History of the Orthodox Church in Austria-Hungary : I. Hermaannstadt

I

0

THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

History of the Orthodox Church
in Austria-Hungary

I.— HERMANNSTADT

BY

MARGARET G. DAMPIER

PUBLISHED FOR
THE EASTERN CHURCH ASSOCIATION

RIVINGTONS

34 KING STREET, CO VENT GARDEN
LONDON

PKEFACE

IN compiling this little book I have relied
chiefly on Archbishop Schaguna, Geschichte der
Griechiscli - orientalischen Kirche in Oestreich.
Hermannstadt, 1862 ; Hurzumaki, Fragments
zur Geschichte der Rumanen, vol. ii., Bucharest,
1881 ; Slavic!, Die Rumanen, Vienna, 1881 ;
E. von Radic', Die orthodox-orientalischen Par-
tikularkirchen in den Ldndern der ungarischen
Krone, Buda-Pest, 1886 ; Archbishop Milas,
Das Kirchenrecht der morgenldndischen Kirche,
Zara, 1897; Archiv fur Kirchenrecht, Inns-
bruck and Mainz (which contains in full the
Organic Statute for the Metropolitanate of
Hermannstadt), 1868 ; Miller, The Balkans,
1896; Vambery, Hungary, 1899; and J. H.
Schwicker, Die Lander Oesterreich-Ungarns in
Wort und Bild: Siebenburgen, Vienna, 1881.
I have preferred generally to use the name
Transylvania, although the province is com-
monly called Siebenburgen by Austro-Hungarian

writers.

M. G. D.

CONTENTS

CHAP. PAGE

i. THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA, ... 1
ii. THE EOUMANIAN CHURCH IN TRANSYLVANIA

BEFORE THE UNION, 9

in. THE UNION, 32

iv. 1700-1783, 51

v. 1783-1873, 59

APPENDIX. THE METROPOLITANATE OF HERMANNSTADT, 71

HISTORY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

CHAPTER I

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA

THE earliest inhabitants of the province of Transylvania
of whom we have certain knowledge were the Getae
or Dacians, who meet us frequently in the pages of
classical historians. Ancient Dacia was far larger in Ancient

• T-» • i Dacia.

extent than the present kingdom of Rou mania, and
included on the north the territory of Transylvania.
Its capital city, Sarmizegethusa, occupied the site of
what is now the village of Varhely, in the beautiful
Hatzeg valley.1 The Dacians first came into conflict
with the Roman power in 111 B.C., when they opposed
the Roman armies on the banks of the Danube,
and although they were driven back by the Roman
general, they continued to harass the Roman provinces First con-

/• n/ i i •• flictswith

as far as Macedonia on the south and the coastlands Rome,
of Dalniatia on the west. The campaign which Julius
Caesar had planned against them was frustrated owing

1 Cp. Schwicker, p. 66.
A

2 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

to his murder by Brutus, and the successes of Augustus
and Vespasian were only of a temporary character.
Both these emperors transported large numbers of the
people across the Danube into the Roman province
of Moesia.

The peace thus gained was disturbed more seriously
than before in 86 A.D. by the invasion of Moesia by a
large and well-armed force of Dacians under their
king, Decebalus.

Domitian found himself obliged to undertake a
campaign against them, of which the results were far
from glorious to the Roman arms. Decebalus indeed
made terms with the Roman emperor and restored the
prisoners whom he had taken, but Domitian was com-
pelled to pay an annual tribute and to acknowledge
Decebalus as king of the Dacians.

First Thus matters continued till A.D. 98, when Trajan

underaign ascended the imperial throne and refused to continue
A?^'. the tribute. He made immediate preparations for a
campaign against Dacia, which, after severe fighting
and the endurance of great hardships by the imperial
troops, was brought to a successful conclusion by the
capture of Sarmizegethusa and the submission of
Decebalus. Trajan spared his life, but imposed severe
terms, including the dismissal of all Roman deserters
who had served in the Dacian army, the surrender of
all arms and the destruction of fortresses, and the
quartering of a Roman garrison in Sarmizegethusa.
Decebalus was compelled to agree, and swore fidelity
to Rome; but Trajan had no sooner withdrawn his
armies than the Dacian king began preparations for a

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 3

fresh revolt. This necessitated a second campaign in Second

campaign
105-106 A.D. 105-106A.D.

The Roman armies again advanced into Dacia and
were fiercely opposed by the Dacians, who at last, when
further resistance was impossible, set fire to their
capital, the defenders taking poison rather than fall
into the hands of their enemies. Decebalus refused to
surrender and committed suicide when the Roman
soldiers approached to capture him.

Dacia thus became a Roman province, and Trajan Dacia a
celebrated his hard-earned victory with one of the Province,
most magnificent triumphs which Roman history A-D~
records.

Dacia remained under Roman rule till A.D. 274.

The land, which had been greatly depopulated by
these devastating campaigns, received a great influx of
colonists from all parts of the Roman empire, including
Dalmatia, Gaul, and lower Italy. Roman towns sprang
up in all parts of the country, but chiefly in places
which had already been inhabited by the Dacians.
In place of Sarmizegethusa arose the city of Ulpia
Trajana, now represented by Varhely, which contains
many Roman remains. The Roman occupation brought
its usual benefits to the newly- conquered province,
although it is evident that the Dacians had made
considerable progress in the arts of peace as well as
those of war, even before the Roman conquest.

But now, in addition to the growth of new and
important towns, such as Apulum (Karlsburg), Napoca
(Klausenburg), Potaissa (Thorda), etc., excellent roads
were made in all directions, and a great impulse was

4 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

given to trade and to the working of the silver, iron,
and salt mines.

Of the native inhabitants of Dacia some had fled
before the Romans into the fastnesses of the Carpathian
mountains, while others remained or returned later
and intermarried with the new settlers. Thus a gradual
fusion of the two races took place ; the old Dacian
religion was merged into that of Rome, while the Latin
tongue, mixed with many Dacian words, became by
degrees the ordinary language of the people.

It is true that at times there were disturbances and
revolts in the province, but on the whole all was quiet
under the Roman occupation until the first attacks of
the barbarians, which began about 120 A.D., under the
Emperor Hadrian.

These raids were renewed with greater vigour during

Gothic the reign of Caracalla (212 A.D.), and in 247 A.D. the

S^FAJD"' first invasion of the Goths took place.

The attacks of this latter tribe became more numerous
and irresistible till 269 A.D., when they were defeated
by Claudius at Naissus in Moesia.

Roman This checked their advance in Moesia, but they con-

wtthdrftwn, tinued to overrun Dacia, till Aurelian, despairing of
holding the province against them, withdrew his legions
across the Danube (274 A.D.). Many of the colonists
followed, and formed a new Daco-Roman colony in
Moesia under the title of Dacia Aureliana.

The province of Dacia now found itself abandoned
to successive inroads of barbarian invaders who flooded
the country from the end of the tenth to the begin-
ning of the thirteenth century. Goths, Huns, Gepidae,

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 5

Avars, in turn occupied or passed through the country
as they pressed steadily westward.

Under the Goths — who were less savage than many Goths in
of the succeeding tribes — the Daco- Roman colonists,
who had remained north of the Danube, were able to
carry on trade and agriculture. Their numbers were
reinforced in 330 A.D. through the temporary re-
occupation of Dacia by the Emperor Constantine.

Many of the exiles from Dacia Aureliana returned in
the wake of the Roman armies and settled again in
their old homes, and although Constantine was not
able to hold the province, the Daco-Romans continued
to live peacefully under Gothic rule. Their return
was followed by the introduction of Christianity among christian-
the Goths, who had been pagans hitherto, although duced™
there must certainly have been many Christians Cm 380'
amongst the original Daco-Roman inhabitants of the
province.1

Dacia was thus completely Christianised before the
invasion of the Huns in 375 A.D.

At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451 A.D., Dacia was
assigned to the jurisdiction of Constantinople.2

To the Goths succeeded the wild and savage Huns,
who were followed by the Gepidae (c. 450) and the
Avars (c. 560).

The latter powerful tribe held the province till Avars,
626 A.D., when they sustained a crushing defeat at5e°A'r'
the hands of the Emperor Heraclius, from which their

1 Schaguna, chap. i. pp. 1-7.

- Cp. Can. 28 ; Schag. , p. 7 ; E. v. Radio, p. 46.

6 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

power never really recovered. They gradually dis-
appeared, and from the beginning of the ninth to the
end of the eleventh century Dacia came largely under
Bulgarian influence.
Bulgarian The first Bulgarian kingdom, which lasted from the

influence, . ° " .

810-1018 accession of the Bulgarian chieftain Krum, m 810 A.D.,
to the death of the Czar Simeon, in 1018, extended
its authority not only over the Daco-Romans south of
the Danube, in Dacia Aureliana, but also over their
compatriots north of the river.

During this period the Hungarians made their first
appearance, settling originally in the eastern parts of
the province, and in what is now Bessarabia. Being
driven out by Czar Simeon of Bulgaria, they moved

Hungarians, westward into Hungary, where they finally settled and
consolidated their power, so that by the end of the
eleventh century they had become powerful enough to

Annex annex the north-eastern part of Dacia, which we now

vania, c. know as Transylvania. This province thus came to
form part of the Hungarian kingdom.

From about 900-1227 A.D., Dacia was overrun, first by

Kumani. the Pechenegs and then by the Kurnani, which latter
tribe gave to the province the name of Kumania. The
growing power of the Hungarians, however, under the
house of Arpad (1078-1301) gradually dominated
these tribes, and the Kumani disappear as a separate
factor from history, after their conversion, in A.D.
1227.

Mongols, The last barbarian invasion to which Dacia, in

A.D. common with Hungary, was subjected, was that of the

Mongols in 1240 A.D., which caused widespread desola-

THE EARLY HISTORY OF TRANSYLVANIA 7

tion everywhere. They were driven out, after desperate
fighting, under King Bela iv. of Hungary.1

One more foreign element — the Teutonic — may
perhaps be fitly mentioned here. In the twelfth cen-
tury King Geisa n. of Hungary invited colonists from
Flanders and the Low Countries to assist him in
cultivating the waste part of his dominions and in
resisting the attacks of the barbarian tribes.

His invitation met with an enthusiastic response, and Saxon

i • i f -I • colonists,

amongst the Saxon colonies thus founded was the city c. 1205.
of Hermannstadt. Andrew n. (1205-1233) continued
this policy and summoned the Knights of S. John and
other military orders to defend his kingdom against
the Pechenegs and the Kuruani. Quarrels subsequently
arose between the knights and King Andrew, and the
former were driven out of the country ; but the
colonists remained, and were the recipients of special
favours from the Hungarian king. The Golden Bull,
issued by Andrew n. in 1224, assigns important privi-
leges to these Saxon colonists, recognising them as a The Golden
separate nationality, with the Count of Hermannstadt
at their head. They were allowed to occupy the land
from the Broos to the Draas, to appoint their own
magistrates and clergy, to be free from all taxes, and to
have a common seal bearing the inscription ' Sigillum
provinciae Cibiuiensis [province of Hermannstadt] ad
retinendam coronam.' In return they were to pay an
annual tribute of 500 silver marks and to supply a levy
of 500 men for home or 100 for foreign service.

1 MilaS.

8 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA -HUNGARY

In 1291 Andrew m., the last king of the house of
Arpad, summoned an assembly, which the Saxons
attended under the leadership of their own national
Count of Hermannstadt.

This assembly was also attended by the Szeklers and
the Hungarians, thus including the three nationalities
which for many centuries were to be regarded as
composing the Hungarian kingdom.1

1 Schwicker, pp. 9-10.

CHAPTER II

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH IN TRANSYLVANIA
BEFORE THE UNION

IT will be seen from what has been said in the
previous chapter that the present Roumanian popula-
tion of Transylvania may be traced to three principal
sources.

Firstly, we have the original Daco-Roman colonists,
who remained in Dacia after the withdrawal of the
Roman legions in 274 A.D. ; secondly, the colonists who
followed Constantine from Moesia to Dacia in 330 A.D. ;
and thirdly, the colonists who, in the twelfth century,
began to cross over the Carpathian mountains and to
settle in Transylvania and the low-lying plains of
Hungary.

Of these elements, the first two had been driven by
successive barbarian invasions into the mountains,
where they maintained themselves, their language, and
their customs, till the advent of more peaceful times
under the early Hungarian kings of the house of Arpad
permitted them to descend from their mountain
retreats and re-occupy the plains.

During their sojourn of many centuries in the
mountains, the Roumanians became mixed with the
remnants of many other nationalities, which succes-

10 THE: ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

sively took refuge there when a fiercer or stronger
tribe drove them from the plains. Chief amongst such
tribes were the Slavs: and one result of this inter-
mingling may be seen in the number of Slav words
which the Roumanian language contains.

We may then date the re-appearance of the Rou-
manians or Wallachians — as they are now frequently
called — in Transylvania and Hungary from about the
eleventh or twelfth centuries, though they are indeed
mentioned as early as the ninth century by the Russian
chronicler Nestor, who speaks of them as the Valachi.

