CRISTO RAUL. READING HALL THE DOORS OF WISDOM

THE HISTORY OF THE POPES

THE LIFE AND TIMES OF POPE GREGORY I THE GREAT. A.D. 540 – 604

BOOK INTRODUCTORY

IV.

THE CHURCH IN SPAIN

HAVING now seen something generally of Gregory’s work and character during his career as pope, we may resume the thread of his history, noticing in order its principal events, and dwelling on those of most interest and importance.

It has been already mentioned that in 589, the year before his accession, Reccared, the Visigothic king of Spain, had, at the Council of Toledo, renounced Arianism for Catholicity. In this important event Gregory naturally felt a warm interest. He was informed of it by Leander, Archbishop of Seville, whose acquaintance he had made at Constantinople; and to him he wrote letters on the occasion glowing with thankfulness, sympathy, and affection; sending him on one occasion part of his commentary on the book of Job, which had been begun (as has been seen) in concert with him at Constantinople; on another, a pall, to be worn at mass only, with the benediction of St. Peter. These letters to one who appears to have been his dearest and most confidential friend are remarkable for the deep sense expressed of the misery of the burdens of office, especially in the lamentable state of things then existing, and his regret for past monastic peace. He speaks with humility of his own character having suffered from the change, and disclaims the compliments which his correspondent had addressed to him. “I am not now, good man”, he says, “he whom you used to know. I have advanced outwardly, I confess; but inwardly I have fallen ... Much does this burdensome honor oppress me; innumerable cares din through me, and, when my mind collects itself for Cod, they cleave me as if with swords. My heart has no rest: it lies prostrated in the lowest depths by the weight of its own cogitation: seldom or never does the wing of contemplation raise it aloft ... But, fallen as I am into these waves of perturbation, I beseech thee by Almighty God to hold me up by the hand of thy prayer. I sailed as It were with a favoring breeze, when I led a tranquil life in the monastery; but suddenly a stormy tempest rose and carried me away, and I lost my prosperous course. Now am I test with waves, and seek the plank of thy intercession, that, though not accounted worthy to come rich, with my ship entire, to shore, I may at any rate reach it on a plank after loss”.

In one of his letters to Leander he gives proof of more liberality of view with respect to forms than was often displayed by popes. Three immersions in baptism were the Roman usage, which he calls in his letter “sacraments” of the three days of Christ's burial; or, he adds, they may be taken by some to denote the three Persons of the Undivided Trinity. But, inasmuch as this had been the usage of the Arians in Spain, and regarded by them as expressing their heretical doctrine on the Trinity, he fully agrees with Leander in approving single immersion in the Spanish Church, notwithstanding the different use of the Church of Rome. “For” says he, “when there is one faith, difference of usage does no harm to the Church”. He wrote also to Reccared, the royal convert, exhorting him to humility, chastity, and mercy; thanking him for presents received, and sending him in return a key from the body of St. Peter, containing iron from the chain that had bound him, a cross containing a portion of the true one, and some hairs of John the Baptist. Such presents were well adapted for exciting the superstitious reverence of the king, and there is no reason to suppose, from what we know of Gregory, that he himself doubted the genuineness or the efficacy of the relics. The pall sent to Leander is the only known instance of this emblem of metropolitan jurisdiction having been in early days received from Rome by the Catholic Church of Spain, which was not for long afterwards, notwithstanding Gregory’s early patronage, marked for its dependence on the popes.

We find, however, Gregory after this (apparently in 603, towards the end of his life) taking action in the case of two bishops, Januarius and Stephanus, alleged to have been unjustly and uncanonically deposed in Spain through the action of a powerful noble. He commissioned one John, whom he sent as Defensor Eclesiae into the country, to examine and adjudicate on the cases, and furnished him with extracts from imperial laws providing for the immunity of clergy from secular judgments, and for reference of their causes to metropolitans and patriarchs, or, in the absence of patriarchs, finally to the Apostolic See, as being “the head of all churches”. John’s adjudication on the cases is also extant, in which he decided in favor of the deposed bishops. Whether or not this decision, arising probably from an appeal of the aggrieved prelates, was accepted and carried out by the authorities in Spain, there is no evidence to show. There is no reason for concluding that it was not. At any rate it illustrates the Pope's own view of the authority of his see.

