Chapter II: Monasticism, Clericalism and Hierarchism (1)

§ 44. MONASTICISM.[121]

Disgusted with worldly pursuits and following an impulse of the oriental character in favour of the contemplative life, many ascetics withdrew into deserts and solitudes, there as Anchorets (ἐρεμίται, μοναχοί, μονάζοντες), amid prayer and labour, privation and self-denial, wringing out of the wilderness their scanty support, they strove after holiness of life which they thought they could reach only by forsaking the accursed world. The place where this extravagant extreme of the old ascetism arose was the Thebaid in Upper Egypt (§ 39, 3). The first, and for a long time isolated, examples of such professional abandonment of the world may be traced back to the 3rd century; but they had wider spread first in the post-Constantine Age. The example of St. Anthony was specially influential in leading a number of like-minded men to betake themselves to isolated dwellings, λαῦραι, in his neighbourhood and to place themselves under his spiritual direction. In this we have already the transition from a solitary anchoret life to a communal cœnobite life (κοινὸς βίος), and this reached maturity when Anthony’s disciple Pachomius gathered the scattered residents in his district into one common dwelling, _Claustrum_, _Cœnobium_, _Monasterium_, _Mandra_=fold, and bound them under a common system of ascetic practice in prayer and labour, especially basket making and carpet weaving. This arrangement, without, however, any tendency to displace the anchoret life properly so-called, won great favour, and this went on for some decades until first of all in the East, then also in the West about A.D. 370, the land was covered over with monasteries. The monastic life under its twofold aspect was now esteemed as βὶος ἀγγελικός (Matt. xxii. 30), φιλοσοφία ὑψηλή, _melior vita_. Yet even here corruption soon spread. Not merely the feeling of spiritual need, but ambition, vanity, slothfulness and especially the desire to avoid military service and villainage, taxes and imposts, induced men to enter the monasteries. The Emperor Valens therefore issued an order in A.D. 365 that such men should be dragged out by force from their retreats. Spiritual vices too were not wanting--extravagance and fanaticism, spiritual pride, etc. All the more did the most distinguished bishops, _e.g._ Basil the Great, feel it their duty to take the monasteries under their special supervision and care. Under such direction, besides serving their own special purpose, they became extremely important and beneficial as places of refuge for the oppressed and persecuted, and as benevolent institutions for the sick and the poor. Sometimes also by the introduction of theological studies as seminaries to prepare candidates for the higher ecclesiastical offices. Other prelates, however, preferred to use their monks as a trusty horde for the accomplishment of their own ambitious party ends. The monks were always reckoned among laymen, but were distinguished from the _Seculares_ as _Religiosi_ or _Conversi_.

§ 44.1. =The Biography of St. Anthony.=--According to the _Vita
s. Antonii_ ascribed to Athanasius, Anthony was sprung from a
wealthy Coptic family of the country town of Coma in Upper Egypt,
and was born in A.D. 251. At the age of eighteen he lost his
parents, and, being powerfully affected by hearing the story of
the rich young ruler in the gospel read in church, he gave away
all his goods to the poor and withdrew into the desert (A.D. 285).
Amid terrible inward struggles, which took the form of daily
conflicts with demons, who sprang upon him from the sides of his
cave in the shape of all sort of beasts and strange creatures,
he spent a long time in a horrible tomb, then twenty years in the
crumbling ruins of a castle, and finally he chose as his constant
abode a barren mountain, afterwards called Anthony’s Mount,
where a well and some date palms afforded him the absolutely
indispensable support. His clothing, a sheep’s skin and a hairy
cloak, was on his body day and night, nor did he ever wash
himself. The fame of his holiness attracted a multitude of
like-minded ascetics who settled in his neighbourhood and
put themselves under his spiritual direction. But also men of
the world of all ranks made pilgrimages to him, seeking and
finding comfort. Even Constantine and his sons testified in
correspondence with him their veneration, and he answered “like
a Christian Diogenes to the Christian Alexander.” Pointing to
Christ as the only miracle worker, he healed by his prayers
bodily maladies and by his conversations afflictions of the soul.
Amid the distress of the persecution of Maximian in A.D. 311 he
went to Alexandria, but found not the martyrdom which he courted.
Again, in A.D. 351, during the bitter Arian controversy (§ 50),
he appeared suddenly in the great capital, this time gazed at
by Christians and pagans as a divine wonder, and converting
crowds of the heathen. In his last days he resigned the further
direction of the society of hermits gathered about him to his
disciple Pachomius, himself withdrawing along with two companions
into an unknown solitude, where he, bequeathing to the author his
sheepskin, died in A.D. 356, in his 105th year, after exacting a
promise that no one should know the place of his burial.--Until
the appearance of this book, which was very soon translated into
Latin by a certain Evagrius, no single writer, neither Lactantius,
nor Eusebius, nor even Athanasius in any of his other undoubtedly
genuine writings, mentions the name of this patriarchal monk
afterwards so highly esteemed, and all later writers draw only
from this one source. Weingarten has now not only proved that
this _Vita s. Ant._ is not a biography in the proper sense, but
a romance with a purpose which was intended “to represent the
ideal of a monkish life dovetailed into the ecclesiastical system
and raised notwithstanding all popular and vital elements into
a spiritual atmosphere,” but has also disproved the Athanasian
authorship of the book, without, however, seeking to deny the
historical existence of St. Anthony and his importance in the
establishment of monasticism, as this is already vouched for
by the fact that even in the 4th century in the days of Rufinus
pilgrimages were made to _Mons Antonii_.--The most important
witness for the Athanasian authorship is Gregory Nazianzen, who
begins his panegyric on Athanasius delivered in Constantinople
only a few years after that father’s death, which occurred in
A.D. 373, with the wish that he could describe brilliantly the
life of the highly revered man, as he himself had portrayed the
ideal of monasticism in the person of St. Anthony. But, on the
other hand, Jerome in his _Vita Pauli_ and Rufinus in his _Hist.
eremit._ seem not yet to have known the author of the book,
and the former, first in his _De scriptoribus ecclst._, written
twenty years later, knows that Athanasius was the author. Internal
reasons, too, seem with no small weight to tell against the
authenticity of the book, the biographical contents of which are
largely intermixed with fabulous and legendary elements.