Their conversion is nowhere recorded, so that we
must assume that they had succeeded in preserving
their Christian faith during these long centuries of
seclusion in their mountain homes. They reappear
as a Christian people, professing an Eastern form of
Christianity, with their own bishops and priests.

This will be the more natural when we remember
that Dacia owed most of its Christianity to those
colonists who came over from Moesia in the wake of
Constantine in 330 A.D., and that after the division of
the Roman Empire Dacia fell to the Eastern portion,
and was assigned ecclesiastically to the jurisdiction of
Constantinople by the Council of Chalcedon.

The Roumanians continued to recognise the jurisdic-
tion of Constantinople, which was exercised through
the archbishopric of Ugro-Wallachia.1 The archi-

i The Archbishop of Wallachia had his see first at Tergovist, and
later on at Bucharest. His jurisdiction extended beyond Wallachia,
and included the Roumanian bishoprics in Transylvania and Hungary.
Hence the title of his province was Ugro-Wallachia.

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 11

episcopal see of Transylvania itself was placed at
Weissenburg,1 the ancient Roman Apulum.

It will be necessary here to turn aside for a moment
and glance at the conversion of Hungary, where the
adoption of Christianity in its western form was fraught
with weighty consequences for the struggling Rou-
manian Church.

In the year 948 A.D., two Hungarian princes from
Transylvania, named Eolusudes and Gyula or Gylas,
were baptized at Constantinople, the Emperor Con-
stantine vm. standing godfather to them. On their
return home Bolusudes reverted to paganism, and
persecuted his Christian subjects, but Gyula, who
succeeded him in the government of the province, re-
mained loyal to Christianity. He brought with him
from Constantinople a monk named Hierotheus, whom
the Patriarch Theophylact had consecrated to be bishop
of the Roumanian church in Transylvania. Some
converts were made to Christianity, but as a whole
Gyula's baptism was not followed up by any decisive
missionary effort on the part of the Eastern Church,
and Hungary remained pagan, till missionaries from
the West began to enter the country about 970 A.D.
The severe defeat which the Emperor Otho HI. had
inflicted on the Hungarians in 955 A.D. had humbled

1 Apulum was destroyed by the barbarian invasion. On its ruins
tose the town of Weissenburg (Alba Julia), where Ladislaus I. of
Hungary (1078-1095) founded a bishopric. When Transylvania passed
under the dominion of Austria, Charles vi. (1711-1740) fortified Weis-
senburg and renamed it Karlsburg, which name it continues to bear.
The Roumanian archbishopric was placed at Weissenburg till the
Union. When revived it was translated to Hermannstadt.

1-2 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

their power and checked their marauding raids, thus
rendering it possible for Christian bishops and priests
to cross over from Germany and begin preaching the
Gospel amongst them.

Their missionary labours were facilitated by the
presence in Hungary of many Christian captives, who
welcomed the missionaries gladly, so that, in 974 A.D.,
Bishop Pilgrim of Passau was able to send an encourag-
ing report to Pope Benedict on the success of the
Christian missions.

In 993 A.D., Bishop Adalbert of Prague arrived in
Hungary, but he seems to have been discouraged by
the prevalence of paganism and of pagan practices
even amongst professing Christians.

The ruler of Hungary at that time was Duke Geisa
(972-997), who is believed to have been baptized at
Constantinople, and had married a daughter of the
elder Gyula. She, like her father, was a Christian
belonging to the Eastern Church. But the profession
of Christianity seems to have made but little difference
to Geisa's character, and he was completely tolerant of
paganism in his dominions.

Adalbert, however, baptized Geisa's son, to whom he
gave the name of Stephen, and who was brought
up under strict Christian influences and married a
Bavarian princess named Gisella.

Stephen — the first king of the house of Arpad — suc-
ceeded his father Geisa in 997 A.D., and his first care
was to promote Christianity throughout his dominions,
either by force or persuasion, as occasion demanded.
He was a devoted son of the Roman Church, and

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 13

received the special blessing of the Pope, Sylvester IL,
upon his efforts, together with the title of ' Apostolic
King ' and the celebrated crown, which has been used
ever since for the coronation of the kings of Hungary.
Stephen's forcible method of promoting Christianity
roused bitter opposition amongst his pagan subjects,
particularly in the eastern parts of his dominions,
where paganism was still powerful. A revolt broke
out in Transylvania in 1003 A.D., which was subdued
by Stephen, who deprived Gyula the younger, his
brother-in-law, of his dominions in Siebenburgen.

Gradually then — though resisted at times by the
pagan nobles, who could always command a following
— Christianity became the religion of Hungary, and by
the time that the line of Arpad kings had become
extinct with the death of Andrew in. in 1301 A.D.,
Hungary was a Christianised country, and moreover
thoroughly loyal to the Roman See.

In the meanwhile the Roumanians who had left their
mountain homes had begun to form settlements round
Fogaras, in the banat of Zewrin and in the voivodeship
of Marinaros.

They did not at first find themselves harshly treated
by the Hungarians. They were not, it is true, recog-
nised as a distinct nationality, like the Hungarians
and the Saxon colonists who had been invited into the
country by King Geisa I. (1141-1161), and to whom
Andrew u. (1205-1235) had granted special privileges
in the Golden Bull, but they were allowed to settle
where they chose and to preserve their own religion,
customs, and laws. Most of them became serfs to the

14 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Hungarian and Saxon nobility, with the exception of
the heads of their communities, who were called
Kneazen or Knezes, and were regarded as forming a
kind of traditional nobility amongst the Roumanians.

But by degrees, as the Roumanians increased in
numbers, the conditions of their serfdom became
harder, and we notice a growing hostility towards
their religion on the part of the Roman Catholic
Church and clergy. The final separation of the Eastern
and Western Churches in the eleventh century naturally
increased this hostility, since the Roumanian bishops,
after some wavering, had definitely ranged themselves
on the side of Constantinople. Besides the Metro-
politan at Karlsburg, who received consecration from
the Archbishop of Urgo-Wallachia, it appears that the
Roumanians had originally bishops at Fogaras, Szilvas,
Vad, Halmegy, Grosswardein, and in the county of
Marmaros.

The Popes lost no opportunity to remind the Hun-
garian kings of their duties in reclaiming these false
Christians, to whom the epithet 'schismatics' begins
to be applied. Thus, in 1234 A.D., Pope Gregory ix.
writes as follows to King Bela iv. of Hungary with
respect to the Roumanian Christians : —

' In the diocese of Cumania there are some people called
Roumanians, who, although they pass for Christians, do many
things which are contrary to the Christian name. For they
despise the Roman churches, and will not receive the sacra-
ments from the Latin bishops of the Cumanians, but from
false Greek bishops, and many of the faithful Magyars,
Germans, and others, who live in the kingdom of Hungary,
and associate with these Roumanians, go over to them and

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 15

receive the sacraments in the same way, to the great hurt
of the faithful and the injury of the Christian faith. . . .
In order that no soul may be injured by this difference in
religion, and to avoid the danger of the Roumanians, for want
of the sacraments, having recourse to the schismatical bishops,
we command our bishop by letter to appoint a vicar . . . and
since you as a Catholic prince have sworn to bring to
obedience all in your territories who do not belong to the
Roman Church, and have promised by word of mouth that
the aforesaid Roumanians should accept the bishop which the
Church gives them, we command you — promising you absolu-
tion of your sins — not to permit any such schismatics in your
kingdom.'

Nevertheless the Roumanians continued steadfast in
their adherence to their own form of Christianity and
in their allegiance to Constantinople.

But the conditions of their serfdom became yearly
more onerous. Not only were the heads of the
Roumanian communities — the Knezes — now compelled
to servitude, but the clergy were also completely under
the control of the Magyar or Saxon landowner on whose
estate their fathers had been born. Poverty obliged
them to follow the humble callings of shepherd or
farm labourer in common with their people, nor could
they be transferred to another parish unless their
original overlord voluntarily resigned his claims over
them and allowed them to settle elsewhere. These
and other oppressions led to a revolt of the Roumanian
peasantry in 1437, which was suppressed with some
severity, and the three leading races of Hungary — the
Magyars, Saxons, and Szeklers — concluded an agree-
ment at Kapolna on September 18, 1437, in which they

16 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

bound themselves to resist Roumanian pretensions and
to maintain the existing recognition of their own three
nationalities alone. The Roumanians thus remained
in their condition of serfdom ; but it must be conceded
that in general the Hungarian kings did their best
to secure justice and equitable treatment for all their
subjects, and seldom turned a deaf ear to the petitions
which the Roumanian clergy and people presented
to them from time to time. One of the principal
grievances of the Roumanians lay in the exaction of
tithes on the part of the Roman Catholic clergy. Thus,
in 1479, we find the Roumanian Archbishop Joannicius
petitioning Matthias Corvinus, King of Hungary, to
remit these imposts, which lay heavily on the im-
poverished Roumanians. The king assented to the
archbishop's petition, and issued two decrees in 1479
and 1485 respectively, in which he ordered that no
tithes should be taken from the 'schismatics.' His
successor, Ladislaus, confirmed this immunity by his
decree of 1495, which forbade the taking of tithes from
1 Serbs, Russians, Roumanians, and other schismatics
living on Christian estates/ Again, in 1491, we find
this same King Ladislaus occupying himself with the
ecclesiastical affairs of the Roumanians at their own
request. Two wealthy Roumanians, named Balitza
Yoda and Drag Mester, had founded a monastery dedi-
cated to St. Michael in the Roumanian diocese of
Munkacs. Having endowed it with villages and lands
sufficient for its support, they repaired to Constantinople,
where they begged the Patriarch Antonius to constitute
it a Stauropegion, thus exempting it from the juris-

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 17

diction of the Bishop of Munkacs. The Patriarch
approved the request, and appointed a monk named
Pachomius to be the first abbot of the new monastery,
while he granted to the monks the right of electing
their own abbot in future.

But Pachomius's successor, Ilarius, deemed it prudent
to secure the independence of his monastery from
episcopal control by obtaining a royal confirmation of
the privileges which had been granted by the Patriarch.
For this purpose he appealed to King Ladislaus, who
issued a decree confirming the privileges in 1495. The
Bishop of Munkacs, however, resented this interference
with his authority, and endeavoured to appropriate the
revenues of the monastery. Ilarius again appealed to
Ladislaus, who confirmed his original decree and main-
tamed the independence of the monastery against the
bishop.

Ladislaus was succeeded in 1516 by his young son,
Louis II., in whose reign the greatest misfortunes over-
whelmed Hungary.

At the battle of Mohacs in 1516, the Hungarian
army was utterly routed by the Turks under Solyman
the Magnificent. Louis lost his life, and Buda was
given over to pillage, while the country around, with
its towns, villages, and churches was laid waste in all
directions. Solyman at length returned to Constanti-
nople, laden with spoils from Hungary, while a large
part of the land remained till 1686 in Turkish hands.
To add to these misfortunes, the Hungarian nobles
could not agree on the best method of saving their
country from further Turkish invasion. One party

B

18 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

desired to offer the crown to Ferdinand of Austria,
brother of the Emperor Charles v., and in this
they were warmly supported by the Saxons. The
opposite party preferred a national dynasty, and elected
John Zapolya, the Voivode of Transylvania, as King of
Hungary. The result was a desolating civil war, which
lasted till 1538, when Ferdinand agreed to cede Tran-
sylvania and part of Hungary, as far as the river Theiss,
to John for his lifetime. Thus a temporary truce was
established till John's death in 1541, when his estates
should by this agreement have passed to Ferdinand
and the house of Hapsburg. The national party,
however, proclaimed his little son, John Sigismund
Zapolya, as king, and bought the support of the Turks
by payment of a yearly tribute. Queen Isabella,
Sigismund's mother, acted as regent, but an unfor-
tunate quarrel with her leading minister, George
Martinuzzi, Bishop of Grosswardein, led the latter to
betray Transylvania to Ferdinand. The savage conduct
of Ferdinand's troops, however, alienated even his own
supporters from him, and, urged on by the Turks, the
national party succeeded in regaining their indepen-
dence, and replacing Sigismund Zapolya on the throne,
which he held till his death in 1571.

In his place another Hungarian magnate, Stephen
Bathori, was elected ; but in 1575 he was presented with
the crown of Poland, whereupon he ceded the real
government of Transylvania to his brother, Christopher
Bathori, while retaining a merely nominal overlord ship
for himself. His successor was Sigismund Bathori,
who held the principality till 1605.

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 19

The Roumanian Church in Transylvania suffered
much from the troubles, both political and religious,
which passed over Hungary. Five archbishops occupied
the Roumanian see of Weissenburg during this period :
Barlaam I., 1537 ; Paul Thordasi, 1569 ; Genadiu i., 1580,
Joan de Prislop, 1595-1599 ; and Theoctist, 1605-1609.1
The spread of the Reformation caused great strife and
confusion in Transylvania as elsewhere. Merchants
who attended the fairs at Leipsic and other German
towns brought back with them to Hermannstadt an
account of Luther's teaching; and the new doctrines
spread rapidly, especially amongst the Saxons in
Transylvania. Lutheranism became the prevailing
form of Protestantism with the Saxons, while Calvinism,
and, later on, Unitarianisin, won an immense number
of adherents amongst the Hungarians and Szeklers.
John Zapolya, with many other Hungarian magnates,
whose policy, as well as their religious views, inclined
them to the defence of the ancient religion, did their
best to stem the tide; but their efforts were for the
time unavailing. After John's death, his little son
Sigisinund was brought up under strict Unitarian in-
fluences, and became in after life a strict supporter of
this creed.

