Skip to main content

Full text of "The Orthodox Eastern Church"

See other formats 


HE   ORTHODOX 
lSTERN  CHVRCH 


ADRIAN  FORTESCVE 


An  Orthodox  Canonization 
For  the  first  time  for  many  years,  the  Greek  Orthodox 
Church  has  added  a  new  saint  to  its  calendar,  Nicodemus  the 
Haghiorite,  an  eighteenth-century  monk,  having  been  pro- 
claimed a  saint  by  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  Oecumenical 
Patriarchate.  The  last  canonization  in  any  of  the  Orthodox 
Churches  appears  to  have  been  that  of  St.  Seraphim  of  Sarov, 
by  the  Holy  Synod  of  the  Russian  Orthodox  Church  in  1903. 
The  feast  of  Nicodemus  the  Haghiorite  will  be  observed  on 
July  14th,  the  anniversary  of  his  death  in  1809.  Liturgical 
offices  for  its  observance  are  being  prepared  by  monks  of  the 
Monastery  of  Haghia  Lavra  on  Mount  Athos,  and  will  shortly 
be  submitted  to  the  Oecumenical  Patriarchate  for  approval. 
Born  in  1748,  Nicodemus  the  Haghiorite  bore  the  name  of 
Nicolaus  during  his  early  life  and  education  in  Smyrna,  taking 
the  name  of  Nicodemus  in  religion,  when,  at  the  age  of  twenty- 
six,  he  joined  the  community  of  St.  Dionysius,  on  Mount 
Athos,  where  he  spent  the  rest  of  his  life.  His  fame  rests  on 
his  extensive  spiritual  writings,  but  his  best-known  work  is  an 
anthology,  the  Philokalia,  a  compilation  of  passages  from  the 
early  Fathers  ;  the  British  Museum  possesses  a  copy  of  the  first 
edition  that  used  to  belong  to  an  eighteenth-century  English 
convert  to  Orthodoxy,  a  son  of  Lord  North. 

The  Philokalia  was  assembled  by  Nicodemus  in  collabora- 
tion with  Bishop  Macarius  of  Corinth,  and  was  first  published 
at  Venice  in  1782.  In  1796  Nicodemus  produced  a  Greek 
version  of  two  well-known  Catholic  works,  the  Spiritual 
Combat  and  Path  to  Paradise  of  Lorenzo  Scupoli,  under  the 
title  of  Unseen  Warfare  ;  and  in  1 800  a  book  of  meditations 
based  on  the  method  of  St.  Ignatius  Loyola.  He  also  helped 
Bishop  Macarius  with  a  revision  of  his  book  urging  frequent 
communion  (1777  ;  1783).  All  of  which  makes  us  think  how 
close  east  and  west  can  be,  while  divided  by  a  gulf  so  difficult 
to  bridge.  Two  volumes  of  translations  from  the  Russian 
version  of  the  Philokalia,  and  a  translation  of  the  drastic 
Russian  revision  of  the  Unseen  Warfare,  have  been  published 
in  recent  years  by  Messrs.  Faber  and  Faber. 


THE 
ORTHODOX    EASTERN    CHURCH 


THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN 
CHURCH 


BY 

ADRIAN  FORTESCUE,  PRD„  D.D, 


SECOND   EDITION 


LONDON    :    CATHOLIC     TRUTH     SOCIETY, 
69  SOUTHWARK  BRIDGE  ROAD,  S-E.  -    1908 


Trarpav  t¥  kvaiov  ij  fiev  eWaha 
tcXripu)  Xaxovaa  ycuav,  r/  (He  fiapj3apov9 
tovtlo  aramv  tlv\  &>£  eyio  Iokovv  bpavt 
Tevye.Lv  kv  aWfiXaHrtv. 

Pers^e,  186-189. 


PREFACE 

This  little  book  is  intended  to  supply  not  so  much  matter 
for  controversy  as  a  certain  amount  of  information  about  the 
Orthodox  Church.  People  in  the  West  have  too  long  for- 
gotten that  enormous  mass  of  their  fellow  Christians  who  live 
on  the  other  side  of  the  Adriatic  Sea  and  the  river  Vistula, 
and  now  that  Anglicans  especially  have  begun  to  take  an 
interest  in  what  they  look  upon  as  another  branch  of  the 
Church,  it  seems  regrettable  that  English  Catholics  as  a  rule 
have  only  the  vaguest  and  the  most  inaccurate  ideas  about  the 
people  whom  they  confuse  under  the  absurd  name  of  "  Greeks." 
During  the  late  war  one  saw  how  widespread  were  such  ideas 
as  that  the  Russian  clergy  were  under  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople and  said  Mass  in  Greek.  It  is  chiefly  with  the  hope 
of  rectifying  such  mistakes  that  the  book  has  been  written. 
There  is  nothing  in  it  that  has  not  been  said  often  and  better 
before,  and  the  only  excuse  for  its  publication  is  that  there  does 
not  seem  to  be  yet  anything  of  the  kind  from  the  Catholic  point 
of  view  in  English.  As  it  is  written  for  Catholics  I  have 
generally  supposed  that  point  of  view  and  have  not  filled  up  the 
pages  by  repeating  once  more  arguments  for  the  Primacy, 
Infallibility  of  the  Pope  and  so  on,  such  as  can  be  easily  found 
already  in  the  publications  of  the  Catholic  Truth  Society. 

The  complete  titles  of  the  works  quoted  will  be  found  in 
the  List  of  Books.  M.P.L.  and  M.P.G.  stand  for  Migne  : 
Patrologia  latina  and  grceca  respectively. 

Two  points  need  a  word  of  explanation.  The  first  is  the 
spelling    of    Greek    names.      There    is    really   no   reason    for 


vi  PREFACE 

writing  Greek  names  down  to  about  1453  as  if  they  were 
bad  Latin  and  then  suddenly  transforming  them  into  the 
semblance  of  worse  Italian  ;  for  making  the  same  name,  for 
instance,  Hypsilantius  if  it  occurs  in  the  9th  century,  and 
Ipsilanti  when  it  comes  again  in  the  19th.  Undoubtedly  the 
reasonable  course  would  be  to  write  them  all  out  as  they 
are,  in  our  letters.  But  what  is  already  a  matter  of  course  in 
Germany  would  seem  intolerably  pedantic  in  English.  I  began 
with  some  such  idea.  Then  I  found  that  it  would  lead  to 
writing  Gregorios,  Konstantinos,  even  Athenai  and  Antiocheia.  I 
have  not  the  courage.  So  names  that  have  an  English  (that  is 
not  Latin)  form  have  been  let  alone — Gregory,  John,  Philip, 
Paul ;  names  whose  Latin  forms  are  known  everywhere  are 
written  in  Latin — Athanasius,  Heraclius,  Photius.  Only  in  the 
case  of  less  known  names  have  I  ventured  to  spell  them  in 
Greek  rather  than  form  any  more  sham  Latin — Anthimos, 
Nektarios,  Kyriakos.  Sometimes  the  same  name  belongs  to 
different  people,  and  then  it  seems  hopeless  to  try  to  be  con- 
sistent. For  instance,  the  present  Orthodox  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  calls  himself  Photios,  and  I  have  left  him  so,  in  spite 
of  his  more  famous  namesake.  Unless  one  goes  the  whole 
length  and  says  that  Iustinianos  lived  at  Konstantinupolis, 
I  do  not  know  what  else  can  be  done.  The  Greek  v  is  y  and 
ov  becomes  u  in  any  case.  Of  course  this  spelling  is  no  sort 
of  guide  to  the  pronunciation.  All  the  Greek  words  at  any 
rate  in  this  book  should  be  pronounced  as  Modern  Greek. 
The  few  Slav  names  that  occur  are  not  written  according  to 
any  system  at  all,  but  are  merely  copied  from  various  books 
in  other  languages  that  evidently  follow  different  systems  of 
transliteration. 

The  other  point  is  the  use  of  the  word  Orthodox.  Since  the 
schism  I  have  called  the  people  in  union  with  the  CEcumenical 
Patriarch  so.  Of  course  the  name  then  has  a  special  and 
technical  meaning.  Orthodox  in  its  real  sense  is  just  what  we 
believe  them  not  to  be.  But,  in  the  first  place,  it  seems 
impossible  to  find  any  other  name.  Eastern  is  too  wide,  the 
Copts  and  Armenians  form  Eastern  Churches,  Schismatic  involves 
the  same  difficulty,  besides  being  needlessly  offensive.     We  do 


PREFACE  vii 

not  in  ordinary  conversation  speak  of  Protestants  as  heretics. 
The  name  commonly  used,  Greek,  is  the  worst  of  all.  The  only 
body  that  ever  calls  itself,  or  can  with  any  sort  of  reason  be 
called  the  Greek  Church,  is  the  Established  Church  of  the 
kingdom  of  Greece  ;  and  that  is  only  one,  and  a  very  small  one, 
of  the  sixteen  bodies  that  make  up  this  great  Communion.  To 
call  the  millions  of  Russians,  who  say  their  prayers  in  Old 
Slavonic  and  obey  the  Holy  Synod  at  Petersburg,  Greeks  is  as 
absurd  as  calling  us  all  Italians.  There  is  no  parallel  with  our 
name  Roman.  We  use  the  Roman  liturgy  in  the  Roman 
language  and  obey  the  Roman  Patriarch.  They  use  the 
Byzantine  liturgy  in  all  sorts  of  languages,  and  the  enormous 
majority  obey  no  Patriarch  at  all.  Byzantine  Orthodox  would 
more  or  less  correspond  to  Roman  Catholic,  but  the  Byzantine 
Patriarch  has  no  jurisdiction  outside  his  reduced  Patriarchate 
and  occupies  a  very  different  position  from  that  of  the  Roman 
Pope.  And  then  courteous  and  reasonable  people  generally 
call  any  religious  body  by  the  name  it  calls  itself.  We  have  no 
difficulty  in  speaking  of  Evangelicals  in  Germany,  the  Church 
of  England  at  home,  and  the  Salvation  Army  everywhere.  Of 
course  one  conceives  these  names  as  written  in  inverted 
commas,  like  those  of  the  Holy  Roman  and  the  Celestial 
Empires.  In  the  same  way  most  people  call  us  Catholics. 
Naturally  all  Christians  believe  that  they  are  members  of  the 
Universal  Church  of  Christ,  and  most  of  them  profess  their  faith 
in  it  when  they  say  the  Creed.  The  way  in  which  High 
Church  Anglicans  have  suddenly  realized  this  and  have  dis- 
covered that  they  would  give  away  their  own  case  by  call- 
ing us  Catholics  is  astonishingly  naive.  Of  course  they  think 
that  they  are  really  Catholics  too  ;  so  do  all  Christians.  And 
we  never  imagined  that  we  are  called  so  except  as  a  technical 
name  which  happens  to  have  become  ours,  and  which  even 
Turks  (whom,  by  the  way,  it  is  polite  to  call  True  Believers)  give 
only  to  us.  The  body  about  which  this  book  treats  always 
calls  itself  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  and  in  the  East  we  call 
them  Orthodox  and  they  call  us  Catholics  (unless  when  they 
mean  to  be  rude),  and  no  one  thinks  for  a  moment  that  either 
uses  these  names  except  as  technical  terms. 


viii  PREFACE 

This  book  was  intended  at  first  to  contain  accounts  of  the 
other  Eastern  Churches  too.  Want  of  space  made  that  im- 
possible. It  is  proposed  to  make  another  volume  some  day  de- 
scribing the  Nestorians,  Armenians,  Jacobites,  Copts,  Abyssinians, 
and,  above  all,  our  shamefully  neglected  brothers  the  Uniates. 
I  fear  that,  in  the  last  part  especially,  the  account  of  the 
Orthodox  would  not  please  them.  I  am  sorry  that  the  racial 
quarrels  among  them  loom  so  large  ;  but  it  is  true  that  these  fill 
up  nearly  all  their  history  during  the  last  century.  I  have  tried 
to  write  it  all  fairly,  and  have  said  what  I  think  should  be  said 
in  their  excuse.  In  spite  of  this,  in  spite  of  the  irony  which  is 
not  mine  but  that  of  the  circumstances,  this  little  book  has  been 
written  without  any  sort  of  rancour  against  and,  I  hope,  with- 
out any  want  of  due  respect  towards  those  great  sees  whose 
wonderful  history  and  ancient  traditions  make  them  the  most 
venerable  part  of  the  Christian  world — except  only  that  greater 
Western  throne  whose  communion  they  have  rejected. 

Jerusalem,  Low  Sunday  {Kal.  Greg.), 

Holy  Cross  Sunday  (Kal.  Iul.),  1907. 


CONTENTS 


PAGE 

List  of  Books xv 


PART    I 
THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH  BEFORE  THE  SCHISM 

CHAPTER   I 
The  Great  Patriarchates 5 


i.  Rome.      2.  Alexandria.      3.  Antioch.      4.  Jerusalem. 
5.  Constantinople.    6.  Cyprus.    Summary. 


CHAPTER    II 

Rome  and  the  Eastern  Churches 51 

1.  The  Eastern  Fathers  and  the  Papacy.  2.  Appeals  to 
Rome  from  the  East.  3.  The  Popes  and  the  General 
Councils.  4.  Ill-feeling  towards  Rome  in  the  East. 
Summary. 

CHAPTER  III 

The   Faith   and  Rites  of  the  Byzantine  Church  before 

the  Schism 98 

1.  The  Faith  of  the  Byzantine  Church.  2.  Eastern 
Liturgies.  3.  The  Syrian  Rite.  4.  The  Egyptian  Rite. 
5.  The  Byzantine  Rite.  6.  Byzantine  Piety  and  Morals. 
7.  Byzantine  Art.     Summary. 

ix 


/ 


CONTENTS 

PART    II 
THE    SCHISM 


CHAPTER   IV 

PACK 

The  Schism  of  Photius 


135 


1.  The  Patriarch  Ignatius.  2.  Photius.  3.  Open  Schism. 
4.  The  Question  of  Bulgaria.  5.  The  Filioque.  6.  The 
Eighth  General  Council.  7.  Photius  lawful  Patriarch. 
8.  The  End  of  Photius.  9.  Reunion  after  Photius. 
Summary. 


CHAPTER    V 
\J    The  Schism  of  Cerularius  . 


172 


1.  The  Pope,  the  Emperor,  and  the  Patriarch.  2.  The 
Schism.  3.  After  the  Schism.  4.  The  End  of  Ceru- 
larius.    Summary. 


PART    III 
THE   ORTHODOX  CHURCH    SINCE  THE   SCHISM 

CHAPTER  VI 

The  Reunion  Councils 201 

1.  The  Council  of  Bari,  1098.  2.  The  Second  Council  of 
Lyons,  1274.  3.  The  Council  of  Ferrara-  Florence, 
1438-1439.    4.  Cardinal  Bessarion.     Summary. 

CHAPTER  VII 

The  Crusades  and  the  Byzantine  Church      .        .        .        .221 

1.  The  Latin  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem.  2.  The  Crusaders 
and  the  Empire.  3.  The  Fourth  Crusade,  1204. 
Summary. 


CONTENTS  xi 

CHAPTER  VIII 

PAGE 

Under  the  Turk 229 

1.  The  Fall  of  Constantinople,  May  29,  1453.  2.  The 
Rayahs.  3.  The  Porte  and  the  Christian  Churches. 
4.  The  Porte  and  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch.  Sum- 
mary. 

CHAPTER   IX 

Orthodox  Theology 245 

1.  Theologians  since  1453.  2.  The  Orthodox  and  the 
Lutherans.  3.  The  Orthodox  and  the  Anglicans. 
4.  Cyril  Lukaris  and  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  1672. 
Summary. 

PART    IV 
THE   ORTHODOX  CHURCH   AT  THE   PRESENT   DAY. 

CHAPTER  X 

The  Constitution  of  the  Orthodox  Church  ....    273 

1.  The  Political  Situation  and  the  Great  Church.  2.  The 
Patriarchate  of  Alexandria.  3.  The  Patriarchate  of 
Antioch.  4.  The  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem.  5.  The 
Church  of  Cyprus.  6.  The  Church  of  Russia  (1589). 
6a.  The  Church  of  Georgia.  7.  The  Church  of  Car- 
lovitz  (1765).  8.  The  Church  of  Czernagora  (1765). 
9.  The  Church  of  Sinai  (1782).  10.  The  Greek  Church 
(1850).  11.  The  Church  of  Hermannstadt  (1864). 
12.  The  Bulgarian  Exarchate  (1870).  13.  The  Church 
of  Czernovitz  (1873).  14.  The  Church  of  Servia  (1879). 
15.  The  Roumanian  Church  (1885).  16.  The  Church 
of  Hercegovina  and  Bosnia  (1880).    Summary. 

CHAPTER  XI 

The  Orthodox  Hierarchy 338 

1.  The  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  and  his  Court.  2.  The 
other  Patriarchs,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Clerks.  3.  The 
Monks.     Summary. 


xii  CONTENTS 

CHAPTER  XII 

PAGE 

The  Orthodox  Faith 361 

1.  Orthodox  Symbolic  Books.  2.  The  Church  and  the 
Primacy.  3.  The  Filioque.  4.  Transubstantiation. 
5.  The  Epiklesis.  6.  Purgatory.  7.  The  Immaculate 
Conception.   8.  Modern  Orthodox  Theology.  Summary. 


CHAPTER  XIII 
Orthodox  Rites .        .        .        .    395 

1.   The    Calendar.     2.   The    Orthodox    Service   Books. 

3.  The    Churches,    Vestments,    and   Sacred    Vessels. 

4.  Church  Music.     5.  The   Holy   Liturgy.     6.  Other 
Rites  ;  the  Sacraments.    Summary. 


CHAPTER  XIV 
The  Question  of  Reunion 429 

Index 441 


ILLUSTRATIONS 


The  Church  of  the  Holy  Wisdom  at  Constanti- 
nople           Frontispiece 

Map   of    the    Five    Patriarchates   in    the   Fifth 

Century To  face  p.    49 


Plan  of  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Wisdom    .        .  Page  126 

Grottaferrata To  face  p.  169 

Vestments  of  the  Byzantine  Rite    ....  „        405 

Instruments  used  in  the  Byzantine  Liturgy.        .  „       409 


LIST   OF   BOOKS 

Any  sort  of  complete  bibliography  of  the  questions  touched 
upon  in  this  book  would  be  a  very  large  undertaking.  The 
following  list  contains  most  of  the  works  that  have  been  used 
or  consulted  for  the  various  chapters.  In  any  case  I  have 
quoted  only  one  or  two  books  on  each  subject,  leaving  out 
those  that  seem  either  out  of  date  or  less  useful.  The  list  may 
easily  be  expanded  into  a  very  large  one,  since  the  German 
books  nearly  all  contain  further  bibliographies. 

CHAPTER   I 

THE   GREAT   PATRIARCHATES 

The  history  of  this  development  will  be  found  in  outline  in 
any  Church  History.  I  have  referred  to  J.  Hergenrother  : 
Handbuch  tier  allgemeinen  Kirchengeschichte  (iv  edition,  ed. 
by  J.  P.  Kirsch,  Freiburg,  Herder,  1902.  Vols,  i  and  ii)  ;  F.  X. 
Kraus  :  Lehrbuch  der  Kirchengeschichte  (Trier,  Lintz,  iv  ed. 
1896),  and  L.  Duchesne  :  Histoire  ancienne  de  Vtglise  (Paris, 
Fontemoing,  1906),  i.  The  first  chapter  of  L.  Duchesne  : 
Origines  du  Culte  chretien  (Paris,  Fontemoing,  ii  ed.  1898) 
covers  the  same  ground.  Michael  le  Quien  :  Oriens  christianus 
in  IV  patriarchates  digestus  (Paris,  1740)  is  the  standard  work 
for  the  history  of  the  Eastern  Patriarchates.  Le  Quien  was  a 
learned  Dominican.  In  the  three  folio  volumes  of  his  work  he 
traces  the  history  of  each  province  and  diocese,  and  gives 
biographical  notices  of  all  the  bishops  known.  The  maps  are 
also  valuable.  Now  that  enormously  more  is  known  about  the 
Christian  East  the  time  has  come  for  a  new  Oriens  christianus 


xvi  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

The  Augustinians  of  the  Assumption  at  Constantinople  are 
projecting  such  a  work.  Meanwhile  Le  Quien  is  still  the  first 
source  to  consult  for  the  history  of  any  Eastern  see.  F.  C. 
Burkitt  :  Early  Eastern  Christianity  (London,  Murray,  1904). 


CHAPTER   II 

ROME   AND   THE    EASTERN   CHURCHES 

Collections  of  texts  from  the  Fathers  about  the  Roman 
Primacy  form  an  indispensable  part  of  every  dogmatic  treatise 
de  Romano  pontifice.  From  these  the  Greek  Fathers  may  easily 
be  picked  out.  H.  Hurter,  SJ. :  Theologian  dogmatics  compendium 
(ix  ed.  Innsbruck,  1896),  vol.  i,  tract  iii,  p.  2,  pp.  339-461 ; 
W.  Wilmers,  SJ.  :  De  Christi  Ecclesia  (Regensburg,  Pustet, 
1897),  nD-  u>  PP-  148-280  ;  C.  Pesch,  SJ.  :  Prazlectiones  dog- 
matics (Freiburg,  Herder,  ii  ed.  1898),  vol.  i,  p.  ii,  sect,  iv,  art.  ii, 
277-315,  contain  long  chains  of  such  texts.  The  acts  of 
councils  will,  of  course,  be  found  in  Hardouin  and  Mansi ;  the 
classical  history  of  them  is  Hefele  :  Conciliengeschichte  (Freiburg, 
Herder,  8  vols,  2nd  ed.  1873,  seq.).  F.  Lauchert  :  Die  Kanones 
der  wichtigsten  altkirchlichen  Concilien  nebst  den  apostolischen 
Kanones  (Freiburg,  Mohr,  1896)  is  a  useful  little  book  (the  texts 
are  in  the  original  languages)  ;  H.  Denzinger :  Enchiridion 
Symbolorum  et  Definitionum  (xth  ed.  just  published  by  Herder 
at  Freiburg,  1906)  is  the  collection  which  every  one  is  supposed 
to  have  (there  is  great  need  of  a  rather  more  complete  collec- 
tion of  the  same  kind).  The  case  against  the  Primacy  in  the 
first  centuries  has  been  put  best  in  F.  Maassen  :  Der  Primal  des 
Bischofs  von  Rom  (Bonn,  1853),  and  Puller :  Primitive  Saints  and 
the  See  of  Rome  (London,  Longmans).  Of  the  numberless  works 
on  our  side,  those  of  L.  Rivington,  especially  The  Primitive  Church 
and  the  See  of  Peter  (Longmans),  are  perhaps  the  best  known  in 
England.  Two  essays  by  F.  X.  Funk  :  Die  Berufung  der  oku- 
menischen  Synoden  des  Altertums  and  Die  pdpstliche  Bestdtigung 
der  achl  erslen  allgemeinen  Synoden  (in  his  Kirchengeschichlliche 
Abhandlungen  u.  Untersuchungen,  P.  Paderborn,  Schoningh, 
1897,  vol.  i)  have  been  used  in  this  chapter. 


) 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xvii 

CHAPTER  III 

FAITH   AND   LITURGIES   BEFORE   THE   SCHISM 

Each  article  of  Faith  will  be  found  discussed  in  its  place  in 
dogmatic  text-books.  Leo  Allatius  :  Be  Ecclesicv  occidentalis 
atque  orientalis  perpetua  consensione  libri  ires  (Koln,  1648,  4to)  is 
an  apology  of  the  Catholic  view.  Allatius  (1 586-1 669)  was  a 
Uniate,  student,  then  professor  at  the  Greek  College  at  Rome, 
and  finally  Vatican  librarian.  The  standard  book  for  the  texts 
of  liturgies  is  F.  Brightman  :  Liturgies  Eastern  and  Western, 
vol.  i.  Eastern  Liturgies  (Oxford,  Clar.  Press,  1896).  See  also 
L.  Duchesne  :  Origines  du  culte  chretien  {op.  cit.)  and  F.  Probst  : 
Liturgie  der  drei  ersten  christlichen  Jahrhunderte  (Tubingen, 
1870),  and  Liturgie  des  vierten  Jahrhunderts  und  deren  Reform 
(Munster,  1893).  E.  Renaudot :  Liturgiarum  orientalium  collectio 
(ed.  ii,  Frankfurt,  1847,  2  vols.)  was  the  classical  work  till  it 
was  supplanted  by  Brightman.  Prince  Max  of  Saxony  has 
published  the  lectures  on  Eastern  rites  that  he  held  lately  at 
Freiburg  (Switzerland),  in  Latin  (no  place  nor  date).  For  other 
works  on  liturgy  see  chap,  xiii  below.  J.  Pargoire  :  VEglise 
Byzantine  de  52J  a  847  (Paris,  Lecoffre,  1905)  discusses  all  the 
questions  of  rites,  morals,  art,  history,  theology,  &c,  during 
that  period.     For  general  Byzantine  History  see — 

Oman  :  The  Byzantine  Empire  (London,  1892). 

Hertzberg  :  Gesch.  der  Byzantiner  (Berlin,  1883). 

Bury  :  History  of  the  later  Roman  Empire,  395-800  (London, 
1889.     2  vols.). 

Roth  :  Gesch.  des  Byzantinischen  Reiches  (Leipzig,  1904)  is  a 
useful  compendium,  and  all  M.  Ch.  DiehPs  work  (Justinien 
etla  civilisation  byzantineau  VI  Siecle,  Paris,  1901  ;  Theodora, 
Paris,  1904  ;  Figures  byzantines,  Paris,  1906,  &c.)  is  ad- 
mirable. 

K.  Krumbacher  :  Geschichte  der  byzantinischen  Litteratur  (Munich, 
1897)  contains  notices  of  the  lives  and  works  of  all 
Byzantine  writers  from  Justinian  I  to  the  Turkish  conquest 

(527-I453)- 
Marin  :  Les  moines  de  Constantinople,  330-898  (Paris,  Lecoffre, 

1897). 


xviii  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

For  Byzantine  Art — 

C.  Bayet  :  LArl  byzantin  (iii  ed.  Paris,  Picard,  1904). 

C.  Diehl :  Etudes  byzantines  (Paris,  Picard,  1905). 

Strzygowski  :  Orient  oder  Rom  (Leipzig,  1901). 

Byzantinische  Denkmdler  (3  vols.  Vienna,  1 891-1903). 

F.  X.  Kraus  :  Gesch.  der  christlichen  Kunst  (Freiburg,  Herder, 
vol.  i,  1896). 

S.  Beissel,  S.J.  :  Altchristliche  Kunst  u.  Liturgie  in  Italien  (Herder, 
1899). 

Lethaby  and  Swainson  :  The  Church  of  Sancta  Sophia  (London, 
Macmillan,  1894). 

Diehl  :  Etudes  byzantines  (op.  cit.),  2  and  3,  gives  a  bibliography 
of  the  enormous  number  of  works  on  the  Byzantine  ques- 
tion published  during  the  last  few  years. 

CHAPTERS   IV    and    V 

THE   SCHISM    OF   PHOTIUS 

J.  Hergenrother  :  Photius,  Patriarch  von  Constantinopel 
(Regensburg,  Manz,  1867)  is,  without  question,  the  most  ex- 
haustive work.  The  three  large  volumes  contain  not  only  a 
detailed  account  of  Photius's  life  and  writings,  but  elaborate 
discussions  of  the  remote  causes  of  the  schism,  the  schism  of 
Cerularius  and  its  effects,  so  that  they  cover  nearly  all  the 
ground  touched  on  by  this  book.  A  supplement  gives  a 
collection  of  inedited  works  of  Photius.  Kattenbusch  de- 
scribes it  in  the  German  Protestant  Realenzyklopadie  as  being 
"  without  doubt  the  most  learned  work  "  (xv,  375,  iii  ed.), 
and  in  his  Konfessionskunde  (i,  119),  "  admirable  for  its  learn- 
ing and  desire  to  be  just."  All  the  documents  relating  to 
Cerularius's  schism  are  edited  by  C.  Will :  Acta  et  scripta 
qua;  de  controversiis  ecclesice  grwcai  et  latinos,  sceculo  XI  com- 
posita  extant  (Leipzig,  1861).  Psellos's  History  has  been 
edited  by  C.  Sathas  in  Methuen's  Byzantine  Texts  (1899).  See 
also  L.  Brehier  :  Le  Schisme  oriental  du  XI  siecle  (Paris,  Leroux, 
1899).  A.  Pichler  :  Gesch.  der  kirchl.  Trennung  zwischen  dem 
Orient  u.  Occident  (Munich,  1864-5.  2  vols.).  Norden  :  Das 
Papsttum  und  Byzanz.  (Berlin,  1903). 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xix 

An  interesting  picture  of  the  Orthodox  point  of  view  is 
A.  Demetrakopoulos  :  'laropia  tov  (T^idfiarog  rfjg  Xarivacrjg  eiacXriaiag 
airb  rfjg  opdodofrv  eWrjpiKfjg  (Leipzig,  1 867).  The  title  sufficiently 
indicates  its  tendency.  The  author  discusses  the  history  from 
this  point  of  view,  beginning  with  St.  Photius  and  ending  with 
the  pseudo-synod  at  Florence.  A.  Pellegrini  :  fH  IWtjvuo)  pavr/ 
ri]g  ^pv7TTO(f)Epr]g  (Syra,  Freris,  1904). 


CHAPTER   VI 

REUNION    COUNCILS 

Ragey  :  Histoire  de  S.  Anselme  (Paris,  1889),  ii,  chap.  34  for 
Bari  ;  Kirsch-Hergenrother  and  Hefele  (op.  cit.)  for  all  three 
councils.  Pastor  :  Geschichte  der  Pdpste  (Freiburg  :  Herder, 
1901),  i,  303,  seq.  Creighton  :  History  of  the  Papacy  (Longmans, 
1899),  ii,  chap.  8,  for  Florence.  For  Bessarion,  Vast  :  Le 
Cardinal  Bessarion  (Paris,  1878)  ;  Rocholl  :  Bessarion,  eine 
Studie  zur  Geschichte  der  Renaissance  (Leipzig,  1904).  There  is 
also  a  life  of  him  by  A.  Sadov  in  Russian  (Petersburg,  1883). 
There  ought  to  be  one  in  English. 


CHAPTER   VII 

THE    CRUSADES 

Bongars  :  Gesta  Dei  per  Francos  (Hannover,  161 1)  is  the  old 
standard  work.  Rohricht :  Geschichte  der  Kreuzziige  im  Umriss 
(Innsbruck,  1898)  is  a  very  useful  summary.  See  also  C.  R. 
Conder  :  The  Latin  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem  (London,  Pal.  Expl. 
Fund,  1897).  B.  Kugler  :  Geschichte  der  Kreuzziige  (ii  ed., 
Berlin,  1891).  Michaud  :  Histoire  des  Croisades,  7  vols.  (Paris, 
1819).  Migne  :  Dictionnaire  des  Croisades  (Paris,  1852). 
H.  Prutz  :  Kultur geschichte  der  Kreuzziige  (Berlin,  1883). 
G.  Schlumberger  :  Les  Principautes  Franques  du  Levant  (Paris, 
1877).  La  Croisade  de  Constantinople  (Bibliotheque  des  chefs- 
d'oeuvre,  Paris,  Berche  et  Tralin,  1880). 


xx  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

CHAPTER  VIII 

UNDER   THE    TURK 

E.  Pears  :    The  Destruction  of  the  Greek  Empire  (Longmans, 

1903)- 

For  this  chapter  and  for  all  the  following  ones  I  have  chiefly 

used   A.    Diomede   Kyriakos :    'EKKXrjmatmKr)     fl<rrop(a   (Athens, 

Anestes  Konstantinides,  1898.    3  vols.),  vol.  iii.     M.  Kyriakos  is 

a  typical  example  of  the  Greek  who  has  studied  in  Germany. 

He  heard  Hase  at  Jena,  and  is  now  Professor  of  Church  History 

at  the  University  of  Athens.     His  book  is  an  adaptation  of 

German    methods    in    Greek:    it    is    interesting    throughout, 

especially  in  the  third  volume,  which  contains  the  history  of 

his  Church  since    1453.     For  Turkish   law  see  H.   Grimme  : 

Mohammed,  II  System  der  koranischen  Theologie  (Miinster,  1895), 

E.   von  Miilinen  :    Die   lateinische  Kirche  im    Tiirkischen  Reich 

(Berlin,  ed.  2,  1903 — an  exceedingly  valuable  little  book  that 

contains  much  more  than  its  title  promises).     For  the  general 

history,  Hammer  :  Gesch.  des  osmanischen  Reiches  (ed.  ii  in  4  vols. 

1834-1836),  and  De  la  Jonquiere  :  Hist,  de  VEmpire  ottoman  (ed. 

ii.  Paris,  Hachette,  1897). 


CHAPTER   IX 

ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY 

Besides  Kyriakos  {op.  cil),  Ph.  Meyer  :  Die  theologische  Lit- 
ter atur  der  griechischen  Kirche  im  XVI  Jahrhundert  (Leipzig, 
Dieterich,  1899).  Acta  et  scripta  theologorum  Wirtembergensium 
et    Patriarchce    Constantinopolitani    D.    Hieremice    (Wittenberg, 

1584)- 

P.  Renaudin  :  Lutheriens  et  Grecs-Orthodoxes  (Paris,  Bloud,  1903). 
G.   Williams  :   The   Orthodox  and   the  Non-jurors   (Rivingtons, 

1868). 
Birkbeck  :  Russia  and  the  English  Church  during  the  last  Fifty 

Years  (London,  1895).      This  is  one  of  the  books  published 

by  the  Eastern  Church  Association. 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xxi 

J.  Wordsworth  :  The  Church  of  England  and  the  Eastern  Patri- 
archates (Oxford,  Parker,  1902).  He  thinks  Lukaris  was 
murdered  by  the  Jesuits  ! 

A.  Bulgakoff*  :  The  Question  of  Anglican  Orders  (translated  by 
W.  J.  Birkbeck,  London,  S.P.C.K.,  for  the  Church  His- 
torical Society,  1899). 

G.  B.  Howard  :  The  Schism  between  the  Oriental  and  Western 
Churches  (London,  Longmans,  1892). 

A.  Pichler :  Der  Patriarch  Cyril  Lukaris  und  seine  Zeit  (Munich, 
1862). 

CHAPTER   X 

THE   CONSTITUTION   OF  THE   ORTHODOX   CHURCH 

I  name  here  several  books  that  treat  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
in  general. 

J.  Mason  Neale  :  History  oj  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  (London, 
1850)  is  incomplete.  It  contains  a  general  introduction  and 
history  of  the  Patriarchates  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jeru- 
salem only.  There  is  no  account  of  the  schism.  Dr.  Neale's 
work  was  useful  inasmuch  as  it,  almost  for  the  first  time, 
made  the  Eastern  Churches  known  to  English  people.  But 
it  is  in  no  way  scientific.  His  object  is  always  edification 
and  the  promotion  of  union  with  these  Churches  rather  than 
critical  accuracy.  He  is  absurdly  flattering  to  every  one  who 
was  "  Orthodox,"  absurdly  unjust  to  Copts,  Jacobites,  &c.  He 
seems  to  conceive  the  supremacy  of  Constantinople  all  over 
the  East  as  the  primitive  ideal.  In  any  case  this  book  must 
now  be  considered  as  having  been  superseded. 

A.  P.  Stanley  :  Lectures  on  the  History  of  the  Eastern  Church 
(London,  1861)  is  still  sometimes  quoted.  It  was  never  of 
any  value. 

F.  Kattenbusch  :  Lehrbuch  der  vergleichenden  Konfessionskunde 
(Freiburg,  Mohr,  i,  Die  orthodoxe  anatolische  Kirche,  1892).  This 
is  by  far  the  most  important  work  of  all  now  on  the  subject. 
The  history,  development,  politics,  divisions,  dogma,  hierarchy, 
rites  and  devotions  of  the  Orthodox  Church  are  discussed  at 
length   with    every    detail    that    could    be   dt         '       id   with 


xxii  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

accurate  references.  There  are  also  superb  bibliographies. 
The  author  is  a  Lutheran  who  has  no  interest  in  any  side,  but 
is  always  scrupulously  exact  and  impartial.  It  is  the  book  that 
should  be  studied  by  every  one  who  wishes  to  know  more 
about  the  subject. 

H.J.  Schmitt :  Kritische  geschichte  der  neugriechischen  u.  der 
russischen  Kirche  (Mainz,  1854).  In  spite  of  its  title  this  is  not  a 
critical  history,  but  a  book  of  controversy  chiefly  directed  against 
the  Holy  Synods  that  now  govern  many  Orthodox  Churches. 

I.  Silbernagl  :  V erf assung  und  gegenwdr tiger  Bestand  samtlicher 
Kirchen  des  Orients  (Regensburg,  Manz,  ii  ed.,  1904).  An 
accurate  and  very  valuable  account  of  the  constitution,  hierarchy, 
numbers,  revenues  and  political  rights  of  all  Eastern  Churches. 

Etudes  preparatories  au  pelerinage  eucharistique  en  Terre  sainte 
(Paris,  Bonne  Presse,  1893). 

A.  L.  Hickmann  :  Karte  der  Verbreitungsgebiete  der  Religionen 
in  Europa  (Vienna,  Freytag).  All  the  sees  of  both  Catholics 
and  Orthodox  are  marked  ;  there  are  comparative  tables  of 
numbers  of  members.  Kyriakos  (op.  cit.)  is  also  valuable  for 
this  chapter.  F.  Tournebize,  S.J.  :  UEglise  grecque-orthodoxe 
(Paris,  Bloud,  190 1,  2  vols.). 

A.  d'Avril  :  Documents  relatifs  aux  Eglises  de  V Orient  (hi  ed., 
Paris,  1885). 

L.  Duchesne  :  Eglises  separees  (Paris,  Fontemoing,  ii  ed.,  1905). 
I  have  constantly  used  the  Echos  d'Orient,  a  review  published 
six  times  a  year  since  Oct.,  1897,  by  the  Augustinians  of  the 
Assumption  at  Constantinople  (and  at  Paris,  rue  Bayard,  5). 
It  contains  admirable  dissertations  on  all  manner  of  questions 
connected  with  the  Christian  East,  and  always  gives  the  latest 
news  from  the  Orthodox  Church  (see  Gelzer's  appreciation  in 
Geistliches  u.  Weltliches,  p.  142  :  "  exceedingly  well  written, 
extraordinarily  full  of  news,  and  excellently  well  informed"). 
It  is  to  be  regretted  that  its  tone  is  bitter  against  the  Orthodox 
and  sometimes  undignified. 

Revue  de  V Orient  chretien  (Paris,  Picard,  quarterly).  Oriens 
Christianus  (Rome,  Propaganda  Press,  twice  a  year).  Bes- 
sarione  (Rome,  ed.  by  Mgr.  N.  Marini,  six  times  a  year).  The 
Byzantinische  Zeitschrift  (ed.  by  Krumbacher,  Leipzig,  Teubner, 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xxiii 

quarterly)  has  very  complete  and  valuable  bibliographies.  In 
the  Revue  benedictine  (Maredsous)  P.  de  Meester  is  writing  a 
series  of  articles  on  Orthodox  theology. 

Of  Greek  papers  I  have  used  the  'E/ncX^o-tacmc^  a\r/0aa,  the 
official  organ  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarchate,  and  the  Nco 
i)fi,epa  of  Trieste,  which  is  certainly  the  best  Orthodox  paper, 
also  the  "A<ttv  of  Athens,  which  is  respectable,  and  the  NeW 
aarrv,  which  is  not.  They  are  chiefly  interesting  because  of 
their  violent  attacks  on  the  Bulgars. 

Pisani  :  A  Wavers  VOrient  (Paris,  Bloud) ;  pp.  xi  seq.  contain 
a  bibliography. 

For  the  political  situation  in  the  Balkans  see  H.  Brailsford  : 
Macedonia  (Methuen,  1906).  Mr.  Brailsford  was  a  member  of 
the  Macedonian  Relief  Committee  during  the  winter  of  1903-4. 
His  book  is  admirably  temperate  in  tone,  and  he  writes  of  the 
things  he  himself  saw.  Only  in  questions  of  theology  is  he  not 
at  home.  His  remark  about  the  Bulgarian  Uniates  (p.  73)  and 
his  advice  to  Protestant  missioners  to  get  ordained  in  the 
Orthodox  Church  to  make  their  work  easier  (p.  74)  are 
amusing.  But  his  indictment  against  the  Patriarchist  party 
in  Macedonia  is  absolutely  crushing. 

H.  Gelzer  :  Geistliches  u.  Weltliches  aus  dem  Tilrkisch-griechi- 
schen  Orient,  and  Vom  heiligen  Berge  und  aus  Makedonien 
(Leipzig,  Teubner,  1900  and  1904)  are  charming  descriptions 
of  the  travels  of  an  always  sympathetic  scholar.  J.  F.  Fraser  : 
Pictures  from  the  Balkans  (Cassell,  1906)  has  interesting  pictures. 
D.  Brancoff :  La  Macedoine  et  sa  population  chretienne  (Paris, 
Plon,  1905)  gives  tables  of  statistics  and  maps,  which  look  very 
bad  for  the  Greeks.  C.  Bojan  :  Les  Bulgares  et  le  patriarche 
cecumenique,  ou  comment  le  patriarche  traite  les  Bulgares  (Paris, 
Librairie  gen.  de  droit,  1905)  contains  appalling  accusations 
against  the  Phanar  and  its  bishops.  N.  Milasch  (Orth.  Bp.  of 
Zara)  :  Das  Kirchenrecht  der  Morgenldndischen  Kirche  (ii  ed., 
Mostar,  1905). 

For  the  rights  and  the  court  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch 
see,  besides  Silbernagl,  Kattenbusch,  and  Kyriakos  (op.  cit.), 
YeviKoi  Kavopiafjiol  Trepl  dievdeTrjaewQ  rwv  ehk\.  k.  eQv.  Trpayfiaruyv  rwv 
i/tto     rov     otKOVfieviKov    dpovov    %iclte\ovvtuv    opdocofav     ygMTTiav&V) 


xxiv  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

vmiKoiov    rrjc    A.      MeyaXeiorrjrog    rod    2ov\ravov      (Constantinople, 

Patriarchal  Press,  1888).     This  work  is  a  collection  of  all  the 
laws  affecting  the  Orthodox  Church  in  Turkey. 

M.  Gedeon  :  UarpiapxtKol  irlvaKEQ  (Constantinople,  1890),  a  list 
of  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  from  St.  Andrew  (!),  with  bio- 
graphical notices.  XporiKa  rov  xarpiapxiKOv  o'ikov  k.  tov  vaov 
(Const.  1884),  a  history  of  the  vicissitudes  of  the  Patriarch's 
palace  and  church. 

Kyriakos  gives  a  list  of  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople. 
For  the  other  Churches — 
C.  D.  Cobham  :  An  attempt  at  a  Bibliography  of  Cyprus  (Nicosia, 

1  goo),   contains  728   titles.      Handbook    of  Cyprus ,    1905 

(London,  Stanford,  pp.  99-103,  "  Christianity  in  Cyprus  "). 

Kyprianos :   'laropia   xP0P0^°7lK^   r*/c   vfoov   Kvnpov  (Venice, 

1788,  Nicosia,  1902). 
Locher  :  Cypem  (Stuttgart,  iii  ed.  1880). 
Hackett  :  A  History  of  the  Orthodox  Church  of  Cyprus  (London, 

Methuen). 
Milas :  Gli  apostoli  slavi  Cirillo  e  Metodio  (translated  from  the 

Servian,  Triest,  1887). 
Rambaud  :  Histoire  de  la  Russie  (Paris,  Hachette,  1895). 
Gondal :  VEglise  russe  (Paris,  Bloud,  1905). 
W.  Palmer  :  Notes  of  a  Visit  to  the  Russian  Church  in  the  years 

1840,  1841  (London,  Longmans,  1895). 
Mouravieff  :   History  of  the   Church    of   Russia    (translated   by 

Blackmore,  London,  1842). 
A.  C.  Headlam  :  The  Teaching  of  the  Russian  Church  (Rivingtons, 

for  the  Eastern  Church  Association,  1897). 
G.  Semeria  :  La  Chiesa  greco-russa  (Genoa,  1904). 
Palmieri  :  //  ristabilmento  del  patriarcato  in  Russia  (Bessarione, 

x.,  pp.  42  seq.). 
Oliver  Wardrop  :  The  Kingdom  of  Georgia  (London,  1888). 
N.   Nilles  :    Aus  Iberien   oder    Georgien    (Zeitschrift    fur  kath. 

Theologie,  Innsbruck,  1903,  652-683). 
A.  Palmieri :  La  conversione  ujficiale  degV  Iberi  al  cristianesimo 

(Oriens  Christ.,  1902  and  1903). 
De  la  Jonquiere  (op.  cit.)  tells  the  story  of  the  independence  of 

Balkan  States  in  the  19th  century. 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xxv 

W.  A.  Phillips  :  The  War  of  Greek  Independence  (London,  Smith, 

Elder,  1897). 
Mendelssohn- Bar tholdy  :  Gesch.  Griechenlands  von  der  Eroberung 

Konstantinopels  durch  die  Tilrken  bis  auf  unsere  Tage  (1870-4. 

I  have  only  the  Greek  translation  of  this,  Athens,  1885). 
Pharmakidis  :  'O  vwoSikog  t6/xoq  Jj  wept  aXrjdeiag  (Athens,  1852). 
Jirecek  :  Gesch.  der  Bulgaren  (Prague,  1876). 
A.  d'Avril  :  La  Bulgarie  chretienne  (Revue  de  l'Orient  chretien, 

Paris,   2nd   year,    1897,    Nos.   1-4).      Les  Bulgares  (Paris, 

Leroux). 
S.  Gopcevic  :  Serbien  und  die  Serben,  I  (1888). 


CHAPTER   XI 

THE   ORTHODOX    HIERARCHY 

Silbernagl,    Kyriakos,   Kattenbusch,    Gedeon   and   the    TeviKol 

Kavovicr/jLoi  (pp.  cit.). 
F.  Gillmann  :  Das  Institut  der  Chorbischbfe  im  Orient  (Munich, 

Leutner,  1903). 
For  the  Monks  : — 
Gelzer  :  Vom  h.  Berge,  u.s.w.  (op.  cit.). 
A.   Schmidtke  :    Das  klosterland  des  Athos  (Leipzig,  Hinrichs, 

I903)- 
M.  I.  Gedeon  :    'O  "AOidq,  ava^vr^ffEiQ,   zyypa<pay   (TrifieiMtreig   (Const. 

I885). 
A.  Riley  :  Athos,  or  the  Mountain  of  the  Monks  (London,  1887). 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE   ORTHODOX    FAITH 

The  symbolic  writings  are  collected  in  E.  J.  Kimmel  :  Monu- 
menta  Fidei  Ecclesice  orientalis  (Jena,  1850.  Greek  and  Latin) 
and  J.  Michalcescu  :  Die  Bekenntnisse  u.  die  wichtigsten  Glaubens- 
zeugnisse  der  griech. -orient.  Kirche  (Leipzig,  Hinrichs,  1904. 
Greek  only). 


xxvi  LIST  OF  BOOKS 

CHAPTER  XIII 

ORTHODOX    RITES 

By  far  the  most  erudite  work  is  N.  Nilles,  S.J.  :  Kalcndarium 
manuale  utriusque  ecclesicu,  orientalis  et  occidentalis  (Innsbruck, 
Rauch,  ii  ed.  1896-7,  2  vols.).  In  the  first  volume  he  follows 
the  Proprium  Sanctorum,  in  the  second  the  Proprium  de  Tempore. 
For  each  day  he  gives  the  Latin  and  the  various  Eastern  feasts, 
and  accumulates  every  sort  of  information  that  can  conceivably 
be  connected  with  them.  There  are  long  excursuses  on  all 
kinds  of  irrelevant  matters.  There  is  also  much  valuable 
matter  about  the  early  history  of  the  Eastern  Churches,  the 
Primacy  in  the  first  centuries,  and  every  sort  of  theological 
question  scattered  everywhere  about  the  two  volumes. 

The   official   editions    of    the   Orthodox   service  books   are 
printed  at  the  sign  of  the  Phoenix  at  Venice  (various  dates),  the 
corresponding  Uniate  books  at  the  Roman  Propaganda  Press. 
J.  Goar,  O.P. :  Euchologion  sive  Rituale  Grcvcorum  (ii  ed.,  Venice, 
folio,  1720)  is  the  text  with  very  discursive  notes  and  illustra- 
tions.    This  is  still  the  standard  work  of  reference  for  all 
Greek  rites. 
Besides  Brightman  and  Renaudot  (op.  cit.)  : — 
J.  M.  Neale  :    The  Liturgies  of  S.  Mark,  S.  James,  S.  Clement, 
S.  Chrysostom,  S.  Basil  (London,  Hays,  1875,  in  Greek,  also 
another  volume  :  The  Translations  of  the  Primitive  Liturgies 
of  S.Mark,  &c). 
J.  N.  W.   B.  Robertson  :    The  Divine   Liturgies  of  our  Fathers 
among  the  Saints,  John  Chrysostom,  Basil  the   Great,   with 
that  of  the  Presanctified  (London,  Nutt,  1894),  in  Greek  and 
English.    It  also  contains  the  Hesperinos  and  various  other 
prayers,  but  has  no  sort  of  table  of  contents  nor  index. 
C.  Charon  :  Les   saintes  et  divines  Liturgies  de  nos  Saints  Peres, 
Jean  Chrysostome,  Basile  le  Grand  et  Gregoire  le  Grand  (in 
French,  Beirut,  Coury,  1904 — the  Uniate  use). 
R.  Storf  :  Die  griechischen  Liturgien  der  hlgen  Jakobus,  Markus, 
Basilius  und  Chrysostomus  (Kempten,  Kosel,  1877,  vol.  41  of 
Thalhofer's   Bibliothek  der  Kirchenvdter),  in  German,  with 
useful  notes. 


LIST  OF  BOOKS  xxvii 

Provost  Alexios  Maltzew,  of  the  Russian  Embassy  Church  at 
Berlin,  has  translated  the  Russian  service  books  into 
German  (Euchologion,  Vienna,  Zamarski,  1861,  other  books 
Berlin,  Siegismund,  1892,  seq.). 

L.  Allatius  :  De  libris  et  rebus  eccl.  Graicorum  (Koln,  1646). 

L.  Clugnet  :  Dictionnaire  grec-francais  des  noms  liturgiques  en 
usage  dans  VEglise  grecque  (Paris,  Picard,  1895). 

(P.  de  Meester,  O.S.B.)  Officio  delVinno  acatisto  (Rome,  1903) — 
Greek  and  Italian. 

H.  Gai'sser,  O.S.B.  :  he  Systeme  musical  de  VEglise  grecque 
(Maredsous,  1901). 

J.  B.  Rebours  :  Traite  de  Psaltique.  Thcorie  et  Pratique  du  chant 
dans  VEglise  grecque  (Paris,  Picard,  1906)  is  a  practical 
manual — the  only  one  as  yet — of  their  chant. 


CHAPTER    XIV 

THE   QUESTION   OF    REUNION 

P.  Michel  :  V Orient  et  Rome,  Etude  sur  V Union  (ii  ed.,  Paris, 
Lecoffre,  1895). 

A.  St.  Chomjakow  :  Quelques  mots  par  un  Chretien  orthodoxe  sur 
les^  Communions  occidentales  (Paris,  1855),  VEglise  latine  et 
VEglise  protestante  au  point  de  vue  de  VEglise  dy Orient  (Paris, 
1872).  See  also  the  (Old  Catholic)  Revue  internationale  de 
Theologie  (Berne),  iv,  46,  seq. 

P.  de  Meester,  O.S.B.  :  Aiiop  b  iy  koX  //  avaroXiK))  EKKXrjaia  (Syra, 

1905). 

M.  M.  :  \\.TravTr)<TLQ  e\q  ttjp.  .  .  .  eytcvKXiov  rfjg  ekkX.  kiovctt.  (Con- 
stantinople, 1895). 

Lastly,  List  of  Books  on  Eastern  Christendom  (Oxford,  Parker, 
1902). 


THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN 
CHURCH 

The  history  of  the  Eastern  Churches  begins  at  the  time  of  the 
Apostles.  The  native  Christians  of  Jerusalem,  Cyprus,  Greece, 
the  few  communities  still  left  in  Antioch,  or  scattered  through 
Asia  Minor  have  not  now  much  to  boast  of,  in  comparison  with 
the  far  greater  and  more  flourishing  Churches  of  Western 
Europe  ;  but  they  remember  with  just  pride  that  the  Gospel 
was  preached  to  their  fathers,  not  by  unknown  missionaries  of 
the  fourth  or  fifth  centuries,  not  even  by  saints  sent  out  from 
the  great  Roman  Church,  but  by  the  Apostles  themselves, 
and  they  read  the  names  of  their  cities  and  of  their  first 
bishops  in  the  pages  of  the  New  Testament.  And  during 
the  first  six  centuries  at  least,  these  Churches  play  a  leading 
part  in  the  general  history  of  Christianity.  It  was  in  the 
East  that  the  great  heresies  arose,  their  chief  opponents  were 
Eastern  bishops,  and  it  was  in  the  East  that  the  first  eight 
general  councils  were  held.  To  write  a  history  of  any  of  the 
Eastern  Churches  during  these  earlier  centuries  then,  would  be 
only  to  tell  over  again  the  most  important  facts  of  general  Church 
history.  We  will  therefore  pass  over  the  great  public  events  that 
are  commonly  known,  and  be  content  with  an  account  of  the 
domestic  affairs  of  the  most  important  of  these  Churches,  that 
of  the  great  body  of  Christians  who  remained  Orthodox  after 
the  Nestorian  and  Monophysite  heresies,  over  whom  the 
Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  gradually  managed  to  assume  the 

2 


2  INTRODUCTION 

leadership,  and  who  fell  into  schism  with  that  see  in  the  9th 
and  nth  centuries.  This  is  the  communion  that  calls  itself 
the  Orthodox  Church. 

Such  an  account  will  fall  naturally  into  four  parts,  treating 
of  :  I.  The  period  before  the  Great  Schism,  that  is  during  the 
first  eight  centuries.  II.  The  Story  of  the  Schism.  III.  From 
the  Schism  to  Modern  iTimes.  IV.  The  Orthodox  Church  at 
the  Present  Time. 


PART    I 

THE   ORTHODOX   EASTERN   CHURCH   BEFORE 
THE   SCHISM 


In  this  first  part  we  may  divide  our  account  of  the  facts  that 
most  interest  Catholics  into  three  chapters  :  (i)  Of  the  develop- 
ment of  the  order  of  the  Hierarchy,  and  of  the  rise  of  the  great 
Patriarchates.  (2)  Of  their  relations  to  the  Latin  Churches,  and 
especially  of  their  relation  to  the  Roman  Church.  (3)  Of  their 
faith  and  liturgies  during  these  eight  centuries. 


CHAPTER    I 


THE   GREAT   PATRIARCHATES 


When  the  Apostles  were  all  dead,  and  when  the  extraordinary 
offices  of  Prophets,  Evangelists,  Doctors,  &c.  (Eph.  iv.  n  ; 
i  Cor.  xii.  28),  had  gradually  disappeared,  we  find  that  there 
remains  a  fixed  hierarchy  in  each  local  Church.  This  hierarchy 
consists  of  the  three  fundamental  orders  of  Bishops,  Priests, 
and  Deacons.  In  .each  city  where  there  was  a  Christian 
community  the  Bishop  "  presided  in  the  place  of  God " s  in 
the  town  and  in  the  country  round.  Assisting  him  in  the 
liturgy  and  as  a  council,  was  a  college  of  priests  "  in  the  place 
of  a  Senate  of  Apostles,'' 2  and  then  came  the  Deacons  "  who 
are  entrusted  with  the  ministry  of  Jesus  Christ "  3  to  preach, 
catechize,  baptize,  and  take  care  of  the  poor.  This  hierarchy 
is  fully  developed  in  the  1st  century.  The  letters  of  St. 
Ignatius,  the  martyr-bishop  of  Antioch  (f  c.  107),  are  full  of 
allusions  to  the  three-fold  order.  "  Let  every  one  reverence 
the  Deacons  as  Jesus  Christ,  so  also  the  Bishop  who  is  the 
type  of  the  Father,  and  the  Priests  as  the  Senate  of  God  and 
Council  of  the  Apostles."  4  And,  as  far  as  the  inner  organiza- 
tion of  each  community  was  concerned,  this  hierarchy  was 
sufficient.5 

1  Ign.  ad  Magn.  vi.  1.  2  Ibid.  3  Ibid.  «  Ad  Trail,  iii.  I. 

5  The  only  serious  difficulty  against  the  monarchical  government  of  each 
diocese  in  the  early  Church  is  that  St.  Jerome  (331-420)  in  one  or  two  places 
(in  Ep.  ad  Tit.  i.  5  ;  Ep.  146,  ad  Evangelum)  says  that  a  priest  is  the  same  as 
a  bishop  ;  that  before  the  devil  had  sown  discords  among  the  faithful  the 
Churches  were  governed  by  a  council  of  priests  ;  that  bishops  owe  their 


6    THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

But  a  further  organization  arranged  the  relations  of  the 
bishops  to  each  other  ;  and  from  the  beginning  we  find 
some  bishops  exercising  jurisdiction  over  their  fellow  bishops 
beyond  the  boundaries  of  their  own  dioceses.  Now  the  most 
important  example  of  the  authority  of  one  bishop  over  others 
is  the  universal  jurisdiction  exercised  by  the  Bishop  of  Rome 
over  the  whole  Catholic  Church.  But  this  question  has  been 
so  often  discussed,  the  evidences  of  the  Roman  Primacy  during 
the  first  centuries  have  been  so  often  produced,  that  we  need 
not  dwell  upon  them  again  here.  We  see  the  Roman  Church 
in  the  ist  century  sternly  commanding  the  Christians  of 
Corinth  (a  city  far  away  from  her  own  diocese)  to  receive 
back  their  lawful  ecclesiastical  superiors,  and  concluding  with 
just  such  words  as  a  Pope  would  use  to-day :  "  If  they  do 
not  obey  what  he  (God)  says  through  us,  let  them  know 
that  they  will  be  involved  in  no  small  crime  and  danger,  but 
we  shall  be  innocent  of  this  sin." J  We  hear  St.  Ignatius 
greeting  the  "  Presiding  Church  in  the  place  of  the  Roman 
land,"  as  the  "  president  of  the  bond  of  love." 2  We  know  that 
the  Greek  Bishop  of  Lyons,  St.  Irenaeus  ( \  202),  finding  it 
too  long  to  count  up  all  the  Churches,  is  content  to  quote 
against  heretics  "  the  greatest,  most  ancient  and  best  known 
Church,  founded  and  constituted  by  the  two  most  glorious 
Apostles,  Peter  and  Paul,  at  Rome,"  because  "  every  Church, 

superiority  over  priests  rather  to  custom  than  to  our  Lord's  institution. 
Against  this  notice  :  (1)  St.  Jerome  is  much  too  late  to  be  of  any  value  as 
a  witness.  Centuries  before  his  time  we  find  monarchical  episcopacy  every- 
where set  up,  everywhere  accepted  as  a  divine  institution.  (2)  He  wrote  at 
the  time  of  a  quarrel  between  the  priests  of  Alexandria  and  their  bishop,  in 
which  he,  himself  only  a  priest,  with  his  usual  vehemence,  took  the  side  of 
his  own  order.  (3)  He  in  many  other  places  plainly  shows  his  consent  in 
this  question  with  the  rest  of  the  Christian  world,  e.g.,  "  Without  leave  of  the 
bishop,  neither  priest  nor  deacon  may  baptize"  (c.  Lucif.  n.  9);  "What 
Aaron,  his  sons,  and  the  Levites  were  in  the  temple,  that  are  bishops,  priests, 
and  deacons  in  the  Church  "  (Ep.  146).  Even  in  the  heat  of  the  Alexandrine 
quarrel  he  asks  :  "What  does  a  bishop  do  more  than  a  priest,  except  to 
ordain  ?  "  (ibid.).    Which  is,  of  course,  what  makes  all  the  difference. 

1  1  Clem,  ad  Cor.  59,  1,  2. 

2  Ad  Rom.  Sal.  These  translations  are  not  admitted  by  every  one,  but 
Funk's  defence  of  them  (Pp.  Apost.  ad  loc.  and  Kirchengesch.  Abhdlgen.  i.  1) 
seems  conclusive. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  7 

that  is,  the  faithful  from  all  parts,  most  agree  with  (or  'go  to  ') x 
this  Church  on  account  of  her  mightier  rule,  and  in  her  the 
tradition  of  the  Apostles  has  always  been  kept  by  those  who 
are  from  all  sides."     He  then  draws  up  the  list  of  Popes  from 
St.    Peter   to   Eleutherius   (177-189)   his   contemporary.2     But 
this  authority  of  the  Pope  belongs  to  general  Church  History  : 
and  we  shall  come  later  to  the  evidence  of  the  great  Greek 
Fathers  for  it.     Now  we  are  chiefly  concerned  with  the  other 
cases  of  superior  jurisdiction,  especially  among  Eastern  bishops. 
From  the  beginning  we  find  the  bishops  of  the  more  important 
sees,  of  the  chief  towns  of  provinces  for   instance,  exercising 
jurisdiction   over  the   neighbouring   Churches.      There   is   no 
reason   to   suppose  that  this  right  had  been  formally  handed 
over  to  them,  still  less  was  the  arrangement  an  imitation  of  the 
Roman  civil  jurisdiction,  at  any  rate  in  this  first  period.     The 
reason  of  their  authority  was  a  very  simple  and  a  very  natural 
one.     It  was  to  the  great  central  cities  that  the  Gospel  had  first 
been   brought,   it   was   from   them  that  the  faith  had  spread 
through  the  country  around.     The  bishops  of  the  chief  towns 
ruled  then  over  the  oldest  sees,  in  many  cases  they  traced  their 
line  back  to  one  of  the  Apostles,  they  had  sent  out  missionaries 
to   the   neighbouring  villages,   and,   when   the   time    came   to 
set    up    other    sees   near   them,   they  naturally   ordained    the  J 
new   bishops.     Now    the    right   or   the  custom    of  ordaining 
another  bishop  was  for  many  centuries  looked  upon  as  involving 
a  sort  of  vague  jurisdiction  over  him.     It  produced  the  rela- 
tionship of  a  "  Fatherhood  in  Christ"  ;  the  new  bishop  looked 
up  to  his  consecrator  with  gratitude  and  with  filial  piety.3     So 
before  there  was  any  formal  legislation   on   the   subject,   the 
bishops  and  faithful  of  each  province  naturally  looked  upon  the 
bishop  of  the  oldest  Church  in  the  neighbourhood,  from  whom 

1  M  Convenire  "  =  avfi(3aiveiv  (but  the  Greek  is  lost.)  It  seems  impossible  to 
settle  which  meaning  is  right :  the  word  means  either.  Stieren  (Op.  omnia 
Irenaei,  Leipzig,  1849),  who  has  certainly  no  prejudice  in  favour  of  Rome, 
declares  for  "  to  agree  with." 

2  There  is  a  careful  examination  of  this  famous  passage  (adv.  Haer.  Ill,  3) 
in  Wilmer's  De  Christt  Ecclesia  (Regensburg,  1897),  pp.  218,  seq. 

3  We  shall  see  throughout  our  history  how  important  the  right  to  con- 
secrate the  bishops  of  any  country  was  considered. 


8  THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

they  had  received  the  faith  and  holy  orders,  who  was  the  con- 
necting link  between  them  and  the  Apostles,  as  their  natural 
chief.  They  appealed  to  him  in  disputes,  they  followed  his 
liturgical  use,  and  they  found  it  natural  that,  if  there  was  a 
scandal  among  them,  he  should  come  to  put  it  right.  These 
central  bishops  were  what  we  call  Metropolitans  or  Archbishops.1 
Thus,  Carthage  was  the  head  of  the  African  Church,  Alexandria 
of  Egypt,  Antioch  of  Syria,  Ephesus  of  Asia,  Heraclea  of 
Thrace,  &c.  These  metropolitans  visited  the  sees  around, 
ordained  the  bishops  and,  when  synods  began  to  be  called,  they 
summoned  them  and  presided  over  them.  But  the  organiza- 
tion went  further.  Just  as  several  bishops  were  joined 
under  one  metropolitan,  so  the  chief  metropolitan  of  a  country 
stood  as  the  head  of  his  fellows.  These  chief  metropolitans 
were  in  some  cases  afterwards  called  Exarchs  ;  three  of  them 
long  before  the  Council  of  Nicaea  stand  out  from  all  others  as 
the  three  first  bishops  of  Christendom.  These  three  are  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch.  The  name  Patri- 
arch, like  nearly  all  ecclesiastical  titles,  was  at  first  used  more 
vaguely  ;  even  as  late  as  the  4th  century,  it  is  still  applied  to 
any  specially  venerable  bishop.2  Several  reasons  combined  to 
give  these  three  Patriarchs  (we  may  already  call  them  by  what 
eventually  became  their  special  title)  the  first  three  places. 
Rome  was  of  course  always  the  first  see,  and  both  the  others 
also  claimed  a  descent  from  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  St. 
Peter  ;  Antioch  was  where  he  had  first  sat,  Alexandria  was 
considered  as  having  been  founded  by  him  through  his  disciple, 
St.  Mark.  Moreover  these  three  bishops  stood  at  the  head  of 
three  sharply  divided  lands  ;  Rome  stood  for  Italy  and  for  all 

1  The  name  Metropolitan  is  first  used  as  their  specific  title  in  the  4th 
century  (Metropolis  is  the  chief  town  of  a  Roman  province).  About  the 
same  time  appear  the  synonyms  Exarch  and  Archbishop.  Since  the  9th 
century  Archbishop  has  become  the  regular  name  in  the  West,  while  in  the 
East  they  are  still  called  Metropolitans.  The  name  Exarch  has  since 
changed  its  meaning :  C/.  Aichner :  Comp.  iurisCan.  (Brixen,  1900),  pp.  385,  seq. 

2  St.  Gregory  Naz.  (f  c.  390)  says  :  "  The  older  bishops  or,  to  speak  more 
suitably,  the  patriarchs"  (Orat.  42,  23).  The  name  is  here  only  an  applica- 
tion from  the  Old  Testament,  just  as  deacons  were  called  Levites.  In  the 
West  as  late  as  the  6th  century,  we  find  Celidonius,  Bishop  of  Besancon, 
called  "the  venerable  Patriarch"  (Acta  SS.  Febr.  Ill,  742 — Vita  Romani,  2). 


THE   GREAT   PATRIARCHATES  g 

the  Latin-speaking  West,  that  she  was  gradually  converting  ; 
Alexandria  was  the  capital  of  the  old  kingdom  of  Egypt,  which 
through  all  changes  had  kept  its  own  language  (Coptic  was 
spoken  there  till  the  Arab  conquest)  and  individuality  ;  and 
Antioch  was  the  head  of  Syria.  Lastly,  before  Constantinople 
was  built,  these  three  were  the  three  most  important  towns  in 
the  Empire.  So  when  the  first  general  council  met  at  Nicasa 
in  325  it  only  confirmed  what  had  already  long  been  recognized  : 
"  Let  the  ancient  custom  be  maintained  in  Egypt,  Libya  and 
the  Pentapolis,  that  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  have  authority 
over  all  these  places,  just  as  is  the  custom  for  the  Bishop  in 
Rome.  In  the  same  way  in  Antioch  and  the  other  provinces 
the  Churches  shall  keep  their  rights"  (Can.  6  Nic.).1  The  Canon 
goes  on  to  say  that  if  any  one  becomes  a  bishop  without  the 
knowledge  of  his  metropolitan  "  this  great  synod  declares  that 
it  is  not  meet  for  such  a  one  to  be  a  bishop." 

This,  then,  is  the  first  stage  of  the  development.  When  the 
Fathers  of  Nicaea  met,  on  every  side  were  metropolitans  ruling 
over  provinces  of  suffragan  bishops,  and,  high  above  all  others, 
stood  the  three  great  Patriarchs  of  Rome,  Alexandria,  and 
Antioch. 

It  will  be  convenient  to  add  here  something  about  these  three 
greatest  sees. 

1.  Rome. 

We  must  first  of  all  carefully  distinguish  the  patriarchal 
dignity  and  rights  from  those  the  Pope  has  as  Vicar  of  Christ 
and  visible  Head  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church,  that  is,  from 
his  Papal  rights.  The  distinction  is  really  quite  a  simple  one. 
The  Pope  is,  and  his  predecessors  always  have  been  (1)  Bishop 
of  Rome ;  (2)  Metropolitan  of  the  Roman  Province  ;  (3)  Primate 
of  Italy  ;  (4)  Patriarch  of  the  West  ;  (5)  Supreme  Pontiff  of  the 
Catholic  Church.  Each  of  these  titles  involved  different  rights 
and  different  relations  to  the  faithful :  to  the  citizens  of  his  own 
city  he  is  Bishop,  Metropolitan,  Primate,  Patriarch,  and  Pope 
all  in  one  ;  to  us  in  England  he  is  neither  local  bishop,  nor 
metropolitan,  nor  primate,  but  Patriarch  and  Pope  ;  to  Catholics 
1  In  our  Corpus  Iuris  Can.  D.  65,  c.  6, 


io        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  Eastern  rites  he  is  not  Patriarch,  but  only  Pope.  It  is  true 
that  the  Papal  dignity  is  so  enormously  greater  than  any  of  the 
others  that  it  tends  to  overshadow  them ;  it  is  also  true  that  one 
cannot  always  say  exactly  in  which  capacity  the  Pope  acts — in 
earlier  ages  especially  Popes  were  probably  often  not  explicitly 
conscious  themselves.  On  the  other  hand,  as  soon  as  we  begin 
to  discuss  the  relations  of  the  Eastern  Churches  to  the  Pope, 
the  distinction  between  his  positions  as  Western  Patriarch  and 
as  universal  Pope  becomes  very  important.  We  shall  hear  of 
fierce  disputes  as  to  the  limits  of  the  Roman  Patriarchate  carried 
on  by  people  who  entirely  admitted  the  Pope's  universal  juris- 
diction as  Pope  i1  and  now  that  the  "  Orthodox  "  Churches  no 
longer  acknowledge  him  as  Pope  they  still  recognize  him  as 
Patriarch  of  the  West — indeed,  still  count  him  as  the  first  of 
the  great  Patriarchs. 

The  Roman  Patriarchate,  then,  as  distinct  from  the  Papacy, 
covered,  at  the  time  of  the  Council  of  Nicaea,  the  same  territory 
as  has  always  since  been  conceded  to  her  by  every  one,  namely, 
first  Italy,  and  then  all  the  undefined  Western  lands  where 
Latin  was  spoken  officially,  all  the  tribes  of  barbarians  who 
came  immediately  under  the  influence  of  Rome,  whom  she  had 
converted  or  would  convert  in  future.  At  Nicaea  the  Papal 
Legate,  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  signs  the  decrees  in  the 
name  of  "the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  Churches  of  Italy, 
Spain,  and  all  the  West." 2  It  was  only  on  the  Eastern  side, 
where  the  Roman  Patriarchate  touched  the  others  (or,  rather, 
the  new  one  of  Constantinople),  that  in  after  years  her  boun- 
daries were  disputed.  WTe  shall  hear  of  the  questions  of 
Illyricum  and  the  Bulgarian  Church.  Not  only  as  universal 
Pope,  but  also  because  of  his  enormously  largest  territory,  as 
successor  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  as  Bishop  of  the  mighty 

1  E.  A.  Freeman  ("The  Eastern  Church,"  Edin.  Rev.  1858)  thought  that  one 
of  these  disputes  (about  Illyricum)  is  an  argument  against  the  Papacy.  The 
Pope  was  fighting  for  a  limited  jurisdiction  (whether  Illyricum  belonged  to 
him  or  to  Constantinople) ;  how,  then,  says  Freeman,  could  he  have  been 
claiming  an  unlimited  one,  as  he  does  now  ?  Of  course,  the  limit  of  his 
Patriarchate  no  more  affects  the  question  of  his  rights  as  Pope  than  do  the 
limits  of  the  diocese  of  Rome. 
2  Mansi,  ii.  882,  927. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  n 

city  that  was  Queen  of  the  world,  that  had  given  her  name  to 
all  the  Empire,  was  the  Roman  Pontiff  always,  without  question, 
the  first  of  the  Patriarchs. 

2.  Alexandria. 

Before  the  rise  of  Constantinople  the  second  city  of  the 
Empire  was  the  Port  of  Egypt.  Her  only  possible  rival  would 
have  been  Antioch  ;  but  Antioch  was  inland,  whereas  all  the 
commerce  of  the  eastern  Mediterranean  poured  into  the  great 
harbour  of  Alexandria.  And  behind  that  harbour  lay  the 
greatest,  richest,  and  most  civilized  city  of  the  East.  In  the 
time  of  the  Ptolemies  the  number  of  her  inhabitants  reached  a 
million  ; *  she  had,  besides  her  Greeks  and  native  Egyptians,  a 
large  and  privileged  colony  of  Jews.  Her  museum  (in  Caesar's 
time  it  counted  seven  hundred  thousand  books),  her  sumptuous 
palace,  her  three  great  harbours,  with  the  famous  lighthouse, 
her  philosophical  schools,  combined  to  make  Alexandria  one  of 
the  wonders  of  the  world.  As  soon  as  the  Christian  faith  began 
to  spread  beyond  Palestine,  no  city  called  to  its  Apostles  more 
clearly  than  Alexandria  ;  nowhere  was  the  new  teaching  more 
eagerly  discussed  than  among  the  crowd  of  scholars  of  every 
race  who  had  flocked  together  to  use  her  library.  Tradition 
said  that  St.  Mark  the  Evangelist  had  been  the  first  missionary 
and  first  Bishop  of  Alexandria ;  and  his  successors  boasted 
through  him  a  connection  with  St.  Peter,  who  had  ordained 
him  and  sent  him  as  his  own  representative.  This  descent  from 
St.  Peter,  however,  is  a  later  idea,  and  a  conscious  imitation  of 
Rome  and  Antioch.  St.  Mark's  first  successors  were  Anianus, 
Abilius,  Cerdon,  &c. 

Many  causes  combined  to  give  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  the 
first  place  among  Eastern  bishops.  Besides  the  fame  of  his 
city  and  his  claim  of  succession  from  St.  Peter,  there  was  his 
great  Christian  school  of  philosophy.  Pantasnus  (f  c.  212) 
founded  at  Alexandria  a  catechetical  school  that  became  the 
first  Christian  university  ;  his  disciple,  Titus  Flavius  Clemens 
(Clement  of  Alexandria,  f  217),  and  most  of  all  Origen  (|  254), 
the  greatest  scholar  and  most  wonderful  genius  of  his  age,  both 

1  Diodorus  Sic.  17,  52. 


12        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  whom  were  its  presidents,  spread  the  fame  of  their  school 
throughout  the  Christian  world.  It  was  Origen  especially  who 
lent  to  Christian  Alexandria  the  lustre  of  his  almost  incredible 
knowledge,  the  fame  of  his  spotless  life  and  of  his  heroic  suffer- 
ings for  the  faith,  and  then,  as  a  last  legacy,  the  disputes  about 
the  orthodoxy  of  his  works  that  lasted  for  centuries,  until 
the  fifth  general  council  (Constantinople  II  in  553,  Can.  11) 
declared  him  a  heretic.  It  may  be  noted  here  that  this 
Christian  Neo-platonic  school  of  Alexandria  was  never  con- 
sidered quite  safe  from  the  point  of  view  of  orthodoxy.  Pope 
Benedict  XIV,  in  his  Bull  "  Postquam  intelleximus "  (1748), 
refuses  to  Clement  the  honours  of  a  saint,  because  of  the  sus- 
picion of  want  of  orthodoxy  in  his  works.1  Nevertheless,  the 
school,  and  Origen  especially,  exercised  an  enormous  influence 
on  Christian,  especially  Greek,  theology. 

The  Church  of  Alexandria  had  other  great  names  to  boast  of 
besides  those  of  her  philosophers.  Among  her  bishops  she 
counted  St.  Dionysius  the  Great  (247-264),  Alexander  (313-328), 
who  excommunicated  Arius,  greatest  of  all  his  successor  St. 
Athanasius  (328-373),  and  then  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (412-444). 
Because  of  the  fame  of  her  learning  the  Church  of  Alexandria 
had  the  office  of  making  the  astronomical  calculations  for  the 
Christian  Calendar.  Eusebius  (H.E.  v.  25)  has  preserved  a 
fragment  of  a  letter  of  the  Syrian  bishops  in  which  they  say  that 
they  calculate  Easter  according  to  the  use  of  Alexandria.  The 
last  cause  of  the  great  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  was 
the  compactness,  the  strong  national  feeling,  and  the  faithful 
obedience  of  his  province.  He  was  the  chief  of  Christian 
Egypt.  From  his  throne  by  the  sea  he  ruled  over  all  the 
faithful  of  the  Roman  provinces  of  Egypt,  Thebais  and  Libya, 
from  his  city  the  faith  had  spread  throughout  the  country  ;  he 
ordained  all  the  bishops  ;  under  him  were  nine  metropolitans 
and  over  one  hundred  bishops.2  South  of  Egypt  and  outside 
the  Empire  were  the  two  Churches  of  Ethiopia  and  Nubia,  each 
of  them  founded  from  Alexandria^  where  their  metropolitans 

1  "  Opera  sin  minus  erronea,  saltern  suspecta." 

2  Alexander  could  summon  over  one  hundred  bishops  to  his  synod  against 
Alius  in  321. 

3  Ethiopia  in  the  time  of  St.  Athanasius,  Nubia  in  the  6th  century. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  13 

have  always  been  ordained,  and  who  looked  to  the  Patriarch  of 
that  city  as  their  chief  too.  Egypt  was  also  full  of  monks  who 
were  as  ready  as  the  bishops  at  any  time  to  strike  a  blow  for 
their  Patriarch.  And  so  in  all  the  disputes  in  the  Eastern 
Church,  at  all  the  councils  the  "  ecclesiastical  Pharaoh  " *  ap- 
peared leading  a  compact  band  of  Egyptians,  ready  to  show 
the  national  feeling,  which  the  Empire  had  crushed  politically, 
by  voting  in  Church  matters  like  one  man  for  their  chief. 
Before  Constantinople  arose  the  successors  of  St.  Mark  were 
without  question  the  mightiest  bishops  in  the  East.2  As  their 
rivals  on  the  Bosphorus  were  working  their  way  up,  the  oppo- 
nent they  had  most  to  fear  was  Alexandria.  Whenever  the  See 
of  Constantinople  was  vacant  Alexandria  was  ready  with  a 
candidate  to  represent  her  interests,  on  whose  side  she  could 
throw  the  enormous  weight  of  all  Egypt.  Three  times  she 
deposed  a  Bishop  of  Constantinople — St.  John  Chrysostom  in 
403,  Nestorius  in  431,  Flavian  in  449  ;  each  time  the  other 
Eastern  bishops  meekly  accepted  her  decision. 3  Doubtless  the 
Christian  Pharaoh  would  have  remained  the  head  of  the 
Eastern  Churches,  and  all  the  development  of  their  history 
would  have  been  different,  had  not  heresy  broken  his  power 
and  given  Constantinople  her  chance.  And  then  the  flood  of 
Islam  completed  his  ruin.  It  was  Monophysism  that  crushed 
both  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  to  leave  Constantinople  without 
a  real  rival  in  the  East.  Monophysism  to  the  Egyptians  stood 
for  a  national  cause  against  the  Emperor's  Court.  They  thought 
it  had  been  the  teaching  of  their  national  hero,  St.  Cyril. 
Dioscur,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (444-451),  St.  Cyril's  successor, 
took  up  its  cause  hotly.  But  it  was  rejected  by  the  universal 
Church  ;  with  it  fell  Dioscur,  and  with  him  the  glory  of  his  see. 
In  451  at  Chalcedon  he  had  to  stand  before  the  Fathers  as  a 

1  This  name  is  often  given  to  the  Alexandrine  Patriarch  in  the  4th  and 
5th  centuries,  both  as  a  compliment  and  in  mockery.  St.  Leo  I  writes 
about  the  "  impenitent  heart  of  the  second  Pharaoh  "  (Ep.  120  ad  Theodoretum 
Cyri,  2),  meaning  Dioscur  of  Alexandria. 

2  Like  the  Bishops  of  Rome,  they,  too,  were  often  called  Popes  (jra-irKaC). 

3  The  condemnation  of  Nestorius  was  confirmed  in  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  in  431  by  the  Pope's  Legates  :  St.  Chrysostom  and  Flavian  were 
always  acknowledged  by  Rome,  and  were  eventually  restored. 


H    THE   ORTHODOX   EASTERN  CHURCH 

culprit  and  to  hear  the  Roman  Legate  (Paschasius,  Bishop  of 
Lilybaeum)  pronounce  sentence  on  him  :  "  The  most  holy  and 
blessed  Bishop  of  the  great  and  elder  Rome,  Leo,  through  us 
and  through  the  holy  Synod  here  present  in  union  with  the 
blessed  Apostle  Peter,  who  is  the  corner-stone  of  the  Catholic 
Church,  deposes  Dioscur  from  the  office  of  bishop,  and  forbids 
him  all  ministry  as  priest"  (Chalc.  Sess.  III).  The  Patriarchate 
of  Alexandria  never  recovered  from  that  humiliation.  Dioscur 
refused  to  accept  his  deposition,  and  his  Egyptians,  always  franti- 
cally loyal  to  their  Pharaoh,  supported  him.  But  it  was  at  the 
cost  of  separation  from  the  Catholic  world.  Dioscur  was 
banished  to  Paphlagonia,  where  he  died  in  455.  Proterius  was 
appointed  Patriarch,  and  was  supported  by  the  Emperor's1 
soldiers.  But  Egypt  hated  equally  Chalcedon  and  Caesar.  It 
was  the  old  national  feeling,  the  old  hatred  of  the  Roman  power 
lurking  under  the  dispute  about  one  or  two  natures  in  Christ. 
As  soon  as  Marcian  died  (457)  the  storm  burst.  They  drove  the 
soldiers  into  the  temple  of  Serapis  and  there  burned  them  alive  ; 
they  murdered  Proterius,  and  set  up  as  Patriarch  a  fanatical 
Monophysite,  Timothy  the  Cat.2  It  is  from  Dioscur  and 
Timothy  the  Cat  that  the  present  national  (Coptic)  Church  of 
Egypt  descends.  It  has  been  ever  since  the  5th  century  out 
of  the  communion  of  both  West  and  East,  Rome  and  Constanti- 
nople. Meanwhile  the  party  of  the  Government  carried  on 
another  succession  of  Patriarchs,  forming  the  "  Melkite  "  3  com- 
munity in  union  with  Constantinople  and  (until  the  great  schism) 
with  Rome,  but  bitterly  hated  by  the  Copts.  Neither  of  these 
rival  Patriarchs  ever  attained  anything  like  the  influence  of  the 
old  line  from  which  both  claimed  to  descend. 

In  641  came  the  Moslems  under  Amr  and  swept  them  all  away. 
So  greatly  did  the  Copts  hate  the  Melkites  that  they  supported 
the  Arabs  in  the  invasion.     But  they  gained  little  by  their 

1  Marcian  (450-457)  had  accepted  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon  as  the  law  of 
the  Empire,  and  everywhere  enforced  them  by  his  civil  power. 

2  TifioOeog  AiXovpog. 

3  Malik  (Heb.  Melek)  is  the  Arabic  for  king.  It  was  used  by  all  the 
Semitic  peoples  (like  the  Greek  Ba<n\evg)  for  the  Emperor.  Melkite  then 
means  flaoiXiKog,  Imperial.  Melkites  are  Christians  on  the  Emperor's  side, 
Imperialists. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  15 

treason.  They  were  just  as  badly  treated  as  the  Imperial 
Christians,  enormous  numbers  of  them  apostatized  to  Islam  ; 
and  when,  after  about  a  century,  the  rival  Patriarchs  reappear, 
the  Melkite  bishop  has  become  a  mere  ornament  of  the  Court  of 
Constantinople,  the  Copt  is  the  head  of  a  local  sect.  The  great 
days  when  the  Christian  Pharaoh  was  the  chief  bishop  of  the 
East  had  gone  for  ever. 

3.  Antioch. 

The  third  great  city  of  the  Empire  was  Antioch  on  the 
Orontes.  Just  as  Alexandria  was  the  chief  town  of  Egypt,  so 
was  Antioch  the  head  of  Syria.  The  city  had  been  built  in 
301  B.C.  by  Seleucus  Nicator,  the  founder  of  the  Seleucid  king- 
dom of  Syria  :  before  the  Roman  conquest  (64  B.C.)  it  had  been 
enlarged  with  three  great  suburbs,  and  was  already  the  greatest 
and  most  famous  city  of  Asia.  At  various  times  Emperors  had 
lived  there — Trajan,  Marcus  Aurelius,  Diocletian — and  they  built 
great  temples,  baths,  and  palaces.  No  less  famous  were  the 
memories  of  the  Christian  Church  of  Antioch.  It  was  here  that 
we  were  first  called  Christians  (Acts  xi.  26)  ;  a  very  ancient 
tradition  counted  St.  Peter  as  the  first  Bishop  of  Antioch  ;* 
during  the  persecution  this  city  gave  to  the  Church  a  long  list 
of  martyrs.  St.  Peter's  successor  was  Evodius,  then  followed 
the  glorious  martyr  St.  Ignatius  (f  107),  who,  on  his  way  to  be 
thrown  to  the  beasts  at  Rome,  wrote  the  seven  letters  that 
form  the  most  valuable  part  of  the  "  Apostolic  Fathers."  Con- 
stantine  (323-337)  built  the  "  Golden  Church "  at  Antioch, 
splendid  with  precious  metals  and  mosaic,  that  became  the  type 
of  one  class  of  Christian  church.2  When  Julian  (361-363)  on 
his  way  to  Persia  went  to  the  grove  of  Daphne  by  Antioch  to 

1  St.  Jerome  :  de  vir.  ill.  I,  &c.  St.  Peter  was  said  to  have  reigned  at 
Antioch  for  seven  years  (37-44)  before  setting  up  his  chair  at  Rome.  Our  feast 
of  St.  Peter's  Chair  at  Antioch  (Feb.  22nd)  was  at  first  only  Natale  Petri  de 
Cathedra,  kept  on  the  day  of  the  old  Roman  Memory  of  the  Dead  (Cara 
Cognatio).  To  call  it  the  Chair  at  Antioch  was  an  afterthought,  to  distinguish 
it  from  the  other  feast  on  Jan.  18th  :  Cf.  de  Rossi  in  the  Bolletino  of  1867,  and 
Kellner,  Heortologie,  1901,  p.  173. 

2  An  eight-sided  plan,  with  a  gallery  in  two  stories  around  and  apses 
jutting  out  from  the  sides.  On  this  model  were  built  St.  Vitalis  at  Ravenna, 
Charles  the  Great's  church  at  Aachen,  Essen,  &c. 


16        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

offer  sacrifice,  he  found  that  the  Christian  faith  had  so  spread 
in  the  city  that  only  one  old  priest  was  left  to  offer  a  goose  to 
Apollo.1 

The  Bishop  of  Antioch  was  the  chief  bishop  of  Syria.  He 
was  in  the  first  period  obeyed  throughout  Syria,  Phoenicia, 
Arabia,  Cilicia,  Mesopotamia  and  Cyprus.  But  the  people  of 
these  provinces  with  their  different  languages,  customs  and 
national  feelings,  never  held  together  as  much  as  the  Egyptians. 
Antioch  lost  in  the  5th  century  Palestine,  that  went  to  make  up 
the  new  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem  (p.  27),  and  Cyprus,  that 
became  an  autonomous  province  (p.  48).  Just  as  the  faith  had 
spread  out  from  Egypt  beyond  the  Empire,  so  also  to  the  east 
of  Antioch,  beyond  the  Euphrates,  and  therefore  beyond  the 
Empire,  a  Christian  community  had  grown  up  in  the  kingdom 
of  Osrhoene,  whose  capital  was  Edessa.  The  tradition  of  this 
Church  told  a  pretty  story  of  how  King  Abgar  the  Black 2  once 
sent  an  embassy  of  his  nobles  and  a  notary  named  Hannan 
to  Tiberius.  On  their  way  back  they  pass  by  Jerusalem  and 
hear  every  one  in  that  city  talk  about  the  new  Prophet  from 
Galilee.  Abgar's  embassy  stayed  ten  days  in  Jerusalem,  and 
Hannan  the  notary  wrote  down  everything  that  he  saw  and 
heard.  Then  they  go  home  and  tell  their  king  what  has  hap- 
pened. He  sends  Hannan  back  with  a  letter  beginning  : 
"  Abgar  the  Black,  Prince  of  Edessa,  sends  greeting  to  Jesus 
the  good  Saviour  who  has  appeared  in  Jerusalem,"  and  asking 
our  Lord  to  come  to  Edessa  and  to  heal  him  from  leprosy. 
Our  Lord  writes  back  :  "  Happy  art  thou  who  hast  believed  in 
me  without  having  seen  me ;  for  it  is  written  that  they  who  see 
me  shall  not  believe,  but  they  that  do  not  see  me  shall  believe 
in  me."  He  goes  on  to  say  that  he  cannot  go  to  Edessa, 
because  :  M  I  must  fulfil  that  for  which  I  am  sent,  and  must  then 
go  back  to  him  who  sent  me  "  ;  but  he  promises  to  send  one 
of  his  Apostles,  who  shall  heal  Abgar ;  he  also  promises  that 
Abgar's  city  shall  always  be  blessed,  and  that  no  enemy  shall 
ever  overcome  it. 

Hannan  then   painted  a   portrait  of   our   Lord,   which   he 

1  Misopogon,  ed.  Spanh.  pp.  361,  seq.  2  Abgar  Ukkarna. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  17 

brought  to  Edessa  with  the  letter.  After  the  Ascension, 
St.  Jude  sent  Thaddeus  (whom  they  call  Addai),  who  of 
course  at  once  heals  and  converts  King  Abgar,  and  dies  in  peace, 
succeeded  by  his  disciple  Aggai.  So  did  the  faith  come  to 
Edessa.1  This  is  the  best  known  of  the  legends  by  which  so 
many  countries  connected  their  Church  immediately  with  our 
Lord  and  the  Apostles.  Eusebius  tells  it ; 2  the  portrait  of  our 
Lord  was  famous  all  through  the  Middle  Ages,  and  right  over  in 
England  before  the  Conquest  people  wore  a  copy  of  his  letter 
to  Abgar  as  a  protection  "  against  lightning  and  hail,  and  perils 
by  sea  and  land,  by  day  and  by  night  and  in  dark  places."  3  It 
seems  true  that  the  faith  had  been  preached  in  Edessa  before  its 
conquest  by  Septimius  Severus  (193-21 1).  As  soon  as  these 
lands  became  part  of  the  great  Empire,  their  Church  entered 
into  closer  relations  with  the  Great  Church.  We  hear  of  one 
Palut,  who  went  up  to  Antioch  to  be  ordained  bishop.  The 
authority  for  this  early  history  of  Edessa,  the  "  Doctrine  of 
Addai,"  is  anxious  to  show  the  connection  between  its  Church 
and  the  See  of  Peter.  It  tells  us  that  Palut  was  ordained  by 
Serapion  of  Antioch,  Serapion  by  Zephyrinus  of  Rome,  Zephyr- 
inus  by  Victor,  his  predecessor,  and  so  on  back  to  St.  Peter. 
From  this  Palut  the  bishops  of  Edessa  traced  their  line.  And 
so  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  counted  these  distant  East  Syrian 
Churches  as  part  of  his  Patriarchate,  too.  From  Edessa  the 
faith  spread  to  Nisibis,  and  when,  after  Julian's  defeat  and  death 
(363),  the  Empire  had  to  give  up  her  border  provinces  to  the 
Persians,  the  Christians  of  these  lands  still  looked  to  the  great 
bishop  in  Antioch  as  their  chief,  till  the  Nestorian  heresy  cut 
them  off  from  the  rest  of  Christendom. 

