Catholic Church History

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

26. The City of God and Caesaro-Papism

V
Theological Definition

26. THE CITY OF GOD AND CAESARO-PAPISM

A. Nature of Caesaro-Papism

Caesaro-papism, etymologically, is the regime in which Caesar would be pope. It

particularly designates the Church-state relationship of the later and Christian Roman Empire,
especially after it had been based upon Constantinople and largely restricted to the Byzantine or
Greek world. Secondarily and less perfectly the Teutonic revival of the Roman Empire in the
West would advance similar pretensions, though the unique position of the bishop of Rome would
prove a bar to the faithful reproduction in the West of the system of Justinian the Great. In
varying degrees, then, Caesaro-papism will be the alternative faced by the Church during the
Feudal period to the anarchical tendencies of the age.

Imperial protection afforded the Church many advantages in the temporal order:
immunities for the clergy from secular tasks, subsidies for the liturgical and charitable works of
the Church, protection for missionaries, facilities for communication-to mention but a few of the
more obvious. In turn the Church made her contribution by inculcating respect for authority,
patriotic loyalty, observance of morality, and promoting imperial unity and cultural homogeneity.
But the price paid for this was a high one, since the imperial rulers always tended to make of the
Church a department of the state and to make use of ecclesiastical institutions for political
purposes.

B. Evolution of Caesaro-papism
(1) PRE-CIMISTIAN SOURCES

"Before Christ's coming there were some who were justly and rightly both kings and
priests, such as Melchizedech, and Satan imitated this among unbelievers; therefore pagan
emperors were called pontifex maximum." Thus Pope St. Gelasius I indicated antecedents of
Caesaropapism in the Roman Empire once become Christian. On the one hand, Christians had
never questioned even pagan imperial jurisdiction, citng t. Paul's dictum that "all power is of God."
They were prone to point out Old Testament customs of deference to kings, the anointed of God.
On the other hand, the emperors were successors of rulers, such as Alexander the Great and
Julius Caesar, who claimed divine origins and united religious headship to secular. Even
Christian rulers proved loathe to relinquish supreme arbitrament in the religious sphere, and as a
matter of fact, the title of pontifex maximum was retained for seventy years after the Edict of
Milan.

(2) POTENTIAL SOURCE OF CONFUSION

Although Christ had laid down the principle of the distinction between the things of God
and those of Caesar (Matt. 22:21), its application required both justice and charity. Actually two
jurisdictions existed over the same group of subjects within a common area; here was potential
fuel for conflict. The Christian concept would interrelate those powers as the soul to the body,
spiritual functions to temporal, thus posing for the first time the problem of relation of Church and
state. Separation of powers seemed unthinkable in a Christian empire, for the prince was
regarded as the Church's liberator and protector, and all Christians claimed to be loyal subjects
and patriotic citizens. Distinction without separation would prove a problem that would tax the
resources of Christian harmony.

(3) CONSTANTINIAN INAUGURAL

Despite his postponement of baptism to the end of his life, Constantine the Great seems
to have been intellectually sincere in his adhesion to Christianity. He provided for the education
of his heirs in that religion, and lavished upon the clergy marks of Ms confidence. But it is
significant that be did not lay down the title of pontifex nwximus, and assumed the enigmatic style
of "bishop of those outside the Church" --which, according to some, might have meant "bishop in
regard to the Church's external relations." Indeed, the toleration accorded by the Milanese policy
was a departure from all Roman and Oriental precedents, and Constantine may have deemed it a
temporary expedient to tide over transition from an official paganism to an official Christianity. In
practice, he showed himself far from neutral in religion: antipagan and antilieretical decrees
began during his reign. Always his objective seems to have been religious unity, whatever
temporary concessions might be necessary, Religious harmony as a means to public tranquility
became a fixed notion that he banded down to his Christian successors. This inversion of values
would lead inevitably to a "peace at any price" policy-even if the price to be paid was dogmatic
truth.

(4) BYZANTINE DEVELOPMENT

Constantinople, founded as a Christian city in 330, soon became the cultural and political
center of the Empire; eventually it would also challenge the religious primacy of Old Rome. There
can be little doubt that it was imperial pressure that induced the Byzantine bishop to advance
claims to metropolitan status, to patriarchal dignity, and then to wholly independent jurisdiction.
But the court prelate would pay for his exaltation in ecclesiastical rank by personal subjugation to
imperial dictation, and this inferior position would affect all of his suffragan bishops. The full force
of Caesaro-papism, then, was spent against the see of Constantinople, while the bishop of Rome,
although by no means free from annoyance, would find his distance from the imperial capital a
blessing.

Imperial inquisition. Parallel to Constantine's designation of himself as bishop in

externals was Theodosius II's claim to be protector of religion and cult. A corollary of this drawn
by the imperial pontiffs would be the use of the police power in suppressing religious dissent.
Though apparently largely hortatory in nature, the Edict of Thessalonica (381) began a series of
imperial decrees commanding Catholic Christian orthodoxy. From the reign of Theodosius the
Great (379-95) edicts against heretics multiply: there were 68 within 57 years. By the fifth century
the death penalty will be threatened and sometimes invoked.

Justinian's codification. Caesaro-papism reached its zenith at the close of this period
during the reign of Justinian the Great (527-65). Shortly after his reign Byzantine control of Italy
was shattered, while in 590 Pope St. Gregory the Great began to adumbrate the dyarchy of
medieval Christendom. Yet subsequent papal theocracy was often challenged by citations from
this mine for secularists, the Justinian Code. The compilation, it is true, did acknowledge that the
pope was 'first of all priests," but this repetition of a Christian truism somehow hinted at imperial
patronage: later dissidents would assert that the bishop of Rome had gained his primacy by
imperial delegation. But whatever the theory of the Code, in practice it allotted a large share to
imperial interference. Papal elections were to be confirmed by the court, and episcopal
nominations, at least in the Orient, were largely ad nutum Caesaris. Episcopal residence was
subjected to regulation, and clerical discipline and monastic observance supervised almost as a
matter of course. If Justinian was not quite "Brother Sacristan," he was certainly "Father
Canonist." His services to religion and morality were undoubtedly great; indeed, the spiritual
benefits accruing to many souls from the whole Caesaro-papist system cannot be dismissed
lightly. Nonetheless it will remain a legitimate question at the end of the Caesaropapist vogue
whether such advantages were obtained too dearly. In any event, Caesaro-papism, no more than
secularist separation, can ever beget the ideal Respublica Christiana.

C. Critique of Caesaro-papism
(1) PATRISTic DECLARATiONS OF INDEPENDENCE

Hosius, bishop of Cordova, and Constantine's trusted advisor, lived long enough to have
occasion to rebuke the emperor's son, Constantius II, for his meddling in ecclesiastical discipline:
"Intrude not yourself into the Church's business and give us no command regarding it, but learn
from us instead. God has placed the empire in your hands; in ours the administration of His
Church. As he who would rob you of your government would go against God's law, so fear lest
you sin gravely by taking upon yourself the rule of God's Church. 'Render to Caesar the things
that are Caesar's, and to God the things that are God's.' Therefore you may not burn incense, nor
may we be secular rulers" (St. Athanasius, History of the Arians, 44).

St. Hilary, bishop of Poitiers, about 365 criticized another imperial administration for trying
to propagate Christianity-semi-Arian heresy at that-by force: "Today men claim that Christ is
powerless even though the state's power is used to enforce faith in God. The Church threatens
exile and prison: she in whom exiles and prisoners formerly believed, now tries to win believers
by force . . ." (Against Auxentius, 4).
St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, however, is the classic doctor for Church-state relations.
This governor become bishop asserted that the Church possessed jurisdiction over all Christians,
the emperor included, in spiritual matters. His blending of tact and firmness in applying his
principle is seen in his rebuke to Theodosius the Great: "Tribute belongs to Caesar beyond doubt,
but the Church belongs to God and ought not be given to Caesar; God's temple cannot be
Caesar's right. . . .I say this with due respect to the emperor-none can deny this. What greater
dignity than to call him a son of the Church? . . . The emperor, then, is in the Church, not above it"
(Against Auxentius, 36).

For the hierarchy, moreover, St. Ambrose, Claimed a jurisdictional immunity from secular
control: "When have you heard it said that in a matter of faith laymen have pronounced on a
bishop? Must we abase ourselves by flattery and forget the rights attached to the priesthood and
abandon to others our prerogatives? . . . If we ask the Holy Scriptures and historical precedent,
who will dare deny that in matter of faith-I repeat in a matter of faith-bisbops were accustomed to
judge emperors rather than Christian emperors judge bishops?" (Letter 21.) Not only the persons
but even the sacred edifices of the Church were exempt from imperial control. "They claim that
everything is legal for the emperor since everything belongs to him. To this I reply: Think not,
Caesar, that you have imperial authority over divine things. Make no such claim, and if you wish
for a long reign, make your submission to God. It is written: 'To God what is God's; to Caesar
what is Caesar's.' To the emperor the palace, to the priest the churches. Your rights extend to the
public buildings, not to sacred ones" (Letter 20). By his rebukes to Theodosius in regard to the
Callinican synagogue and the Salonika massacre, St. Ambrose lived out his principles. With such
bishops as St. Ambrose-and St. Basil in the East-Caesaro-papism would never go unchallenged.

(2) THE CITY OF GOD

St. Augustine, bishop of Hippo and doctor of the Church, at first opposed and later
invited the use of secular power against the Donatist sebismatics. On the whole, he was
diplomatic: in his "Theology of History," De Civitate Dei, he desired the two Christian powers to
work in harmony.
In his De Civitate Dei, after refuting charges that the adoption of Christianity by Rome
had weakened the empire, St. Augustine outlined man's citizenship in two cities, the earthly and
the heavenly. The former, arising from Satan, had been embodied in the pagan empire; the latter,
founded by Christ, had been prefigured in the Hebrew people and was now expressed in the
Church. The Christianized empire, it would seem, might evolve into something intermediate
which St. Augustine does not identify precisely with the earthly city. The use of force in
government, he implied, was an unhappy result of original sin. Good and evil would necessarily
be intermingled until the final separation at the Last judgment. History is the march of God
through the world, leading men to heaven through Satan's ambushes. In order to serve the
community, the state ought to be Christian. Augustine criticized Cicero for divorcing justice from
recognition of God. On the contrary, he contended, a just state must acknowledge the true
religion; the non-Christian state, he hints, is devoid of true justice for this reason.

Conclusion: It remained for Pope Gelasius (492-96) to give an authoritative formulation

to both the Ambrosian assertion of independence and the Augustinian ideal of harmony. But this
Gelasian decretal will be reserved for consideration later in connection with the medieval dyarchy
in the West which it foreshadowed and inspired. Meanwhile the City of God in the Roman Empire
had to face the trials of an imperialism predominantly Caesaro-papist.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

27. Constantinian Legalization (313-37)

V
Theological Definition

27. CONSTANTINIAN LEGALIZATION

A. Constantine's Victory
(1) EARLY CAREER
Constantine the Great was bom between 274 and 280 at Naissus on Moesia, modern
Nisch in Yugoslavia. He was the son of Constantius Chlorus, a rising young officer, and St.
Helena, an innkeeper's daughter. Helena, a convert to Christianity, was divorced by Constantius
when the latter was made Maximian's assistant and put in charge of the Gallic prefecture.
Though he was long in embracing his mother's religion, Constantine always respected her. At
first be seems to have followed his father's religious preferences for monotheism, reverencing the
"Unconquered sun" as symbol of the supreme deity. To ensure Constantius's loyalty, Diocletian
insisted that Constantine become a military cadet, in reality a hostages at Nicomedia. Here
Constantine was a passive witness of the opening of the final persecution of the Christians by
Rome, a proceeding with which neither he nor his father were in sympathy. After Diocletian's
abdication, Constantius requested his son's return. Galerius proving reluctant, Constantine
practically fled from Nicomedia. He made good his escape and joined his father in Britain. When
Constantius died at York on July 25, 306, his troops, disregarding Diocletian's plan for the
succession, saluted the deceased ruler's son as emperor and thus launched him on his career.

Imperial rivalries. Confusion soon marked the administration of the empire. Diocletian's
successor, Galerius, had named Maximin Daia as caesar for the East and Severus for the West,
though the latter nomination properly belonged to Constantius. Constantine negotiated with
Galerius until he secured recognition as caesar for the Gallic prefecture in subordination to
Severus, now promoted to the post of augustus for the West. But a year later, in 307, Maximian
emerged from the retirement forced on him by Diocletian, defeated and killed Severus, and
proclaimed himself and his son Maxentius corulers of the Italian prefecture. Though Galerius
refused to recognize the usurpers, they made their position so secure that Constantine found it
expedient to enter into an alliance with them. A conference during 308 presided over by
exemperor Diocletian failed to solve the problem. In 310 also Maxentius deposed his father, who
took refuge with Constantine. This imperiled the good relations between Maxentius and
Constantine, relations already strained by their ambitions to dominate the entire West.
Maxentius, moreover, though no consistent persecutor, was often unfriendly to Christians, while
Constantine continued his father's policy of nullifying tte persecuting edicts within his territory.
This mutual ambition and Diverging policies inclined the Western rivals to conflict. Like Julius
Caesar, Constantine used Gaul as a training ground to develop a corps of seasoned, efficient,
and loyal soldiers. He believed that their superior quality would enable him to win, and in that
expectation invaded Italy in the spring of 312. He had secured the benevolent neutrality of
Galerius's successor Licinius, who simultaneously was trying to eliminate his eastern rival,
Maximin Daia.

(2) CONSTANTINE'S TRIUMPH

The Labarum. A victory at Verona proved indecisive while further reducing Constantine's
small forces: an advance on Rome was attended with serious risk. Apparently about this time
Constantine was encoura,red by a vision, objective or subjective, of the Cross. Though
Lacta,itius, Nazarius, and Eusebius all report the incident with varying detaib, its substantial truth
seems historically and psychologically probable. Eusebius relates: "Since the victorious emperor
himself long after declared it to the writer of this history . . . and confirmed his statement by oatla,
who would doubt the account? . . . He said that about noon, when the day was beginning to
decline, be was able to see w.th his own eyes the image of a cross of light in the heavens above
the stin with the inscription: 'By this conquer"' (Life of Constantine, I, 26; II, 8). In any event the
experience proved sufficient to encourage this Monotheist favorable to Christian beliefs to place
the sign of the Cross on his militarv standards and march confidently to Rome. By 317 this
emblem, the abaruni, appears on his coinage. St. Helena's discovery of the True Cross at
Jerusalem under miraculous circumstances would have afforded final confirmation, if any were
yet needed, for Constantine's convictions.

The Milvian Bridge. Constantine met Maxentius at the Milvian Bridge, spanning the Tiber
near Rome. Here on October 28, 312, his troops won a decisive victory which cost Maxentius his
life. The conqueror entered Rome without further opposition and was saluted by the senate as
sole ruler in the West. After he had granted a general amnesty, the senate voted him a triumphal
arch, still standing at Rome. It bears the inscription: "To Constantine, . . . since by divine
suggestion and greatness of soul ., . be has justly avenged the state." The phrase, instincts
divinitatis, seems to have been a neutral term suggested by Constantine to exclude the
discredited Olympian gods and include the Christian God in his gratitude.

Eastern victory. Licinius also defeated his foe Maximin so that for a decade the empire
was ruled by the victorious allies. For the sake of convenience, Constantine's path to sole rule
will be traced here. After his outstanding successes in the West, be was in a position to impose
his program of toleration upon the pagan Licinius. But though the latter concurred in the so-called
"Edict of Milan," analyzed presently, Licinius treated Constantine with scant courtesy. He failed to
post his insignia in his own dominions and protected Senecio who had rebelled against
Constantine. This led to a brief civil war in 314. Constantine defeated his eastern colleague near
Belgrade and forced him to cede Illyricum to the West. Defense of imperial frontiers kept the
rivals apart for a decade, but Licinius's increasing hostility to Christians amounted to civil
persecution. In this policy he was increasingly at variance with Constantine's attitude of favor.
"Irrepressible conflict" broke out in 323 when Licinius declared war. Constantine promptly
accepted the challenge, defeated and deposed Licinius at Adrianople, July, 324, and
subsequently executed him on charges of conspiracy. Until his own death in 337, Constantine
the Great was sole lord of the Roman world.

B. Constantinian Regime
(1) RELIGIOUS TOLERATION
 Edict of Milan. Though not technically accurate, this popular term may continue to
designate Constantine's religious manifesto of 313. Constantine and Licinius conferred at Milan
during February, 313, and the latter agreed to extend the policy of actual toleration prevalent in
the West to the East as well. Eusebius's version of this pact reads in part, from Licinius's rescript
of June 13, 313: I, Constantine Augustus, and I, Licinius Augustus, came under favorable
auspices to Milan and considered all matters pertaining to the public benefit and welfare . . . how
we may grant to Christians and to all liberty to follow whatever manner of worship they prefer. . . .
Therefore we have decreed . . . that no freedom be refused to Christians to follow and keep their
practices and cult. . . . We have done this to avoid detracting from any sort of religion or worship
in any way whatsoever. In regard to Christians we also direct that-as we previously wrote to your
fidelity-their former meeting places be restored without charge or price, without increased value or
augmentation, without delay or hesitancy, whether they may have been purchased from our
treasury or anyone else (History, X, 6-7).

Analysis. This "edict' is in the form of an imperial circular letter to the local governors.
Professing to represent a joint policy, it reflects a religious compromise:
1) Neutrality. In keeping with the different personal religious views of the coregents, the
rescript is noncommittal in regard to the deity: it is issued "that whatever divinity and celestial
power may exist may be propitious to us and to all that live under our government."
2) Religious liberty. The edict concedes freedom of conscience and worship to all
Romans, including Christians, "that each man devote his mind to that worship which be may
deem best for himself; . . . that each of the Christians may freely follow out without hindrance the
practices and worship he desires."

3) Pagan establishment. Paganism does not cease to be the official religion, as we

know from subsequent history, but it is no longer obligatory and will be evaded or slighted by the
Christian officials. Pagan insignia and rites continue in the name of the imperial Pont maximum
and of the senate and people.
4) Restoration of property. At least all corporate Christian property confiscated during
the recent persecution was to be restored; pagan citizens thus dispossessed might claim
compensation from the state.

(2) PRO-CHRISTIAN POLICIES

Legislation throughout the Empire was gradually modified in a spirit more in conformity
with Christian principles. From 318 until his death, Constantine at various times introduced the
following changes:
Favors to the Church: (1) The emperor exempted the Church from payment of certain
heavy taxes, the tributum and the annona. (2) He granted her civil right to receive bequests; he
himself made numerous benefactions, the nucleus of the "Patrimony of St. Peter" at Rome. (3)
Clerics were excused from public services. (4) Celibates were made competent to draw lawful
wills in spite of the Augustan penal legislation; thus Christian clerics and ascetics would no longer
be subject to discrimination.

Judicial procedure was likewise modified in ways favorable to Christianity. (5) The courts
were closed on Sundays and public officials excused from work; urban workers were to have
holiday though rural laborers might perform necessary agricultural tasks. (6) Either party to
litigation might petition for transfer of the case from the secular to the episcopal court. (7)
Manumission of slaves certified before a bishop would be accepted as legally valid. (8) Crucifixion
was abolished as a form of legal punishment.

Public morality was regulated in a manner more in keeping with Christian ideas. (9) The
paterfamilias was forbidden to kill or enslave his dependents. (10) Slaves were to be treated
kindly and their families kept intact. (11) Certain public manifestations of gross pagan superstition
were prohibited. (12) Legal concubinage was abolished, though prostitution was licensed.
Personal conduct. Although Constantine remained a catechumen until the last weeks of
his life, his attachment to Christianity became more pronounced with the years. While still
appointing both Christians and pagans to high office, he made his preference for the former the
more evident as his position became more secure and Romans became reconciled to accepting
Christians as equals before the law. Constantine did not interfere with the official pagan rites,
though be often pointedly absented himself from the great celebrations. In his later years be
spoke openly of pagans as "those delighting in error," and identified himself with Christians, for
"ours is the edifice of truth." He provided a Christian tutor, Lactantius, for his children, though
pagan cruelty seems to have revived in the mysterious execution of his eldest son Crispus in 326.

Foundation of Constantinople. During his campaigns against Licinius, Constantine had

been impressed by the advantages of Byzantium as a possible imperial capital. Its location on
the strategic Hellespont between Europe and Asia made it ideal for communication, military or
commercial. Constantine also seems to have believed that a new city, unfettered by the age-old
traditions of pagan Rome, would become a better center for a Christian Empire. At any rate when
Byzantium became Constantinople in 330 it soon developed into a Christian center.

(3) CONSTANTINE'S INFLUENCE

Caesaro-papism. "Constantine, instead of contenting himself with the vague solar

monotheism which had been the religion of his house, made an abrupt break with tradition and
found a new religious basis for the empire in an alliance with the outlawed and persecuted
Christian Church. It was an act of extraordinary courage . . . yet it is possible that Constantine,
even as a statesman, was more farsighted than his critics. The Church was the one living
creative force in the social and spiritual life of the age. It brought to society just those elements of
freedom, private initiative, and co-operative action of which the empire itself stood most in need.
The life had gone out of the civic organization, and citizenship meant little more than the
obligation to pay taxes. The citizenship of the future was to be found in the Church." Without
impugning the basic sincerity of the Christian sentiments of Constantine, it is possible to see in
some of his policies a disposition to use the Church as an imperial morale builder. During his
reign be manifested some of the traits of Caesaro-papism that would plague the Church under his
successors. He intervened in the Donatist schism with scant regard for papal primacy, and
presently he will be seen convoking and addressing the Nicene General Council. In the Arian
difficulties be placed harmony over dogma and was at length baptized by an Arian-though quite
possibly in good faith.

Greatness. Yet in spite of these defects, Christians cannot repudiate their debt of
gratitude to Constantine. Holsapple would seem to be fair in his estimate: He made mistakes,
"but be was a pioneer, blazing a trail through a forest beset with many hazards. His decision was
obviously not the culmination of a natural evolution in the empire. He had the courage to declare
for the religion of a tiny minority of his subjects, who were bated, despised, and persecuted. . . .
His conversion emancipated the Church from persecution and set it on the way to victory over
paganism. He was the first emperor to recognize the intrinsic power and truth of the Christian
religion and to visualize the empire as one day united under that religion. For that wisdom and
vision, if for nothing else, he is deservedly called 'the Great.' "

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

28. Christian Victory over Paganism (337-95)

V
Theological Definition
28. CHRISTIAN VICTORY OVER PAGANISM

A. Defeat of Paganism (330-61)

Constantine the Great, so long as his colleague Licinius reigned, was constrained to an
official neutrality, whatever his private preferences may have been. About 320, however, Licinius
himself violated the Milanese pact by forbidding episcopal councils, hindering Christian worship
by police regulations, and by purging Christians from the civil service by demanding a "sacrifice-
test" for office. Constantine's victory over Licinius in 324 enabled him to manifest his religious
preferences more openly. Some time after 330 he banned the Neoplatonic and Syrian cults,
while the anti-Christian polemics of Porphyry and the anti-Catholic propaganda of Arius were alike
burned. After an attempt to prosecute Donatist schismatics, however, the Emperor in 321 issued
an edict permitting them liberty of conscience and worship. On the whole, however, he seems to
have relied chiefly on his prestige and powers of persuasion to induce Romans to make the
Catholic Christian Church their religious haven.

Constantine's successors were his sons, Constantine II (337-40), Constantius II (337-61),

and Constans (337-50). During the period of their joint rule they were chiefly concerned with
political rivalry. St. Athanasius accused Constantius of the murder of two uncles and two cousins
who had been associated in rule by Constantine's will. In 340 Constantine II was killed in battle
with Constans. Thereafter for a decade the brothers agreed to disagree: Constans ruling the
West and favoring the Catholics, and Constantius presiding over the East where be patronized
heretical groups. In 350 Constans was assassinated by the usurper Magnentius, apparently a
pagan though not an anti-Christian. It took Constantius three years to put down the uprising and
reunite the empire under his rule.

Constantius shared his father's passion for uniformity and was less tolerant of those who
disagreed with him. During his sole reign, the offensive against paganism was resumed. In 353
he banned nocturnal orgies. On December 1, 356, he issued the following edict: "Our will is that,
in all places and in all towns, the temples be immediately closed, that access to them be
forbidden to all, and that permission to preach be denied to the depraved (perditis). We also will
that all abstain from sacrifices. Whoever shall commit a fault of this kind is to be struck with an
avenging sword. The fisc will take over the possession of the dead man. . . ." Probably this law
was not yet generally enforced when it was repealed by Julian in 361. But Constantius's
antipagan attitude encouraged militant Christian groups to attack and pillage pagan shrines on
their own. Temples were closed in Phrygia and Cappadocia. Bishop Mark of Arethusa destroyed
a pagan shrine and erected a church in its place. The Arian antibisbop of Alexandria, George of
Cappadocia, participated in pillaging the pagan stronghold, the Serapeum, during the last years
of the reign of Constantius II.

(2) PAGAN REACTI0N (361-63)

Emperor Julian, Constantius's cousin, succeeded him in 361. He cherished no love for
Constantius who had executed many of his relatives. As a boy the Christian martinets imposed
on him by the unamiable Constantius repelled him. Secretly be delved into pagan lore and was
initiated into pagan cults which intoxicated his unbalanced mind. His feigned piety, which did not
deceive his classmate, St. Gregory Nazianzen, seems to have won him appointment as caesar in
Gaul, whence he won the throne by revolt. Once in power, Julian threw off the mask of
Christianity to earn the name of Julian the Apostate.

Neopaganism, in the plans of Julian, was to synthesize the best in ancient paganism and
Christianity. The nucleus of a new official creed was Neoplatonism which Julian had professed in
secret since 351. To this the imperial theologian added elements from the official rites and the
Oriental mystery cults. In morality, stress was laid on a philanthropy that would excel Christian
charity, for he claimed that the Church had won its converts by hospitality, ahnsgiving, and
pretended sobriety. To direct his new welfare-paganism, Julian organized a hierarchy under
himself as supreme pontiff, complete with metropolitan high priests and provincial heads. Pagan
theological schools were to train the pagan pries,s, and apostasy from the ranks of the Christian
clergy was encouraged by bribes. According to St. John Chrysostom, "men and women who but
a moment before were dying of starvation, criminals, ex-convicts, and reprobates were suddenly
raised to the dignity of priests and soothsayers, and surrounded with all manner of honors."
Despite a glamorous new liturgy and material inducements, however, the pagan revival was
collapsing from inertia and ineptitude even before the close of Julialt's brief reign. When given its
chance, paganism lacked vitality for rebirth.

Peisecution of the Church under Julian was officially confined to discrimiiiation in regard
to civil rights and propaganda. Consistently the emperor ridiculed Christians as "Galileans,"
credulous dupes of fables and lies, stupid and emotional fanatics, victims of their clergy who ran a
"racket." His Education Law of June 17, 362, made the first known regulation for accrediting
schools and teachers; it was, however, but an oblique device to exclude Christians from the
teaching profession and to reduce them eventually to an ignorant peasantry. At Rome, the
distinguished rhetorician Marius Victorinus, who had become Christian, resigned, and others
imitated him. Despite the officially proclaimed toleration, the government condoned mob
violence. Pagans gladly took vengeance on Mark of Arethusa. At Ancyra the priest Basil, in
Moesia the scldier Emilian, and in Phrygia three of the faithful fell victims to pagan violence. Anti-
Christian polemics by Celsus, Porphyry, and others fanned these prejudices. In desperation
Julian finally began to bring pressixe to bear on various cities to foster paganism; Christian
bishops were banished anew; the rebuilding of the Jewish Temple was vainly attempted; threats
of reprisal were uttered. Julian may have intended a bloody persecution on his return from his
Persian campaign. But he died on June 26, 363, reputedly exclaiming, "Thou hast conquered, 0
pale Calilean."

(3) PAGAN DISESTABLISHMENT (363-83)

Emperor Jovian (363-64), elected by the army to succeed Julian, had been a Christian
officer who had resisted the apostate's measures. Even before Jovian had issued a formal edict
on behalf of Christianity, the neopairan organization began to disintegrate and apostates from the
Church began to petition for reconciliation. Though Jovian may have ordered the closing of some
pagan temples, he seems to have been tolerant during his short reign. He died on February 17,
364.

Emperor Valentinian I (364-75). Valentinian, another officer who had braved Julian's
displeasure, was chosen to replace Jovian. He was an able soldier who spent most of his time in
strengthening the northwest frontiers of the empire. In order to devote his entire attention to the
West, be entrusted the government of the East to his brother Valens (365-78). Personally
Valentinian was a Catholic, but officially be adopted a neutral policy both in regard to paganism
and heresy. Valens, however, was attached to Arianism and employed his official position to
promote its success. Still the pagan cults were allowed to continue in both regions of the Roman
Empire.

Emperor Gratian (375-83), Valentinian's son and successor, had been associated with his
father in the rule of the West since 367. St. Ambrose, bishop of Milan, had exercised
considerable influence on Gratian's education and was regarded by the new emperor as his
mentor throughout the reign. Gratian hinted at a new uncompromising attitude by refusing the
pontifical robes at his accession. For a time he was hampered by his uncle's Arianizing policy,
but Valens' death at Adrianople in August, 378 enabled Gratian to mould the entire Roman
administration to his will. In 379 he gave the eastern provinces to Flavius Theodosius, staunch
Catholic Christian, who shared his own scorn of compromise. Further closing of temples is
reported and in February, 380, the imperial Edict of Thessalonica decreed that all subjects must
profess "the faith of the Apostle Peter." Since no penalties are mentioned, it may be presumed
that this decree was more of an exhortation than an obligatory statute. Not until 382 is there
legislation sufficiently unambiguous against continuance of the official paganism. Then Gratian,
at St. Ambrose's advice, issued a decree of "disestablisbment and disendowment." The emperor
formally resigned the title of pontifex nwximus and withdrew allocation of state funds to maintain
the pagan sacrifices and rites. Subsidies bitherto paid to the heathen priests and vestal virgins
were diverted to other departments and their exemption from public duties cancelled. A second
edict issued at the same time directed that the Altar of Victory, symbol of Rome's achievements
under pagan auspices, should be removed from the senate house at Rome. Pagans, indeed,
were allowed liberty of conscience and permitted to finance and attend private religious services,
but henceforth paganism ceased to be endorsed and supported by the Roman state. Paganism
had ceased to be the official religion; Christianity, at least tacitly, took its place.

B. Pagan Decline
(1) LAST STAND OF PAGANISM

Altar of Victory issue. In 383, however, Gratian was slain in Gaul by the usurper Maximus
who maintained himself until 388. Gratian's younger brother and legal successor, Valentinian II
(383-92), was therefore insecure in Italy. These circumstances prompted the pagan prefect of
Rome, Symmachus, to request the young emperor to restore the Altar of Victory and renew the
vestals' pensions. Under the domination of his Arianizing mother, Justina, Valentinian was
disposed to comply until he was dissuaded by the objections of St. Ambrose. The bishop pointed
out that paganism had not been the cause of Roman glory; that had been won by Roman virtue,
which would be further strengthened by Christianity. Despite Julian's efforts and persecutions, his
neopaganism had rendered paltry social services, whereas the Christian Church daily aided
public welfare by her care of the poor, the captives, the exiles. Threatened with excommunication
by St. Ambrose, the emperor denied Symmachus's appeal in 384, and persisted in his refusal
when it was renewed in 390 and 392. But in this latter year Valentinian II was murdered by the
pretorian prefect Arbogast, first of many Teutonic powers behind the Roman throne. Though
Arbogast selected the Christian Eugenius as a puppet emperor, be sanctioned the activities of the
pagan faction at Rome, where Symmachus's son-in-law, Flavian Nicomachus, restored the Altar
of Victory and resumed the pagan sacrifices.

Theodosian victory. Theodosius the Great, Gratian's coregent in the East (379-95), was
sure to challenge this action. As early as 381 he had forbidden Christians to relapse to paganism
and had banned rites of divination and the traditional auguries. In 391 he had prohibited, at least
on paper, pagan sacrifices at Rome and Alexandria, the destruction of the Serapeum in the latter
city by Christian attack followed in 392. Though Theodosius at first had meditated recognition of
Eugenius, reports of the pagan reaction in the West induced him to attack the usurper on behalf
of the Christian cause. Placing his campaign under the patronage of St. John the Baptist,
Theodosius marched against the forces of Eugenius and Arbogast, who had discarded the
Labarum for the pagan emblems. At Aquileia the armies engaged, September 5, 394. A tempest
swept down into the faces of the pagan troops, bringing victory to Christianity and Theodosius.
Eugenius was captured and executed, and Arbogast committed suicide. Theodosius was
welcomed by St. Ambrose on his triumphal entry into Milan, and Roman paganism was again
abolished, once and for all. But Theodosius did not long survive his victory; be died January 17,
395, assisted in his last moments by St. Ambrose. Forty days later that bishop preached his
eulogy. Attesting that the late emperor's last thoughts had been for the Church's welfare, St.
Ambrose hailed the prospect of a Christian empire on the Theodosian model: St. Helena had
wisely placed the Cross on monarchs' beads so that it might be reverenced in their person. `O
Blessed Nail holding this Roman Empire, to which the entire universe gives allegiance and
serves, adorning the brow of sovereigns, and turning persecutors into heralds of the Faith."

(2) DISAPPEARANCE OF PAGANISM

 Pagan tenacity. Despite official repudiation, paganism continued to survive tenaciously in
the pagus: country. "Peasants adhered with invincible tenacity to their superstitious rites, and the
landlords, even those who were themselves Christian, seldom ventured to interfere with them. In
Italy heathenism flourished on the great agricultural estates; in Gaul, Martin of Tours found it
rampant in the rural districts; in Spain, people sacrificed and made offerings to idols, and Pacian
of Barcelona wrote a work entitled Cervulus against pagan excesses customary at the celebration
of the new year; in Africa, not only in the country but also in the towns there was a considerable
pagan population which on the occasion of a pagan festivity was apt to riot against the
Christians."

Christian militancy. Such violence begot counter-measures. Between 386 and 404 there
are 22 reported cases of popular onslaughts on pagan temples or shrines. In some cases the
hierarchy participated. Thus Bishop Marcellus of Apamee incited the burning of the temple of
Zeus, and Patriarch Theophilus of Alexandria directed the destruction of the Serapeurn. More
often, however, deserted pagan temples were quietly converted into churches.
Official prosecution was persistent if not always completely effective. In 399 theatrical
shows, horse races, and any kind of pagan spectacle were banned on Sundays; these
prohibitions were repeated in 425. In 408 Honorius excluded from the palace administration all
non-Catholics; in 415 the edict was extended to apply to the whole Western civil service. In the
same year his colleague Theodosius II extended the same edict to the East. In 423 and again in
435 the edicts of Theodosius II forbade offering of pagan sacrifices under penalty of exile,
confiscation, and sometimes death. In 438 his Code threatened "Gentiles" with confiscation and
death for disobeying imperial laws against paganism, and in 451 Marcian and Valentinian III
repeated these penalties. Thereafter paganism went underground or into remote regions. Pagan
oases of norunilitant and passive votaries survived into the sixth century, however, for in 529
Justinian the Great closed the pagan school of Athens, and not until 535 was the Alexandrian
Temple of Isis shut. Missions to rustics in the sixth century had considerable success, and
paganism, if by no means extinct, remained but a negligible force in the Empire.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

29. Patriachates in Maturity (314-95)

V
Theological Definition

29. PATRIACHATES IN MATURITY

A. Western Patriarchate
(1) PAPAL HISTORY: ARIAN SHODOW (314-66)
Pope St. Sylvester I (314-35) was the first bishop of Rome to live undisturbed by threat of
persecution by a pagan government. After the Edict of Milan, detailed information concerning the
Holy See becomes available for the first time, though the personality of St. Sylvester himself
remains obscure. Legends of his influence on Constantine-curing him of leprosy, bestowing
baptism on him, and receiving in return imperial insignia signifying jurisdiction over the West-are
now recognized as unbistorical. But the tradition of the emperor's gifts to the Roman See is well
founded. The Archbasilica of the Holy Savior, now popularly called St. John Lateran, appears in
Christian hands as early as the Lateran Synod of 313. During St. Sylvester's pontificate it was
considerably enlarged to become omnium urbis et orbis ecclesiarum mater et caput. Attached to
it was the Lateran Palace which became the normal papal residence until the sojourn at Avignon.
In 323, moreover, the emperor began the first Basilica of St. Peter over the existing tomb and
shrine. The Vatican Palace, however, dates only from the time of Pope Symmachus (498-514)
and did not become the papal headquarters until long afterwards. Constantine also erected a
small church at St. Paul's tomb outside the Roman city walls, and Constantine or St. Helena are
claimed as benefactors of Santa Croce, San Lorenzo, and Santa Agnese. Thus for the first time
Rome began to manifest certain external aspects of Christianity. The Plenary Council of Arles
(314) referred its acts to the pope, and his legates presided over the Ecumenical Council of Nicea
(325). The sixth canon of the latter council formally recognized the patriarchal status of Rome,
Alexandria, and Antioch of ancient right. But Nicea's Creed failed to exterminate the formidable
Arian heresy; it survived to harass most of the popes of the fourth century.

Pope St. Mark (336) ruled only from January to October. This Marcus Prisci was possibly
the cleric mentioned to Pope Miltiades in a letter of Constantine. If so, he would have been quite
elderly. He is reported to have granted the bishop of Ostia the privilege of consecrating the
Roman bishops-elect; this would be the remote origin of the Ostian prelate's position as dean of
the college of cardinals.
Pope St. Julius (337-52) will reveal himself as a sturdy defender of Nicene orthodoxy and
of Roman primacy during the Arian controversies. Yet Julius Rustici, Roman, is otherwise known
only for his prosecution of ecclesiastical building in Rome: the Dodeci and Santa Maria in
Trastevere are ascribed to his pontificate.

Pope Liberius (352-66) continued this Roman church building by inaugurating Santa
Maria Maggiore. Nevertheless he is chiefly remembered by reason of his attitude toward Arian
coercion, an attitude not yet determined beyond all dispute. Persevering heroism can scarcely be
attributed to him, though doubtless his concessions were motivated by a desire for peace. In any
event he retained the loyalty of the Romans in preference to the Archdeacon Felix, intruded as
antipope by Constantius during the years 355 to 357.

(2) PAPAL PRE-EMINENCE (366-99)

St. Damasus (366-84) had been a Spaniard resident in Rome from childhood. He
revealed himself a cultured man and worthy poet. As deacon under Pope Liberius, Damasus
may have had differences of opinion with him on policy. Factions developed and Damasus's
election to the papacy on October 1, 366, was challenged by seven priests and three deacons
who named Deacon Ursinus in opposition. Prefect Viventius recognized St. Damasus, and
Ursinus was banished to Cologne in 367. But the Ursinians joined forces with the Arians and
denounced the pope to the emperor. At St. Ambrose's suggestion, Emperor Gratian not merely
dismissed the charge of immorality, but formally acknowledged that "the most Holy See" was
head of the Catholic Church and that only those bishops in communion with it were to be
recognized. Not only did St. Damasus himself explicitly assert Roman primacy, but if a Gelasian
decretal be really his, declared that the patriarchal dignity of Antioch and Alexandria emanated
from St. Peter's connection with their foundation. Understandably St. Damasus rejected
Constantinopolitan claims to patriarchal rank at the second ecumenical council (381). While St.
Damasus's claim to confirm the patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch rested on precedent, he
seems to have been badly advised regarding the Meletian Schism at Antioch. Immediate papal
solicitude for remote churches, difficult or even impossible under the persecutions, is henceforth
manifest, especially in the West. When Emperor Gratian in 379 detached the Illyrian provinces in
the Balkans from western administration and assigned them to the East, there was a tendency for
the ecclesiastical jurisdiction to conform to the civil. To prevent Constantinople from usurping
patriarchal rule over the Balkans, St. Damasus established the apostolic vicariate of Illyricum,
naming Bishop Acholius of Salonika as a sort of apostolic delegate. At Rome, the pope continued
to bring the Church out from the catacombs into the light. Changed conditions now permitted a
certain external magnificence to the papal residence and equipage; Zozimus, a pagan
contemporary, offers to become Christian if be would be made pope. Though the days of
primitive simplicity were over so that censorious tongues could wag, probably there was nothing
inordinate in proportion to augmented clerical personnel and functions.
 St. Siricius (384-99) had been a Roman deacon under his predecessor. He continued
St. Damasus's vigorous policies and himself asserted papal jurisdiction in Thessalonia, Africa,
and Spain. His mediation healed the greater part of the protracted Meletian Schism in Antioch by
393. Pope Siricius's intervention in the Itacian Schism in Gaul, though not immediately
successful, prepared the way for its reconciliation under his successor. Clerical celibacy for those
in major orders makes its first appearance in Roman documents in the pope's Instruction to
Himerius of Tarragona in 385. This is the first evidence of papal desire to extend the local
legislation of the Council of Elvira, Spain (c. 300) to the Latin West. The document is one of a
number of papal decretals which become prominent in the pontificates of Sts. Damasus and
Siricius. In these the expression, "Apostolic See," makes its appearance. These authoritative
papal letters to the other churches enjoin obedience to tradition under penalty of "being excluded
from the society of Catholics and the communion of the Apostolic See."

(3) WESTERN ECCLESIASTIcAL GOVERNMENT

In Italy, St. Ambrose of Milan emerges about 378 as metropolitan over some thirty sees.
For a while St. Ambrose's prestige and the location of the imperial residence at Milan gave that
see influence in Gaul and Pannonia, but by the beginning of the fifth century the shift of the
imperial headquarters to Ravenna enhanced the importance of that see. Aquileia, forerunner of
Venice, emerged as archbishopric in 379, and with Oriental connivance became immersed in
ecclesiastical politics. St. Siricius in 386 presided over 80 bishops who rebuked careless
electoral procedure in the choice of the hierarchy, and imposed continence on married clerics of
higher degree. By the end of the fourth century there may have been as many as 200 bishops in
Italy. Until 732 the Western Balkans were attached to the Latin patriarchate through apostolic
delegates named by the Holy See.

In Africa, Carthage had six provinces and nearly 500 sees subjected to its rule; it was a
patriarchate in all but name. But these provinces were not strictly metropolitan, since often the
senior bishop presided. The Donatist Schism was destined to divide the African sees almost
equally among Catholics and schismatics and Carthaginian prestige was severely shaken.
Spain also had rudimentary metropolitan organization, but this territory now had a
numerous and active hierarchy, as is clear from Priscillianism and the Itacian schism.

