of the French clergy, which was held in that year at Paris. Father Maimbourg stands a solitary instance of disapprobation by a roman-catholic; and his disapprobation is no more than a general sneer.

With the approbations, which we have mentioned, a 6th edition of the Exposition was printed at Paris, in 1686. From this edition, all the subsequent editions have been printed.

One of the twelve copies printed by Bossuet for private circulation, fell into the hands of Dr. Wake, archbishop of Canterbury. Perceiving that it varied, in some respects, from the subsequent editions, Dr. Wake announced the discovery to the public, and deposited the copy, thus fallen into his hands, among the archives at Lambeth. It was immediately reported, that "this copy was, in reality, the original edition;" that "the Sarbonne had disapproved of it;" that "in consequence of this disapprobation, the edition had been called in, a second published, with important variations, and imposed on the public as the first." Bossuet was informed of these reports by a letter from father Johnstone, a benedictine monk. He replied to the father by a letter of the 26th May, 1686. He mentions in it the circumstance of the impression of twelve copies for private circulation among his friends, in the manner in which this has been related; he peremptorily denies, that the work had been censured by the Sarbonne, or any individual catholic; he explicitly declares, that no edition had

been given to the public, before that, which he announced as the first; and unequivocally asserts, that there was no important variation between the copy produced by Dr. Wake, and the copies in general circulation. In reply to the work itself, and in vindication of the charge of disingenuousness, which he had brought against Bossuet, Dr. Wake published his Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. He prefixed to it, A collection of some of those passages that were corrected in the first edition of the Exposition suppressed by Monsieur de Meaux. This work was answered by, A Vindication of Bossuet's Exposition. Dr. Wake replied to the Vindication, by A Defence of the Exposition of the Doctrine of the Church of England. To that, there was a Reply. In answer to that reply, Dr. Wake published "His second Defence :" and to his second Defence, there was published, A full Answer.' Here the controversy appears

to have closed.

In the Life of Bossuet, (l. iii. Pieces Justificatives, n. 1.) the Bishop of Alais has inserted all the variations pointed out by Dr. Wake. After perusing and examining these alleged variations, either as they are given by Dr. Wake, or as they are given by the bishop of Alais, the reader will probably agree with the bishop, "that they are so slight and indifferent, so evidently determined by the grammatical motive of giving force and precision to the style, and so foreign to the substance of the

doctrine, that, by producing them, Dr. Wake rendered unintentionally a great service to Bossuet."

A translation of it was published in English, by the abbé Montague, in 1672; in Irish, by father Porter, at the press of the Propaganda, in 1673; in German, by the prince bishop of Paderborn, in the same year; in Dutch, by the bishop of Castorie, in 1678; in Italian, by the abbé Nasari, under the inspection of the cardinal d'Etrées, who, himself, corrected the proofs of the impression. This translation was formally approved by Ricci, the secretary of the sacred congregation of indulgences, and by father Laurence Brancati, librarian of the Vatican; and, with their permission, was dedicated to the congregation of Propaganda. It was translated into Latin, under the immediate inspection of Bossuet, by the abbé de Fleury, the author of the invaluable History of the Church. It is much to be lamented that the English translation of it is very ill executed.

CHAP. III.

THE SYMBOLIC BOOKS OF THE GREEK CHURCH.

THE

HE progress of the church of Constantinople, from a very humble station to the eminent rank which she afterwards obtained in the christian hierarchy, is a curious and important event in ecclesiastical history.

Before the seat of the Roman empire was transferred to Constantinople, the church had the three patriarchs, of Rome, Antioch, and Alexandria. Three dioceses were independent of them; and subject, each to its primate; that of Asia, to the primate of Ephesus; that of Thrace, to the primate of Heraclea; and that of Pontus, to the primate of Cesarea. It is not clear, that the church of Constantinople had its peculiar bishop; at most, the bishopric was inconsiderable, and its bishop subject to the metropolitan of Heraclea. After the translation of the seat of empire to Constantinople, the bishops of Constantinople acquired importance; by degrees, they obtained ecclesiastical jurisdiction over Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, and were elevated to the rank of patriarch. The same rank was conferred on the bishop of Jerusalem. Thus, during a considerable period, the five patriarchs of the christian world were those of Rome, Alexandria, Antioch, Constantinople, and Jerusalem. In course of time, the patriarch of Constantinople raised himself above the other oriental patriarchs, and finally assumed the title of œcumenical, or universal, patriarch. The popes opposed this attempt, and preserved their own rights; and therefore, as Mr. Gibbon observes, "till the great division of the church, the Roman bishop had ever been respected by the orientalists, as the first of the five patriarchs." (Vol. 1. pa. 400, quarto edition).

Even in matters of ceremony in civil concerns,

Constantinople yielded to Rome: the consul of the West preceded the consul of the East. After the separation of the Greek from the Latin church, the five patriarchs were represented in Rome, by five churches; the Roman patriarchate, by the church of St. John of Lateran; the patriarchate of Constantinople, by the church of St. Peter in the Vatican; the patriarchate of Alexandria, by the church of St. Paul; the patriarchate of Antioch, by the church of St. Mary the Greater; and the patriarchate of Jerusalem, by the church of St. Lawrence. (See Onuphrius de Episcopatibus,

titulis, et diaconiis Cardinalium.)

The points, which the Greeks objected to the Latin church, and upon which they professed to justify their separation from her, were, 1st, that, in the article of the symbol or creed of Constantinople, which mentions the procession of the Holy Ghost, the Latin church had inserted the word "filioque," to describe the double procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and Son; 2dly, that the Latin church acknowledged the spiritual supremacy of the Pope; and 3dly, that in the consecration of the sacrifice of the altar, the Latin church used unleavened bread. the temporary re-union of the council of Florence, is well known. The attempts which, about the middle of the sixteenth century, were set on foot, to lead the Greeks of the Levant to a reunion with the See of Rome, and the

The history of churches, at the