{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_34172/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_34172","id":"gutenberg_34172","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/34172","summary":null,"tags":["Category: History - Medieval/Middle Ages","Category: History - Religious","Christianity and other religions -- Islam","Church history -- Middle Ages, 600-1500","Papacy","Papacy -- History"],"text":"Peter\u2019s Rock\n\n                                    In\n\n                             Mohammed\u2019s Flood\n\n                From St. Gregory The Great to St. Leo III.\n\n                       Being the Seventh Volume of\n\n                       The Formation of Christendom\n\n                                    By\n\n                        Thomas W. Allies, K.C.S.G.\n\n                        London: Burns & Oats, Ld.\n\n                New York: Catholic Publication Society Co.\n\n                                   1890\n\n\n\n\n\n\nPROLOGUE TO THE SEVEN VOLUMES OF THE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM.\n\n\nThis work being from the beginning one in idea, I place here together the\ntitles of the fifty-six chapters composing it. For each of these was\nintended to be complete in itself, so far as its special subject reached;\nbut each was likewise to form a distinct link in a chain. The Church of\nGod comes before the thoughtful mind as the vast mass of a kingdom. Its\ngreatest deeds are but parts of something immeasurably greater. The most\nstriking evidence of its doctrines and of its works is cumulative. Those\nwho do not wish to let it so come before them often confine their interest\nin very narrow bounds of time and space. Thus I have known one, who\nthought himself a bishop, accept Wycliffe as the answer of a child to his\nquestion, Who first preached the Gospel in England? And not only this.\nThey also seize upon a particular incident, or person, and so invest with\nextraordinary importance facts which they suppose, and which so conceived\nare convenient for their purpose, but in historical truth are anything but\nundisputed. In this tone of mind, or shortness of vision, that which is\ngigantic becomes puny, that which is unending becomes transient. The\nsequel and coherence of nations, the mighty roll of the ages spoken of by\nSt. Augustine, are lost sight of. Again, in English-speaking countries\nalone more than two hundred sects call themselves Christian. Their\nenjoyment of perfect civil freedom and equality veils to them the horror\nof doctrinal anarchy, in virtue of which alone they exist. By this anarchy\nthe very conception of unity as the corollary of truth is lost to the\npopular mind. But through the eight centuries of which I have treated, the\nloss of unity was the one conclusive test of falsehood, and the Christian\nFaith stood out to its possessors with the fixed solidity of a mountain\nrange whose summit pierced the heaven.\n\nIt has been my purpose to exhibit the profound unity of the Christian\nFaith together with the infinite variety of its effects on individual\ncharacter, on human society, on the action of nations towards each other,\non universal as well as national legislation. Like the figure of the great\nMother of God bearing her Divine Son in her arms, and so including the\nIncarnation and all its works, the Faith stands before us in history,\n\u201cveste deaurata, circumdata varietate\u201d. And as the personal unity appears\nin the symbol of the Divine Love to man expressed in her Maternity, so it\nappears also in the figure of the Church through the ages in which that\nDivine Love executes His work. A divided creed means a marred gospel and\nan incredulous world.\n\nI offer this work as a single stone, though costing the labour of thirty\nyears, if perchance it may be accepted in the structure of that Cathedral\nof human thought and action wherein our Crucified God is the central\nfigure, around which all has grown.\n\nBe it allowed me to quote here words of the present Sovereign Pontiff\naddressed on the 18th August, 1883, to the Cardinals de Luca, Pitra, and\nHergenr\u00f6ther:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cIt is the voice of all history that God with the most careful\n    providence directs the various and never-ending movements of human\n    affairs. Even against man\u2019s intention he makes them serve the\n    advancement of His Church. History says further that the Roman\n    Pontificate has ever escaped victorious from its contests and the\n    violence employed against it, while its assaulters have failed in\n    the hope which they cherished, and have wrought their own\n    destruction. Not less openly does history attest the divine\n    provision made concerning the city of Rome from its very\n    beginning. This was to give for ever a home and seat to the\n    successors of St. Peter, from which as a centre, being free from\n    all control of a superior, they might guide the whole Christian\n    commonwealth. And no one has ventured to resist this counsel of\n    the divine Providence without sooner or later perceiving the\n    vanity of his efforts.\n\n    \u201cIt cannot be expedient, nor is it wise counsel, to fight with a\n    power for whose perpetuity God has pledged Himself, while history\n    attests the performance of the pledge. Since Catholics throughout\n    the whole world pay it religious veneration, it is their interest\n    to defend it with all their power. Nay even the rulers of secular\n    governments must acknowledge this, and lay it to heart, especially\n    in times so dangerous, when the very foundations on which human\n    society rests appear well nigh to shake and totter.\u201d\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS TO THE SEVEN VOLUMES OF THE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM.\n\n\nVOLUME I.\n\n_INAUGURAL LECTURE ON THE PHILOSOPHY OF HISTORY, 1854.\u2014THE CHRISTIAN FAITH\nAND THE INDIVIDUAL._\n\nCHAPTER I.\n\nThe Consummation of the Old World.\n\nCHAPTER II.\n\nThe New Creation of Individual Man.\n\nCHAPTER III.\n\nHeathen and Christian Man compared.\n\nCHAPTER IV.\n\nEffect of the Christian People on the World.\n\nCHAPTER V.\n\nNew Creation of the Primary Relation between Man and Woman.\n\nCHAPTER VI.\n\nThe Creation of the Virginal Life.\n\nVOLUME II.\n\n_THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND SOCIETY._\n\nCHAPTER VII.\n\nThe gods of the Nations when Christ appeared.\n\nCHAPTER VIII.\n\nThe First and the Second Man.\n\nCHAPTER IX.\n\nThe Second Man verified in history.\n\nCHAPTER X.\n\nThe First Age of the Martyr Church.\n\nCHAPTER XI.\n\nThe Second Age of the Martyr Church.\n\nCHAPTER XII.\n\nThe Third Age of the Martyr Church.\n\nCHAPTER XIII.\n\nThe Christian Church and the Greek Philosophy, I.\n\nCHAPTER XIV.\n\nThe Christian Church and the Greek Philosophy, II.\n\nVOLUME III.\n\n_THE CHRISTIAN FAITH AND PHILOSOPHY._\n\nCHAPTER XV.\n\nThe Foundation of the Roman Church, the Type and Form of every particular\nChurch; its contrast with Philosophy, and its development of the Judaic\nembryo.\n\nCHAPTER XVI.\n\nNeostoicism and the Christian Church.\n\nCHAPTER XVII.\n\nThe First Resurrection of Cultured Heathenism in the Neopythagorean\nSchool.\n\nCHAPTER XVIII.\n\nStanding-ground of Philosophy from the accession of Nerva to that of\nSeverus.\n\nCHAPTER XIX.\n\nThe Gospel of Philosophic Heathenism.\n\nCHAPTER XX.\n\nThe Neoplatonic Philosophy and Epoch.\n\nCHAPTER XXI.\n\nThe respective power of the Greek Philosophy and the Christian Church to\nconstruct a Society.\n\nCHAPTER XXII.\n\nThe Church reconstructing the Natural Order by the Supernatural.\n\nVOLUME IV.\n\n_CHURCH AND STATE IN THE FORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM._\n\nCHAPTER XXIII.\n\nPrologue.\u2014The Kingdom as prophesied and as fulfilled.\n\nCHAPTER XXIV.\n\nRelation between the Civil and the Spiritual Powers from Adam to Christ.\n\nCHAPTER XXV.\n\nRelation between the Spiritual and the Civil Powers after Christ.\n\nCHAPTER XXVI.\n\nTransmission of Spiritual Authority from the Person of our Lord to Peter\nand the Apostles, as set forth in the New Testament.\n\nCHAPTER XXVII.\n\nTransmission of Spiritual Authority as witnessed in the history of the\nChurch from A.D. 29 to A.D. 325.\n\nCHAPTER XXVIII.\n\nThe One Episcopate resting upon the One Sacrifice.\n\nCHAPTER XXIX.\n\nIndependence of the Antenicene Church shown in her organic growth.\n\nCHAPTER XXX.\n\nIndependence of the Antenicene Church shown in her mode of positive\nteaching and in her mode of resisting error.\n\nCHAPTER XXXI.\n\nThe Church\u2019s battle for independence over against the Roman Empire.\n\nVOLUME V.\n\n_THE THRONE OF THE FISHERMAN BUILT BY THE CARPENTER\u2019S SON, THE ROOT, THE\nBOND, AND THE CROWN OF CHRISTENDOM._\n\nCHAPTER XXXII.\n\nThe witness of Eighteen Centuries to the See of Peter.\n\nCHAPTER XXXIII.\n\nFrom St. Peter to St. Sylvester, No. 1.\n\nCHAPTER XXXIV.\n\nFrom St. Peter to St. Sylvester, No. 2.\n\nCHAPTER XXXV.\n\nConstantine and the Church.\n\nCHAPTER XXXVI.\n\nConstantine and his Sons: Julian, Valentinian, Valens.\n\nCHAPTER XXXVII.\n\nFrom Constantine at Nic\u00e6a to Theodosius at Constantinople.\n\nCHAPTER XXXVIII.\n\nChurch and State under the Theodosian House.\n\nCHAPTER XXXIX.\n\nChurch and State and the Primacy from 380 to 440.\n\nCHAPTER XL.\n\nThe flowering of Patristic Literature, No. 1.\n\nCHAPTER XLI.\n\nThe flowering of Patristic Literature, No. 2.\n\nCHAPTER XLII.\n\nSt. Leo the Great.\n\nVOLUME VI.\n\n_THE HOLY SEE AND THE WANDERING OF THE NATIONS: LEO I. TO GREGORY I._\n\nCHAPTER XLIII.\n\nThe Holy See and the Wandering of the Nations.\n\nCHAPTER XLIV.\n\nC\u00e6sar fell down.\n\nCHAPTER XLV.\n\nPeter stood up.\n\nCHAPTER XLVI.\n\nJustinian.\n\nCHAPTER XLVII.\n\nSt. Gregory the Great.\n\nVOLUME VII.\n\n_PETER\u2019S ROCK IN MOHAMMED\u2019S FLOOD._\n\nCHAPTER XLVIII.\n\nThe Pope and the Byzantine.\n\nCHAPTER XLIX.\n\nPope Martin: his Council, and his Martyrdom.\n\nCHAPTER L.\n\nHeraclius betrays the Faith, and cuts his empire in two.\n\nCHAPTER LI.\n\nChristendom and Islam.\n\nCHAPTER LII.\n\nOld Rome and New Rome.\n\nCHAPTER LIII.\n\nAn Emperor-Priest and four great Popes.\n\nCHAPTER LIV.\n\nRome\u2019s Three Hundred Years, 455-756, from Genseric to Aistulf, between the\nGoth, the Lombard, and the Byzantine.\n\nCHAPTER LV.\n\nFrom Servitude to Sovereignty.\n\nCHAPTER LVI.\n\nThe Making of Christendom.\n\n\n\n\n\nPREFACE.\n\n\nThis volume is strictly in continuance of the two which it follows\u2014\u201cThe\nThrone of the Fisherman built by the Carpenter\u2019s Son,\u201d and \u201cThe Holy See\nand the Wandering of the Nations\u201d. It is bulk alone which prevents my\noffering the three in one cover as historic proof, from original\ndocuments, of the first eight centuries that the Holy See by the\ninstitution of Christ is the Root, the Bond, and the Crown of Christendom.\nThe works chiefly used in it are before and above all the letters of the\nPopes in their office of governing the Christian Commonwealth, which are\ncontained in the great collection of Mansi, thirty-one volumes folio. The\nfull titles of other works chiefly referred to are Cardinal Hergenr\u00f6ther,\nto whose work, _Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, sein Leben, seine\nSchriften, und das griechische Schisma_, and to his _Handbuch der\nallgemeinen Kirchengeschichte_, I owe great obligations\u2014they are each in\nthree volumes; Alfred von Reumont, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, in three\nvolumes; Gregorovius, _Geschichte der Stadt Rom_, in eight volumes; Kurth,\n_Les origines de la Civilisation moderne_, in two volumes; Jungmann,\n_Dissertationes_, in seven volumes; the German edition of Rohrbacher\u2019s\nHistory, vol. x. by Rump, vol. xi. by Kellner; Hefele,\n_Concilien-Geschichte_, in seven volumes; Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_;\nBrunengo, _Le Origini della Sovranit\u00e0 Temporale dei Papi_, and _I primi\nPapi-Re e l\u2019ultimo Re dei Longo-bardi_; F. von Hoensbroech, _Enstehung und\nEntwicklung des Kirchenstaates_; Niehues, _Kaiserthum und Papstthum_,\nD\u00f6llinger, _Muhammed\u2019s Religion, nach ihrer inneren Entwicklung und ihrem\nEinflusse auf das Leben der V\u00f6lker_. Regensburg, 1838.\n\n\n\n\n\nCONTENTS\n\n\nPrologue To The Seven Volumes Of The Formation Of Christendom.\nContents To The Seven Volumes Of The Formation Of Christendom.\nPreface.\nChapter I. The Pope And The Byzantine.\nChapter II. Pope Martin, His Council, And His Martyrdom.\nChapter III. Heraclius Betrays The Faith, And Cuts His Empire In Two.\nChapter IV. Christendom And Islam.\nChapter V. Old Rome And New Rome.\nChapter VI. An Emperor Priest And Four Great Popes.\nChapter VII. Rome\u2019s Three Hundred Years, 455-756 From Genseric To Aistulf,\nBetween The Goth, The Lombard, And The Byzantine.\nChapter VIII. From Servitude To Sovereignty.\nChapter IX. The Making Of Christendom.\nIndex.\nFootnotes\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER I. THE POPE AND THE BYZANTINE.\n\n\nI have hitherto conducted the history of the Throne of the Fisherman built\nby the Carpenter\u2019s Son in unbroken succession from St. Peter to St.\nGregory the Great. It is a period of 575 years from the Day of Pentecost\nA.D. 29 to St. Gregory\u2019s death in A.D. 604. This period is very nearly\nbisected by the conversion of Constantine. The first half contains the\naction of the Primacy over against a hostile heathen empire. The second\nhalf contains its action upon an empire which, at least in principle,\nacknowledged union with the Catholic Church as a duty, a privilege, and a\nnecessity. The testimony rendered by Councils and by Fathers to the Roman\nPrimacy may be said to be complete in the time of St. Gregory. Subsequent\nCouncils can only add a closer precision to the testimony of the Council\nof Chalcedon. Subsequent acts of the Eastern empire can scarcely go beyond\nthe submission of its episcopate, its emperor, and its nobles to Pope\nHormisdas. The point of that submission consists in the solemn acceptance\nof the line of Roman bishops as inheriting the charge given by our Lord to\nSt. Peter. Subsequent legislation can but apply in detail the acceptance\nby Justinian of the Pope\u2019s right to examine everything which belongs to\nthe doctrine or concerns the conduct of the Church throughout the world.\nAnd force is even added to this acceptance, because it was made when the\nPope, John II., to whom it was made, was not in fact his temporal subject.\n\nI propose to treat in this volume of a period embracing two hundred years.\nIt runs from the time of St. Gregory the Great to the founding of the holy\nRoman empire, in the person of Charlemagne, by Pope St. Leo III.\n\nBut, before entering on this treatment, it seems to me called for to make\none remark on all which I have hitherto written or am hereafter to write,\nand to draw out distinctly a principle which affects every line of my\nnarrative. This is the necessity of considering the Church as the one\nkingdom of Christ in all ages: one and the same polity from the Day of\nPentecost to the Day of Judgment. This idea has always been before me as\nthe rule of faith in writing the six preceding volumes. It has been the\nmajor premiss of my whole argument. To a Catholic the unity of the Church\nis as necessary as the unity of God; and, equally, to say that the Church\nis fallible is to deny the existence of any such thing as the kingdom of\nGod upon earth. The sooner that anything which is fallible is swept away\nthe better. The one duty which we owe to fallibility is to label it. The\nthing called public opinion(1) is fallible, and, accordingly, every\ngeneration sweeps it away and substitutes a fresh fallibility, destined to\ndisappear after a similar ascendency, which waxes and wanes in varying\ndurations of time. Division is the strongest proof of fallibility in that\nwhich is divided, as unity is of truth in that which remains one mass. For\nthis cause those who substitute national churches in a particular country\nunder the political head of that country, whether king, president, or\nparliament, for the one divine polity in all countries, are divided from\nmy argument by an impassable gulf. They no more believe in the Church\nwhich is \u201cthe house of God, the pillar and basis of the truth,\u201d than he\nwho sets up three gods believes in one Infinite Creator and Rewarder of\nHis creatures. The decrees of a General Council in matters of faith are\nnot recognised by them as part of the divine deposit; for to them they are\nnot acts of the Sovereign Lord in His plenary council. The lessons of\nhistory fail to convey any definite impressions to minds in which this\nidea is wanting. Rather the lessons of history affect them as the heathen\nwas affected who heard the description of our Lord\u2019s sufferings undergone\nfor his redemption only to exclaim, \u201cWas it not a long time ago?\u201d There\nare facts, but no connection. A strong instance of this is that the want\nof written records in the first three centuries is not made up to them by\nthe acts of the Church in the fourth, fifth, and sixth centuries, because\nto them the Church is not a polity instinct with one life and following\nfrom the beginning identical rules of government. On the contrary, they\nargue from the silence of perished documents in the three earliest\ncenturies against the recorded practice of the three centuries following.\nThus to them the acts of the Church in the Council of Ephesus in 431,(2)\nthe next ecumenical council to the Nicene, throw no light upon the acts of\nthe Church in the Nicene, of which no full record exists. Nor, again, do\nthe acts of the Council of Chalcedon illustrate to them the antecedent\nconstitution of the Church. And the supplication of the Eastern emperor,\nMarcian, to Pope St. Leo to confirm those acts tells them nothing as to\nthe relation of the Council to the Pope in the time of the Nicene Council.\nLess even than infidels, who reject the Christian revelation altogether,\nbut have a regard for historical sequence, do the nurslings of a national\nchurch, especially if it was in origin a queen\u2019s love-child, and then\ndandled on the knees of successive kings, understand the majesty of the\nApostolic See, as set forth in the words of our Lord, or as unfolded in\nthe course of ages. If the political constitution under which they live be\na system of compromise, they are tempted to make the constitution of the\nChurch a similar system, in which a change of ministry alters or even\nreverses the policy of a kingdom. \u201cThe holy Catholic Church, the communion\nof saints,\u201d is not an entity to such minds. Therefore they fail to\nappreciate the proof of the one polity at the head of which St. Peter\u2019s\nsuccessor stands. For some that polity ceased to exist in the fifth\ncentury; for others in the ninth; for others in the sixteenth; for all\nsuch it is non-existent in the nineteenth. It is for them as the human\nsoul for the infidel surgeon: he cannot find it under his knife. Or as God\nfor the infidel astronomer: he cannot see God in the order of the\nuniverse, though he will receive what physicists tell him, that the\nuniverse is absolutely one.\n\nBut I write for those to whom history is intelligible, because it is an\norder of events unrolling itself as a drama at once human and divine; to\nwhom the human soul makes itself known by its acts; to whom \u201cthe heavens\ndeclare the glory of God, and the firmament shows his handiwork\u2014day unto\nday utters speech, and night unto night showeth knowledge.\u201d To whom\nlikewise there is one \u201cJesus Christ yesterday and to-day, and the same for\never\u201d: yesterday at Pentecost with St. Peter and the apostles and our\nBlessed Lady; to-day with Leo XIII. at Rome and nineteen hundred years of\ndoctors, martyrs, and saints; \u201cthe same for ever\u201d at the Day of Judgment.\n\nAnd now I turn another leaf in the book of human actions, which our Lord\nholds on His knees and unfolds in His history of His one Church.\n\nDuring the whole pontificate of St. Gregory he was defending himself\nagainst the deceit and despotism of the man whom he acknowledged as his\nlawful sovereign, the Byzantine emperor. The despotism usually veiled\nitself in deceit, while the deceit rested upon the despotism rooted in the\nheart of the eastern that he was lord of the world.(3) Worse than the\nLombards, who pursued to the very gates of Rome the people nourished by\nGregory on the Church\u2019s patrimonium, who spoiled, maimed, and tortured\nthose whom they could catch, were the intrigues of the imperial\nlieutenants, the exarchs of Ravenna, plotting with the Lombards, enemies\nof the emperor, against his subjects, the Pope and his Romans. With this\nstate of things the seventh century begins, and so it continues to the\nend. We have to consider the great events which took place in this\ncentury, and especially to point out their connection with this fact of\nthe Byzantine temporal despotism as it was turned upon the spiritual\npower.\n\nAgain, during his whole pontificate, St. Gregory was resisting the\nattempts of the bishops of Constantinople to extend their power. In his\nown time it would seem to have been an effect of Justinian\u2019s legislation\nthat the Roman See accepted them as patriarchs, which Pope Gelasius denied\nthem to be. Not only so but in every step of their advancement they were\nbacked by the emperors to go on yet further by pushing their See under the\ntitle of Ecumenical to a position over the eastern empire parallel to that\nof the Pope over the West, while it was subordinate at the same time to\nthe emperor himself. The four-and-twenty immediate successors of St.\nGregory, from Pope Sabinian, elected in 604, to Pope Constantine, who died\nin 715, were exposed to the full force of this attempt. The bearing of it\nupon the rise of the Mohammedan empire will appear more and more as we\nproceed in the history of this terrible century.\n\nThe first event on which we must dwell for a time on account of its great\neffect upon the history of the century, is the long continued hostility\nbetween the eastern and the Persian empires. In the year 602 the general\nPhocas had deposed the emperor Mauritius.(4) From his reign most Byzantine\nhistorians date the ever increasing calamities of the empire. The popular\nfeeling that a bad ruler is a judgment from God was expressed in the story\nthat a pious monk once asked, O God, why hast Thou set this man over us as\nemperor? when he received for answer, Because I could find none worse.\nPhocas reigned about seven years, and his end was as follows. The\npatriarch Thomas had, by his entreaties, drawn to Constantinople Theodore\nof Siceon, who enjoyed a great reputation for holiness. The mind of\npatriarch Thomas had been greatly moved by auguries of misfortune which as\nit were filled the air. He urged the saint to pray and then to give him\nhis advice. The saint at last yielded to his entreaties and said, \u201cIt was\nmy mind not to disturb you. It is not for your good to know these things.\nBut since you will have it so, learn that the incident which troubles you\nbetokens many great misfortunes. Many will leave our religion. Incursions\nof barbarians will follow, and great blood-shedding. Devastation and\ninsurrection through the whole world. Churches will be deserted. The fall\nof the divine service and of the empire is approaching: and the adversary\nis nigh at hand.\u201d\n\nWhilst St. Theodore was at Constantinople the emperor Phocas suffered from\ngout in hands and feet. He sent for the saint, who laid his hands upon him\nand prayed for him. The emperor felt relief, and commended himself and his\nrealm to Theodore\u2019s prayers. The saint replied that if he wished such a\nprayer to be heard he must cease from oppression and shedding of blood.\nPhocas had great need of such warning, but profited little by it. Narses\nwas the ablest and bravest general whom he had to send against the\nPersians, but he broke his word, and had him burnt alive. This frightful\nexecution moved the patrician Germanus to try after the place of emperor\nwhich Phocas had once offered to him. He planned a conspiracy with\nConstantina, widow of the emperor Mauritius. She had taken asylum with her\ndaughters in Sancta Sophia. This was in 606. At the sight of her the\npeople flocked together and took up arms. Phocas sent orders to bring out\nConstantina with her daughters. The patriarch Cyriakus refused: only when\nhe had compelled Phocas to swear that no harm should be done to them, he\ngave them up. Phocas kept his word, and only confined them in a monastery.\nGermanus was forced to become a priest. In the next year, 607, Germanus\nand Constantina with other persons of high rank made a new conspiracy. It\nwas discovered. Germanus with his daughter, the widow of prince\nTheodosius, eldest son of the preceding emperor Mauritius, was beheaded.\nThe same lot befel Constantina and her daughters at Chalcedon, on the spot\nwhere, five years before, the emperor Mauritius had witnessed the\nexecution of five sons, one after another, uttering at each stroke only\nthe words: \u201cJust art Thou, O Lord, and just is Thy judgment\u201d: and then\noffering his own head to the sword. Phocas put to death the other\nconspirators with fearful tortures. Such executions were followed by fresh\nconspiracies, and these by similar punishments. At last, Crispus, the very\nstepson of Phocas, rose against him, and invited Heraclius, governor of\nAfrica, to depose the emperor. Heraclius despatched a fleet under the\ncommand of his son, bearing the same name. Only as it drew near\nConstantinople did Phocas hear of it. He prepared for defence, but Crispus\nsecretly traversed all his efforts, pretending to be on his side. After a\nbloody engagement the fleet appeared before the walls of the capital on\nSunday the 4th October, 610. The next morning a senator, whose wife Phocas\nhad dishonoured, appeared with a troop of soldiers at the palace. Phocas\nwas seized, stripped of the purple, his hands bound behind his back, and\ncarried through the city and the fleet before the young Heraclius, who was\nstill on board his vessel. \u201cWretch,\u201d said Heraclius, \u201chast thou governed\nthe empire so?\u201d \u201cAnd wilt thou,\u201d answered Phocas, \u201cgovern it better?\u201d\nHeraclius trampled on him, cut off his hands and feet, and then his head,\nin sight of the vast throng which lined the shore. His head and limbs were\ncarried on spears through the city, the trunk dragged through the streets,\nand all at last burnt.\n\nHeraclius, accompanied by Crispus, disembarked. He invited Crispus to put\non the imperial robe, since he was not come to invest himself with it, but\nonly to avenge Mauritius and his children. Crispus refused, and then\nHeraclius had nothing to oppose to the request of the patriarch Sergius,\nwho had just succeeded Thomas, that he should be crowned by him. Crispus\nwas given the government of Cappadocia: but becoming a few years later\nunfaithful to Heraclius, as he had been to his stepfather Phocas, was\ncompelled to receive the torture, and pass the rest of his days in\nbanishment.\n\nIt may here be said that the dynasty thus begun occupied the throne for\nfive generations. Justinian II., great-great-grandson of Heraclius, was\nmore cruel if possible, than Phocas: he was deposed by an adventurer in\n695, and his nose cut off to incapacitate him for any future recovery of\nthe throne. His successor lasted three years: and another for seven; after\nwhich Justinian, who wore a golden nose for the one which he had lost,\nrecovered the throne; practised during five years atrocious cruelties, was\ndeposed by a third adventurer, Philippicus Bardanes in 711: put to death,\nand his head carried to Rome to assure all men that they were delivered\nfrom a tyrant, and a special oppressor of the Church.\n\nSuch in personal conduct was the manner of men who sat on the eastern\nthrone of the great Constantine during the seventh century: whom\nfour-and-twenty Popes found themselves bound to acknowledge as \u201cChristian\nkings and Roman princes\u201d. What they were in this capacity, which was the\nfirst and greatest of all their duties, as recognised by the imperial\nlaws, will be seen as the narrative proceeds. Under these men the Popes,\nutterly deprived of temporal power, in the midst of a province an outlying\ndomain of a distant despot, had to maintain the unity of the Christian\nfaith, and the independence of the Holy See as its guardian. In the midst\nof these things the chalifs of Mohammed broke upon the eastern empire, and\nsevered from it its fairest provinces. It is requisite to follow closely\nthe series of events, and the connection of times.\n\nUpon his accession to the throne in 603 Phocas had sent an embassy to the\nPersian emperor Chosroes, expressing his desire to maintain peace with\nhim. But Chosroes under pretext of avenging his benefactor, the late\nemperor Mauritius, began a war which lasted more than four and twenty\nyears, inflicted fearful sufferings on both empires, and had the most\nimportant consequences by leaving them in a state of great weakness to\nmeet the assault of a new enemy, the Mohammedan chalifate.\n\nDuring the first eighteen years of this war, that is, from 604 to 622, the\nGreek empire suffered a series of defeats and disasters. Through the whole\nEast, from the ruins of Babylon to the Bosphorus, cities were burnt and\ndestroyed, the country ravaged and left without cultivation, the\ninhabitants slain or carried away into slavery. The Persians tore from the\nempire province after province\u2014Armenia, Mesopotamia, Cappadocia. In 610\nthey came up to the walls of Chalcedon. The accession of Heraclius\nproduced no pause in their destructive course. In 611 they took Edessa,\nApamea, and Antioch. In 615 they plundered Palestine, and took Jerusalem.\nThe Church of Gethsemane, on the Mount of Olives, and Constantine\u2019s\nBasilica of the Holy Sepulchre were destroyed or burnt. Among the\ninhabitants carried away was the patriarch Zacharias. The Persians seized\nin plunder all that was valuable, and the priceless relic of the Holy\nCross was taken away by the fire-worshipper Chosroes. The Sponge and the\nLance were saved by the patrician Nicetas, who purchased them at a high\nprice from a Persian soldier, and then brought them to Constantinople,\nwhere they were exposed for veneration of the faithful.\n\nIt is to be noted that in 610 the Jews at Antioch had an insurrection, and\nmassacred a great number of the most considerable inhabitants. They seized\nthe patriarch Anastasius II., whom we have seen St. Gregory treat with\nsuch regard; they frightfully maimed him, dragged him by the feet through\nhis city, and finished by casting him upon a funeral pile. When Jerusalem\nwas captured in 615, the Jews of Palestine bought of the Persians as many\nChristians as they could get, for the pleasure of strangling them. It is\nrecorded that they murdered seventy thousand in this manner.\n\nEight days before the taking of Jerusalem the fortress monastery of Mar\nSabas, 2000 feet above the Dead Sea, then, as now, of the greatest renown,\nwas assaulted by the Arabs. All but fourty-four of the oldest monks had\nfled, but these remained, and, after its capture, suffered first grievous\ntortures, and at last martyrdom. When the monks who had fled returned,\nthey found the bodies of their brethren unburied; the abbot Modestus gave\nthem holy burial. He afterwards superintended the diocese of Jerusalem\nduring the absence of the captive patriarch. What Monte Cassino is to\nItaly, and Mount Athos to Greece, Mar Sabas was then and is now to\nPalestine.\n\nAt this time St. John the Almsgiver\u2014the last great patriarch of\nAlexandria\u2014gave every help to the fugitives from the Persian seizure of\nthe Holy Land. It is a sign of the secular power wielded by the Egyptian\npatriarch that he ordered the confiscation of the goods of those who used\nin his city false weights and measures. After he had lovingly received and\nsupported the fugitives from Syria and Palestine, he had, in the next\nyear, 616, to fly himself in order to escape the sword of the Persians. He\nwas on his way with the patrician Nicetas to Constantinople, when, at\nRhodes, he had a vision, in consequence of which he said to his companion:\n\u201cYou invite me to the king of this world, but the Lord of heaven comes\nbefore you\u201d. He told Nicetas the vision, and left him to go to Amathus in\nCyprus, his birthplace. There he made his will in these words: \u201cI thank\nThee, O Lord, that Thou hast heard my prayer, and that only one-third of\none gold piece remains to me, though at my consecration I found 8000\npounds\u2019 weight of gold in the bishop\u2019s house at Alexandria, not reckoning\nthose countless sums which I have received from the friends of Christ.\nTherefore, I order that this small remnant be given to Thy servants.\u201d Ten\nyears he sat in the See of Alexandria. George was his successor. But from\nthis time nothing more is known of this Church\u2019s history. Alexandria fell\nfirst under the Persians, and then under Amrou, the Mohammedan. The\nArabian domination supported Christian errors only, and from that time the\nChurch of St. Athanasius has never lifted its head again, and the land of\nthe Desert Fathers is become the chief seat of the religion which puts an\nimpostor in the place of the Redeemer.\n\nIn the year 616, the Persians broke into Egypt, took and plundered\nAlexandria, and carried their ravages to the borders of \u00c6thiopia. Another\nPersian army besieged Chalcedon. Still Heraclius remained inactive. He\nonly sent an embassy to Chosroes. In 619 he sent another, beseeching mercy\nin the name of the senate. Chosroes replied: \u201cI will spare the Romans when\nthey renounce their Crucified One and worship the sun\u201d. He remembered not\nthat he had to thank the Romans for his crown, that in his time of trouble\nhe had found help only from the God of the Christians. Heraclius lost\ncourage at this answer. Since the loss of Egypt Constantinople was\nsuffering from famine, as well as a grievous pestilence. The emperor\nresolved to quit his capital, and take refuge with his father in Africa.\nHe embarked his chief treasures, and directed the fleet to Carthage. Most\nof it was wrecked in a storm. A panic fell on his people, and they\nbesought him with tears and cries not to forsake them. The patriarch\nSergius went to the palace, led Heraclius to Sancta Sophia, and compelled\nhim before the altar to swear aloud not to desert his capital. Heraclius\nsubmitted against his will.\n\nIn 619 he was very nearly taken captive by the Khan of the Avars, who had\nasked him for an interview, ostensibly to settle terms of peace, in\nreality to secure his person and riches, and to fall upon Constantinople.\nThe emperor came in great pomp, was surprised, and scarcely escaped in\ndisguise. The Avars obtained an immense booty, and, according to the\npatriarch Nicephorus, carried away captive beyond the Danube 270,000 men,\nwomen, and children.\n\nAt length, in the twelfth year of his reign, Heraclius awoke from his\ntorpor, and his awakening was one of the most marvellous events recorded\nin history. His treasury was empty and his credit not good enough to\nborrow; but he resolved to attack the Persians in their own country. To\nsecure Constantinople he made peace with the Avars, and to hold them in\ncheck he ceded provinces to other races, Slaves, Croatians, and Servians.\nHe made churches and monasteries supply a forced loan. He took even the\ncandlesticks and holy vessels of Sancta Sophia and coined them. When all\nwas ready for his departure, he declared his eldest son, Heraclius\nConstantinus, ten years old, regent of the kingdom under tutorship of\nSergius the patriarch and Bonosus, patrician. Then he celebrated the\nEaster festival, 4th April, 622. The next day he went to Sancta Sophia,\nthrew himself before the altar and cried: \u201cLord, deliver us not for the\npunishment of our transgressions to our enemies, but look upon us in Thy\nmercy and grant us victory, that the wicked cease to exalt themselves and\nto mock Thine inheritance\u201d. Then he turned to the patriarch Sergius with\nthe words: \u201cMy city and my son I leave to God\u2019s protection, the Blessed\nVirgin\u2019s, and thine\u201d. Upon this he took into his hands an image of our\nSaviour, which was said not to have been made by hands, marched to the\nBosphorus and crossed over to Asia.\n\nA train of defeats by the Persians had demoralised the Greek soldiers.\nHeraclius reinforced his army with allied troops, amongst them a number of\nTurks. He spent some months at first in restoring courage to his forces.\n\u201cSee,\u201d he said, \u201cmy children, how the enemies of God trample on our land,\nlay waste our cities, burn our sanctuaries, desecrate our altars, pollute\nour churches with the vilest abominations.\u201d When he had thus enheartened\nthem he reviewed them together, and swore to fight with them and on equal\nterms unto death, to share all their dangers, to be inseparable from them\nas a father with his children. And moreover, he kept his word.\n\nHeraclius was ever at the head of his soldiers: he united valour with\ncaution: he entered Armenia and defeated the Persians in several battles.\nThen he made a show of taking up his winter-quarters in Pontus, but\nsuddenly burst into Persia, and utterly discomfited a large force. He took\nthe enemy\u2019s camp, together with immense treasure. His troops were\nastounded at their own victories, and he wintered them in Armenia. The\nnext campaign was no less glorious. He kept Easter Day in 623, which fell\non the 27th March, with his family at Nicomedia. By the 20th April he was\nin Persia. He had written to Chosroes, and offered him peace. The Persian\nking not only rejected his offer, but put the bearers of it to death.\nHeraclius used all these circumstances to give courage and confidence to\nhis troops. He penetrated to the heart of Persia: he burnt the cities and\nvillages which he passed on his way, and marched on Ganzac, now Tauris,\nwhere Chosroes was encamped with forty thousand men. At the first onset,\nChosroes took flight. His troops were mown down, captured, or scattered.\nGanzac was the capital of Atropatene. The Persian kings kept there a\ntreasure, said to be that of Cr\u0153sus and to have been brought thither by\nCyrus. The most renowned fire-temple of the chief god of the Persians was\nin this city. Here Zoroaster, the founder of that worship, had been born\nand lived. There was also here a colossal statue of Chosroes. He was\nseated in the middle of the palace under a great baldachin representing\nheaven. Round him were the sun, moon and stars, and angels bearing\nsceptres. The statue, by means of machinery, caused rain to fall, and\nthunder to sound. In fact, Chosroes assumed here divine worship. The\nemperor ordered the statue to be overthrown and broken to pieces.\nHeraclius burnt palace and temple, with part of the city. Then he marched\ninto Albania for the winter, and, out of pity, set free fifty thousand\nPersian prisoners, to whom he likewise gave maintenance. This humanity so\nwon their hearts that they burst into tears, and prayed that he might\nrestore freedom to Persia, and put to flight Chosroes, whom they called\nthe Waster of the human race\u2014so hateful had he made himself by oppression\nand cruelty.\n\nIn the campaign of 624, Chosroes brought up three armies against the\nemperor. Heraclius defeated them in three great battles. He made so sudden\na night attack upon what remained that their general, Sarbar, wakened by\nthe clash of arms, had scarcely time to spring from his bed on horseback,\nand ride away at full speed, while the conqueror took possession of his\ngolden shield, and even his clothes. In his fourth campaign, that of 625,\nHeraclius was also victorious. Chosroes avenged the defeat of his troops\nby falling on the churches of Persia, which he stripped of all their\nornaments: and to punish the emperor, he compelled the Christians of his\nrealm to become Nestorians. Fifteen years before, he had, to please his\nphysician, compelled the inhabitants of Edessa to become Eutycheans.\nChosroes rallied all his forces for the campaign of 626. He raised three\ngreat armies, composed indifferently of freemen and slaves, of natives and\nforeigners. Sarbar led one of these armies to Chalcedon to besiege\nConstantinople, on the Asiatic side, while the Khan of the Avars, breaking\ntruce, appeared on the European side, to demand the surrender of the city\nand all its wealth. Its inhabitants, however, defended themselves with\nsuch valour as to repulse both Avars and Persians. The fall of the Avar\npower begins at this moment. It was henceforth occupied by intestine\nstruggles. Sais led the second army of Chosroes, which was defeated by\nTheodore, brother of the emperor Heraclius. Heraclius himself broke the\nthird army under the command of Rhazates, at Nineveh, on the 12th\nDecember, 627. The battle began in early morning, and ended only in the\nevening. The Persians lost, besides the commanding general, his three\nlieutenants, almost all their officers, and nearly the half of their\nsoldiers. The Romans had only fifty killed, but many thousands wounded.\nThese the emperor tended with so much care that only ten died.\n\nNineveh, at that time, was only a village on the ruins of the old capital.\nHeraclius marched thence upon Ctesiphon, the capital of Persia, built upon\nthe remains of old Babylon, at a little distance. On his road he passed\npalaces, seats, and chaces wherein the Persian nobles pursued their\nhunting. Heraclius suffered his soldiers to sack and burn them all.\nChosroes fled from city to city. Heraclius made him new peace-proposals at\nthe beginning of 628. Chosroes refused them all, and became perfectly\nhated by the Persians. He thought not of the justice of God, which was\npursuing him. Thirty-eight years before he had murdered his father\nHermisdas to obtain his throne. What he had done to his father was to\nhappen to him from his eldest son. He had been struck by a violent\ndysentery: and wished to make Medarses, his son by his favourite wife\nSyra, a Christian, his successor in the throne. His eldest son, Siroes,\nirritated by this preference, gained the nobles and the army, was\nproclaimed king, and sent an embassy to Heraclius. Chosroes was captured\nin his flight, and brought to Ctesiphon, on the 24th February, 628. He was\nput in chains and imprisoned in the strong tower, Tenebres, which he had\nbuilt to keep his treasures. The next day Siroes was crowned: the first\nact of his government was to condemn his father to die of starvation. \u201cLet\nhim eat,\u201d he said, \u201cthe gold for which he has desolated the world, and\ncondemned so many to die of hunger.\u201d The Satraps and all his enemies were\nmade to mock the fallen ruler, and spit in his face. Siroes ordered\nMedarses and all his brethren to be strangled before his father\u2019s eyes:\nand, as the old king was still living on the fifth day, had him shot to\ndeath with arrows. So ended Chosroes, king of Persia, murdered by his son\nas he murdered his father.\n\nThese victories the emperor Heraclius reported at Constantinople, and also\nsent a letter, in which Siroes announced his coronation, and proclaimed\nhis wish for peace. This letter was read from the ambo of Sancta Sophia on\nthe Feast of Pentecost, 15th May, 628.\n\nSiroes, in fact, established a stable peace with the emperor. He restored\nhim all Christian prisoners in Persia, among them, Zacharias, patriarch of\nJerusalem. He delivered to him also the true Cross, which Sarbar had taken\naway fourteen years before at the capture of Jerusalem. This was at first\ncarried to Constantinople: but in the following year, 629, the emperor\ntook ship to bring it back to Jerusalem, and give thanks to God for his\nvictories. Here he replaced the Cross on its old spot. It had remained in\nits case, as it was taken away. The patriarch, with his clergy, recognised\nthe seal as intact, opened with its key the shrine, worshipped the Cross,\nand showed it to the people. The Church celebrates, by the Feast of the\nExaltation of the Holy Cross, this event on the same day, the 14th\nSeptember, on which she had before celebrated the apparition of the Cross\nto Constantine. Heraclius, in the same year, came to Edessa, and restored\nto the Catholics the church which Chosroes had given to the Nestorians.\nAnd he paid back, in the shape of a yearly income to Sancta Sophia and its\nclergy, the sums which he had borrowed for the costs of the war.\n\nLet us dwell for a moment on these acts of Heraclius, from 622 to 629.\n\nNo Roman emperor, in the course of many hundred years, during the whole\ntime in which Rome and Persia stood as rivals over against each other,\nobtained such a triumph over the king of kings, as did Heraclius. He\nsurpassed by far Trajan at the culmination of the empire. Heraclius,\ncommending his city and his son to the protection of God, of our Blessed\nLady, and of the bishop of his city, God\u2019s representative, went forth on\nwhat seemed a desperate expedition, borrowing from churches and\nmonasteries the means to equip it. For seven years victory crowned his\ncourse. Trajan stopped at the Mesopotamian provinces. Julian perished in\nthem. Mark Antony won no honour of Rome\u2019s eastern rival: Crassus and his\nhost never returned. Galerius was stuffed and served as a footstool for\nthe great king to mount on horseback. Into the heart of that eastern realm\nHeraclius threw himself fearlessly. He made his own army out of divers\npeoples, and shared their dangers. Host after host he overthrew, as only\nthe son of Philip, the conqueror without his match, had done before him.\nIn the end, on the very spot where a Roman emperor, the special despiser\nof the Nazarene, and fostering in his heart the destruction of the Church\nas the crowning work of his reign, to be achieved upon his return as\nconqueror, perished by a Persian lance, Heraclius, after driving to\ndespair the great king, the persecutor of the Cross, its possessor by\nconquest, saw him dethroned, famished, and at last shot to death by his\nson. He received from that son, the successor of the murdered father,\nabundant satisfaction for the wrongs which the Roman empire had suffered\nfrom its great rival of so many hundred years.\n\nBut, moreover, during these very seven years in which Heraclius won a\nperpetual victory in the name of the Cross\u2014the wood of which he brought\nback as a conqueror to Jerusalem, giving thanks and worship, and replaced\nit with the seal which guarded it unbroken in its old sanctuary\u2014an Arabian\ntrafficker who had gained his living by carrying goods from city to city,\nand lived virtuously with one wife much his elder, upon her death, when he\nwas more than fifty years of age, was assuming the name of a prophet and\nthe position of a conqueror. The year in which Heraclius started is the\nsame in which this pretension was set up. His claim to be a prophet is\nexactly coincident with the years in which he was taking to himself wife\nafter wife, in which, entering suddenly the tent of his adopted son, he\nwas seduced by a casual glance on that wife\u2019s beauty to desire her, to\nobtain her, and to forge a permission from the Most High to take as many\nwives as he pleased, and the wives of others\u2014a forgery as yet unique in\nall the history of imposture; for many bad men have taken the wives of\nothers, but no one except Mohammed has pretended to have a divine sanction\nfor an act which treads under foot all human justice, and pulls down for\nthe lust of one man the very foundation of domestic life.\n\nIt is of this man that one who has analysed his religion and described its\ncourse opens his work with these words(5):\u2014\n\n\u201cSince the beginning of the world has no other man\u2014mere man\u2014ever exerted\nso boundless an influence on the human race in the relations of religion,\nmorality, and polity as Mohammed, the Arab. A man, by no means one of\nthose rare spirits whom Providence at times evokes and endues with genius\nto open a path for a new world\u2014a man rather whose mind was enclosed in\nnarrow limits, poor in ideas for the construction of a new religion: a man\nsuch as this has for twelve hundred years cast his net of artless yet\nimpenetrable links of doctrine round a hundred million souls\u2014roots of\nteaching which have sunk into the marrow of men\u2019s minds, have taken up\ninto themselves and mastered the whole of life, and impressed a uniform\nstamp on the thoughts and deeds of races as well as individuals.\u201d\n\nThe seven years of Heraclius form part of the ten years of this Mohammed,\nin which the trader turns prophet and the reformer of religion endeavours\nto put a divine sanction on polygamy, in conjunction with a boundless\nconcubinage of which captives were the prey.\n\nAs eighteen years of continual defeat by the Persians, from 604 to 622,\nhad reduced the Eastern empire to a state of demoralised weakness, so the\nseven succeeding years, from 622 to 629, in which Heraclius wrought a full\nrevenge on the Persian king, inflicted no passing collapse upon the empire\nresuscitated by the Sassanides in the third century. King Siroes did not\nlong enjoy the fruit of his parricide. He reigned six months and then he\ndied\u2014some say of the plague, some of remorse. After his death the throne\nof Persia seemed to become a seat of murder. His young son, Ardeschir, or\nArtaxerxes, was killed after reigning seven months by his uncle, the\ngeneral Sarbar. Sarbar kept the throne two months and was killed.\nDevanschir took his place. He was followed by Borane, a daughter of\nChosroes. She was replaced by a certain Tschaschindeh, who was followed by\nBorane\u2019s sister, Azermidokt. A certain Kesra, or Chosroes, succeeded, and\nhe gave way to a Ferokzad. Finally, Jezdedjerd, a grandson of the last\nChosroes, was crowned in the year 632. Thus in the short space of four\nyears about nine persons succeeded to the throne by murder. Jezdedjerd\nIII. began his reign in the year Mohammed died. He is called by\nTheophanes, Hormisdas. He had the honour to be the last king of Persia and\nto end his days by the sword of the Arab in 651. His son, Peroxes, became\na captain in the life-guards of the emperor of China at Singapore, and\nleft no posterity.\n\nAfter this glimpse at the action of the Byzantine and Persian empires on\neach other during the thirty years which follow immediately on the death\nof St. Gregory, we turn to consider the conduct of the temporal liege-lord\nof the Pope towards him whom he recognised as successor of St. Peter.\n\nThe emperor Phocas, following in this his predecessor Justinian, had\nexpressly enjoined on the patriarch of Constantinople to recognise the\nPrimacy of Rome.(6) What the chroniclers remark is important, that\nBoniface III., the next to succeed St. Gregory, received a decree from\nPhocas, in which he solemnly declared that the See of the Roman Church was\nto be considered the head of Christendom. It may be remarked here that\nPhocas did not say a word more than his predecessor, Marcian, said to St.\nLeo a hundred and fifty years before. Phocas may be named a tyrant, but\nMarcian has left an unspotted reputation as a Christian king and Roman\nprince, who received the empire with the hand of Pulcheria, heiress of the\ngreat Theodosius, and the only descendant worthy of his greatness, whose\nname stands also on the diptychs of the Catholic Church as a virgin\nsaint.(7)\n\nUpon the history of the City of Rome during the first half of the seventh\ncentury the greatest obscurity rests.(8) It was indeed the most frightful\nand destructive century for the former queen-city of the world. The Book\nof the Popes by Anastasius(9) trickles in a slender thread amid war,\nfamine, and pestilence, and inundations of the Tiber; but it is all we\nhave to look at.\n\nWith the death of the great Pontiff, who guarded and fed his city while\nthe calamities which he saw all round the sphere of his vision over the\nwhole Church led him to look for the end of the world, the See of Peter\nremained half a year unfilled until his successor, Sabinianus of Volterra,\nformerly Papal Nuncio at the Byzantine court, received the confirmation of\nhis election from the exarch or the emperor. The confirmation of each\npope\u2019s election was, as a rule, obtained either from the exarch or direct\nfrom the emperor. It was a business both costly and protracted. It also\nmade the spiritual head of Rome dependent for his recognition on the\nimperial court. I find that in the period of 111 years, running from the\ndeath of St. Gregory in 604 to the death of Pope Constantine in 715,\ntwenty-four popes succeeded. Of these the first, Sabinian, in 604, had to\nwait six months. Phocas confirmed the election of Boniface III., the next\npope, after a year. He died in November, 607, and Boniface IV. following\ntook his seat in August, 608. When he died, Pope Deusdedit waited five\nmonths. At his death Boniface V. succeeded after a year, in 619. Pope\nHonorius followed Boniface in five days and sat during thirteen years, but\nat his death the confirmation of his successor, Pope Severinus, was\ndelayed by Greek intrigue, and for a purpose hereafter to be mentioned,\nduring nineteen months and sixteen days, so that he only sat from the 28th\nMay to the 1st August, 640. St. Martin in 649 did not wait for the\nimperial confirmation; he was first banished and then martyred by the\nemperor Constans II., who put in by threats his successor, Eugenius,\nduring his lifetime. St. Leo II. waited eighteen months in 682, after the\ndeath of Pope Agatho, and the next Pope, Benedict II., a year in 684.\n\nThis privation of its original freedom, according to which the Pope\u2019s\nconsecration followed at once upon his complete and legitimate election by\nclergy and people, the Roman Church owed to the Arian Herule Odoacer,\nduring his occupation of Italy. It was eagerly grasped, after Theodorich\nand Theodatus had exercised it, by Justinian, when he became, by conquest,\nlord of Rome. I have already recorded the infamous violence exerted by\nBelisarius as soon as he had entered Rome, at the bidding of the Empress\nTheodora, upon St. Silverius. Now we have the eastern emperors, through\nthe seventh century, exerting, sometimes directly, sometimes by delegation\nto their exarch, this stolen privilege. It was taken by Odoacer ostensibly\nfor the preservation of order in the election, and the prevention of\nviolence. I suppose it is the furthest reach of disloyalty to exercise a\npower which has been entrusted for protection to the injury of the party\nprotected. This disloyalty was perpetually shown by the eastern emperors\nto the Popes, whose Primacy over the Church they acknowledged, until they\nfinally lost the opportunity by the new-creation of the Western empire,\nand the acquisition of temporal sovereignty by the Popes.\n\nAt the accession of Honorius I., in 625, it is stated to have been the\ncustom, upon the death of a Pope, that the Archpriest, the Archdeacon, and\nthe first of the Notaries signified his death to the exarch. The Acts of\nthe new election, subscribed by clergy and laity, were deposited in the\narchives of the Lateran. A copy of them was sent to the emperor. The\nreport sent to the exarch was the more important. This Viceroy of Italy\nwas humbly besought for his consent: nay, even the Archbishop and Judges\nof Ravenna were asked to obtain it from him. The clergy and people of Rome\nhad to look to the exarch, the emperor\u2019s delegate, even more than to the\nemperor, since he stood in more immediate relation to Rome, and determined\nthe decision of the Byzantine court. The Romans, suffering from the delay\nof their bishop\u2019s consecration, would entreat the emperor to lessen the\ntime of disturbance by allowing the exarch to confirm their choice.(10)\n\nIn the short pontificates of the Popes, who sat from St. Gregory to\nHonorius, we may note one remarkable fact. Full six centuries after its\nerection by Agrippa, as the vestibule of his baths in the centre of the\nCampus Martius, stood what was called the Pantheon, with its superb\nportico of granite pillars and white marble capitals, untouched in their\nbeauty\u2014the fairest relic of ancient Rome. It had withstood all the\ninundations of the Tiber: all the devastations of the Gothic war: all the\ninjuries of time. Every winter the floods forced themselves up over its\nfloor: day and night the dome, through its aperture, received the waters\nof heaven. The images of Augustus(11) and Agrippa probably stood still in\ntheir niches: the beams of gilded brass supported its roof, covered with\nthe gilt tiles of bronze, which neither Vandal, nor Goth, nor Byzantine\nrobber had yet carried away. Pliny had given it the name of Pantheon: Dio\nCassius had seen in it the statues of Mars and Venus, and of the deified\nC\u00e6sars. A tablet of the Fratres Arvales has been found, dating from the\nyear 59, in Nero\u2019s time, and showing that worship to the pagan gods was\nthen offered in it.\n\nPope Boniface IV. beheld this wonder of ancient art, and longed to make a\nchurch of that beautiful dome which hung like the vault of heaven over the\nbroadest expanse ever covered by a roof. He asked it of the emperor\nPhocas, and received it as a gift. He assembled the clergy of Rome, and a\nprocession, singing hymns, entered that noble doorway, and the Pope\nsprinkled with holy water the marble-encrusted walls, from which every\nvestige of heathendom was cleared away. The \u201cGloria in Excelsis\u201d resounded\nfor the first time in that dome from which Michael Angelo took his most\nbeautiful creation. The temple of all the demons was purified: and Pope\nBoniface IV. preserved it for all succeeding ages, under its dedication to\nthe Ever-virgin Mother of God, and all martyrs. So it was saved from\nbecoming, in medi\u00e6val times, the hold of some noble robber. And from it\nthe devotion to All Saints, on the 1st November, and for All Souls, on the\n2nd, was propagated amongst the nations of the West. What was originally a\nRoman festival passed beyond the Alps and the dome of Agrippa, the partner\nof Augustus and the husband of Julia, and through her progenitor of\nC\u00e6sars, became the shrine from which the glorious office of all the saints\nin the Church triumphant, and that of intercession for all souls in the\nChurch suffering, went forth to the Christian world.\n\nFrom 604 to 625, five Pontiffs had ascended the Roman chair, and all had\nto wait, after their election, for the good pleasure of the Byzantine\nemperor, that they should take their seat. In 625, there succeeded a man\nof great distinction. He was a Campanian of high birth, and he strove to\nfollow the example of his master, St. Gregory. Honorius I. sat for 13\nyears, and with Vitalian, A.D. 657-672, and Sergius, 687-701, alone\nreached that length of pontificate, while twenty-one other Popes share\nbetween them, including vacancies and delays interposed by the Byzantine,\nthe remaining 69 years. We have no documents existing to account for such\na number of short pontificates. Honorius busied himself much in the\nconversion of the southern Saxon kingdoms in England, where St. Bede(12)\nattests that the Bishop Birinus came by his instance. Anastasius gives a\nlong account of the gifts which he bestowed on the churches of Rome; among\nthem, that he covered the confession of St. Peter with pure silver,\nweighing 187 pounds: and the whole church with brazen tiles which, with\nthe consent of the emperor Heraclius, he took from the temple of Roma:\nthat he built the church of St. Agnes, and made her a silver shrine,\nweighing 252 pounds; also, the church of the Four-crowned. Of his\ncharacter, the Abbot Jonas, near his time, writes: he was \u201ca venerable\nprelate, sagacious, strong in counsel, clear in doctrine, powerful by his\ngentleness and humility\u201d. He also clothed with silver plates, weighing 975\npounds, the middle or royal door of St. Peter\u2019s, on which there was an\ninscription, calling him \u201cHonorius, the good bishop, the leader of the\npeople. Your own prelate, blessed Peter, made your doors of silver; O\ndoorkeeper of heaven, maintain for this in tranquillity all the times of\nyour flock.\u201d And there, in the great Basilica, he was buried in all\nhonour.\n\nBut, in his person, one of the State-made patriarchs of Constantine\u2019s city\nis able to make the solitary boast that he once deceived one Roman\nPontiff. Sergius, who sat in that See, from 610 to 638, and who seems to\nhave obtained as great a mastery over the mind of the emperor Heraclius as\nhis predecessor, Acacius, had over the emperor Zeno, constructed a\ndoctrinal exposition called the Ecthesis, which he induced the emperor to\nfather and promulgate. He was desirous, above all things, to obtain the\nPope\u2019s approval of the doctrine which he afterwards set forth in this\ndocument. He wrote to the Pope letters, the purpose of which the successor\nof St. Peter, instead of seeing through, appears to have misconceived.\nAfter the death of Honorius, the Monothelite emperors and patriarchs\nclaimed to have received the support of that Pope. His not having\ndetected, and actively condemned the deceit of Sergius, brought upon the\nmemory of Honorius the heavy rebuke that Pope St. Leo. II. assented so far\nto the sentence of the Sixth General Council in 682, as to have written to\nthe Spanish bishops:\u2014\u201cThose who had been traitors to the purity of the\nApostolic tradition were punished with eternal condemnation: they are\nTheodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, Petrus\nof Constantinople, together with Honorius, who, instead of extinguishing,\nwhen it began to arise, the flame of heretical doctrine, fostered it by\nhis neglect\u201d.(13)\n\nMuch light would appear to be thrown upon the belief of Pope Honorius by\nthe history of the forty years succeeding his death.\n\nHe sat within a few days of thirteen years. He was buried, says\nAnastasius, on the 12th October, 638, in St. Peter\u2019s, and the See remained\nvacant one year seven months and seventeen days. Why did it so remain\nvacant?\n\nThe era and the question are both most important to note. The following\nnarrative(14) will explain why the Papal See was kept vacant nineteen\nmonths after the election of a successor to Pope Honorius.\n\nIn the year 638, Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, composed in the\nname of the emperor Heraclius an edict which he called Ecthesis or\nexposition, as if it were merely an exposition of the Catholic faith\nrespecting the dispute about the One or the Two Operations in our Lord. He\nthen brought about that the emperor subscribed and published it. Perhaps\nSergius wished to take advantage of the vacancy in the Papal See to make\nthe Monothelite error a law of the State, and to compel the future Pope to\nsubscribe it, for which he wished to get the imperial subscription making\nit a law.\n\nThe Ecthesis begins with a confession of faith in the Holy Trinity which\nis quite orthodox. It then enlarges upon the Incarnation, and draws out\nthe distinction of the Two Natures and the Unity of the Person. It\nproceeds:\u2014\u201cWe acknowledge one Son and Lord Jesus Christ, who is at once\ncapable and incapable of suffering, visible and invisible. We teach that\nthe miracles and the sufferings belong to one and the same; we ascribe all\ndivine and human Operation to one and the same Word become flesh; we offer\n... to Him one adoration, and allow no man to hold and teach either One or\nTwo Operations in the Divine Incarnation of the Lord; but rather,\naccording to the tradition of the holy General Councils, that one and the\nsame only-begotten Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, works both the divine and\nthe human actions, and that the whole Operation belonging at once to God\nand to man proceeds from one and the same Incarnate God, the Word,\nindivisibly and unconfusedly, and is to be referred to one and the same.\nSince the expression, One Operation, if used by some fathers, still sounds\nstrange and disturbs the ears of some who conceive that it is used for the\ndoing away of the Two Natures personally united in Christ our God, and in\nlike manner the expression Two Operations offends many, as not used by any\none of the chief doctors of the Church, and because there follow from it\ntwo Wills opposed to each other, as if God the Word willed to fulfil His\nsaving passion, while His Manhood resisted that will of His, and so two\nare introduced willing contrary things, an impious thing opposed to\nChristian doctrine. For even the impious Nestorius, though he divided the\ndivine taking of the manhood from the Lord, and introduced two Sons, did\nnot venture to speak of two Wills. Rather he taught identity of will in\nthe two persons invented by him. How then can they who confess the right\nfaith, and glorify one Son, our Lord Jesus Christ, the true God, receive\ntwo Wills and those opposed to each other in Him? Following, therefore,\nthe holy Fathers in all things and in this, we confess One Will of our\nLord Jesus Christ, the true God, so that at no time did His Flesh,\nanimated by the mind, make a natural movement of itself separately and by\nits own impulse, which was contrary to the bidding of God the Word\npersonally united with it; but when and such and as much as God the Word\nHimself willed ... and we exhort all Christians to be so minded, and so to\nhold, adding nothing and taking away nothing. I, Heraclius, the faithful\nemperor in Jesus Christ our Lord, have subscribed.\u201d\n\nSergius did not fail to have the Ecthesis confirmed by a council at\nConstantinople. He died himself in December, 638, but before this he had\nit read, probably, to his Resident Council, and asked for the judgment of\nits members. The bishops answered, like good courtiers, \u201cThe exposition of\nour great and most wise Emperor agrees in truth with the teaching of the\nApostles. This is the doctrine of the Fathers, this the support of the\nChurch. This the confessions of the Five Councils teach; by this the unity\nof the Christian people is assured, the weakness of the simple\nstrengthened. This works the salvation of mankind. This we also believe;\nthis we confirm; with this we agree.\u201d Sergius gave his solemn\nconfirmation, and added, \u201cIf any one henceforth, disregarding the\nprohibition of the Emperor and the Council, dares to teach that there is\nOne Operation or that there are Two in Christ he shall, if he be bishop,\npriest, deacon, or clerk, be deposed; but if monk or layman, be excluded\nfrom Communion in the Body and Blood of our Lord until he return to his\nduty\u201d. Thereupon the Ecthesis was attached publicly to the narthex of\nSancta Sophia.\n\nThe Ecthesis had been specially drawn up against the teaching of the\nchampion of orthodoxy in the East, Sophronius, patriarch of Jerusalem, who\nhad appealed to Pope Honorius, and expressed full trust in his defence of\nthe truth. But before its appearance Sophronius was already dead, and his\nsee had come into the hands of the Monothelite Sergius, Bishop of Joppa.\nMacedonius had, contrary to the canons, been imposed on the see of\nAntioch, and consecrated by Sergius of Constantinople. It is true he had\nnever entered his city, which was already captured by the Arabs. He had\nremained in Constantinople.\n\nCyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, in an epistle read afterwards at the Roman\nCouncil of Pope St. Martin, expressed to his spiritual brother and\nfellow-ministrant, Sergius of Constantinople, his intense delight at the\nEcthesis which his great sovereign had drawn up in behalf of the faith,\nwhich was ready to be sent to the exarch Isaac at Ravenna, and was to be\naccepted by his brother Severinus, elected at Rome. I have read it, he\nsaid, not once or twice but many times. I admire an exposition brilliant\nas the sun\u2019s light, announcing with unswerving accuracy the true faith;\nand I sung praises to God who had bestowed on us so wise a governor,\nguiding to harbour the holy churches. He has saved us once, twice, and\nthrice from tyrannous power, from Persian boastfulness, from Saracen\ndomination.(15)\n\nIn the meantime Sergius had died, and Heraclius had put his friend\nPyrrhus, who shared his Monothelite heresy, in his place at\nConstantinople. We learn from the letter just quoted that the death of\nPope Honorius and the choice of Severinus to succeed him had already been\nmade known at Constantinople before the Ecthesis was sent to Rome,(16)\nwhich was, therefore, never presented for acceptance to Honorius.\n\nI will now take another narrative(17) of what was happening at Rome.\nHonorius died on 12th October, 638, and was buried in peace and great\nrenown at St. Peter\u2019s. The Romans chose their countryman Severinus, son of\nLabienus, for his successor. The confirmation was delayed during nineteen\nmonths and sixteen days, as it seems, because the elected refused to\nsubscribe the Ecthesis of the patriarch Sergius, being a formulary\nfavouring Monothelism.\n\nBefore Severinus was yet consecrated the imperial officers practised a\nrobbery upon the treasury of the Church, in which the violence exercised\nreminds of the dealing of Turkish pashas, with whom in general Byzantine\nministers may be compared. The treasures of the Roman Church were kept in\nthe vestiary of the episcopal palace.(18) There were the costly presents\nwhich various Christian emperors, patricians, and consuls had left to the\nblessed Apostle Peter for the redemption of their souls, to be given, as\noccasion might be, in alms to the poor or for ransoming of captives. There\nwas a report that Honorius had stored up vast sums, and his magnificent\nbuildings caused full credence to be given to this report. Isaac, the\nexarch in Ravenna, found himself in want of money. The imperial troops\nriotously demanded to be paid. Isaac had long cast his eyes on the\nChurch\u2019s treasury, and now devised a plan to get possession of it. The\nBook of the Popes gives a detailed description of this incident, and it is\nnot only an exception to the scantiness of historical accounts about Rome,\nbut casts a passing light on the circumstances of the city.\n\nThe chartular Mauritius was then at Rome, perhaps as Magister Militum and\ncommander of the Roman army. This consisted of troops in Byzantine pay,\nbut no doubt was already organised as a city militia. Mauritius led by\ndeceit against the Church of God, and taking counsel with certain\nill-minded persons, stirred up this Roman force. What good, he said, is it\nthat such a mass of money has been laid up by Pope Honorius in his Lateran\nPalace while your wages are not paid, which our lord the emperor has sent,\nand the holy man has put them in his treasury? Kindled by these words, all\nthe armed men in the city of Rome, young and old, flocked to the Lateran\nPalace. They could not force an entrance, because those who attended on\nSeverinus, the Pope elect, resisted. Mauritius, seeing this, encamped his\narmy there for three days. Then he summoned the judges, that is, the high\nofficers of the city, who were in his counsel. They broke in and set the\nimperial seal upon the treasure. Then Mauritius wrote an account of what\nhe had done to the exarch Isaac at Ravenna, saying that he had put his\nseal on the treasury and they could take without harm anything which they\nliked. When Isaac learnt this he came to Rome; he banished all the chief\npersons of the church who resided in the several cities, so that none of\nthe clergy could resist him, and, after some days, he entered the Lateran\nPalace; he stayed there eight days, and plundered everything. Part he sent\nto the emperor in the imperial city, part he gave to the troops, part he\nkept for himself. Anastasius concludes with the words: After this the most\nholy Severinus was consecrated, and Isaac returned to Ravenna. The meaning\nof which seems to be that Isaac had come to Rome under pretence of\nconfirming the election of Severinus, which he made the elected Pope pay\nfor by the plunder of his treasury.(19)\n\nIn the meantime Roman Commissioners were urging upon the emperor Heraclius\nat Constantinople to issue the imperial consent to the consecration of the\nPope. After many negotiations, the chief of the clergy there showed them a\ndoctrinal writing, the Ecthesis, and said, \u201cWe will only support you in\nyour matter if you promise us to persuade the Pope to subscribe this act\nand to recognise without reserve the doctrines therein contained\u201d. The\nCommissioners, who perceived the drift of the act, and that on account of\nthis the first See of Christendom had so long remained unfilled, answered\ncalmly and prudently: \u201cIn this affair we can do nothing. A message has\nbeen entrusted to us, but no order given us to make a confession of faith.\nWe will give you the assurance that we will inform the Elect of everything\nthat you have said; that we will show him this paper and beseech him, if\nhe approve of its contents, to subscribe it. Be so good, therefore, as to\nput no hindrance to our mission for this matter, to do us no violence, and\nnot to detain us without end. None can do violence to another, especially\nin a matter of faith; for in such a case even the weakest becomes very\nstrong, even the quietest feels himself a hero; and since he strengthens\nhis soul with the word of God, the most violent attacks serve only to\nconfirm not to weaken him. And how much more does this apply to the Church\nand clergy of Rome, who, from the beginning to the present, as eldest of\nall the churches under the sun, presides over all! Having received this\nprivilege according to the canons, as well from councils and apostles as\nfrom their supreme Head, in this matter of succession in the Pontificate,\nit is subject to no writings whatsoever, to no issue of synodical\ndocuments; but in all these matters all are subject to it according to\nsacerdotal law.\u201d This is what with a most sacred and becoming confidence,\nfearing nothing, those intrepid ministers(20) of the immovable Rock said\nto the clergy of Constantinople; who thereupon ceased from their\npretension, and promised to obtain for them the imperial confirmation.\n\nPope Severinus, after suffering the double humiliation of having the\ntreasury of the Church sacked by the emperor\u2019s viceroy, and his own\nelection unconfirmed for nearly twenty months, ascended the throne of\nPeter on the 28th May, 640, and sat two months and six days. \u201cHe loved the\nclergy, and was most liberal to them all,\u201d says of him the Book of the\nPopes; \u201choly, benignant above all men, a lover of the poor, large-handed,\nmost gentle.\u201d In this short Pontificate he found time to reject the\nimperial decree, called the Ecthesis.\n\nHad Pope Severinus at this moment failed in his duty, the whole Church\nwould have been involved in the Monothelite heresy. Not only Pope\nSeverinus, but his successors during forty years, were the sole stay of\nthe Church against a heresy\u2014the last root of the condemned Eutychean\nheresy\u2014which overthrew the true doctrine of the Incarnation, making our\nLord Jesus Christ not God and Man in one Person, but a Person compounded\nout of God and Man, and therefore not Man at all. The whole temporal power\nof the Byzantine sovereign, at that time despotic lord of Rome, and backed\nby subservient patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus, and Peter, was\nexerted to compel the Popes who sat during these forty years to accept the\nfalse doctrine presented to them in an imperial decree.(21) The successive\nPopes in this time, Severinus, John IV., Theodore I., St. Martin I., St.\nEugenius I., St. Vitalian, Deusdedit, Donus I., rejected and condemned the\ndecision urged upon them by the imperial and patriarchal pressure, all of\nthem at the risk of every sort of persecution\u2014one, St. Martin, at the cost\nof a singularly painful and glorious martyrdom. The next Pope, St. Agatho,\ncondemned the heresy in a General Council allowed at Constantinople itself\nby an orthodox emperor over which his legates presided. The Pope\nsucceeding him, St. Leo II. ratified the condemnation by the Council of\nfour successive Byzantine patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus and Peter,\nas heretics, and censured the negligence of Honorius in not extinguishing\nat once so dangerous a flame. In truth it had held the life of the Church\nin suspense during more than forty years. Had one of the ten successors of\nHonorius failed, all would have been lost, so near to the precipice was\nthe Byzantine despotism and the State patriarchate, subservient to it, and\nsupplying it obediently with theological knowledge sufficient to formulate\nheresy, allowed by the Divine Providence in that fearful century to drive\nthe Church. And precisely during these years the new Arabian conqueror\u2014the\nchalif of Mohammed\u2014cut in two the empire which was attempting this\nparricide. When Heraclius went forth committing his city and his son to\nGod, to the holy Mother of God, and to his bishop, he triumphed for the\nonly time in the long Roman history over Rome\u2019s eastern rival, and brought\nback the Cross from Persia to Constantinople, and then carried it in\ndutiful homage to be replaced in its old shrine where our Lord suffered at\nJerusalem. When at the bidding of that very bishop Sergius he tampered\nwith the Christian faith, and oppressed the successor of St. Peter, he\nlost Jerusalem, Alexandria, and Antioch, with the great provinces which\nbelonged to them. Out of the four patriarchates of his empire, three\nbecame subject to the Mohammedan chalif. The subjection came suddenly, but\nhas lasted with a short interval from that time to this. The conquest, as\nyet unbroken, of Mohammed over Christian peoples dates from the perfidy of\nHeraclius and of his grandson Constans II. and the heresy propagated by\nfour Byzantine patriarchs.\n\nReturning to the history of this time we find that the successor of Pope\nSeverinus, John IV., was consecrated 24th December, 640, and held a\ncouncil at Rome immediately after his accession, and condemned under\nanathema the Monothelite heresy. Heraclius died February 11th, 641. Upon\nhis death Pope John IV. sent a letter to his successors,\nConstantinus-Heraclius, and Heracleonas, setting forth the same faith. He\nalso informed the new Patriarch, Pyrrhus, that he had condemned the\nEcthesis: and St. Maximus informs us that Heraclius I., to turn away the\nWestern displeasure at the Ecthesis from his own person, at the beginning\nof the year 641 wrote to Pope John IV. that \u201cthe Ecthesis is not mine, nor\ndid I command it to be drawn up, but the patriarch Sergius prepared it\nfive years ago, and besought me on my return from the East to publish it\nwith my subscription\u201d. The purpose of John IV. in writing to the new\nemperors was to set forth the doctrine of the two Operations and Wills in\nChrist, and in doing this to defend the orthodoxy of his predecessor\nHonorius. It is to be observed that after the death of Honorius, when the\neastern patriarchs began to assert that Honorius in his answers to\nSergius, which up to that time had been private, favoured the heresy which\nSergius had imposed upon the eastern bishops, and was trying to put upon\nthe Pope, his successors denied with much care that Honorius had any such\nmeaning. Thus in this document of Pope John IV. directed to the sons of\nHeraclius, which bears the title,(22) Defence of Pope Honorius, he says:\u2014\n\n\u201cMy predecessor, teaching concerning the mystery of Christ\u2019s Incarnation,\nsaid that there were not in Him, as there are in us, opposing wills of the\nspirit and the flesh. Certain men, twisting this to their own meaning,\nthrew out the suspicion that he had taught that there was one Will of the\nGodhead and the Manhood, which is utterly contrary to the truth. I could\nwish them to reply to my question, in regard to which nature do they\nassert that there is one Will of Christ our God? If it be only in regard\nto the Divine Nature, what is their reply concerning His Human Nature? For\nhe is likewise Perfect Man, lest they be condemned with Manich\u00e6us. If they\nspeak in regard to the Manhood of Christ that this Will is Perfect God,\nlet them see whether they do not fall under the condemnation of Photinus\nand Ebion. But if they assert that in the Two Natures there is only one\nWill, they will confuse not only the Natural Wills but the Natures\nthemselves, so that neither the one nor the other, that is, the Divine and\nthe Human, can be understood. For as we do not, like the impious\nNestorius, suffer Two Natures to make up one Christ, so we do anything but\ndeny, yet neither do we confuse, the difference of Natures, inasmuch as we\nconfess the Two Natures united in the one Person of Christ our God with an\nagreement which language is not able to express. For in that they assert\nOne Will of Christ\u2019s Godhead and Manhood and at the same time one\nOperation, what else do they assert than that one Nature of Christ our God\noperates according to the division of Eutyches and Severus. As a last\nargument, the orthodox Fathers, who have flourished in the whole world,\nare proved to teach in full accordance at once Two Natures and Two Wills\nand Operations.\u201d\n\nIn these words, which John IV. writes as Pope to the immediate successors\nof Heraclius within three years after the death of Honorius, he would seem\nnot only to have set forth in plain language the immense importance of the\ndoctrine itself, but to be an unimpeachable witness of the meaning of\nHonorius, one of whose priests he had been, and as such well acquainted\nwith his doctrine.\n\nThe pontificate of John IV., for the confirmation of which he had to wait\nfour months, lasted only twenty-one months, and was disquieted throughout\nby the conflict with the Byzantine court and patriarch respecting the\nEcthesis.(23) There was war between the exarch and the Lombard king,\nRotharis, but it did not touch Rome. All misfortunes which threatened it\ncame from Byzantium. The struggle against the eastern heresy embittered\nthe feeling of Constantinople to Rome. At the same time, the Byzantine\ncourt was disturbed by intestine revolutions. Heraclius ended his reign of\n31 years in February, 641. His eldest son, Heraclius Constantinus,\nsucceeded, but, after seven months, was poisoned by his stepmother,\nMartina, and the Monothelite patriarch Pyrrhus was charged with\nconcurrence. In a few months, Martina\u2019s own son, Heracleonas, was deposed\nby an insurrection. His nose was cut off, and the tongue of the empress\nMartina cut out, and both were banished. The grandson of Heraclius,\nConstans II., became emperor in 642, a boy of twelve years, and reigned 26\nyears, until 668. The reign of this emperor is much to be noted, because\nit is contemporaneous with the second, third, and fourth chalifs: Constans\nII. stands in history over against Omar, Osman, and Ali.\n\nOn the death of John IV., Theodorus, a Greek of Jerusalem, was made Pope:\nit is supposed by the influence of the exarch Isaac. He was the first of\nmany Greeks, who, in this period, were made Popes: of all of whom, without\nexception, it is recorded that their integrity, as Popes, was in no way\naffected by any national feeling: they sacrificed nothing to Byzantine\npolicy.\n\nAt the beginning of this pontificate, Mauritius, the officer called\nchartular, whose proceeding in the robbery of the Lateran treasury has\nbeen recorded above, raised a rebellion in Rome. He found people,\nnobility, and army embittered by the Byzantine domination, and used this\nfeeling for his own purposes. He spread a report that Isaac was striving\nto be king, made party with those same turbulent Romans who had joined in\nthe attack upon the Lateran, and induced the garrisons in all the castles\nof the Roman territory to refuse obedience to the exarch. When Isaac heard\nthis, that all the army of Italy had taken the oath to Mauritius, he sent\nDonus as commander with an army to Rome. Thereupon the Roman army gave up\nMauritius, and joined Donus. Mauritius took asylum at St. Mary of the\nCrib.(24) He was taken out and sent with an iron collar about his neck, as\nwell as the others implicated in the insurrection, to the exarch at\nRavenna: but, before he arrived there, was beheaded, and his head carried\nto Ravenna and impaled. Isaac kept the other conspirators in prison,\ncollared in the same way, but they escaped execution by the death of Isaac\nhimself. Isaac was buried in the beautiful church of St. Vitale, in\nRavenna, and his epitaph is preserved in Greek, and being a picture not\nonly of the man, but of his time, is worth transcribing. It runs thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cHere lies one, a brilliant commander, who for six years, preserved Rome\nand the West without injury for our serene lords, Isaac, the fellow-worker\nwith emperors, the great ornament of all Armenia, where he was of\nillustrious race. Upon his death in great renown, his wife Susannah mourns\nover her loss like a chaste dove, the loss of a husband who gained glory\nby his labours both in the East and in the West, for he commanded the army\nof both.\u201d\n\nIsaac may be considered as the ideal exarch, and by contemplating his\ndeeds, we may attain to a knowledge of the race of exarchs, viceroys of\nItaly, and images, in common clay, of their masters in marble, towards\nwhom, for 200 years, St. Gregory and his successors had to exercise the\nvirtue of loyalty.\n\nUpon the accession of Constans II., in 642, the patriarch Pyrrhus, under\nsuspicion of complicity with the empress Martina in the poisoning of the\nemperor Heraclius Constantinus, fled to Africa. His place was taken by\nPaulus, a still more zealous Monothelite. Pyrrhus, coming to the West,\nwhich was unanimous in rejecting that heresy, represented himself to have\nbeen convinced by the eloquence of the Abbot Maximus, in an African\nCouncil in 645, and came to Rome to lay the confession of his faith at the\nfeet of the Apostle Peter. Pope Theodorus received the repentant patriarch\nwith great ceremony in the Vatican Basilica before the assembled clergy\nand people, to whom he solemnly condemned his own errors. But, when he\nwent to Ravenna, Pyrrhus fell back again. Pope Theodorus thereupon\ncondemned him in a Roman Council.(25)\n\nIn 646, the African bishops, in four councils, had condemned the\nMonothelite doctrine with the Ecthesis. Pope Theodorus, in accordance with\nthe wish of these African Councils, admonished the new patriarch, Paulus\nII., at Constantinople, to return to the faith of the Church. Paulus sent\na long answer,(26) in which he expressed the Monothelite doctrine. Pope\nTheodorus condemned him after his nuncios at Constantinople had in vain\nendeavoured to draw from him an orthodox confession. At the same time Pope\nTheodorus named Stephen, Bishop of Dor, Apostolic Vicar for Palestine,\nwith the charge to resist the heresy which Sergius, Bishop of Joppa, was\nspreading, and to depose the bishops intruded by him. The patriarchal\nchair at Jerusalem was, in fact, vacant, and the patriarchate laid waste\nby this usurper. Hence the Pope took charge of it. So afterwards John of\nPhiladelphia was appointed Apostolic Vicar.\n\nPaulus did not give way. He moved the emperor Constans II. in 648 to issue\na new doctrinal decree, drawn up by himself, called the Typus, which was\nto take the place of the Ecthesis, and prepare in another way the spread\nof Monothelite error. It was to forbid under the severest secular\npunishments any dispute respecting One or Two Operations in our Lord or\nOne or Two Wills. In itself it seemed intended to quiet the westerns, but\nin the actual state of things only for the prejudice of Catholics. Maximus\nthe Confessor shewed that in it truth and error were alike intended to be\nsuppressed. The eastern bishops were again compelled to subscribe. Those\nwho refused were persecuted, even the papal legates. Their altar in the\nPlacidia palace was destroyed, and they were forbidden to celebrate, and\nsevere ill-treatment added.\n\nWhile the Greek emperor, led by his patriarch Paulus, was issuing his\nedict concerning the Christian faith, Muawia, as general of the third\nchalif, Osman, with a fleet of 1700 ships, great and small, being already\nin possession of Syria, had made a descent on Cyprus, occupied the city of\nConstantia, subjected and laid waste the whole island.(27)\n\nPope Theodorus is recorded in the book of the Popes as \u201ca lover of the\npoor, large-handed, kind to all, and very merciful\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER II. POPE MARTIN, HIS COUNCIL, AND HIS MARTYRDOM.\n\n\n    Martinus pr\u00e6rogativa martyrii ter maximus nuncupandus.\n\n    Baronius, Tom. viii., Preface.\n\n\nIn the mean time Pope Theodorus, having during the seven years of his\npontificate maintained the faith against the aggression of the Byzantine\nemperor and patriarch with the same resolution as his predecessors, Popes\nSeverinus and John IV., died on the 13th May, 649, and was buried at St.\nPeter\u2019s. His death occurred just after the Typus had been issued, and\nperhaps before he had seen it. On the 5th of the following July, Martin\nwas chosen to succeed him.(28) Martin was then a Roman priest, had been a\nnuncio at Constantinople, a man distinguished by his virtue and knowledge,\nas well as by his personal beauty. By the fifteenth letter of this Pope we\nlearn that the Roman clergy would not wait for the imperial consent to his\nconsecration, and so in due time the Greeks pretended that he had taken\npossession of the episcopate irregularly. This pontiff, one of the most\nremarkable and vigorous that ever sat on the throne of St. Peter, although\naware of the penalty imposed by the emperor Constans, in his Typus, shrunk\nnot the least, but was rather kindled with greater zeal to summon\nimmediately a council of the Bishops of Italy, which met on the 5th\nOctober in this year at the Sacristy of the Lateran Basilica.\n\nAnastasius,(29) the librarian, gives the following narrative of events\nwhich now took place concerning Pope Martin:\u2014\n\n\u201cIn his time Paulus, bishop of Constantinople, inflated with the Spirit of\npride against the holy Church of God, presumed in his audacity to go\nagainst the definitions of the Fathers. Moreover he took pains to veil his\nown error for the seduction of others, so that he induced the emperor also\nto set forth the Typus for the destruction of Catholic belief. In this he\ndeprived of their strength all the voices of the holy Fathers by the\nexpressions of the worst heretics, laying down that one should confess\nneither One nor Two Wills or Operations in Christ our Lord.\n\n\u201cIn defending his own perversion he did a deed which no former heretic had\nventured to do. He pulled down the altar belonging to our Holy See(30) in\nthe chapel of the Placidia palace, prohibiting our nuncios from offering\ntherein to God the adorable and immaculate Victim, or receiving the\nsacraments of communion. These nuncios by command of the apostolic\nauthority had enjoined him to desist from his heretical intention. They\nalso bore witness in suffering diverse persecutions with other orthodox\nmen, and venerable priests, some of whom he imprisoned, some he banished,\nsome he scourged. Well nigh the whole world being thus disturbed, many of\nthe orthodox brought up complaints from various places to our Apostolic\nSee, intreating that the web of all this malice and destruction might be\nrent by the Apostolic authority, so that the disease of their Ecthesis\nmight not break up the whole body of the Catholic Church. Then most\nblessed Martin, the bishop, sent and assembled 105 bishops in the city of\nRome, and called a Synod according to the institution of the orthodox\nFathers in the church of the Saviour at the Lateran episcopal palace.\nBishops and priests sitting, deacons and the whole clergy standing, they\ncondemned Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus, patriarchs of\nConstantinople, who presumed to mix up their innovations with the\nimmaculate faith. That is, in their haste to exclude this, they dressed up\na confusion of heretical dogmas against God\u2019s Catholic church, for which\nthey were smitten with anathema. This council now forms part of the\nChurch\u2019s archives. And the Pope causing copies to be made, sent them\nthroughout the East and West, placing them in the hands of the orthodox\nfaithful. At that very time the emperor sent into Italy his chamberlain\nand exarch Olympius, to be viceroy of the whole land. His commands\nwere:\u2014\u2018You are to carry out what Paulus, patriarch of this heaven defended\ncity, has suggested to us. And if you find the province itself agreeing in\nthe Typus set forth by us then lay hold of all the bishops, landed\nproprietors, dwellers, and strangers, and let them subscribe it. But, if,\nas Plato, the patrician, and Euphranius have suggested to us, you can\ncarry with you the armed force there, we command you to lay hold of\nMartin, who was nuncio here, in the imperial city. And afterwards let all\nthe churches read afresh the orthodox Typus, because it has been made by\nus, and let all the bishops in Italy set their names to it. But if you\nfind the armed force opposed, keep it secret till you have got possession\nof the province, and are able to have on your side the army of the Roman\ncity, and of Ravenna, that you may be able to execute our commands as soon\nas possible.\u2019 The said Olympius, coming to Rome, found the holy Church of\nRome united with all the bishops of Italy, whether priests or clergy, and\nwishing to execute the commands received he tried, by help of the army, to\nmake a schism in the Church. This took a long time, and Almighty God did\nnot permit him to accomplish what he was trying to do. Seeing then that he\nwas overcome by the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of God, he thought\nit necessary to veil his bad intention, and to accomplish what he had not\nbeen able to do with the armed hand in heretical fashion at mass in the\nChurch of God\u2019s Holy Mother, the Ever-virgin Mary, at the Crib. For while\nthe holy Pope was giving him communion he had instructed one of his guards\nto murder him. But, Almighty God, who is wont to protect His orthodox\nservants, and to deliver them from all evil, Himself blinded the eyes of\nthe swordsman of the exarch Olympius, and he was not allowed to see the\nPontiff at the moment of giving communion, or the kiss of peace, that he\nmight shed his blood and subject to heresy the Catholic Church of God. The\nsoldier attested this afterwards on his oath to several. So Olympius,\nseeing that the hand of God protected the holy Pope Martin, thought it\nnecessary to agree with him, and to disclose the commands which he had\nreceived. Then having made peace with the Church, he collected his army\nand went to Sicily against the Saracens who were there. And through the\nsin a great destruction fell on the Roman army, and then the exarch died\nof disease.\u201d\n\nIn the Council of the Lateran, held by Pope Martin in 649, the Pope\ncarefully examined the whole history and documents concerning the attempt\nof the patriarch Sergius, and the emperor Heraclius, and the succeeding\npatriarchs at Alexandria, Constantinople, and Antioch, to alter the faith\nof the Church. The imperial documents, the Ecthesis of Heraclius, composed\nby Sergius, the Typus of Constans II. composed by the sitting patriarch,\nPaulus, both of them one after the other imposed by violence on the\neastern episcopate, letters from many bishops, documents, in fact, of\nevery kind, were subjected to careful reading. The Council drew up twenty\ncanons which it imposed under anathema. The Pope at the head of the\nBishops, subscribed in these words: \u201cI, Martin, by the grace of God,\nBishop of the holy Catholic and Apostolic Church of the City of Rome,\nordain and subscribe this definition, confirmatory of the orthodox faith,\nand condemning Sergius, formerly Bishop of Constantinople, Cyrus, Bishop\nof Alexandria, Theodorus, Bishop, Pyrrhus, and Paulus, also, Bishop of\nConstantinople, together with their heretical writings\u201d. Then follow the\nsignatures of the Bishops of Italy, the Archbishop of Aquileia and Grado\nfirst, the Archbishop of Milan adding his assent afterwards.\n\nPope Martin also wrote to the emperor Constans II., sending him the acts\nof the Council, together with a Greek translation. Thus, with the utmost\nforce, and with the presentiment of hard trials, he strove to prevent the\nfurther spread of Monothelite error. He also declared himself against the\nheretical patriarchs, Peter of Alexandria and Macedonius of Antioch,\ndeposed Paul, Archbishop of Thessalonica, and provided for sending\nCatholic bishops and clergy to the East.\n\nIn these events, we have this very striking fact, that within eleven years\nafter the death of Pope Honorius in 638, we find four Popes his immediate\nsuccessors, Severinus, John IV., Theodorus, and Martin, opposing two\nemperors, Heraclius, and his grandson, Constans II., censuring three\npatriarchs of Constantinople, Sergius, Pyrrhus, and Paulus, besides other\neastern patriarchs, and the last of them solemnly condemning \u201cthe impious\nEcthesis and still more impious Typus,\u201d and all manner of heretical\nexpositions, whether made by patriarchs, or imposed by emperors. There can\nbe no doubt that all these four Popes had been clergy of Honorius himself,\nand as little doubt that they were maintaining the doctrine which he held.\nThere is no appearance that any one at Rome was the least inclined to the\nMonothelite heresy, and the insidious manner in which it was propagated by\nthose who held it is conspicuous on every occasion. Nor must it be\nforgotten that the publication of this judgment of Pope Martin fulfils all\nthe conditions of a judgment _ex cathedra_.\n\nBut the events which now took place are of so great an importance for all\nsubsequent time that it seems necessary to enlarge upon the epitome of\nthem just given, and to draw out the full range of their bearing, not only\non the doctrine of the Church, but on its government at the time.\n\nWe are witnessing a deliberate attempt by successive patriarchs of\nConstantinople to alter the faith of the Church as it had been laid down\nat the Council of Chalcedon. And not this only, but to make the mouth of\ntheir emperor the instrument for disseminating their heresy, and to use\nthe whole material power of that emperor as despotic lord of Rome to\noverthrow the defence of the faith by the Roman See, the superior\nauthority of which, at the same time, neither emperor nor patriarch\ndenied. This attempt continues during forty years from the death of Pope\nHonorius in 638, and in the whole of that time, it was the constancy of\nthe Roman See, the purely spiritual power of the successor of St. Peter,\nin the midst of the greatest danger and a helpless temporal position,\nwhich preserved the life of the Church, and foiled the Byzantine\noppressor, together with the underplay of the Byzantine patriarch.\n\nI take from the Acts of the Lateran Council of 649 the following:\u2014\n\n\u201cPope Martin said, \u2018Let the copy of the Typus lately composed against the\northodox faith, by persuasion of Paul, Bishop of Constantinople, be\nbrought before our consideration\u2019.\n\n\u201cTheophylact, first of the notaries of the Apostolic See, said, \u2018I bear in\nmy hands the copy of the Typus ordered by your Beatitude\u2019.\n\n\u201cPope Martin said, \u2018Let it be read in the presence of the holy Council,\nthat we may accurately examine its meaning\u2019.\n\n\u201cTheodoras, regionary notary of the Apostolic See, read it thus,\ntranslated from the Greek into Latin.\u201d It must be remembered that the\nfollowing are words of the emperor, spoken in that character.\n\n\u201cSince we are accustomed to do everything and to consider everything which\nconcerns our Christian polity, and especially whatever touches the purity\nof our faith, through which we look for all our prosperity, we recognise\nhow greatly our orthodox people has been disturbed. Some of them maintain\nOne Will in the dispensation of our great God and Saviour, Jesus Christ,\nand His One Operation in divine and human things. Others maintain Two\nWills and Two Operations in the same dispensation of the Incarnate Word.\nThe one support themselves by saying that our Lord Jesus Christ, because\nof the One Person, wills and operates both divine and human things in the\ntwo natures, without confusion, and without separation. The others say,\nbecause in one and the same Person two natures are bound together without\ndivision, their distinction from each other remains, and according to the\nquality of the natures one and the same Christ operates both what is\ndivine and what is human. Hence our Christian polity has been led into\nmuch variance and strife; the parties do not agree, and thus it is injured\nin many ways. Led therefore by Almighty God, we thought it fit to quench\nthe flame of dissension thus enkindled, and not allow it further to feed\nupon human souls. We therefore proclaim to our subjects, who continue in\northodoxy, and the immaculate Christian faith, and belong to the Catholic\nand Apostolic Church, that it is no longer open to them to introduce any\nquestion, strife, or contention with each other concerning One Will or One\nOperation, or Two Operations or Two Wills. This we command, not as taking\nanything away from the pious belief of the holy approved Fathers\nconcerning the dispensation of our Incarnate God the Word, but intending\nto put a stop to further contest on account of the said questions, and in\nthese to follow and be satisfied with the sacred Scriptures and the\ntraditions of the five holy Ecumenical Councils, and the simple\nunquestioned usages and expressions of the holy approved Fathers. Their\ndogmas, canons, and laws are those of the holy Catholic and Apostolic\nChurch. Add to them nothing of your own: take from them nothing: interpret\nthem not according to your own view, but keep the form which existed\neverywhere before the contention upon these questions arose. None then\nlaid down One Will or One Operation, or Two Wills or Two Operations, under\nany contention.... Now to ensure perfect unity and concord, and to leave\nno opportunity to those who would contend for ever, we have ordered the\ndocuments (_i.e._, the Ecthesis) attached to the narthex of the great\nchurch in our imperial city, which contain the questions above mentioned,\nto be removed. Now those who transgress these commands will first be\nsubject to the judgment of Almighty God, and then to the severe imperial\nindignation for contempt. If it be a bishop or clerk, he shall be deposed\nfrom his particular rank; if a monk, he shall be banished; if noble or\nmilitary, he shall be deposed. If they be private persons, when of rank,\ntheir property shall be confiscated; when of low degree, they shall be\nscourged and banished for ever. So that all shall be restrained by the\nfear of God, and seeing the punishments respectively threatened, shall\nmaintain unshaken and undisturbed, the peace of God\u2019s holy Churches.\u201d\n\nAs(31) one Bishop of Constantinople, Sergius, composed the Ecthesis, so\nanother, his second successor, Paul, composed the Typus, but as Sergius\ndid not give to his work the fitting form of an imperial decree, but the\ntheological form of a creed, Paul showed himself more skilful, and dressed\nhis Typus in imperial clothing. Constans himself says that he meant to\nrestore the peace of the Church by this new decree. There is no reason to\ndoubt this, since, in tearing down the Ecthesis from the wall of Sancta\nSophia, he plainly purposed to quiet the minds of the Westerns and those\nwho held with them. It is further clear that while the Ecthesis forbade\ncontention concerning One or Two Operations, it inconsistently proclaimed\nOne Will, that is Monothelism. But the Typus consistently rejected not\nonly One Operation, but One Will. It wished in this to be impartial. This\napparent impartiality is likewise the chief distinction between the Typus\nand the Ecthesis, for they are like each other in the main thought, which\nis, that the development of doctrine should remain at the point to which\nit had come in the five general councils, and that further questions\nshould not be entered into. However, that impartiality is but a false _via\nmedia_, for it puts the true doctrine of the Two Wills upon the same\nfooting with the heresy, and forbids both one and the other. Another\ndistinction between the Ecthesis and the Typus lies in this, that the\nEcthesis only required obedience in general. Constans, on the contrary,\nthreatened every transgressor of his Typus with the severest civil\npunishments, and these he executed with the utmost cruelty.\n\nThe Typus is the fifth specimen of doctrinal despotism proceeding from the\nByzantine emperors since the time of St. Leo. In all these the effort was\nthe same. So far as the relation between the emperor and the Pope is\nconcerned, the principle at issue is whether the Byzantine emperor, with\nthe Byzantine patriarch as his chief agent, should dictate the creed and\ndirect the government of the Church, or the Pope and the bishops.\n\nThe first attempt proceeds from Basiliscus, who, by insurrection got\npossession of the imperial throne for about twenty months, and in that\nshort time issued the Encyclikon, in which Timotheus Ailouros, patriarch\nof Alexandria, helped him as to the composition, and 500 Greek bishops\nwere found to accept and praise it. Basiliscus with his wife and children,\nwas presently starved to death by the emperor Zeno.\n\nThe second attempt was by Zeno, when he had recovered the throne, and\nfallen into the hands of his patriarch Acacius. He then issued the\nHenoticon, which Acacius had drawn up, which was imposed by force on the\nbishops, and which Fravita, Euphemius, Macedonius, and Timotheus,\nsuccessive patriarchs of Constantinople, submitted to subscribe, the first\nunder Zeno, the following three under Anastasius. The wisdom and firmness\nof successive Popes frustrated this attempt, and Hormisdas finally\nobtained a full reparation, and the acknowledgment of his own charge over\nthe whole Church, by the gift of Christ to St. Peter, which the bishops of\nthe Apostolic See inherited.\n\nYet, notwithstanding this most solemn confession on the part of the bishop\nof Constantinople, of the emperor, and of the nobles of the East, some\nthirty years later, Justinian, having become direct lord of Rome, and\nhaving summoned Pope Vigilius as his temporal subject, to go to\nConstantinople, makes a third attempt, and issues to the Fifth General\nCouncil his own \u201cConfession of Faith,\u201d which a recreant court-archbishop,\nTheodore Askidas, supplies him with, and which the patriarch of\nConstantinople, Eutychius, then, by the emperor\u2019s nomination, presiding\nover the Council, as well as the eastern bishops in the Council, receive.\nThe whole attitude and conduct of Justinian at the Fifth Council show how\ndeeply this most distinguished of the eastern emperors was imbued with the\ndoctrinal despotism of his throne. And from that time, the contention of\nhis successors is still more pronounced, and their temporal power over the\nPope, as their subject, is unsparingly exercised, not to deny his\nspiritual supremacy in itself, but to make its exercise subject to their\nimperial power, and in this the patriarchs of Constantinople, assuming by\nand with the consent of the emperors, the title of Ecumenical Patriarch,\nserve their sovereign as the chief instrument for reducing the Church to\nservitude. It is to be observed that Justinian conferred this title upon\nthem in his laws. From that time they one and all clung to it.\n\nThe fourth attempt is made by Heraclius at the end of his long reign, when\nhe had fallen under the influence of Sergius, as his predecessor, Zeno,\nhad fallen under the influence of Acacius. Not only did Sergius hold the\ngreat see of the capital during twenty-eight years from 610 to 638, but\nthings recorded of him seem to indicate that he was a man of extraordinary\nresolution. He had preserved Heraclius from deserting his capital, and\nflying back for refuge to his father at Carthage, after a long series of\ndefeats from the Persians. He had acted as guardian of his son, and\nadministrator of the empire during the marvellous six years when\nHeraclius, shaking off twelve years of apathy, and going forth in the name\nof God, and in publicly uttered commendation of his kingdom to the Blessed\nMother of God, had triumphed over the Great King. Servius finally supplied\nhim with the exposition, which was to present in seeming concord the\nwrangling episcopacy of his eastern empire, and overcome the Roman Pontiff\nin his maintenance of the faith.\n\nThe fifth attempt was made by Constans II., grandson of Heraclius, for\nwhom Paul II., patriarch of Constantinople, invested his heresy in fitting\nlanguage, and presented it in the Typus as an imperial decree which all\nwere to accept under punishment to property, freedom, or life. And Pope\nMartin I. had to fight the old battle of the Church as a subject to a\nsovereign who was at once without mercy and without scruple.\n\nThe Typus is the perfect specimen of the theologising emperor, who begins\nby attributing to himself the charge over the whole Church, and puts\nhimself precisely in the place of the Pope and the bishops in formulating\nthe true Christian doctrine, wherein he claims the initiative, and the\nultimate decision.\n\nIt need only be added that in all this succession of attempts to deprive\nthe Church of God of her liberty, and the Pope of that guardianship of the\nfaith which alone is adequate to its maintenance, the successors of\nConstantine departed essentially from the position which the first of\nChristian emperors took at the first General Council. He did not sit in\nthat Council. He placed himself with the sword of empire at the entrance\nto guard the approach. He made the decrees of the Council laws of the\nRoman empire; but he acknowledged that the power to make them rested in\nthe bishops alone.\n\nNor would it be unhistorical to note that in proportion as the emperors,\nwhose seat was Byzantium, encroached upon the liberty of the Church, and\nsought domination over the successor of St. Peter, in whose prerogatives\nthat liberty was seated, their temporal empire declined. The despotism\nwhich flung itself with insolence and violence against the Church became\nodious to its own subjects. We shall see an instance of this which almost\npasses belief when the patriarchate of St. Athanasius embraces the Moslem\nconqueror, to escape the Byzantine sovereign, and terms the defenders of\nthe Christian faith Melchites, that is, Royalists, because, while they\nrejected the Eutychean heresy, they were likewise loyal to the eastern\nemperor.\n\nLet us see how Pope Martin meets this attempt. No sooner is he invested\nwith \u201cthe great mantle,\u201d(32) than he summons a Council to meet in the\nbasilica of Constantine, then called the Church of the Saviour, now St.\nJohn Lateran, adjoining the papal palace, the Mother Church of Rome. He\ncalled this council in order to judge the doctrine which two emperors,\nusing two Byzantine patriarchs, and at the same time used by them, seek to\nimpose upon the Church, instead of the doctrine of St. Leo the Great,\naccepted and set forth at the Council of Chalcedon. It held from the 5th\nto the 31st October, 649, five sittings. It was attended by 105 bishops,\nchiefly from Italy (excluding the Lombard dominion), Sicily and Sardinia,\nwith some African, and a few foreign. The acts have come to us complete,\nboth in Greek and Latin, the former being the proper language of the two\ndocuments, the Ecthesis and Typus. I give the following epitome of the\nPope\u2019s speech to the Council:\u2014\n\n\u201cChrist has commanded pastors to be watchful: this concerns us also, and\nespecially must we watch over the purity of the faith, since certain\nbishops, who do not deserve this name, have lately sought to spoil our\nconfession of belief by new invented expressions. Everyone knows them,\nsince they have come forward openly to injure the Church: such are Cyrus\nof Alexandria, Sergius of Constantinople, and his followers, Pyrrhus and\nPaulus. Cyrus eighteen years ago taught in Alexandria One Operation in\nChrist, and published from the pulpit nine heads of doctrine. Sergius\napproved this, issued somewhat later the Ecthesis under the name of the\nemperor Heraclius, and taught One Will and One Operation, which leads to\nOne Nature of Christ. The Fathers distinctly taught that Operation answers\nto Nature, and whoever has like Operation must likewise be of like Nature.\nSince then the Fathers teach Two Natures in Christ, it follows that Two\nWills and Operations are united without mixture and without division in\none and the same Incarnate Word. That both are naturally one thing is not\npossible. Pope Leo also taught Two Wills, and so holy Scripture indicates.\nSo Christ wrought what belonged to the Godhead corporeally, since He\nmanifested it through His flesh animated by a reasonable soul; but what\nbelonged to the Manhood, He wrought by the Godhead, since He took upon Him\nfreely for our sake human weaknesses, that is, sufferings, but without\nsin. Cyrus, in issuing his nine heads of doctrine, Sergius, in issuing the\nEcthesis, contradicted the doctrine of Leo, and of the Council of\nChalcedon. But Pyrrhus and Paulus spread the error more widely; in\nparticular, Pyrrhus by threats and flatteries seduced many bishops to\nsubscribe his impiety. When he had afterwards come to shame, he came\nhither and presented to our Holy See a writing in which he anathematised\nhis former error. But he returned as a dog to his vomit, and was therefore\nrightly deposed. But Paulus went even beyond his predecessor; he confirmed\nthe Ecthesis, and contradicted the true doctrine.\n\n\u201cTherefore he also was deposed by the Holy See. Specially imitating\nSergius, to cover his error he counselled the emperor to issue the Typus,\nwhich annuls the Catholic doctrine, denies to Christ properly all will and\nall operation, and therewith likewise each nature, for nature is shown by\nits operation. He has done what hitherto no heretic has dared; he has\ndestroyed the altar of our Holy See in the Placidia Palace, and forbidden\nour Nuncios to celebrate thereon. He has persecuted those nuncios because\nthey exhorted him to give up his error, as well as other orthodox men,\nimprisoning some, banishing others, beating others. As these men (that is,\nSergius and the rest) have disturbed well-nigh the whole world, complaints\nboth written and oral have come to us from various sides urging us to put\ndown the falsehood by apostolic authority. Our predecessors have both by\nwriting and by their nuncios tried to correct them, but without success.