Another  daughter-Church  of  Antioch  beyond  the  Empire  was 
the  Church  of  Georgia,  or  Iberia.  The  apostle  of  Iberia  was  a 
lady,  St.  Nino,  who  fled  thither  during  the  Diocletian  persecu- 
tion.1    The  king  Mirian  was  converted  by  her  in  318  or  327. 

1  The  Syrian  "Doctrine  of  Addai."  I  quote  from  Hennecke,  NTliche 
Apokryphen  (1904),  "  Die  Abgar  Sage,"  pp.  76,  seq. 

2  H.E.  i.  13. 

3  Kuyper's  Book  ofCerne,  p.  205.  The  whole  story  is  discussed  in  Burkitt : 
Early  Eastern  Christianity  (1904),  chap.  i. 

3 


18        THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Mirian  then  sent  to  Constantine  for  bishops,  and  Eustathius  of 
Antioch  came  with  priests  and  deacons,  and  ordained  a  certain 
John  as  first  Bishop  of  Iberia.1  In  the  4th  century  the  bishop 
turned  Arian  and  the  king  turned  pagan.  But  the  Church  of 
Iberia  got  over  that,  and  all  went  well  for  a  time.  In  455 
Tiflis  was  built,  and  became  the  seat  of  the  Metropolitan. 
In  601  Iberia  was  recognized  as  a  separate  Church  province, 
independent  of  Antioch.  Then  came  the  Persians,  and  in  the 
7th  century  the  Moslem  conquest.  For  the  further  history  of 
this  Church  see  pp.  304-305. 

Like  Alexandria,  Antioch  had  its  school  of  theology,  which, 
however,  did  not  represent  so  consistent  a  tradition  ;  it  was 
also  less  famous  than  its  rival.  Serapion  the  Bishop  (c.  192- 
209),2  of  whom  we  have  heard  as  the  consecrator  of  Palut  of 
Edessa,  wrote  letters  against  various  heretics  (Montanists,  &c), 
of  which  Eusebius  has  preserved  some  fragments.3 

The  notorious  Paul  of  Samosata  was  Bishop  of  Antioch  from 
260  till  he  was  deposed  in  269.  But  the  first  important  name 
of  the  Antiochene  school  that  we  know  is  that  of  Lucian,  priest 
and  martyr  (f  311).  He  revised  the  Septuagint  according  to 
the  Hebrew  text,  but  was  suspected  of  subordinationism,  and 
Anus,  who  had  learnt  from  him,  was  believed  to  have  imbibed 
his  heresy  from  his  master.  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Eustathius 
of  Antioch  (a  faithful  defender  of  the  faith  of  Nicaea,  ejected 
by  an  Arian  synod  in  330),  Diodor  of  Tarsus  (t  394),  Theodore 
of  Mopsuestia  (f  429),  the  original  father  of  Nestorianism,  and 
Theodoret  of  Cyrus  (|  458)  were  the  chief  leaders  of  this  school, 
which  further  influenced  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (|  386)  and 
St.  John  Chrysostom  (|  407).  St.  John  was  ordained  deacon 
and  priest  in  his  own  city,  Antioch,  and  preached  there  from 
386  till  he  became  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  398. 

The  character  of  this  school,  as  opposed  to  that  of  Alexandria, 
was,  as  far  as  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  went,  great  sober- 
ness and  literalness.  Thus  Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  denied  the 
Messianic  character  of  many  Old  Testament  texts,  and  rejected 
the   Song   of   Solomon   as   being   obviously  not   divine.      The 

1  Rufinus,  H.E.  i.  10.  2  Harnack,  Altchristl.  Litt.  (1893),  p.  503. 

3  H.E.  v.  19.    Cf.  Hieron.  de  viris  ill.  xli. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  19 

daughter-school  of  Antioch  was  at  Edessa,  where  a  line  of 
Syriac  Fathers  flourished — St.  Ephrem  (Afrem,  f  373),  Aphraates 
(Afrahat,  f  end  of  4th  century),  Rabulas  (Rabula,  f  435),  Isaac 
the  Great  (f  c.  459),  &c.  But  the  Antiochene  school,  in  spite 
of  the  fame  of  the  Catholic  Doctors  who  had  belonged  to  it,  was 
as  suspect  of  unorthodoxy  as  its  rival  in  Egypt.  Theodore  of 
Mopsuestia  was  a  Nestorian,  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  was  an  oppo- 
nent of  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,1  and  the  school  in  general  shared 
at  least  some  of  the  Nestorian  ill-fame  that,  after  the  Council  of 
Ephesus,  attached  itself  to  Edessa. 

It  was  about  the  See  of  Antioch  that  the  greatest  schism  of 
the  first  four  centuries  took  place  (Meletius,  p.  90).  There  is 
a  very  remarkable  likeness  between  the  history  of  the  two 
great  Eastern  Patriarchates.  Each  of  the  Macedonian  cities, 
Alexandria  and  Antioch,  remained,  after  Alexander's  Empire  had 
broken  up  (b.c.  323),  an  outpost  of  Greek  civilization  in  the 
midst  of  barbarians.  Rome  had  swallowed  up  the  Ptolemies, 
(b.c.  30)  and  the  Seleucids  (b.c.  64),  but  still  these  two  cities 
remained  Greek.  The  citizens  of  both  spoke  Greek,  while  all 
around  the  old  barbarian  populations  of  the  lands  (Egyptians 
and  Syrians)  clung  to  their  own  languages  and  customs,  and  hated 
the  Roman  Emperor  as  much  as  they  had  hated  Alexander's 
generals.  Both  populations  found  in  Church  matters  an  outlet 
for  their  national  and  anti-imperial  feeling.  And  so  just  as  the 
greatness  of  the  Church  of  Alexandria  came  to  an  end  through 
the  schism  of  the  Egyptians,  so  did  Antioch  fall  when  her 
Syrians  adopted  heresies  that  had,  at  any  rate,  the  advantage 
of  not  being  Caesar's  religion.  Lastly  Islam  poured  over 
Antioch  too. 

In  Syria  both  the  opposite  heresies,  Nestorianism  and 
Monophysism,  helped  to  ruin  the  Church  of  Antioch.  After 
the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  nearly  the  whole  of  the  eastern 
part  of  the  patriarchate  remained  Nestorian.  The  writings  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  had  spread  this  heresy  all  around 
Edessa  and  Nisibis,  the  school  of  Edessa  was  its  chief  centre, 

1  He  died,  in  458,  in  the  communion  of  the  Catholic  Church;  but  his  writing 
against  Cyril  was  the  second  of  Justinian's  Three  Chapters,  as  the  works  of 
Theodore  Mopsuestia  were  the  first  (pp.  82-83). 


20        THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  the  Church  that  had  grown  up  over  the  Persian  frontier 
with  a  Metropolitan  at  Ktesiphon  (near  Baghdad  on  the  Tigris) 
fell  away  too.     So  Antioch  lost  her  Eastern  provinces. 

The  kings  of  Persia,  who  had  persecuted  their  Catholic 
subjects,  were  glad  to  encourage  a  form  of  Christianity  that 
had  no  connection  with  the  religion  of  the  Roman  Empire. 
Meanwhile  the  Emperor  persecuted  the  heretics.  In  489 
Zeno  (474-491)  closed  the  school  at  Edessa,  which  was  then 
reopened  over  the  frontier  at  Nisibis,  and  large  numbers  of 
Syrian  Nestorians  fled  to  Persia. 

But  the  other  heresy,  Monophysism,  the  extreme  opposite  of 
Nestorius's  teaching,  did  still  more  harm  to  the  Church  of 
Antioch.  Here  what  happened  was  almost  an  exact  copy  of 
what  we  saw  in  Egypt.  A  large  proportion  of  Western  Syrians 
would  not  accept  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon.  Monophysism  had 
one  factor  in  common  with  its  extreme  antithesis,  and  a  factor 
that  commended  it  just  as  much — it  was  an  opposition  to  the 
faith  of  the  tyrant  on  the  Bosphorus.  For  a  time  they  succeed 
in  getting  a  Monophysite  appointed  to  the  See  of  Antioch,  then 
Justinian  (527-565)  tries  to  cut  short  their  orders.  Severus  of 
Antioch  (512-518)  belonged  to  their  party,  but,  after  his  death 
in  548  (he  had  been  deposed  and  exiled  in  518),  the  Government 
shut  up  all  suspect  bishops  in  monasteries  to  prevent  them  from 
ordaining  any  successors.  But  the  Empress  Theodora  was  their 
friend.  At  Constantinople  she  arranges  for  two  Monophysite 
monks  to  be  ordained  bishop,  Theodore  and  James  Zanzalos. 
Theodore  was  to  go  to  Bostra  and  have  jurisdiction  over  all  the 
Monophysites  of  Arabia  and  Palestine  ;  James  to  Edessa  for 
Syria,  Mesopotamia,  and  Asia  Minor  (543).  Theodore  dis- 
appeared without  leaving  a  trace  ;  James  Zanzalos  travelled  all 
over  the  East,  and  built  up  an  anti-Chalcedonian  hierarchy. 
In  Egypt  he  finds  two  Coptic  bishops  imprisoned  in  a  convent. 
Secretly  with  them  he  ordains  other  bishops,  among  them 
Sergius  of  Telia,  for  Antioch.  This  Sergius  begins  the  rival 
line  of  Monophysite  Patriarchs.  He  has  on  his  side  nearly  all 
the  Syrian  population  :  the  Orthodox  bishop  rules  over  only  the 
Government  party  of  Greeks  (called  Melkites  here,  as  in  Egypt) 
in  the  capital.     James  had  the  honour  of  giving  his  name  to  the 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  21 

sect.  He  was  also  called  James  Baradai  because  he  went  about 
in  rags,1  and  from  the  name  James  (Ia'qob)  the  Syrian  Mono- 
physites  are  called  Jacobites  (Ia'qobaie).  These  Jacobites  have 
ever  since  been  out  of  communion  with  the  rest  of  the  Christian 
world,  only  keeping  up  irregularly  friendly  relations  with  the 
Copts.  So  between  the  Nestorians  and  the  Jacobites  the  Ortho- 
dox pastor  at  Antioch  lost  nearly  all  his  sheep.  Then  came 
Omar  with  his  Moslems  in  637,  and  swept  over  all  Syria  and 
Persia,  The  Melkite  Patriarch  fled  to  Constantinople,  where 
he  was  content  with  a  subordinate  place  under  the  "  (Ecumenical 
Bishop."  The  Orthodox  See  of  Antioch  had  fallen  as  low  as 
that  of  Alexandria,  and  here,  too,  there  was  no  one  left  to  dis- 
pute the  ambition  of  Constantinople. 

We  must  now  go  back  to  the  4th  century  to  trace  the  rise 
of  other  sees.     We  saw  that  at  Nicaea  in  325  the  dignity  of  the  v 
three  great  patriarchal  thrones  at  Rome,  Alexandria,  and  Antioch 
was  accepted  as  an  "  ancient  custom." 

It  seemed  for  a  time  as  if  two  other  sees  would  also  develop 
into  great  patriarchates.  These  sees  were  Ccesarea  in  Cappa- 
docia,  and  Ephesus.  But  their  career  was  cut  short,  and  their 
bishops  never  became  more  than  Exarchs  or,  as  we  should  now 
say,  Primates,  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  over  Asia  (that  is,  the 
Roman  province  of  Asia),  the  Bishop  of  Caesarea  over  Pontus. 
Now  here  it  is  impossible  not  to  recognize  a  conscious  imitation 
of  the  Roman  civil  divisions.  Diocletian  (284-305)  had  divided 
the  Empire  very  skilfully  when  he  shared  the  government  with 
Maximian  and  the  two  Caesars,  Constantius  Chlorus  and  Galerius. 
There  were  four  great  Prefectures,  Gaul  (i.e.,  Spain,  Gaul,  Britain) 
under  Constantius  Chlorus,  Italy  (Italy  and  Africa)  under  Maxi- 
mian, Illyricum  (Dacia,  Macedonia,  Greece,  Crete  =  nearly  all 
the  Balkan  lands)  under  Galerius  ;  lastly,  the  Prefecture  of  the 
East  (Thrace,  Asia  Minor,  Syria,  Egypt)  under  Diocletian  him- 
self. Each  of  these  prefectures  was  divided  into  civil  "dioceses" 
under  vicars  (vicarii),  the  dioceses  were  divided  into  provinces 
under  governors  (praesides,  'Hye/uovee).  Undoubtedly  this 
organization  was  a  very  convenient  one  for  the  Church  to 
adopt ;  the  dioceses  formed  compact  and  coherent  divisions, 
1  Barda'ta  is  a  rag  in  Syriac, 


22        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

each  with  a  chief  town  where  the  Vicar  lived,  to  which  the 
main  roads  led.  Nothing  was  more  natural  than  to  accept 
these  boundaries  and  to  give  central  authority  to  the  bishops  of 
the  central  towns.  We  shall  see  afterwards  how  this  idea,  that 
the  Church  must  follow  the  State  in  her  organization,  became 
almost  a  first  principle  with  the  Eastern  bishops.1 

The  way  it  worked  out  then  was  this  :  Roughly  each  Roman 
province  became  an  ecclesiastical  province,  to  the  Governor 
corresponded  a  Metropolitan,  the  civil  dioceses  tended  to 
become  ecclesiastically  unions  of  Metropolitans  under  an 
Exarch  or  Primate,  who  would  answer  to  the  Vicar  ;  and  the 
Prefectures  became  more  or  less  equivalent  to  Patriarchates. 
But  the  parallel  does  not  really  fit  so  exactly.  All  three 
Western  Prefectures  (Gaul,  Italy,  Illyricum)  went  to  make  up 
the  huge  Roman  Patriarchate.  There  only  remained  the 
Prefecture  of  the  East 2  to  divide  among  all  the  others.  The  five 
civil  dioceses  of  this  Eastern  Prefecture  were  : — (i)  Thrace  in 
Europe,  from  the  Hellespont  to  the  Danube  and  westward 
to  the  border  of  Dacia  by  Philippopolis  (chief  town  Constanti- 
nople) ;  (2)  Asia,  i.e.,  Mysia,  Lydia,  Pisidia,  and  part  of  Phrygia 
(chief  town  Ephesus)  ;  (3)  Pontus,  i.e.,  Galatia,  Paphlagonia, 
Pontus,  and  Cappadocia  (chief  town  Caesarea)  ;  (4)  The  Diocese 
of  the  East,  containing  Syria,  Palestine,  and  eastward  to  the 
Persian  frontier  (chief  town  Antioch)  ;  3  and  lastly  (5)  Egypt 
(chief  town  Alexandria).*  Of  these  five  State  dioceses  two, 
Egypt  and  the  "  East,"  corresponded  to  the  Patriarchates  of 
Alexandria  and  Antioch.  There  remained  the  other  three, 
Thrace,  Asia,  Pontus.     It  seems,  then,  to  have  been  the  influence 

1  It  had  certainly  not  been  so  in  earlier  times.  At  the  end  of  the  2nd  cen- 
tury the  bishops  of  Caesarea,  Jerusalem,  Ptolemais,  Tyre,  &c,  meet  in  a 
provincial  council  (Eus.  H.E.  v.  23,  seq.).  But  Tyre  and  Ptolemais  belonged 
civilly  to  the  province  of  Syria,  Jerusalem  and  Caesarea  to  Palestine  :  Cf. 
Duchesne,  Orig.  du  Culte  chretien,  p.  18. 

2  Praefectura  Orientis.  The  Prefecture  of  the  East  must  not  be  confused 
with  the  Diocese  of  the  East,  which  was  one  of  its  divisions  (the  fourth). 

3  A  Count  of  the  East  (Comes  Orientis)  ruled  over  this  diocese  at  Antioch. 

4  There  is  a  good  map  of  the  Empire  in  prefectures  and  dioceses  in  the 
atlas  to  Freeman's  Historical  Geography  of  Europe,  ed.  by  Prof.  Bury 
(Longmans,  1903).  Compare  with  this  the  map  "  Orbis  Christianus,  sec. 
i-vi,"  in  Kirsch's  new  edition  of  Hergenrother's  Kirchengeschichte  I. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  23 

of  the  civil  arrangement  that  caused  the  Bishop  of  Ephesus  to 
be  considered  Primate  over  the  Metropolitans  of  Asia,  and  the 
Bishop  of  Caesarea  to  become  Primate  of  Pontus.  Thrace 
belonged  at  first  to  Heraclea,  and  then  became  the  share  of  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  as  we  shall  see. 

In  381  the  second  general  council  (Constantinople  I)  accepts 
this  hierarchy.  Its  second  Canon  says  :  u  Bishops  who  are  out- 
side their  diocese  shall  not  go  up  (ewiivai)  to  Churches  outside 
their  frontiers,  and  shall  not  confuse  the  Churches  ;  but,  accord- 
ing to  the  Canons,  the  Bishop  of  Alexandria  shall  only  rule 
over  Egypt,  the  bishops  of  the  East  shall  only  govern  the  East, 
keeping  the  Primacy  (ra  irpecrjieia)  of  the  Church  of  Antioch, 
according  to  the  Canons  of  Nicaea.  And  the  bishops  of  the 
dioceses  of  Asia  shall  rule  over  Asia  only,  those  of  Pontus  over 
Pontus  only,  those  of  Thrace  over  Thrace  only."  ■ 

The  council  means  to  stop  bishops  from  wandering  about 
outside  their  own  diocese  and  then  suddenly  appearing  at  local 
synods  of  other  countries  and  interfering  in  affairs  with  which 
they  ought  to  have  no  business.  It  tells  the  Bishops  of  Alex- 
andria and  Antioch  to  stay  at  home  and  look  after  their  own 
patriarchates.  The  Fathers  do  not,  of  course,  think  of  speaking 
so  to  the  Roman  Patriarch,  because  they  know  that  he  is  also 
Pope  and  has  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Christian  world.  But 
what  interests  us  here  is  that  they  go  on  to  mention  the  three 
other  civil  dioceses  of  the  Eastern  Prefecture,  and  so  draw  up  a 
list  of  just  these  five  divisions  made  by  the  Empire — Egypt,  the 
"  East,"  Asia,  Pontus,  and  Thrace. 

The  Diocese  of  Thrace  concerns  Heraclea  and  Constanti- 
nople, to  which  we  shall  presently  come  back.  A  word  may 
here  be  added  about  the  other  two,  Asia  (Ephesus)  and  Pontus 
(Caesarea)  before  we  finally  lose  sight  of  them.  Both  these  Sees 
of  Ephesus  and  Caesarea  had  illustrious  records.  Ephesus  kept 
the  sacred  memory  of  her  first  bishop,  St.  John  the  Apostle. 

1  It  should  be  added  that  this  little  council  of  one  hundred  and  fifty  bishops 
was  only  gradually  recognized  as  oecumenical  by  the  West,  and  that  only  its 
dogmatic  decrees  and  not  the  disciplinary  canons,  which  already  show  anti- 
Western  feeling,  are  accepted  by  Rome.  Nevertheless  this  Canon  II  is  in  our 
Corpus  Iuris,  C.  ix.  11  ii.  c.  8. 


24        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

In  the  seven  letters  at  the  beginning  of  the  Apocalypse  she  saw 
a  clear  proof  of  his  primatial  authority  over  these  seven  Asiatic 
Churches.  And  so  for  a  time  the  Bishops  of  Ephesus  as 
Primates  or  Exarchs  of  Asia  took  the  fifth  place  in  the 
hierarchy  (after  Jerusalem).  Only  once  did  one  of  them 
receive  a  faint  shadow  of  what  might  have  become  his  dignity. 
In  475  Timothy  the  Cat  of  Alexandria,  in  order  to  win  the 
Exarch  of  Ephesus  for  his  campaign  against  Chalcedon,  affects 
to  give  him  the  dignity  of  a  Patriarch.1  Ccesarea  in  Cappa- 
docia  was  one  of  the  Apostolic  Churches.  On  Whit-Sunday 
"  those  who  dwell  in  Cappadocia "  heard  the  Apostles  speak 
their  own  tongue  (Acts  ii.  9)  ;  St.  Peter  greets  the  Elect  of  the 
dispersion  in  Cappadocia  (1  Pet.  i.  1).  And  Ccesarea  (Mazaca) 
became  a  centre  from  which  the  Christian  faith  was  propagated. 
The  Church  of  Armenia  was  founded,  or  at  any  rate  re- 
constituted,2 by  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator  (3rd  century),  a 
prince  of  the  Armenian  royal  house,  who  had  fled  to  Ccesarea, 
was  converted  there,  and  then  went  back  home  to  be  the 
apostle  of  his  people.  So  Ccesarea  also  had  a  daughter- Church 
outside  the  Empire.  Till  the  middle  of  the  5th  century  the 
Armenian  Exarch  (the  Katholikos)  was  always  ordained  by  the 
Exarch  of  Ccesarea.  But  the  Church  of  Armenia,  in  a  synod  at 
Valarshapat  in  491,  rejected  the  decrees  of  Chalcedon,  and  she 
has  ever  since  remained  in  schism  with  Ccesarea  and  with  the 
Church  of  the  Empire.  The  Armenian  Monophysites  could  not 
even  arrange  a  union  with  their  co-religionists  the  Syrian 
Jacobites. 

Firmilian,  the  friend  of  St.  Cyprian  and  the  sharer  of  his 
mistake  about  heretic  baptism,  was  Bishop  of  Ccesarea  from  232 
to  269.  But  the  greatest  names  among  the  bishops  of  this  city 
are  Eusebius  (b.  265,  Bp.  c.  313,  |  c.  340),  the  Father  of  Church 
History,  and,  greater  still,  St.  Basil  (b.  c.  330,  Bp.  370,  f  379), 
one  of  the  most  famous  of  all  the  Greek  Fathers.     But  neither 

1  Evagr.  H.E.  iii.  6,  seq.    Cf.  Duchesne,  Eglises  separees,  p.  168. 

2  The  Armenian  tradition  says  that  four  Apostles  had  brought  the  faith  to 
this  land — SS.  Bartholomew,  Thaddaeus,  Simon  and  Jude.  There  certainly 
were  Armenian  bishops  before  St.  Gregory.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
(248-265)  wrote  a  letter  about  penance  to  Meruzan,  "  Bishop  of  the  Armenians  " 
(Eus.  H.E.  vi.  46). 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  25 

of  these  exarchates,  Ephesus  and  Caesarea,  had  a  chance  of 
developing  into  patriarchates  ;  they  were  swallowed  up  by 
Constantinople,  and  sank  back  to  the  position  of  ordinary 
metropolitan  Churches. 

We  now  come  to  the  other  two  sees  that  eventually  made  up, 
with  the  three  older  and  greater  ones,  the  classical  number  of 
five  patriarchates.    These  sees  are  Jerusalem  and  Constantinople. 

4.  Jerusalem. 

The  position  of  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  was  quite  an  extra- 
ordinary one.  During  the  time  of  the  Apostles  his  Church  had 
been  the  centre  of  the  Jewish  Christian  community.  It  was,  of 
course,  an  Apostolic  See,  counting  its  bishops  from  St.  James 
the  Less,  the  ''Brother  of  the  Lord"  (Gal.  i.  19).  But  the 
Emperor  Adrian  (1 17-138)  had  expelled  all  Jews  from  the  city 
in  135  ;  the  very  name  Jerusalem  was  to  disappear — in  its 
place  stood  the  heathen  colony  Aelia  Capitolina.  The  Christian 
Jews  had  to  leave  just  as  much  as  the  others  ;  already  most  of 
them  had  fled  at  the  first  destruction  of  the  city  (70)  to  the 
little  Greek  town  Pella  in  Peraea.  So  in  some  sort  the  original 
Church  of  Jerusalem  had  come  to  an  end.  After  Adrian's  time 
we  find  only  a  small  and  poor  community  of  Gentile  Christians 
in  Aelia  Capitolina,  still,  however,  governed  by  an  unbroken 
line  of  bishops.  Now  Aelia  was  in  the  civil  division  of  the 
Empire  a  town  of  no  importance  at  all ;  it  was  not  one  of 
Diocletian's  chief  towns.  The  Governor  of  the  Province  of 
Palestine  lived  at  Caesarea  (in  Palestine),  as  he  had  when 
St.  Paul  was  sent  there  to  be  tried  by  Felix  the  Governor 
(Acts  xxiii.  23,  seq.).  So  for  a  time  the  Bishop  of  Aelia  was 
only  a  local  bishop  under  the  Metropolitan  of  Caesarea  in 
Palestine.  And  yet  inevitably  he  was  looked  upon  as  some- 
thing more  than  just  the  equal  of  any  other  bishop.  Call  the 
city  Aelia  Capitolina  or  what  you  will,  to  Christians  it  was 
always  Jerusalem,  Sion,  the  Holy  City  to  them  as  much  as  to 
the  Jews.  This  bishop  ruled  over  the  places  where  our 
Saviour  had  suffered  and  died,  where  the  Holy  Ghost  had 
descended  on  the  Apostles,  where,  as  they  thought,  the  Lord 


26        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

would  soon  appear  again  on  the  great  day  to  judge  the  living 
and  the  dead.  The  eyes  of  the  whole  Christian  world  were 
turned  towards  the  land  still  fragrant  with  the  memory  of  that 
sacred  presence,  to  the  streets  hallowed  by  his  blessed  foot- 
prints, to  the  hill  outside  the  city  that  had  been  the  one  great 
Altar.  And  very  soon  they  began  to  come  from  all  sides 
to  see  the  holy  places  for  themselves.  In  the  4th  century, 
Egeria,1  a  Spanish  lady,  wrote  a  careful  diary  of  all  the  rites 
she  had  seen  at  Jerusalem  when  she  went  on  a  pilgrimage 
thither  ;  in  St.  Jerome's  time  (331-420)  pilgrims  came  to  the 
Holy  Land  even  from  distant  Britain.2 

Jerusalem  was  naturally  the  first,  as  well  as  the  chief,  place  to 
which  people  made  pilgrimage.  And  when  they  were  there 
they  found  themselves  under  the  jurisdiction  of  the  successor  of 
St.  James ;  they  eagerly  watched  the  rites  of  his  diocese  ;  it  was 
no  ordinary  bishop  whose  Palm  Sunday  procession  entered  the 
gates  of  the  real  Jerusalem,  whose  Easter  Mass  was  said  over 
the  Holy  Sepulchre  itself.  So  we  find  that  the  Bishop  of  Aelia 
Capitolina,  very  naturally,  receives  a  sort  of  honorary  primacy,  a 
distinctive  place  due  to  the  unique  dignity  of  his  Church,  yet  with- 
out any  disarrangement  of  the  order  of  the  hierarchy.  So  the 
Fathers  of  Nicaea  (325)  in  their  7th  Canon  :  "  Since  custom  and 
ancient  tradition  had  obtained  that  the  bishop  in  Aelia  be 
honoured,  let  him  have  the  succession  of  honour  (ex*™  tvjv 
aKoXovQiav  rfjg  n^fjg),  saving,  however,  the  domestic  rights  of  the 
Metropolis  (7-J7  /JLrjrpOTroXei  awfrfxivov  rov  olkelov  a£,iu)fAaTog)."  3 

The  u  succession  of  honour "  means  a  place  of  honour, 
apparently  next  after  the  Patriarchs  ;  nevertheless  the  Metro- 
politan (of  Cassarea,  Pal.)  is  to  keep  his  rights  over  the 
Bishop  of  Aelia. 

But  these  bishops  were  not  content  with  their  "  succession  of 
honour";  they  wanted  to  be  independent  of  Cassarea,  even  of 
the  great  Patriarch  at  Antioch. 

When  the  Council  of  Ephesus  met  (431)  the  See  of  Jerusalem 

1  She  used  to  be  confused  with  St.  Sylvia  of  Aquitaine  :  Cf.  Rohricht, 
Bibliotheca  Geographica  Palcestincc,  Berlin,  1890,  pp.  2,  3,  &c. 

2  Ep.  44,  ad  Paulam  ;  Ep.  84,  ad  Oceanum. 

3  This  Canon  is  in  our  C.I.C.  dist.  65,  c.  7. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  27 

was  occupied  by  Juvenal  (420-458).  He  appeared  at  the 
council,  and  made  a  great  attempt  to  have  his  see  recognized 
as  independent.  But  this  first  time  he  did  not  succeed.  St. 
Cyril  of  Alexandria  opposed  him,  and  Pope  Leo  the  Great 
blamed  his  ambition  in  a  letter  to  Maximus  of  Antioch.1  How- 
ever, he  got  the  Emperor  Theodosius  II  (408-450)  on  his 
side.  Theodosius — it  is  one  of  the  endless  number  of  cases 
in  which  the  Emperors  usurped  jurisdiction  in  ecclesiastical 
matters — pretended  to  cut  all  Palestine,  Phoenicia,  and  Arabia 
off  from  Antioch,  and  to  give  them  to  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
to  make  up  a  new  patriarchate  for  him.  Of  course  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch,  whose  territory  was  thus  very  consider- 
ably reduced,  protested  against  the  Emperor's  action,  and  the 
dispute  lasted  for  twenty  years,  till  the  next  general  council  in 
451  at  Chalcedon.  Here  the  Fathers  in  the  seventh  and  eighth 
sessions  at  last  arranged  a  compromise.  Jerusalem  was  made 
a  patriarchate,  but  only  a  very  small  one  ;  Phoenicia  was  to 
remain  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Antioch,  Jerusalem  was  to 
have  only  Palestine  and  Arabia.2  The  Council  M  in  Trullo  " 
(Quinisextum,  692)  counted  Jerusalem  as  the  fifth  see,  that  is, 
as  the  fifth  and  last  of  the  patriarchates.3 

The  bishops  of  the  Holy  City  counted  several  great  names 
among  those  of  their  predecessors  since  St.  James  ;  Macarius 
(313-333)  found  the  true  cross  with  St.  Helen,  St.  Cyril  of  Jeru- 
salem (351-386)  was  a  Father  of  the  Church  whose  Catechism 
is  the  most  famous  of  its  kind,  Juvenal,  as  we  have  seen, 
succeeded  in  turning  his  see  into  a  patriarchate,  Sophronius 
(634-638)  was  a  staunch  upholder  of  the  faith  of  Chalcedon,  and 
the  witness  of  the  capture  of  his  city  by  the  Saracens.  But 
Monophysism  spread  very  rapidly  in  Palestine,  as  in  Syria,  and 
cut  off  many  of  the  Christians  of  this  little  patriarchate  from  the 
communion  of  the  Catholic  Church.  And  then,  in  637,  came 
Omar  the  Khalifah  (634-644).  After  the  battle  of  Ajnadin, 
Jerusalem  had  no  chance  of  holding  out  any  longer  against  the 

1  Ep.  119,  ad  Maximum,  2. 

2  Hefele,  Konziliengesck.  II,  pp.  477  and  502.    Arabia  means  that  part  of 
the  peninsula  that  belonged  to  the  Empire,  i.e.,  Sinai. 

3  Can.  36  :  "and  after  these  he  of  the  city  of  Jerusalem." 


28        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Moslem.  Sophronius  begged  to  be  allowed  to  surrender  the 
city  to  the  Khalifah  himself ;  Omar  agreed,  travelled  with  one 
single  attendant  to  Jerusalem,  promised  the  Christians  the  posses- 
sion of  their  churches  and  freedom  of  worship  on  the  usual 
condition — a  poll-tax,  and  then  entered  the  city  side  by  side 
with  the  Patriarch,  discussing  its  antiquities.  It  is  said  that 
Omar  refused  to  pray  in  the  Anastasis  (the  Church  of  the  Holy 
Sepulchre)  for  fear  that  afterwards  his  followers  might  make 
his  example  an  excuse  for  turning  it  into  a  mosque,  in  spite 
of  the  treaty.  So  the  Anastasis  has  always  been  a  Christian 
church,  and  the  Moslem  conquest  of  Jerusalem  did  not  at 
first  involve  any  great  suffering.  But  the  city  that  had  been 
Aelia  Capitolina  now  became  the  Mohammedan  "  Holy  Place"; 
and  when,  after  an  interval  of  fifty  years,  John  V  (in  705) 
succeeded  Sophronius,  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  was  reduced 
to  a  subject-community  of  Christians  in  a  corner  of  the  great 
Saracen  Empire.  The  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  has  ever  since 
been  the  poorest  of  his  kind,1  and  for  many  centuries  he  was 
content  to  live  at  Constantinople  as  an  official  of  that  Patriarch's 
Court. 

5.  Constantinople. 

We  come  lastly  to  the  story  of  the  rise  of  Constantinople. 
The  most  significant  development  among  the  Eastern  Churches, 
indeed  the  connecting  link  of  the  unity  of  their  history,  is  the 
evolution  of  the  See  of  Constantinople  from  being  the  smallest 
of  local  dioceses  to  the  position  of  first  Church  of  all  Eastern 
Christendom,  so  great  that  her  bishops  even  ventured  to  think 
themselves  the  rivals  of  the  Roman  Pope,  so  influential  that 
when  at  last  they  fell  into  formal  schism  they  dragged  all  the 
other  Eastern  bishops  with  them.  It  is  the  most  significant 
development  and  the  latest  :  it  was,  moreover,  this  ambition  of 
the  bishops  of  the  Imperial  City  that  far  more  than  anything 
else  caused  and  fostered  friction  with  Rome,  so  that  if  one  looks 
for  the  deeper  causes  of  the  schism,  one  realizes  that  it  was  not 
the  Filioque  in  the  Creed,  not  the  question  of  leaven  or  unleav- 
ened bread,  not  the  rights  of  Ignatius  the  Patriarch  that  really 

1  He  is  richer  now,  because  the  Russians  send  enormous  sums  of  money  to 
the  Holy  Land. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  29 

drove  a  wedge  between  the  two  halves  of  the  Christian  Church. 
It  was,  long  before  the  9th  century,  the  slowly  climbing 
ambition  of  Constantinople  that  bred  mutual  jealousy  and 
hatred  ;  the  thin  end  of  the  wedge  was  when,  in  381,  the 
Bishop  of  Constantinople  was  given  the  "  precedence  of  honour 
after  the  Bishop  of  Rome." 

But  the  first  development  of  this  see  was  not  made  at 
the  cost  of  Rome,  but  at  that  of  the  Eastern  Patriarchs 
around  her.  At  first  no  bishop  was  smaller  than  the  Bishop 
of  Byzantium.  He  was  not  even  a  metropolitan.  Centuries 
afterwards,  when  he  had  become  the  first  of  Eastern  prelates, 
when  he  was  jealously  trying  to  rival  the  unquestioned  Primacy 
of  Rome,  he  tried  to  hide  the  humble  beginning  of  his  see. 
To  be  of  any  great  importance  a  bishop  had  to  count  his 
diocese  among  the  Apostolic  Churches.  There  was  really 
no  question  of  anything  of  the  kind  in  the  case  of  Con- 
stantinople ;  all  her  greatness  came  from  the  presence  of  the 
Emperor  and  his  Court.  But  in  the  9th  century  especially, 
a  story  went  about  that  the  first  Bishop  of  Byzantium  had  been 
St.  Andrew  the  Apostle  ;  his  successor  then  was  the  Stachys 
mentioned  in  Rom.  xvi.  9.  This  story  is  found  in  a  forgery 
attributed  to  one  Dorotheus,  Bishop  of  Tyrus,  and  martyr  under 
Diocletian.  It  served  its  turn  in  fighting  Rome,  but  has  now 
long  been  given  up. 

Really  the  first  Bishop  of  Byzantium  of  whom  we  hear  was 
Metrophanes  at  the  time  of  Constantine  (323-337).  And  he 
was  a  local  bishop  of  Thrace  under  the  Metropolitan  of 
Heraclea.  The  bishops  of  this  small  city  would  no  doubt  have 
remained  in  that  position,  and  Heraclea  would  have  become  an 
exarchate  over  Thrace,  as  Ephesus  over  Asia  and  Caesarea  over 
Pontus,  but  for  one  most  important  fact  that  changed  the  whole 
development  of  Eastern  Church  history.  In  330  Constantine 
"  turned  the  Eagle  back  against  the  course  of  heaven,"  "  moved 

1  Posciache  Constantin  l'aquila  volse 
Contra  il  corso  del  ciel,  ch'ella  seguio 
Dietro  all'antico  che  Lavina  tolse, 
Cento  e  cent'anni  e  piu  l'uccel  di  Dio 
NeU'estremo  d'Europa  si  ritenne, 
Vicino  ai  monti  de'quai  prima  uscio. 

Par.  vi.  1-6. 


30        THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  seat  of  his  Government  to  Byzantium,  built  the  great  and 
famous  city  that  still  bears  his  name,  and  carried  off  all  the 
ornaments  of  old  Rome  that  he  could  remove  to  decorate  his 
new  capital.  Byzantium  became  Constantinople,  New  Rome, 
and  was  to  be  legally  in  every  way  equal  to  the  old  city.  The 
bishop  of  the  new  capital  soon  began  to  share  its  dignity.  In 
the  first  place,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  21),  there  was  a  tendency  to 
imitate  civil  divisions  and  civil  positions  in  the  hierarchy  of  the 
Church.  If  that  were  so,  if  the  position  of  a  bishop  were  to  be 
measured  according  to  the  rank  of  the  city  where  he  sat,  who 
would  be  so  great  as  the  bishop  of  the  capital  of  the  whole 
Empire  ? 

The  pastors  of  the  little  town  in  the  Province  of  Heraclea  had 
now  indeed  an  intoxicating  opportunity  of  advancement.  Were 
they  to  remain  subject  to  a  metropolitan  ?  Should  they  not  be, 
at  least,  as  great  as  their  brothers  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  ? 
Nay,  since  the  laws  of  the  State  were  apparently  to  be  the 
criterion,  no  position  would  seem  too  high  for  their  ambition. 
Might  not  Caesar's  own  bishop — the  honoured  chaplain  of  his 
Court,  who  stood  side  by  side  with  the  highest  ministers  of  the 
Empire  before  their  master,  the  bishop  of  the  city  that  was  now 
the  centre  of  the  Roman  world — might  not  he  even  hope  to  be 
counted  as  great  as  that  distant  Patriarch,  left  alone  among  the 
ruins  by  the  Tiber  ?  One  can  understand  his  ambition  ;  and 
the  Emperors  encouraged  it.  Throughout  this  story  we  shall 
see  that  the  Emperors,  while  they  themselves  dealt  most  master- 
fully with  their  Court  bishop,  still  used  every  means  to  get  his 
position  raised  in  the  hierarchy.  It  was  part  of  their  policy  of 
centralization  ;  it  helped  to  rivet  the  loyalty  of  their  subjects  to 
their  city,  through  their  own  bishop  they  could  the  more  easily 
govern  the  Church.  Indeed,  nowhere  does  the  tyranny  of 
Caesar  over  the  things  of  God,  which  characterizes  the  policy 
of  these  Emperors,  show  so  clearly  as  in  their  dealings  with 
their  bishops  at  Constantinople  ;  nowhere  is  there  a  more  de- 
grading example  of  subjection  to  the  civil  government  than  the 
mingled  contempt  and  furtherance  that  these  bishops  received 
from  the  Emperor.  There  was  also  convenience  in  this  new 
position  of  the  Court  bishop.     He  had  the  ear  of  Caesar,  he  was 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  31 

in  some  sort  his  private  chaplain.  When  from  distant  parts  of 
the  Empire  cases  of  Church  discipline  were  to  be  presented  to 
the  Government  for  its  support,  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople 
was  there  to  push  on  the  case.  He  became  a  sort  of  permanent 
agent  at  the  Court,  always  able  to  transact  business  for  others. 
His  household  of  priests  and  suffragan  bishops  gradually  became 
a  permanent  synod  that  the  Emperor  could  always  consult  before 
issuing  laws  about  Church  affairs.1  Constantine  had  been  content 
to  let  the  Church  govern  herself  and  to  remain  only  the  u  bishop 
of  things  outside/'2  but  his  successors  continually  pretended  to 
determine  questions  of  faith  by  Imperial  decrees.  In  this 
policy  they  found  an  ever-ready  helper  in  their  Court  bishops. 
During  all  the  centuries  in  which  these  Emperors  were  trying 
to  bring  the  Church  under  the  same  subjection  as  the  State 
their  most  steadfast  opponents  were  the  Popes  of  Old  Rome, 
their  most  servile  agents  the  Patriarchs  of  New  Rome.  The 
story,  then,  of  the  rise  of  the  See  of  Constantinople  is  not  a 
creditable  one.  It  had  no  splendid  traditions  from  the  earliest 
age  ;  it  had  none  of  the  lustre  of  Apostolic  origin  ;  its  dignity 
could  not  be  compared  with  that  of  the  old  patriarchates,  Rome, 
Alexandria,  Antioch  ;  it  had  nothing  of  the  sacred  associations 
of  Jerusalem.  A  new  see,  in  itself  of  no  importance,  its  claims 
were  pushed  solely  because  of  a  coincidence  that  had  nothing 
to  do  with  the  Church.  It  was  only  because  of  the  presence  of 
the  Emperor  and  through  his  tyrannical  policy  that  the  Church 
of  his  city  managed  to  usurp  the  first  place  among  the  Eastern 
Churches,  and  at  last  to  lead  them  all  in  a  campaign  against 
the  See  of  St.  Peter.  We  must  now  trace  the  steps  of  this 
evolution. 

We  saw  that  at  the  Council  of  Nicaea  (325)  the  "  ancient 
custom  "  was  recognized  by  which  the  three  great  Sees  of  Rome, 
Alexandria  and  Antioch  "  kept  their  rights."  At  that  time  Con- 
stantine had  not  yet  set  up  his  new  capital.  Jerusalem  was  to  have 
a  place  of  honour,  Byzantium  was  not  even  mentioned.  It  was 
still  a  small  local  Church  under  the  Metropolitan  of  Heraclea. 

1  This  became  the  2i>vodog  iv$r\n6voa  (Kattenbusch  :  Confessionsk.  i.  86). 

2  "  You  (the  bishops)  are  for  the  interior  affairs  of  the  Church ;  I  have  been 
appointed  by  God  the  bishop  of  the  things  outside"  (Eusebius:  VitaC0nst.iv.24). 


32        THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

But  fifty-six  years  later,  when  the  second  general  council  met 
at  Constantinople  itself  (381),  things  had  changed.  Nectarius 
was  Bishop,  now  no  longer  of  Byzantium,  but  of  New  Rome, 
and  already  there  was  growing  up  among  the  Eastern  bishops 
some  jealousy  of  the  Roman  Patriarch.  So  they  thought  to 
make  perhaps  some  counterpoise  to  his  great  authority  by 
exalting  their  Greek  fellow-countryman  in  the  city  of  Caesar. 
Now  we  must  here  first  of  all  remember  that  of  all  the  councils 
that  we  count  as  oecumenical,  two  became  so  only  through  the 
later  acceptance  of  the  whole  Church  and  of  the  Pope.  These 
two  were  the  second  (this  one,  Constantinople  I  in  381)  and  the 
fifth  (Constantinople  II  in  553).  The  Council  of  381,  then,  was 
oecumenical  neither  in  its  summoning  nor  in  its  sessions. 
It  was  a  comparatively  small  synod  of  one  hundred  and  fifty 
Eastern  bishops,  summoned  by  the  Emperor  Theodosius  I 
(379-395).  There  were  no  Latin  bishops  present,  the  See  of 
Rome  was  not  represented  ;  the  presidents  of  the  council  were, 
first,  Meletius  of  Antioch,  then  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  then 
Nectarius  of  Constantinople.  At  the  Synod  of  Ariminium  in 
359,  for  instance,  more  than  four  hundred  bishops  were  present. 
We  must  also  note  that  the  Church  of  Rome,  and  the  West 
generally,  only  accepted  the  dogmatic  definition  of  the  Council 
of  Constantinople  *  and  not  its  disciplinary  Canons.2  The  3rd 
Canon,  then,  has  for  us  Catholics  only  a  historic  interest,  as  a 
step  in  the  process  by  which  the  claims  of  Constantinople  were 
gradually  accepted  by  the  other  Eastern  bishops.  Indeed,  this 
3rd  Canon  was  quite  specially  rejected  by  the  Pope.  It  says 
this  :  u  The  Bishop  of  Constantinople  shall  have  the  primacy  of 
honour  (ra  7rp£<r/3eia  rfjg  ri^fjc;)  after  the  Bishop  of  Rome,  because 
that  city  is  New  Rome  (hia  to  elvai  avrrjv  viav  Twp/v)."  It  is 
not  quite  easy  to  understand  exactly  what  this  Canon  means. 
But  whatever  it  may  be  that  these  Fathers  meant  to  give  to  the 
Bishop   of  Constantinople,  they  made  no  pretence   about   the 

1  That  is  the  Nicene  Creed,  with  the  addition  of  the  clause  about  the  Holy 
Ghost,  as  we  now  say  it,  but  of  course  without  the  Filioque. 

2  The  Greeks  count  seven  of  these  Canons,  but  only  the  first  four  were 
really  drawn  up  by  the  council :  Cf.  Lauchert,  Die  Kanones  der  wichtigsten 
altkirchlichen  Concilien,  p.  xxiv. 


•V 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  33 

reason  why  they  gave  it,  "  because  it  is  New  Rome."  It  is  for 
a  purely  political  reason,  because  of  the  new  civil  rank  of  his 
town,  that  the  bishop  is  to  have  this  primacy  of  honour.  But 
what  is  involved  in  his  primacy  of  honour  ?  It  seems  to  mean, 
first,  an  honorary  precedence  like  that  given  by  the  Council  of 
Nicasa  to  the  Bishop  of  Jerusalem  (p.  26),  only  a  higher  one  ; 
the  Bishop  of  New  Rome  is  to  take  precedence  even  of  the 
Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  coming  next  after  the 
Pope  of  Old  Rome.  It  must  also  tacitly  suppose  that  he  is  now 
no  longer  under  the  Metropolitan  of  Heraclea  ;  the  second  bishop 
of  the  Church  could  not  well  submit  to  a  metropolitan.  So  from 
this  time  we  find  that  Heraclea  steps  down  and  Constantinople 
becomes  the  Metropolis  of  Thrace.  Did  the  council  mean  to 
give  to  the  Emperor's  bishop  more  than  this  purely  honorary 
precedence  and  metropolitan  rights  over  Thrace  ?  Probably 
not,  although  we  find  him  very  soon  exercising  real  jurisdiction 
outside  that  province.  It  was  Alexandria  that  felt  herself  most 
attacked  by  this  Canon.  For  a  long  time  the  Church  of  Egypt 
would  not  accept  the  council  in  any  way.  Dioscur  of  Alex- 
andria (444-451)  in  his  synod  in  449  (the  Robber  Synod  of 
Ephesus)  calls  the  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  the  second  general 
council.1  Theodoret  says  that  he  bitterly  reproached  the 
Patriarch  Flavian  of  Antioch,  who  was  present  at  the  Council 
of  381,  as  a  traitor  to  the  rights  of  both  patriarchal  sees,  his 
own  and  Alexandria,  for  signing  its  decrees.2  Timothy  of  Alex- 
andria, who  was  certainly  present  at  the  council  with  his 
Egyptians,  seems  to  have  been  away  when  this  3rd  Canon  was 
drawn  up,  because  he  afterwards  wrote  that  he  knew  nothing 
about  it.3  Rome  was  not  of  course  attacked  by  the  Canon  ;  her 
first  place  no  one  thought  of  disputing.  Still  the  Popes,  too, 
objected  to  this  new  position  suddenly  given  to  Constantinople. 
They  disliked  so  radical  an  upsetting  of  the  old  order  in  the 
case  of  the  other  Patriarchs,  perhaps  they  already  foresaw 
something  of  the  danger  which  the  ambition  of  this  new  see 

1  Mansi  vi.,  626,  643.    So  he  ignores  Constantinople  I. 

2  Ep.  86,  ad  Flavianum 

3  To  the  Synod  of  Aquileia  (Hergenrother  :  Photius,  I,  34).    This  Timothy 
must  not  be  confused  with  the  Cat. 


34        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

would  bring.  Pope  Damasus  reigning  at  the  time  (366-384) 
would  only  confirm  the  dogmatic  decree  against  Macedonius,1 
not  the  Canons.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (590-604)  says  :  "  The 
Roman  Church  hitherto  neither  acknowledges  nor  receives 
the  Canons  and  Acts  of  that  Synod  (Const.  I),  she  accepts  the 
same  Synod  in  that  which  it  defined  against  Macedonius."2 
Boniface  I  (418-422)  complains  of  the  "  new  usurpation  which 
is  contrary  to  the  knowledge  of  the  ancients."  "  Study  the 
sanctions  of  the  Canons,"  he  says,  "  you  will  find  which  are  the 
second  and  third  sees  after  Rome.  Let  the  great  Churches 
keep  their  dignity  according  to  the  Canons,  that  is  Alexandria 
and  Antioch "  (Ep.  ad  Rufinum  Thessal.).3  St.  Leo  the  Great 
(440-461)  writes  to  Anatolius  of  Constantinople  :  "You  boast 
that  certain  bishops  sixty  years  ago  made  a  rescript  in  favour 
of  this  your  persuasion.  No  notice  of  it  was  ever  sent  by  your 
predecessors  to  the  Apostolic  See  "  (Ep.  106,  ad  Anat.). 

The  Canon  was  put  by  Gratian  into  our  Corpus  Iuris,*  and 
the  Roman  correctors  added  to  it  the  note  :  "  This  Canon  is 
one  of  those  that  the  Apostolic  Roman  See  did  not  receive 
at  first  nor  for  a  long  time."  So  the  first  step  in  the  advance- 
ment of  the  new  patriarchate  was  by  no  means  received 
without  opposition.  Nevertheless  its  bishops,  under  the  pro- 
tection of  the  Emperor,  succeeded  wonderfully  in  their  career 
of  aggrandizement.  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  (329-c.  390)  had 
for  a  time  administered  the  See  of  Constantinople.  But  there 
had  been  much  friction  while  he  was  there.  His  enemies  said 
that  he  was  Bishop  of  Sasima,  in  Cappadocia,  all  the  time,  and 
that  he  could  not  be  bishop  of  two  places  at  once.  So  he  left 
Constantinople,  and  afterwards  wrote  ironically  to  the  bishops 
who  succeeded  him  :  "  You  may  have  a  throne  and  a  lordly 
place  then,  since  you  think  that  the  chief  thing  ;  rejoice,  exalt 
yourselves,  claim  the  title  of  Patriarch  ;  broad  lands  shall  be 
subject  to  you."5  The  machinations  he  had  seen  among  the 
Court  prelates  had  not  left  a  pleasant  impression.  Nectarius 
(381-397),  who  succeeded  St.  Gregory,  already  began  to  assert 

1  That  is  the  Creed.  2  Ep.  vii.  34.     M.P.L.  lxxvii.  893. 

3  Quoted  by  Le  Quien,  Or.  Chris,  i.  18.  4  Dist.  xxii.  c.  3. 

s  Greg.  Naz.  :  Carm.  de  Episc.  797,  seq. 


THE    GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  35 

his  lordly  place  over  broad  lands.  In  394  there  was  a  quarrel 
'between  two  rival  claimants  to  the  See  of  Bostra  in  Arabia, 
NE.  of  Jerusalem.  Nectarius  settled  in  favour  of  one  claimant, 
in  defiance  of  the  rights  of  Antioch,  in  whose  patriarchate 
Bostra  lay.  After  Nectarius  came  St.  John  Chrysostom  (397- 
407).  It  is  with  great  regret  that  one  remembers  the  fact  that 
the  most  sympathetic  of  the  Greek  Fathers  also  on  one  occasion 
used  jurisdiction  outside  his  province.  He  put  down  a  number 
of  bishops  in  Asia,  who  had  been  simoniacally  elected,  and  his 
judgement  was  entirely  just  and  right.  Only  the  right  person 
to  give  sentence  was  the  Exarch  of  Ephesus.  Under  Atticus, 
his  second  successor  (f  425),  began  the  dispute  about  Illyricum. 
The  whole  of  the  Roman  Prefecture  of  Illyricum  (p.  22) 
belonged  to  the  Western  Patriarchate.  Atticus  got  the 
Emperor  Theodosius  II  (408-450)  to  publish  a  law  cutting 
off  East  Illyricum  from  the  rest  and  joining  it  to  his  jurisdic- 
tion (42 1).1  But  this  first  time  the  plan  did  not  succeed. 
Illyricum  became  afterwards  a  very  fruitful  source  of  dispute 
between  Rome  and  Constantinople.  We  shall  come  back  to 
it  later  (p.  44).  The  same  Theodosius  forbade  any  bishops 
to  be  ordained  in  Thrace  or  Asia  without  the  consent  of  the 
Patriarchate  at  Constantinople.  This  means  jurisdiction  over 
Asia.  There  was  some  opposition  to  the  law,  but  from  this 
time  Constantinople  gradually  absorbs  first  Asia,  then  Pontus, 
and  then  the  whole  of  what  we  now  call  Asia  Minor.  The 
Exarchs  of  Ephesus  and  Caesarea,  who,  as  we  said  (p.  25), 
under  other  circumstances  might  have  evolved  into  great 
Patriarchs,  were  too  poor,  too  weak,  and  too  near  the  capital, 
to  offer  any  effectual  resistance.  They  now  sink  back  to  the 
position  of  ordinary  metropolitans,  and  we  must  already  reckon 
Thrace  and  Asia  Minor  as  making  up  the  Patriarchate  of  Con- 
stantinople, while  both  the  Patriarch  and  the  Emperor  have 
designs  on  Illyricum.  Things  were  in  this  state  at  the  time 
of  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451),  whose  28th  Canon  was 
the  most  important  step  of  all  this  development.  The  time 
was  ripe  for  a  bold  stroke.  The  rivals  of  Constantinople  were 
too  weakened  to  be  able  to  resist.  Dioscur  of  Alexandria 
1  L.  45,  Cod.  Theod. 


36        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

appeared  at  the  council  as  a  culprit,  and  was  deposed  by  the 
Papal  Legate  (p.  14).  Maximus  of  Antioch  was  himself  suspect 
of  Monophysism  ;  moreover,  he  had  been  intruded  into  his  see 
by  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  in  defiance  of  the  right  of 
election  of  the  Syrian  bishops,1  so  that  he  was  only  a  creature 
of  Anatolius,  and  was  not  likely  to  turn  against  his  patron. 
Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  had  disgraced  himself  at  the  Robber 
Synod  (449),  and  was  now  deposed  in  the  second  session. 
Then  he  dropped  Dioscur  and  his  former  Monophysite  friends, 
and  was  glad  to  get  his  own  little  patriarchate  acknowledged 
in  return  (p.  27).  Bnt  he  was  not  strong  enough  to  dispute  the 
claims  of  the  Emperor's  bishop.  So  Anatolius,  then  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople  (449-458),  need  fear  no  rival  in  the  East. 
At  the  council  he  sat  next  after  the  Pope's  Legates,  because 
the  three  other  Patriarchs  were  in  trouble,  and  he  thought 
the  time  had  come  to  get  the  place  he  held  more  or  less 
by  accident2  acknowledged  as  a  right.  Then  the  council 
was  full  of  his  friends.  There  were  630  Eastern  bishops 
present ;  from  the  West  came  only  the  five  legates  and  two 
African  bishops.  But  before  we  come  to  the  Canons  in  favour 
of  Constantinople  we  must  remember  that,  in  spite  of  Anatolius's 
ambition  and  the  almost  exclusive  presence  of  Eastern  bishops, 
no  ancient  council  so  clearly  acknowledges  the  primacy  of  the 
Pope  as  Chalcedon.  The  six  Imperial  Commissioners  looked 
after  the  secular  business,  but  were  expressly  shut  out  from  the 
sessions.  The  five  legates  sent  by  St.  Leo  (Lucentius,  Basil, 
Paschasius  of  Lilybasum,  Boniface,  and  Julian  of  Cos)  presided, 
Paschasius  pronounced  sentence  on  Dioscur  in  the  Pope's  name 
(p.  14),  the  Emperor  (Marcian,  450-457)  had  summoned  the 
council  "  guarding  the  rights  and  the  honour  of  the  See  of 
blessed  Peter  the  Apostle  "  ;  3  St.  Leo  had  sent  "  my  aforesaid 
brother  and  co-bishop  (Paschasius)  to  preside  over  the  synod 

1  Pope  Leo  I  only  acknowledged  him  for  the  sake  of  peace.  Ep.  104, 
ad  Marc.  c.  5  :  "  He  (Anatolius)  has  presumed  to  ordain  a  bishop  for  the 
Church  of  Antioch  without  any  precedent  and  against  the  Canons  ;  and  We 
have  ceased  to  protest  for  the  sake  of  the  faith  and  of  peace." 

2  The  3rd  Canon  of  Constantinople  I,  which  gave  him  the  second  place, 
after  the  Pope,  had  not  been  received  by  the  universal  Church. 

3  Leonis  M.  ep.  93,  ad  Syn.  Chalc.  I. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  37 

in  my  place  "  ; 2  the  synod  received  the  Pope's  dogmatic  letter 
to  Flavian  of  Constantinople  (447-449)  as  all  the  Fathers  cried 
out  :  "  That  is  the  faith  of  the  Fathers,  that  is  the  faith  of  the 
Apostles  .  .  .  Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo  !  " 2  They  finally  wrote 
to  Leo  formally  asking  him  to  confirm  their  decrees,  because 
M  the  enemy  (Dioscur)  like  a  beast  roaring  to  himself  outside 
the  fold  .  .  .  has  stretched  his  madness  even  towards  you,  to 
whom  the  care  of  the  vineyard  was  given  by  the  Saviour,  that 
is,  as  we  say,  against  your  Holiness  ;  and  has  conceived  an 
excommunication  against  you,  who  hasten  to  unite  the  body  of 
the  Church."  3  There  is  no  doubt,  then,  as  to  the  sentiments 
of  this  synod  with  regard  to  the  Roman  Primacy.  Yet  these 
same  bishops  are  specially  anxious  to  exalt  the  See  of  Constanti- 
nople, not  of  course  to  the  level  of  Rome,  but  above  all  other 
Churches.  It  was  in  this  spirit  that  they  drew  up  the  Canons 
that  became  so  fruitful  a  source  of  dispute.  The  sixth  session 
(October  25th)  was  intended  to  be  the  last,  Marcian  and  his 
wife  Pulcheria  attended  it,  and  the  Emperor  made  an 
admirable  speech  ;  the  decree  of  the  council  about  our 
Lord's  two  natures  4  was  read  out,  the  Emperor  forbade 
any  further  discussion  on  the  subject  by  any  one. 

Then  Marcian  thought  he  would  like  the  Fathers  to  make 
some  laws  about  discipline.  So  they  held  nine  more  sessions. 
At  the  fifteenth  session  (31st  October)  the  Papal  Legates  were 
not  present.  In  their  absence  the  bishops  drew  up  twenty- eight 
Canons,  of  which  several  were  made  to  exalt  Constantinople. 
The  9th  and  17th  Canons  decree,  that  if  any  bishop  or  other 
clerk  have  a  complaint  against  his  metropolitan,  he  should  bring 
the  case  before  his  Exarch,  or  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
As  Exarchs  they  mean  apparently  to  include  the  other  Eastern 
Patriarchs.  So  Constantinople  is  now  to  have  a  sort  of  juris- 
diction even  over  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem^  But  the 
28th   Canon   is   the   most   important  one.     It  says  :  u  Always 

1  Ep.  89,  ad  Marc.  2  Mansi,  vi.  972,  &c. 

3  Ep.  Syn.  ad  Leonem,  inter  ep.  Leonis  98.        4  In  Denzinger  (1900,  p.  34). 

5  That  is  a  voluntary  jurisdiction  at  the  discretion  of  the  appellant,  who 
may  now  choose  between  his  own  Exarch  and  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople. 


38        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

following  the  rules  of  the  holy  Father  and  knowing  the  Canon 
of  the  150  most  God-beloved  bishops  which  has  just  been 
read,1  we  also  define  and  vote  the  same  things  concerning  the 
Primacy  of  the  most  holy  Church  of  Constantinople,  the  New 
Rome.  And,  indeed,  the  Fathers  wisely  gave  the  Primacy  to 
the  See  of  the  Elder  Rome,  because  that  city  was  the  ruler,  and 
the  150  most  God-beloved  bishops,  moved  by  the  same  purpose, 
appointed  a  like  Primacy  to  the  most  holy  See  of  New  Rome, 
rightly  judging  that  the  city  honoured  because  of  her  rule  and 
her  Senate,  should  enjoy  a  like  primacy  to  that  of  the  elder 
Imperial  Rome,  and  should  be  mighty  in  Church  affairs,  just  as 
she  is,  and  should  be  the  second  after  her.  Thus  the  single 
metropolitans  of  the  dioceses  of  Asia  and  Thrace,  as  also  the 
bishops  of  the  aforesaid  dioceses  that  are  among  the  barbarians, 
shall  be  ordained  by  the  said  most  holy  See  of  the  most  holy 
Church  at  Constantinople,  whereas  of  course  each  metropolitan 
in  the  said  dioceses  shall  ordain  the  bishops  of  his  province  in 
union  with  the  (other)  bishops  of  the  same  province,  as  the  holy 
Canons  ordain.  But  the  metropolitans  of  these  dioceses  shall 
be  ordained  by  the  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  as  has  been 
said,  after  they  have  been  elected  unanimously  and  after  the 
election  has  been  reported  to  him,  according  to  custom." 2 

That  is  the  famous  28th  Canon  of  Chalcedon.  The  second 
half  (to  begin  with  what  is  less  important  to  us  here)  means 
that  all  metropolitans  in  Asia  and  Thrace  are  to  go  up  to 
Constantinople  to  be  ordained  (this  of  course  puts  them  under 
that  Patriarch's  jurisdiction),  so  also  those  bishops  whose  sees 
are  overrun  with  barbarians  (that  is  especially  in  Northern 
Thrace,  towards  the  Danube,  where  the  Slavs  were  pouring 
in).  But,  where  there  are  no  barbarians,  the  ordinary  bishops 
are  to  be  ordained  by  the  local  metropolitans.  The  Canon 
then  repeats  that  these  metropolitans  must  be  themselves 
ordained  by  the  Archbishop  (Apxteirl<TK07rog,  the  word  is  rare  in 


1  These  150  most  God-beloved  bishops  are  the  Fathers  of  Constantinople  I 
381),  and  the  Canon  that  had  just  been  read  is  their  3rd  Canon  (p.  32). 

2  The  text  will  be  found  in  any  collection  of  Canons.     I  translate  from 
Lauchert,  Die  kanoncs  dcr  wichtigsten  altkirchl.  Concilicn. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  39 

the  East  at  this  time) *  of  Constantinople,  although  they  must 
first  be  properly  elected  (by  their  suffragans). 

This,  then,  entirely  does  away  with  any  remains  of  exarchal 
power  at  Heraclea  or  Ephesus  (they  must  have  meant  Caesarea 
too).  But  it  was  the  former  half  of  the  Canon  that  most  dis- 
pleased the  Pope.  First,  they  wish  to  renew  the  3rd  Canon 
of  Constantinople  (381),  which  Rome  had  never  acknowledged. 
Secondly,  they  make  the  entirely  false  statement  the  "  Fathers  " 
had  given  the  Primacy  to  Old  Rome  because  of  her  political 
position.  Where  had  these  bishops  ever  seen  a  Canon  giving 
the  Primacy  to  Old  Rome  ?  That  Primacy  was  given,  not  by 
the  "  Fathers "  but  by  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  to  St.  Peter, 
"  who  always  lives  and  judges  in  his  successors  "  (the  legates 
at  Ephesus,  431,  p.  76),  nor  had  the  political  importance  of 
the  city  of  Rome  anything  to  do  with  an  authority  given 
at  Caesarea  Philippi  to  a  Galilaean  fisherman.  Thirdly,  the 
Fathers  of  Chalcedon,  on  the  strength  of  this  false  assumption, 
wish  to  confirm  an  ecclesiastical  authority  in  the  case  of 
Constantinople  because  of  her  position  as  head  of  the  State — 
an  incorrect  and  dangerous  position,  that  would,  if  consistently 
carried  out,  expose  the  Church's  hierarchy  to  a  share  in  every 
political  revolution.2  They  do  not,  however,  think  of  making 
New  Rome  quite  as  great  as  Old  Rome  ;  New  Rome  is  to  be 
"  the  second  after  her."  3  The  sees  they  really  wish  to 
supplant  are  rather  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  and  their  idea 
seems  to  be  to  divide  the  whole  Church  into  two  great 
patriarchates,  a  Western  one  under  Rome,  and  an  Eastern 
one  under  Constantinople.  But  the  Pope,  whose  honour 
consists  in  the  firm  position  of  his  fellow-bishops,*  could  not 

1  It  has  since  become  the  official  title  of  the  Bishop  of  Constantinople, 
see  p.  340. 

2  Throughout  this  story  one  cannot  help  realizing  that  since  1453  the  very 
basis  on  which  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  openly  founded  their  claims 
has  been  cut  away. 

3  Still  a  certain  animus  against  Old  Rome  shows  in  the  contrast  between 
their  frigid  reference  to  "  the  See  of  the  Elder  Rome  "  and  the  rapturous 
"  most  holy  See  of  the  most  holy  Church  of  Constantinople." 

4  St.  Gregory  I  to  Eulogius  of  Alexandria  :  "  My  honour  is  the  honour 
of  the  universal  Church.  My  honour  is  the  firm  position  (solidus  vigor)  of 
my  brothers.  I  am  really  honoured  when  due  honour  is  not  denied  to  each 
of  them  "  (viii.  Ep.  30.  M.P.L.  lxxvii.  933). 


40        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

allow  the  other  Patriarchs  to  be  cavalierly  deposed  for  the  sake 
of  so  new  an  arrangement,  and  the  reference  to  his  own  see 
was  quite  enough  reason  for  rejecting  this  Canon.  So  it  was 
never  received  into  our  Canon  Law,  and  the  Popes  never 
ceased  to  protest  against  it.  On  November  i,  451,  the 
Legates  summoned  a  new  session  to  examine  what  had  been 
done  in  their  absence.  Lucentius  protested  against  the  28th 
Canon  as  contradicting  the  Decree  of  Nicaea  (Canon  6,  p.  9). 
There  was  a  debate  in  which  Aetius,  Archdeacon  of  Constanti- 
nople, the  spokesman  of  the  Greeks,  kept  appealing  to  Canon  3 
of  Constantinople,  and  Lucentius  to  Canon  6  of  Nicaea.  The 
Illyrian  bishops,  Eusebius  of  Ancyra,  Metropolitan  of  Galatia, 
and  others,  had  already  refused  to  sign  this  28th  Canon.1 
Nothing  came  of  the  dispute,  except  that  the  Legates'  protest 
was  added  to  the  Acts.  In  the  exceptionally  respectful  letter 
of  the  council  to  Pope  Leo,  the  Fathers  still  hope  that  he  will 
confirm  their  Canon.  They  have  only  confirmed  (they  say)  the 
rule  of  the  150  holy  Fathers,  who  ordered  that  "  after  your 
most  holy  and  apostolic  See  that  of  Constantinople  should  be 
honoured,  because  she  is  placed  second  "  ;  they  are  "  confident 
that  you  often  spread  out  the  Apostolic  ray  that  shines  in  you 
even  to  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  and  without  envy  you  are 
accustomed  to  enrich  your  domestics  with  a  share  in  your 
own  good  things.  Be  pleased  then  to  accept  what  we  have 
defined,  to  order  ecclesiastical  ranks  and  to  remove  all  con- 
fusion, as  being  right  and  friendly  and  most  convenient  for  good 
order,  oh,  most  holy  and  blessed  Father  !  But  the  most  holy 
bishops  Paschasius  and  Lucentius,  and  the  most  reverend 
priest  Boniface,  who  hold  the  place  of  your  Holiness,  have 
vehemently  tried  to  withstand  what  we  had  ordered,  doubtless 
wishing  that  this  good  arrangement  should  be  begun  by  your 
own  foresight.  Whereas  we,  considering  the  most  pious  and 
Christ-loving  Emperors,  who  are  delighted  with  what  we  have 
done,  as  also  the  illustrious  Senate  and  indeed  the  whole 
Imperial  city,  have  thought  it  wise  to  confirm  its  honour  by  a 
general  council,  and  we  have  presumed  to  strengthen  what 
was  really,  as  it  were,  begun  by  your  Holiness,  inasmuch  as  you 
1  Le  Quien,  Or.  Chris.  \,  30. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  41 

are  always  anxious  to  benefit  us,  and  we  know  that  whatever  is 
well  done  by  the  sons  belongs  to  the  fathers,  who  look  upon  it 
as  their  own.  We  beg  you  then  to  honour  our  decision  with 
your  decrees,  so  that  just  as  we  shall  then  add  the  consent  of 
the  Head,  so  your  Highness  may  fulfil  what  your  sons  have 
done,  as  is  right.  So  always  will  the  pious  Princes  be  pleased, 
who  confirm  as  a  law  the  decision  of  your  Holiness."  x  The 
urbanity  of  this  letter  is  caused  by  the  great  wish  of  the  council 
to  have  its  Canon  confirmed  ;  incidentally,  one  could  not  wish 
for  a  more  complete  acknowledgement  on  the  part  of  a  general 
council  that  its  decrees  need  the  Pope's  confirmation.  But  it 
was  all  of  no  use.  St.  Leo  did  not  mean  to  allow  what  they 
wanted,  and  he  was  not  a  person  to  be  persuaded  by  compli- 
ments. He  writes  to  the  Emperor  Marcian  that  "  the  same 
faith  must  be  that  of  the  people,  of  bishops,  and  also  of  kings, 
oh,  most  glorious  son  and  most  clement  Augustus  I "  "  Let  the 
city  of  Constantinople,  as  we  wish,  have  its  glory  ;  and  under 
the  protection  of  the  right  hand  of  God  may  it  long  enjoy  the 
government  of  your  Clemency.  But  there  is  one  law  for  civil 
affairs  and  another  for  divine  things  ;  and  no  building  can  be 
firm  apart  from  that  Rock  which  the  Lord  founded  originally. 
He  who  seeks  undue  honours  loses  his  real  ones.  Let  it  be 
enough  for  the  said  bishop  (Anatolius  of  Constantinople),  that 
by  the  help  of  your  piety  and  by  the  consent  of  my  favour,  he 
has  got  the  bishopric  of  so  great  a  city.  Let  him  not  despise  a 
royal  see  because  he  can  never  make  it  an  Apostolic  one  ;  nor 
should  he  by  any  means  hope  to  become  greater  by  offending 
others.  The  rights  of  the  Churches  are  fixed  by  the  Canons  of 
the  holy  Fathers,  and  by  the  decrees  of  the  venerable  Nicene 
Synod  ;  they  cannot  be  upset  by  any  bad  designs,  nor  dis- 
turbed by  any  novelty.  And  I,  by  the  help  of  Christ,  must 
always  faithfully  carry  out  this  order,  because  the  responsibility 
has  been  given  to  me,  and  it  would  be  my  fault  if  the  rules  of 
the  Fathers,  drawn  up  by  the  Synod  of  Nicaea  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost  for  the  whole  Church,  were  broken 
with  my  consent — which  may  God  forbid  ! — or  if  the  wish  of 
one  brother  were  more  important  to  me  than  the  common  good 
1  Ep.  Cone.  Chalc.  ad  Leonem  (inter  ep.  Leonis  M.  98). 


42        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  the  whole  house  of  God.  Wherefore,  knowing  how  your 
glorious  Clemency  cares  for  concord  in  the  Church  and  for  the 
things  that  belong  to  peaceful  union,  I  beg  and  urgently  entreat 
you  to  refuse  your  consent  to  impious  attempts  contrary  to 
Christian  peace,  and  to  wholesomely  restrain  the  dangerous 
ambition  of  my  brother  Anatolius,  if  he  persists."  '  At  the 
same  time  St.  Leo  writes  to  Anatolius  himself.  He  praises  his 
orthodoxy  with  regard  to  the  Monophysite  heresy.  "  But,"  he 
says,  "  a  Catholic  man,  and  especially  a  priest  of  the  Lord, 
should  not  be  corrupted  by  ambition  any  more  than  involved  in 
error."  He  blames  the  uncanonical  ordination  of  Maximus  of 
Antioch  (p.  36),  insists  on  the  6th  Nicene  Canon,  and  adds  : 
"  The  rights  of  provincial  primates  may  not  be  injured,  nor 
may  metropolitan  bishops  be  defrauded  of  their  ancient 
privileges.  The  dignity  that  the  Alexandrine  See  deserves 
because  of  St.  Mark,  the  disciple  of  blessed  Peter,  must  not 
perish  ;  nor  may  the  splendour  of  so  great  a  Church  be 
darkened  because  Dioscur  falls  through  his  obstinate  wicked- 
ness. And  the  Antiochene  Church,  too,  in  which,  by  the 
preaching  of  the  blessed  Peter  the  Christian  name  first  arose, 
should  remain  in  the  order  arranged  by  the  Fathers,  so  that 
having  been  put  in  the  third  place  it  should  never  be  reduced 
to  a  lower  one."  2  He  wrote  in  the  same  sense  to  the  Empress 
Pulcheria,3  and  all  through  his  life  steadily  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge this  28th  Canon.  The  result  of  the  Pope's  refusal  was 
that  the  Canon  was  never  inserted  into  any  code  of  Canon  Law, 
either  Eastern  or  Western,  till  the  Greeks  revived  it  at  the 
time  of  Photius's  schism.  It  has  never  been  the  law  of  the 
Catholic  Church. 

Nevertheless  from  the  end  of  the  5th  century  the  See  of 
Constantinople  does  gradually  assume  the  second  place  after 
Rome.  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem  went  down  in 
importance,  as  we  have  seen.  The  Emperors,  indeed,  deposed 
their  own  bishops  and  appointed  new  ones  from  laymen  wan- 
tonly ;  the  Patriarch  was,  after  all,  only  a  vassal  of  Caesar,  to 
whom  he  owed  the  place  of  his  see.     But  the  same  Emperors 

1  Ep.  104,  ad  Marcianum  Augustum.  ~  Ep.  106,  ad  Anatolium,  5. 

3  Ep.  105. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  43 

were  always  ready  to  assert  his  place  above  other  bishops. 
Zeno  (474-491)  was  a  powerful  patron,  Leo  I  (the  Emperor, 
457-474)  had  let  the  Patriarch  crown  him,  and  this  custom, 
always  followed  afterwards,  also  helped  to  raise  the  dignity  of 
the  see.  Justinian  (527-565)  put  into  his  Code  of  Civil  Law  : 
14  The  most  blessed  Archbishop  of  Constantinople,  New  Rome, 
shall  have  the  second  place  after  the  holy  Apostolic  See  of  Old 
Rome  ;  he  shall  precede  all  others." x  At  last  John  IV,  the 
Faster  ^(ttevtiiq,  Jeiunator,  582-595),  of  Constantinople,  thought 
he  could  assume  the  title  "  CEcumenical  Patriarch."  It  is  well 
known  how  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (590-604)  sternly  forbade 
him  to  use  this  name,  which  is  not  even  used  by  the  Pope.2 
"  Who  doubts,"  he  says,  "  that  the  Church  of  Constantinople  is 
subject  to  the  Apostolic  See  ?  Indeed  the  most  pious  Lord 
Emperor  and  our  brother  the  bishop  of  that  city  both  eagerly 
acknowledge  this."  3  Again  :  u  I  know  of  no  bishop  who  is  not 
subject  to  the  Apostolic  See."  4  It  is  also  known  how  in  oppo- 
sition to  this  pompous  title  he  assumed  for  himself  with  proud 
humility  the  title  borne  ever  since  by  his  successors,  "  Servant 
of  the  Servants  of  God." 5  Although  the  Patriarchs  of  Constan- 
tinople, encouraged  again  by  the  Emperors,  went  on  using  their 
sounding  title  till  it  became,  as  it  still  is,  their  official  style,  it 
is  noticeable  that  even  Photius  never  dared  call  himself 
CEcumenical  Patriarch  when  writing  to  the  Pope. 

Rome,  however,  did  gradually  acknowledge  Constantinople, 

1  Nov.  131,  c.  2.  ■  Ep.  Greg.  Magni,  v.  18  (M.P.L.  lxxvii.  738),  &c. 

3  Ibid.,  ix.  12  (M.P.L.  lxxvii.  957).  4  Mansi,  x.  155. 

s  Joh.  Diac.  Vita  S.  Greg.  II,  i.  M.P.L.  lxxv.  87.  It  is  not  certain  what 
John  the  Faster  meant  by  the  title  "  CEcumenical  Patriarch "  (there  are 
instances  of  its  use  before  his  time),  perhaps  only  "  Imperial  Patriarch."  St. 
Gregory  certainly  understood  it  to  mean  that  he  claimed  to  be  the  only  real 
Patriarch  for  the  whole  world,  so  that  all  other  bishops  should  be  his  suffra- 
gans or  vicars  :  "  If  one  Patriarch  is  called  universal,  the  name  is  taken  away 
from  the  others"  (Ep.  v.  18,  M.P.L.  lxxvii.  740).  In  this  sense  he  says  that 
no  one  (not  even  himself)  can  be  so  called.  Such  has  always  been  the  teach- 
ing of  the  Catholic  Church.  All  bishops  who  are  ordinaries  have  "  ordinary  " 
and  not  "  delegate  "  jurisdiction  in  their  own  diocese.  The  Pope  is  not 
CEcumenical  Patriarch,  and  has  never  called  himself  so,  although  in  addresses 
to  him  the  title  "  universal  Pope  "  has  sometimes  been  used  ;  he  is  Patriarch 
of  the  West.  For  the  whole  question  see  Hergenrother,  Photius,  I,  184-196  ; 
Kattenbusch :  Konfessionskunde,  I,  112-117. 


44        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

first,  as  one  of  the  patriarchates,  and  eventually  even  as  the 
second.  This  same  St.  Gregory  formally  announced  his  elec- 
tion to  the  Bishops  of  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem,  although  in  his  private  correspondence  he  still 
cherishes  the  older  system  of  three  patriarchates  only  (Rome, 
Alexandria,  Antioch).  The  second  place  was  given  to  the 
Latin  Patriarch  of  Constantinople1  by  Innocent  III  (1198- 
1216)  at  the  fourth  Lateran  Council  in  1215.  In  1439  the  Coun- 
cil of  Florence  gave  the  same  rank  to  the  Greek  Patriarch.2 

The  territory  over  which  they  ruled  went  on  growing  after 
the  "  (Ecumenical  Patriarchs  "  had  become  the  chief  bishops  of 
Eastern  Christendom.  Leo  III,  the  Isaurian  (Emperor,  717- 
741),  separated  his  own  fatherland  Isauria  (at  the  south  of  Asia 
Minor),  with  the  Metropolis  at  Seleucia  and  twenty  suffragan 
sees,  from  the  Patriarchate  of  Antioch  and  gave  it  to  Constanti- 
nople. But  the  greatest  question  of  this  kind  was  Illyricum. 
We  have  seen  that  the  Roman  Prefecture  of  Illyricum,3 
together  with  Italy  and  Gaul,  went  to  make  up  the  great  Wes- 
tern Patriarchate.  But  the  Illyrians,  at  least  the  "  Roman  " 
inhabitants,  spoke  Greek.  Illyricum  covered  Athens  and 
Corinth,  so  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  who  had  become 
the  chiefs  of  Greek-speaking  Christians,  greatly  desired  these 
lands.  The  Emperors  were  always  ready  to  add  to  their 
jurisdiction  ;  the  more  people  looked  to  Constantinople  in  all 
affairs  for  guidance,  the  closer  their  interests  were  knit  to  the 
capital,  the  better,  of  course,  for  the  central  government.  At 
the  sixth  general  council  (Constantinople  III  or  Trullanum  I 
in  680)  and  at  the  Quinisextum  (Trullanum  II  in  692)  the 
Illyrian  bishops  are  still  counted  among  those  of  the  Roman 

1  A  Latin  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople  was  set  up  by  the  Crusaders 
together  with  their  Latin  Empire  in  1204. 

2  Rome  has  often  accepted  a  fait  accomfli,  as  long  as  it  does  not  injure 
faith  or  morals,  even  if  it  began  by  an  injustice  against  which  she  had 
protested.  She  eventually  acknowledged  Napoleon  Buonaparte  and  the 
Protestant  succession  in  England. 

3  Illyricum  is,  in  modern  language,  Bosnia,  Serbia,  Western  Turkey, 
Greece  and  Crete.  At  the  time  we  speak  of,  the  original  population  was 
Greek,  with  continual  inroads  of  barbarians — Goths  and  then  Slavs  of  various 
kinds.    The  Bulgars  came  in  the  10th  century. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  45 

Patriarchate.  In  649  Pope  Martin  I  (649-655)  suspends  the 
Metropolitan  of  Thessalonica,  and  says  in  his  letter  that  this 
Church  is  "  subject  to  Our  Apostolic  See,"  meaning  clearly  to 
his  patriarchate.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (590-604)  has  left 
among  his  letters  no  less  than  twenty-one  written  about  the 
affairs  of  Illyricum,  and  he  sends  the  Pallium  to  the  Illyrian 
Metropolitans.  Now  it  should  be  noticed  that,  whereas  in  the 
East  patriarchal  jurisdiction  is  expressed  by  the  right  of  ordain- 
ing, in  the  West  the  corresponding  symbol  is  the  sending  of  a 
Pallium.  The  Popes  have  never  made  a  point  of  ordaining  all 
their  archbishops  ;  on  the  other  hand,  they  did  not  send  Pallia 
to  Eastern  Metropolitans.  In  545  Justinian  put  into  his  Authen- 
ticum  a  law  about  the  Bishop  of  Nea  Iustiniane  (see  p.  49)  ; 
he  is  to  have  jurisdiction  over  a  great  part  of  Illyricum,  but  only 
as  "  holding  the  place  (rov  tottov  fatixswm  representative)  of  the 
Apostolic  See  of  Rome."  *  And  yet,  inconsistently,  the  Codex 
contains  a  law  of  Theodosius  II  (408-450)  placing  Illyricum 
under  Constantinople,  and  of  course  with  the  everlasting  ex- 
planation "  because  that  city  rejoices  in  the  privileges  of  Old 
Rome";  and  on  the  strength  of  this  law  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarchs  continually  put  forth  a  claim  to  Illyricum. 

One  must  say  that  the  question  was  never  agreed  upon  till  the 
great  schism.  Old  Rome  had  on  her  side  antiquity  (she  had 
ruled  over  Illyricum  before  any  one  had  ever  heard  of  a  patri- 
archate at  Constantinople),  custom  and  the  sentiment  of  the 
Illyrian  bishops  themselves,  New  Rome  appealed  to  a  Civil  Law 
made  by  her  Emperor.  At  the  time  of  the  schism  this  question 
was  one  of  the  chief  ones  (p.  152)  ;  since  then  there  has  been 
unhappily  no  possibility  of  settling  it.  The  Illyrian  Christian 
is  now,  of  course,  either  Catholic  or  Orthodox,  and  so  obeys 
either  the  Latin  Vicar  Apostolic  or  the  Orthodox  Metropolitan.2 
A  like  case  was  that  of  Magna  Graiciay  the  old  greater  Greece, 
that  is,  Sicily  and  the  south  of  Italy  (Calabria,  Apulia,  &c). 
The  people  here  were  nearly  all  Greeks  by  blood  and  language. 
Politically,  these  lands  belonged  to  the  Eastern  Roman  Empire 

1  Nov.  131. 

2  See  Duchesne,  "  L'lllyricum  ecclesiastique,"  in  his  Eglises  separees 
pp.  229-279. 


46        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

from  the  time  Justinian's  army  eonquered  Italy  from  the  Goths 
(554)  till  the  Normans  gradually  took  them  (1060-1138).  As 
the  people  were  mostly  Greeks,  the  Greek  rite  (of  Byzantium) 
was  used  generally,  and  they  had  Greek  monasteries.  But  some 
bishops  (for  instance,  the  Bishop  of  Tranum  to  whom  Leo  of 
Achrida  writes  in  1053,  p.  178)  were  Latins.  In  any  case  all 
Italy  and  Sicily  belonged  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate  even  more 
plainly  than  Illyricum,  and  had  so  belonged  for  centuries  before 
there  was  such  a  person  as  a  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  But 
at  last  the  Emperor  thought  he  could  cement  the  allegiance  of 
these  distant  provinces  to  his  own  throne  by  joining  them  to  the 
Byzantine  Patriarchate.  Leo  III  (the  Isaurian,  717-741)  made 
a  civil  law  proclaiming  this  ;  and  from  that  time  the  Byzantine 
bishops  make  fitful  attempts  to  assert  jurisdiction  here  too,  as 
long  as  the  land  belongs  to  the  Empire.  But  the  Normans  con- 
quer Sicily  from  1060  to  1091,  and  then  gradually  seize  the 
mainland  too,  forming  what  was  afterwards  called  the  kingdom 
of  the  two  Sicilies.  The  last  Imperial  city  to  fall  was  Naples  in 
1 138.  From  this  time  no  one  any  longer  disputes  the  Roman 
Patriarch's  jurisdiction  in  these  parts,  though  the  Byzantine  rite 
lingered  on  and  is  even  still  used  about  here.  Magna  Graecia 
is  an  exception  to  the  general  rule  that  rite  follows  patriarchate. 
This  completes  our  account  of  the  rise  and  evolution 
of  Constantinople,  the  "  Great  Church." J  So  we  have  reached 
the  classical  number  of  five  patriarchates,  in  this  order  : 
Rome,  Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem,  that 
afterwards  seemed,  to  Eastern  theologians  especially,  as  obvious 
and  necessary  in  the  Christian  Church  as  the  five  senses  to  a 
man's  body.2     We  have  now  only  to  trace  the  rise  of  the  one 

1  'H  ixeyakt)  UicXijffia  has  become  its  official  title. 

-  C.  1054  Dominic,  Patriarch  of  Venice,  wrote  to  Peter,  Orthodox  Patriarch 
of  Antioch,  asking  him,  among  other  things,  to  recognize  Venice  as  a 
patriarchate,  also  founded  by  St.  Peter  through  St.  Mark,  and  mentioning 
that  he  (Dominic)  sits  at  the  Pope's  right  hand.  In  Peter's  answer  he  says  : 
"  Your  honoured  letter  says  that  the  most  holy  Church  over  which  you  preside 
was  founded  by  the  chief  Apostle  Peter  and  given  to  the  Evangelist  Mark, 
and  that  you  sit  at  the  right  hand  of  the  blessed  Pope,  and  that  therefore  I 
should  receive  your  letter  as  that  of  a  Patriarch.  But  indeed,  most  sacred 
spiritual  brother,  my  modesty  received  your  letter  with  honour  as  if  it  had 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  47 

independent  Church  province  in  the  Orthodox  East,  that 
eventually  belonged  to  none  of  them. 

6.  Cyprus. 

The  island  of  Cyprus  at  first  undoubtedly  obeyed  Antioch.1 
The  Gospel  had  been  brought  to  the  island  by  St.  Paul  and 
St.  Barnabas  on  their  first  missionary  journey.  St.  Barnabas 
was  counted  the  first  Bishop  of  Cyprus,  his  successor 
at  Constantia  (the  old  Salamis)  was  Metropolitan  over  three 
other  Cypriote  bishops.  He  went  up  to  Antioch  to  be  ordained 
just  like  the  other  metropolitans  of  the  patriarchate.  It  was 
possibly  the  confusion  of  the  Arian  troubles,  when  heretics 
reigned  even  at  Antioch,  that  first  made  the  Metropolitan  of 
Constantia  think  he  would  like  to  be  independent  and  have  an 
"  autocephalous  "  province  to  himself.  From  the  beginning  of 
the  5th  century,  at  any  rate,  the  Cypriote  bishops  begin  to  assert 
their  independence.  Pope  Innocent  I  (401-417)  stood  out  for 
the  rights  of  Antioch.2  The  Council  of  Ephesus  (431)  was 
already  ill-disposed  towards  that  see  (its  occupier  Johns  was  the 
chief  supporter  of  Nestorius).  The  Bishops  of  Cyprus  assured 
the  Fathers  of  the  council  that  their  Metropolitan  had  always 

come,  not  only  from  a  Patriarch,  but  from  a  mighty  Pontiff  of  God  equal  to 
the  Apostles.  On  the  other  hand,  whereas  from  my  earliest  years  till  old  age 
I  have  been  taught  holy  letters  (theology)  and  have  always  carefully  studied 
them,  never  from  any  one  did  I  anywhere  hear  or  learn  till  to-day  that  there 
is  a  Patriarch  of  Venice.  For  there  are  in  all  the  world  by  God's  grace  only 
five  Patriarchs,  the  Roman,  Constantinopolitan,  Alexandrine,  Antiochene  and 
Hierosolymitan."  Peter  goes  on  to  say  that  the  Roman  and  Alexandrine 
Bishops  should  be  called  Pope,  those  of  Constantinople  and  Jerusalem  Arch- 
bishop ;  so  that  he  himself  is  the  only  quite  real  Patriarch.  Then  :  "  Now 
listen  to  what  I  say.  A  man's  body  is  ruled  by  one  head,  in  it  are  many 
members,  which  are  all  guided  by  only  five  senses,  so  also  the  body  of 
Christ,"  &c.  The  comparison  is  a  favourite  one.  George  of  Trebizond,  at 
about  the  same  time,  tells  us  which  each  one  is.  Rome  is  touch,  Con- 
stantinople taste,  Alexandria  sight,  Antioch  hearing,  and  Jerusalem  smell. 
His  reasons,  and  the  correspondence  between  Dominic  of  Venice  and  Peter 
of  Antioch  may  be  seen  in  Will  :  Acta  et  Scripta  de  Controv.  Eccl.  Grcecce  et 
Latince. 

1  Cyprus  was  part  of  the  Roman  civil  diocese  of  the  East,  that  became 
the  Antiochene  Patriarchate. 

-  His  letter  in  Jaffe's  Reg.  Rom.  Pont.  310.  3  428-441. 


