A short history of the papacy

Preface

AHISTOEY of the Papacy must claim to be, through many centuries, a history of the world. The author of a short history of the Papacy has therefore to choose between two alternatives, and either to construct a chronology of events or to concentrate on the moments of great importance, connecting them by a thin thread of narrative from which much that is relevant will be omitted for lack of space. I have tried to follow the second method in writing this book, and I must ask the indulgence of those whose interest in the Papacy is chiefly concentrated in some special aspect or epoch or sphere of influence if this is very slightly indicated or even entirely omitted. If we admit that religion has a claim to penetrate every department of life, we must concede to the Papacy, as a spiritual institution, the obligation to exert its influence in every sphere of human activity. We cannot, in a short book, follow the Popes in the whole wide sweep of their spiritual imperium. But I have tried here to give a continuous account of its evolution in history, and particularly to concentrate on the intellectual principles by which the Papacy has been supported or opposed.

History is not theology, and I have tried to keep the narrative free from doctrinal controversy. But a

vii viii A SHOET HISTOKY OF THE PAPACY

true interpretation of the historical Papacy must be one in which the emphasis is laid, negatively as well as positively, on the spiritual idea in which it was conceived.

I wish to thank those who have helped me with advice and guidance, and in particular my friend and tutor, Mr. Edward Armstrong, to whom the conception of the book and much else is due. I also wish to thank my brother, Captain L. E. Ottley for making the index, which my absence from England obliged me to leave to him. I am indebted to my husband for preparing the maps.

MAEY I. M. BELL

CONTENTS dPTER PAGE

PEEFACE vii

THE POPES xi

PAET I THE EISE OF SPIRITUAL POWER

I. THE ORIGIN OF SPIRITUAL POWER 3

II. THE CONVERSION OF CONSTANTINE AND ITS EFFECTS,

III. THE FALL OF ROME TO THE COUNCIL OF EPHESUS,

IV. LEO THE GREAT: THE HUNS AND THE VANDALS,

V. GOTHIC RULE, a.d. 461-568 28

VI. MORAL SUPREMACY: THE EPOCH OF GREGORY THE

Part II The Dark Ages

VII. THE BREACH BETWEEN EAST AND WEST—

Part I. — The Opening of the Breach, a.d. 604-701 - - 51 Part II. — The Widening of the Gulf, a.d. 704-751 - - 55 VIII. THE APPEAL TO THE FRANKS, AND THE REVIVAL OF

THE WESTERN EMPIRE, a.d. 741-800 - 60

IX. DECAY OF THE CAROLINGIAN EMPIRE, a.d. 800-867 - 72 X. ARISTOCRATIC TYRANNY AND SUBJECT POPES, a.d. 867-954 82 XI. THE BEGINNINGS OF REFORM : THE POPES AND THE

XII. THE PAPACY UNDER HILDEBRAND, a.d. 1046-1085—

Part I. — Hildebrand 105

Part II. — Gregory VII. 114

ix

CHAPTER

XIII.

XIV.

XV.

XVI.

XVII.

XVIII.

XIX.

XX.

XXI.