§ 44.2. =The Origin of Christian Monasticism.=--From the fact
that not only Lactantius, but also Eusebius, whose history
reaches down to A.D. 324, have nothing to say of a monasticism
already developed or then first in process of development, it
may perhaps be concluded that although in a general way such
an institution was already in existence, it had not yet become
known beyond the bounds of the Thebaid where it originated.
But from the fact that Eusebius, who died in A.D. 340, in his
_Vita Constantini_ reaching down to A.D. 337, never makes any
mention of monasticism, we cannot with like probability infer
a continuance of such ignorance down to the above-mentioned
year, but must attribute it to the limited range of the book
in question. In his commentary on Ps. lxviii. 7 and lxxxiv. 4
he distinctly speaks of a Christian monasticism. The fugitive
Athanasius, too, so early as A.D. 356 betakes himself to the
monks of the Thebaid, and stays for a year with them (§ 50, 2, 4),
which presupposes a certain measure of organization and celebrity
on the part of the community of that region. In his _Hist.
Arianorum ad monachos_, written about A.D. 360, he declares that
already monasticism had spread through all the τόποι or districts
of Egypt. Of a monasticism outside of Egypt, however, even this
writing still knows nothing. We shall not, therefore, greatly
err if we assume that the latter years of Constantine’s reign
are to be taken as the period of the essential origin of Egyptian
monasticism; though from this it is not to be concluded that
the first isolated beginnings of it, which had not yet won
any special recognition, are not to be assigned to a very much
earlier period. Even the Old and New Testaments, in the persons
of Elijah, John the Baptist, and our Lord Himself, tell of
temporary withdrawals, from religious and ascetical motives, into
the wilderness. But even the life-long professional anchoretism
and cœnobitism had their precursors in the Indian _gymnosophists_,
in the East-Asiatic Buddhism and the Egyptian Serapis worship,
and to a certain extent also in the Essenism of Palestine
(§ 8, 4). From the place of its origin and the character of
its development, however, Christian monasticism can have been
influenced only by the Egyptian Serapis worship, and that in
a very general sort of way. That this actually was the case,
Weingarten especially has sought to prove from various analogies
based upon the learned researches of French Academicians.

§ 44.3. =Oriental Monasticism.=--For centuries Egypt continued
the central seat and training school of Christian monasticism
both for the East and for the West. The most celebrated of all
the Egyptian hermit colonies was that founded by Pachomius,
formerly perhaps a monk of Serapis, († 348), at Tabennæ, an
island of the Nile. To the mother monastery were soon attached
numerous daughter monasteries. Each of these institutions was
under the direction of a president called the abbot, _Abbas_,
_i.e._ “father,” or Archimandrite; while all of them together
were under the superior of the parent monastery. Similar unions
were established by Ammonius among the Nitrian mountains, and by
Macarius the Elder (§ 47, 7) in the Scetic desert. Hilarion, a
disciple of St. Anthony († 371), is celebrated by Jerome as the
founder of Palestinian monasticism. The _Vita Hilarionis_ of
the latter, richly adorned with records of adventurous travels
and wonderful events, most extravagant wonders and demoniacal
apparitions, like the life of Paul of Thebes (§ 39, 4), has
been recently shown to be a romance built upon certain genuine
reminiscences. Basil the Great and Gregory Nazianzen with
youthful enthusiasm sought to introduce monasticism into their
native Asia Minor, while Eustathius, Bishop of Sebaste († 380),
carried it still further east. But though among the Syrian
discourses of Aphraates (§ 47, 13) there is found one on
monasticism, which thus would seem to have been introduced into
Mesopotamia by A.D. 340, this is in contradiction to all other
witnesses and awakens a suspicion of the ungenuineness of the
discourse, which is further confirmed by its being wanting
in the Armenian translation, as well as in the enumeration
of Gennadius.--The zeal especially of Basil was successful in
ennobling monasticism and making it fruitful. The monastic rules
drawn up by him superseded all others in the East, and are to
this day alone recognised in the orthodox Greek Church. According
to these every monastery had one or more clerics for conducting
worship and administering the sacrament. Basil also advanced
the development and influence of monasticism by setting down
the monasteries in the neighbourhood of the cities. In the
5th century two of the noblest, most sensible and talented
representatives of ancient monasticism did much for its elevation
and ennobling; namely, Isidore, who died about A.D. 450,
abbot and priest of a cloister at Pelusium in Egypt, and his
contemporary Nilus, who lived among the monks of Sinai. The not
inconsiderable remnants of their numerous letters still extant
testify to their far-reaching influence, as well as to the noble
and liberal spirit which they manifested (§ 47, 6, 10).[122] A
peculiar kind of cœnobite life is found amongst the =Acoimetæ=,
for whom the Roman Studius founded about A.D. 46O the afterwards
very celebrated monastery _Studion_ at Constantinople, in which
as many as a thousand monks are said to have lived together
at one time. They took their name from the divine service
uninterruptedly continued in their cloister night and day. From
the 5th century the legislative Synods undertook the care of the
monasteries. The Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 put them under
the jurisdiction of the bishop. Returning to the world was at
first freely permitted, but was always regarded as discreditable
and demanding submission to penance. From the 6th century,
however, monastic vows were regarded as of life-long obligation,
and therefore a regular canonical age was fixed and a long
novitiate prescribed as a time of testing and consideration.
About this time, too, besides the _propria professio_, the
_paterna devotio_ was also regarded as binding in accordance
with the example of 1 Sam. i. 11.