48        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

been  ordained  by  his  own  suffragans,  never  at  Antioch  ; »  and  so 
the  council  in  its  seventh  session  acknowledged  the  independence 
of  their  Church,  though  only  in  as  far  as  such  was  already  an 
ancient  custom.2  There  seems  to  have  been  a  feeling  that  an 
Apostolic  Church  should  be  not  submitted  to,  but  be  the  equal 
of  the  Patriarchal  Sees  ;  although  this  idea  was  never  con- 
sistently carried  out,  nor  applied  to  the  numberless  Pauline 
Churches.  St.  Barnabas  was  an  Apostle,  although  not  one  of  the 
twelve,  and  it  was  he  who  secured  for  his  Church  of  Cyprus  its 
exceptional  position.  In  spite  of  the  Council  of  Ephesus  the 
See  of  Antioch  was  unwilling  to  let  Cyprus  go.  In  488,  Peter 
the  Dyer  (Tpa^evg,  Fullo,  Patriarch  from  470-488)3  made  a  great 
effort  to  assert  his  jurisdiction  over  the  island.  But  Anthimus, 
Metropolitan  of  Constantia,  who  was  resisting  him,  just  at  the 
right  time  in  the  middle  of  the  dispute  received  a  revelation 
telling  him  where  St.  Barnabas's  grave  was,  quite  near  his  own 
city.  This  seemed  to  enforce  the  Apostolicity  of  his  see — it 
was  not  only  founded  by  an  Apostle,  but  it  still  possessed  his 
relics.  So  from  that  time  the  independent  ("autocephalous" 
is  the  technical  word)  character  of  the  Metropolitan,  or  rather 
Exarch  of  Constantia  and  Cyprus  was  no  more  called  into 
question.4 

The  Island  Church  had  one  more  interesting  adventure,  that 
has  left  its  trace  till  to-day.  In  647  Cyprus  was  ravaged  by 
the  Saracens  ;  in  686  a  treaty  between  the  Emperor  and  the 
Khalifah  settled  that  half  its  tribute  should  be  paid  to 
Constantinople  and  half  to  Damascus.  Then  Justinian  II 
(685-695)  thought  he  could  manage  to  keep  the  whole  of  the 
tribute  by  shipping  the  population  of  the  island  to  the  main- 
land, out  of  the  Khalifah's  reach.     So  they  all  had  to  go  to  the 


1  This  may  have  been  true,  for  some  time  at  any  rate 

2  Hardouin,  i.  1620.     Hefele,  ii.  208. 

3  He  was  a  Monophysite,  twice  deposed  and  restored,  who  added  to  the 
Trisagion  (Sanctus)  the  words,  "Who  was  crucified  for  us."  These  words 
were  thought  to  contain  Monophysite  venom  and  were,  after  much  dispute, 
rejected  by  the  Orthodox.    They  are  still  a  speciality  of  the  Jacobite  liturgy. 

4  It  was  again  confirmed  by  the  Trullanum  II  (the  Quinisextum  in  692), 
Canon  39. 


THE   GREAT  PATRIARCHATES  49 

corner  of  Asia  Minor,  near  the  Hellespont  ;  and  there  he  built 
them  a  city  which  he  called  Nea  Iustinianupolis — the  New 
City  of  Justinian.1  Their  bishops  came  too  ;  the  Exarch  of 
Cyprus  sat  at  Nea  Iustinianupolis,  and  the  39th  Canon 
of  the  Quinisextum  (692)  transfers  all  the  rights,  privileges 
and  independence  of  the  See  of  Constantia  to  the  new  city ; 
moreover,  the  Exarch  now  was  given  jurisdiction  over  the 
Metropolitan  of  Cyzicus  and  all  the  bishops  of  the  Helles- 
pont, to  make  up  for  his  lost  island.  But  it  all  came  to 
nothing.  Only  one  Exarch  (John)  reigned  at  Nea  Iustinianu- 
polis, then  Justinian  II  died,  and  the  Cypriotes  went  home 
again,  taking  their  hierarchy  with  them.  The  Hellespont 
fell  back  into  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  and  the 
only  relic  of  Justinian's  arrangement  is  that  the  Exarchs  of 
Cyprus  have  added  the  purely  honorary  title  of  Archbishop 
of  Nea  Iustiniane  to  their  names. 

If,  then,  we  make  a  survey  of  the  Eastern  Churches  at  any 
time  from  the  5th  to  the  9th  centuries,  we  shall  find,  first  of 
all,  that  already  a  very  large  number  of  Christians  have  left  the 
union  of  the  Catholic  Church.  Egypt  is  full  of  Monophysite 
Copts,  Syria  of  Jacobites  ;  Armenia  has  fallen  off,  the  Nestorians 
have  all  escaped  to  Persia.  On  the  other  hand,  we  find 
established  throughout  the  Empire  one  great  corporate  body, 
far  greater  than  all  the  schismatical  Churches  put  together, 
which,  in  spite  of  such  nicknames  as  Melkite,  Dyophysite, 
and  so  on,  is  always  officially  known  as  the  Orthodox  Catholic 
Church.  Throughout  this  Catholic  Church  the  Pope  reigns  as 
Over- Lord  and  Chief  (we  shall  see  this  in  the  next  chapter)  ; 
it  is  divided  into  the  five  patriarchates  and  the  autocephalous 
Church  of  Cyprus. 

Except  for  the  schism  between  the  East  and  West,  this 
remained  the  fundamental  constitution  of  Eastern  Christen- 
dom until  the  rise  of  independent  national  Churches  almost 
in  our  own  time.  And  our  Canon  Law  still  contains  the  21st 
Canon  of  the  eighth  general  council  (Constantinople  IV,  in 
869)  :  "  We  define  that  no  one  at  all  of  the  mighty  ones  of 
this  world  shall  dishonour  those  who  occupy  the  patriarchal 
1  The  name  was  shortened  into  Nea  Iustiniane. 

5 


50        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

thrones,  or  shall  try  to  move  them  from  their  sees,  especially 
the  most  holy  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  and  then  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  and  those  of  Alexandria,  and  Antioch  and 
Jerusalem." x 

Summary. 

We  have  seen   then,  that  already  in  the  first  ages  some 
bishops  had  authority  over  others  ;     metropolitans  ruled  over 
bishops,  exarchs  over  metropolitans,  the  first  three  sees  were 
those    of   Rome,   Alexandria,  Antioch.     This  was  already   an 
"  ancient  custom  "  at  the  time  of  the  first  general  council.     That 
council  (Nicaea  I,  325)  acknowledges  it  and  gives  an  honorary 
rank  to   Jerusalem.     The   second   general    council   (Constanti- 
nople I,  381)  wants  to  give  the  second  rank  to  Constantinople, 
"  because  it  is  New  Rome,"  but  the  Canon  is  not  accepted  by 
the  Pope.     The    third   council  (Ephesus,  431)    makes   Cyprus 
autocephalous.      The    fourth    (Chalcedon,   451)    changes    the 
honorary  rank  of  Jerusalem  into  a  real  patriarchate  and  enor- 
mously extends  the  power  of  Constantinople  ;  but  its   Canon 
is  again    rejected  by   the  Pope.     Meanwhile  two  other  sees, 
Ephesus  and  Caesarea   in    Cappadocia,  have  their  careers  cut 
short  by  Constantinople.     The   Nestorian   heresy   produces   a 
schism  in  the  extreme  east  of  the  Empire,  and  then  a  national 
Church  in  Persia.    Monophysism  causes  permanent  schismatical 
national  Churches  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  and  cuts  off  all  Armenia. 
Islam   overruns   Egypt,   Syria,  and   Palestine,  completing   the 
fall  of  their  three   patriarchates.     Constantinople  is  left  with- 
out a  rival  in  the  East,  becomes  the  head  of  all  the  Eastern 
Churches,   and    already    is  very  jealous   of    Rome.     But   the 
Canon   Law  both   of   East  and  West  always  recognizes  the 
five  patriarchates  and  Cyprus. 

1  C.I.C.  dist.  22,  c.  7. 


CHAPTER   II 

ROME   AND  THE   EASTERN   CHURCHES 

The  relation  of  the  Eastern  bishops  to  the  West  means 
practically  their  relation  to  the  Pope  at  Rome.  With  other 
Western  bishops  they  had  little  to  do  ;  a  Latin  bishop  was 
to  them  just  a  suffragan1  of  the  Roman  Patriarch  who,  if 
ever  he  did  appear  at  a  Council,  would  be  sure  to  vote  with 
his  chief. 

All  the  more  important  was  their  relation  to  the  Pope  him- 
self. It  was  not  always  a  friendly  one.  During  the  second  half 
of  these  eight  centuries  especially,  there  was  plenty  of  friction  ; 
mistakes  were  made  by  both  sides,  jealousies  and  discontent 
were  fostered,  till  they  became  a  sort  of  national  cause,  and  so 
prepared  the  disaster  which  came  in  the  9th  century.  Never- 
theless, during  this  period  the  Eastern  Churches  acknowledged 
the  Primacy  of  the  Pope,  and  when  at  last  the  schism  came,  it 
was  they  who  made  the  change  by  rejecting  it,  not  the  Latins 
who  went  on  maintaining  it. 

A  chain  of  texts  from  various  writers,  drawn  up  to  prove  a 
thesis,  is  never  very  interesting  to  read.  Moreover,  the  texts  I 
have  to  produce  now  have  been  quoted  already  a  number  of 
times.  They  form  part  of  the  argument  for  the  Papacy  in  the 
first  centuries,  a  subject  about  which  it  seems  that  everything  on 
either  side  has  already  been  said.     Nevertheless,  the  question  is 

1  Suffragan  is  not  really  the  right  word.  Metropolitans  have  suffragans. 
There  is  no  technical  name  to  express  the  relation  of  a  bishop  to  his  patriarch. 
In  any  case,  one  should  never  call  an  auxiliary  bishop  a  suffragan. 

51 


52        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

to  Catholics  by  far  the  most  important  of  all  concerning  the 
Eastern  Churches,  and  it  is  especially  necessary  as  balancing 
what  we  have  to  consider  in  the  last  paragraph.  We  will  only 
take  the  Eastern  (chiefly  Greek)  writers,  or  cases  that  concern 
their  Church  into  account,  leaving  out  altogether  all  the  Latin 
Fathers  and  Western  Councils,  as  well  as  the  very  earliest 
writers  (Apostolic  Fathers  and  Apologists),  in  whose  time  one 
can  hardly  yet  speak  of  an  Eastern  and  a  Western  Church. 
Our  Catena  is  then  only  a  fragment  ;  the  historic  argument  for 
the  Roman  Primacy  must  be  studied  in  one  of  the  books 
written  on  that  subject.  It  will  be  convenient  first  to  see  what 
the  great  Eastern  Fathers  and  then  the  later  Byzantine  theo- 
logians say  about  the  Papacy  ;  secondly,  to  notice  some  cases  in 
which  we  find  the  Primacy  working  ;  thirdly,  to  examine  the  rela- 
tions between  Popes  and  the  councils  that  both  Catholics  and 
Orthodox  accept  as  oecumenical;  and,  fourthly ,  to  consider  the 
other  side  of  the  question,  the  causes  of  ill-feeling  between  the 
Churches  that  prepared  the  schism. 

I.  The  Eastern  Fathers  and  the  Papacy. 

The  great  school  of  Greek  and  Syrian  Fathers  begins  with  the 
time  of  Constantine  (Eusebius  of  Caesarea,  f  c.  340),  and  lasts  till 
about  that  of  Marcian  (450-457)  and  the  Monophysite  heresy 
— just  over  a  century. 

These  Fathers  in  the  first  place  believed  that  St.  Peter  was 
the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  and  the  Rock  on  which  our  Lord  built 
his  Church.  They  not  only  saw  it  in  their  New  Testament, 
they  had  received  the  tradition  ifrom  their  forbears.  Long  ago 
Origen  (t  254)  had  written  :  "  See  what  is  said  by  the  Lord  to 
that  great  fundament  and  most  solid  rock  on  which  Christ  built 
his  Church  :  Oh,  thou  of  little  faith,  he  says,  why  hast  thou 
doubted  ?  "  ■  Eusebius,  the  Father  of  Church  History  (t  c.  340), 
writes,  quoting  Origen  :  "  Peter  on  whom  the  Church  of  Christ 
is  built  up  (oltcodofjielrai)  left  one  Epistle  generally  received."  2 
St  Basil  (f  379)  :  "  When  we  say  Peter  we  mean  the  son  of 
Jonas,  brother  of  Andrew,  who  since  he  was  the  greatest  in  faith 

1  Horn.  5  in  Exod.  4.  M.P.G.  xii.  329.  2  H.E.  vi.  25. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    53 

received  the   building  up    of    the   Church   to   himself."1     St. 
Ephrem  (f  373)  represents  our   Lord  as  saying  to  St.  Peter  : 
"  Simon,  my  disciple,  I  have  made  you  the  foundation  of  the 
holy  Church.     I  have  called  you  a  Rock  because  you  shall  hold 
up  all  my  building.     You  are  the  inspector2  of  those  who  build 
my  Church  on  earth  ;  if  they  want  to  build  anything  badly  you 
as  the  foundation  shall  restrain  them,  you  are  the  Head  of  the 
fountain  of  my  teaching.  .  .  .  Behold,  I  have  made  you  lord 
over  all  my  treasures."  3     St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  (f  386)  calls 
him  :  "  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles  and  Supreme  Herald  of 
the  Church,"  "  Key-bearer  of  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven."     St. 
John   Chrysostom    (f  407)   seems   to   never   mention  St.  Peter 
without  adding  the  strongest  expressions  of  his  dignity.     No 
one  of  the  Fathers,  either  Greek  or  Latin,  so  constantly  refers  to 
the  Primacy  of  St.  Peter,  or  gives  him  such  splendid  titles,  as 
St.  Chrysostom.    St.  Peter  is  the  chief  (Kopv^diog)  of  the  Apostles,^ 
the  first  Apostle,  head  of  their  company,*  first  in  the  Church, 
the  unbreakable  Rock  and  immovable  basement,  &c.6     He  is 
the  column  of  the  Church,  firmament  of  faith,  fundament  of  the 
confession,  fisherman  of  the  whole  world,?  head  of  the  brother- 
hood, president  of  all  the  world,  foundation  of  the  Church.8 
But  it  is  needless  to  multiply  examples  of  what  no  one  who  at 
all  knows  St.  John  Chrysostom  will  deny.     Let  any  one  open  a 
volume  of  his  sermons  by  chance  and  look  for  the  first  mention 
of  St.  Peter  ;  he  will  almost  certainly  find  such  titles  as  these 
after  it.     St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum  (t  c.   39o),9  St.  Gregory  of 
Nyssa  (t  c.  395), IO  St.  Epiphanius  (f  403), "  5/.  Cyril  of  Alexandria 
(f  444), I2  all  have  the  same  thing  to  say  :  St.  Peter  was  Prince 
of  the  Apostles,  the  foundation  on  which  our  Lord  built  his 
Church,  and  the  Shepherd  of   the  whole  flock.     To  this  day 

1  Adv.  Eunom.  M.P.G.  xxix.  579. 

2  Bochura  (Bachr,  to  examine).    This  is  the  word  he  uses  for  bishop,  other- 
wise they  can  only  say  "  Efisqaufa." 

3  Sermo  de  pass,  et  resur.  4,  1  ;  Lamy,  i.  412. 

«  De  Sac.  II.  1.  M.P.G.  xlviii.  631.  a  Horn.  88  in  Joh.  i.  p.  478. 

6  De  Poen.  horn.  Hi.  4,  298.  *  De  10,000  tal.  deb.  3,  20. 

8  Horn,  in  Hoc  scitote,  275.  »  Or.  32,  de  mod.  in  disp.  18,  p.  194. 

10  Laud.  II.  S.  Steph.  p.  734  ;  De  Castig.  p.  311. 
"  Hseres.  59,  p.  1030.  "  In  Mt.  16,  18,  p.  423. 


54        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  Church  of  Constantinople  in  her  office  honours  St.  Peter 
as  "  The  foundation  of  the  Church  and  Rock  of  the  faith,"  «  and 
"  Immovable  basis  of  dogmas,"  "  throne  of  the  faith,"  "  sitting 
on  the  first  throne   of  the  Apostles." 2 

These  same  Fathers  knew  that  St.  Peter  had  been  the  first 
Bishop  of  Rome,  and  that  the  Pope  is  his  successor.  Eusebius 
writes  of  u  the  first  succession  of  the  Apostles,"  and  says  : 
"  Linus  received  the  Bishopric  of  the  Roman  Church  first  after 
Peter,"  3  Pope  Victor  "  was  the  thirteenth  bishop  of  the  Roman 
Church  since  Peter."  4  Epiphanius  :  "  the  succession  of  the  Roman 
Bishops  is  thus  :  Peter  and  Paul,  Linus  and  Cletus,  Clement," 
&c.  s  The  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  cry  out,  when  St.  Leo's  letter 
has  been  read  to  them  :  "  Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo,"  the  Fathers 
of  the  sixth  general  council  (Constantinople  III,  in  68o)  repeat 
their  words  :  "  Peter  has  been  spoken  by  Agatho."6  Eulogius 
of  Alexandria  (t  608)  "  said  of  the  chair  of  St.  Peter,  the  Prince 
of  the  Apostles,  that  he  himself  sits  therein  to  this  day  in  his 
successors."  ?  On  the  feast  of  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  the  Church 
of  Constantinople  still  sings  :  "  Let  the  Protector  of  Rome, 
the  Steward  of  the  kingdom,  Rock  of  the  faith,  firm  foundation 
stone  of  the  Catholic  Church,  be  celebrated  in  sacred  hymns." 8 
And  on  the  commemoration  of  all  the  Apostles  (June  30th)  the 
Menaion  contains  the  hymn  :  "  Summit  and  foundation  of  the 
Apostles,  you  left  all  things  and  followed  your  Master,  saying  : 
May  I  die  with  you,  so  as  to  live  the  life  of  the  Blessed.  You 
became  the  first  Bishop  of  Rome  ;  you  were  the  glory  and 
honour  of  the  greatest  of  all  cities  and  fulcrum  of  the  Church, 
oh  Peter,  against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail."  9 

From  these  premisses  the  Eastern  Church  drew  the  same 
conclusion  as  the  Latins.  The  foundation  stone  must  last  as 
long  as  the  building  that  rests  on  it,  and  therefore  it  could  not 

1  Menaion,  Jan.  16th  (St.  Peter's  Chains)  in  the  Hesperinon. 

2  Cf.  Nilles  :  Kalendarium  manuale,  i.  72,  193,  194.  For  further  examples 
see  Echos  d'Orient,  i.  307-309  :  Les  litres  glorieux  dc  I'Apotre  Saint  Pierre  dans 
Vhymnographie  grecque. 

3  H.E.  iii.  4.         4  Ibid.  v.  28.        5  Haer.  27,  n.  6.        6  Hardouin,  iii.  1422. 

7  So  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  L.  7,  Ep.  40,  M.P.L.  lxxvii.  898. 

8  Card.  Pitra  :  Hymnographie  de  VEglise  grecque,  Rome,  1867,  p.  cxx. 

9  Menaion  for  June  (Venice,  1895),  Sticheron  for  June  30th,  p.  119. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES     55 

have  died  with  St.  Peter.  It  must  still  exist  in  his  successors. 
St.  John  Chrysostom  says  :  "  Why  did  he  (our  Lord)  shed  his 
blood  ?  To  redeem  the  sheep  which  he  handed  over  to  Peter 
and  to  his  successors."  J  So  St.  Peter's  successor  is  the  Chief 
Bishop,  just  as  he  was  the  Chief  Apostle,  and  has  jurisdiction 
over  all  other  bishops.  Most  of  the  cases  in  which  we  see  this 
belief  of  the  Eastern  Church  are  cases  of  appeals  to  Rome,  to 
which  we  shall  come  later  (p.  67).  Meanwhile  here  are  some 
texts,  chosen  out  of  a  great  number.  5/.  Basil  writes  to  Pope 
Damasus,  telling  him  of  the  troubles  of  the  Eastern  Church,  and 
adding  :  "  The  only  remedy  we  can  see  for  these  evils  is  a 
visitation  from  your  Mercy."  2  He  writes  to  St.  Athanasius  : 
"  We  thought  it  expedient  to  write  to  the  Bishop  of  Rome  that 
he  should  examine  our  affairs,  and  to  advise  him,  since  it  would 
be  difficult  to  send  any  one  (he  means  a  legate)  thence  by  the 
common  decree  of  a  synod,  to  himself  use  his  lawful  authority 
in  the  matter  (abrbv  avdevTrjaai  nepl  to  7rpay/za),  choosing  men 
(legates)  fit  to  bear  the  fatigue  of  a  journey,  and  also  fit  to 
correct  all  perverse  people  in  our  parts  gently  and  firmly."  3 
Sozomen,  who  continued  Eusebius's  Church  History  (c.  440-450), 
says  that  "  the  Bishop  of  the  Romans,  having  examined  the 
accusations  against  them  (St.  Athanasius  and  other  Eastern 
bishops),  and  having  found  that  they  all  agreed  with  the  faith 
of  the  Nicene  Synod,  admitted  them  to  communion  with  him- 
self. And  since  the  care  of  all  belonged  to  him  because  of  the 
rank  of  his  see,  he  restored  to  each  one  his  Church."  * 

At  the  same  time  a  Latin  bishop,  St.  Peter  Chrysologus  (Arch- 
bishop of  Ravenna,  f  450) ,  was  asked  by  Eutyches,  Archiman- 
drite of  the  monastery  without  the  walls  of  Constantinople  and 
Father  of  the  Monophysite  sect,  to  take  his  side.  Chrysologus 
answers  him  :  "  Honourable  brother,  I  advise  you  to  obediently 
attend  in  all  things  to  what  has  been  written  by  the  most 
blessed  Pope  of  the  City  of  Rome,  because  St.  Peter,  who  lives 
and  reigns  in  his  own  See,  teaches  the  truth  of  faith  to  those 
who   seek   it."  s     So    Eutyches   got   no   help   from    Ravenna. 

1  De  Sac.  ii.  1.  M.P.G.  xlviii.  632.  2  Ep.  70,  ad  Dam.  M.P.G.  xxxii.  434. 

3  Ep.  69,  ad  Athan.  I,  ibid.  432.  *  H.E.  iii.  8.  M.P.G.  lxvii.  1052. 

s  Ep.  ad  Eutychen,  2. 


56        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Theodoret,  Bishop  of  Cyrus  in  Syria  (f  458),  is  considered  to 
have  been  the  most  learned  exegetical  writer  of  the  East.1  He 
was  deposed  by  the  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus  in  449,  and 
promptly  appealed  to  St.  Leo  I,  the  reigning  Pope.  He  says  to 
St.  Leo  :  "  If  Paul,  preacher  of  truth,  and  trumpet  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  turns  to  the  great  Peter,  in  order  to  get  his  explanation 
for  the  benefit  of  those  who  doubted  about  whether  to  keep  the 
(old)  law  at  Antioch,  how  much  more  do  we,  humble  and  weak 
ones,  come  to  your  Apostolic  See,  that  we  may  receive  from 
you  the  remedy  for  the  Church's  wounds.  For  you  must  hold 
the  first  place  in  all  things."  2  A  Bishop  of  Patara  writes  to 
Justinian  (527-565)  concerning  Pope  St.  Silverius  (536-537) 
whom  he,  the  Emperor,  was  persecuting  :  "  There  are  many 
sovereigns  on  earth,  but  not  one  who  is  placed  over  the  Church 
of  the  whole  world,  as  is  the  Pope.,,  3  But  Justinian  begins  the 
Byzantine  period,  of  which  hereafter  (p.  63).  It  is  strange  that 
the  schismatical  Eastern  Church  should  still  use  words  that 
express  the  Roman  Primacy.  St.  Martin  occupied  the  chair  of 
St.  Peter  from  649-655.  In  a  synod  at  the  Lateran  (649)  he 
rejected  two  decrees  (the  Ekthesis  of  Heraclius  and  the  Typos 
of  Constans  II),  in  which  the  Emperors  had  drawn  up  a  com- 
promise between  the  Catholic  faith  and  the  Monothelite  heresy. 
In  653  the  Emperor*  sent  to  seize  him,  had  him  dragged  first 
to  the  Island  Naxos,  then  to  Constantinople,  where  he  was 
condemned  for  high  treason  and  banished  to  the  Chersonese. 
Here  he  died  from  the  effects  of  the  most  barbarous  ill-treat- 
ment, torture,  and  the  want  even  of  bread,  on  September  16, 
655  ;  and  he  is  honoured  as  a  martyr  for  the  faith  by  East  and 
West.  We  keep  his  feast  on  November  12th,  they  on  April  13th 
and  September  20th,  and  they  sing  in  his  honour  this  hymn  : 
"  By  what  name  shall  I  call  thee,  oh  Martin  !  Shall  I  call  thee 
the  glorious  ruler  of  the  Orthodox  Faith  for  all  ?  Or  the 
sacred  chief  of  divine  dogmas,  unstained  by  error  ?  .  .  .     Or 

1  Theodoret  of  Cyrus  was  for  a  time  suspect  of  Nestorianism,  and  his 
writings  were  condemned  by  the  fifth  general  council  (it  was  the  second  of 
Justinian's  Three  Chapters),  see  pp.  82,  83. 

2  Ep.  113,  ad  Leon.  M.  M.P.G.  lxxxiii.  1312,  seq. 

3  Liberati  Breviarium,  M.P.L.  lxviii.  22.  4  Constans  II,  641-668. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES     $7 

the  most  true  reprover  of  heresy  ?  .  .  .  We  know  that  thou 
wast  the  foundation  of  bishops,  pillar  of  the  Orthodox  Faith, 
teacher  of  religion.  .  .  .  Thou  didst  adorn  the  divine  See  of 
Peter,  and  since  thou  from  this  divine  Rock  didst  guard  the 
Church  unmoved,  so  now  with  him  (St.  Peter)  art  thou 
glorified."  x  On  St.  Gregory  the  Great's  feast  they  have  even 
more  to  say  about  the  Roman  See  :  "  Most  sacred  Pastor,  thou 
art  the  successor  of  the  see  and  also  of  the  zeal  of  the  first  one 
(t6v  Kopv<f>aiov,  St.  Peter),  cleansing  the  people  and  bringing  them 
to  God.  Successor  of  the  throne  of  the  prince  of  the  choir  of 
disciples,  whence  thou  dost  by  thy  teaching  as  with  a  torch 
enlighten  the  faithful,  oh  Gregory !  When  the  first  of 
Churches  embraced  thee,  she  watered  all  the  earth  that  is 
beneath  the  sun  with  divine  teaching.  Hail,  torch  of  religion, 
who  dost  light  up  all  the  world  with  the  glory  of  thy  words  ! 
lighthouse,  who  dost  call  back  to  the  shore  those  who  are  tossed 
among  the  waves  of  error  !  Instrument  sounded  by  the  breath 
of  the  Holy  Ghost  ! "  2  They  have  a  great  devotion  to  St. 
Gregory  Dialogos,  as  they  call  him  ;  and  both  hymns  are  an 
example  of  a  very  honourable  conservatism,  that  will  not 
alter  their  venerable  office,  in  spite  of  later  quarrels  against 
the  "  divine  See  of  Peter,"  the  "  first  of  Churches." 

These  Greek  Fathers,  however,  not  only  looked  to  Rome  in 
cases  of  Church  government  ;  Rome  was  also  the  last  Court 
of  Appeal  in  questions  of  faith.  When  other  bishops  disagreed 
about  some  point  of  doctrine,  when  there  was  no  opportunity 
of  summoning  a  general  council  (they  could  not  make  bishops 
come  together  from  every  part  of  the  Empire  to  settle  each 
dispute)  ;  then  they  asked  what  was  the  teaching  of  the  first  of 
Churches,  in  which  St.  Peter,  the  rock  and  foundation  of  all, 
still  lived  and  taught.  Sozomen  says  of  the  heresy  of  Mace- 
donius  :  "  When  this  question  was  moved,  and  when  the 
quarrel  grew  from  day  to  day,  the  Bishop  of  the  City  of  Rome 
having  heard  of  it  wrote  to  the  Eastern  Churches  that  they 
must  confess  the  Trinity,  consubstantial,  equal  in  honour  and 
glory,  just  as  the  Western  bishops  do.      When  he  had  done 

1  Menaion  for  April  13th  (Venice,  1895),  pp.  45-49.    Nilles,  Kal.  I,  137,  138. 
2  Nilles,  o.c.  I,  121. 


58   THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

this   all   were   silent,  as   the   controversy   was   ended   by   the 

decision  of  the  Roman  Church,  and  the  question  was  seen  to  be 

at  an  end."  *     He  refers  to  St.  Damasus's  letter  in  378,  and  his 

words  are  a  Greek  parallel  to  St.  Augustine's,  "  The  decrees  have 

come  from  the  Apostolic  See,  the  cause  is  finished  " 2 — Roma 

locuta  est,  causa  linita  est.     5/.  Cyril  of  Alexandria  (t  444)  writes 

to  accuse   Nestorius   of   heresy   to   his   "  Most   loving   Father 

Celestine "    (Pope,  422-432).     "  Since  God  requires  us  to  be 

watchful  in  these  matters,"  he  says,  "  and  since  the  ancient 

custom  of  the  Church  persuades  us  to  communicate  them  to  your 

Holiness,  I  write,  forced  by  the  necessity  of  the  case,  and  tell 

you  that  Satan  is  now  confusing  everything  and  raging  against 

the  Church   of   God."  3     St.  Celestine   answers  him  :    "  Using 

the  authority  of  our  See,  in  our  place  (he   is  making  him  his 

Legate)  you  shall  carry  out  this  sentence  with  due  severity, 

namely,  that  he  (Nestorius)  must  either  write  out  a  profession 

condemning  his  wicked  assertions  within  ten  days  from   this 

meeting  (C.  of  Ephesus),  or,  if  he  will  not  do  so,  your  Holiness 

shall   provide   for   that    Church    (Nestorius   was   Patriarch   of 

Constantinople),  and  shall  know  that  he  is  in  every  way  to  be 

removed  from   our   communion."  4      Theodoret   represents   our 

Lord  as  saying  to  St.  Peter  :  "  As  I  did  not  forsake  you  in  the 

waves,  so  do  you  be  a  support  to  your  brothers  in  trouble,  give 

to  them  the  same  help  by  which  you  yourself  were  saved,  do 

not  reject  those  who  stumble,  but  lift  them  up  when  they  are 

falling.     For  this  reason  I  let  you  stumble,  but  do  not  let*  you 

fall,  through   you   I   give   firmness   to   those   who   are   tossed 

about."  s     We  have  seen  how  Theodoret  knows  he  has  to  act 

towards  the  Pope  as  the  other  Apostles  towards  their  Pope, 

St.  Peter  (p.  56).     At  the  time  of  the  Three  Chapters,  Severus 

Scholasticus  at  Constantinople  writes  to  Fulgentius  Ferrandus, 

Deacon  at  Carthage  and  a  famous  Canonist  (f  c.  546),  to  ask 

him  whether  one  may  say  that  Jesus  Christ  is  "  one  of  the  holy 

and   undivided  Trinity  "  (it  is  the  old  question  of  the  Com- 

municatio  Idiomatum  :  may  one  apply  to  the  man  Jesus  Christ 

divine    names  ?).      To    whom    Fulgentius    answers  :    "  Most 

1  H.E.  vi.  22.    M.P.G.  lxvii.  1348.  2  Sermo  131. 

3  Ep.  11.     M.P.G.  1.  447  «  Hardouin,  i.  1323.         s  L.c.  Theodoreti. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES     59 

prudent  sir,  if  you  want  to  know  the  truth,  ask  in  the   first 
place  the  Bishop  of  the  Apostolic  See,  whose  right  judgement 
stands  firm  by  the  judgement  of  truth,  and  is  strengthened  by 
the  weight  of  his  authority."  x     Eutychius,  Patriarch  of   Con- 
stantinople   (552-582),    writes    to    Pope    Vigilius    (540-555)  : 
11  We   receive   and   accept  the  letters  of   the   Prelates  of  the 
Apostolic  Roman  See,  both  those  of  the  others  and  especially 
those  of  Leo  of  holy  memory,  which  were  written  concerning 
the  true  faith  and  concerning  the  four  holy  councils."  2     Sergius 
of  Cyprus  writes  to  Pope  Theodore  I   (642-649)  :  M  Christ  our 
God  made  your  illustrious  Apostolic  See  a  firmament  fixed  by 
God  and  immovable,  oh  sacred  Chief  !     For  you  are  Peter,  as 
the  Divine  word  truly  says,  and  on  your  foundation  the  pillars 
of   the  Church  are  fixed.     He  gave  to  you  the  keys  of   the 
kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  declared  that  you  have  power  to  bind 
and   loosen   what   is   in   heaven   or   on   earth.      You   are   the 
destroyer  of  profane  heresies,  and  the  Prince  and   Doctor  of 
the  orthodox  and  immaculate  faith.      Wherefore,  most   holy 
Father,  do  not  despise  the  fact  that  the  faith  of  your  Fathers  is 
troubled  and  blown  about  by  certain  heretical  winds  and  by 
them  endangered  ;  pierce  through  the  cloud  of  these  foolish 
persons  with  the  light  of  your  Divine  knowledge." 3   5/.  Maximus 
the  Confessor,  Archimandrite  of  the  monastery  of   Chrysopolis 
by  Constantinople,  suffered  torture  and  death   for  the   same 
cause  and  at  the  same  time  as  Pope  St.  Martin  (p.  56).     He, 
too,  was  tried  for  high  treason,  was  accused,  of   all  amazing 
charges,  of  being  responsible  for  the  Saracen  conquest  of  Egypt, 
and  was  told  to  give  up  his  obstinate  private  opinion,  and  to 
accept  the  Emperor's  Typos.      To  which  he   answered  :    "I 
have   no   private   opinion,  but   only  agree  with   the   Catholic 
Church."     After   having   been   twice   banished,   and   suffering 
every  conceivable  privation,  he  was  scourged  through  the  city, 
had  his  tongue  cut  out,  and  died  of  his  torture  on  August  13, 
662.     He  is  honoured  as  a  martyr  by  us  and  by  the  Greeks.* 
This  saint,  too,  has  the  plainest  things  to  say  about  the  Roman 
See  :  "All  the  ends  of  the  earth, and  all  who  in  any  place  really 

1  Ep.  v.  n.  1.     M.P.L.  lxvii.  911.  2  Ibid.  64.  3  Mansi,  x.  914. 

4  His  life  in  Combefis  and  M.P.G.  xc.  68,  seq. 


60        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

confess  the  Lord  in  the  true  faith,  turn  their  eyes  to  the  most 
holy  Roman  Church  and  to  her  confession  and  faith,  as  to  a  sun 
of  eternal  light.  .  .  .  For  since  the  beginning,  when  the  Word 
of  God  came  down  to  us,  being  made  man,  all  the  Churches 
of    the   Christians   have    received   one    only   firm    basis    and 
foundation,  the  great  Church  that  is  there  (at  Rome),  against 
which,  according  to  the  Saviour's  promise,  the  gates  of  hell 
shall  never  prevail,  and  which  holds  the  keys  of  the  true  faith 
in  him,  which  gives  the  true  and  only  piety  to  those  who  come 
to  her  devoutly,  which  shuts  the  mouth  of  all  heretics."  *     And 
he  writes  of  Pyrrhus,  the  Monothelite  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople (638-655)  :  "  If  he  wants  to  neither  be  considered,  nor  to 
really  be  a  heretic,  he  need  not  try  to  please  first  this  one  and 
then  that  one — to  do  this  would  be  superfluous  and  unreasonable, 
because   just  as   all   are   scandalized   at   him   because   one   is 
scandalized,  so  if  he  satisfies  this  one,  without  doubt  all  will 
be  satisfied.     So  let  him  hasten  above  all  to  satisfy  the  Roman 
See.     If  he  agrees  with  her,  every  one  will  in  all  places  call  him 
pious  and  orthodox.     Indeed,  he  is  talking  in  vain  if  he  tries  to 
persuade  people  like  myself  before  he  has  satisfied  and  begged 
forgiveness  of  the  most  blessed  Pope  of  the  holy  Church  of  the 
Romans,  that  is,  of  the  Apostolic  See,  which  in  all  things  and 
through  all  things  commands  and  has  authority  and  power  of 
binding  and  loosening  over  the  holy  Churches  of  God  all  over 
the  world,  given  by  the  very  Word  of  God  made  man,  as  well 
as  by  all  holy  synods  according  to  the  sacred  Canons."  2     Since 
then   this  agreement  with  the  Roman  Church  is  to  all   these 
Greeks  the  standard  of  orthodoxy,  since  she  is  the  foundation 
and  basis  of  the  faith,  and  since  our  Lord  cannot  ever  make  it 
a  condition  of  true  belief  to  agree  with  heresy,  Pope  St.  Agatho 
(678-681)  is  right  in  telling  Constantine  III  :  "  The  Apostolic 
Church  of  Christ  (he  means  the  Roman  Church)  by  the  grace  of 
Almighty  God,  will  never  be  shown  to  have  wandered  from  the 
path  of  Apostolic  tradition,  nor  has  it  ever  fallen  into  heretical 
novelties  ;  but  as  it  was  founded  spotless  at  the  time  of  the 
beginning  of  the  Christian  faith  by  its  founders,  the  Princes  of 

1  Ep.  Romae  scripta,  ii.  72,  ap.  Combefis,  I.e. 

2  Ep.  ad  Petrum  Illust.    M.P.G.  xci.  144. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    61 

Christ's  Apostles,  so  it  remains  to  the  end  according  to  the 
promise  of  our  Lord  and  Saviour  himself,  who  says  in  the  holy 
Gospels  to  the  Prince  of  his  disciples  :  Peter,  Peter,  behold 
Satan  sought  to  have  you,  that  he  might  sift  you  as  wheat,  but 
I  have  prayed  for  you  that  your  faith  may  not  fail,  and  do  you, 
being  converted,  confirm  your  brethren.  He  bids  him  confirm 
his  brethren,  and  it  is  known  to  all  people  that  the  Apostolic 
Pontiffs,  predecessors  of  my  unworthiness,  have  always  con- 
fidently done  so."  x 

We  have,  then,  as  the  belief  of  these  Fathers  that  (i)  Peter 
was  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  and  the  Rock,  (2)  the  Roman 
Pontiffs  succeed  him  in  this  office,  (3)  therefore  the  Roman 
Bishop  has  jurisdiction  over  the  whole  Church  of  Christ,  (4)  and 
the  faith  of  his  Church  is  the  standard  of  orthodoxy  for  all 
Christians.  And  these  four  points  make  up  exactly  what 
Catholics  believe  about  the  Pope. 

We  may  here  add  a  word  about  the  Roman  Emperors  who 
reigned  at  Constantinople.  They  were  always  ready  to  magnify 
their  Patriarch,  always  shamelessly  interfering  in  ecclesiastical 
matters,  the  worst  enemies  of  the  liberty  of  the  Church,  con- 
tinually trying  to  enforce  some  new  ordinance  or  dogma  of 
their  own  by  their  civil  power,  and  so  continually  in  opposition 
to  the  Pope.  Yet,  until  Caesar  went  into  open  schism,  even 
Caesar  knew  who  was  the  bond  of  union  and  the  visible  centre 
of  the  Catholic  Church.  The  Code  of  Roman  Law  does  not 
seem  the  sort  of  book  in  which  one  would  find  arguments 
for  the  Roman  Primacy.  Yet  it  contains  the  edict  of  Gratian, 
Valentinian  and  Theodosius  (in  390)  :  M  We  desire  that  all  the 
peoples  who  are  governed  by  the  laws  of  our  Clemency  shall 
profess  the  religion  which  Peter,  the  divine  Apostle,  taught  to 
the  Romans,  which  is  manifest  as  the  one  still  left  there  by 
him,  which,  as  is  well  known,  is  followed  by  the  Pontiff 
Damasus  and  by  Peter,  Bishop  of  Alexandria,  a  man  of  Apostolic 
holiness  ;  that,  according  to  the  Apostolic  teaching  and  the 
faith  of  the  Gospel,  we  believe  in  one  Godhead  of  the  Father, 
the  Son,  and  the  Holy  Ghost  in  equal  majesty  in  the  Holy 
Trinity,  We  command  that  those  who  follow  this  law  be  called 
1  Ep.  ad  Const.  III. 


62        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

by  the  name  of  Catholic  Christians,  and  we  judge  the  others  to 
be  mad  and  foolish  to  bear  the  shame  of  a  heretical  belief.  Nor 
shall  their  conventicles  be  called  churches."  *  St.  Damasus  was 
Pope  from  366  to  384.  With  his  name  the  Emperors  couple 
that  of  Peter,  the  Patriarch  of  the  second  see  in  Christendom, 
which  had  been  the  bulwark  of  the  faith  in  Arian  times 
(Athanasius).  But  the  standard  by  which  they  measure  who 
is  to  be  called  a  "  Catholic  Christian  "  is  the  faith  left  by  St. 
Peter  at  Rome. 

Gratian  (Emperor  from  375-383  in  the  West,  while  Theo- 
dosius  I  reigned  in  the  East)  ordered  that  "  those  bishops  who 
had  been  banished  (by  his  Arian  predecessors)  should  be 
restored  to  their  flocks,  and  that  the  sacred  buildings  should  be 
given  to  those  who  embrace  the  communion  of  Damasus."2  We 
have  seen  what  Pope  Agatho  wrote  to  Constantine  III  (668-685, 
cf.  p.  60).  Constantine  answers  to  Agatho's  successor,  Pope 
Leo  II  (682-683,  Agatho  had  died  meanwhile)  :  "  With  the 
eyes  of  our  mind  We  saw  him,  as  it  were  the  very  Prince  of 
the  Apostolic  choir  himself,  as  Peter  the  Bishop  of  the  first  See, 
divinely  proclaiming  the  mystery  of  the  whole  dispensation."  3 

The  great  Justinian  (527-565)  in  533  sends  a  profession  of  his 
faith  to  Pope  John  II  (533-535),  whom  he  calls  the  "  Head  of 
all  the  Churches."  *  He  puts  into  his  Codex  the  profession  he 
had  made  to  Agapitus  (535-536)  and  the  Pope's  answers ;  and 
he  calls  the  Roman  See  "  the  source  of  the  priesthood  (fons 
Sacerdotii) M  and  n  the  venerable  See  of  the  most  high  Apostle 
Peter."  "No  one  doubts,"  he  says,  "that  the  height  of  the 
Supreme  Pontificate  is  at  Rome."  6  So  well  does  he  know  what 
is  the  result  of  schism  with  the  Roman  See  that,  while  he  is 
persecuting  and  ill-using  Pope  Vigilius  (540-555),  he  imagines  a 
subtle  distinction  between  the  Chair  of  Peter  and  its  occupant, 
that  people  may  believe  that  he  is  in  perfect  peace  with  the  one 
while  he  is  harrying  the  other.7 

It  is  usual  to  speak  of  the  time  from  Justinian  I   (527)  to 

1  Cod.  Theod.  xvi.  Tit.  i.  leg.  2. 

2  Theodoret,  H.E.  v.  2,  M.P.G.  lxxxii.  1197. 

3  Const.  Ill,  ad  Leonem  II,  M.P.L.  xcvi.  701.        *  Mansi,  viii.  795,  845,  847. 
5  Cod.  i.  1,  8.  6  Lib.  Pont.  i.  297-299.  ^  Mansi,  ix.  367. 


ROME  AND   THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    63 

the  fall  of  Constantinople  (1453)  as  the  Byzantine  period.  By 
527  the  Patriarch  of  New  Rome  has  become  the  unques- 
tioned chief  of  all  Orthodox  Eastern  Christians  ;  the  other 
Orthodox  Patriarchs  are  now  only  his  vassals.  Byzantium  is 
the  centre  of  the  Christian  East  (as  far,  at  least,  as  the  Empire 
is  concerned)  ;  her  liturgy  is  used  almost  throughout  what  is 
left  of  the  Empire  ;  the  whole  system  of  Byzantine  Canon  Law 
and  the  customs  that  accompany  it  (including  the  shameless 
subjection  of  the  things  of  God  to  Caesar  that  is  the  special 
note  of  this  time)  are  established.  After  1453  there  is  no 
Empire  left  and  no  Caesar  to  lord  it  over  his  bishops.  The 
Church  that  is  only  the  despised  religion  of  rayahs  under  the 
Sultan  has  entered  upon  a  new  period  of  her  history.  The 
history  of  that  Byzantine  time  is  cut  sharply  into  two  unequal 
portions  by  the  great  schism  in  the  9th  century.  But  until  that 
schism  this  Byzantine  Church,  in  spite  of  an  ever-growing  ill- 
feeling  against  Rome  among  her  bishops,  accepted  and  believed 
in  the  Pope's  Primacy.  This  belief  was  an  inheritance  left  to 
her  by  the  great  Greek  Fathers,  as  we  have  seen.  She  did  not 
cast  it  off  till  the  time  of  Photius.  Some  of  the  texts  I  have 
already  quoted  (Eutychius  of  Constantinople,  the  Bishop  of 
Patara,  Eulogius  of  Alexandria,  Sergius  of  Cyprus,  St.  Maximus) 
belong  to  this  period.  Here  are  more  quotations  to  the  same 
effect : — 

In  646  Africa  was  a  province  governed  by  an  Imperial  (civil) 
Exarch  sent  from  Constantinople.  In  that  year  the  African 
bishops  write  to  St.  Theodore  (Pope  from  642-649)  :  "  Father  of 
Fathers !  in  honour  of  the  most  holy  Apostle  Peter,  your  Apos- 
tolic See  has  received,  by  divine  decree,  as  a  special  and  unique 
inheritance,  the  office  of  examining  and  scrutinizing  the  holy 
dogmas  of  the  Church."  And  further  in  their  letter  :  "  It  has 
been  established  from  the  beginning  that  the  Pontiffs  of  the 
holy  Apostolic  See  condemn  evil  and  confirm  good.  It  is  a  rule 
of  ancient  Canons1  that,  wherever  a  question  concerning  the 
Church  be  moved,  even  in  the  most  distant  lands,  nothing  can 
be  examined  nor  defined  until  the  matter  has  been  brought 
before  the  Apostolic  See."2 
1  They  refer  to  the  Council  of  Sardica  in  343,  see  p.  68.     2  Mansi,  x.  920,  921. 


64        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

But  these  bishops,  it  may  be  said,  were,  in  spite  of  the 
Emperor's  Exarch,  Latins.  St.  Sophronius  of  Jerusalem  (t  638) 
was  not  a  Latin.  While  he  was  fighting  against  Monothelism, 
he  chose  one  of  his  bishops,  Stephen  of  Dora,  to  go  to  Rome, 
since  he  could  not  do  so  himself.  He  first  takes  his  envoy  to 
Mount  Calvary,  and  there  solemnly  adjures  him :  "Go  through 
all  the  world,"  he  says,  "till  you  come  to  the  Apostolic  See 
(Rome  was  a  long  way  off  from  Jerusalem,  and  the  journey  was 
a  dangerous  one  then),  where  is  the  foundation  of  the  Orthodox 
belief.  Tell  the  most  holy  persons  of  that  see  all  about  our 
difficulties  :  do  not  cease  to  beg  and  entreat  them  until  their 
Apostolic  and  divine  wisdom  shall  pronounce  the  victorious 
sentence,  and  shall  canonically  destroy  and  root  out  this  new 
heresy."1  Stephen  comes  to  Rome  several  times.  The  last 
time  was  in  649.  Before  Pope  Martin  I  (649-655)  he  makes  his 
denunciation  :  "  I  desire  to  denounce  Monothelism  to  the  chief 
see,  mistress  of  all  sees ;  I  desire  to  do  so  to  your  highest  and 
divine  see,  that  it  may  altogether  heal  the  wound.  Your  see  is 
accustomed  to  do  so  since  the  beginning  by  its  Apostolic  and 
canonical  authority.  For  it  is  evident  that  Peter  received  not 
only  the  keys  of  heaven,  he  alone  amongst  all.  Besides  the  keys 
of  heaven  this  true  Head  and  Prince  of  the  Apostles  was  first 
charged  to  feed  the  sheep  of  the  whole  Catholic  Church.  .  .  . 
He  alone  was  to  confirm  his  colleagues  and  brethren,  since  God, 
who  became  man  for  us,  gave  him  power  and  priestly  autho- 
rity over  all.  .  .  .  And  Sophronius,  the  former  Patriarch  of 
blessed  memory,  knowing  this,  told  my  lowliness  without  delay 
to  come  to  this  great  Apostolic  See."2 

About  669  two  monks  of  Gangres,  Theodosius  and  Theodore, 
wrote  an  account  of  the  chief  adversaries  of  Monothelism.  They 
call  the  Martyr-Pope,  St.  Martin  (p.  56),  "  Supreme  and 
Apostolic  Pope,  chief  of  all  the  priestly  hierarchy  under  the 
sun,  Sovereign  and  (Ecumenical  Pope,  Apostolic  Prince."  3 

In  the  8th  century  St.  Stephen  the  Younger  says  of  the  Icono- 
clastic Synod  of  Hieria  (753)  :  "How  can  you  call  a  synod 
oecumenical  when  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  not  consented  to  it, 

1  Mansi,  x.  896.  2  Ibid.  x.  893.  3  M.P.G.  xc.  193,  197,  202. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    65 

since  the  Canons  forbid  ecclesiastical  affairs  to  be  settled  with- 
out the  Pope  of  Rome  ?  "J 

Tarasius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  (784-806),  writes  to 
St.  Adrian  I  (Pope  from  772-795) :  "Your  Holiness  has  inherited 
the  see  of  the  divine  Apostle  Peter.  Wherefore  lawfully  and  by 
the  will  of  God,  you  preside  over  all  the  hierarchy  of  the 
Church."  2 

It  would  be  tedious  to  go  on  quoting  from  the  almost  endless 
number  of  similar  sayings  of  Byzantine  theologians.3  As  a  last 
example  before  the  schism,  we  may  take  St.  Theodore  of  Studium 
(f  826).  He  was  Hegoumenos  (abbot)  of  the  famous  Monastery 
Studium  (Studion)  at  Constantinople,  which  in  his  time  held 
a  thousand  monks,  a  reformer  of  Greek  monasticism  according 
to  St.  Basil's  rule,  and  especially  a  leader  of  the  Orthodox  and 
a  heroic  confessor  in  Iconoclast  times.  We  keep  his  feast  on 
November  12th  (in  the  Martyrology),  the  Eastern  Church  on 
November  nth.  No  one  of  the  Orthodox  saints  who  were  resist- 
ing Iconoclasm  had  more,  only  St.  John  Damascene  as  much 
influence  as  this  St.  Theodore.  When  he  died  Photius  was  just 
born  (probably  in  the  same  year,  826) ;  forty  years  afterwards 
the  schism  had  broken  out.  St.  Theodore  Studita,  then,  may 
stand  for  one  of  the  very  last  representatives  of  the  old  Byzan- 
tine Church  before  the  schism.  And  he  speaks  very  plainly 
about  the  Pope's  Primacy.  He  knows  that  the  Pope  of  his 
time  (Paschal,  817-824)  succeeds  to  St.  Peter's  rights:  u  To 
you  (he  writes)  spoke  Christ  our  Lord :  And  you,  being  con- 
verted, shall  confirm  your  brethren.  Behold,  now  is  the  time 
and  place  :  help  us,  you  who  are  ordained  by  God  for  this. 
Stretch  out  your  hand  as  far  as  you  can.  You  have  the  power 
from  God,  since  you  are  Prince  of  all.  Frighten,  we  beg  of  you,  the 
heretical  beasts  (Iconoclasts)  with  the  pen  of  your  divine  word. 
Good  shepherd,  lay  down  your  life  for  your  sheep,  we  pray."* 
Again :  "  Since  Christ  our  God  gave  to  the  great  Peter,  after 

1  Vita  I.  Steph.  Iun.  M.P.G.  C.  1144. 

2  Pitra  :  luris  eccl.  Grcec.  hist.  Rome,  1864, 1868,  vol.  ii.  305. 

3  Cf.,  for  instance,  Pargoire  :  L'Eglise  byzantine,  pp.  44,  seq.t  189,  seq., 
289,  seq. 

4  M.P.G.  xcix.  1153. 


66        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  also  the  right  of  guiding 
the  sheep,  to  Peter,  then,  or  to  his  successor,  we  must  refer 
whatever  novelty  is  introduced  into  the  Catholic  Church  by 
those  who  wander  from  the  truth. "r  "  Hear  us,"  he  writes 
again  to  Pope  Paschal,  "  Apostolic  Head,  Shepherd  set  by  God 
over  the  sheep  of  Christ,  key-bearer  of  the  kingdom  of  Heaven, 
Rock  of  the  Faith,  on  whom  is  built  the  Catholic  Church,  for 
you  are  Peter,  you  who  rule  the  See  of  Peter."2  So  to  Rome 
all  questions  must  go.  "  If  the  Emperor,"  he  writes  to  the 
Sacellarius3  Leo,  "  is  not  content,  if,  as  he  says,  the  Patriarch 
Nicephorus  has  wandered  from  the  truth,  both  sides  should 
send  an  embassy  to  the  Roman  (Patriarch),  and  should  from 
him  accept  the  certainty  of  faith."  4 

The  Emperor  Michael  II  (820-829)  had  summoned  a  synod 
of  bishops  at  Constantinople  to  discuss  the  question  of  images. 
St.  Theodore  writes  to  him  in  the  name  of  this  synod  :  "  If 
there  be  anything  as  to  which  your  Magnificence  doubts 
whether  it  can  be  rightly  settled  by  the  Patriarch,  then  order  a 
declaration  to  be  sent  for  from  Old  Rome,  as  heretofore  and 
from  the  beginning  has  been  the  custom,  according  to  the 
tradition  of  the  Fathers.  For  she  is  the  first  of  the  Churches 
of  God  in  which  first  sat  Peter  to  whom  the  Lord  said  :  Thou 
art  Peter,"  &c.5  When  Paschal  has  answered,  condemning  the 
Iconoclasts,  Theodore  writes  to  a  certain  Naucratius  :  "  Now, 
indeed,  I  say  before  God  and  men  that  the  heretics  have 
separated  themselves  from  the  Body  of  Christ,  from  the 
supreme  see  in  which  Christ  has  placed  the  keys  of  faith, 
against  which  the  gates  of  hell  have  never  prevailed,  and 
never  shall  prevail  till  the  end.  Let  the  most  holy,  the 
Apostolic,  the  beloved  Paschal  rejoice  ;  he  has  accomplished 
the  work  of  Peter."6  St.  Theodore  then  knows  that  the  Pope 
is  universal  Primate,  that  to  him  we  must  appeal  in  questions  of 
discipline   and   of   faith,   because   he   has  the  u  keys   of  faith 

1  Ep.  33,  ad  Leonem  III,  ibid.  1017.  2  Ibid.  1152. 

3  The  Sacellarius  is  the  officer  of  the  Patriarch's  court  who  has  to  inspect 
and  defend  the  monasteries.  SaiceXkapioc,  from  Sacellum,  is  one  of  the  many 
Byzantine  words  derived  from  Latin. 

<  M.P.G.  xcix.  1420.  s  ibid.  1332.  6  Ibid.  1281. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    67 

against  which  the  gates  of  hell  shall  never  prevail,"  because 
from  him  we  receive  "  the  certainty  of  faith."  He  also  knows 
that  no  general  council  can  be  called,  save  under  the  Pope. 
He  writes  to  Pope  Leo  III  (795-816)  :  "  If  they,  arrogating 
authority,  have  not  feared  to  summon  a  heretical  council, 
who  could  not  even  summon  an  orthodox  one  without  your 
authority,  according  to  the  ancient  custom,  how  much  more 
is  it  just  and  even  necessary  to  hold  a  lawful  one  under 
your  divine  leadership."  *  Lastly,  to  be  an  orthodox  Catholic 
we  must  be  in  union  with  Rome.  u  Now  is  the  acceptable 
time,"  he  tells  the  Emperor,  "  that  we  (the  Byzantine  Church 
riddled  with  Iconoclasm)  .  .  .  should  unite  ourselves  with  Rome, 
the  summit  of  the  Churches  of  God,  and  through  her  to  the 
three  other  Patriarchs  (Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem)."  2 

It  is  then  with  no  uncertain  voice  that  this  Byzantine 
Church  proclaims  her  faith  in  the  Roman  Primacy  and 
Infallibility  just  before  the  tyranny  of  an  Emperor  and  the 
ambition  of  an  intruded  Patriarch  drag  her  into  schism. 

2.  Appeals  to  Rome  from  the  East. 

This  faith  of  the  Eastern  Churches  did  not  remain  a  mere 
theory.  The  Fathers  we  have  quoted  not  only  proclaimed 
the  Pope's  universal  jurisdiction  ;  they  continually  made  use  of 
it  to  defend  themselves  against  opponents  ;  so  that  the  long 
list  of  their  appeals  to  Rome  speaks  even  more  eloquently 
than  their  words. 

As  far  back  as  the  second  century  "  Irenaeus  relates  that 
Polycarp,  who  was  even  then  still  alive,  came  to  Rome  while 
Anicetus  presided  over  the  Roman  Church  and  conversed 
with  Anicetus  about  the  question  of  the  day  of  Easter."  3 
Anicetus  reigned  c.  157-168,  St.  Polycarp  (f  c.  166),  Bishop 
of  Smyrna,  had  sat  at  the  feet  of  St.  John  the  Apostle  himself. 

The  case  of  Pope  Victor  I  (189-199)  and  the  Quartodecimans 
is  well  known.  It  is  hardly  one  of  an  appeal ;  but  when  he 
"  pronounced  "  those  Asiatic  bishops  "by  letters  to  be  out- 
side the   unity,"  *  although  St.   Irenaeus   wrote  to   advise  him 

1  M.P.G.  xcix.  1020.  2  Ibid.  1309. 

3  Eus.  H.K.  iv.  14.  4  ibid.  v<  24. 


68    THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

not  to  be  so  severe,1  no  one  questioned  his  right  to  excom- 
municate them.  Dionysius  of  Alexandria  (|  264),  "  moved  by 
his  zeal  for  religion,  had  written  to  Ammonius  and  Euphranore 
against  the  heresy  of  Sabellius.  But  certain  brothers  in  the 
Church,  men  of  sound  faith,  not  knowing  the  reason  for 
which  he  had  written,  went  to  Rome  and  accused  him  to 
his  namesake  Dionysius,  the  Roman  Bishop  (259-268).  He, 
having  heard  these  things,  .  .  .  sent  a  letter  to  Dionysius, 
to  tell  him  what  he  had  been  accused  of  by  them.  And, 
in  order  to  clear  himself  as  soon  as  possible,  he  wrote  books 
which  he  called  a  Compendium  and  an  Apology." 2  The 
great  Athanasius  "  sought  refuge  in  Rome  as  in  a  most  safe 
harbour  of  his  Communion."  3  In  340  an  Arian  Synod  at 
Antioch  had  professed  to  depose  him,  and  had  set  up 
Gregory  of  Cappadocia  as  rival  Bishop  of  Alexandria. 
Theodoret  says  :  "  But  Athanasius,  already  knowing  their 
wiles,  went  away  to  Western  parts.  For  the  Eusebians 
(strict  Arians),  having  got  together  calumnies  against 
Athanasius,  had  denounced  him  to  Bishop  Julius,  who  at 
that  time  administered  the  Roman  Church  (337-352).  Julius, 
following  the  law  of  the  Church,  ordered  them  to  come  to 
Rome,  and  also  summoned  Athanasius  to  explain  his  case. 
And  Athanasius,  obeying  the  summons,  started  at  once  on  the 
journey.  But  they  who  had  made  up  the  fable  would  not 
come  to  Rome,  because  they  knew  that  their  lie  would 
be  found  out."  4  The  Pope,  in  a  Roman  Synod  (341),  declared 
St.  Athanasius  innocent  of  all  their  charges  and  refused  to 
countenance  his  deposition.  He  wrote  a  long  letter  to 
these  Eusebians,  saying  among  other  things :  "  Do  you  not 
know  that  this  is  the  custom,  that  you  should  first  write  to 
us,  and  that  what  is  right  should  be  settled  here  ? " 5  In 
343  the  Council  of  Sardica  (now  Sofia  in  Bulgaria)  met.  It 
drew  up  twenty  Canons,  which  the  second  council  in  Trullo 
(692)  afterwards  approved  for  the  Byzantine  Church.     Canon  3 

1  Eus.  I.e.  :  the  text  of  the  letter  is  there.    Cf.  Hier.  de  vir.  ill.  35. 

2  Athanasius  de  sent.  Dion.  n.  13.  3  Hier.  ep.  127  (al.  16),  n.  5. 
«  Theodoret :  H.E.  ii.  3.     M.P.G.  lxxxii.  996. 

5  Ep.  3  Jul.  ad.  Eus.  22,  quoted  by  St.  Athanasius,  Apol.  c.  Arianos,  21-36. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    69 

determines  that  a  bishop  shall  be  judged  by  the  other 
bishops  of  his  province,  but  "if  a  deposed  bishop  thinks 
he  has  good  cause  to  demand  a  new  inquiry  he  shall,  out 
of  reverence  for  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  write  to  Rome  to 
Pope  Julius,  so  that  he  may  set  up  another  tribunal  from 
among  bishops  living  near  the  province  and  himself  appoint 
a  judge."  Canon  4  forbids  the  other  bishops  to  fill  his 
see  in  this  case  until  the  Pope  has  pronounced  his  sentence. 
Canon  5  provides  that  the  Pope  shall  appoint  as  judge  either  a 
neighbouring  bishop  or  a  legate  sent  from  Rome.  Hosius  of 
Cordova  presided  at  this  synod,  and  its  Canons  were  often  joined 
to  the  Canons  of  Nicaea  drawn  up  eighteen  years  earlier,  so 
that  they  were  sometimes  quoted  as  Nicene.  One  hundred  and 
seventy-three  bishops  sat  at  Sardica  ;  but  it  was  not  an  oecumeni- 
cal council.  It  was  a  legitimate  and  orthodox  provincial  synod 
of  Eastern  bishops  recognizing  the  right  of  appeal  with 
special   reference   to   the   action   of    St.   Athanasius. 

In  404  Theophilus  of  Alexandria  unjustly  deposed  St.  John 
Chrysostom  from  his  See  of  Constantinople.  St.  John  then 
appealed  to  Pope  Innocent  I  (401-417),1  who  received  his 
appeal,  refused  to  sanction  the  deposition,2  and  made  it  a 
condition  of  communion  with  Alexander  of  Antioch  that  he 
should  have  "  fulfilled  all  conditions  in  the  cause  of  the  blessed 
and  truly  worthy  Bishop  John."  3  Pope  Boniface  I  (418-422), 
Innocent's  successor,  settled  a  dispute  in  Greece  by  giving 
an  unpopular  bishop  another  and  a  better  see.  Socrates 
says  :  "  Peregrinus  had  been  ordained  Bishop  of  Patrae.  But 
since  the  inhabitants  of  that  town  would  not  have  him,  the 
Bishop  of  the  City  of  Rome  ordered  him  to  be  appointed 
to  the  metropolitan  See  of  Corinth,  since  the  bishop  of  that 
Church  was  dead."  4  After  Boniface  I  came  St.  Cclestine  I  (422- 
432).  He  writes  to  the  Illyrian  bishops  :  "  You  shall  notice 
that,  amid  the  other  cares  and  various   business   that   always 

1  Dial.  Palladii  de  vita  Chrys.  ii.  M.P.G.  xlvii.  8-12  (his  letter  to  Innocent 
is  there). 

-  Ep.  Innoc.  I.  5.  3  Ep.  19. 

4  Socr.  H.E.  vii.  36.  M.P.G.  lxvii.  820.  However,  Greece  was  in  Illyricum, 
part  of  his  own  patriarchate. 


70   THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

come  to  us  from  all  Churches,  we  take  special  care  of  you," 
and  he  says  why  this  various  business  always  comes  to  him 
from  all  Churches:  "For  we  especially  are  concerned  about 
all,  since  Christ  gave  us  the  duty  (necessitas)  of  arranging 
all  things  in  St.  Peter  the  Apostle  when  he  gave  him  the  keys 
to  open  and  to  shut."  « 

St.  Jerome  (c.  331-420)  had  been  the  secretary  of  Pope 
Damasus  (366-384).  Years  afterwards  he  still  remembered 
how  much  work  he  had  then  done  :  "When  I  was  helping 
Damasus,  Bishop  of  the  City  of  Rome,"  he  writes,  "  and  was 
answering  the  consultations  of  synods  from  East  and  West," 4 
.  .  .  Thcodorct  of  Cyrus  (f  458)  was  deposed  by  the  Robber 
Synod  of  Ephesus  in  449.  He  at  once  appeals  to  Pope  Leo  the 
Great :  "  We  beg,  and  pray,  and  entreat  and  humbly  implore 
your  Holiness  to  bring  help  to  the  Churches  of  God  that  are 
tossed  in  this  storm.  .  .  .  And  I  await  the  sentence  of  your 
Apostolic  See,  and  I  beg  and  implore  your  Holiness  to  help  me, 
who  appeal  to  your  right  and  just  tribunal,  and  to  order  me 
to  come  to  you  and  to  show  you  that  my  teaching  follows  in  the 
footsteps  of  the  Apostles.  .  .  .  Above  all,  I  beg  you  to  tell 
me  whether  I  am  to  accept  this  unjust  deposition  or  not  ;  for  I 
await  your  sentence.  And  if  you  order  me  to  abide  by  the 
judgement,  I  will  do  so,  and  I  will  no  longer  trouble  any  man, 
but  will  await  the  just  judgement  of  God  our  Saviour."  3  At  the 
same  time  he  writes  to  a  Roman  priest  Renatus  (afterwards  one 
of  the  Legates  at  Chalcedon)  :  "  I  beg  your  Holiness  to  per- 
suade your  most  holy  and  most  blessed  Archbishop  (St.  Leo)  to 
use  his  Apostolic  authority  and  to  order  us  to  hasten  to  your  synod. 
For  that  most  holy  see  has  for  many  reasons  the  primacy  over 
the  Churches  in  the  whole  world,  and  especially  for  this  reason 
that  it  has  remained  unspotted  by  heresy,  nor  has  any  one  of 
contrary  opinion  sat  therein,  but  it  has  kept  entire  the 
Apostolic  grace.  We  agree  to  whatever  sentence  you  may  pro- 
nounce, trusting  in  the  justice  of  your  judgement." 4     Nor  was 

*  Ep.  iii.  Coel.  M.P.L.  1.  427.  2  Hier.  Ep.  123,  10. 

3  Theod.  ad  Leonem  I,  113,  M.P.G.  lxxxiii.  1316.  This  letter  is  the  one 
from  which  the  extract  quoted  (p.  56)  is  also  taken. 

4  Ep.  116,  Theodoreti,  ad  Renatum,  M.P.G.  lxxxiii.  1324. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    71 

Theodoret's  appeal  in  vain.  The  acts  of  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon  (451)  expressly  say  that  St.  Leo  restored  him  to  his 
see.1  The  same  Robber  Synod  of  Ephesus,  in  449,  deposed 
Flavian  of  Constantinople.  Liberatus  (c.  566),  the  historian  of  the 
Nestorian  and  Monophysite  heresies,  says  :  "  Flavian  appealed 
by  letter  to  the  Apostolic  See,  through  its  legates,  against  the 
sentence  which  had  been  pronounced  against  him  "  ;  ■  and  the 
Emperor  Valentinian  III  (423-455)  writes  to  Theodosius  II 
(408-450),  his  partner  in  the  East,  to  explain  the  matter  :  "  We 
must,"  he  writes,  "  in  our  time,  too,  keep  unchanged  the  honour 
of  reverence  that  we  owe  to  the  blessed  Apostle  Peter,  inasmuch 
as  that  the  most  blessed  Bishop  of  the  Roman  city,  to  whom 
ancient  use  has  given  the  primacy  of  the  priesthood  over  all, 
must  have  occasion  and  power  to  judge  in  cases  of  faith  and  in 
the  affairs  of  bishops.  .  .  .  Because  of  this  the  Bishop  of  Con- 
stantinople, according  to  solemn  use  and  according  to  the 
custom  of  the  Council,  has  appealed  to  him  by  letter."  3  Pope 
Gelasius  I  (492-496),  writing  to  Faustus,  his  Legate  at  Constanti- 
nople,* and  again  to  the  Bishops  of  Dardania,5  and  maintaining 
the  ancient  law  according  to  which  "the  appeals  of  the  whole 
Church  come  to  this  see  to  be  examined,  but  no  one  may  ever 
appeal  from  Rome,"  is  able  to  quote  a  long  list  of  famous  cases 
to  prove  his  point.  The  Syrian  archimandrites  and  monks, 
surrounded  by  Monophysites,  appeal  to  "  Hormisdas  (Pope, 
514-523),  the  most  holy  and  blessed  Patriarch  of  the  whole 
world,  who  holds  the  See  of  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  .  .  . 
whom  Christ  our  God  has  set  up  as  Chief  Shepherd  and  Teacher 
and  Physician  of  souls."6  It  was  this  Pope  Hormisdas  who 
drew  up  the  famous  formula  (p.  85).  Pope  Theodore  I  (642- 
649)  is  not  satisfied  with  the  right  of  Paul  to  be  Patriarch  of 

1  Mansi,  vi.  590  :  "  Let  the  most  reverend  Bishop  Theodoret  be  admitted 
because  the  most  holy  Archbishop  Leo  has  restored  his  bishopric  to  him." 

3  Lib.  Brev.  xii.  M.P.L.  lxviii.  1006. 
*  3  Val.  ad  Theod.  among  St.  Leo's  letters,  55.     Flavian's  letter  of  appeal 
itself  has  been  found  lately.    Cf.  Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theologie  (Innsbruck), 
1883,  pp.  193,  seq. 

*  Ep.  10,  Gelas.  5. 

5  Ep.  26,  5,  ad  eppos  Dardaniae,  M.P.L.  cxxxvi.  251. 

6  Ep.  19,  ed.  Thiel.  an.  517. 


72        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Constantinople  (641)  while  Pyrrhus,  his  predecessor,  is  still  alive. 
Pyrrhus  comes  to  fall  at  his  feet  and  is  received  back  into 
communion.1  He  makes  Stephen  of  Dora  Vicar  of  the  holy  See 
for  the  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem.2  St.  Martin  I  (649-655) 
deposes  Peter  of  Alexandria  and  Macedonius  of  Antioch  for 
heresy,  and  appoints  John  of  Philadelphia  his  Vicar  Apostolic  for 
Syria  and  Palestine  :  "  In  the  name  of  the  power  we  have 
received  from  God  through  St.  Peter  We  order  Our  brother 
John  to  hold  Our  place  in  all  ecclesiastical  affairs  of  the  East  and 
to  set  up  bishops,  priests  and  deacons  in  all  towns  that  are  under 
the  Sees  of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem." 3  In  717  the  Emperor 
Leo  HI  (the  Isaurian,  717-741)  as  soon  as  he  succeeds  to  the 
throne   sends   his   profession   of    faith    to    Pope    Gregory    II 

(7I5-73I)-4 

These  cases  may  stand  as  examples  of  the  Pope's  jurisdiction 
in  the  East  during  the  time  before  the  schism.  Many  more  of 
the  same  kind  will  be  found  quoted  in  text-books  of  dogmatic 
theology.s 

3.  The  Popes  and  the  General  Councils. 

The  Roman  Primacy  over  Eastern  Christendom  is  also  illus- 
trated by  the  relations  between  Popes  and  oecumenical 
councils.  Seven  of  these  councils  were  held  before  the  schism. 
Orthodox  Christians  then  count  seven,  and  only  seven,  synods 
as  oecumenical ;  the  twelve  that  we  have  held  since  are  to  them, 
of  course,  only  local  Latin  councils,  and  heretical  besides. 
And  we  specially  do  not  agree  about  the  eighth  general  council. 
It  was  held  at  the  very  time  of  the  schism  :  we  count  as  the 
oecumenical  council  the  one  held  in  869  (Constantinople  IV), 
which  certainly  most  fully  recognized  the  Pope's  primacy  ;  their 
eighth  council  is  the  one  of  879,6  to  us  only  a  "  Pseudosynodus 
Photiana."     We  shall  come  back  to  these  synods  in  the  account 

1  Op.  Maximi  Conf.  M.P.G.  xci.  353.  2  Mansi,  x.  821,  900. 

3  Ibid.  805,  seq. ;  825-832.  4  ibid.  xii.  959. 

s  Cf.  Echos  d'Orient,  vi.  pp.  30-42,  118-125,  249-257  :  Les  appels  au  Pape 
dans  I'Eglise  grecque  jusqu'a  Photius. 

6  Although  they  always  speak  of  the  seven  synods,  the  Church  of  the  Seven 
Synods  and  so  on,  they;  often  call  the  Council  of  879  the  eighth  oecumenical 
synod,  see  p.  156. 


ROME  AND   THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    73 

of  the  schism.  Leaving,  then,  this  disputed  case  out  of  account, 
we  have  seven  councils  acknowledged  as  oecumenical  by  both 
Catholics  and  Orthodox,  namely  :  (1)  Nicaea  I  (325),  (2)  Constan- 
tinople I  (3S1),  (3)  Ephesus  (431),  (4)  Chalcedon  (451),  (5)  Con- 
stantinople II  (553),  (6)  Constantinople  III  or  Trullanum  I 
(680),  (7)  Nicaea  II  (787). 

What  Catholics  believe  about  general  councils  is  this  :  Since 
the  Pope  is  the  visible  Head  of  the  Church  on  earth,  he  alone 
has  the  right  (1)  of  summoning  a  general  council,  (2)  of  pre- 
siding at  it  when  summoned,  (3)  of  confirming  or  rejecting  its 
decrees.  The  analogy  with  a  king  and  his  parliament  is  obvious. 
But  the  Pope  may  do  any  of  these  three  things  by  deputy.  He 
may  authorize  another  person  to  summon  the  council,  he  may 
preside  thereat  through  his  legate,  he  may  even  confirm  its 
decrees  beforehand,  by  instructing  his  legates  what  they  are  to 
agree  with,  or  by  sending  to  the  council  a  standard  of  ortho- 
doxy to  guide  it.  When  the  council  then  follows  the  Pope's 
directions,  we  have  already  the  necessary  agreement  between 
the  chief  and  his  followers  and  there  is  no  absolute  need  of  a 
further  papal  confirmation.1  It  is  difficult  to  see  what  other 
theory  will  fit  the  facts.  We  cannot  discover  what  councils 
were  oecumenical  by  counting  the  number  of  their  attendants. 
Many  of  them  were  quite  small  assemblies  ;  at  Nicaea  in  325 
about  318  bishops  were  present,  at  the  second  general  council 
only  150,  at  Ephesus  198,  at  the  sixth  174.  On  the  other  hand, 
the  Synod  of  Ariminium  (Rimini)  in  359  mustered  four  hundred 
bishops  ;  but  it  has  never  been  counted  oecumenical.  Nor  would 
it  be  possible  to  make  the  oecumenical  character  of  a  council 
depend  on  the  attendance  of  representatives  from  all  parts  of  the 
Church.  There  were  very  few  Western  bishops  present  at  any 
of  the  earlier  general  councils,  only  four  at  Nicaea,2  none  at  all 
at  the  second,  two  at  the  third.  Still  less  can  the  summons 
or  confirmation  of  ithe  Emperor  constitute  a  general  council. 

1  This  view  (which  has  been  disputed  by  some  Catholic  theologians)  is 
that  of  Cardinal  Bellarmin  (de  Conciliis  et  Ecclesia,  2, 11)  and  of  F.  X.  Funk, 
in  his  Kirchengeschichtliche  Abhandlungen,  vol.  i.  pp.  87-121. 

8  Cecilian  of  Carthage,  Nicasius  from  Gaul,  Mark  from  Calabria,  Hosius  of 
Cordova. 


74       THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  Emperor  has  no  commission  from  Christ  to  rule  the 
Church,  the  possibility  of  holding  such  councils  would  depend 
upon  the  existence  of  the  Empire,  whereas  there  has  been 
no  Emperor  in  the  East  since  1453,  none  in  the  West  since 
1805.  Lastly,  Emperors  have  summoned  and  declared  as 
oecumenical  such  heretical  synods  as  the  Iconoclast  one  ordered 
by  Constantine  V  in  753  at  Hieria.  The  theory  that  would  find 
most  favour  with  other  Christians  would  doubtless  be  that  it 
is  the  general  acceptance  of  the  Church  that  makes  a  council 
oecumenical.  But  the  Church,  that  is,  the  great  body  of 
the  faithful,  and  their  bishops,  want  to  know  first  whether 
a  synod  is  oecumenical  before  they  can  tell  whether  it 
is  their  duty  to  accept  it.  When  "  the  whole  world  groaned 
and  wondered  to  find  itself  Arian"  it  would  have  been  of 
little  use  to  tell  a  Christian,  amid  the  endless  confusion  of 
synods  and  anti-synods  which  all  claimed  to  represent  the 
Church,  to  accept  that  one  as  oecumenical  which — he  and  others 
like  himself  accepted.  Moreover,  there  has  always  been  a  party 
(often  a  large  party)  which  rejected  these  councils.  The  test 
of  orthodoxy  is  to  accept  them  ;  those  Christians  are  orthodox 
who  agree  with  the  general  councils.  If,  then,  we  say  that 
those  councils  are  general  with  which  the  orthodox  agree,  we 
have  a  perfect  example  of  a  vicious  circle.  There  remains,  then, 
our  position,  that  an  oecumenical  synod  is  one  summoned  by 
the  Pope,1  which  sits  under  his  presidency  as  Primate,  whose 
decrees  receive  the  Papal  assent.  It  may,  however,  happen 
that  a  council,  which  is  not  oecumenical  in  itself,  receives  this 
character  afterwards  from  the  Pope's  confirmation ;  his  assent 
may  supply  for  former  irregularities.  There  are  parallel  cases 
in  Canon  and  Civil  Law.2  The  second  and  fifth  general 
councils  are  of  this  nature.  (Ecumenical  neither  in  their  sum- 
mons nor  in  their  sessions,  they  became  so  later  through  the 
Pope's  assent.     And,  lastly,  the  result  of  this  is  that  only  those 

1  That  is,  summoned  as  an  oecumenical  synod.  Of  course  the  Pope  has 
often  as  Bishop  of  Rome  or  Metropolitan  of  his  own  province  summoned  a 
diocesan  or  provincial  synod. 

8  The  Sanatio  in  radice  of  invalid  marriages  is  a  parallel.  Charles  II  of 
England  confirmed  most  of  the  acts  of  the  Long  Parliament. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    75 

acts  of  a  council  which  receive  the  Pope's  assent  have  the  force 
of  law  for  Catholics.1 

We  will  consider,  first,  the  five  remaining  councils,  and  then 
the  second  and  fifth. 

The  First  Council  of  Niccea  (325)  was  summoned  by  Con- 
stantine.  This  fact,  which  is  not  in  dispute,  is  vouched  for  by 
all  the  historians  of  that  time 2  and  by  the  synodal  letter  of  the 
council  itself.3  The  only  question,  then,  is  whether  the  Emperor 
was  asked  or  commissioned  to  do  so  by  the  Pope  (Sylvester  I, 
314-335).  The  matter  is  uncertain.  Rufin  says  he  acted 
"  according  to  the  judgement  of  the  bishops  (ex  sacerdotum 
sententia),"  and  it  may  be  urged  that  at  least  one  of  the 
bishops  concerned  was  the  first  Patriarch.  The  sixth  general 
council  (Constantinople  III,  680)  says  so  explicitly  :  "  Con- 
stantine  and  Silvester  summoned  the  great  Synod  of  Nicaea,"  4 
so  does  the  Liber  Pontificalis.5  The  Emperor  had  a  sort  of 
honorary  precedence  at  the  council  ;  but  he  did  not  preside. 
He  opened  the  first  session  with  a  speech,  and  then  left  the 
discussion  to  "  the  presidents  of  the  synod."  6  Who  were  these 
presidents  ?  In  all  lists  of  the  members,  and  especially  in  the 
still  extant  list  of  subscribers,  Hosius,  Bishop  of  Cordova,  signs 
first,  then  two  Roman  priests  who  were  with  him,  Vitus  and 
Vincent.?  Alexander  of  Alexandria  and  Eustathius  of  Antioch 
were  present  ;  yet  this  local  Spanish  bishop  and  his  two 
priests  sign  before  the  great  Patriarchs.  It  would  be  a  mystery, 
did  not  Hosius  himself  give  the  explanation.  He  signs 
expressly  "  In  the  name  of  the  Church  of  Rome,  the  Churches 
of  Italy,  Spain,  and  all  the  West.8     He  and  the  two  priests  are 

1  The  Council  of  Constance  (1414-1418)  in  its  first  thirteen  sessions  was  a 
schismatical  assembly,  from  the  fourteenth  to  the  forty-first  a  legitimate 
provincial  synod,  from  the  forty-second  to  the  forty-fifth  the  sixteenth 
oecumenical  council. 

2  Eusebius:  Vita  Const,  iii.  6  ;  Socrates,  H.E.  i.  8  ;  Sozomen,  H.E.  i.  17  ; 
Theodoret,  H.E.  i.  7  ;  Rufin.  i.  1. 

3  Socrates,  H.E.  i.  9.  4  Actio  18.     Hardouin,  iii.  1417. 

s  "  Factum  est  concilium  cum  eius  (Sylvestri)  praeceptum  (sic)  in  Nicea 
Bithiniae  (aliier :  cum  eius  consensu)."  Duchesne  :  Lib.  Pont.  (Paris,  1886), 
i.  171. 

6  Eus.  Vita  Const,  iii.  13.  7  Mansi,  ii.  692,  697,  882,  927. 

8  Ibid.  882,  927. 


76        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  legates  of  their  Patriarch.  Gelasius  of  Cyzicus  (c.  475) 
says  so,  too,  in  his  history  of  the  council.1  As  far  then  as  we 
have  any  evidence  as  to  who  presided,  it  points  to  the  Papal 
Legates.  We  know  nothing  about  any  definite  act  of  confirma- 
tion by  the  Pope,  but  the  Roman  Church  undoubtedly  accepted 
the  decrees  of  which  she  (except  for  the  one  moment  of  weak- 
ness of  Liberius) 2  was  always  the  chief  defenders 

The  Council  ofEphesus  (431)  was  summoned  by  the  Emperors 
Theodosius  II  and  Valentinian  III.  So  it  repeatedly  declares 
in  its  acts,  in  the  first  session  :  "  The  synod  gathered  together 
by  the  oracle  of  the  most  God-beloved  and  Christ-loving 
sovereigns."  4  So  little  did  these  sovereigns  conceive  them- 
selves as  acting  for  the  Pope  that  they  sent  him  (St. 
Celestine  I,  422-432)  an  invitation  too.s  But  when  the 
Fathers  had  met  they  acknowledged  Celestine's  primacy.  He 
had  already  written  to  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,6  telling  him  to 
excommunicate  Nestorius,  if  he  did  not  repent,?  now  he  sent  as 
additional  legates  two  bishops,  Arcadius  and  Projectus,  and  a 
priest,  Philip,  telling  them  to  be  on  Cyril's  side  in  everything, 
as  he  was  already  authorized  to  act  in  the  name  of  the  Roman 

1  Mansi,  ii.  806.  M.P.G.  lxxxv.  1179,  seq.  But  Gelasius  is  no  great 
authority. 

2  It  is  uncertain  how  Pope  Liberius  (352-366)  fell.  He  was  at  first  a 
steadfast  defender  of  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  but  after  a  long  banishment  he 
seems  to  have  somehow  given  way  to  the  semi-Arians,  and  he  was  then 
allowed  by  the  Emperor  (Constantius)  to  come  back  to  Rome.  Perhaps 
he  accepted  an  ambiguous  formula  (the  third  Sirmian  form).  Rufin  says 
that  he  does  not  know  whether  he  gave  way  at  all  (H.E.  i.  27.  M.P.L.  xxi. 
493).  In  any  case  there  is  no  question  of  a  definition  ex  cathedra,  and  all 
theologians  agree  that  a  Pope  may  be  guilty  of  a  private  heretical  opinion. 
B.  Jungmann  has  discussed  the  whole  case  in  his  Dissertation es  selccte  in 
historiam  ecclesiasticam,  ii.  pp.  46,  seq.  See  also  Hefele  :  Conc.-Gcsch.  (ed.  2), 
i.  pp  685,  696. 

3  Funk  :  K.-G.  Abhandl.  94-99.  *  Hard.  i.  1354. 
s  Theodos.  II,  Edict,  and  Epist.  Mansi,  iv.  1109,  nil,  11 18. 

6  The  acts  of  the  council  formally  declare  Cyril  to  be  the  Pope's  Legate  : 
"The  Alexandrine  Cyril,  who  also  holds  the  place  of  Celestine,  the  most  holy 
and  most  blessed  Archbishop  of  the  Church  of  the  Romans  .  .  .  being 
present"  (Mansi,  iv.  1280).  Philip  is  also  called  "priest  and  legate  of  the 
Apostolic  See,"  and  Arcadius  and  Projectus  are  "  the  most  pious  and  God- 
beloved  bishops  and  legates"  (ibid.  1281). 

?  Coel.  ep.  16-19.    Mansi,  iv.  1292. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    77 

Church,  not  to  let  themselves  be  mixed  up  in  controversy,  but 
to  behave  as  judges.1  He  also  writes  to  the  synod,  recom- 
mending his  legates,  telling  the  fathers  to  observe  Canon  Law 
and  not  to  quarrel,  and  saying  that  he  is  convinced  that  they  will 
agree  with  the  condemnation  of  Nestorius  that  he  has  already 
pronounced.  He  thank  Theodosius  for  the  trouble  he  has 
taken.2  The  legates  arrive  late  3 ;  when  they  come,  Philip 
speaks  for  them  :  "  There  is  no  doubt,  indeed  it  is  known  to 
all  ages,  that  the  holy  and  most  blessed  Peter,  Prince  and  Chief 
of  the  Apostles,  column  of  the  faith  and  foundation  of  the 
Catholic  Church,  received  the  keys  of  the  kingdom,  and  that 
the  power  of  forgiving  and  retaining  sins  was  given  to  him,  and 
he  till  the  present  time  and  always  lives  and  judges  in  his 
successors.  Therefore  his  successor  and  Vicegerent,  our  holy 
and  most  blessed  Pope,  the  Bishop  Celestine,  has  sent  us  to 
this  synod  to  take  his  place."4  The  legates  are  then  shown 
the  Acts  of  the  first  session,  which  they  had  missed  ;  they 
approve  of  them,  and  read  St.  Celestine's  letter  to  the  synod. 
Firmus,  Exarch  of  Caesarea  in  Cappadocia,  then  declares 
that  the  Fathers  have  only  done  what  the  Pope  had  bidden. 
The  legates  approve  of  everything  and  sign  the  Acts.  Mean- 
while Candidian,  the  Emperor's  representative,  had  received 
orders  from  his  master  to  look  after  things  and  keep  order,  but 
not  to  interfere  in  questions  of  faith.5  The  Acts  of  Ephesus 
were  not  afterwards  confirmed  by  the  Pope.  He  had  told  the 
council  what  to  do  and  it  had  obeyed  him.  There  was  already 
the  necessary  agreement  between  Pope  and  council,  a  further 
confirmation  would  have  been  superfluous.  St.  Celestine's 
successor,  Sixtus  III  (432-440),  writes  to  St.  Cyril  that  the 
Nestorians  may  be  received  again  into  communion  by  him  "  if 
they  repent  and  reject  what  the  holy  synod  with  our  appro- 
bation has  rejected."  6  But  this  approbation  means  chiefly  the 
consent  between  the  Fathers  and  the  legates  when  the  synod 
was  sitting. 

1  Ep.  Coelest.  cit.  3  Ep.  cit. 

3  On  July  10th,  at  the  beginning  of  the  second  session. 

«  Hard.  i.  1478. 

5  Mansi,  iv.  1279,  1303,  1391,  1427  ;  v.  602,  660.  6  Hard.  i.  1709. 


78        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451)   was   the   largest   assembly 
that   the   Church    had    ever   seen  ;    630    bishops    met    at    it. 
It  is  also  for  all  time  the  great  touchstone  of  Orthodoxy  in  the 
East.     Nearly  all  the  great  schisms  that  have  cut  away  branches 
from  the  Eastern  Church  (except  Nestorianism)  are  Monophysite, 
and  Chalcedon  condemned  Monophysism.     The  Copts,  Jaco- 
bites, Armenians,  &c,  are  still  out  of  communion   with  Con- 
stantinople, as  well  as  with  Rome,  because  they  reject  the  Council 
of  Chalcedon.     We  have  already  seen  how  clearly  this  council 
acknowledges   the  Roman  Primacy  (pp.  36,   37).      No  synod 
ever  more  entirely  satished  the  conditions  we  require.     St.  Leo 
the  Great  formally  asked  the  Emperor  to  summon  it.     He  wrote 
to  Theodosius  II  :  "  All  the  Churches  of  our  parts,  all  bishops, 
with  sighs  and  tears,  beg  your  clemency  to  order  a  general 
council  to  meet  in   Italy."  *     Theodosius  died  too  soon  (450), 
and  Marcian  (450-457),  his  successor,  did  not  fix  on  Italy  as  the 
place   for  the   council.     But   he   was  very   conscious   that   in 
summoning  the  council  he  was  obeying  the  Pope.     He  writes 
to  St.  Leo  that  he  will  do  as  he   wishes  "  so  that,  when  all 
impious  error  has  been  removed  through  the  council  held  by 
your    authority,  a  great    peace  may  reign  among  all  bishops 
of  the  Catholic  faith."  2     St.  Leo  answers,  asking  him  now  to 
wait  awhile,  because  at  that  moment  wars  and  troubles  would 
prevent   many   bishops    from   attending.3      But   Marcian   had 
summoned   the  council   to   Chalcedon,  just  across   the   water 
opposite  Constantinople,  before  the  Pope's  letter  arrived.     So 
St.  Leo  accepts  what  has  happened  :  "  Since  you,  out  of  zeal 
for  the  Catholic  faith,  have  wished  the  council  to  take  place 
now,  I  send  my  brother  and   fellow-bishop   Paschasius,  from 
that  province  which   seems  safest  4  to  stand  in  my  place,  in 
order  that  I  may  not  appear  to  stand  in  the  way  of  your  good- 
will." s     He  then  writes  to  the  Fathers  at  Chalcedon  :  "The 
general   council    has    come    together    by    command    of    the 

1  Leonis  I,  Ep.  44,  3.     M.P.L.  liv.  826. 

2  Ep.  73.     M.P.L.  liv.  899.  3  Ep.  83,  2.    Ibid.  920. 

4  He  was  Bishop  of  Lilybaeum  in  Sicily.  Attila  and  his  Huns  were  then 
ravaging  Italy.  They  came  to  the  gates  of  Rome  the  year  after  the  council 
452.  s  Ep.  89.     M.P.L.  liv.  930. 


ROME  AND    THE   EASTERN  CHURCHES     79 

Christian  princes  (Marcian  and  his  wife  Pulcheria),  and  by  the 
consent  of  the  Apostolic  See."  T  There  is  no  question  as  to 
who  presided.  First  sat  the  Roman  Legates,  then  Anatolius 
of  Constantinople,  Maximus  of  Antioch,  &c.  (p.  36).2  The 
Legates  in  the  Pope's  name  condemn  and  suspend  Dioscur  of 
Alexandria  (p.  14).  The  council  accepts  St.  Leo's  dogmatic 
letter,  "  Peter  has  spoken  by  Leo "  (p.  37).  We  have  also 
seen  how  (although  it  was  no  longer  necessary)  the  council  begs 
for  the  Pope's  approval,  how  he  confirms  the  dogmatic  decrees 
it  had  passed  with  his  Legates,  and  rejects  the  Canons  drawn 
up  in  their  absence  (pp.  40-42). 

