gradually arose in Persia and Abyssinia, among some of the scattered
Teutonic races, and among the Celts of Ireland, were at first not
co-operating factors in the development of Christendom: they received
without giving in return. True historic life is only to be found within
the church of the Empire.
The middle ages came into being at the time when the political structure
of the world, based upon the conquests of Alexander the Great and the
achievements of Julius Caesar, began to disintegrate. They were present
when the believers in Mahomet held sway in the Asiatic and African
provinces which Alexander had once brought under the intellectual
influence of Hellenism; while the Lombards, the West Goths, the Franks
and the Anglo-Saxons had established kingdoms in Italy, Spain, Gaul and
Britain. The question is: what was the position of the Church in this
great change of circumstances, and what form did the Church's
development take from this time onwards? In answering this question we
must consider East and West separately; for their histories are no
longer coincident, as they had been in the time of the Roman dominion.
I. THE EAST. (a) _The Orthodox Church._--Ancient and medieval times were
not separated by so deep a gulf in the East as in the West; for in the
East the Empire continued to exist, although within narrow limits, until
towards the end of the middle ages. Constantinople only fell in 1453.
Ecclesiastical Byzantinism is therefore not a product of the middle
ages: it is the outcome of the development of the eastern half of the
empire from the time of Constantine the Great. Under Justinian I. all
its essential features were already formed: imperial power extended
equally over State and Church; indeed, care for the preservation of
dogma and for the purity of the priesthood was the chief duty of the
ruler. To fulfil this duty was to serve the interests of both State and
people; for thus "a fine harmony is established, and whatever good
exists becomes the portion of the whole human race." Since the emperor
ruled the Church there was no longer any question of independence for
the bishops, least of all for the patriarch in Constantinople; they were
in every respect subordinate to the emperor.
The _orthodoxy_ of the Eastern Church was also a result of the Church's
development after the time of Constantine. In the long strife over dogma
the old belief of the Greeks in the value of knowledge had made itself
felt, and this faith was not extinct in the Eastern Church. There is no
doubt that in the beginning of the middle ages both general and
theological education stood higher among the Greeks than in more western
countries. In the West there were no learned men who could vie with
Photius (ca. 820-891) in range of knowledge and variety of scientific
attainment. But the strife over dogma came to an end with the 7th
century. After the termination of the monothelite controversy (638-680),
creed and doctrines were complete; it was only necessary to preserve
them intact. Theology, therefore, now resolved itself into the
collection and reproduction of the teaching of ancient authorities. The
great dogmatist of the Eastern Church, John of Damascus (ca. 699-753),
who stood on the threshold of the middle ages, formulated clearly and
precisely his working principle: to put forward nothing of his own, but
to present the truth according to the authority of the Bible and of the
Fathers of the Church. Later teachers, Euthymius Zigadenus (d. circa
1120), Nicetas Choniates (d. circa 1200), and others, proceeded further
on the same lines; Euthymius, in particular, often uses an excerpt
instead of giving his own exposition.
This attitude towards dogma did not mean that it was less prized than
during the period of strife. On the contrary, the sacred formulae were
revered because they were believed to contain the determination of the
highest truths: the knowledge of God and of the mystery of salvation.
Yet it is intelligible that religious interest should have concerned
itself more keenly with the mystic rites of divine worship than with
dogma. Here was more than knowledge; here were representations of a
mystic sensuousness, solemn rites, which brought the faithful into
immediate contact with the Divine, and guaranteed to them the reception
of heavenly powers. What could be of more importance than to be absorbed
in this transcendental world? We may gauge the energy with which the
Greek intellect turned in this direction if we call to mind that the
controversy about dogma was replaced by the controversy about images.
This raged in the Eastern Church for more than a century (726-843), and
only sank to rest when the worship of images was unconditionally
conceded. In this connexion the image was not looked upon merely as a
symbol, but as the vehicle of the presence and power of that which it
represented: in the image the invisible becomes operative in the visible
world. Christ did not seem to be Christ unless he were visibly
represented. What an ancient teacher had said with regard to the worship
of Christ as the revelation of the Eternal Father--"Honours paid to the
earthly representative are shared by the heavenly Archetype"--was now
transferred to the painted image: it appeared as an analogy to the
Incarnation. It was for this reason that the victory of image worship
was celebrated by the introduction of the festival of the Orthodox
Faith.
It is consistent with this circle of ideas that initiation into the
profound mysteries of the liturgy was regarded, together with the
preservation of dogma, as the most exalted function of theology. A
beginning had been made, in the 5th century, by the neo-platonic
Christian who addressed his contemporaries under the mask of Dionysius
the Areopagite. He is the first of a series of theological mystics which
continued through every century of the middle ages. Maximus Confessor,
the heroic defender of Dyotheletism (d. 662), Symeon, the New Theologian
(d. circa 1040), Nicolaus Cabasilas (d. 1371), and Symeon, like
Nicholas, archbishop of Thessalonica (d. 1429), were the most
conspicuous representatives of this Oriental mysticism. They left all
the dogmas and institutions of the Church untouched; aspiring above and
beyond these, their aim was religious experience.
It is this striving after religious experience that gives to the
Oriental monachism of the middle ages its peculiar character. In the 5th
and 6th centuries Egypt and Palestine had been the classic lands of
monks and monasteries. But when, in consequence of the Arab invasion,
the monasticism of those countries was cut off from intercourse with the
rest of Christendom, it decayed. Constantinople and Mount Athos gained
proportionately in importance during the middle ages. At Constantinople
the monastery of Studium, founded about 460, attained to supreme
influence during the controversy about images. On Mount Athos the first
monastery was founded in the year 963, and in 1045 the number of
monastic foundations had reached 180. In Greek monachism the old
Hellenic ideal of the wise man who has no wants ([Greek: autarkeia]) was
from the first fused with the Christian conception of unreserved
self-surrender to God as the highest aim and the highest good. These
ideas governed it in medieval times also, and in this way monastic life
received a decided bent towards mysticism: the monks strove to realize
the heavenly life even upon earth, their highest aim being the
contemplation of God and of His ways. The teachings of Symeon "the New
Theologian" on these matters lived on in the cloisters; it was taken up
by the Hesychasts of the 14th century, and developed into a peculiar
theory as to the perception of the Divine Light. In spite of all
opposition their teaching was finally justified by the Eastern Church
(sixth synod of Constantinople, 1351). And rightly so, for it was the
old Greek piety minted afresh.
The Eastern Church, then, throughout the middle ages, remained true in
every particular to her ancient character. It cannot be said that she
developed as did the Western Church during this period, for she remained
what she had been; but she freely developed her original
characteristics, consistently, in every direction. This too is life,
though of a different type from that of the West.