In Gaul, none of the seventeen metropolitan sees is clearly dominant, and there was
constant strife about provincial boundaries. In the next century the Holy See endeavored to
remedy this situation by appointing vicariates apostolic in Gaul as had been established in the
Balkans.
The Itacian-Felician Schism is illustrative of ecclesiastical government in the West about
this time. In 380 Itacus of Ossonaba in Spain, sustained by his metropolitan Hydacus of Merida,
began to prosecute Priscillian and his followers for Manichaean tenets. A council at Saragossa in
October of the same year condemned certain errors attributed to the accused, but refused to
censure their persons in their absence. When Hydacus invoked the imperial government,
Priscillian appealed to Pope St. Damasus and St. Ambrose of Milan. Neither countenanccd the
Priscillianists, but the latter were able to procure the reversal of an adverse imperial sentence,
and in turn banish Itacus to Gaul. Itacus retorted by citing the Priscillianists before the usurping
Emperor Maximus who executed or banished them. All of this disgusted St. Martin, bishop of
Tours, but the majority of the Gallic hierarchy sustained Felix of Trier, Itacus's patron. When
Maximus fell in 388, a reaction set in. In Spain, a council deposed Itacus while Hydacus
resigned. The Itacians remained in schism until another council at Toledo during 400 restored
peace in accord with proposals made by the Holy See. In Gaul, similarly, St. Siricius intervened
repeatedly between the Felicians and anti-Felicians until in 398 a reconciliation was effected at
the Council of Turin. There the voluntary resignation of Felix of Trier removed the obstacle to
harmony. Both the reconciliation synods paid tribute to the wise counsels of the Apostolic See.
As soon as the curtain lifts on the ecclesiastical government in the West, then, the leadership of
Rome is seen as unquestioned.
B. Eastern Patriarchates
(1) ALEXANDRIA

In Egypt, Alexandria governed six metropolitan sees and had some hundred suffragan
bishops. The patriarch confirmed the choice of each bishop, consecrated him, and presided over
councils. During the fourth century, noteworthy assemblies were those of 306 under St. Peter
which deposed Meletius of Lycopolis for idolatry, thereby provoking the Meletian Schism; partially
healed at Nicea, it lingered for fifty years. Between 320 and 323 another council under Patriarch
Alexander condemned Arius, thus inaugurating the great controversy of the fourth century.
Councils were frequently summoned by St. Athanasius (328-73) to rally the Catholics, while Arian
rivals intruded into his see and used synods as propaganda tools.

St. Athanasius, the resolute Catholic champion during the Arian controversy, is the chief
figure at Alexandria during this period and his fame attached enduring prestige to the patriarchal
see, already recognized as second only to Rome. Five times exiled by Arians or Pagans, St.
Athanasius triumphed over all obstacles to "die in his bed." His stand was endorsed by the Holy
See, by St. Anthony, "patriarch of the Thebaid," and by Didymus the Blind, last of the great rectors
of the School of Alexandria.

St. Athanasius's successors, Peter (373-81) and Timothy (381-85) continued his defense
of orthodoxy, but lacked his personal prestige. It is with his third successor, Theophilus (385-
412), that the bishop of Alexandria emerges as a powerful political figure, a veritable "Christian
Pharaoh." During the fourth century be appears as a resolute foe of paganism, leading the attack
on the Serapeum in 392, but in the fifth century that forceful leadership degenerated into tyranny
and obstinacy in the Origenist controversy. As early as the Council of Constantinople in 381
Alexandria's second rank was challenged by the new imperial capital, and this rivalry would have
unfortunate influence upon the doctrinal troubles of the fifth century.

(2) ANTIOCH

In Syria, Antioch governed many metropolitans, including Cyprus and Palestine until the
fifth century. The patriarch consecrated the metropolitans who in turn consecrated suffragan
bishops. Unlike the situation in Egypt, chorepiscopoi were replaced by parish priests. Antiochian
harmony was severely tried during the fourth century by the Arian dispute and its consequences.
Following the expulsion of St. Eustathius (324-30), the patriarchal chair was held for thirty years
by Arian intruders. St. Meletius (361-81), a convert from Arianism, was challenged by the priest
Paulinus, later consecrated by the contentious Lucifer of Cagliari. Pope St. Damasus supported
Paulinus, though Meletius commanded the greater number of adherents. This second Meletian
Schism was not healed until the general recognition of Flavian (381-404) in 393, and even then
there remained some dissenters.

(3) JERUSALEM

Episcopal prestige in Jerusalem was revived by St. Cyril, a foe of Arianism despite his
verbal agreement with semi-Arian formulas. Several times exiled, he survived to be termed a
pillar of orthodoxy at the Ecumenical Council of Constantinople in 381. His successor, John II
(388-417), showed himself strong willed, if not always prudent in the Origenist and Pelagian
controversies. Claims to patriarchal dignity were advanced and eventually recognized at
Chalcedon in 451.

(4) CONSTANTINOPLE
 Though there is no record of a bishop at Byzantium before the third century, no sooner
had the Arian protagonist, Eusebius of Nicornedia, usurped the see (339-41), than it became the
hub of ecclesiastical politics. Arians retained possession until 380 when St. Gregory Nazianzen
revived Catholics by his sermons on the Trinity in the chapel of the Anastasis. Nominated bishop
by Emperor Theodosius, St. Gregory was confirmed by the fathers of the General Council of
Constantinople. Presently be sacrificed himself in a vain attempt to appease episcopal rivalries.
But his resignation gave the see to Nectarius (381-97), first of many Byzantine court prelates.
The third canon of Constantinople (381) decreed that "the bishop of Constantinople shall have the
primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because the same is New Home." Not only did this
affront Alexandria and Antioch, but frankly introduced the thesis that ecclesiastical rank is
consequent on secular prominence. Though this manifesto was not recognized by Rome-until
1215succeeding centuries would see resolute Byzantine efforts to implement it. Already
Constantinople claimed jurisdiction over six Balkan sees; at the beginning of the fifth century it
began to assert rule over the twenty metropolitan sees of Asia Minor, while it eyed askance the
papal vicariate in the Illyrian provinces.

If the fourth century, then, everywhere reveals a well-organized patriarchal hierarchy, it

also testifies that some of the prelates were forgetting the Master's admonition: "Let him who is
greatest among you become as the youngest, and him who is the chief as the servant."

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

30. The Donatist Schism (311-411)

V
Theological Definition

30. THE DONATIST SCHISM

A. Donatist Separation
(1) ORIGINS OF DISAFFECTION
African nativism may have had a not inconsiderable influence upon the Donatist
movement. Donatism showed a tendency to utilize surviving Punic resentment toward Roman
imperialism: the Catholics were strongest among the cultured classes resident in the coastal
towns, while the Donatists were entrenched in the villages of the interior, among a peasantry
speaking Libyan. Donatists capitalized on the local pagan devotion to Saturnus, and identified
themselves with the separatist tendency of African Christianity in Tertuffian and Cyprian.

Rigorism is a persistent feature of Donatism. It began as a movement of resentment

against collaborationist traditors during the persecution of 303-5; it continued to denounce
imperial interference in African ecclesiastical affairs. Donatists accused Constantine of having
been prejudiced against them by Bishop Hosius of Cordova, and Donatus himself retorted to the
imperial investigating committee that "the emperor had no business with the Church." Donatists
prided themselves on puritanical righteousness and denounced Catholic prelates and landowners
as too rich. Martyrs were greatly honored as uncompromising heroes; fanatics residing about
their shrines-circum cellas Martyrumperpetrated acts of iconoclasm and violence which Donatist
leaders sometimes abetted or at least condoned. Donatists, however, did not spurn wealth or
power when occasionally it was found on their side.

Anticlericalism of a sort was the immediate occasion, though scarcely the basic cause of
the outbreak of Donatism. During Diocletian's persecution, the rigoristic views of many African
Christians found harsh expression in criticism of the hierarchy. About 305 an assembly at Cirta in
Numidia demanded an inquiry into the conduct of bishops during the persecution, while at
Carthage itself Bishop Mensurius was chided for substituting heretical books for the canonical
Scriptures when ordered to deliver the ecclesiastical library to the secular authorities. His
archdeacon, Caecilian, was accused of excessive prudence or reserve toward the "martyrs";
supposedly be did not supply the imprisoned confessors with adequate gifts of food or other
needs. Another charge against Caecilian was disrespect for relics of the martyrs. Apparently
Lucilla, a wealthy Spanish lady, presided over a salon at Carthage during the first decade,
frequented by social climbers, including several clerics. Deacon Caccilian snubbed her
unforgiveably by reprimanding her for superstition in kissing some inauthenticated bones before
receiving Communion. This woman scorned became an instigator of the Donatist Schism.
Though Bishop Mensurius rode out the storm of criticism until his death in 311, Lucilla and her
clique were prepared to go to any lengths to prevent the succession of Caecilian to the see of
Carthage; it is reported that she distributed 400 folles to promote the candidacy of the lector
Majorinus, one of her protgs.

(2) DONATIST SECESSION

African outbreak. During 311 Archdeacon Caecilian was duly elected to the see of
Carthage and consecrated by three bishops of the neighboring province of Proconsular Africa.
This action gave his foes an opening wedge, for they objected that thereby be had slighted the
custom of being installed by the Numidian hierarchy. Two clients of Lucilla, the priests Botrus and
Celestius, prevailed on Bishop Secundus of Tigisis, dean of the Numidian episcopate, to institute
an inquiry. In 312 Secundus and 70 bishops met at Carthage and decreed that Caecilian's
consecration had been invalid inasmuch as his consecrators, especially Bishop Felix of Aptonga,
had shown weakness during the persecution. They replaced Caecilian with Lucilla's friend
Majorinus, but by 313 the latter had been set aside for Donatus (270-355), henceforth the real
chief of the Schism. According to Palanque, Monceaux's research has definitely established that
"Donatus of Casae Nigrae" and "Donatus the Great" were the same person, transferred from a
smaller see to Carthage. It seems that the Donatists themselves fostered the confusion to
conceal the fact that Donatus had been from the beginning one of the selfseeking instigators of
the schism.

The theological issue implicit in the Donatist position was essentially the same as in the
previous African disputes about the sacraments: the validity of a sacrament would depend on the
minister's holiness. Donatists retained or revived St. Cyprian's practice of Rebaptism, and now
denied the power of orders to Felix of Aptonga as a traditor. They vindicated to themselves
holiness as an exclusive mark of the Church, for all traditors and their associates must be
rejected.

Papal judgment. Execution of Constantine's Milanese policy provoked the expansion of

the Donatist conflict, for the emperor ordered Proconsul Anulius of Africa to exempt clerics and
restore the property of "the Catholic Church of which Caecilian is president." Thereupon Donatus
and his party challenged Caecilian's title by appealing to Constantine through Anulius. The
emperor named Bishops Reticius of Autun, Maternus of Cologne, and Marinus of Arles to act as
judges under Pope Miltiades' presidency. When the Gallic bishops arrived in Rome, however, the
pope added fifteen Italian bishops to the tribunal. During October, 313, this synod sat in the
Lateran hearing pleas of ten advocates of each claimant. At length it was decided that the
anonymous charges against Caecilian were unproven and he was recognized as legitimate
bishop of Carthage; on the other hand, Donatus was convicted of rebaptizing and ordaining
apostates, and was excommunicated.

Donatist obstinacy made the schism formal. Rallying to their chief, the Donatists
appealed from the Lateran verdict to Emperor Constantine on the ground that the court had
ignored their basic accusation that Caecilian's standing was invalidated by Felix of Aptonga's
"treason." Through Vicar Aelius Paulinus, the emperor accordingly ordered a new inquiry. But this
turned up that Felix had been absent from Aptonga at the time when he was supposed to have
yielded the Scriptures. Yet when the Donatists contrasted the 70 votes of the Carthaginian synod
which had rejected Caecilian with the 19 of the Lateran tribunal, Constantine was impressed. He
seems to have considered Roman primacy as chiefly honorary. Instead of accepting a papal
decision as final, he sought the consentient views of the Western bishops.

(3) PLENARY COUNCIL OF ARLES (314)

Convocation. Though the episcopal meeting at Arles during August, 314, was summoned
by the emperor, the presence of papal legates and the reference of its acts to the Holy See would
seem to entitle it to the status of a plenary council of the western patriarchate. It was composed
of 33 bishops, together with proxies of other sees.
Anti-Donatist verdict. As to the disciplinary question, the Council exonerated Caecilian
and Felix, sustaining the Lateran decision. But it also condemned the false theological
fundament of the Donatist party. Thus canon 8 explicitly revoked the regulation of the African
Church whereby converts from heresy were to be rebaptized; on the contrary, provided that the
convert had once been baptized in the name of the Trinity, he should merely receive penance and
confirmation. Canon 9 concerning "letters of confessors" is interpreted by Baronius as a
reference to the martyrs' libelli pacis. Hefele, however, renders it in accord with a similar (25th)
canon of the Elvira synod of 300: "If a Christian, wishing to take a journey, submits to his bishop
the draught of a letter or recommendation in which it is said that the bearer is a confessor, the
bishop must erase the word, 'confessor,' because many simple people are deceived by this title,
and the bishop shall give common letters of communion." The thirteenth canon of Arles declared
that though proved traditors should be deposed, those ordained by such in good faith need not be
disturbed. Hefele's translation of the difficult Latin of this canon is: "If those whom they have
ordained are worthy, they should not suffer for it": the ordination was valid. Canon 14 is a
corollary of the foregoing, for it anathernatizes false accusers, such as the Donatists.

Other regulations of the important council throw light on the problems of the Church at
the time. Arles called for celebration of Easter on the same day (canon 1); ordered stability of the
clergy in the church for which they were ordained (canon 2); threatened with anathema traitors
and deserters from the army (canon 3); turbulent jockeys (canon 4); theatrical folk (canon 5).
Canon 6 seems to regulate admission to the catechumenate; canon 7, in view of the new
toleration, permits Christians to bold public office, but they are to consult the bishop on matters
endangering faith. Canon 10 forbade remarriage after adultery, while canon 11 excommunicated
those who contracted civil marriage. Clerical usurers were excommunicated by canon 12.
Deacons presuming to celebrate Mass were excommunicated by canon 15, and canon 18
reminded them to yield precedence to priests. Diocesan limits were to be observed: canon 16
directed that absolution from censure be obtained in the same place as the penalty; canon 17
forbade one bishop to exceed his jurisdiction; canon 21 deposed priests and deacons transferring
to other dioceses of their own accord. Bishops, however, might celebrate in another diocese
(canon 19), and three were required for licit consecration of a bishop (canon 20). Finally,
apostates were denied communion without "due fruits of penance" (canon 22).

Adjournment. The Council of Arles sent its acts to Pope St. Sylvester, acknowledging
that "we resolved to write first of all to you who hold the greater dioceses, that through you our
resolutions be made known to all." This was little to the emperor's liking, for the conciliar report
closes with the statement that "he, being weary, commanded every man to return to his see."

B. Donatist Controversy
(1) DONATIST SURVIVAL

Constantine's failure. Yet Constantine continued to heed Donatist appeals. In 315 he

summoned both Caecilian and Donatus to Italy and detained them at Brescia while his envoys,
Bishops Eunomus and Olympus, were sent to pacify Carthage with a new bishop. But after
investigating the situation, they pronounced in favor of Caecilian and reminded the emperor that
"the sentence rendered by the 19 bishops (at Rome) may not be revoked." Then only did
Constantine release Caecilian and give his own decision. During November, 316, be ordered that
the churches be placed in the bands of those in communion with Caecilian; as for the Donatists,
let them be exiled. Donattis, however, escaped to lead his partisans in violent resistance to the
imperial edict. Imperial prosecution (317-291) merely made heroes of the Donatists, and in May,
321, Constantine relented to permit them liberty of conscience and cult. Thereafter be washed
his hands of the affair, save to warn them in 328 against libel.

Donatist organization solidified their position. Donatus was an able administrator and
publicist, and was not above co-operation with Arians and other foes of Catholic unity. By 336 he
could assemble 270 Donatist bishops at Carthage; about 370 St. Optatus of Milive considered
Catholics in the minority. About 340 the Circumcelliones came into action to terrorize Catholics
into submission.
Imperial prosecution was unsuccessful. Though Constans's deputies, Paul and
Macarius, revived Constantine's ban in 347 and enforced it with vigor, the Donatists went
underground. About 350 the lay Donatist apologist, Vitellius Afer, issued a telling protest against
the imperial measures. Many Donatists conformed outwardly only to throw off the mask when
Julian the Apostate revoked the persecuting edict in 362. Though Gratian renewed the ban once
more in 377, for the remainder of the fourth century it was ill enforced.

Donatist security was threatened more from within than from without. Donatus's
successor Parmenian (355-90) was an able and moderate leader who held his own against many
schisms. But about 375 the Donatist layman Tyconius pleaded for even greater moderation.
After questioning Donatist repression of foes, be contended that good and bad should be
tolerated until the Last Judgment. Though excommunicated by Parmenian, Tyconius did not join
the Catholics but formed a new sect. The next Donatist chief, Primianus (390-411+), a violent
antiCatholic and politician, was opposed in 392 by Deacon Maximian, put forward under
circumstances similar to the original Donatist revolt against Caecilian. But by 411 the Primianists
were still the most numerous religious group: they had 279 bishops and most of the churches. In
collaboration with Gildo, Moorish governor of Africa (386-96), the Donatists persecuted Catholics
with impunity, and the Circumcelliones renewed their activity. Gildo's rebellion and execution
brought about imperial reprisals, but Donatist predominance does not seem to have been
seriously threatened before the fifth century. Though a small Donatist community under an
antipope was maintained at Rome for propaganda purposes, the chief strength of the sect
remained concentrated in Africa.

(2) DONATIST DEFEAT

St. Augustine (354-430) emerged as Catholic champion in 396 to second by his sermons
and writings the able leadership of the Catholic bishop of Carthage, Aurelius. The Catholic
hierarchy were rallied in council in 401 and preachers sent throughout Africa to explain the real
origins of the schism. When these were attacked by the Circumcelliones, St. Augustine
abandoned his original policy of purely verbal polemics, and acquiesced in the decision of the
Council of Carthage (404) to request imperial intervention. Emperor Honorius complied in
February, 405, with a sweeping edict: Donatist property was to be confiscated; their clergy exiled;
their services prohibited; their civil rights abridged. Execution was another thing, and stout
Donatist resistance caused some wavering in imperial policy in the next decade. Donatists
protested the legitimacy of their claims and finally the imperial government consented to a public
bearing to allow them to show cause why the edicts against heretics ought not to be enforced
against them.

The Conference of Carthage (411) held before the imperial representative Marcellinus in
June, 411, proved to be the turning point for Donatism. Catholics and Donatists vied for
numerical superiority in bishops; the final counts seem to have been 286 Catholics to 284
Donatists. These debated-standing because of Donatist quibbling-the origin of the schism,
recourse to the civil power, and use of violence.
Despite obstructionist tactics by Primianus and Petilian, St. Augustine traced the outbreak
of the African disturbances to Donatism. Marcellinus and any real neutrals were convinced, and
on January 20, 412, Honorius renewed the anti-Donatist penalties.

Donatist decline set in soon after the imperial conference. Discredited and demoralized,
the Donatists were shaken by the strict enforcement of the imperial edicts, renewed in 414 and
428. Though their history after 411 is fragmentary, there seems to be little doubt that the sect was
on the downgrade. Nevertheless they survived the Vandal invasion (430-531), they were still in
existence in the time of Pope St. Gregory the Great (590-604), and it is only under the Saracen
deluge of the late seventh century that they sink into oblivion.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

31. Arian Doctrinal Crisis (313-25)

V
Theological Definition

31. ARIAN DOCTRINAL CRISIS

A. Arian Origins
(1) THEOLOGICAL SOURCES
Rival schools. During the third century Alexandria and Antioch developed divergent
catechetical-exegetical schools. The Alexandrian academy, tending toward Platonic idealism,
stressed the allegorical sense of Scripture. Its great doctor, Origen, at least gave the impression
of subordinationism: the Son is somehow a lesser partner in the Trinity. Even more serious in this
instance was the somewhat rationalizing tendency of the Antiochian school with its emphasis on
the rigidly literal sense of Scripture. For its leaders, Paul and Lucian of Samosata, seem to have
denied any true divinity to Christ. Both environments, then, were susceptible to doctrinal error.

Paul of Samosata, patriarch of Antioch from 260 to 270, had taught, it will be recalled,
that there is but one divine person with three quasifaculties. Jesus, he said, was but a superior
creature, though the Logos might be termed homobusion: consubstantial to the Father in the
sense that he was personally identified with him. Paul's teaching, together with his use of
homodusios in the sense of a merely logical distinction among the divine persons had been
condemned by the Council of Antioch about 269. But a few years earlier Pope St. Denis of Rome
had criticized St. Denis of Alexandria for not saying that the Son was "of the Father's substance,"
in the sense of essential, not personal, identity.

Lucian of Sarnosata, a priest of Paul's diocese, had been influenced by his bishop's
views. He was excommunicated with him and founded an exegetical school which edited a
corrected copy of the Septuagint. His theological works are largely lost, but he is reported to
have preserved much of Paul's teaching. in his extant writings, his famous Creed noted hereafter,
he is guilty chiefly of ambiguous expressions. Apparently he was in good faith, for in 302
Patriarch Tyrannius readmitted him to communion at Antioch. Finally his martyrdom during
Maximin's persecution cast the halo of sanctity over Arianism's unwitting founder.

Arius the Libyan (256-337), along with Eusebius, the future bishop of Nicomedia, formed
part of the "co-Lucianist" school. He was a man of ascetical appearance, considerable learning,
and trenchant dialectical skill. Though his superficial manner was charming, be is also described
as proud, ambitious, and stubborn. While in the ranks of the minor clergy be was involved in the
Meletian Schism and several times censured before his ordination to the priesthood. He was
named pastor of Baucalis by Patriarch Alexander of Alexandria about 313.

Arianism. Arius's own plaintive defense of his teaching to Eusebius of Nicomedia cannot
conceal his basic denial of the Son's divinity: "The Son is not begotten, nor part of the Unbegotten
in any way; not drawn from a pre-existing subject, but by the will and design (of the Father)
begins to be before times and ages, perfect God, unique Son, unchangeable; before being
begotten, created, decreed, or founded, be did not exist, for be was not unbegotten-see for what
they are persecuting us." In vain, however, does Arius lavish perfections on the Son, if he denies
him divine eternal existence. Proceeding from a "monarchian" presupposition, Arius insisted that
because there is but one God, He cannot communicate His being, since this would imply that He
is divisible. Hence the Word must be outside of God and created. Though Arius made the Word
an instrument of divine creation, intermediate between God and the world, he conceded him
merely an adopted divine filiation: he is perfect only in a relative sense. Catholics who
maintained the divinity of all three Persons of the Trinity were accused of Modalism or Tritheism
by the Arians.

(2) HISTORIC MANIFESTATION

Initial proposition. About 319, according to Socrates (History, I, 5), Arius took issue with
Patriarch Alexander about Trinitarian theology: "Bishop Alexander of Alexandria one day spoke in
the presence of his priests and clergy of the mystery of the Trinity, and insisted especially on the
unity in the Trinity, and philosophizing on this grave subject, believed that he was gaining boner
by his argument. But Arius, eager for debate, professed to find Sabellianism in the bishop's
doctrine. He opposed it strongly, asserting that if the Father had begotten the Son, he who was
begotten bad a beginning of his being and therefore there was a time when be could not have
been; and that it also followed that the Son derived his beginning from nothing." During this
seemingly academic discussion Arianism or Collucianist subordinationism made its debut.

Spread of doctrine. Arius thereupon propounded his own theories openly in his parochial
church. The patriarch admonished him and arranged debates with defenders of orthodoxy.
These only gave Arius an opportunity to display his dialectical skill and to build up a party. St.
Athanasius, deacon and secretary to Bishop Alexander, is reported to have induced the hesitant
patriarch at length to take disciplinary action.

(3) LOCAL CONDEMNATION

The Council of Alexandria, formerly assigned to 320-21, may have convened as late as
the spring of 323. Arius was cited to give an account of his teachings. After two lengthy sessions
the council of nearly a hundred suffragan bishops agreed to condemn them. Anathema was
pronounced on Arius, Bishops Secundus of Ptolemais and Theonas of Marmarica, six priests and
six deacons; later the same penalty was imposed on two more priests and four deacons.
Patriarch Alexander reported in an encyclical the following condemned propositions ascribed to
Arius: "(1) God was not always Father; there was a time when He was not Father. (2) The Logos
of God has not always been; He was created from nothing; God the self-existent created from
nothing him who is not selfexistent. (3) Consequently there was a time when He was not; for (4)
the Son is a creature, fashioned and made. (5) He is not of the same substance as the Father; He
is not truly and according to His nature the Word and Wisdom of God, but one of the works and
creatures of God. Only by an abuse is He called Logos; He was created by the true Logos and
inner Wisdom of God. (6) Thus it is that by nature He is subject to change. (7) He is a stranger to
the divine substance and differs from it; He does not know God perfectly; He does not even know
His own nature perfectly. (8) He was created for us so that God might create us by Him as His
instrument; and He would not have existed had He not been called into existence by God through
love for us."
 Arian disorders continu4 At the invitation of both Eusebii, his Collucianist classmate of
Nicornedia, and the historian of Caesarea, Arius rallied supporters by meetings in both cities.
Emboldened to return to Alexandria, he spread his teachings by the Thalia, popular ditties set to
music. Things had reached the riot stage when Constantine intervened. At his request, Hosius of
Cordova visited Alexandria in 324. While he healed minor rifts, he could report no progress in the
Arian dispute. The same year a council at Antioch, assembled to elect St. Eustathius bishop,
sustained Alexander and denounced Arius. Probably on the recommendation of these bishops
the emperor announced a general council and placed the public post at the hierarchy's disposal.

B. Nicene Condemnation
(1) CONCILIAR DELIBERATIONS

The Council of Nicea (325) is the first ecumenical council of the Church according to the
common reckoning, although the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem (50) might have some claim to
that title. Although Pope St. Sylvester "failed to attend because of his advanced age, his priests
were there and filled his place" (Eusebius, Life of Constantine, III, 7). The Roman priests Vitus
and Vincent assisted Bishop Hosius of Cordova who acted as chief legate. The council was
attended by 318 bishops according to St. Athanasius; Bishops Hosius and Caecilian of Carthage
were the chief Western prelates in a predominantly oriental assembly.

Convocation. Episcopal deliberations commenced on May 20, though the emperor made
a state entry on June 14. Bishop Eusebius of Caesarea delivered a brief and laudatory address
of welcome, to which Constantirre replied by a moderate discourse in favor of harmony, pledging
his support to the conciliar deliberations. Though be continued to attend and interpose in favor of
unity, Constantine left the work of the council to the clergy.
Arian repudiation. Only some twelve to twenty-two of the bishops were Arian partisans.
Arius himself presented his views so bluntly that thereafter there remained little argument about
his errors. The principal discussion rather concerned the precise theological term to be used for
enunciating the Catholic dogma. The watered down Arian formula of Eusebius of Nicomedia was
rejected. So also was the vague but orthodox version of Eusebius of Caesarea, though the
Creed of his church may have furnished the general framework for the subsequent Nicene Creed.
The crucial and controversial word eventually adopted was homo6usios: the Son is
"consubstantial" to the Father. Most of the Orientals had qualms about this expression because
of its Paulianist connotation condemned at Antioch. But the Latins had no such misgivings, for
Pope St. Denis had used the term in an orthodox sense. "The word was Roman: had not Pope
Denis rebuked Denis of Alexandria for making use of it? The word had been chosen to express
the divine unity, the substantial unity: it proved most apt to complete the formula, ek tes tou
Patros ousias, by placing the stress on the coeternity of the Son. Alexander of Alexandria could
not gainsay it; it is not likely that be proposed it. Hosius alone was in a position to propose and
guarantee it; the acceptance of the word by the Council of Nicea is a sign of Hosius's authority,
and more precisely of the Church of Rome whose spokesman he was." Eustathius of Antioch
and Marcellus of Ancyra seconded the proposed formula, which passed into the Creed by the
votes of all bishops except two, Theonas and Secundus. But soon after the Council, Eusebius of
Nicomedia, Theognis of Nicea, and Maris of Chalcedon repudiated their signatures, while other
bishops, including Eusebius of Caesarea, qualified their acceptance. Arius of course refused to
accept a term which, on his part, St. Athanasius endorsed and ever after defended.

Closing of the council coincided with the twentieth anniversary of Constantine's reign,
possibly July 25. The emperor provided the bishops with a banquet, endorsed the conciliar
decrees, and exiled dissenters. The 228 extant signatures are headed by Hosius, Vitus, and
Vincent for the pope; then only follow Alexander of Alexandria, Macarius of Jerusalem, Eustathius
of Antioch and their suffragans (Mansi, II, 692). Though there is no explicit record of St.
Sylvester's own ratification, in 340 his successor Pope Julius implies it in asserting that the
decrees "are not to be reversed" (St. Athanasius, Apology, 21, 35). Doctrinally the case against
the Arians was complete, but theological subtleties and political intrigues would prolong the
controversy.

(2) CONCILIAR DECREES

Nicene Creed: "We believe in one God, the Father Almighty, Maker of all things visible
and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of God, the only-begotten of the Father, that
is of the substance of the Father (ek tes ousias tou Patros), God of God, light of light, true God of
true God, begotten not made, of the same substance with the Father (homo-dusion to Patri),
through whom all things were made both in heaven 'and on earth; who for us men and for our
salvation descended, became incarnate, and was made man, suffered and rose again the third
day, ascended into heaven, and will come to judge the living and the dead; and in the Holy
Ghost."

Nicene anathema: "Those who say: there was a time when He was not, and He was not
before He was begotten, and that He was made out of nothing, or who say that He is of another
hypostasis or another substance, or that the Son of God is created or is susceptible of change or
alteration, [them] the Catholic and Apostolic Church anathematizes."
Easter regulation. The Council also confirmed Pope Victor's regulation in, favor of the
Sunday observance of Easter, though differences would long persist as to the proper Sunday.
The text of the conciliar decision is no longer extant, but Nicea seems to have laid down the
principle of celebrating a uniform Sunday following the first full moon after the vernal equinox.

Meletian negotiations. The Council tried to heal the schism that Meletius of Lycopolis and
29 bishops had been maintaining against the patriarchs of Alexandria. The Council's efforts were
but partially successful, and the schismatics later joined forces with the Arians.
Disciplinary canons, nucleus of the first universal code of ecclesiastical legislation, were
also enacted by Nicea. A brief analysis of these twenty canons follows.
Clerical promotion was more carefully scrutinized. Self-mutilation, such as practiced by
Origen would bar a layman from ordination and disqualify a cleric from exercising his functions
(canon 1); catechumens ought not to be hastily ordained or consecrated (canon 2); bishops shall
be chosen by the other bishops of the province, consecrated by three of them, and installed by
the metropolitan (canon 4).

Clerical discipline. Suspicious women were banned from clerical residences (canon 3);
no universal law of celibacy, however, was laid down by the Council at the remonstrance of
Bishop Paphnutius. Canon 17,inflicted deposition upon clerics guilty of simony and usury, while
canon 18 warned deacons to yield precedence to bishops and priests.
Episcopal jurisdiction was more clearly defined. Canon 6 recognized as of ancient
tradition the patriarchal rights of the bishops of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch. All their
suffragans were subject to their supervision, "since this is also the custom of the Bishop of
Rome." The bishop of Jerusalem, if as yet denied patriarchal status, was awarded special honor
(canon 7). Those excommunicated by one bishop are not to be absolved by another; provincial
councils will examine the justice of censures (canon 5). Clerics must not pass from one diocese
to another, under pain of deposition or suspension (canons 15, 16).

Penitential discipline. Novatianist clerics may retain their status or return to the Church
after a written profession of faith and reception of penance (canon 8). But clerics hastily and
rashly promoted, or those who lapsed in persecution are to be deposed (canons 9, 10). Recent
apostates under Licinius shall, according to the degree of their guilt, do penance for twelve or
thirteen years (canons 11, 12). Viaticum ought never be denied to the dying, though in case they
recover, they must complete their public penance (canon 13). Lapsed catechumens shall perform
three years' penance (canon 14). Paulianists-followers of Paul of Samosata-must be rebaptized
on conversion, since their Trinitarian formula is defective (canon 19). Whereas kneeling is a sign
of penance, the faithful shall stand at Mass on Sundays and during Paschal Time, days of
rejoicing (canon 20).

(3) RESULTS OF THE COUNCIL

Arian insincerity. Of the estimated twenty-two Arians in the Nicene Council, only Theonas
of Marmarica and Secundus of Ptolemais had dared dissent in the assembly itself, though
Eusebius of Nicomedia and others soon repudiated their signatures. In the fall of 325 the
emperor declared them deposed, and they were exiled to Gaul until 328 when the politic
Eusebius obtained their recall. Meanwhile other Arians protested that force had been used to
secure their compliance at Nicea. All these meditated revenge.

Semi-Arian hesitation. The uncompromising homoousios of Nicea had not been relished
by Eusebius of Caesarea and other cautious prelates. It has been noted that the Paulianist
sense of the term still disturbed many. Another source of difficulty arose from translation of
Tertullian's Trinitarian formula, una substantial tres personae. For unfortunately the Greek
hypostasis, etymologically the same as substantiate stand under or support-and equated with it in
the Nicene anathema, was taken by some to signify "Person," a meaning that eventually
prevailed. Conscientious Catholics could easily be alarmed by expressions lacking in precision,
while malicious dialectitians could exploit the confusion. Finally, suspicions were entertained of
the orthodoxy of one of the Catholic champions, Marcellus of Ancyra; indeed, whatever his
personal good faith, his views on the Incarnation were justly questioned.

Catholic victory, therefore, would be delayed. General acceptance of the Nicene

definition would be opposed by the intrigues of heretics, by the scruples of the well-meaning, the
rivalries of personalities, the linguistic and cultural differences of Latin West and Byzantine East,
and perhaps most of all by imperial meddling, the willful obstinacy and crass stupidity of caesars
who insisted on playing pope.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

32. Arian Political Crisis (325-61)

V
Theological Definition

32. ARIAN POLITICAL CRISIS

A. Arian Resurgence (328-41)

(1) EXILE OF CATHOLIC CHAMPIONS
Eusebius of Nicornedia emerged as the Arian chief after the Council. St. Helena, the
emperor's mother, had great veneration for St. Lucian, a patron of her native city of Drepanurn in
Bithynia, while Constantine's sister Constantia, Licinius's widow, revered Eusebius himself.
Through the latter the Nicomedian prelate regained imperial favor in 328 by protesting that he and
his fellow exiles had not opposed the Nicene Creed so much as they had shielded Arius from
unjust persecution. Constantine accepted their defense that they had been guilty of nothing more
than an "excess of charity," and allowed them to recover their sees. Some of these were
occupied by Niceans, and Eusebius deemed a strong offensive the best defense: be resolved to
capture the chief sees by discrediting their Catholic holders, without as yet making a frontal attack
on the Nicene Council itself.

Antioch was the first objective. Here there were already a number of Collucianist
sympathizers. Eusebius of Nicomedia was able to mobilize not only his relatively small group of
Arians, but also Semi-Arian compromisers like Eusebius of Caesarea in a Provincial council at
Antioch. This took at face value charges that Patriarch St. Eustathius was guilty of Sabellianism,
sexual immorality, and disrespect to the emperor's mother, St. Helena, when she erected a
church in Lucian's honor. Except for the last, these accusations were false, probably suborned.
But they sufficed to procure an order from Constantine banishing the Catholic patriarch to Thrace
(330) where be died, possibly about 337. Paulinus of Tyre, a Eusebian, was elected in his place,
and until 362 the see was controlled by Arian intruders.

Alexandria remained the Catholic stronghold in the East. Here St. Athanasius (328-73)
had succeeded Patriarch Alexander. When he refused to reinstate Arius, he was subjected to a
series of calumnies, which for a time he proved resourceful in refuting. He demonstrated that he
possessed the canonical age for the episcopate; a visit to Nicomedia assured the emperor that he
was no disturber of the peace; a murder charge was exploded by the testimony of the supposed
victim; an accusation of adultery came to naught: St. Athanasius disguised himself like the
Dauphin, but his supposed accomplice proved herself no Joan of Arc. Finally, however, a packed
Arian synod at Tyre in 335 was cajoled and coerced by Eusebius of Nicomedia and Count Flavius
Dionysus into convicting the patriarch of holding up grain shipments to the Byzantine capital.
Constantine was so impressed by the enormity of the crime of tampering with the politically
essential panem et circenses, that be yielded credence to St. Athanasius's accusers. This time a
personal interview failed to exculpate the Saint; he was exiled to Trier. His people, nonetheless
remained loyal to him during all his exiles, and he dared not immediately be replaced.

Other sees in Catholic hands were also successfully attacked during the decade of Arian
revival. Among the victims were Asclepias of Gaza, Marcellus of Ancyra, Eutropius of Adrianople;
eventually St. Paul of Constantinople was displaced in the see of the capital by Eusebius of
Nicomedia himself. All were expelled with Constantine's backing as "disturbers of the peace."

(2) ARIAN DEFIANCE

Arius's rehabilitation. Once they had extracted the teeth of the Niceans, the Eusebians
proceeded with greater boldness. They decided to vindicate the reputation of Arius. The Tyrian
conciliarists, reconvened at Jerusalem, had rehabilitated him. Constantine now received Arius's
facile declaration of orthodoxy and ordered Bishop Alexander of Constantinople to readmit him to
communion. While the helpless prelate prayed to avert this scandal, preparations were made for
a solemn vindication. But Arius died suddenly on the eve of the scheduled ceremony.

Imperial succession. Constantine's death, May 22, 337, temporarily balted the Arian
attack. His. sons and successors were at first chiefly interested in eliminating rivals and carving
out spheres of influence. Constantine II permitted St. Athanasius to return to Alexandria, and the
other Catholic champions came back from exile, though all were not able to regain their sees.
Roman intervention. At least at Alexandria, Eusebius had to begin over again. He
quickly gained favor with Constantius, the eastern coregent so that after a pseudo-canonical
deposition had failed to disturb Alexandrian loyalty to St. Athanasius, be could make use of
imperial troops to expel the patriarch and install the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia (339-45). St.
Athanasius, already well on his way to becoming the symbol of Nicene orthodoxy, escaped to
Rome. Here the vigorous St. Julius (337-52) had succeeded St. Sylvester and the short-lived St.
Mark (336). During most of his pontificate the pope remained secure under the rule of the
Catholic ruler of the West, Constans (337-50). Despite Eusebian threats, the pope convened a
council at Rome to examine the charges against the exiles. The Eusebians were invited to
attend, but refused on the ground that the depositions pronounced by the Synod of Tyre were
irrevocable. In 340 the Roman council vindicated St. Athanasius, and at the pleas of the Nicene
legates Vitus and Vincent, Marcellus of Ancyra as well. In announcing this verdict to the
Eusebians, themselves gathered in council at Antioch, the pope protested: "Are you unaware that
the custom has been for word to be first sent to us and then for just decision to be handed down
from here? If any grave suspicion rested on the bishop, notice of it should have been sent here. .
. . I am declaring what we have learned from Blessed Peter the Apostle; I would not have written
it for I supposed that you all understood this."

Arian manifesto. The Eusebians in reply denied that they had supported Arius; they had
merely reinstated a victim of persecution. They confirmed Gregory of Cappadocia as Alexandrian
patriarch, but protested their own orthodoxy. To express this "orthodoxy" they chose "Lucian's
Creed" which vaguely declared that the Son is the "inseparable image" of the Father's attributes.
Though not overt heresy, it did repudiate Nicea. Soon after (341) Eusebius's death terminated
this phase of Arian propaganda.

B. Catholic Resistance (341-53)

(1) POLITICAL BACKGROUND

Constantine's sons, Constantine II (337-40), Constantius (337-61), and Constans (337-

50), had divided his realm. After the early death of Constantine II, the imperial dominions were
apportioned according to the natural division of East and West. Constantius, who ruled in the
East, consistently favored the Arians and prevented the papal mandates from being put into
execution. In the West the Catholic Constans warded off this Arian bias until his assassination by
Magnentius, who usurped the throne. Repression of this rebel occupied Constantius for three
years so that the immunity of the Church in the West was prolonged until 353.

(2) COUNCIL OF SARDICA (343)

Papal council. Pope Julius prevailed on Constans to sponsor a new general council
during the autumn of.343. The site was Sardica, the modern Sofia, in the most eastern portion of
Constans' territory. Bishop Hosius beaded some 90 western bishops as papal legate. But the
council failed of its peacemaking aim when some 80 eastern prelates arrived only to withdraw on
the issue of recognizing Athanasius, Marcellus, and Asclepias of Gaza. The Westerners
remained in session to reapprove the, indicted bishops. Hosius's proposal that a new creed more
acceptable to the Orientals be discussed was vetoed by St. Athanasius who led the bishops at
Sardica in reaffirming the Nicene Creed without alteration. Nicene disciplinary regulations were
also confirmed, with noteworthy additions. Episcopal right of appeal to the Holy See was
guaranteed, and the papal prerogative of ultimate decision in case of a bishop's deposition
explicitly acknowledged. Several other canons were directed against episcopal intrigues at court,
while the council requested the imperial brothers to permit the Catholic faith to be professed
without persecution and to prevent any secular judge from passing sentence on clerics.

Dissent at Philippolis. But these salutary provisions were accepted only in the West, for
the eastern bishops, reassembled at Philippolis in Thrace, contradicted the Sardican decrees and
denounced "Julius of the city of Rome as author and cause of all evils." Thus the halves of the
prospective ecumenical council nullified one another's work, and Sardica is not generally included
in a list of general synods. Sardica had rallied the West to Nicene orthodoxy, but it had not
placated the suspicious Orientals, who once more,proffered Lucian's evasive creed.