§ 44.4. =Western Monasticism.=--The West did not at first take
kindly to the monastic idea, and only the combined exhortations
of the most respected bishops and teachers of the Church, with
Ambrose, Jerome, and Augustine at their head, secured for it
acceptance there. The idea that already the universally revered
Athanasius who from A.D. 341 resided a long time in Rome (§ 50, 2),
had brought hither the knowledge of Egyptian monasticism and
first awakened on behalf of it the sympathies of the Westerns,
is devoid of any sure foundation. Owing, however, to the free
intercourse which even on the side of the Church existed between
East and West, it is on the other hand scarcely conceivable that
the first knowledge of Eastern monasticism should have reached
Italy through Jerome on his return in A.D. 373 from his Eastern
travels. But it is certain that Jerome from that time most
zealously endeavoured to obtain recruits for it in the West,
applying himself specially to conspicuous pious ladies of Rome
and earning for this scant thanks from their families. The
people’s aversion, too, against monasticism was so great that
even in A.D. 384, when a young female ascetic called Blasilla,
the daughter of St. Paula, died in Rome as some supposed from
excessive fasting, an uproar was raised in which the indignant
populace, as Jerome himself relates, cried out, _Quousque genus
detestabile monachorum non urbe pellitur? Non lapidibus obruitur?
non præcipitatur in fluctus?_ But twenty years later Jerome could
say with exultation, _Crebra virginum monasteria, monachorum,
innumerabilis multitudo, ut ... quod prius ignominiæ fuerat,
esset postea gloriæ_. Popular opposition to the monks was longest
and most virulently shown in North Africa. Even so late as
about A.D. 450, Salvianus reports the expressions of such hate:
_Ridebant, ... maledicebant ... insectabantur ... detestabantur
... omnia in monacho pœne fecerunt quæ in Salvatorem nostrum
Judæorum impietas_, etc. Nevertheless monasticism continued
to spread and therewith also the institution grew in popular
esteem in the West. Martin of Tours (§ 47, 14) established it
in Northern Gaul in A.D. 370; and in Southern Gaul, Honoratus
[Honorius] about A.D. 400 founded the celebrated monastery of
Serinum, on the uninhabited island of Lerina, and John Cassianus
(§ 47, 21), the still more celebrated one at Massilia, now
Marseilles. The inroads of the invaders well nigh extinguished
Western monachism. It was Benedict of Nursia who first, in
A.D. 529, gave to it unity, order, and a settled constitution,
and made it for many centuries the pioneer of agricultural
improvement and literary culture throughout the Western empire
that had been hurled into confusion by the wars of the barbarians
(§ 85).

§ 44.5. =Institution of Nunneries.=--Virgins devoted to God, who
repudiated marriage, are spoken of as early as the 2nd century.
The limitations of their sex forbade them entering on the life
of anchorets, but all the more heartily did they adopt the idea
of the cloister life. St. Anthony himself is said to have laid
its first foundations when he was hastening away into solitude,
by establishing at Coma for the sake of his sister whom he
was leaving behind, an association of virgins consecrated unto
God. Pachomius founded the first female cloister with definite
rules, the superior of which was his own sister. From that time
there sprang up a host of women’s cœnobite unions. The lady
superior was called _Ammas_, “mother;” the members, μοναχαί,
_sanctimoniales_, _nonnæ_, which was a Coptic word meaning chaste.
The patroness of female monachism in the West was St. Paula
of Rome, who was the scholar and friend of Jerome. Accompanied
by her daughter Eustochium, she followed him to Palestine, and
founded three nunneries at Bethlehem.

§ 44.6. =Monastic Asceticism.=--Although the founders of the
Eastern monastic rules subjected themselves to the strictest
asceticism and performed them to a remarkable extent, especially
in fasting and enduring privations, yet the degree of asceticism
which they enjoined upon their monks in fasting, watching, prayer
and labour, was in general moderate and sensible. Valorous acts
of self mortification, so very congenial to the oriental spirit,
are thus met with in the proper monastic life seldomer than among
ascetics living after their own fancy in deserts and solitudes.
This accounts for the rare appearance of the =Stylites= or pillar
saints, by whom expression was given in an outward way to the
idea of elevation above the earthly and of struggle toward heaven.
The most celebrated of these was _Simeon Stylites_, who lived in
the neighbourhood of Antioch for thirty years on a pillar seventy
feet high, and preached repentance to the people who flocked to
him from every side. Thousands of Saracens who roamed through
those regions sought baptism, overcome, according to the legend,
by the power of his discourse. He died A.D. 459. After him the
most celebrated pillar saints were one _Daniel_ who died at
Constantinople in A.D. 489, and a younger _Simeon_ who died at
Antioch in A.D. 596.

§ 44.7. =Anti-Ecclesiastical and Heretical Monasticism.=--Even
after the regulating of monachism by Pachomius and Basil, there
were still isolated hermit societies which would be bound by no
rules. Such were the =Sarabaites= in Egypt and the =Remoboth=
in Syria. Crowds of monks, too, under no rule swarmed about,
called Βοσκοί, _Pabulatores_ or Grazers, because they supported
themselves only on herbs and roots. In Italy and Africa from
the 5th century we hear of so-called =Gyrovagi=, who under the
pretence of monachism led a useless vagabond life. Monasticism
assumed a decidedly heretical and schismatical character among
the Euchites and Eustathianists in the second half of the 4th
century. The =Euchites=, called also from their mystic dances
_Messalians or Chorentes_, not to be confounded with the pagan
Euchites (§ 42, 6), thought that they had reached the ideal of
perfection, and were therefore raised above observance of the law.
Under pretext of engaging in constant prayer and being favoured
with divine visions, they went about begging, because work was
not seemly for perfect saints. Every man they taught, by reason
of his descent from Adam, brings with him into the world an
evil demon who can be overcome only by prayer, and thus evil
can be torn out by the roots. Then man is in need neither of the
law, nor of holy scripture, nor of the sacraments, and may be
unconditionally left to himself, and may even do that which to
a legal man would be sinful. The mystic union of God and man they
represented by lascivious acts of sensual love. They understood
the gospel history only as an allegory and considered fire the
creative light of the universe. By craft and espionage Bishop
Flavian of Antioch, in A.D. 381, came to know their secret
principles and proceedings. But notwithstanding the persecution
now directed against them, they continued in existence till the
6th century. The =Eustathianists= took their name from Eustathius,
Bishop of Sebaste, the founder of monasticism in the eastern
provinces of the empire. Their fanatical contempt of marriage
went so far that they regarded fellowship with the married impure
and held divine service by themselves alone. They repudiated the
Church fasts and instead ordained fasts on Sundays and festival
days, and wholly abstained from eating flesh. The women dressed
in men’s clothes. From the rich they demanded the surrender of
all their goods. Servants forsook their masters, wives their
husbands, in order to attach themselves to the associations
of these saints. But the resolute interference of the Synod of
Gangra in Paphlagonia, between A.D. 360 and A.D. 370, checked
their further spread.--More closely related to the old ascetic
order than to the newly organized monasticism was a sect which,
according to Augustine, had gained special acceptance among the
country people round about Hippo. In accordance with the example
of Abel, who in the Old Testament history is without children,
its members, the so-called =Abelites=, indeed married, but
restrained themselves from marital intercourse, in order that
they might not by begetting children contribute to the spread of
original sin, and maintained their existence by the adoption of
strange children, one boy and one girl being received into each
family.

