tant side? Few could say more about auricular confession than that it was "monstrous or "popish "-they have no better argument against extreme unction than that it is "superstitious." An attentive observer of the protests, memorials, addresses, and speeches with which the public columns have been thronged must have remarked the general absence of argument, the substitution of invective and declamation for plain calm reasoning. What other cause can we assign for this than the limited range the Clergy have given to their studies, and their consequent silence on controversial topics? If the Church of England had never been ensconced in her secular defences, her doctrines and tenets would never have been in danger, because her champions would have fortified themselves and their flocks with other arguments than those which are now wielded with such impotent blindness. And amid other studies, the study of Eastern History was especially neglected. Few knew anything of the struggles, and victories, persecutions, and martyrdoms of Byzantium and Antioch. And even now what indistinct ideas are afloat notwithstanding the publication of such works as Mr. Neale's former volumes, "the History of the Patriarchate of Alexandria," on topics of the greatest moment to ourselves; for example, the ecclesiastical government of the East, the Patriarchal system-the doctrine on the Procession, and on Purgatory-the practice of Confirmation-the marriage of the Clergy-the relations of Church and Statethe history of the heretical communions.-These are questions on which the English controvertist (and in these days every Priest should be a controvertist, and while with one hand he builds the wall, the other hold his weapon) is especially bound to acquaint himself. The Romanist will naturally keep them in the back ground-they are facts too stubborn for his side of the argument, and the Protestant will with the confusion proper to himself class Eastern and Roman doctrine in one sweeping anathema. But to one who will examine Ecclesiastical History in a calm dispassionate temper, these are questions which will throw vast light on his perplexed path, and unravel many of the difficulties that harass and distress him.

For one setting about such a task, the work before us forms an admirable manual, as clearing up the mist always enveloping a vast subject, and arranging it into manageable sections. It contains much valuable information on the government of the East, its past and present Sees, its division and subdivision into Patriarchates, exarchates, diœceses;-it classifies its rich and splendid liturgies;-it unfolds that long and obscure subject, Ecclesiology, Byzantine and Armenian, with the kindred question of Ecclesiastical vestments. It gives detailed accounts of the calendars, hours, and general service books; it enters, concisely indeed, but fully into the dispute on the famous article of the Constantinopolitan Creed, with the chief

arguments on both sides, and concludes with a most interesting report of the present discipline, and state of Oriental Christendom, together with much collateral information that no cursory analysis can supply. We shall endeavour to carry our readers hastily through Mr. Neale's course, premising only that nothing but a careful perusal of the work will convey any idea of the learning and diligent research necessary to the successful accomplishment of such a task.

The first book enters into the question of Geography, as regards jurisdiction. It is well known that in the earliest times all the countries evangelised by the Greek Church acknowledged the sway of two independent patriarchates only, Alexandria and Antioch, of which Alexandria enjoyed the primacy, Rome claiming and receiving an honorary pre-eminence over both. Byzantium at that time possessed no Bishop; its ecclesiastical affairs were controlled by the exarch of Heraclea. But when Constantine made it the seat of the empire, it claimed a Bishop of its own, and the city rising to great political importance, Alexandria asserted her right to consecrate the chief pastor of the Eastern metropolis. But it was not long before subjection even to Alexandria came to be deemed derogatory to the Byzantine throne; and when in the year 381 an ecumenical council was held at Constantinople, it was decreed that thenceforward Alexandria should direct the affairs of Egypt alone, and Constantinople should be raised to the dignity of an independent patriarchate, second only to Rome, Alexandria and Antioch falling each one place. Rome at first strenuously opposed this canon, and the Popes constantly drew a line between the creed promulgated and the canons passed at that council. But Innocent III., in the Council of Lateran, at last yielded the point. And although the pre-eminence of Constantinople was at first only honorary, yet Nectarius and S. Chrysostom, among the earliest of its patriarchs, soon arrogated to themselves Pontus, Asia, and Thrace. The see gradually acquiring importance as the place where for the imperial convenience Synods were assembled, at length obtained possession of Eastern Illyricum; and though this jurisdiction was afterwards revoked, yet after the Council of Chalcedon the patriarch of Constantinople found himself possessed of greater powers than any of his brethren, Rome herself scarcely excepted. Soon afterwards Ephesus, once all but in name a patriarchate, gave in her submission, and finally Illyricum, Bulgaria, and Russia, notwithstanding the determined opposition of the see of S. Peter, submitted to its rule. The Bishops soon claimed the title of ecumenical patriarch, which, after much remonstrance, became tacitly allowed, and is still maintained to this day.

