CHAPTER VIII.

SUPPLEMENTARY.

 

During the period between the council of Chalcedon and the end of the sixth century, the influence of Alexandria and of Antioch declined. Such was the natural result of the differences by which those churches were distracted— with the frequent and bloody conflicts of their factions—the forcible expulsions and installations of bishops, who, instead of being shepherds over the whole community, could only be the chiefs of parties—and the variations of doctrine and policy between the successive occupants of the sees. In the meanwhile, Constantinople was advancing in authority and importance. The council of Chalcedon had conferred on it a right of receiving appeals from bishops or clerks against their metropolitans. By the help of Zeno, the patriarchs of Constantinople finally reduced the exarchate of Ephesus to subjection; and the deprivations of Alexandria and Antioch gave them repeated opportunities of exercising an apparent superiority over those elder churches, by consecrating patriarchs for them, and otherwise interfering in their concerns. The argument for the precedence of Rome, in so far as it was founded on the dignity of the ancient capital—(the only foundation of it which the east had ever acknowledged) —fell with the western empire. It has been supposed that Acacius conceived the idea of raising his see above Rome; and it seems at least probable that Constantinople might have successfully rivalled the power of the great western church, had not its bishops been placed at a disadvantage in consequence of their dependence on the court, and weakened by their quarrels with the emperors.

The bishops of Rome, as before, pursued in the main a steady course. They were still on the orthodox and victorious side in the controversies of the time; and thus their reputation and influence grew. They were invoked and courted by the various parties in the eastern disputes; the emperors themselves found their account in conciliating the bishops of Rome and using them as a check on the patriarchs of Constantinople. The wealth of the Roman see was increased by the acquisition of great estates, not only in Italy, but in other countries; and hence, in addition to gaining the natural influence of riches, the bishops were able, by means of the agents employed in the management of their lands, to keep a watchful eye on the ecclesiastical affairs of distant provinces, and to exercise a frequent interference in them. Even the heresy of the barbarians who overran the west was in its effects favourable to the power of the Roman see, inasmuch as, by everywhere presenting the same enemy, it tended to force the Catholics into combination and centralization, and prevented the breaking up of the church into separate nationalities.

In Italy the title of pope was now usually appropriated to the bishop of Rome, although in other countries of the west it continued to be bestowed on bishops in general until the time of Gregory VII. In eastern usage, it was commonly restricted to the bishops of Rome and Alexandria. Titles of more imposing sound, such as that of “ecumenical bishop”, were sometimes applied to the bishops of Rome,—chiefly by persons whose interest it was to flatter them; the first instance of this kind was at the council of Chalcedon, where the Alexandrian complainants against Dioscorus, wishing to enlist the Roman legates in their cause, styled Leo “ecumenical archbishop, and patriarch of the great Rome”. But such titles—originating among Orientals, and in the inflation of oriental language—were not intended to be understood in that exclusive sense which the words might naturally convey to our minds. Thus the style of “ecumenical patriarch” was assumed by the bishops of Constantinople, who yet made no pretensions to dominion over the western church. And it was not supposed that there was any incompatibility between the titles, when, at the council under Mennas, which condemned the opinions of Origen, the bishops of Rome and Constantinople were each styled “archbishop and ecumenical patriarch”; or when Justinian addressed each of them as “head of all the churches”.

The Roman bishops extended their claims of jurisdiction—sometimes resting them on canons and imperial edicts, but more frequently on privileges alleged to be derived from St. Peter—with whom, however, St. Paul, the companion of his martyrdom and apostle of the gentiles, was still joined as having contributed to the foundation of the claim.

In the west, disputes which arose between bishops as to precedence and jurisdiction occasioned a frequent recourse to Rome, and advanced the idea of a supreme judicial authority in that see—the more so, because the contending parties were often subjects of different governments. A like effect followed from the applications which churches became accustomed to make to Rome for advice in cases of difficulty. These applications drew forth decretal epistles by way of answer; the applicants were glad to be assured that the substance of such replies was of apostolical tradition and of universal authority; and the pope came to be regarded as a general dictator in matters of this kind. About the middle of the sixth century, Dionysius Exiguus, a Roman monk of Scythian birth, collected the canons of the general and of the chief provincial councils, translating those which were in Greek, and including with them the decretal epistles of the Roman bishops, from Siricius downwards. The work became a standard of ecclesiastical law in the west; and it contributed largely to heighten the authority of the see whose decisions and advices were thus apparently placed on a level with the decrees of the most venerated councils.

Although, however, the Roman bishops not only became the highest judges of ecclesiastical matters in the west, but also claimed a right of watching over the faith of the whole church, the idea of a proper supremacy, such as that which was asserted in later times, was as yet unknown. The bishops of Rome still admitted those of the other great “apostolical” churches—Alexandria and Antioch—to be of the same grade with themselves. They did not pretend to be of a superior order to other bishops; nor did they claim a right of interfering with any diocese, except in case of the bishop’s misconduct.

The relations of the Roman bishops with the civil power varied according to the political changes of the times. At the election of a successor to Simplicius, in the year 483, Basil, an officer of Odoacer, appeared, and, professing to act in accordance with advice given by the late pope to his master, expressed the king’s surprise that such a matter had been undertaken without obtaining the royal license; he also proposed a regulation that no bishop of Rome should alienate any property belonging to the see, under pain of excommunication both for himself and for the purchaser. The result is not recorded; but there can hardly be a doubt that the barbarian king’s emissary had an important influence on the choice of the new bishop.