Part III The Middle Ages Page

THE INVESTITURE WAR, a.d. 1085-1122 - - - - 127

THE REPUBLICAN MOVEMENT, a.d. 1122-1179 - - - 142 CONSOLIDATION OF PAPAL MONARCHY : THE EPOCH OF

THE CONTEST WITH FREDERICK STUPOR MUNDI - - 167 THE LAST STRUGGLE WITH THE HOHENSTAUFEN AND

THE COMING OF THE FRENCH, a.d. 1251-1276 - - 178 THE FALL OF THE MEDIEVAL PAPACY : BONIFACE VIII.,

THE BABYLONISH CAPTIVITY AND THE BEGINNINGS OF

THE INTELLECTUAL REVIVAL, a.d. 1303-1334 - - 201

WHEN ISRAEL CAME OUT OF EGYPT, a.d. 1334-1370 - 215

THE SCHISM AND THE COUNCILS, a.d. 1370-1418 - - 227

Part IV The Renaissance And The Reformation

XXII. THE RECOVERY: MARTIN V. AND EUGENIUS IV., a.d.

1418-1447 247

XXIII. THE RENAISSANCE POPES, a.d. 1447-1471 - - - - 262

XXIV. THE SECULAR PAPACY, 1471-1503 279

XXV. JULIUS II. AND LEO X.: THE PAPACY AMONG THE

XXVI. THE REFORMATION, a.d. 1517-1550 311

XXVII. THE SEVENTEENTH CENTURY ------ 345

Part V The Papacy In Modern History

XXVIII. THE COUNTER-REFORMATION, a.d. 1555-1605 - - - 329

XXIX. THE CENTURY OF THE ENLIGHTENMENT, a.d. 1700-1846 360

XXX. CONCLUSION 373

INDEX 387

MAPS

FACING PAGE

I. ITALY IN THE MIDDLE AGES - - - - -* - 142 II. CENTRAL EUROPE - - 329

THE POPES

A.D.

A.D.

S. Peter.

»67

Linus.

*68

Clement.

>78.

Anacletue.

*91.

Clement.

uoo

Evarestus.

Alexander.

Sixtus I.

Telesphorus.

Hyginus.

Pius I.

Anicetus.

Soter.

Eleutherius.

Victor (?)

Zephyrinus (?)

Calixtus I.

Urban I.

Pontianus.

Anterius.

Fabianus.

Cornelius.

Lucius I.

Stephen I.

Sixtus II.

Dionysius.

Felix.

Eutychianus.

Caius.

Marcellinus.

Vacancy.

Marcellus I.

Eusebius.

Melchiades.

Sylvester I.

Marcus I.

Julius I.

Liberius.

Felix (anti-pope).

Damasus I.

Siricius.

Anastasius I.

Innocent I.

Zosimus.

Boniface I.

Eulalius (anti-pope).

Celestine I.

Sixtus III.

Leo I. (the Great).

Hilarius.

Simplicius.

Felix III.

Gelasius I.

Anastasius II.

Symmachus.

Laurentius (anti-pope).

Hormisdas.

John I.

Felix IV.

Boniface II.

Dioscorus (anti-pope).

John II.

Agapetus I.

Silverius.

Vigilius.

Pelagius I.

John III.

Benedict I.

Pelagius II.

Gregory I. (the Great).

Sabinianus.

Boniface III.

Boniface IV.

Deusdedit.

Boniface V.

Honorius I.

Severinus.

John IV.

Theodorus I.

Martin I.

Eugenius I.

Vitalianus.

Adeodatus.

Donus I.

1 These dates cannot be taken as historically proven. They rest on evidence varying in its degree of authenticity.

XI

Xll

A.D.

A.D.

Agatho.

Agapetus II.

Leo II.

John XII.

683.(?) Benedict II.

Leo VIII.

John V.

Benedict V. (anti-pope).

John XIII.

Sergius I.

Benedict VI.

Paschal (anti-pope).

Boniface VII. (anti-pope).

Theodore ,,

Domnus II. (?).

John VI.

Benedict VII.

John VII.

John XIV.

Sisinnius.

John XV.

Constantine.

Gregory V.

Gregory II.

John XVI. (anti-pope).

Gregory III.

Sylvester II.

Zacharias.

John XVII.

Stephen (II.).

John XVIII.

Stephen II. (or III.).

Sergius IV.

Paul I.

Benedict VIII.

Constantine (anti-pope).

John XIX.

Stephen III. (or IV.).

Benedict IX,

Hadrian I.

Sylvester (anti-pope).

Leo in.

Gregory VI.

Stephen IV.

Clement II.

Paschal I.

Damasus II.

Eugenius II.

Victor II.

Valentinus.

Stephen IX.

Gregory IV.

Benedict X.

Sergius II.

Nicholas II.

Leo IV.

Alexander II.

Benedict III.

Gregory VII. (Hildebrand)

Anastasius (anti-pope).

Clement (anti-pope).

Nicholas I.

Victor III.

Hadrian II.

Urban II.

John VIII.

Paschal II.

Martin II.

Albert (anti-pope).

Hadrian III.

Sylvester ,,

Stephen V.

Gelasius.

Formosus.

Gregory (anti-pope).

Boniface VI.

Calixtus II.

Stephen VI.

Celestine (anti-pope).

