The Rise of the Mediaeval Church Alexander Clarence Flick 5212 downloads.pdf

The Project Gutenberg eBook of The Rise of the Mediaeval
Church

This eBook is for the use of anyone anywhere in the United States and
most other parts of the world at no cost and with almost no restrictions
whatsoever. You may copy it, give it away or re-use it under the terms
of the Project Gutenberg License included with this eBook or online at
www.gutenberg.org. If you are not located in the United States, you
will have to check the laws of the country where you are located
before using this eBook.

Title: The Rise of the Mediaeval Church

Author: Alexander Clarence Flick

Release date: January 24, 2013 [eBook #41910]
Most recently updated: October 23, 2024

Language: English

Other information and formats: www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/41910

Credits: Produced by Chuck Greif, Lisa Reigel, and the Online
Distributed Proofreading Team at http://www.pgdp.net

*** START OF THE PROJECT GUTENBERG EBOOK THE RISE OF
THE MEDIAEVAL CHURCH ***

Transcriber's Notes: Variations in spelling and
hyphenation have been left as in the original. Ellipses
match the original.

A few typographical errors have been corrected. A
complete list as well as other notes follows the text.
For full functionality of this file, download the html
version.

THE RISE OF THE
MEDIAEVAL CHURCH
AND ITS INFLUENCE ON THE CIVILISATION OF
WESTERN EUROPE FROM THE FIRST TO THE
THIRTEENTH CENTURY
BY

ALEXANDER CLARENCE FLICK, Ph. D., Litt.
D.

BURT FRANKLIN
New York, N. Y.

TO

HENRY C. LEA
Who through his numerous scholarly monographs has earned the foremost
place among American Church historians, both at home and abroad,
AND TO

PROFESSOR DOCTOR ADOLPH HARNACK
To whom both the Old and the New World are profoundly indebted for his
scholarly labours, and from whose inspiration in public lectures and
private conferences this work derived much that is best in it,
This Book is Gratefully Dedicated.

PREFACE
The educational value of any subject depends primarily upon its own
intrinsic value. The teaching of Church history for ten years as a regular
course in liberal arts, side by side with the "orthodox" courses in history,
has demonstrated beyond question that this subject can be made at once
very popular and very valuable. It has proved its right to exist as a cultural
subject. Yet the lack of intelligent information, even among educated
people, concerning the history of the Christian Church, both in early and
modern days, is simply appalling.
The comparatively recent revival of interest in Church history has given
birth to many general Church histories from English and American scholars.
Numerous translations of discriminating and painstaking German authors
are also available. A large number of intensive monographs has likewise
appeared. But all these texts are written for classes in theological schools.
Not a single Church history suitable either for regular college work, or for
popular reading, is available; and yet all the standard courses in history are
provided with up-to-date texts and illustrative material.
This work is intended to meet the need I have felt in my own classes, and
have heard expressed from fellow teachers and laymen, for a simple
account of the evolution of the old Church minus all theological and
dogmatic discussions. The purpose has been to show the origin of the
Christian Church, its development in organisation, the forces which
produced the Papacy, and the marvellous, formative influence of the Roman
Church upon the civilisation of Western Europe. To that end the principal
lines of development are emphasised at every point, while the subordinate
influences have been minimised. Causes and results, continuity and
differentiation, and unity have been constantly kept in mind.
The subject-matter of this volume was worked out during a prolonged
residence in Europe. Most of that time was spent in Germany under the
inspiration of the foremost authorities in Church history, among whom may
be mentioned Professor Nippold of Jena, Professor Loofs of Halle,
Professor Hauck of Leipzig, and particularly Professor Harnack of Berlin.

The work of the lecture-room and seminar was supplemented by
investigation in the Royal Library of Berlin, the Vatican Library at Rome,
the National Library at Paris, and the Library of the British Museum. The
materials thus gathered were further organised and elaborated in a course of
lectures on Church history given in Syracuse University.
The references in the text and the bibliographies at the end of chapters are
given, so far as possible, to English sources. It is believed that the exclusion
of a pedantic list of foreign works will make the work more useful. It is
hoped that the student will be induced to go to the library, the laboratory of
the historian, and there by extensive and intensive reading supplement the
text.
Should this volume prove to be of service, it will be followed by two
companion volumes—one on the Reformation and another on the modern
Church. It is further planned to publish a source-book on Church history to
supplement the texts.
My indebtedness to books and men is so great that it would be impossible
to enumerate them here. While all sources have been laid under tribute,
special obligation is felt to many monographs and intensive studies.
Alexander C. Flick.
Syracuse University.

CONTENTS

PAGE
CHAPTER I
The Study of Church History 1

Outline: I.—Present status of history in college work. II.—
Ecclesiastical history excluded since the Reformation by
political history. III.—New view of the Mediæval Church
and its influence. IV.—Renaissance of interest in Church
history. V.—Pedagogical value and treatment of Church
history. VI.—Sources.

CHAPTER II
General Bibliography on Church History 12

Outline: I.—Primary materials. II.—Secondary materials.
III.—Sketch of the writing of Church history. IV.—Most
important collections of primary sources. V.—Most
important general Church histories. VI.—Dictionaries and
encyclopedias. VII.—Atlases and chronologies. VIII.—
Text-books. IX.—Sources.

CHAPTER III
Preparation of the Civilised World for the Christian Church
40

Outline: I.—The ancient world. II.—Condition of the
civilised world at the time Jesus came. III.—How the
condition of the world prepared the way for Christianity. IV.
—Sources.

CHAPTER IV
Origin, Spread, and Organisation of the Church during the
Apostolic Age 52

Outline: I.—Origin of the Christian Church. II.—Spread of
the Apostolic Church. III.—Organisation of the Early
Church. IV.—Conclusions. V.—Sources.

CHAPTER V
The Roman Church and Peter's Primacy 71

Outline: I.—Planting of the Church in Rome and its
organisation there. II.—The two opposing views of the
Petrine theory. III.—Proofs advanced for the Petrine theory.
IV.—Evidence given against the Petrine theory. V.—
Historical conclusions. VI.—Sources.

CHAPTER VI
The Roman Government's Treatment of the Christians 91

Outline: I.—Religious persecutions before the Christian
era. II.—Christians first persecuted by the Jews. III.—
Causes and motives of persecution by the Roman
government. IV.—Number and general character of the
persecutions. V.—Results of persecutions. VI.—Sources.

CHAPTER VII
Transition of the Church Under Constantine 112

Outline: I.—Condition of the Empire in 300. II.—How
Constantine became Emperor. III.—Constantine's
conversion to Christianity. IV.—Constantine's favours to
Christianity. V.—Constantine's character. VI.—
Constantine's historical significance. VII.—Sources.

CHAPTER VIII
The Council of Nicæa and its Results 131

Outline: I.—Diversion of Christian thought in the early
Church. II.—The Arian controversy. III.—The Council of
Nicæa and its actions. IV.—Later history of Arianism. V.—
Sources.

CHAPTER IX
Rise of the Papacy 148

Outline: I.—Favourable conditions when the Christian era
began. II.—Forces at work up to 313. III.—Description of
the Roman Church in 313. IV.—Growth of the Papacy from
313 to 604. V.—Condition of the Papacy at the close of this
period, 604. VI.—Sources.

CHAPTER X
Rise of the Papacy (Continued) 164

CHAPTER XI
Monasticism 198

Outline: I.—Importance of the institution of monasticism.
II.—Antecedents and analogies. III.—Causes of the origin
of Christian monasticism. IV.—Evolution of Christian
monasticism. V.—Spread of group monasticism from the
East to the West. VI.—Development of monasticism in
Western Europe. VII.—Opposition to monasticism. VIII.—
Results and influences of monasticism. IX.—Sources.

CHAPTER XII
Spread of the Christian Church over Europe 229

Outline: I.—Extent of Christianity under Gregory the
Great. II.—Character of missionary work from the sixth to
the tenth century. III.—Conversion of the British Isles. IV.
—Conversion of the Franks. V.—Conversion of the
Germans. VI.—Conversion of Scandinavia. VII.—Planting
of the Church among the Slavs. VIII.—Efforts to convert
the Mohammedans. IX.—Sources.

CHAPTER XIII
Separation of the Roman and Greek Churches 265

Outline: I.—Relation of the Greek and Roman Churches
before 325. II.—Effect of the Arian Controversy on the
situation. III.—The history of image worship. IV.—
Character and results of the Iconoclastic Controversy. V.—
Final separation. VI.—Resemblances and differences
between the two churches. VII.—Sources.

CHAPTER XIV
Relation of the Church and State up to the Dissolution of the
Carolingian Empire 289

Outline: I.—Church and state before Constantine. II.—
Church and state from Constantine to 476. III.—Period of
the Ostrogothic rule (476-552). IV.—Reunion of Italy with
the Eastern Empire. V.—Alliance between the Papacy and
the Franks. VI.—Restoration of the Empire in the West in
800. VII.—Effect of the rise of national states on the
Church. VIII.—Sources.

CHAPTER XV
The Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals and the Papal Constitution
326

Outline: I.—What were the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals? II.
—Condition of Europe when the Decretals appeared. III.—
Purpose of the forgery. IV.—Character and composition. V.
—Time, place, and personality of authorship. VI.—
Significance and results. VII.—Nicholas I. and papal
supremacy. VIII.—Decline of spirituality in the Church. IX.
—Sources.

CHAPTER XVI
Organisation, Life, and Institutions of the Church, Sixth to
Ninth Century 347

Outline: I.—Organisation of the papal hierarchy. II.—
Moral condition of the clergy and laity. III.—Great activity
and wide influence of the Church. IV.—The ordeals and the
Church. V.—Church discipline: excommunication and
interdict, and penance. VI.—Worship; the mass; preaching;
hymns. VII.—The sacraments. VIII.—Relics and saints. IX.
—Sources.

CHAPTER XVII
The Holy Roman Empire and the Papacy 384

Outline: I.—Decline of the Empire under the later
Carolingians. II.—Preparations to restore the Empire on a
German basis. III.—Otto the Great creates the Holy Roman
Empire. IV.—Holy Roman Empire attains its height under
Henry III. V.—Results of the creation of the Holy Roman
Empire. VI.—Sources.

CHAPTER XVIII
Preparations for the Hildebrandine Reformation 418

Outline: I.—Decline of the Papacy after Nicholas I. (858-
867). II.—Reform efforts before the time of Hildebrand. III.

—The youth and education of Hildebrand. IV.—The
Hildebrandine Popes. V.—Sources.

CHAPTER XIX
Gregory VII. and his Work 445

Outline: I.—Condition of the Church in 1073. II.—
Election of Hildebrand as Pope. III.—Gregory VII.'s
matured papal theory and reform ideas. IV.—His efforts to
realise his ideals. V.—The investiture strife. VI.—
Conclusions. VII.—Sources.

CHAPTER XX
The Significance of the Crusades 476

Outline: I.—The rise and spread of Mohammedanism. II.
—Positive and negative causes of the Crusades. III.—
Character and description of the Crusades. IV.—Results and
influences of the Crusades. V.—Sources.

CHAPTER XXI
Rise of the Mendicant Orders in the Church 510

Outline: I.—Monasticism before the Crusades. II.—Effect
of the Crusades on monasticism. III.—Origin of the
begging orders. IV.—Rise and influence of the Dominicans.
V.—Origin and power of the Franciscans. VI.—Wide-
spread results of mediæval monasticism. VII.—Sources.

CHAPTER XXII
Innocent III. and the Church at its Height 544

Outline: I.—Antecedent preparation for this period. II.—
Career of Innocent III. up to 1198. III.—Innocent III.'s

plans and ideals as Pope. IV.—Condition of Europe at the
close of the twelfth century. V.—Innocent III. makes
himself the political head of Europe. VI.—Innocent III.'s
efforts to root out heresy and reform the Church. VII.—
Innocent III.'s character and the general results of his
pontificate. VIII.—Sources.

CHAPTER XXIII
The Mediæval Church at its Height 569

Outline: I.—Characteristics of the thirteenth century. II.—
Territorial extent and wealth of the Church. III.—
Organisation of the papal hierarchy completed. IV.—The
legal system of the Church. V.—The official language and
ritual of the Church. VI.—The sacramental system. VII.—
The employment of art. VIII.—The Church moulded the
civilisation of Europe. IX.—Sources.

Index 607

THE RISE OF THE
MEDIÆVAL CHURCH

CHAPTER I
[1:1]
THE STUDY OF CHURCH HISTORY

Outline: I.—Present status of history in college work. II.—
Ecclesiastical history excluded since the Reformation by
political history. III.—New view of the mediæval Church and its
influence. IV.—Renaissance of interest in Church history. V.—
Pedagogical value and treatment of Church history. VI.—
Sources.
Half a century ago a prominent educator observed: "There is something
remarkable in the actual condition of the study of Church history. While it
seems to be receiving more and more cultivation from a few of us, it fails to
command the attention of the educated public in the same proportion. We
are strongly of the opinion that beyond the requisitions of academical and
professional examination there is very little reading of Church history in
any way."[1:2] Only twenty-five years ago Professor Emerton, upon taking
the chair of ecclesiastical history in Harvard University, could say with
truth: "There are to-day not more than half a dozen colleges in the country
where any adequate provision for an independent department of history has
been made."[2:1] At the present time, happily, the condition so much
deplored in the last quotation has been remedied to a very large degree.
Every great university in America has a well-organised faculty of history
and allied subjects, while a large majority of the smaller institutions of
higher education have regularly organised departments of history with
instructors, well-trained at home or abroad, who devote all their time to the
subject.
But, notwithstanding these facts, the statement made about Church history
still remains essentially true. The political, industrial, educational, and
social sides of history have been emphasised by the creation of new
departments with new courses of study, and by the writing of many text-
books, monographs, and general treatises. Professorships of sociology,
political economy, political science, constitutional law, education, and

literature have been created in unprecedented numbers. Ecclesiastical
history, on the contrary, has been all but ignored. Even in Germany, where
the greatest strides have been made in the subject, it is still relegated to the
theological faculty, though the number of philosophical students selecting it
often exceeds that of the theological—a very significant fact. In America it
would be difficult to point out more than a very few universities or colleges
where a chair in Church history is put on an equality with chairs of other
branches of history or of correlated subjects. Its proper place, in both
scholastic and popular estimation, is in the theological seminary, and there
it has always remained as a "professional" study. Even in this restricted
sense, however, its intrinsic worth has placed it among the most important
courses in the curriculum, and has given it a standing beyond "professional"
circles. Some of America's greatest scholars have contributed powerfully,
through the class-room, lectures, and books, to give Church history its
rightful place both as a "professional" and as a "liberal" branch of learning.
Until Luther led the great reformatory schism in the sixteenth century, all
historians, crude and unscientific though much of their work was,
recognised the necessary union of political and ecclesiastical history. The
Venerable Bede began his celebrated history not with the coming of Abbot
Augustine and his monks, but with the landing of Cæsar and his Roman
cohorts. As modern civilisation crept over western Europe and crossed the
mighty deep to Columbia's shores, carrying with it the revolutionising
Teutonic conception of the national state with its new duties and
relationships, the tendency was to magnify the political and social sides of
history at the expense of the religious. The hatreds and misunderstandings
of the Reformation, though doing something to rectify the "orthodox"
history of the old Church, really put members of the old organisation
wholly on the defensive, and checked for centuries anything like a
genuinely sympathetic and scientific study of the old Church by Protestant
historians. With Neander, that sympathetic Christian of Jewish descent, and
the scholarly Gieseler, a new era opened. The growing doctrine of the
separation of Church and state accentuated the breach between political and
religious history. The early crude conception of specialisation also separated
sacred from profane history, and turned the former over wholly to the
theologian. Secular historians took the position of Napoleon when invited to
enter the Holy City: "Jerusalem does not enter into the line of my
operations."

At last the Church historian and the civic historian have joined hands, and
look each other in the face. They see that their aim is essentially common:
to know the truth about the past. This search for truth for its own sake is
purely modern—almost contemporaneous. Formerly, history was written to
justify or disprove some theory of political or ecclesiastical polity, or to
glorify some dynasty, sect, party, or hero, or to vindicate some hypothesis or
set of ideas. The historian was not a searcher for truth, but a lawyer with a
cause to plead. It is generally realised now that the historian, whether he
deals with the state, the Church, society, education, or industry, is working
an important part of the field of general history. A knowledge of each one of
these institutions is necessary to supplement and explain any or all of the
others.
This institutional interdependence seems to be generally recognised now.
"The web of history," said Professor Hatch in beginning his great work at
Oxford, "is woven of one piece; it reflects the unity of human life, of which
it is the record. We cannot isolate any group of facts and consider that no
links of causation connect them with their predecessors or their
contemporaries. Just as Professor Freeman insists on the continuity of
history, so I wish to insist on its solidarity."[4:1] The mutual labours of
scholars in correlating fields have revolutionised our historical knowledge
of the early and later Middle Ages. A multitude of controverted points have
vanished like ghosts. We see the old Church now as we never saw it before.
The Catholic Church and the mediæval papacy were the greatest of the
creations of the first fifteen centuries of the Christian era. The mediæval
Church was not exclusively a religious organisation. It was more of an
ecclesiastical state. It had laws, lawyers, courts, and prisons. If not born into
it, all the people of western Europe were at least baptised into it. It levied
taxes on its subjects. Standards of patriotism and treason were more sharply
defined than in the modern state.[5:1] The evolution of this great
organisation is the central fact of the first thirteen centuries after Christ. It
aimed to control the whole life of its subjects here and to determine their
destiny hereafter. Well may our greatest American Church historian, Henry
C. Lea, ask: "What would have been the condition of the world if that
organisation had not succeeded in bearing the ark of Christianity through
the wilderness of the first fifteen centuries?"[5:2]

The history of Europe, then, after the Roman period must be looked at
through the eyes of the Church. The character and works of that great
institution must first be studied, not pathologically but sympathetically. The
historian, if honest, dare not show a "lack of appreciation of the service
rendered to humanity by the organisation which in all ages has assumed for
itself the monopoly of the heritage of Christ."[5:3] He must recognise the
fact that "ecclesiastical history is simply the spiritual side of universal
history."[6:1] "The value of a science depends on its own intrinsic merits,"
says Alzog.[6:2] When the great Teacher commanded from the Mount of
Olives, "Go ye into all the world and preach the gospel," that mount became
the pivot on which the whole world's history has turned.
If the Christian religion be a matter, not of mint, anise, and
cummin, but of justice, mercy, and truth; if the Christian religion
be not a priestly caste, or a monastic order, or a little sect, or a
handful of opinions, but the whole congregation of faithful men
dispersed throughout the world; if the very word which of old
represented the chosen "people" is now to be found in the
"laity"; if the biblical usage of the phrase "ecclesia" literally
justifies Tertullian's definition: Ubi tres sunt laici, ibi est
ecclesia; then the range of the history of the Church is as wide
as the range of the world which it was designed to penetrate.[6:3]
The great difficulty with the study of Church history in the past has been
that teachers treated it wholly from a theological standpoint. That may have
been proper when the subject was viewed as a narrow "professional" study
only. A new and better conception of the subject, however, as a part of the
pregnant history of humanity, has brought with it a higher estimation of its
value as a cultural study. All that can be claimed for historical studies in
general can be claimed for it: mental discipline, broad culture, a view of
practical life, enlarged sympathies and lessened prejudices, a truer
conception of duty, and a saner estimate of the significance of current
events. In addition it may be ventured that no subject can be of greater vital
importance to the student for the very reason that it deals with the most
important of all subjects. In order to do the most good as a liberal branch of
learning, Church history must be taught not as theology or dogma, but as a
powerful civilising institution like the state or the school. Then it will be
true that "neither can the profane historian, the jurist, the statesman, the

man of letters, the artist, nor the philosopher safely neglect the study of
Church history."[7:1] For each one of these persons, as well as the minister,
needs that "pragmatic view" of all the changes and developments of the
Christian Church and the influence it has exerted on all other human
relations.[7:2]
Within the last few years, however, there has been a noticeable awakening
of interest in Church history both within and without college walls. The
indefatigable labours of a few men like Henry C. Lea, who has given us a
series of invaluable monographs on the history of the old Church, have had
much to do with the new status of Church history. Universities are already
recognising courses in Church history offered by divinity schools as "liberal
arts" electives for undergraduate and postgraduate study. The writers of
recent text-books on general history, as well as in particular fields,
recognise the revolution and try to make amends for the sin of omission by
giving the Church a prominence never recognised before by secular
historians.[7:3] Publishers have felt the popular pulse and, consequently,
"Studies" and "Epochs" covering the whole range of Church history have
appeared in cheap and popular form from the pen of scholar and compiler.
Foreign works have been translated. Journals devoted to the study of
Church history have been established. Lectureships have been created and
endowed. Societies have been organised to further the work. Convenient
editions of the "sources" are appearing. Everywhere there seems to be a
reaction in favour of this misunderstood and neglected subject. An army of
scholars is at work digging valuable material out of old monasteries, royal
archives, private libraries, cemeteries and churches, catacombs, and every
conceivable place of concealment. These labours are being rewarded by
rich discoveries of valuable materials, which are immediately critically
edited by competent hands and printed in translations suitable for all
students. Huge collections of these sources are appearing in most of the
European countries.[8:1]
The most significant evidence of reaction, however, lies in the fact that the
most recent courses offered on the Middle Ages in our leading universities
are essentially courses in Church history. The name matters little so long as
students approach the instructive history of western Europe from the right
standpoint. Thus, at length, has come the fulfilment of the prophecy of
Professor Koethe (d. 1850), made many years ago: "It is reserved to future

ages, and in a special sense to the institutions of learning, to give to Church
history its proper place in the curriculum of studies. When its nature and
importance come to be fully known and appreciated it will be no longer
limited to one faculty."
The best pedagogical methods must be applied to Church history in order to
obtain the best results. To that end these practical suggestions are offered:
1. Emphasis ought to be laid on ideas back of events rather than on the
events themselves.
2. The important ought to be distinguished from the unimportant at every
step. Athanasius and Augustine are worthier subjects of study than Flavian
and Optatus. The invasion and conversion of the Teutons are more
important than disputes over Easter or the shape of the tonsure.
3. Original sources ought to be used so far as possible. History should be
studied "from the sources of friend and foe, in the spirit of truth and love,
sine ira et studio."[9:1]
4. Both Protestant and Catholic secondary authorities ought to be read on
every important controverted point.
5. Origins ought to be studied with special care.
6. Transition periods rather than crises ought to be given the most time.
7. Biographies of epoch-making men like Constantine, Gregory the Great,
Charlemagne, Hildebrand, St. Francis, Innocent III., etc., ought to be
carefully considered.
8. Causes and results ought to be closely worked out and classified.[9:2]
9. The continuity of the Church as a great force in the world ought to be
ever kept in mind.[9:3]
10. Differentiation ought to be thoughtfully noted through the ages.
11. The unity of history—the influence of the Church upon every other
institution—ought to be followed from one transitional period to another.
12. The sympathetic attitude ought to be taken at all times in judging men
and movements. The student ought to stand in the centre of the circle so that
he may see all points of the circumference—all persons, all events, all

parties, all creeds, all sects, all shades of opinion—and see their true
historical relations.

Sources

1.—Bright, W., The Study of Church History. In Waymarks of Church
History. N. Y., 1894.
2.—Cave, A., Introduction to the Study of Theology. Edinb., 1885, 421
ff.
3.—Collins, W. E., The Study of Ecclesiastical History. N. Y., 1903.
4.—Coxe, A. C., Institutes of Christian History. Chicago, 1887.
5.—De Witt, J., Church History as a Science, as a Theological
Discipline, and as a Mode of the Gospel. Cinc., 1883.
6.—Foster, F. H., The Seminary Method of Original Study in the
Historical Sciences. N. Y., 1888.
7.—Gwatkin, H. M., The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History. Camb.,
1891.
8.—Hatch, E., An Introductory Lecture on the Study of Ecclesiastical
History. Lond., 1885.
9.—Hitchcock, R. D. The True Idea and Uses of Church History. N.
Y., 1856.
10.—Jortin, J., The Use and Importance of Ecclesiastical History.
Works, vii., 405-454. Lond., 1772.
11.—Lea, H. C., Studies in Church History. Introd. Phil., 1869.
12.—McGiffert, A. C., "The Historical Study of Christianity."
Bibliotheca Sacra, Jan., 1893, 150-171.
13.—Robinson, J. H., Sacred and Profane History. In An. Rep. Am.
Hist. Assn. 1899, i., 527.

14.—Smith, H. B., "Nature and Worth of the Science of Church
History." Bibliotheca Sacra, vol. vii., 1851, 412. See Faith and
Philosophy, Edinb. and N. Y., 1877, 49-86.
15.—Smyth, E. C., Value of the Study of Church History in Ministerial
Education. Andover, 1874.
16.—Stanley, A. P., Three Introductory Lectures on the Study of
Ecclesiastical History. In History of the Eastern Church. Lond.
and N. Y., 1884, 17-76.

See the introductions of the Church histories of Schaff, Gieseler, Alzog,
Moeller, Kurtz, Hase, Döllinger, and Hergenröther.

FOOTNOTES:
[1:1] Reprinted from The Methodist Review, Jan., 1905.
[1:2] Bib. Rep., vol. xxvi.
[2:1] Unit. Rev., vol. xix.
[4:1] Hatch, An Introductory Lecture on the Study of Ecclesiastical History,
London, 1885. Comp. Gwatkin, The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History,
Cambridge, 1891.
[5:1] Maitland, Canon Law in the Church of England, London, 1898, 100, 101.
[5:2] Lea, Studies in Church History, p. iii.
[5:3] Ibid.
[6:1] Gwatkin, The Meaning of Ecclesiastical History, 8.
[6:2] Alzog, Universal Church History, i., § 13.
[6:3] Stanley, Eastern Church, Introduction, 25.
[7:1] Alzog, i., 32.
[7:2] Gieseler, Ecclesiastical History, sec. 3 and 7.
[7:3] Examine recently published texts like Emerton, Mediæval Europe,
Robinson, History of Western Europe, Munro, A History of the Middle Ages, etc.
[8:1] The Monumenta in Germany, the Rolls Series in England, etc.
[9:1] Schaff, Church History, preface.
[9:2] Mace, Method in History, 27-39.
[9:3] Freeman, Methods of Historical Study, Lond. and N. Y., 1886.

CHAPTER II
GENERAL BIBLIOGRAPHY ON CHURCH HISTORY

Outline: I.—Primary materials. II.—Secondary materials. III.—
Sketch of the writing of Church history. IV.—Most important
collections of primary sources. V.—Most important general
Church histories. VI.—Dictionaries and encyclopedias. VII.—
Atlases and chronologies. VIII.—Text-books. IX.—Sources.
All our information about the origin, life, and growth of the Christian
Church comes from the revelation of evidence which is termed sources.
These sources are partly original, or primary, and partly secondary. For the
student of history both kinds of sources have a definite character and value,
and are, therefore, of peculiar interest. Some knowledge about the scope
and nature of the sources is necessary for an intelligent view of any field of
history. At the same time it is clear that any person presuming to pose as an
authority on a given phase of history must not only be thoroughly
acquainted with the varied contributions of all secondary works, but must
also be a master of the character and worth of all first-hand materials.
The primary sources are simply the records and remains left by the people
who lived at any given time. Such materials, it will be readily seen, give the
nearest and truest account of the ideas, feelings, motives, and beliefs, as
well as of the deeds and actions, of man. An original source is, therefore,
merely a source back of which one cannot go for historical information. It is
apparent, consequently, that the primary sources are the more important
because they are the very foundations of history. "No documents, no
history," tersely declared Langlois. The primary sources put us in vital
connection with the thoughts, doings, and institutions of past times. In them
one sees reflected the spirit of the age. Every line, every word, is a
revelation. The student is led to feel history, to actually know men and
women of the past, and thus to comprehend our own civilisation in the
earlier periods of its evolution. The primary sources cannot be accepted and
assigned their true value, however, until their authenticity and genuineness

are determined, and the element of personal equation is taken into account.
Even then final judgment can never be absolute.
For the sake of giving a clear conception of the range of the primary
sources the following classification may be of assistance:

A.—Written sources of the subjoined kind:
I.—Public official documents:
1. Acts of councils and synods.
2. Letters, bulls, briefs, rescripts, and regests of popes,
patriarchs, and bishops.
3. Confessions of faith.
4. Liturgies, hymns, etc.
5. Church canons and laws, and monastic rules.
6. Decrees and letters of kings, nobles, and civic assemblies.
7. Laws of states.
II.—Private writings of personal actors and observers:
1. The Apostles.
2. Church fathers.
3. Heretics and reformers.
4. Heathen.
5. Chroniclers and historians.
6. Missionaries.
7. Clergy and laity.
III.—Inscriptions on churches, public buildings, tombs,
monuments, coins, seals, etc.
B.—Unwritten sources of the following character:
I.—Buildings:
1. Churches and baptisteries.
2. Tombs and monuments.

3. Civic edifices.
4. Private dwellings.
II.—Art:
1. Sculpture—images and emblems.
2. Painting and fresco.
3. Mosaics.
4. Ecclesiastical vestments and ornaments.
5. Church furniture and vessels.
III.—Rites and ceremonies.
IV.—Oral traditions.

The secondary sources are those that are compiled from a study of the
original sources, or from other secondary works, or from both, as is more
likely to be the case. This class of material is very abundant, and varies
greatly in character and value because of the striking difference in
authorship, style, and purpose. It is always necessary, therefore, carefully to
discriminate the wheat from the chaff and to be able easily to recognise the
"earmarks" of a reliable authority. Many of the works produced by modern
scientific scholarship are excellent in every respect, and, in many fields of
historical study, absolutely indispensable. Secondary sources may be
divided as follows:

A.—Written works:
I.—History:
1. General treatises based upon either primary sources, or
secondary materials, or both.
2. Encyclopedias and dictionaries.
3. Monographs, essays, and articles.
II.—Fiction:
1. Novels.
2. Poetry.

3. Drama.
B.—Unwritten:
I.—Oral traditions and reports.
II.—Transmitted rites and ceremonies.
III.—Works of art copied from originals.

The earliest account of the history of the Christian Church extant is the New
Testament. The "Memoirs" of Hegesippus, a converted Jew of the second
century, is the first known effort to record the growth of the Church, but all
his books are lost.[15:1] Eusebius, the Greek bishop, called the "Father of
Church history," wrote a comprehensive Ecclesiastical History to 324.
Socrates, Sozomen, and Theodoret, each after his own ideal, continued the
narrative of Eusebius. Rufinus translated the work of Eusebius into Latin
and continued it to 395, while Epiphanius translated Socrates, Sozomen,
and Theodoret into Latin and brought the record to 518. Theodorus and
Evagrius were also continuators of these early works. Sulpicius Severus, a
Gallic monk of noble birth, penned a fabulous chronicle of little worth.
The Middle Ages produced little of real value in the field of Church history.
The chronicles represent the best output. A few scholars of the Eastern
Church, the Byzantine historians, the annalists of the Latin Church, and
several specialists like Gregory of Tours and the Venerable Bede, complete
the list. The lives of saints, however, abound.
The fierce controversial spirit of the Reformation produced two
monumental works. Matthias Flacius, aided by other Protestant scholars, in
the Magdeburg Centuries, sought to reveal the whole disreputable career of
the old Church. This keen voluminous work of the Reformers called forth
from the learned Italian, Baronius, a powerful defence of the Roman
Church in his Ecclesiastical Annals. Bossuet, a Frenchman, in his
Discourse on Universal History, made a severe attack on Protestantism,
while Tillemont, a Gallic nobleman of Jansenist faith, wrote critically and
with more moderation. In Germany, Hottinger, Spanheim, and Arnold
vindicated the Reformation. Following the earlier age of fierce theological
controversy, Semler, Henke, Schmidt, Hume, and Gibbon wrote in a very
rationalistic style and spirit.

During the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries, German scholars have led
the world in their contributions to Church history. The great Mosheim made
a pronounced improvement in the writing of Church history and introduced
the modern scientific method. He was not alone the most learned theologian
of his age in Germany, but was critical in the best sense, honest and
impartial. His disciple, Schroeckh, wrote a work of forty-five volumes of
considerable value. Gieseler improved on Mosheim's method and wrote an
ideal outline of Church history with full citations to all the known sources.
Neander, "a giant in learning, and a saint in piety," gave the world an epoch-
making General History of the Christian Religion and Church (1825-52).
His writings and his ideals have influenced nearly every Church historian
since his death, when it was said, "The last of the Church Fathers has gone."
Among his immediate pupils are Hagenbach, Kurtz, Guericke, Niedner, and
Semisch.
Baur founded the celebrated "Tübingen School" and did some excellent
work in the Ante-Nicene period. Strauss, Zeller, Schenkel, Rothe, and
Nippold are the most prominent among his followers.
The names of other German historians who have laboured in this domain of
knowledge are so numerous that only a few of the most prominent will be
mentioned. Chief among the Protestants are Hase, Gfroerer, Ebrard,
Herzog, Moeller, Müller, Loofs, Hauck, and Harnack; among the Roman
Catholic writers are Stolberg, Katerkamp, Döllinger, Alzog, Pastor, Hefele,
Hergenröther and Janssen.
Although British scholarship has not devoted itself so zealously to the
writing of Church history, yet some excellent contributions have been made
by such men as Pusey, Keble, Newman, Waddington, Milman, Stanley,
Stubbs, Robertson, Greenwood, Vaughan, Perry, Lingard, Creighton,
Gwatkin, Tozer, Hatch, and Orr.
American interest in the field of Church history is largely the product of the
last thirty years. Most conspicuous among the contributors are Smith,
Lanson, Shedd, Schaff, Fisher, Sheldon, Dryer, Hurst, Newman, McGiffert,
and Henry C. Lea.
At the present time in every Christian country a corps of well-trained
scholars are devoting their lives to nearly every phase of Church history,
and the outlook is most gratifying.

The literature on Church history, taken as a whole, is perhaps more
voluminous than that on any other phase of history. The use of the sources
is, in consequence, at the very outset a problem of selection. It is apparent,
therefore, that the following brief lists are not meant to be exhaustive. Only
the most valuable collections of original documents, and also the most
reliable books of a secondary character are included. Special care has been
taken to mention all useful collections of sources in the English language.
At the conclusion of each chapter will be found references to the sources on
special topics.

The Most Important Collections of Primary Sources Are:

A.—Official Documents:
I.—In English:
1.—Brett, T., Collection of the Principal Liturgies. Lond.,
1838.
2.—Fulton, J., Index Canonum. N. Y., 1892.
3.—Gee, H., and Hardy, W. J., Documents Illustrative of
English Church History. N. Y., 1896.
4.—Hammond, C. E., Liturgies, Eastern and Western. Lond.,
1878.
5.—Henderson, E. F., Select Historical Documents of the
Middle Ages. Lond. and N. Y., 1892.
6.—Neale, J. M., The Liturgies of St. Mark, St. James, St.
Clement, St. Chrysostom, and St. Basil. 2 vols. Lond.,
1859.
7.—Neale, J. M., and Webb, B., The Symbolism of Churches
and Church Ornaments. Lond. and N. Y., 1893.
8.—Ogg, F. A., Source-Book of Mediæval History. N. Y.,
1908.
9.—Palmer, W., Origines Liturgicæ. 2 vols. Lond., 1845.

10.—Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Christian
Library. Vol. xxiv. Edinb., 1872.
11.—Robinson, J. H., Readings in European History. Vol. i.
Boston, 1906.
12.—Schaff, P., The Creeds of Christendom. 3 vols. N. Y.,
1878.
13.—Swainson, C. A., The Greek Liturgies. Lond. and N. Y.
1884.
14.—Thatcher and McNeal, A Source Book for Mediæval
History. N. Y., 1907.
15.—University of Penn., Translations and Reprints of
Original Sources of European History. Phil., 1894 to
present.
16.—Winer, G. B., Comparative View of the Doctrines and
Confessions of Christendom. Edinb., 1887.
II.—In Foreign Languages:
1.—Councils and Synods:
(1).—Binius, S., Concilia Generalia et Provincialia
Græca et Latina. 4 vols. Best ed., Cologne, 1606.
(2).—Labbé, P., Concilia. 18 vols. Paris, 1671. Carried
by others to 1727.
(3).—Hardouin, J., Conciliorum Collectio. 12 vols.
Paris, 1715.
(4).—Mansi, G. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova et
Amplissima Collectio. 31 vols. Flor., 1759-98.
Most complete collection to 1509. New edition
now out.
2.—Bulls, Acts, Briefs, Rescripts, and Regests:

(1).—Bullæ Diversorum Pontificum a Joanne XXII. ad
Julium III. ex Bibliotheca Ludovici Gomes.
Rome, 1550. This is the oldest collection, but it
contains only fifty documents.
(2).—Cherubini made the first comprehensive
collection of bulls and briefs from Leo I. to 1585.
It is known as the Magnum Bullarium Romanum.
(3).—Maynardus, Bullarium Magnum. 19 vols.
Luxemb., 1739-68. Contains bulls from Leo I. to
Benedict XIV.
(4).—Coquelines made a similar collection at Rome in
14 vols., 1733-48. Barbarini added 6 more vols.
Rome, 1835.
(5).—Tomassetti has made the latest collection of bulls
from Leo I. to the nineteenth century. 25 vols.
Turin, 1857-72.
(6).—The best collections of early papal briefs were
made by Coustant, Paris, 1721; Schoenemann,
Götting., 1796; Thiel, Braunsberg, 1867-8.
(7).—Jaffé, P., Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (to
1198). Ber., 1881-88. 2 vols.
(8).—Potthast, A., Regesta Pontificum. (1198 to 1304).
Ber., 1873. 2 vols.
(9).—Kehr, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum (to 1198).
Berlin, 1906-7. 2 vols.
(10).—The Liber Pontificalis gives the history of the
popes down to the end of the ninth century.

Duchesne's ed. the most complete. Rome, 1886-
92. Mommsen's ed. excellent.
(11).—Mirbt, C., Quellen zur Geschichte des
Papsttums. 2d ed., 1903.
3.—Creeds, Liturgies, and Hymns:
(1).—Walch, C. W. F., Bibliotheca Symbolum Vetus.
Lemgo., 1770.
(2).—Niemeyer, A. H., Collectio Confessionum in
Ecclesiis Reformatis Publicatarum. Leipz., 1840.
(3).—Kimmel, E. J., Monumenta Fidei Ecclesiæ
Orientalis. Jena, 1843-50. 2 vols.
(4).—Heurtley, C. A., Harmonia Symbolica. Oxf., 1858.
(5).—Denzinger, H. J. D., Enchiridion Symbolorum et
Definitionum. Wurzb., 1888. 6th ed.
(6).—Caspari, C. P., Quellen zur Geschichte des
Taufsymbols und der Glaubensregel. Christiania,
1866-75. 3 vols. Revised in 1879.
(7).—Hahn, A., Bibliothek der Symbole und
Glaubensregeln. Berlin, 1877. 2d ed.
(8).—Durandus, W., Rationale Divinorum Officiorum.
(About 1290). Many eds. Last at Naples, 1866.
(10).—Renaudot, E., Liturgiarum Orientalium
Collectio. New ed., Paris, 1847. 2 vols.
(11).—Muratori, L. A., Liturgia Romana Vetus. Venice,
1748.
(12).—Assemani, J. A., Codex Liturgicus Ecclesiæ
Universæ. Rome, 1749-66. 13 vols.

(13).—Weale, W. J. H., Bibliotheca Liturgica. Lond.,
1886.
(14).—Delisle, L., Mémoire sur d'anciens
Sacramentaires. Paris, 1886.
4.—Laws and Canons:
(1).—Richter, L. A., Corpus Juris Canonici. Leipz.,
1833. 2 vols.
(2).—Friedberg, E., Corpus Juris Canonici. Leipz.,
1876-82. Best ed.
(3).—Migne, Patrologia Latina. Contains many ancient
laws.
(4).—Haenel, Theodosian Code. Bonn, 1842. 6 vols.
(5).—Krueger, Justinian Code. Ber., 1877.
(6).—Moser, J. J., Corpus Juris Evang. Ecclesiæ. Zur.,
1737. 2 vols.
5.—Decrees and Acts of Civic Authorities:
(1).—Pertz, et al., Monumenta Germaniæ Historica.
Ber., 1819 to present.
(2).—Muratori, Scriptores Rerum Italicarum. Milan,
1723-57. 25 vols. From 500 to 1500.
(3).—Thesaurus Veterum Inscriptionum. Milan, 1739-
42. 4 vols.
(4).—Corpus Juris Civilis. Good ed. by Kriegel
Brothers, Leipz., 1833-40. Best ed. by
Mommsen, Ber., 1895. 3 vols.
B.—Private Writings of Contemporaries:
I.—In English:

1.—Roberts and Donaldson, Ante-Nicene Christian Library.
25 vols. Edinb., 1864-72, 1897.
2.—Coxe, A. C., Ante-Nicene Fathers. 10 vols. Buf., 1886-
88.
3.—Pusey, et al., A Library of the Fathers of the Holy
Catholic Church. 48 vols. Oxf., 1839-85.
4.—The Publications of the Parker Society. 53 vols. Camb.,
1840-55. For English Church.
5.—Schaff, et al., Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 14 vols. Buf.,
1886-90. First series.
6.—Schaff and Wace, Select Library of the Nicene and Post-
Nicene Fathers of the Christian Church. 14 vols.
Lond. and N. Y., 1890-94.
7.—Bohn, Antiquarian Library. 36 vols. Lond., 1847, etc.
Classical Library. 107 vols. Lond., 1848, etc.
Ecclesiastical Library. 15 vols. Lond., 1851, etc.
8.—Foxe, Acts and Monuments. Townsend ed. Lond., 1843.
9.—Lightfoot, The Apostolic Fathers. Lond., 1889.
II.—In Foreign Languages:
1.—Canisius, H., Antiquæ Lectiones. 2d ed., 1725. 7 vols.
2.—Combefis, F., Græco-Lat. Patrum Bibliotheca
Auctarium Novum. 2 vols. Paris, 1648.
Bibliotheca Græcorum Patrum Auctarium Novissimum.
2 vols. Paris, 1672.
Bibliotheca Patrum Concoinatoria. 8 vols. New ed.
Paris, 1859.

3.—D'Achery, J. L., Veterum aliquot Scriptorum qui in
Galliæ Bibliothecis delituerant, maxime
Benedictinorum Spicilegium. 13 vols. Paris, 1655-77.
New ed., 1723.
4.—Du Pin, L. E., Bibliothèque Universelle des Auteurs
Ecclésiastiques. 47 vols. Paris, 1686-1704. Several
later editions.
5.—Martène, E., Veterum Scriptorum et Monumentorum
Collectio Nova. Rouen, 1700.
6.—Montfauçon, B. de, Collectio Nova Patrum et
Scriptorum Græcorum. Paris, 1706. 2 vols.
7.—Muratori, L. A., Rerum Italicarum Scriptores. Mil.,
1723-51. 25 vols. New ed. now being published, ed.
by Carducci.
8.—Ceillier, R., Histoire Générale des Auteurs Sacrés et
Ecclésiastiques. New ed., Paris, 1858-69. 16 vols.
9.—Bouquet, M., Scriptores Rerum Gallicarum et
Francilarum. New ed., Paris, 1869-77. To date 23
vols.
10.—Gallandi, A., Bibliotheca Veterum Patrum
Antiquorumque Scriptorum Ecclesiasticorum. 14 vols.
Venice, 1765-81. 380 authors.
11.—Routh, M. J., Reliquiæ Sacræ. 5 vols. Oxf., 2d ed.,
1846-1848.
12.—Pertz, et al., Monumenta Germaniæ Historica. Ber.,
1819 to present.
13.—Niebuhr, et al., Scriptores Historiæ Byzantinæ. Bonn,
1828-55. 48 vols.

14.—Migne, J. P., Patrologiæ Cursus Completus. Paris,
1844-66. 222 vols. of Latin Fathers and 166 vols. of
Greek Fathers.
15.—Chronicles and Memorials of Great Britain and Ireland
from the Roman Invasion to Henry VIII. Lond., 1858-
90. 210 vols. (Rolls series).
16.—Academy of Vienna, Corpus Scriptorum Ecclesiæ
Latinæ. 17 vols. Vienna, 1867-95.
17.—Jaffé, P., Bibliotheca Rerum Germanicarum. 1864-73.
6 vols.
18.—Graffin, P., Patrologia Syriaca. Paris, 1895. 2 vols.
(19).—Die Griechischen christlichen Schriftsteller der
ersten drei Jahrhunderte.
(20).—Bibliothèque de Théologie Historique. Paris, 1906 ff.
(To be completed in 60 vols.)
C.—Inscriptions:
I.—In English:
1.—Northcote, J. S., Epitaphs of the Catacombs. Lond.,
1898.
2.—Bingham, J., Antiquities of the Christian Church. Oxf.,
1855. 10 vols. Very valuable.
3.—Guericke, H. E. F., Manual of the Antiquities of the
Church. Lond., 1851.
4.—Bennett, C. W., Christian Archæology. N. Y., 1888.
5.—Rushforth, G. McN., Latin Historical Inscriptions. Oxf.,
1893.
II.—In Latin:

1.—See Corpus Inscriptionum Latinarum. Best ed. by
Mommsen under Berlin Academy. 1862 to date 11
vols.
2.—Boeckh, P. A., Corpus Inscriptionum Græcarum. Ber.,
1824.
3.—Le Blant, E., Inscriptions chrét. de la Gaule. Paris,
1856-65. 2 vols.
4.—Hübner, E., Inscriptions Hispan. Christ. Ber., 1871.
Inscrip. Brit. Christ. Ber., 1876.
5.—De Rossi, J. B., Inscriptiones Christianæ Urbis Romæ
Septimo Sæculo Antiquiores. Rome, 1861.
6.—Fabretti, A., Corpus Inscriptionum Italicarum. Turin,
1867-77. 2 vols. Three supplements. Flor., 1800.
7.—L'Epigraphie Chrestienne en Gaule et dans l'Afrique.
Paris, 1890.

Most Important General Church Historians:

A.—Before the Reformation:
I.—Greek:
1.—Hegesippus, a Christian Jew in Asia Minor (2d cent.),
wrote a Church history in five books. Based on
traditions. Only fragments preserved. See Ante-Nic.
Lib., viii., 762-5. See Eusebius.
2.—Eusebius (d. 340), "Father of Church History," wrote a
history of Church to 324. Valuable storehouse. Various
Eng. translations. That by McGiffert, N. Y., 1890, in
Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, i., is the best.

3.—Socrates (d. 408), a lawyer, continued Eusebius to 439.
Bohn. Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, ii.
4.—Sozomen (d. 400), a lawyer, continued Eusebius to 423.
Ibid. Bohn.
5.—Theodoret (d. 457), a bishop, aimed to complete
Socrates and Sozomen. Ibid. Bohn.
6.—Evagrius (d. 537), a lawyer, continued Theodoret. Bohn.
Bagster, Eccles. Historians.
For other Greek historians, lost or not in English, see Alzog,
i., § 17; Schaff, i., 29.
II.—Latin—to the Reformation:
1.—Rufinus (b. 345), a priest, translated Eusebius and added
an inaccurate history of the Arians (318-395). Preface
only in Eng. Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, iii., 565.
2.—Severus (b. 363), a Gallic priest, wrote the history of the
world to 400. Good for Gaul. Ib., xi., 71-122.
3.—Orosius (5th cent.), a Spanish priest, wrote a world
history to 416. Used as a text-book in Middle Ages.
Bohn.
4.—Cassiodorus (d. 562), a statesman and abbot, compiled a
Church history from Socrates, Sozomen, and
Theodoret. This is the famous "Tripartite History." It
served as a text-book throughout the Middle Ages. Not
in Eng. See Migne, Patrologia, lxix., and Hodgkin,
The Letters of Cassiodorus.
5.—Gregory of Tours (d. 594), a bishop, wrote a valuable
history of the Frankish Church. Not in Eng.

6.—Venerable Bede (d. 735), "Father of English Church
History," wrote a history of the English Church to 731.
Many Eng. eds.
7.—Paul Warnefried (d. 799), a Lombard monk wrote a
History of the Langobards. Tr. by Foulke, U. of Pa.
Transl. and Rep. Phil. 1907.
8.—Haymo (d. 853), bishop of Halberstädt, abridged
Rufinus and added notes of his own. Not in Eng.
9.—Anastasius (d. 886), abbot and papal librarian at Rome,
compiled a Church history from the Greek writers. Not
in Eng.
10.—Flodoard (d. 966), a bishop, wrote a history of the
Church of Rheims to 948. Not in Eng.
11.—Luitprand (d. 972), bishop of Cremona, wrote a
chronicle and a report of his embassy to
Constantinople. See Pertz, Mon. Ger., iii., 264;
Henderson, Hist. Docs. of the M. A., 441.
12.—Adam of Bremen (d. 1076), a canon, wrote the only
reliable history of the Scandinavian Church from 788
to 1076. Not in Eng.
13.—Orderic Vital (d. 1142), abbot in Normandy, wrote a
Church history to 1142. Best work of the Middle Ages.
In Eng., Bohn. Vols. 27, 28, 30, 36.
14.—Ptolemy of Lucca (d. 1312), a Dominican, and papal
librarian, wrote a Church history to 1312. Not in Eng.
15.—St. Antoninus (d. 1459), archbishop of Florence, wrote
the largest mediæval work from the creation to 1457.
Not in Eng.

16.—Laurentius Valla (d. 1457), an Italian critic and scholar,
wrote a history of the Church. Denounced the
"Donation of Constantine" as a forgery. Work full of
doubt. Not in Eng.
17.—Nicholas of Cusa (d. 1464), a cardinal, was a radical
critic in his early days but temperate in later life. His
works not in Eng.
18.—John of Tritenheim (d. 1516) was among the first
historians to write from the sources. Not in Eng.
19.—Albert Cranz (d. 1517), a canon of Hamburg, wrote
"The Metropolis," a critical history of the Church in
northern Germany from 780 to 1504. Not in Eng.
B.—Roman Catholic historians after the Reformation:
I.—Italian:
1.—Baronius (d. 1607), a cardinal, wrote Annales
Ecclesiastici in 12 fol. vols. The work of 30 years.
Invaluable. Not in Eng. Written to refute the Protestant
Magdeburg Centuries. Continued from 1198 to 1566
by Raynaldus, to 1571 by Laderchi, to 1584 by
Theiner. Pagi made valuable corrections. Best defence
of the mediæval papacy.
2.—Caspar Saccarelli wrote Historia Ecclesiastica to 1185.
Pub. in Rome, 1771-96, in 25 quarto vols.
3.—Muratori (d. 1750) made a valuable collection of Italian
historians and original documents from 500 to 1500.
Not in Eng.
4.—Mansi (d. 1769) edited a valuable and very complete
edition of the councils. Not in Eng.

5.—Orsi (1761), a Dominican cardinal, wrote a Church
history for the first six centuries. Continued by others
to the Council of Trent. Not in Eng.
For other Italian historians see Alzog, i., 49.
II.—French:
1.—Natalis Alexander (d. 1724) wrote a clear, deep Church
history to 1600. Its Gallican spirit put it in the Index
till corrected.
2.—Abbé Fleury (d. 1723) wrote a Church history to 1414 in
20 vols. from the sources. Continued to 1595 by
Fabre. First 3 vols. pub. in Eng. at Oxf., in 1842.
3.—Bossuet (d. 1704), the bishop of Meaux, wrote a
"Discourse on Universal History." In Eng. Continued
by Cramer, a German Protestant.
4.—Tillemont (d. 1698), a nobleman and priest, wrote fine
biographies to 516 from the sources. An excellent
piece of work in 16 vols.
5.—Du Pin (d. 1719) furnished a biographical and
bibliographical Church history to the 17th century.
6.—Ceillier (d. 1763) wrote a similar work but more
complete and valuable.
7.—Darras (d. 1872). A General History of the Catholic
Church. Transl. by Spaulding. 4 vols. Not reliable.
III.—German:
1.—Count Leopold von Stolberg (d. 1819), an ex-Protestant,
wrote a Church history to 430 in 15 vols. Kerz
continued it in 30 more vols. to 1192 and Brischar in 9
more vols. to 1245.