Passing  over  for  the  present  the  fifth  council,  we  come  to  the 
sixth,  Constantinople  III,  in  680.  It  met  in  a  hall  of  the 
Emperor's  palace  under  a  great  cupola,  and  is  therefore  also 
called  the  first  council  in  Trullo  (Trullanum  I). 3  This  is  the 
council  that  came  at  the  end  of  the  Monothelite  troubles  ;  it 
has  become  famous  because  it  counted  Pope  Honorius  (625- 
638)  among  the  Monothelite  heretics.  In  the  thirteenth  session  : 
"  We  also  anathematize  Honorius,  the  former  Pope  of  Old 
Rome,  because  we  find  in  his  letter  to  Sergius  that  he  followed 
this  one  in  all  things  and  confirmed  his  impious  dogmas." 
And  in  the  sixteenth  session  :  "Anathema  to  the  heretic  Sergius, 
Anathema  to  the  heretic  Honorius,  Anathema  to  the  heretic 
Pyrrhus."4  In  spite  of  this,  the  council  has  several  things 
to  say  in  favour  of  the  Roman  Primacy.  The  Emperor 
Constantine  IV  (Pogonatus,  668-685),  before  summoning 
it  wrote  to  Pope  Donus  (676-678)  asking  for  his  co-opera- 
tion and  for  legates.5  Donus  died  too  soon,  but  Agatho,  his 
successor  (678-681),  first  held  a  Roman  Synod  (Easter,  680)  to 
prepare  the  great  one,  then  sent  two  priests,  Theodore  and 
George,  and  a  deacon  John,  as  his  Legates  to  Constantinople, 
besides  writing  a  dogmatic    letter  to  Constantine  condemning 


1  Ep.  114,  1.     Ibid.  1029.  2  Mansi,  vi.  566,  &c.,  passim. 

3  TpovWog  is  a  late  Greek  word  for  a  hollow  vessel,  then  for  a  tortoise- 
shell  and  lastly  for  a  dome  or  cupola.  Trullus  also  occurs  in  late  Latin. 
The  second  council  in  Trullo  was  not  oecumenical,  see  p.  92,  n.  2. 

4  Mansi,  xi.  195-736,  738-922.     Hard.  iii.  1043,  seq. 
s  Hard.  iii.  1043. 


80        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  heresy.1  The  Legates  presided  at  the  council,  the  Emperor 
was  present  at  many  sessions  without  interfering  in  the  discus- 
sion.2 The  Legates  read  out  Agatho's  letter,  and  the  Fathers 
say  to  Constantine  :  "  The  supreme  Prince  of  the  Apostles  agreed 
with  us,  we  had  his  follower  and  the  successor  of  his  see  as 
our  ally  explaining  the  divine  mystery  in  his  letter.  That 
ancient  City  of  Rome  sent  you  a  profession  of  faith  written  by 
God,  and  the  daylight  of  the  faith  shone  from  the  West.  We 
saw  parchment  and  writing,  but  Peter  spoke  through  Agatho."  3 
They  write  to  the  Pope  that  he  "  stands  on  the  firm  Rock  of 
Faith."  4  They  ask  for  his  confirmation  :  "  We  have,  in  com- 
pany with  you,  clearly  taught  the  Orthodox  faith,  and  we  ask 
your  Holiness  to  sign  it  with  your  venerable  rescript."  s  Mean- 
while Agatho  died  and  Leo  II  (682-683)  followed  him.  Leo 
examined  the  Acts  and  confirmed  them  all,  except  that  he  dis- 
tinctly refused  to  acknowledge  the  condemnation  of  Honorius 
as  a  heretic.  He,  too,  condemned  him,  but  only  because  "  he 
had  not  crushed  out  the  flame  of  heresy  at  once,  as  behoved 
his  Apostolic  authority,  but  rather  fostered  it  by  his  negli- 
gence." 6  So  the  statement  made  by  the  council  that  Honorius 
was  a  heretic,  not  having  been  confirmed  by  Rome,  affects  us 
Catholics  as  little  as  the   Canons  of  Constantinople  I.' 

The  seventh  general  council  in  787,  at  Nicaea  (Niccenum  II), 
condemned  Iconoclasm.  The  Empress  Irene  (Regent  for  nel- 
son Constantine  VI,  797-802)  and  the  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople, Tarasius  (784-806),  both  wrote  in  the  first  place  to  Pope 
Adrian  I  (772-795)  about  (Summoning  a  general  synod.  Adrian 
answered  in  two  long  letters.  He  rejoices  at  their  Orthodox 
disposition  and  at  their  wish  to  put  an  end  to  the  heresy  that 
has  so  long  cut  them  off  from  the  Communion  of  the  Roman 
See.    He  writes  a  long  defence  of  holy  images  from  the  Bible  and 


1  Hard.  iii.  1074.  2  Mansi,  I.e. 

3  Hard.  iii.  1422,  seq.  4  Mansi,  xi.  683. 

s  Hard.  iii.  1631-1633.  6  Mansi,  xi.  1050,  M.P.L.  xcvii.  414. 

7  The  famous  Honorius  question  does  not  sufficiently  concern  the  Eastern 
Churches  to  warrant  a  longer  discussion  of  it  here.  Apart  from  the  statement 
made  by  this  council,  it  is  quite  certain  that  he  did  not  define  Monothelitism 
ex  cathedra.    Cf.,  for  instance,  Jungmann  :  Dissert,  hist.  ii.  pp.  385,  seq 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    81 

the  Fathers,  he  will  send  his  Legates  to  the  synod.  This  letter 
he  gives  to  the  Archpriest  Peter  and  to  the  Abbot  of  St.  Saba  at 
Rome,  also  named  Peter,  who  are  to  represent  him.  These 
Legates  preside  throughout  the  council  ;  the  Acts  always  name 
them  first,  then  Tarasius.1  But  Tarasius  opened  the  proceed- 
ings with  a  speech  and  conducted  most  of  the  business.  The 
Empress  sent  two  representatives,  who,  as  usual,  have  the  place 
of  honour,  but  do  not  interfere.  About  three  hundred  bishops 
were  present.  The  Pope's  letter  is  read  out,  containing  the 
words  :  "  The  See  of  Peter  shines  as  holding  the  Primacy  over 
the  whole  world  and  stands  as  head  of  all  the  Churches  of  God"  ; 
also,  "  Blessed  Peter,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  who  first  sat  on 
the  Apostolic  throne,  left  the  Primacy  of  his  Apostleship  and  of 
his  pastoral  care  to  his  successors,  who  shall  always  sit  on  his 
most  sacred  chair,  to  whom  he,  by  divine  command,  left  the 
power  of  authority  given  to  himself  by  God  our  Lord  and 
Saviour." 2  And  "  the  holy  synod  answered  :  The  whole  most 
sacred  synod  so  believes,  is  so  convinced,  so  teaches."  3  Adrian 
soon  after  writes  to  Charles  the  Great,  telling  him  how  the 
council  had  condemned  Iconoclasm  as  he  had  directed,  and 
adding,  "  Therefore  we  accepted  the  synod  "  ; 4  he  also  had  the 
Acts  translated  into  Latin. 

Our  eighth  general  council,  the  Fourth  of  Constantinople  (869), 
was  as  papal  in  its  feeling  as  any  council  could  be.  It  signed 
the  formula  of  Hormisdas  (cf.  pp.  85-86)  ;  nor  are  the  facts  that 
it  was  summoned  by  the  Pope,  presided  over  by  his  Legates,  and 
confirmed  by  him,  in  dispute.  Unfortunately,  when  the  Orthodox 
speak  of  the  eighth  general  council  they  mean,  not  this  one,  but 
Photius'  synod,  held  ten  years  later  (879),  that  was  as  anti-papal 
as  ours  was  papal.  The  ways  had  already  parted.  The  story 
of  these  rival  synods  is  part  of  that  of  the  great  schism  (p.  156). 
There  remain  the  two  irregular  councils,  the  second  and  the 
fifth.  We  have  already  seen  that  the  second  council  {Con- 
stantinople I,  in  381)  was  not  oecumenical  as  summoned  nor  in 
its  sessions.  It  was  a  small  local  synod  of  Eastern  bishops, 
presided  over  successively  by  three   Patriarchs  of   Constanti- 

r  Hard.  iv.  455-470,  995.  2  Ibid.  102,  510, 

3  Ibid.  82,  Q4.  4  Ibid.  819. 

7 


82        THE    ORTHODOX   EASTERN  CHURCH 

nople.  The  Pope  was  not  represented  ;  no  Western  bishop 
was  present  (p.  32).  We  have  also  seen  that  at  first  the 
council  was  not  accepted,  but  that  the  Pope  eventually  accepted 
its  Creed,  while  rejecting  its  Canons  (pp.  33-34).  It  is  that 
acceptance  alone  that  to  Catholics  gives  this  synod  a  right  to 
be  counted  among  the  general  councils.  Indeed  it  is  difficult 
to  see  what  other  claim  it  can  have.  Practically  it  owes  its 
importance  entirely  to  the  Creed  it  drew  up  as  an  enlargement 
of  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  and  that  we  still  call  the  Nicene  Creed.1 
The  Second  Council  of  Constantinople  (553)  is  a  parallel  case. 
Justinian  wanted  a  council  to  condemn  the  "Three  Chapters." 
These  Three  Chapters  were  :  1.  The  person  and  the  works  of 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia  (f  428).  2.  The  writings  of  Theodoret 
of  Cyrus  (f  458).  3.  The  letter  of  Ibas  of  Edessa  (f  457)  to  a 
certain  Persian  named  Maris.  They  were  all  suspected  of 
Nestorianism,  and  the  Emperor  hoped  that  their  condemnation 
would  conciliate  the  Monophysites  in  Egypt  and  Syria,  who 
stood  for  the  extreme  opposite  side.  Others,  especially  the 
Western  bishops,  saw  in  the  condemnation  a  dangerous  con- 
cession to  the  Copts  and  Jacobites.  The  weakness  of  the  Pope, 
Vigilius  (540-555),  may  be  partly  excused  because  of  the 
persecution  he  had  to  bear.  At  first  he  agreed  to  the  summon- 
ing of  a  general  council.  The  Emperor  then  invited  him  to 
Constantinople,  and,  after  much  hesitation  and  delay,  he 
arrived  there  in  547.  But  he  was  torn  between  the  two 
sides.  Mennas  of  Constantinople  (536-552),  the  Emperor,  and 
the  Eastern  bishops  wanted  the  Three  Chapters  to  be  con- 
demned, on  the  other  hand  his  own  Latin  bishops  saw  in  the 
proposed  condemnation  a  veiled  attack  against  the  Council  of 
Chalcedon.  In  548  he  declared  the  condemnation  in  his 
Iudicatum,  while  strongly  upholding  Chalcedon.  The  Western 
bishops  were  very  angry.  Then  Justinian,  in  defiance  of  his 
promise,  before  the  council  met,  published  a  much  sharper  decree 
against  the  Three  Chapters.  Vigilius  protested,  and  was  taken 
prisoner  and  ill-treated  by  the  Emperor's  order.  He  gave,  and 
then   retracted,  his   consent   to   a   council.     In   any  case   the 

1  It  is  doubtful  whether  the  Creed  really  was  drawn  up  by  this  council 
(P-  383,  n.  3). 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    83 

Western  bishops  would  not  come  to  it.  The  council  met  in 
May,  553  ;  165  bishops  were  present,  all  Easterns,  except 
six  Africans.  They  asked  the  Pope  to  preside,  but  he  would 
not  come.  Instead  he  sent  them  a  new  decree,  the  Consti- 
tutum,  condemning  sixty  propositions  of  Theodore,  but  for- 
bidding any  other  condemnation.  The  council  refused  to 
accept  the  Constitutum,  and  condemned  all  Three  Chapters, 
also,  among  others,  Origen.1  At  last  Vigilius,  deserted  by  all 
his  friends,  worn  out  with  the  long  imprisonment  and  the 
ill-treatment,  only  anxious  to  be  set  free  and  to  go  back  home 
to  Rome,  gave  in  and  also  condemned  the  Three  Chapters.  He 
was  then  allowed  to  go  back,  but  the  unhappy  Pope  never  saw 
his  own  city  again.  He  died  of  the  effects  of  ill-treatment  at 
Syracuse  in  555,  leaving  the  reputation  of  a  well-meaning  man 
who  was  not  strong  enough  to  bear  persecution,  or  to  firmly 
make  up  his  mind  in  a  difficult  question.  He  was  the 
weakest  of  all  the  Popes.  His  successor,  Pelagius  I  (555-561), 
confirmed  the  council,  which  was  then,  after  some  opposition, 
accepted  by  all  the  West ;  although  one  see,  Aquileia,  stayed  in 
schism  till  700,  because  of  this  question.  It  need  hardly  be 
said  that  all  the  dogmatic  decrees  of  the  Second  Council  of 
Constantinople  entirely  agree  with  the  faith  of  Ephesus  and 
Chalcedon.  No  one  has  disputed  its  orthodoxy.  The  question 
about  which  Vigilius  could  not  make  up  his  mind  was  whether 
it  was  expedient  to  condemn  men  who  had  died  a  century  ago, 
whose  names,  in  the  West  at  any  rate,  were  hardly  known,  for 
the  chance  of  conciliating  these  Monophysites.  The  Western 
bishops  were  angry  at  the  Emperor's  interference,  at  their  Pope 
being  taken  to  Constantinople  and  ill-treated  there.  If  they 
thought  the  council  was  contradicting  Chalcedon,  they  were 
mistaken.     Its  5th  Canon  formally  confirms  the  last  council.2 

We  may  end  this  discussion  of  the  Roman  Primacy  over 
Eastern  Christendom  by  quoting  the  famous  Formula  of 
Hormisdas.    St.  Hormisdas  was  Pope  from  514  to  523.    The  great 

1  Can.  11,  12,  13,14. 

2  For  the  history  of  the  Three  Chapters  and  of  the  Second  Council  of  Con- 
stantinople see  Liberatus  :  Breviarium  Causce  Nestorianorum  etEutychianorum 
(M.P.L.  lxviii.).     The  Acts  of  the  council  are  in  Mansi,  ix.  163. 


84   THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

work  of  his  reign  was  to  put  an  end  to  the  schism  between  the 
Eastern  and  Western  Churches  that  had  lasted  thirty-five  years 
(484-519),  which  we  call  the  Acacian  Schism.  It  was  the  result 
of  another  of  the  many  unhappy  interferences  of  the  Emperor 
in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  In  482  the  Emperor  Zeno  (474-491) 
tried  to  win  the  Egyptian  and  Syrian  Monophysites  by  con- 
demning the  Council  of  Chalcedon.  This  he  did  in  his 
Henotikon  ('EwriKov,  Unification),  at  the  same  time,  to 
please  the  Melkites  as  well,  condemning  Nestorius  and 
Eutyches.  Acacius  (Akakios)  of  Constantinople  (471-489), 
who  was  quarrelling  with  John  Talaia,  the  Melkite  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  warmly  accepted  the  Henotikon,  as  did 
nearly  all  the  Eastern  bishops.  Peter  the  Dyer  of  An- 
tioch  (p.  48)  and  most  of  the  Monophysites  also  agreed.  So 
a  great  union  between  the  Byzantine  Church  and  these  heretics 
was  brought  about.  The  Copts  and  Jacobites  were  once  more 
at  peace  with  Constantinople  and  Caesar,  but  at  the  cost  of 
sacrificing  a  general  council.  The  Orthodox  had  given  up  their 
orthodoxy  and  had  conceded  what  the  heretics  wanted.  Pope 
Felix  II  (483-492)  protested  against  the  Henotikon  and,  as  the 
Eastern  Church  persisted  in  accepting  it,  the  first  great  schism 
between  the  Churches  was  brought  about.  Acacius  and  his 
bishops  struck  the  Pope's  name  off  their  diptychs  ;  there  was  no 
inter-communion  for  thirty-five  years.  Only  the  "  Akoimetai," 
the  "  sleepless  "  monks  in  the  capital,  still  kept  up  communion 
with  Rome.  It  was  this  state  of  things  to  which  Hormisdas  at 
last  succeeded  in  putting  an  end.  There  had  already  been 
insurrections  and  tumults  among  the  people  in  favour  of  re-union. 
The  Eastern  bishops  also  began  to  be  frightened  when  they  saw 
how  far  things  had  gone  ;  already  in  512  they  had  written  to 
Pope  Symmachus  (Hormisdas's  predecessor,  498-514)  "  begging 
for  the  Communion  of  blessed  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles  ; 
and  they  maintain  by  letters  and  embassies  that  they  will  obey 
the  Apostolic  See."  l  In  516  John  of  Nicopolis  and  his  suffragans 
implored  Hormisdas  to  restore  them  to  his  communion,  and 
eagerly  protested  their  orthodoxy  and  their  adherence  to 
Chalcedon,  The  Pope  then  sends  a  sub-deacon  named  Pullio 
*  Thiel,  Ep.  Rom,  Pont.  709,  759. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES     85 

with  a  "  Libellus,"  which  was  to  be  signed  by  every  bishop  as  a 
condition  of  re-union.  At  first  the  Emperor  (Anastasius  I) 
stood  in  the  way  ;  but  when  he  died  in  518  his  successor,  Justin  I 
(518-527),  wrote,  as  well  as  the  Patriarch  (John  II,  518-520), 
asking  the  Pope  to  receive  them  back.  Hormisdas  sent  Legates 
with  the  same  Libellus.  The  Patriarch,  the  Emperor,  and  all 
the  chief  bishops  signed  it,  the  names  of  Zeno  and  Acacius 
were  struck  out  of  the  diptychs,  that  of  the  Pope  restored.  On 
Easter  Day,  519,  the  union  was  restored  in  the  Cathedral  of 
Constantinople.  This  Libellus  is  the  Formula  of  Hormisdas. 
It  was  signed  in  516  by  all  the  Illyrian  bishops,1  in  517  the 
Spanish  Church  forbade  any  Greek  priest  to  be  admitted  to 
communion  until  he  had  signed  it,2  in  519  all  the  Eastern 
prelates  signed  ;3  Epiphanius  (520-536)  and  Mennas  (536-552) 
of  Constantinople  and  the  great  Justinian  signed.4  The  Legates 
who  present  it  allow  no  discussion,  Roma  locuta  est.  Certain 
bishops  in  Thessaly  want  to  change  some  of  its  words.  The 
Legates  tell  them  :  "  It  is  not  in  your  power  to  do  this  ;  if  you 
will  sign,  thank  God  ;  if  you  will  not,  we  have  come  and  greeted 
you,  we  will  now  walk  away." s  At  the  Council  of  869  (our 
eighth  general  council)  Greeks  and  Latins  sign  this  formula  ;  it 
was  confirmed  by  the  two  re-union  councils,  the  second  of 
Lyons  (1274)  and  the  Council  of  Florence  (1439),  and  it  played  a 
great  part  at  the  Vatican  Council  (1870). 

The  formula,  then,  is  as  follows  :  "  The  first  salvation6  is  to  keep 
the  rule  of  the  true  faith  and  in  no  way  to  forsake  the  laws  of  the 
Fathers.  And  the  words  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  :  Thou  art 
Peter  and  upon  this  Rock  I  will  build  my  Church,  cannot  be  passed 
over  ;  they  are  proved  by  the  facts/  because  in  the  Apostolic  See 
the  Catholic  Religion  is  always  kept  immaculate.  We  then,  wish- 
ing by  no  means  to  be  parted  from  that  hope  and  faith,  following 
also  in  everything  the  laws  of   the   Fathers,   anathematize  all 

1  Thiel,  I.e.  Ep.  19,  p.  780.  2  Ep.  26,  p.  793. 

3  Ep.  46,  p.  835  5  Ep.  59,  60,  p.  850,  seq. ;  Ep.  61,  65,  75,  PP-  852,  859,  868. 

4  Mansi,  viii.  436,  502,  518,  1029,  1065.  See  also  the  whole  story  in 
Liberatus  :  Breviarium,  I.e.  c.  19. 

5  "  Si  non  vultis  facere,  venimus,  salutavimus  vos,  perambulamus,"  Ep.  49, 
Thiel,  I.e. 

6  =  Condition  of  salvation.  1  "Rerum  probantur  effectibus." 


86        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

heresies,  especially  the  heretic  Nestorius,  sometime  Bishop  of 
the  City  of  Constantinople,  who  was  condemned  at  the  Council 
of  Ephesus  by  the  blessed  Celestine,  Pope  of  the  City  of  Rome, 
and  by  Cyril,  Bishop  of  the  City  of  Alexandria.  We  also 
anathematize  both  Eutyches  and  Dioscur  of  Alexandria,  con- 
demned by  the  holy  Synod  of  Chalcedon,  which  we  follow  and 
embrace  and  which,  following  the  holy  Nicene  Synod,  taught 
the  Apostolic  Faith.  We  detest  that  parricide  Timothy,  called 
the  Cat,1  also  his  disciple  and  follower  Peter  of  Alexandria. 
We  likewise  condemn  and  anathematize  Acacius,  some  time 
Bishop  of  Constantinople,  who  was  condemned  by  the  Apostolic 
See,  and  who  was  the  accomplice  and  follower  of  those  others, 
and  all  who  remained  in  their  communion  ;  because  Acacius 
justly  deserves  the  same  condemnation  as  theirs  for  having  mixed 
himself  up  in  their  society.  Further,  we  condemn  Peter  of 
Antioch  with  all  his  followers  and  the  followers  of  all  the  above- 
mentioned.  We  receive  and  approve  all  the  letters  of  the 
blessed  Pope  Leo,  which  he  wrote  about  the  Christian  religion  ; 
and,  as  we  have  said,  we  follow  the  Apostolic  See  in  everything 
and  teach  all  its  laws.  Therefore,  I  hope  that  I  may  deserve  to 
be  with  you  in  that  one  Communion  taught  by  the  Apostolic 
See,  in  which  Communion  is  the  whole,  real  and  perfect  solidity 
of  the  Christian  Religion.  And  I  promise  that  in  future  I  will 
not  say  in  the  holy  Mysteries  the  names  of  those  who  are 
banished  from  the  Communion  of  the  Catholic  Church,  that 
is,  who  do  not  agree  with  the  Apostolic  See.  And  if  in  any  way 
I  ever  attempt  to  depart  from  this  my  profession,  I  acknowledge 
that  by  my  own  sentence  I  shall  become  an  accomplice  of  those 
whom  I  have  condemned.  This  my  profession  I  sign  with  my 
own  hand  and  address  to  you,  Hormisdas,  the  holy  and 
venerable  Pope  of  the  City  of  Rome." 2  We  may,  then,  end  our 
list  of  evidences  of  the  Roman  Primacy  in  the  East  with  this 
formula  of  the  early  6th  century,  than  which  certainly  nothing 
could  be  plainer. 

1  See  p.  14.     He  is  only  called  a  parricide  because  he  was  a  Monophysite. 

2  Denzinger,  xx.  n.  141.  The  text  of  Hormisdas's  formula  often  recurs  in 
Acts  of  councils  and  letters:  cf.  e.  gr.  Deusdedit  :  Coll.  Canonum,  i.  112, 
pp.  89,  90,  &c. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    8; 

4.  Ill-feeling  towards  Rome  in  the  East. 

But  there  is  also  another  side  to  the  question.  It  is  certain 
that  the  whole  body  of  Eastern  orthodox  Christians  would  not 
have  so  easily  fallen  away  from  communion  with  the  West  and 
with  the  Pontiff  whom  they  had  so  often  acknowledged  as  their 
chief,  if  everything  had  been  going  quite  smoothly  till  the  9th 
century.  The  violent  language  against  Rome,  the  hatred  of 
everything  Latin,  that  we  see  among  these  Byzantines  as  soon 
as  the  schism  breaks  out,  were  caused  by  deeper  motives  than 
the  disputed  succession  of  Ignatius  and  Photius.  The  Filioque 
in  the  Creed,  our  use  of  unleavened  bread  and  habit  of  fasting 
on  Saturday,  could  not  be  the  only  causes  of  so  much  bitterness. 
It  is  true  that  long  before  Photius  was  born  an  ill-feeling  against 
Latins  and  against  the  Latin  Patriarch  had  been  growing  up  at 
Constantinople.  This  ill-feeling  shows  itself  most  plainly  during 
the  last  three  centuries  before  the  schism,  during  the  Byzantine 
period,  since  Justinian.  But  even  earlier  there  was  often  friction. 
In  the  first  place  we  do  not  often  find  among  these  Eastern 
bishops  the  same  enthusiasm  for  Rome  as  among  Latins  :  they 
acknowledged  its  primacy,  but  more  coldly.  Words  like  St. 
Jerome's  impassioned  appeal  to  Pope  Damasus ■  are  the  expres- 
sion of  the  feelings  of  a  Latin  surrounded  by  Greeks  and  Syrians. 
To  Christians  of  the  Eastern  Churches  the  Pope  was  always 
more  of  a  stranger.  He  was  not  their  Patriarch.  Whereas  he 
governed,  guided,  advised  his  own  Latin  bishops  continually, 
sent  his  Pallium  to  archbishops,  was  appealed  to  in  every  sort 
of  difficulty,2  Eastern  Christians  in  similar  cases  looked  to  their 
own  patriarchs.  True,  they  could  appeal  from  them  to  the  first 
see,  the  Synod  of  Sardica  had  said  so  (p.  69),  and  we  have  seen 
a  number  of  cases  ;  but  such  appeals  were  rather  the  exception, 
brought  about  by  some  flagrant  injustice.  The  normal  life  of 
those  Churches  went  on  without  much  reference  to  Rome. 

Then   they  had   not   been  founded   by  the  Pope.     To  our 
fathers  the  Roman  Church  was  mother  and  mistress  in  many 

1  Ep.  15,  ad  Damasum. 

2  An  example  of  this  is  the  correspondence  between  St.  Gregory  the  Great 
and  St.  Augustine  of  Canterbury. 


88        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

senses  ;  their  loyalty  saw  in  her,  not  only  the  Church  of  the 
Prince-Apostle,  not  only  the  Patriarchal  See  ;  she  was  the 
mother  who  had  borne  them.  From  Rome,  sent  by  a  Pope,  had 
come  the  apostles  to  whom  they  owed  the  faith,  it  was  Rome 
that  had  founded  their  dioceses,  ordained  their  first  bishops. 
In  the  case  of  the  great  Eastern  Churches  there  was  no  such 
special  relation  of  filial  piety.  Their  bishops  traced  their  lines 
straight  back  to  the  first  disciples  of  all,  many  of  them  were  them- 
selves Apostolic  Churches  and  therefore,  in  this  regard,  on  the 
same  level  as  Rome.  They  had  their  own  ancient  liturgies  and 
customs  and  had  never  been  affected  by  the  Roman  use,  the 
Roman  Calendar.  True,  in  the  West,  too,  there  were  other  litur- 
gies, but  all  the  time  the  Roman  Mass  was  spreading  throughout 
the  Pope's  Patriarchate,  influencing  the  other  Latin  rites,  till  at 
last  it  took  their  place  everywhere,  save  in  one  or  two  corners. 
The  Papal  Mass,  the  "  use  of  the  Roman  Curia  "  throughout  the 
West  was  the  great  architype  to  be  admired  and  copied  ;  but  to 
Eastern  Christians  it  was  an  utterly  strange  thing,  of  which  they 
understood  nothing,  not  even  the  language. 

It  seems  absurd  to  us  that  a  difference  of  language  should  be  so 
great  a  barrier  ;  but  it  is  true  that  one  of  the  great  causes  of 
estrangement  between  the  two  halves  of  Christendom  was  that 
they  could  not  understand  each  other,  simply  because  some  talked 
Latin  and  some  Greek.  Here  Rome  had  the  advantage.  There 
was  always  a  Greek  colony  there  and  Greek  monasteries.  There 
have  been,  even  as  late  as  in  the  7th  and  8th  centuries, 
Greek  Popes.1  So  the  Romans  could  always  manage  to  get  a 
Greek  letter  translated.  But  the  Greeks  could  not  understand 
Latin.  The  Roman  Court  since  it  had  been  fixed  at  Constanti- 
nople had  become  completely  Hellenized.  The  whole  body  of 
Latin  literature,  sacred  or  profane,  was  a  closed  book  to  the 
Byzantines.  At  first  Law,  the  Ius  Romanum,  had  still  been 
taught  in  Latin  and  St.  Gregory  the  Wonder-worker  (f  270), 

1  Theodore  I  (642-649)  was  a  Greek  from  Jerusalem,  St.  Agatho  (678-681), 
a  Sicilian  Greek,  John  V  (685-686),  a  Syrian.  The  last  Greek  Pope  was  a 
Cretan,  Alexander  V  (Peter  Philargios,  1409-1410),  set  up  by  the  Synod  of 
Pisa.  He  is  counted  among  the  Alexanders,  but  was  really  an  anti-pope 
Gregory  XII  (1406-1415)  was  the  legitimate  Pope. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    89 

who  wanted  to  study  it,  complains  that  he  must  first  learn  "  the 
hard  language  of  the  Romans."  x  But  since  Justinian  even  Law 
was  written  in  Greek,  and  from  that  time  there  were  very  few 
Greeks  who  could  speak  Latin.  Peter  of  Antioch  received  a 
letter  from  Pope  Leo  IX  (1048-1054)2  and  he  had  to  send  it  to 
Constantinople  to  have  it  translated.  Even  Photius,  the  most 
learned  man  of  his  age,  could  not  understand  Latin.  On  the 
other  hand,  Pope  Vigilius  (540-555)  spent  eight  unhappy  years 
at  Constantinople,  but  amid  his  troubles  he  never  learned  Greek. 
The  Popes  kept  a  perpetual  Legate,  the  Apocrisarius,  at  the  Em- 
peror's Court  since  the  time  of  Justinian  ;  but  even  these  Legates 
generally  knew  no  Greek.  St.  Gregory  the  Great  (f  604)  had  been 
Apocrisarius  at  Constantinople^  but  he  never  knew  any  language 
except  Latin.  This  difference  of  language  was  a  very  serious 
hindrance  to  the  mutual  influence  that  would  have  prevented 
the  Churches  from  drifting  apart.s  And  so,  since  the  Pope  and 
his  Latin  Court  were  so  strange  to  these  Greeks,  since  his  inter- 
vention was  rare  in  their  affairs,  it  must  have  often  seemed  to 
them,  when  he  did  stretch  out  his  arm  across  the  seas,  that  he 
was  interfering  unduly  in  their  business.  One  can  imagine  an 
Eastern  bishop,  such  as  Theophilus  of  Alexandria,  for  instance 
(p.  6q),  who  was  congratulating  himself  on  having  triumphed, 
suddenly  finding  that  his  arrangements  were  all  reversed  by  the 
result  of  his  adversary's  appeal  to  Rome,  and  thinking  in  his 
disappointment  :  Why  cannot  the  Roman  Patriarch  let  things 
alone  ? 

But  undoubtedly  the  chief  cause  of  all  ill-feeling  was  the 
ambition  of  Constantinople.  We  have  seen  how  the  bishops 
of  that  city  step  by  step  climbed  up  to  the  first  place  in  the 
East ;  how  easily  they  displaced  the  other  Eastern  Patriarchs  ; 
how  they  could  always  count  on  the  help  of  the  Emperor  ;  and 
how  the  adversary,  who  always  stood  in  their  way,  was  the  Pope. 
They  could  not  pretend  to  ignore  him,  and  at  each  step  they 
foresaw  his  certain  opposition.  It  was  most  of  all  in  the 
minds  of  the  Oecumenical  Patriarchs  that  anger  and  jealousy 

1  M.P.G.  x.  963,  scq. 

2  Will  :  Acta  ct  Scripta  de  control',  cccl.  lat.  ct  grcvccv,  p.  204. 

3  See  Duchesne  :  Eglises  scparees,  pp.  182-186. 


90        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

against  Old  Rome  rankled.  And  when  the  schism  at  last 
came  it  was  natural  that  it  should  be  caused  by  a  dispute 
between  these  two  sees.  Nor  is  it  to  be  wondered  that  when 
Constantinople  fell  away,  all  the  other  Eastern  Sees  held  by 
her  and  shared  her  schism.  By  that  time  Constantinople 
was  almost  as  unquestioned  a  mistress  of  the  Orthodox  East  as 
Rome  was  of  the  Catholic  West.  The  great  mass  of  the 
populations  of  Egypt  and  Syria  had  long  ago  fallen  away  from 
both  and  had  nothing  to  do  with  the  schism  of  the  9th 
century.  What  was  left  was  the  Byzantine  Church,  and  its 
chief  was  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch. 

We  must  confess  that  Rome  had  sometimes  given  these 
Eastern  Christians  cause  for  discontent.  Of  course  nothing 
can  justify  schism  ;  they  had  so  often  protested  that  at  Rome 
still  stood  the  Rock  on  which  Christ  had  built  his  Church,  they 
had  so  often  acknowledged  the  Pope's  right  as  Supreme  Judge. 
Still,  the  most  rightful  judges  have  made  mistakes  ;  if  we 
look  ifor  the  cause  of  the  anger  against  Rome  which  made 
the  schism  possible,  we  shall  have  to  put  at  any  rate  some  of  it 
down  to  the  account  of  Rome  herself.  It  is  not  difficult  to  find 
examples.  As  far  back  as  the  4th  century*  she  had  taken 
a  line  in  the  Meletian  schism  at  Antioch  l  that  every  one  now 
regrets.  In  330  Eustathius,  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  was  banished 
by  the  Arians  ;  as  usual  they  set  up  an  Arian  rival  bishop,  and 
when  he  died  they  carried  on  that  line.  Many  of  the  Catholic 
Antiochenes  seem  to  have  accepted  these  Arian  bishops  ;  but  a 
small  party  still  clung  to  exiled  Eustathius.  In  360  the  Arian 
bishop  Eudoxius  died  ;  in  361  his  party  elected  Meletius, 
Bishop  of  Sebaste,  to  succeed  him.  But  this  time  they  had 
made  a  mistake.  Meletius  showed  himself  to  be  Homoousian 
and  Catholic  ;  so  they  chose  a  real  Arian,  Euzoius,  instead  of 
him.  But  Meletius,  whom  they  had  banished,  soon  came  back, 
still  claiming  to  be  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  and  he  was  supported 
by  most  of  the  Catholics.  There  were  now  three  parties  at 
Antioch,  the  Arians  under  Euzoius,  and  two  Catholic  parties, 
the   larger   one   under    Meletius   and    a   small   body    of   rigid 

1  Not  to  be  confused  with  the  schism  of  Meletius  of  Lycopolis  in  Egypt 
(c.  306). 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    91 

conservatives  who  would  not  acknowledge  Meletius  at  all,  in 
which  refusal,  strictly,  they  were  right.  Eustathius  had  died  in 
337,  before  Meletius's  consecration,  and  his  party  would  un- 
doubtedly have  fallen  in  with  the  other  Catholics  and  accepted 
Meletius ;  there  would  then  have  been  only  the  two  parties, 
Catholic  and  Arian,  as  there  were  throughout  the  Empire,  but  for 
the  ill-considered  action  of  a  Latin  bishop.  Lucifer  of  Calaris x 
was  always  over-eager  and  intolerant  in  the  pride  of  his  untarn- 
ished orthodoxy.  Later  he  made  a  schism  in  Italy,  because  he 
would  not  allow  converted  Arians  to  be  restored  to  their  office. 
Now  he  perpetuates  the  schism  at  Antioch.  Without  a 
shadow  of  right — at  any  rate  he  had  no  jurisdiction  in  Syria — 
he  ordains  a  successor  to  Eustathius,  a  certain  Paulinus.  So 
the  two  Catholic  parties  remain  separate  and  the  schism  goes 
on.  When  Meletius  died  (381)  his  party  choose  Flavian, 
after  Paulinus  the  Eustathians  appoint  Evagrius.  Unhappily 
Rome  stood  by  what  Lucifer  had  done  :  she  and  Alexandria 
acknowledged  the  Eustathian  line,  all  the  rest  of  the  East 
was  for  Meletius.  The  disagreement  about  the  succession 
at  Antioch  did  not,  however,  disturb  good  relations  in  other 
matters.  St.  John  Chrysostom,  for  instance,  was  a  devoted 
friend  to  Meletius  and  had  been  ordained  by  Flavian,  yet  he 
was  on  equally  good  terms  with  the  Pope,  to  whom  he  appealed 
in  his  own  trouble  (p.  69).  It  was  chiefly  St.  John  who  at  last 
brought  about  peace.  He  and  Theophilus  of  Alexandria 
arranged  that  Flavian  should  send  an  embassy  to  Rome  in  398, 
asking  to  be  recognized,  and  that  the  Pope  should  grant 
what  he  asked.  No  successor  was  appointed  to  Flavian's  rival 
Evagrius  (f  392).  Still  a  remnant  of  the  Eustathian  party, 
although  without  a  bishop  of  their  own,  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge the  Patriarchs  of  the  Meletian  line  till  415.  Then  ithey, 
too,  gave  in.  Alexander  of  Antioch,  Flavian's  second  successor, 
went  with  all  his  court  and  his  clergy  to  hear  the  liturgy  in  their 
church,  and  they  all  sang  psalms  together.  After  eighty-five 
years  at  last  the  schism  was  over.  The  Roman  Church 
has  put  the  name  of  St.  Meletius  in  her  Martyrology,  "  giving 
the  honour  of  her  altars  after  death  to  him  to  whom  she 
1  Now  Cagliari  in  Sardinia. 


92        THE    ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

refused  her  communion  while  alive." J  But  the  action  of 
Lucifer,  and  of  Rome  in  supporting  him,  had  been  a  deplor- 
able mistake.  There  were  other  cases  of  the  same  kind. 
At  Laodicea  all  the  East  acknowledged  Pelagius,  Rome 
Apollinaris,2  the  future  heretic  (f  c.  385).  In  these  and 
similar  cases  the  Pope  (St.  Damasus,  366-384)  knew  of 
Eastern  affairs  almost  entirely  through  Peter,  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria,  who  was  in  exile  at  Rome,  and  who,  of  course, 
described  everything  from  his  own  point  of  view.  It  was  not 
always  quite  a  fair  one.  Peter  had  suffered  much  from 
Arians  and  semi-Arians  ;  he  was  very  loyal  to  the  old  friends 
in  Syria  who,  with  him,  had  borne  the  long  persecution,  he 
was  inclined  to  look  rather  askance  on  the  new  school  of 
bishops,  who,  although  they  were  now  defending  the 
faith  of  Nicaea,  had  been  the  pupils  of  a  suspect  tradition. 
It  was  from  the  school  of  such  people  as  Basil  of  Ancyra, 
Eustathius  of  Sebaste,  Macedonius,  all  semi-Arians,  that  the 
great  Cappadocians,  St.  Basil  and  the  two  Gregories  had  corner 
and  it  was  owing  to  the  old  hatred  of  Alexandria  for  those 
semi-Arians  that  Peter  and  even  Damasus  were  disposed  to 
look  somewhat  coldly  upon  the  great  Greek  Fathers,  whose 
orthodoxy  was  really  as  untarnished  as  their  own.  Indeed,  the 
traditional  close  alliance  between  the  two  first  sees,  Rome  and 
Alexandria,  often  caused  friction  between  Rome  and  the  other 
Eastern  Churches.  Continually  one  sees  that  Antioch  and 
Constantinople  on  the  one  side  are  opposed  to  Alexandria  on 
the  other  :  and  Rome  was  nearly  always  for  Alexandria. 

Gradually  another  cause  of  resentment  grew  up  against  the 
Latins.  Although  the  Greeks  generously  did  their  part  in 
spreading  the  Gospel  on  all  sides  they  always  had  a  feeling  that 
the  full  perfection  of  the  Christian  Church  involved  the  Roman 
Empire.  Optatus  of  Milevis  (f  400)  had  said  so  in  Africa  : 
"  The  Commonwealth  is  not  in  the  Church,  but  the  Church  is 

1  For  all  this  story  see  Socrates  :  H.E.  ii.  43  ;  iii.  9,  25  ;  v.  5,  9,  15. 
Sozomenos  :  H.E.  iv.  25 ;  vii.  3,  10,  seq. ;  viii.  3.  Theodoret :  H.E.  iii.  2, 8  ; 
v.  23,  25. 

2  St.  Basil,  Ep.  131,  2  ;  224,  2  (M.P.G.  xxxii.  568,  836,  seq.). 

3  Cf.  Duchesne  :  Eglises  separees,  pp.  85,  seq. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    93 

in  the  Commonwealth,  that  is,  in  the  Roman  Empire."  '      One 
constantly  finds  this  feeling  that  the  cause  of  Cassar  is  the  cause 
of  Christ,2   and  the  more  the  Eastern  bishops  began  to  look 
upon  the  Emperor  as  their  chief,  the  more  obvious  it  must  have 
seemed.     But  gradually  Old  Rome  was  falling  away  from  the 
Empire.     The  Fathers  of  Chalcedon  had  pretended  that  she 
held  the  primacy  because  she  was  the  capital  of  the  Empire, 
and  now  the  very  city  that  had  given  her  name  to  the  Roman 
world  could  hardly  be  counted  any  longer  as  part  of  that  world. 
In   401   the  Goths  had  poured  into  Italy  ;   in   410   they  had 
plundered  Rome  ;  in  452  the  Huns  had  only  just  not  done  so 
too  (St.   Leo  turned   them  back),  but   they   had   overrun  the 
Roman  land.     Then  the  East-Goths  set  up  a  kingdom  in  Italy 
(493-555)  in  open  defiance  of  Caesar,  and  soon  after  came  the 
Lombards  (568).     The  Bishop  of  Old  Rome  sat  in  the  midst  of 
barbarians,   and,  what   is   worse,   he   began   to   have  friendly 
relations  with  them.     They  heard  that  he  had  made  the  closest 
alliance   with   a   barbarian   king  ;    that   the   Franks  were   en- 
couraged   by   him   to   conquer   the   Lombard    kingdom,   and, 
instead  of  giving  it  back  to  Caesar,  to  keep  it  themselves.     At 
last  came  the  final  blow.     In   800,  in  his  own   cathedral  he 
crowned    their    king    Emperor,    set     up    a    rival    Augustus, 
ignoring  the  rightful  line  that  still  went  on  at  New  Rome.     It 
must  have  seemed  to  the  Byzantine  bishops  sheer  high  treason. 
They  would  never  acknowledge  Charles  but  as  the  barbarian 
king  of   a   barbarian  people.      Irene,   even   if   a   woman,  was 
Augustus  Caesar,  Autocrat  of  the  Romans,  and  Charles  was  only 
the  king  of  the  Franks.s     The  Roman  Patriarch  had  finally 

1  De  schism.  Don.  iii.  3. 

2  St.  Ambrose  (340-397)  continually  reckons  the  defeat  of  the  legions  as  a 
victory  of  Satan  over  the  cause  of  Christ  (e.g.,  de  fide,  xvi.  136,  seq.).  When 
his  brother  Satyrus  died  he  said  :  "  He  was  taken  away  lest  he  see  the  over- 
throw of  the  whole  earth  and  the  end  of  the  world  "  (de  excessu  Sat.  30) — 
Gratian  has  just  been  killed.  Dante's  de  Monarchia  is  the  classical  apology 
for  this  position. 

3  pq£  tojv  (ppdyKojv.  'P//£  is  Rex.  They  would  not  call  him  fiacriXkvg,  because 
they  called  the  Emperor  so,  and  had  come  to  look  upon  the  word  as  equal  to 
Imperator.  Luitprand  :  Legatio  in  Pertz,  Mon.  Germ.  Ill,  p.  347.  Here  is  an 
example  of  their  feelings  on  this  subject :  they  say  to  Luitprand,  Archbishop 
of  Cremona,  who  went  on  an  embassy  to  Constantinople  in  968 ;  "  But  the  mad 


94        THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

cut  himself  off  from  the  Roman  world.  Seventy  years  later 
came  the  schism.  Undoubtedly  the  rival  Empire  helped  to 
foster  ill-feeling.  And,  however  much  loyalty  one  feels  as  a 
Frank  and  a  Latin  to  the  long  and  splendid  line  of  Western 
Emperors  that  lasted  for  just  over  a  thousand  years,  from 
Charles  the  Great  (800)  to  Francis  I  (1804),  one  must  also 
sympathize  with  the  feeling  of  the  Court  of  Byzantium.  After 
all,  they  had  the  direct  line  of  continuity. 

The  culmination  of  these  unfriendly  relations  was  reached 
when  the  Crusaders  sacked  Constantinople  in  1204,  and  set  up  a 
Frank  as  Emperor  even  there.1  The  Byzantines  never  forgot 
that  outrage. 

These  were  the  chief  causes  of  Eastern  ill-feeling  against 
Rome.  Its  results  are  seen  long  before  the  actual  schism. 
Never  was  it  shown  more  plainly  than  in  691  at  the  Ouinisextum . 
The  first  four  councils  had  drawn  up,  not  only  dogmatic 
decrees,  but  also  Canons  about  Church  discipline.  There 
were  no  Canons  of  the  5th  (553)  and  6th  (680).  The  Emperor 
Justinian  II  (685-695)  thought  that  this  omission  should  be 
made  good.  So  in  692  he  summoned  a  council  to  draw  up 
Canons,  as  a  supplement  to  the  last  two  general  synods. 
The  bishops  met  under  the  same  cupola  in  the  Palace  at 
Constantinople  as  the  Synod  of  680.  So  this  council  is  called 
the  second  council  in  Trullo.2  As  it  was  intended  to  complete 
the  fifth  and  sixth  general  councils  it  is  also  called  Concilium 
Quinisextum  (ZvvoZog  TrevdiicTrj),  the  "  Fifth-Sixth."  There  were 
211  bishops  present,  all  Easterns.  But  one  Basil  of  Gortyna  in 
Crete  belonged  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate  (Illyricum),  and  he 
called  himself  Papal  Legate.  There  is  no  evidence  of  his 
having  received  any  commission  from  Rome.  The  council 
drew  up  102  Canons,  no  dogmatic  definition.  Many  of  these 
Canons  only  repeat,  word  for  word,  older  laws  ;  but  most  of  the 

and  silly  Pope  does  not  know  that  St.  Constantine  transferred  the  Imperial 
sceptre,  all  the  Senate  and  the  whole  Roman  army  hither,  and  that  at  Rome 
he  left  only  vile  creatures  such  as  fishermen,  pastrycooks,  birdcatchers, 
bastards,  plebeians,  and  slaves  "  (op.  c.  p.  358). 

1  See  p.  225. 

2  Trullanum  II  ;  when  the  council  in  Trullo  is  mentioned  alone  without  a 
number,  this  one  (692)  is  generally  meant. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    95 

new  ones  show  open  hostility  to  Rome.  These  bishops,  claim- 
ing to  form  an  oecumenical  synod,  want  to  make  the  whole 
Christian  world  conform  to  the  uses  of  Constantinople.  Every- 
thing the  Armenians  do  that  is  not  done  by  the  Byzantines  is 
condemned  ;  l  but  especially  are  all  Latin  customs  anathema- 
tized. Latins  fasted  in  those  days  on  Saturday,  so  that  is 
forbidden  ;  2  they  only  receive  fifty  of  the  so-called  Apostolic 
Canons,  so  Trullanum  II  insists  on  all  eighty-five  of  them.3 
Every  little  detail  of  difference  is  remembered  to  be  con- 
demned.4 Of  course  the  old  claim  of  the  See  of  Constantinople 
to  have  "like  honour"  with  Old  Rome  and  Canon  3  of 
Constantinople,  Canon  28  of  Chalcedon  are  again  brought 
forward.*  Pope  Honorius  is  cheerfully  condemned  as  a  heretic.6 
Marriage  with  a  heretic  is  invalid,  because  Rome  says  it  is  only 
unlawful.'  But  the  most  astonishing  instance  of  the  intolerance 
of  the  Greek  bishops  is  their  treatment  of  celibacy.  In  this 
point,  as  in  the  matter  of  fasting  on  Saturday,  unleavened  bread 
and  so  on,  the  Roman  Church  had  never  attempted  to  force  her 
own  customs  on  the  Easterns.  Each  side  had  in  these  matters 
of  discipline  followed  its  own  development  without  any  breach 
of  unity  or  friendship.  The  Latin  Church  had  the  law  of  celibacy 
for  all  her  clerks  in  Holy  Orders  ;  she  had  never  complained  of 
the  laxer  Eastern  rule.  But  now  these  Easterns  want  to  ex- 
communicate us  for  our  greater  strictness.  All  clerks  except 
bishops  may  continue  in  wedlock,  and  any  one  who  tries  to 
separate  a  priest  or  deacon  from  his  wife,  any  clerk  who  leaves 
his  wife  because  he  is  ordained,  shall  be  excommunicate.8 
We  must  remember  that  these  bishops  mean  to  legislate  for  the 
whole  Church.9  Most  astonishing  of  all  is  the  fact  that  they 
then  tried  to  get  the  Pope's  signature  to  their  Canons.  Pope 
Sergius  I  (687-701)  of  course  refused  ;  John  VII  (705-707)  sent 
back  the  copy  they  wanted  him  to  sign  ;  IO  the  place  left  at  the 
head  of  the  signatures  for  the  Pope's  name  has  always  remained 
a  blank.     The  Orthodox  Eastern  Church  accepts  this  council 

1  Can.  32,  33,  56,  99.  2  C.  55.  3  c.  2.  <*  E.  gr.  c.  67,  82. 

s  C.  36.  6  C.  1.  7  C.  72.  8  C.  3,  6,  12,  13,  48. 

9  The  whole  story  of  the  Quinisextum  with  its  Canons  is  in  Mansi,  xi.  930, 
seq.  I0  Lib.  Pont,  i,  385,  386. 


96    THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN   CHURCH 

as  oecumenical,  and  adds  its  Canons  to  the  decrees  of  the  fifth 
and  sixth  councils.  The  West  has  always  refused  to  acknow- 
ledge it.  St.  Bede  calls  it  the  reprobate  synod,  Paul  the 
Deacon,  erratic  ; x  it  interests  us  here  as  an  example  of  Eastern 
ill-feeling  towards  Rome  and  the  Latins. 

It  was  not  the  only  example.  When  Maurus  of  Ravenna  in 
666  has  the  insolence  to  pretend  to  excommunicate  his  Patriarch 
(Pope  Vitalian,  657-672),  the  Emperor  Constans  II  (641-668) 
publishes  a  decree  in  support  of  the  rebel,  and  affects  to  deter- 
mine that  the  See  of  Ravenna  shall  in  future  always  be  indepen- 
dent of  the  Roman  Patriarchate.2  The  Byzantines  never  cease 
making  the  most  of  Pope  Honorius's  case,  till  at  last  they 
persuade  themselves  that  he,  whose  fault  in  any  case  only 
consisted  in  seeming  to  accept  what  their  Patriarch,  Sergius, 
had  written,  had  been  the  original  author  and  founder  of  the 
whole  Monothelite  heresy.  From  the  time  of  his  death  in  638 
till  the  sixth  general  council  in  680  they  admit  the  name  of  no 
Pope  to  their  diptychs.  In  649  Paul  II  of  Constantinople  (641- 
654)  goes  into  the  residence  of  the  Roman  Apocrisarius,  sees  a 
Latin  altar  there,  and,  in  spite  of  the  universal  law  by  which  an 
embassy  is  extra-territorial,  has  it  overturned  and  destroyed.3 
^4  Lastly,  long  before  the  great  schism  broke  out,  the  Byzantine 
bishops  had  become  accustomed  to  a  number  of  schisms  against 
Rome,  each  of  which  was  indeed  eventually  healed  up,  but  each  of 
which  helped  to  weaken  their  sense  of  the  need  of  union.  The 
number  of  years  during  which  the  See  of  Constantinople  was  in 
schism  from  323  to  Photius's  usurpation  in  852,  if  added  up,  is 
a  formidable  one.  This  is  the  list :  55  years  during  the  Arian 
troubles  (343-398),  n  years  because  of  St.  John  Chrysostom's 
deposition  (404-415),  35  years  during  the  Acacian  schism 
(484-519,  p.  84),  41  years  because  of  Monothelitism  (640-681), 
61  years  because  of  Iconoclasm  (726-787).  Altogether  203 
years  out  of  529.4    And  in  every  one  of  these  cases  Constanti- 

1  Beda  :  de  vi  mundi  aetate,  Paul  Diac. :  Hist.  Langob.  vi.  p.  n.  Intolerance 
of  all  other  customs  and  the  wish  to  make  the  whole  Christian  world  conform 
to  its  own  local  practices  has  always  been  and  still  is  a  characteristic  note  of 
the  Byzantine  Church  ;  see  pp.  153,  178,  191,  399,  436. 

2  Monum.  Germ.  hist.  Script.  Langob.  pp.  350,  351. 

3  Mansi,  x,  880.  *  Duchesne  :  Egl,  sep.  p.  163. 


ROME  AND    THE  EASTERN  CHURCHES    97 

nople  was  on  the  wrong  or  heretical  side  ;  in  every  one  Eastern 
and  Western  Christians  now  agree  that  Rome  was  right.  Such 
continual  breaches  must  gradually  weaken  the  bond. 

From  all  this  then  we  see  that,  in  spite  of  her  acknowledge- 
ment of  the  Roman  Primacy,  the  Byzantine  Church,  long  before 
the  schism,  had  entertained  unfriendly  feelings  towards  Latins  ; 
when  the  schism  did  come,  it  happened  because  the  time  was 
only  too  ripe  for  it.  The  troubles  of  the  9th  and  the  nth 
centuries  cut  Christendom  in  half  along  a  line  that  jealousies, 
misunderstandings,  quarrels  of  all  kinds  had  already  long 
marked  out. 

Summary. 

In  this  chapter  we  have  considered  the  relations  between 
Rome  and  the  Eastern  Churches.  We  have  seen,  first  of  all, 
that  those  Churches  acknowledged  the  Primacy  during  the  first 
eight  centuries.  The  great  Greek  Fathers  believed  that 
St.  Peter  was  the  foundation  of  the  Church,  the  chief  of  the 
Apostles,  that  he  always  lives  and  reigns  in  his  successors  the 
Bishops  of  Rome,  that  therefore  the  Roman  See  is  the  founda- 
tion of  all  sees,  that  her  bishops  are  the  chiefs  of  all  bishops. 
This  same  conviction  lasted  through  the  Byzantine  period  (since 
Justinian,  527)  till  the  schism.  The  Eastern  Churches  acknow- 
ledged the  Pope  as  the  highest  judge  and  his  see  as  the  last 
court  of  appeal  in  their  affairs  too  ;  their  bishops  constantly 
used  this  right  of  appealing  to  Rome.  The  Pope's  Primacy  is 
confirmed  by  all  the  councils  that  Catholics  and  Orthodox 
agree  in  considering  oecumenical,  except  by  the  two  that  were 
irregular  in  everything  but  the  papal  confirmation.  On  the 
other  hand  we  have  seen  that  there  were  causes  of  friction  and 
ill-feeling  between  East  and  West  long  before  the  final  schism 
broke  out.  Eastern  Christians  had  never  stood  in  quite  so 
close  a  relation  to  the  Pope  as  his  own  Latins.  The  ambition 
of  Constantinople  was  a  continual  source  of  dispute,  and  the 
Popes  were  not  always  wise  in  their  relations  to  the  East.  The 
ill-feeling  is  shown  in  many  ways,  chiefly  at  the  Quinisextum 
Synod,  and  by  the  fact  that  the  Byzantine  Church  had  already 
been  many  times  in  schism  before  Photius. 

8 


CHAPTER  III 

THE    FAITH    AND    RITES    OF    THE     BYZANTINE     CHURCH     BEFORE 

THE    SCHISM 

To  complete  our  picture  of  the  first  period  we  may  in  this 
chapter  add  some  notes  about  the  beliefs,  rites,  and  customs  of 
the  other  half  of  Christendom  during  the  eight  centuries  in 
which  they  still  formed  one  Church  with  our  fathers.  Eastern 
people  are  notoriously  the  most  conservative  of  all,  and  so, 
except  for  the  differences  brought  about  by  the  schism,  nearly 
all  these  things,  even  unimportant  customs,  have  remained 
unchanged  till  to-day.  It  will  be  convenient  to  describe  their 
liturgy  more  exactly  when  we  come  to  our  account  of  their 
present  state.  In  this  chapter  a  few  general  observations  will 
be  enough. 

i.  The  Faith  of  the  Byzantine  Church. 

We  have  already  considered  the  great  question — their  belief 
in  the  Roman  Primacy.  Other  points  are  much  less  in  dispute 
and  may  be  passed  over  more  quickly.  In  the  first  place, 
inter-communion  has  always  meant  agreement  in  faith.  The 
immediate  result  of  a  heresy  being  officially  condemned  was 
that  every  Catholic  was  bound  to  condemn  it  too  ;  those  who 
would  not  do  so,  heretics,  at  once  broke  off  all  relations  with 
the  Orthodox.  So  from  the  fact  that  there  was  communion 
between  the  Churches,  that  each  in  its  liturgy  prayed  for  the 
chief  bishops  of  the  others,  we  may  certainly  conclude  that 
they  agreed  in  faith. 

98 


FAITH  AND  RITES  99 

The  development  of  doctrine  (for  there  was  development 
from  the  very  beginning)  went  on  in  parallel  lines  in  East  and 
West.  It  is  true  that  the  great  Trinitarian  and  Christological 
heresies  arose  in  the  East,  and  that  often  for  a  time  they  seemed 
to  swallow  up  great  parts  of  those  Churches.  This  produced 
a  temporary  schism  ;  but  in  every  case  the  East  at  last  rejected 
the  heresy  as  the  West  had  done  ;  some  heretics  remained 
separate  from  the  great  body  of  Christians,  but  between  the 
main  parts  of  the  Church  union  was  restored  and  the  heresy 
was  equally  condemned  by  all.  We  have  seen  that  Nestori- 
anism  and  Monophysism  produced  the  greatest  and  most  lasting 
effects.  Since  the  5th  century  great  bodies  of  Christians  have 
remained  separate  from  both  Rome  and  Constantinople.  The 
Nestorians  use  the  Nicene  Creed,  accept  the  first  two  general 
councils,  but,  of  course,  reject  the  third  (Ephesus,  431).  Still 
greater  schisms  were  caused  by  Monophysism.  The  Copts  in 
Egypt,  Jacobites  in  Syria,  and  the  Armenian  Church  all  look 
upon  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  (451)  as  an  abomination.  We 
must  then  leave  these  bodies  out  of  account.  We  have  only  to 
consider  the  faith  of  what  we  may  call  the  Orthodox  Eastern 
Churches,  that  is,  those  in  communion  with  Constantinople  and, 
until  the  9th  century,  in  communion  with  Rome.1  Both  East 
and  West  then  used  the  same  creeds.  What  we  call  the 
Apostles'  Creed  is  a  Roman  baptismal  form,  but  Eusebius  of 
Caesarea  (t  c.  340),  Marcellus  of  Ancyra  (t  372),  St.  Cyril  of 
Jerusalem  (f  385)  and  other  Eastern  bishops  drew  up  practi- 
cally identical  creeds.2  The  great  test  of  Orthodoxy  was  the 
Nicene  Creed,  first  drawn  up  at  Nicaea,  then  modified  consider- 
ably by  the  First  Council  of  Constantinople.  This  creed  was 
used  officially  by  all  Orthodox  Churches,  Eastern  and  Western.3 
It  is  still  recited  in  our  liturgy  and  in  theirs.  It  is,  however, 
well  known  that  the  addition  of  a  word  to  this  creed  in  the 
West  afterwards  became  and  still  is  the  chief  charge  made 
against  us  by  the  East.     We  shall  come  back  to  the  question  of 

1  That  is,  generally  so  in  spite  of  a  number  of  schisms,  p.  96. 

2  Quoted  in  Denzinger,  I,  I,  L,  N,  &c. 

3  In  Rome  apparently  only  since  the  time  of  Justinian  (527-565) ;  Duchesne 
Eg.  sep.  p.  80. 


ioo      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  Filioque.1  Meanwhile,  till  the  5th  century,  the  creed  was 
exactly  the  same  everywhere.  And  when  the  Filioque  was 
added  to  it,  first  in  Spain,  eventually  in  Rome,  the  Easterns  did 
not  trouble  about  it — no  one  ever  asked  them  to  adopt  it — till 
Photius  found  in  it  a  convenient  grievance  against  the  Latins. 

About  the  foundations  of  the  Christian  faith,  then,  the  worship 
of  one  God  in  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarnation  of  God  the 
Son,  our  redemption  through  his  death,  the  resurrection  of  the 
dead,  and  the  life  of  the  world  to  come,  about  these  things 
there  was  not,  there  has  never  been  any  dispute. 

The  Easterns  also  agreed  with  us  about  the  Catholic  Church. 
That  there  may  be  Christians  cut  off  from  her  communion  was 
a  fact  as  patent  to  them  as  to  our  fathers.  We  had  Donatists 
and  Priscillianists,  they  had  many  more  schismatics  outside  their 
gates.  But  that  in  order  to  be  a  member  of  the  Church  of  Christ 
one  had  to  belong  to  the  visible  unity  of  the  Church,  this  they 
knew  as  well  as  the  Latins.  In  spite  of  passing  schisms,  in  spite 
of  all  manner  of  unfriendly  feeling,  they  never  conceived  the 
theory  of  a  Church  divided  into  mutually  excommunicated  bodies 
yet  still  mocked  with  the  title  of  one.2  Dionysius  of  Alexandria 
(t  264)  wrote  to  Novatian  :  "  If  you  were  unwillingly  forced  to 
do  so  (break  away  from  communion  with  the  rest  of  the  Church), 
as  you  say,  prove  it  by  now  willingly  coming  back.  It  would 
have  been  better  to  suffer  anything  rather  than  that  the  Church 
should  be  torn  ;  nor  would  it  have  been  less  glorious  to  suffer 
even  martyrdom  rather  than  to  tear  the  Church  in  pieces,  than 
to  suffer  in  order  not  to  sacrifice  to  idols  ;  indeed,  in  my  opinion 
it  would  be  even  more  glorious,  for  in  the  latter  case  one  would 
suffer  only  for  one's  own  soul,  in  the  former  for  the  whole 
Church."  3  The  Bishop  of  Alexandria  then  agrees  with  our 
St.  Augustine  (t  430)  :  "  Nothing  is  worse  than  the  sacrilege  of 
schism,  because  there  is  no  just  reason  for  breaking  the  unity."  4 
But  as  long  ago  as  the  3rd  century  schismatics  made  the  same 
excuse  that  we  still  hear  from  their  successors — they  have 
returned  to  a  more  primitive  faith  ;  they  find  communion  with 

1  P.  372.  2  Nor  do  their  descendants  now,  see  p.  365. 

3  The  letter  is  quoted  by  Eusebius,  H.E.  vi.  45. 

4  Ep.  ad  Parmen.  ii.  11. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  101 

Rome  impossible,  because  of  her  later  corruptions.  The  fol- 
lowers of  one  Artemon  (an  obscure  heretic  of  the  3rd 
century)  "  say  that  all  the  ancients  and  the  Apostles  received 
and  taught  just  what  they  themselves  teach,  and  that  the  true 
doctrine  had  been  kept  down  to  the  time  of  Victor,  who  was 
the  thirteenth  Bishop  of  Rome  after  Peter,  but  that  the 
truth  has  been  corrupted  since  the  time  of  his  successor 
Zephyrinus."  x 

After  our  long  discussion  about  the  order  of  the  hierarchy  we 
need  hardly  produce  more  texts  to  prove  that  in  the  East  the 
Church  was  ruled  and  served  by  the  ministry  of  Bishops, 
Priests,  and  Deacons.  Here,  too,  minor  orders  were  founded 
later  to  give  a  share  in  the  deacon's  office  to  lesser  clerks. 
Sub-deacons  (first  mentioned  in  the  East  by  St.  Athanasius, 
t  373) 2  as  well  as  Readers,  Exorcists,3  and  Doorkeepers/  were 
counted  as  having  minor  orders. 

The  fruits  of  Redemption  were  applied  in  the  Seven  Great 
Mysteries,  our  Sacraments.  They  do  not  seem  to  have  been 
drawn  up  into  a  list  till  later  (the  "  Orthodox  Confession  "  of 
Peter  Mogilas  does  so  in  1640),  but  there  is  abundant 
evidence  of  their  use  in  the  Byzantine  Church.s  A  very 
long  list  of  Eastern  Fathers  might  be  quoted  to  prove  that 
they  believed  in  the  Real  Presence  and  in  the  real  and  objective 
change  of  the  bread  and  wine  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ.  Macarius  the  Great,  an  Egyptian  monk  (f  390),  wrote  a 
sentence  that  is  famous  as  condemning  the  Reformers  of  the 
1 6th  century  1,200  years  before  their  time  with  a  force  of 
expression  that  we  should  now  not  allow  ourselves  :  "  He  said  : 
This  is  my  Body  ;  therefore  the  Eucharist  is  not  the  figure 
of  his  Body  and  Blood,  as  some  have  said,  talking  nonsense 
in  their  stupid  minds,  but  it  is  in  very  truth  the  Blood  and 
Body    of    Christ."6      St.    Gregory    of    Nyssa,7    St.    Cyril    of 

1  Eusebius,  H.E.  v.  28.  2  Hist.  Arian.  60,  M.P.G.  xxv.  765. 

3  Both  mentioned  by  the  Synod  of  Antioch  in  341,  Can.  10. 

4  Syn.  Laod.  370,  Can.  24. 

s  Pargoire  :  Eglise  byzantine,  pp.  93,  224,  336.  They  must  have  been  tabu- 
lated long  before  1640.  At  Lyons  in  1274  the  number  seven  was  recognized 
by  the  Greeks. 

6  M.P.G.  x.  1374.  7  Or.  Cat.  M.P.G.  xlv.  93,  seq. 


102      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Jerusalem,1  St.  John  Chrysostom,2  St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria^  St. 
John  Damascene,*  and  indeed  almost  all  the  Greek  Fathers 
speak  of  this  mystery  at  length,  use  words  that  can  only  be 
translated  by  "  Transubstantiation,"  s  and  say  that  after  the 
words  of  consecration  what  is  present  is  the  very  Body  of 
Christ,  that  was  born  of  the  Virgin,  scourged  and  crucified,  the 
Blood  that  flowed  from  his  side.6  The  old  liturgies  express 
the  same  faith.  As  one  example  for  all,  in  the  Coptic  Liturgy 
the  priest  says  :  u  The  Body  and  Blood  of  Emmanuel  our  God 
this  is  in  truth. — Amen.  I  believe,  I  believe,  I  believe,  and  I 
confess  unto  the  last  breath  that  this  is  the  quickening  flesh 
which  thine  only-begotten  Son  our  Lord  and  our  God  and  our 
Saviour  Jesus  Christ  took  of  the  lady  of  us  all  the  holy  Mother 
of  God,  St.  Mary."  i    The  Orthodox  liturgies  are  equally  plain.8 

The  East  always  exceeded  the  West  in  the  ardour  of  the 
reverence  it  paid  to  the  Blessed  Virgin  Mary  and  to  the  Saints, 
as  also  in  the  wealth  of  language  with  which  it  invoked  them. 
The  sober  Roman  mind  never  produced  such  ornate  prayers  to 
the  Saints,  or  such  enthusiastic  praises  of  them  as  the  great 
Greek  Fathers. 

Most  of  all  Saints  of  course  was  the  "All-holy  Mother  of 
God  "  the  object  of  their  devotion.  Of  all  the  generations  that 
have  called  her  blessed,  none  have  done  so  with  such  eloquence 
as  the  Eastern  Christians.9  And  devotion  to  our  Lady  is  still  a 
special  mark  of  all  these  Churches.  It  seems  useless  to  bring 
quotations  to  prove  what  no  one  will  deny. 

The  old  liturgies,  the  sermons  of  the  Fathers,  are  full  of  the 

1  Catech.  Myst.  4,20  ;  M.P.G.  xxxiii.  1098,  1123. 

2  Horn.  82  (al.83)  in  Mt.  Horn.  45  (46),  42, 17  ;  M.P.G.  lxi.  199  ;  lxiii.  131,  &c. 

3  In  Mt.  xxvi.  27  ;  M.P.G.  lxxiii.  519. 

4  Defide  orth.  M.P.G.  xciv.  1146,  seq. 

5  iitTaGTOixuovoQai,  /iera/3a\\eer0ai,  juera7roi€i(70ai,  fiErovcriojmg,  k.t.X. 

6  In  the  texts  referred  to.    Cf.  Pesch  :  Prcel.  dogm.  vi.  prop,  lxi  v. 

7  Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  185. 

8  Brightman,  p.  387,  the  Epiklesis  of  St.  John  Chrysostom's  liturgy  :  "  Make 
this  bread  the  precious  Body  of  thy  Christ,"  &c.  ;  p.  393,  the  Manual  Acts  : 
"  The  Lamb  of  God  is  broken  and  divided,"  &c.  All  the  Epikleses  are  equally 
explicit. 

9  Hurter  :  SS.  PP.  opuscula  selecta,  xii.  and  xxxiv.  de  gloriosa  Dei  Genitrice 
Maria. 


Faith  and  rites  103 

Invocation  of  Saints  in  every  century,  back  to  the  days  when  the 
Christians  wrote  prayers  to  their  martyrs  over  their  tombs  in  the 
catacombs.  As  one  example  from  a  Greek  Father  we  may 
quote  St.  Chrysostom 's  sermon  on  SS.  Berenice  and  Prosdoce  : 
"Not  only  on  this  their  feast,  but  on  other  days  too,  let  us  cling 
to  them,  pray  to  them,  beg  them  to  be  our  patrons.  For  not 
only  living,  but  also  dead  they  have  great  favour  with  God, 
indeed  even  greater  favour  now  that  they  are  dead.  For  now 
they  bear  the  marks  (stigmata)  of  Christ  ;  and  by  showing  these 
marks  there  is  nothing  that  they  cannot  obtain  of  the  King."  * 

But  the  Byzantine  Calendar  contains  some  very  astonishing 
names.  It  is  well  known  that  even  far  into  the  middle  ages 
there  was  no  regular  process  of  canonization.  Our  present  law, 
by  which  canonization  takes  place  in  Rome  after  a  formal  trial, 
was  made  by  Urban  VIII  in  1 634.2  ^n  earlier  ages  a  sort  of 
popular  consent  controlled  by  the  bishop,  who  admitted  the 
Saint's  name  to  his  local  litany  or  martyrology,  was  enough. 
There  are  numberless  instances  of  a  person  being  honoured  as 
a  Saint  in  one  place  but  not  in  another.  It  is  therefore  quite 
natural  that  the  Byzantine  Church  should  have  her  own  Saints. 
She  prayed  first  of  all  to  those  who  belong  to  all  Christendom, 
St.  John  the  Baptist,  the  Apostles,  St.  Stephen,  and  so  on  ;  she 
also  admitted  to  her  Calendar  some  of  the  greatest  Roman 
Saints,  St.  Laurence,  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  St.  Martin,  &c,  just 
as  we  pray  to  St.  Basil,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  St.  John  Damascene. 
And  then  she  had  her  own  local  Saints.  It  is  these  who  astonish 
us.  Never  did  the  kingdom  of  heaven  suffer  violence  as  at 
Constantinople.  Almost  every  Emperor  who  did  not  persecute 
the  Church  (and  many  who  did),  almost  every  patriarch  who 
was  not  a  heretic  (and  some  who  were)  becomes  a  Saint. 
St.  Constantine  (May  21st)  was  in  his  life  perhaps  hardly  a 
model  to  be  followed,  but  then  he  was  baptized  on  his  death- 
bed, and  baptism  removes  all  stain  of  sin  and  guilt  of  punish- 
ment, St.  Theodosius  I  (January  17th)  was  at  any  rate  a  great 

1  Horn,  de  SS.  Berenice  et  Prosdoce,  n.  7. 

2  Alexander  III  in  1170  had  already  forbidden  any  one  to  canonize  a  Saint 
without  the  consent  of  the  Roman  See.  The  decree  is  in  our  Corpus  luris,  in 
the  Decretals,  iii.  45,  "  de  rel.  et  ven.  SS."  i.  Audivimus. 


104      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

man,  St.  Marcian  (February  17th)  had  a  very  holy  wife,  St. 
Justinian  (November  15th)  deserves  the  credit  of  two  immortal 
works,  the  Codex  and  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Wisdom,  but 
what  can  one  say  for  St.  Theodosius  II  (July  29th),  St.  Leo  I, 
the  Emperor  (January  20th),  St.  Theodora,  the  public  dancing 
woman  who  became  an  Empress,  and  was  always  a  Monophysite 
(November  15th),  St.  Justinian  II  (July  15th),  St.  Constantine  IV 
(September  3rd)  ? 

An  even  easier  road  to  heaven  is  open  to  patriarchs,  as  long 
as  they  do  not  quarrel  with  Caesar.  St.  Anatolius  (f  458,  his 
feast  is  on  July  3rd),  we  have  heard  of  at  Chalcedon  (p.  36  )  ; 
he  had  been  a  Monophysite  and  Dioscur's  legate  at  court,  but 
he  was  a  poet  who  wrote  some  of  the  earliest  Greek  Stichera. 
St.  John  IV  the  Faster  (f  599)  deserves  the  gratitude  of  his 
successors  for  having  left  them  the  proud  if  ill-omened  title  of 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch.  But  not  only  he,  every  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople  from  Epiphanius  (f  535)  to  Thomas  I  (f  610)  is 
a  Saint,  except  only  Anthimus  I.  It  seems  invidious  to  leave 
him  out ;  but  then  he  was  a  Monophysite,  deposed  by  Pope 
Agapitus  in  536.  From  669  to  712  again  every  patriarch  is 
canonized  with  five  exceptions,  Sergius,  Pyrrhus,  Paul  and 
Peter,  the  four  Monothelites  condemned  by  the  sixth  general 
council  (680),  and  John  VI,  the  accomplice  of  the  usurper  Philip 
Bardesanes  (711-713).1  But  the  Byzantine  Church  has  some 
more  respectable  Saints  than  these.  There  are  numbers  of 
Confessors,  monks  from  every  Laura,2  and  a  great  crowd  of 
Martyrs,  massacred  by  Saracens,  or  executed  by  Iconoclast 
Emperors. 

That  the  Eastern  Churches  used  and  reverenced  Images  and 
Relics  of  Saints  is  also  too  well  known  to  need  proof.  This 
custom  also  they  had  inherited  from  the  catacombs.  In  all 
Eastern  Churches  the  first  thing  that  met  a  stranger's  eye,  then 


1  Philip  was  an  Armenian  soldier  who  murdered  the  Emperor  Justinian  II. 
After  two  years'  reign  he  was  deposed,  and  his  eyes  were  put  out  by 
Anastasius  II  (713-716).  The  Patriarch  John  promptly  implored  forgiveness 
of  the  Pope  and  the  Emperor  ;  he  was  allowed  to  be  Patriarch  till  his  death 
(715),  but  he  had  ruined  his  chance  of  being  canonized. 

2  A  Laura  {\avpa)  is  a  Greek  monastery. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  105 

as  now,  was  the  great  Ikonostasis,  the  screen  across  the  church 
shutting  off  the  sanctuary  and  covered  with  pictures  of  Saints.1 
In  the  East  as  in  the  West  the  holy  Sacrifice  must  be  offered 
over  the  relics  of  Saints.  The  enormous  number  of  relics 
at  Constantinople  made  that  city  a  place  of  pilgrimage  second 
only  to  Rome  or  Jerusalem.  It  is  true  that  during  the  Icono- 
clast persecutions  (726-775  and  813-842)  the  great  majority  of 
t*he  Byzantine  hierarchy  gave  way  and  condemned  the  images 
as  much  as  the  Emperor  could  wish.  But  that  only  shows  their 
servile  fear  of  the  tyrant.  The  same  bishops  came  back  at  once 
to  the  old  custom  when  the  persecution  ceased.  It  was  a 
council  composed  almost  entirely  of  Eastern  bishops  (Nicaea  II, 
787)  that  approved  of  reverence  paid  to  holy  images  ;  the  great 
leaders  of  the  anti-Iconoclast  side  were  all  Greeks,  St.  Germanus 
of  Constantinople,  St.  Theodore  of  Studium,  St.  John  of  Da- 
mascus. The  Orthodox  Eastern  Church  still  keeps  every  year 
the  memory  of  the  day  (February  19,  842)  on  which  the  images 
were  finally  brought  back  to  the  Cathedral  at  Constantinople.2 
The  Iconoclast  troubles,  however,  have  left  an  interesting  result 
to  this  day  in  the  East.  The  old  Greek  idols  were  all  statues, 
therefore  there  may  be  no  statues  in  a  church.  There  are 
hosts  of  pictures,  painting,  mosaic,  even  bass-relief,  as  long  as 
the  work  is  quite  flat  and  shallow,  but  no  statues  (p.  129). 

Three  questions  require  some  discussion,  Purgatory,  the  Im- 
maculate Conception  and  Predestination. 

It  has  been  disputed  whether  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church 
now  agrees  with  the  Catholic  faith  concerning  Purgatory.  That 
faith  consists  in  these  two  articles  only  :  1.  The  souls  of  the 
just  may  after  death  still  keep  some  stain  of  sin.  2.  Such  stain 
must  then  be  expiated  by  punishment  before  they  go  into  ever- 
lasting happiness.  Whatever  the  modern  Orthodox  may  think 
about  these  propositions^  both  were  taught  by  the  Eastern 
Church  before  the  schism.  The  Greek  Fathers,  in  the  first 
place,  all  pray  for  the  dead,  a  practice  that  supposes  at  any  rate 
some  sort  of  middle  state  after  death.     Saints  in  heaven  do  not 

1  HKiovocrraaig  =  Picture-stand. 

2  This  is  the  "  Feast  of  Orthodoxy  "  kept  on  the  first  Sunday  of  Lent. 

3  See  p.  388. 


106      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

want  our  prayers,  souls  in  hell  cannot  be  helped  by  them.  So 
St.  John  Chrysostom  :  "  It  was  not  in  vain  that  the  Apostles 
settled  this  by  law,  namely,  that  in  the  venerable  and  sacred 
mysteries  we  should  remember  the  dead.  For  they  knew  that 
the  dead  have  much  profit  and  advantage  therefrom.  At  the 
moment  when  all  the  people  stand  around,  their  hands  lifted  up, 
and  the  company  of  priests  as  well,  and  when  that  Sacred 
Victim  is  offered,  how  should  we  not  appease  God  for  them  by 
our  prayers  ?  "  *  So  also  the  Apostolic  Constitutions  :  u  Let  us 
pray  for  our  brothers  who  rest  in  Christ,  that  the  merciful  God 
who  has  received  the  souls  of  the  dead,  may  forgive  all  their 
sins  and  may  graciously  admit  them  to  the  land  of  the  just." 2 
Equally  explicit  are  St.  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,:*  his  namesake  at 
Alexandria,*  St.  Epiphanius,5  &c.  But  they  speak  of  the  fire  of 
purgatory  as  well.  St.  Basil  does  so  in  several  places.  "  If  we 
reveal  our  sin  in  confession,  we  make  it  like  dry  grass  which  is 
fit  to  be  burnt  away  by  the  cleansing  fire  .  .  .  but,  if  it  does 
not  become  like  dry  grass,  it  will  not  be  devoured  and  burnt  up 
by  the  fire."  6  He  describes  hell,  and  then  says  there  is  "  a  place 
fit  to  cleanse  the  soul."  7  He  certainly  distinguishes  the  fire 
of  purgatory  from  that  of  hell,  but  his  obvious  allusions  to 
i  Cor.  iii.  15  make  it  difficult  to  know  whether  he  does  not 
conceive  the  fire  of  purgatory  to  be  that  of  the  Last  Day.  This 
is  the  case  with  other  Fathers,  both  Eastern  and  Western.  At 
any  rate  there  is  no  doubt  about  the  principle  :  there  is  a  pain 
by  which  those  are  cleansed  who  are  eventually  saved.  "  Some 
shall  be  saved  yet  so  as  by  fire."  This  is  the  essence  of  the 
doctrine  of  Purgatory.  5/.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  says  of  the  soul  of 
a  dead  man  :  "  It  will  be  brought  before  the  judgement-seat, 
it  will  hear  the  sentence  on  its  past  life,  it  will  receive  punish- 
ment and  reward  according  to  its  desert,  either  to  be  cleansed 
by  fire  according  to  the  words  of  the  Gospel  or  to  be  blessed 

1  In  Phil.  horn.  3,  4.     M.P.G.  lxii.  204. 

2  Const.  Apost.  viii.  41.     M.P.G.  i.  1143. 

3  Cat.  Myst.  v.  9.     M.P.G.  xxxiii.  1115.  4  M.P.G.  lxxvi.  1423. 
s  Haer.  lxxv.  3,  7,  8.     M.P.G.  xlii.  514,  seq. 

6  M.P.G.  xxx.  519.    This  fire  is  certainly  a  purgatorial  one,  since  it  is  to  be 
desired  that  it  should  burn  away  our  sins. 

7  In  Is.  v.  14.    M.P.G.  xxx.  435. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  107 

and  comforted  in  the  dew  of  grace."  l  A  fire  that  cleanses,  one 
may  urge,  is  not  the  fire  of  hell.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  true 
that  we  do  not  find  such  a  clear  or  definite  conception  of  purga- 
tory in  these  Fathers  of  the  4th  century  as  in  our  modern 
catechisms.  The  essence  of  the  belief  is  there — a  middle  state 
after  death  in  which  souls  are  helped  by  our  prayers  ;  out  of 
this  the  Church  gradually  realized  more  and  more  clearly  what 
she  was  to  deduce.  It  is  again  an  example  of  development. 
It  seems  that  the  Eastern  Church  has  remained  in  a  vaguer 
state  of  mind  about  this  point.  But  there  has  been  no  serious 
disagreement  in  the  past.  At  the  Council  of  Florence  (1439) 
the  Greeks  objected  to  a  material  fire  in  purgatory.  They  were 
assured  that  the  Latin  Church  does  not  define  that  either  and 
then  declared  themselves  in  agreement  with  the  doctrine.2 

The  Immaculate  Conception  of  the  Blessed  Virgin  was  the 
subject  of  much  discussion  between  the  Scotist  and  Thomist 
schools  during  the  middle  ages  in  the  West.  It  was  not  finally 
defined  by  the  Pope  till  1854.  We  can  certainly  not  claim  that 
it  had  been  defined  earlier  by  the  Easterns.  But  it  is  to  be 
noted  that  the  devotion  which  culminated  in  that  definition 
came  to  us  from  the  East.  All  the  Eastern  Churches,  orthodox 
or  heretical,  keep  the  feast  of  our  Lady's  Conception.3  It  is 
first  mentioned  by  Eastern  theologians  (St.  Andrew  of  Crete  in 
675,  St.  John  Damascene,  f  744,  St.  Theodore  of  Studium,  f  826, 
and  others),  whereas  we  hear  of  it  in  the  West  much  later, 
in  the  nth  century.*  By  keeping  its  feast  then,  as  distinct 
from  our  Lady's  birthday  on  Sept.  8th,  these  Churches  imply 
that  her  conception  itself  is  holy  and  worshipful.  But  a  con- 
ception in  original  sin,  which  makes  a  man  a  child  of  wrath, 
whose  stain  is  only  removed  afterwards,  is  not  to  be  honoured 

1  M.P.G  xlvi.  167. 

2  For  the  whole  question  see  Pesch  :  Prcel;  dogm.  ix.  p.  285.  Hergen- 
rother  :  Photius,  iii.  pp.  643-652.  Loch  :  Das  Dogma  der  griechischen  Kirche 
vom  Purgatorium  (Regensburg,  1842). 

3  Dec.  9.  "  The  child-begetting  of  the  mother  of  the  Mother  of  God, 
Anne."  This  feast  is  kept  by  Melkites,  Albanians,  Jacobites,  Copts,  Armenians, 
Nestorians,  Maronites,  and  all  Churches  in  communion  with  Constantinople. 

*  It  is  supposed  to  have  been  introduced  by  St.  Anselm  of  Canterbury 
(t  1 109). 


108      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

by  a  feast.1  Moreover,  there  are  Eastern  Fathers  who  imply  the 
Immaculate  Conception  plainly  enough,  joining  our  Lord  and 
his  Mother  together  as  the  only  two  who  were  all  stainless. 
So  5/.  Ephrem  (f  c.  379)  addresses  our  Lord  :  "  You  indeed  and 
your  Mother  are  the  only  ones  who  are  beautiful  in  every  way  ; 
for  in  you,  O  Lord,  there  is  no  spot,  in  your  Mother  no  stain." 2 
The  Acts  of  St.  Andrew  say  :  u  As  the  first  man  was  formed 
from  immaculate  earth  (that  is,  from  the  earth  before  it  was 
cursed  by  God,  Gen.  iii.  17),  who  by  the  sin  of  the  tree  brought 
death  into  the  world,  it  was  necessary  that  the  perfect  man,  the 
Son  of  God,  should  be  born  of  an  Immaculate  Virgin."  3  The 
development  of  this  dogma,  then,  went  on  in  parallel  lines  in 
both  Churches  before  the  schism.  It  is  to  be  noticed  that  it 
did  so  equally  after  the  schism  ;  the  Eastern  theologians,  never 
behindhand  in  giving  honour  to  the  all- holy  Theotokos,  taught 
her  Immaculate  Conception  more  and  more  plainly,  till  the 
influence  of  Protestants  produced  an  opposing  school,  and  at 
last  the  fact  that  the  Pope  defined  the  doctrine  was  a  sufficient 
reason  for  altogether  denying  it  (p.  391). 

The  question  of  Grace  and  Predestination  is  interesting  as 
showing  the  different  attitude  of  mind  in  the  two  Churches. 
Although  Pelagius  was  condemned  at  Ephesus  side  by  side  with 
Nestorius,4  this  question  never  took  hold  of  Eastern  minds  as 
it  did  those  of  the  Latins.  Their  theological  discussions  were 
all  Christological,  ours  Soteriological.  St.  Augustine,  whose 
influence  in  the  West  has  always  been  so  great,  remained  almost 
unknown  in  the  East,  and  their  schools  never  produced  any  one 
like  St.  Augustine.     Harnack  thinks  that  the  Greek  Church  is 


1  St.  Augustine's  sermon  on  St.  Cyprian  :  "  We  should  not  keep  his  birthday 
even  if  we  knew  the  date,  because  on  that  day  he  contracted  original  sin  " 
(Sermon  310,  n.  1).  The  Church  only  keeps  three  birthdays— of  our  Lord,  our 
Lady,  and  St.  John  the  Baptist,  because  he,  too,  was  sanctified  before  his 
birth. 

2  Carm.  Nisibena,  ed.  Bickell,  p,  122. 

3  M.P.G.  xi.  1226.  The  point  of  the  comparison  is  that  Adam  was  made 
from  the  earth  as  yet  unstained  by  the  curse  of  original  sin — so  also  Christ. 
For  this  question  see  Hurter  :  Theol.  dogm.  comp.  iii.  pp.  464-479.  Pesch  : 
Prcel.  dogm.  iii.  pp.  160-172. 

4  Can.  i.  4. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  109 

just  a  school  of  Greek  philosophy  overlain  with  a  thin  veneer  of 
the  Gospel,  and  the  Roman  Church  is  the  Roman  Empire  with 
the  same  veneer.1  We  may,  perhaps,  say  that  the  Greek 
philosophical  mind  found  the  questions  of  Christology — of 
nature  and  person,  unity  and  distinction — congenial,  while  the 
Latin  mind,  that  had  built  up  the  legal  system  of  the  Empire, 
was  naturally  attracted  to  legal  questions,  such  as  those  of 
predestination.  In  any  case,  the  subtle  system  explained  by 
St.  Augustine  in  his  de  Bono  perseverantice  and  de  Prcedestinatione 
sanctorum,  the  great  field  of  discussion  that  he  left  to  his  Church, 
the  endless  controversy  that  has  gone  on  amongst  us  ever  since 
about  the  fine  line  between  antecedent  reprobation  on  the  one 
hand  and  semi-Pelagianism  on  the  other — all  these  things  have 
never  troubled  Easterns  at  all.  As  always  happens  to  people 
who  have  not  gone  far  into  the  matter,  they  rather  inclined  to 
the  opposite  of  St.  Augustine's  system,  to  loose  and  kindly 
principles  which,  if  driven  out  of  their  vagueness,  would 
become  semi-Pelagian.  St.  John  Chrysostom  is  an  example 
of  this.  He  did  not  intend  to  formally  discuss  the  matter,  he 
had  never  heard  of  Pelagianism,  and  was  concerned  to  defend 
free  will  against  Manichaeism.  He  does  in  many  places  maintain 
the  need  of  grace  for  every  good  deed,2  but  he  also,  incon- 
sistently, in  other  places  uses  such  expressions  as  "  We  must 
first  choose  what  is  right,  and  then  God  will  do  his  part,"  3 
expressions  that  would  be  inconceivable  in  Augustine.  This 
want  of  definiteness  about  Grace  and  Predestination  has  always 
been  a  note  of  the  Eastern  Church.  Long  after  the  schism,  in 
1575,  when  the  Tubingen  Protestants  sent  an  exposition  of  their 
belief  to  Jeremias  II  of  Constantinople  (1572-1579),  the  Patriarch 
in  his  answer  to  their  Calvinism  teaches  pure  semi-Pelagianism.* 
Lastly,  Mgr.  Duchesne  sees  a  different  attitude  of  mind  between 
the  two  Churches  in  the  3rd  and  4th  centuries  even  about  the 

1  Wesen  des  Christentums,  ii.  3,  4. 

2  Horn,  in  Mt.  lxix.  2.     M.P.G.  lxviii.  2.     In  Mt.  xxxix.  4.     M.P.G.  lvii.  438 
In  Eph.  2.     M.P.G.  lxii.  33,  seq. 