That there was life in the Eastern Church is also proved by the fact
that the power of _expansion_ was not denied her. Through her agency an
important bulwark for the Christian faith was created in the new nations
which had sprung into existence since the beginning of the middle ages:
the Bulgarians, the Servians, and the multifarious peoples grouped under
the name of Russians. There is a vast difference in national character
between these young peoples and the successors of the Hellenes; and it
is therefore all the more significant to find that both the Church and
religious sentiment should in their case have fully preserved the
Byzantine character. This proves once more the ancient capacity of the
Greeks for the assimilation of foreign elements.
There was yet another outcome of this stubborn persistency of a peculiar
type--the impossibility of continuing to share the life of the Western
Church. Neither in the East nor in the West was a _separation_ desired;
but it was inevitable, since the lives of East and West were moving in
different directions. It was the fall of Constantinople that first
weakened the vital force of the Eastern Church. May we hope that the
events of modern times are leading her towards a renaissance?
(b) _The Nestorian and the Monophysite Churches._--Since the time when the
church of eastern Syria had decided, in opposition to the church of the
Empire, to cling to the ancient views of Syrian theologians--therefore
also to the teaching and person of Nestorius--her relations were broken
off with the church in western Syria and in Greek and Latin countries; but
the power of Nestorian, or, as it was termed, _Chaldaic_ Christianity, was
not thereby diminished. Separated from the West, it directed its energies
towards the East, and here its nearest neighbour was the Persian church.
The latter followed, almost without opposition, the impulse received from
Syria; from the rule of the patriarch Babacus (Syr. B[=a]b-h[=a]i,
498-503) she may be considered definitely Nestorian. A certain number,
too, of Arabic Christians, believers living on the west coast of India,
the so-called Christians of St Thomas, and finally those belonging to
places nearer the middle of Asia (Merv, Herat, Samarkand), remained in
communion with the Nestorian church. Thus there survived in mid-Asia a
widely-scattered remnant, which, although out of touch with the ancient
usages of Christian civilization, yet in no way lacked higher culture.
Nestorian philosophers and medical practitioners became the teachers of
the great Arabian natural philosophers of the middle ages, and the latter
obtained their knowledge of Greek learning from Syriac translations of the
works of Greek thinkers.
Political conditions at the beginning of the middle ages favoured the
Nestorian church, and the fact that the Arabs had conquered Syria,
Palestine and Egypt, made it possible for her to exert an influence on
the Christians in these countries. Of still more importance was the
brisk commercial intercourse between central Asia and the countries of
the Far East; for this led the Nestorians into China. The inscription of
Si-ngan-fu (before 781) proves a surprisingly widespread extension of
the Christian faith in that country. That it also possessed adherents in
southern Siberia we gather from the inscriptions of Semiryetchensk, and
in the beginning of the 11th century it found its way even into
Mongolia. Nowhere were the nations Christian, but the Christian faith
was everywhere accepted by a not insignificant minority. The foundation
of the Mongolian empire in the beginning of the 13th century did not
disturb the position of the Nestorian church; but the revival of the
Mahommedan power, which was coincident with the downfall of the
Mongolian empire, was pregnant with disaster for her. The greater part
of Nestorian Christendom was now swallowed up by Islam, so that only
remnants of this once extensive church have survived until modern times.
The middle ages were far more disastrous for the Monophysites than for
the Nestorians; in their case there was no alternation of rise and
decline, and we have only a long period of gradual exhaustion to
chronicle. Egypt was the home of Monophysitism, whence it extended also
into Syria. It was due to the great Jacob of Edessa (Jacob Baradaeus, d.
578) that it did not succumb to the persecution by the power of the
Orthodox Empire, and out of gratitude to him the Monophysite Christians
of Syria called themselves _Jacobites_. The Arab conquest (after 635)
freed the Jacobite church entirely from the oppression of the Orthodox,
and thereby assured its continuance. The church, however, never attained
any greater development, but on the contrary continued to lose adherents
from century to century. While Jacob of Edessa is said to have ordained
some 100,000 priests and deacons for his fellow-believers, in the 16th
century the Jacobites of Syria were estimated at only 50,000 families.
The Monophysite church of Egypt had a like fate. At the time of the
separation of the churches the Greeks here had remained faithful to
Orthodoxy, the Copts to Monophysitism. Here too the Arab conquest (641)
put an end to the oppression of the native Christians by the Greek
minority; but this did not afford the Coptic church any possibility of
vigorous development. It succumbed to the ceaseless alternation of
tolerance and persecution which characterized the Arab rule in Egypt,
and the mass of the Coptic people became unfaithful to the Church. At
the time of the conquest of the country by the Turks (1517) the Coptic
church seems already to have fallen to the low condition in which the
19th century found it. Though at the time of the Arab conquest the Copts
were reckoned at six millions, in 1820 the Coptic Christians numbered
only about one hundred thousand, and it is improbable that their number
can have been much greater at the close of the middle ages. Only in
Abyssinia the daughter church of the Coptic church succeeded in keeping
the whole people in the Christian faith. This fact, however, is the sole
outcome of the history of a thousand years; a poor result, if measured
by the standard of the rich history of the Western world, yet large
enough not to exclude the hope of a new development.
II. THE WEST, (a) _The Early Middle Ages. The Catholic Church as
influenced by the Foundation of the Teutonic States._--While the Eastern
Church was stereotyping those peculiar characteristics which made her a
thing apart, the Church of the West was brought face to face with the
greatest revolution that Europe has ever experienced. At the end of the
6th century all the provinces of the Empire had become independent
kingdoms, in which conquerors of Germanic race formed the dominant
nationality. The remnants of the Empire showed an uncommonly tough
vitality. It is true that the Teutonic states succeeded everywhere in
establishing themselves; but only in England and in the erstwhile Roman
Germany did the Roman nationality succumb to the Teutonic. In the other
countries it not only maintained itself, but was able to assimilate the
ruling German race; the Lombards, West Goths, Swabians, and even the
Franks in the greater part of Gaul became Romanized. Consequently the
position of the Christian Church was never seriously affected. This is
the great fact which stands out at the beginning of the history of the
Church in the middle ages. The continuity of the political history of
Europe was violently interrupted by the Germanic invasion, but not that
of the history of the Church. For, in view of the facts above stated, it
was of small significance that in Britain Christianity was driven back
into the western portion of the island still held by the Britons, and
that in the countries of the Rhine and Danube a few bishoprics
disappeared.
This was of the less importance, as the Church immediately made
preparations to win back the lost territory. On the frontier line of
ancient and medieval times stands the figure of Gregory I., the
incarnation as it were of the change that was taking place: half Father
of the Church, half medieval pope. He it was who sent the monk Augustine
to England, in order to win over the Anglo-Saxons to the Christian
faith. Augustine was not the first preacher of the Gospel at Canterbury.