\nWe have, therefore, thought it needful to convoke you, to consider\ntogether with you them and the new teaching.\u201d(33)\n\nPope Theodorus had named Stephen, Bishop of Dor, in Palestine, to be\nApostolic Vicar in that province. He was the prelate whom the patriarch of\nJerusalem, Sophronius, had sent to Rome in the time of Honorius to solicit\nsupport for the faith of that Pope, and to set before him the dangerous\nstate of affairs. He was introduced in the Lateran Council at its second\nsitting, and read to it the following memorial:\u2014(34)\n\n\u201cTo the holy Apostolic Council held by the grace of God and the regular\nauthority of most blessed Pope Martin presiding, in the great city of the\nelder Rome, for the confirmation and defence of the definitions received\nfrom our fathers and councils, I, Stephen, Bishop, and sitting in the\nfirst see of the council under the throne of Jerusalem, make the following\nreport:\u2014Jerusalem was in peace and tranquillity when the tempest broke\nupon it. For first of all Theodorus, Bishop of Pharan, then Cyrus, Bishop\nof Alexandria, then Sergius, Bishop of Constantinople, and Pyrrhus and\nPaulus, who succeeded him, set up afresh the doctrine of the heretics\nApollinaris and Severus. By these men the whole Catholic Church has been\nthrown into confusion. I speak to your supreme see, which is set over all\nsees, for the healing of every wound, for this it has been accustomed to\ndo with power from of old and from the beginning by apostolical authority.\nSince Peter, the great head of the Apostles, was manifestly invested not\nonly with the keys of heaven to open to those who believe and to close to\nthose who disbelieve the gospel, but he first had the charge to feed the\nsheep of the whole Catholic Church\u2014to convert and confirm his spiritual\nbrethren of the same order, as he received this dignity over all, given to\nhim providentially by God Himself for our sakes incarnate.\n\n\u201cKnowing which things, Sophronius, of blessed memory, formerly patriarch\nof Christ\u2019s holy city, took me and placed me on the holy spot of Calvary,\nand there indissolubly bound me with these words:\u2014Thou shalt answer to God\nHimself who on this spot chose to be crucified for us, when He comes at\nHis glorious epiphany to judge the living and the dead, if thou delayest\nand disregardest His endangered faith, for I myself am bodily prevented\nfrom doing this by the Saracen invasion which has come upon us for our\nsins.(35) Go, then, swiftly from end to end of the earth, until thou reach\nthe Apostolic See in which the foundations of our holy doctrines rest. Not\nonce, not twice, but again and again make known to the holy men there what\nis being here mooted, until with apostolic prudence they bring forth\njudgment to victory, and effect, according to the canons, a complete\nannulment of these innovating doctrines. Shuddering at the adjuration put\non me in this most holy spot, remembering also the episcopal dignity\ngranted to me by God, further bearing in mind the entreaties from almost\nall the bishops of the East and their Christian people, agreeing with\nSophronius, who is now among the saints, as first of the Episcopal Council\nof Jerusalem, I gave no sleep to my eyes nor slumber to my eyelids in\nfulfilling this command. This now is the third time that I take refuge at\nyour apostolical feet, beseeching you, as all beseech you, to help the\nfaith of Christians in its danger. The enemy pursue me from place to place\nto have me imprisoned and delivered to them in fetters, but the Lord has\nsaved me from my persecutors. Nor has God failed to the prayers of His\nsupplicants, but has raised up your predecessors, the apostolic prelates,\nto no slight exertions in correcting these men, though they would not be\nsoftened, and now he has raised up the most blessed Pope Martin.... I\nbeseech you, therefore, not to despise the earnest entreaties of the\northodox bishops and peoples throughout the East, and of my now sainted\nlord Sophronius, brought to your blessedness now by me the least of all.\u201d\n\nIn further sittings of this Council abundant testimony from the Greek and\nLatin fathers was presented to show how contrary to them was the teaching\nwhich the emperors and the patriarchs of Byzantium were seeking by crude\nforce to impose on bishops and people. In the end the Council passed\ntwenty canons fully setting forth the true doctrine, and condemning the\nheresy as contrary to what had been taught up to that time: especially\n\u201cthe most impious Ecthesis which was made by Heraclius, formerly emperor,\nunder persuasion of Sergius, against the orthodox faith\u201d; and with it \u201cthe\natrocious Typus lately drawn up by the most serene prince, the Emperor\nConstans, against the Catholic Church, by persuasion of Paulus\u201d.\n\nIn(36) rank this council stands near to the General Councils; its twenty\ncanons being issued by Pope Martin under anathema upon matters of faith\nare as binding on the Church now as when they were first published. The\ncreed of this Council is a simple repetition and exhibition of the creed\nof the Council of Chalcedon, until we come to the addition which at once\ntransfixes the heresy and sets forth the faith. After the words \u201cwe\nbelieve one and the same only-begotten Son, God, the Word, our Lord Jesus\nChrist,\u201d the addition runs, \u201cand we believe as Two Natures of the same,\nunited without confusion, so likewise Two Natural Wills, the divine and\nthe human, and Two Natural Operations, the divine and the human, for the\nperfect and unfailing assurance that He is truly perfect God and perfect\nMan in very deed, one and the same our Lord and God, Jesus Christ, willing\nand working divinely and humanly our salvation, as the prophets of old and\nour Lord Jesus Christ Himself taught us, and the creed of the holy fathers\nhanded down, and in general all the holy universal Councils and the whole\nband of approved doctors in the Catholic Church. This, in agreement with\nthem all according to their inspired teaching, we one and all confess and\ndefine.\u201d\n\nAmong the documents read at the Lateran Council was one from the whole\nAfrican episcopate addressed to Pope Theodorus three years before, in 646,\nin the following titles: \u201cTo our most blessed Lord, seated in the\napostolic headship, the Father of Fathers, Theodorus, most holy Pope and\nChief Shepherd of all Prelates, Columbus Bishop of the first See of the\nByzacene Council, and Reparatus Bishop of the first See of the Mauritanian\nCouncil, and with us all the bishops of the three Councils of Africa.\u201d It\nis to be noted that the Archbishop of Carthage is not mentioned, for\nFortunatus was elected somewhat later to take the place of a Monothelite.\n\u201cNo one can question that a great and neverfailing spring of grace wells\nforth from your Apostolic See, enriching all Christians. Thence in\nabundance rivulets come forth, irrigating the whole Christian world,\nwhence, O Father of Fathers, in honour of most holy Peter, your Apostolic\nSee has been appointed, by divine decree in a peculiar and unique manner,\nto search into and to treat the sacred doctrines of the Church, receiving\nwhich as truly handed down it is the most necessary function of the high\npriest of that supreme and apostolic See to certify.\u201d Then the African\nbishops, by quoting, made their own that famous answer given by Pope\nInnocent I. to the African bishops in the time of St. Augustine, 230 years\nbefore. \u201cThis obedience,\u201d they proceed, \u201cwe humbly render to your\napostolic supremacy, and beseech the Pope to do away with the hateful\nnovelty which has sprung up in the Church of Constantinople.\u201d\n\nThis letter has a double interest, being one of the last recorded acts of\nthe ancient African episcopate, which was already in conflict with the\nMohammedan assault, and about fifty years later was entirely swept away.\nIt would be difficult to find stronger words than it uses to describe the\nPapal authority and the special gift which it recognises as belonging to\nthe See of Peter by divine ordinance.(37)\n\nSeveral of the letters written by Pope Martin after the Lateran Synod\ntestify his zeal to overthrow the Monothelite heresy. Among these is his\nanswer to the just-quoted letter,(38) which he addresses to the Church of\nCarthage, and all the bishops, clergy, and laity subject to it. He praises\nthem for the synodical letters drawn up by the Church\u2019s glorious orator,\nAugustine, through the Holy Ghost, to his Apostolic See, alluding to that\ngreat confession of his(39) Primacy which we have in the letters of the\nSaint, and which, he says, their words repeat, and so he presents to them\nthe acts of the Lateran Council.\n\nParticularly remarkable is the Pope\u2019s letter(40) to the bishops under the\nSees of Jerusalem and Antioch, that is, the patriarchates which had fallen\nunder Mohammedan domination. He announces to them that, after due\nexamination, he had condemned \u201cthe Exposition of the Emperor Heraclius,\nand the formula of the present serene emperor,\u201d and he deplores the havoc\nwhich heretics had made in the East, irregularly setting up a false bishop\nat Antioch, the heretic Macedonius, and another, Peter, at Alexandria. The\nPope adds that in his anxiety to build up the Church of God, which they\nwere laying waste, he had, according to the power given him by the Lord in\nthe person of blessed Peter, ordered his brother John, Bishop of\nPhiladelphia, to supply his place in all ecclesiastical matters through\nthe East, and to create in all cities episcopally subject to the Sees of\nAntioch and Jerusalem bishops, priests, and deacons, and he begs them as\nsons of obedience \u201cto help our Vicar set by Apostolic authority\u201d.\n\nThe Bishop of Thessalonica, in the course of 200 years since St. Leo and\nthe succeeding Popes had made him their Vicar for the great province of\nEastern Illyricum, had become a prelate of very high rank. Paul was\nactually bishop, but he favoured the new heresy, and the Pope, after\nwarning him in vain,(41) wrote deposing him, unless he received without\nthe least omission everything which had been synodically ratified and\ndefined at the Council. At the same time he wrote to the people of\nThessalonica, enjoining them to have no society, agreement, or connection\nwith such a man.\n\nThus, in the case of any diocese, whether that of a simple bishop, or a\nprimate, or a patriarch, the Pope does not hesitate to tell their several\ndiocesans that they are set free from all duty of obedience to one\ncondemned by him. No act can show the superior authority of the universal\nPrimate more strongly than this. St. Gregory the Great had said that all\nbishops were equal when performing their respective work in their own\ndiocese; but if that work is not duly performed, he knows of no bishop who\nis not subject to the Apostolic See. The power of the Primacy is\nessentially for edification of the whole Church, and so is exerted\nwhenever the Church and the faith of the Church are anywhere in danger.\nThe acts of St. Martin I. at a crisis of singular danger follow exactly\nthe rule of St. Gregory. If an emperor supports heresy, he condemns his\nact, though he may be a lawful sovereign; if a patriarch is false to the\nfaith, he sets a vicar of his own to appoint fresh bishops in the\npatriarchate. If his own vicar sins against the power which appointed him,\nhe dissolves the primary bond according to which the people of that\ndiocese is bound to their own bishop.\n\nBut the supreme authority of the Roman See is indicated most plainly in\nthe encyclical letter issued by the Pope. It is addressed(42) \u201cMartin,\nServant of the Servants of God, by grace Bishop of God\u2019s holy Catholic and\nApostolic Church of the Romans, together with the Synod of Bishops here\ncanonically assembled with us for the confirmation of the true dogmas of\nthe Catholic Church, to those who have inherited the like precious faith\nas we of our Lord and Saviour Jesus Christ, through the laver of\nregeneration, who sojourn in holiness and justice in every part of His\ndominion, our brethren the bishops, priests, deacons, heads of\nmonasteries, monks, ascetics, and to the whole sacred plenitude of the\nCatholic Church\u201d.\n\nI give the main contents of this letter thus addressed to the whole world\nto announce the decision of the Council by Pope Martin. It expresses in\nevery line, supported by constant quotations of Scripture, the solicitude\nof the Pope for the maintenance of the doctrine concerning the Person of\nthe Lord which had been held from the beginning. \u201cOur predecessors, the\nPontiffs of Catholic memory, have not ceased to admonish the innovators to\nrecede from this their heresy. Bishops from various provinces, and, what\nis more, general synods, have not only by their own writings called upon\nthem to amend their heresy, but conjure our Apostolic See to exercise its\nregular authority, and not to suffer to the end this innovation to make a\nprey of the churches. Meeting, therefore, in this Roman most Christian\ncity, we have confirmed by our sentence the holy Fathers; we have\nanathematised the heretics with their most depraved doctrines, the impious\nEcthesis and the most impious Typus, in order that all you who dwell over\nthe whole earth, recognising that these things have been piously done by\nus for the safeguard of the Catholic Church, may carry them out together\nwith us.\u201d \u201cThe Lord says, every kingdom divided against itself shall not\nstand, and every sentence, every law divided against itself shall not\nstand; and if the Typus destroys the Ecthesis, and the Ecthesis destroys\nthe Typus, the one asserting that our Lord has one will and operation, the\nother denying it, then both are divided; and how shall the heresy stand,\nbeing shown to be invalid and empty by itself, rather than destroyed by\nus?\u201d This, the never-ending refutation of heresy, runs through the whole\nletter, and against it is set \u201cthe manifestation of God through apostles,\nprophets, doctors, and the five Universal Councils, whose decrees are the\nlaw of the Catholic Church\u201d. \u201cBehold the Judge stands before the door\njoyfully promising crowns to those who suffer for His sake.\u201d\n\nThus the Lateran Council of 649, presided over by Pope Martin, who directs\nall the proceedings, who informs the emperor of the condemnation of the\nTypus, composed by this emperor\u2019s own patriarch, and issued by himself as\na law, who addresses an encyclical letter to all bishops and their people,\nsumming up its acts, who writes to various provinces, and in particular to\nthe eastern patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem, appointing his vicar\nover them, gives us in full detail a picture of the discipline existing in\nthe Church just at the middle of the seventh century. As to doctrine, the\nLateran Council stands precisely on that set forth two hundred years\nbefore at the Council of Chalcedon by the great authority of St. Leo. In\ncondemning the Monothelite heresy, espoused by two emperors and three\nsuccessive patriarchs of Constantinople, it alleges the tradition of the\nFathers from the beginning, and the doctrinal decrees of the five\nCouncils, then accepted as General. During these five centuries the East\nhas been agitated almost without ceasing by the efforts of the Eutychean\nheresy and its last progeny, the Monothelite, to overthrow the true faith\nconcerning the Incarnation, on which the whole economy of human salvation\nrests. The eastern patriarchates have utterly failed to secure the\noccupants of the sees of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and\nConstantinople, from the prevailing error. Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria,\nand Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, are the chief patrons of this\nerror. After them, Pyrrhus, and then Paul, are using the utmost power of\nthe emperor from their seat in the capital to impose it by force: and the\necumenical patriarch especially is using it as a lever against the Roman\nPrimacy, and in drawing up decrees of doctrine fathered by the imperial\npower is practically denying the Roman Primacy to be the guardian of the\nChristian faith, and striving to transfer that guardianship to himself,\nalways under the wing of the emperor. Had the Popes yielded to the\nEcthesis or the Typus, both the faith of the Church would have been\naltered, and its government transferred from Old Rome to Roma Nova. St.\nMartin, as the first act of his pontificate, plays this most remarkable\npart of summoning a Council which defeats this double aggression. And the\nmoment at which it is done may be marked as that in which the temporal\nweakness of Rome touches its lowest point. The subsequent treatment of the\nPope, which I have now to mention, is an incontestable proof how entirely\nhe was exposed to the machinations, the violence, and the despotic tyranny\nof his enemies, especially to the malevolent union of emperor and\npatriarch. Yet it is to be observed that neither emperor nor patriarch\neven affects to deny the authority of St. Peter\u2019s successor; what they\nattempt to do is to control and subject him in the exercise of it.\n\nHistory is silent as to events in Rome from the end of the Council of 649\nto 653. What the exarch Olympius, by special command of the emperor\nConstans II. did while it was being held, has been narrated above.\nOlympius was dead, but another exarch, Theodore Kalliopas, was sent from\nConstantinople to execute the work in which Olympius had failed. On the\n15th June, 653, Kalliopas came to Rome. Concerning his purpose, Pope\nMartin himself wrote to his friend Theodorus in these words:(43) \u201cYour\ncharity has desired to know how I was carried away from the See of the\nApostle, St. Peter, like a solitary sparrow from the house-top. I am\nsurprised at your question since Our Lord foretold of evil times to His\nown disciples: for \u2018there shall be then great tribulation, such as hath\nnot been from the beginning of the world until now; and unless those days\nhad been shortened, no flesh should be saved. But he who perseveres unto\nthe end shall be saved.\u2019 Therefore that you may know how I was removed and\ncarried off from the city of Rome, you shall hear no false report. Through\nthe whole time I knew what was preparing. And taking with me all my\nclergy, I remained by myself in the church of our Saviour, named after\nConstantine, which was the first built and endowed in all the world by\nthat emperor of blessed memory, beside the bishop\u2019s palace. There we all\nstayed by ourselves from Saturday, when Kalliopas entered the city with\nthe army of Ravenna, and the chamberlain Theodorus. I sent them some of\nthe clergy to meet him, whom he received in the palace,(44) and thought I\nwas with them. But, finding I was not, he mentioned it to the chief\nclergy. Because it was our purpose to do him homage,(45) but on the next\nday, which was Sunday, we would present ourselves and salute him, as on\nthat day we could not. On Sunday he sent men to that church, suspecting\nthat there was a great multitude there, being Sunday, and he reported\nthat, being very tired with his journey, he could not come that day, but\nwe should certainly meet the next day, \u2018and we will do homage to your\nHoliness\u2019. Now I myself had been very sick from October to that 16th of\nJune. On Monday then he sent at dawn his chartular and certain attendants,\nand said, \u2018You have prepared arms and you have armed men inside, and you\nhave heaped up a quantity of stones for resistance. This is not necessary;\ndo not allow any such thing.\u2019 I heard this myself, and to remove their\nsuspicions, thought it necessary to send them all over the episcopal\npalace, that, if they saw arms or stones, they might themselves give\nevidence. They went and found nothing, upon which I suggested to them that\nthey had always acted thus, and proceeded against us by intrigue and false\naccusation, as when, at the coming of the infamous Olympius, they said\nthat I might have repelled him by arms. Now I was lying in my bed before\nthe altar of the church, and scarcely half-an-hour later the army came\nwith them into the church. All were covered, bearing lances and swords,\nshields, and bows ready bent; and they did things there which are not to\nbe uttered. For, as when the winter wind blows violently, the leaves fall\nfrom the trees, the candles of the church were struck down, and resounded\nin their fall upon the pavement. And the clash of arms sounded like a\nhorrible thunder in the church, together with the vast number of broken\ncandles. Upon this their sudden inroad, order was issued by Kalliopas to\nthe priests and deacons who surrounded me, that I had, in violation of\nrule and law, taken undue possession of the bishop\u2019s office, and was not\nworthy to be in the Apostolic See, but was by all means to be sent to this\nimperial city, and a bishop elected in my stead. This has not yet been\ndone, and I trust will never be done; since, in the absence of the\npontiff, the archdeacon, the archpriest, and the first notary take his\nplace. I have already told you the acts which had been doing concerning\nthe faith. But, as we were not prepared for resistance, I thought it\nbetter to die ten times over than that anyone\u2019s blood should be shed in\nvain. And this was done without risk to anyone, after many evils\ndispleasing to God had been effected. So I gave myself up at once to be\ntaken before the emperor without resistance. I must admit that some of the\nclergy cried out to me not to do this, but I did not listen, lest murders\nshould instantly take place. But I said to them: Let some of the clergy\nnecessary to me, bishops, priests, and deacons, and, indeed, such as I\nchoose, come with me. Kalliopas answered: By all means let such as will\ncome. We use compulsion on no one. I answered, My clergy are in my own\nhands. Some of the priests cried out: We live and we die with him. Then\nKalliopas himself and these who were with him began saying, Come with us\nto the palace. I did not refuse, but on that same Monday went out with\nthem to the palace. On Tuesday all the clergy came to me, and many had\nprepared to sail with me, and had already put their baggage on board; some\nothers also, both clergy and laity, were hastening to join us. On that\nsame night then, preceding Thursday, the 19th June, about the sixth hour,\nthey carried me from the palace, thrusting back all who were with me in\nthe palace, and without even things necessary for my journey and for me\nwhen here, and they took me from the city with only six pages and a single\ndrinking vessel. We were put on board a bark, and about four hours after\ndawn reached Porto. As soon as we left Rome the gates were closed, and\nkept closed that no one might go out and reach us at Porto before we\nsailed thence. Thus we were compelled to leave at Porto all the goods of\nthose who had put them on board, and the same day we departed. On the 1st\nJuly we came to Miseno, where was the ship, that is, my prison. Now I met\nwith no compassion, not in Miseno only but also in Calabria; nor in\nCalabria only, which is subject to the great city of the Romans, but in\nmany islands in which we were detained for our sins as long as three\nmonths, save only in the island of Naxus, for there we spent a year, I was\nallowed to take two or three baths, and was a guest in a house. And now\nfor seven and forty days I have not been allowed to wash in warm or cold\nwater. I am sick and cold through and through; for both on board and on\nland to the present hour my stomach has allowed me no rest. When in my\nhunger I am about to take something, my whole body is so shaken that I\ncannot take anything to strengthen nature. I have an utter disgust against\nwhat I have. But I believe in the power of God, who beholds all things,\nfor when I am relieved from this present life all my persecutors will be\ncalled to account, so that at least they may be drawn to repent, and so\nconverted from their iniquity. God preserve you my very dear son.\u201d\n\nThe allusion above concerning the things done as to the faith is explained\nin a former letter to the same friend, wherein he says: \u201cWhen I left the\nLateran Church, where armed men had shut me in, they cried out in the\npresence of the exarch, Whoever says or believes that Martin has changed\nor will change one iota of the faith, let him be anathema. And whoever\nremain not in their orthodox faith to death, let them be anathema. When\nKalliopas heard this he began to excuse himself that there was no other\nfaith than what we held, and that he had no other. And I would have you\nknow, most dear brother, concerning the faith, and likewise those\ncalumnies which they are putting out against the truth, that by the help\nof your prayers, and those of all faithful Christians who are with you,\nwhether living or dying, I will defend the faith of our salvation, and as\nSt. Paul teaches, \u2018to me to live is Christ, and to die gain\u2019. But as to\nthose false accusations which heretics are newly making, casting aside the\ntruth of Christ our God, what truth can they speak to men who resist God\u2019s\ntruth? Therefore, I make answer to you, dearest brother, by Him Who will\njudge this world by fire, and render to every one according to his work, I\nnever sent letters to the Saracens, nor how they should understand a\ncertain tome, nor ever sent money, except some alms to servants of God\ngoing thither, to whom we gave a little for their needs, by no means for\nthe Saracens. And as to our Lady, the glorious ever-virgin Mary, who\nbrought forth Jesus Christ our God and Lord, whom all holy and Catholic\nfathers call the Mother of God, inasmuch as she bore the God-man, unjust\nmen have borne false witness against me\u2014rather against their own souls.\nWhoever does not honour and worship her who is blessed above every\ncreature and human nature save Him who was born of her, the venerable\never-virgin Mother of our Lord, let him be anathema both in this world and\nin the next. But men who seek occasion throw up scandals for the offence\nof many. God preserve you, most loving son.\u201d\n\nIn addition to these letters of the Pope himself, we also possess from the\nhand of a contemporary(46) \u201ca narration of the deeds done cruelly and\nwithout respect of God by the adversaries of truth to the apostolic\nconfessor and martyr Martin, Pope of Rome\u201d. Concerning this the writer\nsays: \u201cSome incidents I learnt from others; of very many I was an\neye-witness\u201d. He speaks with horror of the swords drawn against the Pope\nas he lay sick on his couch in the Lateran Basilica; how the preacher of\ntruth was torn from his apostolic throne by the powerful of this world who\nwere worthy of such a ministry; how he was carried off secretly in a small\nvessel; how, as his ship touched at various places, the bishops and\nfaithful brought him gifts, which the brutal guards laid their hands upon,\nabusing those who brought them, and saying: If you love him you are\nenemies of the State. \u201cWhen at last that blessed man reached Byzantium on\nthe 17th September, the guards left him from morning until the tenth hour\nlying in his couch on the ship, a spectacle to angels and men. For a\nnumber of men came to him\u2014wolfish from their manners I should call them\u2014as\nI conjecture hired to do against the holy Pope things which should not be\nmentioned to Christians. Now I remained on the shore walking up and down\nthe whole day, mourning over him whom I saw in such a state; and hearing\nwhat some heathens said against him, I was ready to expire with grief.\nAbout sunset a certain scribe named Sadoleva came with many warders. They\ntook him from the ship and carried him in a portable chair to the\nguardhouse, Prandiaria, and shut him up under strict charge that no one in\nthe city should know that he was kept in guard. Thus the holy apostolical\nremained without exchanging a word with anyone for ninety-three days. On\nthe ninety-third day they took him early out of guard and put him in the\nfiscal\u2019s cell. They had summoned the whole Senate to meet. They had him\nbrought in upon his chair, for he was ill from what he had suffered on\nboard and the long imprisonment. The fiscal, who presided with the other\nchief persons, eyed him from a distance, and bade him rise from his couch.\nSome attendant said he could not stand. The fiscal called out in a fury,\nand some one of the warders, Let him stand up, though he be supported on\nboth sides. This was done. Then the fiscal said: Speak, wretch, what harm\nhas the emperor done thee? Has he taken anything? Has he oppressed thee?\nBut he held his peace. Then the fiscal said to him with imperious voice:\nAnswerest thou nothing? Now shall thy accusers come in. Then many accusers\nwere brought in against him. But they were all sons of falsehood, and\ndisciples of those who killed our Lord Jesus Christ. But they contradicted\nthe holy man, as they had been told; for their words were arranged and\nprepared. Now some of them tried to speak the truth, but those who\ndirected this conflict got disturbed, and began to threaten them violently\nuntil they were induced to say what told for the death of this just man.\nWhen the Pope looked at them as they entered to bear witness, he said with\na smile: Are these the witnesses? That is the rule. Some of these had been\nwith Olympius. They were sworn on the Gospels, and so bore witness. The\nfirst of all the accusers was Dorotheus, patrician of Sicily. He swore\nthat if Martin had fifty heads he ought not to live, since he alone\nsubverted and destroyed all the West, and was in fact in the counsel of\nOlympius, and an enemy who slew the emperor and the Roman civilisation.\nWhen that just man saw them coming in and swearing unsparingly, out of\ncompassion to their souls he said to those who presided: For God sake do\nnot make them swear, but let them say what they please on their simple\nword; and yourselves, do what pleases you. Why should they lose their\nsouls by swearing? One witness came in and said that the Pope had\nconspired with Olympius, and tampered with soldiers to make them take an\noath. When he was asked if this was true, he answered: If you will hear\nthe truth, I will tell you. And he began to speak: \u2018When the Typus was\nmade and sent to Rome by the emperor\u2014\u2019 At these words he was stopped, and\nTroilus cried out: Do not introduce before us matters of faith; you are\nnow on trial for treason, since we are both Romans, and Christian, and\northodox. Would to God, said the Pope; but on that day of tremendous\njudgment you will find me a witness in this also. As the witnesses were\naccusing, Troilus, the prefect, said to him: What a man art thou to have\nseen and heard the attempts of Olympius against the emperor, yet not to\nhave forbidden him, but to have consented with him. To whom the Pope\ninstantly replied: Lord Troilus, tell us when George, as you know and we\nhave heard, who had been a monk, and was become a magistrate, entered into\nthis city from the camp, and said and did such and such things, where were\nyou and those with you to offer no resistance, though he harangued you and\nbanished from the palace such as he chose? And again, when Valentine, at\nthe emperor\u2019s command, put on the purple and sat by his side, where had\nyou gone? Were you not here? Why did you not forbid him to meddle with\nthings not belonging to him? Did you not all take part with him? How was I\nto stand against such a man who wielded the whole force of Italy? Did I\nmake him exarch? I entreat you by the Lord to do quickly what is your\npleasure to do with me. For God knows that you bestow on me the greatest\nof gifts by whatever death you kill me. The fiscal enquired of one of the\nofficers, Sagoleva: Are there many more witnesses? There are many, my\nlord, he said. But the presidents, being foiled by the holy man standing\nbefore them, because the Holy Spirit supported him, said it was\nsufficient. A certain Innocentius was turning into Greek the Pope\u2019s words,\nand the fiscal, feeling them like fiery darts shot upon them, turned to\nInnocentius in a fury: Why do you translate his words? Repeat them not.\nAnd rising with his assessors he went in to report to the emperor what he\nchose. But they led the holy apostolic man, seated in his chair, away from\nthe cell of judgment\u2014I should rather say from the hall of Caiphas\u2014and put\nhim in the middle of a court opposite the imperial stable, where all the\npeople used to meet and await the entry of the fiscal. The guards\nsurrounded him, and it was a sight striking awe into the crowd. Presently\nthey placed him in the open, that the emperor might look at him from his\ndining-couch, and see what followed. Now there was a great multitude of\npeople crowded together as far as the hippodrome. So they placed the most\nreverend man in the middle of that open space in presence of the whole\nSenate, propped up on both sides. Suddenly there was a great press, and\nthe fiscal issuing from the emperor, with the doors of the dining-room\nopened, ordered all the people to make way for him. And, coming up to the\nholy Martin, the Apostolicus said to him: See how God has led thee and\ndelivered thee into our hands. What hope hadst thou in struggling against\nthe emperor? Thou hast deserted God, and God has deserted thee. And the\nfiscal calling on one of the warders standing by ordered him instantly to\ntake away the mantle of the chief pastor of all Christians, who had\nconfirmed the orthodox confession of the holy Fathers and Councils, that\nis, the Faith, and had canonically and in council put under anathema the\nauthors of the new error, the new heretics, with their impious doctrines.\nSo when the warder had torn away his mantle and the straps of his sandals,\nthe fiscal delivered him over to the prefect of the city, saying: Take\nhim, my lord prefect, and immediately cut him in pieces. At the same time\nhe bade all who were present anathematise him, which they did, but only\nabout twenty souls. But all who saw this deed, and knew that there is a\nGod in heaven who beheld what was being done, went away disturbed, with\neyes cast down and in great sorrow.\n\n\u201cThen the executioners taking him, stripped off the pallium of the\nsacerdotal stole, and rending the sides of his garment, which was woven\nfrom the top throughout, put iron chains upon his holy neck, and dragging\nhis whole body violently, did not allow him to rest a moment and recover\nhimself, but led him from the palace, making a show of him and\ndishonouring him through the midst of the city to the pretorium. And the\nsword was borne before him. Now, that blessed one was in great and\nunspeakable pain. He was utterly worn out and without strength, ready to\nexpire from the pressure of sufferings and his emaciation. Nevertheless,\nrejoicing in hope, he was comforted in the Lord, and the greater the\naffliction and violence with which he was dragged along, the more that\nJust One followed with serene countenance and unbroken spirit. He had but\none garment, which was rent from top to bottom, and no girdle; but he was\ngirded with faith and the grace of the Lord. You might see a man so full\nof God subject to such disgrace that his flesh might be seen naked. When\nthe people saw many things which happened they groaned and sobbed. But a\nfew of those ministers of Satan rejoiced and mocked, and shaking their\nheads, as is written, they said, Where is his God, and where is his faith,\nand where is his teaching? And when he had come to the pretorium in this\ndishonour, and surrounded by the executioners with drawn swords, they cast\nhim into a prison with murderers, and about an hour later carried him\nthence to the guard-house of Diomedes, in the court of the prefect. But\nthey drew him in his fetters with such haste and force that his legs and\nthighs were torn, and blood shed in ascending the stairs of the\nguard-house, which were very ragged, rough and steep. Now the blessed one\nwas very nigh to escape the tortures of the present life by expiring\nbefore the sword came when he had no strength to mount the steps with the\nmen dragging him. When at last they got him somehow into the guard-house,\nafter many falls and risings again, they put him on a bench clothed in\nfetters. For when he was delivered by Caiphas, that is, the prefect, to\nPilate(47) to be crucified, immediately when the executioners were\nstripping him, he suffered greatly from the cold, for it was a bitter\nseason. They put on him the heaviest iron fetters, and there was no man of\nhis own to help him, save one young cleric, who stayed with him in\ncustody, and stood weeping over his master, like Peter. The chief warder\nalso was fastened to him, it being the custom that a criminal condemned to\nthe sword should be bound to the chief warder.\n\n\u201cNow, there were two women, a mother and a daughter, who kept the keys of\nthe guard-house. These witnessed the unendurable suffering of that holy\nman (for besides all his other punishments he was shivering with cold) and\nout of compassion sought to show some mercy to him and to cover him, but\ndid not venture because of the warder who was bound to him. For they\nthought that the order for his execution would come at once. But after\nsome hours when some soldiers below had summoned the chief warder he went\ndown, and one of these women, touched with pity, came, and folding in her\narms the champion of Christ and apostolic father, carried him and rested\nhim on her own bed, carefully covering him and wrapping him. Now he\nremained to the evening without uttering a word. But in the evening\nGregorius, the eunuch, prefect of the chamberlains, sent his majordomo\nwith a little food to refresh him, saying, Faint not in your tribulations;\nwe trust in God you will not die. The blessed one groaned at this increase\nof his troubles. Immediately they took off his fetters.\n\n\u201cThe next day the emperor went to the patriarchal palace to visit the\npatriarch Paul, for he was near death. The emperor told him all that had\nbeen done to the holy man. But Paul groaned, and turning his face to the\nwall he said: Woe is me, this also has been done to multiply the judgments\nupon me. The emperor asked why he said this. He replied: Is it not\nmiserable, my Lord, that pontiffs should suffer such things. Then he\nearnestly adjured the emperor that the past sufferings were sufficient,\nand that he should bear no more. When this was heard by that apostolical\nman, who did not receive what he was expecting, he was not pleased with\nthat promise, but was made quite sad, for he was longing to finish a good\nfight, and to depart unto Him Whom he desired.\n\n\u201cThe patriarch Paul died, and Pyrrhus who had been patriarch before him\nwas trying to recover his seat, but the retractation which he had offered\nto the Pope Theodorus was brought up against him. The emperor sent an\nofficer, an assistant of the fiscal, to examine Pope Martin about it.\nDemosthenes entering said to the Pope: See in what great glory you were,\nand to what you have reduced yourself. Nobody did this to you, but you did\nit to yourself. The Pope made no answer except, Glory and thanksgiving for\nall things to the sole immortal King. His majesty, said Demosthenes, has\ninstructed you thus: inform us of what passed in the case of the\nexpatriarch Pyrrhus here, and at Rome afterwards. Why did he go to Rome?\nWas it by order, or of his own accord? The Pope answered, Of his own\naccord. Demosthenes said, How did he draw up that paper? Under any one\u2019s\ncompulsion? The Pope replied, Under none but of himself. Demosthenes said:\nWhen Pyrrhus came to Rome, how did Pope Theodorus, your predecessor,\nreceive him? as a bishop? The Pope replied with tranquillity, And why not?\nBefore Pyrrhus came to Rome, blessed Theodorus wrote hither, that is to\nPaul, who had acted unfittingly, and invaded another\u2019s see. When\nafterwards Pyrrhus came to Rome, to the threshold of St. Peter, how should\nnot my predecessor receive and honour him as a bishop? Demosthenes said,\nThat is most true. But where did he get what was most needful for his\nsupport? The Pope said, Clearly from the Roman patriarchal palace. The\nassistant remarked: What sort of bread was given to him? The Pope said, My\nLords, do you not know the Roman Church? For I tell you whoever in however\npoor a plight comes hither to lodge, all things for his need are given\nhim, and St. Peter sends away none who come without his gifts; the best\nbread and various wines are given both to him and to his attendants. If\nthis is done in the case of the abject, when one comes in the honour of a\nbishop, what treatment should he receive? Demosthenes said, We have been\ninformed that Pyrrhus was forced to make that statement at Rome, that he\nbore wooden fetters, and suffered much. The Pope replied, Nothing of the\nkind was done. For unless some are kept in their place by fear, they\ncannot speak out the truth. There are many at Constantinople who were then\nat Rome, and know what took place there. The patricius Plato survives, who\nwas then exarch, and who directed some of his men then to Pyrrhus at Rome.\nAsk him if I speak falsely about this. But why enquire further? I am in\nyour hands. Do with me what you will. As God allows, it is in your power.\nIf you cut me to pieces, as when you delivered me to the prefect, you\nordered, I do not communicate with the Church of Constantinople. I am\nhere: examine me, and try, and you will find by experience the grace of\nGod and of His faithful servants. Again Pyrrhus was mentioned, who had\nbeen so often anathematised, and stripped of the sacred honour.\nDemosthenes and his assistant were astonished at the tranquil Pope\u2019s\nboldness and constancy for Christ unto death. For this his chalice of\npassion was ordained. The attendants also were amazed: they made a copy of\nall which the blessed man had said and retired.\n\n\u201cNow the most reverend Pope passed in that same guard-house of Diomedes\neighty-five days after the first ninety-three, that is, in all one hundred\nand seventy-eight days. Then Sagoleva the scribe came, saying, I am\ncommanded to take you hence, and to remove you to my house, and after two\ndays to conduct you whither the fiscal shall command. The Pope asked\nwhither he was to be taken; the other refused to say. Then the holy man\nasked that he might be allowed to remain in the same guard-house until he\nwas banished, and might be taken direct from it, which also was refused\nhim. But about sunset the venerable Pope said to those who were in the\nprison: Approach, brethren, and let us take leave; behold he is at hand\nwho will take me hence. And as he said this they each drank of the\nchalice. And rising with serene countenance, with much firmness and\nthanksgiving he said to one of those present dear to him: Sir, my brother,\ncome and give me the kiss of peace. Now the heart of that brother, as he\ntold me himself at that very time, was, I conceive, such as the heart of\nthat disciple who watched his Lord upon the cross. And as he was giving\nthe kiss of peace to the most holy Pope, through the depth of their\naffection they shed a flood of tears. But all present broke into a\nterrible lamentation. The blessed man distressed at this, besought them\nnot to do so, looking at them undisturbed. And placing his venerable hands\nupon his head, said with a smile: Sir, my brother, this is good, this is\nseasonable\u2014should you act thus? Is it for our peace? Rather you should\nrejoice over me now. To whom the brother with deep contrition answered:\nServant of Christ, God knows. I rejoice in the glory with which Christ our\nGod has deigned that you should suffer all these things for His Name\u2019s\nsake; but I am sad for the perdition of all. Then all paying him their\nrespects retired. So the scribe coming forth at once took him away and\nbrought him to his own house. It was said then that he was banished to\nCherson, and a few days afterwards we learnt that the holy Apostolical man\nhad been carried thither in a vessel secretly.\n\n\u201cUpon his arrival he wrote a letter after a few days to a most dear friend\nin Byzantium, one of those who loved him for the Lord\u2019s sake and for his\nright faith. And this our father was in banishment and great tribulation,\nand on account of his many and severe bodily sicknesses, and the every way\ndefective supply of that country, where nothing was to be found,\nparticularly bread, which they knew by name, but not in fact, asked for\ncertain things to be sent him. Thus he wrote, attesting upon oath that a\nsmall bark touched there, carrying a little wheat in exchange for salt,\nand they were scarcely able to get a bushel of wheat for four coins, and\nthat with much entreaty. That holy soul wrote that he was suffering\nvarious distresses there, not only from his own body, but through the\noppression of those who ruled there, under direction from the lord in\nByzantium, so that he was dying miserably. I then, your humble and sinning\nservant, beseech you, Fathers honourable in God, since I have declared to\nyou what I myself saw and most carefully heard from others, that is, the\ntrials pressing on our most blessed Pope for his right confession in\nChrist our Lord, and for his anathema uttered upon the new heretics. Short\nas is my account out of many things, but the best I could send you, do you\nfor your part set forth these things to those who have zeal for God\u2019s\nworship, and beseech them to imitate him, and to maintain the traditions\nof the holy fathers, as he has done, and to hold no communion with those\nof an opposite mind. Entreat also for me, your unworthy servant, the\nwriter, that, together with him and with you, I may find mercy from Christ\nour Lord for ever. Amen.\u201d\n\nWe possess two letters written by the Pope from the Crimea to his friend\nin Byzantium, which would seem to be the letters referred to by the writer\nI have just quoted. In them the Pope declares the extreme need of\nnecessaries for life, in which he suffers. In the first he says, \u201cIf St.\nPeter thus supports strangers at Rome, what shall we say of ourselves, who\nare his proper servants, and at least for a time ministered to him, and\nare in such a banishment and affliction\u201d. In the second his words are\nstill more pressing: \u201cI am astonished at the inattention and want of\ncompassion of all who once belonged to me, of my friends and relations who\nare so utterly forgetful of my misery and care not to know, as I find by\nexperience, whether I am or am not upon the earth. Much more still do I\nwonder at those who are of the most holy Church of the Apostle Peter,\nsince they have taken such pains for their own body and member\u2014that is,\nfor their affection to us\u2014that we may be without solicitude. For if the\nChurch of St. Peter possess not gold, at least, by the grace of God, it is\nnot without wheat and wine and other necessaries whereby at least to show\na moderate care of us. What fear has fallen upon men that they should not\ndo the commands of God? Have I appeared such an enemy to the whole fulness\nof the Church, and an adversary to them? But may God, who wishes all men\nto be saved and to come to the knowledge of the truth by the intercession\nof St. Peter, establish their hearts in the orthodox faith, and confirm\nthem against every heretic and person adversary to our Church, and\nmaintain them unshaken, especially the pastor who is now declared to rule\nthem, so that failing, declining, surrendering no whit of the things which\nthey have writtenly professed in the sight of our Lord and his holy\nAngels, they may, together with my humility, receive the crown of justice\nbelonging to the orthodox faith from the hand of our Lord and Saviour\nJesus Christ. As for this my poor body, the Lord Himself will care as it\npleases Him to order, whether for sorrows without end or for moderate\nrelief. For the Lord is at hand, and for what am I solicitous? I hope in\nHis mercy that He will not long delay to finish my course, as He has\nappointed.\u201d(48)\n\nThe \u201cpresent pastor,\u201d whom Pope Martin thus seems to recognise was Pope\nEugenius, elected at Rome in his lifetime, through dread, it is said, of\nthe clergy there that the Emperor Constans II. would force upon them some\nMonothelite of his own to sit in the See of Peter.\n\nThe last scene is thus described, as appended to the foregoing narrative:\u2014\n\n\u201cThe most holy thrice blessed Apostolical, Martin the Pope, a true\nconfessor and martyr of Christ our God, died in his banishment in the\nCrimea, according to his own petition to our Lord God, offered to Him with\ntears at the moment that he disembarked and trod that land\u2014that is, that\nin it he might finish his life, fighting the good fight, finishing his\ncourse of martyrdom, keeping the good faith, on the 16th September, the\nday on which in the year\u2019s course the most precious and blessed memory is\nkept of the martyr Euphemia, guardian of the orthodox faith.(49) He was\nburied about a stadium outside the walls of the city of Cherson, in the\nChurch of Our Lady, the most chaste, immaculate, most excellent of all\ncreatures, the fullest of grace, the maker and giver of joy, the\never-Virgin Mary, Mother of God. By the intercessions of which Virgin and\nconfessor may Christ our true God and Saviour, who came forth from her for\nthe human race in a manner ineffable and without seed, guard and protect\nus, and all faithful hearers, and all the people whom He has acquired unto\nsincere faith and practice, in peace and charity, and all justice to the\nend.\u201d\n\nSo Pope Martin I. gave up his life for the faith of Christ and for the\nindependence of the Church, and no less for that guardianship of both\nwhich is vested in the Holy See. For he was thus treated because he held a\nCouncil at the Lateran expressly condemning an imperial document of the\nreigning sovereign called a Typus, and as Pope placed it under anathema,\nand published his Encyclical \u201cto the whole sacred plenitude of the\nChurch\u201d. And he was condemned as a traitor, exactly repeating the passion\nof his Lord, as he sat in the seat of him to whom our Lord said, Follow\nthou Me. And further, he followed his great predecessor, Pope Clement I.,\nthe personal friend both of St. Peter and St. Paul, and the third\nsuccessor of St. Peter, dying in the Crimea, where St. Clement died by\ncommand of the great heathen emperor Trajan, as St. Martin died by command\nof Constans II., a successor of Constantine, and by his office as\n\u201cChristian prince and Roman Emperor\u201d the first son and defender of the\nChurch.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER III. HERACLIUS BETRAYS THE FAITH, AND CUTS HIS EMPIRE IN TWO.\n\n\nWe left the emperor Heraclius carrying back the true Cross in triumph to\nJerusalem from its captivity under the Persian fire-worshipper, whose\nempire he had wounded to death. This was in the year 629, in the\npontificate of Honorius, and in that act the emperor seated at Byzantium,\non the throne of Constantine, at the head of the empire which was the\nproper creation of Constantine, seemed to have made himself the champion\nof the faith which is embodied in the Cross. Had Heraclius then died it\nwould have been with a halo not only of human but of Christian glory\nsurrounding his head. But he survived during twelve years in which his\ninertness, considered by some to be unexplained, suffered the eastern\nempire to undergo irreparable losses. These, moreover, came from a foe of\nwhose mere existence he was indeed conscious, but of whom he had no fear\nat the time of that triumphal entry into Jerusalem. An obscure Arabian\nraider was striving to gain a mastery among some savage tribes in that\nlittle known peninsula. The lord of the golden city, seated as queen of\nEurope and Asia on broad-flowing Hellespont, would hardly deign to cast\nhis eyes upon an incursion of southern robbers, made on an empire which\nfor three hundred years had been watching war-clouds big with tempests\nfrom the north, or matching itself with difficulty against the restored\nSassanid kingdom. This at last was beaten down. Might not Constantinople\nhail in security the return of an emperor who had conquered Persia? But\nwe, looking back over the ages, may think that the act of Heraclius\nreplacing the Cross in the Holy City and in the church which Constantine\nhad built over the sepulchre of Christ may be called with much truth the\nlast act of the real C\u00e6sarean empire, inasmuch as during the twelve\nsucceeding years it lost for ever its greatest provinces to the very foe\nwhose advent as a conqueror Heraclius had not even suspected.\n\nWe have now to follow briefly one of the greatest revolutions which has\never occurred in human affairs. It is a revolution which not merely sets\nup one kingdom instead of another, or alters the persons of individual\nrulers; but which changes human society to its very depths, provides a\ndifferent standard of morals, and, so far as it succeeds, but only so far,\nreverses the course of Christian civilisation, and undoes in certain\ncountries the greatest conquests which the Christian Church had obtained\nfor the good of the human race. Not States only are changed, but fathers\nand mothers, husbands and wives, sons and daughters: in fine, Gr\u00e6co-Roman\nheathenism has disappeared, but instead of it arises a religion borne on\nthe shoulders of a temporal rule, and a legislation compared with which in\ncertain respects that old heathenism was pure and benignant. The\nrevolution reaches in fact man\u2019s belief in the nature of God Himself: and\na change of belief in the nature of God involves a change in all His\nrelations to His moral creatures, and in their relations to each other.\nThe creature in all action reproduces what it holds concerning the\nCreator. The religion of self-sacrifice springs from a God who sacrifices\nHimself: the religion of self-indulgence from a God from whose worship\nsacrifice has been expunged.\n\nIt(50) appears that even before the triumphal entry of Heraclius into\nJerusalem with the recovered cross he had met in the Persian campaigns, in\n622 or 623, with a certain bishop named Cyrus, then holding the see of\nPhasis, in Armenia. But Cyrus himself had for years before been in\ncommunication with Sergius, the powerful patriarch of Constantinople, the\nguide and inspirer of the emperor. Sergius had held the see of the capital\nsince the year 610, in which the accession of Heraclius took place. It had\nbeen all along his dream to reconcile the various monophysite sects which\ntroubled his master\u2019s empire. In the political point of view such a\nreconciliation could not but appear very important. In Egypt alone the\nMonophysites numbered about six millions, against three hundred thousand\northodox.(51) How deeply their national feeling was mixed up with their\nheresy is shown by the name of Melchites or Royalists, which they gave to\ntheir opponents. The patriarch Sergius and the emperor Heraclius fell upon\nthe device of gaining the heretical party, not only in Egypt, but in the\nEastern empire generally, to at least an outward union with the orthodox\nby introducing the formula \u201cOne Operation\u201d as a theological expression for\nthe acts of our Lord. St. John of Damascus(52) describes in his treatise\non heresies the 99th as that of the Monothelites \u201cwho derived their origin\nfrom Cyrus of Alexandria, and their strength from Sergius of\nConstantinople. These men maintained two Natures in Christ, and one\nPerson, but assert one Will and one Operation, by which they destroy the\nduality of natures, and strongly adhere to the doctrines of Apollinarius.\u201d\nNow Sergius, uniting great ability and strong character to his position as\nbishop of the capital city and minister of the Emperor Heraclius,\ndominated his mind. Heraclius exerted himself greatly to disseminate the\nformulary of these two patriarchs. His purpose was that of drawing\ntogether his own distracted empire. This purpose of Heraclius is carried\nback so far at least as the year 628. Nay, at the beginning of his\ncampaign against the Persians he recommended it. How much more when by the\npeace of the year 628 he recovered the provinces which had been taken from\nhim.(53) It would seem that the faltering of Heraclius in the faith, which\nhe was willing to subject to a deceptive compromise the doctrine of the\nincarnation itself, was coincident in time with the opening of the\nMohammedan era, the hegira or flight of Mohammed from Mecca, which marks\nhis assumption of the claim to propagate by force a conquering religion.\nThat claim was in a few years to cost Heraclius the half of his empire. It\nis certain that about the year 630 he promoted Cyrus to be patriarch of\nAlexandria. He also put a certain Athanasius of like doctrine into the see\nof Antioch, and thus three patriarchal sees at once were in favour of the\nheresy. And Sergius wrote to Pope Honorius commending it as a wonderful\nmode of restoring unity to the Church in the East.\n\nCyrus drew up nine heads of doctrine, by which he thought that he had\nreconciled the Theodosians and other powerful sects in Egypt. His\nannouncement was received with exceeding joy by Sergius at Constantinople.\nSergius wrote to Pope Honorius describing the action of Cyrus in these\nwords: \u201cCertain dogmatic heads were agreed upon between the two sides, in\nconsequence of which those who but yesterday were parted into divisions\nand acknowledged the wicked Dioscorus and Severus as their ancestors, were\nunited to the one most holy Catholic Church, and all the people of\nAlexandria, beloved by Christ, and besides this we may say all Egypt and\nThebais and Libya, and the other dioceses of the Egyptian province, became\none flock of Christ our true God. They who were until then to be seen an\ninnumerable multitude of divided heresies, now, by the good pleasure of\nGod and the zeal well-pleasing to Him of the most holy prelate of\nAlexandria, have all become one, with one voice and unity of spirit,\nconfessing the true doctrines of the Church.\u201d(54)\n\nSuch was the picture set before Pope Honorius by the patriarch Sergius,\nthen in the height of his credit as bishop of the imperial city and prime\nminister of the emperor, in the year 633, when Abu Bekr was elected the\nfirst of the chalifs to carry on the power of Mohammed, who had died a few\nmonths before. A few years after this supposed reunion of all, these same\nEgyptians welcomed submission to Omar, the second chalif and successor of\nAbu Bekr, as lord of Egypt, who would, as they thought, be more favourable\nto them than Heraclius.\n\nAnd the successor of St. Peter was deceived into believing that the\npicture drawn by Sergius was a true statement.\n\nBut before the union described in such terms by Sergius had been\ncompleted, a man had come to Alexandria, who was to protest in the face of\nthe whole world against this compromise to which the Catholic faith was\nbeing subjected. This was Sophronius, a monk of high repute, to whom the\npatriarch Cyrus showed the articles of union, while they were as yet\nunpublished. Sophronius threw himself at the patriarch\u2019s feet, and\nconjured him most earnestly not to announce them from the pulpit, as they\nmanifestly expressed the heresy of Apollinaris. Sophronius did not succeed\nwith Cyrus, but carried a letter from him to Sergius at Constantinople, to\nwhom it would seem that Cyrus directed him as the chief supporter and\nexponent of the doctrine which Sophronius rejected.\n\nAll that Sophronius was able to obtain from Sergius was that both\nexpressions concerning the action of our Lord, as God-man, that is, the\nOne Operation, or the Two Operations, should be equally avoided.\nSophronius on his return to Jerusalem, was elected patriarch, and as such,\npresently issued his synodical letter. This is almost the most important\ndocument(55) in the whole Monothelite struggle: a great theological\ntreatise, which embraces the Trinity and the Incarnation, and fully sets\nforth the doctrine of the Two Operations in Christ. Copies of it were sent\nto all the patriarchs. The copy sent to Sergius has come down to us among\nthe acts of the 7th session of the 6th council. Out of the copy in the\nacts I will here quote some few of the very words in which the great\nchampion of the faith states the doctrine. It is that which St. Leo\ndefined at the Council of Chalcedon, for which Pope S. Martin offered his\nlife in sacrifice, for which the Popes preceding and following him\nsuffered trials and persecutions without end, which four successive\npatriarchs of Constantinople endeavoured to overthrow, and for their\nincessant quarrels over which, three eastern patriarchates, with their\nbishoprics, were delivered over as a prey to the hordes of the false\nprophet.\n\nSophronius(56) addressing his colleagues began with regretting that he was\nadvanced to the pontifical throne from a very humble state against his\nwill. Begging his fathers and brethren to support him, he noted that it\nwas an apostolic custom throughout the world that they who were thus\nadvanced, should attest their faith to the colleagues preceding them.\nAfter this introduction, Sophronius threw his words into the form of a\ncreed, in which the first part dwelt upon the Trinity. He then, at greater\nlength, set forth his belief in the Incarnation. How God the Son, taking\npity upon the fall of man, by His own will, and the will of His Father,\nand the divine good pleasure of the Spirit, being of the infinite nature,\nincapable of circumscription and of local passage, entered the virginal\nwomb, resplendent in its purity, of Mary the holy, the God-minded, the\nfree from every contamination of body, of soul, and of mind;(57) the\nfleshless took flesh, the formless, in His divine substance, took our\nform; the eternal God becomes in truth man. He, who is in the bosom of the\neternal Father is bosomed in a mother\u2019s womb. He who is without time\nreceives a beginning in time. Then, passing to the point in question, he\nwent on: Christ is One and Two, One in Person, Two in Natures and their\nnatural attributes. On this account, One and the same Christ and Son, and\nOnly-begotten is found undivided in both natures. He worked physically the\nworks of each nature according to the essential quality or natural\nproperty which belonged to each. This He could not have done, had He\npossessed, as One only Person, so One only Nature, not compounded. For\nthen, the One and the Same would not have completely done the works of\neach Nature. For when has Godhead without body worked naturally the works\nof the body? or, when has a body without Godhead worked works which\nsubstantially belong to the Godhead? But Emmanuel, being One, and in this\nOneness both, that is, God and Man, did, in truth, the works of each\nNature; being One and the Same, as God He did the divine, as Man the human\nworks. Being One and the Same, He works and He speaks the divine and the\nhuman.(58) Not one wrought miracles, and another did human works, and\nsuffered pains, as Nestorius meant, but one and the same Christ and Son\nwrought the divine and the human according to each, as St. Cyril taught.\nIn each of the Two Natures He had the two powers unmingled, but undivided.\nAs He is eternal God, He wrought the miracles; as He was Man in the last\ntimes, He wrought the inferior and human works.\n\nThe answer to the Synodical letter of Sophronius, made by Sergius at\nConstantinople, was not to receive it, but to draw up his own Ecthesis,\nand prevail on the emperor Heraclius to stamp it with the imperial\nsignature, and proclaim it as the faith of his empire. Before the Ecthesis\nwas brought to Rome in December, 638, Pope Honorius had died in the\npreceding October. Sophronius had commissioned the chief bishop of his\npatriarchate, Stephen of Dor, as we have already seen, to carry his appeal\nto Honorius, in the See of Peter. And now it is time to turn to those\nevents which were in the meanwhile happening in the eastern empire.\n\nIn the three hundred years from Constantine to his twenty-second\nsuccessor, Heraclius, the empire which he had set up in the fairest city\nof the world had developed into a double despotism. It is difficult to say\nwhether that despotism pressed more severely on the religious or on the\ncivil well-being of its subjects. As to each, it is requisite to say\nsomething. The gravity of the events which took place within ten years\ndemands it; while in their permanent effect that gravity most of all\nconsists. The immediate result was most rapid and unexpected, yet a long\ntrain of action during the three hundred years preceding had led straight\nup to it, and a period of four times three hundred years has since\nwitnessed its evolution.\n\nLet us take first this pressure of despotism on religion. In speaking of\nConstantine I noted that there were in him two very distinct periods of\nhis rule after he became a Christian. The first precedes his acquisition\nof the whole empire in 323; the second follows in the fourteen years from\nthat time to his death. But in this second period the change, which dates\nfrom the moment at which he becomes sole emperor, is yet gradual. At the\nfirst General Council, in 325, the calling of which is agreed to by the\nPope and the eastern patriarchs, but springs from himself, he acknowledges\nboth in word and conduct that the Christian Church is the kingdom of\nChrist, and that its government lies in the hands of those who receive a\ndivine consecration thereto from Christ. They are the witnesses of His\ndoctrine, which they maintain and promulgate in virtue of that\nconsecration. Upon this doctrine their judgment is final. Constantine\nnever in thought submitted to any power but the Catholic Church. The\nthought of warring sects was abhorrent equally to the soldier, the\nconqueror, and the legislator. Yet before his reign closed, at the age of\nsixty-three, he had been seduced in his conduct from this high tone of\naction by the counsels of the Court bishop, Eusebius; he had restored\nArius and persecuted Athanasius. He had selected the bishops who were to\nattend local councils, while he stretched the powers of such local\ncouncils beyond their competence. He had in fact advanced with his\nimperial sword into the Church\u2019s Council Chamber, and claimed to be a\njudge of her doctrine. And his kingdom was forthwith divided(59) among\nthree sons, none of whom as rulers at all represented their fathers\nmajesty, while one, Constantius, became after not many years the sole\nruler, and as such propagated the heresy of the day, and practised\nencroachment on the doctrinal independence of the Church. Constantius was\ncut off in his forty-fourth year, receiving clinical baptism from the\nhands of an Arian on his death-bed. In twenty years after his death the\nimperial power passes through two new families, and when a third is called\nin to support a falling empire, Theodosius has fifteen years given to him\nin which to save the empire from imminent destruction and the eastern\nChurch from heresy. The victory of that Arian heresy during fifty years\nhad so deranged that eastern episcopate, that no one but a saint and\nchampion of the faith, such as St. Basil,(60) could venture to describe\nits condition. From the death of Theodosius, in 395, the eastern empire\npassed through fifteen successors to Heraclius, and in that succession\nthere are ten changes of family. One daughter of an emperor, who was\nhimself a successful insurgent, conferred the empire twice, both times on\nthe most worthless of men, as much marked for their civil misgovernment as\nfor persecution of the Church. But with every step in the succession it\nmay be noted that the original independence of the Church, as recognised\nby Constantine and by his successors down to the Emperor Leo I. in a long\nseries of imperial laws,(61) fell more and more into the background. Each\ngeneral who by slaughtering his predecessor mounted the eastern throne\nassumed at once the bearing of the lord of the world: with the purple\nboots he put on the imperial pride. The Roman Primacy was indeed\nacknowledged by the Council of Chalcedon in 451, and no less by the\nEmperor Marcian, the husband of the Theodosian heiress. But twenty-five\nyears after that Council the western Emperor was abolished. From that\nmoment the sole Roman Emperor was seated at Byzantium. At once an eastern\nschism was set up by the Bishop of the Capital. Rome was in the possession\nof Teuton Arians, who impaired the freedom of the Papal election, and made\nthe imperial confirmation of it a custom. And when at last an honest\ngeneral, who had entered the army as an Illyrian peasant, and risen from\nthe ranks to the throne, had discountenanced the schism, condemned four\nsuccessive bishops of his own capital, and acknowledged in amplest terms\nthat the Pope\u2019s power was supreme, and also that it consisted in descent\nfrom St. Peter, the eastern emperor forbore, indeed, to deny the Primacy,\nbut his endeavour was to control its action by making the spiritual\nsubject to the civil power. This was the outcome of Justinian\u2019s long reign\nfrom 527, to 565. And the fatal conquest of Italy and Rome, making the one\nto be a captive province, and the other to be the garrisoned city, but not\neven the capital of a captive province, aided Justinian in acts to undo\nthe reverence which in words he testified to the successor of St. Peter.\nIn eighty-five years, from 553 to 638, the occupant of the eastern throne\nhad advanced from holding a Council at Constantinople without the Pope\u2019s\nconsent, to presenting at Rome a doctrinal decree for his signature. A few\nyears afterwards, when the Pope called a Council, and condemned the\ndecrees of two emperors as heresy, and three successive bishops of\nConstantinople as the heretics who supported it, the grandson of\nHeraclius, Constans II., tried the Pope as guilty of high treason before\nthe Senate of Byzantium, and crowned him with martyrdom in exile. Step\nfrom Pope Vigilius a captive guarded at Constantinople in 553, to Pope\nMartin sentenced there as a traitor in 655, and dying in the Crimea a\nmartyr. That step will mark the advance of eastern despotism and the peril\nof the Church\u2019s independence.\n\nBut it may be said that from the time Nestorius is deposed as guilty of\nheresy made by himself from the see of the capital in 431, to the\npublication of the imperial Ecthesis as a rule of faith in 638, the\neastern patriarchates have been swaying backwards and forwards between the\ntwo opposing heresies of Nestorius and Eutyches: Syria is the parent of\none: Egypt of the other. Through these two centuries the bishop of\nByzantium has pursued under the emperor\u2019s never-failing patronage a\nuniform course of self-aggrandisement. In this he was greatly helped by\nthe extinction of the western emperor, when his master at Constantinople\nbecame the sole representative of the Roman name\u2014that Christian king and\nRoman prince to whose honour so many Popes from Felix III. onward so\nvainly appealed. That very prince became step by step their most dangerous\nenemy. The first act immediately upon the extinction of the western\nemperor\u2014who was the natural defender of the Holy See\u2014was that a Byzantine\nbishop, Acacius, set himself up as the leader of the whole eastern\nepiscopate. Pope Gelasius told the bishop of the day that he had no rank\nin the episcopate except that he was bishop of the capital: that a royal\nresidence could not make an apostolic See. The new family of Justinian,\nascending the eastern throne, was compelled by the internal state of the\neast, to acknowledge the Roman Primacy. Justinian never broke from that\nacknowledgment, but he termed his own bishop ecumenical patriarch in his\nlaws: and every Byzantine bishop clung to the title given by an absolute\nsovereign. In the time of Pope Gregory the Great, a hundred years after\nthe decree of Pope Gelasius, recording the pre-eminent rank and order of\nthe three original Petrine Sees, of Rome, Alexandria, and Antioch, the\nByzantine bishop is allowed to be a patriarch, Alexandria and Antioch have\nfallen under him. They themselves have been throughout all the intervening\ntime the seats of violent party spirit, the spirit of the two conflicting\nheresies, striving for masterdom, disturbing succession in the sees, and\nready by any obsequious act to get on their side the bishop of the\ncapital, who dispenses the smiles of the emperor. Against all primitive\norder that bishop is found to consecrate his subordinate patriarchs at\nAlexandria and Antioch: to put down one and to raise another. When his\nusurpation was fresh and still incomplete, the patriarch Theophilus could\npersecute St. Chrysostom for the wrong done to Alexandria; but the\npatriarch Cyrus, made for his subserviency to Heraclius and Sergius to sit\nin the seat of St. Athanasius, addresses Sergius as \u201cMy Lord,(62) the\nthrice-blessed Father of fathers, the ecumenical patriarch, Sergius, the\nleast of his servants,\u201d and his acts are as humble as his words.\n\nIt is clear that the eastern patriarchal system had fallen from intrinsic\ncorruption before the joint operation of Byzantine despotism and the\nambition of the bishop of the capital, who bought every accession to his\nown power and influence by acting in ecclesiastical matters as the\ninstrument of the imperial will. This fall was complete before the events\nwhich mark the last ten years of the reign of Heraclius as a time of\nunequalled and irretrievable disaster both to the Church and to the State.\n\nYet something must still be added to portray that civil condition of the\nState which led on to this disaster. In all this time the city of the\nemperor\u2019s residence had been exhausting of their wealth\u2014by the terrible\nseverity of the imperial taxation\u2014the provinces subject to it. Egypt and\nSyria lived under a perpetual oppression no less than Italy and Rome.\nEvery distinction, every favour, which Antioch, when Queen of the east,\nmay have brought to Syria, had long migrated to the banks of the\nBosphorus. All the national feeling of Egypt was aggrieved by the ruler\nwho treated the dower of Cleopatra\u2014the imperial gem of Augustus\u2014as a\nstorehouse to be plundered at pleasure. And the national spirit was\nintensified to fever heat by the hatred of Byzantium on the part of the\nEutychean population, forming the vast majority in the whole country.\n\nThus the wide eastern empire instead of worshipping in union of heart and\ngladness of spirit that transcendent mystery in which is throned the\ngrandeur and the mercy of the Christian dispensation, instead of falling\nin prostrate adoration before that vision of condescending love which the\nangels desire to look into, broke itself into endless conflicts in\ndisputing about it, until the mystery of grace became a rancorous jarring\nof ambitious rivals. During more than 200 years this suicidal conflict was\nengaged in ruining the resources of a vast dominion, which in the hands of\na Constantine or a Theodosius, with the spirit of a St. Leo to guide them,\nwould have been impregnable to every enemy. Had emperor and people been\nfaithful to the Council of Chalcedon, and to the authority which they\nadmitted to be based on a divine promise made to St. Peter, neither the\ndisunited hordes of the North, nor the far inferior savages of the South,\nnor even the impact of the great Sassanide empire would have availed to\novercome the Roman power. This last and greatest enemy Heraclius had\nsubdued. He went forth in the name of the Crucified One whom Chosroes had\ncalled upon him to disavow, and won the fight. Yet even as he was carrying\nback the Cross and entering the Holy City in triumph, Heraclius had become\na traitor to him whom he was professing to honour. He had already\nconceived, under an evil influence and by the inspiration of the patriarch\nat his right hand, a compromise of doctrine which he thought would induce\nthe rebellious Egyptian people to return to his allegiance. He hoped also\nthat the same compromise would exorcise the Nestorian spirit at Antioch.\nThey who did not agree were to be drawn into an appearance of agreement by\nan ambiguous formula. And the See of the Apostle Peter, last and greatest\nwitness of the true doctrine, was to be forced into accepting the deceit,\nand ratifying it for the old truth by submitting to an imperial decree,\nwhich, independent of the heresy contained in it, was a violation of the\nChurch\u2019s liberty.\n\nThe fifty years which run from 628 to 678 contain the various acts of one\nprolonged attempt by the Byzantine emperors to enforce their religious\ndespotism on the Pope in the shape of the Monothelite heresy. The two\nstandard-bearers of the heresy are two patriarchs, Sergius at\nConstantinople, and Cyrus at Alexandria. Precisely at this time the\nMohammedan power appears upon the scene. While Heraclius is brooding over\nthe compromise of Sergius for reuniting an empire dislocated by heresy,\nMohammed is purposing the foundation of an empire resting on material\nforce. While Heraclius is assuming the right to define the doctrine of the\nChurch in virtue of his imperial power, Mohammed is constructing a claim\nto prophetic rank from which imperial power itself shall emanate. The\nMohammedan claim is the exact antithesis of the Byzantine usurpation: the\nrise of a false prophet punishes the attempt among Christians to rule the\nspiritual by the civil power.\n\nUpon the death of Mohammed in 632, his companions took counsel together\nand elected Abu Bekr to carry on the dominion based upon religion which\nMohammed had invented. They gave him the title of \u201cChalif of God\u2019s\nApostle\u201d. As the vicar of the new prophet, he was to exert the absolute\npower which belonged to the prophet\u2019s office, and of which the civil\nsovereignty was an offshoot. This power was rooted in the belief that\nMohammed had been sent by God. The quality therefore of every act\nexercised by the first chalif, and by every successor, depended on the\ntruth of such a mission.\n\nBy the choice of Abu Bekr, father of Aischa, the favourite wife of\nMohammed, it was resolved that the succession to the chalifate should be\nelective, not hereditary. The most stirring principle of the new power was\nthat everyone who died for its extension, which was called the Holy War,\nshould pass at once to paradise. Paradise had been drawn by Mohammed after\nhis own sensual imagination to suit the taste of a most sensual people.\nThe empire sought by Mohammed and his followers was to be imposed by\nforce. Abu Bekr stirred up the sons of the desert to this Holy War,\nproclaiming that he who fought for God\u2019s cause should have 700 good works\ncounted for each step, 700 honours allotted to him, and 700 sins forgiven.\n\nAbu Bekr held the chalifate but two years, dying in 634 at the age of 63\nyears. But at the very time of his death the pearl of Syria, Damascus,\nfell into the hands of his generals, Amrou and Khaled. From Medina the\ncity of the prophet, and the seat of the chalif, he had sent forth three\narmies. Moseilama, a prophet who competed with Mohammed, was destroyed,\nthe discontented tribes in Arabia itself were reduced to obedience. The\nPersian provinces on the Euphrates were attacked. The Roman empire itself\nwas summoned to accept the new religion, or to become tributary.\n\nUpon the death of Abu Bekr, the chief associates of Mohammed around him\nproclaimed Omar as chalif, and entitled him Chalif, and Prince of the\nFaithful. In the ten years of his chalifate, from 634 to 644, Omar made\nthe Mohammedan empire. He had exerted great influence over Mohammed\nhimself; he had been most powerful with Abu Bekr, who pointed him out for\na successor. The man who had been of violent temper and bloody battles,\nnow sedulously practised the administration of justice. He gave much, and\nused little for himself. He wore a patched dress, and fed on barley bread\nand water; he prayed and preached, and ate and slept upon the steps of the\nmosque among the pilgrims. There he received the messengers of kings. The\nsevere chalif, a sworn foe to all effeminacy, strove to train a rude host\nto war. Arts he proscribed, even those of house and ship-building. When\nthe great city of Modain, or Ctesiphon, was taken, he commanded the\nlibrary of the Persian kings to be thrown into the Tigris. When some of\nhis soldiers had put on silken garments which they had looted in Syria, he\nrubbed their faces in the mud and tore their garments in pieces. Such was\nthe man under whom half-armed nomad tribes broke the armies of Heraclius,\nand took one after another the cities of Syria.\n\nBut on the side of the emperor were divided counsels, distrust, rankling\nenmities; Nestorian and Eutychean heretics hating each other, and still\nmore the sovereign under whom they should have fought as well for a common\ncountry as for a common faith. The fate of Syria was decided in a terrible\nbattle on the banks of the Hieromax, or Yarmuk. There, the Saracen\ngenerals, Obeidah and Khaled, \u201cThe sword of God,\u201d utterly defeated the\nGreek army of 80,000 men.(63) Obeidah wrote to the chalif Omar: \u201cIn the\nname of the most merciful God, I must make thee to know that I encamped on\nthe Yarmuk, and Manuel was near us with a force such as the Moslem never\nhad a greater. But God struck down that host, and gave us the victory out\nof His overflowing grace and goodness. God has given to 4030 Moslim the\nhonour of martyrdom. All that fled into the desert and mountains we have\nput down; have beset all roads and passes; God has made us lords of their\nlands and riches and children. Written after the victory from Damaskus\nwhere I am, and await thy command for the division of the booty. Farewell,\nand the blessing and grace of God be over thee and all Moslim.\u201d\n\nAfter this, city upon city surrendered in affright. In the winter of 636,\nObeidah lay before Jerusalem, from which Heraclius took away the Holy\nCross with himself to Constantinople. At Antioch, in his dismay, he asked\nthe question why those miserable half naked barbarians, the Arabs, not to\nbe compared with the Romans in armour, or art of war, beat them in the\nfield. A veteran answered him that the wrath of God was on the Romans, who\ndespised His commands, were guilty of every excess, allowed themselves\nintolerable oppression and violence.\n\nWe do not read that Heraclius made an attempt to relieve Jerusalem, which\nyet was besieged during a year. Obeidah wrote to the patriarch and the\ninhabitants: \u201cSalutation and blessing to all those who walk in the right\nway. We invite you to confess that there is only one God, and Mohammed is\nHis Prophet. If you will not make this confession, then resolve to make\nyour city tributary to the chalif. If you delay to do this, I will set my\npeople upon you, who all love death more than you love wine and swine\nflesh. Hope not that I will draw away hence, until, if God please, I have\nkilled all your warriors, and made slaves of your children.\u201d\n\nThe patriarch Sophronius negotiated without hope of earthly aid, and\nObeidah, to save the Holy City, the cradle of prophets, from being\ndesecrated by blood-shedding, yielded to the Christian wish that the\nchalif in person should be asked to receive the keys of the city, and\nregulate the conditions of surrender. And in 637 Chalif Omar came from\nMedina. As the Commander of the Faithful entered the city, he rode on a\ncamel, clothed like the poorest Bedouin, and carrying on the same rough\nbeast a sack of dates, rice, and bruised wheat or maize, also a\nwater-skin, and a large wooden platter, on which he took his food with his\ncompanions. The terms of capitulation which he granted to the patriarch\nremained for long a standard to the Moslem in the like cases. First of all\nwas the poll tax imposed by the Koran. The inhabitants to be protected and\nsecured in life and property; their churches not to be pulled down, nor\nused by any but themselves. The Christians duly to pay tribute; to build\nno new churches either in the city or country; not to prevent Moslim by\nnight or day from entering the churches. Their doors to be always open to\ntravellers. The Christian to whom a traveller comes, shall entertain him\nthree days gratis. Christians shall say nothing against the Koran. Shall\nprevent no one becoming Moslem. Shall show honour to Moslim. Shall not\nwear garments, or shoes, or turbans, like theirs. Shall not divide their\nhair like them. Shall not bear surnames like them. Shall not ride on\nsaddles. Shall bear no arms, nor Arabic writing on their seals, nor give\naway wine, nor sell it. They shall wear the same kind of dress everywhere,\nand that with a girdle. They may have no slave who has served a Moslem. No\ncrosses on the churches; nor ring bells, but only strike them.\n\nThe chalif Omar caused himself to be led into all the holy places in the\ngarb of a pilgrim by the patriarch Sophronius, even to the church of the\nResurrection. There he placed himself on the floor, and the patriarch was\nmost anxious lest he should practise his own acts of devotion there. With\nbreaking heart the patriarch quoted to those around him the words of\nDaniel, \u201cThe abomination of desolation in the temple\u201d.\n\nTwelve hundred and fifty years have borne witness to the truth of that\nsorrowful word, and still, \u201cthe desolation continues even to the end,\u201d(64)\nand the soldier of the false prophet keeps order among Christians before\nthe sepulchre of their Lord.\n\nHardly could the chalif Omar be induced to put off his rough garment long\nenough for it to be washed, and to take another. But when the time of\nMoslem prayer came, he would not say it in the church, lest the Moslim\nshould seize a church in which their chalif had prayed, but he went to the\nsteps of the eastern portion of Constantine\u2019s church and prayed there. He\nresolved to build a mosque on the spot where Jacob had seen in vision the\nladder, or on which the temple of Solomon stood. He gave a hand himself to\nsweep away the rubbish from it. The structure, built in haste, disappeared\nsuddenly. Theophanes relates that Omar was much confused at the\ndisappearance of his new mosque. Some Jewish teachers came to him and said\nthat the structure would only remain if the cross on Mount Calvary, not\nthat on the Mount of Olives, were removed. Omar did what these men\nsuggested. Some of his fanatics, in spite of the compact, broke all the\npublic crosses, destroyed holy images, attacked various churches and\nchapels. He gave a special writing to protect the church at Bethlehem\nwherein he had prayed, but the Moslim afterwards took possession of this\nchurch and of the portico at Jerusalem, and made them mosques.\n\nOmar returned to Medina. His armies received command to take Ctesiphon,\nAleppo, Antioch. In the summer of 638, Heraclius retired from Antioch to\nConstantinople, and as he left, says Abulfeda, cried out, \u201cFarewell,\nSyria, farewell for ever\u201d. When Antioch in August, 638, surrendered,\nMesopotamia as well as Syria fell into the hands of Omar, and all Roman\nland up to the Taurus belonged to the chalif, no imperial force could meet\nhim any longer in the field. Egypt and Persia were open to him.\n\nIt was the year when Heraclius published the Ecthesis at Rome. In three\nyears more came the doom of Egypt. Amrou was one of the most valiant and\nable among the generals of Omar. He asked for leave to attack Egypt, and\nmeanwhile marched to its borders. When the chalif\u2019s answer came, he first\npassed the borders, and then opened it. He found written, \u201cIf this letter\nreaches thee before thou treadest the soil of Egypt, go back; if thou art\nalready on it, go forward\u201d. Amrou went on. Battles he fought, especially\nat Babylon, near Cairo. But the Copts throughout helped him, and the Greek\nforces were beaten.(65) Amrou had travelled as a merchant in Egypt, and\nknew the dispositions of its inhabitants, and that the vast majority were\nso fervent in the Eutychean heresy that they were inclined to look with\nfavour on the new Mohammedan unity of the Godhead, rather than to defend\ntheir country against the Saracenic invasion for the good of the hated\nMelchites, and their emperor at Constantinople. Omar sent Amrou a\nreinforcement of 12,000 men, and the Copts, being monophysites, made peace\nwith the Arabs, and promised the tribute of a moderate poll tax of two\ndrachmas, from which old men, women, and children, were exempt. There are\nsaid to have been six millions to pay this tax.\n\nTo Mukankas, a Copt, the governor under Heraclius, his spies reported the\nlife of the Arabs in the camp of Amrou. \u201cWe were among men to whom death\nis dearer than life; who trouble themselves little about earthly greatness\nor worldly enjoyments. They sit on the ground, and eat kneeling; their\ncommander is in no way distinguished from the rest. Especially they do not\ndistinguish between great and little, nor between masters and slaves. When\nthe time of prayer comes, no one remains behind. Each washes himself and\nprays with the deepest devotion.\u201d To the reproaches of Heraclius his\ngovernor, Mukankas, answered: \u201cIt is true the foe is not near so numerous\nas we are, but one Mussulman outweighs a hundred of us. They yearn after\nmartyrdom, since it leads to paradise, but we hang upon life and its joys,\nand fear death.\u201d The Copts in general accepted the terms made by Mukankas;\nthe Greeks did not. At length Amrou, after four engagements, in which the\nCopts assisted him with provisions and the building of bridges, advanced\nupon Alexandria, whither the Greeks had retired.\n\nAlexandria is said to have been besieged during fourteen months, and to\nhave cost the lives of 23,000 Arabs. It was never cut off by sea from\nassistance. The Arabs had neither besieging engines nor a fleet. But\nHeraclius, who was dying of dropsy, instead of sending a fleet to save the\nlast hold which he had upon Egypt, sent a bishop to make terms with Amrou\nfor his retirement. \u201cBishop,\u201d said the Saracen leader, \u201cdo you see that\nobelisk? When you have swallowed it I will retire from Alexandria.\u201d The\ncity fell in 640, and since Omar had the library of the Persian monarchs\nat Ctesiphon thrown into the Tigris, there is no reason to doubt the fact\nrecorded that he fed the 4000 baths of Alexandria during six months with\nthe treasures of Greek literature. An uninterrupted peace since the\ndestruction of the Serapeium, 240 years before, had allowed that city in\nthe world which was most devoted to literature and the richest in commerce\nample time to collect the greatest of libraries. The double destruction\nsuits exactly the character given to Chalif Omar by Arab historians.\n\nAmrou was not allowed, by Omar\u2019s prudence, to live as governor of Egypt at\nAlexandria. Fostat\u2014that is, the Tent\u2014where he had dwelt during his siege\nof Babylon, developed from being the seat of his government to the present\nCairo. But to the west Amrou extended the Saracen dominion over Barca and\nTripolis.\n\nOmar reigned ten years, a Chalif at whose words of rebuke his strongest\ncommanders quailed, and he ruled a kingdom which he stretched in these ten\nyears from Tripolis to the Indus; from the Caspian Sea to the Cataracts of\nthe Nile. He destroyed the Sassanide empire; and the sword of Mohammed,\nwielded by his second chalif, cut in two the empire of Heraclius. With the\nloss of Syria, Mesopotamia, and Egypt, the successor of Constantine was\nreduced to shelter himself behind the walls of Byzantium from the Saracen\nhost, which perpetually plundered his provinces from the Bosphorus to\nMount Taurus. During the Roman dominion of many hundred years that vast\nterritory had been in climate, as Herodotus a thousand years before had\nsaid of it, the garden of the earth. It had, further, been studded with\ncities rich in monuments of Greek civilisation. Afterwards these came to\nbe ruled by bishops, many of whom descended from the preaching of St.\nPeter and St. Paul. Now all this territory lived in anguish at the thought\nof Moslem incursion. Only the invention of the Greek fire, kept a secret,\nsaved Byzantium itself from suffering in the latter half of the seventh\ncentury the doom which fell upon it in the fifteenth.\n\nChalif Omar had pressed his captive provinces with heavy tributes. A\nChristian artisan, who was made to pay four drachmas a day for taxes in\nKufa, journeyed to Medina to plead for remission before Omar in person. It\nwas refused. He followed the chalif to the Mosque, and dealt him, as he\nprayed, a deadly blow. Omar died, having named, when mortally wounded, the\nsix eldest companions of the prophet to choose his successor.\n\nHeraclius died at Constantinople in 641. The chalif Omar reigned from the\ndeath of Abu Bekr, in August, 634, to November, 644. Before him had died\nthe most cruel of Arabian commanders, Khaled.(66) He who buried alive\ncaptive enemies murmured on his sick-bed, \u201cI have been in so many battles,\nand received so many wounds, that there is scarcely a whole place in my\nbody; and now I must die on a bed as an ass dies on his straw\u201d. Jezdeberg,\nthe last of the Sassanide princes, was hopelessly beaten, and in 651\nclosed, under Mussulman extinction, the dynasty which since 226 had\nrenewed the battle of Persia for empire with its old rival Rome. The great\ncity of Madain or Ctesiphon was destroyed, and Mohammed, the chalif\u2019s\ngovernor in Persia planted Kufa as a military city on the right bank of\nthe Euphrates, three days journey from Bagdad. Omar learnt that his\ngovernor Mohammed had built himself a stately palace over against the\nchief mosque at Kufa. This he had adorned with a magnificent gateway taken\nfrom the palace of Chosroes at Ctesiphon. In wrath Omar wrote: \u201cthe kings\nof Persia have gone down from their palaces to hell: the Prophet rose from\nthe dust of the earth to heaven. I have ordered the bearer of these lines\nto burn down thy palace at once, lest thou miss the way of the Prophet for\nthat of the corrupt Persian.\u201d The palace was burnt. Omar knew how to\ndestroy, and they record of his ten years that thirty-six thousand cities,\nvillages, or castles were taken and wasted, and fourteen thousand\nChristian churches burnt or changed into mosques. History, I believe, has\nnot recorded how many thousand Christian women were delivered over as a\nprey to the Arabian savages, to whom he promised paradise as a reward for\ndying in battle against the unbelievers. This was the Mohammedan\nmartyrdom. Omar sought to impress a holy character upon the savage deeds\nwhich the hordes marshalled by him to victory or martyrdom practised\nwithout scruple. In setting up the colossal kingdom which he founded\nduring the ten years of his chalifate he covered the earth with heaps of\nslain in the name of the most merciful God. He is said to have established\njudges in the chief cities of his empire, who should administer justice\naccording to the written or traditional precepts of Mohammed. He had great\ncare for the security of all the lands subject to him. \u201cIf,\u201d he said, \u201ca\nshepherd on the banks of the Euphrates or the Tigris have one of his sheep\nstolen, I fear that I shall one day have to give an account for it.\u201d(67)\nHe is praised by Mussulmen for his great qualities as sovereign. But he\ncared less to spread Islam from Arabia over all the world than to enrich\nArabia at the cost of all the world. Foreign nations were to be put in\nchains, but not ennobled and bettered. They were to encounter not\npreachers, but tax-gatherers. His rulers might inflict any oppressions on\nthose who were not Mussulmen, provided they sent the fruits of their\noppression to him at Medina. At the same time he fed on barley bread, and\nhad but one cloak for the summer and another for the winter, both well\ndarned. But let us turn to his family life. Little of it is known, but\nthat he had seven marriages\u2014three in Mecca, four after the exit to Medina,\none of them being with a daughter of Ali\u2014and that he had two slave\nconcubines who bore him children. Two other wives he tried to get. A\ndaughter of Otba refused him because he kept his wives jealously shut up.\nBut Asma, a daughter of Abu Bekr, disliked the barley bread and camel\u2019s\nflesh of his household. He sought her in vain by the help of Aischa. Not\nobtaining her, he turned to Amm Kolthum, a daughter of Ali and Fatima, and\ngranddaughter of Mohammed. Ali said to him, \u201cMy daughter is too young to\nmarry\u201d. Omar would not believe it, upon which Ali sent his daughter to him\nin a single vestment. Omar drew back her veil, and wished to draw her to\nhim. But she escaped, and fled to her father, and told him of Omar\u2019s\nconduct. Ali then said to him, \u201cIf thou wert not chalif, I would tear out\nthine eyes\u201d. But Omar sought her again before comrades of the highest\nrank, grounding his proposal on what Mohammed had once said: \u201cEvery\nrelationship and connection ceases at the Day of Judgment, except one\ncontracted with me\u201d. Ali went home, and said to his daughter: \u201cGo back to\nOmar\u201d. She rejoined: \u201cWilt thou send me again to this old voluptuary?\u201d Ali\nreplied, \u201cHe is thy husband\u201d.(68)\n\nBut though in the last years of Omar Ali became his father-in-law, no\nfriendly relation seems ever to have existed between them. Ali had been\nthe first in all Mohammed\u2019s battles; by Omar he was made neither commander\nnor governor. But in Mussulman remembrance Omar stands as the greatest of\ntheir rulers, because of the vast power and extension to which under him\nIslam attained.\n\nLet us see what Omar in his chalifate did to Constantine\u2019s empire and the\nChristian faith.\n\nWhen in 610 Heraclius was drawn from his father\u2019s governorship of Northern\nAfrica to end the cruelties of Phocas, the great mass of the eastern\nempire still stood, threatened indeed by Avar Chagans on the north, and by\nthe restless Persian empire on the east. But the whole coast of Northern\nAfrica, Egypt and Syria, the realm from Antioch to the end of the Euxine\non the east, and to Stamboul on the west, as well as the great country\nsouth of the Danube, stretching from the Euxine to the Adriatic and down\nto the south of the Morea, each of which last would make by itself a noble\nmonarchy, remained intact, and if the eastern despot held his head a\nlittle lower than Justinian\u2019s head had been held, it needed still but a\nConstantine or a Theodosius to breathe conquering force as well as\nmaintaining power into that vast body which still called itself Roman.\nInstead of a true life and a royal will directing that life it had nothing\nbut Greek arts wielded by Oriental despotism. In ten years the sons of the\ndesert, half clothed and fed on barley bread, invoking the God of\nMohammed, discomfited the disciplined hosts of the Lord of the world, and\ncarried into dishonour and apostacy the women and children of great\nprovinces. Egypt since the battle of Actium had been the most\ncarefully-guarded province of Augustus and the emperors who came after\nhim. It ceased at once and for ever to be Roman. Not only was there a\nchange in the civil power, but its six millions of Monophysites preferred\nthe crescent under Amrou, as Omar\u2019s lieutenant, to the cross enthroned\nwith Heraclius at Constantinople. Antioch ceased to be Roman, and with it\nSyria and Mesopotamia. Beyond these the vast regions of Persia fell into\nthe hands of Omar, and were ruled for the present from an Arab city\nMedina, unknown till then beyond Arabian limits. The outposts of Omar were\nat Mount Taurus, looking thence with desire over the vast historic region\nsprinkled with stately cities up to the banks of the Bosphorus. These\nimmense regions were lost suddenly but they were also lost permanently. In\nten years they were forfeited by possessors who had held them for seven\nhundred, and after twelve centuries and a half they remain in the hands of\nthe false religion which took them by force and keeps them against\nrecovery by Christians.\n\nWonderful besides the suddenness of the stroke was the inadequacy of the\ninstrument to the effect produced, the blindness of the time before the\ncoming revolution. Neither St. Gregory among the saints one generation\nonly before it came, nor Heraclius returning a conqueror over the Great\nKing within ten years of the Saracenic catastrophe, anticipated that there\nwere southern hordes extreme in ignorance, devoid of art, and without\npolitical sense or experience, but lying in the hand of Providence to take\npossession of lands with ancient culture and a thousand years of civilised\nhistory. St. Gregory indeed had witnessed himself such ruin, and followed\ntwo centuries of such disasters, which had stripped Italy of her crown of\ncities, that he thought the world itself was coming to an end. But the\nestablishment of a great southern empire, founded by vagrant tribes till\nthen known only as robbers, never presented itself to his mind. That they\nwould go forth and conquer with a new war-cry, directed especially against\nthe Cross of Christ, was as little in his thoughts.\n\nBy the year of Omar\u2019s death there was a new empire ruled by a man from an\nunknown Arabian town, in the name of a man who had died twelve years\nbefore, and claimed to be a prophet, the special herald of one God. In the\nbelief thus set up, it was no other than this God who had invested not the\nprophet only, but the chalifs who came after him with supreme power, not\ncivil only, but religious, and supreme simply because it was religious,\nand exercised in the name of this new God. And the empire so set up\nincluded already the vast dominions of the Great King, and fully one half\nof the empire which Justinian had left.\n\nBut greater yet was the difference which separated this empire from all\nthat had preceded it. Omar ruled with absolute power as chalif of\nMohammed, whose right to power of any kind, civil or religious, lay only\nin his office of prophet. The Roman emperor ruled because he was lord of a\nsubject-confederacy of nations, which the Roman arm and the Roman mind\nhad, bit by bit, subdued and wrought together, and which, when so\nconstituted, had been deposited entire by secular warranty in his single\nhand. But Mohammed ruled, and after him the chalifs, because he was \u201cthe\nApostle of God,\u201d by a divine commission, whole and entire, from which\ncivil and religious authority equally emanated, but in which the religious\nwas the root of the civil. Such was the power which the companions of\nMohammed in the first election of Abu Bekr, launched upon the world, and\nwhich, as second chalif, Omar received. And in the spirit of this, he\nruled the huge empire of conquest, which stretched from the African\nTripolis to the end of Persia, and from the southernmost point of Egypt to\nthe Cilician Taurus, engulphing Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem. No\nportion of this power did Omar wield without assuming to represent the\nperson who made himself, or was made by others, his followers, the last\nand highest of the prophets; who was willing indeed to acknowledge Jesus,\nthe Son of Mary, in the number of prophets, but only on the condition that\nthe prophetical list was closed in himself, that it pointed to himself,\nand was crowned in himself. The Mohammedan war-cry, to die for which was\nto be a martyr, \u201cThere is no God but God, and Mohammed is his prophet,\u201d\nwas at once the denial of the Christian Trinity, and of Christ\u2019s\nRedeemership. All those who bore it, fought for it, died for it,\nproclaimed an absolute hostility to the Christian faith, and a definite\nsubstitution of another faith for it, and another person on whom that\nfaith rested. This was the empire personified in Omar; and this, in the\nten years from 634 to 644, seized upon the southern half of what had been\nthe inheritance bequeathed by Constantine to his successors. The new realm\nwas ruled by Omar with singleness of purpose and unbending resolution to\nmake the Mohammedan standard victorious over the cross, to dethrone Christ\nfor Mohammed.\n\nWas the blow to the empire equally a blow to the Church? The severance of\nprovinces so vast, so populous, so rich in natural productions, from\nHeraclius, was in itself depriving the lord of the world of legs and arms;\nbut more dangerous than any material privation was the setting up an\nempire with a definite creed, in which religious conquest was by far the\nmost powerful ingredient. The war-cry, \u201cThere is no God but God, and\nMohammed is his prophet,\u201d meant the earth and all that is in it, its\nfruits, and above all, its women, belong entirely to the followers of\nMohammed. They who do not either become his, or pay tribute to him, have\nno rights. Their children become slaves, their wives and daughters\ncaptive. These begin to be the absolute possession of the Mohammedan\nconqueror; if he dies in battle, rewards of martyrdom, so won, for his\nsuccessors: if he lives, adornments of his life, which he pleases God by\naccepting.\n\nAs to the treatment of Christian countries, Omar, in the capture of\nJerusalem, had supplied a rule and standard which for the present was\nfollowed at least in profession. Christians were not treated as idolaters:\nthey were taken into covenant. We are told that the tribute was so\nmoderate that the first Egyptians and Syrians who accepted it, thought\nthat they had made a favourable transfer of themselves from Byzantine to\nMohammedan lordship.(69) The Byzantine had perpetually interfered with\ntheir religious convictions, and domineered over their ecclesiastical\nappointments. Mohammedans, in the disdain of superior power resting on\ntheir exclusive possession of truth, kept entirely aloof. Once their own\nlordship established and acknowledged, they allowed their subjects a\ncertain freedom of action within the lines of Omar\u2019s covenant. It is\nprobable that they began by so doing, nor is it easy to account for the\nrapid and continued submission of provinces, such as Syria and Egypt,\nwithout the willingness of their inhabitants to accept the change be taken\ninto account. But it is certain that the Christian religion drooped more\nand more under the shadow of Mohammedan domination.\n\nAntioch fell under it in 637. From that time forth, the so-called\npatriarch began often to live at Byzantium. The patriarchate, which, down\nto the heresies of the third and fourth centuries, had probably, in\nChristian population, in learning, in the distinction which its bishops\nenjoyed each in their own city, been the most flourishing portion of the\nChurch, began to decline. The deposition of St. Eustathius, in 330, cost\nits capital a schism of nearly a hundred years. The partisanship of its\npatriarch with its countryman, Nestorius, prejudiced both its rank and its\nunity. What proportion of its once eleven provinces and 161 bishops\nbelonged to it at the time of the Mohammedan invasion might be difficult\nto ascertain. But how great and wide its circuit was is shown by the\ninstance of Theodoret, bishop of Cyrrhus, which, though an undistinguished\nsee, contained in it no less than eight hundred parishes,(70) and was\nunder Hierapolis, as seat of the Metropolitan.\n\nAfter 638, the Antiochene patriarch never more lifted his diminished head\nas the holder of one of the three great Petrine Sees, whom St. Innocent I.\nand St. Gregory I. had acknowledged with themselves as representatives of\nSt. Peter.\n\nIn all this, we behold the consummation of a fearful history, and I will\ntake the words of one who witnessed the northern wandering of the nations\nto illustrate, rather perhaps, to account for, the much more terrible\nwandering of the nations in the south. It was more than two hundred and\nforty years before this new kingdom arose that St. Jerome, from his\nsolitude at Bethlehem, addressed a friend. It was in the year immediately\nsucceeding the death of the great Theodosius. His rapid view of the\ngeneration which had just passed will inspire many thoughts. He is\nconsoling the bishop, Heliodorus, for the loss of his nephew, the priest,\nNepotian, a dear friend of his own: \u201cand why,\u201d he says, \u201cam I trying to\nheal a wound which time and thought, as I believe, have already soothed?\nWhy do I not rather bring before you the miseries of royalty so near to\nus? Our time has such calamities that it were well not so much to mourn\none on whom this light has ceased to shine as to congratulate the escape\nfrom such misfortunes. Constantius, the patron of the Arian heresy, in the\nmidst of preparing for the enemy\u2019s onset, and rushing to the fight, dies\nin the village of Mopsis, and, in great sorrow, left his empire a prey to\nhis foe. Julian, betrayer of his own life, and slaughterer of an army that\nwas Christian, acknowledged in Media the power of that Christ whom he had\nfirst denied in Gaul. Striving to extend the Roman frontiers, he lost what\nthey had already gained. Jovian had but a taste of imperial power, and\ndied suffocated by charcoal fumes: an instance to all men of what human\ndominion is. Valentinian laid waste his own native land, and, leaving it\nunavenged, broke a blood-vessel and died. His brother, Valens, in the war\nwith the Goths, was defeated in Thrace, and found a tomb on the spot of\nhis death. Gratian, betrayed by his own army, and not received by the\ncities which he approached, suffered the mockery of enemies: and thy\nwalls, O Lyons, bear the impression of the blood-stained hand. The young\nValentinian, scarcely beyond boyhood, after flight, after banishment,\nafter recovering the empire with great blood-shedding, was slain near the\ncity, guilty of his brother\u2019s death: and his lifeless body suffered the\nignominy of the halter. Then there was Procopius, and Maximus, and\nEugenius, who, when they were in power, struck their opponents with\nterror. All stood captives before their conquerors: and suffered that\nutmost misery of those once powerful: to be reduced to slavery, and then\nslaughtered.\n\n\u201cSome one may say, this is the lot of kings, and lightnings strike high\nsummits. Pass to private ranks, and only within the last two years. Let us\ntake but the different ends of three lately Consuls. Abundantius is in\npoverty and exile at Pityuns. The head of Ruffinus was carried on a pike\nto Constantinople; his right hand was cut off, and, to mark his insatiable\ngreed, taken begging from door to door. Timavius, hurled suddenly from the\nloftiest ranks, thinks it an escape to live nameless at Assa. It is not\nthe calamities of the miserable which I relate, but the frailty of man\u2019s\ncondition. It strikes with horror to follow out the ruins of our times. It\nis more than twenty years since Roman blood is shed daily between\nConstantinople and the Julian Alps. In Scythia, Thrace, Macedonia,\nDardania, Dacia, Thessaly, Achaia, Epirus, Dalmatia, and all the\nPannonias, Goth and Sarmatian, Quade, Alan, and Hun, Vandals and\nMarcomans, waste, drag away, and plunder. How many matrons, how many\nconsecrated virgins, how many free and noble persons, have fallen a prey\nto these brutes! Bishops captured; priests and the various ranks of clergy\nslain; churches ruined; horses stabled at Christ\u2019s altars; relics of\nmartyrs dug up. Mourning and death in every shape on all sides. The Roman\nworld falls in pieces, but our stiff neck is not bent. What spirit, think\nyou, have Corinthians, Athenians, Laced\u00e6monians, Arcadians, and all\nGreece, in the gripe of barbarians? I have named few cities which were not\nformerly strong powers. The East seemed free from these scourges: bad\ntidings only terrified it. When lo! last year, from the farthest heights\nof Caucasus, wolves, not of Arabia, but of the North, were let loose upon\nus. They overran at once great provinces. How many monasteries were\ncaptured! How many rivers changed into human blood! Antioch was besieged,\nand the cities which the Halys, Cydnus, Orontes, Euphrates traverse.\nCrowds of captives carried away. Arabia, Ph\u0153nicia, Palestine, Egypt,\ntrembling with fright. Had I a hundred tongues and mouths, and a voice of\niron, I could not enumerate all the tortures suffered. I did not propose\nto write a history; but in few words to lament our miseries; otherwise,\nadequately to set forth these things. Thucydides and Sallust would both be\nmute.\u201d The whole period of two hundred and forty years, between the time\nwhen St. Jerome, as a spectator, wrote thus, and the time of the\nMohammedan inroad, is expressed in the words which follow. \u201cIt is long\nsince we felt that we are offending God, but we do not appease Him. It is\nby our own sins that the barbarians prevail. It is by our own vices that\nthe Roman army is conquered. And, as if this was not enough for our\nlosses, our civil wars have consumed almost more than the edge of the\nenemy\u2019s sword. Unhappy we who are so displeasing to God that His wrath\nbreaks forth on us through the fury of savages. The greatness of the\nreality surpasses language: all words are less than the truth.\u201d\n\nFor, indeed, the time was come, through the extraordinary wickedness of\ntwo hundred years, when the very sanctuaries from which St. Jerome was\nwriting, the sanctuaries of the birth and death of Christ, Bethlehem and\nCalvary, were to fall, not by a sudden inroad, but a permanent occupation\ninto the hands of His chief enemies. The time was also come when the see\nof the great confessor whose name we identify with the battle of faith\nagainst the world, the see of Athanasius himself, the Pope of the East,\nthe next in hierarchical order to the Universal Pope, was to fall, and to\nfall for ever, from its high estate. \u201cAlmost from the death of Athanasius\nbegan the spiritual declension of his see and Church.\u201d\u2014\u201cPride is not made\nfor man; not for an individual bishop, however great, nor for an episcopal\ndynasty. Sins against the law of love are punished by the loss of faith.