colaus I. commenced, was the justice of the cause of Ignatius, whom the emperor had deprived of his episcopal office upon a charge, true or false, of treason. But Nicolaus would have been unconcerned about the injury done to Ignatius, if he could have recovered from the Greek emperor and from Photius, the provinces taken from the Roman pontiffs by the Greeks, namely Illyricum, Macedonia, Epirus, Achaia, Thessaly, and Sicily. For he had before demanded them through his envoys at Constantinople. And when the Greeks paid no regard to his demand, he resolved to avenge his own rather than Ignatius'

wrong.

29. In the midst of this warm conflict, Basil the Macedonian, a parricide who had usurped the empire of the Greeks, suddenly restored peace. For he recalled Ignatius from exile and commanded Photius to retire to private life. This decision of the emperor was confirmed by a council assembled at Constantinople A.D. 869, in which the legates of the Roman pontiff, Hadrian II. had controlling influence. The Latins call this the eighth general council. The religious contest between the Greeks and Latins now ceased; but the strife respecting the boundaries of the Romish [pontifical] jurisdiction, especially in regard to Bulgaria, still continued; nor could the pontiff with all his efforts prevail on either Ignatius or the emperor to give up Bulgaria or any other of the provinces.

30. The first schism was of such a nature that it was possible to heal it. But Photius, a man of high feelings and more learned than all the Latins, imprudently prepared materials for interminable war. For in the first place, in the year 866, he annexed Bulgaria to the see of Constantinople which Nicolaus was eager to possess; and this was extremely offensive to the Roman pontiff. In the next place, what was much more to be lamented and unworthy of so great a man, he sent an Encyclical letter to the oriental patriarchs on the subject, thus converting his own pri

1 The writers on both sides of this controversy are named by Fabricius, biblioth. Graca, vol. iv. cap. xxxviii. p. 372.

? The state of the case respecting Bulgaria appears to have been this:-It was the Constantinopolitans who converted the king of that country about the year 861, and the patriarch of that city naturally desired to possess the ecclesiastical supremacy over this new acquisition. But the king dreading the increased influence of so near a neighbour, wished rather to be in connexion with Rome, and the Pope on his application sent him priests and bishops. It was this supposed invasion of his rights which was so keenly felt by the patriarch Photius, and which urged him to issue the Encyclical letter so offensive to the Pope, and containing the charges stated in the text.-R.

vate controversy into a public one; and moreover accused in very strong terms the Roman bishops sent among the Bulgarians, and through them the whole Latin church, of corrupting the true religion or of heresy. In his great irritation he taxed the Romans with five enormities, than which in their view the mind could conceive of no greater. First, that they deemed it proper to fast on the seventh day of the week or the Sabbath. Secondly, that in the first week of Lent they permitted the use of milk and cheese. Thirdly, that they wholly disapproved of the marriage of priests. Fourthly, that they thought none but bishops could anoint the baptized with the holy oil or confirm, and that they therefore anointed a second time those who had been anointed by presbyters. And fifthly, that they had adulterated the Constantinopolitan creed by adding to it the words Filioque, thus teaching that the Holy Spirit did not proceed from the Father only but also from the Son.3 Nicolaus I. sent this accusation to Hincmar and the other Gallic bishops in the year 867, that they might deliberate in councils respecting the proper answer to it. Hence Odo of Beauvais, Ratramn, Ado of Vienne, Æneas of Paris, and perhaps others, also entered the lists against the Greeks, and very warmly defended the cause of the Latins in written vindications.

31. Ignatius died in the year 878; and Photius was again raised, by the favour of the emperor, to the patriarchate of the Greek church. The Roman pontiff John VIII. gave his assent, but it was on condition that Photius would allow the Bulga rians to come under the Roman jurisdiction. Photius promised the whole, nor did the emperor seem opposed to the wishes of the pontiff. Therefore in the year 879 the legates of John VIII. were present at the council of Constantinople, and gave their sanction to all its decrees. But after

3 See an Epistle of Photius himself, which is the second of his Epistles, as published by Montague, p. 47, &c. Some enumerate ten heads of accusation by Photius. But they undoubtedly blend the first controversy with the second between the Greeks and Latins, and include the criminations which were made in the time of Michael Cerularius [patriarch in the middle of the eleventh century]. Certain it is, that in the Epistle of Photius, from which alone the first controversy is to be judged of, there are only the five heads of disagreement which we have stated. [See this Epistle of Photius in Latin in Baronius, Annales ad ann. 863, No. 34.-R.