§ 45. THE CLERGY.

The distinction between clergy and laity was ever becoming more and more clearly marked and in the higher church offices there grew up a spiritual aristocracy alongside of the secular aristocracy. The priesthood arrogated a position high above the laity just as the soul is higher than the body. There was consequently such a thronging into the clerical ranks that a restriction had to be put upon it by the civil laws. The choice of the clergy was made by the bishops with the formal consent of the members of the church. In the East the election of bishops lay ordinarily with the episcopal board of the province concerned though under the presidency of the metropolitan, whose duty it was to ordain the individual so elected. The episcopal chair of the imperial capital, however, was generally under the patronage of the court. In the West on the other hand the old practice was continued, according to which bishops, clergy and members of the church together made the election. At Rome, however, the emperor maintained the right of confirming the appointment of the new bishop. The exchange of one bishopric for another was forbidden by the Nicene Council as spiritual adultery (Eph. v. 33 ff.), but was nevertheless frequently practised. The monarchical rank of the bishop among the clergy was undisputed. The _Chorepiscopi_ (§ 34, 3) had their episcopal privileges and authority always more and more restricted, were made subordinate to the city bishops, and finally, about A.D. 360, were quite set aside. To the Presbyters, on the other hand, in consequence of the success of the anti-episcopal reaction, especially among the daughter and country churches, complete independence was granted in regard to the ministry of the word and dispensation of sacraments, with the exception of the ordination of the clergy, and in the West also the confirmation of the baptism, which the bishop alone was allowed to perform.

§ 45.1. =Training of the Clergy.=--The few theological seminaries
of Alexandria, Cæsarea, Antioch, Edessa and Nisibis could not
satisfy the need of clerical training, and even these for the
most part disappeared amid the political and ecclesiastical
upheavals of the 5th and 6th centuries. The West was entirely
without such institutions. So long as pagan schools of learning
flourished at Athens, Alexandria, Nicomedia, etc., many Christian
youths sought their scientific preparation for the service of
the church in them, and added to this on the Christian side by
asceticism and theological study among the anchorets or monks.
Others despised classical culture and were satisfied with what
the monasteries could give. Others again began their clerical
career even in boyhood as readers or episcopal secretaries,
and grew up under the oversight and direction of the bishop or
experienced clergymen. Augustine organized his clergy into a
monastic association, _Monasterium Clericorum_, and gave it the
character of a clerical seminary. This useful institution found
much favour and was introduced into Sicily and Sardinia by the
bishops driven out by the Vandals. The _Regula Augustini_, so
often referred to the Latin Middle Ages, is of later and
uncertain origin, but is based upon two discourses of Augustine,
“_De Moribus Clericorum_” and an Epistle to the Nuns at
Hippo.--The age of thirty was fixed upon as the canonical age
for entering the order of presbyter or priest; twenty-five for
that of deacon. Neophytes, those who had been baptized on a
sickbed (_Clinici_), penitents and energoumeni, _Bigenie_, the
mutilated, eunuchs, slaves, actors, comedians, dancers, soldiers,
etc., were excluded from the clerical office. The African church
even in the 4th century prescribed a strict examination of
candidates as to their attainments and orthodoxy. Justinian
at least insisted upon a guarantee of orthodoxy by means of
episcopal examination.--=Ordination=[123] made its appearance
as an appendage to the baptismal anointing as a sacramental
ordinance. The one was consecration to the priesthood in the
special sense: the other in the general sense; both bore a
_character indelibilis_. Their efficacy was generally regarded
as of a magical kind. The imparting of ordination was exclusively
an episcopal privilege; but presbyters could assist at the
consecration of those of their own order. The proposition:
_Ne quis vage ordinatur_, was of universal application; the
missionary office was the only exception. The anniversaries of
episcopal ordinations, _Natales episcoporum_, were frequently
observed as festivals. Legally no one could be ordained to a
higher ecclesiastical office, who had not passed through all the
lower offices from that of subdeacon. In earlier times ordination
consisted only in imposition of hands; but subsequently, after
the pattern of baptism there was added an anointing with _Chrism_,
_i.e._ oil with balsam. The Lord’s Supper was partaken of
before ordination, the candidate having previously observed a
fast.--From the 5th century it was made imperative that the party
ordained should adopt the =Tonsure=.[124] It had been introduced
first in connection with the penitents, then as a symbol of
humility it found favour among the monks, and from these it
passed over to the clergy. Originally the whole head was shaved
bare. At a later period the Greek tonsure, _Tonsura Pauli_, which
merely shaved the forehead, was distinguished from the Romish,
_Tonsura Petri_, which left a circle of hair round about the
crown of the head, as a memorial of Christ’s crown of thorns or
as the symbol of the royal priesthood, _Corona sacerdotalis_.
The shaving of the beard, as an effeminate foppish custom, seemed
to the ancient church to detract from the sternness and dignity
of the clerical rank. In all Eastern churches the full beard was
retained, and the wearing of it by-and-by made obligatory, as it
is to this day. In the West, however, perhaps to mark a contrast
to the bearded clergy of the Arian Germans, shaving became
general among the Catholic clergy, and by papal and synodal
ordinances became almost universally prevalent. The adoption
of the custom was also perhaps furthered by a desire to
give symbolic expression by the removal of the beard to the
renunciation of the claims of the male sex on the part of a
celibate clergy.--A solemn =Investiture= with the insignia of
office (§ 59, 7) was gradually introduced, and was that which
marked distinctions between the consecrations to the various
ranks of clerical offices.

