A History of Rome to 565 A. D.

by Arthur E. R. Boak

Constantine’s successors followed his example of summoning church councils to settle sectarian controversies, though, unlike him, many of them sought to force upon the church the doctrines of their particular sect. As the general councils accentuated rather than allayed antagonisms, the eastern emperor Zeno substituted a referendum of the bishops by provinces. But this precedent was not followed. Justinian was the emperor who asserted most effectively his authority [pg 389]over the church. He issued edicts upon purely theological questions and upon matters of church discipline without reference to church councils, and he received from the populace of Constantinople the salutation of “High Priest and King.”[18] The decision of the council of 553 provoked an attack upon the sacerdotal power of the emperor by Facundus, bishop of Hermiana in Africa, who declared that not the emperor but the priests should rule the church. Nevertheless, this opposition had no immediate effect, and Justinian remained the successful embodiment of “Caesaro-papism.”

The growth of the papacy. The late empire witnessed a rapid extension of the authority of the bishopric of Rome, which had even previously laid claim to the primacy among the episcopal sees. In the West the title “pope” (from the Greek pappas, “father”) became the exclusive prerogative of the bishop of Rome. The papacy was the sole western patriarchate, or bishopric, with jurisdiction over the metropolitan and provincial bishops, and was the sole representative of the western church in its dealings with the bishops of the East. At the council of Serdica (343 A. D.) it was decided that bishops deposed as a result of the Arian controversy might refer their cases to the Pope Julius for final decision, and, in the course of the fifth century, eastern bishops frequently appealed to the decision of the pope on questions of orthodoxy. However, the eastern church never fully admitted the religious jurisdiction of the papacy. The ideal of the papacy became the organization of the church on the model of the empire, with the pope as its religious head.

The claims of the papacy were pushed with vigor by Innocent I (402–417 A. D.) and Leo I (440–461 A. D.). The latter laid particular stress upon the primacy of Peter among the Apostles and taught that this had descended to his apostolic successors. It was Leo also who induced the western emperor Valentinian III in 455 to order the whole western church to obey the bishop of Rome as the heir to the primacy of Peter. The Pope Gelasius (492–496 A. D.) asserted the power of the priests to be superior to the imperial authority, but the establishment of the Ostrogothic kingdom in Italy and the reconquest of the peninsula by the eastern emperor weakened the independence of the Roman bishopric. Justinian was able to compel the popes to submit to his authority in religious matters.

The patriarchate of Constantinople. A rival to the papacy developed in the patriarchate of Constantinople, which at the Council of Constantinople in 381 was recognized as taking precedence over the other eastern bishoprics and ranking next to that of Rome, “because Constantinople is New Rome.” However, the primacy of the bishop of Constantinople in the eastern church was challenged by the older patriarchates of Ephesus, Antioch and Alexandria, all of which had been apostolic foundations, while the claims of Constantinople to that honor were more than dubious. Between 381 and 451 the bishops of Alexandria successfully disputed the doctrinal authority of the see of Constantinople, but at the council of Chalcedon (451 A. D.) Pulcheria and Marcian reasserted the primacy of the patriarch of the capital. At this time also the bishopric of Jerusalem was recognized as a patriarchate. The patriarch of Constantinople was now placed on an equality with the pope, a recognition against which the Pope Leo protested in vain. However, the patriarchs of Constantinople never acquired the power and independence of the popes. Situated as they were in the shadow of the imperial palace, and owing their ecclesiastical authority to the support of the throne, they rarely ventured to oppose the will of the emperor. Under Justinian the patriarch held the position of a “minister of state in the department of religion.”

The temporal power of the clergy. When Christianity became a religion of state it was inevitable that the Christian clergy should occupy a privileged position. This recognition was accorded them by Constantine the Great when he exempted them from personal services (munera) in 313 and taxation in 319 A. D. Those who entered the ranks of the clergy were expected to abandon all worldly pursuits, and an imperial edict of 452 excluded them from all gainful occupations. In addition to their ecclesiastical authority in matters of belief and church discipline, the bishops also acquired considerable power in secular affairs. In the days of persecution the Christians had regularly submitted legal differences among themselves to the arbitration of their bishops, rather than resort to the tribunals of state. Constantine the Great gave legal sanction to this episcopal arbitration in civil cases; Arcadius, however, restricted its use to cases in which the litigants voluntarily submitted to the bishop’s judgment. The bishops enjoyed no direct criminal jurisdiction, al[pg 391]though since the right of sanctuary was accorded to the churches, they were frequently able to intercede with effect for those who sought asylum with them. In the enforcement of moral and humanitarian legislation the state called for the coöperation of the bishops.

The influential position of the bishops as the religious heads of the municipalities led to their being accorded a definite place in the municipal administration. In protecting the impoverished taxpayers against the imperial officers they were more effective than the “defensores plebis.” And in the days of the barbarian invasions, when the representatives of the imperial authority were driven from the provinces, the bishops became the leaders of the Roman population in their contact with the barbarian conquerors.

III. Sectarian Strife

Sectarianism. The history of the church from Constantine to Justinian is largely the history of sectarian strife, which had its origin in doctrinal controversies. While the western church in general abstained from acute theological discussions and adhered strictly to the orthodox or established creed, devoting its energies to the development of church organization, the church of the East, imbued with the Greek philosophic spirit, busied itself with attempts to solve the mysteries of the Christian faith and was a fruitful source of heterodoxy. Strife between the adherents of the various sects was waged with extreme bitterness and frequently culminated in riots and bloodshed. Toleration was unknown and heretics, like pagans, were classed as criminals and excluded from communion with the orthodox church. Of the many sects which arose in the fourth and fifth centuries, two were of outstanding importance. These were the Arians and the monophysites.

Arianism. Arianism had its rise in an attempt to express with philosophical precision the relation of the three members of the Holy Trinity; God the Father, the Son, and the Spirit. About 318 A. D., Arius, a presbyter of Alexandria, taught that God was from eternity but that the Son and the Spirit were his creations. Over the teaching of Arius, a controversy arose which threatened the unity of the church. Accordingly, Constantine intervened and summoned the ecumenical council of Nicaea to decide upon the orthodoxy of Arius. [pg 392]The council accepted the formula of Athanasius that the Son was of the same substance (homo-ousion) as the Father, which was the doctrine of the West. Arius was exiled.