In 592 we find him in correspondence with the bishops of Ireland, who, like those of Istria, still refused to join in the condemnation of the “three chapters”, and, like them, stood out against the Pope on the subject. They had, it appears, sent him a letter, no longer extant, in which they had spoken of some persecution from which their church was suffering, had defended their position with respect to the “chapters”, and attributed the Lombard invasion to divine judgment on the Pope for his acquiescence in their condemnation. He replies that they must by no means glory in their persecution, or expect the rewards of martyrdom, as long as they kept aloof from Catholic unity in the matter of the “three chapters”; he defends submission to the fifth Council, which had condemned these chapters, on the ground that the condemnation did not touch the faith as previously defined, but only affected three persons, one of whom at least had evidently written what was heretical, and was therefore “not unjustly condemned”. This way of putting the case seems to imply some doubt in Gregory's own mind as to the whole of the position which he had to defend. He seems to have felt a difficulty himself as to the condemnation of the two writers at least who had been acquitted of heresy by the Council of Chalcedon. But he sends the Irish bishops the treatise on the subject which his predecessor, Pelagius, had written, which he tells them must convince them, unless they were more obstinate than reasonable. As to the Lombard invasion, it is, he says, no proof of divine judgment on himself, but rather of fatherly correction. The Irish were not probably thus convinced, though Baronius in his history takes it for granted that they were. For there is a letter extant from the noted Irish Saint Columban to Pope Boniface IV, written in 614, in which the latter is freely blamed, in a tone of irony, for continuing to condemn the “three chapters”. The following remarkable words occur in it: “Watch, I pray thee, pope, watch; and again I say, watch. For perhaps Vigilius did not watch well, whom those who throw blame on you call the author of this scandal”. (Here is a sly allusion to the tergiversation of Pope Vigilius).

“From the time when the Son of God, in those two fervent horses of the Holy Ghost, rode through the sea of the nations, &c ... the supreme charioteer of that chariot, who is Christ, came Himself even to us”. He means that the Irish, having received the Gospel, had at any rate Christ for their founder, though they could not boast of St. Peter and St. Paul, like Rome.

“From that time you have been great and illustrious, and Rome herself has become more great and distinguished than before; and you, if we may so speak, on account of the two Apostles of Christ, are almost celestial, and Rome is the head of all the churches of the world, saving the singular prerogative of the place of the Lord's resurrection. And so, as your honor is great with regard to the dignity of your see, so is great care necessary lest you lose your dignity on account of any perversity ... For he is the true key-bearer of the heavens who, through true knowledge, opens them to the worthy, and closes them to the unworthy: otherwise he will be able neither to open nor to close ... And since these things are true and received without any contradiction by all who know the truth (although it is known to all, and there is no one who does not know how our Saviour gave to St. Peter the keys of the kingdom of heaven, and how you—perhaps through this—make for yourselves I know not what haughty claim to greater authority and power in divine things than others), know ye that your power will be less with the Lord if ye even think this in your hearts; for unity of faith in the whole world has made unity of power and prerogative”.

LETTERS OF ST. COLUMBAN

The same saint had written in a similar strain to Gregory the Great himself on another question,—that of the time of keeping Easter, on which the Irish Church long continued to differ from Rome and from the West in general. He had said, “Perhaps thou art content with the authority of thy predecessors, and especially of Pope Leo. Trust not, I pray thee, in such a question either to humility or gravity, which are often deceived. For in the problem before us a living dog is better than a dead lion”.

Observe the pun on the name of Leo. St. Columban’s attitude on both these questions illustrates clearly how little the Celtic churches of the West were accustomed or disposed at that time to acknowledge papal claims. It is true that St. Columban’s letters do not commit the Irish episcopate, since it was not from Ireland, but from Burgundy to Gregory, and from Lombardy to Boniface, after he had left his own country for missionary work, that he wrote. But the fact of Irish independence is otherwise evident. The bishops appear, indeed, to have afterwards consulted Gregory as to whether they should rebaptize reclaimed Nestorian heretics; to whom he replied, in accordance with the then and since established view, that the sacrament was not to be repeated, but only imposition of hands or chrism administered, in the case of such as had been already baptized in the name of the Trinity. He also stated at length and clearly the orthodox doctrine as against Nestorianism. But as we find from his letter that the emissary of the Irish had been at Jerusalem before coming to Rome, their application to the Pope cannot be construed as implying submission. They had probably sent only to learn the practice of the leading sees of Christendom; and their sending to Jerusalem before Rome agrees with what Columban says, in one of the letters above quoted, about the former see having a peculiar prerogative of sanctity even above the latter.

EAST ILLYRICUM. MAXIMUS OF SALONA.

In the same year (592) Gregory began to be occupied with troublesome matters of discipline in East Illyricum, the early subjection of which province to the spiritual supremacy of Rome was mentioned in our first chapter. There, therefore, he might fairly expect to be obeyed; as he was in some instances, but not in all. There were three cases. First, Hadrianus, bishop of Thebes, had been deposed by a synod under his metropolitan of Larissa; and the primate of Illyricum, John of Justiniana Prima, to whom the Emperor had referred the matter, had confirmed the sentence. But the deposed prelate appealed to Gregory, who summarily disallowed the whole proceedings as uncanonical, ordered the restoration of the appellant, exempted him in future from the jurisdiction of his metropolitan, excommunicated the primate for thirty days, threatening severer measures in case of disobedience to the authority of the Prince of the Apostles. No resistance is on record to this assertion of power; nor in the second case, in which he ordered Natalis, metropolitan bishop of Salona, under pain of excommunication and eventual deposition, to reinstate his archdeacon Honoratus, whom he had deposed.