Meanwhile, the Roumanians were striving to remain
faithful to their religion, but they suffered no little
from the attacks of both parties, who were equally
anxious, as opportunity offered, to compel them to

1 Schaguna mentions Stephen i. c. 1557. His name does not appear
in Hurzumaki's list, but it is possible that one has dropped out
between 1537 and 1569, as the interval is unusually long.

20 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

accept either Protestantism or Roman Catholicism.
The Protestant propaganda was chiefly carried on by
preaching and popular Bible teaching, while the Roman
Church aimed more at simply winning over the higher
Roumanian clergy, trusting that their flocks would
follow them. Their own Eastern Christianity was only
tolerated on sufferance, and they were constantly sub-
jected to hardship and oppression in the exercise of
their religion. It is therefore all the more pleasing to
find the Queen Regent, Isabella, in 1557, confirming the
appointment of a Bishop Christopher to the Roumanian
monastery of Feldiod.

John Sigismund Zapolya died on March 14, 1571,
and, as we have seen above, Stephen Bathori was
elected as his successor.

Stephen was a Protestant prince, and during his
reign the Diet of Transylvania passed some laws which
dealt rather severely with the Roumanian Church.
The following articles are contained in Approb. Gonslit
Regni Transilv., 1575 A.D., Pars. I. Tit. viii.

Art. I.

Art. I. deals first with the appointment of Roumanian
bishops. They are to be elected by the Roumanian
clergy ; but their election must be entirely subject to
the approval of the prince, who may confirm or reject
it as he pleases.

Secondly, the article states that all Roumanian
bishops and arch- priests when making visitations of
their dioceses or districts are to confine themselves
entirely to their spiritual duties. They are not to

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 21

engage in an}7 secular undertakings, to mingle in
politics, or to impose on offenders any temporal punish-
ments or fines.

Art. II.

This article provides that any Roumanian clergy
coming from abroad to settle in Transylvania are to
present themselves first to the arch-priest of the dis-
trict. The arch-priest or bishop must send them to be
further examined by the civil authorities of the county
or municipality, and the latter are to furnish the prince
with a report concerning them as circumstances may
demand.

Art. III.

This article deals with the obligations of the Rou-
manian clergy to their Hungarian or Saxon over-lords.

It will be remembered that even the clergy stood in
the position of serfs, and were bound to remain on the
landholders' estates. They are ordered in this article
to pay a yearly tax proportionate to their incomes ; but
they are allowed to appeal to the civil authorities if
their over-lords make excessive demands upon them.
The claims which the overlord may make on the sons
of the clergy are also regulated by this article.

Art. IV.

Art. IV. treats of Roumanian priests who commit
irregularities in celebrating marriages between persons
of different religions, or between those who have been
improperly betrothed, or those whose marriage would
be for any reason illegal.

22 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

If the arch-priest does not punish such a priest
within five days of receiving an admonition from the
civil authorities to do so. he is to be deprived of his
rank.

The priest is to be fined two hundred florins, and
may also be deprived by the bishop if the civil autho-
rities desire it.

In addition to these articles we also find in Approb.
Oonstit. Trans., Tit. ix. Art. i., that work is to be re-
quired as usual of the Roumanians on their festivals.
From the wording of the article it is evident that they
had been in the habit of petitioning their over-lords
for holidays on such days. In future they are not to
presume to do so.

Tit. in. Art. ii. permits tithes to be taken from the
Roumanians on wine, corn, vegetables, sheep, pigs, and
bees.

Considering the poverty of the Roumanian serfs, it
will be readily understood that such taxation must
have pressed very heavily upon them, and kept them
in a state of chronic indigence.1

Stephen's successor in the principality, Sigismund
Bathori, conceded some trifling alleviations in the lot
of the Roumanian clergy at the request of the Metro-
politan, Joan de Prislop, in 1595. Their general condi-
tion remained unchanged, however, until the election
of Gabriel Bathori to the throne of Transylvania.

Although in most respects a very bad prince, Gabriel
Bathori showed pity and consideration towards the
Roumanian people and their priesthood. In 1609 he

1 Schag., pp. 35-8.

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 23

granted permission to the latter — with the sanction of
their bishop — to settle in any place they pleased with
their families, and without requiring to obtain the
consent of their over-lords. He also relieved them
from the performance of their obligations to the terri-
torial nobility, and from the payment of all dues
except the customary yearly tax.1

Gabriel Bathori was succeeded by Gabriel Bethlen,
an earnest-minded man, who did much for the im-
provement of his country. The Roumanian clergy in
the district of Fogaras, finding him thus well disposed
towards them, petitioned him, in 1624, for a remission
of tithes, such as they had formerly enjoyed under
Ladislaus n. and Matthias Corvinus. Gabriel granted
their petition so far as to remit all tithes on cattle and
land produce.2

Some further privileges were granted to the Rou-
manian clergy and people by Gabriel's successor,
George Rakoczy i., in 1638, at the request of their
Metropolitan, Genadiu n.

But though the elective princes of Transylvania were
willing to make these concessions towards a material
improvement in the status of the Roumanian clergy,
they spared no efforts at the same time to win over
the Roumanian Church to Protestantism. With this
object in view, catechisms and other doctrinal state-
ments were issued from time to time to the Roumanian
archbishops and clergy with imperative orders to use
them only in the instruction of their flocks. It was

1 Lit. Priv. Gab. Bet., 1609; Hurz., p. 4.

2 Lit. Priv. Gab. Bet., 1624 ; Hurz., p. 5.

24 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

hoped in this way to leaven the Roumanian Church
with Protestant teaching through the medium of its
own pastors.

The results for the most part were very unsuccessful.

Some, indeed, of the Roumanian bishops and clergy
were strongly inclined towards Protestantism, though
probably more from the material benefits which its
adoption was likely to bring them than from any real
love or sympathy with its doctrines. But others held
firmly to their traditional faith, and refused to have
anything to do with the Protestant catechisms, and
encouraged their people to remain steadfast.

In 1638, during the reign of Prince George Rakoczy i.,
Elias Joresti, a monk from Wallachia, was appointed
Archbishop of Weissenburg (Karlsburg). He was a
man of simple, austere life, and unswerving loyalty to
the orthodox faith, who set himself to combat the
spread of Protestant doctrines in the Roumanian
Church, and proscribed the use of any books which
inculcated them. This soon brought him sharply into
conflict with George Rakoczy. Unfortunately, in the
visitation which he had made of the diocese under his
charge, he had found many abuses and irregularities
which it was necessary to check, as well as much
covert Calvinism among the clergy.

Many of the latter, who had secretly embraced Cal-
vinistic doctrines without openly apostatising from the
Roumanian Church, were exempted by a special decree
of Prince Rakoczy from their obedience to the Arch-
bishop of Weissenburg, except so far as the Protestant
Superintendent, Stephen Gelei, should allow them to

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 25

render it. Joresti's uncompromising attitude in these
matters had made him many enemies amongst the
more worldly bishops and clergy, who were only too
ready to assist Gelei in getting rid of so unpopular an
archbishop. At a Synod, held in 1643, Elias was con-
demned, deprived of his see, and handed over to the
secular authorities for further punishment. In his
place the Synod elected, at Rakoczy's wish, a priest
named Stephen Simonowicz, who showed himself far
more pliant in his attitude towards the Protestant
Church.

With the royal patent confirming his appointment
as Archbishop of Weissenburg, Rakoczy transmitted
to Stephen, on October 10, 1643, a long ' instruction/
dealing minutely with matters of doctrine and practice.
From this remarkable document we may see that the
new archbishop was expected to conform more closely
to the standard of a Protestant superintendent than to
that of an archbishop of the Orthodox Church.

Among its most noteworthy provisions are the fol-
lowing : —

(1) Stephen is to make use exclusively of the re-
formed catechism supplied to him by the Protestant
Church, and is to insist that his bishops and clergy use
it too in all teaching given by them to the Roumanian
people.

(2) Baptism is to be administered in the name of
the Holy Trinity with water only, according to Christ's
institution. (Is this aimed at trine immersion, or at
the anointing with chrism which immediately follows
baptism in the Eastern Church ?)

26 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

(3) Holy Communion is to be administered in both
kinds (this must mean separately, since the Eastern
Church does not allow Communion in one kind), and
only to adults of good moral life.

(4) Crosses and pictures in churches are not to be
accorded religious veneration, but only to be used as
reminders of our Lord's life and death.

(5) Burials are to be conducted according to the
Calvinist rite.

(6) Nobody, either priest or layman, is to be hindered
or dissuaded from joining the Reformed Church. They
are to be treated with the same affection as the faithful
adherents of the orthodox faith.

(7) A synod is to be held yearly, which all the
Roumanian clergy are to attend, but the decision of
any difficult points of dogma is to be submitted to the
General Superintendent of the Protestant Church.

(8) The superintendent is to have a vote in the
election or deposition of a proto-pope just as much as
the bishop, the members of his consistory court, and
the clergy of the district concerned.

(9) All decisions of the bishop's consistory court in
disputes between the clergy must be referred finally to
the Protestant superintendent.

(10) A Roumanian priest may not marry or bury a
Hungarian or baptize their children. Only in the case
of a Roumanian marrying a Hungarian woman may
the Roumanian priest perform the ceremony.

It is difficult to see how Stephen reconciled the
acceptance of such regulations with his position as

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 27

archbishop. However he professed at least an outward
compliance, and allowed the Protestant Confession to
be circulated and taught amongst his flock, though its
appearance in the Danubian provinces was the signal
for an outburst of horror and indignation.

The catechism was repudiated by a Synod of
Roumanian bishops, held under the presidency of the
Metropolitan of Moldavia, Barlaam, who undertook
to refute it in a pastoral letter which he published in
1645. This energetic action on the part of the
Roumanian bishops was of great value in checking
the spread of Protestantism amongst their co-religion-
ists in Transylvania. Stephen showed a scarcely less
culpable weakness and negligence to the true interests
of his church, when he consented, in 1651, to consecrate
a monk named Peter Parthenius to the see of Munkacs,
despite his well-known tendencies towards Roman
Catholicism. But the Metropolitanate of Stephen was
not without some cheering features. The translation
of the Psalms into Roumanian was accomplished in 1651,
followed later on by the whole of the New Testament.

Indeed the 'instruction' sent by Rakoczy i. to Stephen
at his consecration insisted strongly on the exclusive
use of the vernacular in the services of the Roumanian
Church as well as in Bible reading and preaching. It
is to be feared, however, that Rakoczy's object was
not so much the spiritual advancement of the
Roumanian Church as its detachment from its sister
churches in Greece and beyond the Danube, with a
view to propagating Protestant teaching amongst its
members.

28 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

That Rakoczy bore no love to the Roumanian Church
in itself may be gathered from the fact that when the
Roumanians from a village named Gross Cserged
petitioned for leave to build themselves a church, he
only granted it on condition that the tithes should be
paid to the Saxon pastor of the parish.

Stephen was succeeded in 1651 by Daniel, who only
held the see of Weissenburg till 1656, when he abdi-
cated and fled to Wallachia. During his Metropolita-
nate, George Rakoczy n., who had succeeded his father
on the throne of Transylvania, had endeavoured to en-
force Protestantism on the Roumanians in the county
of Marmarosch. To Daniel, however, succeeded one
of the strongest Metropolitans who ever occupied the
see of Weissenburg, namely Sabbas Brankovich, whose
memory is justly venerated by all Roumanian church-
men.

He held the archbishopric from 1656-1680, during
all of which time he spared no efforts to improve the
condition of his clergy and people. He obtained from
Prince Achatius Barcsai in 1659, and from Prince
Michael Apafi in 1663 and 1673, decrees freeing the
Roumanian clergy from the payment of the heavy
tithes and dues which had reduced them to such great
poverty, and by compelling them to engage in manual
labour for their own support had prevented them from
devoting themselves to the duties of their ministry.

These exemptions were as usual bitterly resented by
the Magyars and Saxons, who continued when possible
to enforce the payment of tithes as before. But Sabbas
and his brother George Brankovich had made them-

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 29

selves very useful to Apafi in conducting negotiations
with the Princes of Moldavia and Wallachia. They
were able, consequently, to prevail on Apafi to enforce
his decrees as well as to induce the Danubian princes
to use their good offices in behalf of their co-religionists
in Transylvania. In the meantime the Turks had
again been over -running the principality, and had
burnt the Kouinanian cathedral and the bishop's
residence at Weissenburg.

Being unable to raise money to rebuild his cathedral
amongst the poverty-stricken Roumanians of Transyl-
vania, Sabbas obtained leave from Apafi, in 1668, to
make a journey into Russia for the purpose of collect^
ing funds for this object.

On his return he found that his enemy, George
Tophaeus, the Superintendent of the Calvinist Church,
had been endeavouring to undermine his authority
during his absence by winning over some of the
Roumanian proto-popes to the Protestant faith. He
had also obtained a decree from Apafi which should
prevent Sabbas from performing ordinations, from
exercising due jurisdiction over his clergy, and should
place him in a position of complete subordination to
the Protestant Church.

