§ 26. THE EMPEROR-rArACY AXD THE HIERARCHY. 13?
§ 26. The Emperor- Papacy and the Hierarchy
And this, in point of fact, took place first under Constantine, and developed under his successors, particularly under Justinian, into the system of the Byzantine imperial papacy, or of the supremacy of the state over the church.
Constantine once said to the bishops at a banquet, that he also, as a Christian emperor, was a divinely appointed bishop, a bishop over the external aifairs of the church, while the internal affairs belonged to the bishops proper.'^ In this pregnant word he expressed the new posture of the civil sovereign toward the church in a characteristic though indefinite and equivocal way. He made there a distinction between two divinely authorized episcopates; one secular or imperial, corresponding with the old office of Pontifex Maximus, and ex-
' In England and Scotland the terra Erastianism is used for this ; but is less general, and not properly applicable at all to the Greek church. For the man who furnished the word, Thomas Erastus, a learned and able physician and professor of medicine in Heidelberg (died at Basle in Switzerland, 1583), was an opponent not only of the independence of the church toward the state, but also of the church ban and of the presbyterial constitution and discipline, as advocated / Frederick III., of the Palatinate, and the authors of the Heidelberg Catechism, especially Olevianus, a pupil of Calvin. He was at last excommunicated for his views by the church council iu Heidelberg.
" His words, which are to be taken neither in jest and pun (as Neander supposes), nor as mere compliment to the bishops, but in earnest, run thus, in Eusebius : Vita Const. 1. iv. c. 24: 'T/xeTs (the tViVKOTrof addressed) /xei' tSuv e'[(rai rrjs iKKKrjirias, iyoo 5e rwv iKrhs virh ^eoii Ka^eaTa/xivos iiriaKoiros tiv drjv. All depends here on the intrepretation of the antithesis tmi> dau and tCjv iKrhi rrjs (KK\r)(rias. (a) The explanation of Stroth and others takes the genitive as masculine, ol dace denoting Christians, and ol (kt6^ heathens ; so that Constantine ascribed to himself only a sort of episcopate Mt partibus infidelium. But this contradicts the connection ; for Eusebius says immediately after, that he took a certain religious oversight over all his subjects (tous apx^/ufvovs air avr as iireffKOTrfi, etc.), and calls him also elsewhere a "universal bishop" (i. 44). (b) Gieseler's interpretation is no« much better (I. 2. § 92, not. 20, Amer. ed. vol. i. p. 371) : that ol 4KT6i denotes all his B'lbjeets, Christian as well as non-Christian, but only in their civil relations, so far aa ihey are outside the church. This entirely blunts the antithesis with ol dcru, and puts into the emperor's mouth a mere commonplace instead of a new idea; for no one doubted his political sovereignty, (c) Tlie genitive is rather to be taken as neuter in both cases, and irpayyiaTaiv to be supplied. This agrees with usage (we find i( in Polybius), and gives a sense which agrees with the view of Eusebius and (vith thi
134 THEED PERIOD. A.D. 311-590.
tending over the whole Roman empire, therefore eecumeiiical or universal ; the other spiritual or sacerdotal, divided among the diflereut diocesan bishops, and appearing properly in its unity and totality only in a general council.
Accordingly, though not yet even baptized, he acted as the patron and universal temporal bishop of the church;' summoned the first oecumenical council for the settlement of tho controversy respecting the divinity of Christ ; instituted and deposed bishops ; and occasionally even delivered sermons to the people ; but on the other hand, with genuine tact (tliougli this was in his earlier period, a. d. 314), kept aloof from the Donatist controversy, and referred to the episcopal tribunal aa the highest and last resort in piu'ely spiritual matters. In the exercise of his imperial right of supervision he did not follow any clear insight and definite theory so much as an instinctive impulse of control, a sense of politico-religious duty, and the requirements of the time. His word only raised, did not solve, the question of the relation between the imperial and the sacerdotal episcopacy and the extent of their respective jurisdictions in a Christian state.
This question became thenceforth the problem and the strife of history both sacred and secular, ran through the whole aiediseval conflict between emperor and pope, between imperial and hierarchical episcopacy, and recurs in modified form in every Protestant establisiied chui-ch.
In general, from this time forth .the prevailing view was, that God has divided all power between the priesthood and the kingdom (sacerdotium et imperiura), giving internal or spiritual afi'airs, especially doctrine and worship, to the former, and external or temporal affairs, such as government and discipline,
whole practice of Constantino. There ia, however, of course, another question What is the proper distinction between reb elf<ru) and to e'KTo'y, the interna and externa of the church, or, what is much the same, between the sacerdotal jus in sacra anc the imperial jus circa sacra. This Constantino and liis age certainly could not themselves exactly define, since the whole relation was at that time aa yet new and undeveloped.
' Eusebius in fact calls liim a divinely appointed universal bishop, oTd m Koivh t iiriffKOiros iic ^fov KadeirrafifVOi, (TuvoSou? rwi' rov deov XfiTovpyoit' avvfKpS-rci- Vit. Const, i. 44. His son Constantius was fond of being called " bishop of bishops**