The third case gave him much more trouble, inasmuch as the Emperor himself thought fit to interpose. On the death of Natalis of Salona, above named (the prelate to whom the letter about addiction to banquets had been addressed), Gregory recommended the aforesaid Archdeacon Honoratus for the see. But one Maximus, alleged to be a man of scandalous life, and to have obtained his election by bribery, was elected without the Pope’s leave or sanction. Gregory at once disallowed the proceeding, and wrote to the clergy of Salona forbidding them to choose a bishop without the knowledge and consent of the Apostolic See. But in the meantime the election had been confirmed by the Emperor, and the man ordained; on hearing which Gregory, with his accustomed deference to the imperial power, wrote a second letter, only suspending Maximus and his ordainers till he should be assured of the alleged imperial confirmation, but summoning Maximus to give an account of himself at Rome. The suspension and summons were alike disregarded, and an order was obtained from the Emperor bidding the Pope give the bishop of Salona no further trouble. Gregory having in vain addressed a respectful but earnest remonstrance to the Emperor, saying that he would rather die than suffer any diminution of the authority of St. Peter’s see, was obliged for the present to acquiesce. But before long he again summoned Maximus to Rome, on the ground of his alleged briberies, immoralities, and disregard of his former suspension. Maximus, relying on imperial support, again disregarded the summons, pleaded that, if he were liable to any charges, it was in his own province, not at Rome, that they ought to be inquired into, and sent to Constantinople counter accusations against Gregory himself. On this occasion the latter, as in other instances when he failed to move the Emperor, tried to get Constantina, the empress, on his side, pleading with her in an earnest letter, which affords a characteristic specimen of his style of writing to potentates. In it he says: “Obeying the commands of my lords, I allowed the ordination of this Maximus, though effected in presumptuous disregard of me or my representatives. But his other perversities—his corporal delinquencies which I have got knowledge of, his expenditure of church money to procure election, his continuing to celebrate mass though excommunicated—I cannot in conscience pass by. But my most serene lord has commanded me, before cognizance taken of these things, to receive him, when he comes to me, with honor. And it is indeed a very grave matter to honor a man of whom such things are alleged, before they have been fully sifted. And if the causes of bishops committed to my charge are taken out of my hands by my most pious lords, unhappy that I am, what shall I do? But that my bishops despise me, and resort against me to secular judges, thank God I attribute it to my sins. But I put my trust in Almighty God, that He will grant long life to my most pious lords, and deal with us, under your hand, not according to our sins, but according to the gifts of His grace. These things therefore I suggest to my most tranquil mistress, for I am not ignorant with what zeal for rectitude and justice the most upright conscience of your serenity is moved”.

 The case was not finally settled till seven years after its commencement. Seventeen letters remain, written by Gregory during its progress. At last the Emperor referred its adjudication to Maximinianus, bishop of Ravenna, and the result was that Maximus, having publicly begged the Pope’s pardon, and having purged himself of the charge of simony by an oath taken at the tomb of St. Apollinaris at Ravenna, was accepted by Gregory as the lawful bishop of Salona. The whole case is interesting as illustrating Gregory's patient pertinacity in maintaining the claims of his see; but at the same time his habitual deference (under protest if necessary) to imperial authority, which his policy was to win by flattery rather than provoke by defiance. These characteristics are observable throughout his career. He could, however, when strongly moved, speak his mind freely, and sometimes in a tone of courteous irony, to the Emperor himself, as instances presently to be adduced will show; and he never, even when open to the charge of adulation, compromised his own position in the ecclesiastical sphere.

LETTER TO JOHN THE FASTER.

The assertions of authority last recorded were in a region which had been for long under papal jurisdiction. In 593 a certain power of interference was claimed with the patriarch of Constantinople himself. But even in this large assumption Gregory did not in fact advance beyond the theory of some of his predecessors, to whom the view of an universal supremacy of St. Peter's see, with more or less distinctness, was already familiar. What he did was to seize all favorable opportunities of consolidating the system which the theory involved, and making it a reality where he could. It is, of course, to be remembered that the theory was never accepted by the Eastern Church. The circumstances were these: Two priests, John of Chalcedon and Anastasius of Isauria, had been condemned on a charge of heresy, and one of them beaten with cudgels under the patriarch of Constantinople, John the Faster. On hearing of this, Gregory wrote twice to the patriarch, in a tone of brotherly remonstrance, protesting against the introduction into the Church of a new and uncanonical punishment, urging that the two priests should be restored or judged canonically, and expressing his own readiness to receive them at Rome. The patriarch having in reply professed ignorance of the case referred to, Gregory wrote again in a tone of sarcasm, not without personality, which his profes­sions of personal regard do not tend to soften. The style, it is to be remembered, was not usual with him; his letters generally, in accordance with his disposition, were very kind and courteous, though not unfrequently pervaded by delicate irony; it is his correspondence with and about his rival of Constantinople, whose ecclesiastical claims seem to have been a peculiarly sore point with him, that afford the most marked instance of a different tone.

