same ambition was found to pursue the same course at Constantinople as at Rome. But there it was liable to severer mortifications and more effectual control from the immediate presence of the Emperor, from his power and supremacy, and his habitual interference in church affairs.

Again, the grasping ambition of the patriarch, and the dissensions which, from other causes no less than from that, so continually disturbed the Oriental Church, were productive of great influence to the Pope, not only through the positive weakness occasioned to that Church by such divisions, but chiefly because the injured or discontented party very generally made its appeal to the Roman See, where it met with most willing and partial attention. We may recollect that Athanasius, when persecuted in the east, fled to the western Church for refuge; and this example was not lost on those who thought themselves aggrieved in after ages. It is true that Roman interference was, on every occasion, indignantly rejected by the rival Pontiff; nevertheless the habit of interposing would lead many to suppose that it was founded on some indefinite, unacknowledged right, and disaffection was encouraged in the east by the certainty of a powerful protector.

Very soon after the Council of Chalcedon, Leo appointed a resident legate at Constantinople to watch over the papal interests, and to communicate with the Vatican on matters of spiritual importance. That useful privilege, as we have already seen, was not abandoned by succeeding Popes and those ecclesiastical ambassadors, or Correspondents,' continued for some time to represent the Papal chair in the eastern capital.

For the next hundred and thirty years the disputes respecting the equality of the two Sees, as well as the limits of their jurisdiction, were carried on with little interruption perhaps, but with little violence. But in 588, at a Synod called at Constantinople respecting the conduct of a patriarch of Antioch, John, surnamed the Faster, who was then Primate of the East, adopted, as we have observed, the title of Ecumenical, or Universal Bishop. It appears that this title had been conferred on the patriarchs by the Emperors Leo and Justinian, without any accession of power; nor was it, in fact, understood to indicate any claim to supremacy beyond the limits of the Eastern Church. But Gregory could not brook such assumption in an Eastern Prelate, and used every endeavour to deprive his rival of the obnoxious title, and at the same time to establish his own superiority. He failed in both these attempts-at least his success in the latter was confined to the Western clergy, and to the interested and precarious assent of the discontented subjects of the Eastern Church.

The quarrel proceeded during the seventh century, and Roman Catholic writers confidently assert, that the Emperor Phocas (a sanguinary usurper) through the influence of Pope Boniface III. transferred the disputed title from the Greek to the Roman Pontiff. It seems probable that he acknowledged the pre-eminence of the latter-and early usage justified him in so doing-without at all derogating from the independence of the former. But the alliance of the Eastern Emperor with a foreign Bishop against his own patriarch could not possibly be of long duration; and, accordingly, throughout the controversy about images (which presently followed) we find the Pope in direct and open opposition to the Emperor, and to the powerful party in his Church which favoured him.

On the other hand, the ecclesiastical orders in the East were so widely and passionately divided on the subject of this dispute, and the hopes of the weaker and more violent party were obliged for so many years to fix themselves on Rome, that the Pope must again have acquired great influ

ence in that quarter. It was great, but it was temporary only; for the popular prejudice, especially in Greece itself, was still strong and general against any acknowledgment of papal supremacy, and the national vanity was still jealous of the name and ascendency of Rome. And thus the actual influence of the Pope was generally confined to those who stood in need of his assistance, and seldom survived the crisis during which they needed it.

Thus far the disputes between the Pope and the Patriarch were confined almost entirely to the question of supremacy in the Universal Church, pertinaciously claimed by the one, and perseveringly refused by the other; and to this difference we need not doubt that a great proportion of the violence which disgraced the controversy may be ascribed. But during the eighth century the contention assumed a different aspect, and took a ground and character less discreditable to either party.

According to the original creed of the Latin as well as of the Greek Church, the Holy Spirit was believed to proceed from the The double Father only; and the question, though of great theological Procession. importance, does not appear to have been generally investigated until the eighth century-at least to that period we must refer the origin of the controversy respecting it. It is true that the change in the established doctrine was first introduced into the Church of Spain, an event which must have taken place before the Mahometan conquest. Thence it proceeded into France, and in the year 767 it was agitated in the Council of Gentilli, near Paris; it then received the assent of the French clergy. Soon afterwards it was warmly advocated by Charlemagne himself; and in the year 809, at the Council of Aix-la-Chapelle †, Pope Leo III. acknowledged the truth of the doctrine, but still objected to making it an article of faith, observing, with great reason, that every doctrine which is true should not, for that reason, be inserted in a creed;' nevertheless, as it had previously obtained place in the Latin creeds, his authority, or his inclination, was not sufficiently strong to effect its general erasure. It was maintained in France, and its rejection by Rome was feeble and temporary.

But the Greeks obstinately adhered to their original faith, as established by the Council of Constantinople; and what gave them great advantage in the subsequent controversy was, that their adversaries had begun the contest by abandoning the defensible ground of argument; they forgot the authority of scripture, and took refuge under a falsified copy of the Canons of that Council, into which (through that obtuse craft which becomes a principle in ignorant ages) the words Filioque (and the Son) had been interpolated. The fraud was instantly detected, and the homage which they had thus reluctantly offered to the Council in question was converted into a conclusive argument by an adversary, who rested his own faith on no better ground than its antiquity.

