faith, thus forever established, without possibility of change, the Greek believer could, it is true, within those limits, exercise perfect freedom of personal interpretation, without fear of encountering more precise, authoritative definitions in the future, and the field open for discussion appeared the more vast, as the space circumscribed by unalterable dogmas was the more restricted. The result is apparent in the numerous sects and schisms within the fold of the Eastern, and, at a later day, of the Russian, Church, but the very immutability of the dogma tended to limit investigation to matters of minor importance, just at the period when human thought and study were concentrated chiefly on religious topics. At Rome, on the contrary, while individual opinion was always subject to decisions of the Church made obligatory on its adherents, the possibility of influencing those decisions was a constant stimulus to the development of intellectual activity upon questions of highest moment, and gradually extended its sphere of action to all branches of philosophy and modern science.
With this notable difference in the conception of the true development of Christian dogma, there is another, still more important, in the views held upon ecclesiastical authority. On this point the Greeks and the Latins are completely antagonistic. Bishops and priests are recognized among them both, but the Greeks do not accept any centralization of the power of the Church; they do not acknowledge any living chief before whom all must bow. Jesus Christ is, for them, the only Head of the Church, and He has no vicar on earth. The infallibility of the pope, and his supreme control, was the rock upon which the Churches split. The Greeks refuse allegiance to any other general authority than that of the whole Church in council assembled, and deny the existence of