(3) THEOLOGICAL IMPASSE

Synodal warfare failed to change the relative status quo to any decisive degree during
the next decade. St. Athanasius survived one more condemnation by an Arian synod at Antioch
in 344. When the Arian intruder at Alexandria died in 345, Constantius thought it politic to permit
the popular Saint to return to his see. There be was enthusiastically welcomed and a council
declared him reinstated. In the West, synods at Milan in 345 and 347 upheld Nicea. But Niceans
were embarrassed by aspersions against the Christological orthodoxy of Marcellus o Ancyra, and
his disciple Photinos, bishop of Sirmium, modern CarloWitz. During 347 Photinos defied a
condemnation by oriental bishops at Sirmium, but was banished by yet another synod at Sirmium
in 351. This latter council reaffirmed the Lucian Creed as the (First) "Formulary of Sirmium." The
Nicene Creed was not yet sung in Orient land.

C. Arian Coercion (353--61)

(1) OUTLAWRY OF ATHANASIUS

Constantius, once relieved of all competitors to imperial power, resolved to discredit and
force out St. Athanasius by the common voice of Christendom. Even before bringing pressure to
bear on the patriarch directly, be resolved to coerce the western episcopate. Hence he utilized
the request of the new Pope Liberius (352-66) for a council to further his "managed referendum."

St Arles (353) the emperor convened the required synod, but cut short the bishops'
intention of reaffirming the Nicene Creed by a curt order to repudiate the Alexandrian patriarch or
go into exile. Paulinus of Trier was the sole dissenter; all the other bishops, including the papal
legates, Vincent of Capua and Marcellus of Campania, duly inscribed. The pope repudiated the
action of his legates and demanded a fair council.
The Synod of Milan (355) was the emperor's obliging response, but be in no way
changed his aims or tactics. Episcopal scruples about condemning a brother bishop were
brushed aside with the assurance of Constantius that "my will is canon law." Externally the
majority agreed, though this time there were three dissenters, Denis of Milan, St. Eusebius of
Vercelli, and the papal legate, Lucifer of Cagliaridocility was never the latter's weakness. All three
were then exiled.

The Synod of Beziers (356) yielded another list of episcopal condemnations, but also one
heroic Catholic champion, St. Hilary of Poitiers, who was exiled to the East where he remained
vociferous in the cause of St. Athanasius.
Exile of remaining Catholic defenders now followed. In 356 Constantius intruded into the
Alexandrian see the Arian Gregory of Cappadocia (356-61). St. Athanasius, who by now had
perfected the technique of exile, escaped into the desert to remain the "invisible patriarch." Pope
Liberius, who had continued to defy the imperial will, was banished to Beroea in Thrace in 355 or
356, and the aged Bishop Hosius of Cordova suffered a similar fate.

(2) CONDUCT OF LIBERIUS

Pure Arianism, professed by Aetius of Antioch (d. 370), momentarily captured imperial
counsels and dominated a new Synod of Sirm. 'Um during 357. The resulting (Second)
Formulary of Sirmium was clearly heretical: "The Father is greater than the Son" in divine
prerogatives. The nonagenarian Hosius was tricked and coerced into signing this declaration, but
this was scarcely a human act, for inconsistently he still refused to repudiate St. Athanasius.
Pope Liberius never signed this formulary.

Semi-Arianism regained the ascendancy in 358 under the new imperial favorite, Basil of
Ancyra. That same year another synod at Sirmium asserted that the Son is "like the Father in
substance." This Third Formulary of Sirmium was orthodox so far as it went. It is probable that
Pope Liberius was induced or coerced into signing this document in order to avert the greater evil
of widespread subscription to the Arian Second Formulary of Sirmium; it seems certain in any
event that he repudiated St. Athanasius under torture, for the latter magnanimously excused him
for it (Apology, 89; History of Arians, V, 41). The pope's conduct was personal, not official: he
taught or prescribed nothing pertaining to faith or morals, and at most gave a nihil obstat to an
imperfect formula. But especially in the light of modern Communist tactics, historians must not
fail to consider the possibilities that Liberius's signature may have been procured by force or
deceit, or that it was simply given out that be had approved. If he did sign knowingly, this
represented weakness rather than personal heresy, and his repudiation of Athanasius pertained
to equity rather than doctrine. One may indeed question the expediency of making the Catholic
symbol a Jonas to appease the tumult, though the papal action could do the already exiled
patriarch little harm. The pope was also doubtless worried about Rome in the bands of the Arian
intruder Felix (355-57), and may have felt the necessity of purchasing liberation at a high price.
Liberius's conduct after his return was both prudent and courageous, and his flock does not seem
to have been scandalized. But the documentary evidence on the whole affair is neither as
complete nor as clear as would warrant a definitive judgment.

(3) VICTORY OF AMBIGUITY

Political Arianism in turn forged to the front when Basil of Ancyra abused his position by
drastic measures against his theological opponents. These in turn undermined his influence with
Constantius, and prepared to utilize his proposed councils to endorse, not the Third or Serni-
Arian Formulary of Sirmium, but yet a further version. The Emperor was induced to approve the
draft of a new Creed-nicknamed the "Dated Creed"-drawn up by Mark of Arethusa and the
Political Arians. This colorless statement, the Fourth Formulary of Sirmium, merely held that "the
unique Son of God" was "like the Father who begot Him, according to the Scriptures." As to ousia
or substance, and a fortiori homoousios, these terms were to be rejected as not in the Scriptures.

Rimini-Seleucia. Substantially this homoion or "likeness" formula was proposed to some

400 western bishops meeting at Rimini in the summer of 359, and to 150 Orientals convened at
Seleucia in September of the same year. Though the bishops escaped any direct endorsement
of the dominant Arian clique by the vacuous homoion versions, St. Jerome was justified in
observing that "at that moment the term ousia was abolished; the Nicene faith stood condemned
by acclamation." For delegates from the regional councils repeated the new formula at
Constantinople in January, 360, over the protests of St. Hilary of Poitiers -who thereupon was
sent back home for disturbing the peace of the East. Yet Jerome was merely rhetorical in his
further plaint: "The whole world groaned and was astonished to find itself Arian." Rather, many
conscientious Serni-Arians had chosen exile in place of Arianism, and thereby took the first step
toward reconciliation with the Niceans. The Political Arians were but a clique of politicians whose
ephemeral supremacy depended neither on their numerical strength, nor their firmness of
principle, but on the favor of the Emperor Constantius. While this endured, they could send foes
into exile and take possession of the leading sees. But on November 3, 361, Constantius died,
and Julian the Apostate, with malice toward all, with charity for none, was lord of the Roman
world.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

33. Catholic Victory over Arianism (361-81)

V
Theological Definition

33. CATHOLIC VICTORY OVER ARIANISM

A. Nicene Revival (361-78)

(1) NICENE CONCILIATION
Julian the Apostate became the unwitting cause of Catholic unity when in his hope of
restoring paganism, be resorted to the old imperial maxim of "divide and conquer." Hence he
permitted the Catholic and Semi-Arian bishops exiled by the Political Arians to return in
expectation that their renewed contests would disrupt and destroy Christianity. On the contrary,
common exile had drawn many Catholics and SemiArians together and hastened their union
against Arianism.
 Papal conciliation. Pope Liberius, who had personal experience with imperial coercion,
was disposed to be lenient toward those who had yielded to force. In a letter to the Italian
hierarchy be characterized the defections at Rimini-Seleucia, in which be had had no share, as
mere acquiescence to external pressure and pleaded for repentance while promising
reconciliation. Thus the pope set the tone for the policy Of reconciliation which was endorsed by
the Catholic champions, Sts. Athanasius and Hilary. Only the former papal legate, Lucifer of
Cagliari, rejected any reconciliation for those who had wavered and came to bead a small
rigoristic sect of Luciferians who professed Novatianist severity.

A rally to Nicea quickly got under way. Even before the death of Constantius, St. Hilary,
back in Gaul, had led a Synod of Paris (360) in denouncing the instigators of Rimini: Auxentius,
Valens, and Ursacius. Meanwhile Pope Liberius and St. Eusebius of Vercelli organized the
Catholics in Italy, though they could not dislodge the Arian Auxentius (355-74) from Milan. In 362,
St. Athanasius presided over a council at Alexandria attended by his own suffragans as well as
St. Eusebius of Vercelli, Asterius of Petra, and proxies from Lucifer of Cagliari and Apollinaris of
Laodicea. The meeting urged reunion of all groups willing to accept the Nicene Creed, and in
particular exhorted the Catholic factions at Antioch to reach accord. At Antioch, while the majority
of Niceans had accepted the convert Arian Meletius whom they elected as the first Catholic
patriarch in thirty years, a minority repudiated him. This very year Lucifer of Cagliari gave the
minority a bishop by consecreting Paulinus. Meanwhile Meletius's own synod at Antioch was
explaining the Nicene homodusios, distinguishing it from the heretical Paulianist sense.
Athanasius visited Antioch in 363, but when Meletius delayed in accepting his invitation to joint
action, the Alexandrian patriarch recognized Paulinus and induced the Holy See to incline to the
same course. In Palestine, the homoi-ousion St. Cyril returned to Jerusalem and joined the
general trend to Nicea. During 364 the Synod of Lampsacus on the Hellespont upheld the
honioousios and declared the Arian Eudoxius of Constantinople delposed-he retained his see by
the favor of coregent Valens. Even before succeeding to the see of Caesarea in Cappadocia, St.
Basil the Great mobilized many bishops in Asia Minor to seek reconciliation with Pope Liberius
and to resist the Neo-Arianism of Valens. The Synod of Tyana (365) received letters of
communion from the pope after its envoys had renounced RiminiSeleucia and had reaffirmed
Nicea.

(2) NICENE PROGRESS DESPITE PERSECUTION

Macedonians seceded from Arian ranks about this time. These followers of Macedonius,
usurper of Constantinople (349-60), had pushed Arianism to its logical consequence by denying
the divinity of the Holy Ghost, which, indeed, had not been explicitly defined at Nicea. For this
reason they were nicknamed by Serapion of Thmuis as Pneumatomachi: "enemies of the Holy
Ghost." Their leaders had reputations for piety and zeal and the group did not at once become a
distinct sect: St. Basil did not formally break with the Macedonian Eustathius of Sebaste until 372.

Emperor Valens, distracted at first by war, began persecuting Niceans in 369. In that
year be installed the Arian Demophilus at Constantinople and banished the Nicean candidate
Evagrius. Then he began to exact of Eastern bishops a reaffirmation of the Rimini-Seleucia
formula under pain of exile. At Caesarea in Cappadocia, Archbishop St. Basil personally
overawed Valens and parried imperial schemes for an Arian hierarchy by creating new sees for
orthodox nominees, including his brother St. Gregory of Nyssa and his friend, St. Gregory
Nazianzan. These "Three Cappadocians" prevented complete success of the imperial Arianizing
program. But it claimed victims elsewhere. St. Cyril was again banished from Jerusalem.
Meletius of Antioch and many Syrian bishops were exiled. Valens feared to attack St. Athanasius.
but after his death in 373 his successor Peter was sent into exile and the Arian Lucius violently
intruded. But in 376 Valens, alarmed by Gothic penetration of the Balkans, ceased active
persecution, and two yt-ars later was killed in battle.
 Nicene reaction, already far advanced in the West, thenceforward became irresistible.
Though Valentinian (364-75) in the West had given Catholics neither assistance nor trouble, they
had captured the see of Milan in 374. There St. Ambrose replaced Auxentius and sturdily
resisted all efforts of Empress Justina to replace him with an Arian Auxentius II. St. Ambrose
supported the new Pope St. Damasus (366-84) against the Arianizing Ursinus, and was influential
in replacing Germinius of Sirmium with the Nicean Anemius in 376. Pope Damasus's
condemnation of the heresy of Apollinarism which denied to Christ a human soul, removed the
Orientals' anxieties about Marcellus of Ancyra (d. 374). In 378 Emperor Gratian deposed six
Arian bishops in Illyricum, and on August 3, 379, proscribed Arianism by edict, though presumably
this and another decree of the next year were not at first perfectly enforced. But in 379 Gratian
allayed the fears of Eastern Catholics by filling the post of the deceased Valens with the orthodox
Theodosius (379-95). During 379 a council of 153 Eastern bishops once more affirmed the
Nicene Creed at Antioch. In the same year St. Gregory Nazianzen opened the Catholic chapel of
the Anastasis at Constantinople and here revived the faith of Catholics with his brilliant sermons
on the Trinity. Theodosius was for a time occupied with the pacification of the Goths, but in 380
his Edict of Thessalonica announced his uncompromising Catholicity. On his arrival at
Constantinople, he banished both the Arian Bishop Demophilus and the impostor Maximus, and
named St. Gregory Nazianzen to the see, an appointment later confirmed by the Council of
Constantinople. For it was in the direction of a new general Christian assembly that many eyes
looked, and at St. Gregory's advice, the emperor convoked such a council to be held at
Constantinople in May, 381. informal moral unanimity was to be officially confirmed.

B. Constantinopolitan Settlement (378-93)

(1) CONCILIAR DELIBERATIONS

Convocation. The First General Council of Constantinople, posthumously ecumenical,

was in session from May to July, 381. It was composed entirely of Orientals, and of these 150
were Catholics while some 36 were Arians or Macedonians.
Nicene doctrinal vindication was the most important, though it would seem, the easiest
task of the Council. The Nicene Creed was reaffirmed, augmented by an explicit definition of the
divinity of the Holy Ghost against the Macedonians. It is believed that the Creed of Jerusalem,
possibly suggested by St. Cyril who was present, formed the model for the definitive Trinitarian
formula. Except for the Filioque clause sanctioned at Rome some six centuries later, this Creed
differs only slightly from the one in current liturgical use.

Patriarchal precedence, unfortunately, played a great part in the conciliar deliberations.

In the absence of a Roman legate and of Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria, Meletius of Antioch
assumed the presidency of the Council as ranking patriarch. Upon his death shortly after its
opening, the existing dispute for the see of Antioch became acute. St. Gregory Nazianzen,
whose position as bishop of Constantinople had been enhanced by the Council with the
patriarchal dignity, urged the election of Meletius's rival,- Paulinus, in order to beal the schism.
But the Meletian faction held out for Flavian. At this juncture Patriarch Timothy of Alexandria and
Bishop Acholius of Salonika, papal vicar of the Illyrian provinces, arrived. Both endorsed
Paulinus as lawful patriarch of Antioch--the pope had done so about 375-but questioned St.
Gregory's status. The Alexandrian prelate resented the conciliar decree ranking the see of
Constantinople second after Rome, as indeed the pope did also when he heard of it. The
apostolic vicar Acholius congratulated the Council for rejecting the pseudo-bishop Maximos of
Constantinople, but warned it against accepting a bishop uncanonically transferred from another
see. Though St. Gregory was not mentioned, his tiny unwanted diocese of Sas ima was meant.
That holy and reluctant bishop seized this occasion to resign after an exhortation to his
colleagues to preserve harmony. But if Alexandria hoped to profit she was grievously
disappointed, for Theodosius by imperial fiat designated the aged and pliant Senator Nectarius as
prelate of Constantinople, and Caesaro-papism went marching on as this layman was -hastily
given orders to assume the titular ecclesiastical leadershipA the East.
 Closing of the council came on July 9,381, and its decrees were approved and
promulgated by the emperon in an,edict from Heraclea on July 30, 381.

(2) CONCILIAR DECREES

Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed: "We -believe, in one God, the Father Almighty, Creator
of heaven and earth, and of all things visible and invisible; and in one Lord Jesus Christ, the only-
begotten Son of God, begotten of the Father before all times, Light of Light, very God from very
God, begotten, not created, of the same substance with the Father, by whom all things are made;
who for us men and for our salvation, came down from heaven and was incarnate by the Holy
Ghost of the Virgin Mary and was made Man; who was crucified for us under Pontius Pilate,
suffered and was buried, and the third day He rose again according to the Scriptures, and
ascended into heaven and sat down at the right hand of the Father, and He shall come again with
glory to judge both the living and the dead, whose kingdom shall have no end. And we believe in
the Holy Ghost, the Lord and Life-giver, who proceedeth from the Father, who with the Father and
the Son together is worshiped and glorified; who spoke by the Prophets. And in one holv Catholic
and Apostolic Church. We acknowledge one baptism for the remission of sins. We look for a
resurrection of the dead, and the life of the world to come. Amen."

Conciliar anathema. Canon I reaffirmed the Nicene confession and anathematized

Eunomians, Arians, Pneumatomachi, Sabellians, Marcellians, Photinians, and Apollinarians. The
three last-named heresies concerning Christology had already been censured by papal or local
conciliar action. Their content will be examined in connection with subsequent Christological
heresies: Nestorianism and Eutychianism.
Jurisdictional questions. Episcopal jurisdiction was the subject of the second canon
which reminded bishops to confine the exercise of their powers within diocesan limits; missionary
bishops, however, were to observe established norms. Canon 3 declared that "the bishop of
Constantinople shall have the primacy of honor after the bishop of Rome, because the same is
New Rome." Canon 4 rejected the pretensions to the see of Maxim-os the Cynic and declared his
ordinations null.

Supplementary canons, enacted at a Constantinopolitan synod during 382, recognized

the Tome of Meletius of Antioch as orthodox, curbed irresponsible accusations as practiced by the
Arians, and gave specific directions for reconciliation of Arians and Macedonians.
Papal ratification. The First Council of Constantinople was not ecumenical in its
inception; it was intended to be merely the Eastern portion of a general episcopal meeting. Pope
Damasus could have had no,objection to the Nicene-Constantinopolitan Creed, though the first
explicit information available of its acceptance as normative is its confirmation by the general
council of Chalcedon in 451, itself ratified by Pope Leo the Great. But the same pope explicitly
repudiated a canon similar to the third canon of Constantinople in favor of the Byzantine
patriarchate. Not until 1215 is there record of formal papal acknowledgement of Constantinople's
claim to be the second see of Christendom -and by then the city was in the hands of the
Westerners.

(3) ROUT OF ROMAN ARIANISM

Western parallel to Constantinople. During the deliberations at Constantinople, Emperor

Gratian assembled some of the Western bishops at Aquileia. Though Archbishop Valerian of
Aquileia presided, St. Ambrose of Milan was the leading spirit among the 35 bishops in
attendance. Two Arian bishops in the Balkans were deposed, the antipope Ursinus was
denounced, but not only were the Antiochian claims of Paulinus endorsed but Maximos the Cynic
recommended for Constantinople. This action taken at Aquileia in September, 381, was naturally
resented in the East, and the second Synod of Constantinople (382) repulsed Western
interference. In attending a Roman council
during the summer of 382, St. Ambrose learned that he had been hoodwinked by Maximos; be
then joined the pope in recognizing Nectarius at Constantinople. But the Roman synod continued
to endorse Paulinus for Antioch over the Meletian candidate, Flavian.
Imperial proscription. During 383 Emperor Theodosius held a conference at
Constantinople of all dissident factions. Eunomius the Anomean (strict Arian), Demophilos the
Homean (political Arian), and Eleusius the Macedonian were required to submit their professions
of faith. When they refused to retract these unsatisfactory formulas, their documents were cast
into the fire. Then by edicts of July 25 and September 3, 383, and January 21, 384, Theodosius
forbade all heretical assemblies. Banned and generally discredited, Roman Arianism soon
suffocated underground. But, as will be noted subsequently, Arianism had already been carried
to the Goths beyond imperial frontiers, and with the Teutonic migrations would be reintroduced
into the Roman Empire during the succeeding century.

Healing of Meletian Schism. One unhappy relic of the Arian controversies still survived in
the Meletian Schism at Antioch. Advised by the patriarchs of Alexandria, St. Athanasius and his
successors, the Holy See had supported Paulinus (362-88) and Evagrius (388-93) against St.
Meletius (361-81) and Flavian (381-404). In vain had St. Basil of Caesarea urged Pope St.
Damasus to reverse the Roman decision which was generally unpopular in the East. Yet the
Meletian faction actually embraced a majority of the Antioebian Niceans and the dispute had been
chiefly one of personalities. Pope St. Siricius (384-99) entertained hopes of settlement and
sanctioned negotiations by the Italian Synod of Capua (392) looking toward some settlement.
The death of the Roman candidate Evagrius in 393 and the peacemaking efforts of a number of
Orientals, including St. John Chrysostom, then a renowned preacher at Antioch, made for
success. A conference at Caesarea in 393 resulted in the reconciliation of the majority of
Antiochian Catholics with Patriarch Flavian and with Rome. Antioch, which had first given
Arianism to the ; world, at last reposed in Catholic peace.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) V. Theological Definition (313-95)

34. Unfolding Christian Life

V
Theological Definition

34. UNFOLDING CHRISTIAN LIFE

A. Jurisdiction
(1) PAPAL PRIMACY
The papacy faced changed conditions after the Edict of Milan decreed a reversal of
official paganism. Hitherto, though the state had been hostile, the pope's exclusive right to rule
the Church had gone unchallenged. Now, however, from an open enemy the emperor often
became a secret rival or oppressive benefactor. Councils were called with scant or no
consideration of papal wishes. Pope Liberius had been subjected to imperial browbeating. Papal
policy toward the imperial environment was somewhat modified in view of these developments.
The popes did not judge it expedient to assert any right to temporal independence under the
Christian Roman Empire, and until 755 conducted themselves as loyal subjects or at least
citizens, of the Basileus at Constantinople. During the fourth century papal prestige seemed to
suffer from transfer of the imperial residence, while the sees of Milan and Constantinople
obtained new influence in ecclesiastical affairs. Succeeding centuries would reveal, however,
that proximity of the court had a restrictive effect on spiritual jurisdiction, while temporal care of
Rome deserted by the emperors would pass to the popes.

Papal administration was facilitated by the cessation of persecution, and during the
interval before the Teutonic migrations the pope's ecumenical jurisdiction was more manifest than
ever before. The Holy See showed itself arbiter of patriarchates and the instructor of the
episcopate. Pope Damasus's declarations on the canon of Scripture have more than local
influence, and Pope Siricius's decrees on clerical celibacy became normative for other Western
sees. Liturgical uniformity was not yet insisted upon even within the Latin patriarchate, though
Pope Innocent at the beginning of the fifth century implies that all the uses of the Latin Church
had been ultimately derived from Rome.

(2) EPISCOPAL HIERARCHY

The episcopacy came into greater civil prominence with the Constantinian legislation.
Even in secular affairs the bishops were now accorded almost concurrent judicial competence,
and thev were increasingly regarded by the Christian emperors as overseers of local secular
administration and matters of social welfare. The outline of the medieval prince-bishop already
dimly emerges.
Episcopal administration now required an elaborate curia. The chief episcopal assistant
was the archdeacon, who supervised the temporalities and ruled the diocese in case of vacancy
until choice of another bishop, who not infrequently was himself. The archdeacon and his staff of
deacons were sometimes in danger of overshadowing the priests, despite St. Jerome's indignant
defense of sacerdotal precedence. Another curial official was the syncellus or chamberlain, the
bishop's personal aide; presently be became a chief secretary, with assistants and archivists
tinder him. The increased legal business required ekdikoi or defensores, early canonists, and
notaries. All of the curial staff enjoyed clerical privileges, though laymen assisted the clergy in
some functions.

(3) CLERICAL LIFE

The secular clergy became more numerous, though the number of minor orders was not
multiplied. The clergy were generally supported by tithes from the people, frequent legacies and
endowments of the churches, and sometimes obtained free grain from the imperial government.
A widespread custom was the division of the diocesan revenues into four portions: one for the
episcopal curia, another for the clergy, one for the support of the poor, and the other for
maintaining ecclesiastical buildings and furnishings. Yet as late as 398 there is mention of some
clerics who supported themselves by manual labor. Certain occupations were closed to the
clergy, and evidently the evil effects of temporal prosperity occasionally made themselves felt
among the fourth century clergy, for the Nicene ban on clerical usury has already been noted.

Clerical training was under the bishop's direction, though be usually found it necessary to
delegate his functions. In the episcopal household a school was set up and certain priests
assigned to take charge of clerical education; in St. Cyprian's correspondence there is mention of
presbyteres doctores. St. Eusebius of Vercelli is said to have led a community life with his clergy,
but this does not seem to have been a general rule. Youths were enrolled as lectors at an early
age and while discharging their functions of reading the sacred books learned from their Seniors.
Neophytes and unemancipated slaves were not admitted to the clergy. In some great centers,
such as Alexandria and Antioch, the catechetical schools trained apologists and instructed
scholars in biblical exegesis. Origen's method at Alexandria and Caesarea, as described by St.
Gregory Thaumaturgus, embraced a preliminary test to discover the auditors' educational
background and use of the Socratic method for informal correction of errors. Positive teaching
was presented in the order of the universe: natural philosophy, geometry, astronomy, Scriptural
exegesis, and ascetical theology. Students were urged to be fair-minded and to read everything
diligently. Both Christian and non-Christian writings might be studied for the truth contained; only
atheistic works were banned.

Clerical celibacy was becoming a norm for clerics in major orders in the Latin Church.
About 300 the Spanish Synod of Elvira demanded this of bishops, priests, and deacons, and
apparently of all clerics on active service (canon 33). This is the first known mandate on the
subject, though many clerics had followed the evangelical counsels and St. Paul's example. The
Nicene Council was dissuaded by St. Paphnutius, himself voluntarily celibate, from departing
from the voluntary basis for the Universal Church. But Pope Siricius in 385 is seen insisting on
observance of celibacy in the West for bishops, priests, and deacons, and within a century St.
Leo the Great included the subdeacon.

The monks whose way of life demanded celibacy had undoubtedly great influence in
imposing the practice on the clergy, for it ill behooved a married hierarchy to exhort the laity to a
counsel which it did not itself practice. The monks of the time, however, were for the most part
laymen. Their abbots attained prelatial rank and the Greek archimandrite was often an influential
person at the capital. Byzantine monks manifested a greater spirit of independence toward the
civil power than the secular clergy, and often proved valuable allies of the Holy See during
doctrinal disputes.

B. Magisterium
(1) TRINITARIAN THEOLOGY

St. Athanasius (295-373), patriarch of Alexandria from 328, became the symbol of
Nicene orthodoxy. But not only did he suffer for the Faith, not merely did be expose Arian errors
and Caesaro-papist meddling, but be also expounded Catholic teaching on the Trinity with such
profundity as to win the title of doctor of the Church by acclamation. Though be preserved the
monarchian nuance of the Alexandrian school by assigning logical priority to the Father, St.
Athanasius stoutly declared that the Son is equally divine, since (1) He is generated eternally and
necessarily of the Father; receives (2) the whole, and not a portion of identically the same
substance possessed by the Father; so that (3) the term homo5usios aptly expresses the
homogeneous character of the Blessed Trinity. In regard to the Holy Spirit, the Saint further
stated that He is likewise God because: (1) He exercises the divine prerogative of deification; and
(2) is also an equal member of the homogeneous Trinity so that (3) the term homobusios is
equally applicable to this Spirit who proceeds from both the Father and the Son. St. Athanasius
also ably expounded motives for the Incarnation, pointing out that only by theandric atonement
through the God-man could mankind's fall be perfectly rectified. Though God is not obliged to this
course, now that His mercy has condescended to assist man, all things human are potentially
"Verbified" through the Word's assumption of human nature.

St. Hilary (315-67), bishop of Poitiers from about 355, also endured much for the Nicene
Creed. His exposition of Trinitarian theology for the most part followed that of St. Athanasius. But
while be is less original, St. Hilary performed a valuable function in translating into Latin the best
Greek theology on the subject. He, too, has been declared a doctor of the Church.
"The Three Cappadocians," St. Basil the Great (329-79), archbishop of Caesarea, his
brother St. Gregory (335-95), bishop of Nissa, and their friend and literary colleague, St. Gregory
Nazianzen (330-90), bishop and doctor, followed up the work of the Nicene doctors to the Council
of Constantinople and beyond. St. Basil in particular, besides his active leadership of the rally to
Nicea after Rimini-Seleucia, did much to clarify theological terminology on the Trinity.
Considerable ambiguity was dissipated by his explanation that "there is the same difference
between ousia and hypostasis as between common and singular, between animal and 'that man"'
(Letter 38). In refusing to identify prosypon with hypostasis for fear of countenancing
Sabelhanism, however, St. Basil left room for future misunderstandings exploited during the
Nestorian controversy. St. Gregory Nazianzen's five Discourses Against Eunornius delivered in
Anastasis chapel at Constantinople during 380 presented in orderly fashion both the rational
knowledge of divine unity and the revealed faith in the Blessed Trinity, with special reference to
the divinity of the Son and of the Holy Spirit. His uncompromising stand on the divinity of the Holy
Spirit undoubtedly contributed to its definition at Constantinople in 381. St. Gregory of Nissa,
though his modern reputation is not perhaps as high as that among contemporaries, performed
valuable theological service in defending his brother's theology after the latter's premature death.
St. Gregory's deserved reputation as a mystic also won many Orientals to the cause of orthodoxy.

(2) ECCLESIASTICAL DEFENDERS

St. Optatus (d. 392), bishop of Milevis in North Africa, was the greatest champion of
Catholicity against Donatism before St. Augustine's entry into the fray after 396. For a long time
he carried on almost singlehanded the Catholic side of the debate against Parmenian the
Donatist. St. Optatus pointed out that the latter's five norms for the true Church were best verified
in the Catholic fold, but went on to stress unity and universality as the most readily ascertainable
marks. These two he found easily recognizable in the chair of St. Peter, the papal succession of
infallible teachers at Rome. While the Donatists claimed that a sacrament's validity depended on
its minister's holiness, St. Optatus replied that sacraments gained their efficacy from Jesus Christ,
so that sacraments per se esse sancta, non per homines.

St. Pacian (d. c. 390), bishop of Barcelona in Spain, for the most part seconded St.
Optatus, s defense of the Church. He also stressed unity and universality as marks, while be
examined the conditions of legitimate membership to greater length in his explanation of the
exomologesis, the system of public penance, defending the ecclesiastical
power of absolution.
Pope St. Damasus (304-84) may also be ranked among the literary defenders of the
Church by reason of his vigorous assertion of Roman primacy: "The first see of St. Peter is
therefore the Roman Church which, indeed, is a church without spot or wrinkle or any such thing."
St. Damasus also determined the Scriptural canon and commissioned St. Jerome to prepare the
Vulgate, the official Latin version of the Bible. St. Damasus's excavation of the catacombs kept
the Church aware of her apostolic past.

St. Ambrose (333-97), archbishop of Milan, has already been cited repeatedly for his
defense of ecclesiastical independence against Caesaro-papism. This great Roman governor
suddenly transformed into a Catholic bishop proved an excellent exponent of the Church. He
traced papal primacy to St. Peter's commission as prince of the apostles and to his Roman
episcopacy and martyrdom. For the Church, St. Ambrose claimed superiority over the state
because it was a supernatural society, Christ's mystic body. Against the august majesty of the
Roman Respublica, St. Ambrose raised Religio, a distinct society with her own juridical system,
property, and a certain moral primacy in causa fidei. Gratian's insistence on Catholicity as the
official religion stems from St. Ambrose's teaching that "salvation is not sure unless everyone
worship in truth the true God, that is the God of the Christians, under whose sway all things lie"
(Letter 17). But if intolerant of religious error on principle, St. Ambrose deprecated the use of
force to compel men to believe and opposed the recourse by some Spanish and Gallic bishops to
capital punishment in order to curb Priscillian and his followers.

(3) SACRAMENTAL THEOLOGY

Terminology. Most of the patristic writers of the fourth century understood mysterion or
sacramentum in a more restricted sense than modern theologians, Thus St. Cyril in his
Catecheses expounds only baptism, confirmation, and Holy Eucharist, and this is also the
exclusive scope of St. Ambrose's De Mysteriis and the anonymous De Sacramentis. The term
was as yet equivalent, then, to the rites of Christian initiation, and this usage explains why the
other four sacraments, though well known to the fathers, were not customarily designated as
sacraments."

St. Cyril (315-86), bishop of Jerusalem, is one of the outstanding exponents of

sacramental theology in this restricted sense. His Catecheses, instructions to neophytes during
the Lent and Paschal-tide of 348, constitute the major early source for the "Liturgy of St. James,"
the Syriac Liturgy. He, too, is well aware of Catholic unity, directing his bearers that on coming to
a strange town they ought not to ask merely for the church, but for the "Catholic church." Besides
minutely describing the rites of baptism and confirmation, St. Cyril teaches that both sacraments
imprint a sphragis or seal, that is, an indelible spiritual character on the soul. He also gives one
of the clearest testimonies to the Real Presence of Christ in patristic literature: "Since Christ
Himself said of this bread, 'This is My body,' who shall dare doubt longer? Since He Himself
affirmed and said: 'This is My blood,' who shall ever hesitate in saying that it is not His blood?
Once in Cana of Galilee He turned water into wine, akin to blood; is it incredible that He should
have turned wine into blood? In the figure of bread is given you His body, and in the figure of
wine, the blood, so that when you receive the body and blood of Christ, you may become one
body and blood with Him, for thus shall we be Christ-bearers" (XXII, 1-6). St. Cyril also describes
the Syriac Mass, commenting on the Lavabo, Pax, Preface, Epiclesis, Collects, Memento, Pater
Noster, and Communiom

St. Serapion, bishop of Thmuis in Egypt contemporaneously with St. Athanasius, affords
in his Euchologion a Coptic parallel to St. Cyril's rite. Particularly valuable are his renditions of
the formulas for blessings, including that for extreme unction, and his formularies for ordination of
bishops, priests, deacons.
St. Ephracin (306-73), deacon of Nisibis and Edessa in Syria, was a poetic witness to
the universality of Catholic doctrine in the fourth century. Besides confirming tradition on the
Trinity and the Incarnation, he is exceptionally clear on Mary's sanctity: "Indeed, Lord, only Thou
and Thy Mother are entirely beautiful in every way, for there is no spot in Thee, Lord, nor any
stain in Thy Mother. . . . With everything didst Thou adorn her, Thou ornament of Thy Mother"
(Nativity Hymns). St. Ephraern also treated of the sacraments, giving an exposition of the Real
Presence second only to St. Cyril's. But this selection of writers cannot pretend to anything like
completeness.

C. Liturgy
(1) THE SACRAMENTS

Baptism. The institution of the catechumenate is minutely described in St. Cyril's

Catecheses. The period of tutelage is long, and prolonged beyond due measure by some who
hesitated to break with worldly pleasures until about to be removed from them by death. Rites
which are mentioned are the breathing on the candidate, touching of the ears with the command,
epheta, use of a grain of salt, for which honey was sometimes substituted, making of the sign of
the cross, and anointing with oil. Prayers were not yet uniform, and both immersion and infusion
were known.

Confirmation. In the East this sacrament was generally conferred immediatelv after
baptism, but in the West, after priests became rural pastors, administration was reserved for
episcopal visitation. This advanced the age at which it was normally administered in the West,
though Oriental priests continued to confer both baptism and confirmation. For a time the right to
bless chrism was reserved to the patriarchs.
Penance. Nothing of the penitential discipline was substantially changed during the
period, though St. Basil gives more detailed information in regard to the East, and St. Pacian in
the West. Though the exomologesis seems to have been abolished at Constantinople about 390
by reason of a scandal, the censure of excommunication retained its primitive force.

Holy Eucharist. St. Ambrose refers to some of the phrases of the Latin canon, the quam
oblationem, the qui pridie, and the continuation of the canon: unde ' et memores. He is also
possibly the first to use the term Mass in a m. odern sense: et missam facere coepi (Letter 20).
Antiphonal chant, known at Antioch under Leontius, appears at Milan in 386. St. Ephraern of
Edessa mentions the use of incense, and other rites multiplied to enhance the liturgy. Distinctive
Mass vestments were not in use, but special garments seem to have been reserved exclusively
for liturgical use.
 Extreme Unction is mentioned by the Syrian Aphraates (280-345) and Serapion of
Thmuis, but references are comparatively rare.
Holy Orders. The dignity of the priesthood was exalted in treatises of Sts. Ambrose,
Gregory Nazianzen, Ephraem, and John Chrysostom. From the affair of Kolluthus at Alexandria
at the beginning of the fourth century, it is clear that only a bishop could ordain priests.
Ordination rites are given in Serapion's Euchologium and the Apostolic Constitutions and other
elaborations of St. Hippolytus's Apostolic Tradition.

Matrimony. Imperial legislation had not yet been completely revised in accord with
Christian principles, and there are instances in the works of St. Basil and St. John Chrysostom
which indicate that civil divorce laws occasioned difficulty, until civil and canonical matrimonial
laws were harmonized in the Theodosian and Justinian Codes.

(2) LITURGICAL PRACTICES

Feasts. Ash Wednesday, Lent, Holy Week, and Easter Week were now generally
observed, and the Ascension appears during the fourth century. Christmas was celebrated at
Rome on December 25 in the time of Liberius (352-66); it must have been introduced some time
between the De Pascha Computus (243) and the Philocalian Calendar (354). Not long
afterwards it was introduced into the East, but there Christmas was overshadowed by the
Epiphany, which was unknown in the West before Nicea, though appearing by 361. Since
Constantine, Sundays were legal holidays, free from all but necessary work. The Council of
Laodicea (372) confirmed this legislation.

The fasts were not changed, save that they generally ended at three o'clock instead of
sundown. At Milan, the canonical hours of Matins, Prime, Terce, Sext, None, and Vespers are
known. A distinction between longer and short vigils for the congregation appears. A eucharistic
fast is in vogue: "The mystic table is obtained by fasting, is acquired at the price of bunger" (St.
Ambrose, De Elia, 33).
Liturgical furnishings are often mentioned. St. Optatus referred to altar cloths: quis
fidelium, nescit in peragendis mysteriis ipsa ligna linteamine cooperiri? (Donatist Schism, VII, 1).
Nepotian left as a legacy to St. Jerome, tunicam qua utebar in ministerio Christi (Letter 60).
While no special attire is prescribed for the clergy, St. Ambrose advises that it be of ordinary
quality and sober hue (De Officiis, I, 83). The clergy wore their hair short and eventually adopted
the tonsure from the monks. The faithful made offerings in kind for the holy sacrifice.

Liturgical chant is clearly in use, probably from the beginning. St. Ephraem and St.
Ambrose composed certain hymns, while other musical arrangements are attributed to them and
other fathers. Hymns accom-i panied not only the Mass but the congregational meetings for the
m6re solemn canonical hours. Ambrosian psalmody was developed especially while the bishop
of Milan and his flock guarded the churches against Arian attempts to confiscate them.

(3) ECCLESIASTICAL BUILDINGS

Churches were now more numerous and elaborate. The generosity of Constantine and
St. Helena was responsible for appearance of the Roman basilicas, the Lateran, St. Peter's, and
other churches. From the beginning Constantinople was adorned with distinguished churches,
though the pearl of Byzantine architecture, Hagia Sophia, had to await Justinian the Great. St.
Helena erected a basilica for the True Cross at Jerusalem.

The basilica type of church seems to have been adapted to liturgical needs from the
imperial courts. If the Hellenic or oblong style prevailed, there were yet churches of all shapes.
Tombs and shrines were often connected with basilicas, St. Peter's Confession at Rome being a
noteworthy example. This was adorned with a gold cross by Constantine. A basilica's interior
was usually divided into narthex or vestibule for catechumens and penitents; the naos or nave,
itself subdivided into sections for men and women; and the bema or sanctuary for the clergy. It
might be separated by a partition or curtain. Separate places were reserved for the virgins, and
for distinguished officials among the men. The sanctuary contained the altar and bishop's
cathedra. The crucifix and lamps were suspended from the ceiling, and the Blessed Sacrament
might be preserved in a container in the form of a dove hanging from the ceiling. The church still
contained but one altar, at which as a rule a single Mass was celebrated. Two ambos or lecterns
faced the people, to be used for reading the lessons to the faithful. Dedication of churches is
frequently mentioned in contemporary literature. Relics were then placed in the altars, but it was
found necessary to warn people against traffic in them. Elaborate paintings and mosaics
appeared in some churches, and pilgrimages to Rome and the Holy Land multiplied.

The baptistry appeared as a separate building soon after the cessation of the
persecutions. It seems to have been an adaptation of the frigiderium of the public baths and was
necessitated by the prevailing practice of baptism by immersion. It long remained the rule that
each diocese should have but one baptistry, attached to or adjoining the cathedral. Even after
this regulation lapsed, the classic medieval cathedrals preserved the custom.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

35. A Crumbling Roman World (395-476)

VI

Christological Definitions

35. A CRUMBLING ROMAN WORLD

A. Causes of Disintegration
Introduction: During the fifth century occurred the phenomenon often called the "fall of
the Roman Empire." This is accurate only insofar as it connotes a profound alteration in the social
condition of the West. For the collapse was confined to the West; the Byzantine half of the
Roman Empire continued to exist for another millennium. Even in the West, "fall" is somewhat
too violent a term; rather a prolonged process of disintegration was dramatized by the cessation
of direct imperial administration in the person of Romulus Augustulus (476), or more correctly in
Julius Nepos (480). Popular opinion is perhaps substantially correct in shifting its attention to the
new Teutonic chiefs, though it should not be ignored that technically they were not yet
independent monarchs but client princes under an emperor still resident at Constantinople. Here
attention will be concentrated on the Roman internal scene, leaving the German "invaders" to the
following topic.

(1) RELIGIOUS-MORAL CAUSES

Pagan accusation. Roman pagans, sometimes sustained by rationalists like Gibbon and
neopagans like Nietzsche, claimed that Christianity was a major cause of Roman disintegration in
that its tenets of humility and charity had sapped the virile Roman virtus that had created the
empire. But Tenney Frank may be allowed to speak for competent scientific history: "No notice
need be taken of Nietzsche's assumption that the adoption of Christianity so softened the fiber of
the people that it was rendered unfit to resist the barbarians. It is now clear that Rome was
doomed long before the frontier line broke, and equally clear that after the state adopted
Christianity, the Christians were fully as loyal in their efforts to protect the realm from invasion as
were the pagans. Indeed the Christians, through their belief in divine aid and their respect for
duty, seem to have developed a vigor and determination that might if anything have, revitalized
the Empire had not leadership totally failed."

Christian answer. The calumnies of his pagan contemporaries and the bewilderment of
his fellow Christians after the capture of Rome by Alaric (410) induced St. Augustine to compose
his De Civitate Dei. Herein he expounded his mystic theory of the two societies, religious and
secular. While both lie under Providence, the state that defies or neglects divine guidance loses
its justification for existence: "If justice be taken awav, what are kingdoms but large-scale
robberies?" St. Augustine did not deny the existence of Roman natural virtues to which he
ascribed its imperial expansion. But he pointed out that the disintegration had been brought
about by abandonment or perversion of those same virtues. Yet these natural forces were not
indissolubly linked with the false polytheism which debased them; they might be regained and
elevated by Roman conversion to Christianity. But even if the Roman state were doomed, St.
Augustine hints, the Church will survive in a new social order. This suggestion of a
rapprochement with the Teutons is evein clearer in the works of his disciple, Paul Orosius.

