Curiosities of Christian History Prior to the Reformation

by James Paterson

RELIGIOUS RIOTS ABOUT THE TRISAGION.

The sixth century opened a sanguinary internecine feud between sects of the Church, and the first religious war was said to arise about the correct words of the Trisagion as used in the Church service in Constantinople. The blood of thousands was shed in the streets, squares, and churches; and at last the Emperor had to abdicate to conciliate an insolent mob, principally composed of infuriated monks. Gibbon thus describes it: “In the fever of the times the tense, or rather the sound, of a syllable was sufficient to disturb the peace of an empire. The Trisagion (thrice holy), ‘Holy, Holy, Holy, Lord God of Hosts!’ is supposed by the Greeks to be the identical hymn which the angels and cherubim eternally repeat before the throne of God, and which about the middle of the fifth century was miraculously revealed to the Church of Constantinople. The devotion of Antioch soon added, ‘who was crucified for us’; and this grateful address, either to Christ alone or to the whole Trinity, may be justified by the rules of theology, and has been gradually adopted by the Catholics of the East and the West. The Trisagion, with and without this obnoxious addition, was chanted in the Cathedral by the two adverse choirs; and when their lungs were exhausted, they had recourse to the more solid arguments of sticks and stones. The aggressors were punished by the Emperor, and defended by the Patriarch, and the crown and the mitre were staked on the event of this momentous quarrel.”

THE ANCIENTS’ PREACHING APPLAUDED ON THE SPOT.

One remarkable feature of the ancient services of the Church was, that the people used to applaud and encourage the preacher with clapping of hands and loud acclamations. St. Jerome, writing to Vigilantius, says, “The time was when he himself had applauded him with his hands and feet, leaping by his side and crying out ‘Orthodox’ for his sermon on the Resurrection.” And George of Alexandria relates that “the people applauded the sermons of St. Chrysostom, some by tossing their thin garments, others moving their plumes, others laying their hands upon their swords, and others waving their handkerchiefs and crying out, ‘Thou art worthy of the priesthood! thou art the thirteenth apostle! Christ hath sent thee to save souls!’” etc. And Gregory in his dream describes how the people during the sermon moved their bodies like the waves of the sea raised by the wind. But the great ambition of the preacher was rather to melt the congregation into tears. St. Jerome says the preacher should labour to excite the groans of the people rather than their applauses. St. Austin says he once preached in Cæsarea, in Mauritania, where a savage custom existed of the citizens engaging in a bloody fight once a year by throwing stones at each other. And he directed all his eloquence against this custom, and was glad to notice the tears shed by many, and he rejoiced at the time of writing that eight years had since passed and the fight had never been there renewed. St. Chrysostom, the most effective of all the ancient preachers, said once, “I have thought of making it a law to forbid such acclamations, and to persuade you to hear in silence.” It was a frequent practice for notaries to take down the sermons of favourite preachers in shorthand, and in that way many have been preserved to the present day.

DRESS AND APPEARANCE OF EARLY CLERGY.

At a very early period the leaders of the Church attributed great importance to the particular dress and appearance of the clergy, and laid down stringent rules on that subject. The Canons said a decent mean must be observed—neither too nice nor too slovenly. In particular the extremes of baldness and long hair were equally objectionable, so that all were obliged to shave the crown of the head and beard. This distinguished them from the priests of pagan deities. So they were to observe a medium in dress, and to wear neither white nor black. But the colours varied in different times and places. It was noticed that these directions as to garb arose after the danger of detection during times of persecution had ceased. One garment, called the caracalla, and since cassock, was adopted after the time of Constantine. It was a long garment, reaching down to the heels, such as the Roman people put on when they went to salute the Emperor.

THE FOPPISH PRIESTS AND DEACONS OF THE FOURTH CENTURY.

So early as the fourth century there were very worldly and self-seeking officers in the Church. St. Jerome in his “Treatise on Virginity” says: “There are some of them who aspire to the office of priest or deacon that they may visit women with the greater liberty. Their chief care is to be well dressed, neatly shod, and perfumed; they curl their hair with irons, they have bright rings on their fingers, and they walk on tiptoe, looking more like bridegrooms than clerks. Some of them make it their only business to find out the names and residences of ladies of quality, and to discover their dispositions. I will describe one of them who is a master in the art. He rises with the sun, the order of his visits is arranged, he finds out the shortest ways, and the troublesome old man enters almost the very chambers in which they rest. If he sees a cushion, a napkin, or any other little article that he likes, he praises it and admires the neatness of it; he takes it in his hand, then complains that he has not something of that kind; and, in short, he snatches it away before it is given to him.” St. Jerome also mentions the avarice of these self-seeking priests, who, under pretence of giving blessings, reach out their hands to receive money. This plain speaking of St. Jerome made him many enemies, who attacked in turn his own reputation and the fascination he exercised over fashionable ladies, so that he had to leave Rome and retreat to Palestine.

THE EARLY BISHOPS.

Great learning has been shown by ecclesiastical historians as to the precise position of early bishops—one side contending that these high officials were appointed by Christ, or at least by His Apostles; and the further inference is then drawn, that therefore this mode of governing the Church is the best possible and the only right and orderly kind of government for a true Church. Both points have been denied, and especially the second, because it is urged that even if there were bishops appointed by the Apostles, it would prove nothing, except that the Apostles thought them the best kind of officers for the time being, and yet that they might not be the best in other and different countries and circumstances. Most of the Christians of all times till the Reformation too hastily overlooked the fundamental principle, that each country and age is necessarily the best judge of the peculiar mode of governing the Church, and should not surrender its better judgment to the views of earlier and less experienced ages as to matters not expressly enjoined by Scripture. The defenders of bishops delight to dwell on some facts, or assumed facts, in favour of their theory. They say that St. John was one of the authors of the order of bishops, and that he went about ordaining for various stations, and especially Polycarp, while St. Peter ordained Clement at Rome and St. Paul ordained Timothy at Ephesus. The list of the first bishops is, however, very obscure. It is said that James, the Lord’s brother, was the first Bishop of Jerusalem, and was ordained by the Apostles immediately after the Crucifixion. And hence it is argued that our Lord must have sanctioned this act in some way. One consequence of the theory of bishops was, that the bishop alone had an inherent right to administer the sacraments of baptism and the Lord’s Supper, and also to preach and ordain others; while a presbyter could only do so with his permission express or implied. And, above all, the bishop could call presbyters to account and excommunicate and censure them, thereby implying that the one order of priests was inferior to the other in jurisdiction.