3  Horn.  xii.  in  Hebr.     M.P.G.  lxiii.  99.     See  also  Horn.  xlii.    in  Gen.  i. 
M.P.G.  liv.  385. 

4  Ada  theolog.  Vitenb.  et  Hiet.  Pt.  i.  143.    (See  p.  253.) 


no  THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

mystery  of  the  Holy  Trinity.  They  agreed,  of  course,  entirely  in 
the  definition,  in  the  worship  of  one  God  in  three  Persons  ;  but 
it  often  happens  that  people  see  things,  especially  mysteries, 
from  different  angles.  The  Western  Fathers,  he  thinks,  start 
from  the  consubstantial  nature,  from  the  Unity  of  God,  and  they 
subordinate  to  it  the  mystery  of  the  three  Persons  ;  the  Easterns 
first  consider  the  three  Persons,  each  truly  God,  and  then  add 
to  this  consideration  the  mystery  that  they  are  nevertheless  one 
God.  He  goes  on  to  notice  how  this  representation  comes 
from  Origen,  how  it  reached  the  great  Greek  Fathers  through 
semi-Arian  channels,  and  he  sees  in  it  a  reason  even  for  the 
later  quarrel  about  the  Filioque.  "  The  faith  unites,"  he  says, 
"  but  theology  sometimes  divides  us.  St.  Augustine  in  his 
theory  of  the  Trinity,  in  his  philosophic  conception  of  the 
mystery,  is  very  far  from  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum."  ■ 

The  most  general  observation  of  all  would  be,  perhaps,  that 
Eastern  theology  seems  to  us  vague.  They  have  had  no  lack  of 
subtle  philosophers  before  the  schism  and  after  it ; 2  but  they  do 
not  seem  to  have  ever  felt  that  need  of  tabulating  their  articles 
of  faith,  of  arranging  them  into  a  clear  and  consistent  system, 
that  has  been  a  characteristic  of  the  Western  mind.3  Dr. 
Ehrhard  says  that  the  Greek  Church  has  not  had  a  mediaeval 
period.4  She  has  certainly  not  had  a  scholastic  period, 
nor  any  one  like  St.  Thomas  Aquinas.  The  perfection  of 
system  in  his  two  Summae,  that  has  always  remained  the  ideal 
of  our  theology  since,  has  never  been  an  ideal  to  them.s     One 

1  Duchesne  :  Eglises  separees,  pp.  83-87. 

2  To  discuss  theology  has  always  been  the  delight  of  Greeks  of  every  rank. 
It  was  the  theological  Emperors  who  caused  the  endless  troubles  of  the 
Church  from  Constantius  (337-361)  to  the  schism.  At  the  other  end  of  the 
social  scale  "  the  city  is  full  of  workmen  and  slaves  who  are  all  theologians," 
says  St.  Gregory  of  Nyssa  (f  c.  395),  "  if  you  ask  a  man  to  change  money,  he 
will  tell  you  how  the  Son  differs  from  the  Father  ;  if  you  ask  the  price  of 
a  loaf  he  will  argue  that  the  Son  is  less  than  the  Father  ;  you  want  to  know  if 
the  bath  be  ready  and  you  are  told  that  the  Son  was  made  out  of  nothing." 

3  An  example  of  this  is  their  confusion  about  the  meaning  of  the  words  ovaia, 
vTroaTaoiQ,  irp6(ru)7rov.    Cf.  Franzelin,  dc  Verbo  incarn.  Th.  21. 

4  DerKathol.  u.  d.  xx  Jhrdt.  (1902),  p.  23. 

s  The  Surama  theol.  was  first  done  into  Greek  by  Demetrios  Kydones  in 
the  14th  century. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  in 

can  realize  that  a  tradition  of  theology,  that  is  influenced 
neither  by  St.  Augustine  nor,  later,  by  St.  Thomas,  must  be  in 
many  ways  very  different  from  ours.  One  notices  this  difference 
most  plainly  in  modern  times,  but  it  existed  already  in  the  time 
before  the  schism.  Our  Fathers  had  no  St.  Thomas  then,  but 
they  had  the  tendencies  that  would  afterwards  give  his  work 
such  enormous  importance. 

The  faith  of  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Church,  then,  during  the 
first  eight  centuries  was  the  same  as  that  of  Rome,  although 
naturally  the  difference  of  race  and  of  theological  traditions 
(since  they  could  not  understand  our  Fathers)  gradually  formed 
a  different  system  of  philosophy  and  a  different  way  of  looking 
at  certain  articles  of  faith.  But  these  differences  did  no  sort  of 
harm  to  the  unity  of  faith. 

2.  Eastern  Liturgies.1 

After  the  faith  come  rites.  Here  there  is  a  real  difference. 
None  of  the  Eastern  Churches  ever  knew  anything  of  our 
Roman  Liturgy.  In  this  matter  the  different  Churches  followed 
their  own  traditions  from  the  very  beginning.  There  has  never 
been  a  parent-rite  from  which  the  later  ones  were  derived. 

The  Apostles  left  only  in  the  most  general  way  the  practice 
of  meeting  together  for  prayer,  for  reading  the  Scriptures,  for 
singing  psalms,  and  especially  for  the  Breaking  of  Bread. 
This  was,  of  course,  the  chief  thing.  As  our  Lord  had  com- 
manded, the  first  Christians  met  together  to  do  what  he  had 
done  at  the  Last  Supper,  in  memory  of  him.  The  story  of  that 
Supper  in  the  New  Testament  gave  the  general  outline  of  the 
rite.  They  did  what  he  had  done.  They  took  bread  and 
wine,  gave  thanks,  broke,  said  again  his  own  words,  and  then 
received  the  Blessed  Sacrament  in  Communion.  They  cer- 
tainly also  said  prayers  and  read  parts  of  the  Bible.  This  office 
gradually  crystallized  into  the  liturgy,  and  it  crystallized  into 

1  The  word  Liturgy  in  classical  Greek  means  a  public  work  (KeItov  tpyov. 
XEirovpyelv,  to  perform  a  public  service).  The  LXX  and  N.T.  (Luke  i.  23  ; 
Heb.  ix.  21)  use  it  for  the  temple  service.  In  the  East  of  Europe  Liturgy 
means  only  the  service  of  consecrating  the  Holy  Eucharist,  i.e.,  exactly  the 
same  as  our  word  Mass. 


H2  THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

different  liturgies  in  different  places.  Nor  did  any  one  feel  any 
need  of  uniformity  in  rites.  The  faith  was  the  same  everywhere, 
and  the  essence  of  the  liturgy  was  the  same.  For  the  rest,  for 
the  particular  ceremonies  that  grew  up,  the  prayers,  and  the 
language  used,  each  Church  was  content  to  let  the  others 
follow  their  own  customs. 

And  the  Church  of  Rome  was  no  exception.  When  her  own 
use  was  at  last  definitely  formed,  she  never  thought  of  imposing 
it  on  sister-Churches  in  the  East.  It  is  true  that  the  Roman 
rite  at  last  became  almost  the  only  one  used  throughout  the 
West ;  that  is  the  result  of  the  very  close  union  of  all  Western 
Churches  in  her  patriarchate.  But  the  Eastern  Churches 
before  the  schism,  the  Uniate  Churches  now,  keep  their  own 
liturgies  without  challenge.  In  modern  times  the  Popes  have 
repeatedly  ordered  that  these  Eastern  uses  shall  be  respected, 
they  forbid  any  priest  to  leave  his  own  rite  in  order  to  use  ours.1 
These  rites  have  changed  very  little  since  they  were  first 
formed.  We  may  leave  a  more  exact  description  of  the  actual 
service  till  we  come  to  the  Byzantine  Church  in  modern  times 
(p.  412)  and  now  only  trace  the  rise  and  spread  of  the  chief 
liturgies. 

During  the  first  three  centuries  we  have  only  a  few  allusions 
to  the  liturgy,  too  vague,  or,  if  quotations,  too  short  for  us  to  be 
able  to  reconstruct  the  service  from  them.  Three  such  allusions 
are  famous.  The  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles  (about  the  end 
of  the  1st  century)  tells  Christians  "  to  come  together  on  the 
Lord's  Day,  to  break  bread  and  give  thanks,  having  confessed 
your  sins,  that  your  sacrifice  be  pure." 2  To  "  give  thanks " 
(evxapHTTeiv)  is  already  the  technical  word  for,  as  we  still  say,  the 
Eucharist.  It  also  tells  how  to  celebrate  this  service  :  "  Con- 
cerning the  Thanksgiving  (Eucharist),  you  shall  thus  give  thanks. 
First  over  the  cup  :  We  give  thee  thanks,  our  Father,  for  the 
holy  vine  of  thy  son  David,  which  thou  hast  shewn  us  by  thy 
son  Jesus  ;  glory  be  to  thee  for  ever.     And  over  the  broken 

1  So  various  constitutions  of  Clement  VIII  (1592-1605),  Paul  V  (1605-1621), 
Benedict  XIII  (1724-1730),  Benedict  XIV  (1740-1758),  and  the  Constitution 
Orientalium  dignitas  Ecclcsiarum  of  Leo  XIII  on  November  30,  1894. 

2  Doctrina  XII  Apost.  xiv.  1. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  113 

(bread)  :  We  give  thee  thanks,  our  Father,  for  the  life  and 
knowledge  which  thou  hast  shown  us  by  thy  son  Jesus  ;  glory 
be  to  thee  for  ever.  As  this  broken  (bread)  was  scattered  over 
the  mountains  x  and  is  now  joined  together  and  made  one,  so 
may  thy  Church  be  gathered  together  from  the  ends  of  the 
earth  to  thy  kingdom  ;  for  thine  is  the  glory  and  the  power 
through  Jesus  Christ  for  ever.  But  no  one  may  eat  or  drink 
of  your  thanksgiving,  except  those  who  have  been  baptized  in 
the  name  of  the  Lord,  for  about  this  the  Lord  said  :  Do  not 
give  the  holy  thing  to  dogs."  2 

5/.  Clement  of  Rome  (f  104)  quotes  a  very  beautiful  prayer  for 
all  sorts  and  conditions  of  men,  ending  in  a  doxology,  which, 
although  it  contains  no  allusion  to  the  Holy  Eucharist,  has 
always  been  supposed  to  be  an  early  liturgical  prayer.3  St. 
Justin  Martyr  (f  166)  gives  in  his  first  Apology  a  much  more 
detailed  account  of  what  Christians  do  on  "  the  day  of  the  Sun." 
They  kiss  each  other  and  pray.  "  Then  to  him  who  presides 
over  the  brethren  bread  is  brought  and  a  cup  of  water  and  wine, 
and  he  receives  them  and  gives  praise  and  glory  to  the  Father 
of  all  through  the  name  of  the  Son  and  Holy  Ghost  and  per- 
forms the  Eucharist."  St.  Justin  then  describes  how  the 
deacons  give  people  Holy  Communion.  He  says,  "This  food 
we  call  the  Eucharist  .  .  .  for  we  do  not  receive  it  as  common 
bread  nor  as  common  wine  ;  but,  just  as  by  the  word  of  God 
Jesus  Christ  our  Saviour,  being  made  man,  had  flesh  and  blood 
for  our  salvation,  so  also  we  are  taught  that  the  food  made  a 
Eucharist  by  his  prayer  of  thanksgiving,  by  which  our  blood 
and  flesh  are  nourished,  is  the  body  and  blood  of  Jesus  made 
man."  He  then  quotes  our  Lord's  words  at  the  Last  Supper, 
and  adds  an  interesting  note  :  "  And  the  wicked  demons  have 
imitated  this,  teaching  it  to  be  done  in  the  mysteries  of  Mithra. 
For  you  know,  or  may  learn,  that  bread  and  a  cup  of  water  are 
brought  with  certain  words  in  the  mysteries  of  the  initiated."  * 

1  When  it  was  growing  as  corn.  The  idea  is  that,  just  as  the  grains  of 
corn  are  gathered  together  from  all  parts  and  kneaded  into  bread,  so  may 
Christians  from  all  lands  become  one  in  the  kingdom  of  God. 

9  Doctr.  XII  Ap.  ix.  s  Clem.  Rom.  1,  ad  Cor.  lix.-lxi. 

4  Iustini  Apologia  I  65,  66. 

9 


Ii4      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

It  is  in  the  4th  century  that  we  find  definitely  constructed 
liturgies.  By  that  time  four  types  have  evolved,  that  are  the 
parents  from  which  all  others  have  since  been  derived.  These 
four  uses  are  the  Roman,  Gallican,  Egyptian,  and  Syrian.1  These 
last  two  are  the  original  Eastern  liturgies. 

The  story  of  their  development  is  very  like  that  of  the 
patriarchates  that  used  them.  In  the  first  period  the  rites  of 
the  two  greatest  Eastern  sees,  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  divide 
the  allegiance  of  the  East ;  then  Constantinople  evolves  a  rite 
of  her  own,  and  this  rite  gradually  drives  out  the  older  ones, 
and  becomes  practically  the  only  one  used  by  the  Orthodox 
Churches.  But  the  heretics  in  Egypt  and  Syria  keep  the  older 
liturgies. 

3.  The  Syrian  Rite. 

This  is  the  first  that  we  find  formally  drawn  up.  The 
Apostolic  Constitutions  contain  a  liturgy  that  is  evidently  a  form 
of  the  one  we  find  soon  after  used  all  over  Syria.  The 
Apostolic  Constitutions  are  a  collection  of  eight  books,  pur- 
porting to  be  drawn  up  by  the  twelve  Apostles,  really  put 
together  from  different  sources  in  Syria  in  the  beginning  of 
the  5th  century.2  The  first  six  books  are  an  enlargement  of 
another  apocryphal  work,  the  Didascalia,^  the  seventh  of  the 
Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles*  the  eighth  book  contains 
the  liturgy,  then  follow  the  eighty-five  apocryphal  "  Canons  of 
the  Apostles  "  that  were  accepted  by  the  Quinisextum  in  692.5 
Two  circumstances  about  the  liturgy  have  led  people  to 
suppose  that  it  is  the  oldest  we  have  :  First,  it  contains  no 
Memory  of  the  Saints,  no  names  are  mentioned,  not  even  that 

1  Mgr.  Duchesne  thinks  that  these  four  may  be  reduced  to  two.  The 
Gallican  use  is  derived  from  the  Syrian,  and  the  Egyptian  one  may  be  taken 
from  Rome.    Origines  du  Culte  Chretien,  p.  54. 

2  Epiphanius  (f  403)  quotes  them. 

3  Discovered  in  a  Syriac  version  in  1854. 

4  This  is  the  famous  Didache  (SiSaxv  rCJv  dudeica.  cnroorokuv)  found  by 
Philotheos  Bryennios,  Metropolitan  of  Nicomedia,  in  1883. 

s  Ed.  princ.  by  Fr.  Turrianus,  Venice,  1563.  Cf.  Funk,  Die  Apost.Konstitu- 
tionen  (Rottenburg,  1891),  and  Bardenhewer's  Patrologie  (Freiburg,  1894), 
pp.  28-31. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  lij 

of  the  Blessed  Virgin  ;  secondly,  it  has  no  Our  Father.  These 
two  omissions  are  unique.  How  far  they  prove  greater  antiquity 
is  another  question.  Undoubtedly  after  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  (431)  a  greater  devotion  to  the  holy  Mother  of  God 
spread  throughout  the  Orthodox  Churches,  and  the  invocation 
of  her  under  this  title  was  a  protestation  of  orthodoxy.  But 
prayers  have  been  added  to  liturgies  continually,  and  the  very 
oldest  now  contain  later  additions,  so  that  a  use  that  has  a 
Memory  of  Saints,  even  of  late  Saints,  may  be  an  old  one  to 
which  this  addition  was  made  afterwards.  The  omission  of  the 
Our  Father  is  curious,  but  proves  nothing  at  all.  Christians  are 
told  to  use  it  "  as  the  Lord  commanded  in  his  Gospel,"  three 
times  a  day,  in  the  Teaching  of  the  Twelve  Apostles.  Indeed 
the  perpetually  fluid  state  of  a  liturgy  in  use  makes  it  im- 
possible to  fix  its  date.  They  all  gradually  evolved  and  became 
fixed  from  what  were  at  first  extemporary  prayers,  and  after 
having  been  written  down  they  still  received  additions  and 
modifications.1 

Goar  and  Renaudot  thought  that  this  liturgy  had  never  been 
in  actual  use  anywhere.  On  the  other  hand  Probst2  and 
Bickell3  think  it  was  used  even  in  the  West  during  the  first 
three  centuries.  Connected  with  this  use  is  the  Liturgy  of  St. 
James,  the  original  rite  from  which  all  the  other  Syrian  ones 
were  derived.  It  still  exists  in  Greek.*  It  was  probably  first 
used  in  Jerusalem,  since  it  alone  contains  a  reference  to  that 
city.  The  "  Intercession,"  immediately  after  the  prayer  of 
Consecration,  begins  :  "  We  offer  this  to  thee,  O  Lord,  for 
thy  holy  places,  which  thou  hast  glorified  by  the  appearance 
of  thy  Christ,  and  by  the  coming  of  thy  Holy  Ghost,  chiefly 
for  the  holy  and  glorious  Sion,  the  mother  of  all  Churches,  and 
then  for  thy  holy,  Catholic  and  Apostolic  Church  throughout 
the  world."  s  As  its  name  says,  it  was  believed  to  have  been 
composed  by  St.  James  the  Less,  the  first  Bishop  of  Jerusalem, 
and  from  that  city  it  spread  throughout  Syria.     The  order  of 

1  The  text  of  the  liturgy  in  the  Apost.  Const,  is  given  by  Brightman,  op.  cit. 
pp.  2-30. 

2  Liturgie  der  ersten  3  Jhrhten  (Tubingen,  1870),  §  86. 

s  Kraus  :  Realenz.  ii.  p.  310.        4  Brightman,  pp.  31-68.        s  ibid.  p.  54. 


n6      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

this  liturgy  is  roughly  as  follows  :  first  the  Mass  of  the  Cate- 
chumens,   consisting   of    prayers,     unrhythmical    hymns,   and 
readings  from  the  Old  and  New  Testaments    (corresponding 
to  our  Mass   to   the   end   of   the  Gospel).     Then  follows  the 
Mass  of  the  Faithful  :  the  bread  and  wine  are  solemnly  brought 
to  the  altar,  the  Nicene  Creed  is  said,  then  follow  the  Kiss  of 
Peace  and  the  u  Anaphora,"  that  is,  the  Consecration  prayer, 
beginning  "  The  Lord  be  with  you,"  "  Lift  up  your  hearts," 
"  It  is  truly  meet  and  just,"  &c,  as  our  Preface.     The  long 
prayer  contains  the  words  of  Institution  :  "  Take,  eat,  this  is 
my  Body  broken  for  you  and  given  for  the  remission  of  sins," 
and  "  Drink  of  this  all ;  this  is  my  Blood  of  the  New  Testa- 
ment, shed  for  you  and  for  many  and  given  for  the  remission  of 
sins."     These  words  are  said  aloud,  and  each  time  the  people 
answer  Amen.    Then  comes  the  Invocation  (E7riic\r)(ng),  a  prayer 
that  God  may  send  the  Holy  Ghost  to  change  this  bread  and 
wine  into  the  Body  and  Blood  of  his  Son,  some  more  prayers, 
the  reading  of  the  Diptychs  containing  the  names  of  people  to 
be  prayed  for,  the  Memory  of  the  Saints  (our  Communicantes), 
the  Our  Father,  a  sort  of  Elevation  with  the  words  "  Sancta 
Sanctis  "  (to.  ayia  toIq  ayloig),  the  breaking  of  the  Host  of  which 
a  part  is  put  into  the  chalice,  the  communion  of  priest  and 
people  (always  under  both  kinds),  then  a  prayer  of  thanksgiving 
and  the  blessing  and  dismissal  of  the  people.     That  is  in  general 
terms   the  order   of  the  liturgy   in  Syria  in  the  5th  century. 
At  first  there  was  no  special  liturgical  language.     Greek  was 
used  where  the  people  understood  it  best,  that  is,  in  Antioch 
and  probably  the  other  chief  towns,  and  Syriac  in  the  country 
where  the  people  spoke  nothing  else.     Then  came  the  great 
Monophysite  schism  after  Chalcedon,  and  each  language  became 
a  distinctive  mark  of  one  of  the  two  sides.     The  Melkites  used 
Greek,1  the  Jacobites  Syriac.     But  as  the  Melkite  Patriarchate 
gradually  became  more  and  more  dependent  on  Constantinople, 
it  began  to  use  the  Byzantine  rite,  till  at  last  the  Greek  Liturgy 
of   St.   James   almost   entirely  disappeared  (p.  395).     But   the 
Jacobites  always  kept  their  Syrian  Liturgy  of  St.  James  and 
evolved  out  of  it  with  slight  changes  a  number  of  daughter-rites. 
1  There  was,  however,  a  Melkite  Liturgy  in  Syriac. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  117 

4.  The  Egyptian  Rite. 

Here  exactly  the  same  development  took  place.  The  original 
rite  of  the  Church  of  Egypt  is  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark.  The 
manuscripts  that  exist  of  it  are  much  later  than  those  of  the 
Syrian  Liturgy,  and  show  it  only  after  the  Monophysite  schism 
and  after  both  Melkites  and  Copts  have  added  to  and  otherwise 
modified  it.  But  by  noticing  what  is  common  to  all  the  liturgies 
that  grew  out  of  it,  one  can  form  a  fairly  clear  idea  of  the 
original  service  of  about  the  4th  century,  before  the  divisions 
came.  That  liturgy  follows  in  general  the  same  construction  as 
the  Syrian  one.  The  chief  difference  is  this.  All  liturgies 
have  a  great  supplication  for  people  of  every  class,  living  and 
dead,  together  with  a  Memory  of  the  Saints  by  name.  Our 
Roman  rite  has  now  for  some  reason  got  its  Memory  of  Saints 
and  Supplication  divided  ;  some  of  it  comes  before  and  the 
rest  after  the  Consecration  ("Te  igitur,  Memento  vivorum,  Com- 
municantes  "  ;  then  the  Consecration  ;  then  "  Memento  defunc- 
torum,  Nobis  quoque  peccatoribus,,,  with  a  second  list  of 
Saints).1 

The  Syrian  rite  has  it  all  after  the  Consecration  ;  but  in  Egypt 
it  all  came  before,  between  the  "Vere  dignum  et  iustum  est" 
and  the  Sanctus,  in  the  middle  of  what  we  should  call  the 
Preface  ;2  so  their  Preface  is  much  longer  and  their  Consecra- 
tion comes  at  a  much  later  point  in  the  Mass  than  in  Syria  or 
at  Rome.  For  the  rest,  the  Liturgy  of  St.  Mark  (which,  of 
course,  was  really  no  more  composed  by  him  than  the  Syrian 
one  by  St.  James)  is  divided  into  the  Mass  of  the  Catechumens 
and  the  Mass  of  the  Faithful,  has  an  Epiklesis,  the  words  of 
Institution  said  aloud  and  communion  under  both  kinds,  just 

1  The  order  in  which  our  Canon  now  stands  is  a  great  problem.  Cf.  P. 
Drews  :  Zur  Entstehungsgeschichte  des  Kanons  in  der  romischen  Messe 
(Tubingen,  1902).  He  connects  it  with  the  Syrian  Liturgy  and  thinks  it 
was  turned  right  round  and  the  second  half  put  first  in  the  time  of 
Gelasius  I  (492-496). 

2  It  must  be  remembered  that,  although  our  missals  now  have  the  words 
"  Canon  Missae "  printed  after  the  Preface,  from  the  beginning  of  the 
Preface  to  the  end  of  the  "  Libera  nos,  quaesumus,  Domine,"  is  all  one  long 
prayer,  the  Eucharistic  prayer,  of  which  then  the  Preface  is  a  part, 


n8  THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

as  that  of  St.  James  and  indeed  all  Eastern  uses.  But  the 
actual  prayers  are  different.  One  of  the  petitions  in  its 
Supplication  is  :  "  Draw  up  the  waters  of  the  river  to  their 
proper  measure  ;  gladden  and  renew  the  face  of  the  earth  in 
their  rising.,,  z  This  is,  of  course,  the  yearly  rising  of  the  Nile. 
At  first  Greek  or  Coptic  were  used  indiscriminately  ;  then  the 
Melkites  kept  to  Greek  and  the  Copts  to  their  own  language.2 
The  Copts  evolved  a  number  of  liturgies  out  of  the  old  one. 
Since  the  12th  century  the  Melkites  use  the  Byzantine  Liturgy. 

5.  The  Byzantine  Rite. 

The  Church  of  Constantinople  had  a  liturgy  of  her  own 
attributed  to  St.  Basil  (f  379).  It  seems  to  be  a  modification 
of  the  Syrian  rite.  Later  it  was  much  shortened  by  St.  John 
Chrysostom  (f  407),  and  this  shorter  form  was  the  one  commonly 
used,  though  on  a  few  days  in  the  year  that  of  St.  Basil  was 
kept  ;  for  the  Mass  of  the  Presanctified,  which  we  have  only 
on  Good  Friday,  but  which  they  celebrate  every  day  in 
Lent,  except  Saturdays  and  Sundays,  they  use  the  Liturgy 
of  St.  Gregory  Dialogos  (our  St.  Gregory  the  Great,  to  whom 
they  attribute  it).  These  three  liturgies  make  up  the  use  of 
Constantinople,  which  spread  throughout  the  Orthodox  East  as 
the  Church  for  which  it  was  composed  became  the  head  of  all 
the  others.  It  is  now  celebrated  almost  exclusively  in  a  number 
of  languages  throughout  the  Orthodox  Churches,  and  is,  after 
our  Roman  Liturgy,  by  far  the  most  widely  spread  of  all  (p.  397). 
The  Armenian  Liturgy  is  modified  from  that  of  Constantinople. 
Lastly,  ever  since  the  Nestorian  schism  there  has  been  a  group 
of  Nestorian  Liturgies  in  Syriac,  used  by  that  Church.  In  the 
Byzantine  Church,  then,  the  three  liturgies  it  used  were  to 
the  people  as  obvious  and  necessary  a  way  of  celebrating 
the  Holy  Mysteries  as  at  the  same  time  the  Roman  Mass 
was  at  Rome.  The  rite  they  saw  most  often  was  that  of 
St.  John  Chrysostom.  It  was  accompanied  by  a  great  deal 
of   ritual,  and   said  in  gorgeous  vestments,  but   in  great  part 

1  Brightman,  p.  127. 

*  Greek  St.  Mark  in  Brightman,  pp,  113-143  ;  Coptic  St.  Mark,  pp.  144-188. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  119 

behind  the  screen  that  cut  off  the  sanctuary  from  the  church. 
The  preliminary  prayers  (before  the  "  Little  Entry  ")  had  not 
yet  been  added  to  it ;  otherwise  hardly  anything  has  changed 
since,  so  that  any  Orthodox  church  to-day  will  show  almost 
exactly  the  same  vestments,  ceremonies  and  rites  as  those  that 
Justinian  knew  (p.  412).  Besides  the  liturgy  in  every  church 
the  Divine  Office  (p.  418)  was  sung  daily. 

6.  Byzantine  Piety  and  Morals. 

Pilgrimages  to  the  tombs  of  saints,  famous  sanctuaries,  most 
of  all  to  the  holy  places  of  Palestine,  were  very  popular. 
There  were  a  great  number  of  Sacramentals.  The  sign  of  the 
Cross  is  used  by  every  one  continually.  At  Constantinople  was 
a  large  piece  of  the  true  Cross  on  which  people  swore  to  keep 
their  engagements,  and  they  wore  relics  of  it  in  little  cross- 
shaped  reliquaries  of  gold  or  silver  round  their  necks.  Holy 
water  was  blessed  on  the  Epiphany  (the  Feast  of  our  Lord's 
baptism) l  and  used  for  sprinkling  houses,  ships,  and  anything 
that  was  to  be  blessed.  Water  was  poured  into  a  chalice  and 
then  out  again,  and  became  holy  water  ;  even  water  used 
by  any  specially  holy  monk  for  washing  was  kept  as  sacred.2 
Oil  taken  from  lamps  that  burned  before  sacred  pictures  and 
relics  was  used  as  a  Sacramental  ;  so  also  the  holy  bread 
(AvTtdwpov)  broken  off  from  the  host  before  consecration  and 
given  to  the  people  who  did  not  receive  Holy  Communion. 
A  favourite  devotion  was  the  Metanoia  (Meravoia,  repentance). 
It  consists  in  prostrating  oneself  till  the  forehead  touches  the 
ground,  while  the  weight  of  the  body  rests  on  the  feet  and 
hands  ;  this  was  repeated  a  great  number  of  times,  and  each 
time  the  penitent  said,  "  Kyrie  eleison,"  or  some  such  formula.3 

1  On  the  Epiphany  both  East  and  West  keep  the  memory  of  three  things — 
the  coming  of  the  Wise  Men,  our  Lord's  baptism,  His  first  miracle.  The 
first  of  these  things  has  become  the  most  important  to  us,  the  second  to  them. 

2  All  Eastern  people,  especially  Mohammedans,  follow  this  unclean  custom. 
In  the  days  of  the  Mahdi  in  the  Sudan  his  followers  drank  the  water  in  which 
he  had  washed  as  a  protection  against  sickness.  Cf.  Ohrwalder  :  Ten  Years 
in  the  Mahdi' s  Camp  (1895),  p.  182. 

3  This  also  is  a  common  practice  among  Eastern  people  of  every  religion. 
Every  one  knows  how  much  Mohammedans  use  it. 


120      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  Eulogion  was  a  holy  gift,  any  small  object  given  by  a  holy 
man  and  kept  as  a  sort  of  Sacramental.  Besides  the  Sacrament 
of  Penance,  it  was  considered  a  pious  practice  to  confess  one's 
sins  to  any  virtuous  person,  chiefly  to  a  monk,  who  was  not  a 
priest  and  could  therefore  not  give  absolution.  The  extreme 
punishment  that  the  Church  could  inflict  on  her  children  was 
excommunication.  All  heretics  and  schismatics  were  ipso  facto 
excommunicate.  Any  ecclesiastical  intercourse  with  them  in- 
volved the  same  punishment  ;  to  sign  their  formulas,  receive 
any  sacrament  from  them,  sing  psalms  in  their  company,  even 
to  dine  with  them,  or  to  have  any  civil  relations,  beyond  what 
was  absolutely  necessary,  involved  excommunication.  One  may 
not  accept  their  gifts  to  churches,  nor  pray  for  them  publicly, 
nor  say  Mass  for  them  after  their  death.1  Even  after  they  are 
converted  back  to  orthodoxy,  some  of  the  stigma  of  their  former 
heresy  clings  to  them.  Priests  may  not  celebrate  the  liturgy, 
at  any  rate  until  they  have  done  a  long  penance  ;  if  an  orthodox 
Christian  dines  with  a  converted  heretic,  the  convert  may  not 
say  grace. 

Meanwhile  the  great  popular  feasts,  most  of  which  have 
come  down  from  pagan  days — the  Carnival,  the  feast  of 
Spring  in  May,  the  Brumalia  in  November,  &c. — are  the 
occasion  of  every  sort  of  licence  ;  magic  flourishes,  and  strolling 
magicians  make  fortunes  by  curing  diseases,  finding  riches, 
and  making  women  beautiful.  The  Court  continually  becomes 
a  hotbed  of  unnameable  vice.2  Byzantine  society  during 
all  the  middle  ages,  from  Constantine  (330)  till  the  city 
fell  (1453),  was  by  far  the  richest,  most  splendid,  and  most 
comfortable  in  Europe.  It  was  also  an  old  society,  long 
established,  and,  at  any  rate  comparatively,  secure.  These 
circumstances  generally  make  for  luxury,  and  then  for  vice. 
But  it  was  not  wholly  bad.  The  Moslems  first  attacked  the 
legions  in  634,  two  years  after  Mohammed's  death  ;  from  that 

1  To  offer  the  holy  liturgy  for  the  repose  of  a  person's  soul  was  a  universal 
custom  long  before  the  Byzantine  period.  The  Apost.  Const,  determine 
that  it  shall  be  done  on  the  third,  ninth,  fortieth  and  anniversary  days 
after  death. 

2  Cf.  Pargoire,  op.  cit.  pp.  319,  seq.,  344,  348,  350,  scq. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  121 

time  they  never  ceased  making  war  on  the  Empire  ;  they  came 
to  the  gates  of  Constantinople  in  673,  and  again  in  716,  but 
they  did  not  succeed  in  taking  the  city  till  1453.  A  State  that 
could  keep  such  fierce  enemies,  first  the  Saracens  and  then  the 
Turks,  at  bay  for  eight  centuries  could  not  have  been  altogether 
corrupt.  And  there  was  repeatedly  a  revival  at  the  Roman 
Court.  After  a  time  of  utter  corruption  and  decay,  some  strong 
man  would  get  hold  of  the  power  and  would  sternly  reform 
everything.  Then  the  legions  would  again  go  forth  and  drive 
the  barbarians  back  from  the  provinces  they  had  taken. 

In  the  long  list  of  Emperors,  from  Constantine  I  to  Con- 
stantine  XII,  there  is  a  fair  proportion  of  great  names  :  some  of 
them  were  very  great  indeed.  Justinian  I  (527-565)  was  one 
of  the  greatest  men  that  ever  ruled  anywhere.  While  he  was 
drawing  up  the  Code  of  Roman  Law,  that  has  been  the  standard 
for  almost  all  the  States  of  Europe  ever  since,  while  he  was 
building  the  most  wonderful  church  that  the  world  has  ever 
seen,  his  legions  were  defeating  the  Persians  and  driving  the 
barbarian  out  of  Italy,  Spain,  and  Africa,  till  once  more  Caesar 
ruled  from  the  Pillars  of  Hercules  to  the  Euphrates,  and  from 
the  Danube  to  the  African  desert.  Heraclius  (610-641)  finally 
broke  the  power  of  the  old  enemy  of  Rome,  the  M  Great  King" 
of  Persia  ;  Leo  III,  the  Isaurian  (717-740),  met  the  first  rush  of 
the  Saracens,  and  first  stopped  their  victorious  career  by  driving 
them  back  from  the  walls  of  his  own  city  ;  Basil  II,  the  Slayer 
of  the  Bulgars  (963-1025),  shattered  the  power  of  other  bar- 
barians, who  threatened  to  overrun  the  Empire,  and  once  more 
carried  the  Eagles  back  to  the  Danube.  Most  of  these  Emperors 
interfered  in  theological  discussions,  and  persecuted  the  Church 
with  their  edicts  ;  but  they  were  very  valiant  men  and  mighty 
lords,  who  again  joined  to  the  Roman  name  the  terror  of  the 
Roman  arms.  Indeed  no  State  could  hold  out  for  ever  against 
the  endless  hordes  of  enemies  that  one  after  another  came 
pouring  up  against  the  frontiers  of  the  Empire.  That  it 
withstood  them  for  so  many  centuries  ;  that  it  was  the  leader 
of  Europe  in  civilization,  while  it  was  its  bulwark  against  the 
common  enemy  for  so  long,  gives  New  Rome  a  right  to 
be  remembered  as  one  of  the  very  greatest  States  in  history. 


122      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

7.  Byzantine   Art. 

The  manner  of  building  and  painting,  the  tradition  of  jewellery, 
metal  work  and  decoration  that  we  call  Byzantine,  are  so  closely 
connected  with  the  history  and  liturgy  of  the  Orthodox  Eastern 
Church,  that  we  ought  not  to  pass  them  over  here  without  some 
notice.  The  Byzantine  question  is  one  of  those  that  are  most 
disputed  by  archaeologists.  When  the  Romans  had  come  under 
the  influence  of  Greece,  they,  or  their  Greek  artists,  covered  the 
Empire  with  the  buildings  and  statues  that  we  call  Roman- 
Greek.  This  manner  lasted  without  much  development  till 
about  the  end  of  the  3rd  century.  As  far  as  Christians  during 
this  time  were  able  to  practise  the  fine  arts,  they  naturally  followed 
the  tradition  of  their  time.  The  catacomb  paintings  obviously 
belong  to  the  same  school  as  those  of  Pompeii.  They  are,  of 
course,  poorer  and  rougher,  because  they  are  the  work  of  a  poor 
and  persecuted  community  that  could  not  afford  the  service  of 
any  great  artist.  About  the  time  of  Diocletian  (284-305)  a  new 
influence  crosses  this  Roman-Greek  school.  For  centuries 
there  had  been  an  Asiatic  manner  quite  distinct  from  Greek 
work.  It  had  come  down  from  an  almost  fabulous  age.  The 
temple  that  Solomon  had  made  Phoenicians  build  for  him,  the 
city  of  Ninive,  the  palace  where  Daniel  stood  before  Nabu- 
chodonosor,  were  built  in  it.  The  Persians  had  learnt  it  from 
the  Babylonians,  the  Seleucid  kings  from  the  Persians.  In  the 
North  of  Syria  there  still  stand  a  number  of  cities  built  in  the 
Asiatic  style,  though  already  under  Greek  influence.  Palmyra 
and  Baalbek  are  the  best  known  examples.  They  have  arches 
and  cupolas  set  on  a  square.  Diocletian  went  to  live  at  Asia 
for  a  time,  and  he  brought  back  a  taste  for  Asiatic  architecture 
that  still  may  be  seen  in  his  palace  in  Dalmatia.  It  is  the 
crossing  of  these  two  traditions,  Roman-Greek  and  Asiatic,  that 
produced  what  we  call  Byzantine  art.  Just  as  they  began  to 
be  combined  two  events  happened  that  gave  to  the  new  style  a 
sudden  importance.  Constantinople  was  built  and  the  Christians, 
at  last  set  free,  began  to  cover  the  Empire  with  churches.  Both 
the  new  city  and  the  new  religion  naturally  used  the  manner 
of  building  that  was  then  in  vogue.      Of  course  no  one  was 


FAITH  AND  RITES  123 

conscious  of  founding  a  new  style.  Architecture,  like  every 
other  art,  has  followed  a  natural  and  gradual  development  from 
the  beginning,  at  any  rate  till  the  Renaissance.  First  one 
improvement  was  added,  then  another  ;  and  it  is  only  long 
afterwards  that  people,  seeing  their  buildings,  can  mark  changes 
sufficiently  important  to  warrant  a  new  name.  Generally  the 
change  is  so  gradual  that  no  one  can  say  exactly  when  it  took 
place.  But  in  this  case  the  city  of  Constantine  and  the 
Churches  appear  at  such  a  definite  moment  of  the  evolution 
and  themselves  help  so  much  to  mark  and  spread  the  new 
movement,  that  nowhere  in  the  history  of  architecture  before 
the  Renaissance  can  one  draw  so  clear  a  line  as  between  the  old 
Roman-Greek  and  the  new  Byzantine  styles.  And  no  style  is 
so  well  named  as  this  last.  The  buildings  of  Byzantium  are  its 
classical  examples,  and  represent  its  highest  perfection.  It  has 
always  been  the  artistic  expression  of  the  Churches  that  obey 
the  Byzantine  Patriarch,  or  were  founded  by  him,  and  it  still 
exists,  being  the  only  real  and  unconscious  artistic  tradition  in 
Europe,  in  the  Byzantine  monasteries.  The  Byzantine  question 
is  only  whether  it  really  spread  over  Southern  Europe  from 
Constantinople,  or  whether  the  same  influences,  working  in 
parallel  lines,  produced  the  same  effect  independently.  In 
Italy  and  Southern  France,  at  Rome,  especially  at  Ravenna,  are 
buildings,  carving,  most  of  all  mosaics,  that  obviously  belong  to 
the  same  school  as  those  in  Constantinople,  Illyricum,  and  Asia 
Minor.  It  used  to  be  supposed  that  these  were  the  work  of 
Greek  artists  sent  from  the  Bosphorus,  and  the  fact  that  the  best 
examples  of  such  work  are  found  in  Ravenna,  which  had  most 
connection  with  Constantinople  (since  the  Emperor's  Exarch 
sat  there),  was  looked  upon  as  proof.  It  was  in  this  sense  that 
people  used  to  call  the  Ravenna  mosaics  Byzantine.  But  now 
the  other  theory  has  come  to  the  fore.  It  is  urged  that  much 
of  the  work  at  Ravenna  was  done  while  the  Goth  ruled  there, 
before  Belisarius  conquered  it  back  for  the  Emperor  (540), J  and 

1  The  "  Orthodox  Baptistery  "  (S.  Ioannes  in  Fonte)  was  built  and  decorated 
about  430,  the  tomb  of  Gallia  Placidia  about  450,  St.  Apollinaris  the  New  and 
the  Arian  Baptistery  (S.  Maria  in  Cosmedin)by  Theodoric  (493-526),  St.  Vitalis, 
in  which  are  the  portraits  of  Justinian  and  Theodora,  in  547  by  the  Bishop 


I24      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

that  Theodoric  was  not  likely  to  have  sent  to  Constantinople  for 
workmen.  As  far  as  there  is  any  evidence  from  documents  it 
points  to  Italian  artists  :  there  seem  to  have  been  schools  in 
Rome,  Naples,  Milan  and  Ravenna,  that  owed  nothing  to 
Constantinople.1  In  spite  of  this,  since  all  the  work  from 
the  4th  century  till  the  Lombards  came  to  Italy  (568)  forms, 
together  with  Eastern  work,  as  much  one  style  as  any  in  history, 
and  since  one  must  have  a  name  for  this  style,  the  word 
Byzantine  will  do  as  well  as  any,  and  is  far  more  reasonable 
than  most  such  names  of  periods.  We  are  here  concerned 
with  what  was  Byzantine  in  every  sense,  the  local  manner  of 
Constantinople.  From  Constantine  to  Justinian  is  the  period  of 
formation.  The  city  was  begun  in  328,  dedicated  on  May  11, 
330.  Very  little  of  the  work  of  this  first  period  remains. 
Constantine  planned  out  the  imperial  quarter  of  the  city  as  it 
has  been  ever  since.  On  the  southern  point  of  the  promontory, 
looking  over  the  Propontis,  he  set  up  a  series  of  connected 
buildings  that  made  up  the  Residence.  Right  over  the  water 
was  the  palace,  where  Caesar  might  watch  his  ships  sailing 
out  with  the  legions  on  board,  or  bringing  the  spoil  back 
through  the  Hellespont.  Behind  the  palace  was  the  Hippo- 
drome, where* the  races  were  held,  the  real  centre  of  the  life 
of  Constantinople,  the  Forum,  Senate-house,  and  the  Emperor's 
church,  dedicated  to  the  Holy  Wisdom  of  God.  All 
these  buildings  have  gradually  been  replaced  by  others  even 
more  sumptuous  than  the  ones  to  adorn  which  Constantine 
ransacked  the  Empire.2     The  problem  of  this  first  period  was 

Maximian,  who  stands  in  his  dalmatic,  paenula  and  pallium,  holding  a  cross, 
by  Justinian's  side.  Maximian  was  bishop  from  546  to  556,  and  also  built 
St.  Apollinaris  in  Classe,  in  549.  The  green  colour  of  these  mosaics  is 
special  to  Ravenna,  green  and  gold,  like  its  marshes. 

1  Kraus  {Gesch.  derChristl.  Kunst,  i,  pp.  427,  scq.)  distinguishes  three  periods 
at  Ravenna — pure  Roman,  Ostrogothic,  Byzantine.  Beissel  {Altchrisil.  Kunst  u. 
Litnrgie  in  Italicn,  kap.  4,  pp.  118-221)  is  inclined  to  see  Roman  and  not 
Constantinopolitan  work  throughout,  even  in  the  mosaics  of  St.  Vitalis  that 
represent  Justinian  and  Theodora  with  their  courts.  For  the  Byzantine 
question  see  especially  Strzygowski  :  Orient  odcr  Rom.  (Leipzig,  1901),  who 
traces  all  Byzantine  work  almost  exclusively  to  Asia. 

2  St.  Jerome  says  :  "  Constantinople  was  dedicated  amid  the  nakedness  of 
almost  all  the  other  cities"  (Chron.  a.d.  332). 


FAITH  AND  RITES  125 

to  set  a  cupola  on  a  square  plan.  The  cupola  is  for  Byzantine 
building  what  cross-vaulting  is  for  Gothic.  The  older  Romans 
had  set  it  on  a  round  wall,  as  at  the  Pantheon.  Now  they 
wanted  to  set  it  on  a  square  base  over  their  churches.  At  first 
all  Christian  churches  had  been  built  as  long  basilicas,  even  in 
the  East  ;  an  example  is  St.  Demetrius  at  Thessalonica 
(Saloniki).  Then  throughout  Eastern  Europe  they  began  to 
build  churches  rather  of  the  type  of  our  baptisteries — round,  or 
square,  or  eight-sided  figures  with  apses  on  every  side.  Con- 
stantine's  Golden  Church  at  Antioch  was  the  first  famous 
example  of  this  ;  it  was  copied  in  a  few  cases  even  in  the 
West.1  In  Thessalonica  is  also  one  of  the  earliest  of  these 
round  churches,  St.  George,  a  huge  circle  with  a  dome,  like  the 
Pantheon.  But  a  circle  is  not  a  convenient  plan  for  a  church, 
so  they  wanted  to  put  their  cupola  on  a  square.  At  first  they 
simply  cut  off  the  corners  by  bridging  across  them,  and  on  the 
eight  sides  thus  made  they  set  their  round  dome.  The  triumph 
of  Byzantine  engineering,  and  the  greatest  event  of  this  develop- 
ment, was  the  discovery,  gradually  approached  through  infinite 
clumsy  makeshifts,  of  the  pendentive. 

Then  the  time  had  come  for  the  most  splendid  of  all  churches. 
In  532,  while  Justinian  was  reigning,  for  the  second  time  the 
cathedral  church  of  his  city  was  burned  down.  The  Emperor 
determined  this  time  to  build  a  church  that  should  be  the 
wonder  of  the  world.  Like  its  predecessors,  it  was  to  be  dedi- 
cated to  the  Holy  Wisdom  (//  dy/a  aoipia),  that  is,  to  the  Second 
Person  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  God  the  Son,  the  Word,  to  whom 
the  text  is  understood  to  refer  :  "  I,  Wisdom,  dwell  with 
prudence  .  .  .  the  Lord  possessed  me  in  the  beginning  of  his 
way,"  &c.  (Prov.  viii.  12-36).  No  other  building  has  anything 
like  as  much  importance  in  the  history  of  architecture  as  the 
Hagia  Sophia.  Other  great  churches  are,  each  of  them,  only 
one  out  of  many  of  the  same  kind  ;  this  church  rose,  after 
humble  and  tentative  efforts,  as  the  one  great  example,  the 
model  on  which  a  whole  style  was  founded.  It  is  not  the 
daughter,  it  is  the  mother,  of  Byzantine  architecture.  Nothing 
that  went  before  can  be  compared  to  it,  and  afterwards  for 

1  See  p.  15,  n.  2. 


126      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


centuries,  down  to  our  own  time,  Byzantine  artists  have  had 
before  them  this  one  model,  copied  and  imitated  by  all,  but 
never  rivalled. 

The  architects  of  Justinian's  great  church  deserve  that  their 
names  should  be  remembered  :  they  were  Anthemius  of  Tralles 
and  Isidore  of  Miletus,  both  from  Asia  Minor.  Under  them 
were  one  hundred  foremen,  under  each   foreman   a   hundred 

masons.  These  ten  thousand  work- 
men built  with  small  bricks  a 
church  on  this  plan.  A  vast  cupola 
rests,  through  pendentives,  on  four 
great  arches  that  join  as  many  mas- 
sive piers.  East  and  west  against 
these  arches  rest  half  cupolas  on 
semicircles  ;  from  each  of  them, 
again,  open  out  three  smaller  domed 
apses.  North  and  south  the  arches 
are  filled  in  with  walls  pierced  by 
two  galleries  of  arcading  that  open 
on  to  aisles  divided  into  two  stories. 
The  outer  walls  of  these  aisles  meet 
eastern  and  western  walls,  forming 
an  almost  perfect  square.1  Along 
the  west  front  runs  a  double  narthex, 
from  which  nine  doors  lead  into  the 
church,  and  in  front  of  the  narthex 
was  a  great  atrium  (forecourt),  now 
destroyed.  The  cupola  which 
crowns  the  pyramid  of  curving  lines 
is  not  high.  The  Byzantine  builders  always  understood  the 
difference  between  a  dome  and  a  tower,  and  made  their  domes 
low  and  very  broad,  like  the  curve  of  the  sky.  No  other  cover- 
ing gives  such  a  sense  of  vastness  to  a  space  as  these  saucer- 
shaped  cupolas. 

To  adorn  his  great  church  Justinian  spent  fabulous  sums. 
The  old  Greek  builders  had  been  content  with  the  more  reticent 
beauty  of  white  marble.     Justinian  wanted  a  dazzling  gorgeous- 
1  It  is  77  by  7670  metres. 


PLAN  OF  THE   CHURCH    OF 
HOLY  WISDOM. 


THE 


FAITH  AND  RITES  127 

ness  of  gold,  coloured  marble,  mosaic,  precious  stones.  So 
from  every  corner  of  the  Empire  the  governors  had  to  send 
columns  taken  from  old  temples,  marble,  jewels,  and  incredible 
sums  of  money.  Eight  pillars  of  verde  antico  came  from 
Ephesus,  as  many  of  porphyry  from  Rome.  Egypt  was  the 
richest  province  of  the  Empire,  and  a  year's  taxes  from  the 
whole  of  Egypt  went  to  pay  for  one  ambo.  The  altar  was  of 
solid  gold,  gleaming  with  emeralds.  Six  thousand  gilt  candle- 
sticks hung  around,  and  the  light  from  their  burning  candles 
glowed  back  from  rubies  and  sapphires,  sheets  of  gold  and 
silver,  enamel  and  mosaic  and  marble  of  every  colour,  so  that 
the  church  must  have  shone  with  a  dazzling  splendour,  like  that 
of  the  city  of  God  in  the  Apocalypse.  Above  the  doors  of  the 
narthex,  in  the  tympanum,  was  a  huge  mosaic  of  our  Lord.  It 
is  the  type  of  the  Byzantine  Christ.  Very  stately  he  sits  on  a 
throne,  looking  across  the  city  with  a  calm  majesty  that  makes 
him  seem  far  removed  from  our  troubles.  His  right  hand 
is  lifted  up  to  give  the  "  Eastern  "  blessing — two  fingers  raised, 
and  the  third  touching  the  thumb  ;  in  the  left  hand  he  holds  a 
book :  "  Peace  be  with  you.  I  am  the  Light  of  the  world."  On 
either  side  are  medallions  of  our  Lady  and  St.  Michael,  and, 
kneeling,  before  him  is  Caesar  in  his  diadem.  It  is  the  lord  of 
the  world  worshipping  the  Lord  of  Heaven. 

The  church  was  dedicated  on  St.  Stephen's  Day,  December 
27)  537-1  When  Justinian  saw  it  finished  he  said  :  "  Glory  be  to 
God,  who  has  found  me  worthy  to  do  such  a  work.  Solomon, 
I  have  beaten  you."  Alas !  next  year  an  earthquake  brought 
down  the  cupola.  They  built  it  up  again  at  once,  and  used  bricks 
specially  made  at  Rhodes,  of  which  five  weighed  no  more  than 
one  ordinary  one.  They  were  so  anxious  not  to  shake  the  build- 
ing that,  when  they  had  to  bring  down  the  inner  scaffolding,  they 
flooded  the  church  with  water,  and  let  the  great  poles  fall  into 
that.  This  is  the  cupola  that  one  may  still  see  rising,  a  gleaming 
white  curve,  above  the  marble  quays  and  the  slender,  dark 
cypress  trees  from  the  waters  of  the  Propontis.  No  church  is 
of  such  importance  in  the  history  of  architecture,  and  no  church 

1  That  is  their  St.  Stephen's  Day.  On  December  26th  they  keep  the  Memory 
of  the  holy  Mother  of  God. 


128      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

has  been  so  bound  up  with  the  history  of  a  people  as  the  Holy 
Wisdom.  It  was  under  this  dome  that  seventy-four  Emperors 
were  crowned.  Here  Ignatius  refused  Holy  Communion  to 
Bardas ;  the  Synod  of  869  deposed  Photius ;  the  three  Legates, 
in  1054,  said,  "  Let  God  see  to  it  and  judge,"  as  they  laid  the 
Bull  of  Excommunication  on  the  altar.  It  was  at  the  old  altar 
under  the  dome  of  the  Holy  Wisdom  that,  in  1204,  the  Latin 
Mass  announced  to  the  angry  Byzantines  that  they  must  now 
obey  a  Latin  lord,  and  that,  fifty-seven  years  later,  the  Greek 
Liturgy  told  them  that  their  own  Emperor  was  restored. 
Here  Constantine  XII  received  Holy  Communion  on  the 
morning  of  May  29,  1453,  before  he  went  out  to  die  for  his 
city  and  his  Empire,  and  now,  on  a  column  in  the  church,  you 
may  still  see  the  blood-red  mark  of  Mohammed  the  Conqueror's 
hand.  Since  the  Turk  sits  on  the  throne  of  Justinian,  his  faith 
is  preached  in  Justinian's  church.  He  has  covered  up  the  old 
Saints  with  the  names  of  the  four  Khalifahs,  and  has  put  a 
Mihrab  pointing  to  Mecca  behind  the  place  where  the  old  altar 
stood.  To  the  Turk  the  church  has  been  almost  as  important 
as  to  the  Christian :  it  has  been  the  model  of  a  whole  school  of 
his  architecture,  too.1  But  whatever  remnants  of  enthusiasm  or 
chivalry  remained  among  the  Christians  under  his  rule  clung  to 
the  great  church  they  had  lost.  The  Holy  Wisdom  was  a  type  of 
the  old  Empire,  and  the  rayahs  who  dreamed  of  the  day  when 
their  land  should  once  more  be  Christian  and  free,  summed 
up  all  their  hope  in  the  one  picture  of  its  reconsecration. 

They  have  taken  the  City,  they  have  taken  it,  they  have  taken  Thessalonica, 

They  have  taken  the  Holy  Wisdom,  the  great  Cathedral, 

Which  had  three  hundred  altar-bells  and  sixty  two  great  bells  to  chime. 

For  every  bell  was  a  priest,  for  every  priest  a  deacon. 

And  as  the  Most  Holy  was  taken,  and  the  Lord  of  the  world  went  out, 

A  voice  was  heard  from  heaven,  a  voice  from  the  Angels'  mouth  : 

"Leave  off  your  psalms,"  they  said,  "set  down  the  Most  Holy,  and  send 

Send  to  the  land  of  the  Franks,  and  tell  them  to  come  back  to  take  it, 

To  take  the  golden  Cross,  and  the  book  of  the  holy  Gospels, 

And  to  take  the  holy  altar,  lest  the  Turks  should  destroy  or  defile  it." 

But  when  our  Lady  heard  of  this,  she  wept  that  the  city  had  fallen. 


1  The  great  mosque  of  Ahmed  is  the  best  known  example  of  a  large  class 
built  in  imitation  of  the  Holy  Wisdom. 


FAITH  AND  RITES  129 

Queen  and  Lady,  do  not  weep,  do  not  lament,  but  take  comfort, 
Some  day,  after  years  have  gone  past,  once  more  the  great  Church  shall 
be  yours.1 

But  architecture  was  not  the  only  Byzantine  art.  It  seems 
at  first  strange  that,  whereas  the  sculpture  of  the  human  figure 
was  the  greatest  achievement  of  old  Greek  art,  it  should  have 
suddenly  and  entirely  come  to  an  end  about  the  year  300.  But 
this  fact  is  the  result  of  Christian  feeling.  To  Christians  the 
beautiful  Greek  statues  were  simply  the  homes  of  unclean 
devils.  It  was  for  refusing  to  worship  these  gods  that  their 
fathers  had  been  torn  and  mangled  in  the  circus  ;  so  they 
would  have  nothing  like  them.  They  had  no  prejudice  against 
images  ;  on  the  contrary,  theologically,  they  have  always  held 
the  same  position  as  we  do,  and  practically  the  holy  Ikons  play 
a  much  more  conspicuous  part  in  the  East  than  in  the  West. 
But  the  Ikon  must  be  flat — it  may  be  mosaic,  painting,  even 
bass-relief,  but — especially  since  the  Iconoclast  troubles — the 
flatter  the  picture  the  more  orthodox  it  is.  The  Byzantine 
artists  could  carve  stone  with  amazing  skill,  as  the  capitals  of 
their  columns  show,  only  it  must  not  be  the  human  figure. 
They  carved  twisted  leaves  and  networks  of  twining  branches, 
geometric  patterns  and  crosses,  baskets  with  birds  peeping  out, 
lions  and  lambs,  doves  and  peacocks.  The  feeling  of  their 
carving  alone  shows  that  Byzantine  work  has  quite  definitely 
crossed  the  line  from  the  classical  to  the  mediaeval  manner. 
Their  instinct  was  for  gorgeousness,  and  they  found  a  natural 
outlet  for  it  in  the  glowing  colours  of  marble  and  small  mosaic. 
The  Romans  had  used  mosaic  for  their  pavements,  but  now  it 
became  incomparably  richer  and  brighter,  and  was  put  along 
walls  and  spandrils  and  to  line  domes.  Whether  made  by 
Greek  artists  or  not,  the  mosaics  at  Ravenna  are  the  classical 
example  of  this  work,  Byzantine  in  manner  at  any  rate.  There 
is  no  perspective,  no  multitude  of  shades  to  make  the  figures 
look  plastic,  no  shadows.     Against  backgrounds  of  gold  or  blue 

1  A  poem  written  soon  after  the  fall  of  the  city.     I  have  kept  the  rather 
halting  metre  of  the  original.    The  last  two  lines  are  quite  beautiful  : 
fftjvra,  Kvpa  dk<T7roivat  /*?)  KXaiyg,  pri  daicpvZyQ, 
7rd\s  fit  xpovovg,  p,k  icaipovg,  7ra\e.  8uca  aov  eivai. 
The  whole  text  in  Artemides  :  'Op<piicrj  Xvpa  (Athens,  1905),  141. 

10 


130      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  figures  stand  all  in  one  plane,  Justinian  and  his  Court, 
Theodora  and  her  ladies,  long  processions  of  Saints  in  blues 
and  greens  and  scarlet,  the  colours  put  sharply  against  one 
another  in  broad,  flat  masses,  sometimes  covered  with  patterns 
and  with  black  lines  to  outline  the  folds.  Very  rich  and 
sumptuous,  standing  as  calm  and  as  stately  as  the  palm  trees 
between  them,  these  figures  still  show  the  image  of  that  court 
by  the  Bosphorus,  where  the  Roman  name  still  lingered,  that  was 
lifted  above  the  new  world  our  fathers  were  hewing  out  of  its 
lost  provinces  by  the  unapproachable  majesty  of  its  memories. 
Byzantine  jewellery  and  metal  work,  too,  were  famous  through- 
out Europe  all  through  the  middle  ages.  To  set  rubies  and 
sapphires  in  gold  with  glowing  enamel  and  strings  of  pearls 
was  work  in  which  these  artists  revelled.  When  the  Crusaders 
came  from  their  grey  castles  to  Constantinople,  they  were 
dazzled  by  the  magnificence  they  saw  at  the  Emperor's  Court. 
They  told,  when  they  came  back,  almost  fabulous  tales  of  the 
wonders  they  had  seen,  the  costly  toys,  golden  lions  that  roared, 
trees  of  jewels  where  enamelled  birds  flapped  their  wings  and 
sang,  thrones  of  ivory  and  sheets  of  porphyry,  and  then  the 
incredible  cleverness  of  those  "  Romans "  in  the  East.  No 
wonder  the  plain-living  Frankish  knights  were  intoxicated  with 
the  sight  of  such  splendour,  and  that  all  over  Western  Europe 
the  distant  Roman  Court  became  a  sort  of  fairy  tale  of  half 
mythical  sumptuousness.1  And  the  influence  of  what  the 
Franks  had  seen  there,  of  the  treasures  they  sometimes  brought 
back,  was  felt  during  all  the  middle  ages.  Still  the  King  of 
Hungary  wears  a  gorgeous  piece  of  Byzantine  jewellery  with 
Byzantine  enamels  as  the  crown  of  St.  Stephen  and  the  symbol 
of  the  Apostolic  kingdom,  and  amid  the  fields  of  Essex  you  may 
go  into  Copf  ord  Church  and  see  above  the  altar  the  figure  of  the 
Byzantine  Christ  in  glory,  with  his  court  of  Saints  and  the  signs 
of  the  zodiac,  who  has  come  all  this  way  from  the  Church  of 
the  Holy  Wisdom. 

1  Jordanes  the  Goth  (t  560)  wrote  after  he  had  seen  Constantinople  : 
"  Now  I  see  what  I  have  often  heard,  but  have  never  believed,  the  glory  of  so 
great  a  city.  .  .  .  The  Emperor  of  this  land  is  indeed  a  god  upon  earth,  and 
if  any  man  lift  his  hand  against  him,  that  man's  blood  be  upon  his  own 
head." 


FAITH  AND  RITES  131 

Summary. 

Until  the  schism,  then,  the  faith  of  the  Eastern  Churches  was 
that  of  Rome.  The  development  of  doctrine  went  on  in 
parallel  lines  in  East  and  West,  and  the  communication 
between  the  Churches,  the  councils,  where  bishops  from 
different  countries  met,  controlled  and  guided  it.  What 
differences  there  were  did  not  affect  points  of  faith  ;  they 
were  the  natural  result  of  different  temperaments  and 
attitudes  of  mind.  There  were  real  differences  in  ritual.  The 
Eastern  Churches  have  always  had  their  own  liturgies,  as 
venerable  and  as  beautiful  as  ours.  But  all  the  liturgies  con- 
tain the  same  essential  elements,  they  all  obey  our  Lord's 
command  to  do  as  he  did  at  the  Last  Supper,  in  memory 
of  him.  The  other  religious  practices  of  Eastern  Christians 
already  had  a  markedly  Eastern  character.  The  morals  of  the 
Emperor's  Court  often  sank  very  low  ;  but  there  were  con- 
tinual revivals,  and  Constantinople  succeeded  in  keeping  off 
the  Moslem  for  eight  centuries.  It  was  the  leading  city  in 
Europe  in  the  arts  of  civilization.  Its  architecture,  painting, 
mosaic,  form  the  bridge  between  classical  Greek  work  and  our 
mediaeval  art,  while  the  unequalled  splendour  of  the  Court 
where  the  Roman  Emperor  still  reigned  made  it  the  wonder  of 
the  world.  In  all  these  things  the  line  that  connects  our 
civilization  with  that  of  the  old  Roman  world  and  with  the 
Greek  States,  the  unbroken  chain  of  continuity  in  European 
civilization,  runs  for  many  centuries  through  Constantinople. 


PART   II 
THE     SCHISM 


We  are  accustomed  to  speak  of  the  "  Photian  "  schism,  and 
to  look  upon  Photius  as  its  originator.  This  conception  is 
not  an  unjust  one.  Photius  was,  far  more  than  any  other  one 
man,  responsible  for  the  schism  ;  he  is  the  Luther  of  the 
Orthodox  Church,1  and,  if  one  would  attach  the  whole  story 
to  one  name,  there  is  no  doubt  that  it  should  be  his.  At  the  same 
time,  the  movement  is  not  contained  in  the  story  of  Photius's 
life.  We  have  seen  that  there  had  been  many  such  schisms 
before  his  time  (p.  96),  and  the  quarrel  that  he  caused  was  soon 
patched  up,  if  not  very  heartily,  and  did  not  finally  break  out 
again  till  about  150  years  after  his  death.  Even  then  a 
reunion  was  arranged  on  two  later  occasions  by  the  Councils 
of  Lyons  (1274)  and  Florence  (1439),  although  each  time  it 
came  to  nothing.  Nevertheless  the  schismatical  Eastern 
Church  has  always  looked  upon  Photius  (he  is  St.  Photius  to 
her)  as  the  champion  of  her  cause  against  Rome,  and  we  too 
consider  him  not  wrongly  as  the  father  of  their  schism.  This 
part  will  naturally  fall  into  two  chapters,  describing  the  first 
schism  under  Photius  and  the  second  under  Michael  Cerularius. 

1  Kattenbusch,  art.  Photius  in  Herzog  and  Hauck's  Realenz.  /.  prot.  TheoJ. 
u.  Kirche  Leipzig,  1904). 


CHAPTER   IV 

THE   SCHISM   OF   PHOTIUS 

i.   The  Patriarch  Ignatius  (846-857). 

In  846  Methodius,  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  died.  At  that 
time  all  the  Orthodox  Eastern  Churches  were  in  full  com- 
munion with  Rome.  The  Iconoclast  troubles  were  just  over. 
They  had  broken  out  again  after  the  seventh  general  council 
(Nicaenum  II,  787)  under  the  Iconoclast  Emperor  Leo  V  (the 
Armenian,  813-820),  but  at  last  Theodora,  widow  of  the 
Emperor  Theophilus  (829-842)  and  Regent  for  her  son, 
Michael  III  (842-867),  had  recalled  the  holy  images  on  the  first 
"Feast  of  Orthodoxy"  (February  19,  842),  and  the  Church  of 
Constantinople  had  finally  returned  to  communion  with  Rome. 
Throughout  the  Iconoclast  persecution  the  Popes  had  steadily 
defended  the  images.  We  have  seen  how  the  image-worship- 
pers in  the  East  had  appealed  to  the  faith  of  Rome  and  to  the 
authority  of  the  Pope  (St.  Theodore  of  Studium,  pp.  65-66). 
Methodius  had  been  one  of  the  champions  of  the  same  cause  ; 
he  had  formerly  taken  refuge  in  Rome  during  the  persecution, 
and  he  was  a  friend  of  Pope  Nicholas  I  (858-867),  as  well  as  a 
devout  client  of  St.  Peter  and  a  defender  of  the  rights  of  his 
see.1  Now  he  was  dead  and  the  clergy  of  Constantinople 
met  to  choose  his  successor.  By  the  advice  of  the  Empress 
Theodora,  but  also  by  a  free,  canonical,  and  unanimous 
election,  they  chose  the  Hegoumenos  (Abbot)  of  the  monastery 
of  Satyrus,  Ignatius. 

x  Nicholai  I,  cp.  8,  ad  Michaelem  Aug.  M.P.L.  cxix.  946. 
135 


136      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Ignatius  was  the  youngest  son  of  the  Emperor  Michael  I 
(8 1 1-8 1 3)  and  his  wife  Procopia.  When  Michael  I  was 
deposed  by  Leo  V  he  and  his  children  were  shut  up  in  a 
monastery.  The  youngest  son,  then  called  Nicetas,  became  a 
monk  when  he  was  only  fourteen  years  old,  and  took  the  name 
Ignatius.  The  usurper,  by  shutting  up  his  rival's  family  in  a 
monastery,  meant  to  put  an  end  to  their  career  in  the  world. 
But  then,  as  now,  the  road  to  high  places  in  the  Eastern 
Church  led  through  the  Lauras.  At  the  Laura  of  Satyrus 
Ignatius  gradually  became  the  most  important  member  of  the 
community.  He  received  Holy  Orders,  and  was  elected 
Hegoumenos.  The  next  change  was  to  the  highest  place  in 
Eastern  Christendom.  The  Empress  sent  an  embassy  to  Pope 
Leo  IV  (847-855)  to  announce  the  appointment  of  the  new 
Patriarch,  as  was  the  custom,  and  she  in  her  message  insisted 
on  the  free  election  by  which  he  had  been  chosen,  as  also  on 
his  virtues  and  merits.  The  bishops  who  had  elected  him 
wrote  to  the  same  effect.1  The  Roman  See  therefore  acknow- 
ledged Ignatius  as  Patriarch  ;  that  it  would  not  change  nor 
cease  to  do  so  was  the  cause  of  the  schism.  But  no  one 
disputes  that  Ignatius  was  canonically  elected  and  was  right- 
ful Patriarch,  at  any  rate  for  the  first  eleven  years.  The 
Orthodox  Church  always  counts  him  as  one  in  her  lists.  The 
question  at  issue  was  rather  the  right  of  the  Government  to 
depose  him.  Ignatius  from  the  beginning  had  some  enemies. 
The  head  of  the  opposition  was  Gregory  Asbestas,  Metropolitan 
of  Syracuse  in  Sicily.2  Probably  because  of  the  Arab  invasion 
of  his  island  this  Gregory  was  living  at  Constantinople.  It  is 
not  easy  to  find  out  how  his  quarrel  with  Ignatius  began. 
Perhaps  it  was  only  about  some  political  question ;  perhaps 
Gregory,  the  friend  and  countryman  of  Methodius,  had  hoped 
to  succeed  him  himself.  There  is  one  account  by  which  his 
ordination  was  supposed  to  be  irregular,  and  while  his  cause 

x  Nich.  I,  ep.  5,  ad  Mich.  I.e.  p.  119  ;  ep.  13,  p.  791. 

2  Sicily  belonged  by  right  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate,  but  Leo  III,  the 
Isaurian  (717-741),  had  joined  it,  as  well  as  Illyricum,  to  Constantinople  by 
force  (p.  44).  Under  Syracuse  were  all  the  Sicilian  dioceses  (except 
Catania)  and  Malta. 


THE   SCHISM   OF  PHOT/ US  137 

was  being  examined  he  presented  himself,  with  the  other 
bishops,  at  Ignatius's  consecration.  Ignatius  then  told  him  to 
stand  back,  and  not  to  show  himself  until  his  own  affairs  were 
set  to  rights.  Some  of  the  reasons  given  are  quite  absurd.1 
Whatever  the  cause  may  have  been,  Gregory  and  two  other 
bishops  who  had  taken  his  side  organized  an  opposition  to  the 
Patriarch,  and  continually  tried  to  work  up  the  Court  and  the 
people  against  him.  Ignatius  had  several  times  summoned 
them  to  a  synod  to  be  tried,  when  at  last,  in  854,  he  excom- 
municated them  for  insubordination  and  schism.  Gregory 
Asbestas  and  his  friends  would  not  have  been  able  to  do  much 
harm  to  the  Patriarch  had  not  the  Government  at  the  same 
time  fallen  foul  of  him. 

The  Court  was  then  in  an  indescribable  state  of  corruption. 
Theodora  retired  from  public  affairs  in  856.  Her  son,  Michael 
III,  was  still  very  young,  and  so  her  brother  Bardas  became 
a  sort  of  regent  with  the  title  Caesar.  Michael  was  as  vicious 
a  young  man  as  any  that  reigned  at  Constantinople,  and  to 
him  the  Imperial  throne  was  just  a  means  for  enjoying 
himself.  It  is  said  that  Bardas  encouraged  him  so  as  to 
keep  all  the  power  in  his  own  hands.  Most  of  the  Emperors 
had  a  surname  given  to  them.  This  one  has  gone  down 
to  history  as  Michael  the  Drunkard  (fiedvarris).  Bardas  was 
no  better.  His  chief  offence  was  that  he  put  away  his 
lawful  wife  and  lived  in  open  and  shameless  incest  with  his 
daughter-in-law,  Eudokia.  Ignatius  then  did  what  every 
bishop  would  be  bound  to  do.  He  had  already  borne  much 
from  the  Court.  The  drunken  boy  who  stood  at  its  head  had 
found  a  suitable  way  of  diverting  himself  by  laughing  at  his 
religion.  He  had  appointed  a  clown  from  the  circus  to  be 
"his  Patriarch. "  Dressed  up  in  a  caricature  of  bishop's  vest- 
ments this  man  used  to  hold  mock  services,  mimicking  Ignatius, 
amid  the  shouts  of  laughter  of  Michael,  his  mistresses,  and  his 
companions.  Ignatius  had  protested  to  no  purpose,  but  this 
incest  of  the   Caesar   could   not   be   passed   over.      It  was   a 

1  For  instance,  Gregory  accused  Ignatius  of  speaking  disrespectfully  of 
the  memory  of  Methodius,  and  thereby  becoming  a  parricide:  Cf.  Hergen- 
rother,  Photius,  i.  pp.  358,  seq. 


138      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

notorious  scandal  throughout  the  Empire.  Again  he  warned 
him,  and  commanded  him  to  put  away  Eudokia.  Bardas  took 
no  notice,  and  then,  while  still  in  this  state  of  sin,  he  came 
with  the  rest  of  the  Court  to  receive  Holy  Communion  on  the 
Epiphany  in  857.  The  Patriarch  refused  it  to  him.  That  was 
his  treason  and  offence.  Michael  was  furious  at  the  insult 
offered  to  his  uncle,  but  Ignatius  stood  firm.  A  man  who 
continued  to  live  in  public  sin  could  not  receive  Holy  Com- 
munion. Then  came  the  affair  of  Theodora.  Michael  and 
Bardas  thought  they  could  get  her  out  of  the  way  by  making 
her  a  nun,  so  they  wanted  the  Patriarch  to  cut  off  her  hair  and 
put  her  into  a  nunnery.  This,  too,  he  refused  to  do  as  long  as 
she  herself  was  unwilling.  The  Emperor  and  the  Caesar  then 
determine  to  get  rid  of  Ignatius.  They  join  forces  with  the 
party  of  Gregory  Asbestas,  condemn  Ignatius  to  be  deposed 
and  exiled  as  a  traitor.  On  November  23,  857,  he  is  dragged 
off  to  the  island  Terebinth.  The  last  thing  he  did  before  going 
into  exile  was  to  forbid  his  clergy  to  say  the  liturgy  or  to  per- 
form any  rites  in  the  cathedral  till  he  came  back.  He  put  the 
great  church  under  an  interdict.1  Michael  and  Bardas,  having 
got  rid  of  the  lawful  Patriarch,  now  look  around  for  some  more 
complaisant  person  to  intrude  into  his  see.  They  found  the 
very  man  they  wanted  in  Photius. 

2.  Photius. 

Photius  (<bu)rm)  was  one  of  the  most  wonderful  men  of  all  the 
middle  ages.  Had  he  not  given  his  name  to  the  great  schism, 
he  would  always  be  remembered  as  the  greatest  scholar  of  his 
time,  and  as,  in  every  way,  the  greatest  man  in  the  Byzantine 
Church.  Since  St.  John  Damascene  (t  744)  no  Eastern  Church 
has  produced  any  one  who  could  be  compared  to  Photius.  He 
was  born  about  827  ;  his  father's  name  was  Sergius.  In  after 
years  his  enemies  had  many  stories  to  tell  about  his  birth.  The 
mother,  they  said,  was  an  escaped  nun  ;  many  holy  bishops  and 
confessors  had  foretold  such  horrible  things  of  his  future  that 

1  For  all  this  story  see  Hergenrother,  i.  357-373,  and  the  authorities  there 
quoted.  The  facts  are  not,  as  far  as  I  know,  disputed  by  any  one.  Ignatius 
was  condemned  and  exiled  without  any  sort  of  trial,  I.e.  372. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOT/US  139 

Sergius  determined  to  kill  him  and  the  mother  at  once ;  only 
they  said,  "You  cannot  prevent  what  God  has  ordained." 
Others,  apparently  with  a  rather  confused  recollection  of  the 
book  of  Genesis,  compared  his  mother  to  Eve  bringing  forth  the 
serpent.1  All  these  stories  are,  of  course,  the  calumnies  of  his 
enemies.  There  is  no  evidence  that  he  was  illegitimate.  It  is 
true  that  he  was  afterwards  continually  called  a  bastard,  just  as 
he  was  called  a  parricide,  adulterer  and  murderer,  but  these  are 
only  the  amenities  of  theological  controversy.  All  that  we 
know  of  his  kin  is  that  they  were  a  great  and  lordly  house,  who 
had  been  distinguished  for  orthodoxy  and  had  even  suffered 
persecution  in  Iconoclast  days.  Photius  was  some  relation  of 
the  Patriarch  Tarasius  (784-806),  in  whose  time  the  seventh 
general  council  had  been  held  (p.  80).  He  had  had  no  inten- 
tion of  receiving  Holy  Orders  :  his  career  was  to  be  that  of  a 
rhetorician  and  statesman.  We  know  nothing  about  his  teachers  ; 
but  very  soon  he  began  to  develop  his  extraordinary  talent.  All 
his  contemporaries  speak  of  his  astounding  memory  and  untiring 
power  of  work.  He  sat  up  for  long  nights  reading,  and  he  had 
read  everything.  So  great  an  impression  did  he  make  on  his 
pupils  that  they  told  stories  of  a  contract  made  by  him  with  the 
Devil — he  had  sold  his  soul  for  knowledge.2  He  was  a  sort  of 
universal  genius,  philosopher,  philologist,  theologian,  lawyer, 
mathematician,  natural  scientist,  orator,  poet.  His  extant 
works  fill  five  volumes  of  Migne  ;  3  Hergenrother  has  published 
a  collection  of  addenda/  His  most  important  work  is  the 
Myriobiblion  ("Thousand  Books,"  the  Bibliotheca  Photii).  It  is 
an  incomplete  list  of  books  he  had  read  (only  280  out  of  1,000), 
with  descriptions  of  their  contents,  often  long  quotations  and 
critical  notes  about  their  authors.  All  kinds  of  books  on 
philosophy,  rhetoric,  history,  grammar,  medicine,  &c,  are 
quoted   without   any   order.      The    Myriobiblion    is  the   only 

1  Cf.  Hergenrother,  i.  pp.  317,  seq. 

2  This  is  an  exact  parallel  to  the  legend  of  a  great  Western  scholar,  Gerbert 
(Sylvester  II,  999-1003). 

3  P.G.  ci.-cv. 

*  Monumenta  graeca  ad  Photium  eiusque  historiam  pertinentia,  Regens- 
burg,  1869.    Cf.  Krumbacher  :  Byz.  Litt.  73-78,  515-524. 


140      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

harbour  in  which  a  number  of  Greek  classics  have  been  saved 
from  oblivion.  His  Amphilochia  is  a  collection  of  326  theologi- 
cal essays,  also  put  together  without  any  order  in  the  form  of 
question  and  answer,  and  addressed  to  Amphilochius,  Metropo- 
litan of  Cycicus,  one  of  Photius's  numerous  pupils.  Then  there 
are  a  number  of  canonical  works  and  controversy  written  in 
after  years  against  the  Latins  and  various  heretics,  commentaries 
on  parts  of  the  Bible,  a  Lexicon  of  Classical  and  Biblical  Greek 
words  that  were  mo  longer  understood  in  the  9th  century, 
sermons,  and  a  large  collection  of  letters. 

Photius  was  then  already  a  very  famous  man  when  the 
Patriarch  Ignatius  was  sent  into  exile.  He  was  closely  con- 
nected with  the  Court.  His  brother  Sergiushad  married  Irene, 
the  sister  of  Bardas  and  aunt  of  the  Emperor.  He  himself 
held    two    important    offices :     he    was     Secretary     of    State 

(TrpioToarjicpfJTig)   and   Captain   of  the  Life  Guard   (TrpwroaTradapiog). 

He  was  unmarried,  so  there  would  be  no  difficulty  about  that, 
and  he  was  already  an  eager  partisan  of  Gregory  Asbestas  and 
of  the  opposition  to  Ignatius.  Under  these  circumstances 
Michael  III  and  Bardas  offered  him  the  See  of  Constantinople, 
which  they  pretended  was  vacant,  and  he  accepted  it.  In  six 
days  he  hurriedly  received  all  the  orders,1  and  on  Christmas  Day, 
857,  Gregory,  although  himself  suspended  and  excommunicate, 
consecrated  him  Patriarch.  We  should  notice  at  once  that  this 
iniquitous  proceeding  would  be  much  less  of  a  shock  to  the 
people  of  Constantinople  than  it  is  to  us.  They  were  accus- 
tomed to  see  all  kinds  of  depositions,  and  they  usually  quietly 
accepted  what  had  happened  without  troubling  about  injured 
rights.  Emperors  were  continually  deposed  and  then  mur- 
dered, or  blinded,  or  shut  up  in  a  monastery  by  a  usurper,  and 
no  one  took  any  pains  to  distinguish  between  the  sovereigns 
de  iure  and  de  facto.  So  also  the  Government,  especially  since 
the  schism,  when  there  is  no  Pope  to  interfere,  has  deposed  and 

1  This  was  a  further  breach  of  Canon  Law.  The  Interstices  in  the  Eastern 
Church  were  one  year  for  each  order.  Can.  Ap.  80,  Sardic.  10.  The  three 
offences  Photius  committed  on  that  Christmas  Day  were  that  he  was  ordained 
to  an  already  occupied  see  by  an  excommunicate  bishop  without  having  kept 
the  Interstices.  Offence  number  two  made  him  excommunicate  latce  sententice. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  141 

exiled  patriarchs  and  set  up  intruders  in  their  see  over  and  over 
again.  The  Sultans  in  later  years  have  never  ceased  doing  so 
down  to  our  own  time,  and  the  Orthodox  historians  print  the 
names  of  all  these  bishops  one  after  another,  just  as  they  de 
facto  held  the  see. 

Nevertheless  Photius  and  the  Court  were  very  anxious  to  get 
Ignatius  to  resign.  In  case  he  would  not  do  so  they  already 
foresaw  trouble  with  Rome.  So  they  sent  messengers  to  per- 
suade him  to  sign  a  document  of  resignation.  His  bishops  had 
already  promised  to  stand  by  him,  and  he  now  and  to  the  end 
of  his  life  steadfastly  refused  to  give  up  his  right.1  Soon  after- 
wards the  bishops  who  remained  true  to  him  met  and  declared 
Photius,  the  intruded  anti-patriarch,  and  all  his  followers  to  be 
excommunicate.  Photius  answered  by  pronouncing  the  same 
sentence  on  Ignatius  and  on  his  followers.  The  Government 
then  began  to  persecute  the  Ignatian  bishops.  Metrophanes  of 
Smyrna,  their  leader,  was  shut  up  in  a  dungeon,  others  were 
sent  into  exile,  imprisoned,  tortured.  But  the  worst  part  fell 
upon  Ignatius  himself.  He  was  taken  to  Mitylene,  chained  in 
a  prison  without  enough  food,  and  beaten  in  the  face  till  his 
teeth  were  knocked  out,2  to  make  him  resign.  But  Photius 
himself  wrote  to  Bardas  to  protest  against  the  way  his 
opponents  were  treated.3  On  the  other  hand  he  evicted  a 
number  of  Ignatian  bishops  4  and  intruded  his  own  friends  into 
their  sees.  Both  the  Emperor  and  Photius  then  write  to  the 
Pope  to  persuade  him  that  everything  is  in  order. 

Fortunately,  when  this  great  crisis  between  the  two  halves  of 
Christendom  at  last  came,  the  Roman  See  was  occupied  by  one 
of  the  very  greatest  of  the  Popes.  Nicholas  I  (858-867)  stands 
out  as  the  champion  of  the  Catholic  side,  as  much  as  Photius 
was  of  the  Byzantine  Church  that  he  was  about  to  drag  into 

1  This,  which  is  the  cardinal  fact  of  the  whole  story,  is  not  now  disputed 
by  any  historian.  Kattenbusch,  in  his  article  "  Photius "  in  the  Protestant 
Realenzyklofadie  fur  prot.  Theol.  u.  Kirche,  says  :  "  Ignatius  (at  this  time,  857) 
had  not  resigned  his  office,  nor  did  he  ever  do  so  "  (ed.  1904,  vol.  15,  p.  378). 

2  Hergenrother,  i.  384,  and  his  references. 

3  The  letter  quoted  I.e.  pp.  388,  seq. 

4  The  monks  of  Studium  were  always  faithful  to  Ignatius  and  formed  the 
centre  of  his  party. 


142      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

schism.  Nicholas  was  the  greatest  Pope  between  Gregory  the 
Great  (590-604)  and  Gregory  VII  (1 073-1 085).  It  was  a  very 
bad  time  in  the  West.  After  the  death  of  Lewis  the  Pious 
(successor  of  Charles  the  Great,  814-840)  the  treaty  of  Verdun 
(843)  divided  his  lands  between  his  three  sons,  Lothar  the 
Emperor,  Lewis  the  German,  and  Charles  the  Bald.  There 
were  wars  against  Slavs  and  Normans,  the  Carling  kings 
fought  amongst  themselves,  other  pretenders  were  set  up  ;  then 
came  the  Magyars.  In  all  this  time  of  violence  and  disorder 
one  great  figure  stands  out,  that  of  Nicholas  I.  Like  Gregory  I, 
he  was  a  Roman  of  one  of  the  great  houses,  and  like  Gregory 
he  showed  the  instinct  of  his  Roman  blood  as  a  statesman  and 
organizer.  The  claim  of  Photius  was  only  one  of  many  affairs 
he  had  to  settle.  At  the  same  time  he  was  bringing  a  rebellious 
Archbishop  of  his  own  Patriarchate,  John  of  Ravenna,  to 
his  knees,  he  was  standing  out  sternly  for  the  sacredness  of 
marriage  in  the  affair  of  Lothar  IPs  divorce,  he  was  defending 
the  suffragans  of  the  province  of  Rheims  against  the  tyranny  of 
their  Metropolitan,1  and  the  freedom  of  the  Church  against 
Charles  the  Bald.  In  the  century  that  followed  Nicholas  I,  the 
Roman  See  sank  to  the  lowest  depth  she  ever  reached  ;  far 
worse  than  the  Borgias  and  Medicis  of  the  Renaissance  were 
the  horrible  Stephens  and  Johns  of  the  10th  century.  A  con- 
temporary writer  says  of  St.  Nicholas  I  (he  is  a  canonized  Saint) : 
M  Since  the  time  of  Blessed  Gregory  (the  Great)  no  one  who  has 
been  raised  to  the  Papal  dignity  can  be  compared  to  him.  He 
commanded  kings  and  tyrants  as  if  he  were  the  lord  of  the 
world.  To  good  bishops  and  priests,  to  pious  laymen,  he  was 
kind,  humble,  gentle  and  meek,  to  evil-doers  he  was  terrible 
and  stern.  People  say  rightly  that  God  raised  up  in  him  a 
second  Elias." 2 

It  was  to  this  Pope  that  Photius  appealed  to  get  his  place 
confirmed.  He  begins  his  letter  :  "  To  the  most  holy  and 
venerable  brother  and  fellow-bishop,  Nicholas,  Pope  of  Old 

1  This  is,  of  course,  the  affair  of  Hincmar  of  Rheims  (t  882)  and  Rothad 
of  Soissons.  Hincmar  was  a  tyrant  on  that  occasion,  although  otherwise  one 
of  the  greatest,  wisest,  and  best  of  all  mediaeval  bishops. 

2  Regino  :  Chronicon.  an.  868.    Mon.  Germ.  hist.  Script,  i.  579. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOT/US  143 

Rome,  Photius,  Bishop  of  Constantinople,  New  Rome."     It  is 
significant  that  neither  he   nor  any  of  his  predecessors  ever 
called  themselves  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  when  writing  to  a  Pope. 
The  letter  is  very  humble  and  very  deceitful.     He  says  that  his 
predecessor  had  resigned  his  office,  and  that  then  he,  Photius,  had 
been  unwillingly  forced  to  succeed  him  by  all  the  metropolitans, 
bishops,  and  clergy  of  Constantinople  ;  there  is  a   great  deal 
about  the  tears  he  shed  when  he  was  forced  to  accept  this 
dignity,  he  adds  an  elaborate  and  very  orthodox  profession  of 
his  faith  and  begs  for  the   Pope's   prayers.1     The  Emperor's 
letter  (probably  composed  by  Photius  2)  was  to  do  the  business 
really.      They    wanted   legates   to   confirm   the   deposition   of 
Ignatius  and  to  acknowledge  Photius  ;  then  everything  would 
be  safe.     Michael  asks  for  the  legates,  but  says  very  little  about 
the  real  question  at  issue.     He  represents  that  there  are  still 
some  effects  of  the  Iconoclast  trouble  at  Constantinople,  which 
could  best  be  put  in  order  by  a  synod  ;  will  the  Pope  then  send 
legates  to  this  synod  with  full  powers  to  deal  with  all  disorders  ? 
Incidentally  he  mentions  that  the  former  Patriarch  Ignatius  has 
resigned  because  of  his  great  age  and  weak  health,   he   has 
retired  to  a  very  comfortable  life  in  one  of   the  monasteries 
founded  by  himself  ;  unfortunately  he  had  been  guilty  of  various 
offences,    such    as    forsaking    his    diocese,    disobeying   Papal 
decrees   and  being  mixed  up  in  treasonable  conspiracies,  for 
which  his  successor  had  been  compelled   to   excommunicate 
him.     This  and  all  other  matters  the  legates  will  be  able  to 
arrange  when  they  come.3    The  letter  is  much  too  clever  to 
be  the  Drunkard's  own  composition. 

The  Pope  in  answer  sends  two  legates  with  letters  4  and 
instructions  not  to  pass  any  sentence  as  yet,  but  to  examine 
the  claims  of  either  side  and  to  report.  They  were  Rodoald, 
Bishop  of   the  Portus  Tiberis  (Porto),  and  Zacharias,  Bishop 

1  The  whole  letter  is  printed  in  Hergenrother,  i.  pp.  407-411. 

2  So  Nicholas  thought,  I.e.  p.  407. 

3  This  letter  is  not  extant.  Its  contents  are  to  be  deduced  from  Nicholas's 
answer,  ep.  9.    M.P.L.  C.  1019,  ep.  98.    Cf.  Herg.  i.  p.  407. 

4  He  addresses  Photius  very  cautiously,  only  as:  "Vir  prudentissime  " ; 
he  blames  his  neglect  of  the  Interstices,  but  promises  to  acknowledge  him 
eventually,  if  he  finds  that  everything  has  been  done  justly  and  rightly. 


144      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of    Anagnia    (Anagni).     These    two   persons  were  the  worst 
ambassadors   ever  sent  by  the  Holy  See  to  any  place.     Like 
other  of   their   countrymen  on  other  occasions,  they  arrived, 
their     hands    outstretched,    their    palms    itching    for    bribes. 
Already  on  the  way,  at   Rhoedestus  on  the   Propontis,   they 
are  met  by  envoys  from  Photius  who  bring  them  costly  gifts 
and  especially  beautiful  clothes.     When  they  arrive  they  are 
carefully  kept  from  seeing  any  of  Ignatius's  friends  ;  they  hear 
all  sorts  of  calumnies  against   him,  and   threats  of  what  will 
happen  to  themselves  if  they  disappoint  the  Emperor  ;  mean- 
while more  presents  come  pouring  in.     The  two  bishops  then 
throw    overboard  their  honour    and    their    loyalty    to    their 
Patriarch,  and   promise  to   do   just  as   Michael  and   Photius 
wish.     In  May,  86 1,  the  synod  meets  in  the  Hagia  Sophia  ; 
Michael    and    Bardas    are    present  with   a   number  of  their 
courtiers  and  a  splendid  retinue.      Ignatius  presents  himself 
in  his  patriarchal  robes,  but  outside  the  Church  a  messenger 
from  the  Emperor  meets  him  and  forces  him  to  take  them  off, 
and  to  appear   only  in  his  monk's  habit,  treating  him  as  if 
already  condemned  and  deposed  before  the  trial  begins.     The 
most  disgraceful  part  of  the  whole  proceeding  was  that  Photius, 
the  plaintiff  in  the  case,  sat  among  the  judges.     Ignatius  is  then 
made  to  leave  all  his  friends  outside  and  to  appear  alone.     He 
turns  to  the  Legates  and  asks  them  what  they  are  doing  there. 
"  We  are  the  vicars  of  the  Roman  Pope  Nicholas,"  they  say, 
11  and  we  have  been  sent  to  judge  your  case."     Ignatius  answers 
that  he  asks  nothing  better  than  to  be  judged  by  the  Pope  ; 
11  but,"  he  says,  "  first  dismiss  that  adulterer  there,1  otherwise 
you  are  not  judges."     All  the   Legates  have    to  answer  is, 
pointing  to  Michael,  "  He  wishes  it  to  be  so."2    Ignatius  quotes 
the  case  of  St.  John  Chrysostom's  appeal  to  Innocent  I  to  show 
that  he   cannot  yet  be  deposed.     When  a  bishop,  he  says, 
appeals  to  the  Pope  he  cannot  be  sentenced  before  the  decision 

1  Photius.  The  name  is  deserved  in  this  case;  he  had  taken  to  himself 
the  Church  of  Constantinople,  the  lawful  spouse  of  Ignatius.  What  Ignatius 
means  is  that  if  the  Legates  join  themselves  to  Photius  they  act,  not  as 
judges,  but  as  his  advocates. 