A Frankish bishop, Liudhard, had laboured there before his time; but the
mission of Augustine and his ordination as a bishop were decisive in the
conversion of the country and the establishment of the Anglo-Saxon
church. On the continent an extension of the Frankish supremacy towards
the east had already led to the advance of Christendom. Not only were
the bishoprics in the towns of the Rhine country re-established, but as
the Franks colonized the country on both sides of the Main, they carried
the Christian faith into the very heart of Germany. Finally, the
dependence of the Swabian and Bavarian peoples on the Frankish empire
paved the way for Christianity in those provinces also. Celtic monks
worked as missionaries in this part of the country side by side with
Franks. In England it had not been possible to bring the old British and
the young Anglo-Saxon churches into friendly union; but in spite of this
the Celts did not abstain from working at the common tasks of
Christendom, and the continent has much to thank them for. When the
first century of the middle ages came to an end the Church had not only
reoccupied the former territory of the Empire, she had already begun to
overstep its limits.
In so doing she had remained as of old and had yet become new. Creed and
dogma, above all, remained unchanged. The doctrinal decisions of the
ancient Church remained the indestructible canon of belief, and what the
theologians of the ancient Church had taught was reverenced as beyond
improvement. The entire form of divine worship remained therefore
unaltered. Even where the Latin tongue was not understood by the people,
the Church preserved it in the Mass and in the administration of the
sacraments, in her exorcisms and in her benedictions. Furthermore, the
organization of ecclesiastical offices remained unchanged: the division
of the Church into bishoprics and the grouping together of bishoprics
into metropolitan dioceses. Finally, the property and the whole social
status of the Church and of the hierarchy remained unchanged, as did
also the conviction that the perfection of the Christian life was to be
sought and found in the monastic profession.
Nevertheless, the new conditions did exercise the strongest influence
upon the character of the Church. The churches of the Lombards, West
Goths, Franks and Anglo-Saxons, all counted themselves parts of the
Catholic Church; but the Catholic Church had altered its condition; it
lacked the power of organization, and split up into territorial
churches. Under the Empire the ecumenical council had been looked upon
as the highest representative organ of the Catholic Church; but the
earlier centuries of the middle ages witnessed the convocation of no
ecumenical councils. Under the Empire the bishop of Rome had possessed
in the Church an authority recognized and protected by the State;
respect for Rome and for the successor of Saint Peter was not forgotten
by the new territorial churches, but it had altered in character; legal
authority had become merely moral authority; its wielder could exhort,
warn, advise but could not command.
On the other hand, the kings did command in the Church. They certainly
claimed no authority over faith or doctrine, and they too respected
doctrinal law; but they succeeded in asserting their rights to a
practical share in the government of the Church. The clergy and laity of
a diocese together elected their bishop, as they had done before; but no
one could become a bishop against the will of the king, and the
confirmation of their choice rested with him. The bishops continued to
meet in synods as before, but the councils became territorial synods;
they were called together at irregular intervals by the king, and their
decisions obtained legal effect only by royal sanction.
In these circumstances the intrusion of Germanic elements into
ecclesiastical law is easy to understand. This is most clearly
recognizable in the case of churches which arose alongside the
episcopal cathedrals. In the Empire all churches, and all the property
of the Church, were at the disposal of the bishops; in Germanic
countries, on the contrary, the territorial nobles were looked upon as
the owners of churches built upon their lands, and these became
"proprietary churches." The logical consequence of this was that the
territorial nobles claimed the right of appointing clergy, and the
enjoyment of the revenues of these churches derived from the land
(tithes). Even a certain number of the monastic establishments came in
this way into the possession of the feudal landowners, who nominated
abbots and abbesses as they appointed the incumbents of their churches.
With these conditions, and with the diminution of the ascendancy of town
over country that resulted from the Teutonic conquests, is connected the
rise of the parochial system in the country. The parishes were further
grouped together into rural deaneries and archdeaconries. Thus the
diocese, hitherto a simple unit, became an elaborately articulated
whole. The bishopric of the middle ages bears the same name as that of
the ancient Church; but in many respects it has greatness that is new.
This transformation of old institutions is the first great result of
Germanic influence in the Christian Church. It continues to the present
day in the universal survival of the parochial system.
In the middle ages the civilizing task of the Church was first
approached in England. This was the home of the Latin Christian
literature and theology of medieval times. Aldhelm (d. 709) and the
Venerable Bede (d. 735) were the first scholars of the period. England
was also the home of Winfrid Bonifatius (d. 757). We are accustomed to
look upon him chiefly as a missionary; but his completion of the
conversion of the peoples of central Germany (Thuringians and Hessians)
and his share in that of the Frisians, are the least part of his
life-work. Of more importance is the fact that, in co-operation with the
bishops of Rome, he carried out the organization of the church in
Bavaria, and began the reorganization of the Frankish church, which had
fallen into confusion and decay during the political disorders of the
last years of the Merovingians. It was Boniface, too, who, with the aid
of numerous English priests, monks and nuns, introduced the literary
culture of England into Germany.
Pippin (d. 768) and Charlemagne (d. 814) built on the foundations laid
by Winfrid. For the importance of Charlemagne's work, from the point of
view of the Church, consists also, not so much in the fact that, by his
conversion of the Saxons, the Avars and the Wends in the eastern Alps,
he substantially extended the Church's dominions, as in his having led
back the Frankish Church to the fulfilment of her functions as a
religious and civilizing agent. This was the purpose of his
ecclesiastical legislation. The principal means to this end taken by him
was the raising of the status of the clergy. From the priests he
demanded faithfulness in preaching and teaching, from the bishops the
conscientious government of their dioceses. The monasteries, too,
learned to serve the Church by becoming nurseries of literary and
theological culture. For the purpose of carrying out his ideas
Charlemagne gathered round him the best intellects of Europe. None was
more intimately associated with him than the Anglo-Saxon Alcuin (d.
804); but he was only one among many. Beside him are the Celts Josephus
Scottus and Dungal, the Lombards Paulinus and Paulus Diaconus, the West
Goth Theodulf and many Franks. Under their guidance theology flourished
in the Frankish empire. It was as little original as that of Bede; for
on the continent, too, scholars were content to think what those of old
had thought before them. But in so doing they did not only repeat the
old formulae; the ideas of the men of old sprang into new life. This is
shown by the searching discussions to which the Adoptionist controversy
gave rise. At the same time, the controversy with the Eastern Church
over the adoration of images shows that the younger Western theology
felt itself equal, if not superior to the Greek. This was in fact the
case; for it knew how to treat the question, which divided the Greeks,
in a more dispassionate and practical manner than they.
