"I would pray you never to lose sight of this diversity; it is a diversity which alone enables us to comprehend the real condition of the Roman world at this period."

This political society, was enervated, and rapidly approaching dissolution and death-slavery, and the deep degradation of the masses of the people were the main cause of this state of things. The Barbarians were God's instruments for breaking in pieces that old fabric which was tottering to its fall, and ready soon to vanish away.

Hence the names of Alaric, Attila, and Genseric, begin to figure on the page of history, and the Vandals, Franks, Goths, Visigoths, and Burgundians, under the guidance of such leaders issue from the North to execute the purposes of God.

A period of political dissolution and chaos is to ensue during which a new religious society is to exercise a centralizing and organizing power. Of this society Leo claimed to be the divinely ordained head-and his whole energies were put forth to develop and establish the principles of the papal monarchy. Never was there a point in which a great mind swayed by ambition and not controlled by a regard to truth, had a finer opportunity to exercise a creative and organizing power.

In various ways the bishop of Rome had already obtained great influence. But he was by no means monarch of the Christian world. Indeed, never was there a time when he had rivals so powerful as were now the patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem, and especially of Constantinople.

The power of these bishops originated from two sources: one, political, the other, spiritual. The former was in fact the only source of the extraordinary and despotic powers they were intent on establishing. Of this we have a full illustration in the history of the see of Constantinople. The Bishop of Byzantium was at first, but a suffragan to the bishop of Heraclea exarch of the diocese of Thrace.

But Constantine made Byzantium a new Rome, and lo the bishop of Byzantium, soon becomes the leading patriarch in all the East, for it was not fit that the emperor's bishop should be inferior in rank or power to any of the bishops of the East. His central political position too gave him the same means of augmenting his power, which the bishop of Rome enjoyed at the West, and diligently and skilfully did he use them, and rapidly did he gain on the bishops of Rome in the race.

And if the political basis of the bishop's power were to continue the main one, it was plain that if Old Rome fell, and New Rome stood, the patriarch of Constantinople might finally win in the

race.

It was certainly a critical period; some master-spirit was needed fully to develop and establish the doctrine that the power of

the bishop of Rome had a higher origin than that of the bishop of Constantinople, so that even if Old Rome fell his spiritual kingdom might not only remain unshaken, but take her place and rise upon her ruins.

Such a master-spirit was needed. In Leo he was found. A Roman by birth, of powerful intellect, indomitable will, dauntless courage, vivid imagination, great power of emotion, a finished education, extensive learning, a majestic person, and fervid eloquence, he was beyond all doubt immeasurably superior, in most of those elements which give power over mind, to all the men of his age. He is worthy to be placed side by side with Gregory VII. and Innocent III.

But considering the claims of the see of Rome to be the great preserver of the faith on earth, it is not a little remarkable that Leo is the first theological writer of any ability which the see of Rome produced-the first who has left any important works for the benefit of posterity, if we omit the apostle Peter, and the evangelical, and primitive Clement.

Before Leo, the leading champions of the faith did not come from the see of Rome. So far from it was the fact, that the faith would have been betrayed had it been left solely to the bishop of Rome. Athanasius, bishop of Alexandria, was the great pillar of the doctrine of the trinity, whilst pope Liberius signed an Arian creed. Augustine, bishop of Hippo, was the great champion of the doctrine of human depravity and the sovereign grace of God, whilst pope Zosimus, became the champion of Pelagianism till compelled by the power and perseverance of Augustine to recant. Popes Julius and Felix, long before Eutyches, had promulgated the Eutychian doctrine, which the whole energy of Leo and after ages labored in vain utterly to overthrow and eradicate.

The great writers of the East and the West, Augustine and Basil, Athanasius, and Ambrose, the Gregories, and Chrysostom, had adorned their respective sees, whilst Rome remained in a state of comparative intellectual and theological barrenness, till Leo

arose.