4 Mabillon, Acta Sanctor. Ord. Bened. tom. vi.; or Sæcul iv. par. ii. Præf. p. 55.

See Le Quien, Oriens Christianus, tom. i. p. 103, &c. The entire acts of this council are in Harduin, The council Concilia, tom. vi. par. i. p. 207-312. was called by order of the emperor Basil, and by all the Greeks it has been accounted a general council; but the Latins do not so regard it. The number of bishops

the council broke up, the emperor (doubtless with the consent of Photius) would not permit the Bulgarians to be transferred to the Roman pontiff:-and it must be acknowledged there were very strong motives for such a determination. Hence the pontiff sent Marinus his legate to Constantinople, and signified that he persevered in the former sentence passed upon Photius. The legate was thrown into prison by the emperor but was again liberated, and afterwards on the death of John VIII. being created Roman pontiff, he was mindful of the ill usage he had received, and issued a second condemnation of Photius.

32. Six years afterwards A.D. 886, Leo, surnamed the philosopher, the son of the emperor Basil, again deposed the patriarch Photius and exiled him to a monastery in Armenia called Bardi, where he died in the year 891. Thus the author of the contest being removed, if there had been due moderation and equity at Rome the whole strife might have been quieted, and harmony between the Greeks and Latins have been restored. But the Roman pontiff's required that all the bishops and priests whom Photius had consecrated, should be deprived of their offices. And as the Greeks would by no means submit to this, all the contentions respecting points of religion as well as other things were renewed with increased bitterness; and being augmented by new grounds of controversy, continued till the unhappy separation between the Greek and Latin churches became absolute and perpetual.

present was 383, and the legates of the Roman pontiff and also representatives of the three Oriental patriarchs attended it. Photius presided, and the principal objects were obtained without difficulty in seven sessions. Photius was unanimously acknowledged the regular patriarch of Constantinople, and all that had been decreed against him at Rome and at Constantinople was annulled and declared void. Such as should not acknowledge Photius were to be excommunicated. The council proceeded to establish the true faith by confirming the creed of the first Nicene and the first Con(that is, merely the addition Filioque ;) and again enacting the decrees of the second Nicene council respecting image-worship. The council was closed by an eulogy of Procopius of Cesarca on Photius, and by a solemn declaration on the part of the Roman legates, that whoever would not acknowledge the holy patrihim, ought to be accounted an associate of the traitor Judas and no Christian; and this was assented to by

stantinopolitan councils, rejecting all interpolations

arch Photius and hold ecclesiastical communion with

the whole council. See Walch's Kirchenversamml. v. 375, &c.-Mur.

1 Photius had ordained one Theodorus a bishop, who was falsely accused of treason. This circumstance

brought the patriarch under some temporary suspicion. Besides, the new emperor wished to raise his brother Stephen to the patriarchal chair. He therefore deposed Photius and gave the office to his brother. Yet when he learned the innocence of Photius, he seems to have felt some relentings; for he made his exile comfortable, and in a letter to the pope spoke of him as having voluntarily resigned his office and gone into retirement.- Schl

CHAPTER IV.

HISTORY OF RITES AND CEREMONIES.

1. That the public rites and ceremonies were gradually multiplied very considerably, is evinced by the writers who in this century began to compose and publish explanations of them for the instruction of the common people; namely, Amalarius (whose numerous expositions however are confuted by Agobard and Florus), John Scotus, Angelome, Remigius of Auxerre, Walafrid Strabo, and others. These treatises are entitled De Divinis Officiis; for in the style of this age a divine office is a religious ceremony. Though these works were undoubtedly drawn up with good intentions, yet it is difficult to say whether they benefited more than they injured the Christian cause. They contained indeed some spiritual aliment for those who attended on public worship, but it was for the most part crude and unwholesome. For the alleged grounds and reasons of the various rites are to a great degree farfetched, false, constrained, nay, ridiculous and puerile. Besides, excessive regard for external rites was increased and strengthened by this claborate explanation of them, to the detriment of real piety. For how could any one withhold respect and reverence from that which he understood to be most wisely ordained and full of mystery?