Theodoric, in the earlier part of his reign, allowed the church a great liberty of self-regulation—considering that the schism which divided Rome from Constantinople secured him against any danger from correspondence between the clergy of his own dominions and their eastern brethren. On the death of Anastasius II, in 498, a violent contest for the pontificate took place between Symmachus and Laurence. The Arian king did not interfere until the matter was brought before him at Ravenna by the parties, when he decided that the see thould belong to that bishop who had been first consecrated and had the larger number of adherents; and Symmachus was consequently established. In 502 this bishop held a synod, by which the interference of Basil at the election after the death of Simplicius was indignantly reprobated as an unwarrantable encroachment on the part of the laity. Theodoric allowed the censure to pass without notice—being probably not unwilling to permit an attack on the memory of his rival, even at the expense of failing to assert the claims of the crown. In the following year, at the request of the partisans of Laurence, who had again made head, Theodoric appointed the bishop of Altino to act as “visitor” of the Roman church. The commissioner behaved (it is said) in an arbitrary and grossly partial manner, so as greatly to irritate the adherents of Symmachus. For the investigation of some serious charges which had been brought against Symmachus, Theodoric summoned a council of Italian bishops, which, from the place of its meeting at Rome, is known as the Synod of the Palm; and this assembly, after severely censuring the appointment of a visitor as an unwarranted novelty, pronounced Symmachus innocent, in so far as man's decision was concerned, and declared that, on account of certain specified difficulties, the case was left to the Divine judgment alone. The proposition which has been erroneously inferred from this as the opinion of the council—that the pope was exempt from all earthly judgment—was soon after maintained by Ennodius, bishop of Ticinum (Pavia), a partisan of Symmachus; and for the confirmation of the new pretension, acts of earlier popes were forged in a strain utterly contradictory to genuine older documents, such as the letters which had been addressed by the Roman clergy to the emperor Gratian.

On the renewal of intercourse between Rome and Constantinople, Theodoric, as we have seen, began to watch the church with a jealousy very opposite to the spirit of his earlier system. The mission of Pope John to Constantinople, with its consequences, has been related in a former chapter. Theodoric, in the month before his own death, nominated the successor of John, Felix IV, and during the remaining time of the Gothic rule in Italy the kings controlled the election of the popes.

Justinian, in his eastern dominions, aimed at reducing the bishops to a greater dependence on the court; and, as this policy was accompanied by professions of great reverence for them, with an increase of their dignities and privileges in some respects, the Greeks submitted to it without reluctance. The emperor not only interfered much in regulations as to matters of discipline, even the most important, but carried out largely the example first set by Basiliscus, of determining points of faith by edicts. His mandates in ecclesiastical matters were published by the agency of patriarchs, metropolitans, and bishops, in like manner as his edicts on secular subjects were issued through the various grades of lay officials. He attempted, without the sanction of a general council, to erect a sixth patriarchate, by bestowing on the bishop of his native place, Justiniana Prima or Lychnidus (Achrida), in Illyricum, a wide Jurisdiction, with privileges which were intended to be modelled on those of Rome. But the attempt proved abortive; the new patriarchs never obtained effectual acknowledgment of their pretensions, and, soon after the death of Justinian, the bishops of Lychnidus are found among those subject to the see of Rome.

On the conquest of Italy, Justinian began to deal with the bishops of Rome as he had dealt with those of Constantinople. He addressed them in flattering titles, and aimed at reducing them to the condition of tools. He made new and stringent regulations as to the confirmation of the pope by the civil power. According to the Liber Diurnus (a collection of forms which represents the state of things in those days, or shortly after) the death of a Roman bishop was to be notified to the exarch of Ravenna; the successor was to be chosen by the clergy, the nobles of Rome, the soldiery, and the citizens; and the ratification of the election was to be requested in very submissive terms, both of the emperor and of his deputy the exarch. The share which the laity had from early times enjoyed in the choice of bishops generally, was restricted by a law of Justinian, which ordered that the election should be made by the clergy and principal inhabitants of each city, to the exclusion of the great mass of the people, whose disorderly behaviour had too often afforded a pretext for the change.

The proceedings of Vigilius in the controversy as to the Three Articles —the humiliations which he endured—his vacillations, so utterly contradictory to the later Roman pretensions—tended to lower the dignity and reputation of his see; and it was greatly weakened by the schism of Aquileia and other provinces. But, on the other hand, the Lombard invasion, in 568, had the effect of increasing the political power of the popes, as they were obliged, in virtue of their extensive property, to take a prominent part in the measures adopted for self-defence by the inhabitants of such portions of Italy as still belonged to the empire; while their services were requited by the emperors with the power of appointing to many offices, and with other civil privileges.

Condition of the Clergy.

