# The Greek and Eastern Churches/Part 2/Introduction

PART II
THE SEPARATE CHURCHES
The idea of a catholicity so wide and generous, or, as some would prefer to regard it, a comprehensiveness so lax and latitudinarian, as to contain a number of churches differing in doctrine, discipline, and ritual, which many people cherish in the present day, was scarcely conceived before modern times; it was not contemplated by any of the ancient churches, each of which anathematised all Christians outside its pale. Justin Martyr's application of the Stoic doctrine of the Logos spermaticos to Christianity might have introduced an anticipation of such an idea, and the large liberalism of Clement of Alexandria might even have welcomed it, had it appeared above the horizon. But Cyprian's close Catholicism was much more to the mind of the patristic Church, and the mediæval Church had no wider outlook.
In point of fact, however, there was a division of Christendom into separate churches quite early, and that division has never been healed. The causes of it were twofold—partly racial and political, and partly doctrinal and polemical. The spread of Christianity beyond the confines of the Roman Empire led to the establishment of churches in foreign kingdoms. At first these churches were regarded as integral parts of the one Catholic Church, and their bishops had a right to attend œcumenical councils. But several influences tended to cut them off. The mere fact of distance, difficulties of travel, and troubles in crossing the frontiers—especially in times of war—tended more and more to separate them. Then in their isolation they developed their several types of racial individuality, together ​with a growing antipathy to the habits of churches of other races. The adoption of Christianity by Constantine, followed by the close alliance of Church and State, or rather dominance of the Church by the State, had as its natural consequence a tendency to limit the Church which deemed itself Catholic to the confines of the Roman Empire. By an inevitable reaction the patriotism of local churches in other countries would tend to develop their individuality. This process was hindered by persecution, which led foreign Christians ill-treated by their own government to look to the friendly Roman Empire for protection. Still, it could not be ultimately frustrated.
The second cause of separation—the doctrinal and polemical—was much more thorough and effectual. As early as the second century there had been heretical bodies, such as the Montanists and the Marcionites, existing as regularly organised churches; and a little later orthodox but schismatic communions, such as the Novatians and the Donatists, each regarding itself as the one true Church. The Christological controversies had more serious and permanent consequences, because here national and racial influences combined with the doctrinal to aggravate and perpetuate the severance. In this way Monophysites became Coptic and Syrian Churches, and Nestorians shaped into Churches of Persia, Chaldæa, and other Eastern parts. The Mohammedan conquests tended to confirm these divisions. They made communication between the Christians within their dominions and the Church of the empire difficult and precarious. But that was not all. Under the tolerant caliphs the territory of Islam became a harbour of refuge for Christians angrily denounced and driven from pillar to post by the holy orthodox Church of the empire. The scornful Arab made no difference between the various schools of "infidels" whom he tolerated. Thus churches excommunicated as heretical by the Greek and Roman authorities remained in safety out of the clutches of the tyrannical emperors and ecclesiastics, who would have harried them if they had had a chance to do so. Mean​while, persecution, whether actual or only held over as a threat, became the most effectual barrier to reunion.
We have had abundant opportunities of observing how ecclesiastical, political, and doctrinal causes led to the total and final severance of the two great sections of the original Catholic Church. These we have seen in the clash of the rival claims of Rome and Constantinople; in the assumption of universal headship of the Church by the papacy, denied and repudiated in the East; in the crowning of Charles the Great by Leo iii., and the consequent severance of the Latin Church from the remnant of the Roman Empire which was identified with the Eastern Church; and lastly, in bitterly contested doctrinal differences, especially that connected with the Filioque clause added by the Western theologians to the Nicene Creed, and the miserable quarrel over the question of the use of unleavened bread in the communion, which seemed to outweigh all other occasions of conflict in the minds of the people of Constantinople.
Thus we have reached the stage when it will be no longer possible to carry on one continuous story of Church history. It will now be necessary to trace the history of each of the separate churches. In order to do this effectually we must go back to their origins, in the cases where these origins have not been considered already, and study them along the lines of their own distinctive courses of development.