He wrote as follows: “Though consideration of the cause moves me, yet even charity now impels me to write, since, having written once and again to my most holy brother, I have received no reply from him. For someone else, a secular person, has addressed me in his name. And, indeed, if the letters received were his own, I shall have been much mistaken in him; for I expected from him something very different from what I have found … Your holy Fraternity has replied to me, as appears from the signature of the letter, that you were ignorant of what I had written about. At which reply I was mightily astonished, pondering with myself in silence, if what you say is true, what can be worse than that such things should be done against God’s servants, and he who is over them should be ignorant? For what can be a shepherd's excuse if the wolf devours the sheep and the shepherd knows not? But, if your holiness did know both what subject I wrote about, and what had been done, either against John the Presbyter, or against Athanasius, monk of Isauria and a presbyter, and has written to me, ‘I know not’, what can I reply to this, since Scripture says, ‘The mouth that lies slays the soul?’ I ask, most holy brother, has all that great abstinence of yours come to this, that you would, by denial, conceal from your brother what you know to have been done? Would it not have been better that flesh should enter that mouth for food than that false words should come out of it for deceiving your neighbor, especially when the Truth says, ‘Not that which goeth into the mouth defileth a man, but that which cometh out of the mouth, this defileth a man?’.”

The allusion here is, of course, to the patriarch’s name of “the Faster”, derived from his habits of abstinence.

“But far be it from me to believe anything of the kind of your most holy heart. Those letters had your name appended to them, but I do not think they were yours. I wrote to the most blessed lord John, and I believe that that youngster, your familiar, has replied to me; he who has learnt nothing yet of God, who knows not the bowels of charity, who is accused by all of wickedness, who daily plots against the deaths of various persons by means of concealed wills, who neither fears God nor blushes in the sight of men. Believe me, most holy brother, if you have a real zeal for truth you must correct him in the first place, that by the example of those who are near to you those who are not near may be the better amended. Your holiness ought to direct him, not he influence your holiness. For I know that, if you listen to him, you will never have peace with your brethren. I exceedingly desire to have peace with all men, and especially with you, whom I greatly love, if only you are the same person as I once knew. But, if you set at naught the canons, I know not who you are. Yet so act, most holy and beloved brother, that we may mutually know each other; lest, if the old enemy cause scandal between us two, he cause the death of many by a most iniquitous victory. To speak plainly, if that youngster of whom I spoke had not reached at your side such a summit of depravity I should not have spoken about the canons, but have sent the complainants back to you, confident that you would do them justice. This is a new and unheard of way of preaching that exacts faith by blows. But I need not write at more length on this subject, since I am sending the deacon Sabinianus to you on my behalf, whom, unless you wish to be litigious with me, you will find prepared for everything that is just. I commend him to your Blessedness, that he at least may find that lord John whom I knew in the imperial city”.

The two priests did resort to Rome, in defiance of the patriarch, where they were absolved of heresy by Gregory after examination of their cause. As to the theory of his position on which he acted in this case, we find him in one of his letters writing thus: “With respect to the Constantinopolitan see, who doubts that it is subject to the Apostolical see?”, and, “I know not what bishop is not subject to it, if fault be found in him”. A much more serious and prolonged conflict with the see of Constantinople will come under our notice before long.

DISTRESS DURING LOMBARD INVASIONS.

A different field of energy occupied Gregory in 594 and the following year, and one in which our highest admiration is due to him. He begins to stand out now as the prominent political figure of the day, as well as ecclesiastical. The Lombard invasion, and the distress in Italy thence ensuing, have been already spoken of. In the first years of his reign there had, however, been a temporary calm, owing to a treaty of peace that had been made between Romanus, the exarch of Ravenna, who represented the imperial power in Italy, and Agilulph, the Lombard king. The greater part of Italy was indeed now under Lombard sway. Antharis, the predecessor of Agilulph, had reduced Samnium and Beneventum, with most of Campania; he is said even to have advanced to Rhegium at the very toe of Italy, and riding into the sea, to have struck with his spear a pillar that stood there, saying “Thus far shall the bounds of the Lombards extend”.

Paul the Deacon, Gregory’s biographer, speaks of a pillar still standing there in his day, and called “Antharis’s Pillar”. But the exarchate of Ravenna, the duchy of Rome, Naples, and some other maritime cities, were at this time unmolested. In the year, however, to which we have now come, Romanus, the exarch, in violation of the treaty, had seized the opportunity of the absence of Agilulph to invade the territory of the Lombards, and carry away the spoils of their cities to Ravenna. In reprisal, the king invaded the Exarchate, and remained for several months laying waste the country, and threatening Rome.

The woeful state of things at this crisis is pathetically described by Gregory in his letters, and also in some of the homilies on Ezekiel, which he preached during its continuance for the edification of the distressed Romans. In one homily he says, “What is there, I ask, in this world to take pleasure in? Everywhere we see sorrows, everywhere we hear groans. Cities are destroyed, castles ruined, fields laid waste, the land reduced to solitude. In the country is no inhabitant, scarcely any remain in the cities: yet even these small remnants of the human race are still daily and incessantly smitten. Some we see led into captivity, others maimed, others killed. What is there then to please us in this life, brethren? If we love such a world as this, we love not joys, but wounds. Nay, even she who once seemed to be the mistress of the world, Rome, what is she now? The Senate is no more, the people perishes; and even among the few that remain sorrows and groans are multiplied. But why say we these things of men, when, in increasing ruins, we see the very buildings destroyed? And what we say of the Roman city we know to be true of all the cities of the world. For some places are desolated by plague, some consumed with the sword, some tormented by famine, some swallowed by earthquakes. Let us despise then, with all our hearts, this well-nigh extinct present world. Let us end worldly desires, at least with the end of the world”.