Moral degeneration. The basic cause of Roman collapse, then, seems to have been
moral degeneration. Birth prevention and divorce were at the root of Roman decay in the family,
while the cult of pleasure and ease destroyed public responsibility. Gone was the stern, if
exaggerated, loyalty to the Respublica which led a Consul Brutus to sacrifice his son, or a Dux
Regulus to return to captivity on behalf of the public weal.

(2) POLITICAL-ECONOMIC CAUSES

Imperial despotism, introduced by Diocletian and Constantine, was strong political

medicine, but its effects tended to wear off with time. As it became a habit-forming drug,
individual initiative was stifled and concern for the public order left to the omniscient bureaucracy.
This agency suffered from no inferiority complex, but was apt to become paralyzed by intrigue
and routine. The Theodosian Code (438) exhibits repeated efforts of the imperial government to
enforce order, collect and assess taxes, provide for defense, keep up communications. Yet the
very repetition of these commands indicates that the provincial aristocracy was ignoring them.
This irresponsible conduct was especially noted in the senatorial nobility, exempt from taxation,
and become wealthy and unscrupulous. Local government in the primordial cell of the Roman
body politic, the civitas, decayed before bureaucratic centralization and the obstacles of predatory
pressure groups. Whereas in the East the common people were apathetic before despotism by
immemorial custom, in the West Roman instinct for freedom did not utterly die. It was reinforced
in a way by large numbers of Teutons already incorporated in the civil and military service. These
last, however, were prone to cherish a personal loyalty to their chiefs rather than allegiance to the
abstract entity of the Respublica Romana.

Imperial defense would have been a serious problem even without extraordinary Persian
and Teutonic pressures. Roman depopulation and indifference had led to enlistment of great
numbers of Teutonic foederati into the imperial forces. German tribes were allowed to occupy
imperial territories en masse. They continued to maintain relations with tribes outside the empire,
and often were not disposed to resist them. Still the different fate of the two halves of the empire
admits of military explanation. Constantinople was perfectly situated for defense and
communications; Rome was ill suited for either. The supreme direction of the empire emanated
from Constantinople, and the imperial court always ensured the defense of its immediate vicinity,
even at the expense of more remote provinces. The process of appeasement which began with
the abandonment of Dacia in the third century would in the fifth century sacrifice most of the
western provinces. In the East the civil administration dominated the military or militarized itself;
in the West it was captured by ambitious Teutonic chiefs.

Economic regimentation and eventually stagnation were perhaps Rome's retribution for
slavery. The urban capitalism which had, among other causes, promoted imperial prosperity now
gradually declined into selfish exploitation of the working classes. The state forced out private
business and monetary debasement sometimes led to return of primitive forms of barter. Nor was
agriculture in a healthy state. Slavery, serfdom, tenant-farming, and "share-cropping" did not
favor efficient use of the land. New Teutonic settlers had little appreciation of scientific methods
and tended to waste natural resources. Already the localized, "close&' economy was in process
of development, and this was hostile to imperial unity.

B. Process of Disintegration (395-480)

(1) DECADENT THEODOSIAN DYNASTY

Administrative division. Emperor Theodosius the Great was the last Roman ruler, save
for Justinian's brief revival, to govern the whole Empire. He provided for the succession of his
two young sons as titular beads of separate administrations at Constantinople and Ravenna,
though the eastern was usually the more influential in imperial affairs.
Arcadius (395-408), the elder son installed at Constantinople, was but eighteen years old.
This almost mentally deficient man never reached real maturity, for he remained under
domination by others all his life. His guardian Rufinus was supplanted by Eutropius, a corrupt
politician, prime minister from 395 to 399. He thwarted efforts of the Western regent, Stilicho, for
co-operation; instead he seems to have bribed the Gothic chief Alaric to spare the Eastern
provinces and to prey upon the West. But Eutropius met his match in Eudoxia, daughter of the
Frankish mercenary Bauto. After her marriage to Arcadius, she induced him to dismiss the prime
minister, and she was able to control his successor Aurelian until her own death in 404. Only
then did a truly competent administrator, Anthemius (404-14), have an opportunity to reorganize
the government.

Honorius (395-423) meanwhile had been placed in nominal charge of the West. He was
long eclipsed by his guardian Stilicho, a Romanized Vandal, who beaded the administration as
magister militum. Though he was not without personal ambition and made suspicious deals with
the barbarians, Stilicho did hold Alaric at bay during his tenure of office. Possibly he was able to
do no more because of the urgent demands for military aid from Britain and Gaul. The value of
Stilicho's services was better appreciated after Honorius executed him for treason in 408 and
undertook personal management of the Western territories.

Alaric the Goth attacked Italy almost at once. Honorius secured his own safety within the
impregnable fortress of Ravenna where he retained most of the troops for his protection. Despite
appeals of Pope St. Innocent I, the emperor abandoned Rome to the Goths, and Alaric entered
the city in 410. On the Gothic chief's death in the same year, Honorius sacrificed his own sister
Galla Placidia to be the bride of Alaric's successor Ataulf on the condition of leading the tribe out
of Italy. Thus the Gothic whirlwind, committed to his care by his brother Arcadius, was passed on
to his sister. The Goths pressed through Gaul into Spain. Western administration broke down
completely while six pretenders appeared. Honorius waited out this new storm at Ravenna until a
competent general eliminated rivals. He rewarded the general by the hand of the recently
widowed Placidia and the title of caesar. Unfortunately this promising crown prince died in 421,
two years before the little lamented Honorius.

Theodosius II (408-50) had by this time succeeded his father Arcadius in the East.
Though but seven years old at his accession, his interests were safeguarded by the capable
Anthernius and his elder sister St. Pulcheria whom even the dour Gibbon acknowledged as sole
inheritor of the spirit of Theodosius the Great. The younger Theodosius was an undistinguished
monarch, though the jurist Apelles in 438 promulgated in his name the Theodosian Code, a
condensation of imperial legislation. Eventually Theodosius's somewhat morbid piety became
malignant under bad guidance during the Christological controversies.

Valentinian III (425-55) was Theodosius's coregent in the West. At Honorius's death an
obscure Joannes had briefly usurped the throne, but Placidia obtained Byzantine assistance to
install her son by Constantius, Flavius Valentinianus. Since he was a minor, rivalry arose among
the generals and officials for his mother's favor. During five years she played off one against the
other, but in 430 Aetius gained sole control and was virtual prime minister until 454. He had lived
for some years in exile among the Huns, and recruited imperial forces with their warriors. With
their aid he restored order in Italy and then turned his attention to Gaul. There he made little
attempt to dislodge existing Teutonic settlers, but strove to maintain communications between
Italy and surviving Roman territory about Paris.

Hunnish crisis. All Huns, however, were not with Aetius. These Asiatic nomads who had
crossed the Volga about 375 were now led by a vigorous chief, Attila, "scourge of God." For six
years he had enslaved other barbarian tribes, impressing some of their warriors into his army.
Simultaneously he received tribute from the empire, disguised as pay for services as a Roman
auxiliary. In 450, however, he led his forces against the empire. Refusal of further tribute by the
new Emperor Marcian (450-57) may have determined him to strike. Invading Gaul, he swept all
before him until checked by Aetius at Chalons in 451 with the assistance of Franks and Visigoths.
Since Aetius was unwilling or unable to follow up his success, Attila turned into Italy. At Mincio in
Mantua he met Pope Leo I, Consul Avienus, and Prefect Trigetius. This embassy succeeded in
dissuading him from attacking Rome; whether the pontiff had miraculous assistance cannot be
certainly affirmed. When Attila died in 453 his Hunnish confederation broke up amid the quarrels
of his flfty sons.

Extinction of the Theodosians. St. Pulcheria had succeeded Theodosius II in the East.
She married the competent officer Marcian, who survived her by four years. In the West,
Valentinian asserted himself after Placidia's death (451) by entering a plot with Senator Maximus
and the eunuch Herachus to assassinate Aetius. This foolish crime deprived the West of its best
defense in 454, and put Valentinian at the mercy of Maximus who murdered him in turn the next
year.

(2) WESTERN COLLAPSE (455-80)

Anarchical interlude. Valentinian's murder released forces which Emperor Marcian could
not control. Valentinian's widow, Eudoxia, married Petronius Maximus who assumed the throne.
He met the fate of his victims the same year, while Vandals sailed in to fish in troubled Roman
waters. This time Pope St. Leo could not save the city from capture, though he was able to
mitigate somewhat the horrors of two weeks' plundering in June, 455. The Vandals took their
booty back to Africa before the Roman commander in Gaul, Avitus, arrived to succor Rome.
Avitus received Marcian's approval to mount the western throne, but reckoned without his Suevic
aide, Richimir, who deposed him in 456.

Richimir's puppet show. Until his own death in 472 Count Richimir dominated what
remained of the western Roman administration through imperial puppets, murdered or deposed
at the first sign of an independent policy. Their names are of slight importance: Majorian (457-
61), beheaded for failure in a Vandal campaign; Severus (461-65), disposed of in like manner;
Anthernius (467-72), belatedly accepted by Richimir from Constantinople, but deposed by him in
turn; and Olybrius (472), his own nominee, who died in the same year as his master.

Emperor Leo I (457-74) was meanwhile ruling the East-and technically the whole empire.
This obscure Thracian officer was at first dominated by his Teutonic magister milituni, the Arian
Aspar, but eventually was able to dispense with his services by enlisting those of Chief
Tarasicodissa and his Isaurians. The latter, happily renamed Zeno, was married to Leo's
daughter Ariadne and made imperial interests his own. Thus fortified with Zeno's Isaurian guard,
Leo after Richimir's death, nominated the last legitimate Western coregents, Glycerius (473) and
Julius Nepos.

The Fall. Julius Nepos made the mistake of naming as his Master milituni Orestes, a
former secretary to Attila. Backed by the army, Orestes revolted and drove Julius into Dalmatia
where he remained until his death in 480, the last de jure imperial coregent in the West.
Meanwhile (475) Orestes enthroned his own son, pompously styled Romulus Augustulus, as
Roman emperor. Both were overthrown on September 4, 476, by another German foederatus,
Odovaker the Herulian. With a sense of realism, he forebore naming a new puppet coregent;
with a trace of idealism, he sent the imperial insignia to Constantinople, where Zeno (475-91) had
succeeded Leo I and Leo II (474-75). Odovaker assured Zeno that his imperial-and conveniently
remote-authority would suffice for Rome. Zeno recognized this fait accompli by according
Odovaker the title of patrician. Theoretically as a Roman governor, practically as a Teutonic chief,
Odovaker ruled Italy and Rome until displaced by Theodoric the Goth in 493.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

36. Teutonic Infiltration

VI

Christological Definitions

36. TETONIC INFILTRATION

A. Teutonic Traits
(1) RACIAL CHARACTERISTICS
Teutonic Race. Though ethnologists legitimately question the scientific validity of racial
classification based on "blood and soil," historians are almost forced to acquiesce in the popular
designation as races of groups of men akin by association, culture, and language. Doubtless no
absolutely pure races or nationalities exist, but "Teutonic race" will here be used as a generic
term to designate the common ancestors of nations now known as Germans, Flemings, Dutch,
Danes, Swedes, and Norwegians. While these peoples would today be called predominantly
Teutonic, other modern nationalities are cultural hybrids: the English, French, Italians, Spanish,
and Portuguese represent ancient peoples of the Roman Empire influenced to a greater or less
extent by Teutonic infiltration.

These Teutones, a Latinization of a native description, were called Germani by the Celts
of Caesar's time, and Caesar himself distinguished them from the semi-civilized Gauls. In 9 A.D.
Augustus found to his chagrin that these Teutons were capable of temporary military organization
and resistance; after the Roman defeat at Teutoberg Wood by Hermann, Augustus made the
momentous decision to leave them in possession of central Europe. But they would not stay
there. From the time of Marcus Aurelius (161-80) various Teutonic tribes threatened the Roman
frontier, although there was no permanent break-through until New Year's Eve, 407.

Moral character. Before their entrance in force into the empire, the Teutons were only on
the fringe of history: they wrote nothing themselves, and were mentioned only incidentally in the
Roman accounts. Tacitus in the first Christian century affords the chief character analysis: "The
Germans have fierce blue eves and reddish bair, great bodies, especially powerful for attack, but
not equally patient of hard work; little able to withstand heat and thirst, though by climate and soil
they have been enured to cold and hunger. . . . Given over to sleep and eating. . . . the masters
lie buried in sloth by that strange contradiction of nature that causes the same men to love
indolence and bate peace. . . . They proceed to their business or not less often to feasts, fully
armed" (Germania). Tacitus goes on to paint the virtues of the Teutons in vivid colors, but it must
be remembered that he was writing to shame "decadent" Romans. Perhaps we have some
analogy in the American Indian, somewhat idealized by Cooper. According to Tacitus, "no people
is more hospitable": German Gemiitlichkeit. Sexual morality was still sound by natural norms:
marriage was generally monogamous and women, if excluded from political life, were respected.
Adultery and prostitution were punished, and birth prevention considered a crime. Teutonic
warriors were courageous in that "to have left one's shield on the battlefield brings deepest
disgrace, and debars from attendance at religious rites and political assembly" (Tacitus).
Ruthless in war, they were comparatively humane to slaves and captives. Prodigious eating,
drinking, and gambling seem to have been their chief vices. Plunder and robbery were all in a
day's work, deceit and stealing were more reprehensible. They were credited with a certain brutal
honesty: one of their tribes, later prominent, was called "Frank." Taken with a few grains of salt,
Tacitus's portrait is probably accurate enough.

(2) RELIGIOUS INSTITUTIONS

Polytheism. Teutons, like all historic Indo-Europeans, venerated a number of

supramundane divinities arranged in a hierarchy. Probably these arose from personification of
the attributes of a primitive chief god. Thus originally Ziu or Tyr, later Tiwe, corresponded to the
Greek Zeus. Though Tiwe's name survived in Tuesday, he was obscured by new deities. His
function of presiding over the German Olvrnpus, Valhalla, passed to Wuotan or Woden, while his
Jovian attr&te of hurling thunderbolts was delegated to Thor, a god of war. Wuotan, surviving in
Wednesday, became god of the sky, ancestor of princes, and arbiter of victory, while Thor, of
Thursday remembrance, developed into a Teutonic Mars, leader and patron of war. Later, not
impossibly from Christian influences, these three gods were associated in a supreme triad.
Wuotan's wife Freya was goddess of domesticity, but goddesses were less prominent in Teutonic
mythology. Fro or Frea, god of peace, seems to have been a second-class divinity. Baltar or
Baldar, god of justice, was believed to have been slain by Loki, a fire god and sort of Satan.
There were many other minor deities. The Teutons, unlike the Greeks and Romans, had not yet
lost their awe of these gods who were less engaged in immorality and intrigue, and more
disposed to render a heavy-handed, outdoor justice. The divine prerogatives of creation,
providence, and judgment were recognized.

Animism. Teutons also believed in spirits: ghosts of the dead, beneficial fairies
associated with more pleasant natural features and phenomena, and malignant demons
personifying whatever in nature seemed hostile or unknown. Elves dwelt in marshes, nixies in
water, dwarfs in mountains and caves, brownies in fields-all helpful, if mischievous at times.
Giants (Hiinen) and Valkyrs were either malignant or mysterious; the latter were dark women who
broke men's courage in battle and carried off the souls of the slain. Though heroes went to bliss
in Valhalla; other souls were not so fortunate. They were held to wander in a vague and gloomy
abode of the dead, sometimes hovering about their graves, or flying through the skies. Some
might even take possession of animal bodies and become dangerous: werewolves and vampires.
What we call a soul seems to have been regarded by Teutons as a semi-material minute
substance which could depart from the body, not only at death, but during trances and dreams.
Aside from the Valhalla of military heroes, the future life seems to have been regarded as
uncertain.

Worship. Public cult was paid to both gods and spirits by duly appointed priests on behalf
of the clan. Prayers were said, and animals and occasionally captives in war were sacrificed.
Auspices were sought from the flight and chirping of birds, the neighing of horses, and the cast of
lots. Though temples were sometimes erected, worship usually took place in sacred woods,
streams, and mountains. There were no idols in the strict sense. Sacrifices were offered at
stated intervals, at the opening of the thing or assembly, and during emergencies. Priestesses,
often regarded as witches, were allowed only for private cult, which was widespread. Private
worship involved sacrifice of necklaces, jewels, weapons, cakes, and was often thought to
possess magical properties. In many ways, then, the Teutonic religious views resembled those of
the Homeric Greeks.

(3) SECULAR INSTITUTIONS

Rulers. In Caesar's day, the Teutons seem to have lacked stable political organization.
But Tacitus and later writers speak of princes and chiefs. These were usually hereditary in a
supposedly semidivine family and ruled over the unit of local government, the uati or canton. For
military expeditions, and later for permanent occupation of Roman territory, confederations of
gaus were formed under a leading chieftain. At first his authority endured merely for the
campaign, but in case of successful occupation it was likely to be protracted. Chosen for their
merits, these war chiefs could be deposed for misconduct; in any event their control was not
without limits. The priesthood had some influence through interpretation of omens, and councils
of elders gave advice. Chiefs were supported by voluntary gifts of crops, horses, and a special
share in the loot. A victorious commander might build up a large personal following or comitatus.

Nobles. Comitatus was the Roman name for the Teutonic institution of eid enossen
sworn corn anions of a chief. Freemen of good family would pledge themselves to follow a chief
in war, sharing his meals, spoils, all his good or ill fortune. During migratory days, they
constituted his "general staff"; after conquests they became the nucleus of a new territorial
nobility rewarded by lands and plunder. In this institution lies a germ of feudalism; it was in
keeping with the Teutonic tendency to render intense personal allegiance to an individual rather
than respect the abstract majesty of the state and its laws. Except for the attempted renaissance
of the state by Charles the Great, early German political relations would be largely contractual.

The Folk. The majority of Teutons were freemen, though enslavement of captives
resulted from successful raids. Among the ordinary freemen-ceorls not yet having the
connotation of churl-were those distinguished by prowess or wealth: earls or earls. All freemen
had a place in the rudimentary political organization insofar as they might attend the folk
assemblies, the things or moots. Though the chiefs decided routine questions, important
departures from tradition had to be submitted to the vote of all freemen. The chiefs arranged and
proposed the agenda and were respected in proportion to their valor or eloquence. Doubtless
they usually had their way, but the assembly could register disapproval as well as acceptance.
Not until Carolingian imperial times did the thing become a rubber-stamp affair. Local moots
assembled in gaus and their subdivisions, the hundreds.

Justice. The basic idea of Teutonic justice was that a crime was primarily an offense, not
against the state nor an individual, so much as against the extended family or kindred. To injure
another was to incur the wrath of his whole clan and to render one liable to vengeance by any of
its members unless proper atonement were made. The usual remedy for crimes, even of murder,
was a fine payable in part to the chief, in part to the injured kindred. These fines were graduated
in proportion to the nobility of the one injured. Regular tariffs were establisbed by custom, and
these were written down after the Teutonic peoples had entered the Roman Empire. This
compensation system was a substitute for a suicidal blood feud. In "civil cases," resort was often
had to an ordeal, basically an invocation of the deity to manifest guilt or innocence by some sign.
This survived the conversion of the Germans, and it required the most influential of medieval
popes, Innocent ill, to put an end to it.

B. Survey of Teutonic Migrations

 (1) THE DANUBIAN BREACH

The Huns served as catalyst for the Teutonic migrations. About 375 these Asiatic
nomads crossed the Volga and set in motion first the "Goths, and later other Germanic tribes.
Occasionally the emergence of a distinguished leader, coinciding perhaps with some economic
distress such as drought, induced these Ural-Altaic peoples to raid the settled areas. As
Scythians, Huns, Bulgars, Avars, Magyars, Mongols, Tartars, they manifested common tactics:
impressing captives into their hordes which they drove mercilessly forward as long as leadership
and easy booty held out. To Indo-Europeans, their alien aspect begot terror. Jordanes, a Roman
contemporary, considered them "small, foul, skinny; their swarthy aspect was fearful, and they
had a sort of shapeless lump, not a head, with pinholes rather than eyes."

The Goths, resident in the Ukraine and Crimea, were the first of the Teutons threatened,
and they preferred to face the Romans rather than the Huns. Since the third century they had
been threatening the Balkan provinces of the empire, and in 275 Dacia had been abandoned to
them. They continued to raid and infiltrate this area, and in 376 a numerous group under Chief
Fritigern was allowed to settle waste lands in modern Bulgaria. When they were exploited by
unscrupulous Byzantine officials, they rebelled and killed the eastern coregent Valens at
Adrianople in 378. Then Theodosius the Great pacified the new Chiefs Modar and Athanaric and
enlisted some of the Goths into the Roman forces.

The Visigothic branch of the tribe came into prominence with Alaric's raid on Italy. Alaric,
technically a Roman auxiliary officer, plundered Rome during August, 410, only to die later in the
year, first Teutonic victim of the "pest" of southern climes. Like De Soto, he found a grave in a
river bed, and his brother-in-law Ataulf was chosen to succeed him. Bribed with the sister of
Honorius, Galla Placidia, and an imperial commission, Ataulf led his tribe into Gaul in 412 and on
to Spain in 415. Before his death in that year he revealed some appreciation of Roman culture,
and meditated a fusion of peoples. His successors extended their rule over southern Gaul and
most of Spain.

The Ostrogothic branch of the tribe had remained in the Crimea and became tributary to
the Huns. After the death of the Hunnisb warlord Attila (453), they regained freedom of action
and were settled in Pannonia by Emperor Leo I in 461. Their leader Theudemir yielded his son
Theodoric as hostage of his fidelity. Educated at Constantinople, Theodoric gained a better
knowledge of Roman ways than Ataulf. But the barbarian was not extinct in him and the im erial
court distrusted him when he succeeded to the headship of his tribe in 471. After some years of
intrigue, blackmail, and raiding by Theodoric, Emperor Zeno was glad to commission him imperial
commander to recover Italy from Odovaker who had. put an end to imperial administration in the
West. In 489 Theodoric led his warriors into Italy, occupied the country, and after two years
disposed of Odovaker by assassination. For more than half a century the mother country of the
empire was ruled by Teutons with the formal sanction of Constantinople. The subsequent history
of the Goths will be pursued later in their respective settlements.

(2) THE RHENISH BREACH

A Teutonic confederation temporarily came into being in central Europe under Hunnish
pressure. Ratger, a heathen Goth, assembled a horde of Vandals, Suevi, Alans, and
Burgundians estimated at 200,000. In 405 he invaded Italy only to be defeated and killed by
Stilicho. The invaders retreated to Germany and sought entrance into Gaul, weakened by
withdrawal of troops to protect Italy. Near Mainz on New Year's Eve, 406-7, they poured across
the Rhine, causing a permanent break in the Roman frontier.

The Vandals, along with the Suevi and Alans, plundered Gaul for four years, and then
crossed the Pyrenees to continue their depredations in Spain. Here in contests with the
Visigoths, the Alans were almost exterminated and the Suevi, long settled in Galicia and Portugal,
eventually merged with them. The Vandals, leaving Spain only their nameAndulasia-crossed over
to Africa in 429 and within a decade conquered most of the Roman provinces there. In 455 their
chief Gaiseric was able to plunder Rome itself by a naval raid-Scipio the Younger's fears for
Rome were at last realized in this sortie from old Carthage. For a century the Vandals dominated
the western Mediterranean.

The Burgundians turned to southeastern Gaul and established a principality along the
Rhone. Though they fell before the Franks a hundred years later, they left an enduring influence
on the region, long a buffer state between France and Germany. They and the majority of the
tribes thus far mentioned were Arians.
The Alamanni, who settled in Alsace-Lorraine, had an even briefer independent
existence. By the end of the fifth century they had been incorporated into the Frankish state.

The Franks, then, were the invaders destined to absorb all the continental Teutonic
settlements. There had already been Frankish mercenaries in Julian's armies and the Salic
division of the tribe settled in modern Belgium. The Ripuarian Franks now moved into northern
Gaul, though Paris long eluded their grasp.

(3) THE CHANNEL CROSSING

Britain, organized as a Roman province by Agricola, was subjected to attacks by the Irish
and the Scottish Picts even before the Teutonic migrations. When the bulk of Roman troops had
been withdrawn (410-43), the Romanized Britons under Governor Vortigern summoned the
Teutons, probably some who technically ranked as Roman soldiers, to defend them against their
neighbors.

Angles, Saxons, and Jutes, according to legend, responded about 449. The historical
curtain goes down on Roman Britain and when it is raised a century and a half later these
Teutonic tribes are masters of a good part of modern England and part of Scotland, while their
British hosts have been driven into Wales and Cornwall. Here, too, Teutons, invited or not, had
come to stay.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

37. The Latin Patriarchate (399-492)

VI

Christological Definitions

37. THE LATIN PATRIARCHATE

A. Papal Leadership (399-492)

(1) ASSERTION OF ROMAN JURISDICTION (399-440)
Pope Anastasius I (399-401) was the first pope in the new era, but of his relations with
the Teutons nothing is recorded. He is known for his generic condemnation of Origenism, and his
upholding of Roman jurisdiction against African Donatists and Byzantine encroachment in the
Balkans.
Innocent I (401-17) had a trying pontificate. He sustained St. John Chrysostom in the
Diptych Schism, vigorously upholding the cause of justice against all the oriental patriarchates.
The Pelagian controversy gave him occasion to appreciate St. Augustine's theological powers.
The pope also issued precise disciplinary regulations for the Church in Italy, Africa, Gaul, Spain,
and Illyricum. At the time of Alaric's seizure of Rome (410) Innocent was actually at Ravenna on
a fruitless mission to implore imperial aid. On his return, he strove to repair the damage.

Zosimus (417-18), a Greek, seems to have suffered from an inefficient diplomatic or news
service. After some disillusionment he did uphold his predecessor's condemnation of the
Pelagian leaders. He asserted papal power vigorously-if not tactfully-in Africa where he sustained
the censured priest Apiarius against the judgment of the local hierarchy. The pope's successors
admitted that he had been deceived. Likewise his choice of Patrocles of Arles to head an
apostolic delegation in Gaul proved to be unwise. Episcopal rivalries were provoked by the
overbearing legate; in 426 he was slain by the Prefect Felix.

St. Boniface I (418-22) reaped the fruit of his predecessor's mistakes. On December 27,
418, most of the Roman deacons installed Archdeacon Eulalius as pope in the Lateran. The next
day the priests chose one of their number, St. Boniface, in the church of Theodora. Both
claimants were consecrated on Sunday, December 29, 418. Prefect Symmachus, a pagan and
nephew of the defender of the Altar of Victory, gave Honorius a biased report which led to the
expulsion of St. Boniface from Rome. But Eulalius's violent conduct soon prejudiced his cause,
and the persevering loyalty of most of the Roman clergy and Italian hierarchy to St. Boniface
induced Honorius to reverse his decision in April, 419. Eulalius was given an Italian see, and the
legitimate pope returned to Rome whence he asserted Roman jurisdiction in Africa and Gaul,
where he rebuked Patrocles, and Illyricum.

St. Celestine I (422-32) substituted St. Honoratus as Gallic vicar. Through his deputy,
Patriarch St. Cyril of Alexandria, the pope directed the general council at Ephesus which
condemned both the Pelagian and Nestorius heresies, and deposed the Byzantine Patriarch.
St. Sixtus III (432-40) had a relatively tranquil pontificate which saw the arrangement of
misunderstandings between Alexandrian and Antiochian Catholics arising out of the Council of
Ephesus. St. Hilary served as papal vicar at Arles from 429 to 449.

(2) ST. LEO THE GREAT (440-61)

St. Leo Quintiani, a Tuscan reared at Rome, brought papal influence to its zenith during
the imperialist epoch. As an acolyte in 418 he was sent to Africa where he probably met St.
Augustine, whose theology became his guiding principle. As deacon and possibly archdeacon
under Popes Celestine and Sixtus, he was a trusted advisor against Nestorianism and Semi-
Pelagianism. On Sixtus's death, St. Leo was on a diplomatic mission in Gaul to reconcile Aetius
with one of his subordinates. Elected pope in his absence, he returned to Rome for consecration
on September 29, 440, delivering the first of his classic "five-minute sermons.

Roman episcopate. One of St. Leo's first acts was to proscribe the Manichees at Rome
by sermon and denunciation to the civil power; about 445 an edict excluded these heretics from
civil rights. St. Leo also suppressed or transferred surviving pagan festivals, and closed pagan
temples; with him Rome began to reveal itself externally as the city of the popes. His public spirit
was recognized in 452 when he was asked to bead a peace delegation to Attila by Valentinian III
and the senate. The "Shield of Rome" did succeed in saving the city from the "Scourge of God."
In 455 Generic the Vandal proved less amenable, but even from him the pope secured immunity
of the larger basilicas from fire and massacre.

Western jurisdiction. St. Leo's vigilance embraced the entire West as this briefest of
surveys will suggest. Italian bishops were warned against abuses; baptismal rites should follow
Roman custom and penitents were not to be rebaptized; public confession was "against the
apostolic rule"; unemancipated slaves were not to be admitted to the clergy, nor married men to
the episcopacy; clerical celibacy was to be observed even by subdeacons; captives of barbarians
were to return to their rightful spouses on liberation. The pope also rebuked the African hierarchy
for hasty promotions to the episcopate, even though he admitted the Vandal invasion as an
extenuating circumstance. Strict regulations were made for the future which seem to have
corrected the too independent attitude of the African Church toward the Holy See. We also hear
of St. Leo prosecuting Priscillianism in Spain. In Gaul, the impetuous papal vicar, St. Hilary of
Arles, was rebuked for deposing bishops without recourse to the Holy See. Eventually St. Hilary
was demoted by the pope from archbishop to bishop; that worthy man submitted. Other bishops
sought or were given instruction from Rome on a variety of topics. St. Leo warned his Illyrican
vicar, Archbishop Anastasius of Salonika, to respect the autonomy of local bishops; presently he
was rebuked for forcing the ailing Bishop Atticus of Epirus to attend a council; such injustice, he
was told, would reflect on the reputation of the Holy See.

Eastern supervision. St. Leo's intervention in the oriental theological controversies will be
treated in due course. Here it suffices to note that he repudiated one would-be ecumenical
council and dictated to another. He chided but sustained St. Flavian, the Byzantine bishop. He
repudiated reassertion of Constantinopolitan "second primacy," and forced Patriarch Anatolius to
ask pardon. Dioscorus of Alexandria was deposed by the pope. When his successor Proterius
was murdered, the pope gave his namesake the emperor no rest until the usurping Monophysite
patriarch, Timothy the Cat, had been replaced by the Catholic, Timothy White-Turban. Only the
computation of the Easter cycle, the formidable " epacts," seems to have worsted Leo; otherwise
all acknowledged that "Teter has spoken through Leo."

(3) TROUBLED TIMES (461-92)

St. Hilary (461-68) had been a trusted deacon of St. Leo who had named him junior
legate to the Council of Ephesus. St. Hilary escaped from that turbulent assembly to render the
pope the report that provoked the famous designation of latrocinium. As pope, St. Hilary strove to
uphold ecclesiastical jurisdiction amid the crumbling ruins of the western imperial administration.
Hence he continued his predecessors' policy of sustaining metropolitan rights in order to keep the
hierarchy of outlying provinces united among themselves against Arian invaders, and with the
Holy See. Leading ecclesiastics in each region were given legatine powers; the known efforts of
St. Hilary in this respect concern chiefly Gaul and Spain.

St. Simplicius (468-83) witnessed the "fall of the Roman Empire," but this event passed
unnoticed in ecclesiastical annals. Life in Rome and Italy went on much as it had before under
the Patrician-Chief Odovaker (476-91) who not only paid formal allegiance to Emperor Zeno, but
continued Roman methods of rule. In the long run, however, removal of an imperial coregent
from the West could not but enhance the temporal prestige of the papacy and make the gradual
assumption of civil leadership by the popes in Rome and vicinity a natural development. Pope
Simplicius, however, was chiefly engaged in regulating parochial organization and liturgical
observances. In 482 the publication of the imperial formula for theological reunion, the
Henoticon, betokened revival of the Monophysite controversies. But the schism of Patriarch
Acacius of Constantinople did not become formal at this time since the pope died before
rendering a decision.

St. Felix II (483-92), a Roman noble, had married before entering the clerical state and
thus became the grandfather of Pope St. Gregory the Great. According to the Liber Pontificalis,
many of the popes of this period were sons of priests or deacons. Apparently there was no
prohibition against clerics in minor orders contracting matrimony, and many seem to have done
so during a lifetime career in these orders. It is clear, however, from repeated papal directives
that bishops, priests, deacons, and probably subdeacons might not cohabit with their wives after
ordination. St. Felix's pontificate was troubled by the outbreak of the prolonged Acacian schism in
the East, and the Ostrogothic invasion of Italy, but the pope probably died before meeting
Theodoric the Great, the new master of Italy.
 Episcopal influence, nonetheless, did mitigate the harshness of the Ostrogothic inroads.
At Milan, the prudent reserve of Bishop St. Eustorgius won Theodoric's good will, while
Archbishop John III of Ravenna (477-94) played a prominent part in the negotiations for the
surrender of the city to the invaders. He exacted of Theodoric the pledge to spare not only
Ravenna but Rome, and to divide Italy with Odovaker. The cities Theodoric did treat well, but
Odovaker was murdered at a "reconciliation banquet." But the sequel would reveal Theodoric a
benevolent ruler whose reign was marred only occasionally by reversions to barbarism.

B. The Western Missionary Field

(1) CHRISTIAN ATTITUDE TOWARD TEUTONS

Loyalty to Rome. Of Christian appreciation of and loyalty to the Roman Empire there can
be no doubt. St. Jerome, the "Ciceronian," was so attached to its institutions that he exclaimed at
Alaric's capture: "When Rome falls . . . the world falls." Civilization outside Rome was
unthinkable, for Huns were "beasts," not men. Even St. Ambrose thought the Teutons dominated
wholly by lust and avarice, and Prudentius believed that "Roman and barbarian are as far apart
as bipeds and quadrupeds, as a dumb beast and beings endowed with speech." Prejudice and
ignorance contributed to such views, which were not shared by more moderate and far-sighted
writers. St. Augustine and Orosius, if no less devoted to Rome, were less critical of the invaders.
Orosius spoke of "Romania," a term coming into use to designate Roman culture, which might be
preserved even if the Roman state should collapse.

Appreciation of Teutons. With the progress of Teutonic conquest all hopes of the survival
of the empire as of old vanished. Christians were then face to face with the newcomers as a
lasting ingredient in their society. About 445 the priest Salvian at Marseilles asked Romans to
examine their consciences to discover if the mere possession, and not the practice of Christianity
sufficed. He pointed out the vices of degenerate Rome and contrasted those who indulged in
them with Teutons distinguished for hospitality, chastity, and detestation of unnatural crimes.
True, they are heretics, but whence came Arianism but from Rome? (On God's Government, iv,
v.) Slowly Christian sentiment began to change. If preference for Romania kept certain
prejudices alive, the conviction grew that the Roman Christians must needs accept the situation:
the Teutons were masters, they were members of the human race, and they had souls to save.

(2) ROMAN CATHOLic RESOURCES

While it is unlikely that any one cleric conceived a deliberate plan for Teutonic conversion
to Christianity and if possible, to Romania as well, gradually such an objective was envisioned
and pursued by the Catholic hierarchy under papal leadership. To this end, Christ's hierarchical
organization stood the test when Caesar's disintegrated. The Church was universal and acted as
a unit while the Teutonic tribes were jealous rivals in politics and religion. Papal leadership, as
noted, contributed much. Important, too, was the temporal status of the episcopacy. Teutonic
princes found the bishops the only established and resident officials with whom they could treat.
Short of always using force, they had to reach some sort of working compromise with the subject
majority. Thus Catholic bishops were often treated respectfully and their advice accepted while
Arian prelates could make no headway outside Teutonic ranks. During most of the fifth century
episcopal relations with the Germans concerned civic more than religious co-operation, but in 496
the conversion of Clovis the Frank heralded a new era of mass Teutonic conversions that went on
until not only the invaders, but their brethren outside the old Roman boundaries had been brought
into the Church. In this work intrepid monks, undeterred by prospect of martyrdom, were shock
troops, apt to capture German language and mode of thought.
Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

38. Pelagian Denial of Grace (411-31)

VI

Christological Definitions

38. PELAGIAN DENIAL OF GRACE

A. Pelagian Origins
(1) PROPONENTS
Pelagius, or the "man of the sea" as the British monk Morgan was called by the Romans,
must have been born about the middle of the fourth century, probably in Roman Britain or
Brittany. He seems to have been Christian from infancy, though little is certainly known of his
early history. From St. Jerome's statement that at Rome he knew a man who later became an
heresiarch, it is supposed that Pelagius was already in the capital before 384, though this remark
could refer to Rtifinus of Syria, who collaborated with Pelagius and later gave him asylum in
Palestine. Pelagius was a giant of a man, renowned for austere virtue. As spiritual director, he
became tired of hearing men excuse themselves for sin and tepidity on the plea of human frailty.
To such alibis he gradually developed the retort that these were but excuses for indolence, that
repeated prayers for grace argued to personal inertia, and that on the contrary, every man is quite
capable of perfection by his own efforts provided that he only applied them to action. By such
advice Pelagius probably thought himself combating the Manichaean philosophy of despair
prevalent in the declining Roman Empire with a stern exhortation to be manly and courageous:
Stoic "masters of one's fate, captains of one's soul." Such teaching could easily proceed from a
"self-taught" lay theologian, such as opponents describe Pelagius. Between 395 and 405 he
composed a Commentary on St. Paul, and a work, On the Trinity, is attributed to him. Yet
Pelagius was not the chief publicist of Pelagianism.

Caelestius, one of Pelagius's early disciples at Rome, served as the founder's press
agent among Roman devotees of the ascetical life. He was a lawyer, able, earnest, daring,
loquacious, and apparently none too scrupulous in regard to truth. In simplifying Pelagius's
doctrines for popular consumption, he pushed his master's counsels to a practical de;-iial of both
original sin and its remedy, grace. Early in the fifth century he preached the new doctrine in
public. He was not always faithful to his master's teaching, and long safeguarded it from censure
by verbal tergiversation. From 411 to 431 it is Caelestius who chiefly looms in the public eye
during the Pelagian Controversy. After their condemnation at Ephesus in 431, both he and
Pelagius disappear from bistorv to die in obscurity.

Julian, Bishop of Eclanum, the modern Mirabella near Benevento, is the third prominent
name in Pelagian ranks. He came to the fore after the retirement of Pelagius and Caelestius,
though he had been gained for the Pelagian cause some time before 417. He gave the sect
authority among the clergy and long remained its chief defender against the Catholic champion,
St. Augustine, who composed two treatises against Julian. Excommunicated and deposed for
nonacceptance of the papal condemnation of Pelagianism in 418, Julian died in exile about 454.
With him Pelagianism had passed its peak as a general movement, though scattered Pelagian
groups continued to survive.

(2) PELAGIAN TEACHING

General tenor. Pelagianism essentially consisted in a virtual denial of the supernatural

order and a corresponding overstress of the powers of a supposedly unvitiated natural order.
Man is thus obligated to God only for his natural faculties, the power of eliciting his acts. Without
any divine help, he can both will and do good. Such teaching presupposed philosophic denial of
divine premotion and theological repudiation of original sin and its effect on man. Grace for
Pelagians was not necessary for salvation; at most, it made it easier. Confronted with the need of
adopting a stand on the effic-acy of baptism, Pelagius declared that it was not necessary for
eternal life, but only for entering the kingdom of heaven; by this evasion he avoided a blunt
repudiation of the sacrament.

A summary of Pelagian teaching reveals the following tenets: (1) The human will is
morally omnipotent; hence man can be sinless and perfect if he chooses. (2) Original sin is
nonexistent; hence the preternatural gifts, especially freedom from death and concupiscence, are
also denied. (3) Baptism is unnecessary for removing original sin and therefore one can gain
eternal life without it. It is, however, to be regarded as an external sign of initiation into Christ's
kingdom and the communion of the faithful. (4) Sanctifying grace is not the principle of
supernatural life, but a remedy for actual sin. It is not absolutely necessary even for this, but a
mere ornament or help. (5) Actual graces are merely external; that is, instruction and example; no
internal grace can directly influence the human will. (6) Christ's redemptive mission,
consequently, was designed not to free men from sin, but merely to give them good example and
counsel toward their own unaided use of perfectly competent natural powers.4

Moral instruction. Any analysis of the precise method in which Pelagius presented his
doctrines on morality is rendered difficult by reason of the fact that his own works have in large
part perished. It is probable that his writings received a guarded circulation. From what survives
of them, it can be seen that his is a doctrine of moral activity based on Scripture, interpreted by
Pelagius, and sustained by threat of eternal sanctions: sinners will receive no mercy 'at judgment
but will be consigned to hell. Nothing short of complete sanctity would enable a man to escape
this retribution. Positive precepts of virtue no more admit of exception than negative prohibitions
of vice. With the precepts, the evangelical counsels were associated on almost the same plane:
there is a strict duty to practice poverty and chastity. If a man wished, he could be entirely without
sin; if he but worked at it, he could become practically immune to sin. Though Pelagius may have
addressed his doctrine of "Christian valorism" to all, he seems to have aimed chiefly at
developing a small group of the elite, of the perfect.

B. Pelagian Controversy (411-18)

(1) PRESENTATION (411-14)

At Rome, Pelagius and Caelestius long maintained themselves in bonor with the support
of the widow Melania and the prestige of several members of the distinguished Gens Probus.
Pelagius was considered a stern but sure spiritual guide, and Timasius and Jarnes, wealthy
patricians, gave up their riches in response to his exhortations. Caelestius and Julian were
attracted by the rationalist clarity of the system, and they and other disciples were known as
"Pelagians" as early as 414. Pelagianism had spread to Gaul before Alaric's invasion sent the
prophet of self-sufficiency into flight, first to Sicily, and then to Africa.