Alexandria was thus reduced to the third place, but the authority which ber patriarchs exercised over their own Bishops exceeded

perhaps even the plenary jurisdiction of Rome. The Bishops ordained but as the patriarch's vicars, and paid the greatest deference to the patriarchal chair. And even in civil affairs their influence was immense. "At a distance from court," says Gibbon, "and at the head of an immense capital, the patriarch of Alexandria had gradually usurped the state and authority of a civil magistrate." But the Egyptian Church gained nothing from this excessive authority. For at the Council of Chalcedon, when Egypt was rent by the monophysite controversy, the Catholics quietly acquiesced in the superiority of Constantinople, while Dioscorus and the Jacobite succession made common cause with Rome to restrain the dangerous progress of the Byzantine see; and the Mahometans viewed with suspicion those who embraced the religion of the Emperor, and extended their favour to the theological opponents of the metropolis. Thus the true Church began to decline, and in the present day the patriarch is the solitary representative of a hundred prelates.

The diocese of Antioch was founded by S. Peter, who ordained S. Euodias' his first successor. The history of this Patriarchate is a painful tissue of heresies, schisms, persecutions and discords. As the firm ally of Constantinople she acquiesced in the exaltation of the Byzantine chair, and later her Patriarch resided at that city. Non-residence, independent of other causes, were sufficient to account for her miserable fate. But her Patriarchs one after another lapsed into heresy. At one time a schism for eighty years divided her people on the Arian controversy-a whole catholicate was wrenched from her by Nestorianism: a monophysite Patriarchate was established within her borders; her city was sacked by the King of Persia, and the See in consequence vacant for thirty years, and when filled, the new Pastor led the whole diocese into the monothelite heresy. "The condition of the Church," says Mr. Neale (p. 124) "after this time was deplorable. The Saracen in possession of nearly the whole diocese-heresy in two forms rampant-the Patriarch resident at Constantinople-and Rome interfering to appoint the Bishop of Philadelphia vicar-general in those regions." Rome had gained a footing in the ancient See, and A.D. 1100 a Latin succession was permanently established there. These various causes all tended to destroy the energy of ecclesiastical action, and the following is the sad report of the present state of Antioch:

"At this time Antioch has fallen lower than any of her sisters. The city itself has a population, under the name of Antake, of about 10,000, but there are only 150 Christian families, and they have not, or had not till lately, in spite of many efforts, a Church. The Patriarch resides at Damascus, the Latin Antipatriarch at Aleppo; and the Antiochene Church loses yearly, out of her few and scattered members, more and more to the indefatigable envoys of Rome." p. 125.

1 Acts xi. 19.

Jerusalem, the first of all the Bishoprics, though not at first a Patriarchate, was elevated to that dignity chiefly through the energy and powers of Juvenal, who filled the Apostolic See about the year 400; and the three Palestines were subjected to her; Cæsarea, which had since the destruction of Jerusalem claimed the supremacy, being too weak to oppose the new arrangement, and Antioch acquiescing.