Roinanus.

Honorius II.

Theodore II.

Innocent II.

John IX.

Anacletus (anti-pope).

Benedict IV.

Victor „

Leo V.

Celestine II.

Christopher.

Lucius II.

Sergius III.

Eugenius IH.

Anastasius HI.

Anastasius IV.

Lando.

Hadrian IV.

JohnX.,

Alexander HI.

Leo VI.

Victor (anti-pope).

Stephen VII.

Paschal „

John XI.

Calixtus „

Leo VII.

Lucius in.

Stephen VIH.

Urban HI.

Martin III.

Gregory VIII.

THE POPES

A.D.

A.D.

Clement HI.

Innocent Vin.

Celestine III.

Alexander VI.

Innocent HL

Pius HI.

Honorius m.

Julius H.

Gregory IX.

LeoX.

Celestine IV.

Hadrian VI.

Innocent IV.

Clement VH.

Alexander IV.

Paul HI.

Urban IV.

Julius in.

Clement IV.

Marcellus H.

Vacancy.

Paul IV.

Gregory X.

Pius IV.

Innocent V.

Pius V.

Hadrian V.

Gregory XHI.

John XX. (or

XXI.)

Sixtus V.

Nicholas HI.

Urban VH.

Martin IV.

Gregory XIV.

Honorius IV.

Innocent IX.

Nicholas IV.

Clement VIII.

Vacancy.

Leo XI.

Celestine V.

Paul V.

Boniface VHI.

Gregory XV.

Benedict XI.

Urban VHI.

Clement V.

Innocent X.

Vacancy.

Alexander VH.

John XXI. (oi xxn.)

Clement IX.

Benedict XH.

Clement X.

Clement VI.

Innocent XI.

Innocent VI.

Alexander Vin

Urban V.

Innocent XH.

Gregory XI.

Clement XI.

Urban VI.

Innocent XHI.

Clement VH.

[anti-pope).

Benedict XHI.

Boniface IX.

Clement XH.

Benedict (antipope).

Benedict XIV.

Innocent VH.

Clement XHI.

Gregory XH.

Clement XIV.

Alexander V.

Pius VI.

John XXn. (or XXIII.)

Pius VH.

Martin V.

LeoXH.

Eugenius IV.

Pius vm.

Felix V. (anti-pope).

Gregory XVI.

Nicholas V.

Pius IX.

Calixtus IV.

LeoXm.

PiusH.

PiusX.

Paul n.

Benedict XV.

Sixtus IV.

**TT

Xlll

Chapter I The Origin Of Spiritual Power

" X" IKE almost all the great works of nature and of humanx power, the Papacy grew up in silence and obscurity."^ -* — * But the silence is as eloquent as the obscurity is emblematic of the great future ; for both served as hidden sources whence the makers of the Papacy were to draw their warrants in later generations, for temporal accretion as well as spiritual expansion.

fThe history of the Papacy has no definite beginning. We may accept the assertion that Leo I., or possibly his forerunner Innocent, was in fact the first Pope — the first Bishop of Rome, that is, who claimed a distinct spiritual overlordship. But the fifth century cannot be isolated from the ages which preceded it, for an epoch can only stand out in relation to the period which leads up to it. /To St. Peter and the legends of St. Peter the historian must look for the birth of the Papacy, if for no other reason than because it was to the age of St. Peter that the architects of papal power turned in their efforts to construct a historical basis for their magnificent conception. /

But it is in this that the modern historian of the Papacy differs most widely from his early predecessors, for he has to cope with the acts of St. Peter, not as historical landmarks to be proved or disproved, but as ideas of the greatest importance, in so far as they become articles of faith to the supporters of papal power or canons of unbelief to its opponents. Whether St. Peter actually founded the Papacy, or whether the Popes evolved the legend that he did so, is irrelevant to the story of the Papacy, and we can fortunately leave it to theologians to decide as to the degree of probability which the facts warrant, and their validity as arguments for or against the great cause in which they were afterwards pleaded.