In the course of the fifth and sixth centuries, a growing opinion as to the obligation of celibacy on the clergy had the effect of separating them more and more widely from other Christians. No general council ventured to prohibit the marriage of the clergy; that of Chalcedon assumes the existence of prohibitions, but does not itself lay down any such law with a view of binding the whole church. But local councils were continually occupied with the subject, and the bishops of Rome were steady in advancing the cause of celibacy. The general aim of the canons enacted during this time was to prevent clerical marriage altogether, if possible; to extend the prohibition to the inferior grades of the ministry; to debar the married from higher promotion; to prevent such clerks as were allowed to marry once from entering into a second union; to limit their choice to women who had never been married; to separate the married clergy from their wives, or, if they lived together, to restrain them from conjugal intercourse. These regulations belong chiefly to the western church—a greater liberty being apparently allowed in the east. But, as has been remarked in a former period, the frequency of such canons is itself a proof how imperfectly they were able to make way; and very many cases are recorded which show that the enforcement of them was found impracticable, and that a variety of usages in different places was largely tolerated. Thus Lupus, bishop of Troyes, and Euphronius of Autun, while mentioning the restraints which they placed on the marriage of ostiaries, exorcists, and subdeacons, are obliged to content themselves with saying as to the higher grades, to which the canons forbade marriage, that they endeavoured to avoid raising to them persons engaged in that state, or to enforce separation between the married clergy and their wives. And a witness of a more unfavourable kind to the resistance which such laws met with, is found in the fact that, in proportion as celibacy was enforced on the clergy, it became the more necessary to enact canons prohibiting them to entertain concubines or other “extraneous” female companions.

The marriage of the clergy is now the subject not only of canons, but of imperial laws. Honorius, in 420—perhaps at the suggestion of Boniface, bishop of Rome—enacted, in accordance with the Nicene canon, that the clergy should not have as inmates of their houses any women except their own nearest relatives; but it was allowed that such of the clergy as had married before ordination should retain their wives; “for” it was said, “those are not unfitly joined to clerks who have, by their conversation, made their husbands worthy of the priesthood”. A century later, Justinian, by several enactments, forbade the promotion of persons who had children or grandchildren to bishoprics, on the ground that such connexions were a temptation to prefer the interests of kindred to those of the church; he confirmed all the ecclesiastical prohibitions of clerical marriage, and declared the issue of such marriages illegitimate, and incapable of inheriting property.

The privileges of the clergy in general were on the increase. Their immunities were confirmed and enlarged; the tendency of legislation was to encourage the bestowal of riches on the church, and to secure to it the permanent possession of all that had been acquired. The idea of expiating sin by money, and especially by liberality to the church, was now put forth more broadly than before; and it found the readier entrance among the Teutonic tribes from the circumstance that the system of compensating for crimes by fines had prevailed among them before their conversion. Laws and canons were often found necessary to check the practice of obtaining ordination or spiritual dignities by money.

While the judgment of ecclesiastical matters belonged exclusively to the spiritual courts, the bishops had cognizance also of secular causes in which the clergy were concerned, although in these causes the parties were at liberty either to resort in the first instance to a secular tribunal, or to appeal from the bishop to the lay judge, whose sentence, if contrary to that of the bishop, might become the subject of a further appeal.

In criminal cases, the clergy were exempted from the jurisdiction of lay tribunals for slight offences, although it seems to be doubtful how far this exemption practically extended. Honorius, in 407, at the request of African councils, appointed lay “defenders” (defensores) of the church, whose business it was to watch over its privileges and to maintain its rights, so that the clergy should not be obliged to appear personally in secular courts. Justinian enacted that bishops should not be required to give evidence in courts; certain officers were appointed to wait on them for the purpose of taking their depositions, which were not to be made on oath, but on their mere word, with the Gospels lying before them. The bishops were charged with an oversight of prisoners, lunatics, minors, foundlings, and other helpless persons, and were furnished with the powers necessary for the exercise of it. They were also charged with a general supervision of public morals—thus, for example, it was their duty to check the practice of gaming. They were, in conjunction with the civil magistrates, to manage the appointment of the subordinate officers of government, and were, with the principal inhabitants of each city, to superintend public works, buildings, and establishments, as also the administration of the local revenues. They were to see that the civil governors and judges did their duty, while the governors in turn were to take care that the bishops should hold synods regularly, and should not alienate the property of the church; but whereas the prefect was not authorised to do more than admonish a bishop of his neglect, and, in case of his persevering in it, to report the matter to the emperor, the bishop had in some circumstances a right to supersede the prefect in his functions. The consequence of such regulations was, that the bishops advanced in political influence, and became more entangled in secular business; and that, agreeably to the object of Justinian's policy, they were reduced into a greater dependence on the emperor by becoming officers of the state.

The patronage of the churches in every diocese originally belonged to the bishop. The earliest exception to this rule was made by the first council of Orange, in 441, which enacted that where a bishop, for some special reason, had built a church within the diocese of another, he should, in consideration of his bounty, be allowed to appoint the incumbent. This privilege was extended to the laity in general by a law of Justinian, which enacted that anyone who should found a church, and should endow it with a maintenance for a clerk, might nominate a person who should be ordained to it. The bishops, however, were at liberty in such cases to refuse ordination, if the individual presented were unfit.

