ledged, or perhaps perceived, by the latter. Let us now advance one century, and consider the position of the Church as it then stood in connexion with the State. Its real substantial weight proceeded, in fact, from one cause, and from one only,-the influence of the Clergy over the people. Many circumstances at this time contributed to confirm and consolidate that influence-the judicial authority and acknowledged dignity of the Bishops, the increase in their number and wealth, the popular character of their election, their public and powerful eloquence. Moreover, there can be no question that even the spiritual control of the ecclesiastics was exerted with greater confidence, when the civil power was at hand to support them; while their zeal was warmly and successfully employed in asserting the vast superiority of that control, and the interests connected with it, over any that were merely temporal and worldly. To these considerations we should add, that during the three preceding centuries the nobility of the Roman empire had, for the most part, fallen into decay; no body had grown up in the State to supply the defect of the aristocratical influence, and hence it rose that the vacant place in the social system was occupied by the Christian hierarchy. This order, sometimes powerful from other causes, always possessed peculiar advantages for the acquisition of popular influence, through the very office which forces it into contact with the lower classes, and through the attractive character of its duties, which are such as can never fail, when faithfully and discreetly discharged, to conciliate the affections of those for whose happiness alone they are imposed.

From the above and similar causes, the authority of the Church grew with great rapidity even during the first century after its alliance with the State; of the boldness thus communicated to its individual Ministers, both in speech and action, some instances have been mentioned, and many might be added. Indeed, the mere existence of eighteen hundred magistrates (to speak of the Bishops only) who held their offices for life, over whose nomination the civil power had no direct control, who were connected by intimate relations with the people, and who, for the most part, were bound together by common opinions and principles and interests, was alone sufficient to establish a counterpoise against the weight of imperial despotism. In fact, under the uncertain sceptre of the successors of Constantine, it might have been difficult to moderate the progress of ecclesiastical power, had it not been checked and dissipated by the perpetual dissensions which divided the Church itself.

The same cause which restrained the vigour, polluted the character, of the Church; for being unable immediately to repress by its own spiritual weapons the violent animosities of its ministers, and impatient of the gradual influence of time and reason, in a dark and disastrous moment it had recourse to that temporal sword which was not intended for its service, and which it has never yet employed without disgrace or with impunity. Thus was it, indeed, a blind, if not suspicious affection, which led even the most orthodox Emperors to labour for the Unity of the Church;' since it was

·

*Paul of Samosata was the subject and favourite of Zenobia, and that Queen was engaged in hostile designs against the Roman empire at the time when Aurelian, on the solicitation of the Italian Bishops, deposed the heretic. Semler (Observat. Novæ, sec. iii, sec. lv.) seems to infer from this coincidence, that the whole accusation against Paul proceeded from political rather than from spiritual differences, which is not probable; but we so far agree with him as to attribute the interference of the Emperor entirely to that motive. It is an isolated fact in the history of the ante-Nicene Church, and probably only proves Aurelian's willingness to avail himself of any charge to punish a magistrate who was in favour with his enemy.

the unfailing effect of their measures to influence and nourish the intolerance of the ruling party, without entirely quenching even one among the thousand eternal fountains of dissent. We repeat that the most fatal consequence which has in any age resulted from the connexion between Church and State, is the application of the penalties of the one to the disorders of the other, the correction of spiritual offences by temporal chastisements. But that abuse of the civil power is so far from being the necessary conse quence of that connexion, that it is manifestly injurious to the interests of both; and since its wickedness and its folly have been exposed and acknowledged, there can now be no circumstances under which a wise government would employ such interference, or an enlightened priesthood desire it.

Internal administration of the Church.

It has been observed that in the ante-Nicene Church the power of the Bishop was closely limited by that of the Presbytery of his diocese, though less so in the third, as it would seem, than in the preceding century. During the three following ages that restraint was gradually loosened, though not yet entirely cast away. The affairs of the diocese were still, in name at least, conducted with the assent of the clergy' (cum assensu clericorum); and their influence, in many places, was probably more than nominal. Still we cannot fail to observe that a higher and more independent authority was assumed by the Prelates; a broader interval was interposed between the different ranks of the hierarchy; the government lost most of the remains of its popular character, and assumed the form of an active and powerful aristocracy. Some of the causes of this change have been incidentally mentioned in the preceding pages; and among them we should particularly notice the prevalence of councils, both general and provincial, by which the public affairs of the Church were now regulated, and in which the only influential members were the Bishops*. The legislative authority thus exercised by the order, added to the judicial power which was vested in the individual, raised the prelacy to a necessary and legal pre-eminence before the next inferior grade of the ministry. It would appear, moreover, especially from the records of the fifth and sixth centuries, that the greater portion of the learning of those times was in possession of the episcopal order. Such reasons are sufficient to account for the aggrandizement of that order; while, at the same time, they show us, that the steps by which it rose were neither unlawful nor dishonourable. The change in the form of Church government naturally followed the change in other circumstances; and it would be unjust to qualify that as usurpation, which proceeded from causes independent of private interest or professional ambition. It is not denied that such motives may frequently have stimulated many to individual encroachment; but the elevation of the body was the natural effect of ecclesiastical, of political, and even of moral combinations.

