Home
  By Author [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Title [ A  B  C  D  E  F  G  H  I  J  K  L  M  N  O  P  Q  R  S  T  U  V  W  X  Y  Z |  Other Symbols ]
  By Language
all Classics books content using ISYS

Download this book: [ ASCII | HTML | PDF ]

Look for this book on Amazon


We have new books nearly every day.
If you would like a news letter once a week or once a month
fill out this form and we will give you a summary of the books for that week or month by email.

Title: The Church and the Barbarians - Being an Outline of the History of the Church from A.D. 461 to A.D. 1003
Author: Hutton, William Holden, 1860-1930
Language: English
As this book started as an ASCII text book there are no pictures available.
Copyright Status: Not copyrighted in the United States. If you live elsewhere check the laws of your country before downloading this ebook. See comments about copyright issues at end of book.

*** Start of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Church and the Barbarians - Being an Outline of the History of the Church from A.D. 461 to A.D. 1003" ***

This book is indexed by ISYS Web Indexing system to allow the reader find any word or number within the document.



THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS


  BEING AN OUTLINE OF
  THE HISTORY OF THE CHURCH
  FROM A.D. 461 TO A.D. 1003


BY THE REV.

WILLIAM HOLDEN HUTTON, B.D.



FELLOW AND TUTOR OF S. JOHN BAPTIST COLLEGE, OXFORD

EXAMINING CHAPLAIN TO THE BISHOP OF ROCHESTER



RIVINGTONS

34 KING STREET, COVENT GARDEN

LONDON

1906



[Transcriber's note: Page numbers in this book are indicated by numbers
enclosed in curly braces, e.g. {99}.  They have been located where page
breaks occurred in the original book, in accordance with Project
placed only at the start of that section.]

[Transcriber's note: Footnotes have been renumbered sequentially and
moved to the end of their respective chapters.  The book's Index has a
number of references to footnotes, e.g. the "96 n." entry under
"Assyrians."  In such cases, check the referenced page to see which
footnote(s) are relevant.]

[Transcriber's note: The original book had side-notes in its pages'
left or right margin areas.  Some of these sidenotes were at or near
the beginning of a paragraph, and in this e-text, are placed to precede
their host paragraph.  Some were placed elsewhere alongside a
paragraph, in relation to what the sidenote referred to inside the
paragraph.  These have been placed into the paragraph near where they
were in the original book.  All sidenotes have been enclosed in square
brackets, and preceded with "Sidenote:".]



EDITORIAL NOTE

While there is a general agreement among the writers as to principles,
the greatest freedom as to treatment is allowed to writers in this
series.  The volumes, for example, will not be of the same length.
Volume II., which deals with the formative period of the Church, is,
not unnaturally, longer in proportion than the others.  To Volume VI.,
which deals with the Reformation, will be allotted a similar extension.
The authors, again, use their own discretion in such matters as
footnotes and lists of authorities.  But the aim of the series, which
each writer sets before him, is to tell, clearly and accurately, the
story of the Church, as a divine institution with a continuous life.

W. H. HUTTON



PREFACE

It has seemed to me impossible to deal with the long period covered by
this volume as briefly as the scheme of the series required without
leaving out a great many events and concentrating attention chiefly
upon a few central facts and a few important personages.  I think that
the main results of the development may thus be seen, though there is
much which is here omitted that would have been included had the book
been written on other lines.

Some pages find place here which originally appeared in _The Guardian_
and _The Treasury_, and a few lines which once formed part of an
article in _The Church Quarterly Review_.  My thanks are due for the
courtesy of the Editors.  I have reprinted some passages from my
_Church of the Sixth Century_, a book which is now out of print and not
likely to be reissued.

I have to thank the Rev. L. Pullan for help from his wide knowledge,
and Mr. L. Strachan, of Heidelberg, of whose accuracy and learning I
have had long experience, for reading the proofs and making the index.

W. H. H.

S. JOHN'S COLLEGE, OXFORD,
  _Septuagesima_, 1906.



CONTENTS


CHAPTER I                                                    PAGE
  THE CHURCH AND ITS PROSPECTS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY  . . . .    1

CHAPTER II
  THE EMPIRE AND THE EASTERN CHURCH, 461-628 . . . . . . . .    6

CHAPTER III
  THE CHURCH IN ITALY, 461-590 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   29

CHAPTER IV
  CHRISTIANITY IN GAUL FROM THE SIXTH TO THE EIGHTH CENTURY    41

CHAPTER V
  THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT . . . . . . . . . . .   60

CHAPTER VI
  CONTROVERSY AND THE CATHOLICISM OF SPAIN . . . . . . . . .   72

CHAPTER VII
  THE CHURCH AND THE MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY . . . . . . . .   83

CHAPTER VIII
  THE CHURCH IN ASIA . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .   93

CHAPTER IX
  THE CHURCH IN AFRICA   . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  103

CHAPTER X
  THE CHURCH IN THE WESTERN ISLES  . . . . . . . . . . . . .  113

CHAPTER XI
  THE CONVERSION OF SLAVS AND NORTHMEN . . . . . . . . . . .  123

CHAPTER XII
  PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH IN GERMANY  . . . . . . . . . . . .  134

CHAPTER XIII
  THE POPES AND THE REVIVAL OF THE EMPIRE  . . . . . . . . .  143

CHAPTER XIV
  THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  155

CHAPTER XV
  LEARNING AND MONASTICISM . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  166

CHAPTER XVI
  SACRAMENTS AND LITURGIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  176

CHAPTER XVII THE END OF THE DARK AGE  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .
.  191

APPENDIX I
  LIST OF EMPERORS AND POPES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  205

APPENDIX II
  A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  209

INDEX  . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .  211



{1}

THE CHURCH AND THE BARBARIANS


CHAPTER I

THE CHURCH AND ITS PROSPECTS IN THE FIFTH CENTURY

[Sidenote: The task of the Church]

The year 461 saw the great organisation which had ruled and united
Europe for so long trembling into decay.  The history of the Empire in
relation to Christianity is indeed a remarkable one.  The imperial
religion had been the necessary and deadly foe of the religion of Jesus
Christ; it had fought and had been conquered.  Gradually the Empire
itself with all its institutions and laws had been transformed, at
least outwardly, into a Christian power.  Questions of Christian
theology had become questions of imperial politics.  A Roman of the
second century would have wondered indeed at the transformation which
had come over the world he knew: it seemed as if the kingdoms of the
earth had become the kingdoms of the Lord and of His Christ.  But also
it seemed that the new wine had burst the old bottles.  The boundaries
of the Roman world had been outstepped: nations had come in from the
East and from the West.  The {2} system which had been supreme was not
elastic: the new ideas, Christian and barbarian alike, pressed upon it
till it gave way and collapsed.  And so it came about that if
Christianity had conquered the old world, it had still to conquer the
new.

[Sidenote: The decaying Empire.]

Now before the Church in the fifth century there were set several
powers, interests, duties, with which she was called upon to deal; and
her dealing with them was the work of the next five centuries.  They
were,--the Empire, Christian, but obsolescent; the new nations, still
heathen, which were struggling for territory within the bounds of the
Empire, and for sway over the imperial institutions; the distant tribes
untouched by the message of Christ; and the growth, within the Church
itself, of new and great organisations, which were destined in great
measure to guide and direct her work.  Politics, theology,
organisation, missions, had all their share in the work of the Church
from 461 to 1003.  In each we shall find her influence: to harmonise
them we must find a principle which runs through her relation to them
all.

[Sidenote: The need of unity.]

The central idea of the period with which we are to deal is unity.  Up
till the fifth century, till the Council of Chalcedon (451) completed
the primary definition of the orthodox Christian faith in the person of
the Lord Jesus Christ, Christians were striving for conversion,
organisation, definition.  All these aims still remained, but in less
prominence.  The Church's order was completed, the Church's creed was
practically fixed, and the dominant nations in Europe had owned the
name of Christ.  There remained a new and severe test.  Would the {3}
Church win the new barbarian conquerors as she had won the old imperial
power?  There was to be a great epoch of missionary energy.  But of the
firm solidity of the Church there could be no doubt.  Heresies had torn
from her side tribes and even nations who had once belonged to her
fold.  But still unity was triumphant in idea; and it was into the
Catholic unity of the visible Church that the new nations were to be
invited to enter.  S. Augustine's grand idea of the City of God had
really triumphed, before the fifth century was half passed, over the
heathen conceptions of political rule.  The Church, in spite of the
tendency to separate already visible in East and West, was truly one;
and that unity was represented also in the Christian Empire.  "At the
end of the fifth century the only Christian countries outside the
limits of the Empire were Ireland and Armenia, and Armenia, maintaining
a precarious existence beside the great Persian monarchy of the
Sassanid kings, had been for a long time virtually dependent on the
Roman power." [1]  Politically, while tyrants rise and fall, and
barbarian hosts, the continuance of the Wandering of the Nations, sweep
across the stage, we are struck above all by the significant fact which
Mr. Freeman (_Western Europe in the Fifth Century_) knew so well how to
make emphatic:--"The wonderful thing is how often the Empire came
together again.  What strikes us at every step in the tangled history
of these times is the wonderful life which the Roman name and the Roman
Power still kept when it was thus attacked on every side from without
and torn in pieces in every quarter from within."  And the reason for
this indubitably was that the {4} Empire had now another organisation
to support it, based on the same idea of central unity.  One Church
stood beside one Empire, and became year by year even more certain,
more perfect, as well as more strong.  In the West the papal power rose
as the imperial decayed, and before long came near to replacing it.  In
the East, where the name and tradition of old Rome was always preserved
in the imperial government, the Church remained in that immemorial
steadfastness to the orthodox faith which was a bond of unity such as
no other idea could possibly supply.  In the educational work which the
emperor had to undertake in regard to the tribes which one by one
accepted their sway, the Christian Church was their greatest support.
In East as well as West, the bishops, saints, and missionaries were the
true leaders of the nations into the unity of the Empire as well as the
unity of the Church.  [Sidenote: The Church's conquest of barbarism.]
The idea of Christian unity saved the Empire and taught the nations.
The idea of Christian unity was the force which conquered barbarism and
made the barbarians children of the Catholic Church and fellow-citizens
with the inheritors of the Roman traditions.

If the dominant idea of the long period with which this book is to deal
is the unity of the Church, seen through the struggles to preserve, to
teach, or to attain it, the most important facts are those which belong
to the conversion, to Christ and to the full faith of the Catholic
Church, of races new to the Western world.  The gradual extinction in
Italy of the Goths, the conversion of the Franks, of the English, of
many races on distant barbarian borderlands of civilisation, the
acceptance of Catholicism by the Lombards and {5} the Western Goths, do
not complete the historical tale, though they are a large part of it:
there was the falling back in Africa and for a long time in Europe of
the settlements of the Cross before the armies of the Crescent.  There
were also two other important features of this long-extended age, to
which writers have given the name of dark.  There was the survival of
ancient learning, which lived on through the flood of barbarian
immigration into the lands which had been its old home, yet was very
largely eclipsed by the predominance of theological interests in
literature.  And there was the growth of a strong ecclesiastical power,
based upon an orthodox faith (though not without hesitations and
lapses), and gradually winning a formidable political dominion.  That
power was the Roman Papacy.



[1] Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_, p. 13, ed. 1904.



{6}

CHAPTER II

THE EMPIRE AND THE EASTERN CHURCH

(461-628)

When the death of Leo the Great in 461 removed from the world of
religious progress a saintly and dominant figure whose words were
listened to in East and West as were those of no other man of his day,
the interest of Church history is seen to turn decisively to the East.

[Sidenote: Character of the Greek Church.]

The story of Eastern Christendom is unique.  There is the fascinating
tale of the union of Greek metaphysics and Christian theology, and its
results, so fertile, so vigorous, so intensely interesting as logical
processes, so critical as problems of thought.  For the historian there
is a story of almost unmatched attraction; the story of how a people
was kept together in power, in decay, in failure, in persecution, by
the unifying force of a Creed and a Church.  And there is the
extraordinary missionary development traceable all through the history
of Eastern Christianity: the wonderful Nestorian missions, the activity
of the evangelists, imperial and hierarchical, of the sixth century,
the conversion of Russia, the preludes to the remarkable achievements
in modern times of orthodox missions in the Far East.

Throughout the whole of the long period indeed {7} which begins with
the death of Leo and ends with that of Silvester II., though the Latin
Church was growing in power and in missionary success, it was probably
the Christianity of the East which was the most secure and the most
prominent.  Something of its work may well be told at the beginning of
our task.

[Sidenote: The Monophysite controversy.]

The last years of the fifth century were in the main occupied in the
East by the dying down of a controversy which had rent the Church.  The
Eutychian heresy, condemned at Chalcedon, gave birth to the Monophysite
party, which spread widely over the East.  Attempts were soon made to
bridge over the gulf by taking from the decisions of Chalcedon all that
definitely repudiated the Monophysite opinions.  [Sidenote: The
Henotikon.] In 482 the patriarch Acacius of Constantinople, under the
orders probably of the Emperor Zeno (474-91), drew up the _Henotikon_,
an endeavour to secure the peace of the Church by abandoning the
definitions of the Fourth General Council.  No longer was "one and the
same Christ, Son, Lord, only-begotten, acknowledged _in two natures_,
without fusion, without change, without division, without separation."
But it is impossible to ignore a controversy which has been a cause of
wide divergence.  Men will not be silent, or forget, when they are
told.  Statesmanlike was, no doubt, the policy which sought for unity
by ignoring differences; and peace was to some extent secured in the
East so long as Zeno and his successor Anastasius (491-518) reigned.
But at Rome it was not accepted.  Such a document, which implicitly
repudiated the language of Leo the Great, which the Fourth General
Council had adopted, could {8} never be accepted by the whole Church;
and those in the East who were theologians and philosophers rather than
statesmen saw that the question once raised must be finally settled in
the dogmatic decisions of the Church.  Had the Lord two Natures, the
Divine and Human, or but one?  The reality of the Lord's Humanity as
well as of His Divinity was a truth which, at whatever cost of division
and separation, it was essential that the Church should proclaim and
cherish.

In Constantinople, a city always keen to debate theology in the
streets, the divergence was plainly manifest; and a document which was
"subtle to escape subtleties" was not likely to be satisfactory to the
subtlest of controversialists.  The Henotikon was accepted at Antioch,
Jerusalem, and Alexandria, but it was rejected by Rome and by the real
sense of Constantinople.  In Alexandria the question was only laid for
a time, and when a bishop who had been elected was refused recognition
by Acacius the Patriarch of Constantinople and Peter "the Stammerer,"
who accepted the Henotikon, preferred to his place, a reference to Rome
led to a peremptory letter from Pope Simplicius, to which Acacius paid
no heed whatever.  Felix II. (483-92), after an ineffectual embassy,
actually declared Acacius excommunicate and deposed.  The monastery of
the Akoimetai at Constantinople ("sleepless ones," who kept up
perpetual intercession) threw itself strongly on to the side of the
advocates of Chalcedon.  Acacius, then excommunicated by Rome because
he would not excommunicate the Monophysite patriarch of Alexandria,
retorted by striking out the name of Felix from the diptychs of the
Church.

{9}

[Sidenote: Schism between East and West.]

It was the first formal beginning of the schism which,--temporarily,
and again and again, healed,--was ultimately to separate East and West;
and it was due, as so many misfortunes of the Church have been, to the
inevitable divergence between those who thought of theology first as
statesmen and those who thought first as inquirers after the truth.
The schism spread more widely.  In Syria Monophysitism joined
Nestorianism in the confusion of thought: in Egypt the Coptic Church
arose which repudiated Chalcedon: Abyssinia and Southern India were to
follow.  Arianism had in the East practically died away; Nestorianism
was powerful only in far-away lands, but Monophysitism was for a great
part of the sixth century strong in the present, and close to the
centre of Church life.  The sixth century began, as the fifth had
ended, in strife from which there seemed no outway.  Nationalism, and
the rival claims of Rome and Constantinople, complicated the issues.

Under Anastasius, the convinced opponent of the Council of Chalcedon
and himself to all intents a Monophysite in opinion, some slight
negotiations were begun with Rome, while the streets of Constantinople
ran with blood poured out by the hot advocates of theological dogma.
In 515 legates from Pope Hormisdas visited Constantinople; in 516 the
emperor sent envoys to Rome; in 517 Hormisdas replied, not only
insisting on the condemnation of those who had opposed Chalcedon, but
also claiming from the Caesar the obedience of a spiritual son; and in
that same year Anastasius, "most sweet-tempered of emperors," died,
rejecting the papal demands.

{10}

The accession of Justin I. (518-27) was a triumph for the orthodox
faith, to which the people of Constantinople had firmly held.  The
patriarch, John the Cappadocian, declared his adherence to the Fourth
Council: the name of Pope Leo was put on the diptychs together with
that of S. Cyril; and synod after synod acclaimed the orthodox faith.
Negotiations for reunion with the West were immediately opened.  The
patriarch and the emperor wrote to Pope Hormisdas, and there wrote also
a theologian more learned than the patriarch, the Emperor's nephew,
Justinian.  "As soon," he wrote, "as the Emperor had received by the
will of God the princely fillet, he gave the bishops to understand that
the peace of the Church must be restored.  This had already in a great
degree been accomplished."  But the pope's opinion must be taken with
regard to the condemnation of Acacius, who was responsible for the
Henotikon, and was the real cause of the severance between the
churches.  [Sidenote: Reunion, 519.] The steps towards reunion may be
traced in the correspondence between Hormisdas and Justinian.  It was
finally achieved on the 27th of March, 519.  The patriarch of
Constantinople declared that he held the Churches of the old and the
new Rome to be one; and with that regard he accepted the four Councils
and condemned the heretics, including Acacius.

The Church of Alexandria did not accept the reunion; and Severus,
patriarch of Antioch, was deposed for his heresy.  There was indeed a
considerable party all over the East which remained Monophysite; and
this party it was the first aim of Justinian (527-65), when he became
emperor, to convince or to subdue.  He was the {11} nephew of Justin,
and he was already trained in the work of government; but he seemed to
be even more zealous as a theologian than as a lawyer or administrator.
The problem of Monophysitism fascinated him.  [Sidenote: The Emperor
Justinian.] From the first, he applied himself seriously to the study
of the question in all its bearings.  Night after night, says
Procopius, he would study in his library the writings of the Fathers
and the Holy Scriptures themselves, with some learned monks or prelates
with whom he might discuss the problems which arose from their perusal.
He had all a lawyer's passion for definition, and all a theologian's
delight in truth.  And as year by year he mastered the intricate
arguments which had surged round the decisions of the Councils, he came
to consider that a _rapprochement_ was not impossible between the
Orthodox Church and those many Eastern monks and prelates who still
hesitated over a repudiation which might mean heresy or schism.  And
from the first it was his aim to unite not by arms but by arguments.
The incessant and wearisome theological discussions which are among the
most prominent features of his reign, are a clearly intended part of a
policy which was to reunite Christendom and consolidate the definition
of the Faith by a thorough investigation of controverted matters.
Justinian first thought out vexed questions for himself, and then
endeavoured to make others think them out.

From 527, in the East, Church history may be said to start on new
lines.  The Catholic definition was completed and the imperial power
was definitely committed to it.  We may now look at the Orthodox Church
as one, united against outside error.

{12}

A period of critical interest in the history of Europe is that to which
belongs the difficult and complicated Church history of the East from
the accession of the Emperor Justinian to the death of S. Methodius.

The period naturally divides itself into three parts--the first, from
527 to 628, dealing with the Church at the height of its authority, up
to the overthrow of the Persian power; the second to 725, the period up
to the beginning of the iconoclastic controversy; and the third up to
its close and the death of S. Methodius in 847.  With the first we will
deal in the present chapter.

[Sidenote: Church and State in the East.]

But throughout the whole three centuries, from 527 to 847, the
essential character of the Church's life in the east is the same.  In
the East the Church was regarded more decisively than in the West as
the complement of the State.  Constantine had taught men to look for
the officials of the Church side by side with those of the civil power.
At Constantinople was the centre of an official Christianity, which
recognised the powers that be as ordained of God in a way which was
never found at Rome.  At Rome the bishops came to be political leaders,
to plot against governments, to found a political power of their own.
At Constantinople the patriarchs, recognised as such by the Emperor and
Senate of the New Rome, sought not to intrude themselves into a sphere
outside their religious calling, but developed their claims, in their
own sphere, side by side with those of the State; and their example was
followed in the Churches which began to look to Constantinople for
guidance.  There was a necessary consequence of this.  {13} [Sidenote:
Nationalism of the Churches.] It was that when the nationalities of the
East,--in Egypt, Syria, Armenia, or even in Mesopotamia--began to
resent the rule of the Empire, and struggled to express a patriotism of
their own, they sought to express it also on the ecclesiastical side,
in revolt from the Church which ruled as a complement to the civil
power.  Heresy came to be a sort of patriotism in religion.  And while
there was this of evil, it was not evil that each new barbarian nation,
as it accepted the faith, sought to set up beside its own sovereign its
patriarch also.  "Imperium," they said, "sine patriarcha non staret,"
an adage which James I. of England inverted when he said, "No bishop,
no king."  Though the Bulgarians agreed with the Church of
Constantinople in dogmas, they would not submit to its jurisdiction.
The principle of national Churches, independent of any earthly supreme
head, but united in the same faith and baptism, was established by the
history of the East.  Gradually the Church of Constantinople, by the
growth of new Christian states, and by the defections of nations that
had become heretical, became practically isolated, long before the
infidels hedged in the boundaries of the Empire and hounded the
imperial power to its death.  Within the boundaries the Church
continued to walk hand-in-hand with the State.  Together they acted
within and without.  Within, they upheld the Orthodox Faith; without,
they gave Cyprus its religious independence, Illyricum a new
ecclesiastical organisation, the Sinaitic peninsula an autonomous
hierarchy.  More and more the history of these centuries shows us the
Greek Church as the Eastern Empire in its religious aspect.  And it
shows that the division between East {14} and West, beginning in
politics, was bound to spread to religion.  As Rome had won her
ecclesiastical primacy through her political position, so with
Constantinople; and when the politics became divergent so did the
definition of faith.  Rome, as a church, clung to the obsolete claims
which the State could no longer enforce: Constantinople witnessed to
the independence which was the heritage of liberty given by the
endowment of Jesus Christ.

Such are the general lines upon which Eastern Church history proceeds.
We must now speak in more detail, though briefly, of the theological
history of the years when Justinian was emperor.

[Sidenote: Early controversy in Justinian's reign.]

Justinian was a trained theologian, but he was also a trained lawyer;
and the combination generally produces a vigorous controversialist.  It
was in controversy that his reign was passed.  The first controversy,
which began before he was emperor, was that, revived from the end of
the fifth century, which dealt with the question of the addition to the
Trisagion of the words, "Who was crucified for us," and involved the
assertion that One of the Trinity died upon the cross.  In 519 there
came from Tomi to Constantinople monks who fancied that they could
reconcile Christendom by adding to the Creed, a delusion as futile as
that of those who think they can advance towards the same end by
subtracting from it.  After a debate on the matter in Constantinople,
Justinian consulted the pope.  Letters passed with no result.  In 533,
when the matter was revived by the Akoimetai, Justinian published an
edict and wrote letters to pope and patriarch to bring the matter to a
final decision.  "If One of the Trinity did {15} not suffer in the
flesh, neither was He born in the flesh, nor can Mary be said, verily
and truly, to be His Mother."  The emperor himself was accused of
heresy by the Vigilists; and at last Pope John II. declared the phrase,
"One Person of the Trinity was crucified," to be orthodox.  His
judgment was confirmed by the Fifth General Council.[1]

The position which the emperor thus assumed was not one which the East
alone welcomed.  Rome, too, recognised that the East had power to make
decrees, so long as they were consonant with apostolic doctrine.

[Sidenote: The Monophysites.]

Justinian now gave himself eagerly to the reconciliation of the
Monophysites.  In 535 Anthimus, bishop of Trebizond, a friend of the
deposed patriarch of Antioch, Severus, who was at least
semi-Monophysite, was elected to the patriarchal throne of New Rome.
In the same year Pope Agapetus (534-6) came to Constantinople as an
envoy of a Gothic king, and he demanded that Anthimus should make
formal profession of orthodoxy.  The result was not satisfactory: the
new patriarch was condemned by the emperor with the sanction of the
pope and the approval of a synod.  Justinian then issued a decree
condemning Monophysitism, which he ordered the new patriarch to send to
the Eastern Churches.  Mennas, the successor of Anthimus, in his local
synod, had condemned and deposed the Monophysite bishops.  The
controversy was at an end.

More important in its results was the dispute with the so-called
Origenists.  S. Sabas came from {16} Palestine in 531 to lay before the
emperor the sad tale of the spread of their evil doctrines, but he died
in the next year, and the Holy Land remained the scene of strife
between the two famous monasteries of the Old and the New Laura.
[Sidenote: The Origenists.] In 541 or 542 a synod at Antioch condemned
the doctrines of Origen, but the only result was that Jerusalem refused
communion with the other Eastern patriarchate.  Justinian himself,--at
a time when there was at Constantinople an envoy from Rome,
Pelagius,--issued a long declaration condemning Origen.  A synod was
summoned, which formally condemned Origen in person--a precedent for
the later anathemas of the Fifth General Council--and fifteen
propositions from his writings, ten of them being those which
Justinian's edict had denounced.  The decisions were sent for
subscription to the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem,
as well as to Rome.  This sanction gave something of an universal
condemnation of Origenism; but, since no general council confirmed it,
it cannot be asserted that Origen lies under anathema as a heretic.
The opinion of the legalists of the age was utterly out of sympathy
with one who was rather the cause of heresy in others than himself
heretical.

[Sidenote: The "Three Chapters."]

But the most important controversy of the reign was that which was
concerned with the "Three Chapters."  Justinian, who had himself
written against the Monophysites, was led aside by an ingenious monk
into an attack upon the writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret
of Cyrrhus, and Ibas of Edessa.  The Emperor issued an edict (544) in
which "Three Chapters" asserted the heresy of the incriminated
writings.  Within a short {17} time the phrase "The Three Chapters" was
applied to the subjects of the condemnation; and the Fifth General
Council, followed by later usage, describes as the "Three Chapters" the
"impious Theodore of Mopsuestia with his wicked writings, and those
things which Theodoret impiously wrote, and the impious letter which is
said to be by Ibas." [2]

Justinian's edict was not favourably received: even the patriarch
Mennas hesitated, and the papal envoy and some African bishops broke
off communion.  The Latin bishops rejected it; but the patriarchs of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem gave their adhesion.  Justinian
summoned Pope Vigilius; and a pitiable example of irresolution he
presented when he came.  He accepted, rejected, censured, was
complacent and hostile in turns.  [Sidenote: The Fifth General Council,
553.] At last he agreed to the summoning of a General Council, and
Justinian ordered it to meet in May, 553.  Vigilius, almost at the last
moment, would have nothing to do with it.  The patriarch of
Constantinople presided, and the patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria
appeared in person, the patriarch of Jerusalem by three bishops.  The
acts of the Council were signed by 164 prelates.  The Council, like its
predecessors, was predominantly Eastern; but its decisions were
afterwards accepted by the West.  The precedents of the earlier
Councils were strictly followed in regard to Rome: no supremacy was
allowed though the honourable primacy was not contested.[3]
Justinian's letter, sketching the history of the controversy of the
Three Chapters, {18} was read, but he did not interfere with the
deliberations.  It was summoned to deal with matters concerning the
faith, and these were always left to the decision of the Episcopate.
The discussion was long; and after an exhaustive examination of the
writings of Theodore, the Council proceeded to endorse the first
"chapter," by the condemnation of the Mopsuestian and his writings.
The case of Theodoret was less clear: indeed, a very eminent authority
has regarded the action of the Council in his case as "not quite
equitable." [4]  But the grounds of the condemnation were such
statements of his as that "God the Word is not incarnate," "we do not
acknowledge an hypostatic union," and his description of S. Cyril as
_impius, impugnator Christi, novus haereticus_, with a denial of the
_communicatio idiomatum_, which left little if any doubt as to his own
position.[5]  When the letter of Ibas came to be considered, it was
plainly shown that its statements were directly contrary to the
affirmations of Chalcedon.  It denied the Incarnation of the Word,
refused the title of Theotokos to the Blessed Virgin, and condemned the
doctrines of Cyril.  The Council had no hesitation in saying anathema.

Here its work was ended.  It had safeguarded the faith by definitely
exposing the logical consequences of statements which indirectly
impugned the Divine and Human Natures of the Incarnate Son.

[Sidenote: The need for its decisions.]

So long as human progress is based upon intellectual principles as well
as on material growth, a teaching body which professes to guard and
interpret a Divine Revelation must speak {19} without hesitation when
its "deposit" is attacked.  The Church has clung, with an inspired
sagacity, to the reality of the Incarnation: and thus it has preserved
to humanity a real Saviour and a real Exemplar.  The subtle brains
which during these centuries searched for one joint in the Catholic
armour wherein to insert a deadly dart, were foiled by a subtlety as
acute, and by deductions and definitions that were logical, rational,
and necessary.  If the Councils had not defined the faith which had
been once for all delivered to the saints, it would have been dissolved
little by little by sentimental concessions and shallow inconsistencies
of interpretation.  It was the work of the Councils to develope and
apply the principles furnished by the sacred Scriptures.  New questions
arose, and it was necessary to meet them: it was clear, then, that
there was a real division between those who accepted Christianity in
the full logical meaning of the Scriptures, in the full confidence of
the Church, and those who doubted, hesitated, denied; and it is clear
now that the whole future of Christendom depended upon the acceptance
by the Christian nations of a single rational and logically tenable
Creed.  This involved the rejection of the Three Chapters, as it
involved equally the condemnation of Monophysitism and Monothelitism.
From the point of view of theology or philosophy the value of the work
of the Church in this age is equally great.  The heresies which were
condemned in the sixth century (as in the seventh) were such as would
have utterly destroyed the logical and rational conception of the
Person of the Incarnate Son, as the Church had received it by divine
inspiration.  Some Christian historians may seem for a moment to yield
a half {20} assent to the shallow opinions of those who would refuse to
go beyond what is sometimes strangely called the "primitive simplicity
of the Gospel."  But it is impossible in this obscurantist fashion to
check the free inquiry of the human intellect.  The truths of the
Gospel must be studied and pondered over, and set in their proper
relation to each other.  There must be logical inferences from them,
and reasonable conclusions.  It is this which explains that struggle
for the Catholic Faith of which historians are sometimes impatient, and
justifies a high estimate of the services which the Church of
Constantinople rendered to the Church Universal.

It is in this light that the work of the Fifth General Council, to be
truly estimated, must be regarded.  It will be convenient here to
summarise the steps by which the Fifth General Council won recognition
in the Church.

In the first place, the emperor, according to custom, confirmed what
the Council had decreed; and throughout the greater part of the East
the decision of Church and State alike was accepted.  In 553 there was
a formal confirmation by a synod of bishops at Jerusalem; but for the
most part there was no need of such pronouncement.  African bishops and
Syrian monks here and there refused obedience; but the Church as a
whole was agreed.

[Sidenote: Pope Vigilius.]

Pope Vigilius, it would seem, was in exile for six months on an island
in the Sea of Marmora.  On December 8, 553, he formally anathematised
the Three Chapters.  On February 23, 554, in a _Constitution_, he
announced to the Western bishops his adhesion to the decisions {21} of
the General Council.  Before the end of 557 he was succeeded, on his
death, by Pelagius, well known in Constantinople.  He, like Vigilius,
had once refused but now accepted the Council.

When Rome and Constantinople were agreed, the adhesion of the rest of
the Catholic world was only a question of time.  But the time was long.
In North Italy there was for long a practical schism, which was not
healed till Justin II. issued an explanatory edict,[6] and the genius,
spiritual and diplomatic, of Gregory the Great was devoted to the task
of conciliation.  Still it was not till the very beginning of the
eighth century[7] that the last schismatics returned to union with the
Church: thus a division in the see of Aquileia, by which for a time
there were two rival patriarchates, was closed.  Already the rest of
Europe had come to peace.

[Sidenote: The Aphthartodocetes.]

The last years of Justinian were disturbed by a new heresy, that of
those who taught that the Body of the Lord was incorruptible, and it
was asserted that the emperor himself fell into this error.  The
evidence is slight and contradictory, and the matter is of no
importance in the general history of the Church.[8]  But it is worth
remembering that little more than a century after his death his name
was singled out by the Sixth General Council for special honour as of
"holy memory."  His work, indeed, had been great, as theologian and as
Christian emperor; there was no more important or more accurate writer
{22} on theology in the East during the sixth century; and he must ever
be remembered side by side with the Fifth General Council which he
summoned.  There were many defects in the Eastern theory of the
relations between Church and State; but undoubtedly under such an
emperor it had its best chances of success.

[Sidenote: The work of Justinian.]

Justinian has been declared to have forced upon the Empire which he had
reunited the orthodoxy of S. Cyril and the Council of Chalcedon, and
the attempt has been made to prove that Cyril himself was a
Monophysite.[9]  The best refutation of this view is the perfect
harmony of the decisions of the Fifth General Council with those of the
previous Oecumenical assemblies, and the fact that no novelty could be
discovered to have been added to "the Faith" when the "Three Chapters"
were condemned.

With the close of the Council the definition of Christian doctrine
passes into the background till the rise of the Monothelite
controversy.  When its decisions were accepted, the labours of
Justinian had given peace to the churches.

[Sidenote: and his successors.]

From 565, when Justinian died, to 628, when Heraclius freed the Empire
from the danger of Persian conquest, were years of comparative rest in
the Church.  It was a period of missionary extension, of quiet
assertion of spiritual authority, in the midst of political trouble and
disaster.  Gibbon, who asserts that Justinian died a heretic, adds,
"The reigns of his four successors, Justin, Tiberius, Maurice, and
Phocas, are distinguished by a rare, though fortunate, vacancy in the
ecclesiastical history {23} of the East"; and the sarcasm, though not
wholly accurate, may serve to express the gradual progress of unity
which marked the years up to the accession of Heraclius.  The history
of religion is concerned rather with those outside than those within
the Church.  That history we need not follow, and we may pass over this
period with only a brief allusion to the development of independence
outside the immediate range of the ecclesiastical power of New Rome.
[Sidenote: Rise of separated bodies.] Heresies grew as an expression of
national independence.  The Chaldaean Church, which stretched to Persia
and India, was Nestorian.  The Monophysites won the Coptic Church of
Egypt, the Abyssinian Church, the Jacobites in Syria, the Armenians in
the heart of Asia Minor.  In the mountains of Lebanon the
Monothelites--of whom we have to speak shortly--organised the Maronite
Church; and in Georgia the Church was aided by geographical conditions
as well as historical development to ignore the overlordship of the
Church of Antioch.  So in Europe grew up with the new States, the
Bulgarian, the Serbian, and the Wallachian Churches.

[Sidenote: Missions and failures.]

It was thus that, alike as statesmen and Christians, the emperors were
devoted advocates of missions.  Their wars of conquest often--as
notably with the great Emperor Heraclius--assumed the character of holy
wars.  Where the barbarians of the East made havoc there too often the
Church fell without leaving a trace of its work.  Without priest and
sacrament, the people came to retain only among their superstitions, as
sometimes in North Africa to-day, usages which showed that once their
ancestors belonged to the kingdom of Christ.  Much {24} of the
missionary work of the period was done by Monophysites; the record of
John of Ephesus preserves what he himself did to spread Christianity in
Asia.  And it would seem that even the most orthodox of emperors was
willing to aid in the work of those who did not accept the Council of
Chalcedon so long as they earnestly endeavoured to teach the heathen
the rudiments of the faith and to love the Lord in incorruptness.

[Sidenote: Organisation of the Church.]

The Church of the period was divided into five patriarchates, the
Church of Cyprus being understood to stand apart and autocephalous.
Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch still retained their old
power, while Jerusalem was regarded as somewhat inferior.  The
patriarchates were divided into provinces, the capital of each province
having its metropolitan bishop.  Under him were other bishops, and
gradually the title of archbishop was being understood,--as by
Justinian in the decree (Novel, xi.) in which he created his birthplace
a metropolitan see,--to imply jurisdiction over a number of suffragan
sees.  Besides this there were still sees autocephalous in the sense
that they owned no superior or metropolitan bishop.  It would seem from
the _Synekdemos_ of Hierocles (c. 535) that in the sixth century the
patriarch of Constantinople had under him about thirty metropolitans
and some 450 bishops.  But the authority which the patriarch exercised
was by no means used to minimise that of the bishops.  If the influence
of the Imperial Court on the patriarchate was always considerable and
sometimes overwhelming, Justinian was careful to preserve the
independence of the Episcopate and {25} to order that the first steps
in the election of bishops should be by the clergy and the chief
citizens in each diocese.  And, as a letter of S. Gregory shows, the
bishops were elected for life; neither infirmity nor old age was
regarded as a cause for deposition, and translation from see to see was
condemned by many a Council.  All the clergy under the rank of bishop
might marry, but only before ordination to the higher orders.  In the
East it would seem that the number of persons connected in some way
with ecclesiastical office was very large.  Even excluding the
monks,--a numerous and continually increasing body--the hermits, the
Stylites (who remained for years on a pillar, where they even received
Communion, in a special vessel made for the purpose), the different
orders of celibate women--there was still a very considerable number of
persons attached to all the important churches, in different positions
of ministry.  The famous poem of Paul the Silentiary on S. Sophia
revels in a recital of the number of persons employed as well as in the
beauty of the magnificent building itself.

In architecture, indeed, the Byzantine Church of the sixth century was
supreme.  No more glorious edifice has ever been consecrated to the
service of Christ than the Church of the Divine Wisdom at
Constantinople; and the arts which enriched it in mosaic, marble,
metals, were brought to a perfection which excited the wonder of
succeeding centuries.  Before we end this sketch of the history of a
great age in the life of the Eastern Church, a word must be said about
its most splendid and enduring memorial.  Among the most striking
passages in the {26} chronicles of the age are the famous descriptions
by Procopius and by Paul the Silentiary of the splendours of the great
church of Constantinople in the sixth century after Christ.  [Sidenote:
S. Sophia at Constantinople.] In the wonderful art of mosaic, as it may
be seen to-day in some of the churches of the New Rome, in S.
Sophia--though much there is still covered--and in the Church of the
Chora, the West, with all the beauty that we may still see in Ravenna,
was never able to equal the East.  In solemn grandeur of architecture
fitted for open, public, common worship, expressive of the profoundest
verities of Christ's Church, it would be difficult to surpass the work
of the great age of Byzantine art.  Of this S. Sophia, the Church of
the Divine Wisdom, at Constantinople, built by the architects of the
Emperor Justinian in the sixth century, is the most magnificent
example.  There the eye travels upward, when the great nave is entered
from the narthex, from the arches supporting the gallery to those of
the gallery itself, from semi-domes larger and larger, up to the great
dome itself, an intricate scheme merging in a central unity.  "The
length and the breadth and the height of it are equal" is the
exclamation which seems forced from the beholder: never was there a
church so vast yet so symmetrical, so admirably designed for the
participation of all worshippers in the great act of worship.  And the
splendid pillars, brought from Baalbek of the old heathen days, wrought
on the capitals with intricate carvings, with emblems and devices and
monograms, the finely decorated doors, and the gigantic mosaic seraphim
on the walls, still in the twentieth century dimly image something of
the glowing worship of the {27} sixth.  Then the "splendour of the
lighted space," glittering with thousands of lights, gave "shine unto
the world," and guided the seafarers as they went forth "by the divine
light of the Church itself."  Traveller after traveller, chronicler
after chronicler, records impressions of the glory and beauty that
belonged to the great Mother Church of the Byzantine rite.
Historically, perhaps no church in the world has seen, at least in the
Middle Ages, so many scenes that belonged to the deepest crises of
national life.  From the day when the great emperor who built it
prostrated himself before God as unworthy to make the offering of so
much beauty, to the day when Muhammad the conqueror (says the legend)
rode in over the heaps of Christian dead, it was the centre, and the
mirror, of the Church's life in the capital of the Empire.  And that is
what the worship of the East has always striven to express.  It is
immemorial, conservative beyond anything that the West can tolerate or
conceive; but it belongs, in the present as in the past, to the closest
thoughts, the most intimate experiences, of men to whom religion is
indeed the guide of life.  The Church of S. Sophia, the worship of the
East, are the living memorials of the great age of the great Christian
emperor and theologian of the sixth century.

And the fact that this building was due to the genius and power not of
the Church, but of Justinian, leads us back to the significance of the
State authority in the ecclesiastical history of the East.

As it was said in England that kings were the Church's nursing fathers,
so in the Eastern Empire might the same text be used in rather a
different {28} sense.  The Church was in power before the Empire was
Christian; but the Christian Empire was ever urgent to proclaim its
attachment to the Church and to guarantee its protection.  The imperial
legislation of the great lawgiver began always in the name of the Lord,
and the code emphasised as the foundation of society and civil law the
orthodox doctrines of the Trinity and of Christ.  And step by step the
great emperor endeavoured, in matters of morality and of gambling, to
enforce the moral laws of the Church.  Works of charity and mercy were
undertaken by Church and State, hand in hand, and the noble buildings
which marked the magnificent period of Byzantine architecture were the
works of a society which, from the highest to the lowest member, was
penetrated by Christian ideals.  Thus, very briefly, we may epitomise
the work of the first period we have mentioned.  A word must be said
later of later times.



[1] Mansi, _Concilia_, ix. 384.  The phrase was preserved in the Hymn
'_O onogenês_, which was inserted in the Mass, and the composition of
which is ascribed to Justinian himself.

[2] Mansi, ix. 181.

[3] Cf. Nicaea, Canon vi.; Constantinople, Canons ii. and iii.;
Ephesus, Canon viii.; Chalcedon, Canons ix. and xvii.

[4] Dr. W. Bright, _Waymarks in Church History_, p. 238.

[5] See Hefele, _History of the Councils_ (Eng. trans.), iv. 311.

[6] Given in Evagrius, v. 4.

[7] A.D. 700, Mansi, _Concilia_, xii. 115.

[8] See Gibbon, ed. J. B. Bury, vol. v. pp. 139, 140, 522, 523; and W.
H. Hutton, _The Church of the Sixth Century_, pp. 204-240, 303-309.

[9] Cf. Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_, ii. pp. 396, 396, 399, etc.



{29}

CHAPTER III

THE CHURCH IN ITALY, 461-590

[Sidenote: The end of the Empire in the West, 476.]