( Of St. Peter's own Bishopric of Rome nothing is known, and even tradition is comparatively silent, j His death in the year 64 is, however, so well attested by the earliest traditions, and so consistently dwelt upon, that there seems no reason for doubting its occurrence at that date. By the year 200 the tomb of the two Apostles is shown by Caius. Moreover, the traditional date of St. Peter's martyrdom coincides with the date of the burning of Rome and the Neronian persecution which followed. From the earliest beginnings, the See of Rome is associated with the name of St. Peter, and by the middle of the second century it is mentioned by Irenseus, Clement, Origen, and Tertullian. In the third century it is already used by the Popes as a claim to supremacy, and it is remarkable that the legend, though resting on no definite authority, is at least suffered to pass unchallenged. "It is clear that the first Bishops of Rome were in no sense of the word spiritual lords of Christendom. They were obscure and for the most part insignificant persons, who 1 walked their unassuming way unchallenged by the State and unnoticed save by the little Greek colony of believers who looked on them as shepherds. > We know practically nothing of these precursors of papal history save where their shadowy forms are occasionally brought to light in the glare of persecution. Their names alone come down to us, attached by the loving piety of later ages to the fictitious title of martyr, j This much is embodied in the various lists of the first four centuries, which have a value above and beyond their intrinsic worth, as showing that the succession to the Roman bishopric was a matter of interest, even of controversy, among distant ecclesiastics.

The earliest of these which is still extant is that of St. Irenseus (c. 160) and the widest known is the "Catalogus Liberianus " from which was taken the earliest edition of the " Liber Pontificalis ". Of the information which can be gleaned from other sources, there is a general absence of any mention of the bishops themselves, and still less can we gather anything like a conception of the relations in which they stood either towards their own immediate flock or towards that wider dominion which they were afterwards to claim. The first to lift the veil which hides the nascent Papacy completely from view was St. Clement, the third successor of the Apostles. His letter to the Church at Corinth is one of the most remarkable documents with which the historian of the early Church has to deal, and it is tempting to regard it as typical of the moment in papal history to which it belongs. In that case, the Roman Church is still in this early period very Jewish in character. The fall of Jerusalem in the year 70 had brought a fresh influx of Jews to Rome and an edict of Tolerance following on the proscriptions of Nero further strengthened the Semitic element which had from the first been predominant. But at the same time, there had been converts in high places ; members

of great families, such as the Pomponii, the Acilii, and the Flavii were counted among the Xazarites, and in the years 91 and 95 there were two Christian consuls, one of whom suffered martyrdom. St. Clement is however a Roman of Romans : he gives expression to the patriotism and self-esteem becoming in a citizen of the world capital, and his letter to the distracted Church seems to show that the Roman genius for organisation is already crystallising into conceptions of hierarchy.

Even more interesting is the book of the peasant or 11 Yeoman " Hermas, which was finished about a.d. 140. The " Shepherd of Hermas " has been called " The great examination of the conscience of the Roman Church," and the title is the more significant when we remember the simple piety of the author and the sincerity with which he makes his enquiry. The theme of the book is penitence, but the main interest rests in the detail in which the conditions of sinners enlighten us as to the early Christian community. The chief defect arraigned is the frequency of apostasy, which is hardly surprising when one reflects how rapidly converts were swept in, and how fiercely the storms of persecution beat against their untried faith. The Shepherd of Hermas is an admonition rather than an apology, and yet the picture it gives of the community of Christian Rome is on the whole surprisingly felicitous. We feel that it is a society which is defective but very sincere, that the very severity with which its shortcomings are denounced testifies to the purity of its ideal. The quarrels among the clergy were deplored just because they were true Shepherds ; apostasy was common, but Christian heroism was the rule.

The admonitions of Hermas were well-timed, for a stronger enemy was at hand. In the middle of the second century, heresy first made its appearance in Rome in the form of Marcionism, against which Justin Martyr spent his energy in waging war. Thus already by the third century Rome is regarded as the gravitating-point for aggressive heresiarchs : she alone must arbitrate even as she alone can define the truth.

The spiritual prestige of the Eternal City grew apace throughout the second century. St. Ignatius refers to her as " she who hath presidency in the place of the region of the Romans," and the context, while omitting all mention of the Episcopal office, ascribes the ascendancy to a kind of social and municipal priority which the Roman Church naturally borrowed from the political autocracy of the city. The so-called Clementina erected for her the fictionary tradition of orthodox championship through the legend of St. Peter and Simon Magus,

6 A SHOBT HISTOBY OF THE PAPACY

and henceforth vague petrarchal legends are interwoven with well-defined tradition as instruments of aggressive warfare against the spiritual foes of the Roman Bishop.