Having observed in what respect the alteration in the general administration of the Church extended to the economy of its several dioceses, we shall shortly retrace some of those early vestiges of the monarchical form

Fifteen Councils are recorded to have been held in France alone during the fourth, and five-and-twenty during the fifth century. The Bishops still attended as the deputies of their people, but Presbyters appear now to have been never present, unless as representatives of their Bishop. Many canons of the Councils of the fifth century (especially of that of Orange held in 441) declare that no Council shall ever separate without appointing the time of the next meeting. The ancient canonical regulation for meeting twice a year was still in force, but in those disturbed ages it was not easily observed. See Guizot, Cours d'Histoire Moderne, leçon iii.

of administration, which were already discernible during the rise and progress of the religious aristocracy; or, in other words, we shall search among the component parts of the episcopal system for some elements of the papal government. Before the establishment of the Church, notwithstanding one or two attempts at aggression on the part of Rome, which were immediately repelled, the various Sees were, without any acknowledged distinction, equal and independent. Thus far, at least, the Bishop of that city had no superiority, or even claim to superiority, above his brethren; and it was to the imperial dignity of his See that he owed any accidental and voluntary deference which may have been offered to him. The next circumstance, second in time and very considerable in influence, which contributed to his exaltation, was the name (for it was little more than the name) of Patriarch. This title was conferred first upon three, subsequently upon four, of the Prelates of the Eastern Church; but in the West it was confined to the Bishop of Rome: and the distinction was not without effect in creating, especially among the distant and the ignorant, that sort of blind and indefinite respect which is so easily converted into submission.

The next event which may be mentioned as having augmented the authority of the See was the removal of the civil government from Rome to Ravenna by Honorius. The domestic importance of the Bishop was essentially increased, and facilities for usurpation were created by the absence of the Emperor.

That which follows, perhaps, next in time (for we are disposed to place it towards the end of the fifth century), but which yields to none in importance, was the special protection vouchsafed by St. Peter to the same See, and at this time loudly asserted by it. While some have invented circumstantial fables respecting the marvellous success of that apostle in Italy and at Rome, others have advanced ingenious arguments to show that he never at all visited that city. To us, so far as any opinion can be formed on so obscure a matter, it appears probable that St. Peter died at Rome, as well as St. Paul; and during their previous residence there, it is not impossible that the one may have presided over the Jewish, while the other superintended the heathen, converts. But the question itself can now possess so little importance in the mind of any reasonable being, that we care not to leave it in uncertainty. However, it is undisputed, that in the fifth and the following ages a vast accession of honour and sanctity accrued to the See of Rome from its perseverance in that claim. In times when the particular protection of heaven was believed to attend the possession of the meanest relic of the most obscure martyr; when stupendous prodigies were performed by the fragment of the garment of some nameless saint, or the dust which had been brought from his tomb, was it strange that a peculiar impression of holiness should attach to that spot where the chief of the Apostles had suffered a barbarous death, and where his bones still lay unviolated in sacred repose? But this was not all-the martyr of Christ had been at the same time the Bishop of Rome; and the keys which had been confided to his inspired wisdom were still preserved, through a long and uninterrupted chain, to the Bishops his successors. Such assertions were first advanced about this period, or very soon afterwards; and it is one of the most certain proofs of the credit they obtained, that applications now began very commonly to be made, from many parts of Europe, for counsel or opinion, on points of discipline or faith to the Roman See. might, indeed, not rarely happen, that its rescripts were not obeyed or respected; but still the appeal was becoming customary, and each suc

It

From Gregory to
Charlemagne.

cessive reference confirmed a practice which could not fail in time to give some authority to the decision. These are some of the leading circumstances which were so far improved by the genius of two among the Popes, and the perseverance of almost all, that, at the death of Gregory the Great, the Bishop of Rome, though he might in vain dispute the name of universal supremacy with the Patriarch of Constantinople, was unquestionably acknowledged to be the leading member of the ecclesiastical aristocracy of Europe, the spiritual head or president of the Western hierarchy*. III. An account of the general changes which took place in the Church, during the two centuries between Gregory to Charlemagne, has been given in a preceding chapter; and in respect to particular abuses in belief or discipline, it appears not that any remarkable novelty presented itself during this period. Among its leading features, we have observed, first, an increasing dissimilarity in character and institutions between the Eastern and Western Churches, which gradually loosened the bonds of their union, and prepared them for dissolution. The alterations which caused the distinction originated for the most part in the West, and are chiefly to be ascribed to the entire social revolution which was effected by the barbarian conquests whereas, in the East, the undisputed supremacy of the civil power and the unvarying character of the government prevented any important innovations. They prevailed, indeed, to such an extent, that even the divisions which during this period disturbed the Oriental Communion, -those respecting the two wills of Christ,' and the worship of images,' -received in both instances their first impulse from the throne. In the West the subdivision of the empire into numerous and variously-constituted kingdoms, the peculiar institutions, the superstitions and the ignorance of the people, opened an extensive field for ecclesiastical exertion. That many among the clergy availed themselves of these circumstances for personal or professional aggrandizement, the voice of history is ever forward to proclaim to us; but the private piety of the more numerous and obscure members of that order, who interposed, not ineffectually, their religious offices to alleviate the wretchedness and soften the barbarism of those dreary times, is slightly and incidentally recorded, though better deserving of celebrity, since its claims are on the gratitude of the latest posterity.