2.—Theodore Katerkamp (d. 1834), a professor at Munster,
and a friend of Stolberg, wrote a history to 1153.
3.—Locherer (d. 1837), a professor at Giessen, produced a
very liberal work up to 1073.
4.—Döllinger (d. 1890), a professor in Munich, was the most
learned historian of the Catholic Church in the 19th
cent. Was excommunicated for refusing to accept the
Vatican decrees (1871). Most of his many works have
been translated into Eng.
5.—Hefele (d. 1893), a professor at Tübingen and a bishop,
wrote History of the Councils to 1447. An excellent
piece of work. Completed by Hergenröther. In Eng.
6.—Gfrörer (d. 1861) began his learned Church history as a
rationalist (1841) and continued it from 1056 on as a
Catholic.
7.—Hergenröther (d. 1890), cardinal and keeper of the papal
archives at Rome, wrote a general history of the
Church which is very partisan.
IV.—English and American:
1.—Newman (d. 1890), an English cardinal, wrote The
Arians of the Fourth Century (1883), Church of the
Fathers, and many other historical works.
2.—Allies, The Formation of Christendom. Lond., 1882-91.
7 vols.
3.—Spalding (1872), an American prelate, wrote The
History of the Protestant Reformation, 2 vols., 1860,
and edited Darras's General History of the Catholic
Church. (1868)

4.—Gibbons (b. 1834), cardinal in the U. S., wrote Faith of
Our Fathers and other historical works.
C.—Protestant Church Historians:
I.—German:
1.—Matthias Flacius Illyricus (d. 1575), with ten educated
Protestant scholars, produced the Centuriæ
Magdeburgenses, covering 13 centuries in 13 vols., to
justify the Reformation. Controversial.
2.—Hottinger (d. 1664) wrote a partisan history to 16th cent.
in 9 vols. Not original.
3.—Spanheim (d. 1649) worked out a history from the
sources to 16th cent. Aimed at Baronius. Eng. transl.
4.—Arnold (d. 1714) wrote an Impartial History of the
Church and of Heretics to 1688. "Learned, but
fanatical."
5.—Mosheim (d. 1755) wrote Institutes of Ecclesiastical
History. Marks an epoch in the writing of Church
history. Several Eng. transls.
6.—Schröckh (d. 1808) wrote large work in 45 vols. on
epoch plan, to end of 18th cent. Rich in historical
material.
7.—Henke (d. 1809) wrote a general history in a very
rationalistic style.
8.—Neander (d. 1850), professor in Berlin, the "Father of
Modern Church History," wrote A General History of
the Christian Religion and Church to 1430. Based on
the sources. Several Eng. transls. Torrey's the best.

9.—Gieseler (d. 1854), professor in Göttingen, wrote a
history from the sources to 1648. Various Eng. transls.
Excellent.
10.—Baur (d. 1860), professor in Tübingen, produced a
History of the Christian Church in 5 vols. In Eng.
11.—Hagenbach (d. 1874), professor in Basle, wrote a
general history of the Church in 7 vols. In Eng.
II.—French:
1.—Chastel (d. 1886), professor at Geneva, wrote a
complete history of the Church in 5 vols.
2.—D'Aubigné (d. 1872), professor at Geneva, wrote a
general history of the Reformation in 13 vols. In Eng.
3.—Renan, E. (d. 1892), was educated for the Catholic
priesthood, but he early gave up that calling and
devoted himself to history and literature. He produced
many works of great value on early Church history.
III.—English:
1.—Gibbon (d. 1794) devoted twenty years to his history of
the Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. To 1453.
Still very valuable. Best ed. by Bury. Lond., 1896.
2.—Milner (d. 1797) wrote a History of the Church of Christ
in popular form.
3.—Dean Waddington (d. 1869) penned six "high and dry"
vols. on the Church.
4.—Robertson (d. 1882), professor in King's College,
London, wrote a History of the Christian Church to
1517. Fairly well done from the sources.

5.—Milman (d. 1868), among other works, wrote the
History of Latin Christianity to 1455 in 8 vols.
Excellent.
6.—Dean Stanley (d. 1881) has given us histories of the
Eastern Church and Jewish Church in a pure, plain
style.
7.—Creighton (d. 1901), has written the best History of the
Papacy from the Great Schism to the Sack of Rome. 6
vols. Invaluable.
IV.—American:
1.—Smith (d. 1877), professor in Union Theological
Seminary, worked out the history of Christianity in 16
chronological tables, (1860).
2.—Shedd (d. 1894), professor in Union Theological
Seminary, wrote a History of Christian Doctrine in 2
vols. 1863.
3.—Schaff (d. 1893), professor in Union Theological
Seminary, a disciple of Neander, wrote, in addition to
other works of value, a History of the Christian
Church. To the Reformation. 7 vols. Excellent. Vol. 5,
by D. S. Schaff.
4.—Sheldon (b. 1845) has written an excellent history of
doctrine and also of the Church. 5 vols. 1896.
5.—Allen (d. 1908) wrote Christian History in Three Great
Decades in 3 vols. 1883.
6.—Fisher (b. 1827), professor in Yale, has produced several
valuable books on Church history.
7.—White (d. 1885) wrote Eighteen Christian Centuries.

8.—Lea (b. 1825) has written invaluable monographs on the
Inquisition, Indulgences, Celibacy, etc., which have
given him a world-wide reputation.
9.—Other Americans who are doing good work in Church
history are: Jackson, Hurst, Baird, Thompson,
Mombert, Gillett, Storrs, Taylor, Clark, Emerton,
Bigelow, West, Fulton, Jacobs, Newman, Zenos,
Dexter, McGiffert, Dryer, Faulkner, etc.

Dictionaries and Encyclopedias

A.—English:
I.—Protestant:
1.—Abbott and Conant, Dictionary of Religious Knowledge.
N. Y., 1875.
2.—Benham, Dictionary of Religion. Lond. and N. Y., 1887.
3.—Blunt, A Dictionary of Doctrinal and Historical
Theology. Lond. and Phil., 2d ed., 1891.
4.—Blunt, A Dictionary of Sects, Heresies, Ecclesiastical
Parties, and Schools of Religious Thought. Lond. and
Phil., 2d ed., 1886.
5.—Buck, A Theological Dictionary. Lond., 1847.
6.—Cheyne and Black, Encyclopædia Biblica. 4 vols. N. Y.,
1905.
7.—Eadie, The Ecclesiastical Cyclopædia. Lond., 1847.
8.—Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge. Phil., 1870.
9.—Farrar, An Ecclesiastical Dictionary. Lond., 1853.
10.—Gardner, The Christian Cyclopedia. Lond., 1854.

11.—Hastings, A Dictionary of the Bible. N. Y. and
Edinburgh.
12.—Herzog, A Protestant, Theological, and Ecclesiastical
Encyclopædia. 2 vols. Phil., 1858-60.
13.—Hook, A Church Dictionary. N. Y., 1875.
14.—Hook, Ecclesiastical Biography. 4 vols. Lond., 1845.
15.—Jackson, Concise Dictionary of Religious Knowledge
and Gazetteer. N. Y., 1893.
16.—McClintock and Strong, Cyclopædia of Biblical,
Theological, and Ecclesiastical Literature. 10 vols. N.
Y., 1867-81. 2 sup. vols. 1884-86.
17.—Marsden, A Dictionary of Christian Churches and
Sects. 2 vols. Lond., 1891.
18.—Sanford, A Concise Encyclopædia of Religious
Knowledge. N. Y., 1891.
19.—Schaff-Herzog, Encyclopædia of Religious Knowledge.
3 vols. N. Y., 1891.
The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopædia of Religious
Knowledge. Revised by S. M. Jackson. N. Y. and
Lond., 1908 ff. In 12 vols.
20.—Shipley, A Glossary of Ecclesiastical Forms. Lond.,
1871.
21.—Smith and Cheetham, A Dictionary of Christian
Antiquities. 2 vols. Bost., 1875-80.
22.—Smith and Wace, A Dictionary of Christian Biography,
Literature, Sects, and Doctrines. 4 vols. Bost., 1877-
87.
23.—Stanton, An Ecclesiastical Dictionary. N. Y., 1861.

24.—Wolcott, Sacred Archeology. Lond., 1868.
II.—Catholic:
1.—Addis and Arnold, A Catholic Dictionary. N. Y., 1884.
2.—Gillow, Dictionary of English Catholic Biography and
Bibliography. (1534-1884.) 6 vols. Lond., 1887-94.
3.—Gibbings, Index Expurgatoris. Lond., 1837.
4.—Butler, Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs and Other Saints.
12 vols. Lond., 1866.
5.—Berington, The Faith of Catholics. 3 vols. Lond., 1846.
6.—The Catholic Encyclopedia. N. Y., 1907 ff. (To be
completed in 15 vols.)
7.—Thein, Ecclesiastical Dictionary, 1905.
III.—Jewish and Mohammedan:
1.—The Jewish Encyclopedia. 12 vols. N. Y., 1902-5.
2.—Encyclopedia Islam. 3 vols. 1908.
B.—Foreign:
I.—Protestant:
1.—Hauck, Herzog's Real-Encyklopädie für protestantische
Theologie und Kirche. 1896 ff.
2.—Lichtenberger, Encyclopédie des Sciences Religieuses.
Paris, 1872-82. 13 vols.
II.—Catholic:
1.—Aschbach, Allgemeines Kirchen-Lexicon. Frankf., 1846-
50. 4 vols.
2.—Wetzer und Welte, Kirchen Lexicon. Freib., 1847-56. 12
vols.
3.—Hergenröther und Kauler. Kirchenlexikon oder
Encyklopädie der Katholischen Theologie und ihrer

Hilfswissenschaften. Freib., 1880-1895. 10 vols.
C.—Consult standard secular encyclopædias like Britannica, Johnson,
International, etc.

Atlases and Chronologies

I.—English:
1.—Koeppen, A. L., The World in the Middle Ages. N. Y., 1854.
2.—Sprüner, Historico-Geographical Hand Atlas. Lond., 1861.
3.—Wiltsch, J. E. F., Handbook of the Geography and Statistics
of the Church. 2 vols. Lond., 1859-69.
4.—McClure, C. E., Ecclesiastical Atlas. Lond., 1888.
5.—Freeman, E. A., Historical Geography of Europe. Lond.,
1881. 2 vols. New ed. 1904.
6.—Labberton, R. H., New Historical Atlas and General History.
N. Y., 1890.
7.—Riddle, J. E., Ecclesiastical Chronology. Lond., 1840.
8.—Tarner, G. E., Concise Tabular View of the Outlines of
Christian History. Lond., 1890.
9.—Smith, H. B., History of the Church in Chronological Tables.
N. Y., 1875.
10.—Woodward and Gates, Encyclopædia of Chronology. N. Y.,
1872.
11.—Dow, E. W., Atlas of European History. N. Y., 1907.
II.—Foreign:
1.—Putzger, F. W., Historischer Schul-Atlas. Leipz., 1903.
Anglicised now. Excellent.
2.—Droysen, H., Allgemeine historische Handatlas. Leipz., 1886.

3.—Weidenbach, Calendarium Hist. Chron. Medii et Novi Ævi.
Reg., 1855.
4.—Grotefend, G. A., Handbuch des Hist. Chr. des Mittel-Alters.
Hanov., 1872.

Text-books on Church History

I.—Protestant:
1.—Allen, Outlines of Christian History. Bost., 1885. 3 vols.
2.—Blackburn, History of the Christian Church. Cin., 1879.
(Presb.).
3.—Butler, An Ecclesiastical History. Phil., 1868-72. 2 vols.
4.—Fisher, History of the Christian Church. N. Y., 1887.
5.—Foulkes, A Manual of Ecclesiastical History. Oxf., 1851.
6.—Gieseler, A Text-Book of Church History. N. Y., 1868-79. 5
vols.
7.—Green. Handbook of Church History. N. Y., 1904.
8.—Guericke, A Manual of Church History (to 1073). And., 1872.
2 vols.
9.—Hardwick, A History of the Christian Church. Lond., 1861-
65. 2 vols.
10.—Hase, A History of the Christian Church. N. Y., 1870.
11.—Hurst, A History of the Christian Church. N. Y., 1897. 2
vols.
12.—Jennings, A Manual of Church History. N. Y., 1887-8. 2
vols.
13.—Knight, A Concise History of the Church. Lond., 1888.
14.—Kurtz, Church History. N. Y., 1888. 3 vols.

15.—Moeller, History of the Christian Church. Lond., 1902. 3
vols.
16.—Moncrief, A Short History of the Christian Church. Chicago
and N. Y., 1902.
17.—Mosheim, Institutes of Ecclesiastical History. Last ed.,
Bost., 1902. 3 vols.
18.—Newman, A Manual of Church History. Phil., 1902-3. 2
vols.
19.—Schaff, History of the Christian Church. N. Y., 1884-92. 7
vols.
Vol. v., by D. S. Schaff, N. Y., 1908.
20.—Smith, The Student's Manual of Ecclesiastical History. N.
Y., 1879.
21.—Schubert, Outlines of Church History. Lond., 1907.
22.—Sohm, Outlines of Church History. Lond., 1895.
23.—Waddington, A History of the Church. Lond., 1835. 3 vols.
24.—Zenos, Compendium of Church History. Phil., 1900.
II.—Catholic:
1.—Alzog, A Manual of Universal Church History. Lond., 1888-
90. 3 vols.
2.—Birkheuser, History of the Catholic Church from its First
Establishment to our own Times. 7th ed., 1905.
3.—Brueck, History of the Catholic Church. N. Y., 1886.
4.—Döllinger, Manual of Church History. Lond., 1840-42. 4
vols.
5.—Gilmartin, Manual of Church History. Lond., 1890-2. 2 vols.

It is a matter of deep regret that such excellent books by Catholic writers
like Hergenröther, Kraus, Möhler, Funk, etc., have not yet been translated

into English.

Sources

1.—Adams, C. K., A Manual of Historical Literature. N. Y., 1888.
2.—Cave, A., Introduction to Theology. Edinb., 1886.
3.—Crooks, G. R., and Hurst, J. F., Literature of Theology. N. Y.,
1896. Pt. iii.
4.—Darling, J., Cyclopædia Bibliographica. 3 vols. Lond., 1854-9.
5.—Donaldson, J., A Critical History of Christian Literature. 3 vols.
Lond., 1864-6.
6.—Dowling, J. G., An Introduction to the Critical Study of
Ecclesiastical History. London, 1832.
7.—Fisher, J. A., A Select Bibliography of Ecclesiastical History.
Bost., 1885.
8.—Fortescue, G. K., Subject Index of the Modern Works Added to the
Library of the British Museum in the Years 1881-1900. 3 vols.
1902-1904.
9.—Hurst, J. F., Literature of Theology. N. Y., 1896. Pt. iii., p. 186.
10.—Kruger, G., History of Early Christian Literature in the First
Three Centuries. N. Y., 1897.
11.—Malcom, H., Theological Index. Phil., 1870.
12.—Poole, W. F., Index to Periodical Literature (1802 to date).
13.—Schaff, P., Theological Propædeutics. N. Y., 1893.
14.—Sonnenschein, W. S., The Best Books. Lond., 1896.
15.—Tibbals, C. F., Thesaurus of the Best Theological, Historical, and
Biographical Literature. N. Y., 1891.

FOOTNOTES:
[15:1] Extracts in Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History and in Ante-Nic. Ch. Fathers
(Chr. Lit. ed.), viii., 762.

CHAPTER III
PREPARATION OF THE CIVILISED WORLD FOR THE CHRISTIAN

CHURCH

Outline: I.—The ancient world. II.—Condition of the civilised
world at the time Jesus came. III.—How the condition of the
world prepared the way for Christianity. IV.—Sources.
The ancient world included the many independent tribes surrounding the
Mediterranean Sea and spreading into the interior. This independence was
institutional. Each tribe had its own government, laws, and customs; its own
religion and gods; its own ideals of education; its own commercial and
industrial methods. But all these diversities of life and thought were broken
down by the ascendancy of Rome. The independent laws, gods, and
institutions fell before the onward march of those of the Mistress of the
World.
When Jesus was born, the Roman Empire extended from the Euphrates to
the Atlantic, and from the African desert to the Danube, Rhine, and Weser.
It formed a wide fringe around the Mediterranean Sea, included the best
parts of three continents, and had a population of 100,000,000.[40:1] The
Empire was called "the world." Roman law was predominant throughout
the provinces as well as at Rome, but local usages were tolerated.
Citizenship had become so widely extended that the different peoples began
to feel themselves a single race, bound together by one Emperor, one
government, and one code of laws.
The era of the boyhood of Jesus was one of comparative peace, since there
was no important war after the naval battle of Actium (31 B.C.).[41:1] Hence
the industries of the Empire prospered greatly. Across the Mediterranean as
the great highway, up and down the rivers, and along the incomparable
Roman roads, an enormous trade was carried on between the colonies and
the capital, Rome.[41:2] Factories thrived in every direction and commerce
flourished. Showers of wealth fairly fell upon the Eternal City.

The trade of the Empire was carried on in Latin, the official language of the
Empire for law and war. Greek was also a universal tongue, but used more
especially for art, science, philosophy, education, and religion.[41:3] Cicero
complained: "Greek is read in almost all nations. Latin is confined by its
own natural boundaries." Hebrew and other tongues were sectional. The
literature of the opening century of the Christian era, however, was largely
in Latin,[41:4] which had been fertilised by Greek culture.
Education had made far greater progress in this old world than is generally
thought. Judea,[41:5] Greece,[41:6] and Rome[42:1] had excellent systems of
education, though differing much in purpose and in subjects studied.
Pronounced schools of philosophy grew up. Art, comparatively little
developed among the Jews, culminated with the Greeks, and from them was
transplanted to Rome. Travel, always liberalising and educational, was
widespread among scholars, tradesmen, soldiers, and public officials. All
these factors had produced a superior intelligence and general culture
throughout the Empire.
The religious condition of the Empire was very significant. The Roman
religion, a mixture of Grecian and Etrurian religions[42:2]—of licentiousness
and puritanism—was alone legal over the whole Empire.[42:3] The Emperor,
as Pontifex Maximus, was head of the religion. Worship, however, had
become mere form—even priests ridiculed the gods. Cicero declared: "One
soothsayer could not look another in the face without laughing," and "even
old women would no longer believe either in the fables of Tartarus or the
joys of Elysium." This loss of faith engendered skepticism and superstition,
and gave magicians and necromancers a wide patronage. The best men in
Rome were demanding reformation, and were longing for and predicting a
new era. Cicero prophesied: "There shall no longer be one law at Rome,
and another at Athens; nor shall it decree one thing to-day, and another to-
morrow; but one and the same law, eternal and immutable, shall be
prescribed for all nations and all times, and the God who shall prescribe,
introduce, and promulgate this law shall be the one common Lord and
Supreme Ruler of all."[43:1]
The Grecian religion,[43:2] so closely resembling the Roman, was of course
tolerated in the Empire. The gods were ideal Greeks with virtues and vices
magnified. They were born, had passions, senses, and bodies like men, but

never died. They committed crimes, had troubles, and were given to wrath,
hatred, lust, cruelty, perjury, deception, and adultery, yet were omnipotent
and omniscient.[43:3] While the conception of Zeus, as the father of the
gods, ruled by fate, had a vague idea of monotheism in it, still the Greek
religion lacked the Christian conception of sin and righteousness, for with
the Greeks sin was only a folly of the understanding—even the gods sinned.
Small wonder then that Plato banished the gods from his ideal republic.[43:4]
Pindar, Eschylus, and Sophocles also urged loftier views of the gods, and
preached a higher morality.[43:5] With the Roman conquest national honour
and patriotism died out, and superstition, infidelity, refined materialism, and
outright atheism came in. The best hearts were longing for a new and purer
religion, and were ready to accept it when it came.
The Jews,[44:1] intensely religious, with several thousand years of spiritual
history back of them, divided the known world into the followers of the true
God and the heathen idolaters. Even they were separated into factions:
(1) The Pharisees,[44:2] numbering 6000, stoical casuists, rigidly orthodox,
prone to analyse the Mosaic law to death, intensely patriotic, and bitter
against all non-Jewish tendencies, were very popular, guided public
worship, and controlled the Jews in politics.
(2) The Sadducees,[44:3] rationalistic and skeptical, were aristocratic
Epicureans who rejected oral traditions, and denied resurrection,[44:4]
angels,[44:5] and an all-ruling, foreknowing Providence. They formed a
smaller political party in opposition to the Pharisees, held many priestly
offices, were in league with the Romans, and therefore had less influence
with the people.[44:6]
(3) The Essenes,[44:7] a mystic brotherhood of 4000 whose purpose was to
attain holiness, received their ideas from eastern Theosophists; lived
communal lives on the shores of the Dead Sea; took the Old Testament
allegorically; wore a white dress; were over-scrupulously clean for the
purpose of purification; and rejected animal food, bloody sacrifices, oaths,
slavery, and marriage. They had little to do with politics; were forerunners
of Christian monasticism; and may have influenced the ideas of Jesus.[45:1]

(4) The Samaritans,[45:2] in origin half Jewish and half heathen Babylonian,
practised their reformed Judaism about Gerizim under an established
Levitical priesthood. They rejected all Scriptures but the Pentateuch, held
pure Messianic expectations, looked with favour upon Christianity, and
were bitterly hated by the orthodox Jews.[45:3]
(5) The Zealots, led by Judas of Galilee, a sort of a nationalistic party, were
imbued by a very materialistic conception of the hope of Israel. They
sprang from the Pharisees and followed them in religious things. They
confidently expected the realisation of the kingdom of God, the Messiah,
and a new Israel. In their patriotic zeal they did not hesitate to use the sword
and dagger to drive out their Roman foes in order to realise their dreams for
a purely Jewish kingdom. Their followers came mostly from the lowest
classes.[45:4]
(6) The common people accepted the Pharisees, in a general way, as
leaders. They believed in tradition and in the resurrection, but they were
prone to neglect the law and formalism so stoutly insisted upon by the
scribes. This class of Jews had a vital, living fellowship with God, and
might be called pietists. Such characters as Simeon and Anna, Zachariah
and Elizabeth, Joseph and Mary, and most of those influenced by John's call
to repentance were of this class. They stood for the pure religion of the
early prophets, and in a way opposed the sacerdotalism of the Jewish
Church. They were in a spiritual and ethical mood to accept the great
teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, and were consequently his first converts.
While they constituted the majority of the Jews, and were scattered all over
the Roman Empire yet they were not organised as a political party. To these
Christianity meant a great and much needed reformation.[46:1]
The moral condition of the Empire, east and west, makes a dark picture as
drawn by such men as Paul,[46:2] Seneca,[46:3] Tacitus,[46:4] Juvenal, Persius,
and Sallust. "The world is full of crimes and vices" moaned Seneca. Foreign
conquest and plunder brought in their wake luxury, sensuality, cruelty, and
licentiousness. Slavery was fostered; infanticide tolerated; marriage lax, and
divorce shamefully common. Amusements became bloody and brutal;
20,000 lives were sacrificed in one month to appease the populace, who
cared only for "panem et circenses." The stern virtue and morality of old

Greece and Rome were dead. The huge Empire was a giant body without a
soul going to final destruction.
It is evident, then, that forces both positive and negative were at work to
prepare the civilised world for the reception of Christianity:
(1) The universal Empire of Rome was a positive groundwork for the
universal empire of the Gospel. The imperial organisation suggested a form
of organisation for the Church, so that Latin Christianity was simply Rome
baptised. The unity of the Empire afforded concrete illustration of God's
spiritual kingdom, and implied fatherhood and brotherhood.[47:1] Imperial
toleration of harmless provincial religions protected Christianity, and thus
enabled it to get a foothold before persecution came. Universal peace also
was a boon to the Christian crusade.
The flourishing commerce, the good roads uniting the Empire, the extensive
travel, and the various military expeditions all made the spread of new ideas
easier and quicker.
(2) Pagan theology became a stepping-stone to Christian theology.[47:2] The
decay of polytheism, because of its unspiritual and unsatisfying character,
made spiritual monotheism acceptable. Pagan temples, priests, and rites
made the conception of, and the transition to, Christianity easier. Even the
low moral condition and widespread skepticism strongly emphasised the
need of a better religion.
(3) The schools of the Empire prepared men's minds for an intellectual
consideration of the new faith, though not necessarily for its adoption. The
Greek and Latin tongues were excellent mediums for propagating the new
doctrines. Greek particularly was excellent for the expression of abstract
and lofty truth, and the Old Testament had been translated into it more than
two centuries before Jesus.[48:1] Grecian eloquence became the model for
sacred oratory. The philosophy of Plato and Aristotle formed the scientific
basis for Christian theology. The spiritual flights of Plato,[48:2] the religious
reflections of Plutarch, and the moral precepts of Seneca were all used as
arguments of revealed religion. Even pagan art, with its love for the
beautiful, was early employed to give material expression to Christian
ideas.

(4) The Jews, scattered over the world,[48:3] befriended by Julius Cæsar,
given legal status as a sect by Augustus, expelled in vain by Tiberius and
Claudius, spread a knowledge of the living God over the whole Empire
before Christ appeared. Synagogues were numerous, and many Gentiles
became converts to monotheism.[48:4] These converts were the first to
accept the teachings of Jesus, and in this way formed the nuclei of the
Christian Church.
Thus Jerusalem the Holy City, Athens the city of culture, and Rome the city
of power, combined to prepare the world so that the matchless ethical and
religious teaching of Jesus of Nazareth could capture the hearts and heads
of men, replace the national religions, and become realised in the outward
forms and inward beliefs of the Christian Church, which was soon to
exercise a controlling power in the civilised world.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—JEWISH:

1.—Old Testament.
2.—Old Testament Apocrypha. Transl. by E. C. Bissell, N.
Y., 1865-80.
3.—Josephus (37-103 A.D.), Antiquities, and The Jewish War.
Various eds. Whiston the standard.
4.—Philo Judæus (20 B.C.-40 A.D.), Works. Transl. by C. D.
Yonge. In Bohn, Lond., 1854-5. 4 vols.
5.—The Talmud. Transl. by Bodkinson and revised by Wise,
N. Y., 1896.
6.—Lardner, Jewish and Heathen Testimonies. Works, vii.,
Lond., 1788.
II.—PAGAN:

1.—Greek:

1.—The classics. Bohn Lib. Excellent. Fine transl. by
W. H. Appleton, Bost., 1893.
2.—Polybius (204-122 B.C.), Histories. Transl. by E. S.
Schuckburgh. 2 vols. Lond., 1889.
3.—Strabo (62 B.C.-24 A.D.), Geography. Transl. by
Falconer and Hamilton, Lond., 1890. 2 vols.
Bohn Lib.
2.—Latin:
1.—Virgil (70-19 B.C.), Works. Bohn Lib., 1894; Morley
Univ. Lib., 1884.
2.—Horace (65-8 B.C.), Works. Transl. by Lonsdale and
Lee, Lond., 1873. Best complete Eng. ed. is by
Wickham. 2 vols. Oxf., 1887, 1892.
3.—Livy (59 B.C.-17 A.D.), Works. Bohn Lib., 1850.
Transl. by Stephenson, Lond., 1883-90.
4.—Ovid (43 B.C.-17 A.D.), Works. Bohn Lib. Transl. by
H. T. Riley, Lond., 1852.
5.—Lucan (39-65 A.D.), Pharsalia. Transl. by H. T.
Riley, Lond., 1853. Bohn Lib.
6.—Seneca (3-65 A.D.), Works. Transl. by T. Lodge,
Lond., 1620. Bohn Lib. has partial list.
7.—Pliny (61-115 A.D.), Works. Transl. by Milmoth and
Bosauquet, Lond., 1878.
8.—Tacitus (54-119 A.D.), Works. Bohn Lib., 1848. 2
vols. Transl. by Church and Brodribb, Lond.,
1877.
9.—Juvenal (47-130 A.D.), Works. Bohn Lib. Transl. by
Strong and Leeper, Lond., 1882.

10.—Suetonius (75-160 A.D.), Lives of the Twelve
Cæsars. Bohn Lib., 1855. Transl. by C. Whibley,
Lond., 1899. 2 vols.
III.—CHRISTIAN:

1.—New Testament. (27 canonical books).
2.—New Testament Apocrypha. In Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib.,
vol. 16.
3.—Justin Martyr (103-164 A.D.), Apologies. Ib., vol. ii., 1-
84; Am. ed., vol. i.
4.—Tertullian (104-216 A.D.), Apology. Ante-Nic. Christ.
Lib., xi., 53-140. Several other transls.
5.—Minicius Felix (?), Octavius. Ibid., xiii.
6.—Eusebius (d. 340), The Evangelical Preparation. Transl.
by H. Street, Lond., 1842.
7.—St. Augustine (d. 430), The City of God. Nic. and Post-
Nic. Fathers. Buf., 1886-90. ii., 16-621. Other transls.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Breed, D. R., A History of the Preparation of the World
for Christ. N. Y., 1893.
2.—Döllinger, J. J. I., The Gentile and the Jew. Lond., 1862.
2 vols.
3.—Fisher, G. P., Beginnings of Christianity. N. Y., 1877.
4.—Hardwick, C., Christ and Other Masters. Lond., 1875. 2
vols.
5.—Hausrath, A., History of the New Testament Times.
Lond., 1895. 4 vols.

6.—Maurice, F. D., Religions of the World. Lond. and Bost.,
1854.
7.—Pressensé, De E., Religions before Christ. Edinb., 1862.
8.—Shahan, J. T., The Beginnings of Christianity. N. Y.,
1904.
9.—Trench, R. C., Christ the Desire of all Nations. Camb.,
1846.
10.—Uhlhorn, G., Conflict of Christianity with Heathenism.
Lond., 1880.
11.—Wernle, P., The Beginnings of Christianity. Lond.,
1908. 2 vols.
II.—GENERAL:

Alzog, i., § 24-31. Backhouse, E., Early Ch. Hist., ch. 1.
Baur, i., 1-43. Blunt, J. H., Key to Ch. Hist., ch. 1.
Bouzique, i., Intr. Burton, E., Lects. on Eccles. Hist. (to
3d cent.). Catterille, H., Genesis of the Ch., ch. 1.
Cheetham, ch. 1. Cox, H., First Cent. of Christianity, i.,
chs. 1-10. Darras, i., ch. 1. Döllinger, Hist. of the Ch., i.,
ch. 1, sec. 1-2. Duff, ch. 1-6. Farrar, F. W., Early Days of
Christianity, bk. i., ch. 1. Fisher, pd. i., ch. 1. Gibbon, i.-
ii. Gieseler, i., sec. 8-19. Gilmartin, i., sec. 2-3. Guericke,
pp. 21-28. Hase, 13-23. Hurst, i., 61-87. Jackson, F. J. F.,
Hist. of the Christ. Ch. (to 461), ch. 2. Janes, L. G., A
Study of Prim. Christ., chs. 1-2. Killen, ch. 1. Kurtz, i.,
sec. 6-12. Milman, Hist. of Christ. (to 4th cent.), ch. 1.
Milner, i., cent. i. Moeller, i., 26-48. Mosheim, 11-30.
Neander, i., 1-69. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 1. Schaff, i., ch.
1. Waddington, ch. 1.

FOOTNOTES:

[40:1] Mommsen, v., chs. 11-12; Merivale, i., ch. 1; iv., ch. 39; Liddell, ii., ch.
71; Bury's Gibbon, i., chs. 1-3; Finlay, i., ch. 1.
[41:1] 1 Tim. ii., 2. Epictetus wrote: "Cæsar has promised us a profound peace;
there are neither wars, nor battles, nor great robberies, nor piracy."—Dis., iii., 13.
[41:2] Lewin, Life and Epistles of St. Paul. Lond., 1878. Bergier, Histoire des
Grands Chemins de l'Empire Romain.
[41:3] Merivale, iv., ch. 41.
[41:4] The chief writers were: Ovid, d. 17; Livy, d. 17; Lucan, d. 65; Seneca, d.
65; Pliny, d. 115; Tacitus, d. 119; Juvenal, d. 130.
[41:5] Schürer, ii., § 22; Graetz, i., ch. 20.
[41:6] Plato, Protagoras, tr. by Jowett; Aristotle, Politics, bk. 8, tr. by Jowett;
Mahaffy, Old Greek Ed.; St. John, The Hellenes, bk. 2, ch. 4; Davidson,
Aristotle, bk. 1, ch. 4; The Nation, March 24, 1892, pp. 230-231; Zeller, Socrates
and the Socratic Schools, ch. 3; Capes, University Life in Ancient Athens, ch. 1;
Newman, Hist. Sketches, ch. 4; Thirlwell, Hist. of Greece, i., ch. 8.
[42:1] Döllinger, Gentile and Jew, ii., 294-296; Kirkpatrick, Hist. Develop. of
Super. Instr.; Am. Jour. of Ed., xxiv., 468-470.
[42:2] Gieseler, i., § 11.
[42:3] Döllinger, Gentile and Jew, i., bk. 7.
[43:1] About the Republic, iii., 6; Virgil, Eclogues, iv., 4-10; 13, 14; Lactantius,
Divine Inst., vi., 8; Suetonius, Life of Vesp., ch. 4; Tacitus, Histories, v., 13.
[43:2] Gladstone, Gods and Men of the Heroic Age; Tyler, Theol. of the Greeks;
Cocker, Christ and Greek Philos.; Niebuhr, Stories of Gr. Heroes; Berens, Myths
and Legends of Anc. Gr.; Taylor, Anc. Ideals; Parnell, Cults of the Gr. States; Ely,
Olympus; Francillon, Gods and Heroes; Grote; Curtius; Thirlwell.
[43:3] Read Iliad, Odyssey and Hesiod, Theogeny.
[43:4] Concerning the Republic, ii.
[43:5] Adam, The Religious Teachers of Greece, Edinb., 1908. Baur, The
Christian Element in Plato, Edinb., 1861; Hatch, The Greek Influence on
Christianity. Hibbert Lectures, 1888.
[44:1] Schürer, Hist. of Jewish People; Milman, Hist. of the Jews; Stanley Lect.
on Hist. of Jewish Ch.; Ewald, Hist. of Jewish People; Edersheim, Prophecy and
Hist. in Rel. to the Messiah; Kent, Hist. of Heb. People; Graetz, Hist. of Jews;
Newman, Christianity in its Cradle. See Josephus for full account.
[44:2] Jewish Encyc. See Josephus, Antiq., XIII., x., 5, 6; v., 9; XVII., ii., 4; XVIII.,
i., 2.
[44:3] Jewish Encyc. See Josephus, Antiq., XIII., v., 9; x., 6; XVIII., i., 3; Wars, II.,
viii., 14.
[44:4] Matt. xxii., 23; Mark xii., 18; Luke xx., 27; Josephus, Antiq., XVIII., i., 4.
[44:5] Acts xxiii., 8.

[44:6] It must be remembered that Nicodemus, Gamaliel, and others came from
this class.
[44:7] Jewish Encyc.
[45:1] Josephus; Philo; Pliny; Lightfoot, Ep. to Gal.; Schürer, ii., 188; Jewish
Encyc.
[45:2] Jewish Encyc.
[45:3] John iv., 4; viii., 48; Luke ix., 52, 53; x., 25-37.
[45:4] Josephus, Antiq., XVIII., i., 1-6; Rhees, Life of Jesus; Jewish Encyc.
Hastings, Dict. of the Bible.
[46:1] Schürer, Jewish People, div. II., ii., 154-187; Wendt, Teachings of Jesus, i.,
33-89; Graetz, Hist. of the Jews, ii., 122-123, 140-147; Edersheim, Life and
Times of Jesus, i., 160-179; Rhees, Life of Jesus, sec. 13; Mathews, Hist. of N. T.
Times, ch. 13.
[46:2] Rom. i., 18-32.
[46:3] De Ira, I., ii., c. 8.
[46:4] Politica, I., ii., c. 2-18.
[47:1] Tacitus felt a common humanity when he wrote: "Homo sum; humani
nihil a me alienum puto." Cicero and Virgil expressed like ideas. In the Middle
Ages it was even said that Virgil in the Fourth Eclogue prophesied the advent of
Jesus. See Princeton Rev., Sept. 1879, 403 ff.
[47:2] Ackerman, The Christian Element in Plato; Cocker, Christianity and
Greek Philosophy; Hatch, Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the
Christian Church; Addis, Christianity and the Roman Empire, 22-25; Farrar,
Seekers after God; Davidson, The Stoic Creed, N. Y. 1907.
[48:1] The Septuagint version, 284-247 B.C.
[48:2] Ackerman, The Christian Element in Plato.
[48:3] Josephus and Strabo. Gieseler, i., § 17.
[48:4] Apion, ii., 10, 39.

CHAPTER IV
ORIGIN, SPREAD, AND ORGANISATION OF THE CHURCH DURING

THE APOSTOLIC AGE

Outline: I.—Origin of the Christian Church. II.—Spread of the
Apostolic Church. III.—Organisation of the Early Church. IV.—
Conclusions. V.—Sources.
The Christian Church has both an internal and an external side—a soul and
a body. Thoughts, feelings, and beliefs constitute the inner Church, the
creed. These, in turn, aided by physical conditions, determine the outward
organisation of the Church. In a broad sense the Church was a product of
certain forces already in the world at the opening of the Christian era, which
were utilised by the believers in the teachings of Jesus. From pagan and
Jewish sources contributions were made to both the form and content of the
Christian Church in the following ways:
1. The Jews[52:1] gave in ideas: (a) a belief in Jehovah as God, (b) the
conception of sin, (c) a consciousness of the need of repentance and
reconciliation, (d) the doctrine of immortality, (e) the conception of Heaven
and Hell, (f) angels and the devil, (g) miracles, (h) the Old Testament as
God's word, and (i) the Sabbath. To the form of the Christian Church they
suggested: (a) the synagogue, (b) officials like the elders, (c) ceremonies,
(d) feasts,[53:1] and (e) organisation.[53:2]
2. The pagans contributed in ideas: (a) Greek philosophy and culture,[53:3]
(b) concepts of morality,[53:4] (c) the idea of absolute sovereignty, and (d)
universality.[53:5] In form they gave: (a) local organisations like the
democratic Hellenistic guild or municipality,[53:6] or the numerous Roman
social or religious associations known as collegia and sodalitia (especially
the collegia funeraticia), and the general organisation of the Empire[53:7];
(b) rites and ceremonies; (c) the evening meal,[53:8] (d) festivals like Easter

and Christmas; (e) the use of images, and (f) architecture, painting, and
ornamentation.
3. The real founder of the Church, however, was Jesus Christ. He supplied
the fundamental ideas of: (a) the universal fatherhood of God, (b) the divine
sonship of the Saviour of the world, (c) the brotherhood of man, and (d) the
ethical law of self-sacrifice. He created the Church: (a) by choosing twelve
Apostles, by teaching them and by commissioning them to continue the
work; (b) by winning a number of converts to His doctrines; (c) by leaving
certain sacraments for His followers—Catholics say seven; most
Protestants, two. But He left no written Church constitution giving the
details of organisation. The work of Jesus and His immediate followers in
founding the Church is described in the New Testament. Broadly, then, the
Church of Jesus Christ is composed of all the believers in the teachings of
Jesus, although differing greatly in interpretation and in organisation.[54:1]
From Jerusalem the Apostles and disciples of Jesus spread his teachings to
Syria, Asia Minor, Africa, Greece, and Rome. From these fields the
propagation was continued until by the time of Constantine every point
within and some places without the Empire were reached. "Throughout
every city and village," enthusiastically exclaimed Eusebius, "churches
were quickly established and filled with members from every people."[54:2]
The fruitful labours of Paul and Timothy were explained thus: "And so were
the churches established in the faith, and increased in numbers daily."[54:3]
Other Apostles were, no doubt, equally active in various parts of the
Empire. The "Christians"—a term of derision first used by the heathen of
Antioch,[54:4]—numbering 500 in 30 A.D.,[54:5] grew to 500,000 by 100 A.D.,
[54:6]
and increased to 30,000,000 by 311 A.D.[54:7]—a growth almost
unparalleled in the world's religious history. They included all the social
classes in the Empire from slave to Emperor, though the great middle class
was in all probability most numerously represented.[55:1]
The causes for this marvellous growth[55:2] are found in: (a) the
revolutionary teachings of Jesus, particularly the idea of immortality, which
was very vague in heathen minds, and the law of love and self-sacrifice; (b)
the miraculous powers attributed to the first Christians; (c) the purer and
austerer morality of the early Christians; (d) the unity and discipline of the
Church, making it a powerful organisation within the Empire; (e) the

preparation and ripeness of the Empire for Christianity, and (f) the
subjective vividness of the constant presence of Jesus with the early
Christians, as explained by Paul, and their zealous propagandism.
The results of this new life, brought into the world so dramatically, must be
measured in terms of all subsequent history.[55:3] Every institution in the
Empire was modified by this new spiritual force[55:4] so that as old pagan
imperial Rome gradually fell, new Christian Rome took its place to rule all
western Europe for more than a thousand years in every sphere of human
activity and endeavour.
The exact form of the organisation of the early Christian Church is
extremely difficult to determine, because of the lack of sufficient positive
authority in the New Testament and in patristic literature. The Acts of the
Apostles and the letters of Paul and others to the first Christian
communities tell nearly all any one can know about the origin and
organisation of the Apostolic Church. From these sources it is clear that
Jesus left certain great teachings, and many devoted believers in those
truths. After His departure, the Apostles, not limited to twelve,[56:1]
receiving authority directly from the Master,[56:2] like the prophets of old,
spread the new pregnant faith over the world, organised their converts
according to individual ideas and local needs,[56:3] and practically
monopolised all direction of the Church.[56:4] With the increase of these
Christian societies in size and numbers, came the necessity of appointing
local officers, or of having them elected by the "brethren." In this way, at an
early date, began the outward organisation of the Church. The development
of the Jewish Kingdom of God into the Ecclesia of the Christians was a
comparatively easy transition, especially for the Jewish converts.
Next to the Apostles in point of time, but not authority, in the Biblical
account, came the deacons. At Jerusalem the Apostles had the "brethren"
select "seven men of honest report" to minister to the poor and unfortunate,
and to wait on the table in the daily love-feasts.[56:5] They were installed by
"laying on of hands." This democratic example apparently was followed
elsewhere.[56:6] Both sexes were eligible.[56:7] The high qualifications for
the office suggest its importance.[56:8]

St. Paul tells us that the earliest Christian communities found it necessary to
have some organisation, hence they chose bishops, or overseers, and
presbyters, or elders. But throughout the New Testament the words elder,
presbyter, and bishop seem to be used interchangeably.[57:1] The
qualifications for the offices were the same. Bishops and elders are never
joined together like bishops and deacons as if they were two distinct classes
of officers. Timothy, for example, appoints bishops and deacons; Titus,
elders and deacons. Paul sends greetings to bishops and deacons at Philippi,
but omits all mention of elders and presbyters because, presumably, they
were included in the conception of bishops.[57:2] In his pastoral epistles he
describes all Church officers, but mentions only two classes, bishops or
elders, and deacons.[57:3] Peter, who calls himself "also an elder," urges the
elders to "tend the flock of God" and to "fulfil the office of bishop."[57:4]
Even Clement of Rome uses bishop and presbyter interchangeably as late as
95 A.D.[57:5] Irenæus (d. 190) and Tertullian (d. 220), however, were
conscious of a distinct division and differentiation.
That the official titles, bishop and presbyter or elder, were used from early
apostolic days, all must admit, for the New Testament evidence is
unmistakable. But perplexity and doubt arise at once when an attempt is
made to determine the resemblances and differences in their duties and
powers. The term elder, or presbyter, may have been used merely to
designate the personal relation of the most highly respected members to the
congregation, while the name bishop, or overseer, may have been the
official designation of leadership. Indeed some scholars, like Hatch and
Harnack, believe that the functions of presbyters and bishops were distinct
and different from the beginning. They assert that the college of presbyters
assumed the leadership, or government proper, of the Christian community,
with jurisdiction and disciplinary power, while the bishops had charge of
the administration of the Church, including worship and finance, and were
also largely occupied with charitable work, in co-operation with the
deacons, such as care for the sick, the poor, and strangers. According to this
view each congregation was organised with three sets of officers, namely,
deacons, presbyters, and bishops, from the very outset. Gradually, however,
an amalgamation took place. The bishops, with their practical information,
received seats and votes in the presbytery and finally came to fill the office
of presidency.

It seems more probable, on the contrary, that these two titles simply signify
the twofold origin of the early Christians, namely, from the Jews and the
pagans. The word presbyter is of Hebraic derivation, while bishop is a pure
Greek term. Consequently the tendency developed to use presbyter
wherever the Hebrew element predominated, and, on the other hand, to
employ bishop for Greek communities. It was but natural, too, that these
two terms should come to signify the same thing and should come to be
used interchangeably.
The derivation of these terms is not clear.[59:1] Both presbyter and bishop
appear to have been in use in Syria and Asia Minor to designate officers of
municipal and private corporations. In Grecian civic organisations, the word
bishop or superintendent was likewise commonly used. Then there were the
well-known elders of the Jewish synagogue,[59:2] and the senators of Roman
municipalities—in fact a universal respect for seniority existed in the old
world. It was very natural, therefore, that the Christians should adopt the
known forms, names, and offices of those organisations with which they
were familiar.[59:3] This method of procedure is precisely the one followed
over the world to-day in propagating any idea through organised effort.
These elders were apparently organised into boards, or councils, for the
purpose of better furthering the interests of the Church. They were not
teachers at first so much as the administrators, or business managers, of the
general concerns of the Church.[59:4] They helped to enact ordinances[59:5];
discussed important questions with the Apostles and assisted them in every
possible way; enforced discipline[59:6]; settled disputes between Christians;
and prayed for the sick and anointed them.[59:7]
The first Christians, eagerly awaiting the literal second coming of Christ,
and imbued with great enthusiasm for the Gospel, did not feel the need of
an elaborate constitution. But in time, as numbers increased, as severe
persecution fell upon the Christians, and as the original fervour and
spirituality decreased with the conversion of so many pagans, it became
necessary to develop a regular system of Church government, which would
more effectively meet the new conditions. The fact of differentiation in
organisation is easily established, because the earliest and later forms may
be determined with reasonable accuracy, but the transitional process is

much more difficult of comprehension. This evolution, however, appears to
have taken this course:
1. The board of presbyters, at least in the larger congregations, naturally and
logically developed a head with a priority in rank. The office of president
was universal in contemporary Jewish associations, and in Roman and
Greek organisations. The creation of a chairman of the administrative body
became a political necessity to expedite business, and to enforce discipline
in the Christian societies. Moreover there was the example of the Apostles,
who actually designated officers to continue their work (a) of teaching the
true doctrines,[60:1] (b) of organising new churches, (c) of ordaining deacons
and elders, and (d) in acting as head of the whole congregation.[60:2] Hence
this change was natural, imperative, and easy; but the transition must have
been gradual and must have lacked uniformity.
2. The president of the board of presbyters came, in course of time, to have
a recognised supremacy in power as well as in rank, and the title of bishop
was gradually restricted to his high office. After the death of the Apostles
more duties devolved upon the president of the council, and it was in the
course of things that the special word bishop, i. e., overseer or
superintendent, should be applied to him. By the second century, at least, if
not indeed before, the differentiation had begun and from that time on it can
be plainly traced in the Church Fathers. Jerome states that at Alexandria
until the middle of the third century the presbyters elected one of their
number as president and called him bishop.[61:1] Hilarius says: "Every
bishop is a presbyter, but not every presbyter a bishop; for he only is bishop
who is the primate among the presbyters."[61:2] Examples, secular and
ecclesiastical, were not lacking to warrant the change: (a) the Old Testament
priesthood, (b) Christ and his Apostles, (c) the Apostles and their
appointees, (d) the Emperor and his officials. The bishop soon professed to
occupy the place of an Apostle instead of Christ as earlier, hence arose the
idea of an "Apostolic seat" and "Apostolic succession."[61:3] He represented
Christian unity of doctrine and discipline, and ruled over a recognised
territory—first a single church, then a city, then a province. From the bishop
it was only another step to the archbishop, the metropolitan, the patriarch,
and the Pope.

3. The position of the presbyter changes, likewise, from that of the highest
officer in the Church to one subordinate (a) to the board of elders and then
(b) to the bishop. This distinction once made between bishop and presbyter,
there was a tendency for the bishops to usurp more and more power, while
the presbyters opposed it. The third century is full of these quarrels.[62:1]
Here began the conflict between the principles of monarchy and aristocracy
in the Church. Soon, from acting as a member of a council, the presbyter
came to act alone under the bishop—i. e., the presbyter became a priest, just
as the president became a bishop. Presbyters also assumed new functions:
(a) "ministry of the word" and (b) "ministry of the sacraments." New
detached communities were ruled not infrequently by single presbyters
under the city bishop. Indeed it seems that from the outset the smaller and
weaker Christian communities were ruled by single elders.
4. The status and functions of the deacon likewise were altered. At first he
visited the sick and unfortunate, collected and disbursed alms, and reported
on discipline. Stephen taught; Philip baptised. With the growth of Christian
civilisation, however, institutions of relief—hospitals, orphanages, infant
asylums, almshouses, poorhouses, guest-houses, etc.—took the place of the
earlier personal ministrations of the deacons. Each institution had its own
head, not necessarily a deacon. From being distributors of alms, therefore,
the deacon first became an assistant of the bishop,[62:2] and later the chief
helper of the priest in the administration of the sacraments. With the
multiplication of the duties of this office came the archdeacons and
subdeacons.
5. The many duties incident to a complex organisation gradually produced a
new set of subordinate officials—the minor orders: (a) lectors to read the
Scriptures in public and to keep the books, (b) acolytes to assist the bishops,
(c) exorcists to pray for those possessed of evil spirits, (d) janitors to care
for the buildings and preserve order, (e) precentors to conduct public praise
service, (f) catechists to instruct the catechumens, (g) interpreters to
translate the Scripture lesson.[63:1]
6. The clergy came to be distinct from the laity—a sacerdotal class was
developed. In the early Church the priesthood was universal, i. e., laymen as
well as Church officers could preach, baptise, administer the sacraments,
and exercise discipline. The relation of clergy to laity was merely that of

leadership as in non-Christian organisations. "Ordination" simply meant
appointment, and was used in civic installations, while "laying on of hands"
was only a symbol of prayer and even used by the Jews for secular affairs.
Gradually, however, the tendency to put the Church officials above the laity
grew stronger until something akin to the Old Testament idea of the
priesthood was revived. By the fourth century the Church officers had lost
their primitive character and had become a separate class mediating
between God and man. The causes of this separation are not difficult to see,
namely: (a) the peculiar duties of the Church officials tended to give them a
distinct character; (b) the persecutions to which the Roman government
subjected them threw them into conspicuous relief; (c) the legalisation of
Christianity bestowed upon them a distinct civil status, made them immune
from public burdens like taxes and military service, exempted them from
civil courts, and permitted them to acquire property; and (d) the rise of
asceticism forced the clergy to observe a code of morals different from that
of the laity, demanded celibacy, originated the badge of the tonsure, and
created clergy-houses.
The laity were early organised in congregations. Membership in the Church
was open to all believers in Jesus. The election of officers was, for the most
part, democratic. The life of each congregation was socialistic and
communistic. All possessions were sold for the common good and to create
a common fund for the needy.[64:1] The members enjoyed a common
evening meal and their common love-feast which was to them the highest
act of worship.[64:2] Disobedience, or infidelity, might be punished by
private admonition, public correction, and in stubborn cases
excommunication.[64:3] But after the first century these communistic-
democratic societies were gradually replaced by a hierarchical organisation
with new or modified institutions. The monarchio-episcopal principle of
church government was gradually evolved but, nevertheless, much of the
primitive democracy remained. This evolution in the government of the
Church may be clearly seen by the end of the second century.
From this discussion these conclusions may be drawn:
1. The New Testament does not furnish a satisfactory model for any one
distinct organisation of the Christian Church.

2. In the New Testament, however, are found the germs from which sprang
deacons, priests, bishops, metropolitans, patriarchs, and popes.
3. The elements from which the Church was organised already existed in
large measure in human society. Hence the Church, in its outward form, had
a natural historical growth and was influenced by (a) the Jewish synagogue,
(b) Greek municipalities, (c) the Roman government, (d) local needs, and
(e) the conditions of the times. The animating principle and causal
inspiration was Christianity.
4. Christian society, like human society, was subject to constant change
which is easily detected. The form of organisation, originally democratic,
was gradually changed by the force of circumstances until it became
monarchial and at the same time the officers underwent a similar
transformation.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—JEWISH:

1.—Josephus, Jewish War, Against Apion, Autobiography,
Whiston ed.
2.—Philo Judæus. Works. 4 vols. Bohn Lib., 1854-55.
3—Talmud. Transl. by Rodkinson; rev. by Wise, N. Y., 1896.
II.—HEATHEN:

1.—Lucan, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius. See Chap. III. of this
work.
2.—Celsus (c. 178 A.D.), Against the Christians. Transl. by
Lardner, Lond., 1830.
3.—Porphyry (d. 306), Against the Christians. Ib.
4.—Julian (d. 363), Against the Christians. Ib. Also Transl.
by Nevins, Lond., 1873. Works. Bohn Lib., 1888.