The second generation of Frankish theologians did not lag behind the
first. Hrabanus of Fulda (who died archbishop of Mainz in 856) was in
the range of his knowledge undoubtedly Alcuin's superior. He was the
first learned theologian produced by Germany. His disciple, Abbot
Walafrid Strabo of Reichenau (d. 849), was the author of the _Glossa
Ordinaria_, a work which formed the foundation of biblical exposition
throughout the middle ages. France was still more richly provided with
theologians in the 9th century: her most prominent names are Hincmar,
archbishop of Reims (d. 882), Bishop Prudentius of Troyes (d. 861), the
monks Servatus Lupus (d. 862), Radbert Paschasius (d. circa 860), and
Ratramnus (d. after 868); and the last theologian who came into France
from abroad, Johannes Scotus Erigena (d. circa 880). The theological
method of all these was merely that of restatement. But the controversy
about predestination, which, in the 9th century, Hincmar and Hrabanus
fought out with the monk Gottschalk of Fulda, as well as the discussions
that arose from the definition of the doctrine of transubstantiation of
Radbert, enable us to gauge the intellectual energy with which
theological problems were once more being handled.
Charlemagne followed his father's policy in carrying out his
ecclesiastical measures in close association with the bishops of Rome.
He renewed the donation of Pippin, and as _Patrician_ he took Rome under
his protection. From Pope Adrian I. he received the _Dionyso-Hadriana_,
the Roman collection of material bearing on the ancient ecclesiastical
law. But the Teutonic elements maintained their place in the law of the
Frankish Church; and this was not altered by the fact that, since
Christmas 800, the king of the Franks and Lombards had borne the title
of Roman emperor. On the contrary, Rome itself was now for the first
time affected by the predominance of the new empire; for Charlemagne
converted the patriciate into effective sovereignty, and the successor
of St Peter became the chief metropolitan of the Frankish empire.
There were, indeed, forces tending in the contrary direction; and these
were present in the Frankish empire. Evidence of this is given by the
canon law forgeries of the 9th century: the _capitula_ of Angelram, the
Capitularies of Benedictus Levita (see CAPITULARY), and the great
collection of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. For the moment, however,
this party met with no success. Of more importance was the fact that at
Rome the old conditions, the old claims, and the old law were
unforgotten. Developing the ideas of Leo I., Gelasius I. and Gregory the
Great, Nicholas I. (858-867) drew a picture of the divine right and
unlimited power of the bishop of Rome, which anticipated all that the
greatest of his successors were, centuries later, actually to effect.
The time had not, however, yet come for the establishment of the papal
world-dominion. For, while the power of Charlemagne's successors was
decaying, the papacy itself became involved in the confusion of the
party strife of Italy and of the city of Rome, and was plunged in
consequence into such an abyss of degradation (the so-called
Pornocracy), that it was in danger of forfeiting every shred of its
moral authority over Christendom.
(b) _Central Period of the Middle Ages. Dominance of the Roman Spirit in
the Church._--After the accession of the House of Saxony (919), the
national ecclesiastical system, founded upon the principles of
Carolingian law, developed in Germany with fresh energy. The union in
962 by Otto I. of the revived Empire with the German kingship brought
the latter into uninterrupted contact with the papacy. The revelation of
the antagonism between the German conception of ecclesiastical affairs
and Roman views of ecclesiastical law was sooner or later inevitable.
This was most obvious in the matter of appointment to bishoprics. At
Rome canonical election was alone regarded as lawful; in Germany, on the
other hand, developments since the time of Charlemagne had led to the
actual appointment of bishops being in the hands of the king, although
the form of ecclesiastical election was preserved. For the transference
of a bishopric a special legal form was evolved--that of investiture,
the king investing the bishop elect with the see by delivering to him
the ring and pastoral staff. No one found anything objectionable in
this; investiture with a bishopric was parallel with the appointment by
a territorial proprietor to a patronal church.
The practice customary in Germany was finally transferred to Rome
itself. The desperate position of the papacy in the 11th century obliged
Henry III. to intervene. When, on the 24th of December 1046, after three
rival popes had been set aside, he nominated Suidgar, bishop of Bamberg,
as bishop of Rome before all the people in St Peter's, the papacy was
bestowed in the same way as a German bishopric; and what had occurred in
this case was to become the rule. By procuring the transference of the
patriciate from the Roman people to himself Henry assured his influence
over the appointment of the popes, and accordingly also nominated the
successors of Clement II.
His intervention saved the papacy. For the popes nominated by him, Leo
IX. in particular, were men of high character, who exercised their
office in a loftier spirit than their corrupt predecessors. They placed
themselves at the head of the movement for ecclesiastical reform. But
was it possible for the relation between Empire and Papacy to remain
what Henry III. had made it?
The original sources of this reform movement lay far back, in the time
of the Carolingians. It has been pointed out how Charlemagne pressed the
monks into the service of his civilizing aims. We admire this; but it is
certain that he thereby alienated monasticism from its original ideals.
These, however, had far too strong a hold upon the Roman world for a
reaction against the new tendency to be long avoided. This reaction
began with the reform of Benedict of Aniane (d. 821), the aim of which
was to bring the Benedictine order back to the principles of its
original rules. In the next century the reform movement acquired a fresh
centre in the Burgundian monastery of Cluny. The energy of a succession
of distinguished abbots and the disciples whom they inspired succeeded
in bringing about the victory of the reforming ideas in the French
monasteries; once more the rule of St Benedict controlled the life of
the monks. A large number of the reformed monasteries attached
themselves to the congregation of Cluny, thus assuring the influence of
reformed monasticism upon the Church, and securing likewise its
independence of the diocesan bishops, since the abbot of Cluny was
subordinate of the pope alone. (See CLUNY; BENEDICTINES and
MONASTICISM.) At the same time that Cluny began to grow into importance,
other centres of the monastic reform movement were established in Upper
and Lower Lorraine; and before long the activity of the Cluniac monks
made itself felt in Italy. In Germany Poppo of Stavelot (d. 1048) was a
successful champion of their ideas; in England Dunstan (d. 988 as
archbishop of Canterbury) worked independently, but on similar lines.
Everywhere the object was the same: the supreme obligation of the Rule,
the renewal of discipline, and also the economic improvement of the
monasteries. The reform movement had originally no connexion with
ecclesiastical politics; but that came later when the leaders turned
their attention to the abuses prevalent among the clergy, to the
conditions obtaining in the Church in defiance of the ecclesiastical
law. "Return to the canon law!" was now the battle-cry. In the Cluniac
circle was coined the principle: _Canonica auctoritas Dei lex est_,
canon law being taken in the Pseudo-Isidorian sense. The programme of
reform thus included not only the extirpation of simony and Nicolaitism,
but also the freeing of the Church from the influence of the State, the
recovery of her absolute control over all her possessions, the liberty
of the Church and of the hierarchy.
As a result, the party of reform placed itself in opposition to those
ecclesiastical conditions which had arisen since the conversion of the
Teutonic peoples. It was, then, a fact pregnant with the most momentous
consequences that Leo IX. attached himself to the party of reform. For,
thanks to him and to the men he gathered round him (Hildebrand, Humbert
and others), their principles were established in Rome, and the pope
himself became the leader of ecclesiastical reform. But the carrying out
of reforms led at once to dissensions with the civil power, the
starting-point being the attack upon simony.
