But though a certain authority over the Spanish Church _was_ thus conceded to the pope, yet owing to the independent spirit of the Spanish kings and clergy, he contented himself with a very sparing use of his power. In two points, in especial, the claims of the pope were strenuously resisted.

_(a.)_ The purchase of dispensations from Rome was expressly forbidden.

_(b.)_ Papal infallibility was a dogma by no means admitted. Thus the prelates of Spain in the fifteenth and sixteenth councils of Toledo, defended the orthodoxy of their fellow-bishop, Julian, against the strictures of the then pope, Bendict II.; and Benedict's successor, John V., confessed that they had been in the right.[2]

This spirit of opposition to the supremacy of the pope we find manifested to the last by the Spanish kings, and there is some reason for thinking that in the very year of the Saracen invasion the king, Witiza, held a synod, which emphatically forbade appeals to Rome.[3]

One author even goes so far as to say that the Gothic king and his clergy being at variance with the pope, the latter encouraged and favoured the Saracen invasion.[4]

[1] Masdeu, xi. p. 167, ff., quoted by Dr Dunham.

[2] Dunham, i. p. 197.

[3] See Hardwicke's "Church in the Middle Ages," p. 42. He quotes Gieselar, "Ch. Hist.," iii-132.

[4] J.S. Semler, quoted by Mosheim, ii. 120, note.

However that may have been, and it certainly looks very improbable, the invasion did not help the pope much directly, though indirectly, and as events turned out, the Arab domination was undoubtedly the main cause of the ultimate subjection of Spain to the papal yoke, which happened in this way:--The Christian Church in the North being, though free, yet in a position of great danger and weakness, would naturally have sought help from their nearest Christian neighbours, the Franks. But the selfish and ambitious policy of the latter, who preferred extending their temporal dominion to fighting as champions of Christianity in defence of others, naturally forced the Spanish Christians to look to the only Christian ruler who could afford them even moral a.s.sistance; and the popes were not slow to avail themselves of the opportunity thus offered for establishing their authority in a new province. It was by the intervention of the popes that the war against the Arabs partook of the nature of a crusade, a form of warfare which carried with it the advantage of filling the treasury of the Bishops of Rome. By means of indulgences, granting exemption from purgatory at 200 maravedis a head, the pope collected in four years the sum of four million maravedis.[1]

The first important instance of the Pope's intervention being asked and obtained was in 808, when, the body of St James being miraculously discovered, Alfonso wrote to the pope asking leave to move the see of Ira Flavia (Padron) to the new church of St lago,[2] built on the spot where the relics were found. The birth of the new Spanish Church dates from this event, which was of ominous import for the future independence of the Church in that country. What the claims of Rome had come to be within a quarter of a century of this epoch, we may see from the controversy which arose between Claudius, Bishop of Turin, and the papal party. Claudius was himself a Spaniard, and a pupil of the celebrated Felix, Bishop of Urgel, one of the authors of the Adoptionist heresy.

Among other doctrines obnoxious to the so-called Catholic party, Claudius stoutly resisted the papal claim to be the head of Christendom, resting his opposition, so far as we can gather from what remains to us of his writings,[3] on the grounds, first, that Christ did _not_ say to Peter, "What thou loosest in heaven, shall be loosed upon earth;"

meaning by this that the authority vested in Peter was only to be exercised during his life; secondly, in answer to the supposed efficacy of a pilgrimage to Rome, Claudius retorts on his accuser, Theodomir, abbot of a monastery near Nimes:--"If a doing of penance to be effectual involves a journey to Rome, why do you keep so many monks in your monastery and prevent them from going--as you say is necessary--to Rome itself?" As to the journey itself, Claudius said that he neither approved nor disapproved of it, knowing that it was not prejudicial to all, nor useful to all: but this he was a.s.sured of, that eternal life could not be gained by a mere journey to Rome; thirdly, as to the pope being the Dominicus Apostolicus, as his supporters called him, apostolic, says Claudius, is a t.i.tle that does not belong to one "who fills the see of an apostle, but who fulfils the duties thereof."

[1] Prescott, "Ferd. and Isab.," p. 64, n.

[2] Romey, "Hist. d'Esp.," iii. 420.

[3] Jonas of Orleans, iii., apud Migne, vol. civ. p. 375 ff.

Fleury, v. 398.

Being summoned to appear before a council, the bishop proved contumacious, and refused to go, calling the proposed a.s.semblage a congregation of a.s.ses. In spite of his independence of spirit Claudius remained Bishop of Turin till his death in 839.