By an energetic appeal to Apafi in 1675, Sabbas
succeeded in regaining his rights and maintaining the
privileges of his church for a while, but the hostility of
the Protestant party continued, being really fostered
by the elective princes, whose sympathies naturally
lay with their own religion and with the efforts made
to propagate it.

30 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Sabbas, moreover, by his wealth as well as by his
loyalty to the orthodox faith, had made himself un-
popular amongst the disaffected Roumanian clergy,
who saw in subserviency to Tophaeus and the Pro-
testant Church a means of improving their material
position.

In 1677, at the instigation of Tophaeus, two laymen
came forward with a false accusation of immoral con-
duct against their archbishop. He was arraigned
before a diocesan Synod in 1680, which was composed
of ninety-eight clerical and lay members, with Tophaeus
as his principal accuser, was declared guilty and thrown
into prison with his brother George, while all his
property — the real object of attack — was confiscated.
George Brankovich succeeded in escaping from prison,
and fled to Wallachia, where he besought the inter-
vention of Prince Serban Cantacuzene on behalf of
his unfortunate brother. The prince remonstrated
vigorously with Apafi i., who, finding himself threatened
by internal foes, and fearing lest Serban should make
common cause with them, consented to release Sabbas
and restore to him his church and property. The
archbishop, however, broken down by ill-health, old
age, and the harsh treatment to which he had been
subjected while in prison, with a view to inducing him
to accept Protestantism, died soon after his release.1

His successor, Joseph Budai, received consecration
from Theodosius, Metropolitan of Wallachia, at Bucha-
rest, in 1680, but he seceded very shortly after to

1 Schag., pp. 41-45; Hurz., pp. 16-17.

THE ROUMANIAN CHURCH BEFORE THE UNION 31

Protestantism, and signed the Helvetic Confession.1
In 1687 Barlaam n. was elected to the vacant see,
which he had only held a year, when the Transyl-
vanians, weary of their national princes and the
Turkish suzerainty, offered the principality to Leopold i.
of Austria at the Diet of Fogaras in 1668.

Leopold had already driven out Apafi i. and his
Turkish supporters from Transylvania in 1686, and
Austrian troops had occupied Klausenburg, Hermann-
stadt, and Deva. The principality thus passed under
the house of Austria, whose rule it has acknowledged
ever since.

1 Hurz., p. 9.

CHAPTER III

THE UNION

THE acceptance of Austrian rule, which we recorded in
the last chapter, was destined to have far-reaching
results for the Orthodox Church in Transylvania and
Hungary.

Under the elective princes every effort had been
made to win or coerce the Roumanians to adopt Pro-
testantism ; under the Austrian dynasty the Roman
Catholic Church regained much of its former ascend-
ency in Hungary, and was not slow in endeavouring
to bring the orthodox Roumanians within its fold.
Many circumstances contributed towards the success of
the movement, but its chief impetus must be sought
in the wretched conditions of life under which the
Roumanians laboured.

As we have seen above, the Roumanians were not
reckoned amongst the recognised nationalities of
Hungary, nor was the Greek faith accorded a recog-
nised position on a level with Roman Catholicism,
Calvinism, Lutheranism, and Unitarianism.

Socially the Roumanians were for the most part
serfs, including even the clergy, and as such they were
subject to much oppression at the hands of the Hun-

THE UNION 33

garian and Saxon nobility. The frequent efforts of the
Roumanian clergy to escape the payment of tithes,
though apparently successful, were often attended
by no practical result, as the nobility were powerful
enough to maintain the old state of things, despite
royal edicts to the contrary. Both clergy and laity
were poor and ignorant, since it was very seldom that
they could afford the means of education, and their
children were not received in the Roman Catholic or
Protestant schools. It can easily be understood then
what great temptations from a material point of view
there must have been to the Roumanians to adopt one
of the received religions. Such a step would at once
invest them with all the liberties and privileges enjoyed
by that body. But in the case of Protestantism there
were two powerful counteracting forces.

The first of these was purely religious, and lay in the
fundamental difference between Protestantism and the
Greek Church, which made the acceptance of the former
by a member of the latter essentially distasteful. The
second was racial, and as such appealed to one of the
most permanent characteristics of life in south-eastern
Europe. Acceptance of the Protestant or Unitarian
faith meant for a Roumanian the practical surrender of
his nationality, as with his new religion he would
almost certainly enrol himself in a Magyar or Saxon
community. This indeed did happen somewhat fre-
quently amongst Roumanians of the upper class, both
clerical and lay. If for any good service a Roumanian
was ' ennobled ' by his prince, he found himself at once
in an entirely different society, whose life he could only

c

34 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

share by becoming Magyarised or Saxonised as the case
might be. Occasionally he might perhaps personally
retain his race and religion, but his children, who would
be educated in Magyar or German schools, would cer-
tainly lose their ancient faith and would no longer be
registered as Roumanians. In this way it happened
that just those Roumanians who might have helped to
raise their church and nation fell away from it, while
the poor Roumanian peasants and serfs clung to it
loyally.

But the loss of those who should naturally have been
its leaders became an increased source of weakness
when the Roumanian Church found itself opposed by
an active and carefully prepared propaganda. The
Roman Catholic Church was able to pursue a method
far more likely to win favour in the eyes of the Rou-
manians and especially of the Roumanian clergy. She
proposed a ' Union ' between the Roumanian and Roman
Catholic churches, in which the former should retain
its own language, customs, liturgy, and ceremonies,
together with its married priesthood, while publicly
acknowledging the four following indispensable points :
(1) The supremacy of the Pope; (2) the Procession of
the Spirit from the Father and the Son ; (3) the Per-
missible use of unleavened bread ; (4) Purgatory.

On accepting this ' Union/ the Roumanian priests,
from being in the position of mere serfs, burdened with
heavy tithes, would at once be freed from the latter
and would enjoy all the privileges of the Roman
Catholic clergy, together with the right of educating
their sons at Roman Catholic schools and seminaries.

THE UNION 35

The laity in a similar manner would obtain all the civil
rights belonging to one of the 'recognised' religions
and nationalities, and would be eligible for all posts
in the public service from which they had hitherto
been excluded. At the same time there would be no
sacrifice of nationality, since the Roumanians of this
Uniat church would be recognised as forming a dis-
tinct nationality, and would not be required to merge
themselves in the Magyars. It can readily be under-
stood what a tempting prospect now opened out before
the oppressed and poverty-stricken Roumanians ; and a
national party was soon formed amongst them, headed
by the leading clergy, who openly advocated union
with the Roman Catholic Church. The Jesuits and
Cardinal Kollonicz, Archbishop of Gran and Primate of
Hungary, were unwearying in their efforts to promote
the union, while they received the warmest encourage-
ment from the Emperor and the Court at Vienna.

The Cardinal had already succeeded in 1692 in
bringing over two hundred Roumanian parishes in the
diocese of Munkacs to the Union. Nevertheless the
project encountered much opposition, not only amongst
the Roumanians who desired to remain true to their
ancestral faith, but also from the Protestant party,
which had no desire to see the Roumanians incor-
porated in the Roman Catholic Church, and thus
strengthening its growing influence in Transylvania.

Such was the condition of affairs on the death of the
Metropolitan Barlaam, who had succeeded to the Arch-
bishopric of Karlsburg in 1687, but had died within a
few years of his accession to the see. He was a loyal

36 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Roumanian and desirous of promoting the true interests
of his church, but was unable to do much towards
stemming the current which had now set in in favour
of the proposed 'Union.' He was succeeded in 1692
by a monk named Theophilus, whose father, Simon
Szeremi, had been parish priest of a village in Tran-
s}dvania. Theophilus had incurred the displeasure of
Prince Brankovich of Wallachia by serious misde-
meanours, both in his private life and in his adminis-
tration of the Roumanian Church. Eventually the
prince threatened to demand his deposition unless he
showed real signs of amendment, while at the same
time he was menaced with further exposure by the
Protestant nobles.1

Thus pressed on all sides, Theophilus threw himself
into the arms of Rome, and professed his willingness to
further the cause of the Union. The Roman Catholic
authorities, and in particular the Jesuits, seized eagerly
upon the opportunity thus presented, and welcomed
Theophilus warmly, adding to persuasive arguments
promises of further ecclesiastical promotion.

Theophilus at once set himself to win over the Rou-
manian clergy to his views, and even circulated amongst
them a pamphlet which represented the Roumanians
as having belonged originally to the Roman Catholic
Church, so that the proposed Union would be nothing
more than a return to their own spiritual mother.

As we have said above, the Roman claims were
reduced to four, of which by far the most, and indeed

i Hurz., p. 29.

THE UNION 37

the only, practically important one was the recognition
of the Papal supremacy.

In order, however, to avoid the appearance of forcing
Roman Catholicism upon the Roumanians, and also to
satisfy the claims of the other religions, a royal com-
mission was appointed, consisting of four delegates, one
from each of the ' received ' religions, who were com-
missioned to give every Roumanian pope his choice
either to accept one of the received religions or to abide
in the Greek faith. But this apparent impartiality was
counteracted by secret orders from the Emperor, to the
effect that in reality the Roumanians were to be urged
to accept Roman Catholicism, and that no encourage-
ment was to be given to the other religions. The
Archbishop Theophilus seconded the Emperor's efforts
eagerly, and persecuted any of his clergy who desired to
avail themselves of this opportunity to embrace Pro-
testantism. In consequence of the distress and con-
fusion thus produced amongst the orthodox Roumanians,
he summoned a Synod of his clergy at Karlsburg in
1697, to discuss the question of the proposed Union.

The Synod lasted from the beginning of February to
the 21st of March. At its first sitting Theophilus dwelt
at length on the hardships which the Roumanians had
endured at the hands of the national princes of Tran-
sylvania. He pointed out in particular that the doctrines
of the church had been distorted by the circulation
of Protestant manuals to the great injury of the
faithful.

At the next sitting he went on to lay the question
of the proposed union with Rome before the Synod,

38 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA- HUNGARY

which viewed the matter favourably, and proceeded to
deliberate on the necessary terms. It was eventually
agreed to accept the four points put forward by Rome,
while claiming the following concessions for the Rou-
manian Church.

(1) The continued use of its own canon law, so far as
it did not contradict the terms of Union ; (2) equal rights
for the Roumanian priesthood and laity with those en-
joyed by members of the Roman Catholic Church, and
equal facilities for education ; (3) non-interference of the
laity in the affairs of the clergy ; and (4) due pecuniary
provision for the maintenance of the Metropolitical see.
These terms were embodied in an act which was signed
by Theophilus and twelve archdeacons, and was sub-
mitted to the Emperor and the Primate of Hungary for
confirmation and approval.1 The action of the Synod
found warm support at the Court of Vienna and amongst
the Roman Catholic clergy ; but it was far otherwise with
such of the Roumanian clergy and laity as resented
the idea of deserting their religion and repudiated the
action of their archbishop. They were .supported in
their resistance by the Protestants, and great confusion
and bitterness prevailed, which was augmented by the
death of Theophilus in July 1697.

The see of Karlsburg remained vacant for seven
months, and was eventually filled in January 1698 by
a monk named Athanasius, the son of a Roumanian
parish priest.

To quiet the unrest which the Synod of Karlsburg

1 Schag., pp. 63-66.

THE UNION 39

had called forth amongst the Roumanians, and to
promote the cause of the Union, the Emperor Leopold i.
issued two decrees in April 1698. These confirmed
the result of the Synod, and emphasised the fact that
all orthodox Roumanian priests who acknowledged the
papal supremacy and the distinctive points of Roman
Catholic dogma — although adhering to the Greek rite
— should at once enjoy all the privileges and liberties
of the Roman Catholic clergy. Those, on the other
hand, who elected to adhere to the Greek Church
would remain in their present position and pay the
usual taxes.1 These imperial edicts were followed in
June by a solemn manifesto from the Primate of
Hungary, Cardinal Kollonicz. In this manifesto, the
Cardinal set forth still more strongly the temporal
advantages in the way of privileges and legal protection
which the Roumanians — and in particular the clergy —
would obtain by joining the Union. Not only, he says,
will such a step procure them eternal felicity in the
life to come, but will also ensure them here the special
favour and protection of the Emperor. They may
always count on a favourable hearing in the ecclesi-
astical and civil courts, and will find in himself and the
Emperor willing friends and protectors. While the
orthodox Roumanians were thus being alternately
encouraged and coerced to join the Union by influence
from outside, circumstances within the Roumanian
Church itself contributed towards the same result.
Following the custom of his predecessors, the newly

1 Hurz., pp. 30-31.

40 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

elected Metropolitan Athanasius had gone to Bucharest
for his consecration in January 1698.