Originally, in accordance with Acts viii. 18 et seq., simony was held to
be the purchase of ordination. In the 9th century the interpretation was
extended to include all acquisition of ecclesiastical offices or
benefices for money or money's worth. Since the landed proprietors
disposed of churches and convents, and the kings of bishoprics and
abbeys, it became possible for them too to commit the sin of simony;
hence a final expansion, in the 11th century, of the meaning of the
term. The Pseudo-Isidorian idea being that all lay control over things
ecclesiastical is wrong, all transferences by laymen of ecclesiastical
offices or benefices, even though no money changed hands in the process,
were now classed as simony (Humbert, _Adversus Simoniacos_, 1057-1058).
Thus the lord who handed over a living was a simonist, and so too was
the king who invested a bishop. On this question the battle began. The
Church at first refrained from contesting the rights of the landowners
over their own churches, and concentrated her attack upon investiture.
In 1059 the new system of papal election introduced by Nicholas II.
ensured the occupation of the Holy See by a pope favourable to the party
of reform; and in 1078 Gregory VII. issued his prohibition of lay
investiture. In the years of conflict that followed Gregory looked far
beyond this point; he set his aim ever higher; until, in the end, his
idea was to concentrate all ecclesiastical power in the hands of the
pope, and to raise the papacy to the dominion of the world. Thus was to
be realized the old dream of Augustine: that of a Kingdom of God on
earth under the rule of the Church. But it was not given to Gregory to
reach this goal, and his successors had to return again to the strife
over investiture. The settlement of 1111 may be said to have embodied
the only solution of the great question that was right in principle,
since it pronounced in favour of a clear distinction between the
spiritual and temporal spheres. However, a solution that was right in
principle proved impossible in practice, and the long struggle ended in
a compromise by the Concordat of Worms (1122). The essential part of
this was that the Empire accepted the canonical election of bishops, and
allowed the metropolitan to confer the sacred office by gift of ring and
pastoral staff; while the Church acknowledged that the bishop held his
temporal rights from the Empire, and was therefore to be invested with
them by a touch from the royal sceptre. A similar solution was arrived
at in England. Henry I. also renounced his claim to bestow ring and
pastoral staff, but kept the right of induction into the temporalities
(1106-1107). In France the demands of the Church were successful to the
same degree as in England and Germany, but without any conflict. Thus
the Germanic element in the law regarding appointment to bishoprics was
eliminated. Somewhat later it disappeared also in the case of the
churches of less importance, patronal rights over these being
substituted for the former absolute ownership. The pontificate of
Alexander III. (1159-1181) decided this.
Since the time of Charlemagne Germanic influence had preponderated in
the West, as is shown in the expansion of the Church no less than in
matters of ecclesiastical law. The whole progress of Christianity in
Europe from the 9th to the 12th century was due--if we exclude Eastern
Christendom--to the Teutonic nations; neither the papacy nor the peoples
of Latin race were concerned in it. German priests and bishops carried
the Christian faith to the Czechs and the Moravians, laboured among the
Hungarians and the Poles, and won the wide district between the Elbe and
the Oder at once for Christianity and for the German nation. Germany,
too, was the starting-point for the conversion of the Scandinavian
countries, which was completed by English priests with the assistance of
native princes.
But, even while the Teutonic peoples were thus taking the lead, we can
see the Latin races beginning to assert themselves. The monastic reform
movement was essentially Latin in origin; and even more significant was
the fact that scholasticism, the new theology, had its home in the Latin
countries. Aristotelian dialectics had always been taught in the
schools; and reason as well as authority had been appealed to as the
foundation of theology; but for the theologians of the 9th and 10th
centuries, whose method had been merely that of restatement, _ratio_ and
_auctoritas_ were in perfect accord. Then Berengar of Tours (d. 1088)
ventured to set up reason against authority: by reason the truth must be
decided. This involved the question of the relation in theology of
authority and reason, and of whether the theological method is
authoritative or rational. To these questions Berengar gave no answer;
he was ruined by his opposition to Radbert's doctrine of
transubstantiation. The Lombard Anselm (d. 1109), archbishop of
Canterbury, was the first to deal with the subject. He took as his
starting-point the traditional faith; but he was convinced that whoever
has experience of the truths of the faith would be able to understand
them. In accordance with this principle he pointed out the goal of
theology and the way to its attainment: the function of theology is to
demonstrate dogmas _sola ratione_.
It was a bold conception--too bold for the medieval world, for which
faith was primarily the obligation to believe. It was easy, therefore,
to understand why Anselm's method did not become the dominant one in
theology. Not he, but the Frenchman Abelard (d. 1142), was the creator
of the scholastic method. Abelard, too, started from tradition; but he
discovered that the statements of the various authorities are very often
in the relation of _sic et non_, yes and no. Upon this fact he based his
pronouncement as to the function of theology: it must employ the
dialectic method to reconcile the contradictions of tradition, and thus
to shape the doctrines of the faith in accordance with reason. By
teaching this method Abelard created the implements for the erection of
the great theological systems of the schoolmen of the 12th and 13th
centuries: Peter Lombard (d. 1160), Alexander of Hales (d. 1245),
Albertus Magnus (d. 1280), and Thomas Aquinas (d. 1275). They adventured
a complete exposition of Christian doctrine that should be altogether
ecclesiastical and at the same time altogether rational. In so doing
they set to work at the same time to complete the development of
ecclesiastical dogma; the formulation of the Catholic doctrine of the
Sacraments was the work of scholasticism.
Canon law is the twin-sister of scholasticism. At the very time when
Peter Lombard was shaping his Sentences, the monk Gratian of Bologna was
making a new collection of laws. It was not only significant that in the
_Concordia discordantium canonum_ ecclesiastical laws, whether from
authentic or forged sources, were gathered together without regard to
the existing civil law; of even greater eventual importance was the fact
that Gratian taught that the contradictions of the canon law were to be
reconciled by the same method as that used by theology to reconcile the
discrepancies of doctrinal tradition. Thus Gratian became the founder of
the science of canon law, a science which, like the scholastic theology,
was entirely ecclesiastical and entirely rational (See CANON LAW).