 In this rhetorical picture of exceptional and widespread woe we perceive the prevalent belief, often elsewhere expressed, that the end of all things was at hand. Again, at the conclusion of his last homily, he thus speaks: “Let no man blame me if henceforth I speak to you no more; for, as you all see, our tribulations have increased, we are everywhere surrounded by perils, everywhere is imminent danger of death: some return to us with their hands lopped off, others are reported to us as captured or slain. Now am I forced to refrain my tongue from exposition, for ‘my soul is weary of life’. Let no one require of me now the study of sacred eloquence, for ‘my harp is tuned to mourning, and my organ into the voice of them that weep’; ‘for the voice of my groaning I forget to eat my bread’.”

Such was Gregory’s tone in the pulpit at this time. But it shows only one side of the man. Most men who, at such a time, could thus feel and preach would have given themselves up only to resignation and prayer. Not so Gregory. He was constantly and efficiently active all the time in mitigating, as he could, the surrounding evils. He negotiated with the Lombard king, who was at length prevailed upon to conclude a special treaty of peace with himself, or a general one with the exarch, should the latter be willing to come to terms. Gregory urged him to do so, but being apparently interested in the continuance of the war for his own ends, he refused, and informed the Emperor that the Pope in his simplicity was being outwitted by the Lombard. Thereupon the Emperor addressed Gregory in a tone which, from the extant reply of the latter, seems to have been contemptuous and exasperating.

“Your Piety, in its most serene command”, so runs the courteous but cutting reply, “desirous of refuting me on certain matters, in sparing me has not spared me at all. For in using the polite word ‘simplicity’, you really call me a fool. Simplicity may indeed in one sense be joined with prudence, according to the text, ‘Be ye wise as serpents, but simple as doves’. But as, in your most serene commands, you represent me as deceived by the craftiness of Arnulph, denouncing me as simple without addition of prudence, I am undoubtedly called a fool. And indeed a fool I confess I am. For had I not been one, I should not have come to suffer what I do in this place among the swords of the Lombards”.

 Perhaps he here alludes to the separate treaty of peace which he might have made with the enemy. He had been a fool, he would intimate, in expecting anything from the Exarch or the Emperor.

He goes on, “But in that I am not believed in what I have stated about the disposition of Arnulph, and that credence is given to any one rather than me. I am also reprehended as having lied. But though I am not a priest (he seems to refer here to something the Emperor had said) I know it to be a grave injury to a priest to accuse him of falsehood. But indeed I could have borne contempt and derision in silence, but that my being accused of mendacity is the cause of the daily captivity of my country under the Lombard yoke; for, while I am in no respect believed, the strength of the enemy goes on increasing”.

 After admonishing the Emperor at some length, and with considerable quiet sarcasm, on the respect due even from emperors to priests, in which he says even the heathen may afford an example, he enumerates existing grievances, which were,—his being deprived of the advantage of the peace which he had himself, without any detriment to the republic, made with the Lombards; then the withdrawal of soldiers from Rome so as to leave it without adequate defense; then the arrival of Agilulph at the gates, and the sight of Romans led away like dogs, with ropes about their necks, to be sold in France as slaves; then false charges of remissness brought against those who had, under great difficulties, defended the city, especially against Gregorius the prefect and Castorius the commandant, who, though they had neglected no duty, and had endured great hardship, had, after all this, been subjected to a commission of inquiry. He concludes the letter thus:— “But, as to your Piety bidding me fear the terrible judgment of Almighty God, I beg you by the same Almighty God to do this no more; for we know not yet how any of us will stand there. And Paul, the excellent preacher, says, Judge nothing before the time, until the Lord come, who will both bring to light the hidden things of darkness and will make manifest the counsels of the hearts. Yet this I briefly say, that I, unworthy and a sinner, presume more on the mercy of Jesus when He comes than on the justice of your Piety. And there are many things with respect to that judgment which men are ignorant of; for perchance what you praise He will reprehend, and what you reprehend He will praise. Wherefore, all these things being so uncertain, I return to tears only, praying that the same Almighty God may so rule our most pious master with His hand here, that in that terrible judgment He may find him free from all faults; and make me so to please men, if necessary, that I offend not eternal grace”.

Failing with the Emperor, he had recourse to the Empress, as in the matter of Maximus, writing to her at length, and detailing further the miserable state of things. He tells her that the ravages of the Lombards were not so bad as the cruelty and exactions of the imperial officers, who had been sent to defend the country; that the latter loaded the people with intolerable taxes, on pretence of raising funds for the war; that the Corsicans had in consequence been compelled to sell their children, and had gone over in great numbers to the enemy, leaving the island almost depopulated; that the real cause of the opposition raised to his own endeavors for peace by those who had the ear of the Emperor was a fear lest, with the ending of the war, the pretext for such exactions should cease. This appeal also had no result. But his unwearied efforts had better success with Theodelinda, the Lombard queen, who was a pious Catholic Christian, and with whom he kept up a correspondence, the important results of which will be hereafter seen. Through her, or at any rate partly through her intercession, Agilulph was, in 595, induced to withdraw his troops from the invaded territory.