The death of S. Leo took place but a few years before the Roman Empire
in the West became extinguished, and political interests entirely
submerged those of religion in the years that followed it.  Dimly,
beneath the noise of the barbarian triumph, we discern the survival in
Rome of the Church's powers and claims; but it is not till the rise of
another pope of mighty genius that they claim any consideration as
important.  In 461 died S. Leo; in 476 Romulus Augustulus, the last of
the continuous line of Western Caesars, surrendered his sceptre to the
Herul Odowakar.  The barbarian governed with the aid of Roman
statesmen: he fixed his seat of rule at Ravenna rather than at Rome: he
showed consideration to the saintly Epiphanius, Bishop of Pavia:
heretic though he was, he desired to keep well with the Catholic
bishops of Rome.  After him came a greater man, Theodoric the Goth,
whose capture of Ravenna, March 5th, 493, was followed by the
assassination of Odowakar.  [Sidenote: Theodoric the Goth, 493.]
Theodoric, also an Arian, became sole ruler of Italy.  He too was
served by Roman officials, and his administration was modelled on that
of the Caesars.  A special interest attaches to his {30} dealings with
the Church.  The king, indeed, Arian though he was, looked on the
Catholic Church with no unfriendly eye.  His great minister,
Cassiodorus, was orthodox: and it is in his writings, which enshrine
the policy of his master, that we must search for the relations between
Church and State in the days before Belisarius had won back Ravenna and
Italy to the allegiance of the Roman Caesar.

The letters of Cassiodorus supply, if not a complete account, at least
very valuable illustrations, of the position assumed by the East Gothic
power under Theodoric and his successors in regard to the Church.  The
favour shown by the Ostrogoth sovereign to Cassiodorus, a staunch
Catholic, yet senator, consul, patrician, quaestor, and praetorian
praefect, is in itself an illustration of the absence of bitter Arian
feeling.  [Sidenote: His relation with the Catholic Church.] This
impression is deepened by a perusal of the letters which Cassiodorus
wrote in the name of his sovereign.  The subjects in which the Church
is most frequently related to the State are jurisdiction and property.
In the latter there seems a clear desire on the part of the kings to
give security and to act even with generosity to all religious bodies,
Catholic as well as Arian.  Church property was frequently, if not
always, freed from taxation.[1]  The principle which dictated the whole
policy of Theodoric is to be seen in a letter to Adila, senator and
comes.[2]  "Although we will not that any should suffer any wrong whom
it belongs to our religious obligation to protect, since the free
tranquillity of the subjects is the glory of the ruler; yet especially
do we desire that all churches {31} should be free from any injury,
since while they are in peace the mercy of God is bestowed on us."
Therefore he orders all protection to be given to the churches: yet
answer is to be made in the law courts to any suit against them.  For,
as he says in another letter, "if false claims may not be tolerated
against men, how much less against God."  Again, "If we are willing to
enrich the Church by our own liberality, _a fortiori_ will we not allow
it to be despoiled of the gifts received from pious princes in the
past."

It was on such liberality that the material power of the Church was
slowly strengthening itself.  Similarly, as in the East, clerical
privilege was beginning to be allowed in the law courts: the Church was
acquiring the right to judge all cases in which her officers were
concerned.  Theodoric's successors bettered his instructions.
Athalaric allowed to the Roman pope the jurisdiction over all suits
affecting the Roman clergy.

[Sidenote: Weakness of the Church.]

But this picture of toleration and privilege which we obtain from the
official letters of Cassiodorus, cannot be regarded as a complete
description of the attitude of the East Gothic rule towards the
Catholic Church.  Pope after pope was the humble slave of the Gothic
ruler.  They were sent to Constantinople as his envoys, and though they
stood firm for the Catholic faith and in rejection of all compromise
with regard to the doctrine of Chalcedon, they were entirely impotent
in Italy itself.  Catholic Italy was at the feet of the Arian Goth.
The cruel imprisonment of Pope John, used as a political tool in 525
and flung away when he proved ineffective, gave a new martyr to the
Roman calendar; and, in spite of {32} the absence of direct evidence,
it is difficult to regard the executions of Symmachus and of Boethius
as entirely unconnected with religions questions.  Both were Catholics;
both, to use Mr. Hodgkin's words,[3] "have been surrounded by a halo of
fictitious sanctity as martyrs to the cause of Christian orthodoxy."
The father-in-law, "lest, through grief for the loss of his son-in-law,
he should attempt anything against his kingdom," Theodoric "caused to
be accused and ordered him to be slain." [4]  Boethius, who wrote the
most famous work of the Early Middle Age, _The Consolation of
Philosophy_, a book which became the delight of Christian scholars, of
monks and kings, was translated by Alfred the West Saxon, and formed
the foundation of very much of the Christian thought of many succeeding
generations, met a horrible death in 526 on a charge of corresponding
with the orthodox Emperor Justin.  No doubt the main reason for the
butchery was political; but it is impossible in this age wholly to
separate religion from politics; especially when we read, in almost
immediate conjunction with the story of the murder of these men, that
Theodoric ordered that on a certain day the Arians should take
possession of all the Catholic basilicas.  It was not until the Gothic
power had finally fallen, and Narses had reestablished the imperial
power, that the life and property of Catholics were absolutely safe.

The death of Theodoric (August 30, 526) was followed by the downfall of
his power.  Within ten years all Italy was won back to the Roman and
Catholic Empire ruling from the East.

{33}

[Sidenote: The imperial restoration, 554.]

With the restoration of the imperial power the Church came to the front
more prominently.  So long as Justinian reigned the popes were kept in
subjection; but ecclesiastics generally were admitted to a large share
in judicial and political power.  The emperors looked for their
strongest political support in the Catholic party.  Suppression of
Arianism became a political necessity at Ravenna.  Justinian gave to
Agnellus the churches of the Arians.  [Sidenote: The Pragmatic
Sanction.] In 554 the emperor issued his solemn Pragmatic Sanction for
the government of Italy.  Of this, Section XII. gives a power to the
bishops which shows the intimate connection between State and Church.
"Moreover we order that fit and proper persons, able to administer the
local government, be chosen as _iudices_ of the provinces by the
bishops and chief persons of each province from the inhabitants of the
province itself."  This is important, of course, as allowing popular
elections, but far more important in its recognition of the position of
the clerical estate.  Justinian's new administration of Italy was to be
military; but hardly less was it to be ecclesiastical.  Here we have,
says Mr. Hodgkin,[5]--whose words I quote because I can find none
better to express what seems to me to be the significance of this
act--"a pathetic confession of the emperor's own inability to cope with
the corruption and servility of his civil servants.  He seems to have
perceived that in the great quaking bog of servility and dishonesty by
which he felt himself to be surrounded, his only sure standing-ground
was to be found in the spiritual estate, the order of men who wielded a
power {34} not of this world, and who, if true to their sacred mission,
had nothing to fear and little to hope from the corrupt minions of the
court."  This is significant in regard to the rise of the power of the
popes in the Western capital of the Empire and in the whole of Italy.
It was by the good deeds of the clergy, and by the need of them, that
they came forward before long as the masters of the country.

This rule of the Pragmatic Sanction was not an isolated instance; at
every point the bishop was placed _en rapport_ with the State, with the
provincials, and with the exarch himself.[6]  In jurisdiction, in
advice, from the moment when he assisted at a new governor's
installation, the bishop was at the side of the lay officer, to
complain and even, if need be, to control.

One power still remained to the emperor himself (in the seventh century
it was transferred to the exarch)--that of confirming the election of
the pope.  Narses seated Pelagius on the papal throne; but when one as
mighty as the "eunuch general" arose in Gregory the Great, the power of
the exarchate passed, slowly but surely, into the hands of the papacy.
The changes of rulers in Italy, the policies of the falling Goths and
of the rising Roman Empire, found their completion in the effects of
the Lombard invasion.  But before this there were thirty years of
growth for the Church, and the growth was due very largely to a new
force, though for a while it remained below the surface.  It was the
power of the monastic life, realised anew by the genius and holiness of
S. Benedict of Nursia.  {35} [Sidenote: The work of S. Benedict.] Born
about 480, of noble parentage, he gave himself from early years to
serve God "in the desert."  At about the age of fifteen he is spoken of
by his biographer, the great S. Gregory, in words which might form the
motto of his life, as "sapienter indoctus."  First, a solitary at
Subiaco; then the unwilling abbat of a neighbouring monastery, whose
monks endeavoured to kill him; then again living "by himself in the
sight of Him who seeth all things"; at last, in 529, he founded in
Campania the monastery of Monte Cassino, the mother of all the revived
monasticism of the Middle Age.

[Sidenote: His rule.]

The monastery of Monte Cassino became a pattern of the religious life.
S. Benedict was a wise and statesmanlike ruler, to whom men came with
confidence from every rank and every race, to be his disciples, or to
place their boys under him for instruction.  The rule which he drew up
was as potent in the ecclesiastical world as was the code of Justinian
in the civil.  It had its bases in the root ideas of obedience,
simplicity, and labour.  "Never to depart from the governance of God"
was his primary maxim to his monks; and a monastery was to be a "school
of the Lord's service" and a "workshop of the spiritual art."  The
beginning of all was to be prayer.  "Inprimis ut quidquid agendum
inchoas bonum, a Deo perfici instantissima oratione deposcas."  And
though absolute power was left, without appeal, in the hands of the
abbat, and the rule of the whole house was to be "nullus in monasterio
proprii sequatur cordis voluntatem," yet great individual liberty was
left to each monk in the direction of his own religious {36} life.
Everyone, he knew, had "his own gift of God"--some could fast more than
others; some could spend more time in silent prayer and meditation; and
none could do any good, he knew, however strict their outer rule,
without daily enlightenment from God.  There was place in his scheme
for those whose work was chiefly manual, those who reclaimed
uncultivated lands and turned the wilderness into a garden of the Lord,
and for those who spent long hours in contemplation and prayer.  The
public solemn singing of offices was no more characteristic of his rule
than was the following of the hermits in pure prayer.

One who would be admitted to the monastery must take oath before the
whole community that he intended constantly to remain firm in his
profession, to live a life of conversion to God, and to obey those set
over him, but the last only "according to the rule."  True monks were
his followers to count themselves only if they lived by the labours of
their hands.  Idleness, said Benedict, is the enemy of the soul.  The
life of the monks was ascetic, but without the extreme rigour of the
earlier "religious"--hermits and coenobites.  The rule required
austerities, and gave strict injunction as to food at all times, and
especially in Lent; but it did not encourage voluntary austerities
beyond the rule, and it admitted many relaxations for the old, the
infirm, or those whose labours were especially hard.

Where all depended so much on a superior it was of especial importance
that he should be wisely chosen and should rule wisely.  In three
things he was to be pre-eminent--exhortation, example, and prayer; and
prayer, says the saint, is the greatest of these; for {37} although
there be much virtue in exhortation and example, yet prayer is that
which promotes grace and efficacy alike in deed and word.  He was to
recognise no difference of social rank.  Good deeds and obedience were
to be the only ways to his favour.  Only if exceptional merit required
promotion was there to be any breach of the proper order in which each
should hold his place, "since, whether slaves or free, we are all one
in Christ, and, under the same Lord, wear all of us the same badge of
service."

In a cell hard by the monastery dwelt Benedict's sister, S.
Scholastica, whose religious life he directed, but whom he rarely saw,
and who became a pattern to nuns as he to monks.

[Sidenote: Its wide influence.]

The influence of Benedict was, even in his own lifetime, extraordinary.
There were times when it might almost be said that all Italy looked to
him for guidance; and there is no more striking scene in the history of
the decaying Gothic power than when the cruel Totila, whose end he
foresaw, and the secrets of whose heart lay open to his gaze, visited
him in his monastery and heard the words of truth from his lips.  When,
fortified by the Body and Blood of the Lord, he passed away with hands
still uplifted in prayer, he had created a power which did more than
any other to make the Church predominant in Italy.  The rule, the
definite organisations, of monasticism came to the world from Italy and
from Benedict.  Though the Benedictines were never actively papal
agents, yet indirectly, by their training and by their influence on the
whole nature of medieval religion, they formed a strong support for the
growing power of the Roman see.

{38}

But Benedict was not the only leader, though he was the greatest, in
the monastic revival of the sixth century.  With another great name his
work may be placed to some extent in contrast.

[Sidenote: Scholarship and learning.]

S. Benedict was no advocate of exclusively ecclesiastical study.  He
adapted the ancient literatures to the purposes of Christian education.
It is true that the main subjects of study for his monks were the Holy
Scriptures, and the chief object the edification of the individual by
meditation and of the people by preaching; but the monks learnt to
write verse correctly and prose in what had claims to be considered a
style.  Yet what he himself did in that direction was little indeed.
Perhaps the most that can be said is that he left the way open to his
successors.  And of these the greatest was Cassiodorus.

[Sidenote: Cassiodorus.]

Cassiodorus, the statesman, the orthodox adviser and friend of the
Arian Theodoric, lived to become a Christian teacher and a monk.  The
friend of Pope Agapetus, he endeavoured with his sanction in 535 to set
up a school in Rome which should give to Christians "a liberal
education."  The pope's death, a year later, prevented the scheme being
carried out.  But a few years later, in the monastery of Vivarium near
Squillace, he set himself to found a religious house which should
preserve the ancient culture.  Based on a sound knowledge of grammar,
on a collation and correction of texts, on a study of ancient models in
prose and verse, he would raise an education through "the arts and
disciplines of liberal letters," for, he said, "by the study of secular
literature our minds are trained to understand the Scriptures {39}
themselves."  That was the supreme end at Squillace, as it was at Monte
Cassino; and though Cassiodorus looked at letters differently from
Benedict, his work, too, was important in founding a tradition for
Italian monasticism.

[Sidenote: Weakness of the papacy under Pelagius, 555-60.]

While monasticism was transforming Italy and placing Catholicism on a
firm basis in the Western lands of the Empire, the power of the papal
see, when Rome was reconquered by the imperial forces from
Constantinople, seemed to sink to the lowest depths.  The papacy under
Vigilius (537-55) and Pelagius (555-60) was the servant of the
Byzantine Caesars.  The history of the controversies in which each pope
was engaged, the scandal of their elections, there is no need to relate
here.  Suffice it to say that the decisions of the Fifth General
Council were in no way the work of either, but were eventually accepted
by both.  The self-contradictions of Vigilius are pitiable; and the
acceptance of Pelagius by the Romans was only won by his rejecting a
formal statement of his predecessor.

Consecrated only by two bishops[7] on Easter Day, 556, he began a
pontificate which was from the first disputed and even despised.  The
Archbishop of Milan and the patriarch of Aquileia would not communicate
with him.  In Gaul he was received with suspicion, and he was obliged
to write to King Childebert, submitting to him a profession of his
faith.[8] It is clear that the Gallican Church no more than the Lombard
regarded {40} the pope as _ipso facto_ orthodox or the guardian of
orthodoxy.  Even this letter of Pelagius was not regarded as
satisfactory.  It was long before the Churches entered into communion
with him; and even to the last, the northern sees of Italy refused.  He
ruled, unquietly enough, for four years; and died, leaving a memory
free at least from simony, and honoured as a lover of the poor.

Under him, as under Vigilius, the papacy had been compelled to submit
to the judgment of the East.  "The Church of Rome," says Mgr. Duchesne,
"was humiliated." [9]

The lives of these two popes cover the most important period in the
ecclesiastical history of the sixth century.  After the death of
Pelagius I., and up to the accession of Gregory the Great in 590, the
interest of Italian history is political rather than ecclesiastical.
The emperors tried to rule, through their exarchs at Ravenna, from
Constantinople.  The papacy grew quietly in power.  Then came the
Lombards and a new era began.



[1] So _Var._, i. 26, ed. Mommsen, p. 28.

[2] ii. 29, p. 63.

[3] _Italy and her Invaders_, vol. iii. p. 516.

[4] _Anonymus Valesii_.

[5] _Italy and her Invaders_, vol. vi. p. 528.

[6] Instances are collected by M. Diehl, _Études sur l'administration
byzantine dans l'exarchat de Ravenne_, p. 320.

[7] Et dum nou essent episcopi qui cum ordinarent, inventi sunt duo
episcopi, Johannes de Perusia et Bonus de Ferentino, et Andreas
presbiter de Hostis, et ordinaverunt eum.--_Liber Pontificalis_, i. 303.

[8] Migne, Patr. Lat., tom. lxix. p. 402.

[9] _Revue des Questions Historiques_, Oct. 1884, p. 439.



{41}

CHAPTER IV

CHRISTIANITY IN GAUL FROM THE SIXTH TO THE EIGHTH CENTURY

A very special interest belongs to the history of Christianity in Gaul.
There is no more striking example of what the Church did to bridge over
the gulf between the old culture and the barbarians.

[Sidenote: Roman Gaul.]

Among early Christian martyrs few are more renowned than those who died
in Southern Gaul.  Paganism lived on, concealed, in many country
districts, but the life and power and thought of the people became by
the time of Constantine, by the fourth century, entirely Christian.  As
the state organised so did the Church.  Gaul had seventeen provincial
governments; it came to have seventeen archbishops, and under them
bishops for each great city.  On the Roman empire and the Christian
Church the foundations were laid; and they were laid firm.

[Sidenote: The barbarian invasions.]

At the beginning of the fifth century a terrible storm swept over the
land.  It was the storm of Teutonic invasion.  Vandals, Burgundians,
Alans, Suevi poured over the land; the Huns followed them, only to be
beaten back by a union of the other tribes.  Then, after the Battle of
Châlons (451), there gradually rose out {42} of the Teutonic conquerors
the conquering power of one tribe, that of the Franks.

[Sidenote: The Church in Gaul.]

By the first ten years of the sixth century Gaul was united again,
under the rule of Chlodowech (Clovis), King of the Franks.  Till well
on in the Middle Ages it was that title which the rulers of Gaul always
bore, "Rex Francorum," King of the Franks.  France to-day still dates
her existence as a nation from the baptism of Clovis.  It was that, his
admission into the Catholic Christianity of the Gauls over whom he
ruled, which enlisted on the side of the Frankish power all the culture
and civilisation which had never died out since the Roman days.  Under
the fostering care of the Church it had survived.  Brotherhood,
charity, compassion, unity, all the great ideas which the Church
cherished, were to work in long ages the transformation of the Frankish
kingship.  And when Chlodowech became king under the blessing of the
Church, which had survived all through these centuries since it was
planted under the Romans, the fusion of races soon followed.  The
French nation as we now know it is not merely Celtic, or Gaulish, but
Roman too, and lastly Frankish--that is, Teutonic.

[Sidenote: The baptism of Chlodowech, 496.]

The history of the baptism of Chlodowech is one of the most dramatic in
the annals of the early Middle Age.  His wife, Chrotechild, was the
niece of the Burgundian king, and she was a devout Catholic.  Slowly
she won her way to his heart.  Never, said the chroniclers, did she
cease to persuade him that he should serve the true God; and when in
the crisis of a battle against the Alamanni he called her words to
mind, he vowed to {43} be baptised if Christ should give him the
victory.  The legend adorns the historic fact that Chlodowech was
baptised by S. Remigius at Rheims, on Christmas Day, 496, and that some
three thousand of his warriors were baptised with him.  "Bow thy neck,
O Sigambrian," said the prelate, "adore that which thou hast burned and
burn that which thou hast adored."  Within a generation all races of
the Franks had followed the Frankish king.

[Sidenote: The dark days of the Merwings.]

The years that followed were full of growth.  But for long the
Christianity which was nominally triumphant was imperfect indeed.
Chlodowech died in 511; his race went on ruling, Catholic in name but
very far from obedient to the Church's laws.  The tale of their
successors, their wars and their crimes, is one which belongs to social
or political history, not to the history of the Church.  The Church's
life was lived underground in the slow progress of Christian ideas.
Chlothochar, sole ruler of the Franks, died in 561.  How little had the
half-century accomplished.  Then came an age of division, murders,
horrors, in which the names of great ladies stand out as at least the
equals of their lords in crime.  Predegund, who became the wife of
Chilperich of Neustria, and Brunichildis, the wife first of Sigebert of
Austrasia, and then of Merovech, Chilperich's son, were rivals in
wickedness.  The horrors of those days are recorded in the history of
Gregory, who ruled over the see of Tours from 573 to 595.  It was an
age in which, while the rulers were Christian in name, and the land was
mapped out into sees ruled by Christian bishops, and monasteries were
springing up to teach {44} the young and to set an example of religious
life, the general atmosphere was almost avowedly pagan.  Men said,
tells Gregory, that "if a man has to pass between pagan altars and
God's church there is no harm in his paying homage to both," and the
lives of such men showed that it is impossible to serve God and Mammon.

Yet for a century and a half the Merwings, descendants of Chlodowech,
had among them strong rulers, great conquerors, men of iron as well as
men of blood.  Early in the seventh century, from 628 to 638, there
ruled in Gaul Dagobert, the greatest of the Merwing kings.  His rule
extended from the Pyrenees to the North Sea, from the ocean to the
forests of Thuringia and Bohemia.  He was "ruler of all Gaul and the
greater part of Germany, very influential in the affairs of Spain,
victorious over Slavs and Bulgarians, and at home a great king,
encouraging commerce and putting into better shape the law codes of his
subjects."

[Sidenote: Break up of their kingdom.]

That was the culmination of the Merwing power.  The seventh century saw
its decay, and a new step towards the medieval monarchy of the Franks.
Two causes effected the fall of the Merwings--their own vices and the
growth of feudalism with the creation of great local lords.  These
threatened to break up the kingdom of Chlodowech into small states, to
disintegrate and thus destroy the united nation of the Franks.

The first cause is one which it is difficult to exaggerate.  We read in
the pages of that great historian and great bishop, Gregory of Tours,
the terrible tale of their crimes, their brutal luxury, their lust for
blood, the {45} unbridled licence of their passions.  That was the
record of the days of their decay.  There was, however, even at the
best a great change from the times of Roman rule.  For civilisation,
literary culture, law, we find substituted in the pages of Gregory of
Tours savagery, scenes of brutality, drunkenness, robbery.  Law and
civilisation seem to sleep.  It was in this state of the country, when
every man's hand was against his neighbour, when law was unheard amid
the strife, that feudalism arose, a natural development of the desire
for self-preservation, which led to associations to supply the mutual
protection which there was no strength behind the law to enforce.  In
all these movements the Church had an active part.  [Sidenote: The
influence of the Church.] It was her principles of association which
taught men the idea of unity, of bonds by which personal security
should be based on new guarantees amid the weakness of government and
the neglect of law.  The Church held the tradition of a civilisation
the barbarians had never known, and in her own moral teaching she set
forth the way to an ideal state which should combine all the elements
of strength.  The growth of the Frankish nation was guided almost
entirely by the Church.

Feudalism, Roman administration and law, Christian faith and
discipline--these three factors were at work throughout the Dark Ages
from the fifth to the ninth century: and they were all--the last two
most especially--under the direction of the Church.  And first and most
obviously the monarchy of the Merwings was a patent imitation of the
Roman Empire.  The clergy had maintained the imperial tradition.  It
was they who taught the sovereigns to replace the emperors {46} and to
produce around them the illusion of a Roman rule.  They employed
officers with the same titles, centred their administration in their
household, claimed and exercised unlimited power.  No power above them
did they recognise, save only, when they would listen to their
teachers, the power of the love--more often the fear--of God.  The
barbarian invasions that had swept over the land had destroyed the
local, as well as the central administration.  At Arles survived the
relics of the old Roman functionaries of the prefecture; but in the
land of the Franks the whole system had to be reconstructed from the
tradition of which the Church was the faithful guardian.

[Sidenote: Relations with the Eastern Empire.]

Thus the real aim of Chlodowech and his successors was not to conquer
the Roman Empire, not to substitute a Teutonic power for a Roman one;
but to take the place of the empire in Gaul, to succeed to its
heritage, to re-establish its authority, under Frankish kings.  Thus
when the Empire of the West had ceased to be, the Frankish kings sought
titles and alliances from the emperors who still ruled at
Constantinople.  It is a significant characteristic, indeed, of the
Merwing monarchy that it kept up close relations with the distant Roman
Empire in the East, that the Frankish kings professed to be the loyal
allies, as they were often the formally adopted sons, of the Roman
emperors and the consuls of the republic.

The Frankish kings, by their Christianity, imperfect though it was,
were admitted to fellowship with the central power of the Christian
world, with emperor at Byzantium and pope at Rome.

"Gaul was really independent of the empire in all {47} respects," [1]
and it is not there that we should seek for ecclesiastical relations
with Constantinople.  But there can be no question that the Catholicism
of the Franks owed something to Eastern influences.  There are points
in the Gallican ritual which are distinctly Byzantine, and must belong
to this period.  Chlodowech, as an ally rather than a subject, and not
least, perhaps, because he was a Catholic, received the dignity of the
consulate from Anastasius.[2]  And in the reign of the great Justinian
the Merwings looked to the emperor for recognition and support.
Theodebert, his "son," accepted a commission to propagate the Catholic
faith in the imperial name.[3]  Bishops, too, who might be in need of
advice and consolation, applied naturally to Constantinople.  Nicetius,
Bishop of Trier, that "man of highest sanctity, admirable in preaching,
and renowned for good works," [4] persecuted by Chlothochar and his
men, wrote naturally to the holy and orthodox emperor, "dominus semper
suus."  In the midst of barbarities scarce conceivable,[5] the finest
characters were trained by the simple verities of the Catholic faith,
to which they clung with an extraordinary tenacity.  Nor is this
anywhere more strongly shown than in the history of the Franks.  Of the
meaning of the great struggle of Catholicism against Arianism, and of
its immense personal value, the histories afford many instances.  There
is an eloquent passage in {48} [Sidenote: The strength of the Catholic
faith among the Franks.] Mr. Hodgkin's _Italy and her Invaders_[6]
which I cannot forbear to quote.  "In the previous generation both
Brunichildis and Galswintha had easily conformed to the Catholic faith
of their affianced husbands.  Probably the councillors of Leovigild
expected that a mere child like Ingunthis would without difficulty make
the converse change from Catholicism back into Arianism.  This was ever
the capital fault of the Arian statesmen, that, with all their
religious bitterness, they could not comprehend that the profession of
faith, which was hardly more than a fashion to most of themselves, was
a matter of life and death to their Catholic rivals.  Here, for
instance, was their own princess, Brunichildis, reared in Arianism,
converted to the orthodox creed, clinging to it tenaciously through all
the perils and adversities of her own stormy career, and able to imbue
the child-bride, her daughter, with such an unyielding devotion to the
faith of Nicaea, that not one of all the formidable personages whom she
met in her new husband's home could avail to move her by one hair's
breadth towards 'the Arian pravity.'"

It was the strength of the Catholicism of those who were trained in it
and by it, seen in Spain and Gaul as well as in Italy, which drew the
Frankish churchmen naturally towards the great witnessing power of the
Roman bishop.  The pontificate of Gregory the Great affords significant
illustrations of this influence.

From 595 the letters of S. Gregory show a continual interest in Gaul.
A good deal of it is personal, concerned with the management of papal
estates or with {49} the relations of particular persons towards the
pope himself.  [Sidenote: Gregory the Great and Gaul.] But Gregory was
careful to assert a very special connection between Rome and the "lands
of the Gauls" in all ecclesiastical matters.  The Roman Church was the
mother to whom they applied in time of need.[7]  Gregory gave the
pallium to Vergilius, bishop of the ancient city of Arles, and with it
the position of papal vicar within the kingdoms of Burgundy, Austrasia,
and Aquitaine.  He recognised the terrible laxity of the Gallican
Church: the clergy were negligent, simoniacal, vicious; laymen were
often consecrated to the episcopate.  He gave counsel freely to the
kings: Childebert he warmly commended: Brunichild, whose tenacious
adherence to the Catholic faith he knew, while he probably knew but
little of her personal character, he wrote to with paternal affection,
granted the pallium at her request and that of Gallican bishops to S.
Syagrius, Bishop of Autun, and appealed to her as one who had the will
as well as the power to reform abuses, remove scandals, and destroy
paganism.  He set himself determinedly to work against the taint of
money which hung over the whole Church.  He earnestly pleaded for the
expulsion of "these detestable evils," for the summoning of a synod
which should reform the whole Church.  He pleaded in vain; but his work
was not without lasting results.  He founded the alliance between the
papacy and the Frankish kings which was to be so fruitful in later
history.  And he founded it not with a political but with an entirely
religious object.  Through the court he hoped to reform the Church.  He
saw how closely Church and State were {50} linked together, and he
thought that he could make the kings act as rulers who set the Church's
interest always first.  It has been well said that his work, though the
Church long remained corrupt, was not in vain.  "He succeeded in
establishing a regular intercourse between himself and the churches of
Gaul, especially in the cities of the east and south; he fixed a
tradition of friendship between the apostolic see and the Frank
princes; he held up an ideal of Christianity before a savage and
half-pagan people; and he caused the name of bishop to be once more
reverenced in a land where it had grown to be almost synonymous with
avarice, lawlessness, and corrupt ambition.  If Gregory did no more
than this he accomplished enough.  Though his work was not rich in
definite results at the moment, yet afterwards, in the reign of
Charlemagne, its effects became manifest." [8]

[Sidenote: Relations of the Frankish Church with Rome.]

At the same time the Frankish Church undoubtedly maintained a position
distinctly independent of Rome.  Arles never really became a papal
vicariate.  Gregory's endeavours were fruitless in practical result.[9]
The Gallican churches continued to be governed by their bishops, with
every degree of local variety, not by the pope.  Gregory rather set
forth an ideal than established a subordination.  His influence was
personal not constitutional, and it was not strong.  Yet in the days
between Gregory and Charles the Great the links connecting Rome with
Gaul were not weakened.  Later on they were to be strengthened still
more by the growth of a reformed monasticism, which gave support {51}
to the papacy while yet it looked to the popes for guidance.  But
meanwhile the influence of individual ecclesiastics in Gaul must not be
forgotten.  As was so often the case in medieval Europe, an age of
wickedness presents, in the chronicles and biographies, a very large
proportion of lives which received the praise of sanctity.  Bishops,
anchorites, monks, often, it would seem, rose far above the standard of
their day: men noted their lives with awe and remembered them with
reverence.  They moved in a society of curious complexity.

[Learning at the court of the Merwings.]

Venantius Fortunatus, who dedicated his poems to Gregory the Great, and
was "the great man of letters of his age," was a poet, but a Christian
poet--a writer of letters, but a close friend of holy souls, and
notably of S. Radegund, the exiled princess and saint.[10]  We learn
from him that even in those days of blood there was a literary society
at the Frankish courts, and the savage king Chilperich made pretence to
be a writer, a theologian, and even a poet, though Gregory of Tours
assures us that he had not the least notion of prosody.

Venantius Fortunatus and his literary friends, Chilperich and his
obsequious courtiers, link us to another and more notable name.  To one
bishop, who achieved canonisation, we owe very much of what we know of
the history of those times.

Gregory of Tours wrote memoirs which "are those of a man who has played
a great part in the State.  At the same time he has the sense for
interesting {52} things, miracles, and adventures, which is sometimes
wanting in historians." [11]

[Sidenote: Gregory of Tours.]

We learn from his books that he had been trained in classic learning,
and that the bishops of the day did not turn aside from the pagan
classics.  It is quite clear that his education was not merely
theological or even exclusively Christian.  Other writers he refers to,
but with Vergil he certainly was familiar.  And it is difficult to
believe that he stood alone, bitterly though he complained of the
ignorance of his contemporaries.  The very fact that Gregory the Great
denounced the custom of bishops studying and teaching classical grammar
and classical fables, shows that the education of those days was not
very closely confined.  And of its results, seen also in a goodly list
of clerical men of letters, Gregory of Tours is perhaps the best
example.

He was before all things a bishop; he wrote indeed, as a French writer
has happily said, "en évêque"; but he was also a statesman and a very
keen observer of life.  From his pages we learn how slight had been the
impression that Christianity had yet made on the lives of barbarous
men.  We see kings still wondering that God's power could be greater
than their own, yet when they were awoke to terror by the thought of
death flying in craven fear to the feet of the minister of God.  The
whole history is a tale of treacheries and murders, of quarrels and of
sins among men and women pledged to God; and yet it is evident that
behind the cruelty and crime there was a new spirit at work, slowly
transforming society by the conversion of individuals.  It was a
transformation {53} which was going on all over Europe; nowhere at this
time, perhaps, more conspicuously than in Gaul and in Ireland.  There
are many parallels between the Celtic "age of saints" and the Merwing
age of sinners.  It is difficult to learn the full truth about either;
but out of the darkness comes the conspicuous witness of individual
saints.  Of one or two of these a word may be said.  Most notable is
one who served both Ireland and Gaul.

[Sidenote: S. Columban (540-615).]

The figure of the great Irish monk Columban is a light in the darkness
of the gross and cruel Merwing age.  Born about 540, he died in 615,
after a life of achievement and hardness such as was given to few of
his time.  He died at Bobbio, crowned with the halo of heroism and
sanctity; but he was born in distant Ireland, and the main work of his
life had been to introduce into Gaul the monastic movement which was
led in Italy by S. Benedict.  During the intellectual and moral
weakness which the barbarian invasions brought upon the West the Church
in Ireland appeared to stand forth resplendent in the security of her
faith and virtue and in the cultivation of learning.  In the warm
Celtic nature the Gospel, so late introduced, had found a natural home.
The monasteries which rose all over the land, with the huts of hermits
and the cells of anchorites, were the seed-plots of religion and sacred
lore.  The community life of Christian religious was naturally grafted
on to the old Druid stock.  The tribes of the Goidels became the
monasteries; the head of the family was the abbat; the country looked
everywhere to the monks for leadership.  Thus Armagh and Emly, Clonard,
Ennismore, Clonfert, Clonmacnoise, {54} Bangor, arose to teach and
govern the Church.  Their monks lived by severe rule, based, no doubt,
upon the customs of the East, of Egypt or Syria, most strict in the
abasement of the selfish will, in penitence, in work, in prayer.  "Good
is the rule of Bangor," said the ancient sequence, "strait, austere,
holy, and just."  It was this rule, with the enthusiasm which marked
all classes for religion and for knowledge, which inspired S. Columban
in his great work.  It was a work whose keynote was sacred study and
which found its harmony in monastic service.  S. Columban was the type,
the representative _par excellence_, of the Irish monk, in his high
idealism, his thirst for self-sacrifice, his adventurous and missionary
spirit.

[Sidenote: His work in Gaul.]

He was trained at Bangor, but there he could not stay.  He was fired
with the determination to spread the Gospel over sea, among the Gauls
who, under a veneer of Christianity, still often lived a pagan life.
There heathen superstitions still flourished, in worship of the old
gods, in veneration of trees and rocks and idols: the heathen morals
were hardly disguised.  The Frankish society over which the Merwings
ruled, the Gaul of Sigebert and Chilperich and Chlothochar, was stained
with blood and lust.  Apart from it altogether, it would seem, and
exercising hardly any influence, were a few holy bishops and very many
isolated monasteries, the homes of prayer and renunciation and
penitence.  In the sixth century it is said that some two hundred
monasteries were founded in Gaul; but their protest against the vice of
their age was for the most part a silent one.  Columban, when he
landed, was to make a more effective protest against the luxury of the
time, {55} the ineffective, unmeaning faith in the forgiveness of sins
apart from renunciation of them, which marked the semi-Christian
society into which he came.

[Sidenote: Luxeuil and its rule.]

Guntchramn, king of the Burgundians, gave him a settlement at Annegray,
and afterwards at Luxeuil, where there grew up, on the site of an
earlier Roman township, a monastery of stern and rigid rule.
Eventually he added a third foundation at Fontaine; and he presided
over three houses, governing according to a rule which he himself drew
up, after the examples of Clonard and Bangor.  Its characteristic was
the completeness of the self-denial aimed at; its motto the thought,
"Think not of what thou art, but of what thou shalt be"; its government
an autocracy depending wholly on the abbat; its scholarship not only
that of the Bible, but of the Latin classics--of Horace and of Vergil.
Its work was twofold.  In the first place, it exemplified a strict life
of obedience, self-sacrifice, and prayer, the home of which was ever
ready to minister to sick souls without; and, secondly, it supplied the
religion of the age with a penitential system--in the penitential based
upon Irish models--which was of great influence in the secular and
ecclesiastical legislation of the future.  Columban was not favourably
received by all the episcopate of his new country.  They were men of
different ideals, unacquainted with the culture which meant so much to
him; and their acceptance of the general Western custom of observing
Easter caused a warm dispute with the Celtic monks.  To Gregory the
Great and to the Gaulish bishops Columban alike appealed on behalf of
the custom he had received; but finally, after more than thirty {56}
years' residence in Burgundy, he consented to observe the Celtic custom
in silence, without endeavour to make converts to it.  A more grave
enemy at the beginning of the seventh century was the wicked young
Burgundian king, Theodoric, at whose court was his grandmother,
Brunichild.  His stern denunciations of vice, his refusal to recognise
the king's unlawful children, brought on Columban the fury of the
oppressor, and he was ordered away from Luxeuil into a sort of
semi-captivity at Besançon, and thence into exile.  Long he wandered
through Gaulish lands, to Nevers, down the Loire to Nantes, whence it
was said that the ship refused to bear him back to Ireland.  At last,
after a meeting with Chlothochar, King of Neustria, whose rule over all
the Franks he had prophesied, he found refuge at Bregenz, by the lake
of Constance.  With him were several of his monks, among them the S.
Gall whose settlement in those lands has given the name to a canton of
what is now Switzerland.  The long journey of the exiled monks, with
their strange tonsure, their holiness, their alms, their works of
healing, was a veritable mission.  [Sidenote: Bobbio.] The journey
eventually ended in Italy; the internecine strifes of the Merwings
which ceased for the time in the union of the whole land of the Franks
under Chlothochar, left Columban without interest in Gaul, and the
Lombard sovereigns gave him a home at Bobbio, in the Apennines, where
his monastery, aided by the holiness of Queen Theodelind, was a mighty
influence in the conversion of Lombardy from Arianism.  There, in 615,
he died, the prophet of his age, the stern preacher of righteousness,
the wise student, the faithful herdsman of souls.  {57} Columban is a
great figure, of the chief facts of whose life there is no doubt.  It
is not so with many others.

[Sidenote: S. Wandrille.]

S. Patrick belongs, we do not doubt, to true history; but there is no
doubt as to the richness of the legendary element in his life.  Much
the same is true of S. Wandrille.  Few Englishmen, we suspect, have
heard his name; but he was a great figure in an age which Mabillon
called golden in its religious aspect, the strange, wild time of the
Merwings, the seventh century after Christ.  In 648 S. Wandrille
founded the abbey of Fontenelle, in the district of Caux.  He lived
till a great age, his death being probably much later than 667, to
which year it has been assigned.  His career affords a very vivid
picture of the monastic life of the time, standing out amid the
darkness of crime.  He rightly emphasises the holiness and wisdom and
learning of the great bishops of the Merwing age.  It was their work as
leaders, missionaries, statesmen in the highest Christian sense which
the monasteries were called upon to continue and perfect.  The
monasteries were the refuge and the rallying-ground of those who fought
against the secularisation of the Church at the hands of the
Gallo-Roman aristocracy.  S. Wandrille, born of the great Karling
house, was a leader among leaders, statesman among statesmen, monk
among monks.  He was one who passed from a great though barbaric court,
where he had been a trusted official, into the strictness of monastic
training, and then into the solitude of secluded communion with God.
Such lives as his were the great attractive forces of the seventh
century; such retreats as the valley of Fontenelle were the centres of
Christian influence of the age.

{58}

Between these men and Gregory of Tours it might seem that there was
little in common.  But there were others whose lives combined the
interests of the two, the interests of monk and statesman and bishop.

[Sidenote: S. Didier.]

Another great clerk of the seventh century who must not be forgotten is
S. Didier (Desiderius) of Cahors, at one time treasurer of Chlothochar
II, and of Dagobert I., the friend of saints like Eloi (Eligius), Ouen,
and Arnulf.  Through him we learn something of the religious life of
Southern Gaul.  He died probably in 655, and thus he represented the
earlier part of the seventh century.  His biographer gives a long list
of the holy bishops who were his contemporaries, and of the churches
and monasteries which were scattered thickly over the land.  The whole
tone of his writing--earnest, biblical, spiritual, shows how the
Church, in spite of weakness and sloth and failure in some of her chief
men, yet held up a standard of right and justice, purity and devotion,
which penetrated all over the country, into castles and humble
homesteads, and profoundly affected the whole national life.  And this
work was concentrated in the public eye in those good men who at court,
amid good and ill report, lived as servants of Him who went about doing
good.

But while the Church was thus entering into all the national life, as a
sharer in its interests of every kind, it was the monastic ideal, there
can be little doubt, which ultimately exercised the greatest influence
on the Franks.  The saints who won reverence were for the most part
monks.  The work of Columban passed into the work of Benedict, and when
Luxeuil accepted {59} the Benedictine rule, and when the Council of
Autun in 670 declared it to be the rule for all monks everywhere, a
great step was taken towards the intimate union of Gaul with the rest
of Christendom in the things on which they had begun to set most store.



[1] Bury, _History of the Later Roman Empire_, vol. i. p. 396.

[2] Greg. Tur., ii. 38 (Migne, _Patr. Lat._, p. 236).

[3] Bouquet, _Recueil_, tom. iv. p. 59, epist. 15: cf. Gasquet,
_L'Empire byzantin et la Monarchie franque_, p. 165.

[4] Greg. Turon., _Hist. Franc._, x. 29 (Migne, p. 560): cf. also his
_Vitae Patrum_, 17.  Hontheim, _Historia diplomatica_, i. 47.

[5] Cf. Greg. Turon., v. 3, on the frightful cruelty of Rauching.

[6] Vol. v. p. 262.

[7] S. Greg., _Epp._ v. 58.

[8] F. H. Dudden, _Gregory the Great_, ii. 69.

[9] Cf. E. Lavisse, _Hist. de France_, tome ii. p. 219,

[10] M. Roger, _L'Enseignement des lettres classiques d'Ausone à
Alcuin_, p. 100.

[11] W. P. Ker, _The Dark Ages_, p. 125.



{60}

CHAPTER V

THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT

[Sidenote: Gregory the Great.]

About 540 was born in Rome, of a noble family, the great Pope Gregory,
whose work was to place the papacy at the head of Italian politics, and
to lay the lines on which papal action for many centuries was to be
based.  When he was a child it might well have seemed that Italy under
a strong Gothic rule would submit to the Arian teaching which the State
supported.  Theodoric endeavoured to make an united Italy; but the
Church knew that there could be no compromise on the doctrine of the
perfect Godhead of the Lord Jesus, and her attitude preserved Italy
both for Catholicism and for the Empire.  Gregory was taught as a
Catholic, but he was taught also in classical grammar, composition,
rhetoric, and the writings of the great Romans--pre-Christian, as well
as of later days.  He began his life's work as a Roman official, and by
the year 573 he is found as prefect of the city.  A year later, it
would seem, he became a monk, giving up all his property, all his signs
of rank and wealth, all his power and place.  Soon, if not at once, he
came to serve under the rule of S. Benedict, whose life he afterwards
wrote, in the monastery dedicated to S. Andrew on the Caelian hill.

{61}

[Sidenote: The Lombard invasion, 568.]

It was the time when Italy was again at the feet of the barbarians.
The Lombards, the last of the Teutonic nations to settle in the West,
established at Pavia a kingdom which lasted for two centuries
(568-774), and which again rent away much of the fair Italian lands
from the unity of the Empire, leaving the Exarchate at Ravenna in a
state half isolated and wholly perilous.

[Sidenote: The effect on Italy.]