2  OVTUi  6e\u  IKllVOQ.  '£* 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  145 

has  come  from  Rome.  He  also  quotes  the  4th  Canon  of 
Sardica  (pp.  68,  69)  to  the  same  effect.  Finally,  with  a  dignified 
protest  against  this  mockery  of  a  trial,  he  formally  appeals  from 
these  miserable  and  corrupt  Legates  to  the  Pope  himself.  But 
the  synod  pronounces  sentence  on  him  all  the  same.  They 
dress  him  up  in  a  set  of  vestments,  then  the  Sub-deacon  Proco- 
pius  (whom  he  in  former  days  had  suspended  for  immorality) 
solemnly  takes  them  off  and  every  one,  Legates  and  all,  cries  out 
the  old  formula  :  "  Ignatius  unworthy  ! "  l  The  Legates  sign 
the  acts  of  the  synod,  deposing  Ignatius  and  acknowledging 
Photius  ;  then  they  go  back  home,  laden  with  still  more  gifts.2 
The  council  had  drawn  up  some  other  decrees,  against  Icono- 
clasm,  &c,  as  a  sort  of  blind,  and  for  a  time  the  Byzantines  tried 
to  get  it  recognized  as  an  oecumenical  synod,  an  attempt  which 
came  to  nothings  Here,  too,  the  fatal  incapacity  of  Greeks  and 
Latins  to  understand  one  another  confused  the  issue.  The 
Pope  had  written  in  Latin  and  they  had  translated  his  letter 
quite  wrongly  :  the  Legates  in  this  case  were  probably  in  good 
faith  because  they  could  not  follow  the  Greek  version.  Anas- 
tasius  Bibliothecarius,  the  contemporary  chronicler  of  all  this 
story,  says  :  "The  Roman  Legates  could  not  understand  what 
was  being  read."  4  The  Pope  thought  that  the  Greeks  had 
mistranslated  his  letter  on  purpose.  He  says  :  "  Among  the 
Greeks  such  an  impertinence  is  common,  as  various  writings  at 
different  times  show."  And  again  he  quotes  another  letter  of 
Adrian  I  that  was  kept  in  the  Archive  at  Constantinople,  and 
then  adds  :  "  unless  it  has  been  tampered  with  after  the  manner 
of  the  Greeks."5  The  Emperor  sent  his  Secretary  of  State,  Leo, 
to  Rome  immediately  after  the  Legates  with  two  more  letters 
for  the  Pope,  one  from  himself  and  one  from  Photius.  He 
encloses  the  acts  of  the  synod,  which  he  praises  as  a  most  holy 
and  blessed  assembly,  worthy  to  be  compared  with  the  first  of 
Nicaea.  He  says  that  it  has  deposed  Ignatius  according  to  the 
holy  Canons  and  has,  together  with  the  Legates,  acknowledged 

1  'lyvdnog  avd%iog.  ~  Herg.  i.  pp.  419-428. 

3  The  synod  that  the  Orthodox  now  call  the  eighth  oecumenical  one   is 
not  this  but  that  of  879  (p.  163). 

4  Praef.  in  Cone.  viii.  (Mansi,  xvi.  p.  11.)  s  Nic.  ep.  9,  tit. 

II 


146      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Photius.  He  also  warmly  praises  these  Legates.  Photius's 
letter  is  a  very  long  one.1  He,  too,  misrepresents  the  whole 
business,  protests  his  obedience  to  the  Pope  :  u  In  order  to 
prove  our  obedience  to  your  fatherly  love  in  all  things,"  &c.,* 
and  greatly  praises  Rodoald  and  Zachary  :  "  Indeed  the  Legates 
of  your  fatherly  Holiness  are  men  illustrious  by  their  prudence, 
virtue,  and  manifold  wisdom,  who  honour  him  who  sent  them 
by  their  manners  as  much  as  did  the  disciples  of  Christ."  3  In 
short,  he  hopes  that  it  will  now  be  all  right. 

Meanwhile  Ignatius  also  carried  out  his  purpose  of  appealing 
directly  to  the  Pope.  He  managed  to  send  his  friend  the  Archi- 
mandrite Theognostus*  to  Rome  with  a  letter  beginning : 
"  Ignatius,  tyrannically  deposed  and  much  tried,  and  his  fellow- 
sufferers,  ten  Metropolitans,  fifteen  Bishops,  and  many  Archi- 
mandrites, Priests,  and  Monks,  to  our  lord,  the  most  holy  and 
blessed  Patriarch  of  all  Sees,  the  successor  of  the  Prince  of  the 
Apostles,  the  (Ecumenical  Popes  Nicholas,  and  to  the  most 
holy  Bishops  under  him6  and  to  all  the  most  wise  Church  of  the 
Romans,  health  in  the  Lord." 7  His  letter  is  short  compared  with 
the  long  rhapsody  of  Photius.  He  exposes  his  case  and  ends  : 
"  Do  you  also,  most  holy  lord,  show  to  me  your  lovingkindness 
and  say  with  the  great  Paul  :  Who  is  weak  and  I  am  not 
weak  ? 8  Remember  the  great  Patriarchs,  your  predecessors, 
Fabian,  Julius,  Innocent,  Leo,9  in  short  all  who  fought  for  truth 
against  injustice,  and  rise  up  as  our  avenger,  since  we  are  so 
unworthily  mishandled." 

On  the  eve  of  Whitsunday  a  party  of  soldiers  came  to  seize 
Ignatius  ;  the  Government  wanted  to  cut  off  his  right  hand  and 
blind  him  ;  but  he  just  escaped  and  hid  himself.     Michael  III 


1  Quoted  by  Herg.  i.  pp.  439-460.  2  L.c.  p.  452.  3  L.c.  p.  457. 

4  He  was  "  Archimandrite  of  the  Laura  of  Old  Rome  "  at  Constantinople, 
one  of  the  many  Latin  monasteries  in  the  East. 

s  This  is  an  example  of  the  use  of  the  title  by  other  people,  whereas  the 
Popes  never  used  it  themselves,  see  p.  43,  n.  3. 

6  The  episcopi  suburbicarii.  *  The  letter  in  Herg.  i.  460-461. 

8  I.e.,  the  disgrace  of  Ignatius's  deposition  would  reflect  on  the  Pope 
himself,  unless  he  tried  to  prevent  it. 

9  Some  of  the  most  famous  instances  of  Popes  who  had  received  appeals 
from  the  East. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  147 

went  on  getting  drunk  and  cared  nothing  for  the  affairs 
of  his  Empire  ;  he  knew  quite  well  that  the  wretched 
people,  as  far  as  they  dared  have  a  will  of  their  own,  were 
on  the  side  of  the  rightful  bishop.  Nicetas  David,  the 
friend  and  biographer  of  Ignatius,  has  preserved  some  of 
the  Emperor's  jokes  on  the  subject.  "  There  are  three  Patri- 
archs," he  said  ;  "  mine  is  Theophilus  Gryllus  (the  clown),  the 
Patriarch  of  the  Caesar  (Bardas)  is  Photius,  and  that  of  the 
people  is  Ignatius."1  He  had  no  respect  for  Photius  ;  on 
one  occasion  he  told  him  that  he  had  a  face  like  a  Khazar,2 
another  time  he  called  him  "  Marzuka,"  a  cryptic  name  which 
Photius,  who  was  much  hurt  by  it,  elaborately  explains  as 
meaning  a  dog  who  steals  shoe  leather.3 

Meanwhile  what  was  happening  in  Rome  ?  The  two  Legates 
came  back  with  their  gifts  hidden  away  and  gave  as  specious  an 
account  of  what  had  happened  as  they  could  (861).  Then  came 
Leo,  the  Emperor's  secretary,  with  the  letters  from  his  master 
and  Photius.  Nicholas  waited  a  long  time  till  he  had  heard  the 
other  side.  At  last  in  862  Theognostus  arrives  with  Ignatius's 
letter.  Then  the  Pope,  having  examined  the  whole  matter, 
decides  for  Ignatius.  He  answers  the  letters  of  Photius  and 
Michael.  To  Photius,  whom  he  again  addresses  only  as  "  Vir  pru- 
dentissimus,"  giving  him  no  title,  he  refutes  all  his  arguments, 
insists  on  the  right  of  the  Holy  See,  which  Photius  himself  had 
completely  acknowledged,  and  sternly  commands  him  to  give 
up  the  place!he  has  usurped.*  To  the  Emperor  he  insists  on  the 
facts  that  he  himself  had  entirely  recognized  Ignatius  when  he  was 
first  made  Patriarch,  that  Ignatius  had  held  the  see  in  peaceful 
possession  for  twelve  years,  that  the  Legates  had  grossly  misused 
their  power.     "  We  advise  and  command  you,  beloved  son  and 

1  Herg.  i.  p.  356,  n.  36. 

2  Symeon  Mag.  de  Mich,  and  Theod.  (ed.  Bonn,  1838),  p.  674.  The 
Khazars  were  a  branch  of  the  great  Turkish  family  who  were  attacking 
the  Empire  from  the  north.  The  statement  was  naturally  offensive  and 
doubtless  wholly  untrue. 

3  L.c.  p.  674.  kvo)v  'iXiciov  dkpfia.  I  have  no  notion  what  the  language  is, 
but  Photius  explains  :  Mar=dog  ;  zu  =  thief ;  kas  =  shoe  leather,  and  he  was  a 
great  philologist. 

*  Herg.  i.  pp.  511-516. 


148      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

most  illustrious  Augustus,"  he  says,  "  at  last  to  put  down  those 
who  in  their  obstinacy  are  rebelling  against  the  Bishop  of  the 
Church  of  Constantinople  (Ignatius)  .  .  .  lest  the  honour  of  the 
Church  of  Christ,  as  well  as  the  glory  of  the  Imperial  city,  be 
lessened  (which  may  God  forbid)  by  your  government."  "  Then 
he  wrote  an  Encyclical  to  the  other  patriarchs,  in  which  he  re- 
proaches the  Court  and  Photius  for  these  four  offences  :  (i)  That 
Ignatius  was  condemned  without  a  fair  trial  ;  (2)  that  a  successor 
to  his  see  had   been  appointed   before  sentence   was   given  ; 

(3)  that  he  .had  been  judged  by  his  own  canonical  subjects  ; 

(4)  that  Photius,  a  layman,  had  been  suddenly  made  Patriarch 
without  observing  the  Interstices.  "And  we  order  and  com- 
mand you,"  he  ends,  "  respecting  the  privilege  of  this  See,  to 
maintain  with  us  in  the  same  Catholic  religion  the  restoration 
of  the  right  of  the  venerable  Patriarch  Ignatius,  and  the  expulsion 
of  Photius  the  usurper." 2  He  had  no  sort  of  personal  prejudice 
against  Photius.  "  Consider  very  carefully,"  he  wrote  to 
Michael,  "  how  Photius  can  stand,  in  spite  of  his  great  virtues 
and  universal  knowledge."  3  More  Greeks  of  the  Ignatian 
party  then  arrive  in  Rome  and  tell  the  Pope  many  further 
circumstances;  how  Photius  had  been  ordained  by  Gregory 
Asbestas,  an  excommunicate  bishop,  and  the  persecution,  ill- 
usage,  and  torture  that  Ignatius  and  his  friends  had  to  suffer. 
Nicholas  published  a  decree  excommunicating  any  one  who 
struck  a  bishop  ;  and  then,  since  the  affair  was  becoming  more 
and  more  important,  he  summoned  a  great  provincial  synod  at 
the  Lateran  in  April,  863.  This  synod  had  chiefly  to  try  the 
Legates  for  their  conduct.  At  last  these  two  ruffians  got  their 
desert.  Rodoald  was  away  on  another  embassy  to  King  Lothar 
II  the  Frank/  Zachary  was  present.  For  having  betrayed 
their  duty  to  their  Patriarch,  for  having  exceeded  their  powers 
and  connived  at  the  injustice  of  the  Emperor,  for  having  taken 
shameful  bribes,  they  were  degraded  from  their  office  as  bishops 
and  excommunicated.  The  Pope  in  Council  also  solemnly 
declares  :  "  With  the  authority  of  the  great  Judge,  our  Lord 

1  Herg.  i.  pp.  516-519.  2  Ibid.  pp.  510-51 1. 

3  Ep.  98,  ad  Mich.  M.P.L.  cxix.  p.  1030. 

*  His  divorce  was  then  the  burning  question. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  149 

Jesus  Christ,  we  determine,  decide,  and  declare  that  Ignatius 
has  not  been  deposed  or  excommunicate,  that  he  was  tyrannic- 
ally driven  from  his  see  by  the  power  of  the  Emperor  without 
any  canonical  right,  that  he  was  only  condemned  by  those  who 
should  themselves  be  condemned,  who  had  no  lawful  authority, 
and  who  were  not  appointed  by  the  Apostolic  See  for  that 
purpose,  so  that  the  sentence  has  no  value.  Wherefore  we,  by 
reason  of  the  authority  given  to  us  by  God  through  the  blessed 
Peter,  by  reason  of  the  laws  of  the  holy  Canons  and  the  Papal 
Constitutions,  acknowledge  him,  our  brother  and  fellow-bishop 
Ignatius,  cancelling  all  contrary  sentences,  in  his  office  and 
right  as  Patriarch  and  establish  and  confirm  him  therein." I 
Photius  is  to  be  excommunicate  unless  he  retires  from  the 
usurped  See  of  Constantinople  as  soon  as  he  receives  notice  of 
this  decision.  Once  more  then,  as  in  the  cases  of  St.  Atha- 
nasius,  St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  so  many  others,  Rome  had 
spoken  and  had  taken  up  the  cause  of  a  lawful  bishop  who  was 
being  persecuted  by  the  civil  power.  The  result  was  that  the 
civil  power  dragged  a  great  part  of  the  Church  into  schism. 


3.  Open  Schism. 

It  was  at  this  juncture  that  Michael  and  Photius  determined 
to  throw  off  the  authority  of  the  Pope.2  We  have  seen  how 
they  had  hitherto  acknowledged  it.  They  had  themselves 
appealed  to  Rome,  they  had  asked  for  the  Legates,  they  had 
stopped  at  nothing  to  have  those  Legates  on  their  side.  Now 
that  the  final  decision  had  gone  against  them  they  had  two 
alternatives  left,  to  submit  or  to  go  into  schism.  Photius  had 
lost  his  case  by  every  right  of  Canon  Law  and  by  the  decision 
of  the  highest  court  of  Christendom,  to  which  he  himself  had 
appealed.  It  would  have  been  to  the  eternal  disgrace  of  the 
Pope  if  he  had  not  lost  it.     But  he  had  one  more  card  to  play. 

1  Herg.  i.  pp.  519-523- 

2  They  found  some  supporters  in  the  West,  among  the  Frankish  bishops 
who  were  defending  Lothar's  divorce  and  so  were  already  in  opposition  to 
the  Pope.  It  was  an  alliance  of  which  any  respectable  person  would  be 
ashamed. 


ISO      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

As  far  as  physical  force  went,  no  one  could  touch  him.  The 
Emperor  was  at  hand  with  his  soldiers,  the  Roman  Patriarch 
could  not  send  across  the  sea  to  turn  him  out.  He  would 
ignore  the  sentence,  and  use  the  old  jealousies  of  the  East 
against  the  West  to  carry  the  war  into  the  enemies'  camp,  deny 
the  Pope's  authority  altogether,  and  find  whatever  charges  he 
could  against  the  Latins. 

First  he  strengthened  his  own  position  at  home.  Ignatius 
was  kept  chained  in  prison.  The  Papal  letters  were  not 
allowed  to  be  published  ;  he  insisted  to  the  tyrants  of  the 
Government  that  this  was  their  affair,  they  had  put  him  in 
the  place  he  held,  the  Roman  Patriarch  was  trying  to  rule 
over  their  heads  in  their  own  land,  the  Ignatians  were 
traitors  for  trying  to  protect  themselves  by  the  authority 
of  this  foreigner.  It  is  the  typical  attitude  of  the  schismatic, 
who  betrays  the  Church  to  the  State  rather  than  obey  the  Pope. 
Then  he  dictates  a  letter  from  Michael  to  the  Pope.1  It  is 
indescribably  insolent.  First  he  makes  the  Emperor  say  that  it 
is  a  great  honour  for  the  Pope  that  he  should  again  address 
him.  He  does  not  acknowledge  him  in  any  way  as  judge  in 
this  matter  ;  as  for  the  Legates,  he  had  commanded  their 
attendance  and  had  not  begged  for  them.  All  the  Eastern 
Patriarchs  are  on  his  side.  In  spite  of  the  Pope  Photius  will 
remain  Patriarch  ;  nothing  the  Pope  can  do  will  really  help 
Ignatius.  He  demands  an  explanation  of  the  Pope's  treatment 
of  Rodoald  and  Zachary,  also  that  all  the  Ignatians  who  have 
fled  to  Rome  should  be  handed  over  to  him.  Unless  Nicholas 
retracts  his  decision  in  favour  of  Ignatius  he,  the  Emperor,  will 
come  to  Rome  with  an  army  to  take  a  terrible  vengeance.2 
Nicholas   answers  maintaining  what   he  had  done. 

The  schism  was  now  complete.  Nicholas  had  excommunicated 
Photius,  Photius  struck  Nicholas's  name  from  his  diptychs  ; 
although  of  course  the  lawful  Patriarch  Ignatius  was  always  in 
communion  with  Rome  from  his  prison.     This  state  of  things 

1  Herg.  i.  pp.  552-554.  There  can  be  no  doubt  from  internal  evidence 
that  this  letter  is  Photius's  work. 

2  These  are  the  points  quoted  one  by  one  in  the  Pope's  answer  ;  the  lette 
itself  is  not  extant. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  151 

lasted  four  years.     During  those  years  the  situation  was  further 
complicated  by  the  question  of  the  Bulgarian  Church. 

4.  The  Question  of  Bulgaria. 

The  Bulgars  were  Turanians  who  had  poured  against  the 
northern  frontier  of  the  Empire,  coming  from  the  middle  of 
Asia,  since  'the  6th  century.  In  the  year  861  Bogoris,  their 
prince,  wanted  to  become  a  Christian  and  to  make  his  people 
be  converted  as  well.  He  was  baptized  by  a  missionary  sent 
from  Constantinople,  with  many  of  his  people.  In  865  Photius 
wrote  an  Encyclical  to  Bogoris  and  his  Bulgars,  explaining  the 
Christian  faith  and  the  duties  of  a  Christian  man.1  There  was 
as  yet  no  bishop  in  Bulgaria.  A  layman  from  Constantinople 
came,  pretending  to  be  a  priest  and  administering  sacraments  ; 
then  they  discovered  the  fraud  and  cut  off  his  nose  and  ears. 
Others  come  and  set  up  business  as  prophets,  magicians,  and  so 
on.  Bogoris  seems  to  have  got  tired  of  the  Byzantines.  He 
wanted  to  be  free  of  them  and  to  connect  his  Church  rather 
with  the  Latins.  So  in  866  he  sends  an  embassy  to  the  Pope 
at  Rome  and  another  to  the  Emperor  Lewis  the  German,  King 
of  the  East  Franks  (843-876),  at  Regensburg.  He  begs  the 
Pope  to  send  him  a  patriarch,  no  less,  to  rule  the  Bulgarian 
Church,  evidently  wishing  to  be  free  of  the  authority  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  But  Nicholas  knows  of  another 
way  in  which  the  Bulgars  may  be  independent  of  Constanti- 
nople. They  have  settled  in  Illyricum,  therefore  they  belong 
to  the  Latin  Patriarchate.  He  sends  them  two  bishops,  Paul  of 
Populonia  and  Formosus,  who  had  succeeded  the  deposed 
Rodoald  at  the  Portus  Tiberis.  With  them  he  sends  books  and 
sacred  vessels  and  an  admirable  pastoral  letter  answering  all 
their  questions  and  again  explaining  the  Christian  faith.2  He 
promises  them,  not  a  patriarch  but  an  archbishop,  who  shall 
have  the  Pallium  from  himself  and  shall  then  rule  their  Church. 
Formosus  would  have  liked  to  be  this  archbishop  ;  but  Nicholas 
tells  him  to  come  back  when  the  embassy  is  over  and  to  look 

1  Herg.  i.  pp.  601-604.     It  is  a  very  edifying  and  correct  letter. 
8  The  text  in  Herg.  i.  pp.  607-616. 


152      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

after  his  own  flock  at  home.  Instead  he  sends  one  Dominic, 
who  sets  up  his  chair  at  Achrida,1  having  been  ordained  and 
having  received  the  Pallium  at  Rome.  The  Bulgarian  Church 
was  established  as  part  of  the  Roman  Patriarchate.  The  Pope 
at  the  same  time  sent  Legates  to  the  Emperor  to  explain  and 
defend  what  he  had  done  ;  but  they  were  turned  back  from  the 
frontier.  The  question  then  of  who  should  have  Bulgaria  in 
his  patriarchate  very  much  embittered  the  quarrel  between 
Photius  and  the  Pope.  The  Byzantines  had  always  wanted 
Illyricum  to  belong  to  them  (pp.  44,  45)  and  they  had  been  first 
in  the  Bulgarian  field.  On  the  other  hand  the  Roman  Patriarch 
had  a  much  older  claim  to  Illyricum  ;  he  had  founded  the 
Bulgarian  Church  by  setting  up  the  first  bishops,  and  the  Bulgars 
themselves  were  on  his  side.  Indeed  Bogoris,  when  the  Latin 
bishops  had  come,  promptly  drove  out  all  the  Greek  missionaries 
and  refused  to  accept  Photius's  chrism.  This  made  Photius 
specially  angry  ;  but  from  the  point  of  view  of  the  Latin  bishops 
it  was  quite  correct.  The  right  of  sending  the  consecrated 
chrism  has  long  been  a  sign  of  jurisdiction  in  the  Eastern 
Churches,  just  as  much  as  that  of  ordaining  bishops — to  say 
nothing  of  the  fact  that  Photius's  chrism  was  consecrated  by  an 
excommunicate  usurper.  Eventually,  when  the  schism  was  an 
established  fact,  the  Bulgars  went  over  to  the  side  of  Constan- 
tinople. But  at  last,  after  long  centuries,  the  Church  that 
Photius  was  so  anxious  to  keep  has  in  our  own  time  become 
the  chief  thorn  in  the  side  of  his  successors,  and  the  children  of 
the  men  who  drove  away  Photius's  missionaries  are  now  again 
refusing  the  Byzantine  chrism  (p.  316). 


5.  The   Filioque. 

Photius,  now  thoroughly  angry  with  the  Roman  Court,  at  last 
prepares  a  final  manifesto  against  it.  In  867  he  sends  an 
Encyclical  round  to  the  Eastern  Patriarchs,  and,  by  way  of 
carrying  the  war  into  the  enemy's  camp,  he   draws  up   the 

1  Now  Ochrida,  in  Macedonia.  Achrida  was  long  the  Metropolitan  See  of 
Bulgaria,  see  pp.  305,  317. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  153 

following  accusations  against  the  Latins.  It  will  be  seen  that 
he  has  raked  up  any  charges  he  can  find.  There  are  five 
points  :  1.  The  Latins  make  the  Bulgars  fast  on  Saturday  (so 
they  do  :  that  was  then  the  universal  custom  in  the  Roman 
Patriarchate).  2.  They  eat  butter,  milk,  and  cheese  during  the 
first  week  of  Lent  (that  is:  we  do  not  begin  Lent  till  Ash 
Wednesday,  whereas  the  Byzantines  do  on  Quinquagesima 
Monday).  3.  They  despised  married  priests  and  thereby  show 
themselves  to  be  infected  with  Manichaean  error.  4.  They  do 
not  acknowledge  Confirmation  administered  by  a  priest.1 
5.  They  have  changed  and  corrupted  the  Creed  by  adding  to  it 
the  Filioque.  The  doctrine  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from 
God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son  he  described  as  "  godless, 
atheistic,  and  blasphemous. "  Photius  then  declares  :  "  We,  by 
the  decree  of  our  holy  synod,  have  therefore  condemned  these 
forerunners  of  apostasy,  these  servants  of  Antichrist  who  deserve 
a  thousand  deaths,  these  liars  and  fighters  against  God  .  .  .  and 
we  have  solemnly  excommunicated  them." 2  He  then  proceeded 
to  pretend  to  depose  Pope  Nicholas  for  these  offences,  and  he 
tried  to  get  the  Western  Emperor,  Lewis  II,  to  carry  out  his 
sentence.  It  should  be  noted  that  all  these  five  points  are  local 
customs  of  the  Latins.  No  one  has  ever  tried  to  make  Easterns 
fast  on  Saturday,  eat  cheese  in  Quinquagesima  week,  be  celibate, 
stop  priestly  Confirmation,  or  say  the  Filioque  in  the  Creed. 
The  only  quarrel  against  them  was  the  iniquitous  usurpation  of 
Photius.  In  trying  to  turn  his  personal  quarrel  into  a  general 
dispute  between  the  two  great  Churches  he  can  find  nothing 
better  to  say  than  to  complain  of  some  differences  of  custom, 
that  were  in  no  way  his  business,  and  on  the  strength  of  them 
to  excommunicate  all  of  us,  over  whom  he  had  no  pretence  of 
jurisdiction,  as  well  as  our  Patriarch,  who  was  his  own  over- 
lord as  well.  From  this  point  the  quarrel  has  shifted  to  a 
general  one.  It  is  no  longer  a  question  of  Ignatius  or  Photius  ; 
it  has  become  what  it  still  is,  an  issue  between  Latins  and 
Greeks.     And  no  one  can  doubt  who  in  that  issue  was  the 

1  This  is  false,  p.  421. 

2  Herg.  i.  pp.  642-646.     Kattenbusch  {I.e.  p.  380)  calls  this  document  the 
Magna  Carta  of  the  Eastern  Churches. 


154      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

aggressor.1  It  is  the  last  of  Photius's  five  accusations  that 
eventually  became,  and  still  is,  the  shibboleth  of  the  quarrel. 
It  seems  that  Photius  at  first  did  not  think  more  of  it  than  of 
the  other  points  he  had  discovered.  But  it  was  soon  found  to 
be  by  far  the  best  charge  that  could  be  made.  It  had  much 
the  most  appearance  of  being  a  real  abuse,  and  it  has  given 
them  the  chance  of  calling  us  heretics  In  order  not  to  inter- 
rupt the  course  of  this  story  we  may  put  off  the  consideration 
of  the  question  itself  till  we  come  to  examine  the  faith  of  the 
Eastern  Churches  to-day.  We  need  now  only  note  that  this 
Encyclical  of  Photius  (867)  is  the  first  occasion  on  which  the 
accusation  was  made  against  us,  that  although  the  question 
itself  is  far  too  subtle  and  too  abstruse  to  have  really  caused  so 
much  bad  feeling  for  its  own  sake,  nevertheless  it  has  ever  since 
been  looked  upon  by  the  Easterns  as  a  sort  of  compendium  of 
all  our  offences  ;  this  very  remote  speculation,  that  either  way 
has  certainly  never  for  a  moment  affected  the  trinitarian  faith 
or  piety  of  any  single  human  being,  has  become  to  them  a 
standard  of  anti- Latin  orthodoxy,  and  they  cherish  and  value  it 
accordingly.  And  it  has  always  been  their  accusation  against 
us,  not  ours  against  them.  They  have  anathematized  us  for 
what  we  believe  and  have  added  to  the  Creed.  We  have  never 
asked  them  to  add  the  word  to  their  Creed.  And  in  the  main 
issue  (the  anathema  pronounced  at  Ephesus  in  431  against  any 
one  who  modified  the  Creed)  they  are  absolutely,  incredibly 
wrong  about  the  fact.2 

Photius,  then,  had  launched  his  thunderbolt,  deposing  our 
Pope,  excommunicating  us  all.  It  is  not  easy  to  know 
what  at  this  juncture  the  other  Orthodox  patriarchs  thought 
about  the  matter.  They  could  have  had  no  conception  how 
far-reaching  its  effects  would  eventually  be.  They  only 
knew  that  there  was  a  violent  quarrel  going  on  between  two 

1  Kattenbusch  {l.c.  381)  says  :  "  He  tried  to  lift  New  Rome  above  Old  Rome. 
This  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  really  thought  he  could  obtain  the  Primacy  for 
Constantinople."  These  admissions  are  the  more  significant,  since  there  is 
no  question  as  to  the  animus  of  the  writers  in  the  Prot.  Realenzyklopddie 
against  Rome. 

2  For  all  this  see  p.  372. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  155 

claimants   to    the    See    of    Constantinople,  and    that    one    of 
them  was  very  angry  with   the    Pope.     Neither    fact   was   in 
any  way  a   new    one.     Eventually,    of    course,  they  all  sided 
with    Constantinople.      But,   indeed,  these  Melkite   Patriarchs 
were  rather  poor  creatures.     They   had   lost   nearly  all    their 
sheep   long   ago.     They   all    sat   under   the    tyranny    of    the 
Moslem  ;    the   only   great  Christian  lord  they  knew  anything 
about  was  the  Eastern  Roman  Emperor.     They  were  already 
not  much    more  than   vassals    of   him   and  of    his    Patriarch. 
Soon  they  even  came  to  live  at  Constantinople,  as  idle   orna- 
ments of  a  dying   Court.     The    real    chiefs    of   the    Christian 
populations   of    Egypt    and    Syria    were    the    Copt    and  the 
Jacobite.     And  they,  as  we  have  seen,  had  already  for  cen- 
turies been  cut  off  from  both  Old  and  New  Rome  and  had 
nothing  whatever  to  do  with  this  business,  unless  perhaps  they 
took  an  unholy  joy  in  seeing  the  persecuting  Melkites  at  last 
fall  foul  of  one  another. 

Photius,  then,  had  won  along  the  whole  line.  In  spite  of  the 
Pope  he  sat  firm  on  the  patriarchal  throne  ;  the  Court  was  all  for 
him,  no  one  could  touch  him,  and  he  had  punished  the  Latins 
for  not  recognizing  him  by  excommunicating  them.  If  the 
Pope  had  deposed  him,  he  had  answered  by  deposing  the  Pope. 
Suddenly  there  came  what  was  the  most  dramatic  change  in 
Church  history.  In  the  midst  of  his  triumph  he  fell.  Ignatius 
came  out  of  his  prison  back  to  the  Hagia  Sophia,  and  Photius 
had  to  taste  the  very  punishment  he  had  given  to  Ignatius.  It 
was  no  just  or  loyal  movement  that  brought  about  this  crisis. 
It  was  only  one  of  the  endless  sordid  and  bloody  Palace 
revolutions  that  fill  up  Byzantine  history.  The  Imperial 
Equerry,1  Basil  the  Macedonian,  was  a  clever  and  ambitious 
fellow,  and  just  as  great  a  rogue  as  all  the  other  courtiers.  He 
succeeds  first  in  murdering  the  Caesar,  Bardas  (866),  and  becomes 
Caesar  himself.  This  was  not  enough  for  him  ;  so  in  867 
the  wretched  Michael  III  ended  his  career  by  being  murdered 
too.  It  was  after  supper  on  September  23rd  when  he  was,  as 
usual,  drunk,  that  one  of  Basil's  servants  stabbed  him  to  death. 

1  JlpojToarpdrojp.     He  was  the  "  count  of  the  horse  department,"  Kojxijg  tov 
'nnrooTaoiov. 


156      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

In  the  supper  room  reeking  with  spilt  wine  and  blood,  while 
Michael's  mistresses  were  shrieking  amid  the  overturned  tables, 
Basil  I  (867-886)  was  proclaimed  Augustus.  From  no  love  of 
justice  or  respect  for  the  Pope's  decree,  but  only  out  of  a 
general  hatred  for  all  Michael's  friends,  Basil  promptly  deposed 
Photius  and  shut  him  up  in  a  monastery.  He  then  sent  for  the 
head  of  the  rival  party,  Ignatius,  and  told  him  to  be  Patriarch 
again.  As  usual  the  people  made  no  fuss,  and,  as  long  as  they 
were  not  massacred,  were  just  as  ready  to  shout  for  Basil 
Augustus  and  Ignatius  Patriarch  as  they  had  been  for  Michael 
and  Photius. 

In  the  same  year,  before  he  had  heard  of  the  sudden  change 
at  Constantinople,  in  the  middle  of  many  grave  questions  that 
were  still  undecided,  Pope  Nicholas  I  died  (November  13,  867). 

6.  The  Eighth  General  Council, 

Nicholas's  successor,  Adrian  II  (867-872),  was  not  unworthy 
of  the  great  Pope  whose  place  he  took.  He  gathered  up  the 
reins,  and  in  all  the  questions  then  pending,  Lothar's  divorce  as 
well  as  the  trouble  at  Constantinople,  he  carried  on  the  policy 
of  his  predecessor.  Soon  after  his  accession  he  heard  the  news 
from  the  East.  In  the  horrid  but  typical  piece  of  Byzantine 
history  that  had  just  taken  place  neither  Ignatius  nor  the 
Roman  See  had  had  any  sort  of  part.  On  the  other  hand  Rome 
had  always  recognized  Ignatius  as  the  rightful  Patriarch,  and 
however  abominable  the  occasion  by  which  he  had  been 
restored  had  been,  Adrian,  of  course,  could  not  cease  to 
recognize  him  now  that  he  had  again  come  to  his  own. 
He  also,  according  to  the  general  practice  of  the  Popes, 
accepted  the  situation  in  political  matters  and  treated  with  Basil 
as  Emperor.1  It  was  Ignatius  who  first  asked  for  a  general 
council  to  clear  up  the  whole  business.  As  soon  as  he  was 
restored,  both  he  and  Basil  sent  legates  to  Rome  with  exceed- 
ingly submissive  and  respectful  letters  to  the  Pope,  asking 
among  other  things  for  a  general  council.     Adrian  first  held  a 

1  In  any  case,  the  Roman  Empire  was  an  elective  monarchy  and  there  was 
now  no  other  claimant. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  157 

provincial  synod  at  Rome  (June,  869),  in  which  Photius  was 
again  condemned,  this  time  for  having  pretended  to  excom- 
municate Pope  Nicholas.  The  same  synod  appointed  the 
Papal  Legates  for  the  coming  general  council  at  Constantinople . 
They  were  Donatus,  Bishop  of  Ostia,  Stephan,  Bishop  of  Nepi, 
and  a  deacon,  Marinus.1 

These  Legates  arrived  in  Constantinople  in  September  of  the 
same  year  (869)  with  letters  from  Pope  Adrian  to  Basil  and 
Ignatius.  They  were  received  with  great  pomp,  and  on 
October  5th  the  council  was  opened  in  the  Hagia  Sophia  : 
this  is  the  Eighth  General  Council  (Constantinople  IV).  The 
attendance  was  always  very  small  :  only  in  the  last  sessions 
were  there  as  many  as  102  bishops  present.  The  Legates 
presided  ;  then  sat  Ignatius,  then  the  legates  of  the  Patriarchs 
of  Antioch  and  Jerusalem  ;  those  from  Alexandria  did  not 
arrive  till  the  ninth  session. 

At  the  beginning  of  the  first  session  the  Emperor's 
representative  and  Ignatius  asked  the  Legates  to  show  their 
commission  from  the  Pope.  At  first  they  are  offended  by 
what  was  an  unusual  request  ;  but  Ignatius  explains  that  no 
one  means  any  want  of  respect  to  them,  still  less  to  the 
great  see  they  represent,  only  after  the  disgraceful  way  in 
which  the  former  Legates — Rodoald  and  Zachary — had  ex- 
ceeded their  powers  the  Eastern  bishops  thought  it  pertinent 
to  ask  this.  The  Legates  are  then  satisfied  ;  Marinus  reads  outs 
their  instructions  from  the  Pope  in  Latin,  and  Damian  the 
interpreter  translates  what  they  have  read  into  Greek.  "  Praise 
God,"  says  Ignatius,  "  who  has  now  so  completely  satisfied  us  as 
to  your  Holiness."  2  All  the  members  of  the  synod  then  signed 
the  formula  of  Hormisdas  (pp.  85,  86),  which  to  Catholics  has 
therefore  the  authority  of  a  general  council.  The  Imperial 
Commissioner  asks  the  Legates  of  the  other  patriarchal  sees 
why  they  had  not  also  condemned  Photius  long  ago.     Elias 

1  Marinus  afterwards  became  Pope — Marinus  I  (882-884). 

2  We  now  call  only  the  Pope  His  Holiness ;  but  such  styles  were  long 
used  very  loosely.  At  Constantinople  especially,  where  politeness  was  a  very 
great  consideration,  such  addresses  as  Your  Holiness,  Beatitude,  Lordship, 
Clemency,  Illustriousness,  and  what  not,  were  thrown  around  recklessly. 


158      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

from  Jerusalem  answers  that  Ignatius's  right  was  so  evident  that 
it  had  not  needed  their  support,  and,  in  any  case,  the  Patriarch 
of  Old  Rome  had  done  all  that  was  needed.     The  session  then 
ended  with  the  usual  acclamations,  the  Polychronion  that  Greeks 
will   always   work   in   on   every  possible   occasion :    "  To   the 
Lord  Basil  Augustus  many  years  !     To  the  pious  Lady  Eudokia 
Augusta  many  years  !     To  the  Roman  Pope  Nicholas  eternal 
memory  !     To   the   Pope   Adrian,   to   Ignatius  and   the   three 
holy  Patriarchs  many  years  !     To  the  Orthodox  Senate  many 
years  !     To  the  holy  and  oecumenical  synod  eternal  honour  ! " 
The  next  sessions  appointed  penances  to  the  repentant  Photian 
bishops.    On  the  whole  they  got  off  very  easily.    They  expressed 
the  deepest  sorrow  for  their  schism  ;  there  were  ten  bishops, 
eleven  priests,  nine   deacons,  six   sub-deacons,  who   signed   a 
document  expressing  their  contrition.      They  are  suspended  till 
Christmas  (this  was  in  October)  ;  during  that  time  they  are  to 
abstain  from  fleshmeat,  fish,  cheese,  and  eggs  every  Wednesday 
and  Friday,  say  Kyrie  eleison  and  "  Lord  have  mercy  on  me 
a  sinner "   a   hundred   times   a   day,   and    say   the   5th,   37th 
and  50th  psalms  z  once  a  day.     Then  on  Christmas  Day  they 
are  all  to  be  restored  to  their  functions.     In  the  fifth  session 
the   arch-offender   of   all,   Photius   himself,  is   brought   before 
the   council.     He   could   not   possibly   expect   to   be   acknow- 
ledged   by  this   synod   as    Patriarch   of    Constantinople,   that 
it   should    declare    him    an    intruder   was    its    obvious   duty. 
Nor  could   the  synod  allow  him  to   exercise  the   orders  he 
had    received    from    the    excommunicate    Gregory    Asbestas. 
Otherwise    he  was    treated  well    and    respectfully.      But  he 
himself  behaved  very  badly.     First  he  sulked  ;  then  he  played 
the  martyr,  and  finally  used  the  words  that  our  Lord  had  spoken 
at  his  trial,  making  a  comparison  that  was  simply  blasphemous. 
At  first  he  would  not  speak  at  all.     "  Speak,  Lord  Photius,"  said 
Baanes,  the   Emperor's  delegate  ;  °  say  whatever  you  will  to 
justify  yourself.     The  whole  world  is  represented  here  ;  take 
care  that  the  synod  does  not  withdraw  all  sympathy  from  you. 
To  what  tribunal  would    you    appeal'?      To    Rome  ?      It   is 
represented  here.      To   the   East  ?      Here   are   its   delegates. 
1  Of  course  in  the  LXX  numbering. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOT/ US  159 

For  God's  sake  defend  yourself."  All  Photius  will  say  is  : 
"  Jesus  did  not  escape  condemnation  through  his  silence," 
and  "  My  defence  is  not  of  this  world,  if  it  were  of  this 
world  you  should  hear  it."  True  to  the  Erastian  policy  he 
had  always  followed,  he  ignores  the  Legates,  refuses  to  speak 
to  them,  and  only  answers  Baanes,  the  civil  commissioner  : 
"We  will  give  an  account  to  our  holy  Emperor,"  he  says, 
14  not  to  the  Legates."  He  describes  the  repentant  Photian 
bishops  as  "  mice  in  tar,"  apparently  meaning  that  they  had 
got  into  as  great  a  mess  as  a  mouse  would  in  a  barrel  of 
tar.  The  judgement  of  the  synod  on  him  was  not  harsh. 
He  has  to  renounce  his  usurped  claim  and  to  acknowledge 
Ignatius,  then  he  shall  be  admitted  to  lay  communion.  As  he 
refuses  to  do  so,  he  is  again  excommunicated.  The  council 
then  passes  a  few  more  laws,  chiefly  against  whatever  remnants 
of  the  Iconoclasts  may  have  still  existed  and  against  the  in- 
terference of  the  State  in  ecclesiastical  affairs.  These  last  laws 
prove  that,  in  spite  of  the  presence  of  the  Emperor's  Com- 
missioner (a  presence  that  was  according  to  the  precedent  of 
all  former  general  councils),  the  synod  was  quite  a  free  one. 

The  tenth  and  last  session  was  held  on  February  28,  870, 
in  the  presence  of  the  Emperor  and  of  his  son,  Constantine. 
The  Canons  were  read  out  and  approved  by  all  the  members. 
Basil  made  a  speech  insisting  on  the  independence  of  the 
Church,  on  her  right  to  arrange  her  own  affairs,  and  on 
the  iniquity  of  civil  interference  in  them — strange  words  in 
the  mouth  of  an  emperor.  But  he  himself  soon  became 
the  chief  offender  against  these  principles. 

The  synod  ended  with  some  pomp  of  display  and  with  end- 
less Polychronia.  Its  Acts  were  solemnly  confirmed  by  Pope 
Adrian  II.1  It  was  acknowledged  as  the  eighth  general  council 
by  all  the  Easterns,  except  the  Photian  party,  and  it  has  always 
been  so  acknowledged  by  the  Catholic  Church.3 

1  Mansi,  xvi.  247,  413,  414. 

2  All  this  description  of  the  Council  is  taken  from  Hergenrother  :  Photius,  ii. 
63-132,  where  a  detailed  account  of  the  proceedings  will  be  found  The  Acts 
of  the  council  are  preserved  in  the  Latin  version  of  Anastasius  Bibliothecarius, 
the  Roman  librarian,  as  well  as  in  a  shorter  Greek  account, in  Mansi,  xvi.  308-409. 


i6o      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Photius  now  had  to  go  into  exile  to  Stenos  on  the  Bosphorus, 
where  his  uncle  Tarasius  had  built  a  monastery.  He  was 
certainly  treated  as  a  prisoner,  but  he  was  not  starved  nor 
tortured  as  Ignatius  had  been.  The  worst  he  complains  of 
is  that  he  is  guarded  by  soldiers,  and  separated  from  his 
friends  and  books.  Meanwhile  he  wrote  an  enormous  number 
of  letters.  The  undaunted  courage  of  this  really  wonder- 
ful man  never  let  him  despair  for  a  moment.  He  spent 
these  years  of  exile  encouraging  his  friends,  consolidating  his 
party  and  waiting  for  another  turn  of  the  wheel.  He  had  to 
wait  just  eight  years. 

Ignatius  was  again  Patriarch.  Hitherto  all  we  have  heard  of 
him  has  been  good.  He  had  bravely  borne  outrageous  injustice 
and  ill-treatment,  his  attitude  towards  the  Roman  See  had  been 
all  that  was  correct,  and  now  that  see  had  restored  to  him  his 
rights.  Alas  !  at  the  end  of  his  life  Bulgaria  proved  too  great 
a  temptation  for  him,  and  because  of  these  everlasting  Bulgars 
he  at  last  fell  foul  of  his  best  friends.  Was  it  that  he  now 
wanted  to  conciliate  all  his  Byzantines  by  standing  out  for 
the  aggrandizement  of  his  see,  or  was  there  something  in  the 
air  of  Constantinople  that  made  its  Patriarch  jealous  of  Rome  ? 
Ignatius,  too,  now  begins  to  copy  his  rival  and  to  try  to  filch 
Bulgaria  from  the  Roman  Patriarchate.  He  ordains  an  Arch- 
bishop for  Bulgaria  and  persuades  the  Bulgar  Prince  to  drive 
out  the  Latin  hierarchy.  One  can  imagine  how  edifying  these 
quarrels  between  their  mighty  Christian  neighbours  must  have 
been  to  the  new  converts.  Pope  Adrian  II  was  dead  ;  his  successor 
was  John  VIII  (872-882).  John  had  prepared  a  bull  of  excom- 
munication for  Ignatius,  when  the  news  arrived  in  Rome  that 
the  Patriarch  had  ended  his  chequered  life  (October  23,  877). 
The  Roman  Church,  forgetting  this  last  episode,  remembering 
only  the  trials  he  had  so  patiently  borne  and  his  otherwise 
unfailing  allegiance  to  her,  has  canonized  him.  "  It  is  very 
indulgent  of  her,"  says  Mgr.  Duchesne.1     We  may,  perhaps,  say 

1  Egl.  sip.  p.  216.  St.  Ignatius  of  Constantinople  occurs  in  our  Martyrology 
on  October  23rd  :  "  At  Constantinople  St.  Ignatius,  Bishop,  who,  when  he  had 
reproved  Bardas  the  Caesar  for  having  repudiated  his  wife,  was  attacked  by 
many  injuries  and  sent  into  exile  ;  but  having  been  restored  by  the  Roman 
Pontiff  Nicholas,  at  last  he  went  to  his  rest  in  peace." 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  161 

rather  that  one  offence,  even  against  the  rights  of  the  Holy  See, 
cannot  outweigh  the  whole  of  a  long  and  really  saintly  life.  St. 
Ignatius  was  the  type  of  a  stern  and  God-fearing  bishop,  who 
was  not  afraid  to  rebuke  the  wickedness  of  an  atrociously  cor- 
rupt Court,  even  at  the  cost  of  his  own  fortunes.  He  was  severe, 
perhaps  even  harsh,  to  his  clergy,  demanding  from  them  in  a 
bad  time  and  at  a  luxurious  and  immoral  city  the  ideal  of  earlier 
ages.  That  is  why  he  was  unpopular  with  some.  But  he  was 
even  more  severe  to  himself.  No  one  has  questioned  the 
austerity  of  his  own  life,  and  when  he  was  persecuted  he  bore 
his  trial  with  the  firmness  and  dignity  he  had  learnt  during 
years  of  restraint  in  the  Patriarch's  palace.  He  stood  out  for 
the  liberty  of  the  Church  against  the  State  at  a  time  when  the 
worst  Erastianism  that  has  ever  troubled  the  Church1  was  at  its 
height,  and  he  was  loyal  to  the  real  authority  in  the  Church, 
that  of  the  first  throne.  We,  too,  may  forget  his  one  offence, 
the  attempt  upon  Bulgaria,  and  remember  him  as  one  of  the  best 
bishops  who  ever  sat  on  the  soul-endangering  throne  of  New 
Rome. 

7.  Photius  lawful  Patriarch  (878-891). 

Long  before  Ignatius  died  Photius  had  managed  to  gradually 
get  back  the  favour  of  the  Court.  He  was  always  servile  to  the 
civil  authority.  Now  that  he  was  deposed  he  professed  to 
accept  very  respectfully  the  command  of  the  Emperor.  Then 
he  began  flattering  the  murderer  of  his  former  patron.  Pride 
of  good  blood  is  a  weakness  upon  which  one  may  always  count. 
So  Photius  set  about  to  establish  that  Basil  I  was  a  gentleman. 
He  worked  up  a  mythical  pedigree  for  him.  As  Basil  was  an 
Armenian  by  birth,  he  could  not  well  be  made  to  descend  from 
King  David,  or  Alexander,  or  Julius  Caesar  ;  the  one  possibility 
was  St.  Gregory  the  Illuminator,  the  Apostle  and  national  hero 
of  Armenia.  And  so  from  St.  Gregory  he  did  descend,  through 
King  Tiridates,  in  a  younger  but  true  branch  of  the  noble  house 

1  The  Catholic  Church  of  course.  Every  schismatical  body  gets  under  the 
heel  of  the  State  at  once.  It  is  the  unfailing  result  of  schism  :  to  be  indepen- 
dent of  the  Pope,  a  National  Church  and  what  not,  always  works  out  as  a 
substitution  of  the  king  for  the  Pope,  nowhere  more  than  in  the  Eastern 
Churches. 

12 


162      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  the  Arsacides.  Moreover  he  discovered  ancient  prophecies 
that  had  foretold  that  some  day  a  scion  of  this  house  should 
eclipse  all  his  forbears  and  be  the  mightiest,  the  most  generous, 
noble,  and  virtuous  lord  in  the  whole  world,  and  his  name  would 
begin  with  a  B.  It  was  all  forged  upon  old  parchment.1  One 
can  imagine  how  pleased  Basil  was.  What  better  teacher 
could  the  Prince  Imperial,  Constantine,  have  than  the  man 
who  had  made  these  beautiful  discoveries  and  who,  if  he 
looked  again,  might  perhaps  find  something  about  a  boy  whose 
name  would  begin  with  C  ?  So  Photius  was  brought  back  to 
Constantinople  and  made  the  Prince's  tutor  (876).  Having 
now  got  a  place  at  Court,  he  goes  on  improving  his  position, 
making  himself  popular  and  strengthening  his  party.  The  next 
move  was  a  reconciliation  with  Ignatius.  How  far  he  persuaded 
Ignatius  to  make  friends  really  is  doubtful,2  but  he  is  never  tired 
of  insisting  on  the  reconciliation  and  the  affection  now  existing 
between  him  and  his  former  enemy.  So  when  Ignatius  died 
every  one  cried  out  for  Photius  to  succeed  him.  All  his  party, 
which  had  always  been  a  very  strong  one,  clamoured  for  their 
candidate,  and  the  Court  now  wanted  him  too.  Once  more  an 
Embassy  sets  out  for  Rome  to  ask  the  Pope's  consent  to 
Photius'  succession.  They  assure  him  that  the  whole  Byzantine 
Church  and  the  Court  want  Photius.  And  John  VIII  agrees  ; 
he  absolves  Photius  from  all  censures,  and  acknowledges  him 
as  Patriarch.  So  Photius  after  all  became  lawful  bishop  of  the 
see  he  had  so  long  coveted.  This  concession  of  the  Pope  has 
been  much  discussed.  It  has  been  said  that  it  was  a  deplorable 
weakness,  and  showed  the  most  hopeless  want  of  character.3 
It  is  true  that  Photius  was  very  far  from  being  the  ideal  man 
for  such  a  place.  On  the  other  hand,  the  See  of  Constantinople 
now  really  was  vacant,  and  the  Byzantine  bishops  had  the  right 

1  This  absurd  story  looks  almost  too  crude  to  be  possible  ;  but  it  is  all 
in  Nicetas  and  in  Symeon  Magister  (Mansi,  xvi.  284).    Cf.  Herg.  ii.  258,  seq. 

2  There  are  two  accounts.  Some  say  that  they  became  real  and  warm 
friends  during  the  last  years  of  Ignatius's  life,  others  describe  the  whole  thing 
as  a  fraud.     Herg.  ii.  280. 

3  One  of  the  explanations  of  the  Pope  Joan  myth  is,  that  it  began  as  an 
irony  on  this  very  act  of  John  VIII.  She  was  inserted  between  Leo  IV 
(847-855)  and  Benedict  III  (855-858)  at  just  about  this  time. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  163 

of  choosing  whom  they  liked.  The  Pope  was  very  anxious  to 
get  the  Emperor's  help  against  the  Saracens,  and  it  has  always 
been  the  policy  of  the  Roman  See  to  concede  whatever  can  be 
conceded  without  sin  for  the  sake  of  peace.  The  Emperor  in 
his  letter  had  again  protested  his  obedience  to  the  Holy  See.1 

As  soon  as  he  was  recognized,  Photius  wanted  a  council  to 
meet  at  Constantinople,  really,  of  course,  to  counteract  the 
effect  of  the  one  that  had  excommunicated  him.  There  does 
not  seem  to  have  been  much  reason  for  yet  another  synod  ;  but 
they  persuaded  John  VIII  that  it  would  clear  up  all  remains 
of  schism,  and  greatly  help  to  strengthen  the  union  between 
East  and  West ;  so  he  gave  in  and  sent  three  Legates,  Peter, 
Cardinal  Priest  of  the  Church  of  St.  Chrysogonus  across  the 
Tiber  ;  Paul,  Bishop  of  Ancona  ;  and  Eugene,  Bishop  of  Ostia. 
They  were  told  to  acknowledge  Photius,  and  to  make  every  one 
else  acknowledge  him  too,  but  to  insist  that  Bulgaria  belongs  to 
the  Roman  Patriarchate.  These  Legates,  however,  behaved 
nearly  as  badly  as  Rodoald  and  Zachary  of  unhappy  memory. 
The  council  was  opened  in  the  Hagia  Sophia  in  November,  879. 
As  soon  as  the  Legates  are  announced,  Photius  goes  up  and 
kisses  Cardinal  Peter,  and  says  :  "  God  has  brought  you  here. 
The  Lord  bless  your  efforts  and  your  sacred  persons,  and  may 
he  graciously  confirm  the  protection  and  care  shown  to  us  by 
our  most  holy  Brother  and  Fellow-Bishop,  our  Spiritual  Father, 
the  most  blessed  Pope  John." 

All  that,  however,  was  only  meant  to  look  nice  before  the 
synod.  Photius  had  long  become  confirmed  in  his  hatred  of 
Rome  and  the  West,  and  he  meant  this  council  to  declare  open 
war  against  them.  The  church  was  full  of  his  friends,  and 
he  had  it  all  his  own  way.  There  were  seven  sessions  ;  the 
Emperor  came  to  the  two  last.  Photius  talks  all  the  time.  He 
violently  abuses  the  Synod  of  869,  rakes  up  again  his  charges 
against  the  Latins,  especially  the  Filioque  charge,  makes  an 
anathema  against  any  one  who  adds  anything  to  the  Creed, 
claims  Bulgaria  and  quashes  all  the  Acts  of  869.2    The  Legates 

1  Quoted  in  Herg.  ii.  383. 

2  The  Acts  of  this  council  (the  Pseudosynodus  Photiana)  in  Herg.  ii. 
Book  6,  pp.  379-528. 


164      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

agree  to  all  this,  and  then  they  go  back  to  Rome,  and  Photius 
sends  the  Acts  of  his  council  to  the  Pope  for  his  confirmation. 
Instead,  the  Pope,  of  course,  again  excommunicates  him.  The 
schism  had  once  more  broken  out.  It  lasted  till  Basil  Vs 
death  (886).  Photius  and  his  friends  had  by  now  definitely 
taken  up  their  line.  They  were  a  National  Church,  and,  in 
spite  of  all  their  former  appeals  to  Rome,  now  that  Rome 
had  pronounced  against  them,  they  were  not  going  to  recognize 
the  authority  of  any  foreigner.  Let  Old  Rome  look  after  the 
West,  the  Queen  of  the  East  was  New  Rome. 

8.  The  End  of  Photius. 

There  is  one  more  change  before  Photius  dies.  Again  the 
wheel  turns,  and,  after  all  his  trouble,  Photius  once  more  has  to 
go  into  exile.  Basil  I  was  succeeded  by  his  son,  Leo  VI  (886- 
912) — the  eldest  son,  Constantine,  was  dead.  And  Leo,  although 
he  had  been  Photius's  pupil,  did  not  like  his  former  tutor — it  is 
difficult  to  know  exactly  why.  So  Photius  is  deposed  and 
banished  for  high  treason,1  just  as  Ignatius  had  been  thirty 
years  before.  Prince  Stephen,  the  Emperor's  younger  brother, 
for  whom  no  suitable  provision  had  yet  been  made,  becomes 
Patriarch  (886-893) — a  circumstance  that  probably  explains  the 
whole  business.  Whether  Photius  in  exile  again  began  making 
plans  for  his  restoration  we  do  not  know ;  we  do  not  even  know 
where  he  was  exiled.  Suddenly,  at  this  moment  (886)  the  man 
who  had  made  his  name  famous  throughout  Europe  entirely 
drops  out  of  history.  He  never  got  another  chance,  never  re- 
appeared in  the  city  that  had  taken  up  his  cause  as  her  own. 
There  is  not  even  a  letter  that  can  be  certainly  dated  as  belong- 
ing to  this  second  banishment.  Where,  in  what  distant  monas- 
tery the  old  man  ate  out  his  heart  during  his  last  years,  what 
bitter  memories  of  his  chequered  career,  what  vain  plans  he 

1  He  had  conspired  to  depose  the  Emperor,  and  to  put  one  of  his  own  rela- 
tions on  the  throne.  These  charges  never  mean  anything.  If  the  Court  did 
not  want  a  man,  he  was  always  condemned  for  treason  on  some  absurd  charge 
(aiding  and  abetting  the  Saracens  was  the  favourite),  and  then  banished,  or 
blinded,  or  strangled — anything  as  long  as  he  did  not  trouble  Caesar  any 
more. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  165 

may  still  have  been  forming,  or  what  regret  for  the  awful  harm 
he  had  done,  he  may,  perhaps,  now  in  his  loneliness  have  felt, 
of  all  this  we  know  nothing.  The  gorgeous  life  of  the  great 
city  went  on,  feasting  and  solemn  synods,  then  silent  murders 
and  torture  in  the  vaults  of  the  palaces,  and,  far  away,  the 
old  Patriarch  waited,  hoped,  perhaps  repented,  till  he  died 
(February  6,  891).1 

And  then,  after  his  death,  gradually  his  people  and  his  Church 
remembered  what  he  had  done  for  them.  Rightly,  all  "  Ortho- 
dox" Christians  look  upon  Photius  as  the  great  champion  of 
their  cause.  He  delivered  them  from  the  tyranny  of  Rome,  and 
because  of  that  they  have  forgiven  everything  else.  They  have 
forgotten  all  his  intrigues,  his  dishonesty,  his  miserable  sub- 
servience to  the  secular  power,  the  hopeless  injustice  of  his 
cause.  All  the  modern  Greek  or  Russian  knows  of  this  long 
story  is  that  Ignatius,  a  holy  old  man,  resigned  the  patriarchate 
because  of  his  great  age,  and  was  succeeded  by  St.  Photius, 
greatest,  wisest,  best  of  CEcumenical  Patriarchs,  who  valiantly 
withstood  the  tyranny  of  the  Pope  of  Old  Rome,  and  "  broke 
the  pride  of  the  West."  He  appears  always  as  a  saint.  In 
exile  he  is  the  most  patient  and  heroic  of  confessors,  on  the 
patriarchal  throne  he  is  the  grandest  and  justest  of  bishops  ;  he 
is  the  most  learned  and  orthodox  of  theologians,  and  always, 
whether  prosperous  or  persecuted,  the  hero  of  their  indepen- 
dence of  Rome.  They  keep  his  feast  on  February  6th,  and 
their  hymns  overflow  with  praise  of  him.  He  is  "the  far- 
shining  radiant  star  of  the  Church,"  the  "  most  inspired  guide 
of  the  Orthodox,"  "  thrice  blessed  speaker  for  God,"  "  Wise 
and  divine  glory  of  the  hierarchy,"  he  who  "  broke  the  horns  of 
Roman  pride."  2 

The  Catholic  remembers  this  extraordinary  man  with  very 
mixed  feelings.  Had  he  not  given  his  name  to  the  most  disas- 
trous schism  in  Church  History,  he  would  perhaps  have  been 
the  last  of  the  Greek  Fathers.  One  cannot  refuse  to  recognize 
his  astounding  learning.  He  was  really  a  genius.  There  is  no 
shadow  of  suspicion  over  his  private  life  :  he  bore  his  troubles 

1  Even  this  date  is  not  quite  certain. 

2  Maltzew  :  Menologion,  February  6th  (i.  916,  seq.). 


1 66      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

very  manfully  and  well.  But  still  less  can  one  forget  the  dis- 
honesty with  which  he  pushed  his  utterly  unjust  claim.  "  Whilst 
in  writing  himself  to  the  Pope  he  explicitly  acknowledges  him 
as  the  head  of  the  Church,  at  the  same  time,  in  the  letter  he 
composes  for  Michael  to  Nicholas,  he  directly  denies  the 
Primacy."1  "The  story  of  this  man  offers  us  two  sides  that 
must  be  well  distinguished.  The  Christian  conscience  is  deeply 
pained  by  the  schism  of  which  he  was  so  entirely  the  cause,  to 
which  he  gave  a  permanent  theological  basis,  that  he  by  every 
possible  means  fostered  and  nourished,  misusing  his  magnificent 
gifts  for  shameful  selfishness.  But  this  will  not  prevent  the 
historian  from  acknowledging  his  amazing  learning,  his  rare 
merit  as  a  theologian  and  philosopher,  a  philologist  and  historian 
— indeed,  as  a  scholar  of  every  branch  of  knowledge."2  There 
is  one  short  sentence  of  his  predecessor,  St.  John  Chrysostom, 
that  Nicephorus  the  philosopher,  Photius's  friend,  quotes.  It 
stands  as  the  reason  of  his  final  condemnation  :  "  Nothing  can 
hurt  the  Church  so  much  as  love  of  power."  3 


9.  Reunion  after  Photius. 

Once  again  after  Photius  had  disappeared  the  quarrel 
between  the  Churches  was  patched  up.  At  first  Rome  would 
not  acknowledge  the  new  Patriarch,  Stephen,  either  ;  he  had 
been  intruded  into  the  See  of  Constantinople  just  as  much  as 
Photius  in  857,  and  he  was  only  sixteen  years  old.  Stephen 
tried  to  persuade  the  Pope  (Formosus,  891-896)4  to  recognize 
him,  but  apparently  in  vain.  Stephen,  in  spite  of  his  un- 
canonical  age,  had  a  double  title  to  Byzantine  canonization  ; 
he  was  a  Patriarch  and  a  Prince.  So  he  is  another  of  these 
astonishing  saints  (p.  103).  Anthony  II  (893-895),  Stephen's 
successor,  held  a  synod  in  the  presence  of  Roman  Legates,  and 
a  union  was  arranged  that  lasted  more  or  less  for  a  century  and 
a  half.     But  it  was  rather  a  half-hearted  union.     Officially  the 

1  Pichler  :  Gesch.  d.  kirchl.  Trennung,  i.  180. 

2  Herg.  Photius,  i.  vi.  3  Chrys.  Horn.  ii.  in  Ephes.  M.P.G.  xi.  89. 

4  The  very  worst  time  of  all  was  just  beginning  at  Rome.  Nearly  all  the 
Popes  now  for  about  a  century  were  horrible  people. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS 


167 


two  Churches  were  in  communion.  The  Pope's  name  was 
restored  to  the  Byzantine  diptychs,  and  the  many  Latin 
monasteries  in  the  East  celebrated  their  Mass  in  communion 
with  the  local  bishops.  But  the  cleft  was  never  completely 
healed  after  Photius.  The  Latins  had  always  the  profoundest 
distrust  for  Greek  shiftiness,  and  the  Byzantines  were  equally 
suspicious  of  Roman  interference.  Then  came  another  imperial 
disturbance,  in  which  the  positions  were  reversed.  The 
Emperor,  Leo  VI,  married  for  the  fourth  time.  A  fourth 
marriage  is  forbidden  by  Byzantine  Canon  Law.  So  the  Patri- 
arch, Nicholas  I  (895-906),  forbade  the  marriage.  Leo,  as  usual, 
deposed  the  Patriarch.  The  Latin  Church  has  never  limited 
the  number  of  wives  a  man  may  have,  as  long  as  all  the  others 
are  properly  dead  ;  so  Pope  Sergius  III  (904-911)  allowed  the 
marriage  and  approved  of  the  deposition.  The  Latin  custom  is 
undoubtedly  more  in  accordance  with  Scripture  (1  Cor.  vii.  39, 
which  applies  also  to  men)  ;  on  the  other  hand  Leo  ought  to 
have  obeyed  the  Canon  Law  of  his  own  Church.  Perhaps  he 
thought  that  as  Caesar  Augustus  and  Lord  of  the  World  he  could 
use  the  privilege  of  any  part  of  the  Empire  left  to  him  by  his 
predecessor,  Octavian  Augustus.  But  it  was  certainly  hard  on 
the  Patriarch  to  be  deposed  for  having  judged  according  to  his 
own  law.  If  only  the  Pope  had  taken  the  opposite  line,  the 
situation  of  Ignatius  would  have  been  exactly  repeated. 

However,  Leo  VI  died  in  912,  and  his  successor,  Constan- 
tine  VII  (Porphyrogennetos,  912-958)  at  once  restored  the 
Patriarch,  and  so  this  trouble  blew  over  too.  The  Emperor 
Basil  II  (the  Bulgar- slayer,  963-1025)  sent  Pope  John  XIX 
(1024-1033)  a  sum  of  money  in  1024  to  persuade  him  at  last  to 
acknowledge  the  title  "  CEcumenical  Patriarch."  John  took 
the  money,  and  seems  to  have  been  ready  to  do  so.  But  a 
wave  of  indignation  over  the  West  (the  title  had  so  long  been 
the  watchword  of  the  anti- Latin  party  in  the  East)  and  a  stern 
letter  from  Abbot  William  of  Dijon  made  him  change  his  mind. 

The  union,  then,  during  this  interval  between  Photius  and 
Cerularius  was  not  a  very  firm  one,  and  all  the  time  there  was 
a  strong  anti-papal  party  in  the  East,  which  had  inherited  all 
Photius's  ideas,  which  already  looked  upon  him  as  its  chief  hero 


168      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  saint,  and  which  only  waited  for  an  opportunity  of  renewing 
his  work.  Yet  the  great  mass  of  the  faithful  on  either  side  knew 
nothing  about  the  danger,  and  John  Bekkos  (John  XI,  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  1275-1282)  was  not  altogether  wrong 
in  saying  afterwards  that  during  this  time  there  had  reigned 
between  East  and  West  "  perfect  peace."  J  Thousands  of 
Latin  pilgrims  went  to  the  Holy  Land,  following  the  way  by 
land  down  the  Danube  to  Constantinople,  and  all  the  way  they 
were  received  in  the  Eastern  monasteries  hospitably  and  kindly. 
Richard,  Abbot  of  St.  Vito  in  Lothringen,  stops  at  Constanti- 
nople in  1026  ;  he  calls  on  the  Emperor  and  the  Patriarch,  is 
courteously  entertained  by  both,  and  receives  from  the 
Patriarch  a  relic  of  the  true  Cross  and  his  blessing.  Richard  II, 
Duke  of  Normandy  (996-1026,  the  grandfather  of  our  Con- 
queror) sends  large  sums  of  money  to  the  monasteries  of 
Jerusalem  and  Mount  Sinai  to  help  pay  the  expenses  of  the 
Latin  pilgrims  they  entertain.  Equally  pleasant  were  the 
relations  of  Greeks  who  came  to  us.  St.  Gotthardt,  Bishop  of 
Hildesheim,  built  a  hospice  on  purpose  for  them.  He  says  that 
he  himself  is  not  fond  of  Greeks,  but  that  strangers  must  always 
be  well  treated  for  the  sake  of  Christ.  St.  Gerard,  Bishop  of 
Toul,  had  numbers  of  Greeks  and  Scots  in  his  diocese.  He 
built  special  oratories  for  both,  where  they  might  worship  God 
in  the  manner  of  ,their  own  countries.  It  was  these  Greeks  at 
Toul  who,  little  thinking  what  they  were  doing,  taught  their 
language  to  the  man  who  was  to  be  their  foremost  adversary, 
Cardinal  Humbert  of  Silva  Candida.  In  all  these  relations 
there  is  no  hint  of  suspicion  of  heresy  on  either  side.  The 
Greeks  heard  the  Latins  sing  the  Filioque,  apparently  without 
emotion,  and  the  Latins  were  quite  content  to  see  them  leave 
it  out.2 

There  still  exists  an  interesting  witness  of  these  last  friendly 
relations  before  the  final  disaster.  On  the  road  between  the 
Alban  Lake  and  Tusculum,  where  the  first  slopes  of  Monte  Cavo 

1  Quoted  by  Allatius  :  Grcecia  orth.  i.  37. 

2  For  all  this  see  L.  Brehier,  Le  Schisme  Or.  chap.  i.  Les  rapports  entre 
l'eglise  grecque  et  l'eglise  romaine  depuis  le  debut  du  |xe  siecle  jusqu'au 
milieu  du  xie  siecle,  pp.  1-34. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  169 

rise  out  of  the  great  Roman  plain,  there  stands  a  monastery. 
Its  grey  walls  and  bastions  rise  out  of  the  vineyards  amid  the 
olives  and  peach  trees,  while  above,  the  tawny  roofs  cluster 
around  the  great  church  and  the  slim  red  Lombard  tower.  From 
the  court  of  this  monastery  you  may  look  across  the  haze  of  the 
Campagna  to  the  long  white  line  and  to  the  great  dome  of  the 
Eternal  City.  And  the  stranger  who,  turning  back  from  the 
glare  of  the  Italian  sun,  goes  into  the  cool  church  will  learn 
from  the  Greek  "  Hail  Mary  "  written  round  the  walls,  from  the 
great  screen  across  the  chancel,  perhaps  from  the  unfamiliar 
chant  of  the  monks,  that  here,  in  the  middle  of  the  Latin  world, 
he  has  found  a  Greek  Laura. 

In  the  10th  century  St.  Nilos  was  driven  from  his  Abbey  of 
Rossanum,  in  greater  Greece,  by  the  Saracens.  He  might  have 
gone  to  any  other  part  of  the  Greek  world  and  he  would  have 
been  eagerly  received  as  a  confessor  of  the  faith  and  as  an 
already  famous  Saint.  But  he  feared  lest  his  own  people 
would  make  him  too  proud,  so  he  came  rather  to  the  country 
of  the  Latins,  thinking  to  live  there  unknown.  But  he  was 
mistaken.  The  Franks  knew  how  to  be  generous  and  chivalrous 
to  a  stranger  in  trouble.  He  came,  with  his  sixty  Greek  monks, 
to  the  great  Benedictine  mother-house  at  Monte  Cassino.  The 
Benedictines,  always  the  most  hospitable  of  religious,  met  him, 
says  his  biographer,  "as  if  St.  Anthony  had  come  from  Alexan- 
dria, or  their  own  great  St.  Benedict  from  the  dead."1  He  was 
very  surprised,  still  more  so  when  the  Abbot  asked  him  to  use 
their  church  to  sing  his  Greek  Office,  alternately  with  the  Latin 
Opus  Dei,  "that,  according  to  the  word  of  God,  all  should  be 
complete  in  him."  Sixty  Greek  monks  then  kept  their  hours 
regularly  in  the  Benedictine  Abbey  Church.  And  St.  Nilos,  as 
generous  as  his  hosts,  wrote  a  hymn  about  their  founder,  and, 
forgetting  the  prejudices  of  generations,  trained  his  tongue  to 
pronounce  their  strange  language,  and  when  his  own  office  was 
done,  turned  the  unfamiliar  leaves  of  a  Latin  psalter  to  join 
them  in  theirs.  Then  he  talks  with  the  Benedictines,  and, 
naturally,  the  question  of  their  different  customs  is  raised. 
The  Saint's  attitude  is  very  unlike  that  of  the  arrogant 
1  M.P.G.  cxx.  124. 


i ;o  THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

schismatics  at  Constantinople.  "  As  for  Saturdays,"  he  says, 
"  whether  we  eat,  or  you  fast,  we  both  do  all  things  to  the 
glory  of  God,"  and  he  advises  them  by  all  means  to  keep  the 
custom  of  their  fathers.  Some  time  later,  however,  he  and  his 
monks  leave  the  monastery,  thinking  that  they  cannot  encroach 
on  even  Benedictine  hospitality  for  ever,  and  they  set  out  for 
Rome.  The  Pope  (Gregory  V,  996-999)  and  the  Western  Em- 
peror (Otto  III,  993-1002),  who  was  then  also  at  Rome,  went  out 
to  meet  the  strangers  beyond  the  walls,  and  received  them  with 
every  possible  honour  and  respect.  And  out  there  in  the  Cam- 
pagna,  at  Grottaferrata  (KpvTCTotyiprj)  St.  Nilos  at  last  built  a  home 
for  his  wandering  monks,  and  there  he  died,  looking  out  towards 
Rome.  Through  all  the  changes  that  have  taken  place  since, 
Grottaferrata  has  stood  unchanged  ;  not  only  has  no  Pope  ever 
tried  to  destroy  or  Latinize  it,  it  has  always  been  a  point  of 
honour  with  them  to  endow  it  and  to  protect  it.  Still,  after 
ten  centuries,  it  stands  within  sight  of  the  Roman  walls,  and  still 
its  monks  sing  out  their  Greek  Office  in  the  very  heart  of  the 
Latin  Patriarchate,  while  outside  the  Latin  olives  shelter  its 
grey  Byzantine  walls.1 

Summary. 

Prepared  by  the  ill-feeling  of  ages,  the  Great  Schism  between 
East  and  West  at  last  came  in  the  9th  century.  The  Byzantine 
Government  in  857  iniquitously  deposed  Ignatius,  the  lawful 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  and  intruded  Photius  into  his  place. 
Both  Ignatius  and  Photius  then  appeal  to  Pope  Nicholas  I. 
The  Pope  sends  Legates  who,  however,  take  bribes  and  accept 
all  that  has  happened.  Then  the  Pope,  better  informed, 
punishes  his  Legates,  acknowledges  Ignatius  only,  and  excom- 
municates Photius  as  an  intruded  anti-bishop.  Photius  answers 
by  striking  the  Pope's  name  off  his  diptychs.  The  feelings  of 
both  sides  were  very  much  further  embittered  by  the  question 
of  the  Bulgarian  Church,  which  each  claimed  for  his  Patriarchate. 
In  867  Photius  publishes  a  manifesto  against  the  Pope  and  all 

1  For  the  history  of  Grottaferrata  see  A.  Pellegrini  (the  present  Abbot) :  '  H 
t\\i]viKrj  fiovrj  rrjg  KpwirTO<pkpr)Q  (Syra,  1904). 


THE  SCHISM  OF  PHOTIUS  171 

the  Latins,  making  five  charges,  of  which  the  most  important 
eventually  was  that  we  have  added  the  Filioque  to  the  Creed. 
In  the  same  year  Nicholas  dies  and  a  Palace  revolution  causes 
Photius's  banishment  and  Ignatius's  restoration.  Peace  was  at 
once  restored  between  Rome  and  Constantinople.  In  869  the 
eighth  general  council  is  held,  confirming  Ignatius,  again  ex- 
communicating Photius.  Then,  in  877,  Ignatius  dies  and  is 
succeeded  by  Photius,  who  is  now  recognized  by  the  Pope 
(John  VIII).  Another  council  meets  in  879,  again  attended  by 
Roman  Legates.  But  this  council,  entirely  led  by  Photius,  who 
now  hated  Rome  as  his  own  personal  enemy,  on  the  strength  of 
the  Filioque  and  the  Bulgarian  affair,  again  causes  open  schism, 
which  lasts  till,  in  886,  a  new  Emperor  (Leo  VI)  again  banishes 
Photius.  He  dies  in  exile  in  891.  After  his  death  peace  is 
restored  between  the  Churches,  although  by  this  time  there  is 
already  a  strong  anti-papal  party  at  Constantinople.  But  the 
great  mass  of  Christians  on  either  side  are  reconciled,  and  have 
no  idea  of  schism  for  one  hundred  and  fifty  more  years. 


CHAPTER   V 


THE   SCHISM   OF   CERULARIUS 


We  now  come  to  the  final  rupture.  If  the  story  of  Photius's 
usurpation  and  schism  is  discreditable  to  the  Byzantine  Church, 
that  of  Cerularius  is  far  more  so.  It  is  the  same,  or  an  even 
worse  story  of  aggression  against  Rome,  and  it  is  infinitely  more 
gratuitous.  In  the  case  of  Photius  one  can  at  any  rate  under- 
stand his  motives.  He  wanted  to  be  Patriarch,  and,  as  the  Pope 
would  not  have  him,  he  would  not  have  the  Pope.  In  this 
schism  of  Cerularius  one  asks  oneself  continually  :  What  is  it  all 
about  ?  No  one  had  attacked  him  ;  there  does  not  seem  to 
have  been  the  very  least  provocation  ;  the  whole  story  looks  as 
if  he  and  his  friends  had  no  other  motive  than  a  love  of  schism 
for  its  own  sake.  A  sketch  of  the  three  persons  most  concerned 
in  this  final  separation  will  help  to  make  the  story  clear. 

i.  The  Pope,  the  Emperor,  and  the  Patriarch. 

The  final  blow  came  just  in  the  middle  of  the  nth  century. 

At  that  time  the  Roman  Court  was  recovering  from  a  very  bad 

period.     After  John  VIII  (872-882),  of  whom  we  have  heard 

in  the  last  chapter,  came  Marinus  (882-884).     From  his  time 

corruption   of   every  kind   gradually   spread   over   Rome,  and 

things    got    steadily    worse,    till    the    German    Popes    begin 

with  Clement  II  (1046-1047).     During  that  long  period  of  a 

century  and  a  half  there  is  hardly  one,  perhaps  not  one  Pope, 

who  was  even  an  ordinarily  good  bishop.     It  is  a  long  story 

of   simoniacal   elections,  murder   and  violence   of   every  kind, 

together  with  shameless  lust.     The  Romans  still  remember  the 

172 


THE   SCHISM   OF  CERULARIUS  173 

three  abominable  women  (le  donne  cattive),  old  Theodora, 
Marozia,  and  young  Theodora,  who  from  about  900  till  932 
ruled  Rome,  filling  the  city  with  their  abominations,  and  setting 
up  one  wretched  boy  after  another  as  Pope.  Meanwhile  the 
Normans  were  plundering  the  coast  of  Italy,  the  Saracens  had 
conquered  Sicily,  were  ravaging  the  South  of  the  Peninsula, 
and  had  come  thundering  even  to  the  very  gates  of  Rome. 
Then  at  last  in  the  nth  century  came  the  reaction.  As  for 
civil  affairs,  the  great  Saxon  Emperors  saw  to  them.  Otto  I 
(936-973)  crushed  the  Magyars  (at  the  river  Lech  in  935)  and 
then  came  to  set  things  right  in  Italy.  He  broke  down  all  the 
little  tyrants  who  were  devastating  the  country,  and  once  more 
joined  all  Germany,  from  Strassburg  to  the  Oder,  and  Italy 
down  to  Gaeta  in  the  Western  Roman  Empire.  The  reform  of 
the  Church  was  the  work  of  the  Cluniac  monks.  The  Bene- 
dictine Abbey  of  Cluny  (Cluniacum),  in  the  diocese  of  Macon  in 
Burgundy,  had  for  its  Abbot  since  910  Berno,  once  Count  of 
Burgundy.  After  Berno  came  St.  Odo  (f  941).  Cluny  first 
reformed  itself,  going  back  to  the  strict  keeping  of  St.  Benedict's 
rule  ;  then  an  enormous  number  of  other  Benedictine  houses 
were  founded  under  its  obedience,  and  from  them  came  all  the 
great  bishops  and  Popes  who  in  the  nth  century  wiped  out  the 
shame  of  the  past  by  their  stern  discipline  and  their  own  saintly 
lives.  Greatest  of  all,  the  soul  of  the  reform  and  of  the  whole 
Cluniac  movement  was  Hildebrand,  counsellor  and  director  of 
seven  Popes  before  he  became  one  of  the  greatest  of  all  as  St. 
Gregory  VII  (1073-1085).  The  Pope  who  was  concerned  with 
the  schism  of  Cerularius  was  the  third  of  the  German  reforming 
Popes,  and  one  of  the  many  disciples  of  Hildebrand — St.  Leo 
IX  (1048-1054).  He  was  Bruno,  Count  of  Nordgau  in  Elsass, 
and  a  cousin  of  the  Emperor  Henry  III  (1039-1056).  Then  he 
became  Bishop  of  Toul.  When  Pope  Damasus  II  (1 047-1 048) 
died,  the  Emperor  tried  to  appoint  Bruno  Pope. 

It  is  not  certain  whether  Bruno  had  ever  actually  been  a 
Cluniac  monk,  but  at  any  rate  he  stood  very  much  under  the 
influence  of  the  Abbey  and  of  Hildebrand.  It  was  Hildebrand 
who  persuaded  him  not  to  accept  so  uncanonical  an  appoint- 
ment, so  he  went  to  Rome  dressed  as  a  pilgrim,  and  protested 


174      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

to  the  Roman  clergy  that  they  were  to  hold  a  free  election,  and 
that  if  he  were  not  lawfully  chosen  he  would  go  back  to  Toul, 
his  diocese.  Then,  when  he  had  been  canonically  made  Pope, 
he  set  about  his  task  of  a  reform  in  root  and  branch.  He 
sternly  put  down  Simony,  and  all  his  life  he  fought  against  the 
incontinence  of  the  clergy.  These  were  the  two  radical  vices 
spread  throughout  his  patriarchate.  Every  year  at  Easter  he 
held  high  session  at  Rome,  and  tried  cases  of  these  crimes. 
And  on  all  sides  pitilessly  he  deposed  simoniacal  clerks,  no 
matter  how  high  their  place  or  great  their  influence.  Metro- 
politans and  archbishops,  even  the  Emperor's  own  chaplain, 
one  after  another  they  had  to  go  if  they  had  bought  their 
places  with  money.  In  this  reform  he  had  very  great  men  to 
help  him — Hildebrand,  Hugo  Abbot  of  Cluny,  and  St.  Peter 
Damian,  whose  burning  language  about  the  horrible  state  of 
things  that  had  gone  before  (Liber  Gomorhianus — the  Book 
of  Gomorrha)  is  as  indignant  and  also  as  candid  as  should 
be  that  of  a  Saint.  No  Pope  ever  had  a  higher  or  a  more 
uncompromising  idea  of  the  dignity  and  rights  of  his  see  than 
Leo  IX.  We  shall  see  this  from  his  correspondence  with  the 
Greeks.  The  views  of  Leo  are  already  those  of  Gregory  VII, 
and  the  foundation  of  all  his  polity  is  that,  by  the  promise 
made  by  our  Lord  to  St.  Peter,  the  Roman  See  "  must  hold  the 
primacy  over  the  four  sees,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and 
Constantinople  "  (notice  how  he  will  not  give  Constantinople 
the  second  place  ;  he  is  still  true  to  the  principle  of  Leo  the 
Great,  p.  42),  "as  well  as  over  all  the  Churches  of  God 
throughout  the  whole  world."  ■  Leo  IX  was  also  concerned 
about  the  peace  of  Italy,  and  was  always  a  determined  enemy 
of  the  Norman  pirates.  These  Normans  were  also  the  enemies 
of  the  Emperor  in  the  East,  who  still  had  a  precarious  tenure 
over  Southern  Italy  (Magna  Graecia),  a  tenure  that  chiefly  showed 
itself  in  attempts  to  assert  the  jurisdiction  of  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople   in   those   parts.2     So   the   Pope   seeks  for   an 

1  Ep.  ad  Michaelem  et  alios,  Will,  Acta  et  Scripta,  p.  72. 

2  Leo  the  Isaurian  (Leo  III,  717-741)  had  already  pretended  to  join  the 
provinces  of  Calabria,  Apulia,  and  Sicily  to  the  Byzantine  Patriarchate, 
see  p.  46. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  175 

alliance  with  the  Emperor  against  the  common  enemy,  and 
treats  with  Argyros,  a  freebooting  person  who  had  got  from 
Constantinople  a  commission  to  fight  against  the  Normans.1 
The  republic  of  Amain  acknowledged  the  suzerainty 
of  New  Rome  till  1073,  and  its  doge  was  an  Imperial 
"  Proedros."  There  was,  then,  every  reason  for  the  Eastern 
Emperor  and  the  Pope  to  remain  friends  at  this  time,  and 
they  both  knew  it.  It  was  the  Patriarch  who  forced  the 
schism  on  them,  very  much  against  the  will  of  both.  But  such 
a  man  as  St.  Leo  IX  was  not  likely  to  allow  the  rights  of  the 
Holy  See  to  be  defied.  One  is  as  glad  that  the  cause  of  the 
Latins  was  represented  by  so  great  a  man  as  Leo  in  1054  as 
that  Nicholas  was  Pope  in  857. 

The  Emperor,  Constantine  IX  (Constantine  Monomachos, 
1 042-1 054),  was  of  a  very  different  type.  One  of  the  many 
adventurers  who  climbed  from  a  low  place  to  the  Roman 
throne,  he  had  already  been  exiled  for  trying  to  usurp  it, 
when  he  succeeded  quite  peaceably  by  marrying  Zoe,  the 
youngest  daughter  of  Basil  the  Macedonian.  She  had  already 
been  twice  married,  and  had  made  both  her  husbands 
Emperors  (Romanos,  1028-1034,  and  Michael  IV,  1034-1041). 
Now  in  1042  she  marries  for  the  third  time.  Her  husband, 
Constantine,  had  also  been  twice  married,  so  that  there  was 
a  double  infringement  of  Byzantine  Canon  Law,2  but  this  time 
no  one  made  much  difficulty.  Constantine  had  been  strong, 
learned,  witty ,3  and  very  beautiful  ;  but  soon  after  he  became 
Emperor  he  was  struck  by  paralysis,  and  remains  henceforth 
well-meaning  but  hopelessly  weak  and  frightened.  The  chief 
policy  of  his  reign  was  to  drive  the  Normans  out  of  Magna 
Graecia,  and  for  this  he  needed  the  help  of  both  the  Pope  and 

1  Argyros  was  a  Lombard  adventurer,  who  had  at  first  been  on  the  Norman 
side.  Then  he  went  to  Constantinople  for  five  years  (1046-1051),  and  came 
back,  having  changed  his  coat,  as  a  Roman  patrician,  Duke  of  Italy,  and 
commander-in-chief  of  the  Emperor's  forces.  Cf.  Gibbon,  chap.  lvi.  (ed 
J.  Bury,  Methuen,  1898),  vol.  vi.  p.  180,  seq. 

2  Only  two  marriages  were  allowed. 

3  He  could  imitate  a  goat  bleating  so  perfectly  that  every  one  would  hunt 
the  room  to  find  the  quadruped  (Psellos,  i.  p.  170).  Plainly,  the  only  place 
worthy  of  so  varied  talents  was  the  Roman  throne. 


176      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

his  Western  rival.  For  every  reason,  then,  he  wanted  to  keep 
friends  with  the  Latins,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  he  was  always 
strongly  against  the  schism. 

The  cause  of  all  the  trouble  was  Michael  Cerularius  (Kripov- 
Xapiog),  the  Patriarch  (1043-1058).     Like  Photius,  who  was  in  all 
things  his  predecessor  and  model,  Cerularius  had  not  originally 
intended  to  be  a  priest.     He  was  born  of  a  great  senatorial 
house  of  Constantinople,  and  began  his  career  as  a  statesman. 
He  seems  to  have  had  some  place  at  Court,  but  in  1040  he  was 
banished  because  of  a  plot  to  depose  Michael  IV.     It  was  said 
that  if  the  plot  had  succeeded  Cerularius  himself  would  have 
become  Emperor.1     They  try  to  make  him  a  monk,  so  as  to  cut 
off  all  further  danger  from  him,  but  he  absolutely  refuses  to 
take  vows,  until  the  suicide  of  his  brother  suddenly  changes 
the   attitude  of   his  mind,  and  he   freely  enters  a  monastery. 
As  soon  as  Constantine  IX  becomes    Emperor  he  sends   for 
Cerularius,  who  seems  to  have  been  already  his  friend,  and 
greatly  favours  him.     As  he  is  a  monk,  and  so  cannot  hold  any 
of  the  great  offices  of  state,  Constantine  invents  a  new  rank 
on  purpose  for  him.      Cerularius  is  declared   the   Emperor's 
"  familiar  friend  and  guest  at  meals," 2  and  on  the  strength  of 
this  very  vague  position  becomes  the  most  powerful  man  in  the 
Empire.     But  for  a  monk  advancement  must  follow  the  usual 
road  to  a  bishopric,  so  Cerularius  is  made  Synkellos,  that  is 
practically   secretary   of    the    Patriarch.     The   Synkellos   was 
always   a   bishop,  and   held   a   place  in  the  Church  of   Con- 
stantinople second  only  to  that  of  the   Patriarch  himself.     It 
seems  that  at  this  juncture  he  was  ordained  bishop  from  having 
had  no  order  at  all,  without  having  kept  the  Interstices,  and 
that  this  is  what  the  Roman  accusation  of  being  a  neophyte 
means,  which  was  afterwards  made  as  often  against  him  as  it 
had  been  against  Photius.3 

.  The  Patriarch  Alexios  (1025-1043)  died  on  February  22, 
1043,  and  at  once  Constantine  appointed  his  friend  to  succeed 
him.     There  was  no  election  j   the  Emperor  went  "  like  an 

1  L.  Brehier,  he  Schisme  Oriental,  p.  56. 

2  ofiwpotpiog  Kal  ofiodiairoQ.    Brehier,  o.c.  p.  61. 

3  Brehier,  o.c.  p.  63. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  177 

arrow  to  the  target  "  ■  and  chose  Cerularius.  That  was,  how- 
ever, the  end  of  their  friendship,  and  the  new  Patriarch,  as  we 
shall  see,  was  entirely  ungrateful  to  his  former  patron.  It  is 
not  difficult  to  form  an  opinion  about  Cerularius's  character. 
Michael  Psellos  knew  him  well,  and  he  wrote  a  funeral  oration 
in  his  honour,2  as  well  as  a  detailed  history  of  his  own  times, 
from  976  to  1077.3  This  history  is  (together  with  the  acts  of 
the  Controversy  published  by  Will)  the  chief  source  for  the 
story  of  this  time.  From  Psellos's  account  it  is  clear  that  the 
leading  notes  of  Cerularius's  character  were  a  savage  reserve, 
vindictiveness,  and  unbounded  pride.  He  never  forgave  an 
injury,*  he  impressed  the  people  by  the  austere  dignity  of  his 
manner,  and,  as  we  shall  see,  on  the  patriarchal  throne  he 
considered  himself  to  be  placed  far  above  the  weak  and 
paralytic  Emperor,  and  behaved  as  if  he  held  the  first  place  in 
Christendom.  His  relaxation  appears  to  have  been  the  search 
for  the  philosopher's  stone,s  an  occupation  that  had  the 
advantage  of  being  always  interesting  and  never  exhausted.  It 
was  then  almost  to  be  expected  that  two  such  characters  as 
those  of  Leo  IX  and  Michael  Cerularius  should  clash  ;  and  yet 
the  attack  on  the  Latins  made  by  the  Patriarch  was  so  wanton, 
so  entirely  unprovoked,  and  so  especially  ill-timed  in  the 
interests  of  the  Empire,  that  there  can  be  only  one  explanation 
of  it.  He  must  have  belonged  to  the  extreme  wing  of  the  anti- 
papal  party  at  Constantinople — the  party  left  by  Photius — and 
must  have  been  determined  from  the  beginning  on  war  with 
Rome  on  any  or  no  pretext,  as  soon  as  ever  he  had  a  chance 
of  declaring  it. 

2.  The    Schism. 

It  was  in  the  midst  of  the  "  perfect  peace  "  between  the  two 
halves  of  Christendom,  in  the  year  1053,  that  a  letter  arrived 

1  Michael  Psellos  :  Funeral  Oration  of  Cerularius,  ed.  by.  C.  Sathas  {Bib. 
tneci.  cevi,  vol.  iv.  p.  326).     Krumbacher  :  Byz.  Lift.  pp.  433-444. 