§ 45.2. =The Injunction of Celibacy.=--In accordance with a hint
given by the Spanish Provincial Synod of Elvira in A.D. 306 in
its 32nd canon, the Œcumenical Council of Nicæa in A.D. 325 was
inclined to make the obligation of celibacy at least for the
_Ordines Majores_ a binding law over the whole church. But on the
other hand the Egyptian bishop Paphnutius, a confessor and from
his youth an ascetic, stoutly maintained that the fellowship of
married persons too is chastity. His powerful voice decided the
matter. The usual practice, however, was that bishops, presbyters
and deacons should not contract a second marriage (1 Tim. iii. 2),
after ordination should contract no marriage at all, and if
previously married, should continue to live with their wives
or not as they themselves should find most fit. The Easterns
maintained this free standpoint and at the Synod of Gangra in
A.D. 360 contended against the Eustathianists (§ 44, 7) for
the holiness of marriage and the legitimacy of married priests;
and in the 5th Apost. Canon there was an express injunction:
_Episcopus vel presbyter, vel diaconus uxorem suam non rejiciat
religionis prætexti; sin autem rejecerit segregetur, et si
perseveret deponatur_. Examples of married bishops are not
rare in the 4th and 5th centuries; _e.g._ the father of Gregory
Nazianzen, Gregory of Nyssa, Synesius of Ptolemais, etc.
Justinian I. forbade the election of a married man as bishop.
The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 (§ 63, 2) confirmed this
decree, interdicted second marriages to all the clergy, but, with
an express protest against the unnatural hardness of the Roman
church, allowed to presbyters a single marriage with all its
privileges which, however, must have been entered upon before
consecration, and during the period of service at the altar all
marital intercourse had to be discontinued. In Rome, however, the
Spanish principles were strictly maintained. A decretal of the
Roman bishop, Siricius, in A.D. 385, with semi-Manichæan abuse
of marriage, insisted on the celibacy of all bishops, presbyters
and deacons, and Leo the Great included even subdeacons under
this obligation. All the more distinguished Latin church
teachers contended zealously for the universal application of
the injunction of clerical celibacy. Yet there were numerous
instances of the contravention of the order in Italy, in Gaul,
and in Spain itself, and conformity could not be secured even by
the most emphatic re-issue of the injunction by successive Synods.
In the British and Iro-Scottish church the right of the clergy
and even of bishops to marry was insisted upon (§ 77, 3).[125]

§ 45.3. =Later Ecclesiastical Offices.=--In addition to the
older church offices we now meet with attendants on the sick or
=Parabolani=, from παραβάλλεσθαι τὴν ζωήν, and grave-diggers,
κοπιαταί, _Fossarii_, whose number in the capital cities rose to
an almost incredible extent. They formed a bodyguard ever ready
to gratify episcopal love of pomp. Theodosius II. in A.D. 418
restricted the number of the Parabolani of Alexandria to six
hundred and the number of the Copiati of Constantinople to nine
hundred and fifty. For the administration of Church property
there were οἰκόνομοι; for the administration of the laws of the
church there were advocates, ἔνδικοι, σύνδικοι, _Defensores_; for
drawing up legal documents in regard to church affairs there were
_Notarii_, ταχύγραφοι, besides, Keepers of Archives, χαρτοφύλακες,
Librarians, _Thesaurarii_, σκευοφύλακες, etc. None of these as
such had clerical consecration. But also within the ranks of the
_Ordines Majores_ new offices sprang up. In the 4th century we
meet with an =Archdeacon= at the head of the deacons. He was the
right hand of the bishop, his representative and plenipotentiary
in the administration and government of the diocese, frequently
also his successor in office. The college of presbyters, too, had
as its head the =Arch-Presbyter= who represented and supported
the bishop in all acts of public worship. A city presbyter
was entrusted with the supervision of the country churches
as =Visitor=. The African _Seniores plebis_ were mere lay
elders without clerical ordination. The office of =Deaconess=
more or less lost its significance and gradually fell into
disuse.--Justinian I. restricted the number of ecclesiastical
officers in the four great churches of Constantinople to 525;
namely, in addition to the bishop, 60 presbyters, 100 deacons,
40 deaconesses, 90 subdeacons, 110 readers, 24 singers, and
100 doorkeepers.

§ 45.4. =Church Property.=--The possessions of the church
regularly increased by presents and bequests was regarded
down to the 5th century generally as the property of the poor,
_Patrimonium pauperum_, while the cost of maintaining public
worship and supplying the clergy with the means of livelihood
were defrayed by the voluntary contributions, _Oblationes_,
of the church members. But the growing demands of the clergy,
especially of the bishops, for an income corresponding to their
official rank and the increasing magnificence of the service, led,
first of all in Rome, to the apportioning of the whole sum into
four parts; for the bishops, for the subordinate clergy, for the
expenses of public worship (buildings, vestments, etc.), and for
the needs of the poor. With the introduction of the Old Testament
idea of priesthood the thought gradually gained ground that the
laity were under obligation, at first regarded simply as a moral
obligation, to surrender a tenth of all their possessions to the
church, and at a very early date this, in the form of freewill
offerings, was often realised. But the Council at Macon in
A.D. 585, demanded these tithes as a right of the church resting
on divine institution, without, however, being thereby able to
effect what first was secured by the Carolingian legislation
(§ 86, 1). The demand that all property which a cleric earned in
the service of the church, should revert to the church after his
death, was given effect to in a Council at Carthage in A.D. 397.