Gradually the onward sweep of the new barbarians, who called themselves
Arians, but were not strongly bound by any creed, swept away all power
save their own and the pope's.  The destruction of Monte Cassino was
typical of one side of their work--the turning aside from Rome at
Gregory's intercession of another.  The Empire struggled to retain its
hold on Italy and to govern the Western world from Ravenna, with
instructions from the New Rome; but it failed.  The papacy studied to
be quiet.  And the close of the sixth century showed that power would
return in the end to the city which had founded the Empire, and to the
Church which was now claiming to teach and to unite the nations.

A period of papal insignificance was gradually ended by the progress of
new ideals for the papacy.  This came about in three ways.

[Sidenote: The popes and the exarchate.]

1. It was the aim of each pope to set up his power against that of the
imperial exarchate, by which Italy was ruled after its reconquest by
Belisarius and Narses.  Gradually, step by step, the popes claimed
cognisance of secular matters, intervened in politics, and stood forth
as a leaders in Italian affairs.  The imperial administration saw the
danger, and, from time to time, made definite {62} opposition to the
papal pretensions.  It endeavoured to restore the unity of the Church,
to secure the universal condemnation of the Three Chapters, but under
sanction of Ravenna rather than of Rome.  Thus the exarch Smaragdus, in
587, led Severus, patriarch of Aquileia, before the Ravennate prelates
to make submission;[1] and later the emperor Maurice interfered to
present the pope compelling the patriarch to submission.  But these
endeavours were futile; and the great Gregory, statesman and
administrator of the first order, made the papacy the most important
political power in the western provinces of the Empire.  In 599 this
was apparent in Gregory's negotiation with the Lombard king, Agilulf.

[Sidenote: The Benedictines in South Italy.]

2. The papal influence was increased, and the Greek power diminished,
by the direct replacement of Eastern monks by Benedictines.[2]  The
monasteries founded by Greeks during the imperial restoration, no
longer replenished from Constantinople, fell into the hands of the
great papal force founded by the greatest saint, and marshalled by the
greatest administrator of the century.

[Sidenote: Missions from Rome.]

3. And, lastly, the power of the papacy was at once evidenced and
increased by the revival of its missionary energy.  What Pelagius II.
had stayed, Gregory the Great accomplished--conversion of England by
the mission of Augustine.  Spain, too, was won from Arianism by a
personal friend of Gregory's, though without Roman intervention;[3] and
within Italy itself the {63} pope began the great work of the
conversion of the Lombards to the Catholic faith, with the full
teaching both of the Tome of Leo and of the Fifth General Council.
Gregory sent the Acts of the Council to be taught to the little child
Adalwald, the Lombard king.

Thus in each of these three directions the progress of papal power is
connected with the influence of Gregory the Great.  It is of his papacy
therefore that we must speak as the critical point in the upward
movement.  Between 574 and 590 Gregory gained experience in many ways.
To a strict monastic training he added, in 579, the employment of papal
apocrisiarius (or envoy) at the imperial court at Constantinople.  Here
he became intimate with the chief ecclesiastics, with Anastasius, who
had been deposed from the patriarchal see of Antioch, and who came to
regard him as "the very mouth and lantern of the Lord," with Leander of
Seville, who had come to lay the needs of the Catholic cause in Spain
before the emperors,[4] and with the imperial family.  [Sidenote:
Gregory as abbat.] About 586 he returned to Rome, and became abbat of
the monastery in which he had formerly served.  It was there that he
completed his commentary, or _moralia_, on the book of Job, which he
had delivered as lectures at Constantinople, an epitome of Christian
theology and morals.  It was then that he saw the bright lads from
Deira, who first turned his thoughts to the conversion of England.[5]
The controversy of the Three Chapters was still lingering on in Italy,
and it was Gregory who was given the task of inducing the Istrian {64}
bishops to accept the decisions of the Fifth General Council.
[Sidenote: Gregory elected Pope, 590.] So skilful did he prove himself
as a controversialist, as an administrator, and as an adviser of
Pelagius, that he was elected with enthusiasm to succeed that pope in
590.

[Sidenote: The pastoral rule.]

His ideal of the pastoral office is set forth in that golden book, the
_Liber regulae pastoralis_, in which he describes the life of a true
shepherd of the Christian people.  A life of absolute purity and
devotion as therein sketched was that which made Gregory's pontificate
notable for its wisdom, its discretion, and its wise governance.  The
pastoral office to him was one even more of the cure of souls than of
government, and that idea is shown in all his letters.  He wrote to
kings, abbats, individual Christians, with the spirit of direct
encouragement and admonition, as a wise teacher dispensing instruction.
In the Lateran he lived, as he had lived on the Caelian hill, a life of
strict ascetic rule, wearing still his monastic dress, and living in
common with his clerks and monks.  [Sidenote: Gregory's life.] John the
Deacon, who wrote his biography nearly two centuries after his death,
says that "the Roman Church in Gregory's time was like that Church as
it was under the rule of the apostles, or the Church of Alexandria when
S. Mark was its bishop."  Charity was by him developed into a great
scheme of benevolence organised with the minutest care and recorded in
detail in books that were a model to later times.  The political and
ecclesiastical cares of the papacy never prevented Gregory from what he
considered the chiefest duty of his office, that of preaching.  His
sermons, which were as famous as those of Chrysostom in Constantinople,
were {65} direct in their appeal, vivid in their illustration, terse
and epigrammatic in their expression.  Paul the Deacon sums up his work
by saying that he was entirely engrossed in gaining souls.

[Sidenote: His statesmanship.]

At the same time he was a statesman as well as a bishop.  He governed
the "patrimony of S. Peter," lands scattered over Italy and even Gaul,
with a careful supervision, entering into minute matters as well as
general policy, freeing slaves, caring for the cultivation of land; and
the intimate knowledge which he thus acquired is shown in his
_Dialogues_, which throw a flood of light on the life, secular as well
as ecclesiastical, of his age.  Outside these districts, in purely
spiritual matters, he showed a constant vigilance.  Everywhere what was
needed seemed to be known to the pope, and everywhere he was planning
to remedy evils, to build up the Church, to reform abuses, to convert
heretics, to supply new bishops, to encourage the growth of
monasticism.  This activity extended not only to what were called the
suburbicarian provinces but to distant lands, such as Spain, Illyricum,
Gaul, Africa, as well as to Northern Italy.  Something has been said of
his relations in Gaul, and remains to be said of his intervention in
Africa.  His relations with Constantinople may be most significantly
illustrated by the dispute as to the title of the patriarch of New Rome.

[Sidenote: The title "Universal Bishop."]

In 588 the acts of a synod of Constantinople were declared by Pelagius
II. to be invalid be-cause the patriarch used the title _oikoumenikos_
or _universalis_.  Just as at the Council of Chalcedon the Alexandrine
representatives styled the pope "oecumenical archbishop and {66}
patriarch of the Great Rome," so the patriarch of Constantinople used
the style and dignity of "oecumenical patriarch."  It was one that had
been employed at least since 518, and it seems to have been commonly
used.  From the use of this title came grave controversy.  In 588 the
acts of a synod of Constantinople were declared by Pelagius II. to be
invalid because the patriarch used the title _oikoumenikos_ or
_universalis_: and in 595 Gregory the Great strongly condemned the use
of such a phrase, at the same time repudiating its use for his own see.
"The Council of Chalcedon," he wrote, "offered the title of universal
to the Roman pontiff, but he refused to accept it, lest he should seem
thereby to derogate from the honour of his brother bishops." [6]  And
to the emperor Maurice he said still more distinctly, "I confidently
affirm that whosoever calls himself _sacerdos universalis_, or desires
to be so called by others, is in his pride a forerunner of Antichrist."
But the patriarchs continued to use the title, and before a century had
elapsed, the popes followed their example.

[Sidenote: The province of Illyricum.]

The relation of Gregory with the Church of Illyricum gives opportunity
for mention of that anomalous patriarchate.  Somewhat apart from the
general Church history of the early Middle Age stands the province of
Illyricum.  Its ecclesiastical status was even more ambiguous than its
political.  On its borders, or within its limits, the patriarchate of
Rome touched that of {67} Constantinople, and the claims of the two,
sometimes at least conflicting, were complicated by the privileges
given by Justinian to his birthplace.  In the tenth century it was
undoubtedly under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, in the seventh it
appears to have been under that of Rome.  In the Councils at
Constantinople in 681 and 692, the Illyrian bishops appeared as
attached exclusively to Rome; and so, it has been noticed, did those of
Crete, Thessalonica, and Corinth.  In the sixth century there are
instances, though not numerous ones, of papal interference, in the
nature of the exercise of judicial power, in the province of Illyricum;
and at the end of the century Gregory the Great was especially active
in his correspondence with the bishops.  It would seem from one of his
letters that he counted even Justiniana Prima as under his authority,
though the intention of the emperor was certainly not to make it so.
This edict--for so it practically is--is interesting also because it
appears to deal with all the ecclesiastical provinces of the empire
which depended immediately on the Roman patriarchate.  It omits Africa,
and the fact that the popes did not send the pallium to the Bishop of
Carthage (the North African Metropolitan) shows that the popes did not
claim to confer jurisdiction, but merely to recognise a special
relationship, by this act.[7]  On the other hand, it is to be observed
that the code of Justinian contains a law of Theodosius II. which
places the Illyrian bishopric under the jurisdiction of the patriarch
of Constantinople.  But this law is beset with many difficulties, and
it has been {68} argued that it was merely the expression of a
temporary rupture between the Empire and the papacy, which in the
schism of 484-519 was gravely accentuated; and there are grounds for
thinking that the bishops of Thessalonica exercised authority in
Illyricum as delegates of Rome--yet rather from their political than
their ecclesiastical associations.  However this may be, there can be
no doubt that the position given by Justinian to the city of his birth
was intended to be practically patriarchal, and that the Bishop of
Thessalonica, whether vicar or not of the pope, was practically
ignored.  The whole question is indeed a notable example of the
difficulties consequent on the close connection between religion and
politics in the sixth century.

[Sidenote: Gregory's claim to jurisdiction.]

Gregory's action was that of a wise but masterful ruler, and it seems
to have been based on the view that all the bishops of the West were
directly under his jurisdiction.  Similar cases of interference are to
be found in regard to the churches of Istria, and to the great sees of
Ravenna and Milan.  In connection may be seen the claim to grant the
_pallium_, a mark of honour which seems to have been gradually passing
into a sign of jurisdiction.[8]  Gregory claimed for the successors of
S. Peter something like an apostolic authority, and he at least
suggested a theory of the papal office which was capable of almost
indefinite extension.  Politic and religion here met together.  When
Airulf in 592 appeared before Rome the pope made a separate treaty with
him: he stepped into the {69} place of ruler of imperial Italy when he
disregarded the exarch and even the emperor, and entered into
negotiations on his own account; and up to the time of his death he was
practically responsible for the rearrangement of Italy.  His letter to
the great Lombard queen, Theodelind, of whom memorials survive to-day
at Monza, show how the two sides of his position mingled; how he was
statesman and diplomatist as well as priest and missionary.

[Sidenote: His missions.]

In his missionary interests he passed far outside Italy.  The most
conspicuous example is the conversion of the English, which he had in
earlier years been most anxious himself to undertake, and which was
begun in 597 under his direction by Augustine; but it is not the only
one.  In Northern Italy, in Africa and Gaul, Gregory was active in
seeking the conversion of pagans and heretics, and in endeavouring by
gentle measures to lead the Jews to Christ.

[Sidenote: His relations on monasticism.]

More important still in the history of the papacy was Gregory's work in
spreading, organising, and systematising monasticism.  He insisted on
the strict observance of the rule of S. Benedict.  Not only did he
reform, but he very greatly strengthened, the monasticism of Italy.
Conspicuously did his _privilegia_, granting or recognising a
considerable freedom from episcopal control, start the monks on a new
advance.  While not exempting them from the rule of bishops, he made it
possible for future popes to win support for themselves by granting
such exemptions.

But Gregory's fame does not lie wholly in any of these spheres of
activity.  Great as a ruler and an {70} organiser, he was known also to
later ages, as to his own, for his theological writings.  He was not
only a practical ruler and practical minister of Christ; he was also a
leader in Christian learning--the last, as men have come to call him,
of the four great Latin doctors.

[Sidenote: His relations to learning.]

The work of Gregory the Great was here as elsewhere far-reaching, but
rather an organising than a formative one.  Classical studies, in which
he had been trained, he put aside; and when he did his utmost to spread
monasteries over the length and breadth of Italy, it was not at all of
learning in a secular sense, but wholly of religion that he thought.
Thus his own theology is primarily a biblical theology.  The Bible was
to him the word of God.  Like the author of the _Imitatio Christi_ in
later days, he did not care to argue as to the authorship of the
different books but to profit by what was in them.  He was a great
expositor, a great preacher, and that always with a practical aim.  As
he said, "We hear the doctrine  words of God if we act on them."
[Sidenote: His doctrine of the church.] In his more general theological
writings he sums up, with the precision of a master, not any new
doctrines or advances in speculation, but the theology of the Church of
his age.  And he is able thus to emphasise the crying need of unity in
words which state the claim of the Church for the conversion of the
pagans and heretics of his day: "Sancta autem universalis ecclesia
praedicat Deum veraciter nisi intra se coli non posse, asserens quod
omnes qui extra ipsam sunt minime salvabuntur."  Outside this there was
no hope of spiritual health.  And this doctrine he based {71} on the
unity of Christ's life with that of the Church: "Our Redeemer showed
that He is one person with the Church, which He took to be His own";
and thus it was that "The Churches of the true faith set in all parts
of the world make one Catholic Church, in which all the faithful who
are right minded toward God live in concord."  Thus he was, in theology
as in ecclesiastical politics, a concentrating and clarifying force;
and when, on March 12th, 604, he passed to his rest, he had laid firm
the foundations of the medieval papacy, and in hardly less degree those
of the theological system of the medieval Church.



[1] _Paulus Diaconus_, iii, 26, ed. Waitz, pp. 105-7.

[2] Diehl, _op. cit._, gives a list, p. 256.

[3] Joannes Biclarensis, _Chronicon_ (Migne, _Patr. Lat._, lxxii. 868).

[4] See below, p. 76.

[5] The _Vita Antiquissima_ (S. Gall. MS.), by a monk of Whitby, does
not represent them as slaves (pp. 13, 14), ed. Gasquet.

[6] S. Greg., _Epp._, v. 18.  The term _sacerdos_ is commonly used for
bishop at this date.  Thus Gregory of Tours calls a bishop _sacerdos_
during this life, _antistes_ after his death.  S. Gregory must not,
however, be understood as disclaiming a papal supremacy.

[7]  The letter is Epp. Greg. (Jaffé), 1497; cf. letter to Syagrius,
Bishop of Autun.

[8] It does not seem, from Bede i. 39, that, as has been asserted, it
was always necessary to apply for it.



{72}

CHAPTER VI

CONTROVERSY AND THE CATHOLICISM OF SPAIN

[Sidenote: Pelagian controversy of sixth century.]

Controversies which belong to this period are those connected with
semi-Pelagianism and with Adoptianism.  Faustus, Bishop of Riez, who
died almost at the end of the fifth century, held views which were
opposed to those of S. Augustine as well as to those of Pelagius.  His
writings were attacked by many, among them by Caesarius, Bishop of
Arles from 501 to 542, who caused a synod at Orange in 529 to condemn
semi-Pelagian opinions, in a statement which declared that sufficient
grace is given to all the baptized (an expression which had an
important history centuries later).  The writings of Faustus were the
subject of much discussion also at Constantinople, and they were
condemned by several of the popes.

Of a wholly different kind was the heresy originating in the East, and
probably revived through the controversy of the Three Chapters, which
came into prominence in the eighth century in Spain.  It has been
thought that the exigencies of anti-Muhammadan controversy had
something to do with the importance which the question now assumed.
The Spanish Church had a long record, in the Councils of Toledo, of
orthodox and {73} strenuous adherence to the Christian faith; but it
showed also a strongly nationalistic spirit, and it was natural that
much should be developed, through antagonism to Muhammadanism and Arian
influences, which would fall into danger of extreme reaction on the one
side or of unwise concession on the other.  "Spanish Christianity," it
has been said in a phrase which has become classical, "was a perpetual
crusade."  In Spain the Christian contest against sin and unbelief
became more often, or more constantly, than elsewhere an actual
physical struggle against those who distorted or denied the faith of
the Church and those who trampled it under foot.  This is, of course,
most true of the ages which followed the Moorish invasions, of the long
strife between Christians and Moors, of the times and the thoughts
which gave birth to the immortal literature of the peninsula, to
Calderon and Cervantes, to Lope de Vega and S. Teresa of Jesus.  But it
is also true, though in a less degree, of the earlier times--of those
which extended from the introduction of Christianity--from the
missionary visit, it may be, of S. Paul himself--down to the
destruction of the monarchy of the Wisigoths in 711.  Spain was in 589
won to Catholicism by the conversion of its king Reccared.  But this
was the end of a long and critical period, for from the acceptance of
Arianism by Remismond in 466 the country was under the rule of princes
who were pledged to that error.

The Wisigoths identified their heresy with their nationality.  The
general decadence of the Empire spread to Spain.  The social system was
in a state of dissolution.  The canons of the Councils show a {74}
picture of life which is appalling in its corruption, but at the same
time are evidence of the earnest efforts of the Church for amendment.
[Sidenote: The conversion of Spain.] They show how Christianity had
penetrated into the country districts, and how eager were the bishops
of the sixth century to do their spiritual duty far and wide.  Side by
side with the canons of Church Councils is the great Fuero Jusgo (in
process of compilation from the fifth to the eighth century) in
witnessing to the efforts for a better state of things.  During the
rule of the West Goths, persecution of Catholics had been frequent, but
when Amalric married Hlothild, daughter of Chlodowech, promising her
tolerance of her religion, a way was opened for a new life to
orthodoxy.  But Amalric broke his promise, and an invasion of Spain by
the Franks followed.  In the reign of the Arian Theudis (531-48) there
was still more decisive intervention.  Childebert and Chlothochar
invaded Spain and besieged Saragossa, but were driven back; and it was
not till Athanagild called in the armies of Justinian that the
confusion and division of Spanish life; between orthodox and heretic,
Roman and Goth, was healed in the slightest degree.  The year 560
witnessed the conversion of King Mir by Martin of Braga, and three
years later, and again in 572, Councils at Braga witnessed to the
Catholic faith of the Church.  But it was an era of fightings and
fears.  The Roman armies of the Eastern Empire held the cities of the
coast long after Athanagild had come to be recognised as king of all
the Goths in Spain, but gradually unity was springing up under the rule
of that able chieftain.  He died in 568, having married his daughters,
Brunichild and Galswintha, to {75} the Frankish kings, Sigebert and
Chilperich.  His successor Leovigild established a sway over all the
Wisigothic possessions and ruled from Nîmes to Seville.  The wedding of
Brunichild, though sung by Venantius Fortunatus, Bishop of Poitiers,
was but the beginning of crime and of sorrows; yet it led indirectly to
the conversion of Spain.  Brunichild's daughter Ingunthis married
Leovigild's son Hermenigild.  She was bitterly persecuted as a Catholic
when she came to Spain, but she clung to her faith with the devotion of
a martyr, and she won over her husband.  [Sidenote: Hermenigild.] At
Seville Hermenigild was for some time acting as king, under his father,
and when he was threatened on his conversion with the loss of all he
had he took up arms.  After a long contest he was subdued, and he
underwent a long persecution ending eventually in death when he refused
to receive communion at the hands of an Arian bishop on Easter Day,
585.[1]  Ingunthis escaped to Constantinople.  Then till 587 Arianism
reigned supreme in Spain, and John of Biclaro, Catholic bishop of
Gerona, writes as one crying in a wilderness.  But Catholicism in Spain
was scotched, not killed, and when Reccared (586-601) called Arian and
Catholic bishop alike before him, and after two years definitely
accepted orthodoxy under the influence of his uncle Leander, Archbishop
of Seville, it was not long before the whole of Council of Spain
accepted his decision and followed his example.  [Sidenote: Council of
Toledo, 589.] This was in 587, and an {76} inscription shows that the
cathedral church of Toledo was then consecrated in the Catholic faith.
With the Council of Toledo (third synod of Toledo), 589,[2] which
accepted the first four General Councils and the Procession of the Holy
Ghost from the Father and the Son, Spain returned to the unity of the
faith.  From Reccared's reign, too, dates a civilisation distinctly
traceable to Constantinople and a recognition of absolute equality
between the different races in the peninsula.  And to that golden age
belong also the great saint and preacher, Leander, who died in 603, and
S. Isidore of Seville, the encyclopaedic writer, who died thirty-three
years later.  S. Leander had at Constantinople come to know Gregory the
Great.  He was the chief theologian of Spain in his age, and his words
welcomed and ratified the conversion.  Thus the modern history of Spain
and her most Catholic kings begins.  The importance of the period
culminates in the compilation, almost final, of the great Wisigothic
Code, the Fuero Jusgo, at once civil and ecclesiastical, the result of
a union between Church and State even more perfect than that
represented in the English Witenagemot.

The concentration of Spanish interests on theological questions led
before long to new developments, but meanwhile it helped the happy
tendency to unity which Recceswinth (652-72) confirmed by allowing the
intermarriage which had long been forbidden--Recceswinth, whose
splendid gold crown, dedicated to the Blessed Virgin, still remains
amongst the most striking memorials of the Christian art of the seventh
century.  Wamba, his successor, established his supremacy in {77}
Septimania by the capture of Nîmes from a traitorous vicegerent, and
lived to show the sincerity with which the Wisigoths had accepted the
idea of the sanctity of vows to God.  During an illness, when he was
supposed to be incapable of recovery and remained in a stupor, he
received the tonsure that he might die as a monk: when he recovered he
refused to return to the world and abdicated the throne.  His
successors were equally strict, it would seem, in obedience to the
Church's laws, often unintelligently interpreted.

[Sidenote: Persecution of the Jews.]

To these days, too, belongs one of the first and darkest blots on the
popular Christianity of the Middle Age--the persecution of Jews.  The
Jews of Spain had long been restless under a government which was so
strongly ecclesiastical in its sympathies: persecuting laws oppressed
them, and they could hardly even in secret practise their religion.
Plots were constant and natural, and at last it is said that the Jews
incited the Saracens, who had overthrown the imperial power in Africa,
to cross the sea and strip from the weak Wisigoths of Spain the last
remains of their power.  In 695 a Council at Toledo (the sixteenth)
determined when the plot was discovered wholly to destroy the Judaic
faith in their land.  It was ordered that all grown-up Jews should be
made slaves, and all children brought up as Christians.  This was the
very year of the storming of Carthage.[3]  It is not to be wondered at
that the Jews gave every help they could to the infidels who, before
long, attacked the kingdom of the Wisigoths.  Within twenty years
Spain, up to the very mountains of the {78} Basque land and of the
Asturias, was conquered by the followers of Muhammad, and silence fell
upon the country which had appeared to be the home of an abiding Church.

The splendid edifice which had seemed to be reared on the solid
foundations of religion and law was shattered by the repeated blows of
the Arab invasion.  Why was this?  The chroniclers gave answer without
hesitation--"Peccatis exigentibus, victi sunt Christiani."  The Goths
(as they proudly called themselves) "have so offended Thee, O Lord, by
their pride, that they deserved a fall by the sword of the Saracen."
It was, in truth, as the great Sancho of Navarre declared in his
charter of foundation to the abbey of Albelda, "Our ancestors sinned
without scruple; they daily transgressed the commandments of the Lord,
and so to punish them as they had deserved and to make them turn to
Him, the Most Just of Judges delivered them to a barbarous people."  In
truth, the mass of the land had never been converted to Catholic
Christianity at all, and a heretical society was powerless against
Moslem sincerity and swords.  Only in the north was Catholicism
supreme, and thence came in later days the reconquest.  But Catholics
lived on all over Spain under their conquerors in comparative peace.

[Sidenote: The Adoptianist heresy.]

The Church survived.  Persecution made its life strong and vigorous,
and that life found outlet in new varieties of theological expression.
Elipandus, Archbishop of Toledo, within seventy years of the Saracen
conquest, became known outside his own land, with Felix, bishop of the
northern see of Urgel, for his advocacy of the statement that {79}
Christ's Sonship was that of adoption.  Asserting the two Natures and
the two Wills of the Lord, the Adoptianists regarded Christ as only in
His divine nature truly the Son of God.  Eager to assert the full
Humanity and to rebut the Muhammadan charges of idolatry, the Spanish
theologians taught that "one and the same Person was in two aspects a
Son, in virtue of His relation to two different natures," and that "the
Divine Son of God, begotten from all eternity of the Father, not by
adoption but by birth, not by grace but by nature--that He, when made
of a woman, made under the law, was Son of God, not by origin but by
adoption, not by nature but by grace." [4]  It was an attempt to carry
further the decisions adopted at Chalcedon and to account for the
origin of the two Natures, their completeness in distinction, and their
union together.

[Sidenote: Its condemnation.]

Adoptianism was condemned at Regensburg in 792, and at Frankfort in
794, and, under the influence of Alcuin, Felix made submission at
Aachen in 799.  Elipandus, safe among the Saracens, held out in his
opinions.  It would seem that the discussion represented the
eighth-century expression of the age-long conflict between logic and
mystery, the desire for exact definition, and the sense of something
beyond human understanding in what belongs to the nature of God, and to
the divine action in the Incarnation, the union of God and man.

[Sidenote: Adoptianism in the East.]

Adoptianism had in the East a greater success and a longer history than
in the West.  In Syria and Armenia vast numbers joined the sect
founded, or revived, by one {80} Constantine in the middle of the
seventh century.  He lived near Samosata, and probably inherited the
teaching of the earlier heretic, Paul of that place.  The sect came to
be called Paulicians.  They rejected the real divinity of Christ and
placed themselves in opposition to very much else which belonged to the
earliest Christian tradition, as in their rejection of the Old
Testament and the perpetual virginity of the Lord's Mother.  Armenia
became the headquarters of a large and prosperous sect, towards which
emperors alternately were persecuting or favourable.  Nicephorus I.
(802-11) was friendly to it, but his successor put it down with
relentless savagery; and after it had led to a formidable rebellion,
its votaries were finally suppressed by the generals of Basil the
Macedonian, 871.  But its tenets lingered on in Thrace, whither it had
been transported when some of its disciples were expropriated by
Constantine V., till the eighteenth century, and still later in Armenia
itself.  The authoritative book of the Armenian Paulicians, the _Key of
Truth_, has been thought to have been completed by one Smbat, minister
of Chosroes of Persia, whose date is 800-50,[5] but the history of
those days is certainly very confused and may have been distorted.

The intervention of Charles the Great in this controversy is but one
illustration of the importance of theological questions in the outlook
of the reviver of the Empire in the Catholic West.  Other theological
doctrines had a like interest in his view and in that of his house; and
in some of them also Spain was concerned.  At Toledo, in 589, Reccared,
when he accepted the Catholic creed, had inserted his belief in {81}
the double procession of the Holy Ghost.  This was again discussed in
767 at Gentilly, and at Aachen in 809.

[Sidenote: The "Veni Creator."]

Alcuin, as in the Adoptianist controversy, played a great part in
stating the view which the West was coming generally to accept.  Leo
III. was consulted, and advised that no addition should be made to the
Creed for fear of widening the breach with the East.  It would seem
that the great hymn, "Veni Creator Spiritus," is the expression of this
doctrine by the ninth century, and is the work of Rabanus Maurus, a
monk of the famous house of Fulda.

[Sidenote: The "Quicunque Vult."]

While this sums up in devotional form the Christian thought as to one
of the mysteries of faith, the hymn of a character more distinctly
credal, called "Quicunque vult," enshrines it in another aspect.  The
"Quicunque" has, indeed, a much earlier history.  In 633 the Fourth
Council of Toledo quoted many of its clauses.  Leodgar, Bishop of Autun
(663-78), directed his clergy to learn it by heart; and it became a not
uncommon profession of faith to be made by a bishop at his
consecration.  At the end of the eighth century it seems to have been
widely recited in church.  But it certainly goes back very much
earlier.  Caesarius, Bishop of Arles (501-43), the opponent of
semi-Pelagianism, has been proved to have used the creed continually:
it was quoted also by his rival, Avitus, Bishop of Vienne (490-523),
and it is probable that it represents the teaching of the great abbey
of Lerins in the controversies of the beginning of the sixth century.
It was decisively a Western creed: it {82} never came into the offices
of the orthodox Church of the East.  In the West it became a popular
means of instruction and a popular confession of the joy of Christian
faith.  It was sung in procession, recited in the services, meditated
on by the clergy.  It formed a model of orthodox expression of belief
in days of confusion and controversy.



[1] This story is discredited by a recent writer, Mr. Dudden, _S.
Gregory the Great_, i. 407 (following F. Görres), but I see no reason
to doubt that S. Gregory was rightly informed, and I accept what Dr.
Hodgkin (_Eng. Hist. Rev._, ii. 216) states as the facts.

[2] Mansi, _Concilia_, ix. 977-1010.

[3] See below, p. 109.

[4] See B. L. Ottley, _Doctrine of the Incarnation_, ii. 152-4.

[5] See F. C. Conybeare, _The Key of Truth_, p. 67.



{83}

CHAPTER VII

THE CHURCH AND THE MONOTHELITE CONTROVERSY, 628-725

The years of peace that succeeded the death of Justinian ended with the
triumph of the Empire over barbarian foes.  Christian philosophy had
seemed to be quiescent, but there were questions which thoughtful men
must have seen would soon come up for solution as the inevitable result
of the Monophysite controversy.  Thought in the active Eastern minds
could not stand still; and the West too, as the barbarians were
conquered, assimilated, and converted by the Church, began to enter
keenly into the theology of the East.  In Gaul and Britain, as well as
at Milan and at Rome, there arose critics and historians who could
carry on the work of Leo the Great and of the line of chroniclers who
had told in Greek the story of the Church's life.  A word at first as
to the general interest of the period.

[Sidenote: The East in the seventh century.]

With the victory of Heraclius over the Persians in 628, it might seem
that heresy would be driven from its home in the distant East, that
Nestorianism would die out, and that Sergius I., Patriarch of
Constantinople (610-38), would be able to win back the Monophysites to
the unity of the Church.  But this happy result was {84} prevented by
the spread of the Muhammadan conquest, beginning even before the death
of the Prophet in 632, and by the rise of a new heresy--the
Monothelitism which gave to the two Natures of our Lord but a single
will.  As the Mussulman arms spread the faith of Islam, the Jacobite
Church of Syria seemed almost to welcome it as a refuge from the
dominance of orthodoxy.  In Egypt the Coptic (Monophysite) patriarch
entered Alexandria in triumph with the Muslim force when the Orthodox
patriarch fled with the imperial troops.  The Melkite (Orthodox) body
was, however, not wholly unprotected by the conquerors, and at
Jerusalem it was allowed to remain in possession, though at Antioch
there was for long no Orthodox patriarch at all.  Of the Monothelite
heresy--condemned at the Sixth General Council, 681--we may for the
moment defer to speak, except to note that in the political
disturbances that swept over the Lebanon the heresy took root there,
under one John Maron, and founded the division, religious and
political, of the Maronites, which still endures.

[Sidenote: Missionary work.]

But while the Church was thus suffering in various ways, the Byzantine
missionary energy was far from exhausted.  Heraclius sought to convert
the barbarian tribes far and near, the Croats and Serbs, the Bulgarians
and Slavs, and the Church of Constantinople appointed an official to
inspect the districts on the frontiers and to examine candidates for
baptism.  Equally he sought to reunite the Armenians to the Orthodox
Church; but after interviews and theological discussions the opponents
of the Greeks triumphed, and the catholicos Nerses {85} III. in 645
anathematised the Council of Chalcedon--a declaration which, after a
momentary reunion, was renewed early in the eighth century.  The
Armenian Church thus remained formally Monophysite.  While the orthodox
emperors were thus unsuccessful in reuniting the separated Churches,
the patriarchate of Constantinople was winning a strength within which
she had lost without; the area of her confined jurisdiction was
straitly ruled, and 356 bishoprics towards the end of the seventh
century acknowledged the patriarchal throne.  The emperors and the
Church alike recognised no supremacy of Rome--a fact which was
emphasised by the decree of 666 which declared Ravenna free from papal
jurisdiction, and in the condemnation of Honorius by the Sixth General
Council.  [Sidenote: The Trullian Council, 691.] So, again, the Council
at Constantinople called _in Trullo_ (691), directed canon after canon
against the customs and claims of the Roman Church.  This independence
was emphasised by the compilation of a _Syntagma_, or collection of
canons, parallel to the much later collection in the West.  These
canons, it may be remarked in passing, throw most interesting light on
the customs of the Greek Church--on clerical marriage, for example,
which was allowed to be dissolved only by the clergy of the recently
converted barbarous tribes, among whom a return to celibate life might
sometimes be advisable.

So much for the general characteristics of the period 628-725.  We may
now turn to the critical point of theology on which the ecclesiastical
history of the time turned.

Monophysitism was not dead in spite of Chalcedon {86} or
Constantinople.  [Sidenote: The Aphthartodocetic controversy.] The
Fourth and Fifth General Council had still left points of debate for
those within as well as those without the Church.  In the form which it
was asserted that Justinian had himself come to accept, it asserted the
Lord's Body to be incapable of sin or corruption, and only subject to
suffering by the voluntary exercise of His divine power.  While the
accusations against Justinian in John of Nikiu and Nicetius of Trier
are contradictory to each other, and make it clear that he did not
accept the opinion of Julian of Halicarnassus, they may serve to
illustrate the confusion of thought with which these subjects were
handled.  The followers of Julian, whose view has here been summarised,
were nicknamed by those of the famous monk Severus (Monophysite
patriarch of Antioch in 513), "Aphthartodocetes" or "Phantasiasts."
Those who followed Severus, while they were prepared to recognise two
natures in Christ, yet dwelt strongly on their union, and especially on
the "one energy" of the Lord's will.  From this a further step was to
be taken.  There were some who believed in the transformation of the
human nature into the Divine, and who came to be called _Aktistetes_,
and, in a still further extreme, _Adiaphorites_, when they denied any
distinction between the Godhead and manhood in Christ.  The error at
the root of all these contentions seems to have been the dwelling upon
the physical rather than the spiritual effects of the Divine power
revealed in the incarnation of the Son of God.  Theologians arose to
controvert it and to develop the theological decisions of the Council;
chief among them was Leontius of Byzantium, a philosophic apologist of
real {87} eminence, whose work was taken up later and completed by John
of Damascus.

[Sidenote: The Emperor Heraclius as a theologian.]

It is not to be wondered at that a great soldier, filled with a deep
sense of the necessity of uniting the Empire against its foes, should
be led to accept a theological development which seemed to offer the
hope of a reconciliation.  From 622, under the advice of Sergius, as a
Patriarch of Constantinople, a basis of reunion was sought in the
formula that though the Lord had two Natures He had yet only "one
theandric energy."  The emperor Heraclius turned unwisely from the army
to the Church, which, like many able military men, he thought might be
coerced or led into opinions which seemed to him to be common sense.
For a time it appeared that he would succeed: three patriarchs of
Constantinople, one of Antioch, one of Alexandria, one of Rome
(Honorius I.), were in agreement, if a little tepidly, favourable to
the phrase.  Honorius definitely stated that he confessed "_one_ WILL
of our Lord Jesus Christ." [1] [Sidenote: The Ecthesis, 638.] Only
Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem (634), held out.  In 638 the emperor
issued the Ecthesis,[2] or Confession of Faith, drawn up by the
patriarch Sergius.  It professed adherence to orthodox definitions, and
continued, "Wherefore, following the Holy Fathers in all things, and in
this, we confess one Will of our Lord Jesus Christ, the very God, so
that never was there a separate Will of His Body animated {88} by the
intellect, nor one of contrary motion natural to itself, but one which
operated when and how and to what purpose He who is God the Word
willed."  This statement was repudiated by Rome, and in 649 condemned
in a synod at the Lateran under Martin I., who ended his days in exile
for disobeying the imperial power.  The quarrel became one between Rome
and Constantinople, at a time when the popes had recovered their
orthodoxy and the patriarchs were subservient to impetuous emperors.
[Sidenote: The Type, 648.] In 648 the _Type_ issued from New Rome as an
attempt at pacification; but the Old Rome rejected it, with anathemas.
In 680 a synod, under Pope Agatho, at which S. Wilfrith of Ripon was
present and signed for the north part of Britain, rejected as heresy
the doctrine of the two wills, and local councils (as at Hatfield six
months later) agreed with the rejection.

[Sidenote: Sixth General Council, 681.]

All this led on to the summoning of the Sixth General Council at
Constantinople, which sat from November, 680, to September, 681.  The
temporary schism between Rome and Constantinople was healed.  Agatho's
letter condemning the doctrine of the two wills was accepted; anathema
was laid upon those, dead or alive, who had accepted the heresy, and
among them Pope Honorius I., a condemnation repeated by many a pope
after him.  The Council declared that the Lord possesses two wills,
"for just as the Flesh is, and is said to be, the Flesh of the Word, so
also His human will is, and is said to be, proper [natural] to the
Word."  And also, "just as His holy and spotless ensouled flesh was
taken into God yet not annihilated, so His human will though taken into
God was not annihilated."  Again, as so often in {89} the days of
Justinian, the words of S. Leo were appropriated for a definition of
the orthodox belief.  The Council was attended by 289 bishops, the
emperor occupying the position which had been common since Nicaea,
while on his right were the bishops of the East, on his left those of
the West.  Rightly was the doctrine of one will condemned as contrary
to the Chalcedonian assertion of the Lord's perfect Humanity; and the
condemnation was readily accepted by the Church.  Only in Syria, among
the Maronites (followers of John Maro), did Monothelitism linger on for
centuries, till they became absorbed in the Latin Church.

[Sidenote: The Monothelite controversy.]

The chief opponent of Monothelitism was Maximus, whose _Disputation
with Pyrrhus_ remains the most important survival of the controversy.
It is a subtle and rational exposition of the orthodox doctrine.  The
original phrase, _theandric energy_, from which the Ecthesis of
Heraclius started, seems to have been drawn from the unknown Platonist
who came to be called Dionysius the Areopagite, and whose writings had
a continued influence in the Middle Age.  But to all reasonable
thinkers the main question was decided.  The truth of Christ's human
nature was an essential verity of the faith, and to deny His human will
would make His nature incomplete, and His goodness in any true sense
impossible.  The difficulty would arise again when Luther and Calvin
carried further the dispute concerning the nature of the human will,
but as regards her Lord the Church had come to a decision based upon
her knowledge of His divine life on earth.

The Council _in Trullo_ (named from the {90} dome-shaped place of
meeting), 691, called also _Quini-sextan_, summoned by Justinian II.
(685-711), was not Oecumenical, and was disciplinary rather than
dogmatic.  It condemned many Roman practices, and asserted definitely
that the patriarchal throne of Constantinople should enjoy the same
privileges as that of Old Rome, should in all ecclesiastical matters be
entitled to the same pre-eminence, and should rank as second after it.
The _Liber Pontificalis_, the Roman Church history of the time, states
that the pope's legates gave assent to the decrees, which is unlikely.
But this one was no more than the repetition of many previous
statements, as emphatic in the sixth as in the seventh century.  The
position was simply that claimed by the patriarch John when he signed
the formula of Catholic faith drawn up and proposed by Pope Hormisdas.
[Sidenote: Repudiation of Roman claims.] He insisted on prefixing a
repudiation of the Roman claim to supremacy over Christendom.  "I
hold," he declared, "the most holy Churches of the Elder and the New
Rome to be one.  I define the See of the Apostle Peter and this of the
Imperial City to be one See."  By this it is clear that he designed to
assert both the unity of the Church--which, as it has always seemed to
the East, was threatened by the demand of the Roman obedience--and the
equality of the two great churches of the Old and the New Rome.

Justinian I. spoke of Constantinople as "head of all the churches"
("omnium ecclesiarum caput"), but it is clear that he did not regard
this position as conferring any supreme or exclusive jurisdiction.  It
was a title of honour which he would use of other patriarchates; and
that he did not consider the power {91} of the patriarchates as
unalterable is seen by his attempted creation of the new jurisdiction
of his own city Justiniana Prima (Tauresium), a few miles south of
Sofia, over a large district.  To the archbishop whom he here created
he gave authority to "hold the place of the apostolic throne" within
his province.[3]

[Sidenote: Independent attitude of Constantinople.]

This position, then, of the Byzantine patriarchate, as independent of
the other patriarchates, and equal to that of the older Rome, but
occupying in point of honour a secondary position, was recognised by
Church and State alike; and it was this that the Council _in Trullo_
reaffirmed.  In another point it was divergent from Rome--that of the
marriage of the clergy.  Subdeacons, deacons, and priests were
forbidden to marry, but those married before ordination were equally
forbidden, under pain of excommunication, to separate from their wives.

An attempt of the mad emperor Justinian II. to enforce the acceptance
of the decrees by Pope Sergius I. was a complete failure.  Popes were
becoming much stronger in Italy than was the distant Caesar.

Rome was becoming independent of emperor and of exarch alike.  In 711
the pope Constantine visited Constantinople as an honoured guest, where
he was treated with diplomatic politeness, and where, possibly after
they had undergone modification, he signed the {92} decrees of the
Trullian Council.  On this point the papal biographer is silent, but he
asserts with enthusiasm the reverence of the emperor for the pope and
the latter's regret when the bloody tyrant met the reward of his crimes
a few weeks later.  With this the ecclesiastical interest of Eastern
history is for a time in the background.



[1] This is spoken of by a recent Roman Catholic writer as "la
déplorable réponse de Honorius, ce monument de bonne foi surprise et de
naïveté confiante."  It does not support the notion of papal
infallibility.

[2] Given in Baronius, A.D. 689.

[3] See Procopius, _De Aedif._, iv. 1 (ed. Bonn., pp. 266, 267); and
_Novellae_, xi. (de privilegiis archiepiscopi primae Justinianae) and
cxxxi. (de ecclesiasticis canonibus et privilegiis), cap. 3.  It is no
alteration of patriarchal powers, but rather the assertion of them.
Still patriarchal jurisdictions are not regarded as unalterable--as is
clear from the creation of the modern national churches of the Balkan
lands.



{93}

CHAPTER VIII

THE CHURCH IN ASIA

[Sidenote: The Church in Persia.]

In the East Christianity had spread to Persia from Edessa.[1]  The
Parthians seem to have put no obstacle in its way, but when the
Persians came into conflict with the Roman Empire, now Christian, there
was long and bitter persecution.  At last toleration was reached, after
Sapor II., and from the beginning of the fourth century the Church in
Persia was organised, and governed by many bishops; the primate took
the title of Catholicos and had his see at Seleucia, and had suffragans
on both sides of the Persian Gulf.  In Assyria and Chaldaea the mass of
the population became Christians, and Christians were spread, less
thickly, over Media, Khorassan, and Persia itself.  The dignity of the
Persian catholicos was considerable; he might be compared with the
Byzantine patriarchs, and the Church almost occupied the position of an
established religion, related to the civil power.  But the distance,
and the constant wars between the Empire and Persia, tended inevitably
to separate the Churches.  From the end of the fifth century the Church
in Persia, surrendered to {94} Nestorianism, had begun visibly to
decay.  It was controlled by the Persian kings, it was a prey to
endless controversy and intrigue, and when the Persian kingdom was at
war with the Empire it was in grave danger.  It held councils
furtively; it passed canons, and, itself heretical, condemned other and
more recent heresies than its own.  But often its catholicos engaged in
the dynastic politics of the Persian dynasties, and Christianity,
regarded as one among many religions, and tainted with the same
materialism as the rest, sank into impotence and was torn by schism.
Meanwhile, in the neighbourhood of the Persian realm, Christianity was
spreading.

