JOHN IV.

AD. 640-642.

 

EMPERORS. HERACLIUS, 610-641. CONSTANTINE III, 641. HERACLEONAS (alone for a short time, and then with Constantine (IV), generally know as Constans II),  CONSTANS II (alone), 642-668.

King. Rothari, 636-652

Exarch. Isaac, 625-644.

                     

To succeed Severinus, there was elected one John, a Dalmatian, the son of Venantius, a scholasticus or advocate. He was consecrated December 24, 640, apparently. When he was elected he was archdeacon of the Roman Church.

With regard to the consecration of John IV, it is a matter of fact that, with the exception of that of Honorius I, it took place at a shorter interval after his election than that of any pope after Pelagius II (7th February 590). The same thing is true, as a rule, of the consecration of the popes who followed John IV. Some historians have therefore concluded—and I believe correctly—that from this time forth, either with or without the express approval of the emperor, the exarchs took upon themselves the principal share in confirming the papal elections.

The argument drawn from the diminution of the interval between election and consecration from the time of Pope John IV onwards, is supported by the further fact that of the six formulas which, treating of the election of the popes, come all together in the Liber Diurnus (58-63), five of them are directed to Ravenna. And that these formulas belong to this period seems more than probable from intrinsic evidence. From the regular mention in them of the three days' interval ordered by Boniface III, it is plain they were drawn up after the decree of that pontiff. In them is also regular mention of the exercitus Romanus, spoken of for the first time in the biography of Pope Severinus.

That on the other hand they belonged to a period before 684 would seem clear from this, that they are dispatched in the name “of the archpriest, the archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries, holding the place of the apostolic See”; whereas in 684 St. Benedict II governed the holy See, in the interval between his election and consecration, as pope-elect. Finally, though at this time those elected to fill the chair of Peter were generally simple deacons, it appears from his letter to the Irish that John IV was the archdeacon. And, strange to say, the formulas just cited from the Liber Diurnus record that an archdeacon has been unanimously elected. Possibly, then, the documents drawn up in connection with the election of John I may have served as formulas for the election negotiations of succeeding popes.

But as besides the five formulas sent to Ravenna, a sixth was still sent to Constantinople, I am disposed to believe that the emperor never wholly resigned his right to confirm the papal elections into the hands of his exarch. Constantine Pogonatus resumed the imperial right of confirmation claimed by the Byzantine emperors, only to give it up once and for all under Benedict II. For when the biographer of Conon says that after his election “messengers were sent to the exarch, as the custom (now) is” it may be that they were simply sent to inform the exarch as to who had been chosen. It may be for the subjoined note will show that the opinions of the learned on this whole subject are so conflicting that it is not safe to dogmatize on it.

 

NOTE

625. Honorius I, confirmed by exarch and not directly by emperor.

640. John IV, the first Pope confirmed by the exarch.

642. Theodore I, possibly first confirmed by exarch, according to Hodgkin, with Diehl.

682. Leo II again confirmed by the emperor, through the negotia­tions of Agatho with Constantine Pogonatus.

684. Under Benedict II, Constantine Pogonatus gives up right of confirmation.

685. Hence Rozière, etc., hold that John V was consecrated under the new act of liberty, granted by Constantine. Hodgkin, Diehl, and Duchesne, however, regard John V as the first Pope confirmed by the exarch. But it is scarcely likely that the popes would strive for confirmation by the exarch.

686. Conon and his successors again confirmed by the exarch—so Sickel.

741. Zachary elected immediately on death of Gregory III, and hence not confirmed by exarch.

751. End of exarchate. Hence 751-817 the election and conse­cration of the popes wholly though Pippin, Charlemagne and Louis naturally informed (by formula 82) of the election.

817. New agreement between Paschal I and Louis the Pious on the subject of the confirmation of elections.

 

Now that the ground has been cleared a little, the mode of electing the popes at this period may be briefly touched upon. The method was pretty well one and the same for many centuries, the same in the third as in the ninth century. Speaking of the election of Pope St. Cornelius (251), St. Cyprian says: “Cornelius was made bishop by the will of God and His Christ, by the almost unanimous consent of the clergy, by the suffrage of the people then present, and by the college of old bishops and good men”. In the third century, therefore, the papal elections, begun with prayer, were brought to a termination by the cooperation of both clergy and laity. The share of the laity was limited to an expression of wishes and to bearing witness to the qualifications or disqualifications of the candidates, as the case might be. The real power of choice, however, lay with the votes of the Roman clergy, as the decrees of the council of Rome, held under Pope Symmachus in 499, abundantly demon­strate.

