they found a written rescript, denouncing the last inflictions against all who should receive the impious decree of Florence. Then it was that Priests and Abbots, Monks and Nuns, soldiers and citizens, the entire population, except the immediate dependents of the Emperor, shouted, as with a single voice-Anathema against all who are united with the Latins!' The sanctuary of St. Sophia was proclaimed profane; all intercourse was suspended with all who had assisted at the service with the Latins; absolution was refused, and the Churches were closed against them.

*

This was the madness of a falling empire-this was the heaven-inflicted delirium which prepared the path for destruction. The measure of fanaticism was at length filled up; the pontifical prophecy hastened to its accomplishment. And while the frantic people of Greece were in the highest ferment of theological excitement,-while their religious hatred against their brother Christians was burning most intensely, -while partial differences were most exaggerated,-while sectarian intolerance was most fierce and uncompromising, the banners of the Infidel were in motion towards the devoted city, and a nation of Christians was consigned in bondage to the common enemy of Christ.

Notes on Chapter XXVI.

NOTE (1) ON THE ARMENIANS.

THE first occasion on which we can observe the Armenians to have come into contact, as an independent communion, with the Church of Rome, was the following:-In the year 1145, while Pope Eugenius was resident at Viterbo, certain deputies from their patriarch (also called their Catholic), arrived to salute the Pontiff, and proffer every sort of respect and deference. The particular object of their mission appears, however, to have been this, -to appeal to the decision of the Pope respecting their differences with the Greek Church. The differences principally debated were two;-the Armenians did not mix water with the wine in the eucharist; they made use of leavened bread, excepting on the festivals of Christmas and the Epiphany. . . . . We do not learn that there were any lasting results from this embassy; but it is carefully recorded,† that the Orientals assisted at the Latin Mass celebrated by the Pope in person; and that one of them beheld on that solemnity a sunbeam resting on the head of the Pontiff, as well as two doves ascending and descending above him, in an inexplicable manner-a marvel which greatly moved him to reverence and submission.

Notwithstanding, the circumstances under which the Armenians next present themselves to the historian, prove the futility of the former overtures to Rome. For we find that, in the year 1170, the Catholic Norsesis addressed a letter to Manuel Comnenus, in which he mentioned some points, whereon himself and the Greeks were not agreed, and expressed a strong desire for reconciliation. The Emperor entrusted the com

*Constantinople was certainly taken in the third year (inclusive) after the prediction of Nicholas. The Pope wrote some time in 1451; the city fell on May 29, 1453. The coincidence, even with this latitude, was fortunate; but after the battle of Varna, no light from heaven was necessary to foreshow the speedy downfall of the Greek empire.

By Otho Frisingensis, who was at that time at Viterbo.

mission to a philosopher named Theorian, who proceeded to Armenia, and conferred with the patriarch and another influential prelate. On this occasion much more important differences were advanced than those discovered at Viterbo; and that, which was most prominent, respected the nature of Christ. From the account of this controversy it would appear, that, in the outset, the Greeks supposed the Armenians to be involved in the Eutychian heresy; while the Armenians imagined the Greeks to have embraced the opposite error of Nestorius. In the course of the conference both were undeceived. The Armenians did indeed admit, that they held one incarnate nature; but not by confusion, like Eutyches, nor by diminution, like Apollinaris: but in the orthodox' sense of Cyril of Alexandria. The Greeks cleared their own tenets from the charge of Nestorianism with equal perspicuity. The result was, that the Catholic acknowledged their orthodoxy, and undertook to bring over all his compatriots to the same opinion. Some other differences of inferior weight were also discussed; and these, too, the Armenian is related to have softened away with equal facility. At length, after an affecting interview, in which many tears were poured forth in pious sympathy by both parties, Theorian returned to Constantinople, and Narsesis prepared to communicate his own convictions to the Church over which he presided.

With what little success these negotiations were attended appears from the next glimpse that we catch of the ecclesiastical affairs of the Armenians. On the 23rd of May, 1199, Leo, their king, addressed an epistle to Innocent III., expressing his anxiety for the re-union of his Church with that of Rome. At the same time he disclosed the motive of his anxiety; for he deplored the ravages, to which his kingdom was exposed by the inroads of the infidels, and proclaimed the absolute need in which he stood of foreign succour. This application was accompanied by one from the Catholic, in which he professed his wish for reconciliation, and his readiness to make submission to the Vatican. The Pope sent, in reply, many civil expressions; and intended, no doubt, to confer a more substantial service on his militant fellow Christians, when he presented them at the same time with the standard of St. Peter, as a safeguard against the sword of the unbeliever. Some negotiations succeeded: at length (in the year 1205), the king prevailed upon his subjects to acknowledge their spiritual allegiance to the Pope; and the Catholic publicly placed the act of his submission in the hands of the legate. He accepted the pallium ↑ from the same authority, and engaged to visit the holy See, by his Nuncios, once in every five years, and to assist in person, or by deputy, at all councils which might be held in the west for the regulation of his interests. Greater objections appear to have prevailed among those orientals against the introduction of the Roman code of canon law; but it was arranged that some part of its institutions should be received at once, and the rest

See Theoriani Orthodoxi cum Catholico Armeniorum Colloquium,' in the Maxima Biblioth. P.P. tom. xxii. p. 796-812, (Edit. Lugdun. 1677).Dicimus in Christo naturam unam esse, non secundum Eutychen confundentes, nec secundum Apollinarem detrahentes, sed secundum Alexandrinum Antistitem Cyrillum, in Orthodoxia, quæ in libro contra Nestorium scripsit, unam esse naturam Sermonis incarnatam'.... controversy turned a good deal on the distinction (real or imaginary) between Christus and Sermo, in this question.