[Sidenote: Growth of the Church under Justinian.]

Many barbarous tribes during Justinian's reign were admitted to the
Christian faith and fellowship.  The Tzani dwelling on the border of
Armenia and Pontus, "separated from the sea by precipitous mountains
and vast solitudes, impassable torrent beds and yawning chasms,"
[2]--in a land where, Procopius tells us,[3] "it is not possible to
irrigate the ground, to reap a crop, or to find a meadow anywhere; and
even the trees bear no fruit, because for the most part there is no
regular succession of seasons, and the land is not at one time
subjected to cold and wet, and at another made fertile by the warmth of
the sun, but is desolated by perpetual winter and covered by eternal
snows.  They changed their religion to the true faith, became
Christians, and embraced a more civilised mode of life."  The king of
those Heruls who served in the Roman army, and a Hunnish king, Gordas,
{95} became Christians.  The Abasgi (or Albagrians) of the Caucasus
were converted, and for the most part remained associated with the
Armenians and the Iberians of Georgia,[4] "when they were compelled by
the Persian king to worship idols," put themselves under the imperial
protection, and they remained closely in connection with the Armenian
Church till 608 when they accepted the decisions of Chalcedon.  They
remained independent and orthodox till their union, a century ago, with
the Russian Church.

[Sidenote: Separation from the Church.]

In Armenia, similarly, had grown up a national Church, which had a
catholicos, a hierarchy, a vernacular liturgy of its own.  When in the
middle of the fifth century the ancient kingdom was split up between
the Empire and the Persians, the Armenian Church still remained apart.
Its national features were strongly marked even before dogmatic
differences arose.  With the Nestorian and Monophysite heresies new
divisions took place.  The Persians gradually, between 435 and 480,
accepted Nestorianism, and in 483 definitely separated from the
Catholic Church, and Nisibis became a school of Nestorian theology.
The Armenians survived this danger but were led into Monophysitism, and
in 505 they pronounced against the Council of Chalcedon.  Their
theology became tainted with further heresy in the sixth century, and
they are still separate from the orthodox Church of the East.  Thus, at
the time with which we have to deal, as we have said, Christianity east
of Antioch and on the borders of Persia was under Nestorian influence.
After 431 Nestorianism became gradually established {96} as the
dominant creed.  The Church of the East, as it was officially called,
rejected the Third General Council, and was cut off from the Catholic
Church.  It long remained a strong body.  The great schools of Nisibis,
Edessa, and Baghdad were centres of religion, learning, and
civilisation.

[Sidenote: The Nestorians.]

The Nestorians[5] also sent out missionaries northward among the
wandering Tartar tribes and along the shores of the Caspian; southward
to Persia, India and Ceylon; and eastward across the steppes of Central
Asia into China.  The bilingual inscription of Singanfu, in Chinese and
Syriac, relates that Nestorian missionaries laboured in China as far
back as A.D. 636.[6]  In the sixth and seventh centuries the Church of
the East could count its twenty-five metropolitans or archbishops; and
the number and remoteness of their sees, stretching from Jerusalem to
China, testifies to her missionary zeal.  Those who dwelt nearest to
Baghdad met the catholicos in yearly synod; those farthest off sent
their confession of faith to him every sixth year.

[Sidenote: Prester John and his conversion.]

By the Middle Ages the Church of the East had spread over the whole of
Central Asia.  The curious legends of the powerful kingdom of Prester
John, somewhere in the heart of Asia, grew out of the conversion, by
Nestorian merchants in the eleventh century, of a certain King of
Kerait, a kingdom of Tartary to the north of China.  This king is said
to have requested that missionaries might be sent to him from the
Church {97} of his converters; and, when they were come, these
missionaries baptized him, naming him John,[7] and he was ordained
priest (Presbyter or Prester).  Two hundred thousand people of the
nation embraced Christianity; the successors to the kingdom bore the
dynastic name of John, and were ordained priests.  However uncertain
this story is, the fact of the conversion of the princes of Kerait in
Tartary is sufficiently well established.  [Sidenote: Height of
prosperity.] The prosperity of the Church of the East culminated in the
eleventh century.  The khalifs of Baghdad protected their Christian
subjects, and important offices of state were often filled by them.

The Indian Church, which was believed to date back to the time of S.
Thomas the Apostle, had probably its origin in Nestorian missions, and
accepted Monophysite opinions.

[Sidenote: Their missions]

As we have seen, the wider field of missionary work owed much to the
labours of the Nestorians.  It is possible that Cosmas,[8] who had
travelled far afield in the first half of the sixth century, may have
been a Nestorian; but the reverence with which he speaks of the
orthodox faith, and his constant use of the Catholic writers, would
seem to show rather that, when he became a monk at any rate, he was
orthodox.  From him, however, we obtain knowledge of the wide field of
Nestorian missions.  Recent discoveries have largely added to our
knowledge.  It is clear that in the sixth century, {98} apparently
before 540, Nestorian bishoprics were founded in Herat and Samarkand.
Monumental inscriptions date back as far as 547.  [Sidenote: in the Far
East.] Merv, as early as 650, is spoken of as a "falling church" [9]
amid the triumphs of Islam.  China has been already mentioned, and
though it is not clear that only Nestorian missions prospered in the
far land, there is no doubt that their success was the most prominent.
Christian communities existed near the borders of Tibet[10] in the
seventh century; and in the eighth and ninth they were strong in India.
Even in the eleventh century the "Nestorian worship retained a great
hold over many parts of Asia, between the Euphrates and the Gobi
desert."  Into the later and fragmentary history of these missions it
is not here the place to enter.  Let it only be remembered that the
labours of "those Nestorian missionaries who preached and baptized
under the shadow of the wall of China, and on the shores of the Yellow
Sea, the Caspian, and the Indian Ocean" [11] were made possible by the
diplomatic and military triumphs which radiated from Constantinople in
the sixth century, and by the Christian zeal of orthodox emperors and
patriarchs.

[Sidenote: Nestorianism in Persia.]

Meanwhile in Persia the Monophysites contended for supremacy with the
Nestorians, and organised themselves with considerable skill.  But the
Nestorians, who founded schools and developed a Christology on lines
different from those on which European thought was {99} proceeding,
became still more rigid in their rejection of the Catholic teaching.
Maraba the catholicos (540-52) and Thomas of Edessa, his pupil, seem to
have drawn very near to orthodoxy; but the controversy of the Three
Chapters widened the breach.  Council after council, theologian,
catholicos, monastery, bishop, alike denounced Justinian; and they had
the support of the pagan philosophers whom he had expelled from the
schools of Athens.

In Persia monasticism and the life of hermits--though the introduction
of either is difficult if not impossible to trace[12]--flourished and
developed on lines of their own.  For a long time there was no
distinction between monastic and secular life: it was only gradually
that an organised monasticism grew up out of the coenobitic life for
men and for women.  But from the sixth century onward the organisation
of monasticism gave strength to the Church, and enabled it for some
time to resist the Muhammadan invasion.  The Church, mapped out into
dioceses and well served by numerous clergy, and having its own canon
law, its own liturgical forms, and its own theology, was able for long,
in spite of the absence of all state support and in spite often of
state persecution, to survive in some appearance of strength till the
Muhammadan invasion.  The Mussulman conquest, when once it was
achieved, gave something like security to the Nestorians.  Though there
was a time of persecution in the ninth century, it was short.
Christians as teachers, physicians, philosophers, were famous in the
foundation of the learning of the palmy days of the khalifs.  But the
whole {100} structure fell before the invasions, in later days, of the
Mongols and the Turks.

[Sidenote: The Church in Palestine.]

From the more distant parts of the Persian Empire we may pass to the
land where the Church had its birth.  During the period of revived
power in the Empire, Palestine was at peace under Justinian's rule.

In Jerusalem itself[13] it is chiefly to be said that the emperor
engaged in large restorations and some original church building after
the style of his better known work.  He had a severe struggle with the
Samaritans, but it led to many conversions.[14]

[Sidenote: Conquest by the Persians.]

But here, as elsewhere, as time went on the encroachments of the
Persians were a perpetual danger to the Christianity of the East.  In
615 Jerusalem fell into their hands.  The Jews, whom earlier emperors
had, like Justinian, kept in subjection, had grown in the days of
Heraclius to be much more powerful in Syria than the Christians, and it
was they who secured Jerusalem and gave it into the hands of the
Persians; and again, after the Christians had overpowered the garrison,
the city was given back to them and to scenes of pillage and outrage;
the churches, so splendid as early as the fourth century, and described
in glowing language by Procopius in the sixth, were sacked and defiled;
the clergy and the patriarch were made captive; the Holy Cross,
discovered by the Empress Helena, was sent away into Persia; and "all
these things," says the chronicler, "happened not in a year or a month,
but within a few days."  The ruined churches were, however, restored
{101} before long by the alms of the faithful, and it was not long
before the Christians themselves were favoured by the Persian king, and
Chosroes, in consequence of a council at Jerusalem in 628, legalised,
it would seem, the Monophysite heresy as the representative of
Christianity.  [Sidenote: Reconquest by Heraclius, 622.] The conquest
of Egypt followed on that of Syria; and the union of the Coptic Church
with that of the Syrian Monophysites was a result, natural and almost
inevitable, of the community of suffering between them.  Within a few
years--his campaign began in 622--the heroic emperor Heraclius won back
all that had been lost, utterly defeated the Persians, won back the
Holy Rood, restored the patriarch Zacharias to Jerusalem, and returned
in triumph to the imperial city.  In 629 he went on a pilgrimage to the
Holy City, and on September 14th--still observed as the feast of the
Exaltation of the Holy Cross--he restored the Rood to the Church of the
Resurrection.

[Sidenote: Conquest by the Muhammadans.]

In the year 610 Muhammad began his career as a prophet.  It is no part
of Church history to trace the origin of his opinions or his power, to
tell how he learnt from Jews and Nestorians, or how he established a
marvellous organisation on a basis of theocratic militarism.  The
migration from Meccah to Medinah in 622 was the beginning of his active
ministry, of religious teaching carried forward by sword and fire.  The
capture of Meccah, the submission of Arabia, the extinction of the
Christian (Monophysite) communities in the peninsula, were followed
before long by the invasion of Syria and the capture of Jerusalem by
the Khalif Omar in 637.  The year before, Heraclius {102} had taken
away the Holy Rood and the treasures of the churches to Constantinople.
Two years later the Muhammadans seized Egypt, from which the Persians
had not so long been driven out by the armies of the Empire.  The fatal
policy of the Monothelite emperors had opened the way to the triumph of
Islam.  Of this we shall see more, in Africa and in Southern Europe, in
later days.



[1] See _The Church of the Fathers_ (vol. ii. of the present series),
chapter xxix., for the earlier history.

[2] Bury, _History of the Later Roman Empire_, i. 441.

[3] _Aedif._, iii. 6.

[4] Joannes Biclarensis, p. 853.

[5] I quote from the admirable summary in the Reports of the
Archbishop's Mission to the Assyrian Christians.

[6] See an interesting account in Williams's _Middle Kingdom_.

[7] His name was Ung; his title Khan; Ung Khan was Syriacised into
Yukhanan, i.e. John.

[8] The _Christian Topography_ was written between 535 and 537.
Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, p. 279.

[9] Assemani, _Bibl. Orient_, iii. i. 130, 131.

[10] See Waddell, _Buddhism in Tibet_, pp. 421, 422.

[11] Beazley, _Dawn of Modern Geography_, p. 211.

[12] Cf. Budge, _The Book of Governors_, i. cxvi., and Labourt, _Le
Christianisme dans l'empire perse_, 303.

[13] Cf. Procopius, _Aedif._; and John Moschus, _Pratum Spirituale_
(Migne, Patr. Groec., lxxxvii. [3]).

[14] Procopius, _Aedif._, v. 8.



{103}

CHAPTER IX

THE CHURCH IN AFRICA

[Sidenote: The Church in North Africa.]

In the middle of the fifth century the Christian power in North Africa
fell under the domination of the Arian Vandals.  S. Augustine died in
430 while the foe was at the gates of his city.  In 439 Carthage fell,
and Roman civilisation was extinguished.  The rule of the Vandals was
not only Arian but barbarous.  It is not unlikely that their victory
was won with the aid of the remaining Donatists and the heathen Moors.
With the reign of Gaiseric some degree of toleration was allowed to the
Catholic Church, but the persecution which had marked the earlier days
of the Arian power now took the form of confiscation and the
suppression of public worship.  The Church suffered grievously, and not
least in the class of persons ordained to the ministry and consecrated
to the episcopate.  But still the Catholics were the great majority,
and it was seen that the Arian Vandals were in danger of absorption by
the subtle influence of the truth.  It was a last effort of Gaiseric's
to deprive the Catholics of their leaders, which eventually brought
about their restoration.  The Bishop of Carthage and several of his
clergy were put on board a ship and told to escape whither they could.
They reached Naples, {104} and their piteous plight and the news they
brought helped to direct the attention of the imperial power to its
lost heritage.  [Sidenote: The Vandal persecution.] Meanwhile the
suffering Church, enjoying now a scanty toleration, now suffering a
severer persecution, continued to make converts and to produce martyrs.
In 477 Gaiseric died.  A year before his death he had allowed the
Catholics to reopen their churches and to bring back their bishops and
clergy from exile.  And still their missionary efforts had never been
relaxed.  Church life still continued; inscriptions remaining to-day
preserve the epitaphs of men buried in the darkest days with Catholic
rites; and in the interior ancient monasteries remained undisturbed.
Hunneric, the next Vandal king, though nominally an Arian, set himself
to extirpate heresies which he did not accept: Manichaeans under his
sway received treatment more severe than Catholics.  Indeed, the
Catholics began to raise their heads under the leadership of Eugenius,
who was elected in 479 to the see of Carthage, the only bishopric in
the country which held metropolitan rank.  The Bishop of Carthage was
the spiritual head of the whole province, held a superiority over the
bishops outside the limits of Proconsularis, and was, as it were, the
patriarch of the African Church.  For twenty-three years the see had
had no pastor, and the restoration marked a distinct step towards the
ending of the Vandal domination.  But there was a final effort;
Hunneric, unable to decoy the Catholics, determined to exterminate
them; a writer of the time tells that nearly five thousand clergy were
banished to the desert, where their fate was a practical martyrdom.  A
conference was {105} summoned in 484, at which it was endeavoured to
make the Catholic clergy abate the strictness of their orthodoxy, but
Eugenius stood firm.  Persecution again followed.  The writer already
mentioned, Victor Vitensis, says, "The Vandals did not blush to set
forth against us the law which formerly our Christian emperors had
passed against them and other heretics for the honour of the Catholic
Church, adding many things of their own as it pleased their tyrannical
power."  Thus evil deeds bring their necessary consequences.  A bitter
persecution swept over the land, and till the death of Hunneric, at the
end of the year, atrocities of the most terrible kind were perpetrated.
It was a brief age of martyrs, and rooted the Church more firmly in the
affections of its children.  It was an age, too, of saints, and
Fulgentius shines out by the side of Eugenius as a pattern of Christian
devotion and asceticism.  In the years that followed king succeeded
king, and the condition of the Church became gradually more tolerable,
till under Hilderic much of the old organisation was restored and the
monastic houses were established in a condition of considerable
independence.  When Gelimer usurped the Vandal throne, the power of
Justinian was able to intervene, and in 533 Belisarius recovered North
Africa for the Empire.  [Sidenote: Reconquest of Africa by Belisarius,
533.] The restoration of the direct rule of the emperors was of
necessity the restoration of Catholicism to dominance.  But materially
the Church had received blows from which she never fully recovered.
Her possessions, buildings, treasures had for the most part passed from
her hands: and many sees, many parishes, {106} still remained without
pastors.  Such was the result of "the violent captivity of a century."

[Sidenote: The revival of the North African Church.]

Justinian aimed at restoring all things to their first estate.  "We
would be the guardians and defenders of the ancient traditions," he
wrote in 542 to the primate of Byzacene.  He confirmed the Bishop of
Carthage in his metropolitan dignity; he restored sees, allowed synods
to meet, gave special privileges to the clergy.  An era of church
building set in, and fine monasteries were erected, in all the
impressive solidity of the Byzantine style, even in distant parts of
the Roman territory.  Tebessa remains a marvellous example of the
wealth and dignity which came anew to the North African Church.  The
literary power of the Church revived with her material prosperity: a
school of writers arose again in the land of Augustine.  Primasius,
Facundus, Liberatus, Victor of Tonnenna, were among those who restored
the activity and knowledge of the Church in history, theology, and
apologetic.  Over all the emperor Justinian kept his watchful eye,
directing, interfering, exhorting, as seemed to him good.  The
controversy of the Three Chapters had its echoes in Africa, and the
deacon Ferrand, a learned theologian, represented a very wide feeling
when, in his _Defensio_, he deprecated any condemnation of the dead
theologians; and in Facundus, Bishop of Hermiane, the unhappy
hesitating pope Vigilius found an adviser who, if anyone, might have
given him firmness.  In the result, the emperor, by the pen at least as
much as the sword, overpowered resistance, and Africa accepted the
decisions of Constantinople.  Reparatus, Bishop of Carthage, who
resisted, was deposed, Liberatus {107} preserves the record of bitter
persecution, and Victor of Tonnenna, who equally refused to accept the
decision against the Three Chapters, is especially bitter in his
denunciation of Justinian.  But the pope Pelagius was able, in 560, to
announce the assent of Africa to the statements of the Fifth General
Council.  The Church from the death of Justinian settled down in
peaceable habitations, strong in the imperial support and the affection
of the people.  But as, in the relaxation which set in as time went on,
the power of the imperial administration decayed, the power of the
popes in Africa was gradually strengthened, and the power of the
bishops rose equally.  But this was not all.  In time relaxation set in
in the Church as well as in the State.  There are tales of immoral and
corrupt bishops, of disobedience to authority, of a recrudescence, from
591 to 596, of Donatism.  It was the pope Gregory the Great who took in
hand the needed reformation.  [Its relation to Gregory the Great.] His
letters are full of African affairs: his keen attention, his
instructions to Hilarus, the administrator of the Roman Church's
possessions in Italy, his minute knowledge, his wise understanding of
the many difficult problems which beset the Church, are prominent in
his correspondence.  It was he who reversed the conception of Justinian
in regard to the Church of North Africa.  The emperor had striven for
orthodoxy, without the supremacy of the pope.  Gregory was determined
to secure the latter, and the history of North Africa affords an
excellent example of how the papal power grew.  It was by continual
intervention, in affairs small as well as great, and by constant
solicitude: it was by the use of prudent {108} and sympathetic agents,
and the firm adherence to a policy of charity, orthodoxy and
discretion, that the great pope enforced his views on the bishops, the
Church, the imperial representatives.  While he sternly rebuked all
abuse of the political authority which had fallen into the hands of the
bishops, he tenaciously clung to the right of hearing appeals in cases
between churchmen and public officials which circumstances had placed
in his hands.  From a right of control he passed to a right of direct
intervention; and in State as well as Church the administrators felt
the power of his indomitable will.  While disorganisation was spreading
in the civil order the Church was growing in concentration and
authority.

[Sidenote: The Monothelite controversy.]

But the Monothelite controversy went far to shatter the power which the
labour of Gregory had built up, and with it the Christianity of
Northern Africa.  The orthodox felt less and less bound to emperors who
supported heresy, and the Arab invasion drew near without the people
perceiving the full extent of their danger.  Fortunatus, Bishop of
Carthage, declared himself a Monothelite, but in every other province
besides his the Church formally repudiated the heresy.  In 646
Fortunatus was deposed and Victor succeeded him; and this is almost the
last recorded incident in the history of the North African Church.  As
the Arab invader advanced, refugees from Syria and Egypt poured into
the land, and, since many of them were heretical, added to the
religious diffusions of the country.  The abbat Maximus upheld the
banner of orthodoxy against all comers.  The victory which he won over
the heresiarch Pyrrhus in 645, followed by the declarations of {109}
provincial synods in 646, was the last expression of African orthodoxy.

John, the Jacobite bishop of Nikiu, whose contemporary account of the
Saracen conquest is of the first value, declares that "everyone said
that the expulsion of the Romans and the victory of the Mussulmans were
brought about by the tyranny of the emperor Heraclius and the troubles
which he made the orthodox suffer."  A general discontent with the
Byzantine government arose, and Rome, which was more in sympathy with
the people, was unable to help them.  In 646 the patrician Gregory, the
imperial governor, orthodox and a protector of the Church, declared
that the Monothelite Constans II. had forfeited the throne, and assumed
for himself the title of emperor.  Within a year he was defeated and
slain by the Saracens at Sbeitla, and Byzantine Africa was placed at
the mercy of the Muhammadan invader.  The Copts long resisted, but
their resistance was overcome in the autumn of 646.  Alexandria fell a
second time and finally into the hands of the Arabs.

[Sidenote: The conquest by the Muhammadans.]

For fifty years the Byzantine power maintained a foothold, precarious
and nominal.  Inch by inch, and with intervals of repose and even of
reconquest,--as when John the Patrician, under Leo the Isaurian,
recaptured Carthage,--the infidels advanced, and the Berber tribes of
the interior pressed, too, upon the Christians.  Carthage was again
taken by the Muhammadans in 698: the native tribes joined the invaders,
and by 708 Roman Africa was wholly in their hands.  Toleration was at
first allowed; but from 717 the Christians had only the choice of
banishment and {110} apostasy.  Still many held out: Christian villages
remained, Christian communities, as late as the fourteenth century; and
even now it is said that in some parts Christian customs survive.  The
Church at Carthage existed certainly in some organised form till the
eleventh century, and it was not till 1583 that the Church of Tunis was
utterly destroyed.

Meanwhile events in other parts of Africa had run a different course.
The patriarchate of Alexandria had a long and distinguished history,
and from it had spread missions far into the south.

[Sidenote: The Jacobites.]

The Monophysite controversy led to the founding of the Jacobite sect.
Secret consecrations at Constantinople by bishops in prison during
Justinian's severe rule sent a bishop to Hira for the Arabian
Christians in Persia, and another to the borders of Edessa, who founded
the Jacobites and with the assistance of Egyptian Monophysite bishops
continued the episcopal succession.  In Egypt there arose the division
between the Melkites, who followed the imperial orders and accepted the
decisions of the Councils, and the Copts, who dissented.  The
Monophysites of Syria, Egypt, and Armenia, with temporary and
superficial differences, remained practically at one.  National
differences confirmed their divergence from the Roman Empire and the
Catholic Church.  Thus while in Egypt, Syria, and elsewhere the Church
was still powerfully represented, though side by side with strong
sectarian organisations, there were, when the followers of Muhammad
came to add to the confusion, three nationalistic and heretical bodies,
separate from the Church--those of Persia and Armenia and Ethiopia.  Of
the last something must now be said.

{111}

[Sidenote: The Abyssinian Church.]

South of Egyptian territory, properly so called, lay the Ethiopians,
vassals of Egypt, tracing in a dim fashion their Christianity back to
one of those queens who bore the title of _Candace_.  These wild and
warring tribes kept up continual conflict, and among the Blemmyes men
still worshipped Isis in the temple of Philae.  In 548 began the
conversion of the Nobadae of the Soudan, of whose reception into the
Christian fold the great Monophysite missionary, John of Ephesus, gives
an account.  Churches were built, and one inscription at least survives
with the name of a Christian king.  Beyond them the Alodaei learnt the
faith from the same preacher, Longinus.  Nubia, or Mugurrah, was also
visited by Christian missionaries at the same time.  Under Justinian,
the temple of Philae was turned into a church, and the Blemmyes became
Christian.  Christian remains long existed, even down to the
neighbourhood of Khartoum; and it was long before the Muhammadan
conquerors swept all the worship of Christ away.  Further south
Christianity spread on both sides of the Red Sea.  In Arabia Felix was
the kingdom of the Homerites or Himyarites, whose chief city was Safar,
and at different times they were ruled by the same king as the land of
Axum, "the farthest Ind" of the Greek chronicler Theophanes.  After the
dispersion, Jewish colonies settled in Arabia, and in the fourth
century Christianity followed.  At the end of the fifth century a
bishop is found among the Homerites, and a Trinitarian inscription is
dated 542-3.  About the same time the Church in Abyssinia, founded in
the time of S. Athanasius, received the national religion of the
country through the conversion of the Negus at the end {112} of the
fifth century.  While the land of Safar at times relapsed into
heathenism and massacred Christians, the Abyssinians remained firm in
the faith.  Procopius tells that Ellesthaeos, an Ethiopian king, during
the reign of Justin I., invaded the land of the Homerites to avenge
their persecutions and to suppress the Jewish predominance and set up a
Christian king.  With him and his successors Justinian entered into
treaties, as also with the kings of Axum or Abyssinia.  While the
Muhammadan conquest swept away the Christianity of the Arabians and
drove those who clung to it northward to the banks of the Euphrates,
the Church in Abyssinia, which had accepted Monophysitism, remained
independent, just as its mother church of Egypt obtained toleration.
It still continues separate, Monophysite, and in communion with the
Coptic Church of Egypt.



{113}

CHAPTER X

THE CHURCH IN THE WESTERN ISLES

[Sidenote: Christianity in Britain.]

When Gregory the Great sent Augustine and his brother monks to preach
to the Teutonic tribes which had made Britain their home, there were
already two Churches in the island.  There was the Church of the
Brythons, gradually separated by the advance of the Saxons into the
Churches of Cumbria or Strathclyde, Wales, and West Wales or Cornwall.
These stood apart from the English for a long time, were late in
accepting the Catholic customs of the West, and had no influence on the
progress of English Christianity.  And there was the Church founded in
North Britain by Celtic missionaries from Ireland.  In Ireland there
seems little doubt that Christianity was known by the end of the fourth
century.  In the fifth century the progress was extraordinarily rapid.
S. Patrick "organised the Christianity which already existed; he
converted kingdoms which were still pagan, especially in the west; and
he brought Ireland into connection with the Church of the Empire, and
made it formally part of Universal Christendom." [1]

The subsequent history of the Church in Ireland forms a fit
introduction to that of the Church in {114} England, in spite of the
separation between them.  Irish Christianity did not long preserve its
close union with Western Europe.  The popes, as well as the emperors,
were too weak to interfere in the distant islands.  The Irish relapsed
into the use of what is called the Celtic Easter, and to other
practices which were usual before Patrick's day and which served to cut
them off from the newly-converted Teutons, as well as from the Latin
world in general.  [Sidenote: Death of S. Patrick, 461.] Patrick died
in 461.  In 563 Columba, trained in the great schools which had sprung
up in the Irish monasteries, crossed to what is now called Scotland to
confirm the faith of the Irish settlers and to convert the heathen
Picts.  The organisation of the Church to which he belonged was
essentially tribal and monastic.  [Sidenote: The Celtic Church.] Though
S. Patrick had probably consecrated diocesan bishops in large numbers,
the Church soon became "predominantly monastic."  Tribal feeling was so
strong that the Church, too, assimilated itself to the tribal idea, and
the Church's monasteries were her tribes.  In a land where there were
no cities monasteries took their place, and the bishops naturally came
to dwell in them, and so to seem less prominent in their episcopal than
in their monastic aspect.  The monks became the chief power in
Christian Ireland; and in the sixth, seventh, and eighth centuries
there were many bishops without dioceses, and it seems probable that
their rank, though not their function, was less important than that of
the abbats, the heads of the tribal monasticism.

In the seventh century again the Irish Church came back into closer
association with the Church throughout {115} Europe.  This union was
due very largely to the influence of learning, and still more to the
influence of missionary zeal.  "From Iceland to the Danube or the
Apennines, among Frank or Burgundian or Lombard, the Irish energy
seemed omnipotent and inexhaustible." [2] Into Ireland it would seem
that classical culture was introduced by the first Christian teachers,
and that from the first it was intended to serve as a preparation for
religious teaching.[3] It would seem that it was from Brittany that it
spread to Ireland.  [Sidenote: The influences outside Ireland] The
schools of Ireland became famous.  Books as diverse as the Antiphonary
of Bangor and Adamnan's Life of Columba show that the teaching in its
different ways was a sound and a liberal one.

In England the Irish tradition and influence spread.  If the Celtic
school of Bangor perished in the stress of the bitter wars between
English and Welsh, Malmesbury, which trained S. Aldhelm, showed that
the Irish love of letters was capable of transplantation into a land
now most prominently Teutonic.  But the Roman influence and the
influence of the East were still more effective.  [Sidenote: in
learning,] Benedict Biscop brought back with him to Northumbria the
traditions and rules of Italian art and learning, and Theodore of
Tarsus brought a wider influence, which was Greek as well as Latin.  He
himself founded a school at Canterbury, and taught it; and in distant
times Dunstan, at Glastonbury and at Canterbury, was his worthy
successor.  In the north Bede was at {116} Jarrow a writer of great
power and wide scope, and the school of York was a nursery of classic
studies which produced the great scholar Alcuin.  Thus the community of
scholarship brings the Churches together.

[Sidenote: in missionary work.]

More prominent was the zeal for the conversion of the heathen.  The
work of Columban and of S. Gall had its origin in the Irish schools,
and there was no more fruitful influence on the Europe of the Dark Age.
The work of Columba and his followers was to begin in the north of
Britain what Roman missionaries undertook in the south.  For more than
thirty years Columba, who landed in Iona in 563, taught the Picts and
Scots.  His Life by his disciple Adamnan is one of the most beautiful
memorials of medieval saintliness that we possess.  The monastery which
he founded lasted till the eighth century.  His school did a famous
work in North Britain in the seventh; King Oswald of Northumbria was
trained there, and S. Aidan, his fellow-helper, the typical saint of
Northumbria.  From the same source came Melrose, the great Scottish
monastery, and S. Chad, the apostle of the Middle English.

[Sidenote: Scotland.]

A century of intermittent strife swept over the northern lands.
Scotland became Christian slowly and with little connection with the
south.  Heathen onslaughts ravaged the Christian lands, and yet, in
spite of all, monasteries for men and women sprang up in the north.
The influence of S. Aidan (died 651) was continued by S. Cuthbert and
S. Hilda, typical parents of monks and nuns.  In 664 (Synod of Whitby)
at last came union with the Church of the English, who appealed to the
authority of Rome and {117} of S. Peter in favour of their customs, and
the Northumbrian king, Oswin, ratified the union of the Celtic and the
English Churches.  Early in the eighth century other Celtic Churches
came into the agreement; only Cornwall held out for two centuries more.

[Sidenote: The mission of St. Augustine, 597.]

The English Church, which thus came to represent the Christianity of
the whole island, was founded from Rome by S. Augustine in Kent in 597.
It was from the first an active missionary body.  It gradually won its
way over the whole island, conquering and assimilating the alien
influences which were at first opposed to it.  So when a storm of
heathen persecution swept over England and Scotland at the end of the
eighth century, when "the ravaging of heathen men lamentably destroyed
God's church at Lindisfarne," when the monks of Iona were given to
martyrdom, when English prelates and kings gave their lives to hold the
land for Christ, the Church still endured, with material loss but with,
for the time at least, enhanced glory and virtue.  Three names stand
out conspicuously from the seventh and ninth centuries.  [Sidenote:
Theodore of Tarsus, 668.] Theodore of Tarsus, Archbishop of Canterbury
from 668 to 693, was the great organiser of the English Church.  A
scholar, a teacher, a statesman, he knit the different tribes of
English, Saxon, Jute, together in the unity of faith and discipline.
Church councils sprang up under him to rule, and Church laws to guide
men in the way.  He kept up a close connection with the Western Church,
but he did not surrender independence to a papal supremacy.  Wilfrith
of Ripon, his contemporary, was great also as a teacher and as a
missionary beyond the seas, {118} and among the Saxons of South
Britain.  The seventh century was the age in which the foundations of
the English Church were laid on firm bases.

[Sidenote: Bede.]

Hardly less important, though in a different way, was the work of the
monk Baeda, the father of English history.  He was a man who knew the
history and the theology of the Western Church, and who taught by his
writings and his life.  His influence on the development of the Church
in the north, both by his great history, his religious treatises, and
his influence on Egbert, Archbishop of York, is incalculable.

[Sidenote: Alfred.]

The age of Alfred, who died in 899, was equally important.  It
witnessed a more distinct union with the Church of Wales, whose glories
go back to the time of S. David in the fifth century.  It confirmed a
strong union between Church and State in England, and it witnessed a
revival of Christian learning in which Alfred himself and a Welshman,
Asser, whom he made bishop of an English see, were the leaders.  Alfred
was a bright example of what Christianity could do for mankind.
Warrior, scholar, saint, pattern king whose heart was given to his
people, he bore himself nobly before the world as one who loved and
worshipped the Master Christ.  Under his sway the Church rose again to
instruct and guide the people, and when he died he left the English
land a united Christian nation.  The Danes, who after years of
predatory invasion were become settlers over a large part of England,
were brought into the Church; and the British Church in Cornwall was
brought nearer to unity with the English, a union which was complete
from 931.

{119}

[Sidenote: Conversion of the north.]

While in the extreme north, Ross, Cromarty, Sutherland, and Caithness,
the Church remained missionary rather than parochial, in the Scotland
of the south monasticism became prominent again under a new order
called, in Goidelic, "Culdees" (servants of God).  In the midlands
years of disturbance caused much of the organisation of the Church to
disappear, bishoprics to cease, monasteries to be destroyed.  After the
Danish wars the work of reconstruction was an urgent need, and a great
prelate came to lead it.

[Sidenote: Dunstan, 924-88.]

Dunstan (924-88) was a West Saxon who was taught at Glastonbury by
Irish priests, and who rose, through his friendship with leaders in
Church and State, by the holiness of his life, and by the experience
that he won when in exile in Flanders, to be head of the English
Church.  As archbishop he was "a true shepherd."  He gave up all the
preferments he had before enjoyed, only visiting Glastonbury
occasionally for a time of repose.  His friends, Aethelwold, Bishop of
Winchester, and Oswald, Bishop of Worcester, with King Eadgar's help,
did their utmost to introduce the strict rule of S. Benedict into the
monasteries, replacing the clergy of the cathedral churches (secular
canons) by monks.  Dunstan sympathised, but he did not actively support
their action.  Abroad there was strong feeling against clerical
marriage, and there were many canons passed against it.  The danger of
the Church falling into the hands of an hereditary class of officials
was a real one; but it does not seem to have been much felt in England.
Dunstan paid far more heed to the clergy's books than their wives.

{120}

[Sidenote: His work as archbishop and reformer.]

He made rules, and encouraged schools for the training of priests.  He
ordered priests to learn handicrafts that they might teach them to
others.  He ordered that a sermon should be preached in each church
every Sunday.  His zeal for moral reform was seen in many canons passed
against the abuses of the age, and he did not hesitate to enforce them
against the highest in the land.  When the pope ordered him to absolve
a great lord whom he had excommunicated for an unlawful marriage, he
refused to obey.

Early in the tenth century an illustration of the position occupied by
the English Church in relation to Rome, and of the learning of its
clergy and their style of preaching, is afforded by the writings of
Aelfric, who described himself in his early years as "a monk and a
mass-priest," and was later on abbat of Eynsham.  Of his work, besides
educational treatises, eighty sermons, chiefly translated from the
Latin, remain.  In them he shows clearly that the claims of the papacy
with regard to S. Peter were not accepted by all in England, and he
taught the spiritual, not corporal, presence of the Lord's Body in the
Holy Communion.  The English Church differed also from Rome in the fact
that many of the clergy were married, and though this was not regarded
as lawful, they were not separated from their wives.  But in all
essential matters the English Church remained in union with the foreign
Churches and retained her ancient reputation for unbroken orthodoxy.
This reputation was increased by the fame of S. Dunstan, whose sojourn
abroad had served to link English churchmen again to their brothers
over sea.

{121}

The last years of the great archbishop were given to prayer and study,
and to the arts of music and handicraft which he had practised in his
youth.  He set himself to train the young, to succour the needy, and to
make peace among all men.  He died on May 19th, 988, and with him the
new energy he had infused into the Church seemed to pass away.
[Sidenote: The Danish invasions.] New Danish invasions turned men's
thoughts other ways, but still monasteries made progress.  The
Benedictine rule was accepted over Southern England, and in the north
the see of Durham rose replacing the older northern see, when it became
the resting-place of the bones of the great missionary, S. Cuthbert.
The Danish invasions were not so barbarous now as in earlier days.
Some of the Danes were Christians, and it was at Andover that Olaf
Trigvason, King of Norway, was confirmed by Bishop Aelfeah, calling
King Aethelred father.  He went back to Norway a Christian devoted to
the conversion of his people.[4]

The English Church at the beginning of the eleventh century was in full
communion with the Western Church, but was practically to a large
extent apart from papal influence.  Church and State walked hand in
hand, and the relations between sovereign and archbishop resembled
those of the New rather than the Old Rome.  The missionary energy which
had in former years sent forth Wilfrith and Winfrith was now for the
time exhausted.  England needed a new religious revival.  It came
later, at the time of a political conquest.

Meanwhile the Irish Church was regaining its learning and its
missionary zeal: both were expressed in {122} the _consuetudo
peregrinandi_ with which the Irish monks were credited in the ninth
century.  But from the time of the Danish invasions the Irish Church,
and the Welsh also, suffered severely.  Heathen settlements in Ireland
were only gradually converted, as that of Dublin in 943.  The disturbed
state of their home encouraged Irish monks to cross the seas.  Action
and reaction led Ireland more close than ever to the Roman papacy.



[1] Bury, _Life of S. Patrick_, pp. 212-13.

[2] R. L. Poole, _Illustrations of the History of Medieval Thought_, p.
10.

[3] Cf. Roger, _L'Enseignement des lettres classiques_, p. 236.

[4] See ch. xi.



{123}

CHAPTER XI

THE CONVERSION OF SLAVS AND NORTHMEN

[Sidenote: Cyril and Methodius, 868.]

The ninth century was a great age of conversion, and the work is very
largely associated with two great names in the development of
civilisation and learning, those of two brothers, born in Thessalonica,
probably between 820 and 830--Constantine (who changed his name to
Cyril when he was consecrated bishop by Hadrian II. in 868) and
Methodius.  Their lives show the connection still existing between Rome
and the East in Church matters, and illustrate the zeal for educational
work which was so conspicuous a feature in the converting energy of the
Church of Constantinople.  Cyril was not only a priest and a
missionary, he was a "philosopher."  Methodius, it is said, had been a
civil administrator.  Both were scholars and linguists, and the
influence which they exercised upon the Slavs is incalculably great.
In missions always it is the personal influence which is the most
striking.  But the time is needed as well as the man.  So much we see
again and again, however cursorily we study the evangelising work of
this age.

In missions the ninth century carried out what the eighth neglected or
was unable to accomplish.  The {124} wars against the Finnish
Bulgarians from 755 onwards brought the Church as well as the State
into grave danger, or rather were defensive of each.  [Sidenote: The
conversion of the Bulgarians.] In the eighth century there were several
isolated conversions, including a whole family of boïars from whom
sprang the recluse, saint Joannicius; but there was no general
movement.  The Bulgarians remained enemies of Christianity and
destroyers of all Roman civilisation: S. Theodore of the Studium
declared that it was criminal sacrilege to exchange hostages with them.
But gradually the geographical nearness brought closer connection;
barbarians enlisted in the Roman armies; at last illustrious prisoners
in Constantinople were the cause of light being brought to their own
land.  Boris, the Bulgarian king, obtained teachers from the New Rome,
and applied also to Pope Nicolas I. (858-67) for instruction.  In 864
the Bulgarians accepted the faith, and the contest for patriarchal
rights over them was hotly pressed between Nicolas and Photius,
Patriarch of Constantinople (857-86).  In the end, after receiving
answers from the pope to 106 questions, and after being treated with
too little consideration by Hadrian II. (867-72), Boris decided to
accept an archbishop from Constantinople in 870, and ten bishoprics
were founded.

[Sidenote: The conversion of the Slavs.]

But the great work of Cyril and Methodius was not directly concerned
with the Bulgarian conversion.  In Pannonia and Moravia and Croatia
they were the great missionaries to the Slavs.  Cyril invented a
Slavonic alphabet, and was able to preach to the Slavs everywhere in
their own tongue; and in Serbia a flourishing Church sprang {125} up
which retained the Slavonic rite.  Early in the tenth century many
Slavonian priests were ordained by the Bishop of Nona, himself a Slav
by birth.  But these districts were weakened by incessant strife, and
their contests with the East were often fomented by the popes.  Their
Christianity was distinctly Byzantine; but they were never able to be a
real strength to the emperor or the Orthodox Church.

[Sidenote: Poland.]

Poland, on the other hand, and later, received its Christianity from a
Latin source.  There may have been earlier Greek influences through the
Slavonic Christians to the south-east; but it was not till 965 that the
king, Mieczyslaw, was converted, when he married a Bohemian princess.
He became a member of the Empire and the vassal of Otto I.  The
bishopric of Posen was founded in 968, and the gospel was preached by
S. Adalbert, already Bishop of Prague.  S. Adalbert, who for a short
time held the see of Gnesen, passed on to preach to the heathen
Prussians, by whom he was martyred in 997.  Otto III. visited the
Christian king in A.D. 1000, and gave him a relic, the lance of S.
Maurice, still preserved at Cracow.  The ecclesiastical organisation of
the country was then consolidated; Gnesen was made the metropolitan
see, and Polish and Pomeranian dioceses were placed under it.  The
Latin Church was dominant over Polish Christianity.

[Sidenote: The Prussians and S. Adalbert.]

But the pagan Prussians regarded S. Adalbert as a political emissary
and a sorcerer who destroyed their crops, and killed him without
hesitation; Bruno, whom Silvester II. sent to succeed him, perished
within a year, and the attempt to Christianise the Prussians was {126}
abandoned for nearly two centuries.  Similar was the course of events
among the Wends.  It is not till the tenth century that we know
anything of endeavours for their conversion, and then they were due to
the all-embracing energy of Otto I.  Henry I. had borne the royal arms
in victory over the lands watered by the Elbe, the Oder, and the Saale;
and now his successor began the establishment of an ecclesiastical
hierarchy, under the see of Magdeburg.  Boso, Bishop of Merseburg, set
himself to learn and preach in the Slav tongue, but it seems that the
German clergy who were introduced were unsuccessful as missionaries,
and won the reputation of greedy political agitators.  At the end of
the tenth century a torrent of pagan fury swept over the land,
destroyed the churches, and stamped the growing Christianity under foot.