The Metropolitan of Wallachia at that time was one
Theodosius, who perhaps had heard reports of the
doubtful orthodoxy of Athanasius and of the threatened
defection of the Roumanian Church in Transylvania.
At any rate he did his best to bind Athanasius to the
orthodox faith and to remind him of his solemn
responsibilities as Metropolitan. But Athanasius was
evidently a thoroughly untrustworthy man. Although
he must have decided in his own mind to accept the
Union on his return to Transylvania, yet he took the
customary oath which was administered to all Arch-
bishops of Karlsburg at their consecration by the
Metropolitans of Wallachia. After the recitation of the
Nicene Creed, the oath runs as follows : —

'Further, I also acknowledge and accept the seven holy
Councils which met to settle the principles of the Christian
faith. I profess that I will heartily accept and observe all
the canons and decrees of those holy Fathers who attended
the Councils and all the principles and doctrines which were
laid down by those holy Fathers at those times. I profess
moreover that I will maintain the peace of the Church, and
will never do anything contrary thereto so long as I live, but
will in all things submit myself to the wholesome doctrine
of my very reverend Lord and Prince of the Church in all
Ugro- Wallachia, Lord Theodosius, and I do vow with all my
mind that I will feed the spiritual nock committed to my
charge in godly love and fear, according to the holy canons
and decrees, and so far as in me lies will keep myself from all
wrong and malicious wickedness ; further, I profess that I will
maintain intact and undisturbed all property which the see
of Ugro- Wallachia possesses within my diocese. I, Athanasius,

THE UNION 41

by the grace of God called to the holy episcopate of the
country of Siebenburgen, have signed here with my own
hand.'1

It so happened that the Patriarch of Jerusalem,
Dositheus, was at Bucharest at this time, and he
took the opportunity of addressing an instruction to
Athanasius on the duties and responsibilities of his
charge. In this instruction, which is of considerable
length, Dositheus shows a very just appreciation of the
needs of the Church and of the character which her
Metropolitan should bear. He begins by emphasising
the necessity for a close adherence to the decrees and
canons of the seven (Ecumenical Councils and of the
ancient Fathers. At the same time he warns Athanasius
and his flock to submit themselves duly to the civil
powers, as being in accordance with ' the most clear
warrant of Scripture.' He then proceeds to dwell on
the importance of preaching, which is never to be
omitted on Sundays and festivals, but which should
also take place at other times. And this preaching, he
observes, is to be given in the vulgar tongue; either
Servian, Russian, or Roumanian, as the needs of the
congregation require, while all exposition of the Holy
Scriptures is to follow the lines laid down by the
Fathers. But when he comes to dwell, a little later on
(Art. 5), upon the celebration of the Liturgy and the
offices of the Church, he directs distinctly that they are
only to be performed in Greek or Slavonic, and not in
the Roumanian tongue. Some writers see in this a

1 Schag., pp. 72-73.

42 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

desire on the part of Dositheus to maintain the
supremacy of the Greek Patriarchate over the Rou-
manian Church in Transylvania, and to prevent its
acquiring complete independence with the growth of
the national spirit.1 But Schaguna considers that the
injunction was only due to the fact that at this time
there was no authorised translation of the Liturgy and
service books into Roumanian.2 This is the more
likely because in the very next article Dositheus directs
that the Gospel at the Liturgy is to be read in Slavonic
or Roumanian, as necessity requires. We have seen
that the New Testament was translated into Roumanian
during the Metropolitanate of Simonowich. It is worth
noticing in this connection that Dositheus speaks of a
daily celebration of the Liturgy.

Proceeding with his instruction, Dositheus gives
careful rules in Arts. 7-12 for the due and proper
performance of the Sacraments, and lays special stress
on Communion in both kinds when dealing with the
subject of the Liturgy. In speaking of confession, he
admonishes Athanasius to make careful choice of
suitable priests, both secular and religious, as confessors,
and to do his utmost to secure that the faithful come
to confession four times a year, or at the very least
before Easter. He directs that prayer-oil (extreme
unction) is to be administered by not less than two
priests, and if possible by seven, and also that it is to
be administered to those who are spiritually as well as
bodily sick. After some further directions connected
with requiem Masses, and with the due supply of

1 Hurz., p. 34; Slav., p. 80. 2 Schag., p. 76, note.

THE UNION 43

ornaments and utensils for the Church, he goes on to
speak of the veneration due to icons, to the Book of the
Gospels, and to the Holy Cross, and of the position of
the Saints as intercessors with Christ on our behalf.
He then finishes this part of his instruction with
dwelling on the necessity of good works as an indis-
pensable accompaniment to orthodox faith.

Article 20 is of special importance, because it regu-
lates the relationship between the Roumanian Church
in Transylvania and the patriarchal see of Constanti-
nople. Athanasius is directed in this article to hold
a general Synod twice or at least once a year, at which
all difficulties or disputes which have arisen in the
Metropolitanate may be discussed. But if any point
presents special difficulty and cannot be settled by the
Synod, it is to be referred to the Metropolitan of Ugro-
Wallachia as Exarch of the Patriarchal throne. In
case the question should prove beyond the competency
of the Exarch to decide, it must be referred finally to
the Patriarch of Constantinople and his council, in
accordance with the canons of the Council of Chalcedon.
Article 21 reiterates the importance of adhering closely
to the doctrines and sacraments of the Eastern Church
and of teaching the orthodox faith carefully. For
this purpose Dositheus recommends the use of a book
called the Orthodox Confession, which had lately
been translated into Roumanian, only stipulating that
in all cases of doubtful translation the Greek text
should be carefully consulted. The last Article (22)
exhorts Athanasius to personal purity of life, to the
avoidance of all simoniacal practices, which it must

44 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

be feared were growing rife, and to single-hearted
devotion to the solemn duties of his office. The in-
struction closes by commending him to the mercy and
favour of Jesus Christ, and is signed as follows : ' Given
at Bucharest, in the month of January 1698. Dosi-
theus, by the grace of God, Patriarch of the holy city
Jerusalem, to the humble Athanasius, Bishop of the
country of Siebenburgen ' (Transylvania).1 Such was
the substance of the instruction given by the Patriarch
Dositheus to Athanasius at his consecration, but to
which unhappily he was far from faithful, as circum-
stances were soon to show. On his return to Tran-
sylvania he summoned a Synod of clergy and laity at
Karlsburg, at which the advantages of the Union were
earnestly pressed. Of the clergy, some were genuinely
in favour of the step, others, perhaps the greater part,
were over-persuaded or intimidated. The lay deputies
had probably but little real knowledge of the points
in dispute.2

1 Schag. , pp. 73-82 ; quoted from the ancient Chronicle of Ordina-
tions of the Metropolitans of Ugro-Wallachia.

2 Hurzumaki gives the date of the Act of Union as October 7,
1698. Schaguna, on the contrary, dates it September 5, 1700. It is
difficult to reconcile the discrepancy. Schaguna mentions the general
assembly which began on July 7, 1698, but asserts that nothing
definite was done. He seems to imply that matters dragged on from
that date till the Act of Union was finally signed in September 1700.
The point chiefly in favour of Schaguna's date is the presentation of
lands to the Metropolitanate of Karlsburg by the Prince of Wallachia,
in June 1700. The prince would scarcely have made such a grant if
the Metropolitan had already seceded from the Orthodox Church,
followed by a large proportion of his flock. It is also difficult to
understand the various rescripts issued by the Emperor between 1698
and 1701 if the Union was already consummated and the Orthodox
Roumanian Church regarded as non-existent. I have therefore pre-
ferred to follow Schaguna's dates in this matter.

THE UNION 45

As a result of this conference, it was reported to the
Government that the Roumanians had accepted the
proposed union. Consequently in the beginning of
the following year (February 16, 1699), the Emperor
issued a royal diploma, confirming all the privileges
and immunities which had been promised to the Uniats,
both clergy and laity. This diploma was countersigned
by Cardinal Kollonicz.1 But the discontent amongst
those Roumanians who were opposed to the Union
was only increased by this measure, while the various
Protestant denominations were equally exasperated by
it. The Emperor deemed it wise to issue a further
rescript on August 6, 1699, reiterating the fact that
the Roumanians were perfectly free to adopt whichever
of the ' received ' religions they pleased or to adhere
to their own, with, of course, its attendant disabilities.
This rescript was followed by another on September 26,
1699, in which the terms of union between the Rou-
manians and the Roman Catholic Church were set
forth in a manner so much more favourable to the
latter than the former that Athanasius and such of
his clergy who desired the union were constrained to
protest, in the fear that after all they would not gain
much by their apostacy.

The protest was favourably received at Vienna, and
the fears of the Roumanians were allayed by another
imperial rescript, issued on December 12, 1699.2 So

1 Schag., pp. 83-87.

2 Hurzumaki dates this rescript December 22, 1701. The interval
would seem too long. For the full text of the rescript, see Schaguna,
pp. 83-94.

46 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

matters dragged on through the early months of 1700.
Athanasius, and those of his clergy who shared his
policy, found it no easy matter to persuade or even
to coerce the rest of the clergy, and especially the laity,
to follow them in concluding the union with Rome.
As late as June 13th of this year we find the Prince
of Wallachia, John Constantine Bassarab, making a
present of estates in Wallachia to the see of Karls-
burg, and addressing Athanasius and his Synod in
terms of affectionate reverence.1

But Athanasius was determined to carry through
his purpose, and on September 4, 1700, he sum-
moned a great Synod at Karlsburg. This Synod was
attended by all the clergy and arch-priests of the
diocese, together with three lay deputies from each
parish. It met at the monastery of the Holy Trinity,
and Athanasius began the proceedings by setting forth
all the advantages to be derived from union with Rome.
He encountered much opposition on the part of the
laity from the districts of Hunyad, Hermannstadt, and
Kronstadt. They allowed themselves to be overper-
suaded, however, by the clergy and such of the laity
as were favourable to the project, and at the next
sitting the union was formally decided upon. It was
resolved to accept the four points which the Roman
Catholic Church put forward, while demanding on
the Roumanian side that the ritual and discipline of
the Roumanian Church should remain untouched, so
far as it did not conflict with the Roman Catholic faith.

1 Schag. , p. 95.

THE^UNION 47

The formal Act of Union, which was signed on
September 5, 1700, runs as follows : —

' We, the undersigned, bishop, arch-priests, and clergy of
the Roumanian Church in Siebenburgen (Transylvania) and
the adjoining districts, do hereby announce and declare to
all whom it may concern, and especially to the Estates of
Siebenburgen, that we, having considered the fleeting un-
certainties of human life and the immortality of the soul,
which must be considered before all else, have of our own
free will, and out of a desire for the honour of the Divine
Name, entered into union with the Roman Catholic Church.
We do accept, acknowledge, and believe all that she accepts,
acknowledges, and believes, and in particular those four
points on which we have been divided hitherto, and which
were laid before us by the gracious decree and diploma of
His Imperial Majesty and of his Eminence the Archbishop,
and we desire in consequence to enjoy all the rights and
privileges which the clergy of our holy Mother the Church
do enjoy in accordance with the laws of our former gracious
Kings of Hungary. Similarly we desire, in virtue of the
above-mentioned decree of his Majesty and of his Eminence
the archbishop, to be reckoned members henceforward of
the same Church. For the greater confirmation and attesta-
tion of which we have signed this manifesto with our signa-
ture and sealed it with the seal of the monastery of Alba
Julia, and with our customary seal.

Alba Julia (Karlsburg), Sept. 5, 1700.

The Metropolitan Athanasius.

Here are said to have followed the signatures of
fifty-four arch-priests and one thousand five hundred
and sixty- three priests ; but the number of those
who signed is disputed, and it seems certain that the
laity did not sign at all. Subsequent history makes it
evident that the Union was very unpopular with a
large number of the Roumanians, and was in fact

48 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

repudiated by them, so that from this time onwards
there have been two Roumanian churches in Austria,
the United or Greek Catholic and the non-United or
Greek Orthodox. The latter represents the old national
Roumanian Church in Hungary and Transylvania,
which has always remained loyal to the orthodox faith
which it learned from Constantinople in the early
centuries of Christianity. The Act of Union was natur-
ally received with great rejoicing in Vienna, whither
Athanasius was summoned to receive the congratula-
tions of the Emperor in March 1700.1 He was ap-
pointed bishop of the newly- constituted Uniat Church,
and was consecrated to that office in the Church of
S. Anne according to the Roman rite. In addition to
an imperial diploma confirming his consecration in
most flattering terms, the Emperor decorated him with
a golden chain and cross, presented him with a picture
of himself, and appointed him to be one of the imperial
councillors. Athanasius then returned to Karlsburg,
where his supporters and all those who favoured the
Union had prepared for him a magnificent reception.

It was further stipulated that he should receive a yearly
salary of four thousand florins from the royal treasury.
Thus Athanasius appeared to have obtained the object
for which he and his predecessor, Theophilus, had been
striving, although at the cost of rending the Roumanian
Church in twain and detaching a considerable portion
of the Roumanians from their hereditary allegiance to
Constantinople and the orthodox Greek faith.