From that time Jerusalem has existed as an independent Patriarchate, and avoiding the schism which ravaged Antioch and Alexandria, escaped any serious misfortune till its capture by the Saracens. In the person of S. Sophronius the monothelite heresy was nobly opposed, who dying, committed his church to the care of Rome. Hence the Latin succession which we cannot but consider schismatical, notwithstanding Mr. Neale's dictum, who finds the justification of the Western See in the request of the Eastern Bishop. Rather than suffer the church of God to be left without a shepherd, as sheep among wolves, to be ravaged by the Saracens, the dying saint merging all pride of independence called to the assistance of his flock the powerful protection of Rome. But the danger over, and the chair of S. James again filled, the interference should have been withdrawn. But who ever heard of Rome abating one iota of ground once gained? The two successions exist together, and the Church is wounded by the most bitter animosities. No one not acknowledging the Papal Supremacy, who has visited the holy sepulchre and witnessed the scenes which are enacted where the GOD of peace and unity founded the Church, can acquit the Latin Communion of schismatical intrusion on the rights of the lawful possessor.

Russia was, as we have seen, originally attached to Constantinople. But when the Sultan succeeded to the Christian emperor at Byzantium, the Russian metropolitan could not be consecrated without the sanction of the Porte. As the Czar was at enmity with the Sultan this occasioned much inconvenience; and in 1582, the Patriarch of Constantinople by a stretch of authority which was afterwards ratified by a general council of the East, raised the then metropolitan of Russia to Patriarchal dignity. But the immense power thus enjoyed by the Patriarchs, induced Peter the Great to substitute for that form of government, another. A Guardian of the Patriarchate was established, and the ecclesiastical affairs directed by a Holy Governing Synod: the acts of which are recognized by the Patriarch of Constantinople.

Mr. Neale has devoted considerable learning and research to the elucidation of ecclesiology in the east, an important, though, in the presence of other parts of his work, a secondary subject. Hitherto, our darkness has been the darkness of Egypt on this whole question. We have had a confused idea of minarets and domes, mosaics and horseshoe arches; and we talk of the Mosque

of S. Sophia, perplexed perhaps but not startled by the association of Moslem and Christian terms. It is true that we might have had light for the seeking. Goar in his Euchology has discussed at considerable length the parts and uses of a Greek Church: Ducange has treated the Church at Constantinople in an elaborate work of which Mr. Neale seems lost in admiration; Bishop Beveridge with great learning carried on the labours of Goar. Bingham, naturally in the course of his work, was led into the same line. Mr. Hammond's edition of the Canons of the Six Ecumenical Councils, contains plans to illustrate the Canons of Nice, &c. These, however, do not treat the subject popularly, and some of them are only open to the learned reader. They are concerned moreover with only one branch of the subject: the adaptation of the Church to the ritual; and the various arrangements of different Churches, architecture, details and so forth, do not fall within their scope. Mr. Neale has extended the labours which have been so successful under the auspices of the Camden Society to the Churches of Russia, Byzantus and Armenia,-Churches which modern travellers have dismissed with some cursory notice or flippant sneer, while they have explored with untiring zeal and patient discrimination the remains of Pagan art.

One point which must strike the most casual observer is the remote antiquity claimed for many of the Eastern Churches. The Christian faith in England dates from the days of the Apostles; and yet our ecclesiologists are divided in opinion as to whether any remains of Christian architecture exist previous to the Conquest. Where then, are the edifices in which our fathers worshipped for one thousand years? Even Peranzabuloe does not date so far back as the church of the Holy Sepulchre at Jerusalem, and that building is surpassed in antiquity by others. At Oroomiah a church is referred to the second century. In Alvagh is another scarcely later. S. James, at Nisebeen, was erected in the fourth century. So were those at Tepekerman and Tukerman in the Crimea, and many date higher than the reign of Justinian, of which several were built by Constantine. The great advance made by the former Emperor, as illustrated by S. Sophia, a church so remarkable as to have given a tone to subsequent buildings for five centuries, forms an epoch in Byzantine architecture. He seems to have had a perfect passion for church building, now rather a bygone passion for Christian sovereigns; and to have lavished immense treasures in decoration and enrichment. Of the many churches, few are more magnificent than the cathedral of Pitzounda, in Georgia. But, perhaps, the most celebrated of his works, after S. Sophia, because it is visited by all travellers, is the church of the Monastery of S. Catharine on Mount Sinai. It is in excellent preservation, and is still used by the brethren. The cost of this building must have been enormous. The roof is a mass of mosaics, and Mr. Curzon