2  See  last  note. 

3  Psellos's  History  has  now  been  published  as  one  of  Methuen's  Byzantine 
Texts.  It  is  edited,  with  an  Index  Grsecitatis,  by  Professor  C.  Sathas  (1898), 
and  forms  as  good  an  introduction  to  Byzantine  Greek  and  as  entertaining  a 
history  as  could  be  found. 

4  Psellos,  quoted  by  Brehier,  o.c.  pp.  76-77.  s  Brehier,  o.c.  p.  72. 

LIBRARY 

O 


178      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

for  a  Latin  bishop  from  one  of  his  Greek  brothers.  As  we  shall 
see,  this  letter  was  the  opening  of  a  campaign  already  carefully 
thought  out  by  Michael  Cerularius.  The  letter  was  written  by 
Leo,  formerly  a  clerk  of  the  Church  of  Constantinople,  and  now 
Metropolitan  of  Achrida,1  and  was  addressed  to  John,  Bishop 
of  Tranum  (Trani  in  Apulia).2  But  Leo  says  that  he  means  it 
11  for  all  the  bishops  of  the  Franks  and  for  the  most  venerable 
Pope."  It  is  an  attack  on  all  the  customs  of  the  Latin  Church 
that  are  different  from  those  of  Constantinople.  He  is  specially 
indignant  at  two — fasting  on  Saturdays  and  the  consecration  of 
unleavened  bread.  These  two  customs,  he  says,  are  totally 
unchristian  ;  they  are  nothing  but  a  return  to  Jewish  super- 
stition, the  unleavened  bread,  because  the  Jews  keep  their 
Passover  with  it,  and  the  fasting  on  Saturday  he  connects  in 
some  confused  way  with  the  Jewish  Sabbath.  This  last  idea  is, 
of  course,  quite  specially  absurd.  To  fast,  or  at  least  abstain, 
on  Saturday  as  well  as  on  Friday  was  the  custom  in  the  West 
for  many  centuries.  The  abstinence  is  still  the  rule  in  Italy. 
Benedict  XIV  (1740-1758)  declared  that  it  does  not  bind  in 
countries  where  a  contrary  custom  has  been  prescribed  against 
it, 3  and  now  throughout  the  greater  part  of  the  Catholic  Church 
the  faithful  have  never  even  heard  of  it.  The  idea  of  the 
abstinence  was  that  it  should  be  kept  during  all  the  time  that 
our  Lord  was  dead  and  buried,  from  the  day  of  the  Crucifixion 
till  he  rises  again  on  Sunday  morning.  It  was  never  even 
remotely  connected  with  the  old  Sabbath,  which  was  a  feast  day 
(like  our  Sunday)  on  which  no  Jew  has  ever  fasted.  All  through 
this  story  one  is  equally  amazed  at  the  impertinence  of  these 
Byzantines  who  will  not  mind  their  own  business  (no  one  ever 
asked  them  to  use  unleavened  bread,  and  they  could  always  eat 
as  much  as  they  liked  on  Saturday)  and  at  the  ridiculous  charges 
they  rake  up.  We  may  also  note  1  at  once  that  throughout  the 
quarrel  that  is  coming  now  the  question  of  the  Filioque  is 
hardly  touched  at  all  :  their  great  grievance  this  time  is  our 

1  It  was  the  Metropolitan  See  of  Bulgaria  p.  152. 

8  The  letter  is  the  first  document  published  by  Will,  o.c,  the  Greek  text 
pp.  56-60  ;  Card.  Humbert's  Latin  version,  pp.  61-64. 
3  De  Synodo,  xi.  5,  n.  5. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  179 

unleavened  bread  (Azyme).  John  of  Tranum  reads  his  letter 
and  then  sends  it  on  to  Cardinal  Humbert  of  Silva  Candida, 
asking  what  he  thinks  of  it.  This  Cardinal  Humbert  will  be  the 
chief  defender  of  the  Latins  throughout  the  quarrel.  He  was 
a  Burgundian,  and  had  been  a  monk  at  one  of  the  Cluniac 
houses  in  Lothringen.  Lanfranc  says  that  he  was  a  great 
scholar.1  The  Pope  brought  him  out  of  his  monastery,  made 
him  Bishop  of  Silva  Candida 2  and  a  cardinal,  and  kept  him  at 
Rome  as  one  of  his  own  advisers.  Cardinal  Humbert  then 
(being  a  Greek  scholar)  translates  the  letter  into  Latin  and 
shows  it  to  the  Pope. 

Meanwhile  Cerularius,  having  sent  off  this  declaration  of  war, 3 
proceeds  to  strengthen  his  position  at  home.  It  is  most 
important  to  him  to  make  sure  that  all  the  East  is  with  him, 
To  secure  this  he  sends  round  to  the  other  patriarchs  and  to 
various  metropolitans  a  treatise  written  in  Latin  by  a  monk  of 
Studium  (the  great  Laura,  once  so  faithful  to  Rome,  pp.  65,  141, 
note  4),  Niketas  Stethatos  (Pectoratus  in  Latin)  against  the 
Western  Church.*  Niketas  asks  in  this  treatise  how  the  Romans, 
"  wisest  and  noblest  of  all  races,"  can  have  fallen  into  such  "  hor- 
rible infirmities."  He  answers  that  certain  Jews  at  the  time  of 
the  Apostles  had,  for  the  hope  of  wicked  gain,  corrupted  the  pure 
Gospel  at  Rome.  The  "  horrible  infirmities  "  are  Azyme  bread 
for  Mass,  fasting  on  Saturday,  and  celibacy.  This  last  point 
was  specially  offensive  to  a  Pope  who  was  standing  out  for 
the  celibacy  of  clerks  with  all  his  might.  The  politeness  of  his 
reference  to  the  Romans  as  the  wisest  and  noblest  of  races  does 
not  at  all  accord  with  the  general  tone  of  his  writing,  for  he  goes 
on  to  apply  to  them  St.  Paul's  words  :  "  dogs,  bad  workmen, 

1  De  Corp.  and  Sang.  Dni  (M.P.L.  cl.  p.  409)  :  "  All  who  know  him  per- 
sonally say  that  he  is  very  learned  in  the  knowledge  of  both  divine  and 
profane  letters." 

2  Silva  Candida  was  one  of  the  suburban  sees  of  Rome.  Calixtus  III 
joined  it  to  the  see  of  the  Portus  Tiberis  in  1138.  Humbert  was  Bishop  of 
Silva  Candida  from  1057-1063.  Gams  :  Series  episcoporum  eccl.  cath. 
(Regensburg,  1873),  ix. 

3  There  is  no  question  but  that  Leo  of  Achrida  sent  his  letter  under  orders 
from  the  Patriarch. 

*  The  text  in  Will,  ox.  pp.  127-136.     Krumbacher  :  Byz.  Litt.  pp.  154-155. 


180      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

schismatics  "  (Phil.  iii.  2),  also  M  hypocrites  and  liars,  who 
forbid  marriage  and  abstain  from  foods  that  God  has  made  °  l 
(1  Tim.  iv.  1-3). 

Cerularius's  third  move  was  to  make  it  quite  clear  that  he 
meant  war  to  the  knife.  There  were  a  number  of  Latin 
churches  at  Constantinople  ;  the  Emperor's  Varangian  guard, 
who  were  all  Norsemen  and  Englishmen,  had  one,  so  also  the 
merchants  from  Amain  and  the  Magyars  ;  there  were  some 
Latin  monasteries,  too,  and  the  Papal  Apocrisarius  (Nuntius  at 
the  Court)  had  a  Latin  chapel  in  his  house.  Cerularius  has  all 
these  churches  shut  up,  even  the  Apocrisarius's  chapel,  in 
defiance  of  the  universal  respect  paid  to  embassies,  and  he  tells 
all  the  Latins  in  the  city  to  stop  being  Azymites  and  to  use  the 
Byzantine  rite.  His  Chancellor,  Nikephoros,  who  of  course 
believed  in  the  Real  Presence  just  as  we  do,  bursts  open  Latin 
tabernacles  and  tramples  on  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  because  it 
is  consecrated  in  Azyme.2 

One  wonders  why  Cerularius  had  waited  so  long  before 
making  his  attack.  He  had  become  Patriarch  in  1043.  There 
had  been  no  provocation  meanwhile ;  nothing  whatever  had 
happened  to  irritate  him.  And  now  suddenly,  after  ten  years, 
in  1053,  ne  behaves  like  this.  The  only  explanation  is  that 
he  had  been  waiting  for  an  opportune  moment,  when  the 
Pope  would  be  in  as  weak  a  position  as  possible.  And  that 
moment  had  come.  The  Pope's  army  had  just  been  badly 
defeated  by  the  Normans  at  Civitella  (1053)  anc*  he  himself  had 
only  escaped  because  of  the  reverence  that  these  Normans  felt 
for  the  person  of  St.  Peter's  successor.  It  is  true  that  the 
Normans  were  even  more  the  enemies  of  Byzantium  ;  it  is 
also  true  that  a  feeling  of  chivalry  prevents  decent  people 
from  launching  a  wanton  attack  on  any  one  just  when 
he  is  in  trouble ;  but  of  course  Cerularius  cared  nothing 
about  that. 

Leo  IX  then  answers  the  letter  of  Leo  of  Achrida.3     He 

1  This  is  a  very  happy  text  for  his  purpose  ;  only  his  own  Church  forbids 
monks'  and  bishops'  marriages,  and  on  the  whole  abstains  from  many  more 
foods  that  God  has  made  than  we  ever  did. 

2  Will,  pp.  164-165.  3  The  text  in  Will,  pp.  65-85. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  181 

evidently  knows  from  whom  the  attack  has  come,  for  he  begins  : 
u  Leo,  Bishop,  Servant  of  the  Servants  of  God,  to  Michael  of 
Constantinople  and  Leo  of  Achrida,  Bishops."  The  leading 
idea  of  his  letter  is  that  peace  and  concord  must  reign  through- 
out the  Church.  Woe  to  those  who  break  it !  Woe  to  those 
who  "  with  high-sounding  and  false  words  and  with  impious 
and  sacrilegious  hands  cruelly  try  to  rend  the  glorious  robe  of 
Christ,  that  has  no  stain  nor  spot."  He  most  emphatically 
asserts  the  primacy  of  his  see.1  He  will  not  deign  to  defend 
the  practices  attacked  by  Leo  of  Achrida  :  "  Do  you  not  see," 
he  says,  "  how  impudent  it  is  to  say  that  the  Heavenly  Father 
has  hidden  from  Peter,  the  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  the  proper 
rite  of  the  visible  sacrifice  ?  "  He  quotes  all  the  Petrine  texts, 
and  he  also  makes  much  of  the  Donatio  Constantini.2  For  this 
he  deserves  no  blame,  since  no  one  suspected  its  authenticity  till 
the  15th  century.  And  he  turns  the  tables  on  the  aggressors 
by  showing  how  often  heresies,  and  real  heresies,  have  come 
from  Constantinople,  and  have  been  condemned  by  Rome.  He 
mentions  Eusebius  of  Nicomedia,  Macedonius,  Nestorius, 
Eutyches,  Pyrrhus,  and  others,  showing  that,  instead  of  being 
corrected  by  the  East,  Old  Rome  has  continually  saved  the 
Church  from  the  errors  of  New  Rome.  With  regard  to 
Cerularius's  violence  to  the  Latin  churches,  he  points  out  that 
no  one  has  ever  thought  of  troubling  the  many  Byzantine 
churches  and  monasteries  in  the  Latin  Patriarchate.  The  letter 
is  neither  immoderate  nor  offensive,  and  the  Pope's  anger  is 
certainly  not  greater  than  the  wanton  attack  on  his  Church 
deserved.  He  also  shows  his  appreciation  of  the  situation  by 
addressing  it  to  Cerularius  as  well  as  to  Leo  of  Achrida,  and 
by  at  once  coming  to  the  root  of  the  whole  matter,  the  Roman 
Primacy.  On  receipt  of  this  letter,  Cerularius  seems  for  a 
moment  to  have  wavered  from  his  scheme  and  to  have  made 
some  overtures  of  peace.  His  answer  is  not  extant,  but  it  is 
referred  to   in   several    documents.     He    writes   to    Peter    of 

1  The  quotation  at  p.  174  is  from  this  letter. 

2  A  document  purporting  to  be  drawn  up  by  Constantine  giving  Pope 
Sylvester  the  Lateran  Palace  and  civil  authority  over  Rome,  Italy,  and  all  the 
West.    It  is  really  a  forgery  of  the  8th  century. 


182      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN   CHURCH 

Antioch  that  he  had  proposed  an  u  alliance  "  with  the  Pope, 
and  he  himself  says  why  :  "  That  he  might  be  well-disposed 
and  friendly  to  us  concerning  the  help  he  is  to  give  us  against 
the  Franks  (he  means  the  Normans)."  z  Evidently  for  a  moment 
the  importance  of  the  war  against  the  Normans  overshadowed 
in  his  mind  the  great  plan  of  breaking  with  Rome. 

But  this  attitude  did  not  last  long,  and  even  while  it  did  last 
his  overweening  pride  made  him  suggest  what  he  wanted  in 
the  most  impossible  way.  His  own  word,  alliance  (<rv/z/3a<rtc), 
shows  his  point  of  view.  It  was  to  be  a  treaty  drawn  up 
between  two  equal  and  independent  Powers,  or  rather  not  equal, 
for  he  had  arrived  at  thinking  himself  a  far  greater  man  than 
the  Pope.  "You  write  to  us,"  answers  Leo  IX,  "that  if  we 
make  your  name  honoured  in  the  one  Church  of  Rome,  you  will 
make  our  name  honoured  throughout  the  whole  world.  What 
monstrous  idea  is  this,  my  dear  brother  ?  "  2  To  have  written 
such  nonsense  to  the  Pontiff  who  was  obeyed  from  Sicily  to 
Norway,  and  from  Poland  to  the  Atlantic,  seems,  if  it  were  not 
meant  just  as  another  insult,  to  be  the  very  madness  of  pride.  The 
Pope's  answer  to  this  proposed  "alliance"  is  :  "So  little  does 
the  Roman  Church  stand  alone,  as  you  think,  that  in  the  whole 
world  any  nation  that  in  its  pride  dissents  from  her  is  in  no  way 
a  Church,  but  a  council  of  heretics,  a  conventicle  of  schismatics 
and  a  synagogue  of  Satan."  He  solemnly  warns  Cerularius 
against  that  pride  that  has  always  been  so  great  a  temptation  to 
the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople.  "  How  lamentable  and  de- 
testable is  that  sacrilegious  usurpation  by  which  you  every- 
where boast  yourself  to  be  the  Universal  Patriarch."  ..."  Let 
heresies  and  schisms  cease.  Let  every  one  who  glories  in  the 
Christian  name  cease  from  cursing  and  wounding  the  holy 
apostolic  Roman  Church."  But  he  still  hopes  for  peace  and  he 
ends  :  "  Pray  for  us,  and  may  the  holy  Trinity  ever  keep  your 
honourable  Fraternity."  3 

With  this  letter  and  with  an  exceedingly  friendly  one  to  the 
Emperor,  "  Our  honourable  and  beloved  son  in  Christ  and 
glorious  Augustus,"  4  the  Pope  sends  three  Legates  to  Constan- 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  174.  -  Ibid.  p.  91. 

3  Ibid.  pp.  89-92.  4  Ibid.  pp.  85-89. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  183 

tinople.     They  were  Cardinal  Humbert,  Cardinal  Frederick,  the 
Chancellor  of  the    Roman   Church,  Leo's   cousin  ■  and  Peter, 
Archbishop   of   Amain.      It  was   the  last  Embassy  that   went 
from    Rome    to    Constantinople.2      Meanwhile    the   Emperor 
Constantine  IX  was  exceedingly  annoyed  at  the  whole  disturb- 
ance.    He  did  not  want  a  schism  in  the  least ;  he  did  not  care 
what  sort  of  bread  the  Latins  use,  nor  what  they  eat  on  Satur- 
day, he  wanted  the  Pope  to  help  him  fight  the  Normans.     So 
he  still  hopes  it  will  all  be  made  up  ;  he  receives  the  Legates 
with  great  honour  and  lodges  them  in  one  of  his  own  palaces. 
But  Cerularius  has  quite  recovered  from  his  idea  of  an  alliance 
with  the  Pope  ;  the  letter  that  these  Legates  brought  for  him 
doubtless  helped  the  recovery.     He  is  now  very  angry  at  their 
behaviour.     The  immemorial  custom  is  for  a  Papal  Legate  to 
take  the  position  of  the  Pope  himself.    He  is  the  Pope's  repre- 
sentative and  alter  ego.    We  have  seen  (Chap.  II,  pp.  75-81)  that 
the  Legates  presided  at  general  councils,  taking  rank  before 
all  the  patriarchs.     But  Cerularius  wants  these  Legates  to  sit 
below,  not  only  himself,  but  all  his  Metropolitans  too.     That 
they  refuse  to  do  so,  that  they  do  not  prostrate  themselves  before 
him  and  that  they  bear  their  crosiers  in  his  diocese  are  the 
injuries  he  complains  of  to  Peter  of  Antioch.3     Because  of  these 
three  points  he  describes  their  conduct  as  "  so  great  insolence, 
boastfulness,  rashness,"  and  says  that  they  have  an  "  arrogant 
proud  spirit  "  and  are  "  stupid."  4     Several  weeks  pass  in  dis- 
cussion.    Cardinal  Humbert  composes  a  u  Dialogue  between  a 
Roman  and  a  Constantinopolitan,"  in  which  he  quite  temper- 
ately answers  their  charge  of  Judaism  in  our  customs  ;  *  and  an 
answer  to  the  treatise  of  Niketas  Stethatos.6     This  answer  is 
not  temperate.     He  writes  as  violently  as  any  Byzantine,  and 

1  He  afterwards  became  Pope  himself — Stephen  IX,  1057-1058. 

2  That  is,  the  last  ecclesiastical  embassy.  There  were  civil  negotiations 
after  the  schism. 

3  Will,  o.c.  p.  177.  Legates  always  bear  their  crosiers  wherever  they  go 
as  Legates.  They  are  for  the  time  delegated  with  a  share  in  their  master's 
universal  jurisdiction. 

*  Ibid. 

s  Ibid.  o.c.  pp.  93-126.    There  are  one  or  two  sharp  expressions. 

6  Ibid.  o.c.  pp.  136-150. 


1 84      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

heaps  up  abusive  epithets.  Niketas  is  no  monk,  but  an  epicure, 
who  ought  to  live  in  a  circus  or  house  of  bad  repute,  a  dog,  an 
abominable  cynic,  and  is  made  of  the  same  stuff  as  the  Moham- 
medans. Incredible  as  it  seems,  this  language  converted 
Niketas.  He  publicly  retracts  his  book  and  curses  all  the 
enemies  of  the  Roman  Church,  becoming  "  henceforth  our 
friend." x  There  seems  no  doubt  that  the  Emperor  made  him 
do  so.  Suddenly  Pope  Leo  IX  dies  (April  19,  1054),  just  as 
Nicholas  I  had  died,  in  the  middle  of  the  negotiations.  He 
was  not  succeeded  till  a  year  later  by  Victor  II  (1055-1057). 
Cerularius  now  refuses  to  see  the  Legates  and  will  have  nothing 
more  to  do  with  them  ; 2  he  had  already  taken  the  final  step 
by  striking  the  Pope's  name  off  his  diptych.3  This  was  open 
schism. 

The  Legates  then  at  last  prepare  a  bull  of  excommunication. 
They  are  still  on  quite  good  terms  with  the  Emperor,  and  they 
are  very  careful  to  say  nothing  against  the  Byzantine  Church.* 
"  As  far  as  the  pillars  of  the  Empire  are  concerned,  and  its  wise 
and  honoured  citizens,  this  city  is  most  Christian  and  Orthodox." 
11  But  we,"  they  go  on,  "  not  bearing  the  unheard-of  offence  and 
injury  done  to  the  holy  Apostolic  and  first  See,  wishing  to  defend 
in  every  way  the  Catholic  faith,  by  the  authority  of  the  holy 
undivided  Trinity  and  of  the  Apostolic  See,  whose  Legates  we 
are  .  .  .  declare  this  :  That  Michael,  patriarch  by  abuse, 
neophyte,  who  only  took  a  monk's  habit  by  fear  and  is  now 
infamous  because  of  many  very  bad  crimes,  and  with  him  Leo, 
called  Bishop  of  Achrida,  and  the  Sacellarius  of  the  said 
Michael,  who  with  profane  feet  trampled  on  the  sacrifice  of  the 
Latins  and  all  their  followers  in  the  aforesaid  errors  and  pre- 
sumptions shall  be  Anathema  Maranatha  .  .  .  with  all  heretics, 
and  with  the  devil  and  his  angels,  unless  they  repent.    Amen."  s 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  151.  Humbert's  "  Short  account  of  the  things  done  by  the 
Legates  of  the  Holy  Apostolic  Roman  See  in  the  imperial  city." 

2  Ibid.  3  ibid.  o.c.  p.  178. 
4  Ibid.  o.c.  :  the  text  of  the  bull,  pp.  153-154. 

s  The  offences  of  (not  the  Eastern  Church  but)  Michael  and  his  party  are 
said  to  be  that  they  commit  simony,  make  eunuchs,  rebaptize  Latins,  deny 
all  true  Church  or  sacrifice  or  baptism  outside  their  own  Greek  body,  allow 
priests'  marriage,  curse  the  old  law  of  Moses,  deny  that  the  Holy  Ghost 


THE   SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  185 

Now  that  the  crash  is  coming,  one  asks  oneself  what  else  the 
Legates  could  have  done.  They  had  waited  long  enough,  and 
if  ever  a  man  clearly  showed  that  he  wanted  schism  it  was 
Cerularius.  He  had  already  excommunicated  the  Pope  by  taking 
his  name  off  the  diptychs.  We  should  note  that  this  is  the  only 
sentence  that  the  Roman  Church  pronounced  against  the 
Eastern  Communion.  She  has  never  excommunicated  it  as 
such,  nor  the  other  patriarchs.  If  they  lost  her  communion  it 
was  because  they  too,  following  Cerularius's  example,  struck  the 
Pope's  name  from  their  diptychs. 

It  was  Saturday,  July  16,  1054,1  at  the  third  hour  (9a.n1).  The 
Hagia  Sophia  was  full  of  people,  the  priests  and  deacons  are 
vested,  the  Prothesis  (preparation)  of  the  holy  Liturgy  has  just 
begun.  Then  the  three  Latin  legates  walk  up  the  great  church 
through  the  people,  go  in  through  the  Royal  Door  of  the  Ikon- 
ostasis  and  lay  their  bull  of  excommunication  on  the  altar.  As 
they  turn  back  they  say :  Videat  Deus  et  iudicet.2  The  schism 
was  complete. 

It  is  always  rather  dangerous  to  claim  that  misfortunes  are  a 
judgement  of  God,  and  indeed  no  one  could  have  any  thought 
of  satisfaction  at  the  most  awful  calamity  that  ever  happened  to 
Christian  Europe.  At  the  same  time  one  realizes  how,  from  the 
day  the  Legates  turned  back  from  the  altar  on  which  they  had 
laid  their  bull,  the  Byzantine  Church  has  been  cut  off  from  all 
intercourse  with  the  rest  of  Christendom,  how  her  enemies 
gathered  round  this  city  nearer  and  nearer  each  century,  till 
at  last  they  took  it,  how  they  overturned  this  very  altar  as 
Cerularius  had  overturned  the  Latin  altars,  took  away  the  great 
church  as  he  had  taken  away  ours,  and  how  since  that  the 

proceeds  from  the  Son,  say  that  all  leavened  matter  has  a  soul,  will  not 
baptize  babies  who  die  a  week  after  they  are  born,  will  not  receive  into  com- 
munion shaven  clerks.  These  offences  are  not  said  to  be  all  heretical.  One 
accusation  (priests'  marriage)  is  only  a  rather  unworthy  reprisal.  But  the 
Legates  make  it  quite  clear  that  the  real  reason  for  their  bull  is  Cerularius's 
open  schism. 

1  Brehier's  date  (July  15th)  is  wrong  (p.  117).  Card.  Humbert  says  :  "XVII 
Kal.  Augusti  adierunt  ecclesiam  sanctae  Sophias  .  .  .  iam  hora  tertia  diei 
sabbati."     Will,  pp.  151-152. 

2  Will,  I.e. 


1 86      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

successors  of  the  man  who  would  not  bow  to  the  Roman  Pontiff 
have  had  to  bow  to,  have  had  to  receive  their  investiture  from, 
the  unbaptized  tyrant  who  sits  on  the  throne  of  Constantine  ; 
one  realizes  this  and  sees  that  the  words  of  the  Legates  were 
heard  and  that  God  has  seen  and  judged. 


3.  After  the  Schism. 

The  final  breach   had  now   come.     It  is  because  of  these 
events,  culminating  in  the  scene  of  that  Saturday  morning,  that 
a  hundred  millions  of  Christians  to-day  have  no  communion 
with  the  Catholic  Church.     The   Legates   seem  to   have   still 
hoped  that  there  would  be  no  breach  between  the  Churches. 
They  had  only  excommunicated  Cerularius  and  his  party.     The 
Emperor  was  still  warmly  on  their  side  ;  had  he  been  strong 
enough  to  get  rid  of  the  Patriarch  the  whole  affair  might  have 
blown  over.     But  he  was  hopelessly  weak  in  his  paralysis,  and 
Cerularius  was  already  by  far  the  strongest  man  in  the  Empire. 
Two  days  later  the  Legates  set  out  for  Rome.     Constantine  IX 
gives  them  splendid  presents  for  the  Pope  and  for  the  great 
monastery  of  Monte  Cassino,  always  specially  favoured  by  the 
Eastern  Emperors.     Hardly  were  they  gone  when  Cerularius 
sends  after  them  to  call  them  back  ;  he  is  now  prepared  to  treat 
with  them.     What  did  he  really  want  ?     There  seems  no  doubt 
that  he  meant  to  have  them  murdered.    Reckless  and  useless 
as  such  a  crime  would  have  been,  the  evidence  is  conclusive. 
Cardinal   Humbert  says   so   quite   plainly  :  "  Michael  tried  to 
make  them  come  to  the  Church  of  Holy  Wisdom  the  next  day 
as  if  to  a  council,  so  that — he  having  already  shown  the  people 
a  copy  of  the  bull,  which  he  had  corruptly  translated — they 
should  there  be  massacred.     But  the  prudent  Emperor,  fore- 
seeing this,  would  not  allow  the  meeting  unless  he  himself  were 
present."  z     The  Emperor  keeps  the  Legates  carefully  guarded 
in  his  own  palace  and  undertakes  to  protect  their  persons  what- 
ever happens.     Then  Cerularius  refuses  to  meet  them  (on  these 
terms)  after  all.     So  they  set  out  again  for  Rome  and  this  time 
arrive  there  quite  safely.     The  Patriarch  is  now  furious  with  the 
1  Will,  ox.  p.  152. 


THE   SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  187 

Emperor  and  excites  a  tumult  against  him.     That  this  revolution 
was  the  work  of  Cerularius  is  attested  by  Humbert1  and  prac- 
tically confessed  by  himself.     Poor  Constantine,  terribly  fright- 
ened,  sends   an   Embassy   to  the  Patriarch,  treating  with  him 
as  with  an  independent  Power,  or  rather  as  with  a  superior,  and 
writing  him  an  abject  letter,  which  Michael  himself  scornfully 
describes  as  "  supplicating." 2     He  begs  Cerularius  not  to  be 
hard  on  him,  says  that  all  the  trouble  caused  by  this  Legation 
was  the  fault  of  Argyros  (!),  is  quite  prepared  to  let  Argyros  be 
put  in  gaol  (if  they  can  catch  him)  and  the  bull  be  publicly 
burned  ;  he  solemnly  excuses  himself  for  having  let  the  Legates 
get  away  unhurt  "  because  of  their  character  as  ambassadors."  3 
This  letter  plainly  shows  who  was  responsible  for  the  revolution 
and  what  it  was  that  Cerularius  wanted  to  do  to  the  Legates. 
The  Patriarch  then  holds  a  synod  against  the  Latins  and  their 
bull ;  and   he  is  so  pleased  to  see  the  Emperor's  humiliation 
before  himself,  that  he  publishes  his  letter  at  the  end  of  the  Acts 
of  the  synod,-*  not  realizing  how  he  thereby  makes  his   own 
crimes   known   to   all   future   ages.      In   this   same   synod   he 
reproduces  the  old  Encyclical  of  Photius  with  all  its  charges 
against  the  Latins  and  excommunicates  us  all. 

Meanwhile  the  great  question  was  :  What  would  the  other 
Eastern  Patriarchs  do  ?  It  was,  indeed,  almost  a  foregone  con- 
clusion that  they,  who  were  all  Greeks,  brought  up  under  the 
now  overwhelming  influence  of  Constantinople,  would  side 
with  her,  just  as  all  the  Latin  bishops  stood  by  Rome.  The 
Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem  were  almost  negligible 
quantities.  They  sat  under  the  Moslem  with  their  little  flocks ; 
they,  of  course,  violently  hated  the  Copts  and  Jacobites  who 
were  better  disposed  to  the  Mohammedan  Government,  and  as 
Melkites  who  had  always  stood  out  for  the  "  Imperial"  Church 
they  turned  their  eyes  with  reverent  piety  to  that  distant 
Imperial  city  where  reigned  the  Orthodox  Caesar  and,  in  happy 
freedom,  the  Orthodox  Patriarch,  whom  they  had  now  long 
looked  upon  as  their  chief.     So  when    Cerularius   sent   them 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  152.  2  Ibid.  p.  166.  3  ibid. 

4  Ibid.  pp.  155-168.     See  also  Brehier,  o.c.  pp.  120-125,  who  is  convinced 
that  Cerularius  meant  to  have  the  Legates  killed. 


1 88      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

round  an  order  to  strike  the  Pope's  name  off  their  diptychs,1 
they  quietly  obeyed. 

The  position  of  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch  was  just  then  more 
fortunate.  In  968  the  Roman  armies  had  conquered  back  his 
city  and  so  he  was  again  free  under  a  Christian  Government, 
although  most  of  his  Patriarchate  was  gone.  Both  sides  then 
try  to  win  Peter  of  Antioch.2  There  are  very  few  people  in 
this  history  for  whom  one  feels  so  much  sympathy  as  with  this 
Peter.  He  had  all  the  prejudices  of  his  race.  He  cannot 
bear  Latins  ;  he  thinks  we  are  barbarous,  ignorant,  gross  in 
our  habits,  not  fit  to  be  compared  with  the  pure  Christians 
and  refined  "  Romans  "  who  enjoy  the  blessings  of  the  Imperial 
State  and  the  Greek  tongue.  And  yet  he  dreads  schism  more 
than  anything  else  in  the  world  and  he  hopelessly  tries  to 
make  excuses  for  us  to  Cerularius,  and  implores  him  to  be 
patient  with  our  unpleasant  ways,  and  at  any  rate,  whatever 
happens,  not  to  make  a  schism. 

Only  two  years  before  the  schism,  in  1052,  he  had,  as  usual, 
sent  to  announce  his  election  to  Pope  Leo  IX.  He  had,  as 
usual,  acknowledged  the  Roman  Primacy.3  Leo  answered  with 
a  letter  as  courteous  and  friendly  as  any  could  be.*  He  makes 
the  most  graceful  parallel  between  the  two  Petrine  Churches  : 
"  Your  Apostolic  See  has  addressed  our  Apostolic  See."  He 
remembers  that  "  it  was  in  the  great  Antioch  that  Christians 
were  first  named."  Touching  an  old  grievance,  he  says  that 
"Antioch  must  keep  the  third  place,"  and  that  "  we  have  heard 
that  certain  people  are  trying  to  diminish  the  ancient  dignity  of 
the  Antiochene  Church."  That  means,  of  course,  the  ambition 
of  Constantinople,  by  which  Antioch  would  sink  to  the  fourth 
place.     Unfortunately,  the  Pope's  letter  got  lost  on  the  way, 

1  Will,  ox.  p.  178. 

2  Peter  III  of  Antioch  began  his  reign  in  1052.  The  date  of  his  death  is 
unknown.     Lequien  :  Oriens.  Christ,  ii.  754. 

3  Will,  ox.  p.  169.  Leo's  answer  says  :  "  We  see  that  you  do  not  wander 
from  the  decree  of  all  the  holy  Fathers,  according  to  whom  the  holy  Roman 
Apostolic  Church  is  the  head  of  all  Churches  throughout  the  world,  and  that 
to  her  the  greater  and  more  difficult  causes  of  all  Churches  must  be  referred." 
Peter's  letter  is  no  longer  extant. 

«  Will,  ox.  pp.  168-171. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  189 

and  afterwards  Peter  complains,  somewhat  sulkily,  that  the 
Pope  had  never  answered  him.1  When  the  quarrel  began  Leo 
made  Dominic,  Patriarch  of  Venice,2  write  to  Peter.  This 
letter^  too,  is  almost  excessively  moderate.  Dominic  is  very 
polite  to  the  "  eminent  Patriarch  of  the  most  high  and  holy 
Church  of  Antioch  and  great  and  Apostolic  man."  He,  too,  refers 
to  the  Petrine  succession  of  the  see  "  which  we  know  to  be  the 
sister  of  our  mother  the  Roman  Church."  He  tells  him  all 
about  Leo  of  Achrida's  letter,  and  explains  that,  if  the  Latins 
prefer  to  use  Azyme,  they  by  no  means  intend  to  disparage  the 
Eastern  use  of  leaven.  "  Because  we  know  that  the  sacred 
mixture  of  fermented  bread  is  used  and  lawfully  observed  by 
the  most  holy  and  Orthodox  Fathers  of  the  Eastern  Churches, 
we  faithfully  approve  of  both  customs,  and  confirm  both  with  a 
spiritual  explanation."  He  thinks  that  leavened  bread  typifies 
the  hypostatic  union,  and  Azyme  our  Lord's  purity.  One  can- 
not sufficiently  admire  the  reasonableness  and  toleration  of  Rome 
at  a  time  when  Cerularius  was  calling  us  Jews,  and  our  Holy 
Eucharist  "mud."*  Dominic's  last  argument  is  pathetically 
meek  :  "If,  then,  our  offering  of  Azyme  bread  is  not  the  Body 
of  Christ,  we  are  all  of  us  cut  off  from  the  source  of  life." 
Meanwhile,  Peter  of  Antioch  had  also  heard  from  Constanti- 
nople, and  he  now  embarks  on  a  hopeless  career  as  a  peace- 
maker. He  answers  Dominic  quite  kindly,  although  he  will 
not  let  him  be  a  patriarch,  since  there  can  only  be  five,  and  he 
himself  is  the  only  person  who  has  a  quite  certain  right  to  the 
title.s  He  says  that  "  the  most  holy  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
does  not  think  you  to  be  bad  men,  nor  cut  off  from  the  Catholic 
Church  .  .  .  but  he  thinks  your  faith  halting  in  this  one  point 
only,  in  the  oblation  of  Azyme." 6 

f 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  228. 

2  His  official  title  was  "  Patriarch  of  Gradus  and  Aquileia."  These  were 
merged  into  Venice,  and  already  then  he  was  commonly  called  Patriarch  of 
Venice.    Aquileia  was  not  formally  abolished  till  1751,  by  Benedict  XIV. 

3  Will,  o.c.  pp.  205-208. 

4  This  was  his  favourite  amenity — "  dry  mud  "  (Will,  p.  105). 

5  Will,  o.c.  pp.  208-228.     This  is  the  letter  quoted  above,  p.  46,  note  2. 

6  This  shows  how  completely  the  question  of  the  Filioque  had  retired  to  the 
background  just  then. 


igo      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Cerularius,  however,  to  make  sure  of  Peter's  support,  now 
embarks  on  a  career  of  lying.  The  first  lie  is  that  the  Pope's 
name  has  not  appeared  on  the  Byzantine  diptychs  since  the 
sixth  general  council  (680),  and  (for  he  now  imagines  himself 
quite  a  Pope,  with  jurisdiction  over  the  other  patriarchs)  he 
orders  Peter  to  remove  it  from  his  diptychs  at  once,  and  to 
see  that  the  same  is  done  at  Alexandria  and  Jerusalem.1  This 
brazen  falsehood  is  at  once  refuted  by  Peter.  In  his  answer2 
he  first  quotes  Cerularius's  words,  and  goes  on  :  "I  am  covered 
with  shame  that  your  venerable  letter  should  contain  such 
things.  Believe  me,  I  do  not  know  how  to  explain  it,  for  your 
own  sake,  especially  if  you  have  written  like  this  to  the  other 
most  blessed  patriarchs."  3  He  then  mentions  all  the  Popes 
who,  since  680,  have  been  specially  reverenced  at  Constanti- 
nople— Agatho  most  of  all — and  he  says  :  "  When  I  went  to 
Constantinople  forty-five  years  ago,  I  myself  heard  the  Pope 
mentioned  in  the  holy  mysteries  with  the  other  patriarchs  by 
the  Lord  Patriarch  Sergius  of  holy  memory.  "4 

But  the  unblushing  Cerularius  has  many  more  lies  to  tell. 
He  sends  Peter  this  amazing  account  of  what  had  happened  in 
the  affair  of  the  Legates  :  the  Legates  had  not  been  sent  by  the 
Pope  at  all,  but  by  Argyros.s  Argyros,  who  was  still  freebooting 
about  Italy  and  pretending  to  fight  the  Normans,  and  whom 
Cerularius  for  some  reason  always  hated,  seems  to  have  been  a 
general  scapegoat.  Then  the  Legates  who  came,  fraudulently 
pretending  to  be  sent  by  Rome,  were  themselves  disreputable 
persons;  one  of  them  had  once  been  Bishop  of  Amalfi,  but 
had  been  turned  out  from  that  see  for  just  causes,  and  had 
wandered  about  Italy  for  five  years  (this  was  pure  fiction) ; 
another  pretended  to  be  an  archbishop,  but  no  one  could  find 
where  his  diocese  was  (Cardinal  Humbert :  his  diocese  was 
Silva  Candida) ;  the  third  was  a  sham  chancellor.  It  is  tedious 
to  repeat  the  pages  of  falsehood  he  sends  to  Antioch,  how  the 
Legates  had  forged  letters,  broken  open  seals,6  and  how  they 
had   excommunicated  all  the   Easterns  because  they  neither 

1  Will,  ox.  p.  178.  2  Ibid.  pp.  189,  seq. 

3  P.  190.  4  P.  193. 

5  P.  175-  6  Pp.  175-177. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  191 

shave  the  beard,  nor  use  Azyme  nor  say  the  Filioque.1  By  this 
time  Cerularius  has  found  some  more  grievances  against  us 
besides  the  three  chief  ones  (Azyme,  Saturday  fast,  and  celibacy). 
He  bitterly  complains  of  these  customs,  too  :  Latin  clerks  shave 
the  beard,  eat  unclean  food,  their  monks  eat  meat  on  Wednes- 
day, they  say  the  Filioque,  and  sing  in  Mass  "  One  holy  Lord 
Jesus  Christ  in  the  glory  of  God  the  Father  through  the  Holy 
Ghost " ;  they  have  a  kiss  of  peace  in  Mass,  their  bishops  wear 
rings,  do  not  venerate  relics,  despise  the  Eastern  Fathers,  will 
not  pray  to  St.  Gregory  of  Nazianzum,  St.  Basil,  or  St.  John 
Chrysostom,  and  their  bishops  go  to  war.2  Of  all  this  amazing 
list  of  nonsense,  some  statements  are  sheer  falsehoods,  as  that 
Latins  do  not  venerate  relics  nor  pray  to  the  Saints  he  names.3 
In  some  cases  one  simply  cannot,  with  the  best  will,  make  out 
what  he  means :  why  he  objects  to  bishops'  rings,  shaving,  or 
the  verse  at  the  end  of  our  Gloria,  unless  on  the  general  principle 
that  the  whole  world  must  conform  to  Constantinople,  down  to 
the  smallest  trifles.  One  accusation  (about  our  eating  food 
Levitically  unclean)  is  too  ridiculous,  as  coming  from  the  man 
who  was  always  accusing  us  of  Judaism.  But  in  one  point  he 
has  happened  to  hit  on  a  real  abuse — the  11th-century  Latin 
bishop  was  too  much  disposed  to  go  a-fighting.  Peter,  in  his 
answer,  agrees  about  the  Filioque,  but  points  out  how  absurd 
the  other  charges  are.4  In  the  case  of  the  verse  in  the  Gloria 
he  reminds  Cerularius  that  the  Eastern  Liturgies  contain  almost 
exactly  the  same  words.5  As  for  relics,  the  Romans  have  the 
very  bodies  of  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul,  and  M  Adrian  the  Roman 
Pope  presided  at  the  Seventh  Synod  (against  the  Iconoclasts)." 
"  And  we  have  seen  the  Frank  pilgrims  in  our  venerable  churches 
give  every  honour  and  reverence  to  sacred  pictures."6  But, 
above  all,  Peter  of  Antioch  dreads  schism,  and  the  pathetic 
words,  with  which  he  implores  Cerularius  not  to  make  one,  end 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  186.  The  Roman  Church  has  never  asked  the  Easterns  to 
do  any  of  these  things. 

2  Ibid.  pp.  180-183. 

3  In  the  Latin  Church  St.  Gregory  Nazianzum  has  his  feast  on  May  9th, 
St.  Basil  on  June  14th,  St.  John  Chrysostom  on  January  27th.  All  three  are 
honoured  as  Doctors  of  the  Church. 

*  Will,  o.c.  pp.  193-197.  s  p.  198.  6  P.  202. 


192      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

their  correspondence.  He  writes  from  no  love  of  Latins. 
"They  are  our  brothers,"  he  says,  "although  their  rusticity  and 
stupidity  often  make  them  behave  indecently.  We  must  not 
expect  from  these  barbarians  the  same  perfect  manners  as  we 
find  among  our  civilized  people."1  But  he  says  :  "  I  beg  you,  I 
implore  you,  and  in  spirit  I  embrace  your  sacred  feet  and  entreat 
Your  Divine  Beatitude  to  give  way  and  to  accommodate  itself  to 
circumstances.  For  it  is  to  be  feared  that  you,  in  trying  to  heal 
these  differences,  may  only  make  a  schism,  which  is  worse,  and 
that  in  trying  to  lift  them  up  you  may  cause  a  great  calamity. 
Consider  what  would  certainly  happen  if  that  great  first  and 
Apostolic  See  be  divided  from  our  holy  Churches — wickedness 
would  spread  everywhere,  and  the  whole  world  would  be  upset, 
the  kingdoms  of  all  the  earth  would  be  shaken,  everywhere 
would  be  much  woe,  everywhere  tears."2 

We  have  every  reason  to  suppose  that  Peter  never  did  go 
into  schism  ;  he  had  plainly  refused  to  strike  the  Pope's  name 
from  his  diptychs  once,  and  we  see  how  strongly  he  feels  about 
the  evil  of  breaking  the  communion  of  "  that  great  first  and 
Apostolic  See."  He  died  the  last  Catholic  Patriarch  of  Antioch 
of  the  old  line  ;  may  he  rest  in  peace.  His  attitude  was  typical 
of  the  older  Eastern  tradition  with  its  utter  ignorance  of 
anything  outside  the  Empire,  even  of  the  Latin  language,  its 
absurd  idea  that  "  Franks "  were  all  miserable  savages,3  its 
pathetic  self-complacency,  and  yet  its  firm  conviction  that  for 
no  reason  may  Catholic  unity  be  broken. 

4.   The   End  of  Cerularius. 

It  would  still  remain  a  mystery  why  Cerularius  should  have 
been  so  absolutely  determined  to  break  with  Rome  at  any  cost, 

1  Will,  o.c.  p.  198.  Peter,  by  the  way,  could  not  read  a  word  of  Latin.  He 
had  to  send  the  Pope's  letter  to  Constantinople  to  have  it  translated.  He  could 
not  find  any  one  at  Antioch  who  could  do  so  (p.  204).     See  above,  p.  89. 

2  Will,  o.c.  pp.  202-203. 

3  The  idea  is  quite  simple  :  the  people  whom  Julius  Caesar  had  fought  were 
savages.  Atqui  the  "Romans"  in  the  East  represent  Caesar  and  his 
Romans  ;  Franks  in  the  West  are  the  descendants  of  the  savages.  Ergo. 
The  ignorance  of  Latin  seems  rather  strange,  but  perhaps  Peter  thought  that 
Julius  had  talked  Byzantine  Greek.     His  Roman  Emperor  did. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  193 

why  he  should  have  cared  to  heap  up  lies  and  attempt  murder, 
apparently  for  no  possible  object  but  just  the  pleasure  of  being 
in  schism,  did  not  his  future  career  give  the  clue  to  the  whole 
scheme.  He  was  by  far  the  strongest  and  most  popular  man  in 
Constantinople,  and  he  wanted  to  be  the  recognized  head  of  the 
Empire.  At  one  time  later  he  seems  to  have  tried  to  join 
the  rank  of  Emperor  and  Patriarch  in  his  own  person,  and  when 
that  plan  failed  his  idea  was  to  set  up  a  kind  of  theocracy,  in 
which  the  State  should  be  the  humble  vassal  of  the  Church,  and 
the  head  of  the  Church  the  acknowledged  over-lord  of  the  head 
of  the  State.  It  was  the  exact  reverse  of  the  Erastianism  that, 
as  a  rule,  flourished  unchecked  in  the  Eastern  Empire,  a  sort 
of  concrete  case  and  actual  practice  of  the  Utopia  of  which 
Gregory  VII  and  Boniface  VIII  dreamed.  The  breach  with 
Rome  was  only  a  means,  the  first  step  in  this  plan. 
Cerularius  could  easily  manage  to  be  the  head  of  the 
Eastern  Patriarchs,  but  he  knew  it  was  hopeless  to  expect 
the  Roman  Pope  to  submit  to  him.  So  he  had  definitely  to 
cut  the  tie  between  the  Eastern  and  Western  Churches — 
any  excuse  must  serve,  for  no  one  could  possibly  really  care 
about  the  ludicrous  accusations  he  brought  against  us.1  Then, 
unquestioned  master  of  a  great  homogeneous  ecclesiastical 
body,  he  could  and  did  proceed  to  fight  for  civil  supremacy 
as  well.2  Only  here  the  fortune  of  war  turned  against  him  and 
he  fell.  He  had  already  shown  Constantine  IX  that  he  was  the 
greater  man  of  the  two.  Constantine  after  that  was  very  care- 
ful not  to  annoy  the  Patriarch  again.  He  died  in  1055  and 
was  succeeded  by  old  Theodora,  his  wife's  sister,  the  last 
descendant  of  Basil  the  Macedonian.  Cerularius,  says  Psellos, 
"  tried  to  rule  over  the  Empress."  3  When  she  died  (1056) 
Michael  VI  (1056-1057)  succeeded.  But  Michael  wanted 
to  reign  independently  of  his  over-lord,  so  Cerularius,  who  is 

1  One  wonders,  however,  why  he  did  not  stick  to  the  Filioque  grievance 
and  make  the  most  of  that.  It  would  have  made  a  far  better  case  than  the 
nonsense  he  thought  of.  However  he  was  certainly  no  theologian,  and 
probably  did  not  realize  this.  He  was  never  anything  like  so  clever  a  man  as 
Photius. 

2  This  is  Brehier's  view,  o.c.  pp.  209-215  :  Les  causes  folitiques  du  schisme, 

3  Fun.  Oration  of  Cerularius,  ed.  Sathas,  p.  357. 

14 


194      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  kingmaker  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  again  rouses  the  people, 
overturns  Michael,  goes  himself  to  cut  off  his  hair  and  make 
him  a  monk,  and  sets  up  Isaac  Komnenos  (1057-1059)  in  his 
place.  At  first  Isaac,  who  knows  quite  well  to  whom  he  owes 
his  place,  is  very  docile.  The  year  1058  was  the  time  of 
Cerularius's  greatest  power.  The  Emperor  let  him  rule  as  he 
liked  in  the  Church  and  the  Palace  ;  he  appointed  the  officers 
of  state  and  at  last  succeeded  in  being  the  only  real  sovereign 
of  the  Empire.1  "  Losing  all  shame,"  said  Psellos  afterwards, 
"  he  joined  royalty  and  priesthood  in  himself  ;  in  his  hand 
he  held  the  cross,  while  from  his  mouth  imperial  laws  came."2 
But  gradually  Isaac  got  tired  of  being  the  Patriarch's  vassal 
and  wanted  to  really  reign.  So  once  again  Cerularius 
works  up  a  revolution.  His  language  to  the  Emperor  lacked 
respect :  "  You  beast,"  he  said,  "  I  made  you  and  I  will 
crush  you."  3  However  he  did  not  succeed  this  time.  He 
seems  to  have  meant  to  get  himself  actually  crowned  Emperor 
after  this  revolution.*  But  Isaac  was  too  quick  for  him. 
Before  Cerularius  had  time  to  arrange  his  insurrection  he  was 
arrested  and  tried  for  high  treason  (1059).  ^  was  Psellos, 
his  old  friend  and  future  panegyrist,  who  was  the  advocate  for 
the  crown,  and  the  comparison  of  his  indictment  with  the 
funeral  oration  he  pronounced  when  Cerularius  was  dead  and 
had  to  be  glorified  is  an  interesting  example  of  Byzantine 
honesty.  Now  everything  had  to  be  made  as  black  as  possible, 
and  so  besides  the  accusation  of  treason,  which  was  a  true  bill, 
Psellos  heaps  up  every  kind  of  absurd  charge.  Cerularius  was 
guilty  of  Hellenisms  and  Chaldaism — that  is,  heathen  witch- 
craft ;  he  had  invoked  "  material  ghosts."     (It  is  true  that  when 

1  He  now  began  to  wear  purple  shoes,  one  of  the  official  privileges  of  the 
Emperor  :  Brehier,  I.e. 

2  Quoted  by  Brehier,  o.c.  p.  275. 

3  'Ew  <ts  zkthjcl,  <f>ovpve,  id  'iva  as  x^a™  (Brehier,  p.  279).  A  beautiful 
example  of  vulgar  11th-century  Greek.  'Ew  is,  of  course,  eyd>.  tpovpvog  is  a 
baker's  oven.  Notice  'Iva  with  the  subj.  already  =  future.  I  do  not  know 
why  he  called  Isaac  a  baker's  oven.     Brehier  translates  it  "  brute." 

4  See  Brehier,  p.  281. 

s  Hellenism  still  means  heathenism.  These  Greeks,  of  course,  all  called 
themselves  Romans — Pojfiaioi — that  is  citizens  of  the  Roman  Empire. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS  195 

he  had  given  up  the  philosopher's  stone  he  had  developed  a 
polite  taste  for  spiritualist  seances.)  Also  his  language  was  so 
vulgar  that  he  made  people  blush  ;  in  short  he  was  "  impious, 
tyrannical,  murderous,  sacrilegious,  and  unworthy."  But 
Cerularius  did  not  live  to  suffer  the  capital  punishment  that 
probably  awaited  him.  While  he  was  being  taken,  strongly 
guarded,  to  Madytos1  he  died  (1059).  At  once,  then,  his 
apotheosis  begins.2  Now  that  he  is  no  longer  dangerous  to 
any  one  the  Emperor  affects  much  regret  for  all  that  had 
happened.  His  body  is  brought  with  great  pomp  to  Con- 
stantinople, and  is  buried  in  the  monastery  of  the  Holy  Angels. 
And  gradually  the  people  forget  everything  evil  that  he  did  and 
transform  him  into  a  saint.  A  yearly  panegyric  is  instituted  in 
his  memory,  and  the  same  Psellos  who  had  brought  the  charges 
against  him,  preaching  before  the  Emperor,  describes  his 
former  victim  as  the  wisest,  holiest,  most  persecuted  of  men.3 
Cerularius  had  not  succeeded  in  his  plan  of  setting  himself  up 
as  the  head  of  a  great  theocracy  ;  but  he  had  done  a  far 
greater  work  and  one  that  still  lasts,  he  had  definitely  estab- 
lished the  schismatical  Eastern  Church. 

At  the  end  of  all  this  story  of  the  schism  one  remark  needs  to 
be  made.  The  sometimes  almost  incredible  facts  are  not  in 
dispute.  Cornelius  Will's  Acta  et  Scripta  are  a  collection  of 
contemporary  letters  and  reports,  from  which  each  step  of  the 
story  is  made  plain,  and  from  which,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  all  this 
account  has  been  written.  And  people  who  have  studied  the 
matter  know  it  all.  Philip  Meyer's  article  on  "  Cerularius  "  in  the 
great  German  Protestant  Encyclopaedia  of  Theology,*  for  instance, 
says  of  the  quarrel  between  the  Churches  :  "  This  time  it  was 
Michael  who  arbitrarily  took  it  up  again,  just  at  a  time  when  the 
Court  of  Byzantium  and  the  Pope  had  enough  reason  for  an 

1  In  the  Chersonesos  on  the  Hellespont.  There  was  a  shipwreck  on  the 
way,  and  though  he  got  ashore  he  died  from  its  effects. 

2  As  soon  as  he  was  dead  he  appeared  to  the  Bishop  of  Madytos  radiant  in 
his  patriarchal  vestments,  only  (being  a  ghost)  he  had  to  flee  away  at  day- 
break (Fun.  Oration,  p.  374). 

3  This  is  the  funeral  oration  already  quoted. 

4  Realenzyklopddie  fur  protestantische  Theologie  und  Kirche  (Herzog  u. 
Hauck),  Leipzig,  vol.  iii.  (1897),  pp.  620-621. 


196      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

alliance  in  the  Norman  war."  .  .  .  "Michael  violently  sup- 
pressed the  Latin  rite,  that  was  used  in  many  monasteries  and 
churches  over  there,  and  in  1053  sent,  in  a  letter  to  the  Bishop 
of  Trani  in  Apulia,  a  regular  declaration  of  war  against  the 
Roman  Church."  When  the  Legates  came  "  Michael  himself 
rejected  their  advances.  Then  the  Legates  took  the  last  step, 
and  on  July  16,  1054,  laid  an  elaborate  bull  of  excommunication 
on  the  altar  of  the  Sophia  Church,  which,  with  prudent  respect 
for  the  Court,  heaped  up  curses,  abuse,  and  heretical  names 
against  the  Patriarch,  his  followers,  and  the  practices  of  his 
Church."  Afterwards  Cerularius  "  was  dishonest  enough  to 
represent  the  whole  Embassy  as  having  not  been  sent  by 
the  Pope."  "  As  far  as  hatred  and  passion  goes,  both  sides  may 
have  been  about  equal  ;  but  in  chivalrous  pride  and  judgement 
the  representatives  of  the  Roman  Church  were  superior  to  their 
adversary."  "As  the  defender  of  Greek  Orthodoxy,  Michael, 
however,  was  remembered  by  his  Church  with  great  honour, 
although  without  much  desert,  as  far  as  his  mind  and  character 
are  concerned."  So  far  a  scholar  who,  in  spite  of  his  prejudice 
against  Rome,  at  any  rate  knows  his  subject.  But  the  small 
text-books  of  history,  the  handbooks  and  compendia  that  go 
about  in  England,  have  nothing  to  say  about  the  whole 
quarrel  except,  perhaps,  that  Photius  refused  to  acknowledge 
the  Pope's  assumed  primacy,  and  that  the  Eastern  Church 
under  Cerularius  finally  threw  off  the  yoke  of  Rome.  All 
that  Mr.  Hutton  (as  one  instance  out  of  many)  in  a  little 
book  on  Constantinople  *  has  to  say  is  :  "  Two  great  names 
embody  in  the  East  the  final  protest  against  Roman  assumption." 
"  Photius  .  .  .  owed  his  throne  to  an  election  which  was  not 
canonical."  "  The  papal  claim  to  decide  between  two  claimants 
to  the  patriarchate  was  fiercely  resented"  (!  both  had  formally 
appealed  to  Rome).  "  The  position  which  Photius  defended 
with  skill  and  vigour  in  the  9th  century  was  reasserted 
by  Michael  Cerularius  in  the  nth.  He  regarded  the 
teaching  of  the  West  on  the  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Trinity, 
says  Psellus,  as  an  intolerable  heresy  ;  and  he  was  prompt 
to  reassert  jurisdiction  over  the  Churches  of  Apulia,  now 
1  In  Dent's  "  Mediaeval  Towns  "  series  (1900),  pp.  86-87. 


THE  SCHISM  OF  CERULARIUS 


197 


conquered  by  the  Normans  and  made  subject  to  Rome. 
The  final  breach  came  from  Rome  itself.  On  July  16,  1054, 
two  Legates  of  the  Pope  laid  on  the  altar  of  S.  Sophia 
the  act  of  excommunication  which  severed  the  Patriarch 
from  the  communion  of  the  West,  and  condemned  what 
were  asserted  to  be  seven  deadly  heresies  of  the  Eastern 
Church."  It  is  hardly  necessary  to  point  out  all  the  inaccu- 
racies of  this  account.  The  Normans  did  not  conquer  Apulia 
till  Roger  II  (11 05-1 154)  ;  it  had  always  been  ecclesiastically 
subject  to  Rome.  Cerularius's  grievance  was  not  the  Filioque 
but  Azyme  bread.  The  final  breach  came  from  Constantinople. 
There  were  three  Legates  ;  they  did  not  accuse  the  Eastern 
Church   of   any   heresies. 

It  is  because  such  travesties  are  all  that  people  seem  to 
have  generally  heard  about  the  greatest  calamity  that  ever  befel 
Christendom,  and  especially  because  of  the  unfailing  assump- 
tion that  Rome  must  have  been  the  aggressor,  that  these  two 
chapters  contain  so  much  detail  about  a  story  that  is  itself 
neither  very  interesting  nor  at  all  edifying. 


Summary. 

The  story  of  the  final  schism  in  the  nth  century  is  a 
much  worse  case  of  Byzantine  arrogance  and  intolerance  than 
the  story  of  Photius.  In  1053  Michael  Cerularius  suddenly, 
for  no  reason  whatever  except  apparently  for  some  private 
scheme  of  ambition,  declares  war  against  Rome  and  the  Latin 
West.  He  makes  one  of  his  metropolitans — Leo  of  Achrida — 
send  an  offensive  letter  to  a  Latin  bishop  ;  himself  publishes 
over  the  East  a  treatise  against  Latins,  and  shuts  all  the  Latin 
churches  in  his  patriarchate.  The  Emperor,  Constantine  IX, 
wants  peace.  The  Pope,  St.  Leo  IX,  sends  three  Legates 
to  Constantinople ;  but  Cerularius  will  have  nothing  to  do 
with  them,  and  has  already  struck  the  Pope's  name  off  his 
diptychs.  At  last,  in  1054,  tne  Legates  lay  a  bull  of  excom- 
munication against  (not  the  Byzantine  Church  but)  Cerularius 
and  his  adherents  on  the  altar  of  the  Hagia  Sophia.  Ceru- 
larius orders  all  the   other    Eastern   patriarchs  to  remove  the 


198      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Pope's  name  from  their  diptychs,  and  grossly  misrepresents 
what  has  happened.  But  the  Patriarch  of  Antioch,  for  one, 
still  tries  to  make  peace.  After  the  schism,  Cerularius,  by 
far  the  strongest  man  at  Constantinople,  becomes  a  sort  of 
kingmaker,  till  at  last  he  falls  and  dies,  just  as  he  has  been 
condemned  for  treason.  After  his  death  he  becomes  a  quite 
mythical  hero. 


PART    III 
THE   ORTHODOX   CHURCH    SINCE   THE   SCHISM 


One  of  the  many  deplorable  results  of  the  great  Eastern  schism 
was  that  from  that  time  the  people  of  Western  Europe — that  is 
the  nations  that  were  in  every  way  the  leaders  of  civilization 
— gradually  lost  sight  of  their  fellow-Christians  on  the  other  side 
of  the  Adriatic.  The  Popes  never  forgot  the  ancient  Churches 
now  cut  off  from  their  communion.  We  shall  see  how  they 
tried  to  close  up  the  breach  ;  always  from  the  nth  century  to 
the  20th  Rome  has  schemed,  arranged,  worked  in  every 
possible  way  for  the  re-conversion  of  the  Eastern  schismatics. 
And  for  a  time,  after  the  nth  century,  people  in  the  West  were 
still  conscious  of  that  wonderful  city  on  the  Bosphorus,  where 
in  half-mythical  splendour  reigned  the  great  prince  whom  they 
now  barbarously  called  the  "  Greek  Emperor." 

The  Crusades  brought  Eastern  and  Western  Europe  together 
for  a  time,  but  really  only  as  enemies  ;  already,  then,  these 
Greeks  were  almost  as  strange  to  our  fathers  as  the  Saracens 
and  Turks  whom  they  went  out  to  fight.  Then  came  the  fall 
of  Constantinople,  and  a  thick  cloud  falls  over  all  the  Eastern 
Churches,  till  in  the  19th  century  at  last  the  first  beginnings 
of  Christian  independence  in  the  Balkan  Peninsula  drew 
people's  attention  incidentally  to  the  metropolitans  and  popes 
who  helped  the  insurrections. 

The  period  from  the  schism  in  1054  to  the  beginning  of 
Greek  independence  in  1821  is  cut  in  half  by  the  fall  of 
Constantinople  in  1453.  During  the  first  half  the  facts  that 
will  most  interest  Catholics  are  the  attempts  at  reunion  and  the 
Crusades,  as  far  as  they  affect  the  Eastern  Churches  ;  concern- 
ing the  period  after  1453,  one  should  have  some  idea  of  the 
conditions  under  which  the  Christians  subject  to  the  Turk  lived, 
of  their  relations  to  the  Roman  See,  of  perhaps  one  or  two  of 
their  theologians  during  this  time,  and  especially  of  the  great 
affair  of  Cyril  Lukaris  and  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  in  1672. 


CHAPTER   VI 

THE    REUNION   COUNCILS 

The  Popes,  after  the  schism  had  become  an  undeniable  fact, 
never  lost  hope  of  undoing  it.  Of  the  numberless  attempts 
made  by  them,  the  messages,  conferences,  proposals,  that  were 
taken  up  by  one  Pope  after  another,  the  most  important  were 
three  councils — at  Bari  in  1098,  Lyons  in  1274,  and  Ferrara- 
Florence  in  1439.  We  may  notice  at  once  that  the  attitude  of 
Rome  towards  the  Eastern  schismatics  has  always  been  rather 
different  from  that  towards  Protestants.  First,  to  the  canonist 
and  theologian,  who  do  not  measure  the  dignity  of  Churches 
by  their  riches  or  numbers,  the  loss  of  the  great  Apostolic 
Eastern  Churches  is  much  more  deplorable  than  that  of  the 
Protestant  bodies.  Secondly,  there  is  not  the  special  bitterness 
about  the  Eastern  schism  that  there  is  about  the  Reformation. 
The  first  Protestants  were  the  children  of  the  Pope's  own 
patriarchate,  whose  fathers  had  been  converted  from  Rome, 
who  had  used  the  Roman  rite,  and  had  received  the  Holy 
Orders  they  now  rejected  from  the  Pope.  Thirdly,  the  Eastern 
Churches  are  far  nearer  to  us  than  any  Protestant  congregation. 
Practically,  as  we  shall  see,  the  only  thing  wrong  with  the 
Easterns  is  the  schism.  Their  faith  hardly  differs  at  all  from 
ours.  And  they  are  corporate  bodies,  Churches  in  themselves, 
quite  properly  constituted  with  a  hierarchy  whose  orders  no 
one  has  ever  thought  of  questioning.  And  with  such  bodies  the 
Roman  Church  can  treat.  So  Rome  has  always  been  very  much 
more  conciliatory  to  the  Eastern  Churches  than  to  Protestants. 
With    the    numberless    Protestant    sects   she    can    have    no 


202      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

communication  ;  out  of  a  "  disorderly  crowd  of  rebels"1  each 
member  must  come  back  and  be  reconciled  by  himself,  with 
the  Eastern  Churches  corporate  reunion  is  a  really  possible 
ideal.  We  express  it  all  roughly,  but  quite  well,  when  we  call 
Protestants  heretics  and  the  "  Orthodox  "  schismatics,  and  when 
we  pray  for  the  conversion  of  Protestants  and  for  the  reunion 
of  the  Eastern  Churches. 

i.  The  Council  of  Bari,  1098. 

The  Western  Church  did  not  realize  at  once,  in  1054,  tnat  a 
permanent  rupture  had  now  come.  There  were  still  relations 
in  one  or  two  cases  before  all  intercourse  came  to  an  end. 
Pope  Alexander  II  (1061-1073)  sent  Peter,  Bishop  of  Anania, 
in  107 1  to  the  Emperor  Michael  VII  (1071-1078),  apparently 
to  discuss  political  questions  only.  The  Emperor  received 
Peter  very  kindly  and  entertained  him  for  a  whole  year,  but 
the  Patriarch  John  VIII  (1064-1075)  and  his  clergy  would  have 
no  communion  with  him.  There  were  still  some  theologians  in 
the  Byzantine  Church  who  saw  no  reason  for  schism,  and  who 
wrote  to  protest  against  the  absurd  fuss  that  was  being  made 
about  harmless  local  Latin  customs,  such  as  Theophylactus  of 
Achrida  (successor  of  the  Leo  who  had  opened  the  campaign), 
who,  about  1070,  wrote  an  allocution  defending  the  Latins, 
except  in  the  matter  of  the  Filioque.2  They  were  the  first  mem- 
bers of  the  Latinizing  party  that  has  existed  ever  since  in  the 
Orthodox  Church.  But  gradually  all  friendly  relations  ceased 
and  every  one  realized  that  a  definite  schism  had  now  established 
two  rival  communions.  And  then,  as  always  happens,  the 
differences  become  fossilized,  and  the  two  streams,  once  parted, 
flowed  farther  and  farther  apart.  At  last  some  Latin  writers, 
unfortunately,  began  making  unworthy  reprisals  and,  forgetting 
the  dignified  tradition  of  their  side  in  this  miserable  quarrel, 
found  fault  with  various  quite  harmless  Byzantine  customs  in 
the  same  mean  spirit  as  their  charges  against  us. 

1  One  regrets  having  to  speak  disrespectfully  of  any  religion,  especially  of 
any  Christian  bodies.  At  the  same  time  to  understand  this  point  one  must 
realize  the  attitude  that  the  Roman  See  inevitably  takes  up,  that  is  the  only 
possible  one  from  her  point  of  view.  The  expression  quoted  was  used  by 
Leo  XIII. 

8  Will,  ox.  pp.  229-253. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  203 

The  first  council  held  between,  at  any  rate,  some  members  of 
either  side  after  the  schism  was  at  Bari,  in  Apulia,  in  1098. 
Pope  Urban  II  (1088-1099)  was  carrying  on  the  fight  of  Gregory 
VII  against  the  Emperor  Henry  IV  (1056-1106),  and  in  1095 
had  proclaimed  the  First  Crusade  at  the  Council  of  Clermont. 
Then,  possibly  in  connection  with  that  movement,  he  held 
this  synod  at  Bari.  The  hero  of  the  council  was  our  St. 
Anselm  of  Canterbury  (f  1109),  and  as  its  Acts  have  been 
lost  the  little  we  know  about  it  is  from  Eadmer's  life  of 
his  master.1  Anselm  had  fled  from  the  Red  King  the  year 
before  (1097)  and  was  now  in  the  Pope's  company. 

The  "  Greeks"  at  Bari  were  probably  bishops  of  the  Byzantine 
rite  in  Southern  Italy.2  The  Normans  were  then  conquering 
those  parts,  and  whatever  pretence  of  jurisdiction  the  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople  had  advanced  over  "greater  Greece"  was  now 
coming  definitely  to  an  end  (p.  46).  But  these  Italian  Greeks 
shared  the  ideas  of  their  fellow-countrymen  across  the  Adriatic 
about  the  Filioque,  and  this  council  was  held  to  convert  them 
on  that  point.  Although  Cerularius  had  made  so  little  of  the 
Filioque  grievance,  it  will  now  be  (with  the  Primacy)  always 
the  chief  difference  between  the  two  Churches.  It  is  not  known 
how  many  Greeks  were  present  nor  who  they  were.  Nor  is 
the  result  of  the  council  known,  except  that  under  the  pressure 
of  the  Norman  Government  all  these  Italo-Greeks  did  eventually 
accept  both  the  Pope's  jurisdiction  and  the  Catholic  faith  about 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  There  was  never  again  any 
question  of  schism  in  greater  Greece.  All  we  know  of  the 
council  is  this  scene  described  by  Eadmer,  who  was  present 
with  St.  Anselm.  Pope  Urban  begins  by  explaining  our  faith 
in  the  double  procession.  Then  the  Greeks  answer  him  and 
the  Pope  seems  to  have  got  into  difficulties,  for  he  cries  out : 
"  Father  and  master,  Anselm,  Archbishop  of  the  English,  where 
are  you  ? "  St.  Anselm  was  sitting  in  the  front  rank  of  the 
fathers,  "  and  I,"  says  Eadmer,  "  sat  at  his  feet."  Now  he 
stands  up  and  answers  :  M  Lord  and  father,  here  I  am,  what  do 
you  want  ?  "     a  What  are  you  doing  ?  "  says  the  Pope,  "  why  do 

1  M.P.L.  clviii. 

2  There  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  one  from  the  East  present. 


204      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

you  not  speak  ?  Come,  I  beg  you,  help  us  to  fight  for  your 
Mother  and  ours.  Look  at  these  Greeks  who  are  trying  to  soil 
her  purity  by  dragging  us  into  their  error."  St.  Anselm  then 
goes  up  and  stands  by  the  Pope,  and  all  the  Fathers  begin 
talking  at  once  and  asking  who  this  stranger  may  be.  Urban 
tells  them  to  be  quiet  and  explains  to  them  Anselm's  fame,  his 
great  holiness,  and  how  he  is  now  an  exile  for  the  faith. 
Then  Anselm  speaks  and  refutes  all  the  difficulties  of  the 
Greeks.  When  he  has  done  the  Pope  says  :  "  Blessed  are  the 
words  that  came  from  your  lips."  Unfortunately  Eadmer 
cannot  tell  us  much  about  what  St.  Anselm  actually  said.  Instead 
of  listening  to  what  was  going  on  he  had  been  staring  about 
him.  First  he  notices  that  the  Archbishop  of  Beneventum  was 
wearing  by  far  the  finest  cope.  Then  he  suddenly  recognizes 
this  cope  as  one  sent  to  Beneventum  by  Egelnoth,  a  former 
Archbishop  of  Canterbury,  in  exchange  for  a  relic.  He  is 
further  surprised  to  see  that  the  Pope  is  not  wearing  a  cope 
but  a  chasuble  with  the  pallium  over  it.  However,  Eadmer's 
distractions  do  not  much  matter,  because  St.  Anselm  afterwards 
wrote  down  all  his  arguments  in  a  treatise  "  Of  the  Procession 
of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  which  is  published  with  his  other  works.1 
This  same  Synod  of  Bari  was  about  to  excommunicate  William 
Rufus  of  England,  but  St.  Anselm  persuaded  the  Pope  to  be 
patient  with  him  yet  a  little  longer.  That  is  all  that  is  known 
about  it. 

2.  The  Second  Council  of  Lyons,  1274. 

All  through  the  13th  century,  since  the  Crusaders  had  taken 
Constantinople  in  1204  (p.  225),  the  Eastern  Empire,  now  shut 
up  in  a  corner  of  Asia  Minor  around  Nicaea  between  the  Latins 
and  the  Turks,  was  reduced  almost  to  the  last  gasp.  In  their 
despair  the  Emperors  saw  the  only  hope  in  an  alliance  with 
the  West.  If  the  Crusaders,  instead  of  attacking  them,  would 
join  them  against  the  Turk,  there  might  yet  be  some  chance 
for  the  old  Empire.     And  they  saw  that  the  first  step  to  such 

1  M.P.L.  clviii.  St.  Peter  Damian  also  wrote  a  book  "  Against  the  error 
of  the  Greeks  touching  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  M.P.L.  cxlv. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  205 

an  alliance  must  be  reunion  with  the  Latin  Church.  So  there 
are  a  succession  of  embassies,  proposals,  arrangements  made  for 
this  purpose  by  the  Emperors,  which  eventually  lead  to  reunion 
at  the  Council  of  Lyons  in  1274.  But  the  people  over  there 
were  against  the  union  all  the  time.  Now  especially,  after  the 
outrages  they  had  suffered  from  the  Crusaders,  their  hatred  of 
the  Franks  had  grown  tenfold,  and  even  to  the  Government  the 
union  was  really  only  an  annoyance  to  be  borne  for  political 
reasons.  So  naturally  the  union  did  not  last.  Only  in  the 
West  was  there  a  real  enthusiasm  for  reunion  for  its  own  sake. 
The  Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  Germanos  II  (1222-1240),  now 
in  exile  with  the  Emperor  at  Nicaea,  wrote  to  Pope  Gregory  IX 
(1227-1241)  in  1232  acknowledging  his  Primacy,  and  asking  for 
reunion.  The  Pope  sent  four  friars,  two  Dominicans  and  two 
Franciscans,  with  letters  to  Nicaea.  They  were  very  well  re- 
ceived by  the  Emperor  (John  III,  1222-1254),  but  they  could 
not  arrange  a  union.  Michael  Palaiologos  (Michael  VIII, 
1259-1282),  after  he  had  reconquered  Constantinople  (1261), 
again  opened  negotiations  with  the  Pope.  He  was  still  afraid 
of  having  to  defend  his  city  against  another  Crusade.  If  only 
the  Latins  would  acknowledge  him  and  help  him  fight  the 
common  enemy  of  all  Christians,  the  Turk,  he  might  yet  save 
or  even  enlarge  his  Empire. 

As  soon  as  Gregory  X  (1271-1276)  became  Pope,  he  set  about 
arranging  for  a  general  council.  This  council  was  once  more 
to  arouse  the  Western  princes  to  a  great  Crusade,  so  as  to  save 
the  remnants  of  the  Latin  princedoms  in  the  Holy  Land,  now 
in  deadly  danger,  and  to  arrange  a  reunion  with  the  Eastern 
Churches. 

The  council  met  on  May  7,  1274,  in  the  Cathedral  of  Lyons  ; x 
five  hundred  bishops  and  one  thousand  abbots  were  present, 
also  King  James  I  of  Aragon,  and  ambassadors  from  the 
(Western)  Empire,  France,  England,  and  Sicily,  as  well  as 
the  Latin  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  and  Antioch  (p.  224)  ; 
the  Greek  bishops  arrived  at  the  third  session,  on  June  24th. 
This   is   the   Second   Council   of   Lyons    and    the    fourteenth 

1  The  first  Council  of  Lyons  (the  thirteenth  general  council)  had  met 
in  1245. 


206      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

oecumenical  council.  The  Latin  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
was  given  the  second  place  after  the  Pope — the  first  recognition 
on  the  part  of  the  Roman  Church  of  the  old  claim  of  Constanti- 
nople to  that  place,  now  made  in  favour  of  a  man  whom  the 
patriarch  of  the  old  line  of  course  abhorred.  The  greatest 
theologians  in  the  Church  were  summoned.  St.  Thomas 
Aquinas  died  on  the  way  (March  7,  1274)  ; x  St.  Bonaventure 
was  the  soul  of  all  the  discussions  till  he  too  died  (July  15, 
1274)  during  the  council.  Meanwhile,  at  Constantinople 
Michael  VIII  had  been  doing  everything  he  could  to  bring 
about  the  union.  A  Franciscan,  John  Parastron,  himself  a  born 
Greek,  had  been  travelling  backwards  and  forwards,  arguing 
and  persuading,  but  the  Patriarch  Joseph  I  (1268-1274)  would 
have  nothing  to  say  to  any  peace  with  the  Latins.  So  they  shut 
him  up  in  a  monastery  and  told  him  that  if  the  union  succeeded 
he  would  have  to  stay  there,  but  if  it  did  not  he  might  come 
back  and  be  Patriarch  again.  Meanwhile  John  Bekkos  (John 
XI,  1274-1282)  was  set  up  in  his  stead.  This  Bekkos  had  been 
an  enemy  of  the  Latins,  but  he  now  became  or  professed  to  be 
as  eager  for  reunion  as  the  Emperor  himself.  They  sent  to 
Lyons  as  ambassadors  Germanos,  an  ex- Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople (he  had  been  Germanos  III,  1267),2  Theophanes,  Metro- 
politan of  Nicaea,  George  Akropolites  the  Imperial  Chancellor, 
and  two  other  lay  statesmen.  These  persons  arrived,  having 
been  plainly  told  to  concede  anything  and  to  make  sure  of  the 
union  whatever  happened  ;  so  there  were  practically  no  dis- 
cussions and  there  was  no  difficulty  at  all.  In  the  name  of 
their  Emperor,  the  Patriarch,  and  the  Orthodox  Church  they 
admitted  the  Roman  Primacy,  the  Filioque,  and  everything. 
The  Orthodox  were  to  restore  the  Pope's  name  to  their  diptychs, 
to  keep  all  their  own  rites,  customs,  and  laws,  and  were  not  to 
add  the  Filioque  to  their  Creed  over  there,  although  they  were 


1  Among  his  numberless  works  he  had  already  written  a  "  Treatise 
against  the  Greeks"  (1252). 

2  Especially  since  the  schism  under  both  Emperors  and  Sultans  Patriarchs 
are  incessantly  being  deposed,  restored,  and  then  deposed  again.  The  line 
of  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  is  by  far  the  most  tangled  confusion  of  that 
of  any  see  in  Christendom. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  207 

to  acknowledge  the  doctrine.  On  the  feast  of  St.  Peter  and  St. 
Paul  High  Mass  was  sung  according  to  the  Latin  rite,  the 
Epistle  and  Gospel  were  sung  in  Latin  and  Greek,  after  the 
Latin  Creed  the  same  Creed  was  sung  again  in  Greek  by 
Germanos  and  the  Italo-Greek  bishops,  and  they  had  to  sing 
"  who  proceeds  from  the  Father  and  the  Son "  three  times. 
And  St.  Bonaventure  preached.  In  the  last  sessions  the 
decrees  of  the  council  were  drawn  up  and  were  promulgated 
by  the  Pope  on  November  1st.1  The  first  dogmatic  decree  is 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  God  the  Father  and 
the  Son  as  from  one  principle  in  one  "  Spiratio." 2  The 
Byzantine  delegates  then  went  back  with  letters  from  the 
Pope  to  the  Emperor,  the  Patriarch,  and  all  bishops  of  their 
Church. 

As  soon  as  they  arrived  the  Pope's  name  was  restored  to  the 
diptychs,  and  a  great  Liturgy  was  celebrated  at  which  the 
Epistle  and  Gospel  were  sung  in  Greek  and  Latin — a  return  for 
the  compliment  at  Lyons.  But  the  people  did  not  want  the 
union,  and  an  insurrection  against  it  was  cruelly  put  down.  John 
Bekkos  then  wrote  and  argued  in  favour  of  it,  and  two  bishops 
and  two  Dominicans  sent  by  the  Pope  as  Legates  were  received 
with  great  honour.  But  gradually,  as  the  Emperor  saw  that  no 
Crusaders  came  to  fight  for  him,  his  ardour  cooled  too.  Pope 
John  XXI  (1276-1277)  made  the  fatal  mistake  of  requiring  them 
to  add  the  Filioque  to  their  Creed,  in  spite  of  the  agreement 
at  Lyons.  This  greatly  increased  the  anti-papal  party. 
Michael  VIII  then  gave  up  quarrelling  with  his  own  people  for 
the  sake  of  a  policy  that  had  failed,  and  the  union  became  the 
merest  shadow  of  a  pretence.  Pope  Nicholas  III  (1277-1280) 
finally  excommunicated  Michael  as  a  favourer  of  schism.  As 
soon  as  Michael  died  his  successor,  Andronikos  II  (1 282-1 328), 
broke  the  last  link.  He  formally  repudiated  the  union,  brought 
the  ex-patriarch,  Joseph  I,  out  of  the  monastery  where  he  had 

1  In  Mansi,  xxiv.  109-132.  The  council  defined  many  other  questions, 
chiefly  of  Canon  Law.  The  most  important  is  about  Papal  Election  ;  the 
laws  of  the  Conclave  date  from  this  council.  All  Church  property  was  to  be 
taxed  for  a  great  Crusade. 

2  For  the  theology  of  the  Filioque  see  p.  372. 


208      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

been  shut  up,  restored  him  (although  he  was  on  his  death-bed), 
and  deposed  John  Bekkos.  Then  the  Emperor  did  public 
penance  for  having  formerly  accepted  the  union,  and  made 
every  one  else  do  so  too.  The  whole  movement  had  never 
been  a  really  genuine  one,  and  it  now  came  to  an  utter  end. 
Already  it  was  the  enemies  of  the  union  who  could  pose  as  the 
conservative  party,  and  the  intensely  conservative  instinct  of  all 
Easterns  in  Church  matters  made  that  position  a  stronger  one 
as  each  century  passed,  strengthening  the  schism  merely  by 
making  it  older.1 

3.  The  Council  of  Ferrara-Florence,  1438-1439. 

The  most  famous  reunion  council  was  that  held  by 
Eugene  IV  at  Ferrara  and  Florence.  Its  story  is  very  much 
like  that  of  the  Second  Council  of  Lyons.  Again  the  Eastern 
Empire  is  in  ithe  direst  distress  from  the  Turks,  again  the 
Emperor  wants  union  with  the  Latins  for  purely  political 
reasons — that  they  may  come  and  fight  for  him — and  again  the 
union  is  hated  and  soon  denounced  by  the  Byzantines.  Pope 
Eugene  IV  (Gabriel  Condolmer,  1431-1447)  was  having  great 
trouble  with  the  Council  of  Basel.  At  that  time  the  schism  of 
the  West  was  just  over,  and  the  whole  Catholic  world  had  been 
scandalized  by  seeing  two  and  then  even  three  rival  claimants 
to  the  Papacy.  In  that  horrible  confusion  many  people  saw 
only  one  means  of  restoring  order,  a  general  council.  This 
was  the  cure  for  all  evils,  and  so  they  were  always  demanding 
general  councils.  There  had  been  a  great  council  at  Pisa  in 
1409,  another  at  Constance  from  1414-1418,  and  as  soon  as 
Eugene  IV  was  elected  again  every  one  clamoured  for  another 
general  council  to  reform  the  Church.  Since  the  confusion  of 
the  Western  schism  people  had  begun  to  distinguish  between  a 
council  and  its  president  the  Pope,  and  the  watchword  of  the 
reforming  party  was  that  a  council  is  above  every  one,  even  the 
Pope.  The  Pope  must  obey  a  general  council  like  any  one 
else  ;  once  it  has  been  lawfully  summoned  it  can  do  anything — 

1  The  story  of  the  Second  Council  of  Lyons  will  be  found  in  any  Church 
History.    See  especially  Hefele's  Conciliengeschichte  (ed.  2),  vi.  pp.  119,  seq. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  209 

even  depose  the  Pope.  This  had  been  defined  at  Constance  in 
the  third  session — before  it  became  an  oecumenical  synod. 
Wyclif  and  Hus  had  appeared,  strange  antinomian  sects  already 
abounded  who  taught  the  wildest  extravagances  and  entirely 
rejected  all  ecclesiastical  authority.  The  first  breath  of  the 
great  storm  that  was  coming — the  Protestant  Reformation — was 
in  the  air.  Eugene  IV  had  sworn  at  his  election  to  summon 
yet  another  council ;  so  unwillingly  he  had  to  do  so.  He 
opened  the  synod  at  Basel  on  July  23, 1431,  through  his  Legate, 
Cardinal  Cesarini.  Then,  as  very  few  Fathers  came,  he  dis- 
solved it  almost  at  once  and  summoned  it  to  Bologna.  But  the 
council  would  not  go  there,  it  got  out  of  hand  almost  at  once, 
demanded  the  retractation  of  the  bull  of  dissolution,  renewed 
the  decree  of  Constance  that  a  general  council  is  above  the 
Pope,  summoned  Eugene  to  appear  before  it,  then  declared 
him  contumacious,  deposed  him,  and  set  up  Duke  Amadeus  of 
Savoy  as  anti-Pope — Felix  V.  By  this  time  all  the  moderate 
members  had  left  Basel ;  no  one  wanted  a  renewal  of  the  time 
when  the  Church  was  torn  by  the  claims  of  two  Popes. 
^Eneas  Silvius  Piccolomini  (afterwards  Pius  II,  1458-1464)  and 
Nicholas  of  Cusa,  Bishop  of  Brixen,  who  were  at  first  the  lead- 
ing spirits  at  Basel,  went  over  to  the  Pope's  side.  The 
schismatical  council,  now  reduced  to  about  twenty  or  thirty 
bishops  under  Cardinal  d'Allemand,  Archbishop  of  Aries,  lost 
the  sympathy  of  every  one  by  its  extravagance,  and  at  last  even 
Duke  Amadeus  went  quietly  home,  and  the  whole  movement 
died  out  almost  unnoticed  in  1443. 

Meanwhile  Eugene  IV  had  again  changed  the  place  where 
his  council  was  to  be  held,  and  summoned  it  from  Bologna 
to  Ferrara  on  September  11,  1437.  The  bishops  at  Basel, 
who  made  up  their  number  by  admitting  a  crowd  of  parish 
priests  and  doctors  of  divinity,  excommunicated  every  one 
who  took  any  part  in  the  proceedings  at  Ferrara.  Eugene 
excommunicated  all  the  rabble  at  Basel.  The  object  of 
the  council  at  Ferrara  was  to  be  reunion  with  the  Eastern 
Churches.  It  would  be,  indeed,  a  triumph  for  the  Pope  if 
he  could  show  the  Christian  world  that  just  now,  when  he 
was  at  war  with  what  called  itself  an  oecumenical  council,  he 

15 


210      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

had  once  again  joined  all  the  Easterns  to  the  West  under  his 
authority.  And  the  Byzantine  Court,  at  any  rate,  was  very 
willing  to  be  reunited.  The  Eastern  Roman  Empire  was  then 
at  its  very  last  gasp.  The  Ottoman  Turks  had  come  into 
Europe,  taking  Adrianople  in  1354  ;  then  gradually  they  had 
swallowed  up  more  and  more  of  the  Empire.  Macedonia, 
Thessaly,  Thrace,  Bulgaria,  Servia  had  all  gone.  Every  one 
knew  that  they  meant  to  take  Constantinople,  and,  unless  help 
came  from  the  West,  it  could  only  be  a  question  of  time,  and  of 
a  very  short  time,  till  they  did  so.  So  again  during  the  early  part 
of  the  15th  century  there  had  been  negotiations  with  the  Latins. 
Already  at  Constance  in  141 8  an  embassy  from  the  Eastern 
Emperor  had  appeared  ;  Pope  Martin  V  (1417-1431)  had  had 
relations  with  the  other  patriarchs.  The  Emperor  John  VII 
(Palaiologos,  1425-1448)  at  last  made  up  his  mind  that  some 
steps  must  be  taken  at  once.  Unfortunately  there  were  two 
powers,  each  claiming  to  represent  the  Latin  Church,  that 
wanted  to  treat  with  him,  Pope  Eugene  and  the  Basler  Fathers. 
Eugene  was  first  in  the  field  and  sent  a  fleet  of  ships  to 
Constantinople  to  bring  the  Emperor  and  his  bishops  to 
Ferrara  ;  while  they  are  waiting  another  fleet  arrives,  sent  by 
the  Council  of  Basel.  The  Pope's  admiral  is  so  angry  at  this 
that  he  is  hardly  prevented  from  sailing  out  to  fight  the 
council's  fleet.  So  the  first  time  the  Byzantines  saw  these 
Latins  who  had  come  to  preach  the  absolute  necessity  of  union 
to  them  they  enjoyed  the  edifying  spectacle  of  a  violent  schism 
nearly  leading  to  battle  between  two  Latin  parties.  However, 
consistent  to  their  own  traditions,  the  Greeks  thought  that  if 
they  were  to  have  any  dealings  with  the  Latins  at  all  it  must  be 
with  the  Latin  Patriarch,  so  they  would  have  nothing  to  say  to 
the  Basler  Council.  The  Pope  agreed  to  pay  all  expenses  and 
to  entertain  them  as  long  as  they  were  in  Italy.  The  Emperor 
came  himself  with  a  gorgeous  train.  The  dying  Empire  still 
had  wonderful  jewels,  brocades  and  vestments,  relics  of  a  better 
time,  and  all  these  were  shipped  onto  the  Pope's  vessels  to 
impress  the  Latins.  With  the  Emperor  came  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  Joseph  II  (1416-1439,  his  own  brother  and  a 
very  old  man),  twenty- two  other  bishops,  and  a  train  of  seven 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS 


211 


hundred  followers  ;  the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and 
Jerusalem  sent  legates. 

They  land  at  Venice  on  February  8,  1438,  are  received  by 
the  Doge  with  great  pomp  and  are  enormously  impressed  by 
the  splendour  of  the  city.1  From  this  time  the  question  of 
reunion  was  enormously  complicated  and  confused  by  the  most 
absurd  quarrels  about  precedence  and  etiquette.  It  was  the  first 
time  an  Emperor  of  the  old  line  had  come  to  the  West  for  nine 
hundred  years.  Pathetically  true  to  the  theory  on  which  his 
whole  system  was  based,  even  now  on  the  eve  of  utter  disaster, 
John  VII  insists  on  acting  as  the  successor  of  Julius  Caesar ;  he  is 
Augustus,  Autocrat  of  the  Romans,  Lord  of  the  Christian  World. 
The  people  he  meets  in  Italy  are  still  to  him  and  to  his  Court 
barbarians,  Franks,  savage  tribes  with  whom  the  Roman 
Emperor  condescends  to  treat.  But  the  Western  princes,  who 
had  almost  forgotten  the  existence  of  the  Eastern  Empire,  see 
in  him  only  a  poor  Greek  king  who  has  come  to  beg  their 
protection  against  his  enemies. 

The  Greeks  then  come  to  Ferrara  and  the  Emperor  enters 
the  city  under  a  great  canopy  at  the  head  of  his  retinue,  all 
decked  out  as  sumptuously  as  possible.  But  the  Patriarch  is 
told  he  must  kiss  the  Pope's  foot.  He  says  he  will  not  dream 
of  doing  any  such  thing  ;  if  the  Pope  is  older  than  he  is  he  will 
treat  him  as  a  father,  if  the  same  age  as  a  brother,  if  younger  as 
a  son.  The  Pope  then  agrees  to  kiss  the  Patriarch's  cheek.  So 
that  trouble  passed  over.  Although  the  motive  that  brought 
the  Byzantines  to  Ferrara  was  really  only  a  political  one,  there 
were  on  both  sides  men  who  hoped  for  reunion  for  its  own 
sake  and  for  religious  reasons.  The  Pope  doubtless  was  pleased 
at  the  idea  of  the  triumph  over  the  Basler  schismatics  that  this 
union  would  bring  him,  but  he  was  also  a  really  good  man,  and 
he  made  very  great  sacrifices  both  of  his  dignity  and  his  money  for 
the  sake  of  healing  the  lamentable  breach  that  divided  Christen- 


1  Sylvester  Syropoulos,  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  Latins,  who  came  in  the 
Emperor's  train,  afterwards  wrote  an  entertaining  account  of  all  their  journey 
and  adventures  (done  into  Latin  by  Robert  Creighton,  who,  however,  writes 
his  author's  name  wrong,  Silv.  Sguropuli :  Vera  historia  unionis  non  vercv, 
Hagae  Com.  1660). 