Transl. by Duncombe, Lond., 1784. Public Letters.
Transl. by Chinnock, Lond., 1901.
III.—CHRISTIAN:

1.—New Testament (27 canonical books).
2.—New Testament Apocrypha. Schaff, i., 188. Transl. in
Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib., vol. xvi.
1.—Acts. Transl. by Phillips, Lond., 1876.
2.—Epistles—6 by Paul and 8 by Seneca.
3.—Apocalypses—of the Apostles.
3.—Apostolic Fathers:
1.—Clement of Rome (97?), Epist. to the Ch. of
Corinth. Best ed. by Lightfoot, Apost. Fathers, N.
Y. 1891.
2.—Ignatius (d. 70-115), Epistles (7). Ib. See Killen.
3.—Barnabas(?), Epistle. Lightfoot; Cunningham.
4.—Polycarp (d. 156), Epistle. Lightfoot; Jackson.
5.—Papias (d. 153?), Fragments. Lightfoot; Hall.
6.—Shepherd of Hermas(?). Lightfoot; Hoole.
7.—Didache(?). Hoole; Hitchcock.
4.—Post-Apostolic Fathers:
1.—Justin Martyr (d. 164?), Works. Ante-Nic. Christ.
Lib., ii.; Am. ed., i.
2.—Irenæus (d. 202?), Works. Ib., v., ix.; Am. ed., i.;
Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch., ch. 42.
3.—Hippolytus(?), Works. Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib., ii.,
130; vi., 15-403.
4.—Victor (d. 200?), Works. Ib., xviii., 388-434.

5.—Tertullian (d. 230?), Works. Ib., i., 408; ii., 25; iii.,
118; xi., 53-140; xviii.; Am. ed., iii.-iv.
6.—Origen (d. 254?), Works. Ib., ii., 1-3; x.; Am. ed., iv.
7.—Cyprian (d. 258?), Works. Ib., viii.; xiii., 1-264;
Am. ed., v.
8.—Dionysius of Alexandria (d. 264?), Works. Ib., xx.,
157-265.
9.—Tatian (d. 166?), Works. Ib., iii., 1-46; Am. ed., ii.
10.—Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. in Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers. 1. Other translations.
5.—Collections:
1.—Apostolic Constitutions. Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib.,
xvii. Am. ed., vii.
2.—O'Leary, L. E., Apostol. Const. and Cognate
Documents, N. Y., 1906.
3.—Apostolical Canons. Tr. by R. C. Jenkins. Lond.,
1856. See Harnack, Sources of the Apostolic
Canons. Lond., 1895.
4.—Conybeare, F. C., The Apology and Acts of
Apollonius and other Monuments of early
Christianity. N. Y., 1894.
5.—Lardner, N. Jewish and Heathen Testimonials. In
his Works, vii.-ix.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Allies, T. W., The Formation of Christendom, 4 vols.
Lond., 1895.
2.—Anderdon, W. H., Fasti Apostolici. Lond., 1884.

3.—Anson, A. J. R., The Church: its Organisation in the
Time of the Apostles. Lond., 1886.
4.—Barnes, A., Organisation and Government of the
Apostolic Church. Phila., 1854.
5.—Bartlett, J. V., The Apostolic Age. N. Y., 1900.
6.—Baumgarten, M., The Acts of the Apostles. 3 vols. N. Y.,
1854.
7.—Capes, J. M., The Church of the Apostles. Lond., 1886.
8.—Catterille, H., The Genesis of the Church. Edinb., 1872.
9.—Colman, L., Ancient Christianity. Phila., 1853.
10.—Cox, H., The First Century of Christianity. Lond.,
1892.
11.—Cutts, E. L., Notes of Lessons on the Church in the New
Testament. N. Y., 1892.
12.—Davidson, S., The Ecclesiastical Polity of the New
Testament. Lond., 1855.
13.—Dobschütz, E. von, The Early Christian Communities.
N. Y., 1903. Christian Life in the Primitive Church. N.
Y., 1904.
14.—Döllinger, J. J. I., The First Age of Christianity and the
Church. 2 vols. Lond., 1877.
15.—Fairbairn, A. M., Christianity in the First Century.
Lond., 1883.
16.—Falconer, J. W., From Apostle to Priest. Edinb., 1900.
17.—Farrar, F. W., The Early Days of Christianity. N. Y.,
1882.
18.—Fisher, G. P., Beginnings of Christianity. N. Y., 1888.

19.—Giles, J. A., Apostolical Records of Early Christianity.
Lond., 1886.
20.—Harnack, A., The Expansion of Christianity in the First
Three Centuries. Lond., 1904-1905. 2 vols.
21.—Hatch, E., Growth of Church Institutions. Lond., 1887.
Influence of Greek Ideas and Usages upon the Church.
Lond., 1890. Organisation of the Early Churches.
Lond., 1888.
22.—Hausrath, A., The Time of the Apostles. 4 vols. Lond.,
1895.
23.—Hinds, S., and Newman, J. H., History of the Christian
Church in the First Century. Lond., 1862.
24.—Hort, F. J. A., The Christian Ecclesia. Lond., 1897.
25.—Jacob, G. A., Ecclesiastical Polity of the New
Testament. N. Y., 1874.
26.—Janes, L. G., Study of the Primitive Church. Bost.,
1886.
27.—Lightfoot, J. B., Apostolic Fathers. N. Y., 1891.
Dissertations on the Apostolic Age. N. Y., 1892.
28.—Maurice, J. F. D., Lectures on Ecclesiastical History.
Camb., 1854.
29.—McGiffert, A. C., History of Christianity in the
Apostolic Age. N. Y., 1891.
30.—Merivale, L. A., Christian Records. Lond., 1857.
31.—Miller, E., The Priesthood in the Light of the New
Testament. Lond., 1876.
32.—Neander, A., Planting and Training of the Christian
Church by the Apostles. N. Y., 1856.

33.—Orr, J., Neglected Factors in the Study of the Progress
of Christianity. N. Y., 1899. The Early Church: its
History and Literature. N. Y., 1901.
34.—Palmer, R., The Catholic and Apostolic Church. Lond.,
1899.
35.—Pressensé, E. De, Early Days of Christianity. 4 vols. N.
Y., 1873-8.
36.—Pryce, J., Notes on the History of the Early Church.
Lond., 1892.
37.—Ramsay, W. M., The Church in the Roman Empire. N.
Y., 1893.
38.—Reichel, C. P., The Origins of the Church. Dub., 1882.
39.—Renan, E., Origins of Christianity. Lond., 1888.
40.—Ropes, J. H., The Apostolic Age in the Light of Modern
Criticism. N. Y., 1906.
41.—Row, C. A., Apostolical Christianity. Lond., 1881.
42.—Schaff, P., History of the Apostolic Church. N. Y.,
1874.
43.—Simcox, W. H., The Beginnings of the Christian
Church. Lond., 1881.
44.—Slater, W. F., Faith and Life of the Early Church.
Lond., 1892.
45.—Stanley, A. P., Apostolic Age. Oxf., 1874.
46.—Tarrant, W. G., Beginnings of Christendom. Lond.,
1893.
47.—Taylor, I., Ancient Christianity. Lond., 1844.
48.—Thatcher, O. J., History of the Apostolical Church. N.
Y., 1893.

49.—Thiersch, H. W. J., History of the Christian Church in
the Apostolic Age. Lond., 1852.
50.—Vaughan, C. S., The Church of the First Days. 3 vols.
Lond., 1864.
51.—Vedder, H. C., Dawn of Christianity. Phila., 1894.
52.—Watson, R. A., Apostolic Age. Lond., 1894.
53.—Weizsacker, C., The Apostolic Age. 2 vols. N. Y., 1894.
Antiqua Mater. Lond., 1887.
54.—Wernle, P., The Beginnings of Christianity. N. Y., 1902.
II.—GENERAL:

Alzog, i., 117-160. Backhouse, pt. i., ch. 1, 2. Baur, ii., 16-
61. Blunt, i., ch. 2-5. Bouzique, i., ch. 1, 2. Bright, W.,
ch. 1. Burton, ch. 8. Butler, ch. 2, 4, 5. Chantrel, ch. 1, 2.
Cheetham, ch. 2, 4, 7, 8. Coxe, ch. 2. Crooks, ch. 3, 10,
18. Cunningham, lect. 1, 2. Dehorbe, ch. 28-32.
Döllinger, J. J. I., i., ch. 1, sec. 4, 5; ch. 3, sec. 1-4. Duff,
79, 105, 108, 110, 120, 139, 157, 226, 260, 304, 396.
Fisher, pd. i., ch. 2; pd. ii., ch. 1, 2. Fitzgerald, i., 63-75,
118-129. Foulkes, ch. 1, 2. Gieseler, sec. 25-30.
Gilmartin, i., ch. 4. Guericke, 106-139. Hase, 24-41.
Hore, ch. 1, 2. Hurst, i., 61-149. Jackson, ch. 3, 10.
Jennings, i., ch. 1, 2. Killen, sec. 3, ch. 3. Kurtz, i., 22-
36, 52-64. Mahan, bk. i., ch. 11; bk. ii., ch. 48. Milman,
bk. i., ch. 1. Moeller, i., 62-68. Neander, i., sec. 2, 3.
Newman, A. H., pd. i., ch. 1-3. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 8.
Schaff, i., 187-217, 432-506. Sikes, ch. 2.

FOOTNOTES:
[52:1] Jewish Encyc.; Sorley, Jewish Christians and Judaism, London, 1881;
Bettany, History of Judaism and Christianity, London, 1892; A History of Jews
in Rome, B.C. 160-A.D. 604, London, 1882; Toy, C. H., Judaism and
Christianity, Boston, 1891.
[53:1] Moeller, i., 69.
[53:2] Moeller, i., 55, 66.
[53:3] Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 4.
[53:4] See Cicero, Seneca, Epictetus, and Marcus Aurelius. Read Baur, i., 10-17,
Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 2; cf. Foucard, Les associations relig. chez les Grecs, Paris,
1873.
[53:5] Kurtz, Sec. 7, No. 5.
[53:6] Hatch, 26-39; Kurtz, Sec. 17, Nos. 2, 3; Moeller, i., 66.
[53:7] Tertullian, Apol., ch. 38, 39; cf. Mommsen, De collegiis et sodal. Rom.,
Kil., 1843.
[53:8] Xenophon, Memorabil., iii., 14; Athenæus, Deipnos, vii., 7, 68, p. 365a;
Fouard, St. Peter, 363.
[54:1] 1 Cor. i., 2. Illustration of this variation is found in the fact that Calvinists
and most Protestants believe the Church to be an invisible organisation, while
Catholics, Lutherans, Anglicans, and oriental Christians hold it to be visible.
[54:2] Euseb., bk. ii., ch. 3.
[54:3] Acts xvi., 5; cf. Acts ii., 47.
[54:4] Euseb., bk. ii., ch. 3; cf. Acts xi., 26.
[54:5] Gieseler, i., 72.
[54:6] Schaff, i., 196.
[54:7] Orr, Neglected Factors, 23-91. Schaff, 197, gives only 12,000,000.
[55:1] Orr, Neglected Factors, 95-163.
[55:2] See Gibbon's "famous infamous," ch. 15.
[55:3] Church, R. W., Civilisation before and after Christianity, N. Y., 1872.
[55:4] See the works of Troplong, Schmidt, Uhlhorn, Lecky, Brace, Milman,
Pressensé, etc.
[56:1] 1 Cor. ix., 1, 5; xii., 28, 29; xv., 5, 7; Rom. xvi., 7.
[56:2] 1 Cor. xi., 23; xii., 3-8; 2 Cor. x., 8; xiii., 10; Gal. i., 8, 9, 12; Eph. iv., 11.
[56:3] Acts xiv., 23; Tit. i., 5.
[56:4] Acts ii., 42; iv., 35, 37; v., 2.
[56:5] Acts vi., 1-6.

[56:6] Phil. i., 1; 1 Tim. iii., 8; iv. 14.
[56:7] Rom. xvi., 1.
[56:8] Acts vi., 1-6; 1 Tim. iii., 8-13.
[57:1] Acts xv., 23; xvi., 4; xx., 17, 28; Phil. i., 1; 1 Tim. iii.; iv., 14; v., 17-19;
Tit. i., 5-7; James v., 14; Clement, To Corinth, xlii., 44. Cf. Rev. iv., 4; v., 5, 6;
vii., 11, 13.
[57:2] Phil. i., 1.
[57:3] 1 Tim. iii., 1-13; v., 17-19; Tit. i., 5-7; Heb. xi., 2.
[57:4] 1 Pet. v., 1-2.
[57:5] To Corinth, ch. xliii. The Didache and Shepherd of Hermas offer
additional testimony on this point.
[59:1] See various dictionaries of the Bible.
[59:2] Ex. xxiv., 1; Num. xi., 16; Gen. l., 7-8; Lev. iv., 15; Deut. xxi., 19; 1 Sam.
xvi., 4; Ezra v., 5; Psalm cvii., 32; Ezek. viii., 1; Acts iv., 8; Matt. xxi., 23; xxvii.,
1; Luke xxii., 66.
[59:3] Hatch, 62-66.
[59:4] Hatch, 69-73; Acts xx., 28-31; 1 Pet. v., 1; 1 Tim. v., 17.
[59:5] Acts xvi., 4.
[59:6] Acts xx., 29-31, 35; Tertullian, Apol., 39.
[59:7] James v., 14.
[60:1] 1 Tim. i., 3.
[60:2] Tit. i., 5.
[61:1] Ep. 146, Ad Evangelum; cf. Ep. 82 and 84. Apost. Const., iii., c. 11.
[61:2] 1 Ep. to Timoth., c. 3.
[61:3] Hatch, 106-109.
[62:1] Neander, i., 192, 193.
[62:2] Hatch, 54.
[63:1] Euseb., vi., 43; Neander, i., § 2; Kurtz, i., § 34; Alzog, i., § 83; Moeller, i.,
234.
[64:1] Acts ii., 44, 45.
[64:2] Acts ii., 42, 46.
[64:3] Mat. xviii., 15-18; Tit. iii., 10; 1 Cor. v., 5.

CHAPTER V
THE ROMAN CHURCH AND PETER'S PRIMACY

Outline: I.—Planting of the church in Rome and its organisation
there. II.—The two opposing views of the Petrine theory. III.—
Proofs advanced for the Petrine theory. IV.—Evidence given
against the Petrine theory. V.—Historical conclusions. VI.—
Sources.
Reports concerning the teachings and labours of Jesus must have early
reached Rome.[71:1] A perpetual stream of strangers and provincials flowed
into Rome from every quarter of the Empire, hence every new creed,
theory, and organisation was soon known in the capital.[71:2] Roman
merchants, sailors, soldiers, or public officials, or the Jews, or the Greeks,
might have carried news of the new sect to the heart of imperial power.
Tertullian mentions the legend that Emperor Tiberius sought to include
Jesus among the Roman gods, but his plan was frustrated by the Roman
Senate.[71:3] Eusebius declared that this same ruler, "being obviously
pleased with the doctrine," threatened "death to the accusers of the
Christians."[71:4] It seems reasonable to conclude, then, that Christianity,
soon after its birth, was introduced into the Eternal City.
It appears clear, too, that Christian converts were early won in Rome, or
else migrated thither from other parts of the Empire. It is not at all
improbable that many of these early Christians in the capital were Jews.
[72:1]
Paul said that upon his arrival in Italy he "found brethren" at Puteoli
and that a week later Christians came out of the city of Rome to greet him.
[72:2]
It is also quite probable that these various Christian communities in
Italy had already created loose local organisations. Paul, during his
prolonged stay in Rome, undoubtedly converted many to the new faith and
laboured to perfect their Church organisation.[72:3] The magnificent work
done by this Apostle in promulgating the new faith throughout western
Europe was sealed by a martyr's death at Rome.[72:4]

It appears, also, that the Apostle Peter laboured at Rome, probably after
Paul, and completed the organisation of the Church. Tradition likewise
gives him a martyr's crown. The Roman Church, therefore, founded by two
Apostles and nourished by their heroic blood, was a double apostolic seat.
This unusual origin, coupled with the fact of location in the heart of the
world, together with a hundred other causes, made the Roman Church very
conspicuous from the first and enabled it to become the determining factor
in Western civilisation for fifteen hundred years. Under these circumstances
it was but natural that the head of the Roman Church should come to have
superior respect, primacy in rank, and leadership in power, first in Italy, and
then throughout western Europe.
The mother Church in Rome was imbued with great missionary zeal, and
spread the new faith with extraordinary rapidity. In 64 A.D. the Christians in
Rome, according to the heathen historian Tacitus, constituted a "huge
multitude."[73:1] By 250 the Roman bishop ruled over forty-six presbyters,
seven deacons, seven sub-deacons, forty-two acolytes, and fifty readers,
exorcists, and porters.[73:2] The Christians in Rome, a city of possibly one
million, numbered at least fifty thousand as estimated by Gibbon[73:3] and
possibly three times that many as reckoned by later investigators.[73:4]
Optatus, Bishop of Mileve in Numidia, asserted that in 300 there were forty
churches in the Eternal City. While possibly a few churches may have been
planted in western Europe independently, just as in Rome, still, in general,
Christianity was disseminated throughout western Europe and the western
part of northern Africa through the apostolic organisation in the capital city.
Paul may have even made a visit to Spain.[73:5] Bede says that King Lucius
asked the Roman bishop in 156 to send missionaries to Britain[73:6] and
Tertullian confirmed the declaration.[73:7] In France a church was planted at
Lyons in 177 and another at Vienne.[73:8] In the third century, asserts
Gregory of Tours, seven Roman missionaries went to Gaul and there
became seven bishops with subordinate churches. The famous St. Denis of
Paris was one of these pioneers.[74:1] Christianity was likewise early carried
into Germany (cis-Rhenana)[74:2] and across the Mediterranean to north-
western Africa.[74:3] It is a matter of no great surprise, therefore, to see the
Roman Church revered as the great mother Church of the West. Paul speaks
of the faith of Rome as "proclaimed throughout the whole world."[74:4]

The process of Church organisation at Rome was no doubt quite similar to
that described in the preceding chapter, with this difference, however, that
the episcopal system was either present from the time Peter and Paul
appointed a successor, or at least began very early. Through his presbyters,
or priests, the Bishop of Rome at first ruled over a number of separate
communities in the city. As the faithful spread the gospel beyond the walls,
churches were organised in the villages and jurisdiction over them became
vested in priests sent out by the bishops. In time, however, the churches in
the chief centres of population demanded bishops of their own; they were
appointed, or elected, under influence from Rome, and, consequently,
acknowledged allegiance to the Roman See. There is incontrovertible
evidence that by the fourth century every city in Italy had a bishop. The
village bishops naturally looked to the city bishops for assistance and
advice. The city bishops similarly depended upon the bishop in the capital
of the province, and the provincial bishop in like manner recognised the
superiority of the bishop in the capital of the Empire. Thus the power of the
Roman bishop was gradually extended first over Italy and then over western
Europe. The consciousness of a unity of belief, unity of interest, and unity
of purpose developed comparatively early among the churches. A name for
this unity is first found in Ignatius and was the Universal or Catholic
Church.[75:1] Before long the Bishop of Rome was to claim, by divine
appointment and arrangement, sovereign jurisdiction over the great
organisation.
The classes won to the new faith in the city of Rome through the zeal of the
Roman Christians included representatives from the slave to the imperial
family. The earliest converts may have been the Jews, who were quite
numerous in the Eternal City, and who best understood the significance of
Christianity. The hope and faith and love of the new teaching appealed
powerfully to the lowest social classes—the wretched slave and the
impoverished freedman.[75:2] The need and the truth of this lofty, universal
creed also won adherents from the great creative middle class—including
not only the educated but also the soldiers, tradespeople, farmers, imperial
officials, and skilled workmen. In fact the marvellous vitality and the
unparalleled growth of Christianity in Rome can be explained satisfactorily
only upon the supposition that the representation of this class was very
great.[75:3] From the nobility converts were likewise secured and even in the

Emperor's household followers were found.[76:1] In short, the whole social
and moral structure of Rome was leavened by the new ideas.
Along with this unparalleled growth of the power of the Roman bishop was
created the Petrine theory destined to have a powerful effect on the history
of the Church. Since an inquiry into this theory has a peculiar significance
for the Roman Catholic, the Greek Catholic, and the Protestant, it is
necessary to consider the subject rather carefully from the standpoint of
both its advocates and opponents.
The Roman Catholic belief is that Jesus came to organise His Church on
earth; that He appointed Peter to be his successor and head of the Church;
that Peter went to Rome, established the Church there in the great capital
city, laboured as its head twenty-five years, and died there as a martyr; that
Peter transmitted his leadership and primacy to the Bishop of Rome, whom
he appointed as his successor, and who in turn transferred it to succeeding
popes; that the Roman Church, therefore, is the only true Church, and that
these contentions are conclusively proved from the Bible, the Church
Fathers, traditions, and monuments.[76:2]
The Greek Catholic view coincides with Rome in asserting the divine origin
of the Church. A certain honourable primacy is conceded to the Apostle
Peter; and to his successors at Rome, as patriarchs of the West, is granted a
kind of supreme leadership in the Church. But the patriarchs of the East are
put on an equality with the Pope of Rome, and thus the extreme claims of
the Petrine theory are denied.
Protestant opinion on the other hand takes two forms:
1. The pro-Petrine view, held chiefly by the Episcopalians, maintains that
Jesus turned His Church over to all His Apostles; that upon their death they
transmitted their leadership to succeeding bishops; that Peter was in Rome
and, with Paul, helped to organise the Church there, and appointed a
successor through whom apostolic power has been transmitted to all
bishops appointed by the Bishop of Rome, or by his appointees, where it
now resides; that bishops and their successors appointed by Apostles other
than Peter have just as much power as the Bishop of Rome, because the
fruits of Peter's work are merely the most marked, but not necessarily the
only divine or the most divine; that adequate proofs of this position are
found in history, the Church Fathers, and the Scriptures.

2. The anti-Petrine view, taken by most Protestants, asserts that Jesus left no
Church organisation; that he did not appoint Peter as his successor; that
whatever leadership Peter had, came from his temperament and natural
ability; that there is no positive proof of Peter's being in Rome,
consequently he could not have founded the Church there and named a
successor; that therefore the Roman Catholic Church is not the only true
Church, and that abundant proof of this position can be supplied.
It may be well now to examine the proof offered in support of the Petrine
theory under the four following heads:
1. Peter's primacy. Jesus said to Peter, "Thou art Peter, and upon this rock I
will build my Church; . . . And I will give unto thee the keys of the kingdom
of heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt bind on earth shall be bound in
heaven; and whatsoever thou shalt loose on earth shall be loosed in
heaven."[78:1] No such words were addressed to any other Apostle, hence
Peter is the foundation-stone of the Church. Just as God changed Abram's
name to Abraham, when he called him to be the father of a mighty nation,
so Jesus gave Peter a new name.[78:2] Peter was chosen to be present with
James and John on important occasions, like the healing of the daughter of
Jairus[78:3]; the glorification of Jesus[78:4]; the struggle in Gethsemane[78:5];
and on all these occasions Peter is named first in the record. He likewise
was the first to whom the risen Christ appeared.[78:6] Before His ascension
Jesus gave Peter charge over His whole fold—laity, priests, and bishops,—
when He commanded, "Feed my sheep," and twice repeated, "Feed my
lambs."[78:7] These facts are sufficient, it is believed, to warrant the belief
that Jesus appointed Peter to be the head of His Church.
2. Peter's exercise of his primacy. Next to Jesus, he stands head and
shoulders above all the other Apostles in his activity. The first twelve
chapters of Acts are devoted to him. His name always comes first in the lists
of Apostles, and Judas Iscariot's last.[79:1] He performed the first recorded
miracle,[79:2] and was the first to address the Jews in Jerusalem, while the
other Apostles stood around to see three thousand converted.[79:3] He was
first to win converts from both the Jews[79:4] and from the Gentiles,—
Cornelius and his friends.[79:5] He was the first to inflict ecclesiastical
punishment on offenders.[79:6] He fought the first heretic in the Christian

Church.[79:7] He made the earliest apostolic visitation of the churches.[79:8]
When a successor to Judas was chosen, Peter alone spoke, and the other
Apostles silently acted on his advice.[79:9] In the council of Jerusalem Peter
first spoke, when the disputes ceased and "all the multitude kept silence";
even James obeyed.[79:10] James was beheaded by Herod, but no tumult
resulted. Peter was imprisoned about the same time, and the whole Church
was aroused about it.[79:11] St. Paul himself plainly admitted Peter's pre-
eminence.[79:12] These deeds clearly indicate, it is contended, that Peter
consciously exercised the primacy bestowed upon him, and that his fellow
Apostles recognised it.
3. Peter's visit to Rome, and martyrdom there. Peter's First Epistle,
addressed from "Babylon," naturally interpreted, proves that he wrote it in
Rome.[80:1] Clement of Rome (96 A.D.) said, "Let us set before our eyes the
good Apostles,—Peter, who endured many labours, and having borne his
witness, went to the appointed place of glory," etc.[80:2] Ignatius of Antioch
(115), in a letter to the Romans, mentions Peter as having exhorted them.
Papias (130) interpreted 1 Peter v., 13 to mean Rome.[80:3] Dionysius,
Bishop of Corinth (170), wrote Soter, Bishop of Rome, about the common
activity of Peter and Paul in Italy.[80:4] Irenæus (190) wrote, "Matthew . . .
published his Gospel while Peter and Paul were preaching at Rome, and
founding the Church there."[80:5] Clement of Alexandria (200) said that
Peter, "the elect, the chosen one, the first of the disciples," preached at
Rome.[80:6] Tertullian (200) positively asserted Peter's presence in Rome,
and is the first to describe the manner of his death, in Nero's reign.[80:7]
Origen (250) declared that Peter was the great foundation of the Church,
and that "at last, having arrived in Rome, he was crucified, head downward,
having himself requested that he might so suffer."[80:8] Commodion (250)
named Peter and Paul as Neronian martyrs; and Caius, a Roman presbyter
(250), makes a like assertion.[80:9] Cyprian (d. 258) was the first to call
Rome the locum Petri, while Hippolytus recorded Peter's conflict with
Simon Magnus at Rome.[81:1] The Muratorian Canon referred to the
"passion of Peter" in close connection with Paul's journey to Rome.[81:2]
Peter of Alexandria (306) believed Peter was crucified there, and Lactantius
accepted it as undoubted.[81:3] "The Doctrine of Addai" (fourth century) of
the Syriac Church mentioned the "Epistles of Paul which Simon Peter sent

us from the City of Rome."[81:4] Eusebius, using all previous testimony,
made the most complete and convincing statement, which caps the climax
of the overwhelming proof.[81:5] The "Deposito Martyrum" gave the report
of the removal of the two Apostles' bodies in 258 to the catacombs. Jerome
(d. 420) added the information that Peter laboured twenty-five years in
Rome before his martyrdom.[81:6]
4. Peter as the first Pope in Rome. With the establishment of Peter's
primacy and his presence in Rome, it is certainly warrantable to conclude
that he perfected the organisation of the Church there and served as its head
until his death, when he appointed a successor. Clement (96) and Ignatius
(115), Dionysius (170) and Irenæus (190), Commodion (250) and
Lactantius (d. 330), all in speaking of Peter and Paul as founders of the
Roman Church, always name Peter first. Ignatius spoke of the "presidency"
of the Roman Church under Peter, and Tertullian (b. 160) asserted that Jesus
gave the keys to Peter, the "Bishop of Bishops" at Rome, and through him
to the Church. Origen (d. 254) called Peter "the Prince of the Apostles" and
"the great foundation of the Church." All the earliest lists of Popes began
with Peter and indicate the transmission of his power.[82:1] Cyprian (d. 258)
gave the complete statement of the primacy of the Roman bishop and the
unity of the Church through Peter and Jesus.[82:2]
This sums up, essentially, all the proofs offered in support of the Petrine
theory, and constitutes, it must be confessed, a powerful and consistent
case.
It is necessary now, in the next place, to look at the evidence offered in
opposition to the Petrine theory. For the sake of clearness, this evidence will
be given under the four heads just employed:
1. Peter's primacy. The famous passage, "Thou art Peter," etc., correctly
interpreted, does not warrant a belief in Peter's primacy. "Peter" may mean
"rock" ("cephas"), but it here refers to Christ, not Peter, or to Peter's
confession, just made,[82:3] or to Peter's faith, or to Peter merely as a type of
all the Apostles.[82:4] Furthermore the commission to "bind" and to "loose"
and the promise connected with it were not intended exclusively for Peter
but for all the Apostles[83:1]; Peter stood only for a type.[83:2] The change of
Peter's name does not carry with it any special significance. Peter himself

never mentioned his primacy in his speeches or writings,[83:3] and nowhere
else in the New Testament is it distinctly stated or recognised by others.
Whatever natural capacity for leadership Peter may have possessed, it
cannot be proved that he received an official primacy. Such a position
would have conflicted likewise with the supremacy of Jesus.
2. Peter's exercise of his primacy. The numerous instances where Peter took
the lead, or acted, or spoke first,[83:4] or where his name heads lists of
Apostles,[83:5] merely show that he was a man of impulsive, aggressive
character, who would and did naturally take the lead in powers common to
all the Apostles. At the council of Jerusalem Peter did not preside, as he
would have done if he was the recognised "Prince of the Apostles," but only
made the first speech.[83:6] Paul would not have rebuked Peter to his face
about some very important points had Peter been the recognised head of the
Church.[83:7] Peter was a coward, braggart, and traitor, and was reproved
again and again by Jesus Himself,[83:8] who would not have chosen such a
person to be the head of the Church. There is not a single reference in the
New Testament to show that Peter ever attempted to exercise a primacy
over his companions. He called himself a fellow "elder."[84:1]
3. Peter's presence in Rome. There is not a syllable in the New Testament to
warrant the conclusion that Peter was in Rome. Inference alone makes
"Babylon"[84:2] the Eternal City. On the contrary, there are implications in
the Scriptures that he was not in Rome. Paul in his Epistle to the Romans
greeted all his friends, but said not a word about Peter. This would clearly
indicate that Peter had not been in Rome before this Epistle was written, nor
at the time it was written. Again in letters written from Rome, Paul is
strangely silent about Peter's presence. The claim rests wholly upon
tradition, therefore, and that is far from conclusive. There is a significant
silence from the time of 2 Peter until that of Clement (96). Clement, to be
sure, mentions Peter's martyrdom; but it is only by inference that the place
is Rome. Not until well on in the second century did the legend about
Peter's connection with Rome begin to circulate, and not until the third
century did Tertullian assert positively that Peter was martyred in Rome
under Nero. After that the assertion was generally accepted over the Church
as a truth.[84:3]

4. Peter as the first Roman Pope. This, of course, is precluded by the want
of adequate evidence of Peter's presence and labours in Rome.
The evidence adduced here ends with the sweeping denial of every claim of
the Petrine theory.
Having now stated the two sides of the question here still remains the duty
of making the historical summary from the sources available, namely, both
the canonical and apocryphal books of the New Testament, and the
traditional evidence in the Church Fathers. The New Testament, as the most
important source of information, reveals Peter's birthplace,[85:1] occupation,
[85:2]
marriage,[85:3] call by Jesus,[85:4] and elevation to apostleship.[85:5] It
shows the conspicuous leadership of Peter in the apostolic college—indeed,
a primacy which Jesus Himself recognised,—yet leaves the character of that
primacy and the power to transfer it to a successor open to question. The
New Testament evidence does not give any clue to Peter's movements after
Paul's notice of him in Galatians ii. except the reference in 1 Peter, which
naturally, but not literally, interpreted might indicate that he was in Rome
(Babylon). It likewise affords very scanty grounds, therefore, for believing
that Peter first established the Church in Rome, or that he was the first
Bishop of Rome, or that he conferred his power upon a successor.
Traditional evidence, on the contrary, is more favourable to Peter's presence
in Rome. No one can possibly doubt that the Petrine theory was generally
believed in western Christendom at least after the third century. Prior to the
third century, there are many streams of testimony which converge in
positive support of at least a portion of the Petrine theory:
1. The official lists and records of the Roman Church, some of which must
rest upon earlier sources, accept the whole question as proved and
recognised generally.
2. The transference of Peter's remains to a new resting place in 258 shows
that the tradition was definite and unquestioned early in the third century.
3. The writings of Caius, Origen, Clement of Alexandria, and Tertullian
indicate that the theory was accepted in Asia, Alexandria, Carthage, and
Rome at the same period.
4. A passage from Irenæus, who probably used the official documents in
Rome and who may have known St. John and his companions, carries the

legend back to the second century.
5. The testimony of Dionysius of Corinth (d. 165), Papias, and Ignatius (d.
114) carries the belief back through the second to the first century.
6. The clear testimony of Clement of Rome makes a connecting link at the
close of the first century.
Hence when the various pieces of evidence—the official sources, the
monumental testimony, and the writings of the early Fathers,—which are
independent and consistent, are combined they form a solid body of proof,
which is practically irresistible, that Peter was in Rome. Likewise the
absolute absence of any rival tradition from other cities adds greatly to the
probability.
Peter's presence and death in Rome may be admitted as an established fact.
If in Rome, whether one year or twenty-five years, Peter, with his
aggressive nature, with his marked ability for leadership, and with his
capacity for organisation, must have had a great deal to do with the
establishment of the Roman Church, either jointly with Paul, or
independently of him. Nor does it seem to be a misuse of the law of
historical probabilities to assert that Peter, either with Paul or without him,
appointed a bishop for the Church of Rome and transferred to that bishop
his apostolic authority. From these facts, based almost entirely upon
traditional evidence, coupled with the peculiar primacy conceded to Peter in
the New Testament by his fellow Apostles, gradually developed the Petrine
theory with all its sweeping claims.
The admission of the belief that the Petrine theory is founded on certain
established facts, and not merely on fancies and myths, does not carry with
it the recognition of all the assertions which form a part of that theory.
Peter's unique leadership in the apostolic college, his activity in founding
the Roman Church, and his naming of a successor, who in time became the
Pope, may all be granted without carrying with it the necessity of accepting
the assertion that Christ chose Peter to be the head of a definite, divinely-
planned Church and that Peter, conscious of that great mission, went to the
capital of the Roman Empire, and there organised the only true Church on
earth.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—CHRISTIAN:

1.—New Testament (27 canonical books).
2.—New Testament Apocrypha (see Chap. III).
3.—Church Fathers:
1.—Clement of Rome. Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib., i., ch. 5;
iii., ch. 12 ff.; Am. ed., ix.
2.—Ignatius. Ib., i., 137 ff., 449 ff.
3.—Papias. Ib., i., 441 ff.
4.—Dionysius of Corinth (d. 178?). Euseb., ii., 25.
5.—Clement of Alexandria (d. 218?), Miscellanies.
Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib., iv., 355; xii., 326, 379,
451, 452; Am. ed., ii.
6.—Irenæus. Ib., i., 261; Am. ed., i.
7.—Tertullian. Ib., ii., 408; xv., 25; xviii., 118; Am. ed.,
iii., iv.
8.—Origen. Ib., xxiii., 1-3; Am. ed., iv.
9.—Hippolytus. Ib., ix., 130.
10.—Peter of Alexandria (d. 311). Ib., xiv., 305, 318.
11.—Caius of Rome (210?). Euseb., ii., 25; iii., 28; v.,
28; vi., 20. Ante-Nic. Fathers, v.
II. NON-CHRISTIAN:

1.—Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Many eds.
2.—Socrates, Eccl. Hist. Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, ii., 109.
3.—Theodoret, Letters. No. 86. Ib., iii., 282.
4.—Josephus and Philo. See Chap. IV.
5.—Heathen writers like Lucan, Pliny, Tacitus, Suetonius,
Celsus, Porphyry, and Julian. See Chaps. III. and IV.

B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Allies, T. W., St. Peter: His Name and His Office. Lond.,
1895.
2.—Allmatt, C. F. B., Cathedra Petri. Lond., 1884. Was St.
Peter Bishop of Rome? Lond., 1887.
3.—Barnes, A. S., St. Peter in Rome and His Tomb in the
Vatican Hill. Lond., 1900.
4.—Berington and Kirk, Faith of the Catholics. 3 vols. N. Y.,
1885.
5.—Birks, H. A., Studies in the Life and Character of St.
Peter. Lond., 1887.
6.—Bright, W., The Roman See in the Early Church. Lond.,
1896.
7.—Brown, J. H., Peter the Apostle never in Rome. Lond.,
1861.
8.—Bruce, A. B., Training of the Twelve. N. Y., 1871.
9.—Darby, W. A., St. Peter at Rome. Lond., 1872.
10.—Ellendorf, J., St. Peter: Was He ever at Rome and a
Bishop of the Church of Rome? Lond., 1887.
11.—Fouard, C., St. Peter and the First Years of
Christianity. N. Y., 1892.
12.—Gallagher, M., Was the Apostle Peter ever at Rome? N.
Y., 1894.
13.—Green, S. G., The Apostle Peter: His Life and Letters.
Lond., 1873.
14.—Hatch, E., "Peter," Encyc. Brit.
15.—Hodder, E., Simon Peter: His Life. Lond., 1893.

16.—Kenrick, F. P., The Primacy of the Apostolic See
Vindicated. Phil., 1855.
17.—Lightfoot, J. B., St. Peter in Rome. Clement, ii., 481.
Lond., 1890.
18.—Littledale, R. F., The Petrine Claims. N. Y., 1889.
19.—Livius, T., St. Peter, Bishop of Rome. Lond., 1902.
20.—Murphy, J. N., The Chair of St. Peter. Lond., 1888.
21.—Puller, F. W., The Primitive Saints and the See of Rome.
Lond., 1900.
22.—Ramsay, W. M., The Church in the Roman Empire.
Lond., 1893.
23.—Rivington, L., The Primitive Church and the See of St.
Peter. N. Y., 1894.
24.—Robins, S., Against the Claims of the Roman Church.
Lond., 1853.
25.—Robinson, C. S., Simon Peter: His Life and Times. 2
vols. Lond., 1890-5.
26.—Ryberg, A. V., Roman Legends about the Apostles Paul
and Peter. Lond., 1898.
27.—Simon, T. C., The Mission and Martyrdom of St Peter.
Lond., 1852.
II.—GENERAL:

Alzog, i., 117-133. Backhouse, 76, 229. Bartlett, 297 ff., 364
ff. Blunt, i., 10, 24, 28, 43, 45. Bouzique, i., ch. 1. Brock,
ch. 2, 3. Cheetham, ch. 2, § 5; ch. 4, § 5. Cox, i., ch. 10,
11. Darras, i., ch. 1-3. Döllinger, First Age, i., 71-83; ii.,
115, 145; Hist. of Ch., i., ch. 3, § 4. Duff, ch. 7. Farrar,
bk. ii., ch. 5-11. Fisher, 18, 20, 23, 26, 43, 57, 106.

Gibbon, ch. 9, 10. Gieseler, i., § 27. Giles, ch. 16.
Gilmartin, i., ch. 2, pp. 28, 29. Greenwood, i., ch. 1-3.
Hase, 30. Hurst, i., 104-106, 325. Jackson, ch. 3, 11.
Jennings, i., ch. 1. Killen, § 1, ch. 10. Kurtz, i., 45.
Mahan, bk. i., ch. 8. Milman, i., ch. 1. Milner, i., cent. 1,
ch. 12. Moeller, i., 345. Neander, Planting, etc., i., bk.
iv., ch. 2; Ch. Hist., i., 84, 203, 211. Pressensé, Early
Years of Christ. 10 ff., 64, 176. Renan, The Apostles, ch.
6. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 8, p. 160. Schaff, Apost. Age, bk.
i., ch. 4; Ch. Hist., pd. i., ch. 4. Stanley, Apost. Age, 1-5,
56-114. Walpole, ch. 1-3.

FOOTNOTES:
[71:1] Moeller, i., 67, 75; cf. Acts xviii., 1-3.
[71:2] Gibbon, i., 579.
[71:3] Apol., 5; Suetonius, Life of Claudius, 25.
[71:4] Euseb., ii., c. 2.
[72:1] Shortly before the Christian era the Jews were so numerous that 8000
could sign a petition to the Emperor.—Josephus, Antiq., xvii., c. 11.
[72:2] Acts xxviii., 14-16; Ramsay, St. Paul, ch. 15.
[72:3] Acts xxviii., 24, 30, 31.
[72:4] Euseb., ii., c. 22.
[73:1] Annals, xv., 44.
[73:2] Euseb., vi., c. 43.
[73:3] Gibbon, i., ch. 15.
[73:4] Orr, Neglected Factors, 39.
[73:5] Rom. xv., 24; Muratorian Fragment; Clement of Rome, To Corinth, c. 5;
Alzog, i. 125; Kurtz, i., 44.
[73:6] Eccl. Hist., c. 4.
[73:7] Against Jud., c. 7.
[73:8] Euseb., v., c. 1.
[74:1] Annales Francorum.
[74:2] Irenæus, Against Her., i., c. 10.
[74:3] Tertullian, Apol., c. 37; Cyprian, Ep., 71, 73; Augustine, On Bap., ii., c.
13.
[74:4] Rom. i., 8.
[75:1] The pagan writer Celsus was familiar with this idea as early as 161 A.D.
[75:2] But nothing could be farther from the truth than Gibbon's statement that
the Christians were won "almost entirely" from the "dregs of the populace." See
Orr, Neglected Factors.
[75:3] Ramsay in his Church in the Roman Empire, 57, goes so far as to say that
the new faith "spread at first among the educated more rapidly than among the
uneducated." This statement, however, is probably an exaggeration. See an
excellent discussion in Orr, Neglected Factors, 95-163; Merivale, The Romans
under the Empire, ch. 54.
[76:1] Phil. iv., 22; Lightfoot, Philippians, 171 ff.; Howson, St. Paul, ch. 26;
Weizäcker, Apost. Age, ii., 132; Harnack, Princeton Rev., 1878, p. 257; Euseb.,
Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 18.

[76:2] Alzog, i., §§ 48, 52, 53; Berington and Kirk, ii., 1-113; Gibbons, Faith of
Our Fathers; Cath. Encyc.
[78:1] Matt. xvi., 18, 19. In Syro-Chaldaic, the tongue probably used by Jesus,
"Peter" means "rock" or "cephas." The only parallel in modern languages is in
French: "Tu es Pierre, et sur cette pierre," etc. Cf. John i., 42.
[78:2] John i., 42.
[78:3] Mark v., 37; Luke viii., 51.
[78:4] Matt. xvii., 1; Mark ix., 2; Luke ix., 28.
[78:5] Matt. xxvi., 37; Mark xiv., 33.
[78:6] Luke xxiv., 12, 34; cf. John xx., 2-10; Weizäcker, i., § 3.
[78:7] Luke xxii., 31-32; John xxi., 15-18.
[79:1] Matt. x., 2-4; Mark iii., 16-19; Luke vi., 14-16; Acts i., 13.
[79:2] Acts iii., 1-12.
[79:3] Acts ii., 14-41.
[79:4] Acts ii., 41.
[79:5] Acts x.
[79:6] Acts v., 1 ff.
[79:7] Acts viii., 21.
[79:8] Acts ix., 32.
[79:9] Acts i., 13-26.
[79:10] Acts xv., 6-12.
[79:11] Acts xii.
[79:12] Gal. i., 18; ii., 11.
[80:1] 1 Peter v., 13. St. John everywhere in his Apocalypse calls Rome Babylon:
xiv., 8; xvii., 18.
[80:2] 1 Ep. to Corinth, Sec. 5.
[80:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ii., c. 15; iii., c. 39.
[80:4] Ib., ii., c. 25.
[80:5] Against Heresy, iii., 3, No. 2.
[80:6] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 14.
[80:7] De Præsc. Hæret. c. 36.
[80:8] Cf. Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 1.
[80:9] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ii., c. 25.
[81:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ii., c. 13, 14.
[81:2] James, Apocr. Anecdota, ii., p. x.
[81:3] Inst. Div., iv., 21.

[81:4] Cureton, Ancient Syriac Docs., 33.
[81:5] Eccl. Hist., ii., c. 14, 15, 17, 25; iii., 21, 31; v., 6.

[81:6] For passages from later writers consult Lipsius, 236, Ramsay, Harnack,
Farrar, Lightfoot, McGiffert, Schaff, Renan, Neander, Lea, Kurtz, Hase, Moeller,
etc.
[82:1] Hegesippus made a list of bishops in Rome in the time of Anicetus (155-
168) but it is now lost (Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., c. 22). Eusebius used that list, and
also gave two lists of his own in Greek with Peter as the first (Chronicon, ii.;
Eccl. Hist., v., c. 6). The first Latin list is the Catalogus Liberianus (352?), based
upon earlier lists. St. Augustine (Ep. 53) and Optatus (Donatist Schism, ii., 3)
both give Latin lists. These lists show how early the whole Church recognised
the importance of the succession of Roman bishops. The list made out by
Irenæus in the time of Bishop Eleutherus (174-189) gives Peter and Paul as the
joint founders of the Church.
[82:2] Epistles 43, 5; 55; 59, 7 and 14; 71, 3; 73, 7; 75, 17; Ante-Nic. Fathers, v.,
263-596; Robinson, Readings, i., ch. 4.
[82:3] Matt. xvi., 16.
[82:4] Lightfoot, Clement, ii., 481-490; Hort, Ecclesia, 16.
[83:1] Matt. xviii., 18.
[83:2] John xxi., 15-18; Luke xxii., 31, 32.
[83:3] Cf. Acts; 1 Pet. 1-3; 2 Pet.
[83:4] Acts i., 13-26; ii., 14-41; iii., 1-12; x.; xv., 7-12, etc.
[83:5] Matt. x., 2; xvii., 1; xxvi., 37; Mark iii., 16; v., 37; ix., 2; xiv., 33; Luke
vi., 14; viii., 51; ix., 28; Acts i., 13.
[83:6] Acts xv., 1-11.
[83:7] Gal. ii., 11-14.
[83:8] Luke xxii., 31; John xiii., 36-38; Matt. xvi., 23, etc.
[84:1] 1 Pet. v., 1. See 2 John i., 1; 3 John i., 1.
[84:2] 1 Pet. v., 13.
[84:3] Cf. Lipsius for a full discussion of the so-called "Simonian theory."
[85:1] John i., 44.
[85:2] Matt. iv., 18; Mark i., 16-20.
[85:3] Matt. viii., 14; Mark i., 29-31; Luke iv., 38.
[85:4] Matt. iv., 18; xix., 27; Mark i., 16; John i., 35, 40, 51; Luke v.; xviii., 28.
[85:5] Mark iii., 13-19; Luke vi., 12-16.

CHAPTER VI
THE ROMAN GOVERNMENT'S TREATMENT OF THE CHRISTIANS

Outline: I.—Religious persecutions before the Christian era. II.
—Christians first persecuted by the Jews. III.—Causes and
motives of persecution by the Roman government. IV.—Number
and general character of the persecutions. V.—Results of
persecutions. VI.—Sources.
Religious persecution originated long before the Christian era began—in
fact it runs through the whole history of religion. In Rome all citizens were
required by law to conform to the Roman religion so that the gods would
protect the state. Refusal brought punishment, but always on political
grounds.[91:1] Foreign religions which were either harmless or helpful were
often adopted, or at least tolerated.[91:2] Those, however, which were
dangerous to public morality, social order, or political security, and which
were not tolerant of other religions, were severely treated by the Roman
government. This was the Roman legal principle of procedure in the case of
every such religion,[91:3] hence when Christianity appeared, Rome had
already developed a distinct policy which first tolerated and then persecuted
it.
Persecution came to the Christians first from the Jews. Had not these
deserters of their fathers' faith precipitated Roman hatred upon the Jews
which resulted in persecution, expulsion, and loss of freedom and
independence?[92:1] Might not the Jewish religion be greatly weakened if
this proselyting continued? Hence the Christians were persecuted
individually and in masses.[92:2] The Jews sought in every possible way to
incite the Roman authorities against the hated Christians.[92:3] This resulted
in an irreparable breach between the two sects. The Christians were brought
into greater prominence, and the Romans even sought to protect them from
the Jewish fanatics.[92:4] At the same time a greater Christian zeal was
aroused, and thus the spread of the new faith was promoted.