\nThe line of Athanasius was fierce and tyrannical, and it fell into the\nMonophysite heresy. There it remains to this day. A prerogative of\ninfallibility in doctrine, which it had not, could alone have saved the\nsee of Alexandria from the operation of this law.\u201d(71)\n\nDuring the ten years of Omar\u2019s chalifate the great patriarchates of\nAlexandria and Antioch, and the smaller patriarchate of Jerusalem, which\ncontained the places of pilgrimage dear to every Christian heart, visited\nby the faithful from all lands, not only the birth-place in Bethlehem, not\nonly Nazareth consecrated by the angel\u2019s announcing of that birth, and by\nthe secret life of the divine Boyhood and Manhood, but\u2014\n\n\n    The sepulchre in stubborn Jewry\n    Of the world\u2019s ransom, Blessed Mary\u2019s Son.(72)\n\n\nfell together into bondage under the special enemy of the Cross. In this\nbondage the hierarchies of the three patriarchates, as distinct wholes,\nalmost disappear from history. It is well to consider here the condition\nin which they had been even from the time of the Arian heresy.(73) The\ndeclension of Antioch had been of as long standing as the declension of\nAlexandria. At the end of the fourth century St. Chrysostom bore witness\nto its hundred thousand Christians. But in the course of the fifth the\ngreat third see of the Church lost much of its reputation and power.\nPartly it fell into weak hands, as John I., from 428 to 441, who held but\na poor position in the Nestorian conflict, while Domnus II. took part in\nthe robber council of 447. Then, at Chalcedon, the elevation of Jerusalem\nto a patriarchate took from its jurisdiction the three Palestines. But\nespecially the encroachments of the see of Byzantium told upon it. The\nbishops of the royal city claimed to consecrate the already-named\npatriarchs. Anatolius ordained Maximus, who was substituted for Domnus II.\nwhen deposed in spite of his subservience to Dioscorus. In this he\ndisregarded the rights of the bishops of the Antiochene patriarchate, and\nthe Byzantine bishops forthwith turned that precedent into a right.\nMaximus was followed by Basilius, Acacius, and Martyrius. The Monophysite\nPeter Fullo formed such a party against the last that he resigned in\ndespair. This usurper resisted the Emperor Zeno\u2019s condemnation to\nbanishment, and put himself, first secretly, then openly, as patriarch\nagainst Julian. He so persecuted the Catholics, that Julian died of\nsorrow. The Emperor Zeno banished the heretical Peter Fullo to Pityuns. He\nwas succeeded by the equally heretical John II., Kodonatus. But this\npatriarch was deposed in three months by the exertion of the bishops. The\nMonophysites already prevailed. They murdered in the sacred place itself\nthe new Catholic patriarch, Stephen II., and threw his mangled body into\nthe Orontes. The emperor punished the crime, and Acacius, Bishop of\nConstantinople, put in his place Stephen III. Pope Simplicius censured\nthis violation of the canons, and prohibited it for the future, which did\nnot prevent Acacius renewing his encroachments when, after the death of\nStephen in 482, he consecrated Colendion. Colendion was afterwards\nbanished by the Emperor Zeno, and had to yield to the old heresiarch,\nPeter Fullo, who kept his patriarchate to his death in 488, and was\nsucceeded by the equally heretical Palladius. Almost all Syria rose\nagainst the Catholic patriarch Flavian; the monk Severus got hold of the\npatriarchate, and kept it for six years. He fled in 519, under the Emperor\nJustin I., to Egypt. His successors, Paul II., who resigned in 521 through\nfear of an accusation, and Euphrasius of Jerusalem, could no longer secure\nsuperiority to the Catholics. Patriarch Ephrem followed from 526 to 545.\nHe held a Synod against Origenism. Patriarch Domnus III. took part in the\nFifth Council in 553. He was followed by the distinguished Anastasius I.,\nand after St. Gregory I. by Anastasius II. The See remained a long time\nvacant. Those who then followed, Athanasius, Macedonius, and Macarius,\nwere Monothelites. The two latter from the time the Saracens took Antioch,\nin 637, resided in Constantinople for safety. After George, who is said to\nhave subscribed the Trullan Council in 692, the See was vacant forty\nyears, and the patriarchs had often to endure extortions, ill-treatment,\nand banishment.\n\nHow well Alexandria had prepared itself for the Mohammedan captivity may\nbe seen by the following facts. Under the violent Dioscorus the see of St.\nMark not only declined from its distinction when ruled by St. Cyril, but\nthrew the whole of Egypt into wild confusion by espousing the Monophysite\nerror. The Catholic patriarch, Proterius, was murdered in 457: and the\nheretical Timotheus Ailouros set up by his party instead. He, though\ncondemned by the emperor, Leo I., to banishment, maintained himself\nstubbornly against the Catholic patriarch, Solophakialos. After his death,\nPeter Mongus was able to expel the Catholic, John Talaia: and then, from\n490 to 538, Alexandria had a succession of five Monophysite patriarchs.\nUnder Justinian, from 538, during forty years, we find four Catholic\npatriarchs. So, again, in Eulogius, the friend of St. Gregory, and John\nthe alms-giver. But during this time the Monophysites also had their\npatriarchal succession, and that even from different sects of the heresy.\nThe end of it was that the bitterest enmity arose between the Melchite or\nRoyalist, and the Monophysite party. The former, being a small minority,\nheld by favour of the Byzantine emperor and his troops in Egypt the\npossession of authority. The Copts, being a great majority, considered\nthemselves oppressed, and welcomed as deliverers, in 638, the conquering\nArabs. The Melchite party sunk so low that their patriarchal place was\nvacant during eighty years, and the number of their bishops greatly sank.\nAfter 750, the Christian inhabitants of Egypt were more and more exposed\nto Mohammedan brutality. Sharp laws against them were issued:\ndistinguishing marks and clothes prescribed.\n\nAnd here not only is the fall of the three patriarchates under conquerors\nwho strive to destroy the Christian faith to be noted as following upon\ntwo centuries of incessant heresy, but another divine judgment also. No\nsooner have the three patriarchs lost their original position, the two\nelder as second and third bishops of the whole Church in virtue of their\ndescent from Peter, and taken definitively a position subordinate to the\nupstart at Byzantium, who in the last decade of the fifth century, in the\ntime of Pope Gelasius, was proclaimed in his Council at Rome no patriarch\nat all, than they fall under a domination which is not merely infidel but\nantichristian. The aim of the chalifate is to supplant Christ by Mohammed.\nThe patriarchs, who accepted as superior one who rose above them simply\nbecause he was bishop of the imperial residence, had from that time\nforward to live under a despot who reigned in the name of the false\nprophet. From being subjects of the Greek Basileus, who, by means of the\nbishop exalted by him in successive generations, strove to hamper in the\nexercise of his office the successor of St. Peter, even to the point of\nmaking him subject to the guidance of the Byzantine crown in spiritual\nmatters, which was the meaning of the Ecthesis of Heraclius, they passed\nto be subjects of the Mohammedan chalif, who claimed the supremacy of both\npowers in the name of the falsehood just invented.\n\nIn the diminished territory of Byzantium, which during the rest of the\ncentury after Heraclius could but just keep the Mohammedan conqueror\noutside its walls, the bishop of the royal residence became in fact the\nsole patriarch. Sergius and Pyrrhus, Paul and Peter, the first four of\nthose so exalted, were branded as heretics by the Sixth Council. Those who\nstill bore the names of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem appeared at\ntimes, or were deemed to appear, at a Byzantine Council, but the hundred\nbishops of the Alexandrine, and the hundred and sixty bishops of the\nAntiochene waned and wasted more and more with every generation miserably\nspent under the absolute rule of the Prophet\u2019s chalif, who had for\nChristians only two modes of treatment, the one a noxious patronage of\ntheir heresy, if such prevailed; the other, persecution of their faith, if\nthey were faithful and zealous.\n\nFrom the accession of St. Athanasius to the See of Alexandria in 328 to\nthe placing Cyrus in that See by Heraclius in 628, exactly three centuries\nelapse. In this time the great revolution begun by Constantine, when he\ntook for his counsellor the court-bishop Eusebius, has full space to work\nitself out. His own son, Constantius, \u201cpatron of the Arian heresy,\u201d in St.\nJerome\u2019s words, inaugurates in full force the attempt of the Byzantine\nmonarchs to extend their temporal power over the spiritual. Valens so\npersecutes the eastern Church that when Theodosius is called in to save\nthe empire, he finds the eastern episcopate in the state of ruin described\nby St. Basil. Unfortunately, he saw no better means of restoring it, when,\nin 381, he invited the bishops of his empire to anxious deliberation, than\nby laying the first stone of the Byzantine bishop\u2019s exaltation. An eastern\nCouncil, at his prompting, strives to make that bishop the second bishop\nof the whole Church on a false foundation, because Constantinople is Nova\nRoma. Every Byzantine monarch adds his stone to the Byzantine bishop\u2019s\npillar of pride. St. Leo exposes and censures the assumption. Pope\nGelasius does not reckon him among the patriarchs. Justinian enacts him to\nbe ecumenical patriarch, which St. Gregory pronounces to be a title of\ndiabolical pride: being, in fact, the building of spiritual power on\ntemporal lordship. In thirty years after St. Gregory, the act of pride\ndenounced by him receives its full interpretation. The patriarch Sergius\nattempts to mould the doctrine of the Church under the authority of\nConstantine\u2019s successor: and Constantine\u2019s empire is cut in half by the\nchalif of the man who claims all temporal power on the pretence that he\nhas been invested by God with spiritual power. And two conflicting\nheresies, the Nestorian and Eutychean, the latter making its last\ndevelopment in the Monothelite, have severed the eastern empire into\nrivalities so bitter, that the Christians of the several parties hate each\nother more than they hate the new Mohammedan pretender. The episcopate,\nseen in all its glory and grandeur when first assembled by Constantine in\n325, sinks ingloriously under the successors, in Alexandria and Antioch,\nof the very prelates who maintained the faith at Nic\u00e6a: sinks before\nMohammed, who is seen to complete the work of Arius. The successor of St.\nPeter has done his utmost during two hundred years to preserve the eastern\nsees of Peter: and in them the whole ecclesiastical constitution formed\nfor herself by the Church in the ten generations preceding Constantine:\nbut Alexandria and Antioch have no prerogative of infallibility: they\nperish by their own folly: heresy pollutes their sees for generations, and\nat last the false prophet\u2019s chalif alternately blights them with the\nfavour which he shows to their heresy, or wastes them with the oppression\nwhich he has always ready for the faith. As to the great eastern\npatriarchate, from its capture by the Saracens in 638, its host of\nbishops, at the head of Hellenic cities descending from Alexander\u2019s\nempire, becomes, sooner or later, the prey of the Moslem. From the capture\nof Alexandria, Egypt becomes Monophysite under what the Copts fancy to be\nprotection from the chalif, with the ultimate result that the country of\nthe desert Fathers becomes the heart of the religion denying Christ: and,\nwith Omar\u2019s entry into Jerusalem, upon his rough camel, with his wooden\nplatter and his bag of barley, begin the 1260 years of the Holy City\u2019s\ntreading down by the Gentiles.\n\nThus the southern wandering of the nations came upon the northern. When it\ncame, three hundred years of such times as St. Jerome saw and described\nhad already spread over the earth, sufferings too great for words,\nchanges, as he says, such as neither Thucydides nor Sallust could express.\nBut the southern wandering was much more rapid in time, and in effect far\nmore complete. The ten years of Omar\u2019s chalifate had changed the whole\naspect of the world, had shifted the centre of political power. It had\nbeen at Constantinople: it was shifted to Medina. From Constantine to\nHeraclius the empire had taken and enrolled in its armies unnumbered men\nof Teuton race. Alaric had been a Roman general: Stilicho and Aetius,\nsaviours of Rome. This race had also fed the Church with converts of more\nstalwart nature than the enfeebled races who needed the infusion of\nnorthern blood even to till their fields, as well as to guard their\nfrontiers, or to guide their polity. But the southern wandering gave no\nsoldiers to the empire, and no converts to the Church. There would be no\ngreater contrast than the two races from which these two great movements\ncame. The northern barbarian, with all his wildness, could take the\nimpress of the Church. He had in his woods and marshes, in his\ntransmigrations and encampments, kept, in no small degree, the original\ntradition of the human race. Already Tacitus had noted his regard for\nwoman as the companion of his life, for the sanctity of marriage, for\nmonogamy, in the practical guarding of which he put to shame the\ndegenerate Roman, and still more corrupted Greek. The heroic courage,\nnatural to him, was an omen of the point which, as Christian martyr, he\nmight reach. The self-government shown in the original habits of the tribe\nwas a soil whereon princes and bishops might sit in council to form\ngovernments in which \u201cliberty and empire,\u201d unknown to Byzantine, might\ndwell together. These qualities were elements of the social, the\npolitical, even the ecclesiastical life. Far otherwise was the Saracen\ntype. Savage, rude and ignorant, with no tincture of art or learning: with\nhabits of unlimited polygamy: with leanings to unmitigated despotism: with\nno regard to human life. In courage only was the southern a match for the\nnorthern barbarian. The outcome of his whole character as to the rest was\ndifferent: and the religion invented for him was but the barest\ndevelopment of his natural temperament.\n\nAt the death of Chalif Omar, this new antichristian power had taken from\nthe empire of Heraclius every yard of land formerly under its dominion\nfrom Tarsus to Tripoli: and stood in most threatening attitude over\nagainst all which remained to it: indeed, to the whole Christian name.\nMohammed was its watchword against Christ. The northern wandering had no\nsuch counter watchword. It respected Roman laws and customs when it seized\non Roman lands. It had understanding enough, not only as shown in its\nprinces, Ataulph and Theodorich, but in a race of officers surpassing not\nonly Roman courage, but Roman fidelity in the civil and military\nadministration, to venerate as unapproachable by any wisdom of its own,\nthe political fabric of which, in so many lands, it confiscated the\nresources.\n\nBut Omar\u2019s treatment of Greek learning in the library of Alexandria was\nthe expression of his whole mind towards Christian civilisation. And\nOmar\u2019s powerful hand had not only maimed Byzantium, but absorbed Persia.\nAll this had been done since Heraclius carried back the Cross in triumph\nto Jerusalem. The Persian had kept it in its shrine during its captivity\nwith the seals untouched. The Saracen scorned all which it represented.\nThe contest of those whom Heraclius would leave in his place was to be\nwith the Saracens, Omar, Osman, and Ali.\n\nAfter the Chalif Omar was mortally wounded in the mosque at Medina, he at\nfirst named Abd Errahman for his successor, who declined the chalifate.\nWhereupon Omar named six of Mohammed\u2019s companions, together with the same\nAbd Errahman to choose a new chalif. They were engaged during three days\nin heated contest, since each of the six wished to become the chalif, and\nwere at last induced with great difficulty by Abd Errahman to accept one\nof their number named by him. Thus Osman, at the age of seventy, was\nchosen as successor of Omar. His chalifate lasted from November, 644, to\nJune, 656: during the whole of which, eleven years and a-half, the Saracen\nrealm was disturbed by internal struggles. Yet external wars continued.\nGovernors, appointed by Osman, were decried, but they did many successful\ndeeds of arms.(74) In North Africa, the boundaries of the realm were\nextended on from Tripolis as far as Kairawan. In Persia, a governor,\nafterwards removed, gained a province. The whole of Persia, which had been\noverrun rather than subdued under Omar, was finally conquered under Osman.\nAn attempt of the Greeks to recover Alexandria and Egypt succeeded for a\nmoment, but was frustrated by the aid given to the Moslim by the\nMonophysite Copts. Parts of Armenia and Asia Minor were taken, and the\nisland of Cyprus. The Moslim carried their conquering arms to the Oxus,\nand slew, in his retreat from a lost battle, the last heir of the kings of\nPersia.\n\nIn 656, the discontents produced by Osman\u2019s favour of his own family\nculminated in an insurrection at Medina, in which the dwelling of the\nchalif, after a siege of several weeks, was at last broken open, and the\nthird Commander of the Faithful, also, like Ali, a son-in-law of Mohammed,\nwas slain by the eldest son of Abu Bekr, the first chalif. A week after\nhis death, the third chalif, Osman, was succeeded by Ali, the fourth,\nwidower of Mohammed\u2019s favourite daughter, Fatima. But the six and a-half\nyears of Ali\u2019s chalifate were occupied with a violent struggle between him\nand Muawiah, cousin of Osman, and governor of Syria.(75) There had ever\nbeen enmity between the family of Haschim, from which Mohammed descended,\nand the family of Abd Schems, from which Osman and Muawiah descended. In\nthe course of the struggle Egypt fell away from Ali to Muawiah; and, in\n660, Medina and Mecca paid him homage. Ali\u2019s power, then, was seated only\nin Irak and Persia. Civil war pressed so heavily on Islam that three men\nresolved to rid it in one day of Ali, Muawiah, and Amrou, as the causers\nof all the trouble. Ali was to be assassinated in the mosque of Kufa;\nMuawiah in that of Damascus; Amrou in that of Fostat, to terminate a war\ncarried on, not only in the field, but by mutual imprecations from the\npulpit. But of the three, Ali alone was mortally wounded, Muawiah escaped\nwith a light wound, and Amrou\u2019s representative was killed instead of him.\nAli died, three days after, on the 24th January, 661. He is said to have\nsurpassed not only Muawiah, but Abu Bekr and Omar in abhorrence of all\nfalsehood, in love of justice, in valour and eloquence. In simplicity of\nlife and generosity, Ali resembled his two predecessors: but, like them\nalso, the severity which he practised by no means included moral\nrestraint. He died at sixty-three; after Fatima\u2019s death, and, therefore,\nin the latter half of his life, he contracted six or eight marriages,\nbesides maintaining nineteen slave women, with whom also, after the custom\nof that time, he lived.\n\nSo the second, third, and fourth chalifs\u2014Omar, Osman, and Ali\u2014perished by\nassassination within seventeen years of each other, in 644, 656, and 661.\nLet us turn to see what has been doing at Constantinople in these\nseventeen years. We have already seen how Omar, in his ten years, had\nbuilt up an empire from the spoils of Byzantium and Persia, which, during\nthe civil wars of his two successors, was yet increased. The seat of its\nsovereign power was transferred from Medina to Damascus as soon as Muawiah\nwas acknowledged as chalif, in the year 661. But during the four chalifs,\nfrom the death of Mohammed in 632 to 660, the immense Mohammedan realm was\ngoverned from Medina.\n\nWhen Heraclius died in 641, he was covered with defeat, and the chief\nprovinces of his empire were, day by day, falling away. He left a son,\nConstantine, twenty-eight years old, who had been named emperor from his\nbirth: and, by his second marriage with his niece, Martina, a son,\nHeracleonas, nineteen years old, who had been named emperor two years\nbefore, and two younger sons, David and Marinus, named C\u00e6sars, besides two\ndaughters, who, like their mother, had been named expresses. In his will\nhe directed his two sons, Constantine and Heracleonas, to reign together\nwith equal power, and to acknowledge Martina as empress-mother.\nConstantine III. was not Monothelite, but orthodox. At his accession he\nreceived a letter(76) from Pope John IV., maintaining the true doctrine,\nand also that his predecessor, Honorius, answering a question put to him\nby the patriarch Sergius, \u201ctaught concerning the mystery of the\nIncarnation, that there were not in Christ, as in us sinners, opposing\nwills of the mind and the flesh: and for this, certain persons, trusting\nto their own meaning, threw out the suspicion that he had taught there to\nbe the only one will of the Godhead and the Manhood, which is altogether\ncontrary to the truth\u201d. This the Pope proceeds to prove at length. And he\nends by saying that he finds a certain document, contrary to Pope Leo, of\nblessed memory, and the Council of Chalcedon, has been issued, to which\nbishops are compelled to subscribe. This was the Ecthesis of Heraclius.\nAnd he entreats the new emperor, as guardian of the Christian faith, to\ncommand this document to be torn down, and, as a first sacrifice to God,\nto scatter from His Church every cloud of novelty. So, if he regard the\nthings of God, may the Lord, whose faith is preserved in purity, preserve\nhis empire from the nations trusting in their ferocity.\n\nBut the emperor, Constantine III., died 103 days after his father,\npoisoned, as eastern historians say, by his step-mother, the empress\nMartina: with which crime they also inculpate the patriarch Pyrrhus. She\nthen reigned with her son, Heracleonas; but not for long. An insurrection\ndeposed her: both she and Heracleonas were maimed and banished, and\nConstans II., son of Constantine III., and grandson of Heraclius, at\ntwelve years old became emperor, under tutelage of the council. The answer\ngiven to the letter of Pope John IV. was that the Ecthesis affixed to the\ndoor of churches should be removed.\n\nBut the empire was torn to pieces by the strife of the various heresies\ncontending for mastery. The patriarch Pyrrhus, who had succeeded Sergius\nin the see of Constantinople, and in the patronage of his heresy, found it\nexpedient on the deposition of Martina to leave his see. He appeared in\nAfrica, and had a great controversy with Maximus in the presence of the\nAfrican episcopate in 645. He acknowledged himself to be defeated: and\nwent to Pope Theodorus at Rome, where he renounced the Monothelite heresy,\nand was received by the Pope as bishop of the capital. But he returned\npresently, at the instance of the exarch of Ravenna, to the errors which\nhe had renounced.\n\nIn due time the emperor, Constans II., produced the Typus to take the\nplace of his grandfather\u2019s Ecthesis. And, when Pope St. Martin held his\ngreat Council at Rome in 649, Constans burst into fury, and, as above\nrecorded, afterwards caused the Pope to be kidnapped, to be tried at\nConstantinople, and to be condemned for high treason; finally, to perish\nof want in the Crimea.\n\nWith Pope St. Martin, Maximus had been the great defender of the faith. It\nis time to give some record of his life, his labours, and his reward.\n\nMaximus sprung about the year 580 at Constantinople from an old and noble\nfamily. There were few of rank superior to his relations. He had great\nabilities, received an excellent education, and became one of the most\nlearned men in his time, and the ablest theologian. The emperor Heraclius\ndrew him against his wishes to the court, and made him one of his chief\nsecretaries. But, in the year 630, his love for solitude, as well as his\nobservance of the wrong bias which the mind of Heraclius was taking, led\nhim to withdraw from court. He resigned the brilliant position which he\noccupied, became a monk in the monastery of Chrysopolis, that is, Scutari,\nand, on the death of its abbot, was chosen unanimously to succeed him.\nHenceforth to the end of his life, at the age of eighty-two, he became, by\nword and deed, a champion of the Catholic faith against the Monothelite\nheresy. In 633, he went with Sophronius, then a simple monk, to\nAlexandria, and joined him in entreating the patriarch, Cyrus, to desist\nfrom promulgating the new heresy. Against this, Sophronius, having become\npatriarch of Jerusalem, published his synodical letter quoted above.\nMaximus went on to the west, visiting Rome and Carthage, and rousing the\nAfrican bishops against the heresy. He showed his great dialectical skill\nin a contest with Pyrrhus, then the deposed successor of the patriarch\nSergius. Pyrrhus even accompanied him to Rome, and renounced the heresy\nbefore Pope Theodorus.\n\nMaximus continued at Rome to use all his efforts against the heresy, and\ncounselled Pope Martin to call the Lateran Synod, and formally condemn it.\nAs the Ecthesis of Sergius had been composed against Sophronius, and then\nthe Typus\u2014drawn up by the patriarch Paul, and imposed by the will of the\nemperor Constans II.\u2014had been substituted for it at Constantinople, the\nCouncil of the Lateran which in 649 condemned both, excited the bitterest\nwrath of the emperor. Three men had especially in his mind counter-worked\nall his endeavours to impose his will as the standard of faith upon the\nRomans and the bishops. These three men were Sophronius, patriarch of\nJerusalem, who had died shortly after the surrender of his city to Omar,\nPope Martin, and the Abbot Maximus. How he avenged himself on the Pope St.\nMartin has been already described.\n\nAbout the same time at which the Pope was carried off to Byzantium, in\n653, Maximus also was seized, with his two disciples, both named\nAnastasius, one a monk, the other a Roman priest, who had been a nuncio.\nThey were carried also to Byzantium, and thrown into prison. After the\nPope had been judged by the senate, and condemned to death for high\ntreason, Maximus and his disciples were also brought to trial.\n\nMaximus had distinguished himself by a great number of writings. He is\nconsidered the greatest theologian of the seventh century. He has kept a\nvery high rank through all the centuries which have followed him. After\nthe death of Sophronius, the intellectual combat against the Monothelite\nheresy rested mainly upon him. The very high rank which he had held as a\nminister of Heraclius, conjoined with his scientific defence of the truth,\nmade him the most conspicuous person in the Church after the martyrdom of\nPope Martin, whose friend, counsellor, and supporter he had been, and his\nunbending constancy under the severest tortures has given him among the\nGreeks the name of \u201cthe Confessor.\u201d\n\nPart of a letter(77) is extant from him to a certain Peter, a man of high\nrank, who had entreated him to meet and resist the patriarch Pyrrhus in\nthe African conference. With regard to him Maximus says: \u201cif Pyrrhus will\nneither be heretical, nor be so-called, let him not satisfy this or that\nindividual. That is superfluous and unreasonable; for just as when one is\nscandalised in him all are scandalised, so when one is satisfied all\nsurely will be satisfied. Let him then hasten to satisfy before all the\nRoman See. When this is satisfied all men everywhere will accept his\nreligion and orthodoxy. In vain he speaks who would gain me and suchlike\nas me: and does not satisfy and implore the most blessed Pope of the holy\nRoman Church, that is, the Apostolic See, which has received and holds the\ngovernment, the authority, and the power of binding and loosing over all\nthe holy Churches of God in the whole earth in all persons and matters\nfrom the Incarnate Word of God Himself, and likewise from all holy\nCouncils according to the sacred canons. For with him the Word who rules\nthe celestial virtues, binds and looses in heaven. For if he thinks that\nothers must be satisfied, and does not implore the most Blessed Pope of\nRome, he is like the man who is accused of homicide, or any other crime,\nand maintains his innocence not to him who by law is appointed to judge\nhim, but without any use or gain strives to clear himself to other private\nmen who have no power to absolve him.\u201d\n\nYet more remarkable, if possible, is another testimony which this great\nmartyr, born and bred at Constantinople, and up to the age of fifty a\nminister of the eastern emperor, who bears the greatest name among the\ntheologians of the seventh century, has left behind him. It was apparently\nwritten at Rome after the completion of the Lateran Council in 649, which\nhe mentions in it, and numbers with the five preceding ecumenical\nCouncils. It runs thus:\u2014\n\n\u201cAll(78) the ends of the world, and all therein confessing the Lord with\npure and upright faith, gaze stedfastly upon the most holy Church of the\nRomans, its confession and faith, as upon the sun of eternal light. They\nexpect the brightness which ever lightens from it, in the doctrine of\nFathers and Saints, as, guided by a divine wisdom and piety the six\nCouncils have set it forth, drawing out with greater distinctness the\nSymbol of the Faith. For from the beginning when the Incarnate Word of God\ndescended to us, all churches of Christians everywhere possess and hold as\nthe only basis and foundation that greatest of churches, as against which,\naccording to the promise of the Saviour, the gates of hell never prevail:\nas which possesses the keys of the right faith and confession of Him: as\nwhich discloses the real and only religion to those who approach it\nreligiously, while it shuts up and stops every heretical mouth loudly\nspeaking iniquity. For they are seeking without labour and apart from\nsuffering, O wonderful patience of God which endures it!(79) by two words\nto pull down what has been established and built up by the Creator and\nRuler of all things, our Lord Jesus Christ, by His disciples and apostles,\nby all the sequence of holy Fathers, Teachers, and Martyrs, who offered\nthemselves up by their words and deeds, their struggles and labours, their\ntoil and blood-sheddings, and lastly, by wondrous deaths, for that\nCatholic and Apostolic Church of us who believe in Him. They would annul\nthat mystery of right Christian worship with all its greatness, its\nbrightness, and its renown.\u201d\n\nPope Martin, who held this great Council, at which Maximus was present,\nsupporting the Pope with all his learning, had been seized, as we have\nseen, in his own city and church, in the year 653, four years after it. At\nthe same time, Maximus, being about 73 years old, was seized at the same\nplace, and deported to Constantinople, and upon his arrival was taken\nstraight from the ship, naked and without sandals, together with his two\ndisciples and companions, and they were put into different prisons by five\nofficers and their attendants. Later, when the proceeding against the Pope\nhad been; closed, Maximus was brought into the palace before the whole\nsenate and a great crowd.(80) He was placed in the middle of the hall, and\nthe fiscal angrily addressed him with the words, \u201cArt thou a Christian?\u201d\nMaximus replied, \u201cBy the grace of God I am\u201d. \u201cThat is not true.\u201d \u201cThou\nmayest say so, but God knows that I am a Christian.\u201d \u201cAnd if thou art a\nChristian, how canst thou hate the emperor?\u201d asked the judge. \u201cBut,\u201d\nreplied Maximus, \u201chow is this known to thee? Hatred, like love, is a\nsecret affection of the spirit.\u201d \u201cIt is become plain by thy deeds that\nthou hatest the emperor and his realm, for it is only thou who hast\ndelivered Egypt and Alexandria and the Pentapolis, Tripolis and Africa\ninto the hands of the Saracens.\u201d\n\nThese accusations fell to the ground, as the false witnesses brought could\nnot maintain them. But the end of this trial was to condemn Maximus and\nhis two companions to a separate and severe exile.\n\nThe Pyrrhus whom Maximus had so far prevailed over in the famous\nconference held in Africa in 645, that he had renounced his heresy to Pope\nTheodorus, and been received by him in St. Peter\u2019s, who had then fallen\nback through the influence of the exarch, and been excommunicated, had\nsucceeded in regaining the see of Constantinople, upon the death of\nPaulus, the author of Typus. After a few months, he had died in the summer\nof 655. He was followed by Peter, whose synodal letter, sent to Rome to\nPope Eugenius, is said to have been so dark on the subject of heresy that\nthe clergy and people would not suffer the Pope to celebrate Mass in the\nChurch of St. Mary until he had promised not to accept this letter.\n\nLater in the summer, Maximus was again brought into the judgement hall of\nthe palace, where the two Monothelite patriarchs\u2014Peter of Constantinople\nand Macedonius of Antioch, then living in the capital\u2014were present. \u201cSpeak\nthe truth,\u201d said Troilus to him, \u201cand the emperor will have mercy on thee,\nfor if one of the accusations be proved juridically against thee, thou\nwilt be guilty of death.\u201d Maximus declared they were all false; that he\nhad submitted the Typus to anathema, not the emperor. The Lateran Council\nwas asserted to have no force for he who held it has been deposed,\n\u201cDeposed he was not,\u201d said Maximus, \u201cbut expelled.\u201d Maximus and his\ncompanion, Anastasius, were sent to different banishments.\n\nA year later, a fresh attempt was made to break down his resolution. Paul\nand Theodosius, two men of consular rank, and Theodosius, Bishop of\nC\u00e6sarea, the latter as commissary of the patriarch, Peter, the former two\nof the emperor, reached the imprisoned confessor on the 24th August, 656.\nEvery effort was made to induce Maximus to accept the Typus, and enter\ninto communion with the see of Constantinople.\n\nThe terms which Maximus required were reported to the emperor, and fresh\ncommissaries, the patricians, Troilus and Epiphanius, and the same bishop,\nTheodosius, sent again to Maximus.(81) \u201cThe Lord of the world sends us to\nthee,\u201d said Troilus, \u201cto inform thee what it pleases him to require. Wilt\nthou obey his command or not?\u201d Maximus requested that he might hear the\ncommand. They required that he should first answer the question. Maximus\nsaid, \u201cBefore God and Angels, and you all, I promise, what the emperor\ncommands me, in respect of earthly things, I will do\u201d. At length\nEpiphanius said, \u201cThe emperor by us informs thee: since all the West and\nall the perverse-minded in the East look to thee and make contention\nbecause of thee, since they will not submit to us in faith, the emperor\nwills to move thee that thou enter into communion with us on the basis of\nthe Typus issued by us. We will then personally go out to Chalce, and\nembrace thee, and offer thee our hand and, lead thee to the cathedral with\nall honour and pomp, and place thee by our side where the emperors are\nwont to sit, and we will then partake of the life-giving Body and Blood of\nChrist, and declare thee again for our father: and there will be great joy\nnot only in our own residence, but in all the world. For we are well\nassured that if thou enterest into communion with this holy see, all who\nhave divided themselves from our communion on thy account will unite\nthemselves to us again.\u201d\n\nThen Maximus turned to the bishop and said to him with tears:\u2014\u201cMy good\nlord, we are all awaiting the Day of Judgment. You know what we drew out,\nand agreed upon respecting the holy Gospels, the life-giving Cross, the\nimage of our God and Saviour, and the all-holy ever-virgin Mother who bore\nHim.\u201d The bishop cast down his eyes, and said to him, in a lower\nvoice:\u2014\u201cWhat can I do, since the emperor has chosen something else?\u201d\nMaximus said, \u201cWhy did you and those with you touch the holy gospels, when\nyou could not bring about the promised issue? Indeed, the whole power of\nheaven would not persuade me to do this. For what answer shall I give, I\nsay not to God, but to my own conscience, that for the glory of men, which\nhas in it no substance, I have forsworn the faith which saves those who\ncling to it.\u201d\n\nAt this word they all arose, their fury overmastering them: they pushed\nand scratched and tore him; they covered him with spittle from his head\ndownwards, so that his clothes reeked, until they were washed. And the\nbishop, rising, said, this ought not to be done, but his answer only\nshould be heard, and then be reported to our lord. For religious matters\nare done in different fashion from this. The bishop could scarcely induce\nthem to desist. They took their seats again, and reviled him with\nindescribable insults, and imprecations. Epiphanius said furiously,\n\u201cMalefactor and cannibal, speakest thou thus, treating us and our city and\nour emperor as heretics? We are more Christian and orthodox than thou art.\nWe confess that our Lord and God has both a divine will and a human will,\nand an intellectual soul, and that every intellectual nature has by\nnature, Will, and Operation, since motion belongs to life, and will to\nmind: and we know Him to have the capacity of Will not only in the\nGodhead, but also in the Manhood. Nor do we deny His Two Wills and Two\nOperations.\u201d\n\nThe abbot, Maximus, answered:\u2014\u201cIf you so believe, as the intellectual\nNatures and the Church of God, why are you compelling me to communicate on\nthe terms of the Typus, which merely destroys those things?\u201d \u201cThat,\u201d said\nEpiphanius, \u201chas been done for accommodation, that the people may not be\ninjured by these subtleties.\u201d Maximus said:\u2014\u201cOn the contrary, every man is\nsanctified by accurate confession of the faith, not by its destruction, as\nput in the Typus\u201d. \u201cI told thee in the palace,\u201d said Troilus, \u201cthat it did\nnot destroy, but bade silence be kept that we may all live in peace.\u201d\nMaximus answered:\u2014\u201cWhat is covered in silence is destroyed. The Holy\nSpirit says by the prophet:\u2014\u2018There are no speeches nor languages, where\ntheir voices are not heard\u2019: a word not spoken is no word at all.\u201d Troilus\nsaid: \u201cKeep in thy heart what thou wilt; no one prevents thee\u201d. Maximus\nanswered, \u201cBut God did not limit salvation to the heart when he said:\u2014\u2018He\nthat confesseth Me before men, I will confess him before My Father in\nheaven,\u2019 and the Apostle, \u2018With the heart we believe unto justice, but\nwith the mouth confession is made to salvation\u2019. If then God, and God\u2019s\nprophets and apostles bid the great and terrible mystery which saves all\nthe world to be confessed by holy voices, there is no need that the voice\nwhich proclaims it be in any way silenced, in order that the salvation of\nthose who are silent be not impaired.\u201d\n\nThen Epiphanius, speaking most harshly, said, \u201cDidst thou sign the\nwriting?\u201d he meant the Lateran Council. Abbot Maximus said, \u201cYes, I\nsigned\u201d. \u201cAnd how didst thou dare to sign, and anathematise those who\nconfess and believe as the intellectual Natures and the Catholic Church?\nIn my judgment thou shalt be taken into the city, and be put in chains in\nthe forum, and the actors and actresses, and the women that stand for\nhire, and all the people shall be brought, that every man and woman may\nslap thee, and spit in thy face.\u201d Abbot Maximus replied:\u2014\u201cBe it as thou\nhast said, if we have anathematised those who confess Two Natures of which\nthe Lord is, and the two natural Wills and Operations corresponding to Him\nwho is both God and Man. Read, my Lord, the acts and decree, and if what\nyou have said is found, do all your will. For I, and my fellow-servants,\nwho have subscribed, have anathematised those who, according to Arius and\nApollinarius, maintain one Will and Operation, and who do not confess our\nLord and God to be intellectual in each of those Natures of which, in\nwhich, and which He is: and, therefore, in both of them having Will and\nOperation of our salvation.\u201d\n\nThey said, \u201cIf we go on treating with this man, we shall neither eat nor\ndrink. Let us go, and take food, and report what we have heard. For this\nman has sold himself to the devil. They went in and dined, and made their\nreport, it being the eve of the Exaltation of the life-giving Cross in the\nyear 656.\u201d(82)\n\nThe next day, Theodosius, the Consul, came out early to the aforesaid\nAbbot Maximus, and took away all that he had, and said, in the emperor\u2019s\nname:\u2014\u201cSince thou wilt not have honour, it shall be far from thee. Go to\nthe place thou hast thought thyself worthy of, suffering the judgment of\nthy disciples, him at Mesembria, and him at Perberi.\u201d The patricians\nTroilus and Epiphanius had said:\u2014\u201cWe will bring the two disciples, him at\nMesembria, and him at Perberi, and put them, too, to the proof, and see\nthe result. But learn, Sir Abbot, that, when we get a little relief from\nthis rout of heathens (that is, the Saracens), by the Holy Trinity, we\nwill bring you to terms, and your Pope, who is now lifted up, and all the\ntalkers there, and the rest of your disciples: and we will _cook_ you all,\neach in his own place, as Martin has been cooked\u201d. And the Consul\nTheodosius took him and committed him to soldiers, and they took him to\nPerberis. It is not known how long what is called the second exile of St.\nMaximus lasted, which ensued after he had thus resisted the offers of the\nemperor.\n\nAt a later time, he was brought from Perberis, with his disciple,\nAnastasius, back to Constantinople.(83) A Synod, there held,\nexcommunicated them both, as well as Pope St. Martin, St. Sophronius, and\nall the orthodox.(84) The second Anastasius, who had been a Nuncio, was\nalso brought, and the Synod passed on all three the sentence:\u2014\u201cAs the\nSynod has passed against you its canonical sentence, it only remains that\nyou be subject to the severity of the civil laws for your impiety. And\nthough no punishment could be proportionate to your crimes, we, leaving\nyou to the just Judge in respect of the greater punishment, grant you the\nindulgence of the present life, modifying the strict severity of the laws.\nWe order that you be delivered to the prefect, and by him taken to the\nguard: that you be then scourged; that in you, Maximus and Anastasius, and\nAnastasius, the instrument of your iniquity, the blaspheming tongue be cut\nout to the roots, and then your right hand, which has served your\nblaspheming mind, be cut off: that thus deprived of these execrable\nmembers, you be carried through the twelve quarters of this imperial city,\nand then be delivered to perpetual banishment and prison, to lament for\nthe remainder of your errors.\u201d\n\nThis sentence was carried out by the prefect. St. Maximus was then\ntransported to Lazika, in Colchis: the other two to different castles. As\nMaximus, from weakness, could neither ride nor bear a carriage, he was\nborne on a sort of bed made of branches to the Castle of Schemarum. St.\nMaximus foretold the day of his death, which took place on the 13th\nAugust, 662, when he was eighty-two years old. At that moment the chalif\nMuawiah had about completed the first year in which he had fixed the seat\nof the Saracenic empire at Damascus: and the \u201crout of heathen\u201d from which\nthe Byzantine Consul had anticipated deliverance, held in peril during the\nwhole of Muawiah\u2019s reign to 680 the imperial city on the Bosphorous, where\n\u201cthe lord of the world\u201d usually resided.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IV. CHRISTENDOM AND ISLAM.\n\n\nWe are now come to the greatest of contrasts and oppositions in human\nhistory\u2014to the Church of Christ, the foundress of nations, and to Islam,\nher counterfeit and opponent; to the law which went forth from Jerusalem\nand struck its perpetual root in Rome, and to the force which went forth\nfrom Mecca, tarried for a while in Damascus and Bagdad, and then encamped\nin the city of Constantine. Two reigns which never have ceased and never\ncan cease to counterwork each other, the reign of the Word and the reign\nof the Sword.\n\nIn the twenty-eight years which run from A.D. 632 to 661 of the four\nchalifs, Abu Bekr, Omar, Osman, and Ali, the sword has severed from the\nthrone of Constantine its fairest provinces, and conquered besides a\nterritory, the whole mass of which exceeded the Roman empire at its\ngreatest extension. The sword of Mohammed\u2019s successors in doing this has\ninflicted deadly wounds on the Christian patriarchates and dioceses\nsubjected to the new dominion. It has also reduced the unsubdued portion\nof the eastern empire to tremble for its future existence: it has made the\nwhole West, already in possession of the Teuton family of races, gather\nitself together, and prepare for a death struggle with the advancing\nenemy.\n\nIt is necessary to consider in his personal life the man who gives name to\nthis immense movement, who raised the banner which flouted the Cross and\nwrote upon that banner the symbol of human enjoyment against that of\ndivine abasement. The facts of his life which I wish to note are\nespecially those which are reproduced in his religion. They pass beyond\nthe sphere of the individual because they reappear incessantly in the\nhistory of twelve hundred and fifty years, and affect nations of the south\nand east which dwell from the Atlantic Ocean to the extremities of China.\n\nMohammed(85) was born in April, 571, in the city of Mecca, of a family\npossessing spiritual rank in that home of ancient pilgrimages for the\nArabian tribes. But the branch to which he belonged was poor. His father,\nAbdallah, died about the time of his birth. His mother, Aminah, born in\nMedina, was so poor that she could scarcely support a nurse for him. His\nmother died when he was six years old. His grandfather then took care of\nhim, but died also after two years. From that time his uncle, Abu Talib,\nprovided for him, but was so poor likewise that the orphan child was\npresently reduced to tend sheep, whereas the rich class at Mecca was\nlargely engaged in traffic with their caravans, which visited Abyssinia,\nSouthern Arabia, Syria, Egypt, and Persia. Mohammed is said in his youth\nto have twice visited Syria, probably as a camel driver. But it is said\nwith greater certainty that at twenty-five he entered the service of a\nrich widow, Chadidja, and journeyed for her in South Arabia. He afterwards\nmarried her, and then for the first time became sufficiently rich to turn\nthe thoughts which slumbered within him to higher subjects than procuring\nhis daily bread.\n\nHis marriage with Chadidja lasted till he was fifty years of age, when he\nlost her and at the same time his uncle Abu Talib. During the whole period\nof his marriage with Chadidja, who was much older than himself, he lived\nin close union with her\u2014what seems to have been, at least in regard to\nthis relationship\u2014a virtuous and religious life. Mohammed\u2019s education had\nbeen much neglected. His country at the time was in a most uncivilised\ncondition, destitute of science, arts, and letters. Bardship alone was in\nrepute, and for this Mohammed had no gift, though he had a great gift of\noratory. The art of writing was little diffused; it is doubtful whether\nMohammed even in his later years possessed it. He was acquainted with\nJewish and Christian doctrines only by oral information. The great\nauthority of St. John of Damascus says that he lighted upon the Old and\nNew Testaments by conferences with an Arian monk, and thus drew up his own\nreligion. He was about forty years of age when he began to carry out a\ndesign to restore what he thought the religion of Abraham, and to destroy\nthe idolatry into which his countrymen had fallen. He met with small\nsuccess and much opposition in this attempt until in the eleventh year of\nthe mission which he claimed as prophet, and the fifty-first of his life,\na most marked change in his personal conduct and in the conditions of his\nlife took place.\n\nThe chief men at Mecca had generally refused to receive him as a prophet\nand to accept the reformation of religion which he proposed to them. In\nhis first years he had confined his revelations to his nearest relations\nand friends. He had gained Abu Bekr and his young cousin Ali, an uncle\nHamza, named for his valour \u201cthe Lion of God,\u201d and above all, Omar, at\nfirst his opponent, but when converted the most energetic character among\nall the companions of the prophet, and the strongest support of Islam. On\nthe whole, however, things had gone so far against him that he retired\nsecretly, together with Abu Bekr, from Mecca to Medina. This event, termed\nThe Flight, took place in September, 622, from which year his followers\ncount their time. It may be taken as indeed the time in which his full\ncharacter as prophet came forth to light. Henceforth he appeared rather as\nthe preacher of a new religion than as the restorer of what he called the\nreligion of Abraham.\n\nThe most important principle laid down by him from the time of his\nmigration from Mecca to Medina was that he then first permitted in the\nname of God war against unbelievers. He afterwards made this a holy duty.\nIt was considered the first of virtues to fight the enemies of Islam. To\nthose who fell in such a battle he promised the highest joys of paradise;\nto those who rejected him he threatened a shameful death by the\ndisposition of God.(86)\n\nUpon his first settlement in Medina, which afterwards changed its original\nname of Jathripp into this new name, signifying the city, he built a\nmosque and arranged worship, in which a short prayer was offered five\ntimes a day. He sought at first to gain over the Jews residing there, and\nmarked Jerusalem as the _Kiblah_, that is, the point to which the face\nshould be turned in prayer, and the tenth day of the first month as a fast\nday, and allowed Jewish converts to keep the Sabbath.(87) But when he\nfound that the Jews would receive a Messias only of the race of David he\nbecame their bitterest enemy. Later he appointed Mecca instead of\nJerusalem as the Kiblah, the month Ramadhan as fasting time, and Friday as\nthe day of rest.\n\nHis first campaigns, when he could scarcely bring a few hundred men into\nthe field, for the inhabitants of Medina had not yet joined him, but had\nonly granted him protection, were but predatory attacks on the caravans of\nMecca, which came near Medina. But when the Meccans grew prudent, and\neither defended their caravans with a strong escort, or sent them round by\nbye-paths to Syria, Mohammed planned a plundering attack in one of the\nholy months, when every Arab deemed himself secure. This is the beginning\nof a number of actions which, though he was not endued with a delicate\nmoral sense, he must have known to be bad, and only ordered, or at least\napproved, for the sake of the end aimed at, chastisement of the heathen,\nand breaking in upon their commerce. What Mohammed did was to call his\nfollower Abdallah, to give him a sealed packet, and instruct him to go to\nSouth Arabia with twelve companions. He was not to open the packet before\nthe third day, and then fulfil the order it contained. Abdallah obeyed,\nbroke the seal on the third day, and found only the words: Go with thy\ncompanions to the valley of Nachlah (south-east of Mecca), and there wait\nfor the caravans of Mecca. Words which Abdallah interpreted to mean that\nhe should fall upon these caravans. This he accomplished without\ndifficulty. Two men were taken prisoners, one killed, and the whole lading\ncarried as plunder to Medina. Mohammed had plainly used this short and\nsealed packet to cut off all explanation with Abdallah respecting an act\nof rapine in the sacred months, so as to be able to put away the\nresponsibility from himself, as might be needed. Even the Moslim at Medina\nhad but one cry of reprobation over this desecration of the sacred months.\nMohammed at first disavowed Abdallah as having gone beyond his command,\nfor he had not told him to attack the caravans in the sacred months. But\nwhen he found himself considered no less the author of this deed, and as\nhe did not mean for the future to secure to Mecca four tranquil mouths for\nits commerce, Koran verses were published in which war against unbelievers\nwas excused at every time, because they committed the much greater sin of\ndriving the prophet out of his country.(88)\n\nThe attempt to exculpate Mohammed from the guilt of the blood murderously\nshed in falling upon this caravan is made the more difficult because his\nbiographers speak of many other murders ordered by him even in the case of\nwomen, and extol him for such things. It may be noted that in the last\ntime before his flight he was no longer true and sincere. Thus he recorded\nthe whole history of the Old and New Testament prophets, adorned with many\nJewish and Christian legends, which he maintained, as was his wont, to\nhave been revealed to him by the angel Gabriel. This did not impose upon\nthe inhabitants of Mecca, who were right in ascribing his knowledge of\nthese things to intercourse with foreign informants less illiterate than\nhimself.\n\nThe first proper fight between Mohammed and the Meccans took place in the\nsecond year of the Hegira at Bedr, a station between Medina and Mecca.\nMohammed had gone out with somewhat more than 300 men to surprise and\nplunder certain rich caravans on their return from Syria. Abu Sofian, the\nhead of the Omeiad line, led these caravans, and had notice of Mohammed\u2019s\npurpose. He sent an express to Mecca inviting his townsmen to despatch an\narmed escort to defend their property. Before these, 900 strong, arrived,\nAbu Sofian, knowing that Mohammed lay in wait for him at Bedr, succeeded\nin passing round this place by directing his caravans in security along\nthe coast road. When news that their goods were safe reached the Meccan\ncamp, a portion of the escort, which had taken arms only through fear of\nlosing their property, wished to return. The rest, bitter enemies of\nMohammed, and also fighting men, preferred to advance upon Bedr. This was\nresolved upon, but many in the force persisted in returning to Mecca. The\nsame hesitation prevailed in the prophet\u2019s camp: which had come out\nintending to plunder, not for a fight with an enemy still continuing to be\nin number. But yet greater was the fear of showing cowardice, and so\nstriking the new faith with the hardest blow. So they came to a bloody\nconflict, in which the disciplined Medinese prevailed over the Meccans\nwhom their commercial habits had partly enfeebled. They carried off rich\nplunder. Mohammed did not himself fight: he was praying in a hut until he\nsank exhausted, and when he recovered consciousness, announced a victory\nto his friends obtained by the aid of celestial warriors. This first deed\nof arms laid the basis for a rapid increase of Mohammedanism. It gave the\npoor community spoil in arms, in horses, and in camels, and in no little\nransom for the prisoners taken. It strengthened their confidence,\nincreased their following, and encouraged them to further enterprise. The\nJewish tribe Keinuka was their first prey. It was compelled to\nunconditional surrender, and would probably have been entirely massacred\nif a free retreat had not been obtained for it by Abd Allah, the head of\nan Arabian clan dwelling in Medina, with whom these Jews had been in\nformer alliance. But all their goods went to the Moslem. At this time\noccur many slayings of particularly hated or dangerous enemies of Islam.\nSo Mohammed inflicted a great terror which reduced to silence individual\nopponents, and carried waverers into the bosom of Islam, which promised\nthem security.\n\nBut, in the meantime, the Meccans were not idle. Both interest and honour\nrequired them to avenge the defeat at Bedr. Abu Sofian, in the year 625,\nthe third of the Hegira, appeared at the head of 3000 men, and occupied a\ncamp to the east of Medina. Mohammed wished to confine himself to the\ndefence of the city, but his more fanatic followers denounced this conduct\nas cowardice, and he was compelled to march out with about a thousand men,\nof whom nearly a third were commanded by Abd Allah: This man, a secret\nenemy of Mohammed, returned back into the city. The Moslim, however, in\nspite of their small number, fought with effect at Mount Ohod, north of\nMedina, until the bowmen, who were ranged against the enemy\u2019s horsemen,\ndeserted their post, and the impetuous Chalid fell upon their retreat. A\npanic seized the believers, so that they sought safety in flight. Mohammed\nhimself was wounded, and sank to the ground, so that a report of his death\nwas spread, which added to the discomfiture of his host. But a faithful\nhenchman recognised him by the eyes alone, in spite of mail-coat, helmet,\nand visor, and brought him to safety, while the Meccans, believing his\ndeath, cared not to pursue the other fugitives, and were retiring. Only\nafter the battle was ended, Abu Sofian learnt that he was still alive.\nMohammed, the day after the battle, in which he lost 70 men, pursued the\nenemy for some distance, only to show that he was not discouraged. The\ndefeat at Ohod lessened Mohammed\u2019s reputation as much as the victory at\nBedr had raised it. The only considerable gain which Mohammed, in the\nfourth year of the Hegira, could offer to his believers to make up for the\nlosses suffered, was the expulsion of the Jews of the clan Nadir, who had\nlands and many strong castles near Medina. They surrendered these, and as\nthere had been no battle, Mohammed confiscated their property, and\nbestowed it on his party of fugitives from Mecca. At the end of this year\nhe appeared near Bedr with a larger force, to show that he was not afraid\nto defy Abu Sofian, who had threatened a fresh attack after the battle at\nOhod. But the Meccans were not ready, and, moreover, would not fight on a\nbad year. Towards the end of the fifth year, in 627, they appeared again\nunder Abu Sofian, about ten thousand strong, with their allies, out of\nvarious Bedouin clans before Medina. The Medinese could hardly set 3000\nmen against them, and were, in general, down-hearted, fearing an attack\nbesides from the Jewish clan, Kureiza. This time Mohammed maintained his\nplan not to meet the enemy in the open field, but only to defend the town.\nBy the advice of a Persian he drew a broad trench about it. Slight as this\ndefence was, it sufficed, in the Arab ignorance of the art of siege, to\nkeep the enemy from an attack in force. Bad weather ensued, and Mohammed\nsucceeded in sowing distrust of each other among the confederates, so that\nthey retired after doing nothing. But, though the siege of Medina had cost\nMohammed little material loss, his reputation as warrior and as prophet\nhad suffered greatly, as at Ohod. Instead of following the Arabian custom,\nto offer battle, he had cowered behind walls and trenches. Again he turned\nfirst against the Jews, who had entered into negotiations with the\nMeccans. After a few weeks, he compelled them to surrender. These were of\nthe clan Kureiza, formerly confederates with the second large Arabian clan\ndomiciled in Medina. They hoped, through the mediation of this clan, to\nget as good conditions as the clan Keinuka had obtained through Abd Allah.\nBut the head of this clan had been wounded during the siege of the city,\nand when Mohammed appealed to his judgment, he condemned to death the men\nwhose number ran from 600 to 900, and their wives and children to slavery.\nMohammed had this hard sentence executed immediately in the marketplace of\nMedina. This expedition was followed by others against hostile Bedouin\nclans. Thus the bad impression left by the siege was gradually effaced. So\nat the end of the sixth year of the Hegira, 628, Mohammed was able to\nresolve, at the head of his friends, as well believers as heathen Arabs in\nalliance with him, on a pilgrimage to Mecca. He issued a solemn invitation\nto join this pilgrimage. It met with small acceptance. He had issued it in\nthe name of God, and so was obliged to carry it out, though it was\nattended by an inconsiderable number, as to which the accounts vary\nbetween 700 and 1400 men. He had to trust to the Arab reluctance to shed\nblood in the sacred months, though he had himself violated one sacred\nmonth by murder and robbery. Finding the Meccans resolute to forbid him\nentrance into their city, he had to halt on the border of the holy\nterritory. After long treating, agreement was made that he should retire\nfor that year, but should be allowed in the following year to pass three\ndays in Mecca on pilgrimage. The Meccans, for the sake of their commerce,\nwere as anxious for peace as Mohammed, and so a truce for ten years was\nstruck, which yet had this favourable condition for them, that, while\ntheir fugitives were to be given up, those of Mohammed might be secure in\nMecca.\n\nThis repulse of the prophet and his companions from the holy city and its\ntemple was deeply felt, yet there were advantages obtained by this\nseemingly dishonouring truce. Mohammed appeared at least to be recognised\nby the proud city as an equal power. Now he might send out his\nmissionaries into every part of Arabia, make proselytes and conclude\nalliances, and the right to enter Mecca the next year with those who\nbelieved in him was something gained which perceptibly advanced his claim\namong the Arabians. To increase his strength, enrich his followers, and so\nenlarge their numbers and efface by a new victory the bad impression which\nthe failure of the pilgrimage had caused, he attacked the Jews of Cheiber,\nwho had lands and several castles four or five days\u2019 journey north-east of\nMedina. These were successively stormed and sacked, and all that the rest\ncould do was to surrender to the conqueror on condition that they should\nserve him for the future as tenants who should give him half the produce\nof the land. So by the conquest of other Jews he was able to increase the\nnumber of his troops.\n\nIn the year 628-629 which passed between the failure of the pilgrimage to\nMecca, and the subsequent pilgrimage carried out according to the treaty,\nseveral attacks on the Bedouins took place. The number of his believers\nand allies increased, and the thought was more and more developed in\nMohammed that Islam must by degrees be accepted as the only true religion\nnot only by all Arabians but by all the nations of the earth. Even before\nhe had obtained possession of Mecca he sent messengers to the neighbouring\nprinces of Persia, Byzantium, and Abyssinia, as well as to the Christian\ngovernor of Egypt, and to several Arabian chiefs subject to Byzantine or\nPersian sovereignty, inviting them to be converted to his faith. These\nembassies had no result, and were rejected with more or less harshness.\nOnly the Greek governor of Egypt gave them a friendly reception, and\nwithout being converted to Islam sent the prophet costly presents, among\nthem two slave women, of whom one, Mariam, so greatly charmed Mohammed\nthat for her company he neglected his wives.\n\nFor the man who had been faithful to his old wife Chadidja until her\ndeath, when he was past fifty years of age, had from the time that he came\nforward, not merely as the restorer of a primitive religion which had\nsuffered corruptions, but as the herald of a new religion, say from the\ndate of the Hegira itself, espoused about a dozen wives,(89) some for love\nand some for policy, to make alliance with families of repute. Among these\nwas Aischa, daughter of Abu Bekr, whom he took when scarcely out of her\nchildhood, a daughter of Omar, and a sister of Abd Allah, who had been\ndisgraced by the violation of a sacred month. The Koran limits the number\nof lawful wives to four, but Mohammed himself was to be an exception. At\nthe time polygamy in Arabia had no restriction, and as public opinion was\nnot shocked, his wives had to submit. But when Mariam, the Abyssinian\nslave, assumed the position of a dangerous rival, they complained to their\nfamilies, and showed their contempt to the faithless husband. He promised\nto quit the favoured slave, but he dwelt with her for a month apart from\nhis wives and then produced verses of the Koran, dispensing him from his\npromise respecting Mariam, and threatening his wives that if they\ncontinued in their disobedience he would take instead of them more\nsubmissive wives and virgins.\n\nBut a more important incident in the domestic life of Mohammed was to\noccur, which showed how entirely he was led away by sensual passion.(90)\nHe had fallen in love with Zeineb, the wife of Zeid, formerly his slave,\nthen his adopted son, and one of the most attached among his followers.\nZeid perceived this and was willing to cede her to the man who was not\nonly his prophet but his benefactor. The prophet took her, and added her\nto the number of his wives. But the Arabians, though they practised\nunlimited polygamy, did not allow to marry the wife of an adopted son,\nwhom they considered in the light of a real son. Mohammed felt the\nscandal, and produced a passage from the Koran. In it he declared in the\nname of God the custom hitherto entertained of treating adopted children\nas really children to be foolish, and for the future even sinful. Then he\nspread the belief that Zeid\u2019s divorce from his wife had taken place\nagainst his own advice; he makes God remind him in a following verse how\nnotwithstanding his own love for her he had counselled Zeid to keep her;\nand how even after the divorce, he had shrunk, through fear of men, from\nespousing her until God had expressly commanded it,(91) and this for two\nreasons, first, to shew that he who acts after the will of God should not\nheed the tattle of men; and secondly to give by his own example the more\nforce to the newly-enacted law in regard of adopted sons; a law, he added,\nwhich earlier prophets, whom he takes care not to name, had promulgated.\n\nBut this marriage(92) also led to further revelations in the Koran, which\nentirely severed the wives of Mohammed from the male world: and also\nseparated the other believing women by a thick veil from the eyes of\nstrangers. Mohammed\u2019s jealousy stretched even beyond the grave, and he\nforbade second marriage to his wives even after his death. The object was\nto restrict them from all life in public to their own homes, and even\nthere, to intercourse with their own sex, or only their nearest male\nrelations. In spite of their polygamy, the wife had hitherto among the\nArabians been the companion of their life: Mohammed reduced her to be a\nhouse-slave. She became in Islam a holy thing, indeed: but a holy thing\nkept under veil and bolt, and guarded not by her own virtue, but by\neunuchs, from desecration.(93)\n\nMohammed\u2019s invitation to the governor of Egypt, followed by the gift of\nthe slave woman to Mohammed, led to disastrous consequences in Islam to\nwoman\u2019s position. The prophet called in God to sanction man\u2019s lordship\nover woman: the first time in history that such a corruption claimed a\ndivine sanction.\n\nIn the eighth year of the Hegira, January, 630, Mohammed obtained\npossession of Mecca. To avenge a rupture of the existing truce, he broke\nwith 10,000 men into the neighbourhood of the city, which admitted him\nboth as its temporal lord and as the prophet of God, without a fight. He\nreceived the homage of its inhabitants on one of the city\u2019s hills, and\ntheir oath to follow him in all wars against unbelievers. At the same\ntime, he declared Mecca to be again a holy city, in which God had allowed\nhim alone to shed blood, which, for the future, was never to be.(94)\n\nAfter gaining this possession of Mecca, Mohammed issued in the ninth Sura\nof the Koran what amounted to a new law of nations, and a new practice of\nwar. From that time forward none but Mohammedans were to enter the holy\ncity of Mecca and its circle: but likewise, outside of this, idolaters\nwere to be exterminated, Jews and Christians were only to be suffered,\nwhen they paid tribute, and humbled themselves.(95) \u201cO true believers,\nverily the idolaters are unclean: let them not therefore, come near unto\nthe holy temple after this year. And if ye fear want by the cutting off\ntrade and communication with them, God will enrich you with His abundance,\nif He pleaseth, for God is knowing and wise. Fight against them who\nbelieve not in God, nor in the Last Day, and who forbid not that which God\nand His Apostle have forbidden, and profess not the true religion of those\nto whom the Scriptures have been delivered, until they pay tribute by\nright of subjection, and they be reduced low. The Jews say Ezra is the son\nof God, and the Christians say Christ is the Son of God. This is their\nsaying in their mouths: they imitate the saying of those who were\nunbelievers in former times. May God resist them. How are they infatuated!\nBesides God, they take their priests and their monks for their lords, and\nChrist, the Son of Mary; only they are commanded to worship one God only.\nThere is no God but He. Far be that from Him which they associate with\nHim. They seek to extinguish the light of God with their mouths: but God\nwilleth no other than to perfect His light, although the infidels be\naverse thereto. It is He who hath sent His Apostle with the direction and\ntrue religion, that He may cause it to appear superior to every other\nreligion, although the idolaters be averse thereto.\u201d\n\nThis Sura was the last in time of those issued. \u201cIt(96) bears the stamp of\nmuch reflection and careful execution.\u201d In March, 631, Mohammed had sent\nthe greater pilgrimage to Mecca, under guidance of Abu Bekr. This Sura was\npublished on the chief day of the pilgrimage, and \u201cits promulgation\ncommitted to Ali,(97) who rode for that purpose on the prophet\u2019s\nslit-eared camel from Medina to Mecca, and, standing up before the whole\nassembly at Al Akaba, told them that he was the messenger of the Apostle\nof God unto them\u201d. Thus it establishes the definitive position of Mohammed\nin regard to all other religions, and the exclusiveness of his own claim.\n\nIn the last days of Mohammed, when the religious capital of Arabia had\nbeen taken by him, and this new law of war had been published, embassies\nfrom all parts of Arabia streamed to him, for to the Arabians there\nremained no choice between the Koran and the sword. He may be considered\nas the lord by conquest of Arabia, and moreover as one who pretended to\nissue in the name of God and as His sole apostle a new world-religion.\nScarcely more than a year after this proclamation of war against what he\nchose to consider idolatry he died on the 8th June 632, at the age of 63\nlunar or 61 solar years.\n\nWhen we review the ten years which elapsed from the Hegira to the death of\nMohammed, the following points are salient.\n\nThe imposition of religious belief by force becomes more and more the main\nprinciple of Mohammed. As he increases in power the principle is set forth\nwith greater distinctness. He began as a citizen of Mecca by trying to\npersuade his relations and friends. With some he succeeded. His kinsmen\ngave him a partial support rather of clanship than of faith. But he found\nit expedient to fly from his native city, and the flight marks to all\nfuture time the beginning of his assumption not only to be a prophet, but\nin that character to publish a new religion. The Flight is the Mohammedan\nera as the birth of Christ is the Christian. At the end of the ninth year\nthe proclamation against idolatry in the ninth Sura, the last in time of\nthe whole series, marks the completion of the parent idea. Mohammed\ndeclares himself the apostle of God, as such alone charged \u201cwith the\ndirection and true religion,\u201d while Christians, though they are commanded\n\u201cto worship one God only, associate Christ the Son of Mary with Him\u201d.\nWhereas Mohammed declares Christ to be indeed one in the series of\nprophets, the last before himself; but himself to be the prophet who\ncompletes the chain. Thus he enacts that Christians can be safe before his\npeople only in one of two ways, either by forming part of them, that is,\nby taking Mohammed instead of Christ, or by submitting to pay tribute, and\nto the humiliations which accompany tribute. Thus the parent idea is the\nmessiahship of force.\n\nIt may be noted that it comes out in a profession of faith drawn\nespecially to exclude the association of the Son of Mary with God. Thus\nMohammed crowns the work which Arius attempted three hundred years before.\nAfter the restless heresies in which the Greek mind had fluctuated during\nthese three centuries, the greatest enemy to the Greek empire and faith\nwas set up on that very negation of the godhead of Christ with which those\nheresies had begun. Fifty years of Arian success, in which the emperors,\nConstantius and Valens, take a large part, inspired and supported by\nEusebius, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and Demophilus, four successive bishops of\nByzantium, cause that disorganisation of the eastern Church which St.\nBasil described as its ruin. Fifty years of patronising the Monothelite\nheresy, in which the emperors Heraclius and Constans II. bear the largest\npart, supported by four Byzantine patriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paulus,\nand Peter, beginning in 628, mark the rise and accompany the establishment\nof the Mohammedan empire and creed. Honorius dies before the heresy is\npresented for acceptance in Rome in the imperial Ecthesis. Ten Popes\nsucceeding Honorius, in spite of the temporal distress which surrounds\nthem, oppose to the utmost the Byzantine heresy and despotism in the midst\nof whom one gloriously lays down his life and is martyred by the eastern\nemperor as guilty of high treason. This is the connection between Arius\nand Mohammed, who appears as the divine punishment and remedy for\nByzantine successors of Constantine who would confiscate the liberty of\nthe church, and for state-made patriarchs who foster and formulate heresy.\n\nSecondly, the revelations which Mohammed professes to receive from God he\nprofesses also to be brought to him by the Angel Gabriel. Nor is he\nashamed to make this angel serve him in actions of the utmost turpitude.\nThus when the governor of Egypt bestows on him the slave-girl Mariam, he\nfalls so desperately in love with her that his proper wives, including his\nfavourite, the girl-wife Aischa, the daughter of his chief adherent, Abu\nBekr, revolt. The prophet is embarrassed and summons the Angel Gabriel to\nhis aid. Forthwith a passage of the Koran preaches to the discontented\nwives obedience in the name of God, and the prophet threatens that if they\ncontinue to be insubordinate he will dismiss them and find others more\nobedient and submissive. Nor is even this the lowest depth of infamy. For\nwhen he violates even the customs of the Arabs around him, loose as they\nwere, and favourable to the selfishness of the stronger sex, and takes the\nwife of his most faithful follower and adopted son, he calls in Gabriel to\njustify the adultery in the name of God, and to enlarge to any extent\nwhich the prophet may choose his exclusive privilege of taking wives. It\nwould be difficult to say how the stamp of imposture could be fixed on the\nKoran with more convincing force than by this association of an angel and\nof God himself with acts which are contrary to the universal natural law.\n\nThirdly, it may be remarked that as to polygamy, since it was the custom\nof the Arabians in his time to practise it without restraint, Mohammed\nmight be considered as neither better nor worse than his countrymen, who\nhad so corrupted the purity of the original law of marriage. This might be\nallowed if we were considering Mohammed simply as a Saracen of that time.\nBut we are considering him in the light in which he put himself forward as\nthe apostle of God, the one apostle who was to set forth the one God:\n\u201cthere is but one God and Mohammed is his prophet\u201d. It is in this\ncharacter that he did what no one had ever done before. Polygamy had crept\nin, \u201cthrough the hardness of men\u2019s hearts,\u201d but Mohammed attempted to set\nby his appeal to God and his use of the Angel Gabriel a divine sanction\nupon this great corruption, and upon the unlimited concubinage which he\npractised himself, and authorised in others. Thus St. John Damascene a\nhundred years after his time used of him these indignant words: \u201cThis\nMamed put together many foolish things. Thus in the writing entitled\n\u2018Woman\u2019 he lays down the law that a man may openly take four wives, and a\nthousand concubines if he can, as many as he can subject to himself(98)\nbesides the four; and he may divorce when he pleases and take another. And\nhe made this law for the following reason.\u201d Then St. John narrates the\ncase of Zeid and his wife in these words: \u201cZeid had a handsome wife; Mamed\nfell in love with her. As they sat together Mamed said, God has charged me\nto take thy wife. Zeid answered: Thou art the apostle, do as God told\nthee. Or to go further back, he said: God charged me that thou divorce thy\nwife. Zeid divorced her. After some days Mamed said: God also charged me\nto take her. So he took her and made her an adulteress, and then he\nenacted that every one who will may divorce his wife, and after the\ndivorce, if she return to him, another must marry her first.\u201d(99)\n\nPatriarchs and prophets have sinned, as well as common men; but Mohammed\nis the only legislator who has called in God to sanction his sin, and\npropagate it among others in the name of God: and he did this under the\ntitle that he was the special apostle of God, sent to propagate the only\ntrue religion. The terrible sin of David stands out as contrary to all his\nprevious life. He sought pardon for it, and after it became the great\npenitent, and humbly bowed his head beneath chastisements as awful as his\nown sin. Mohammed exulted in his sin, as deserving of praise and\nexceptional privilege.\n\nFourthly, throughout the ten years, from the Hegira to his death, Mohammed\ncarried out his own principle of propagating religion by force in his\nutter disregard of human life. As soon as he had left Mecca he practised\nrobbery upon its caravans and killed without scruple those who resisted\nthe robbery. He tried to make friends with Jewish clans around him, and\nwhen they rejected him for their Messias, slew them by hundreds. He slew\neven for private revenge those who stood in his way: and women as well as\nmen.\n\nThese alleged revelations become in Mohammed\u2019s hands the enactments of a\nsovereign legislator. He claims them to be words of God delivered to him\nby the angel Gabriel. The personal character of Mohammed as developed in\nthem is, therefore, of the greatest importance. He speaks not only of his\n\u201cbrother Moses\u201d in the Jewish legislation which he closes, but of the Son\nof Mary as the Word and Spirit of God, on whose work he sets the superior\nseal of his own mission; and as a matter of fact, those who took his name\nhad his personal character and actions before them for a standard, as the\nChristians had the Son of God. From the moment of his death this fact is\nbrought out by the conduct of his followers. His chief companions meet and\nelect a head whom they call the chalif or successor of the prophet. That\ntitle is the sole source of his authority, which is both religious and\ncivil, supreme in each, but supreme because it is the transmitted\nauthority of the Prophet who is not a prophet only, but the \u201cApostle of\nGod\u201d. The four points above noted, the propagation of religion by force,\nthe imposture in the use of the name of Gabriel, the enacting of polygamy\nwith the superadded license of unbounded concubinage, and the employment\nof murder as means of success, mark the intense antagonism between the\ncharacter of Mohammed and the character of Him whom he charged the\nChristians with associating to God. Instead of the Man, meek and humble of\nheart, who said to His disciples that in following His meekness and\nhumility they should find rest for their souls, we have the man who\nordered the believers in him to beat down all idolaters that did not\nprofess, \u201cThere is one God, and Mohammed is His prophet,\u201d and made death\nin battle against them to be the martyrdom which he chose for his people.\nInstead of the Man who said, \u201cIf I had not done among them the works which\nno other man hath done, they would not have sin,\u201d we have the man who\nanswered the appeal made to him for miraculous works in testimony of his\nmission, by disclaiming the power to do them. Instead of the Virgin\u2019s Son\nwho set up the virginal life, and propagated His faith by the teaching and\nexample of those who followed it, we have the man who forged a divine\npermission for the grossest polygamy and an unlimited concubinage obtained\nby successful war. Instead of the Man who reverenced above all men the\nsanctuary of human life, we have the man who murdered without scruple\nthose who did not accept his mission.\n\nAs to the nature of the kingdom which each of these two set up, the One in\nHis last words to His disciples on the night of His sacrifice said, \u201cThe\nkings of the gentiles lord it over them, and they that have power over\nthem are called beneficent, but you not so: but he that is the greatest\namong you let him become as the younger, and he that is the leader as he\nthat serveth\u201d. In accordance with this precept, just as Mohammed was\npreparing to appear as the prophet, the greatest among Christians took as\nthe symbol of his spiritual rule for his title, Servant of the servants of\nGod: and so Chalid, the chief fighter, under Mohammed, Abu Bekr, and Omar,\nwas termed \u201cthe sword of the swords of God\u201d. The prophet in the Sura\nproclaiming his religion pronounced force to be the instrument of\nspreading it, and in doing this blood was to be shed like water: and from\nhis time his chalifs have practised the slaughter of as many as they\nchose. Nor is this confined to enemies, but his religion has considered\nhis own subjects thus slaughtered as witnesses of the prophet\u2019s claim. To\nbe killed by order of the chalif is to the believer a title of honour, and\nthe sacrifice of so many a day to his order a sacrifice to his religion.\n\nThe pretension put forward by Mohammed in the ninth Sura has been fully\naccepted by his people from the beginning. He is their apostle, and\naccordingly from his life they have taken and woven into their own in\nevery age the employment of force, the imposture of a man\u2019s invention put\nin an angel\u2019s name, the right to take away life at the pleasure of the\nruler, but above all, polygamy and concubinage. The sensual life of\nMohammed began exactly at the time when, discarding persuasion as the\ninstrument of converting unbelievers, he began to propagate by force his\npretended mission as a prophet. The deterioration in the moral life\ncoincides with the time when he passed from the character of one who\nsought to restore the religion of Abraham to the very different character\nof one who sought to introduce a new and universal religion. Moreover,\nthis sensual life of the founder has likewise infected with a moral\npestilence all those parts of Asia, Africa and Europe, wherein his\nfollowers have prevailed. The man who from fifty to sixty years of age was\nmultiplying young wives, moving them to jealousy with a slave concubine,\nseizing the wife of an adopted son, in virtue of a feigned divine decree,\nand making a special license to himself as the prophet of God to marry as\nmany wives as he pleased, and whose wives he pleased, has corrupted all\nthe generations of those who profess his religion. But more than in any\nothers this corruption is apparent in those who rule in the prophet\u2019s\nname. Omar, Osman, and Ali, the second, third, and fourth chalifs,\nfollowed Mohammed closely in this corruption of domestic life. Ali, the\nhusband of his favourite daughter, equalled her father in his wives, as\nlikewise Osman, the husband of another daughter. Every Mohammedan prince,\nas a rule, follows the founder of his dynasty and creed, and thus, as the\nrace of the Virgin Mother reproduces in every age the example of her whom\nall generations call blessed, and her Divine Son has planted in her the\ntree of chastity, of which He is Himself the first fruit, and which takes\nroot in an honourable people, and as every work of superhuman charity\ngrows upon that tree, and the sex lost in Eve is glorified by Mary, so the\nMohammedan line is equally true to its origin. To the very end of the long\nnight of heathenism, on which the coming of our Lord dawned, monogamy\nstill survived in the noblest descendants of Eve. The German had it and\nthe Roman, and there were ages in which those races, heathen though they\nwere, honoured woman, and maintained the sanctity of marriage, before it\nwas exalted into a sacrament, and before the foundation of human society\nwas consecrated by the blessing of the Redeemer, given in the touch of His\nBlood. The degradation of woman in every age and every people during the\n1250 years of Mohammedan domination, is the special stamp of the various\npeoples who have borne his name. I take the example highest in position\nand worst in character. To the precept of Mohammed, enforced by his own\nconduct, we owe it that in Constantine\u2019s own city the very chalif who\nrepresents him continues without marriage to practise an unbounded\nconcubinage. Thus from generation to generation the race of Othman\u2014which\ncan scarcely be called a family\u2014has been continued, and enabled to reign\nover the fairest countries of the globe, Christian during many hundred\nyears, for a period almost as long as the long descended lines of Capet\nand Hapsburg have subsisted in honourable marriage. Concubinage has\nprovided it with children, and fratricide has prevented rivals down to the\ntime of Sultan Mahmoud. When he succeeded to the throne, stained in every\ngeneration with such crimes, he was the only survivor of his race. Out of\nthe previous history a Turkish annalist(100) records without astonishment,\nfor it was an ordinary incident, that in a tumult which had taken place at\nthe funeral of Sultan Murad III., nineteen brothers of the Sultan Mohammed\nIII., all innocent and guiltless, were strangled and added to the company\nof martyrs. From the life of Mohammed himself has sprung a despotism\nwithout limit, a cruelty which scorns natural affection, and a sensuality\nwithout example.\n\nAs the personal life on earth of the Son of God is seen in the religion\nwhich He planted, and in the history of the people which He formed and\nmaintains, so the personal life of the man Mohammed is seen in the\nreligion which bears his name, and in the people which have carried it on.\nIt is only to elucidate this thought that I have selected these\nparticulars of the Arabian\u2019s life, and as a prelude to the contrast which\nthe religions themselves present.\n\nA few months after his return from the great pilgrimage to Mecca in 632,\nMohammed was preparing a third campaign against the Byzantines, which\nhowever could only be executed after his death. A word must be said as to\nhis exact position at the moment of his death. In the ten years which\nfollow immediately the Hegira, the original camel driver, who became\nhusband of Chadidja, and lived with her virtuously to her death, pursued\nthe life of a freebooter, which had many alternations of failure and\nsuccess. In his character of prophet, \u201cthe apostle of God,\u201d he aimed at\nmaterial power, and scrupled not to pursue it by deceit, robbery, and\nmurder, all exercised as means of converting men to the worship of one\nGod, the almighty and \u201cmost merciful\u201d. He had fifteen months before his\ndeath so far prevailed as to obtain mastery over the city which he had\nleft as a fugitive. It was in a certain sense the capital of Arabia, and\nhe was claiming and in a great degree receiving the homage of all\nArabians. But other men who also called themselves prophets, such as\nMoseilama, were his rivals. The subjection of Arabia was by no means\ncomplete at the time of his death. The German historian\u2014himself of the\nJewish race and religion\u2014from whose careful study of Mohammedan writers I\nhave taken many of the incidents above recorded, says that with the\nexception of his weakness in his relations to the female sex, in regard to\nwhich he claimed the privileges allowed to him as a special favour from\nGod, he gave a fair example to his people. There was the greatest\nsimplicity as to his dwelling, his clothing, and his food. He was so\nunassuming that he not only refused every external mark of honour from his\ncompanions, but declined every service even from his slaves which he could\nperform himself. He was often seen in the market place buying food,\nmending his clothes in a miserable little room, or milking a goat in his\ncourt. Every one could approach him at all hours, whether in the street or\nin his dwelling. He visited all the sick, and showed sympathy to every\nsufferer, and was also magnanimous and indulgent where policy did not\notherwise require. His generosity and benevolence, and also his care for\nthe common good were boundless, so that in spite of the many presents\nwhich he received from all sides, and the rich plunder which came to him\nfrom his wars, he left little property behind him, and treated even this\nas belonging to the State. After his death it was not given to his\ndaughter Fatima, his only heiress, the wife of Ali. He had other sons and\ndaughters besides Fatima, on the number of whom tradition varies. They all\ndied before him. We may name only Rukejja and Umm Kolthum, whom the future\nChalif Osman successively espoused, both by his first wife Chadidja; and\nalso Ibrahim son of the Coptic slave Mariam, whose early death the prophet\nsorely lamented. But this historian treats the bringing in the Angel\nGabriel as the bearer of his revelations to have been a deceit throughout.\n\nThe power which Mohammed claimed rested entirely on the truth of his\nassertion that God had committed to him a prophetical office, carrying\nwith it the promulgation of a new and universal religion. The absolute\nfalsehood of this assertion is contained in the invention of the Angel\nGabriel. The Jewish historian whom I have quoted fully admits this\nimposture, just as St. John Damascene made it a reproach a hundred years\nafter Mohammed\u2019s time. The virtues above mentioned, what are they but the\nbeautiful spots of the tiger\u2019s skin veiling the ferocity of the beast?\nMohammed by the confession of his friends would appear to have had two\nintense passions, one for sweet odours, the other for women. Thalebi\ncommenting on the 5th Sura records how ten zealous disciples used often to\nmeet and pray in the house of Osman.(101) They watched through the night\nand had resolved to prepare themselves for paradise by chastity and\nmortification. Mohammed did not approve of it, and preached to the people\nthat it was no way his mind that those who professed Islam should abstain,\nlike Christian priests and religious, from women and from eating flesh,\nand from sweet odours; should debar themselves from sleep, and practice\nhardships. Fighting was his monkhood. Abulfeda says he openly confessed as\nto himself, \u201cTwo things attract me and carry me away: women and sweet\nodours. My joy is in these two pleasures, and they make me more\nprayerful.\u201d In fact Mohammed was never so pious as when he took a new\nwife; while he deserted them all for the Coptic slave-girl Mariam. And the\nKoran told him that he was right.\n\nWhat were pharisaic prayings in the market place to the devotions of\nMohammed? He called upon all with whom he came in contact to accept the\none God, and Mohammed as his prophet, on pain of being exterminated, and\nhe delivered up to the pleasure of the Mohammedan fighter as many female\ncaptives as any one could take, over and above the four wives whom he\nallowed to all. These captives were not the victims of angry passions in\nmen maddened by a furious conflict, but the avowed and justified reward of\nthose who might, if slain in battle, have been martyrs, but instead were\nvictorious. The very worst corruption(102) which we meet with in the idol\nworship and demon worship of Greeks and Romans was the shamelessness which\npandered to all lusts of the flesh under cover of religion. But Mohammed\nadded to this corruption. In virtue of his Koran the most infamous\npassions were allowed not in belief of false gods, themselves models of\nimpurity, but in worshipping the one holy God. In all this the example as\nwell as the word of the religious founder had gone before, and his people\nfollowed it from age to age.\n\nMohammed then at the time of his death was a successful robber in a\ncountry wherein the tribal life was in a state of great confusion and\nincessant changes, and the ancestral religion had degenerated into a rude\nand senseless idolatry. The race which occupied Arabia\u2014the whole people\nwhich claimed Ishmael the son of Abraham for their ancestor\u2014was devoid of\norder and of culture, of art or science, and had not affected the history\nof the world beyond its own boundaries. That the lord of Byzantium on the\none hand or the lord of Ctesiphon on the other contemplated permanent\ndanger to their realms from the incursions of such a race can as little be\nsupposed as that Europe now is in fear of subjugation from a host of\nCaffres or Zulus, people, in personal bravery, resolution and bodily\nstrength, equal probably to what the Saracens then were.\n\nIn Omar\u2019s chalifate(103) he had sent an army of 30,000 men, under one of\nMohammed\u2019s eldest companions, to compel the Persians on the Euphrates to\nbecome Mohammedans. They had placed themselves under the last heir of the\nroyal race, the young and valiant Jezdejerd. When the embassy requiring\nthem to accept Islam or tribute came, the heir of the great king said to\nthem mockingly: \u201cYou came hither as traffickers and beggars. Your food was\ngreen lizards; your drink salt water; your dress rough camel\u2019s hair. Now\nyou would force upon us a hateful religion. Hunger pushes you on; so I\nforgive you. Go back and I will load your camels with corn and dates. If\nyou disdain a generous offer, punishment shall find you in Persia.\u201d Then\nthe old sheick Mughira answered undismayed: \u201cWhat thou sayest of our\nmisery is true. So great was our poverty that we fed on worms, snakes, and\nscorpions. The hair of our camels and our goats we worked into a covering\nfor our nakedness. Our faith consisted in perpetual war and robbery. We\nput even our daughters to death to escape supporting them. Then God took\npity on our miserable state, and sent us through His holy prophet the book\nof the true faith. It commands us to make war against the heathen, to\nchange our poverty and our misery for riches and power. Take then our\nreligion which binds you to no other burdens than all the faithful bear.\nOr pay the tribute of the heathen. Will you do neither, arm yourselves to\nfight.\u201d\n\nSuch was the people among whom Mohammed arose. The spirit which he wakened\nspeaks in the words of the poetess Chansa, with which she sent her four\nsons to battle. \u201cBy God, the only one, ye are the sons of a man as ye are\nthe sons of a woman. I have not deceived your father; I have not brought\nyour uncle to shame, nor stained your race. Ye know what rich reward God\nhas promised to Moslim for war against the unbelieving. Bethink you that\nthe eternal dwelling is better than this place of sojourn.\u201d All her four\nsons fell in battle. Chansa cried: \u201cPraise be to the Lord who has made me\na name through the martyr-death of my sons\u201d. The words of this mother\nbreathe the whole spirit which made Islam a conquering power.\n\nMohammed had died without leaving any indication as to whom he wished for\nhis successor. His chief adherents, Abu Bekr, father of his wife Aischa,\nin whose residence he had died, his sons-in-law Ali and Omar, with their\nseveral parties, met together. Omar put aside his own claims, and had\ninfluence sufficient to procure the election of Abu Bekr, and to frustrate\nthat of Ali. Severe as the struggle to obtain the chalifate was, at the\nmoment it brought with it greater burden than dignity.(104) Mohammed had\nspread his belief more by bribery, deceit, and violence than by\nconviction. Many provinces of Arabia after his death were shaking it off.\nAischa\u2019s own words were, \u201cwhen the apostle of God died, the Arabs were\ndeserting him; the Jews and Christians raised their head; the hypocrites\nno longer concealed their hypocrisy, and the Moslim were like an abandoned\nflock on a cold winter night\u201d. Abu Bekr\u2019s prudence and Omar\u2019s energy put\nan end to the rivalry of pretending prophets and Bedouin reluctance of\ntaxation. In March, 633, revolt in Arabia was overthrown, and the first\nchalif could execute the injunction of Mohammed to spread Islam beyond the\nArabian peninsula.\n\nThe choice of a chalif not in the family of Mohammed to carry on his newly\nmade realm and religion with armed hand was of the utmost moment to both.\nIn idea realm and religion were one and the same thing. And the choice\nindicated that force was the power which ruled both. Abu Bekr had not only\nbeen chosen by the influence of Omar, but during his short chalifate of\ntwo years had that most resolute of all Mohammed\u2019s companions behind him\nto support, inspire, and perhaps control him. When the companions met upon\nhis death in 634 Omar\u2019s star was in the ascendant; and in the ten years of\nhis chalifate he won in the opinion of his people the highest name which\nany Mohammedan ruler has attained. In truth, he made the empire. At the\nfirst choice of Abu Bekr for chalif it was but a horde of robbers in a\nprovince hitherto without name in history; when twelve years later Omar\ndied by the hand of an assassin, it already rivalled the greatest empires\nof the world. To feel the profound contrast between the kingdom of Christ\nand the kingdom of Mohammed, we need but to consider the course of the\nfirst twelve years from the death of each founder. When the sword of Herod\nfell upon St. James, the son of thunder, the first of the apostles who was\nto seal his faith with his blood, and so fulfil his acceptance of his\nLord\u2019s chalice, the kingdom of Christ had been preached among labours and\ntrials innumerable. No one had yielded submission to it but in obedience\nto the inward dictate of conscience, and every one who so accepted it had\nsuffered loss so far as this world is concerned. It was from imminent\nperil of death that when St. James, probably then the second in rank and\ninfluence of the apostolic band, was put to death, the first of all\nescaped from prison under angelic guard and went into another place to\nfound the Roman Church. A martyrdom undergone by one apostle and a\nmartyrdom postponed by another marked the setting up of St. Peter\u2019s\npastoral staff in the capital of the C\u00e6sars. The Christian people were\neverywhere then a poor, distressed, and praying people; hardly\ndistinguished by the imperial Roman from the provincials of Judea, whom\namong all his subjects he most disliked. When Omar died, Antioch,\nJerusalem, and Alexandria had fallen beneath his arms; the sepulchre of\nChrist was in his power; the patriarch of the holy city trembled lest the\nchalif of Mohammed should desecrate it to be a mosque by praying in it.\nEvery Mohammedan convert received honour and wealth; everyone not\nconverted to Mohammedanism risked honour and life, wife and child. The\nChristian martyr shed his blood on the scaffold; the Mohammedan martyr\ndied in the heat of battle, and his companions received for the danger\nwhich they had risked and overcome the persons and goods of the conquered.\nOmar\u2019s empire stretched for thousands of miles over Africa and Asia; his\nauthority was that of the prophet, who wielded civil power as an appendage\nof the spiritual, because, as he held, there could not be two swords in\none sheath. The chief apostle exercised one of the greatest of his\nacts\u2014that of choosing the capital of the Christian faith\u2014when he was\nflying from a tyrant put in Jerusalem by the caprice of a Roman emperor.\nThe arms were spiritual in one kingdom and material in the other;\nexercised with the long suffering of an apostle in one, with the\nunquestioned despotism in the other of a ruler who triumphed over souls by\ndestroying bodies. The fundamental opposition which marks the two kingdoms\nis seen in strongest evidence during the first twelve years in each.\n\nHitherto, in human history, there is one man and one man only, who has\nmatched himself with the Son of God: and not only matched himself, but\ndeclared that he was the superior; that the commission given to the Son of\nMary was subordinate to the commission given to the Son of Abd Allah: that\nthe prophet Jesus led up to the prophet Mohammed. It is certain that in\nthe Mohammedan religion its prophet occupies the place which in the\nChristian religion is occupied by our Lord. But when this is said, it must\nbe said with the understanding that \u201cMohammed\u2019s religion is a Judaism\nbuilt stiffly on an abstract unity of God, stripped of its Messianic\ncharacter, and of all the deeper spiritual elements which belong to that\ncharacter\u201d.(105) When it is said that Mohammed has matched himself with\nChrist, it must be added that he has first stripped Christ of the divine\nSonship, and placed Him simply as a prophet in a series of prophets, the\nlast and greatest of whom is Mohammed himself. He has denied the Blessed\nTrinity: he has termed the honour paid by Christians to the Son, idolatry;\nhe ranks Christians as idolaters for offering it, as being incompatible\nwith the unity of God. He denies the Incarnation on the Arian ground, that\nit is impossible for the one only Nature to generate or be generated. He\nhas denied the fall of man, equally as he denies his restoration. He\ndenies the passion of Christ, for unfallen man needs no such sacrifice as\nthat of the Son of God offered upon the Cross. In the system set up by him\nthere is no sacrifice. In that point of singular meaning it stands alone\namong the religions of the earth. Accordingly there is no priesthood.\nMohammed claimed to exercise the prophetical and in it the regal power;\nbut not the sacerdotal. There is none such in his religion. Such as it is,\non an infinitely lower level than the Christian, Mohammed is the centre of\nit. From the Jewish and the Christian religions he took prayer, fasting,\nand almsgiving, likewise the doctrines of primary import, the unity of the\ngodhead, the resurrection of man in body as well as spirit, to a final and\neternal judgment of reward or punishment. That which came from himself is\npurely bad; a corruption affecting all the relations between the sexes,\nand reducing all those who live in his religion to a far worse condition,\nas respects those relations, than experienced by those who lived in Greek,\nor Roman, or German heathenism, at their worst. As the personal life of\nMohammed, from the time of his claim to be the prophet of a new religion,\nwas in this respect infamous, so is his religion. All that the Christian\nfaith and Church, by the sufferings of unnumbered martyrs, and the wisdom\nof great pastors, who are the honour of human nature, had done in 600\nyears for the restoration of marriage, the creation of woman\u2019s worth and\ndignity, the whole fabric of the Christian home, the whole offspring of\nNazareth, Bethlehem, and Calvary, Mohammed, by word and example, strove to\noverthrow. He embodied in his religion the revenge of Asia and Africa upon\nChristian purity: and the hand which established a pure Arian doctrine, as\nto the Godhead, destroyed the Christian wife and child, husband and\nfather, so far as its malignant influence extended. So it was at the\nbeginning: so it has been through the 1260 years: so it is now.\n\nThe whole movement of Mohammed was to establish a counter kingdom to that\nof Christ, of which he who lived as a sensualist from fifty to sixty years\nof age is the standard. His chalifs were its continuators. And while his\ninstrument was conquest, the bait which keeps each successive generation,\nand defies the approach of the Christian faith, is the indulgence of those\nsensual enjoyments which marked the life of the founder from the time of\nthe Flight, which has equally marked the conduct of the ruler and the rich\nduring all the twelve centuries. The Mohammedan peasant may have a\nvirtuous home, for the harem is beyond his means: he may be sparing,\nsober, and honest: but where is the Mohammedan ruler or rich man whose\ninner life will bear inspection? As Roman law stopped before entering the\nslave apartment, Mohammedan law stops before entering the women\u2019s\napartment: while the mark of the chalifs supreme dignity is to have no\nwife, but concubines, in the very words of St. John Damascene, a thousand\nif he please. Has any false religion ever shown such a mark of imposture?\nor is any opposition to the Son of God so deep as this, so universal in\nits effect upon the whole character?\n\nAbout a hundred years after the time of Mohammed there lived at the court\nof the chalif of Damascus the man who ranks as the last great Father of\nthe eastern Church: who, indeed, anticipated in some degree in that Church\nthe position afterwards held by St. Thomas Aquinas, in the West.(106) His\nfather, Sergius, though a fervent Christian, held high office in the\nSyrian court. He purchased and set free captive Christians, and among them\nwas a Thalian monk, named Cosmas, learned in theology and philosophy.\nCosmas became teacher of his benefactor\u2019s son, John: and gave him such an\neducation, that upon the death of his father the chalif made him one of\nthe chiefs of his council, while Peter, bishop of Damascus, charged him to\ndefend by writings the Christian truth against unbelievers.\n\nHe must have known well the religion of the chalif, in whose court he was\na high officer. He thus speaks of Mohammed. \u201cDown to the time of Heraclius\nthe Saracens were avowed idolaters. Afterwards a false prophet arose among\nthem, named Mamed. He lighted upon the Old and New Testament, and as the\nresult of confabulations with a certain Arian monk constructed a heresy of\nhis own. He gained by the appearance of piety influence with his people,\nand pretended that a Scripture was brought down to him from heaven. Having\nput together in his book certain most absurd statements, he delivered to\nthem a worship.\n\n\u201cHe says there is one God, the Creator of all things, who is neither\nbegotten nor begetting. He says that Christ is the Word and Spirit of God,\na creature and a servant: and that He was born without a father from Mary,\nthe sister of Moses and Aaron. For, says he, the Word and Spirit of God\nentered Mary, and she bore Jesus a prophet and servant of God. The Jews\nwickedly wished to crucify Him: they seized and crucified His shadow. But\nChrist Himself, he says, was not crucified, nor did He die. For God took\nHim to Himself into Heaven, for He loved Him. And this, he says, that when\nChrist ascended into Heaven, God asked Him: \u2018Jesus, didst Thou say, I am\nthe Son of God, and God?\u2019 And he says, Jesus answered, \u2018Lord, pardon me.\nThou knowest that I never said it, nor am too proud to be Thy servant. But\nmen that were transgressors wrote it, that I said this word, and they lied\nagainst Me, and are in error\u2019. And God answered and said to Him: \u2018I know\nthat Thou didst not say this word\u2019. Now he said many other portentous and\nridiculous things in this Scripture of his, which he pretends to have been\nsent down to him from God. Now when we allege, who is the witness that God\ngave him a Scripture? Which of the prophets foretold that such a prophet\nwas to arise? Moses received the law from God in the sight of all the\npeople, when he appeared on Mount Sinai, in cloud, and fire, and darkness,\nand storm. And all the prophets from Moses onwards foretold the coming of\nChrist, and that Christ is God, and that the Son of God would come in the\nflesh, and would be crucified, and die, and rise again, and that He is the\nJudge of the living and the dead. And when we ask, why did not your\nprophet come so, others bearing witness to him. Why did not God, as He\ngave the law to Moses in the sight of the people on the smoking mountain,\ngive the Scripture which you speak of to him in your presence, that you\nalso may be assured. They answer, God does what He will. We reply, that we\nknow well. But we ask how the Scripture came down to your prophet. And\nthey answer, the Scripture came down upon him when he was sleeping.\n\n\u201cAgain we ask, how is it, when in this Scripture of yours he enjoined to\ndo nothing, and to receive nothing without witnesses, that you did not ask\nhim, first show by witnesses that you are a prophet, and have come forth\nfrom God, and what Scripture bears witness to you? They are mute through\nshame. Since you may not marry without witnesses, nor market, nor possess,\nnor take an ass or beast of burden without witness. Wives, indeed, you\nhave, and possessions, and asses, and all the rest through witnesses.\nFaith alone and Scripture you have without a witness. He who gave you this\nhas no security whatever. No witness preceding him is known: but he\nreceived it asleep. They call us associators, because we bring in an\nassociate to God, when we say that Christ is the Son of God, and God. We\nreply, prophets and Scripture have handed this down to us. You, as you\nassert, acknowledge prophets. If we are wrong in saying that Christ is Son\nof God, it is they who have taught it and delivered it to us.\u201d\n\nThe objection here made in general, that Mohammed had no witness to his\nmission, and none to the assertion that his Scripture came from God, has\nreceived no answer. Indeed, not only is there no witness that the Koran\nwas given by God, or by the agency of the prophet Gabriel, but the\ncondition in which it was left by Mohammed at his death supplies the\nstrongest internal evidence that the Scripture was an imposture. This is\nthe account given by the historian of the present day, who has used thirty\nyears of his life to study, and compare Mohammedan writers on their\nprophet.(107)\n\n\u201cThe Koran is the Arabic name for the Mohammedan Bible, or collection of\ndiscourses held by Mohammed in the name of God, in his quality as inspired\nprophet, which, as he asserts, were partly communicated through the angel\nGabriel, partly revealed to him immediately by God through dreams or\nvisions. But the Koran is not, like the Bible, a book drawn up in\nchronological order, or according to the variety of its contents, but a\nmixing up of hymns, prayers, dogmas, sermons, casual writings, narratives,\nlegends, laws, and orders of the day, with many repetitions and\ncontradictions. This comes because Mohammed himself made no collection of\nthe revelations given singly to him during a course of twenty-three years.\nIt is probable that it was not even his wish that all of them should be\nkept, since a great number of them had only a transitory meaning. Likewise\nhe had undertaken so many alterations in his doctrines and laws that he\nhad reason to shrink from handing them all down to posterity. In fine he\ncertainly wished to retain up to his death free room for modifications and\nadditions which might be necessary. But after his death all fragments of\nthe revelation were thrown together, even when they had been repealed by\nothers, or were already issued in different form. All portions of the\nKoran, scattered in different hands, inscribed on parchment, palm-leaves,\nbones, stones, or other rough materials for writing, were collected\u2014or\neven such as lived only in the remembrance of his companions and\ndisciples\u2014and were divided, mostly without regard to their contents, or\nthe time at which they had been revealed, into greater or smaller\nchapters, Suras; and thus the actual Koran, with all its defects, was\nmade. It is only by an accurate knowledge of the circumstances of\nMohammed\u2019s life, and the language of the Koran, in some degree possible to\nrestore the chronological order of its several parts. By the help of\nMohammed\u2019s Arabian biographers, some of whom go back so far as the second\ncentury of the Mohammedan era, it is possible to determine the date of\nsuch sections as relate to historical events. Where this is not the case,\nthe character and form of the revelation serve to direct. Mohammed in his\nfirst time appears more as a reformer, later as the founder of a new\nreligion, at last as prince and legislator. In the first period he was\ncarried away by inward enthusiasm: his language has a rhythmical movement,\nwith true poetic colouring. In the second period a calmer consideration\ntakes the place of excited fancy; he is more rhetorician than poet: his\nwords spring rather from an understanding wide awake, not sparkling, as\nbefore, with warmth of heart. In the third period the language sinks to\nsober prose, not only in ordaining laws, issuing injunctions, or narrating\ncampaigns, but when he paints, as before, God\u2019s Almightiness, the wonders\nof creation, the terrors of the last judgment, or the joys of paradise.