To see how a handful of outlawed, persecuted Christians in Rome became the omnipotent hierarchy of the Middle Ages is to comprehend the most marvellous fact in European history. But when the conditions and forces, which produced this wonderful organisation, are clearly understood, the miracle becomes a natural and an inevitable product.

In the first century of the Christian era Rome was the heart and mistress of the world.[148:1] The Apostle Paul gloried in having introduced Christianity into the great metropolis.[148:2] The Roman Empire had developed an imperial and provincial system of government which was to serve as the model for the organisation of the Christian Church. This decaying Empire, after a futile contest with Christianity, was to become its servant. The mighty Catholic Church was little more than the Roman Empire baptised. Rome was transformed as well as converted. The very capital of the old Empire became the capital of the Christian Empire. The office of Pontifex Maximus was continued in that of Pope. The deeply religious character of the Romans on the one hand, and the inadequate and degenerate religion which they held on the other, were positive and negative forces enabling the Christian Church to make rapid conquests in territory and numbers. Even the Roman language has remained the official language of the Roman Catholic Church down through the ages. Christianity could not grow up through Roman civilisation and paganism, however, without in turn being coloured and influenced by the rites, festivities, and ceremonies of old polytheism. Christianity not only conquered Rome, but Rome conquered Christianity. It is not a matter of great surprise, therefore, to find that from the first to the fourth century the Church had undergone many changes. During the first half of the third century the hierarchical scheme of Church government appeared to reach a very advanced stage of organisation. Cyprian gives us the boldest and broadest claim of the Bishop of Rome to the heirship of Peter. By the fourth century the hierarchical and monarchial principles were fully developed, and the Papacy had begun its wonderful career.

The leading forces operating to develop the Roman hierarchy up to 313 will now be indicated.

1. The fundamental factor which first attracts attention in the consideration of this problem is the obvious advantage in location. In the origin of the civilisation of Western Europe three cities have been conspicuous for their contributions—Jerusalem, Athens, and Rome. Jerusalem, the sacred city, gave Christianity to the West and through the West to the world. Athens, the city of culture, bequeathed philosophy, art, ideals, and science to the Romans, and through them to the Celts, Teutons, and all peoples. Rome, the city of power, overthrew Jerusalem, took Athens captive, received the contributions of both as her right, and on the ruins of both built up her universal sovereignty. The rise of Rome to world dominion is one of the deepest mysteries in history. Rome possessed the matchless capacity of appropriating everything on earth that would contribute to her greatness. When Jesus appeared to give the world Christianity, Rome was the centre of all power and influence.

Rome was in the highest degree adapted to spread civilisation abroad. From Rome influences could be sent out into the world which could not possibly have emanated from Jerusalem or Athens. In fact anything connected with Rome assumed, in consequence, an importance by virtue of Rome's greatness that no other part of the world could give. Christianity in its cosmopolitan character resembled Rome and was drawn thither irresistibly as the best centre for propagandism. Hence, from the outset, the Roman Christian Church was a church of world-wide importance and power, and her bishop the most influential. Out of the ruins of political Rome, arose the great moral Empire in the "giant form" of the Roman Church. In the marvellous rise of the Roman Church is seen in strong relief the majestic office of the Bishop of Rome.[150:1]

2. In addition to the favourable location and extraordinary opportunity that site gave, the fact that the Church, planted in Rome and there organised by Peter and Paul, was thus established on a double apostolic foundation gave to the Bishop of Rome a respected and commanding position from the very outset.[151:1] No other church west of the Adriatic could claim such a distinguished origin. It was both easy and logical, therefore, to make the Bishop of Rome not only a commanding leader in the universal Church, but more particularly the conspicuous head of the Church of the West.[151:2]

3. The theory about Peter's primacy,[151:3] asserted certainly as early as the second century and generally accepted in the third century, gave an indelible character to both the person and office of the Bishop of Rome, and elevated him high above all other officers in the Church. The actual belief in this theory, a fact which cannot be questioned, made possible the realisation of the papal hierarchy. It seems to be an actual fact, likewise, that before the end of the second century the pontiffs of Rome had assumed a title implying a jurisdiction over the whole Christian world as successors and representatives of Peter, the Prince of Apostles. IrenÆus said: "Because, therefore, of her apostolic foundation, and the regular succession of bishops, through whom she hath handed down that which she received from them [the Apostles], all churches, that is, all the faithful around her and on all sides, must on account of her more powerful pre-eminence resort to this church, in which the tradition, which is from the Apostles, is preserved."[151:4] Tertullian, after he had joined the heretical Montanists, accused the Bishop of Rome of assuming the titles of "Pontifex Maximus" and "Bishop of Bishops."[152:1] He complains also that the "Supreme Pontiff" was in the habit of quoting the decisions of his predecessors as conclusive on all disputed questions, and that he furthermore claimed that he himself sat in the chair of St. Peter. These charges show how early the Petrine claims were made and recognised.[152:2]