The power of the clergy in the west survived the system under which it had grown up. During the barbarian invasions, they often stood forward, and with effect, to intercede for their flocks. The conquerors found them established as a body important on account of their secular influence, as well as of the sacred nature of their functions. On the settlement of the new kingdoms, the church mediated between the victorious and the vanquished; it held up before the rude barbarians the idea of a law higher than human law—of a moral power superior to force—of a controlling and vindicating Providence. Few of the conquering race were disposed to enter into the ranks of the clergy; their ordination, indeed, was not allowed without the leave of the sove­reign, lest the nation should be deprived of its warriors. The ministry of the church, unlike other paths to distinction, was open to the ability of the subjugated people, and through it they acquired a powerful influence over their conquerors. The clergy were the sole possessors of learning; they were the agents of civilization, the reformers of law, the authorized protectors of the weak; they superintended the administration of justice; they were often employed as envoys and peacemakers between princes. Some had the reputation of miracles; others were venerable and formidable as holding the possession of miraculous shrines—such as that of St Martin at Tours. Riches flowed in on them; tithes were enforced by canons, and large donations of land—a kind of property which increased in value as the people advanced in civilization—were bestowed on them. In order to secure the influence of bishops and abbots, kings endowed their churches and monasteries with estates, to which the usual obligation of military service was attached, and in no long time some of the ecclesiastical holders began to discharge such duties in their own persons. Gregory of Tours mentions with horror the warlike achievements of two brothers belonging to the episcopal order, Salonius and Sagittarius; but the feeling of the indecency of such things was gradually blunted among the Franks. The political importance and the territorial wealth of the bishops gave them the rank of counsellors to the sovereign; and in that character their abilities and knowledge often won for them an influence exceeding that of all others. Hence in France a system of mixed ecclesiastical and secular councils grew up, which for a time superseded the purely spiritual synods.. Thus while the bishops gained in secular power, the metropolitan jurisdiction was weakened by the disuse of the ancient provincial assemblies, as well as by the circumstance that, in the new partition of the country, the province of a metropolitan might be divided between different kingdoms ;b and the king came to be regarded as the highest judge in ecclesiastical affairs as well as in others.

The clergy, like the other Romanized subjects of the Frankish monarchy, continued to be governed by the Roman law. They retained all the privileges which it had conferred on them, and, as the conquerors were themselves ignorant of it, the bishops had a large share in the administration of the law among the Roman population in general. As the bishops rose, the other clergy, being of the conquered races, sank in relative position. Ordination, indeed, was regarded as emancipating them; but while priests to the laity, they were serfs to the bishops. The old relation of the bishop and his council disappears. The prelates treated their subject clergy with great rudeness, and their power over them became more despotic as the decay of metropolitans and the cessation of provincial synods deprived the clergy of all power of appeal except to the sovereign; canons of the time enact bodily chastisement as the penalty for some ecclesiastical offences, while other canons were found necessary to restrain the bishops from beating their clerks at pleasure. The clergy sometimes attempted to protect themselves by combining against their superiors; and such combinations are repeatedly forbidden by councils. The rude princes of Gaul often behaved with lawless violence in ecclesiastical affairs. The prerogative which Clovis had acquired by his merits towards the church was increased by his successors. The influence which the eastern emperors had exercised in appointments to the greater sees, and to the bishoprics of the cities which were places of imperial residence, was extended by the Frank sovereigns to all sees; it would seem that the vacancy of a bishopric or of an archbishopric was notified to the king, that his license was required before an election, and his confirmation after it. Councils repeatedly enacted that bishops should not be appointed until after election by the clergy and people, and with the consent of the metropolitan; but the election was often rendered an empty form by a royal nomination, and kings often took it on themselves to appoint and to depose bishops by their own sole power,—an usurpation which was facilitated by the connexion with the crown into which bishops were brought by the tenure of their estates. In such cases the royal patronage was often obtained by simony or other unworthy means, and was bestowed on persons scandalously unfit for the office; while the change in the manner of appointment combined with other influences to widen the separation between the bishops and the other clergy. The license of the sovereign, which under the empire was required for general councils only, was in Gaul necessary for all; the kings composed the councils at their own will, from larger or smaller districts, of a greater or less number of bishops, and with such mixture of laymen as they pleased; and not content with this, they made many regulations by their own authority in matters concerning religion. The wealth of the clergy soon attracted their cupidity, and they endeavoured to get a part of it into their own hands by heavy taxation or by forcible acts of rapacity; but on such occasions, it is said, the property of the church was protected by the judicial infliction of sickness, death, or calamity on her assailants; and by tales and threats of such judgments the clergy were often able to ward off aggression.

Monasticism.

Monachism continued to increase in popularity during the fifth and sixth centuries: but when a system founded on a profession of rigour becomes popular, its corruption may be safely inferred. We have seen how in the controversies of the east the monks held all parties in terror—wielding a vast influence by their numbers and their fanatical rage. Justinian made several enactments in favour of monachism—as, for example, that married persons might embrace the monastic life without the consent of their partners, children without the leave of parents, and slaves without that of their masters. Monks more and more acquired the character of clergy, although it was usual in monastic societies that only so many of the members should be ordained as were necessary for the performance of religious offices, and some monasteries were even without any resident presbyter. Leo the Great forbids monks to preach, or to intermeddle with other clerical functions; and other prohibitions to the same effect are found. As, however, the monks had a greater popular reputation for holiness than the clergy, and consequently a greater influence over the people, it was the interest of the clergy rather to court than to oppose them.

The council of Chalcedon enacted that monasteries should be strictly under the control of the bishops in whose dioceses they were situated, and that no one should found a monastery without the bishop’s consent; and orders of a like purport are found both among the canons of other councils and among laws of the emperor Justinian. The first country in which this principle was violated was Africa, where, about the year 520, many monastic societies, passing over the local bishops, placed themselves under the primate of Carthage or other distant prelates. Throughout the other countries of the west, the local bishop still had the superintendence of monasteries—in so far, at least, as the abbots and the clerical members were concerned, although some canons prevented his interference in the relations between the head and the lay brethren.