A controversy conducted on such principles could hope for no rational discussion, nor any friendly termination, its only effect was to inflame the enmity already too hotly kindled, and to accelerate the certain hour of separation. This consummation was presently secured by the promo

Baronius asserts, that the words Filioque were first added by the Council of Toledo, by the authority of Pope Leo I., about the year 447; but he confesses that the doctrine was not expressly received by the Roman Church until some ages afterwards.

+ Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. xlv. sect. 48. The Pope defended his opinion by the argument, that two General Councils, that of Chalcedon and the Fifth, had forbidden any addition to the creed.

tion of a very extraordinary person to the patriarchal throne. In the year 853, Photius*, a layman of splendid talents, unusual extent of erudition both secular and theological, and unimpeachable moral Photius. character, was raised to that dignity by the Emperor Michael, who, with that view, removed and banished the actual Bishop, Ignatius. The exile appealed to Rome. And if the jealousy of the Vatican was excited by the splendid reputation of the new patriarch, its anxiety might also be awakened by his ambitious and fearless character: therefore Pope Nicholas I., who was as proud and aspiring as his rival, listened to the appeal, and eagerly espoused the cause of Ignatius. He assembled a Council at Romet in 862, in which he pronounced the election of Photius illegal, and excommunicated him with all his abettors. The patriarch was not much disturbed by this violence, and four years afterwards, in a Council summoned at Constantinople, he retorted the anathemas of his rival, pronounced his deposition, and removed him from the communion of all Christians.

Photius justified this extremely bold measure by a circular letter addressed to his brother patriarchs, in which, besides some strong reflections on other grievances, he charged the Roman Church with five direct heresies. We shall here enumerate them, both that we may more clearly show what were held to be the principal points on which the Churches were divided, and also that we may observe how low the malevolence of controversy will sometimes condescend to stoop: 1. That the Romans fasted on the Sabbath, or seventh day of the week; 2. that in the first week of Lent they permitted the use of milk and cheese; 3. that they prohibited their priests to marry, and separated from their wives such as were married when they went into orders; 4. that they authorized the Bishops alone to anoint baptized persons with the holy chrism, withholding that power from Presbyters; 5. that they had interpolated the creed of Constantinople by the insertion of the words Filioque, and held the doctrine of the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Son as well as the Father.

These charges, and the consequent recriminations, embittered as they also were by national animosity, had, of course, no other effect than to exasperate the violence of both parties; but we should be mistaken if we were wholly to attribute that fury to the differences either in doctrine or discipline. Its deepest motive is, perhaps, to be traced to another source. The Emperor, with the assistance, and probably through the influence of his ambitious Primate, had lately and definitively withdrawn from the papal jurisdiction various provinces to the east of the Adriatic, Illyricum, Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thessaly, and either transferred them to the patriarch, or (for the point is disputed) confirmed his previous authority over them; and this, indeed, was an ecclesiastical offence of a description little calculated to find forgiveness at Rome. Moreover, it happened that this sensible injury was immediately succeeded by another of the same nature. The heathen inhabitants of Bulgaria, a province of

Photius, than whom Greece, the parent of so much genius, has never produced, perhaps, a more accomplished man, is singularly recommended by talents applicable to every object, sound judgment, extreme acuteness, infinite reading, incredible diligence. He had held nearly all the offices of state, he had thoroughly investigated all the records of the Church; in his Bibliotheca alone, still extant, he has brought together nearly two hundred and eighty writers, chiefly ecclesiastical, which he has studied, reviewed, and abstracted, and pronounced a most accurate judgment on their arguments, style, fidelity, authority. Cace, ap. Jortin, in A. D. 861,

† Mosheim, cent. ix. p. ii., c, iii,

the Eastern Empire not far distant from Constantinople, had very lately been converted to christianity by Greek missionaries; or, if it be admitted that some very imperfect efforts had been previously made there by the emissaries of Charlemagne, the Greeks at least had the merit of completing the spiritual conquest*: consequently, Photius placed Bulgaria under his own jurisdiction; nor will the impartial historian blame that Prelate for his endeavour to make the limits of the Church co-extensive with those of the empire, and to repel the intrusive invasions of Rome.

But the influence of the Pope was still maintained, and nourished by the dissensions of the Greeks; and the flame of controversy had not at all abated, when Basilius, the Macedonian, on his accession to the throne, deposed Photius, and restored Ignatius to his former dignity. This act was confirmed by a Council assembled at Constantinople in 869, in which the papal legates had great influence, and which the Roman Church still acknowledges as the Eighth General Council. In 878 Photius was recalled, and in 886 again deposed; but neither his recall nor his deposition had the effect of conferring on the papal chair the jurisdiction for which it had struggled so pertinaciously. And, indeed, we may again observe, that throughout her long succession of interferences in the religious affairs of Greece, Rome has, on no occasion, gained any substantial or permanent advantage. In fact, even at the moment when she seemed to be playing her part most artfully, she was little more than a tool in the more artful hands of a Greek party, who flattered her as long as their own interests required her support, but were always ready to reject her intervention when they required it no longer.