4. The missionary zeal of the Roman Church soon led to the formation of a number of suburban branches and within a comparatively short period to the spread of Christianity throughout Italy and to other sections of Western Europe.[152:3] These local churches naturally looked to the head of the Church in the great capital for assistance and instruction, and were willing to acknowledge his jurisdiction and pretensions. The episcopal organisation of the Church in the West, which was probably present from the beginning,[152:4] made the transition to the hierarchy comparatively simple. At Rome the process may be more plainly traced than in connection with any other church.

5. The persecutions of the Christians[152:5] centred in Rome and, consequently, made the Bishop of Rome a conspicuous leader, with social and political, as well as religious duties, whose office was frequently sanctified by martyrdom. The persecutions helped to emphasise the necessity of a better organisation on a monarchio-episcopal basis. That organisation became very exclusive,[153:1] and made a responsible head imperative. Who else but the Bishop of Rome could meet the demands? To him was given, by general consent in the West, the headship of the Church and he began to act as the conscious Pope of Christendom.

6. The Bishop of Rome was the only official organ of communication between the East and West. He was the sole Patriarch of all the united West, while the East had four Patriarchs,[153:2] and the sixth canon of the Council of NicÆa confirmed his jurisdiction as an "ancient custom." From Clement (95), whose writings are the earliest of any Bishop of Rome preserved, onward, he speaks in an authoritative tone, not only to the churches of Carthage, Italy, and Gaul, but also to Greece, Asia Minor, Palestine, and Alexandria. Notwithstanding the fact that Alexandria and Antioch also claimed Peter for their founder, yet not one of the four patriarchates attempted to contest Rome's claim to priority of rank.[153:3]

7. The head of the Roman Church was the champion of orthodoxy and kept the Western Church free from schism. The Church of Rome stood consistently for purity in doctrine and steadfastly opposed that Oriental mysticism which polluted the Eastern churches with a host of heretic and theosophic jugglers. Epiphanius gives a list of forty-three distinct heresies in his day. It was no easy matter for the Church of Rome to faithfully combat all these theological vagaries and point out the straight but narrow way. As a reward of her fight for the simple gospel-truth the provincial churches bestowed upon her their affection, confidence, and obedience. They frequently referred for their own guidance to her spiritual experience, in deference and respect they sought her counsels, they watched her course with anxiety and faithfully imitated it, and all these things gave her a singular spiritual influence and authority in this early period, which was not unlike the political power exercised by the city of Rome. Again and again the Bishop of Rome was requested to pass judgment on the various heresies.

8. After the apostolic days, the multitudes who embraced Christianity seemed in many instances to lack the original fervour and spirituality. Hence to control the erring, to correct the heretical, to expel those who brought disgrace to the society, and to protect the faithful, it became necessary to develop some more efficient form of government.[154:1] The Roman model of imperial and local government naturally suggested itself and was either consciously or unconsciously imitated. The gradual transformation of the Bishop of Rome into the Pope of Rome was the product.

9. In the apostolic days the practice generally prevailed of referring all civil, as well as ecclesiastical, disputes between Christians to the arbitrament of their superior ecclesiastical officials. St. Paul even went so far as to forbid his converts to resort to the pagan tribunals.[154:2] This work devolved upon the bishop, as a matter of course, who acted, however, rather with paternal authority and through moral influence, than in accordance with fixed Church law. Thus special duties were laid upon the Bishop of Rome because of his superior rank and extended jurisdiction.