The Roman government tolerated the Christians at the outset, because they
were regarded as a harmless sect of Jews, whose work was quiet and
unobtrusive.[92:5] The significance of Christianity was not understood, nor
the marvellous spread of the faith noticed. Indeed Roman hostility to the
Jews led at first to personal and official protection of the supporters of the
new faith, until the Jewish War in 70 A.D.
The Roman policy soon changed, however, from that of indifference, or
protection, to persecution. The causes for this change are: (1) The political
science of the Roman Empire, and (2) the inherent character of Christianity.
Ethically the Roman state embodied the highest good, hence all human
good depended upon the integrity and security of the state. That principle
subordinated the religious to the political, and made the Emperor the head
of all recognised religions. Roman law upheld this theory, as clearly stated
by Cicero: "No man shall have for himself particular gods of his own; no
man shall worship by himself new or foreign gods, unless they are
recognised by the public laws."[93:1] Julius Paulus, a Roman citizen, stated
the idea thus: "Whoever introduces new religions, the tendency and
character of which are unknown, whereby the minds of men might be
disturbed, should, if belonging to the higher rank, be banished; if to the
lower, punished with death." Gaius said of forbidden associations: "Neither
a society, nor a college, nor any body of this kind, is conceded to all persons
promiscuously; for this thing is regulated by laws, or codes of the Senate,
and by imperial constitutions."[93:2] Hence from a legal standpoint
Christianity was illegal, because it introduced a new religion not admitted
into the class of religiones licitæ. "You are not permitted by the law," was
the taunt of pagans.[93:3] To organise churches and to hold unlicensed
meetings were violations of Roman law. Might they not easily serve as
covers for political plots? Mæcenas advised Augustus: "Worship the gods in
all respects in accordance with the laws of your country, and compel all
others to do the same. But hate and punish those who would introduce
anything whatever alien to our customs in this particular . . . because such
persons, by introducing new divinities, mislead many to adopt foreign laws.
Hence conspiracies and secret combinations—the last things to be borne in
a monarchy."[94:1] Roman citizens, therefore, who turned Christian were
criminals, outlaws, bandits, and traitors; consequently the best Emperors,
those who felt called upon to enforce the law for the weal of the Empire,

those who wished to restore the vigour and power of old Rome, sought to
exterminate them, while the worst rulers were mostly indifferent, and in
some instances tolerant.
Christianity, inherently, was opposed to the whole governmental, social, and
religious systems of Rome in the most offensive and uncompromising
manner. It advocated one God for all men, one universal kingdom, one
brotherhood of all men, and one plan of salvation. It was world-wide, above
the Emperor, and advocated a non-Roman unity. The Christians were
subjects of God's kingdom first, and the Emperor's next; and when Rome
spurned this secondary allegiance they ceased to feel themselves Romans at
all.[94:2] They refused the duties of loyal citizens, held no offices, objected
to military service,[94:3] and refused to sacrifice to the honour of the
Emperor.[95:1] "Does not the Emperor punish you justly?" asked Celsus.
"Should all do like you he would be left alone—there would be none to
defend him. The rudest barbarians would make themselves masters of the
world." Furthermore the Christians claimed the exclusive possession of
divine knowledge and called all forms of pagan worship idolatrous.[95:2]
Christianity itself was intolerant of all other religions. Was not Christianity
the only true faith? How then could the Christians compromise with false
faiths, or concede to them any truth, or any right to exist?[95:3] Hence it was
inevitable, and Christians were keenly conscious of the fact, that a conflict
should arise between Christianity and the Roman Empire, before the
universal dominion of the world could come. The efforts of imperial
officers to compromise matters, by insisting on mere outward conformity,
met with little success.
The attack made by paganism on Christianity came first from Roman
philosophers, scholars, and statesmen for all sorts of motives. Some desired
popular favour, others were sincere, still others sought to win imperial
approval. Many, no doubt, even though they had no longer any heart for the
ancient faith, yet could not bear to see it abolished. They would agree with
Cæcilius that "Since all nations agree to recognise the immortal gods,
although their nature or their origin may be uncertain, I cannot endure that
any one swelling with audacity and such irreligious knowledge should
strive to dissolve or weaken a religion so old, so useful, so salutary."[96:1]
Tacitus called Christians "haters of mankind," and assailed their religion as

a "destructive superstition."[96:2] Suetonius denounced the new faith as a
"poisonous or malignant superstition." Others scoffed at these odd devotees
as "dangerous infidels," "enemies of Cæsar and of the Roman people," and
"a reprobate, unlawful, desperate faction." Priests, driven on by duty and
possibly fearing the loss of their offices, added their sacred voices to the
popular clamour.[96:3] Merchants and artists, whose livelihood depended
upon the sale of their products and wares to pagan temples and worshippers,
raised their voices against the new sect "without altars, without temples,
without images, and without sacrifices."[96:4] Then the populace, incited by
the above-named classes, took up the opposition and soon spread the
wildest reports.[96:5]
Christians were also declared to be responsible for every disaster like war,
famine, fire, pestilence, flood, earthquakes, death of prominent persons, etc.
The gods, angered at the presence of such persons, sent these dire
calamities[96:6] on the atheists, who denied the many gods and worshipped
but one, and who discarded all images—even that of the Emperor.[96:7] Did
they not adore the wood of a cross and worship the head of an ass?[97:1] Did
they not refuse to conform to all religious observances and festivals? Who
but dangerous conspirators would hold their meetings in secret at night?
These anarchists who refused all civic service[97:2]; these social
revolutionists who broke up family ties,[97:3] set slave against master, taught
robbery under the guise of equality, refused to enjoy the social games and
festivals, and interfered with business; these cannibals who ate the flesh and
drank the blood of their infants, the offspring of their incestuous and
adulterous carousals—what punishment could be too severe for such
degenerates? Were they not a Jewish sect which had deserted the faith of
their fathers, and which could command respect neither for age nor
legality?[97:4]
The occasion for the inevitable war between the Roman sword and the
Christian cross was popular hatred and ridicule, and the frequent outbreaks
of the mobs. The fundamental cause was political necessity, for the
Christians were guilty of crimen læsæ majestatis, high treason. Christianity
in the Roman Empire was somewhat like anarchy to-day in the United
States in its relation to the state. The technical charges made against the
Christians were: (1) introducing a religio illicita, for which the penalty was

death or banishment; (2) committing læsa majestas, for which the penalty
was loss of social rank, outlawry, or death by sword, fire, or wild beasts; (3)
being guilty of sacrilegium, for which the penalty was death by crucifixion,
the ax, or wild beasts; (4) practising magic, for which the penalty was
crucifixion, or exposure to wild beasts in the circus.
Both the number and character of the persecutions seem to be
misunderstood. The Church Fathers and many later historians magnify the
number, fierceness, and duration of the persecutions, and the number killed.
[98:1]
On the contrary it seems that considerable time elapsed before the
Christians were noticed by the government, which then proceeded against
them with caution and reluctance and punished them in comparative
moderation.[98:2] The Church enjoyed many seasons of rest and peace. The
number of Christians killed during the entire period of persecution was
comparatively small.[98:3] The persecutions varied with the whims and
feelings of each Emperor—the best rulers like Trajan, Marcus Aurelius,
Decius, and Diocletian, feeling the necessity of upholding the law, were the
most energetic persecutors, while the worst Emperors were indifferent, or
even favourable. The early persecutions were only spasmodic outbreaks and
limited; the later ones were general. There is no reason for giving ten as the
number of the persecutions—nor for comparing them with the ten plagues
of Egypt.
The first persecution occurred in Rome under Nero in 64 A.D.[99:1] Some
historians contend that the Neronian persecution fell upon the Jews, whom
Tacitus, writing fifty years after the event, erroneously calls Christians.[99:2]
Others maintain that the Jews, through court influence, shifted the
punishment from themselves to the Christians.[99:3] Recent scholars,
however, are inclined to accept the literal narrative of Tacitus.[99:4]
According to his version of the situation, the persecution was accidental—a
device of Nero to divert the suspicion directed against himself of having
burned Rome—and local, that is, it did not extend to the provinces. A few
Christians were tortured and compelled to confess themselves guilty of
incendiarism and to give the names of others, and that led to the punishment
of an "ingens multitudo" as Nero's scapegoats.[99:5] As a punishment for
their alleged crime of incendiarism and "hatred for the human race," they
were covered with the skins of wild beasts and torn to pieces by the dogs in

the circus, crucified by day, and burned as torches by night.[100:1] Paul, in
all likelihood, fell a victim to this persecution and the Roman Church has
always believed that Peter also perished at this time.[100:2]
As a result, the attention of the Roman government was directed to these
"haters of the human race," and they became branded as outlaws and
brigands. Popular fury ran riot. A precedent was established, both in Rome
and the provinces, for punishing Christians for the name alone.[100:3]
Nevertheless sympathy was won for them, they secretly increased in
numbers, and were compelled to adopt a better organisation in order to
resist oppression. Above everything else the striking difference between the
Kingdom of God and the Empire of Cæsar was strongly marked on the
Christian conscience.
After Nero's persecution, under the Flavian Emperors (68-96), there was a
standing law against Christianity, like that against brigandage, but it was
only occasionally enforced.[100:4] There is no positive proof of persecution
under Vespasian (69-79). Titus (79-81), however, continued the policy of
Nero.[100:5] Under Domitian (81-96) there was increased severity in both
Rome and the provinces. This may have been occasioned in part by the fact
that as a result of the Jewish War all toleration for the Jews was withdrawn.
Christians were now classed with the hated Jews. Flavius Clemens, the
Emperor's cousin, was executed and his beautiful wife Domitilla was
banished.[101:1] Many others were killed, compelled to fight wild beasts in
the arena, or at least lost their property.[101:2] It was even reported that
Domitian planned to have all the relatives of Jesus slain in order to prevent
the rise of a possible rival in the east.[101:3]
Of "the Five Good Emperors" (96-180) who succeeded the Flavian rulers,
three continued the policy of persecution. The first, Nerva (96-98), was
tolerant to the Christians. The next Emperor, Trajan (98-117), one of the
best Emperors, was not a wanton persecutor,[101:4] but felt it to be his duty
to uphold the laws and religion of the Empire.[101:5] He was really the first
Emperor to proceed against Christianity from a purely legal point of view.
By this time Christianity was clearly recognised as a distinct sect and its
real significance appreciated. His policy may be clearly seen in his
correspondence with Pliny, the governor of Bithynia (112).[101:6] No doubt

his views were influenced by Tacitus and Pliny, who regarded Christianity
as a "bad and immoderate superstition." Still under Trajan persecution was
limited to Bithynia, Jerusalem, and Antioch, although Christianity had been
formally proscribed everywhere, together with all secret societies. His
attitude was the model for persecutions of the second century and later.
[102:1]

Hadrian (117-138), who apparently judged Christianity rather trivially,
issued the famous rescript which forbade riotous proceedings, on the one
hand, and malicious information against the Christians on the other: "If any
one, therefore, accuses them and shows that they are doing anything
contrary to the laws, do you pass judgment according to the crime. But, by
Hercules! if any one bring an accusation through mere calumny, decide in
regard to his criminality and see to it that you inflict punishment."[102:2]
Hadrian's adopted son and successor, Antoninus Pius (138-161), a wise,
upright ruler, interfered to protect Christians at Athens and Thessalonica.
His edict, given in Eusebius, is probably spurious, though the spirit may be
correct.[102:3] Marcus Aurelius (161-180), an educated Stoic and an
excellent Emperor, encouraged persecution against those guilty of "sheer
obstinacy." Public calamities had again aroused the mob against the
Christians. The imperial decree, "not fit to be executed even against
barbarous enemies," authorised the use of torture to discover Christians and
to compel them to recant, and also ordered the confiscation of property.
This order to seek out Christians, and not await formal complaints, seems to
mark a new step in imperial legislation. Still persecution was not general,
but confined to Lyons and Vienne in southern Gaul, and to Asia Minor.
[103:1]

The period from 180 to 249 saw no essential changes.[103:2] Persecutions
were merely local, and depended more upon provincial feeling and the
character of the governor, than on the Emperor. Some of the Emperors were
friendly to the new religion, others quite hostile. Commodus (180-193),
dissolute, timid, and cruel, was friendly to the Christians owing, probably,
to the influence of his favourite concubine, Marcia, who may have been a
Christian.[103:3] Septimus Severus (193-211), an able soldier, was indifferent
to the new faith up to 202, when he issued a rescript forbidding pagans from
becoming Christians, and enforced the old Trajan law with considerable

severity.[103:4] Caracalla (211-217) and Heliogabalus (218-222), two of the
most contemptible Roman rulers, both tolerated Christianity. The former
recalled banished Christians; the latter sought to merge Christianity into his
own elective system of religion. Alexander Severus (222-235) actually gave
Christianity a place in his cosmopolitan faith, had a bust of Jesus set up in
his private chapel, allowed churches to be built, and protected the
Christians. But Christianity was not legalised. On the contrary, Ulpian, the
great jurist, collected for public use in case of need all the imperial laws
against the new faith.[104:1] Maximinus the Thracian (235-238), a coarse,
brutal, military leader, ordered that all officers of the churches should be
"put to death as responsible for the gospel teaching."[104:2] Philip the
Arabian (244-248) was reported to be a Christian—at all events Christians
were not punished during his rule.[104:3]
The last period of persecution (249-311) was characterised by civil and
moral decline in the Empire and by the amazing growth of Christianity,
which had become bold and aggressive. It must either be exterminated, or
else adopted as the state religion. Hence the Emperors, who sought to
restore the old power and splendour of ancient Rome, showed the greatest
severity. Decius (249-251) issued the first edict of universal persecution
(250) as a political necessity.[104:4] Local officials, under the threat of severe
penalties, were required to compel all Christians to conform to the state
religion. Christians might flee, but their property was confiscated and their
return meant death. The inquisitorial process was employed and penalties
were severe, especially for the leaders.[104:5] Decius declared that he would
rather hear of the rise of a rival Emperor than of the appointment of a
Roman bishop.[105:1] Valerian (253-260) was said at first to be "mild and
friendly toward the men of God,"[105:2] but public disasters and the advice
of his friends led him to renew the persecutions, so he issued an edict in 257
commanding Christians to conform to the state religion on pain of
banishment. The assembly of Christians was forbidden,[105:3] and the
bishops were banished. The next year he promulgated a second decree more
sanguinary than that of Decius, because it condemned all bishops, priests,
and deacons to death.[105:4] Gallienus (260-268) recalled the exiled
Christians, restored their church property, and forbade further persecution,
[105:5]
but Aurelian (270-275) ordered the old laws enforced with renewed

vigour.[105:6] His death, however, prevented the execution of the order; and
thus the Christians had about forty years of peace.
Under Diocletian (284-305), a warrior statesman, occurred the last, longest,
and harshest persecution.[105:7] It was mildest in the West and worst in Syria
and Egypt, and endured ten years. This Emperor, apparently, took up the
sword very reluctantly. In 287 he issued a decree against the Manichæans in
Egypt which was a general condemnation of Christianity. In 295 all soldiers
were ordered to sacrifice on pain of expulsion, or, in obstinate cases,
execution. In 303 Christians were accused of burning the imperial palace at
Nicomedia and suffered accordingly. An imperial edict commanded the
churches to "be razed to the ground, the Scriptures destroyed by fire,"
Christian officials degraded, Christian servants enslaved, bishops
imprisoned and forced to sacrifice, and torture employed to compel
Christians to conform.[106:1] Everywhere these laws were executed,
Eusebius says, with great severity until checked by the edict of limited
toleration by Galerius and his co-regents in 311,[106:2] and stopped by the
decree of complete toleration granted by Constantine in 313[106:3] after a
glorious struggle of 250 years.
The results of the persecutions were very marked and have been both
exaggerated and ignored:
1. The growth of Christianity was helped rather than hindered. Persecution
advertised the new belief and won sympathy. It created an intense devotion
to the cause, proved the truth of the religion, and made a martyr's crown
desirable. Tertullian exclaimed: "Go on! rack, torture, grind us to powder;
our members increase in proportion as you mow us down. The blood of
Christians is their harvest seed. Your very obstinacy is a teacher. For who is
not incited by a consideration of it to enquire what there is in the core of the
matter? And who, after having joined us, does not long to suffer?" The
period of persecution ended with a conquest of the Emperor and a large part
of the Empire. The victory was thus a double one.
2. The organisation of the Church was effected. Persecution forced the
Church to organise itself more efficiently, produced responsible leaders,
who were forced to direct the struggle against Rome and who, as a result,
were given pre-eminence by special punishment, and developed the
monarchio-episcopal system. The extraordinary development of the power

of the Bishop of Rome, in particular, was influenced to a far greater degree
than is ordinarily taken into account. Much emphasis has been laid on the
fact that that epoch of outlawry ended by the adoption of Christianity by the
Empire. A much more important result, however, is found in the fact that
Christianity, for weal or woe, adopted the Roman Empire.
3. The Church was kept purer in belief and more united in form. The
spiritual was magnified over the temporal. Common oppression joined
Christians in common sympathy. The differences between Christianity and
paganism were emphasised. With death over their heads the Christians
thought little of life here but much of that hereafter and regulated their lives
accordingly. Still the growing consciousness that the Church was a world-
wide institution must have been powerfully stimulated. With the evolution
of the idea of Christian unity appeared the conspicuous leadership of the
Roman Church. Irenæus (d. 202) could declare that it was "a matter of
necessity that every church should agree with this church, on account of its
pre-eminent authority." Tertullian (c. 220) also recognised the distinction of
the Roman Church, though later he questioned the validity of the Petrine
claim. It was left to Cyprian (d. 258) to give the first complete account of
the Universal or Catholic Church in his work on the Unity of the Church.
4. Persecution produced a group of extraordinary literary defenders like the
apologists, controversialists, and letter writers, and helped to develop the
fundamental, orthodox Christian doctrine. It also produced much legendary
poetry; and out of this baptism of blood was created the heroic age of the
Church, based partly on fact and partly on fiction.
5. The forms of worship were modified, the worship of saints and relics was
originated, and the priesthood was sanctified and set above the laity.
6. An example was furnished for later persecutions of the pagans,
Mohammedans, Jews, and heretics.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—CHRISTIAN.

1.—New Testament.

2.—Church Fathers.
1.—Clement, Ep. to Cor., ch. 5-7. Lightfoot, Lond.,
1891.
2.—Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., ch. 5, 24, 31, 52. 2 Apol., ch.
2, 8. Dialog. with Trypho, ch. 110. Ante-Nic. Lib.,
ii., 1, 2, 79.
3.—Athenagoras, Plea for the Christians, ch. 1-4, 12,
31. Ib., ii., 375.
4.—Minucius Felix, The Octavius. Ib., 451-571.
5.—Severus, Sacred Hist., ii., ch. 28-33. Nic. and Post-
Nic. Fathers xi.
6.—Tertullian, To Scapulam, ch. 4. Ib., ii., 49-51.
Apology, ch. 2-16. Ib., 55-84.
7.—Lactantius, Divine Institutes, v., ch. 1, 9, 11. Ib.,
xxii., 92, 93, 98, 99. About the Death of
Persecutors, ch. 4, 7. Ib., xxii., 167, 168, 170.
8.—Origen, Against Celsus, i., ch. 3. Ib., x., 400.
9.—Cyprian, Epistle 80; To Demetrianus, ch. 17. Ib.,
viii., 436.
10.—Irenæus, Fragments, ch. 13. Ib., x., 164, 165.
11.—Hippolytus, Christ and Antichrist, ch. 56, 60. Ib.,
ix., 34, 35.
12.—Eusebius, Eccl. Hist. Various eds.
II.—HEATHEN WRITERS.

1.—Tacitus, Annals, xi., 15; xv., 38-44.
2.—Juvenal, First Satire, verse 155 ff.
3.—Suetonius, Hist. of the Twelve Cæsars. Tiberius, ch. 36;
Claudius, ch. 25, 5; Nero, ch. 16, 38; Domitian, ch. 12.

Bohn.
4.—Dion Cassius, Hist. of Rome. Xiphilin's Abridgment in
Eng. 2 vols. 1704.
5.—Pliny, Letters, x., 96, 97. Transl. by Lewis, Lond., 1879.
6.—Aurelius, Meditations, xi., 3. Bohn, 1869.
7.—Celsus, Against the Christians. Eng. transl., Lond.,
1869.
8.—Lucian, The Death of Perigrinus. Transl. by Tooke.
Lond., 1820.
3.—Collections.
1.—Univ. of Penn., Translations and Reprints, iv., No. 1.
2.—Foxe, Acts and Monuments, i.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Addis, W. E., Christianity in the Roman Empire. Lond.,
1893.
2.—Baring-Gould, Lives of the Saints. N. Y., 1873-7.
3.—Bigg, The Church's Task under the Roman Empire.
Lond., 1903.
4.—Butler, A., Lives of the Fathers, Martyrs, and Saints.
Dub., 1866.
5.—Carr, A., The Church and the Roman Empire. Lond.,
1886.
6.—Casy, J., Trials and Triumphs of the Church. Dub., 1899.
7.—Castelloe, B. F. C., The Church and the Catacombs.
Lond., 1894.
8.—Croke, A. D., The Church and the Roman Empire.
Lond., 1890.

9.—Döllinger, J. J. I., Hippolytus and Callistus. Edinb.,
1876. First Age of Christianity. Lond., 1877.
10.—Gregg, J. A. F., The Decian Persecutions. Edinb., 1897.
11.—Hardy, E. G., Christianity and the Roman Government.
Lond., 1894.
12.—Healy, P. J., The Valerian Persecution. N. Y., 1905.
13.—Lightfoot, J. B., St. Clement of Rome, i., 69-81.
Ignatius, i., 69.
14.—Mason, A. J., The Diocletian Persecution. Lond., 1876.
15.—Newton, R., Heroes of the Early Church. Lond., 1889.
16.—Oxenham, H. N., Studies in Ecclesiastical History
and> Biography. Lond., 1884. 27-56.
17.—Perram, A. F., Stories about the Early Christians.
Lond., 1887.
18.—Pressensé, E. de, The Martyrs and Apologists. N. Y.,
1873. i., ch. 2-14.
19.—Ramsay, W. M., The Church in the Roman Empire. N.
Y., 1893.
20.—Rankin, J., The First Saints. Lond., 1893.
21.—Renan, E., Marcus Aurelius. Antichrist.
22.—Spence, H. D. M., Early Christianity and Paganism. N.
Y. and Lond., 1902.
23.—Steere, E., Persecutions of the Early Church. Lond.,
1880.
24.—Uhlhorn, G., The Conflict of Christianity with
Heathenism. N. Y., 1879.
25.—Watson, F., Defenders of the Faith. Lond., 1888.

26.—Workman, H. B., Persecution in the Early Church.
Lond., 1906.
II.—GENERAL:

Alzog, i., sec. 48, 64-70. Backhouse, pt. 2, ch. 2-8. Bartlett,
ch. 2. Baur, ii., 215-221. Bouzique, i., ch. 3. Burton, ch.
2, 5, 7-11, 13, 16, 17. Butler, ch. 6-8. Chantrel, ch. 3.
Cheetham, ch. 3, sec. 1. Clarke, ch. 1, 2. Coxe, ch. 2, sec.
27. Croke, ch. 1-10. Crooks, ch. 14. Darras, i., ch. 1-14.
Döllinger, i., ch. 1, sec. 9, 10. Duff, ch. 11, 13, 15, 16,
22-25, 30. Fisher, pd. 2, ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 1-3. Gieseler,
i., 119. Gilmartin, i., ch. 5. Guericke, 77-102. Hase, 42-
55. Hore, ch. 3. Hurst, i., 161-179. Jackson, ch. 2-3.
Jennings, i., ch. 2-3. Knight, ch. 2-5. Kurtz, i., sec. 21,
22. Merivale, 6-8. Milman, bk. i., ch. 1. Milner, i., cent.
2-4. Moeller, i., 74, 82, 159, 190. Neander, i., 86.
Newman, i., 147. Robertson, bk. i., ch. 1-3, 5-7. Schaff,
ii., 31 ff.

FOOTNOTES:
[91:1] Hardy, 1-18.
[91:2] Examples: Cybele, Bellona, Magna Mater.
[91:3] Examples: Cult of Isis excluded from Rome 58 B.C. (Tertullian, Apol.).
Temples of Isis and Serapis destroyed 50 B.C. (Dion Cassius, xi., 47). Repeated
measures later. Jews expelled from Rome.
[92:1] Neander, i., 89; Fisher, 30. Caligula, it seems, expelled the Jews from
Rome; Claudius (41-54) first forbade their assembling (Dion Cassius, 60, 6) and
then sought to drive them out of the capital (Orosius, Hist., 7, 6.)
[92:2] For individuals like Stephen, Acts vii., 58; James, Acts xii., 2; Peter, Acts
iv.; xii., 3; Paul, Acts ix., 23, 24; xiv., 5, 19; xvii., 13; xxiii., 12; xvi., 23; xxii.,
24. For masses see Acts viii., 1-4; Acts xxvi., 10-12; Clement, Recognitions, i.,
ch. 53, 71; Justin Martyr, 1 Apol., ch. 36; Dialogue with Trypho, ch. 16, 39, 96,
115.
[92:3] Hurst, i., 153.
[92:4] Acts, xviii., 14, 15; xxi., 31, 32; xxiv., 1-27; xxv., 14; xxvi., 32; Uhlhorn,
238.
[92:5] Origen, Against Celsus, iii., 1-3.
[93:1] Concerning Laws, i., pt. 2, ch. 8. This was also the ancient principle of the
XII. Tables.
[93:2] Bk. iii., ch. 4, par. 1.
[93:3] See Tertullian and Celsus.
[94:1] Address reported by Dion Cassius.
[94:2] Ramsay, 356.
[94:3] Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism, 231.
[95:1] Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christ. with Heathenism, 234.
[95:2] Gibbon, ii., bk. 3, ch. 16.
[95:3] Uhlhorn, 224; Moeller, i., 81.
[96:1] Octav., c. 8.
[96:2] Annales, xv., c. 44.
[96:3] Alzog, i., 257.
[96:4] Acts xix., 24 ff.; Pliny, Ep., x., 97; Neander, i., 92.
[96:5] For a detailed statement of the accusations read the apologies of Justin
Martyr, Athenagoras, Tertullian, and Origen.
[96:6] Cyprian, To Demetrianus, 1; Origen, Against Celsus, iii., ch. 16;
Tertullian, Apol., ch. 40; To Nations, 9; Alzog, i., 261.

[96:7] Justin Martyr, Apol., i., ch. 6, 13, 17; Arnobius, Against Gentes, iii., ch.
28.
[97:1] A crucifix with the head of an ass and body of a man was actually dug up
in Rome and is now exhibited in a museum there. In Tertullian's day there was
circulated a picture of a man with the ears of an ass, clothed in a toga, holding a
book, and with these words beneath: "The God of the Christians" (Apol., 16; Ad.
Nat., 11, 14; Tacitus, Hist., v., 3). In the Palace of the Cæsars a rough sketch of a
crucified man with an ass's head was found (Hist. Photographs, No. 107, Oxf.,
1870; Univ. Quart., July, 1879, p. 338).
[97:2] Origen, Against Celsus, viii., ch. 75; Apol., ch. 29, 35, and 39; Tertullian,
Concerning Idol., ch. 17; De Cor. Mil., i., c. 15.
[97:3] Cf. Luke, xxi., 16.
[97:4] Hence all the hatred and prejudice of the Romans for the Jews were turned
against the Christians. Gibbon, ii., 6; Gieseler, i., p. 101.
[98:1] Origen declared that the number of Christian martyrs was small and easily
counted. Celsum, c. 3.
[98:2] Gibbon, ii., ch. 16; Uhlhorn, 234, 235.
[98:3] Moeller, i., 193.
[99:1] Tacitus, Ann., xv., 44. It seems to be very probable that persecutions by
the Roman government occurred earlier than this. 1 Pet.; Rev. ii., 13; xx., 4.
[99:2] Schiller, Lipsius, and Hausrath.
[99:3] Notably Merivale.
[99:4] Hardy, Uhlhorn, Ramsay, Allard, and Harnack.
[99:5] E. Th. Klette, Nero and the Christians, who relies for his conclusions on
sources prior to Tacitus, repudiates the scapegoat theory. He contends that Nero,
influenced by Jewish intrigue, publicly punished the Christians as Christians and
because of the popular suspicions against them, so as to make it appear that the
burning of Rome was due to the wrath of the gods.
[100:1] Juvenal, Sat., i., 155 ff.; Seneca, Ep., 14; Clement, To Corinth, 6; Euseb.,
ii., c. 25; Orosius, vii., c. 7. Cf. Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp. 226 ff.
[100:2] Sulp. Severus, Chron. ii., c. 29; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6.
[100:3] Mommsen, Sandy, Hardy, Ramsay.
[100:4] Mommsen, v., 523 n.
[100:5] Sulp. Severus, Chron., ii., c. 30, 6; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6-8.
[101:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 18; Dion Cass., lxvii., c. 14.; Suet., Dom., c.
15; Transl. and Rep., iv., 6.
[101:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., 26.
[101:3] Hegesippus, quoted in Eusebius, Eccl. Hist., iii., c. 20; Tertullian;
Clement of Rome, 1st Epistle.
[101:4] Melito of Sardica (c. 170), Lactantius, Eusebius, and the mediæval
writers generally held that he was rather favourable to Christians.

[101:5] Gieseler, Aubé, Overbeek, Uhlhorn, Keim and Renan held that Trajan
began a new era unfavourable to Christians but Lightfoot, Hardy, and Ramsay
explain it on the ground of political expediency.
[101:6] Pliny wrote sixty letters to Trajan and Trajan made forty-eight replies.
These have all been translated into English. Read letters 96 and 97. See Transl.
and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 8.
[102:1] For an excellent discussion of the significance of the Trajan
prosecutions, see Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp., 190-225.
[102:2] Authenticity of this document is doubted by Baur, Klein, Lipsius,
Overbeek, Aubé, McGiffert, etc., but defended by Ramsay, Lightfoot,
Mommsen, Allard, Funk, Ranke, Uhlhorn, Moeller, etc. See Transl. and Rep.,
iv., No. 1, p. 10.
[102:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., c. 13, 26; Tertullian; Harnack, article on Pius in
Herzog-Hauck, Real Encyc.
[103:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., c. 1; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 11.
[103:2] This period saw seventeen different Emperors.
[103:3] See Eusebius on this reign, Eccl. Hist., v., c. 9-24.
[103:4] Clement of Alexandria wrote: "Many martyrs are daily burned, crucified,
and beheaded before our eyes." Origen's father was among them. At Scillite in
Numidia 200 suffered. Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 20. At Carthage two young
women were given to wild beasts. Tertullian refers to other persecutions. Euseb.,
Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 1, 7.
[104:1] Moeller, i., 191.
[104:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 28; Origen, On Martyrdom.
[104:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., c. 34.
[104:4] The text of this decree has been lost. Two later decrees were issued—the
first exiling Church officers, the second condemning them to death. See Gregg,
The Decian Persecution.
[104:5] Read Cyprian, Concerning the Lapsed, iii., c. 8, for the most vivid
account; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 21.
[105:1] Cyprian, Ep. to Antonian.
[105:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 10; Gregg, The Decian Persecution.
[105:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 11.
[105:4] Cyprian, Ep., 81; Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, 20, 22, 23.
[105:5] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., c. 13 ff.
[105:6] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 26.
[105:7] Mason, The Persecution of Diocletian.
[106:1] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 26; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii.-x.; Uhlhorn,
407.
[106:2] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 28; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii., 17.

[106:3] Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 1, p. 29.

CHAPTER VII
TRANSITION OF THE CHURCH UNDER CONSTANTINE

Outline: I.—Condition of the Empire in 300. II.—How
Constantine became Emperor. III.—Constantine's conversion to
Christianity. IV.—Constantine's favours to Christianity. V.—
Constantine's character. VI.—Constantine's historical
significance. VII.—Sources.
To understand the great changes that took place in the Christian Church
under Constantine, it is necessary to keep distinctly in mind both the status
of Christianity, on the one hand, and the general conditions of the Empire,
on the other.
In territorial extent the Empire still formed a huge fringe around the
Mediterranean Sea and had lost but little of its vastness under Trajan (98-
117). Under Diocletian (284-305) the Empire became an undisguised
oriental despotism. The administration was divided between two Augusti,
each of whom had an associate, called Cæsar. This division of rule, with its
increased expense, aroused much jealousy and discontent, and greatly
weakened the Empire. As many as six rival Emperors appeared at once, and
out of the rivalry emerged Constantine the Great as the sole ruler of the
Empire. Wars with the Persians in the east and with the barbarians on the
north accelerated the declining political morality. At the same time social
classes became more marked, and moral standards lower. Schools were
neglected, literature became superficial, poetry lost its voice, and oratory
declined. Paganism, largely a form of patriotism and national festivity, still
numbered many adherents, but it was not deeply rooted in their hearts.
Christianity, in the face of outlawry and severe persecution, had spread
steadily and marvellously, and particularly among the substantial people of
the Empire.[113:1] It is difficult to estimate the number of Christians because
few records were left and the number of real believers was much larger than
the professed adherents. The earlier estimates are probably too low. After
more careful investigation, 30,000,000 may be safely given as indicating

the numerical strength of the new creed.[113:2] When Constantine the Great
appeared, therefore, old pagan Rome was declining, while a new Christian
Rome was rapidly rising. Christianity would undoubtedly have gained the
victory sooner or later had Constantine not appeared as its champion.
Constantine was born about 274 at Naïssus, in Upper Moesia. His father
was Constantius Chlorus, a nephew of Emperor Claudius, the conqueror of
the Goths, who was selected as Cæsar of the West possibly because of his
imperial connection. His mother was Helena, the daughter of an innkeeper,
and not the fabled English princess. She was only a concubine, who,
however, was made a legal wife after the birth of Constantine.[113:3] She
was a Christian, it seems, and no doubt taught the new faith to both her
husband and son.[114:1]
Constantine's education was gained mostly in court circles and on the
battle-field. As a boy he was instructed in the schools of Drepanum in
Cilicia, his mother's birthplace, later changed to Helenapolis. Little is
known about this phase of his training, and there are reasons for believing
that it was not very comprehensive. In 292, when Constantine was eighteen,
his father became Cæsar of the West, divorced his mother, and sent him to
be educated as a sort of hostage at the court of Diocletian at Nicomedia.
There he acquired his preliminary military training and political education.
With Diocletian he made an expedition to Egypt via Palestine (296) and the
next year joined Galerius in a campaign against the Persians. He soon won
a reputation as a bold warrior, and became a popular leader. Indeed his
superior ability aroused the jealousy of Galerius, who purposely exposed
him to the gravest dangers, thus hoping to get rid of him. After his military
success, he was made tribune of the first rank. Skilled in the art of politics
at the court of the Eastern rulers, and having won his spurs in battle, he
expected to be elevated to the office of Cæsar, when Diocletian resigned in
305, but was defeated by Galerius, who succeeded Diocletian as Augustus,
and chose his own nephew as Cæsar. This was a keen disappointment to
young Constantine.[114:2]
In 305, Constantius Chlorus succeeded Maximian, who had resigned by
agreement with Diocletian, as Augustus of the West, and, since there was no
reason why an Augustus should leave his son as hostage at the court of an
equal, he demanded the return of Constantine. Galerius reluctantly

consented, but before the official permit was executed, Constantine, fearing
treachery, fled at night, maimed the post-horses to prevent pursuit, and
reached Boulogne just in time to go with his father to Britain.[115:1]
After an easy conquest of Britain, Constantius Chlorus died at York (July,
306), having named his son as his successor, whereupon the soldiers
immediately saluted Constantine as Augustus.[115:2] Although this was the
ancient practice, and Constantine was eligible for the office both by
heredity and by preparation, still, constitutionally, the nomination rested
with Galerius, who, enraged at the usurpation, and also at Constantine's
shrewd diplomatic letter, allowed him only the title of Cæsar.[115:3] No man
in the Empire was better fitted by age, appearance, previous training, and
ability, for the higher office. Backed by his army, Constantine continued his
father's policy to defend the Gauls against the Franks and Germans, and to
develop the prosperity of the country. He married Maximian's daughter
(307) as a diplomatic precaution and was recognised by him as Augustus.
Meanwhile Maxentius, the son of Maximian, who, discovered in
conspiracy, had committed suicide, had assumed the imperial purple at
Rome and now took his father's death as a pretext for war against
Constantine.[115:4] Encouraged by a Roman embassy, Constantine at once
hastily marched toward Rome and at Milvian Bridge defeated his rival, who
was drowned in the Tiber (312). Constantine was now sole Emperor of the
West. In 324 Licinius was defeated in the East and Constantine had become
Emperor of the united Roman Empire.
Constantine's connection with Christianity marks a new epoch in the history
of the Church. Under him the new faith was legalised, emancipated,
protected, and given lands and buildings. Constantine's mother, who was a
Christian, probably gave him his first favourable impressions of the
outlawed religion. As a boy he must have heard it discussed as a topic for
both light and serious conversation. At the court of Diocletian and Galerius
he saw the edict of persecution proclaimed in 303 and must have witnessed
the action of Christians under martyrdom, noticed their marvellous growth
in the face of outlawry and punishment, and perhaps came to look with
some favour upon their teachings. When he succeeded his father as
Emperor of the West, he continued his father's policy of toleration and let
Diocletian's edict of persecution fall as a dead letter.[116:1]

Tradition tells us that Constantine was converted to Christianity suddenly
by a miracle. One day, during the conflict with Maxentius at Milvian
Bridge, he and his whole army saw a bright cross in the heavens with this
inscription in Greek on it: "In this sign, conquer." In a dream that night
Christ appeared to him and commanded him to use the emblem of the cross
as his battle ensign, and promised him victory in consequence. Constantine
immediately had the costly labarum made to be carried before his army and
with it at Milvian Bridge, ten miles from Rome, he vanquished his foe.
[117:1]

Three theories have been proposed to explain the spectacle of the cross: 1.
That it was a genuine miracle, supported by the following facts: (a)
Eusebius, who gives us the first account, had all the evidence directly from
Constantine himself under oath; (b) Constantine's whole army "witnessed
the miracle and put the emblem on their shields"[117:2]; (c) Socrates says the
original standard could still be seen in his day.[117:3] The older historians all
upheld the miracle, although few scholars to-day take that view.[117:4] 2.
That it was a natural phenomenon coloured by Constantine's imagination, or
an optical illusion, or a dream.[117:5] 3. That it was a pious fraud,
deliberately invented either by Constantine, or by Eusebius.[117:6] Whatever
the theories may be, the fact remains that for some reason Constantine
invoked the aid of the Christian's God, and carried the Christian emblem in
front of his troops to one victory after another until he became sole ruler of
the Empire. If it was merely experimenting with the name and cross of
Jesus, the experiment brought convincing belief, for the sacred emblem was
employed in all later military campaigns.
The triumph over Maxentius at Milvian Bridge was a great victory for
Christianity. Constantine had a statue of himself with a cross in his hands
set up in Rome. An inscription on it stated that through Christianity the
glory and freedom of Rome had been restored.[118:1] Henceforth
Constantine extended imperial aid and protection to the Christians and a
new era was opened in the history of the Christian Church. He endowed and
enlarged Christian churches in Rome and later elsewhere[118:2]; he wrote
letters in behalf of Christians in Africa[118:3]; he made Christian bishops,
like Hosius, Lactantius, and Eusebius, his trusted political advisers; and he
enacted laws legalising the new faith and protecting its adherents.

The edict of limited toleration passed by Galerius in 311, in conjunction
with Constantine and Licinius, was very unsatisfactory. The Christians
might rebuild their churches but were required to pray for the Emperor.
[118:4]
A decided preference was shown to paganism since no person was
free to leave his own religion and join another. This was a great hardship,
for many Romans were Christians at heart and were only waiting for
permission to join the new Church openly.[118:5] To meet the new conditions
and to afford the needed relief, Constantine, jointly with Licinius, in 313
issued the Edict of Milan, the Magna Charta of religious liberty. It was
promulgated in Greek and Latin over the whole Empire as imperial law. It
did not make Christianity the state religion, as is generally asserted, but
only legalised it, and popularised it. Now people could and did openly
desert the old and join the new faith. Persecutions were forbidden under
severe penalties. Exiles were recalled. Confiscated property was restored
with compensation to the possessor. All Romans were exhorted to worship
the Christian God. This famous edict was significant, because it put
Christianity on an equality with paganism; gave it opportunity for public
organisation, thus paving the way for the Catholic hierarchy already begun;
and marks a new era in the history of the Christian Church, because at last a
great Roman Emperor and his conquering army had taken up the sword in
defence of persecuted Christianity.[119:1]
The proclamation of emancipation and protection was followed by other
acts which clearly show that Constantine meant to favour and control the
new religion. The Christian clergy were exempted from military and
municipal duties[119:2]—a favour already enjoyed by pagan priests and even
Jewish rabbis (March, 313). The Church Council of Arles was convoked
(314). The emancipation of Christian slaves was facilitated (315). Various
customs and ordinances offensive to Christians were abolished (316).
Bequests to churches were legalised (321). The cessation of civic business
on Sunday was enjoined, but as a "dies Solis" (321).[120:1] The heathen
symbols of Jupiter, Apollo, Mars, and Hercules were removed from
imperial coins (323). In defeating Licinius (324), a bitter reactionist,
Constantine felt that he was waging war in behalf of Christianity.[120:2] In
324 Constantine issued a general exhortation to all Romans to embrace the
new creed for the common weal. The highest dignities were opened to
Christians. Gifts and remission of taxes enriched their churches. A craze for

buildings led to the erection of churches at various sacred spots in the Holy
Land, at Nicomedia, in Constantinople, in Rome, and elsewhere. Fifty
costly manuscripts of the Bible were ordered prepared for the leading
churches. The Council of Nicæa was held in 325, the Arian schism healed,
and the first written creed given the Church. Finally, by divine command, as
it was said, Constantine removed his capital from old pagan Rome to
Byzantium, the new Christian Rome, which was renamed Constantinople
(326). This left Christianity in the West, already strong and active, to
organise itself under the guidance of the Bishop of Rome, and powerfully
aided the evolution of the papal hierarchy. In the East, under imperial
protection, the spread and organisation of the popular belief was
phenomenal.
Paganism was still legal, however; its institutions were not attacked and the
privileges of its priests were confirmed. Nevertheless the triumphs of
Christianity were all won at the expense of paganism. As the new faith
arose the old sank, yet not without many a desperate and even noble effort
to persist. Individual cults which were either immoral or offensive, like that
of Venus in Phœnicia, Æsculapius at Ægæ, and the Nile-priests at
Heliopolis, were prohibited.[121:1] Private haruspices were forbidden. There
is even some evidence of a general edict against sacrifices.[121:2] All of
these things indicate the passing away of the old order and the birth of the
new.
Opinion about Constantine's character takes two extreme views. On the one
hand it is held that in 312 Constantine, like Paul, was miraculously
converted to Christianity and that from that day forth he was a saint
incarnate. Eusebius, and later panegyrists like Mosheim, are responsible for
this picture. To this day the Greek churches celebrate his memory as St.
"Equal of the Apostles." On the other hand it is asserted that he was nothing
but a shrewd politician, able to read the signs of the times, who assumed an
outward connection with Christianity solely for political expediency.
Zosimus, a pagan historian, gives the worst account, ascribing to him the
basest motive for every deed. Keim calls him a political trickster, and
Burckhardt styles him a "murdering egoist" and "politischer Rechner"
without a spark of Christianity.[121:3]

Was Constantine a Christian? The query is a difficult one to answer because
ten men would each give a different definition of the essentials of a
Christian. The favourable evidence will be considered first. Constantine's
activity in behalf of the new religion, already mentioned, shows at least his
sympathy for it and no doubt his belief in it. His imperial laws, improving
woman's condition, mitigating slavery, abolishing crucifixion as a method
of punishment, and caring for the unfortunate, breathe forth the spirit of
Christian justice and humanity.[122:1] He tried to convert his subjects to
Christianity through Christian governors in the provinces, by letters and
sermons, by rewarding towns for converting temples into churches, and by
conforming to Christian worship. He diligently attended divine services,
had a stated hour and place for prayer, fasted, kept Easter vigils with great
devotion, and even invited his subjects to hear him preach on the folly of
paganism and about the truth of Christianity. He exerted every effort to
make Constantinople a Christian city—churches replaced altars, the
imperial palace was adorned with biblical scenes,[122:2] gladiatorial combats
were prohibited, and the smoke of public sacrifice never rose from the hills
of New Rome.[122:3] The imperial treasury was lavishly used to support
Christianity.[122:4] Constantine's sons were given a Christian education. He
believed in the efficacy of baptism, even though he did postpone it to the
end of his life—a common practice to wash away all sins. Besides he
wished to be baptised in the river Jordan where Jesus himself was baptised.
In 337 he was received into the Church as a catechumen, promised to live
worthily as a follower of Jesus, was baptised, and wore the white baptismal
robe till he died.[122:5]
The unfavourable evidence submitted leads to the conclusion, held by some
historians, that Constantine's conversion was not genuine, but due to
hypocrisy, superstition, or policy. He retained the title Pontifex Maximus,
head of the old religion. The Edict of Milan protected paganism and he
continued that policy. After defeating Maxentius at Milvian Bridge he had
his triumphal arch erected. The original inscription said that he triumphed
over his rival by the favour of Jupiter. But these words were later erased and
the neutral phrase "instinctu Divinitas" substituted.[123:1] In Rome he
restored pagan temples and said: "You who consider it profitable to
yourselves, continue to visit the public altars and temples and to observe
your sacred rites."[123:2] Even in Constantinople temples were erected to the

gods. The laws of 319 show that sacrifice still existed—at least in private
houses.[123:3] Pagan emblems were continued on imperial coins till 330.
Constantine, as Pontifex Maximus, continued to attend the sacred games
connected with the pagan religion,[123:4] and even used pagan rites along
with Christian to dedicate his new capital.[123:5] In 321 he ordered that when
lightning should strike the imperial palace, or any public building, the
soothsayers should be consulted to determine the cause as of old. The same
year he employed heathen magic to heal diseases, to protect crops, to
prevent rain and hail, etc.[123:6] He retained many pagans at court and in
public office, and was very intimate with pagan philosophers like Sopater.
[124:1]
In no document did he formally renounce paganism and declare
himself a Christian. He was guilty of weakness and crimes inconsistent with
a Christian life. He was vain, suspicious, despotic, and gained his ambitious
ends through bloody wars. He was undoubtedly guilty of murdering
Licinius, his brother-in-law, contrary to a sacred pledge; Licinius, the
younger, his nephew, a boy of eleven; Crispus, his eldest son, on the ground
of treasonable conspiracy; and Fausta, his wife, for adultery.[124:2] To wipe
away these sins, and many others, he accepted at the close of his life the
Christian rite of baptism. After his death the Senate voted to place him
among the gods.[124:3]
After weighing all evidence, these historical conclusions may be drawn:
1. Constantine was primarily a statesman, and wisely used both paganism
and Christianity to unite his Empire and to build up his autocratic power.
He was Pontifex Maximus, not alone of paganism, but of all religions.[124:4]
The grateful Christians heartily granted that leadership. Up to 323 he kept
the two religions equally balanced, but to do so he was forced to favour
Christianity most. After 323 he depressed paganism and exalted
Christianity. Toward the end of his life he showed a tendency to forcibly
suppress the old religion.
2. Constantine was a Christian, but not as a result of a miracle at Milvian
Bridge. His conversion was a gradual result of many influences. Training at
his Christian mother's knee, paternal instruction, his youthful observations
at the Eastern imperial court, a growing belief in monotheism, his
discontent with the faith of his fathers and a proneness toward sun-worship,
and his religious philosophy, which led him to look at Christianity as a

system of thought rather than a life creed—a law, not a faith—a world-force
of purity and simplicity—all these factors produced within him a growing
comprehension of the truth, power, and beauty of Christianity. The cross in
the sky and the consequent victories led to a conviction that God had
selected him as the champion of the new creed, "the bishop of bishops."
Contact with the leading Christians in the Empire, men of heart and brains,
greatly increased his admiration for Christianity and interest in it. Just when
he became a Christian no one can say, but that he died a sincere believer
one can hardly doubt.[125:1]
3. He was a product of his age. He was actuated by both religious and
political motives and was not merely an artful politician. It was not an easy
thing to be a Roman Emperor and at the same time a Christian. He was
guilty of grave crimes, but they were the result of gusts of passion, like
those of Peter the Great, and not of constitutional depravity. Nor do these
sins appear so enormous when considered in the light of his long, useful
career, the dynastic difficulties confronting him, and the morality of many
Christian leaders of the day. It must not be forgotten that he was a converted
heathen, that the Christian code had not yet become the moral code, and
that the integrity of the Empire stood above family ties and even religious
demands.
4. He made his age the beginning of a new era. He enabled Christianity to
become the moulding spirit of Western civilisation. He was the first
representative of that theoretical Christian theocracy which makes the
Church and state two sides of God's government on earth. The Church and
state were to remain united throughout all the succeeding ages to the
present time. Even Protestant nations adopted the principle. Among the
most noteworthy exceptions to-day are the United States, Italy, and, but
recently, France. He founded the Byzantine Empire and bears the same
relation to the East that Charles the Great does to the West. He gave the
Church its first unity in organisation, its first universal council, and its first
written creed. He stamped his own character on his age and made it greater
and happier. He has continued to live through succeeding centuries by
reason of what he was and what he did. For all these reasons, judged by
achievement, the world unites in calling him "the Great."[126:1]
5. Historically, Constantine's significance lies not in the fact that he was a
Christian, personally, but that he for the first time endowed the new religion

with that worldly power which made it for over one thousand years the
most powerful moral, social, and political agency the world has seen.
Constantine the Great was succeeded by Charles the Great, and he in turn
by Otto the Great. On the ruins of the Christianised Roman Empire arose
the Roman Empire of the Germans, and in this the work of Constantine was
really completed. Not until the Reformation and the Modern Age did the cry
arise that the work of Constantine must be undone.
Constantine's three sons and successors continued his policy. Laws were
passed favourable to Christianity. Paganism was still tolerated, but the
tendency to suppress it had developed into a fixed policy. Sacrifices were
forbidden on pain of death and confiscation in 352.[127:1] The persecuted, in
turn, became the persecutors. "Emperors!" one of the Christian leaders
advised, "the temples must be overthrown and utterly destroyed in order
that the pernicious error may no longer pollute the Roman world. The
Supreme God has committed the Government to you, so that you may cure
this cancer." Pagan temples were converted into Christian churches. Unity
of worship and unity of imperial rule were declared to be essential. Pagan
opposition to religious unity under the Emperor was now interpreted as
treason just as Christianity was so regarded before 311. Thus identified with
the Empire, Christianity became the popular dominant faith. Rome and
Alexandria alone clung to the old gods.[127:2]
Under Julian (361-363), a nephew of Constantine the Great, paganism made
one last supreme effort for mastery. The reaction was inspired by Neo-
Platonism, by the personal devotion of Julian to the classical faith, and by
the hope of securing a stronger imperial unity through the supremacy of
paganism. Julian did not openly persecute Christianity, but treated it very
much as Constantine did paganism. Had he lived longer, nevertheless,
harsher measures might have been employed. He seemed to feel that he was
swimming against the tide, however, and fell in battle against the Persians
(363) saying, "Thou hast conquered, Galilean."[128:1]
Julian's sudden death with one stroke precipitated the decline and fall of
paganism. His successor, Jovian (363-364), a Christian, restored
Christianity to imperial and popular favour.[128:2] The legal toleration of all
religions continued under Valentinian I. (d. 375) and Valens (d. 378).
Emperor Gratian (375-383) began the repression of paganism in the West,

and Valentinian II. (383-392) continued it, while Theodosius I. (378-395)
pursued the same policy in the East, and forcibly suppressed paganism.
[128:3]
The edict of 380 constituted Christianity the exclusive religion of the
whole Empire. "We command all who read this law to embrace the name of
Catholic Christians, deciding that all other idiots and madmen should bear
the infamy attaching to their heretical opinions, and as they will first meet
with the penalty of divine vengeance, so they will afterwards receive that
condemnation at our hands which the Heavenly Judge has empowered us to
administer."[128:4] The new faith had won a famous victory. Even the old
Roman Senate, the last refuge of paganism, voted that the religion of Jesus
was true.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—CHURCH FATHERS:

1.—Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers, i., 472. Edited by McGiffert. Best edition.
Church History. Ib.
2.—Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. Ib., ii., bk. 1, 2.
3.—Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History. Ib., ii., bk. 1, 4.
4.—Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History. Ib., iii., bk. 1, 2.
5.—Lactantius, Death of Persecutors. Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib.,
xxi., 485; xxii., 186 ff.
6.—Evagrius, Ecclesiastical History. Bohn, Eccl. Lib., 1851.
7.—St. Athanasius, Works. Fathers of the Holy Cath. Ch.,
viii., xiii., xix. Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, iv., 2d ser.
8.—St. Basil, Letters. Ib., viii., 109.
9.—St. Augustine, Sermons on the New Testament. Fathers
of the Holy Cath. Ch., lv., ch. 12.

10.—St. Chrysostom, Homilies. Ib., xxi., ch. 11; Nic. and
Post-Nic. Fathers, ix., 1st ser.
11.—St. Ambrose, Letters, No. 21, 23. Fathers of the Holy
Cath. Ch., xlv.
12.—St. Cyril, Catechetical Lectures. Ib., xiv., ch. 22; Nic.
and Post-Nic. Fathers, vii., 2d ser.
II.—PAGAN:

1.—Zosimus, History. Transl. by J. Davis, Lond., 1814.
2.—Emperor Julian, Letters. Transl. by E. J. Chinnock.
Lond., 1901. Sovereign Sun and Mother of the Gods,
in King, Julian the Emperor. Lond., 1888.
III.—COLLECTIONS:

1.—Henderson, Select Historical Documents of the Middle
Ages. Bohn Lib., 1892, p. 319.
2.—Univ. of Penn., Translations and Reprints. iv., No. 1, 2;
vi., No. 4.
3.—Robinson, Readings in European History, i., 21.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Carr, A., The Church and the Roman Empire. Lond.,
1886.
2.—Chawner, W., The Influence of Christianity upon the
Legislation of Constantine the Great. Lond., 1874.
3.—Cutts, E. L., Constantine the Great. Lond., 1881.
4.—Fletcher, J., Life of Constantine the Great. Lond., 1852.
5.—Gwatkin, H. M., Studies of Arianism. Camb., 1882. The
Arian Controversy. N. Y., 1889.

6.—Hardy, E. G., Christianity and the Roman Government.
Lond., 1894.
7.—Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century.
Lond., 1855.
8.—Saunders, G., The State of the Christian Community
before and after Constantine. Glasg., 1882.
9.—Smith and Wace, Dictionary of Christian Biography.
Art. on Constantine.
II.—GENERAL:

Allen, ch. 1-2. Alzog, i., § 96-100. Backhouse, pt. 2, ch. 10.
Baur, ii., 225-228. Blunt, i., ch. 6. Bouzique, i., ch. 3; ii.,
ch. 1. Bright, 60 ff., 310. Butler, ch. 23-26. Cheetham, pt.
ii., ch. 1. Coxe, ch. 3. Croke, ch. 12-16. Darras, i., pd. 2,
ch. 1-2. Döllinger, ii., ch. 1, sec. 1. Duff, ch. 31, 37.
Fisher, pd. 3, ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 4. Gibbon, ch. 17-25.
Gieseler, div. 3, pd. 2, ch. 1, sec. 75-77. Gilmartin, i., ch.
10. Guericke, sec. 61-63. Hase, sec. 93-95. Hore, ch. 5.
Hurst, i., 410-426. Jackson, ch. 12-16. Jennings, i., ch. 4.
Knight, ch. 6. Kurtz, i., § 42-43. Mahan, bk. 2, ch. 10.
Milman, bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 2-3. Moeller,
i., 296-308. Mosheim, ii., 454-481. Neander, ii., 1-32.
Newman, i., 305-319. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff, ii.,
1-37. Stanley, 281.

FOOTNOTES:
[113:1] Orr, Neglected Factors, 95-163; Ramsay, Ch. in Rom. Emp., 57.
[113:2] Orr, Neglected Factors, 23-91.
[113:3] Zosimus, ii., 8; St. Ambrose, Migne, iii., 1209. For the fable about the
English princess read Geoffrey of Monmouth and Pierre de Langloft. This tale
was used by Baronius. It must be remembered that concubinage was a state
recognised by Roman law, and was by no means in itself a sign of depravity.
[114:1] Eusebius, Life of Constantine, iii., ch. 47, leads one to believe that
Constantine converted his mother to Christianity. Cf. Hamza Ispaheus, p. 55.
[114:2] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 24.
[115:1] Zos., ii., 8; Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 121.
[115:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., viii., ch. 13; Life of Const., ii., ch. 22.
[115:3] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 25. Galerius recognised Severus as
Augustus of the West.
[115:4] Galerius meanwhile was induced to recognise Constantine as Augustus
in 308.
[116:1] Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 24; Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch.
14, 16, 17, 27.
[117:1] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 28-31; Sozomen, i., ch. 3; Socrates, i., ch. 2;
Lactantius, Death of Persecutors, ch. 44.
[117:2] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 28; Sozomen, i., ch. 3.
[117:3] Socrates, i., ch. 2.
[117:4] Döllinger; J. H. Newman; Guericke, Uhlhorn, etc.
[117:5] Supported by best modern critical writers like Schroeck, Neander,
Gieseler, Mansi, Milman, Keim, Heinicken, Schaff, Harnack, etc. For like
examples see Whymper, Scrambles among the Alps, ch. 22; Gieseler, i., § 56;
Stanley, 288; Peary, Narrative of an Attempt to Reach the North Pole, 99, 100;
Seymour, The Cross in Tradition, 103 ff.
[117:6] This theory is defended by Gibbon, Lardner, Waddington, Burckhardt,
Hoornbeeck, Thomasius, Arnold, etc. They seem to ignore all proofs.
[118:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., ix., ch. 9; Life of Const., i., ch. 40. The triumphal
arch was not set up till 315.
[118:2] Euseb., Life of Const., i., ch. 42.
[118:3] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., ch. 5, 7.
[118:4] Ibid., Eccl. Hist., viii., 17; edict given in Transl. and Reprints, iv., No. 1,
p. 28. Cf. Lactantius, ch. 34, 35.
[118:5] Neander, ii., 12, 13.

