Church and thus was completed the structure of oriental orthodoxy. It rose from the most solid and substantial foundation; it advanced, by the labours of a busy but unwise generation, through the mid air and mist of metaphysics, and terminated in a still blinder age, in clear and manifest superstition.

The same seven Councils are also received by the Roman Church, but not as a perfect rule, either of faith or discipline; and, indeed, when we consider that they were held, without exception, in the East, on the occasion of controversies originating in the East, and almost confined to it; that their deliberations were closely surveyed and influenced, if not directed, by the Eastern emperor; and that the prelates who framed them were almost exclusively Orientals*, we shall be disposed, perhaps, to feel some surprise that the Western Church, with so many causes of variance with her rival, should have acquiesced so submissively in their decisions.

The edicts of the last general Council did not secure immediate obedience. Leo the Armenian, who reigned from 814 to 820, relapsed into the heresy of the Isaurian. He fell an early victim to conspiracy; but his successor, Michael, fearlessly proceeded in the same difficult endeavour; and the earnestness of his wishes and the perplexities of his situation are naturally displayed in an epistle addressed by him to the son of Charlemagne, Louis, Emperor of the west. As this document throws great general light on the ecclesiastical history of that age, we shall transcribe it here.

'Many of our clergy and laity, departing from the apostolical traditions, have introduced pernicious novelties. They took down the crosses in the churches and put images in their room, before which they lighted up lamps and burned incense, honouring them as the cross. They sang before them, worshipped them, and implored their succour. Many dressed the female images with robes, and made them stand godmothers to their children. They offered up hair to them when they cut it off for the first time. Some Presbyters scratched off the paint from the images and mixed it with the holy Eucharist, and gave it in the Communion. Others put the body of the Lord into the hands † of the images, and made the communicants take it out thence. Others used boards with pictures painted on them, instead of an altar, on which they consecrated the elements; and many such-like abuses were committed. Therefore, the orthodox Emperors and the most learned Bishops, assembled in council, have forbidden these enormities, and have removed the images to higher places in the church, where they stood formerly, and when they were not worshipped, as they have been of late, by ignorant people.

་

Some of the complainers are gone to Rome to calumniate us there; but we are orthodox; we believe the Trinity, one God in three persons,

ing on the universal Church, was the establishment of the grossest practical corruption which the religion has ever suffered. Let us add, too, that it was established solely on the authority of tradition, while it was that, of all others, for which even the traditional authority is most defective, since it cannot be traced higher than the fourth century.

* At Nice, among 318 members, three were of the Western Church; at Constantinople (1), among 150, one only; at Ephesus, among 68, one; at Chalcedon, among 353, three; at Constantinople (2), among 164, six; at Constantinople (3) among 56, five; and even at the last, among the 377 who assisted, we can observe no Occidentals, except the Pope's legates, a very small number of Sicilian Bishops, and a deputy of the Bishop of Sardinia.

Thus it appears that the distinction at present so broadly drawn by the Greek Church between the worship of painted and of graven images did not then exist. The distinction is, indeed, very old in the writings of the Church; but it is probable that it was not practically introduced until after the Mahometan conquest.

the incarnation of the Word, his two wills and two operations; we implore the intercession of the Holy Virgin, the mother of God, and of all the Saints; we reverence their relics; we receive all the apostolical traditions and the decrees of the six Councils *.'

The spirit of appeal and justification in which the above epistle is conceived, indicates the weakness of a falling cause; and so, indeed, it proved: for in the year 842 the Empress Theodora re-established the authority of the Seventh Council, and replaced the images with so firm a hand that they have never since been shaken. In celebration of this achievement, a new festival was instituted under the name of the "Feast of Orthodoxy†,' and the most riotous enthusiasm generally attended the proclamation of idolatry.

The malice of historians has not failed to observe, that as the first success over the reviving reason and religion had been obtained under the auspices of Irene; so the second and mortal wound was inflicted by the rashness of a second woman‡. The charge is true and remarkable; but the strenuous and systematic exertions of a long succession of Popes in the same cause will easily excuse the blindness of two empresses. Indeed, a general view of history rather tends to raise our astonishment that so many princes were found wise and bold enough to stem the popular torrent. But this attempt at reformation commenced so late, and under circumstances so unfavourable, that even another century of judicious exertion, continued without pause or vacillation, might scarcely have sufficed for its success.

We shall conclude the chapter with a few additional remarks on this controversy. The best writer in the Eastern Church during this most critical period in its history,-indeed, the only writer of any reputation even in his own day,—was John Damascenus§; and with his name the long list of Greek Fathers may properly be said to terminate. His laborious and subtile works (of which the principal are Four Books concerning the Orthodox Faith,' and 'Sacred Parallels') are tainted by the infection of the Aristotelian philosophy, and by a strong superstitious tendency; and, therefore, we are not surprised to observe that his eloquence and influence were zealously engaged in the defence of images. He possessed consi

* See Jortin, Eccl. Hist. ad ann. 814. From this concluding confession we observe how many were the abuses to which even a reformer of the Church felt obliged to publish his adhesion.