TITLE OF UNIVERSAL BISHOP

In the same year (595) in which he thus obtained a temporary respite from worldly warfare, he began a memorable ecclesiastical battle, which lasted throughout his life. An Eastern judgment against an heretical priest had been sent to Rome, in which the patriarch of Constantinople was repeatedly entitled ecumenical, or universal, bishop. Now the title itself was not a new one. It had long been occasionally given to other patriarchs by flatterers; and already, before the time of Gregory, it had been especially conferred by the emperors Leo and Justinian on the patriarchs of Constantinople. Further, an Eastern synod held at Constantinople in 588 had confirmed it to the then patriarch, John the Faster, and his successors. But what in some circumstances might have been regarded as a mere title of honor was now open to a different interpretation. Hence even Pope Pelagius II had protested against it when confirmed by the Eastern synod; and now that it came for the first time prominently under the notice of Gregory, it called forth his utmost indignation and resistance. He took it as expressing the supremacy of Constantinople rather than of Rome over the Church Universal; that of the prelate of the imperial city and imperial court rather than of the successor of St. Peter; and he represented it as implying a domination such as even Rome had no right to claim. It would be very unfair to attribute his remarkable vehemence of language and pertinacity of resistance on this occasion to mere offended pride or jealousy. According to his view, right or wrong, of the intended meaning of the title, a great principle may be said to have been at stake, no less than that of spiritual prerogative as against imperialism.

Constantinople had no claim to ascendency over the rest of the Church except that of being the see of the imperial city. On this ground, indeed, a rank of honor, second only to that of Rome, had been accorded to it by general councils; but this title seemed to Gregory to imply not only rank,—and that of the first, not the second order,—but also spiritual ascendency; and this claim really meant imperialism. He does not indeed rest his opposition on this ground, dwelling rather (perhaps from motives of policy) on the unlawfulness of any bishop claiming a universal episcopate; but, in estimating his conduct, we should not forget that in the claim, as he understood it, imperialism was involved. And it is easy to see what the practical result might have been, had a universal supremacy of Constantinople ever come to be generally recognized; which would have been in fact the domination over the Church of the corrupt imperial court itself rather than of its vassal patriarchs.

On the other hand, the see of Rome in his eyes represented the Prince of the Apostles, and through him the apostolical commission, independent of all earthly powers. The validity of this assumption is a further question. It was at any rate then the tradition of the see, and the ground on which the popes went.

In contending for the supremacy of Rome against Constantinople, Gregory might well feel himself to be contending for heavenly as against earthly jurisdiction, for Christ as against the world, for God as against Caesar. But even for the successor of St. Peter he did not claim the title which was the subject of dispute. He repudiated it, by whomsoever assumed, as trenching on the rights of bishops in general, to all of whom the commission of Christ extended, though under the primacy of Peter. In one of his letters on the subject he does not even confine to his own see the representation of this primacy, allowing it to be shared by Antioch and Alexandria,—the former as having been St. Peter’s first see before he went to Rome, the latter as having been founded by his disciple St. Mark. It may be difficult to reconcile this view with that at other times expressed, of the sole and peculiar supremacy of Rome, and he may possibly have been led to take it up, as he has been accused of doing, by his desire to enlist the other patriarchs in a common opposition to Constantinople. But entire consistency of view need not be looked for in one who wrote so much; and at any rate the view illustrates what was, after all, the important gist of the whole contest; viz., the assertion of the power of the keys derived from Christ, and not imperial patronage, as the ground and source of ecclesiastical jurisdiction. So far as his resolute struggle tended at all to establish this principle, and to save the Church from the possibility of being cramped and deadened by imperialism, he is entitled to the lasting gratitude of Chris­tendom.

After receiving the document from Constantinople in which the offensive title repeatedly occurred, Gregory wrote at once to Sabinianus, his apocrisiarius, desiring him to protest against it, and also to the Patriarch himself, to the Emperor and Empress, inveighing against it in very strong language. He calls the title foolish, proud, pestiferous, profane, wicked, a diabolical usurpation; the ambition of any that assumed it he compares to that of Lucifer; he intimates that its assumption was a sign of the coming of the king of pride, that is, Antichrist. He takes it to mean the subjection of all bishops to one, whereas St. Paul was horror-struck at the idea of the members of Christ being subordinated to any single headship except His, saying, “Was Paul crucified for you? &c. Nay even Peter, to whom were given the keys of the kingdom of Heaven, and to whom, as Prince of the Apostles, the care of the whole Church was committed, is nowhere called Universal Apostle”.

If any could take the title, it would be St. Peter’s successor; but all popes had refused it, lest, by taking this singular honor to themselves, they should deprive all priests of the honor due to them. It had been offered to the Pope by the Council of Chalcedon, but persistently declined. The only foundation for this last allegation, which Gregory repeatedly made, seems to be that Pope Leo's repre­sentative Paschasius had at Chalcedon applied the title to the Pope, and that the bishops present had not objected.