Africa did not retain Pelagius himself for long; he went on to Palestine with Melania's
recommendations. But Caelestius, freed from the older man's caution, established himself at
Carthage. When he was challenged by St. Augustine of Hippo, he returned the attack boldly by
insisting on mortality as a concomitant of man's nature and not as a result of original sin. In
particular, he decried infant baptism. During 411, Deacon Paulinus of Milan, a disciple of St.
Ambrose, cited Caelestius before Bishop Aurelius of Carthage. A Carthaginian council then
asserted that "Adam, established in paradise, created immortal, became mortal after his
disobedience." When Caelestius openly denied the very existence of original sin, he was
condemned and excommunicated. "Condemned but not corrected"-the words are Augustine's
(Letter 157)-be then joined Pelagius in Palestine.
 (2) ORIENTAL INQUEST (414-16)

Paul Orosius, a young Spanish priest, was sent by St. Augustine to co-operate with St.
Jerome in combating Pelagianism in Palestine. During 415, Orosius accused Pelagius before
Bishop John II of Jerusalem, alleging St. Augustine's authority. Pelagius sneered, "What is
Augustine to me?" and the local ordinary, touched to the quick, assured him, "Here, I am
Augustine." Refusing to condemn Pelagius on the word of a Latin who knew no Greek, Bishop
John advised that the case be referred to Rome.

Council of Diospolis. Meanwhile Caclestius had gone on to Ephesus where he was

ordained to the priesthood. Together with Pelagius, he was denounced by Heros of Arles and
Lazarus of Aix, two exiled Gallic bishops. Archbishop Eulogius of Caesarea called fourteen
bishops to a meeting at Diospolis or Lydda, December, 415. The nonappearance of the plaintiffs
enabled Pelagius, who was present, to explain away any untoward expressions. He declared
that Caelestius was sometimes carried away by rhetoric, but that he himself anathematized
willingly all teachings opposed to Catholic dogma. The Council took him at his generic profession
of faith, and adjudged him worthy of communion. Pelagius then distributed his own version of the
acts of the council, boasting that he had been freely and easily vindicated. Both of the
heresiarchs remained in good standing in the East, though St. Jerome termed the council
"wretched" and St. Augustine regarded its members as "dupes."

(3) OCCIDENTAL PROSECUTION (416-17)

St. Augustine, on being informed of the unsatisfactory result of this council, inspired two
new African synods at Carthage and Milevis during 416. The former under Bishop Aurelius's
leadership and the latter under his own passed new censures, in particular stigmatizing the
Pelagian doctrine of the inutility of grace and baptism for salvation. St. Augustine sent the report
of the joint condemnation to Pope Innocent I.

Pope Innocent received the African appeals during the latter part of 416, and ratified their
decisions on January 27, 417. He commended the African hierarchy for its vigilance and
sanctioned the condemnation of both the doctrines and persons of the Pelagian leaders. Then it
was that St. Augustine paid his famous tribute to Roman primacy: "About this affair two councils
have been sent to the Apostolic See. The replies have arrived. The case is ended; may the error
be likewise" (Sermon 131:10). That all was not over was hinted by the pope's remark that at
Rome thus far no reliable information about Pelagius and Caelestius had been received. The
pope died on March 12, 417, and Bishop John of Jerusalem during the same year.

Pope Zosimus, elected on March 18, 417, was a Greek and at first seemed more in
accord with the Oriental attitude toward the Pelagian leaders. His doubts seemed to have been
confirmed when the new Bishop Prailus of Jerusalem forwarded an apology of Pelagius, and
when one of the latter's accusers, Heros of Arles, was painted in the blackest of colors.
Caelestius now hastened to Rome to defend the Pelagian cause and to request an annulment of
the Carthaginian censures. He seems to have impressed the pope, for the latter remonstrated
with the African bishops for what appeared to have been a hasty condemnation. He warned that
Caclestius would be absolved and the Carthaginian censures revoked unless proof to the
contrary were forthcoming.

C. Pelagian Condemnation (418-31)

(1) CARTHAGINIAN CONDEMNATION

A plenary council of Carthage, sixteenth at that see, opened under the presidency of
Bishop Aurelius of Carthage on May 1, 418. Guided by St. Augustine, 214 bishops from
Proconsular Africa and Numidia joined in pronouncing what proved to be the definitive
condemnation of Pelagianism. Among canons pertinent to the heresy are the following: (1) "If any
man says that Adam, the first man, was created mortal, so that whether he sinned or not he
would have died, not as the wages of sin, but through necessity of nature, let him be anathema."
(2) "If any man says that new-born children need not be baptized . . . let him be anathema
because according to Romans (5:12), Adam's sin has passed upon all." (3) "If any man says that
the grace of God, by which man is justified through Jesus Christ, is only effectual for forgiveness
of sins already committed, but does not avail to avoid sin in the future, a.s." (4) "If any man says
that this grace merely helps us not to sin . . . but does not also give the power to do gladly and
fulfill what we have seen to be good, a.s." (5) "If any man says that the grace of justification was
given us that we might more easily fulfill what we are bound to do by power of free will, so that
even without grace we could, only not so easily, fulfill divine commands, a.s." Canons 6, 7, and 8
asserted that various Scriptural references to human sinfulness are literally true, and not mere
protestations of humility.

(2) PAPAL CONDEMNATION

Epistula Tractoria. While the African bishops were drawing up this indictment, the pope
had reopened the case at Rome. Instead of maintaining silence while his case was pending,
Caelestius had continued to engage in debate. Cited for a new trial in 418, he fled from Rome:
he may have received news of Honorius's edict of April 30, 418, demanding arrest of the
beresiarchs. These developments and the arrival of the acts of the Carthaginian Council put an
end to the pope's hesitation. During the summer of 418 he issued a long circular letter, known as
the Epistula Tractoria, in which Pelagius and Caelestius, together with their doctrines, were
denounced to the Catholic hierarchy. Only fragments of this encyclical survive in St. Augustine's
works, but it is known that it embodied the canons of Sixteenth Carthage, and probably some of
the earlier condemnations as well. The Roman clergy, headed by Archdeacon Sixtus, who seems
to have hitherto been well disposed to the Pelagian leaders, promptly subscribed to the papal
condemnation.

(3) ECUMENICAL CONDEMNATION

Eclanian Schism. Julian of Eclanum, however, headed a group of eighteen Italian

bishops who refused to subscribe to the Epistula. All were excommunicated, deposed, and
exiled. Other bishops, led by Archbishop Augustine of Aquileia, disapproved of this summary
condemnation of the recalcitrants and urged convocation of a general council. This Manifesto of
Aquileia heralded a period of disaffection in the Adriatic see, though it did not withdraw from
communion. Julian engaged in literary controversy with St. Augustine of Hippo and tried to stir up
opposition to the papal letter in the East, where Patriarch Nestorius of Constantinople,
simultaneously concocting his own Christological heresy, gave asylum to the Pelagian leaders.

The Council of Ephesus, summoned in 431 to condemn Nestorius, accordingly also dealt
with Pelagianism. This general council will be considered later in detail; here it is enough to note
that Pelagianism was once more condemned and severe censures laid on any members of the
hierarchy who should continue to protect the Pelagian leaders. just a year after St. Augustine's
death, then, the Catholic world united in unmistakable repudiation of the heresy which he had
detected. The Pelagian leaders lost their refuge; Pelagius himself is believed to have died in an
Egyptian monastery. As an organized movement Pelagianism in Pope St. Celestine's words,
expired "under united blows of West and East."

Pelagian echoes are heard, however, for about a century longer. In 442 Pope St. Leo
rebuked the bishop of Aquileia for permitting Pelagian propaganda, and some fifty years later
Pope Gelasius had a similar complaint against certain Dalmatian bishops. In 447 Bishop St.
Germanus of Auxerre visited Roman Britain to combat Pelagianism, and as late as 519 an anti-
Pelagian synod in Wales is beard of. But probably the majority of unregenerate Pelagians so
modified their views as to coincide with the Semi-Pelagian errors presently to be noted.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

39. Semi-Pelagian Misunderstandings (426-529)

VI

Christological Definitions

39. SEMI-PELAGIAN MISUNDERSTANDINGS

A. Nature of Semi-Pelagianism
(1) OCCASION
Augustinian provocation. St. Augustine emerged during the Pelagian disputes as the
Church's greatest theologian, endowed with an authority which would go unchallenged far into the
Middle Ages. Of all his great works, his treatment of grace had been outstanding. For
Pelagianism had represented a declaration of man I s independence of God in the supernatural
order, and Augustine, who had experienced the gratuity of God's grace in his own conversion was
particularly qualified to combat this heresy. But while he turned against it the full force of his
knowledge and rhetoric, certainly the latter, if not the former, was sometimes at fault. Most of his
treatises on grace were polemical, and in the heat of argument he occasionally made sweeping
statements which, detached from their context, could not but raise difficulties. Some passages so
misunderstood would seem to go to the opposite extreme from Pelagianism to make all depend
on God to the exclusion of human freedom. These misconceptions led to objections and from the
objections rose a new heresy, called Semi-Pelagianism. Other students of St. Augustine adopted
rigid views on predestination which they believed to belong to their master. Thus arose the
Predestinarian error, intertwined with Semi-Pelagianism in mortal combat. Though these
mistaken views were undoubtedly heresy, objectively and materially considered, many of the
puzzled controversialists can be excused from any formal denial of Catholic faith. For some,
Semi-Pelagianism was only an attempt to find a middle way between Pelagianism and absolute
Predestinarianism.

(2) SEEDS OF CONTROVERSY

The principal portions of Augustinian theology in dispute during the Semi-Pelagian

controversies may be summed up as follows:
1) Free will. Had original sin left human freedom intact, or had it completely or partially
vitiated it?
2) Human initiative. What part had free will in co-operating with grace? In particular,
was the initial step to justification taken by free will or directed by prevenient race?
3) Distribution of grace. Is grace granted or withdrawn entirely at God's discretion, or are
there certain laws for the increase of merit through human co-operation?

4) Predestination. Has God eternally and irrevocably predestined men to heaven or hell
irrespective of men's good or evil deeds?
5) Universality of salvation. Consequently does God really wish all men to be saved, or
has He fixed a certain number of the elect which cannot be changed?
A century of dispute would ensue before some of these points received authoritative
answers.

B. Seini-Pelagian Controversies
(1) AFRICAN MISUNDERSTANDING

Augustine's Letter to Sixtus occasioned the first of the misunderstandings of his teaching
on grace. This letter (194) had been addressed to Sixtus of Rome, already mentioned in the
history of Pelagianism and subsequently Pope Sixtus Ill. Therein St. Augustine declared that:
"Sin must necessarily of its very nature work the ruin of all mankind, but Gocl has nevertheless in
the abundance of His mercy chosen out of this multitude destined to destruction a few elect on
whom He has bestowed His grace and granted the gift of perseverance. These are called and in
fact are the children of God; if for a time they stray from the way of righteousness, they will by a
law of necessity again return to it and die in grace. They are chosen, not indeed because God
forsees that they will correspond with the action of grace by an unconstrained act of their free will,
not because they have merit of themselves, but because of His gracious pleasure He has seen fit
to set them apart and predestine them to eternal life. Again, there are others abandoned of God
whom He visits with His justice. These are necessarily lost, not because they could not work out
their salvation if they would, but because they place their happiness and joy in evildoing"

Hadrumeturn monastery in North Africa was agitated when the monk Florus published
this letter in 427. The monks, probably mostly laymen, were divided in its interpretation. Florus
himself was accused of denying free will and merit; another monk concluded that God does all
and man nothing-a conclusion reached a thousand years later by Martin Luther.
St. Augustine himself reassured the monks of Hadrumetum by means of two treatises,
De Gratia et Libero Arbitro and De Gratia et Correptione. St. Augustine's explanation can be
summarized, however, in his trenchant statement, "He who created you without your co-operation
will not save you without your co-operation" (Sermon 169). After St. Augustine's death soon
afterwards, his disciples, Marius Mercator and Julius Pomerius, continued to defend his teachings
in Africa.

(2) PROBLEM AT MARSEILLES

John Cassian was at this time abbot of St. Victor's Abbey at Marseilles. Like Pelagius he
was a spiritual director anxious to exhort his disciples to greater personal effort. He was an
Oriental, ordained deacon by St. John Chrysostom, and an authority on eastern monastic
traditions. St. Augustine's teaching, it seemed to Cassian, would render man entirely passive in
his spiritual exercises.
On the Protection of God was the title of a discourse, his thirteenth, which Cassian
delivered some time between 420 and 426. In it he maintained that men could and should begin
the work of their salvation by praver. This God expected man to do "of himself"; later God could
confer the grace necessary to complete the work of salvation. There is no predestination: once
grace has been granted, men can use it to obtain final perseverance, or abuse it to damnation.
The foregoing is SerniPelagianism. Cassian also contended that predestination in the sense of
grace was post praevisa merita, that is God first explored what man would do with grace and
conceded it in view of man's future merits. This is Molinism: uncensored but hotly contested
theological opinion.

(3) AUGUSTINIAN CHAMPIONS IN GAUL

St. Prosper of Aquitaine, a zealous Gallic layman, undertook the task of counteracting
Cassian's influence. He and another layman, Hilary, informed St. Augustine about 429 that they
had heard certain monks disputing his teaching according to Cassian's views. St. Augustine
replied with the treatises, De Praedestinatione Sanctortan and De Dono Perseverantiae, the last
written before his death, August 28, 430. In the first the Doctor established the necessity of
attributing to God the beginning of salvation and the desire for good, and asserted that
predestination is ante praevisa merita. In the second, he proved that perseverance is a special
gift of God. To these views St. Prosper remained loyal until his death, about 463. But after
Cassian's death in 435, in the course of his controversy with the monks, represented by St.
Vincent of Lerins, faith and theological opinion were confused. St. Prosper defended with equal
vehemence the Catholic doctrine on grace and the Augustinian-Thomistic theory of predestination
ante praevisa merita, together with some vague or rash Augustinian expressions. His opponents
accused him of denying God's universal salvific will, and of making God the author of the vile
deeds of the reprobate and consequently of their damnation. The monks in good faith defended
SemiPelagianism, a heresy not yet condemned by the Church, and held the Molinistic theory of
predestination post praevisa merita. St. Prosper reproduced St. Augustine's teachings without
originality and attacked Cassian and his followers for deviating a hair's breadth from the great
doctor's views.

Pope Celestine I was St. Prosper's next court of appeal. Shortly after he had brought the
controversy to the attention of the Holy See, St. Prosper began to belabor his opponents,
claiming, with what justification is unknown, that "we defend the faith against the Pelagians by
anthority of the Apostolic See." But in 431 the pope sent a letter to the Gallic hierarchy in which
he warned them against innovations, praised St. Augustine's writings in general terms, but
complained that priests, monks, and even laymen were being allowed too much license to speak
on the question. But the atmosphere was so heated that this blast failed to cool it noticeably
before the pope's death in 432.

Sixtus III (432-40) was also requested in turn to intervene, but failed to take action. Quite
possibly he felt that St. Prosper was presenting St. Augustine's views as Catholic doctrine with a
little too much vehemence and not enough discrimination. But though there is no official papal
pronouncement at this time, there survives an unpromulgated document condemning the Semi-
Pelagian teaching that men might pray and desire good without grace and at the same time
setting aside questions of predestination and efficacy of grace as inexpedient for immediate
decision. It may be that the author of this document was St. Leo, then deacon, future pope.
Though it lacks dogmatic value, it may serve to show that the Roman clergy "off the record" were
in substantial agreement with St. Augustine. With the passing of the original disputants, the
discussions on grace subsided.

C. Semi-Pelagian Correction
(1) PREDESTINARIAN DISPUTES

Lucidus of Riez, a priest of Gaul, reopened the discussions on grace about 473 by
espousing Predestinarianism. His explanation that men were simply predestined to heaven or
hell no matter what they did, may have been lucid, but was scarcely orthodox. His bishop was
Faustus, a former abbot of Lerins, and a member of Cassian's circle. After he had reproved
Lucidus without success, he arraigned him before a council at Arles in 474 which laid six
anathemas on Predestinarianism. Lucidus apparently submitted, for the next year he wrote to
this effect to a council at Lyons.

Faustus of Riez, however, was yet to be heard from. Commissioned by the councils to
set forth the orthodox teaching, he produced De Gratia Libri Duo. In this work he rejected
Pelagianism and the SerniPelagian idea that grace is unnecessary for the beginning of salvation,
but attributed to man's free will the ability to desire, hope, and will good effectively and to reject
evil. Cassian's influence on Gaul may account for the fact that this treatise excited no immediate
opposition.
 The Scythian monks, however, seem to have spent their leisure in their
Constantinopolitan abbey in combing all works to discover difficulties-they will reappear during
the Monophysite disputes. After Faustus's work had escaped the notice of the Gallic clergy for a
generation, this group fell on it.
Pope Hormisdas (514-23) was accordingly presented with their findings, and requested
to declare Faustus's standing. During 520 the pope replied that though Faustus did not speak for
the Church, his works were not forbidden. Instead the pope gave a perennial Roman response-.
consult the approved authors, let the monks examine ecclesiastical decisions and the writings of
St. Augustine.

St. Fulgentius of Ruspe and other African bishops were next consulted by the Scythian
archimandrite ' John Maximus, who demanded the condemnation of Faustus's work. St.
Fulgentius, a rigid disciple of St. Augustine, then roundly condemned Faustus to the Scythians'
satisfaction (523).

(2) THE COUNCIL OF ORANGE

St. Caesarius of Arles proved the Semi-Pelagian nemesis. Thougb once a monk at
Lerins, ill health had forced his transfer to Arles where he came under the influence of Julius
Pomerius, who had drawn his inspiration from St. Augustine. Having thus escaped the Semi-
Pelagian atmosphere of Lerins, St. Caesarius as bishop of Arles (502-42) staunchly adhered to
pure Augustinian teaching. At an episcopal meeting at Valence in 528 he became aware of the
prevalence of SerniPelagian views among the Gallic hierarchy, graduates of St. Victor's at
Marseilles or St. Honorat at Lerins. St. Caesarius resolved to correct the misunderstanding.
Selecting nineteen theses from St. Augustine's works, he forwarded them to Pope Felix III (526-
30). The pope retained eight, added sixteen from St. Prosper's works, and sent back the revised
schema.

Conciliar decrees. St. Caesarius, papal legate to Gaul, then utilized a gathering of
thirteen bishops for the consecration of a church at Arausicanum (Orange) in July, 529, to clarify
teaching on grace. To this council he submitted the revised schema with the addition of a canon
of his own. The chief points of the conciliar decrees may be summarized as follows:
1) Original sin. Adam's sin changed both man's soul and body for the worse, passing
with its punishment death to posterity (canons 1 & 2). The council here did not contemplate the
hypothetical state of pure nature, but simply stated that in comparison with man's supernatural
and preternatural endowment in Eden, he is now worse off.

2) First grace is wholly gratuitous, for before justification from it proceed prayer (canon
3); holy desires (canon 4); beginning and inclination to faith (canon 5); every effort to acquire
faith: belief, wish, desire, attempt, work, watchfulness, application, petition, insistence, search,
knocking (canon 6); every salutary act (canon 7). Hence the grace of baptism is entirely the
result of God's mercy (canon 8).
3) Gratuity of grace is stressed: "As often as we do good, God works in us and with us
that we may work" (canon 9). "God loves us as we shall be by His gift and not as we are by our
merit" (canon 12). Yes, "God does many good things in man which man does not do, but man
does nothing good which God does not enable him to do" (canon 20).

4) Predestination was treated in the attached profession of faith which affirmed that "all
the baptized, with Christ's help and co-operation, can, if they wish, labor faithfully, and fulfill
whatever is necessary for salvation." Hence all receive freedom and sufficient grace.
Papal confirmation was given these and other canons (D. 174-200) by Pope Boniface II.
In the letter, Per Filium Nostrum of January 25, 531, the pope declared them "conformable to the
Catholic rules of the fathers." Thus the decrees of this local council, like those of Sixteenth
Carthage against Pelagianism, enjoy a specific approbation of the Holy See. In this case the
papal definition seems to have been accepted without demur or delay, so that the Semi-Pelagian
misunderstandings were finally laid to rest.
Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

40. Oriental Patriarchal Rivalry (398-428)

VI

Christological Definitions

40. ORIENTAL PATRIARCHAL RIVALRY

A. The Origenist Controversy

(1) PALESTINIAN PHASE
Origen of Alexandria (185-254) remained a controversial figure after death as he had
been during life. Besides some expressions savoring of Trinitarian subordinationism, his works
contained speculation about the eternity of creation, pre-existence of souls, and general
restoration of all rational creatures to bliss. Yet the recondite nature of his voluminous writings
and the allegorical trend of his exegesis probably discouraged intensive study save among
biblical scholars, such as St. Epiphanius and Jerome. It is the former, primarily a theologian and
a resolute heresy hunter, who developed the conviction that Origenism was the root of all recent
errors.

Outbreak of dispute. In 393 the monk Aterbius, possibly a deputy of St. Epiphanius,
denounced Origenism to St. Jerome and his friend Rufinus of Aquileia. After reading St.
Epiphanius's critique of Origen's errors, St. Jerome revised his hitherto generic approbation of
Origen's works. For this he was accused by Rufinus of disloyalty to their master in biblical
studies. St. Jerome replied and an acrimonious debate went on for four years between the
erstwhile friends. St. Epiphanius personally entered the fray by indicting Origen as the real
founder of Arianism, and Bishop John II of Jerusalem, inclined to be touchy on diocesan
prerogative, retorted with a sermon against "anthropomorphism"-a charge that may have affected
Aterbius, though it was wide of the mark in the case of St. Epiphanius. The latter further annoyed
Bishop John by ordaining his subject, Paulinian, St. Jerome's brother, in his own diocese of
Constantia in Cyprus.

Aggravation of the conflict followed when the adversaries sought allies. John of
Jerusalem appealed to Theophilus, patriarch of Alexandria (385-412), and "chancellor" of the
Alexandrian school in which Origen had taught. Theophilus at first favored Origen and through
his envoy, the Alexandrian priest Isidore, mediated in Palestine. Isidore succeeded in effecting a
brief reconciliation between St. Jerome and Rufinus, but Origenism was still in the air. Rufinus's
translation, or rather paraphrase of Origen's On Principles into Latin reopened the dispute in 398,
and unscrupulous intermediaries fostered it. Blows were exchanged by means of treatises until
402 when St. Jerome's Apologia, like John Henry Newman's, demolished his opponent.

The Holy See, meanwhile, had been invoked by St. Epiphanius. St. Siricius (384-99)
urged peace but died before rendering any definitive decision on the theological questions at
issue. His successor, Anastasius I (399-401), pronounced a generic condemnation of alleged
Origenist errors in 400; that is, the pope censured the propositions submitted to him, though he
admitted that Origen himself was unknown to him. Emperor Arcadius added his proscription and
the initial phase of the controversy ended. Certain Origenist errors had been condemned. What
followed concerned persons and politics more than theology.
 (2) ALEXANDRIAN-BYZANTINE PHASE

Theophilus of Alexandria now made an unexpected reversal of his pro-Origenist views.

He moved to the fore of the prosecution against Origen, but seemed prone to regard as
"Origenist" all who disagreed with him. Archpriest Isidore, accused of Origenism and financial
mismanagement by his patriarch, fled to the monks in the Nitrian desert. This brought
accusations of Origenism upon the monks and the imperial power was invoked to rout them from
their monastery. Several hundred refugees went to Palestine (401) but even there they were
pursued by the powerful patriarch. Eventually fifty of them, led by the "Four Tall Brothers,"
Dioscorus, Ammon, Eusebius, and Euthymius, fled to Constantinople where they were accorded
asylum without being admitted to communion.

St. John Chrysostorn was by now bishop of Constantinople (398407). Premier Eutropius
had selected the eloquent Antiochian priest in preference to Theophilus's candidate. Perhaps the
court believed that the humble St. John would be a pliant tool: if so, they were mistaken, for St.
John proved to be a true bishop, champion of ecclesiastical rights and defender of the poor. He
was a stern disciplinarian of the clergy and upheld the right of asylum for fugitives from justice
against Eutropius himself-and in 399 that fallen idol temporarily benefited by it. But the premier's
removal did not smooth St. John's path, for thenceforward he had a more subtle foe, the frivolous
Empress Eudoxia. When, then, St. John incurred the ire of Theophilus for sheltering the Tall
Brothers, the latter would experience little difficulty in securing allies.

Origenist accusations. In writing to Theophilus regarding the Tall Brothers, St. John had
merely pleaded for reconciliation and understanding. But Theophilus detected an opportunity to
discredit the bishop of the capital by accusing him of Origenism. He enlisted bishops in the anti-
Origenist movement and sponsored St. Epiphanius's council in Cyprus which renewed the
condemnation of the Alexandrian theologian. When St. John ignored the decrees of this council
outside his jurisdiction, St. Epiphanius's suspicions were confirmed. In the same year (402) the
Tall Brothers had brought charges of violence against Theophilus and he was cited to appear in
Constantinople. Theophilus perforce came, but supported by twenty-nine suffragans. St.
Epiphanius came to Constantinople himself, but finally suspected the intrigues and departed; he
died en route home in 403. St. John was asked by the court to judge Theophilus, but very
properly declined for want of jurisdiction.

Synod of the Oak. It was now Theophilus's turn to judge, and he was not so forbearing.
In collusion with Eudoxia and seven of St. John's disaffected suffragans, he assembled a synod
at the imperial villa of the Oak, near Chalcedon. St. John refused citation, and was declared
convicted in absentia of Origenism, usurpation of jurisdiction in Asia Minor, disrespect for the
empress, and a number of gratuitous charges of unclerical and immoral conduct. The only count
that merited consideration was the possible excess of jurisdiction, but of that the judge ought to
have been the Roman pontiff. But Arcadius accepted the conciliar verdict and ordered St. John's
exile to Bithynia. Though the people rallied to his support, he went quietly to a friend's house at
Nicomedia.

B. The Diptych Schism

(1) ST. JOHN'S RECALL

Popular disturbance nonetheless influenced the court in St. John's favor. Theophilus on
entering Constantinople after the Synod of the Oak found his chief foes, Isidore and Dioscorus,
dead. His real objectives may be surmised from the fact that once St. John had been disposed
of, he quickly dismissed charges against the remaining fugitives. But when his accomplice at the
Synod of the Oak, St. John's auxiliary bishop Severian, denounced the Constantinopolitan
patriarch in a sermon, popular fury forced the conspirators to retire. An earthquake excited
Eudoxia's superstitions, and she hastened to arrange for St. John's recall. When he requested a
new council for vindication, Theophilus and his followers unostentatiously left for Alexandria,
pleading the needs of their dioceses. After a short interruption, then, St. John resumed his
episcopal functions at Constantinople amid popular acclaim.

(2) ST. JOHN'S SECOND EXILE

Renewed friction. Theophilus's intrigues against St. John seem to have been motivated
by personal and official rivalry. He continued them from afar and so provoked St. John that he is
reported to have designated Theophilus as "Pharaoh." Another of St. John's pointed remarks or
an exaggerated rumor proved the last straw in St. John's strained relations with the court.
Eudoxia, who had previously drawn St. John's rebuke for frivolity, now erected a silver statue of
herself in the square before the cathedral. The dedication ceremonies were so reminiscent of
pagan emperor worship that they called forth St. John's protest. What he actually said is not
certainly known; what probably reached Eudoxia was: "Again Herodias is raging; again she is
dancing; again she demands the bead of John on a platter."

Deposition was effected by a packed council directed by Eudoxia and Theophilus, who
supplied three of his suffragans to take part in it. Many charges were aired and debated, but
finally St. John was declared deposed for resuming episcopal functions without having quashed
the condemnation of the Synod of the Oak. St. John was seized on Holy Saturday in the course
of a tumultuous invasion of the church, and on June 9, 404, sent into exile by imperial decree.
Though he was put on board ship without his flock's knowledge, his infuriated partisans burned
down church and senate house in reprisal. But this time the court was not to be swayed; during
June, 404, the octogenarian brother of St. John's predecessor, Arsacius, was designated
patriarch (404-6).

(3) ROMAN INTERVENTION

The diptychs, to which reference is made in the course of the ensuing schism, were
liturgical lists, corresponding to the modern commemorations of the living and the dead at Mass,
on which were inscribed those in communion with the church. It was customary to include on the
patriarchal diptychs the names of the popes and the other patriarchs in good standing; heretics
and schismatics were excluded in sian of broken communion. St. John's name was struck from
the Byzantine diptychs and from those of the churches which supported his foes.

Pope Innocent I (401-17) had been curtly informed by the emperor that St. John had
been deposed and that Arsacius was now bishop. St. John, who had not resigned, found friends
to bear an appeal to "my eminent and religious master, the most reverend Bishop Innocent." He
recounted the course of events from the Synod of the Oak and asked for vindication. The pope
wrote to assure St. John of his support, and indeed he refused to recognize the intruder Arsacius
and his successor Atticus (406-25) so long as they refused to do justice to St. John. Through the
western coregent Honorius the pope strove to persuade Arcadius to summon an ecumenical
council to adjudicate the disputed succession. But the embassy was intercepted before reaching
Constantinople, robbed of its papers, and sent back to Italy. The pope could do little more than
write an exhortation to the clergy of Constantinople bidding them persevere in their loyalty to St.
John. And the "Jobannites" were steadfast so that neither the entreaties nor the menaces nor the
violence of Atticus could win them over even after St. John's death in exile, September 14, 407.

(4) PATRIARCHAL INTRANSIGENCE

Constantinople. It was not until about 415 that Atticus tired of his unsuccessful struggle
to coerce the Jobannites. He yielded to peaceful overtures and restored St. John's name to the
diptychs and was readmitted to communion with the Holy See. During his later years he seems
to have tried to repair his earlier injustice, though he supported the imperial court in extending
patriarchal jurisdiction into the Latin province of Illyricum. He died in 425, and after the brief
pontificate of the worthy Sisinnius (426-27), was succeeded in April, 428, by the Antiochian
Nestorius whose Christological heresy would provoke the next major oriental theological
controversy.

Antioch. Patriarch Flavian of Antioch, loyal to his former aide, St. John, had died on
September 26, 404. Three Syrian bishops, members of the Synod of the Oak, engineered the
choice of the priest Porphyrius and an imperial edict of November, 404, imposed him upon the
Antiochians. Porphyrius honored this commitment by excluding St. John's name from the
diptychs throughout his reign (404-13). But his successor Alexander (413-19) favored the
Jobannites, and resumed communion with Rome. If the next patriarch Theodotus momentarily
struck St. John's name off once more, the threatening attitude of his flock induced him to restore
it.

Alexandria. Patriarch Theophilus (385-412) held out to his death against St. John's
memory. Apparently he died out of communion with the Holy See, and his nephew and
successor St. Cyril (412-44) for some time shared his opposition to St. John. Cyril had
participated in the Synod of the Oak and did not at once follow his former accomplices, Atticus
and Acacius of Beroea, in restoring St. John's name. But St. Isidore of Pelusium gained influence
over this naturall bau ht spirit and brought him to a better way of thinking. Between 417 and 419
Cyril also capitulated; at least by the latter date all the patriarchal sees had resumed communion
among themselves and with Rome.

Posthumous vindication, then, came to St. John Chrysostom from all the patriarchal sees,
and on January 27, 438, his successor Proculus, Emperor Theodosius II and St. Pulcheria,
children of Arcadius and Eudoxia, joined the Byzantine populace at the solemn translation of his
relics from Comana in Pontus to the church of the Apostles in Constantinople.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

41. Nestorian Dualism (428-39)

VI

Christological Definitions

41. NESTORIAN DUALISM

A. Antecedent Christological Errors

(1) THE ANCYRA SCHOOL NESTORIAN FORERUNNER
Marcellus of Ancyra had been a defender of the Nicene Creed for which he was expelled
from his see in 336 by the Arians. Yet he was guilty of the suspicious statement that the divine
Word descended upon the man Jesus and acted upon him in a mysterious economy. Since
Marcellus proved himself a Nicene confessor, Catholics were prone to defend him against what
they assumed to be Arian calumnies. Later, however, both Pope Damasus and St. Athanasius
began to question his orthodoxy regarding the bypostatic union of the divine and human natures
in Christ, and Marcellus was posthumously condemned by the General Council of 381.
 Photinos of Ancyra, formerly a deacon under Mareellus and later bishop of Sirmium, was
certainly heretical, for he taught that Christ was but a man who became the adopted Son of God
by union with the Word, while retaining his human personality. This error was condemned at the
Council of Milan (345) as a revival of the teaching of Paul of Samosata. Reprobated by both
Niceans and Arians, Pbotinos died in exile about 376. He seems to have left few direct disciples,
but errors similar to his would be propounded by Nestorius.

(2) APOLLINARISM: INCHOATE MONOPHYSITISM

Apollinaris of Laodicea, known as Apollinaris the Younger to distiDgUisb him from his
father, a Christian grammarian, became bishop of Laodicea about 362, His father's prestige and
his own opposition to Arianism long shielded him from suspicion, and yet he seems to have
aimed at building up a sect even while in the Church. He consecrated two disciples, Timothy and
Vitalis, as bishops, but in 377 all three were condemned and deposed by a Roman synod
presided over by Pope Damasus. The Catholic world responded quickly to the papal
condemnation through councils at Alexandria (378), Antioch (379, and Constantinople (381). To
the last of these censures Emperor Theodosius added the imperial ban. Nevertheless, many
disciples survived the death of the founder in 392. Some eventually returned to the Church, while
the survivors merged with the fifth century Monophysites.

Apollinarism began with the premise that salvation could be effected by God only if
Christ's divinity and humanity were united. But, it objected, this unity would be destroyed by the
divine Word's assumption of a complete human nature. Hence the Apollinarists concluded that
the Word supplied the place of the human soul, taking merely a human body to serve as His blind
instrument. Later Apollinaris distinguisbed in humanity a rational and an animal soul, and
assigned the latter to Christ, claiming that "inasmuch Christ has God for pneuma (spirit), an
intelligence (nous) with a psyche (animal soul) and a body, he is rightly to be called a heavenly
man." Apollinarism became the target for a new theological school.

B. Nestorian Evolution
(1) SECOND SCHOOL OF ANTIOCH

Diodorc of Tarsus seems to have been a remote author of Nestorianism. After St.
Lucian's Antiochian school had been perverted to Arianism, Diodore founded a new academy
about the middle of the fourth century. In his desire to combat Apollinarism, he stressed a
distinction between the "Son of God" and the "Son of David," the former dwelling in the latter "as
in a temple." Hence the Word was not Mary's son since she gave birth only to the Son of David.
Though Diodore verbally maintained a unity of personality in Christ, he had really isolated in him
two complete individuals. Diodore, later bishop of Tarsus, died unsuspected of heresy between
386 and 394.

Theodore of Mopsuestia succeeded his master Diodore as bead of the Antiochian school.
He also emphasized the completeness of the human nature assumed by the Word in reaction to
Apollinaris. For Theodore, the humanity amounted to another individual, not so much united as
related to the indwelling Word. His virtual denial of Christ's personal unity was disguised by a
distinction of reason: apparently when the divinity and humanity are considered separately, each
is a complete personality, "but when we consider the union, there is but one person." This
involved terminology prevented Theodore's orthodoxy from being suspected during his lifetime.
He became bishop of Mopsuestia and died on the eve of the Nestorian Controversy in 428.

Theodore's three disciples prolonged his influence and long held together by the "old
school tie." These were Nestorius, named patriarch of Constantinople in 428, the actual
proponent of the Dualistic heresy; John, elected patriarch of Antioch in the same year, his
personal if not doctrinal supporter; and Theodoret, bishop of Cyrus since 423. Theodoret was at
least partially infected with the Nestorian error, yet his subsequent opposition to Monophysitisin
earned him the reputation of a defender of the Catholic faith. John and Theodoret were probably
in good faith, though unduly attached to the familiar Antiochian terminology and scandalized by
the Alexandrian theology of the Catholic champion, St. Cyril.

Nestorianism, as more fully developed in Nestorius's own writings, was little else than a
more explicit statement of the Antiochian teaching of Theodore of Mopsuestia. According to
Nestorius, in Christ there was but a single divine person, hypostasis, but there was also another
complete human individual, physis. These complete individuals were morally united in a
theandric super-personality, prosypon, which used either subpersonality indifferently. In his own
understanding of the hypostatic union, therefore, Nestorius could say there was but one person in
Christ and seem verbally in accord with orthodoxy. But he revealed himself in a corollary of his
teaching: Mary was merely anthropotokos, "Mother of Man," or at most Christotokos, "Mother of
Christ"; she might not be termed theotokos, "Mother of God," that is of the indwelling divine
personality. Theotokos accordingly became the watchword of the Nestorian controversy-

(2) DETECTION OF NESTORIANISM

Nestorius began his episcopate, April, 428, with a prosecution of Apollinarism, Arianism,
Macedonianism, and other heresies, "as if," in St. Vincent of Lerins' quaint phrase, "he wished to
clear the way for his own." Nestorius next felt called upon to give his people a clearer exposition
of Christology. This he did through a sermon preached in his presence during Advent, 428, by the
priest Anastasius: "Let none call Mary Mother of God; she is only human and God cannot be born
of a creature." This teaching gave great scandal and evoked the anathema of Dorotheus of
Marcianopolis in Moesia.

St. Cyril, patriarch of Alexandria, was alarmed at these developments relayed to him by
agitated monks. From the time of his Easter encyclical in 429, St. Cyril warned his flock and the
Catholic world of errors latent in Nestorius's teaching. Unfortunately St. Cyril had many
handicaps in his role of champion of orthodoxy. His participation in his uncle's persecution of St.
John Chrysostom could raise a suspicion that his present attack on Nestorius was but part of a
studied Alexandrian policy of discrediting the rival patriarchate of Constantinople. St. Cyril's own
vigorous personality did nothing to disarm such fears. His unfamiliar Alexandrian terminology,
especially when used in his famous Twelve Anathemas provoked accusations of Apollinarism.
Indeed, at first sight St. Cyril's favorite expression, "the one nature (physis) of the Word God
made flesh" smacks of the Monophysite heresy until it is understood that for him physis is
practically a synonym for hypostasis: person. In an era before universally accepted terminology,
he would have to modify this before winning over Antiochians of good will. By contrast, it is in
regard to Mary that St. Cyril's orthodoxy is most evident. The analogy presented by him is
classic: "As a man's mother is parent not merely of his bodv but of his entire person though his
soul comes from another source, as she begets not only a man's body but the whole complex
individual essentially composed of a true union of body and soul; so the Blessed Virgin Mary,
though in no sense giving birth to the divinity by which the Word is equal to the Father, is
nevertheless truly and really Mother of the Word, because the flesh of the Word was formed in
her womb, and she brought into the world the Person of the Eternal Word, clothed with our
nature" (Letter 1). Mary, then, is theotokos.

Pope Celestine I (422-32) was brought in by St. Cyril when his own remonstrances with
Nestorius proved unavailing. Soon after Easter, 430, "according to ancient ecclesiastical
custom," he sent Deacon Posidonius to report a theological aberration to the Holy See, to "Father
Celestine." On the basis of documentation supplied from Alexandria, the pope convened a council
at Rome in August, 430, which condemned Nestorianism. Under pain of excommunication
Nestorius was ordered to submit within ten days of receipt of the papal verdict. These decrees
were sent back to Alexandria for transmission to Nestorius. The patriarch of Alexandria
forwarded them, augmented by the contested Twelve Anathenias, to Constantinople. Here they
did not arrive until December 7, 430, when Nestorius received official notice of his condemnation
belatedly and from an unfriendly source. He sent a self-defense to Rome, drew up twelve
Counter-Anathemas for St. Cyril, while his friend Theodoret issued a similar blast. Nestorius,
however, relied for support chiefly upon a council to be convened by Emperor Theodosius II.

C. Nestorian Condemnation
(1) ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF EPHESUS (431)

Convocation of a general council at Ephesus was announced by the emperor on

November 19, 430. The pope approved and in a letter of May 7, 431, designated St. Cyril as his
chief legate, assigning as assistants the Roman suffragan bishops Arcadius and Projectus, and
the priest Philip. St. Cyril anticipated the Roman envoys by arriving at Ephesus with fifty
suffragans before Pentecost, June 7. Nestorius was already on band with 68 suffragans and the
imperial observer, Count Irenaeus. Archbishop Memnon of Ephesus and 100 bishops of Asia
Minor, and Juvenal of Jerusalem at the bead of fifteen suffragans supported St. Cyril's proposal to
open the council on June 22 without awaiting John of Antioch and his suffragans. Over the
protest and abstention of Nestorius and fifty adherents, the council accordingly opened under St.
Cyril's presidency.

Nestorian condemnation followed reading of the documents, headed by a letter of the

pope on the true faith. Though St. Cyril's Anathemas were not formally sanctioned, the Council
declared in conformity with the faith his Second Letter to Nestorius, including the following
passage: "We assert that the Word in an inexplicable and incomprehensible manner was made
man through personal union to Himself of flesh animated by a rational soul, and appeared as Son
of man not by mere volition nor solely adopting a role (prosypon). Though the natures brought
into true unity are diverse, they effect for us one Christ and Son; not that difference of nature is
removed by union, but divinity and humanity constitute for us one Jesus Christ and Son by a
certain secret and unspeakable union in a single person." When toward the close of this
protracted day and night session the fathers added that "the Blessed Virgin is Mother of God," the
laity outside organized a jubilant torchlight procession. Nestorius, who had refused citation, was
declared excommunicated and deposed.

Ephesian Anti-Council. John of Antioch, arriving June 24, upon being informed of these
proceedings, assembled 43 disaffected bishops in his residence. This group accused St. Cyril of
high-handed action on behalf of Apollinarism, repudiated the acts of the Council of Ephesus, and
declared its members excommunicated and its leaders deposed.
Conciliar rebuttal. But the legitimate council reassembled in two new sessions, July 10
and 11, at which the Roman envoys formally approved the acts of the first session and the
conciliar fathers applauded the junior legate, Father Philip, in his assertion of Roman primacy.
On July 16 and 17, St. Cyril held two further sessions at which John of Antioch and his partisans,
including Theodoret of Cyrus, were excommunicated and suspended. The Pelagian doctrines
and leaders were also condemned. On July 22, the Council in its sixth session forbade
substitution of a new Creed for that of Nicea, though it was not its intention, as Greeks later
claimed, to rule out additions such as the Filioque to the Creed. On July 31, the Council
concluded its labors with six disciplinary canons against partisans of Nestorianism or
Pelagianism; it was not formally adjourned by the emperor, however, until October of 431. Before
his death on July 27, 432, the pope had approved of all the conciliar acts save the censures
against the Antiochian dissidents.

(2) EPHESIAN ACCEPTANCE

Imperial intervention delayed execution of the settlement decreed at Ephesus.

