READING HALLTHE DOORS OF WISDOM |
BOOK III.FROM THE DEATH OF THE EMPEROR THEODOSIUS I TO THE PONTIFICATE OF GREGORY THE GREAT.A.D. 395-590.
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.
|
||