§ 46A. THE PATRIARCHAL CONSTITUTION AND THE PRIMACY.[126]

A hierarchical distinction of ranks among the bishops had already made its appearance even in the previous period by the elevation of the metropolitan see and the yet more marked precedency given to the so-called _Sedes apostolicæ_ (§ 34). This tendency got powerful support from the political divisions of the empire made by Constantine the Great; for now the bishops of capital cities demanded an extension of their spiritual superiority corresponding to that given in secular authority to the imperial governors. The guarding of earlier privileges along with respectful consideration of more recent claims prevented the securing of a perfect correspondence between the political and hierarchical distribution of ranks. The result of giving consideration to both was the development of the Patriarchal Constitution, in which the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople and Jerusalem were recognised as heads of the church universal of equal rank with jurisdiction over the patriarchates assigned them. The first place in this clerical Pentarchy was claimed by the Roman see, which ever more and more decidedly strove for the primacy of the whole church.

§ 46.1. =The Patriarchal Constitution.=--Constantine the Great
divided the whole empire into four prefectures which were
subdivided into dioceses, and these again into provinces. Many
bishops then of the capitals of these dioceses, especially in the
East, under the title of =Exarchs=, assumed a rank superior to
that of the metropolitans, just as these had before arrogated a
rank superior to that of provincial bishops. The first œcumenical
Council at Nicæa in A.D. 325 (§ 50, 1) affirmed on behalf of the
bishops of the three most prominent _Sedes apostolicæ_, =Rome=,
=Alexandria= and =Antioch=, that their supremacy had been already
established by old custom. The so-called second œcumenical
Council at Constantinople in A.D. 381 (§ 50, 4) exempted the
bishop of =Constantinople=, διὰ τὸ εἶναι αὐτὴν νέαν Ῥώμην (since
A.D. 330), from the jurisdiction of the metropolitan of Heraclea,
and gave him the first rank after the bishop of Rome. To these
distinguished prelates there was given the title of honour,
=Patriarch=, which formerly had been given to all bishops; but
the Roman bishops, declining to take common rank with the others,
refused the title, and assumed instead the exclusive use of the
title =Papa=, Πάπας, which had also been previously applied to
all of episcopal rank. The fourth œcumenical Council of Chalcedon
in A.D. 451, in the 28th canon, ranked the patriarch of the
Eastern capital along with the bishop of Rome, granted him
the right of hearing complaints against the metropolitans of
all dioceses that they might be decided at an _endemic_ Synod
(§ 43, 2), and as an equivalent to the vast dominions of
his Roman colleague, gave him as an endowment in addition to
his own patriarchal district, the three complete dioceses of
Thrace, Pontus and Asia. The Exarchs of Heraclea in Thrace, of
Neo-Cæsarea in Pontus, and of Ephesus in Asia, thus placed under
him, bearing the title of _Archbishops_, ἀρχιεπίσκοποι, formed
a hierarchical middle rank between him and the metropolitans of
these dioceses, without, however, any strict definition of their
status being given, so that their preferential rank remained
uncertain and gradually fell back again into that of ordinary
metropolitans. But even at Nicæa in A.D. 325 the bishopric of
=Jerusalem= had been declared worthy of very special honour,
without, however, its subordination under the Metropolitan of
Cæsarea being disputed. Founding on this, Juvenal of Jerusalem
in the 3rd œcumenical Council of Ephesus in A.D. 431 claimed
the rank and privileges of a patriarch, but on the motion of
Cyril of Alexandria was refused. He then applied to the Emperor
Theodosius II. who by an edict named him patriarch, and assigned
to him all Palestine and Arabia. Maximus, however, patriarch
of Antioch, who was thereby deprived of part of his diocese,
persisted in protesting until at Chalcedon in A.D. 451 at
least Phœnicia and Arabia were restored to him.--Within his own
official district each of these five prelates exercised supreme
spiritual authority, and at the head of his patriarchal Synod
decided all the affairs of the churches within the bounds. Still
many metropolitans, especially those of Salamis in Cyprus, of
Milan, Aquileia and Ravenna maintained a position, as Αὐτοκέφαλοι,
independent of any superiority of patriarchate or exarchate.
Alongside of the patriarchs in the East there were σύγκελλοι as
councillors and assistants, and at the imperial court they were
represented by permanent legates who were called _Apocrisiarians_.
From the 6th century the Popes of Rome began by sending them the
_pallium_ to confer confirmation of rank upon the newly-elected
metropolitans of the West, who were called in these parts
_Archiepiscopi_, Archbishops. The patriarchs meeting as a
court represented the unity of the church universal. Without
their consent no œcumenical Council could be held, nor could any
decision be binding on the whole church.--But first Jerusalem
in A.D. 637, then Antioch in A.D. 638, and next Alexandria in
A.D. 640, fell under the dominion of the Saracens.