In the seventh century also the election proceedings began with prayer, which, after the decree of Boniface III, lasted for three days after the death of the pope to whom a successor was to be chosen. Then there gathered together the clergy of all degrees, “the most eminent consuls and the glorious dukes”, the citizens and the flourishing Roman army;  and by the majority of the votes of the clergy, amidst the applause of the laity, a successor to St. Peter—at this period generally a deacon of the Roman Church—was elected. The assembly was held in the Lateran basilica.

In the earlier ages of the Church the consecration of the pope-elect was proceeded with at once. But from the time of the Gothic kings, or perhaps more strictly from the time of the establishment of the Byzantine regime in Rome under Justinian, to that of Constantine Pogonatus, the consecration had to be delayed until the election had been confirmed by the temporal power. This assumption on the part of the Gothic kings of Italy and the Eastern emperors was a great abuse, and, as might be expected, opened the door to great evils. It furnished another ladder by which the ambitious might hope to reach the chair of Peter; and it led to disastrously long vacancies of the Holy See and to the emperor exacting a sum of money from the pope-elect before he would confirm the election. In the course of eighty years, from the death of Gregory I to the accession of Benedict II (684-5) there were interpontifical intervals amounting to at least 3600 days, or about 10 years in 80. The emperors, too, used sometimes their assumed right of confirmation to endeavor to force the pope-elect to do their will. If there is one thing that the history of Christian Europe has shown clearly it is this, that where the State interferes to any considerable extent in the freedom of episcopal elections, fatal is the result first to that liberty which the Church needs to fulfill its glorious destiny, and then to the religious good of the people. For the State will always look out for men who will be its creatures, rather than for men who will be most fit to work for the spiritual needs of the people. Further fatal is the result to the State itself. It cannot be expected that State-elected bishops will have the requisite independence of spirit to raise a strong note of warning when the State is entering on dangerous courses, and the subjects of the State, not being properly kept in hand by those who should have most influence over them for good, will become, especially in times of difficulty, unruly, and cause the downfall of that State which thought to strengthen itself by getting all power, spiritual as well as temporal, into its hands.

To return to the Pope whom we have just seen elected in the seventh century. The election over, documents, setting forth the particulars of it, were drawn up and signed. The decree sent to the exarch was signed by the archpriest and by a consul. Generally drawn up in the name of the archpriest, the archdeacon and the primicerius of the notaries, “keeping the place of the apostolic See”, they were sent to their various destinations in charge of a bishop, a priest, a regionary notary and sub-deacon, certain worthy burghers, and, as representing the army, a most eminent consul and several magnificent tribunes.

One notice (formula 58) was sent to the emperor, their “most pious lord”, who was asked to give an imperial order (jussio), for the consecration of the papal candidate, who had been elected on account of his worth. But, as it has already been said, the greatest attention was at this period paid to the exarch. Word was at once sent to him, after God their one hope, of the death of a Pope; and then a very full account of the election of his successor (formula 60). The document is addressed “to the most excellent and distinguished exarch of Italy” by “the priests, deacons and all the clergy of the papal Curia, the nobility, the army and the people of Rome, as suppliants”. The exarch, as happily taking the place of the emperor, is earnestly asked to consent as soon as possible to the consecration of the pope-elect, on account of the great amount of business which awaits the attention of the “supreme authority”; and on account of the “ferocity of their neighbouring enemies”, which, owing to the reverence they have for the prince of the apostles, can only be softened by the words of his vicar. The document concludes as our petitions to parliament do today: And your petitioners will ever humbly pray, etc. Three other election notices (form. 61-3), were at the same time sent to the Archbishop of Ravenna, the civil authorities (j'udzces), and the papal apocrisiarius there. All are exhorted to promote the cause of the pope-elect to the best of their ability.

When the needful act of confirmation had been brought to Rome and the day of the consecration of the pope-elect had arrived, another formula (57) of the Liber Diurnus lets us know that, accompanied by seven acolytes, he proceeded from the Lateran, where the consecration used to take place in pre-Byzantine times, to the confession of St. Peter; and thence, after the litany, to the episcopal chair with the bishops and priests. Then the bishop of Albano recited the first prayer and the bishop of Porto the second. The book of the Gospels was then produced and held by deacons over the head of the pope-elect. Then the bishop of Ostia consecrated him bishop. After the pallium had been presented to him by the archdeacon, the new Pope gave the kiss of peace to all the priests and entoned the Gloria in excelsis Deo. Thus was the Pope, like any other bishop, consecrated by three bishops and, even as far back as the seventh century, by the bishops of Albano, Porto and Ostia. Pagi has called attention to the fact that so strictly did the right of consecrating the Pope belong to the bishop of Ostia, that if he were elected Pope himself, or could not be present at the consecration, then the archpriest of Ostia took his place. Of course if the pope-elect were not a bishop, the archpriest could only give the blessing which was given to a bishop who might have been elected Pope.