+ There seems some reason to believe that this feast was not established until after the Council which was assembled by Photius, in 879, in further confirmation of idolatry.

In favour at least of the consistency of that sex, we must mention that it declared itself for idolatry from the very commencement of the contest, and very strongly too, as will be seen. Leo the Isaurian began his enterprise by an attack upon a very cele brated image of Jesus Christ, called the Antiphonetes, or Respondent; and he despatched one of his officers, named Jovinus, to break it down. Several women who were present endeavoured to avert his design by their supplications; but Jovinus, nothing moved by them, ascended a ladder and dealt some severe blows on the image. On this the women became furious; they pulled down the ladder, massacred the officer on the spot, and tore him in pieces. The image fell notwithstanding, and the women were led away to execu

tion.

§ He was a monk, and contemporary with Leo the Isaurian, against whom he vented his indignation with great impunity, as his ordinary residence was the monastery of St. Sabas, near Jerusalem, beyond the limits of the imperial control. He condescends to appeal to the authority of older fathers in his defence of images-to that of Basil, Gregory of Nyssa, Chrysostom, Ambrose, Anastasius of Antioch, and others. But we believe that he has not even affected to advance any name of higher antiquity than the fourth century,-not, by the way, that his cause would have been much better if he had. He was anathematized by the Iconoclast Council in 754,

derable learning; and his sophistry, no less than his authority, may really have blinded the reason of some, while many more would feed, under the shelter of his name, a previous inclination to idolatry*.

We believe it to be true, that of the miracles which are recorded to have abundantly signalized this prolonged dispute, the very great proportion, if we should not rather say the whole, were performed by the friends of the idols, a fact which, while it proves the higher principles of the other party, will also assist in accounting for their unpopularity. The people in the East were not, indeed, at this time so stupid and unenlightened as the serfs of the Western Empire; but they were by nature more disposed to fanaticism; they were familiar, by long habits of deception, with preternatural appearances, and disposed, by a controlling imagination, to eager credulity.

The Bishops, and, in general, the secular clergy of the East, appear to have taken no violent part in the contest. Indeed, we are persuaded that that numerous body contained many pious and rational individuals who were shocked by the degradation of Christianity and human nature, and who watched with an anxious eye the endeavours which were made to remove it. But such characters, which are among the best of the sacred profession, are seldom busy or ambitious; and the anxiety of those excellent men may have been often confined to their own bosoms, or at least to the narrow limits of their diocese. On the other hand, the monastic orders have too generally attested the spuriousness of their origin by their alliance with impurity and imposture. And thus, in the present instance, they were furious advocates for a system so necessary to their influence and their avarice; and it is chiefly, no doubt, to their perseverance that we are to attribute the evil result of the conflict.

The common people, partly from a natural tendency to a 'sensible worship, partly from the inveteracy of long habit, were strongly disposed to the same party; and that disposition was effectually improved by the monks, who, from a greater show of austerity, had the greatest hold upon their minds. Nor is the circumstance to be slightly noticed, that the contest in this case was for an intelligible and visible object. Unlike the metaphysical intricacies of some former controversies, it carried a direct appeal to the understanding of the vulgar, because its subject was the subject of their senses. If they positively worshipped the image, its destruction deprived them of their god; and even if the worship was only relative, it was extremely easy to persuade them that, in parting with the symbols of their faith, with the book of their religion, they were rashly casting away religion itself. Their enthusiasm was heated by false miracles; and when we think of the violence which the populace of the East were wont to exhibit even at their public spectacles, in the frivolous contests of the Hippodrome, we shall understand to what excesses they might be hurried by the agitation of religious excitement.

The

The Papal Chair perseveringly supported the 'cause of superstition; and this, perhaps, is the first occasion on which the close alliance of principle between the Pope and the monastic orders displayed itself. Pope's legates were present at the last general Council, and his Italian clergy appear to have given him very cordial assistance. Not so the more rational Prelates of France. Less awed by the presence of the spiritual

Theodore Studites, a monk and abbot, has acquired great reputation in the history of the Eastern Church by his obstinate defence of the orthodox practice, chiefly during the second contest. Exile was the punishment of his zeal, and severer punishment was very seldom, if ever, inflicted on the contumacious.

director, more so by the dictates of real piety, they established, under the guidance of Charlemagne*, a very broad distinction between positive and relative worship; and without entirely disclaiming the authority of the Seventh Council, they endeavoured to obviate, as much as possible, the great practical evil which directly flowed from it. This difference in the conduct of the French and Italian Churches on so great a question is a fact of some importance in history and deserving of attentive notice; and it is but justice to our own ancestors, as well as to the German divines of the age, to admit that they generally endeavoured to follow the same difficult course. But their resistance was not long effectual, nor indeed could it reasonably expect success; because, by permitting the use of images and their presence in the congregations of the converts, they made that first concession to error, of which all the others were remote, perhaps, but necessary consequencest.

CHAPTER XII.

On the Schism between the Greek and Latin Churches.