The second characteristic of this period (and we here confine ourselves to the Western Church) was the continued and even inordinate growth of episcopal authority. A great number of causes contributed to that result, some of which had been in continual operation since the establishment of Christianity; others had grown up in later ages. The most direct and effectual were the extensive and increasing domains of the Bishops; the judicial and even municipal power which they exercised in their metropolis; their political influence in the great national assemblies; the exclusive possession of a contracted learning, which still was mistaken for wisdom in an age nearly destitute of both. To these we may add the

*Still it is not asserted that his authority was generally acknowledged even in the West. Fleury (lib. xxxv. s. 19.) fairly admits that Gregory exercised no definite jurisdiction beyond the Churches which immediately depended on the Holy See, and were therefore called Suburbicarian (Giannon. Stor. di Nap. lib. ii. c. 8.) those of the South of Italy, Sicily, and some other islands. It is true that the Bishop of Arles was his vicar in Gaul, as that of Thessalonica was in Western Illyria; and that he exercised some inspec tion over the Churches of Africa for the assembling of Councils and the observation of the canons ; but he possessed no ordinary official authority over those Churches, nor did they yet acknowledge any direct positive dependence on Rome.

removal of some restraints. The superintendence of the metropolitans was abolished, and it was supplied by no other; for the civil governments were then too weak and unstable to enforce a disputed authority, while that of the Pope was distant and indefinite, even where it was acknowledged to be rightful*. On the other hand, the degraded condition of the priesthood and the independence conferred on the prelate by the disuse of popular election, placed him above any apprehension of opposition or censure from the lower ranks of the clergy. And since the Councils, to whose legislation he was liable, were entirely composed of his own order, he had little reason to expect severity from that quarter. We have observed into what great license that unbridled episcopal power was carried.

Thirdly. The Bishop of Rome failed not to profit, at least in an equal degree, by the various causes which conspired to the exaltation of his brethren; and let us add to these, since we can add it with truth, that the conduct of the Popes during this period was for the most part such as inspired respect, and even commanded gratitude. If they were stained with the superstitions of the day, they lost nothing in popular opinion by that failing; born at Rome and at once elevated from the native priesthood, not translated from a foreign See, they began with some claims on the attachment of their subjects, and they maintained them by the severe and uncorrupted sanctity of their morals. But besides these circumstances, we should also recollect that two events occurred in the eighth century, which exclusively promoted the advancement of that See-the political separation of Rome from the Eastern empire, and the donation of Pepin. During the short republic which followed the former, the nations (as Gibbon has remarked) began once more to seek, on the banks of the Tiber, the kings, the laws, and the oracles of their fate;' and the solid power conferred by the latter, and confirmed by Charlemagne, did much more than compensate for the loss of a recent and precarious independence. Once more associated as a powerful member of the Western empire, Rome reoccupied the proper field of her ambition and her triumphs. It is true that the nature of her warfare, and the character of her weapons, were now wholly changed; nevertheless, the temporalities so profusely conferred upon her, failed not to give great additional efficacy to her spiritual claims-claims which she had already advanced with some boldness, but which she was now qualified to press, if disposed so to press them, to the last extremity of usurpation.

Before we take leave of this period, it is proper to mention, that the first appearance of the Creed, commonly called Atha

Creed.

nasian, is ascribed to it with great probability.t There The Athanasian can be no doubt that this exposition of faith was composed in the West, and in Latin; but the exact date of its composition has been the subject of much difference. The very definite terms, in which it expresses the Church doctrine of the Incarnation, are sufficient to prove it posterior to the Councils of Ephe

It would scarcely appear, for instance, that the Pope had any official communication with the Church of Gaul between Gregory I. and Gregory II., i. e. for about a hundred and ten years. Yet the Bishop of Arles presided over that Church in the character, or rather under the name, of his Vicar. See Guizot, Hist. de la Civil, de la France, leçon xix.

Bishop Pearson, Archbishop Usher, Hamond, L'Estrange, Dr. Cave, Schelstrate, Pagi, and Du Pin, are all of opinion that this creed was composed, not by Athanasius, but by a later and a Latin writer. Vossius, Quesnel, and others, go so far as to ascribe it to Vigilius Tapsensis, an African Bishop, who lived at the end of the fifth century. This last position, however, is not indisputable; though Vigilius certainly published some writings under the name of Athanasius, with which this creed is frequently joined.