The pope's authority being once recognised in Spain, the sphere of his interference rapidly enlarged, and we soon find the king unable even to call a council of bishops without a papal bull. This became the established practice.[1] In the tenth century Bermudo II. (982-999), in confirming the laws of the Goths, took the opportunity to make the canons and decrees of the pope binding in secular cases.[2]

Meanwhile, even before the free Christians in the North had established their independence, the weakness of the Christian Church under Arab domination seemed to afford a good opportunity for obtaining from them a recognition of the authority of the pope. We accordingly find that an appeal was made to the pope towards the close of the eighth century to give an authoritative decision with regard to what the appellants deemed to be certain irregularities which had found their way into the practice of those Christians who were under the Arab yoke. The Pope Adrian readily undertook to define what was, and what was not, in accordance with Christianity. In a letter addressed to the Bishops of Spain he inveighs against the following errors, countenanced by a certain Migetius, and by Egila, Bishop of Elvira, and sometimes called in consequence the Migetian errors:--

_(a.)_ The wrong celebration of Easter. This had already been noticed and condemned by Peter, a deacon of Toledo, in a letter to the people of Seville (750).[3] The error was not the same as that of the Quarto-decimani, but consisted apparently in deferring Easter to the twenty-second day, if the full moon fell on the 14th, and the following day was Sunday. Curiously enough this very error had been held by the Latin Church itself till the sixth century.[4] The fulminations of the Pope failed in suppressing the error. As late as 891 it was sufficiently general in Andalusia to cause the date of a battle which took place at the Easter of that year to be placed in the year of the Hegira 278, which only began on April 15th, whereas had Easter been observed according to the usage of the Latin Church, the Paschal feast would have been already past.[5]

_(b.)_ The eating of pork and things strangled.[6] With respect to these innocent articles of food, the pope goes so far as to threaten anathema against those who will not abstain from them. It is curious to find the Christian Church upholding the eating of pork, when brought into contact with the Moslems, and forbidding it elsewhere.

_(c.)_ Intermarriage with Jews and Moslems, which had become very common, is denounced and forbidden.[7]

_(d.)_ The Pope cautions the Spanish Church against consecrating priests without due preparation, and speaks as if there were many false priests, wolves in sheep's clothing, dealing havoc in the flock.

_(e.)_ One doubtful authority,[8] who tells us that Adrian ordered Cixila, Bishop of Toledo, to hold a council and condemn Egila for not fasting on Sundays, according to the decrees of previous popes.

[1] "Chron. Sil.," sec. 13, who says that in 1109 a legate was in Spain holding a council at Leon. "Chron. Sampiri," (Florez, xiv.), sec. 6 (a later addition), says that in 869 Alfonso IV.

sent Severus and Sideric, asking the leave of Pope John VIII.

to hold a council and consecrate a church. Cp. Mariana, vii. 8.

[2] Mariana, viii. 6.

[3] Isid. Pac, sec. 77. See Migne, vol. xcviii. pp. 339, 376, 451.

[4] See Victorius Aquita.n.u.s, quoted by Noris "de Paschali Latinorum Cyclo." (iii. 786), apud Migne.

[5] Dozy, ii. p. 355, note.

[6] Florez, "Esp. Sagr.," v. 514: Fleury, ii. 235.

[7] Adrian's Letter to the Spanish Bishops.

[8] The Pseudo-Luitprand, sec. 236--"Ex mandatis litterisque Adriani papae contra Egilanum ... nolentem Dei Sabbate a carnibus abstinere" (776 A.D.).

But though there was a strong party in Spain favouring the pretensions of the pope, yet many of the clergy and laity, headed by the venerable Elipandus, Bishop of Toledo (782-810), boldly resisted the encroachments of the Bishop of Rome. Elipandus himself, as Primate of all Spain, wrote to Migetius condemning him for certain heresies, and boasts of having completely refuted and silenced him;[1] but at the same time Elipandus shewed his independence of the Roman Pontiff by characterising those who abstained from pork and things strangled as foolish and ignorant men; though Migetius in this matter was in thorough accord with the pope,[2]

and could justify his views by a reference to the decision of the Church of Jerusalem in the earliest days of Christianity.[3]

Another doctrine combated by Elipandus was the unscriptural one, that it was unlawful to eat with unbelievers, or even to take food touched by them. It was easy for him to quote texts such as: "Not that which entereth into the mouth defileth the man; but that which proceedeth out of the mouth, this defileth the man;" [4] or "to the pure all things are pure;"[5] and to point out that Christ ate with publicans and sinners.

But the a.s.sumption which Elipandus, like his fellow-countrymen, Claudius of Turin, later, especially attacked, was that which regarded the Roman See as alone const.i.tuting the Catholic Church and the power of G.o.d.[6]

This he very properly calls a heresy; and indignantly denies that Christ's words, "Thou art Peter," &c., apply to the Church of Rome alone, affirming that they were spoken of the whole Church. "How," he adds, "can the Roman Church be, as you say it is, the very power of G.o.d without spot or blemish, when we know that at least one bishop of Rome (Liberius) has been branded as a heretic by the common voice of Christendom."