[Sidenote: The conversion of Russia.]

The beginnings of Russian Christianity may possibly be found, as the
patriarch Photius asserted, before the results of the defeat of the
barbarians by John Zimisces.  But it was not till nearly a century
later that anything notable occurred.  Olga, a "ruler of Russia,"
visited Constantinople in 957 and was baptized.  Yet the Greek
missionaries made but slow progress.  It was not till Vladimir married
the sister of the emperor Basil in 989, and restored the city of
Cherson,--in which Cyril more than a century before had been a
missionary,--where he was baptized, to the Empire, that the
evangelisation of Russia really began.  Vladimir deliberately chose the
Greek in preference to the Roman form of Christianity, and acted, it
would seem, with some semblance of national consent.  The baptism of
the people of {127} Kiev in the waters of the Dnyepr, as one flock,
"some standing in the water up to their necks, others up to their
breasts, holding their young children in their arms," was typical of
the national acceptance of Christ.  Everywhere churches and schools
were built and the Slavonic Scriptures taught the people; at Kiev was
built the Church of S. Sophia by Greek masons, in commemoration of the
debt to the great Church of the New Rome.  [Sidenote: S. Vladimir,
989.] Vladimir became the apostle of his people.  The Church pressed
forward eagerly, forward over the vast expanse covered by the Russian
power, and, not without martyrdoms and tales of heroic adventure, won
its way triumphantly to Russian hearts.

[Sidenote: The conversion of the Czechs.]

The early days of Christianity in Moravia and Bohemia are wrapped in
obscurity.  In 801 Charles the Great endeavoured a forcible conversion
of the former country, but with no more than transitory success.  Yet
in 836 a church was consecrated at Neutra by the Archbishop of
Salzburg.  A little later than this we hear of the beginnings of
Christian faith among the Czechs.  Early Bohemian history, when it
emerges from an obscurity lighted by legend, is full of romantic
incident.  There are passages again and again in its records which for
weirdness and ferocity remind us of a grim story of Meinhold's.
Paganism lingered there with some of its ancient power, when it had
perished, at least outwardly, in all neighbouring lands.  In the
eleventh century Bohemian heathens still went on pilgrimages to the
temple at Arcona on the isle of Eugen, till the practice was stopped by
Bretislav II.  Still a beginning had been made.  In {128} 845 fourteen
Bohemian nobles, who had taken refuge at the court of Louis the German,
were baptized at Regensburg; but the conversion of the country was to
come from the East.  Cyril and Methodius, sent by the emperor Michael
III. from Constantinople, converted the Moravians, and from them the
gospel was handed on to the Czechs.  It was Methodius, on whom the pope
had conferred the title of Archbishop of Moravia, who baptized the
Bohemian prince Borivoj.  For the history of Bohemian Christianity the
earliest authority is Kristián, brother of Duke Boleslav II., in _The
Life of S. Ludmilla and the Martyrdom of S. Wenceslas_.  [Sidenote: S.
Wenceslas.] This is an extremely valuable book, not only as a
biography--hagiological, like so much valuable early material for
history, yet truthful--and as a record of manners in the tenth century,
but as containing the account of the conversion of Moravia to
Christianity, which shows that the conversion came first from the East,
and the Church long retained a special connection with the Eastern
peoples, Bulgarians and Greeks.  The account of the murder of S.
Wenceslas is of great interest as showing how close was the connection
of religion with family and dynastic feuds.  S. Ludmilla was murdered
in 927 by the orders of her daughter-in-law, who remained a pagan; a
year later,[1] her saintly grandson Wenceslas was slain by the men of
his evil brother Boleslav.  "Holy Wenceslas, who was soon to be a
victim for the sake of Christ, rose early, wishing, according to his
holy habit, to hurry to the church, that he might remain there for some
time in solitary prayer before the congregation arrived; {129} and
wishing as a good shepherd to hear matins together with his flock, and
join in their song, he soon fell into the snares that had been laid,"
and it was outside the church that he was slain.

[Sidenote: Restoration of Christianity in Bohemia.]

It was not till the invasion of the country by the armies of Otto I. in
938 that Christianity was restored even to full toleration, and only
when Otto came himself in 950 that it was secured.  Boleslav II., the
nephew of S. Wenceslas, was named the Pious; and Prague, in 973, was
separated from Regensburg and became a bishopric.  While among the
Moravians the Slavonic rite introduced by Methodius was still largely
used, in Bohemia the Roman rite was followed.  Voytech (Adalbert), a
Czech, was the second bishop, and to him, in spite of failures and
difficulties, the conversion of Bohemia was largely due.  He died a
martyr (as we have said), while preaching to the heathen Prussians, and
for a time darkness again settled over the history of the Czechs.

[Sidenote: The conversion of the Danes]

Meanwhile the current of conversion had spread northwards.  It was in
822 that Ebbo, Archbishop of Rheims, was sent to Denmark in consequence
of a political embassy to Louis the Pious, emperor from 814 to 840.
Harold, the Danish king, had asked aid.  The emperor gave him also a
Christian teacher; and in 826 the king and his wife were baptized.
Other missionaries went northwards, but before long the Danes drove out
both their king Harold and his teacher Ansgar.  From Denmark, however,
the mission spread to Sweden, and in 831 an archbishopric was
established at Hamburg to direct all the northern {130} missions, and
Ansgar was invested with the pallium by Pope Gregory IV.  The missions
had a chequered career.  [Sidenote: and of Sweden.] Hamburg was seized
and pillaged by the Northmen in 845, and the Swedish mission was for a
time destroyed.  In 849 a new revival took place, when Ansgar was given
the see of Bremen in addition to that of Hamburg; and before long he
won over the king of the Jutes and his people of Schleswig.  In 853
Ansgar returned to Sweden, where he was favourably received by the king
Olaf.  The tale of his vast missionary labours, from which he was
rightly called the "Apostle of the north," is told with spirit and
feeling by Adam of Bremen, who wrote in the eleventh century, as well
as by the biographer who commemorated him on his death.  He not only
preached, but he "redeemed captives, nourished those who were in
tribulation, taught his household.  As an apostle without, a monk
within, he was never idle."  When it was said that his prayers wrought
miracles of healing, he said, "If I could but think myself worthy of
such a favour from the Lord, I would pray Him to grant me but one
miracle--that out of me, by His grace; He would make a good man."
[Sidenote: S. Ansgar.] S. Ansgar is, in his work as in his training, a
parallel to S. Boniface.  Like him one of the finest fruits of
monasticism, which first taught in solitude and then sent out to work
actively in the world, he was brought up at Corbie.  For nearly
thirty-five years he laboured incessantly among the peoples of the
north, and at the very end of his life he gallantly went among heathen
chiefs to rebuke them for buying and selling slaves.  He died in 865,
and S. Rimbert, {131} his disciple and biographer, was his successor in
his sees.

[Sidenote: Norway.]

Gradually, and in different ways, Christianity spread in the far north.
Haakon, the son of Harold Haarfager of Norway, was sent to be
foster-son to Aethelstan of England, who "had him baptized and brought
up in the right faith," and he became a great king under the name of
Haakon the Good.  From England he brought over teachers, and he built
churches; and then at last he addressed all the leaders of his people
and besought them "all, young and old, rich and poor, women as well as
men, that they should all allow themselves to be baptized, and should
believe in one God, and in Christ the Son of Mary, and refrain from all
sacrifices and heathen gods, and should keep holy the seventh day, and
abstain from all work on it, and keep a fast on the seventh day." [2]
But it was long before his people obeyed him.  Rebellion and dynastic
war followed in rapid succession; and he died of a wound from a chance
arrow that struck him as he pursued his defeated foes.  The first
Christian king of Norway died in a land which was still heathen.  But
the seed was sown in the hearts of the men who had seen the brave,
strong, chivalrous life of him who owned Christ for Lord.

[Sidenote: Olaf Trigvason.]

In Denmark the conversion begun in the ninth century was long delayed,
and it was not till Otto I. conquered the Danes and sent Bishop Poppo
who instructed King Harold and his army so that they were baptized,
that the land {132} became definitely a Christian kingdom.  From
Denmark the gospel spread again to Norway; but it was not till near the
end of the tenth century that Olaf Trigvason was baptized by a hermit
on one of the Scilly Isles, and then in his short reign devoted himself
to converting his people, often forcibly, as a choice between death and
baptism.  To Iceland and Greenland too Olaf sent missionaries.  He died
at last, like a true Wiking hero, in a sea fight; and it was not until
the next century and the days of Olaf the Saint that the faith of
Christ conquered the North.

[Sidenote: The conversion of Iceland.]

There seems no doubt that Christianity in Iceland began by missionary
enterprise from Irish monks.  From time to time anchorites sought
refuge in that _ultima Thule_, "that they might pray to God in peace";
but whether they did any direct work of conversion is doubtful.  The
actual conversion came undoubtedly from Norway.  A Christian queen
lived in Iceland at the end of the ninth century, the wife of the Norse
Olaf who was king in Dublin; but little if any impression was made on
the heathenism of the people.  Nearly a century later an Icelander
called Thorwald Kothransson brought a Christian bishop Frederic from
Saxony, who wrought some conversions and left a body of baptized
Christians behind him.  In the year 1000 came a priest Thormod and
several chiefs back from the Norse court of Olaf, and in a meeting of
the Althing--the great assembly of the people--preached to them the One
God in Trinity.  The whole people became Christian, and the few heathen
{133} customs that still lingered, as it were by permission, after the
great baptism, soon fell away like raindrops in the bright sun.  Among
the last news that came to Olaf Trigvason was that his distant people
had fulfilled the wish of his heart.



[1] According to the chronicle of Kristián.

[2] The Saturday fast was still observed in many parts of Christendom.



{134}

CHAPTER XII

PROGRESS OF THE CHURCH IN GERMANY

[Sidenote: The Lombards in Italy.]

The acceptance of Christianity and of Catholicism by the barbarian
tribes which conquered Europe was a slow process.  The conversion of
the Lombards, for example, whom we have seen as Arians, sometimes
tolerant, sometimes persecuting, was gradual.  The Church always held
its own, in faith though not in possessions, in Italy; and from the
pontificate of Gregory the Great the moral force of the Catholic
Society began to win the Lombards to its fold.  It was proved again and
again that heresy was not a unifying power.  The Catholic Church held
together its disciples in the Catholic creed.  It is possible that
Agilulf, the husband of the famous Catholic queen Theodelind, himself
became a Catholic before he died.  Paul the Deacon says that he "both
held the Catholic faith and bestowed many possessions on the Church of
Christ, and restored the bishops, who were in a depressed and abject
condition, to the honour of their wonted dignity."  Whatever may be the
meaning of this, it certainly expresses the fact that before the middle
of the seventh century the Lombards were passing almost insensibly into
the Catholic fold, and Italy had practically become united in one faith
though far from united in one government.

{135}

[Sidenote: The Church in the Frankish kingdoms.]

With Germany it was different.  As the Merwing kingdoms decayed, the
Eastern one, Austrasia, with its capital, Metz, was but a poor bulwark
against heathen tribes on its borders, which were yet, it might seem at
times, little more barbarous than itself.  The kingdom of Austrasia
stretched eastwards from Rheims "spreading across the Rhine an unknown
distance into Germany, claiming the allegiance of Thuringians, Alamanni
and Bavarians, fitfully controlling the restless Saxons, touching with
warlike weapons and sometimes vainly striving with the terrible Avars."
[1]  Kings of the Bavarian line came to rule in Northern Italy, but
Bavaria was little touched by Christian faith.  At last when the
descendants of Arnulf[2] came as kings over a now again united Frankish
monarchy, when Charles Martel made one power of Austrasia, Neustria,
and Burgundy, the time for a new advance seemed to have come.
Theodelind, the Catholic queen of the Lombards, was herself of Bavarian
birth, but a century after her time the people of her native land, it
seems, were still heathen.  They were apart from the Roman civilisation
and the Catholic tradition: conversion, to touch them, must be a direct
and aggressive movement.

At the end of the seventh century S. Rupert began the work.  He settled
his episcopal throne at Salzburg.  He was followed by Emmeran, and by
Corbinian.  Slowly the work proceeded, hindered by violence on the part
of dukes and saints, favoured by popes and making a beginning for Roman
missionary interest in the distant borders of the Empire under the
Germans.

{136}

But it was not to these Frankish missionaries, or to Roman envoys, that
the most important work was due.  It was due to an outburst of
converting zeal on the part of the newly converted race who had made
Britain the land of the English.

[Sidenote: Saint Boniface.]

Of all the great missionaries of the eighth century perhaps the
greatest was Winfrith of Crediton, an Englishman who became the father
of German Christianity and the precursor of the great religious and
intellectual movement of the days of Charles the Great.  He followed
the Northumbrian Willibrord who for twenty-six years had laboured in
Frisia, and supported by the commission of Gregory II. he set forth in
719 to preach to the fierce heathens of Germany.  He was instructed to
use the Roman rite and to report to Rome any difficulties he might
encounter.  He began to labour in Thuringia, a land where Irish
missionaries had already been at work, and where he recalled the
Christians from evil ways into which they had lapsed.  He passed on
through Neustria and thence to Frisia, where for three years he
"laboured much in Christ, converting not a few, destroying the heathen
shrines and building Christian oratories," aiding the venerable
Willibrord in the work he had so long carried on.  But he felt the call
to labour in lands as yet untouched, and so he determined to go to the
Germans.  As he passed up the Rhine he drew to him the boy Gregory
afterwards famous as abbat of Utrecht, and at last he settled in the
forests of Hessen and built a monastery at Amöneburg.  From his old
friends in England he received sound advice as to the treatment of
heathen customs and the gentle methods of conversion which befit the
gospel of {137} Christ.  [Sidenote: His mission from Rome, 723.] From
Rome he received affectionate support; and in 722 he was summoned to
receive a new mission from the pope himself.  On S. Andrew's Day,
723,[3] after a solemn profession of faith in the Holy Trinity and of
obedience to the Roman See--the first ever taken by one outside the
Roman patriarchate--he was consecrated bishop.  He set out with letters
from the pope to Christians of Thuringia and to the duke Charles.
Charles Martel accepted the trust and gave to Winfrith (who had assumed
the name of Boniface) the pledge of his protection.  The missionary's
first act on his return to Hessen was to destroy the ancient oak at
Geismar, the object of devotion to the worshippers of the Germanic
gods; and the act was followed by many conversions of those who saw
that heathenism could not resent the attack upon its sacred things.
Still there were difficulties.  Those who had learned from the old
Celtic mission were not ready to accept the Roman customs.  Gregory II.
wrote in 724, exhorting him to perseverance: "Let not threats alarm
thee, nor terrors cast thee down, but stayed in confidence on God
proclaim the word of truth."  The work grew: monasteries and churches
arose: many English helpers came over: the favour of Charles Martel was
a protection.  As the Benedictines opened out new lands, ploughed,
built, studied, taught, religion and education spread before him.
[Sidenote: Boniface archbishop, 732.] In 732 Boniface was made
archbishop, received a pallium from Rome, and was encouraged by the new
pope Gregory III. to organise the Church which he had founded and {138}
to spread forth his arms into the land of the Bavarians.  There
Christianity had already made some way under Frankish missionaries: it
needed organisation from the hand of a master.  He "exercised himself
diligently," says his biographer Willibald, "in preaching, and went
round inspecting many churches."  In 738 he paid his last visit to
Rome, where he stayed nearly a year and was treated with extraordinary
respect and affection.  On his return he divided Bavaria into the four
dioceses of Salzburg, Regensburg, Freising, and Passau, and later on he
founded other sees also, including Würzburg.  It was his next aim to do
something to reform the lax morals of the Frankish Church, which had
sunk to a low ebb under the Merwings.  The Austrasian Synod, which
bears in some respects a close resemblance to the almost contemporary
English Synod of Clovesho (747), of 742 dealt boldly with these
matters.  Other councils followed in which Boniface took a leading
part, and which made a striking reformation.  [Sidenote: His missionary
work and martyrdom.] His equally important work was to complete the
conquest of the general spirit of Western Christendom, which looked to
Rome for leadership, over the Celtic missionaries, noble missionaries
and martyrs who yet lacked the instinct of cohesion and solidarity.  A
long series of letters, to the popes, to bishops, princes and persons
of importance, shows the breadth of his interests and the nature of his
activity.  To "four peoples," he says, he had preached the gospel, the
Hessians, Thuringians, Franks and Bavarians, not to all for the first
time but as a reformer and one who removed heathen influences from the
Church.  As Archbishop of Mainz he was untiring even in advanced age:
in politics as well as in {139} religion he was a leader of men.  It
was he who anointed Pippin at Soissons in 751 and thus gave the
Church's sanction to the new Karling line.  He determined to end his
days as a missionary to the heathen.  In 755 he went with a band of
priests and monks once more to the wild Frisians, and at Dokkum by the
northern sea he met his death at the hands of the heathen whom he came
to win to Christ.  The day, ever remembered, was June 5, 755.

Boniface was truly attached to the popes, truly respectful to the Roman
See: but he preserved his independence.  His attitude towards the
secular power was precisely similar.  He was a great churchman, a great
statesman, a great missionary; but his religious and political opinions
cannot be tied down to the limits of some strict theory.  His was a
wide, genial nature, in things spiritual and in things temporal
genuine, sincere; a true Saint, a true Apostle.  Through the lives and
sacrifices of such men it was that the Church came to exercise so
profound an influence over the politics of the Middle Age.

[Sidenote: The Emperors and missions.]

The work which S. Boniface began was continued by weapons other than
his own.  When the Empire of the Romans was revived (as we shall tell
in the next chapter) by the chiefs of the Arnulf house, when a Catholic
Caesar was again acclaimed in the Roman churches, the ideas on which
the new monarchy was to rest were decisively Christian and Catholic.
Charles the son of Pippin was a student of theology, among many other
things.  He believed firmly that it was a real kingdom of God which he
was called to form and govern upon earth.  The spirit which inspired
the followers of {140} Muhammad inspired him too.  He was determined
not to leave to priests and popes the propagation of the faith which he
believed.

[Sidenote: Charles and the Saxons.]

For thirty-two years Charles the Great, as his people came to call him,
was engaged in a war which claimed to be waged for the spread of the
Christian faith.  Charles was before all things in belief (though not
always in life) a Christian, and it was intolerable to him that within
the German lands should remain a large and powerful body of heathens.
In 772 he marched into the land of the Angarii and destroyed the
Irminsul, a column which was representative of the power which the
Saxons worshipped.  It was destroyed, and the army after its victories
returned in triumph.  In 774 the Saxons turned the tables and burnt the
abbey of Fritzlar which had been founded by S. Boniface.  In 775
Charles resolved to avenge this loss, but made little progress.  In 776
he was more successful, and a great multitude of Saxons submitted and
were baptized.  In 777 there was another great baptism, but, says the
chronicler, the Saxons were perfidious.  In 778 when Charles was in
Spain the Saxons devastated a vast tract of land, and even for a time
stole the body of S. Boniface from its tomb at Fulda.  Charles crushed
the resistance, and from 780 he set himself to organise the Church in
the Saxon lands, issuing severe edicts which practically enforced
Christianity on the conquered Saxons with the penalty of death for the
performance of pagan rites, and even for eating meat in Lent.  A law
was also decreed that all men should give a tenth of their substance
and work to the churches and priests.  Still the conquest was not {141}
durable, for a terrible insurrection in 782 slew a whole army of the
Germans and massacred priests and monks wherever they could be found.
Then came years of carnage: once Charles--it is said--caused 4,500
Saxons to be beheaded in one day.  In 793 there was a new outbreak.
The Saxons "as a dog returneth to his vomit so returned they to the
paganism they had renounced, again deserting Christian faith and lying
not less to God than to their lord the king."  Churches were destroyed,
bishops and priests slain, and the land was again defiled with blood.
They allied with the Avars, and Charles was thus beset with heathen
foes in Hungary and in North Germany at once.  He tried every measure
of devastation and exile; but it seems that by 797 he had come more
clearly to see the Christian way.  "Let but the same pains be taken,"
he wrote--or the English scholar Alcuin wrote for him--"to preach the
easy yoke and light burden of Christ to the obstinate people of the
Saxons as are taken to collect the tithes from them or to punish the
least transgression of the laws imposed on them, and perhaps they would
be found no longer to repel baptism with abhorrence."  But he was far
from always acting up to this view, and he even allied with heathen
Slavs to accomplish the subjugation of his enemies.  As he conquered he
mapped out the land in bishoprics and planted monasteries at important
points: he took Saxon boys to his court and sent them back trained,
often as ecclesiastics, to teach and rule.  Among such was Ebbo,
afterwards Archbishop of Rheims, the "Apostle of Denmark."  From abroad
too came other missionaries, and notable among them was another
Englishman, Willehad of {142} Northumbria, who became in 788 the first
bishop of Bremen.  At last Christianity was, at least nominally, in
possession from the Rhine to the Elbe, and in the words of Einhard
"thus they were brought to accept the terms of the king, and thus they
gave up their demon worship, renounced their national religious
customs, embraced the Christian faith, received the divine sacraments,
and were united with the Franks, forming one people."

Under Charles the organisation of the German Church, begun by Boniface,
received a great extension.  It was possible, after his death, to
regard Germany as Christian and as organised in its religion on the
lines of all the Western Churches.



[1] Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_, v. 203.

[2] See p. 1-14.

[3] This seems to me the most probable date.  Cf. Hauck,
_Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_, i. 448.



{143}

CHAPTER XIII

THE POPES AND THE REVIVAL OF THE EMPIRE

[Sidenote: Growth of papal power.]

The growth of the temporal power of the bishops of Rome was due to two
causes, the withdrawal of the imperial authority from Italy and the
conversion of the barbarians.  As the emperors at Constantinople became
more and more busied with affairs Eastern, with the encroachments of
barbarians, heathen and Muhammadan, and the imperial rule in Italy was
destroyed by the Lombards, the popes stood out as the one permanent
institution in Northern and Central Italy.  As gradually the barbarians
came to accept the faith they received it at the hands of the great
ecclesiastical organisation which kept together the traditions, so
strangely transformed, of the Old Rome.  The legislation of Justinian
also had given great political power to the popes: and this power was
greatly increased when the papacy found itself the leader in the
resistance of the great majority of Christian peoples against the
policy of the Iconoclastic emperors.  The history of Rome began to run
on very different lines from that of Venice, Naples, or other great
cities.  It became for a while a conflict between the local military
nobility and the clergy under the rule of the pope.  The {144} struggle
was a political one, just as the assumption of power by the popes, of
power over the country and a considerable district around it, was a
political act.

The popes had but very slight relations with the kings of the Merwing
house.  It was different when the Karlings came into power.  Zacharias,
both directly and through S. Boniface, came into close connection with
Pippin and Carloman.  At first he was concerned simply with reform in
the Frankish Church, but before long he found himself able to intervene
in a critical event and to take part in the inauguration of the Karling
House, the revival as it claimed to be of the Empire in the West.

[Sidenote: The Karling reformation.]

The growth of the papal power was closely associated with two other
historic events: the growth of the Karling house among the Franks, and
the process of revival in the Church's spiritual activity, showing
itself in missions without and reforms within.  The last leads back to
the first.

Whatever may be thought of the Karling reformation, it cannot be denied
that for the century before Charles assumed the Imperial crown the
Church showed many signs of corruption.  The darkness of the picture is
relieved only by the lives of some remarkable saints.

[Sidenote: The Karling House.]

The first, of course, is S. Arnulf, Bishop of Metz, the
great-grandfather of Charles Martel.  Born about 582, he died in 641,
and the holy simplicity of his life as statesman and priest comes like
a ray of sunshine in the gloom of the days of "half heathen and wholly
vicious" kings.  Mr. Hodgkin, with an eye no doubt to modern affairs,
comments thus on the career of the prelate so different from the
greedy, turbulent, and licentious men whom {145} Gregory of Tours
describes: "In reading his life one cannot but feel that in some way
the Frankish nation, or at least the Austrasian part of it, has groped
its way upwards since the sixth century." [Sidenote: S. Arnulf.] Arnulf
was a type of the good bishops of the Middle Ages, strong, able to hold
his own with kings, a friend of the poor, eager to pass from the world
to a quiet eventide in some monastic shade.  The tale that is told of
him is typical of the sympathies and passions of his age.  Bishop of
Metz, and chief counsellor of Dagobert whose father Chlothochar he had
helped to raise to the throne, when he expressed his wish to retire
from the world the king cried out that if he did he would slay his two
sons.  "My sons' lives are in the hands of God," said Arnulf.  "Yours
will not last long if you slay the innocent"; and when Dagobert drew
his sword on him he said, "Would you return good for evil?  Here am I
ready to die in obedience to Him Who gave me life and Who died for me."
Queen and nobles cried out, and the king fell penitent at the bishop's
feet.  Like S. Arnulf's is the romantic figure of his descendant
Carloman, who turned from the rule of kingdoms and the command of
armies to the seclusion of Soracte and Monte Cassino.  The "great
renunciation" is a striking tale.  The disappearance, the long days of
patient submission to rule, the discovery of the real position of the
humble brother, and then the last dramatic appearance to follow an
unpopular cause, make a story as striking as any which have come to us
from the Middle Age.  But before Carloman come many other noble
figures.  The fifty years that followed Arnulf's death are but a dreary
tale of anarchy and blood.  It is broken here and there {146} by
records of Christian endurance or martyrdom: bishops who tried to serve
the State often served not wisely but too well and met the fate of
unsuccessful political leaders.  Leodegar, Bishop of Autun, who helped
Ebroin to raise Theoderic III to the throne of Neustria, was blinded,
imprisoned and at length put to death and appears in the Church's
calendar as S. Leger.

The crisis came when the long march of the successful Muhammadans was
stayed by the arms of S. Arnulf's descendant Charles Martel, mayor of
the palace to the King of Austrasia 717, to all the kingdoms from 719,
who lived till 741.  In 711 the Wisigothic monarchy of Spain had fallen
before the infidels: in 720 the Moors entered Gaul.  From then to 731
there was for Abder Rahman an almost unbroken triumph.  The power of
the Prophet reached from Damascus to beyond the Pyrenees.  Then Charles
Martel came to the relief of Southern Gaul, and on an October Sunday in
732 the hosts of Islam were utterly routed at Poictiers by the soldiers
of the Cross.  [Sidenote: The defeat of the Saracens.] It was a great
deliverance; and there is no wonder that imagination has exaggerated
its importance and thought that but for the Moorish defeat there might
to-day be a muezzin in every Highland steeple and an Imám set over
every Oxford college.  Charles had still to reconquer Septimania and
Provence.  Arles and Nîmes, the great Roman cities, had to be recovered
from the Arabs who had seized them, and Avignon, Agde, Beziers, cities
whose future was as wonderful as was the others' past, were also won
back by the arms of the Christian chief.

Charles died in 741.  He had refused to help Pope {147} Gregory III. in
739 against the Lombards.  It was reserved for his son Pippin to make
that alliance between the papacy and the Karling house which dictated
the future of Europe.  [Sidenote: Pippin.] To Pippin came the lordship
of the West Franks, to Carloman his brother that of the East Franks,
when their father died.  They conquered, they reformed the Church among
the Franks, with the aid of Boniface, and then came that dramatic
retirement of Carloman in 747 which showed him to be true heir of S.
Arnulf.  Four years later the house of the Karlings became the nominal
as well as the real rulers of the Franks.  In 751 the bishop of
Würzburg for the East Franks, and the abbat of S. Denis for those of
the West, went to Rome to ask the pope's advice.  Were the wretched
Merwings "who were of royal race and were called kings but had no power
in the realm save that grants and charters were drawn up in their
names" to be still called kings, for "what willed the _major domus_ of
the Franks, that they did?"  Zacharias answered as a wise man would,
that he who had the power should bear the name.  And so, blessed by the
great missionary S. Boniface, Pippin was "heaved" on the shield, and
became king of the Franks, and Childerich, the last of the Merwings,
went to a distant monastery to end his days.

[Sidenote: The end of the Imperial power in Italy.]

But this was only a beginning.  The pope was threatened by the
barbarians, neglected by the emperors who reigned at Constantinople,
and at last was in actual conflict with those who tried to impose
Iconoclasm upon the Church.  In 751 the exarchate, the representation
of the Imperial power in Italy, with its seat at Ravenna, was
overwhelmed by the {148} arms of Aistulf, the Lombard king.  The time
had come, thought Pope Stephen II. (752-7), when the distant
barbarians, now orthodox, should be called to save the patrimony of S.
Peter from the barbarians near at hand.  In S. Peter's name letters
summoned Pippin to the rescue of the church especially dear to the
Franks.[1]  But before this Stephen had made Pippin his friend.  In 753
he left Rome and failing to win from Aistulf any concession to the
Imperial power made his way across the Alps, and on the Feast of the
Epiphany, 754, met in their own land Pippin and his son who was to be
Charles the Great.  The pope fell at the king's feet and besought him
by the mercies of God to save the Romans from the hands of the
Lombards.  Then Pippin and all his lords held up their hands in sign of
welcome and support.  Then Stephen on July 28, 754, in the great
monastery which was to become the crowning-place of Frankish kings,
anointed Pippin and his sons Charles and Carloman as king of the Franks
and kings in succession.

[Sidenote: The crowning of Pippin.]

A point of special interest in this event is the title given to Pippin
at his crowning at Saint Denis.  The title of Patrician of the Romans
was given by the pope, as commissioned by the emperor, "to act against
the king of the Lombards for the recovery of the lost lands of the
Empire."  Pippin was made the officer of the distant emperor, and the
pope would say as little as possible about the rights of him who ruled
in Constantinople, and as much as he could about the Church which ruled
in Rome.  It was a step in the assertion of {149} political rights for
the Roman Church.  A new order of things was springing up in Italy.
The popes were asserting a political power as belonging to S. Peter.
They were asserting that the exarchate had ceased in political theory
as well as in practical fact.  In this new order Pippin was to be
involved as supporter of the protectorate which the papacy assumed to
itself.

Then the Franks came forward to save Rome from the Lombards.  The last
act of the romantic life of Carloman was to plead for justice to
Aistulf,--that what he had won should not be taken from him,--and to be
refused.  Twice Pippin came south and saved the pope: and then the
cities he had won he refused to give up to the envoys of the distant
emperor and declared that "never should those cities be alienated from
the power of S. Peter and the rights of the Roman Church and the
pontiff of the Apostolic See."  From this dates the Roman pope's
independence of the Roman emperor, the definite political severance of
Italy from the East, and therefore a great stop towards the schism of
the Church.  Iconoclasm and the independence of the popes alike worked
against the unity of Christendom.

[Sidenote: The papal power.]

Pope Stephen, thanks to Pippin, had become the arbitrator of Italy.
The keys of Ravenna and of the twenty-two cities which "stretched along
the Adriatic coast from the mouths of the Po to within a few miles of
Ancona and inland as far as the Apennines" were laid on the tomb of S.
Peter.  The "States of the Church" began their long history, the
history of "the temporal power."

And this new power was seen outside Italy as well {150} as within.
From the eighth century, at least, the popes are found continually
intervening in the affairs of the churches among the Franks and the
Germans, granting privileges, giving indulgence, writing with explicit
claim to the authority which Christ gave to S. Peter.  Into the
recesses of Gaul, among Normans at Rouen, among Lotharingians at Metz,
to Amiens, or Venice, or Limoges, the papal letters penetrated; and
their tone is that of confidence that advice will be respected or
commands obeyed.  And this is, in small matters especially, rather than
in great.  The popes at least claimed to interfere everywhere in
Christian Europe and in everything.[2]  Within Italy events moved
quickly.

The first step towards a new development was the destruction of the
Lombard kingdom by Charles, who succeeded his father Pippin in 768.  At
first joint ruler with his brother he became on the latter's death in
771 sole king of all the Franks.  In 772 Hadrian I., a Roman, ambitious
and distinguished, succeeded the weak Stephen III. on the papal throne.
He reigned till 795 and one of his first acts was to summon Charles and
the Franks to his rescue against the Lombards.  [Sidenote: Charles the
Great and Rome.] In the midst of his conquests--which it is not here
our part to tell--Charles spent the Holy Week and Easter of 774 at
Rome.  Thus the one contemporary authority tells the tale of the great
alliance which was made on the Wednesday in Easter week: "On the fourth
day of the week the aforesaid pontiff with all his nobles both clerkly
and knightly went forth to S. Peter's Church and there {151} meeting
the king in colloquy earnestly prayed him and with paternal affection
admonished him to fulfil entirely that promise which his father of holy
memory the dead king Pippin had made, and which he himself with his
brother Carloman and all the nobles of the Franks had confirmed to S.
Peter and his vicar Pope Stephen II. of holy memory when he visited
Francia, that they would grant divers cities and territories in that
province of Italy to S. Peter and his vicars for ever.  And when
Charles had caused the promise which was made in Francia at a place
called Carisiacum (Quierzy) to be read over to him all its contents
were approved by him and his nobles.  And of his will and with a good
and gracious mind that most excellent and most Christian king Charles
caused another promise of gift like the first to be drawn up by
Etherius his most religious and prudent chaplain and notary, and in
this he gave the same cities and lands to S. Peter and promised that
they should be handed over to the pope with their boundaries set forth
as is contained in the aforesaid donation, namely: From Luna with the
island of Corsica, thence to Surianum, thence to Mount Bardo, that is
to Vercetum, thence to Parma, thence to Pihegium, and from thence to
Mantua and Mons Silicis, together with the whole exarchate of Ravenna,
as it was of old, and the provinces of the Venetia and Istria; together
with the whole duchy of Spoletium and that of Beneventum." [3]  The
donation was confirmed, says the chronicler, with the most solemn oaths.

Now if this records the facts, and if two-thirds of Italy were given by
Charles (who possessed very little {152} of it) to the popes, it is
almost incredible that his later conduct should have shown that he did
not pay any regard to it.  But the question is of political rather than
ecclesiastical interest, and it may suffice to say that there are very
strong reasons for believing the passage to be a later interpolation.[4]

[Sidenote: The revival of the Empire, 800.]

Within four mouths Charles had subdued the Lombards and become "rex
Francorum et Langobardorum atque patricius Romanorum."  For nearly a
quarter of a century Charles was employed in other parts of his empire:
he dealt friendly but firmly with the pope; but he kept away from Rome.
But in 799 the new pope Leo III., attacked by the Romans probably for
some harshness in his rule, fled from the city and in July came to
Charles at Paderborn to entreat his help.  It is probable that the
great English scholar, Alcuin, who has been called the Erasmus of the
eighth century, had already suggested to the great king that the
weakness of the Eastern emperors was a real defeasance of power and
that the crown imperial might be his own.  However that may be Charles
came to Rome and made a triumphal entry on November 24, 800.  The
charges against the pope were heard and he swore to his innocence.  On
the feast of the Nativity, in the basilica of S. Peter, when Charles
had worshipped at the _confessio_, the tomb of S. Peter, Leo clothed
him with a purple robe and set a crown of gold upon his head.  "Then
all the faithful Romans beholding so great a champion given them and
the love which {153} he bore towards the holy Roman Church and its
vicar, in obedience to the will of God and S. Peter the key-bearer of
the kingdom of heaven, cried with one accord in sound like thunder 'To
Charles the most pious Augustus, crowned of God, the Emperor great and
peaceable, life and victory!'"

Thus the Roman pope and the Roman people claimed to make anew in Rome
the Roman Empire with a German for Caesar and Augustus.  It was not, if
we believe Charles's own close friend Einhard, a distinction sought by
the new emperor himself.  "At first he so disliked the title of
_Imperator_ and _Augustus_ that he declared that if he had known before
the intention of the pope he would never have entered the church on
that day, though it was one of the most holy festivals of the year."
[5]  It may well be that Charles, who had corresponded with the Caesars
of the East, hesitated to take a step of such bold defiance.  Men still
preserved the memories of how the soldiers of Justinian had won back
Italy from the Goths.  Nor was Charles pleased to receive such a gift
at the hands of the pope.  He did not recognise the right of a Roman
pontiff to give away the imperial crown.  What could be given could be
taken away.  It was a precedent of evil omen.

But none the less the coronation of Charles the Great, as men came to
call him, was the greatest event in the Middle Age.  It allowed the
vitality of the idea of empire which the West inherited from the
Romans, and it showed that idea linked to the new power of the popes.
It founded the Holy Roman Empire.  Twelve years later the Empire of the
West won some sort of recognition from the Empire of the East.  In 812
an ambassage from Constantinople came {154} to Charles at Aachen, and
Charles was hailed by them as Imperator and Basileus.  The Empire of
the West was an accomplished and recognised fact.

[Sidenote: Results of the revived Empire.]

Its significance was at least as much religious as poetical.  Charles
delighted in the works of S. Augustine and most of all in the _De
Civitate Dei_; and that great book is the ideal of a Christian State,
which shall be Church and State together, and which replaces the Empire
of pagan Rome.  The abiding idea of unity had been preserved by the
Church: it was now to be strengthened by the support of a head of the
State.  The one Christian commonwealth was to be linked together in the
bond of divine love under one emperor and one pope.  That Constantine
the first Christian emperor had given to the popes the sovereignty of
the West was a fiction which it seems was already known at Rome:
Hadrian seems to have referred to the strange fable when he wrote to
Charles the Great in 777.  It was a legend very likely of Eastern
fabrication, and it was probably not as yet believed to have any claim
to be authentic; but when the papacy had grown great at the expense of
the Empire it was to be a powerful weapon in the armoury of the popes.
Now it served only, with the revival of learning at the court of
Charles the Great, to illustrate two sides of the great movement for
the union of Europe under two monarchs, the spiritual and the temporal.
The coronation of Charles was indeed a fact the importance of which, as
well as the conflicts which would inevitably flow from it, lay in the
future.  But it showed the Roman Church great, and it showed the
absorption of the great Teutonic race in the fascinating ideal of unity
at once Christian and imperial.



[1] _Cod. Car._ in Muratori, _Rer. Ital. Script._, iii. (2) 90.

[2] Cf. Dr. J. von Pflugk-Hartung, _Acta Pontificum Romanorum inedita_,
1880, 1884.

[3] _Liber Pontificalis_, i. 498.

[4] The question may be read in Mgr. Duchesne's Introduction to the
_Liber Pontificalis_, ccxxxvii.-ccxlii.; and Dr. Hodgkin, _Italy and
her Invaders_, vii. 387-97.

[5] _Liber Pontificalis_, ii. 6.



{155}

CHAPTER XIV

THE ICONOCLASTIC CONTROVERSY

We have spoken already of two important periods in the history of the
Eastern Church.  We must now briefly sketch another.

[Sidenote: Sketch of the period, 725-847.]

The third period (725-847) is that of Iconoclasm.  Of this, the
originator was the emperor Leo III., one of those soldiers who
endeavour to apply to the sanctuary the methods of the parade-ground.
He issued a decree against the reverence paid to icons (religious
images and pictures), and, in 729, replaced the patriarch S. Germanus
by the more supple Anastasius; a docile assembly of bishops at Hieria,
under Constantine V. (Copronymus), passed a decree against every image
of the Lord, the Virgin, and the saints.  A fierce persecution
followed, which was hardly ended before the accession to power of
Irene, widow of Leo IV., under whom assembled the Seventh General
Council at Nicae in 787, a Council to which the West and the distant
East sent representatives.  This Council decreed that icons should be
used and receive veneration (_proskuêsis_) as did the Cross and the
book of the Gospels.  A persecution followed, as bitter as that of the
iconoclastic emperors, and the troubled years of the first half of the
ninth century, stained in Byzantium by every crime, found almost their
only brightness in the patriarchate (843-7) of S. Methodius, a wise
ruler, an {156} orthodox theologian, a charitable man.  In Antioch and
Jerusalem, about the same period, orthodox patriarchs were
re-established by the toleration of the Ommeyads and the earlier
Abbasaides; but on the European frontiers of the Empire conversion was
at a standstill during the whole period of iconoclastic fury and
reaction, while in the north-east of Syria and in Armenia the heresy of
the Paulicians (Adoptianism) spread and flourished, and the
Monophysites still throve on the Asiatic borders.  In theology the
Church of Constantinople was still strong, as is shown by the great
work of S. Theodore of the Studium, famous as a hymn-writer, a
liturgiologist, and a defender of the faith.

Such are the facts, briefly summarised, of the history of rather more
than a century in the East.  But we must examine more attentively the
meaning of the great strife which divided the Eastern Church.

[Sidenote: The orthodox doctrine of images.]

The orthodox doctrine, as it is now defined, is this--that "the icons
are likenesses engraved or painted in oil on wood or stone or any sort
of metal, of our Saviour Christ, of the Mother of God, and of the holy
men who from Adam have been well-pleasing to God.  From earliest times
the icons have been used not only to give internal dignity and beauty
to every Christian church and house, but, which is much more essential,
for the instruction and moral education of Christians.  For when any
Christian looks at the icons, he at once recalls the life and deeds of
those who are represented upon them, and desires to conform himself to
their example.  On this account also the Church decreed in early times
that due reverence should always be paid {157} by Christians to the
holy icons, which honour of course is not rendered to the picture
before our eyes, but to the original of the picture."  This statement
represents the views of the orthodox Eastern theologians of the eighth
as clearly as it does the teaching of the nineteenth century.  It
represents also the opinions of the popes contemporary with the
Iconoclastic movement, who withstood the emperors to the face.  Leo was
threatened by Gregory II., and the patriarch who had yielded to the
storm, Anastasius, was excommunicated.  The pope advocated, in clear
dogmatic language, the use of images for instruction of the ignorant
and encouragement of the faithful.  In Greece there was something like
a revolution, but it was sternly repressed.  [Sidenote: The acceptance
in the West.] In 731 a council, at which the archbishops of Ravenna and
Grado were present, and ninety-three other Italian prelates, with a
large representation of the laity, under Pope Gregory III., ordered
that if anyone should stand forth as "a destroyer, profaner, and
blasphemer against the veneration of the holy images, that is of Christ
and His sinless Mother, of the blessed Apostles and the Saints, he
should be excluded from the body and blood of Jesus Christ, and from
all the unity and fabric of the Church."  The answer to this, it would
seem, was the separation of the Illyrian territories and sees from the
Roman patriarchate, as well as the sees in Sicily and Calabria: the
pope's authority was restricted to the territory of the exarchate,
including Rome, Venice and Ravenna.  In Constantinople the resistance
of the people to the Iconoclastic decrees was met by a bitter
persecution, which Constantine V. began in 761.  Under {158} his father
Leo III. the virgin Theodosia was martyred, who is revered among the
most popular of the Saints in Constantinople to-day.  [Sidenote: The
Iconoclastic persecution.] The position of the people who clung to
their old ways of worship in the eighth century was indeed not unlike
that of those who to-day struggle on, always in dread of active
persecution, under the Muhammadan rule.  Muhammadanism, with its stern
suppression of all representation of things divine or human, was
believed to have been one of the suggesting forces which brought about
the Iconoclastic movement.  Leo III. had been brought into intimate
association with the Saracens; and it was said in his own day that he
had learned his fury against images from one of them.  The tale was a
fable, but it showed how entirely Leo's action was contrary to the
religious feeling of his time.