\n\n\u201cThe Koran was first collected by the chalif Aim Bekr. This collection is\nsaid to have been occasioned by the death of many acquainted with the\nKoran in the war against the rival prophet, Moseilama, and the fear that\nthere would soon no longer be men who had learnt it by heart and\nunderstood it. A certain Zeid who had served the prophet as secretary was\ncharged to collect the revelations, and when he had completed his work, he\ngave it over to the chalif, from whose hand after his death it passed into\nthat of his successor, Omar. Omar left it to his daughter Hafsah, widow of\nMohammed. Zeid\u2019s work aimed merely at providing a copy of all the\nscattered fragments. No thought seems as yet to have been taken to arrange\nthem in order or to divide them into chapters. This collection had as yet\nno public authority, for other fragments were in circulation, which varied\nfrom it more or less, so that there were often disputations about the true\nreading of particular passages. To meet this state of things, so dangerous\nto the unity of the faith and the law, Chalif Osman caused a new edition\nof the Koran to be prepared. The collection made by Abu Bekr formed the\nbasis of this. Osman sent copies of this edition to the chief cities of\nthe subject provinces, and caused all versions varying from it to be\ndestroyed. The division of the Koran into 114 chapters dates from Osman.\nIn this, however, as above remarked, neither subject nor order of time was\nsufficiently considered. The sequence was generally determined by the size\nof the chapters, the larger being put at the head, and the smaller at the\nclose. The Koran of Osman now stood for the ground text of the divine\nrevelation. If later further copies led to variations of the text, they\nspring from the incompleteness of the Kufish writing, which continued in\nuse for several hundred years. In this not only were the vowel marks\nwanting, but the diacritic points which served to distinguish from each\nother several similar letters.\n\n\u201cThe Koran contains subjects of highly mixed character. It embraces not\nonly the whole doctrine and legislation of Mohammed, but likewise a\nconsiderable portion of his life, of his mental and material struggles, as\nwell as the history of prophets preceding him, and the legends concerning\nthem.\u201d\n\nThus in the year 632 a robber who was compelling the whole Arabian people\nto submit to his authority had somewhat suddenly died. His companions,\nrobbers like himself, met together after his death. They proclaimed the\ndead chieftain \u201cto be supreme teacher of religion, and, in that capacity,\nlaw-giver over the whole extent of the social, civil, and political\ndomain\u201d.(108) They elected one of themselves to continue this authority by\nthe name of chalif, or successor. In this act I note four things. The\nsuccessor is not taken out of Mohammed\u2019s family, but by free choice of the\nfaithful. Secondly, he is chosen as a spiritual head: but this headship\ncarries in itself the whole temporal power. Thirdly, the place of Mohammed\namong his own faithful, corresponds to the place of Christ in his Church,\nif we bear in mind all the differences which distinguish the two\ncommunities. Fourthly, the chalif in the Mohammedan community corresponds\nto the Pope in the Christian. He is the successor of Mohammed, God\u2019s\nApostle, as the Pope is the successor of St. Peter. The chalif is the\nbearer of Mohammedanism, as Mohammed\u2019s vicegerent: the Pope is the bearer\nof Christendom, as the vicegerent of Christ, and the spiritual Peter. As\nChrist and Mohammed answer to each other in religions radically\nantagonistic to each other, so Pope answers to chalif, with the same\nrequisite differences.\n\nIt is to be noted that Christendom and Islam coincide as to the time of\ntheir rise. A Catholic Church there had been through all the six preceding\ncenturies. But the allegiance of different bodies politic to one Christian\nfaith and legislation was only beginning when Mohammed arose. The various\nkingdoms which the Teuton races were forming in all the countries of the\nWest drew their common spiritual life from the Pope in Rome. The eastern\nemperor was becoming one of many sovereigns who acknowledged the authority\nof Peter. If Heraclius thought himself to wield the one sovereignty\ndisplayed by Justinian, he was undeceived before his death. If his\ngrandson kidnapped a Pope out of his Lateran Church and Palace, and then\nmartyred him as a traitor to his absolute power, the isles of the West\nwere looking upon him at the same time as the bestower to them of the\nChristian faith, and of all the blessings which that faith brought with it\nto their civil life. St. Wilfrid spoke to the Northumbrian king concerning\nthe doorkeeper of the kingdom of heaven. The king listened and obeyed.\nThus the roots of Christendom were sprouting in France and Spain and\nBritain at the moment that Omar guided the suffrages of Mohammed\u2019s\ncompanions to choose the aged Abu Bekr for his successor. From that time\nthese powers are formed over against each other in perpetual contrast and\nantagonism. The union of the two powers in Islam becomes the centre of a\ncomplete despotism. The distinction of the two powers in Christendom\u2014which\nPope Gelasius had marked with so much emphasis to the encroaching emperor\nAnastasius a hundred and forty years before\u2014which St. Martin exercised at\nthe cost of his life in the time of the third chalif\u2014was the pledge and\nguarantee to Christendom of authority, supreme but temperate, of spiritual\nrule protecting civil liberty. A long succession of Popes\u2014at the mercy of\neastern despots as to civil matters\u2014maintain their spiritual independence\nand their guidance of that new assemblage of nations in a common\nChristendom through the terrible seventh century. At the same moment\nNorthern Africa, and Egypt, and Syria fall passively into the hands of the\nchalifate, and Byzantium loses the half of its power and trembles for its\nown existence.\n\nHow vast in its importance for future ages the establishment of the\nchalifate upon the death of Mohammed was, may be seen from the following\nconsiderations.(109) It cannot be denied that the absolutely despotic form\nof government in lands under the sway of Mohammed has been created by the\ninfluence of the religion. It has indeed often been maintained that the\ngenius of Asiatic peoples specially produces this form of rule. But states\nwhich are not Mohammedan rest on quite a different basis: and their rulers\nare or were subject to great and essential limitations. A Hindu king who\nreigned under the laws of Manu could not break through the immunities of\nthe Brahmins, or the separation of the castes. An emperor of China, though\nhe be called the son of heaven, and his throne be approached only with\nforms of the deepest submission, can name no officer except according to\nthe list of candidates provided by the learned order. Not so the Princes\nof the Faithful. Two elements here concur to produce the most complete\nform of despotism: the mixing together or more properly unification of the\nspiritual and the temporal power; and the military power resting on\nconquest. According as the theocratic or the military principle prevailed,\nthe sovereignty would take a distinct colouring: the despotism assume a\nmilder or a sterner aspect. When, as in the case of the Arabian chalifs,\nand in a certain degree of the Turkish sultans since Selim, the religious\ncharacter prevailed, and the political power, in accordance with the\noriginal spirit of Islam, appeared only as an issue and endowment of the\nspiritual, the unconditional submission would take more of a religious and\nconscientious devotedness. Then the dynasty, clothed in the divinity which\nhedges a king, could enjoy greater stability and security: the ruler\nhimself, reminded ever of his consecrated character, of the duties and the\nhigher responsibility which lay upon him, would make through regard for\nthe prescriptions of religion a more moderate use of an authority in\nitself unlimited. Where, on the contrary, the spirit of an arbitrary\nmilitary lordship prevailed, as in most of the kingdoms formed after the\noverthrow of the chalifate in Central Asia, the blind obedience of the\nsubject would rather be the result of fear and custom. An attempt to\noverthrow the possessor of supreme power, with the self-same violence by\nmeans of which he had raised himself to it, would appear at once as\nallowable and attractive. Thence would follow more frequent change of\ndynasty, indifference to it on the part of the population, continual\nsuspicion, and tyrannical exercise of even the bloodiest means to put down\nevery opposing force.\n\nThus the government of the Ottoman kingdom did not take that character of\nbrutal tyranny which marks the history of Persia. The Persian king is so\nabsolutely lord of the life and property of his subjects, that a sentence\neven issued in a drunken revel without the least formality receives\nimmediate execution. A Persian proverb truly says: To be near the shah is\nto be near a burning fire. The general view that a king is naturally\ntyrannical and unjust has passed into the very language, so that a\ncomplainant for the strongest expression of the wrong which he has\nsuffered says: He played the king over me. Thus the learned in the law\nmaintain that the king\u2019s commands are superior to the right of nature,\nthey only yield to a positive divine command. The lordship of the Ottoman\nsultans, though resting on the same principle of unlimited power, appears\non the whole milder and more moderate. Here too, as the founder of the\nline declared, all property belongs to the sultan; here also \u201cthe slave\u2019s\nneck is thinner than a hair,\u201d and all subjects rank as the sultan\u2019s\nslaves, and even call themselves so: here too the sultan\u2019s mother calls\nher son \u201cmy lion\u201d or \u201cmy tiger,\u201d and Moslim name the sultan not only \u201cthe\nShadow of God,\u201d or \u201cthe Refuge of the World,\u201d but also \u201cthe Executioner,\nthe Slayer,\u201d since he alone possesses the absolute right over the life of\nall. Turkish doctors ascribe to him also a holy character not to be\neffaced by any immorality. If his actions shew a scorn of all admitted\nconceptions of justice or prudence, yet in force of a Mohammedan fiction\nit is assumed that he does much or most of this in consequence of a divine\nsuggestion, and therefore that his motives can neither be discerned nor\njudged by men. In the same spirit the learned in the law maintain that the\nsultan can put to death every day fourteen persons, without giving reason,\nor lying under imputation of tyranny. Whoever receives death without\nresistance from his hand or by his order becomes thereby a martyr, and\nmany of his servants are said to have striven after the honour of such a\ndeath as a secure pledge of eternal happiness. A tyrannical power such as\nthis as a rule naturally strikes those only who stand near the throne. The\nmembers of his own family, the higher officers of state, fall victims to\nit. The mass of the people seldom feels such direct effects of their\ndespot. Here the principle holds, the higher the dignity, the more perfect\nthe confidence, the greater the danger. The grand visiers, the other\nselves of the sultans in temporal matters have experienced this. A hundred\nand eighty statesmen have held this highest office of the kingdom from\n1370 to 1789: most of them therefore scarcely more than two years. Many\nhave been executed after a short time. One of the most esteemed Mohammedan\nprinces, Soliman the Magnificent, executed during his government, one\nafter the other, most of the men on whose shoulders he had laid the most\nimportant works and the highest offices of his kingdom. An instinct of\nobedience, an inclination to unconditional absolute subjection under\nabsolute authority prevails among Mohammedans, to which the utmost cruelty\nappears endurable, the utmost perversity natural.\n\nIt must be added that the Sultan of Morocco unites the spiritual, and the\ntemporal power, as sheriff, that is descendant of the prophet through\nHosein and Ali. He is a despot as absolute as the king of Persia. All\ndepends upon his will. He makes, alters, suppresses, and restores laws. He\nchanges them according to his humour, convenience, or interests. Here\nthere is no body of Ulema, no Mufti clothed with an authority independent\nof the sovereign, no divan, colleges, or ministerial departments. All\nfollows the single command of the ruler.\n\nThe nature of the supreme authority in these three Moslem empires speaks\nat the present day of its origin in the person of Mohammed.\n\nWhat we see is this. The misuse of C\u00e6sarean power in applying to the\nChurch of God, which from the beginning by divine order was independent, a\nsupremacy in spiritual things not belonging to the civil ruler, is allowed\nby Divine Providence to call forth a far more terrible despotism, in the\nguise of a false prophet who invents a religion of which he is to be the\napostle, and then claims all power, spiritual and temporal, as belonging\nto him in the character of apostle, and the use of force as the means of\npropagation. That despotism is allowed to seize for permanent occupation\nthe richest provinces of the eastern empire, and to make its capital in\nfear of perpetual subjection. But it is also used to check the imperial\nusurpation over the Church, and to begin an era, now lasting for twelve\ncenturies and a half, in which two religions, and two forms of government\nspringing from these religions, stand over against each other in perpetual\nand irreconcilable opposition.\n\nThe structure of the Church was vehemently shaken by the earthquake(110)\nwhich attended the pouring out of Islam upon the south-eastern and\nsouthern countries of the former Roman empire. It had to be seen whether\nthe whole fabric would maintain itself upon its foundation of rock when\nsuch mighty portions of its structure were torn by main force away. Moslem\nwriters say, when the locust swarm darkened vast countries, they bore on\ntheir wings these Arabic words:\u2014\u201cWe are God\u2019s host, each of us has nine\nand ninety eggs; and if we had a hundred we should lay waste the world\nwith all that is in it\u201d.\n\nThe hundredth egg has never been granted, but if the assassin\u2019s stroke had\nnot carried off Chalif Omar in 644, and again Chalif Osman in the year\n656, and again Chalif Ali in the year 661, perhaps the desolation might\nhave been fully accomplished; as also if the chalifate, created by\nelection in 632, had not become within thirty years a mere hereditary\nkingdom, in which rival pretenders and rival families exhausted the\nstrength of Islam by perpetual conflicts. The empire of the sword has also\nillustrated the divine decree: \u201cAll that take the sword shall perish with\nthe sword\u201d.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER V. OLD ROME AND NEW ROME.\n\n\nThe seizure of Pope St. Martin in his Lateran Church by the exarch of\nRavenna, Kalliopas, under order from the Emperor Constans II., his secret\ndeportation to Constantinople, his trial before the Senate as guilty of\nhigh treason, his condemnation to death, and subsequent death in the\nCrimea from hardship or starvation, with the election of Pope Eugenius\nduring his lifetime by the Roman clergy through dread of a Monothelite\nbeing forced upon them by the Byzantine; all this marks probably the\nlowest point of civil depression and helplessness to which the Papacy was\never reduced in those momentous three centuries which run from Genseric to\nAistulf, from 455 to 755. The emperor who committed acts so mean,\nperfidious, and cruel was reigning over an empire already cut in two by\nthe sword of Mohammed\u2019s chalif. How little he had heeded the chastisement\nwe learn from an incident in the trial of the great eastern confessor, St.\nMaximus, which I have already recorded, but to which I recur that I may\nexhibit the full insolence of the eastern despot, as well as his\nblindness. Theodosius, the consul, coming straight out from the emperor\u2019s\ncabinet, with the condemnation of Maximus in his hand, addressed him in\nthese words:(111) \u201cLearn, Sir Abbot, that when we get a little relief from\nthis rout of heathens (that is, of the Saracens who had stripped Constans\nof Syria, Egypt, Mesopotamia, and North Africa as far as Kairowan), by the\nHoly Trinity we will bring you to terms, and your Pope, who is now lifted\nup, and all the talkers there, and the rest of your disciples; and we will\n_cook_ you all, each in his own place, as Martin has been cooked\u201d.\n\nThese words were spoken on the 14th December, 656.(112) The Pope Eugenius\nwas the Pope alluded to in them, and it is inferred from them that he\nrejected those terms of union which the emperor was seeking to impose and\nwhich the nuntios were willing to accept. The martyrdom of St. Martin had\ntaken place on the 16th September of the preceding year, 655.\n\nIt was the providence of God that the chalif himself never allowed the\nsworn protector of the Church who sat on the eastern throne to execute\nthis threat. Rather he was all through this century in dread lest the\nMohammedan, having fixed his throne at Damascus, should advance it to\nConstantinople. It was again the providence of God that Constantinople\nitself should not fall during this time of its utmost weakness, and so\nopen the whole of northern Europe to Mohammedan domination. The city of\nConstantine was then the material rampart which stopped the impetuous\ncurrent of Saracen invasion to the north. The chalif Muawiah, who reigned\nover the immense Saracen empire from 661 to 680, was strong enough\ncontinually to beat the Emperor, to ravage his Asiatic territory, to\nadvance towards his capital, but he was never able to take it. The advance\nof the seat of the Saracenic empire from the remote Medina to the near and\nbeautiful Damascus, the paradise of eastern cities, dwelling in its\nperpetual garden among ever-flowing waters of Abana and Pharpar, was\nitself a sign how the empire had fallen. A religion founded on the denial\nof the Christian faith, of which it was, moreover, the special rival, had\nfull possession of the once Roman and Christian East. Muawiah became\nchalif on the death of Ali in 661. He had conducted the civil war against\nAli, which distracted for five years the Saracen power, with the forces of\nSyria, as its governor; and when he became supreme made it the capital of\nhis empire.\n\nConstans II., having crowned with martyrdom the greatest confessor of the\nWest, Pope Martin, and the greatest confessor of the East, St. Maximus,\nresolved in the year 662, to visit the West. The tyranny of Constans in\nregard to the Pope was not completed even by his treatment of St Martin.\nWhen he had condemned this Pope, but before he had caused his death he is\nsupposed to have compelled the Roman clergy to elect another Pope. This\nwas Eugenius, who was recognised in the year 654 for Pope, while St.\nMartin was yet alive.(113) Whether the urgency and threats of the imperial\nministers overcame at length the constancy of the clergy, or whether, as\nis more probable, they feared to see some heretic sent by the emperor to\noccupy the throne of St. Peter, they elected Eugenius, by birth a Roman, a\nperson of great goodness and holy life, who held the See two years and\neight months. The synodical letter of Peter, the fourth Monothelite\npatriarch of Constantinople in succession was sent to him, but being\nobscure in its expressions about our Lord, was sent back with\nindignity.(114) It would seem that the exceeding danger of the time caused\nthe election and consecration of Pope Eugenius in the lifetime of St.\nMartin, to pass for legitimate. Eugenius died in 657, and was succeeded by\nPope Vitalian, after a vacancy of a month and 29 days.\n\nPope Eugenius had not acknowledged either of the patriarchs Paulus or\nPeter by writing to them, but Vitalian sent his nuntios to Constans to\nannounce his accession to the papacy by his synodical letter. Constans\nreceived them graciously, acknowledged the privileges of the Roman Church,\nand sent by them to St. Peter at Rome a copy of the gospels bound in\ngolden covers and studded with diamonds. Vitalian, says Anastasius,\npreserved in all respects the ecclesiastical rule and vigour.\n\nConstans had a brother named Theodosius, whom he forced to become a\ndeacon, and he had repeatedly received from his hands the chalice of the\nLord\u2019s Blood. Afterwards he caused him to be murdered. He was said to have\noften dreamt of his victim, offering him a chalice full of blood, with the\nwords: \u201cBrother, drink\u201d. The stings of conscience and the hatred of the\npeople for his cruelty and his protection of heresy, were supposed to\ndrive him from his capital.\n\nThe book of the Popes under its notice of the life of Vitalian says:(115)\n\u201cIn his time the emperor came from the royal city by coast to Athens,\nthence to Tarentum, Beneventum, and Naples. At Rome he arrived on the 5th\nJuly. The Apostolical went out with his clergy to the sixth milestone from\nthe city to receive him. The same day the emperor went to pray at St.\nPeter\u2019s, and offered his gift. On Saturday he went to St. Mary\u2019s and also\noffered his gift. On Sunday he went in procession with his army to St.\nPeter\u2019s. All went out with wax candles to meet him, and he offered on the\naltar a golden woven pall, and Mass was celebrated. Again on Saturday the\nemperor came to the Lateran, took a bath, and dined in the Julian\nbasilica. On Sunday there was a station at St. Peter\u2019s, and after\ncelebration of Mass the emperor and the pontiff took leave of each other.\nTwelve days he remained in the Roman city. Every bronze statue which\nornamented the city he took down, nay, and he unroofed of its brazen tiles\nthe Church of Blessed Mary at the Martyrs, and sent all things which he\nhad taken to the royal city. Then on Monday he left Rome and returned to\nNaples. Then he went by land to Rhegium and entered Sicily. He lived in\nthe city of Syracuse, and caused much affliction to the people, the\ninhabitants or proprietors of Calabria, Sicily, Africa, and Sardinia, by\nhis exactions during many years such as had never been.(116) He separated\neven wives from their husbands, and sons from their fathers, and they\nsuffered many other unheard of things, so that a man had not hope of life.\nThey took even the sacred vessels and ornaments of God\u2019s holy churches,\nand left nothing.\u201d\n\nThe visit of Constans to Rome casts a strong light upon the condition of\nthings in a century concerning which we are singularly destitute of\ndetailed information.\n\nWhen Constans landed with a certain force at Tarentum, he found the\nLombards in possession of the duchy of Beneventum. A legend said that\ntheir king Autharis after a bold march through the Peninsula to the\nStraits of Messina, had spurred his horse into the sea and exclaimed,\n\u201cThis shall be the Lombard boundary\u201d. But his successors had never made\ngood the words of Autharis. Naples and Amalfi, Sorrentum, Gaeta, and\nTarentum had imperial governors. Alboin however made a duchy of Beneventum\nwhich then included the ancient Samnium and Apulia, and portions of\nCampania and Lucania. It was a stronghold of Lombard robbers in southern\nItaly. Constans tried to expel the young duke Romuald. But he failed, and\nhearing that King Grimoald was approaching to aid his son, he went to\nNaples, left at Formi\u00e6, the present Mola di Gaeta, 20,000 men, and marched\non Rome by the Appian Way.\n\nPope Vitalian went out to meet him as legitimate Roman emperor. It was\ntrue that ten years before he had seized Pope St. Martin in his church,\nand carried him off by stealth to trial, suffering, and ultimate martyrdom\nin the Crimea. It was true likewise that while holding St. Martin in\nprison, he had repeated the evil deed committed by Justinian\u2019s empress\nTheodora, a hundred and sixteen years before, and compelled the Roman\nclergy under threat of worse things to elect a new Pope while the Pope was\nliving, though in this case the elected was himself blameless and\nexcellent. It is true, also, that later still he had treated the great\nconfessor Maximus with equal cruelty. But these crimes did not prevent his\nbeing the actual emperor to whom loyal submission was due from the great\nthrone of justice in the earth. It would seem also by the mode in which\nConstans had received the nuntios who bore Pope Vitalian\u2019s synodical\nletter, announcing his accession, and by the superb present which he sent\nback in acknowledgement, that somehow a better spirit prevailed at the\nmoment towards the Pope. We are met indeed by the fact that the\nMonothelite patriarch Peter held the see of Constantinople for twelve\nyears from the death of the re-established Pyrrhus in 654, to his own\ndeath in 666, being the fourth heretic in succession from Sergius in the\nsee of the royal city. Constans approached Rome at the head of an army. He\nmade his offerings as emperor to the three great churches of Rome, the\nLateran, St. Peter\u2019s and St. Mary Major. The Pope was completely at his\nmercy. He lodged in the imperial palace on the Palatine, which, however\ngreat its desolation, was able at least to receive him. In his twelve days\nsojourn he laid his hands upon every bronze statue which he thought worth\nplundering: and he stripped of its costly roof the church which his\npredecessor sixty years before had given to the Pope, dedicated to the\nMother of God and all Martyrs.\n\nSuch a visit accompanied by such acts give a lively picture of the regard\nentertained by a Byzantine emperor for the city which gave him his title.\nIt sums up the hundred and ten years of abject servitude into which all\nItaly had fallen since the capture of the city by Narses under Justinian.\nWe have the contemptuous despot, the long-suffering Pope, the half-ruined\npowerless city. Three hundred and six years had passed since the\ndegenerate son of Constantine, when he came to Rome in 357, was amazed at\nthe beauty of its great buildings, the forum of Trajan, the theatre of\nPompey, the unequalled Flavian amphitheatre. But in Constans the memories\nof Rome were dead: he robbed the last relic of its grandeur, Agrippa\u2019s\npantheon, nor was he ready to reverence the protection of the Blessed\nVirgin over the Church dedicated to her by the Pope on receiving it as the\ngift of a preceding emperor. These last spoils he had embarked for his\nroyal city, but they were detained at Syracuse, and on its capture shortly\nafterwards by the Saracens fell into their hands.\n\nBut before this event the life and misdeeds of the emperor Constans II.\nhad come to a sudden end. He was living in Ortygia, the sole remaining\nquarter of that once princely city, wherein Achradyna, Tyche, Neapolis,\nand Epipol\u00e6 lay desolate. He had entered his bath one day, and received in\nit a blow on his head by his attendant, whether a slave, or a conspirator.\nHis courtiers when they at length came in found him dead. The Greek\nchronologist Theophanes alleges as a reason for this event that after his\nmurder of his brother he became greatly hated at Constantinople, both for\nhis persecution of Pope Martin and Maximus, \u201cthat most wise confessor,\nwhose tongue he cut out, and whose hands he cut off, and condemned many of\nthe orthodox with tortures, banishments, and confiscations, because they\nwould not submit to his heresy\u201d. In his dread he had wished to transfer\nhis residence to the West, but this his counsellors prevented. His\ntreatment of the Sicilians was so bad that some in despair went to settle\nat Damascus, though it had become the capital of the chalif.\n\nSo lived and so died the grandson of Heraclius, Constans II., \u201cRoman\nemperor and Christian prince\u201d(117) from 642 to 668, in the times when the\nchalifs of Mohammed, Omar, Osman, Ali, and Muawiah carved the Saracen\nrealm out of the empire which Heraclius had possessed, and out of the\nkingdom of the \u201cGreat King,\u201d whom Heraclius, when bearing the standard of\nthe cross had brought low. If Heraclius treated Syria and Egypt as\nConstans treated Rome and Italy, is not the wonder diminished that in the\nten years of Omar the structure of Roman power which had lasted seven\ncenturies was overthrown, and those provinces had received a Mohammedan\ninstead of a Byzantine master? Muawiah at Damascus cherished the Syria\nwhich at Antioch the lord on the Bosphorus had ground down with taxes. The\nRome also which Constans, when he had been welcomed as its emperor, left\nstripped of its last ornaments was regarded with veneration by the\nfarthest isle of the West, which it was winning at once to civilised and\nto Christian life. An English authority tells us that five years after the\nvisit of Constans, Pope Vitalian, in the twelfth year of his pontificate,\non the 26th March, 668, consecrated a monk of Tarsus, then living at Rome,\nlearned both in secular and divine literature, speaking both Greek and\nLatin, of holy life, and venerable in age, being sixty-six years old. Thus\nTheodore was sent to be Archbishop of Canterbury. He was received in his\npassage through France by the Archbishop of Arles, and the bishop of\nParis. He reached his see in the following year, 669, and sat in it full\ntwenty-one years.(118) St. Bede\u2019s account of him says that he went over\nthe whole island, wheresoever there were English, was received by all most\ncordially, and obeyed, when he gave them a right order of life, and the\ncanonical celebration of Easter, which he spread abroad. St. Bede adds\nthat he was the first among the archbishops whom the whole Church of the\nEnglish consented to obey. His friend Adrian, who had recommended him to\nthe Pope, and accompanied him from Rome, attended him in England: they had\na large number of disciples, whom they instructed not only in theology,\nbut in music, astronomy, and arithmetic. St. Bede wrote forty years after\nthe death of Theodore, and says, \u201cEven at this day there survive persons\ntaught by them, who know the Greek and Latin languages as well as their\nown. Nor from the time the English came to Britain were there ever happier\ntimes, since, possessing kings most valiant and at the same time\nChristian, they were a terror to all barbarous nations; and the vows of\nall men tended to the joys of the heavenly kingdom but newly revealed to\nthem; and all who wished to be instructed in the sacred lessons had\nmasters ready to teach them.\u201d\n\nConstans was succeeded by his son Constantine IV. after he had put down in\nSicily a short-lived rebellion. He did not imitate his father\u2019s violent\ndeeds: he did not wish to maintain by force the Typus, which was still in\nlegal existence. Pope Vitalian had done him service in his struggle with\nthe usurper, and made use of his favourable sentiments to proceed with\nmore decision against the Monothelites.\n\nThe Monothelite patriarch Peter had died in 666, two years before\nConstans. The three following patriarchs, Thomas II., John V., and\nConstantine, inclined to orthodoxy. They occupied together only nine\nyears, from 667 to 676. The Sixth Council left their names in the\ndiptychs. Yet so great was the power which the Monothelites possessed in\nthe capital that Constantine Pogonatus, though not a Monothelite, and much\nwishing to be reconciled with the Roman Church, thought it dangerous at\nthe beginning of his government to alter the state of things; and the\nTypus, as law imposed by the State, was not abrogated. The next patriarch,\nTheodore, in 670 was again Monothelite, and he was, though moderate\nhimself, induced by Makarius, patriarch of Antioch, to erase from the\ndiptychs the names of all the Popes since Honorius.\n\nPope Vitalian, after an admirable pontificate of fourteen years and a\nhalf, had died in 672, and was succeeded by the Roman, Adeodatus, who sat\nfour years, and he by Pope Donus, also a Roman, in 676. Donus died in 678,\nand was followed by Agatho, a Sicilian of Palermo.\n\nDuring seven years, which end in 678, the Emperor Constantine was fighting\na battle of life or death with the Saracen chalif Muawiah for\nConstantinople itself. Every year during several months the Saracen fleet\nwas in the waters of the Bosphorus. They had taken the city of Cyzikus and\nwintered there, renewing the contest in the spring. During seven years\nthey continued to do this. Had they taken the city the whole Christian\nempire in the East would have fallen. It is hard to limit the ruin which\nwould have ensued to the Christian Church. But in weighing the events of\nthis century the extreme peril in which the Church lay through the furious\noutburst of the Saracens should not be forgotten. On this occasion the\nGreek fire is said to have been first used. By it, as water would not\nextinguish it, many ships and their crews were destroyed. After this\nconflict of seven years, the Saracens having lost a great multitude of\nmen, at last retired, owning that they were defeated. Their fleet in\nretiring met with a great tempest, and in a battle also which took place\nwith three imperial commanders the Saracens lost 30,000 men. Muawiah, the\nchalif, treated for peace with the emperor, and it was concluded on\nglorious terms for the empire. This victory led the northern Avars also to\ntreat the emperor with deference.(119)\n\nThus the emperor was enabled to execute his wish for the restoration of\ncommunion with the West. He addressed a letter to Pope Donus on the 12th\nAugust, 678, requesting him to send commissioners to Constantinople to\nmake arrangements for a Council to be held there. Pope Donus had died in\n678 and this letter was received by his successor, Agatho. He desired the\nwhole West on this occasion to be called to council, and for that purpose\ncaused particular synods to be held everywhere. During this year Theodore,\nthe patriarch of Constantinople, was deposed, it is not known on what\ngrounds, but he was indisposed to union with the West. In his stead George\nwas chosen, who at first was on the Monothelite side, but, instructed by\nthe testimonies of the Fathers and the synods at Rome, which were read in\nthe Sixth Council, he attached himself strongly to the orthodox.\n\nPope Agatho, waiting for many bishops, among them English, to come to\nRome, only held in March, 680, his synod of 125 bishops in preparation for\nthe Council to be held in Constantinople, and to name legates to attend\nit. This was a great Council of the western patriarchate, which had been\npreceded by smaller Councils in the several provinces, as, for instance,\nMilan. Agatho and the council sent two letters to the emperor, which\ndeveloped the creed of the Church according to the Lateran Council of 649,\nand signified its acceptance as necessary to all believers. The priests\nTheodore and George, the deacon John, and the sub-deacon Constantine were\nappointed legates for the Roman Church; the Bishops Abundantius of\nPaterno, John of Porto, and John of Reggio as deputies for the Council;\nand the priest Theodore to represent Ravenna. Agatho described these\ncommissioners, not as learned theologians, for the confusion of the times\nmade such very rare. His words run, \u201cHow can perfect knowledge of the\nScriptures be found in men who live in the midst of heathens and get their\nsupport by manual labour with the greatest difficulty? but we maintain\nwhatever has been defined by our apostolic predecessors and the Five\nCouncils in simplicity of heart as the unambiguous faith descending from\nour fathers\u201d.(120)\n\nTheodore, Archbishop of Canterbury, had been invited by the Pope to attend\nhis Council at Rome, but was unable to come. In the preceding year, 679,\nSt. Wilfrid, Bishop of York, was heard at the Lateran on his appeal in a\nCouncil of 16 bishops and restored to his see.(121)\n\nThe legates were honourably received in the capital and lodged in the\nPlacidia Palace. After their arrival on the 10th September, 680, the\nemperor invited the patriarch George, of Constantinople, and through him\nMakarius, of Antioch, to call to council the metropolitans subject to\nthem. At first the court had not thought of the sees of Alexandria and\nJerusalem, which were under Saracen domination. But before the Council\nentered on deliberation two regular priests, Peter and George, were found,\nthe first to represent Alexandria, the last to stand in the place of\nTheodore, vicar of the patriarchate of Jerusalem. It would seem that it\nwas as well through this representation of the other sees, as also because\nof what Pope Agatho had done, that the Council which now met, though it\nhad not been the original purpose of the emperor, from its beginning was\nmarked as ecumenical, and afterwards took rank as the Sixth of these with\nthe Five preceding.\n\nThe Council was held from the 7th November, 680, to the 16th September,\n681, in the hall called the Dome of the Imperial Palace, under the\npresidency of the papal legates and the imperial presidency of honour. The\nEmperor, with many officers of State, was present at the first eleven\nsessions, and with them directed the external order of business; but both\nhe and they were carefully distinguished from the members of the Council,\nwhose numbers did not at first reach a hundred, but afterwards rose to\n174.\n\nIn the first session, the 7th September, the Roman deputies, in an address\nto the emperor, desired that those who represented the Byzantine Church\nwould declare the origin of the innovation which had existed in it for\nmore than forty years. Macarius and his associates appealed to the earlier\nGeneral Councils and to the Fathers. Thereupon the acts of the Council of\nEphesus were read. There was found in them nothing in favour of the\nMonothelites, for the words of Cyril, that the will of Christ was\nalmighty, could only be referred to His divine nature. In the second\nsession, on the 10th November, the acts of the Council of Chalcedon were\nread, which were entirely unfavourable to the heresy. Macarius in vain\nattempted to insist on the words \u201ctheandric operation\u201d without determining\ntheir meaning. On the reading the acts of the Fifth Council, at the third\nsitting, the 13th November, the writing of Mennas to Vigilius and two\nalleged letters of the latter were admitted to be spurious. The\nMonothelites could show nothing for themselves out of the General\nCouncils. They had now to seek proof from the writings of the Fathers.\nThey begged for time, and, on the proposition of George of Constantinople,\nthe letters of Agatho and the Roman Council were ordered to be read, which\noccupied the fourth session, on the 15th November. In the fifth and sixth\nsessions, of the 7th December, 680, and the 12th February, 681, Macarius\nproposed passages from the writings of Fathers in behalf of his doctrine,\nbut it was shown that they were mostly falsified or imperfectly quoted or\nindecisive. At the seventh session, 13th February, 681, the Roman\ncollection of passages from the Fathers in support of the doctrine of Two\nWills and Two Operations was read against the others. George and Macarius\nreceived copies of them. While Macarius remained obstinate, George was\nconvinced of the correctness of the doctrine set forth in the papal\nletters, and on the 17th February he gave in a confession to the Roman\nlegates in which the Two Wills and the Two Operations were expressly\nacknowledged. When, then, the emperor at the eighth session, on the 7th\nMarch, questioned the bishops on their accession to the letters of Agatho,\nnot only George of Constantinople admitted this, who requested and\nobtained from the emperor the reinsertion of Pope Vitalian into the\ndiptychs of his Church, but also Theodore of Ephesus, Sisinnius of\nHeraklea, Domitius of Prusias, and other bishops, mostly in the\njurisdiction of Byzantium, five also from that of Antioch. On the\ncontrary, Macarius put in a confession directed against \u201cthe godless\nheresy\u201d of Maximus. The examination of the patristic passages put in by\nhim began, which was continued in the following session of March 8,\nwherein Macarius took no more part. He and his pupil Stephen were deposed\nas falsifiers of the faith and teachers of error. At the tenth session,\nthe 18th March, the testimonies put in by the Roman legates were, after\ncollation with the manuscripts of the patriarchal archives, found correct,\nand a confession agreeing with the declaration of Agatho was delivered by\nTheodore, Bishop of Melitene, and others. As the close of the eleventh\nsession, the 20th March, in which at the instance of the representative\nfrom Jerusalem, the letter of St. Sophronius to Sergius, and, at the\ninstance of the Roman legates, four passages of Macarius and his pupil\nStephen were read, the emperor announced that as he was prevented from\nfurther attendance at the sessions by state business, four officials of\nrank would henceforth represent him. But, besides, the chief matter was\nalready settled. Old and New Rome were again united in belief.\n\nAt the twelfth sitting on the 22nd March a number of writings were read\nwhich Macarius had transmitted to the emperor, but the emperor sent on to\nthe Council unread. Among them were contained the letters of Sergius to\nCyrus and Honorius, and the answer of the latter. These documents were\ncollated with the manuscripts of the patriarchal archive, and found to\nagree. Thereupon in the thirteenth session, on the 28th March,\ncondemnation was passed upon the heads and favourers of Monothelitism, on\nTheodore of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter of\nConstantinople (the three patriarchs next following, of whom nothing\nheretical was found, were spared), as likewise upon \u201cHonorius of Rome, who\nfollowed Sergius and confirmed his teaching\u201d. The synodal letter of\nSophronius was acknowledged as orthodox. In the fourteenth session, on the\n5th April, at which also the newly-elected Catholic patriarch of Antioch,\nTheophanes, was present, the falsifications in the Fifth Council, the\nwriting ascribed to Mennas and the two suppositious letters of Vigilius,\nwere laid under anathema. On the octave of Easter, the 14th April, John,\nbishop of Porto, celebrated Mass in the emperor\u2019s presence at Sancta\nSophia according to the Latin rite. The monk and priest Polychronius, who\nalready in the fourteenth session had been accused by Domitius, bishop of\nPrusias, as a deceiver of the people, was brought before the Council at\nits fifteenth session on the 26th April. He desired in confirmation of the\nMonothelite doctrine to raise up a dead man. He was allowed to try in\norder to undeceive the people. He laid his confession of faith upon a dead\nbody which was brought in, and whispered for two hours long into his ears,\nof course without effect. As he was not shaken in his attachment to the\nheresy, he was deprived of his rank as priest, and excommunicated. In the\nsixteenth session, which was held, after a long interval, on the 9th\nAugust, a Syrian priest, Constantine of Apamea, wished to get the doctrine\nrecognised that there were in Christ two operations belonging to the\nNatures, but only one personal Will of the Word: that besides this Christ\nhad once indeed also a natural human Will, but that He laid aside this at\nthe crucifixion together with flesh and blood. The Council condemned this\ndoctrine as savouring of Manichean and Apollinarian heresy, issued\nanathema against those whom it condemned, and resolved to publish a\nconfession of faith, which was considered at the seventeenth session of\nthe 11th September, and solemnly proclaimed at the closing session on the\n16th September, in presence of the emperor. In this, after agreement\ndeclared with the five preceding General Councils, it was proclaimed that\nthere are to be received in Christ Two Natural Operations and Two Natural\nWills undivided, inseparable, unchangeable, and unmixed, which are not\ncontrary to each other, since the human will follows the divine and is\nsubject to it, is indeed deified and exalted, but not removed or\nextinguished. Neither of the Two Natures can be without operation or\nwithout will. The Council thanked the emperor in a special address for his\nlabours to bring about the peace of the Church, requested that five\naccredited copies of the decree of faith should be provided for the five\npatriarchal sees, and in a special letter to the Pope besought the\nconfirmation of their decrees by him.(122) Besides this very brief summary\nof the eighteen sessions of the Sixth Council, it is requisite to take\nnotice of certain documents which were either presented to the Council by\nthe legates, as their commission from the Pope, or proceeded from the\nCouncil or the emperor at its conclusion.\n\nPope Agatho had committed to his legates a long letter to the emperor. One\npassage from it may shew how plainly he set forth the authority of the\nApostolic See and its inerrancy in matters of faith. He lays down the\ndoctrine which opposes the Monothelite heresy, not as a matter for\ndiscussion, but as absolutely determined. \u201cSt. Peter,\u201d he says, \u201creceived\nthe charge to feed the spiritual sheep of the Church by a triple\ncommendation from the Redeemer of all Himself. By his help this\napostolical Church of his never turned aside from the way of truth to any\nerror. The whole Catholic Church and General Councils followed in all\nthings his authority as that of the chief of the apostles. This is the\ntrue rule of faith, which in prosperity and adversity the spiritual mother\nof your empire, the Apostolic Church of Christ, has kept unswervingly,\nwhich, by the grace of Almighty God, will be proved never to have erred\nfrom the path of apostolic tradition. It has never yielded to the\ncorruption of heretical novelties, but as from the beginning of the\nChristian faith it has received from its authors the chief apostles, it\nhas continued spotless according to the divine promise of the Lord our\nSaviour Himself, which He spoke to the chief of His disciples in the\ngospel: \u2018Peter, behold Satan has sought to sift you, but I have prayed for\nthee,\u2019 etc. Let your clemency consider how the Lord and Saviour of all,\nwhose the faith is, who promised that the faith of Peter should not fail,\ncharged him to confirm his brethren, which it is known to all that the\napostolic pontiffs, my predecessors, have ever confidently done.\u201d\n\nA more peremptory assertion cannot be made than this, and it is made by a\nPope to an emperor, on the occasion of calling a General Council. It is\ncarried by his legates, as ambassadors carry the commission of their\nsovereign. The answer(123) which the Council sent at its conclusion to the\nPope shows how it was received. It ascribes to the Pope in fullest terms\nthe position which he claimed, beginning in these words: \u201cGreatest\ndiseases require the greatest remedies, as you, most Blessed, know; and\ntherefore Christ our God, whose power created, whose wisdom provides all\nthings, has appointed your Holiness as a skilled physician to meet the\ncontagion of heresy by the force of true belief, and to impart the vigour\nof health to the members of the Church. We then, having read through the\nletters of a true confession sent by your paternal Blessedness to the most\ngracious emperor, leave to you what is to be done; to you who hold the\nfirst see of the universal Church, standing on the firm rock of faith. We\nrecognise your letters as written from the supreme head of the apostles.\nBy them we have cast out the heretical sect which has lately set up its\nmanifold error. According to the sentence previously passed upon them, we\nhave cast out Theodore, bishop of Pharan, Sergius, Honorius, Cyrus, Paul,\nPyrrhus, and Peter. We have sent what we have done, and these things will\nbe learned from those who represented you, Theodore and George, priests;\nJohn, deacon; and Constantine, sub-deacon. They state accurately the\ndoctrine which they have approved, which we beseech your paternal Holiness\nto set your seal upon by your honoured rescript.\u201d\n\nIs it possible to accept in more express terms the authority claimed by\nthe Pope in his letter to the emperor, including that descent from Peter,\nto whom the promise made by our Lord is made the source and the guarantee\nof the authority? Is it possible more fully to acknowledge his right to\nconfirm, in their own words, \u201cto set his seal\u201d on their proceedings?\n\nBut the Council also congratulated the emperor on the work over which as\nsovereign he had presided. Its success they attribute to the Pope in these\nwords: \u201cThe highest of all,(124) the first apostle fought with us; for we\nhad for our supporter, who by his writing set forth the mystery of\ntheology, his imitator and the successor of his chair. The city of Rome\nthe elder presented to you a confession dictated by God, and caused the\ndaylight of belief to rise from the West. Paper and ink it seemed, but\nPeter spoke by Agatho.\u201d\n\nThis address is signed first by the three legates, Theodore, George and\nJohn, \u201cholding the place of most Blessed Agatho, universal Pope of the\nCity of Rome,\u201d next by \u201cGeorge, by the mercy of God bishop of\nConstantinople, New Rome\u201d\u2014thirdly by Peter, a priest, holding the place of\nthe Apostolic See of Alexandria; fourthly by Theophanes,(125) by the mercy\nof God bishop of Antioch, Theopolis; fifthly by George, the priest,\nrepresenting Theodore, not bishop but representing the See of Jerusalem.\n\nThus these two patriarchates could only shew two priests to record their\nagreement.\n\nThe emperor issued an edict(126) in which he set forth a most carefully\ndrawn creed. He also addressed a letter(127) to Pope Leo, who had\nsucceeded Agatho. He mentions how the legates of the Pope had been\nreceived, how every authority of Scripture and the preceding Councils had\nbeen carefully examined; \u201cmoreover we beheld as it were with the eyes of\nour mind the chief of the apostolic choir, the Peter of the first see,\nsetting forth the mystery of the whole dispensation, and addressing us in\nthe words of Christ: Thou art Christ the Son of the living God. For his\nsacred letter portrayed to us the whole Christ, which we joyfully and\nsincerely received and folded him in our arms as Peter himself. God has\ndone glorious things and preserved to us the faith entire. How should He\nnot in that rock in which He founded the Church Himself, and foretold that\nthe gates of hell, the snares of heretics, should not prevail against it?\nAct therefore as a man and be firm, gird thyself with the sword of the\nword, and sharpen it with divine zeal. Be the firm champion of the right\nfaith; study to cut short every heretical talk or attempt as of old Peter\nstruck off with the sword the sense of Jewish hearing, prefiguring the\ndeafness of the legal and servile synagogue. The condition of the whole\nRoman polity is tranquillised with the tranquillity of the faith. We\nexhort therefore your most sacred headship(128) to send at once your\nnuntio to our royal city, that he may dwell here and in all emergent\nmatters, dogmatic, canonical, or simply ecclesiastical may express the\nperson of your Holiness.\n\n\u201cFarewell in the Lord, most blessed, and pray the more earnestly for our\nrealm.\u201d\n\nWe have, therefore, on this great occasion a complete concurrence of three\nauthorities; of the Pope in addressing an eastern emperor in prospect of a\nGeneral Council, of that Council itself answering this address of the\nPope; of the emperor in his letter to the Pope by his legates returning to\nhim from the Council; and it is to be noted that the Pope does not assert\nthe nature of his authority as descending by a divine grant to Peter and\nexercised in virtue of it during six centuries with any greater emphasis\nthan the emperor and the Council acknowledge it.\n\nIn the meantime Pope Agatho had died on the 10th January, 681. The see\nremained vacant eighteen months, during which the Council ended. Leo II.\nwas consecrated the 17th August, 682, and his short pontificate ended the\n3rd July, 683. To him the letter of the emperor was carried, and he\ndischarged the office of confirming this Council, as St. Leo had confirmed\nthat of Chalcedon, and of bringing it to the knowledge of the West.\n\nThe letter to the emperor, in which Leo II. confirms the Sixth Council, is\na document extending over nearly six folio columns.(129) It shows\nthroughout the Pope\u2019s great anxiety for the exact maintenance of the\nfaith, and how severe had been the struggle with the heresy which had been\nupheld by two emperors and by four successive patriarchs of the imperial\ncity. The Pope draws out in it a creed of the utmost minuteness in regard\nof the contested doctrine, the Person of our Lord in His Two Natures. He\nrepeats his acknowledgment of the Five preceding General Councils as\nhanding down one continuous doctrine from the beginning, and joins with\nthem the Council just held as witness of the same doctrine; and he\nlikewise joins the heretics during several hundred years from Arius, in\none anathema, which closes with the inventors of this new error\u2014that is,\n\u201cTheodore, Bishop of Pharan, Cyrus of Alexandria, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul,\nand Peter, who lurked like thieves in the See of Constantinople rather\nthan sat as guides;(130) nay, and also Honorius, who did not set himself\nto hallow this Apostolic Church by the teaching of the apostolic\ntradition, but allowed it, being spotless, to be stained by a profane\nbetrayal\u201d. These words, by which St. Leo expressed how far he assented to\nthe condemnation of Honorius by the Council, have a light thrown upon them\nby the words which he used in making known the condemnation of the\nMonothelites to the Spanish bishops, when among the condemned he included\nHonorius, \u201cwho did not extinguish the flame of heretical doctrine when it\nfirst arose, as was the office of the apostolic authority, but by\nneglecting fostered it\u201d.(131) And, again, in announcing the confirmation\nof the Council to the Spanish king, Erwig, he says of Honorius, \u201cwho\nallowed the spotless rule of the apostolic tradition, which he had\nreceived from his predecessors, to be stained\u201d.(132)\n\nIt may be noted that St. Leo II. does not enter into the matter contained\nin the letters of Honorius; does not express agreement with words which\npassed in the Council that \u201cthey were opposed to apostolic belief, to the\ndeclarations of Councils, and of all the approved fathers,\u201d that \u201cthey\nagreed with the false doctrines of heretics\u201d; he does not repeat the\nreproach that Honorius, by proof of his letter to Sergius, agreed in all\nrespects with his meaning, and confirmed his godless doctrines. \u201cBe it\nsufficient for us to know that if the name of Pope Honorius appeared in\nthose sentences it certainly was not because he really taught or held the\nMonothelite heresy, but solely because with too great allowance he did not\nrebuke it, nor set himself to strangle it at its beginning, insomuch as\nundoubtedly that manner of action had given great encouragement to the\nfavourers of those errors.\u201d(133) I quote two further judgments of the\npresent day, that \u201cthe letters of Honorius contain nothing heretical,\u201d and\nthat \u201cin fact no error of faith whatever is found in those letters of\nHonorius\u201d.(134) The anathema which lies on the memory of Honorius, who\nlived in renown and was buried in honour in St. Peter\u2019s, is a warning\ngiven by the Holy See itself to everyone who sits in that chair to weigh\nwell both words and conduct, and guard both from the slightest negligence\nin matters of doctrine. Honorius died before the Exposition of Sergius was\npublished or presented for his acceptance. Had he lived to judge of it\nthose who study the history of the time succeeding down to the Sixth\nCouncil cannot doubt that he would have censured it as his successors\ncensured it.\n\nThe Sixth Council closes a crisis of danger to the faith of the Church\nthan which no greater is to be found in all history. The years from 638,\nin which Honorius died, to 682, in which his successor St. Leo II.\napproved the doctrinal decision of the Council, and further, allowed the\nconduct of a predecessor to be condemned, are occupied by ten successors\nof Honorius, every one of whom with the utmost zeal condemned the heresy\nwhich was supported by two emperors, wielding absolute power, and by four\nsuccessive patriarchs of Constantinople, besides patriarchs of Alexandria\nand Antioch. All these put ecclesiastical authority at the service of\nthese emperors to carry out their will. Heraclius and Constans II. were\nnot theologians, and it required theological skill to construct concerning\nthe Person of our Lord a heresy which could present itself to the\nfastidious Greek mind, clothed in proper expressions of a language lending\nitself with unsurpassable accuracy to every variation of thought. Cyrus,\nmade for his first suggestions, by the grateful monarch, patriarch of\nAlexandria, was so good as to provide Heraclius with doctrinal decrees\nintended to make the disloyal sects of Egypt believe that they could\nexpress their own false doctrine in words which might pass for an assent\nto the Council of Chalcedon and the doctrine of St. Leo. When the\npatriarch Sophronius denounced the error and appealed to Rome and Pope\nHonorius in words which after twelve hundred years sound like a trumpet\u2019s\ncall, Sergius being patriarch of Constantinople, the bosom friend and most\ntrusted counsellor of Heraclius, holding the see of the Golden City for\neight and twenty years, living and dying, too, in the greatest renown as\nan orthodox bishop, approached Pope Honorius with insidious language,\ntotally disguising the real state of things in the East. He wished the\nPope to believe that Cyrus of Alexandria was winning the proud and\ntumultuous sects of Egypt to Catholic union with the doctrine of St. Leo,\nwhich Honorius held with the utmost fidelity. Not only did he write\nletters, but he constructed a document to which he induced the emperor to\nset the imperial seal and require it to be signed by all bishops, and\nespecially by the bishop of Rome. The document was intended to introduce\nthat heresy formulated by Cyrus, which Sophronius exposed and refuted.\nPope Honorius died in October 638, and never saw this document. Sergius\ngot it passed by his Council at Constantinople, but died himself in\nDecember of the same year. Pope Severinus was elected to succeed Honorius\nbefore the end of the year 638, but his consecration was delayed by Greek\nintrigues for nineteen months, in the hope of obtaining his assent to the\ndocument drawn up by Sergius. This was found to be hopeless. The exarch\nthen contented himself with plundering the Lateran treasury. Pope\nSeverinus was at length consecrated, and sat for two months and six days,\nin which time however he condemned the Ecthesis. He was succeeded by two\nPopes, John IV. and Theodore, who behaved with the same decision and\nfortitude. But a new emperor had succeeded, after a frightful revolution,\nat twelve years of age; and a new patriarch of Constantinople was ready to\ndraw up a new document for the heresy. It was met by another Pope, whose\nfirst act was to call a great Council at the Lateran, to condemn the\nheresy under anathema, and the two documents, of which the first was\nfathered by Heraclius, and the second by Constans II. For this act of\ncourage St. Martin four years afterwards was stolen from Rome, judged at\nConstantinople as a traitor by the senate, and sent a prisoner to die of\nfamine, as is believed, in the Crimea. The emperor, having Rome in full\npossession, used such means that Eugenius was put into the see while St.\nMartin was still living as a condemned criminal. But Eugenius could not be\ncompelled to accept the heresy of the Byzantine monarch and patriarch.\nThere follow five Popes, Vitalian, Adeodatus, Donus, Agatho, and Leo II.\nAt length, when Constans had perished miserably in his bath at Syracuse,\nhis son Constantine broke the line of heretical emperors. But he found in\ntruth the heresy so embedded in his capital that he was obliged to act\nwith great caution. After repulsing a Mohammedan attack upon his capital\nwhich lasted seven years, and was overcome only by the aid of the Greek\nfire, when if the city had been taken the Greek empire would have ended,\nand the patriarch of Constantinople have shared the lot of his brethren at\nAlexandria and Antioch, the emperor was enabled to invite Pope Donus to\nhold a Council at Constantinople which should terminate this long\nstruggle. It was a struggle in which the whole West followed the Pope, but\nmuch of the East was in favour of the heresy. Pope Agatho had succeeded\nDonus; he accepted the request of the emperor, he had Councils held\nthrough the West, and a full patriarchal Council at Rome. So he appeared\nby his legates at Constantinople, and was welcomed with the words, \u201cPeter\nhas spoken by Agatho,\u201d as 230 years before they cried, \u201cPeter has spoken\nby Leo\u201d. But Agatho also died before the Council had finished its work,\nand the tenth successor of Honorius, Leo II., during his short pontificate\nof ten months, set his seal upon the Council, and endured to censure a\npredecessor for neglect of his office, and for allowing by that neglect a\nheresy to obtain a temporary success. Ten Popes in succession, one of them\nactually martyred, all of them vassals of absolute sovereigns, had during\nall this interval of forty years alone prevented the heresy being forced\nupon the Church. Four patriarchs of Constantinople in succession had\nfostered it; and four were together condemned. They were condemned, not\nfor negligence in allowing others to spread the heresy, but as its\noriginators; as advisers and mouthpiece of emperors, all whose power had\nbeen bent by them to extort approval of it from Popes, who in their civil\nposition were helpless subjects in a \u201cservile\u201d province, but in their\nreligious character were successors of St. Peter.\n\nNow at the time the western emperor ceased to exist seven Popes succeeding\nSt. Leo defended his doctrine against two emperors, Zeno and Anastasius,\nand foiled all the efforts of Acacius to use the eastern jealousy and the\npride of the royal city, and exalt his see above the control of St.\nPeter\u2019s successor, until the seventh Pope, Hormisdas, then a subject of\nthe Arian Gothic king, Theodorich, compelled the eastern emperor, the\npatriarch, the bishops, and the court, to confess his supreme authority,\nas successor of St. Peter. Seven Popes then stood neither hesitating nor\nfluctuating: over against them in that time stood seven bishops of\nConstantinople, one originator of the whole schism, others yielding to the\nemperor\u2019s will even against their own wishes. It was a contest of 44 years\nwith an oriental despotism, waged by Popes the subjects of Arian Goths.\nThey alone maintained the faith of the Church, as embodied in the decrees\nof the Council of Chalcedon, and saved the East.\n\nNow, again, there has been a struggle for 44 years, in which ten Popes,\nsubjects of the eastern emperor, and liable as such to be summoned by him\nto his capital, where one of them was indeed condemned to death, stood\nlikewise as one man. They dwelt in a Rome no longer recognised as the head\nof the empire. Of this whole seventh century the special historian of the\ncity says that for Rome it was \u201cthe most frightful, the most devastating\nof all\u201d.(135) Civil power was not in their hands. Their election itself\nhad to be confirmed by the exarch as representing the emperor, or by the\nemperor himself. The first of the ten, Pope Severinus, had to wait\nnineteen months for it, after which he sat two months. The last of the\nten, St. Leo II., began to sit eighteen months after the death of his\npredecessor, St. Agatho, and then only sat ten months. During the whole of\nthis period, from the death of Honorius in 638, to the ratification of the\nSixth Council in 682, the yielding of any one of these ten Popes would\nhave carried with it the subjection of the whole church to the Monothelite\nerror. They saved the East, they saved the Royal City, the seat of all\npower, in spite of its four patriarchs condemned as heretics. That\nHeraclius and Constans did not destroy the faith in the seventh century is\nas much their work and merit as that Zeno and Anastasius did not destroy\nit in the fifth. Perhaps the test which by the force of circumstances was\napplied to the Popes from the time Rome was governed from Constantinople\nas a captive city in the second half of the sixth and the whole of the\nseventh century was even more severe than that applied to them in the\nfifth. Their condition was more helpless, inasmuch as the Byzantine\nsubjection was heavier than the Arian Gothic control, while the pillaged\nItaly of the exarchs was wretched, and the prosperous realm of Theodoric\nguarded jealously the last remains of imperial grandeur. He at least was a\nking in Italian Ravenna and Verona, and Rome was both great and dear to\nhim. But Justinian and those who followed him were task-masters on the\nBosphorus, who placed a tax-collector at Ravenna to wring out the last\ndrop of Italy\u2019s blood, and plunder, as occasion served, the treasury of\nthe Church in the Pope\u2019s Lateran Patriarcheion.\n\nIn what consisted the power by which twenty-nine Popes from Pelagius I. in\n555, to Gregory II. in 715 bore so fearful a strain? Solely in one thing:\nin the belief that the throne of St. Peter had been fixed at Rome, and\nthat St. Peter had received by a direct gift from Christ, and his\nsuccessor had inherited, the charge to feed and govern the universal\nChurch. The five times captured Rome lived on in this belief, and was\nbecome the city of the Popes. The eye of a conqueror, legislator and\nruler, had chosen with a wisdom which all posterity has acknowledged the\nfairest and the strongest of cities for the seat of his power. He made it\na royal residence; he could not make it an apostolic see. When at length\nhis city fell, the empire fell with it. In the day of its pride it sought\nto trample on the elder Rome by the privileges of new Rome. The second of\nthese attempts was foiled by the ten successors of Pope Honorius.\n\nThe danger to the Christian faith in these fifty years which begin, it is\nto be noted, at the death of Mohammed and the election of a chalif in his\nstead, has been touched upon; but the danger to the empire must not be\ndissociated from it. All the tyranny, the extortion, the spiritual\nencroachment of the empire could not sever the links which bound it to the\nChurch. Heraclius had been warned by his former minister Maximus how\nperilous to his empire his meddling with the creed would be.(136) \u201cIt is\nnot a time for such things,\u201d he said. \u201cIt is a time of blood on account of\nour sins, not of theologising; a time of lamentation, a time of imploring\nGod\u2019s mercy, not of sophistical contradiction, moving Him to greater\nindignation.\u201d The Greek(137) chronographer in the ninth century marks the\nrise of the Arabian enemy as a scourge of Christian sins. He traces the\nwhole calamitous series of events to the seduction of Heraclius, by a\ncertain Athanasius, full of native Syrian guile, whom he promised to make\nand did afterwards make patriarch of Antioch: Heraclius was confused by\nhis use of new terms. He consulted Sergius, and also Cyrus, then bishop of\nPhasis. He found the three agree. He followed them. He translated Cyrus\nfrom Phasis to Alexandria. Then Heraclius issued an imperial edict on\ndoctrine. When Constans had succeeded as emperor another imperial edict on\ndoctrine, drawn up by another bishop of Constantinople, appeared, which\nSt. Martin condemned in his Council at Rome. Then the emperor Constans,\nfull of wrath, carried St. Martin and St. Maximus to Constantinople,\ntortured them and banished them to the Chersonese, and punished many of\nthe western bishops besides. But Agatho, being elected Pope, and moved by\nthe zeal of God, also summoned a holy Council and put under ban the\nMonothelite heresy. Upon all his narrative the conclusion of Theophanes\nis: \u201cThe Church being thrown into disorder by emperors and impious\nbishops, Amalek the child of the desert rose up to scourge us, the people\nof Christ. The Roman army met with a great defeat on the Yarmuk. There\nfollowed the capture of Palestine, of C\u00e6sarea, of Jerusalem, then the loss\nof Egypt, then the captivity of inland and islands, and all Romania; the\nutter destruction of the Roman force in Ph\u0153nicia, the dissolution of all\nChristian peoples and places, which did not cease till the persecutor of\nthe Church perished miserably in his bath in Sicily.\u201d\n\nThus when the Sixth Council met at Constantinople not only had the emperor\nConstantine the Bearded declined far from the position held by Justinian,\nat the time in which he made Rome a garrison city in a servile province, a\nhundred and thirty years before, but his empire was not half so great as\nthat of his great grandfather Heraclius, after the triumph of the Persian\nwar. Not only were Syria and Egypt, and all Roman land on the side of\nPersia, and northern Africa as far as Kairowan, lost to the empire, but it\nhad just escaped utter destruction by repelling the fleet of Muawiah after\na conflict of several years from the waters of the Bosphorus. And the\ngreat and abiding difference to the eastern monarch was that he had lost\nthis vast amount of territory to an enemy who had put the propagation of a\ndifferent creed, antagonistic in its first principles to the Christian\nfaith, into the hands of a single man. That single man, a chalif, wielding\nan absolute civil power, appertinent to the prophet\u2019s spiritual authority,\nhad fixed the seat of his dominion in the heart of Rome\u2019s former domain in\nthe East. The Mohammedan now moved upon Constantinople from his basis at\nDamascus. He had advanced upon Sicily likewise, and had taken Syracuse in\n669, and from that time forth southern Italy had to dread his descent upon\nits coasts. By his union of spiritual and civil power in his person as\nchalif, he had now the whole Saracen force by land and sea at his command.\n\nWhat were the Avars of the North or the Persians of the East compared to\nthis new enemy, whose war-cry was, \u201cThere is no God but God, and Mohammed\nis His prophet\u201d; whose meaning was, \u201cThere is no Christ, and no Mother of\nGod, and no saints and no sacrifice, no kingdom in heaven to be gained by\npenance and humility. But there is the reign of a prophet on earth;\nreceive his successor and you shall be our equals, refuse him and you,\nyour wives and your children will be the captives of his sword.\u201d\n\nThese were the wounds struck by the Monothelite heresy on the Christian\nChurch and the eastern empire in the first fifty years which ran from the\ndeath of Mohammed.\n\nConstantine IV. died in 685, leaving the throne to his son Justinian II.\nHe had reigned since the murder of his father in 668, and the whole course\nof his reign showed a very favourable contrast with that of Constans II.\nBut greater still, if possible, was to be the contrast presented to his\ngovernment by that of his son, who succeeded at a most immature age, and\nshowed himself without counsel, self-command, and reason in all that he\ndid. He was the first of several bad and incapable rulers. His tyranny\ndeprived him of the throne after ten years. He was deposed with the\nByzantine penalty of an amputated nose. Upon this deposition, in 695, the\nfollowing twenty-two years produced seven revolutions, putting the\nimperial power into new hands and new families. One of these violent\nchanges replaced Justinian II., maimed and dishonoured as he was, after a\nbanishment of ten years. But he had learned no prudence, and the\ninhumanity of his last six years in his second reign exceeded that of his\nfirst reign.\n\nIn those first ten years from 685 to 695 events happened of importance to\nthe Church, which also illustrate the spirit dominant at Constantinople.\nThe condition of the empire required the strictest union with the West. It\nwas pressed severely by the Mohammedan advance. To meet this effectually\nthe reconciliation which had taken place at the Sixth Council was needed\nto be wisely and temporately maintained. But Justinian II. summoned a\nGreek Council to meet in the same hall of his palace, called the Dome, in\nwhich that Council had been held. It passed a number of canons on\ndiscipline, many of which were injurious to the West and only calculated\nto increase the mutual estrangement. Inasmuch as the Fifth and Sixth\nGeneral Councils had passed no canons of discipline, this Council held in\n692 was to complete that omission. It called itself the Quinisext. The\nlater Greeks even confounded it with the Sixth Council, others contented\nthemselves with saying that \u201cit was held five or six years after it, and\nby nearly the same Fathers\u201d. It issued a hundred and two canons on\ndiscipline. \u201cIt seemed as if the bishops of this Council in their disgust\nat the undeniable superiority of the Roman Church in matters of faith, in\nwhich its authority had always at last prevailed and determined the issue,\nwere bent on making good their right of autonomy at least in matters of\ndiscipline, and sought to avenge themselves by disapproving Roman customs\nfor that superiority burdensome to Greek vanity.\u201d(138) As a matter of fact\nthese canons had the effect of widening the breach between Latins and\nGreeks. It is true that in the eighth century all Greeks did not yet count\nthem ecumenical, but in the Iconoclast contest they gained great\nconsideration, and in the ninth century scarcely a Byzantine doubted any\nlonger that they were ecumenical.(139)\n\nThe chief value of this Council now lies in the picture which it presents\nto us of the actual state and temper of the eastern Church at that time,\nthe closing ten years of a century about which we possess so little\ndetailed information. I am here concerned especially with two things\u2014one,\nthe position of the emperor as regards both the Pope and the Church; the\nother, the position of the patriarch of Constantinople; on both this\nCouncil casts light.\n\nAs to the emperor, not only was it convoked(140) by his command and\nassembled in a hall of his palace, but its canons were subscribed by the\nemperor first with the imperial vermilion, and the second place was left\nvacant for the Pope\u2019s signature.(141) Then followed the subscriptions of\nPaul of Constantinople, Peter of Alexandria, Anastasius of Jerusalem,\nGeorge of Antioch; on the whole, of 211 bishops, or their representatives,\nall Greeks and Orientals, including Armenians. It styled itself\necumenical, and the emperor tried to impose it as such. In its address to\nthe emperor it said by that it was called(142) by him \u201cto restore to order\nthe Christian life, and root out the remains of Jewish and heathen\nperversity,\u201d while it ended by addressing to him the words, \u201cas thou hast\nhonoured the Church by convoking us, so also be pleased to confirm what we\nhave decreed\u201d.\n\nAs to the Bishop of Constantinople, this Council said in its 36th canon,\n\u201crenewing the decrees of the Second and Fourth General Councils, we decree\nthat the see of Constantinople enjoy the same prerogatives as that of old\nRome, and in ecclesiastical matters be as great as it, counting as the\nsecond after it. After it comes the see of Alexandria, then that of\nAntioch, then that of Jerusalem.\u201d\n\nIn order to comprehend what this canon gave to the see of Constantinople,\nit is requisite to bear in mind the actual condition of the eastern Church\nat the time. We are now at the year 692, that is full fifty years since\nthe other eastern patriarchates fell under Saracen dominion.(143) They had\nbecome more and more powerless. They depended upon the alms and the\nsupport given to them from Constantinople. In fact at this time the\narchbishop of the Grecian capital was the only real patriarch in the\ndiminished empire. The courtiers of Constantinople, as we have seen thirty\nyears before in the persecution of St. Maximus, affected to consider the\nconquests of the Saracen barbarians as transitory. Since then\nConstantinople itself had only been saved by hurling the Greek fire on the\nassailing Saracen fleet. A shadow only of their old right remained in the\nSaracen provinces of Alexandria and Antioch; they had still their old\nnames. These were put down for them, if, as is supposed, they were not\npresent at this council, because there were none at the moment. Four years\nlater Carthage was taken by the Saracens; within eight years the whole\nRoman domination in Africa to the Atlantic was at an end. The empire had\nnot yet lost everything in the West, for there were still some Byzantine\ntroops and possessions in Italy. The Pope still acknowledged the emperor\nas his sovereign; and to Pope Sergius the emperor Justinian II. sent these\ncanons, with the request that he would sign them. It is obvious that the\nposition given in them to the bishop of Constantinople was no longer mere\nrank as in the first step taken in this direction by the Council of 381\nunder the great Theodosius. It was a higher jurisdiction similar in the\nEast to that which the Pope held in the West. The Byzantine conception, as\nshewn in this Council, is clearly that the emperor was head of the Church,\nwho, as he did it the honour to call it together, so he did it the further\nhonour to confirm its decrees. Not, as in the case of the first\nConstantine, that he should make them laws of the empire, over and above\ntheir intrinsic spiritual force, as canons of those to whom Christ had\ncommitted the government of His Church, but that the emperor\u2019s signature,\nin the same way as he created a law in civil matters, made a canon in\nspiritual.\n\nSo ten years after the emperor Constantine IV. in the Sixth Council and\nthe Council itself asked from the Pope for the confirmation of its\ndecrees, his son Justinian II. required the Pope as his subject to accept\nas one of five patriarchs, three of whom it may be said were nonentities,\na position of subjection to himself in the spiritual domain. The place\nleft for the Pope\u2019s signature _after_ that of the emperor and _before_\nthat of the bishop of Constantinople graphically represents the idea which\nJustinian II. was seeking to impose. The Pope was to sign as patriarch and\nfirst of the five, not as the successor of St. Peter, who in virtue of his\nPrimacy \u201cset his seal,\u201d according to the expression of the Sixth Council,\non the whole. In the Trullan canons, the Byzantine idea having evolved\nitself with undeviating encroachment during three centuries, appears\ncomplete. Its completeness is shewn in two things. Constantine IV. asked\nthe Pope to confirm the Council; his son Justinian confirms it himself,\nand the council which he would confirm exhibits an eastern primacy seated\nat Constantinople. It admits not only the priority, but in a certain sense\nthe superiority of the Roman primacy; but it would keep both the eastern\nand the western primacy under the imperial control. The eastern primacy\nwould make itself the chief instrument of this control, and so practically\nput itself above the western.\n\nAs has been seen above, the emperors through four patriarchs of their\ncapital tried during forty years to force the Monothelite heresy on the\nPopes. In like manner from the Trullan Council they tried to force the\nGreek discipline and the eastern primate upon the Popes. Had they\nsucceeded the ambition of the Byzantine prelates would have reached its\nfull success.(144) The imperial residence on the Bosphorus would have\ntaken the place of old Rome. The city of Constantine, fighting for very\nexistence with the ever-advancing Mohammedan, tried this last stroke in\nits hour of greatest weakness.\n\nTurning to Rome at this time we find a very rapid succession of Popes, for\nwhich we have no information enabling us to account. They are also\nfrequently Greeks or Orientals; and here the suspicion arises that the\nexarch of the emperor had influenced the election in the hope that some\nnational feeling might affect them in the administration of their office.\nSt. Agatho, who died in January, 681, was a Sicilian of Palermo, St. Leo\nII., who succeeded in 682 and died 683, was likewise a Sicilian. The next,\nBenedict II., a Roman, sat only from June, 684, to May, 685; his\nsuccessor, John V., a Syrian, of Antioch, only from July, 685, to August,\n686, and Conon, a Thracian, from October, 686, to September, 687. The\nfollowing election was remarkable. There were two parties among the\nelectors(145)\u2014one for the archpriest Theodore, the other for the\narchdeacon Paschalis. Both were in the Lateran palace. Here both sides\nagreed to elect the priest Sergius. One of the rival candidates, Theodore,\ndid him homage at once; the other, Paschalis, very unwillingly, and he\nsecretly called in the exarch from Ravenna to his aid. The exarch, John\nPlatina, came suddenly to Rome. He convinced himself that the choice of\nSergius was canonical and that of the large majority, but as Paschalis had\npromised him a donation of a hundred pounds\u2019 weight of gold, he insisted\nupon being paid this sum from the Church\u2019s treasury. Sergius was obliged\nto submit, and thereupon was consecrated in December, 687, and sat till\n701.\n\nPope Sergius was born at Palermo, of Syrian parentage, his father having\nsettled there from Antioch. He had come to Rome in the time of Pope\nAdeodatus, had recommended himself by his ability, and had passed through\nthe various ranks of the clergy. His eastern parentage did not prevent his\noffering as strenuous an opposition to the heretical suggestions of the\nGreek emperor as his predecessors had shewn.(146) One and the same spirit\nlived in all the Popes: the will and the genius of government. The natural\nquality of the old Romans had been transfigured by the supernatural gift\nbelonging to the Church. The restless spirit of Byzantium, inexhaustible\nin the production of new theological doctrines, which at least maintained\na continuous interest on the popular mind, tried in vain all the arms of\nGreek sophistry and dialectic skill against the rock of Peter. They\nrecoiled from the sturdy Roman understanding and only helped the Popes in\ntheir work of massing the western fabric of concentrated discipline.\n\nThe rank of Rome(147) as the holy city, reverence for the head of the\nuniversal Church, veneration of the apostle Peter, had mounted higher and\nhigher at this time in the West. If St. Peter had already enjoyed, at the\nperiod of the Gothic denomination, a worship which impressed the Greeks,\nhis influence now had become more decided, characteristic, and world-wide.\nIt dwelt not so much on his martyrdom, on his high rank as an apostle, but\nrather on his being the founder of the Roman Church and its see. The\ninvisible saint in heaven was the possessor in title of many domains and\npatrimonies on earth: the theocratic king of Rome. He had begun to\nconsider its people as his own, he counted upon its political government,\nwhich he transmitted like a celestial fief to the Popes his successors.\nHis golden tomb at Rome in a Basilica radiant with gold had gradually\nbecome the symbol of the Church and of the salvation which the world\nreceived from this his institution. Pilgrims from the furthest lauds now\nstreamed to venerate it. The Anglo-Saxons especially, in the glow of their\nfirst conversion, were impelled by a passionate yearning to Rome. At the\nmoment that the East sent its pilgrims to Mecca and Medina, swarms of\npious pilgrims from Gaul, Spain, and Britain descended the Alps to cast\ntheir eyes upon eternal Rome and prostrate themselves before St. Peter\u2019s\ntomb, which had become the sanctuary of the West.\n\nIn the year 689 the young king of Wessex, Cadwalla, excited the greatest\nadmiration. After many battles at home, he sheathed his sword and\nundertook the long journey to Rome to receive baptism from Pope Sergius\nhimself. There on Easter eve the long-haired barbarian king was seen in\nthe white dress of the illuminated at the porphyry baptismal font of the\nLateran, with the wax candle in his hand, and received the name of Peter.\nHe lived but eight days after, and was buried in the atrium of St.\nPeter\u2019s, with a long inscription, still extant. It said how King Cadwalla,\nfor the love of God, left his throne, his family, his country, all that\nthe valour of his ancestors and his own had gained him, coming far over\nland and sea as a royal guest to behold Peter, and Peter\u2019s see. He died at\nthirty years of age, in the reign of the Lord Justinian, in the second\nyear of the pontificate of the apostolic man, Pope Sergius.\n\nCadwalla\u2019s appearance at Rome was a prelude to those long centuries\nwherein the Teutonic West would bow before the spiritual authority of the\nPope. Twenty years later two other Anglo-Saxon kings, Conrad of Mercia,\nand Offa of Essex, came to Rome, not to be baptised, for they were already\nChristians, but to change the royal robe for the monkish cowl. Their long\nhair was cut off and dedicated to the apostle, and after living as monks\nunder the shadow of the Vatican, they received a grave in the atrium of\nthe Basilica, as a pledge that they had entered the company of the saints.\nIt was not long before Rome had a Saxon colony in the neighbourhood of the\nVatican.\n\nSergius raised a monument to St. Leo the Great in St. Peter\u2019s itself. It\nwas the first example, as hitherto the Popes had either been buried in the\ncemeteries outside the walls or in the atrium of the Basilica. But from\nthe time that in 688 Pope Sergius had translated the body of St. Leo into\nthe transept itself, and raised an altar over it, other very distinguished\nPopes received the like honour.\n\nBut Pope Sergius also received a special messenger from his lord Justinian\nII. He had sent the canons of the eastern Council of 692, held in his\npalace, to the Pope, requesting him to sign them on the line left vacant\nbetween his own signature and that of his patriarch. The Greeks were above\nall things anxious to obtain their acceptance by the Pope. This was\nrefused by Pope Sergius, who forbade the acts of the Council to be\npublished. Upon this the emperor sent a high officer to Rome, who carried\noff to Constantinople John, bishop of Porto, and Boniface, counsellor of\nthe apostolic see. But he did not stop with this. He sent likewise the\ncaptain of his guards, Zacharias, with orders to seize the Pope and deport\nhim to Constantinople.(148) But by the mercy of God, and help of Peter,\nprince of the apostles, who guarded his own Church, the heart of the army\nof Ravenna, and also of the duchy of Pentapolis (that is the five cities,\nAncona, Umana, Pesaro, Fano, and Rimini), was moved not to allow the\nPontiff of the Apostolic See to go up to the royal city. And when the\nsoldiers had assembled in a multitude from all sides, Zacharias the\nguardsman, in fear and trepidation lest he should be killed by the angry\ncrowd, besought the Pope that the gates might be closed, but he himself\ntook refuge with the Pope, and besought him with tears, that he would take\npity on him and not suffer him to be killed. Now the army of Ravenna had\nentered by St. Peter\u2019s gate, and reached the Lateran palace in its ardour\nto catch sight of the Pope, who was said to have been taken away in the\nnight, and put in a vessel. The gates of the palace, both upper and lower,\nhad been shut. They threatened to tear them down unless they were opened.\nThe guardsman Zacharias, in his extreme terror and despair, had crept\nunder the Pope\u2019s bed. He had lost his senses, but the Pope comforted him,\nand came out and seated himself on the basilic of St. Sebastian, in the\nseat called \u201cunder the apostles,\u201d where with mild words he turned away the\nwrath of the soldiers and people, but they would not leave the palace\nuntil with mocks and gibes they had turned the guardsman out of Rome.\n\nSo after forty years Justinian II. had repeated the worst deed of his\ngrandfather Constans. Had Pope Sergius been taken to Constantinople the\nsame lot awaited him there as had befallen his martyred predecessor Pope\nMartin. Yet in the interval the emperor\u2019s own father had acknowledged in\nthe amplest terms the authority of St. Peter\u2019s successor. But the people\nof Rome as well as the emperor\u2019s own army at Ravenna and in central Italy\nhad learnt rather to defend the Pope than to yield to an unjust outrage.\n\nJustinian, at this time beaten in the field by Saracens and Bulgarians,\nwas anxious to improve the beauty of his palace, by constructing a\nmagnificent fountain and esplanade, from which he could better view the\nparty of the Blues which he favoured. Now a church stood in the way of\nthis enlargement, and he called upon Callinicus, who had succeeded Paul as\npatriarch in 693, to use the prayers customary when a church was pulled\ndown. The patriarch replied that he had prayers for the building of\nchurches, but none for their demolition. The emperor insisted, and\nCallinicus so far yielded as to use the prayer, \u201cGlory be to God, now and\nfor ever more, who allows and endures even this\u201d. After which the church\nwas pulled down.\n\nThree years afterwards the tyranny of Justinian met with its reward. He\nhad prepared a massacre, in which also the patriarch would have been\nincluded. The patrician Leontius, a general of merit, had been imprisoned\nfor some years. He was set free and ordered to Greece. On his way he\nlamented his fate to some friends. They advised him to rise against the\nemperor. He presented himself at the pr\u00e6torium, gained admission in the\nemperor\u2019s name, overpowered the officer in command, set free the prisoners\nunder his charge, some of the best men in the city who had been confined\nthere for six or even eight years. Leontius then with his friends marched\nthrough the streets, inviting all Christians to Sancta Sophia. He went to\nthe patriarch who knew that he was involved in the sentence of death\nintended by Justinian. The patriarch accompanied Leontius to the\nbaptistery where a great multitude had assembled and uttered these words:\n\u201cThis is the day which the Lord has made\u201d. It became the signal for a\ngeneral insurrection. The people rushed to the hippodrome. Thither in the\nmorning Justinian was brought. His nose and tongue were both maimed, and\nhe was banished to the Crimea. And Leontius reigned in his stead.\n\nBut Leontius was not fortunate in war. He had dethroned by this sudden\nrevolution the fifth sovereign in the line of Heraclius. In three years an\narmy which dreaded punishment because it had not saved Carthage from the\nSaracens rebelled against him; he was deposed by another officer, Apsimar\nor Tiberius II., who lasted seven years from 698 to 705. At that time the\nbanished and maimed Justinian was enabled by help of the Bulgarians to\nrecover possession of Constantinople.(149) Then began the time of\nvengeance not only on the two usurpers, as he deemed them, who had sat\nbetween them ten years on his throne, but on all who had supported them.\nLeontius and Apsimar were carried in chains through all the streets. Then,\nas the games in the circus were proceeding and the people crowding to\nthem, they were thrown prostrate before the emperor who was seen seated\nwith a foot on the neck of each, while the crowd as they went by shouted,\n\u201cThou hast trodden upon the asp and the basilisk, and trampled on the lion\nand the dragon\u201d. When the games were over Justinian removed his foot from\nthe necks of his fallen rivals, and dismissed them to be beheaded. The\npatriarch Callinicus he deprived of sight, and banished to Rome, and put\nin his stead Cyrus, a monk, who had foretold his restoration. He slew a\nvast multitude of civilians and soldiers. He tied men up in sacks, and\nthrew them into the sea. He invited men to a great banquet, and as they\nrose from it had them hung or beheaded. In the meantime, while these\nevents took place at Constantinople, Pope Sergius had closed in honour his\npontificate of thirteen years and eight months, in September, 701. The\nnative soldiers of Italy had defended him against the attempt of\nJustinian, and during all his pontificate he refused to recognise the\nTrullan canons. He was succeeded in less than two months by another Greek,\nPope John VI. At the time Tiberius Apsimar was emperor, having dethroned\nLeontius. He ordered his exarch Theophylact to proceed to Rome. He was\nsupposed to come with a bad intent against the Pope. Italian troops from\nthe provinces flocked to Rome, and the city also rose against him. The\nPope again, as in the time of Pope Sergius, ordered the gates to be\nclosed; induced the Italians to retire from Rome, and saved the exarch.\nWithout troops himself he possessed a greater influence over the Italians\nthan the exarch. This Pope also induced the Lombard Duke of Beneventum to\nretire from an attack on Campania, in which he had done much harm. Pope\nJohn from the treasury of the Church redeemed his captives. We hear\nnothing of the exarch giving help either to defend or to ransom the\nemperor\u2019s subjects.\n\nAfter little more than three years John VI. was succeeded by another\nGreek, John VII. He was consecrated in March, 705. In the autumn of that\nyear Justinian II. regained his throne. He sent at once two Metropolitans\nto Rome, to urge the Pope to accept the Trullan canons. The Pope returned\nthe canons in silence. He did not accept the Council of 692 any more than\nhis predecessors. He died in 707, and was followed by Sisinnius, a Syrian,\nwho sat but 20 days, and his successor Constantine, also a Syrian, was\nconsecrated in March, 708, the seventh Pope in succession who came from\nSyria or the Greek empire.\n\nIn the year 709, Justinian II. wreaked his vengeance on Ravenna, stored up\nduring the ten years of his banishment, whether it was that their\nopposition with that of Pope Sergius had rankled in his mind, or that they\nhad rejoiced at his fall, or, at any rate, that they had not been faithful\nto him. Now, at length, he sent the patrician Theodore, who commanded the\narmy in Sicily, with a fleet against them. The chief people of the city,\nincluding the archbishop Felix, were enticed by the general to his ship,\nwhere they were received by twos in his tent. They were then seized,\ngagged, and put into confinement below. The Greeks landed, burned and\nplundered the city, and killed many. The chief captives were carried to\nByzantium, and brought before the emperor, who sat on a throne studded\nwith emeralds, and wore a diadem of pearls embroidered with gold. As soon\nas he saw them, he ordered them to execution, contenting himself with only\nblinding archbishop Felix, and banishing him to Pontus.(150)\n\nIntense was the hatred of Byzantium kindled in Italy by such deeds.(151)\nIt was at this time that Justinian II., by an imperial letter, summoned\nPope Constantine to his capital. The Pope obeyed the command, and set sail\nfrom Porto on the 10th October, 710, accompanied by a considerable\nattendance. After he had left Rome, the exarch, John Rhizocapus, came, in\nthe emperor\u2019s name, to Rome, and put to death four of the chief officers\nof the papal court, and \u201cgoing to Ravenna, there for his most foul\nmisdeeds perished by a most ignominious death\u201d.\n\nPope Constantine passed by Naples and Sicily, and wintered at Otranto.\nHere he received an imperial order, requiring the magistrates to treat him\nwherever he went with the same honour as the emperor himself. When he\nreached Constantinople, the young son of the emperor, the highest\nnobility, the patriarch Cyrus, with the clergy, and a great multitude,\ncame out seven miles to meet him. The Pope, wearing the dress which he\nwore at Rome in great ceremonies, entered the city with his train, riding\nthe imperial horses richly caparisoned. They were taken in triumph first\nto the royal palace, and then to the Pope\u2019s own abode at the Placidia\npalace. Justinian, being at Nic\u00e6a, sent him a letter full of thanks, and\nbegged the Pope to meet him at Nicomedia. When they met, the emperor,\nwearing his crown, threw himself at the Pope\u2019s feet, and kissed them. They\nthen embraced to the great joy of the people.\n\nIt appears that the Deacon Gregory,(152) the next successor of Pope\nConstantine, was attending on him, and that he answered with great ability\ncertain questions put by the emperor. They are supposed to have referred\nto the Trullan canons. They were not confirmed. The later practice(153) of\nthe Roman Church, with regard to these canons, continued to be to suffer\nthose only to hold, which were not contrary to the decrees of the Popes\nand the western discipline. On the Sunday, the Pope celebrated Mass before\nthe emperor, who received Communion from him; besought him to pray that\nhis sins might be forgiven, renewed all the privileges of the Roman\nChurch, and left the Pope free, to return home. That return was delayed by\nthe frequent sicknesses of the Pope. At length, however, he reached Gaeta\nin safety, where a great number of clergy and of the Roman people met him,\nand he entered Rome in joy in October, 711.\n\nBut the Pope had left behind him, and counselled in vain, an emperor bent\non his own destruction. Justinian had conceived a furious hatred against\nthe town of Cherson. He had sent a large fleet against it. Its chief men\nwere taken away and cruelly tortured. The fleet itself was afterwards\nutterly wrecked by a tempest: upon which Justinian prepared another, under\nfresh commanders, who were instructed to inflict fresh cruelties. In the\nend the people of Cherson was driven into revolt. They proclaimed emperor\nBardanes, one of the commanders of the fleet. Another officer, a\nchamberlain of Justinian, whom he had frightfully injured, and who\nexpected to be killed by him, joined in the revolt. He was sent by\nBardanes to seize Justinian, persuaded the soldiers to desert him, fell\nupon him, and, with his sword, cut off his head, which he sent at once to\nBardanes, who forthwith despatched it by the same soldier to Rome. And\nthus the extinction of the race of Heraclius was signified to the West by\nthe exposure of his head. His only son, Tiberius, a boy of ten, had\nalready been slaughtered like a sheep.(154)\n\nThus it was that Pope Constantine, three months after his return to Rome,\nreceived tidings that Justinian was killed, and that Philippicus Bardanes\nhad taken his place. In these days(155) theology had so penetrated every\nrelation of life that every emperor, on his accession, was accustomed to\nsend his profession of belief to the highest bishops of his empire. That\nof Philippicus unhappily signified to the Pope that he was a Monothelite.\nThereupon Pope Constantine, in council, refused to accept his letter.\n\nIn fact, the Armenian officer who had at length put an end to the life and\ncrimes of Justinian II., had no sooner obtained recognition as emperor,\nthan he resolved to overthrow the Sixth Council, and establish the heresy\nwhich it had condemned. In the year and a-half, during which he reigned,\nhe caused a council to meet at Constantinople. He deposed the patriarch\nCyrus, who would not yield to his wishes: and put in his place the deacon,\nJohn, who was more submissive. This council, whose Acts were buried with\nthe emperor, and whose numbers are not known, ordered the Monothelite\nheresy to be subscribed by all. Most of the bishops, with miserable\ncowardice, gave way to the will of the court. Among the number is said to\nhave been even Germanus, then archbishop of Cyzicus, and afterwards, as\npatriarch of Constantinople, a firm defender of the faith. Only a few\nbishops, like Zeno of Sinope, resisted. The copy of the Acts of the Sixth\nCouncil, kept in the palace, was burnt. At Rome, the Pope\u2019s rejection of\nthe new emperor\u2019s creed was taken up by the people with the utmost zeal.\nThey would not receive his image in the church, nor bear the mention of\nhis name in the Mass, nor tolerate his coin.\n\nBut, in eighteen months, his own profligate life caused him to be deposed.\nTwo officers of high rank, one of them commanding the forces in the\nneighbouring provinces, determined to rid the empire of such a master. An\nemissary of theirs, entering on Whitsun eve suddenly by the golden gate,\nwith a company of soldiers, gained admittance to the emperor\u2019s chamber,\nand carried him off unconscious from the effect of a drunken carouse on\nhis birthday. They took him to the hippodrome, and there blinded him. On\nthe next day, being Pentecost, the people were assembled in the great\nchurch, and Artemius, the first secretary, was crowned, and his name\nchanged to Anastasius. On the following Saturday, he punished with\nblindness the two conspirators who had so treated his predecessor.(156)\n\nThus Rome and the East were suddenly delivered from a revolution which had\nfallen upon them with equal suddenness, a fresh domination of the\nMonothelite heresy. All acts done by the government of the fallen\nPhilippicus were annulled, and the Sixth Council solemnly proclaimed\nafresh by clergy and people at Rome. There was great rejoicing at the fall\nof Philippicus, and the rise of Anastasius, who sent to the Pope a letter\ncontaining his orthodox belief.\n\nIt is to be noted also that the patriarch of Constantinople, John VI., who\nhad been put into the place of Cyrus by Philippicus, had joined in the\nemperor\u2019s acts against the Sixth Council, and led the council which\nrejected it, now wrote to Pope Constantine to excuse himself for having\nyielded to force. He began the letter with these words:\u2014(157)\n\n\u201cGod, who has constructed the magnificence of visible things as a mark of\nHis own Godhead and power, has specially in the formation of man, the most\nhonoured of the sensible creation, shown His glory and wisdom, so that the\nprophet cried out, \u2018Such knowledge is too wonderful for me\u2019. Now, the\nMaker of our nature, designing the head to be over the whole body, placed\nin it the most important of our senses, and caused all the movement and\nperfection of the other limbs to spring from it, and be preserved in it.\nIf one of these meet with loss or injury, it is not left without care, but\nthe head shows a natural sympathy even to the extremest parts of the body,\nand heals the local suffering by the hand\u2019s ministry and the eye\u2019s\nguidance, the aid of which it does not refuse as useless. With this we can\ncompare your own apostolical pre-eminence, counting you, according to the\ncanons, as the head of the Christian priesthood.(158) And so with reason\nwe ask of you to be released from the discouragement which has fallen on\nthe body of the Church by the pestilent exercise of tyrannical power.\u201d\n\nThe patriarch further beseeches the Pope to pardon his fault that under\nthis stress he had rejected the doctrine of the Sixth Council, in the\nwords: \u201cSince you are the disciple and the successor of him who heard from\nthe Lord, \u2018Simon, Simon, behold Satan has sought to sift you as wheat, but\nI have prayed for thee that thy faith fail not: and thou when thou art\nconverted confirm thy brethren,\u2019 you are a debtor to supply what is needed\nfor the correction which confirms, and also to show a sympathetic\nkindness\u201d.\n\nPope Constantine is the fifth and also the last Pope who paid a visit to\nConstantinople. As these visits cast an important light upon the condition\nduring two hundred years under which, being acknowledged as successors of\nSt. Peter, they exercised as subjects in the civil order their supreme\nauthority in the Church, I think it belongs to the matter now treated to\nrefer to the facts and results of each visit. Pope John I., who sat from\n523 to 525, was a subject of King Theodorich, and was summoned by him to\nRavenna. There he was compelled, much against his will, to go with three\nsenators on an embassy to the emperor Justin I. Theodorich was most\nindignant that the emperor had required Arians in his empire to give back\ntheir churches to the Catholics. He threatened the Pope that if this\ntreatment was not reversed he would drown Italy in blood.(159) So the\nPope, being sick, went with the senators to Constantinople. On their\narrival the whole city went out with wax lights and bannered crosses in\nhonour of the blessed Apostles, Peter and Paul, for the Greeks testified\nthat from the time of Constantine and St. Silvester they had never merited\nto receive a successor of St. Peter. Then the emperor Justin, doing honour\nto God, threw himself to the ground upon his face and worshipped the most\nblessed Pope John. Pope John and the senators besought him with many tears\nto accept their legation. The emperor rejoiced that he had been found\nworthy to see in his kingdom a successor of St. Peter and was gloriously\ncrowned by his hands.\n\nWhen they returned with success to King Theodorich at Ravenna they found\nthat he had imprisoned the two illustrious senators, Symmachus and\nBoethius; he put the Pope likewise in prison, and so the bishop of the\nfirst see suffered affliction in ward, and died of want. Ninety-eight days\nafter his death in prison the heretical King Theodorich by the will of God\nsuddenly died.\n\nTen years after this, in 535, the same Book of the Popes records that Pope\nAgapetus, being the subject of Theodatus, King of the Goths, was sent by\nhim on embassy to the emperor Justinian. Theodatus had put to death the\nQueen Amalasunta, daughter of Theodorich, who had herself given him the\ncrown. He hoped that the Pope might save him with the emperor. The Pope\nwas received with all distinction. But he found a heretic seated on the\nsee of the capital, whose orthodoxy the emperor defended. And the emperor\nsaid to the Pope, \u201cEither agree with us or I will have you banished\u201d. The\nPope replied: \u201cSinner that I am, I came to Constantinople to see the most\nChristian Emperor Justinian. I find instead a Diocletian. But I do not\nfear your threats. But that you may know that your bishop does not belong\nto the Christian religion, let him confess there to be Two Natures in\nChrist.\u201d Then the Bishop Anthimus, being cited by the emperor, would never\nconfess in answer to the question of Pope Agapetus that there are Two\nNatures in our Lord Jesus Christ. So the Pope prevailed. The emperor with\njoy submitted himself to the Holy See, and worshipped Pope Agapetus; he\nexpelled Anthimus from his communion and banished him, and besought the\nPope to consecrate Mennas in his stead. This was done. The Pope was taken\nill, and died after two months at Constantinople. He was buried with a\ngreater concourse of people than had ever attended the funeral of emperor\nor bishop. His body was carried back in triumph to Rome and buried at St.\nPeter\u2019s.(160)\n\nShortly after Justinian added the direct sovereignty of conquest to that\nrespect, whatever its extent may have been, with which Rome and the Popes\nregarded the sole emperor who since the abolition of the western emperor\nin 476 represented the Roman name, though seated on the Bosphorus. Pope\nVigilius in 547 was his subject, and as such summoned by him to\nConstantinople, whither he went with the same reluctance as his two\npredecessors at the command of Theodorich and Theodatus. The emperor\u2019s\npurpose was to force the Pope to set his seal upon a doctrinal edict of\nhis own. At first Justinian humbly besought his blessing, and embraced him\nwith tears. But this soon turned to persecution, and seven years of\nperpetual humiliation for the Pope followed. Deceived, isolated,\nimprisoned, deserted, he did not surrender the faith. St. Peter in his\nperson was not overcome, but he was discredited, and it required forty\nyears, crowned by the wisdom and fortitude of St. Gregory, to restore the\nfull lustre of the Holy See.\n\nAfter a hundred years and a succession of fourteen Popes, St. Martin held\na great Council at Rome in 649, in which he passed anathema upon the\nheresy of two eastern emperors, grandfather and grandson. In requital for\nthis the grandson had him seized in his Lateran Church itself, carried\nsecretly to Constantinople, judged by the senate there for high treason,\ncondemned to death, and finally suffered him to die of starvation in the\nCrimea. As Pope John I. gained his crown of martyrdom by the first visit\nof a Pope to Constantinople, so Pope Martin gained the like crown by the\nfourth.\n\nAbout thirty years after this a General Council was held in which the\nheresy which St. Martin had placed under ban was condemned afresh; and it\nwas called by the wish and command of the then reigning emperor, son of\nthe very man who had persecuted St. Martin to death, and in it the largest\nacknowledgments of St. Peter\u2019s succession at Rome were made to St.\nMartin\u2019s successors.\n\nYet, ten years afterwards, this man\u2019s son, then emperor, tried to repeat\nupon Pope Sergius the crime of the grandfather committed on Pope St.\nMartin. That his attempt was baffled, the life of his messenger saved by\nPope Sergius, and the messenger dismissed in most ignominious flight, was\nowing to the Italian troops of the emperor rising in defence of the Pope.\nThey would not allow him to be taken to the capital on the Bosphorus.\n\nIn another ten years the usurper Apsimar had despatched another exarch,\nTheophylact, to carry Pope John VI. to Constantinople that he might be\ninduced to give the consent which Pope Sergius had refused to the canons\nof the Trullan Council. This attempt also was frustrated by the flocking\nof Italian troops to Rome in defence of the Pope.\n\nLast is the visit of Pope Constantine, in which two things are remarkable.\nThe very emperor who had attempted to kidnap Pope Sergius in 693, being on\nthe eve of the extinction which was to fall on the line of Heraclius, in\n710 invited Pope Constantine to visit him, ordered him everywhere to be\nreceived with royal honours; when they met, fell, though crowned, at his\nfeet to kiss them, and sent him back in highest honour. And presently the\npatriarch of Constantinople, begging of him to be condoned for a grievous\nfault, drew a picture of his supremacy the functions of which he compared\nto those which the Creator in His wisdom has given to the head in the\nhuman body. I will venture to say that no western mind has expressed with\ngreater force or tenderness the office which belongs to him who sits in\nthe see of the chief apostle than was done by the tenant for the time of\nthat see of New Rome, which for more than three centuries had been\nstriving to rival and depress the elder Rome.\n\nThe emperor Anastasius, so strangely chosen from a first secretary to\nsucceed a fallen usurper, and undo his establishment of heresy, was both\northodox and blameless in conduct, and strove to defend his much\nendangered empire. He had armed a fleet, but it rebelled and killed its\ncommander. The end of a civil war, lasting six months, was that Anastasius\nretired of his own accord on condition that his life should be spared: he\nbecame a monk and priest and was banished to Thessalonica. He had reigned\ntwo years and a half.\n\nAnastasius, some time after his retirement, made, when Leo III. was\nestablished on the throne, an attempt to regain it. For this he was\npublicly executed at Constantinople. So he was added to his predecessors,\nLeontius, Apsimar, and Justinian II., making the fourth of the seven\nemperors reigning from 685 to the accession of Leo III. in 717, to whom\nthe throne was a scaffold.\n\nTheodosius III., a good man but an incapable ruler, had in vain tried to\nescape the crown imposed on him by the rebellious fleet. After a year the\ngeneral of the army of the East, a soldier of great capacity and vigour,\nwas advancing to dethrone him. The senate and patriarch advised him to\nresign. His private property was secured to him on condition that both he\nand his son became priests. Theodosius III. yielded possession of a throne\nfrom acquiring which he had fled, and lived in peace at Ephesus. He gave\nhimself up to good works, and when he was buried in St. Philip\u2019s Church he\nhad ordered the single word _health_ to be engraven on his tomb: a silent\nintimation that he was the sole among Leo\u2019s six predecessors who had\nescaped unhurt, and no less that he found in death the healing of all\nsorrows.\n\nIn the year 717 Leo the Isaurian mounted the throne thus vacated, and\nentering by the golden gate on the 25th March, 717, was crowned in Sancta\nSophia by the patriarch Germanus, after he had taken before him the oath\nto maintain the faith of the Church intact.\n\nOn the 8th April, 715, Pope Constantine died, after a pontificate of seven\nyears, \u201ca strenuous and successful defender of Rome\u2019s orthodox faith, and\na worthy predecessor of greater successors, under whom Rome was delivered\nfrom the Byzantine yoke\u201d.(161) After forty days St. Gregory II. became\nPope on the 19th May, 715.\n\nBetween the two Popes St. Gregory I. and St. Gregory II. lies a period of\n111 years, marked with disasters to the Christian people and religion such\nas no preceding century can show. At the death of St. Gregory I. in 604,\nall the shores of the Mediterranean were in possession of Christians. The\nauthority of the eastern emperor extended from Constantinople over Asia\nMinor, Syria, and the region up to the Euphrates, Egypt, and the long\nrange of Northern Africa, embracing the present Tripoli, Tunis, Algiers,\nand Morocco, to the Atlantic. The beginning of Christian kingdoms, looking\nup with filial affection to their spiritual Father in Rome, was apparent\nto the eye of the first Gregory. Gaul and Spain and Africa, lately\nrecovered by Justinian, had a network of spiritual provinces, in which\neach Metropolitan received from Rome the pallium, the token of apostolic\nauthority and unity. St. Gregory himself had added to these by the mission\nof Augustine, and the chair of unity founded at Canterbury. Full as these\ncountries were of violence, mutual aggression, and unsubdued ferocity, the\nTeutonic invaders had nevertheless accepted the law of Christ from Rome,\nand the first principles of human order had been fused with their natural\ntraditions of freedom. Above all, the Arian heresy had been dispossessed,\nand there was no appearance of a religion counter to the Christian\narising. In every city of a vast region the bishop was regarded by his\npeople with veneration, the very source of which lay in a power which he\nheld by imposition of hands. A spiritual head to those around him, he was\nhimself a link in the chain of that universal hierarchy the head of which\nwas at Rome.