The story of Christianity in the third century has two main characteristics, and each of these has its bearing on the development of the Papacy.

We are confronted, on the one hand, with the phenomenon of heresy, which grew apace in the uncertain soil of the primitive Church ; and, on the other hand, we stand face to face with the splendid drama of Christian heroism which the age of persecution presents.

The first of these two forces, the growth of heresy, has indeed a negative importance which outweighs its positive influence on the Roman Church. It was mainly because Rome was so little affected by the various waves of fantastic speculation which swept the whole of Christendom during this period that the Apostolic See was enabled to lay its foundations so steadily and unobtrusively in the formative age of ecclesiastical history. The contrast between East and West in this connection has often been dwelt upon, and indeed, it is said, with perhaps undue emphasis. But it would be hard to deny the truth, or to exaggerate the importance of the distinction which eternally separates the practical genius of the methodical West from the mystical dreaminess of the Oriental mind. At the same time, it was not in vain that heresiarchs flocked to Rome for a hearing, and as early as a.d. 130 the Marcionite sect had planted the first alien seed in the virgin soil of the Roman Church. But the attitude of the sainted Polycarp, when, as a visitor in Rome, he was confronted with Marcion, is typical of the stainless orthodoxy which always characterised the majority of Roman Christians. "Knowest thou me?" asked the heretic. "Yea, I recognise the first-born of Satan," answered the martyr, and St. Justin instantly took up the cudgels for the Church, which never lacked a champion when her truths were menaced by the onset of fanaticism.

Marcionism was but the first of a long series of weary internal struggles which left their influence on the Roman Church, although none were indigenous in their growth. Still more influential was the hold which Montanism gained over the Roman people, attracting converts, as is so often the case, by the very repulsiveness of its severity and gloom. The chief Roman opponent of Montanism was Hippolytus, the prototype of Luther and the patron saint of heretics, who is in some ways the most remarkable figure of the period. He is chiefly

associated with the greater struggle to which Montanism gave place — that of Monarchianism, or Patripassionism. This contest, which lasted through three pontificates, originated in the attempt of one Praxeas to harmonise Christianity with the spirit of Hellenism. But the subtleties involved in the delicate conception of the Logos were altogether too much for the Roman mind, untrained as it was in metaphysical abstractions. Three successive Popes were bewildered and harassed by the contention ; each took refuge in a different line of policy, and all were equally unsuccessful in effecting a conclusion. Pope Victor contented himself with condemning Sabellius, who had unwisely ventured to mediate, and thus made himself the scapegoat of both the opposing parties. Zephyrinus, Victor's successor, is the first Pope of whose personality we have any real hint in the somewhat colourless annals of the time. He seems to have been a vacillating person of inferior intellect, dominated by the stronger mental capacities of his major-domo and successor, Callixtus. Zephyrinus reigned for nineteen years without making up his mind in any one consistent direction on the great doctrinal controversy. At one moment he identifies himself with the " Patripassions " ; at another he publicly retracts his self- committal. Throughout, he was consistently opposed by the relentless logic of Hippolytus — the one man who had the courage to face the problem whose intricacies paralysed the whole of Western Christendom. Branded by the title of Ditheist, and goaded into schism by the inconsistencies of the Pope, Hippolytus cut himself off from the orthodox Church just at the moment when Callixtus was elected to succeed his patron as Bishop of Rome. If the attack of Hippolytus on Zephyrinus reveals the contempt of the zealot for the nonentity — of intellectual vigour for mental lethargy — in his indictment of Callixtus a deeper personal rancour can be traced, in which the indignation of the intrepid heretic is stirred against the dishonest subterfuges of the unworthy champion of orthodoxy. Not content with exposing the inconsistency of the impossible doctrinal compromise put forward by Callixtus, he writes a polemic against his not invulnerable career, ending in a vigorous attack on his indulgence towards offending brethren. It is remarkable that the first great antipope should also be in a sense the father of papal history. His chronicle, written apparently in the year 235, became the skeleton of the famous " Liber Pontificalis," whose many editions form the chief sources of early papal chronology.