Like the new theology and the new science of law, the new monasticism
was also rooted in Latin soil. In the first of the new orders, that of
the Cistercians (1098), the old monastic ideal set forth in the Rule of
Benedict of Nursia still prevailed; but in the constitution and
government of the order new ideas were at work. In the Premonstratensian
order, however, founded in 1120 by Norbert of Xanten, a new conception
of the whole function of monachism was introduced: the duty of the
priest-monk is not only to work out his own salvation, but, by preaching
and cure of souls, to labour for others. This was the dominant idea of
the order of friars preachers founded in 1216, on the basis of the
Premonstratensian rule, by Dominic of Osma (see DOMINIC, SAINT, and
DOMINICANS). It was also the basis of the order of friars minor
(Franciscans, q.v.), founded in 1210. For the foundation of Francis of
Assisi came into existence as a society of itinerant preachers: no one
was more deeply convinced than Francis of the duty of working for
others, and his own mission was, as he said, to win souls. But with this
idea he fused another, namely, that it is the task of the monk to
imitate the humility and poverty of Jesus; and his order thus became a
mendicant order. From the earliest times the monks had renounced all
private property, and no individual monk, but only the order to which he
belonged, could acquire possessions. For Francis this was not enough: he
put "holy poverty" in place of renunciation of private property, and
allowed neither monk nor monastery to have any possessions whatever; for
only thus is the following of Jesus complete. So mighty was the
impression made by the poverty of the Minorites, that the Dominicans
promptly followed their example and likewise became mendicant.
This alone would serve to indicate the remarkable deepening of the
religious life that had taken place in the Latin countries. Its
beginning may be traced as early as the 11th century (Pietro Damiani,
q.v.), and in the 12th century the most influential exponent of this new
piety was Bernard (q.v.) of Clairvaux, who taught men to find God by
leading them to Christ. Contemporary with him were Hugh (q.v.) of St
Victor and his pupil Richard (q.v.) of St Victor, both monks of the
abbey of St Victor at Paris, the aim of whose teaching, based on that of
the Pseudo-Dionysius, was a mystical absorption of thought in the
Godhead and the surrender of self to the Eternal Love. Under the
influence of these ideas, in part purely Christian and in part
neo-platonic, piety gained in warmth and depth and became more personal;
and though at first it flourished in the monasteries, and in those of
the mendicant orders especially, it penetrated far beyond them and
influenced the laity everywhere.
The new piety did not set itself in opposition either to the hierarchy
or to the institutions of the Church, such as the sacraments and the
discipline of penance, nor did it reject those foreign elements
(asceticism, worship of saints and the like) which had passed of old
time into Christianity from the ancient world. Its temper was not
critical, but aggressively practical. It led the Romance nations to
battle for Christendom. In the 11th and 12th centuries the chivalry of
Spain and southern France took up the struggle with the Moors as a holy
war. In the autumn of 1096 the nobles of France and Italy, joined by the
Norman barons of England and Sicily, set out to wrest the Holy Land from
the unbelievers; and for more than a century the cry, "Christ's land
must be won for Christ," exercised an unparalleled power in Western
Christendom.
All this meant a mighty exaltation of the Church, which ruled the minds
of men as she had hardly ever done before. Nor was it possible that the
position of the bishop of Rome, the supreme head of the Western Church,
should remain unaffected by it. Two of the most powerful of the German
emperors, Frederick I. and his son Henry VI., struggled to renew and to
maintain the imperial supremacy over the papacy. The close relations
between northern Italy and the Empire, and the union of the sovereignty
of southern Italy with the German crown, seemed to afford the means for
keeping Rome in subjection. But Frederick I. fought a losing battle, and
when at the peace of Venice (1177) he recognized Alexander III. as pope,
he relinquished the hope of carrying out his Italian policy; while Henry
VI. died at the early age of thirty-two (1197), before his far-reaching
schemes had been realized.
The field was thus cleared for the full development of papal power. This
had greatly increased since the Concordat of Worms, and reached its
height under Innocent III. (1198-1216). Innocent believed himself to be
the representative of God, and as such the supreme possessor of both
spiritual and temporal power. He therefore claimed in both spheres the
supreme administrative, legislative and judicial authority. Just as he
considered himself entitled to appoint to all ecclesiastical offices, so
also he invested the emperor with his empire and kings with their
kingdoms. Not only did he despatch his decretals to the universities to
form the basis of the teaching of the canon law and of the decisions
founded upon it, but he considered himself empowered to annul civil
laws. Thus he annulled the Great Charter in 1215. Just as the Curia was
the supreme court of appeal in ecclesiastical causes, so also the pope
threatened disobedient princes with deposition, e.g. the emperor Otto
IV. in 1210, and John of England in 1212.
The old institutions of the Catholic Church were transformed to suit the
new position of the pope. From 1123 onward there had again been talk of
general councils; but, unlike those of earlier times, these were
assemblies summoned by the pope, who confirmed their resolutions. The
canonical election of bishops also continued to be discussed; but the
old electors, i.e. the clergy and laity of the dioceses, were deprived
of the right of election, this being now transferred exclusively to the
cathedral chapters. The bishops kept their old title, but they described
themselves accurately as "bishops by grace of the apostolic see," for
they administered their dioceses as plenipotentiaries of the pope; and
as time went on even the Church's criminal jurisdiction became more and
more concentrated in the hands of the pope (see INQUISITION).
The rule of the Church by the Roman bishop had thus become a reality;
but the papal claim to supreme temporal authority proved impossible to
maintain, although Innocent III. had apparently enforced it. The long
struggle against Frederick II., carried on by Gregory IX. (1227-1241)
and Innocent IV. (1243-1254), did not result in victory; no papal
sentence, but only death itself, deprived the emperor of his dominions;
and when Boniface VIII. (1294-1303), who in the bull _Unam Sanctam_
(1302) gave the papal claims to universal dominion their classical form,
quarrelled with Philip IV. of France about the extension of the royal
power, he could not but perceive that the national monarchy had become a
force which it was impossible for the papacy to overcome.
(c) _Close of the Middle Ages. Disintegration._--While the Church was
yet at the height of her power the great revolution began, which was to
end in the disruption of that union between the Temporal and the
Spiritual which, under her dominion, had characterized the life of the
West. The Temporal now claimed its proper rights. The political power of
the Empire, indeed, had been shattered; but this left all the more room
for the vigorous development of national states, notably of France and
England. At the same time intellectual life was enriched by a wealth of
fresh views and new ideas, partly the result of the busy intercourse
with the East to which the Crusades had given the first impetus, and
which had been strengthened and extended by lively trade relations,
partly of the revived study, eagerly pursued, of ancient philosophy and
literature (see RENAISSANCE). Old forms became too narrow, and
vigorously growing national literatures appeared side by side with the
universal Latin literature. The life of the Church, moreover, was
affected by the economic changes due to the rise of the power of money
as opposed to the old economic system based upon land.
The effects of these changes made themselves felt on all sides, in no
case more strongly than in that of the papal claims to the supreme
government of the world. Theoretically they were still unwaveringly
asserted; indeed it was not till this time that they received their most
uncompromising expression (Augustinus Triumphus, d. 1328; Alvarus
Pelagius, d. 1352). After Boniface VIII., however, no pope seriously
attempted to realize them; to do so had in fact become impossible, for
from the time of their residence at Avignon (1305-1377) the popes were
in a state of complete dependence upon the French crown. But even the
curialistic theory met everywhere with opposition. In France Philip
IV.'s jurists maintained that the temporal power was independent of the
spiritual. In Italy, a little later, Dante championed the divine right
of the emperor (_De Monarchia_, 1311). In Germany, Marsiglio of Padua
and Jean of Jandun, the literary allies of the emperor Louis IV.,
ventured to define anew the nature of the civil power from the
standpoint of natural law, and to assert its absolute sovereignty
(_Defensor pacis_, c. 1352); while the Franciscan William of Occam (d.
