whose influence, however, was far from equalling that of the the Archdeacon.

Only the purely episcopal constitution obtained a general influence and validity among these newly Christianized nations. It is true that the Metropolitan constitution had passed over into the new churches so far as the theory of polity was concerned. But not only particular political circumstances, - as, for example, when a bishop fell under a different political ruler from that of his metropolitan, or under a ruler at enmity with that of the metropolitan, — but the difficulty of adapting the Old-Roman polity to the state of things in the new Frankish and German empires, in which there were no properly metropolitan centres, contributed to the dissolution in many countries of the metropolitan constitution. In this manner the authority and influence of the bishop depended very much upon his personal characteristics; and it was not without success that the independent Frankish bishops resisted the endeavors of Boniface to restore again the power of the inetropolitan, while at the same time his power would naturally diminish, in proportion as the authority of one universal Primate was gradually rising in the Western church.

§101.

FORMATION OF THE PAPACY.

Liber Diurnus Romanorum Pontificum (the legal precedents of the Roman See, collected about 715) ed. Holstein Rom. 1658. Liber Pontificalis ss. vitae Romanorum Pontificum a Petro apostolo usque ad Nicol. I. ed. Blanchini, Rom. 1718-35, also published in Muratori Rerum Ital. scriptt. T. III. Platina De vitis pontificum Romanorum, Col. 1479, Lugd. 1645. Blondel Traité historique de la primauté en l'église, Genève 1641. Salmasius De primatu papae, Lugd. 1645. Cyprian Uberzeugende Belehrung vom Ursprung und Wachsthum des Pabsthums, Frkf. 1735. Walch Entwurf einer vollstandiger Historie der römischen Pabste, Gött. 1758. Nehr Geschichte des Pabstthums, Leipzic 1801. Bower History of the Popes, Lond. 1750-54. Maimbourg (Papal) Traité historique de l'établissement de l'églisse de Rome, 1685. Pagi (Papal) Breviarium illustriora pontificum gesta complectens, Lucc. 1724. Katerkamp (Papal) Ueber den Primat des Apost. Petrus, Münst. 1820. Hussey The Rise of the Papal power, Oxford 1851.

We have already seen (Ancient Church § 71) that in the preceding period the Roman bishops were succeeding, more and more, in establishing the primacy of their church over all others, upon the ground of the divine right of the Apostle Peter and of a supposed succession to his authority, rather than upon any decrees of councils or imperial statutes. They were still more successful, in this period, in employing the favorable circumstances of the time, particularly their own influence upon the newly converted German races, for the increase of their power, and were aided by the insight and sagacity of both secular and ecclesiastical advocates of their claims. Moreover, it seemed as if the struggle for the independence of the church, in opposition to the abuses of the civil power, could be successful only in case the bishops, who were so dependent upon the princes, ceased to work in a separate and individual capacity, and some one of their number, standing as the head of the entire ecclesiastical body, and prosecuting his own preconceived plan independently of the princes, should engage in the contest with them. Besides this, it did not escape even a careless observer, how very much was frequently accomplished, in times of general political and ecclesiastical confusion, towards the maintenance and restoration of order, by the well-known energy and wisdom of a Roman bishop, such an one, for example, as Gregory the Great, who stands at the entrance of the Middle Ages: a man as mild and gentle towards the weak, as he was earnest and severe towards the delinquent; defending with glowing zeal, and with full conviction, the rights of the Roman church as the Cathedra Petri, and yet not disposed to infringe in the least upon the rights of other churches; sincerely believing that the final guidance of the whole church was committed to him, and yet very far, in the temper of his mind, from vain ambition and worldly avarice. This energy and efficiency of the Roman bishops, coupled with the ancient reputation of Rome for orthodoxy in doctrine, which, in general, was still maintained during this period, could not fail to enhance everywhere the authority of the Roman church. Still, the establishment of a decided supremacy of the Romish bishops was contradictory to the theory and constitution of the church, as held up to this time, and it was only gradually and mostly after the eighth century, that the actual victory of the former over the latter took place, and a new ecclesiastical system, that of the Papacy, came into existence, which was from this time onward clothed with the not inconsiderable secular power of the Romish see.

The relations of the Papacy to the churches and governments of different countries were quite various.