2. To describe severally all the new rites adopted either by Christians generally or by particular churches, would not comport with the designed brevity of this work. We therefore despatch this extensive subject in a few words. The corpses of holy men, either brought from distant countries or discovered by the industry of the priests, required the appointment of new feast-days, and some variation in the ceremonies observed on those days. And as the prosperity of the clergy depended on the impressions of the people respecting the merits and the power of those saints whom they were invited to worship, it was necessary that their eyes and their ears should be fascinated with various ceremonies and exhibitions. Hence the splendid furniture of the temples, the numerous wax-candles burning at mid-day, the multitude of pictures and statues, the decorations of the altars, the frequent processions, the splendid dresses of the priests, and masses appropriate to the honour of saints.2 The festival of All Saints was added by Gregory IV. to the

2 See the tract of Fecht, De Missis in Honorem Sanctorum.

public holy-days of the Latins; and the feast of St. Michael, which had been long observed with much reverence by both the Greeks and the Latins, now began to be more popular.

bat, by red-hot iron," by a cross," and other methods which were in general use among the Latins in this and the following

Du Cange, Glossarium, under the article Aquæ, vel Aquæ frigido judicium, tom. i. p. 308–313. ed. Francf. 1710.-Du Cange proceeds to describe the ordeal by hot water. For this the preparatory religious cere monies were the same as for the ordeal by cold water. Afterwards the priest heated a caldron of water till it boiled. Then, taking it off the fire, he immersed in it depth of one, two, or three palms; and the criminal a stone which he held suspended by a string to the must thrust in his naked hand and arm and seizing the stone pull it out. His hand and arm were immediately wrapped up in linen cloths, and a bag drawn over the whole and sealed. After three days the hand and arm were examined, and if found not scalded the man was

1 See Mabillon, De Re Diplomatica, p. 537. [This holds true only of Germany and France. For as to England, Bede mentioned this feast in the preceding century; and at Rome it had been established by Pope Boniface IV. See above, p. 253, note 7.-Schl

On

2 The Latins had but few feast-days up to this century, as appears from the poem of Florus extant in Martene, Thesaurus, tom. v. p. 595, &c. [The council of Mentz A.D. 813, determined precisely the number of both fasts and feasts to be observed. Canon 34 designates the fasts, namely, the first week in March, the second week in June, the third week in September, and the last full week preceding Christmas eve. these weeks all were to fast, and were to attend church on Wednesdays, Fridays, and Saturdays, at three o'clock, P.M.-Canon 36 thus enumerates and sanctions the festivals: "We ordain the celebration of the feast days of the year. That is, Easter Sunday is to be observed with all honour and sobriety; and the whole of Easter week we decree shall be observed in like manner. Ascension-day must be celebrated with full worship. Likewise Pentecost just as Easter. In the nativity [martyrdom] of Peter and Paul, one day; the nativity of St. John Baptist; the assumption of St. Mary; the dedication of St. Michael; the nativity of St. Remigius, St. Martin, St. Andrew; at Christmas, four days, the octaves of our Lord, the epiphany of our Lord, the purification of St. Mary. And we decree the observance of the festivals of those martyrs or confessors whose sacred bodies repose in each diocese; and in like manner the dedication of each church." The 37th canon adds: "We ordain the observance of all the Lord's days [Sundays] with all reverence and with abstinence from servile work, and that no traffic take place on those days, nor do we approve that any one be sentenced to death or to punishment," on those days.See Harduin, Concilia, tom. iv. p. 1015.-Mur.