The revolutions of the west were favourable to monasticism. Monks, both by their numbers and by their profession of especial sanctity, impressed the barbarian conquerors. Their abodes, therefore, became a secure retreat from the troubles of the time; they were honoured and respected, and wealth was largely bestowed on them. But where the monastic profession was sought by many for reasons very different from those which its founders had contemplated—for the sake of a safe and tranquil life rather than for penitence or religious perfection—a strong tendency to degeneracy was naturally soon manifested. And thus in the earlier part of the sixth century there was room for the labours of a reformer.

Benedict, the great legislator of western monachism, was born near Nursia (now Norcia), in the duchy of Spoleto, about the year 480, and at the age of twelve was sent to study at Rome; but in disgust at the irregularities of his fellow-students he fled from the city at fourteen, and, separating himself even from his nurse, who had attended him, he lived for three years in a cave near Subiaco. The only person acquainted with the secret of his retreat was a monk named Romanus, who, having seen him in his flight, was led to take an interest in him; he furnished the young recluse with a monastic habit, and saved from his own conventual allowance of bread a quantity sufficient for his support, conveying it to him, on certain days, by a string let down to the mouth of the cave. At length Benedict was discovered by some shepherds; he instructed them and others who resorted to him, and performed a number of miracles. In consequence of the fame which he had now attained, he was chosen abbot of a monastery in the neighbourhood; but his attempt at a reformation provoked its inmates, who, in order to rid themselves of him, mixed poison with his drink. On his making the customary sign of the cross, the cup flew to pieces; whereupon he mildly reminded the monks that he had warned them against electing a person of character and habits so unlike their own, and returned to his solitude. His renown gradually spread; great multitudes flocked to him, and even some members of the Roman nobility entrusted their children to him for education; he built twelve monasteries, each for an abbot and twelve monks. But finding himself disquieted by the persevering malignity of a priest named Florentius, who out of envy attempted to destroy him by calumny and by poison, he quitted Subiaco, with a few chosen companions, in the year 528. After some wanderings, he arrived at Monte Cassino, where, on a lofty height overlooking the wide valley of the Liris, Apollo was still worshipped by the rustics, and a grove sacred to the pagan deities continued to be held in reverence. The devil attempted to check him by various prodigies; but Benedict triumphed over such obstacles, cut down the grove, destroyed the idol of Apollo, and on the site of the altar erected an oratory dedicated to St. John the Evangelist and St. Martin—the germ of the great and renowned monastery which became the mother of all the societies of the west. Here he drew up his ‘Rule’ about the year 529—the same year in which the schools of Athens were suppressed, and in which the Semipelagian doctrine was condemned by the council of Orange.

The severity of earlier rules—fitted as they were for the eastern regions in which monachism had originated, rather than for those of the west into which it had made its way—had become a pretext for a general relaxation of discipline throughout the western monasteries, while, on the other hand, it had given occasion for much hypocritical pretension. Benedict, therefore, in consideration of this, intended his code to be of a milder and more practical kind—suited for European constitutions, and variable in many respects according to the climate of the different countries into which it might be introduced.

Every Benedictine monastery was to be under an abbot, chosen by the monks and approved by the bishop. The brethren were to regard their head as standing in the place of Christ, and were therefore to yield him an obedience ready, cheerful, and entire; while the founder was careful to impress on the abbots a feeling of responsibility for the authority committed to them, and the duty of moderation in the exercise of it. The monks were to address the abbot by the title Dominus; in speaking to each other they were not to mention the names of the individuals, but were to use the titles of father (nonnus), or brother, according to their relative age; the younger were to make way for their elders, to rise up to them, to resign their seats to them, to ask their blessing, and to stand in their presence, unless permitted by the seniors to sit down. Such priests or other clergymen as might be in a monastery, whether specially ordained for its service or admitted at their own request, were not to claim any precedence on account of their orders, and were to be subject to the abbot, like the other brethren. Next in order to the abbot, there might be a prior or provost (propositus); but as, in some monastic societies, where the prior was appointed by the bishop, he assumed an air of independence towards the abbot, the Benedictine provost was to be chosen by the abbot, and was to be subject to him in all things. Benedict, however, preferred that, instead of a prior, the abbot should be assisted in his government by elders or deans (decani). With these he was to consult on ordinary occasions, while for important matters he was to take counsel with the whole community.

Parents might devote their children to the monastic life. Candidates for admission into the order were required to submit to probation for a year, in the course of which the Rule was thrice read over to them, and they were questioned as to their resolution to abide by it. At their reception they laid on the altar a written vow of steadfastness, amendment, and obedience, which those who were unable to write signed with their mark. The first of these articles was an important novelty; for whereas formerly, although persons who forsook the monastic for the married state were liable to censures and penance, their marriage was yet allowed to continue, the introduction of the Benedictine rule led to the practice of forcibly separating monks who married from their wives, and dragging them back to their monasteries. All the property of the novice, if not already distributed to the poor, was to be given to the monastery, and a strict community of goods was to be observed by the monks. Their beds were to be often searched, and, if any one were found to have secreted anything as his peculiar property, he was to be punished; nor were presents or letters to be received, even from the nearest relation, without permission of the abbot, who was authorized, at his own pleasure, to transfer any gift to some other person than the one for whom it was intended.