With the Greek emperors, who since 554 had regained dominion over Italy, the Roman bishops at first stood in very close relations; but the feeble hold which their power had upon Italy, compelled them to concede many important privileges to the latter, as the richest and most powerful proprietors, and those who possessed the greatest influence over the people. On the other hand, the Roman bishops regarded themselves as vassals of the Greek emperors, who confirmed their election, to whom, upon entering upon office, they sent their deputies (Apocrisiarios), and from whom they had to endure great external humiliation, even as late as the seventh century, during the Monothelite controversy. It was not until the close of this period that the Roman bishops, partly upon occasion of the Image controversy, but chiefly by means of their closer connection with the Frankish empire, succeeded in emancipating themselves from the supremacy of the Greek emperors.

The jealousy between the patriarchs of Rome, and those

1 The name papa (πάπας), which previously had been given to all bishops, was more and more confined to the Roman patriarchs, after the second half of the sixth century.

2 After the dissolution of the West-Roman empire in 476, Italy became a kingdom of the Heruli under Odoacer until 493, and then of the Ostrogoths until 554.

5

of Constantinople, gradually increased, until, at length, the points of contact and collision were removed, by the total separation of the Eastern from the Western church. The relation of the Roman bishops to the Greek emperors had, from the very first, conditioned their relation to the Constantinopolitan patriarchs. In proportion as the bishops of Rome were dependent upon the Greek emperors, the patriarchs of Constantinople were the more unwilling to concede to them a supreme authority; and, at a later day, owing to the altered state of political relations, the East and the West were too far separated to allow any inclination upon the part of the patriarchs of Constantinople to regard the Roman see with much veneration. At the beginning of this period, a controversy arose respecting the authority of each church. John Jejunator, the patriarch of Constantinople (585-595), at a council in 587, had assumed to himself the title of ἐπίσκοπος οἰκουμενικός, a name which previously had been only occasionally adopted by the Constantinopalitan and other patriarchs. In this, the Roman bishop Pelagius II. (578-590) thought he saw an intention upon the part of the patriarch of Constantinople to make himself supreme bishop of the church universal. Pelagius's protest against this was continued still more earnestly by Gregory the Great, before the Greek emperor Mauricius, as well as the patriarch of Constantinople himself; nevertheless the title was not given up, but on the contrary was constantly used by the see of Constantinople, after the reign of the the usurper and murderer Phocas (602-610), who had fafavored the claims of the Roman see from political and personal considerations. Gregory, on the other hand, called himself "Servus servorum Dei," though the popes who succeeded soon associated with this appellation, the other and more ingenuous title of universal bishop. A decision of the council Quinsextum at Constantinople, in 692 (see §106), that the patriarchs of Constantinople were equal in authority with those of Rome, though recognized as authoritative by the Oriental church, was too late to have any effect in diminishing the authority of the Roman popes in

the West.

The Roman bishops stood in unpleasant relations to the Lombards, who had invaded Italy in 568, partly because they were Arians, and partly because their progress in Italy was disadvantageous to the East-Roman empire, with which the Roman see was now so closely connected. Still, the Arian Lombards were inclined to a certain reverence for the Roman bishops as the successors of Peter, and after the transition of Queen Theodelind, in 587, and her son King Adelwald (616-626), to the Catholic church, and particularly after the reign of King Grimoald (†671), the intensity of their opposition to Rome diminished, although it never entirely disappeared, and at last broke forth again in a most violent manner. Of the other Italian churches, only that of Ravenna was able to assert its independence, for some time longer.

With the Spanish Church, the Roman see had already come into connection in the preceding period. After the settlement of the Arian Goths in Spain, this connection was weakened so far as extent of country was concerned ; but the oppressed party of Old-Spanish Catholics were so much the more intent upon keeping up the connection, and after the transition of the Gothic-Spanish King Reccared to the Catholic church, in 589, they strengthened and extended it once more to its original limits. Gregory the Great granted the pallium, as the symbol of primacy, to Leander, bishop of Seville, and successfully interposed his judicial authority, in behalf of two Spanish bishops who had been deposed from office by a Spanish noble. Afterwards, indeed, upon a special occasion, King Witiza (701-710) forbade any appeal to the bishop of Rome; but the discussion thus commenced between Spain and Rome was only momentary, owing to the incursion of the Saracens which soon followed in 711, and which the pope could easily represent as a judgment of God sent to punish an invasion of ecclesiastical order.