9 See Mabillon, Analecta Veteris Evi, tom. i. p. 47; Roye, De Missis Dom. p. 152. [The ordeal by immersion in cold water was very common in the ninth and following centuries, especially for criminals of vulgar rank in society. It was sanctioned by public law in most countries of Europe. And though disapproved by various kings and councils yet it was generally held sacred, and was supposed to have been invented by Pope Eugene. The person to be tried was conducted to the church, and most solemnly adjured to confess the fact if he was guilty. If he would not confess, he received the sacrament, was sprinkled with holy water, and conducted to a river or lake. The priest then exorcised the water, charging it not to receive the criminal if he were guilty. The criminal was now stripped naked and bound, and a rope was tied to him by which to draw him out, if he sank to a certain depth. When cast into the water, if he floated he was accounted guilty; but if he sank to the depth marked on the rope (sometimes a yard and a half) he was instantly drawn out and was accounted innocent. See s large and very satisfactory account of this ordeal in

accounted innocent. This ordeal was nearly as much I used as the other, but was considered rather more suit able for persons of quality.-Mur.

Loccenius, Antiquit. Sueo-Gothica, lib. ii. cap. terminate controversies by the duellum or single combat. See Boehmer's Jus Eccles. Protestantium, tom, v. p. 88, &c. [The trial by combat originated among the northern barbarians, was in use before the Christian era, and was brought by the Lombards into Italy, and by the Germans into Suabia. It was not an or deal for the trial of public offences, but was a mode of settling private disputes and quarrels between individuals, when there was no sufficient evidence to make the case clear. The parties deposited with the judge their bonds or goods to the requisite amount, for paying the forfeiture in case they were cast and for the fees of court. The judge also appointed the time for the combat and presided over it. Knights fought on horseback and armed as for war, in complete armour, and with their horses covered with mail. Common men fought on foot with swords and shields, covered, except their faces and feet, with linen or cotton to any extent they pleased. Certain persons, as women, priests, and others, might employ champions to fight in their stead. See the full account in Du Cange, Glossarium, under the article, Duellum; see also Hallam's View of Europe in the Middle Ages, vol. i. p. 186, 8th ed. Lond. 1841. This mode of trial gradually sank into disuse; but it was not abolished by legislative enactments either in France or England. Hence, so late as the 19th century the right of challenging to single combat was asserted in an English court.-Mur. [It required a special act of Parliament 59 Geo. III. ch. 46, to abolish it, so recently as 1819.-R.

5 Lambecius, Rerum Hamburg. lib. ii. p. 39. USsher, Sylloge Epist. Hibernic. p. 81. Johnson's Laws of the British Church, and the extracts from them, in La Roche, Mémoires Littér. de la Grande Bretagne. tome viii. p. 391. [This was a very common ordeal, and was esteemed more honourable than the ordeals by water. Sometimes the person walked barefoot over nine or twelve red-hot ploughshares treading on each. But more frequently he carried a hot iron in his naked hands, nine times the length of his foot. The religious rites attending this ordeal were very similar to those of the ordeal by hot water. See Du Cange, Glossarium, articles FERRUM candens, and VOMERES igniti.-Mur. 6 See Agobard, Contra Judicium Dei Liber, Opp. tom. i. and Contra Legem Gundobadi, cap. ix. p. 114. Bignonius, Ad formulas Marculphi, cap. xii. Baluze, ad Agobardum, p. 104; and others. [Du Cange in his Glossarium, article CRUCIS judicium, is not able definitely to state what was the mode of this ordeal. He finds some instances of persons standing long with their arms extended horizontally so as to present the form of a cross. If they grew weary, fainted, and fell, they were accounted guilty. He also finds other modes of trial by cross. Sometimes it was merely laying the hand on a sacred cross, and then uttering a solemn oath of purgation.-On all the forms of ordeal, see Rees' Cyclopædia, art. Ordeal.-This mode of trying difficult and dubious causes was denominated Judicium

Dei, and was considered as a solemn appeal to God to show by his special interposition, whether a person were guilty or innocent. It was therefore a presumptuous attempt to call forth a miracle from the hand of God; and it argued both the ignorance and the supe Z