\n\nAt the accession of Gregory II. the whole coast line from Cilicia at least\nto Mauritania on the Atlantic, had been lost to the Roman empire, and in a\nvery great degree to the Christian Church as well. It was all now in the\noccupation of a single power, the head of which was termed the successor.\nThe successor that is of the Arabian who had set himself in the place of\nChrist, who had conquered the Christians in this vast range of territory,\nand would allow them to live only on tenure of subjection. Instead of the\nremnant of primeval tradition which formed the mythology and influenced\nthe customs of the northern tribes at the time of their descent on the\nwestern empire, the Arabian prophet and his successors had impregnated\ntheir people with a furious and fanatical belief to be imposed by force.\nIt was a chief part of that belief that it ought to be imposed by force on\nall outside. And they who fell in such a holy war were held to be martyrs,\nas indeed they witnessed and imitated the life of Mohammed from the time\nof the Hegira. Thus the possession of the world was attached to the\nprofession of one God and Mohammed as his prophet. In the century next\nafter the death of the prophet those who retrace the deeds of his\nfollowers must admit that every possible disregard of human life and of\nthe things most hallowed in Christian society had been shown by them in\nthe construction of a kingdom now stretching from the Atlantic to the\nIndus. The religion under whose inspiration all this had been done, was\nframed in essential antagonism to the Christian faith. For indeed the\nmystery on which the Christian faith rested, that the Son of God had\nassumed human nature for the redemption of man, was denounced by it as\nderogatory to the very conception of God. Mohammedans proscribed\nChristians as associators of a creature with the Creator. This association\nthey called idolatry. The northern wandering of the nations might receive\nChristian belief and be formed into a Christendom. The southern wandering\nof the nations, since it rested on a prophet the personal antagonist of\nthe Christian founder, could only substitute Islamieh for Christendom.\n\nThis it had done over the empire which as we have seen was constructed at\nthe time St. Gregory II. became Pope, and Leo III. after six revolutions\nbecame emperor at Constantinople.\n\nBetween the two Gregories twenty-four Popes occupied the throne of St.\nPeter, from Pope Sabinian to Pope Constantine. Of these three only,\nHonorius, Vitalian, and Sergius, sat over ten years each; the three\ntogether occupied forty-one years, leaving seventy years in the gross for\nthe remaining twenty-one pontificates. But a considerable portion of these\nyears must be deducted for the time which intervened between their\nelection, and the allowing of their consecration by the consent of the\nemperor or the exarch as his viceroy. In that interval Greek arts were\napplied, to induce the Pope elect to consent to some thing desired by the\nemperor. Thus Pope Severinus on the death of Honorius was kept out of his\nsee for nineteen months and sixteen days, to obtain, if possible, his\nconsent to the doctrine put forth by Heraclius in the Ecthesis. In this\nmanner the pontificate of Severinus was reduced to two months and three\ndays, in which he found time to condemn the emperor\u2019s Ecthesis. So again\non the election of St. Sergius in 687, the exarch hurried down from\nRavenna to prevent it if possible; but he was too late, and could only\nplunder the Church\u2019s treasury of one hundred pounds weight of gold. These\nare samples, but the action continued over the whole period. Historians\nremark that the seven last Popes who sat during it were all Greeks, and\nconclude that the emperors thought compliance might be hoped for in such\ncases. This series of seven began with John VI. in 685. The seven Popes\nwere all faithful not to the exacting demands of emperors, but to the\ncharge of St. Peter, and during the thirty years in which they occupied\nthe Holy See seven revolutions of emperors took place at Constantinople.\nThree emperors perished by public execution; a fourth was only blinded; a\nfifth having become a priest, and attempted to regain the throne was then\nexecuted as a traitor by its actual tenant. The worst of the six was the\nfifth emperor in the line of Heraclius, whose head was sent to Rome as a\nghastly but indisputable witness that Italy was delivered from his\ntyranny.\n\nDuring the whole one hundred and eleven years Italy was governed as a\nprovince which had no civil rights. I recur to the words of St. Agatho in\nhis letter(162) to the Sixth Council for the importance of his\nacknowledging the sad condition of learning, as a result of the miserable\ndanger and uncertainty of the time. Not often does a Pope say of his own\nlegates, \u201cHow should they who gained their daily bread by manual labour\nwith the utmost hazard, possess accurate and abundant learning?\u201d But he\ngave assurance that \u201cwith simplicity of heart and without faltering they\nmaintained the faith handed down from their fathers, making their one and\ntheir chief good that nothing should be diminished, nothing changed, but\nthe words and the meaning both kept untouched\u201d.\n\nWhatever pomp and glory remained to the empire was centered in\nConstantinople. Rome and the Pope were powerless as to material strength.\nSo St. Martin, when accused at his trial of favouring an enemy of the\nemperor, replied: \u201cWhat was I to resist an exarch, without any force of my\nown?\u201d At that time Constantinople was probably the greatest as well as the\nrichest city in the world. When Constans II. eight years after visited\nRome he swept away whatever works of art pleased him for the further\nadornment of his capital. In the four centuries down to Leo III. which\nelapsed since the consecration of the capital by its founder, every\nsuccessor had made it a point of honour to improve the beauty and increase\nthe strength of the imperial residence.\n\nThus those twenty-four Popes from the first to the second Gregory were\ndwelling in a Rome which continued to exist only as the seat of their own\nprimacy, drawing successive generations to it, and visited year by year\nthrough the pilgrims who came to it from all parts of the world, since\nthey sought the tomb of the chief apostle when the sepulchre of the Master\nwas enthralled by the Saracen. Beside that tomb they stood with Roman\nfortitude against Byzantine fluctuation. Heraclius published an Ecthesis,\nand Constans II. a Typus. Ten Popes condemned both, and then Constantine\nIV. humbly admitted that both were worthless. He further undid the heresy\nof four successive patriarchs by putting them under anathema. He received\nas the living Peter the successor of one whom his father had stolen from\nRome and martyred in the Crimea; just as his son Justinian fell at the\nfeet of Pope Constantine, after he had tried to repeat the crime of his\ngrandfather Constans on the person of Pope Sergius. So in 680 Theodore,\nthen patriarch of Constantinople, urged on by another patriarch who lived\nat Constantinople since his own Antioch was become a spoil of the Saracen,\nexpunged from the diptychs the names of all the Popes after Honorius to\nhis own time. Theodore was himself deposed while the Sixth Council sat,\nand Macarius, his adviser, was deposed by that Council, but Theodore lived\nto be restored and to die as patriarch with a sounder faith than he had\nshown at the beginning. It is remarkable that after the four Monothelite\npatriarchs, Sergius, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, who were condemned at the\nSixth Council, three patriarchs, Thomas II., 667-8, John V., 669-674, and\nConstantine I., 674-6,(163) \u201cleant to orthodoxy,\u201d and so escaped the\ncensure of the Council, while Theodore was heretical from 678 to 680, and\northodox when restored from 683 to 686.\n\nThirty years after the Sixth Council the patriarch, John V., after\npresiding at the council summoned by the Emperor Philippicus, who\nattempted by it to re-establish the Monothelite heresy, besought pardon of\nPope Constantine as the head whose function it was to heal all the wounds\nof the body. I know not what proof of the Roman primacy surpasses in\nforce, to those who have eyes to see, this proof arising from the\nalternate persecution and confession of Byzantine emperors and patriarchs,\ncompared with the unbending fortitude and unalterable faith of the\ntwenty-four Popes in that long century when Rome served as a slave in the\nnatural order, and was worshipped in the spiritual kingdom as a sanctuary.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VI. AN EMPEROR PRIEST AND FOUR GREAT POPES.\n\n\nThe Sixth General Council had been held in 680, and on the union of the\nEast and West the long and obstinate Monothelite heresy had seemed to be\nextinguished with all the authority wielded by the Pope at the head of a\nGeneral Council. Yet thirty years after this event the fifth emperor of\nthe line of Heraclius was dethroned and beheaded by a usurper; and the\nfirst act of the insurgent when seated on the throne of Constantine was to\ncall a council of his own eastern bishops at Constantinople, which at his\ncommand attempted to abrogate the Sixth Council and to set up again as the\nproper faith of the Church the heresy which it had condemned. And this act\nof Philippicus Bardanes met with nothing like an adequate resistance from\nthe eastern bishops. It is true that the patriarch Cyrus, refusing to\ncomply with the wishes of the new emperor, was deposed by him, and a more\nobsequious successor, the deacon John, put in his place. But even\nGermanus, then archbishop of Cyzicus, yielded to the storm, and thus a\nbishop of imperial blood, who four years afterwards was himself placed in\nthe see of Constantinople, who held it during fifteen years, and then was\ndeposed because he would not yield to the heretical measures of another\nemperor, is said to have been subservient to the will of Philippicus\nBardanes.\n\nNo incident can show more plainly the pretensions of the eastern emperor\nand the weakness of the eastern bishops than the fact that the first act\nof an Armenian officer when he had, by the murder of his sovereign, put on\nthe imperial buskins on which the eagle of the Roman power was\nembroidered, consisted in an attempt to alter the faith of the Church, and\nthat the alteration was supported by the bishops whom he had convened.\nPhilippicus himself was a worthless sensualist, whose reign was put an end\nto in eighteen months by another revolution. Two more transient emperors\npassed to the dishonoured throne, and then appeared a third, who reigned\ntwenty-four years, and has left his mark on history.\n\nLeo III. was a soldier of great courage and considerable skill. He was of\nlow birth in the province of Isauria, but worked his way through the\nvarious grades of the army until he became the most highly reputed of its\ngenerals at a moment when a succession of seven revolutions had seemed to\nportend the coming extinction of the empire. Besides its internal\ndissensions, it was hard pressed by the chalif Solomon, who was making\nevery preparation for the final conquest of the capital. When by the\ncession of the good but impotent Theodosius III. the Isaurian officer\nobtained the crown, sodden as it were with the blood of three successive\nemperors, it might have seemed that the last hour had come of the great\ncity whose ramparts had served as the only sufficient bulwark against the\nMohammedan torrent of conquest. Leo III. thought not so. His first act was\nto defeat the chalif and cast back his invading host. The eastern empire\nbreathed afresh under his resolute spirit and strategic skill, and learnt\nto meet not ingloriously the Saracen in battle. Ten years of success had\ngiven to its ruler some rays of the glory which had shone upon the older\nemperors.\n\nIt is of the year 726 that the most learned of Italian historians(164)\nspeaks in these words: \u201cThis year Leo, the Isaurian, began a tragedy which\nconvulsed the Church of God and laid the foundations for the loss of Italy\nto the Greek emperors. Theophanes, Nicephorus, and other historians tell\nus that a submarine volcano had broken out in the \u00c6gean Sea and cast up a\nquantity of pumice stone on the adjoining coast. This natural incident had\nproduced the greatest alarm. Moreover, a perfidious renegade named\nBezer,(165) who had embraced the Arabian superstition, had nestled himself\nin the imperial court, and succeeded in making the emperor believe that\nGod was enraged with the Christians on account of the images which they\nhad in their churches and venerated. No doubt abuses did exist in the\nveneration of these images, as have since appeared among the Moscovites,\nunited to the Greek Church. But such abuses neither were nor are a reason\nto abolish these images, for, as men of great knowledge have proved, the\nuse of images and a well-regulated veneration of them is not only lawful,\nbut greatly fosters piety in the Christian Catholic people. Now the\nemperor Leo, infatuated by his own great penetration of mind and seduced\nby this evil counsellor, practised a usurpation upon the rights of the\npriesthood, and published an edict ordering that from that moment all the\nsacred images should be forbidden and removed through the territory of the\nRoman empire. He called the kissing them or venerating them idolatry. This\nwas the beginning of the Iconoclast heresy. This rash and iniquitous\nprohibition excited great commotion among his subjects. The larger part\ndetested him as heretical, as holding Mohammedan sentiments, and the more\nbecause it was known that he held in abomination the sacred relics, and\ndenied the intercession of the saints with God\u2014that is, attacked beliefs\nestablished in the Church of God. He also impugned thereby the profession\nof faith which he had made when he assumed the imperial throne, refusing\nto listen to the judgment of bishops who are chosen by God for guardians\nof the doctrine which belongs to the faith. Though we have not the letters\nwritten by him to Pope Gregory II. about abolishing the sacred images, and\nthe pontiff\u2019s answers to him, yet the sequel plainly shows that he sent to\nRome the above-named edict, and that the holy pontiff not only opposed it,\nbut wrote with kindled feelings to the emperor about it, inducing him to\ngive up this sacrilegious design.\u201d\n\nThough the letters thus mentioned no longer exist, we possess letters from\nPope Gregory II. to the emperor Leo shortly after, which present to us the\nclearest and most authentic picture of the Iconoclast contest. Both the\ncontention of the emperor and the censure of the pontiff are there\nexpressed in the words used at the very moment of the struggle. I shall\nfollow them accurately and in so much detail as to show the interests\nwhich were then at stake.\n\nIn the person of St. Gregory II., after several Popes of eastern descent,\na Roman had again reached the pontificate.(166) He was acquainted with\nConstantinople, to which place he had accompanied his predecessor, Pope\nConstantine. His experience in political things was as great as his grasp\nof theological knowledge was firm. He had dealt with Greeks and Lombards,\nnot only in ecclesiastical affairs, but as counsellor, as arbitrator, and\nas party concerned in disputes. He adorned the churches of Rome, but he\nlikewise strengthened her fortifications on the Esquiline. When, in the\nyear 717, a considerable portion of the city had been dangerously flooded,\nand in the quarter of the Via Lata the water had risen eight-feet high,\nthe poor people found support and consolation in the Pope. During many\nyears there had been peace between Church and Empire as also between the\nRoman See and the patriarchate of the imperial capital. The first years of\nLeo III. promised nothing but good. Born of low birth in the mountains of\nIsauria, and destitute of education, he had risen by his valour step by\nstep, and was in command of the Anatolian army when called to succeed\nTheodosius III. His reign of four and twenty years would have been\nfortunate had not the dogmatising fancies which seemed to be inherited by\nthe most various natures on the Byzantine throne taken possession of him.\nThrough them he kindled a conflict which set East and West in commotion,\nand completed the rent between them.\n\nIt was about the year 727, the twelfth year of his own pontificate, and\nten years after the accession of Leo III., when the acts of the eastern\nemperor caused St. Gregory II. to address the following letter to\nhim.(167)\n\n\u201cThe letter of your God-protected majesty and fraternity we have received\nby the augustal officer of the Guards, and we likewise keep it securely in\nthe holy church close to the confession of the holy and glorious Peter,\nprince of the apostles, where likewise are kept the letters of your\npredecessors who reigned in the love of Christ. In this letter you well\nand piously, as befits a Christian emperor, professed that you would keep\nwithout fail the injunctions of our holy fathers and teachers. It is\nfirst, and remarkable, that the letter is yours and not another\u2019s, sealed\nwith the imperial seal, and subscribed within in vermilion, by your own\nhand, as is the wont of emperors to subscribe. Therein you professed with\nthe clearest piety our blameless and orthodox faith. You wrote, \u2018he who\nmoves and pulls down the boundaries of the fathers is execrable\u2019. On\nreceiving this we uttered hymns of thanksgiving to God, for God assuredly\nhas given you the throne. You were running well. Who then has rung an\nalarum in your ears, and perverted your heart like a twisted bowstring,\nand turned your eyes backwards? During ten years by the grace of God you\nwent well. You never spoke of the holy images. Now you say they take the\nplace of idols, and that those who worship them are idolaters. And you are\nbent on sweeping them away, and clearing the land of them. And you fear\nnot the judgment of God in bringing scandals into the hearts of men, not\nof the faithful only, but of the faithless too. Christ charges you not to\nscandalise one of the little ones, and for a small offence to depart into\neverlasting fire, and you have scandalised the whole world, as if you\ncould not endure death, nor make an evil confession. You have written that\n\u2018we should not worship things made with hands, nor any kind of likeness,\nas God said, neither in heaven nor on earth; and show me, if you please,\nwho has charged us to reverence and worship things made with hands. Then I\nwill confess that is God\u2019s command\u2019. And why, you that are emperor and\nhead of Christians, did you not enquire of those who had the knowledge of\nexperience? You might have been satisfied by them concerning what things\nmade by hands God spoke, before stirring up, confounding, and disturbing\nhumble people. But you thrust away, and denied, and cast out our holy\nfathers and teachers whom, with your own hand and in writing, you\nprofessed to obey and follow. The holy and inspired fathers and teachers\nare our scripture, our light and our salvation. The six Councils held in\nChrist have commanded us, and you do not accept their testimony. We are\ncompelled to write to you in rude uncultured words, since uncultured and\nrude you are. But truly they carry the power and the truth of God. We\nentreat you in God\u2019s name to cast aside the haughtiness and pride which\nbeset you, and gently and humbly give us your attention. May God lead you\nto the truth of what He has said. He was speaking of idolaters who had\npossession of the promised land. They worshipped animals in gold and\nsilver and wood; they worshipped the whole creation, and all winged birds.\nTheir cry was, \u2018These are our gods and other god there is not\u2019. It was for\nthese devilish things, made by the hand, injurious and execrable, that God\ncondemned their worship. For since there are things made with hands to the\nservice and glory of God, whose will it was to introduce His own holy\npeople of the Hebrews, as He foretold to Abraham, Isaac and Jacob, to give\nthem the land of promise, and to make the Israelites possessors and\ninheritors of the possessions of idolaters, and to crush and utterly wipe\nout those generations because they had polluted the land and the air by\ntheir transgressions, God warned His people beforehand not to fall into\ntheir modes of worship. He selected two men of the Israelite people,\nblessed and hallowed them for the execution of works wrought by the hand,\nbut for the glory and service of God, as a memorial to those generations,\nBezaleel and Eliab, of the first tribe of Dan. God said to Moses, \u2018Cut out\ntwo tables of stone and bring them to Me\u2019. He brought them, and God, with\nHis own finger, wrote upon them the ten life-giving and immortal words.\nThen God said: \u2018Make cherubim and seraphim, and a table, and cover it\nwithin and without with gold: and mark an ark of incorruptible wood, and\nput thy testimonies into the ark for a memorial to your generations, that\nis, the tablets, the urn, the rod, the manna\u2019. Are these fashions and\nresemblances made by hand, or are they not? But they are for the glory and\nservice of God. That great Moses, full of fear, in his desire to see a\nlikeness and resemblance, not to be deceived, besought God, saying, \u2018Lord,\nshow me Thyself manifestly, that I may see Thee\u2019. And the Lord answered,\n\u2018If thou seest Me, thou wilt die. But pass into the hole of the rock, and\nthou shalt see My hind parts.\u2019 God showed to him in a vision the mystery\nhidden from the beginning of the world. But in our generations, in the\nlast days, He showed Himself to us manifestly, both His front and His hind\npart, entire. When God saw the race of men perishing to the end, taking\npity on His own creation, He sent forth His Son, begotten before time.\nAnd, coming down from heaven, He entered the womb of the holy Virgin Mary.\nThe true Light shone forth in her womb, and, instead of human generation,\nthe Light became flesh. And He was baptised in the River Jordan, and us\nalso He baptised. He began to give us pledges of knowledge, that we might\nnot be deceived. And, entering into Jerusalem, into the Upper Chamber of\nholy and glorious Sion, to the mystical supper, He delivered to us His\nholy Body, and gave us to drink His precious Blood. There also He washed\nour feet; we drank with Him, and we ate with Him, and our hands felt Him,\nand He became our companion. And the Truth was manifested to us, and the\nerror and the mist which encompassed us fled away and vanished. And their\n\u2018voice went forth into all the world, and their words to the end of the\nearth\u2019. Then men from the whole world came flying as eagles to Jerusalem,\nas the Lord said in the gospels, \u2018wheresoever the body shall be, there\nshall the eagles also be gathered together\u2019. Christ is the Body: the high\nflying eagles are men who worship God and love Christ. Those who saw the\nLord, as they saw Him, drew His portrait. Those who saw James, the Lord\u2019s\nbrother, as they saw him, drew his portrait. Those who saw the\nproto-martyr, Stephen, as they saw him, drew his portrait. In a word,\nthose who saw the faces of the martyrs who poured forth their blood for\nChrist, drew them. And men in all the world, beholding, gave up the\nworshipping of the devil, and worshipped these not with absolute, but with\nrelative, worship. Which of the two seems to you, O emperor, right, to\nworship: these images, or those of the devil\u2019s error? When Christ was\npresent at Jerusalem, Augar, then king of the Edessenes, hearing of His\nwonderful works, wrote to Christ: and Christ, with His own hand, sent him\nan answer, and His own holy and glorious face. Send to that not made with\nhands, and behold it. Multitudes of eastern peoples flock thither, and\nworship. Many other such things not made with hands exist, which the hosts\nof Christian pilgrims possess, whose daily worship you overlook.(168) Why\ndo we not examine and depict the Father of our Lord Jesus Christ? Because\nwe know Him not, and it is impossible to examine and depict the nature of\nGod. Had we beheld and known Him as we did His Son, Him also we might have\nexamined and depicted, and you might call His image, too, an idol.\n\n\u201cWe entreat you, as brethren in Christ, enter again into the truth, which\nyou have left. Cast aside pride, destroy your self-assurance, write to all\nand everywhere, raise up again those whom you have scandalised and\nblinded, though, insensible as you are, you hold this for nothing. The\ncharity of Christ knows that, when we enter the church of the holy Prince\nof the Apostles, and behold his portrait, compunction comes on us, and,\nlike rain from heaven, a flood of tears comes down. Christ made the blind\nto see; you have blinded those who saw well, and have made them stumble,\nlittle as you think of it. You have reduced men to ignorance, stopped\ntheir fair running, deprived them of their prayers. Instead of vigils,\nprayerfulness, and zeal to God, you have dissolved the poor population in\nsleepiness, slumbering, and carelessness. They have lost their head. And\nyou say that we worship stones, and walls, and boards. Not so, O emperor.\nBut to rouse memory and feeling, to raise up the dull, rude, and untaught\nmind, by their names, their invocation, their features. Not as gods, as\nyou assert: far from it: for we do not place our hopes in these things. If\nit be a picture of our Lord, we say, \u2018O Lord Jesus Christ, Son of God,\nhelp us and save us\u2019. If it be of His holy Mother, we say, \u2018Holy bearer of\nGod, Mother of the Lord, intercede with thy Son, our true God, to save our\nsouls\u2019. If it be of a martyr, \u2018Saint Stephen, who didst shed thy blood for\nChrist, by thy confidence as proto-martyr, intercede for us\u2019. So we say,\nin the case of every martyr who suffered martyrdom. Suchlike are the\nprayers which we address through them. It is not, as you assert, O\nemperor, that we call the martyrs gods. Put away those evil thoughts of\nyours. I charge you, save your own soul from the scandals and the\nimprecations which you receive from all the world: for even the little\nchildren make a mock of you. Go to the children\u2019s schools, and say, \u2018I am\nhe who pull down and drive away pictures\u2019. They will answer by throwing\ntheir slates at your head: and what you have failed to learn from the\nwise, you will be taught by the simple.\n\n\u201cYou write, \u2018Ozias, the Jewish king, took out of the temple, after eight\nhundred years, the brazen serpent: so have I, after eight hundred years,\nexpelled the idols from the churches\u2019. Truly, Ozias was your brother, and\nhad your self-conceit, and tyrannised over the priests of that day, just\nas you do. For holy David carried that serpent into the temple with the\nsacred ark. What was it but a brazen work consecrated by God for those who\nwere then suffering from the bite of serpents: that an image might be\nshown to the people of the prime suggester of sin to the first creature\nformed by God, Adam and Eve, this was set up for the healing of sins. But\nyou, as you boast, after eight hundred years, have cast out from the\nchurches the blessing and consecration of the martyrs, and, as you fairly\nconfessed at first, of set purpose and without necessity, and, lastly, by\nthe subscription of your own hand, put upon your own head their curse.\n\n\u201cNow we, as holding supreme and undoubted authority from St. Peter the\nchief, were minded to rebuke you, but since you have brought the curse\nupon yourself, keep it and share it with your advisers. See to what extent\nyou have broken in upon the edification and good course of others. The\ncharity of Christ knows this. When we enter a church ourselves and behold\nthe picture of our Lord Jesus Christ\u2019s wonderful deeds and of His holy\nMother bearing in her arms and nursing our Lord and our God, and the\nangels standing round them and chanting the Holy, Holy, Holy, we do not\nleave that church without compunction. And, again, who is not touched with\ncompunction and moved to tears when he beholds the baptismal vessels and\nthe circle of priests surrounding, and the mystical supper, and the blind\nrecovering their sight, and the raising of Lazarus, and the healing of the\nleper and the paralytic, and the multitude reclining on the grass, the\nbaskets and the remnants taken up, and the fragments, and the\ntransfiguration on Mount Thabor, the Lord\u2019s crucifixion, His burial, His\nresurrection, His holy ascension, and the descent of the Holy Spirit? Who\nthat beholds the history of Abraham, and the knife approaching the throat\nof his son, is not moved to compunction and tears? In a word, all the\nsufferings of our Lord. It were better for you, emperor, if the choice\nwere offered you, to be called a heretic than the persecutor and destroyer\nof the histories, the pictures, the images, the sufferings of our Lord.\nYet to be called a heretic would be thy misery and thy loss. Let me tell\nyou the difference. The heretic is said to be known, when he is known only\nto few. The scandals he gives are dark, the thoughts perplexed and hard to\ndiscern. Those who enforce them and are destitute of humiliation soon fall\nby their own ignorance and confusion of mind. Their condemnation is not so\ngreat as yours. You have openly pursued things well observed and\nconspicuous as light. You have stripped naked the churches of God. As the\nholy fathers clothed and adorned them you have left them bare and\ntattered. And that, too, when you had no less a pontiff than the lord\nGermanus, our brother and fellow priest. You should have taken his counsel\nas that of a father and teacher, as aged and experienced in matters both\nof Church and State. He is ninety-five years old: he has served one after\nanother patriarch and emperor. He was never dispensed with, for his\nutility in both these services. You disregarded him and called to your\nside that transgressing fool the Ephesian, the son of Apsimar, and his\nlike. For the lord Germanus and the then patriarch George, having informed\nand persuaded Constantine, the son of Constans, the father of Justinian,\nto write to us at Rome, he wrote to us under sanction of an oath, and\nproposed to us fitting men that there should be an ecumenical Council.\n\u2018Nor will I,\u2019 said he, \u2018sit with them as emperor, nor speak as having\ncontrol, but as one of them; and as the pontiffs enact I will execute. And\nthose who hold the right we will receive, and those who hold the wrong we\nwill cast out and banish. If my father perverted anything in the pure and\nblameless faith, I will be the first to lay him under anathema. For it was\nby the grace of God that we sent to you; and the Sixth Council was held in\npeace.\u2019 O emperor, you know that the dogmas of holy church belong not to\nkings but to pontiffs, and require to be infallibly determined. For this\nreason pontiffs have been set over the churches, who abstain from secular\nmatters, and kings equally abstain from matters of the Church and take\ncharge of what is in their hands. The agreement of Christ-loving kings and\nof faithful pontiffs is one power when their administration is ruled by\npeace and charity.\n\n\u201cYou have written in favour of an ecumenical Council being held. To us it\nseems unadvisable. You are he who prosecutes, insults and destroys the\nimages. Give way, and grant us silence, and the world will be at peace,\nand scandals will cease. Suppose that we listen to you, that bishops have\nmet together from all the world, that the Senate and Council have sat.\nWhere is the devoted Christian emperor who is wont by custom to sit at the\nCouncil, to honour those who speak on the right side, to reject those who\nerr from the truth, when you, the emperor, waver, and speak with the\ntongue of barbarians? Know you not that your attack upon the holy images\nis a work of contention, arrogance, and pride? At a moment when the\nchurches of God enjoyed unbroken peace you raised up dissensions,\nenmities, and scandals. Be quiet, rest, and there is no need of a Council.\nWrite to every one and everywhere throughout the world which you have\nscandalised by saying that Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople, and\nGregory, Pope of Rome, have erred respecting the images, and we will bear\nyou scatheless for the sin of your mistake, as having received from God\nauthority to loose things in heaven and things on earth. God is our\nwitness that we have presented all the letters which you have written to\nus to the ears and hearts of the kings of the West, pacifying them in\nrespect of your soul, praising and magnifying you in respects of your\nformer government. Hence they welcomed your imperial letters with the\nhonour due from kings when they had not yet heard of your evil attack upon\nthe images. When they heard and were assured of this, that you had sent\nJovinus, your officer of the guards, to destroy the statue of our Saviour,\ncalled the Witness, by which many miracles have been worked, many women of\nfervent zeal, such as the ointment-sellers, were present, beseeching the\nguardsman not to do it. He heard them not, but planted a a ladder, and\nmounted it, and with three blows of his axe shivered the face of the\nSaviour. The women could not bear that impious act. They drew away the\nladder, clubbed him, and put him to death on the spot. You, zealous for\nevil, sent and slew there I know not how many women, in the presence of\ncompetent witnesses from Rome, from France, from the Vandals, from\nMauritania, from Gothia, and generally from all the countries comprising\nthe interior of the West. When these returned each to his own land and\ntold the story of your revolutionary and childish deeds, they tore down\nyour laurelled letters and defaced your countenance. Lombards and\nSarmatians and other peoples towards the north overran unhappy Decapolis,\nthey took your very metropolis, Ravenna, deposed your magistrates, and\nappointed their own. And they are minded so to do to imperial possessions\nadjoining us, and to Rome, while you are not able to defend us. These are\nthe results of senseless folly. Yet you frighten us and say \u2018I will send\nto Rome and break in pieces the image of St. Peter, nay, and bring up in\nfetters their bishop Gregory, as Constans did to Martin\u2019. And yet you\nshould know and be assured that the pontiffs who in series sit at Rome for\nthe sake of peace are as a middle wall and a fence to the East and to the\nWest, the arbitrators of concord. And the emperors, your predecessors,\nstruggled hard to maintain this peace. And if you bluster and threaten us,\nwe have no need to fight you. Let the Bishop of Rome retreat twenty-four\nstades into Campania and go you, pursue the winds. Our predecessor, the\npontiff Martin, sat for peace-sake exhorting. Thus it was that the evil\nConstans, erroneous in his belief as to the Holy Trinity, and throwing in\nhis aid to the then heretical pontiffs, Sergius and Paul and Pyrrhus, sent\nand kidnapped him and tyrannously brought him up to Byzantium. After many\ncruelties inflicted he banished him, as he inflicted many on Maximus the\nmonk also, and his disciple Anastasius, and banished them to Lazika. And\nConstans, their banisher, was murdered, and died in his sin. And the\ncount, who was the chief of his household, being assured by the bishops of\nSicily that he was a heretic, buried him secretly in the church, and his\ncourse was ended in his sin. But for the blessed Martin, the city in which\nhe was banished bears witness to him, Cherson, and the Bosphorus, and all\nthe North, and the dwellers in the North, by flocking to his tomb and\nreceiving cures.\n\n\u201cMay the Lord think us worthy to go the way of Martin, but for the help of\nthe many we are willing to live, and live on. For all the West has its\neyes fixed upon our humility, if we be not such, but they have a great\nfaith in us, and upon him whose statue you threaten to destroy and sweep\naway, the blessed Peter, whom all the kingdoms of the West look upon as a\ngod upon earth. And if you venture to try the truth of this, the kings of\nthe West are ready even to avenge the easterns whom you have wronged. But,\nwe beseech you in the Lord, turn away from these revolutionary, childish\nactions. You know that you are not able to defend Rome, the very head of\nyour royalty, unless perhaps the mere city from its nearness to the sea\nand a fleet. As I said before, if the Pope go two miles and a half out of\nRome, he fears nothing from you. One thing is our grief: savages and\nbarbarians are civilised; you that are civilised become savage and\nbarbarous. In full assurance of faith the whole West makes its offering to\nthe holy Prince of the Apostles. And if you send to pull down the statue\nof St. Peter, look, we tell you beforehand, not on us be the bloodshed\nwhich will follow. On thy neck and head let it fall. We have just received\nan entreaty from the far West, from one called Septetus, desiring by the\ngrace of God to see our face, that we may give him holy baptism. To avoid\nthe reproach of neglect and slackness we are preparing for the journey.\n\n\u201cMay God cast his fear into your heart and bring you back to the truth\nafter the evils which you have inflicted upon the world. Let me receive\nyour letter announcing your conversion. May the God who came down from\nheaven, and entered into the womb of the holy Virgin, the Mother of God,\nfor the salvation of men, dwell in thy heart and cast out at once those\nwho dwell in thee and have put in scandals; and may He bestow peace upon\nthe Church of all Christians for ever and ever. Amen.\u201d\n\nTo this letter of Pope Gregory II. to Leo the Isaurian must be added a\nsecond, written at some time between the date of the first, in 727, and\nthe date of the Pope\u2019s death in 731. Indeed from some expressions in the\nsecond we may infer that it was sent very shortly after the first.(169)\n\n\u201cWe have received by our legate Rufinus the letter of your God-defended\nMajesty and Brotherhood in Christ. Indeed it is a burden to my life that\nyou have not changed, but persist in the same evils\u2014not having a Christian\nmind, nor being a follower and imitator of our holy and glorious\nwonder-working fathers and teachers. Indeed, foreign teachers I do not\nbring into the field, but those of your own city and country. Are there\nwiser than Gregory the wonder-worker, and Gregory of Nyssa, and Gregory\nthe theologian, and Basil of Cappadocia, and John Chrysostom? not to speak\nof thousands upon thousands like to them of our holy fathers and teachers\ninspired by God. But you have rather followed your self-assurance, and the\npassions of your own heart, when you wrote, \u2018I am priest as well as\nemperor\u2019. This indeed, the emperors before you showed both in word and\ndeed by planting and caring for the churches; in conjunction with the\nbishops seeking out the truth with the desire and zeal of orthodoxy. Such\nwere the great Constantine, the great Theodosius, the great Valentinian,\nand Constantine the father of Justinian II., the man of the Sixth Council.\nThose emperors governed in the spirit of religion, assembling councils in\nunity of mind and purpose with the bishops, searching out truth of\ndoctrine, and so establishing and adorning the holy churches. These are\npriests and emperors; they showed it by their action. But you from the\ntime you took the empire have not kept to the end the boundaries set by\nthe Fathers. You found the churches arrayed in embroidered robes, fringed\nwith gold; you stripped off their ornaments and left them in nakedness.\nFor what are our churches? Are they not things made with hands\u2014stones,\nwood, straw, at best? But they were adorned by pictures and histories,\nportraying the wonders of the saints, the sufferings of our Lord, and of\nHis holy and glorious Mother, and of the holy Apostles. On these histories\nand pictures men spend their substance.\n\n\u201cFathers and mothers, bearing in their arms little children fresh from\nbaptism, leading the youth and those who have come in from the heathen,\npoint with their finger to the histories, build them up in faith, and\ncarry their minds and their hearts aloft to God. You have deprived the\npoor of these things, and have plunged them into idle talk, gossip, songs,\ncastanets, pipings, and trifling. Instead of thanksgiving and glorifying\nyou have taught them to babble. Have your portion with the speakers of\nidle words.\n\n\u201cO emperor, listen to our humility, and cease. Follow holy Church as you\nfound and received it. Dogmas belong not to emperors, but to bishops. It\nis we who have the mind of Christ. One is the discipline of the Church\u2019s\ncommands; another, the perception of secular things. That military,\nill-omened, rude mind, which you have for secular management, you cannot\nuse for the spiritual treatment of doctrine. I point out to you the\ndifference between palace and church, between emperors and pontiffs.\nAcknowledge it, and save yourself, and be not contentious. Were any one to\ntake from you the royal robes, the purple, the diadem, the mantle, the\nseveral marks of rank, you would seem, in the sight of men, unseemly,\nshapeless, worthless; so you have made the churches. As you would then be,\nyou have stripped the churches, and reduced them to tatters. For, just as\nthe pontiff has no authority to enter the palace, and to make royal\nappointments, so the emperor has no authority to enter into the church, to\nmake elections of the clergy, to consecrate and handle the symbols of the\nsacred mysteries, nor even to participate in them without the priest. Let\neach of us remain in the vocation wherein he was called by God. O emperor,\ndo you see the difference between bishops and kings? If any one sins\nagainst you, O emperor, you confiscate his house, and leave him naked of\nall but his life, and, at last, you hang or behead him, or banish him, and\nmake him a stranger to his children, and all his relations and friends.\nPontiffs do not this. But if any one has sinned and confessed, instead of\nhanging and beheading, they put upon his neck the gospel and the cross,\nthey guard him in their treasury, banish him to where the deacons and\ncatechumens attend, put fasting on his stomach, vigil on his eyes,\nthanksgiving on his tongue. And when they have well disciplined and\nchastised him, they set before him the precious Body of the Lord, and give\nhim to drink His holy Blood. And having restored him to be a vessel of\nelection, cleansed from sin, they help him forward, pure and blameless, to\nthe Lord. Emperor, do you see the difference between church and palace?\nEmperors who have reigned piously in Christ have neither disobeyed nor\nafflicted pontiffs. You, O emperor, transgressor and perverter, wrote with\nyour own hand and subscribed, that he who removes the boundaries of the\nFathers is accursed. Therein you condemned yourself, and separated the\nHoly Spirit from you: you punish and tyrannise over us with the soldier\u2019s\narm of flesh. We, unarmed and undefended, having no earthly and carnal\narmies, invoke the sovereign ruler of all creation, Christ, whose seat is\nin heaven, who leads the hosts of the heavenly powers that He may send to\nyou a demon, according to the Apostle\u2019s words, to \u2018deliver over such a one\nto Satan for the destruction of the flesh,\u2019 that the spirit may be saved.\nSee, O emperor, into what a depth of shamelessness and inhumanity you have\nthrust yourself. You have cast your soul into abysses and precipices,\nbecause you would not humble yourself, nor bend your stubborn neck. For,\nwhen bishops, by good instruction and teaching, are able to present kings\nto God blameless, and exempt from errors and faults, they lay up a store\nof praise and glory before Him for the great Resurrection, when God will\nmake manifest our hidden deeds in the presence of His angels. We, the\nhumble, will then be ashamed, not to have reclaimed you through your\ndisobedience. The pontiffs, before us, who each, in his own time, present\ntheir emperors to God, shame our poverty, in that we do not, in our days,\npresent an emperor in honour and glory, but one disgraced and counterfeit.\nOnce again we invite you: repent and be converted: enter into the truth:\nmaintain what you found and received: give honour and glory to our holy\nand renowned fathers and teachers, who, following God\u2019s guidance, opened\nthe blindness of our hearts and eyes, until they recovered sight. Your\nletter said, \u2018Why was nothing said about images in the six Councils?\u2019 Most\ntrue, O emperor, neither was anything said about bread and water, eating\nor not eating, drinking or not drinking. From the very beginning these\nthings were given for the life of man. So, too, were images handed down.\nBishops carried them into councils. No traveller, loving Christ and God,\nwent on a journey without pictures, as men of virtue, and in God\u2019s favour.\nWe pray you become bishop at once, and emperor, as you wrote. If, as\nemperor, you are ashamed to call yourself to account, write to all the\ncountries which you have scandalised, by saying that Gregory, the Pope of\nRome, has erred in the matter of images, and also Germanus, the patriarch\nof Constantinople. Then we take upon ourselves the guilt of your sin, as\nthose who have received from the Lord authority and warrant to loose and\nto bind things on earth and things in heaven. And we will make you without\ncharge as to this. You refuse. We, as those who shall give account to\nChrist our Master, have exhorted, have instructed you, as we were taught\nby the Lord. You recoiled: you refused to obey us, weak as we are: and\nGermanus, your bishop: and our fathers, the holy and glorious\nwonder-workers and teachers. You followed men perverse and rotten, erring\nfrom truth of doctrine. Take your portion with them. As we wrote to you\nbefore, we, by the grace of God, are following the road to the interior of\nthe West for those who seek baptism. I have sent thither bishops and\nclergy of our holy Church. Their princes have received them, and bow their\nheads to be illuminated. They ask for me in person to receive them. On\nthis path, by God\u2019s grace, we are bent: that we may not be condemned for\nneglect.\n\n\u201cMay God grant you understanding and repentance to return to the truth\nwhich you have deserted, and restore the humble populations to Christ, the\nOne Shepherd, and to the one fold of orthodox churches and priests. And\nmay our Lord and God grant peace to the whole world now and for ever and\never. Amen.\u201d\n\nThese letters, which I have given entire, were written at the end of the\nthird decade of the eighth century. They mark the breaking out of the\nIconoclast persecution. They seem to me to give a complete picture not\nmerely of the personal character in the two great factors of the time,\nPope St. Gregory II. and the Isaurian emperor, Leo III., but of the power\nand influence of the Pope and the bishops in the spiritual life, and of\nthe eastern ruler in the civil commonwealth. What the Pope claims, he puts\nforth in the most distinct language, and through all his letters it comes\nout that his predecessors have ever both possessed and exercised it. It is\nmatter of simple history. Again we see incidentally from the words which\nhe uses regarding the images and pictures, that, when he wrote, they were\nas much part of the Church\u2019s ritual as the prayers. To expel them from the\nChurch was at once a complete interference with the inner life and conduct\nof Christians, and also had the effect to make at least in appearance the\nsacred places themselves synagogues and mosques, instead of habitations\nwherein Christ, His holy Mother and the saints had a dwelling. The\nconjunction of tyranny with impiety in Leo\u2019s attempt is made manifest.\n\nAgain, the relation between kings who rule the secular commonwealth, and\nthe Pope, who, with the bishops throughout the world, presides over the\none fold of Christ, is marked as simply and also as decisively as words\ncan mark it. The Pope recognises in the amplest terms the temporal king as\nGod\u2019s minister in his own domain, not a mandatory appointed by the people,\nwho might be called to account by the people, and be deposed at its will,\nbut the image of God, and one who administers the authority of God for the\ngovernment of human society. As simply and as distinctly he mentions\nhimself as holding, by express grant of God, power to bind and to loose\nthings in earth and things in heaven. The king has no more power to enter\nthe Church and touch the things of God therein than he himself has to\nenter the palace, and make appointments in matters of State. But there is\nthis great difference\u2014he has to answer for the conduct of kings in\nspiritual matters. Kings have to answer for how they treat him; but cannot\ncall him to account for his administration of the divine power committed\nto him. In all things that concern sin the spiritual supremacy is\ncomplete. Its giver is God alone, and to God alone it is subject. This\nroot of the spiritual power is brought out by the whole tenor of his\nwords, in which the exact medi\u00e6val relation of the two powers is\nimplicitly contained. The supreme minister of God in temporal things is\nthe first son, but likewise the subject of the Church in spiritual things.\nIn all this Pope Gregory II. in the year 727 may be said exactly to repeat\nwhat Pope Gelasius said in the year 494, both unarmed Popes speaking to\nemperors, lords of armies and absolute in civil power.\n\nThe relation between East and West is also very distinctly stated. The\nEast lies crouching almost helpless beneath an unalloyed despotism, whilst\nall the nations of the West look up to St. Peter in Rome \u201cas a God upon\nearth\u201d. When this was written just ninety years had passed since the\nsepulchre of Christ had fallen into subjection to the infidel and no less\nanti-Christian Saracen. The pilgrims who could no longer go to the\nsepulchre of Christ went to the sepulchre of the fisherman, and saw in the\nstatue of St. Peter in his own Basilica the symbol of Christ reigning. But\nlikewise all the kings of the West looked upon the successor of St. Peter\nas no less seated on the throne of justice, of peace, of concord, of\ncharity, than as the supreme oracle of the Christian faith. What the\npatriarch Sophronius had said of him in the agony of the holy city before\nthe impure Omar, the nations of the West knew and felt him to be. As Leo\nIII. threatened to destroy the statue of Peter, so they went to him for\nbaptism, so their kings were already buried in peace beneath the shadow of\nthe Vatican. In 716, the year before the accession of Leo III., Theodon,\nDuke of Bavaria, came to Rome, being the first German prince who made a\npilgrimage to the tomb of the apostles, as later on in 726, the very year\nin which the nefarious proceedings of Leo III. began, Ina, king of Wessex,\nwith his queen Ethelberga came and began the school of the English in\nRome, and made his land tributary to the Romescot.(170) So Constantine the\nBearded had acknowledged the authority which his successor was trying to\ndiminish, while he sought to reduce the Christian Church, instinct with\nthe presence, the miracles, the sufferings of our Lord, His Mother, and\nHis Saints, to the bareness of the Jewish synagogue and the Mohammedan\nmosque.\n\nIt may be observed also that the Pope associates his own office with that\nof bishops throughout the world, especially with that of Germanus, as\nbishop of the imperial city. In his mind the bishops belong to the Pope,\nand the Pope no less to the bishops. There is no jealousy of them in his\nsupremacy, nor of him in their subordinate jurisdiction. He censures Leo\nIII. for not consulting his patriarch, Germanus. The authority which he so\nclearly describes is one and the same in the whole episcopate, where St.\nGregory II. himself according to the language used three centuries before\nof St. Leo the Great is \u201cprinceps episcopalis coron\u00e6\u201d.\n\nAll these things come out not in the way of controversy but in an\nuncontroversial and authoritative exhortation of a Pope to an emperor. The\nPope is clad in spiritual armour only in the midst of a captive province;\nthe emperor is the master of fleets and legions behind the walls of\nConstantine.\n\nNo history written afterwards at a distance of time could set forth these\nthings with so great a force as the words of a Pope issued to the chief\nactor in a desperate struggle at the very beginning of the conflict. The\nimmediate result is to be noted. In the year 730 the emperor, finding that\nhe could not make Germanus, the nonagenarian patriarch of Constantinople,\nfurther his design in stripping the churches of their ornament, deposed\nhim and put a compliant instrument in his stead, Anastasius, a priest and\nofficer of the great Church, who held the see three and twenty years to\nthe time of Leo\u2019s son Kopronymus, with what effect and what ending will be\nafterwards seen. St. Gregory II. died in 731. In the four years which\nelapsed from the first letter to his death he was rewarded for it by the\nemperor Leo in five attempts to have him murdered. All these attempts were\nfrustrated by the fidelity of those about the Pope, and by the awakened\nsolicitude of the Italian people, who saw in Leo the most cruel and\nremorseless of tyrants, in Gregory not only the champion of their faith,\nbut the defender of their temporal well-being, of every moral as well as\nreligious liberty.(171)\n\nThe Greek chronographer, Theophanes, the main part of whose life belongs\nto this same eighth century, calls Pope Gregory II. \u201cthe most holy\napostolic man, the assessor(172) of Supreme Peter in his chair,\nconspicuous in word and deed\u201d. His resistance to the rude soldier on the\neastern throne won him great praise from the subjects of that throne. The\nrude soldier met him only with scorn and violence, as he met the murmuring\nof his people. Greece itself had taken arms in defence of its violated\nchurches. Leo, by means of the Greek fire, destroyed the fleet of the\ninsurgent Cyclades, and punished with the utmost severity his opponents in\nthe capital. He carried on with greater violence the attack on the images.\nIn many cases it passed on to the relics. The patriarch Germanus made one\nmore attempt to persuade the emperor. He reminded the emperor of the oath\ntaken at his coronation to maintain the faith of the Fathers. This brought\nmatters to an open breach. St. John of Damascus attests that \u201cthe blessed\nGermanus, distinguished in his life and his words, was scourged and\nbanished\u201d. Another Greek historian, Cedrenus, adds that the emperor called\nhim an idolater and struck with his own hands the patriarch of ninety\nyears, who laid upon the altar of the great church the omophorion, the\nsymbol of his rank, and departed into exile, with the words, \u201cIf I am\nJonas, cast me into the sea, but I cannot touch the faith without a\nGeneral Council be held\u201d. Germanus had sat for fifteen years; St. John\nChrysostom and he the noblest who ever sat on that perilous throne. He\nretired to his paternal house, and did not cease his courageous struggle\nagainst the Iconoclast. He died in most extreme old age, it is supposed in\n740.\n\nThe destruction of the images proceeded with brutal violence. Leo was not\ncontent with destroying them, but likewise ruined the finest works of art.\nThe new patriarch, Anastasius, priest and syncellus of Sancta Sophia, who\nhad played the traitor to the man in whose place the emperor had intruded\nhim, acted with the emperor in all his violence. Bishops were persecuted\nas idolaters, and above all the monks, who practised painting. The schools\ndirected by them perished almost entirely. Leo is even said to have burnt\nthe famous library with the twelve monks and their superior who presided\nover it. The imperial edict found no execution in the East only, under\nSaracenic domination, where the great theologian, John of Damascus, openly\nopposed the Iconoclasts, as the Pope had; like whom he censured the\nimperial despotism in religious matters. \u201cIt belongs not to kings,\u201d said\nhe, \u201cto lay down laws for the Church. The Apostle said, \u2018God has placed in\nthe Church first apostles, then prophets, thirdly, pastors and teachers\nfor the perfection of the Church\u2019; he did not go on to say kings. And,\nagain, \u2018Obey those set over you and be subject to them, for they watch\nover you, as those who will give account for your souls\u2019. And further,\n\u2018Remember your prelates, who have spoken the word of God to you, whose\nfaith follow, considering; the end of their conversation\u2019. Not kings, but\napostles and prophets, pastors and doctors spoke the word to you. When God\nhad commanded David concerning building Him a house, He said afterwards to\nhim, \u2018Thou shalt not build Me a house, because thou art a man of blood\u2019.\nThe Apostle Paul cried out, \u2018Tribute to whom tribute is due; custom to\nwhom custom; fear to whom fear; honour to whom honour\u2019. To kings belong\nprosperity of the body politic; the regimen of the Church to pastors and\nteachers. This, brethren, is the invasion of a robber. Saul rent the\nmantle of Samuel. What was the retribution? God rent the kingdom from him\nand gave it to David, the meekest of men. Jezabel persecuted Elias; swine\nand dogs licked up her blood, and harlots washed themselves in it. Herod\nslew John, and died eaten up of worms. And now the blessed Germanus,\nillustrious in life and word, has been scourged and banished with many\nother bishops and fathers, whose names we know not. Is not this a robber\u2019s\nact? \u2018The Lord, when scribes and Pharisees drew near to tempt Him, that\nthey might entangle Him in His talk, and asked Him, is it lawful to give\ntribute to C\u00e6sar. He answered, bring Me the coin: when they brought it He\nsaid, whose image is this? They answered, C\u00e6sar\u2019s. And He said, Give then\nto C\u00e6sar the things of C\u00e6sar, and to God the things of God.\u2019 We yield to\nyou, O emperor, in the things that are secular, tribute, custom, gifts. As\nto these our substance is in your hands. But in the regimen of the Church\nwe have pastors who have spoken to us the word, and have formed\necclesiastical legislation; we remove not the ancient boundaries which our\nfathers have set us, but we hold to the traditions as we have received\nthem. For, if we begin to pull about in the smallest thing the structure\nof the Church, the whole will come to pieces bit by bit.\u201d(173)\n\nWhile Leo III. was thus violently proscribing and executing the defenders\nof the Church\u2019s rights in the East, St. Gregory II. at Rome censured his\ninterference with the faith, but maintained his sovereignty as emperor in\nItaly. He had much ado to keep the peoples of Italy within imperial\nallegiance. When Anastasius, the intruded heretical patriarch of\nConstantinople, sent the letter announcing his succession to Gregory, the\nPope rejected it. The personal acts of the emperor against his life did\nnot move him from his settled purpose. The guardsman Marinus was sent as\nduke to Rome with orders to kill the Pope, or at least to take him\nprisoner. He could do nothing. A second attempt was made by the Duke\nBasil, in conjunction with the chartular Jordanes and the sub-deacon John.\nA third under the exarch Paul, who caused troops to march against Rome.\nRomans and Tuscans encountered them and made them retreat. Duke Basil had\nto save his life by taking refuge in a monastery. The Romans frustrated\nthe further attempts of the exarch, and compelled the Pope to assume the\nfull government of Rome, while the emperor intended to depose him and put\na compliant tool in his place. Venice, Ravenna, and the five cities of the\nPentapolis, under support of the Lombards, chose themselves dukes,\nrenounced obedience to the exarch, and declared themselves for the cause\nof the Pope. The purpose of the Italians was to choose themselves a new\nemperor and advance upon Constantinople. Only the fidelity and the\nprudence of the Pope, who still hoped for the emperor\u2019s amendment,\nprevented the execution of this project.\n\nThe Lombard king, Liutprand, thought it was just the opportunity for which\nhe was waiting to extend his monarchy in central Italy. Exhilaratus,\nimperial prefect at Naples, with his son Adrian, got possession of part of\nCampania, and set the people against the Pope; but the Romans attacked\nthem, and after a furious battle slew them both. They chased the duke\nPeter from Rome. In the territory of Ravenna it came to a fierce struggle\nbetween the Italians on the Pope\u2019s side and the imperials, in which the\nexarch Paul lost his life. The Lombards took many cities, especially in\nthe Pentapolis, and well nigh put an end to the imperial dominion there.\nKing Liutprand advanced as far as Sutri, took it, but a hundred and forty\ndays later bestowed it upon the Apostles Peter and Paul, that is, the\nRoman Church. This was in the year 727. It is reckoned by some the first\nbeginning of the State of the Church.(174)\n\nThen it lay in the hand of the Pope to put an end to Byzantine dominion in\ncentral Italy. The exarchate was in Liutprand\u2019s possession. Had Gregory\nII. come to terms with him, the Pope would have obtained a free hand over\nthe duchy of Rome. It already refused tribute to the emperor; in arms\nrepulsed his troops, frustrated the repeated attempts upon the freedom and\nlife of Gregory II., and bound itself under oath to protect him. The city\nof Rome expelled the imperial duke, and seems to have given itself a\nmunicipal government. It was the desire of the cities on the Adriatic to\nsubstitute an orthodox for an heretical emperor. Had the Pope put himself\nat the head of this revolt, the emperor\u2019s power was at an end. He did it\nnot. He maintained the purity and the freedom of the faith against\nimperial interference; but he urged the population to continue their\nallegiance to the sovereign. No stronger proof of this can be given than a\nletter of the Pope to Ursus, doge of Venice, in these words: \u201cGregory, the\nbishop, servant of the servants of God, to Ursus, duke of Venice. Since by\nsinful action the city of Ravenna, the head of all, has been captured by\nthat unutterable race of Lombards, and our son, the noble lord the exarch,\nis, as we know, sojourning at Venice, your nobility should support him,\nand maintain his cause, as we do, that the city of Ravenna may return to\nthe former condition of the sacred commonwealth, as belonging to the\ndomain of our lords and sons, the high emperors Leo and Constantine. So by\nthe help of the Lord we may be able to remain firm, by zeal and love to\nour holy faith, in the commonwealth and the imperial service. God preserve\nyou in safety, beloved son.\u201d(175)\n\nThis conduct could not fail to endanger the Pope\u2019s position with king\nLiutprand. In the year 728 the strangest scene of this perplexed time took\nplace. The Lombard king appeared with his host before Rome. Pope Gregory\nII. visited him in his camp, and exercised such influence over him that\nthe king desisted from the siege, went as pilgrim to the Apostle\u2019s tomb,\nand left as gifts there his crown, his arms, and his mantle.\n\nSuch events as these fill up the last four years of Gregory II. The result\nwas what we might expect. Lord of Rome the emperor was called; Pope\nGregory II. became in fact a glorious beginning of the papal rule. Not\nreckless force, not ambitious struggle and self-seeking formed the basis\nof this rule, but the free voice of the population in return for real\nprotection, for duty steadfastly fulfilled, for never-failing courage,\nfirm belief, and holy life. Put on the one hand the struggles, the fierce\nenmities, the treacheries, the revolts, the scenes of blood, the shifting\nof parties evoked by the Iconoclast storm in Italy and Rome, threatened by\nthe two antagonists, Greeks and Lombards; and on the other hand the great\nactivity of Pope Gregory II. in his own spiritual domain. And then\nestimate the Pope who repulsed Leo III. in his attack upon the Church\u2019s\nindefeasible rights, but maintained him as emperor; who fostered St.\nBoniface, enabling him by erecting a united hierarchy to lay the\nfoundation of a Germany, one and Christian. We may fairly place the second\nGregory by the side of the first for prudence, for courage, for insight,\nfor the sagacity of a ruler in the person of a saint. The great annalist\nhas even said of him, \u201cIf what he wrote were extant, and what he did had\nbeen more carefully recorded, he would be thought no less than Gregory the\nGreat\u201d.(176)\n\nOn the 11th February, 731, St. Gregory II. closed a pontificate as\nrenowned in its present action, as fruitful in its results. While the\nclergy and laity stood beside his coffin, they chose his successor, who\nwas consecrated thirty-five days later, when the consent of the exarch was\nbrought from Ravenna, this being the last time it was given by a viceroy\nof the Greek emperor.(177)\n\nConcerning this Pope, Anastasius writes:\u2014\u201cGregory III., a Syrian by\nnation, son of John. He sat ten years, two months, and twenty days. A man\nmost meek and most wise, well instructed in the holy Scriptures, knowing\nboth the Greek and Latin tongues. He knew all the psalms by heart, in\ntheir order, and was exceedingly skilful in their meaning by his long\nstudy of them. He was a polished speaker, an exhorter to all good works, a\nfavourite popular preacher, a maintainer of the Catholic and Apostolic\nfaith immutilate, who, by his fatherly warnings, ceased not to strengthen\nthe hearts of the faithful, a fearless and zealous defender of orthodoxy:\na lover of poverty, providing solicitously for those in want, not only\nwith piety, but with careful pains. Redeemer of captives, generous\nsupporter of orphans and widows: a lover of the religious life, so, by\nGod\u2019s help, he reached the sacred order of the priesthood. Upon him the\nRomans, moved from the highest to the lowest by an inspiration from\nheaven, while he was absorbed in devotion beside the coffin of his\npredecessor, suddenly laid their hands and chose him for pontiff. It was\nin the times of the emperors Leo and Constantine, in the midst of that\npersecution which they set up, for the casting down and destruction of the\nsacred images of our Lord Jesus Christ and the holy Mother of God, of the\napostles, and all saints and confessors. The same most holy man issued\nwritings with the vigour of the Apostolic See, like as his predecessor of\nholy memory had done, to move them to repentance, and to put away this\nerror.\u201d\n\nAnastasius then records how the emperor had imprisoned his messenger in\nSicily. \u201cWhereupon the pontiff, with greater zeal, attended by the\narchbishops of Grado and Ravenna, with other bishops of the western part,\nto the number of ninety-three, held a Council at the sacred confession of\nSt. Peter\u2019s most holy body, with all the clergy and the people, and passed\na decree, that if henceforth there be any who, despising those who\nfaithfully retain the ancient usage of the Apostolic Church, pull down,\ndestroy, profane, or blaspheme the veneration of the Sacred Images, that\nis, of our God and Lord Jesus Christ, of His Ever-Virgin Mother, the\nimmaculate and glorious Mary, of the blessed apostles, and of all saints,\nhe be debarred from the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ, that is,\nfrom the unity and structure of the whole Church. This they all solemnly\nconfirmed with their subscriptions.\u201d(178)\n\nWhile the emperor replied to the Council\u2019s decree by imprisoning the papal\nbearer of it for a year in Sicily, the position of Pope Gregory III. was\none of great difficulty in respect to the Lombard duchies of Benevento and\nSpoleto. They desired to be set free from their loose connection with King\nLiutprand, who, on his part, desired their complete subordination to\nhimself. To the Pope their maintenance was of great importance. Thence\narose a web of party-shiftings, treaties, and counter treaties, which\nencompasses the whole later history of the Lombard kingdom.\n\nThe archbishop of Ravenna had taken part in the Council at Rome, and his\ncity was as much opposed to the emperor\u2019s godless attempts as was Rome.\nLeo III. resolved to be avenged upon the Pope and Italy. He put a great\nfleet under the command of the Duke Manes, and ordered him to sack\nRavenna, to treat the cities of the Pentapolis as rebels, to march on\nRome, to destroy the images there, to treat without mercy those who\nattempted to defend them, to seize the Pope, and bring him in fetters to\nConstantinople. But storms deranged these plans. A hurricane fell upon the\nfleet as it was in sight of Ravenna. Part of it was sunk with all the\ncrews: part managed to reach an arm of the Po, close to the city. Manes\ndisembarked troops from it, and went against Ravenna. The people took\narms, with the bishop at their head: whilst the women and old men went in\nsackcloth and ashes through the streets in supplication; the young marched\nout against the enemy, and drew him into an ambuscade. The Greeks flew to\ntheir ships, many of which were sunk, and the 26th June, 733, was kept as\na perpetual festival in Ravenna: while, for six years out of hatred to the\nGreeks the conquerors would eat no fish from that arm of the river.\n\nLeo became furious at this reverse: he redoubled his cruelty on the\ndefenders of images, and since he could hurt the Roman Church in no other\nway, he confiscated all the possessions of the Church in his realm. In the\nwords of Theophanes,(179) \u201cThat opponent of God, roused to a greater\nmadness, and indulging further in his Arabian mind, imposed capitation\ntaxes on the third part of Calabria and Sicily. Moreover, he ordered to be\npaid to the public treasury the so-named patrimonies of the holy chief\napostles honoured at Rome, three golden talents and a-half, which had been\npaid of old to the churches, and he subjected to inspection and enrolment\nthe male children, as Pharaoh did of old to the Hebrews: what not even his\nteachers, the Arabs, had done to the Christians in the East.\u201d\n\nBut he did a great deal more and a worse thing not noted by Theophanes. By\nan arbitrary act of secular despotism he severed from the jurisdiction of\nthe Roman patriarch not only Calabria and Sicily, but the ten Illyrian\nprovinces, Epirus, Illyricum, Macedonia, Thessaly, Achaia\u2014that is present\nGreece\u2014Dacia, M\u00e6sia, Dardania, Pr\u00e6valis, and attached them to the\npatriarchate of Constantinople. By this act its jurisdiction became\nco-extensive with the eastern empire, and the patriarch ecumenical in that\nsense of the Greek word which considered their own empire as pre-eminently\nthe world, the land that is inhabited by men, as contra-distinguished from\nthe land foraged by barbarians.\n\nThe patriarch to whom this honour accrued was that Anastasius who had been\nput by force into the place of the deposed Germanus, and was afterwards\nscourged and deposed by the same force under Leo\u2019s son and successor,\nKopronymus.\n\nCalabria and Sicily returned to the jurisdiction of the Pope as patriarch\nwhen the eastern emperor lost his dominion in them. The other provinces\nremained under the jurisdiction of Constantinople, the gift of an\nheretical emperor to a patriarch raised by him as his instrument to the\necumenical throne and at last deposed by his son as an instrument of\nlittle value.\n\nIn this act we see the completion of the aggression begun in the year 381,\nwhich attempted to give to the see of Constantinople the second rank in\nthe Church. The sees of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem have sunk under\nit, but they have fallen into Saracen domination, and are little more than\nnames; the diminished empire has in its capital the only real patriarch,\nand seeks to indemnify him for eastern losses by severing ten provinces\nfrom the patriarchal jurisdiction of Rome, under which they had been from\nthe beginning of the Christian hierarchy. And Nova Roma, halved it is true\nin its secular extension, and trembling at the perpetual aggression of the\nMohammedan chalif, beholds at length its patriarch standing over against\nthe elder Rome as the chief instrument of imperial despotism in spiritual\nthings.\n\nLeo III. consciously completes the structure which Theodosius unwittingly\nbegan. The exaltation of the see of the capital is from beginning to end\nthe work of imperial power, and this special character bears out to the\nfull the denunciation of it by St. Gregory the Great in his own time, when\nhe called the bishop\u2019s assumed title \u201ca name of blasphemy and diabolical\npride, and a forerunner of anti-Christ\u201d.(180)\n\nFurther, the acts of Leo III. in 733 are unanimously viewed by historians\nas having a large effect in the deliverance of Italy from the eastern\nsovereignty, and his arrogation of the power to sever from the Pope,\npatriarch, a large extent of provinces is viewed no less as a prelude to\nthe great schism between the East and West. The remaining years of Gregory\nIII. are filled up with his embarrassing position between the Lombard\nduchies of Benevento and Spoleto and Liutprand aiming at uniting Italy in\na Lombard monarchy, whereby the Pope should become his subject as before\nhe had been a subject of the Goths. From the moment when king Liutprand\nresumed more decidedly his plan against the Greek possessions and\ntherefore against the duchy of Rome, he was bound to endeavour to end the\nindependence of the two outlying Lombard duchies. But at the same time the\nalliance between these duchies and the papacy became a political\nnecessity.\n\nIn the year 738 Liutprand took the field. He began with incursions into\nthe territory of Ravenna, and invited the dukes of Spoleto and Benevento\nto attack the duchy of Rome. They refused, since, as Pope Gregory III. in\none of his letters informs us, they had declared that they would not take\nthe field against God\u2019s holy Church and her people, with whom they had\nentered into covenant. Thereupon the king made war against his disobedient\nliegemen. While he laid waste the possessions of the Church in the\nterritory of Ravenna, he sat down before Spoleto in the spring of 739 with\na considerable force. Duke Thrasimund could not resist and fled to Rome.\nIn June the king entered Spoleto. He compelled Benevento to receive his\nnephew Gregory for duke. At the same time he drew the exarch to his\ninterest, to whom the Pope\u2019s independence had long been odious. The\nconfused accounts of annalists and historians make it difficult, if not\nimpossible, to establish particular events in chronological accuracy. And\nthe greatest uncertainty lies upon one of these events which is of\nparticular importance, since it would secure for us an adequate reason for\nthe Pope\u2019s conduct. Liutprand is said immediately after the taking of\nSpoleto to have appeared before Rome, demanding that the fugitive duke\nshould be delivered up to him. Encamped in the meadows of Nero, beside the\nVatican, he plundered St. Peter\u2019s, laid waste the neighbourhood, and made\nmany Romans prisoners. It is certain that he took four cities in the\nTuscan part of the Roman duchy, Amelia, Ortes, Bomarzo, and Bleda, as\nhostages for Duke Thrasimund.\n\nThe Pope was in the utmost danger of being speedily swallowed up by the\nencircling Lombard monarchy. Another siege of Rome, perhaps its capture,\nwas to be immediately expected. The Lombard duchies were unable to repulse\nthe Lombard king: for defence the emperor was impotent. He could send a\nfleet to ravage the imperial metropolis of Italy; he could not defend the\nancient mistress and maker of his empire: from whom he still took a title,\nwhich seemed a mockery. The Lombard threatened to dethrone Leo and make\nthe Pope his subject. The dread of sacrificing the Church\u2019s independence\ndrove St. Gregory III. to the last and sole remaining refuge.\n\nThe relations(181) of the Franks to Rome had been various since the\nemperor Maximian had received the Salian Franks into the number of Rome\u2019s\nallies. After the victory over Syagrius, near Soissons, Clovis had raised\nup the Gallic-Frankish kingdom upon the ruins of Roman and Visigoth\ndominion. When baptised by St. Remigius, Clovis had become the first\nCatholic king in the midst of northern peoples attached to Arianism. This\nhad brought him into manifold connection with the Holy See. In the time of\nPope Gregory II., the conversion to the faith of Germany, from the Rhine\nas far as Saxony and Thuringia, not only relied for support, but had its\nroot in the Frankish kingdom, and bound it still closer with the Papacy.\nThere were also connections of another sort. As far back as the year 577,\nthe emperor Justin II., conscious of his own impotence, had given to the\nmessenger from Rome, soliciting help against Lombard aggression, for\nanswer, either to seek to gain one of the Lombard dukes, or, if that\nfailed, to draw the Franks to make a diversion by an expedition into\nItaly. The emperor Mauritius had himself made use of these means. From the\nyear 584, king Childebert had been induced, by Byzantine invitation and\ngold, to undertake four campaigns against the Lombards. But it was\nreserved to a stronger family than his to co-operate in producing a great\nchange south of the Alps. At the head of a people formed by the\nconjunction of various races amalgamated out of Germans, Gauls, and\nRomans, there grew up, in spite of sundry partial divisions, the mass of a\nmighty monarchy, north of the Alps. The weakness of the larger number of\nthe kings who succeeded Clovis caused the chief officers of the crown to\nincrease in strength. The lower the Merovingians sank, the higher rose the\nsons of Pipin, from the banks of the Meuse, until they equalled and\noutgrew the effete race. By the end of the first quarter of the eighth\ncentury, Charles Martell, Major Domus, first of the Austrasian, and then\nof the Neustrian-Frankish realm, had all power in his hands. In October,\n732, he had won a greater merit from all the West than, perhaps, even\nAetius and the Visigoth kings had gained. They had repulsed the vast\nMongol mass at Chalons: he, by Tours, in a bloody battle, had set bounds\nfor ever to the advance of the Arabians, overflooding Gaul after the\nconquest of Spain. He threw them back upon the uttermost south of Gaul,\nfrom which, after many a battle, they were forced to recross the Pyrenees.\n\nTo Charles Martell, shining in the lustre of that great victory which\nsaved the West from Mohammed, as Leo III. prevented his entrance into\nConstantinople, the beleagured Pope turned from the cruel yet impotent\ntyranny of Leo, and the pretension of the encroaching Lombard. And his own\nwords, at the moment of trial, will better express his situation than any\nothers which can be put in his mouth:\u2014(182)\n\n\u201cWe have thought it necessary to write again to your Excellency for the\nexcessive grief which is in our heart, and for our tears, confiding that\nyou are a loving son of St. Peter, prince of the apostles, and ours also,\nand that from reverence to him you will listen to our charge for the\ndefence of God\u2019s Church, and his own peculiar people: we, who can no\nlonger endure the persecution and oppression of the Lombard race. They\nhave taken from us all the lights in St. Peter\u2019s Church, which were given\nby your relations or yourself. Next to God, we take refuge in you: for\nthis the Lombards oppress and make a mock of us. St. Peter\u2019s Church is\nstripped, and reduced to utter desolation. But we have rather confided the\ndetails of our sorrows to your liegeman, the bearer of this, which he may\npresent by word of mouth. O my son, may the Prince of the Apostles deal\nwith thee now and in the future life before our Almighty God, as thou\ndisposest and contendest with all speed for his Church and our defence,\nthat all nations may know your fidelity, your pure intention, the love\nwhich you bear to the Prince of the Apostles, to us, and to his peculiar\npeople, by your zeal and your defence of us. And by it you will also gain\neternal life.\u201d\n\nEither with this letter, or before it, the Pope had sent to Charles\nMartell the keys of St. Peter\u2019s Confession, together with rich presents.\nHis messengers were received with great honour, but no actual help in\nsoldiers came. It is supposed that Charles Martell was then engaged,\ntogether with Eudo, Duke of Aquitania, in expelling the Saracens from\nSouthern France.\n\nThe acts of Leo III., as an open enemy of the Pope\u2019s spiritual power, by\nhis completion of the Byzantine patriarch\u2019s usurped jurisdiction in the\nyear 733, as above described, thus precede, by about five years, the\nappeal made to Charles Martell, by Gregory III., in the face of the\nadvancing Lombard king, Liutprand, on the one hand, and the absence of any\nprotection by the emperor on the other.\n\nSuch was the uncertain position of things when, in the year 741, the three\ngreat actors were withdrawn from this life, Leo III., on the 18th June,\nCharles Martell, on the 24th October, Gregory III., on the 27th November.\n\nOf what this most noble Pope did for Rome, Anastasius gives a long\naccount. If the Romans loved and admired him as a cardinal priest, they\nloved and admired him no less as Pontiff to the end. While fully\nacknowledging still the sovereignty of the eastern emperor, a man as\nunworthy of the loyalty which bound the Pope to him, as a sovereign could\nbe, the Pope neither by his heresy nor by his tyranny was induced to\nrenounce him. He did, indeed, one great and momentous act. He sent to\nCharles Martell the keys of St. Peter\u2019s Confession, conjuring him in the\nname and person of the Apostle, to save his city from the Lombard robber:\nthe city which its sovereign was neither able nor willing to save: the\ncity on which the robber was descending with the utmost force. It is\nsupposed that Charles Martell was engaged in battle with the Saracens in\nSouthern France at the time. The Pope sent a second time, to the great\nleader, the Hammer of the infidel, the Liberator of the Christian. What\ntook place is not exactly known: but the Lombard king, Liutprand, retired\nin the month of August, 739, from the siege of Rome with his army to\nPavia, and helped Charles Martell against the Saracens, who had again\ninvaded Provence. Then also Rome was saved by her pontiff from becoming a\nLombard prey.\n\nOnce more towards the end of 741, Liutprand was preparing a new expedition\nagainst Rome and its duchy, when Rome lost, on the 27th November, St.\nGregory III., its pontiff, prince, and champion. At Constantinople, Leo\nIII. had been succeeded by his son, Kopronymus, whom the Greek Zonaras\ncalls, \u201ca cub more cruel than his sire\u201d. Rome seemed covered by a terrible\ntempest: France had been deprived not a month before of Charles Martell.\nAll minds were in fearful expectation, when a star of peace appeared on\nthe horizon. There rose up one who, by the force of his mind and the\nunsparing risk of his own person, was to preserve Italy during ten years\nfrom the destruction which seemed impending.\n\nUpon the death of Pope Gregory III., the Roman chair was filled in four\ndays. The usual three days having been devoted to the solemn funeral of\nthat Pope, the electors, on the fourth day, which was Sunday, the 2nd\nDecember, met in the Lateran palace, and immediately united their votes on\nthe person of Zacharias, and he was consecrated the same day. Two things\ncombined to bring about this rapid election and ordination, one the\nextraordinary merit of the elected, the other the extreme urgency of the\npublic need, as Rome, with its provinces, was threatened by King\nLiutprand. The confirmation by the exarch, that token of imperial\noppression, was not waited for. Zacharias was the last of those\nillustrious orientals of whom a series at this time occupied the Roman\nChair. Though born in Italy, being a native of the Calabrian city, St.\nSeverina, he was Greek by lineage. Of him and of his predecessor, Photius\nhimself, the leader of the Greek schism, has left written, \u201cHow could I\npass over in silence the two Roman prelates, Gregory and Zacharias, who\nwere eminent for their virtue, who contributed to increase the flock of\nChrist by their teaching full of divine wisdom, who were even conspicuous\nby the divine gift of miracles?\u201d Of Zacharias, the character given by\nAnastasius is, \u201ca man most meek and gentle, adorned with every goodness, a\nlover of the clergy and all the Roman people, slow to anger and quick to\nmercy, rendering to no man evil for evil, nor punishing according to\ndesert, but from the time of his ordination made kind and tender to all:\nso that he returned good for evil to his former persecutors, both\npromoting and enriching them\u201d. During ten years, Zacharias, by his wisdom\nand personal influence, kept at bay the three Lombard kings, Liutprand,\nRachis, and Aistulf, who seemed on the point of completing the\nlong-fostered ambition of their people by the absorption of Rome into a\nbarbarian kingdom. The whole time is a contest of mind against matter, of\nright against encroachment. We learn, by the very words of these Popes,\nthat even in the eighth century the radical opposition between Romans and\nLombards continued still as in the time of the first invasion under\nAlboin. The end of the Lombards was to make themselves lords of all Italy:\nthat of the Romans, to prevent themselves passing under a barbarian yoke.\nTrue peace there could never be between them. A truce, liable at any time\nto be broken, was all that could subsist.\n\nThree times at least in the ten years of his pontificate, Zacharias\nrepeated, with Lombard kings, the action of his great predecessor, Leo,\nwith Attila. Liutprand, after thirty years of reign, was consolidating his\nkingdom by the reduction of the two Lombard dukedoms, Spoleto and\nBenevento. Bent upon gaining Rome, when he had subdued Spoleto, free from\nthe check of Charles Martell, secure of the East by the contested\nsuccession to Leo of his son, Kopronymus, Liutprand was at Terni. Thither\nPope Zacharias resolved to go in person, accompanied by a train of clergy.\nLiutprand received the Pope with great honour, and the result of a long\ninterview was that he agreed to restore to the Pope four cities of the\nRoman duchy which he had taken. He likewise gave back the patrimony of\nSabina, which he had seized thirty years before, and made peace with the\nRoman duchy for twenty years. The Pope returned as it were in triumph to\nRome, was received with exultation, and ordered a procession of\nthanksgiving from the Church of St. Mary of the Martyrs, that is, the\nPantheon, to St. Peter\u2019s. This was in his first year, 742.\n\nBut the next year, 743, Liutprand broke out against the exarchate: and\nEutychius, the exarch, with the archbishop of Ravenna, and the other\ncities of Emilia and the Pentapolis, had no better resource than to\nbeseech the Pope to succour them. The Pope, accepting the request, sent\ntwo legates to the king with gifts, beseeching him to cease hostility with\nthe Ravennese. But they accomplished nothing.\n\nThen the Pope left Rome to the government of the Duke Stephen, and, with\nhis train of clergy, went in person to Ravenna. The archbishop met him\nfifty miles from the city. The people welcomed him with cries, \u201cto the\nshepherd who left his own sheep to deliver us who were about to perish\u201d.\nBut the Pope insisted upon going on to Pavia itself, in spite of the\nobjections of king Liutprand to receive him. Disregarding every risk, he\nreached the Po on the 28th June, where he met the Lombard nobles sent to\nattend him; and, on the 20th, he celebrated Mass on the feast of the chief\nApostle in the church of St. Peter, called the Golden Ceiling, wherein was\nthe shrine of St. Augustine: whose body Liutprand himself had brought from\nSardinia.\n\nKing Liutprand then received the Pope with great honour in his palace. The\nPope pressed him not to attack the province of Ravenna, but to restore its\ncities. The king, after great resistance, consented to leave the province\nof Ravenna as it was before. The king then accompanied the Pope to the\nriver, and sent his chief captains with him on his return, who restored\nthe territories of Ravenna, and the castle of Cesena.\n\nSo the Pope disarmed a second time the most powerful of the Lombard kings,\nand saved the exarchate for the empire. From that time Liutprand lived in\npeace with the Romans and the Ravennese. He did not live to receive the\nreport of the ambassadors whom he had sent to Constantinople to inform the\nemperor of the peace thus given to Ravenna. He closed in the next year,\n744, his reign of thirty-two years, the longest in the Lombard series, and\nthat in which the Lombard kingdom most developed its power. It must be\nconfessed that the power of religion was great over the mind of Liutprand.\nHe reverenced Pope Gregory II. under the walls of Rome: he listened to the\nvoice of Pope Zacharias in the interviews of Terni and Pavia. At the\nbidding of the Vicar of Christ, he more than once stopped himself in the\nmiddle of his victories, and renounced the greatest desire of his heart.\n\nHildebrand, Liutprand\u2019s co-regent, and successor, maintained himself only\na few months, and had to resign the crown before the end of the year 744\nto Rachis, duke of Friuli. A good understanding seemed to be established\nwith the Pope under a king renowned for piety, married to a Roman, who\nmade rich offerings to the Church. Peace was assured with the Roman duchy.\nBut after a few years Rachis also was in conflict with the exarchate. In\n749 a new war burst out in central Italy. The king of the Lombards came in\ngreat wrath and with a valiant army to besiege Perugia. Then once more\nPope Zacharias appeared. Attended by some clergy and chief people of Rome\nhe went to the camp at Perugia. His gifts and his prayers so prevailed\nwith King Rachis that he consented to raise the siege of the city and\nreturn in peace to Pavia. But the king had been so moved by the words of\nPope Zacharias that after a few days he resigned his kingdom. With his\nqueen Tassia and his daughter Ratruda he came like a pilgrim to Rome to\nvenerate the tomb of St. Peter and to ask admission among the clergy. The\nPope cut off the long hair of the Lombard king, gave him with his own\nhands the clerical tonsure, and vested him, as well as his wife and\ndaughter, in the habit of St. Benedict. He retired, by the Pope\u2019s\nsuggestion, to Monte Cassino, which had been restored by the abbot\nPetronax from its ruin towards the end of the sixth century. With him also\nretired the prince Carloman, younger brother of King Pipin, and a\nBenedictine as well as Rachis. Pope Zacharias greatly loved that\nmonastery, enriched it with gifts and books, and exempted it from all\nepiscopal jurisdiction, subjecting it immediately to the Holy See.\n\nThe three pacific victories gained by Pope Zacharias, twice over King\nLiutprand and once over King Rachis, victories due to the dignity of the\nVicar of Christ and his Christian virtues, had raised to the highest point\nthe estimation of the Romans for the Holy See. Is it possible to conceive\na greater contrast that that presented by Leo III. and his son Kopronymus\non the one hand, and the three pontiffs, the second and third Gregories\nand Zacharias, on the other; or between the governments of the blinding,\nscourging, maiming, and torturing sovereigns of the East, and the pastors\nruling with beneficence and risking their lives for their flock in the\nWest? Thus had the Popes become the protectors of desolated Italy;\ntherefore had the Kings Liutprand and Rachis offered their royal mantles\nat the shrine of St. Peter. We are come now to the last and crowning\nincidents of this contrast.\n\nOn the resignation of Rachis the true Lombard spirit had raised his\nbrother Aistulf to the throne. In June, 749, he was elected at Milan.\nAlmost immediately thereupon a series of regulations showed that other\npolitical principles than those of Rachis had obtained the mastery. The\npresents made by the last king after his abdication were declared invalid;\ncommerce with the Romans forbidden. The fortresses in the Alpine passes\nwere strengthened. The army was put on a new footing. Presently Aistulf\nmarched upon the exarchate. In July, 751, he was in Ravenna. Every\nimperial possession in the northern and midland Adriatic provinces fell\ninto his power. Only Rome then was wanting to Aistulf\u2019s ambition. Hitherto\nno barbarian had been able to fix his seat there. His dreams were to reach\nall the power of the ancient emperors in Italy, and so verify the proud\ntitle of \u201cking of all Italy\u201d which a hundred and fifty years before\nAgilulf had inscribed upon his crown. He named his palace at Pavia \u201cthe\npalace of Italy,\u201d and an inscription has been found, \u201cAistulf, in the name\nof Christ, by God\u2019s will Imperator Augustus, in the fourth year of his\nreign\u201d.(183)\n\nNo help came from Byzantium, where the emperor Constantine Kopronymus,\nafter putting down a pretender to his throne, was only occupied with\nIconoclast troubles. For a long time no opposition was perceived; when the\nlast exarch fell into the Lombard king\u2019s power Rome seemed to be the sure\nprey of him who had won Ravenna.\n\nAt that moment when the last authority of the empire threatened to\ndisappear a new bond was knitted between Rome and the West as token of the\nworld\u2019s changed situation. Pipin, son of Charles Martell, on the point of\ntaking the idle sceptre from the hand of the last phantom-king of\nMerovingian race, turned to Pope Zacharias with the request that he would\napprove this great change. This is one principal mark of the immense moral\npower wielded by the Pope in the middle of the eighth century that the\nmayor of the palace in the Frankish empire sought his sanction to change\nhis deputed into immediate royal authority. The Pope thus called upon\nexercised his supreme judgment in this highest secular matter. He decided\nthat it was lawful for him who fulfilled the royal duty to be king rather\nthan for him who only bore the name. In these words he deposed the\nMerovingian and recognised the Carlovingian dynasty, and the nobles of the\nFranks assembled in diet accepted his judgment. Pipin was proclaimed king\nof the Franks in 752 on the field of Mars at Soissons. Some but not all\naccounts say that St. Boniface, at the head of the German episcopate,\nthree years before his martyrdom, gave the Church\u2019s sanction to the\npolitical act, in accordance with the judgment of the Pope.\n\nThis momentous judgment of Pope Zacharias, given at the end of 751, was\none of his last acts. He died on the 14th March, 752. The last words of\nAnastasius respecting him are an epitome of his life and character. Having\nrecorded his general deeds of kindness and munificence, he\nadds:\u2014\u201cEmbracing and fostering all as a father and good shepherd, and\nabsolutely allowing none to suffer tribulation in his times, the people\nentrusted to him by God lived in great security\u201d.\n\nAt once clergy and people proceeded to a new choice, but the Stephen whom\nthey chose lived but three days, and died before consecration. \u201cThen,\u201d\nsays Anastasius, \u201cthe whole people of God met in the basilica of St. Mary\nat the Crib, and beseeching the mercy of our Lord God, and with the good\nwill of our Lady, the holy ever-virgin Mary, Mother of God, they elected,\nwith one mind, another Stephen, a man preserving the tradition of the\nChurch with inviolable constancy, swift to help the poor, a firm preacher,\na most valiant defender of the fold in the strength of God.\u201d Immediately a\ngreat persecution against the city of Rome and its adjoining cities broke\nout from the savage king Aistulf. Three months after his consecration, the\nPope sent two legates, his brother, Paul, and another, with large gifts to\nmove the Lombard king to a treaty of peace. The king made a peace for\nforty years, but in four months, treading oath and treaty under foot, he\npretended that the city of Rome, with all its province, was subject to\nhim, and that all the inhabitants should pay him yearly a capitation tax\nof a gold solidus. The Pope sent to him two fresh legates, whom the king\nreceived, but refused all conditions, and ordered them to return to their\nmonasteries without seeing the Pope.\n\nAt the end of this year, an imperial legate came to Rome with two _sacred_\nletters(184) from the emperor, one for the Pope, the other for Aistulf. In\nit he asked the Lombard king to restore the lands of the Commonwealth,\nunjustly taken by him. The Pope immediately sent on his brother, Paul,\nwith the imperial Silentiarius, to Aistulf at Ravenna. The king scorned to\nlisten either to emperor or Pope, but he added a messenger of his own, to\ngo to Constantinople, and make some proposition to the emperor. The two\nlegates, John the Silentiarius, and Paul, the deacon, returned to Rome,\nand reported to the Pope that they could do nothing. Then the Pope,\nconvinced of the evil purpose of the king, sent to the imperial city his\nown messengers, in company with John the Silentiarius, \u201cbeseeching the\nimperial clemency that, as he had already often written to him, he would\ncome with an army to defend by every means all this part of Italy, and\nwould deliver this city of Rome and the whole Italian province from the\nfangs of the son of iniquity\u201d.(185)\n\nIn the meantime, \u201cthat most atrocious king of the Lombards burst into\nfury, threatening that he would slay all the Romans with one sword if they\ndid not submit to his sovereignty\u201d. The Holy Father called all the Roman\npeople together, and walked in procession with them with naked feet,\nhearing in his arms the image of our Lord still venerated in the chapel\n_sancta sanctorum_. This he carried from the Lateran Church to Santa Maria\nMaggiore, the clergy and people chanting litanies and intercessions; and\nAistulf\u2019s broken treaty of peace was affixed to a lofty cross, and formed\npart of the procession.\n\nThis legation from Pope Stephen II. took place in the year 753. The\nemperor Constantino Kopronymus was not the man to save Italy from the\nLombards. To the repeated requests of the Pope he sent no other help than\nimperial letters, charging him to induce Aistulf to restore the provinces\nhe had taken from the empire, and to Aistulf in the same sense, calling\nhim to undo his diabolical aggression.\n\nThe emperor also left the Pope free to unite himself with any one who\ncould defend him. It was a natural right in such a case: but the imperial\nsanction made it more easy of success.\n\n\u201cThen,\u201d says Anastasius,(186) \u201cthe most holy man having, in vain, sought,\nby innumerable presents, to conciliate that pestilent king for the flocks\ncommitted to him by God, that is, for the whole army at Ravenna and all\nthe people of that province of Italy, of which he was in possession, and\nseeing especially that there was no help from the imperial power, as his\npredecessors of blessed memory, the second and third Gregories and\nZacharias, begged help from the king of the Franks against the oppressions\nand invasions which they had suffered in this Roman province from the\nabominable Lombard race; so he in like manner, by the inspiration of\ndivine grace, sent in his deep sorrow a letter by a foreign hand to Pipin,\nking of the Franks.\u201d Thus from 726, the beginning of the Iconoclastic\nheresy and tyranny of the emperors Leo III. and Kopronymus, the Popes\nacknowledged the Byzantine sovereignty until in 753 the direct attack of\nthe Lombard king Aistulf upon Rome, and the attempt to make himself\nsovereign of the Popes of Rome and of the territory called its duchy,\ntogether with the impotence of the Byzantine emperor to defend his own\nsubjects, and the Pope himself vainly entreating succour from him,\ncompelled Stephen II. \u201cto turn his thoughts from the East to the\nWest\u201d.(187)\n\nWhile the Lombards were pressing Rome and all its fortified places, Pipin\nreplied to Stephen\u2019s entreaty for succour by sending the Bishop of Metz\nand the Duke Autchar to accompany him in his journey to France. \u201cThen the\nsame most blessed Pope, trusting in the mercy of our almighty God, went\nout of this city of Rome to St. Peter\u2019s on the 14th October, and many\nRomans followed him and people of the neighbouring cities, and weeping and\ncrying, they would hardly let him go on. But he, trusting in the strength\nof God and the protection of the holy Mother of God and the chief apostles\nfor the safety of all, weak as he was in body, began that laborious\njourney, commending all the Lord\u2019s flock to Peter, our Lord, the good\nshepherd and blessed Prince of the Apostles.\u201d As he drew near to Pavia\nthat most wicked king Aistulf sent him messengers, ordering that he should\non no account ask for the restoration of Ravenna and its exarchate or the\nother places of the commonwealth which Aistulf or his predecessors had\ninvaded. The Pope replied that nothing should induce him not to ask it.\nWhen he reached Pavia and was received by the king he made him many\npresents, and ceased not with many tears to ask him for the restitution of\nwhat he had taken. He could obtain nothing. The Frank legates pressed that\nhe might be allowed to go on to France. The king asked the Pope if he\ndesired it. The Pope avowed it, and the king gnashed his teeth, and sent\nhis satellites repeatedly in secret to turn him from it. The Frank legates\nat last succeeded in obtaining permission for him to go forward.\n\nOn the 15th November, attended by the bishop of Ostia and a large train of\nclergy, he left Pavia, and continued his journey. He reached the valley of\nthe Rhone by Aosta and the Mons Jovis, where about two hundred years later\nBernard of Menthon founded the monastery which has given its new name to\nthe mountain, and he rested at length at the abbey of St. Maurice, now one\nof the oldest existing monasteries.(188)\n\nStephen II. was the first Pope who crossed the Alps. The few Popes who had\nup to that time travelled outside Italy had been banished, as St. Clement\nby Trajan to the Crimea, or St. Liberius confined by Constantius I. at\nBerea in Thrace, or St. Silverius banished by Belisarius to Patara; St.\nJohn I., St. Agapetus, and Vigilius had by royal orders gone to\nConstantinople. St. Martin had been taken thither a prisoner by Constans\nII., and Pope Constantine, ordered by Justinian II. to go thither, had\nbeen courteously received by him.\n\nNow at the call of duty, but with his own free consent, Stephen II.\ncrossed the Alps and took refuge in France, to consolidate an alliance\nwith the most potent kingdom of the West, full of importance for that\nChristendom which the see of St. Peter, and that alone, was creating. As\nthe eastern emperor had nothing for him but to impose heresy and execute\ntyranny, the king of the Franks, hearing news of his approach, sent a\nsplendid train under his eldest son Charles to convoy him. That was a\nmemorable day when Stephen and Pipin met at the royal villa of Pontigny,\nnear Chalons, on the Marne, not far from the field of battle where Attila\nthree hundred years before failed to make Europe a Mongol empire. Now the\nunion of Stephen and Pipin saved it from a Mohammedan enthralment.\n\nThe long-suffering loyalty of so many Popes was at length exhausted. The\ndeliverance of the Holy See and their flock from the intolerable Lombard\nyoke, a usurpation both upon their natural right and their divine\ncommission to rule the people of God, combined with their desertion by the\neastern emperor, whom, in despite of the most inhuman government during\ntwo hundred years ever practised by men called Christian, they had\nacknowledged and maintained, led Stephen II. to inaugurate a new political\norder of things. His request, accompanied with many tears, to Aistulf at\nPavia to restore to \u201cthe commonwealth\u201d of the empire the exarchate and to\nforbear grasping Rome, a request which the Lombard cast away in scorn, led\nthe Pope, feeble as he was, to risk all the dangers of the Alpine passes,\nas well as to seek in France, where alone it could be found, an arm strong\nenough to save Italy both from Lombard and from Byzantine.\n\nThe king of the Franks, besides his eldest son Charles, had sent Fulrad\nthe abbot and Rothard the duke to conduct the Pope from the monastery of\nSt. Maurice, whom they brought with all his retinue to the king with great\nhonour. \u201cWhen,\u201d says Anastasius, \u201cthe king heard of the most blessed\npontiff\u2019s approach he hastened to meet him with his wife, his sons, and\nhis chief men. Advancing three miles from his palace called Pontigny, he\ndismounted from his horse, and with great humility threw himself on the\nearth, together with his wife, his children, and his chieftains, and so\nreceived the Pope. He also walked for some space to a certain spot guiding\nthe Pope\u2019s horse.\u201d Then the papal train went on together with the king to\nthe palace, rendering thanks to God in hymns and spiritual songs. It was\nthe feast of the Epiphany, and Pope and king sat side by side in the\noratory, when the Pope with tears besought the same most Christian king\nthat by a treaty of peace he would arrange the cause of St. Peter and the\ncommonwealth of the Romans. And the king satisfied the Pope by oath that\nhe would to the utmost listen to all his requirements and restore the\nexarchate of Ravenna and the other rights and territories of the\ncommonwealth.\n\n\u201cIt being winter, he then caused the Pope with all his retinue to take up\nhis abode in the abbey of St. Denys, near Paris. King Pipin, going to\nQuiersy and there assembling all the nobles of his royal power, inflamed\nthem with the words of so great a father, and ordained with them to fulfil\nwhat, under favour of Christ, he had decreed with the most blessed Pope.\u201d\n\nBy this solemn compact between the Frank realm and the Holy See, the king\nbound himself, should he be victorious, to give over to St. Peter, and in\nhim to Pope Stephen, and his successors, all the places of the exarchate,\nand of those lands which had belonged to the empire, of which the Lombards\nhad taken possession. If we are to follow the text of the contemporaneous\nstatements and later references, Pipin considered this act not as a\ndonation, but a restitution. Those for whom this restitution ensued were\nso blended together in the view which results from Pipin\u2019s subsequent\ndeclarations that to separate them seems impossible.(189) The one party is\nthe Roman Commonwealth, which here takes the place of the empire, without,\nin its essence, containing any other idea, for empire is but one form of\ncommonwealth; the other party is the Roman Church. There is no reference\nhere to the duchy of Rome, the territory belonging to the city according\nto the Byzantine departmental administration. The Pope conferred on the\nking the title of Roman Patricius, a title which Pipin accepted simply in\nits true meaning, understanding by it protection of the Church, as he\nafterwards named himself merely Defensor or Protector of the Church.\n\nStephen, in the meantime, was staying at the Abbey of St. Denys, near\nParis, for a long time dangerously ill, in consequence of his sufferings\nduring his journey, and also of his great anxiety. On the 28th July, 754,\nhe anointed in this abbey Church, afterwards the resting-place of the\nkings of France, Pipin and his wife, Bertrada, with their sons, Charles\nand Carloman. So, for the first time, the hand of a Pope touched the\nyouthful head of that Charles, who, in riper age, was destined to act with\nsuch force on the fortunes of the western Church.\n\nWhen the negotiations between the king of the Franks and Aistulf led to no\nresult, the Frank army began its march. The Lombards were defeated near\nSusa, at the foot of Mont Cenis, and presently Pipin stood before Pavia.\nThereupon Aistulf consented to peace. He promised to surrender Ravenna,\nand divers other cities: he bound himself no longer to oppress Rome and\nher territory. But scarcely was the covenant made, and the Frank host\nwithdrawn, and the Pope returned to Rome, which he entered before the\nconclusion, having been welcomed in the meadows of Nero by the exulting\npeople, when king Aistulf repented of his concessions. Not only did he not\ngive up a palm of land in the exarchate: he broke again into the Roman\nterritory, took cities, laid waste the country. In this distress wore away\nthe year 755. With New Year\u2019s Day, 756, the king began the siege of Rome.\nHe shut in the city on three sides. On the height of the Janiculum the\nTuscans were encamped. Aistulf, with his main force, lay beside the\nSalarian and neighbouring gates: the Beneventans shut in the southern\ngates. His attacks upon the walls were repulsed. Every one took part in\nthe struggle. Abbot Warnehar, the Frankish minister, put on armour and\nworked day and night upon the walls. The whole country round, with its\nchurches, villas, and dwellings, was mercilessly wasted. The Lombards made\na desert round Rome. Letter after letter the Pope sent to Pipin.\n\nThe Father and Head of the Christian family was in the utmost possible\ndanger of beholding the spiritual rights of his see and the people which\nhe loved and cared for, subjected to the half barbarous domination of\nintruders, who, for nearly two hundred years, had forced themselves upon\nItaly. In those two centuries the possession of Rome, and lordship over\nit, had been the coveted prize first of their heathen, and then of their\nsemi-Christian ambition. The rule of the Goth, much nobler in his natural\ncharacter, and much less savage, had yet failed, even under the genius of\nTheodorich, to amalgamate itself with Roman thought, law, and usage. The\nstrong hand of the great Gothic king had seemed to tame it: as soon as he\nwas gone, it corrupted his grandson, and murdered his daughter and\nheiress, Amalasunta, too good and noble for her people. But the prospect\nof having to submit to an Aistulf, and his ferocious nobles, was worse\nthan the Gothic servitude had been, which yet had subjected the free\nelection of their Father and Pontiff by the Roman clergy and people to a\nforeign domination. And this domination from Odoacer to Leo III. regarded\nnot the good of the Church, but the ends of Byzantine or Lombard.\n\nWhat, in this day of terror, Pope Stephen wrote to Pipin bears so strongly\nimpressed the inmost belief of his own heart and of the Church at the time\nthat I quote it in part.\n\n\u201cPeter, called to be an apostle of Jesus Christ, Son of the living God,\nand in me the whole Catholic and Apostolic Roman Church of God, the head\nof all the Churches of God, founded upon the firm rock in the blood of our\nRedeemer, and Stephen, bishop of the said Church, to the most excellent\nkings, Pipin, Charles, and Carloman, to the most holy bishops, abbots,\npresbyters, monks, also to the dukes, counts, armies, and people of\nFrance, grace, peace, and valour be abundantly ministered to you by our\nLord God for the rescue of that holy Church of God and its Roman people\nentrusted to me, from the hands of persecutors.\n\n\u201cI, Peter, the apostle, having been in the absolute choice of supernal\nclemency called by Christ, Son of the living God, to illuminate the whole\nearth\u2014who hold you for my adopted children to defend from the hands of\nadversaries this Roman city, and the people committed to me by God, and\nlikewise the house in which, according to the flesh, I rest, to deliver it\nfrom the contamination of the heathens: but likewise our Lady, the Mother\nof God, ever-virgin Mary, adjures, admonishes, and commands you: and with\nher the thrones and dominations, the whole army of the celestial host;\nalso, the martyrs and confessors of Christ join in the adjuration, that\nyou may grieve for that city of Rome, entrusted to us by the Lord God, and\nfor the Lord\u2019s flock dwelling in it, and deliver it with all speed from\nthe hands of the persecuting Lombards, who are perjured with so great a\ncrime. Hasten and help before the living fountain, whence you have been\nconsecrated, and born again, be dried up.\u201d(190)\n\nThe siege(191) had entered into the third month when tidings came that the\nking of the Franks was on his way to answer the appeal of Pope Stephen. In\nApril, 756, he passed Mont Cenis. Again the enemy did not venture to\ndefend the Alpine passes. It would seem that Aistulf had not expected so\nearly a movement. The siege of Rome was broken up. The siege of Pavia took\nits place. Pavia yielded sooner than Rome. Pipin was still in camp before\nthe city when a mission from the Greek emperor appeared to desire the\nsurrender to the empire of the lands which had been or were to be taken\nfrom the Lombards. Here was seen in what sense the king of the Franks had\nunderstood the word \u201crestitution\u201d. The eastern deputies promised rich\npresents to Pipin,(192) if he would give back Ravenna and the other cities\nand fortresses of its territory to the empire. The king of the Franks\nreplied that for nothing on earth would he suffer those cities to be taken\nfrom the rule of St. Peter, the jurisdiction of the Roman Church, or of\nthe pontiff of the Apostolic see. He declared upon oath that for no man\u2019s\nfavour had he repeatedly entered into this conflict, but only for the love\nof St. Peter and the pardoning of his sins, adding that no amount of\ntreasure could persuade him to take away what he had once given to St.\nPeter.\n\nThen Aistulf, in fear of losing everything, asked for peace. The Frank\nnobles in the army who had previous connections with the Lombard, managed\nthe agreement. Aistulf not only ratified the previous contract, but\nsurrendered the third of his treasure, and promised the payment of a\ntribute which had been paid in the time of the dukes. Pipin presented to\nthe Pope a solemn document respecting the gift of the conquered territory.