Preliminary considerations-political causes-Ecclesiastical-Origin of the Dispute-Dignity and jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople-Council of Chalcedon-Ambition of the Patriarch-Oriental dissensions-profitable to the Pope-Popish legate at Constantinople-Disputes between the two Sees-Title of Ecumenical Bishop assumed by John the Faster-Opposition of Gregory the Great-Emperor Phocas-Limits of papal influence in Greece-Ground of controversy changed -Procession of the Holy Spirit-the original doctrine-Process of the change-Spain-FranceCharlemagne-Moderation of Pope Leo III.-Perseverance of the Greeks-Forgery of the Latinsthe Patriarch Photius-his character-his excommunication of Pope Nicholas I.-Five heresies charged on the Roman Church-Transfer of several provinces from papal to patriarchal jurisdiction -Bulgaria-Dissensions of the Greeks-Fortunes of Photius-Connexion of Rome with Greek parties-defeat of the designs of the former-Subsequent differences-Michael Cerularius-Anathema of Leo IX. by his legates at Constantinople.

We have so frequently had occasion, especially in our later pages, to distinguish between the conduct and character of the Greek and Roman Churches, that it becomes necessary to enter still further into the causes of this distinction, and to trace the differences which had for some time disturbed their harmony, and which ended in their entire separation. In so doing, we must, in the first place, be careful not to confound the division of the churches with that of the empires; for the former, in fact, did not take place until more than a century after the final alienation of the ecclesiastical States from the sceptre of Leo the Isaurian. Nor, on the other

The Council of Francfort, whose deliberations were held under the eye of that monarch, went, indeed, somewhat further than this, and, though it permitted the images to remain, forbade any sort of adoration to be addressed to them.

Dupin (Nouv. Bibl. on second Council of Nice) gives a tolerably fair historical view of the subject of image worship. He admits that, during the three first ages and the beginning of the fourth, images were very rare among Christians; that towards the end of the fifth, pictures and images made their appearance, chiefly in the East, and became common in the sixth; they represented combats of martyrs and other sacred stories, for the instruction of those who were unable to read. The simple vulgar were touched by these representations; and when they beheld the Saints so vividly, and, as it were, bodily presented to them, they could not prevent themselves from testifying, by exterior signs, the esteem, the respect, and the veneration which they felt for them. Thus the worship of images insensibly established itself, and it was still further confirmed by the miracles which were attributed to them.

hand, should we be correct in considering these events as perfectly unconnected. Doubtless, political causes had great influence both in opening and widening the spiritual breach. The division of the empire under Arcadius and Honorius, though not immediately affecting the unity of the Church, operated indirectly to its disturbance by weakening the bonds of connexion and destroying the complete community of interests which more naturally subsists under a single government. Again, the circumstance that the seat of the Western Empire was removed from Rome to Ravenna communicated that sort of independence to the Roman Bishop, which, though it conferred not, in fact, any temporal authority, failed not to give nourishment to his pride and some countenance to his general claims of supremacy. A further alienation was necessarily occasioned by the barbarian conquest of the West; because this event not only annihilated the former relations and the reciprocal dependence of the two empires, but also produced a great and rapid change in the character of the Western clergy, and even in the principles of the Church.

Lastly, the common violence and mutual insults of Leo the Isaurian and Pope Gregory II., the civil war which broke out between them, the complete triumph of the latter and the consequent transfer of certain jurisdiction in Sicily and the South of Italy, from the Roman to the Constantinopolitan See, greatly tended to weaken the spirit which had hitherto identified the Churches, and to remove any notion of their inseparability. These are some of the political causes which undoubtedly prepared the way for the Grand Schism, and contributed to accelerate and inflame it. But there are others, of a nature purely ecclesiastical, to which it is more usually ascribed, and which had doubtless the principal share in its accomplishment.

The earliest recorded difference between the churches was that already noticed by us respecting the celebration of Easter; and we also remarked the tone of authority which the Bishop of the imperial city arrogated even in those days; but their connexion, and even their harmony, was not seriously endangered by that dispute, nor, indeed, can we trace the origin of the fatal controversy with any certainty to an earlier period than the fifth century. On the foundation of the new capital at Byzantium, the Bishop was, of course, invested with some power and dignity, which gradually increased through the consent or the neglect of the immediate successors of Constantine; however, the superior rank and precedence of the Roman Pontiff was not yet disputed. But in the beginning of the fifth century the spiritual jurisdiction of the See of Constantinople was much more widely extended; it then comprehended Asia, Thrace, and Pontus, and advanced on the west within the confines of Illyricum; and in 451 the Council of Chalcedon not only confirmed that jurisdiction, but conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople the same honours and privileges which were already possessed by that of Rome; the equality of the Pontiffs was justified by the equal dignity and lustre of the two capitals. The legates of Leo the Great were present, and had considerable influence in that council; but neither their exertions, nor those of the Pope himself, were able to prevent this affront to his dignity. Having attained so elevated a situation, the patriarch very soon proceeded to exalt himself still higher; the method which he took to extend his authority was, to humble, if possible, his brethren of Antioch and Alexandria*, and thus the

*It was not till a little before this time that Juvenal, Bishop of Jerusalem, usurped the title of patriarch, which, however, was confirmed to him by Theodosius the Younger.