« AnteriorContinuar »
built. This was the headland. Here the Eastern mind in the church, turned back from its course, — its constrained alliance with Western genius, — and began to flow by itself again, in a more congenial channel. Two centres of attraction were now established: one possessing affinities for the Greek; the other, for the Latin Christians. The sevenhilled 1 city on the Bosphorus, became the rival of the sevenhilled city on the banks of the Tiber. That branch of the vine which had been grafted upon a Western stock, still clung to old Rome; and that which had sprung from an Oriental root, turned instinctively to New Rome2 for support.
The way is now clear1 for us to trace some of those differences, between the Eastern and Western branches of the church, which resulted at last in their separation from each other. If we suppose those differences to be merely doctrinal, we shall find them ludicrously small as a ground of the conflict which the two communions have kept up for the last thousand years. We have only to visit Palestine, if we wouid see a specimen of the war which has been so long and relentlessly waged between the Greeks and Latins: 1the Latins still supported by the Southern powers, and the Greeks now by the great Northern power of Europe. Hardly a sacred locality can be found, which has not been fiercely contested by the two rival sects. Within the church of the Holy Bepnlehre a struggle has been going on for generations; and that struggle has oftentimes been hot and deadly. "It would be a melancholy task," says a recent traveller, speaking of thai edifice, "to tell how the Latins procured a firman to stop the repairs of the dome by the Greeks; how, in the bloody conflicts of Easter, the English traveller was taunted
1 '• 'Hie screu hills, which, to the eyes of those who approach Constantinople, appear to rise aboro each other in beautiful order." — (lilJxm.
* Constantiue actually bestowed this name on his new capital, at the ceremony of dedication. He was probably influenced by political motives in this, for he sought in all possible ways to associate with his city whatever might render it •ttraciiivc to the Roman people. "Velut ipsius llomae filiam." They, notwithstanding, almost from the first called it after the name of its founder.
by the Latin monks with eating the bread of their convent and not fighting for them in the church; how, after the great fire of 1808, which fire itself the Latins charge to the arnb'tion of the Greeks, tvvo years of time, and two-thirds of the cost of restoration, were consumed in the endeavors of each party, by bribes and litigations, to overrule and eject the others from the places they respectively occupied in the ancient arrangement of the churches; how each party regards the Turk as his best and only protector against the other."1 "Neither party," says the same thoughtful observer, "can ever forget that once the whole sanctuary was exclusively theirs; and, although France and Russia have doubtless pressed the claims of their respective churches from political or commercial motives, yet those claims themselves arise from the old conflict of the two great national churches of the East and West, here alone brought side by side within the same narrow territory. Once only besides has their controversy been waged in equal proximity, namely, when the Latin church, headed by Augustine, found itself in our own island (England), brought into abrupt collision with the customs and traditions of the Greeks, in the ancient British church founded by Eastern missionaries. What in the extreme West was decided once for all by a short and bloody straggle, in Palestine has dragged on its weary length for many centuries."J
Slight indeed are the theological questions, around which this wearying strife has ebbed and flowed. The divergence of one party from the other, in their views of repealed truth, was but just perceptible at first. It would be hard for them now, to give a self-justifying account of their disputes, on any doctrinal grounds; or to show, in a satisfactory manner, for what vital truths of the Gospel they have fought each other, through ten centuries, with an enmity that has never cooled, to the constant shame of Christianity, and the frequent embroilment of more than half the world. Those disagreements in doctrine and forms of worship, such as they are, can be given in few words. And let it be re
1 Stanley'! " Sirmi nnii Palestine," p. 458. • Ibid. pp. 457, 458.
membered that we state them as they now exist, after the struggles of many centuries, and not as they appeared at the time when the division first occurred. Had the two parties remained together, and been identified in their interests and national spirit, these diversities in their religious belief would have disappeared long ago. At first they only thought they differed, and the wish was father to the thought; hence each party was on the watch for occasion to show that that thought was correct; and thus, after considerable effort, they succeeded in fomenting the quarrel they desired; and from that time forward they had no trouble in finding some object of contention. What we regard as the real causes of the strife, will be shown farther on. The natural workings of those causes would have made their doctrinal differences greater than we now find them, had not each party been kept on the same general ground of belief, by its desire to be regarded as in the true succession of the church of the apostles. £ They could not get far from each other, in their theoretical views, while it was the object of each to show that itself, rather than the other, still conformed to the ancient standards. They grew less orihodox as they became more powerful; and therefore we shall find that the Greek church, which has always been the weaker of the two, excepting for one short period, is much nearer than the Latin church to the scriptural basis. When the Romish hierarchy had no dangerous rival left, and beheld all Europe at its feet, it ventured to act out the spirit which had animated it from the beginning of the contest; and, throwing aside the Bible, it^ taught such dogmas as were best suited to its ambitious designs.