\nThe Abbot of St. Denys, accompanied by the Lombard Commissioner, with full\npowers, executed the agreement and the royal will. Upon arriving at Rome,\nhe laid the keys of the cities ceded by the Lombard upon the tomb of the\nPrince of the Apostles. The exarchate and the Pentapolis, and a large\nportion of Umbria, were to belong to the Roman Church, and partly then,\nand partly later, came into its actual possession, on one side from\nComacchio, in the swampy lowlands along the Adriatic coast, down to what\nwas afterwards the mark of Ancona; on the other side as far as Narni, not\nfar from the confluence of the Nera and the Tiber, where the duchy of Rome\nbegan. That it did not need. If the distant emperor exercised nominal\nauthority there, the virtual authority had long belonged to the Pope, who\nruled there with acceptance of the people.\n\nIt was the summer of 756. About the end of the winter Aistulf died through\na fall from his horse, hunting. After his death ensued a struggle for the\nthrone. The monk Rachis strove again for the sovereignty, which\nDesiderius, duke in Tuscany, contested. It is not clear how parties in the\nLombard kingdom had been so transformed that he who had been compelled\nonce to quit the throne for yielding to Rome now was unsuccessful against\na competitor favoured by Rome. But this one bought his victory dearly. He\nrenounced in favour of the Church several cities not mentioned by name in\nPipin\u2019s gift, from Ferrara and Bologna down to south of Ancona. At the\nsame time Spoleto and Benevento put themselves under protection of the\nPope and the king of the Franks, as the dukes and nobles swore fidelity.\n\u201cThis change is of the hand of the Lord,\u201d wrote Pope Stephen to Pipin at\nthe beginning of 757.\n\nIn the course of a few years a new State, the State of the Church, had\nbeen founded.(193) For a new State it was, even if its connection with the\nempire was not dissolved. Its geographical position in the centre of the\nPeninsula and touching both seas, enhanced its importance. The moment was\ngreat and decisive. The times of the Roman empire were fulfilled. East and\nWest had more and more decidedly parted, as well especially on the field\nof theological science as on the field of political formations. Agreement\nhad become impossible unless the West was willing to give up its\ncivilising mission. Italy\u2019s political formation was closely bound up with\nthat mission. The Gothic domination had fallen inasmuch as it had been\npowerless to assimilate land and people. The Lombard people, inferior in\nenergy and in warlike qualities to the Goths, in its late attempt to unite\nItaly under one sceptre, had failed less through the weak resistance of\nthe last remains of the Roman empire than through the deep-lying failures\nof its political and military constitution. These showed themselves soon\nafter its permanent occupation to the south of the Alps by its parting\ninto numerous military fiefs, with slight internal connection. Moreover,\nthe instability of relation between the two nationalities from the\nbeginning made almost impossible the task which Liutprand and Aistulf had\nset themselves. Attempts to assimilate in life, custom, and law had\nfollowed a long period of barbarous oppression, when the hand of the\nChurch had already enfolded conquerors and conquered. These attempts had\nthere produced a reaction which threatened to undo what had been\naccomplished. After two hundred years of settlement the Lombards were\nstill held to be strangers. Not to mention numerous other tokens of this,\nit has a deep meaning when under the successor of Pope Stephen \u201cthe whole\nSenate and all the people of the God-protected city of Rome\u201d write to king\nPipin concerning the extension of this province \u201crescued by you out of the\nhand of the heathen\u201d.(194) The national Italian elements made their\ncomplete effect sensible in the State of the Church, and secured its\nestablishment in opposition to that temper of aliens represented by the\nLombards. The new temper was not one-sided and exclusive, but\nassimilating, and therefore certain of development and progress. Never has\na State arisen under circumstances so remarkable, in the midst of a\nviolent shock, yet with so general a concurrence. It was due to the\nconsistently-pursued management of a series of distinguished men as the\nresult of their moralising influence. This did not limit itself to the\npopulations immediately participating in it, which had found steady\nadvocates and actual protectors in the Popes, notwithstanding the extreme\nneed and oppression suffered by them. It embraced the whole Christian\nworld. The Church absolutely required secular independence in order to\nmaintain in living energy this moralising influence, to fulfil this her\ngreat mission. This necessity must appear clear to every one if there were\nin the history of Italy and the Papacy no other period than that of the\nlast Lombard times, or that following when the Carlovingian rule was\nfalling to pieces. The foundation of the temporal power was no artificial\nplan devised by Gregory II. for himself and his successors when he began\nthe great battle against the Iconoclasts. It was a necessity in the\nworld\u2019s history, developing itself rapidly, yet step by step, out of the\nsituation of things both in politics and religion. And as if it should not\nwant a legitimate title also, the new formation rose at a moment when,\nindependently of action on the part of the Popes, the whole claim of the\nempire practically disappeared in the centre of Italy. It was recognised\nby the Popes alone even when scarcely anything more remained of it than a\nmere form and name.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VII. ROME\u2019S THREE HUNDRED YEARS, 455-756 FROM GENSERIC TO AISTULF,\nBETWEEN THE GOTH, THE LOMBARD, AND THE BYZANTINE.\n\n\nI propose to give a continuous review of the Roman pontiff\u2019s position in\nthe city of Peter from the plundering of imperial Rome by the Vandal\nGenseric in 455 to the siege of papal Rome and desolation of the Campagna\nby the Lombard king Aistulf, beginning January 1, 756. This attack was\nfollowed in that year by the enfranchisement of Rome and the gift of the\nexarchate by Pipin, king of the Franks, to St. Peter and his successors,\nwhen he laid the keys of the cities surrendered by the Lombards on the\ntomb of the Prince of the Apostles.\n\nThree hundred years of suffering unbroken and of glory unsurpassed which\npreceded the passage of the Roman pontiff from servitude to sovereignty.\n\nThe sun of imperial Rome set for ever when the degenerate grandson of the\ngreat Theodosius, great grandson also of Valentinian, whose name he\ncovered with infamy, perished by the stroke of an assassin in the Campus\nMartius, the result of a life in which he imitated the crime of Tarquin.\nBut Tarquin\u2019s crime led to Rome\u2019s freedom, the crime of Valentinian III.\nbrought the end of the imperial city, and the substitution of a Rome built\nupon revealed truth and eternal justice for the Rome of secular pride and\nunjust conquest.\n\nIn these three hundred years the brother Apostles, the fisherman and the\ntentmaker, took the place of the robber brothers, Romulus the slayer, and\nRemus the slain, when the twelve centuries of augured dominion were\nexactly fulfilled, and in the time of St. Leo the Great the twelve\nvultures had had their full flight.\n\nThe three hundred years begin with the formal acknowledgement of St. Leo\u2019s\nprimacy, as consisting in the descent from St. Peter, bearer of the keys\nand feeder of the flock, made to him by the Council of Chalcedon in the\nletter soliciting the confirmation of their decrees by him; a letter to\nwhich the eastern emperor Marcian, husband of the noble grand-daughter and\nheiress of Theodosius, adds his own request for confirmation, and with his\nwife, St. Pulcheria, in his character as the head of the temporal power,\nacknowledges St. Leo, the Pope, as \u201cthe very person entrusted by the\nSaviour with the guardianship of the vine\u201d.\n\nThe three hundred years end with the Pope emerging a temporal sovereign\nfrom the Iconoclast persecution. The eastern empire also has fulfilled its\nwork in these three centuries, and the soldier of fortune, who, at the end\nof many revolutions has become the successor of Marcian, has ridden his\nwarhorse into the Church of God, and attempted to substitute himself as\nits governor for the successor of St. Peter, to dictate its creed, and\ninterfere with its worship. In recompense he is expelled from the Italy\nwhich he and his predecessors had stripped and sacrificed during two\nhundred years. Then the crown of temporal sovereignty is added to the\npapal mitre of spiritual power, which Leo the Isaurian had sought to\ndisplace. And, moreover, the \u201cadvocate of the Church,\u201d who, \u201cas Christian\nprince and Roman emperor,\u201d had used _against_ the Church the very\nGod-given power which it was his first duty to use _for_ her, was on the\neve of seeing the same powerful race which had enfranchised Rome and\ndowered the Roman See exalted to the imperial throne in the face of both\nthe Byzantine and the Saracen. The emperor of the East had lowered his\ndignity to the poor ends of ambition, and the task of degrading God\u2019s\nChurch. In Leo the Isaurian, and in his son Kopronymus we see, in fact,\nthat the man who sits on the throne of the first Christian emperor is\nbecome the chief enemy of the Church. The deeds of Heraclius and Constans\nII. had given adequate cause for the Divine Providence to allow the rise\nof Mohammed and the severance of its eastern and southern provinces for\never from the empire of Constantine and Theodosius. Thereupon Leo and his\nson Kopronymus interpreted the lesson thus given as entitling them to meet\nthe assumption of the prophet-emperor enthroned in the Damascus which had\nceased to be theirs with equal arrogance in the counter assumption to be\nemperor-priest. The enemy from Mecca had seized Both Powers in his claim\nto be prophet; the enemy at Byzantium seized both as emperor. Civil power\nwas the appendage to Mohammed, but became the root of spiritual authority\nto Leo the Isaurian.\n\nLet us now retrace the period of civic disaster which the Popes\nencountered from the last years of St. Leo the Great. The following may be\nconsidered the main causes:\u2014\n\nFirst of all is the domination, not of barbarians only, but of heretical\nbarbarians, as Pope Gelasius termed Odoacer.(195) In that passage of his\nletter the Pope says that when \u201cOdoacer occupied the realm of Italy he had\nenjoined things to be done which were not lawful, but to which we, by the\nhelp of God, would, as is well known, not submit\u201d. He speaks in the name\nof his see, but what the acts alluded to were we do not know. The\ndomination of Odoacer and of Theodorich after him was Arian. It lasted at\nleast sixty years, from 476 to 536. It was the policy of Theodorich to\ntreat Rome well, in its civil aspect. He fostered the Senate, keeping it\nin quiet subjection to himself. He professed to treat Italian and Goth on\nequal terms. As long as the Acacian schism lasted, which effectually\nprevented unity of action between the emperors Zeno and Anastasius and the\nPopes who had ceased to be their subjects, but who regarded the Roman\nemperor with all the consideration required by Roman loyalty to the head\nof the Roman name, the Gothic king observed this conduct of neutrality;\nbut when a new emperor, Justin I., had acknowledged all the demands of\nPope Hormisdas and began to act as a Catholic emperor, Theodorich dropped\nthe mask and appeared as he was, the head and bond of the whole Arian\nleague in the West. Pope Symmachus died in 514. The Acacian schism at that\ntime was in full force; the emperor Anastasius full of enmity and deceit\nagainst the Pope. Theodorich allowed Hormisdas to be elected Pope after a\nvacancy of the see for one single day. Hormisdas died in 523, and a\nvacancy of six days only ensued, when Pope John I. was allowed to be\nfreely elected. In the meantime the acts of the emperor Justin I. roused\nthe full Arian spirit in Theodorich. He allowed Pope John I. to be freely\nelected, which did not prevent him from compelling that Pope to go as his\nambassador to Constantinople in order to gain indulgence for the eastern\nArians. And he uttered the threat that he would fill Italy with blood if\nhis demands were not complied with. And when Pope John I. came back\ncrowned with honours rendered to him as the first Pope who had ever\nvisited the eastern capital, Theodorich threw the Pope into prison, and he\nnever came out alive from the royal dungeon at Ravenna.\n\nThis fact throws back a full and disastrous light upon the whole Arian\ndomination in Italy. A poet of our day has put in the mouth of the doomed\nGothic princess, the royal-hearted Amalasunta, words of her father:\u2014\n\n\n    \u201cI never loved that Apostolic Throne!\u201d(196)\n\n\nthe truth of which is a striking epitome of history. No Arian ruler\n_could_ love that Apostolic Throne. But we learn from the fact what the\nPopes must have gone through from the period when Rome fell under the rule\nof northern condottieri to the expulsion of the Goths under Belisarius and\nNarses. It is impossible that one who denied the Godhead of the Master\nshould look, with love and veneration, upon the successor of the Disciple.\nIf the Shepherd of shepherds be not God Himself, the Shepherd, who acts in\nHis name, will not be received, as invested with supreme and universal\nspiritual power.\n\nLet us examine the connection of Arian domination over Rome and Italy, as\nexercised, first, by Odoacer, and, secondly, by Theodorich, with the\neastern throne\u2019s position and claim.\n\nOdoacer exercised the authority which he held in Rome and in Italy, with\nthe approval of the emperor Zeno. He compelled the Roman Senate to send to\nZeno at Constantinople the insignia of the western emperor\u2019s dignity,\ntogether with the declaration that a western emperor was no longer\nrequired; and that one emperor seated at Constantinople was sufficient. In\nreturn, he was invested by Zeno with the title of Patricius of Rome. It\nmay be said that Zeno could do nothing else at the time: and that\nOdoacer\u2019s power was really the power of the sword. Nevertheless, the\nemperor of the East had become the sole Roman emperor. The Popes\nacknowledged him as such, and continually called upon him to discharge the\nduty of protection to the Church of God, which belonged to the head of the\nRoman Commonwealth. A few years later, Zeno wished to be delivered from\nthe near neighbourhood of the stirring Gothic king, Theodorich. He\ncommissioned Theodorich to lead his people into Italy, and take possession\nof it. Five years of terrible conflict ensued between the Herule and the\nGoth. They inflicted great sufferings on the Italian cities. The Goth\nprevailed. Ravenna was taken. There was a compact made between Theodorich\nand Odoacer. A banquet ensued, and in it Odoacer was slain. The first act\nof Theodorich was to send an embassy to the emperor Anastasius, who had\nsucceeded Zeno, asking for the crown of Italy from his hands. He was\nacknowledged by Anastasius as the ruler of Italy, and as ruling it in the\nimperial name. Theodorich became more and more powerful, and if he did not\nexpressly renounce the emperor\u2019s over-lordship, he acted, in all respects,\nas the sovereign of Italy, and of the great dominion which he had attached\nto it. But the Byzantine sovereignty in Italy was never resigned in the\npurpose of the emperor. When, after 33 years of rule, Theodorich expired\nin 526, and Justinian speedily succeeded his uncle, Justin I., the Gothic\nrule showed evident signs that it had been built up by the extraordinary\nskill and energy of a single man, but had entirely failed to assimilate\nthe Roman and the Gothic elements in a stable union. When Justinian\nconquered the northern provinces of Africa, and Rome, the old seat of the\nempire, by the arm of Belisarius, he was, in his own mind, only recovering\nhis own, and reassuming what Zeno and Anastasius had _lent_ to Odoacer and\nTheodorich. This was the mind of every Byzantine sovereign from the date\nof the western empire\u2019s extinction in 476, or rather it was not\nextinguished to them, but _they_ had become its lords. Herule, and Vandal,\nand Goth, and Frank, and Burgundian, and whatever else those northern\nsavages called themselves, they were only encamped on the sacred Roman\nsoil, which belonged indefensibly to the emperor who sat at\nConstantinople, the heir of Constantine\u2019s Rome.\n\nWhat has just been said will supply us, as I believe, with a key to the\nwhole conduct of the eastern emperors. I will review it under three heads:\nfirst, Byzantine despotism as exhibited in secular government: secondly,\nByzantine despotism as pushed into theological doctrine: thirdly,\nByzantine despotism, as laying claim to the government of the Church. The\nthree together make up the thing which has received the name of\nByzantinism.\n\nThe first vacancy of the Holy See, after the extinction of the western\nemperor by the death of Pope Simplicius, in 483, witnessed the beginning\nof the Acacian schism. The connection of that schism with the making Zeno\nsole Roman emperor I have already traced in a former volume. It also marks\nthe beginning of the aggression by the civil power ruling Rome with the\ntitle of Patricius bestowed by Zeno, but really with the unrestricted\npower of the barbarian sword, upon the freedom of Papal election.\n\nWhen, on the death of Pope Simplicius in 483, they were assembled at St.\nPeter\u2019s for the election of his successor, Basilius, prefect of the\npr\u00e6torium, and patricius, representing also king Odoacer, rose and said\nthat the late Pope had given Odoacer the most earnest charge to guard\nagainst any injury being done to the Church, upon his own death, by being\npresent, and sharing in the election. Odoacer(197) did not go so far as to\nclaim authority to _confirm_ the election. No such power was then\nrecognised either in the eastern emperor, or in the actual ruler of Rome.\nPope Gelasius was elected in 492; Pope Anastasius in 496; they were chosen\nin Rome; they took possession of the chair of Peter immediately upon their\nelection; they then informed the emperor of their accession, or received\nfirst congratulations from him.\n\nPope Symmachus in 498 followed Pope Anastasius. And here acts of great\nimportance took place. The Acacian schism had then divided the East from\nRome. Zeno, in order to unite the Monophysites with the Catholics, had\ndrawn up an ambiguous formulary of union called the Henotikon. The emperor\nAnastasius was most desirous to maintain this formulary. He also wished to\nrecover union with Rome. When the Senator Festus came to Constantinople on\nthe embassy of Theodorich, he promised the emperor that he would induce\nPope Anastasius to accept this formulary. But Festus, returned to Rome,\nfound Anastasius dead, and Symmachus chosen by the greater part of the\nclergy to succeed. He saw that there was no chance of inducing Symmachus\nto accept the formulary. But Festus was able to raise a schism, and set\nup, as Antipope, Laurentius. After great troubles, which lasted four\nyears, Symmachus was established: but neither the emperor nor Theodorich\nexercised or claimed authority to _confirm_ his election.\n\nIn 514 Theodorich, the king of Italy, allowed the election of Pope\nHormisdas to take place without interference: and again the election of\nPope John I. in 523. But upon the death of that martyred Pope in 526,\ninstead of his former indulgence, a state of suspicion and anger against\nRome had taken possession of the mind of Theodorich. He imposed upon the\nRomans the choice of Pope Felix IV. It is supposed that at this time he\nenacted that in future no one should ascend the papal chair without the\nconfirmation of himself and his successors.(198) Thus only can it be\nexplained that after this, on the death of a Pope the Apostolic Chair\nremained vacant sometimes for months, and a large sum had to be paid into\nthe Gothic treasury for the deed of confirmation.\n\nVery shortly after the death of Pope John I., and the fellow-victims,\nBoethius and Symmachus, Theodorich died, and was succeeded by his\ngrandson, Athalarich, eight years old, under the tutelage of his mother,\nAmalasunta. During her regency Pope Felix IV. died in 530. The electors\nwere divided into a Gothic-Roman and a national-Roman party.(199) The\ncandidate of the former, Bonifacius II., and of the latter, Dioscorus,\nwere both elected two days after the death of Pope Felix, and both\nconsecrated on the following Sunday: and so without any confirmation from\nRavenna. But the death of Dioscorus after twenty-eight days prevented a\nschism, and Boniface was fully recognised as Pope. Boniface, in dread of\ntroubles which would arise at his death, ventured to summon the clergy to\nSt. Peter\u2019s, and laid before them a decree to subscribe: upon which he\ndeclared the deacon Vigilius to be his successor. But feeling speedily\nthat this act was contrary to the existing laws of the Church, he called a\nsecond assembly of the clergy, the senate, and the people of Rome,\ndeclared himself to have violated the freedom and sanctity of the Papacy,\nand caused in their presence the paper nominating Vigilius to be burnt.\n\nThe next election took place in 532, according to the usual conditions.\nThe young king, Athalarich, was made to defer the confirmation of Pope\nJohn II. for two months.(200) The state of Rome in the meantime was\nfrightful. Every man sought to plunder the goods of the Church. The Senate\nhad passed a decree strictly forbidding the alienation of church goods by\ncandidates for the Papacy. It was disregarded: and the only resource for\nthe new Pope was to appeal to the king and beg him to confirm the senate\u2019s\ndecree. Athalarich decided that the decree should be inscribed on a marble\ntablet, and set up in front of the court of St. Peter\u2019s. But the Gothic\nking\u2019s help was purchased dearly, and the fee for confirming a Pope was\nestablished at 3000 gold pieces.\n\nSuch in fifty-one years was the result of Odoacer meddling with the Papal\nelection. Not only had the right to confirm been allowed to the civil\nruler of Rome, but a heavy money payment had been imposed for the\nconfirmation, and delay superadded.\n\nIn that year, 534, the young King Athalarich perished at the age of\neighteen by his own excesses. The Queen Amalasunta speedily lost her\npower. She nominated her cousin, Theodatus, of the royal blood of Amali,\nking. He repaid her by allowing her to be murdered. His name and character\nbecame odious to the Romans. On the death of Pope John II. in 535 he\nallowed the free choice of the Roman Agapetus to take place in seven days.\nBut he exercised great tyranny over the Romans. He forced Pope Agapetus to\ngo to Constantinople as his ambassador. When that Pope died, as we have\nseen, in the eastern capital, he imposed on the Romans the choice of\nSilverius as Pope, threatening with death any one who did not consent to\nhis appointment.\n\nThis is the briefest possible record of how the original liberty of the\nRoman clergy and people to elect the Pope was treated by the foreign Arian\nrulers, Odoacer, Theodorich, Athalarich, and Theodatus. Then the emperor\nJustinian became by right of conquest immediate lord of Rome, and seized\nwithout scruple upon the appointment and confirmation of the Popes. The\nact of his empress Theodora, in her violent deposition of Pope Silverius,\nis the first specimen of Byzantine conduct when it enters by right of\nconquest upon Italian territory. That the Romans had every reason to wish\nfor the extinction of foreign, which was also heretical, domination, must\nbe clear to every one who follows history in its detail. But likewise the\nexample with which Byzantine domination in Italy opens will suffice to\nrepresent to us in a living picture the permanent relation of the Popes to\nthe eastern or Greek empire. If arbitrary(201) violations of the freedom\nof Papal election by the Gothic kings may be given as the exception, it\nbecame by frequent repetitions under Justinian the rule. As the\npatriarchal see of Constantinople had long been given only to select Court\nfavourites, and taken away from the occupants at every change of imperial\ninclination, the same plan was pursued henceforth with the filling of the\nApostolical See. The emperor issued his edict: the Romans and the Pope\nwere expected to obey. Not even the domain of the Faith was kept free to\nthe Pope. In this also the attempt of the emperors was to lower the chief\ndignity of the Church to be the echo of their commands.\n\nFrom Justinian onwards the Byzantine emperors claimed and exercised the\nright to confirm the papal election.(202)\n\nWhen the ill-treated Vigilius died at Syracuse, returning from his unhappy\nsojourn of eight years at Constantinople, Justinian caused the archdeacon\nPelagius, who had been nuncio at Constantinople, to be elected his\nsuccessor. In like manner John III. in 560, and Benedict I. in 574 were\nelected under pressure from the emperor. But in 568 the Lombards came into\nItaly, and at the death of Benedict I. in 578 they were pressing Rome so\nseverely that no one could undertake the journey to Constantinople to ask\nfor imperial confirmation. So the Book of the Popes says, \u201cPelagius,(203)\na Roman, was consecrated without the command of the emperor, because the\nLombards were besieging the City of Rome, and Italy was greatly laid waste\nby them. There was such calamity as had not occurred in memory of man.\u201d In\n590 St. Gregory the Great waited six months for his election to be\napproved at Constantinople. What use was made by the eastern emperor of\nthe right to confirm the Papal election from the time of St. Gregory to\nthe breaking out of the Iconoclast persecution has already been recounted.\nThe last instance of this degrading mark of servitude was the confirmation\nof Pope Gregory III.\u2019s election in 731 by the exarch of Ravenna. From that\ntime forth the Popes elect were no longer confirmed by the emperor or his\ndelegate; and in 756 the hand of a western ruler made them sovereign\nprinces, and the much injured Italy was relieved from eastern oppression\nso far at least as regarded Rome and the central and northern provinces.\n\nWhat took place at the death of a Pope was after this fashion. The\nrepresentation of the see was vested in the three chief officers; the\nprimicerius of the notaries, the archpriest and the archdeacon informed of\nthe fact the exarch of Ravenna. They addressed their letter thus: \u201cTo the\nmost excellent and distinguished lord, long to be preserved by God for us\nin the discharge of his supreme office, N., ex-consul, patricius, and\nexarch of Italy, N., the archpriest, N., the archdeacon, N., the\nprimicerius of the notaries, keeping the place of the holy Apostolic See\u201d.\nThe exsequies of the late Pope took place, and a three days\u2019 fast and\nprayer preceded the act of election. In this act took part the higher\nclergy with the whole spirituality, the more important magistrates of the\ncity, the nobility, the deputies of the people, and such Greek troops as\nmight be present in the city. When the election was completed the elect\nwas conducted in solemn procession to the Lateran, where he received the\nfirst homage of the people. The electors subscribed the decree of election\nwhich in the meantime had been prepared, and laid it up for future record\nin the archive. A second shorter copy was sent to the emperor at\nConstantinople, which ended with the words:(204) \u201cwherefore we, all your\nservants, in our sorrow beseech that the piety of our masters may\nfavourably receive the entreaties of their servants, and by their grant of\ntheir permission would allow the desires of their petitioners to take\neffect for the good of their empire by their own command. So that in\nvirtue of their sacred letters we, being under the same pastor, may\nsolicit without ceasing the almighty God and the Prince of the Apostles,\nwho has granted the appointment of a worthy governor of his Church, for\nthe life and empire of our most serene masters.\u201d\n\nYet more submissive is the tone of the letter to the exarch. After the\nelection has been fully described, it continues: \u201cThis being so, most\nexalted God-protected master, we yet more earnestly entreat that by God\u2019s\nquick operation inspiring your heart you would give command to adorn the\nApostolic See with the perfect consecration of our father and pastor, as\nby the grace of Christ happily and faithfully discharging your execution\nof the imperial supremacy, so that we, your humble servants, seeing our\ndesire more rapidly fulfilled, may be enabled to return unceasing thanks\nto God, to the imperial clemency, and to your admirable government willed\nby God. Thus, by the appointment of the Pontiff of the Apostolic See, our\nspiritual pastor, we may pour forth continual prayers for the life and\nsafety and complete victory of our most Christian masters. For we know\nthat the prayer of him whom by God\u2019s will we elect to the supreme\npontifical dignity, will propitiate the divine power, and obtain for the\nRoman empire all the success which it can desire. It will also preserve\nyour own power, under God\u2019s protection, for the ruling of this captive\nItalian province, for the protection of us, all your servants, and for the\ncontinuation of long deeds of arms.\u201d(205)\n\nThe three Papal officers also informed the archbishop of Ravenna, the\nmagistracy, and the Roman nuntio there, of what had taken place,\nbeseeching their assistance that the confirmation of the election might\nspeedily be given. When this arrived from Constantinople and Ravenna, the\nPope elect received consecration. The seven regions of Rome were\nrepresented in a procession which conducted him from the sacristy of St.\nPeter\u2019s to the Confession of the Prince of the Apostles, where he recited\nhis profession of faith. Thereupon Mass began to the Gloria, the bishops\nof Albano and Porto led him to the bishop of Ostia, who was seated in an\nelevated chair. They held the gospels over his head, and said the first\nand second prayer. Then the bishop of Ostia completed the proper\nconsecration, while the archdeacon laid the pallium upon him. After this,\nthe new Pope ascended the papal throne, gave his blessing to all the\npriests, and proceeded with the sacrifice of the Mass.\n\nA papal vacancy was reckoned from the burial of the deceased Pope to the\nconsecration of the Pope elect.\n\nThis power of confirming the election of a Pope, in complete derogation\nfrom the original liberty, which had only once been broken by the tyranny\nof the first Constantius, in the year 355, down to the Arian occupation of\nRome by Odoacer, appears to have been exercised from the last days of\nTheodorich in 526 down to Pope Gregory III. in 731. The emperor\nConstantine the Bearded, had, after the Sixth Council, suffered Pope\nBenedict II., in 684, to be freely elected: but his son, Justinian II.,\nreimposed the yoke.\n\nThe weight of imperial pressure upon Rome had been considerably affected\nby the Lombard occupation of the northern provinces of Italy, beginning in\n568. The capture of Italy as a province, won for Justinian by the conquest\nof Narses, was only completed in 555. In thirteen years the Lombards\nentered upon the country which the Goths had well nigh reduced to ruin.\nLombard aggression ran well nigh side by side with Byzantine oppression\nfor two centuries. Right in the midst of both the Apostolic See was\nplaced. In 596, the great St. Gregory complained that he had been keeping\nwatch and ward against these new northern robbers for twenty-eight years,\nwhich is the second arm of Byzantine oppression.\n\nThe exarch, in the judgment of the despotic Justinian and his successors,\nwas a viceroy of all Italy, planted in the fortress of Ravenna, one side\nof which was guarded by the sea, the other by marshes. Thence Theodorich\nruled: there he was buried: and the Byzantine only felt secure in the\nGothic stronghold. Defenceless Rome was stretched out beneath his feet in\ncentral Italy, or, if it had a defence, it was that the deathless spirit\nof the Apostolic See lived within the walls of Aurelian, and animated by\nits guardianship the often broken and rudely repaired towers of the\nworld\u2019s ancient mistress. The exarch was the choice instrument of the\nemperor\u2019s despotism. St. Gregory, in his fourteen years\u2019 struggle with all\nthe elements of civil dissolution, accounts the exarch Romanus as his\nworst enemy. He was always ready to combine with the Lombard, then in the\ndepths of savagery and ignorance, against his own lord\u2019s liege vassals in\nRome. Thus St. Gregory unbosoms himself to Sebastian, bishop of\nSirmium:\u2014\u201cWords cannot express what we suffer from your friend, the lord\nRomanus. I would say, in a word, that his malice towards us surpasses the\nswords of the Lombards. The enemies who destroy us seem to us kinder than\nthe magistrates of the Commonwealth, who wear out our thoughts by their\nill-will, their plundering, and their deceit. At one and the same time to\nhave the care of bishops and clergy, of monasteries and people, to watch\ncarefully against enemies in ambuscade, to be exposed even to suspicion by\nthe deceit and ill-will of rulers\u2014the labour and the sorrow of this your\nbrotherhood can the better weigh by the purity of your affection for me\nwho suffer it.\u201d(206) These words may fitly introduce us to the Byzantine\nexarchate as a government. In the thirty years succeeding St. Gregory, the\nexarch appears as the great manager of Papal elections: from which his\nleast hostile act would be to extort a fee as great, at least, as that\nlaid down in the last Gothic time as 3000 gold coins. Now and then, as\nopportunity offered, he would enjoy the greater luxury of plundering the\nLateran treasury of the Church at his leisure: as done by the exarch Isaac\nin 638, who was immortalised for the deed in the inscription of his tomb\nat Ravenna, as the most faithful servant of his most serene masters at\nConstantinople. The exarch Olympius, in 648, received from his master,\nConstans II., the higher commission to murder St. Martin, as he was giving\nholy Communion. But the attempt was frustrated, as was believed at the\ntime, by a divine intervention. However, the exarch Theodore Kalliopa,\nsent for the special purpose, succeeded in carrying off Pope St. Martin,\nas he lay ill before the altar of the Lateran, five years later in 653,\nand placing him in the hands of Constans II., to be condemned for high\ntreason, in that he had not waited for the confirmation of his election by\nConstans, but, instead, had condemned his heresy in the great Council\nwhich he summoned at Rome. In the interval of twenty-five years, from the\ndeath of St. Martin to the opening of the Sixth Council, the exarchs were\nfaithful to the imperial tradition until Constantine the Bearded renounced\nthe heresy of which his father, Constans, and his grandfather, Heraclius,\nhad been the chief supporters, while they were nursed in it by a\nsuccession of Byzantine patriarchs. But when Justinian II. had followed,\nthe exarch John Platina, in 687, hurried from Ravenna to Rome to hinder\nthe election of the great pontiff, Sergius. Finding it accomplished, he\nwas obliged to content himself with fining the new Pope to the extent of a\nhundred pounds\u2019 weight of gold, that being the bribe which the\nunsuccessful candidate had promised him if he would come to Rome to secure\nhis election. Four years afterwards, Justinian II., unable to induce Pope\nSergius to accept the decrees of his Council in Trullo, or to accept the\nplace for his signature of them which the emperor had provided in a line\nbetween his own signature and that of his patriarch, sent Zacharias not an\nexarch, but a guardsman, to repeat, if possible, in the person of Pope\nSergius, what had been done forty years before in the person of Pope St.\nMartin. But, instead, the emperor\u2019s own troops caused the guardsman to\ntremble for his life. His only place of refuge was under the bed in the\nPope\u2019s own chamber: the Pope\u2019s intercession alone saved the imperial\nemissary from a fatal outburst of Italian wrath. Yet ten years later,\nunder the upstart emperor Apsimar, in his short reign, another exarch,\nTheophylact, was again repulsed from his execution of an intended attack\non the Pope by Italian soldiers. Once more, when Pope Constantine, obeying\nan imperial letter of the restored Justinian II., had left Rome for\nConstantinople, several chief Papal officers were summarily executed at\nRome. Thus the five attempts on the life of the Pope Gregory II. made by\nexarchs or guardsmen, at the bidding of the emperor Leo III., in his\nIconoclastic fury, were but the consistent continuation of the spirit\nshown by the exarchs, and fostered and supported by the emperors, from the\ntime of St. Gregory\u2019s adversary, the Lord Romanus.\n\nDuring these two hundred years, from the first inroad of the Lombards,\nnothing could be more embarrassing than the civil position of the Popes.\nBeside the main body of the Lombards, occupying the great plain of North\nItaly, with their capital at Pavia, there were two duchies, one of\nSpoleto, immediately to the north of Rome and its territory, and another\nof Benevento, holding a considerable portion of Italian territory near\nNaples. This city, with other seaports, continued in possession of the\nempire. The Lombard kings were evermore trying to bring their outlying\nduchies into closer obedience to the royal power. Again the fortress and\nterritory of Ravenna, the imperial metropolis, lay further to the north,\ntouching the Lombard possessions. The Lombards, when they came into Italy,\nwere so little advanced in political science of government, so little\ncoherent among themselves, that at one time they were divided among\nthirty-six chiefs, so many heads of robbers and devastating bands,\nbarbarous and un-Christian. There can be no doubt that the aim of the\nLombard kings from the beginning had been to make themselves masters of\nRome, and to rule the whole of Italy as a kingdom. The example and success\nof Theodorich was fresh before them. Justinian\u2019s success under his\ngenerals Belisarius and Narses was even younger than the glory of the\ngreat Gothic king. Gregory the Great had laid a foundation for\nchristianising the Lombard people in his friendship with the great and\ngood Queen Theodelinda. In process of time they had become Catholic. Their\nking, Liutprand, had caused the relics of St. Augustine, which had been\ncarried from Africa to Sardinia during the Vandal persecution, to be\nbrought to his capital city, Pavia, where the shrine of the greatest of\nthe fathers still abides in honour. Pope Zacharias, by his personal\ndignity, prevailed over both Liutprand and Rachis. But the contest for the\ndominion of Italy went on in spite of reverence for the Apostolic See. The\npeople were Catholic, but tumultous and stubborn. After a long-continued\nstruggle of various success, the king Liutprand seemed to be on the point\nof incorporating the Spolentine and Beneventan duchies, of closing upon\nRome, and expelling the emperor from Ravenna. Upon his death, and the\nretirement of Rachis, Aistulf was uniting all the Lombard force for the\nattainment of their purpose from the beginning, to expel the emperor from\nItaly, and to make the Pope a Lombard subject. He went so far as to put a\npoll-tax on the Roman duchy, and to style himself king of Italy. There the\nCarlovingian hand arrested him: and the keys of the cities which the\nLombard had won from the Byzantine, and Pipin from the Lombard, laid by\nthe gift of Pipin on the tomb of the chief apostle, signified to all men\nthat his successor had become a temporal prince, after forming Rome in the\ncentre of a captive province from a heathen city into a spiritual capital\nduring the unceasing calamity of three centuries. We have scarcely any\nrecord of the indescribable sorrows which the Lombard in his aggressive\npolicy, and the Byzantine in his continuous resistance, made up of\ntreachery and bribery added to insufficient military power, inflicted on\nthe cities and the people of Italy: nor of what the Popes endured in their\nloyal acknowledgment of their duty as subjects, and their unbroken\ntenacity in maintaining the faith and government of the Church against the\nsuccession of adventurers who mounted the Byzantine throne. These\nculminated in the seven revolutions terminated by that of Leo III. Then\nthe strong man, armed, rode his charger right into the Church of God and\nstrove to add the Popes of Rome to the number of patriarchs whom he\nraised, deposed, blinded, and executed as he pleased. He made them\necumenical and trod upon them when so made, with the heel of the imperial\nbuskin. And now we come from the first oppression in confirming the Pope,\nand the second in reducing him to a captive vassal, to the third of\nsubjecting him as the chief teacher of the Church to the lay power of the\nemperor.\n\nAs we look back we see the whole mind of Justinian photographed in his\nimperial legislation. When he had to speak to the bishop of his capital\nhis language ran: \u201cTo the most holy and blessed Archbishop of this\nImperial City, and Ecumenical Patriarch\u201d\u2014the core of the title was \u201cBishop\nof this Imperial City,\u201d its corollary \u201cEcumenical Patriarch\u201d. To him the\nbishops of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem were to submit any appeal\nfrom the provinces subject to them. Rome was not to be deposed from the\nprior rank acknowledged once for all by the eastern monarch and episcopate\nat the termination of the Acacian schism, in which act Justinian himself,\nas the ruling nephew, had taken notable part: but there was to be at\nConstantinople a similar patriarch, whom the whole eastern world should\nobey. From him the eastern bishops were to learn the mind of the emperor,\njust as, when they attended the court, he introduced them to the imperial\npresence. The emperor would honour him by using him as his chief\necclesiastical minister, who held the portfolio of doctrine. The laws\nwhich all the world was to receive bore this exaltation of the imperial\nbishop in their bosom. And it must be confessed that in St. Gregory\u2019s time\nthe patriarchal title which Pope Gelasius had utterly refused to the\nByzantine bishop a century before, had been conceded to him in St.\nGregory\u2019s practice: the patriarchal title, but not the ecumenical. Of the\npatriarchs, when speaking of a fault to be condoned, he wrote, \u201cif any of\nthe four patriarchs had done this we could not pass it over,\u201d and\nConstantinople must be added to Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem to make\nup this number of four: but of the assumed title of ecumenical, he wrote\nthat it was diabolical, and the forerunner of anti-Christ.\n\nBut another part of Justinian\u2019s conduct is no less salient. He is not the\nfirst, indeed, but he is the chief of the theologising emperors. The\ndisastrous assumption of dictating doctrine, and deciding in theological\ncontroversies, which, at the moment of the fall of the western empire, the\ninsurgent Basiliscus had begun during his short-lived reign, and Zeno\ncontinued, and Anastasius reinforced, was taken up with far greater force\nby Justinian. He laboured during eight years just at the middle of the\nsixth century to exhibit Pope Vigilius at Constantinople as the first of\n_his_ five patriarchs: he made the bishop of his capital hold a General\nCouncil without the Pope: he imposed his own doctrinal lucubrations upon\nthat Council. He raised in the minds of the western bishops suspicions and\nfears as to Pope Vigilius being forced to become his instrument. The\npatriarch Epiphanius, who had weakly yielded to him, he afterwards\ndeposed. Pope Vigilius escaped at last to die at Syracuse on his return to\nRome worn out with the \u201ccontradiction of sinners\u201d which he had\nexperienced. In his person St. Peter had been a captive; seeds of schism\nand distrust had been scattered by Justinian in the West: which it\nrequired all the wisdom, the energy, and the patience of the great St.\nGregory a generation later to overcome and root out. The following\ntheologising emperors, Heraclius, Constans II., Justinian II., the poor\nphantom Philippicus Bardanes, and lastly Leo III., were only completing\nand crowning Justinian\u2019s double work, of making an ecumenical patriarch,\nand an emperor behind him, the ultimate judge of doctrine.\n\nBut had Leo III. succeeded in his attempt to grasp spiritual and temporal\npower in one hand, the Church of God would have come to an end. The whole\nfuture of the world was touched by the issue of this conflict.\n\nIt is to be remarked how immovable the Popes were, not only in the\nmaintenance of Christian doctrine pure and proper, but likewise in the\nmaintenance of that relation between the Two Powers which Christian\ndoctrine requires as one of the conditions of its own action in the world.\nWhat on this subject Pope Gelasius in the last decade of the fifth century\nhad said to the emperor Anastasius, now after two hundred and thirty years\nPope St. Gregory II. was saying to the Iconoclast emperor Leo. In the\ninterval Italy had been governed by the Byzantines, so far as they\npossessed it, during two centuries as a subject province, the captive of\nits spear; Rome had lived through it only in virtue of the Pope\u2019s primacy.\nThe eastern empire having been false to the faith in its emperors and in\nmany of its bishops, but especially in four successive patriarchs of\nConstantinople, had been cut in two, and one half of it given over to an\nanti-Christian religion to rule with unrestricted violence. And now the\ndiminished emperor, who had just saved his capital from the Mohammedan\nchalif, had been seduced by Jewish and Mohammedan principles to sweep the\nChristian churches in his remaining dominion, from Sancta Sophia to the\nleast country church, free of Christian symbols, beginning with the most\nsacred image of the Redeemer(207) which adorned the gate of his own palace\nas the witness for the need of the oppressed. Then St. Gregory II. stood\nup against Leo III. exactly as his predecessor, Pope Gelasius, had\nresisted the emperor of the former day. Syria and Egypt and North Africa,\nand, still greater shame and peril, Spain had become Mohammedan. The Pope\nstood, in 727, where he had stood in 495. In the interval all these\ncountries had fallen: but St. Gregory II. could tell a furious tyrant that\nall the nations of the West looked to St. Peter as \u201ca god upon earth\u201d\u2014that\nhe could not execute his threat to pull down the statue of St. Peter,\nwhich the Christians of that day reverenced in his basilica at Rome, which\nthe Christians of eleven centuries have reverenced since in the same\nplace, and put their head under the Apostle\u2019s foot as the acknowledgment\nof the dignity with which Christ invested him.\n\nSt. Gregory II. told Leo, the Isaurian, that his own imperial dignity was\nitself of divine institution, as the organ of human government: while the\necclesiastical dignity was of divine institution, in virtue of that divine\nintervention by which alone men become sons of God. The answer of the\ntyrant was five times to attempt the Pope\u2019s life, as that of a rebellious\nvassal whom he was entitled to put under ban, and efface as a _natura\nferina_. But the issue of this contest was that three Popes, St. Gregory\nII., St. Gregory III., St. Zacharias, equally great, wise, and prudent,\nmaintained intact their Primacy: that their successor, Stephen II., was\nthe first Pope who crossed the Alps; that he consecrated the Carlovingian\ndynasty, and was accepted in Rome triumphantly as her king. In this series\nof acts he had also broken the chains of Italy, and a Pope presently\nfollowing, who had ceased to be an eastern vassal, was to create a\ncounterpoise to the chalif of Mohammed in an emperor, not Byzantine, but\nRoman, not grasping illicit power in the spirit of Saracenic pride, but as\na type of Christian monarchy placed at the head of lawful government, not\na perversion of Constantine and Theodosius, but the loyal spirit of both\nembodied by a divine consecration.\n\nDuring the reigns of Leo III. and his son, Constantine Kopronymus, and the\ntimes of the Popes Gregory II., Gregory III., Zacharias, and Stephen II.,\ncertain events take place in the East and the West respectively, which, by\ntheir striking contrast with each other, while they coincide in the time\nof their happening, remarkably express and sum up the course taken by the\nthree centuries which we are considering. Despotism matures in the East,\nand barbaric savagery triumphs: freedom, order, the majesty of nations\ngrowing into one faith, dawn upon the West.\n\nIn 727 the yet existing letters of Pope Gregory II. to the emperor Leo\nexhibit that monarch as thoroughly possessed with the claim to govern the\nChurch as he governs the State. In this he is as thoroughly encountered by\nthe Pope, who calls up against him the unbroken tradition of the Church\nduring the seven centuries, and reminds him of the sad misfortunes of\nthose emperors who had attempted to carry their civil authority into the\ndomain of revealed truth. The great eastern teacher, St. John of Damascus,\nthen living in the Syrian court of the chalif, lays this down in language\nas peremptory as that of the Pope. The guilt of Leo III. is heightened by\nthe fact that he had before him in the history of his own realm during the\nhundred years preceding him the rise of a religion essentially opposed to\nthe Christian faith, which he was professing himself to purify. Its force,\never exercised against Christians with the utmost virulence and cruelty,\nwas centered in the fact that its chief deduced all civil authority from\nthe prophetic office of its founder. But while the kingship of Mohammed,\nas inherited by his chalifs, began with his attempt to found a religion,\nLeo, in continuing and advancing to their utmost tension the interferences\nof Justinian with the spiritual order, was undoing the ancient laws of the\nempire for a hundred and fifty years, from the time of Constantine to that\nof Zeno. His own patriarch, Germanus, chose rather to lay his omophorion\non the altar, and depart into exile than sanction and accept Leo\u2019s\nusurpation in sacred things. The whole liberty, and with it the whole\nexistence of the Church, were comprehended in the resistance maintained by\nPope Gregory, and attested by patriarch Germanus as a victim. Gregory II.\nfollowed, in giving to C\u00e6sar the things of C\u00e6sar, but to God the things of\nGod, the whole line of his predecessors. Leo III. imitated wrongly the\nchief antagonist of the Christian name; but Mohammed was at least\nconsistent with his original falsehood. In this his religion itself was\ncontained. Likewise the whole work of Christendom was embodied in the\nvictorious defence of Gregory against the consummation of eastern\ndespotism.\n\nThe acts which followed by Pope and by emperor agreed with their several\nprinciples. Gregory III. on his accession at once endeavoured to bring the\nemperor to a better mind. But Leo had already deposed Germanus, and put\nAnastasius, a docile instrument, in his stead. The Pope called a council\nat Rome, which entirely supported the freedom of the Church. Leo turned to\nbrute force. He sent out a great fleet with the commission to destroy his\nown metropolis, Ravenna, then to advance upon Rome, seize the Pope, and\ncarry him away captive, as eighty years before St. Martin had been taken.\nFive years after this violent act of despotism, which the winds and seas\nhad frustrated, Pope Gregory III., pressed hard by the advancing arms of\nthe Lombard king, Liutprand, besought the great conqueror, Charles\nMartell, to take up his defence. He appealed to the piety of the Frank\nleader in behalf of St. Peter, a piety extinct in the Roman emperor\u2019s\nbreast. Two years later Pipin had succeeded to the power of Charles\nMartell, and intimated in the strongest manner the veneration for the\nApostolic See felt by the Frank people, in asking Pope Zacharias to\npronounce as Pope that Pipin might duly be elected king of the Franks.\nZacharias gave his decision: and the diet of the kingdom at Soissons bore\nout to the full the sentence of Pope Gregory II. in his letter to Leo\nIII., that all the nations of the West looked to St. Peter as a god upon\nearth. Pipin became king of the Franks by the diet of the Franks accepting\nthe decision of Pope Zacharias in 752, when in 733 the rough Isaurian\nsoldier thought only of subduing the predecessor of Zacharias, Gregory\nIII., by a dungeon in Byzantium after the mode of Constans II. with St.\nMartin. But even yet the contrast is not complete.\n\nNot only had Leo III., in his wrath at being foiled by the elements,\nconfiscated the patrimonies of the Church in the southern provinces of\nItaly which he possessed, and in Sicily, and in his realm generally, but\nhe interfered with the immemorial spiritual jurisdiction of the Pope as\npatriarch, and assigned to his own patriarch at Constantinople the\nprivileges which by the appointment of St. Leo had been given to the great\nmetropolis, Thessalonica. This jurisdiction the patriarchs of\nConstantinople had coveted for centuries. Theodosius II. had tried to give\nit them by an imperial decree: but it was rescinded. Anastasius, who had\nbeen substituted for Germanus in 730, received the ill-omened gift in 733.\nThe giver\u2019s son, Kopronymus, afterwards punished by blindness this unhappy\nman, but sent him back thus blinded to occupy his see during ten years;\nmade him crown his son, and only in 753 Anastasius, becoming once more a\nservile persecutor of images, terminated the episcopate which he had so\ningloriously received in 730. On the other hand, Pope Stephen II.,\nsuccessor of Zacharias, in spite of bodily weakness and continual danger,\ncrossed the Alps, crowned Pipin, his wife and his sons, in the Abbey of\nSt. Denys, in 754, and so consecrated the Carlovingian race. The rising\nmonarchy of the Franks exulted in that very dignity of St. Peter\u2019s\nsuccessor, which the Byzantine monarch was striving to subject to his own\nwill.\n\nBut this contrast had a yet further and even more striking issue. Pope\nStephen II., hard pressed by the resolute attempt of king Aistulf to make\nhimself temporal king of Rome, applied for defence to the man he still\nrecognised as sovereign, Constantine Kopronymus, and received for answer\nonly the words that he might get it where he could. He beheld the Lombard\ndestroying and trampling on every thing outside the walls of Rome. In the\nutmost bodily weakness he had taken the road to Pavia: he resisted every\neffort of Aistulf to detain him. He had been received by Pipin with joy\nand admiration. Protection against the Lombards was promised him. The\nLombard king gave way to his fear of the Frankish kings, but presently\nbroke through every engagement. On 1st January, 756, he had promised\nhimself Rome, and all which it contained. By the end of the year he had\nsurrendered the exarchate to St. Peter, and Rome had accepted her Pontiff\nStephen as her king. And the name of Stephen II. is numbered with that of\nhis three predecessors as the maker of pontifical liberty. Kopronymus\nventured to ask Pipin to restore to him the cities which Pipin had\nconquered. He received for reply that not for earthly reward or wealth,\nbut for the love of St. Peter, the king of the Franks had bestowed on the\nPope, his successor, the cities which he had delivered from the Lombard,\nand restored Rome to him by delivering it from Lombard aggression.\n\nConstantine Kopronymus had succeeded his father Leo III. in 740. An\ninsurrection arose against him in his own house. It was put down with\nterrible severity.(208) These were his doings in Constantinople in the\nsame year 754, when Pipin was crowned by the Pope. He had surpassed his\nfather in the cruelty with which he attempted to alter the existing\nworship of the Church. He had obtained some advantage in war against the\nSaracens, who were divided by the contest between the Ommaiads and the\nAbbassides, but he thought not the least of saving Italy from the\nLombards, much more he desired to deliver the churches from the sacred\nimages. For this purpose he caused many assemblies to be held and\naddressed the people, moving them to destroy the images. At last he held a\nCouncil at Constantinople of 338 bishops. At their head stood Gregory,\nbishop of Neocesarea, Theodosius, archbishop of Ephesus, a son of the\nemperor Apsimar, Sisinnius, bishop of Perge in Pamphylia. There was no\npatriarch, no representative from the sees of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch,\nand Jerusalem. The see of Constantinople was vacant, as Anastasius had\njust died. The Council met on the Asiatic side, opposite Constantinople,\non the 10th February, 754, and sat six months. Then on the 8th August it\npassed over to the Church of Blachern\u00e6. There the emperor presented\nhimself at the ambon holding by the hand the monk Constantine, bishop of\nSyl\u00e6um, and cried with a loud voice, \u201cMany years to the ecumenical\npatriarch Constantine.\u201d At the same time he invested him with the\npatriarchal robes and the pallium. The Council ended that day, and nothing\nof it remains to us except a so-called confession of faith in the acts of\nthe Seventh Ecumenical Council, the second of Nic\u00e6a, in 787, where it was\nrefuted and rejected.\n\nThe Council of 787, called in the time of another Constantine, the\ngrandson of Kopronymus, when the eastern emperor had returned for the\nmoment to the orthodox faith, has denounced this Council of 754 as\nclaiming most unlawfully the title of ecumenical. Being confirmed by Pope\nAdrian I., it enjoys that title itself, and its utter condemnation of the\nCouncil of 338 bishops which met at the request of Kopronymus can be\ntrusted. Here it is sufficient to say that this Council of 754 covered\nKopronymus and his little son Leo with acclamations for having destroyed\nidolatry. When the emperor and the new patriarch Constantine and the rest\nof the bishops appeared in the square at Constantinople they published the\ndecree of the Council, and renewed their anathemas against the patriarch\nGermanus and St. John Damascene. When the decree reached the provinces,\nCatholics were everywhere dismayed; the Iconoclasts began to sell the holy\nvessels and disorganise the churches. The images were burnt, the pictures\ntorn down or whitewashed; only landscapes and the figures of birds and\nbeasts were retained, especially pictures of theatres, hunts, and races.\nTo bow before the images of Christ and of the saints was forbidden; to bow\nbefore the emperor was retained, and any insult to his figure upon a coin\npunished with death.\n\nIn 754, Kopronymus, holding Constantine by the hand, presented him to the\nassembled bishops as his own choice for ecumenical patriarch. Not only was\nthe individual his choice, but his father, Leo, twenty years before, had\nmade the office by constituting the spiritual jurisdiction of the bishops\nof the capital conterminous with the empire, in that he deprived the Pope\nin his quality of the first patriarch of the ten provinces which from the\nbeginning had acknowledged his patriarchal superintendence.\n\nWe may follow to his end the ecumenical patriarch who had this beginning.\n\nIt seems that neither a bishop nor a secular priest in the eastern empire\nventured to oppose the decree of this Council. But monks suffered the most\nfearful persecution.(209) They were driven away and their monasteries\ndestroyed. Nor were these the worst blows which the emperor dealt upon\ntheir institution. He invented truly devilish means to make them\ncontemptible and abhorred. Some who had been banished from Constantinople\nyielded to his will, subscribed the edict against images, quitted their\ndress and married. Thereupon they returned to the city, recovered all\ntheir civil rights, were marked with favour, received the emperor\u2019s\npersonal attention. But those who remained true to their faith and their\nhabit experienced his utmost severity. A month after his return from the\nwar, the 24th August, 766, on which day he had appointed a chariot-race,\nhe caused the monks in the neighbourhood of Constantinople to be brought\ntogether into the racecourse. There, as the rows of seats were crowded\nwith people, he compelled each monk to pass in procession with a woman of\nbad life beside him. Thus they suffered every indignity which an excited\npopulace could put upon them. The bad courtiers saw that it was an evil\nstroke of the emperor. Those who had not the secret thought that they had\nbeen taken in company with these women.\n\nThis spectacle so pleased the emperor that, four days afterwards, he\nrepeated it with nineteen of his chief officers, whom he charged with a\nconspiracy against him. The real offence was the maintenance of the right\nbelief, the having had relation with the banished Stephen in his exile at\nProconnesus, and more than once to have praised his constancy in\nsuffering. He caused them to be led round the racecourse, and made the\ncrowd spit on them and revile them. The two of highest account were\nbeheaded: two patricians, brothers, Constantine, who had been\ncontroller-general of the posts, and Strategius, officer in the life\nguards; the rest were blinded and banished to an island, nor did\nKopronymus forget every year that he lived to send thither executioners to\ninflict on each a hundred strokes of oxhide. When he found that the people\ngrieved over the execution of Constantine and Strategius, had not forborne\ntears, and even murmured, he put down this to the fault of the prefect\nProcopius, who ought to have suppressed these seditious cries; he had him\nscourged and deprived.\n\nThe patriarch Constantine had received from the emperor extraordinary and\nunfitting honours. They were followed by public disgrace. The emperor\nlearnt that he had had intercourse with one of the accused for conspiracy.\nHe put up witnesses who declared that they had heard expressions from him\nagainst the emperor. This the patriarch absolutely denied, and proof was\nnot forthcoming. The emperor caused them secretly to confirm their\nstatement by an oath taken on the holy Cross. Thereupon, without further\nproof he set seals upon the door of the patriarchal palace, and banished\nthe patriarch to Prince\u2019s Island. Constantine was thus deposed on the 30th\nAugust, 766, and on the 16th November the emperor, without regarding any\ncanonical form, named Nicetas to his place. The new patriarch was yet more\nunfitted for so eminent a rank, being a eunuch and slave by birth. From\nhis youth he had only been accustomed to attend on women, had scarcely\nlearnt to read; but the emperor, on recommendation of certain ladies of\nthe court, had caused him to be made a priest and given him a post in the\nChurch of the Apostles. Upon entering the patriarchal palace Nicetas\nshowed himself worthy of the imperial choice, for he caused the\nmagnificent mosaics on the walls to be destroyed. These his two\npredecessors had spared for their beauty.\n\nBy similar services the highest dignitaries of the kingdom were obtained.\nA zealous Iconoclast was in the eyes of the emperor qualified for every\ncivil or military post. Thus Michael of Melissene, brother of the empress\nEudocia, was made governor of Phrygia, Lachanodracon of Asia, and Manes of\nGalatia. At the beginning of 767 Constantine sent these new and yet more\nsevere governors into the provinces, having just before imposed an oath on\nall his subjects not to honour images. Then began a general persecution of\nthe orthodox. Those governors showed themselves in the provinces obedient\ninstruments of their emperor\u2019s rage. They profaned churches, persecuted\nmonks, and destroyed pictures. They tore relics of the saints from their\nsanctuaries, and cast them into rivers or drains. They mixed them with\nbones of animals, and burnt them together, so that the ashes might not be\ndistinguished. The relics of the martyr St. Euphemia, in whose church at\nChalcedon the great Council had been held, were its chief treasure. The\nemperor had the shrine cast into the sea, changed part of the church into\nan arsenal, and made the other part a place where all the rubbish of the\ncity might be shot. The waves carried the shrine to the Isle of Lemnos,\nwhose inhabitants fished it up. Twenty years after the death of\nKopronymus, Irene, then reigning with her son Constantine, caused this\ntreasure to be brought back to Chalcedon, the church to be purified and\nrestored to its former condition.\n\nThe deposed patriarch Constantine had endured the hardest treatment at\nPrince\u2019s Island during thirteen months. The emperor had learnt that this\nunhappy prelate had told to others an impious remark concerning the Mother\nof God, which the emperor had made, and enjoined silence about it. Furious\nin his wrath he ordered him to be brought to Constantinople; he had him\nbeaten till he could not stand, and had him carried in a litter to Sancta\nSophia to be degraded. He was cast down on the steps of the sanctuary. A\ncourt-secretary read in presence of the whole assembly, called together by\nthe emperors order, a detailed accusation with loud voice, and as he read\neach detail struck him with it in the face. In the meantime Nicetas had\nmounted the patriarchal chair, and presided over each insult which his\nbenefactor suffered. When the reading was finished, Nicetas took the act\nof accusation, had Constantine carried to the tribune, where he was held\nupright by several, that the people might see him, made one of his\nsuffragans go up to pronounce the anathema, to take off the episcopal\nrobes, and with insulting expressions to expel him from the church, from\nwhich he had to go backwards.\n\nThe next day, a day of games in the circus, his beard, eye-brows, and hair\nwere torn out; he was dressed in a short woollen smock without sleeves,\nput backwards on an ass, and led through the circus by a nephew whose nose\nhad been cut off. The parties of the circus reviled him and spat on him.\nAt the end of the circus he was thrown down, trodden under foot, and put\nupon the stone which terminated the circus to be exposed there, so long as\nthe games lasted, to the jeers of the riders as they passed. He was then\nthrown into prison, where he lay almost forgotten to the 15th August of\nthe following year, 768. That day was the last of his sufferings. The\nemperor sent two patricians to him to ask what he thought of the emperor\u2019s\nbelief and the doctrine of the council. The sufferer, to the last a\ncourtier, thought by a submissive answer to alleviate his punishment. He\nreplied: \u201cThe emperor\u2019s belief is holy, and the council has issued a holy\nconfession\u201d. The patricians said at once: \u201cThat is just the admission\nwhich we wished to have from thy godless mouth. Nothing more remains for\nthee but death.\u201d They then pronounced his condemnation, and led him into\nthe amphitheatre, where his head was struck off. It was fastened by the\nears to the mile-stone, where it served the mob three days for a\nspectacle. The body was dragged to the Pelagium, a spot where the church\nof St. Pelagia had stood, which the emperor had pulled down, to make a\ncourt where the bodies of the condemned were thrown after execution; in\nthe same way as on the other side the water he had pulled down St.\nAndrew\u2019s church to make a place of execution. The body was also said to\nhave been dissected for the good of science.(210) This was the reward\nwhich the patriarch received for having sacrificed his faith and\nconscience in giving sanction to his master\u2019s impieties.\n\nThis degradation by Kopronymus of the man whom he had made and called\necumenical patriarch, and to make him had persisted in his father\u2019s\noverthrow of the Church\u2019s order from the beginning, by an act of despotic\npower breaking into her constitution, is it not also a token of the\ncondition into which the most ruthless tyranny had reduced the episcopate\nof that eastern realm? Those bishops who, at the bidding of an adventurer,\nsuccessful for the moment and presently swept away, had met at\nConstantinople in 710 to overthrow the Sixth Council and the faith of the\nChurch; and again, the three hundred and thirty-eight who had met at the\nsame place at the bidding of Kopronymus to make the whole order of divine\nworship subject to his will, did the spirit of St. Basil, St. Athanasius,\nSt. Chrysostom, St. Cyril of Alexandria live in them still, or were they\nin possession indeed of unquestioned episcopal rank and all the powers\nwhich belong to consecration, but in fact the most abject minions of the\nmost debased human will\u2014the will of a Byzantine despot? The will of one\nfined already of one half his empire by the divine Hand which raised up\nthe most abject of savages to punish a debased Christian realm. Yet ruler\nafter ruler had not received the lesson which faith derives from\nchastisement. Leo III. surpassed his predecessors, and his son surpassed\nthe father, in imitating the arrogance of a false theocracy. He carried\nhis civil autocracy into interference with the doctrine and the worship of\nthe Church. This interference the laws of his own empire warned him\nagainst, as cited by St. Gregory II. in the examples of the greatest\nemperors.\n\nIt is not too much to say that the despotism wielded by those who occupied\nthe Byzantine throne from Justinian to Kopronymus had eaten out the\ncourage and dulled the sense of divine things which we admire in the\nFathers of the fourth century. Athanasius denounced a Constantius, and\nBasil a Valens, but the eastern bishops of the eighth century crouched\nbefore Leo and Kopronymus, and if there had not been a succession of\nPopes, in whom the spirit of St. Leo lived on, and the doctrine of St. Leo\nwas maintained, the Church herself would have yielded to the most debasing\ndespotism ever seen. But it must not be forgotten that the bishops of the\nWest were faithful to the teaching and emulated the stedfastness of the\nPopes. A despotic patriarch, nominee and instrument of a despotic emperor,\nmade a servile episcopate. A martyr Pope, such as St. Martin, likewise\nmade an army of martyrs. The several character of bishops in the East and\nWest completes the contrast which we have been drawing out.\n\nIn the patriarch Constantine the ecumenical patriarchate received its\ncompleted form. Kopronymus chose him; took him by the hand, presented him\nto the 338 bishops who held an illicit and heretical council at his\nbidding; having used him for his purposes, deposed, beheaded him, treated\nhis lifeless body with extreme dishonour.\n\nIn the same Kopronymus, the two hundred years of secular lordship begun by\nJustinian\u2019s conquest of Rome came to an end. He had disregarded the appeal\nof Pope Stephen to defend his own dominion from the Lombards. Pipin had\ndeprived them of that dominion, and then bestowed it upon St. Peter.\nKopronymus asked Pipin to give it back to him. Pipin refused, and after\nthirty-four successive Popes had endured a dominion which began with the\ndeposition of St. Silverius by a shameless woman, and perhaps cannot show\na single act of generous defence in return for loyal service during two\ncenturies, the attempt inaugurated by Justinian, and finished by\nKopronymus, to reduce the successor of St. Peter to a patriarch whom they\nmight treat as the patriarch Constantine was treated, failed finally and\nfor ever. Stephen II., an infirm old man who had crossed the Alps at the\nrisk of his life, deserted by Kopronymus and threatened by Aistulf, sat at\nthe grave of the chief Apostle, Prince as well as Bishop of Rome, and the\nChristian faith was not left to be determined by soldiers of fortune on\nthe throne of Byzantium, but saved by and for the guardianship of the\nliving Peter.\n\nFrom Metrophanes,(211) the first recorded bishop of Byzantium, not yet\nConstantinople, in the time of the Nicene Council to Methodius, in the\nyear 842, when the Iconoclast contest came to a final end, fifty-eight\nbishops sat on the chair of the Greek capital. The first was simple bishop\nof a suffragan city to the Thracian metropolis of Heraclea. As soon as\nConstantine in the year 330 had consecrated his new capital as Nova Roma,\nthere began a continual exaltation, the work of the eastern emperors for\ntheir own purposes; after four centuries the bishops of Constantinople had\nin 733 reached the culmination of their hopes by receiving from the\nemperor Leo III. ten provinces out of the Roman jurisdiction, and twenty\nbishoprics of his own birth-land, Isauria, previously belonging to the\npatriarch of Antioch. They were in a Greek sense ecumenical, not because\ntheir authority extended over the world, but because by imperial gift it\nhad become conterminous with that portion of the world which was\nconsidered by the Greek emperor the habitation of men,(212) that is, his\nsubjects. The original and true patriarchates of Alexandria and Antioch\nhad fallen under Mohammedan domination. So likewise had Jerusalem, which\nattained patriarchal rank only in the middle of the fifth century. The\nname of each as patriarch was carefully maintained, especially for\nappearance in the list of Greek councils, but in each case, and for\nhundreds of years, it was little more than \u201cmagni nominis umbra\u201d.(213) Of\nthe fifty-eight bishops of the capital many have gained for themselves\nimperishable honour, many are venerated in the number of the saints by\nGreeks and Latins, and looked up to as intercessors and protectors, others\nhave at least left behind them in one or other respect a distinguished\nmemory. But more than a third, one and twenty, are branded as heretics or\nfavourers of heresy. Almost as many were for various reasons deposed,\npartly by heretical, partly by orthodox emperors. Several, also, of them\nreceived at the same time dishonouring treatment, such as Kallinikus,\nAnastasius, and Constantine. In three cases, those of St. Chrysostom,\nEutychius, and Pyrrhus, deposed prelates, were restored, a case which much\noftener recurs in later Byzantine history.\n\nIn the fourth century the names of Eusebius, Macedonius, Eudoxius, and\nDemophilus in the see of the capital are marked as supporters of the Arian\nheresy. In the fifth century the Nestorian heresy springs from its author\nin the very chair of Constantinople. Fifty years later the Acacian schism\nsprings in like manner from the ambition of its author in the same chair,\nand the names of four successors, Fravitas, Euphemius, Macedonius II, and\nTimotheus are struck from the diptychs of their own church, when the\nschism was terminated under Pope Hormisdas. In less than twenty years\nafter this, Anthimus, put into the see of the capital by the intrigues of\nthe same empress Theodora who violently deposed Pope St. Silverius, was\ndeposed by Pope Agapetus in his visit to Constantinople, as a Monophysite\nheretic. In the sixth century the Monothelite heresy was owing mainly to\nthe political intrigues of Sergius, sitting for twenty-eight years in the\nsee of Constantinople, also the prime minister and guide of the emperor\nHeraclius; he and his three successors, Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, were the\nmain-stay of that most insidious and stubborn heresy, which for forty\ncontinuous years kept the Church in peril, and strove to overthrow the\nefforts of ten Popes to maintain the faith, and brought one of them to die\na martyr under the rule of Constans II. But in the seventh and eighth\ncenturies, the most terrible Iconoclast persecution found in six bishops\nof Constantinople its main support, in that they put to the service of the\nemperors Leo III. and Constantine Kopronymus, Leo V. and Theophilus, these\nimmense ecclesiastical powers with which the emperors themselves had\ninvested them over the eastern bishops. The single patriarch had himself\nbecome a despot in wielding the tyranny of the civil despot as his chief\ninstrument. These six ecumenical patriarchs wielded their authority under\nIconoclast emperors for a long time: Anastasius I. from 730 to 753;\nConstantine II. from 754 to 766; Nicetas I. from 766 to 780; then an\northodox sovereign brought with him an orthodox council. The patriarch\nTarasius and union with the West might seem to have secured a deliverance\nfrom a renewed reign of the Iconoclast violence. On the contrary, three\nsucceeding patriarchs, Theodotus from 815 to 821; Antonius I. from 821 to\n832, and John VII. from 832 to 841, did what they could to carry out the\nwishes of their masters for that heresy.\n\nSuch was the conduct, as guardian of the faith, of the line of\npseudo-popes set up by state policy at Constantinople, in virtue of the\npretension that the bishop of Nova Roma should enjoy equal rights with the\nbishop of Old Rome.\n\nIt is to be noted that in this period the whole doctrine concerning the\nPerson of our Lord Jesus Christ went through the most complete sifting and\ndiscussion in the Councils of the Church. During it, from St. Silvester to\nGregory IV., seventy pontiffs sat in the chair of Peter. They lived in\nfull five hundred years of perpetual struggle. One after another \u201capparent\ndir\u00e6 facies inimicaque Troi\u00e6 numina\u201d\u2014Arius in the foreground heralding\nMohammed in the rear; Nestorius and Eutyches tearing the unity of the\nChurch on opposite sides; an able bishop of Constantinople seizing the\nmoment of Rome\u2019s temporal captivity under Arian strangers to raise his see\nto parity: the East well nigh devoured by opposing sects. After this, an\ninsidious Byzantine couple, Heraclius and Sergius, emperor and patriarch,\ncovering up deep wounds with ambiguous words, and sacrificing the empire\nby their sacrifice of the faith; and lastly, emperors who disregard things\nhuman and divine, and mark their mastery over doctrine by the subversion\nof worship, a Leo III. and a Constantine Kopronymus. All secular power is\nin the hands of Nova Roma which Constantine has set up to be the Christian\ncity from its cradle: the seven greater hills to take the place of the\nhills by the Tiber, and in these very hills of Constantine from age to age\nthe evil vision nestles\u2014his successor and his patriarch are the chief\nperformers in this ever recruited drama of heresy. But through all these\nattacks the seventy successors on St. Peter\u2019s throne have kept the\ndoctrine of the Church, that is the doctrine of the Incarnation itself,\none and unchanged. The infidel has trampled upon Alexandria, Antioch, and\nJerusalem; but while the old Christendom has sunk from debased nations\ninto Saracen serfdom, a new Christendom has arisen among Teuton settlers,\nmaking their first steps in national life. Nova Roma has been false to the\npurpose for which Constantine founded it; and Old Rome has found among\nthose whom the rival counts as barbarians, one more faithful as well as\nmore powerful than she has been. Charlemagne stands at the end of the\nvista which Constantine begins. Of the two, does he not merit most in the\nChurch of God?\n\nBut to estimate at its due value this long series of historic facts, it\nmust be remembered that during at least three centuries of this period,\nthe seventy Popes work as captives, the fifty-eight bishops of\nConstantinople work as the right hand of emperors. From the time indeed\nwhen St. Silvester passed from the catacombs to the Lateran palace, to the\ntime when the Vandal robbers desolated Rome under the eyes of St. Leo, the\nPopes were not captives. They had severe persecution at times to undergo:\nespecially under Constantius I., the whole fifty years of Arian trial were\na special test of their fortitude, their clear undoubted maintenance of\nthe Godhead of our Lord, their unfaltering trust in their apostolic right.\nBut so long as there was a Christian western emperor he had a regard to\nthe Apostolic See of the West: even a Valentinian III. could acknowledge\nSt. Leo in an imperial edict in 447 as \u201cPrincipem episcopalis coron\u00e6\u201d;\nwords which present the very idea of St Peter\u2019s majesty, as the root, the\nbond, and the crown of the episcopate. But with the inroad of barbarians,\nas soldiers of fortune and civil masters of Rome, another time begins. And\nwhen to barbarous manners and brute force was added the Arian spirit, a\nperiod ensued which was calculated to test to the utmost the dowry of\ntruth bestowed on the Apostolic See. Justinian as a civil ruler may be\ndeemed worse than Odoacer, worse even than Theodorich. What the Popes did,\nthey did often after being nominated without free election, often with the\npostponement of their confirmation after election (as when after the death\nof Pope Honorius, Pope Severinus had his three years diminished to two\nmonths, in the hope of Heraclius to bend him to the Monothelite heresy),\nsometimes with unjust depositions, as St. Silverius by Theodora, as St.\nMartin by Constans II., as St. Sergius attempted by Justinian II., as John\nVI. attempted by Apsimar, the emperor of a day: again by unlawful\nsubstitution for a living Pope, as Eugenius to St. Martin, when condemned\nbut not yet martyred. Then again the eleven years preceding the great Pope\nSergius from 676 to 687 witness the appointment of six Popes. At this time\nthere is a series of Popes who show eastern lineage, as if the emperor\u2019s\nhand were busy in the choice of them. But no one of them fails, and St.\nSergius and St. Gregory III., both easterns, are of the very greatest and\nmost stedfast in the whole time of Popes.\n\nAdd to this that the civil condition of these Popes, from the entrance of\nthe Lombards to the end of the exarchs, was often most perilous. It was\nplaintively alluded to by St. Agatho in addressing the Sixth Council, when\nforty years after the death of Honorius he set forth in most absolute\nlanguage the unfaltering integrity of faith which had marked the Apostolic\nSee to his own time, language; which the Council accepted.\n\nIt is to be noted that a Pope, whose election had been long delayed by the\nmere arbitrary will of emperor or exarch, as soon as he was consecrated,\nentered into the full possession of his unrestricted rights. The exarch\nwho had power to delay, who had power to plunder the Lateran treasury of\nthe Church, as Isaac and John Platina did, had no power to lessen the\ndignity of St. Peter\u2019s succession when once acknowledged. Even Vigilius is\nadmitted to have emancipated himself from the thraldom of Theodora; and\nEugenius, forced upon the Romans by the tyranny of Constans II., was a\nblameless Pope, who did not yield to the heresy of Constans.\n\nWhat manner of men were they who were loyal vassals to the most iniquitous\nrulers, and when solicited by their own faithful peoples to break an\nabhorred yoke yet held them back, and adhered to those who gave them\nneither protection nor justice? They did not rule as Satraps in a kingdom\nworn down to prostration by centuries of arbitrary power, but were\nacknowledged as sitting in the apostolic throne of Faith and Justice by\nrough lords from the North, to whom obedience in spiritual things was a\nChristian virtue learned with great difficulty by those who inherited a\nnatural independence. Interminable intestine quarrels among the western\npotentates, who yet accept the voice of an unarmed Pope as the interpreter\nof faith, and the most upright arbiter of human justice, are a proof the\nmore how deeply the rule of St. Peter had sunk into the western mind.\n\nWhat guarantee of truth can be offered by the course of human things if\nthis be not one? That is the testimony of the three centuries from\nGenseric the Vandal to Aistulf the Lombard. The testimony of Teuton\nconquerors, who burn what they once worshipped, and worship what they once\nburnt, who enter on their dominion as spoilers and develop into Christian\nmonarchs. The testimony of Constantine\u2019s imperial successors, who own the\npapal succession to St. Peter, while they try to bend it to their will,\nand in the attempt subject half their empire to an anti-Christian tyranny.\nLastly, the testimony of St. Leo the Great and fifty-one successors to the\ntime when St. Leo III., invested with civil sovereignty, employed the\nacknowledged greatness of his spiritual power to restore the empire which\nthe first Leo saw sinking in ruins.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER VIII. FROM SERVITUDE TO SOVEREIGNTY.\n\n\nThe first land possession(214) of the Roman See appears to have been the\nC\u00e6sarean palace of the Lateran, the gift to it of the emperor Constantine,\nin gratitude to God for having conquered the heathen empire at the Milvian\nBridge. It noted the impression on the conqueror\u2019s soul of the divine\nsign, _in this prevail_. Therein St. Silvester took up his abode, and in\nit was built the Cathedral Church of Rome and of the world. For a thousand\nyears it remained the abode of the Popes\u2014the centre of the Church\u2019s\nvisible life, whence her spiritual jurisdiction radiated, the proper\nresidence of one hundred and sixty Popes, from St. Silvester to B. Pope\nBenedict XI.\n\nIt is not a little to be noted that the original root of the Pope\u2019s\ntemporal power was his unique spiritual power, that the gift of\nConstantine foreshadowed the empire of Charlemagne; that the first\nChristian emperor removed the Pope from the catacombs to a C\u00e6sarean\npalace; that the second emperor received back from the Pope that imperial\ntitle and power which so many successors seated in Constantine\u2019s Nova Roma\nhad used so cruelly against the successor of St. Peter, whom yet they\nacknowledged. And still the Lateran Basilica bears on its front in\nbarbarous Latin the title no less true than proved,\n\n\n    \u201cDogmate Papali datur ac simul Imperiali,\n    Quod sim cunctarum Mater Caput Ecclesiarum\u201d.\n\n\nNor is there any spot on the earth upon which the guiding hand of God in\nthe fortunes of the world may be more profitably studied than before the\nentrance of that Church so well styled in her double character Mother and\nHead. If the Mother were not head her rule would be impotent; if the head\nwere not mother it would be unbearable.\n\nThe munificence thus begun in his gratitude by Constantine was continued\nduring centuries by great Roman families and by others also. The pastoral\nstaff fixed itself in Roman earth, and became a great tree. In due time it\nflowered in a prince\u2019s sceptre. It is most interesting to mark in the\ngifts to the Roman See the heathen names of ancient patrician families\ncommemorated. Under the properties administered by St. Gregory the Great\nwe read of the Massa Papirianensis, the Massa Furiana, the Massa\nVarroniana, the Fundus Cornelii.\n\nA fact(215) which enters deep into the world\u2019s history bears remarkable\nwitness to the rapid increase of papal wealth and its inevitable\naccompaniment, the political independence of St. Peter\u2019s chair. From the\ntime the unity of the Roman realm began to be dissolved into two empires,\nthe eastern and the western, not a single western ruler fixed his seat\nabidingly in Rome, although almost all lived in Italy, and although many\nof them could have put to good use, amid the State\u2019s increasing weakness,\nthe help which the charm of the Roman name offered. After the death of\nConstantine the Great in 337, of his three sons Constantius I. received\nthe East, Constans I. received the West in union with his younger brother\nConstantine II., but after his murder, alone. This Constans usually dwelt\nin Gaul. When he visited Italy we find him prefer Milan and Aquileia to\nRome. He yielded to the insurgent Maxentius, and then Constantius became\nsole master of the realm, and, when in the West, lived chiefly in Milan.\nIn his whole reign once only did he enter Rome.(216)\n\nThe second division of the realm, which followed the emperor Jovian, gave\nValentinian for ruler of the West, who selected at first Milan for\nresidence, but was compelled by incursions of the German peoples to spend\nmuch time on the Rhine. We learn, partly from the history of St. Ambrose,\npartly from other documents, that the sons and successors of Valentinian\nI., Gratian, and Valentinian II., as well as the mother and guardian of\nthe latter, the widowed empress Justina, when in Italy held their court\nchiefly at Milan and Aquileia.\n\nThe third and final partition, which severed the West for ever from the\nEast, took place in 395 after the death of the Spaniard, Theodosius I.,\nwhom Gratian had taken for his partner. From that time not Rome, not\nMilan, or Aquileia, but the seaport Ravenna appears the permanent\nresidence of those phantom-emperors who ruled for nearly a century until\nthe full dissolution of the western empire. The political significance of\nthe last city even remarkably survived the name of the Roman empire.\n\nWe are expressly told that Odoacer, the first German king of Italy, who\ndeposed Romulus Augustulus, the last West Roman, had his seat in Ravenna.\nThe same was the case with Odoacer\u2019s conqueror, the great Ostrogoth,\nTheodorich. During his government Ravenna received the title of the royal\ncity, though the Ostrogoth often lived in other great cities of upper\nItaly, such as Pavia and Verona. Finally Ravenna, after the extinction of\nthe Ostrogothic state and people, remained for nearly two hundred years\nthe seat of the exarchs, Byzantine viceroys of Italy.\n\nWhy of so many princes bearing the title of Roman emperors or kings of\nItaly did no single one make his seat in the former capital of the world?\nWhy did the greater number pay it only a transitory visit, some perhaps\nnot see it at all? I think only one sufficient answer can be given to this\nquestion. They shunned a longer stay at Rome because they felt that in a\ncity which had assumed a priestly character they would no longer play the\nfirst part so much as kings desire and must desire it. That fact is,\ntherefore, an incontestable proof not only of the papal power, but\nlikewise of its wealth. Without property no co-active force, not even\nspiritual, can in the long run maintain itself.\n\nThe law of the year 321, allowing churches to receive landed(217) property\nfrom any testator, had results so astonishingly great, that in 50 years\nValentinian I. thought it necessary to put a limit on it. We may pass at\nonce to the time of St. Gregory the Great, the fourteen years 590 to 604.\nAt that time the Bishop of Rome in his Lateran Palace, had become the\ngreatest ground landlord in Italy, and even in all the West. He was the\nreal protector of Rome. The eastern emperor bore the name, but in every\nneed and trial it was not at Ravenna or at Constantinople that help was\nsought, but at the Lateran. Royal dignity waited already upon the Vicar of\nChrist; a dignity with which the spontaneous offerings of three hundred\nyears had invested him. St. Gregory lived like a monk, and gave away as a\nking from the inexhaustible fountain of the apostolic charity.\n\nHis letters enable us to form a fair estimate of the domains of the Roman\nChurch at that time. In his unresting activity to minister aright the\nmaterial wealth of the Church, the son of St. Benedict ripened the\nrecognition of his political independence. His death preceded by 150 years\nthe legal acknowledgment of sovereignty attained by his successor, Stephen\nII., and that intervening period was, as we have seen, a time of\nexceedingly severe trial. A notice of the deacon John, biographer of St.\nGregory, informs us that in his pontificate the Roman Church possessed at\nleast twenty-three patrimonies. These were respectively, that of Sicily,\nof Syracuse, of Palermo, of Calabria, of Apulia, the Samnite, the\nNeapolitan, the Campanian, the Tuscan, the Sabine, the Nursian, the\nCarseolan, that of Via Appia, of Ravenna, of Illyricum, the Istrian,\nDalmatian, Sardinian, Corsican, Ligurian, that of the Cottian Alps, of\nGermanicia, and of Gaul.\n\nThe position of the Popes from the time of St. Gregory to the beginning of\nthe State of the Church is thus described by a Jewish writer forty years\nago.(218) \u201cThe Popes were usually the helpers out of every need. They\nsupplied the money required for the payment of the troops, and for the\nrequisite provisionment, to keep off the ever-impending threatenings of\nscarcity. They also frequently redeemed captives. Now as the Protector\nalways exercised a decisive influence on the protected, and the distant\nemperors distinguished themselves as much by their neglect, as the Vicars\nof Christ by their activity in the interest of Italy, and especially of\nthe seven-hilled city, nothing was more natural than that the estimation\nof those who were so often its preservers advanced more and more. Thus\nthey soon came in fact to stand at the head of almost all secular matters\nin and about Rome, with almost sovereign power. That was especially the\ncase since the pontificate of the great Gregory I., a Pope truly venerable\nboth for his very distinguished mental gifts, and for his far-stretching,\nsound, practical discernment, and his inflexible will. These were the\nreasons enabling him to assume a freer political position towards the\nGreek imperial court than his predecessors.\u201d\n\nIt has been computed(219) that the Popes were in all landlords of 1360\nsquare miles, that is 870,400 acres, in the time of Leo the Isaurian, and\nthat these lands produced to them 200,000 gold soldi in money, and 500,000\nin kind. And if we add to this computation the very great secular powers\nwhich the policy of Justinian had placed throughout his empire in the\nhands of the bishops, we may form some notion of the secular authority\nwielded by the Popes before they obtained the technical rank of\nsovereigns, according to modern definition of that word. Constantine\u2019s\ngift of the Lateran palace may be considered the starting point which the\ncontinual generosity of so many succeeding generations extended, as has\nbeen recounted, until the unanimous voice of his people, delivered, as\nthey hoped, from the Lombard burden, saluted Stephen II. on his return in\n756, not only as Papa, but as Dominus Urbis.\n\nUnder the year 752, when Aistulf had attacked the exarchate and occupied\nthe city of Ravenna, and was turning his arms against the Roman duchy and\nthe cities depending on it, Muratori writes: \u201cFrom what we have hitherto\nseen, although the Greek emperors had their ministers in Rome, yet the\nprincipal authority of government seems to have been seated in the Roman\nPontiffs. They with the power and majesty of their rank and with the\naccompaniment of their virtues tranquilly governed that city and duchy,\ndefending it moreover vigorously, when need arose, from the claws of the\nLombards.\u201d(220)\n\nSuch was the position of the Pontiffs before that definitive rejection of\nthe Byzantine sovereign made by Stephen II. when he was left naked to the\nassault of Aistulf by the cowardice or the impotence of Constantine\nKopronymus. From his return in 756 he and his successors after him became\nkings as well as Popes of Rome. Scrupulous as the two Gregories, Zacharias\nand Stephen himself had been up to the time of the compact with Pipin,\nnever after did any Pope acknowledge the Byzantine as his civil sovereign.\n\nNever could an Italian of those ages have given to the Goth or the Lombard\nthat heartfelt devotion which they felt for the perpetual defender of the\nItalian people, who was seated in the centre of Italy at once the champion\nof the Christian faith, and representative of Rome\u2019s old Commonwealth. The\nByzantine slave-master revolted the Roman heart; the Arian politician\nrevolted the Christian faith: but in the Roman see St. Sergius the Syrian\nemulated the courage of St. Martin the Roman, and St. Gregory III., also\nSyrian, was in no quality behind his predecessor St. Gregory II. the\nRoman. Is it any wonder that by the end of the seventh century when a\nJustinian II. tried to repeat on the person of St. Sergius the wickedness\npractised by his grandfather upon St. Martin, his own soldiers rose\nagainst the guardsman whom he had deputed to this atrocious work, and\nrecognized in the Pope the defender of all which they held dear, whether\nin the natural or the supernatural life.\n\nAnd, again, had not the seven revolutions at Byzantium\u2014ending in the\nexultation of a rough soldier who was able in the field, but ignorant in\ndoctrine\u2014given a sufficient lesson to the Italian peoples to cast off a\nforce which disregarded all right in the natural order, and the whole\ntradition of faith in the supernatural realm of revealed truth?\n\nThat is the consummation which we have been following during a whole\ngeneration, from 726 to 756.\n\nI will here insert the judgment of another historian, upon the gift of the\nexarchate, made by Pipin to St. Peter, in the person of the Popes:\u2014(221)\n\u201cTo question the rightness of this donation is unreasonable and\npreposterous. Since the reconquest of Italy by Belisarius and Narses, Rome\nwas regarded at Constantinople simply as a province, not as a member of\nthe realm, or not as, what it had originally been, the seat of empire. On\nwhat could the right of Greek tyrants be founded constantly to receive\nback, even at second hand, conquests which they were able neither to\ngovern nor to maintain? The assertions of some late historical writers\nseem to pre-suppose that all Europe, as far as the Rhine and the Danube,\nwere placed by God for ever under the Byzantine yoke, and that the shaking\noff this yoke was an unpardonable injustice. Rome did under her bishops\nwhat peoples did under their kings. Rome took her opportunity to free\nherself from the yoke of foreign dominion and unnatural relations. No\nprince, no people of Europe has any other claim upon its soil to show than\nthis and the centuries. Both tell for Rome. Before this testimony, the\nlesser but yet valid right disappears, that the Greek emperor had\nconfiscated the Papal possessions situated in Lower Italy, and that\nnothing was more natural than that it should take the compensation which\npresented itself. The other question which has been also proposed, whether\nthe office of a teacher and bishop of the Christian community can be\nunited with a secular administration, had been long before answered. _Rome\nowed its actual existence solely to the protection of its bishops._ They\nhad found their best right of sovereignty in the gratitude of the people,\nand long before the donation of Ravenna, they had been, if not in name,\nyet in fact, princes in Rome.\u201d\n\nAt the beginning of the year 756, Aistulf, the most aggressive of Lombard\nkings, had strictly invested Rome, ravaged its campagna, and destroyed the\nchurches therein, while he devoutly exhumed the bodies of martyrs to\ntransport them to new shrines in Pavia. In the spring of that year he\nsurrendered his capital to the king of the Franks, and submitted to all\nthe conditions imposed on him by Pipin. In the autumn, by a sudden stroke\nof God, he died out hunting. At the beginning of the year 757, Desiderius,\nby the help of the Pope, Stephen II. had succeeded to the Lombard throne,\nitself spared by Pipin, and these great changes are recorded in an extant\nletter of Pope Stephen, a hymn of gratitude and praise, to Pipin, who had\nplaced the keys of the recovered cities, forming the new created State of\nthe Church, on the tomb of St. Peter. Great is the contrast between the\nletters of 756, written to Pipin, in the height of Rome\u2019s distress and\ndanger, and this letter from the first Pope-king to his benefactor.\n\n\u201cWords(222) cannot express, most excellent son, our delight at your work\nand your life. For we have seen miracles in our days wrought by the divine\npower. For the Roman Church, the holy mother and head of all the churches\nof God, the foundation of the Christian faith, which was groaning under\nthe attacks of enemies, now through you, has been translated into the\nfulness of joy and security. Thus, by your work, and in our exultation, we\nrejoice to exclaim with the angels, \u2018Glory to God in the highest, and on\nearth peace to men of goodwill\u2019. This time last year we were wounded and\nafflicted on all sides: now, in our deliverance through you, we cry out.\n\u2018This change is by the hand of the Most High,\u2019 and, again, \u2018In the\nevening, there shall be weeping, but in the morning joy\u2019. What heart is\nthere so stony that, knowing what your goodness has done, would not break\ninto praise of God and affection to your excellency. This I am wont to say\nto those who come hither from all the nations of the earth: and I\nperpetually pray to God for your welfare, and that of the whole nation of\nthe Franks. What can I call you but a new Moses and a glorious David, for,\nas they delivered the people of God from the oppression of the heathen, so\nhave you the Church of God. May the Lord, the beauty of justice, bless you\nand your children, Charles and Carloman, my spiritual sons, appointed by\nGod kings of the Franks, and patricii of the Romans.\u201d\n\nHe then goes on to beg Pipin to execute fully all that he had promised to\nSt. Peter by oath. He mentions specially Imola, Ferrara, Ancona, Bologna,\nwith their complete territories; and begs him to favour the new king,\nDesiderius, if he restore, as he had promised, fully the _justitia_, which\nwe may translate sovereignty, \u201cto the Holy Church of God, or Commonwealth\nof the Romans, St. Peter, your protector\u201d. He also prays him that the Holy\nCatholic and Apostolic faith may be preserved by him from \u201cthe pestilent\nmalice of the Greeks\u201d. He ends with the prayer:\u2014\u201cO victorious king, may\nGod, in all your acts, extend His right hand over you, your queen, and\nmine and your dearest sons: and, as He has given you the royal power in\nthis life, may you also hear the divine promise, \u2019Come, blessed of my\nFather, you have fought the good fight, you have finished your course, you\nhave kept the faith; so take the crown laid up for you, and the kingdom\nprepared for you from the foundation of the world\u2019\u201d.\n\nA few days after this letter, that is, on the 24th April, 757, Stephen II.\nclosed in peace his course on earth. He died in the Lateran patriarchal\npalace, acknowledged by all as king of Rome: and attended by his brother,\nPaul, who was to be his successor. He was buried with extraordinary\nhonours in St. Peter\u2019s. In his short pontificate of five years he set the\ncrown upon the work of his three great predecessors, Gregory II., Gregory\nIII., and Zacharias, and is counted among the most illustrious of the\nPopes. He closed the seven centuries of Popes who were subjects: he opens\nthe eleven centuries of Popes who have been kings. From the Pope who was\ncrucified on the Roman hill to the Pope who died a king in the patriarchal\nLateran palace, 93 in number, enemies have tried to deface the memory of\ntwo\u2014but the voice of impartial history regards those rulers of the Church\nwith unalloyed gratitude as men who, through trials and difficulties\nunsurpassed, kept the faith of the Church inviolate. That the city of Rome\nexisted in their day, and exists now, is due to the pastoral staff of St.\nPeter, planted in its soil, which became, in the hand of Stephen II., the\nmost gracious, the most prolific, the most honoured of sceptres.\n\nStephen II. was succeeded immediately by his brother Paul, who had been\nthe chosen companion of his counsels and anxieties during the severe\ntrials of his pontificate, ending so gloriously. It was the first instance\nof a brother to the Pope succeeding to his chair. He had been brought up,\nlike his brother Stephen, in the Lateran patriarchal palace from the time\nof St. Gregory II., and was made a cardinal deacon by Pope Zacharias. \u201cHe\nwas meek and very merciful, never rendering evil for evil to anyone.\u201d(223)\nHe sat from 757 to 767, ten years and a month. During the whole time the\nclosest union was maintained between the Holy See and King Pipin. A series\nof letters from the Pope to the king is extant, testifying the affection\nand the confidence which existed between them. It was by the influence of\nPope Stephen II. that the new king of the Lombards, Desiderius, was\naccepted by that people after the untimely death of King Aistulf. He bound\nhimself strictly to carry out the compact at Pavia between the Franks, the\nLombards, and the Romans, in virtue of which, at the subjection of King\nAistulf to Pipin, the Lombard monarchy continued to exist. The reign of\nDesiderius from 757 until he was finally overthrown and deposed by Charles\nin 774 shows a repetition of attempts by fraud or by violence to evade the\nconditions which he had bound himself to accept. Already, in 757, Pope\nPaul I. wrote to King Pipin: \u201cWe(224) make known to your Excellence that\nwe have hitherto received nothing of those things which by our legates we\ncommitted to your charge, for, according to their wont, those perfidious\nand malignant Lombards, persisting in great arrogance of heart, are by no\nmeans inclined to restore the justice of St. Peter\u201d. The possession of the\ncities and territories of Imola, Bologna, Osimo, Ancona, and Umana were in\nquestion. In the next year, 758, Desiderius ravaged with fire and sword\nthe Pentapolis. Then he attacked the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento,\nwhich had put themselves under the protection of the Pope and the king of\nthe Franks.\n\nAt another time the Greek emperor Kopronymus was bent upon recovering\nRavenna and the Pentapolis, and upon attacking Rome itself. Desiderius met\nhis agent and wrote to the emperor, exhorting him to send an army into\nItaly, and promising that he with all his Lombards would help him to\nrecover Ravenna, and whatever else he desired.(225)\n\nThrough the whole ten years of Paul\u2019s pontificate, this king Pipin\ndischarged with fidelity his office of Roman Patricius, that is, the sworn\ndefender of the Holy See. It was this protection alone which enabled the\nPope to maintain his newly founded State against the perpetual wiles of\nthe Lombard, as well as against the Greek enmity. As to Kopronymus, the\nIconoclastic heresy was the furious passion of his whole life. Pope Paul\nwrote to King Pipin:(226) \u201cYou know well how those most nefarious Greeks\npursue us only to destroy and tread under foot the orthodox faith and the\ntradition of the fathers\u201d.\n\nWhen Pope Paul I. died, in 767, his pontificate of ten years had been\nthroughout agitated by the perpetual oscillations of king Desiderius,\nalternating acts of devotion with acts of hostility, promises with\nviolations of them, restitution of rights with fresh acts of\nplundering.(227) Scarcely had Paul I. closed his eyes when the duke Toto,\na very powerful baron of the Roman Tuscany, conspired with his three\nbrothers, Constantine, Passivus, and Paschalis, to get possession of Rome\nand the papacy.(228) Toto and his party, while preparation was being made\nfor the solemn obsequies of Paul I. and the due election of his successor,\nbroke into Rome, suddenly elected his brother Constantine, a layman,\nintroduced him by violence into the Lateran palace. He seized upon George,\nbishop of Palestrina, and compelled him to confer minor orders upon\nConstantine. The next day he was made deacon by the same bishop, and on\nthe following Sunday Toto, attended by a large body of armed men, carried\nthe intruded Constantine to St. Peter\u2019s, where the three suburbican\nbishops, the said George of Palestrina, and the bishops of Albano and\nPorto, gave him episcopal consecration. In such fashion Constantine seated\nhimself in the chair of Peter; he forced the people to make oath of\nfidelity to him. Thus the layman of a week before, thrust upon the clergy\nand people of Rome by the rudest violence, held possession of the\nApostolic See for thirteen months. He wrote lying letters to King Pipin,\nwho was not deceived by them. But Rome was filled with conspiracy and\nunrule.\n\nA year after this event, in July, 768 the intruder Constantine was\ndeposed, his brother Toto killed, while a second pretended Pope, named\nPhilip, set up for the moment, was driven away. By the exertions of\nChristophorus, first of the seven Palatine judges, and his son Sergius,\nStephen III., a Sicilian, and at the time cardinal priest of St. Cecilia,\nwas duly elected Pope. He sat during three years and six months, in the\ncourse of which great events took place. His first act was to send Sergius\nto King Pipin and his sons, beseeching him to depute a number of Frankish\nbishops to Rome to hold a council there with him, and to make regulations\nwhich might prevent the recurrence of violence so deplorable.\n\nSergius found king Pipin dying. He expired at St. Denys on the 24th\nSeptember, 768. There he was buried and afterwards his monument bore the\ninscription, \u201cPipin, the king, father of Charles the Great\u201d. He left his\nstates, with the consent of the nobles and bishops, between his sons\nCharles and Carloman, who were crowned and anointed on the same day, 9th\nOctober, 768, Charles at Noyon, Carloman at Soissons. Pipin died aged\nfifty-five, having ruled France for twenty-seven years, ten as Mayor of\nthe palace, seventeen as king of the Franks.\n\nThe legate Sergius proceeded at once to the kings, Charles and Carloman.\nThey granted all which he desired. They gave him twelve Frankish bishops\nwell instructed in the scriptures and the holy canons, the archbishop of\nSens, the bishops of Mainz, Tours, Lyons, Bourges, Narbonne, Rheims,\nLangres, Noyon, Worms, and two others with sees of names unknown. These\nbishops came to Rome in April, 769, and Pope Stephen III. assembled\nbishops from Tuscany, Campania, and the rest of Italy, and held a council\nin the Lateran Basilica. Among other decrees they passed one under\nanathema: \u201cthat no laymen, nor any one save a cardinal, deacon or priest,\nascending through the distinct degrees, be promoted to the honour of the\nsacred pontificate\u201d.(229) The Pope, all the priests, and the Roman people,\nprostrate on the pavement, deplored the sin they had committed in\nreceiving Communion from the unhappy intruder, Constantine, who had been\ndeprived of sight during the wild struggle which attended his deposition,\nand now in most abject guise confessed his crime before the council, and\nwas condemned to penance.\n\nIn this terrible outburst of ambition and crime, which showed but too\nclearly to what sudden dangers Rome was exposed, the two great officers,\nChristophorus, the first of the seven Palatine judges, and his son\nSergius, had done their utmost to prevent the usurpation, and in the end\ndelivered the Holy See from the intruder Constantine. Desiderius had taken\nno part in the intrusion of the anti-pope. He even assisted Christophorus\nand Sergius in removing him. But in doing this a Lombard priest,\nWaldepert, sought to set up another anti-pope, and lost his life. After\nthe due appointment of Stephen III., the master stroke of the Lombard\nking\u2019s policy was to sever, if he could, the two Frank kings from\nfriendship with the Holy See, and so sooner or later to get possession of\nRome. He proposed in 770 a double marriage; on one side the marriage of\nhis daughter Desiderata or Ermengarde either with Charles or with\nCarloman; on the other that of their sister, the princess Gisela, with his\nson Adelchis. The queen mother, Bertrada, set her hand to accomplish the\nfirst. There is a most earnest letter from Pope Stephen III. to the kings\nCharles and Carloman, entreating them not to stain the noble Frank race,\nthe most eminent of all, by a connection with the faithless and perfidious\nLombard. \u201cYou have likewise,\u201d he said, \u201cby the will of God, and the\ncommand of your father, contracted lawful marriages with excellent royal\nladies out of your own people, conspicuous for their nobility and beauty.\nIt is not lawful for you to repudiate them. To take other wives would be\nan impiety. Heathens only can so act. Forget not, most illustrious sons,\nthat you received holy unction from St. Peter\u2019s successor, that your\nfather of glorious memory listened to the injunctions of our predecessor\nStephen, and forebore to separate from your mother, Bertrada, and be\nmindful of your repeated promise to St. Peter and his successor that you\nwould ever be friends of our friends and enemies of our enemies. Would you\nnow bind yourselves to our enemies? For the faithless people of the\nLombards, which ceases not to attack the Church of God, and make\nincursions on our province of Rome, is our manifest enemy.\u201d(230)\n\nNevertheless the queen mother, Bertrada, carried out her design, and the\nking Desiderius seemed to attain the summit of security, so far at least\nas this, that though his son Adelchis did not obtain the princess Gisela,\nCharles took his daughter Ermengarde. He also sent her back to her father\nthe next year, and his friend and secretary, Eginhard, has left\nunexplained the cause of this repudiation. No historian has thrown light\nupon this particular in the history of Charles, either how he came to\nbrave the anathema of Pope Stephen III. by deserting a lawful wife, or how\nhe came to send back in a year the unhappy princess whom he had unlawfully\ntaken, or how we find Hildegarde acknowledged as his lawful wife from 771\nto her death in 786. The blot remains unerased upon the memory of him who\nwas otherwise the greatest of the Christian emperors.\n\nWith the marriage\u2014if it is to be so called\u2014of his daughter with Charles,\nDesiderius seemed to have reached well nigh the end of his ambition.\nChristophorus and his son Sergius had put an end to the usurpation of\nConstantine, were the heads of the national Roman party,(231) and the soul\nof Pope Stephen III.\u2019s government. Desiderius in a visit to Rome managed\nto set the Pope against them. He had a Lombard party there, at the head of\nwhich was a certain Paul Afiarta, high in the Pope\u2019s service.\nChristophorus and his son Sergius both lost their lives. They had urged\nthe king of the Lombards to restore to the Holy See the rights which he\nkept back. Desiderius was infuriated by their conduct(232) and strove to\ndestroy them.(233) Desiderius was encamped outside of St. Peter\u2019s. A\ncompany of Lombard soldiers dragged the two victims, who had been taken\nout of St. Peter\u2019s, to the gate of the city, at the bridge: tore out their\neyes, of which outrage Christophorus died in three days: Sergius survived\nin prison during two years, that is, to the death of Pope Stephen, when he\nwas most atrociously murdered by order of Paul Afiarta.