[Sidenote: Iconoclastic theology.]

It is difficult perhaps for a Western, or at least an Anglican, to-day
to form a just estimate of the strong feeling of the majority of the
Eastern Christians in favour of "image-worship."  It is easy to see how
the stern simplicity of the Muhammadan worship, which in all the
strength of the creed that carried its disciples in triumphant march
over continents and over ancient civilisations was present to the eyes
of the soldiers of Heraclius and Leo, appealed to all those who knew
the power and the need of stern self-restraint.  That Islam should seem
to be more spiritual than Christianity seemed irony indeed, but an
irony which seemed to have facts to prove it.  An age of superstition,
an age of credulous limits after the miraculous, an age when
materialism made rapid progress among {159} the courtiers of the great
city, was an age, it might well seem, which needed a protest against
"iconoduly," as the iconoclasts termed the custom of the Eastern
Church.  And if the controversy could have been kept away from the
field of pure theology it might well have been that an Iconoclastic
victory would not have been other than a benefit to religion.  Leo was
content to replace the crucifix by a cross.  But it is impossible to
sunder the symbol from the doctrine, and the Greeks would never rest
satisfied with a definition, still less with a practical change,
without probing to its inner meaning.  This feeling was expressed in
form philosophical and theological by one of the last of the great
Greek Fathers, S. John Damascene, and by the united voice of the Church
in the decision of the Seventh General Council.

[Sidenote: S. John Damascene.]

S. John of Damascus, who died about 760, was clear in his acceptance of
all the Councils of the Church, clear in his rejection of Monophysitism
and Monothelitism.  He described in clear precision the two natures in
one hypostasis, the two wills, human and Divine, with a wisdom and
knowledge related to each; but he was equally clear that the composite
personality involves a _communicatio idiomatum_ (_antidosis
idiômatôn_).  The human nature taken up into the Divine received the
glory of the Divinity: the Divine "imparts to the human nature of its
own glories, remaining itself impassible and without share in the
passions of humanity."  S. John Damascene taught then that our Lord's
humanity was so enriched by the Divine Word as to know the future,
though this knowledge was only manifested progressively as He increased
in age, and {160} that only for our sakes did He progressively manifest
His knowledge.  While he declared that each Nature in the Divine Person
had its will, he explained that the One Person directed both, and that
His Divine will was the determinant will.  It might well seem that in
his desire to avoid Nestorianism he did not attach so full a meaning to
our Lord's advance in human knowledge as did some of the earlier
Fathers.  But the practical bearing of S. John's writings was in direct
relation to the great controversy of his age, to which he devoted three
addresses in particular.  He defined the "worship" of the icons as all
based upon the worship of Christ, and attacked iconoclasm as involving
ultimately an assault upon the doctrine of the Incarnation.  On this
ground S. Theodore of the Studium and Nicephorus the patriarch of
Constantinople, who was driven from his see by the emperor, are at one
with S. John Damascene.

[Sidenote: S. Theodore of the Studium.]

Theodore of the Studium occupies a place in Greek thought which is,
perhaps, comparable to that of S. Anselm in the Latin Church.  If there
never was anything in the East exactly corresponding to the era of the
schoolmen in the West, if the theology of Byzantium throughout might
seem to be a scholasticism, but a scholasticism apart, still it would
not be untrue to describe S. Theodore as the last of the Greek Fathers.
He came at a time in Byzantine history when a great crisis was before
the Church and State, so closely conjoined in the Eastern Empire.  Born
in the last half of the eighth century, and dying on November 11th,
826, Theodore lived through the most vital period of the Iconoclastic
struggle, and he left, in his {161} theological and familiar writings,
the most important memorial of the orthodox position which he did so
much to render victorious.

Theodore of the Studium is a striking example of the influence of
environment, tradition, and _esprit de corps_.  His life is
inextricably bound up with the history, and his opinions were
indubitably formed to a very large extent by the influence, of the
great monastery of S. John Baptist of the Studium, founded towards the
close of the fourth century by Fl. Studius, a Roman patrician, the
remains of which still charm the traveller who penetrates through the
obscurest part of Constantinople to the quarter of Psamatia.  The house
was dedicated to S. John Baptist, and according to the Russian
traveller, Antony of Novgorod, it contained special relics of the
Precursor.  A later description shows the extreme beauty, seclusion,
severity of the place, surrounded by cypress trees and looking forth on
the great city which was mistress of the world.  Even to-day the
splendid columns which still remain and the impressive beauty of the
crypt make the church, though in an almost ruinous condition, a
striking object in Constantinople.  The monastery first became famous
as the home of the Akoimetai, or Sleepless Monks, (as they were called
from their hours of prayer,) when they withstood the heresies of the
later fifth century,[1] and fell themselves into error, but from the
date of the Fifth General Council to the outbreak of the Iconoclastic
controversy they remained in comparative obscurity.

The era of Iconoclasm, which did so much to devastate the East, and
which, by the emigration of some {162} 50,000 Christians, cleric and
lay, to Calabria, exercised so important an influence on the history of
Southern Italy, might have cast a fatal blight on the Church in
Constantinople had it not been for the stand made by the Monks of the
Studium.  [Sidenote: The Monks of the Studium and the Iconoclastic
Controversy.] The age of the Iconoclasts was the golden age of the
Studite monks.  Persecuted, expelled from their house by Constantine
Copronymus, they were restored at his death in 775, but had dwindled,
it seems, to the number of twelve.  A new era of power began for them
under their Archimandrite Sabbas, and this was increased by his
successor, Theodore, whose life covered the period of the greatest
theological importance in the history of Iconoclasm.  When the
patriarchal see was held for seven-and-twenty years by Iconoclasts,
Theodore upheld the spirits of his brethren, and even in exile
contrived to be their indefatigable leader and support.  His was never
a submissive, but always an active resistance to the imperial attempt
to dragoon the Church, and a typical audacity was the solemn procession
with all the monastery's icons, the monks singing the hymn "_Tên
achranton eikona sou proskunoumen_, _agathe_" which caused his
expulsion.  His exile produced a series of impressive letters in which,
with every vigour and cogency of argument of which a logical Greek was
capable, he exhorted, encouraged, and consoled those who, like himself,
remained steadfast to their faith.  The Studium gave, too, its actual
martyrs, James and Thaddeus, to the traditional belief; and Theodore in
exile, who would gladly have borne them company in their death,
commemorated their heroism and {163} implored their intercessions.
Theodore's whole life was one of resistance, active or passive, to the
attempt of the emperors to dictate the Church's Creed; and though he
did not live to see the conclusion of the conflict, its final result
was largely due to his persistent and strenuous efforts.  For a while
after his death there is silence over the history of the Studites,
till, in 844, we find them bringing back his body in solemn triumph
from the island of Prinkipo.  Till the middle of the ninth century they
remained a potent force; from that time up to the capture of
Constantinople by the Turks, if they retained their fame, their
activity was diminished.

[Sidenote: The rule of the Studium.]

Professor Marin[2] has collected interesting details from many sources
as to the rule of the house, its dress, liturgical customs, learning,
discipline.  The liturgy was said at six on days when the fast lasted
till nine, at three on other days; and the monks were expected to
communicate daily.  While the house was essentially a learned society,
a community of sacred scholars, Theodore stands out from its whole
annals as a great preacher, and no less for the charm of his personal
character.  It was he, fitly, who gave to the house that special Rule,
which stood in the same relation to the general customary observance by
Eastern monks of that somewhat vague series of laws known as "the Rule
of Basil," that the reform of Odo of Cluny stood to the work of S.
Benedict himself.  It was an eminently sensible codification of
floating custom in regard to monastic life.  All that Theodore did--and
this applies with special force to the sermons which he {164}
preached--seems to have been eminently practical, charitable, and sane.
There is an underlying force of the same kind in the argument of his
three _Antirrhetici_, in which he triumphantly vindicates the worship
of Christ in His Godhead and His manhood as being inseparable and
essential to the true knowledge of the faith as it is in Jesus.  There
can be no rivalry between icon and prototype: "The worship of the image
is worship of Christ, because the image is what it is in virtue of
likeness to Christ."

This was the point on which the orthodox met the theologians who
defended iconoclasm: the iconoclasts in seeking to destroy all images
were seen to strike at a vital truth of the Incarnation, the true
humanity of Jesus.  The theologians demanded the preservation and
worship,--reverence rather than worship in the modern English use of
the words,--of the icons as a security for the remembrance of the
Manhood of the Lord.  The worship was not _latreia_, which can be paid
to God alone, but _proskunêsis schetikê_.  Christ, said S. Theodore,
was in danger of losing the quality of being man if not seen and
worshipped in an image.

The long dispute ended, as we have said, after the accession of the
Empress Irene, who, unworthy though she was to have part in any great
religious movement, yet had always been attached to the traditional
opinions of the Greek people.  The monks of Constantinople had
exercised a steady influence during all the years of disturbance: and
they were to triumph.  [Sidenote: The Seventh General Council, 787.]
The Empress Irene replaced the patriarch Paul in 783 by her own
secretary Tarasius, and it was determined at once to reverse the
decrees that {165} had been passed at Constantinople in 754.  In 787
for the second time a council met at Nicaea, across the Sea of Marmora,
which became recognised as the Seventh General Council.  To it came
representatives of East and West, and the decision which was arrived at
was practically that of the whole Church.

The persecution of the orthodox was renewed for a time under Leo V.
(813-20), and it is said that more perished in his time than in that of
Constantine V.  Theophilus (829-42) was almost equally hostile.  It was
not till his widow Theodora assumed the reins of power in 842 as regent
for her son that the final triumph of orthodoxy was assured; and this
was followed by the five years' patriarchate of S. Methodius, a man of
peace and of wisdom.

To some the action of the emperors in attacking image worship has
seemed a serious attempt at social reform, an endeavour to raise the
standard of popular worship, and through that to affect the people
themselves intellectually, morally, and spiritually.  But history has
spoken conclusively of the violence with which the attempt was made,
and theology has decisively pronounced against its dogmatic assertions.

The long controversy is important in the history of the Church because
it so clearly expresses the character of the Eastern Church, so
decisively demonstrates its intense devotion to the past, and so
expressively illustrates the close attachment, the abiding influence,
of the people and the monks, as the dominant factor in the development
of theology and religious life.



[1] See above, pp. 8, 14.

[2] _De Studio Coenobio Constantinopolitano_, Paris, 1897.



{166}

CHAPTER XV

LEARNING AND MONASTICISM

Something has been said in earlier chapters of the relation of several
great Churchmen towards education, towards the ancient classics, and
towards the studies of their own times.  Something has been said, too,
in the last chapter, of Greek monastic life.  The period which begins
with the eighth century deserves a longer mention, inadequate though it
be; for there was over a great part of Europe in the days of Charles
the Great a veritable literary renaissance which broke upon the long
period which men have called the dark ages with a ray of light.

[Sidenote: Learning at the court of Charles the Great.]

Charles the Great had all the interests of a scholar.  He knew Latin
well and Greek passably.  He delighted to listen to the deeds of the
past, or to theological treatises, when he dined, after the fashion of
monks.  His interest in learning centred in his interest in the
teaching and services of the Church.  Most reverently, we are told by
his biographer, and with the utmost piety did he cultivate the
Christian religion with which he had been imbued from his infancy.  He
was a constant church-goer, a regular worshipper at the mass.  Near to
his religious interest was his interest in education.  A famous letter
of his to the abbats of monasteries {167} throughout the Empire,
written in 787, is a salient example of the close connection between
learning and monasticism in his day.  He urged that "letters" should be
studied, students selected and taught, that all the clergy should teach
children freely, and that every monastery and cathedral church should
have a theological school.  "Although right doing is better than right
speaking," he wrote, "yet must the knowledge of what is right go before
the doing of it."

What he tried to do throughout his empire was a reflection of what he
did in his own court.  He delighted to surround himself at Aachen with
learned men.  Most notable among them were Paul the Deacon, the
historian of the Lombards, and Alcuin the Northumbrian whom he had met
in Italy and whom he made prominent among his counsellors.

Charles, says Einhard, spent much time and labour in learning from
Alcuin, and that not only in religion, but "in rhetoric and dialectic
and especially astronomy"; and he "carefully reformed the manner of
reading and singing; for he was thoroughly instructed in both, though
he never read publicly himself, nor sang except in a low voice, and
with the rest of the congregation."

[Sidenote: Alcuin of Northumbria.]

Alcuin connects the learning of England with the revival on the
Continent.  He had been trained in the school at York by Archbishop
Egbert, who was himself a pupil of Bede.  He had studied the ancient
classics in Greek as well as Latin and knew at least a little of
Hebrew.  The library at York is known to have contained books in all
those languages, and Aristotle was among them.  Vergil, he said, when
he was a boy he cared more for [Transcriber's note: a line appears to
be missing here] than the vigils of the Church and the chanting of the
{168} psalms.  About 782 he took charge of the schools which Charles
had founded at his court, and he became a very close friend and trusted
adviser of the emperor himself.  With him (but for a short return to
England) he lived till in 796 he had leave to retire to Tours, where he
was abbat of the great monastery of S. Martin, and where he died in
804.  He was a great teacher; a writer of books of education and books
of Church practice, of lives of the saints, of hymns, epigrams,
prayers, controversial tracts; a compiler of summaries of patristic
teaching; a leader in the reform of monastic houses.  Among the many
notable points in his career, as illustrating the life of learned
churchmen of his age, are two especially to be observed.  The first is
his "humanism."  He was a scholar of an ancient type; and the society
in which he lived delighted to believe itself classical as well as
Christian.  In a contemporary description of the life at Charles's
court Alcuin is called "Flaccus" and is described as "the glory of our
bards, mighty to shout forth his songs, keeping time with his lyric
foot, moreover a powerful sophist, able to prove pious doctrines out of
Holy Scripture, and in genial jest to propose or solve puzzles of
arithmetic."  As a theologian he was most famous for his books against
Felix of Urgel and Elipandus of Toledo, on the subject of the
Adoptianist heresy (see above, ch. vi), and there is no doubt that his
was an important influence in the Council of Frankfort which condemned
them.  The second is his attitude towards the monastic life.  He
admired the monastic life, but he had not been trained as a strict
Benedictine, indeed he was probably no more than a secular in deacon's
orders.  He held abbeys as their superior, just as many {169} laymen
did; but he never seems to have been inclined to take upon him any
strict rule.  His example shows how natural was the next step in
monastic history which is associated with the abbey of Cluny.

[Sidenote: The schools of Europe.]

In Alcuin England was linked to the wider world of Christendom.  This
has been summarily expressed by a great English historian thus: "The
schools of Northumbria had gathered in the harvest of Irish learning,
of the Franco-Gallican schools still subsisting and preserving a
remnant of classical character in the sixth century, and of Rome,
itself now barbarised.  Bede had received instruction from the
disciples of Chad and Cuthbert in the Irish studies of the Scriptures,
from Wilfrid and Acca in the French and Roman learning, and from
Benedict Biscop and Albinus in the combined and organised discipline of
Theodore.  By his influence with Egbert, the school of York was
founded, and in it was centred nearly all the wisdom of the West, and
its great pupil was Alcuin.  Whilst learning had been growing in
Northumbria, it had been declining on the Continent; in the latter days
of Alcuin, the decline of English learning began in consequence of the
internal dissensions of the kings, and the early ravages of the
Northmen.  Just at the same time the Continent was gaining peace and
organisation under Charles.  Alcuin carried the learning which would
have perished in England into France and Germany, where it was
maintained whilst England relapsed into the state of ignorance from
which it was delivered by Alfred.  Alcuin was rather a man of learning
and action than of genius and contemplation like Bede, but his power of
organisation and of teaching was great, and his services {170} to
religion and literature in Europe, based indeed on the foundation of
Bede, were more widely extended and in themselves inestimable." [1]

[Sidenote: John Scotus.]

Side by side with the career of Alcuin, of which much is known, may be
placed that of another scholar who was at least equally influential,
but of whose life little is known.  John the Scot, whose thought
exercised a profound influence on the ages after his death, was one of
the Irish scholars whom the famous schools of that island produced as
late as the ninth century.  He became attached to the court of Charles
the Bald, as Alcuin had been to that of Charles the Great.  He became
like Alcuin a prominent defender of the faith, being invited by
Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, to answer the monk Gottschalk's
exaggerated doctrine of predestination, which went much farther than S.
Augustine, and might be described as Calvinist before Calvin; but his
arguments were also considered unsound, and his opinions were condemned
in later synods.  The argument that, evil being the negation of good,
God could not know it, for with Him to know is to cause, was certainly
weak if not formally heretical, and his subtleties seemed to the
theologians of his time to be merely ineptitudes.  He was also, it is
at least probable, engaged in the controversy on the doctrine of the
Holy Eucharist which began about this time, originating in the treatise
of Paschasius Radbertus, _de Sacramento Corporis et Sanguinis Christi_.
In 1050 a treatise bearing John the Scot's name was condemned; but it
seems that this was really written by Ratramnus of Corbie.  The view of
Radbert was that which was {171} afterwards formalised into
Transubstantiation.  The view attributed to John was a clear denial of
any materialising doctrine of the Sacrament.  Later writers say that
John returned to England, taught in the abbey school at Malmesbury, the
famous school originated by Irish monks and illustrated by the fame of
S. Aldhelm, and there died.  His chief work was the _de Divisione
Naturae_, in which he seems to anticipate much later philosophic
argument (notably that of S. Anselm and Descartes as to the existence
of God) and to have been the precursor if not the founder of Nominalism.

With John the Scot it is clear that both the old literature and
philosophy survived and were fruitful and that new interests, which
would carry theology into further developments, were arising.  A
revival of learning was naturally the growth of the monastic system;
but that system was itself far from secure at the time of which we
speak.

[Sidenote: The Benedictine rule.]

The Benedictine rule did not win its way over Europe without some
checks; nor was it always able to retain its hold in an age of general
disorder.  Much depended upon the abbat in each particular house.  In
Gaul, the rule of S. Columban had made him absolute.  But such a
submission was never accepted in central and southern Gaul.  From the
end of the sixth century it is clear that monasticism was beginning to
slacken its devotion.  The history of the monastery of S. Radegund as
given by Gregory of Tours shows this; so does the letter of Gregory the
Great to Brunichild.  Nor did the milder rule of S. Benedict long
remain unaltered in practice.

A new revival is connected with the names of Odo and Cluny.

{172}

[Sidenote: The decay of monasticism in the ninth century.]

Saint Odo emerges from an age in which the most striking feature was
the reassertion of the imperial power and the imperial idea.  The ninth
century, as it began, witnessed a remarkable revival, the revival of a
decayed and dormant institution--the Roman Empire--in whose ashes there
had yet survived the fire which had inspired the rulers of the world in
the past.  The great idea of imperialism was reborn in the person of a
man of extraordinary physical and mental power, a sovereign who, while
he had not a little of the weaknesses of his age, had also in a
remarkable degree centred in himself its highest philosophic
aspirations.  The early ninth century is dominated by the figure of
Charles the Great.  The result was inevitable.  Lay power, lay
over-lordship or supremacy, extends everywhere, intrudes into the
recesses of monastic life, and dictates even in things purely
spiritual.  And as the new tide of barbarian invasion, Saracen or
Norman, sweeps on in Spain or Gaul, the Church, for very physical
needs, seeks refuge under the protection of lay barons, princes, and
kings.  Feudalism is rising.  The monastic houses fall often under the
arrogant rule of lay abbats.  And the popes, not rarely a prey
themselves to the vices of the age, sink into impotence and become
enmeshed in worldly, often shameful, intrigue and disorder.  The canons
of Church councils show that it was below as it was above.  Secularity
was general, vice was far from rare.

The Divine spirit and the past history of Christianity made it certain
that a revival of life must come.  The dry bones would feel the breath
and would live {173} again.  [Sidenote: S. Odo.] On the borders of the
lands of Maine and Anjou was born in 879, of a line of feudal barons,
Odo, the regenerator of monasticism, the ultimate reviver of the
papacy, the spiritual progenitor of Hildebrand himself.  Promised to
God at his birth, he was long held back by his father for knighthood
and the life of a warrior such as he himself had led; a grievous
sickness gave him, on his recovery, to the monastic life.  The disciple
alike of S. Martin and S. Benedict, he took inspiration from them to
revive the strict monastic rule.  From a canon he became a monk, after
a noviciate at Baume, the foundation of Columban in the wild and
beautiful valley between the Seille and the Dard, in the diocese of
Besançon.  For a time he tasted the life of the anchorite and the
coenobite.  Then he passed to the abbey of Cluny, founded in 910 by
William of Aquitaine in the mountains above the valley of the Grosne,
and ruled till 927 by Berno, who came himself from Baume.  On his death
Odo became abbat; and to him the great development of the revival of
strict monasticism is due.

[Sidenote: Cluny.]

Cluny became the type of the exempted abbeys, and the highest
representative of the monastic privileges.  It embodied in itself the
best expression of the resistance to feudalism; it became the most
powerful support of the papacy and of the much-needed movement for the
reform of the Church.  The first necessity of the new monasticism was
an absolute independence of the lay power.  Thus the founder attached
it from the first to the Roman Church, and gave up all his own rights
of property.  Its situation, in the heart of Burgundy, {174} removed it
from the power of the king.  Charles the Simple permitted its
foundation, Louis d'Outremer confirmed its privileges.  When Urban II.,
a militant Cluniac, became pope the interests of Cluny and Rome were
more than ever identified.  The monks elected their abbat without
exterior interference.  To prevent this becoming an abuse, the first
abbats always proposed their coadjutors as their successors.  Thus it
was with Berno(910-27), Odo (927-48), Maieul (948-94), Odilo
(990-1049).  After that there arose the custom of appointing the grand
prior as successor--as in the case of S. Hugh (1049-1109).  From the
confirmation of its foundation in 931 by John XI. Cluny received the
greatest favours at the hands of the papacy, its abbats being created
archabbots with episcopal insignia; and it was made entirely
independent of the bishops.

[Sidenote: The rule of Cluny.]

Cluny soon attracted attention, wealth, and followers.  Corrupt old
communities or new foundations sought the guidance or protection of its
abbats.  When each monastery was independent and isolated it was
impossible to reform a lax community, or for it to defend itself from
feudal violence and the hostility of the secular clergy.  Odo, the
saint who saw these evils, therefore started what soon became the
Congregation of Cluny.  The daughter-houses were regarded not as
independent, but as parts of Cluny.  There was only one abbat, the
arch-abbat of Cluny, who was the head of all.  Necessary local control
was exercised by the prior, responsible to and nominated by the abbat.
Some houses resisted annexation to Cluny, such as S. Martial at
Limoges, which kept up the contest from 1063 to 1240.  Contact {175}
between the abbey and its dependencies was preserved by visitation of
the abbat; and the dependent houses sent representatives to periodical
chapters, which met at Cluny under the abbat.  In the eleventh century
these were merely consultative, but in the thirteenth they had become
political, administrative, and judicial, even subjecting the abbat to
their control.  The rule of S. Benedict was followed in the abbey and
its dependencies.  The monks did some manual labour, but devoted
themselves chiefly to religious exercises, to teaching the young, to
hospitality and almsgiving.

But the Cluniacs, protected by the papacy, and enriched by the
offerings of the faithful all over Europe, taught an extreme doctrine
as to the power of the Holy See.  Their ideal was the absolute
separation of Church from State, the reorganisation of the Church under
a general discipline such as could be exercised only by the pope.  He,
in their ideal, was to stand towards the whole world as the Cluniac
abbat stood towards each Cluniac priory, the one ultimate source of
jurisdiction, the Universal Bishop, appointing and degrading the
diocesan bishops as the abbat made and unmade the priors.

How much of all this did the great Odo plan?  Not very much.  But it
was his work to revive the discipline, the holiness, the
self-sacrifice, which, through the reformed monasteries, should touch
the whole Church.

And thus monasticism at the beginning of the eleventh century was a
wholly new force in the life of Christendom.  It was destined to reform
the papacy itself.



[1] Bp. Stubbs in _Dict. of Christian Biography_, vol. i. p. 74.



{176}

CHAPTER XVI

SACRAMENTS AND LITURGIES

[Sidenote: Baptism.]

In the centuries with which we deal the importance of Baptism cannot be
overrated.  It was everywhere, in all the missions of the Church,
regarded as the critical point of the individual life and the
indispensable means of entrance to the Christian Church.  When the
children of Sebert the king of the East Saxons wished to have all the
privileges of Christians, which their father had had, and "a share in
the white bread" though they were still heathen, Mellitus the bishop
answered, "If you will be washed in that font of salvation in which
your father was washed, then you may also partake of the holy bread of
which he used to partake: but if you despise the laver of life you
cannot possibly receive the bread of life"; and he was driven from the
kingdom because he would not yield an inch.  The tale however shows
also that there were still on the fringe of Christianity persons who
were not baptized, not catechumens, yet still interested in the
religion and to some extent anxious to be sharers in its life.
Throughout the early history of Gaulish Christianity the same is to be
observed, and it is doubtless the reason why a number of semi-pagan
customs still survived among those who were nominally Christians, {177}
as well as those who still stood outside the Church.  Baptism in the
case of many was a critical point in the history of a tribe or nation.
The baptism of Chlodowech was the greatest historical event in the
history of the Franks: it was of critical importance that the Franks,
with him, accepted orthodox Christianity, that he, robed in the white
vesture which West and East alike considered meet, and which was
sometimes worn for the octave after baptism, confessed his faith in the
Blessed Trinity, was baptized in the name of Father, Son and Holy
Ghost, and was anointed with the holy chrism and signed with the sign
of the cross.  Baptism not only admitted into the Christian Church, but
was invested with the associations of the human family, and thus had
transferred to it some of the conditions in which students of
anthropology find such interesting survivals, of primitive ideas.  The
conception of spiritual relationship was endowed with the results which
belonged to natural kinship.  The sponsors became spiritual parents.
The code of Justinian forbade the marriage of a godchild and godparent,
because "nothing can so much call out fatherly affection and the just
prohibition of marriage as a bond of this kind, by means of which,
through the action of God, their souls are united to one another."
This led to the growth of as elaborate a scheme of spiritual
relationships as that which already hedged round among many tribes the
eligibility for marriage among persons even remotely akin to one
another.  In the East, as in the West, baptism was most frequently
conferred at the time of the great Christian festivals, Christmas (as
in the case of Chlodowech), Epiphany, and especially Easter; and Easter
Eve became, later {178} on, especially consecrated to the sacred rite.
In the East baptism was often postponed till the infant was two years
old; and everywhere there was for long a tendency even among Christian
parents to hold back children from the laver of regeneration for fear
of the consequences of post-baptismal sin.  It was thus that a name was
often given, and a child received into the Church, some weeks or even
months before the baptism took place.  The Greek Syntagma of the
seventh century contains interesting information as to the baptism of
heretics.  It is ordered that Sabellians, Montanists, Manichaeans,
Valentianists and such like shall be baptized just as pagans are, after
instruction and examination in the faith, and, after insufflation, by
triple immersion.

[Sidenote: Confirmation.]

Throughout these centuries baptism was not separated from Confirmation,
except in the case of some converts from heresy.  The two rites were
regarded as parts of the same sacrament, or at least the former was not
considered complete without the latter.  The sacramental life of the
individual in fact was to begin with his entrance into the Church and
never to be intermitted.  Even infants were present throughout the
celebration of the sacred mysteries and partook of the Communion, a
custom which was only abandoned in the West because of the difficulty
of frequent giving of Confirmation and the consequent delay of that
rite till later years.

[Sidenote: The Holy Communion.]

Baptism and Confirmation was the gate by which the Christian was
admitted to the Sacrament of the Lord's Body and Blood.  The
celebration of that Sacrament was the chief act of the Church's worship
every Sunday and holy day, and in {179} Spain, Africa, Antioch, daily,
in Rome every day except Friday and Saturday, in Alexandria except on
Thursday and Friday: indeed by the end of the sixth century it seems
probable that in most parts of the Church a daily celebration was
usual.  From the seventh century the mass of the presanctified, when
the priest communicated from elements previously consecrated, is found
in use on certain days, and in the East throughout except on Saturdays
and Sundays.  [Sidenote: Frequent Communion.] It seems clear that at
least up to the sixth century it was usual for all who were confirmed
to communicate whenever they were present, unless they were under
penance; but the custom of noncommunicating attendance was growing up.
In the East a spiritual writer said, "it is not rare or frequent
communion which matters, but to make a good communion with a prepared
conscience"; while in the West Bede's letter to Archbishop Egbert of
York supplies an excellent illustration of custom.  [Sidenote: Bede.]
The people are to be told, he advises, "how salutary it is for all
classes of Christians to participate daily in the body and blood of our
Lord, as you know well is done by Christ's Church throughout Italy,
Gaul, Africa, Greece, and all the countries of the East.  Now, this
kind of religion and heavenly devotion, through the neglect of our
teachers, has been so long discontinued among almost all the laity of
our province, that those who seem to be most religious among them
communicate in the holy mysteries only on the Day of our Lord's birth,
the Epiphany, and Easter, whilst there are innumerable boys and girls,
of innocent and chaste life, as well as young men and women, old men
and old women, who without any scruple {180} or debate are able to
communicate in the holy mysteries on every Lord's Day, nay, on all the
birthdays of the holy Apostles and martyrs, as you have yourself seen
done in the holy Roman and Apostolic Church."  It would seem from this
that frequent communion was inculcated by the first missionaries to
England in the sixth century.  Bede tells also how in his day two
Anglian priests went on a mission to the heathen Saxons, and, while
waiting for the decision of the "satrap," "devoted themselves to prayer
and psalm-singing, and daily offered to God the sacrifice of the Saving
Victim, having with them sacred vessels and a hallowed table to serve
as an altar."

[Sidenote: Fasting Communion.]

The Sacrament was received in both kinds and fasting, and the priest
was forbidden to celebrate after taking any food; some exception to
this rule may be inferred from a canon of the Second Council of Mâcon
in 585 enforcing it, and the ecclesiastical historian Socrates (whose
History extends from 306 to 439) states that some in Egypt did not
receive "as the custom is among Christians," but after a meal.  The
presence of the Lord in the Eucharist was recognised and adored.
[Sidenote: The doctrine of the Sacrifice.] S. Anastasius of Sinai,
probably of the sixth century, writes: "After the bloodless sacrifice
has been consecrated, the priest lifts up the bread of life, and shows
it to all."  The Eucharist is continually spoken of as the holy
Sacrifice, the offering of the Saving Victim, the Celestial Oblation;
and it was offered, as the writings of Gregory the Great show, in
special intercession for the dead as well as the living.  From the
beginning of the fifth century it seems to have been, at least
occasionally, {181} reserved in church as well as sent to the sick in
their own houses.

[Sidenote: The Roman mass.]

During the fifth and sixth centuries it would seem that the Roman mass,
the rite which has slowly superseded the local forms of service in most
parts of Europe, was undergoing the modifications which brought it to
the stereotyped form it now has.  The severe, terse, practical nature
of the liturgy, in words, ritual, ceremonial, which is so
characteristic of the Roman nature, was being altered by the admixture
of other elements.  This was especially the case, it is said, in France
and Germany, during the ninth century.  Earlier changes had been made
by Gregory the Great, partly from Eastern sources.  [Sidenote: The
fifth century.] At the middle of the fifth century the rite, in words
and action alike, was a simple one.  The choir sang an introit, the
priest a collect, epistle and gospel were read, and a psalm was sung:
the gifts were offered, the prayer or "preface" of the day was followed
by the Sanctus, as in the East, and then came the Canon or actual
Consecration.  After this was the Lord's Prayer, communion of priests,
clergy and people, a psalm and a collect and the end.  The ceremonial
was equally simple, and was connected almost exclusively with the
entrance of the celebrant and his ministers, at which incense was used,
and with the reading of the gospel, where also lights and incense were
prominent.  All else was simple and of dignified reticence.  "Mystery
never flourished in the clear Roman atmosphere, and symbolism was no
product of the Roman religious mind.  Christian symbolism is not of
pure Roman birth, not a native product of the {182} Roman spirit." [1]
This reticent character is most clearly found in the Gregorian missal,
which has been believed to represent the period of Gregory the Great.
More probably the assertion of John the Deacon that Gregory revised the
Gelasian Sacramentary is an error, and what is called the Gregorian
Sacramentary is simply the book which was sent by Pope Hadrian I. to
Charles I. between 784 and 791.  But that S. Gregory did make certain
alterations is certain.  They were three in the Liturgy, two in the
ceremonial of the mass.  The Alleluia was ordered to be more frequently
chanted than before; and we find it used outside the Easter season
almost immediately after this by S. Augustine in England.  He added
words to the "Hanc igitur" in the Canon of the mass, praying for peace
and inclusion in the number of the elect.  He inserted the Lord's
Prayer immediately after the Canon.  He also forbade the deacons to
sing any of the mass except the gospel and the subdeacons to wear
chasubles at the altar.

[Sidenote: The eighth century.]

It is thought that the great change, which made the Roman mass into the
elaborate rite it became, is due to the influence, at the end of the
eighth century, of Charles the Great, who with the determination of a
ruler and the interest of a liturgiologist made one rite to be observed
throughout his dominions, but enriched the Gregorian book with details
and ceremonies derived from uses already common in France.  The study
of liturgies became common in the ninth century, and in Gaul additions
were made to the book sent by Pope Hadrian {183} to Charles the Great,
which were finally accepted throughout the greater part of Italy, the
Ambrosian rite in the province of Milan remaining different throughout
the changes.

It is natural that English readers should desire to know more
particularly of the first English Christian worship.  How did the
Church's worship first begin in our own land?

[Sidenote: The rites of the Western isles.]

No doubt the Christians who received conversion during the Roman
occupation of Britain, and those of Ireland who were won by the
preaching of S. Patrick, worshipped according to the same rite as the
churches of Spain or the churches of Gaul, following that use which
survived in Spain generally till the eleventh century and in Gaul till
the ninth.  Gildas, who wrote during the stress of the conquest of the
Christian Brythons by the heathen English, mentions one custom which
undoubtedly was Gallican, and which is preserved in the Gelasian
Sacramentary and the _Missale Francorum_, the one a Roman collection
which contains Gallican uses, the other a Gallican rite.  It is that of
anointing the hands of priests, and perhaps deacons, in ordination, and
the custom was kept up after the conversion of the English, at least in
some parts of England in the tenth and eleventh centuries.  But the
influence of the British Church was slight.  It is of more interest to
us to know what was the first worship offered in this land by those who
were to convert our own forefathers.

Bede tells us how first Augustine prayed when he came before the
heathen king of Kent.  Some days after their landing Aethelbert
received the monks from {184} Rome.  [Sidenote: S. Augustine in Kent.]
They had tarried, it seems probable, under the walls of the old Roman
fortress of Richborough.  They had waited, in prayer and patience, for
the beginning of their Mission.  It was on prayer that they still
depended when they were summoned before the king.  On a ridge of rocks
overlooking the sea sat Aethelbert and his gesiths, and watched the
band of some forty men draw near.  Slowly they came, and the strange
sound of the Church's music was wafted to the ears of the heathen
company as they drew near.  Before them was borne a tall silver cross,
and a banner which displayed the pictured image of the Saviour Lord,

  The Cross preceding Him who floats in air,
  The pictured Saviour.


S. Gregory, the great pope who had sent the mission, who had himself
long dwelt at the court of the emperors in Constantinople, had learnt
the value of _icons_, of sacred pictures, as texts for an appeal, or as
stimulants to devotion.  Those who cannot read, he said, should be
taught by pictures, but pictures are valuable only because they point
to Him whom we adore as incarnate, crucified, sitting at the right hand
of God.  As they came, they sang, and Bede says: "they sang litanies,
entreating the Lord for their own salvation and that of those for whom
and to whom they came."  The litany ended when they came to the king,
and then Augustine preached the word.  He declared, says an old English
writer of later days, "how the merciful Saviour with His own sufferings
redeemed their guilty world, and opened an entrance into the kingdom of
heaven to all faithful men."

The king bade them deliver their message, and they {185} sat--for it
was no formal sermon, but rather, as we should say, a meditation on the
things of God--and "preached the word of life to him and all his
gesiths who were present."  Bede tells us the answer of the grave
thoughtful Aethelbert--"They are certainly beautiful words and promises
that you bring; but because they are new and unproved, I cannot give my
assent to them and give up those things which I with all the English
race have so long observed.  But since you are strangers and have come
a long way, so that--as I think I can see clearly--you might impart to
us that which you believe to be true and most good, I do not wish you
any harm, but rather will treat you kindly and see that you have all
you need, and we will not hinder you from bringing over to the faith of
your own religion all of our people that you can win."  And so he gave
them lodging in his own city, the metropolis, as Bede, as it were by
prophecy, calls it, of Canterbury.  [Sidenote: The litanies.] Towards
Canterbury they went, still with litany and procession, and thus, Bede
tells us, it is said they sang--still carrying the holy cross and the
picture of the great King, our Lord Jesus Christ.--

"We beseech Thee, O Lord, according to all Thy mercy, that Thy wrath
and Thine anger may be turned away from this city, and from Thy holy
house; for we have sinned.  Alleluia."

A tradition that lasted down to Bede's own day thus handed down their
words.  There is great interest in this picture of Christian worship in
the heathen land, our own, that was to be won for Christ.  It
illustrates the worship of the land the missionaries came from, as well
as serves as a pattern for the worship which the {186} English, under
Augustine's guidance, should follow.  What was this litany?  Litanies
at Rome were regulated by S. Gregory himself, and he was very likely
only revising and setting in order a form of service already well
known.  But this very litany S. Augustine and his companions had most
likely heard during their passage through Gaul.  There the Rogation
litanies had been over a hundred years in use; and these words form
part of a Rogation litany used long after in Vienne, through which
doubtless Augustine travelled.  Thus the missionaries were using a part
of the Gallican service-books, and not of the Roman; and the legation
procession, which lasted so long in England, which still lingers in
some places in the form of "beating the bounds," and which in late
years has been here and there revived among us, comes to us with
Augustine from Gaul, and not from Rome, where it was not yet in use.
"Alleluia!" too, a strange ending to a penitential litany in modern
ears, was the close of Gallican litanies at Rogationtide, as later in
Christian England itself, and its use outside the Easter season was
especially authorised by Gregory the Great.  And if Augustine's own
first public prayers were Gallican, so most probably was the use of the
chapel of the Kentish Queen Bercta, who was daughter of the West
Frankish king, and who had with her a Frankish bishop, Liudhard.  But
his own use would be the Roman, just as his own manner of chanting,
long preserved at Canterbury, was after the manner of the Romans.  And
thus, with the strong sense of unity natural to a man trained in the
school of the great Gregory, Augustine was startled at the contrast of
customs when it came to him in practical guise.  Why, {187} the faith
being one, are there the different customs of different churches, and
one manner of masses in the holy Roman church, another in that of the
Gauls?  So he asked the great teacher who had sent him.  A wise answer
came from the wise pope, disclaiming all peculiar authority or special
sanctity for the use of Rome.  "Things are not to be loved for the sake
of places, but places for the sake of things."  "Select, then," he
advises, "from many churches, whatever you have found in Gaul, or in
Rome, or in any other church, that is good; make a rite for the new
church of the English, such as you think pious and best."

[Sidenote: English uses.]

All this, when Augustine's position is remembered, will be seen to show
how far Rome then was from arrogating to herself any strange supremacy
such as later days have brought.  The first primate of the English was
allowed freedom to make an English rite.  But, on the other hand, we
have no evidence that he did so.  He preferred, we have every reason to
believe, the Roman rite, with only here and there a few changes or
additions.  The Council of Clovesho, presided over by Cuthbert,
Archbishop of Canterbury, in 747, followed in his steps, taking in
regard to rites "the model which we have in writing from the Roman
Church."  But none the less later English service-books show very
considerable Gallican influence.  Celtic missionaries, and the
connection four centuries later with Gaul and Burgundy, left traces in
the way in which the service was performed; and England, up to the
Reformation, like all other countries indeed, had some distinct customs
of its own.  Throughout the long history of conversion which spreads
over the whole island, it is noteworthy {188} that preaching and the
singing of litanies, as at the first coming of Augustine, are
conspicuous in the methods of the saints who won England to Christ.

[Sidenote: The Eucharist in the sixth century.]

What then was the service of the Holy Communion, as S. Augustine
celebrated it, and our English forefathers first came to know it?  If,
as we suppose, it was the Roman, it would proceed thus.  First an
antiphon, which came to be called an introit, or psalm of entrance,
with a verse having special reference to the lesson of the day or
season, was sung, as the priest, wearing a long white surplice or alb
and a chasuble (the robe worn alike by lay and by clerical officials),
entered with two deacons, wearing probably similar garments.  In the
Gallican rite, as in the eastern, there followed the singing of the
"Trisagion": and in both Gallican and Roman the "Kyrie Eleeson," as in
our own office to-day, though we now add to it a special prayer for
grace to keep the Commandments.  Then in the Roman rite was sung the
"Gloria in Excelsis," while in the Gallican the "Benedictus" took its
place.  This was introductory.  Now came the collect, the prayer when
all the people were gathered together.  Then the Lesson from the Old
Testament, the Epistle, and the Gospel.  Between the Old Testament
Lesson and the Epistle was sung the "Gradual," a psalm sung from the
steps of the ambo or pulpit, but gradually the use of Rome was followed
all over Europe, and the Old Testament reading was omitted altogether.
After the Epistle was sung "Alleluia" or the psalm called the Tract.
Then the Gospel was sung, introduced with special solemnity.  The
deacon mounted the pulpit, seven candles being carried before him, and
the choir {189} chanting "Glory be to Thee, O Lord."  After the deacon
had read the Gospel, a sermon was generally preached, but the Creed was
at this time not said.  A short common prayer followed (in the Gallican
rite a litany), and then the mass of the catechumens was over, and
those who were unbaptized or unworthy to remain at that time for the
consecration departed from the church, a custom which has survived in
England under changed conditions.

Then, when the faithful only remained, the offertory was sung, and the
bread and wine and water were offered (the ceremonial was different and
much longer in the Gallican rite, and included the kiss of peace).  S.
Augustine, if he followed the Roman use, would offer the bread and wine
himself, with the laity assisting: the Gallican use was to prepare the
elements beforehand, and now bring them into church in procession.  The
priest then washed his hands and said privately a collect, while in the
Gallican rite he read from the diptychs, or tablets of the church, the
names of those departed who were to be especially commemorated.

Then followed the prayer called the Preface, and the singing of "Holy,
Holy, Holy."  After this, in the Gallican rite, came a special prayer,
and then, as still in the Mozarabic, followed the recital of our Lord's
institution of the Sacrament, as in the English Prayer-book now; but
the Roman rite had also prayers for the Church, for the living and
dead, and both united in the prayer (called _paraklesis_) that the
elements might receive consecration from God, which was the
consecration itself until much later.  Then the dead and living were
again prayed for, and the fruits of the earth were dedicated by prayer.