Theodosius II, though so ill-informed that he assumed the pope and St. Augustine (d. 430) to be
at Ephesus, announced the strange decision that he approved the acts of both Ephesian synods,
that under St. Cyril and the body headed by John of Antioch. Accepting the mutual censures, he
arrested the leaders of both councils. St. Cyril, however, knew the Byzantine Court. While he
appealed to St. Pulcheria to use her influence with her imperial brother, he smuggled information
to the monks of the capital. Archimandrite Dalmatius, revered by Theodosius, organized a
"monastic picket line" that soon changed the emperor's policy. During September, 431, eight
representatives of each Ephesian council were allowed to present their defense. Evidently under
better advisement, Theodosius now permitted the indicted bishops to return to their sees.
Nestorius remained out of communion; in October he was replaced by the priest Maximian and
banished from the capital.

Antiochian disaffection persisted. Though John of Antioch does not seem to have been
himself a Nestorian, he permitted the deposed patriarch to reside in his own episcopal residence
and refused to subscribe to the Ephesian definitions. Long negotiations, complicated by
Caesaropapist meddling, were necessary to reconcile the Antiochians to the condemnation of
Nestorius. Pope Celestine and his successor, Sixtus III (432-40), exercised the utmost patience
and forbearance with the disgruntled men of Antioch.

"The Formula of Union" of April 12, 433, was the result of painstaking negotiations
conducted by the Holy See and Bishop Acacius of Beroea, once like St. Cyril a foe of St.
Chrysostom, but now in his old age a peacemaker. St. Cyril sacrificed his favorite expression,
"one sole nature, physical union," for the sake of harmony, and united with John of Antioch in
recognizing "a single person-prosypon-a union of two natures (physeis)." Though cordiality
between the patriarchs was scarcely reestablished, there was no doubt that both were in accord
on Catholic dogma.

Nestorian decline. When Nestorius saluted the Formula with his Tragedy, an impenitent
apology for his career, John of Antioch abandoned him. Exiled first to Petra in Arabia and later to
the Libyan desert, Nestorius remained defiant to his death between 439 and 451. Nestorians for
the most part deserted the empire for Persia, India, and even China. They long survived in Syria
where their feud with the subsequent Monophysites disrupted the patriarchate of Antioch. A
source of future trouble lay in certain writings of Theodore of Mopsuestia, Theodoret of Cyrus,
and Ibas of Edessa. These "Three Chapters," whatever the personal merits of their authors, were
justly suspect of Nestorianism and would constitute a sixth century postscript to Nestorian history.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VI. Christological Definitions (395-476)

42. Eutychian Monophysitism (446-51)

VI

Christological Definitions

42. EUTYCHIAN MONOPHYSITISM

A. Origins
(1) THEOLOGICAL SOURCES
Apollinarism has already been indicated as a forerunner of Monophysitism. By
magnifying in Christ the divine influence and minimizing the humanity, it presented itself under a
specious aspect of intense spirituality, to which the monks were especially susceptible.
 Reaction against Nestorianism was another theological factor. Those who adhered to the
doctrine defined at Ephesus more because it accorded with their personal views than because it
represented Catholic dogma were prone to swing to the direct antithesis of Nestorian dualism.
The Nestorian cry of "Apollinarism" had been raised against so many respectable theologians
that it had lost its terrors. And the relics of Nestorianism in the works of repentant Nestorians
provided a field for heresy hunters and carecrists: Theodoret of Cyr, for instance, would be a
handicap in the Catholic ranks not unlike Marcellus of Ancyra among the Niceans.

Eutyches (c. 378-454) had lived in a monastery at Constantinople since the age of ten.
He was a severe ascetic, unworldly, narrowminded, but obstinate old man when he appeared as
one of the organizers of the "monastic picket line" to procure St. Cyril's release. About 440 he
succeeded Dalmatius as archimandrite or abbot-primate of the monks of the capital, and a year
later his prestige at court increased when his godson, the eunuch Chrysaphius, became prime
minister. Himself a fanatical anti-Nestorian, Eutyches resolved to make use of his influence to
root out all traces of Nestorianism in the empire. His ambition was disappointed in 446 when
Chrysaphius's plans to have him named patriarch of Constantinople were defeated by the clergy
who insisted upon St. Flavian (446-49).

Eutychianism or Monophysitism, in opposition to Nestorian moral union of two complete

personalities in Christ, taught that Christ had but one personality and a single nature. At least as
early as 446 Eutyches had taught: "Before the union of the Word with humanity, there were but
two natures, but after the union merely one. As a drop of water falling into the sea is quickly
absorbed to disappear in the great expanse, so also is the human element, since it is infinitely
less than the divine, completely absorbed by divinity." Eutyches admitted that Christ might be said
to be "of two natures" inasmuch as two distinct natures went into the by ostatic union, but refused
to concede that Christ was "in two natures" once these had been joined-for then the divine
swallowed up the human. It will be noted that both Nestorius and Eutyches began with the
erroneous assumption that Christ's humanity pre-existed the Incarnation. Eutyches was
eventually constrained to deny that Christ's body is consubstantial with our own, and to insist that
it had merely a corporeal appearances revival of that Docetism so severely castigated by St.
Ignatius of Antioch. Eutyches, however, like many of the monks, had received inadequate
theological training.

(2) OPENING OF THE CONTROVERSY

Antiochian offensive. Theodoret of Cyrus, whose own theological armory was defective,
published in 447 a treatise entitled Eranistes, "The Beggar." Though Eutyches was not mentioned
by name, it was implied that a new form of Apollinarism was abroad, "begging" tenets from old
heresies. Theodoret was sustained by Patriarch Domnus of Antioch (441-49), a nephew of the
John at Ephesus. With the support of Bishops lbas of Edessa and Irenaeus of Tyre, Domnus
openly denounced Eutyches to the Emperor as guilty of Apollinarism, the old bugbear of the
Antiochians.

Byzantine-Alexandrian counterattack. Chrysaphius would allow Theodosius to hear

nothing against Eutyches, and struck back on February 16, 448, by renewing the edicts against
Nestorianism. Irenaeus of Tyre was summarily deposed and others threatened with a like fate.
This imperial policy received prompt support from the new patriarch of Alexandria, Dioscorus
(444-51). This ambitious and violent intriguer professed or developed a fanatical devotion to
Monophysitism, in favor of which expressions of his predecessor St. Cyril were cited. Dioscorus
recommended himself to imperial favor by rebuking Domnus and securing an order confining
Theodore to his diocese. Eutyches himself was not idle. He demanded the condemnation of the
theologians of the Antiochian school, living or dead, and denounced "Nestorian machinations" to
Pope St. Leo the Great (440-61), who professed himself insufficiently informed. But in one of his
charges Eutyches overreached himself: he accused Bishop Eusebius of Dorylaeum of
Nestorianism.
 Synod at Constantinople. Eusebius was indignant, for it was he, then a layman, who had
first protested in 428 against the faulty sermon of Anastasius coram Nestorio. Eusebius brought
counter charges of heresy before St. Flavian's synod convened during November, 448, to deal
with disciplinary affairs. St. Flavian cited Eutyches to appear. After many attempts at evasion,
the heresiarch revealed himself so clearly and obstinately unorthodox that he was unanimously
condemned. Without consideration for his age or reputation, Eutyches was promptly
excommunicated, deposed, and degraded from the priesthood. Eutyches appealed to pope and
emperor, patriarchs and leading bishops, demanding a general council for his vindication. For his
part, St. Leo complained that he had thus far not received a report from the Byzantine hierarchy.
Once he had obtained an explanation from St. Flavian, the pope remarked that the proposed
council would have been unnecessary if the case had been properly managed from the
beginning, but under the circumstances he would accept the council which he would instruct by a
dogmatic letter.

Brigandage at Ephesus. When the council met at Ephesus, August, 449, Dioscorus of
Alexandria took control of proceedings with imperial backing. The papal legates, Bishop Julius
and Deacon Hilary were prevented from reading St. Leo's statement, the Tome to Flavian, and
were pushed aside-unfortunately the Greek linguist of the papal delegation, the priest Renatus,
had died on the way. St. Flavian was shouted down; Eusebius of Dorylaeum was forbidden to
speak. Eyeing the imperial troops, most of the bishops followed Dioscorus's lead in absolving
Eutyches. Remonstrances against Dioscorus's demand for St. Flavian's deposition were
represented by the self-appointed president as violence; at his call troops burried St. Flavian and
Eusebius to prison where the former died soon afterwards of mistreatment. Bishop Julius
disappeared; Deacon Hilary after a loud contradicitur fled; Domnus absented himself. The
surviving bishops, thoroughly cowed, became during the final session an anathema chorus which
in summary fashion pronounced deposition on Domnus, lbas, Irenaeus, and Theodoret. All of St.
Cyril's anathemas were read, and after the council had shouted, "God has spoken through
Dioscorus," the Alexandrian prophet let it go. But in October, 449, a haggard Deacon Hilary
reported to the pope. The latter stigmatized the affair for all time: Non erat concilium; erat
latrocinium. The "brigand" Dioscorus would yet have to deal with St. Leo the Great.

B. Monophysite Condemnation
(1) PATH TO CHALCEDON (449-51)

Emperor Theodosius, perhaps not entirely aware of the atrocity committed at Ephesus,
nonetheless gave the synod his sanction, and proceeded to replace the deposed bishops on his
own authority. Dioscorus I's nominee, Anatolius, was placed in St. Flavian's see. The new
patriarch, weak rather than malicious, sent notice of his elevation to the pope, but was informed
that he would not be recognized until he had publicly accepted the Tome to Flavian. This he was
not allowed to do by Theodosius, who after ignoring two papal letters, replied to a third in April,
450, that Flavian had been deposed for innovations in doctrine, that all had been done in good
order at Ephesus, and that the "patriarch of Rome" might mind his own business.

Imperial reversal. But three months later, July 28, 450, Theodosius II was killed by a fall
from his horse. His sister St. Pulcheria succeeded to the throne, together with her consort
Marcian. Caesaro-papism now worked in favor of orthodoxy as strongly as it had hampered it.
Prime minister Chrysaphius was executed and Eutyches imprisoned. The bishops who had
attended Ephesus made haste to repudiate their signatures and to demand a new and free
council. On November 22, 450, Emperor Marcian informed the pope of this desire, while
Patriarch Anatolius reported that St. Flavian had been honorably interred and that his successor
was eager to open his correspondence; i.e., St. Leo's Tome to Flavian. Though the pope deemed
a new council unnecessary, he acquiesced in Marcian's summons of May, 451, for a new general
meeting at Chalcedon.
 (2) ECUMENICAL COUNCIL OF CHALCEDON (451)

Convocation. The Oriental bishops were determined to prevent a repetition of the

Latrocinium, for they assembled to the number of six hundred. Though Dioscorus arrived early
and tried to organize a group to censure the pope, he found that save for a few of his own
partisans the bishops would not associate with him. The fathers of the council readily accepted
the leadership of the papal legates, Bishops Paschasinus, Lucentius, Julian-first known
apocrisarius or papal nuncio at the Byzantine court-and the priests Boniface and Basil.

Revocation of the Latrocinium. The chief legate, Paschasinus, took the rostrum in St.
Ephemia's Basilica on October 8, 451, to demand that Dioscorus leave his seat among the
members for the box of the accused in the center. Eusebius of Dorylaeum assumed the office of
prosecutor. Theodoret's entry provoked an emotional conflict, appeased with difficulty. The
reading of the acts of Ephesus were punctuated with exclamations pro and con. Dioscorus
himself acted the part of a gangster on trial: now blustering that they could prove nothing against
him; now claiming authorization from "higher-ups"; then snarling at confederates for betrayal;
again sulking in silence. But the vast majority of the bishops protested that he had menaced the
Epliesian synod so that its members had signed a blank check in fear of exile and death. St.
Flavian was recognized as orthodox and unjustly deposed. Later in the third session on October
13 Dioscorus was deposed in perpetuity; banished by imperial order to Gangra in Paphlagonia,
he died there in 454. Eutyches shared his condemnation and exile, dying soon after.

Catholic definition. Meanwhile the second session on October 10 had taken positive
action. After the Nicene Creed had been read, the legate at last presented the Tome. An
essential excerpt is: "We ought to acknowledge . . . one and the same Christ, Son, Lord, ODly-
Begotten, in two natures, without confusion, change, division, separation; the differences in
natures being in nowise taken away by the union. On the contrary, the property of each is
preserved, and concurs into one person and one hypostasis." At the end the enthusiastic
Orientals shouted: "That is the faith of the fathers; that is the faith of the apostles; we all believe
this; the orthodox believe thus; anathema to him who believes otherwise. Peter has spoken
through Leo." Those thundering six hundred voices contradict dissidents who pose as a criterion
for orthodoxy the teaching of the first seven ecumenical councils. In the fourth session on
October 17, the Council after some dispute about terms, adopted a profession of faith in accord
with the Tome. Headed by Juvenal of Jerusalem, accorded patriarchal status at Chalcedon, the
bishops coerced at Ephesus affirmed this profession and were absolved; the Alexandrian clergy
were permitted to await the choice of a new patriarch before subscribing to the Tome.

Disciplinary decrees. The remaining sessions until the Council's close on November 1,
451, dealt with discipline. The first of thirty canons defined an official code of 104 canons made
up of the decrees of ecumenical councils and certain specified local councils. Canons 2 to 27
and canon 29 concerned hierarchical jurisdiction and clerical and monastic discipline.
Metropolitan and diocesan rights were clarified; clerical and monastic vagrancy forbidden; clerical
abuses and vices rebuked. A certain independence of the state was manifest in that canon 9
upheld clerical immunity of the civil courts, and canon 12 accorded only honorary rank to
metropolitan titles accorded by the imperial court. But in canon 28, with apologies to the papal
legates, the fathers awarded to Constantinople "equal privileges with old imperial Rome," "rank
next to her," and patriarchal jurisdiction in Asia Minor.

Papal confirmation of the Chalcedonian acts was delayed by this new manifestation of
Caesaro-papism. The papal legates had subscribed only after protest against action taken in
their absence, such as the 28th canon, and in violation of papal prerogatives or previous conciliar
decrees. The pope himself received the legates' reports but added no formal confirmation of his
own. Rumors began to circulate that he had repudiated the entire work of Chalcedon. Marcian
and Anatolius anxiously inquired. The pope then replied in letters to Marcian, St. Pulcheria, and
Anatolius, complaining of the affront to the patriarchal precedence fixed at Nicea. To the patriarch
the pope said with biting sarcasm: "The present seems a favorable opportunity for the see of
Alexandria to lose the privilege of second place, and the church of Antioch to be deprived of its
right to the third rank, with the result that when these provinces are subjected to your authority, all
archbishops are stripped of rightful office." Anatolius in reply disclaimed personal ambition, and
when Marcian again pressed for papal ratification, St. Leo issued an encyclical, dated March 21,
453, in which he confirmed the conciliar acts, save that the 28th canon would be "null and void in
effect." If the overweening canon was later given practical effect throughout the East, it was no
fault of St. Leo.

(3) MONOPHYSITE SURVIVAL

At Alexandria, Proterius, the archpriest, was chosen as patriarch in place of the deposed
Dioscorus. He had to be installed by force against a strong Monophysite opposition. Executions
and reprisals preserved external calm while the Dioscoran loyalists organized under Timothy the
Cat and Peter the Hoarse. Not long after the death of the stern Emperor Marcian, the
Monophysites intruded Timothy as patriarch in the Caesareum church, March 16, 457. When the
prefect expelled him, riots forced his recall. The mob got out of hand on Holy Thursday, March
28. Invading the cathedral where Patriarch Proterius was officiating, they murdered him in cold
blood and dragged his body through the streets. For two years Timothy the Cat ruled Alexandria,
installing bishops of his party. Then Emperor Leo, yielding to remonstrances of St. Leo the Great,
temporarily ended the Feline schism by exiling Timothy to the Crimea. The Catholic, Timothy
White-Turban, was named patriarch (460-82), but Monophysitism lurked underground.

At Antioch, the doctrine of Chalcedon seemed triumphant until 470. Then Patriarch
Martyrius (460-70) was driven out by the Monophysite monk, Peter the Fuller, with General
Zeno's help. Emperor Leo restored Martyrius and sustained his orthodox successor Julian. But
Peter the Fuller would return when Zeno mounted the imperial throne in 475. Meanwhile he
embroiled theologians by adding to the doxology the phrase, "who was crucified for us," implying
a tritme incarnation and leaving ambiguous the relations among the divine Persons.

At Jerusalem the Chalcedonian Juvenal (420-58) was expelled by Theodosius, a prot6g6

of Dowager Empress Eudoxia then resident in Palestine. Theodosius (452-53) repudiated
Chalcedon and began to install Monophysite suffragans, but Juvenal returned from
Constantinople with imperial troops who restored the orthodox hierarchy.
The Byzantine patriarchate, which remained loyal to Chalcedon under Anatolius (449-58)
and Gennadios (458-71) thus sustained orthodoxy while exercising its new jurisdiction. But its
temporary success was achieved by means of Caesar's troops. Such means drove Syrian and
Coptic nationalists into the arms of Monophysite dissidents from Chalcedon who dubbed the
court-nominated prelates "Melchites": "King's men." Monophysitism, unlike Nestorianism, was far
from defeated in the Empire after condemnation by an ecumenical council. The definitions made
at Chalcedon would have to be resolutely defended for centuries to come.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

43. The Henoticon Schism (475-519)

VII

Defense of the Definitions

43. THE HENOTICON SCHISM

A. Caesaro-papist Rupture (475-518)

(1) IMPERIAL REUNION PLANS
The Encyclicon. The politico-religious disaffection of certain elements within the empire
did not escape the notice of the Byzantine Court. From Chalcedon on, it concocted various
doctrinal formulas in the hope of securing political harmony through theological compromise.
Orthodoxy was imperiled when Emperor Leo was succeeded by his son-in-law Zeno (475-91),
already noted as countenancing the activities of Peter the Fuller at Antioch. But Zeno's right to
the throne was promptly challenged by Leo's brother-in-law Basiliscus who drove Zeno from the
capital-January, 475, to September, 476. Basiliscus, who was either a Monophysite or dependent
on that party for support, promptly issued an Encyclicon. This bore the imprint of its real author,
Paul the Sophist, for with specious ease it professed that the Nicene decrees were adequate to
settle doctrinal questions for all time; subsequent conciliar acts, especially St. Leo's Tome, merely
disturbed the peace. To implement this policy, Basiliscus restored Timothy the Cat at Alexandria
and Peter the Fuller in Antioch. But in the capital itself he was defied by Patriarch Acacius (471-
89). While his own loyalty to Chalcedon would prove defective, Acacius at this time complied with
the remonstrances of the monks and people. There is good reason to believe, moreover, that he
had analyzed the unstable nature of the usurper's power, and calculated on being on the winning
side. If so, he guessed correctly, for Zeno was soon restored with orthodox support, Basiliscus
executed, and his decrees annulled.

The Henoticon. The restored ruler felt obligated to Acacius, and at his demand expelled
the Monophysite nominees of Basiliscus from their sees and replaced them with the Byzantine
patriarch's men. For this uncanonical procedure Acacius was rebuked by Pope St. Simplicius
(468-83), though the nominations were confirmed on condition that such action be not repeated.
But Acacius was intent on extending his influence. It is to him rather than to Zeno, an uncultured
barbarian, that the inspiration of the imperial Henoticon must be attributed. This edict, a "Formula
of Unity," appeared about the middle of 482. Its aim was similar to that of the Third Formula of
Sirmium during the Arian controversy: without itself being positively heretical, it erred by defect in
repudiating the definition of an ecumenical council for ambiguous expressions designed to please
everybody. in the present case, the Henoticon discarded the Tome and the decisions at
Chalcedon for equivocal condemnations of Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The decrees of
Ephesus were to be optional, but in substance the edict was reactionary insofar as it would
restrict theological definition to Nicea and Constantinople: "We desire you to understand that
neither we nor the churches throughout the world profess any other creed or formula of faith than
that of the 318 fathers (of Nicea), which was confirmed by the 150 fathers (of Constantinople)."

(2) PATRIARCHAL SCHISM

Control of the patriarchates became Acacius's first objective in imposing the Henoticon.
Like Eusebius of Nicomedia before him, the Byzantine patriarch strove to replace Catholic
prelates with his own partisans. At Alexandria, the Catholic Timothy White-Turban died about the
time of the publication of the Henoticon. Though the Monophysite Timothy the Cat was also
dead, his disciple, Peter the Hoarse, was making a strong bid for the patriarchal succession. To
avert this, the Catholics put forward John Talaia, member of a delegation sent to seek support at
Constantinople. Talaia, though favorably viewed by Zeno, did not suit Acacius's aims. The latter
utilized a violation of court etiquette to prejudice the emperor against Talaia when the Catholics
elected him after June, 482. Alleging-with what truth is not clearthat Talaia had violated a pledge
not to stand for election, Zeno and Acacius refused him support. Instead they offered to
recognize Peter the Hoarse on condition that he subscribe to the Henoticon. This condition he
was glad to fulfill, and in October, 482, imperial troops installed him in the patriarchal chair. At
Antioch, Calendion (481-85), even though an Acacian nominee, refused to sign the Henoticon.
Zeno then exiled him on a charge of treason, replacing him with his Monophysite rival, Peter the
Fuller (485-88). In Jerusalem, the Acacian nominees, Martyrius (478-86) and Salustius (486-94)
were submissive to Byzantine policy.

Papal intervention brought the question to a decision. John Talaia followed his
predecessor Athanasius's path to Rome. Pope St. Simplicius demanded an explanation of
Acacius, promising to withhold recognition of Talaia until he had heard the objections against him.
Though Acacius could offer no valid excuse, negotiations were still in progress when the pope
died in March, 483. His successor, Felix III (483-92) resumed the inquiry and at length extended
recognition to John Talaia. But the de jure patriarch of Alexandria was never able to regain his
see; he remained in exile at Rome where he died some time after 496. Meanwhile Pope Felix
sent legates, Bishops Vitalis and Misenus, to Constantinople to demand Acacius's submission.
When the envoys were persuaded or coerced into ratifying Acacius's policy, the pope assembled
a council at Rome which excommunicated and deposed both Acacius and the lapsed legates.
Acacius retorted by striking the papal name from the diptychs, thus formally inaugurating the
Henoticon schism. Both Zeno (d. 491) and Acacius (d. 489) remained obdurate until their deaths.
Since their defiance was supported by their nominees in the eastern patriarchates, all these left
Roman communion.

(3) PROLONGATION OF THE SCHISM

At Constantinople, Zeno's widow Ariadne married an elderly civil official, who then
ascended the throne as Anastasius I (491-518). He proved to be a competent administrator and
considerate financeer; he actually removed a burdensome tax, the chrysargyron. He was able to
maintain order and fortify the capital against barbarian attacks and domestic revolts. Despite his
Monophysite tendencies, then, the emperor did not lack support for his secular program. At first
Anastasius asserted his own orthodoxy and complained to the Holy See for excommunicating
him. Pope Symmachus (498-514) replied: "You say that I excommunicated you; so, indeed, I did
but I am following my predecessors. . . . You say: What is it to me what Acacius did? Yield, then,
and it will mean nothing to you." The emperor proving unwilling to change the established stand,
an impasse followed: Anastasius refused to strike Acacius's name from the diptychs, while the
Holy See refused to recognize his patriarchal nominees. Yet the clergy and people of the capital
were for the most part attached to the doctrine of Chalcedon. Patriarchs Fravitas (489-90),
Euphemius (490-96), and Macedonius II (496-511) were personally well disposed toward reunion
with Rome, but were not permitted by the emperor to carry out the papal ultimatum. Papal policy,
at least in the case of Euphemius, seems to have been to refuse recognition in the external
forum, while admitting the pro-Catholic clerics to communion in the internal forum. In 502,
moreover, a number of Eastern bishops appealed to Pope Symmachus for reunion,
acknowledging the "Blessed Peter, Prince of Apostles, whose chair the Good Shepherd assigned
to Your Holiness." But Anastasius finally sided openly with the Monophysites and intruded
Timothy Litrobulus into the Byzantine see (511-18). He explicitly condemned Chalcedon, and so
long as Anastasius lived, reunion prospects were dim.

At Alexandria, the Monophysites gained complete control of the church with the aid of
imperial troops and so entrenched themselves that they remained influential even after such
support was withdrawn. From 482 to 538 the patriarchal throne was occupied uninterruptedly by
Monophysites, though there were theological sub-schisms in their ranks. About 520 the Severian
"Pthartolatrai" began to affirm, while the Julianist "Phantasiastai" denied the corruptibility of
Christ's body.

At Antioch, Monophysite patriarchs held control until 498. When Flavian II (498-512) co-
operated with Macedonius of Byzantium in seeking reunion with Rome, he was replaced by the
Monophysite theologian Severus (512-19), while the Monophysite Philonexes of Hierapolis
roused Syrian nationalism against Constantinople.
 At Jerusalem, however, Catholics monks installed Elias (494-516) whose pro-Roman
attitude led to his replacement by his deacon, who became John III by imperial pressure.

B. Papal Reconciliation (519-38)

(1) BYZANTINE REUNION

Imperial reversal. On July 9, 518, the aged Anastasius died suddenly without having
designated a successor. His chamberlain, Amantius, gave Justin, commander of the imperial
guard, money to distribute in the interest of Theocritus, candidate of the bureaucracy. Justin duly
dispensed the bribe, but substituted his own name. Once made emperor by his troops, Justin
(518-27) could dispense with Aniantius. For though himself ignorant of the details of imperial
government, he had at his side his nephew Justinian, who acted as his prime minister and later
succeeded him as Justinian the Great (527-65).

Restoration of communion. Both Justin and Justinian were devoted to Chalcedon and
they promptly set imperial power in motion on the side of orthodoxy. As early as July 20, 518, the
Henoticon had been revoked and adberence to the decrees of Chalcedon enjoined. Patriarch
Timothy was replaced by John II the Cappadocian (518-20) who was directed to seek
confirmation from the Holy See. The new patriarch disliked his humble role so that negotiations
dragged on during the summer and winter of 518-19. Pope Hormisdas (514-23), besides
reiterating the former conditions for reunion, insisted on John's signature of a profession of faith.
This explicitly recognized the Tome and Chalcedon, anathematized Acacius, Timothy the Cat,
Peter the Hoarse, Peter the Fuller, and others, and formally acknowledged the primacy and
infallibility of the Apostolic See of Rome. Imperial insistence and the exhortations of the papal
legates prevailed upon the patriarch to subscribe on Holy Thursday, March 28, 519. Communion
being restored, the papal legates remained until the following year to supervise the execution of
these arrangements. When John II died in 520, he was succeeded by the orthodox Epiphanius
(520-35) who zealously co-operated with the Holy See until his death.

(2) LEVANTINE REUNION

Antioch, more accessible to Byzantine influence, witnessed imperial troops exile the
incumbent Monophysite patriarch Severus, and install the Catholic Paul II (519-21). The latter's
rigorous exactions and tactless conduct prolonged strife, and Monophysites rallied to the deposed
Severus. Paul was then persuaded to resign, and his Catholic successors, Euphrasius (521-26)
and Ephraem (526-46) restored comparative tranquility.
At Jerusalem, Patriarch John III (516-24), already well disposed to reunion, accepted the
papal-imperial demands without difficulty.

Alexandria, however, cherished its popular Monophysite patriarch Timothy III (518-35),
whom the imperial court feared to expel. But when the Monophysites fell into faction fights after
Timothy's death, Emperor Justinian seized the opportunity to install the orthodox Abbot Paul by
force. But he and his Catholic successors would henceforth be challenged by Monophysite rivals
in exile or even resident in sections of the city itself.

(3) PARTING OF THE WAYS

Definitive alignments. Despite the Three Chapter intrigues yet to be related, Catholics
and Monophysites had reached a definitive parting of the ways, evident at least by historical
hindsight. Whether in cornmunion with Rome or not, the Byzantine emperor and patriarch no
longer countenanced Monophysite pretenders in the other eastern patriarcliates, while the
Catholic titulars of those key sees were often reduced to practical dependence on the support of
the Byzantine capital. The Orient had become divided in ecclesiastical politics between two
major groups, the Melchites and Jacobites.
 The Melchites. "After the Council of Chalcedon, the Monophysites in the patriarchates of
Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem dubbed the orthodox Catholics 'Melkites' from Syrian malok,
'king,' because they professed the orthodoxy of the emperor. The name stuck and is often used
without qualification to designate the Catholic Byzantines of Syria and Egypt, though the dissident
Orthodox are equally Melkites. . . . " Justinian the Great proved to be the great organizer of the
Melchites and his vigorous support of Byzantine orthodoxy, despite his occasional lapses, did
more than anything else to fix on Oriental Catholics the stigma of being "king's men," imperial
prot6g6s. The name proved historically appropriate, for the majority of these Chalcedonians
showed themselves in times of stress "king's men" more than "pope's men." So long as the
emperor and Byzantine patriarch remained in communion with the Holy See, they were Catholic,
but when Michael Cerularius broke with Rome in 1054, he drew with him into schism the
allegiance of most of the Orientals of Greek culture.

The Jacobites. Jacob Baradeus (500-78) has proved the most durable of Monophysite
personalities. At first a monk, he came into prominence in 543 when Empress Theodora, a pro-
Monophysite, secured for him the see of Edessa. He devoted the rest of his life to organizing the
many Monophysite sects into a church, with jurisdictional if not doctrinal unity. He was largely
successful in inducing warring factions to unite on single candidates for the patriarchates, and he
busied himself in consecrating and installing Monophysite bishops wherever possible. Hence the
Monophysites came to have a hierarchical organization, instead of remaining a group of sects on
the Protestant principle. Jacob Baradeus's disciples, the "Jacobites," prevented the Byzantine
reunion efforts so that the Levantine patriarchates, fatally divided internally, fell successively
before the onslaught of the Mohammedans during the first half of the seventh century. The
Jacobites reached a modus vivendi with the infidel conquerors and despite gestures to reunion
with Rome presented a fairly solid front of schism until the seventeenth century.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

44. Justinian Renaissance (518-65)

VII

Defense of the Definitions

44. JUSTINIAN RENAISSANCE

A. Reign of Justinian the Great (527-65)

(1) POLITICAL SURVEY
Emperor Justinian I (483-565) was at the head of imperial administration for nearly half a
century, first as his uncle Justin's prime minister (518-27) and later as sole autocrat. He had
received an excellent education, was endowed with a good intelligence, and showed great
interest in both secular and religious sciences. Meticulous in observing court ceremonial, he was
also a diligent bureaucrat. Despite its shortcomings, especially in the theological field, his reign
can be described as little less than brilliant. But its brilliance mortgaged imperial resources of the
future, and of its gains little survived save his Code.

Imperial aides of the first rank were Empress Theodora, a reformed courtesan, whom he
married. She had great influence on Justinian whom she ruled in many things without letting him
realize it. Her favor toward Monophysitism caused the Church and the Holy See much grief prior
to her death in 548. General Belisarius (505-65) made Justinian's reconquests possible. A bluff
soldier detesting intrigue, he was nonetheless often enmeshed in court politics by his wife
Antonia. judge Tribonian (d. 547) was the chief compiler and editor of the Code, and the
emperor's first civil advisor. Justinian's secretary Procopius left of his master both a laudatory
official account and a derogatory "secret history." Truth probably lies in between, but just where it
is difficult to say.

The Persian War (528-31) with King Kobad proved indecisive, but in its campaigns
Belisarius won his spurs. Thereafter it seems to have been Justinian's policy merely to remain on
the defensive in the East rn order to prosecute reconquest of the West. Further wars (540-45;
549-55) did not exploit a slight Roman advantage, thereby permitting the growth of a serious rival
for the next century.
The Nika Revolt (532). The heavy expenses of these campaigns had drained the
hoarded reserves of Anastasius I and forced Justinian to curb largesses to the populace. The
Circus factions, Blues and Greens, took sides in politics and their rioting grew into rebellion. The
Blues tended to be orthodox, aristocratic, and for Justinian; the Greens favored Monophysitism,
were of more plebeian origin, and sponsored the imperial candidacy of Hypatius, nephew of the
late Anastasius. When Hypatius was proclaimed, Justinian meditated flight, but was steeled to
resistance by Theodora who thought the "imperial purple a good shroud." Belisarius suppressed
the revolt, Hypatius was beheaded, and the Greens slaughtered in such numbers that they
remained long quiet.

Hagia Sophia was burnt down in the course of the revolt, and was replaced by Justinian
with great magnificence. On this architectural triumph he lavished all possible labor and money.
Thereafter it became a Byzantine landmark similar to modern St. Peter's in Rome, though like the
latter it was not technically the cathedral. Long a Turkish mosque, it has been restored as a
museum since 1934.

(2) MILITARY RECONQUEST

Restoration of old frontiers became Justinian's objective in the West. A century after the
Teutonic infiltration he proposed to resume direct government of the western provinces from the
chieftains who posed as Roman governors. Though his army numbered scarcely 120,000 men in
all, Belisarius and the Roman commanders had perfected military science. From the mounted
Huns they learned to make use of a heavily armed cavalry equipped with bows and arrows in
addition to the old Roman swords. These developments combined with the ancient discipline
produced a force which momentarily carried all before it and presaged the transition to the
medieval chivalry-not that the knights ever learned well the lesson of discipline.

African reconquest followed on the appeal of the Catholic Vandal Prince Hilderic,
deposed by the Arian Geilamir. When the latter defied imperial good offices on behalf of
Catholics, Belisarius transferred forces from Persia to Africa by sea. Geilamir not only had
neglected his predecessors' navy, but he allowed the Romans to advance to within ten miles of
Carthage before counterattacking. Within a year he was a prisoner at Constantinople and most
of north Africa again an imperial province, until the Saracen invasion of the seventh century.

Italian reconquest proved more difficult. In Italy, Lady Amalswintha, daughter of

Theodoric the Ostrogoth (491-526), had been murdered by a usurper. This gave the emperor a
pretext for ordering Belisarius to move his victorious army from Africa to Sicily in 535. By
December, 536, Belisarius was in Rome. He defended the city against Ostrogothic counterattack,
and probably would have completed the conquest of the peninsula had he not been recalled in
540 to meet a new Persian offensive. During his absence the Ostrogothic power revived under
Chief Baduila, alias Totila (541-53). Though Belisarius succeeded in retaking Rome in 548 he
was denied sufficient supplies and forces to resume his victories. Recalled in disgrace, he left the
field to Narses. The new general with 20,000 men, thrice Belisarius's forces, returned to Italy by
way of Venice and routed the Goths within a year (552-53). Narses remained as governor of the
new Italian province until 568; within a year of his removal Italy fell to the Lombards.

A Spanish foothold was secured when a disputed succession to the Visigothic chieftaincy
invited intervention in 554. Responding to the invitation of one claimant, Athanagild, Roman
troops reconquered the southern portion of Spain and retained it as a province. Visigothic
reunion balted Roman advance and in the next century the imperialists were gradually pushed
back.
Imperial revival nevertheless seemed well under way in 554, only Merovingian Gaul
unsubdued. For a brief period the empire was again truly Roman in fact as well as name and
governed the Mediterranean world. But Justinian's death marked the end of expansion; nearly all
the western conquests were soon lost, and the empire still juridically ecumenical, became
practically restricted to the Byzantine East. It is in this sense that we term Justinian the Great
"last Roman emperor, and terminate the "Imperialistic Era" with his death.

(3) CLOSE OF THE REIGN

Denouement. Justinian's religious policies will be discussed in the next topic. Here it
remains to note that his serious illness during the Great Plague of 542 and Theodora's death
(548) mark turning points in his reign. The pace of conquest slackened, and in his old age
Justinian prided himself more on his adroit and opportunist diplomacy than on farseeing
statesmanship. Mongol nomads, known as Avars, menaced the northern frontier, but these and
other barbarians were cajoled, bluffed, and bribed, rather than effectively curbed. Justinian did
erect a series of forts, which may have engendered a "Maginot Line mentality." In his dotage, the
emperor dabbled in heresy. When he died at eightythree on December 11, 565, he left a realm
outwardly magnificent, but as doomed to decline as that of the "Sun King," Louis XIV of France.

"To summarize Justinian's entire external policy we must say that his endless and
exhausting wars, which failed to realize all his hopes and projects, had a fatal effect upon the
empire in general. First of all these gigantic undertakings demanded enormous expenditures. . . .
New taxes were greater than the exhausted population could pay. The emperor's attempts to
curtail the expenditures of the state by economizing on the upkeep of the army brought about a
reduction in the number of soldiers, which naturally made the western conquered provinces very
unsafe . . . and the plan of restoring a united Roman Empire died with Justinian, though not
forever. Meanwhile his general external policy brought about an extremely severe internal
economic crisis within the Empire."

B. The Justinian Code

(1) ANALYSIS

The Code proper. Though an incomplete attempt at system had been made in the
Theodosian Code (438), Roman law still remained a chaotic collection of the edicts of centuries,
some contradicted or modified by others, still others literally at variance with the new Christian
spirit of the Roman government. Justinian resolved to prepare a complete codification and in 528
named a commission under Tribonian's presidency to make a compilation of the laws. The first
version of this, the Codex proper, was ready within three years, though a final edition required five
more years. When published, this Codex included 4,652 Constitutions arranged in twelve books
according to subjects. Edicts of Justinian and his predecessors were cited in the original. Today,
of course, the Codex proper has but historical interest as the law of an empire that perished in
1453.

The Digest. Simultaneously the commission reduced to order the mass of judicial
precedents. The final compilation, called the Digesta or Pandectae, condensed 1,544 separate
works of 38 authors into an orderly collection of 50 books. It was published in 533 as an official
guide for legal procedure and future judicial decisions. As a source of precedent, this part of the
Code has enduring value.
The Institutes. Next the first principles of law were collected and arranged to serve as an
official textbook for instruction. Since this portion of the Code treats of permanent legal
principles, it is perhaps of the greatest importance to the general scholar. The foregoing parts
comprise the Justinian Code; all were written in Latin but soon translated into Greek.

The Novellae or "New Laws" were supplements to Code, issued by Justinian himself or
his successors. It is significant that even Justinian's own Novellae were from the first issued in
Greek for in the course of compilation it had been realized that Latin had become practically a
dead language in the central administration of the Roman Empire. While the learned classes
retained an academic knowledge of Latin, in ordinary procedure the Greek of the common folk
was already supplanting it. Hence in the legal and civic sphere, it can be said with some
justification that Justinian's reign witnessed the end of the classic Roman Empire and its transition
to a Byzantine state. In culture, population, territory, to an increasing and alarming degree, it was
becoming axiomatic that "East is East, and West is West."

(2) SECULAR INFLUENCE

In civil law the Code is the parent of all modern systems except the Anglo-Saxon, and
even that has been profoundly influenced indirectly through canon law. It is conceded that in
politics, law, and administration the Roman Empire was pre-eminent in Western civilization. The
Justinian Code is an epitome of Roman political science compiled in its mellow maturity. Its
authors preserved for posterity the most important portions of thousands of works which have
perished. Without the Code it is safe to say that a good portion of Roman jurisprudence would
never have survived.

Historically the Code was long confined to the East, while it was the inferior Theodosian
Code which influenced the first compilations of Teutonic customs. In the West the Carolingian
Capitularies constituted its only rival and these were of short observance. But during the early
medieval Renaissance of the twelfth century, the Code of Justinian was again studied in Italian
law schools, and its absolutist and Caesaro-papist spirit affected Western monarchs and their
legists: Emperors Frederick I and Frederick II as well as French monarchs drank deeply of the
heady wine of quidquid placuit principi, legis habet valorem. And at long last the Justinian Code
was readapted for modern times in the Code Napoleon.

(3) ECCLESIASTICAL INFLUENCE

In canon law the Code was a model for style and organization. In content, of course,
canon law had pre-existed Justinian's work, for it derived its origins from conciliar enactments
since the Apostolic Council of Jerusalem. About 400 the Apostolic Constitutions essayed a
compilation, but primitive canon law became a chaotic collection and repeatedly profited by its
secular model.
In regard to paganism the Code re-enforced old legislation against idolatry and enacted
two new decrees. All pagans were to receive instruction and baptism under penalty of
confiscation of their goods; should they relapse into pagan practices, they were liable to the death
penalty. Surviving temples were closed, magical books seized, and suspects indicted.

In the matter of slavery, its practice was mitigated. Old restrictions from pagan times on
enfranchisement were abolished, and the pagan denial of personality suppressed. Non-Catholics
were forbidden to possess Christian slaves, and enslavement was discontinued as punishment
for crime.
For ecclesiastical jurisdiction the Code confidently laid down norms. Thus Novel 131
stated that "the most holy pope of old Rome is first of all priests, and the most blessed archbishop
of Contantinople, the new Rome, shall have the second place after the most holy Apostolic See of
old Rome." Novels 123 and 131 concerned the patriarchal system as of apostolic origin. Yet the
principle is maintained that at least the Eastern bishops are imperial officials, for regulations are
made for their conduct. They are to send envoys to court and submit their disputes to the
permanent Holy Synod resident at Constantinople under the patriarch's presidency. Novel 123
entered into details of clerical discipline, and Novel 133 concerned itself with monks.
Paradoxically, while clerical privileges and immunity were expressly proclaimed, the Code as a
matter of course prescribed the number of clerics for the church of Constantinople, presumed the
right of providing for creation of bisbops, regulated appeals in clerical trials, etc. All in all,
Justinian's reign, for all its good will toward the Church, may be characterized as the zenith of
Roman Caesaro-papism.

"Justinian's death in 565 ended the last brilliant chapter in what can properly be called
Roman history. The three emperors who succeeded him in the later sixth century were
conscientious men of superior ability who remained loyal to his glorious tradition. Yet they had to
abandon all thought of offensive warfare. Their energies were exhausted in a vain effort to
defend the dominions inherited after Justinian.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

45. Three Chapters Dispute (535-55)

VII

Defense of the Definitions

45. THREE CHAPTERS DISPUTE

A. Antecedents
(1) THEOLOGY OF THE THREE CHAPTERS
The Three Chapters were brief terms for certain designated writings of Theodore of
Mopsuestia, the works of Theodoret of Cyr against St. Cyril and the Council of Ephesus, and the
letter of Ibas of Edessa to Maris. All these works presented a questionable Christology. The
Nestorian tendency of Theodore's writings has already been noted. Theodoret and Ibas used
expressions that might create the impression that Christ's divinity and humanity were not
personally united. All these writings, then, were legitimate objects of theological censure
inasmuch as they contained erroneous or at least unsafe teaching. Whether or not they should
receive this condemnation-with an attendant notorietywas a matter of expediency depending in
the last instance on the judgment of the Holy See.