[119:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., 5. The Edict of Milan is given in Transl. and
Reprints, iv., No. 1, p. 29. It is thought by some that the Edict of Milan refers to
an edict issued by Constantine in 312 but now lost. That possibility seems very
doubtful. Cf. Lactantius, ch. 48.
[119:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., x., ch. 7; Sozom., i., 9; Cod. Theod., xvi., 2, 1, 2, 3.
[120:1] Cod. Justin., iii., tit. 12, 1, 3.
[120:2] Moeller, i., 298. He at once issued edicts of toleration for Christians in
the East. Euseb., Life of Const., ii., ch. 24 ff.
[121:1] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 55, 56, 58; iv., ch. 25, 37, 38.
[121:2] Ibid., ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 56, 58; iv., ch. 25.
[121:3] For further opinions of like character read Brieger, Flasch, Baur, etc.
[122:1] Sozom., i., 8; Cod. Theod. and Cod. Justin are full of these instances.
[122:2] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 3, 49; iv., ch. 15.
[122:3] Ibid., ii., ch. 44, 45; iii., ch. 48; iv., ch. 24.
[122:4] Ibid., ii., ch. 45; iii., 33-39, 41, 42, 43, 48, 58; iv., 28, 58-60.
[122:5] Brooks, Date of the Death of Constantine; Euseb., Life of Const., iv., 62-
64.
[123:1] Dyer, City of Rome, 312.
[123:2] Cod. Theod., xii., i., 21; v., 2; Neander, ii., 20.
[123:3] Ibid., 19.
[123:4] Cod. Theod., ix., 16, 1, 2; Zos., ii., ch. 29.
[123:5] Zos., ii., ch. 31; Moeller, i., 299.
[123:6] Neander, ii., 20, 21.
[124:1] Euseb., Life of Const., ii., ch. 44.
[124:2] This last charge is now discredited by some authorities.
[124:3] Eutropius, Breviarium, x., 4.
[124:4] Euseb., Life of Const., iv., ch. 24.
[125:1] Cutts, Const. the Great, 419.
[126:1] See Cutts, Const. the Great, 128.
[127:1] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 4.
[127:2] Gieseler, i., § 75.
[128:1] Negri, Julian the Apostate, 2 vols., N. Y., 1905; King, Julian the Emp.,
Lond., 1888; Gardner, Julian, Philosopher and Emp., N. Y., 1895; Rendall, The
Emperor Julian, Lond., 1879; Sozom., vi., 2; Theodoret, iii., 25.
[128:2] Sozom., vi., 3.
[128:3] Cod. Theod., xvi., 10, 12.
[128:4] Cod. Justin, i., 1, 1.

CHAPTER VIII
THE COUNCIL OF NICÆA AND ITS RESULTS

Outline: I.—Diversion of Christian thought in the early Church.
II.—The Arian controversy. III.—The Council of Nicæa and its
actions. IV.—Later history of Arianism. V.—Sources.
Early Christianity was characterised by a remarkable intellectual activity,
which was chiefly theological and philosophical. Speculative discussions
were rife, particularly in the East, where the different philosophical systems
were prominent. Jesus left no definite creed, which all could understand
alike.[131:1] The Ante-Nicene period was full of sharp and bitter theological
and ecclesiastical antagonisms. Such an epoch of dissension and division
the world was not to witness again until the dawn of the Protestant Revolt.
Christian converts came from Judaism, and from various types of paganism,
hence at the very outset there was a tendency to create two distinct types of
Christianity—the Jewish and the non-Jewish. This lack of unity and
uniformity was clearly seen and sneered at by the pagan scholars.[131:2] This
was Origen's significant explanation:
Seeing that Christianity appeared an object of veneration to
men, and not to the labouring and serving classes alone, but also
to many among the Greeks who were devoted to literary
pursuits, there necessarily originated sects, not at all as a result
of faction and strife, but through the earnest desire of many
literary men to enter more profoundly into the truths of
Christianity. The consequence was, that understanding
differently those things which were considered divine by all,
there arose sects, which received their names from men who
admired Christianity in its fundamental nature, but from a
variety of causes reached discordant views.
Among the heretical sects of the Ante-Nicene period were:

1. The Ebionites,[132:1] who were Judaising Christians as shown in the book
of Acts and the Pauline Epistles. They desired to be both Jews and
Christians, and ended by being neither. They soon divided up into many
sects.[132:2] They lived in and about Palestine for the first three centuries of
the Christian era. They believed that God made the world and gave the
Mosaic law, which was still essential to salvation; that Jesus was the
Messiah, though not divine, only a great man like Moses and David; but
they denounced Paul and heroised James and Peter. They observed the
Jewish Sabbath, retained the rite of circumcision, and observed the law. In
the minds of the great body of orthodox Christians they were regarded as
heretics.
2. The Gnostics[132:3] embraced various factions, mostly pagan converts to
Christianity, which flourished in Syria, Asia Minor, and Egypt chiefly
during the second century. Their ideas can be traced back to Philo's Jewish-
Alexandrian philosophy, to Buddhism and Zoroastrianism, and to the old
Egyptian religion. Knowledge, above all else, was the one thing desired.
Believing in the inherent evil of matter, they sought to account for a bad
world without compromising God. Jehovah of the Old Testament was
rejected as the Supreme Being. They cast aside all the New Testament
except the Pauline Epistles and parts of the Gospels. They professed to
apprehend the divine mysteries. Some advocated asceticism, and others
gave the utmost license to the flesh. All believed in the idea of the evolution
of the world, through Christ, to an ideal state. Although denounced as
heretics, they left a marked influence on Christianity. Gnosticism was so
speculative, however, that it gave rise to many leaders and creeds.
3. The Manichæans[133:1] accepted Gnosticism minus true Christianity and
adopted Oriental dualism under Christian names. Manichæism originated
with Mani about 238 in Persia and spread westward over the Christian
Church. Its leading principle was absolute dualism—a kingdom of light and
one of darkness in eternal opposition, yet brought together by a sort of
pantheism. Christianity was accepted, but explained in terms of this
dualism. The Old Testament was wholly rejected as well as parts of the
New. The elevated priesthood celebrated the secret rites of baptism and
communion with solemn pomp, lived as ascetics, possessed no property,
and abstained from wine and animal food. This system, claiming to be true

Christianity, had a marked influence on both the doctrines and organisation
of the Church.[134:1]
4. The Monarchians[134:2] denied the doctrine of the Trinity, but were
divided into a number of groups. The Alogoi in the second century rejected
all of the Apostle John's works and denied the eternity of the Logos as a
person of the Godhead. Theodatus, a leather dealer of Byzantium, went to
Rome in 190 and taught that Jesus was a "mere man" till baptism gave him
divine attributes. Paul of Samosata, Bishop of Antioch, was
excommunicated in 269 for advocating the doctrine that the Father, Son,
and Holy Spirit are one person, God. He maintained that Jesus was a
divinely begotten man exalted to divine dignity by the Holy Spirit or Logos
—an attribute of God. Praxeas of Asia Minor visited Rome about 195 and
later preached in Carthage. He held that the Father and Christ were one and
attributed the "Passion" to God, hence his party were called the
Patripassians. Sabellianism was simply another form of this heresy and
helped to precipitate the Arian controversy.
In addition to these four heretical sects there were three distinct reactionary
and reforming parties:
1. Montanism[135:1] originated, like so many radical movements, in Asia
Minor (150?). Montanus professed to have received a message from the
"Paraclete" to reform the growing worldliness and the lax ecclesiastical
discipline of the Church. Montanists denounced the innovations introduced
into the Church, and sought to return to the simpler and purer doctrines and
organisation of the early Church. They preached a universal priesthood of
all believers. In exalting virginity, widowhood, and martyrdom, in
professing a contempt for the world with all its excesses, and in insisting
upon an arbitrary holiness, Montanism was a force paving the way for
ascetic Christianity. They accepted all the fundamental principles of the
Church, but professed to receive special divine revelations from the
"Paraclete," as the Holy Ghost was called. They lived in constant
expectation of the coming of the end of the world. Tertullian was their
greatest apologist. But both the Christian hierarchy and the imperial power
were turned against these reforming puritans. Under Justinian Montanism
disappeared (532).

2. The Novatianists[135:2] withdrew from the Church protesting against the
readmission of those who through fear deserted the Church in the Decian
persecution (249-251). They were strong in North Africa and Asia Minor,
and continued until the sixth century, absorbing most of the Montanists. In
doctrine and organisation they did not differ from the regular Church, but
only on the question of discipline. They also laid unusual stress on the
doctrine of baptismal regeneration. Their churches were still found in the
fifth century in Rome till closed by Innocent I.
3. The Donatists[136:1] grew out of the Montanist opposition to laxity and
innovation in the Church and Novatian strictness of discipline. The
Donatists denounced the Christians who during the Diocletian persecution
delivered up the Scriptures, and tried to drive them out of the Church. The
party centred in Carthage and was led by Bishop Donatus. They believed in
ecclesiastical purism, held the Church to be an exclusive society of saved
sinners, emphasised inner holiness as a qualification of membership,
asserted the necessity of baptismal regeneration and infant baptism, said
unholy priests could not administer the sacraments, advocated rigid
discipline, resisted the union of Church and state, and were organised as a
hierarchy. They were very active in the early part of the fourth century, and
attempted to secure the support of Constantine. He decided against them
and tried to quiet them. Emperor Julian favoured them, but Augustine
sought their overthrow. Finally the Vandals swept them away.
The Arian controversy was a natural product of the early differences about
the nature of the Godhead and was distinctly connected with the Ebionites,
Gnostics, Montanists, and Sabellians. In the Eastern speculation about the
mystery of the Holy Trinity, one faction of theorists tended to "refine the
Deity into a mental conception"; another to "impersonate Him into a
material being." Between these extremes arose the discussion about "the
nature and relation between the Father, Son, and Holy Ghost."[137:1]
Tertullian and Origen both attempted to solve the problem. Dionysius of
Alexandria (260), in a contest with the Sabellians, is reported to have
declared: "The Son of God is a work and a creature, not appertaining to
Him by nature, but as regards His essence, as foreign to the Father as the
husbandman to the vine . . . For as a creature, he did not exist before he was
produced."[137:2] Dionysius of Rome, backed up by a synod, repudiated that
proposition and clearly stated the orthodox Trinitarian view. Origen

widened the breach by asserting the eternal divinity of Christ, but at the
same time maintaining also His subordination to the Father as a "secondary
God." The conflicting schools of theology at Alexandria and Antioch were
ready to take sides in the controversy, which reached a crisis at the end of
the third century, when all theological thought was focused on this one
question.
The controversy broke out in Alexandria in 318.[137:3] Bishop Alexander in
a public address insisted on the interpretation of the eternity of the Son.
Arius, a presbyter, charged the bishop with Sabellianism, which advocated
an undivided Godhead, and held that Christ was a creature of God, hence
not coexistent and eternal.[138:1] He and his followers held that God alone
was eternal; that He created the Son, or Logos, by His fiat, hence the Son is
different in essence and finite; that the Son was created before time was and
in turn made the universe and rules it; that the Son is Logos in soul, stands
between God and man, and is to be worshipped as the most exalted of
creatures, the creator and ruler of the world, and the Redeemer of men. It
was contended that all these propositions could be proved beyond dispute
from the Bible.[138:2]
Alexander, in a personal interview, sought to stop Arius,[138:3] who was an
old priest in control of the most influential church in the city,—a proud,
learned, ambitious, and fascinating man,[138:4] who, defeated in his
candidacy for the arch-episcopacy of Alexandria,[138:5] began to foment
social and religious circles by attacking Alexander. Failing to quiet him,
Alexander called a synod to discuss the disputed points, but Arius seemed
to carry the day and continued his agitation. Then the bishop commanded
Arius and his followers to renounce their "impiety."[138:6] Refusing to obey,
Arius was called before a local council in 320 and there excommunicated.
[138:7]
But Arius now spread his views all the more zealously by
conversation, by letters, by sermons, and later, while an exile, in a poetic
work called The Banquet. His doctrines pleased the wide-spread
rationalism, and hence became very popular. They were put into popular
songs and sung everywhere, and became the chief topic of conversation in
all social circles. Arius, however, was forced to flee[139:1] to Palestine and
thence to Nicomedia, while Alexander drew up his encyclic to all Christian

Bishops (323)[139:2] giving the history of the controversy and defending the
Trinitarian position.
The eastern part of the Empire broke up into two powerful parties: the
Arians and the Trinitarians or Athanasians. "In every city bishops were
engaged in obstinate conflict with bishops and people rising against
people."[139:3] Theology became mere technology. Staunch partisans came
forth as champions on both sides—Eusebius, the Church historian,
Eusebius, the Bishop of Nicomedia, Chrysostom, Theodore, and Ephraëm
stood for Arianism; while Athanasius, Marcellus, Basil, Cyril, and Blind
Didymus became Alexander's supporters. In a short time the whole Eastern
Church became a "metaphysical battle-field." Finally both sides appealed to
Constantine, who, viewing the contest as a war of words, wrote a common
letter and sent it by his court-bishop to both leaders in which he said that the
quarrel was childish and unworthy such churchmen; that moreover it was
displeasing to him personally, hence they were asked to stop it.[139:4] When
this imperial request failed, Constantine summoned the Council of Nicæa to
settle the dispute.[139:5]
The Council of Nicæa was summoned by the Emperor for the summer of
325. Constantine's purpose in convening it was to settle by compromise or
otherwise religious disputes which might easily become a political danger
to the Empire. It was the first universal council of Christendom. Of the two
thousand persons in attendance more than three hundred were bishops.[140:1]
All of the thirteen provinces in the Empire except Britain were represented.
[140:2]
All the West, however, sent but six representatives—good proof that
the Arian controversy was an Eastern question. The Bishop of Rome was
too old to go so he sent two presbyters to represent him.[140:3] Even a few
pagan philosophers were attracted to the Council, and actually took part in
the discussions.[140:4]
In organising the Council the bishops were seated according to rank.[140:5]
Discussions occurred for some time before Constantine arrived. Then the
Emperor entered "as a messenger from God, covered with gold and
precious stones, a magnificent figure, tall and slender, and full of grace and
majesty." He opened the Council with these words: "When I was told of the
division amongst you, I was convinced that I ought not to attend to any
business before this; and it is from the desire of being useful to you that I

have convened you without delay; but I shall not believe my end to be
attained until I have united the minds of all, until I see that peace and that
union reign amongst you which you are commissioned as the anointed of
the Lord to preach to others."[141:1] He took part in the deliberations also
and acted as the real head of the Council, though the Spanish Bishop Hosius
probably served as the spiritual president.[141:2] Only bishops or their
accredited proxies had a vote.
Three distinct parties immediately appeared in the Council: (1) The Arians
led by Arius. Twenty bishops with Eusebius of Nicomedia at their head
constituted the voting party. (2) The Semi-Arians were led by Eusebius of
Cæsarea, the Church historian. They had a majority and were inclined
partly to the Arians and partly to the orthodox side. (3) The Trinitarians, or
orthodox party, led by Alexander, Hosius, Macarius, Marcellus, and
Athanasius. At the outset they were in the minority, but soon came to
control the Council.
Unfortunately the authentic minutes of the transactions are not now extant,
[141:3]
if indeed they ever existed. The Arians, it appears, came to the
Council confident of victory because the Emperor's sister Constantia was an
avowed Arian, and he himself was supposed to be a sympathiser, since so
many scholars about him upheld the doctrine. But when Arius presented his
creed signed by eighteen eminent names, it created an uproar, the creed was
seized and torn to pieces, and its doctrines repudiated. All the signers but
Arius and two bishops then abandoned the project. Eusebius of Cæsarea
came forward at this juncture with an old Palestine creed as a compromise.
[142:1]
It acknowledged the divine nature of Jesus. The Emperor favoured it,
and the Arians were willing to accept it, but Athanasius was suspicious and
demanded so many changes that when, after two months of solemn
discussion, the amended creed was passed,[142:2] Eusebius, the originator,
hesitated to sign it. This was a grand triumph for the orthodox party. The
Emperor required all bishops to subscribe to it.[142:3] The Semi-Arians did
so under protest. Arius and two Egyptian bishops[142:4] refused and were
banished to Illyria.[142:5] Arius was publicly excommunicated and his
writings ordered burned. The business of the Council concluded,
Constantine dismissed it with a splendid feast which Eusebius likened to the
kingdom of Heaven.[142:6]

The results of Nicæa were very significant:
1. The Church was given its first written creed, the Nicene Creed—the basis
of all later creeds, Greek, Latin, and Evangelical.[142:7] This was the first
official definition of the Trinity and has continued to be the orthodox
interpretation. The Nicene Creed contains all the cardinal Christian
doctrines. It was universally proclaimed as imperial law.
2. Church canons were enacted—the West accepts twenty, the East more—
which constitute the basis for the canon law of the Middle Ages.[143:1]
These canons indicate the burning questions in the Church at that time.
3. The method of calculating the date for Easter, which differed in Eastern
churches and Western churches, was determined.[143:2]
4. This Council, guided, as was believed, by the Holy Ghost, acted as the
infallible, sovereign power of the Church and set precedents which later
conflicted with the supreme power claimed by the Pope.
5. The development of the papal hierarchy was stimulated. The Bishop of
Rome was recognised as the only Patriarch in the West.[143:3] He was soon
forced to be the recognised champion of orthodoxy.
6. The Council of Nicæa marks the beginning of the breach between the
East and the West which resulted in the first great schism in Christendom.
7. The law of celibacy was almost imposed on the Church.[143:4]
8. Interference in the most vital concerns of the Church was recognised as
an imperial prerogative. The Emperor called the Council, presided over its
proceedings, acted as mediator between contending factions, forced the
Nicene Creed on the Church, fixed the day for celebrating Easter, and
approved the first ecclesiastical canons.
9. The various heresies and schisms of the time were condemned. This
action threw into prominent relief throughout the Empire the powerful party
of orthodox Catholics, who henceforth were to control the destinies of the
Church in both its internal and external organisation and evolution.
The condemnation of Arianism was only a temporary victory. Soon
Constantine himself was won over by the Arians, invited Arius to his court,
and ordered Athanasius, who meanwhile had become Bishop of Alexandria

(328), to reinstate Arius in his parish. Athanasius refused to do so, and was
condemned and deposed by the councils of Tyre (334) and of
Constantinople (335), and exiled by the Emperor to Treves in Gaul. Arius
died before he could be recalled (336). Constantine II. restored Athanasius
to his see (338), but his brother Constantius and his Arian friends deposed
him again (339). Athanasius then fled to Pope Julius at Rome (339), who
laid his case before a Western council (341) which vindicated both his creed
and his rights. This supreme appellate power assumed by the Bishop of
Rome is significantly prophetic.
To heal the Arian conflict, which was again active—this time between the
East and the West,—the Council of Sardica was called in 343. The Roman
party controlled it, reconfirmed the Nicene Creed, and adopted twelve new
canons. The Arians refused to take part and held a rump council. The result
was a wider separation of the East and the West.[144:1] Under Constantius,
however, the Arian party grew stronger, held the three Arian councils of
Sirmium (351), Arles (353), and Milan (355), forced their decrees upon the
whole Church, exiled Hosius, Hilary, and Lucifer, drove Athanasius, who
had meanwhile once more returned to his office (346), out of his see, and
even deposed Pope Liberius[145:1] and elected an Arian Pope, Felix II., in
his place. Thus the Arian party seemed triumphant East and West.
But the Arians soon split into bitter factions and began to destroy
themselves. Under Emperor Julian they lost imperial favour and saw the
Nicene party tolerated. The orthodox faction was thus able to gradually re-
win power in the West and South. Theodosius the Great (379-395)
externally completed the Nicene conquest of the whole Empire through an
imperial edict (380) and by calling the second general Council of
Constantinople (381), which ratified the Nicene Creed in a revised form and
passed seven additional canons.[145:2] But Arianism lingered long within the
Empire, especially among the Teutons, who were slow to accept the Roman
faith—the Vandals in 530, the Burgundians in 534, the Suevi in 560, the
Goths in 587, and the Longobards in 600.[145:3] It also reappeared again and
again in the later heresies on down to the present day.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—CHURCH FATHERS:

1.—Eusebius, Life of Constantine. Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers. 2d ser., i., bk. 2, 3. Church History. Ib., i.
2.—Athanasius, Works. 2d ser., ib., iv. Fath. of the Holy
Cath. Ch., viii., xiii., xix. Bright, W., Orations. Oxf.,
1873.
3.—Socrates, Ecclesiastical History. Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers. 2d ser., ii., bk. 1, ch. 8 ff.
4.—Sozomen, Ecclesiastical History. 2d ser., ib., ii., bk. 1,
ch. 17 ff.
5.—Theodoret, Ecclesiastical History. 2d ser., ib., iii., bk. 1,
ch. 1-13.
6.—Philostorgius, Epitome of Ecclesiastical History. Bohn,
Eccl. Lib., ii., 429-528.
II.—COLLECTIONS:

1.—Percival, H. R., The Seven Ecumenical Councils. In Nic.
and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d ser., xiv. N. Y., 1900.
2.—Pusey, E., The Councils of the Church (to 381).
3.—Fulton, J., Index Canonum. N. Y., 1892.
4.—Lambert, W., Canons of the First Four General
Councils. Lond., 1868.
5.—Hammond, W. A., The Six Œcumenical Councils. Oxf.,
1843.
6.—Bright, W., Notes on the Canons of the First Four
General Councils. N. Y., 1892.
7.—Mitchell, E. K., Canons of the First Four General
Councils. Univ. of Pa., Transl. and Repr., iv.

8.—Chrystal, J., Authoritative Christianity. Jersey City,
1891. Vol. i.
9.—Schaff, P., The Creeds of the Greek and Latin Churches.
Lond., 1877, ii., 28, 29, 57-62, 66.
10.—Lumby, J. R., The History of the Creeds. Lond., 1880.
Vol. ii.
11.—Howard, G. B., Canons of the Primitive Church. Lond.,
1896.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Boyle, I., Historical View of the Council of Nicæa. N. Y.,
1856.
2.—Bright, W., Waymarks of Church History. Lond., 1894,
56 ff.
3.—Bull, G., Defence of the Nicene Faith. 1685. Transl. in
Lib. of Anglo-Cath. Theol. Lond., 1851.
4.—Dorner, I. A., History of the Doctrine of the Person of
Christ. Edinb., 1861-3. 5 vols.
5.—DuBose, W. P., The Ecumenical Councils. N. Y., 1897.
6.—Dudley, T. W., History of the First Council of Nicæa.
Bost., 1880.
7.—Gwatkin, H. M., Studies in Arianism. Camb., 1882. The
Arian Controversy. N. Y., 1889. Ch. 1, 2.
8.—Hefele, C. J., History of the Church Councils. Edinb.,
1882-3. Bk. ii., ch. 1, 2.
9.—Kaye, J., Some Account of the Council of Nicæa. Lond.,
1883.

10.—Neal, J. M., History of the Holy Eastern Church.
Lond., 1850-73.
11.—Newman, J. H., The Arians of the Fourth Century. N.
Y., 1888.
12.—Stanley, A. P., History of the Eastern Church. N. Y.,
1875.
13.—Swainson, C. A., The Nicene and Apostolic Creeds.
Lond., 1875.
Note.—See Chap. VII. for additional works.
II.—GENERAL:

Adeney, ch. 1. Allies, v., ch. 37-39. Alzog, i., § 110-112.
Backhouse, pt. 11, ch. 11, 12. Bartlet, ch. 9. Baur, ii.,
112-120. Bouzique, ii., ch. 1. Butler, ch. 24. Cheetham,
pt. 2, ch. 10, 11. Coxe, ch. 2, sec. 15; ch. 3, sec. 10-14.
Crooks, ch. 21-23. Darras, i., pd. 2, ch. 1. Döllinger, i.,
ch. 2; ii., ch. 3, 4; iii., ch. 2, sec. 2, 3. Duff, ch. 33, 34,
35. Fisher, 104, 119, 130. Fleury, bk. 21. Foulkes, ch. 4.
Gibbon, ch. 21. Gieseler, i., sec. 81-84. Gilmartin, i., 16.
Guericke, sec. 81-93. Harnack, Dogma, iv., ch. 1. Hase,
sec. 102-104. Hore, ch. 4. Hurst, i., 431 ff. Jackson, ch.
11-16. Jennings, i., ch. 4. Kurtz, i., § 49. Mahan, bk. iv.,
ch. 1-6. Milman, i., bk. 1, ch. 2. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 3,
4. Moeller, i., 331-337. Neander, ii., 403 ff. Newman, i.,
pd. 3, ch. 2, p. 323. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 1. Schaff, iii.,
616-689. Stoughton, pt. 2, ch. 1.

FOOTNOTES:

[131:1] Epiphanius, ch. 29, 30, 53.
[131:2] Notably Celsus, who declared that the Christians "were divided and split
up into factions, each individual desiring to have his own party."
[132:1] Irenæus, i., ch. 26; Hippolytus, ix., ch. 13-17; Epiphanius, ch. 29, 30, 53;
Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii., ch. 27; Schaff, ii., 420; Neander, i., 341; Moeller, i., 97;
various histories of dogma and encyclopedias.
[132:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iii., ch. 27.
[132:3] Irenæus, Against Heresies; Hippolytus, Refutation of all Heresies;
Tertullian; Origen; Epiphanius; Gieseler, i., 129; ii., 442; Moeller, i., 129; King,
The Gnostics and their Remains; Neander, i., 566; Mansel, The Gnostic Heresies;
Baur, i., 185; Bright, Gnosticism and Irenæus.
[133:1] Archelaus in Ante-Nic. Lib.; Epiphanius, 66; Augustine in Nic. and Post-
Nic. Fathers, 1st ser., iv.; Pressensé, Her. and Chr. Doctrine; Gieseler, i., 203;
Schaff, ii., 498; Moeller, i., 289; Neander, i., 478; Mozley, Manichæans; histories
of dogma and encyclopedias.
[134:1] Augustine, the greatest Latin Father, was a Manichæan for many years,
as some maintain.
[134:2] See History of Doctrine by Fisher, Shedd, Sheldon, Hagenbach, Baur,
Loofs, and Harnack; Dorner, The Person of Christ; Conybeare, The Key of Truth;
encyclopedias.
[135:1] Tertullian; Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., ch. 14-18; Epiphanius, Heresy, 48, 49;
Sozomen, ii., 32; Pressensé, Heresy and Chr. Doctr., 101; Mossman, Hist. of
Early Chr. Ch., 401; Neander, i., 508; Schaff, ii., 405; Moeller, i., 156; De
Sayres, Montanism; Uhlhorn, Conflict of Christ'y with Heathenism; Baur, i., 245;
ii., 45; Ramsay, 434; encyclopedias.
[135:2] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., ch. 43, 45; vii., ch. 8; Cyprian, Ep., 41-52;
Socrates, iv., 28; Neander, i., 237; Gieseler, i., 254; Moeller, i., 263;
encyclopedias.
[136:1] Augustine in Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, iv.; Hefele, i.-ii.; Neander, ii.,
214; Schaff, iii., 360; various works on history of doctrine; encyclopedias.
[137:1] Milman, Hist. of Christ., i., 65.
[137:2] The Bishop of Rome held a synod in which these ideas were denounced
and the orthodox view upheld.
[137:3] For the controversy see the histories of Eusebius, Socrates, Sozomen,
Theodoret, and Philostorgius; Epiphanius, Heresy, 69; Athanasius; Hilary; Basil;
Ambrose; Augustine; the two Gregories and Rufinus; Newman, Arians in the
Fourth Cent.; Gwatkin, Studies of Arianism.
[138:1] Socrates, i., ch. 5.
[138:2] Harnack, Hist. of Dogma, pt. ii., ch. 7.
[138:3] Socrates, i., 6. See Neander, ii. 403; Schaff, ii., 616; Gibbon, ch. 21;
Stanley, Lect., 2-3; Moeller, i., 382; Kurtz, i., 317.
[138:4] Socrates, i., 5; ii., 35.

[138:5] Theodoret, i., 4; cf. Philostorgius, i., 3.
[138:6] See two letters in Socrates, i., 6.
[138:7] Ibid.
[139:1] Theodoret, i., 5.
[139:2] Ibid.
[139:3] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 4.
[139:4] Euseb., Life of Const., ii., ch. 64-72; Socrates, i., 7.
[139:5] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., 6.
[140:1] Historians disagree about the number; Eusebius gives 250; Theodoret,
300; Milman, 323; Döllinger, 318; Gwatkin, 223; etc.
[140:2] Gwatkin, 21.
[140:3] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., 7; Socrates, i., 14; Sozomen, i., 17; Milman,
i., 99.
[140:4] Socrates, i., 8; Sozomen, i., 17, 18.
[140:5] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., ch. 10.
[141:1] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., 12; Theodoret, i., 7; Hefele, Hist. of the Ch.
Councils, 280, 281.
[141:2] Hefele, i., 281; Moeller, i., 336, suggests Eustathius of Antioch and
Alexander of Alexandria.
[141:3] No minutes in the modern sense were kept. After measures were agreed
upon they were signed and thus promulgated. See Hefele, i., 262.
[142:1] Theodoret, i., 12; Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d ser., xiv., 1.
[142:2] The Nicene Creed of the Roman Catholic, Lutheran, and Anglican
churches is not this one but "the baptismal creed of the Church of Jerusalem"
enlarged in 362-373.
[142:3] The Latin list of names numbers 228, though the original Greek lists
certainly had more. Hefele, i., 296.
[142:4] Sozomen, i., 9, 21; Theodoret, i., 7, 8.
[142:5] Sozomen, i., 21; Socrates, i., 9.
[142:6] Euseb., Life of Const., iii., 15.
[142:7] Univ. of Pa., Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 2; Schaff, iii., 631; Fulton, Index
Canonum.
[143:1] Univ. of Pa., Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 2. Cf. Hefele, i., 355 ff.
[143:2] Excellent discussion of the whole question in Hefele, i., sec. 37.
[143:3] About 350 the canons were interpolated so as to give the Bishop of
Rome a primacy.
[143:4] Socrates, i., ch. 11; Sozomen, i., 23; Schaff, ii., 411; Hefele, i., 435.
[144:1] Hefele, ii.

[145:1] Pope Liberius was reinstated, after the death of Felix II., on subscribing
to the Arian articles.
[145:2] Univ. of Pa., Transl. and Rep., iv., No. 2, p. 11; Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers, 2d ser., xiv., 163.
[145:3] See Hodgkin, Italy and her Invaders.

CHAPTER IX
RISE OF THE PAPACY

Outline: I.—Favourable conditions when the Christian era
began. II.—Forces at work up to 313. III.—Description of the
Roman Church in 313. IV.—Growth of the Papacy from 313 to
604. V.—Condition of the Papacy at the close of this period,
604. VI.—Sources.
To see how a handful of outlawed, persecuted Christians in Rome became
the omnipotent hierarchy of the Middle Ages is to comprehend the most
marvellous fact in European history. But when the conditions and forces,
which produced this wonderful organisation, are clearly understood, the
miracle becomes a natural and an inevitable product.
In the first century of the Christian era Rome was the heart and mistress of
the world.[148:1] The Apostle Paul gloried in having introduced Christianity
into the great metropolis.[148:2] The Roman Empire had developed an
imperial and provincial system of government which was to serve as the
model for the organisation of the Christian Church. This decaying Empire,
after a futile contest with Christianity, was to become its servant. The
mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised.
Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old
Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of Pontifex
Maximus was continued in that of Pope. The deeply religious character of
the Romans on the one hand, and the inadequate and degenerate religion
which they held on the other, were positive and negative forces enabling the
Christian Church to make rapid conquests in territory and numbers. Even
the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman
Catholic Church down through the ages. Christianity could not grow up
through Roman civilisation and paganism, however, without in turn being
coloured and influenced by the rites, festivities, and ceremonies of old
polytheism. Christianity not only conquered Rome, but Rome conquered
Christianity. It is not a matter of great surprise, therefore, to find that from

the first to the fourth century the Church had undergone many changes.
During the first half of the third century the hierarchical scheme of Church
government appeared to reach a very advanced stage of organisation.
Cyprian gives us the boldest and broadest claim of the Bishop of Rome to
the heirship of Peter. By the fourth century the hierarchical and monarchial
principles were fully developed, and the Papacy had begun its wonderful
career.
The leading forces operating to develop the Roman hierarchy up to 313 will
now be indicated.
1. The fundamental factor which first attracts attention in the consideration
of this problem is the obvious advantage in location. In the origin of the
civilisation of Western Europe three cities have been conspicuous for their
contributions—Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Jerusalem, the sacred city,
gave Christianity to the West and through the West to the world. Athens, the
city of culture, bequeathed philosophy, art, ideals, and science to the
Romans, and through them to the Celts, Teutons, and all peoples. Rome, the
city of power, overthrew Jerusalem, took Athens captive, received the
contributions of both as her right, and on the ruins of both built up her
universal sovereignty. The rise of Rome to world dominion is one of the
deepest mysteries in history. Rome possessed the matchless capacity of
appropriating everything on earth that would contribute to her greatness.
When Jesus appeared to give the world Christianity, Rome was the centre of
all power and influence.
Rome was in the highest degree adapted to spread civilisation abroad. From
Rome influences could be sent out into the world which could not possibly
have emanated from Jerusalem or Athens. In fact anything connected with
Rome assumed, in consequence, an importance by virtue of Rome's
greatness that no other part of the world could give. Christianity in its
cosmopolitan character resembled Rome and was drawn thither irresistibly
as the best centre for propagandism. Hence, from the outset, the Roman
Christian Church was a church of world-wide importance and power, and
her bishop the most influential. Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the
great moral Empire in the "giant form" of the Roman Church. In the
marvellous rise of the Roman Church is seen in strong relief the majestic
office of the Bishop of Rome.[150:1]

2. In addition to the favourable location and extraordinary opportunity that
site gave, the fact that the Church, planted in Rome and there organised by
Peter and Paul, was thus established on a double apostolic foundation gave
to the Bishop of Rome a respected and commanding position from the very
outset.[151:1] No other church west of the Adriatic could claim such a
distinguished origin. It was both easy and logical, therefore, to make the
Bishop of Rome not only a commanding leader in the universal Church, but
more particularly the conspicuous head of the Church of the West.[151:2]
3. The theory about Peter's primacy,[151:3] asserted certainly as early as the
second century and generally accepted in the third century, gave an
indelible character to both the person and office of the Bishop of Rome, and
elevated him high above all other officers in the Church. The actual belief in
this theory, a fact which cannot be questioned, made possible the realisation
of the papal hierarchy. It seems to be an actual fact, likewise, that before the
end of the second century the pontiffs of Rome had assumed a title
implying a jurisdiction over the whole Christian world as successors and
representatives of Peter, the Prince of Apostles. Irenæus said: "Because,
therefore, of her apostolic foundation, and the regular succession of
bishops, through whom she hath handed down that which she received from
them [the Apostles], all churches, that is, all the faithful around her and on
all sides, must on account of her more powerful pre-eminence resort to this
church, in which the tradition, which is from the Apostles, is preserved."
[151:4]
Tertullian, after he had joined the heretical Montanists, accused the
Bishop of Rome of assuming the titles of "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop
of Bishops."[152:1] He complains also that the "Supreme Pontiff" was in the
habit of quoting the decisions of his predecessors as conclusive on all
disputed questions, and that he furthermore claimed that he himself sat in
the chair of St. Peter. These charges show how early the Petrine claims were
made and recognised.[152:2]
4. The missionary zeal of the Roman Church soon led to the formation of a
number of suburban branches and within a comparatively short period to
the spread of Christianity throughout Italy and to other sections of Western
Europe.[152:3] These local churches naturally looked to the head of the
Church in the great capital for assistance and instruction, and were willing
to acknowledge his jurisdiction and pretensions. The episcopal organisation

of the Church in the West, which was probably present from the beginning,
[152:4]
made the transition to the hierarchy comparatively simple. At Rome
the process may be more plainly traced than in connection with any other
church.
5. The persecutions of the Christians[152:5] centred in Rome and,
consequently, made the Bishop of Rome a conspicuous leader, with social
and political, as well as religious duties, whose office was frequently
sanctified by martyrdom. The persecutions helped to emphasise the
necessity of a better organisation on a monarchio-episcopal basis. That
organisation became very exclusive,[153:1] and made a responsible head
imperative. Who else but the Bishop of Rome could meet the demands? To
him was given, by general consent in the West, the headship of the Church
and he began to act as the conscious Pope of Christendom.
6. The Bishop of Rome was the only official organ of communication
between the East and West. He was the sole Patriarch of all the united West,
while the East had four Patriarchs,[153:2] and the sixth canon of the Council
of Nicæa confirmed his jurisdiction as an "ancient custom." From Clement
(95), whose writings are the earliest of any Bishop of Rome preserved,
onward, he speaks in an authoritative tone, not only to the churches of
Carthage, Italy, and Gaul, but also to Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and
Alexandria. Notwithstanding the fact that Alexandria and Antioch also
claimed Peter for their founder, yet not one of the four patriarchates
attempted to contest Rome's claim to priority of rank.[153:3]
7. The head of the Roman Church was the champion of orthodoxy and kept
the Western Church free from schism. The Church of Rome stood
consistently for purity in doctrine and steadfastly opposed that Oriental
mysticism which polluted the Eastern churches with a host of heretic and
theosophic jugglers. Epiphanius gives a list of forty-three distinct heresies
in his day. It was no easy matter for the Church of Rome to faithfully
combat all these theological vagaries and point out the straight but narrow
way. As a reward of her fight for the simple gospel-truth the provincial
churches bestowed upon her their affection, confidence, and obedience.
They frequently referred for their own guidance to her spiritual experience,
in deference and respect they sought her counsels, they watched her course
with anxiety and faithfully imitated it, and all these things gave her a

singular spiritual influence and authority in this early period, which was not
unlike the political power exercised by the city of Rome. Again and again
the Bishop of Rome was requested to pass judgment on the various
heresies.
8. After the apostolic days, the multitudes who embraced Christianity
seemed in many instances to lack the original fervour and spirituality.
Hence to control the erring, to correct the heretical, to expel those who
brought disgrace to the society, and to protect the faithful, it became
necessary to develop some more efficient form of government.[154:1] The
Roman model of imperial and local government naturally suggested itself
and was either consciously or unconsciously imitated. The gradual
transformation of the Bishop of Rome into the Pope of Rome was the
product.
9. In the apostolic days the practice generally prevailed of referring all civil,
as well as ecclesiastical, disputes between Christians to the arbitrament of
their superior ecclesiastical officials. St. Paul even went so far as to forbid
his converts to resort to the pagan tribunals.[154:2] This work devolved upon
the bishop, as a matter of course, who acted, however, rather with paternal
authority and through moral influence, than in accordance with fixed
Church law. Thus special duties were laid upon the Bishop of Rome
because of his superior rank and extended jurisdiction.
So rapidly did his prerogatives develop that he was early recognised both
East and West as, practically, a court of appeal. About 95 A.D., Clement of
Rome wrote letters of remonstrance and admonition to settle a wrangle in
the church at Corinth, and so respected were these epistles that for a century
they were publicly read in the churches. About the year 150 one Marcian
was excommunicated by his bishop and appealed to Rome for admission to
communion. The petition was refused but it shows the influence of the
Bishop of Rome. Polycarp of Smyrna showed at least a dutiful deference in
going to Rome to lay before Bishop Anicetus (152) the disputed paschal
question. When the East and the West were divided, about 190 A.D., upon
the proper day for celebrating Easter, Bishop Victor of Rome assumed the
authority to decide on the correct day and insisted that all Christendom
conform to his decision. The Eastern churches refused to obey him, it is
true, but the Council of Nicæa enforced universal conformity to the day

chosen by Victor.[155:1] When Fortunatus and Cyprian of Carthage
quarrelled over the former's claim to the title of bishop, Fortunatus appealed
to the Bishop of Rome, Cornelius, for official recognition. Cornelius
assumed the right to remonstrate with Cyprian and to demand an
explanation of his conduct. Cyprian repudiated foreign jurisdiction in the
domestic affairs of the African Church, but at the same time recognised
Rome as "the chair of Peter—that principal Church whence the sacerdotal
unity takes its rise."[156:1] In 252, two Spanish bishops, Basileides and
Martialis, were deposed for misconduct by a synod of their province. They
appealed to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who peremptorily ordered that both
be reinstated.[156:2] The bishops of Gaul applied to Stephen for advice as to
what to do with Marcian, the Bishop of Arles, who had embraced
Novatianism.[156:3] In the West, it seems, therefore, that practically all
disputes and misunderstandings were referred to the recognised head of the
Church for advice and settlement. Again and again the Eastern Patriarchs
appealed to the Patriarch of the West for support and his support was
usually decisive. Likewise the various factions in the many Eastern schisms
strove for favourable decisions from the Roman Bishop. In 260 Bishop
Dionysius of Rome called the Patriarch of Alexandria to account for false
doctrines. Even a Roman Emperor, Aurelian (270), declared that no one, not
appointed by the "bishops of Italy and Rome," should remain in the See of
Antioch.[156:4] As a result of these appeals, the power and authority of the
Roman Bishop were magnified so that, gradually, he came to claim this
exercise as his right, and, in addition, precedents were set which were to
become ecclesiastical laws in the next period.[156:5]
10. The idea of one Catholic Church seems to have resulted from the
intense struggle against the various forms of heresy, which had divided the
early Christians into sects somewhat like the various Protestant
denominations of to-day. This conception of ecclesiastical unity and
universality had two sides: doctrine and ceremony. To teach the true
doctrine and to perpetuate sacramental unity the priesthood was created.
The persecutions emphasised the fundamental doctrines which united all
Christians and made them conscious of this unity of belief. In order to
enforce this uniformity the Bishop of Rome exercised the power of
excommunication. Victor took it upon himself to excommunicate the
Bishop of Ephesus and his fellow-officials for refusing to conform to the

mode of celebrating Easter in the West (190). Irenæus emphasised the
necessity and value of a spiritual unity in the Church,[157:1] and to "the very
great, the very ancient, and universally known Church" of Rome he
conceded the most accurate apostolic tradition.[157:2] He declared that it was
"a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church, on
account of its pre-eminent authority."[157:3] Tertullian spoke of the Catholic
Church as if its eternal unity were a common concept.[157:4] It was left to
Cyprian, however, to boldly hold up the occupant of the See of Rome as the
representative of both the organised and the sacramental unity of the
Church beyond which there could be no salvation. In his book on the Unity
of the Church, Cyprian asked:
He that abideth not in the unity of the church, doth he believe
that he holdeth to the faith? He that struggleth against and
resisteth this church, he that deserteth the Chair of St. Peter,
upon which the church is founded, can he have any assurance
that he is in the church? . . . Likewise . . . Paul teacheth the
sacrament of unity saying: "There is one body and one spirit and
one hope of our calling; one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one
God." . . . The episcopate is indeed one . . . the church also is
one . . . there is also but one head and one source. . . . Whoever
is excluded from the church . . . is severed from the promises of
the church. . . . He is a stranger, an outcast, and enemy. He
cannot have God for his father, who hath not the church for his
mother. . . . He that doth not hold this unity doth not hold the
law of God . . . he partaketh not of life or of salvation.[158:1]
The power of excommunication to preserve the doctrinal unity and purity of
the Church implied some share in appointment and administration. From
the very beginning, no doubt, the Bishop of Rome had ordained all
provincial bishops, and few matters of great importance had been transacted
without his consent or approval.[158:2]
The same tendencies and influences that led to the evolution of the bishop
in the early local churches for the sake of order and efficiency, produced a
centralisation of power in the universal Church. With the growth of the idea
that the Church had an outward organisation developed the conscious need
of a supreme bishop who could rule the Church somewhat as the Emperor

ruled the state. That such a unifying authority was generally understood to
exist by the time of Cyprian seems very clear from contemporary testimony.
But it took two hundred and fifty years to develop that leadership. There
were not wanting, either, on all sides evidences of earlier local
independence. The rise of the Papacy was the logical culmination of the
episcopal system. It must be remembered that by the time of Bishop
Cyprian the Church had undergone a series of wonderful changes. The
Church had spread outwardly until the whole Empire was covered and
included all ranks. The Church had come to be naturalised in the Empire
and was gradually compromising with conditions. Some conception of the
part Christianity was to play in the world began to dawn on men's minds.
The ascendency of the See of St. Peter was regarded, therefore, quite
generally as a necessity.
11. The centralisation of wealth in Rome rendered the Church there the
wealthiest in Christendom. These riches were lavishly used, during the first
three hundred years, to aid the poorer communities.[159:1] Such favours
could not be solicited, or received, without an appreciable sacrifice of
independence on the part of the recipients. Ignatius, considering the
munificence of the Roman Church, and wishing to confer some special
distinction, calls her "the fostering mistress of charity."[159:2]
12. From the time of Peter to Constantine the Great, thirty-two bishops
occupied the chair of the Prince of Apostles. The number and character of
the members of the Roman Church led to the selection of the ablest of the
Western Christians to occupy that important office. These successive
bishops, from the weight of their personal influence, transmitted a gradually
increasing power. The labours of a few of these remarkable men who filled
the Roman See, like Clement, Victor, Callistus, and Stephen, helped
powerfully to lay the foundations for the Papacy. Clement's attitude was
"almost imperious." Victor in his presumption on the Easter question,
Zephyrinus on the assumption of his proud title of Pontifex Maximus and
Bishop of Bishops, Callistus concerning lapsed heretics, and Stephen on the
baptism of heretics, were all guilty of "hierarchical arrogance."[160:1]
Cyprian (d. 258) looked upon Rome as the Cathedra Petri and the Roman
Church as the head of the universal Church.[160:2] Thus it may be accepted
as an established fact that the Bishop of Rome was generally accepted as
Peter's successor, at least in the West, when Emperor Constantine legalised

the Christian religion and made it free to complete its organisation and to
carry on its propagandism openly. He also increased the wealth and power
of the Roman See and made its bishop the undisputed head of the Western
Church. At the same time, in removing his capital to Constantinople,
Constantine permitted the Roman Bishop to assume imperial prerogatives
and encouraged the completion of the Church organisation after the
imperial model.
A comparison of the Church in 313 with the Apostolic Church reveals the
fact that many pronounced changes and developments had occurred. In
extent the Roman Church had spread from the Eternal City over the entire
Italian peninsula and then to Spain, France, England, Germany, and Africa,
and numbered perhaps 10,000,000 members. In organisation the Church
had changed from a democracy to an absolute monarchy, from many local
centres of authority to one great world power based on an imperial
hierarchy, from communism to paternalism, from decentralisation to
centralisation, from apostolic simplicity to worldly grandeur, and from a
spiritual organisation to one largely political. The spiritual shepherd of the
flock at Rome had come to claim and to exercise superior prerogatives over
Western Europe and to serve the Roman Emperor as virtually his spiritual
adviser. In wealth and culture, too, the Church had become a powerful
social, industrial, and educational factor.
In institutions, rites, and ceremonies, as well as in organisation, the Church
of the third and fourth centuries was very different from that of the first. A
pompous ritualism with suggestions of image worship had been introduced.
[161:1]
Great emphasis had come to be laid upon the sanctity and power of
holy water,[161:2] sacred relics and places, pilgrimages, and the use of the
cross.[161:3] The development of new ideas in reference to the merit of
external works resulted in asceticism and a celibate priesthood, fanatical
martyrdom, indiscriminate almsgiving, and various patent methods for
spiritual benefits. At the same time the number of Church festivals had
greatly increased and now included Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, and
various saints' days.[161:4]
These new ideas and practices naturally gave the priest the lofty position of
mediator between God and man. A differentiation in the ministry gradually
crept in as an outcome of the hierarchical spirit. The Bishop of Rome was

elevated above all bishops as God's chosen representative on earth. The
bishops were exalted above all the presbyters or priests. The priests in turn
held a position far superior to the subordinate officials, who had now come
to include sub-deacons, readers, acolytes, precentors or cantors, janitors,
exorcists,[162:1] and other officials of minor importance.[162:2] These under
officers likewise were cut off from the laity by a pronounced gulf.[162:3]
To conduct the general affairs of the Church, synods and councils of the
clergy came into existence as early as the second century.[162:4] Roman or
Greek assemblies may have suggested the form of the synod, though it is
more probable that they sprang spontaneously out of the needs of the
Church. These meetings at first were irregular and very informal and
resulted either in resolutions with no binding force on the dissentient
minority, or in a letter. There were four classes of councils: (1.) The synod
of a single diocese which probably existed from the beginning. (2.) The
provincial council of the bishops of several dioceses. This type began early
in the second century. (3.) General councils consisting of the bishops of
several provinces. (4.) Universal councils representing the whole Church.
When Constantine gave Christianity legal recognition, councils became
more common for the purpose of formulating common rules and dogmas, as
for instance Arles (314). After the Council of Nicæa in 325 the validity of
earlier decisions was recognised and given the force of imperial law. Thus
had the councils changed in a few years from local to general, from
recommending to sovereign bodies.[163:1]
Paralleling this remarkable evolution in the organisation of the Church was
a marked departure from the simplicity and purity of the early Christian life
on the part of both clergy and laity. The "Apostolical Constitutions," the
"Canons of the Holy Apostles," and the decrees of the councils of Elvira
(306), Arles (314), Neo-Cæsarea (314), and Nicæa (325) all reveal the
worldliness of the clergy in the laws passed against their engaging in
worldly pursuits, frequenting taverns and gambling houses, accepting usury,
habits of vagrancy, taking bribes, and immorality. Because the multitude of
pagan converts were carrying their ideas and practices into the Church,
many corrective measures were enacted against this degeneration. The
licentiousness of the clergy became a still more crying sin among the laity,
for it was unreasonable to expect the rank and file to be better than their
leaders.

FOOTNOTES:
[148:1] Acts xix., 21; xxiii., 11; xxv., 11; xxviii., 14 ff.
[148:2] Rom. i., 8.
[150:1] Gregorovius, i., 5.
[151:1] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 104, 107.
[151:2] The East had four Patriarchs: Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and
Constantinople.
[151:3] See Chap. VI.
[151:4] Against Heresies, iii., c. 3.
[152:1] On Modesty, § 1.
[152:2] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 107-108.
[152:3] Gibbon, i., 579 ff. See Chap. V.
[152:4] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 175.
[152:5] See Chap. VII.
[153:1] Origen said: "Extra hanc domum, i.e., extra ecclesiam nemo salvator."
Hom. 3.
St. Cyprian of Carthage asked: "Do they that are met outside of the Church of
Christ think that Christ is with them when they meet? . . . It is not possible for
one to be a martyr who is not in the church." _Unity of the Church_, ch. 13, 14.
[153:2] Jerusalem, Antioch, Ephesus, Alexandria, and, later, Constantinople. The
four early patriarchates were of apostolic foundation.
[153:3] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 193.
[154:1] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 164, 165.
[154:2] 1 Cor. vi., 1, 13.
[155:1] See Smith and Cheetham, Dict. of Christ. Antiq., for a full discussion of
the paschal controversy.
[156:1] Cyprian, Ep. 49, 55. Greenwood, i., 168, thinks this quotation a later
interpolation.
[156:2] Cyprian, Ep. 68.
[156:3] Ibid., Ep. 67.
[156:4] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vii., 30.
[156:5] It must be remembered that Rome had no monopoly of these appeals and
that her decisions were not always accepted in these early days. Cf. Greenwood,
i., 171 ff.
[157:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., 23-25.
[157:2] Irenæus, Against Heresy, iii., 3.