[1] Epilandus, Letter to Migetius. Migne, xcviii. p. 859. See Neander, v. 216 ff. n. Enhueber, "Dissert," secs. 29, 33, apud Migne, vol. ci.

[2] See Adrian's Letter to Egila.

[3] Acts xv. 19, 29. See, however, Epist. to Timothy, i. 3.

[4] St Matt. xv. 11.

[5] t.i.tus i. 15.

[6] See also letter to Alcuin, and Felix's answer to Alcuin's first book, where he gives us his idea of a _Catholic_ church founded on our Lord Christ (and not on the pope), ... which Catholic church may even consist of few members. Neander, v.

230.

Had the Arab domination embraced the whole of Spain, and continued to be established over it, Spain could never have become the priest-ridden country which it now is; but the gradual advance of the Christian arms in the North brought in its train a more and more complete subserviency to the pope.

As the kings of Castile and Leon gradually won back towns and provinces from the Arabs, some difference was observed to exist between the religious usages of the newly freed Christians and of those who had set them free. This was specially apparent in the old Gothic liturgy, which the Muzarabic Christians had used all along, and were still using, whereas the Christians of Leon and the Asturias had imported a newer recension from Rome.

Rumours of these discrepancies in religious ritual reached Rome, and accordingly a legate,[1] named Zanclus, was sent to Spain in 925 from John X. to inquire into matters of religion, and particularly into the ceremony of the ma.s.s, the opinion being prevalent at Rome that the ma.s.s was incorrectly performed according to the Gothic liturgy, and that false doctrines were taught. However, Zanclus found that the divergence was not sufficiently wide to warrant the suppression of the ancient ritual. It may be that the power of the Roman Church was not established so securely as to admit of an interference so unpalatable to the ancient church. She was content to bide her time; for such a standing witness to the primitive usage[2] of the Church against the innovations of the Roman See could not long be allowed to continue. Accordingly, we find that very soon after the fall of Toledo in 1085, the question of the old Gothic liturgy came up for discussion again. The Gothic and the Roman books were subjected, after the absurd fashion of the times, to two ordeals--by water and by fire; but in spite of the fact that the Gothic liturgy, thanks to its greater solidity and stronger binding, resisted both those elements incomparably better than its younger rival, and so, if the ordeal went for anything, should have been hailed victorious, the old native liturgy was partially suppressed at the bidding of the pope, and by the consent of the Spanish king Alfonso VI. of Leon,[3] and Sancho IV. of Aragon. Yet the Muzarabic Christians were loath to give up their customary liturgy, and it remained in use in several churches of Toledo till late in the fifteenth century.

[1] Mariana, vi. 9. Pseudo-Luit. gives the legate the name of Marinus, and says he was sent in 932 to Basilius, Bishop of Toledo.

[2] Cp. the monstrous way in which the Portuguese Roman Catholics, under Don Alexis de Menezes, destroyed the sacred books and memorials of the ancient Syrian Church on the Malabar coast in India.

[3] And I. of Castile.

But the interference of the pope was not confined to matters relating to the Spanish Church at large, his heavy hand fell upon the king himself, and at the end of the twelfth century Alfonso IX. and all his kingdom were laid under an interdict by Celestine III. because he had married within forbidden limits, and refused to divorce his wife at the bidding of the pope. He did in the end divorce her, but only to repeat the same offence with a second wife, Berengaria, and incur the same penalty at the hands of Innocent III. Encroachments on the king's power went on apace, and gradually appeals came to be referred to Rome from the king's courts, and the pope took upon himself to appoint to benefices and bishoprics; a usurpation which was countenanced by Alfonso X.

(1252-1284).[1] But this result was not attained without remonstrances from the Cortes, and finally, under Ferdinand and Isabella, the question came to an open rupture between the Spanish Court and the reigning pope, Sixtus IV. Isabella, though so ready to submit herself in matters of personal religion to the pope and his legates, refused, like her later namesake of England, to bate one jot of her ecclesiastical rights; and the pope had to give way, contenting himself with the barren power of appointing those nominated by the sovereigns of the land. But if the sovereign was jealous of his rights, no less so were the barons of theirs, and when in the war of the barons with Henry IV. (1454-1474), the papal legate threw his influence on to the king's side, and excommunicated the rebellious barons, they firmly answered that "those who had advised the pope that he had a right to interfere in the temporal concerns of Castile had deceived him; and that they, the barons of the kingdom, had a perfect right to depose their sovereign on sufficient grounds, and meant to exercise it."[2]