[ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

State, either in favour of the right of private judgement, or
in favour of the Church. The former, theoretically, involves
anarchy; the latter involves two authorities, Church and State,
with no clear principle according to which their spheres are to
be delimited. Which are the things that are Caesar s and which
are the things that are God s? To a Christian it is surely natural to
say that all things are God s. The claims of the Church, therefore,
are likely to be such as the State will find intolerable. The conflict
between the Church and the State has never been theoretically
resolved, and continues down to the present day in such matters
as education.
It might have been supposed that the conversion of Constan-
tine would lead to harmony between Church and State. This,
however, was not the case. The first Christian Emperors were
Arians, and the period of orthodox Emperors in the West
was very brief, owing to the incursions of the Arian Goths
and Vandals. Later, when the adherence of the Eastern Emperors
to the Catholic Faith had become unquestionable, Egypt was
monophysite and much of Western Asia was Nestorian. The
heretics in these countries welcomed the followers of the
Prophet, as being less persecuting than the Byzantine govern-
ment. As against the Christian State, the Church was everywhere
victorious in these many contests; only the new religion of Islam
gave the State power to dominate the Church.
revolutionary power 85
The nature of the conflict between the Church and the Arian
Empire of the late fourth century is illustrated by the struggle
between the Empress Justina and Saint Ambrose, Archbishop of
Milan, in the year 385. Her son Valentinian was a minor, and
she was acting as regent; both were Arians. Being in Milan dur-
ing Holy Week, the Empress  was persuaded, that a Roman
emperor might claim, in his own dominions, the public exer-
cise of his religion; and she proposed to the Archbishop, as a
moderate and reasonable concession, that he should resign the
use of a single church, either in the city or suburbs of Milan. But
the conduct of Ambrose was governed by very different prin-
ciples. The palaces of the earth might indeed belong to Caesar;
but the churches were the houses of God; and, within the limits
of his diocese, he himself, as the lawful successor of the apostles,
was the only minister of God. The privileges of Christianity,
temporal as well as spiritual, were confined to the true believers;
and the mind of Ambrose was satisfied that his own theological
opinions were the standard of truth and orthodoxy. The arch-
bishop, who refused to hold any conference, or negotiation,
with the instruments of Satan, declared, with modest firmness,
his resolution to die a martyr, rather than yield to the impious
sacrilege. 1
It soon appeared, however, that he had no need to fear mar-
tyrdom. When he was summoned before the Council, he was
followed by a vast and angry mob of supporters, who threatened
to invade the palace and perhaps kill the Empress and her son.
The Gothic mercenaries, through Arian, hesitated to act against
so holy a man, and to avoid revolution the Empress was obliged
to give way.  The mother of Valentinian could never forgive the
triumph of Ambrose; and the royal youth uttered a passionate
exclamation, that his own servants were ready to betray him into
the hands of an insolent priest (ibid.).
1
E. Gibbon, Ch. XXVII.
86 revolutionary power
In the following year (386) the Empress again attempted to
overcome the Saint. An edict of banishment was pronounced
against him. But he took refuge in the cathedral, where he
was supported, day and night, by the faithful and the recipi-
ents of ecclesiastical charity. To keep them awake, he  intro-
duced into the church of Milan the useful institution of a
loud and regular psalmody . The zeal of his followers was
further reinforced by miracles, and in the end  the feeble sov-
ereign of Italy found himself unable to contend with the
favourite of heaven .
Such contests, of which there were many, established the
independent power of the Church. Its victory was due partly to
alms-giving, partly to organisation, but mainly to the fact that no
vigorous creed or sentiment was opposed to it. While Rome was
conquering, a Roman could feel strongly about the glory of the
State, because it gratified his imperial pride; but in the fourth
century this sentiment had been long extinct. Enthusiasm for the
State, as a force comparable with religion, revived only with the
rise of nationalism in modern times.
Every successful revolution shakes authority and makes
social cohesion more difficult. So it was with the revolution
that gave power to the Church. Not only did it greatly weaken
the State, but it set the pattern for subsequent revolutions.
Moreover, the individualism, which had been an important
element of Christian teaching in its early days, remained as a
dangerous source of both theological and secular rebellion.
The individual conscience, when it could not accept the ver-
dict of the Church, was able to find support in the Gospels for [ Pobierz całość w formacie PDF ]

zanotowane.pl

doc.pisz.pl

pdf.pisz.pl

forum-gsm.htw.pl