The great Monarchian controversy was brought to an abrupt conclusion by the persecution of Maximinian. By the third century, it is important to notice that a definite policy towards Christianity was a necessary part of the political programme of the Emperors. The tempered hostility of Marcus Aurelius, based on the antithesis between stoicism and enthusiasm, paled before the dissolute ardour of his successors. But the persecutions of the third century were produced rather by sudden flashes of imperial caprice and intolerance than by a settled resentment and suspicion, such as underlay the earlier outbursts of hostility. Not only was the time past when Christianity could be ignored, but the moment had come when resistance to its gathering tide had broken down. Persecution had given it a history, and the failure of the State to extinguish it had but vindicated its claim to exist as an integral part of the Roman system. Rome dared no longer to oppose a force which she could not control, and by a sudden change of front she adopted into her favour the society which she had failed to extinguish. Hereafter she was to renew her own youth in the young life of a community deriving its vitality from the power of a doctrine in which strange and familiar ideas seemed to be startlingly blended.

Chapter II The Conversion Of Constantine And Its Effects

IN the year 312, the religion of the Pope became the religion of the Emperor. The scene on the Campagna, which has been variously regarded as the cause, the symbol, or the pretext of the conversion of Constantino, was not merely a dramatic finale to the era of persecution. It marks in a real sense the first great political revolution of papal history. The vision of the naming Cross which gave to Constantine his empire, gave also to the Papacy the standard of mediaeval Christendom. The third century had not after all done more than make it possible for a strong Bishop to assert his own individuality, and impart something of his personal prestige to the dignity of his office. But the Bishop of Rome as the High Priest of the State religion, the " accredited functionary " of imperial ceremonies, is a totally different person from the uninfluential leader of an obscure sect which is persecuted or tolerated according to the deviating policy of the Emperor of the moment.

It may be true that Constantine was " great " in his achievements rather than his character, and certainly it is hard to reconcile what we know of his personal life with anything approaching to the Christian ideal. But the edict of Milan, which constitutes the charter of endowment of Western Christianity, is the work of a strong man who does not shrink from giving the boldest expression to his convictions — whether political or religious, or both — in terms of uncompromising definition. Nothing better illustrates the importance which was attached to Constantine's relationship to the Papacy than the legend of his baptism by Pope Silvester, and the myth of the Donation which was built up on it, and embodied in the celebrated forgery of the eighth century. The legend exaggerates his zeal for the faith of his adoption while it depreciates his statesmanship, and gives rise to the poet's invective —

Of how much ill was cause Not thy conversion, but those rich domains That the first wealthy Pope received of thee.

The fictionary grant was founded on the authentic edict by which Constantino endowed the Roman See with the right of holding property and receiving it by bequest, and thus laid the foundations of temporal power.

So far the work of Constantino in augmenting the papal power was but the consequence of his partial, or at least formal conversion, but his career has a still wider significance in the early development of the Papacy. When the Emperor adopted the religion of the Pope and raised him to pre-eminence in the imperial city, no one dreamed that Constantine was adopting Silvester as heir to his prerogative in the world's capital. And yet for posterity it has this meaning. The foundation of new Rome in 330 was a heavy blow to the prestige of the Mother City, and the domination which the Bishop instantly assumed was a remarkable concurrence of the expedient and the inevitable. Bereft of the sacred presence of a Caesar who had lost interest in its welfare, the capital of the empire must have fallen a prey to invasion from without, or sedition from within, while such Byzantine influences as would have penetrated its walls from the nominal seat of government, would sap its vigour and saturate it with Oriental apathy. That such a state of things was avoided was due solely and entirely to the rise of the Papacy. It was to her Bishop that the city turned in her bereavement for consolation ; to him she looked for a new insignia and a new raison d'etre, and in his religion she sought another tradition to replace the majesty of imperial presence which had been rudely wrested from her crown. That the Popes were ready, and more than ready, to accept the burden of sovereignty, and to take up the sceptre which lay at their feet, must be accepted as a sign of their political energy rather than regretted as a stigma of worldliness. Everything pointed to the legitimacy of such authority, and there was as yet no hint of that dualism between Church and State which seems to us in the light of subsequent history so inevitable. After all, the High Priest of the Hebraic tradition and the Pontifex Maximus of the Romans themselves had never been called upon to apologise for their plenipotentiary powers, and it would be unreasonable to expect political thought of the fourth century to grasp a distinction which the last epoch of the Middle Ages was unable to formulate.

