on divine right; nor that if a similar authority to that of Rome was given to the Alexandrian Church, it followed that there was nothing divine in that authority, since a council could not give by divine authority.
It is with like force of reasoning that Nicholas endeavours to answer all the objections of his adversary against the Papal autocracy.
He concludes with a distinction between the two domains in which the priesthood and the empire should respectively act. If Michael needed to be taught that he had no right over ecclesiastical things, should not the Papacy have understood in like manner that it had no right over temporal things?
The Eastern Church was in duty bound to protest against the attempts of Nicholas. They were contrary to the ancient law. The Ultramontanes are obliged to admit this, though indirectly. A writer,[1] who professes to write the history of Photius, but only accepts as true the assertions of the declared enemies of this Patriarch, has been forced, by the weight of evidence, to speak as follows:
"Schism has thrown a clear light upon the doctrines respecting the primacy of the holy see. Never were its prerogatives better established than in the struggle of Pope Nicholas against the Photian schismatics." Is it credible that before the ninth century no occasion had presented to call forth these prerogatives, if they had in fact belonged to the Roman see? The facts we have already related sufficiently answer that question. Questions of far greater moment than the deposition of a bishop had certainly been discussed between the East and West since the origin of the Church, and these questions, instead of bringing out Papal authority in relief, had reduced it to its strict limits. But in the ninth century circumstances were changed; the Papacy
- ↑ Jager, Hist. de Photius, liv. iv. p. 114, edit. 1854.