So rapidly did his prerogatives develop that he was early recognised both East and West as, practically, a court of appeal. About 95 A.D., Clement of Rome wrote letters of remonstrance and admonition to settle a wrangle in the church at Corinth, and so respected were these epistles that for a century they were publicly read in the churches. About the year 150 one Marcian was excommunicated by his bishop and appealed to Rome for admission to communion. The petition was refused but it shows the influence of the Bishop of Rome. Polycarp of Smyrna showed at least a dutiful deference in going to Rome to lay before Bishop Anicetus (152) the disputed paschal question. When the East and the West were divided, about 190 A.D., upon the proper day for celebrating Easter, Bishop Victor of Rome assumed the authority to decide on the correct day and insisted that all Christendom conform to his decision. The Eastern churches refused to obey him, it is true, but the Council of NicÆa enforced universal conformity to the day chosen by Victor.[155:1] When Fortunatus and Cyprian of Carthage quarrelled over the former's claim to the title of bishop, Fortunatus appealed to the Bishop of Rome, Cornelius, for official recognition. Cornelius assumed the right to remonstrate with Cyprian and to demand an explanation of his conduct. Cyprian repudiated foreign jurisdiction in the domestic affairs of the African Church, but at the same time recognised Rome as "the chair of Peter—that principal Church whence the sacerdotal unity takes its rise."[156:1] In 252, two Spanish bishops, Basileides and Martialis, were deposed for misconduct by a synod of their province. They appealed to Stephen, Bishop of Rome, who peremptorily ordered that both be reinstated.[156:2] The bishops of Gaul applied to Stephen for advice as to what to do with Marcian, the Bishop of Arles, who had embraced Novatianism.[156:3] In the West, it seems, therefore, that practically all disputes and misunderstandings were referred to the recognised head of the Church for advice and settlement. Again and again the Eastern Patriarchs appealed to the Patriarch of the West for support and his support was usually decisive. Likewise the various factions in the many Eastern schisms strove for favourable decisions from the Roman Bishop. In 260 Bishop Dionysius of Rome called the Patriarch of Alexandria to account for false doctrines. Even a Roman Emperor, Aurelian (270), declared that no one, not appointed by the "bishops of Italy and Rome," should remain in the See of Antioch.[156:4] As a result of these appeals, the power and authority of the Roman Bishop were magnified so that, gradually, he came to claim this exercise as his right, and, in addition, precedents were set which were to become ecclesiastical laws in the next period.[156:5]

10. The idea of one Catholic Church seems to have resulted from the intense struggle against the various forms of heresy, which had divided the early Christians into sects somewhat like the various Protestant denominations of to-day. This conception of ecclesiastical unity and universality had two sides: doctrine and ceremony. To teach the true doctrine and to perpetuate sacramental unity the priesthood was created. The persecutions emphasised the fundamental doctrines which united all Christians and made them conscious of this unity of belief. In order to enforce this uniformity the Bishop of Rome exercised the power of excommunication. Victor took it upon himself to excommunicate the Bishop of Ephesus and his fellow-officials for refusing to conform to the mode of celebrating Easter in the West (190). IrenÆus emphasised the necessity and value of a spiritual unity in the Church,[157:1] and to "the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church" of Rome he conceded the most accurate apostolic tradition.[157:2] He declared that it was "a matter of necessity that every church should agree with this Church, on account of its pre-eminent authority."[157:3] Tertullian spoke of the Catholic Church as if its eternal unity were a common concept.[157:4] It was left to Cyprian, however, to boldly hold up the occupant of the See of Rome as the representative of both the organised and the sacramental unity of the Church beyond which there could be no salvation. In his book on the Unity of the Church, Cyprian asked:

The power of excommunication to preserve the doctrinal unity and purity of the Church implied some share in appointment and administration. From the very beginning, no doubt, the Bishop of Rome had ordained all provincial bishops, and few matters of great importance had been transacted without his consent or approval.[158:2]

The same tendencies and influences that led to the evolution of the bishop in the early local churches for the sake of order and efficiency, produced a centralisation of power in the universal Church. With the growth of the idea that the Church had an outward organisation developed the conscious need of a supreme bishop who could rule the Church somewhat as the Emperor ruled the state. That such a unifying authority was generally understood to exist by the time of Cyprian seems very clear from contemporary testimony. But it took two hundred and fifty years to develop that leadership. There were not wanting, either, on all sides evidences of earlier local independence. The rise of the Papacy was the logical culmination of the episcopal system. It must be remembered that by the time of Bishop Cyprian the Church had undergone a series of wonderful changes. The Church had spread outwardly until the whole Empire was covered and included all ranks. The Church had come to be naturalised in the Empire and was gradually compromising with conditions. Some conception of the part Christianity was to play in the world began to dawn on men's minds. The ascendency of the See of St. Peter was regarded, therefore, quite generally as a necessity.

11. The centralisation of wealth in Rome rendered the Church there the wealthiest in Christendom. These riches were lavishly used, during the first three hundred years, to aid the poorer communities.[159:1] Such favours could not be solicited, or received, without an appreciable sacrifice of independence on the part of the recipients. Ignatius, considering the munificence of the Roman Church, and wishing to confer some special distinction, calls her "the fostering mistress of charity."[159:2]