The actual history of the Papacy in the fourth century is soon told, for the atmosphere is still very obscure, and what we

THE CONVEESION OF CONSTANTINE 11

know about the Popes themselves bears a very slight proportion to the extent of their importance.

The first characteristic which marks the papal policy is the completeness of the separation between East and West. This is illustrated in a remarkable degree by the attitude of the Popes towards the great Trinitarian controversy which monopolised the energy of Eastern Christendom throughout the first half of the fourth century. In the early period of the strife, the attitude of Rome is distinctly lukewarm; Silvester stands aloof from the conflict, and his counsels are all for peace. He is represented at Nicsea by two presbyters, who take very little part in the proceedings, while he himself rigidly maintains an attitude of dignified aloofness which probably proceeded as much from lack of interest as from the instinct of caution. It seemed to the Western mind, as it at first appeared to Constantine himself, vague, unreal, and wordy — the argument turned on a metaphysical distinction expressed in terms of Oriental abstraction. But just as Constantine himself became convinced when deeper issues showed themselves, so the Pope found his defences giving way when the second phase of the struggle brought him face to face with the practical consequences of the schism.

In 340, the great champion of orthodoxy was for a second time banished from his See by Constantius, the most dissolute of Constantine's unworthy successors. Athanasius, understanding that the next move in the Arian programme was to win over the Pope, instantly withdrew to Rome. The extraordinary fascination of the " puny little man " with the great soul, whose sweetness of character blended so felicitously with the strength of his convictions, no doubt gave him a natural power of success as an evangelist, and for two years he taught the Romans what was really involved in the great central doctrine of Christianity, till all vestiges of suspicion of " Orientalism " was dispelled from their minds and from that of Pope Julius himself. But probably more effective than any dialectic victory with the people of Rome was the argument of experience which the Eastern situation afforded. Athanasius might plead for the purity of Christian doctrine with the eloquence born of unswerving faith, he might appeal to the orthodox tradition which the past had already associated with Christian Rome ; but he had only to turn the eyes of his hearers over the sea to Alexandria and Anfcioch, where pagans and Arians were united in persecution and sacrilege, and the practical mind of Rome would not be slow to recognise the significance of such an alliance. In 342, Julius declared Athanasius to be innocent and his doctrine orthodox, and a little later, he summoned a Council at Sardica to give universal expression to the same verdict.

But the Arian Bishops were not prepared for an oecumenical settlement of this kind, and at the last moment they withdrew under a pretext of recall, setting up a hostile assembly at Philippopolis. At a confirmatory Council at Milan, the Western Church, under the auspices of Pope and Emperor, formally registered its orthodoxy, and thus ratified the breach between East and West which Sardica had disclosed. The first phase of Roman intervention closes here, and the second is less creditable to the Holy See. In 352, Julius was succeeded by Liberius, who inherited from his predecessor his zealous championship of Athanasius and his cause. But conditions became more complicated owing to the death of the orthodox Constans, leaving Constantius in 353 sole Emperor of new and old Rome. In 355, a Council was summoned to Milan by the Emperor to lodge fresh charges against Athanasius and secure his condemnation in the West. But the Church of the West justified its independence, and Constantius, behind the arras, heard himself denounced in terms which dumbiounded his Eastern followers. An imperial fulmination followed, against which the Church had as yet no valid weapons to employ. So three Bishops were immediately driven into banishment, and after an interval in which to reconsider his position, Liberius followed them, full of venerable courage and noble intention. But two years of the misery of exile broke the old man's spirit, which had at first soared high among the ideals of Athanasius and led him to refuse gifts sent by his imperial antagonist in words of haughty disdain. " You have desolated the Churches of Christendom," he said to the eunuch who brought him the gold of Constantius, "and then you offer me alms as a convict. Go, first learn to be a Christian."