When John IV became Pope, he did not forget his native Dalmatia, which, indeed, at this peritod stood in considerable need of his attention. We have seen how dread of the advances of the Slavs in Istria was one of the troubles of Gregory the Great. Their progress did not stop with his death. During the reign of Heraclius, Croats and Serbs extended their ravages into Dalmatia. To relieve the misery caused by these barbarians, the Pope sent the abbot Martin, with large sums of money, to redeem the captives they had taken in both Dalmatia and Istria. The abbot was also instructed to procure the relics of martyrs. And the Book of the Popes further informs us that John built and adorned an oratory, in connection with the basilica of St. John Lateran, to receive the relics “of the blessed martyrs Venantius, Anastasius, Maurus and many others” which he received from his native land. This chapel still stands, and in it one of John’s mosaics is still preserved. To the left of the Blessed Virgin stands John himself, with a model of his oratory in his hand, offering it to St. Venantius, who is also depicted in this rude, though most interesting, production. Among the other figures (twenty-four in all) of this striking picture—so useful for the study of ecclesiastical vestments—are those of SS. Maurus, Anastasius, Domnion, Septimus, and Asterius, as well as those of four soldier saints, Paulinianus, Telius, Antiochianus, and Gaianus. These names have been selected because excavations, begun in our own time  (in the year 1874), in the cemetery of Manastirene, situated to the north of the ancient Salona, have brought to light various inscriptions bearing the names of Domnion and the last five of the martyrs’ names just mentioned. The inscriptions show where the martyrs’ bodies reposed before they were brought to Rome. The Liber Pontificalis notes that some of the relics came from Istria, and among the martyrs’ names mentioned by it occurs the name of Maurus. Explorations in the city of Parenzo in Istria have brought to light an inscription of St. Maurus. The stones of Rome and Dalmatia lend their strong voices to support the assertions of the Book of the Popes.

It seems to be the generally received opinion that John also Commissioned some of his envoys to preach the faith of Christ to the heathen Slavs. The emperor Constantine Porphyrogenitus, who wrote about the year 950, says that Porga, prince of the Croats, sent to Heraclius for Christian teachers, and that, referred by the latter to Rome, the Croatian monarch obtained from the Pope (John) a bishop and priests, who baptized his people. The Pope took the newly-baptized people under his special protection, and would have them renounce their custom of indiscriminately invading and plundering their neighbors’ territories, and be content with defending what was theirs. It must be borne in mind with regard to this account that the imperial writer does not specify to which member of the reigning house of Heraclius Porga sent. It may have been to Heraclius Constans II; to Heraclius Constantine Pogonatus; or, as I think most likely, to Justinian II, the last ruler of the house of Heraclius, as well as to the emperor who is known simply as Heraclius, viz., Heraclius I. In any case it was not till the close of the ninth century that we find Croatian bishops.

Whilst still pope-elect John shared in the government of the Church—as we shall see from fragments of a letter Roman which have been preserved by Venerable Bede—not as pope-elect, but because he was archdeacon of the Roman Church. For, as already noticed, during a vacancy of the Holy See or during the absence of the Pope, the Church was governed, from the sixth century, by the archpriest, the archdeacon, and the primicerius of the notaries. If one of these three were elected Pope, then a fourth was added, as the letter just referred to show. Pagi and others think that this arrangement lasted till the time of Benedict II; that from his time the power of the triumvirate ceased with the election of the Pope, who then, as pope-elect, governed the Church by himself; and that their power, thus curtailed, finally devolved upon the College of Cardinals, when in 1059 Nicholas II gave to the cardinals alone the right of electing the popes.

The Paschal controversy in Ireland

By the action of Pope Honorius, the south of Ireland had been brought into harmony with the rest of the Church Catholic in the matter of the time of celebrating Easter.