1349) examined, also in Louis' interests, into the nature of the
relation between the two powers. He too concluded that the temporal
power is independent of the spiritual, and is even justified in invading
the sphere of the latter in cases of necessity.
While these thoughts were filling men's minds, opposition to the papal
rule over the Church was also gaining continually in strength. The
reasons for this were numerous, first among them being the abuses of the
papal system of finance, which had to provide funds for the vast
administrative machinery of the Curia. There was also the boundless
abuse and arbitrary exercise of the right of ecclesiastical patronage
(provisions, reservations); and further the ever-increasing traffic in
dispensations, the abuse of spiritual punishments for worldly ends, and
so forth. No means, however, existed of enforcing any remedy until the
papal schism occurred in 1378. Such a schism as this, so intolerable to
the ecclesiastical sense of the middle ages, necessitated the discovery
of some authority superior to the rival popes, and therefore able to put
an end to their quarrelling. General councils were now once more called
to mind; but these were no longer conceived as mere advisory councils to
the pope, but as the highest representative organ of the universal
Church, and as such ranking above the pope, and competent to demand
obedience even from him. This was the view of the Germans Conrad of
Gelnhausen (d. 1390) and Heinrich of Langenstein (d. 1397), as also of
the Frenchmen Pierre d'Ailli (d. 1420) and Jean Charlier Gerson (d.
1429). These all recognized in the convocation of a general council the
means of setting bounds to the abuses in the government of the Church by
an extensive reform. The council of Pisa (1409) separated without
effecting anything; but the council of Constance (1414-1418) did
actually put an end to the schism. The reforms begun at Constance and
continued at Basel (1431-1449) proved, however, insufficient. Above all,
the attempt to set up the general council as an ordinary institution of
the Catholic Church failed; and the Roman papacy, restored at Constance,
preserved its irresponsible and unlimited power over the government of
the Church. (See PAPACY; CONSTANCE, COUNCIL OF, and BASEL, COUNCIL OF.)
Thus the attempt to reform the Church by means of councils failed; but
this very failure led to the survival of the desire for reform. It was
kept alive by the most various circumstances; in the first instance by
the attitude of the European states. Thanks to his recognition by the
powers, Pope Eugenius IV. (1431-1447) had been victorious over the
council of Basel; but neither France nor Germany was prepared to forgo
the reforms passed by the council. France secured their validity, as far
as she herself was concerned, by the Pragmatic Sanction of Bourges (July
7, 1438); Germany followed with the Acceptation of Mainz (March 26,
1439). The theory of the papal supremacy held by the Curia was thus at
least called in question.
The antagonism of the opposition parties was even more pronounced. The
tendencies which they represented had been present when the middle ages
were yet at their height; but the papacy, while at the zenith of its
power, had succeeded in crushing the attacks made upon the creed of the
Church by its most dangerous foes, the dualistic Cathari. On the other
hand it had not been able to overcome the less radical opposition of the
"Poor Man of Lyons" (Waldo, d. _c._ 1217), and even in the 15th century
stray supporters of the Waldensian teaching were to be found in Italy,
France and Germany, everywhere keeping alive mistrust of the temporal
power of the Church, of her priesthood and her hierarchy. In England the
hierarchy was attacked by John Wycliffe (d. 1384), its greatest opponent
before Luther. Starting from Augustine's conception of the Church as the
community of the elect, he protested against a church of wealth and
power, a church that had become a political institution instead of a
school of salvation, and against its head, the bishop of Rome.
Wycliffe's ideas, conveyed to the continent, precipitated the outbreak
of the Hussite storm in Bohemia. The council of Constance thought to
quell it by condemnation of Wycliffe's teaching and by the execution of
John Huss (1415). But in vain. The flame burst forth, not in Bohemia
alone, where Huss's death gave the signal for a general rising, but also
in England among the Lollards, and in Germany among those of Huss's
persuasion, who had many points of agreement with the remnant of the
Waldenses.
(See HUSS; WYCLIFFE; LOLLARDS; WALDENSES.)
This was open opposition; but there was besides another opposing force
which, though it raised no noise of controversy, yet was far more widely
severed from the views of the Church than either Wycliffe or Huss: this
was the Renaissance, which began its reign in Italy during the 14th
century. The Renaissance meant the emancipation of the secular world
from the domination of the Church, and it contributed in no small
measure to the rupture of the educated class with ecclesiastical
tradition. Beauty of form alone was at first sought, and found in the
antique; but, with the form, the spirit of the classical attitude
towards life was revived. While the Church, like a careful mother,
sought to lead her children, never allowed to grow up, safely from time
into eternity, the men of the Renaissance felt that they had come of
age, and that they were entitled to make themselves at home in this
world. They wished to possess the earth and enjoy it by means of secular
education and culture, and an impassable gulf yawned between their views
of religion and morality and those of the Church.
This return to the ideals of antiquity did not remain confined to Italy,
but the humanism of the northern countries presents no close parallel to
the Italian renaissance. However much it agreed in admiration of the
ancients, it differed absolutely in its preservation of the fundamental
ideas of Christianity. But neither Reuchlin (d. 1522), Erasmus (d.
1536), Faber d'Étaples (d. 1536), Thomas More (d. 1535), nor the
numerous others who were their disciples, or who shared their views,
were in the least degree satisfied with the conditions prevailing in the
Church. Their ideal was a return to that simplicity of primitive
Christendom which they believed they found revealed in the New Testament
and in the writings of the early Fathers.
To this theology could not point the way. Since the time of Duns Scotus
(d. 1308) theologians had been conscious of the discrepancy between
Aristotelianism and ecclesiastical dogma. Faith in the infallibility of
the scholastic system was thus shaken, and the system itself was
destroyed by the revival of philosophic nominalism, which had been
discredited in the 11th century by the realism of the great schoolmen.
It now found a bold supporter in William of Occam (q.v.), and through
him became widely accepted. But nominalism was powerless to inspire
theology with new life; on the contrary, its intervention only increased
the inextricable tangle of the hairsplitting questions with which
theology busied itself, and made their solution more and more
impossible.
Mysticism, moreover, which had no lack of noteworthy supporters in the
14th and 15th centuries, and the various new departures in thought
initiated by individual theologians such as Nicolaus Cusanus (d. 1464)
and Wessel Gansfort (d. 1489), were not competent to restore to the
Church what she had once possessed in scholasticism--that is to say, a
conception of Christianity in which all Christendom recognized the
convictions in which it lived and had its being.