If, he asks, the whole Church had in times past depended on one, and that one the Patriarch, what would have become of it when patriarchs had been heretics, or even heresiarchs? It may be observed, that this last argument tells equally (unless we assume the more recent theory of personal infallibility) against the view which binds the whole Church to papal teaching “ex cathedra”.

Indeed, Gregory’s whole position against the Constantinopolitan patriarch may be fairly adduced (notwithstanding his undoubted maintenance of a universal primacy and authority, in some sense, belonging to St. Peter’s chair) as against the more advanced theory of the popedom, such as has in our own days been authoritatively promulged.

Gregory’s feeling of personal soreness against John the Faster, which was observable in his former correspondence with him, appears also on this occasion. In his long letter to him, though it is tempered by expressions of courtesy and affection, there is no lack of strong language. But it seems that he had restrained himself from saying all that was in his mind. For, in writing at the same time to his apocrisiarius Sabinianus, he tells him that his letter to the Patriarch, which was to be given him then, was mixed with blandishments, out of consideration for the Emperor, out that he intended to write him another, such as “his pride would not rejoice in”. And in his letter to the Emperor there are again sarcastic allusions to John's asceticism. Attributing the successes of the enemies of the empire to the iniquities and presumption of the clergy, he says, again alluding to the Patriarch's ascetic reputation, “Our bones are attenuated by fasts, and our hearts swell with pride: our body is clothed in vile raiment, and in the elation of our heart we surpass the purple: we lie in ashes, and we mind high things: teachers of humility, but examples of pride, we hide the teeth of wolves with a sheep’s face”.

He goes on to implore the Emperor to restrain this crying evil by the chains of his august authority, since “the pious laws of the empire, the venerable synods, the commands of Christ Himself, are set at naught by the invention of a proud and pompous title”.

CYRIACUS SUCCEEDS JOHN THE FASTER.

Neither his letters nor his withdrawal of Sabinianus from communion with the Patriarch having had any effect at Constantinople, he addressed himself to the other patriarchs,—to Eulogius of Alexandria, and Anastasius of Antioch, with the view of obtaining their concurrence in his protest; representing the purpose of their brother of Constantinople as being that of degrading them, and usurping to himself all ecclesiastical power. But they were not thus moved to action: they seem to have treated the title as one of honor only, and not of the importance assigned to it by their correspondent.

In the year 596 John the Faster died, and was succeeded by Cyriacus. Gregory renewed his protest. He directed his apocrisiarius at Constantinople to demand of the new patriarch, as a condition of intercommunion, the renunciation of the “proud and pestiferous title”, which his predecessor had impiously assumed. Cyriacus sent a nuncio to Rome to try to arrange matters. But Gregory was resolute.

He says, in a letter to the Patriarch on this occasion: “I confidently say, that whoever calls himself universal priest, or desires in his elation to be called so, is the forerunner of Antichrist”.

He also wrote again to the Emperor on the subject, and to the two patriarchs of Antioch and Alexandria, the former of whom seems still to have disapproved of his persistence on the question. For to him Gregory now wrote, after acknowledging and disclaiming the personal compliments with which his correspondent had begun his letter: “But your Holiness, I perceive, by the words of sweetness at the beginning of your letter and by what follows after, has wished it to be like a bee that carries both honey and a sting, satiating me with the honey and then piercing me with the sting. I am thus led to meditate on the words of Solomon, ‘Better are the wounds of a friend than the kisses of an enemy’. For, as to your saying that I ought not to give occasion of scandal for no cause at all, this is what our most pious master (for whose life we ought continually to pray) has repeatedly written to me; and what he says out of power, I know that you say out of love. Nor do I wonder that you have inserted imperial words in your letter, since between power and love there is a close relationship. For both command in a princely way; both speak authoritatively”.

 The delicate tone of irony not seldom used by Gregory is perceptible in this letter, at the conclusion of which he maintains that the title on account of which he is accused of disturbing the peace of the Church, is no mere idle phrase, but one carrying an important meaning. He got more sympathy from the Alexandrian patriarch, Eulogius, who, though there is no evidence of his having joined in the desired protest, wrote, at any rate, acknowledging the pre-eminent dignity of St. Peter's see. It was in reply to this letter that Gregory expressed the peculiar view of the Apostle’s primacy being shared by three sees, which has been above alluded to. The words are too remarkable to be left unquoted.

“All that you have said I willingly accept, because he who has spoken to me of the chair of St. Peter occupies it himself. And, though special honor to myself by no means delights me, yet I am greatly rejoiced, inasmuch as what you, most holy ones, have bestowed on me you have given to your­selves. For who knows not that the holy Church was made firm in the solidity of the Prince of the Apostles, whose name expressed the firmness of his mind? ... Wherefore, though there were many Apostles, yet the see of the Prince of the Apostles alone has acquired a principality of authority, which is the see of one only, though in three places. For he himself exalted the see in which he deigned to rest and to end his present life. He himself adorned the see to which he sent his disciple as Evangelist. He himself established the see in which he sat for seven years. Since, then, the see is one and of one, over which by divine authority three bishops now preside, whatever good I hear of you I impute to myself. If you believe anything good of me, impute this to your own merits; because we are one in Him who said, ‘That they all may be one, as thou, Father, art in Me, and I in Thee, that they all may be one in us’.”