§ 46.2. =The Rivalry between Rome and Byzantium.=--From the
time of the Council of Chalcedon in A.D. 451 the patriarch of
Constantinople continued to claim equality in rank and authority
with the bishop of Rome. But the principle upon which in either
case the claims to the primacy were based were already being
interpreted strongly in favour of Rome. In the East the spiritual
rank of the bishoprics was determined in accordance with the
political rank of the cities concerned. Constantinople was the
residence of the ruler of the οἰκουμένη, consequently its bishop
was œcumenical bishop. But in the eyes of the world Old Rome
still ranked higher than the New Rome. All the proud memories of
history clustered round the capital of the West. From Byzantium,
on the other hand, dated the visible decline, the threatened
overthrow of the empire. Moreover the West refused even to
admit the principle itself. Not the will of the emperor, not the
fortunes of the empire, ever becoming more and more deplorable,
should determine the spiritual rank of the bishops, but the
history of the church and the will of its Divine Founder and
Head. Measured by this standard the see of Constantinople stood
not only lower than those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem,
but even below many other sees which though they scarcely had
metropolitan rank, could yet boast of apostolic origin. Then,
Rome unquestionably stood at the head of the church, for here
had lived, confessed and suffered the two chief apostles, here
too were their tombs and their bones; yea, still further, on the
Roman chair had Peter sat as its first bishop (§ 16, 1), whom the
Lord Himself had called to the primacy of the Apostles (§ 34, 8),
and the Roman bishops were his successors and heirs of his
privileges. The patriarch of Constantinople had nothing to
depend upon but his nearness to the court. He was backed up
and supported by the court, was only too often a tool in the
hands of political parties and a defender of heresies which
had the imperial favour. The case for the Roman bishop was
incomparably superior. His being a member of the West-Roman
empire, A.D. 395-476, with emperors for the most part weak and
oppressed on all sides by the convulsions caused by the invasions
of the barbarians, secured to him an incomparably greater
freedom and independence of action, which was little, if at
all, restricted by the Rugian and Ostrogoth invaders of Italy,
A D. 476-536. And even in A.D. 536, when the Byzantine empire
again obtained a footing in Italy, and held out with difficulty
against the onslaught of the Longobards from A.D. 569 to A.D. 752
within ever narrowing limits, the court could only seldom exercise
an influence upon his proceedings or punish him for his refusal
to yield by removal, imprisonment or exile. And while the East
was rent by a variety of ecclesiastical controversies, in which
sometimes the one, sometimes the other party prevailed, the
West under the direction of Rome almost constantly presented the
picture of undisturbed unity. The controversialists sought the
mediating judgment of Rome, the oppressed sought its intercession
and protection, and because the Roman bishops almost invariably
lent the weight of their intellectual and moral influence to the
cause of truth and right, the party in whose favour decision was
given, almost certainly at last prevailed. Thus Rome advanced
from day to day in the eyes of the Christian world, and soon
demanded as a constant right what personal confidence or pressure
of circumstances had won for it in particular cases. And in
the course of time Rome has never let a favourable opportunity
slip, never failed to hold what once was gained or even claimed
with any possibility of success. A strong feeling in favour of
strict hierarchical pretensions united all parties and found
its rallying point in the chair of St. Peter; even incapable and
characterless popes were upborne and carried through by means of
this idea. Thus Rome advanced with firm step and steady aim, and
in spite of all opposition and resistance continually approached
nearer and nearer to the end in view. The East could at last hold
on and save its ecclesiastical independence only by a complete
and incurable division (§ 67).

§ 46B. HISTORY OF THE ROMAN CHAIR AND ITS CLAIMS
TO THE PRIMACY.[127]

The history of the Roman bishopric during the first three centuries is almost wholly enveloped in a cloud of legend which is only occasionally broken by a gleam of historical light (see § 33, 3, 4, 5, 7; § 35, 5; § 37, 2; § 40, 2; § 41, 1, 3). Only after the martyr church became in the 4th century the powerful state church does it really enter into the field of regular and continuous history. And now also first begins that striving after primacy, present from the earliest times among its bishops and inherited from the political supremacy of “eternal Rome,” to be prosecuted with success in political and ecclesiastical quarters. Its history, for which biographies of the popes down to the end of the 9th century in the so-called _Liber pontificalis_ (§ 90, 6) are most instructive sources, certainly always in need of critical sifting in a high degree, permits therefore and demands for our purposes at this point earnest and close consideration.

§ 46.3. =From Melchiades to Julius I., A.D. 310 to A.D. 352.=--At
the time when Constantine’s conversion so completely changed the
aspect of things =Melchiades= occupied the bishopric of Rome,
A.D. 310 to A.D. 314. Even in A.D. 313 Constantine conferred on
him as the chief bishop of the West the presidency of a clerical
commission for inquiry into the Donatist schism (§ 63, 1). Under
=Sylvester I.=, A.D. 314 to A.D. 335, the Arian controversy
broke out (§ 50), in which, however, he laid no claim to be
an authority on either side. That by his legates, Vitus and
Vincentius [Vincent], he presided at the first œcumenical
Synod at Nicæa in A.D. 325 is a purely Romish fabrication; no
contemporary and none of the older historians know anything of it.
On account of the rise in Egypt of the Meletian schism (§ 41, 4)
the 6th canon of the Council prescribes that the bishop of
Alexandria “in accordance with the old customs shall have
jurisdiction over Egypt, in Libya and in Pentapolis, since it
is also according to old custom for the bishop of Rome to have
such jurisdiction, as also the churches in Antioch and in the
other provinces.” The Council, therefore, as Rufinus also and
the oldest Latin collection of canons, the so-called _Prisca_,
understand this canon, maintains that the ecclesiastical
supremacy of the Roman chair extended not over all the West but
only over the ten _suburbicarian_ provinces belonging to the
diocese of Rome according to Constantine’s division, _i.e._ over
Middle and Southern Italy, with the islands of Sardinia, Corsica
and Sicily. The bishop of Rome, however, was and continued by
the wider development of the patriarchal constitution the sole
patriarch in all the West. What more natural than that he should
regard himself as the one patriarch _over_ all the West? But,
even as the only _sedes apostolica_ of the West, Rome had already
for a long time obtained a rank far beyond the limits of the
Nicene canon. In doubtful cases application was made from all
quarters of the West to Rome for instruction as to the genuine
apostolic tradition, and the epistolary replies to such questions
assumed even in the 4th century the tone of authoritative
statements of the truth, _epistolæ decretales_. But down to
A.D. 344 it was never attempted to claim the authority of Rome
over the East in giving validity to any matter. In this year,
however, the pressure of circumstances obliged the Council
of Sardica (§ 50, 2), after most of the Eastern bishops had
already withdrawn, to agree to hand over to the bishop of
Rome, =Julius I.=, A.D. 337-352, as a steadfast and consistent
confessor of the orthodox faith in this age of ecclesiastical
wavering, the right of receiving appeals from condemned bishops
throughout the empire, and if he found them well supported, of
appointing a new investigation by the bishops of the neighbouring
province. But this decree affected only the person of Julius and
was only the momentary makeshift of a hard-pressed minority. It
therefore attracted no attention and was soon forgotten,--only
Rome forgot it not.