The

See the Letter from Leo to Innocent, published by Raynaldus, ann. 1205, in which he boasts, that, with great labour, and through divine grace, he had at length brought about that obedience of the Armenians to the Roman Church, which his ancestors had so long attempted in vain.

at some future time, after more mature deliberation among the Armenian prelates. Such was the general nature of the reconciliation then effected; but some dissensions presently arose between the king and one of the pontifical legates; and there seems no reason to believe that the above negotiation had any lasting consequences.*

As the amicable overtures from Armenia to Rome were entirely occasioned by the political necessities of the former, they were more frequent during the desolation of the East in the fourteenth century. The interested obedience of that communion was tendered to John XXII., and accepted by him. A few years afterwards (in 1341) we observe another king, named Leo, soliciting temporal assistance from Benedict XII. The Pope made answer in two letters, respectively addressed to the king and to the Catholic. In the former, he made mention of the errors entertained by the Armenians, and of the exertions which he had made, both by personal inquiry from those professing them, and by the examination of the authorized books, to ascertain their nature and extent. In the latter, he exhorted the clergy to assemble in council, to condemn and extirpate the false opinions which they held, and then, for their better instruction in the faith and observances of the Roman Church, to receive the Decree, the Decretals and other Canons used in the West. He expressed a pious persuasion, that when the errors of the Armenians should once be removed, the enemies of the faith would no longer prevail against them; and concluded his address by the proposal of a conference.

The first of these epistles was accompanied by a memorial, in which the errors in question were enumerated. They were expanded into a tedious catalogue of one hundred and seventeen; but they may, without much inaccuracy, be reduced under the following heads:-1. The Armenians were accused of adhesion to the opinions of Eutyches, involving, of course, the Monophysite heresy, the rejection of the council of Chalcedon, the condemnation of St. Leo, and the secession from both the Ecumenic Churches. 2. They were charged with administering the sacraments of confirmation and the eucharist, together with that of baptism-a practice which (as Fleury observes) had very early prevalence in the Church. 3. They mixed no water with the wine in the holy communion-which again was an ancient usage. 4. They rejected Transubstantiation, and maintained that it was the figure only, not the real body, that was received by the Communicants-an opinion which was then naturally considered as a consequence of the Eutychian error respecting the nature of Christ-for if any doubts were thrown on the reality of Christ's body on earth, the same would extend in an equal (if not in a greater) degree, to the reality of his flesh in the sacrament of his supper. The other imputations concerned some fabulous notions respecting the resurrection, the last judgment, the place of punishment, the earthly and heavenly paradise, the intermediate state, and other questions of difficult determination.

In consequence of the pontifical remonstrances, the Patriarch assembled his council, and condemned all the imputed errors; he then sent deputies

*From the fragment of a Greek writer, named Nico, (probably of the thirteenth century,) translated and published in the Max. Bibliotheca P.P. (tom. xxv. p. 328), and entitled De Pessimorum Armeniorum pessima Religione,' it appears that they still retained all the errors imputed to them by either Church. Among a multitude here enumerated it is one, that they do not adore the venerable images, but, on the contrary, that their Catholic anathematizes those who do so. Neither do they worship the Cross, until they have driven a nail into it, and baptized it,' &c.

to the succeeding Pope (Clement VI.), charged with a general obligation, to retract any other obnoxious opinions which might thereafter be discovered; and at the same time to acknowledge the Bishop of Rome as the chief of the Church of Christ, and to solicit copies of the decretals, for the more faithful administration of his own subordinate communion. The Pope engaged to send them, and in November, 1346, despatched two legates on a mission to the East.