The authors of the Three Chapters had all been long dead at the opening of the
controversy involving their works. At Chalcedon Theodore (d. 428) was already dead; neither his
person nor works had been discussed. Both Theodoret and lbas had been anathematized and
deposed at the Brigandage of Ephesus, and had been rehabilitated by Chalcedon after they had
condemned Nestorianism and Monophysitism. The latter council, however, had merely accepted
their personal declarations of sincerity; it had not passed upon the orthodoxy of their writings.
Both had died by 457, apparently in Catholic communion. Hence a repudiation of the Three
Chapters would be no real theological reversal of the work of Chalcedon.

(2) POLITICS OF THE THREE CHAPTERS

 A superficial impression, however, prevailed, especially in the West, that condemnation of
the Three Chapters would entail a repeal of the Council of Chalcedon, and therefore as well of its
condemnation of Monophysitism.
The imperial court shared this impression to a degree. Though Justinian was loyal to
Chalcedon, he was not above taking advantage of the popular impression to win over the
Monophysites. His tortuous reasoning seems to have been something like this: to condemn the
Three Chapters will involve no real repudiation of Chalcedon, but Monophysites will think so;
gratified that Catholics share their detestation of their Nestorian archenemies, they will advance
toward reunion. Theodora, on the other hand, had definite Monophysite tendencies and hoped to
discredit Chalcedon by condemning the Three Chapters. In the perennial quest by Byzantine
Caesaro-papism for politico-religious harmony, conferences were held with Monophysite leaders
at Constantinople (531-34). The only important convert was Anthimius of Trebizond, whom
Theodora persuaded the emperor to name to the see of Constantinople at Epiphanius's death in
535. Anthimius's conversion seems to have been fictitious; at any rate, he entered into
communion with Monophysite claimants at Alexandria and Antioch.

(3) IMPERIAL SEARCH FOR HARMONY

Pope St. Agapitus (535-36), however, happened to arrive at Constantinople just at this
moment as mediator in the impending war between Justinian and the Ostrogoths. The pope
exerted his primacy forcefully: not only did he depose Anthimius, but insisted on Justinian's
withdrawal of toleration of the Alexandrian Monophysite claimant. But soon after installing the
orthodox Mermas as patriarch of Constantinople (535-52), the pope died in the capital, April, 536.

Pope St. Silverius (536-38) was chosen to succeed Agapitus at Rome on June 8, 536.
Though duly elected by the Roman clergy, the new pontiff had the support of the Ostrogothic
Prince Theodahad, now at war with Justinian. St. Silverius also offended Theodora by renewing
the condemnation of her protg Anthimius.
Vigilius, St. Agapitus's archdeacon, was still at Constantinople. This ambitious cleric,
once before the uncanonically designated successor to the papacy, seems to have promised the
empress to restore Anthimius if installed in the Apostolic See with imperial help. Such is the
implication of a note said to have been sent by Theodora to Belisarius, who had just captured
Rome. Reluctantly Belisarius arrested St. Silverius, charging him with collaboration with the
Ostrogoths. The real objective appeared when the pope was promised immunity if he would
proclaim Monophysitism. After St. Silverius had thrice refused, he was declared deposed and
sent into exile where he died of malnutrition and ill treatment between November, 537, and June,
538. On the day following St. Silverius's removal, Vigilius was presented to the Roman clergy.
Though some gave him their votes under duress, it is certain that these were later repudiated and
that St. Silverius was recognized as long as he lived. From exile the true pope excommunicated
Vigilius.

Pope Vigilius (540-55). After Silverius's death, however, the Roman clergy acquiesced in
the usurper's claim. For the sake of peace, he seems to have been re-elected, this time validly, in
July, 540. Thereafter he styled himself Bishop of Rome in his correspondence, a thing that he
failed to do in some previous letters attributed to him. In 540 he wrote to Justinian, who could not
have been aware of the full extent of Theodora's plans, protesting his resolution to stand by all
the doctrines and decrees of his predecessors and of the ecumenical councils, and asking the
emperor "that you will not permit the privileges of the See of Blessed Peter the Apostle to be
lessened." His patroness Theodora was astonished by the following apology: "Far be this from
me, Lady Augusta; formerly I spoke wrongly and foolishly; now I assuredly refuse to restore a
man who is a heretic and under anathema (Anthimius). Though unworthy, I am vicar of Blessed
Peter the Apostle, as were my predecessors, the most holy Agapitus and Silverius, who
condemned him ." The Ostrogothic counterattack at this time prevented any immediate imperial
reprisals. But though Vigilius no more than Balaam could resist the Holy Spirit, he was
compromised by his past and would yet do condign penance for his treatment of his predecessor
Silverius, "of holy memory."

B. Condemnation of the Three Chapters

(1) IMPERIAL PROSCRIPTION

Justinian about this time came under the influence of Theodore Askidas, bishop of
Caesarea. This Origenist hoped to divert the imperial attention from the recent (543) proscription
of Origen's works through an attack on the Three Chapters. He seems to have convinced the
emperor that condemnation of these Nestorian works would go far toward conciliating
Monophysites. Accordingly in 544 Justinian issued an edict condemning the Three Chapters,
though without prejudice to Chalcedon. Under threats of deposition, the Eastern patriarchs
ratified this declaration, though Mennas of Constantinople did so only under the proviso that his
action would be sustained by the Holy See. Accordingly all eyes turned toward the unhappy
Pope Vigilius.

(2) PAPAL CONDEMNATION

Vigilius, mindful of the violent opposition aroused against the edict in the West, refused to
subscribe. But imperial troops had by now returned to Italy; Vigilius was seized in Trastevere
while saying Mass and carried off to Constantinople. During his long, interrupted
voyageNovember, 545 to January, 547-be was subjected to pressure from both sides by his
captors and residents of the places at which the fleet halted. On his arrival at the imperial capital,
Vigilius at first refused to sign the edict and denied communion to the patriarchs who had done
so. Under continual pressure and argument, however, he began to waver. First he intimated that
he might sign under certain conditions; then he conferred with various bishops; finally he resumed
communion with Mennas and his associates.

The judicature, issued by the pope on April 11, 548, was the result of such negotiations.
From surviving fragments it seems that Vigilius issued a qualified condemnation of the Three
Chapters with the explicit condition that no repudiation of Chalcedon was to be inferred.
Dissatisfaction appeared at once, especially in the West. At Carthage Archdeacon Facundus
published a vigorous Defense of the Three Chapters, and Archbishop Reparatus presided over a
synod which excommunicated Vigilius (549). When these storm signals were reported to the
pope, he hesitated again. He himself was weak and lacking prestige by reason of his previous
conduct, and fearful of giving scandal on either side, he revoked the Judicatum on August 15,
550. But he seems to have been allowed to do so by Justinian only on condition of convoking an
ecumenical council.

Imperial pressure, however, was exerted on the pope pending this assembly. In 551
Justinian, again on the advice of Theodore Askidas, issued the Homologia (Confession) which
repeated the condemnation of the Three Chapters with thirteen anathematizations. Stiffened by
his archdeacon Pelagius, later pope, Vigilius now advised the hierarchy not to accept the
Homologia; when Mennas nevertheless did so, he excommunicated him. Again imperial troops
seized the pope's person, but this time the indignant faithful drove the soldiers from the church,
St. Peter's in Constantinople. During the night of December 23, 551, Vigilius was helped into a
boat which took him across the strait to Chalcedon.

(3) CONCILIAR CONDEMNATION

The Encyclical, a papal defense issued from the very church in which the Council of
Chalcedon had been held, appeared on February 5, 552. In this Vigilius recited the injuries he
had received from the emperor, renewed his ban on Mennas, and deposed Theodore Askidas.
Thus denounced to Christendom, Justinian hastily reversed his tactics. He promised the pope
that he would not be molested further and ordered Mennas and Askidas to make their
submission. The pope returned to Constantinople and restored both to communion. Soon
afterwards Mennas died and was replaced by Eutychius (553-65) who subscribed to St. Leo's
Tome before receiving papal confirmation. During this tranquil interlude the long delayed council
assembled.

The Second Council of Constantinople comprised some 150 to 164 bishops, all but ten of
them from the East. Vigilius refused to commit himself immediately to the Council which opened
on May 5, 553, under Patriarch Eutychius's presidency. The first six sessions from May 5 to May
19 were devoted to an examination of the works of the accused authors. Though the bishops
frequently expressed disapproval of various expressions, no definitive judgment had been
pronounced when the pope re-entered the Three Chapter dispute.

The (First) Constitutum, issued by Vigilius on May 14, 553, was an excellent document,
possibly in large part composed by Pelagius. It reaffirmed the teaching and authority of the
Council of Chalcedon; declared its verdict on the persons of Theodoret and Ibas sufficient;
refused to condemn their works nominatim, but subjoined five anathemas against Nestorian
propositions from no matter what source; and directed that further discussion of the matter cease.
Imperial-conciliar defiance. Justinian, angered that the pope had presumed to regulate
doctrine without imperial consent, explained to the seventh conciliar session on May 26 that,
though he wished to remain in communion with the Holy See, he had lost patience with Vigilius.
All of the bishops save sixteen who had cosigned the Constituturn accepted this distinction
between sedis and sedentis. In their final session on June 2 they issued fourteen anathemas
against the person and writings of Theodore, and the works of Theodoret and Ibas, always saving
the authority of the general councils, including Chalcedon. Then 164 bisbops signed the decrees
and removed Vigilius's name from the diptychs.

Papal confirmation was now sought by threats and entreaties. Prompt ratification of the
conciliar acts throughout the East convinced Vigilius that further resistance was inexpedient. The
condemnation of the indicted Three Chapters, as already explained, might be made without
doctrinal error, and the Council seemed to have sufficiently safeguarded the authority of
Chalcedon. On December 8, 553, Vigilius sent Patriarch Eutychius a letter pro confirmations
quintae synodi oecumenicae in which he ratified the conciliar condemnation. Then on February
23, 554, he issued a (Second) Constitutum, a rather apologetic document which tried to allay
Western disquietude. Before he left the capital, Vigilius was given the probably unwanted
Pragmatic Sanction, August 13, 554, giving him supervisory powers over the restored Roman
province in Italy, though, it seems, admitting an imperial privilege to confirm future papal
elections.

C. Sequel of the Three Chapter Dispute

(1) WESTERN DISSATISFACTION

Pelagius, Vigilius's archdeacon, was elected to succeed the pope who had died on June
7, 555, at Sicily on his route to Rome. From his consecration, April, 556, the new pope faced a
difficult task. The Italians were angry at imperial dictation and in no way reconciled to the
reconquest. They accused Vigilius and Pelagius of betraying Chalcedon, and the latter resorted
to the unprecedented step of making a public profession of his own faith. In St. Peter's Basilica
he declared under oath to the clergy and people that he accepted the five ecumenical councils
and had been guilty of no theological treason. Explaining, defending, threatening, Pelagius had
all he could do to win back the loyalty of his own ecclesiastical province. Local schisms broke out
in Africa, Tuscany, Dalmatia, and Lombardy. Save in Lombardy, these were not of lasting
duration and the situation had improved by the pope's death in March, 561.

The Lombard schism had begun when Paulinus of Aquileia and Vitalis of Milan led a
number of bishops in a vigorous protest against condemnation of the Three Chapters which
amounted to a refusal to accept the decrees of Vigilius and the Council. Exarch Narses did not
invoke the civil power against them, and the Lombard invasion of 568 placed them out of reach of
imperial troops. At Milan, Auxanius, successor of Vitalis, returned to Roman communion in 566,
but the schism continued in vigor at Aquileia. St. Gregory the Great reduced its extent somewhat,
but not until 700 did Peter of Aquileia make his submission to Pope Sergius.

(2) ORIENTAL ABERRATIONS

Justinian found no similar opposition to the condemnation of the Three Chapters in the
East, but in his dotage himself embraced the tenets of a Monophysite sectarian, Julian of
Halicarnassus. In 565 an imperial edict imposed the emperor's whim on his subjects, and
Patriarch Eutychius was deposed for opposing it. St. Anastasius of Antioch denounced the
imperial edict, but it soon died with the aged emperor on November 15, 565.

Justin II, Justinian's nephew and successor (565-76), reissued the Henoticon in an
attenuated form (567, 571). Many bishops were deposed for resistance but no Monophysites
were converted.
Tiberius II (574-82), Justin's adopted heir, returned to orthodoxy and recalled Eutychius to
the Byzantine see. Thereafter Constantinople excluded both Nestorianism and Monophysitism as
such, but the next century would see the court's search for the magic "theologian's stone" turn up
a derivative of the latter heresy, Monotheletism. But for the "Imperialist Era," we have reached
the end of the Three Chapters.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

46. The Papacy and the Ostrogoths (492-590)

VII

Defense of the Definitions

46. THE PAPACY AND THE OSTROGOTHS

A. Ostrogothic Environment (489-568)

(1) GOTHIC INSTITUTIONS
Ethnology. The Ostrogoths, as already noted, were a Teutonic people that invaded Italy
in 489. Their numbers were estimated at between 200,000 and 300,000, divided into clan units of
from 50 to 500 persons. They had already acquired something of Roman civilization in the
Balkans, and proved capable of living in comparative harmony with their new Italian subjects.
They took over about a third of the public lands, chiefly by confiscation from Odovaker and his
followers. Compared with the policies of other German invaders, this procedure was mild. The
new Gothic landowners were required to pay taxes; aqueducts and public works were repaired
and maintained; grain distributions continued. There was, then, comparatively little disturbance to
the ancient Roman way of life.

Civic administration. Under Ostrogothic rule, each nation, Roman and Gothic, lived
under its own law and officials. Theodoric's Edictum summarized and adapted Roman law to new
conditions so that Ennodius claimed that he "put Rome again in harmony with its past."
Administration was conducted by Roman methods, with the princepatrician supplying the
emperor's place. The senate was highly esteemed and its members employed as administrators
and envoys. Since only two Goths are known to have been enrolled, it remained an aristocratic
and conservative body. It supervised the city police, organized public games, administered
schools and guilds, deliberated on legislation, ratified royal edicts. If by no means the active
element of government, it was at least consulted on all important affairs. The honorary consulate
was retained and the consuls and senators continued to reside at Rome though the prince set up
his court at Ravenna. It was here that, according to Roman practice, he surrounded himself with
a praetorian guard, and a bureaucracy. These offices were not confined to the Goths;
Cassiodorus served as secretary of state at Ravenna from 497 to 540, while Boethius was master
of official patronage from 510 to 523. Local officials were generally continued in office. Even
Procopius, Justinian's hypercritical secretary, admitted that Theodoric's rule was worthy of the
best Roman precedents.

Ecclesiastical policy. Though the Ostrogoths were for the most part Arians, very little
religious friction developed in Italy under Theodoric. Complete liberty of worship was guaranteed
and anti-Semitism repressed. Only when Emperor Justin issued an edict against the Arians of
the empire, of which Italy was still nominally a part, were Theodoric's suspicions aroused late in
life, and some anti-Catholic measures taken. Theodoric, indeed, assumed rights claimed by his
imperial predecessors regarding papal and episcopal jurisdiction, but with few exceptions his
intervention was not unduly meddlesome. As was the imperial custom, he added civil ratiflcation
to ecclesiastical decrees, but did not presume to discuss doctrinal questions. He was particularly
considerate of the hierarchy's temporal position, recognizing in them advocates of the poor and
oppressed. On one occasion the Ligurian taxes were reduced at the pleas of Bishop Epiphanius.
On the whole, therefore, the Ostrogothic regime was not oppressive.

(2) HISTORICAL SURVEY

Theodoric the Great (489-526) ought not to be judged from his murder of Odovaker at the
beginning of his reign and the execution of Boethius at its close. His domestic policy was
peaceful until the shadow of Byzantine reconquest, perhaps, aroused his fears in his last years.
Then Boethius and his father-in-law Symmachus, dean of the Senate, were accused of
treasonable correspondence with the Byzantine court and put to death. Theodoric's foreign policy
was designed to weld the new Teutonic principalities of the West into a strong confederacy under
his lead. He reoccupied the abandoned Roman provinces of Rhaetia and Noricum which he
settled with refugees from Clovis's territories. He married Clovis's sister Augofleda and strove to
bind the Franks to his cause. When Clovis defeated and killed Alaric II of the Visigoths (507),
Theodoric assumed the guardianship of the latter's infant grandson, Amalric, whom he defended
from further Frankish conquests. Theodoric's daughter was married to Prince Sigismund of the
Vandals and his own sister wedded to Prince Thrasimund of the Vandals. By these alliances
Theodoric for a short time anticipated Charles the Great's reunion of the West, but the whole
confederacy lapsed with his death.

Theodoric's successors soon had to contend with Byzantine arms. His daughter
Amalswintha ruled for her son Athalaric (526-34) until, after his premature death, she was married
to and murdered by Theodahad (535-36). The latter, however, was brave only against women.
When he neglected to oppose Belisaritis's invasion, the Goths in a folkmoot deposed him and
raised Witiges to the throne (536-40). This elderly chief was no general; within four years he lost
Rome and Ravenna to the Byzantine forces. After two short-lived princes had tried to rally the
Ostrogoths, Totila (541-53) led them in a temporarily successful revolt. Rome was retaken in 549
and the Greeks nearly expelled from Italy. But Narses returned in 553 to defeat and kill Totila and
put an end to the Ostrogothic principality.

Byzantine administration did little to win the affections of either Italians or Ostrogoths.
Narses became exarch, a post combining civil and military functions. He set up his capital at
Ravenna (553-68), and entrusted provincial government to duces who became virtually
autonomous after the Lombard invasion (568). Oppressive taxes imposed on the exhausted land
proved one of the reasons why the Italians showed slight interest in defending the imperial
interests against the Lombards. The Justinian Code regulated relations of the hierarchy to the
state in Caesaro-papist fashion. The Pragmatic Sanction (554) granted the popes rights of
supervision over all city officials, with authorization to inspect fortifications and aqueducts,
regulate hospitals and welfare institutions, and imposed responsibility for the grain supply, and
later, for payment of troops. If such concessions made the pope virtually prefect of Rome, they
subjected him to dictation by the emperor and exarch. But the Lombard invasion, beginning in
568, cut off Rome from Ravenna and prepared the way for Italian isolation from Constantinople.

B. Survey of Papal History (492-590)

(1) ITALIAN ECHOES OF THE "HENOTICON" (492-523)

Pope Gclasius I (492-96) inherited from his predecessor Felix the trying Acacian schism.
He had been archdeacon and resolutely continued the Roman policy of resistance to Byzantine
demands. Against Emperor Anastasius, he made an important distinction between the two chief
powers, papal and imperial, priestly and civil. This enunciation of the theory of the dyarchy will be
analyzed at greater length at the opening of the "Feudal Period." Here it may be noted that
though the Monophysite Anastasius showed no appreciation of the papal distinction, Theodoric
observed it in practice. The zealous pope is believed to have introduced the feast of the
Purification to blot out remnants of the pagan feast of Lupercalia.

Pope Anastasius II (496-98) tried to win back the Acacians by kindness without doctrinal
compromise. When no essential change resulted, an influential faction formed at Rome was
disposed to such compromise.
Pope Symmachus (498-514). When Deacon Symmachus, a resolute defender of
orthodoxy, was elected by a majority of the Roman clergy on November 22, the patrician Festus
induced the compromisers to Put forward the arclipriest Lawrence. While Symmachus was
consecrated in the Lateran, Lawrence was setting himself up as bishop in St. Mary Major. Both
claimants appealed to Prince Theodoric, who pronounced in favor of the nominee of the majority.
Lawrence yielded on March 1, 499, and was assigned the diocese of Nucera in Campania. Later
in the same year Pope Symmachus assembled in Rome an important council attended by 72
bishops, 69 Roman priests, and 6 deacons. This body formally recognized the long-standing
custom of majority voting for validity of papal elections. Decrees were enacted against promises,
electioneering, or voting during an incumbent's lifetime, though the latter was entitled to make a
recommendation of a successor to the clerical electors.

Synodus Palmaris (501). But in 501 Festus renewed his efforts by accusing Symmachus
of improper celebration of Easter, gross immorality, and misuse of property. Festus induced
Theodoric to name Bishop Peter of Altinum as administrator of the Holy See with authority to
investigate these charges. The Catholics with papal approval suggested convocation of a council
of Italian bishops as a fairer mode of procedure. The prince agreed, and in May, 501, some 150
bishops met in Santa Maria in Trastevere. This council, nicknamed the "Palm Synod," codified an
important precedent. After some hesitation and evasion, the bishops asserted that: "It is an
unheard of and quite unprecedented thing that the pontiff of this see should be brought up for trial
and judgment by his subjects." The bishops of Gaul, when constilted, replied in a similar vein
through Bishop Avitus of Vienne. In the face of this verdict, it was useless for Lawrence to
resume his pretensions (502-5) and ratify the Henoticon. Excommunicated by Pope
Symmaebus, he was driven out of Rome by Theodoric's order. Paschasius, a phantom antipope,
kept up the schism until the election of 514.

Pope Hormisdas (514-23), an able diplomat, saw the end of both the local and the
general schism. His profession of faith for the acceptance by the Acacians, the Formula of
Hormisdas, asserted Chalcedonian doctrine and papal primacy. Not only did this beal the
Henoticon dispute, but was often used by himself and his successors as a test of a bishop's
orthodoxy. During his pontificate, St. Peter's received gifts of two silver candelabra from
Theodoric and a golden coronet from Clovis the Frank. St. Hormisdas, who had been married
before his election, was the father of the future Pope Silverius.

(2) VICISSITUDES OF THE OSTROGOTHIC WAR (523-55)

Pope John I (523-26) was the victim of Theodoric's dotage. When Emperor Justin I
closed Arian churches in Constantinople in 524, the Ostrogothic prince directed the pope to
advise the change of this policy, and against his protests bundled him off to Constantinople.
Though the pope refused to endorse Theodoric's demand that recent Arian converts to Catholicity
be restored to Arianism, he did request that certain Arian churches be spared. Theodoric's spies
had observed the pope, and on his return he was imprisoned. He died in confinement, May, 526.

Pope Felix IV (526-30) was almost nominated by Theodoric, though the Roman clergy
went through the form of an election. Roman and Gothic cliques now appeared which
disregarded the decree of 499 against electioneering. As soon as Theodoric had been
succeeded by the less masterful Amalswintha, Pope Felix took action in hope of averting a new
schism. Against all precedent, he named his archdeacon Boniface as his successor and directed
that he be installed forthwith at his own death.

Papal nomination became the canonical question of the hour when Felix IV died on
September 22, 530. When Boniface immediately had himself consecrated without formality of
election, the majority of the Roman clergy-60 of an estimated 70 priests-refused to recognize him
and on the same day chose Deacon Dioscorus. There is good reason to hold that he was the
true pope during the twenty days of life that remained to him. Fortunately after his death on
October 14, the Roman clergy accepted his rival Boniface. But when Boniface II (530-32) in turn
proceeded to nominate Deacon Vigilius as his own successor, the clergy protested so vehemently
that late in 531 the pope admitted to a clerical assembly that he had acted uncanonically, and
annulled his decree in favor of Vigilius. The final action on this question was taken by Pope St.
Agapitus who in 535 rehabilitated Dioscorus and formally forbade a pope to name his own
successor.

Pope John II (533-35) is the first pontiff known to have changed his name upon election;
evidently he felt that his original name of Mercury might recall the "age of the gods." Before his
election, he is described as "cardinal-priest of St. Clement." Curiously just as the new Christian
senate of cardinals is first explicitly mentioned, the classical secular senate passes out of history.
During John's pontificate the senate issued a decree against simony in papal elections; this
seems to have exhausted it, for it is never known to have issued another. At Justinian's request,
the pope admitted with proper safeguards the formula, "one of the Trinity suffered."

Pope Agapitus (535-36) went to Constantinople in a vain effort to avert the Byzantine-
Gothic war. His mission, as already noted, was providential in exposing Monophysitism in the
capital.
Pope Silverius (536-38), elected when word of Agapitus's death in Constantinople
reached Italy, was the victim of Theodora's machinations and died in exile.
Pope Vigilius (540-55) likewise spent most of his stormy career away from Rome. During
his absence, the archpriest Mareas administered the local affairs of the Roman church. He
probably would have been chosen to succeed Vigilius had he not died in August, 555, about the
time that news of the pope's death reached Rome.

(3) THE PAPACY AND THE EXARCHATE (556-90)

 Pope Pelagius I (556-61), formerly Vigilius's deacon, was consecrated in April, 556.
What time he could spare from his appeasement of the Three Chapter dispute was devoted to
repairing the ravages of war in Rome.
Pope John III (561-74), formerly the patrician Roman cleric Catelinus, was consecrated in
July, 561. He witnessed the beginning of the Lombard invasion of Italy. The troubled times which
ensued are reflected in the dearth of pontifical acts surviving from his reign: either the chancery
records were interrupted or destroyed.

Pope Benedict I (575-79) is even less known. Rome escaped capture by the Lombards,
but communications with Constantinople and Ravenna were frequently cut off.
Pope Pelagius II (579-90) seems to have been of Gothic ancestry: the Liber Pontificalis
gives his father's name as Unigild. If he be the first Teutonic pope, his choice aptly heralds the
coming era of Teutonic Feudalism. Pope Pelagius labored to protect Rome from Lombards
without and to find shelter for refugees within. With utter selflessness, "he made of his own
house an almshouse for aged poor." Pestilence broke out in the crowded city and claimed the life
of the worthy pontiff on February 7, 590. In their distress the Roman clergy and people with one
accord turned to his deacon, Gregorius Gor anus Anicius, Roman patrician of ancient lineage, to
be pope as St. Gregory the Great, the so-called "keynoter" of the medieval papacy.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

47. Teutonic Arianism (375-589)

VII

Defense of the Definitions

47. TEUTONIC ARIANISM

A. The Gothic Mission

(1) CHRISTIAN BEGINNINGS IN THE CRIMEA
The Goths were the first of the Teutonic peoples to come into contact with Christianity
and the Roman Empire; in the fourth century they were a portent of the migrations to come. It is
believed that they arrived in the Crimean region from Scandinavia during the second century.
Here they developed a strong power that extended to the Roman frontier at the Danube, and
during the third century they raided the Balkan provinces.

Christianity seems to have come to their notice through captives carried off during these
raids. Eutyches, one of the first known missionaries to the Goths, was a Byzantine victim of one
of these forays. There is little information about these early missions, but it is known that Bishop
Theophilus of the Goths attended the Council of Nicea in 325. The Byzantine forms of these
names suggest that a native clergy had not yet developed. The schismatic Audius who refused to
accept the Nicene regulations on the celebration of Easter was sent by Constantine to Scythia
where he founded a sect known by his name.

Wulfila (311-83) became a most famous missionary. This "wolflet" was a native Goth who
came to Constantinople some time after Nicea. He was no theological dolt and seems to have
accepted Arianism knowingly. About 340 he was consecrated bishop by Eusebius of Nicornedia
for the Gothic mission. He then returned to the Crimea and the Ukraine where he labored for
some ten years.
 Arianism was introduced to the Goths by Wulfila who captured his compatriots' attention
by translating the Bible into the Runic alphabet in use among them. From the profession of faith
included in his last testament we learn that Wulfila was vague about the Son's divinity and franklv
Macedonian in regard to the Holy Ghost, a tenet which presupposed Arian subordinationism.
Thus he claimed that there is "only one God of all, who is also our God, and one only Holy Ghost,
neither God nor Lord, but Christ's minister." Probably Wulfila left the profession vague to cover all
existing varieties of Arianism. At any rate, his teaching made a lasting impression on his
countrymen who remained tenacious Arians even after entering the Roman Empire.

Gothic migration began in 350 when Wulfila and some of his converts took refuge at
Nicopolis in Roman Moesia. But other Christians, Nicean, Arian, and Audian, are known to have
remained, for new refugees are reported in 370, and others probably came With Chief Fritigern in
376.

(2) ARIAN SURVIVAL WITHIN THE EMPIRE

Moesian reservation. When Fritigern brought his tribe into the empire, the Arianizing
Valens assigned them to Wulfila's ministrations. Wulfila and his secretary and successor Serena
exercised supervision from Nicopolis over the Gothic foederati on the imperial frontiers. Those
Goths who preserved their tribal autonomy and customs tended to cling to Arianism as a
distinguishing trait from their Roman overlords; on the other hand, Romanized Goths, especially
after the restoration of orthodoxy at Constantinople in 381, were inclined to become Catholic.
The nationalistic Goths had been pacified with difficulty and constituted a standing menace to
imperial security; hence the anti-Arian edicts of Theodosius were not enforced against such
dangerous allies.

Gothic Arianism spread to neighboring German tribes outside the Empire: Gepidae,
Rugians, Suevi, Vandals, Heruli, Burgundians. Thus it came about that most of the Teutonic
invaders of the fifth century would be divided from the Romans in religion as well as race, further
delaying fusion of the two cultures. St. Chrysostom. at Constantinople was solicitous for
converting the Goths, and St. Severinus (d. 482) made many converts in Noricum and Dacia. But
the Ostrogoths carried Arianism to Italy and the Visigoths to Spain.

B. Visigothic Estrangement (415-586)

(1) SECULAR BACKGROUND

Visigothic administration, which between 415 and 507 extended over a large part of
Spain and Gaul, was intermediate in severity between Ostrogothic and Vandal policy, for the
Visigoths appropriated two thirds of the public lands. If the Ostrogoths were friendly to Rome and
the Vandals hostile, the Visigoths were suspicious and aloof. About 475 a Visigothic Code
recognized Roman law for cases involving Romans, while borrowing many items from Roman law
to regulate Gothic and Gothic-Roman relations. Though inferior to the Ostrogothic Code, it
exhibited a certain appreciation of Roman legal principles, and some solicitude for justice. In 506
the Lex Romana Visigothorum, known from its promulgator, Breviarium Alaraci, adapted the
Theodosian Code (438) for the use of the Roman subjects. Only after the religious barrier had
been removed, however, did the races fraternize and a common legal code come into use (654).

Visigothic political history is for the most part a dreary record of assassinations and
rebellions. But Theodoric I (419-51) rallied to Roman defense and died fighting against Attila at
Chalons. His son Euric (466-83) completed Visigothic expansion and ruled with a firm hand from
the Loire to Gibraltar. But his son Alaric II (483-507) perished in battle with Clovis the Frank and
thus the realm of his grandson Amalrie (507-31) was largely confined to Spain. After a series of
internal contests, complicated by the Byzantine invasion, Leovigild (567-86) restored order,
repulsed the imperialists, and conquered the Suevi. While contests for the throne would recur,
Visigothic Spain experienced no attacks from without until the Moorish invasion of 711.
 (2) VISIGOTHIC RELIGION

Arianizing policy. The Visigoths, Arians as well as their Ostrogothic cousins, did not
accord Catholics the same religious liberty. Though they did not adopt the bloodthirsty measures
of the Vandals, they did subject Catholic Romans to a veritable persecution. They were
continually being induced to apostasize and endured many deprivations of civil rights. While the
Suevi were for the most part converted to Catholicity, they seem to have been unable to
withstand Visigothic pressure and relapsed under the rule of Theodoric II (453-66) and Euric
(466-83). The latter was also severe toward Catholics of Roman ancestry, harassing them in
many ways so far as scanty records indicate. After the Roman attempt at reconquest of Spain
had begun in the south, the Visigoths could charge that Catholic Romans were sympathetic to the
invaders and therefore disloyal to the Visigothic state. During the fifth and sixth centuries there
are also reports of Priscillianism, but after new condemnations at Braga in 536 and 563, it seems
to have disappeared.

(3) LEOVIGILD'S PERSECUTION

Prince Leovigild was an able statesman resolved to save Spain from the anarchy that
had plagued it. As a means to unity he strove to coerce his Catholic subjects into the official
Arianism. Having himself renounced Roman suzerainty, he accused Romans of treason in
supporting the Byzantine invasion. Physical torture was sometimes used to secure Arian
rebaptism of Catholics, and even the Princess Ingunthis was thrown into the fish pond with that
intent. Legal discrimination and bribery were employed against the laity, and an ambiguous
formula sought to ensnare the clergy. One bishop, Vincent of Saragossa, was captured for
Arianism in this way.

St. Hermenegild proved to be the Jonas whose sacrifice brought peace. Leovigild's
elder son by his first wife Theodosia, he was married to the Catholic Frankish princess Ingunthis,
who engaged in disputes with Leovigild's Arian second wife, Galswintha. To end this domestic
wrangling, perhaps, Leovigild named Hermenegild governor of Andulasia and packed the young
people off to Seville. Here the bishop, St. Leander, completed the prince's conversion. After
baptism he openly professed his Catholic Faith. When his father decreed his deposition and
disinheritance, the militant neophyte deemed revolt justified. In 580 he summoned to his aid all
Catholics, Roman, Suevic, and Visigothic. This coalition held out for several years until Leovigild
asserted his power and put his son in prison. Every effort was made to force Hermenegild into
Arianism. When that doughty Catholic champion drove an Arian prelate from his cell, Leovigild in
a moment of fury decreed his son's beheading, April 13, 585.

"Seed of Christians." Never was Tertullian's dictum truer than in the case of St.
Hermenegild. For Leovigild really loved his son, and when he recovered from his wrath was an
aged and broken man. He is said to have urged his second son to emulate his brother rather
than his father when he died exactly a year after St. Hermenegild's martyrdom, April 13, 586.
Visigothic conversion, then, was not far distant.

C. Burgundian Particularism

Arian Burgundians occupied southeastern Gaul and Switzerland, under their chieftain
Gundecar (407-36). His successor Gunderic (436-67) suffered a crippling defeat from the Huns
and was glad to settle peacefully as a Roman ally. But through a certain Gundioch of the
Visigothic royal family, the tribe became infected with Arianism, and during the latter half of the
fifth century the Burgundians allied themselves with the Visigoths. Division of the realm among
Gunderic's four sons exposed it to the attacks of the Franks. Clovis defeated them in 499 and
married Gunderic's granddaughter St. Clothilda. Though her cousin Sigismund (516-23) became
a Catholic, this failed to save him from Frankish attacks. Burgundy, shielded until 526 by
Theodoric the Ostrogoth, succumbed in 533 to conquest by the Franks. Though the Burgundians
gradually adopted Catholicity, they long preserved their racial autonomy within the Frankish
monarchy.

D. Vandal Persecution (429-535)

(1) HISTORICAL SURVEY (429-698)

Genseric, chief of the Vandals from 428 to 477, abandoned Spain to the Visigoths in May,
429, and led an estimated 80,000 of his countrymen into Africa. The Roman provinces were
speedily overrun and Carthage captured in 439. Genseric built up naval strength which enabled
him to raid Rome itself in 455 and repulse an imperial armada in 468.
Vandal rule became proverbial for heartless rapacity. Genseric was less a statesman
than an extortioner. Unlike the Ostrogoths, the Vandals subjected all Roman lands to seizure or
confiscatory taxation. The Vandal prince, who made no distinction between public and private
revenues, imposed special head taxes' fines, and commercial dues in excess of the already
burdensome imperial taxes. Though the Roman social system was not disturbed, fewer Romans
were included in the administration than elsewhere, and these were employed rather as servants
than as colleagues. Romans were excluded from the armed forces, and forbidden intermarriage
with Vandals. The subject race was allowed the use of its own law in cases affecting Romans
exclusively, but all disputes between Romans and Vandals were subjected to Vandal customs.
Vandal princes combined judicial, political, and military functions. Their principality, then, was a
military despotism which made little effort to conciliate its subjects. The Vandals seized the
material advantages of Roman civilization and turned them against their former possessors.

Genseric's successors, his son Hunneric (477-84) and grandsons Gunthamund (484-96)
and Thrasimund (496-523), were all Arians and hostile to Catholicity and Rome. Hilderic (523-
31 ), son of Genseric's Roman captive, Princess Eudoxia, briefly changed this policy, but merely
provoked an Arian reaction tinder his cousin Gelamir who deposed him and seized the throne
(530-34). As already noted, this afforded Justinian a pretext to put an end to Vandal rule in North
Africa; by 535 the Roman province was restored.

Imperial administration found an exhausted territory and many years were needed to
restore prosperity. This seems to have been done by the beginning of the seventh century when
the African governor, Herachus, was invited to ascend the Byzantine throne. However, during the
reign of his son, Heraclius junior (610-41), the Mobammedans defeated the empire, and between
670 and 698 they spread over northern Africa. Save for ephemeral medieval crusading raids, this
area remained under their control until the nineteenth century.

(2) VANDAL RELIGIOUS POLICY

Genscric was a fanatical Arian who heeded the recriminations of Arian bishops against
Catholics and Donatists alike. He seems to have vowed destruction of the hierarchy and
apostacy of the laity, though at times fear of imperial reprisal induced him to dissemble or modify
his persecution. All Catholic bishops whom he could safely apprehend were imprisoned or exiled.
Though there were several executions, death does not seem to have been the usual penalty. For
propaganda purposes Genseric tolerated a Catholic bishop at Carthage for a while, but toward
the end of his reign felt secure enough to keep the primatial see vacant. Catholic churches were
destroyed or given to Arians, and Catholic worship driven into private houses.

Hunneric (477-84) was intent on establishing a national Arian church to preserve religious
and political uniformity. Though he humored an embassy from Emperor Zeno by permitting
election of Bishop Eugene to Carthage in 481, he proved a fanatical and bloody persecutor of the
clergy. On one occasion nearly 5,000 were driven into the desert and probable death. In 483 he
arranged a dogmatic debate at Carthage and compelled the attendance of Catholic bishops.
Those who refused to take an oath of allegiance were exiled for treason; those who consented
were exiled for breaking the evangelical maxim against swearing. An edict forbade anyone to
give aid or support to these clerical exiles. Patricians and officials were given their choice
between apostasy and confiscation. So fanatical did Hunneric and his Arian clergy become that
in some cases they forcibly rebaptized Catholics with Arian rites. During the last year of his reign
Hunneric conducted himself like a madman, turning his suspicious hatred against his own family.

Gunthamund (484-96) gave the Catholics some respite. Bishop Eugene of Carthage and
some of the clerical exiles were allowed to return and a few of the churches reopened. Pope
Felix III decreed that apostate clerics should take their places with the catechumens until death;
apostate laymen were given lesser penances.
Thrasimund (496-523) returned to sterner methods. Bishop Eugene was at once
banished to Gaul and his see remained vacant for the rest of the reign. Some 120 other bishops
were exiled, most of them to Sardinia. One of these was St. Fulgentius. Once recalled for
indoctrination, he was hastily sent back to Sardinia when he converted a number of Arians.
Thrasimund resorted to most of Hunneric's measures, but does not seem to have equaled him in
ferocity.

Gelamir (530-34) after another respite for the Church under the Catholic Hilderic (523-30)
resumed persecution during the short interval before the overthrow of the Vandal principality.
The result. The Vandal persecution practically extinguished Donatism, and destroyed the
inordinate independence of the African hierarchy toward Rome. Catholicity revived but after
Bishop Victor (635-?) the see of Carthage had no ordinary until Cardinal Lavigerie in 1884,
though isolated Catholics survived into the middle ages.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

48. Christian Missions

VII

Defense of the Definitions

48. CHRISTIAN MISSIONS

A. Oriental Missions
(1) ARMENIA
St. Gregory the Illuminator (257-324) is revered as Apostle of Armenia. He was the son
of the Parthian prince Anou, a circumstance that commended him to the Armenian royal family.
From 294 he labored in Armenia and is inscribed as founder and first primate or katholikos of their
national church. About 300 St. Gregory converted King Tiridates II (259-314) and that monarch
presently declared Christianity the official religion. Rapid but superficial conversion followed, for
Armenian politics favored Christianity as a counterpoise to the Mazdaism of the threatening
neighbor state of Persia. St. Gregory founded a monastery and see at Achtichat with jurisdiction
over ten dioceses. But the Armenian church continued under the jurisdiction of Archbishop
Leontius of Caesarea in Cappadocia. During the persecution of Maximin Daia Armenian
Christians sometimes offered armed resistance.
 Armenian Catholicity. After St. Gregory's death. the primatial see became almost
hereditary among his lineal descendants who became deeply involved in national politics.
Arianism made certain inroads, but was eventually rejected through the efforts of St. Basil,
metropolitan of the Armenian mission. But the Armenian Church soon fell in line with the anti-
Byzantine policy of Prince Pap of Armenia (370-77) and in 374 repudiated all jurisdiction of St.
Basil of Caesarea. Though a plenary council of the Armenian hierarchy at Achtichat had
regulated ecclesiastical discipline (365), this rapidly declined during the acephalous period.
About 390, however, the Armenian Prince Chosroes, a Persian puppet, and Primate Chahak II
restored communion and promoted a revival. The monk St. Mesrop prepared an Armenian
alphabet at the opening of the fifth century, translating the Bible into the vernacular. But in 428
Armenia was conquered by Persia and her new masters tried to force Mazdaism on her. When
the Persians ordered compliance in 450, Armenian resistance flared in 454 and led to summary
executions. Another revolt in 484, however, gained toleration for Armenian Christianity.

Armenian alienation. Though the Armenian Church had warded off Nestorianism, it fell in
large measure into Monophysitism. The councils of Valarshapat (491) and Tvin (524, 552)
imposed Eutychianism. Though in 571 the refugee Primate John and others accepted the
doctrine of Chalcedon at Constantinople, the Armenian masses remained attached to the
heretical teaching. National leaders continued to employ religion as a political tool in negotiating
with their neighbors, and the official Monophysitism became identified with Armenian patriotism.
Neither Persian nor Saracen pressure could break this alliance. After the Mohammedan triumph,
Armenia became a buffer state between Byzantium and the Caliphate until the Crusades opened
communication with the West. Some Armenians were then reunited with Rome about 1150,
others followed in 1439, but there were many relapses until a Catholic patriarchate was erected in
1742.

(2) PERSIA

Parthian origins. The Kingdom of Parthia dominated the Iranian area from 249 B.C. to
226 A.D. Jews from Media and Elam heard St. Peter's Pentecostal sermon, and St. Thomas the
Apostle is supposed to have evangelized this region. Under the tolerant rule of the Arsacid kings,
isolated Christian communities probably existed in the first century. By the end of the third
century the see of Ctesiphon was occupied by Papa bar Aggai, who was not the first bishop.