§ 46.4. =From Liberius to Anastasius, A.D. 352 to
A.D. 402.=--Julius’ successor =Liberius=,[128] A.D. 352 to
A.D. 366, maintained with equal steadfastness as his predecessor
the confession of the orthodox Nicene faith, and was therefore
banished by the Emperor Constantius in A.D. 355, who appointed
as his successor the accommodating deacon Felix. But the members
of the church would have nothing to do with the contemptible
intruder, who moreover on the very day of the deportation of
Liberius had solemnly sworn with the whole clergy of Rome to
remain faithful to the exiled bishop. He succeeded indeed in
drawing over to himself a considerable number of the clergy. The
people, however, continued unfalteringly true to their banished
bishop, and even after he had in A.D. 358 by signing a heretical
creed (§ 50, 3) obtained permission to return, they received him
again with unfeigned joy. It was the emperor’s wish that Liberius
and Felix should jointly preside over the Roman church. But
Felix was driven away by the people and could not again secure
a footing among them. Liberius, who henceforth held his position
in Rome as a Nicæan, amnestied those of the clergy who had
fallen away. But the schism occasioned thereby in the church of
Rome broke out with great violence after his death. A rigorist
minority repudiated =Damasus I.=, A.D. 366 to A.D. 384, who had
been chosen as his successor by the majority, because he too at
an earlier date had belonged to the oath-breaking party of Felix.
This minority elected Ursinus as anti-bishop. Over this there
were contentions that led to bloodshed. The party of Damasus
attacked the church of Ursinus and one hundred and thirty-seven
corpses were carried out. Valentinian III. now exiled Ursinus,
and Gratian in A.D. 378 by an edict conferred upon Damasus the
right of giving decision without appeal as party and judge in
one person against all bishops and clergy involved in the schism.
In consequence of this victory of Damasus as partisan of Felix
there was now formed in Rome a tradition which has passed over
into the lists of the popes and the martyrologies, in which
Liberius figures as the adherent of a heretical emperor and a
bloody persecutor of the true Nicene faith and Felix II. as the
legitimate pope. He is also confounded with the martyr Felix who
suffered under Maximian and was celebrated in song by Paulinus
Nolanus, and is thus represented as a holy martyr.[129] To the
pontificate of =Siricius=, A.D. 384 to A.D. 398, the western
church is indebted for the oldest extant papal decretals dating
from A.D. 385 which contain a reply to various questions of
the Spanish bishop couched quite in the hierarchical form and
insisting in strong terms upon the binding obligation of clerical
celibacy. Subsequently the same pope, burdened with “the care of
all the churches,” feels himself obliged to issue an _encyclical_
to all the churches of the West, denouncing the frequent
neglect of existing ecclesiastical laws. In the Origenist
controversy between Jerome and Rufinus (§ 51, 2) he favoured
the latter;--whereas his successor, =Anastasius=, A.D. 398 to
A.D. 402, took the side of Jerome.

§ 46.5. =From Innocent I. to Zosimus, A.D. 402 to A.D. 418.=--In
consequence of the partition of the empire into an eastern and
a western division in A.D. 364 (comp. § 42, 4), the claims of
the Roman chair to ecclesiastical supremacy over the whole of the
West were not only confirmed but also very considerably extended.
For by this partition the western half of the empire included not
only those countries which had previously been reckoned western,
namely, Africa, Spain, Britain, Gaul and Italy, but also the
prefecture of Illyricum (Greece, Thessaly, Macedonia, Dalmatia,
Pannonia, Mœsia, Dacia) with its capital Thessalonica, and thus
events played into the hands of those who pressed the patriarchal
claims of Rome. Even when in A.D. 379 Eastern Illyria (Macedonia,
Mœsia and Dacia) was attached to the Eastern empire, the Roman
bishops continued still to regard it as belonging to their
patriarchal domain. These claims were advanced with special
emphasis and with corresponding success by =Innocent I.=,
A.D. 402 to A.D. 417. When in A.D. 402 he intimated to the
archbishop of Thessalonica his elevation to the chair, he at the
same time transferred to him as his representative the oversight
of all the Illyrian provinces, and to his successor, in A.D. 412,
he sent a formal document of installation as Roman vicar. Not
only did he apply to the Roman chair that canon of the Council
of Sardica which had referred only to the person of Julius, but
in a decretal to a Gallic bishop he extended also the clearly
circumscribed right of appeal on the part of condemned bishops
into an obligation to submit all “_causæ majores_” to the
decision of the apostolic see. From Africa a Carthaginian Synod
in A.D. 404 sent messengers to Rome in order to secure its
intercession with the emperor to put down the Donatists. From the
East Theophilus of Alexandria and Chrysostom of Constantinople
solicited the weighty influence of Rome in the Origenist
controversy (§ 51, 3); and Alexander of Antioch (§ 50, 8)
expresses the proud satisfaction he had, as only Western bishops
had done before, in asking the Roman bishop’s advice on various
constitutional and disciplinary matters. During the Pelagian
controversy (§ 53, 4) the Palestinian Synod at Diospolis in
A.D. 415 interceded with the Pope in favour of Pelagius accused of
heresy in Africa; on the other hand the African Synods of Mileve
and Carthage in A.D. 416 besieged him with the demand to give the
sanction of his authority to their condemnation of the heretic.
He took the side of the Anti-Pelagians, and Augustine could
shower upon the heretics the pregnant words: _Roma locuta ...
causa finita_.--The higher the authority of the Roman chair rose
under Innocent, all the more painful to Rome must the humiliation
have been, which his successor =Zosimus=, A.D. 417-418, called
down upon it, when he, in opposition to his predecessor, took
the part of Pelagius and his companion Cœlestius, and addressed
bitter reproaches to the Africans for their treatment of him, but
afterwards in consequence of their vigorous remonstrances and the
interference of the emperor Honorius was obliged to withdraw his
previous judgment and formally to condemn his quondam protegé.
And when a deposed presbyter of Africa, Apiarius, sought refuge
in Rome, the Council of Carthage in A.D. 418, in which Augustine
also took part, made this an excuse for forbidding under threat
of excommunication any appeal _ad transmarina judicia_. Zosimus
indeed appealed to the canon of the Sardican Synod, which he
quoted as Nicene; but the Africans, to whom that canon was quite
unknown, only said that on this matter they must make inquiries
among the Eastern churches.[130]