A distinctive feature of the Benedictine system was the provision of ample occupation for the monks,—especially of manual labour, which in the western monasteries had as yet been little practised. They were to rise for matins at two hours after midnight to attend eight services daily, or, if at a distance from the monastery, to observe the hours of the services and they were to work seven hours. The whole Psalter was to be recited every week in the course of the services. Portions of time were assigned for committing psalms to memory, for the study of Scripture, and for reading Cassian’s Conferences, lives of saints, and other devout and edifying books. At meals, a book was to be read aloud, but no conversation was to be held; and in general there was to be little talk. Each monk, except the cellarer, and those who were engaged in “greater duties”, was required to act as cook in turn, for a week at a time. At dinner there were to be two sorts of cooked pulmentaria, “that they who cannot eat of the one” (said Benedict) “may perchance be refreshed by the other”. These pulmentaria included grain and vegetables dressed in various ways; some authorities extend the word to eggs, fish, and even to birds, inasmuch as four-footed beasts are only specified as forbidden. A third dish, of uncooked fruit or salad, might be added where such things were to be had. Each monk was allowed a small measure of wine; because (as Benedict remarked), although monks ought not to taste wine, it had been found impossible to enforce such a rule. A pound of bread was the usual daily allowance; but all such matters were to be arranged at the discretion of the abbot, according to the climate and the season, the age, the health, and the employment of the monks. Flesh was forbidden, except to the sick, who, while they were to be carefully tended, were required to consider that such service was bestowed on them for God’s sake, and not in order that they might be encouraged in “superfluity”. Hospitality was enjoined towards strangers, and especially towards the poor, “because in them Christ is more especially received”; even the abbot himself was required to share in washing the feet of guests. The dress of the monks was to be coarse and plain, but might be varied according to circumstances. They were to sleep by ten or twelve in a room, each in a separate bed, with their clothes and girdles on. A dean was to preside over each dormitory, and a light was to be kept burning in each. No talking was allowed after compline—the last service of the day.

The monks were never to go out without permission, and those who had been sent out on business were forbidden to distract their brethren by relating their adventures on their return. In order that there might be little necessity for leaving the monastery, it was to contain within its precincts the garden, the mill, the well, the bakehouse, and other requisite appurtenances. The occupation of every monk was to be determined by the abbot; if any one were disposed to pride himself on his skill in any art or handicraft, he was to be forbidden to practise it. Monks were to sell the productions of their labour at a lower price than other men—a regulation by which Benedict intended to guard against the appearance of covetousness, without, probably, considering how it might interfere with the fair profit of secular persons, who depended on their trades for a livelihood.

In punishments, the abbot was directed to employ words or bodily chastisement, according to the character of the culprit. For the lighter offences the monks were punished by being excluded from the common table, and obliged to take their meals at a later hour, or by being forbidden to take certain parts in the service of the chapel; while those who had been guilty of heavier transgressions were entirely separated from their brethren, and were committed to a seclusion in which they were visited by the most venerable members of the society, with a view to their consolation and amendment.

Gregory the Great, in his account of Benedict, ascribes to him a multitude of miracles and prophecies. Among other things, it is related that the Gothic king Totila, wishing to have an interview with the saint, made trial of his penetration by sending to him an officer dressed in the royal robes; but that Benedict discovered the device, and afterwards foretold to Totila the course of his successes, with his eventual ruin.

Before the death of the founder, which took place in 543, the Benedictine system had been established in Gaul, Spain, and Sicily, and in no long time it absorbed all the monachism of the west—being the first example of a great community spread through various countries and subject to one rule, although without that organised unity which marked the monastic orders of later times. Its ramifications were multiplied under a variety of names; and, although precluded by their vow of obedience from altering their rule, the later Benedictines were able, by means of a distinction between the essential and the accidental parts of it, to find pretexts for a departure in many respects from the rigour of the original constitutions. In addition to the spiritual discipline which was the primary object of their institution, the monks employed themselves in labours which were greatly beneficial to mankind. They cleared forests, made roads, reduced wastes into fertility by tillage, and imparted the science of agriculture to the barbarians; they civilized rude populations, and extirpated the remains of heathenism. Although St. Benedict had not contemplated the cultivation of learning in his monasteries—an object which was first recommended to monks by his contemporary Cassiodore —it was found to agree well with the regular distribution of time which was a characteristic of the system. During the troubled centuries which followed, learning found a refuge in the Benedictine cloisters; the monks transcribed the works of classical and Christian antiquity, and were the chief instruments of preserving them. They taught the young; they chronicled the events of their times ; and, in later ages, the learning and industry of this noble order have rendered inestimable services to literature.

Rites and Usages

In matters connected with worship, the tendencies of the fourth century were more fully carried out during the two which followed, by the multiplication and the increased splendour of ceremonies, the gorgeous and costly decoration of churches, and the addition of new festivals

The reverence paid to saints rose higher; their intercession and protection were entreated, their relics were eagerly sought after, and extravagant stories were told of miracles wrought not only by such relics themselves, but by cloths which had touched them, and by water in which they had been dipped. Churches were dedicated to saints and angels; whereas there had originally been only one altar in every church, additional altars in honour of the saints were now erected in the churches of the west; and, although the preachers of the time were careful to distinguish between the honour paid to saints and that which belongs to God alone, some of them openly avowed that the saints and their days held in the Christian system a like place to that which had formerly been assigned to the gods of paganism and to their festivals. The presbytery of churches was elevated by the construction of a crypt, of which the upper part rose above the level of the nave, with a grating in front, through which was seen the tomb of the patron saint. In praying to the saints, as formerly to the heathen deities, it was usual for their votaries to promise that, if they would grant the petitions addressed to them, their altars should be richly adorned, and candles should be burnt in their honour; but to threaten that otherwise the altars should be stripped and the lights extinguished. Sometimes, it is said that threats of this kind were the means of obtaining miraculous aid; although, if no such effect followed, the worshippers were generally afraid to execute them. When petitions had been put up in vain to one saint, they were transferred to another. In cases of difficulty, the advice of the saints was asked, sometimes by prayer, to which an answer was vouchsafed in visions; sometimes by laying a letter on the grave or altar which contained the relics of the saint, with a paper for the expected answer, which, if the saint were propitious, was given in writing, while otherwise the paper was left blank.