1 Schag. , pp. 103-4 ; Hurz. , p. 56.

THE UNION 49

As a matter of fact the immediate results of the
Union by no means corresponded with the sanguine
expectations which its promoters had entertained. The
new Uniat Church found itself subordinated in every
particular to the Primate of Hungary, while all its
deliberations had to be attended and guided by a
Roman Catholic theologian specially appointed for this
purpose, and called the 'causarurn generalis auditor.'
So great indeed was the mistrust entertained by the
Roman Catholic authorities of the fidelity of the Uniat
bishop and his flock that he was forbidden to corre-
spond with the Prince of Wallachia or with any Greek
or Servian Patriarch.1

On the other hand the Austrian Government found
itself unable to fulfil its pledges of giving equal civil
and social rights to the Roumanians, owing to the
intense jealousy of the Magyars and Saxons. The
latter bitterly resented the liberties granted to the
Uniat Roumanians, and in particular their claim to
representation in the Diet. These disappointments
brought with them such great discontent, that by 1730
most of the laity had seceded from the Union, and it
is probable that the clergy would have followed suit,
and the whole movement might have collapsed, had it
not been that just at this juncture Pataki, the Greek
Catholic bishop, died, and was succeeded by Innocent
Klein, a man of remarkable energy and force of char-
acter. He at once perceived that if the Uniat Church
was to endure it must represent the rallying point for

1 Hurz. , p. 54.
D

50 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Roumanian nationalism, and must be as independent
as possible of all external authority. To this object he
addressed himself indefatigably ; he succeeded in gain-
ing a seat in the Diet, and obtained, in 1743, the passing
of a law which gave equal rights to the Uniat Rouma-
nians with those enjoyed by the Magyars and Saxons.
At the same time he promoted the educational welfare
of his people by every means in his power, and it was
due to his efforts that a second Greek Catholic bishopric
was established at Grosswardein in 1748. His ceaseless
activity made him an object of special dislike to the
Magyars and Germans, and in 1768 they obtained his
deposition and banishment from the authorities at
Rome. His successor, Petru Aaron, was a more
moderate man, but he continued to work on the lines
of his zealous predecessor, and established at Blasen-
dorf — which had now become the seat of the Uniat
bishopric — a seminary for priests, schools, and a print-
ing press. Thus the growth and national life of the
Uniat Roumanian Church was steadily fostered by its
adherents, till in 1850 — when Bishop Schaguna began
to work actively for the reconstitution of the orthodox
Roumanian Church — Rome granted all that it had
withheld hitherto.

The see of Blasendorf was raised to the rank of a
Metropolitanate, two new bishoprics were granted at
Lugos and Samos-Ujvar, and all four bishoprics were
placed under the jurisdiction of the Uniat Metro-
politan.1

1 Slav., pp. 82-89,

— — — •— — -"••fc^

of

. *i

<JV

CHAPTER IV

1700-1783

THE establishment of the Uniat Church left the ortho-
dox Roumanians who adhered to their old religion in a
deplorable condition.

Their existence was not formally recognised by the
state at all, since by the Act of Union all Roumanians
were supposed to belong to the Uniat Church, and
those who refused to join the Union, or subsequently
fell away from it, were liable to be persecuted as
schismatics. The orthodox see of Karlsburg became
for a time the residence of the Uniat bishop, most of
the parish churches were handed over to the Uniats,
and all Roumanians were compelled to support the
Uniat priests.

Nevertheless a large proportion of the Roumanians,
especially the laity, clung to the orthodox faith, and
sought the consolations of religion wherever they could
obtain them.

Some went to Bucharest or Rimnik in Wallachia,
others to Suczava, on the borders of Moldavia, which
is still a place of pilgrimage for Roumanians from
Transylvania, owing to the preservation there of the
relics of S. John of Suczava.

51

52 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Others again had recourse to the Servian priests
belonging to the newly-established orthodox Metro-
politanate of Karlowitz.

The hierarchy of the Uniat Church showed itself
very hostile to all Roumanians — but especially to the
clergy — who remained outside the Union, and in this
attitude they were at first warmly supported by the
State. During a vacancy in the Uniat see, which
occurred in 1728, a Synod was held at Klausenburg
under the Rector of the Jesuits, at which it was resolved
that all arch-priests, assisted by their clergy, should
hold courts in their respective districts and report to
the Rector any Roumanians who fell away from the
Union. Further, the Synod decided to prohibit all
monks from administering the Sacraments or preach-
ing, and to petition the Diet to expel them from the
country.

This measure was doubtless dictated by the fact
that the monasteries formed strongholds for the ortho-
dox faith, and also provided the people with the means
of grace which they could no longer obtain in their
parish churches. Another decision of this same Synod
prohibited parents from sending their children to
schisrnatical or heretical — i.e. orthodox — schools under
payment of a considerable fine for each offence. These
measures were followed by others of a curiously op-
pressive character. Any Roumanian who desired to
secede from the Union to his original faith was sub-
jected to a six weeks' examination at the hands of the
Uniat priest, and if he or she was found during that
interval to have attended an orthodox church the

1700-1783 53

period was extended for another six weeks. Some
priests in the district of Hermannstadt were deprived
by the secular authorities for having ministered to
some gipsies living in the neighbourhood. Another
priest from Hatzeg was similarly deprived, and given
a month's imprisonment for exercising his calling
amongst the Uniats. Especially hard was the case of
an earnest orthodox priest named John Molnar, who
strove to raise the spiritual condition of his people by
going about the county of Marmaros, and preaching at
the village fairs. He was denounced by the Union to
the civil authorities, who imprisoned him and trans-
ported him to Blasendorf. Here he was unlawfully
degraded, and his head was shorn, so that he enjoyed
ever after the nickname of John the Shaven. On
being released .from prison, and returning to his own
native village of Pogaceva, near Thorda, he was most
enthusiastically received by his people, who flocked
around him from all parts. This aroused the indigna-
tion of the authorities against him, and he was again com-
mitted to prison, first in the castle of Maros Vasarhely
and then in Vienna. Eventually the charges against
him as a disturber of the peace were dismissed, and he
was released for the second time ; but finding that the
hatred of his old enemies was still as active as ever he
withdrew to the Banat, where he ended his life.

About this time the orthodox Roumanians were
cheered by a visit from a devout monk named
Bessarion, who, having spent some time on Mount
Athos and at Jerusalem, was desirous of visiting the
orthodox monasteries in Transylvania and Hungary.

54 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

For this purpose he obtained a letter of commendation
from the Servian Metropolitan of Karlowitz, Arsenius
Joannovics, and was received everywhere with affection
and reverence by the Roumanians. The Government,
however, regarded him with considerable mistrust,
fearing lest his influence should still further dissuade
the Roumanians from joining or adhering to the
Union.1

At this time there were still numerous Roumanian
monasteries in Transylvania, of which the principal
may be mentioned here. On the river Bistra stood the
large monastery of Deda, about a quarter of a mile
from the village of the same name.

It contained many monks, and possessed a very fine
stone church, the ruins of which may still be seen,
while the site of the altar can be traced quite plainly.
Many of the pictures, including one of the Blessed
Virgin Mary — to whom the church was dedicated — now
adorn the parish church of Deda, whither they were
removed when the monastery was destroyed and the
monks driven out, some two hundred years ago.

Another monastery at Prislopu, near Hatzeg, was
founded by a daughter of one of the Wallachian princes,
between 1560 and 1580. Near Klausenburg was the
monastery of Szamosfalva. It was built of wood, and
was still in existence at the end of the eighteenth
century, being destroyed during the reign of the
Emperor Joseph n. Even after part of the monastic
buildings had been removed and utilised in building

1 The following particulars have-been taken almost as they stand
from Schaguna, pp. 51-56.

1700-1783 55

the parish church of Szarnosfalva, the monastic church
was still used for requiem Masses.

Schaguna, in his history, mentions a very old man
from the village of Szamosfalva, who could recollect the
monastery as it stood deep in the forest to the south of
the village, and who, as a boy, had waited upon the
last monk who lived there. The pious monk made his
bed of leaves, and used a bare board for his pillow.
Another important monastery was that of Obersambata,
which possessed a specially fine church, built partially
at the expense of Prince Constantine Brankovich of
Wallachia. The church was beautifully painted in
1767; and although now it is in a ruinous condition,
many of the mural paintings of the Saints remain, and
have retained all their vivid colouring All along the
foot of the Fogaras mountains, in the south of Transyl-
vania, lay numerous small monasteries and cells for
single monks, but they were mostly destroyed for
political reasons about 1760, and their property was
confiscated. The destruction and decay of these
monasteries constituted another hindrance to the de-
velopment of the spiritual life of the orthodox Rou-
manians. Yet they struggled on bravely against their
difficulties till the accession of Maria Theresa to the
Austrian throne brought some alleviation in their con-
dition. It was becoming increasingly difficult to treat
the orthodox Roumanians in Transylvania — who now
numbered 124,000 families — as non-existent, or as
belonging by a fiction to the Union, and their constant
petitions for proper spiritual oversight could no longer
be safely disregarded. The question thus became a

56 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

pressing one, whether or not a bishop should be
appointed for the non-united Roumanians, and their
existence thus legally recognised.

Maria Theresa was strongly urged by her chancellor,
Kaunitz, in 1768. to grant the appointment of a bishop.
He presented her with a memorandum in favour of the
Roumanians, and pointed out that the continued refusal
of their request might be followed by disturbances and
revolts which would be specially disastrous to the
country at that time.

The Queen did not immediately comply with the
memorandum, but in July 1759 she issued a rescript to
the Uniat Bishop of Karlsburg, forbidding any further
persecution of the orthodox Roumanians — whether
clergy or laity — on account of their refusal to join the
Union. This was followed in 1761 by the appointment
of the Servian bishop of Ofen, Dionysius Novakovich,
to have the oversight of the orthodox Roumanians in
Transylvania. His position, however, was one of great
difficulty, and his efforts to keep the peace between the
Uniat and orthodox Roumanians, and to maintain a
loyal attitude toAvards the Austrian throne, were much
misunderstood by his excitable co-religionists. More-
over, the persecutions of the orthodox Roumanians by
the Uniat clergy did not cease with the rescript of
1759, as the following pathetic petition addressed by
the Roumanians of Bistra to Bishop Dionysius may
show. They describe their condition in these words : —

' Uniat clergy, accompanied by Catholic soldiers, go about
searching every Roumanian village. They seize six village
elders, and ask them, "Will you adhere to the Union1?"

1700-1783 57

Those who answer " no " are put in irons, and thrown into
prison. Many are examined, with cruel floggings ; and
others, who cannot be imprisoned, are punished with a fine
of from twenty to thirty florins. Moreover, the German
troops in the different villages levy heavy exactions and
consume the small stores of the needy landowners. We are
wasting away in body and soul : we die without confession
and communion just like cattle, and like sheep without a
shepherd. If you, most reverend sir, do not have pity on
us, and bring us help and comfort, we will not return to our
homes any more, where imprisonment and punishment await
us, but will go to other countries where we can remain un-
disturbed in our religion, for we are resolved to die rather
than to accept the Union. If it be possible, send us non-
Uniat priests, so that we may not perish altogether.'1

Dionysius hesitated to send priests to Bistra, but he
made a visitation of his diocese in Transylvania,
ordaining priests where necessary, and endeavouring to
restore peace and order in the orthodox Roumanian
Church*. He died in 1770, and was succeeded by
Sophronius Kirilowics, archimandrite of the monastery
of Grabovatz. Both these bishops laboured earnestly
for the welfare of the Roumanian Church, which had
been temporarily intrusted to their charge. But the
Roumanians were becoming more and more desirous of
possessing a bishop of their own, who would, as they
apparently believed, ensure them more effectually
against being drawn into the Union. In this they were
loyally supported by the Servian Metropolitan of Kar-
lowitz, Stephen Stratimirovics, as well as by the bishops
of Ofen. In the meantime Joseph IT. had succeeded

1 Slav., pp. 89-90.

58 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Maria Theresa in 1780, and was disposed to favour the
cause of the orthodox Roumanians. In 1783 he acceded
to their repeated and earnest request for a bishop ;
and on the proposal of the Archbishop of Karlowitz,
he nominated Gideon Nikitics, archimandrite of the
monastery of Sischatovacz in the diocese of Karlowitz,
to be bishop of the non-United Roumanian Church in
Transylvania. The new bishop was to have his see at
Hermannstadt. He was to be independent in the eccle-
siastical administration of his diocese; but in purely
spiritual and doctrinal matters he was to be subject
to the Metropolitan of Karlowitz. On this point the re-
script of November 6, 1783, by which the new Roumanian
bishopric was constituted, is quite clear. It runs as
follows : ' Ut episcopus (Graeco non-Unitus in Transsil-
vania) in dogmaticis et pure spiritualibus ab Excellentia
Vestra [Metropolitan of Karlowitz] et synodo archiepis-
copali [the episcopal synod of Karlowitz] dependeat.' l
The new bishop was to have a seat and a vote in the
archbishop's synod at Karlowitz, but was not to par-
ticipate in any of the privileges which had been granted
to the Serbs since their settlement in Hungary. How-
ever, the first important step towards the reconstitu-
tion of the orthodox Roumanian Church in Austria-
Hungary had now been won. Nearly a century more
was to elapse before its complete independence could
be attained.