This was all the more significant because Western Christendom in the
15th century was by no means irreligious. Men's minds were agitated by
spiritual questions, and they sought salvation and the assurance of
salvation, using every means prescribed by the Church: confession and
the communion, indulgences and relics, pilgrimages and oblations,
prayers and attendance at church; none of all these were contemned or
held cheap. Yet the age had no inward peace.
After the failure of the attempts at reform by the councils, the
guidance of the Church was left undisturbed in the hands of the popes,
and they were determined that it should remain so. In 1450 Eugenius IV.
set up in opposition to the council of Basel a general council summoned
by himself, which met first at Ferrara and afterwards at Florence. Here
he appeared to score a great success. The split between East and West
had led in the 11th century to the rupture of ecclesiastical relations
between Rome and Constantinople. This schism had lasted since the 16th
of July 1054; but now a union with the Eastern Church was successfully
accomplished at Florence. Eugenius certainly owed his success merely to
the political necessities of the emperor of the East, and his union was
forthwith destroyed owing to its repudiation by oriental Christendom;
yet at the same time his decretals of union were not devoid of
importance, for in them the pope reaffirmed the scholastic doctrine
regarding the sacraments as a dogma of the Church, and he spoke as the
supreme head of all Christendom.
This claim to the supreme government of the Church was to be steadily
maintained. In the year 1512 Julius II. called together the fifth
Lateran general council, which expressly recognized the subjection of
the councils to the pope (Leo X.'s bull _Pastor Aeternum_, of the 19th
of December 1516), and also declared the constitution _Unam Sanctam_
(see above) valid in law.
But the papacy that sought to win back its old position was itself no
longer the same as of old. Eugenius IV.'s successor, Nicholas V.
(1447-1455), was the first of the Renaissance popes. Under his
successors the views which prevailed at the secular courts of the
Italian princes came likewise into play at the Curia: the papacy became
an Italian princedom. Innocent VIII., Alexander VI., Julius II. were in
many respects remarkable men, but they were scarcely affected by the
convictions of the Christian faith. The terrible tragedy which was
consummated on the 23rd of May 1498 before the Palazzo Vecchio, in
Florence, casts a lurid light upon the irreconcilable opposition in
which the wearers of the papal dignity stood to medieval piety; for
Girolamo Savonarola was in every fibre a loyal son of the medieval
Church.
Twenty years after Savonarola's death Martin Luther made public his
theses against indulgences. The Reformation which thus began brought the
disintegrating process of the middle ages to an end, and at the same
time divided Western Catholicism in two. Yet we may say that this was
its salvation; for the struggle against Luther drove the papacy back to
its ecclesiastical duties, and the council of Trent established medieval
dogma as the doctrine of modern Catholicism in contradistinction to
Protestantism. (See also PAPACY; RENAISSANCE; REFORMATION, and
biographies of popes, &c.)
AUTHORITIES.--For sources see U. Chevalier, _Répertoire des sources
historiques du moyen-âge_ (Paris, 1903); A. Potthast, _Bibliotheca
historica medii aevi_ (Berlin, 1896); W. Wattenbach, _Deutschlands
Geschichtsquellen im Mittelalter_ (7th ed., Stuttgart, 1904); A.
Molinier, _Les Sources de l'histoire de la France_ (Paris, 1901).
General Treatises: Philip Schaff, _History of the Christian Church_
(12 yols., 5th ed., New York, 1889-1892), vol. iv. _Medieval
Christianity_; W. Moeller, _Lehrbuch der Kirchengeschichte_, vol. ii.
_Das Mittelalter_ (Freiburg, 1891); H.H. Milman, _History of Latin
Christianity_ (6 vols., 2nd ed., London, 1857). Particular Treatises:
J. Lingard, _The History and Antiquities of the Anglo-Saxon Church_ (2
vols. 3rd ed., London, 1845); E. Churton, _The Early English Church_
(London, 1878); A. Martineau, _Church History in England from the
Earliest Times to the Reformation_ (London, 1878); W. Hunt, _The
English Church from its Foundation to the Norman Conquest_ (London,
1899); W. Stubbs, _Constitutional History of England_ (3 vols.,
London, 1874-1878); A. Bellesheim, _Geschichte der kathol. Kirche in
Schottland_ (2 vols., Mainz, 1883; Engl. transl. with Notes and
Additions by O.H. Blair, 4 vols., Edinburgh, 1887-1890); W. Stephen,
_History of the Scottish Church_ (Edinburgh, 1894-1896, 2 vols.); W.D.
Killen, _The Ecclesiastical History of Ireland_ (2 vols., London,
1875-1878); A. Bellesheim, _Geschichte der kath. Kirche in Irland_ (3
vols., Mainz, 1890-1891); F. Rettberg, _Kirchengeschichte
Deutschlands_ (2 vols. Göttingen, 1846, 1848); A. Hauck,
_Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_ (4 vols., Leipzig, 3rd ed., 1904);
_Gallia Christiana in provincias eccl. distributa_ (16 and 3 vols.,
Paris, 1715-1900); F.N. Fager, _Histoire de l'église cathol. en France
depuis son origine_ (19 vols., Paris, 1862-1873); Ughelli, _Italia
sacra_ (10 vols., Venice, 1717-1722); P. Gams, _Kirchengeschichte von
Spanien_ (5 vols., Regensburg, 1862-1879); H. Reuterdahl, _Svenska
Kyrkans historia_ (3 vols., Lund, 1838-1863); A. v. Maurer, _Die
Bekehrung des norwegischen Stammes_ (2 vols., Munich, 1855-1856);
Bang, _Udsigt over den norske Kirkes historie under Katholicismen_
(Christiania, 1887); P. Gams, _Series episcoporum ecclesiae
catholicae_ (Regensburg, 1873); C. Eubel, _Hierarchia catholica medii
aevi_ (2 vols., Münster, 1898, 1901); P. Hinschius, _System des kath.
Kirchenrechts_ (6 vols., Berlin, 1869-1896); E. Friedberg, _Lehrbuch
des Kirchenrechts_ (5th ed., Leipzig, 1903); U. Stutz, "Kirchenrecht"
(Holtzendorff-Kohler, _Encyklopaedie der Rechtswissenschaft_, 6th ed.
II. Leipzig, 1904); B. Hauréau, _Histoire de la philosophie
scolastique_ (Paris, 1872); F. Schwane, _Dogmengeschichte der
mittleren Zeit_ (Freiburg, 1882); A. Ebert, _Allgem. Geschichte der
Literatur des Mittelalters im Abendlande_ (3 vols., Leipzig,
1874-1887); C.F. v. Hefele, _Conciliengeschichte_ (2nd ed., 9 vols.,
Freiburg, 1873-1890). (A. H.*)