Relics of scriptural personages continued to be found. Of this a remarkable instance occurred in the year 487, when Peter the Fuller, then patriarch of Antioch and strong in the favour of Zeno, revived the claim of jurisdiction over Cyprus which had been disallowed by the general council of Ephesus. Anthimus, bishop of Constantia and metropolitan of the island, a sound catholic, was summoned to appear at Constantinople, and answer the monophysite patriarch’s claims. On the eve of his departure from Cyprus, the bishop was visited in his sleep by St. Barnabas, who discovered to him the resting-place of his remains. The body of the apostle was found accordingly, and with it a copy of St. Matthew’s Gospel, written by the hand of St. Barnabas himself. Fortified by this discovery, Anthimus proceeded to Constantinople, and met the apostolical pretensions of Antioch by the miraculous proof that his own church also could boast an apostolic origin. The emperor gladly admitted the claim, and expressed great delight that his reign had been distinguished by so illustrious an event; whereupon Peter returned discomfited to Antioch, and the autocephalous independence of Cyprus was established beyond all controversy.

 

Spurious relics were largely manufactured. Lives of recent saints were composed, and were largely embellished with miraculous recitals. Saints of older date were supplied with biographies written in a like spirit of accommodation to the prevailing taste; and imaginary saints, with suitable histories, were invented.

 

The Nestorian controversy had a very important effect in advancing the blessed Virgin to a prominence above all other saints which had been unknown in earlier times. When the title of Theotokos had been denied to her, Cyril, Proclus, and the other opponents of Nestorius, burst forth in their sermons and writings into hyperbolical flights in vindication of it, and in exaltation of the Saviour’s mother. In this Eutychians vied with Catholics; the monophysite Peter of Antioch was the first who introduced the name of the Virgin into all the prayers of his church. Churches were dedicated to her honour in greater numbers than before; thus it seems probable that the first church which bore her name at Rome was the basilica of Pope Liberius, founded by and originally styled after him, which Sixtus III rebuilt with great splendour in the year after the council of Ephesus, and which, among the many other Roman churches of St. Mary, is distinguished by the title of Major. Justinian invoked the aid of St. Mary for the prosperity of his administration; Narses never ventured to fight a battle unless he had previously received some token of her approval. The idea of a female mediator—performing in the higher world offices akin to those labours of mercy and intercession which befit the feminine character on earths—was one which the mind of mankind was ready to receive; and, moreover, this idea of the blessed Mary was welcomed as a substitute for some which had been lost by the fall of polytheism, with its host of female deities. The veneration of her, therefore, advanced rapidly, although it was not until a much later period that it reached its greatest height.

 

The religious use of images and pictures gained ground. Figures of the blessed Virgin—in some cases throned, and with the infant Saviour in her arms—were now introduced into churches. It was during this time that stories began to be current of authentic likenesses of the Saviour, painted by St. Luke or sent down from heaven ;y and of miracles wrought by them in healing the sick, casting out devils, procuring victory against enemies, and the like. The use of images obtained more in the east than in the west. Leontius, bishop of Neapolis in Cyprus, at the end of the sixth century, eloquently defends the worship of them, in token of honour towards those whom they represent; and he speaks of miraculous images from which blood trickled. On the other hand, Xenaias or Philoxenus, a bishop of the Syrian Hierapolis, who was notorious as a monophysite in the early part of the century, ejected all images out of churches.

To the festivals of general observation was added in the sixth century that of the Presentation, which in the cast had the name of Hypapante, from the meeting of the Holy Family with Symeon in the temple. The first celebration of this festival at Constantinople was in 542. The Annunciation was also probably celebrated in the sixth century, as it was fully established in the next. In most countries it was kept on the 25th of March, although in Spain and in Armenia other days were chosen, in order that it might not interfere with the Lenten fast. These festivals, although having the Saviour for their primary object, fell in with the prevailing tendency to exalt the mother of his humanity; and hence it was that, after a time, the title of “The Presentation in the Temple” was superseded by that of “The Purification”. The Nativity of St. John the Baptist (June 24) appears to have been also now generally observed—the more naturally because midsummer was marked by festival rites both among the Romans and among the northern nations. It is mentioned by the council of Agde, in 506, with Easter, Christmas, Epiphany, Ascension-day, and Pentecost, as belonging to the class of chief festivals, which persons whose ordinary worship was performed in "oratories" were required to celebrate in the churches of their cities or parishes.