We might have closed the account of this controversy with the mutual excommunications of Photius and Nicholas; indeed the Cerularius. schism did properly commence at that period; and though the Popes continued to prosecute, through the two succeeding centuries, their unsuccessful schemes of ambition, they produced little mischief, and have, consequently, little attracted the notice of history. About the middle of the eleventh century the attention of Rome seems to have been particularly directed to the reduction of the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch under its own supremacyt. Michael Cerularius, a man of lofty, perhaps turbulent, spirit, was at that time patriarch, and after some angry correspondence between him and Pope Leo IX., the latter pronounced at Rome the sentence of excommunication. Nevertheless, his legates were invited to Constantinople with a view to heal the schism; there they asserted some insolent claims, which Cerularius indignantly rejected; as the conference continued, the differences grew deeper and wider, and at length the legates in the heart of Constantinople, in the Church of St. Sophia, publicly excommunicated the patriarch and all

It appears, indeed, from Roman Catholic historians, that the Pope maintained a sort of communication with the Bulgarians, by means of missionaries, and that their King actually sent his son to Rome in acknowledgment (as those assert) of spiritual obedience. The utmost that can be truly alleged is, that the field, which both parties had exerted themselves to cultivate, was the subject of equal claims.

While the Pontiffs were contending for authority, the Churches were debating with extreme ardour a point of difference posterior in origin to the time of Photius, viz. whether the bread used at the Eucharist should be leavened or unleavened? The Greek clergy held the former opinion, and objected the latter to the Latins as an unpardonable error. Some other abuses are also imputed to them by Cerularius, and they are among the most frivolous which could have been selected out of the long and dark list of their corruptions a proof that the spirit of the Greek Church in that age was as far from the true comprehension of Christianity as that of its rival,

his adherents. They then solemnly deposited the written act of their anathema on the grand altar of the Temple, and, having shaken off the dust from their feet, departed.

This event took place in 1054, and confirmed and consummated the separation; and though some degree of friendly intercourse has been occasionally resumed since that time, as political rather than religious exigencies have required it, the imputed errors of the Greeks (of which the most offensive was their independence) have never been seriously retracted by their Church, nor ever have been pardoned by its rival.

CHAPTER XIII.

I. Review of the ante-Nicene Church-Its construction and government-its real character and utility-Doctrines and heresies-moral excellences-Origin of various abuses-Early false miracles —their nature and object-Exorcism-Literary forgeries-Distinction of the converts-mysteries -Original Sacraments-their gradual corruption-Reverence for martyrs-celebration of their nativities-Prayers and offerings for the dead-Fasts, occasional and general-Certain terms and usages borrowed from Jewish and Pagan systems-Inferences-the ante-Nicene Church had imperfections which might easily have been remedied.-11. From Constantine to Gregory the Great -(1.) Some particular innovations-Celibacy of the Clergy-practices of the Eastern and Western Churches-Gregory I. and VII.-Relaxation of penitential discipline-Purgatory-Use and consequent worship of images-(2.) The Church in connexion with the State-Origin of distinction between temporal and spiritual power-sources of ecclesiastical power and influence-increased authority of the Church-abuse of civil power for spiritual purposes-(3.) Internal government of the Church-decrease of popular, increase of episcopal, power-causes of this change-Elements of the Papal system-the most obvious causes of its rise and progress.-III. From Gregory to Charlemagne-Differences between the Eastern and Western Churches-Further growth of episcopal authority in the latter-Further exaltation of the See of Rome-The Athanasian creed.IV. Jurisdiction and immunities of the Clergy-Arbitration of ancient Bishops-confirmed by Constantine-enlarged by Justinian-Great extent of privilege conferred by Charlemagne-his probable motives-The False Decretals-Donation of Constantine-their objects and effects.V. Revenues of the Church-oblations-fixed property-Donations-various descriptions and objects of other sources of wealth-Early distribution and application of ecclesiastical fundsPayment and establishment of Tithes-Various advantages conferred upon the world by the Church during the ages preceding Charlemagne.

We shall depart from that important position in our history which is occupied by the acts of Charlemagne, with a clearer view of their nature and a better comprehension of the character of the Roman Church, if we previously throw even a hasty retrospect over some portion of the path which we have traced; and thus, after faintly retouching some parts which may not have been sufficiently illustrated, and noticing others with more care than has yet been bestowed on them, we shall complete the account which we propose to give of the first eight centuries of the Church. Some particulars also will be introduced, of which all mention has purposely been deferred till this occasion, in order to bring them into contact with those more remarkable events to which they are allied in principle, though sepaWe shall commence this review rated by time or other circumstances.

from the earliest ages.

I. The Primitive Assemblies (Ekkλýσiai) of the converts were called Churches. These, in the first instance, were scattered,

Church.

as the religion spread itself, in perfect equality and in- The Ante-Nicene dependence, and their affairs were, for the most part, regulated by a body of presbyters, who acted with

the consent of the people, and under the guidance of the Apostles. This form of government was, to a certain extent, modelled on that of the