\n\nBut now the whole course of history was altered by a death which occurred\non the 4th December. Carloman died in the flower of his youth, leaving\nbehind him two very young children by his wife Gilberga. Charles was\ncalled by the unanimous vote of the Frank magnates to rule the whole\nkingdom of the Franks increased greatly as it was by the late conquests of\nCharles in Aquitania and Gascony. Two months later, 1st February, 772,\nStephen III. closed his pontificate of three years and a half. The Pope\nbefore his death had discovered how grievously he had been deceived by\nking Desiderius, to whom his two chief servants and ministers had been\nsacrificed. Desiderius kept none of the promises which he had made on the\noccasion of his coming to Rome: and when the Pope reminded him of them by\na special embassy, mockingly replied:(234) \u201cThe Holy Father Stephen might\nhave been contented that I delivered him from his two tyrants\nChristophorus and Sergius, and did not need to demand the rights of St.\nPeter. If I had not helped the Holy Father, great ruin would have fallen\nupon him, since Carloman, king of the Franks, the friend of both, was\nready to bring an army to Rome to avenge their death, and carry away the\nPope captive.\u201d\n\nThe repudiation of his daughter, Ermengarde, and the rupture of the\ndesired alliance between Desiderius and Charles, terminated the good\nfortune of the Lombard king. From that time he seemed to lose his vigour\nof mind, and political insight. He continued to pursue, without check, the\ndesign of Aistulf, which he had now fully made his own, to become master\nof Rome. But he had to deal with other adversaries. Eight days after the\ndeath of Pope Stephen III., he was succeeded by one of the greatest\npontiffs who ever sat on the throne of St. Peter. Adrian, the son of\nTheodorus, was born in Rome of a very noble family, one of the most\npowerful in the city. Losing his parents early, he was brought up by a\nrelation named Theodotus, Primicerius of the Roman See. He was\ndistinguished from his youth by his purity of life, and his singular\npersonal beauty. Pope Paul I. had placed him among the clergy, Pope\nStephen III. created him a cardinal deacon, in which office his zeal,\neloquence, learning, and management of affairs endeared him to the Roman\npeople. On the very day of the Pope Stephen\u2019s death he was proclaimed\nunanimously his successor, and in eight days consecrated. He showed at\nonce the vigour of mind and promptitude of execution which rendered his\nreign illustrious, and it continued nearly to twenty-four years, a period\nwhich no Pontiff reached in the seven hundred years from St. Peter before\nhim, nor in the thousand years after him, until, at the end of the\neighteenth century, it was slightly passed by that Pontiff who died a\nconfessor, exiled, persecuted, and forlorn at Valence, in that land of the\nFranks, with whose greatest king Pope Adrian was bound in the closest\npersonal friendship.\n\nNo sooner was Pope Adrian seated than he struck down that Lombard faction\nwhich the gold and intrigues of Desiderius had planted at Rome. Its head\nwas Paul Afiarta. In the very last days of Pope Stephen, he had caused the\nblinded Sergius to be assassinated, and banished from Rome certain judges,\nboth of the clergy and the army, that he might have more weight in the\nforthcoming election. Adrian, the moment that he was elected, recalled the\njudges, and delivered from prison those who had been confined for the like\nreason. Desiderius, who desired to keep up appearances with him, sent him\na solemn embassy of the three principal persons in his kingdom,\nTheodicius, duke of Spoleto, Tunno, duke of Ivrea, and the Lord Treasurer\nPrandulus. Their office was to profess friendship and alliance to the new\nPope. Adrian replied:(235)\u2014\u201cIt is my desire to have peace with all\nChristians, and even with your king, Desiderius, I will study to remain in\nthat compact which was made between the Romans, the Franks, and the\nLombards. But how can I trust your king in the matter in which my\npredecessor, Stephen, of holy memory, has spoken to me fully of his want\nof good faith: how he falsified everything which he promised on oath over\nthe body of St. Peter, for the rights of holy Church, and only by his own\nhostile pleading, caused the eyes of Christophorus and Sergius to be put\nout, and worked out his own will upon those two chief men of the Church.\nSuch is the faith of your king, Desiderius, and how can I trust in a\ntreaty with him?\u201d In reply, the ambassadors made oath that Desiderius\nwould fulfil what he had promised to Pope Stephen, and broken. The Pope\nthereupon despatched messengers to see that Desiderius fulfilled the\npromise. When these reached Perugia, they found that Desiderius had\nalready taken the city of Faenza, and the duchy of Ferrara, and was\npressing Ravenna with siege. It was only two months after the accession of\nPope Adrian, and presently messengers from Ravenna came supplicating his\nhelp, just as thirty years before, when pressed by the arms of Liutprand,\nthey had recourse to Pope Zacharias. But now the exarchate was fully\nsubject to the Pope, and called upon him as part of his own State for\ndefence. When this conduct of Desiderius was reported to the Pope, he\nwrote in the gravest terms to the Lombard king, requiring him to restore\nthe cities, and upbraiding him with the breach of those very promises\nwhich his own ambassadors had just made in his name. \u201cThe king,\u201d he said,\n\u201chad taken cities which his predecessors, Stephen II., Paul I., and\nStephen III., had possessed.\u201d Desiderius returned, for answer, \u201cthat he\nwould not restore those cities, unless he first met the Pope\u201d. At the same\ntime, he had received the widow and young children of the deceased\nCarloman, and wanted to induce the Pope to crown them, and so create\ndivision in the Frank empire, and alienate Charles, the Patricius of Rome,\nfrom the Pope, and thus subjugate the city of Rome and all Italy to the\nLombard kingdom.(236) But Adrian stood firm as adamant. One of his two\nlegates to the king, Paul Afiarta, was in league with the king, and\npromised to bring the Pope before him, even if it were with a rope round\nhim. But, at this very moment, the body of the murdered Sergius was\ndiscovered at Rome. The Pope ordered an inquiry into the circumstances of\nhis death. At the earnest entreaty of the Palatine judges, among whom\nSergius had been second in rank, and of the whole Roman people, the Pope\nordered the prefect of the city to try for homicide the parties\ninculpated. The crime was brought home to the legate, Paul Afiarta\nhimself, at whose suggestion other highly placed officers had taken the\nblind Sergius out of prison, and pierced him with wounds. The Pope ordered\nthe bodies of Christophorus and Sergius to be taken up and honourably\nburied in St. Peter\u2019s. He sent the Acts of the Court to the archbishop of\nRavenna, instructing him to detain Paul Afiarta, when he returned from his\nembassy to the Lombard king. Archbishop Leo went beyond the Pope\u2019s\ninstructions: handed over Paul Afiarta to the chief judge of Ravenna,\nbefore whom he acknowledged his guilt: and, instead of sending the\ncriminal, as the Pope ordered, in exile to the East, had him executed by\nthe judge.\n\nDesiderius found himself bereft of his counsellor, Paul Afiarta: he\nrefused to listen to the Pope\u2019s request to restore his cities. He\ncommitted further outrages and assaults. He rejected repeated letters and\nmessengers of the Pope. His reply was that, instead of restoring cities,\nhe would march with his whole army to Rome, and force it to surrender. The\nPope had several of the gates of Rome built up and others carefully\nclosed, and sent by sea messengers to Charles, begging him to help the\nRoman Church as his father had done, and force Desiderius to restore what\nhe had taken from St. Peter.(237)\n\nDesiderius saw that his attempt to move the Pope to crown the sons of\nCarloman was vain; then, with the widowed Gilberga, these sons and the\nduke, Autchar, he advanced his troops from Pavia, on the way to Rome, and\ninformed the Pope of it. Adrian replied, \u201cIf the king does not give up the\ncities, as he has promised, and fully satisfy us, it is useless for him to\ntake the trouble to come to us. He shall not see my face.\u201d\n\nAdrian, while awaiting the succour which he had asked from king Charles,\nhad taken all measures necessary for the defence of Rome. He collected all\nthe men of war whom he could from the Roman Tuscany, from Campania, from\nthe duchy of Perugia, from such cities of the Pentapolis as the Lombards\nhad not yet taken, who, with the Roman soldiers, might suffice to defend\nthe vast circle of the walls and towers, and sustain a siege at least for\na time. The two basilicas of St. Peter and St. Paul, being outside the\nwalls, were defenceless. The Pope caused them to be stripped of all\nprecious objects, which were brought for protection within the city. He\nhad all the doors closed and barred up within: so that, if the Lombard\nking attempted an entrance, it would be as a burglar.\n\nThese were his acts as a sovereign prince\u2014as pontiff, learning that the\nking was approaching the Roman frontiers, he sent to him the bishops of\nAlbano, Palestrina, and Tibur, with an intimation in his own hand,\nadjuring him by all the divine mysteries, and under threat of\nexcommunication, that neither he, nor any Lombard, nor the Frank Autchar\nshould set foot on the Roman territory without his leave.\n\nDesiderius had reached Viterbo, the last city of the Lombard Tuscany. He\nwas, at the head of his army, about to pass the frontier. On receiving the\nPope\u2019s injunction he was struck with confusion and retired back with his\narmy to his own city, Pavia. As the Hun had listened to St. Leo, the\nLombard also listened to Adrian, and Rome was once more saved by her\npontiff.\n\nWhen Peter,(238) the legate of Adrian, reached France in the first months\nof 773, he found Charles wintering at Thionville, after his first\nexpedition against the Saxons. He had destroyed the famous idol Irminoul.\nIt was the beginning of his longest and fiercest war. Now, Pope Adrian\ncalled upon him, as Patricius of the Romans, to defend Rome and the State\nof St. Peter against Desiderius, from whom neither peace nor justice could\nany longer be hoped. At the same time a Lombard embassy reached him,\nprofessing that Desiderius had already restored every thing to the Pope.\nCharles sent three messengers of his own to Rome to ascertain the facts.\nThey reached Rome just after its deliverance from the fear of a siege by\nthe retreat of Desiderius from Viterbo. The Pope related to them in order\nall the late events: and sent with them other messengers of his own,\nconjuring Charles afresh to carry into effect the promises which he had\nformerly made with his father to St. Peter, and to fulfil the redemption\nof the holy Church of God(239) by compelling the perfidious king of the\nLombards to restore without contest to St. Peter, both the cities and the\nother rights which he had taken away. On their way to France the\njoint-messengers appeared at the court of Pavia, and, by instruction of\nCharles, urged Desiderius peacefully to restore the cities and rights. He\ngave an absolute refusal, which they carried to Charles.\n\nCharles sent fresh messengers to Desiderius, and offered him 14,000 gold\nsolidi, if he would make restitution. All was of no avail. When the\nmessengers returned to Charles, he brought the whole matter before his\ndukes and chiefs, probably at the May diet, and an expedition into Italy\nwas resolved upon for the autumn. The Frank army was summoned to meet at\nGeneva. One part of it Charles sent by the Mons Jovis, the St. Bernard;\nthe other he conducted himself by the passes of Mont Cenis, the same route\nwhich Pipin had held in 754 and 756. When Charles reached the pass above\nSusa, he found it strongly fortified and valiantly defended by Desiderius\nin person, and his son, Adelchis. Here it is said the Franks were so long\ndetained, being unable to break through the Lombard defence, that they\nwere on the point of retiring, when a secret road was discovered to\nCharles, and their flank was turned. The result was a precipitate retreat\nof Desiderius to his fortified capital, Pavia, and of his son, Adelchis,\nto Verona. From that moment the chief struggle was concentred about these\ntwo cities. Other cities of Upper Italy, such as Turin, Ivrea, Vercelli,\nNovara, Piacenza, Milan, Parma, Tortona, and the maritime cities, with\ntheir castles, fell speedily into the hands of the Franks. Charles sat\ndown before Pavia at the end of September or beginning of October, 773.\nThat royal city of the Lombards, in the eighth century, was first among\nall the cities of Upper Italy, not only for its riches and magnificence,\nbut for its military strength. Near the confluence of the Ticino and the\nPo, it was esteemed almost impregnable. It had resisted Odoacer, and\nAlboin required more than three years to take it, which he accomplished\nrather by famine than by force. Charles encamped with his army round it,\nand completely enclosed it with lines and trenches. He sent for the queen\nHildegarde and her children. He made an attempt to take Verona, but found\nit too strong for anything short of a regular siege, defended, as it was,\nby the most valiant Adelchis. However, the widowed queen Gilberga, with\nher children, who were therein, surrendered themselves to him. They\ndisappear henceforward from history, and are supposed to have been\nconfined in Frank monasteries. Charles spent the feast of Christmas in the\ncamp at Pavia. All we know of these months is the two words of Eginhard,\nthat he spent them, \u201cmuch employed\u201d.(240) We may conclude that not only\nthe siege of Pavia, but the settlement of the numerous cities in North\nItaly, which yielded to him, well occupied his time.\n\nBut Charles had hitherto never seen Rome, and the feast of Easter, which\nfell in that year, 774, on the 3rd April, drew him with a great attraction\nto visit the tombs of the apostles, and he resolved to be present for the\nPaschal rites. He left therefore his army under the command of his chief\nofficers and with a great train of bishops, abbots, judges, dukes, and\ncounts, and a large escort of warriors, took the road of Tuscany, which\nprobably had been in a great part subdued, and advanced so quickly that he\nreached the gates of Rome on the morning of Holy Saturday.\n\nGreat was the joy of Pope Adrian to hear of this unexpected visit of\nCharles, and his rapid approach. He made the utmost preparation to receive\nso great a king, who had likewise the special dignity of Rome\u2019s Patricius,\nthat is, her sworn defender. He sent out all the judges of Rome to a spot\nthirty miles away near the lake of Bracciano, where they awaited him with\nbanners displayed. At a mile from Rome, near Monte Mario, by order of the\nPope the soldiers under their respective leaders, and the children who\nwere learning letters, were drawn up to meet him, and bearing in their\nhands branches of palm and olive sang welcome to him. The standards of\ncrosses were carried, as in the reception of an exarch or a Patricius.\nWhen the king of the Franks, Patricius of the Romans, met these crosses,\nhe descended from horseback with his officers, and walked the rest of the\nway on foot to St. Peter\u2019s. There, Pope Adrian, rising early with all the\nclergy and people of Rome waited, to receive the king of the Franks at the\ntop of the steps leading into the court of the Basilica.\n\nAt that time there were thirty-five steps in five series of seven each.\nWhen Charles reached these steps, he threw himself on his knees, and so\nascended,(241) kissing separately each one of the thirty-five in the\nfashion of a pilgrim. At the top he found Pope Adrian; they embraced each\nother, and the king holding the Pope\u2019s right hand they entered the church\ntogether, all the clergy and the monks singing, \u201cBlessed is he who cometh\nin the name of the Lord\u201d. When the king with the bishops, abbots, judges,\nand all the Franks of his train, came to the Confession, they prostrated\nthemselves to our almighty God, and rendered their vows to the Prince of\nthe Apostles, glorifying the divine power in him, who had given them by\nhis intercession such a victory.\n\nAfter their prayer the king turned to the Pope and earnestly requested of\nhim permission to enter Rome, in order to venerate the other churches of\nthe city, and therein pay his vows. Whereupon the Pope and the king,\ntogether with Roman and Frank judges, descending to the body of St. Peter,\nbound themselves by oath to mutual protection. This permission to enter\nRome was granted in after times by the Popes to Roman emperors themselves,\nas often as they approached the gates of Rome with armed force. After this\npermission received Charles and the Pope rode in solemn pomp from St.\nPeter\u2019s to the Lateran, through the whole of Rome. And Charles, in the\nLateran church, witnessed the Pope\u2019s celebration of the baptismal rite to\nthe catechumens as usual on that day.\n\nSo the Romans on that day first beheld the flower of the greatest western\nnation passing in the pomp of armed men by their palaces, porticoes,\nCapitol, forum, and colosseum, with the greatest champion of Christendom\nthen in the glory of his manhood at the age of thirty-two years. His\nsecretary, Eginhard, attests his stature to have been seven of his own\nfeet, and his whole aspect was full of majesty. When he ascended on his\nknees the thirty-five steps leading to St. Peter\u2019s, separately kissing\neach, he manifested in his own person the truth of the reply which nearly\nfifty years before Pope St. Gregory II. had made to the eastern emperor,\nLeo III. Leo threatened that he would tear down the statue of St. Peter.\nSt. Gregory said that all the nations of the West regarded him as a God\nupon earth.\n\nAfter this Charles returned to the meadows of Nero by St. Peter\u2019s wherein\nforeign armies usually encamped. At the following dawn of Easter day the\nPope sent his chief officers and soldiers to conduct Charles in great pomp\nto Santa Maria Maggiore, where, with all his Franks, he heard the Pope\nsing Mass. After Mass the Pope received him to a banquet at the\npatriarchal palace of the Lateran. On the two following feasts the Pope,\naccording to usage, celebrated Mass on the Monday at St. Peter\u2019s, on the\nTuesday at St. Paul\u2019s, in presence of the king. At the Mass in St. Peter\u2019s\nAnastasius mentions that the Pope caused the ceremony called Lauds to be\ninserted before the Epistle. It was sung before Popes and emperors at\ntheir accession. It consisted of the clergy dividing themselves in two\nbands before the altar, when the archdeacon on one side intoned with loud\nvoice, \u201cO Christ, hear us!\u201d the other side responded, \u201cLong life to our\nLord decreed by God, Roman Pontiff and universal Pope!\u201d This was repeated\nthree times; a short litany followed, in which to each invocation made by\nthe archdeacon, the other side replied, \u201cGive him help\u201d: and it ended with\na triple Kyrie Eleison. With this rite on that Easter Monday of 774\nCharles was solemnly acclaimed as Patricius of the Romans. Eginhard in his\n\u201cLife\u201d says that Charlemagne would never put on a foreign dress, however\nsplendid: and that he broke this rule twice only, both times at Rome, the\nfirst at the request of Pope Adrian: the second at the request of his\nsuccessor, Pope Leo III., when he wore the long tunic and cloak, and was\nshod also in Roman fashion. Now twenty years before, that is, in 754, Pope\nStephen II. had crowned Pipin and his two sons Charles and Carloman kings\nof the Franks, and created them also Patricii of the Romans. Charles would\nseem to have considered this ceremony a solemn inauguration of this\ndignity. It was from this time, 774, that in his public acts he styled\nhimself king of the Franks and of the Lombards, and Patricius of the\nRomans.\n\nIn that same week before Charles left Rome he transacted affairs of the\nutmost importance with the Pope.\n\nThe ecclesiastical hierarchy in France, the rights of metropolitans, and\nthe other churches had fallen in the last eighty years under great\nusurpations, which all the zeal of Pipin had not been able to remedy.\nAdrian prevailed on Charles to work a restoration of the ancient state. He\nalso drew from the archives of the Roman See two authentic codes, one\ncontaining the old order of the ecclesiastical provinces and dioceses in\nFrance; the other, the councils and canons of the Greek and Latin church.\nThese were of the greatest service to Charles in the synods and capitulars\nand wise regulations which he made for the restoration of the Church in\nFrance.\n\nBut further, the Pope addressed himself to obtain from Charles the renewal\nand confirmation of the promise made in April, 754, by king Pipin and\nCharles himself to Pope Stephen II. The king promised not only to\nreconquer for the Holy See the exarchate and Pentapolis, then occupied by\nAistulf, but to add to them likewise all the provinces of nearly all Italy\nfrom the Po. That promise was grounded upon the design then entertained by\nthe Pope and the king to put an end altogether to the Lombard rule. But at\nthe siege of Pavia, in 754, the Pope and Pipin were so far moved by the\nsupplications and promises of Aistulf, that they left him the Lombard\nkingdom. Giving up that first design, they made with him the treaty of\nPavia, that compact between the Franks, the Lombards, and the Romans,\nwhich during eighteen years was appealed to as the basis of their\npolitical relations. But in this interval the incorrigible perfidy and\nambition of Desiderius, and his obstinate refusal of all terms of\nagreement, had last led Adrian and Charles to resume the original\nintention of Stephen and Pipin. Charles after forcing the pass above Susa\nresolved to pluck up by the roots the Lombard power. Thus the conditions\nof 754, having returned in 774, would bring back the first promise of\nPipin, and the compact of Pavia in 756 having been trodden under foot by\nDesiderius, and torn at the sword\u2019s point, the compact of Quiersy was\nrestored to force. It had not been annulled but suspended. Adrian\ntherefore took the excellent opportunity of Charles\u2019s presence in Rome to\ncomplete the work so well begun by Stephen II. The fresh inauguration of\nCharles as Patricius helped to obtain from him a solemn confirmation of\nthe former compact. His piety and devotion to St. Peter were not less\nmarked than his father\u2019s, and he assented to the Pope\u2019s desire.\n\nOn Easter Wednesday, the 6th April, 774, the solemn act was completed\nwhich Anastasius has left carefully registered in the Liber\nPontificalis.(242) The Pope with all the judges of the clergy and army,\nthat is, all the ecclesiastical and lay dignitaries of Rome, went to St.\nPeter\u2019s, where he was met by Charles with all his train. Here Adrian in a\npublic speech recorded the acts of kindness and attachment which for so\nlong had joined together France and the Holy See. He reminded Charles of\nthe promise which, in April, 754, his father Pipin of sacred memory and he\nhimself with his brother Carloman and all the Frank judges had made and\nsworn solemnly to St. Peter and Pope Stephen II. in the assembly of\nQuiersy. That was to assure to St. Peter and all his successors in\nperpetuity the possession of various cities and territories of Italy. He\nthen earnestly exhorted and prayed the king to give entire accomplishment\nto that promise. Charles asked that the whole tenor of the promise of\nQuiersy should be read before him. Having heard it read, and greatly\napproved of it, with his judges, he most willingly accorded the request of\nthe Pope, he immediately ordered his chaplain and notary Etherius to draw\nout another deed of promise and donation exactly similar to the first. In\nthis he granted to St. Peter the same cities and lands and promised to\ngive them over to Pope Adrian, marking out the limits. These are, says\nAnastasius, as we now read them in the text of donation, from Luni and the\nisle of Corsica, by Parma, Reggio, Mantua, and Monselice, embracing the\nwhole exarchate of Ravenna as it was of old, the province of Venetia and\nIstria, the duchies of Spoleto and Benevento. This Charles subscribed with\nhis own hand, and caused it to be subscribed by all his bishops, abbots,\ndukes, and counts. After this the king and his nobles, having placed the\ndeed, first upon the altar of St. Peter, and then within the Confession,\ntook a terrible oath to St. Peter and Pope Adrian, to maintain every\nsyllable of its contents, and they placed the deed in the hands of the\nPope. Further, Charles made Etherius write another copy of the same\ndonation, placed it with his own hand on the inner altar of the\nConfession, under the gospels which were wont to be kissed there by the\nfaithful, that it might remain in most secure guarantee and eternal\nmemorial of the devotion of Charles and the Franks to the Prince of the\nApostles. Other copies were afterwards made in authentic form by the\nproper officer of the Roman Church, which Charles carried with him into\nFrance.\n\nThus the original compact of Quiersy resumed its legal force, and became\nthe foundation of political right in Italy. It is true that various\nreasons prevented the compact from ever receiving its entire effect, but\nit became, nevertheless, the standard which the Popes and the kings of the\nFranks kept before them, the archetype on which the public deeds and\ncovenants renewed afterwards so often in the middle ages between the\nemperors and the Holy See were all framed. Adrian in thus claiming and\nsecuring the sovereign rights already acquired by the Roman Church may be\ncalled the second founder, after Stephen II., of the temporal monarchy of\nthe Popes. Charles in crowning the work of Pipin showed himself not only\nworthy of the Roman Patriciate, but of that further dignity to which he\nwas afterwards exalted by Leo III. In the twenty following years the union\nand cordial friendship which bound Adrian and Charles together, maintained\nand increased prosperity in the Church, and made closer still the old\nalliance of France with the Papacy. Adrian ordered a prayer for king\nCharles to be entered in the Roman liturgy, which thenceforward was made\nfor the Roman emperors, who succeeded him in his office of Protector of\nthe Church.\n\nThe Pope, in taking leave of Charles, predicted to him, in the names of\nSt. Peter and St. Paul, a quick and complete triumph over their common\nenemies, and the total conquest of the Lombard kingdom: \u201cafter which,\u201d he\nsaid, \u201cyou will render to St. Peter the gift which you have promised him,\nand will receive in reward greater and more signal victories\u201d.\n\nAnd Adrian ordered that in all the monasteries, and the twenty-eight\ntitular churches, and the seven deaconries of Rome, every day perpetual\nprayers should be offered for victory to the Franks.\n\nThus Charles left Rome, and returned to his camp before Pavia. By the\nfirst days of June, Verona had fallen, notwithstanding all the valour of\nthe prince Adelchis, and Pavia had yielded. With the submission of the\ncapital, the few remaining cities, and Lombard lords, accepted Charles for\ntheir king. Thus, in the course of ten months, from September, 773, to\nJune, 774, Charles effected, with great good fortune and little effusion\nof blood, the most brilliant of his conquests. He placed a strong Frank\ngarrison in Pavia, he sent his counts to govern the various cities and\nprovinces: in which, however, the chief Lombard dukes were comprised.\nCharles did not change the constitution of the kingdom: he did not make it\na province of France. He left its integrity and autonomy. He became\nhimself king of the Lombards, as before he had been king of the Franks.\n\nOne of his first deeds(243) was to restore to the Holy See all the cities\nand territories which, in his last years, Desiderius had invaded in the\nexarchate, the Pentapolis, or the duchy of Rome. He thus gave back to Pope\nAdrian full and pacific possession of the whole State of St. Peter, such\nas it was after the donation of Pipin. This was the chief, if not the\nsole, occasion of the war. It would be the first fruit of the victory.\nThat he performed what he had promised is attested by his secretary,\nEginhard: \u201cCharles did not rest from the war which he had begun until he\nhad restored to the Romans all which had been taken away from them. \u2018The\nend of this war was the subjection of Italy: and the restitution to\nAdrian, ruler of the Roman Church, of the things which had been seized by\nthe Lombard kings.\u2019 \u201d(244) Other contemporary annals of the year 774 say:\n\u201cThis year Pavia was surrendered to the Franks: and Desiderius was carried\ninto France, and the lord king Charles sent his counts through all Italy:\nhe joyfully restored to St. Peter the cities owed to him, and having\narranged everything, came speedily into France\u201d. His return filled France\nwith triumph.\n\n\u201cThe Lombards(245) had been governed by their kings with good laws and\nexact justice, but they afterwards received better treatment under\nCharlemagne, a monarch who, in loftiness of mind, in power and rectitude\nof judgment, surpassed all Frank and Lombard kings.\u201d But this encomium on\nthe good laws and exact justice of the Lombards belongs only to their\ntreatment of themselves, for the Romans(246) looked with horror upon the\nignominious servitude with which Aistulf and Desiderius threatened them.\nThese kings sought to crown that semi-barbarous occupation of North Italy\nduring two centuries by throning themselves in Rome, and making the Pope\ntheir vassal. Aistulf sank before Pipin, and Desiderius before Charles.\nThe oppressors of the Pope were swept away: his champion and protector,\nCharles, went on henceforth from victory to victory.\n\nThat the transition(247) of the lands secured to the Pope into the\nrelation of vassals to a sovereign was a matter of time is explained by\nthe insufficient material force at the command of the Pope, the love of\nindependence in the population, their power to resist, and the general\nconditions of the time. Thus, from a letter of Adrian to Charles, in 787\nor 788, we learn that he announced to the king how he had received the\ncities of Toscanella. Bagnorea, and Viterbo, and requested from him the\ntradition of Populania, and Rosella, near Piombino. Later, he shows him\nthat he had not yet received them, though two messengers of Charles had\nbeen charged with their delivery. Thus it required fresh efforts on the\npart of the Franks, and fresh reminders on the part of the Pope, to obtain\nthe complete execution of the gift. This does not show that Charles was\nunwilling to keep his word: but it does show the difficulty of the matter.\nIt was a great undertaking to pacify the population in a number of cities,\nand to subject the great and the small proprietors in them to the papal\nlordship. Adrian had reason sometimes to express the wish to the king that\nit might be accomplished in their life-time. Sometimes Charles\u2019s own\nCommissioners were not trustworthy, were disinclined to the Pope, were\nliable to be corrupted or deceived, or made mistakes in executing their\ncommission. In March, 781, Charles came again to Italy, celebrated Easter\non the 15th of April at Rome, treated with the Pope, had his little son,\nPipin, four years old, baptised, and made him, after the Pope had anointed\nhim, king of the Lombards. The duchies of Spoleto and Benevento were to be\nvassal lands of the Pope. The distance of the latter from the Franks, the\nconnection of the Duke Arichis with Desiderius, and the nearness to the\nGreeks, who occupied Gaicta, and other parts of Campania, caused special\ndifficulties here. This gradual acquisition of the territories promised by\nCharles in 774 occupied a number of years; but in them Adrian had every\nreason to praise the good faith of Charles and the Franks.\n\nFrom the time that all dependence on Constantinople was broken off, the\nsovereign authority of the Pope appears entire.(248) In all dealings with\nPipin and the Franks, in the compact of alliance at Quiersy, in the two\npeaces of Pavia, in 754 and 756, between the Franks, the Romans, and the\nLombards, the Pope appears as the sole actor and supreme arbiter of Rome\u2019s\nfortunes. He alone confers on Pipin and his sons the dignity of Patriciate\nof the Romans, thereby binding him to an armed defence of Rome and its\nState. To the Pope alone Fulrad consigns at St. Peter\u2019s the keys and the\nhostages of the cities of the exarchate. The Pope covenants with\nDesiderius the conditions for his elevation to the Lombard throne; demands\nof him the surrender of the cities not yet restored: guards against the\nschemes of the Lombards and the Greeks to take away the sovereignty of the\nHoly See; treats with the king of the Franks to frustrate them. He\ncontinually sends his ambassadors into France, usually prelates, sometimes\ndukes and Roman magnates. The kings of France send to him their\nmessengers; treat with him of all public affairs of Italy. The people of\nSpoleto, Reate, and elsewhere, when at the fall of Desiderius they\nvoluntarily became subjects of the Roman State, swear fealty to St. Peter\nand the Pope. In a word, in all political acts, in all concerning the\ngovernment and defence of the State, the Pope alone speaks and acts in his\nown name with supreme and independent authority. No representative of the\nSenate or Roman people is seen at his side, clothed with proper and\ndistinct authority. On the contrary, in the very gravest questions of\nState, no decree of the Senate, no plebiscite, no form of citizen suffrage\nis so much as hinted at. This is inexplicable had Rome been governed as a\nrepublic, or if its citizens had had any part of sovereign authority.\n\nWith this the language of the Pope himself exactly agrees. He speaks as a\nking of the cities and provinces of the Roman State. \u201cThe territories of\nour cities, and the patrimonies of St. Peter;\u201d \u201cour city of Sinigallia;\u201d\n\u201cour castle of Valens;\u201d \u201cthis our city of Rome,\u201d \u201cour city of Civita\nVecchia;\u201d \u201cour city of Castle Felaty;\u201d \u201cour territories of the exarchate;\u201d\n\u201cthis our province;\u201d \u201cthey are attempting to withdraw from our dominion\nour cities of Campania, from the power and dominion of St. Peter and\nours;\u201d \u201cwe have resolved to send thither our main army;\u201d \u201cin all the parts\nwhich lie under the dominion of the holy Roman Church;\u201d these and such\nlike expressions occur everywhere in the letters of the Popes to the Frank\nkings. These also are no less frequent and significative. \u201cThe holy Church\nof God and its peculiar people;\u201d \u201cthe Roman Church and all the people\nsubject to it;\u201d \u201cour people;\u201d \u201cthe people entrusted to us;\u201d \u201call our\npeople of the Romans of that province;\u201d \u201cour people of the commonwealth of\nthe Romans\u201d. These expressions the Popes used without doubt or reserve in\npublic letters to the Frank kings and nation. Adrian, in a letter to\nCharlemagne,(249) declares his will to maintain and exercise in the\nexarchate and Pentapolis exactly the same power which Stephen II. had\nreceived. \u201cOur predecessor distributed all appointments in the exarchate,\nand all who ruled received their orders from this city of Rome. He sent\njudges to right all who suffered wrong, to reside in that city of\nRavenna.\u201d\n\nThe interests of the Romans and the Franks, of the Papacy and the Frankish\nkingdom, of Adrian and Charles, became in this period blent together.(250)\nAn indivisible unity and sincere alliance existed between them. They were\nthe result of that great visit of Charles to Rome in 774. When that visit\ntook place, Charles was almost at the beginning of that wonderful career\nwhich has placed him at the head of modern history. By the death of his\nbrother Carloman two years before, the whole Frank inheritance came into\nhis hands. In the three years since 768, when Charles and Carloman had\nbeen crowned on the same day as kings of the Franks, but in different\ncities, there had been dissension between them, and had Carloman lived, it\nwas to be feared that the young strength of the greatest western monarchy\nwould have been turned against itself, instead of being gathered up\ntogether against the Saracen enemy who was bent on the conquest of the\nworld. But now the single hand of Charles wrought it to a unity of power,\nmoderation and wisdom, which first became conspicuous on this visit to\nRome. By this act of spontaneous devotion he may be said to have\ninaugurated the unequalled success which afterwards attended on him. From\nthat time, forty-two years of reign were appointed to him, in which he\nbecame greater and greater. The root may have been that first visit which\nhe made to Rome, shortly after that Pontificate of Adrian began, in answer\nto his appeal. They became from this time fast personal friends. It is to\nbe observed with what magnificent loyalty Charles took up, repeated, and\nratified in his own person, the act of his father, Pipin, made twenty\nyears before. That act of Pipin is almost unique in history. When Stephen\nII. came to him at Pontigny in 754, Pipin promised him _for __ the love of\nSt. Peter_ to defend the city and duchy of Rome from the intruding Lombard\nking, Aistulf, and so not to _give_, but to _preserve_ its sovereignty to\nSt. Peter, as throned in his successors, alike from Lombard robbery and\nByzantine neglect and impotence. He promised also to recover the exarchate\nof Ravenna, and the province on the Adriatic called the Pentapolis,\nalready taken by Aistulf from the Byzantine, and in his occupation, and to\n_give_ them an inheritance to St. Peter. Also, he received the title of\nPatricius of the Romans, then bestowed upon him by Stephen II., with the\nengagement and the right of protection carried by it. His sons Charles and\nCarloman, then children, were associated with him in these promises, and\nin the dignity of Patricius. The nobles of the Franks assembled in diet\ngave their sanction to these things: Pipin accomplished them. He would not\ntake to himself a palm of ground in that rich territory which he partly\npreserved for St. Peter alone, and partly bestowed upon him. Rome and its\nduchy he preserved; the exarchate and Pentapolis he bestowed. Stephen II.\n_reigned_, when he returned to Rome, in 756, and his brother, Paul I.,\nafter him. The Lombard kingdom, from the taking of Pavia in 756, continued\nby Pipin\u2019s permission. The last Lombard king, Desiderius, repaid all this\nby perpetual encroachment upon the cities given to St. Peter. The Lombard\nfaithlessness is repeatedly dwelt upon in the contemporary writings of the\nPopes Stephen II., Paul I., Stephen III., and especially Adrian I. Charles\nhad listened to the solemn appeal of Adrian to right him. He came to Rome,\nand the greatest warrior of the West ascended as a pilgrim on his knees\nthe thirty-five steps which led to the tomb of the Prince of the Apostles.\nHe was welcomed at St. Peter\u2019s Confession as Patricius, in the way that\nPopes and emperors alone, upon their accession, were welcomed. And before\nhe left Rome, at the request of the Pope, he ordered his father\u2019s deed to\nbe read before him; in the midst of his princes, and with their consent,\nhe re-affirmed it: and he guarded the throne of Adrian as Patricius during\nthat pontificate, which, until seventeen hundred years from St. Peter had\nelapsed, had no equal in length. In all this Charles equalled and repeated\nthe generosity of his father.\n\nHow greatly the Popes esteemed the deeds of Pipin and of Charlemagne is\nwitnessed perpetually by the letters of the day contained in the Codex\nCarolinus.(251) In them the Frank king is constantly likened to Moses and\nto David, who delivered the people of Israel from Egyptian bondage and\nheathen oppression. He is called perpetually, \u201cour helper and defender\nafter God,\u201d \u201cthe guardian of holy Church,\u201d \u201cthe liberator of the Christian\npeople,\u201d \u201cthe ransomer of the Roman Church, and all the people subject to\nit\u201d. To him is attributed the prosperity and security of Rome and the\nwhole province of Roman Italy, which is said to be redeemed by him. No\ntongue can express or praise sufficiently his benefits. God alone can\nreward him. All nations must acknowledge his defence of the Church of God,\nand magnify him for it over all the kings of the earth.\n\nThe effect of the Pipinian donation, confirmed in so splendid a manner by\nCharles, had two results at once of inestimable value: one to free the\nPopes and the inhabitants of Italy from the perpetual invasion, threats,\nand devastation of the Lombards. Thrice since the assault of the emperor\nLeo III., in 726, upon the faith and internal government of the Church,\nhad Rome been in the utmost peril of subjugation, once by Liutprand, then\nby Aistulf, lastly by Desiderius. What would have been the condition of\nthe Pope under such a king as Aistulf or Desiderius, seated at the\nCapitol? He could only expect a servitude far worse than had ever been\nsuffered under the vice-c\u00e6sars of Ravenna, or the c\u00e6sars of\nConstantinople. The original Roman empire had been broken into a multitude\nof independent kingdoms. That changed condition of the Christian society\nof itself required that there should be lodged in its head a greater\nindependence of the civil power. The hand of Charles, coming down upon the\nhand of Pipin, assured to Adrian the legal recognition of a sovereignty\nsufficiently large to secure him in the guardianship of the faith which\nwas the chief work of St. Peter\u2019s See in every age. And so the misery\nwhich the rudest barbarian horde began in 568 was stayed at last in 774:\nand if Gregory the Great, in his time, complained that he had been for\nthirty years keeping watch and ward against Lombard violence and intrigue,\nthe four great pontiffs, Gregory II., Gregory III., Zacharias, and Stephen\nII., witnessed the last access of their attempt at domination, and the\nroyal city of Ravenna acknowledged in Pope Adrian, not only its spiritual\nhead, but its temporal sovereign.\n\nAt the same time the second inestimable benefit of deliverance from the\neastern despotism, fastened upon Italy since the time of Narses, took\nplace. Some slight sketch of what the exarchate had been to Italy has been\nattempted. At last those two hundred years of misery were closed: the\nuniversal consent of the peoples of central Italy accepted with delight\nthe Papal sovereignty. From the time of Justinian to Stephen II.\u2014perhaps\nit should rather be said from the time of Leo the Great, the Popes alone\nhad cared for Italy. They alone had possessed the power, the wisdom, and\nthe charity to meet, in some degree at least, the calamities which rained\ndown upon that land, reduced to the condition of a \u201cservile province\u201d.\nForty years after St. Gregory the Great, in the middle of the seventh\ncentury, a Pope had been torn from his sick bed, laid before the altar in\nthe Lateran Basilica, carried to Byzantium, judged by the senate as a\ntraitor for the exercise of his spiritual rights, and left to die of\nfamine in the Crimea.(252) In the middle of the eighth century if we plant\nourselves, and look through the events of two or three centuries, a\ncertain fact comes out clearly. No one can assign the precise point of its\ncompletion, but it is seen attested by a multitude of indications. The\nPopes in gradually taking an acknowledged sovereignty, only yielded to the\nlong and ardent desire of the peoples at whose head they stood, no less\nthan to the stringent demand of public necessity. The feeling of the\nsubject here answered to the fact in the prince: that is, as the Popes\nwere princes by actual necessity so long before they had the name and\nsolemn right to it, so the Romans, and the Italians of the exarchate and\nthe Pentapolis were spontaneous subjects of the Popes long before they\nbore the legal title. A mutual attraction joined the two together. The\nPopes through charity for the public good began to exercise in behalf of\nan ill-treated or a deserted population the part of provident civil\ngovernors; the people from gratitude and affection clung more and more to\nthe Popes. The ever increasing calamities and the common trials which\npressed on the Popes and the Italians in those miserable times, partly\ncaused by the Byzantine emperors, partly by the barbarous Lombards, drew\nthem more closely together, until the Popes found themselves sovereigns,\nand the people found themselves subjects, in a complete civil society. But\nthe character of that society was indeed paternal: and as the civil bond\nsprung from a spiritual fathership, Pipin and Charlemagne named with the\nname of St. Peter himself the State which their love and reverence for him\nhad partly preserved and partly created.\n\n\n\n\n\nCHAPTER IX. THE MAKING OF CHRISTENDOM.\n\n\nAmong the events of history, as the historic mind would ponder them, or\nthe judgments of God, as the Christian mind would interpret them, there\nare none greater than the two which for some time past I have been\nattempting to narrate or to contemplate. One is the wandering of the\nnations on the north of the great inland sea: the other is, the wandering\nof the nations on its south. Having reached the last year of the eighth\ncentury, we may cast a glance back upon both, and unite, if it may be, in\na single picture the action upon both of a power which owed its\ninstitution only to the greatest fact of all facts concerning our race,\nthe assumption of human nature, the soul and body of man, in His own\nPerson, by the Creator of all things, the Son of God. That power existed\nonly in virtue of certain words uttered and a certain will exercised,\nduring His life upon earth. As the last of His thirty-three years was\nbeginning, He had said to a man: Thou art the Rock, and upon this Rock I\nwill build My Church, and the gates of hell shall not prevail against it.\nHow far did the gates of hell advance upon the Church of God in the four\nhundred years which elapsed from the death of the great Theodosius?\n\nWhen he closed his eyes in the year 395, the great empire of Augustus in\nthe East and West was still intact. The fifth and the sixth centuries may\nbe said to be filled by the fall of that empire in the West. I have\nrequired ten chapters to give even a slight account of the effects\nproduced upon the Christian Church by the wandering of the northern\nnations to the time of St. Gregory the Great. But the seventh and eighth\ncenturies are filled with the pouring out of the Mohammedan flood upon the\nChristian people, which had more or less remained after the wandering of\nthe northern nations ended in their settlement. It is another convulsion\nequal in its range and perhaps still greater in its effects than that\nwhich made Teuton tribes the masters of Gaul and Spain and Britain, of\nGermany, of Italy, and Illyricum. The peoples of the north had struggled\nfor hundreds of years to break the barriers of the Rhine and the Danube,\nand in their savage ferocity and tameless independence wrest the South, so\nlong coveted, from the civilised but degenerate Roman. The prize, which\nthey had almost reached in the third century, was saved from their grasp\nuntil the fifth by a succession of brave and able generals invested with\nimperial power. But the Teuton could both admire and receive the law and\nthe religion of the empire which he overthrew. Far otherwise was it, when\na savage tribe of Arabia, kindled to white heat by a fanatic and false\nbelief, burst upon a despotic empire in which Christian faith and morality\nwere deeply impaired. It needed but the third decade of one emperor\u2019s\nreign to abrogate the Roman sovereignty held during seven hundred years\nover Syria and Egypt, and to establish the sway of a false prophet, the\nbitterest enemy of the Christian faith, over the very city which contained\nthe sepulchre of Christ. \u201cThe law had gone forth from Sion and the word of\nthe Lord from Jerusalem,\u201d and thither all Christian nations sent a host of\npilgrims to kindle anew their faith and love before the shrine which had\nheld for a day the source of all that life, the Body of the God-man. Now\nthat shrine, with all the memorial places of the Divine Life upon earth,\nfell into hands whose work it was to set up instead of the Christ, a man\nof turbulent passions and unmeasured ambition: instead of the Christian\nhome, the denial of all Christian morality: instead of a Virgin Mother\nplaced at the head of her sex, and unfolding from age to age the worth and\ndignity of woman, the dishonoured captives of a brigand warfare. All this\ntook place within ten years after the death of Mohammed, and by the end of\nthe reign of Heraclius, when the greatest triumph ever won by a Roman\nemperor over the rival Persian monarchy was followed by the most\nignominious defeat from a troop of Arabian robbers, and the permanent\nabandonment of Roman territory. During the sixty following years, not only\nhad Antioch and Alexandria, as well as Jerusalem, become Mohammedan, but\nthe last fortress of Christian power in the East, the impregnable city of\nConstantine, trembled repeatedly at the approach of Saracen hosts, being\nrescued rather by its matchless position, its strong walls, and the\ninvention of the Greek fire, than by the superior valour of its defenders.\nAt the end of that seventh century, the whole northern coast of Africa had\npassed away from Roman to Saracenic rule: from the Christian faith to its\nMohammedan antagonist. In ten years more, the Saracen banner crossed over\nthe straits of Gibraltar, and the Church of Spain fell under its\ndomination. At this time the eastern empire, diminished as it had been,\npassed through severe revolutions. It seemed that from intestine\ndissension and the despotism of one crowned adventurer after another, the\nremnant of the eastern realm, which during seventy years could hardly\nmaintain itself against Saracen aggression, was coming of itself to an\nend. In this uttermost extremity at Constantinople, a soldier had risen\nfrom the ranks to be a trusted general, and when the empire received him\nfor its chief, a long prepared attack by the chalif on his capital was\nbeaten back successfully by Leo III. In the time of the chalif Walid, who\nreigned from 705 to 715, the Arabian flag floated over the walls of\nSamarcand: its conquest had stretched to the foot of the Himalayas. His\ngovernor in Africa, Musa, had carried the bounds of his empire to the\nAtlantic ocean. The single city of Ceuta owned still the Byzantine sway.\nAnd the Christian count, Julian, for a private wrong, betrayed to the\nSaracen the city entrusted to his charge. Musa added almost all Spain to\nthe Saracen domain. Constantinople had been besieged in 668, and saved\nunder Constantine the Bearded; it was saved again in 718, under Leo III.\nThese two deliverances, with the fact that it had not been taken in all\nthe interval from the time of Heraclius, may be termed the only checks\nreceived from Christians by the Mohammedan conquest in the whole period\nfrom the death of Mohammed. Had it succeeded in gaining Constantinople\nwhen it gained Toledo, it is difficult to see how the universal\nenthralment of the Christian faith under the almost insufferable tyranny\nof the Arabian false prophet could have been prevented.\n\nThus when St. Gregory II. succeeded to the throne of Peter in 715, and Leo\nIII. to the throne of Constantine in 717, the position of the Christian\nFaith before Islam seemed to stand in terrible danger.(253) The sons of\nMohammed, lords of Asia, Egypt, Africa, and Spain, were besetting, with\nlong prepared fleet and army, the last remains of the Greek power in\nConstantinople on the East, and on the West had only to look to the\nconquest of France. If they became masters of France, there was no\nstrength left to resist them, neither Italy divided between Lombards,\nGreeks, and the old inhabitants, subjects of one or the other, nor Germany\ndivided among various peoples. The whole world seemed to be reserved for\nthe anti-Christian kingdom of Mohammed: all nations about to pass under\nthe hard servitude of a conquering Arabian tribe, instinct with hatred to\nthe Christian life; all women to become slaves of man\u2019s passion: all\nreason to endure subjection to a lie imposed by the scimitar. What we have\nsince seen of Mohammedan rule in Asia and in Africa during twelve hundred\nyears, seemed then on the point of becoming the general doom.\n\nThat was the time chosen by the eastern emperor, after a reign of ten\nyears, to attempt the imposition of a fresh heresy upon Pope Gregory II.\nThe man who was formally bound by his position as Roman emperor, and by\nthe oath taken at his coronation to defend the Church as it had come down\nto him from the seven preceding centuries, was filled with a desire to\nremodel the practice of that Church in all its worship. He advanced claims\nwhich were not only an invasion of its independence by the civil power,\nbut in themselves rested only upon the practice and the sentiments of the\nChurch\u2019s two great enemies, the Jew and the Saracen. The Jew abhorred the\nrelative worship paid to the images and pictures of our Lord, of His\nMother, and of the saints, because he utterly denied the fact of the\nIncarnation, which these images and pictures were ever presenting in the\ndaily worship of the faithful. The Mohammedan shared this abhorrence,\nbecause he denounced the Christian as an idolater for his belief in our\nLord, as Son of God. Leo III. took up the mind of the Jew and the Saracen\ninto his own rude and unformed nature, and bent the whole force of the\nimperial power to subdue the Pope to his will. Spain had just fallen into\nMohammedan hands: and the lord at Damascus ruled from the Atlantic to\nSamarcand. Under his rule, which was the bitterest ignominy to every\nChristian, lay more than half the empire which Justinian had left. Then,\nin 726, a contest, the most unequal which can be conceived, began between\nPope Gregory II. and the emperor Leo III. It continued fifty years under\nLeo and his son, Kopronymus, who died in 776. In the course of it, Leo\nsent a great fleet against the coast of Italy, whose commander was\ninstructed to take and plunder Ravenna, to proceed to Rome, to put down\nall opposition to the imperial heresy, and to carry Pope Gregory captive\nto Constantinople, after the fashion used in the preceding century to Pope\nSt. Martin. Pope Gregory II. endured to his death the joint heresy and\ntyranny of the eastern lord, and induced the irritated populations of\nItaly still to keep allegiance to him. His successor, Pope Gregory III.,\nused the same forbearance. Pope Zacharias for ten years went on enduring,\nwhile the Frank nation accepted, on his judgment, a new dynasty. For\ntwenty-eight years, from 726 to 754, no amount of wrong could induce four\nsuccessive Popes to throw off the allegiance which had pressed upon Italy\nas a servile province since the conquest of Justinian. At length, the\nfourth Pope, Stephen II., was deserted in his utmost need by the emperor\nhimself: was threatened with a Lombard poll tax laid upon Rome, and the\nposition of vassal to an Aistulf in the city of St. Peter. Then the\neastern servitude at last dropped, and the issue of the most unequal\ncombat, begun in 726, was terminated by the compact ratified at Quiersy in\n754, and carried out at Pavia in 756. This compact secured to Pope Stephen\nand his successors the position of sovereign princes in Rome, and the\nterritory attached to it. In 756 Pope Stephen II. re-entered Rome as its\nacknowledged civil sovereign. Yet, in the eighteen years following this\nevent, the last king of the Lombards renewed the ambition of Liutprand and\nAistulf, to become the lord of Rome, and the renewal of Pipin\u2019s gift by\nCharlemagne, in 774, alone closed the momentous contest which, beginning\nin 726 with an attack on the unarmed Pope, ended in the deliverance of\nItaly from the most cruel of thraldoms, and made the Pope, who had long\nbeen Rome\u2019s only support and benefactor, its temporal as well as its\nspiritual head.\n\nAt the time of that event, more than four centuries had passed since\nConstantine, in 330, consecrated his city on the Bosphorus to be Nova\nRoma, pursuing his idea to found a capital which should be Christian from\nits birth, and the centre of a great Christian empire. Five years before\nthe Church had met for the first time in General Council. The object of\nits meeting was to refute and censure an attack upon the Godhead of its\nFounder, and the place at which it met was a city immediately on the\nAsiatic side of the strait, on which what was then Byzantium stood. The\nposition taken by Constantine was to guard with the imperial sword the\nchamber in which the Church\u2019s bishops sat, to accept their decrees as the\nutterance of Christ himself, and to add the force of imperial law to the\nspiritual authority which he acknowledged them of themselves to possess.\n\nFrom the baptism of Byzantium as Nova Roma in 330, fifty years succeed to\n380, in which Constantinople becomes the chief seat of the very heresy\ncondemned by the Church at the Council of 325. Its see is sought after\nimmediately as the prize of worldly ecclesiastics in the East. Eusebius,\nthe man who presently became its bishop, deceives Constantine into\nfostering the heresy which he abhorred: its bishop, Macedonius, was the\ndocile servant of the emperor Constantius in his attempt to change the\nfaith of the Church: its bishop, Eudoxius, nurtured the emperor Valens in\nthe same heresy. But the succession of Popes in Julius, Liberius, and\nDamasus, frustrated these efforts of the bishops of Nova Roma in the first\nhalf century of its promotion: and when Theodosius sat on the throne of\nConstantine, with his colleagues, Gratian and Valentinian, their law of\n380 called upon their peoples \u201cto hold the religion which is proved to\nhave been delivered to the Romans by the divine apostle, Peter, since it\nhas been maintained there from his time to our own\u201d.(254)\n\nBut the terrible effects wrought upon the eastern episcopate by the Arian\nassault had not been finally overcome. The next attack upon the Person of\nour Lord proceeded from the eloquent Syrian, Nestorius, who had been put\nin the see of Constantinople. It required all the energy of Pope Celestine\nand the patriarch Cyril of Alexandria, to overcome that heresy which still\nattacked the Incarnation, and was supported by court favour at the eastern\ncapital, and the jealousy of its emperor for his bishop. It is remarkable\nthat the First Council at Ephesus, in 431, should have been followed by a\nSecond Council at the same place in 447. This second Council was, so far\nas its convocation and its constitution went, regularly entitled to be a\nGeneral Council. Its decree was in favour of an opposite heresy to that of\nNestorius, on the same subject of our Lord\u2019s Person, and its originator\nwas the monk Eutyches, in high repute at the head of a monastery at\nConstantinople. The Council after its completion was rejected, and the\nheresy overthrown, by the single arm of St. Leo the Great. The whole\nChurch at Chalcedon accepted his act and acknowledged his Primacy. But\nthis Monophysite heresy had driven its roots deep into the Greek mind.\nDuring two hundred years, to the time of Mohammed himself, its effects may\nbe traced, corrupting the unity of belief in the eastern patriarchates,\nencouraging perpetual party spirit, breaking constantly the succession of\nbishops in the hierarchy. In the time of St. Leo, the patriarch Proterius,\nwho succeeded the deposed Dioscorus, was murdered by the Monophysite\nfaction. A few years later the bishop of Constantinople used this heresy\nfor the purpose of exalting his see against Rome, which had just been\ndeprived of its emperor, and its government left in the hand of\nbarbarians, who were also heretics. Thus supported by imperial power,\nAcacius brought about a schism which lasted for thirty-five years. The\nresistance of seven Popes, the last of whom, Hormisdas, obtained the full\nresult which his predecessors had sought for, frustrated this second\ncentury of Byzantine aggression upon the faith and government of the\nChurch.\n\nIndeed, so striking and unquestionable was the submission of the Byzantine\nsovereign, and the recognition by the Byzantine bishop of the Papal\nauthority, that from this time forth a somewhat new course was pursued by\nthe eastern emperor and patriarch in regard to that authority. The purpose\nof Justinian in his subsequent reign was, while he acknowledged in very\nample terms the papal primacy, to subject it in its practical execution to\nhis own civil power. Thus when he had become by conquest immediate lord of\nRome, he summoned Pope Vigilius to attend him at Constantinople. During\neight years he subjected him to perpetual mortifications. He issued\ndoctrinal decrees and required the Pope to accept them. His laws fully\nadmitted the Pope\u2019s rank; he never denied his succession from St. Peter:\nbut his pretension was to make the five patriarchs use their great\nauthority in submission to himself; and he included the first of the\npatriarchs in this overweening claim, as his namesake Justinian II. signed\nhis council in Trullo at the head of all, and left a line between himself\nand the patriarch of Constantinople for the signature of Pope Sergius,\nwhich was never given.\n\nThe result of Justinian\u2019s oppression of Pope Vigilius was to create\ntemporary schisms in some parts of the West, through dread of the bishops\nthat something had been conceded to the usurpation of the civil power. Not\nuntil the time of Gregory the Great could the Apostolic See recover the\ninjury thus inflicted. But Justinian did much more than persecute a\nparticular Pope. I think it may be said with truth, that from the conquest\nof Italy under his generals, Belisarius and Narses, it was the continual\neffort of the Byzantine emperors to subject the Papacy to the civil power\nin the exercise of its spiritual supremacy. From Justinian to Constantine\nKopronymus\u2014a period of more than two hundred years\u2014that is the relation\nbetween the Two Powers which the eastern emperors carried in their minds\nand executed as far as they were able.\n\nThe fourth century of Nova Roma\u2019s exaltation opened with the strongest\nassertion of this claim which had yet been seen. The able and unscrupulous\nSergius had become patriarch of Constantinople, and was prime minister of\nthe emperor Heraclius. The whole East was teeming with Monophysite\nopinions, and every city, in proportion to its size and dignity, torn with\nparty conflicts arising out of dissension respecting the Person of our\nLord. Sergius thought he had devised a remedy by that Monothelite\nstatement which, as he imagined, enabled him to present in a more\nconciliating form the old heresy put down by St. Leo and the Council of\nChalcedon. He led the emperor Heraclius to publish this heresy in the\nimperial name. Then four successive patriarchs of Constantinople were\nfound to put all their spiritual rank at the service of two emperors,\nHeraclius and Constans II., to formulate the heresy, and force it, if\npossible, on the Popes. Ten successive Popes resisted\u2014one to martyrdom\nitself\u2014and after a struggle of fifty years, Popes Agatho and Leo II. at\nthe Sixth Council\u2014when the eastern emperor for the moment became orthodox,\nand his patriarch and bishops followed him\u2014condemned and expelled the\nheresy. But this fatal attempt of Sergius and Heraclius had been exactly\ncoincident with the rise of Mohammed. The Greek contention respecting the\nPerson of Christ had lasted three hundred years, from the Nicene Council,\nwhen the success of the false prophet led vast countries, once the most\nflourishing of Christian provinces, to yield to the human authority of a\nrobber, and to put him in the place of the God-man whom by their works\nthey had so often denied. And so the fourth century from the exaltation of\nNova Roma had been completed.\n\nYet still it was reserved for the fifth century to Constantinople, at a\ntime of its extreme humiliation, when for ninety years it had only just\nobtained from a new and undisclosed invention the power to keep the\nall-conquering Saracen outside its walls\u2014to make its final and most\nabsolute attack upon the elder sister whom it acknowledged as the leader\nof the Christian faith. Syria and Egypt and Africa and Spain were gone,\nand the Persian monarchy, for so many hundred years the rival of the\nRoman, equally was absorbed in the enormous Saracen dominion, and the\ncities of Asia Minor were in daily dread of the same foe prevailing over\ntheir religion and desecrating their homes. Such was the condition of\nthings when the yet remaining Christian emperor assumed over the Christian\nChurch the power of Mohammed\u2019s chalifs in the territory which they ruled\nin Mohammed\u2019s name. Another fifty years occur in which, when after the\northodox patriarch Germanus had been forced to lay the insignia of his\nrank on the altar of Sancta Sophia and depart, three Iconoclast patriarchs\nin succession, Anastasius from 730 to 753, Constantine from 753 to 766,\nand Nicetas I. from 766 to 780, placed themselves at the disposal of their\nemperors to corrupt the faith and subject the government of the Church,\nuntil at the Seventh Council once again an eastern emperor became\northodox: and an eastern orthodox patriarch followed again in Tarasius;\nand Adrian I. was received as Pope, being no longer a vassal of\nConstantinople, but a sovereign prince.\n\nUpon these antecedents ensued the temporal sovereignty of the Pope. What\nis the witness of history to the spiritual action of the Popes during this\nlong period of 426 years, from 330, when Byzantium became Constantinople,\nto 756, when the people of Rome welcomed with universal jubilee the return\nof their Pope, Stephen II., as sovereign?\u2014when again in 774 Charles at the\nbeginning of his great career approached St. Peter as a pilgrim, and\nrenewed to him his father Pipin\u2019s act of munificent piety.\n\nLet us follow the course of the heresies which, during four centuries and\na half from the Nicene Council in 325, to the defeat of the Iconoclasts at\nthe Seventh Council, attacked the faith of the Church. They turn upon the\nPerson of our Lord: upon that mighty fact of the Incarnation which filled\nall men\u2019s minds. The Arian denied that He was God; the Nestorian and\nMonophysite sought in opposite methods to deal with His two natures. The\nMonothelite pursued the question to its inmost point as it touched the two\nnatures in the operation of the Will; his error in its root was especially\nEutychean. When the question began the original eastern patriarchates of\nAlexandria and Antioch were in their primal state and glory. They held\ntheir descent from Peter, like the See of Rome. Like the Apostolic See\ntheir chairs were at the head of a great mass of bishops, Antioch in\nparticular having a crowd of metropolitans governing important provinces,\nwho looked up to the great see of the East, who, when the patriarchate was\nvacant, voted for the election, as they received from him the confirmation\nof their own election. Alexander in the mother see of Egypt had been the\nfirst to condemn his own insurgent priest, Arius, and at the Nicene\nCouncil he was attended by his deacon, Athanasius, who was soon to succeed\nto his place, and raise during his episcopate of forty-six years the See\nof St. Mark to its loftiest renown. Eustathius, at the same Council, the\ntwenty-fourth bishop of Antioch, was a noted confessor, and with Alexander\ncontributed to its decision; while Pope Silvester threw the whole weight\nof the West, which had no doubt as to the Godhead of Christ, in favour of\nthe same result. As yet Constantinople was not; and the See of Jerusalem,\nthough highly honoured, was in the hierarchy a simple bishopric suffragan\nto the metropolitan of Cesarea. There could be no controversy more\nreaching to the inmost heart of faith in the Church than that which\nconcerned the Person of the Lord. Taking the four centuries and a half as\na whole we find that the eastern patriarchates failed under the trial. The\nfirst of them, Alexandria, had for its two greatest teachers Athanasius\nand Cyril, both doctors of the Church, both renowned in their defence and\nillustration of the doctrine that God became man. But no sooner had Cyril\ndied than his see became the centre of the Monophysite error. Almost the\nwhole Christian people of Egypt followed its bad lead, and when the\nSaracen chief took Egypt and Alexandria in the name of Mohammed he found\nsupport rather than opposition in the mass of the Christians, who, in\ntheir bitter party hatred, called the remnant of Catholics still remaining\nMelchites or Royalists as the most opprobrious epithet they could devise.\nAnd in process of time, under Omar and his successors, the country of\nAthanasius has become the heart of Mohammedan learning and zeal.\n\nScarcely less melancholy is the history of Antioch and its twelve\nprovinces of metropolitans, with their 163 bishops.(255) Eustathius was\nspeedily deposed by the Arian faction, even before Athanasius, and during\nninety years a perpetual schism preyed upon the dignity of the great\neastern see. In the fifth century it was unable to prevent the advance of\nConstantinople. It fell a speedy prey to the Mohammed\u2019s chalif, and from\nthat time the man who bore the name of its patriarch was often a dependent\nand pensioner at the eastern capital. Jerusalem had succeeded in obtaining\nthe patriarchal dignity at the Council of Chalcedon. But in less than two\nhundred years Omar polluted its holy place by his presence, and the most\nstirring voice uttered by its patriarchs is that cry of its noble\nSophronius, bidding his chief bishop go to the throne of Peter, \u201cwhere the\nfoundations of holy doctrine are laid,\u201d and invite the sitter on that\nthrone, who was Honorius, to rescue the faith imperilled by his brother\npatriarchs, Sergius at Constantinople, and Cyrus at Alexandria, leaders of\nthe Monothelite heresy.\n\nWhen therefore the emperor Constantine Kopronymus, in 754, took by the\nhand Constantine whom he had chosen to be ecumenical patriarch, and\npresented him as the elect of the emperor to the Council of more than\nthree hundred bishops, whom he had convoked to sanction his own heresy,\nwhile twelve years afterwards, as the sequel of many torments, he executed\nhim and had his body dissected; we may say that the eastern patriarchs had\nutterly failed to defend either the faith or the hierarchy of the Church.\nMohammed did not appear to complete the work of Arius, until the\ndescendants of those who condemned Arius in 325 had obscured by\ninterminable disputes during three hundred years what their spiritual\nancestors had declared to be the faith of the Church. The causes of this\nfailure had been internal. There had been great bishops in the East during\nthis period. Chrysostom had sat in Constantinople, suffered, confessed,\nand been exiled before Nestorius, who sat there also, and was exiled for\nhis heresy. Germanus, in the same see, did not yield to Leo III., and in\nthat worst time confessed, and his place was forthwith taken by\nAnastasius, who subscribed all Leo\u2019s evil will. Kopronymus strove to\nexterminate the monks, who suffered every extremity for their maintenance\nof the faith. But as the main result the Byzantine despotism had overcome\nthe eastern episcopate. I do not know how more telling proofs of that evil\nvictory could be shown than that Philippicus Bardanes, in 711, during his\nephemeral reign, should be able to assemble a council at Constantinople,\nwhich he required to restore the Monothelite heresy, condemned at the\nSixth Council, and scarcely met with an episcopal opponent; and again that\nKopronymus could assemble another large council in 754, to establish his\nIconoclast aggression, which was received without dissent.\n\nHow then was the faith preserved during these four hundred and sixty\nyears?\n\nFrom Pope Sylvester to Pope Stephen II. we count sixty-one Popes. In that\nlong period of time the doctrine of the Godhead and the Person of Christ\nwith all its manifold consequences was fully drawn out. The variation\nwhich had been seen in the patriarchal and episcopal sees of the East was\nnever found at Rome. All political and external help may be said to have\nfailed the Popes. They lost their own western emperor, and the sole\nremaining eastern emperor turned against them. More also, he set up\nagainst them a new bishop who at the beginning of the time did not exist,\nthe bishop of the eastern capital. The eastern lord added from generation\nto generation rank and influence to this bishop. He made him his own\nintermediate instrument of communication with all the bishops of his\neastern realm, to whom it had been the continual policy of Justinian and\nhis successors to grant great political privileges, making them in large\ndegree partakers of civil authority. They sought to rule the East\nthroughout its manifold divided interests by the authority of the local\nbishops; and they sought to rule the bishops themselves by their own\npatriarch. Rome, from being the head of the Roman monarchy at the\nbeginning of the period, ceased to be the capital even of a \u201cservile\u201d\nItaly, the captive of Belisarius. The Popes passed through Odoacer,\nTheodorich, Theodatus, also Vitiges and Totila, also Liutprand, Aistulf,\nand Desiderius. Their elections, when made, were delayed in their\nrecognition, or even controlled in their choice. They saw a crowd of\nnorthern raiders take possession of the whole West, and at one time the\nvery heresy which at the beginning of the period had been condemned by the\nChurch, was in possession of all the governments of the West but that of\nthe Franks, and had for the chief ruler of its councils and the head of\nthe regal league against the faith of Rome the greatest man whom the\nnorthern tribes can show during their time of immigration, and he had made\nItaly powerful and respected, and cultivated Rome with extreme solicitude.\nWhen St. Silvester sat in St. Peter\u2019s chair, Rome was the single capital\nof the whole empire; when St. Leo sat there he witnessed the fall of the\nWest, but stood imperturbable before Attila and Genseric; when St. Gregory\nsat there, he divined from the temporal ruin and desolation of Rome, which\nhe saw perishing piecemeal around him, that the world\u2019s last time was\ncoming. When St. Martin sat there, he was torn from his sick bed by the\neastern master to die in the Crimea; when St. Gregory II. sat there, the\nsame eastern master threatened to break in pieces the statue of St. Peter\nin his Basilica. But in all the four hundred and sixty years from the\nfirst to the second Nicene Council, the witness of Rome to the Divine\nPerson of her Lord was clear and distinct. Neither the greatest nor the\nworst of her opponents had subdued that witness, or rendered it faltering\nor indistinct. For this reason it was that the Pope, whose life the\nIconoclast soldier, when clothed with the imperial purple, five times\nattempted, could reply to his threat, that all the West looked upon St.\nPeter as a God upon earth; that the one Teuton king before whose\nvictorious reign that of Theodorich is pale and colourless, ascended on\nhis knees the steps before St. Peter\u2019s tomb, laid upon the altar over his\nbody the gift of temporal sovereignty, and went forth from that moment the\npredestined civil head of that new Christendom which St. Peter had made\nout of the northern adventurers.\n\nTaking in all this time the simple witness of history, I ask if in it the\nwords of our Lord to Peter were not palpably fulfilled: \u201cThou art the\nRock, and upon this Rock I will build My Church\u201d. If the Rock had not\nbeen, each one in this long line of heresies would have destroyed the\nChurch. The line of St. Athanasius was not infallible; the line of St.\nIgnatius of Antioch was annulled after frequent falls by the Mohammedan\ncaptivity; the line of Byzantium had some saints, but was prolific in\nheretics, and the last utterance of Jerusalem before it fell, when the\nSaracen ascetic voluptuary trod its courts, was uttered by its patriarch\nfrom Calvary itself, when he adjured his messenger: \u201cGo swiftly from end\nto end of the earth, until thou reach the Apostolic See, in which the\nfoundations of our holy doctrine rest\u201d.\n\nThe state of the eastern Church from the Council of Chalcedon to the final\nassault of the emperor Leo III. upon the whole fabric of Church government\nis one continual descent. It has certain recoveries, as the cessation of\nthe Acacian schism, in 518; as the reversal of the Monothelite tyranny,\nunder Constantine Pogonatus, in 680; as the repudiation of the still\ngreater Iconoclast tyranny a century later, at the Seventh Council in 787,\nunder Pope Adrian and the patriarch Tarasius. But even General Councils\nwere attacked by eastern emperors in the last excesses of their overgrown\ndomination. As Philippicus Bardanes got together a great Council in 711 to\ndenounce the Sixth Council, so the Emperor Leo the Armenian had deposed an\nunbending patriarch, Nicephorus, in 815, supplied his place with the\nyielding Theodotus, and found another council in the same year to\nanathematise the work of the Seventh Council. Three more Iconoclast\npatriarchs\u2014Theodotus from 815 to 821, Antonius I. from 821 to 832, John\nVII. from 831 to 841\u2014close this evil list of heretical bishops. The feast\nof orthodoxy was established in 842. The incessant attempts of the Greek\nemperors to meddle with the faith took presently another development. They\ncould no longer oppress as their subject a sovereign Pope. When they could\nnot oppress him, they learnt to deny him. In less than another generation\nthe schism of Photius began.\n\nSuch was the first century running from the time that Leo the Isaurian\nmade, in 733, his creature Anastasius ecumenical in the sense that all the\nremaining Greek empire was put under his patriarchal jurisdiction. But it\nis plain that long before this, the Greek empire, so far as its own\nepiscopate was concerned, had ceased to possess any inflexible rule of\ndoctrine. The most venerable of its authorities, the original patriarchs\nof Alexandria and Antioch, had yielded before the Nestorian and\nMonothelite storms; had perpetual interruptions in their succession,\nsometimes had a double succession\u2014one Catholic, another Monophysite\u2014had\nsubmitted to the State-patriarch set over them at Constantinople; and\nbeing found in this condition by the Mohammedan flood, had seen their\nformer dignity all but overwhelmed in its swelling waves. The western\nChurch, which from the time of the northern wandering of the nations had\nbeen visited by unnumbered catastrophes, had, on the contrary, possessed\nin its bosom exactly that inflexible rule of doctrine which the East\nwanted: a rule of doctrine not imposed by civil despotism, but the very\nroot as well as the bond of its episcopate. The Ostrogoth had made his\nkingdom in Italy, and the Visigoth his kingdom in Spain; the Frank, the\nBurgundian, and many more set up realms in France and Germany, whose\nlimits were in perpetual fluctuation; seven or eight little Saxon kingdoms\nwere dividing in Britain the old Roman unity. These Teuton tribes had two\nqualities in common\u2014great personal valour and the most persisting spirit\nof division. Endless were the intestine quarrels and separations between\nthose of the same northern race, who in political condition had hardly\npassed the tribal state. Every invading army whose commander became a king\nin the conquered territory had its own local interests, but none of that\ngreat political sense which had nurtured the empire of the C\u00e6sars. The one\nOstrogoth who had such a sense had grown up a hostage at Constantinople,\nand though it is said that he could not read, had certainly divined and\ncarried off with him into the Italy which he captured the imperial secret\nof government: that is, the force of unity, justice, and subordination of\nthe part to the whole; and Theodorich had come to the conclusion that he\ncould not make Italian mind and Gothic manners coalesce in the structure\nof a kingdom. His device to rule them equally and separately scarcely\nlasted for his life. After ruling with equity, he died in remorse. No\nstronger instance of this great defeat can be found than the custom of the\nMerovingian race to the end. Their monarchy was in their eyes a family\nproperty. When their father died they took the throne as a part of the\npaternal inheritance. It was not delivered down in whole as a mighty trust\nof the nation itself. If there were several children, their swords cut the\npatrimony into slices, and each carried off his bit, like a wild beast. No\npolitical sense presided here. The sole solicitude of each was that his\nlot might not be of less value than his brother\u2019s.(256)\n\nThere exists no history giving in detail the most wonderful event of these\ntroubled centuries\u2014that is, the process by which the Arian heresy, which,\nin the time of Theodorich, had possession of all these peoples\u2014except the\nFranks, and the Saxons, who were pagans\u2014finally became Catholic: a\nconquest of the northern warriors which one of the greatest enemies of the\nChristian faith seems to consider a more wonderful deed than the conquest\nof the former Roman world, so far as it was achieved at the time of\nConstantine\u2019s conversion.\n\nAt Rome the Pope sat through all these centuries, the visible\nrepresentative of all that was good in the Roman empire, of law, justice,\norder, besides holding in himself the inflexible rule of faith. The Chair\nof Peter had no rival in the West, the eldest of its bishops looked up\nwith reverence to his single and immemorial pre-eminence. Their local\ninfluence had in each of them its weight with their own people. For\ninstance, St. Gregory of Tours was of an old senatorian Gallic family: all\nthe interests of the population around him, whether Frank or Gallic, known\nto him as a native of the soil. In this double position much nearer and\ndearer to him was the Petrine descent, by consecration of which he\nmaintained as bishop the Christian faith. Thus in the see of Tours he\nprotected the temporal rights of his people, and resisted in particular\nthe violent acts of king Chilperic. The faith itself was to him the strong\nexemplar of political sense: the one family of Christ bore in its very\nbosom the society of nations. He could not say the creed without feeling\nthat the centre of faith was the natural centre of all humanising\ninfluence. The Saxon bishop in Northumberland would recognise the Saxon\nbishop in Kent in spite of intervening Mercia. The episcopate set up among\nthe German tribes by St. Boniface in the name of the Popes, was the form\nof such unity as afterwards led these separate tribes to coalesce in an\nempire. And they coalesced with such difficulty as to show that without\nthe spiritual bond they would have remained in their original antagonism.\n\nIn the last century of Merovingian rule the inapt government and private\nvices\u2014if a king\u2019s vices can ever be called private\u2014had inflicted a very\ngreat injury both on the civil and the ecclesiastical administration of\nthe great Frank empire. The intercourse in writing between the Popes of\nthe sixth century with the Frank rulers had been greatly interrupted in\nthe seventh. While perpetual domestic murders and sensual crimes polluted\nthe royal family, the nobility had become disordered; national councils\nwere suspended, and in too many sees the bishops no longer answered in\ncharacter to those who, in the time of Gregory the Great, had built up\nGaul. At that moment there sprung from two great nobles of Austrasian\nGaul, Arnulf, afterwards bishop of Metz, and Pipin of Landen, a family\nwhose saintly virtues as well as their nobility raised it to great power.\nIn 673 Pipin d\u2019Herstal, who by his father descended in the second degree\nfrom Arnulf, and by his mother from Pipin of Landen, was mayor of the\npalace, and the degenerate blood of Chilperic and Fredegonde was put to\nshame by the chief minister of the kingdom. The race of Clovis was dying\nout in sensual cruelty: the family of Arnulf was raised up to take its\nplace. In forty years, Pipin d\u2019Herstal, as mayor of the palace, used the\nroyal power with such effect as greatly to restore the unity of the\nkingdom. After his death and an interval of trouble his son Charles, in\n707, united in his hands all the power of the Franks. It was just a\nhundred years from the death of Mohammed, when, in 732, the Saracen army\nhaving under his chalifs conquered all the East and the South, and\nover-run Spain, had only one more battle to fight with the bravest nation\nof the West, in order to trample the cross under their feet. The flood had\npassed the Pyrenees, and advanced over prostrate Aquitaine to Poitiers,\nwhich it had taken. As it issued from that city, the bastard son of Pipin\nd\u2019Herstal, still mayor of the palace in name, but sovereign of the Franks\nin fact, met it with the rapidly collected warriors whom he had so often\nled to victory. Then, it is said, the Saracen and the Christian hosts for\nseven days watched each other; the Arabs on their light horses and in\ntheir white mantles, the Franks with their heavy iron-clad masses. On the\neighth day, a Saturday at the end of October, the Arabs left their camp at\nthe call of the Muezin to prayer, and drew out their order of battle.\nTheir strength was in their horsemen, and twenty times they charged the\nFrankish squares, and were unable to break them. An Arab writer says: \u201cAbd\nErrahman, trusting to his fortune, made a fierce attack. The Christians\nreturned it with as much firmness. Then the fight became general and\ncontinued with great loss on both sides. Assault followed upon assault\nuntil four o\u2019clock in the afternoon. The Frankish line stood like a wall\nof iron.\u201d Then a cry for succour was heard from the Arab camp. Duke Eudo\nwith his Aquitains and Basques had surprised those left to guard it.\nDisorder and panic arose among the Saracens. Charles saw and ordered the\nwhole line to advance. The wall of iron moved and all fell before it. Abd\nErrahman passed from rank to rank to check the flight, and did wonders.\nBut when, struck by many lances, he fell from his horse, disorder and\nflight prevailed. They burst into the camp and expelled Eudo. Night came\non, and Charles kept his army in its ranks on the plain, expecting a fresh\nbattle on the morrow. On that morrow the Franks saw the white tents, but\nthe Arabs had fled under cover of the night. The booty was great. The\nFranks report that there was no pursuit; the Arabs, that the Christians\npursued their victory for many days, and compelled the fugitives to many\nbattles, in which the loss was great, until the Moslem host threw itself\ninto Narbonne.(257)\n\nIn that battle Charles merited his title of \u201cthe Hammer\u201d. Had he or his\nFranks blenched upon that day, Europe would have become Mohammedan, as\nthree hundred years before in the battle of the nations by Macon it would\nhave been the prey of the Mongol, had Attila prevailed. Carcassonne and\nNimes and all southern France had yielded. But the hammer of Charles\ndescended on the Saracen anvil. His son, king Pipin, carried on his work\nin southern France, and his grandson Charles, before his death, had become\nlord of an united realm from the Ebro to the Eyder. Islam never advanced\nfurther in the West. As France in the fifteenth century owed its\ndeliverance to the maiden of Arc, so in the eighth, not Gaul only, but all\nthe West would seem to have owed its inheritance of the Christian name to\nthe four great men whom Providence raised up in the family of Arnulf of\nMetz, and Pipin of Landen. Pipin, the mayor of the palace, Charles the\nHammer, Pipin the king, and Charlemagne, are four continuous generations\nfrom grandfather to greatgrandson the like of which I know not that any\nother family can produce.\n\nAn old man so feeble that he had hardly strength to cross the Alps, and\nwas almost killed by the exertion, laid his hand on the head of Pipin, and\nthe mayor of the palace became king of the Franks. The hand was the hand\nof St. Peter. Forty-six years later the same hand will be laid upon the\nhead of his son; and the king of the Franks will become emperor of the\nRomans; and the Saracens who felt the arm of one Charles in the battle by\nTours, will feel another Charles rise up before them to meet the Moslem\nlord of the southern and eastern world on equal terms.\n\nAfter Charles left Rome,(258) at Easter, 774, as above narrated, attempts\nwere made against him by the Lombard dukes, and Adelchis, the son of\nDesiderius. In spite of the Saxon wars he was in upper Italy at the end of\nthe winter of 776: he prevailed over his opponents, sent his counts to the\nvarious cities, and protected the State of the Church. At the end of 780\nhe was again at Pavia, and he celebrated the feast of Easter on April 15,\n781, at Rome. Here Pope Adrian crowned his son Pipin king of Lombardy, and\nthe youngest, Louis, king of Aquitania. All seemed to go well. Greek\nmessengers from the regent Irene, widow of Leo IV., brought proposals of\nagreement and treaty. During this longer sojourn the new arrangement of\nthe Lombard kingdom would be completed. Frankish counts took the place of\nthe old dukes, whose relation to the central power had been far looser\nthan that of their successors was made.\n\nThe introduction of the royal missi and their action upon the\nadministration of law likened subject Italy much more to the other states\nof Charles. The position of the native population was not essentially\naltered, but the improvement of the laws helped them. Charles all the\nwhile was carrying on war after war with the resisting Saxons, enlarging\nthe Christian domain by founding bishoprics as far as the Weser and the\nElbe, taking the Spanish marches from the Arab, and the eastern marches\nfrom the Avars, uniting the dukedom of Bavaria with his kingdom, and\ncarrying out that mighty work of civilisation which has made his name\nimmortal for its religious institutions, its legislation, and the\nencouragement which he gave to literature.\n\nEarly in the year 787 Charles was again with Pope Adrian at Rome. In a\nrapid campaign he reduced to his obedience Arichis, duke of Benevento, who\nwas married to a daughter of Desiderius; and returning once more spent\nEaster with Adrian. It was the last meeting between those two fast\nfriends. On Christmas day, 795, Adrian closed a pontificate of nearly\ntwenty-four years. Three years before Rome had been desolated by one of\nits most fearful inundations, and the Pope had gone about in a boat\nsuccouring the needy. This pontificate was both in its spiritual and\ntemporal consequences most brilliant.(259) Adrian possessed every quality\nwhich should adorn a great Pope, a tender and active piety, a zeal the\nardour of which was tempered by wisdom: a union of goodness and\nresolution, so that in the exercise of his charge he combined the\naffection of a father with the authority of a teacher, and the vigilance\nof a Pope. Charles mourned for him both as a friend and father. He had an\ninscription of thirty-eight verses engraved in golden letters on the black\nmarble stone which covered his tomb. He had Masses said for his soul in\nall churches; and dispensed great alms in distant lands, especially to\nEngland. In his letter to Offa, king of Mercia, he wrote:\u2014\u201cWe have sent\nyou these alms begging intercession for the Apostolic Lord Adrian, not\nthat we doubt, that that blessed soul is at peace, but to show our faith\nand affection for a most dear friend\u201d. It cannot be doubted that Adrian\u2019s\ninfluence upon the great king, since he first came to Rome in 774, had\nprepared him for the future exaltation which he was to receive in that\nsame church of St. Peter, the steps of which he had ascended on his knees\ntwenty-six years before. The day after Adrian\u2019s death, Leo III. was chosen\nhis successor. He was by birth a Roman, and brought up in the patriarchal\npalace, and is described by contemporaries as learned, eloquent, and\nbeneficent.\n\nFrom the gift of king Pipin to Pope Stephen II., when the keys of the\ncities surrendered to him were laid upon the altar over the body of St.\nPeter, to the repetition of that gift by Charles in 774, and again from\nthat most solemn action of Charles to the year 800, no difference in the\nrelation of the Pope to the king of the Franks took place. In the first\ninstance, in the year 754, Charles had been made Patricius of the Roman\nChurch together with his father, and had as such taken on himself its\nprotection and defence. Therefore the Popes took pains, in particular Leo\nIII., that the Romans acknowledged under oath this relation, binding\nthemselves to observe the rules which their Patricius should make for the\nsecurity of the Church. No conclusion can be drawn from this, as to an\noverlordship of the king of the Franks in the territories assigned to the\nPope. Pope Adrian and Leo III. sent to Charles a standard together with\nthe keys of St. Peter\u2019s tomb.(260) The jurisdiction which the king of the\nFranks exercised in Rome as Patricius was not an overlordship; it was\nnecessary for his office as Protector. But now an extraordinary event took\nplace. In the year 799, three years after the accession of Leo III., a\ntumult broke out which in its savage violence surpassed that under Stephen\nIII. On April 25, St. Mark\u2019s day, the Pope was conducting the solemn\nprocession ordered by St. Gregory the Great, from the Lateran to St.\nLorenzo in Lucina. A band of conspirators broke out of the Flaminian way,\nnot far from the Church of St. Silvester. At their head were two nephews\nof the late Pope Adrian: Paschalis, the Primicerius, that is, the first of\nthe seven Palatine judges, and Campulus, the treasurer, another of them,\nboth in immediate attendance on the Pope. Leo III. was thrown to the\nground, and an attempt made to tear out his eyes and his tongue. He was\ndragged into the Church of St. Silvester, and thence taken to the\nmonastery of St. Erasmus on the C\u00e6lian.\n\nThe conspirators had not succeeded, as they hoped, in blinding the Pope.\nHis wounds were wonderfully healed. His friends rescued him on a dark\nnight from his confinement in the monastery, and brought him safely to St\nPeter\u2019s. A large number of the people and clergy surrounded him. The Frank\nduke came from Spoleto with a hurriedly collected troop, took him from St.\nPeter\u2019s, and carried him to Spoleto, where again bishops, priests, and\nlaity surrounded him with congratulations.\n\nWhen Charles heard of these events in Rome he caused the Pope to come into\nhis kingdom. He was in the act of marching against the Saxons. At\nPaderborn he learnt of the Pope\u2019s approach. He sent to him(261) archbishop\nHildebald, his chaplain; the Count Anochar and his son Pipin, with many\ncounts, and a considerable force to escort him, while he set in order the\nwhole army for his reception. When the head of the Church appeared all\nfell on their knees to receive his blessing. Charles dismounted, tenderly\nembraced the oppressed fugitive before his army, and accompanied him to\nthe cathedral.\n\nLeo remained several days in the camp at Paderborn to consult with the\nking about the state of things at Rome, and what measures should be taken\nto meet them. No doubt it was felt that the powers of the Patricius at\nRome must be increased, to give security in the future to the Pope.\n\nThe conspirators had acted with great violence at Rome, and sent to the\nking a list of accusations against the Pope.\n\nThe Pope returned to Rome accompanied by the archbishops of Cologne and\nSalzburg, and a large escort of Frank bishops and nobles. All the clergy,\nsenate, people, soldiers, the schools of foreigners, Franks, Friesons,\nSaxons, and Lombards, also the chief matrons of Rome came out to Ponte\nMolle to meet him, with standards and crosses, attended him to St.\nPeter\u2019s, where he sang High Mass, and the next day he re-entered the city,\nand took again possession of the Lateran.\n\nIn the summer of the following year, 800, Charles left his capital,\nAix-la-Chapelle. At Mainz he announced his intention to go to Rome, that\nhe might punish those guilty of the ill-treatment of the Pope. It was his\nfifth campaign in Italy. He stayed seven days in Ravenna, which was now in\nthe Pope\u2019s possession. At Mentana, twelve miles from Rome, the Pope went\nout to receive him. The next day, the 24th November, he came to St.\nPeter\u2019s, where the people waited for him in the usual order.\n\nThe king-protector declared that the chief object of his coming was to\nclear the Pope from the accusations brought against him, and for this\npurpose there was held on 1st December a great assembly at St. Peter\u2019s of\narchbishops and bishops, Frank and Roman nobility, before the king and the\nPope. \u201cThen all the archbishops, bishops, and abbots said with one\nvoice:(262) \u2018We dare not judge the Apostolic See, which is the head of all\nthe churches of God, for by it and by its successor we all are judged. But\nitself is judged by no man, as from of old has been the custom, but we\nwill obey, as the canons require, according to the sentence of the supreme\npontiff.\u2019 Then the Pope said: \u2018I follow the example of my predecessors,\nand am ready to clear myself of such false accusations\u2019. And on another\nday, before the same presence, ascending the ambo, and holding the gospels\nin his hands, he said, under oath, with a loud voice: \u2018I have no knowledge\nof these false crimes which Romans, my unjust persecutors, have imputed to\nme, and I never committed them. Whereupon they gave thanks to God in a\nlitany, and to our Lady the Mother of God and ever Virgin Mary, and to St.\nPeter, Prince of the Apostles, and to all the saints of God.\u2019 \u201d\n\nAfter these things, on the birthday of our Lord Jesus Christ, all were\nagain assembled in the same church of St. Peter\u2019s.(263) Charles, at the\nrequest of the Pope, wore his Roman dress as Patricius of the Roman Church\nand Commonwealth. That majestic figure, seven of his own feet in stature,\nwas vested in an inner robe of pure white, hearing over it the purple\nmantle which betokened his Frank monarchy. Pope Leo III. celebrated High\nMass in person; Charles knelt on the steps before the altar, his head\nbowed in prayer. Then the Pope took the crown which lay on the altar, and\nplaced it on the head of the king of the Franks, and cried with a loud\nvoice: \u201cLife and victory to Charles Augustus, crowned of God, great and\npeace-bearing Emperor of the Romans!\u201d\n\nAnd from the Frank and the Roman nobles throughout the church the cry was\nechoed back: \u201cTo Charles Augustus, crowned of God, great and peace-bearing\nemperor of the Romans, life and victory!\u201d\n\nThe title was thrice proclaimed before the Confession of St. Peter. And\nall the faithful of Rome seeing the great guardianship and affection which\nCharles bore to the Roman Church, and its ruler, assented with one accord.\nAnd the same day the Pope anointed with the holy oil Charles and the king\nhis son.\n\nThree hundred and twenty-four years had passed since at the bidding of\nOdoacer the Herule and Ariun, the Roman senate had sent a message to the\neastern emperor Zeno, declaring that no western emperor was needed. During\nthe whole of that intervening period Rome had survived in virtue of St.\nPeter\u2019s primacy seated in her. She had subdued the Acacian schism. She had\nlived through the Gothic war and the five captures by friends and foes.\nDuring two centuries of Lombard invasion and of Byzantine oppression she\nhad remained unbroken. Upon the judgment of Pope Zacharias, the most\npowerful nation of the West dethroned the unworthy race of Clovis, and\nplaced a nobler and more religious house on the throne of the Franks.\nAnother Pope, Stephen II., by his own authority had made the newly\nanointed monarch Patricius of the Romans, and he first, and then his son,\nduring forty years, had in that character protected the sovereignty which\nhe had partly recovered, so far as regarded Rome and its own territory,\nand partly bestowed, so far as regarded the exarchate as a gift to St.\nPeter. The external protection had proved to be inadequate to guard the\npapal succession in one case, the person of the Pope in another, from\ndomestic treason. And now the word of the Pope alone summoned up from the\npast not only the title but the power of the emperor, and invested with it\nthe greatest man of all those northern races, who since the time of\nTheodosius had subjugated the Roman western empire. Leo III. alone set the\ncrown on the head of Charles; not the crown which belonged to him as king\nof the northern immigrants who had conquered Gaul, but the crown of\nAugustus, given by Christ. \u201cTo Charles Augustus, crowned of God,\u201d the word\nran. This was the crown which Charles received, and which all the nations\nsubject to his sway acknowledged, as the gift of St. Peter, seated in his\nsee of Rome. The first and chief duty of the sovereign so created was to\nguard the Church of God. The four hundred years of Teuton immigration\npassed by that act into the definitive recognition of a new Christian\npeople. Thereupon there became a family of nations, whose common life and\nlaw were the one Church of God, whose common territory was named from its\nmaster, Christendom. The eastern emperor in his ardour to impose heresy,\nhad shown his impotence to protect what Justinian had once acquired, and\nRome which created anew a western emperor was definitively free from any\ncivil subjection to the eastern.\n\nThree chief aspects of this great act are to be considered: how it\nregarded the West; how it regarded the East; how it regarded the enormous\nMohammedan power which stretched from farthest West to farthest East, from\nthe Tagus to the Indus.\n\nFirst it is to be noted that the Pope alone made the empire. As Stephen\nII. had conferred upon the newly made king of the Franks the office of\nRoman Patricius, and with it the jurisdiction in his own State requisite\nfor the fulfilment of that office, so, where the jurisdiction of the\nPatricius had been proved to be insufficient, both by the intrusion of the\nanti-pope Constantine into the Papal See itself, and by the ferocious\nattack upon Leo III., a reigning pontiff, during a solemn procession in\nthe streets of Rome, Leo III. created an emperor, who should have a\njurisdiction in Rome over all persons. He did not make himself a vassal,\nbut in making the emperor he gave judicial rights in the State of the\nChurch for the carrying out the most important part of the emperor\u2019s\ncharge, to be Protector of the Roman Church. That Protector was to be\nguardian of the whole Catholic Church: and so he bore the name and title,\nof all other civil titles the most respected, emperor of the Romans; Rome\nalone, re-entering into the right lost in 476, and exercised now by the\nvoice of her sovereign, gave the title, not drawn from the Franks or\nGermans, nor dependent on the Byzantine, rather in itself a speaking sign\nthat the Byzantine subjection had passed away. The Roman, and the Frank,\nand all the subjects of his vast domain accepted Charles as \u201ccrowned of\nGod\u201d. That is, the Successor of St. Peter named him emperor of the Romans.\nAs he had exalted a mayor of the palace to be king of the Franks, and\nPatricius of the Romans, so he had exalted the Patricius to be emperor;\nand because he was himself in spiritual things the head of the whole\nChurch, he had made a particular king to be the advocate and defender of\nthe whole Church. No one else could do what Leo III. did.\n\nThe annalists(264) of that age universally agree that it was Leo III. who\ndevised and executed the exaltation of Charles to be emperor. The Pope in\na deed granting certain privileges to a monastery, dated on the very day\nof his coronation, marks that his grant was made \u201cin presence of our\nglorious and most excellent son Charles, whom by God\u2019s authority we have\nthis day consecrated to be emperor for the defence and advancement of the\nuniversal Church\u201d. Charles himself everywhere said that he was \u201ccrowned by\nthe divine will,\u201d \u201ccrowned by God\u201d. Most wise was the intention of Leo,\nthat the supreme pontiff, the pastor and ruler of all the faithful, should\ninstitute this sacred empire by crowning and proclaiming Charles. It was\nthus that the Church and the supreme pontiff determined the peculiar and\nessential character, nature, and dignity of this empire. The purpose was\nthat among the kings there should be one, already most powerful by the\nextent of his dominions, to whom besides a special charge and dignity\nshould be given. This consisted in being the protector and defender of the\nChurch and the Roman pontiff, and of the whole Christian society, to\npromote and spread abroad the Christian faith with all its blessings. The\nChurch on her side, gave to this prince a pre-eminence over all other\nprinces. That intimate union, which ought to subsist between the Two\nPowers, Spiritual and Temporal, preserving to each its own dignity and\nhonour, found its practical and supreme expression in that mutual respect\nof Pontiff and emperor to each other. Five centuries of the Europe that\nwas to be born came out of that act of Leo III. on Christmas Day, 800.\nLegitimate order and fixed possession were added to the innate courage and\nthe love for self-government of the Teuton tribes, which thus grew into\nnations.\n\nDivide into its chief parts the union thus consecrated before the eyes of\nall men, by an authority which all men admitted.\n\nFirst of all we find the nature of civil government in general\nacknowledged by it. During five hundred years from the time of Constantine\nthis had been upheld with unwavering steadfastness by the Popes. Never had\nthey acknowledged a rule of despotism. One of the most marked characters\nof the Arian heresy was its disposition to exaggerate the civil\nsovereignty, admitting in it an absolute rule rather than a divine\ndelegation, and, extending that absolute rule into the spiritual order of\nthings. So far already had Arius anticipated Mohammed. Against this\nconfusion of the Two Powers, and their absorption into one, Athanasius,\nHilary, and Basil, Popes Julius, Liberius, and Damasus had struggled. A\nhundred years later Pope Gelasius under Arian thraldom had maintained to\nthe emperor Anastasius the essential independence of the spiritual power,\nand the defence in spiritual things due to it from emperors. When another\nemperor, Leo the Isaurian, had intruded, if possible, further into the\nfabric of the Church than Anastasius, he was met, as has been seen above,\nby St. Gregory II. Now, seventy years later, in the last days of the\neighth century, the Iconoclast storm having broken in vain on the head of\nfour successive Popes, Leo III. set his seal upon all these acts of his\npredecessors. He restored the empire, and in restoring set it forth once\nagain in its character of the supreme earthly right consecrated to the\ndefence of the divine right and Christian faith. The marvel was that he\nmade the head of the Teutonic tribes the guardian of Christ\u2019s religion,\nand invested him with the privileges involved in that guardianship which a\nsuccession of degenerate Constantines on the eastern throne had abused.\nThe chalifs had shaken to its centre the Christian structure in the East;\nhad stripped the Christian empire of its fairest provinces; had set up\nagainst it a religion of internecine hatred to its faith, of perpetual\npollution to its morals; and the Pope, when the loss of Italy was added to\nall its other losses, had established, in the person of Charles, Christian\nmonarchy in the West. It was no longer an attempt to veneer with Christian\nname an empire, all whose bureaucratic despotism was founded in the\nheathen subjection of all power to the State, but the establishment in a\ngreat conqueror of an empire whose basis was essentially Christian.\nCharles was \u201cAugustus crowned of God, great and peace-bearing emperor of\nthe Romans,\u201d not an Augustus made by the senate and people of Rome, who\nhad become in Diocletian the representative of armies, and in Byzantium\ncontinued a succession of dissolute adventurers.\n\nAgain, Charlemagne received from the Pope a complete code of Christian\nlegislation, and as emperor he made it his own, and made it the centre of\ncivil right. The act which constituted him emperor made Rome itself the\npoint of a vast circumference of nations. It became for Christian\ncontemplation what it had been for heathen: Christian voices united with\nthe heathen. The imperial statute book spoke it out:(265) Rome is our\ncommon country. Already Charles, as Patricius, had received from Adrian I.\na book of the councils and canons accepted by the Holy See. With it beside\nhim he had restored order and law in the Frankish Church, which the last\ncentury of Merovingian misrule had so greatly impaired. He now added the\nimperial dignity and power to that peculiar combination of moderation and\nperseverance which marked his character. The harmonious equilibrium of\nqualities,(266) excelling equally in the arts of war and the arts of\npeace, and united with fidelity to the Church of God, made him the\ngreatest of Christian sovereigns. Whatever he undertook he pursued with\nunfailing ardour. What he began, he finished; carrying on a multitude of\nthings at once, he gave to each his full attention. In a reign of\nforty-seven years he made fifty-three military expeditions, most of which\nhe led himself; eight years he fought the Avars; and thirty-three the\nSaxons. He enacted more laws than all his predecessors united, as well the\nMerovingians as the princes of his own family. Age, which brings fatigue\nand relaxation to other workers, saw his energies increase, for the\nfourteen years from 800 to his death showed his greatest legislative\nactivity. The man in armour never laid aside his breastplate; his eye\nretained its penetration and his hand its vigour till he went down\nstanding to his tomb, and there the great Christian emperor was found\nseated on his throne, with sackcloth under his imperial mantle, hundreds\nof years after his death.\n\nTo put the laws and customs of the Church in the hands of such a man as\nAugustus, crowned of God in St. Peter\u2019s Basilica, was of itself to change\nthe wandering of the nations into an abode of settled peoples, capable of\ngrowing into the brotherhood of a Christian bond. So Leo III. completed\nthe work of St. Gregory the Great. In Gregory\u2019s time the Visigothic\nkingdom of Spain had been already established on these same principles;\nnow that it had been overthrown by the Moslem occupation, they were\nestablished on a vaster scale by the central empire of Charlemagne. So the\nChurch carried her legislative wisdom, gained in the exercise of 800\nyears, into the civil counsels of princes.\n\nPipin le Bref,(267) great grandfather of Charles, had restored in France\nthe great assembly of the Field of May. These assemblies were carefully\nheld by Charles. Like his predecessors he took no measure and promulgated\nno law in opposition to the public wish. At Byzantium the practice which\nhad triumphed was \u201cthe will of the prince has the force of law,\u201d but the\nemperor Louis II., in 862, expressed the practice of Charles: \u201cLaw is made\nby the consent of the people, and the sanction of the king\u201d. Every year at\nthe Champs de Mai that principle became a reality. The king of the Franks\nappeared there the soul and centre of the assembly. He convoked it when\nand where he pleased. He proposed the subjects for its consideration, he\ngave his sanction to what it passed. He dissolved it at his pleasure. But\nit was consulted on all important acts of his government. It gave its\nadvice with unlimited freedom; it had full right to amend the projects\nproposed. Often special commissions composed of the most competent persons\nconsidered what was brought before them; the bishops, ecclesiastical\naffairs; the lords, political. The government considered the interests of\nthe Church with the most constant care. More than one Champ de Mai held by\nCharles bears the aspect at once of a council and a parliament. The king\npresided, listened, advised. The law which sprang from that familiar\nintercourse between king and nation perfectly expressed the harmony which\nreigned between an authority which was loved, and an obedience which was\nfree. There was no written constitution, but it was one power exercised by\nsovereign and people. The Capitularies remain the monument of this immense\nactivity.\n\nThe royal commissioners, Missi Dominici, an institution perfected by\nCharles, carried everywhere throughout his vast empire a knowledge of the\nlaws thus passed, and reported to the sovereign how they were kept. By\nthem the king touched each member of his political body. It was a class of\nremovable functionaries, entirely under the order of the central power. It\nwas composed chiefly, but not always, of bishops and counts. They went\nfour times a year, usually two and two, an ecclesiastic and a layman, to\ninspect the district entrusted to them. All authorities were subject to\nthis inspection. They reported to the sovereign upon all, and conveyed to\nhim the popular feeling, as well as informed him as to the popular needs.\nThis institution, together with the Champs de Mai, contributed to the\nempire\u2019s unity by maintaining its peace. It checked excesses of power in\nthe great proprietors.