[157:3] Library of Ante-Nic. Fathers, v.
[157:4] Ibid., xv.
[158:1] Library of Ante-Nic. Fathers, viii.
[158:2] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 192.
[159:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., iv., 23; vii., 6.
[159:2] To Corinth, Ep. i., c. 44.
[160:1] Schaff, iii., 351.
[160:2] Ep., 43: 5; 55: 8; 59: 14; Lib. of Ante-Nic. Fathers, viii.
[161:1] Apost. Const., viii., 6-15; Alzog, i., §§ 92, 93.
[161:2] Apost. Const., viii., 28.
[161:3] Alzog, § 95.
[161:4] Ibid., § 93.
[162:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., vi., 43.
[162:2] Alzog, i., 393.
[162:3] Hatch, Org. of the Early Christ. Churches, 143 ff.
[162:4] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., 16; Tertullian, De Jejunus, 13; Cyprian, Ep. 75;
Hatch, Org. of the Early Christ. Churches, 169, 170.
[163:1] See Hefele, Hist. of Ch. Councils, i., § 1-17.

CHAPTER X
RISE OF THE PAPACY—Continued

The growth of the Papacy from 313 to 604 was very marked and may be
traced with little difficulty. In fact from the fourth century onward the
proofs that papal supremacy was both asserted and recognised are so
numerous that it is only necessary to select typical cases and illustrations.
Certain formative influences and forces noticeable in the period prior to 313
were continued into the later epoch and will be considered in order here.
1. The missionary zeal of the Roman Church accomplished wonders. By the
fourth century Spain and Gaul had sufficient Christians to warrant the
division of the territory into bishoprics. Some of the Gallic bishops were
imbued with a remarkably active spirit of propagandism, notably, St. Hilary,
Bishop of Poitiers (350-66), who fought the Arians incessantly; Honoratus,
Bishop of Arles, who inspired others to labour; St. Martin, Bishop of Tours,
called the "Apostle to the Gauls," and St. Denis, Bishop of Paris, who
suffered martyrdom for the cause. Similar workers were found in Spain.
About the same time Celtic missionaries from the north were working
southward to join the work spreading northward from Rome. Columba
laboured among the Scots and Picts; Aidan, in Northumbria; Columbanus,
with the Burgundians; Gallus, in Switzerland; and Amania and Kilian in
Thuringia. From Rome went forth the famous missionary expedition to
England under Augustine (596), which succeeded in winning the Anglo-
Saxons to a belief in the Roman faith and to a recognition of Roman
authority.
In return a counter-wave of missionary activity spread from England back
to the continent, led by Wilfrid in Friesland; Willibrord around Utrecht; the
Ewald brothers among the Saxons; Swidbert on the Ems and Yssel;
Adelpert in Holland; and Boniface, the "Apostle to the Germans," among
various Teutonic tribes. This widespread missionary work resulted in
eventually bringing all Western Europe under the subjection of the Roman
Church. Thus new blood, a more primitive enthusiasm, and an intense

devotion were called to her service, and all powerfully aided the rise of the
Papacy.
2. The continued orthodoxy of the Western Church made it a pillar of
strength, and gave its head a commanding position in dealing with heresy
and schism. To him, more than ever, did people East and West look for final
decisions in disputed matters of doctrine,[165:1] and contested cases of
jurisdiction, rank, territory, and authority. St. Jerome in eloquent words
besought the "Sun of righteousness—in the West" to teach him the true
doctrine because "here in the East all is weed and wild-oats."[165:2]
3. The claim of the Bishop of Rome to appellate jurisdiction, which had
been exercised more or less from an early date, received a sweeping
confirmation and a new impetus in 347 through the Council of Sardica.
In 340, Athanasius, the Patriarch of Alexandria, the champion of orthodoxy,
appealed to Julian I. from an unjust decision against him in the episcopal
courts of the East. Julian I. called a council, to which he invited the Eastern
bishops, who refused to attend, reversed the decision,[166:1] and completely
acquitted Athanasius. He wrote a strong letter of reproof to the Arians in
which he asserts Rome's canonical supremacy in initiating conciliar
proceedings against ecclesiastical offenders.[166:2] The Council of Sardica
confirmed the resolutions of the Roman Synod.[166:3]
It was decreed that any bishop, who might feel himself aggrieved by an
unfair trial, could have the judges write to the Bishop of Rome asking for a
new trial at which, if it seemed wise, priests representing the Bishop of
Rome could be present.[166:4] Meanwhile, pending the trial, no successor to
the office of the accused could be named. This action made the Bishop of
Rome referee to decide, however, not the case itself, but whether there
ought to be a new trial. The right was conferred "in honour of the memory"
of St. Peter and hence it was soon claimed as an inherent prerogative of the
apostolical See of the West. Later on it was positively asserted that these
canons gave an appeal to the Church of Rome in all episcopal cases.
Whatever the original intent may have been, the fact remains that this new
power was an important factor in the evolution of papal supremacy. The
Pope was given a power previously possessed exclusively by the Emperor.
[167:1]
In 378, Emperor Gratian added civic sanction to the judicial authority

of the Bishop of Rome by compelling accused bishops to go to Rome for
trial.[167:2] Ultimate appellate jurisdiction was definitely assigned to the
Pope by Emperor Valentinian III. in 445, when, of his own motion, causes
could be called to Rome for papal decision.[167:3] Emperor Gelasius (496)
approved in very positive terms the judicial supremacy of the Bishop of
Rome.[167:4] And Gregory the Great (604) assumed it as an indisputable fact
that every bishop is subject to the See of Peter.[167:5]
After this period cases were continually referred to Rome for adjustment.
St. Basil, Archbishop of Cæsarea, appealed to Damasus I., the latter part of
the fourth century, for protection. In 398 the Emperor ordered Flavian of
Antioch to proceed to Rome for trial. He refused to go, but compromised
with the Pope. St. John Chrysostom, the Patriarch of Constantinople, and
head of the whole Eastern Church, early in the fifth century, appealed to
Innocent I. against the persecutions of Empress Eudoxia and for restoration
to his see.[167:6] Apiarius, a priest of Africa, appealed to Pope Zosimus
against the censure of his bishop in 416. The Pope vindicated the priest
against his bishop, and ordered the latter either to revoke the censure or to
appear at Rome for trial.[168:1] St. Augustine's letter to Pope Celestine in
424 shows that it was a common thing to refer disputes to Rome for
settlement.[168:2] Both St. Cyril and the Nestorians appealed to Pope
Celestus, who decided in favour of St. Cyril. Theodoret, the Church
historian, when condemned by the Council of Ephesus in 449, appealed to
Leo I., who asserted that he could hear appeals from any source as a court
of first and last resort.[168:3] These appeals, and many other similar cases,
which could be cited both East and West,[168:4] show the growing power of
the Roman Pope, and enabled him to make real the theory of his supremacy.
To enable the successor of St. Peter to adjudicate cases more easily, vicars
were appointed in various parts of the papal empire to decide finally on all
cases, not reserved by the Pope. This arrangement greatly enlarged papal
jurisdiction by encouraging and facilitating appeals.
4. The removal of the capital of the Empire from Rome to Constantinople in
330, left the Western Church, practically free from imperial power, to
develop its own form of organisation. The Bishop of Rome, in the seat of
the Cæsars, was now the greatest man in the West, and was soon forced to
become the political as well as the spiritual head. To the Western world

Rome was still the political capital—hence the whole habit of mind, all
ambition, pride, and sense of glory, and every social prejudice favoured the
evolution of the great city into the ecclesiastical capital. Civil as well as
religious disputes were referred to the successor of Peter for settlement.
Again and again, when barbarians attacked Rome, he was compelled to
actually assume military leadership. Eastern Emperors frequently
recognised the high claims of the Popes in order to gain their assistance. It
is not difficult to understand how, under these responsibilities, the primacy
of the Bishop of Rome, established in the pre-Constantine period, was
emphasised and magnified after 313. The importance of this fact must not
be overlooked. The organisation of the Church was thus put on the same
divine basis as the revelation of Christianity. This idea once accepted led
inevitably to the mediæval Papacy. The priesthood came, in consequence, to
assume all the powers of the great Founder. The Mosaic forms, as well as
the Roman Empire, suggested convenient models and authoritative
examples for the new structure. It is not difficult to detect in the oligarchical
Church polity of the fourth and fifth centuries a yearning for unity. It was
but natural, therefore, that Rome should boldly take the remedy into her
own hands and pose as the authorised representative of the visible unity
demanded by the Christian world. The position Rome had already attained
and the worthy part played in the organisation and spread of the gospel gave
her a superior advantage, and enabled, nay compelled, her bishop to
become the one high-priest, the "universal bishop."
5. In the fourth and fifth centuries the Petrine theory was generally accepted
by the Church Fathers East and West.[169:1] The theory had become a
dogmatic principle of law founded upon historical facts. Optatus, the
African Bishop of Mileve (c. 384), strongly asserted the visible unity of the
Church and the immovable Cathedra Petri, with the Roman Bishop as
Peter's successor.[170:1] Ambrose of Milan (d. 397) gave the Bishop of Rome
the same position in the Church that the Emperor had in the Empire,[170:2]
and recognised him as the great champion of orthodoxy, but at the same
time called Peter's primacy one of confession and faith, not of rank. He put
Paul on an equality with Peter. Jerome (d. 419) recognised the Pope as the
successor of Peter and said, "Following none but Christ, I am associated in
communion with . . . the chair of Peter. On that rock I know the Church to
be built."[170:3] Innocent I. (414) made a magnificent defence of the theory.

Augustine (d. 430), the greatest of the Latin Fathers, admitted the primacy
of Peter and recognised the Roman Bishop as his successor.[170:4] In his
remarkable book, the City of God, he did more than all the Fathers to
idealise Rome as the Christian Zion. Maximus of Turin (d. 450) and
Orosius (d. 5th century) bore similar testimony. The Greek Fathers
uniformly spoke of Peter in lofty terms as the "Prince of Apostles," the
"Tongue of the Apostles," the "bearer of the keys," the "keeper of the
kingdom of Heaven," the "Pillar," the "Rock," et cetera, but they held
generally that Peter's primacy was honorary, and that he transferred his
power to both the Bishop of Antioch and the Bishop of Rome.[170:5] But
these modifications of the Petrine theory did not arrest the evolution of the
papal power. The important historical fact to be taken into account is, that
the belief in the supremacy of St. Peter's successor was quite generally
recognised and accepted.
6. The growth of conciliar prerogatives tended to advance the development
of papal authority. The Council of Nicæa (325) gave the Western Church
the Nicene Creed, practically made the Bishop of Rome its defender, and
recognised him as the sole Patriarch of the West with ten provinces as his
diocese.[171:1] The Council of Sardica (343), in reality only a local Western
body, decreed that deposed bishops might appeal to the Bishop of Rome for
a new trial, that vacant bishoprics could not be filled till his decision was
received, and that he could delegate his power to a local synod. This gave
him a kind of appellate and revisory jurisdiction in the case of deposed
bishops even in the East.[171:2] It is claimed that this was a new grant for a
specific case and in deference to Pope Julian alone. This power was
confirmed by Emperors Valentinian I. (364-375) and Gratian (375-383).
[171:3]
In this manner the Roman Popes were furnished the opportunity to
claim universal jurisdiction. The Council of Aquileia (381) begged Emperor
Gratian to protect "the Roman Church, the head of the whole Roman world
and that sacred faith of the Apostles."[171:4] The African councils of
Carthage and Mileve (416) sent their actions against Pelagius to Innocent I.,
for his approval. The councils of Ephesus (431) and Chalcedon (451) gave
the Bishop of Rome a primacy in rank and honour, which he soon made a
primacy in power.[172:1] The latter body recognised the necessity of
obtaining the Pope's confirmation to insure legality. Here again the Bishop
of Rome had usurped a prerogative claimed by Constantine and his

successors. Later the Popes called most of the councils, presided over them
in person or through legates, and confirmed their proceedings in order to
give them legality.
7. The power of excommunication, an authority inherent in all societies,
was early developed and exercised by the Roman Bishop. This right was
clearly recognised in the New Testament.[172:2] The power of
excommunication was originally put into the hand of the local bishops.
They expanded the biblical precepts into a penal code, and assumed the
right to act as judges and to pronounce censure or final excommunication.
The apostolic constitutions and canons reveal a direct substitution of the
authority of the bishops for that of Christ in these particulars.
Excommunication, for the first three centuries of the Christian era, was
looked upon as a remedial and corrective measure to prevent a breach of
discipline, disobedience, and heresy. It is a significant fact, therefore, that
the Roman bishops, by the third century, claimed the power to put out of
communion, not only individuals, but whole communities, who did not
conform to Roman usages and beliefs, even though the sentence could not
always be enforced. Innocent I., imbued by the lofty idea of the
prerogatives of his office, did not hesitate to pronounce sentence of
excommunication against the heretics, Pelagius and his pupil Cœlestius.
[173:1]
Thus the right of universal censure grew and Rome came to have her
own officers to execute the law.
8. From the fifth century onward the title of "papa" or "pope" was
unvaryingly used by the bishops of Rome. This title is an abbreviation of
the words "pater patrum"—father of fathers—and was at first given as a
title of respect to ecclesiastics generally. In the Eastern churches it has
continued to the present day, and in the Roman Church the general use of
"father" may be regarded as the continuation of a variation of the original
word. The next step in the early Church was the restriction of the term
"papa" as a special title for bishops. By the fourth century it had been
gradually reserved for the metropolitans and patriarchs. After the fifth
century it was claimed and borne as the badge of the supreme rank of the
successor of St. Peter among the churches of Christendom. Not until 1073,
however, did Gregory VII. formally prohibit the assumption of the title by
other ecclesiastics. This unique transfer of a distinction first from all to a
few, and then from a few to one, indicates a concentration of rank, dignity,

and power in the one thus distinguished. A term, originally one of filial
respect and reverence, becomes one of authority. The name and the office
react on each other.
9. The letters of the Roman bishops gradually came to be regarded in the
Western Church as apostolic ordinances, and laid the foundation for the vast
ecclesiastical legal system.[173:2] Siricius (384-398) wrote the first decretal
which had the force of law.[173:3] A typical illustration of the character and
power of papal letters is seen in the commanding communication of Pope
Celestine sent in 428 to the bishops of Vienne and Narbonne concerning
ceremonial abuses in their provinces. "Inasmuch," he wrote, "as I am
appointed by God to watch over the whole Church, it is my duty
everywhere to root out evil practices and to substitute good ones; for my
pastoral superintendence is restrained by no bounds, but extends to all
places where the name of Christ is known and adored."[174:1] The Gallic
churches received this pronouncement without a whisper of disapproval.
The Council of Chalcedon (451) accepted a letter from Leo I., settling a
disputed point in theology.[174:2] Gelasius I. (494) instructed Emperor
Anastasius on the superiority of the spiritual over the temporal power.[174:3]
The decretals of Gregory the Great spoke with a bold, undisputed authority.
[174:4]

10. The Edict of Milan in 313 did not make Christianity the state religion,
but merely put it on a legal equality with paganism. It was not long,
however, until this new status enabled Christianity to outstrip its old rival
and actually become the constitutional faith. State patronage prepared the
way for a conscious and natural adaptation and assimilation of forms of
imperial polity. Accordingly the admonition of the early period assumed the
tone of mandates; interferences, whether for advice or arbitration, took the
character of appeals, rescripts, and ordinances; and the model of discipline
and ritual for all churches emanated from Rome.
11. Constantine, fully aware of the pre-eminence and power of the Roman
Church, took special pains to bestow upon it his imperial munificence. The
Bishop of Rome was transferred from a humble dwelling to a spacious
palace, possibly to the Lateran, owned to this day by the Pope. Confiscated
property was restored and money donated. Splendid churches were erected.
[175:1]
With grateful hearts the Christians gladly accepted the sovereignty of

the Emperor. As Roman citizens there was no conception in their minds of
the spiritual government of the Church independent of the imperial power.
When Constantine called councils like Arles and Nicæa, heard appeals,
made appointments, and legislated for the Church it was all accepted as a
matter of course. The Church of Rome gained obviously more than any
other spiritual body-corporate of the Christian world. This advantage,
coupled with the wide-reaching claims set forth for at least two centuries,
carried her by a mighty leap far above all other churches and made her
head, in theory and fact, if not in name, the Pope. Thus all the contentions
of the Petrine claim of ecclesiastical government fell into a natural harmony
with the plans of the Empire. The rise of provincial churches corresponded
to the provincial system of the Empire. The elevation of the Bishop of
Rome to a primacy over all churches created a counterpart to the Emperor.
The union of the Empire and Papacy was not only easy and natural—it was
inevitable.
12. No sooner did the Church rise from persecution to a great world power
than the necessity was felt everywhere of some central authority to preserve
its unity. The divisions in the Arian controversy clearly revealed that need.
The Emperor, in a way, sought to meet the requirement, but, when he failed,
he called the Council of Nicæa to serve that end. A universal council might
be of great service in a crisis but it could not easily be in perpetual session.
The Roman Church saw its chance at this juncture and embraced every
opportunity to pose as the supreme unifying power in Christendom. It was a
long and not always an easy struggle, but the effort was at length
successful. It was not long after the day of Constantine that it may be said
that the Church had gained control of the Empire. That conquest gave the
Church an unprecedented pre-eminence. In this movement the Church of
Rome played the leading role. The next great problem was to enable the
Pope to get control of the Church and in this way wield absolute sway over
the Christianised Empire, or, to state it the other way, over the imperialised
Church.
Nothing seems clearer, after taking into account all the factors, than that the
rise of papal power was a natural, logical, historical process which began
with the planting of the Church in Rome. Numerous incidents mark the
different stages of development to show that every new assumption of papal
prerogative was disputed and contested. Indeed nothing more distinctly

marks the growth of papal authority than the fact that these protests were so
numerous and so widely scattered.
In the beginnings of ecclesiastical organisation bishops enjoyed and
exercised an equality of power and rank. The persistence of this idea may
be seen long after the period of Constantine. But hierarchical tendencies
began very early and are very conspicuous in connection with Rome. In the
opening decades of the history of the Church it was customary for
Christians eminent in station or piety to address letters, advisory or
hortatory, to other churches on general points of creed or discipline, or on
special local questions. Thus wrote Clement of Rome, Polycarp, Ignatius,
and others. Not infrequently churches appealed to prominent bishops for
assistance and advice. Often one bishop would censure another for the
manifestation of unwarranted assumptions. Thus Irenæus reprehended
Victor for excommunicating the heretical bishops of Asia and did it as an
equal.[177:1] Tertullian, after he joined the heretical Montanists, scornfully
denies the powers claimed by the Bishop of Rome by asking, "How comes
it that you take to yourself the attribute of the Catholic Church?" He
answers by denying the whole Petrine theory.[177:2] Hippolytus, Bishop of
Pontus, in a controversy with Calixtus I., shows how the claim of the
Bishop of Rome was denied in the beginning of the third century.[177:3]
Origen also repudiated the Petrine claims.[177:4] While the great Cyprian did
so much to create the concept of the one Catholic Church under the
leadership of Rome, yet, at the same time, he strongly asserted episcopal
equality and independence.[177:5]
This important historical fact must never be forgotten in considering the rise
of the Papacy, namely, that the change was not directly from democracy to
monarchy, but from democracy indirectly through oligarchy to monarchy.
In addition to the instances of episcopal equality and independence already
given, the Apostolic Canons in canon 35 ordered each province to
determine for itself which one of its churches should hold the primacy. This
idea persisted long after the time of Constantine and, indeed, the Council of
Antioch in 341 repeats the rule as if recognising a long established
regulation. The Council of Nicæa in 325, while assigning the highest rank
to the Apostolic Sees of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, at the same time
reserved to every province the rights of its own church. In the second
universal council held in 381 at Constantinople, when the great provinces of

the Church were defined and the honourable primacy of Rome clearly
asserted, no interference was allowed with the autonomy of the provincial
churches.
In the West, however, local autonomy and provincial primacy were not so
much emphasised as in the East. Rome and St. Peter's successor residing
there early established a predominance over Spain, Gaul, and Britain. In
Africa, Carthage for the most part obeyed Rome, and in Italy, Ravenna and
Milan occasionally showed stubborn resistance.
13. The civil government naturally approved a system of Church polity
which was in harmony with that of the state. It is no surprise, therefore, that
imperial edicts supported the lofty position of the Bishop of Rome.[178:1]
Did he not represent the Church of the great Empire and the faith of the
Emperor himself? Besides it was always easiest to deal with him as a
representative of the entire Church. In fact there was a sentiment in the
Church that it was much better to carry on all business with imperial
authorities through him. To this end the Council of Sardica in 347 decreed
that all prelates visiting Rome for the purpose of obtaining civic favours
should present their petitions through the Bishop of Rome.[179:1] Theodosius
(380) commanded that all subjects "should hold that faith which the divine
Peter, the Apostle, delivered to the Roman Bishop."[179:2] Valentinian III.
(445) commanded all bishops to recognise the Bishop of Rome as their
leader in both judicial and administrative matters.[179:3] Later Emperors
lavished on the Roman Church wealth, immunities, and exemptions which
greatly enhanced its power and magnified the importance of its head.[179:4]
Justinian, in a decree of 532, declared that he had been very diligent in
subjecting all the clergy of the East to the Roman See. He also expressed a
firm resolution never to allow any business affecting the general welfare of
the Church to be transacted, without notifying the head of all the churches.
[179:5]
Such a positive and sweeping assertion by such a powerful ruler
shows the height to which papal power had climbed by the sixth century.
Pope John II. was highly pleased with the useful acknowledgment of
Justinian, complimented him on his "perfect acquaintance with
ecclesiastical law and discipline," and added: "preserving the reverence due
the Roman See, you have subjected all things unto her, and reduced all
churches to that unity which dwelleth in her alone, to whom the Lord,

through the Prince of the Apostles, did delegate all power; . . . and that the
Apostolic See is in verity the head of all churches, both the rules of the
fathers and the statutes of the princes do manifestly declare, and the same is
now witnessed by your imperial piety."[180:1]
The emancipation of the Church and the great inflow of wealth and pagan
converts wrought a woeful change in its character and habits. A heathen
historian declared that candidates would stoop to any means to secure the
pontifical office because "the successful candidate gains the opportunity of
fattening upon the oblations of matrons; of being conveyed about in stall-
carriages; of appearing in public in costly dresses; of giving banquets so
profuse as to surpass even royal entertainments."[180:2] The Fathers of the
Church like Hilary, Jerome, and Basil deplored the vices, thus rebuked, in
terms of even greater severity.
14. The barbarian invasions on the whole strengthened both the spiritual
and temporal supremacy of the Holy See. They gave the death blow to
paganism in Rome.[180:3] Once converted to Roman Christianity, the
Germans became the staunch supporters of the papal hierarchy and enabled
the Pope to enforce his prerogatives in the West.[180:4] Backed by these
sturdy Teutons, the Pope became the most powerful individual in
Christendom and soon declared his independence of the Byzantine court.
15. Another factor of no small moment was the extraordinary ability of
some of the successors of St. Peter. Among them were men of commanding
leadership, men of brains and faith, fearless administrators, aggressive
judges, and men conscious of the tremendous part the Papacy was destined
to play in the world's history. Conscious of their own power, and standing
on their lofty assumptions, they took advantage of every condition and
circumstance to increase their authority and prerogatives. Thus the office of
the Bishop of Rome continually grew in power and jurisdiction. Julian I.
(337-352), the supporter of Athanasius, held lofty ideas of his power as
Pope[181:1] and gave his famous decision on the eucharist in the Council of
Sardica (343).[181:2] Damascus (366-384), staunch defender of orthodoxy
and champion of celibacy, insisted on the recognition of his jurisdiction
over East Illyricum, and, as a warm friend of Jerome, established the
authority of the Vulgate.[181:3] Siricius (385-398) upheld the jurisdiction of
the Holy See and issued the first decretal now extant.[181:4] In legislating

about discipline and abuses in the Spanish Church his words were intended
to convey universal authority on baptism, marriage, and celibacy. Speaking
in conscious virtue of the authority of the Apostolic See he said: "We bear
the burdens of all that are heavy laden; nay, rather the blessed Apostle Peter
bears them in us, who, as we trust, in all things protects and guards us, the
heirs of his administration."
Innocent I. (402-417) accepted, as a matter of unquestioned right, all that
had been claimed by his predecessors, and surpassed all of them by the
wide range of his pretensions. He sought to obliterate all distinction
between advice and command. He spoke in a dogmatic and imperative tone
on all questions pertaining to doctrine, discipline, and government in the
Church of the West. "It is notorious to all the world," he said, "that no one
save St. Peter and his successors have instituted bishops and founded
churches in all the Gauls, in Spain, Africa, Sicily, and the adjacent islands."
[182:1]
Nor did the West deny the maternity of Rome. Consequently he
asserted complete jurisdiction over Illyria, assumed that the African
churches were dependent upon the See of Rome, formulated fourteen rules
for the Gallic bishops, settled controversies in Spain, and manifested a lofty
attitude toward the churches of the East. He played a prominent part in
repelling the attacks of the barbarians on Rome.[182:2] He was the first to
claim a general prerogative, as "the one single fountain-head which
fertilises the whole world by its manifold streamlets," to revise the
judgment of provincial synods[182:3] and thus to legislate by his own fiat for
the whole Church. As the great guardian of orthodoxy, he condemned
Pelagius and excommunicated him. "Unstained in life, able and resolute,
with a full appreciation of the dignity and prerogatives of his see, he lost no
opportunity of asserting its claims; and under him the idea of universal
papal supremacy, though as yet somewhat shadowy, appears already to be
taking form."
"The first Pope in the proper sense of the word" was Leo I., called the Great
(440-461). "In him the idea of the Papacy . . . became flesh and blood. He
conceived it in great energy and clearness, and carried it out with the
Roman spirit of dominion so far as the circumstance of the time at all
allowed."[182:4] Before his elevation to the Papacy in 440 very little is
known about Leo. His place of birth, nationality, and early education are all
shrouded in obscurity. For ten years prior to his election, Leo was perhaps

the most prominent man in Rome and noted for his learning and piety.
While absent on a civil mission in Gaul, he was chosen Pope. At that time
the Empire was in a very weak condition. Women, surrounded by their
court of eunuchs and parasites, ruled at Constantinople and Ravenna.
Barbarians were pressing in from all sides. Heresies rent the East and
ignorance was fast covering the West. Western Christendom must be
consolidated and disciplined so that it could meet the crudeness and heresy
of the powerful invaders and overcome both. The See of St. Peter must
replace the tottering imperial power. The law of Rome must once more be
obeyed over the Empire, but this time as the ecclesiastical law. Leo was the
only great man in Church or state, so the burden was thrust upon his
shoulders.
Leo possessed those qualifications which made him the master spirit of his
age and the "Founder of the mediæval Papacy." Lofty in his aims, severe
and pure in life, of indomitable courage and perseverance, inspired by a
fanatical belief in the Petrine theory, uncompromisingly orthodox, the great
first theologian in the Roman Chair, he made the first clear-cut exposition
of the extreme limits and prerogatives of the mediæval Papacy.[183:1] He
asserted and exercised the superabounding power of the Pope to regulate
every department of Church government without any human limitations.
Driven on by a dream of the universal dominion of Rome and Christianity,
a great orator who swayed the Romans at will, he acted as a resolute
Christian monarch conscious of his divine mission. Possessed of a capacity
for complex rule, an extraordinary organiser and administrator, he used all
his ability to make Christianity and the Papacy the one great world power.
Twice he saved Rome from the barbarians, once in 452 when Attila, King of
the Huns, was persuaded to withdraw without attacking the city, and again
in 455 when the Vandal leader, Genseric, was induced to spare the capital
from fire and murder. He drove heresy out of Italy and suppressed it in
Spain. He forced the African Christians to submit to his authority (443),
regained the papal power lost in East Illyria, compelled the Gallic bishops
to obey his mandates,[184:1] and even asserted his supremacy over the
Eastern Church. Through a legate he presided over the fourth ecumenical
Council of Chalcedon, guided its theological discussions, and was "the
finisher of the true doctrine of the presence of Christ."

Pope Leo laid the greatest possible emphasis upon the fact that there is one
God, one Church, one universal bishop, one faith, and one interpreter of
that faith, and that the recognition of this basic fact alone could bring unity
and efficiency to Christendom. He very wisely cultivated a close alliance
with the state and secured from Valentinian III. the promulgation of an
imperial edict in 445, which raised him to the exalted position of "spiritual
director and governor" of the Universal Church. Thus the Pope would issue
his laws for the Church, just as the Emperor did for the Empire.
After Leo the Great, who died in 461, no important Pope filled the Chair of
St. Peter until the time of Gregory I., called the Great (590-604). If Leo
drew the outline of the mediæval Papacy, Gregory made it a living power.
He issued the first declaration of independence and assumed actual
jurisdiction over the whole Western Church. His high ideal was completely
realised so that even Gibbon calls his pontificate the most edifying period
of Church history.[185:1]
Gregory I. was born at Rome in 540 of a rich, pious, senatorial family. His
great-grandfather was Pope Felix II. (483-492). His father was a wealthy
lawyer and senator. His mother and two aunts were canonised. He was very
well educated for that period as a "saint among the saints" as John the
Deacon, his biographer, declared. In grammar, rhetoric, and logic he was
second to none in Rome.[185:2] He studied law preparatory to public life and
was well versed in the inspiring history of Rome and in current events. At
thirty he was a distinguished senator and three years later Emperor Justin II.
made him Prætor of Rome.
From his mother Gregory inherited a profound religious temperament,
hence he naturally became imbued with the ascetic religious ideas of the
age. The monastic crusade of the West, now at its height, found him a
willing convert. Upon his father's death, Gregory used his vast wealth for
charity and for founding seven monasteries. Persuaded by his pious mother,
he himself became a monk in 575. Selling all his costly furniture, fine
clothes, and jewels for the poor, he turned his own house into a monastery
and almost killed himself by his vigorous fasts and ascetic vigils. Soon he
gained great fame as a monk, was chosen abbot, founded six monasteries in
Sicily and enforced a tyrannical discipline.[186:1]

Gregory was a man of too great ability, however, to be penned up in a
monastery; consequently Pope Benedict called him to his court as one of
the seven deacons of Rome. In 579 he was sent, as a papal nuncio, to
Constantinople to reconcile the Emperor and the Pope and to unite the
Eastern and Western churches, while at the same time he was instructed to
solicit military aid against the troublesome Lombards. For six years he
remained at Constantinople on this mission and gained much fame as a
theologian and diplomat. Although he failed to reunite the two branches of
the Christian Church, he did bring about an amicable understanding
between the Pope and the Emperor and got some help against the
Lombards. In a discussion with the Patriarch of Constantinople over the
nature of the body after resurrection, Gregory won a signal victory. During
his stay in the East he wrote his renowned work Magna Moralia. In 585 he
returned to Rome, resumed his duties as abbot, became a popular preacher,
and was recognised generally as the most able man in the Church.
When Pope Pelagius II. died in 590, the western part of Europe was in a
very critical condition. The Teutonic barbarians had overrun the Empire
from England around to Constantinople, destroying or burying nearly all
that was best in the civilisation of old Rome. Justinian, to be sure, had
recaptured Rome in 556, and it was to remain nominally under imperial rule
until the time of Charles the Great (800), but the Emperor's hold on the
West was limited and precarious. His representative, the exarch, lived
mostly at Ravenna. The Pope, however, acknowledged the sovereignty of
the Emperor both in theory and practice. As a result of the weakness and
inactivity of the exarch, nearly all Italy lay prostrate before the fierce
Lombards, and no efficient help came from the East.
The city of Rome was in a miserable condition. The Tiber had overflowed
its banks and had swept away the granaries of corn, thus entailing famine
and starvation. A dreadful pestilence had swept away thousands, among
them the Pope himself. In a letter, Gregory compared the Roman See to an
old shattered ship, letting in the waves on all sides, tossed by daily storms,
its planks rotten and gnawed by rats—almost a wreck![187:1] An imperial
organisation was needed to give Latin-Teutonic Europe the highest type of
an organised, Christian civilisation under one law and one faith, and thus to
preserve for future generations the best that was in old Greece and Rome, as
well as the best that was in the Germans. "It is impossible to conceive what

had been the confusion, the lawlessness, the chaotic state of the Middle
Ages, without the mediæval Papacy."[188:1] A man of heart, power, and lofty
purpose—a ruler who saw the opportunity and need of the Christian Church
in Western Europe, who felt her new impulses, and who could guide her
through a crucial period to a great and useful career—such a man the
Roman senate, clergy, and people believed that they had found in the monk
Gregory. He alone could save them from Teutonic anarchy, on the one hand,
and from Roman decay on the other.
Although elected Pope unanimously by the senate, clergy, and people of
Rome, Gregory did not want the office. He felt unworthy of it and feared its
duties might lure him to worldliness—hence he fled the city and wrote the
Emperor beseeching him not to confirm the election. But the Roman prefect
intercepted the letter and sent instead a petition urging the confirmation.
Gregory was captured at last and forcibly consecrated Supreme Pontiff. He
was the best qualified man in all Christendom for the place. He represented
the best in Rome and the best in Christianity. His comprehensive policy, his
grasp of fundamental issues, his political training, his capacity for details,
made him the man for the hour. He merged the office of Roman Emperor
and Christian bishop into essentially one and thus became the real founder
of the mediæval Papacy. His pontificate, therefore, was an era in the history
of the Church.
Gregory's policy was to uphold and extend the Petrine theory to the utmost,
although personally refusing the title of "Universal Bishop." He censured
the ambitious Patriarch of Constantinople for assuming that title and wrote
to John of Syracuse: "With regard to the church of Constantinople, who
doubts that it is subject to the Apostolic See? . . . The Apostolic See is the
head of all churches."[189:1] To the Patriarch of Alexandria he wrote: "In the
preface of the epistle . . . you have thought fit to make use of a proud title,
calling me Universal Pope. But I beg your most sweet Holiness to do this
no more."[189:2] Again he exclaimed: "Whoever calls himself Universal
Bishop is Antichrist."[189:3] Gregory meant to exercise as much autonomy as
possible in ruling the West but, at the same time, to submit to imperial
authority in all instances of conflicting claims.[189:4] He planned to unify
and purify the Church and to extend Christianity over the known world.

Under Gregory's able management papal power was consolidated and made
supreme in Western Europe. He systematised papal theology, and perfected
and beautified the Church liturgy until it took three hours to celebrate the
mass.[189:5] He regulated the calendar of festivals. He checked heresies by
driving Manichæism and Arianism out of Italy, Spain, and Gaul, and even
advised the persecution of African Donatists (591). The Jews, however,
were tolerated and efforts made to convert them. To get rid of simony he
personally refused all presents and abolished all fees in his court. From
priest to bishop he corrected the clergy and urged upon them celibacy.[190:1]
He restored discipline throughout the Church and patronised all sorts of
charity. He fought paganism fiercely by denouncing the Roman classics and
even boasting of his own ignorance of them,[190:2] while at the same time he
sent missionaries over most all of Western Europe. Monasticism, which he
himself had adopted with all his heart, he encouraged and improved by
restoring the early rigid discipline; by separating monks and clergy; by
restricting admission to religious houses to persons above the age of
eighteen years; by insisting on a probation of two years; by condemning
deserters to life imprisonment; and by favouring the Benedictine Rule as the
model. The papal court was reorganised, and clergy were substituted for
boys and secular adults to attend the Pope. Even some efforts were made to
check the European slave-trade.
In administrative power Gregory was perhaps inferior to Leo I. The Church
was very wealthy, owning lands by this time all over Western Europe and in
Africa. The Pope had to rule these vast estates as a mighty landlord.
Subdeacons were his agents. Tenants were controlled politically as well as
religiously. The surplus income was given to the clergy, papal domestics,
monasteries, churches, cemeteries, almshouses, and hospitals. On the first
of every month he distributed to the poor corn, wine, cheese, vegetables,
oil, fish, meat, clothes, and money. The country was full of tramps and poor
clergy; these he provided for and also supported impoverished nobles.[190:3]
His letters are full of items about law-suits, disputes over weights and
measures, collection of rents, emancipation of slaves, marriage of tenants,
produce accounts, and a multitude of other affairs.
In addition to these multitudinous duties, he was virtual King of Italy. He
denounced the corrupt exarch and drilled the Romans for military defence,
though he always laboured for peace. He held the haughty Lombards in

check and converted them to Christianity. He extended his authority over
Africa, Spain, Gaul, England, and Ireland and even claimed jurisdiction
over the East. He was the first Pope to become in act and in influence, if not
in name, the temporal sovereign of the West. He paved the way for
Hildebrand and Innocent III.
In culture Gregory was a true son of an age of credulity and superstition. He
believed all the current tales about ghosts, miracles, and supernatural
manifestations. The linen of St. Paul and his bondage-chains, he declared
genuine and possessed of miracle-working power.[191:1] To the converted
Visigothic King in Spain he sent a key made from Peter's chain, a piece of
the true cross, and some hairs from the head of John the Baptist. Indeed this
was a practice which he followed in the case of many of his friends whom
he desired to especially favour.[191:2] The "monuments of classic genius" he
despised, asserting that it was his wish to be unknown in this world and
glorified in the next. He very severely censured the profane learning of a
bishop who taught grammar, studied the Latin poets, and pronounced
Jupiter and Christ in the same breath. It was his constant habit, on the other
hand, to enforce upon all Christians—clergy and laity alike—the great duty
of reading the Bible. Still his own literary work was rather voluminous. He
wrote 850 letters—more than all his 69 predecessors together—on all topics
and to all Christendom. In addition he produced his Magna Moralia,[192:1]
some homilies, a book on pastoral rule, and liturgical treatises. His
productions are below mediocrity and he cannot compare with Leo I. as a
critic, expositor, or original thinker. He had but a slight knowledge of Greek
and knew no Hebrew, nor did he possess a deep acquaintance with the
Church Fathers. Yet for that age he was a cultured man and enjoyed a high
reputation for piety and learning, and spoke to unborn generations.
"By his writings and the fame of his personal sanctity, by the conversion of
England and the introduction of an impressive ritual, Gregory the Great did
more than any other Pontiff to advance Rome's ecclesiastical authority."
[192:2]
His virtues and faults, his simplicity and cunning, his pride and
humility, his ignorance and his learning—all were suited to the times and
made him "the greatest of all the early Popes."[192:3] He closes the period of
the Church Fathers and opens the Middle Ages. For 150 years there were no

material acquisitions of ecclesiastical power, hence the history of the
Papacy becomes very uninteresting and comparatively unimportant.[192:4]
When Gregory the Great closed his remarkable career (604) the Papacy of
the Middle Ages had been born and in form resembled the Empire.[193:1]
The head of the Church was known as "Pope." Because of his peculiar
personal holiness he could be judged by none,[193:2] though himself judge of
all. The hierarchy of officers had been practically completed.[193:3] The laity
was distinctly cut off from the clergy, and deprived of powers exercised in
the first and second centuries. The election of the clergy had changed from
a democratic to an aristocratic process. There was a marked evolution in
rites and ceremonies. Art and music were now employed. The mass
gradually became the powerful, mysterious centre of all worship, while
public worship became imposing, dramatic, theatrical. Festivals were
multiplied almost without number. The worship of martyrs and saints[193:4]
became so widespread and popular that a "calendar of saints" was formed.
Pilgrimages grew to be very numerous and the use of relics[193:5] developed
such a craze that the fathers, councils, Popes, and at last the Emperor
himself sought to check it. Religious pageants were multiplied and the use
of images and pictures of saints were encouraged in the churches. The
Virgin Mary was exalted to the eminence of divinity. In imitation of the
court-calendar, loftier titles of spiritual dignity were adopted or invented for
the higher ecclesiastics. The dogma of the "unity of outward representation"
had acquired not merely a material and visible, but also a sacramental,
character. Thus the Church was the only channel of spiritual graces, hence
union with the Church was absolutely indispensable to salvation. The
Church had become immensely wealthy in lands, buildings, and furniture.
This corrupting familiarity with secular affairs was early seen and
denounced. St. Chrysostom sharply rebuked the bishops who "had fallen to
the condition of land-stewards, hucksters, brokers, publicans, and pay-
clerks." The Council of Chalcedon ordered the bishops to appoint land-
stewards to look after their estates.[194:1]

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:

1.—New Testament.
2.—New Testament Apocrypha.
3.—Church Fathers. See Chap. X.
4.—Acts of the Councils. See Chap. IX.
5.—Roman Civil Law. Various English translations.
6.—Canon Law. Various collections. Best by Richter, 2 vols.,
Leip. 1839. No English translation.
7.—Apostolical Constitutions. Various English translations. Best
in Ante-Nic. Christ. Lib., vol. 17. Cf. Harnack, Sources of
the Apostolic Canons. Lond., 1895.
8.—Apostolic Canons. Various English translations.
9.—Leo I., Epistles to Flavian. Transl. by C. A. Heurtley. Oxf.,
1885. Letters and Sermons. Lib. of Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers, xii.
10.—Gregory I., Book of Pastoral Rule and Selected Epistles.
Ibid.
Bibliographical note:—Unfortunately the best collections of
materials have not been put into English, like: 1.—Mirbt,
Quellen zur Geschichte des Papsttum. Leipz., 1895. 2.—
Hardouin, Acta Conciliorum. Paris, 1815. 12 vols. 3.—Mansi,
Collectio Sacrorum Conciliorum. Flor. & Ven., 1759-98. 31
vols. 4.—Jaffé, Regesta Pontificum Romanorum. Leipz.,
1881-8. 2 vols.
B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Allies, T. W., The Holy See from Leo I. to Gregory I.
Lond., 1888.

2.—Balzani, U., Early Chronicles of Italy. Lond., 1883; i.-
iii.
3.—Barry, W., The Papal Monarchy. N. Y., 1901.
4.—Bigg, Church's Task under the Roman Empire. Oxf.,
1905.
5.—Borrow, I., The Pope's Supremacy. New ed. Lond.,
1859.
6.—Bower, A., History of the Popes. Phil., 1844. 3 vols.
7.—Bright, W., The Roman See in the Early Church. Lond.,
1890.
8.—Brock, M., Rome: Pagan and Papal. Lond., 1883.
9.—Bryce, J., The Holy Roman Empire. Many eds. Last ed.
Lond. and N. Y., 1904.
10.—Creighton, M., History of the Papacy. Bost., 1882-94.
Vol. i.
11.—Dudden, Gregory the Great. Lond. and N. Y., 1905. 2
vols.
12.—Duff, D., The Early Church. N. Y., 1891.
13.—Gasquet, A Life of Pope Gregory the Great. Lond.,
1904.
14.—Gore, C., Leo the Great. Lond., 1878.
15.—Gosselin, J. E., Power of the Pope during the Middle
Ages. Lond., 1853.
16.—Greenwood, T., Cathedra Petri. Lond., 1859-72. Vols.
i.-ii.
17.—Hussey, R., Rise of the Papal Power. Lond., 1863.
18.—Kellett, F. W., Pope Gregory the Great and his
Relations with Gaul. N. Y., 1890.

19.—Kenrick, F. P., The Primacy of the Apostolic See. 7th
ed. Balt., 1855.
20.—Lea, H. C., Studies in Church History. Phil., 1883.
21.—Legge, A. O., Growth of the Temporal Power of the
Papacy. Lond., 1870.
22.—Littledale, R. F., The Petrine Claims. Lond., 1889.
23.—Mann, H. K., Lives of the Popes in the Early Middle
Ages. Lond., 1906.
24.—Manning, H. E., The Temporal Power of the Vicar of
Jesus Christ. N. Y., 1880.
25.—Meyrick, T., Lives of the Early Popes. Lond., 1878-80.
2 vols.
26.—Milman, H. H., Latin Christianity. Lond., 1840.
Several revisions.
27.—Murphy, The Chair of Peter. Lond., 1888.
28.—Pennington, A. R., Epochs of the Papacy. Lond., 1881.
Ch. 1.
29.—Platina, B., Lives of the Popes. Lond., 1893.
30.—Rainy, R., The Ancient Catholic Church (to 451).
31.—Riddle, J. E., History of the Papacy. Lond., 1854.
32.—Rivington, L., The Roman Primacy (430-451). Lond.,
1899.
33.—Snow, T. B., St. Gregory the Great. Lond., 1892.
34.—Soechi, B., Lives of the Popes to Gregory VII. Lond.,
1888.
35.—Tardini, C., The Popes of Rome and the Popes of the
Oriental Churches. Lond., 1871. Ch. 4.

36.—Wilkes, G. A. T., History of the Popes from Linus to
Pius IX. Lond., 1851.
II.—GENERAL:

Adams, Civ., ch. 4. Adeney, ch. 11. Allies, Peter's Rock, vol.
iv., ch. 32-34, 38, 42, 47. Alzog, i., § 87, 130. Butler, ch.
44, 50. Cheetham, ch. 9, § 4. Coxe, Lect. 3, § 23. Crooks,
ch. 28. Darras, i.-ii. Döllinger, ii., ch. 5. Duff, 63, 108,
249, 341, 557, 605. Fisher, 105-108, 157-160. Fitzgerald,
i., 235-264; ii., 1-28. Foulkes, 105, 328, 348, 368, 382.
Gieseler, i., § 68, 69, 91-94. Gilmartin, i., ch. 21.
Gregorovius, i. Hase, § 128-130. Hurst, i., 325 ff. Kurtz,
i., 264-274. Mahan, bk. 3, ch. 4. Milman, bk. 1, 2.
Milner, ii., cent. 4, ch. 17; cent. 6, ch. 5-8. Moeller, i.,
340-355. Neander i., § 2; ii., § 2. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 6,
p. 303. Schaff, pd. 2, ch. 4, § 50-53; pd. 3, ch. 3, § 26;
ch. 5, § 60-64; pd. 4, ch. 4.

FOOTNOTES:
[165:1] Lea, Stud. in Ch. Hist., 118.
[165:2] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 232.
[166:1] It must be said, however, that the Eastern Patriarchs refused to recognise
the decision. Gieseler, i., 382; Milman, i., 130. Cf. Socrates, ii., 15 ff.
[166:2] Hard., Concil., i., p. 610 ff.
[166:3] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, i., 205.
[166:4] Can. 4, 5, 7.
[167:1] The Council of Sardica was not recognised, however, either by the
churches of the East or of Africa.
[167:2] Mansi, iii., 624.
[167:3] Cod. Theod. Novell., tit. xxix., Suppl., p. 12; Robinson, Readings, i., 72.
The same power was conferred by the Council of Chalcedon (451) on the Bishop
of Constantinople. Canon 9.
[167:4] Ep. 13; Robinson, Readings, i., 72.
[167:5] Ep. 9.
[167:6] Greenwood, i., 270-279.

[168:1] Hard., Concil., i., 947.
[168:2] Ep. 209.
[168:3] Ep. 4, c. 5.
[168:4] Lea, Stud. in Ch. Hist., 139.
[169:1] Berington and Kirk, Faith of Catholics, ii., 1-112.
[170:1] Migne, xi.; Optatus, lib. ii., c. 2, 3; lib. vii., c. 3. Mileve is in Numidia.
[170:2] De Excidio Satyri, i., 47; Mansi, Concil., iii., cal. 622.
[170:3] Jerome, Ep. 15, 146; Greenwood, i., 232.
[170:4] Ps. contra Don.; Ep. 178; Greenwood, i., 296.
[170:5] Ignatius, Martyrs, n. 4; Hom. ii. in Principium Actorum, n. 6, iii., p. 70;
Theodoret, Ep. 83, 113, 116; Cyril, Ep. ad Coelest.
[171:1] Canon 6; Gieseler, i., 378. Later an interpolation made canon 6 read:
"Rome has always held the primacy." First used at Chalcedon in 451.
[171:2] Canons 3, 4, and 5; Mansi, iii., 23; Sardica was not a universal council.
[171:3] Milman, i., 101. Cf. Hefele, i., 539; Greenwood, i., 239, 240.
[171:4] Mansi, Concil., iii., cal. 622.
[172:1] Gieseler, i., 385, 395, 396; Schaff, iii., 313.
[172:2] Matt. xvi., 19; xviii., 18; 1 Cor. v., 3-5; 2 Cor. vi., 14, 17; Rom. xvi., 17;
Gal. i., 8, 9; Tit. iii., 10; 1 Thess. iii., 6, 14, 15.
[173:1] Hard., Concil., i., 1025.
[173:2] Gieseler, i., 382; Milman, i., 129.
[173:3] Robinson, Readings, i., 68.
[174:1] Bower, i., 383.
[174:2] Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d ser., xii., 70, Letter 43.
[174:3] Robinson, Readings, i., 72.
[174:4] Ibid., 73.
[175:1] Lateran, Vatican, St. Paul, St. Agnes, St. Lawrence, and St. Marcellinus.
[177:1] Euseb., Eccl. Hist., v., 24.
[177:2] On Modesty, in Lib. of Ante-Nic. Fathers, xviii.
[177:3] Hippolytus, Refutation of Heresies, ix., 7.
[177:4] Greenwood, i., 109.
[177:5] Ibid., 121 ff.
[178:1] Boyd, W. K., Eccles. Edicts of the Theodos. Code, N. Y., 1906.
[179:1] Can. 9. Later the same procedure was adopted at Constantinople.
[179:2] Cod. Theod., c. 16.

[179:3] Robinson, Readings, i., 72.
[179:4] Greenwood, i., 324.
[179:5] Cod. Justin., i., tit. 2.
[180:1] Greenwood, Cathedra Petri, ii., 137.
[180:2] Ammianus Marcellinus, lib. xxvii., c. 3.
[180:3] Gieseler, i., 219; Schaff, iii., 68, 69.
[180:4] Hutton, W. H., The Church and the Barbarians, N. Y., 1906.
[181:1] Apolog. contra Arian, 21-26; Euseb., Soc., and Soz.
[181:2] Smith and Wace, iii., 532.
[181:3] Ibid., i., 783.
[181:4] Robinson, Readings, i., 68.
[182:1] Hard., Concil., i., 995.
[182:2] Milman, i., 143, 4.
[182:3] 1st Epist., ii., ch. 3; Lea, Studies in Ch. Hist., 133; Hard., Concil., i.,
1025.
[182:4] Smith and Wace, iii., 652; Post-Nicene Fathers, xii.; Greenwood, i., bk.
2, ch. 4-6; Milman, i., bk. 2, ch. 4; Schaff, iii., 314.
[183:1] Thatcher and McNeal, Source-Book of Med. Hist., No. 35. Nic. and Post-
Nic. Fathers, 2d ser., xii., contains his life and letters. See sermon by Leo I. on
Peter's leadership in Robinson, Readings, i., 69; Orr, Source Book, § 10.
[184:1] Hilary, Archbishop of Arles, was excommunicated and Emperor
Valentinian III. was induced to uphold the action. Greenwood, i., 351 ff.
[185:1] Gibbon, Decline and Fall, iv., 421; Nicene and Post-Nicene Fathers, 2d
ser., xii., contains Gregory's letters and sermons; Gregory of Tours; Bede; Snow,
St. Gregory the Great; Barmby, Gregory the Great; Hutton, Church of the Sixth
Century; Neander, iii., 112; Hallam, 328.
[185:2] Gregory of Tours, x., 1.
[186:1] Soon many poetical tales were imputed to him. It was said a new
stomach was given him so he could fast. An angel visited him disguised as a
sailor. Milman, ii., 45. Read Bede for the story which led to the conversion of the
Anglo-Saxons. For his treatment of the monk Justus see Milman, i., 432. Cf.
Montalembert, ii., 84-87; Dict. Christ. Biog., ii., 779.
[187:1] Epistle v. in Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, xii., 74.
[188:1] Milman, ii., 44.
[189:1] Ep., ix., 12; xiii., 45.
[189:2] Ep., viii., 30; ix., 12.
[189:3] Milman, ii., 72; Ep., vii., 31.
[189:4] Milman, ii., 81.

[189:5] He created the Gregorian chant, instituted singing schools, minutely
described the ceremonies, prescribed the variety and change of garments, and
laid down the order of processions. The duties of priests and deacons were
outlined and their parishes defined.
[190:1] Ep., iii., 34, 50.
[190:2] Ep., xi., 54.
[190:3] It was also reported that he fed 3000 virgins.
[191:1] Epistle xxx. in Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, xii., 154.
[191:2] Ibid., 82, 130, 243.
[192:1] This was an exposition of the Book of Job, Ep. 49.
[192:2] Bryce, 150.
[192:3] Adams, Civ. of M. A., 230.
[192:4] Hallam, 329.
[193:1] Gieseler, i., 382; Milman, i., 128.
[193:2] Hefele, iii., 20. In the early Church "pope," or "papa" or "abba," was
applied to all clergy. Schaff, iii., 300. "Pope" is still used for all priests in the
Greek Church and "father" in the Latin Church. See Cyprian, Ep., viii., 1.
[193:3] Stewards, secretaries, nurses, and undertakers were regarded as being in
a sense members of the lower clergy. Schaff, iii., 262.
[193:4] For biblical authority see Luke xv., 10; Rev. viii., 3, 4.
[193:5] Began in the second century.
[194:1] Hard., Concil., ii., 612.