The earliest witness for the observance of Advent in the Latin Church is Maximus of Turin, in the fifth century. The season was regarded as penitential; fasting was prescribed for three days in each week, and the council of Lerida, in 524, enacted that no marriages should be celebrated from the beginning of Advent until after the Epiphany. It would seem that at Rome the number of Sundays in Advent was five, although afterwards reduced to four; while at Milan, Spain, and in Gaul the season extended to six weeks, beginning on the Sunday after Martinmas, from which it was styled the 44 Quadragesima of St. Martin. In the east also it lasted forty days, although the observance of it was less strict than in the west. The fast of the Rogation days, with its litanies and processions, was instituted by Mamercus, bishop of Vienne, during a time of distress and terror among his people, occasioned by the last eruptions of the volcanoes of Auvergne, about the middle of the fifth century; and the observance of it was soon adopted elsewhere, although it was not established at Rome until the pontificate of Leo II, about the year 800. The fasts of the four seasons, out of which has grown the observance of the Ember weeks, are mentioned by Leo the Great and other writers of the time. But the ordination of clergy was not as yet connected with these seasons; for although Gelasius prescribes that it shall be limited to certain times of the year, the times which he mentions do not exactly agree with the Ember weeks.

In the doctrine of the sacraments no alteration is to be noted during this period. With respect to the Eucharist, however, writers and preachers became more rhetorical in their language, so that some of their expressions might, if they stood alone, imply the later doctrine of the Roman church. But that no one as yet doubted the continued subsistence of the elements in their own nature, while a higher virtue was believed to be imparted to them by the consecration, appears from other expressions which are clear and unequivocal. Chrysostom, in a letter written during his exile, distinctly lays down that, while the consecrated bread is dignified with the name of "the Lord's body," yet the nature of the bread itself remains unchanged; and the illustration which he draws from this, as to the union of natures in the person of the Redeemer—an illustration obviously inconsistent with the more modern teaching of Rome—was continually repeated in the course of the controversies which followed.

The practice of communicating in one kind only was of so much later introduction in the church, that it would be premature to advert to it here, but for the decided language in which it was condemned by Gelasius I :— “A division of the one and the same mystery”, he declares, “cannot be made without great sacrilege”. It is needless to refute, or even to characterize, the explanations which writers in the Roman interest have devised in order to evade this prohibition—by restricting the words of Gelasius to the priests alone, or by saying that, as they were directed against the Manicheans, they relate to those sectaries only, and have no application to Catholics, inasmuch as these do not abhor the reception of the eucharistic cup.

Canons were now found necessary to enforce the reception of the Lord’s supper. Thus the council of Agde, held under the presidency of Caesarius of Arles, in 506, enacted that no secular person should be accounted a Christian unless he communicated at Christmas, Easter, and Whitsuntide. The same council ordered that the people should not leave the church until after the priest’s benediction and the first council of Orleans, in 511, directed that they should remain until the solemnity of the mass should be finished, after which they were to depart with a blessing. The meaning of these canons appears to be, that those who did not intend to communicate were to retire after a blessing, which (as may be seen in the Mozarabic and Gallican liturgies) intervened between the consecration and the administration of the sacrament; so that a formal sanction was thus given to a practice which at an earlier time had provoked the denunciations of Chrysostom and other writers. In connection with this was introduced a custom of giving to non-communicants, as if by way of substitute for the Eucharist, portions of the bread offered at the altar, which were blessed by the priest, and were designated by the name of Eulogiae.

In the penitential discipline of the western church, an important change was introduced by Leo the Great. Until his time, penance had been public, and the offence of each penitent was read aloud from a written record; but Leo, with a view (as he professed) to removing an impediment which might deter many from repentance, declared such exposures to be unnecessary; “for”, he writes, “that confession is sufficient which is made, first to God, and then also to the priest, who approaches as an intercessor for the sins of the penitent”. The effect of this was to abolish the ordinary performance of public penance, and to substitute for it the practice of secret confession only.

Decline of Learning.

From the middle of the fifth century learning had been on the decline in the church, and towards the end of the sixth, hardly any other than ecclesiastical literature continued to be cultivated. “Alas for our days!” exclaimed the contemporaries of Gregory of Tours, “for the study of letters hath perished from among us, neither is there one found among the nations who can set forth in records the deeds of the present time”. The barbarian invasions—the necessity in troubled times of directing all activity to practical purposes,—the extinction of paganism, with the consequent removal of the motive by which Christian teachers had been obliged to qualify themselves for arguing with learned adversaries—the dislike and scorn with which the monkish spirit regarded heathen literature and philosophy—all combined in producing this result. Even among the works of Christian authors, all but such as were of acknowledged orthodoxy were proscribed; and this also operated towards the discouragement of learning. Nor did the age produce any writer whose genius could triumph over its depressing and narrowing influences. The most distinguished of those who lived in the middle or towards the end of the century—such as Cassiodore and the encyclopedic Isidore of Seville—did for the most part little beyond abridging and compiling from the works of earlier authors and the popularity of their productions had the effect of throwing the originals into the shade.

Yet in this sad time—amid corruption of doctrine and of morals, while intellect degenerated, while learning sank, and civilization was overwhelmed—not only may we believe that the gospel was secretly and gradually fulfilling its predicted work of leavening the mass in which it had been hidden, but even on the very surface of things we can largely discern its effects. It humanizes barbarians, it mitigates the horrors of war and of slavery, it teaches both to conquerors and to conquered something of a new bond superior to differences of race, it controls the oppression of brutal force by revealing responsibilities beyond those of this present world. We see the church not only bearing within it the hope of immortality, but rescuing the intellectual treasures of the past from the deluge of barbarism, and conveying them safely to later generations.