{190}

The Lord's Prayer, by the order of S. Gregory himself, concluded this
part of the service, which came to be known as the Canon, the
invariable part of the Mass.  In the Roman rite the kiss of peace
followed, the faithful kissing each other according to the ancient
custom.  Then the priest broke the bread, and said the Lord's Prayer
alone till the last clause.  Then he placed a piece of the bread in the
cup, and received the Sacrament himself, afterwards giving it in one
kind to the clergy and laity, while the deacon followed with the
chalice.  Before the Communion it was a custom taken from Gaul, which
lasted in England up to the Reformation, that the Bishop, if present,
should bless the people.  A hymn was sung during the communion of the
people; the ancient "Draw nigh and take the Body of the Lord" remains
still to us from a Celtic source for use at this time.  The service
ended with a "Let us pray" and collect after Communion, closely
followed by the second of the alternative post-communion prayers now in
our English office.  Immediately after this prayer the deacon said
"Ite, missa est" ("Go: it is the dismissal").

In the English services to-day, while much is changed, and the language
is our own, we can still trace very much that has been used
continuously since the day when S. Augustine first said the whole
office of the Church on British soil.

Much more might be said; but this may suffice to illustrate the
interest and importance which belong to sacraments and liturgical rites
in the ages of which we speak.



[1] Edmund Bishop, "The Genesis of the Roman Rite," in _Essays on
Ceremonial_, 1904.



{191}

CHAPTER XVII

THE END OF THE DARK AGE

[Sidenote: The end of the age.]

As we draw to the close of the long period which, through the
conversion of the barbarian races and the growth of a central power in
the Church at Rome, so profoundly influenced the future of the world,
we are met by some outstanding facts which mark an epoch of crisis and
of reformation.  They are--the widening breach in matters religious, as
earlier in matters political, between East and West; the influences
which served to strengthen the theory of the papal monarchy even at the
time of its greatest practical weakness; and the strength of the Empire
under the Saxon Ottos as a power to unite Western Europe and to reform
the Western Church.

[Sidenote: The papacy of Nicolas I., 858-67.]

Nicolas, who was elected in 858, was a great pope.  He asserted the
moral force of Christianity in a way in which his predecessors very
frequently followed him, by vindicating the indissolubility of the
marriage tie.  Chlothochar, King of Lotharingia, separated from his
wife Theudberga, bringing against her foul charges, which a council of
clergy at Aachen accepted.  Nicolas intervened: again and again he
endeavoured to control the Frankish clergy and rescind the divorce; but
it was {192} only in 863 by a council at Rome, where the archbishops of
Cologne and Trier were present, that he was able to proceed to
extremities.  He excommunicated those two prelates, and deposed them
with all those who had assisted them: he warned Hincmar of Rheims of
what he had done.  The emperor Louis, Chlothochar's brother, marched on
Rome and captured the city; but there, through illness it appears, he
completely submitted to the pope.  Nicolas enforced his decision on the
Frankish king, the Frankish bishops, on Hincmar, the great archbishop
of Rheims himself.  In a letter he developed the theory that the Empire
owed its confirmation to the authority of the Apostolic See, and that
the sword was conferred on the emperor by the pope, the vicar of S.
Peter.  Truly it was said of this pope by one who wrote a century after
his death, "Since the days of Gregory to our own sat no prelate on the
throne of S. Peter to be compared to Nicolas.  He tamed kings and
tyrants and ruled the world like a monarch: to holy bishops he was mild
and gentle: to the wicked and unconverted a terror; so that truly may
we say that in him arose a new Elijah."

Of equal though different importance was the action of the papacy in
regard to the East.  What is known as the Photian schism is the
divergence between the churches of Constantinople and Rome, which
became critical during the pontificate of Nicolas I.

[Sidenote: The Photian schism.]

Photius, a man of great learning and experience, a scholar and
theologian of the familiar Greek type, was elected Patriarch of
Constantinople on Christmas Day, 857.  At the time when Michael III.
determined on his appointment he was not even ordained: in six days he
{193} received the different orders and was made patriarch.  But his
election was uncanonical.  Ignatius the patriarch, who was still
living, was deposed because of his censures of the emperor's evil life.
Photius announced his election to Pope Nicolas, but Ignatius refused to
surrender his rights; both parties excommunicated each other; and the
emperor mocked at both.  But he also asked the pope to send legates to
a council which should restore order to the Church.  The Council met in
861.  It confirmed Photius in his office, and the papal legates
assented.  Nicolas refused to accept the decision and took upon him to
annul it, to depose Photius, to declare the orders conferred by him
invalid, and to announce his decision to the other patriarchs and to
the metropolitans and bishops who owed obedience to Constantinople.
Neither the emperor nor Photius would submit; and in 867 Photius
issued, in a council at Constantinople, an encyclical letter, in which
he repudiated the papal claim of jurisdiction (which was complicated by
assertions of supremacy over the Bulgarian Church), and denounced a
number of tenets held by Westerns, [Sidenote: The Philioque
controversy.] and most notably the addition of the word _Filioque_ to
the Nicene Creed, as asserting the procession of the Holy Spirit from
the Father and the Son.  He ended by excommunicating the pope.

In the year 867 Nicolas died, Michael was deposed, Photius followed him
into retirement, Basil the Macedonian ascended the throne, and Ignatius
was restored to the patriarchate.  A council was held in 869 at which
papal legates attended, which approved these acts, and which is counted
by the Roman Church as {194} the Eighth Oecumenical Council.  This
Council confirmed the Church's decision as to image-worship.  Ignatius
held his throne till his death in 877, when Photius was reinstated.
His return was signalised by a new agreement with Rome, in which Pope
John VIII. repudiated the insertion of the Filioque, and declared that
it was inserted by men whose daring was due to madness, and who were
transgressors against the Divine Word.  Another council at
Constantinople (879-80) confirmed the reinstatement, declared Photius
to be lawful patriarch, and anathematised the Council of 869.  This is
reckoned by the Greeks as the Eighth Oecumenical Council.  [Sidenote:
End of the schism.] Then the schism was for the time healed.  It made
no difference that a new emperor, Leo VI., the Wise, deposed Photius
again and appointed his own brother.  The union remained formally
throughout the tenth century.  But though the eleventh century opened
with a nominal agreement, it was not destined to endure.  The points of
severance must be dealt with in a later volume.  It may here suffice to
say that the position of the Greeks was rigidly conservative, of the
popes aggressively authoritative.

It was an age of growing papal claims; and the claims had now found a
new basis.

[Sidenote: The forged decretals.]

The promises, true and legendary, of Pippin, and the spurious donation
of Constantine, had still further extension in the False Decretals.
These were first used by Nicolas I., who was pope from 858 to 867.
During his pontificate the collection of Church laws, with the canons
of the Oecumenical Councils, the letters of the most important bishops
and the like, with the ecclesiastical laws of the {195} emperors, which
were practically becoming a _corpus juris canonici_, received a notable
addition.  The genuine decretals of the popes begin with Siricius
(384-98); but there now (between 840 and 860) appeared fifty-nine more,
professing to date from the second and third centuries, and also
thirty-nine became interpolated among the genuine documents, which
ranged from 386 to 731.  These were put forth by a skilful forger as
the collection of Isidore of Seville, and they were incorporated in the
authentic collection made by him.  A most remarkable series of
documents was this, in every point supporting the claims now put forth
by the Roman See to political as well as ecclesiastical supremacy,
deciding questions of discipline and right such as were then vexed, and
supplying a veritable armoury for the advocates of papal claims to rule
everywhere, over all persons, and in all causes.  The forged decretals,
now known as the pseudo-Isidorian, had their origin among the Franks,
and showed the aims and the needs of the Frankish reformers.  They set
forth three great objects--"freedom from the secular power,
establishment of the ecclesiastical hierarchy with a firm discipline,
and centralisation of organisation upon which all could depend." [1]
They represented, in fact, a scheme of reform and the way in which a
somewhat unscrupulous reformer imagined it could best be carried out.
Probably the forged decretals were concocted at Rheims, or possibly at
Mainz, and they were first used in a critical case in 866, when a
bishop of Soissons, deposed by Hincmar, Archbishop of Rheims, appealed
to the pope on the ground that the power of deposition by the decretals
belonged to him alone.  It is difficult {196} to believe that when
Nicolas I. accepted them he was not aware that they were not the
genuine writings of the popes whose work they professed to be: he can
hardly have thought that Spain (where it was said that they had been
discovered) was more likely to have kept papal documents safely than
the Roman Chancery itself.  Their importance was, however, not evident
at first.  In the ninth and tenth centuries comparatively little was
made of them.  It was in the eleventh and the centuries which followed
that a gigantic edifice of papal assumption was to be built upon them
by popes who were fired with a true zeal to reform the world, and who,
not doubting their authenticity, found in them an instrument ready to
their hands.

[Sidenote: The decay of the papacy.]

The weakness of the papacy in the tenth century was indeed such that no
theory could give it respect in Europe.  The weakness of the Church was
heralded by that of the Empire.  The Carling house expired in contempt
almost as great as that which had fallen on the Merwings.  In Gaul the
Norman had won fair provinces on the coast; and the house of the Counts
of Paris came in the tenth century to rule over the Franks.  There the
Church remained strong as the State decayed, and it was the great
archbishopric of Rheims which gave the crown to the line of Hugh the
Great.  In Germany the dynasty of the Carlings became extinct.  In Rome
the power over the city fell into the hands of the local nobility; and
the period was made infamous by the lives of Theodora and Marozia, who
were the paramours of popes.  The tale of the age of disgrace which
marks the greater part of the tenth century is of no importance in the
history of the Church.  A succession of {197} popes, whom their
contemporaries certainly did not believe to be infallible, followed
each other in rapid procession.  John X. alone (914-28) has any claim
to greatness; but he, like the others, was deeply stained with the
vices, political if not moral, of his age.  It was not until the Saxon
Otto came to Italy like a knight-errant to redress the wrongs of the
Northern princes, and was crowned at Rome in 962, that the Church in
Italy began to revive from its ashes.  He deposed and set up popes; and
he gave to the papacy something of the bracing ideals which the new
life of Gaul and Germany inspired.

The moral weakness of the papacy, the political weakness of Italy, had
founded the Empire anew, as it had been founded anew in 800.  The
revival of the Empire under Charles the Great, and again under Otto,
was not due to political considerations only; it was due also to the
force of religious ideas.

[Sidenote: The religious revival of the Empire under the Saxons.]

One great characteristic of the revived Empire in German hands was the
important part played in its policy by missions, and, it must be added,
missionary wars.  It was said of Charles the Great by his eulogists
that he converted Saxons and Vandals and Frisians by the Word and the
sword: and this thought was embodied in a series of wars which have
been somewhat fancifully compared to the Crusades of later days.  Otto
I. thrice invaded the land of the Slavs and made all the barbarians
from the Oder to the Elbe admit his lordship.  Six new bishoprics were
founded as his sway spread, and the bishop of Magdeburg was raised to
be "archbishop and metropolitan of the whole race of the Slavs beyond
the Elbe which has {198} been, or still remains to be, converted to
God."  But though it was a real work of civilisation, a work which made
for peace, that the German Caesars undertook, it was not a Crusade.  A
Crusade was a war to win back from the infidel what had once been the
patrimony of the Crucified: the wars of the Ottos were directed to
extend their own sway, and, as ever, the true work of the converting
Church was not helped but hindered by the arms and enterprises of
soldiers and statesmen.  When the tribes revolted against the
government of the Germans, they often disowned their Christianity and
destroyed their churches.  Under Otto III. the Empire did not recover
what she had lost, and the province of Magdeburg remained for nearly
half its extent in heathen hands.  [Sidenote: Otto the Great's
endowment in Germany.] The Church suffered from this association.
Where the mission of S. Boniface had been purely spiritual, the work of
his successors was often hampered by the ambition of the emperors.  In
the lands alike of Eastern and Western Franks the Church was often led
to lean on the State, and the results, of slackness, corruption,
weakness, were inevitable.  The rich endowments which were poured upon
the Church were not always wisely given or wisely used.  The Caesars
themselves showered gifts: Otto the Great surpassed all his
predecessors in lavishness,[2] and his dynasty followed in his steps.
But the honours and riches were given quite as much for political as
for religious objects.  In the bishops and abbats the sovereigns found
the wisest servants, the most capable administrators.  As among the
West Franks under the {199} Merwings, so now among the East Franks, the
great ecclesiastics were the supports of the monarchy, the real
governors of the country.  It was thus that they came to owe their
position--if not their election always yet certainly their
confirmation--to the imperial will.  As in Rome the emperors were
stretching forth a hand to control the elections to the papacy, so in
Germany there was growing up at the end of the tenth century the
practice of imperial control over the things of the Church.  The policy
of the Ottos and the reformation of the papacy were certain ultimately
to lead to the contest concerning investitures.  High clerical office
had come too often to be bought and sold, and the churches were
becoming mere appanages of the great principalities.  It was wise of
Otto I. to try to win from the dukes the power they had obtained: but
it was not for the good of the Church that the power should be even in
the imperial hands.

[Sidenote: Otto III. and the popes.]

Otto I. died in 973.  He had begun the reformation of the papacy.  His
son and grandson succeeded him, Otto II. in 973, Otto III. in 983.  In
996 died Pope John XV., a Roman whom the Frankish chronicler, Abbo of
Fleury, declares to have been lustful of filthy lucre and venal in all
his acts.  To Otto the clergy, senate, and people of Rome submitted the
election of his successor.  He chose his own cousin Bruno, "a man of
holiness, of wisdom, and of virtue,"--news, to quote the same saintly
writer, more precious than gold and precious stones.  His throne was
insecure: the Roman noble Crescentius drove him from it, but he won his
way back and overcame one who had been set up as an anti-pope.  He died
in 999.

{200}

At the close of the tenth century a pope and an emperor of great ideas
stand forth from the blackness of an age when, according to the
evidence of councils and of monastic chronicles alike, vice was
rampant--"the more powerful oppress the weaker, and men are like fishes
in the sea, which everywhere in turn devour one another"--and the
bishops and clergy alike neglected their duties.  Otto III. (983-1002),
the offspring of the German who sat on the imperial throne and the
daughter of the Caesars of the East, made himself a real ruler of the
Empire in Church as well as in State, and after the disputed succession
of his cousin Bruno (Gregory V., 996-99) placed on the papal throne the
first of the great line of later medieval popes.  Gregory V. was the
first pope of transalpine birth imposed by the Germans; Gerbert was the
first of the French popes.  It needed the imperial army to keep Gregory
on the throne, and to crush the last of the Roman princelets who had
made the papacy infamous; Gerbert (Silvester II., 999-1003) was only
able to remain in the eternal city so long as Otto was there to protect
him.  [Sidenote: Gerbert.] But Gerbert's greatness belonged to a sphere
far wider than that of the local papacy.  He was a scholar in the
ancient classics, a logician, mathematician, astronomer and musician, a
great collector of books and a great teacher of men.  An Aquitanian by
birth, he was brought up at Aurillac, and then passed from one place of
study to another, till, by the influence of the Emperor Otto I., he
settled at Rheims in 972.  His school was a famous one: among those
whom he taught were many bishops, Robert the future king of the Franks
and Otto the future emperor.  From Rheims he went as abbat to {201}
Bobbio, where the necessary severity of his rule provoked such
opposition that he was obliged to return to Gaul.  [Sidenote: In Gaul]
He returned in time to win the influence of the great see of Rheims on
behalf of the child heir of Otto II., who died at the end of 983, and
to take part in the diplomacy which ended in the transfer of the West
Frankish crown to Hugh the duke of the Franks.  When Arnulf, of the
very Karling house which had been dispossessed, became archbishop, and
tried to hand over Rheims to his kindred, Gerbert, the steadfast
supporter of the "Capetians," was made his successor.  The election was
of more than doubtful legality, and the politics, papal and imperial,
of the time still further complicated the question: it was only settled
by the transference of Gerbert, on the nomination of his old pupil,
Otto III., to the see of Ravenna, From 998 he remained in Italy till
his death.  [Sidenote: and in Italy.] In 999 he became pope, and then
he gave himself, heart and soul, to forward the great schemes,
missionary, reforming, imperial, which were indeed as much his own as
those of the enthusiastic genius of the young emperor.  The old offices
of the "republic" were revived and harmonised, as in the East, with the
Christian character of the imperial power.  Pope and emperor worked
hand in hand for the conversion of the barbarians: it is said that it
was Silvester who gave the kingship to the Hungarian Duke Stephen, as a
son of the Christian Empire and the holy see of the imperial city.  In
the unquiet days of his papacy he was yet able to set an example of
wisdom, counsel, godliness, charity, which formed an epoch in the
regeneration of the Roman episcopate.  Zealous, loyal, inspired by an
overpowering sense of duty, {202} Silvester II. in a short time
fulfilled a long time and left a mark on the history of the Middle Ages
such as was made by but few even of its greatest men.  [Sidenote: Pope
Silvester II.] At his death in 1003 the age of reform had started on
its way; and his was the light which had directed its beginnings.  Thus
in the West the end of the period shows the Empire and the papacy of
one mind, eager for a spiritual reform in the Church, for Christian and
missionary ideals in the State, not careful to delimit the provinces of
Church and State, but eager rather for unity of action as well as
sentiment in the cause of Christian extension and endeavour.

[Sidenote: The end of the Dark Age.]

Though the contest was not yet over, it might be said with confidence
that the Church of Christ had won over the barbarians.  Missionaries
and martyrs had changed the face of Europe, and the fierce tribes which
were pouring over the Continent in the fifth century, barbarous and
heathen, were now for the most part tamed and converted to the love of
Christ.  Out of a land which had been wild and barbarous, and where one
of the greatest of saints and missionaries had met his death, had come
a revival in Christian form of the old imperial idea, and the great men
who had been nourished by it had given new health to the central Church
of Europe.  For the moment, the Empire and the Papacy, Germany and the
new temporal State in the hands of the Roman bishop, were united to
lead the Christian nations and to convert the heathen on their borders.
In the East remained the magnificent fabric of the immemorial Empire,
active still in missionary labour and setting an example of the union
of Church and State in {203} agreement to which the West could never
attain.  The eleventh century was to bring to East and West alike, with
new responsibilities, new difficulties in action and new problems in
thought.  Everywhere it was for unity men strove, the unity which if in
its main aspect it was political, was on its spiritual and ideal side
embodied in the visible Church of Christ.



[1] Dr. O. L. Wells, _The Age of Charlemayne_, p. 434.

[2] See H. A. L. Fisher, _The Medieval Empire_, ii. p. 65; Hauck,
_Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_, iii. 57-9.



{205}

APPENDIX I


LIST OF EMPERORS AND POPES, 461-1003

   POPES.                              EMPERORS
                           WEST                      EAST

                                           457 Leo I.
   461 Hilarus         461 Severus
                           ---------
                       467 Anthemius
   468 Simplicius
                       472 Olybrius
                       473 Glycerius
                       474 Julius Nepos    474 Zeno
                       475 Romulus
                             Augustulus
   483 Felix III.
                           ---------
                                           491 Anastasius I.
   492 Gelasius I.
   496 Anastasius II.
   498 Symmachus
   514 Hormisdas
                                           518 Justin I.
   523 John I.
   526 Felix IV.
                                           527 Justinian I.
   530 Boniface II.
   532 John II.
   535 Agapetus I.
   536 Silverius
   537 Vigilius
   555 Pelagius I.
   560 John III.
                                           565 Justin II.
   574 Benedict I.
   578 Pelagius II.                        578 Tiberius II.
                                           582 Maurice
{206}

   590 Gregory I.
                                           602 Phocas
   604 Sabinianus
   607 Boniface III.
   607 Boniface IV.
                                           610 Heraclius
   615 Deusdedit
   618 Boniface V.
   625 Honorius I.
   638 Severinus.
   640 John IV.
                                           641 ( Heracleonas
                                               ( Constantine III.
   642 Theodorus I.                        642 Constans II.
   649 Martin I.
   654 Eugenius I.
   657 Vitalianus.
                                           668 Constantine IV.
   672 Adeodatus
   676 Domnus I.
   678 Agatho
   682 Leo II.
   683 Benedict II.
   685 John V.                             685 Justinian II.
   687 Sergius I.
                                           694 Leontius
                                           697 Tiberius III.
   701 John VI.
   705 John VII.                           705 Justinian II.
                                               (restored)
   708 Sisinnius
   708 Constantine
                                           711 Philippicus
                                           713 Anastasius II.
   715 Gregory II.                         715 Theodosius III.
                                           717 Leo III.
   731 Gregory III.
   741 Zacharias                           741 Constantine V.
   752 Stephen II.
   752 Stephen III.
   757 Paul I.
   768 Stephen III.
       (or IV.)
   772 Hadrian I.
                                           775 Leo IV.
                                           779 Constantine VI
   795 Leo III.
                                           797 Irene
{207}

                       800 Charles I.
                                           802 Nicephorus I.
                                           811 Stauracius
                                           811 Michael I.
                                           813 Leo V.
                       814 Louis I.
   816 Stephen IV.
   817 Paschal I.
                                           820 Michael II.
   824 Eugenius II.
   827 Valentinus
   827 Gregory IV.
                                           829 Theophilus
                       840 Lothar I.
                                           842 Michael III.
   844 Sergius II.
   847 Leo IV.
   855 Benedict III.   855 Louis II.
                           (in Italy)
   858 Nicolas I.
   867 Hadrian II.                         867 Basil I.
   872 John VIII.
                       875 Charles II.
                           (West Franks)
   882 Marinus I.      882 Charles III.
                           (East Franks)
   884 Hadrian III.
   885 Stephen V.
                                           886 Leo VI.
   891 Formosus        891 Guido (in Italy)
                       894 Lambert
                           (in Italy)
   896 Boniface VI.    896 Arnulf
   896 Stephen VI.         (East Franks)
   897 Romanus
   897 Theodorus II.
   898 John IX.
   900 Benedict IV.
                       901 Louis III.
                           (in Italy)
   903 Leo V.
                           ----------
   903 Christopher
   904 Sergius III.
   911 Anastasius III.
                                           912 Constantine VII.
                                               (till 958)
{208}

   913 Lando                               912   Alexander   )
   914 John X.                             919   Romanus I.  ) co-
                                               ( Constantine ) emperors
                       915 Berengar        944 (    VIII     )
   928 Leo VI.             (in Italy)          ( Stephanus   )
   929 Stephen VII.

   931 John XI.            --------
   936 Leo VII.
   939 Stephen VIII.
   942 Marinus II.
   946 Agapetus II.

   955 John XII.
                                           958 Romanus II.
                       962 Otto I.
   963 Leo VIII.                           963 Basil II.   )
   [964 Benedict V.]                       963 Nicephorus  )
   965 John XIII.                                 II.      ) co-
   973 Benedict VI.    973 Otto II.        969 John I.     ) emperors
   974 Domnus II.                          976 Constantine )
   974 Benedict VII.                              IX.      )
   983 John XIV.       983 Otto III.
   985 John XV.
   996 Gregory V.
   999 Silvester II.
                      1002 Henry (II.)
  1003 John XVII.


NOTE.--This list is for the most part that adopted by Dr. Bryce, _Holy
Roman Empire_; but the dates might be slightly varied by reference to
Duchesne, K. Müller, and Funk (Weltzer and Welte, _Kirchenlexicon_).
It may also be noted that the popes were frequently not elected till
the year after the death of their predecessors.



{209}

APPENDIX II

A SHORT BIBLIOGRAPHY

I.  A list of original authorities for the whole of the period 461-1003
would be too long in proportion to the text of this book, but a few of
the most important may be mentioned for the sake of those who wish to
begin to study the period at first hand.  Any such study should
include:--


  Evagrius, ed. Bidez and Parmentier, 1898.
  Zachariah of Mitylene [translation], ed. Hamilton and Brooks, 1899.
  Bede, ed. Ch. Plummer, 1895.
  Procopius, ed. Haury (in course of publication).
  Joannes Diaconus, _Vita S. Gregorii_, ed. Migne, and _Zeitschrift
      für Katholische Theologie_, XI., 158-73.
  Gregory the Great, _Letters_, ed. Ewald and Hartmann, 1887, etc.
  Paulus Diaconus, ed. Waitz, 1878.
  _Monumenta Moguntina_, ed. Jaffé, 1866.
  Gregory of Tours, ed. Arndt and Krusch, 1884-5.
  _Liber Pontificalis_, ed. Duchesne, 1886-92.
  _Liudprand_, ed. Dümmler, 1877.
  _Letters of Gerbert_, ed. Havet, 1889.
  _Regesta Pontificum Romanorum_, ed. Jaffé, 1851, 2nd ed. 1885.
  Mansi, _Concilia_, 1759-98.
  Einhard, _Vita Caroli Magni_, ed. Pertz and Waitz, 1880.


II. Reference to the other authorities can be most easily found through
modern works, from which the following is a selection:--

  Milman, _History of Latin Christianity_.
  Gibbon, _Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire_ (ed. Bury).
{210}
  Bury, _History of the Later Roman Empire_.
  Bryce, _Holy Roman Empire_.
  Oman, _The Dark Ages_.
  Hodgkin, _Italy and her Invaders_.
  Hauck, _Kirchengeschichte Deutschlands_.
  Harnack, _Dogmengeschichte_.
  Duchesne, _Les Églises Separées_.
     "      _Les Premiers Temps de L'État Pontifical_.
  H. Leclercq, _L'Afrique chrétienne_.
     "         _L'Espagne chrétienne_.
  M. J. Labourt, _Le Christianisme dans l'Empire perse_.
  P. J. Pargoire, _L'Église byzantine, de 527 à 847_.
  A. J. Butler, _The Arab Conquest of Egypt_.
  Diehl, _L'Afrique byzantine_.
    "    _Justinien_.
    "    _Études sur l'administration byzantine dans l'Exarchat de
             Ravenne_.
  F. H. Dudden, _Gregory the Great_.
  Hefele, _History of the Councils_.
  Gasquet, _L'Empire byzantin et la Monarchie franque_.
  Hutton, _The Church of the Sixth Century_.
  Besse, _S. Wandrille_.
  Du Bourg, _S. Odon_.
  Martin, _S. Colomban_.
  Hodgkin, _Charles the Great_.
  Davis, _Charlemagne_.
  Fisher, _The Medieval Empire_.
  Hunt, _The English Church, 597-1066_.
  Margoliouth, _Mohammed_.
  Gardner, _Theodore of Studium_.
  Marin, _De Studio Constantinopolitano_.
  Lavisse (ed.), _Histoire de France_.
  Marignan, _Études sur la civilisation française (la sociéte
      mérovingienne)_.
  Lützow, _Bohemia_.
  Morfill, _Poland_.
  Rambaud, _Histoire de la Russie_.
  Poole, _Illustrations of Medieval Thought_.
  Kraus, _Geschichte der Christlichen Kunst_, I.
  Potthast, _Bibliotheca Medii Aevi_.



{211}

INDEX

  Aachen, 167; councils at(809), 81; (860), 190
  Abasgi, a Caucasian people, converted, 95
  Abbassides, dynasty of Khalifs, descendants of Muhammad's
    uncle Abbas, 156
  Abbats, lay, 168-9, 172; in the Rule of S. Columban, 171;
    Cluniac, 174-5
  Abbo of Fleury, Frankish chronicler, 199
  Abder Rahman I., Ommeyad Khalif of Cordova (755), 146
  Abyssinian Church, Monophysite, 9, 23, 111
  Acacius, patriarch of Constantinople, 7, 8, 10
  Acca, bishop of Hexham (709-32), 169
  Adalbert, S. (Voytech), bishop of Prague, 125-6, 129
  Adalwald, Lombard king, 63
  Adam of Bremen, 130
  Adamuan's Life of Columba, 115-16
  _Adiaphorites_, 86
  Adoptianist heresy, 72; in the West, 78-9, 81, 168;
    in the East, 79, 80, 156
  Aelfeah (Alphege), bishop, 121
  Aelfric, abbat of Eynsham, 121
  Aethelbert, king of Kent, 183-5
  Aethelred, king of England, 121
  Aethelstan, king of England, 131
  Aethelwold, bishop of Winchester, 119
  Africa, the Church in North, 5, 17, 20, 103-10; increase of papal
    power, 65, 67, 69, 107-8; Eucharist, 179; survival of
    Christian customs to modern times, 23, 110; Vandals in, 103;
    reconquered by Belisarius, 105; Muhammadan conquest, 5, 108, 109
  Agapetus (Agapitus), Pope, 15, 38
  Agatho, Pope, 88
  Agde, 146
  Agilulf, Lombard king, 62, 134
  Agnellus, archbishop of Ravenna, 33
  Agriculture, cared for by the Benedictines, 36; by Gregory
    the Great, 65
  Aidan, S., 116
  Airulf, Lombard king, 68
  Aistulf, Lombard king, 148, 149
  _Akoimetai_, 8, 14, 161
  _Aktistetes_, 86
  Alamanni, 42, 135
  Alans, Mongol barbarians, in Gaul, 41
  Albagrians of the Caucasus, converted, 95
  Albinus, abbat of Canterbury (d. 732), 169
  Alcuin, 81, 116, 141, 152, 167-70
  Aldhelm, S., of Malmesbury, 115, 171
  Alexandria, Church and Patriarchate of, 8, 10, 16, 17, 24,
    64, 65, 84, 87, 110; Eucharist, 179; conquered by the Arabs, 109
  Alfred the Great, king of England, 32, 118
  Alodaei, Soudanese people, converted, 111
  Althing, Icelandic assembly, 132
  Amalric, Wisigothic king in Spain, 74
  _Ambo_ (pulpit), 188
  Ambrosian Rite (so called from S. Ambrose, bishop of Milan,
    374-97), 183
  Amöneburg (Hessen), monastery, 136
  Anastasius, emperor, 7, 9, 47
  Anastasius, patriarch of Antioch, 63
  Anastasius, patriarch of Constantinople, (703-53), 155, 157
  Anastasius of Sinai, S., 180.
  Andover, 121
  Angarii, tribe allied with the Saxons, 140
  Annegray, S. Columban's settlement at, 55
  Anselm, S., archbishop of Canterbury (died 1109), 160, 171
  Ansgar, S., archbishop of Hamburg, 129-30
  Anthimus, patriarch of Constantinople, 15
  Antioch, Church and Patriarchate of, 8, 10, 16, 17, 23, 24,
    84, 87, 156; Eucharist, 179; synod at (541 or 542), 16
  _Antirrhetici_ of S. Theodore the Studite, 164
  _Antistes_ (bishop), 66
  Antony, archbishop of Novgorod (c. 1200), 161
  _Aphthartodocetes_, 21, 85
  _Apocrisiarius_, papal envoy at Constantinople, 63
  Aquilea, patriarch of, 21, 39
  Aquitaine, 49
  Arabia, conquered by Muhammad, 101; Arabian Christians in
    Persia, 110; Christianity in S. Arabia, 111
  Arabs.  _See_ Muhammadans.
  Architecture, Byzantine, 25-8, 100, 106
  Arcona (Isle of Rügen), heathen temple at, 127
  Arianism, extinct in the East, 9; of the Goths in Italy, 29, 30,
    60; its suppression a political necessity, 33; the Frankish
    struggle against, 47-8; of the Vandals in Africa, 103-5; of
    the Lombards, 56, 61; in Spain, 73, 74, 75
  Arles, 46, 49, 50, 146
  Armagh, monastery, 53
  Armenia, 3; Church of, 13, 84, 85, 95, 156; Monophysite, 23,
    110; Adoptianiats in, 79; Paulicians in, 80
  Arnulf, S., bishop of Metz, 58, 135, 139, 144, 145
  Arnulf, archbishop of Rheims, 201
  Asser, bishop of Sherborne, 118
  Assyria, Christians in, 93, 96 n.
  Athanagild, Wisigothic king in Spain, 74
  Athanasian Creed, 81-2
  Athens, 99
  Augustine of Canterbury, S., 62, 69, 113, 117, 182-90
  Augustine of Hippo, S., 3, 72, 103, 106, 170; _De Civitate Dei_, 154
  Aurillac, 200
  Austrasia, Eastern Frankish kingdom, 43, 49, 135, 145-6;
    Synod in (742), 138
  Autun, Council of (670), 59
  Avars, Mongol race, 135, 141
  Avignon, 146
  Avitus, bishop of Vienne, 81
  Axum, Ethiopic kingdom, 111-12

  Baghdad, 96, 97
  Bangor (Ireland), monastery, 54-5; _Antiphonary_ of, 115
  Baptism, 176-8; of Chlodowech, 42; of Borivoj, 128; of the
    people of Kiev, 127; of Olaf Trigvason, 132
  Basil the Great, S. (329-79), his Rule, 163
  Basil I. the Macedonian, emperor, 80, 193
  Basil II., emperor, 126
  Baume, monastery at, 173
  Bavarians, 135, 138
  Bede (Baeda), 68 n., 115-16, 118, 167, 169, 170, 179, 180, 183-5
  Belisarius, 30, 61, 105
  Benedict Biscop, 115, 169
  Benedict of Nursia, S., 34-9, 53, 58, 163; his Rule, 35-7, 58-9,
    69, 119, 121, 171, 173, 175; the Benedictines, 35-8, 60, 62, 137
  Bercta, Kentish queen, 186
  Berno, abbat of Cluny, 173-4
  Besançon, 56, 173
  Béziers, 146
  Bishops, their position under Justinian, 24-5; share in the
    civil government of Italy, 33-4; without dioceses in the Celtic
    Church, 114; "Universal Bishop," 66, 175; bless the
    people at the Eucharist, 190
  Blemmyes, Ethiopic tribe, converted, 111
  Bobbio, 53, 56, 201
  Boethius, 32
  Bohemia, Christianity in, 127-9;
  Bohemian princess brings about the conversion of Poland, 125
  _Boïar_, title of Bulgarian magnates, 124
  Boleslav I., duke of Bohemia, brother of S. Wenceslas (died
    967), 128
  Boleslav II., "the Pious," duke of Bohemia (967-99), 128, 129
  Boniface, S. (Winfrith), 130, 136-40, 142, 147, 198
  Boris, Bulgarian king, 124
  Borivoj, Bohemian duke, baptized, 128
  Boso, bishop of Merseburg, 126
  Braga, councils at (563, 572), 74
  Bremen, archbishopric, 130, 142
  Bretislav II., king of Bohemia (1092-1100), 127
  Britain, 83, 88; Christianity in, 113 ff; early British Church,
    183; ritual in the British Church, 183.  _See_ England
  Brittany, 115
  Brunichild, 13, 48-9, 56, 74-5, 171
  Bruno (Pope Gregory V.), cousin of Otto III., 199, 200
  Bruno, missionary to the Prussians, 125
  Brythons, Celts of Britain, their Church, 113, 183
  Bulgarians, a Finnish race, conversion of, 124; they and their
    Church, 13, 23, 44, 84, 128, 193
  Burgundians, 41; Frankish kings of, 49, 55-6, 135
  Bury, Dr. J. B., quoted, 21 n., 46-7, 113
  Byzacene, African see, 106
  Byzantine architecture, 25-8, 100, 106; Church and Patriarchate,
    91, _and see_ Constantinople; Empire, _see_ Umpire, Eastern

  Caelian Hill at Rome, 60, 64
  Caesarius, bishop of Arles, 72, 81
  Calabria, 157, 162
  _Candace_, title of the queens of Abyssinia, 111
  Canons, collection of, 85; canon law, 194-5; canon of the Mass,
    181-2, 190
  Canterbury, 115, 185-6
  Capetians, House of Hugh the Great, duke of the Franks, 201
  Carisiacum (Quierzy), 151
  Carling House.  _See_ Karlings
  Carloman, son of Charles Martel, brother of Pippin the Short,
    114-5, 147, 149
  Carloman, son of Pippin the Short, brother of Charles the Great,
    148, 150-1
  Carthage, taken by the Vandals, 103; by the Muhammadans,
    77, 109; Church of, survival, 110; bishop of, 67, 103-6, 108
  Cassiodorus, 30, 38
  _Catholicos_, primate of the Monophysite Armenian Church, 84,
    95; of the "Church of the East," 96; of the Persian
    Church, 93-4, 99
  Celibacy of the clergy.  _See_ Marriage
  Celtic Church, 113-17, _and see_ Ireland; Celtic Easter, 55, 114;
    Celtic influence on the English liturgy, 187, 190; Celtic
    missionaries and Boniface, 138
  Ceremonial, 181-90
  Ceylon, 96
  Chad, S., 116, 169
  Chalcedon, Council of (451), 2, 7, 9, 10, 18, 24, 65-6, 79, 85-6,
    89, 95
  Chaldeaecan Church, 23, 93
  Châlons, Battle of, 41
  Charles Martel, Frankish mayor of the palace, 135, 137, 141, 146
  Charles I., the Great, 50, 136, 182, 197; anointed king, 148;
    revives the Empire, 152-4; destroys the Lombard kingdom,
    150, 152; supposed donation of, 151-2; theocratic ideas
    of, 139; religious wars, 127, 140-2; his share in the
    Adoptianist controversy, 80; his learning and piety, 166-70;
    aspirations, 172
  Charles II., the Bald, emperor, son of Louis I., the Pious, 170
  Charles the Simple, sole king of the West Franks (898-922), 174
  Cherson, near the mouth of the Dnyepr, 126
  Childebert I., Frankish king, 39
  Childebert II., Frankish king, son of Sigebert and Brunichild, 49
  Childerich III., last of the Merwings, 147
  Chilperich I., Frankish king of Neustria, son of Chlothochar I.,
    43, 51, 54, 75
  China, Nestorian missions in, 96, 98
  Chlodowech, king of the Franks, baptized, 42, 177; dies, 43;
    his aim, 46; receives the consulate, 47; his daughter, 74
  Chlothochar I., Frankish king, son of Chlodowech, 43, 47, 54, 74
  Chlothochar II., Frankish king, son of Chilperich I. and
    Fredegund, 56, 58, 145
  Chlothochar (Lothar), king of Lotharingia, son of the emperor
    Lothar I. (855-69), 191-2
  Chora, Church of the, at Constantinople, 26
  Chosroes II., Persian king (590-628), 101
  Chosroes, Persian king (800-50), 80
  Christmas baptisms, 177; communion, 179
  Christology, 98.  _See_ Heresies
  Chrotechild (Clotilda), wife of Chlodowech, 42
  Church, The, her task in fifth century, 1; organisation, 2, 24;
    tendency to separation in East and West, 3, _and see_ Schism;
    Churches of Rome and Constantinople held to be one, 10;
    East and West differ in use of _Quicunque_, 81-2
  Church, the Eastern, strengthens the Empire, 4; her firm position
    in 527, 11; united with the State, 12; history, 6-28, 83-92,
    155-65; conservative character, 165, 194.  _See_ Constantinople,
    Schism
  Church, the Western: Church property and jurisdiction under
    the Gothic kings in Italy, 30-1; determines the development
    of the Frankish nation, 45; maintains imperial tradition,
    45-6; her aggressive claims, 194; subject in Germany and
    Italy to the control of the Saxon emperors, 191, 197-201.
    _See_ Papacy, Rome, Schism
  "Church of the East," Nestorian, 96-7
  Clonard, monastery, 53, 55
  Clonfert, monastery, 53
  Clonmacnoise, monastery, 53
  Clotilda, Clotilde.  _See_ Chrotechild, Hlothild
  Clovesho, Synod of (747), 138, 187
  Cluniacs, monks of Cluny, 174-5
  Cluny, monastic reform of, 169, 171-5; abbey of, 173-4; Rule
    of, 174-5; congregation of, 174
  Cologne, archbishop of, 192
  Columba, S., 114-16
  Columban, S., 53-8, 116; his Rule, 55, 171; monastery at Baume, 173
  Communion, Holy, 178-90; received by the Stylites, 25.  _See_
    Eucharist
  Confirmation, 178; of Olaf Trigvason, 121
  _Consolation of Philosophy, The_, by Boethius, 32
  Constans II., emperor, 109
  Constantine I., emperor, 12, 40; donation of, 154
  [Constantine IV.], emperor, 89
  Constantine V., Copronymus, 80, 155, 158, 162, 165
  Constantine, pope, 91
  Constantine of Thessalonica (S. Cyril), 123
  Constantine, founder or reviver of Eastern Adoptianism, 79-80
  Constantinople, theological bent of its people, 8; buildings at,
    25-7; captured by the Turks (1453), 163; modern, 158, 161
  Constantinople, Church of, its growing isolation, 13; a witness
    for religious liberty, 14; valuable services to the Church
    Universal, 20; quarrel with Rome over the Ecthesis and
    Type, 88; missions to Bulgarians, 124; to Russians, 126-7;
    to Moravians and Czechs, 128; theology in, 156.  _See_
    Church, Eastern; Schism
  Constantinople, councils at: Fifth General (553), 15, 17, 18, 20-2,
    39, 63-4, 86, 106-7, 161; synod of 588, 66; Sixth General
    (680-1), 21, 84-5, 88; Council of 681, 67; _in Trullo_ (691),
    85, 89-92; Council of 692, 67; iconoclastic synod of 754, 165;
    Councils of 861 and 867, 193; Eighth General (869), 193-4;
    Council (879-80), 194
  Constantinople, Patriarchate of, 24, 67, 85, 90, 124, 192-4
  Constantinople, patriarchs of, 87-8; claim the title of
    Oecumenical, 65.  _See_ Acacius, Germanus, Ignatius, John the
    Cappadocian, Mennas, Methodius, Nicephorus, Paul, Photius,
    Sergius, Tarasius
  Coptic Church, 9, 23, 84, 101, 110, 112; Copts resist Saracens, 109
  Corbie (New Korvey), monastery, on the Weser, 130, 170
  Corbinian, S., 135
  Corinth, bishops of, 67
  Cornwall, early British Church of, 113, 117
  Corsica, 151
  Cosmas, sixth-century traveller, 97
  Councils, valuable work of the, 19.  _See_ Aachen, Antioch,
    Austrasia, Autun, Braga, Chalcedon, Clovesho, Constantinople,
    Frankfort, General, Gentilly, Hatfield, Mâcon, Orange,
    Regensburg, Rome, Toledo, Whitby
  Cracow, relics at, 125
  Creed, at the Council of Chalcedon, 2; proposal to reform, 14;
    importance of a logically tenable, 19; Pope Leo III. discourages
    additions to, 81; Athanasian, 81-2; Nicene, 193
  Crescentius, John, patrician of Rome, 199
  Crete, bishops of, 67
  Croatia, Croats, 84, 124
  Cross, the Holy, 100-2; tolerated by the iconoclast emperor Leo
    III., 159; sign of the, in baptism, 177; used by S. Augustine
    in his mission, 184-5
  Crusades, true and false, 197-8
  "Culdees," Celtic monks, 119
  Cumbria (or Strathclyde), early British Church of, 113
  Cuthbert, M., 116, 121, 169
  Cuthbert, archbishop of Canterbury, 187
  Cyprus, Church of, 21
  Cyril, S., patriarch of Alexandria (412-44), opponent of Nestorius,
    10, 18, 22
  Cyril, S. (Constantine), apostle of the Slavs, 123-4, 126, 128
  Czechs, Slav race of Bohemia, 127