But the Church in the north of Ireland, and in the parts taken possession of by it, as the Isle of Iona, was still unsettled in this respect. Accordingly some of the principal ecclesiastics in those parts, in their endeavors to bring the Paschal controversy to an end, wrote to Pope Severinus. Their letter, now lost, reached Rome after the death of Severinus, and before John had been consecrated. This much we learn from the fragments of the answer of the heads of the Roman Church. Their reply begins : “To the most holy and well-beloved Thomian (Archbishop of Armagh), Columban, Croman, Dinnan (Bishop of Connor), and Baithan (of Clonmacnoise), bishops; Croman (abbot of Roscrea), Ernian, Laistran, Scellan, and Seghen (abbot of lona), priests; Saran, and the other Scottish  doctors and abbots—Hilary, archpriest, in place of the Holy and Apostolic See, John the Deacon, the elect of God, John the primicerius, in place of the Holy and Apostolic See, and John, servant of God and consiliarius (assessor) of the same Apostolic See”. The writers begin by observing that the death of Pope Severinus has been the cause why hitherto no answer has been sent to the questions asked by the Scots. However, that such important matters as they have written about might not remain unattended to, the pope-elect and his coadjutors point out to them the mis­takes they are making in their Easter calculations; and, in conclusion, exhort them to be on their guard against the Pelagian heresy, which was said to be reviving among them.

This letter, though written “with great authority and learning”, did not apparently produce the desired effect. However, Adamnan, who was sixteen years old when this letter was penned, and who afterwards became abbot of Iona, brought the people of the north of Ireland back into Catholic unity on this vexed Easter question in the early years of the eighth century. The monks of Iona embraced the same blessed unity a few years later (716).

John, now condemns Monothelism

John was no sooner consecrated (December 24, 640) than he found it necessary to take measures against Monothelism. He had received a letter from the patriarch of Constantinople (Pyrrhus) in which the doctrine of the one-will was again plainly asserted. A synod was at once assembled in Rome. Monothelism and the Ecthesis were condemned, and Pyrrhus at once informed of what had been done. Thereupon the Emperor Heraclius made haste to disown the Ecthesis. It was not his. It was the work of Sergius.

On the death of Heraclius soon after (February 11, 641), he was succeeded by his sons, Constantine III and Heracleonas. To this Constantine, John addressed the long letter, generally known as his apology for Pope Honorius. He assured the emperor that the whole West was scandalised by the attempt that Pyrrhus was making to give credit to the new heresy by connecting with it the authority of Honorius; he denied that his predecessor had any thought of giving countenance to the one-will doctrine, and he begged the emperor that the Ecthesis, which bishops had been compelled to sign, might be withdrawn.

Before Constantine III, who was orthodox in faith, as we are informed by Zonoras (a late authority indeed, but in this respect undoubtedly accurate), had time to move in the matter, he was carried off by death, possibly poisoned by his stepmother (May 25, 641). Then for a time Heracleonas and Constantine, the son of Constantine III, and generally known as Constans II, reigned together. But some time in 642, before September, the young Constans became sole ruler of the empire.

Constans II destroys the Ecthesis.

Although Constans II afterwards became an ardent supporter of the Monothelite heresy, he began his reign by so far complying with the wishes of the Pope as to burn the Ecthesis, as he himself notified in a letter to Pope John.

Other details in connection with this communication between Constans II and John IV, which we have from Eutychius who was not born till the days of Charles the Bald, may not be so authentic. When, according to the patriarch of Alexandria, Constans had perused the letter of that “distinguished man”, viz., the Pope, he was profoundly impressed by the intellect therein displayed, and ordered a reply to be sent to Rome in which he accepted the doctrine of the two natures, two wills and operations of Our Lord, and of His one personality. He also intimated that he had committed to the flames the document which threw discredit on Pope Leo I, and the Council of Chalcedon; and averred : “We firmly maintain your teaching which is the truth”. When the papal messenger Sericus returned to Rome, he found that John IV was dead, and that Theodore, an excellent man, was Pope in his stead. The new Pope at once wrote to congratulate Constans on using his power to propagate the orthodox faith, thereby differing from Heraclius, who, for deserting the truth, was unworthy of the name of emperor. Eutychius concludes his narrative of these events by telling us that Constans was deeply moved by the news of John’s death.

Whatever of truth there is in these details, it may be safely inferred that John IV never read the letter addressed to him by Constans. For he was buried on October 12, 642—as usual in St. Peter’s.

A decree (Visis literis) of a Pope John is attributed to this Pope, in which the decision was given that churches  which had been entrusted to monks should be served by priests instituted by the monks themselves. Because this decree was addressed to one Isaac, Bishop of Syracuse, and because no such name figures in the list we have of the bishops of Syracuse, the editors of the second edition of Jaffé’s Regesta are in doubt as to which Pope John to assign this decree. However, the list of the bishops of Syracuse, about the year 640, can scarcely be said to be so well known as to exclude the possibility of there having been a bishop Isaac in that year.

 

THEODORE I.