CHAPTER XI
MONASTICISM

Outline: I.—Importance of the institution of monasticism. II.—
Antecedents and analogies. III.—Causes of the origin of
Christian monasticism. IV.—Evolution of Christian
monasticism. V.—Spread of group monasticism from the East to
the West. VI.—Development of monasticism in Western Europe.
VII.—Opposition to monasticism. VIII.—Result and influences
of monasticism. IX.—Sources.
Monasticism, the story of which is one of the strangest problems in Church
history and is enshrouded in legend, originated outside the Church, but soon
became the dominant factor in the Church. It was not the product of
Christianity so much as an inheritance—an adopted child. It supported the
orthodox faith,[198:1] upheld the papal theory, monopolised ecclesiastical
offices, helped to mould the Church constitution, and supplied the great
standing army of the Popes. It was a determining factor in European
civilisation. The monk was the ideal man of the Middle Ages. He stood for
the highest morality and best culture of that period. As a missionary he
planted the Church over Western Europe. He stood between the laity and
the hierarchy, as the friend of the former and the champion of the latter. He
created the system of public charity and had a marked influence on industry
and agriculture. Before long a monk sat in the chair of St. Peter and sought
to rule the Church. The first series of great ecclesiastical reforms was
produced by the hermits in the fourth century, the Benedictines in the sixth,
the Clugniacs in the eleventh, and the Begging Orders in the thirteenth.
Monasticism, therefore, was a very important institution in the rise of the
Church.
Monasticism originated in antiquity and was based on a general principle
broader than any creed. It grew out of that mystical longing for an
uninterrupted inner enjoyment of the soul—out of a passion for self-
brooding, and out of an abnormal view of the seclusion necessary for the

cultivation of the true religious life, which would save the soul from sin. It
was simply an effort to explain the riddle of existence and to comprehend
the true relations of God, man, and the world. Every great religion has
expressed itself in some form of monasticism. Centuries before Jesus there
were monks and crowded convents among the Hindoos. The sacred writings
of the ancient Hindoos (2400 B.C.) reveal many legends about holy hermits,
and give ascetic rules.[199:1] Buddha, who founded his faith possibly six
centuries B.C., enjoined celibacy on his priests.[199:2] Alexander the Great
found monasticism flourishing in the East. In Greece the "Pagan Jesuits,"
the Pythagoreans, were a kind of ascetic order.[199:3] Plato, with his
powerful appeal for the ideal life, had a marked influence upon the ascetic
views of the early Christians, and Neo-Platonism became a positive force in
Christendom during the third and fourth centuries. The priestesses of
Delphic Apollo, Achaian Juno, and Scythian Diana were virgins.[200:1] In
Judea the ancient Nazarites[200:2] afford an example. The Essenes seem to
be the direct forerunners of Christian monasticism.[200:3] In addition there
were conspicuous individual examples in Jewish history like that of Elisha,
Elijah, Samuel, and John the Baptist.[200:4] In Rome the name of vestal
virgin was a proverb. In Egypt, the priests of Serapis were ascetics,[200:5]
the priestesses of Ceres were separated from their husbands,[200:6] and the
Therapeutæ were rigid monks who lived about the time of Jesus.[200:7]
These influences and examples, coupled with Platonic philosophy, and the
interpretation put upon the teachings and lives of Jesus and His Apostles,
produced Christian monasticism. Jesus Himself was unmarried, poor, and
had not "where to lay his head." He commanded the rich young man to sell
his property for the poor,[200:8] and said: "Take no thought for the morrow
what ye shall eat and what ye shall drink, or wherewithal ye shall be
clothed." St. John and probably other Apostles were celibates.[200:9] The
Apostles likewise taught that following Jesus meant "forsaking father,
mother, brethren, wife, children, houses and lands."[201:1] They urged
Christians to crucify the flesh, and disparaged marriage,[201:2] and they too
were poor and homeless like their Master.[201:3]
The supreme question asked by earnest Christians in all ages has been this:
"What is the true, the ideal Christian life?"[201:4] At every step of her

progress the Church has given a different answer to the important query. Yet
in all this divergent opinion there is plainly seen one common conviction.
To live in the service of God, in the religious denunciation of the world, and
in the abnegation of the joys of life—that is the universal reply. In the early
Church this position was very strongly emphasised and led, in consequence,
to the rise of monasticism. Hence it may be said that the monastic ideals
simply expressed the highest ideals of the Church, and the history of
monasticism becomes a vital part of the history of the mediæval Church.
It must be remembered, too, that the old belief that the Church was poor,
pure, and wholly spiritual until the time of Constantine is a false tradition.
The secularisation and materialisation of the Church was so noticeable as to
cause complaint as early as the third century. The Church Fathers
unanimously deplore the precocious decay of the Christian world.[201:5] To
the minds of many, therefore, the only way to escape the damning effects of
contamination with the Roman world, the only way to elude the evils in the
Church itself, and the only sure way of leading the ideal Christian life was
to flee from villages and cities to the mountains and deserts. "They fled not
only from the world, but from the world within the Church." When
Christianity was drawn from the catacombs to the court of the Cæsars, it
lost its power to regenerate souls. That memorable alliance hindered neither
the ruin of the Empire, nor "the servitude and mutilation of the Church."
[202:1]
Associated with the power that so long sought to destroy her, the
Church was brought face to face with the tremendous task of transforming
and replacing the Empire. At the same time the Church made a desperate
attempt, though in vain, to keep alive the spiritual torches of apostolic
Christianity. The solution of that great problem, however, was left to the
monks.
The philosophy which prevailed among many of the early Christians held
that the material world is all evil, and that the spiritual world is the only
good. Gnosticism, which permeated Christendom in the second century,
declared that the body is the seat of evil and hence that it must be abused in
order to purify the soul within.[202:2] Montanism advocated an excessive
puritanism, and prescribed numerous fasts and severities, which paved the
way for asceticism. Other groups of Christian philosophers exercised
similar influences.[202:3] The Church itself commended fasting and other
practices for the cultivation of spiritual benefit. Celibacy of the clergy

gradually became the rule. As a result the belief soon developed that the
surest way to gain eternal joys in heaven was to turn away from the
transitory pleasures of earth. Christianity in the first and second centuries
was the gospel of renunciation and resurrection. The next logical step was
to make the body as miserable as possible here—sort of a pious sacrifice—
in order to make the soul happier hereafter. To die that one might really live,
to find one's life in losing it—that became the supreme purpose of earthly
existence. The most eminent of the early Fathers commended asceticism,
particularly fasting and celibacy, and many likewise practised it. It is easy
to feel that the air was charged with ascetic ideals. The literature, the
philosophy, and the religion of the day all pointed out narrow paths that led
to holiness. As a result there were many ascetics of both sexes, although
they were bound by no irrevocable vow.[203:1]
The persecutions of Christians by the Roman government forced many to
flee for safety to the deserts and mountains.[203:2] Thus Paul of Thebes and
St. Anthony fled in the Decian persecutions about the year 250. When
persecution ceased, martyrdom had become such a holy act, and such a
short, easy road to a sainted, eternal life, that the most devout resolved that
since they could not die as martyrs, they would at least live as martyrs. The
mildness of the climate in Egypt and Palestine, where the small amount of
food and clothing needed for subsistence was easily procured, made those
regions the birthplace of monasticism. The growth of worldliness in the
Church, with the increase of numbers and wealth, gave rise to many cries
for reform. The legalisation and, along with it, the paganisation of the
Church gave birth to much that was bitterly denounced. The union of the
Church and state was the climax—the Church was no longer the "bride of
Christ," it was held, but the mistress of a worldly ruler. Hence monasticism
turned its back not only on the world but also on the Church. To understand
it, therefore, it must be viewed as the first great reformation in the Church
—a desire to return to simple, pure, spiritual, apostolic Christianity.[204:1]
Christian monasticism did not begin at any fixed time or place. It was
slowly evolved as a curious mixture of heathen, Jewish, and Christian
influences. The whole Church had an ascetic aspect during the apostolic
age, hence endurance, hardihood, and constant self-denial were required of
its members. But for one hundred and fifty years no proofs of a distinct
class of ascetics can be found within the Church, except, perhaps, the order

of widows, devoted to charity, supported by gifts from the faithful, and
sanctioned by the Apostles.[204:2] In the second century, however, a class of
orthodox Christians, who desired to attain Christian perfection, were called
"abstinents" or "ascetics." They withdrew from society but not from the
Church, renounced marriage and property, fasted and prayed, and eagerly
sought a martyr's death.[204:3] The belief that the end of the world was near
no doubt did much to emphasise the necessity of preparing for the day of
judgment. By the third century the Christian literature, philosophy, and
theology were tinged with asceticism. Cyprian, Origen, Hieracus,
Methodius, Tertullian, and others taught the efficacy of asceticism in one
form or another and, to some extent, practised it themselves,[205:1] but
always within the Church. The heretical sects became still more prominent
in their reverence for austerities and even outdid the orthodox in practice.
[205:2]
This first stage of asceticism was neither organised, nor absolutely cut
off from the Church.
The product of this wide-spread ascetic agitation was the creation of a new
type, namely, anchoretism, or hermit life, about the middle of the third
century. This was the second phase of monastic evolution. It appeared first
in Egypt about the fourth century, where the physical conditions were most
suitable, in the home of the Therapeutæ and Serapis monks, the stronghold
of heresy and paganism, the birthplace of Neo-Platonism amid a people
famous for fanaticism. The Decian persecution in 250 was, apparently, the
immediate occasion for its birth. Anthony of Alexandria, and Ammon were
the earliest representatives of this new form of asceticism. Paul of Thebes,
however, is now generally believed to be a pious romance from the pen of
Jerome, but he may still be viewed as typical.
Anthony (251-356), the "patriarch of the monks," was the real founder of
anchoretism. He early sold his estate for the poor, gave his sister to a body
of virgins, and cut himself off from the world by retiring to a desert in order
to devote his life to spiritual things. He lived as a strict hermit till a great
age, gained a world-wide fame, had many visitors seeking spiritual
guidance, and won many converts to monasticism. Soon the wildest tales
were told about his divine powers. Before he died Egypt was full of
hermits, and some were found in Palestine. Athanasius wrote his biography,
which was read over all Christendom and scattered seeds of anchoretism
everywhere—a book which influenced the thought of the age. Ammon had

a settlement of possibly 5000 hermits at Mount Nitria in Lower Egypt and
was almost as renowned as Anthony, his great contemporary.[206:1]
The example of these illustrious characters drew thousands of both the
curious and the sincere to Egypt.[206:2] Whole congregations, led by their
bishops, withdrew to the desert for salvation.[206:3] Priests fled from the
obligations of their office.[206:4] By the fourth century that land was full of
hermits. Their life was of a negative character, founded on abstinence and
bodily abuse—a holy rivalry of self-torture and suicidal austerities. These
practices may be divided into four classes: dietetic, sexual, social, and
spiritual.
(1) From a dietetic standpoint the hermits either fasted, or ate the simplest
foods, or consumed the smallest quantities. Thus the renowned Isidore of
Alexandria never ate meat, and often at the table would burst into tears for
shame at the thought that he who was destined to eat angel's food in
Paradise should have to eat the material food of animals. Macarius ate but
once a week. His son lived three years on five ounces of bread a day and
seven years on raw vegetables. Alos boasted that up to his eighteenth year
he never ate bread. Symeon ate but once daily and in fast time not at all.
Heliodorus often fasted seven days at a time. In Mesopotamia a group of
hermits lived on grass.[207:1]
(2) Sexually the hermits believed either in absolute virginity or in
abstinence.
(3) The social and domestic vagaries of anchoretism assumed many forms.
The hermits fled from the society of the world; deserted friends and family;
courted the company of wild beasts[207:2]; lived in caves, dried-up wells,
swamps, rude huts, tombs, and on the summits of solitary columns, or
wandered about without fixed homes.[207:3] A monk named Akepsismas
lived sixty years in the same cell without seeing or speaking to any person
and was finally shot for a wolf. Some hermits wore no clothing,[207:4] and
thus exposed the body to the broiling sun and to biting insects. Macarius, to
atone for killing a gnat, lay naked six months in a swamp and was so badly
stung that he was mistaken for a leper.[207:5] Others wore hair shirts, carried
heavy weights suspended from the body, slept in thorn bushes, against a
pillar, in cramped quarters, or deprived themselves altogether of sleep.

Many never washed their faces nor cared for their hair, beards, teeth, and
nails. With them filthiness seemed to be next to godliness. Anthony and
Hilarion scorned either to cut or to comb their hair except at Easter, or to
wash their hands and faces. St. Abraham never washed his face for fifty
years—yet his biographer proudly says, "His face reflected the purity of his
soul." Theodosius like a second Moses, had a stream of water burst from a
rock that his thirsty monks might drink. One wicked fellow, overcome by a
pitiable weakness for cleanliness, took a bath, when, lo! the stream dried
up. Thereupon the frightened and repentant monks promised never to insult
heaven by using water for that purpose again, and after a year of waiting a
second miracle gave them a fresh supply.
(4) A sincere desire for spiritual improvement expressed itself in various
practices. Prayer was perhaps the most common means to that end, and it
was believed that number and duration counted the most. Paul the Simple
repeated three hundred prayers a day and counted them with pebbles. A
certain famous virgin added four hundred to that number daily. Some spent
all day and others all night in prayer. Meditation and contemplation were
generally employed. Preaching and singing were common forms of
religious activity. Studying and writing engaged those of a more scholarly
bent of mind.
Out of this unorganised anchoretism there grew, by the latter part of the
third century, a crude form of group monasticism. This was the third stage
in the progress of monastic life. Such renowned hermits as St. Anthony in
Upper Egypt, Ammon at Mount Nitria, Joannes in Thebaid, Macarius in the
Scetische Desert, and Hilarion in the Gaza Desert each had a coterie of
imitators imbued with a common purpose and with a profound respect for
their leader; but no uniform rules governed them at first. As time passed,
however, the necessity of regulating the various relations of so many
became apparent.[209:1] The organisations of the Essenes and Therapeutæ
may have served as models. At Mount Nitria the monks by common
arrangement lived in separate cells, but had a dining room and a chapel for
all.[209:2] Pachomius (282-346), a converted heathen soldier, of little
education, a pupil of Palæmon for twelve years, created the first monastic
rule and organised at Tabenna on the Nile the first monastic congregation
(322), while his sister formed the first convent at Tabenisi. This first walled
monastery had many cells built to accommodate three monks in each.

Membership was guarded by three years' probation on severe discipline.
The monks met in silence for one daily meal and wore white hoods so as
not to see each other. They prayed thirty-six times daily, worked with their
hands indoors and out, and wore over their linen underclothes white goat
skins day and night. They were ruled by "priors" chosen on merit from the
twenty-four classes of monks.[209:3] At the head of the whole system stood
an abbot.[209:4] When Pachomius died (346) he had established nine
cloisters with 3000 monks. He called them all together twice a year, and
paid them annual visits. By 400 the monks numbered 50,000.[209:5] The
great Athanasius visited Tabenna to inspect the system and to study the
operation of this epoch-making rule.
From Tabenna organised monasticism spread over Egypt and then to nearly
every province in the Roman Empire by the end of the fourth century.[210:1]
In the Holy Land laboured Hilarion,[210:2] Epiphanius,[210:3] Hesycas,[210:4]
the Bethlehem brothers,[210:5] Ammonius,[210:6] Silvanus, and Zacharias.
Jerome, the celebrated Church Father, with Paula, a rich Roman widow, left
Rome for the East. After studying monasticism in Egypt they located at
Bethlehem (386). There Jerome studied the Scriptures and ruled a large
crowd of monks, while Paula became the head of a convent for girls.
Melania built a convent on the Mount of Olives and ruled fifty virgins
(375). Goddana and Elias laboured on the lower Jordan.
In Asia Minor laboured, conspicuous among many, Eustathius who first
prescribed a monastic dress, Basil the Great (c. 379) who originated the
monastic vow,[210:7] the famous Nilus (c. 430), and the hated hermit Marcus
(c. 431). Syria was renowned for at least a dozen hermits, the most
celebrated being Simeon Stylites (c. 459),[210:8] the pillar saint. From Egypt
and Asia the institution spread to Greece and became quite general by the
fourth century. The most famous cloister was that of Studium (460) at
Constantinople. The islands of the Adriatic and Tuscan Sea were soon
covered with monasteries swarming with monks.[210:9]
The fourth and most important step is found in the development of the
institution in western Europe.
Athanasius, a hero and oracle to the Western Church, on a tour to Rome in
340, carried with him from Egypt two specimens of hermits.[211:1] His Life

of Anthony was soon translated into Latin. The West had already heard
about the institution, and many individuals had visited the most celebrated
hermits in Egypt. After 340 many men and women began to give
enthusiastic support to the new institution. Eusebius (c. 370) lived by rule
with his clergy under one roof at Vercelli in northern Italy.[211:2] Ambrose
fostered it in and around Milan.[211:3] Paul of Nola (c. 431) lived in
Campagna. Conspicuous examples were found among the Roman virgins
and widows.[211:4] Marcella in Rome turned her palace into a convent.[211:5]
Paula and her whole family lived as ascetics. The widow Lea was an active
worker.[211:6] Melania devoted her fortune to the cause. Many of the nobles
of Rome likewise became converts to the new idea.[211:7] Jerome and
Rufinus were conspicuous examples of those devotees who by precept and
practice soon popularised monasticism throughout Italy. Convents for both
sexes were soon founded.[211:8] From Rome Augustine carried the
institution back to north-western Africa. When Cassian (c. 448) left Egypt
and planted two monasteries at Marseilles, he found monks already in
France. Martin, the Bishop of Tours, turned his episcopal palace into a
monastery, and at his death (400) 2000 monks followed him to the grave.
[212:1]
Poitiers, Lyons, and Treves, together with the bordering mountains,
were soon scenes of monastic activity. Donatus, an African monk, early
carried the new faith to Spain where it soon became so popular that by 380
a synod forbade priests dressing as monks. Athanasius, who lived at Treves
as an exile, probably introduced it into Germany. The British Isles had a
flourishing system long before the mission of Augustine. By the fifth
century, therefore, monasticism had been firmly planted over all western
Europe.[212:2]
Although western monasticism was an offspring of the eastern type, yet the
child differed much from the parent. Anchoretism gained but little foothold
in the West because of climatic and ethnic differences. The group type was
dominant in the West, and extremes and excesses were absent. No pillar
saints and other conspicuous fanatics were found there.[212:3] Western
monasticism was a more practical system, an economic factor, a powerful
missionary machine, an educational agency, and the pioneer of civilisation.
It was not a negative force, but very aggressive and made history. It led all
the great reform movements. It was uniform in spirit, though widely
divergent in form. In some cases monks were under abbots each with his

own rule; others had no fixed abode—and many of them were tramps of the
worst description, living on their holy calling.[213:1] Jerome, Ambrose,
Augustine, and many other Fathers have left sufficient complaints about the
growing monastic disorders. The need of a common rule, therefore, was
generally felt in order to unify the highly varied, and in part highly doubtful
forms of monasticism.
Early efforts were made to meet that need. Jerome translated the rule of
Pachomius into Latin and it was used in parts of Italy. Rufinus brought the
rule of Basil the Great to Rome and it was adopted in southern Italy and in
Gaul. The rule of Macarius was at least known in the West. Cassian (c. 448)
was the first, however, to write out for the cruder western institution a
detailed constitution (c. 429). He had studied monasticism in Egypt and
drew up a very complete rule which covered all the essential phases of
cloister life. It was used in many cloisters till the ninth century. During this
early unorganised period Popes, councils, and even secular powers often
tried to control and regulate monasticism.
The great organiser and unifier of western monasticism, however, was St.
Benedict (d. 543), "the patriarch of the monks of the west."[213:2] Born of
rich parents at Nursia in 480, he was sent to Rome to complete his
education. There he became disgusted with the vice about him, fled from
college, family, and fortune, and at the age of sixteen, retired to a cave at
Subiaco thirty miles from Rome. He became a severe ascetic, wore a hair
shirt and a monk's dress of skins, rolled in beds of thistles to subdue the
flesh, and chose to be ignorant and holy rather than educated and wicked.
His fame soon attracted disciples and he established twelve monasteries,
with a dozen monks and a superior in each, but all under his own
supervision. Later he left Subiaco and went to Monte Cassino where he
spent the closing years of his remarkable career. Monte Cassino became the
capital of western monasticism.
To control his monks Benedict drew up in 529 the "Holy Rule,"[214:1] which
became the basis for all western monastic orders and was a rival of St.
Basil's rule in the East. The "Holy Rule" was the product of Benedict's own
sad experience as hermit, cenobite, and superior, and also of his
observations concerning the monastic laxness which he saw on all hands. It
consists of a prologue and chapters on seventy-three governmental, social,

moral, liturgical, and penal subjects. The whole spirit and aim of the Rule
were constructive and reformatory. It provided for an organisation
monarchial at the top and democratic at the bottom. Each monastery had an
abbot elected for life by all the monks to rule the monastery in the place of
Christ. The abbot chose the prior and deans, on the basis of merit, with the
approval of the monks, but minor officials were named directly by the
abbot. The important business affairs of the monastery were conducted by
the abbot in consultation with all the monks, but minor matters required
only the advice of the superior officers. Admission was open to all ranks
and classes of men above eighteen on an equal footing after one year's
probation. The two fundamental principles in this constitution were labour
and obedience. Indolence was branded as the enemy of the soul. Each
candidate had to take the vow of obedience and constancy to the order;
chastity and poverty of course being implied. A monk's day was minutely
regulated, according to the seasons, and consisted of an alternation of
manual work, study, and worship, with short intervals for food and rest.
Labour was thus regulated in the monastery somewhat as in an industrial
penitentiary. The frugal meal was eaten in silence while some edifying
selection was read. The monks had to renounce the world and give all the
fruits of their labours to the monastery.
Obedience was regarded as the most meritorious and essential condition of
all. Monasticism meant a generous sacrifice of self and implied a surrender
of the will to a superior. The monk must obey not only the abbot but also
the requests of his brethren. Monks were treated as children grown up. They
could not own property—not even the smallest trifles; they were not
allowed to walk abroad at will; if sent away, they could not eat without the
abbot's permission; they could not receive letters from home; and they were
sent to bed early. Once in the order the vow of stability prevented
withdrawal. A violation of any of the regulations entailed punishment:
private admonition, exclusion from common prayer, whipping, and
expulsion.
This Rule, all things considered, was mild, flexible, and general; with order,
proportion, and regularity, yet brief, concise, and well tempered to the needs
of western Europe[215:1]; hence like Aaron's rod it soon swallowed up the
other rules in use. Before 600 it was supreme in Italy. In 788 the Council of
Aachen ordered it and no other to be used throughout the kingdom of

Charles the Great. In the ninth century it superseded the Isidore rule in
Spain. It embraced likewise the Columban rule in western Europe and by
the tenth century prevailed everywhere. Under it the Benedictines had a
remarkable history. At one time they had 37,000 monasteries and altogether
produced 24 Popes, 200 cardinals, 4000 bishops, and 55,505 saints.[216:1]
The Benedictine monasteries differed from later monastic bodies in the fact
that they were quite independent of each other and had no common head.
After the thirteenth century they were surpassed by the Begging Orders and
devoted themselves mostly to literary pursuits, soon becoming "more noted
for learning than piety." Their edition of the Church Fathers is a monument
of scholarly industry.[216:2] The order still exists, chiefly in Austria and Italy,
and is noted mostly for its classical learning. They boast of 16,000
distinguished writers.
These early monasteries were like swarming bees in planting monastic
societies in every part of western Europe. The passion grew until it became
a veritable madness which seized the pious and lawless alike. Popes like
Gregory I. praised the institution and promoted its interest in every possible
way. Even kings like Carloman of the Franks, Rochis of the Lombards,
great statesmen like Cassiodorus, and others voluntarily became monks.
Louis the Pious, the Roman Emperor, was prevented from that course only
by his nobles.[216:3] The monk was the leader and pattern of the Middle
Ages. Every father was ambitious to have his son enter that holy calling. To
the quiet and peaceful abode of the monastery, therefore, went not only the
pious, but the student, those who disliked the soldier's life, the disconsolate,
the disgraced, the disappointed, the indolent, and the weary. And this
powerful organisation was utterly under the control of the great Roman
Bishop and his subordinates.
The remarkable growth of monasticism brought great wealth and political
power, which were used in large measure to strengthen the Church. Kings
and nobles made large grants of lands—especially Charles the Great and
Louis the Pious. Besides many monks brought their possessions as gifts to
the monastery and not infrequently powerful abbots took lands by force.
Monasticism thus gradually became secularised and also feudalised.
Monasteries were often used as prisons for deposed kings, criminals, and
clergy convicted of crime. The abbots were virtually secular lords who
ruled as local sovereigns, claimed immunity from tolls and taxes, went

hunting and hawking, and even fought at the head of their troops. As a
result the office of abbot became a coveted prize, for the younger and the
illegitimate sons of nobles.[217:1] What effect this secularisation had upon
the high ideals may be easily seen. Soon only certain ceremonies
distinguished the monks from the secular clergy.
The monks as such belong to the laity. Monasticism was viewed as a lay
institution as late as the Council of Chalcedon (451)[217:2] when the legal
authority of the bishop over the monks of his diocese was recognised. The
monks were called religiosi in contrast to the seculares, the priests. The
monks were the "regulars" who formed the spiritual nobility and not the
ruling class in the hierarchy. They formed another grade in the hierarchy
between the clergy and the laity. But after the fifth century the difference
became less marked. Since monasticism was considered the perfection of
Christian life, it was natural to choose the clergy from the monks. Gregory
the Great was the first monk to be elected Pope. Monasteries were the
theological seminaries to supply priests for the Church, hence the ignorant
clergy looked up to the educated monks. Still monks at first, because not
ordained, could not say mass nor hear confession. Each monastery kept a
priest or an ordained monk to fulfil these duties. Abbots were usually in
priestly orders.[218:1] In time, however, monks assumed the dress of priests
and became ambitious for priestly powers,[218:2] especially after the Council
of Chalcedon, backed by the state, gave bishops jurisdiction over cloisters.
Often monasteries applied to the Pope for independence from episcopal
jurisdiction and were taken under the immediate protection of the Bishop of
Rome. By the sixth century monks were classed in the popular mind with
the clergy. In 827 a council at Rome ordered that abbots should be in
priests' orders. Monks now began to sit in and to control Church synods,
and to exercise all the rights of the secular clergy, even to having parishes,
[218:3]
and thus became powerful rivals of the established priesthood.
The crystallisation of ascetic ideals into monastic institutions was attacked
by heathenism and did not meet the unanimous approval of Christendom.
Before Constantine the pagans denounced the hermits because they were
guilty of the treasonable act, from a Roman view, of fleeing from social and
civic duties. After Constantine, when monasticism became the "fad," it was
assailed by the aristocratic pagan families, who lost sons, and especially
wives and daughters, in the maelstrom of enthusiasm, because it broke

family ties and caused the neglect of obvious responsibilities. Julian, the
imperial pagan reactionist, called it fanaticism and idolatry. Pagan poets
like Libanus and Rutilius denounced it as an institution "hostile to light."
Within Christendom hostility came from Christian rulers like Valens,
because monasticism withdrew civil and military strength from the state,
when all was needed against the barbarians, and because it encouraged
idleness and unproductiveness instead of useful activity and heroic
virtue[219:1]; from Christians of wealth and indulgence who felt rebuked by
the earnestness, poverty, and holy zeal of an ascetic life; from the clergy
who did not comprehend the significance of monasticism[219:2]; and from
the liberal party in the Church who took a saner view of salvation and
ethics. Jovinian (d. 406), like Luther, first a monk and then a reformer, held
these five points according to Jerome: (1) that virgins, widows, and wives
are all on an equality if good Christians; (2) that thankfully partaking of
food is as efficacious as fasting; (3) that spiritual baptism is as effectual in
overcoming the devil as baptism; (4) that all sins are equal; (5) that all
rewards and punishments will be equal. Jerome answered him and Pope
Siricius excommunicated him and his followers as heretics (390).[220:1]
Helvidius of Rome denounced the reverence for celibacy and declared that
the marriage state was as holy as that of virginity. Again Jerome wielded his
intellectual cudgel.[220:2] Bonasus, Bishop of Sardica, was excommunicated
for holding the same view (389). Vigilantius, an educated Gallic slave, a
disciple of Jovinian, attacked the necessity of celibacy, denied the efficacy
of virginity, opposed fasting and torture, ridiculed relics, objected to
candles, incense, and prayers for the dead, and doubted miracles. He was a
Protestant living in the fifth century.[220:3] He too was assailed by Jerome
and put under the papal ban.[220:4] Ærius of Sebasta, a presbyter, called into
question the need or value of fasts, prayers for the dead, the inequality of
rank among the clergy, and the celebration of Easter and of course was
outlawed by the Church.[220:5] Lactantius declared that the hermit life was
that of a beast rather than a man and treasonable to society. But all these
loud outcries against the monks were branded as heresy and drowned in
counter-shouts of praise.
When the results and influences of monasticism are carefully weighed, it is
seen that the good and evil "are blended together almost inextricably."

These diametrically opposite effects are perplexing and astonishing.
Conspicuous among the positive results are the following:
1. Religious. The effort to save pure Christianity from the secularised state-
Church by carrying it to the desert or shutting it up in a monastery,
produced the first great reform movement within the Christian Church. "It
was always the monks who saved the Church when sinking, emancipated
her when becoming enslaved to the world, defended her when assailed."
[221:1]
Monasticism was, therefore, a realisation of the ideal in Christianity.
In no small sense it likewise paved the way for the Reformation of the
sixteenth century. The monastic conquest of Christianity left in its train
higher ideals of a holy Christian life and a keener religious enthusiasm, and
emphasised the necessity of humility and purity. Likewise monasticism,
through its aggressive missionary efforts, completed the overthrow of
heathenism in the Empire and in its stead planted the true faith over western
Europe. The monks were the fiercest champions of orthodoxy, and the
intellectual giants of that age, like Jerome and St. Augustine, were in their
ranks. The monk rather than the priest was the apostle of the Middle Ages
who taught men and nations the simple Christian life of the Gospel. In
monasticism were developed the germs of many humanitarian institutions
through which Christianity expressed itself in a most practical manner. The
monastery offered a home to the poor and unfortunate, and gave hope and
refuge to both the religious invalid, who was sick of the world, and to the
religious fanatic. The Papacy, too, was supported and strengthened in a
thousand different ways by monasticism, and the whole religious history of
the Middle Ages was coloured by it.
2. Social. Monasticism tended to purify and regenerate society with lofty
ideas. It became an unexcelled machine for the administration of charity. It
fed the hungry, cared for the sick and dying, entertained the traveller, and
was an asylum for all the unfortunates. It helped to mitigate the terrors of
slavery. It inculcated ideas of obedience and usefulness. It advocated and
practised equality and communism, and it tutored the half-civilised nations
of western Europe in the arts of peace.
3. Political. In its organisation and practical life it kept alive ideas of
democracy. From the ranks of the monks came many of the best statesmen
in the various European governments. Monastic zeal had much to do in
saving the Roman Empire from utter destruction at the hands of the

barbarians and in helping to preserve imperial ideas until the rough Teutons
were Latinised in their legal and political institutions. In addition the monks
helped to form the various law codes of the German tribes, put them into
written form, and took an active part in many forms of local government. In
many an instance they saved the unprotected vassal from the tyrannical
noble.
4. Educational. In the monasteries the torches of civilisation and learning
were kept burning during the so-called Dark Ages. The first musicians,
painters, sculptors, architects, and educators of Christian Europe were
monks. They not only established the schools, and were the schoolmasters
in them, but also laid the foundations for the universities. They were the
thinkers and philosophers of the day and shaped the political and religious
thought. To them, both collectively and individually, was due the continuity
of thought and civilisation of the ancient world with the later Middle Ages
and with the modern period.
5. Industrial. Not only did the monks develop the various arts such as
copying and illuminating books, building religious edifices, painting, and
carving, but they also became the model farmers and horticulturists of
Europe. Every Benedictine monastery was an agricultural college for the
whole region in which it was located. By making manual labour an essential
part of monastic life, labour was greatly ennobled above the disreputable
position it held among the Romans.
The negative effects of monasticism were by no means lacking and may be
stated here under the same institutional headings:
1. Religious. In making "war on nature" the ascetics made war also on God.
They aimed not too high religiously but in the wrong direction. They
exaggerated sin and advocated the wrong means to get rid of it. They took
religion away from the crowded centres of population, where it was most
needed, to the desert or monastery. Thus an abnormal, unwholesome type of
piety was created. In replacing faith by works the monks thus gave birth to
a long list of abuses in the Church, and in nourishing an insane religious
fanaticism they entailed many grave evils. From one point of view
monasticism became a "morbid excrescence" of Christianity and tended to
degrade man into a mere religious machine. At the same time the doctrine
of future rewards and punishments reached an abhorrent evolution. The

awful pangs of hell, the terrific judgments of God, and the ubiquitous and
wily devil of the monks' vivid imagination sound strange to a modern mind.
But the gravest error in the monastic system was the false and harmful
distinction so clearly drawn both in theory and practice between the secular
and the religious. The modern world easily harmonises the two.
2. Social. Monasticism disrupted family ties and caused the desertion of
social duties on the ground of a more sacred duty. It lowered respect for the
marriage state by magnifying the virtue of celibacy. In making the monk the
ideal man of the Middle Ages, it advocated social suicide. All natural
pleasures and enjoyments of life were labelled sinful. Practices, which were
little more than superstitions, were advocated. Society in general was
demoralised because monasticism failed to practise its own teachings.
3. Political. By inducing thousands, and many of them men of character,
ability, and experience, to desert their posts of civic duty, the state was
weakened and patriotism forgotten. The monk "died to the world" and
abjured his country. Monasticism aided powerfully in developing the
secular side of the papal hierarchy and soon came to exercise a large
amount of political power itself. The monks frequently became embroiled
in social disputes and military quarrels, and thus incited rather than allayed
the fiercer brute passions of men.
4. Cultural. By holding the education of the people in their hands the monks
had a powerful weapon for evil as well as good. In making the monk the
ideally cultured man a false standard was set up and certain fundamentals in
education ignored. Secular learning was not generally encouraged. The
supreme end of all their education was not to produce a man, but a priest.
5. Industrial. Thousands withdrew from the various lines of industrial
activity, some to obtain the higher good, but many to enter as they supposed
a life of ease and idleness. Much of the good that was done in the earlier
days was negatived by the begging friars later.
Of these two sets of influences which predominated? That both were
powerful no one can doubt. All things considered, however, it must be said
that monasticism, as it developed in the West, fulfilled a genuine need and
performed an important service for Christian civilisation. St. Benedict not
only presented a satisfactory solution of the grave dangers threatening this
institution as a force in the evolution of the mediæval Church, but with his

organised army of devoted, obedient followers, he met the barbarian hosts
invading the Roman Empire and gradually won them to adopt and in due
course of time to practise the Christian code. Indeed it is difficult to imagine
how the Church could have forged its course so triumphantly through all the
breakers, trials, and vicissitudes of this crucial epoch—how its jurisdiction
could have been extended so rapidly and so effectively to all parts of
western Europe and to some points in the East and in northern Africa—how
its great humanising, spiritualising, and edifying influences could have been
so persistent and at the same time so efficient—how the simple,
fundamental truths of the Gospel as set forth in the Apostolic Church could
have been handed on to the later ages—had not the growth of monasticism
been regulated and utilised. Therefore, next to the evolution of that
magnificent organisation of the Papacy, as a creative factor in the rise of the
mediæval Church, must be placed organised, western monasticism.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:
I.—JEWISH:

1.—Old Testament.
2.—Josephus, Antiquities, i., bk. 15, ch. 10, sec. 4-5; bk. 18,
ch. 1, sec. 5; ii., bk. 2, ch. 8, sec. 2-11.
3.—Philo, Contemplative Life. Bohn, Eccl. Lib., 1855, iv., 1-
21.
II.—Greek:

1.—New Testament.
2.—New Testament Apocrypha.
3.—Eusebius, Church Hist., ii., ch. 17. Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers, i. Several other eds.
4.—Socrates, Church Hist., i., 13; iv., 23 ff. Ib., ii. Other eds.
5.—Sozomen, Church Hist., i., 12-14; iii., 14; vi., 28-34. Ib.,
ii.

6.—Theodoret, Church Hist., ch. 33. Ib., iii. Bohn Lib.
7.—Evagrius, Life of St. Anthony. Bohn Lib., 1851.
8.—Palladius, Historia Lausiaca. Ed. by Butler, Texts and
Studies. Camb., 1898.
9.—Concerning the Ascetic Life. Not in Eng.
III.—LATIN:

1.—Sulpicius Severus, Dialogues, i.-iii. Nic. and Post-Nic.
Fathers, 2d ser., xi., pt. 11.
2.—Athanasius, Life of Anthony. Ib., iv., 195-221.
3.—Ambrose, Concerning Virgins. Ib., x., 360. Letters, No.
63. Ib., 457.
4.—Augustine, The Work of Monks. Fathers of the Holy
Catholic Church, xxii., 470-516.
5.—Cassian, Institutes. Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d ser.,
xi. Cœnobia, Ib. Conferences, Ib.
6.—Jerome, Life of St. Paul the First Hermit. Ib., vi., 299-
318; Letters, No. 22, 130. Ib.
7.—Gregory the Great, Letters. Ib., xii.; Life and Miracles of
St. Benedict. Ed. by Luck, Lond., 1880.
8.—Rufinus, History of Monks. Not in Eng.
9.—Cassiodorus, Dissertation on Monasticism. Not in Eng.
Letters. Ed. by Hodgkin, Oxf., 1886.
IV.—COLLECTIONS:

1.—Apostolic Canons. See Ch. IX. of this work.
2.—Apostolic Constitutions. Ib.
3.—Henderson, Select Histor. Docs. of the M. A., 274-314.
4.—Univ. of Neb., Europ. Hist. Studies, ii., No. 6.
5.—Univ. of Pa., Translations and Reprints, ii., No. 7.

B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Allies, T. W., The Monastic Life from the Fathers of the
Desert to Charlemagne. Lond., 1896.
2.—Browne, E. G. K., Monastic Legends. Lond.
3.—Butler, A., Lives of the Saints. Lond., 1833, 2 vols. Balt.,
1844, 4 vols.
4.—Day, S. P., Monastic Institutions. Lond., 1865.
5.—Dill, S., Roman Society in the Last Century of the
Western Empire. N. Y., 1904.
6.—Fosbroke, T. D., British Monachism. 3d ed. Lond., 1843.
7.—Fox, S., Monks and Monasticism (Eng.). Lond., 1848.
8.—Hardy, H. S., Eastern Monachism. Lond., 1864.
9.—Harnack, A., Monasticism: Its Ideals and Its History.
1886. Tr. by Gillett, N. Y. Lond., 1895.
10.—Hill, O. T., English Monasticism. Lond., 1867.
11.—Jameson, Mrs. A., Legends of the Monastic Orders.
Lond., 1850. Rev. ed. Bost., 1896.
12.—Kingsley, C., The Hermits: Their Lives and Works.
Lond., 1885.
13.—Lea, H. C., History of Sacerdotal Celibacy. Phil., 1884.
3d ed. N. Y., 1907. 2 vols.
14.—Lechner, D. P., Life and Times of St. Benedict. Lond.
15.—Littledale, R. F., Monachism. Encyc. Brit.
16.—Montalembert, Count de, Monks of the West. New ed.
Lond., 1896. 7 vols.
17.—Northcote, J. S., Celebrated Sanctuaries of the
Madonna. Lond., 1868.

18.—Ruffner, H., Fathers of the Desert. N. Y., 1850. 2 vols.
19.—Smith, I. G., Christian Monasticism (4th-9th cent.).
Lond., 1892.
20.—Wishart, A. D., Short History of Monks and
Monasticism. Lond., 1900.
II.—GENERAL:

Adams, Civ. of M. A. Adeney, ch. 13. Alzog, ii., 114-121.
Butler, Ch. Hist., ch. 34-35. Brown, Stoics and Saints,
ch. 5-6. Cheetham, ch. 12, sec. 3-4. Church, Begin. of M.
A., 48, 58. Clarke, Events and Epochs, ch. 3-4. Coxe,
Lect. 3, sec. 3. Cunningham, West. Civ., ii., 37-40.
Darras, i., 636; ii., 34, 35, 121, 387; iii., 43. Döllinger, ii.,
ch. 5, sec. 9; iii., ch. 4, sec. 6. Draper, Intel. Develop. of
Europe. Fisher, 111, 113, 114, 115, 116, 175, 234.
Fitzgerald, i., 215-227. Foulkes, 88, 93, 150-151, 221,
243, 349. Gibbon, ch. 37. Gieseler, ii., ch. 4, sec. 95-97.
Gilmartin, i., ch. 9, 22, 45. Hase, sec. 132-136. Hurst, i.,
ch. 30-31. Jennings, i., ch. 6. Kurtz, i., 248-258, 503-509.
Lecky, Hist. of Europ. Morals, ii., ch. 4. Mahan, bk. 4,
ch. 12. Maitland, Dark Ages. Milman, i., bk. 1, ch. 2; bk.
3, ch. 1; ii., bk. 3, ch. 6. Milner, i., cent. 4, ch. 5. Moeller,
i., 355-377. Mosheim, bk. ii., cent. iv., ch. 3, § 13.
Neander, ii., 262. Newman, i., 451. Putnam, Books and
their Makers, i. Robertson, bk. 2, ch. 6, sec. 4. Schaff,
iii., 147. Zenos, 104, 154, 171.

FOOTNOTES:
[198:1] Jerome, Ep., 15.
[199:1] The Hindoo monks exhausted their minds in devising means of self-
torture.
[199:2] Lea, Sac. Celib., 24; Laws of Manu, bk. 6., st. 1-22. See Hardy, Eastern
Monasticism, Lond., 1850.
[199:3] The disciples of Pythagoras were called cenobites. Montalembert, i., 215.
[200:1] Lea, Sac. Celib., 24.
[200:2] Numb. vi., 1-21.
[200:3] Pliny, Nat. Hist., v., 15; Porphyry, De Abstinentia, iv., 11; Edersheim, ch.
3; Döllinger, Gentile and Jew, ii., 330. See p. 44, 45.
[200:4] Isa. xxii., 2; Dan. ix., 3; Zech. xiii., 4; 2 Kings i., 8; iv., 10, 39, 42. Cf.
Heb. xi., 37, 38; Expositor, 1893, i., 339.
[200:5] Schaff, ii., 390.
[200:6] Lea, Sac. Celib., 24.
[200:7] Eusebius, ii., 17; Philo, Contemp. Life, bk. 1; Jewish Quart. Rev., viii.,
155; Baptist Rev., Jan., 1882, p. 36 ff.; see Jewish Encyc.; Döllinger, ii., 335.
[200:8] Matt. xix., 21; Luke xviii., 22; Mark x., 21.
[200:9] Tertullian held that all the Apostles except Peter were unmarried.
[201:1] Mark x., 29, 30.
[201:2] Paul, especially 1 Cor. vii.; Lea, Sac. Celib., 25.
[201:3] Texts quoted as favourable to monasticism: Acts ii., 44; iv., 32; xv., 28,
29; 1 Cor. vii., 8; iv., 3; Matt. xix., 12, 21; xxii., 30; Rev. xiv., 4; Luke xx., 35;
Mark x., 29, 30.
[201:4] Harnack, Monasticism, 10.
[201:5] Montalembert, i., bk. 1.
[202:1] Montalembert, i., 188.
[202:2] Lightfoot, The Colossian Heresy.
[202:3] Marcionites, Valentinians, Abstinents, Apotoctici, Encratites, etc.
[203:1] Cyprian, Ep., 62.
[203:2] Euseb. Eccl. Hist., vi., 42.
[204:1] Harnack, Monasticism, 65.
[204:2] 1 Tim. v., 3-14. Cf. Acts ix., 39, 41.
[204:3] Justin Martyr observed that Christians were commencing to abstain from
flesh, wine, and sexual intercourse. He, with Ignatius and others, lauds celibacy
as the holiest state.

[205:1] Celibacy was habitually practised by some; others devoted their lives to
the poor. Many converts like Cyprian sold their possessions for the needy. Still
others like Origen mutilated themselves.
[205:2] Irenæus, Against Heresy, i., 24; Epiphanius, Heresy, 23.
[206:1] Rufinus, Concerning Ascetic Life, 30; Socrates, iv., 23; Sozomen, i., 14.
See Montalembert, i., 227.
[206:2] Augustine, Confessions, viii., 15.
[206:3] Harnack, Monasticism, 27.
[206:4] Ibid., 47.
[207:1] Sozomen, vi., 33; Tillemont, Mem., viii., 292.
[207:2] Severus, Dialogues, i., 8.
[207:3] Evagrius, Ch. Hist., i., 13, 21; ii., 9; vi., 22; Theodosius, Philoth., 12, 26;
Nilus, Letters, ii., 114, 115; Gregory of Tours, viii., 16.
[207:4] Augustine, City of God, i., xiv., ch. 51.
[207:5] Tillemont, Mem., viii., 633.
[209:1] The rule of St. Oriesis is little more than a mystical praise of asceticism.
[209:2] Socrates, iv., 23; Sozomen, i., 14.
[209:3] Gwatkin, Arianism.
[209:4] Sozomen, iii., 14.
[209:5] Hergenröther, 452.
[210:1] Theod., Hist. Rel., 30; Augustine, De Mor. Eccl., i., 31.
[210:2] Sozomen, iii., 14; vi., 32.
[210:3] A follower of Hilarion. Made bishop of Cyprus in 367.
[210:4] Sozomen, vi., 32.
[210:5] Ibid., vi., 32.
[210:6] Eusebius, viii., 13; Socrates, iv., 36; Sozomen, vi., 38.
[210:7] Sozomen, vi., 32.
[210:8] Theodoret, Hist. Eccl., ch. 26.
[210:9] Smith, Rise of Christ. Monast., 48.
[211:1] Augustine, De Mor. Eccl., p. 33. He had been in Gaul in 337 and 338.
[211:2] Ambrose, Letters, 63, 66.
[211:3] Augustine, Confessions, viii., 15.
[211:4] Montalembert, i., 291-300.
[211:5] Jerome, Letter 127.
[211:6] Jerome, Letter 23.
[211:7] Montalembert, i., 291; Jerome, Letter 26.

[211:8] Jerome, Letter 96.
[212:1] Sulpic, Severus, Life of St. Martin.
[212:2] See Ozanam, Hist. of Civ. in the 5th Cent.
[212:3] Mosheim, bk. ii., cent. 5, part 2, ch. 3, § 12, tells of a German fanatic
who built a pillar near Treves and attempted to imitate the career of Simeon
Stylites, but the neighbouring bishops pulled it down.
[213:1] Cassian, Inst., ii., 2; St. Benedict, Rule, ch. 1; Jerome, Ep., 95.
[213:2] Gregory I., Dialogues, bk. ii. See Montalembert, i., bk. 4.
[214:1] Henderson, 274, Rule of our most Holy Father Benedict, Lond., 1886;
Ogg, Source Book, § 11.
[215:1] Doyle, The Teaching of St. Benedict, Lond., 1887.
[216:1] Lea, Sac. Cel., 116. See Cath. Encyc.
[216:2] Stephen, Essays in Eccl. Biog., 240.
[216:3] It was boasted that no less than twenty Emperors and forty-seven kings
cast aside their crowns to become Benedictine monks, while ten Emperors and
fifty queens entered convents, but it is impossible to discover them.
[217:1] Milman, iii., 88.
[217:2] Schaff, iii., 173.
[218:1] The vast amount of legislation on this point is very indicative.
[218:2] Gregory, Letter v., 1; i, 42.
[218:3] This right was prohibited in the 11th and 12th centuries, but Innocent III.
granted the permission in certain cases.
[219:1] Cod. Theodos., xii., 1, 63.
[219:2] See the works of Sulpicius Severus for attacks on the monks in Gaul and
Spain.
[220:1] Against Jovinian (392).
[220:2] The attack is found in two works, Against Helvidius (383) and his
Apology.
[220:3] Gilly, Vigilantius and His Times, Lond., 1844. See Jerome's writings.
[220:4] Against Vigilantius (406).
[220:5] Epiphanius, Heresies, 75.
[221:1] Harnack, Monasticism, 65.

CHAPTER XII
SPREAD OF THE CHRISTIAN CHURCH OVER EUROPE

Outline: I.—Extent of Christianity under Gregory the Great. II.
—Character of missionary work from the sixth to the tenth
century. III.—Conversion of the British Isles. IV.—Conversion
of the Franks. V.—Conversion of the Germans. VI.—
Conversion of Scandinavia. VII.—Planting of the Church
among the Slavs. VIII.—Efforts to convert the Mohammedans.
IX.—Sources.
From the outset the Christian Church was imbued with a most intense and
burning general missionary zeal. The command came in very distinct terms
from the Master himself.[229:1] But there was no recognised principle of
propagandism and no special organisations to carry on the work. Each
Christian felt the individual obligation to win his fellows to the new faith.
Separate churches no doubt naturally felt the necessity of some corporate
action to convert the heathen in the neighbourhood. Prayers, indeed, for the
conversion of the heathen were early made an integral part of the liturgies
of the Church, East and West.[229:2] The actual diffusion of Christianity,
however, proceeded in a special sense from the evangelical labours of the
individual bishops[229:3] and the clergy. In fact missionary work was
regarded as one of their specific duties handed down from the Apostles.
With the development of the organisation of the Church and the appearance
of patriarchs arose the thought that it was the duty of these powerful centres
to carry on missionary activity in foreign fields. Monasticism was early
utilised for this important work. It must never be forgotten that the
aggressive evangelising efforts of the early Church were mainly those of the
West, and here is seen another powerful factor in the rise of the mediæval
Church.
The conception early developed in the Church that the spread of God's
Kingdom on earth was a warfare. That idea was founded on the words of
Jesus,[230:1] on the assertions of the Apostles, and on the sacrifices of the

early martyrs. Monasticism made this conviction peculiarly personal. The
organised Church asserted it on every occasion. The conversion of the
barbarians was viewed, in a broad sense, as an invasion and a conquest. It
was a campaign with all western Europe as its field. In time it covered six
centuries or more. The generals, the able strategists, were the competent and
zealous Roman pontiffs, and the subordinate officers were emperors, kings,
princes, bishops, and abbots. The army was that great host of devoted
monks, of consecrated priests, and earnest Christian laymen. The weapons
in the hands of these conquerors were Christian love and sympathy. They
were driven on by an irresistible zeal for saving souls. They were clothed in
the power of poverty, austerity, suffering, obedience, and self-denial. The
conflict was one which, in its outcome, was to shape the destiny of the
world.
The man above all others who was carried away by this dream of duty for
the Church militant in winning those outside the true Church to
membership, was the monk-Pope, Gregory the Great. Pagan Rome had
failed to make a complete and permanent conquest of the barbarians.
Christian Rome, inspired by this master spirit, was to succeed in conquering
both the bodies and the souls of the barbarians, and to use them for her own
glory.
When Gregory the Great died in 604, Christendom practically covered the
Roman Empire and at certain points extended beyond it. Those who bore
the name Christian included Jews, Romans, Greeks, Celts, and Germans.
The Christian world was already divided into two great branches—the
Eastern, or Greek Church, and the Western, or Roman Church,—which
were becoming more and more pronounced in their differences.
The Christian missionary work, from the sixth to the twelfth century, must
be viewed broadly as a process of civilisation, since the missionaries carried
with them intellectual light, as well as spiritual truth, and paved the way for
law and justice. They opened up channels through which the higher ideals
and better institutions of the south might work northward to revolutionise
agriculture, trade, social life, and general economic conditions. "The
experience of all ages," said Neander, "teaches us that Christianity has only
made a firm and living progress, where from the first it has brought with it
the seeds of all human culture, although they have only been developed by
degrees."[231:1]

Mediæval conversion to Christianity was, as a rule, tribal, or national, rather
than individual, or personal, and consequently it took some time before
satisfactory fruitage was noticeable in the lives of the people. But it was a
great victory to substitute the Christian for the pagan ideal. The agencies
employed to carry out this process of conversion were: (1) missionaries,
mostly Latin, Celtic, English, German, Greek, and Slavic monks; (2) the
sword in the hands of a stern ruler; (3) the marriage of Christian women to
pagan kings and princes; and (4) the recognised superiority of Christianity,
Christian institutions, and Christian nations. It must be borne in mind,
likewise, that some of the German tribes settled in the very heart of
Christendom where Christian influences could operate directly and
immediately.
The earliest successful conversion of the Teutons was to Arianism. That
work was begun at least as early as the time of Constantine, because a
Gothic bishop sat in the Council of Nicæa (325). Bishop Ulfilas (d. 381),
the "Apostle to the Goths," called by Constantine the Great "the Moses of
the Goths,"[232:1] translated the Bible into Gothic[232:2] and won his
countrymen to Arianism. St. Chrysostom in 404 established in
Constantinople a school for the training of Gothic missionaries.[232:3] The
Ostrogoths, Visigoths, Burgundians, and Vandals all embraced that faith.
But the fervent and more aggressive missionary zeal of Rome gradually
replaced Arianism in western Europe with orthodox Christianity—the
Burgundians in 517, the Suevi in 550, the Visigoths in 587, the Lombards,
the last stronghold of Arianism in the West, in the eighth century.
The unparalleled missionary activity of the Roman Church was due of
course primarily to religious enthusiasm, but other causes must also be
taken into account. As a matter of self-preservation to protect herself from
the inveterate paganism of the ancient world, on the one hand, and from the
torrent of barbaric invaders, on the other, the conflict was thrust upon Rome
and she must conquer or perish. Again the development of the hierarchy
along the lines of the Petrine theory made it imperative that Rome should
win and rule the West. The wise policy of winning kings first and nations
afterwards was simply adopted from Roman imperial practice but it was
eminently successful. It likewise enabled the Pope of Rome to control all
missionary enterprise from his ecclesiastical capital, and to employ it for
the further extension of the papal prerogative.