The disputes between the Greeks and Latins had been going on for centuries, before any doctrinal element was introduced into it. In the year 809, at a general council held in Aix-la-chapelle, the doctrine of the Procession of the Spirit came up. The Nicene council, whose authority the Greek Christians recognized, had decreed that the Spirit proceeds from the Father; but the council of Aix-la-chapelle, which was made up almost wholly of Western elements, decided that the Spirit proceeds from the Father and the Son. To this decision the Eastern church has never submitted; not so much because it disliked the new doctrine, as for the reason that it would not yield to the dictation of a rival power. • It does not appear that the Greek church has anywhere denied the essential equality of the Son with the Father; the Nicene creed settled the doctrine of the person of Christ; and indeed, the famous filioque clause was not inserted with reference to that doctrine, but as part of a certain unintelligible Theory respecting the Third person in the Trinity. Those who would convict the Greek church of looseness in doctrinal matters, may say that in the Arian controversy, at a much earlier date, it took sides against Athanasius. But how could this be, since Athanasius has been, up to the present day, one of the four great fathers in the calendar of that church ? 1 Greek Christians have never disputed, and still abide by, the decisions of the council which condemned the Arian heresy. If the Eastern bishops favored Arius at all, it was not because they liked his theory, but for the sake of differing from the bishop of Rome, who led the opposition to him. It was from this same jealousy, as we are driven to believe, that other contentions about doctrine and forms of worship arose, in process of time. "When the Latin church decided that only unleavened bread should be used at the Eucharist, the Greek church decided to use leavened bread and diluted wine. The see of Rome , decreed that no priest ought to have a wife ; whereupon the • see- of Constantinople decreed that priests must be married men.2 When the Occidentals began to worship images and pictures indiscriminately, the Orientals determined to have pictures only as objects of religious worship.8 The Greek
1 Chrysostom, Basil llic Groat, Athanasius, and Gregory Nazianzen arc the Greek fathers; to whom a fifth, Cyril of Alexandria, is sometimes added. A famous representation of the four may be seen at Venice, in the church of St. Mark.
'J Only the parish priests are required to marry; nor arc they allowed to marry a second time. Among the bishops, and other higher orders of the priesthood, celibacy is enjoined.
8 We give here the final adjustment of the matter. During the controversy on this subject, the two churches changed ground more than once.
cross differs in form from the Roman, having all its arms of the tyune length; a difference which the traveller is often reminded of in the construction of Russian churches. Papal avarice invented the doctrine of purgatory, and hence no Greek Christian will ever believe it. Rome took the Scriptures from the common people, and therefore the Eastern church, thanks to the spirit of rivalry,1 leaves the Bible in the hands of the masses. Such are a specimen, if not a summary, of the questions in doctrine and religious practice, which have been debated between the Latins and the Greeks.2 The various phases of the warfare, and the details of its nature, need not be given here. Each reader may find them, scattered throughout the pages of Neander, Gibbon, and Mosheim. These differences were not the cause, so much as the effect, of the separation of the Greeks from the Latins. They were the ripening fruits of an alienation which had germinated ages before. We mu3t not suppose that great scholars, and orators, and military captains, and the sovereigns of empires, were foolish enough to spend their lives in settling such questions as these. Their contentions had a deeper source ; a cause which gives dignity to the long-continued struggle. These straws, tossed to and fro and against each other, did not originate the mighty currents in which they floated; and while we keep in view the real sources of the conflict, we can watch its progress without losing our respect for the combatants.
The division of the early church into two parties, began in the antipathy of races. It seems to be a natural law, that the various tribes of men may not blend save within certain limits. Commerce and literature have overborne this law
1 It is proper to state here, that other causes combined with the ecclesiastical jealousy, in producing the ahnve named differences. Nearly all the innovations of the Romish Church were made subsequent to the decisions of the council of Constantinople, in the year 754. This was the last council in which both the Eastern and Western party were represented, to whose decrees the Greek church submits. The council called next after this was partial to the Latins; and the Greeks, in denying the authority of this and following councils in the West, may, with some show of reason, plead their schismatic character.
2 The Latins and Greeks differ respecting the theory of transubstamiatiou; though the precise nature of the difference is uncertain.