But the moment he appeared on the stage the centre of both ecclesiastical and intellectual power was no doubt at Rome. With a strong hand and a determined will, he grasped all the great questions of the age, and made an impress on the world, that is felt to this day. He gave a decided turn to theology and to the current of events, in favor of the see of Rome; nor, judging by their standards, have the partizans of that see erred, in calling him LEO THE GREAT.

The acts of his life may be arranged in five classes.

1. Those which related to the existing interests of the Ronan Empire, as endangered by the Barbarians.

2. Those which relate to the powers of the see of Rome.

3. Those that relate to the vindication and establishment of the

orthodox system of faith.

4. Those which relate to the use of force in the suppression of heresy.

5. Those which relate to the discipline of the Church.

It will be seen at a glance that all his acts, except those of the first class, related to principles destined to exert a vast influence on all future generations. Whatever may be thought of the character of the Romish Church, no one can deny that it was for ages the centre of intellectual and ecclesiastical power, for Christendom. No point of vision gives so comprehensive an insight into the religious and political condition of the Christian world for ages. An emotion of sublimity therefore fills the mind as we stand at the fountain-head of this great river of destiny, and watch the elements that are from time to time mingled with it by the presiding spirit at Rome.

1. We have excepted Leo's acts of the first class from the list of such as involve principles destined to affect future ages. They were indeed in his own day more thought of; they occupy a more prominent place in the histories of the age; but they affected simply the question of the earlier or later downfall of Rome. That mistress of the world was thoroughly corrupt. Her measure of iniquity was nearly full. All that Leo could do for her was, for a little time, to delay her fall. When, A. D. 440, under the weak rule of Valentinian, the safety of Rome was endangered by the alienation of Aetius, the greatest Roman general of the age, and Albinus a Gallic lord of great power, and thus at the very time when the empire was overrun by the Goths, Burgundians, Franks, and Hunns, Leo was chosen as qualified above all others by eloquence, sagacity, and tact to reconcile them. To effect this he was sent on an embassy to Gaul. He fulfilled his mission with such success that he stood conspicuous in the eyes of his own generation as a great peace-maker, and the saviour of the empire from impending

ruin.

Again, A. D. 452, when Attila and his Hunns having been driven by Aetius out of Gaul, had invaded Italy, and having captured Aquileia, Pavier, and even Milan the imperial residence, were preparing to lay siege to Rome, Leo was sent at the head of an embassy to him, that he might exert the power of his effective eloquence and address upon the mind of the terrible leader of the Barbarians. Without the aid of a vivid imagination it is easy to invest this transaction with a peculiar and impressive dramatic interest. All hearts were dismayed: even Aetius trembled before the barbarian hosts, when lo the gates of Rome open, and her bishop, in sacerdotal robes, and with majestic aspect goes forth to try the force of intellectual and spiritual arms against the victorious leader of barbarian hosts. To the natural and inherent inter

est of the scene, religious fiction has sought to superadd a new intensity, by introducing a miraculous appearance of Peter and Paul to second the eloquence of Leo. It is enough however for us to know that the embassy was successful. Attila retired and Rome for a time was saved. It is added by others that a pestilence in the camp of Attila, the invasion of his own country by Marcian, the prospect of speedy and powerful reinforcements for the Romans, and the stipulation of an annual tribute of two thousand pounds of gold, were the real influences that gave power to the eloquence of Leo. Be this as it may, the glory that he has derived from the success of this mission has been great. Yet after all it accomplished little for Rome, and still less for the world. It affected, as we have said, no great principle, and it caused but a brief delay of the downfall of Rome. Even the same Leo, at a later date in vain exerted his eloquence to deter Genseric from the sack of Rome. Summoned by Eudoxia, the widow of Valentinian, to avenge her on Maximus who had slain her husband, assumed his throne and compelled her to marry him, he plundered Rome, and carried away not only vast treasures but also many Romans as slaves. At the request of Leo he only consented to save the city from the flames.