12. From the time of Peter to Constantine the Great, thirty-two bishops occupied the chair of the Prince of Apostles. The number and character of the members of the Roman Church led to the selection of the ablest of the Western Christians to occupy that important office. These successive bishops, from the weight of their personal influence, transmitted a gradually increasing power. The labours of a few of these remarkable men who filled the Roman See, like Clement, Victor, Callistus, and Stephen, helped powerfully to lay the foundations for the Papacy. Clement's attitude was "almost imperious." Victor in his presumption on the Easter question, Zephyrinus on the assumption of his proud title of Pontifex Maximus and Bishop of Bishops, Callistus concerning lapsed heretics, and Stephen on the baptism of heretics, were all guilty of "hierarchical arrogance."[160:1] Cyprian (d. 258) looked upon Rome as the Cathedra Petri and the Roman Church as the head of the universal Church.[160:2] Thus it may be accepted as an established fact that the Bishop of Rome was generally accepted as Peter's successor, at least in the West, when Emperor Constantine legalised the Christian religion and made it free to complete its organisation and to carry on its propagandism openly. He also increased the wealth and power of the Roman See and made its bishop the undisputed head of the Western Church. At the same time, in removing his capital to Constantinople, Constantine permitted the Roman Bishop to assume imperial prerogatives and encouraged the completion of the Church organisation after the imperial model.

A comparison of the Church in 313 with the Apostolic Church reveals the fact that many pronounced changes and developments had occurred. In extent the Roman Church had spread from the Eternal City over the entire Italian peninsula and then to Spain, France, England, Germany, and Africa, and numbered perhaps 10,000,000 members. In organisation the Church had changed from a democracy to an absolute monarchy, from many local centres of authority to one great world power based on an imperial hierarchy, from communism to paternalism, from decentralisation to centralisation, from apostolic simplicity to worldly grandeur, and from a spiritual organisation to one largely political. The spiritual shepherd of the flock at Rome had come to claim and to exercise superior prerogatives over Western Europe and to serve the Roman Emperor as virtually his spiritual adviser. In wealth and culture, too, the Church had become a powerful social, industrial, and educational factor.

In institutions, rites, and ceremonies, as well as in organisation, the Church of the third and fourth centuries was very different from that of the first. A pompous ritualism with suggestions of image worship had been introduced.[161:1] Great emphasis had come to be laid upon the sanctity and power of holy water,[161:2] sacred relics and places, pilgrimages, and the use of the cross.[161:3] The development of new ideas in reference to the merit of external works resulted in asceticism and a celibate priesthood, fanatical martyrdom, indiscriminate almsgiving, and various patent methods for spiritual benefits. At the same time the number of Church festivals had greatly increased and now included Easter, Pentecost, Epiphany, and various saints' days.[161:4]

These new ideas and practices naturally gave the priest the lofty position of mediator between God and man. A differentiation in the ministry gradually crept in as an outcome of the hierarchical spirit. The Bishop of Rome was elevated above all bishops as God's chosen representative on earth. The bishops were exalted above all the presbyters or priests. The priests in turn held a position far superior to the subordinate officials, who had now come to include sub-deacons, readers, acolytes, precentors or cantors, janitors, exorcists,[162:1] and other officials of minor importance.[162:2] These under officers likewise were cut off from the laity by a pronounced gulf.[162:3]

To conduct the general affairs of the Church, synods and councils of the clergy came into existence as early as the second century.[162:4] Roman or Greek assemblies may have suggested the form of the synod, though it is more probable that they sprang spontaneously out of the needs of the Church. These meetings at first were irregular and very informal and resulted either in resolutions with no binding force on the dissentient minority, or in a letter. There were four classes of councils: (1.) The synod of a single diocese which probably existed from the beginning. (2.) The provincial council of the bishops of several dioceses. This type began early in the second century. (3.) General councils consisting of the bishops of several provinces. (4.) Universal councils representing the whole Church. When Constantine gave Christianity legal recognition, councils became more common for the purpose of formulating common rules and dogmas, as for instance Arles (314). After the Council of NicÆa in 325 the validity of earlier decisions was recognised and given the force of imperial law. Thus had the councils changed in a few years from local to general, from recommending to sovereign bodies.[163:1]

Paralleling this remarkable evolution in the organisation of the Church was a marked departure from the simplicity and purity of the early Christian life on the part of both clergy and laity. The "Apostolical Constitutions," the "Canons of the Holy Apostles," and the decrees of the councils of Elvira (306), Arles (314), Neo-CÆsarea (314), and NicÆa (325) all reveal the worldliness of the clergy in the laws passed against their engaging in worldly pursuits, frequenting taverns and gambling houses, accepting usury, habits of vagrancy, taking bribes, and immorality. Because the multitude of pagan converts were carrying their ideas and practices into the Church, many corrective measures were enacted against this degeneration. The licentiousness of the clergy became a still more crying sin among the laity, for it was unreasonable to expect the rank and file to be better than their leaders.

FOOTNOTES:

[148:1] Acts xix., 21; xxiii., 11; xxv., 11; xxviii., 14 ff.