Five years afterwards, the Pontiff, still dissatisfied with the communications (perhaps equivocal) which he received from his new subjects, and desiring a more express declaration of their opinions on those points which most interested himself, addressed the Catholic of Lesser Armenia in terms not substantially different from the following:- Since we are unable clearly to collect your opinions from your answers, we desire distinctly to propose the following questions:-Do you believe that all who at their baptism have received the Catholic faith, and have afterwards separated from the communion, are Schismatics and heretics, if they persist in such separation? and that no one can be saved, who has renounced obedience to the Pope? Do you believe that St. Peter received from Jesus Christ full power of jurisdiction over all the faithful? that all the power which the apostles may have possessed in certain provinces was subject to his? and that all the successors of St. Peter have the same power with himself? Do you believe that, in virtue of that power, the Pope can judge all the faithful immediately, and delegate to that effect such ecclesiastical judges as he may think proper? Do you believe that the Pope can be judged by no one, except God himself; and that there is no appeal from his decisions to any judge? Do you believe that he can translate bishops, and abbots, and other ecclesiastics from one dignity to another, or degrade and depose them, if they deserve such punishment? Do you believe that the Pope is not subject to any secular power, even regal or imperial, in respect to institution, correction, or destitution; that he alone can make general canons, and grant plenary indulgences, and decide disputes on matters of faith?' . . . . These interrogations were accompanied by the notice of some Armenian errors on the intermediate state, on the sacraments, and especially the Eucharist; and by some complaints, that promises, hitherto made with facility, had not been sufficiently observed. But they chiefly merit the historian's attention, as they prove the uncompromising severity with which Rome, even during the exile of her Pontiffs, exacted all her usurped ecclesiastical rights, and imposed the whole weight and pressure of her yoke even on the most distant and most reluctant of her subjects. Howbeit, after that period, we do not observe any proof of the continuance or renewal of friendly negotiation between Rome and Armenia, sufficiently important to deserve a place in this history.

NOTE (2) ON THE MARONITES.

MARO, or Maroun, from whom this sect derives its appellation, lived during the latter part of the sixth century on the banks of the Orontes; and in the disputes then prevailing between the eastern and western Churches, he exerted his influence, which was considerable in that part of Syria, in favour of the latter. About a century later, a certain John, surnamed the Maronite, was distinguished by his opposition to the Melchites Greeks; and it seems to have been under his guidance, that the Syrian

...

rebels'* settled apart in the secure recesses of Libanus and Antilibanus. There they formed a powerful association, formidable alike to the orthodox Greeks and to the Mahometan invader. . . . . The first crusades brought them once more into immediate contact with the Latins; but not always as allies, nor by any means as members of the same ecclesiastical communion. For it appears certain, that the Maronites had imbibed, in the first instance, the opinions of the Monothelites, and that they long maintained them, together with some other peculiarities in rites and discipline. At length, however, about the year 1182, they were induced to abandon their leading error, and were then received into the bosom of the Roman Church.

At the same time it was stipulated, that the Pope should in no respect interfere with any of their ancient practices or ceremonies; consequently they continued to observe the discipline of the Greek Church, regarding the marriage of the clergy, and to administer the eucharist in both kinds, and according to the manner generally in use in the East. They retained, too, in other matters, a much closer resemblance to their original, than to their adopted, communion. Nevertheless, they have faithfully preserved the name of obedience to Rome from that time to the present; and if the contributions, which they have continually received from the apostolical treasury, should occasion any suspicion respecting the motives of their fidelity, it is worthy, at least, of observation, that the pecuniary current has invariably set in that direction, and that the more ordinary principles of the Vatican have never extended to the oppression of its Maronite subjects.

CHAPTER XXVII.

From the Council of Bâsle to the beginning of the Reformation.

The real weight of General Councils as a part of the Constitution of the Church-Circumstances preceding the accession of Nicholas V.-His popular qualities-Love of all the Arts-His public virtues Recorded particulars of his Election-Concord with Germany-Celebration and abuse of the Jubilee-Death of the Cardinal of Arles-His recorded miracles and canonization-Efforts to unite the Christian States against the Turks-Dissatisfaction and Death of Nicholas—Calliatus III. Crusading enthusiasm of Eneas Sylvius-Jealousy between the Pope and Alphonso of ArragonNepotism of the former-Eneas Sylvius justifies the Pope against the complaints of the Germans -His history-The circumstances of his elevation to the Pontificate-The Council of Mantua, for the purpose of uniting Europe against the Turks-The project of Pius II.-Failure of the whole Scheme-Embassy to Rome from the Princes of the East-Thomas Palæologus arrives at RomeCanonization of Catharine of Sienna-The Bull of Pius II. against all appeals from the Holy See to General Councils-The Pope retracts the errors into which he fell, as Æneas Sylvius-Probable motive of his apostacy-His speech in Consistory-Departure against the Infidels-Arrival at Ancona, and Death-His Character-Compared to Nicholas V., and Cardinal Julian-Conditions imposed by the Conclave on the future Pope-Remarks-Paul II, is elected, and immediately violates them-A native of Venice-Principles of his Government-He diverts the War from the Turks against the Hussites, and persecutes a literary Society at Rome-Sixtus IV. makes a faint attempt to rouse Christendom against the Turks-Violent broil between the Pope and the FlorentinesOtranto taken by the Turks-Excessive Nepotism of this Pope-Institution of the MinimesIncreased venality of the Court of Rome-The moral character, talents, learning of SixtusElevation of Innocent VIII.-Violation of the oath taken in Conclave-Preferment conferred on his illegitimate Children-His weakness and his avarice-The great wealth, election, and reputa tion of Alexander VI.-Distribution of his Benefices, &c. among the Cardinals who voted for him

They were then called Mardaites-which means Rebels. The reader is familiar with the picture of the Maronites drawn in Volney's admirable' Travels in Syria.'