2. Let us now come to those acts of Leo that related to principles, destined to increase in power till they should engulf all other power in their trememdous vortex. We have already remarked that the power of the bishop of Rome was originally based upon the political supremacy of Rome. Even Newman, in an argument designed to conduct his disciples into the bosom of Rome, is obliged to admit that the doctrine of the "regalia Petri," was undeveloped in the early ages. He intimates indeed that it slumbered in the record, ready to be developed when needed, but it is a very suspicious fact that the new basis of the claims of the pretended succession of Peter was not discovered till the political basis seemed to be in danger of being subverted by the superior political power of the bishop of Constantinople. Then the hidden sense of "thou art Peter," first proclaimed by Innocent I., A. D. 401-417, began to open rapidly on the mind of Leo, and with imperious energy he thus sets it forth in his letter to the bishops of Gaul. "It was the will of our Lord that all nations should hear the truth through the apostolic trumpet. Yet it was also his pleasurn that the blessed Peter should preside over the other apostles in the discharge of this duty. So that all divine gifts should flow to the body from him as the head, so that none could partake of the blessings of the kingdom of God who should dare to depart from the rock Peter. This office of Peter Christ proclaimed when he said, 'thou art Peter,' &c. Thus the structure of the eternal temple, by the wonderful grace of God, was made to rest on the rock Peter." In all this there is Now no originality, but in the days

66

of Leo there was need of his master-mind to give currency to this doctrine. With reference to him Gieseler says, By exalting the authority of the apostle Peter, and by tracing all his rights to this source, as well as by his personal qualities and good fortune, he did more than any of his predecessors, in extending and confirming the of the Romish see."

power

Gieseler, also in § 92, says that "this view was first fully developed by Leo." But Bower has shown from a letter of Innocent I. to Alexander bishop of Antioch, that the merit or demerit of developing this idea belongs to Innocent. In that letter he derives the prerogatives, privileges and jurisdiction of the Roman see from St. Peter. In view of this Bower remarks: "Innocent may be justly said to have pointed out the ground on which the unwieldy fabric of the papal power was afterwards built." Still, however, it may be true as Gieseler asserts that Leo first FULLY developed this view. Thus then Innocent I. originated it, and accustomed the ears of men to hear it. Leo fully developed and to his utmost power enforced it. Nicholas I. added to its power. Gregory VII. erected the fabric, and Innocent III. reigned in the meridian splendor of papal glory.

Nor was Leo at all deficient in that unprincipled boldness and energy which were essential in order to enforce such claims of authority. This was especially seen in his encounter with that distinguished Romish saint, Hilary bishop of Arles, and exarch of the seven provinces of Narbonne. A council of bishops in which Hilary presided, had deposed Celidonius, bishop of Besançon. He appealed to Leo. Hilary denied the right of Leo to receive the appeal and review their proceedings; Leo maintained it. Hilary went to Rome to protest against it. Leo arrested and confined him there, and appointed a day for reviewing the case. Hilary escaped from confinement and fled to Arles, Leo, enraged at his contumacy, re-examined the case, and against notorious facts, declared Celidonius innocent and restored him to his office as bishop. Nor did he stop here; he excommunicated Hilary, deprived him of all jurisdiction, suspended his episcopal functions, and abolished the dignity of exarch, formerly conferred on the see of Arles. Even this did not suffice; he wrote to the Gallic bishops a slanderous letter designed to blast the character and destroy the influence of Hilary. It was in this letter that the doctrine of the divine supremacy of Peter and his successors was first fully developed. His next step was to enlist the imperial power on his side. The weak Valentinian, was induced by him to confirm by an imperial edict, all of his arrogant claims, and to state in notorious contravertion of facts that the bishop of Rome had always exercised the powers claimed by Leo. This edict occurs in Leo's works and no doubt came from his pen. There is nothing in the forged decretals of a later age more thoroughly unprincipled than