Christianity and Islam in Spain | Page 5

power into the hands of the
clergy.
Dr Dunham remarks that these councils tended to make the bishops
subservient to the court, but surely the evidence points the other way.
On the whole it was the king that lost power, though no doubt as a

compensation he gained somewhat more authority over Church matters.
He could, for instance, issue temporary regulations with regard to
Church discipline. Witiza, one of the last of the Gothic kings, seems
even to have authorized, or at least encouraged, the marriage of his
clergy.[2] The king could preside in cases of appeal in purely
ecclesiastical affairs; and we know that Recared I. (587-601) and
Sisebert (612-621) did in fact exercise this right. He also gained the
power of nominating and translating bishops; but it is not clear when
this privilege was first conceded to the king.[3] The Fourth Council of
Toledo (633) enacted that a bishop should be elected by the clergy and
people of his city, and that his election should be approved by the
metropolitan and synod of his province: while the Twelfth Council,
held forty-eight years later, evidently recognizes the validity of their
appointment by royal warrant alone. Some have referred this
innovation back to the despotic rule of Theodoric the Ostrogoth, at the
beginning of the sixth century; others to the sudden accumulation of
vacant sees on the fall of Arianism in Spain. Another important power
possessed by the kings was that of convoking these national councils,
and confirming their acts.
[1] In 531 A.D.
[2] Monk of Silo, sec. 14, who follows Sebastian of Salamanca;
Robertson, iii. 6. We learn from the "Chron. Sil," sec. 27, that Fruela
(757-768) forbade the marriage of clergy. But these accounts of
Witiza's reign are all open to suspicion.
[3] Robertson, "Hist. of Christian Church," vol. iii. p. 183.
The sudden surrender of their Arianism by the Gothic king and nobles
is a noticeable phenomenon. All the barbarian races that invaded Spain
at the beginning of the fifth century were inoculated with the Arian
heresy. Of these the Vandals carried their Arianism, which proved to be
of a very persecuting type, into Africa. The Suevi, into which nation
the Alani, under the pressure of a common enemy, had soon been
absorbed, gave up their Arianism for the orthodox faith about 560. The
Visigoths, however, remained Arians until a somewhat later
period--until 589 namely, when Recared I., the son of Leovigild, held a

national council and solemnly abjured the creed of his forefathers, his
example being followed by many of his nobles and bishops.
The Visigoths, while they remained Arian, were on the whole
remarkably tolerant[1] towards both Jews and Catholics, though we
have instances to the contrary in the cases of Euric and Leovigild, who
are said to have persecuted the orthodox party. The latter king, indeed,
who was naturally of a mild and forgiving temper, was forced into
harsh measures by the unfilial and traitorous conduct of his son
Ermenegild. If the latter had been content to avow his conversion to
orthodoxy without entering into a treasonable rebellion in concert with
the Suevi and Imperialists against his too indulgent father, there is
every reason to think that Leovigild would have taken no measures
against him. Even after a second rebellion the king offered to spare his
son's life--which was forfeit to the State--on condition that he
renounced his newly-adopted creed, and returned to the Arian fold. His
reason--a very intelligible one--no doubt was that he might put an end
to the risk of a third rebellion by separating his son effectually from the
intriguing party of Catholics. To call Ermenegild a martyr because he
was put to death under such circumstances is surely an abuse of words.
[1] Lecky, "Rise of Rationalism," vol. i. p. 14, note, says that the Arian
Goths were intolerant; but there seem to be insufficient grounds for the
assertion.
With the fall of Arianism came a large accession of bigotry to the
Spanish Church, as is sufficiently shewn by the canon above quoted
from the Sixth Council of Toledo. A subsequent law was even passed
forbidding anyone under pain of confiscation of his property and
perpetual imprisonment, to call in question the Holy Catholic and
Apostolic Church; the Evangelical Institutions; the definitions of the
Fathers; the decrees of the Church; and the Sacraments. In the spirit of
these enactments, severe measures were taken against the Jews, of
whom there were great numbers in Spain. Sisebert (612-621) seems to
have been the first systematic persecutor, whose zeal, as even Isidore
confesses, was "not according to knowledge."[1] A cruel choice was
given the Jews between baptism on the one hand, and scourging and

destitution on the other. When this proved unavailing, more stringent
edicts were enforced against them. Those who under the pressure