1 Radic, p. 53, note 3; Schag., pp. 118, 119, note.

CHAPTER V

1783-1873

BISHOP GIDEON NIKITICS set to work earnestly to
reform his diocese, but he found a hard task before
him. Eighty-three years of neglect and lack of proper
spiritual and educational supervision had reduced both
clergy and laity to a wretched condition. It will be
remembered that in virtue of the Act of Union, most
of the Roumanian parish churches — even where the
population was preponderatingly orthodox — had been
made over to the Uniats. Consequently both churches
and schools were lacking, and there was no money to
provide fresh ones. Ignorance and poverty prevailed
everywhere, while the diocese was so large as to render
the proper supervision of it by one bishop almost an
impossibility. Nevertheless, Bishop Gideon struggled
bravely with his gigantic task. He directed his efforts
specially towards the better education of his people,
and succeeded in obtaining in 1786 a royal rescript to
assist him in the work of founding and maintaining
schools. When the money which could be collected
from the Roumanians themselves was insufficient, the
bishop was allowed by this rescript to apply for assist-
ance to the funds which were maintained by Tran-
sylvania and Hungary for educational purposes.

60 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Moreover, special encouragement was promised to
those Roumanian communities which undertook to
build schools for themselves; and in counties where
the Roumanians were too poor to build schools in their
villages, it was arranged that the pupils from several
villages should attend the same school.1

Although the bishop took his title from Hermann-
stadt, there was no residence there for him to live in,
and there was no money to build one. But a private
house was placed at his disposal at Resinar, a large
village, about a mile and a half from Herrnannstadt ;
and here he lived and directed the troubled affairs of
his diocese to the best of his ability.

Unfortunately the heavy and multifarious labours in
which Bishop Gideon found himself involved com-
pletely broke down his health. He died at Resinar
in 1788, and was buried in the old church there.
During the temporary vacancy of the see, the diocese
was administered by the proto-presbyter of Hondel,
John Popovics by name. In May 1789 Gerashn
Adamowicz, archimandrite of Bezdiu, in the Banat,
was appointed bishop by the Emperor on the recom-
mendation of the Archbishop of Karlowitz.

Gerasim proved himself to be as earnest and ener-
getic as his predecessor Nikitics in working for the
temporal and spiritual welfare of his flock, while he
succeeded by his tact and moderation in allaying the
strife and jealousy which had existed hitherto between
the Uniat and Orthodox churches. Through his

1 Schag., pp. 144-5. See also Appendix, where further information
is given on the Roumanian communes and their schools.

1783-1873 61

unwearying efforts the Diet of Transylvania passed a
law in 1791 which granted a legal position to the non-
United Roumanian Church, so that the orthodox faith
ceased to be — at least in principle — a merely ' tolerated '
religion.1

This was not the only benefit which Bishop Gerasim
conferred upon his co-religionists during his brief
episcopate, for in conjunction with the Uniat bishop,
Joan Bob, he obtained many political advantages for
the Roumanian people as a nation. Unfortunately his
episcopal career was cut short by an early death in
1796. He was buried beside Gideon Nikitics in
Resinar.2

The see of Hermannstadt now remained vacant for
fourteen years, and was administered during this period
by the proto-presbyter of Hunyad, John Hutzovics. It
will have been noticed that both bishops who occupied
the restored see of Hermannstadt were Serbs and not
Roumanians by nationality. This was due to the fact
that after the creation of the Uniat Church the orthodox
Roumanians were obliged to turn to the Servian priests
and bishops of the diocese of Karlowitz for spiritual
guidance. Most of the proto-presbyters in the Rou-
manian districts were Serbs, and indeed poverty and
lack of education made it almost a necessity for the
Roumanians to draw at least their leading clergy from
the ranks of the Servian hierarchy. Moreover, by
identifying themselves with the Servian nation they
derived some protection from the privileged position

1 Art. 60, an. 1791 ; Schag., pp. 121-2.

2 Schag., pp. 120-2 ; Slav., 96-8 ; Hurz., 204.

62 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

which Leopold i. had granted to the Serbs on their
settlement in Austria in 1691. Consequently when
Joseph ii. restored its independence to the orthodox
Roumanian Church in 1783, no Roumanian could be
found capable of filling the newly-erected see of Her-
mannstadt. It was quite natural then that the first
two bishops should be Serbs, and they were gladly wel-
comed by the people. But the fifteen years which had
elapsed between 1783 and 1796 — during which the
Roumanians had had the advantage of being directed
by two devoted bishops — had made an immense
difference in their moral, spiritual, and intellectual
condition. It was now quite possible to find a candi-
date for the episcopate amongst the Roumanians
themselves. Consequently, on the death of Gerasim
Adamowicz in 1796, they petitioned the Austrian
Government to allow them their ancient right of elect-
ing their own archbishop, nor were they hindered in
this desire by the Archbishop of Karlowitz. Never-
theless, as we have said above, fourteen years more
elapsed before the Government acceded to the re-
peated petitions of the Roumanian clergy and people
on this point. On August 13, 1810, the Emperor
Francis i. issued a decree giving the necessary per-
mission, but stipulating that the bishop-elect should
be a Roumanian by birth and chosen from the ranks
of the Roumanian clergy. In conformity with this
decree the Consistory Court of Proto-presbyters met at
Thorda, on September 19, to elect their own bishop
after an interval of more than a hundred years. The
election was carried out in due form, under the presi-

1783-1873 63

dency of the Vicar — as the administrator of the diocese
was called — and in the presence of a Royal Commis-
sioner. The names of three candidates for the vacant
see were submitted to the Emperor. His choice fell on
the second of these candidates, a simple parish priest
named Basilius Moga, from the village of South Sebes,
near Muhlbach. A slight difficulty arose from the fact
that Basilius Moga, although unmarried, was a secular
priest. In the Eastern Church all bishops are drawn
from the monastic orders, so that before Moga could be
consecrated he had to enter the Servian monastery at
Kruschedol. Here, after a due period had elapsed, he
received the monastic tonsure; and on April 13, 1811,
he was consecrated Bishop at Karlowitz, by the Servian
Archbishop, Stephen Stratimirovics and the Bishops
Gideon Petrovich of Neusatz and Joseph Putnik of
Pakratz. The choice was indeed a fortunate one.
During his long episcopate of thirty-four years, Basilins
Moga devoted himself heart and soul to the welfare of
his diocese, which now embraced about a thousand
parishes, which were divided amongst thirty -four
proto-presbyterates. He took special pains to assist
needy students in their theological studies, and insti-
tuted a fund for this purpose. Many were enabled in
this way to receive a thorough course of instruction at
Vienna, which was now permitted to them by a royal
rescript issued in 1816. Bishop Moga also obtained
permission to send four theological students to the
seminary at Ofen, who on the completion of their
course could undertake the teaching of theology at
Hermannstadt. The result of his efforts was soon

64 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

apparent in the increased number of educated students
who showed themselves suitable for the ministry of the
church. The good work done by Bishop Moga is all
the more striking because at the very outset of his
ministry, he had received, together with the royal
confirmation of his appointment, a most harsh and
illiberal 'instruction' from the Emperor. In this
instruction the bishop was forcibly reminded that he
owed his elevation to the episcopate solely to the
imperial favour, and that the retention of his office
would depend on his good conduct and submissive
attitude to the imperial Government. The Greek
orthodox faith was described as a merely ' tolerated '
religion — despite the law of 1791 — and every advan-
tage was given to the Uniat over the non-Uniat clergy.1

1 Schag., pp. 129-34; Hurz., 219-21.

The following are the principal articles dealing with the relations of
the Uniat to the orthodox clergy : —

Art. 7. The bishop must not forget that there are four ' received '
religions in Transylvania, and that the United clergy and laity are
incorporated into the Catholic religion, while the non-United Greek
clergy are only tolerated. The bishop must recognise, therefore, that
he is forbidden to oppose the spread and propaganda of the Uniat
religion ; neither may he, nor the clergy under him, venture to
persuade the Uniats to secede from the Union, either publicly or
secretly. Nor may he convert the adherents of other confessions.

Art. 12. Non-Uniats are permitted to join the Union. When an
entire non-Uniat community goes over to the Union the Uniat parish
priest is to receive the regular stipend. But when all the Uniats in
a community go over to the non-Uniat body, the Uniat parish priest
shall retain the stipend.

Art. 14. In communities where Uniats and non-Uniats live together,
and there is only one church and this belongs to the Uniats, they shall
retain the church although they may be in the minority. The non-
Uniats must build themselves another church in accordance with
existing regulations, only the people must not be burdened thereby.

1783-1873 65

These limitations and hindrances, however, did not
discourage Bishop Moga. He succeeded amongst other
things in raising enough money to buy a suitable house
for an episcopal residence at Hermannstadt, thus
obviating the necessity for the bishop to reside at
Resinar as hitherto. He also founded a clergy school
with a six months' course of theological instruction,
and bequeathed to his clergy another house at Her-
mannstadt, with an endowment of 27,000 florins, to
serve for the promotion of both religious and secular
study. After thirty-four years of unceasing labour for
the welfare of all sections of his community, he ended
his long life on October 27, 1845, deeply lamented by
his countrymen. The diocese was managed by the
Consistory Court till 1846. The Emperor then selected
from three names proposed by the Court the proto-
presbyter Andreas von Schaguna, to be vicar of the
diocese till the election of a bishop. This remarkable
man, who played so important a part in the restoration
of the Orthodox Roumanian Church in Transylvania,
was born at Miskcolcz in Hungary, in 1809. He came
of a Roumanian family who had settled first in Galicia
and subsequently in Upper Hungary.

On his father's death young Schaguna went to live
with his uncle Athanasius Grabovski at Pesth, where
he continued his studies with energy and became
acquainted with the language and history of his people
in Hungary. This led him to think of dedicating his
life to the Roumanian Church, and in 1829 he was sent
by his uncle to Bishop Manuilovic at Werchetz, where
he studied theology till 1833. He was ordained in the

E

66 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Servian monastery of Hoppova, taking the name of
Andreas at his ordination. Subsequently he came to
Karlowitz and was made secretary to the Servian
Metropolitan, Stephen Stratirnirovic. He also filled
the position of secretary to the Consistory Court, of
librarian and professor, displaying a very marked ability
in all these capacities. At the time of his appointment
as vicar of the diocese of Hermannstadt, Schaguna was
only thirty- seven years of age and was archimandrite
of the monastery of Kovil, in the diocese of Neusatz.
The new vicar entered upon his duties on September 2,
1846. He found a hard task before him. Although
Bishop Moga had done his best to improve the spiritual
and social condition of his diocese, much remained to
be done. Some idea of the deplorable state of things
which prevailed may be gathered from an epistle
addressed by the new vicar to his clergy. He laments
bitterly that many parish priests at the conclusion of
divine service on Sundays go straight to the village
tavern, where they spend the remainder of the day in
drinking and 'unseemly conversation.' In the same
epistle he gives them directions as to how they are to
dress when they come into the towns, and forbids
them under pain of punishment to go about in ' dirty
clothes and with dishevelled hair.' Village schools were
few and far between, and indeed were only to be found
in the more important districts, where the children of
better class parents were taught reading and singing
with a view to fitting them for the priesthood. It must
be remembered that the village priests were mere
peasants like the rest of their flock, and it was con-

1783-1873 67

sidered quite sufficient if they could read and sing
enough to perform the services of the Church. Writing
was a rare accomplishment among them. The higher
clergy, such as the proto-popes, passed through the six
months' theological course at Hermannstadt, and thus
received a better education, but the general standard
both of morals and education was very low. Schaguna
perceived the necessity of electing a new bishop for
the diocese without delay. He therefore summoned a
meeting of the Consistory Court and drew up a petition
to the Emperor, praying him to grant leave for the
election of a new bishop. To this petition the Emperor,
Ferdinand i., replied on October 20, 1847, granting
permission to hold an assembly at Thorda. The
assembly was to follow closely the precedent set in the
election of Bishop Moga in 1847. The proto-presbyters
of the diocese met at Thorda under the presidency of
the vicar, and on the arrival of the Royal Commissioners
— who represented the Emperor — proceeded to the
election of three candidates, whose names should be
submitted to the Emperor. Of the three names thus
presented, that of Andreas von Schaguna stood third
on the list, and it was upon him that the Emperor's
choice eventually fell. He was consecrated at Karlowitz,
on Sunday, April 18, 1848, by the Archbishop Raiacsics
and the Bishops Eugenius Joannovics of Karlstadt and
Stephen Popovics of Werschetz. On his return to
Karlowitz he received an enthusiastic welcome from his
people ; and such was the force of his personality and
the enthusiasm which he inspired, that many Rou-
manian communities which had belonged to the Union

68 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

for a hundred and fifty years, fell away from it, and
returned to their mother church. Indeed, all through
his career, Bishop Schaguna was deferred to and
respected as much by the Uniats as by his own flock,
and he invariably took the lead in all questions affecting
the political and religious status of the Roumanian
people.1 The difficulties which Schaguna had to
contend with in the administration of his diocese were
very much increased by the political disturbances con-
sequent on the Revolution of 1848. On the restora-
tion of peace, Schaguna addressed an earnest pastoral
letter to his clergy, exhorting them to labour devotedly
for the welfare of their flocks, in which matter indeed
he set them an admirable example. Before long he
had greatly improved the seminary at Hermanns tad t
where the Roumanian clergy were educated, had
founded various middle -class schools, and established
a diocesan printing press at Hermannstadt, from which
was issued a magnificent folio edition of the Greek
Bible. He was a special admirer of German culture
and maintained the best relations with the heads
of the large evangelical college at Hermannstadt.
Of his own literary works the most important were
a Compendium of Canon Law, published at Her-
mannstadt in 1868, and a history of his own
diocese, in which he has collected a number of
documents of the first importance for the religious
and political history of the Roumanians in Tran-
sylvania. But the great object of his life was the

1 Slav., pp. 102-3.

1783-1873 69

separation of the Roumanian diocese of Hermannstadt
from the Servian diocese of Karlowitz, and its erection
into an independent Metropolitanate. After twenty
years of unceasing labour in this direction his efforts
were crowned with success, and in 1866 the see of
Hermannstadt was raised to the rank of a Metro-
politanate, independent of, but co-ordinate with, the
Servian Metropolitanate of Karlowitz. Under this
arrangement the two Roumanian bishoprics of Arad
(population 557,880) and Karansebes (336,361) in
Hungary, which had formerly made part of the Metro-
politanate of Karlowitz, were placed under the juris-
diction of Hermannstadt. The administration of the
newly created Metropolitanate was determined by a
statute which was drawn up by a Roumanian Church
Congress, which met at Hermannstadt for this purpose
in 1868. This statute was confirmed by a royal
rescript, and the Metropolitanate of Hermannstadt has
been governed in accordance with its provisions ever
since. But it must be allowed that although the
statute had the fullest support of Archbishop Schaguna
himself, it was distasteful to many of the clergy on
account of the preponderating influence which it gave
to the laity in the councils and government of the
Church.1

Archbishop Schaguna did not long survive the
attainment of his life's object. He died in 1873 and
was buried at Resinar, amidst the lamentations of the
entire Roumanian people, who recognised that they had

1 For an outline of this statute, see Appendix.

70 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

lost in him both a spiritual father and a great national
leader.