\n\nAn account is extant how these commissioners acted in one of the remotest\nprovinces, that of Istria. They consisted of two counts and a simple\npriest. At their arrival they held a public enquiry upon the conduct of\nthe religious and civil authorities. The patriarch of Grado was obliged to\nappear in person, together with all the bishops and counts of the\nprovince. After that they considered the conduct of the duke John. The\npatriarch and the duke were alike compelled to give pledges to amend what\nhad been wrongly done. All felt that Charlemagne himself was behind his\ncommissioners; and when they departed it was with the full assurance that\ntheir visit had not been in vain. It will be right to take this instance\nas representing the government of Charles everywhere, and at all times.\nFor the first time since the origin of Frank society a power existed, each\nof whose acts indicated a resolution to maintain the general good and to\nimpregnate the whole nation with the spirit of the sovereign.\n\nIn all this government the model of the Christian hierarchy was before the\nmind of Charles, and in the strength of union with it he worked. What is\nso singularly civilising in his power is the extinction in his personal\ncharacter as ruler of anything local, bounded, and particular, together\nwith the maintenance of every right in every place. The Pope was the head\nof the Church, and he looked upon himself as the head of the State; the\nPope was surrounded in every province by bishops, his colleagues and\ncoadjutors; they worked together in one mass. So Charles willed that his\ndukes and counts should work with him in one mass for one end, the pacific\nunity of his great empire. The act of the Pope(268) in making him Roman\nemperor helped him greatly to conceive of himself as the secular head of a\nChristian brotherhood of peoples, as the Pope was its spiritual head. But\nthe act which made him emperor did not give him secular dominion over any\npeople not already subject to him. For instance, it did not subject to him\nthe Saxon kingdoms in Britain. He was not territorial, but moral leader\nand president in the council of kings; their chief in the defence of the\nChurch. He did not take from the Greek empress or her successors any\ntemporal lordship; though the Greek pride long refused to acknowledge him\nas an equal. The Pope remained what he had been from the time of Stephen\nII., an independent sovereign in the Papal State: he had not given himself\na master in erecting a new empire. In fact we see Leo III. retain the\nexercise of his secular sovereignty, and the emperor appear only as\ndefender of St. Peter\u2019s landed inheritance. Leo III. maintained the right\nof his own officers against the interference of some imperial\ncommissioners, and distinguished accurately the limits of the State of the\nChurch, from the imperial realm. He took measures against Arab inroads, to\nsecure his State in full independence. What he needed was the emperor\u2019s\nsupport against the violent party spirit of the time; against such deeds\nas the intrusion of a Pope upon the Apostolic See by armed force; against\nthe assault upon a Pope by conspirators. This the authority of the emperor\nin Rome secured. For that he had a jurisdiction, as the Patricius had\nbefore. For this the Romans took an oath to the emperor as well as to the\nPope; to the one as protector and advocate, to the other as temporal lord.\n\nIf in all this action Charlemagne had before him the model of the\nChristian hierarchy, not only his own vast kingdom, but all the nations of\nthe West had spread out before them in the forty-six years of his reign,\nbut especially in the last fourteen, when he had become, by the Pope\u2019s\nact, emperor of the Romans, the cordiality of union between the two great\npowers of human life, the spiritual and the temporal. The positive and\nintrinsic effect of the Holy See as the inflexible rule of doctrine and of\njustice on the Teuton features of the several northern tribes was seen\nwhen a man of immense natural capacity wielded so great a power in close\nconjunction and amity with it. What can be further than the action of\nCharles in the Champs de Mai, in the Missi Dominici, in a legislation\nwhich considered all the needs and desires of the subject, while it was\nsupreme and final in its authority, from the condition of the northern\ntribes when they broke into the empire. The Vandals howled around the\nwalls of Hippo when St. Augustine was repeating the penitential psalms on\nhis death-bed; while Charles kept under his pillow St. Augustine\u2019s City of\nGod, and strove to rule his empire for the maintenance of the Christian\nfaith. He was accomplishing that union of many nations in one political\nbond as members of the same religion which Augustine himself, the most\nclear-sighted of saintly historians, was unable to contemplate. The\nmixture of earth with iron in the feet of the great heathen statue had\nwrought its dissolution; but the Teuton monarch, who mounted on his knees\nthe steps of St. Peter\u2019s, kissing each separately, at the beginning of his\ncareer pledged his faith to the Pope over the tomb of the chief apostle,\nand before it ended he had given a final check to the intestine struggles\nof disunion. He had more than equalled the work of Constantine. The great\nRoman was indeed personally, though imperfectly, Christian. How much there\nwas of policy, how much of faith in his conversion is a problem too hard\nto solve; but he was baptised on his death-bed, and the delay was probably\nof disastrous import to his inward life; and his empire was, in a great\ndegree, still unconverted and heathen. His latter years were especially\nfaulty in his practical execution of the relation between the Two Powers.\nFrom his time forward his own special foundation at Byzantium declined\nmore and more, until the emperor who represented him became, in Leo, the\nIsaurian, and his son Kopronymus, the greatest enemy of the Church. But\nCharlemagne by his real union with St. Peter\u2019s successor, imparted Roman\norder, Christian civilisation, and civil constitution to that mass of\nseething peoples. If in the five hundred years succeeding Constantine his\nwork deteriorated more and more, until the city which he wished to be the\nhead of Christian empire yielded half of it to the Saracen, and then\nbecame the very seat of schism, the West, in the five hundred years which\nfollowed Charlemagne, saw a family of Christian and Catholic nations\nsurround the throne of the chief apostle, nations which his Primacy had\ncalled into existence when he placed the imperial diadem on the head of\n\u201cCharles Augustus, crowned of God\u201d.\n\nIf from the West we extend our view to Charlemagne\u2019s effect on the East,\nwe find the new order of things which his empire introduced, present him\nas the temporal head of the Christian faith in union with its spiritual\nhead over against the powerless Byzantine emperor. The Pope had ceased to\nbe a subject, and his word had set a Teuton sovereign on full equality\nwith the power which had so grievously maltreated Italy during two hundred\nyears. Never could he have taken such a step had he been still a vassal of\nthe Greek court, which had not only tyrannised itself, but left the\nApostolic See defenceless to the Lombard aggression for many generations.\nThe emperor Zeno had made Odoacer Roman Patricius for the subjugation of\nItaly and of Rome itself. Stephen II. had made Pipin Patricius for its\ndelivery and defence of the Holy See. Leo III. had exalted the Patricius\nto be emperor for fuller defence. No Roman noble or bandit could resist\nthe power thus created. The Greek influence in Italy was all but\nextinguished; the Roman Church was protected from that violation of its\nrights, that plundering of its property, which C\u00e6sar and Exarch had so\noften inflicted. For the patrimonies which the Isaurian had confiscated,\nthe Roman See was thus in another form compensated. The Pope had received\na domain in central Italy, and was in the possession of full independence.\nOver against that free life and mounting sap of the West, the East\npresented but an image of decay and stagnation.\n\nHarun al Raschid was reigning as chalif at Bagdad when Charles was made\nemperor at Rome. His troops advanced to Ephesus and compelled the empress\nIrene to pay tribute during a four years\u2019 suspension of hostilities. Again\nand again had Moslem armies polluted the Christian cities from Antioch to\nthe Bosphorus with every iniquity. In 726, they took possession of St.\nBasil\u2019s C\u00e6sarea, in the year when the Isaurian was trying to force his\nMohammedan hatred of images on Pope St. Gregory II., and seven years\nbefore he was stripping the Roman Church of its patrimony, and\ntransferring ten provinces of the Papal patriarchate to the bishop of the\neastern capital. From the death of Mohammed in 632 to the creation of\nCharles as emperor of the Romans in 800, was a time of scarcely\ninterrupted disaster inflicted by the Saracen on the Christian through the\nEast and the South. The outburst began as we have seen, by the betrayal of\nthe faith on the part of Heraclius, the sole Roman emperor: Constans II.,\nLeo III., and Kopronymus continued this betrayal. Mohammed waxed greater\nand greater through this whole period. The Christian successes consisted\nin _not_ losing Constantinople, and in saving the south of France after\nthe loss of Spain. In the reign of Harun al Raschid, that most terrible of\ndestructions was at its greatest expansion and intensity. Then an emperor\nof the Romans was created by the Pope for the special defence of the\nChurch. Exactly as Harun in his character of chalif was bound to lay waste\nand destroy the Christian Church and Faith, Charles was bound to watch\nover it. This was the tenure by which he held the empire, and his\nsuccessors after him.(269) It was given, not for the glory and distinction\nof the wearer, but its true and proper significance lay in the fulfilment\nof the duties which the emperor was to discharge as protector of the\nChurch. All imperial grandeur was an attribute of this duty. Exactly\nbecause the Greek emperor had not fulfilled this duty, the Pope undertook\nthe renovation of the western Roman empire. It would be an entirely\nerroneous view of Leo\u2019s act to suppose that he could have done nothing\nelse, that he must have made Charlemagne emperor, and by this single\ncrowning bound himself and his successors to accept every succeeding\nemperor. Things in the East had come to that pass, but in the West the\nwhole empire, in conception and in fact, was the Pope\u2019s work. The office\nthus created was a spiritual office, to which the spiritual head of\nChristendom should consecrate, anoint, and crown its temporal head. When\nthere was a new king of the Franks, he was to come to Rome for\nconsecration as emperor of the Romans: the Pope did not elect the new\nking, neither of the Franks then, nor of the Germans afterwards, but he,\nand he alone, invested the man chosen king with the title and power of the\nRoman emperor.\n\nThe chalifate, set up in the false pretension of succeeding a man whose\nwhole claim to rule was founded on a falsehood, had become the most\nterrible despotism which human history had witnessed. It had taken\npossession of a very large part of what was Christian territory when it\nappeared in the world. Heraclius and his line trembled before it. At the\ntime when a soldier of fortune closed seven revolutions at Byzantium\nChristian Spain was overwhelmed by it. And presently the Isaurian line\nhelped its onward march by arrogating to itself that intrusion into\nspiritual government, which was the very basis of the chalifate. Then the\naction of Leo III., on Christmas Day, 800, created in the West a power\nadequate to resist the further advance of Mohammedan rule. As long\ncontinued dissension in the faith, decline in Christian morals, and an\never advancing despotism had given entrance to Saracen conquest, so from\nthe very tomb of St. Peter, and at the voice of his Successor, arose that\nChristian king and Roman prince whom Pope Felix and his successors sought\nin vain from the heirs of Constantine. The vileness of oriental despotism\nwas to meet in conflict Christian monarchy: the union of nations in the\nfaith to give one spirit to the West: the flood which had almost\noverflowed the earth to stop before the Rock of Peter.\n\n\n\n\n\nINDEX.\n\n\n_Abu Bekr_, elected the first chalif, 118.\n\n_Adrian I., Pope_, his accession and character, 441;\n  replies to the embassy of king Desiderius, 442;\n  his cities seized by Desiderius, 443;\n  defends Rome against Desiderius, and stops him by interdict, 445;\n  calls upon Charlemagne to rescue him, 446;\n  whom he receives at St. Peter\u2019s as Patricius, at Easter, 474, 450;\n  confers with Charles as to Pipin\u2019s donation, 453;\n  receives the renewal of the donation from him, 455;\n  visits of Charles to Rome during his pontificate, 497;\n  dies in 795, mourned over by Charles, as a father, 498.\n\n_African Bishops_ repeat to Pope St. Martin the words of his predecessor,\n            Innocent I., made in the time of St. Augustine, 72;\n  acknowledge the special divine gift of maintaining the faith, dwelling\n              in the Apostolic Chair, 73.\n\n_Agatho, Pope_, holds councils preparatory to the Sixth Council, 239;\n  describes the legates whom he sends to the Council, 239;\n  restores St. Wilfrid to his see, 240;\n  asserts before the Sixth Council the inerrancy of the Apostolic See,\n              245;\n  his claims fully admitted by the Council, 247;\n  and by the emperor, 249, who calls him \u201cyour most sacred Headship,\u201d 249;\n  the Sixth Council beseeches him to confirm it, 247;\n  dies before the Council ends in 681, 250.\n\n_Aistulf_, king of the Lombards, takes Ravenna in 751, and names himself\n            king of Italy, 350;\n  attacks the duchy of Rome, and imposes a poll-tax on Rome, 353;\n  will not listen to Pope Stephen II. at Pavia, 355;\n  yields to Pipin, who besieges Pavia, 360;\n  breaks his compact with Pipin, and begins a fresh siege of Rome, 361;\n  yields Pavia to Pipin, and submits to his terms, 363;\n  invests Rome at the beginning, and dies hunting at the end of 756, 365.\n\n_Alexandrine Patriarchate_, its history from Dioscorus to Mohammed, 144-9.\n\n_Ali_, fourth chalif, 656-661;\n  assassinated in the mosque, 153.\n\n_Amalasunta_, allowed to be murdered by her cousin, Theodatus, whom she\n            had made king of the Goths, 380.\n\n_Anastasius_, made patriarch on the deposition of Germanus by Leo III.\n            336;\n  made ecumenical by a tyrannical act of Leo III., 336;\n  deposed by his son Kopronymus as a useless instrument, 337.\n\n_Anastasius_, the Librarian, as authority for Roman history, 26;\n  his account of Pope St. Martin, 52-5;\n  of the visit of Constans II. to Rome, 230;\n  his character of St. Gregory III., 332;\n  describes his works, 343;\n  his character of Pope Zacharias, 345, 352;\n  describes the election and character of Pope Stephen III., 352;\n  character and letter to Desiderius of Pope Adrian I., 441-3;\n  describes Charlemagne ascending the steps to St. Peter\u2019s on his knees,\n              450;\n  records the donation of Charlemagne in 774, 454;\n  and the visit of Pope Leo III. to Charles at Paderborn, 500;\n  his exculpation in St. Peter\u2019s and crowning of Charlemagne, 502;\n  Justinian II., his captain of the guards sent to seize Pope Sergius,\n              272;\n  entrance of Pope Constantine into Constantinople, 278;\n  the election of Pelagius II. left free because of the Lombards, 382;\n  his character of Pope Paul I., 432.\n\n_Antiochene Patriarchate_, history from St. Chrysostom to Mohammed, 143.\n\n_Anastasius_, formerly _Artemius_, and the first secretary, made emperor,\n            282;\n  is deposed after a civil war of six months, and becomes a priest, 289;\n  revolts against Leo III., and executed as a criminal by him, 289.\n\n_Athalarich_, king of the Goths, perishes by his excesses in 534, 380;\n  imposes a fine for confirming the Papal election, 380.\n\n_Augustine, St._, his confession of the primacy of the Apostolic See\n            praised by Pope St. Martin, 73.\n\n_Bardanes, Philippicus_, reigns eighteen months, and tries to set up again\n            the Monothelite heresy, 281;\n  deposed and blinded, 282.\n\n_Baronius_, his judgment as to the greatness of St. Gregory II., quoted,\n            332.\n\n_Bede, St._, his account of archbishop Theodore, 236.\n\n_Boniface IV., Pope_, consecrates Agrippa\u2019s Pantheon to be the Church of\n            \u201cthe ever-virgin Mother of God and all martyrs,\u201d 28.\n\n_Brunengo_, I primi Papi-Re and Le Origini della Sovranit\u00e0 Temporale dei\n            Papi, quoted continually in the 8th chapter.\n\n_Byzantium_, its despotism the Church\u2019s enemy from the time of St.\n            Gregory, 5;\n  its patriarch the special rival of the Pope, 6;\n  tries for forty years to impose the Monothelite heresy on the Pope and\n              the Church, 41;\n  five acts of its theological despotism, 61;\n  march of this despotism from Constantine to Constans II., 64;\n  secular power declines, as spiritual usurpation advances, 65;\n  development of its double despotism, civil and religious, from\n              Constantine to Heraclius, 110-117;\n  its fostering the heretical spirit destroys the empire, 117-118;\n  two hundred years of eastern wickedness lead up to the Mohammedan\n              conquest, 141, and the destruction of the eastern\n              patriarchates, 143-6;\n  triple despotism over the Popes,\n    1, controlling and confirming their election, 376-385;\n    2, the exarchal government, plundering and oppressing, 386-390;\n    3, interfering with doctrine, 393-400;\n  eastern episcopate demoralised by it, 409;\n  its advancement of its bishop from 381 to 733, 337.\n\n_Charlemagne_, sent by his father Pipin to meet Pope Stephen II., 358;\n  crowned with his father and brother by Pope Stephen at St. Denys in 754,\n              360;\n  and made with them Patricius of the Romans, 360, 431;\n  becomes with his brother Carloman, king of the Franks, 768, 436;\n  marries Desiderata or Ermengarde, daughter of Desiderius, 437;\n  sends her back repudiated after a year, 438;\n  becomes king of the whole Frank empire, Dec. 4, 771, 440;\n  marches into Italy against Desiderius, 446;\n  invests Pavia, October, 773, 448;\n  enters St. Peter\u2019s and welcomed by Pope Adrian as Patricius, at Easter,\n              774, 449;\n  confers with Pope Adrian I., 450;\n  renews and confirms the pact of Quiersy, 454;\n  lays the donation on the altar of the Confession, 455;\n  captures Verona and Pavia and becomes king of the Lombards, 457;\n  takes time to carry out the donation, but is never unfaithful, 459;\n  his visit to Rome in 774 inaugurates his 40 years of triumphs, 463;\n  his loyalty in repeating his father\u2019s acts, 465;\n  visits to Rome in the pontificate of Adrian I., 497;\n  receives Pope Leo III. at Paderborn, 501;\n  comes from Aix-la-Chapelle to Rome, 502;\n  the Pope acquitted on his personal word in St. Peter\u2019s before him, 503;\n  crowned by Leo III. emperor of the Romans on Christmas Day, 800, 503;\n  made emperor by the Pope alone, to be protector of the Church, 505;\n  this making by the Pope acknowledged by all his subjects, 506;\n  it recognises the proper nature of civil government, 508;\n  it establishes Christian legislation in the person of Charles, 510;\n  his action in the Champs de Mai, 511; his action by the Missi Dominici,\n              512;\n  makes the Christian hierarchy the model of his civil government, 514;\n  how his government civilises the West, 515;\n  how his work surpasses that of Constantine, 516;\n  how his empire bears on the Byzantine, 517;\n  how it stands over against the chalifate, 518.\n\n_Charles Martell_, saves Europe from Mohammed at the battle by Tours, 494;\n  second of the four great Carlovingians, 496;\n  called upon for aid by St. Gregory III., 339.\n\n_Church, the Catholic_\u2014the one kingdom of Christ in all ages, 2;\n  unity of, as necessary as the unity of God, 2;\n  want of the idea makes documents unintelligible, 4.\n\n_Constans II._, emperor, charges the exarch Olympius to murder Pope St.\n            Martin, 54;\n  appoints another exarch, Kalliopas, to kidnap the Pope, 79;\n  tortures and puts to death St. Maximus, the Confessor, 159-170;\n  forces the election of Pope Eugenius in the life-time of St. Martin,\n              226;\n  murders his brother, Theodosius, a deacon, 230;\n  his visit to Rome described by Anastasius, 230;\n  strips Rome of statues, and St. Mary of the Martyrs (the Pantheon) of\n              its roof, 233;\n  assassinated in his bath at Syracuse, 234.\n\n_Constantine and Charlemagne_, their work on the Church compared, 516.\n\n_Constantine III._, poisoned by the empress Martina, 159.\n\n_Constantine IV._, Pogonatus, 236;\n  solicits union with the Pope, 238;\n  addresses the Pope at the Sixth Council as the living Peter, 249;\n  his position as emperor, 261;\n  reigns from 668 to 685, a great contrast to his father, Constans II.,\n              262.\n\n_Constantine V._, Kopronymus, emperor, leaves Pope Stephen II. undefended\n            at the Lombard invasion, 354;\n  Pope Stephen II. ceases to recognise his sovereignty over Rome, 357;\n  asks Pipin to restore to him Rome and the exarchate, 364, 411;\n  the last eastern emperor who exercises thraldom over Rome, 411.\n\n_Constantine_, ecumenical patriarch of Constantinople, so presented to the\n            bishops by the emperor in 754, 403;\n  banished to Prince\u2019s Island in 766, 405;\n  degraded in Sancta Sophia, 407;\n  imprisoned, condemned, beheaded, and dissected, 768, 408.\n\n_Cyrus_, made by Heraclius patriarch of Alexandria, 105;\n  constructor with Sergius, of the Monothelite heresy, 105;\n  supplies Heraclius with heresy drawn out scientifically, 253.\n\n_Desiderius_, last king of the Lombards, 757-774, made by help of Pope\n            Stephen II., 433;\n  plots against Popes Paul I., Stephen III., and Adrian I., 433-438;\n  marries his daughter to Charlemagne in 770, repudiated by him in 771,\n              437;\n  gets rid of the Palatine judges Christophorus and Sergius, 439;\n  encounters and is foiled by Pope Adrian I., 441-446;\n  is invested in Pavia by Charlemagne in 773, 447;\n  conquered and deposed by him in 774, 457.\n\n_De Vere, Aubrey_, quoted, 373, the sin of Constantine cleaving his\n            empire, note, 111.\n\n_D\u00f6llinger_, quoted on the purpose of the Greek Council in Trullo, 264;\n  analyses Mohammed\u2019s religion and estimates his work, 23, 208;\n  sums up the effect of the Mohammedan attack, 224;\n  makes absolute despotism the proper offspring of Mohammed, 220-224;\n  what Mohammed was named by his companions, 217.\n\n_Eugenius, Pope_, elected in the lifetime of St. Martin, 226, 229.\n\n_Gfr\u00f6rer_, Papst Gregorius, vii., vol. v. p. 10-11 quoted.\n\n_Gregorovius_ quoted, 25, 26, 28, 29, 37, 45, 257, 269, 270, 280, 290.\n\n_Gregory II._, _Pope_, 19th May, 715, 290;\n  extent of the Christian region at his accession, 290-293;\n  his character and actions, 301;\n  his letter to the emperor Leo III., 302-315;\n  shows the bearing of a God Incarnate on the making of images, 306;\n  compares the conduct of Leo III. with that of the Jewish king Ozias,\n              308;\n  effects on the mind of portraying divine actions, 309;\n  defines the bounds of Church and State, 311, 317;\n  reproves the emperor\u2019s impiety in breaking up an image of Christ, 312;\n  laughs to scorn his threats against St. Peter, 313;\n  whom all the nations of the West look upon as a God upon earth, 314;\n  contrasts Church discipline with State punishment, 318;\n  the Pope and the patriarch hear God\u2019s commission to pardon the emperor,\n              if penitent, 320;\n  these letters, a picture of the time in which they were written, 321;\n  especially as to the relation between the Two Powers, 322;\n  and the unjealous unity of the Papal and the episcopal authority, 324;\n  he rejects Leo\u2019s attack on the faith, but maintains allegiance, 328;\n  causes king Liutprand to retire from before Rome, 329;\n  Baronius esteems Pope Gregory II. as equal to St. Gregory the Great,\n              332;\n  he dies in February, 731.\n\n_Gregory III., Pope_, elected in 731,\n  his character in Anastasius, 332, 343;\n  holds a Council at Rome proscribing the Iconoclast heresy, 334;\n  is deprived by Leo III. of the patrimonies in Leo\u2019s realm, and of his\n              spiritual jurisdiction in ten provinces, 336;\n  keeps king Liutprand at hay from Rome, 339;\n  turns for aid to Charles Martell, 341;\n  sends him the keys of St. Peter\u2019s Confession, 342;\n  dies 27th November, 741, 344;\n  having saved Rome from the Lombards, 344.\n\n_Heraclius_, emperor; made of his accession, 9;\n  his dynasty reigns for five generations, 10;\n  tries to desert Constantinople, 14;\n  his twelve years\u2019 inactivity, 14;\n  his awakening, 15;\n  conquers Persia in five campaigns, 17;\n  brings back the Holy Cross to Jerusalem, 21;\n  his success as a whole from 622 to 629, 21;\n  subscribes and publishes the Ecthesis, 33;\n  makes Pyrrhus patriarch of Constantinople, 36;\n  triumphs when orthodox, and ruins the empire when heretical, 42;\n  the revolution which follows his bringing back the Cross to Jerusalem,\n              102;\n  he falls into the hands of Sergius, patriarch of Constantinople, and of\n              Cyrus, patriarch of Alexandria, 103.\n\n_Hefele_, quoted, 32, 37, 41, 51, 60, 68, 71, 103, 104, 107, 168, 169,\n            227, 264, 265.\n\n_Hergenr\u00f6ther_, quoted, 7, 26, 48, 142, 169, 238, 240, 245, 264, 266, 268,\n            296, 325, 408, 411, 412, 513.\n\n_Honorius, Pope_, his accession and acts, 30;\n  his deception by the patriarch Sergius, 31;\n  his death and burial at St. Peter\u2019s, 37;\n  censured for neglect of his office by St. Leo II., in confirming the\n              Sixth Council, 256;\n  five Popes, who had been members of his clergy, condemn the Monothelite\n              error, 56-7, 65;\n  Muratori, Hergenr\u00f6ther, and Jungmann deny that he is chargeable with any\n              error of faith, 252;\n  he died before the Exposition of Sergius was presented for his\n              acceptance, 253.\n\n_Hoensbroech_, quoted, 424, 425, 426.\n\n_Isaac_ the model exarch, his tomb at Ravenna, 47.\n\n_Jerome, St._, his account of the northern wandering of the nations,\n            138-141.\n\n_John IV., Pope_, at his accession, censures the Monothelite heresy, 43;\n  defends Honorius against having supported it, in a letter to the\n              emperor, 44;\n  calls upon the emperor Constantine III. to abolish the Ecthesis of his\n              father, Heraclius, 155.\n\n_John, the Almsgiver, St._, last great\n  patriarch of Alexandria, 13.\n\n_John VI._, patriarch of Constantinople, asks pardon of Pope Constantine,\n            282;\n  describes his pre-eminence in the church as that of the head in the\n              human body, 283.\n\n_John of Damascus, St._, his record of Mohammed, 211;\n  observes that Mohammed has no witness to his truth, 213;\n  censures Iconoclasm as the invasion of a robber, 327.\n\n_Justinian I._, embues all his successors with doctrinal despotism over\n            the Church, 63;\n  his conquest of Italy the source of woe, 113;\n  confesses the Primacy of the Pope, while seeking to enthral it to\n              himself, 115;\n  his persecution of Pope Vigilius during eight years at Constantinople,\n              286, 393;\n  as lord of Rome by right of conquest seizes on the confirmation and even\n              nomination of Popes, 380;\n  from his time the Byzantine emperors claimed the right of confirming\n              Popes, 381;\n  which they exercised down to Pope Gregory III. in 731, 385;\n  the maker of the ecumenical patriarchate to hold under the emperor the\n              portfolio of doctrine, 392;\n  the chief of the theologising emperors, 393;\n  moulder of the despotism which ate out the eastern episcopate, 410;\n  which began by the deposition of Pope Silverius through his empress\n              Theodora and continued to Constantine Kopronymus, 411;\n  reduces Italy to be the \u201cservile\u201d province, deplored by Pope Agatho,\n              417;\n  stands at the head of two centuries in which Byzantine oppression causes\n              the Primacy to work in fetters, 503;\n  as a civil ruler worse to the Church than Odoacer or Theodorich, 417.\n\n_Justinian II._, succeeds in 685, 262;\n  summons a Greek Council in Trullo, 263;\n  strives to reduce the Pope to a patriarch, 265;\n  claims to confirm the council in Trullo, 267;\n  sends his guardsman Zacharias to carry Pope Sergius to Constantinople,\n              273;\n  forces the patriarch Callinicus to demolish a church, 274;\n  is deposed with his nose slit, 275;\n  is restored in 705, his tyranny and savage cruelty, 276;\n  his massacre at Ravenna, 277;\n  summons Pope Constantine to Constantinople, 279;\n  falls at the Pope\u2019s feet and acknowledges the privileges of the Roman\n              See, 279;\n  is deposed, murdered, and his head sent to Rome, 280.\n\n_Jungmann_, quoted, 506\u2014denies that Pope Honorius is chargeable with any\n            error of faith, 252.\n\n_Kurth_, quoted, 491, 509. 511.\n\n_Leo II._, _Pope_, August, 682, to July, 683;\n  confirms the Sixth Council, 250;\n  modifies the condemnation of Honorius, 251-2;\n  contrasts the negligence of Honorius with the four patriarchs, Sergius,\n              Pyrrhus, Paul, and Peter, \u201cwho lurked as thieves in the See\n              of Constantinople rather than acted as guides,\u201d 251.\n\n_Leo III., Pope St._, succeeds Adrian I. in 795, 498;\n  attacked in a procession, 500;\n  consultation with Charlemagne at Paderborn, 501;\n  acquits himself upon his word, 502;\n  crowns Charles, king of the Franks, as emperor of the Romans, 503.\n\n_Leo III._, the Isaurian, made emperor, 289, 298;\n  begins in 726 the Iconoclast contest, 299;\n  destroys the statue of Christ attached to his palace, 312;\n  threatens the Pope to break in pieces the statue of St. Peter, 313;\n  answers the Pope\u2019s letter by five attempts upon his life, 325;\n  destroys the images and lays waste the churches, 326;\n  censured by St. John Damascene, 327;\n  deposes the patriarch Germanus, 326;\n  sends a great fleet against Ravenna and Rome, 335;\n  confiscates the patrimonies of St. Peter in his realm, 336;\n  severs the Illyrian provinces from the Pope\u2019s patriarchal jurisdiction,\n              336;\n  takes twenty Isaurian bishoprics from Antioch for Constantinople, dies\n              in the year 741, the same year as Charles Martell and Pope\n              Gregory III., 343.\n\n_Leo XIII., Pope_, attests the witness borne by history to the Holy See,\n            vii.\n\n_Liutprand_, king of the Lombards, 712-744, 229;\n  advances on Rome and retires at the Pope\u2019s intervention, 329;\n  takes Spoleto, and takes four cities of the duchy of Rome, 338;\n  yields to Pope Zacharias at Terni in 743, 346;\n  receives the Pope at Pavia, and restores the province of Ravenna, 347-8;\n  dies after 32 years\u2019 reign, the greatest of the Lombard kings, 348.\n\n_Martin, Pope St._, his Council and his martyrdom, 51-100;\n  condemns four patriarchs for heresy, 53;\n  convokes a Lateran Council against the Monothelite heresy, 55;\n  directs an encyclical to all bishops and peoples, 56;\n  informs the emperor Constans II. that he has condemned his Typus, 56;\n  his speech on opening the Lateran Council, 66;\n  letter of the African bishops read at the Lateran Council, 72;\n  answer of the Pope to it, 73;\n  releases the people of Thessalonica from obedience to an heretical\n              archbishop, his own vicar, 74;\n  appoints a vicar in the eastern patriarchates of Antioch and Jerusalem,\n              75;\n  describes his capture in the Lateran Church and deportation to\n              Constantinople, 79-83;\n  his sufferings described by an eyewitness, 85;\n  arraigned for high treason before the Senate of Constantinople, 86;\n  dragged through the city as a condemned criminal with the sword borne\n              before him, 89;\n  confined in the guard-house during 85 days, 95;\n  starved to death at Cherson, 97;\n  repeats in his death the Passion of Christ, and Constans II, the tyranny\n              of Trajan, 100.\n\n_Mary_, the Mother of God, declared by Sophronius, in his synodical\n            letter, approved by the Sixth Council, \u201cfree from all spot in\n            body, soul, and mind,\u201d 108;\n  \u201cwhoever does not honour and worship her who is blessed above every\n              creature\u2014let him be anathema both in this world and the\n              next\u201d. Pope St. Martin, the Martyr, 84;\n  \u201cthe most chaste, immaculate, most excellent of all creatures, the\n              fullest of grace, the maker and giver of joy,\u201d 100.\n\n_Maximus_, the Confessor, his life, labours, and martyrdom, 157-170;\n  the great opponent of the Monothelite heresy, 158;\n  counsels Pope St. Martin to call the Lateran Council, 159;\n  his testimonies to the Apostolic See, 160;\n  carried to Byzantium, and tried before the Senate, 162;\n  rejects the imperial offers of honour, 168;\n  tortured and put to death by Constans II., 169;\n  traces the danger of the empire to the misconduct of its rulers, 260.\n\n_Menzel, Adolph_, quoted as to the right of Pipin and Charlemagne to make\n            the donation, 428.\n\n_Mohammed_, his work described by Dollinger, 23;\n  his personal life and character, 172-189;\n  change in his conduct after the death of his wife Chadidja, 173;\n  proclaims force as the instrument of spreading his religion, 174;\n  orders a marauding excursion in the holy months, 175;\n  justifies it by verses of the Koran 176;\n  his first battle at Bedr, 177;\n  is defeated at Ohod, 179;\n  defends Medina in a siege and loses reputation, 180;\n  puts to death the men of a Jewish clan and enslaves their wives, 181;\n  attempts a pilgrimage to Mecca and is forced to retire, 182;\n  his polygamy after Chadidja\u2019s death, 183;\n  rebukes by aid of the Koran a revolt of his wives, 184;\n  takes the wife of his adopted son and justifies it as the command of\n              God, 185;\n  forbids by the Koran his wives to marry after his death, 186;\n  obtains possession of Mecca, A.D. 630, 186;\n  issues a new law of nations and war, and dies, 187;\n  four principles of his life from the Hegira to his death, 190;\n  employment of force to propagate Islam, 190;\n  imposture in using the name of the angel Gabriel, 191;\n  invents privileges as to the number and choice of his wives, 192;\n  his disregard of human life, 193;\n  his character as founder of a religion, 194;\n  contrast between his character and that of Christ\u2019s, 195;\n  how his life has infected the life of his followers, 196;\n  degradation of woman in all Mohammedan countries, 197;\n  his position at the time of his death, 199;\n  his civil virtues, 200;\n  effect of the invention of Gabriel on his title to belief, 201;\n  at his death simply a successful robber, 203;\n  the first twelve years of the Christian faith and the first twelve years\n              of Islam, 206;\n  holds in the Mohammedan system the place of Christ in the Christian,\n              208;\n  radical antagonism of that system with the Christian faith, 202;\n  his record by St. John Damascene, 211-214;\n  character and formation of the Koran, 214;\n  Christendom and Islam contemporaries in origin, 218;\n  absolute despotism his proper offspring, 219;\n  the locust people, 225.\n\n_Monoethelite Heresy_, pioneer of the Mohammedan conquest, 118.\n\n_Muratori_ on the Pope\u2019s position before the donation of Pipin, 426;\n  absolves Pope Honorius from any error of doctrine, 252;\n  justifies Pope Stephen II. in turning to Pipin for aid, 355;\n  describes the government of the Lombard kings, 458;\n  describes the tyranny of Constans II., 231;\n  describes the massacre at Ravenna by order of Justinian II., 278;\n  Leo III., the Isaurian, convulsed the Church with the Iconoclastic\n              tragedy, 299.\n\n_Niehues_, Kaiserthum und Papstthum, quoted, vol. i., 434, 436, 437, 446,\n            462.\n\n_Nova Roma_, its ecclesiastical conduct, from A.D. 330 to 715, 476-481.\n\n_Odoacer_, Patricius of Rome, by grant of the eastern emperor Zeno, 374;\n  did not claim to confirm a Papal election, 377;\n  five years of suffering to Italy before he is overthrown, 375;\n  slain at a banquet by order of Theodorich, 378;\n  results of his meddling with the Papal election, 379.\n\n_Olympius_, the exarch, tries to murder St. Martin at Mass, 53.\n\n_Omar_, the second chalif, 120;\n  subdues Syria, 121;\n  grants a capitulation to Jerusalem, 121-3;\n  led into the holy places by the patriarch Sophronius, 123;\n  takes Ctesiphon, Aleppo, Antioch, Alexandria, Egypt, and North Africa,\n              as far as Tripolis, 124-127;\n  character of his rule, 129;\n  the churches he destroyed and the women he captured, 129;\n  ascetic in outward bearing, a voluptuary in his life, 130;\n  maker of the Mohammedan empire, 131;\n  the empire ruled from Medina, 133;\n  ruin which he brought on Constantine\u2019s empire and the Christian Church,\n              132;\n  his union of the Two Powers, 134-135;\n  his destruction of the Antiochene patriarchate, 137;\n  mortally wounded in the mosque at Medina, A.D. 644, 152.\n\n_Osman_, third chalif, 644 to 656, 152;\n  slain by the son of the first chalif, Abu Bekr, 153.\n\n_Patrimonies_ of the Roman Church, the twenty-three in time of Gregory the\n            Great, 424.\n\n_Paul I._, _Pope_, 757-767; his new State maintained by Pipin against king\n            Desiderius, 433;\n  and against Greek as well as Lombard enmity, 434.\n\n_Persian Empire_, strips the eastern empire of provinces from 610 to 622,\n            12, 14;\n  is conquered by Heraclius from 622 to 627, 18;\n  its emperor Chosroes destroyed by his son, 20;\n  its ruin, nine emperors in four years, 24.\n\n_Phillips, Kirchenrecht_, quoted, 499, 518.\n\n_Phocas_, the emperor, his character, 7;\n  puts to death his predecessor, the emperor Mauritius, and all his\n              family, 9;\n  his death, 9;\n  his war with the Persian emperor Chosroes, 11;\n  requires his patriarch to acknowledge the Roman Primacy, 25;\n  presents the Pantheon to Pope Boniface IV., 28.\n\n_Pipin-le-bref_; rise of the family of Arnulf and Pipin of Landen, 493;\n  his forty years\u2019 work as mayor of the palace, 494;\n  first of the four great Carlovingians, 496.\n\n_Pipin_, the king, invites Pope Zacharias to sanction his assumption of\n            the royal title, 351;\n  elected king of the Franks at Soissons in 752, 351;\n  meets Pope Stephen II. at Poutigny in 754, 357;\n  promises to restore to the Pope the Lombard captures, 359;\n  crowned by Pope Stephen II. in St. Denys\u2019, 360;\n  forces king Aistulf to yield at Pavia, 360;\n  called upon by Pope Stephen II. in the name of St. Peter, 362;\n  relieves Rome by taking Pavia, 363;\n  lays the keys of the surrendered cities on the tomb of the Prince of the\n              Apostles, 364;\n  refuses to be bribed by Constantine Kopronymus to give back these cities\n              to him, 364;\n  restores Rome to the Pope and gives him the exarchate and Pentapolis,\n              365, 400;\n  letter of thanksgiving sent him by Pope Stephen II. in 757, 430;\n  defends Pope Paul I. from king Desiderius, 433;\n  dies in 768, his tomb inscribed: \u201cPipin the king, father of Charles the\n              Great,\u201d 436;\n  the Papal monarchy dates from the compact with him at Quiersy, 460;\n  the greatness of his benefactions acknowledged in the Codex Carolinus,\n              463.\n\n_Popes_, the succession of twenty-four, from 604 to 715, 26;\n  the imperial confirmation of their election, 27, 30;\n  then ten succeeding Honorius condemn the Monothelite heresy, 41, 56;\n  are persecuted for forty years for condemning it, 57;\n  the ten immediate successors of Honorius save the Church from heresy\n              imposed by Byzantine emperors and patriarchs, 255-256;\n  ground of their firmness, belief in the succession of St. Peter, 259;\n  the five Popes who go to Constantinople, 284;\n  the twenty-four Popes between the first and second Gregories, 295;\n  their three hundred years of suffering and glory, A.D. 455-756, 369;\n  mode of their election and confirmation under the exarchate, 383;\n  their confirmation from 526 to 731, 385;\n  their third oppression by the Byzantine lay power seeking to impose\n              doctrine, 391;\n  constancy of the successive Popes from Gelasius in 492, to St. Gregory\n              II., in 726, 394;\n  the Papal constancy makes martyrs;\n  the patriarchal despotism corrupts the faith and destroys the empire,\n              395-396, 409-410;\n  fifty-eight Byzantine bishops from Metrophanes, A.D. 325, to Methodius,\n              842, of whom twenty-one heretics, 411-414;\n  seventy Popes in the same period, all of whom keep one faith, 415;\n  the doctrine thus preserved is that of the Incarnation itself, 415;\n  the line of subject succeeded by the line of sovereign Popes, 432;\n  the Papal line the fountain head of political sense, 491-492;\n  Christian Europe born from the alliance between Charlemagne and Popes\n              Adrian I. and Leo III., 515.\n\n_Rachis_, king of the Lombards, resigns his kingdom, 349;\n  receives the cowl of St. Benedict from the hands of Pope Zacharias, 349.\n\n_Reumont_, quoted, 301, 330, 332, 339, 359, 363, 365, 496, 509.\n\n_Severinus_, _Pope_, his confirmation delayed for nineteen months and\n            sixteen days, 37;\n  is plundered by the exarch Isaac, 39;\n  sat two months and sixteen days, during which he rejected the Ecthesis,\n              41.\n\n_Sergius_, patriarch of Constantinople, deceives Pope Honorius, 106;\n  draws up his Ecthesis against the doctrine of Sophronius, 33, 35, 109;\n  supplies the emperor Heraclius with insidious heretical language, 254;\n  condemned by the Sixth Council, 247;\n  by St. Leo II., in confirming the Council, as one \u201cwho lurked as a thief\n              rather than acted as a guide in the See of Constantinople,\u201d\n              251.\n\n_Stephen II._, _Pope_, elected in 752, 352;\n  resists Aistulf, attacking the duchy of Rome, and imposing a poll-tax,\n              353;\n  appeals in vain to Constantine Kopronymus to defend Rome, 353;\n  appeals to Pipin, king of the Franks, 354;\n  leaves Rome for Pavia to persuade Aistulf to desist, 355;\n  on his refusal, crosses the Alps to Pipin, 356;\n  saves Europe from Mohammedan enthralment by union with Pipin, 357;\n  meeting of Stephen and Pipin at Pontigny, described by Anastasius, 358;\n  Pipin binds himself to protect the Roman Church and Commonwealth of\n              which Stephen makes him Patricius, 359;\n  anoints Pipin as king of the Franks in the Church of St. Denys, 360;\n  is besieged in Rome by Aistulf, 361;\n  writes to Pipin in the name of St. Peter, 362;\n  is delivered by Pipin taking Pavia, 363;\n  the keys of the cities laid by Pipin on the tomb of the Prince of the\n              Apostles,364;\n  Pope Stephen II. recognised as head of the Roman State, 365;\n  the State of the Church thus created, A.D. 756, 366;\n  returns as king to Rome on the death of Aistulf, 756, 429;\n  letter of the first Pope-king to Pipin, 430;\n  dies in the Lateran palace, acknowledged by all as king of Rome, April\n              24, 757, 431;\n  in him the line of Popes who are subjects closes; the line of Popes who\n              are kings opens, 432.\n\n_Stephen III., Pope_, his pontificate, 352;\n  letter to the kings Charles and Carloman, 437.\n\n_Stephen_, bishop of Dor, his memorial to the Lateran Council, 68.\n\n_Sophronius_, patriarch of Jerusalem, appeals from Calvary to the\n            Apostolic See under Honorius, as the chalif Omar enters, 69;\n  his synodical letter, a chief document against the Monothelite heresy,\n              107-109;\n  calls the entrance of Omar \u201cthe abomination of desolation in the\n              temple,\u201d 123.\n\n_Theodatus, King_, tyrannises over the Romans, 380;\n  allows the election of Pope Agapetus, 380;\n  forces him to go as ambassador to Constantinople, 380;\n  imposes the choice of Pope Silverius, 380.\n\n_Theodorich_, the Ostrogoth, his domination Arian, 372;\n  his political clemency ends in blood, 373;\n  an emissary of the eastern emperor Zeno, 374;\n  failed to assimilate the Roman and Gothic elements in stable union, 375;\n  allows the election of Popes Hormisdas and John I., imposes that of Pope\n              Felix IV., 378;\n  did not claim to confirm the election of Pope Symmachus, 377;\n  begins with slaying Odoacer: ends by slaying Boethius and Symmachus and\n              Pope John I., 375, 378;\n  ruled with equity and died in remorse, and with him died the Gothic\n              kingdom, 491.\n\n_Theodorus, Pope_, his accession, 46;\n  receives the patriarch Pyrrhus, renouncing his heresy in St. Peter\u2019s,\n              48;\n  condemns him when recalcitrant, 48;\n  names an apostolic vicar in Palestine, 49;\n  dies and is buried at St. Peter\u2019s, 50.\n\n_Theophanes_, the Greek chronographist, marks the rise of the Arabian\n            heresy as the scourge of Christian sins, 260;\n  ascribes the conduct of the emperor Leo III. to a Mohammedan temper,\n              335-6;\n  calls St. Gregory II. \u201cthe most holy apostolic man,\u201d 325;\n  \u201cthe successor of Supreme Peter in his Chair,\u201d 325;\n  describes the tyranny of Constans II., 234;\n  the murders of Justinian II. and his son, 280;\n  the persecution of the monks by Constantine Kopronymus, 403.\n\n_Toto_, the duke, seizes the Papal Chair for his brother, a layman, 431.\n\n_Vitalian_, _Pope_, elected in 657, 229;\n  receives as sovereign of Rome the emperor Constans II., 230, 232;\n  consecrates Theodore, archbishop of Canterbury, 235;\n  cherishes the young English Church, 235;\n  dies in 672, 237.\n\n_Wandering_ of the nations, the northern and the southern compared,\n            149-151.\n\n_Zacharias_, _Pope_, elected and consecrated four days after the death of\n            Gregory III. in 731, without the exarch\u2019s confirmation, 344;\n  his character by Anastasius, 345;\n  during ten years keeps at bay Liutprand, Rachis, and Aistulf, 345;\n  in his first year prevails over Liutprand at Terni, 346;\n  in his third year prevails over him at Pavia, 347;\n  in 749 prevails over king Rachis at Perugia, 348;\n  gives him on his abdication the Benedictine habit, 349;\n  in 751 resists the seizure of the exarchate by king Aistulf, 350;\n  is invited by Pipin, mayor of the palace, to sanction his becoming king,\n              351;\n  declares that it is lawful for him to depose the Merovingian and become\n              king in his stead, 351;\n  dies the 14th March, 752, having thrice saved Rome, 352.\n\n\n\n\n\nBURNS & OATES\u2019 PUBLICATIONS\n\nA SELECTION, CHIEFLY OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS\n\n_The new Complete Catalogue of 200 pages, including Foreign Books, post\nfree on application_\n\n_Threepence in the Shilling off all Books, except NET Books, for __Cash\nwith order_\n\n28 ORCHARD STREET\nLONDON\n\nTHE NEW ROMAN MISSAL\n\n_SECOND EDITION, upon opaque paper, NOW READY_\n\nMessrs. Burns & Oates\u2019 Roman Missal published at the end of 1912, achieved\nan immediate and enormous sale, and the first large impression was almost\nimmediately exhausted. A second edition is now ready, _printed upon\nperfectly opaque paper_, and the Publishers believe this to be one of the\nmost beautiful of modern books for its perfect typography, its size, its\nshape and the beauty afforded by the use of red ink for the rubrics\nthroughout. A copy will be gladly sent on approval where desired.\n\n*The Contents:*\n\nA Complete English translation of the Missal, together with the Latin of\nthe entire Ordinary and Canon, and of all other portions of the Mass which\nshould be sung by the choir.\n\nThe best translation\u2014Bishop Challoner\u2019s\u2014revised.\n\nA note by Father Hetherington, of Westminster Cathedral, explaining the\nproper use of the Missal in view of the recent reforms, which are all\nincorporated.\n\n*The Form:*\n\nThe neatest English-Latin Missal published. It is a _pocket_ Missal. The\ntype is beautiful, clear and bold, and the paper is perfectly opaque.\n\nThe only Missal printed throughout in red and black. This makes for a\ndelightful ease of reference and reading, and greatly enhances the beauty\nof a well-designed page.\n\n*The Bindings:*\n\nWith all the usual Supplements. Cloth, round corners, red or gilt edges,\n_s._ net. Smooth roan, limp, red or gilt edges, Rutland roan gilt, red\nunder gold edges, 7_s._ 6._d._ net. English calf boards, red edges, 8_s._\n6_d._ net. Limp morocco, gilt, red under gold edges, 10_s._ 6_d._ net.\nGerman calf, gilt, red under gold edges, 10_s._ 6_d._ net. And in even\nfiner styles, up to 30_s._ net.\n\nBURNS & OATES\u2019 PUBLICATIONS\n\nA SELECTION, CHIEFLY OF DEVOTIONAL WORKS\n\n_All Books are bound in cloth unless otherwise stated._\n\n\u00c0 KEMPIS, THOMAS\n\nOf the Imitation of Christ. _The Seraphic Edition_; an entirely new\ntranslation from the Latin by FATHER THADDEUS, O.F.M. Very finely printed\nin red and black. Cloth, 6/- net; leather, 7/6 net (postage 4d.). _Popular\nEdition_, 6d. net (postage 2d.), and 1/-. _Superfine Pocket Edition_, from\n1/6 to 10/-. _Presentation Edition_, from 3/6 to 15/-. _Latin_, _French_,\n_Italian_ and _Spanish Editions_ in stock.\n\nAT THE FEET OF JESUS. By MADAME CECILIA. 2/6.\n\nDEVOTIONAL LIBRARY FOR CATHOLIC HOUSEHOLDS. Containing: New Testament,\nBook of Psalms, Imitation of Christ, Devout Life, Spiritual Combat. Cloth,\nred edges, with cloth case to match. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nDEVOTION TO THE NINE CHOIRS OF HOLY ANGELS. Translated from the French of\nBorendon by E. HEALY THOMPSON. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nDOLOROUS PASSION OF OUR LORD JESUS CHRIST. From the Meditations of ANNE\nCATHERINE EMMERICH. 3/6.\n\nFATHER DIGNAM\u2019S CONFERENCES, with Retreats, Sermons, and Notes of\nSpiritual Direction. By Miss TAYLOR (Mother Magdalen, S.M.G.) With a\nPreface by Cardinal Mazzella, S.J. 6/- net. (postage 4d.)\n\nFATHER DIGNAM\u2019S RETREATS. 6/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nFATHER FABER.\n\n*All for Jesus*: or, The Easy Ways of Divine Love. 5/-.\n\n*Bethlehem.* 7/-.\n\n*Growth in Holiness*: or, The Progress of the Spiritual Life. 6/-.\n\n*Notes on Doctrinal and Spiritual Subjects.* Two Vols.  10/-.\n\n*Spiritual Conferences.* 6/-.\n\n*The Creator and the Creature*: or, The Wonders of Divine Love. 6/-.\n\n*The Precious Blood*: or, The Price of our Salvation. 5/-.\n\nFEASTS FOR THE FAITHFUL. Cloth 1/- net (postage 2d.). Translated by\nspecial permission of the Holy See from the _Greater Catechism_. It\ncontains Instructions on all the chief Feasts of the Year.\n\nJust the thing for those who desire to enter into the spirit with which\nthe Church observes the various periods of the ecclesiastical\nyear.\u2014_Month._\n\nFEASTS OF MOTHER CHURCH (THE). With Hints and Helps for the Holier Keeping\nof them. By MOTHER M. SALOME. Illustrated. 3/6.\n\nThe writer goes through the ecclesiastical year, and in a pleasant,\ninstructive, and stimulating style impresses upon the reader the lessons\nthey suggest. Thoughts are drawn from the Scriptures, the liturgy, the\nlives of the Saints, and other sources, all being woven into a charming\nspiritual bouquet.\u2014_Catholic Times._\n\nFRANCIS DE SALES, ST.\n\n*Introduction to the Devout Life.* Cloth, red edges, 1/6. Calf, red edges,\n5s. Morocco, gilt edges, 5/6.\n\n*The Mystical Explanation of the Canticle of Canticles.* Also St. Jane\nFrances deChantal\u2019s Depositions in the Cause of the Beatification and\nCanonisation of St. Francis de Sales. 6/-.\n\n*Spiritual Conferences of St. Francis de Sales.* Translated, with\nAdditions and Notes, under the supervision of ABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B., and\nthe late CANON MACKEY, O.S.B. 6/-.\n\nLetters to Persons in the World. 6/-.\n\nThe Treatise on the Love of God. 6/-.\n\nFRANCIS DE SALES, THE SPIRIT OF ST. By JEAN PIERRE CAMUS, Bishop of\nBelley. With a Preface by His Grace the Archbishop of Westminster. Cr.\n8vo., cloth, 6/-.\n\nGERTRUDE AND MECHTILDE, THE PRAYERS OF SS. Cloth, 1/-. Leather, 2/- and\n4/6.\n\nGERTRUDE, THE EXERCISES OF ST. Cloth, 1/6. Leather, 2/- and 4/6.\n\nGROWTH IN THE KNOWLEDGE OF OUR LORD. Meditations for every Day of the\nYear. Adapted from the Original of the Abb\u00e9 de Brandt. By MOTHER MARY\nFIDELIS. In Three Volumes. 21/-net (postage 7d.).\n\n_Messrs. Burns & Oates have just entirely re-set this modern classic of\ndevotion, and it has been thoroughly revised by the Translator._\n\nHEAVENWARDS. By MOTHER MARY LOYOLA. Edited by FR. THURSTON, S.J. A chapter\nfor every week of the year. Illustrated. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nWhat seems specially recommendable in these pages is the cheerful\nencouragement offered to all to look steadily forward to the goal of human\nlife.\n\nHOLY WISDOM. (_Sancta Sophia_). Directions for the Prayer of\nContemplation, &c. By VEN. FATHER F. AUGUSTIN BAKER, O.S.B. Edited by\nABBOT SWEENEY, D.D. Quarter leather, 5/-. _Cheaper_, 3/6.\n\nI AM THE WAY. By FATHER NEPVEU, S.J. With a Preface by the Archbishop of\nWestminster. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nIMITATION OF THE SACRED HEART OF JESUS. In Four Books. By Rev. FATHER\nARNOLD, S.J. Cloth, 4/6. Leather, 8/6.\n\nLEAVES FROM ST. AUGUSTINE. By MARY ALLIES. Third Edition. 6/- net (postage\n5d.).\n\nMEDITATIONS ON THE SACRED HEART. By the Rev. JOSEPH EGGER, S.J. Cloth,\ngilt. 2/6.\n\nMEMENTOES OF THE ENGLISH MARTYRS AND CONFESSORS for every day of the year.\nBy FATHER H. SEBASTIAN BOWDEN, of the Oratory, 1/- net (postage 2d.).\n\nPATERNOSTER, ST. TERESA\u2019S. A Treatise on Prayer. By Very Rev. JOSEPH\nFRASSINETTI. 4/-.\n\nRETREAT MANUAL, THE. A Handbook for the Annual Retreat and Monthly\nRecollection. By MADAME CECILIA. Preface by the Rev. Sidney Smith, S.J.\n2/-, Leather, 3/6.\n\nSACRED HEART, PROMISES OF THE. Commentary and Meditations, by the Rev.\nJOSEPH MCDONNELL, S.J. With frontispiece, handsomely bound and printed,\ncloth gilt, 2/6 net (postage 3d.). _Just published._\n\nSCUPOLI\u2019S SPIRITUAL COMBAT. With the Supplement and the Treatise on Inward\nPeace. Size, 5 by 3-1/4 inches. Cloth, 6d. net (postage 2d.). Cloth, gilt,\nred edges, 1/-. Lambskin, 2/6. Calf and Morocco, 4/6.\n\nSPIRIT OF THE CUR\u00c9 D\u2019ARS, THE. From the French of M. L\u2019ABB\u00c9 MONNIN. Edited\nby Rev. JOHN E. BOWDEN, of the Oratory. With Portrait. 2/-.\n\nSPIRITUAL ASCENT, THE. A Devotional Treatise by GERARD OF ZUTPHEN. 2/6 net\n(postage 3d.).\n\nSPIRITUAL PERFECTION. By REV. REGINALD BUCKLER, O.P. 5/-.\n\nSPIRITUAL RETREAT. By Rev. REGINALD BUCKLER, O.P. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nSTATIONS OF THE CROSS. By HERBERT THURSTON, S.J. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nTOWARDS ETERNITY. By the ABB\u00c9 POULIN. Translated by M. T. TORROM\u00c9. 5/-.\n\nULLATHORNE, ARCHBISHOP.\n\nChristian Patience, the Strength and Discipline of the Soul. 7/-.\n\nThe Endowments of Man considered in their Relations with his Final End.\n7/-.\n\nThe Groundwork of the Christian Virtues. 7/-.\n\nThe Little Book of Humility and Patience. Being a Selection from\nArchbishop Ullathorne\u2019s two volumes. With a Portrait. 2/- net (postage\n2d.).\n\nWATERS THAT GO SOFTLY: or, Thoughts for time of Retreat. By Fr. RICKABY,\nS.J. 2/6.\n\nWISEMAN, CARDINAL.\n\nA Month\u2019s Meditations. Leather back. 4/-.\n\nMeditations on the Sacred Passion of Our Lord. 4/-.\n\nMeditations on the Incarnation and Life of Our Lord. 4/-.\n\nAT HOME NEAR THE ALTAR. By Rev. MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J. Cloth, gilt. 1/- net\n(postage 1-1/2d.).\n\nBANQUET OF THE ANGELS, THE. Preparation and Thanksgiving for Holy\nCommunion. By ARCHBISHOP PORTER, S.J. Blue Cloth, gilt, 2/-.\n\nCHILDREN\u2019S CHARTER, THE. Being talks to Parents and Teachers on the\nPreparation of Children for their First Communion. By MOTHER MARY LOYOLA.\nCloth, 2/- net (postage 2d.).\n\nThis valuable work is a direct response to the Holy Father\u2019s \u201cDecree on\nthe Age of First Communicants.\u201d All who are responsible for the proper\ninstruction of very young First Communicants can in no way afford to be\nwithout this work. It has been enthusiastically praised by Cardinal Logue,\nthe Archbishop of Westminster, Bishop Hedley, and the Catholic Clergy,\nLaity, and Press.\n\nCLOSE TO THE ALTAR RAILS. By the Rev. MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J. Cloth, gilt.\n1/- net (postage 1-1/2d.).\n\nFather Russell has great gifts as a litt\u00e9rateur, and \u201cClose to the Altar\nRails\u201d is as instinct as his former works with those poetically devotional\ngraces which render the reading of his compositions as much a delight as\nan instruction.\u2014_Tablet._\n\nCOMMUNION DAY. Fervorinos, Before and After. By Father MATTHEW RUSSELL,\nS.J. _3rd Edition._ 1/6 net (postage 2d.).\n\nDEVOTIONS FOR HOLY COMMUNION. With Preface by FATHER ALBAN GOODIER, S.J.\nFinely Printed. Cloth, 3/6 net. Leather, 5/- net (postage 3d.).\n\nThis book contains a rich variety of such prayers and devotions to our\nLord in the Blessed Sacrament as are most approved, whether by their\nauthorship, or by the direct authority of the Church, or by long use of\nthe faithful. The collection has been drawn almost exclusively from the\nHoly Scriptures, from the Missal and Breviary, from the writings of Saints\nand Fathers, from the Paradisus Animae, and from \u201cThe Following of\nChrist.\u201d\n\nDIVINE CONSOLER, THE. Little Visits to the Most Holy Sacrament. By J. M.\nANG\u00c9LI, of the Lazarist Fathers. Translated by GENEVI\u00c8VE IRONS. _New\nedition._ 1/6.\n\nFABER, FATHER. The Blessed Sacrament: or, the Works and Ways of God. 7/6.\n\nContents: Prologue\u2014On Triumph\u2014The Blessed Sacrament, The Greatest Work of\nGod\u2014The Blessed Sacrament, the Devotion of Catholics\u2014The Blessed\nSacrament, a Picture of God\u2014The Blessed Sacrament, a Picture of\nJesus\u2014Epilogue\u2014On Reparation\n\nFIRST COMMUNION. A Book of Preparation for First Communion. By MOTHER MARY\nLOYOLA. Edited by FATHER THURSTON, S.J. New and Revised Edition, re-set in\nclear type with several new illustrations. 3/6.\n\nFIRST COMMUNION, QUESTIONS ON. By MOTHER M. LOYOLA .1/-.\n\nHE IS CALLING ME. By Father MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J. (_This was Fr. Russell\u2019s\nlast Eucharistic book_). Cloth gilt, 2s. 6d. net (postage 3d.)\n\nA multitude of tender thoughts, of urgent prayers, of meditations sweet\nand sorrowful, lie gathered in these sheaves, for our spirit\u2019s nurture and\nfor our heart\u2019s delight. We forget the page and print (nice as they are!)\nwe are unaware of the medium, but we hear the message, direct, untroubled,\ntender. clear.\u2014_Tablet._\n\nHISTORY OF THE HOLY EUCHARIST IN GREAT BRITAIN. By T. E. BRIDGETT, C.SS.R.\nEdited with Notes by FATHER THURSTON, S.J. Illustrated. Folio, strongly\nbound. An acknowledged masterpiece of printing, uniform with \u201cOF GOD AND\nHIS CREATURES.\u201d 21/-net (postage 7d.).\n\nNo work ... from its singular combination of earnest piety and wide\nhistorical knowledge, is better tilted to represent the contribution of\nGreat Britain and Ireland to the Eucharistic Literature of the\nworld.\u2014_Herbert Thurston, S.J._\n\nHOLY COMMUNION. By Mgr. DE GIBERQUES, Bishop of Valence. Cloth gilt, with\nfrontispiece, 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nA remarkable book of good counsel and exhortation and instruction, which\nhas stirred the hearts of Catholic France. _Just published._\n\nHOLY COMMUNION, THE. By JOHN BERNARD DALGAIRNS, of the Oratory. Two vols.,\n7/-net (postage 5d.).\n\nA new edition of the standard explanation of the Catholic Doctrine of the\nEucharist.\n\nHOLY SACRIFICE AND ITS CEREMONIES, THE. By FATHER NIEUWBARN, O.P. This\nbook has been selling by thousands in Dutch. Now issued in English, with\nIllustrations, 2/-.\n\nJESUS IS WAITING. Appeals and Reproaches from the Prisoner of Love. By\nFATHER MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J. Cloth, 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nJESUS, THE BREAD OF CHILDREN. Chats with FATHER CYRIL about First\nCommunion. By FATHER DE ZULUETA, S.J. With five Illustrations, 6d. net.\nCloth 1s. net (postage 2d.).\n\nThis book, which has achieved a remarkable success, supplies the want of\nthe young First Communicants themselves, as Mother Loyola\u2019s \u201cThe\nChildren\u2019s Charter\u201d satisfies the necessities of the Instructor.\n\nMANNING, CARDINAL. The Blessed Sacrament the Centre of Immutable Truth.\nCloth, gilt, 1/-.\n\nMOMENTS BEFORE THE TABERNACLE. By Rev. MATTHEW RUSSELL, S.J. 1/- net\n(postage 1d.).\n\nA series of reflections touchingly beautiful.\u2014_Ave Maria._\n\nREFLECTIONS AND PRAYERS FOR HOLY COMMUNION. Translated from the French.\nWith Preface by Cardinal MANNING. In 2 Vols., each complete in itself.\nCloth, 4/6 each; English calf, boards, red edges, 9/- each; Turkey\nmorocco, limp, round corners, gilt edges, 10/- each.\n\nThese simple and beautiful pages can hardly fail to replenish our minds\nwith thoughts and reflections which will return upon us as our own in the\npresence of Our Divine Master.\u2014_Cardinal Manning._\n\nSACRIFICE OF THE MASS, THE. An Explanation of its Doctrine, Rubrics, and\nPrayers. By Rev. M. GAVIN, S.J. 2/-.\n\nTREASURE OF THE CHURCH, THE. By CANON J. B. BAGSHAWE, D.D. 3/6.\n\nVISITS TO THE MOST HOLY SACRAMENT AND THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. By ST.\nALPHONSUS LIGUORI. Edited by BISHOP COFFIN, C.SS.R. Cloth, 1/-. Leather,\n2/6 and 4/6.\n\nWELCOME! HOLY COMMUNION, BEFORE AND AFTER. By MOTHER MARY LOYOLA. 3/6 net.\nPrayer-book size, leather, 5/- net (postage 4d.). Even finer bindings for\npresentation up to 10/6 net.\n\nOf all Mother Loyola\u2019s works this has obtained for itself the greatest\naffection, fame, and popularity.\n\nIs not a collection of prayers in the ordinary sense; there is nothing\nartificial about it, and not its least merit is its extreme naturalness.\nRather does it _suggest_ prayer, and prayer growing naturally out of such\nneeds and burdens, or even moods, as most commonly fall to our lot. To\nthose especially who communicate frequently the book will be a great\nboon.\u2014_Tablet._\n\nATTRIBUTES OF GOD, Mirrored in the Perfections of Mary. 2/6 net (postage\n3d.).\n\nBLESSED VIRGIN IN THE NINETEENTH CENTURY, THE. Apparitions, Revelations,\nGraces. By BERNARD ST. JOHN. With Introduction by Rev. E. Thiriet, O.M.I.\nIllustrated. 6/-.\n\nCONVERT\u2019S ROSARY, THE. By ALICE GARDINER. Cloth, gilt edges, 1/6 net\n(postage 2d.). _A simple, effective, and most pious method of reciting the\nRosary, suitable for all clients of Our Lady, but especially for those who\nhave newly found her._\n\nFABER, FATHER.\n\nThe Foot of the Cross: or, The Sorrows of Mary. 6/-.\n\nFather Faber\u2019s May Book. Cloth, gilt edges. 2-.\n\nGLORIES OF MARY, THE. By ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. Edited by BISHOP COFFIN,\nC.SS.R. 3/6.\n\nGREATER EVE, THE. Six Essays on Mary\u2019s position in Catholic Theology. By\nthe Rev. JOSEPH H. STEWART. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nA new work that is admirably adapted to the needs of converts, as well as\nto Catholics born.\n\nMADONNA, THE. A Pictorial Record of the Life and Death of the Mother of\nour Lord Jesus Christ by the Painters and Sculptors of Christendom in more\nthan Five Hundred of their Works. The Text translated from the Italian of\nADOLFO VENTURI, with an Introduction by ALICE MEYNELL. A new edition, 15/-\nnet.\n\nThe _Academy_ says\u2014The book is wine that needs no bush. It is a deeply\ninteresting collection of reproductions. The text is minute and learned,\nand the massing of reference and description managed with much skill. The\nbook has, further, the advantage of an introduction by Mrs. Meynell, to\nwhich many will turn with more avidity than is usually excited by\nintroductions.\n\nMADONNA OF THE POETS, THE. An anthology of only the best poems in Our\nLady\u2019s honour. With five reproductions after favourite Old Masters. New\nand cheaper edition, 1/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nMARY IMMACULATE. From the Writings of the Fathers and Doctors of the\nChurch as found in the Roman Breviary. Compiled by FATHER JOHN MARY,\nCapuchin Friar Minor. Cloth, 1/- net (postage 2d.). Leather, 2/6 net\n(postage 2d.)\n\nMARY IN THE EPISTLES. By Rev. T. LIVIUS, M.A., C.SS.R. 5/-.\n\nMARY IN THE GOSPELS. Lectures on the History of Our Blessed Lady, as\nrecorded by the Evangelists. By Very Rev. J. SPENCER NORTHCOTE. 3/6.\n\nMONTH OF MARY. By HENRI LASSERRE. In thirty-one readings. 2/6.\n\nMONTH OF MARY. By ST. ALPHONSUS LIGUORI. 1/6.\n\nMONTH OF MARY. By FATHER MUZZARELLI, S.J. 1s.\n\nOUR LADY\u2019S MANUAL: or, Devotions to the Sacred Heart of Mary. Cloth, 2/-.\nBest Cloth, red edges, 2/6. Calf or Morocco, 5/6 each.\n\nOUR LADY OF PERPETUAL SUCCOUR. A Manual of Devotion for every day of the\nMonth. Translated from the French by Rev. T. LIVIUS, C.SS.R. Cloth, 1/-\nnet. Leather, 4/6 net (postage 2d.).\n\nOUR LADY OF PERPETUAL SUCCOUR, MANUAL OF. From the Writings of St.\nAlphonsus Liguori. By a Redemptorist Father. 1/- and 2/- net. With hymns,\n1/6 and 3/- net (postage 3d.).\n\nSINLESS MARY AND SINFUL MARY. I.\u2014Mary\u2019s Social Mission as the Second Eve.\nII.\u2014The Woman that was a Sinner. By FATHER BERNARD VAUGHAN, S.J. With Two\nIllustrations. Stiff wrapper, 1/- net (postage 2d.).\n\nTREATISE ON THE TRUE DEVOTION TO THE BLESSED VIRGIN MARY. By Blessed\nGRIGNON DE MONTFORT. 2/-.\n\nEdited by CARDINAL VAUGHAN, who says: \u201cI Should be glad to see it in the\nhands of every priest, as experience has taught me the power of this most\npersuasive treatise in propagating a solid devotion to the Blessed Mother\nof God.\u201d\n\nWORLD\u2019S MADONNA, THE. A History of Our Lady. By J. S. MULHOLLAND, B.L. 2/6\nnet (postage 3d.).\n\nCATHOLIC CONTROVERSY. A Reply to Dr. Littledale\u2019s \u201cPlain Reasons.\u201d By Very\nRev. H. I. D. RYDER, of the Oratory. 1/- net (postage 3d.).\n\nCATHOLIC CONTROVERSY, THE. By ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. Edited by Very Rev.\nCANON MACKEY, O.S.B. 6/-.\n\nCONTROVERSIAL CATECHISM. By the Rev. STEPHEN KEENAN. 2/-.\n\nFAITH AND FOLLY. By MGR. JOHN S. VAUGHAN. 5/- net. (postage 4d.).\n\nFIRST TWELVE CHAPTERS OF ISAIAH, THE. A new Translation and Commentary. By\nFather GEORGE HITCHCOCK, D.D. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nA theological masterpiece.\u2014_Irish Independent._\n\nFORMATION OF CHRISTENDOM, THE. By T. W. ALLIES, K.C.S.G. _New and Revised\nEdition._ 5/- each volume.\n\nVol. I. The Christian Faith and the Individual.\u2014Vol. II. The Christian\nFaith and Society.\u2014Vol. III. The Christian Faith and Philosophy.\u2014Vol. IV.\nAs seen in Church and State.\u2014Vol. V. The throne of the Fisherman.\n\nFREE WILL AND FOUR ENGLISH PHILOSOPHERS. A Study of Hobbes, Locke, Hume\nand Mill. By FATHER JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. 3/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nFURTHER NOTES ON ST. PAUL. A new volume in the Quarterly Series. By Father\nJOSEPH RICKABY, S.J., 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nMANNING, CARDINAL.\n\nSin and its Consequences. 4/-.\n\nThe Glories of the Sacred Heart. 4/-.\n\nThe Four Great Evils of the Day. 2/6.\n\nThe Fourfold Sovereignty of God. 2/6.\n\nThe Holy Ghost the Sanctifier. Cloth, gilt. 2/-.\n\nThe Independence of the Holy See. 2/6.\n\nThe Temporal Mission of the Holy Ghost: or, Reason and Revelation. Cr.\n8vo. 5/-.\n\nThe Workings of the Holy Spirit in the Church of England. 1/6.\n\nWhy I became a Catholic. (Religio Viatoris). 1/-.\n\nNATURAL RELIGION. Being Vol. 1. of Dr. HETTINGER\u2019S \u201cEvidences of\nChristianity.\u201d Edited by Rev. H. S. BOWDEN. With an Introduction on\n\u201cCertainty.\u201d 7/6.\n\nOF GOD AND HIS CREATURES. By Father JOSEPH RICKABY, S.J. An Annotated\ntranslation, of the \u201cSumma Contra Gentiles\u201d of St. Thomas Aquinas.\nFoolscap folio, strongly bound. An acknowledged masterpiece of the\nprinters\u2019 art. 21/- net (postage 7d.). Uniform with the \u201cHISTORY OF THE\nHOLY EUCHARIST IN GREAT BRITAIN.\u201d\n\nThis minor masterpiece of the great Dominican Doctor of the Church, now\nfor the first time translated into English, is elucidated in the light of\nmodern learning by the comments of the Jesuit translator. These Notes have\nplaced Father Rickaby in the first rank of annotators; and the handsome\nfolio page admits by its size the printing of them in direct contact with\nthe text to which they refer. Thus is a profound treatise brought, for the\nmost part, within the apprehension of the simplest reader.\n\nPETER, ST., BISHOP OF ROME: or, the Roman Episcopate of the Prince of the\nApostles. By Rev. T. LIVIUS, M.A., C.SS.R. 12/-.\n\nRELIGION OF THE PLAIN MAN. By Mgr. R. H. BENSON. With a Portrait of the\nAuthor. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nREVEALED RELIGION. The Second Volume of Dr. HETTINGER\u2019S \u201cEvidences of\nChristianity.\u201d Edited by Rev. H. S. BOWDEN. With an Introduction on the\n\u201cAssent of Faith.\u201d 5/-.\n\nSUPPLIANT OF THE HOLY GHOST: A Paraphrase of the \u201cVeni Sancte Spiritus.\u201d\nBy Rev. R. JOHNSON, of Louvain. Edited by Rev. T. E. BRIDGETT, C.SS.R.\n1/6.\n\nWAYFARER\u2019S VISION, THE. By FATHER GERHARD. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nHEDLEY, BISHOP, O.S.B.\n\nChristian Inheritance, The. Set forth in Sermons. 6/-.\n\nLight of Life, The. Set forth in Sermons. 6/-.\n\nOur Divine Saviour. 6/-.\n\nA distinct and noteworthy feature of these sermons is their\nfreshness\u2014everywhere it is the heart of the preacher pouring out to his\nflock his own deep convictions, enforcing them from the \u201ctreasures, old\nand new.\u201d of a cultivated mind.\u2014_Dublin Review._\n\nMANNING, CARDINAL.\n\nSermons on Ecclesiastical Subjects. 6/-.\n\nSERMON COMPOSITION. A Method for Students. By Rev. GEORGE S. HITCHCOCK,\nB.A., Lond., Minerva University, Rome. With a Preface by the Rev. Bernard\nVaughan, S.J. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nSERMON DELIVERY. By the same Author. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nSERMONS FOR THE SUNDAYS AND FESTIVALS OF THE YEAR. By ABBOTT SWEENEY,\nO.S.B. 7th Edition. Handsomely bound in quarter leather. 7/6.\n\nWe can assure such priests as are in search of matter to aid them in their\nround of Sunday discourses, and have not read this volume, that they will\nfind in these 600 pages a mine of solid and simple Catholic\nteaching.\u2014_Tablet._\n\n_Kindly write for Illustrated Prayer Book Catalogue._\n\nTHE BOOK OF BIBLE PRAYERS AND MEDITATIONS. A new work, composed of\nsuitably arranged quotations from the Sacred Writings. In two volumes: the\nfirst of Prayers, containing Devotions and Preparation for Holy Communion,\n&c., and the second of Meditations. Favoured by a Brief from His Holiness\nPope Pius X. Cloth, 1/- net each volume; or the two bound together, 400\npages, 2/- net. Leather, 2/6 net each volume; or bound together, 4/- net\n(postage, single volume 2d., double volume 3d.).\n\nCATHOLIC\u2019S DAILY COMPANION. 1/- to 5/-.\n\nCATHOLIC\u2019S VADE MECUM. 3/6 to 21/-.\n\nDAILY PRAYER BOOK, THE. Leather. 2/- net (postage 3d.)\n\nFLOWERS OF DEVOTION. _New Vest-pocket Edition._ With Ordinary of the Mass\nin large type, and Epistles and Gospels. In leather bindings at 1/-, 1/6,\n2/-, 2/6, 4/-, 5/-, and 6/-.\n\nGARDEN OF THE SOUL. In seven different editions (including an entirely new\none, rubricated, on India paper) and innumerable bindings. From 6d. to\n17/6.\n\nGOLDEN MANUAL, THE. The most complete Prayer Book. 900 pages. 6/- to 30/-.\n\nHOLY BIBLE. _Octavo Edition_ (9 by 6 inches). Cloth, red edges, 5/-; and\nin a great variety of Leather Bindings, at 8/-, 10/-, 15/-, 18/-, 30/-,\nand 35/- each. _Pocket Edition_ (size 5-1/4 by 3-1/4 inches): Embossed\nCloth, red edges, 2/6; and in Leather Bindings at 4/6, 6/6 and 7/6.\n\nKEY OF HEAVEN. In five different editions (including an entirely new one\non India paper with red rules round each page) and a great variety of\nbindings. 6d. to 17/6.\n\nLATIN MISSALS for private use. _Tournai_, 48mo, 4/6; 16mo, 5/9, 6/9, 8/-;\n12mo, 9/9, 11/-, 15/-; 8vo, 18/-, 23/-. _Ratisbon_, 16mo, 7/6 to 11/-;\n8vo, 12/6 to 17/6. _Mechlin_, 12mo, 10/6 to 12/6; 8vo, 16/-. All prices\nnet. All Missals with English Supplements. S.J. and Benedictine\nSupplements also in stock.\n\nLITTLE CHILDREN\u2019S PRAYER BOOK, THE. With Instruction, Preparation, and\nDevotions for Confession and Holy Communion suitable for the very young.\nBy MOTHER LOYOLA. With nine illustrations. Wrappers, 6d. net (postage\n1d.); Cloth, 1s. net. Better paper and binding, 2/6 net (postage 2d.);\nalso in even finer styles for First Communion presents.\n\nMANUAL OF CATHOLIC PIETY. In Three Editions. 6d. net to 5/-.\n\nMANUAL OF PRAYERS FOR CONGREGATIONAL USE. _New Pocket Edition_ with\nEpistles and Gospels. (5 by 3-1/4 inches). 369 pages. Cloth, 6d. net\n(postage 2d.). Or with an Enlarged Appendix, Cloth, 1/-. Leather, 2/6,\n5/-, & upwards.\n\nMANUAL OF THE SACRED HEART. Cloth, 2/-. Cloth, red edges, with\nFrontispiece, 2/6. Leather, 4/6, 5/6, and 6/-.\n\nMISSAL FOR THE LAITY, 6d. net to 5/-.\n\nNEW TESTAMENT. _Large-Type Edition._ With annotations, references, and an\nhistorical and chronological index. Cr. 8vo (size 7-1/2 by 5 inches.) 500\npp. Cloth, 2/-; and in leather bindings at 4/6 and 8/6. _Pocket Edition_:\nLimp cloth, 6d. net (postage 2d.); Cloth, red edges, 1/-; Leather\nbindings, 1/6, 3/- and 4/6. _Special India Paper Edition_: Limp Calf, 5/6\nnet; Limp Morocco, 5/6 net (postage 2d.).\n\nPARADISE OF THE CHRISTIAN SOUL, THE. A beautiful reprint has just been\nissued by Messrs. Burns & Oates, of this unique collection of beautiful\nprayers. A copy will be sent on approval on request. An entirely new\nedition, printed in bold type upon opaque India paper, 840 pages, 5-3/4 \u00d7\n3-3/4 \u00d7 5/8 in., with red rule round each page. Cloth, gilt or red edges,\n5/- net. Roan, gilt edges, 6/- net. Rutland, red under gold edges, 7/6\nnet. Calf boards, red edges, 8/6 net. Limp morocco, gilt, red under gold\nedges, 10/6 net. And in even finer bindings up to 30/- net (postage 4d.).\n\n_This classic of rare devotion is divided primarily into the following\nSeven Parts, one for each day of the week:_\n\nI. Of the Worship of the Most Holy Trinity. II. Of the Honour and\nVeneration of the Saints. III. Of Penance. IV. Exercises profitable for\nthe Pursuit of Virtues. V. How to Communicate, and to Celebrate and Hear\nMass Well. VI. Of the Life and Passion of Our Lord. VII. Of the Veneration\nof the Blessed Virgin, and Exercises for a happy Death.\n\nPATH TO HEAVEN. _New and Enlarged Edition._ (Over 1,000 pages). 2/- to\n8/6.\n\nRACCOLTA, THE, or, Collection of Indulgenced Prayers and Good Works. The\nonly Edition in English in accord with the present list of Indulgences. A\nNew and Revised Edition, 1911. 4/6 net (postage 4d.). Calf Boards and Limp\nMorocco, 8/6.\n\nROMAN MISSAL. For particulars of Messrs. Burns & Oates\u2019 remarkable new\nedition see p. 2.\n\nSPIRIT OF THE SACRED HEART. 3/6, 5/6, 8/6, & 12/6. 700 pages, printed in\nlarge clear type.\n\nCATECHISM OF THE VOWS. By Rev. P. COTEL, S.J. 1/-.\n\nINWARD GOSPEL, THE. Some familiar discourses addressed to Religious who\nfollow the Rules of St. Ignatius. By W. D. STRAPPINI, S.J. 2/6 net\n(postage 3d.)\n\nLETTERS TO PERSONS IN RELIGION. By ST. FRANCIS DE SALES. With Introduction\nby Bishop Hedley. 6/-.\n\nMANNING, CARDINAL. The Eternal Priesthood. 3/6.\n\nPARISH PRIEST\u2019S PRACTICAL MANUAL, NEW. A Work useful also for other\nEcclesiastics, especially for Confessors and for Preachers. By Very Rev.\nJOSEPH FRASSINETTI. Translated by ARCHDEACON HUTCH, D.D. 6/-.\n\nPRACTICAL MEDITATIONS FOR EVERY DAY IN THE YEAR, on the Life of Our Lord\nJesus Christ. Chiefly for the use of Religious. By a Father of the Society\nof Jesus. In Two Volumes. Cloth. 9/-.\n\nRELIGIOUS LIFE AND THE VOWS, THE. A Treatise by MGR. CHARLES GAY, Bishop\nof Anthedon. 5/-.\n\nRETREAT, A. By BISHOP HEDLEY, O.S.B. For the use of the Clergy, Religious\nand others. 6/-.\n\nSALVATORI\u2019S PRACTICAL INSTRUCTIONS FOR NEW CONFESSORS. Edited by FATHER\nANTHONY BALLERINI, S.J., and Translated by ARCHDEACON HUTCH, D.D. 18mo.\nCloth, gilt. 4/-.\n\nSPIRITUAL INSTRUCTION ON RELIGIOUS LIFE. By the Rev. H. REGINALD BUCKLER,\nO.P. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nTHE YOUNG PRIEST: Conferences on the Apostolic Life. By HERBERT CARDINAL\nVAUGHAN. Edited by MGR. CANON J. S. VAUGHAN. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nACTON, LORD, AND HIS CIRCLE. Edited by ABBOT GASQUET. With an Engraved\nPortrait of Lord Acton. 15/- net (postage 5d.).\n\nALLIES, THOMAS WILLIAM. A Biography. By his daughter, MARY ALLIES. With\nTwo Portraits and other Illustrations. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nANSELM OF CANTERBURY, ST. By Right Rev. MGR. MOYES. 6d. net (postage 2d.).\n\nBOURNE, CARDINAL. A Record of his Sayings and doings, with many hitherto\nunpublished portraits. Wrappers, 1s. net. Cloth, gilt, 2/6 net (postage\n3d.).\n\nBRIEFE HISTORIE OF THE GLORIOUS MARTYRDOM OF XII PRIESTS. Edmund Campion\nand his Companions. By CARDINAL ALLEN. Edited by Rev. J. H. POLLEN, S.J.\n4/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nBUTLER. REV. ALBAN. Complete Lives of the Saints for Every Day in the\nYear. Twelve Pocket Monthly Volumes and Index Volume, in neat cloth\nbinding, gilt lettered, 1/6 each. Or the complete set of Thirteen Volumes,\nin handsome cloth case, 20/-.\n\nCAMPION, EDMUND, LIFE OF. By RICHARD SIMPSON. 12/-.\n\nCATHERINE DE RICCI, ST.: HER LIFE, HER LETTERS, HER COMMUNITY. By F. M.\nCAPES. Introduced by a Treatise on the Mystical Life by Father Bertrand\nWilberforce, O.P. With a Portrait of the Saint, a Facsimile Letter, and\nother Illustrations. 7/6 net (postage 5d.).\n\nCUR\u00c9 D\u2019ARS, LIFE OF THE. From the French of ABB\u00c9 MONNIN. Edited by\nCARDINAL MANNING. F\u2019cap 8vo. Illustrated wrapper. 1/- net. Cloth, gilt.\n2/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nDOMINICAN MARTYRS OF GREAT BRITAIN. By Father RAYMUND DEVAS, O.P. 2/- net\n(postage 2d.).\n\nGERTRUDE, ST., LIFE AND REVELATIONS OF. By the Author of \u201cSt. Francis and\nthe Franciscans.\u201d 7/6.\n\nIGNATIUS, THE LIFE OF SAINT. By FRANCIS THOMPSON. With over 100\nIllustrations. 10/6 net (postage 6d.).\n\nThe Character of St. Ignatius appears with a clearness and a force that\nhave never graced it before in English or, we may venture to say, in any\nother tongue.\u2014_Month._\n\nThe most masterly presentation of the life of a Saint that our age has\nseen.\u2014_Irish Ecclesiastical Record._\n\nJOAN THE MAID, BLESSED. By Mgr. A. S. BARNES, M.A. Wrapper, 1/- net;\ncloth, 2/6 net (postage 2d.).\n\nJOHN BAPTIST DE ROSSI, ST. Translated from the Italian by LADY HERBERT. A\nnew edition, with an Introduction on Ecclesiastical Training and the\nSacerdotal Life, by Cardinal Vaughan. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nJOHN EUDES, LIFE OF THE BLESSED. By FATHER MATHEW RUSSELL, S.J. Cloth, 2/6\nnet (postage 3d.).\n\nJOSEPH, LIFE AND GLORIES OF ST. By E. HEALY THOMPSON, M.A. 6/-.\n\nKIRK\u2019S BIOGRAPHIES OF THE ENGLISH CATHOLICS IN THE EIGHTEENTH CENTURY.\nEdited by FATHER POLLEN, S.J. 7/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nLIFE AND LABOURS OF SAINT JOHN BAPTIST DE LA SALLE. By FRANCIS THOMPSON.\n2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nThe notable Story of the sainted pioneer of modern educational methods.\n\nLIFE OF CARDINAL VAUGHAN, THE. By J. G. SNEAD-COX. New cheap unabridged\nedition. Two Volumes. Demy 8vo. 10/- net (postage 6d.). Sixth Thousand.\n\nThe chapter on his \u201cInner Life\u201d is a human document of intense interest: a\nrevelation in character as beautiful as it is pathetic.\u2014_Daily Chronicle._\n\nLITTLE FLOWER OF JESUS (S\u0153ur Th\u00e9r\u00e8se), COMPLETE LIFE, LETTERS, Etc., OF.\nEdited and translated with Prologue and Epilogue, by the Rev. T. N.\nTAYLOR, Demy 8vo, 448 pages, printed in red and black upon rag paper, with\n14 illustrations in photogravure, handsome cloth, gilt, 6/- net (postage\n5d.).\n\n_It contains a vast amount of new matter, and equals in appearance any\nBiography of four times its price. A masterpiece of editing and\ntranslation. The profits are devoted to the Cause of Beatification._\n\nLITTLE FLOWER OF JESUS, THE. A free and charming translation of\n\u201cL\u2019Histoire d\u2019une Ame\u201d only. Three Portraits. 2/6 net (postage 4d.)\n\nA Biography that has created a profound spiritual sensation throughout the\nworld.\n\nLITTLE FLOWER OF JESUS, CAUSE OF BEATIFICATION OF. The Official Argument,\nby Mgr. DE TEIL., Vice-postulator of the Cause. Cloth gilt, with Portrait\nin colours, 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\n_The account, full of interest, of the Little Flowers heroic virtues; a\nsummary of her life, and the details of her innumerable miraculous cures,\nconversions, etc._\n\nLUMMIS, MADAME ROSE. By DELIA GLEESON. 2/6 net. (postage 3d.).\n\nLYDWINE OF SCHIEDAM, LIFE OF ST. A remarkable and little-known biography\nof the 14th century Virgin, by THOMAS A KEMPIS. Translation and\nIntroduction by DOM VINCENT SCULLY, C.R.L. Very attractively printed and\nbound. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nMINIATURE LIVES OF THE SAINTS, for every Day in the Year. Edited by Rev.\nH. S. BOWDEN of the Oratory. Two Vols. 4s.\n\nMORE, LIFE AND WRITINGS OF BLESSED THOMAS. By FATHER BRIDGETT, C.SS.R.\n6/-.\n\nPATRICK, APOSTLE OF IRELAND, LIFE OF ST. By Rev. W. B. MORRIS. 2/6.\n\nPERONNE MARIE, A SPIRITUAL DAUGHTER OF ST. FRANCIS OF SALES. By a\nReligious of the Visitation. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nS\u0152UR TH\u00c9R\u00c8SE OF LISIEUX. See under \u201cLittle Flower,\u201d p. 21.\n\nTHOMAS AQUINAS, THE ANGELIC DOCTOR, LIFE OF ST. Edited by Rev. PIUS\nCAVANAGH, O.P. With eleven Illustrations. 4/6.\n\nTHOMAS OF AQUIN, LIFE AND LABOURS OF ST. By ARCHBISHOP VAUGHAN, O.S.B.\nEdited by DOM JEROME VAUGHAN, O.S.B. 6/6.\n\nTWO LIVES OF OUR LORD FOR CHILDREN. Jesus of Nazareth. By MOTHER M.\nLOYOLA. With many beautiful illustrations. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nThe Life of Our Lord. Written for Little Ones. By MOTHER M. SALOME. 3/6.\n\nWARD, MARY: A Foundress of the Seventeenth Century. By MOTHER M. SALOME,\nof the Bar Convent, York. With an Introduction by Bishop Hedley.\nIllustrated. 5s. A Shorter Life, with Two Portraits, and Introduction by\nABBOT GASQUET, O.S.B. 2s. net (postage 3d.).\n\nA BISHOP AND HIS FLOCK. By the Rt. Rev. JOHN CUTHBERT HEDLEY, O.S.B.,\nBishop of Newport. 6/-.\n\nALTAR SERVER\u2019S MANUAL OF THE ARCH-CONFRATERNITY OF ST. STEPHEN. Compiled\nby a Priest of the Archdiocese of Westminster. With an Introductory\nPreface by His Grace the Archbishop of Westminster. Leather. 2/-net\n(postage 2d.).\n\nANCIENT CATHOLIC HOMES OF SCOTLAND. By DOM ODO BLUNDELL, O.S.B. With an\nIntroduction by the Hon. Mrs. Maxwell Scott, of Abbotsford. Forty\nIllustrations. 3/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nCARMICHAEL, MONTGOMERY. In Tuscany. New Edition, with numerous\nillustrations. Large Cr. 8vo. 6s. net (postage 4d.).\n\nJohn William Walshe. The Story of a Hidden Life. 5/- net (postage 4d.).\n\nCHRIST, THE CHURCH, AND MAN, with some remarks on a New Apologia for\nChristianity in relation to the Social Question. By CARDINAL CAPECELATRO,\nArchbishop of Capua. 2/- net (postage 3d.).\n\nCHURCH AND KINDNESS TO ANIMALS, THE. Condemnation of Bull-fighting;\nAnimals in the Lives and Legends of Saints; A Cloud of Witnesses.\nIllustrated. 2/6.\n\nECCLESIA, THE CHURCH OF CHRIST. A Planned Series of Papers by DOM GILBERT\nDOLAN, O.S.B., FR. BENEDICT ZIMMERMANN, O.D.C., FATHER R. H. BENSON, M.A.,\nDOM JOHN CHAPMAN, O.S.B., DOM J. D. BREEN, O.S.B., A. H. MATHEW, FATHER\nPETER FINLAY, S.J. Cloth, gilt, 3/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nFOR MY NAME\u2019S SAKE. From the French of CHAMPOL\u2019S \u201cS\u0153ur Alexandrine.\u201d\nIllustrated by L. D. Symington. 2/6.\n\nFOURTEENTH CENTURY CAROLS. Collected by M. DALGLISH. 1/6 net (postage\n2d.).\n\nHOME FOR GOOD. By MOTHER M. LOYOLA. With Frontispiece. 3/6 net (postage\n4d.)\n\nThe author is so well known that her name is sufficient advertisement for\nany book on the subject, but this time she has written one she will find\nit hard to beat. It is advice to girls leaving school to face what is for\nmany, if not the greater number amongst them, the most critical and the\nmost dangerous years of their lives.\u2014_Tablet._\n\nLITTLE ANGELS, a Book of Comfort for Mourning Mothers. By FATHER MATTHEW\nRUSSELL, S.J. 2/6 net (postage 3d.).\n\nMARRIAGE, DIVORCE, AND MORALITY. By FATHER HENRY C. DAY, S.J. An\nexposition of Catholic teaching on the most burning question of the hour.\nPreface by the Bishop of Salford. Cloth, gilt, 1/6 net (postage 2d.).\n\nMODERN PILGRIM\u2019S PROGRESS, A. 3rd Edition. With Introduction by the Very\nRev. H. S. BOWDEN. Preface by Mgr. R. H. BENSON. 6/-.\n\nNEW GUIDE TO THE HOLY LAND. With 23 Coloured Maps, and 110 Plans. By FR.\nBARNABAS MEISTERMANN, O.F.M. 7/6 net (postage 4d.).\n\nNOTES ON THE NEW RUBRICS AND THE USE OF THE NEW PSALTER. By the REV. A. J.\nHETHERINGTON, of Westminster Cathedral. Cloth, gilt, 1/6 net (postage\n2d.).\n\nON RELIGIOUS WORSHIP, AND SOME DEFECTS IN POPULAR DEVOTION. A Pastoral\nWarning. By GEREMIA BONOMELLI, Bishop of Cremona. Together with a Letter\nto the English Translator, R. E. With the Author\u2019s Portrait. 2/6 net\n(postage 3d.).\n\nPRACTICE OF MENTAL PRAYER AND OF PERFECTION according to St. Teresa and\nSt. John of the Cross. In three volumes. Cloth, 430 pages each volume, 3/6\nnet each (postage 4d. each).\n\nSERVERS MANUAL, THE. By JOHN LOUGHLIN. 1/- net (postage 2d.).\n\nSERVERS MISSAL. A Practical Guide for Serving Boys at Mass. By a\nSacristan. 6d.\n\n_N.B.\u2014Kindly write for our Prayer Book Catalogue and our Illustrated\nCatalogue of Church Furniture. Statues, Silver, Articles of Devotion, etc.\nThey are sent post free. The General Catalogue of Catholic Books (200\npages) is also sent post free._\n\n\n\n\n\n\nFOOTNOTES\n\n\n    1 Der Zeit-geist.\n\n    2 It is ever to be borne in mind that at the time of the Council of\n      Ephesus the Council of Constantinople in 381 ranked only as a local\n      council of Eastern bishops, partially confirmed by Pope Damasus.\n\n    3 Orbis dominus: \u1f41 \u0394\u03b5\u03c3\u03c0\u03cc\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f30\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2.\n\n    4 Photius, i. 193.\n\n    5 D\u00f6llinger, _Muhammed\u2019s Religion_, p. 1.\n\n    6 Gregorovius, ii. 112-3, first edition (afterwards a little altered),\n      p. 102.\n\n    7 As such she has merited and received the scoffs of Gibbon in full\n      Voltairian foulness.\n\n    8 Gregorovius, ii. 112, 3rd edit.\n\n    9 See the article on this writer\u2019s adventurous life by Card.\n      Hergenr\u00f6lher in the _Kirchen-lexicon_, i. 788.\n\n   10 Gregorovius ii. 113, referring to Pagi, upon Baronius, year 625,\n      sec. 17.\n\n   11 See Gregorovius, ii. 105.\n\n   12 Hist., iii. 7.\n\n   13 See Hefele, iii. 267.\n\n   14 See Rohrbacher-Rump, x. 247.\n\n   15 I have shortened this from the original in Mansi, x. 1003, as read\n      at St. Martin\u2019s Council.\n\n   16 Noted by Hefele, iii. 159.\n\n   17 Gregorovius, ii. 128. 3rd Ed. From Anastasius, Mansi, x. 675.\n\n   18 From the _Liber Pontificalis_.\n\n   19 From the contemporaneous letter of St. Maximus to the Abbot\n      Thalassius. Mansi, x. 677. Rohrbacher-Rump, x. 249.\n\n   20 Stabiles illi et firm\u00e6 revera et immobilis Petr\u00e6 ministri.\n\n   21 See Hefele, iii. 154, 160.\n\n   22 Gallandi, _Bibliotheca veterum Patrum_, Tom. xiii. 33.\n\n   23 Gregorovius, ii. 130.\n\n   24 Sta. Maria Maggiore.\n\n   25 Photius, i. 202-3.\n\n   26 See the whole as read in the Lateran Council of Pope Martin, in\n      Mansi, x. 1019-1025.\n\n   27 Gregorovius, ii. 138.\n\n   28 Hefele, iii. 189; Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, anno 649.\n\n   29 Mansi, x., 785-8.\n\n   30 These facts are taken from the words of Pope Martin himself, in the\n      Lateran Council.\n\n   31 Hefele, iii, 188. Translated to \u201ccruelty\u201d.\n\n_   32 Inferno_, xix. 69. Sappi ch\u2019io fui vestitio del gran manto.\n\n   33 As the Pope\u2019s speech occupies six columns in Mansi, I have taken\n      from Hefele, iii. 190-1, the above, which, he says, contains its\n      chief import.\n\n   34 See Mansi, x. 891-901. I have selected parts and omitted\n      redundancies.\n\n   35 \u03a4\u03b1\u03c7\u03ad\u03c9\u03c2 \u03bf\u1f50\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u1f78 \u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c0\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af\u03b5\u03bb\u03b8\u03b5, \u03bc\u03ad\u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd\n      \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u03ba\u1f78\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03ae\u03c3\u03b5\u03b9\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u1f14\u03bd\u03b8\u03b1 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b5\u1f50\u03c3\u03b5\u03b2\u1ff6\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u1f76\u03bd\n      \u03b1\u1f31 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b7\u03c0\u03af\u03b4\u03b5\u03c2. \u039c\u1f74 \u1f05\u03c0\u03b1\u03be, \u03bc\u1f74 \u03b4\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f00\u03bb\u03bb\u1f70 \u03c0\u03bf\u03bb\u03bb\u03ac\u03ba\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b3\u03bd\u03c9\u03c1\u03af\u03b6\u03c9\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fd6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b9\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u1f00\u03bd\u03b4\u03c1\u03ac\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03af \u1f00\u03ba\u03c1\u03b9\u03b2\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u1fe6\u03b8\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03b9\u03bd\u03b7\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03bc\u1f74\n      \u1f10\u03bd\u03b4\u03cc\u03c3\u03b7\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bd\u03c4\u03cc\u03bd\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u1ff6\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b4\u03b5\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f14\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f02\u03bd \u1f10\u03be \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03c3\u03bf\u03c6\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03bd\u03b5\u1fd6\u03ba\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03c1\u03af\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f00\u03b3\u03ac\u03b3\u03c9\u03c3\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c3\u03ac\u03ba\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd \u03b4\u03bf\u03b3\u03bc\u03ac\u03c4\u03c9\u03bd\n      \u03c4\u03b5\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03bf\u03b9\u03ae\u03c3\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u03ac\u03c1\u03b3\u03b7\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd.\n\n      The Pope thus solemnly addressed was Honorius. Mansi, x. 895, c.\n\n   36 Hefele, iii. 190.\n\n   37 \u1f45\u03b8\u03b5\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03b1\u03b3\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03b9\u03bc\u1f74\u03bd, \u1f66 \u03c0\u03ac\u03c4\u03b5\u03c1 \u03c0\u03b1\u03c4\u03c1\u1ff6\u03bd, \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f41\n      \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f78\u03c2 \u03b8\u03c1\u03cc\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 \u1f30\u03b4\u03b9\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03cc\u03c0\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f24\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03b3\u03b5\u03bd\u1ff6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03b8\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd\n      \u03ba\u03b5\u03ba\u03bb\u03ae\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03b9 \u03b8\u03ad\u03c3\u03c0\u03b9\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1 \u03c4\u1f70 \u1f30\u03b5\u03c1\u1f70 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03cc\u03b3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b1 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b5\u03c1\u03b5\u03c5\u03bd\u1fb6\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u1f00\u03bd\u03b1\u03c8\u03b7\u03bb\u03b1\u03b8\u1fb7\u03bd. Mansi, x. 920.\n\n   38 Mansi, x. 797-804.\n\n   39 Ep. 186. Quoted in \u201cFormation of Christendom,\u201d vol. v., p. 335.\n\n   40 See Mansi, x. 827-832.\n\n   41 Mansi, x. 834-843, and 843-850.\n\n   42 Mansi, x. 1169.\n\n   43 See the 15th and 14th letters of Pope Martin, written in his\n      imprisonment at Constantinople. Mansi, x. 849-853.\n\n   44 By this we learn that the imperial palace on the Palatine was still\n      habitable, and occupied by the exarch when he came to Rome.\n\n   45 Quia nos eum voluimus adorare sed cras\u2014cras omnimodis occurremus et\n      adorabimus sanctitatem vestram. The same word \u201cadorare\u201d is used to\n      express the Pope\u2019s acknowledgment of the exarch, and the exarch\u2019s\n      acknowledgment of the Pope.\n\n   46 See Mansi, x. 853-862.\n\n   47 A similar outrage upon another Pope suggests to Dante a similar\n      identification of the Disciple with the Master\u2014both speak of\n      contemporaneous events; as Constans II. is to Pope Martin so\n      Philippe-le-bel is to Pope Boniface VIII.\n\n      Veggio in Alagna entrar lo fiordaliso,\n      E nel Vicario suo Cristo esser catto.\n      Veggiolo un\u2019 altra volta esser deriso;\n      Veggio rinnovellar l\u2019aceto e il fele,\n      E tra nuovi ladroni essere anciso.\n      Veggio il nuovo Pilato si crudele,\n      E cio nol sazia, ma, senza decreto,\n      Porta nel tempio lo cupide vele.\n\n      \u2014_Purgatorio_, xx, 85.\n\n   48 Letters 16 and 17, Mansi, x. 861, 862.\n\n   49 So called in allusion to the Council at Chalcedon having been held\n      in her church.\n\n   50 See Rump, x. 121-6.\n\n   51 Hefele, iii. 119.\n\n   52 Vol. i. 110.\n\n   53 Hefele, iii. 120.\n\n   54 Letter of Sergius to Honorius, read in the 6th Council. Mansi, xi.\n      532.\n\n   55 Hefele, iii. 138.\n\n   56 The synodal letter of Sophronius occupies 24 folio columns in Mansi,\n      xi. 461-508. Its chief points are compressed by Hefele, iii.\n      139-145, into six pages. I have drawn my quotation partly from\n      Hefele, and partly from the original text.\n\n   57 \u03bc\u03ae\u03c4\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c3\u03b4\u1f7a\u03c2 \u1f00\u03c0\u03b5\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03b3\u03b1\u03bc\u03bf\u03bd \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f01\u03b3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03b4\u03c1\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03b8\u03b5\u03cc\u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u1f78\u03c2 \u1f10\u03bb\u03b5\u03c5\u03b8\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03bc\u03bf\u03bb\u03cd\u03c3\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c4\u03b5 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c3\u1ff6\u03bc\u03b1 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c8\u03c5\u03c7\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03b4\u03b9\u03ac\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd.\u2014Mansi, xi. 473.\n\n   58 St. Leo\u2019s doctrine is contained in his words to S. Flavian, accepted\n      and made its own by the Council of Chalcedon:\u2014\u201cAgit enim utraque\n      forma (_i.e._ natura) cum alterius communione quod proprium est\u201d.\n\n   59 Compare A. de Vere, _Legends and Records_, p. 125\u2014\n\n      Arias since then hath died;\n      Since then God\u2019s Church is cloven. Since then, since then\n      My empire too is cloven, and cloven in five.\n      No choice remained. I never was the man\n      To close my eyes against unwelcome truth.\n      My sons, my nephews, these are each and all\n      Alike ambitious men, and ineffectual.\n\n   60 See the letter of St. Basil quoted above in vol. v., 231, _Throne of\n      the Fisherman_.\n\n   61 These may be found drawn out in eleven papers of the _Civilt\u00e0\n      Catholica_ termed \u201cLa Chiesa e l\u2019Impero,\u201d 1855-6.\n\n   62 See the letter in the 13th session of the Sixth Council, Mansi, xi.\n      561, D.\n\n   63 Damberger, ii. 11.\n\n   64 Daniel, ix. 27.\n\n   65 Damberger, ii. 18-20. Weiss, ii. 517-519-521, for the narrative. See\n      also Weil, _die Chalifen_, Omar, 144.\n\n   66 Damberger, ii. 22, for the following paragraph.\n\n   67 Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, i. 139-141.\n\n   68 Weil, _Geschichte der Chalifen_, i. 144.\n\n   69 Weil, _Geschicte der Chalifen_, i. 103-5.\n\n   70 Newman\u2019s _Theodoret_. Page 318.\n\n   71 Card. Newman, _Theodoret_, p. 340, 342.\n\n_   72 Richard II._, ii. 1.\n\n   73 Card. Hergenrother\u2019s articles in _Kirchen-Lexicon_ i. 946, 7, upon\n      Antioch, and on Alexandria, i. 519-521, have supplied me with the\n      following facts.\n\n   74 Weil, _Islamitische Volker_, 58.\n\n   75 Weil, _die Chalifen_, i. 165.\n\n   76 See this letter in Mansi, x. 682-6.\n\n   77 From the letter \u201cad Petram illustrem,\u201d Gallandi, vol. xii. p.\n      38.\u2014Rump, x. 267.\n\n   78 S. Maximi confessoris Gr\u00e6corum theologi, tom. ii., Combefis, 672.\n\n   79 That is by attributing _One Will_ to the Two Natures of Christ.\n\n   80 Anastasius, in Gallandi, tom. xiii. 50.\n\n   81 Gallandi, xiii. 71, translated.\n\n   82 Hefele, iii. 323.\n\n   83 Not from Anastasius, the Librarian, but from another source, in\n      Gallandi, xiii. 74. See the narrative of Maximus in Hefele, iii.\n      215-224.\n\n   84 Held under the patriarch Peter, Photius, i. 206.\n\n   85 Weil, _Islamitische V\u00f6lker_, p. 2. I have taken from this\n      distinguished Orientalist and German historian, who spent thirty\n      years in the study of eastern documents, the chief details\n      concerning the events of Mohammed\u2019s life, which follow.\n\n   86 Weil, p. 7-24, from whom I have taken the facts which follow.\n\n   87 Weil, _Islamitische V\u00f6lker_, 8.\n\n   88 Weil, p. 10.\n\n   89 Weil, p. 16.\n\n   90 Weil, p. 17.\n\n   91 Sura 33. Sale, p. 317.\n\n   92 Weil, p. 18; see the 33rd Sura.\n\n   93 Weil, p. 18.\n\n   94 Weil, p. 19.\n\n   95 Sale\u2019s Koran, Sura 9.\n\n   96 Weil, quoted by Rump, x. 88.\n\n   97 Note in Sale\u2019s Koran, 9th Sura, p. 128.\n\n   98 See Sura 33.\n\n   99 St. John Damascene, on the 101st heresy. Vol. I. 114.\n\n  100 Quoted in _Mohammed\u2019s Religion_, p. 23. The annalist is Raima.\n\n  101 From Damberger, i. 394.\n\n  102 Damberger, i. 395.\n\n  103 Weiss, _Lehrbuch der Weltgeschichte_, ii. 516.\n\n  104 Weil, _Islamitische V\u00f6lker_, Abu Bekr, p. 42.\n\n_  105 Mohammed\u2019s Religion_, p. 4.\n\n  106 Nirschl, iii. 612.\n\n  107 Weil, _Islamitische V\u00f6lker_, 26-29, _der Koran_. Translated.\n\n  108 D\u00f6llinger, _Mohammed\u2019s Religion_, p. 7.\n\n  109 D\u00f6llinger, _Mohammed\u2019s Religion_, 38-40.\n\n_  110 Mohammed\u2019s Religion_, p. 141.\n\n  111 \u03c0\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u1f35\u03bd\u03b1 \u1f30\u03b4\u1fc7\u03c2 \u03ba\u03cd\u03c1\u03b9\u1fbd \u1f08\u03b2\u03b2\u1fb6, \u1f45\u03c4\u03b9 \u03bc\u03b9\u03ba\u03c1\u1f70\u03bd \u1f04\u03bd\u03b5\u03c3\u03b9\u03bd \u1f10\u1f70\u03bd \u03bb\u03ac\u03b2\u03c9\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03c3\u03c5\u03b3\u03c7\u03cd\u03c3\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u03c4\u1ff6\u03bd \u1f10\u03b8\u03bd\u1ff6\u03bd, \u1f00\u03c1\u03bc\u03cc\u03c3\u03b1\u03c3\u03b8\u03b1\u03b9 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03bc\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u03c1\u03b9\u03ac\u03b4\u03b1, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03a0\u03ac\u03c0\u03b1\u03bd \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03bd\u1fe6\u03bd \u1f10\u03c0\u03b1\u03b9\u03c1\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u1fd6\u03c3\u03b5 \u03bb\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u1fe6\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76\n      \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b9\u03c0\u03bf\u03cd\u03c2 \u03c3\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c0\u03ac\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03c7\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f14\u03ba\u03b1\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03bd \u03c4\u1ff7\n      \u1f10\u03c0\u03b9\u03c4\u03b7\u03b4\u03b5\u03af\u1ff3 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03c4\u03cc\u03c0\u1ff3, \u1f61\u03c2 \u1f10\u03d7\u03c9\u03bd\u03b5\u03cd\u03b8\u03b7 \u039c\u03b1\u03c1\u03c4\u1fd6\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2.\u2014Gallandi, tom. xiii. 73.\n\n  112 Hefele, iii. 223.\n\n  113 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, A.D. 654.\n\n  114 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, A.D. 655.\n\n  115 Mansi, xi. 13.\n\n  116 See Muratori, A.D. 665, who quotes from Paulus Diaconus, lib. 5, ch.\n      xi. p. 336 and 366.\n\n  117 The words in which Pope Felix III. addressed Zeno, the first who\n      became sole ruler after the cessation of the western empire. See\n      above Vol. vi. p. 80.\n\n  118 Hist., iv. 1-2.\n\n  119 The facts from Photius.\n\n  120 Jaff\u00e9, p. 167, who refers to Mansi, xi. 179.\n\n  121 See Hergenr\u00f6ther, _Kirchengeschichte_, i. p. 365.\n\n  122 Translated from Hergenr\u00f6ther\u2019s _Kirchengeschichte_, i. 365-8.\n\n  123 Letter of the Sixth Council in answer at its conclusion to the Pope.\n      Mansi, xi. 684-688.\n\n  124 Address of Council to emperor, Mansi, xi. 665, C. \u1f41 \u03b4\u1f72 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03b9\u03cc\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03c2\n      \u1f21\u03bc\u1fd6\u03bd \u03c3\u03c5\u03bd\u03b7\u03b3\u03c9\u03bd\u03af\u03b6\u03b5\u03c4\u03bf \u03c0\u03c1\u03c9\u03c4\u03b1\u03c0\u03cc\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03bf\u03c2; \u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u03b3\u1f70\u03c1 \u1f10\u03ba\u03b5\u03af\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5 \u03bc\u03b9\u03bc\u03b7\u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03ad\u03b4\u03c1\u03b1\u03c2 \u03b4\u03af\u03b1\u03b4\u03bf\u03c7\u03bf\u03bd \u03b5\u1f34\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u1f51\u03c0\u03b1\u03bb\u03b5\u03af\u03c6\u03bf\u03bd\u03c4\u03b1.\n\n  125 Theophanes had been put in the place of Macarius, deposed by the\n      Council.\n\n  126 Mansi, xi. 697-712.\n\n  127 Mansi, xi. 716 B.\n\n  128 \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03c4\u03c1\u03ad\u03c0\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u03c0\u03b1\u03bd\u03af\u03b5\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u1f74\u03bd.\n\n  129 See Mansi, ii. 725, etc.\n\n  130 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u1f10\u03ba\u03ba\u03bb\u03b7\u03c3\u03af\u03b1\u03c2 \u03ba\u03c9\u03bd\u03c3\u03c4\u03b1\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03bd\u03bf\u03c5\u03c0\u03cc\u03bb\u03b5\u03c9\u03c2 \u1f51\u03c0\u03bf\u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f70\u03c2 \u03bc\u1fb6\u03bb\u03bb\u03bf\u03bd \u1f20\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03b8\u03b7\u03b3\u03b7\u03c4\u03ac\u03c2.\n\n  131 Mansi, xi. 1050-1055.\n\n  132 Rump, x. 465.\n\n  133 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, A.D. 681.\n\n  134 Hergenr\u00f6ther, _Kirchengeschichte_, i. 369.\u2014Jungmann, _de Causa\n      Honorii Romani Pontificis_, p. 430.\n\n  135 Gregorovius, ii. 112 (3rd edition).\n\n  136 St. Maximus, vol. ii. p. 106.\n\n  137 Theophanes, see the passage p. 506-511; ending with the words\n      quoted. It has inaccuracies which prevent citing the whole passage;\n      but the spirit of it is both true and of great importance.\n\n  138 D\u00f6llinger, _Lehrbuch der Kirchen-geschichte_, sec. 69, quoted by\n      Hergenr\u00f6ther.\n\n  139 Photius, i. 217.\n\n  140 Hefele, iii. 313.\n\n  141 The pretention shown in this by the emperor Justinian II. is noted\n      by Le Quien, _Oriens Christianus_, i. 140.\n\n  142 Hefele, iii. 300-331.\n\n  143 Photius, i. 221.\n\n  144 Photius, i. 223.\n\n  145 From Anastasius and Gregorovius.\n\n  146 Gregorovius, ii. 205 (1st edition).\n\n  147 Gregorovius, i. 209, 1st edition translated: in the 3rd edition he\n      has made omissions and alterations.\n\n  148 Anastasius.\n\n  149 Theophanes, 574.\n\n  150 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, A.D. 709. Niehues, i. 485.\n\n  151 Anastasius, _Life of Pope Constantine_.\n\n  152 Anastasius, _Life of Gregory_, iv.\n\n  153 Anastasius, in his letter to Pope John VIII., prefixed to the\n      Seventh General Council, quoted by Photius, i. 223.\n\n  154 From Theophanes, p. 574-584. I have shortened as much as possible a\n      narrative in its details too horrible to repeat.\n\n  155 Gregorovius, ii. 198.\n\n  156 Theophanes p. 688.\n\n  157 Mansi, xii. 196.\n\n  158 \u03c4\u03bf\u03cd\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9\u03c2 \u03b4\u1f74 \u03c4\u1f70 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f51\u03bc\u03b5\u03c4\u03ad\u03c1\u03b1\u03bd \u1f00\u03c0\u03bf\u03c3\u03c4\u03bf\u03bb\u03b9\u03ba\u1f74\u03bd \u03c0\u03c1\u03bf\u03b5\u03b4\u03c1\u03af\u03b1\u03bd \u1f14\u03c7\u03bf\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\n      \u03c0\u03b1\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03ac\u03bb\u03bb\u03b5\u03b9\u03bd, \u1f01\u03b3\u03b9\u03ce\u03c4\u03b1\u03c4\u03bf\u03b9, \u03ba\u03b1\u1f76 \u03ba\u03b5\u03c6\u03b1\u03bb\u1f74\u03bd \u03c4\u1fc6\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03a7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u1f78\u03bd \u1f31\u03b5\u03c1\u03c9\u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b7\u03c2\n      \u03ba\u03b1\u03bd\u03bf\u03bd\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff6\u03c2 \u1f51\u03bc\u1fb6\u03c2 \u03bb\u03bf\u03b3\u03b9\u03b6\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03b9.\n\n  159 Rex Theodoricus hereticus hoc audiens, exarsit in iram, et totam\n      Italiam voluit gladio extinguere.\u2014_Book of the Popes_, Mansi, vii.\n      599.\n\n_  160 Book of the Popes_ given in Mansi, viii. 845.\n\n  161 Gregorovius, ii. 240 (1st edition).\n\n  162 The letter _Consideranti mihi_, Mansi xi. 234.\n\n  163 Photius, i. 207.\n\n  164 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, anno 726.\n\n  165 Beserem tot malorum auctorem atque incitamentum. _Historia Concilii\n      Nic\u00e6ni II._\u2014Mansi, xii. 955, a.\n\n  166 See Reumont, ii. 101.\n\n  167 Mansi, xii. 960-974, as read in the Seventh Council.\n\n  168 The reading here is doubtful.\n\n  169 Mansi, xii. 975-981. This letter also was read in the Seventh\n      Council.\n\n  170 See _Brunengo Origini_, p. 32, Mansi, xii. 227.\n\n  171 See Photius. i. 234, for the authorities presently quoted.\n\n  172 \u03a0\u03ad\u03c4\u03c1\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6 \u03ba\u03bf\u03c1\u03c5\u03c6\u03b1\u03af\u03bf\u03c5 \u03c3\u03cd\u03bd\u03b8\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2. Theophanes, p. 628.\n\n  173 St. John Damasc., _de Imaginibus Orat._, ii. c. 12. Vol. I. p. 335.\n\n  174 See Renmont, ii. pp. 104-5.\n\n  175 Mansi, xii. 244.\n\n  176 Baronius, anno 731, 1.\n\n  177 Reumont, ii. p. 106.\n\n  178 See Rohrbacher Kellner, vol. xi. p. 175.\n\n  179 Theophanes, p. 631. \u03c4\u03cc\u03c4\u03b5 \u1f41 \u03b8\u03b5\u03bf\u03bc\u03ac\u03c7\u03bf\u03c2, \u1f10\u03c0\u1f76 \u03c0\u03bb\u03b5\u1fd6\u03bf\u03bd \u1f10\u03ba\u03bc\u03b1\u03bd\u03b5\u1f76\u03c2, \u1f08\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b9\u03ba\u1ff7\u03c4\u03b5\n      \u03c6\u03c1\u03bf\u03bd\u03ae\u03bc\u03b1\u03c4\u03b9 \u03ba\u03c1\u03b1\u03c4\u03c5\u03bd\u03cc\u03bc\u03b5\u03bd\u03bf\u03c2 ... \u1f45\u03c0\u03b5\u03c1 \u03bf\u1f50\u03b4\u1fbd \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u03af \u03c0\u03bf\u03c4\u03b5 \u03bf\u1f35 \u03b4\u03b9\u03b4\u03ac\u03c3\u03ba\u03b1\u03bb\u03bf\u03b9 \u03b1\u1f50\u03c4\u03bf\u1fe6\n      \u1f0c\u03c1\u03b1\u03b2\u03b5\u03c2 \u1f10\u03c0\u03bf\u03af\u03b7\u03c3\u03b1\u03bd \u03b5\u1f30\u03c2 \u03c4\u03bf\u1f7a\u03c2 \u03ba\u03b1\u03c4\u1f70 \u03c4\u1f74\u03bd \u1f11\u1ff6\u03b1\u03bd \u03c7\u03c1\u03b9\u03c3\u03c4\u03b9\u03b1\u03bd\u03cc\u03c5\u03c2.\n\n  180 See above, vol. vi, p. 302.\n\n  181 See Reumont, ii. 108.\n\n  182 From the _Liber Carolinus_, quoted by Mansi. xii. 184.\n\n  183 Brunengo, _Le Origini della Sovranit\u00e0 temporale dei Papi_, p. 106,\n      quoting inscriptions recorded by Troya, Codice diplomatico.\n\n_  184 Litter\u00e6 divales._\n\n  185 Anastasius, _Vita Stephani Pap\u00e6_. Mansi, xii. 521-532, from which\n      the following quotations are taken.\n\n  186 Mansi, xii. 524.\n\n  187 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, 753.\n\n  188 Brunengo, _Le Origini_, etc., p. 135.\n\n  189 Reumont, ii. p. 115.\n\n  190 Mansi, xii. 543. This letter I have much shortened: but nothing\n      important is omitted.\n\n  191 Reumont resumed, ii. p. 116.\n\n_  192 Vita Stephani Pap\u00e6 II._ Mansi, xii. 531.\n\n  193 See Reumont, ii. 118.\n\n  194 \u201cDe manu gentium.\u201d\n\n_  195 Epis._ xiii.; Mansi, viii. 60.\n\n  196 A. de Vere, _Legends and Records, Amalasunta_, p. 278.\n\n_  197 Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, vol. viii. 42-44.\n\n  198 Niehues, vol. i. p. 434.\n\n  199 Niehues, vol. i. p. 436.\n\n  200 Niehues, _Kaiserthum uud Papstthum_, vol. i. 437.\n\n  201 Niehues, p. 446.\n\n_  202 Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, viii. p. 48. _Die Regierungen und die\n      Papstwahl._\n\n_  203 Vita Pelagii Pap\u00e6_, ii.\u2014Mansi, ix. 879.\n\n  204 From the _Liber diurnus Romanorum Pontificum_, Tit. iii.\n\n  205 Niehues, vol. i. 462-3.\n\n_  206 Ep._, v. 42.\n\n  207 The statue called \u1f08\u03bd\u03c4\u03b9\u03c6\u03c9\u03bd\u03ae\u03c4\u03b7\u03c2, the Answerer, as having miraculously\n      answered the appeal of a friendless stranger.\n\n  208 Kellner, vol. ii. p. 363, in the German edition of Rohrbacher\u2019s\n      History.\n\n  209 The following four pages are taken from Kellner, p. 407, who has\n      drawn the facts from Theophanes, p. 371.\n\n  210 Photius, p. 242, with note 97 from George Hamartolus.\n\n  211 Photius, i. 295.\n\n  212 \u1f21 \u03bf\u1f31\u03ba\u03bf\u03c5\u03bc\u03ad\u03bd\u03b7.\n\n  213 Photius, i. p. 295.\n\n  214 I have in this chapter made continual use of Father Bruneugo\u2019s two\n      works, _I primi Papi-Re e l\u2019Ultimo dei Re Longobardi_, and _Le\n      Origini della Sovranit\u00e1 Temporale dei Papi_. They are quoted under\n      the _Le Origini_, &c., and _I primi Papi-Re_.\n\n  215 See Gfr\u00f6rer, _Papst Gregorius VII._, v. 10-11.\n\n  216 See his visit described in chapter vi. vol. v. p. 243.\n\n  217 Hoensbroech, _P. Paul von._\u2014_Eutstehung und Entwicklung des\n      Kirchenstaates_ in the _Stimmen aus Maria-Laach_, July 1, 1889.\n\n  218 Hoensbroech quoted from the Jew, Samuel Sugenheim, in his history of\n      the rise and formation of the State of the Church, a prize essay\n      crowned at G\u00f6ttingen in 1854.\n\n  219 By Biachini Giovini, quoted by Hoensbroech, p. 18, who gives 85\n      German square miles.\n\n_  220 Annali d\u2019Italia_, anno 752.\n\n  221 Adolf Menzel, _Geschichte der Deutschen_, Book III. ch. xvi. 448,\n      quoted by von Hoensbroech, p. 34.\n\n  222 Mansi, xii. 546-9. Eleventh letter of the _Codex Carolinus_.\n\n  223 Anastasius.\n\n_  224 I primi Papi-Re_, p. 25.\n\n_  225 I primi Papi-Re_, p. 27.\n\n_  226 Ib._, p. 39.\n\n_  227 Ib._, p. 52.\n\n_  228 Ib._, p. 60-63.\n\n_  229 Anastasius_, Mansi, xii, p. 686.\n\n  230 Mansi, xii. 695-8.\n\n  231 Kellner, p. 475.\n\n  232 Kellner, p. 475.\n\n_  233 I primi Papi-Re_, p. 109, 117.\n\n  234 Kellner, p. 467, from _Anastasius_, who put these words into the\n      mouth of Pope Adrian himself, addressing the ambassadors of\n      Desiderius. Mansi, xii, 726.\n\n_  235 Anastasius_, Mansi, xii. 726.\n\n  236 From _Anastasius_, textually. Mansi, xii. 727.\n\n  237 Kellner, p. 479.\n\n  238 Narrative chiefly drawn from _I primi Papi-Re_, p. 187, etc.\n\n_  239 Anastasius_, literally.\n\n  240 Totum hiberni temporis spatium _multa moliendo_\n      consumpsit\u2014_Annales,_ ann., 773.\n\n_  241 Anastasius_, Mansi xii. 736.\n\n_  242 Anastasius_, Mansi xii. 737.\n\n  243 Brunengo, _I primi Papi-Re_, 241-2.\n\n_  244 Vita Caroli_, M. n. 6. _Fasti Carolini_, found and quoted by Mai.\n\n  245 Muratori, _Annali d\u2019Italia_, a. 774, quoted by Brunengo, _I primi\n      Papi-Re_, p. 260.\n\n  246 For the felicity of _Italian_ subjects of the Lombards, see Troya:\n      _Della condizione dei Romani vinti dai Longobardi_. Brunengo, p.\n      260.\n\n  247 Kellner, ii. 487-9.\n\n  248 Origini, p. 317-319.\n\n_  249 Codex Carolinus_, Ep. (Jaffe) 54.\n\n  250 Rohrbacher-Kellner, p. 489.\n\n  251 From Origini, etc., p. 297.\n\n  252 Origini, p. 271 more or less followed in this page.\n\n  253 Rohrbacher-Kellner, xi. p. 105.\n\n  254 See above, Vol. v. p. 254.\n\n  255 See Vol. v. p. 217.\n\n  256 Kurth, vol. ii. 76.\n\n  257 From Weiss, ii. 537-8.\n\n  258 Reumont, ii. 128-9.\n\n  259 Rohrbacher-Kellner, vol. xi. p. 553.\n\n  260 Phillips, _Kirchenrecht_, vol. iii. 51.\n\n_  261 Anastasius_, Mansi, xiii. 930.\n\n_  262 Anastasius_, Mansi, xiii. 932.\n\n_  263 Anastasius._\n\n  264 Jungmann, _15th Dissertation_, vol. iii. p. 176, translated.\n\n  265 Reumont, ii. 133.\n\n  266 Kurth, ii. 242.\n\n  267 Kurth, ii. 256-8, drawn from.\n\n  268 Hergenr\u00f6ther, _Kirchengeschichte_, i. 507-8.\n\n  269 Phillips, sec. 127, vol. iii. p. 202, 205.","title":"Peter's Rock in Mohammed's Flood, from St. Gregory the Great to St. Leo III","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":153527}