  Dagobert I., Frankish king, son of Chlothochar II., 44, 58, 145
  Danes ravage England and Scotland, 117-19, 121; settle, and
    are converted, 118; Danish invasions, 122; conversion of
    Denmark, 129, 131
  David, S., 118
  Decretals, false, 194-6
  Deira, northern kingdom of England, 63
  Denmark, conversion of, 129, 131
  Desiderius (Didier) of Cahors, S., 58
  Dionysius the Areopagite, Platonist so called, 89
  Dnyepr (Dnieper), Russian river, baptisms in, 127
  Dokkum, S. Boniface martyred at, 139
  Donation of Constantine, 154; of Pippin, at Quierzy, 149, 151;
    of Charles the Great, 151-2
  Donatists, 103, 107
  Double procession of the Holy Ghost, 76, 80-1, 193-4
  Druidism favoured the growth of Christian monasticism, 53
  Dublin, conversion of Danes at, 122; Norse king of, 132
  Duchesne, Mgr., quoted, 40, 208
  Dudden, F. H., quoted, 50, 75 n.
  Dunstan, S., 115, 119-21
  Durham, see of, 121

  Eadgar, king of England, 119
  East, the, large number of ecclesiastics in, 25
  East and West, reunion of, after the quarrel of pope and emperor,
    in 519, 10; political severance completed, 149; breach widens,
    191; divergence, Photian schism, 192-4; nominal reunion
    throughout tenth century, 194.  _See_ Schism
  Easter baptisms, 177; communion, 179; use of the alleluia, 182;
    Celtic Easter, 55, 114
  Eastern Church, orthodox, securer than the West in its
    Christianity, 7; its intense conservatism, 27; dictates
    to the papacy under Vigilius and Pelagius, 40.  _See_ Church,
    Constantinople, Schism
  Ebbo, archbishop of Rheims, 129, 141
  Ebroin, mayor of the palace in Neustria, 146
  _Ecthesis_, issued by Heraclius, 87, 89
  Edessa, 93, 96, 110
  Education, 166-7, 175.  _See_ Learning
  Egbert, archbishop of York, 167, 179
  Egypt, 9; National Church, 13; Monophysite Church, 23; sects,
    110; Church, 112; Holy Communion, 180; Muhammadan
    invasion, 84, 108.  _See_ Alexandria, Coptic
  Einhard, biographer of Charles the Great, 142, 153, 167
  Eligius, S., 58
  Elipandus, archbishop of Toledo, 78-9, 168
  Ellesthaeos, Ethiopian king, 112
  Eloi (Eligius), S., 58
  Emly, monastery, 53
  Emmeran, Emmeram, S., missionary in Bavaria, 135
  Empire, the, becomes a Christian power, 1; obsolescent, 2;
    representative of Christian unity, 3; invaded by barbarians, 1, 3;
    its vitality, 3
  Empire, Eastern, relations with the Franks, 46-7; its strength
    renders the Nestorian missions possible, 98; becomes more
    purely Oriental, 113; end of the imperial power in Italy, 147-8;
    its recognition of the Western Umpire of Charles the
    Great, 153.  _See_ Constantinople
  Empire, Western, ends with Romulus Augustulus (476), 28;
    tradition preserved by the Church, 45-6; revival of the
    imperial idea, 172; Charles the Great restores the Empire,
    139, 144, 152; origin of the "Holy Roman Empire," 153;
    papal theory of the Empire, 192; weakness of the Empire in ninth
    and tenth centuries, 196; revival under the Saxon Ottos,
    191, 197-202
  England, conversion of, 62-3, 69, 117, 183-7; Church of,
    117-21; its independent attitude towards Rome, 117, 120,
    121; kings the nursing fathers of the Church, 27; English
    missionaries to Germany, 136-9, 141-2; ritual in, 183-90
  Ennismore, monastery, 53
  Epiphanius, bishop of Pavia, 29
  Epiphany baptisms, 177; communion, 179
  Etherius, chaplain and notary to Charles the Great, 151
  Ethiopian Church, 110-12
  Eucharist, celebration of, in sixth century, 188; doctrine of,
    controversy concerning, 170-1; Aelfric's doctrine of, 120;
    reservation of, 180-1.  _See_ Communion, Mass
  Eugenius, S., bishop of Carthage, 104-5
  Eutychian heresy, 7
  Evagrius, ecclesiastical historian (period 431-594), 21 n.
  Exarch of Ravenna, 34, 40, 91; the Exarchate, 61-2, 69, 147-9,
    151, 157

  Facundus, bishop of Hermione, 106
  Fasting Communion, 180; Saturday fast in tenth century, 131
  Faustus, bishop of Riez, a semi-Pelagian, 72
  Felix II., pope, 8
  Felix, bishop of Urgel, 78-9, 168
  Ferrand, African deacon, writer in the "Three Chapters"
    controversy, 106
  Feudalism, rise of, 44-5, 172-3
  _Filioque_ ("and [from] the Son"), word added to the Nicene Creed
    in the West, leads to controversy with the East, 193-4
  Fontaine, monastery, 55
  Fontenelle, abbey, 57
  Fortunatus, bishop of Carthage, 108
  Frankfort, Council of (794), 79, 168
  Franks in Gaul, 42; conversion of, 4, 43, 177; their imperfect
    Christianity, 43-4, 54; staunch Catholicism, 42, 47-8, 177;
    break up of their kingdom, 44; formative influence of the
    Church, 45; relations with the Eastern Empire, 46-7; alliance
    with the papacy, 49; their Church's relations with Rome,
    50; greatly influenced by monasticism, 58; they invade
    Spain, 74; laxity and corruption of their Church, 138, 144;
    Karling reformation, 144; Frankish missal, 183; relations
    with England, 186; Frankish clergy concoct the forged decretals, 195
  Fredegund, wife of Chilperich I., 43
  Frederic, Saxon bishop in Iceland, 132
  Freeman, Edward Augustus, quoted, 3
  Freising, see of, 138
  Frisians, 197; English missionaries to, 136, 139
  Fritzlar, abbey, 140
  Fuero Jusgo, the Wisigothic code, 74, 76
  Fulda, monastery, 81, 140
  Fulgentius, S., African bishop, 105

  Gaiseric (Genseric), king of the Vandals, 103-4
  Gall, S., 56, 116
  Gallican Church, 39, 41-59, _see_ Franks, Gaul; Gallican liturgy
    and ritual, 47, 181-3, 186, 188-90; influence on the English
    liturgy, 186-7
  Galswintha, wife of Chilperich I. of Neustria, 48
  Gaul, Roman, 41; Christianity in, 41-59, 83, 176; Gregory
    the Great in, 48-51, 65, 69; monasticism in, 171; feudalism,
    172; Normans in, 196
  Gelasian Sacramentary (so named from pope Gelasius I., 492-6), 182-3
  Gelimer, Vandal king, 105
  General Councils, first four, 76; Third (of Ephesus, 431), 96;
    Fourth (of Chalcedon, 451), 2, 7, 9-10, 18, 24, 65-6, 79, 85-6,
    89, 95; Fifth (of Constantinople, 553), 15, 17, 18, 20-2,
    39, 63-4, 86, 106-7, 161; Sixth (of Constantinople, 680-1),
    21, 84-5, 88; Seventh (of Nicaea, 787), 155, 165; Eighth
    (of Constantinople, 869), 193-4; Eighth, according to the
    Greeks (of Constantinople, 879-80), 194
  Gentilly, Council of (767), 81
  Georgia, Church of, 23, 95
  Gerbert of Aurillac (Silvester II.), 200-2
  Germanus, S., patriarch of Constantinople, 155
  Gildas, British historian, 183
  Glastonbury, monastery, 115, 119
  Gnesen, archbishopric of, 125
  Goidels, Celtic stock in Ireland, 53; Goidelic language, 119
  Goths, Eastern (Ostrogoths), in Italy, 4, 29-32; Western, _see_
    Wisigoths
  Grado, archbishop of, 157
  _Gradual_, 188
  Greece, iconoclasm causes a rising in, 157; Greek Church, its
    character, 6: the Eastern Empire in its religious aspect, 13.
    _See also_ Church, Constantinople, Eastern, Schism
  Greenland, mission to, 132
  Gregorian Sacramentary, 182
  Gregory I., the Great, S., pope, 21, 25, 34, 40, 55, 76, 113, 134,
    171, 180-2, 184, 186, 190, 192; his life and work, 60-71; his
    relations to Gaul, 48-51, 65, 69; to Africa, 107; to missions, 69;
    to monasticism, 69; to classical learning, 52, 70; his claim to
    jurisdiction, 68; claimed no special authority for the use of
    Rome, 187; his theology, 70-1; his writings, 35, 60, 63-5
  Gregory II., pope, 136-7, 157
  Gregory III., pope, 137, 147, 157
  Gregory IV., pope, 130
  Gregory V. (Bruno), pope, 199, 200
  Gregory of Tours, bishop and historian, 43-5, 51-2, 58, 66 n.,
    145, 171
  Gregory, abbat of Utrecht, 136
  Gregory, patrician, upstart emperor, 109
  Guntchramn (Guntram), king of the Burgundian Franks, 55

  Haakon (Hacon) the Good, king of Norway, 131
  Hadrian I., pope, 151, 154, 182
  Hadrian II., pope, 123-4
  Hamburg, archbishopric, 129-30
  Harnack, A., referred to, 22
  Harold Bluetooth, king of Denmark (died 978), 131
  Harold, Danish king in 822, 129
  Harold Haarfager (Fairhair), king of Norway, 131
  Hatfield, Council of (680), 88
  Helena, empress, 100
  _Henotikon_, the, 7, 8, 10
  Henry I., "the Fowler," first German king of the Saxon
    House(919-36), 126
  Heraclius, emperor, 22-3, 83-4, 100-1, 109, 158; as a theologian, 87
  Herat, Nestorian bishopric of, 98
  Heresy, not a unifying power, 134; real danger of sixth and seventh
    century heresies, 19; heresy akin to patriotism in the East,
    13; an expression of national independence, 23; baptism of
    heretics, 178.  _See_ Adoptianist, Aphthartodocetes, Arianism,
    Donatists, Eutychian, Jacobite, Monophysites, Monothelites,
    Nestorians
  Hermenigild (Hermenegild), Wisigothic king in Spain, 75
  Heruls, a Teutonic tribe, 29, 94
  Hessen, 136-8
  Hieria, iconoclastic synod at, 155
  Hieroclea, author of the _Synekdemos_, 24
  Hilarus, papal official under Gregory the Great, 107
  Hilda, S., 116
  Hilderic, Vandal king, 105
  Himyarites, Christians in South Arabia, 111-12
  Hincmar, archbishop of Rheims, 170, 192, 195
  Hira (in Persia), Monophysite bishop of, 110
  Hlothild (Chlothildis), daughter of Chlodowech, 74
  Hodgkin, Dr. Thomas, quoted, 32-3, 48, 75 n, 135, 144
  Homerites (Himyarites) in South Arabia, Christian, 111-12
  Honorius I., pope, 87-8; condemned by the Sixth General
    Council, 85
  Hormisdas, pope, 9-10, 90
  Hugh the Great, duke of the Franks (923-56), 196
  Hugh Capet, duke (956), and king (987-96) of the Franks, 201
  Hugh, S., abbat of Cluny, 174
  Hungary, 141; received a Christian king, 201
  Hunneric, Vandal king, 104
  Huns, 41, 94
  Hymns, 15 n, 81, 156, 162, 168, 190

  Ibas of Edessa, 16-18
  Iberians of Georgia, 95
  Iceland, 115; conversion of, 132-3
  Iconoclastic controversy, 12, 143, 147, 155-65, 194
  Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople, 193-4
  Illyria, Illyricum, 65-7, 157
  Image-worship.  _See_ Iconoclastic
  Incarnation, doctrine of the, the Church's tenacity of, 19;
    endangered by iconoclasm, 160, 164.  _See_ Heresies
  India, 9, 23, 96-8
  Ingunthis, Frankish princess, daughter of Sigebert and Brunichild,
    wife of Hermenigild of Spain, 48, 75
  Iona, 116-17
  Ireland, Christian and outside the Empire, 3; the Church in, 53,
    113-16, 121-2, 183; Irish learning, 169-71; missionaries in
    Thuringia, 136; monks in Iceland, 132; priests at
    Glastonbury, 115, 119
  Irene, Empress, 154, 164
  Irminsul, the, a column worshipped by the Saxons, 140
  Isidore of Seville, 76, 195
  Isis, worship of, 111
  Islam, 98.  _See_ Muhammadanism
  Istria, 63-4, 68, 151
  Italy, conquered by Goths, 4, 29; reconquered by Belisarius and
    Narses, 32; Imperial restoration, 33; Church in, 29-40;
    S. Columban in, 56; saved from Arianism, 60; liturgy, 183; end
    of the Eastern Imperial power, 143, 147-8; Charles the Great,
    150-4; the Saxon Ottos, 197-201
  Italy, Northern, long refuses to accept the Fifth General
    Council, 21; Gregory the Great's activity, 65, 69; Bavarian
    kings in, 135
  Italy, Southern, Benedictines in, 62; effect of iconoclasm on,
    157, 162

  Jacobite sect, 109-10; in Syria, 23, 84
  James, Studite monk, 162
  Jarrow, monastery, 116
  Jerusalem, Church and patriarchate of, 8, 16-17, 84, 87,
    100-1, 156; councils at (553), 20; (628), 101
  Jews, Gregory the Great tries to convert, 69; persecuted in
    Spain, 77; Jews in Syria, 100; influence Muhammad, 101;
    Jews in Arabia, 111-12
  Joannicius, S., Bulgarian recluse, 124
  John I., pope, martyred, 31
  John II., pope, 15
  John VIII., pope, 194
  John X., pope, 197
  John XI., pope, 174
  John XV., pope, 199
  John XVI., anti-pope set up by Crescentius (997-8), 199
  John of Biclaro (Joannes Biclarensis), bishop of Gerona, 62 n.,
    95 n., 75
  John the Cappadocian, patriarch of Constantinople, 10, 90
  John of Damascus (John Damascene), S., 87, 159-60
  John the Deacon, biographer of Gregory the Great, 64, 182
  John of Ephesus, Monophysite bishop and Syriac writer of
    sixth century, 24, 111
  John Maro, 89
  John of Nikiu, Jacobite bishop, 86, 109
  John the Patrician, recaptures Carthage from the Arabs, 109
  John the Scot (Johannes Scotus "Erigena"), 170-1
  Julian of Halicarnassus, 86
  Justin I., emperor, 10, 32, 112
  Justin II., emperor, 21-2
  Justinian I., emperor, 86, 89, 90, 94, 99-100, 107, 110-12, 143,
    153, 177; his birthplace, 24, 67-8, 91; building, 26, 27, 100,
    106; Christian legislation of, 28; controversies of his reign,
    14-22; corresponds with the pope, 10, 14; deals with the
    Monophysites, 15; his alleged heresy, 15, 21, 22; summons
    Fifth General Council, 17; intervenes in Africa, 105-6;
    his relations with the Franks, 47; restores the imperial rule
    in Italy, 33; Spanish war, 74; hymn-writer, 15 n.
  Justinian II., 90-1
  Justiniana Prima, 67, 91
  Jutes in Britain, 117; of Jutland, converted, 130

  Karlings, Frankish royal house, 57, 139, 144, 147, 196, 201
  Kerait, Tartar kingdom of, 96-7
  _Key of Truth, The_, book of the Armenian Paulicians, 80
  Khalifs of Baghdad, 97, 99; Khalif Omar, 101
  Khartoum, Christian remains near, 111
  Khorassan, 93
  Kiev, town on the Dnyepr, becomes Christian, 127
  Kothransson, Thorwald, Icelander, 132
  Kristián, tenth-century Bohemian historian, 128

  Lateran synod (649), 88
  Leander, archbishop of Seville, 63, 75-6
  Learning, 5, 38, 123; survival of, 5; at the court of the
    Merwings, 51; classical, taught to Gregory the Great, 60;
    yet he opposed classical learning in bishops, 52; classical,
    of the Irish Church, 115; in England, 115; of the Irish monks,
    121-2; of the Studite monks, 163; revival of, under Charles the
    Great, 154, 166-70.  _See_ Aelfric, Bede, Gerbert, Education,
    Literature
  Lebanon, 84; Monothelites in, 22
  Leger (Leodegar), S., 81, 146
  Lent, 36, 140
  Leo I., the Great, S., pope, 6, 7, 10, 29, 63, 89
  Leo III., pope, 81, 152
  Leo III., the Isaurian, emperor, 109, 155, 157-8
  Leo IV., the Chazar, emperor, 155
  Leo V., the Armenian, emperor, 165
  Leo VI., the Wise, emperor, 194
  Leodegar, Leodgar, (S. Leger), bishop of Autun, 81, 146
  Leontius of Byzantium, 86
  Leovigild, Wisigothic king in Spain, 48, 75
  Lerins, abbey, 81
  _Liber Pontificalis_, 39 n., 151
  Liberatus, sixth-century theological writer in Africa, 106
  Limoges, 150, 174
  Lindisfarne, 117
  Litanies, 184-6
  Literature in North Africa, 106; literary renaissance under
    Charles the Great, 166.  _See_ Boethius, Cassiodorus, Gregory
    the Great, Gregory of Tours, John of Damascus, Learning,
    Paul the Silentiary, Procopius, Venantius Fortunatus,
    Theodore of the Studium
  Liturgies, 181-90
  Liudhard, Frankish bishop in Kent, 186
  Lombards, 40, 147-50, 152; invade Italy, 34, 61; pope negotiates
    with, 62; conversion from Arianism to Catholicism, 4, 56, 63, 134
  Lothar (Chlothochar) II., king of Lotharingia, 191-2
  Louis I., the Pious, emperor, son of Charles I., 129
  Louis II., emperor, son of the Emperor Lothar I., 192
  Louis the German, king of Bavaria (840-76), son of Louis the
    Pious, 128
  Louis d'Outremer, king of the West Franks (936-54), son of
    Charles the Simple, 174
  Ludmilla, S., of Bohemia, 128
  Luxeuil, S. Columban's monastery at, 55-6

  Mâcon, Second Council of (585), 180
  Magdeburg, archbishopric, 126, 197-8
  Maieul (Majolus), abbat of Cluny, 174
  Mainz, 195; S. Boniface, archbishop of, 137-8
  Malmesbury, abbey, 115, 171
  Manichaeans, 104, 178
  Mansi, G. D., Italian theologian (1692-1769); his Concilia
    referred to, 15 n., 17 n., 21 n., 76
  Maraba, catholicos of Persia, 99
  Mark, S., evangelist, 64
  Maron, John, founder of the Maronites, 84
  Maronite Church, 23, 89
  Marozia, paramour of Pope Sergius III., mother of Pope John
    XI., 196
  Marriage of the clergy, 25, 91, 119-20; in the Greek Church,
    85; marriage of spiritual relations forbidden, 177
  Martel, Charles, Frankish mayor of the palace, 135, 137, 144, 146
  Martial, S., monastery at Limoges, 174
  Martin, S., monastery at Tours, 168, 173
  Martin I., pope, 88
  Martin, S., bishop of Braga, 74
  Martyrdom of S. Adalbert, 125, 129; S. Boniface, 139, 202;
    Pope John, 31; S. Theodosia, 158; S. Wenceslas, 128-9
  Mary, the Blessed Virgin, 18, 80; images of, 156-7
  Mass, the, 15 n.; Mass of the presanctified, 179; the Roman
    Mass, fifth to eighth century, 180-2: sixth century, 188-90;
    "ite, missa est," 190
  Maurice, emperor, 22, 62, 66
  Maurice, S., 125
  Maximus, orthodox African abbat and controversialist, 89, 108
  Meccah, 101
  Media, 93
  Medinah, 101
  Melkites, orthodox, in Egypt, 84, 110
  Mellitus, bishop, 176
  Melrose, monastery, 116
  Mennas, patriarch of Constantinople, 15, 17
  Merovech, son of Chilperich I., 43
  Merovingians.  _See_ Merwings
  Merv, Nestorian Church of, 98
  Merwings, Frankish royal house, 43-7, 138, 144, 147, 196, 199;
    encourage literature, 51; their sins, 52-4: their age called
    golden by Mabillon, 57; decay of their kingdoms, 135
  Mesopotamia, national Church of, 13
  Methodius, S., patriarch of Constantinople (843-7), 12, 156
  Methodius, S., archbishop of
  Moravia, 123-4, 128-9
  Metz, capital of Austrasia, 135; bishop of, 144
  Michael III., "the Drunkard," emperor, 192-3
  Mieczyslaw, king of Poland, 125
  Milan, archbishop of, 39; church of, 183
  Mir (Theodemir), king of the Suevi in Spain, 74
  _Missale Francorum_, 183
  Missions, important in this period, 2, 3; Byzantine, 6, 84;
    supported by the emperors, 23; missions from Rome, 62, 117,
    183-90; Nestorian, 6, 96-8; Monophysite, 24, 111; missionary
    zeal of the Irish Church, 116, 121-2; missions of the
    ninth century, 123; to the Bulgarians, 124; to the Slavs,
    124-9; to Northmen, 129-32; to Frisians, 136, 139; missions
    checked by the iconoclastic controversy, 156; mission of
    S. Augustine, 183-90; missionary wars of Charles the Great,
    139-42, and of the Saxon emperors, 197; zeal of Otto III. and
    Silvester II. for missions, 201-2
  Monasticism, in the East, 25, 161-3; its debt to S. Benedict,
    37; to S. Columban, 53; Irish, 53, 114; monasticism in Gaul,
    54, 171; a defence against the secularisation of the Frankish
    Church, 57; in Persia, 99; in Scotland, 119; missionary fruits
    of, 130; close connection with learning, 167; Alcuin's attitude
    to, 168; decay in ninth century, 172; revival at Cluny, 173-5;
    the Studium at Constantinople, 161-3; kings become monks, 77, 145
  Mongols, 100
  Monophysites, Monophysitism, 23, 83, 85, 110, 156, 159;
    Eastern attempts at compromise rejected by Rome, 7-8;
    Justinian studies the question, 10-11, and condemns it, 15;
    its condemnation necessary to the acceptance of a logically
    tenable creed, 19; Monophysite missions, 24, 111; Monophysitism
    in Abyssinia, 112; Arabia, 101; Armenia, 95; India, 97; Persia,
    98-9; Syria, 101
  Monothelites, Monothelitism, 22-3, 84-9, 159; its condemnation
    necessary, 19; favoured the progress of Islam, 102; weakened
    African Christianity, 108
  Montanists, heretical followers of the second-century fanatic
    Montanus, 178
  Monte Cassino, monastery, 35, 39, 61, 145
  Monza, Lombard relics at, 69
  Moors, heathen, of fifth century, 103; Muhammadan, in Spain
    and Gaul, 73, 146
  _Moralia_ of Gregory the Great, 63
  Moravia, 124, 127-9
  Mosaics at Constantinople and Ravenna, 26
  Mozarabic rite, Christian liturgy which survived the Moorish
    occupation and is still in use in Spain, 189
  Mugurrah (Nubia), visited by missionaries, 111
  Muhammad (Mohammed), the prophet, 101
  Muhammad II., conqueror of Constantinople in 1453, 27
  Muhammadans,  Muhammadanism, theocratic ideal of, 139-40;
    absorb the attention of the Eastern emperors, 143;
    contributes to the iconoclastic movement, 158; conquests, 84;
    conquest of Arabia, etc., 112; Merv, 98; Persia, 99; Syria,
    101; Egypt, 102; Africa, 5, 108-9; Soudan, 111; Spain,
    72-3, 77-8, 146; defeated in Gaul by Charles Martel, 146

  Naples, 143
  Narses, general of Justinian, 32, 34, 61
  Nationalism, a complicating factor in theological controversy, 9;
    nationalism of the Spanish Church, 73; nationalism and
    heresy, 110
  _Negus_, title of the ruler of Abyssinia, 111
  Nerses III., Armenian "Catholicos," 84-5
  Nestorians, Nestorianism, 9, 23, 83; missions, 6, 96-8; in
    Armenia, 95; in Persia, 93-6, 98-9; Nestorianism and
    Muhammad, 101; Nestorian "Church of the East" 96
  Neustria, Western Frankish kingdom, 43, 135-6, 146
  Neutra (in modern Hungary), Christian Church at, 127
  Nevers, S. Columban at, 56
  Nicaea, First General Council (325), 89; Seventh General Council
    (787), 165
  Nicene Creed, 193
  Nicephorus I., emperor, 80
  Nicephorus, patriarch of Constantinople, 160
  Nicetius, bishop of Trier, 47, 86
  Nicolas I., pope, 124, 191-6
  Nîmes, 75, 77, 146
  Nisibis, Nestorian school of theology at, 95-6
  Nobadae, a people of the Soudan, converted, 111
  Nona, bishop of, 125
  Normans, 150, 172, 196
  Northmen, ravages of, 169; pillage Hamburg, 130; converted,
    129-33.  _See_ Danes
  Northumbria, 116-17; schools of, 116, 167.  _See_ Deira
  Norway, conversion of, 121, 131-2
  Nubia, missionaries in, 111

  Odilo, abbat of Cluny, 174
  Odo, S., abbat of Cluny, 163, 171-5
  Oecumenical Councils, canons collected, 194; the Eighth
    disputed, 193-4.  _See_ General Councils
  Oecumenical patriarch, 65-6
  Olaf, king of Sweden (in 853), 130
  Olaf Trigvason, king of Norway (995-1000), 121, 132-3.
  Olaf, S., king of Norway (1017-29), 132
  Olaf, Norse king of Dublin, 132
  Olga, S., a "ruler of Russia," baptized, 126
  Omar, Khalif, 101
  Ommeyads, dynasty of Khalifs, descended from Omeyya, 156
  Orange, synod at (529), 72
  Ordination, anointing the hands at, 183
  Origen, his doctrines condemned, 16; Origenists, 15-16
  Oswald, king of Northumberland, 116
  Oswald, bishop of Worcester, 119
  Oswiu, king of Northumbria, 117
  Otto I., emperor, revives the Empire and reforms the papacy,
    197; ecclesiastical policy in Germany and Italy, 198-9;
    patron of Gerbert, 200; overlord of Poland, 125; Slav
    missions, 126; intervenes in Bohemia, 129; and Denmark, 131
  Otto II., emperor, 199, 201
  Otto III., emperor, 125, 198-202
  Ouen, S., bishop of Rouen, 58

  Paderborn, 152
  Palestine, Church in, 15-16, 100.  _See_ Jerusalem, Syria
  Pallium, its significance, 67-8; sent to S. Boniface, 137;
    to S. Ansgar, 130
  Pannonia, 124
  Papacy and the popes: Papacy rises as the Empire decays, 4;
    wins political power, 5, 61, 149; acquires rights of jurisdiction,
    31; popes act as envoys of Arian Gothic kings, 15, 31;
    papal elections confirmed by the emperor or the exarch, 34, and
    controlled by the Saxon emperors, 199; papacy supported
    by the Benedictines, 37, as afterwards by the Cluniacs, 173-5;
    degradation of the papacy in sixth century, 39; papal
    infallibility not dreamt of in sixth century, 39-40, nor in the
    early tenth, 197; growth of new ideals, popes begin to intervene
    in politics, 61; pope styled "oecumenical archbishop and
    patriarch," 65; papal power increases in Africa, 107-8; papacy
    preserves the traditions of the Empire, 143; alliance of the
    papacy with the Karlings, 147; growth of the temporal power,
    143, 149; beginning of the Papal States, 149; loss of the
    Bulgarian Church, 134; papacy foments strife between the Slavs
    and Constantinople, 125; popes oppose iconoclastic emperors,
    157; pope crowns Charles the Great emperor, 152-3; Nicolas
    I. claims to be the source of the Empire, 192; degeneracy of the
    popes in ninth and tenth centuries, 172, 196-7, 199; papal
    monarchy grows in theory at the time of its practical weakness,
    191; papacy supports its claims by the forged decretals, 194-6;
    papacy reformed by the Saxon emperors, 197, 199-202; list of
    popes, 205-8.  _See_ Rome
  Paschasius Radbertus, abbat of Corbie (died about. 865), 170
  Passau, see of, 138
  Patriarchates, the five, 24; question of supremacy, 90; their
    jurisdictions not considered unalterable, 91; patriarchal rights
    over the Bulgarian Church, 124; Illyria lost to Rome, 157.
    _See_ Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, Jerusalem, Rome
  "Patrician of the Romans," title conferred on Pippin the Short,
    148; borne by Charles the Great, 152
  Patrick, S., 57, 113-14, 183
  "Patrimony of S. Peter," 65, 148
  Paul the Deacon, 62 n., 65, 134, 167
  Paul, patriarch of Constantinople, 164
  Paul of Samosata, 80
  Paul the Silentiary, 25-6
  Paulicians, 80, 156
  Pelagius, founder of the Pelagian heresy in fifth century, 72
  Pelagius, I., pope, 16, 21, 34, 39-40, 107
  Pelagius II., pope, 62, 64-6
  Persecution of Catholics by Arians, 32, 74-5, 103-5; of Catholics
    by Moslems, 78; in the iconoclastic controversy, 155, 158,
    165; of Jews, 77; of Nestorians by Muhammadans, 99
  Persia, 12, 22-3, 80, 83, 110; the Church in, 93-5, 98-9; kings
    of, 93-5, 100, 102
  Peter, S., 117, 120; _Confessio_ of, 152; patrimony of, 65, 148;
    Charles the Great's gift of lands to, 151; popes act in the name
    of, 148-50
  Peter the Stammerer, bishop of Alexandria, 8
  _Phantasiasts_, 86
  Philae, temple of, 111
  Phocas the Cappadocian, emperor, 22
  Photius, patriarch of Constantinople, 124, 192-4
  Picts, heathens in Scotland, 114, 116
  Pippin the Short, Frankish king, 150; anointed by S. Boniface
    (751), 139, 147; by Pope Stephen II. (754), 148; relations
    with the papacy, 144, 147-9; donation of, 149, 151, 194
  Poictiers, Battle of, 146
  Poland, conversion of, 125
  Pomerania, 125
  Poppo, bishop, missionary to the Danes, 131
  Posen, bishopric of, 125
  Pragmatic Sanction of Justinian for the government of Italy, 33-4
  Prague, see of (bishopric, 973; archbishopric, 1343), 125, 129
  Primasius, sixth-century theological writer in Africa, 106
  _Privilegia_ to monasteries granted by Gregory the Great, 69;
    to the Cluniacs, 173-4
  Procession of the Holy Ghost, Double (i.e. from the Father
    and the Son), 76, 80-1, 193-4
  Proconsularis (i.e. Africa Proconsularis, the modern Tunis
    and Tripoli), 104
  Procopius, 11, 26, 91 n., 94, 100, 112
  Prussians, missions to, 125, 129
  Pseudo-Isidorian decretals, 195
  Pyrrhus, Monothelite heresiarch, 89, 108

  _Quicunque vult_, 81-2
  Quierzy (on the Oise), donation of, 151
  Quini-sextan Council at Constantinople (_in Trullo_), 85, 89-92

  Rabanus Maurus, 81
  Radegund, S., Frankish princess, 51; monastery of, 171
  Ratramnus of Corbie (died 868), 170
  Ravenna, 85, 147, 149, 151, 201; Odowakar's capital, captured by
    Goths, 29; recaptured by Belisarius, 30; mosaics at, 26;
    archbishopric, 68, 157
  Reccared, Wisigothic king in Spain, 73, 75-6, 80
  Recceswinth, Wisigothic king in Spain, 76
  Regensburg (Ratisbon), Bohemians baptized at, 128; see
    of, 129, 138; Council of (792), 79
  Remigius, S., baptizes Chlodowech, 43
  Remismond, Suevic king in Spain, 73
  Reparatus, bishop of Carthage, 106
  Reunion of Eastern and Western Church (in 519), 10; sought by
    Justinian, 11; nominal, after the Photian Schism, 194
  Rheims, 195-6, 200-1
  Rimbert, S., archbishop of Bremen, 130-1
  Rome, Church and patriarchate of, 24, 65-6, 157; insists on
    obsolete claims, 14; its supremacy repudiated at Constantinople,
    85, 90; quarrel with Constantinople over the _Ecthesis_
    and _Type_, 98; authorises the missions of S. Augustine, 117,
    and S. Boniface, 136-9; attitude of S. Boniface to, 139;
    connection with Ireland, 113-15, 122; with the East, 123; with
    England, 117, 120-1; assumes the political rights of the
    exarchate, 148-9; Eucharist, 179; councils at (680), 88;
    (731), 157; (863), 192.  _See_ Church (Western), Papacy
  Rome, city of, its peculiar history, 143; dominated by the local
    nobles, 196
  Romulus Augustulus, 29
  Rügen, isle of, 127
  Rule of Bangor, 54-5; of Basil, reformed by Theodore the
    Studite, 163; of S. Benedict, 35, 58-9, 69, 119, 121, 171,
    173, 175; of Cluny, 174-5; of S. Columban, 55, 171
  Rupert, S., missionary in Bavaria, 135
  Russia, conversion of, 6, 126-7; modern Russian Church, 95

  Sabas, S., 15
  Sabbas, archimandrite of the Studium, 162
  Sabellians, followers of the heretic Sabellius (third century), 178
  _Sacramentary_ of Pope Gelasius I. (492-6), 182-3; of Gregory the
    Great, 182
  Sacraments, 176-181
  Saints, Celtic "age of saints," 53; Merwing, 51; images of
    the, 156-7
  Salzburg, archbishopric, 127, 135, 138
  Samaritans, 100
  Samarkand, Nestorian bishopric of, 98
  Sancho the Great, king of Navarre (970-1035), 78
  Sapor II., king of Persia, 93
  Saracens, 77, 158, 172; in Africa, 109; in Spain and Gaul, 146.
    _See_ Muhammadans.
  Saxons, 135; forcible conversion by Charles the Great, 140-2,
    197; the Saxons in Britain, 113, 117-18, 176; "Old"
    Saxons of the Continent, 180
  Schism between East and West, formal beginning due to
    Monophysitism, 8; schism of 484-519, 68; schism of 649-81 caused
    by the _Ecthesis_ and _Type_, 88; steps towards, 149; the Photian,
    192-4
  Schleswig, converted, 130
  Scholarship, 5, 38, 55.  _See_ Learning
  Scholastica, S., sister of S. Benedict, 37
  Scilly Isles, 132
  Scotland, Church in, 114, 116-17, 119
  Scotus, Johannes.  _See_ John the Scot
  Sebert, king of the East Saxons, 176
  Seleucia, see of, 93
  Semi-Pelagianism, 72, 81
  Septimania, 77, 146
  Serbia, Church of, 124
  Serbian Church, 23, 84
  Sergius I., pope, 91
  Sergius I., patriarch of Constantinople, 83, 87
  Sermons, 64-5, 120, 163, 185, 188
  Severus, Monophysite patriarch of Antioch, 10, 15, 86
  Severus, patriarch of Aquileia, 62
  Sigambrians, a Teutonic tribe, allied to the Franks, 43
  Sigebert (Sigibert), Frankish king of Austrasia, 43, 54, 75
  Silvester II., pope, 7, 125, 200-2
  Simplicius, pope, 8
  Siricius, pope, 195
  Slaves, slavery, 130; freed by Gregory the Great, 65; Jews
    enslaved in Spain, 77
  Slavs, 44, 84; Charles the Great allied with heathen, 141;
    conversion of, 123-9; attacked by Otto I., 197
  Smbat, supposed author of the Paulician _Key of Truth_, 80
  Soissons, 139, 195
  Sophia, S., the Church of the Divine Wisdom, at Constantinople,
    25-7; Church of, at Kiev, 127
  Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, 87
  Soracte, monastery, 145
  Spain, 172, 196; Gregory the Great active in, 65; invaded by
    the Franks, 74; Dagobert I. influential in, 44; Charles the
    Great in, 140; conflict of Arianism and Catholicism in,
    48; Catholicism wins, 62-3, 73, 75; conquered by the
    Muhammadans, 77-8; Church has to contend with Islam, 72;
    Catholicism survives in the North, 78; Eucharist, 179; Spanish
    rite, 183; literature, 73
  Squillace, monastery, 38-9
  Stephen II. (or III.), pope, 148-9
  Stephen III. (or IV.), pope, 151
  Stephen, king of Hungary, 201
  Strathclyde, early British Church of, 113
  Studium, the, monastery at Constantinople, 161-3
  _Stylites_, 25
  Subiaco, S. Benedict at, 35
  Suevi (a Teutonic confederate people) in Gaul, 41.  _See_ Mir,
    Remismond
  Sweden, missions to, 129-30
  Syagrius, bishop of Autun, 49, 67 n.
  Symmachus, Senator, father-in-law of Boethius, executed, 32
  _Syntagma_, a collection of canons, compiled, 85, 178
  Syria, 100-1, 156; Syrian Church, Monophysite and Nestorian, 9;
    National Church, 13; monks disregard the Fifth General
    Council, 20; Jacobites in, 23, 84; Adoptianism in, 79;
    Monophysitism, 110; Monothelitism, 89; Muhammadan invasion, 108

  Tarasius, patriarch of Constantinople, 164
  Tartars, 96-7
  Tauresium, 91.  _See_ Justiniana Prima
  Tebessa (in modern Algeria), monastery, 106
  Thaddeus, Studite monk, 162
  Theandric energy, 87, 89
  Theodebert I., Frankish king, 47
  Theodelind, Lombard queen, 56, 69, 134-5
  Theoderic III., king of Neustria, 146
  Theodora, empress (842), wife of Theophilus, 165
  Theodora, paramour of Pope John X., mother of Marozia, 196
  Theodore of Mopsuestia, 16-18
  Theodore of the Studium (or the Studite), S., 124, 156, 160-4
  Theodore of Tarsus, 115, 117, 169
  Theodoret of Cyrrhus, 16-18
  Theodoric the Ostrogoth, king of Italy, 29; his tolerant
    ecclesiastical policy, 30; executes Symmachus and Boethius, 32;
    aims at a united Italy, 60
  Theodoric II., Frankish king of Burgundy, son of Childebert II., 56
  Theodosia, S., 158
  Theodosius II., emperor, 67
  Theology, important in this period, 1; the predominant interest
    in the literature, 5; the theology of statesmen and
    military men, 9, 87; theology at Constantinople, 8, 156;
    iconoclastic, 158-9; theology of S. John Damascene, 159-60
  Theophanes, Greek chronicler (758-817), 111
  Theophilus, emperor, 165
  Thessalonica, 67-8, 123
  Theudberga, wife of Chlothochar, king of Lotharingia, 191
  Theudis, Wisigothic king in Spain, 74
  Thomas of Edessa, 99
  Thormod, missionary priest in Iceland, 132
  Thorwald Kothransson, Icelander, 132
  Thrace, Paulicianism in, 80
  "Three Chapters," controversy of the, 16-20, 22, 62-3, 72, 99, 106-7
  Thuringia(ns), 135-8
  Tiberius II., emperor, 22
  Tithes, 140
  Toledo, cathedral of, 76; councils, 72; Third Synod (of 589), 76,
    80; Fourth (of 633), 81; Sixteenth (of 695), 77
  _Tome_ of S. Leo, 63
  Tomi, monks of, 14
  Tonnenna, Victor of, 106-7
  Totila, Gothic king, 37
  Tours, 168; battle of, _see_ Poictiers.  _See also_ Gregory of Tours
  Transubstantiation, 171
  Trier (Trèves), archbishop of, 192
  Trullian Council (691) at Constantinople, 85, 89-92
  Tunis, survival of the Church of, 110
  _Type_, issued by Constans II., 88
  Tzani, Asiatic people, converted, 94

  Unity, the central idea of the period, 2, 154, 203; need of
    unity in the Church, 70
  "Universal bishop," title declined by Gregory the Great, 66;
    Cluniac ideal, 175
  Urban II., pope (1088-99), 174

  Vandals, 197; in Gaul, 41; in Africa, 103-5
  Venantius Fortunatus, bishop of Poictiers, 51, 75
  _Veni Creator Spiritus_, 81
  Venice, 143, 151, 157
  Victor, bishop of Carthage, 108
  Victor of Tonnenna (Victor Tununensis), 106-7
  Victor Vitensis, 104-5
  Vienne, 186
  Vigilists, 15.  _See_ Akoimetai.
  Vigilius, pope, 17, 20, 39-40, 106
  Vivarium, monastery of, 38
  Vladimir, S., of Russia, 126-7

  Wales, Church of, 113, 118, 122; West Wales (i.e. Cornwall), 113
  Wallachian Church, 23
  Wamba, Wisigothic king in Spain, 76
  Wandrille, S., 57
  Wenceslas of Bohemia, S., 128-9
  Wends, missions to the, 126
  Whitby, Synod of (664), 116
  Wilfrith (Wilfrid) of Ripon, S., 88, 117-18, 121, 169
  Willehad, archbishop of Bremen, 142
  William of Aquitaine, founder of the abbey of Cluny, 173
  Willibald, biographer of S. Boniface, 138
  Willibrord, S., Northumbrian missionary in Frisia, 136
  Winfrith of Crediton (S. Boniface), 121, 136-40, 142
  Wisigoths in Spain, 73-8; corruption of society, 73-4; accept
    Catholicism, 5, 62-3, 73, 75; their monarchy falls before the
    Moors, 146
  Würzburg, 138, 147

  York, school of, 116, 167

  Zacharias, pope, 147
  Zacharias, patriarch of Jerusalem, 101
  Zeno, emperor, 7





*** End of this Doctrine Publishing Corporation Digital Book "The Church and the Barbarians - Being an Outline of the History of the Church from A.D. 461 to A.D. 1003" ***

Doctrine Publishing Corporation provides digitized public domain materials.
Public domain books belong to the public and we are merely their custodians.
This effort is time consuming and expensive, so in order to keep providing
this resource, we have taken steps to prevent abuse by commercial parties,
including placing technical restrictions on automated querying.

We also ask that you:

+ Make non-commercial use of the files We designed Doctrine Publishing
Corporation's ISYS search for use by individuals, and we request that you
use these files for personal, non-commercial purposes.

+ Refrain from automated querying Do not send automated queries of any sort
to Doctrine Publishing's system: If you are conducting research on machine
translation, optical character recognition or other areas where access to a
large amount of text is helpful, please contact us. We encourage the use of
public domain materials for these purposes and may be able to help.

+ Keep it legal -  Whatever your use, remember that you are responsible for
ensuring that what you are doing is legal. Do not assume that just because
we believe a book is in the public domain for users in the United States,
that the work is also in the public domain for users in other countries.
Whether a book is still in copyright varies from country to country, and we
can't offer guidance on whether any specific use of any specific book is
allowed. Please do not assume that a book's appearance in Doctrine Publishing
ISYS search  means it can be used in any manner anywhere in the world.
Copyright infringement liability can be quite severe.

About ISYS® Search Software
Established in 1988, ISYS Search Software is a global supplier of enterprise
search solutions for business and government.  The company's award-winning
software suite offers a broad range of search, navigation and discovery
solutions for desktop search, intranet search, SharePoint search and embedded
search applications.  ISYS has been deployed by thousands of organizations
operating in a variety of industries, including government, legal, law
enforcement, financial services, healthcare and recruitment.



Home