[2] Dozy, ii. 44, quotes in support of this the second canon of the Sixteenth Council of Toledo.
[3] Mason, a bishop of Merida, was said to have baptized a Pagan as late as this.
[4] Dunham's "Hist. of Spain," vol. i. p. 210.
The Government, which began with being of a thoroughly military character, gradually tended to become a theocracy—a result due in great measure to the institution of national councils, which were called by the king, and attended by all the chief ecclesiastics of the realm. Many of the nobles and high dignitaries of the State also took part in these assemblies, though they might not vote on purely ecclesiastical matters. These councils, of which there were nineteen in all (seventeen held at Toledo, the Gothic capital, and two elsewhere), gradually assumed the power of ratifying the election of the king, and of dictating his religious policy. Thus by the Sixth Council of Toledo (canon three) it was enacted that all kings should swear "not to suffer the exercise of any other religion than the Catholic, and to vigorously enforce the law against all dissentients, especially against that accursed people the Jews." The fact of the monarchy becoming elective[1] no doubt contributed a good deal to throwing the power into the hands of the clergy.
Dr Dunham remarks that these councils tended to make the bishops subservient to the court, but surely the evidence points the other way. On the whole it was the king that lost power, though no doubt as a compensation he gained somewhat more authority over Church matters. He could, for instance, issue temporary regulations with regard to Church discipline. Witiza, one of the last of the Gothic kings, seems even to have authorized, or at least encouraged, the marriage of his clergy.[2] The king could preside in cases of appeal in purely ecclesiastical affairs; and we know that Recared I. (587-601) and Sisebert (612-621) did in fact exercise this right. He also gained the power of nominating and translating bishops; but it is not clear when this privilege was first conceded to the king.[3] The Fourth Council of Toledo (633) enacted that a bishop should be elected by the clergy and people of his city, and that his election should be approved by the metropolitan and synod of his province: while the Twelfth Council, held forty-eight years later, evidently recognizes the validity of their appointment by royal warrant alone. Some have referred this innovation back to the despotic rule of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, at the beginning of the sixth century; others to the sudden accumulation of vacant sees on the fall of Arianism in Spain. Another important power possessed by the kings was that of convoking these national councils, and confirming their acts.
[1] In 531 A.D.
[2] Monk of Silo, sec. 14, who follows Sebastian of Salamanca; Robertson, iii. 6. We learn from the "Chron. Sil," sec. 27, that Fruela (757-768) forbade the marriage of clergy. But these accounts of Witiza's reign are all open to suspicion.
[3] Robertson, "Hist. of Christian Church," vol. iii. p. 183.
The sudden surrender of their Arianism by the Gothic king and nobles is a noticeable phenomenon. All the barbarian races that invaded Spain at the beginning of the fifth century were inoculated with the Arian heresy. Of these the Vandals carried their Arianism, which proved to be of a very persecuting type, into Africa. The Suevi, into which nation the Alani, under the pressure of a common enemy, had soon been absorbed, gave up their Arianism for the orthodox faith about 560. The Visigoths, however, remained Arians until a somewhat later period—until 589 namely, when Recared I., the son of Leovigild, held a national council and solemnly abjured the creed of his forefathers, his example being followed by many of his nobles and bishops.
The Visigoths, while they remained Arian, were on the whole remarkably tolerant[1] towards both Jews and Catholics, though we have instances to the contrary in the cases of Euric and Leovigild, who are said to have persecuted the orthodox party. The latter king, indeed, who was naturally of a mild and forgiving temper, was forced into harsh measures by the unfilial and traitorous conduct of his son Ermenegild. If the latter had been content to avow his conversion to orthodoxy without entering into a treasonable rebellion in concert with the Suevi and Imperialists against his too indulgent father, there is every reason to think that Leovigild would have taken no measures against him. Even after a second rebellion the king offered to spare his son's life—which was forfeit to the State—on condition that he renounced his newly-adopted creed, and returned to the Arian fold. His reason—a very intelligible one—no doubt was that he might put an end to the risk of a third rebellion by separating his son effectually from the intriguing party of Catholics. To call Ermenegild a martyr because he was put to death under such circumstances is surely an abuse of words.