The results of the spread of Christianity over the Græco-Roman world have
already been considered. That conquest decidedly modified the Apostolic
Church in organisation, in ceremony, and in doctrine, and laid the
foundations for the Roman and Greek Churches. The Romanised,
monasticised Christian Church over which Gregory the Great ruled reveals
the product of all these early influences. The conversion of the Teutons to
Roman Christianity marks another new epoch not only in the history of the
Church, but also in the history of the world. Just as from the Apostolic
Church emerged the Roman Church with its pronounced differences, so
from the Roman Church evolved the Teutonic-Roman Church, which in
turn was strikingly unlike its prototype in several particulars. The
Germanised Roman Church declared its absolute independence of the
Eastern Emperor and launched out on a new world career. The product of
all these elements was the mediæval Church which stood for primitive
Christianity modified first by a growth covering five centuries through a
stratum of Roman civilisation, and secondly for seven centuries through a
superimposed stratum of Germanic civilisation.
When the pagan Franks began their conquest of Gaul (486), they
encountered a civilisation that was nominally Christian. Their king, Clovis,
married Clotilda, a Christian princess, the daughter of the Burgundian
king[234:1] (493). She no doubt laboured with her lord and master to induce
him to embrace her faith. He permitted his child to be baptised in
accordance with the Christian rite and tolerated Christian priests and monks
as a matter of policy, but that was all. At length in a battle with the stubborn
Alemanni, Clovis, hard-pressed, prayed to the Christian God and promised
to turn Christian himself in exchange for victory. His foes fled and left him
conqueror. True to his vow, Clovis, after receiving instruction from Bishop
Remigius of Rheims, was baptised on Christmas day 496 and with him
3000 warriors. This important event, "the first step toward the world-
historical union of Teutonic civilisation with the Roman Church,"[234:2]
paved the way for Charles the Great, and made possible a Christian France.
This event was a significant victory for the Nicene Creed and for the Pope
of Rome. Orthodoxy and Roman dominion now advanced side by side with
Frankish conquests until both became absolutely independent of the
imperial power in the East.[235:1]

The Romans abandoned the island of Britain in 409 for ever. About 450 the
pagan kinsmen of the Franks, namely the Angles, Saxons, Jutes, and
Frisians, crossed to Britain and there found the Christian Church already
planted.[235:2] They drove it back to Wales, Ireland, and Scotland, or
crushed it out altogether. The Christian Celts, who were thus treated, made
no effort at first to convert their heathen conquerors.[235:3] That was left to
missionaries from Rome under the leadership of the monk Augustine. Bede,
the venerable Church historian, tells the pious tale of how Gregory the
Great, before being made Pope, saw in the slave market of Rome some boys
"of a white body and fair countenance" and forthwith became so deeply
interested in them and their land that he begged the Pope to send him as
missionary to Britain.[235:4] The Romans, it is said, refused to allow him to
go, and soon honoured him with the tiara of St. Peter. As Pope, however, he
carried out his intention by sending Augustine, a Benedictine abbot, with
forty monks and Gallic interpreters and with letters and a library of sacred
literature, to England in 596 to begin the work.[235:5]
Now it happened that Ethelbert, the King of Kent, had married Bertha, a
Christian princess from Paris, who had been permitted to take a Gallic
bishop with her to England. Thus the way had been already opened for the
favourable reception of the monks under the guidance of Augustine, which
led in 597 to the conversion of Ethelbert at Canterbury, and with him
nominally the whole kingdom of Kent. At the first Christmas festival
Ethelbert and 10,000 of his subjects were baptised. Thus Roman
Christianity became at once the established state Church and "everywhere
the bishop's throne was set up side by side with the king's."[236:1] Augustine,
as a reward for his successful services, was soon made the first archbishop
of England[236:2] and proceeded to organise the Church by sending to Rome
for more helpers, by appointing bishops and priests to particular fields of
labour, by purifying pagan temples and dedicating them to Christian
services, and by repairing and building Christian churches and monasteries.
As a result of the sincere, practical measures adopted by Augustine,
thousands were soon won to the new faith and Christianity was permanently
replanted in the British Islands. The work, so well begun, was continued
until Sussex, the last kingdom of the heptarchy, in 604, embraced the
popular religion. Pope Gregory the Great took a keen interest in this grand
triumph and made it contribute to the glory of the Roman Church.[236:3]

The monks sent to England by Pope Gregory the Great soon came to see
that the Celtic Church differed from theirs in many respects. Augustine
himself, having concluded an alliance between Ethelbert and the Roman
See, held several conferences with the Christian Celts in order to
accomplish the most difficult task of their subjugation to Roman authority.
These differences were largely ritualistic and disciplinary. The Celtic
Christians celebrated Easter according to the calculation of Sulpicius
Severus, while the Romans had another mode of computing the proper day.
[237:1]
The Celts appealed to St. John, the Romans to St. Peter.[237:2] The
Celtic Church might be called a monastic Church, since the abbot ruled
over the bishop.[237:3] The Celts shaved the front of the head from ear to ear
as a tonsure, while the Romans shaved the top of the head leaving a "crown
of thorns."[237:4] The Celts permitted their priests to marry, the Romans
forbade it. The Celts used a different mode of baptism from that of the
Romans, namely, single instead of trine immersion. The calendar for all
movable festivals was not the same. The Celts held their own councils and
enacted their own laws, independent of Rome. The Celts used a Latin Bible
unlike the Vulgate, and kept Saturday as a day of rest, with special religious
services on Sunday.[237:5] Notwithstanding these variances, which do not
seem to be at all on the fundamentals, there were many doctrinal and
constitutional resemblances. Both churches were orthodox; both used a
Latin ritual[238:1]; both had developed an episcopal organisation; both
believed in monasticism; and both were actively engaged in missionary
work. Nevertheless the British Christians looked with much disfavour upon
the Augustine mission to convert their pagan conquerors and oppressors.
King Ethelbert in 602 arranged a conference of British and Roman bishops
on the Severn in Essex.[238:2] At that gathering Augustine with unreasonable
rigour and haughtiness demanded conformity; the Britains refused to
surrender their independence. To settle the matter Augustine proposed that
an appeal be made to a miracle. Accordingly a blind Anglo-Saxon was
brought in. The Celtic clergy prayed over him in vain. Whereupon
Augustine knelt and prayed, and immediately the blind man was restored to
sight,[238:3] but the Celts refused to accept that act as final without the
consent of a larger representation in the synod. The next year, therefore, a
second council was held at which the persistent Augustine once more
demanded conformity to Roman practices and the recognition of papal

supremacy, and also requested missionary co-operation, but the Britains,
displeased with Augustine's narrow dogmatism and apprehensive of the loss
of their freedom, refused to submit. "As you will not have peace with
brethren," said the stern Roman monk, "you shall have war from foes; and
as you will not preach unto the English the way of life, you shall suffer at
their hands the vengeance of death."[239:1] When, ten years later, a
wholesale Saxon massacre of British Christians occurred, in which possibly
a thousand priests and monks were slaughtered and many churches and
monasteries destroyed, further conferences were at an end for fifty years.
It was not until 664 that the famous Council of Whitby was called by King
Oswy of Northumbria in which Bishop Colman and Bishop Cedd,
renowned Celtic divines, defended the British Church; while Bishop
Agilbert, and Wilfred, the greatest English ecclesiastic of his time,
championed Rome. In the discussion about the correct day for Easter, it was
asserted by Wilfred that St. Peter held "the keys to the kingdom of Heaven."
The king then asked Colman and the monks with him whether that was true,
and they were forced to confess that it was. Consequently, feeling that it
was safer to be on the side of Peter, the "doorkeeper," the king decided in
favour of the Church of Rome.[239:2] This was a very significant victory for
the See of St. Peter, because papal supremacy was now recognised in the
British Isles, and likewise for the future of England, because it opened up a
channel through which Roman Christian civilisation flowed into the British
Isles to influence to a greater or less degree every institution in that country
and, later, through the great empire which England was to build up to carry
those cultural influences around the world. The work of cementing the Latin
and Celtic churches in England into one was completed by Theodorus, the
Archbishop of Canterbury (d. 690), and the Venerable Bede (d. 735).
Ecclesiastical unity hastened political unity in England[240:1] and developed
a common civic life among the divided peoples of the British Isles.[240:2]
Christianity had early spread from Britain to Ireland. The labours of St.
Patrick[240:3] (d. 493) and the work of St. Bridget, the "Mary of Ireland" (d.
525), have become classics. The Anglo-Saxon invasion drove many
Christians to Ireland in the fifth and sixth centuries, so that by the seventh
century Ireland had become the "Island of Saints" and the whole island was
Christianised. Many famous monasteries were planted, and an intense

missionary zeal had sent to Scotland, North Britain,[240:4] France, Germany,
Switzerland, and northern Italy many representatives of the Celtic Church.
In 629, Pope Honorius exhorted the Irish Church to conform to the Roman
Easter day. A Celtic deputation was then sent to Rome and, upon returning
home, reported in favour of the Latin system, which was adopted first in
southern Ireland in 632, then in northern Ireland in 640, and by 704 was
generally observed. The Norman Conquest, in 1066, made the union of
Ireland with Rome as well as with England more complete; but it was left to
Henry II., who conquered Ireland in 1171, to give finality to the dependence
of Ireland on Rome religiously and on England politically.
Christianity was planted in Scotland during the Roman period.[241:1] An
Irish colony, converted by St. Patrick, settled there in the fifth century. The
labours of St. Ninian (sixth cent.), the work of St. Kentigern (d. 603), and
the activity of St. Columba (d. 597) completed the conversion of the
country. St. Columba was a famous Irish missionary, who went to Scotland
in 563, there converted the king of the Picts and founded many churches.
He made his headquarters on the small island of Iona on which was planted
a monastery famous as a school for missionaries, as the centre of
educational activity, and as the Rome of the Celtic Church.[241:2] For
centuries the Celtic Church maintained its independence in Scotland, but
gradually gave way to the better organised and more aggressive Roman
Church, though the Culdees were not absorbed until 1332.[241:3]
The enthusiasm of the Celtic and English Christians soon attained such
proportions that it overflowed and swept back upon the continent like a
mighty tidal wave. The great pioneer in that movement was Columbanus.
He was born in Leinster about 543 and received his monastic education at
Bangor. At the age of forty he conceived the idea of preaching the Gospel to
the pagan German tribes. With twelve young companions he crossed over to
France where they remained several years, teaching the faith. Then they
went to Burgundy where King Gontran persuaded them to build a
monastery. For twenty years Columbanus laboured in the wild Vosges
Mountains, planted the three famous monasteries of Anegray, Luxeuil, and
Fontaines. Luxeuil virtually became the "monastic capital of France."[242:1]
He gave his monks a stringent rule, borrowed from the rigid discipline of
the Celtic monasteries, and he clung to the peculiar rites and usages of his

mother Church. His influence was strongly felt and an army of disciples
gathered around him. From his mountain home he sent forth reformatory
waves that covered all Europe, and posed as sort of a spiritual dictator of
the whole Church.
Another result of his influence was to incite the enmity of the Gallican
clergy and the Burgundian court. In 602, he was arraigned before a Frankish
synod, but he ably defended his life and his beliefs. This affront led him to
appeal to Pope Gregory the Great in several interesting letters. At last, in
610, he was banished from the Burgundian kingdom never to return. He
went to Tours, Nantes, Metz, up the Rhine valley, and into Switzerland
where he remained three years engaged in active missionary work until
forced to leave by Burgundian influence. Crossing the Alps into Lombardy
he received an honourable welcome from King Agilulf and was given a site
for the celebrated monastery of Bobbio where, in 615, he passed away in
peace. To him must be given the credit of opening up Europe to England
and Ireland as an excellent field for foreign missions.[243:1]
Gallus,[243:2] an Irish companion of Columbanus, called the "Apostle of
Switzerland," laboured among the Alemanni and Swabians. His monastery
of St. Gall became one of the great centres of learning in the Middle Ages.
He died in 645. Three other Irish monks of note worked in Germany.
Fridolin founded a monastery on the Rhine near Basle. Trudbert went into
the Black Forest and became a martyr to the cause. Kylian, the "Apostle of
Franconia," went to Würzburg where he met with considerable success but
lost his life.
The English were early drawn into this ardent missionary impulse. More
missionaries were sent to Europe in the seventh and eighth centuries from
England than go to-day to foreign fields.[243:3] Willibrord,[243:4] a native of
Northumberland, educated in Ireland, embarked in 690 with seven
assistants for Frisia at the mouth of the Rhine. The native prince was
Radbod, an uncompromising pagan. Acting on the advice of Pepin of
France he went to Rome and was invested with the bishopric of Utrecht. He
then evangelised parts of Frankish Frisia, after which he visited Denmark.
After a zealous career of half a century he died in 740. Other Englishmen
followed in his wake. Adelbert laboured in the north of Holland, Werenfrid
near Elste, and Wiro among the natives of Guldres. The Ewald brothers

were slain by the savage Saxons.[244:1] Wulfram, the Bishop of Sens, made
excellent headway among Radbod's Frisians.[244:2] Indeed the zeal of these
northern missionaries might have planted the Celtic Church firmly on the
continent, had they not been so sadly deficient in capacity for organisation
and had the Pope of Rome not been so zealously watchful.
Roman colonies on the Rhine in the third and fourth centuries first carried
Christianity into Germany. In the Council of Arles (314) there were present
a bishop and a deacon from Cologne, and a bishop from Treves. By the fifth
century Christianity had been spread by Severinus,[244:3] an Italian monk,
into Bavaria along the Danube.
It was really left to St. Boniface,[244:4] the "Apostle of Germany," to
organise and unify the work already done, and to subject the Christian
Church in Germany planted by his predecessors, to Rome. He was a most
remarkable character and played an important part in the Christianisation of
the Teutonic peoples. Born in 680 in Devonshire, England, of noble Saxon
family, he early entered the monastery at Exeter, where he received an
excellent education for that day. He soon evinced a longing for the life of a
monk. His father gave his consent reluctantly, and he assumed monastic
vows in a monastery near Winchester. He became a famous preacher and
expounder of Scripture, and at the age of thirty was ordained priest. He now
felt called upon to carry the Gospel to the land of his ancestors.
Consequently in 716, with two or three fellow-monks as companions, he
crossed from London to Frisia to begin his missionary labours as the
successor of Willibrord, whose successes had been largely reversed.
Radbod, the baptised Frisian king, had backslid when he learned that his
pagan forefathers were among the damned. He declared that he preferred
"to be there with his ancestors rather than in heaven with a handful of
beggars."[245:1] Hence he had devastated the Christian churches and
monasteries, and was now at war with Charles Martel. King Radbod met
Boniface, but refused to permit him to preach, so Boniface returned to
England without having accomplished anything.
Notwithstanding the failure of this first enterprise, Boniface left England
again in 718 and for ever; and now went through France to Rome to obtain
papal sanction for his future missionary work. Pope Gregory II. formally
commissioned him as missionary to the German tribes (719). Armed with

that letter and many precious relics, he started north the following spring to
his field of labour. First, he went to Thuringia and Bavaria, regions already
partly Christianised, but at this time considerably disorganised, and
demanded their submission to Rome; then, learning of King Radbod's death
(719), he hastened to Frisia, where he laboured for three years with
Willibrord, who had meantime returned to continue his labours. In 722 he
passed through Thuringia and entered Hesse where, within a short time, he
converted two local chiefs together with many thousands of their followers.
A foothold was thus secured by Rome in the pagan world of Germany and
never again lost.
These successes led the Pope to recall Boniface to Rome to receive
directions concerning conditions in Germany. After exacting from him a
confession of faith in the Trinity, and binding him by an oath ever to respect
papal authority,[246:1] the Supreme Pontiff created him missionary bishop in
723. Boniface then returned to Germany with a code of laws for the Church,
and with letters of introduction to Charles Martel and to other influential
persons who might aid him. He was aware that little could be done without
the assistance of that powerful ruler and wrote: "Without the protection of
the Prince of the Franks, I could neither rule the people of the Church, nor
defend the priests or clerks, the monks or handmaidens of God; nor have I
the power to restrain pagan rites and idolatry in Germany without his
mandate and the awe of his name."[246:2] Hence he attached himself for
awhile to the court of the Frankish ruler before he began the work so near
his heart. Hesse and Thuringia, Christianised nominally by Celtic
missionaries and consequently under no episcopal authority, refused to
recognise papal jurisdiction. To awe them into submission, Boniface cut
down their gigantic sacred oak at Geismar and from it, subsequently, built a
chapel to St. Peter. The people were convinced and received the new faith.
With the aid of Charles Martel, the assistance of the pope, and the help of
English missionaries who joined him, Boniface completed his conquest of
that region, filled it with churches and monasteries, and extended papal rule
over it. Schools were established, learning and a higher civilisation began to
flow in from England and Rome, and the dark days of paganism were gone.
As a reward for his labours, Pope Gregory III., who received the papal
crown in 731, raised Boniface in 732 to the dignity of missionary
archbishop. This new authority enabled him to coerce refractory bishops

who thwarted his efforts. Five years later, Boniface made his third and last
visit to Rome, not now as an obscure missionary but with a great retinue of
monks and converts. Once more returning to Germany with authority, he
organised the Church in Bavaria (739) and thus curtailed ecclesiastical
lawlessness by creating four bishoprics: Salzburg, Friesingen, Passau, and
Regensburg. In the year 742, continuing the work of organisation begun so
well in Bavaria, he succeeded in creating in central Germany the bishoprics
of Würzburg, Buraburg, Erfurt, and Eichstädt. To organise the Church and
regulate ecclesiastical affairs, he held numerous synods. At the same time,
he laboured hard to enforce celibacy, to restore Church property alienated
by rulers, and to suppress heresy. In 743, he was made archbishop of Mainz,
with jurisdiction over a region from Cologne to Strassburg and from Coire
to Worms, and now sought to complete the work of consolidating the
German Church. By this time, he had become not only the head of the
Church in Germany, but was recognised as a powerful factor in political
matters. It is even reported that he crowned Pepin at Soissons (752).[248:1]
The great monastery of Fulda was founded (744) and it was destined to
become the head of the Benedictine institutions in Germany. Having
appointed Lull as his successor at Mainz, he resigned in 754, returned a
third time to Frisia as a missionary, and there was slain in 755 as a martyr to
the Christian cause. Boniface did more than any other one individual to
carry Christianity to the German peoples and to tie the Church of Germany
firmly to the papal throne. He was a civiliser and law-giver as well as a
Roman missionary.[248:2] After the Apostle Paul he was probably the most
eminent in missionary endeavour.
His work was continued by his disciple Willibald (b. 700), a relative, a
pilgrim to Rome and the Holy Land, and a Benedictine monk, who was
made bishop of Eichstädt (741). He called his brother, sister, and others
from England as missionaries into Germany. He founded Benedictine
monasteries, and it is thought by some that he wrote a biography of his
great leader (d. 781). Gregory, an abbot of Utrecht, a Merovingian prince
converted by Boniface, worked with his master and took charge of the
Frisian mission after his death (755). Sturm, the first abbot of Fulda (710-
779),[248:3] a Bavarian nobleman educated by Boniface, had his teacher's
bones buried at Fulda and served for years as a missionary among the
Saxons (d. 779). Charles the Great gave him support and encouragement.

Another means used to convert the Germans was the sword. This was
especially true of the Saxons, a sturdy, defiant, warlike people, who lived in
Hanover, Oldenburg, and Westphalia.[249:1] They were the last to accept
Christianity, because they hated the Franks and far-off Rome. Fruitless
efforts to convert them had been made by the Ewald brothers, Suidbert, and
others. The work was left, however, for Charles the Great, who consumed
thirty-three years in subjecting them to Christian rule (772-805).[249:2] This
was done only after five thousand inhabitants had been massacred at
Verdun, ten thousand families had been exiled in 804, and bloody laws were
enacted against relapse into paganism. This new type of missionary work,
which was a radical departure from the apostolic method, can be excused,
perhaps, only when we take into consideration the moral standards of the
age and the motives of Charles the Great. The best men of the time,
however, like Alcuin vehemently opposed this method. After Charles had
subjected the Saxons, he established among them eight bishoprics,
Osnabrück, Münster, Minden, Paderborn, Verdun, Bremen, Hildesheim, and
Halberstädt.
The Prussians, located to the north-eastward of the Saxons along the Baltic,
stubbornly resisted efforts to Christianise them. Adelbert, Bishop of Prague
(997), and his successor, Bruno, were both massacred by them. At length, a
Cistercian monk, who was appointed the first bishop of Prussia in the
twelfth century, made some headway among them, but was soon compelled
to withdraw. Then followed the crusade of the Teutonic Order (1230-1280)
in which the methods of Charles the Great were employed and with the
same results.
Christianity was first introduced into Denmark in the sixth and seventh
centuries through raids on Ireland, commerce with Holland, and the story of
the "white Christ." Willibrord was the first missionary.[250:1] When he was
expelled from Friesland in 700 he went to Denmark, where he was received
with favour by King Yngrin, organised a church, and bought thirty boys to
be educated as missionaries. St. Sebaldus,[250:2] the son of a Danish king,
was a product of this early missionary effort. Charles the Great ruled part of
Denmark, carried on extensive trade with the people, located churches in
Holstein and at Hamburg, and planned to convert all the Danes.[250:3] Louis
the Pious, appealed to by King Harold Klak[250:4] to settle a family feud,

sent Archbishop Ebo of Rheims and Bishop Halitgar of Cambray to
Denmark in 822. Ebo made several journeys, later preached extensively,
won many converts, baptised them, and built a church at Welnau. When, in
826, King Harold Klak fled to the Emperor for aid, he, together with his
whole family and train, was converted and baptised at Ingelheim. Upon
returning, the King took with him Ansgar, a Frank born at Amiens (800),
who had been early trained as a missionary teacher and preacher, and who
was to win the title of "Apostle of the North." He laboured in Denmark with
some success, but in 829 was expelled, when Harold Klak was once more
driven out, and went to Sweden until he was elected bishop of Hamburg in
831 with all Scandinavia as his see. In 846, Bremen was united to Hamburg
and Ansgar was made archbishop. He soon succeeded in planting
Christianity and with it monasticism in Denmark. His successor,
Archbishop Rimbert (865-888), continued the spread of Christianity
undisturbed; and his successors Adalgar (888-909), Unni (909-936), and
Adaldag (936-988), had a comparatively clear field. The last of these saw
the consecration of four native bishops, an increase in the possessions of the
Church, and an organised struggle against heathenism. When the Danes
made a conquest of England, the results were seen in the conversion of
King Swen, a zealous worker for the Church, and his son Canute (1019-
1035), who completed his father's work with the aid of English
missionaries. So strong was the Church in Denmark by the twelfth century
that a separate archbishop was appointed. The supremacy of the Roman
Church was recognised.
The conversion of the Northmen has an interesting history.[251:1] The
political situation in the tenth century opened the way for the introduction
of Christianity. Hakon the Good, educated in England as a Christian,
conquered and united all Norway, converted his followers, called over
priests from England, and sought to force Christianity upon all his people,
but in this failed. The sons of Eric, also Christianised in England, wrested
the throne from Hakon the Good in 961, and likewise tried to uproot
paganism, but they, too, were unsuccessful. Olaf, of romantic career, was
called in 995 to rule. He, likewise, waged a crusade in behalf of Christianity
and with such success that when he died in 1000, it had been permanently
established. Olaf the Saint (1014-1030), however, completed the

Christianisation of Norway and put it under the protection of the
Archbishop of Bremen-Hamburg.[252:1]
As early as the eighth century, Culdee anchorites were accustomed to retire
to Iceland from Scotland. In the ninth century Norwegians began to flee
thither from the tyranny of their kings. Most of these emigrants were
pagans, but one Norwegian convert in Saxony persuaded Bishop Frederick
to go with him to Iceland where the bishop remained four years, but made
little impression. Thougbrand journeyed thither in the tenth century, but
likewise largely failed in his efforts. After the conversion of Norway,
however, the intimate relations with Iceland soon produced different results.
Christianity spread so rapidly that in 1000 the Christian religion was made
the state religion. The first church built on the island was from timber sent
by Olaf the Saint.[252:2]
Greenland was discovered and colonised by the bold Icelander, Eric the
Red, in 986, and Eric's son was sent over by Olaf to plant the Christian
Church there in 1000. The Church flourished there for four hundred years
until disrupted by the Esquimos. About the year 1000 Vinland was
discovered and thus the Gospel was known on the coast of New England
five centuries before Columbus appeared.[253:1]
Like the Danes, the Swedes learned of Christianity through wars and
conquests, and commercial relations. Björn, the Swedish King, asked Louis
the Pious to send him Christian missionaries. Accordingly in 829 Ansgar,
expelled from Denmark, went to Sweden where he laboured two years with
some success. Five years later he sent Gautbert and Nithard to Sweden with
a number of priests, but the pagan uprising killed all the priests and soon
swept away all traces of Christianity. In 848 Ansgar made a pompous visit
to Sweden again with costly presents and letters, and reopened the field for
missionary work. By the eleventh century, the King of Sweden and his sons
were baptised, and the work was pushed with renewed vigour, although it
was not until the middle of the twelfth century that the conversion of
Sweden was completed.
In the time of Charles the Great, the Slavs were located along the eastern
side of his Empire; the Wends along the Baltic Sea between the Elba and
the Vistula; the Poles along the Vistula; the Russians behind the Poles; the
Czechs in Bohemia; and the Bulgarians back of the Danube and Balkan

Mountains. Charles the Great had attempted to force the Wends to accept
Christianity, but with no success. Otto the Great conquered them and
likewise sought to convert them. He located bishoprics at Havelburg,
Oldenburg, Meissen, Merseburg, and Zeitz, and an archbishopric at
Magdeburg in 968 with Adalbert as the first archbishop. Reaction began in
the time of Otto II., under the leadership of Mistiwoi, an apostate Christian,
in which churches and monasteries were burned, and priests and monks
killed (983).[254:1] Later, Gottschalk, his grandson, an educated Christian
monk, angered at the murder of his father (1032), led an anti-Christian
crusade, but was defeated and then repented and ever after laboured hard to
establish Christianity. The old bishoprics were restored and new ones
created at Razzeburg and Mecklenburg; five monasteries were built;
missionary work was encouraged; the liturgy was translated into Slavic; and
the Church in that region became wealthy and powerful. But the heathen
party, in a general uprising, killed Gottschalk and his old teacher (1066),
destroyed the churches and monasteries, and once more slew the priests and
monks. The final Christianisation of the Wends, therefore, did not take
place until the middle of the twelfth century.
Charles the Great subjugated the Moravians, directed the Bishop of Passau
to establish a mission among them, secured the conversion of their chief,
Moymir, and founded the bishoprics of Olmütz and Nitra. Louis the
German deposed Moymir on suspicion of treason and elevated Radislaw to
power, but he soon turned against his benefactor and defeated him, formed
an independent Slavic kingdom on the eastern boundary of Germany, and
sent for Greek missionaries, two of whom, Cyrillus and Methodius, brothers
and educated monks, were sent by the Greek Emperor Michael III. in 863.
[254:2]
Cyrillus understood the Slavic tongue and invented an alphabet and
translated the liturgy into Slavic. He preached and celebrated service in the
language of the people, and had a most able assistant in Methodius. They
were very successful in their labours and built up a national Slavic Church.
The German priests who had been labouring there for some time were
driven out, and with them disappeared the Latin liturgy. Seeing their great
success, Pope Nicholas I., in 868, invited them to Rome and won them to a
friendly arrangement. There Cyrillus died in 869 but Methodius was
returned as the Roman Archbishop of Pannonia. The Pope agreed both to
the use of Slavic in the mass and to the independence of the Slavic Church

under papal control. Ten years later Methodius made a second visit to Rome
and a second agreement was entered into, satisfactory to both Rome and
Moravia. He died before the ninth century ended, and before the close of
the tenth century the Latin Church had replaced the Slavic. The expelled
Slavic priests fled to Bulgaria to build up a new Church.
Neither Charles the Great, nor his son Louis, was able to conquer the
Bohemians. When Bohemia became a dependency of Moravia, however,
the way was opened for the introduction of Christianity. The Bohemian
Duke Borziway and his family were converted, but reaction followed under
Boleslav the Cruel. Otto I. in 950 completely defeated Boleslav, recalled the
priests, and rebuilt the churches. The bishopric of Prague was established in
973, and under Archbishop Severus (1083) general laws were enforced
concerning Christian marriage, observance of the Sabbath, and morality.
The Latin language and the Roman ritual prevailed in the Bohemian
Church.[255:1]
The first missionaries to Poland were Slavic, perhaps Cyrillus and
Methodius. With the break-up of the Moravian kingdom, many nobles and
priests fled to Poland and were kindly received. In 965 a Bohemian princess
married Duke Mieczyslav and took priests with her. The Duke was
converted and baptised and paganism was destroyed by force. The Church
was then organised on the Latin-German model, and German priests were
introduced. The first Polish bishopric was established at Posen subject to
the Archbishop of Magdeburg. But it was to take many additional years
before Roman Christianity was firmly established.
The Bulgarians, Slavic in institutions, but not in origin, captured Adrianople
in 813 and carried away many Christian prisoners, among whom was the
bishop himself, who began the conversion of their captors. In 861 a
Bulgarian princess, returning from captivity in Constantinople as a
Christian missionary to her own people, converted her brother, the Duke
Bogoris. This work was supplemented by Methodius, who was sent there in
862 to help on the good work, and by other Greek missionaries who
followed him. In 865 the baptised Duke of Bulgaria wrote to Pope Nicholas
I. for Roman missionaries and asked one hundred and six questions about
Christian doctrines, morals, and ritual. The Pope sent two bishops and
elaborate answers to the questions,[256:1] but the Greek faith finally
predominated.

The Magyars, who entered Europe in the ninth century and in 884 settled
near the mouth of the Danube, finally located in present Hungary. They first
learned of Christianity at the Byzantine court. In Hungary, however, they
came in touch with the Roman missionaries. Otto the Great compelled them
to receive missionaries from the Bishop of Passau. When Prince Geyza
married a Christian princess, their conversion was rapid and complete.
Adalbert of Prague visited the country and made a great impression. King
Stephanus (997) made Christianity the legal religion, enforced the German
ecclesiastical system, formed ten bishoprics, located an archbishopric at
Grau on the Danube, built churches, schools, and monasteries, and received
a golden crown from Pope Sylvester II. in 1000 as "His Apostolic Majesty."
[257:1]

The Russians claimed St. Andrew for their apostle but probably actually
learned of Christianity from Constantinople in the ninth century. Photius, in
867, told the Pope that the Russians were already Christians. A church was
built at Kieff on the Dnieper, the Russian capital, and in 955 the grand-
duchess, Olga, journeyed to Constantinople and was baptised. Grand-Duke
Vladimir, the grandson of Olga, established Christianity at one sweep when
he married Anne, the daughter of Emperor Basil and was baptised at his
wedding in 988. Churches, schools, and monasteries spread rapidly all over
the country, but the Greek Church instead of the Roman was firmly planted
there, and in 1325, Moscow became the Russian Rome.[257:2]
While the Roman Church was winning new subjects all over northern and
central Europe; she was losing nearly as much in territory and numbers in
Africa and Spain. This loss was due to the rise of a rival religion in Arabia
which bid fair to outstrip Christianity in the race for world conquest.
Mohammedanism, shortly after its birth (622), began to threaten
Christianity. After having driven the Christian Church from northern Africa,
the followers of Islam overthrew the Visigothic power in Spain (711) and
then swarmed across the Pyrenees to overrun most of France. The very
existence of Christendom was at stake, and the future of Europe hung in the
scales and might have been very different, had not Charles Martel with his
stalwart Christian knights in the bloody battle of Tours (732) checked the
advance of the crescent and forced its adherents to hastily retrace their
steps. The califate founded at Cordova (756) continued as a standing
menace for more than six centuries. Meanwhile Moslem corsairs scoured

the Mediterranean, seized Sicily, and from that vantage point sought to
make a conquest of Italy venturing at times to the very gates of Rome.
The contest between the faithful of these two religions, continued for
centuries and attained its climax in the crusades. The followers of each faith
sought to either conquer or exterminate the other. This form of missionary
work was like that employed by Charles the Great against the Saxons and
Otto the Great against the Slavs. The repeated assaults of Frankish rulers,
Spanish princes, and Norman warriors in Italy were finally successful and
Islam was thrust back into Africa, but only to enter Europe by way of
Constantinople.
In sharp contrast to these harsh methods, there are not a few instances of
devout Christians labouring in love among the followers of the Prophet to
save their souls. Conversions to Christianity were not infrequent in Spain,
Italy, Egypt, and the East.[259:1] The Franciscans and Dominicans both
laboured heroically among the followers of the Prophet to teach them the
higher and better faith.[259:2]
Notwithstanding the fact that Christianity spread so rapidly throughout the
Roman Empire, yet it must be remembered that more than twelve centuries
were to circle away before the cross was carried to all European peoples
and planted among them. The problem was as difficult as that encountered
to-day in Africa, Asia, and the islands of the seas. By the twelfth century all
Europe, except Lapland and Lithuania had been won to Christianity. If the
number of Christians approximated 30,000,000 at the death of Constantine,
the number at the time of Pope Innocent III. in 1200 may have been
200,000,000 who came within the direct or indirect jurisdiction of the
Christian Church. The sweeping control of the Roman Church gathered
under her broad ægis possibly 100,200,000. Through these missionary
activities, therefore, the successor of St. Peter had extended his actual sway
until it included all of western and central Europe with a population as large
as that of the Empire of Cæsar at the birth of Christ.
This unprecedented increase in dominion and subjects carried with it a
corresponding change in the power, duties, wealth, and opportunity of the
Papacy. The Pope of Rome became the greatest force in the West and one of
the greatest in the world. The hierarchy was necessarily extended and
elaborated. The number of officers, both locally and in the ecclesiastical

court at Rome, was greatly increased. The rapid addition of so many sturdy
recruits to the Roman Church, carried on for centuries, gave the Western
Church a pronounced ascendency over the Eastern Church. Papal
prerogatives, which were little more than assertions in the early period,
became realities. As a result of these heroic and persistent missionary
efforts, the mediæval Church, at the end of the missionary period, had
attained its highest power.
A stream is coloured and influenced in its purity by the soil and rock
through which it flows. An institution is modified by the peoples through
whom it passes. It is not a matter of surprise to the historical student, in
consequence, to see the Christian Church reflecting the civilisation through
which it grew. Christianity may easily be reduced to the fundamental
Gospel principles taught by Jesus, but in that pure, simple form it was not
spread over the world and perpetuated. Originating on Jewish soil, it never
outgrew the Jewish tinge. During the post-apostolic period it was
powerfully modified by the classical philosophy of Rome, Greece, and
Alexandria. In post-Constantinian times the multitudes of heathen
converted to Christianity introduced heathen modifications and
compromises. The spread of the Church to Teutonic soil, there to encounter
a sturdy barbarism in most intimate relations, produced modifying
influences which can easily be seen in the history of the Church. The
Germanic contribution was to prove to be one of the most important and
influential forces in the whole history of the Church, because it created, in a
large sense, modern civilisation and the modern Church.
This period of zealous missionary endeavour among the Celtic and Teutonic
tribes was a great pioneer movement. Far too little attention has been paid
to it by historians and, consequently, comparatively small credit has been
granted to it as a force in the evolution of our institutions to-day. It is
impossible to conceive what would have been the history of Europe and the
civilisation she has planted around the earth had not Christianity entered at
this epoch to lay the foundations. Every institution would have developed
differently and the world would certainly not be what it is to-day.

Sources

A.—PRIMARY:

I. ENGLAND, IRELAND, AND SCOTLAND. See Gross, Sources and Lit.

of Eng. Hist.
1.—Gildas (d. 570), Works. Transl. by J. A. Giles. Bohn Lib.
2.—Bede (d. 735), Ecclesiastical History of England.
Various eds.
3.—Neimius (d. 9th cent.). History of the Britons (to 642).
Bohn.
4.—Ethelwerd (d. 988), Chronicle (to 959). Ib.
5.—Asser (d. 909), Life of Alfred (to 893). Ib.
6.—Geoffrey (d. 1154), British History (to 688). Ib.
7.—Henry of Huntingdon (d. 1155), History of England. Ib.
8.—Florence of Worcester (d. 1118), Chronicle. Ib.
9.—Earle, J., Two of the Saxon Chronicles. Lond., 1865.
10.—Plummer, C., Two of the Saxon Chronicles. Lond.,
1889.
11.—Giles, J. A., Patres Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ. Lond., 1843-8.
19 vols. Works of thirteen Fathers. Parts in Eng.
12.—The Pipe Rolls. Lond., 1884-1900. 24 vols.
13.—English Historical Society Publications. Lond., 1838-
50. 27 vols.
14.—Mason, A. J., The Mission of St. Augustine to England
according to the Original Documents. Camb., 1897.
15.—Haddan, A. W., and Stubbs, W., Councils and
Ecclesiastical Documents relating to Great Britain
and Ireland. Lond., 1869-71. 3 vols. Some transl. and
fine Eng. notes.
16.—Johnson, J., A Collection of the Laws and Canons of
the Church of England (to 1519). Oxf., 1850.

17.—Foxe, J., Acts and Monuments. Lond., 1563. Best ed.
by Pratt and Stoughton. Lond., 1877. 8 vols.
18.—Gee, H., and Hardy, W. J., Documents Illustrative of
English Church History. Lond., 1896.
19.—Colby, C. W., Selections from the Sources of English
History. Lond. and N. Y., 1899.
20.—Lee, G. C., Leading Documents of English History.
Lond., 1900.
21.—Stevens, H. M., and Adams, G. B. Select Documents of
English Constitutional History, N. Y., 1901.
22.—Univ. of Pa., Translations and Reprints, ii., No. 7.
II.—FRANCE:

1.—Masson, G., The Early Chroniclers of France. Lond.,
1879.
2.—Gregory of Tours, Ecclesiastical of the Franks. Univ. of
Pa. Tr. announced.
III.—GERMANY:

1.—Boniface, Works. A few letters translated in preface of
Giles, Patres Ecclesiæ Anglicanæ.
Bibliographical note:—Much valuable material for England
has not yet been translated into English. For France,
Spain, Germany, Scandinavia and the Slavic lands
practically all the material is in Latin. Some of the chief
sources are: Pertz, Monumenta; Mansi, Sacrorum;
Migne, Patrologiæ; Niebuhr, Corpus Byzantinæ; Jaffé,
Monumenta and Regesta; Potthast, Regesta; Bolland,
Acta; Pelzel and Dabrowsky, Rerum Bohemic.; Hübner,
Inscriptiones Britanniæ Christianæ.

B.—SECONDARY:
I.—SPECIAL:

1.—Aikman, J. L., Cyclopædia of Christian Missions. Lond.,
1861.
2.—Allen, J. R., Monumental History of the Early British
Church. Lond., 1889.
3.—Bliss, E. M., Encyclopædia of Missions. N. Y., 1891. 2
vols.
4.—Briggs, F. W., Missions: Apostolic and Modern. Lond.,
1864.
5.—Burkitt, F. C., Early Christianity outside of the Roman
Empire. Camb., 1899.
6.—Charles, Mrs. R., Early Christian Missions in Ireland,
Scotland and England. Lond., 1893.
7.—Choules, J. O., and Smith, T., Origin and History of
Missions. Bost., 1842. 2 vols.
8.—Hole, C., Early Missions to and within the British Isles.
Lond., 1888. Home Missions in the Early Mediæval
Period. Lond., 1889.
9.—Kingsmill, J., Missions and Missionaries. Lond., 1853.
10.—Maclear, G. F., Apostles of Mediæval Europe. Lond.,
1869. History of Christian Missions during the Middle
Ages. Camb., 1863.
Conversion of the Celts. Lond., 1879.
Conversion of the Slavs. Lond., 1879.
Conversion of the English. Lond., 1879.
Conversion of the Northmen. Lond., 1879.

11.—Merivale, C., Conversion of the West. N. Y., 1879. 5
vols. The Conversion of the Roman Empire. Boyle
Lect. Lond., 1864. The Conversion of the Northern
Nations. Boyle Lect. Lond., 1865.
12.—Newell, E. J., St. Patrick. Lond., 1878.
13.—Smith, F., The Origin and History of Missions. Bost.,
1842.
14.—Smith, G., Short History of Christian Missions. N. Y.,
1884.
15.—Smith, R. T., The Church in Roman Gaul. Lond., 1878.
16.—Smith, T., Mediæval Missions. Edinb., 1880.
17.—Snow, T. B., St. Gregory the Great. Lond., 1892.
18.—Summers, W. H., Rise and Spread of Christianity in
Europe. N. Y., 1894.
19.—Taylor, A. T., How Christianity Conquered the Roman
Empire.
20.—Walrond, T. F., Christian Missions before the
Reformation. Lond., 1873.
21.—Wyse, J., Missionary Centres of the Middle Ages.
Lond., 1872.
II.—GENERAL:

Adeney, ch. 8. Alzog, ii., ch. 1. Anderson, J., Scot. in Early
Chr. Times. Butler, ch. 46-49. Cheetham, ch. 14. Coxe,
Lect. 2, sec. 28-30; Lect. 4, sec. 1-3. Crooks, ch. 31.
Darras, i., 54, 269, 329, 333-336, 399; ii., 254. Döllinger,
ii., ch. 2; iii., ch. 1. Foulkes, ch. 5-10. Fisher, 45 f., 145 f.,
163. Gieseler, 2d pd., sec. 107, 108, 122-126, 134; 3d
pd., sec. 16, 37-40, 44. Gilmartin, i., ch. 24-26. Godkin,

Hist. of Hung. Godwin, Hist. of Fr. Greene, Hist. of M. A.
Guericke, sec. 65-68. Hardwick, ch. 1, 5, 9, 13. Hase,
sec. 148-156. Hore, ch. 6, 8. Hurst, i., 556-599, 619.
Kurtz, i., 397-401, 440-482; ii., 1-13. Mahan, bk. 4, ch.
12. Masson, Early Chroniclers of Fr. Milman, i., bk. 3,
ch. 2; ii., bk. 4, ch. 3-5. Moeller, i., 535-541. Neander,
iii., 1-84, 271-346. Pressensé, bk. i., ch. 1. Robertson, bk.
2, ch. 13. Schaff, pd. 3, ch. 1, pd. 4, ch. 3.

FOOTNOTES:

[229:1] Matt. xxviii., 19, 20.
[229:2] Ignatius, Letter to the Ephesians, ch. 10. See Smith and Cheetham, art.
on "The Heathen."
[229:3] An illustration of what must have been a common practice is found in the
case of Eusebius, the Bishop of Vercelli, who made his cathedral church the
centre of a wide missionary field.
[230:1] Matt. x., 34.
[231:1] Neander, Light in Dark Places, 417.
[232:1] Philostorgius, Eccl. Hist., ii., 5.
[232:2] To do that Ulfilas had to invent an alphabet. Whether he translated the
whole Bible or only a part of it is unknown, since only fragments of his work
have come down to us. See Schaff, Companion to the Greek Testament, N. Y.,
1883, 160; Sozomen, Eccl. Hist., ii., 6; Philostorgius, Eccl. Hist., ii., 5; Scott,
Ulfilas, Apostle to the Goths, Lond., 1885.
[232:3] Theodoret, Eccl. Hist., v., 30.
[234:1] On the conversion of the Burgundians, see Socrates, Eccl. Hist., ii., 30.
[234:2] Richter, 36, n. 6; Bouquet, iv., 49. See Ogg, Source Book, § 6.
[235:1] Perry, Franks, 488.
[235:2] Bede, i., 47; Lingard, i., 46; Haddan and Stubbs, i., 22-26; Pryce, Anc.
Brit. Ch., 31; Tertullian, Against Judæos, 7; Gildas; Ogg, Source Book, § 8. The
early history of the British Church is obscure. By the second century the Gospel
had spread through the southern parts of the island. Three British bishops
attended the Council of Arles, 314, and others were present at the Council of
Sardica in 347 and the Council of Rimini in 359.
[235:3] Bede, i., 22.
[235:4] Ibid., ii., ch. 1.
[235:5] Bede, i., 25. See Nic. and Post-Nic. Fathers, 2d ser., xii., Epistles;
Haddan and Stubbs, iii., 5; Cheney, Readings in Eng. Hist., N. Y., 1908, 46-52;
Ogg, Source Book, § 9; Thorne, Chronicles of St. Augustine's Abbey; Stanley,
Memorials of Canterbury. See Allies, Hist. of Ch. in Eng.
[236:1] Bede, i., 26. See Green, Short Hist. of Eng. People, ch. 1, § 1.
[236:2] He went over to Arles, France, to be consecrated. Bede, i., 27.
[236:3] Bede, i., 32.
[237:1] Until about seventy-five years previous Rome herself had used the same
method of calculation. Dionysius Exiguus, a Scythian monk, who instituted the
practice of dating events from the birth of Christ, invented the new method the
latter part of the fifth century. See Cutts, Aug., 132.
[237:2] Skene, ii., 9; Killen, Eccl. Hist. of Ire., i., 57.
[237:3] Bede, iii., 5.

[237:4] Bede, v., 21. The Greeks shaved the head completely. See Cutts, Aug.,
136.
[237:5] Bellesheim, Hist. of Cath. Ch. in Scot., Edinb., 1887-89, 4 vols., i., 86.
[238:1] Warren, Liturgy and Ritual of the Celtic Ch., Lond., 1881.
[238:2] Haddan and Stubbs, iii., 40.
[238:3] This incident is regarded as an interpolation in Bede's History. Hook,
Archbishops of Canterbury, i., 68, 69.
[239:1] Bede, ii., 2.
[239:2] Ibid., iii., 25, 26.
[240:1] Greene, Short Hist. of Eng. People, ch. 1, § 1. Cf. Love, Early Eng. Ch.
Hist., Lond., 1893, p. 94.
[240:2] Hunt, Eng. Ch. in M. A., Lond., 1889; Ingram, Eng. and Rome, Lond.
and N. Y., 1892; Newell, Hist. of Anc. Brit. Ch., Lond., 1887; Alexander, The
Anc. Brit. Ch., Lond., 1889; Cathcart, The Anc. Brit. and Irish Churches, Phil.,
1893; Soames, The Lat. Ch. during Anglo-Sax. Times, Lond., 1848.
[240:3] Todd, St. Patrick the Apostle of Ireland, Dub., 1864; Sherman, Loca
Patriciana; Wright, The Writings of St. Patrick, Lond., 1889, 2d ed., 1894;
Stokes, Tripartite Life of St. Patrick, Lond., 1887; Cusack, Life of St. Patrick; De
Vinne, Hist. of Irish Prim. Ch., N. Y., 1870; Killen, Eccl. Hist. of Ire., Lond.,
1875; Stokes, Ireland and the Celtic Ch., Lond., 1886; Olden, The Ch. of Ireland,
Lond., 1892; Sanderson, St. Patrick and the Irish Ch., N. Y., 1895.
[240:4] Bede, iii., 13, 19, 21.
[241:1] Haddan and Stubbs, ii., 103; Forbes, The Kalendars of Scottish Saints;
Robertson, Statuta Ecclesia Scoticanæ; Cunningham, Ch. Hist. of Scot.;
McLaughlin, The Early Scot. Ch.; Reeves, Life of St. Columba; Skene, Keltic
Scot.
[241:2] Adamnan, Life of St. Columba (ed. by Reeves and Skene); Smith,
Columba; Duke of Argyle, Iona; Montalemb., iii., 99; Transl. and Reprints, ii.,
No. 7; Skene, ii., 52.
[241:3] Calderwood, Hist. of Kirk of Scot., Edinb., 1842-49, 8 vols.; Gordon,
Eccl. Chron. for Scot., Glasg., 1867, 4 vols.; Lightfoot, Leaders in the Northern
Ch., Lond., 1890; Dowden, The Celtic Ch. in Scot., Lond., 1894.
[242:1] Montalembert, ii., 463.
[243:1] Univ. of Pa., Transl. and Rep., ii., No. 7; see Maclear, Apostles of Med.
Europe, 57-72. His life and works are in Migne, vol. 80.
[243:2] Migne, vol. 113. See Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[243:3] Smith, Mediæval Missions, 112.
[243:4] Migne, vol. 101. See Dict. of Christ. Biog.
[244:1] Bede, v., 10.
[244:2] Mabillon, iii., 341-348; Maclear, Apostles of Med. Europe, 104-109.
[244:3] See Dict. of Christ. Biog.

[244:4] His original name was Winfried. At the wish of Pope Gregory II. he
changed it to Boniface in 723. See Cox, Life of Boniface, Lond., 1853; Hope,
Boniface, Lond., 1872.
[245:1] Discredited by Rettberg, Kircheng. Deutschl., ii., 514. Mabillon, iii., 341,
gives an interpolated life. See Maclear, Apostles of Med. Europe, 104.
[246:1] This oath was similar to that taken by Italian bishops. Neander, v., 64-67.
[246:2] Jaffé, Mon. Magunt., 157.
[248:1] Rettberg and modern scholars deny the tradition.
[248:2] J. A. Giles edited the works of Boniface in 2 vols., in 1844. His disciple
Willibald of Mainz wrote his life. Pertz, Mon., ii., 33. Maclear, Apostles of Med.
Europe, ch. 8. One of his sermons, on "Faith and the works of love," is given in
translation in Neale, Mediæval Preachers.
[248:3] A famous monastery founded by Boniface.
[249:1] Bede, v., 10.
[249:2] In 785, two of the most powerful Saxon chiefs, Wittekind and Abbio,
submitted to baptism with Charles the Great as sponsor.
[250:1] Bede, v.
[250:2] The patron saint of Nuremberg.
[250:3] Jaffé, Mon. Alc., Ep. 13.
[250:4] Denmark at this time was divided into many petty kingdoms.
[251:1] Maclear, The Conversion of the Northmen. Merivale, Conversion of the
Northern Nations.
[252:1] Heimskringla: Chronicle of the Norse Kings. Tr. by Laing, Lond., 1844,
rev. ed. by Anderson, Lond., 1889, 4 vols. Also tr. by Morris and Magnusson,
Lond., 1891, 2 vols. New ed. by York Powell. See Carlyle, The Early Kings of
Norway, Lond., 1875, and Boyesen, The Story of Norway, N. Y. and Lond., new
ed., 1890.
[252:2] The complete record of these early days is given in the Biskupa Sogar,
ed. by Prof. Vigfusson, and pub. by the Icelandic Lit. Soc., 2 vols., 1858-61. See
Elton, Life of Laurence, Bishop of Halar, Lond., 1890; Maccall, The Story of
Iceland, Lond., 1887.
[253:1] See Winsor, Nar. and Crit. Hist. of Am., i.
[254:1] Seized with remorse Mistiwoi tried to make amends, but his subjects
abandoned him. He passed the remaining days of his life in a Christian
monastery.
[254:2] Tozer, The Ch. and the East. Emp., ch. 7.
[255:1] There are practically no original sources in English concerning the Slavic
missions. Pelzel and Dabrowsky, Rerum Bohemic. Scriptores, contains most of
the documents.
[256:1] Mansi, Coll. Concil., xv., 401-434; Harduin, Coll. Concil., v., 353-386.