Since his death there has been a steady improve-
ment in the condition of the Roumanians in Austria-
Hungary, both amongst the clergy and laity, although
no doubt much yet remains to be done which only
time and a more widely diffused education can
accomplish.

APPENDIX

THE METROPOLITANATE OF HERMANNSTADT

PAROCHIAL ORGANISATION

(a) The Parish Priest

The parish clergy, chaplains, and deacons are elected by
the Parish Synod, under the presidency of the proto-presbyter
of the district.

Any applicant for the post of parish priest must have
passed the bishop's examination successfully. (This exami-
nation is conducted at the bishop's see by a specially
appointed commission.)

The result of the election is submitted by the proto-pres-
byter of the district to the Diocesan Consistory Court, which,
if the election has been duly carried out, obtains the bishop's
confirmation.

(b) The Parish Synod

The Parish Synod consists of all the parishioners who are
of age, of independent means, and good life.

It meets once a year in January. The parish priest is
president, or, if the Synod is proceeding to elect a parish
priest, the proto-presbyter of the district presides.

Its resolutions are submitted to the Diocesan Consistory
Court by the proto-presbyter.

Its duties comprise : —

(1) The election and payment of the clergy, school-

teachers, and other officials.

(2) The keeping in repair of the church, and any church

and school buildings, together with the foundation
of churches, schools, and benevolent institutions.

71

72 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

(3) The election of deputies to the Diocesan Assembly
and the National Church Congress.

(c) The Parish Committee

The Parish Committee consists of the parish priest, who is
ex officio member, and ten to thirty members elected for three
years by the Parish Synod.

The Committee elects its president and secretary from its
own body. It represents the Church community in its rela-
tion to all outside affairs, and manages the finances and
endowments of churches and schools. It sits twice a year, in
May and December.

(d) The Parish Guardians

These are elected by the Parish Synod for three years from
the whole parish community, and their number varies from
two to four according to the number of parishioners. They
are intrusted with the maintenance of the church and school
property, and its administration in accordance with the reso-
lutions of the Parish Synod.

In places where several church communities keep up one
or more schools in common there are also

(e) School Guardians, and

(f) A School Committee.1

DIOCESAN ORGANISATION

(a) The Bishop

The bishop is elected by a Diocesan Assembly, consisting
of twenty clerical and forty lay delegates, under the presi-
dency of the Metropolitan, or, more usually, his deputy.

The bishop-elect is presented to the Episcopal Synod to be
canonically examined, and to receive the confirmation of his
election from the Synod.

1 Mila§, pp. 361-2 ; Organic Statute, 21-29, Hermannstadt, 1868.

APPENDIX 73

(b) The Diocesan Assembly

The Diocesan Assembly corresponds, within the diocese,
in jurisdiction and composition to the National Church
Congress.

(c) The Diocesan Consistory Court

The Diocesan Consistory Court corresponds to the Metro-
politan Consistory Court.

It falls into three sub-divisions.

Its members are elected by the Diocesan Assembly.1

(d) Proto-presbyters

Each district in the diocese has its proto-presbyter, who is
elected by representatives of the clergy and laity of the
district.

The proto-presbyter is assisted in the administration of his
district by —

(1) A Proto-presbyterial Court of Justice for all judicial

questions.

(2) A Proto-presbyterial Assembly for the administrative

and financial affairs of the churches and schools,
with a Proto-presbyterial Committee and a Proto-
presbyterial Board of Guardians attached to it.2

NATIONAL ORGANISATION
(a) The Metropolitan of Hermannstadt

The Metropolitan is elected by the Metropolitan Church
Congress, which is composed for this purpose of one hundred
and twenty deputies (i.e. one fourth above the ordinary
number).

Forty are clergy and eighty are laymen. One half of these
represent the Archbishopric of Hermannstadt, and the other
the two subordinate dioceses of Arad and Karansebes.3

1 Milas, p. 344. 2 Ibid., pp. 345-8. 3 Ibid., pp. 303-4.

74 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

A delegate from the Metropolitan Consistory Court
presides.

In the event of no candidate receiving an absolute majority
of votes, the election is narrowed down to the two candidates
who have polled the greatest number of votes.

If the result should again be indecisive the election is
decided by lot.

The result of the election is submitted to the Sovereign
for confirmation, after which the new Metropolitan is
installed.

(b) Natioiial Church Congress
The National Church Congress consists of : —

The Metropolitan, as president (in his absence the senior

bishop presides),
The diocesan bishops,

Thirty clerical and sixty lay deputies, who are elected
for three years.

The National Church Congress meets every three years.

It is summoned by the Metropolitan, or, if the see should
be vacant, by the Metropolitan Consistory Court, but due
notice of its meeting must be given to the Crown.

Its duties comprise :—

(1) The maintenance of religious liberty and self-

government in the Grseco-Oriental Roumanian
Church.

(2) The management of Church and school affairs.

(3) The election of the Metropolitan, and of the assessors

of the Metropolitan Consistory Court.

(c) The Metropolitan Consistory Court

This court is the highest administrative and judicial body
in the Metropolitanate.
It consists of : —

The Metropolitan as president,
The diocesan bishops.

APPENDIX 75

A certain number of honorary assessors elected by the
National Church Congress from amongst its members,
both clerical and lay.

The Metropolitan Consistory Court is divided into three
Senates : —

(1) The Ecclesiastical Senate,

(2) The Senate of Education,

(3) The Senate of Guardians.

The Ecclesiastical Senate has six assessors, all clergy.

The other Senates have the same number of assessors, but
only two are clergy and four are laity.

The Metropolitan is president of all three Senates, and
they have also a secretary and treasurer in common.

To these a solicitor is added for all questions of marriage
and divorce.

The Ecclesiastical Senate is a Court of Appeal for all
ecclesiastical causes.

The Senate of Education is the highest administrative
authority for the affairs of all religious schools and
institutions.

The Senate of Guardians manages the funds of the
Metropolitanate.

The secretary and treasurer are elected at the general
sittings of the Metropolitan Consistory Court, in which the
members of all three Senates take part.

The summoning of the National Church Congress, and the
election of deputies to it, are also undertaken by the Metro-
politan Consistory Court at its general sittings.

(d) The Episcopal Synod
The Episcopal Synod consists of : —

The Metropolitan as president, and the diocesan
bishops.

The Synod meets once a year, and all the diocesan
bishops are bound to attend.

76 THE ORTHODOX CHURCH IN AUSTRIA-HUNGARY

Its duties comprise : —

(1) The canonical examination of every diocesan

bishop at his election.

(2) The settlement of all questions relating to doctrine,

ritual, and the Sacraments, and also the oversight
of the morals of the clergy and people.

(3) The inspection of theological and educational estab-

lishments, with a view to ascertaining whether
their functions are being properly fulfilled.

(4) The maintenance of the liberties of the Church

against any interference.1

1 MilaS, pp. 311-13.

jeaetern Cburcb association.

OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION.

(1) To give information as to the state and position of the Eastern

Christians, in order gradually to better their condition through
the influence of public opinion.

(2) To make known to the Christians of the East the doctrine and

principles of the Anglican Church.

(3) To take advantage of all opportunities which the Providence of

God shall afford for Intercommunion with the Orthodox
Church, and also for friendly intercourse with the other ancient
Churches of the East.

(4) To assist as far as possible the Bishops of the Orthodox Church in

their efforts to promote the spiritual welfare and the education
of their flocks.

The Eastern Church Association was originally founded by the
Rev. GEORGE WILLIAMS about forty years ago. It was revived in
1893 with the object of arousing interest in the Churches of the East,
and of attempting to influence public opinion on the best methods
of Missionary efforts in those countries where remains of the great
Eastern Churches still exist. With this object in view it has produced
various publications, and would be glad to add to their number
did funds permit ; it has twice sent representatives to the East,
accounts of whose visits have been published in the Annual Reports ;
and it has maintained in Cyprus an English Clergyman who has been
engaged in teaching and in other work connected with the Church
of the Island.

At present the Association is somewhat hampered by want of
funds. It is very desirable that the number of members should be
increased, and that meetings should be held to promote the objects
of the Association. Any who are desirous of becoming Members are
requested to communicate with the Rev. C. R. DAVEY BIGGS, D.D.,
St. Philip and St. James' Vicarage, Oxford, Secretary of the Asso-
ciation.

STANDING COMMITTEE.

ATHELSTAN RILEY, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, W. (Chairman}.

The Very Rev. the DEAN OF ST. PAUL'S.

Rev. R. F. BIGG-WITHER, Wonston Rectory, Micheldever, Hants.

Very Rev. R. MILBURN BLAKISTON, The Deanery, Hadleigh, Suffolk.

Rev. F. E. BRIGHTMAN, Magdalen College, Oxford.

Rev. N. T. GARRY, Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Taplow Rectory,

Bucks.

Rev. E. C. S. GIBSON, D.D., The Vicarage, Leeds.
Rev. A. C. HEADLAM, D.D., King's College, London.
Rev. W. H. HUTTON, St. John's College, Oxford.
Rev. T. H. LACEY, 3 Park House Road, Highgate, N.
Rev. Canon NEWBOLT, Amen Court, London, E.C.
Rev. S. J. M. PRICE, Stratton Strawless, Norwich.
Rev. Canon C. H. ROBINSON, 19 Delahay Street, S.W.
J. T. ATKINSON, Esq., Selby, Yorks.
W. J. BIRKBECK, Esq., Stratton Strawless, Norwich.
C. R. FREEMAN, Esq., 20 Gutter Lane, Cheapside.
EDWIN FRESHFIELD, Esq., LL.D., 35 Russell Square, W.C.
Sir THEODORE C. HOPE, K.C.S.I., C.I.E., 21 Elvaston Place, S.W.

Treasurer — G. T. BIDDULPH, Esq., 43 Charing Cross.

Secretary— Rev. C. R. DAVEY BIGGS, D.D., St. Philip and St. James'
Vicarage, Oxford.

PUBLICATIONS OF THE EASTERN CHURCH
ASSOCIATION.

Grown 8vo, Ss Qd.
EAST SYRIAN DAILY OFFICES.

Translated from the Syriac, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices,
and an Appendix containing the Lectionary and Glossary, by
the Right Rev. ARTHUR JOHN MACLEAN, D.D., Bishop of Moray
and Ross, joint Author of The Catholicos of the East and his
People.

n.
Crown 8vo, 7s. 6d.

RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH
DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS.

Vol. I. — Containing a Correspondence between Mr. WILLIAM
PALMER, Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and M. KHOMIA-
KOFF, in the Years 1844-1854, edited by W. J. BIRKBECK, M.A.,
F.S.A., Magdalen College, Oxford.

in.

Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
THE TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH.

By ARTHUR 0. HEADLAM, D.D.
Principal of King's College, London.

IV.

Crown 8vo, Is. 6d.
GREEK MANUALS OF CHURCH DOCTRINE.

By H. T. F. DUCKWORTH, M.A.

Professor of Divinity in Trinity University, Toronto,

Formerly Representative to the Eastern Church Association in Cyprus.

These works can be obtained at a reduced rate by Members of the
Eastern Church Association on application to the Secretary.

LONDON : RIVINGTONS.

-:

' ;

BX

633
.A5
T7
IMS

Dampier, Margaret G.

History of the Orthodox
Church in Austria-Hungary :

PONTIFICAL INSTITUTE

E MEDIAEVAL STUDIES

59 QUEEN'S PARK

TORONTO 5, CANADA