But when Eulogius, in return for this exaltation of his own see, afterwards addressed Gregory as “Universal Pope”, he strongly repudiated the title, saying, “I have said that neither to me nor to anyone else ought you to write anything of the kind: and lo! in the preface of your letter you apply to me, who prohibited it, the proud title of Universal Pope; which thing I beg your most sweet Holiness to do no more, because what is given to others beyond what reason requires is subtracted from you. I do not esteem that an honor by which I know my brethren lose their honor. My honor is that of the Universal Church. I am then truly honored when all and each are allowed the honor that is due to them. For, if your Holiness calls me Universal Pope, you deny yourself to be that which you call me universally. But no more of this: away with words which inflate pride and wound charity!”

He even objects to the expression, “as thou hast commanded”, which had occurred in his correspondent’s letter. “Which word, commanded, I pray you let me hear no more; for I know what I am, and what you are: in position you are my brethren, in manners you are my fathers. I did not, therefore, command, but desired only to indicate what seemed to me expedient”.

 We have here the unusual case of a pope disclaiming, rather than claiming authority, refusing, in fact, to accept as much as was freely offered, and putting two at least of his brethren on an entire equality with himself.

THE SEE OF ALEXANDRIA.

Subsequently (AD 600) we find him writing to the same Eulogius, with reference to some form of heresy which the Alexandrian patriarch had condemned, but on which he had desired his opinion, in the following high-flown terms:—“In the letter of my most holy brother I recognize the voice of the venerable fathers whom I love so much. Wherefore praise and glory in the highest be to Him by whose gift the voice of Mark still cries aloud in the see of Peter, and by the effusion of whose spirit, when the priest enters into the investigation of mysteries, that is, into the Holy of Holies, spiritual bells from the word of preaching resound in holy Church as in the Tabernacle. But we implore Almighty God to preserve you long in this life, that from the organ of God, which you are, the voice of truth may resound more widely. But for me intercede, I pray you, that the way of my pilgrimage, which has grown so rough to me, may be speedily ended; so that by your merits, as I cannot by my own, I may attain to the promises of our eternal country, and rejoice with the citizens of heaven”.

A doubt may indeed well be felt whether, but for his anxiety to enlist the great patriarchs against Constantinople, he would have expressed himself as he did. But such was his language on this occasion; and it remains for the consideration of modern ultramontanists. All his efforts to procure the renunciation of the title proving entirely without effect at Constantinople, he was obliged to content himself with protest, which, however, had its effect afterwards, though he did not live to see it. It is supposed to have been by way of contrast to the assumption of his rival that he afterwards constantly styled himself in his letters, “Servant of the servants of God”, though he had previously sometimes used the expression. This, as is well known, has since been the formula used by the popes of themselves.

During the continuance of this ecclesiastical struggle he was again involved in mundane trouble, owing to the Lombard king, provoked by the Exarch's continued rejection of overtures, having towards the close of 596 again invaded the Exarchate, and threatened to besiege Rome. Gregory renewed his patriotic efforts, and, as before, stands out as the single champion, unassisted by exarch or emperor. He did more than complain, remonstrate, and negotiate. The direction even of military operations, in a crisis like this, he did not consider inconsistent with his sacred office, for we find him in 599 directing Januarius, bishop of Cagliari, to cause his city and other places to be more strongly fortified and replenished against a possible hostile attack; as on a former occasion (when in 592 a truce with the Lombard king was being negotiated) he had enjoined the military officers in command to be ready, “as became brave men”, to attack Agilulph in the rear, and plunder his territory, should he still move towards Ravenna or Rome; and had written to the soldiers at Naples bidding them yield entire obedience to the tribune whom he had sent to defend their city. He also exerted himself to raise funds, by appeals in various quarters, for relief of distress and redemption of captives; and he authorized bishops to sell or pledge the sacred vessels of their churches for the purpose. He has been accused, and not without some grounds, of superstitious devotion. Here, however, we have evidence of his recognition of the paramount claims of humanity; of his placing mercy above sacrifice. His activity in these respects, with the cause for it, lasted through several years, simultaneously with work of other kinds, which will be noticed in due order. Suffice it to say that at length, in the year 600, when he had for two years been confined to his bed by illness, and again, it would seem, through the influence of Queen Theodelinda, he succeeded in concluding a truce with the Lombards from September to the April of the following year; and to add that, if his success in this protracted struggle amounted after all only to occasional truces with the enemy, and mitigation of distress through charity, and through Christian influences brought to bear on the invaders, the blame rests on the Emperor and his representatives, not on him. Whatever good was done was due to him, and him alone.

BOOK INTRODUCTORY.

V.

THE MISSION TO ENGLAND