Persian persecution followed the overthrow of Parthia by the Iranian Sassanid dynasty
(226-651). The new rulers were attached to native Zoroastrianism, and cultivated national
religious harmony, to which Manichaeism at first presented the greater threat. But Constantine's
militant protection of Christianity alarmed Persian rulers into regarding Christians as "Roman
agents. During Persian-Roman wars (338-83) Sapor II (309-79) imposed a double tax on Persian
Christians because "they dwell in our territory and share in the dispositions of our enemy Caesar."
On Good Friday, 341, Bishop Simeon of Ctesiphon and 100 Christians were martyred; his
successor Sahdost and 128 of the faithful were put to death in 342, and after the martyrdom of
Bishop Barba Semin in 346 the see was vacant until 384, the year following peace. A Roman
embassy beaded by the Mesopotamian Bishop Maruta soothed King Yezdigerd (399-420) and he
allowed Primate Isaac of Ctesiphon to hold a plenary council in 410. Forty Persian bishops there
ratified the Nicene canons, approved a standard calendar, and named five metiopolitans. The
king approved the decrees, but reverted in 416 to persecution, which was continued by his son
Bahran V (420-40) who sawed in two both priests and officials alike. After his defeat by Rome in
422, however, the king signed a toleration pact promising indulgence to Christians in Persia in
exchange for Roman forbearance toward Zoroastrians in the Empire. Though intermittent
persecution still continued, the Persian court thereafter seems to have concentrated on alienating
Persian Christians from Catholic unity.

Persian alienation. Under royal pressure the Persian hierarchy in 424 did repudiate the
"western fathers" and soon after the isolated church fell easy prey to Nestorianism. It took its
theology from the School of Edessa, which employed the Antiochian terminology of Nestorius.
Ibas of Edessa (435-57) and his rector Narsai (437-502) promoted Nestorianism, as did Bishop
Barsauma of Nisibis (457-92). In 486 Primate Acacius of Seleucia-Ctesiphon led a council in
officially endorsing Nestorianism. Another council in 497 sanctioned persecution of the
Monophysites, and Persian Nestorians entered into the national rivalries with Rome,
Constantinople, and Armenia. Royal domination of the primatial see led to discord until Primate
Maraba (540-52) restored unity and discipline. Maraba courageously sustained a renewal of
royal persecution in 541 under Chosroes I (531-79). Chosroes II (589-628) captured the True
Cross in 615 but was forced by Emperor Herachus to restore it. Shortly afterwards the Persian
monarchy fell before the Saracens and Mohammedanism became the religion of the majority to
the present. Scattered Nestorian communities continued to exist in Persia, renewed from time to
time by refugees from the empire. For a time under the Caliphate of Bagdad the Nestorians even
acquired an eminent position, but subsequently they lost members to Mohammedanism and more
recently to Catholic unity.

(3) SCATTERED ORIENTAL MISSIONS

Ethiopia. Although the eunuch of Candace converted by Deacon Philip (Acts, chap. 8) is
the first known Ethiopian Christian, further information is lacking until the fourth century.
According to legend, Frumentius and Edesios, Roman Christians who survived an expedition,
were received at the Abyssinian court. Frumentius later returned as missionary and about 350
was consecrated bishop by St. Athanasius. The Ethiopian mission remained subject to
Alexandria and with it deserted Catholic unity for Monophysitism. Nevertheless missionaries and
monks were sent out from Constantinople during the fifth and sixth centuries and communication
with Rome never wholly ceased.

Arabia. In 357 Constantius sent the Arian bishop Theophilus to counteract the Nicean
influence in Ethiopia. Apparently rebuffed in Ethiopia, Theolibilus founded a small mission along
the Red Sea and succeeded in winning over an Arabian chief. Christian communities, nearly all
heretical, continued to exist in the Arabian coastal towns, and it is with these that Mohammed
came into contact. To the north, Palestinian monks won over various Arabian tribes. In the fourth
century a vicar apostolic Moses is mentioned, for the Arabians ruled by Princess Maouvia. About
420 St. Euthemios converted Chief Aspebet and his tribe, and in 427 Aspebet was consecrated
"camp bishop" for the nomads by Bishop juvenal of Jerusalem. Several of these nomadic vicars
apostolic attended the Councils of Ephesus and Chalcedon. St. Simeon Stylites was influential at
the beginning of the fifth century in the Arabian principality of Hira, South of Babylonia, but before
the end of the century Hira shared the Persian Nestorianism before falling to the Saracens.

India. The apocryphal Acts of Thomas merit no credit, though Rufinus reports that "St.
Bartholomew had for his mission field Nearer India," and Eusebius (History, V, 10) says that
Pantaenus of Alexandria was for a time a missionary in "India." The latter mission, plausible
enough, could mean Yemen or Ethiopia as well as India. But Mani's preaching in India in 240
implied the prior existence of Christian evangelization. About 520, moreover, the monk Cosmas
Indiocopleustes reported Christians in Socotra and Ceylon. But apparently the apostasy of the
nearer Eastern missions affected India, for most of the reputedly Christian communities
encountered by the Portuguese missionaries during the sixteenth century were dissident.

China. Reports of scattered missionary activity among the Huns and Turks emerge
fitfully from historical obscurity, but no connected history can be given. Pan Chao of China (74-
94) subdued Chinese Turkestan and opened communications with India. Trade with the Near
East was difficult but steady, and Nestorians reached China during the Tang dynasty (618-907).
Caucasus. Caucasian Christianity is believed to date from the reign of Constantine the
Great. After a Christian slave had instructed the Georgian royal family, missionaries won the land
for Catholicity which the isolated principality long preserved.
B. Western Missions
(1) MISSION TO THE CELTS

The Irish mission. Not only the Teutons, but the Celts were plundering the tottering
empire. Nial of the Nine Hostages (375-405) not only imposed his overlordship on Irish
principalities, but raided Scotland, Roman Britain, and Gaul. Though repulsed by Stilicho, his
nephew Dathy (405-28) died somewhere in the Alps. Nial's son, Grand Prince Leary (428-63)
was statesman more than warrior.

Patricius (385-461), a Romanized Celtic youth, was one of Nial's captives. After he had
tended swine in Antrim some six years, he escaped to Gaul. For a time he was a monk at Lerins
whence he derived the severe type of monasticism which he would introduce into Ireland. Later
assured by a vision of a missionary vocation, he prepared for the priesthood at Auxerre under
Bishop St. Germanus. Yet Pope Celestine's first choice for vicar apostolic of the Irish, among
whom scattered Christian groups already existed, was the Roman deacon Palladius. Only when
Palladius died after a year's mission near Wicklow, was St. Patrick consecrated bishop (432) by
St. Germanus at the pope's direction.

Ulster mission. Though St. Patrick began where his predecessor left off, an unfavorable
reception determined him to transfer his activity to the northern area familiar to him from his
captivity. Landing in Down, he wintered at Saul, where his first monastery was established. After
various preparations, he moved into Meath to Slane Hill near Tara and Dublin. Here on Holy
Saturday, 433, the Paschal fire was lit for the first time. The blaze is said to have created
consternation at Tara where all was in readiness to light the sacred fire to Beal the fire-god: until
the Druids' beacon shone from Tara, no fires were to be enkindled. Prince Leary, more
scrupulous about fires than his Chicago descendant, had the missionaries arrested. St. Patrick's
explanation on Easter turned into a debate in which the pagan priests were worsted. Though
Leary claimed a prior duty to his ancestral religion, he permitted preaching of the Christian
Gospel. The prince's brother, Conal Creevan, however, was gained for the Faith, and his
conversion and that of other chiefs encouraged clansmen to follow their lead. The native
reverence for men of religion and learning contributed to give the missionaries a fair hearing, and
St. Patrick was careful to develop a native clergy-it was the native Celt Benen who succeeded
him as bishop of Armagh.

Organization. Evangelization proceeded rapidly under St. Patrick's guidance and he

himself is said to have preached in the "five fifths" of Ireland. In 441 his mission received the
approval of St. Leo the Great; possibly that vigilant authoritarian summoned him to Rome for an
ad limina visit. St. Patrick became archbishop and from 445 fixed his see at Armagh. Auxiliaries
were sent him from Gaul and the Apostle of Ireland felt it possible to resign the active direction of
the mission about 455-57. Thereafter he spent much of his time in prayer and writing, leaving a
partially autobiographical account of the Irish mission and a profession of faith and allegiance to
the Holy See. On March 17, 461, he died at Saul. Posterity would testify that his missionary
work was among the most successful and lasting on record.

(2) BEGINNINCS OF FRANKISH CONVERSION

Baptism of Clovis. Clovis (481-511) was the first of the Frankish chiefs to unite his people
politically, At least since 407 there had been Franks settled in Gaul and one of their chiefs had
fought alongside the Romans at Chalons. By 491 Clovis had eliminated most of the rival chiefs
by brutal and treacherous means. In 486 he had defeated Syagrius, last Roman representative in
Gaul, and had begun to extend his dominions to the Loire. Politics dictated his marriage with the
Burgundian princess, St. Clothilda. Unlike most of her countrywomen, she was a Catholic and
insisted on baptizing her children. Death in infancy of their first sons was attributed by the
superstitious pagans to baptismal water, but during a bard fought contest with the Alamanni (496)
Clovis bethought himself of the God of the Christians, promising conversion in the event of
victory. When this had been secured, he was as good as his word. At Christmas, 496, St.
Remigius, bishop of Rheims, baptized Clovis and a number of his warriors.

Political consequences of the event were manifold. Clovis thereby conciliated his Roman
subjects and hastened amalgamation of the races, a fusion which the Arianism of other Teutonic
invaders retarded. Named consul and patrician by the Roman emperor, Clovis could pose as
legitimate ruler of Gaul. His orthodoxy gave him a reason, or perhaps only a pretext, for
extending his dominions at the expense of his Arian neighbors. "I cannot bear that those Arians
should hold any part of Gaul"-such was his reported justification for attacks upon the Burgundians
and the Visigoths. The former were defeated, though their lands were not annexed until the
lifetime of his sons. The latter, routed at Vougle near Poitiers in 507, were obliged to cede all
their territory in Gaul save the Narbonese. The Franks were launched on the path to empire,
though division and barbarism were to postpone their arrival for nearly three centuries.

Religious consequences of Clovis's conversion were likewise important. By Clovis's

baptism, Frankland became the "eldest daughter of the Church," though it must not be forgotten
that all of the Roman Church's Teutonic daughters were still very small. Subsequent history
would show that Frankish conversion was as yet very superficial, and the promise of Clovis's
reign was followed by widespread apostasy, not so much from Christian faith as from morality.
These developments will be treated later when the conversion of the Teutons will be grouped for
topical analysis; here chronological order seems to demand a mention of these important
beginnings in Catholic Gaul. The solid conversion of the Teutonic masses still lay in the future,
but the patroness of Roman Paris, St. Genevieve, could feel at her death in 500 that she had
saved her city from pagan Huns and Franks not in vain. Her tomb, begun by a Christian Clovis,
was to be a much needed reminder of Christian ideals during dark days ahead.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

49. Benedictine Monasticism

VII

Defense of the Definitions

49. BENEDICTINE MONASTICISM

A. Foundations
(1) LIFE OF ST. BENEDICT
Early career. Benedict of Nursia was born in this ancient Sabine town of respectable, but
apparently not patrician parents about 480. Probably about the usual age of fourteen, Benedict
was sent by his family to begin his classical education at Rome. The extent of his studies there is
unknown; all that is recorded is that he abandoned them "on the threshold of manhood." Possibly
the disorders attending the Laurentian schism (498) accentuated an increasing aversion for
worldiness and licentiousness. With his guardian he retired to Enfide, now Affile, some thirty-five
miles from Rome, where he lived with the clergy-though there is no record that he ever received
holy orders. When his nurse Cyrilla broke a vase, St. Benedict repaired it miraculously,
dismissed the nurse, and fled to solitude to avoid popular attention.

Monastic apprenticeship. About 500, then, Benedict reached the artificial lake in the
Sabine Hills, Sub-laqueum or Sabiaco. Here he began an eremitical life under the tutelage of
Romanus, a monk from a nearby monastery. His retreat was otherwise unbroken for three years
during which he experienced many temptations; once he threw himself on thorns to extinguish
memories of a woman known at Rome. Reputation for sanctity followed him so that the monks of
Vicovaro requested him as abbot. Reluctantly he consented. When his strict mode of life did not
suit them, his subjects plotted his death by poison. Foiling this scheme by the sign of the cross,
Benedict returned to solitude. But other disciples sought him out and forced on him the
providential role of monastic patriarch of the West.

Monastic patriarchate. The date for Benedict's removal to Monte Cassino is estimated by
authorities between 520 and 530. What is certain is that in the prime of his natural and
supernatural life he came with a few disciples to the still pagan district of Casinum, midway
between Rome and Naples. His apostolate gained many converts, and he was not only allowed
to found a monastery on Monte Cassino, but even to destroy the shrines of Jupiter and Apollo.
Undismayed by diabolical heckling of "Maledict," Benedict erected oratories dedicated to Sts.
John and Martin on the sites. More disciples made the abbey a flourishing one, and
overcrowding was obviated by construction of twelve houses, each with an abbot and twelve
monks. For these St. Benedict composed his great rule. About 542 he predicted to Prince Totila
a decade of power. That leader captured Rome in December, 546, at which time fear of its
destruction was expressed by the bishop of Canossa. St. Benedict reassured him that Totila
would change his mind. This incident must overthrow the traditional date of Benedict's death,
March 21, 543, but all that can be substituted is the period 547 to 553. After receiving Holy
Communion, St. Benedict died standing in St. John's Oratory, Monte Cassino. He was buried
there with his sister St. Scholastica, though the present location of his relics is a matter of some
dispute.

(2) BENEDICTINE SURVEY

Primitive expansion. Though, as Benedict had prophesied, Monte Cassino suffered the
first of its many destructions in the 580's, his monks spread throughout Europe. The refugees
from the mother abbey took asylum with St. Gregory's monastic family on the Celian Hill at Rome,
and about 593 the great pope published the only near-contemporary biography of St. Benedict.
By this work and through his encouragement as supreme pontiff, St. Gregory publicized the
Benedictine way of life His own monastic house had at least been patterned on the Benedictine
rule, and St. Austin's mission to England (597) is regarded as Benedictine. By 664 Benedictine
monasticism won out in England over the earlier Celtic type. From York Sts. Wilfrid and Wilibrord
carried its ideals to the Netherlands, while St. Boniface not long after set tip a new German center
at Fulda. Two traditional disciples of St. Benedict were Sts. Placidus and Maurus, but the Sicilian
martyrdom of the former and the Gallic expedition of the latter rest only on late legends. The first
authentic notice of the Benedictines in Gaul is found about 620 in the regulations of Donatus of
Besancon, but their rule became dominant after 670 and in Carolingian times was obligatory.
During this early period the abbeys remained autonomous and the majority of the monks were
lay.

Medieval centralization. Monte Cassino, restored in 717 by Abbot Petronax, regained

universal fame and its ideas were spread by Paul Warnefrid throughout the Carolingian West.
When the Benedictines became missionaries, an increasing number were ordained to the
priesthood. With the increase of clerics, manual labor was relegated to lay brothers or servants
and the liturgy lengthened. By Warnefrid's time in the eighth century the daily conventual Mass
was customary. In 817 St. Benedict of Aniane planned a monastic confederation, but feudal
disorders frustrated his efforts. But federation was adopted by Cluny (910) and Citeaux (1098),
and even Benedictine abbeys remaining outside these "orders" tended to form associations.
During the Middle Ages the liturgy became more elaborate. Save for the Dark Ages, discipline
remained good, though abbots were drawn into the feudal system and preoccupation with
temporal affairs led them to delegate domestic functions to priors. The Fourth Lateran Council
(1215) ordered provincial and national conferences to maintain and revive discipline. While local
autonomy survived, provincial visitation was added to the episcopal supervision never repudiated
by the Black Monks. After the fourteenth century relaxation in penitential observances became
marked, and the loss of secular clergy in the Black Death called many monks from the cloister to
the parochial ministry.

Modem developments. From the fifteenth century efforts were made to reform through
association in congregations. The Council of Trent endorsed the idea and many famous
congregations, such as the Maurists in France, lived up to the best Benedictine traditions. After
the French Revolution had destroyed many of these institutes, a new revival began from
Solesmes in 1833. By 1924 there were fifteen such congregations, joined since 1893 by Leo XIII
into a loose confederation under an abbot-primate.

B. Benedictine Rule
(1) GENERAL SCOPE

Sources. A continuous manuscript history testifies to the composition of the rule by St.
Benedict during his Monte Cassino period. It is a plausible but gratuitous hypothesis that its
formation was suggested by the great legislator, Pope Hormisdas (514-23). On this assumption
Chapman argued that the writing of the rule began as early as 522 and was substantially
complete by 526. St. Benedict made an original synthesis of existing rules of Sts. Pachomius,
Macarius, and Basil, confirmed with references to Holy Scripture, and maxims of Sts. Augustine,
Cyprian, Jerome, and Leo. Probably the rule was experimentally used at first and gradually
codified, though there was early provision for "distant provinces" and varying climactic conditions.

The spirit of the rule is well indicated in the prologue: "We must, then, form a school of
divine service in which we trust nothing too heavy or too rigorous will be established." Monastic
rules then in vogue in the West were eastern imports. At best they were ill adapted to the climate
of northern Europe and to a more active western temperament. They had been composed, it
seemed sometimes, for ascetical giants, and failed to make enough provision for the average
though earnest man. Their pledge of life service, though strict, was informal; it would be St.
Benedict who introduced public monastic vows. Thus Benedict, one of the then vanishing old
Romans, introduced into monasticism something of the Roman concept of law to restrain
individual impulse, however heroic. His rule became as basic for western monks as St. Basil's for
cenobitic life in the East. St. Benedict's rule was written for cenobites, monks living in common.
From his experience the Patriarch described contemporary types as those of eremitae: hermits,
virtuous but exceptional men whom he would not allow his monks to emulate without long
preparation; sarabitae or self-willed, undisciplined monks; and gyrovagi or "gad-about" monks. To
prevent these extremes and abuses, he set up his "school of virtue."

Outline. Though the rule follows no definite order, Dom McCann suggests that its
contents can be analyzed as follows. A first part deals with the general mode of life: a prologue
(1-3), spiritual maxims (4-7), and Divine Office and prayer (8-20). Then follow particular rules
concerning deans, sleep, correction of faults, etc. (21-57). Admission of candidates is dealt with
in chapters 58 to 61. Sections 61 to 66 are concerned with government: the duties of the abbot,
prior, cellarer, novicemaster, guest-master, infirmarian, and deans. Chapters 67-73 may be
considered appendices.

(2) ADMISSION AND GOVERNMENT

The vows were taken after a year's novitiate. After a preliminary postulancy under an
experienced monk, the neophyte was shown the rule with the challenge: "Behold the law under
which you would fight; if you can observe it, enter; if you cannot, depart." The earliest form of
taking vows was catechetical: "Before God and His saints, do you promise stability, conversion of
life, and obedience? I promise." During the public ceremony a written document was placed on
the altar. "Conversion of life"-conversto morum-meant self-discipline; implicitly it included poverty
and chastity. Parents might offer their son to the monks as an oblate in a public rite. Oblates
were boarded and educated by the monks and might later apply for admission to the community.

The abbot was to be a supernaturalized Roman paterfamilias: "As he is believed to hold

the place of Christ, the abbot shall be called lord and father, not of his own assumption, but out of
honor and love of Christ. Let him think of this and show himself worthy of such honor" (ch. 64).
St. Benedict also calls him shepherd, physican, master, steward. Subject to episcopal
supervision his was the supreme responsibility for the spiritual and temporal welfare of his
subjects. In St. Benedict's day, the abbot was seldom a priest, but Warnefrid alludes to a
confessor distinct from the abbot (Commentary, 62). The abbot was elected for life by a chapter
of professed monks. This chapter or a committee of its seniors had to be consulted on all major
questions, but had an advisory and not a controlling vote. So long as the abbot ruled in accord
with Christian maxims he was to be obeyed without ' demur. Yet, "if the brethren should elect a
man willing to acquiesce in their evil habits, and these in some way come to the knowledge of the
bishop in whose diocese that place belongs, or of the abbots or neighboring Christians, let them
not suffer the consent of these wicked men to prevail, but appoint a worthy steward over God's
house" (ch. 64). Primitive Benedictine monasteries, then, were not exempt from episcopal
jurisdiction.

Minor officials exercised delegated authority at the abbot's discretion. Though St.
Benedict seems to have preferred many deans--decani -to supervise small groups of ten monks,
he allowed appointment of a prior as the abbot's vicar. The latter practice became universal and
the prior appears as "first mate" of the abbatial flagship, or immediate superior of a detached but
subordinate house. Some priors, especially if elected by the chapter, showed a tendency to
independence; hence St. Benedict advised appointment by the abbot. In later monastic
development the prior in turn was assisted by subpriors. The master of novices and the guest-
master both had responsible offices requiring tried virtue. Other specialized offices were those of
infirmarian, cellarer, etc., but authority was to be paternal rather than military.

(3) MONASTIC LIFE

Liturgy. The monk's chief duty was the opus Dei, chanting of the liturgical offices sicut
psallit Ecclesia Romana (ch. 13). The order of the day was arranged around these services.
Dom Cuthbert Butler would reconstruct this order as follows: after seven to eight hours of
unbroken sleep-save in summer when a siesta compensated-the monk began Matins about 1:45
to 2:30. This office occupied from an hour to an hour and a half. After an interval devoted to
reflection and chant practice, Lauds began about 5:00 to 5:45. Spiritual reading occupied the
monks until Prime at 6:30 to 7:30 according to the season. The monk's day was punctuated by
the "little hours" of Terce, Sext, and None. Vespers was said at evening, and after a public
reading of a conference, the monk said Compline for night prayers and retired to rest. On
Sundays, the offices and readings were prolonged in place of manual work, and a conventual
Mass was sung. Soon, if not from the beginning, the full ceremonial of solemn Mass was
observed daily. The Psalter was to be sung through each week, with most of the present rites,
e.g., Deus in adjutorium, etc.

Asceticism. The monles sleep was never less than seven hours and he was allowed
blanket, mattress, coverlet and pillow. In clothing he was granted two of each article for change
and washing, and directed to give worn articles to the poor while still serviceable. His standard
garb included tunic, cincture, cowl-cloak, shoes, stockings, handkerchief, and he was permitted
possession of a knife, pen, needle, and writingpad. Food was apportioned to each according to
need: two cooked dishes of fruit or vegetables, but no meat was allowed except for the sick.
Although we read that "wine is not the drink of monks, yet since in our days they cannot be
persuaded of this, let us at least agree not to drink to satiety, but sparingly, because wine makes
even the wise fall away" (ch. 40). Normally two meals were taken during the day, but in
penitential seasons there was a single repast about three in the afternoon. Though severe, this
fare was not greatly at variance with the customs of the poor. St. Benedict made provision for no
extraordinary mortifications, and even allowed latecomers to community exercises a slight
leeway.

Work. Though a recreation period appeared by the ninth century, St. Benedict does not
seem to have contemplated unnecessary conversation. Outside the summum silentium, absolute
quiet for the night hours, monks were to speak only in low tone about their duties, and avoid idle
or foolish speech. But some free time was allowed after dinner, at least in summer, for rest or
reading. At other times the monk was to be busy. In St. Benedict's day this involved manual
labor, for his rule reveals his intention of having his monks self-supporting by performing the arts
and crafts necessary. Some study and teaching were involved from the beginning in training
novices and oblates to read the Office and spiritual books. By the time of the Carolingian
Renaissance extem students are found in a well-organized monastic school, and gradually study,
copying of manuscripts, and other liberal arts supplanted manual labor in whole or in part. But
whatever their occupation, medieval monks were not idle, and in Benedictine monasticism and its
derivative types of religious life lay dynamic forces for the conversion and civilization of the West.

Caesaro-Papist Imperialism (313-565) VII. Defense of the Definitions (475-590)

50. Christian Life in Later Empire

VII

Defense of the Definitions

50. CHRISTIAN LIFE IN LATER EMPIRE

A. The Byzantine East

(1) CLERICAL LIFE
Canon law remained uncodified, though Patriarch John Scholasticus of Constantinople
(565-77) made a semiofficial compilation from the Apostolic Canons, decrees of ten general and
provincial councils, 68 enactments of St. Basil, and certain portions of Justinian's Code.
The patriarchal system was completed by recognition of the status of Jerusalem at
Chalcedon in 451. Constantinople claimed, and by the end of the period asserted a supervision
of the Orient comparable to Rome's sway in the West. Even more ominous was the claim of John
the Faster (582-95) to the title of "universal bishop." Patriarchal intercommunion was maintained
by mutual synodal letters, professions of faith, inscription of names on diptychs, and naming of
apocrisarii or legates to the imperial court. A papal nunciature was permanently establisbed at
Constantinople at least from 451. Byzantine designs on the Balkans continued, and the apostolic
vicariate of Salonika sided with the Acacians from 484 to 514. In the latter year it returned to
Roman jurisdiction and an attempt of Epiphanius of Constantinople to intervene was repulsed by
the threatened bishops' appeal to the Holy See.

Bishops were seldom chosen locally. Instead the clergy and notables presented three
nominations to the patriarch, metropolitan, or provincial council, who respected imperial wishes.
Justinian required a minimum age of thirty-five for bishops; fixed a tariff for consecration and
other fees, and enjoined residence save with imperial dispensation, which was often given "court
bishops." De jure bishops were to be judged by a permanent synod resident at Constantinople;
de facto an imperial flat often deposed them. Bishops heard civil cases on appeal and
supervised municipal government. They were assisted by the syncellos or secretary, diocetes or
director of charities, the economos or treasurer, the sacellarios, a sort of vicar-general for
monasteries, and didaskoloi in charge of instruction.

The clergy were numerous, e.g., in Justinian's day Hagia Sophia had 60 priests, 100
deacons, and 365 other clerics. The clerics were exempt from civil jurisdiction and duties, and
the chanters and deaconesses shared clerical privileges. All clerics could marry prior to receiving
the subdiaconate.
Monks were also numerous, e.g., in 518 there were 67 abbeys in Constantinople, while
the Syrian monastery of Amida had 700 monks. Most monasteries observed the Basilian rule, but
remained subject to episcopal jurisdiction. Justinian decreed a three year novitiate and forbade
wandering from house to house. Besides discharging the liturgy, the monks engaged in manual,
scholarly, and charitable works.

(2) LITURGICAL PRACTICES

The Byzantine Rite tended to prevail throughout the orthodox Orient toward the end of
the period, both because of the prestige of the see of the capital and because schismatics and
heretics had usurped the Coptic and Syriac rites of Alexandria and Antioch. As yet there was no
preparation; Mass began with the clergy's entry. "The Mass of the catechumens began with the
'Little Entry' of the celebrant, accompanied with the chanting of the 'Thrice Holy' and incensation.
After the exchange of the pax between celebrant and people, there took place the reading of
three texts from Scripture: prophecies, epistle, Gospel, then the homily, after which the
catechumens left the church. The Mass of the Faithful was announced by the litany led by a
deacon; then after recitation of the Creed, the 'Great Entry' took place: the deacons solemnly
bore the offerings to the altar while the people chanted the triumphal hymn 'Cherubikon.' After the
blessing and kiss of peace, reading of the diptychs of the living and the dead preceded the canon
properly so called, which comprised the anaphora, the Eucharistic hymn, commemoration,
epiklesis. Finally came new litanies, the Lord's Prayer, exchange of the pax, breaking of the Host,
communion, thanksgiving, dismissal of the faithful."

Churches did not yet have the ikonastasis or sanctuary screen, a byproduct of an eighth
century controversy. Tribunes or balconies, originally intended for catechumens, later served
other uses. Art had considerably developed. The basilica style prevailed, with round or
octagonal baptistries attached to the churches. Many monuments and decorations survive from
this period at least in part. The mosaic of San Vitale in the Ravenna exarchate represents Bishop
Maximian with a white tunic or alb, an ample green chasuble, a pallium-stole in white and black,
and holding a cross; the assisting priest and deacon wear albs and dalmatics. In the churches
the usual canonical hours were recited by the clergy.

Liturgical services. Baptism was administered by threefold immersion. Children were to

be baptized forty days after birth, though adults usually waited until the vigils of Christmas,
Epiphany, Easter, and Ascension. Confirmation immediately followed baptism. The Eucharist
was given even to children. Public penance had yielded to private penances prescribed
according to penitential books, of which the oldest known is attributed to John the Faster (582-
95).
Popular devotion made much of processions and litanies, though their due performance
required the clergy's presence. Common also was exchange of eulogies, e.g., blessed bread and
other articles. Ikons and relics were highly esteemed and pilgrimages popular. The monks and
laity conducted hospices, clinics, asylums, orphanages, and homes for the aged.

Education. Though the laity were trained in the state schools, the clergy were instructed
in theology by the scholasticus of the cathedral school. Leontius of Byzantium was after St.
Chrysostom the leading theologian. Monastic and catechetical schools also existed.
 (3) GREEK PATRISTic THEOLOGY

St. Epiphanius (315-403), bishop of Salamis in Cyprus, was a conservative, positive

theologian, nourished on Scripture and monastic studies. In the course of his researches for his
valuable, if not entirely accurate Anchor and Panarion, St. Epiphanius came to provoke the
Origenist controversy by his indictment of some indefensible Alexandrian aberrations.

St. John Chrysostom (347-407) is justly regarded as the greatest of the Greek patristic
orators. His sermons and homilies cover the Christian festivals and many sections of Scripture,
especially the Pauline Epistles. Among his occasional discourses, those on "The Statues" during
the Antiochian riots; "On Eutropius," the fallen prime minister; and those in connection with his
own exiles are outstanding. Another classic writing of St. John's is a masterly appraisal of
sacerdotal dignity and responsibility: "On the Priesthood." Since his aims were mostly pastoral,
St. John stressed moral and ascetical topics in his theological expositions. Though basically
orthodox, his faulty Antiochian theology is sometimes revealed in inaccurate expressions on the
hypostatic union and inapt references to the Blessed Virgin. His Eucharistic expositions, if
sometimes excessively realistic, are ardent and appealing.

St. Cyril of Alexandria (375-444) was likewise substantially accurate despite the
obscurities of his Alexandrian terminology, often diametrically opposed to the Antiochian. St. Cyril
in many polemical letters, treatises, and sermons expounded in detail what the hypostatic union
was and was not, concluding that "Christ is consubstantial with His Mother as with His Father."
Mary's divine maternity was firmly defended in teaching that was endorsed at Ephesus. As a
corollary of the hypostatic union, St. Cyril defended Christ's real presence, divine as well as
human, in the Eucharist against Nestorius's virtual denial of the divinity.

Leontius of Byzantium (c. 485-543), monk and theologian, performed a great service to
Christology by employing Aristotelian precision in standardizing terminology on ousia, physis,
hypostasis. This tended to harmonize the Antiochian and Alexandrian schools, and prepared for
the 'TUonothelete challenge to come.
Denis the Pseudo-Areopagite (c. 450-533) gained in Greek theology an influence
disproportionate to his wholly anonymous career. The basic orthodoxy of his writings persuaded
Catholics to accept their authenticity as well; not until the Renaissance was it proved that they
could not have been the work of a first century St. Denis of Athens. The unknown author's
masterpiece, "On the Divine Names," proved illuminating regarding negative divine attributes, and
was incorporated by St. Thomas in the Catholic theological tradition. It is to PseudoDenis's
Celestial Hierarchy also that theology owes much of its nonscriptural inspiration for the tract on
angels, while his Mystic Theology has importance in the theory of asceticism.

B. The Latin-teutonic West

(1) HIERARCHICAL GOVERNMENT

The Apostolic See maintained its doctrinal leadership unsullied through controversies
which saw now one, now another of the eastern patriarchates fall into error. The Teutonic
invasions tended to isolate the western churches, a danger which the popes endeavored to avert
through apostolic legations. The disasters to the empire multiplied the temporal and diplomatic
problems of the papacy and prepared the way for the Papal State, though as yet the popes
conducted themselves as loyal citizens of the empire.

The episcopate increased in social significance. Besides supervising an agglomeration

of ecclesiastical welfare institutions, the bishop frequently took upon himself the tasks of the
vanished secular officials in public works. As spokesmen for the subject majority to their Teutonic
conquerors, the prelates were indispensable mediators. St. Remigius, St. Caesarius of Arles, St.
Gregory of Tours are but outstanding names among many prudent and courageous bishops of
this type. In episcopal cities, the archdeacon continued to be the bishop's chief aide; in rural
districts other deacons were set over deaneries.

The parish came into its own during the fifth and sixth centuries as urban civilization
declined in the West. In the fourth century the term paroikia was still synonymous with diocese,
but soon after rural parishes are noted on the Gallic villae in the modern sense of the jurisdiction
of a parish priest, who supplanted the chorepiscopate where that institution had been tried. The
Second Council of Vaison in 529 declared: "Priests may preach not only in the cities but also in
rural churches. If a priest is hindered through sickness, a deacon should read a homily by a
father of the Church."

Clerical recruitment, as regulated by the same council, is local: "All priests in the parishes
must, as is already the wholesome custom throughout Italy, receive younger unmarried lectors in
their houses and instruct them in chanting of psalms, in the ecclesiastical lessons, and in the law
of the Lord, so that they may have able successors." Such methods were the more necessary
since the classical school system broke down and surviving educated persons were tempted to
engage in empty cultivation of style and rhetoric in a Latin already influenced by popular dialects.
Boethius, it is true, worked on a Latin version of Aristotelian philosophy, and Cassiodorus, with
the approval of Pope St. Agapitus, strove to found a Biblical institute. But from the fifth century
knowledge of Greek became rare in the West, and in the course of subsequent theological
controversies, papal replies were sometimes delayed by

search for a competent translator at Rome.

(2) LITURGICAL EVOLUTION

The Roman Rite was still fluid and admitted of the Ambrosian, Gallican, and other
variations. By the fifth century the "stational" Mass appeared at Rome, though complete
description awaits the eighth century Ordines Romani. When it became impossible to gather
Romans in a single church for the pope's Mass, and prevalence of Christian influence permitted
free circulation, it became the custom for the pope and his clergy to celebrate Mass on great
feasts at various stationes, designated churches, in turn. Thus was corporate and liturgical unity
stressed. Entrance of the papal procession to the statio was saluted with the Introit chant. The
Kyrie Eleison survives today as a remnant of a dialogue between clergy and congregation. If the
celebrant were the pope or a bishop, he might intone the Gloria on great festivals; Symmachus
(498-514) extended it to Sundays and martyrs' commemorations. The celebrant then said one of
three "collects," prayers said when the congregation had collected-the others were the Secret and
Postcommunion. Readings had by now been reduced to the familiar Epistle and Gospel, but
chants now interspersed them. Then followed the homily, of which Popes St. Leo the Great and
St. Gregory the Great have left celebrated examples. Finally came dismissal of the
catechumens.

The Mass of the Faithful began with an Oremus, but action immediately followed as each
of the clergy and laity made his offering in bread and wine while a psalm was intoned. After the
Secret and Orate Fratres, the celebrant chanted the Preface. Then followed the canon, already
comparatively stable. Commemoration was made not only of saints, but also of patriarchs and
other orthodox prelates; the memento of the faithful departed was subsequently transferred to
after the Consecration. The Paster Noster preceded the breaking of the consecrated bread. A
portion of the two hosts was reserved for the next Mass and other portions were sent around to
priests celebrating in the titular churches; these rites were intended to symbolize the universality
of the Sacrifice in time and place. For communion, the celebrant placed the Eucharistic bread on
each man's hand or the linen cloth-dominicale-held by the women. The celebrant's words,
Corpus Christi, elicited an "Amen." The archdeacon offered the chalice with the words, Sanguis
Christi, calix vitae. A psalm accompanied distribution. The celebrant returned to the altar to
recite the Postcommunion, the deacon chanted the dismissal, the procession re-formed, and the
pope departed, blessing the congregation.
 (3) POPULAR PIETY

Devotion to the Passion appeared in veneration of the crucifix, the corpus being often
veiled in a tunic. By the middle of the fifth century the Roman usage prevailed in the West of
observing six weeks of Lent, Sundays excepted; in the seventh century four days were added to
make up the even number of forty days. Good Friday at Rome was celebrated without the
Eucharistic Sacrifice; in its place was a liturgical service combining lessons, chanting, and prayer.

Devotion to Mary is manifest in dedication of the Liberian Basilica of St. Mary Major at
Rome. Notices of the feast of the Assumption appear in Gaul and Spain, and the Roman church
seems to have adopted from the Orient the Marian feasts of her Nativity, Annunciation,
Purification, and "Falling Asleep."
The cult of martyrs continued, but romantic and apocryphal details began to be added to
the primitive acts in the fifth and succeeding centuries. Each church had its own list, but
commemorations were often interchanged and thus a universal calendar began to evolve. By the
fifth century the use of saints'names by Christians is common.

Superstition, however, survived in many places, together with pagan festivals. The monk
Telemachus or Almachus is reputed to have stopped gladiatorial contests at Rome by throwing
himself between the contenders. Though the spectators stoned him to death, Honorius was
moved to forbid the games. But if the Romans were weaned from such bloody contests, the
Teutons of St. Gregory of Tours' History manifest a tendency to superstition and a lasting
fondness for pagan usages. They were much attached to magic and divination, and transferred
this to the veneration of relics. The pagan ordeal was to have a prolonged christening. Though
paganism was officially banned in Frankland in 585, two hundred years later St. Boniface could
make the statement, probably rhetorical, that only the prince's power prevented paganism from
resuming control.

(4) LATIN PATRISTIC THEOLOGY

St. Jerome (340-420), priest and doctor of the Church, was the greatest Scriptural
scholar among the fathers. After a period of monastic and clerical preparation, he was
commissioned by Pope Damasus to revise the existing Vetus Itala, a Latin adaptation of the
Bible. Resident continuously in Palestine from 385, St. Jerome devoted prodigious labors to
linguistic and exegetical studies needed for preparing a new version. His Vulgate, endorsed by
the Council of Trent, and currently being restored according to the best manuscripts by
Benedictine scholars, has remained the official version of the Roman Church. In addition St.
Jerome wrote a series of commentaries, homilies, and treatises on biblical questions. His
Scriptural works were supplemented by patristic. His De Viris Illustribus is the first petrology and
to it be added various bagiographical works. He was, moreover, a theologian and participated
vigorously in the Origenist, Pelagian, and other disputes, in particular championing the perpetual
virginity of Mary.

St. Augustine (354-430) is by common consent in the foremost rank among patristic
theologians. If, as is generally assumed, the Patristic Age terminates with the eighth century, he
is the last of the Latin fathers to make great original contributions to theological evolution.
Between St. Paul and St. Thomas Aquinas it would be difficult to find a more profound intellect
than his. His works defy enumeration in a survey of this kind. Outstanding were his Confessions,
half biography, half mystical ode; De Trinitate, the most profound and thorough of his theological
works; his De Civitate Dei, rambling but brilliant theology of history; and De Genesi ad Litteram on
the doctrine of creation; and many able polemics, especially on the subject of grace.

Augustinian doctrine is contained in no summa for which he had neither the time nor the
occasion. His teaching is consequently disconnected and piecemeal. Besides a profound
exposition of the divine attributes, he afforded a systematic theology of the Trinity, giving the first
thorough treatment of the subsistent relations. Against the still deleterious influence of
Origenism, Augustine expounded the doctrine of creation without, it seems, defending
evolutionism. His analysis of the problem of evil is excellent. Though somewhat hampered by a
Platonic philosophy of man, he yet wrote many penetrating psychological studies, tracing in detail
the origin and transmission of original sin. His vehement branding of mankind as a massa
damnationis without grace has often been misinterpreted as a denial of freedom. But the great
Doctor, who had personally experienced both the weakness of human nature and the power of
grace, never compromised in attributing all credit to this supernatural instrument of divine mercy.
For him, grace is needed to begin, to progress, to persevere. Throughout the crucial Pelagian
controversy and the Semi-Pelagian misunderstandings St. Augustine multiplied treatises on the
nature, species, necessity, and gratuity of grace; he treated of its efficacy and that of the virtues;
he probed into questions of predestination, premotion, and free will, and crowned his teaebing
with lofty ascetical-mystical theology. His sacramental theology, largely composed against the
Donatists, while lacking the precision of medieval Scholasticism, demonstrated an originality and
profundity not yet revealed in patristic theology. Whether considered in general or in detail, the
sacraments were more fully treated in their theological aspect than ever before. In appreciation
of the prime place of Scripture and tradition, in broad-mindedness toward use of philosophy as a
theological auxiliary, and in unswerving deference to ecclesiastical authority, above all that of the
Holy See, St. Augustine was a pattern for theologians. Great sinner and great saint, monk and
bishop, writer and preacher, Augustine knew human nature and all the vagaries of intellect and
will and passion. Yet illumined and inspired by grace, he did not despair of fallen man, but strove
with unremitting ardor to communicate to others an inkling of his penetration into the mysteries of
God.

St. Leo the Great (c. 400-61) was doctor as well as pope. He earned his additional laurel
chiefly by his Tome to Flavian wherein he declared with characteristic precision and elegance:
"He who is true God was born in the integral and perfect nature of true man, complete in what is
His own, complete as well in what is ours, . . . begotten in a new order by a new nativity. . . . God
is not changed by compassion, nor is man swallowed up by dignity, for each nature works what is
proper to it in union with the other."

St. Peter Chrysologus (406-50), archbishop of Ravenna, was a noted orator and
theologian whose eloquence and loyalty to the Holy See during the Monophysite controversy
posthumously won for him the title of Doctor of the Church.
Conclusion: Many other patristic writers must be passed over in this brilliant flowering of
theological science, the more remarkable in that it took place amid the falling debris of an
imperialistic world. Those were, indeed, times to try Roman souls, but many there were found
that were undaunted. During this sixth century, St. Gregory, bishop of Tours, in beginning his
History of the Franks, explained the reason for his confidence amid an environment inhabited by
Clovis's depraved descendants. I am going to write of wars of kings with hostile nations, of
martyrs against heathen, of churches against heretics. But first I want to declare my Faith that
none who reads may doubt that I am Catholic. . . . This alone is my desire: that what is to be
believed within the Church I may retain with no false pretense or hesitation. For I know that by a
pure Faith sinners may gain mercy with our gracious Lord."