212      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

dom.  It  is  also  to  his  everlasting  credit  that  he  alone  of  the 
Western  princes  afterwards  kept  his  word  and  really  did  send 
help  against  the  Turk.  In  the  Emperor's  train  were  two  bishops 
who  also  deserve  to  be  remembered  with  honour  by  every  one 
who  cares  for  the  cause  of  union  between  the  Churches, 
Isidore,  Metropolitan  of  Kiev,  and  Bessarion,  Metropolitan  of 
Nicaea.  Both  were  eager  for  the  union,  and  both  worked  hard 
all  the  time  to  overcome  the  barriers.  Bessarion  was  one  of 
the  greatest  men  of  his  age.  Afterwards  he  became  a  great 
leader  of  the  Renaissance,  and  he  is  famous  as  a  scholar 
and  patron  of  letters,  while  we  remember  him,  too,  as  always 
a  staunch  and  loyal  friend  to  the  Holy  See  from  the  Eastern 
Church.  But  among  the  Byzantine  bishops  was  also  Mark 
Eugenikos,  Metropolitan  of  Ephesus,  as  determined  an  enemy 
of  any  compromise  with  the  Latin  heretics  as  Isidore  and 
Bessarion  were  friends  of  reunion.  The  council  had  already 
been  opened  on  January  8, 1438,  at  Ferrara,  the  Byzantines  arrive 
on  February  28th.  It  sat  at  Ferrara  for  nearly  a  year  (sixteen 
sessions) ;  then  in  January,  1439,  the  Pope  proposed  that  it  should 
move  to  Florence  because  the  pest  had  broken  out  at  Ferrara. 
An  even  weightier  reason  seems  to  have  been  that  his  finances 
were  running  out  (all  the  time  he  was  royally  entertaining  the 
Emperor  and  his  seven  hundred  followers),  and  that  the  city  of 
Florence  had  offered  to  lend  large  sums  of  money  if  the  council 
came  there.  The  idea  that  he  wanted  to  get  the  Greeks  further 
away  from  the  sea-board  and  therefore  more  entirely  in  his  own 
power  (afterwards  suggested  by  some  of  them  J)  is  quite  absurd. 
In  any  case  they  could  not  get  away  until  he  lent  them  his  ships 
again.  The  council  now  stayed  at  Florence  till  the  Byzantines 
went  back  home  in  August,  1439.2  There  were  at  first  endless 
disputes  as  to  how  the  Fathers  should  sit,  what  rank  each  was 
to  have,  and  so  on.  The  Emperor  very  nearly  left  the  council 
because  the  ambassador  of  the  Duke  of  Burgundy  would  not  do 

1  This  is  Syropoulos's  idea. 

2  As  its  decrees  were  published  there  it  is  generally  called  the  Council  of 
Florence.  Not  to  have  to  remember  two  dates,  one  may  connect  it  with  the 
date  of  that  publication  and  impress  on  one's  mind  :  The  seventeenth  general 
council  (reunion  with  the  Eastern  Churches)  at  Florence  in  1439. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  213 

him  homage.  The  Greeks  were  always  turning  sulky  and  say- 
ing that  they  would  go  back  home  if  they  were  not  treated 
properly.  Although  it  was  the  Easterns  who  had  everything  to 
gain  by  the  union  and  who  had  really  come  to  be  saved  from 
utter  disaster,  the  ridiculous  pride  that  never  forsook  Byzantines 
made  them  insist  on  the  most  exaggerated  deference.  All 
through  the  Latins  showed  much  more  zeal  for  the  union  than 
they  did,  and  the  Latins  humoured  their  pride  generously.  It 
was  agreed  that  the  Latins  should  sit  all  down  the  Gospel  side 
of  the  church  with  the  Pope  at  their  head,  and  the  Byzan- 
tines down  the  Epistle  side  under  the  Emperor  (that  is  what 
they  wanted  !)  ;  after  the  Emperor  sat  the  Patriarch.  Only  in 
one  point  the  Greeks  could  not  have  their  way  :  the  Patriarch's 
throne  had  to  be  three  steps  lower  than  the  Pope's.  While  the 
long  months  dragged  on  in  this  strange  land  the  Greeks  got 
very  homesick  ;  they  understood  nothing  of  the  rites  they  saw 
around  them,  they  complained  that  when  they  went  into  a  Latin 
church  they  could  make  nothing  of  the  ikons,  there  was  not  a 
single  Saint  they  even  knew  by  sight,  the  crucifixes  were  solid 
statues,  all  they  could  do  was  to  chalk  up  two  lines  on  a  wall 
cross-wise  and  say  their  prayers  before  that.1  Indeed  by  this 
time  the  liturgy  of  either  side  had  become  a  deep  and  suspicious 
mystery  to  the  other.  Towards  the  end  of  the  council  the 
Pope  was  to  assist  in  state  at  the  Byzantine  Liturgy.  Then  he 
said  that  he  was  not  sure  what  they  did  and  that  he  would  like 
to  see  it  all  done  in  private  first  before  he  committed  himself  to 
a  public  assistance.  Naturally  they  were  very  indignant.  On 
this  occasion  the  Emperor  let  fall  the  astonishing  remark  that 
they  had  come  all  this  way  to  reform  the  Latin  Church.  The 
Greeks  could  not  bear  our  plainsong,  but  they  had  the  comfort 
of  being  able  to  wear  far  more  gorgeous  vestments.  The  old 
Patriarch  Joseph  never  went  back  to  his  own  country.  He  died 
while  the  council  was  going  on  (June  10,  1439),  having  first 
written  down  his  acceptance  of  the  union  and  his  acknowledge- 
ment of  the  Roman  Primacy.  So  he  was  buried  with  great 
honour  at  Florence  in  St.  Maria  Novella.     There  he  still  lies,  far 

1  Syropoulos,  109,    quoted  in  Creighton's  Hist,  of  the  Papacy,  Longmans, 
1899,  vol.  ii.  p.  335. 


214      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

away  from  his  city,  among  the  Latins  whose  ways  he  could  not 
understand,  and  a  set  of  Latin  verses  over  his  tomb  still  tells  the 
traveller  of  the  strange  chance  that  brought  "  Joseph,  the  great 
prelate  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  to  be  buried  here.  Meanwhile, 
the  real  business  of  the  council  was  this.  First  ten  Fathers  from 
either  side  were  elected  to  examine  the  differences  between 
the  Churches.  On  the  Byzantine  side  the  chief  members  of 
this  commission  were  Isidore  of  Kiev  and  Bessarion,  both  con- 
ciliatory, and  Mark  of  Ephesus,  steadily  opposed  to  us.  The 
chief  Latins  were  Cardinal  Julian  Cesarini,  Andrew  Archbishop 
of  Rhodes,  and  John  of  Montenegro,  who  on  one  occasion  made 
a  speech  that  lasted  two  whole  days.  The  differences  were  : 
the  Filioque,  Azyme  bread  at  Mass,  Purgatory,  the  Epiklesis, 
the  Primacy.  They  soon  agreed  about  Purgatory  when  they 
were  told  that  material  fire  is  not  part  of  the  faith  of  the  Latin 
Church.  They  gave  in  altogether  about  the  Epiklesis z  and 
admitted  that  Consecration  takes  place  at  the  words  of  Institu- 
tion. As  for  Azymes,  the  Turkish  armies  at  their  very  gates  had 
at  last  made  them  see  reason  ;  they  admitted  that  both  leavened 
and  unleavened  bread  are  equally  valid  and  lawful.  Naturally 
the  longest  discussions  were  about  the  Filioque  and  the 
Primacy. 

In  the  Filioque  dispute  Mark  of  Ephesus  got  into  trouble  for 
misquoting  St.  Basil.  At  last  the  Greeks  agreed  to  admit  the 
formula  of  their  own  Fathers,  and  both  sides  united  in  the  con- 
fession that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  one  principle  and 
that  the  truth  is  rightly  expressed  by  the  Latins  who  say  "  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son  "  as  well  as  by  the  Greeks  in  their  form 
"  from  the  Father  through  (ha)  the  Son." 2  The  Easterns  were 
not  asked  to  add  anything  to  their  Creed — a  position,  by  the 
way,  that  the  tolerance  of  the  Holy  See  has  always  accepted. 
Concerning  the  Primacy  they  admitted  this  formula  :  "  The 
Pope  is  the  Sovereign  Pontiff,  the  Vicar  of  Christ,  Shepherd  and 
Teacher  of  all  Christians,  to  guide  and  rule  the  whole  Church  of 
God,  though  without  prejudice  to  the  rights  and  privileges  of 
the  other  Patriarchs." 

x  For  this  question  see  p.  386. 

8  This  formula  is  taken  from  St.  John  Damascene,  see  p.  379. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  215 

So   on   July  6,   1439,    the  decree  of   the   council   was   pub- 
lished, beginning  "Let  the  heavens  rejoice  and  the  earth  be 
glad,"  containing  the  articles  as  agreed  to  by  both  sides  and 
solemnly  proclaiming  the   restored  union.1     It  was  signed  by 
Pope  Eugene  IV,  eight  cardinals,  four  Latin  patriarchs,  sixty- 
one  archbishops  and  bishops,  forty  abbots  and  four  generals  of 
religious  orders  on  the  Latin  side,  and  by  the  Emperor  John  VIII, 
the  Vicegerent  of  Constantinople  (the  see  being  vacant),  the 
legates  of  the  three  other  patriarchs,    sixteen    metropolitans, 
four  deacons,  and  various  laymen.   Only  Mark  of  Ephesus  would 
not  sign.     On  August  26th  the  Byzantines  went  back  home  on  the 
Pope's  ships.     After  they  had  gone  the  council  went  on  sitting, 
chiefly  to  complete  its  work  by  reuniting  the  other  Eastern 
Churches.     The  Armenians  had  already  long  opened  negotia- 
tions with  the  Roman  Church.     John  XXII   (1316-1334)  had 
founded  a  mission  of  Dominicans  in  Armenia  and  had  already 
brought   about  a  union.     Now  the  Armenian  Katholikos  sent 
four  legates  to  Florence  to  renew  and  strengthen  this  union. 
They  did  not  arrive  till  the  Byzantines  had  gone.     In  November 
the  decree  of  this  union  was  published.     The  Armenians  re- 
nounced Monophysism,  accepted  the  Council  of  Chalcedon  and 
the  Filioque.      At  the   same   time   Eugene   IV   published   his 
Instruction  for  the  Armenians  about  the  Sacraments,  which  has 
become  famous  because  of  its  teaching  concerning  Holy  Orders.2 
The  Copts  and  Abyssinians  also  sent  a  legate,  the  Coptic  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria  sent  a  certain  John,  who  was  Abbot  of  the 
monastery  of  St.  Anthony.    This  Abbot  John  was  also  authorized 
by  the  King  of  Abyssinia  to  act  as  his  ambassador.     There  was 
then  a  rivalry  and  schism  going  on  among  the  Syrian  Jacobites, 
who  had  set  up  two  rival  patriarchates  since  1293.     The  Eastern 

1  One  word  in  this  decree  has  been  very  much  discussed.  The  Latin  text 
defines  the  Primacy  and  adds  :  "  as  is  also  contained  (quemadmodum  etiam 
continetur)  in  the  Acts  of  the  general  councils,"  &c.  So  does  the  original 
Greek  text  signed  by  the  Emperor  and  others  and  still  kept  at  Florence  (ica.0' 
ov  rpo-Kov  diaXafifiavErai).  Some  Gallican  theologians  (Febronius)  afterwards 
said  that  this  was  a  later  alteration  and  that  the  original  text  had  :  "  according 
to  the  manner  contained  (quern  ad  modum  et  continetur)."  See  Hergen- 
rother  :  Anti-Janus  (Freiburg,  1870),  pp.  118,  seq. 

3  Denzinger,  No.  590. 


216      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

rival,  who  ruled  over  all  the  Jacobites  living  between  the  Tigris 
and  the  Euphrates,  and  the  Metropolitan  of  Edessa  sent  legates 
to  Rome,  for  in  1444  Eugene  had  once  more  moved  the  council, 
that  still  went  on  sitting,  to  Rome.  All  the  Maronites  who  had 
not  already  been  converted  at  the  time  of  the  Crusades  now 
came  in  too,  but  only  one  Nestorian  bishop  (Timothy  of  Tarsus) 
with  a  few  people.  Of  course  all  these  heretics  gave  up  their 
errors,  accepted  the  Councils  of  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  and 
acknowledged  the  Roman  Primacy.1  We  count  the  Council  of 
Florence  as  the  seventeenth  oecumenical  synod.  It  is  difficult 
to  see  from  what  point  of  view  its  oecumenical  character  could 
be  denied.  It  was  held  in  the  presence  of  the  Pope,  the  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople,  and  the  legates  of  the  Patriarchs  of 
Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem.  There  were  many  more 
Easterns  present  than  there  had  been  Latins  at  any  of  the  early 
synods  that  we  all  agree  in  calling  oecumenical.  Even  if  one 
were  to  take  up  the  shamelessly  Erastian  position  that  the 
Emperor's  presence  and  consent  are  necessary,  Florence  had 
both.  Indeed,  as  a  last  possibility,  if  one  were  to  require  the 
presence  of  such  old  schismatical  bodies  as  the  Monophysites 
and  Nestorians  (a  position  which  the  Orthodox  would  of  course 
abhor,  and  which  would  involve  the  denial  of  all  councils  ex- 
cept the  first  two),  the  heads  of  the  Armenian,  Coptic,  and 
Abyssinian  Churches  were  represented,  and  there  were  at  least 
some  Jacobites  and  Nestorians  present.  So  that  except,  perhaps, 
Nicaea  in  325  no  council  has  ever  had  such  a  clear  right  to  be 
considered  oecumenical.  This  is,  perhaps,  the  reason  why  the 
Orthodox  who  now  reject  its  decrees  quite  specially  hate  it.2 
But  the  union  of  Florence  was  destined  to  come  to  as  bad  an 
end  as  that  of  Lyons  two  centuries  before.  On  the  Byzantine 
side  it  had  been  from  the  beginning  a  political  move  of  the 
Government  which  the  people  had  never  wanted.  As  soon  as 
the  Emperor  and  his  followers  came  home  again  to  Constanti- 

1  Most  of  these  Churches  fell  away  again  in  part  afterwards.  But  since  the 
Council  of  Florence  there  has  always  been  a  body  of  Uniates  from  each,  and 
all  the  Maronites  are  still  Catholics. 

s  For  the  history  of  the  Council  of  Florence  see  the  Acts  in  Mansi,  xxi.  ; 
the  decree  in  Denzinger,  lxxiii.    Also  Hefele,  vii.  pp.  681,  seq. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  217 

nople  they  found  every  one  in  an  uproar  against  them.  They 
had  betrayed  the  Orthodox  faith,  they  had  all  become  Azymites, 
Creed-tamperers,  cheese-eaters,  dogs,  heretics,  hypocrites  and 
Latins.  Mark  of  Ephesus  was  the  hero  of  the  hour.  But  the 
Emperor  kept  to  what  he  had  done.  The  successor  of  old 
Joseph  II  (who  had  died  at  Florence)  was  Metrophanes  II 
(1440-1443),  also  a  friend  of  the  union,  and  when  he  gave  his 
blessing  in  public  the  people  turned  away  their  faces  not  to 
be  defiled  by  a  Latinizer's  prayer.  But  the  Pope's  name  was 
restored  to  the  diptychs,  and  officially  the  Byzantine  Church  was 
in  communion  with  Rome.  John  VIII  died  in  that  communion, 
and  his  brother,  the  last  Emperor  Constantine  XII  (1448-1453), 
was  also  determined  to  uphold  it.  On  the  very  eve  of  the  fall 
of  the  city — on  December  12, 1452 — he  held  a  great  feast  of  the 
union  ;  and  when  the  hero-Emperor  fell  before  the  walls  of  his 
city  he,  too,  died  a  Catholic.  But  the  help  from  the  Franks  did 
not  come.  Eugene  IV  did  everything  he  could  to  send  it ;  he 
unceasingly  wrote  to  the  Western  princes,  imploring  them  to 
prevent  the  awful  calamity  that  was  at  hand  ;  but  they  would 
not  listen.  At  least  the  Pope  did  what  he  himself  could  ;  he 
sent  two  galleys  and  three  hundred  soldiers,  but  of  course  so 
small  a  number  could  not  make  much  difference. 

It  was  not  till  after  the  fall  of  Constantinople  that  the  union 
was  formally  repudiated  by  the  Byzantine  Church.  Mohammed 
the  Conqueror  naturally  did  not  want  the  Christians  over  whom 
he  ruled  to  be  friends  with  the  great  Western  Powers,  so  the 
cause  of  "  Orthodoxy  "  found  a  new  champion  in  the  Turkish 
conqueror,  of  all  people.1  As  soon  as  he  had  taken  the  city  he 
sent  for  the  leader  of  the  schismatical  party,  George  Scholarios 
(who  seems  to  have  been  a  layman),  and  had  him  made  Patri- 
arch (p.  241).  Scholarios  became  Gennadios  II  (1453-1456). 
But  it  was  not  till  1472  that  a  synod  at  Constantinople  solemnly 
rejected  the  union  and  anathematized  the  Council  of  Florence 
and  all  who  accepted  its  decrees.  During  the  thirty-three  years 
then,  between  1439  and  1472,  the  Byzantine  Church  was, 
at  any  rate  officially,  in  communion  with  the  Holy  See.  But 
the  people  of  the  city,  now  as  wildly  fanatical  and  intolerant 

1  One  Turk — Murad — even  wrote  a  polemical  treatise  against  the  union  ! 


218      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

as  the  last  remnant  of  a  lost  cause  always  is  (witness  the  Jews 
of  Jerusalem  during  the  siege),  had  said  :  Rather  the  Sultan's 
turban  than  the  Pope's  tiara  ;  and  they  have  had  their  wish. 


4.  Cardinal  Bessarion. 

The  two  metropolitans  who  had  most  favoured  the  union 
ended  by  coming  over  to  live  in  the  West.  Eugene  IV 
made  both  cardinals.  Isidore  of  Kiev  when  he  got  back  to 
Russia  was  promptly  put  in  gaol  for  his  share  in  the  union.  He 
escaped  in  1443,  came  to  Rome,  and,  as  Cardinal  Isidore, 
was  Legate  to  Constantinople  and  leader  of  the  little  band  of 
soldiers  whom  the  Pope  sent  to  help  the  Emperor.  He  was 
called  the  Cardinalis  Ruthenus.  The  Cardinalis  Nicenus  was 
Bessarion.  He  at  last  despaired  of  his  own  people,  and  came 
to  settle  at  Rome.1  Here  he  became  one  of  the  leaders  of 
the  Renaissance  movement.  A  scholar  equally  versed  in  Greek 
and  Latin,  he  was  one  of  the  first  men  who  introduced  to 
the  Western  world  the  forgotten  Greek  classics.  He  was  an 
enthusiastic  Platonist,  and  by  his  writings  greatly  helped  on  the 
study  of  Plato,  that,  with  the  reaction  against  Aristotle  (who 
had  reigned  unquestioned  "  master  of  them  that  know "  in 
the  middle  ages),  was  one  of  the  chief  notes  of  the  Renaissance. 
He  was  always  a  generous  and  splendid  patron  to  the  poor 
Greek  scholars  who  had  fled  from  Constantinople  ;  a  lavish 
collector  of  Greek  manuscripts2  that  he  then  edited  or  trans- 
lated. He  held  in  his  palace  an  Academy  of  Italian  and  Greek 
Humanists,  and  although  he  had  left  his  own  country  he  never 
forgot  his  patriotism,  and  lavishly  helped  every  enterprise 
against  its  enemies.  The  Popes  continually  used  him  as 
Legate^   and    charged    him   with    the    reform   of   the   Greek 

1  He  was  made  Bishop  of  Tusculum,  and  adopted  the  Latin  rite.  He 
is  still  always  called  il  cardinale  greco,  or  tiiceno. 

2  He  had  a  library  of  746  MSS.,  mostly  Greek,  that  had  cost  him  15,000 
ducates  :  by  the  advice  of  Pope  Paul  II  he  left  it  to  the  Venetian  Republic, 
the  connecting  link  between  East  and  West.  It  was  the  nucleus  of  the 
Library  of  St.  Mark. 

3  He  was  Legate  at  Bologna  from  1450  to  1455,  where  he  put  an  end 
to  all  discord,  and  magnificently  restored  and  endowed  the  university. 


THE  REUNION  COUNCILS  219 

monasteries  in  Southern  Italy.  He  was  a  warm  friend  to 
Grottaferrata,  the  chief  of  these  monasteries.1  As  a  scholar, 
philosopher,  and  Maecenas,  he  redeemed  the  honour  of  the 
Greek  name  throughout  Europe  ;  certainly  no  one  in  his 
age  was  more  worthy  of  the  sacred  purple.  After  having 
very  nearly  become  Pope2  he  died  in  1472.  It  was  doubtless 
not  only  the  religious  motive  3  that  led  the  great  Humanist 
to  despair  of  the  wild  fanaticism,  hopeless  narrowness  and 
unbearable  pride  of  his  own  countrymen,  and  to  turn 
away  from  the  ugly  clouds  that  gathered  around  the  dying 
Empire  to  take  his  part  in  the  movement  that  was  rising 
like  a  wonderful  dawn  all  over  the  broad  lands  of  the  West. 
And  we,  who  know  what  we  owe  to  the  light  of  the  Renais- 
sance and  who  are  grateful  to  the  men  who  brought  it,  have 
to  remember  together  with  the  Humanist  Popes,  with  More, 
Erasmus  and  the  others,  also  the  Nicene  Cardinal,  Bessarion. 

Summary. 

Since  the  schism  there  have  been  three  councils  in  which 
Eastern  and  Western  bishops  met  to  discuss  their  differences. 
At  Bari,  in  1098,  Pope  Urban  II  summoned  some  Greeks, 
apparently  Calabrians  or  Sicilians,  and  argued  with  them 
about  the  Filioque.  St.  Anselm  of  Canterbury  defended 
the  Catholic  belief  ;  otherwise  this  synod  is  not  at  all  important 
and  we  know  little  about  it.  Two  general  councils  brought 
about  a  reunion,  each  for  a  short  time.  The  Eastern  Emperor, 
Michael  VIII,  sent  ambassadors  to  the  Second  Council  of 
Lyons,  held  in  1274  by  Pope  Gregory  X.  They  accepted 
the   faith   of  the   Roman  Church  in  every  point  at   once,   in 

1  Bessarion  was  made  titular  Abbot  of  Grottaferrata.  They  still  have  his 
chalice  there.     Krumbacher  :  Byz.  Lift.  pp.  117-118. 

2  When  Paul  II  died  in  1471  the  Conclave  hesitated  between  Bessarion 
and  Francis  della  Rovere,  who  was  eventually  elected,  and  became 
Sixtus  IV  (1471-1484). 

3  It  would  be  quite  unjust  to  think,  on  the  other  hand,  that  his  motive 
was  only  mean  time-serving.  He  had  eagerly  defended  the  union,  and 
had  taken  up  an  entirely  Catholic  attitude  at  the  very  beginning  of  the 
council,  when  no  one  could  foresee  what  would  be  the  end  of  things  ;  and 
he  never  wavered  from  that  position. 


220      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  hope  of  getting  help  from  the  Western  princes  against 
the  Turk.  But  when  they  got  back  home  and  found  that 
no  help  came  the  union  was  soon  rejected  by  the  Byzantine 
Church.  The  story  of  the  Council  of  Florence  in  1439  is  an 
almost  exact  repetition  of  the  same  thing.  Sore  beset  by 
the  Turks,  despairing  of  help  save  from  the  Franks,  the  last 
Emperor  but  one,  John  VII,  came  to  the  council  with  a  great 
following,  to  make  peace  with  Pope  Eugene  IV.  Again  the 
Eastern  bishops  (except  one,  Mark  of  Ephesus)  agree  with 
the  Latins,  and  the  reunion  is  proclaimed.  But  it  was  very 
unpopular  at  Constantinople  ;  it  lingered  on,  at  any  rate  in 
form,  for  one  generation,  and  was  finally  repudiated  after 
the  fall  of  the  city  by  a  Synod  of  Constantinople  in  1472. 
Other  Eastern  Churches,  either  wholly  or  in  part,  the  Arme- 
nians, Copts,  Abyssinians,  Maronites,  some  Jacobites,  one 
Nestorian  bishop,  were  also  reunited  to  the  Catholic  Church 
at  Florence.  The  Uniate  Churches  date  from  this  council. 
Cardinal  Bessarion,  who  had  been  the  chief  promoter  of  the 
union  among  the  Easterns,  eventually  came  to  live  at  Rome, 
and  was  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  Renaissance  scholars. 


CHAPTER  VII 

THE   CRUSADES  AND   THE   BYZANTINE   CHURCH 

The  story  of  the  Florentine  Synod  has  brought  us  to  the 
eve  of  the  fall  of  Constantinople.  Before  we  come  to  the 
effects  of  that  calamity,  we  must  go  back  for  a  moment  to  say 
something  about  the  relations  between  Latins  and  Byzantines 
at  the  time  of  the  Crusades. 

i.  The  Latin   Kingdom  of  Jerusalem. 

The  melancholy  story  of  the  Crusades  themselves  does  not 
concern  our  subject.  There  are  few  so  great  disillusionments 
in  history.  The  idea  of  a  Crusade  was  everything  that  is 
chivalrous  and  unselfish.  It  was  a  triumph  of  the  ages  of  faith 
that  all  Christian  Europe  could  be  moved  to  so  great  an  effort 
for  a  purely  religious  motive.  And  the  men  who  thought  of 
saving  the  sacred  land  that  our  Lord  had  trod,  and  who  preached 
the  Crusades,  Peter  the  Hermit,  Pope  Urban  II,  St.  Bernard, 
were  beautiful  and  ideal  people,  too.  The  first  impulse  was 
superb.  One  cannot  remember  that  wave  of  enthusiasm,  the 
Dieu  le  veult  that  rang  through  all  the  chivalry  of  Europe,  the 
Truce  of  God,  and  the  cross  that  they  wore  to  show  that  they 
were  going  to  fight  for  their  Lord's  fatherland,  without  still 
feeling  something  of  the  enthusiasm  that  Urban's  voice  called 
up  in  the  church  at  Clermont.  And  then  the  Crusades  were 
such  superb  pageants — the  beautiful  mediaeval  ships,  with  their 
gorgeous  sails,  ploughing  through  the  Mediterranean,  the  men 
leaping  out  to  kneel  and  kiss  the  sacred  soil  of  Palestine,  their 


222      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

armour  shining  in  the  Eastern  sun,  the  old  Latin  hymn  sung 
above  the  clang  of  steel  under  their  great  banners  when  they 
first  see  the  Holy  City,  golden  and  mystic  under  the  deep 
Syrian  sky.  One  pictures,  above  the  lines  of  steel,  the  English 
leopards,  the  lilies  of  France,  the  great  sable  eagle  of  the 
Empire,  and  then  the  other  coats  of  the  great  houses  of  Europe 
— chevrons  and  fesses  and  pales — till  they  plant  above  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  the  banner  with  the  five  potent  crosses,  argent 
and  or,  unearthly,  wonderful,  as  should  be  the  arms  of  the 
heavenly  city.  And,  at  any  rate,  some  of  the  Crusaders  were 
very  valiant  knights  and  courteous  gentlemen.  St.  Lewis  IX  of 
France  (i 226-1 270)  is  the  one  example  of  a  king  who  was 
entirely  perfect,  and  Godfrey  of  Bouillon,  our  Richard  Lion- 
heart,  old  Frederick  Redbeard  the  Emperor,  were  at  least 
eminently  picturesque  and  imposing  persons.  But  then,  all 
through  the  Crusades,  there  is  the  other  side,  horrible  cruelty, 
— as  soon  as  they  took  Jerusalem  (July  15,  1099)  ^neY  massacred 
all  the  Jews  and  Moslems  in  the  city — and  then  they  quarrelled 
hopelessly  among  themselves.  Each  Crusade  was  less  ideal 
than  the  last,  till  the  whole  movement  whittled  out  into  hordes 
of  the  riff-raff  of  the  West  pouring  across  Eastern  Europe, 
plundering,  burning,  slaying,  the  pretence  of  fighting  for  the 
Holy  Sepulchre  now  the  merest  farce.1 
And  the  Crusades  had  no  lasting  effect.     To  save  themselves 

1  This  is  what  one  should  remember  about  the  Crusades:  1st  Crusade,  1095- 
1099.  1095,  Council  of  Clermont  (Peter  the  Hermit,  Urban  II).  Godfrey  of 
Bouillon,  Adhemar  of  Puy  Legate.  1099,  Jerusalem  taken.  Kingdom  of 
Jerusalem,  Duchy  of  Antioch,  County  of  Edessa.  2nd  Crusade,  1147,  preached 
by  St.  Bernard.  Conrad  III,  Emperor,  Lewis  VII  of  France.  Utter  failure. 
3rd  Crusade,  1189  (Pope  Clement  III).  Selaheddin  had  reconquered  Jerusalem, 
Frederick  I,  Redbeard  Emperor,  Philip  II,  Augustus  of  France,  Richard  Lion- 
heart  of  England.  They  conquer  a  strip  of  coast,  not  Jerusalem.  Frederick  I 
1 1 190.  4th  Crusade,  1202  (Innocent  III).  Baldwin  of  Flanders  and  Boniface 
of  Monteferrata.  Sack  of  Constantinople,  1204.  Latin  Empire,  1204-1261. 
Crusade  of  the  Children,  1212.  Thirty  thousand  children  shipped  off  to  con- 
quer by  miracle.  All  are  made  slaves  by  the  Moslem  pirates.  5th  Crusade, 
1228.  Frederic  II,  Emperor,  reconquers  Jerusalem  for  about  twenty  years. 
6th  Crusade,  1248.  St.  Lewis  IX  of  France  taken  prisoner  at  Damietta,  in 
Egypt,  and  ransomed  for  a  huge  sum.  yth  Crusade,  1270.  St.  Lewis  IX  to 
Tunis.  He  dies  of  the  pest  on  the  Assumption.  1291,  Acre,  the  last  Christian 
possession,  lost. 


CRUSADES  AND  BYZANTINE   CHURCH    223 

from  having  to  concede  that  all  that  enthusiasm  and  all  the 
blood  shed  came  to  nothing,  people  urge  that  they  at  any  rate 
brought  Christendom  and  the  Mohammedan  civilization  together 
(so  they  did,  across  blood-dripping  lances),  and  that  they  staved 
off  the  Turkish  invasion  of  Europe  for  a  time.  At  any  rate,  the 
cause  the  Crusaders  fought  for,  their  little  Frank  States  planted 
out  there  between  the  desert  and  the  deep  sea,  all  came  to 
nothing. 

And  they  certainly  did  no  good  to  the  Eastern  Christians. 
A  result  of  the  schism  was  that  the  Catholic  Crusaders, 
when  they  had  driven  out  the  Turk  from  the  Holy  Land, 
never  thought  that  the  residuary  right  to  this  country  then 
fell  back  on  its  former  sovereign,  the  Roman  Emperor. 
The  Emperor  was  a  schismatical  M  Greek,"  not  much  better 
than  the  Moslem  they  had  been  fighting.  So  they  set  up  their 
Latin  Kingdom  of  Jerusalem,1  with  the  Duchy  of  Antioch  and 
the  County  of  Edessa,  and  (after  the  third  Crusade)  a  Latin 
Kingdom  of  Cyprus,  all  made  exactly  on  the  model  of  their  own 
States  at  home,  with  barons  and  a  court,  according  to  the  feudal 
system.  French  was  the  official  language,  and  they  gave  arms 
to  all  these  cities,  and  astonishing  titles  to  their  own  leaders — 
"  Count  of  Jaffa,"  "  Baron  of  Hebron,"  "  Prince  of  Galilee,"  and 
so  on.  The  ruins  of  the  Romanesque  churches2  they  built  still 
stand  above  the  sands  of  the  desert  as  witnesses  of  this  strange 
little  Western  world  planted  in  the  midst  of  another  civilization. 

1  It  was  an  elective  monarchy.  After  Godfrey  (f  noo)  they  chose  Count 
Baldwin  of  Flanders  (Baldwin  I,  1100-1118).  There  were  thirteen  kings  of 
Jerusalem  altogether  ;  the  last  was  John  of  Brienne  (1210-1237).  There  is  an 
interesting  little  book  on  this  kingdom,  C.  R.  Conder  :  The  Latin  Kingdom  of 
Jerusalem.  His  conclusion  is  :  "  The  kingdom  of  Jerusalem  was  the  model 
of  just  and  moderate  rule  "  (p.  428).  The  kings  of  Jerusalem  quartered  the 
kingdom  with  their  paternal  coat,  as  German  bishops  their  sees.  The  Wapen- 
boek  of  Gelderland  (c.  1350),  in  the  Brussels  Library  (published  by  V.  Bouton, 
Paris,  1881-1897),  contains  the  arms  of  Guy  of  Lusignan  (King  of  Jerusalem, 
1 1 86-1 192,  then  King  of  Cyprus,  1192-1194).  They  are  :  1  and  4  argent,  a 
cross  potent  between  four  crosslets  or,  for  Jerusalem  ;  2  and  3  barry  of  ten 
azure  and  argent,  a  lion  rampant  gules,  crowned  or,  for  Lusignan.  Although 
these  are  obviously  his  arms  as  King  of  Jerusalem,  they  are  labelled  "  Die 
Conine  van  Cipers." 

2  They  practically  rebuilt  the  Anastasis  (1103-1130),  which  accounts  for  its 
Western  Romanesque  appearance. 


224      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

In  ecclesiastical  matters  they  did  the  same.  They  had  no  idea 
of  considering  the  Eastern  Christians  or  the  old  lines  of  the 
Eastern  bishops.  If  they  did  not  actually  persecute  or  massacre 
the  schismatics,  they  left  them  as  an  inferior  caste,  a  conquered 
population  with  endless  disabilities,  whom  they  never  ceased 
trying  to  convert.  On  the  whole,  the  Orthodox  were  distinctly 
worse  off  under  the  Crusaders  than  under  the  Moslem — the 
Crusaders  promptly  took  their  churches,  for  instance.  The 
Frank  knights,  of  course,  never  thought  of  anything  but  the 
Latin  Mass  and  a  Latin  hierarchy,  with  mitres  and  chasubles 
and  copes,  just  as  at  home.  So  they  set  up  Latin  Patriarchs  of 
Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  and  under  them  archbishops  and  bishops, 
who  sang  the  Roman  Mass  in  the  Anastasis  and  in  all  the 
churches  of  the  Holy  Land. 

Two  results  of  the  Crusades  still  last.  After  they  had  lost 
Jerusalem,  when  Richard  Lion-heart  treated  with  Selaheddin  to 
secure  rights  for  Christians  at  the  holy  places,  he,  of  course, 
only  thought  of  his  own  Latins.  And  Selaheddin  granted  privi- 
leges to  Christians  as  Richard  wanted — that  is,  to  Latins.  Those 
privileges  still  exist,  and  that  is  why  the  Turkish  Government 
formally  recognizes  certain  rights  that  the  Latins  still  enjoy  at 
the  Anastasis  and  at  all  the  holy  places.  Another  faint  memory 
of  the  Crusaders'  kingdom  remains  in  the  ecclesiastical  titles 
they  set  up.  There  are  still  in  Rome  Patriarchs  of  Constanti- 
nople, Alexandria,  and  Antioch  of  the  Latin  rite,1  who  are  now 
only  dignitaries  of  the  Papal  Court.  These  prelates  do  not  in 
any  sort  of  way  represent  the  old  line  of  Eastern  bishops  of 
those  cities  :  they  are  the  successors  of  the  Latin  patriarchs  set 
up  by  the  Crusaders.  So  also  the  titles  of  Eastern  sees  given  to 
our  auxiliary  bishops,  as  far  as  they  represent  continuity  from 
any  line  at  all,  are  those  of  the  sees  established  in  the  same 
way.2 

1  The  Latin  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  was  sent  back  to  that  city  in  1847  to  be 
the  head  of  all  Latins  in  the  Holy  Land. 

2  The  Latin  archbishoprics  of  the  Crusades  were  :  Adrianople,  Corinth, 
Athens,  Candia,  Rhodes,  Nicosia,  Tarsus,  Hierapolis,  Apamea,  Tyre,  Nazareth, 
Caesarea  Pal.,  Petra  ;  the  bishoprics,  Tripolis,  Biblos,  Beirut,  Sidon,  Acre, 
Sebaste,  Lydda,  Bethlehem. 


CRUSADES  AND  BYZANTINE   CHURCH    225 

2,  The  Crusaders  and  the  Empire. 

The  commoner  way  for  the  Crusaders  to  reach  the  Holy- 
Land  was  down  the  valley  of  the  Danube  to  Constantinople, 
and  then  by  sea  or  across  Asia  Minor.1  It  was  in  this  way  that 
they  met  most  Eastern  Christians.  Unfortunately,  it  was  always 
the  meeting  of  enemies.  The  Franks  were  astounded  by  the 
magnificence  of  Constantinople,  but  they  thought  the  Greeks  a 
very  poor  set  :  they  were  cowards,  frightful  liars,  and  stubborn 
schismatics.  And  the  Byzantines  thought  equally  ill  of  the 
Crusaders.  All  their  old  scorn  for  Western  barbarians  was  now 
quickened  by  theological  hatred  against  Latin  heretics.  The 
Franks  came  pushing  in,  noisy,  quarrelsome,  rude,  and  quite 
shameless  Azymites  ;  the  Byzantines  were  frightened  to  death 
of  them  ;  they  flattered  them,  sold  them  sham  relics2  (these 
barbarians  were  incredibly  gullible),  but  their  chief  anxiety  was 
to  move  them  on,  get  rid  of  them  across  the  Hellespont,  where 
they  could  meet  the  infidel  they  wanted  to  fight.  And  whether 
they  slew  or  were  slain  did  not  matter  one  jot.  So  Greek 
treachery,  lying  promises,  and  betrayal  into  the  hands  of  the 
Turk  fill  up  a  large  part  of  the  story  of  the  Crusades.  And  the 
Frankish  knights,  who,  with  all  their  roughness,  were  gentlemen, 
and  had  the  (Western)  mediaeval  sense  of  honour,  stored  up 
bitter  memories  against  the  liars  who  cajoled  and  deceived 
them.  On  the  other  hand  the  Byzantine  Court  was  naturally 
furious  at  the  ignoring  of  its  rights  shown  in  the  establishment 
of  the  Latin  States  in  Palestine. 

3.  The  Fourth   Crusade,   1204. 

The  mutual  rancour  between  Franks  and  "  Romans  "  came  to 
a  climax  in  the  abominable  story  of  the  fourth  Crusade.  It  was 
preached  and   energetically  pushed  forward   by   Pope   Inno- 

1  The  first  and  second  Crusades  went  this  way,  so  also  the  Germans  in  the 
third.  The  English  and  French  in  the  third  and  St.  Lewis  went  by  sea  all 
the  way.    The  fourth  went  by  sea  to  Constantinople. 

2  The  false  relics  sold  by  the  Greeks  to  the  Crusaders  are  a  continual 
complaint. 

16 


226      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

cent  III  (1198-1216).  It  was  to  start  for  Palestine  from  Venice 
in  1202  under  Count  Baldwin  of  Flanders  and  Marquess 
Boniface  of  Monteferrato  (near  Genoa).  The  treachery  was 
begun  by  the  most  Serene  Republic.  The  old  blind  Doge, 
Henry  Dandolo,  hated  the  Eastern  Empire,  which  was  the  rival 
of  Venice  throughout  the  Mediterranean,  and  did  not  at  all  mind 
the  Moslem.  So  he  had  already  made  a  secret  treaty  with  the 
Turk  not  to  let  these  Crusaders  come  and  trouble  them.  He 
then  skilfully  managed  to  use  the  whole  Crusade  for  his  own 
J  private  and  nefarious  purposes.  First  he  pointed  out  that  they 
had  a  fine  army  there,  and  nothing  to  do  on  the  way  to 
Palestine  ;  if  he  supplied  ships  and  money  and  generally  made 
them  comfortable,  would  they  take  the  town  of  Zara  in 
Dalmatia,  now  rebelling,  and  restore  it  to  the  most  Serene 
Republic  ?  Then,  having  begun  their  career  by  doing  so,  they 
see  how  much  easier  it  is  to  fight  Christians  than  Turks,  and 
they  ask  themselves  why  they  should  go  all  that  way  to  the 
melancholy  plains  of  Syria  when  the  most  sumptuous  city  in  the 
world  lies  naked  and  open  to  be  plundered.  So  they  sail  to 
Constantinople,  first  restore  the  Emperor  Isaac  II  (1185-1195  ; 
1203-1204),  who  had  been  deposed  and  blinded,  and  make  his 
son,  Alexios  IV  (1 203-1 204),  Emperor  with  him.  Then  they 
quarrel  with  these  persons  and  sack  the  city  (April  12,  1204). 
Isaac,  who  was  very  old,  died  of  fear,  and  they  murdered 
Alexios.  This  sack  of  Constantinople  is  one  of  the  most 
horrible  events  of  Byzantine  history.  The  Crusaders  massacre 
right  and  left,  doing  also  untold  destruction  to  the  whole  city.1 
It  is  to  the  eternal  honour  of  Pope  Innocent  III  that  as  soon  as 
he  heard  what  they  were  doing,  how  they  were  using  forces  and 
money  raised  for  a  holy  war  to  murder  fellow- Christians,  he 
sent  after  them  to  say  that  he  had  excommunicated  them  all. 
However,  in  spite  of  that  they  then  set  up  a  Latin  Empire  that 
lasted  fifty-seven  years  (1204-1261).  They  made  Baldwin  the  first 
Emperor,  took  away  the  Hagia  Sophia  and  all  the  churches 
from  the  Byzantines,  and  set  up  a  Venetian,  Thomas  Morosini, 

1  They  burned  down  a  quarter  of  it.  The  massacre  went  on  for  days. 
What  they  did  not  destroy  they  stole  :  the  four  great  bronze  horses  outside 
St.  Mark's  were  brought  from  Constantinople  on  this  occasion. 


CRUSADES  AND  BYZANTINE   CHURCH    227 

as  Latin  Patriarch.1  These  Latin  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople 
at  once  began  quarrelling  with  the  Pope,  just  as  the  old 
Byzantine  ones  had.  Meanwhile  the  legitimate  line  of 
Emperors  went  on,  having  fled  to  Nicaea,  and  a  third  rival 
Empire  was  set  up  at  Trebizond  (Trapesus  on  the  Black  Sea).2 
So  that  at  this  time  there  were  Emperors  at  Constantinople, 
Nicaea,  and  Trebizond.  The  Orthodox  Patriarch  accompanied 
his  Emperor  to  Nicaea.  The  Latin  Empire  covered  Greece 
(where  a  Prince  of  Achaia  ruled  under  the  Emperor),  Thessaly 
(which  had  a  king),  and  some  land  on  either  side  of  the  Pro- 
pontis.  There  was  an  independent  Despot  of  Epirus,  and 
Venice  got  Crete.3  Behind  the  Empire  at  Nicaea  were  the 
Turks  under  a  ruler  who  called  himself  Sultan  of  Rum,  as  he 
sat  in  a  land  conquered  from  the  Roman  Empire.  Shut  up  in 
a  corner  was  the  little  Empire  at  Trebizond,  and  south  of  the 
Sultanate  of  Rum  came  what  was  left  of  the  Crusaders'  kingdom 
of  Jerusalem.  At  last,  in  1261,  Michael  VIII  (Palaiologos),  of 
whom  we  have  heard  in  connection  with  the  Second  Council  of 
Lyons  (p.  206),  succeeded  in  reconquering  Constantinople  and 
driving  out  the  Latins.  Baldwin  II  (1228-1261),  the  fifth  and 
last  Frank  Emperor,  fled  with  the  Latin  Patriarch,  Pantaleon. 
Michael  VIII  came  back  to  the  city  in  triumph,  restored  every- 
thing as  it  had  been  before  1204,  and  the  incident  of  the  fourth 
Crusade  was  at  an  end.  Except  that  the  Greek  people  have 
never  forgotten  it,  and  that  of  all  the  things  they  complain  of 
against  the  Latins,  none  has  left  such  a  legacy  of  hatred  as  this. 

1  Old  Dandolo  had  come  with  them  and  died  at  Constantinople.  A  plain 
slab  in  the  floor  of  the  Hagia  Sophia  still  bears  the  inscription  Henricus 
Dandolo. 

2  The  Emperor  had  made  Alexios  Komnenos  Duke  of  Trebizond  just 
before  the  fourth  Crusade.  About  1240,  the  fourth  Duke,  John  Komnenos, 
seeing  Emperors  at  both  Constantinople  and  Nicaea,  thought  he  might  as 
well  be  one  too,  especially  as  he  had  Imperial  blood  (his  forbears,  the 
Komnenoi,  had  held  the  Roman  throne  from  1081  to  1185).  So  he  called 
himself  Emperor  of  the  East,  Iberia  and  Peratea,  avoiding  the  name  Roman 
so  as  not  to  offend  the  Palaiologos  at  Nicaea  too  utterly.  This  Empire  at 
Trebizond  lasted  till  1461  (p.  232,  n.  2). 

3  The  Doge  of  Venice  now  added  to  his  titles  that  of  "  Despot  of  a  quarter 
and  an  eighth  of  the  whole  Roman  Empire."  The  Republic  did  not,  of  course, 
possess  anything  like  a  quarter  or  an  eighth  of  the  Empire.  It  is  only  the 
pleasant  mediaeval  taste  for  fine  titles. 


228      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

And,  indeed,  the  thing  was  unpardonable.  That  an  army, 
gathered  together  to  defend  the  Christians  against  the  Moham- 
medans, should,  instead  of  doing  so,  destroy  the  very  State  that 
for  five  centuries  had  been  the  one  bulwark  of  Christendom,  is 
an  unheard-of  outrage.  And  when  one  remembers,  too,  the 
horrible  cruelty  and  destruction  of  the  sack  of  Constantinople, 
one  is  not  surprised  that  even  after  many  centuries  the  Greeks 
have  not  yet  forgotten  the  day  when  a  horde  of  Latin  robbers  so 
wantonly  attacked  their  State,  plundered  their  city,  and  massa- 
cred thousands  of  their  forefathers.1  And  since  they  always 
make  the  mistake  of  counting  everything  done  by  Latins  as  the 
Pope's  work,  one  can  understand  why,  two  hundred  years  later, 
they  said  they  would  prefer  the  Sultan's  turban  to  the  Pope's  tiara. 

Summary. 
As  far  as  the  relations  between  the  Eastern  and  Western 
Churches  go,  the  Crusades  did  nothing  but  harm.  The  Byzan- 
tines were  angry  that  the  Crusaders  set  up  Frankish  States  in 
Palestine,  entirely  ignoring  the  rights  of  the  Empire.  The 
Franks  did  not  treat  the  Orthodox  well  in  their  little  princi- 
palities and  they  were  a  turbulent,  unmanageable  crowd  when 
they  passed  through  Constantinople.  On  the  other  hand  they 
had  a  long  score  of  Greek  treachery,  lying,  and  cheating  to 
remember.  But  the  friction  between  these  two  sides  came  to 
a  climax  when,  in  1204,  the  fourth  Crusade,  seduced  by  Venice, 
instead  of  fighting  against  the  Turk,  sacked  Constantinople  with 
every  possible  cruelty.  So  little  was  Pope  Innocent  III,  who 
had  preached  the  Crusade,  responsible  for  this  outrage,  that 
he  excommunicated  the  Crusaders  for  it.  The  Latin  Empire 
set  up  then  in  Constantinople  lasted  fifty-seven  years,  till  the 
Byzantines  came  back  and  destroyed  it.  The  only  survivals  of 
the  Crusades  are  certain  Latin  rights  at  the  holy  places,  still 
acknowledged  by  the  Turkish  Government,  and  our  titular 
Latin  Patriarchates. 

1  In  the  reading-book  prescribed  for  the  primary  schools  of  the  kingdom 
of  Greece  (vsotWijvuca  avayvuxrftara,  Athens,  1889,  vol.  2,  p.  127),  sliced 
between  a  gushing  poem  about  the  month  of  May  and  a  description  of  the 
cholera  in  Athens  in  1854,  is  a  most  lurid  account  of  the  horrors  done  in  1204 
by  the  Franks  out  of  hatred  for  the  Orthodox  faith. 


CHAPTER  VIII 

UNDER     THE     TURK 

i.  The  Fall  of  Constantinople,  May  29,  1453. 

In   Chapter  VI    we   left   the   Eastern   Roman    Empire,   after 

the    Council  of    Florence,    on   the   eve   of    destruction.     The 

story  of  that  calamity,  the  great  turning-point  of   the  history 

of  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  one  of  the  chief  turning-points 

of    European    history,   is   too   well    known    to    need   a   long 

description    here.     The   Emperor   John   VIII   was   succeeded 

by  his  brother  Constantine  XII  (Palaiologos,  1448-145 3).     This 

most    heroic    prince,    although    now    without    any    hope    of 

success,  was  faithful   to  his   trust  to   the   last.     The   Turkish 

Sultan,   Mohammed  II  (the  Conqueror,   1451-1481)   had   now 

seized    everything   up   to  the   very   walls    of    Constantinople. 

Constantine  tried  desperately  to  get  help  from  the  West,  and 

Pope  Nicholas  V  (1447-1455)  too  did  all  he  could  to  persuade 

his  Latins  to  save  the  city.     To  their  eternal  shame  no  one 

of  them  would  move.     They   did   not   believe    that    the   city 

would  really   fall  ;    it  had   so   often   come   out  of   the   direst 

straits  before  ;    and   they  really  cared  very  little  for  the  last 

poor  remnant  of  the  old  Empire.     The  days  of  the  Crusades 

had    gone   long  ago.     They   reaped   their   desert    afterwards 

when  the  Turk  poured  across  Servia,  Bosnia,    Hungary,  and 

came  thundering  to  the  very  gates  of  Vienna.1 

But  there  were  two   honourable   exceptions  to   this   selfish 

policy.     We   have   seen  that   Pope   Eugene    IV   had   sent   all 

the  help  he  could,  two  ships  and  three  hundred  men  (p.  217). 

1  Battle  of  Mohacz  (conquest  of  Hungary),  1526  ;  siege  of  Vienna,  1683. 

229 


230      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  little  Republic  of  Genoa  had  constant  relations  with 
Constantinople  in  her  trade  and,  unlike  Venice,  her  policy  was 
always  a  friendly  one  to  the  Empire.  Just  across  the  Golden 
Horn,  at  Galata,  was  a  colony  of  Genoese  merchants,1  so  for 
their  sakes  too  the  Republic  had  an  interest  in  the  defence  of 
Constantinople.  Genoa  then  alone,  besides  the  Holy  See,  sent 
help — a  fleet  of  five  ships  and  seven  hundred  men,  under  the 
valiant  sea-captain  John  Giustiniani.  This  little  fleet  arrives 
at  the  gate  of  the  Golden  Horn  on  April  21,  1453,  and  finds 
it  blockaded  by  150  Ottoman  galleys.  With  his  five  ships 
Giustiniani  fights  his  way  through  them  and  sails  into  Con- 
stantinople, bringing  a  force  that  was  not  strong  enough  to  save 
the  city,  but  that,  at  any  rate,  could  share  the  glory  of  the 
heroic  defence,  and  leave  to  the  "  proud"  Republic  a  memory 
of  which  it  really  had  a  right  to  be  proud.  Constantine  XII 
had  also  tried  everything  to  make  terms  with  the  enemy. 
Knowing  that  resistance  was  now  quite  hopeless,  he  sent  to 
Mohammed  to  offer  him  any  sum  of  money,  if  only  he  would 
be  content  with  what  he  had  already  conquered  and  would 
spare  the  city.  But  Mohammed  would  not  hear  of  this. 
To  the  Moslems  the  most  glorious  day  of  their  history  was 
approaching  ;  ever  since  the  time  of  the  original  Mohammed, 
the  Prophet  of  God,  the  dream  of  every  True  Believer  had 
been  that  some  day  they  would  conquer  "  Rum,"  that  is 
New  Rome,  and  set  up  the  throne  of  the  Khalifah  on  the 
ruins  of  the  Christian  Empire.  But  Mohammed  II  was 
quite  ready  to  be  kind  to  the  Emperor,  to  give  him  a  palace 
and  a  pension  if  he  would  give  up  the  city  quietly.  But 
Constantine  could  not  do  that.  As  long  as  he  lived  the  Roman 
Emperor  must  defend  the  Roman  world,  even  if  that  world 
were  shut  up  within  the  walls  of  one  city.  So  he  answers 
Mohammed  in  words  that  at  the  end  of  this  long  Byzantine 
period  at  last  are  really  worthy  of  the  Roman  Caesar  :  "  Since 
neither  oaths,  nor  treaties,  nor  any  offer  can  bring  us  peace/' 
he  says,  "  go  on  then  with  the  war.  I  trust  in  God  ;  if  he  will 
soften  your  heart,  I  shall  indeed  rejoice,  if  he  lets  you  take  my 

1  These  merchants  at  Galata  formed  the  original  nucleus  of  the  "  Latin 
nation,"  afterwards  and  still  officially  recognized  by  the  Porte. 


UNDER    THE   TURK  231 

city,  I  shall  submit  to  his  will.  But  until  the  Judge  of  all  men 
settles  this  quarrel  I  must  live  and  die  defending  my  people." 
And  now  after  a  thousand  years  of  defence  against  so  many 
different  enemies,  New  Rome  is  about  to  fall  in  a  blaze  of 
heroic  glory  that  makes  one  forget  all  the  ugly  pages  of  her 
long  history.  The  Romans  had  drawn  a  chain  across  the  Golden 
Horn  to  prevent  the  barbarian  fleet  from  attacking  their  walls. 
Early  in  May,  they  awoke  one  morning  to  find  that  fleet  riding 
at  anchor  right  up  by  the  city.  Mohammed  had  carried  out  the 
almost  impossible  plan  of  laying  down  greased  planks  round  by 
land  and  of  dragging  his  ships  one  by  one  over  them.  He  had 
made  the  most  elaborate  arrangements  to  win  at  last  what  would 
be  the  crowning  victory  of  his  faith.  A  Magyar  renegade  made 
him  a  monstrous  bronze  cannon  that  could  throw  gigantic  stones 
against  the  walls  of  the  city.  Seven  hundred  men  were  told  off 
to  serve  this  engine.  Happily,  when  it  was  fired  it  blew  up 
(after  they  had  spent  two  hours  loading  it),  made  an  appalling 
noise,  scattered  death  around  the  Turkish  camp,  and  judiciously 
selected  the  apostate  who  had  made  it  for  its  first  victim.  The 
siege  lasted  from  April  6  to  May  29 ;  258,000  Turks  fought 
against  less  than  five  thousand  Romans.1  After  they  had  broken 
down  part  of  the  wall,  Mohammed  ordered  a  general  assault 
for  Tuesday,  May  29th.  He  had  again  offered  Constantine 
liberty,  riches,  and  the  whole  Peloponnesus  for  a  princedom  ; 
and  Constantine  had  again  refused.  The  Emperor  had  done 
everything  that  could  be  done,  with  the  courage  of  despair.  He 
had  throughout  the  siege  never  ceased  encouraging  his  soldiers, 
inspecting  the  defence  of  the  walls,  taking  his  share  in  every 
part  of  the  work.  When  the  morning  of  that  most  disastrous  of 
days  dawned  he  went  to  the  Hagia  Sophia,  heard  the  Liturgy 
and  received  Holy  Communion.  It  was  the  last  Christian  service 
held  in  the  great  cathedral,  and  we  shall  remember,  too,  that  he 
received  that  last  Sacrament  in  communion  with  the  Holy  See 
and  with  the  Catholic  Church.     Then  he  made  that  speech  to 

1  The  whole  population  of  Constantinople  was  then  about  100,000.  From 
these  the  Emperor's  most  careful  muster  could  raise  only  4,973  fighting  men. 
Great  numbers  of  old  men,  women,  and  children  had  taken  refuge  in  the  city 
as  the  Turks  seized  the  country  round. 


232      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

his  men  that  Gibbon  calls  the  funeral  oration  of  the  Roman 
Empire,  and  rode  out  to  die.  He  stood,  surrounded  by  his 
guard,  near  the  Gate  of  St.  Romanos,  defending  while  he  lived 
the  city  he  could  no  longer  save.  Fighting  valiantly  with  his 
back  to  the  wall,  he  fell  in  the  tumult  of  the  assault,  as  the  last 
heir  of  the  Roman  name  should  fall,  fighting  for  Christ  and 
Rome  and  adorning  the  Imperial  purple  with  the  glory  of  his 
heroic  blood.1  Constantine  Caesar  Augustus  Palaiologos  was 
the  8oth  Roman  Emperor  since  Constantine  the  Great,  the 
112th  since  Caesar  Octavian.     With  him  the  old  Empire  died. 

The  barbarians  burst  into  the  city,  carrying  death  and  havoc, 
and  the  day  that  had  begun  with  the  chant  of  that  last  sad 
liturgy  ended  with  the  shrieks  of  a  hideous  massacre.  Then 
Mohammed  the  Conqueror  rode  his  white  horse  up  the  Hippo- 
drome, and  gradually  the  news  spread  throughout  the  distant 
lands  of  the  Franks  that  at  last  the  impossible  had  happened,  that 
Constantinople  had  fallen ;  facta  est  quasi  vidua  domina  gentium.2 

1  His  body  was  afterwards  found  and  recognized  by  the  golden  eagles  on 
his  shoes.  Mohammed  let  him  be  buried  near  the  Mosque  of  Suleiman,  and 
a  lamp  is  always  kept  burning  near  his  tomb.  As  far  as  they  dare,  the  Greeks 
still  make  the  grave  of  the  last  Autocrat  of  the  Romans  a  place  of  pilgrimage. 
But  they  have  not  canonized  him  ;  is  it  because  he  was  a  Catholic  ?  How- 
ever, he  does  not  need  the  doubtful  honour  of  Byzantine  canonization. 
Saint  and  hero  he  rests  in  peace  in  the  city  he  guarded  till  death,  and  all 
over  the  Christian  world  his  glorious  memory  is  honoured.  In  pace  Christi 
quiescas  Auguste  Caesar. 

2  For  the  fall  of  Constantinople  see  Gibbon,  chap.  68,  with  Bury's  notes. 
There  is  a  good  account  also  in  De  la  Jonquiere  :  Hist,  de  VEmpire  ottoman, 
chap.  8,  pp.  156-162.  The  rival  Empire  at  Trebizond  just  outlived  the 
one  at  Constantinople,  and  lasted  till  1461.  At  that  time  David  Komnenos 
was  reigning,  and  when  the  Moslem  armies  surrounded  his  city,  he,  now 
utterly  cut  off  from  the  rest  of  Christendom,  promised  to  surrender  it,  if 
he  and  his  family  were  given  a  safe  passage  to  Europe.  The  Turk  swore 
to  do  so,  and  David  believed  him.  As  soon  as  the  Moslems  entered  the  city 
they  seized  the  Emperor  and  his  seven  sons  and  offered  them  the  choice  of 
Islam  or  death.  The  end  of  the  last  Komnenos  was  as  glorious  as  that  of  the 
last  Palaiologos.  The  youngest  son  did  indeed  apostatize,  but  David  and  the 
other  six  chose  rather  to  die  than  to  renounce  their  faith.  So  they  were  mur- 
dered. The  Empress  Helen  then,  valiantly  defying  the  tyrant's  command, 
herself  dug  a  grave  and  buried  her  husband  and  sons.  So  the  end  of  this 
rather  absurd  little  Empire  was  dignified  and  glorious,  and  the  memory  of  the 
martyrs'  blood  has  brought  it  far  more  honour  than  it  could  have  gained  had 
it  lasted. 


UNDER    THE   TURK  233 

2.  The  Rayahs. 

It  is  important  to  understand  the  position  of  the  Orthodox 
Christians  under  their  Turkish  masters  since  they  have  been  a 
conquered  people.  It  is  really  only  one  special  case  of  the  treat- 
ment of  any  non- Mohammedan  Theists  under  Moslem  law.  The 
fundamental  idea  of  that  law  is,  first  of  all,  that  Moslems  should 
by  right  rule  over  the  whole  world.  The  Koran  says  :  "  The 
earth  is  God's  and  he  gives  it  to  whom  he  will  of  his  servants  " 
(S.  vii.  125)  ;  and  this  is  understood  to  mean  that  God  is  the 
supreme  Lord  of  all  men,  and  that  he  gives  his  servants,  the 
True  Believers,  Moslems,  right  over  all.  They  have  never 
distinguished  religion  and  politics.  It  is  a  distinction  they  still 
cannot  understand.  All  law  and  right  comes  from  God  and 
his  Prophet ;  and  it  makes  no  difference  whether  that  law 
concern  the  hours  of  prayer  or  the  payment  of  taxes.  The 
Koran  is  both  Bible  and  Code  of  Civil  Law.  The  visible  head  of 
the  Moslem  world  is  the  Khalifah,  the  Vicar  of  Mohammed  ;  all 
authority  comes  from  him,  he  can  command  anything,  as  long 
as  he  does  so  conformably  with  the  Koran,  and  he  is  head  of 
both  Church  and  State,  or  rather  Church  and  State  are  the  same 
thing.  Since  then,  like  all  great  religions,  they  want  to  convert 
every  one  to  the  faith  that  they  believe  to  be  the  only  true  one, 
they  also  want  their  Khalifah  to  rule  temporally  over  all  men 
as  well.  In  theory,  at  any  rate,  you  cannot  be  a  real  orthodox 
True  Believer  unless  you  obey  the  Khalifah  in  all  things  ;  he  is 
both  Pope  and  Emperor,  and  as  the  whole  world  accepts  Islam, 
so  will  all  independent  kings  and  princes  be  replaced  by  his 
Emirs.1     That  is  the  ideal.     As  a  matter  of  fact  they  have  not 

1  They  are  not  always  consistent  to  this  ideal.  In  modern  times  especially 
they  have  at  last  been  forced  to  recognize  and  treat  with  independent 
sovereigns.  But  it  is  curious  to  see  how  unwillingly  they  have  climbed 
down  from  their  original  attitude.  The  first  time  they  recognized  another 
State  was  in  1535,  when  Suleiman  the  Magnificent  (1520-1566)  made  a  treaty 
with  Francis  I  of  France  (1515-1547).  In  this  treaty  Suleiman  is  the  "  King  of 
kings,  the  Sultan  of  earth  and  sea,  the  shadow  of  God  "  ;  Francis  is  the 
"  Honour  of  the  princes  of  the  faith  of  Jesus  "  (see  De  la  Jonquiere,  o.c.  p.  236). 
But  even  now  a  Moslem  would  of  course  say  that  the  ideal  is  for  every  one  to 
accept  Islam,  and  that  involves  (to  an  orthodox  Sunni  Moslem)  obeying  the 
Khalifah  of  the  Prophet  in  all  things. 


234      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

yet  conquered  the  whole  world.  So  the  great  division  of  all  is 
between  the  House  of  Peace  (Daral-Islam),  where  Islam  reigns, 
and  the  House  of  War  (Dar  al-Harb),  that  is,  all  parts  not  yet 
converted  and  submitted  to  the  Khalifah.  It  will  be  understood, 
then,  that  they  never  want  a  pretext  for  making  war  on  un- 
believers. It  is  the  right  and  the  duty  of  all  Moslems  to 
convert  (if  necessary  by  force)  all  the  House  of  War,  to  join  it 
to  the  House  of  Peace  in  the  obedience  of  the  Khalifah.  Such 
a  process  is  one  of  the  very  first  religious  duties1 — the  Holy 
War  {Jihad) j  from  which  they  are  only  excused  when  it  is  for  a 
time  impossible.  Whereas,  then,  both  Christians  and  Moslems 
wish  to  convert  all  unbelievers  to  their  own  faith,  Christians  can 
do  so  without  changing  the  civil  organization  of  any  State,  and 
the  new  converted  Christians  can  and  should  go  on  fulfilling  the 
same  civil  duties  to  a  heathen  Government  as  their  heathen 
fellow-citizens.  But  the  Mohammedan  theory  makes  this 
impossible,  and  conversion  to  them  involves  political  sub- 
mission to  their  Khalifah — to  convert  is  to  conquer.  When 
they  have  conquered  a  country  they  distinguish  between  the 
two  kinds  of  unbelievers  they  may  find  there.  First  there  may 
be  Kuffar  (Kafirs),  that  is  idolaters  or  worshippers  of  false 
gods.  They  are  to  have  no  mercy.  Either  they  accept  Islam 
or  they  are  killed.  Secondly,  Moslems  may  find  in  the 
conquered  land  people  who  worship  the  true  God,  though  not 
in  the  right  way.  These  people  are  the  Ahl  al-Kitab  (Kitabis) — 
"  People  of  the  Book."  Namely,  God  has  given  to  men  three 
successive  revelations,  each  true  and  right  while  it  lasted, 
though  the  two  earlier  ones  have  already  been,  and  the  present 
one  will  some  day  be,  supplanted  by  a  succeeding  and  more 
perfect  one.  Each  of  these  revelations  or  religions  has  a  book 
inspired  by  God.  They  are  :  The  revelation  of  Moses,  of  which 
the  book  is  the  Old  Testament,  that  of  *Isa  the  son  of  Mariam 
(by  which  they  mean  our  Lord),  whose  book  is  the  New 
Testament,  and  that  of  Mohammed  with  his  Koran.     Some  day 

1  So  said  the  Prophet :  "  Finish  my  work,  spread  the  House  of  Peace 
(Islam)  all  over  the  world  ;  God  gives  you  the  House  of  War  "  (S.  ix.  39). 
"  Oh  True  Believers,  fight  your  neighbours  if  they  be  unbelievers,  treat  them 
severely  "  (S.  ix.  124). 


UNDER    THE   TURK  235 

the  Mahdi  will  come  and  supplant  Islam  too.1  Meanwhile  it  is 
the  last  and  at  present  the  true  revelation.  The  People  of  the 
Book  then  are  those  who  still  follow  one  of  the  older  revelations 
given  before  Islam,  that  is  Jews  and  Christians,  each  of  whom 
have  a  book  to  show  for  their  belief.2  And  these  Kitabis  are 
not  to  be  persecuted.  u  Fight  those  who  do  not  believe  in  God 
and  in  the  day  of  judgement  (the  Kafirs)  .  .  .  and  those  who 
have  received  the  book  shall  pay  you  a  poll-tax  and  be  subject 
to  you "  (Sura  ix.  29).  The  Kitabis  were  originally  called 
Dhimmis  ("  protected  ones  ")  by  the  Arabs  ;  the  Turks  call  them 
Rayahs  (RaHyyah,  Flock).  They  have  to  pay  a  poll-tax  and  a 
land-tax,  they  may  not  serve  in  the  army.  To  convert  a  Moslem 
to  their  faith  or  seduce  a  Moslem  woman,  to  speak  openly 
against  Islam,  to  make  any  treaty  or  alliance  with  people  out- 
side the  Moslem  Empire,  is  punished  with  death.  The  Rayahs 
must  also  dress  differently  from  Moslems,  may  not  have  as  high 
houses  as  their  masters,  nor  expose  any  sign  of  their  faith 
(crosses)  outside  their  churches,  nor  ring  church  bells,  nor  bear 
arms,  nor  ride  a  saddled  horse.  A  Rayah's  evidence  cannot  be 
accepted  in  a  court  of  law  against  a  Moslem.  If  they  obey 
these  laws  they  are  not  to  be  in  any  way  annoyed  or  molested  ; 
they  may  keep  all  their  other  customs  and  social  arrangements, 
and  are  quite  free  with  regard  to  their  religion.3  Of  course  any 
Rayah  may  always  accept  Islam  and  thus  enter  the  governing 
race  ;  if  he  does  so  it  is  death  to  go  back.  These,  then,  were  the 
conditions  imposed  upon  all  Christians  and  Jews  by  the  Turks.* 

1  Or  rather  perfect  Islam.  The  Sunni  view  of  the  Mahdi's  office  is  almost 
exactly  the  same  as  the  Christian  view  of  our  Lord's  attitude  towards  the  old 
law.  The  Shiah  (Persian  and  heretical)  Mahdi  is  to  be  simply  the  long-lost 
12th  Imam  come  out  of  hiding  at  last.  See  J.  Darmesteter  :  he  Mahdi  (Paris, 
1885).  Every  Moslem  pretender,  usurper,  rebel  or  reformer  at  once  says  he 
is  the  Mahdi. 

2  Afterwards  the  Persian  Zoroastrians  (Parsis)  were  recognized  as  Kitabis 
too,  and  their  founder  was  added  to  the  list  of  true  prophets  before 
Mohammed. 

3  Their  clergy  were  even  exempt  from  the  poll-tax.  In  Turkey  the  inevit- 
able influence  of  Western  ideas  during  the  last  century  modified  many  of 
these  rules. 

4  For  Moslem  law  on  all  these  points  see  e.gr.  H.  Grimme  :  Mohammed,  II 
Einleitung  in  den  Koran  (Minister,  1895),  passim,  also  E.  V.  Mulinen  :  Die 
latein.  Kirche  im  Turk.  Reich,  pp.  1-4. 


236      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  only  point  added  by  them  was  what  was  certainly  the 
worst  of  all — the  tribute  of  children.  A  certain  number  of  the 
strongest  and  healthiest  Christian  children  of  six  or  seven  years 
old  were  taken  away  every  year  to  supply  the  Sultan's  Janissary 
(yeni  chert  =  new  troop)  guard.  They  were,  of  course,  brought 
up  as  Moslems,  knowing  neither  father  nor  mother  nor  country, 
having  no  attachment  to  .anything  or  any  one  except  to  their 
barracks  and  the  Sultan.  So  they  formed  a  tremendous  engine 
in  the  hands  of  the  Government,  and  the  Christians,  whose  lands 
were  harried  and  whose  homes  were  burnt  by  the  Janissaries, 
had  the  additional  horror  of  knowing  that  these  persecutors 
were  '  really  their  own  children.  The  Janissary  corps  lasted 
till  1826.  It  was  only  then,  after  they,  knowing  their  own 
strength,  had  become  too  utterly  unruly,  that  Sultan  Mahmud 
II  (1 808-1 839)  at  the  risk  of  his  own  life  abolished  them.1 
This  most  cruel  piece  of  tyranny  was  not  part  of  the  law  of 
Islam,  but  a  special  and  private  abomination  of  the  Turk. 

With  this  exception,  however,  the  fate  of  the  Rayahs  was  not 
the  worst  possible.  What  they  had  to  complain  of  was,  first, 
that  they  always  remained  a  separate  subject-people  under  a 
race  of  foreign  conquerors  and  masters  ;  and,  secondly,  that  they 
were  at  the  mercy  of  tyrants,  who  at  any  time  could,  and  who 
continually  did,  overstep  their  own  law.  The  root  of  the  whole 
evil  was  that  Christian  and  Moslem  never  could,  never  can  mix 
into  one  people.  There  have  been  other  conquests  as  cruel  and 
as  unjust  as  the  Turkish  conquest  of  the  Empire,  and  yet  in 
other  cases  after  a  century  or  two  the  races  have  mixed  and  no 
one  either  knows  or  cares  any  longer  whether  he  belongs  by 
blood  to  the  original  conquerors  or  conquered.  This  can  never 
happen  where  Moslems  rule  over  Christians.  No  one  now  asks 
whether  an  Englishman  be  Briton  or  real  Englishman  or 
Norman,  whether  an  Italian  be  Roman  or  Goth  or  Lombard  ; 
but  the  Turk  and  the  Rayah  belong  to  two  different  nations 
to-day  as  much  as  in  1453.  The  difference  of  religion  in  this 
case  makes  a  barrier  that  nothing  can  break  down.  Religion  to 
the  Moslem  is  the  only  thing  that  matters  at  all.  Islam  is  the 
perfect  example  of  a  theocratic  democracy,  governed  of  course, 
1  The  tribute  of  children  was  done  away  with  in  1638. 


UNDER    THE    TURK  237 

like  most  democracies,  by  an  irresponsible  tyrant.  Neither 
race  nor  language  nor  colour  makes  any  difference.1  All  True 
Believers  are  equal  and  any  one  of  them  may  rise  to  any 
position  :  the  world  of  the  Arabian  Nights,  in  which  barbers 
become  Great  Wazirs  and  pastry-cooks  marry  Sultans'  daughters 
really  exists  (or  did  exist  until  the  invasion  of  Western  manners 
quite  in  our  own  time)  round  the  Bosphorus.  All  Islam  are 
brothers.  But,  on  the  other  hand,  people  who  are  not  True 
Believers  are  utterly  shut  out  from  the  world  in  which  Moslems 
live.  They  remain  another  nation,  may  be  tolerated,  and  may  exist 
side  by  side  with  their  own  laws,  but  they  are  always  as  remote 
from  the  governing  class  as  another  species.  And  to  be  a 
subject-nation  governed  by  a  foreign  race  is  a  position  with 
which  no  civilized  people  can  be  finally  satisfied.  So  there 
have  been  endless  revolts  among  the  Rayahs,  and  after  a  revolt 
the  Turk  has  no  mercy.  That  is  why,  in  spite  of  the  tolerance 
of  Moslem  law,  the  history  of  the  Ottoman  Empire  in  Europe 
has  been  one  long,  monotonous  story  of  the  shedding  of 
Christian  blood.  The  Rayahs  have  always  been  in  revolt,  and 
the  Turks  have  always  been  massacring.  It  began  when  they 
slew  steadily  through  the  whole  day  as  soon  as  they  had 
entered  Constantinople  in  1453  ;  it  is  going  on  to-day  all  over 
Macedonia.     And  there  has  been  no  change  in  between. 

But  even  when  they  do  not  revolt  the  Rayahs  have  no  certainty 
that  the  Turk  will  keep  his  own  law.  Selim  I  (15 12-1520)  in  a  fit 
of  religious  enthusiasm  suddenly  ordered  all  churches  to  be 
turned  into  mosques  and  all  Rayahs  to  become  True  Believers 
under  pain  of  death  (1520).  With  infinite  difficulty  the 
Patriarch  Jeremias  I  persuaded  him  to  obey  the  command  of 
his  own  Prophet.  Murad  III  (1574-1595)  and  Mohammed  III 
(1595-1603)  both  nearly  carried  out  the  same  plan.  In  Crete  in 
1670,  fifteen  thousand  Christian  children  were  taken  from  their 

1  The  Ottoman  Turks  are  now  an  almost  entirely  artificial  race,  as  far 
removed  from  the  original  Turanians  who  came  into  Asia  Minor  in  the 
13th  century  as  modern  Turkish  with  its  elaborately  artificial  forms  and 
gigantic  loans  from  Persian  and  Arabic  (it  has  swallowed  the  grammars  of 
both  these  languages  besides  its  own)  is  from  the  rude  dialect  they  brought 
with  them  from  Central  Asia.    Any  one  can  turn  Turk  by  accepting  Islam. 


238      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

homes,  circumcised  and  brought  up  as  Moslems.  Throughout 
Asia  Minor,  where  the  Turk  has  always  been  very  anxious  to 
Ottomanize  the  whole  population,  the  punishment  for  speaking 
Greek  was  to  have  one's  tongue  torn  out.  Of  course  thousands 
of  Rayahs  did  apostatize  ;  and  in  the  purely  artificial  medley  of 
races  who,  joined  by  the  profession  of  Islam,  make  up  the 
Turkish  people  there  is  a  great  proportion  of  Greek  and  Slav 
(that  is  originally  Christian)  blood.  On  the  other  hand,  it  is  the 
eternal  glory  of  the  Orthodox  people  that  as  a  people  it  has 
remained  faithful.  This  is  the  most  wonderful  fact  of  the 
history  of  the  Eastern  Churches.  These  Rayahs,  cut  off  from 
the  West  by  the  schism,  forgotten  by  civilized  Europe,  ignorant 
and  miserable,  a  servile  race,  paying  for  their  faith  by  taxes, 
disabilities,  degrading  humiliations,  and  the  sacrifice  of  their 
own  children,  always  exposed  to  the  violence  of  their  masters, 
having  every  possible  advantage  to  gain  by  turning  Turk,  yet 
kept  their  faith  throughout  those  centuries  of  oppression.  And 
what  they  suffered,  how  many  thousands  of  them  shed  their 
blood  for  the  name  of  Christ  during  those  long  dark  ages,  God 
only  knows.  But  we,  who  have  never  had  to  sit  under  the 
shadow  of  the  Sultan's  blood-stained  throne,  if  we  remember 
the  ugly  story  of  their  fathers'  schism  must  also  remember  how 
valiantly  the  Eastern  Christians  have  stood  for  Christ  ever  since, 
and  how  in  the  days  of  her  trial  the  Byzantine  Church,  once 
so  foolish  and  obstinate,  has  sent  that  long  procession  of  her 
children  to  join  the  white-robed  army  of  martyrs. 

3.  The  Porte  and  the  Christian  Churches. 

As  soon  as  the  Turks  settled  down  after  their  conquest  they 
began  to  organize  the  subject-peoples.  They  classified  them 
naturally  according  to  their  religions.  Our  idea  that  there  is 
one  law  for  all  and  that  a  man's  religion,  as  far  as  the  State  is 
concerned,  is  his  own  private  affair  only  is  one  that  the  Turk 
has  never  understood.  Moslems  are  the  dominant  race  directly 
under  the  Sublime  Porte.1  And  the  Rayahs,  too,  must  be  organ- 

1  Sublime  Porte  means  in  English,  High  Gate.  The  Gate  is  a  very 
common  Semitic  idiom  for  Government.  The  Gates  of  Hell  in  Mt.  xvi.  18 
mean  simply  the  devil's  government ;  judgement  was  given  and  laws  were 


UNDER    THE    TURK  239 

ized  according  to  their  various  "  nations."  By  millet  (nation)  the 
Turk  means  simply  religion.  This  use  of  this  word  alone  shows 
their  whole  attitude.  The  subject-nations  then  were  (and  are)  : 
first,  and  by  far  the  largest,  the  Roman  nation  (rum  millet).  And 
the  Roman  nation  (strange  survival  of  the  name  of  the  dead 
Empire)  is  nothing  else  than  the  Orthodox  Church,  under  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  Every  Orthodox  Rayah  in  Turkey, 
no  matter  of  what  descent,  belongs  to  the  Roman  nation.  Next 
in  size  come  the  Armenian  nation  (ermeni  millet),  who  are  the 
Monophysite  (Gregorian)  Armenians  and  the  Armenian  Catholic 
nation  (ermeni  katulik  millet),  that  is  the  Uniates.  The  other 
Monophysites  (Jacobites,  Copts,  and  a  few  Abyssinians)  are 
represented  by  the  Armenian  Monophysite  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, all  other  Uniates  (katulik)  by  the  Armenian  Catholic 
Patriarch.  Then  comes  the  Jewish  nation  (yahudi  millet), 
nearly  all  Sephardim  from  Spain,1  and  lastly  the  Latin  nation 
(latin  millet),  Catholics  of  the  Latin  rite.2  The  few  native 
Protestants  (mostly  converted  Armenians  and  a  very  few 
Syrians)  are  not  a  millet.  The  Porte  will  not  allow  them  to  be 
one,  and  they  form  a  small  irregular  organization  under  the 
Minister  of  Police.3  In  this  way,  then,  all  the  Rayahs  were 
classified  and  arranged  in  groups.  Since  each  "  nation  "  is  a 
religious  body,  it  is  natural  that,  when  the  Porte  looked  for 
responsible  heads  and  representatives  of  the  nations  under  it,  it 
should  have  fixed  on  their  ecclesiastical  superiors.  This  quite 
agrees  with  the  view  of  the  Moslems,  who  always  confuse  civil 
and  spiritual  authority  ;  and  indeed  there  was  no  one  else  to 

proclaimed  at  the  gates  of  the  city  (cf.  Job  v.  4,  Is.  xxix.  21,  Prov.  xxii.  22),  also 
the  strength  of  a  city  was  in  its  high  strong  gates.  The  metaphor  of  keys  for 
authority  is  the  same  idea.  The  "  Holy  and  True  one  "  has  the  key  of  David 
"  to  open  and  no  one  shall  shut,  to  shut  and  no  one  shall  open  "  (Apoc.  iii.  7), 
and  our  Lord  gives  St.  Peter  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  (Mt.  xvi.  19), 
that  is,  supreme  authority  in  his  Church.  The  High  Gate  (al-Bab  al-(dli)  then 
in  Arabic  means  simply  the  Supreme  Government,  and  the  Turks  have  taken 
this  expression,  like  almost  every  idea  they  have,  from  the  Arabs. 

1  Under  the  Chacham  bashi  (Chief  Rabbi). 

2  The  Turk  uses  the    word  katulik  for   Uniates    and    latin    for    Latin 
Catholics. 

3  The  difficulty  in  organizing    these    Protestants  is  that  they  have  no 
hierarchy  and  so  the  Porte  does  not  know  how  to  arrange  them. 


240      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

choose.     So  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  became  the  recognized 
civil  head  of  the  Roman  nation. 


4.  The  Porte  and  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch. 

It  is  strange  that  the  last  step  in  the  advancement  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople  should  be  due  to  the  Turkish  con- 
quest. He  now  takes  something  like  the  place  the  Emperor 
would  have  taken,  if  Constantine  had  not  preferred  a  glorious 
death  to  the  shame  of  being  a  tributary  prince  under  the 
Sultan.  And  so  the  Patriarch  reached  the  highest  point  of  his 
career.  When  we  first  met  him  he  was  not  a  patriarch  at  all, 
nor  even  a  metropolitan,  but  only  a  local  bishop  under  Thrace. 
Now  he  has  an  enormous  patriarchate  covering  all  Russia, 
Turkey  in  Europe,  and  Asia  Minor  ;  in  ecclesiastical  affairs  he 
has  precedence  and  something  very  like  jurisdiction  over  the 
other  Eastern  patriarchs,  and  in  civil  affairs  he  has  authority 
over  them  and  all  Orthodox  Christians.1  Only  he  must  humble 
himself  before  the  Sultan,  and  to  make  this  degradation  quite 
complete  he  is  invested  with  the  signs  of  his  spiritual  jurisdiction 
by  the  unbaptized  tyrant  who  is  his  lord.  The  patriarchs, 
although  they  held  so  great  a  place  over  Christians,  have 
always  been  made  to  feel  that  they  are  nothing  before  the 
Turk.  They  represent  the  enormous  majority  of  subjects  of  the 
Porte  in  Europe,  but  they  have  never  been  given  even  the 
smallest  place  in  the  Diwan,  that  is,  the  Sultan's  advising 
council.  And  the  Sultans  have  deposed  them,  reappointed 
them,  even  killed  them,  just  as  they  liked.  On  the  whole,  then, 
for  a  Christian  bishop  the  place  of  a  small  diocesan  ordinary, 
from  which  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  rose,  was  more 
dignified  than  the  servile  grandeur  they  now  enjoy.  And,  as 
we  shall  see,  the  last  epoch  of  this  history  is  the  story  of  how 
they  have  lost  their  authority  piece  by  piece,  till  at  the  present 

1  The  highest  point  of  his  advancement  in  the  Balkans  was  after  1765, 
when  he  had  crushed  the  three  independent  Churches  of  Bulgaria,  Serbia, 
and  Roumania  (pp.  307,  317,  328),  but  Russia  had  been  independent  since 
1 591  (p.  294).  The  decline  of  the  Patriarch's  power  began  with  the  inde- 
pendence of  the  Greek  Church  in  1833  (p.  312). 


UNDER   THE   TURK  241 

moment  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarchate  is  only  a  shadow  of  what 
it  once  was. 

The  See  of  Constantinople  was  vacant  during  the  last  troubled 
years  of  the  falling  Empire.     Athanasius  II  had  been  elected  in 
1450  and  had  resigned  at  once.     When  the  first  storm  of  the 
conquest   was   over   and   the   Turks   at   last   rested   from   the 
massacre  of  May  29th,  Mohammed  II  realized  that,  now  that 
he  had  at  last  taken  New  Rome,  he  did  not  want  to  reign  over 
deserted  ruins.     So  he  ordered  the  slaying  of  Christians  to  stop, 
and  persuaded  those  who  had  fled  and  hidden  themselves  to 
come  back.     He  promised  them  the  usual  conditions  of  Rayahs 
and  set  to  work  to  organize  his  conquest.     He  seized  the  finest 
churches  (this  was  directly  forbidden  by  his  own  law)  ;  the 
Hagia  Sophia  was  whitewashed   all   over,   the   names   of  the 
Prophet  and  the  first  Khalifahs  were  hung  up  on  huge  round 
boards   over   the   old   ikons,    the   altar   and    Ikonostasis   were 
destroyed,  and  a  Mihrab  to  show  the  direction  of  Mecca  was 
fixed  in  the  apse,  the  Church  of  the  Holy  Apostles  (in  which  the 
Emperors  since  Constantine  had  been  buried)  was  razed  to  the 
ground  to  make  room  for  a  mosque,  and  any  other  churches 
the  conquerors  wanted  were  seized  too. 

Mohammed,  however,  took  care  to  have  a  new  patriarch 
elected  ;  he  made  the  metropolitans  choose  George  Scholarios, 
because  he  was  a  bitter  enemy  of  the  union.  Scholarios 
became  Gennadios  II  (1453-1456).  When  he  was  elected 
Mohammed  sent  for  him  and  said  :  "  Be  patriarch,  and  may 
Heaven  protect  you.  You  may  always  count  on  my  favour,  and 
you  shall  enjoy  all  the  rights  of  your  predecessors,"  and  then, 
copying  the  custom  of  the  Emperors,  he  solemnly  invested  him 
with  the  signs  of  his  office  and  gave  him  a  diploma  (berat)  exactly 
defining  his  rights.  All  the  patriarchs  since  have  submitted  to 
this  same  degrading  ceremony,  and  have  received,  each  one  as 
soon  as  he  is  elected,  the  berat,  that  declares  him  an  Imperial 
Ottoman  functionary.  Although  the  Sultan  allowed  the  old 
form  of  election  to  go  on,  there  was  no  pretence  about  the  fact 
that  it  depended  simply  on  his  will ;  as  he  deposed  patriarchs 
so  did  he  appoint  them.  Very  often  after  having  been  deposed 
for  a  time  the  same  man  was  re-elected.     This  has  happened  as 

17 


242      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

often  as  five  times  (pp.  265,  267) ;  there  seem  to  have  been  nearly 
always,  as  there  are  at  this  moment,  three  or  four  ex-patriarchs 
living  at  the  same  time.  None  of  them  reigned  more  than  a 
year  or  two,  and  so  the  number  of  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople 
since  1453  is  quite  incredible.  For  instance,  during  the  seventy- 
five  years  from  1625  to  1700  there  were  fifty  patriarchs — an 
average  of  eighteen  months  each. 

The  last  and  worst  result  of  the  subjection  of  the  Church 
to  the  Moslem  tyrant  was  Simony.  Each  patriarch  had  to 
make  the  Sultan  an  enormous  present  of  money  in  return 
for  his  appointment ;  to  raise  this  money  they  then  sold  all 
benefices  to  their  bishops  and  priests,  and  so  the  taint  of 
Simony,  the  buying  and  selling  of  the  things  of  God,  has  been 
for  centuries  one  of  the  characteristic  marks  of  the  Orthodox 
Church.  However,  when  he  had  bought  his  berat  from  the 
Sultan  and  had  swallowed  as  best  he  could  the  shame  of 
the  investiture,  the  Patriarch  became,  as  far  as  his  fellow- 
Rayahs  were  concerned,  a  great  lord.  The  spiritual  rights  given 
to  him  by  the  berat  were  :  Full  authority  over  all  churches  and 
convents,  and  in  all  questions  of  faith,  discipline,  or  rites,  the 
right  to  depose  any  unworthy  bishop  or  other  clerk  in  his 
patriarchate,  the  right  to  hand  over  to  the  Porte  contumacious 
clerks  for  punishment.  Most  of  these  rights  he  uses  only  in 
union  with  his  synod.  As  head  of  the  Roman  nation  the 
Patriarch  judged  all  questions  of  marriage  law  and  all  disputes 
between  Orthodox  Christians,  in  which  both  sides  had  agreed 
to  sue  at  his  court.1  He  could  levy  taxes  from  his  nation  for 
ecclesiastical  purposes,  and  could  keep  a  small  number  of 
gendarmes  at  his  service.2  Neither  he  nor  any  clerks  paid  any 
taxes  to  the  Porte  at  all,  and  he  was  the  official  representative 
of  the  other  Orthodox  patriarchs  at  the  Court.  Until  quite 
lately  the  Byzantine  patriarchate  was  enormously  rich.  All 
property  of  bishops  or  other  celibate  clerks  who  died  intestate 

1  Most  of  these  rights  were  shared  in  a  less  degree  by  other  bishops  as 
well.    The  other  "  nations  "  had  similar  arrangements. 

2  These  civil  rights  have  now  disappeared.  A  Turkish  law  in  1856  did 
away  with  them  and  established  "  mixed  councils  "  of  Turks  and  Christians 
to  try  cases  formerly  settled  by  bishops.  The  ecclesiastical  arrangements  of 
the  Orthodox  Church  have  been  modified  too,  since  i860  (p.  338). 


UNDER    THE   TURK  243 

came  to  it ;  also  regular  taxes  from  the  clergy,  the  simoniacal 
purchase-money  for  all  bishoprics  and  other  benefices,  heavy 
stole-fees,  legacies,  and  the  ordinary  endowments  of  the  See  of 
Constantinople  made  up  a  very  great  income.  On  the  other 
hand  the  disbursements,  and  especially  the  heavy  bribe  each 
patriarch  had  to  pay  to  the  Sultan  for  his  appointment,  and  for 
the  sake  of  which  the  Sultan  took  care  to  change  the  occupier 
of  the  see  as  often  as  possible,  made  a  steadily  growing  debt. 
This  debt,  called  the  court-debt  (to.  avXiKa),  was  met  by  an 
additional  tax  on  the  clergy  ;  and  so  the  Orthodox  bishops  and 
priests,  who  were  free  from  taxes  to  the  Porte,  found  that  the 
payments  they  had  to  make  to  the  Phanar  left  them  on  the 
whole  in  a  worse  case  than  laymen. 

The  patriarchate,  having  lost  the  cathedral  of  the  Holy 
Wisdom,  was  first  set  up  at  the  church  of  the  Pammakaristos 
("the  All-blessed  one,"  our  Lady)  ;  Murad  III  (1574-1595)  in 
1586  turned  this  into  a  mosque,  and  the  Patriarch  moved  to  St. 
Demetrios's  Church.  In  1603  he  moved  again  to  St.  George's 
Church,  where  he  still  remains.  This  church  of  St.  George 
is  the  centre  of  the  Greek  quarter  of  Constantinople,  the 
Phanar  (so  called  from  the  old  lighthouse),  on  the  bank  of 
the  Golden  Horn,  behind  the  city.  The  Phanar  has  been 
ever  since  the  centre  of  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  the 
name  is  used  for  its  government,  much  as  we  speak  of  the 
Vatican.  It  has  also  been  the  centre  of  the  Greek  people  under 
the  Turk  ;  the  rich  Phanariote  merchants  who  live  around  the 
seat  of  the  patriarchate  have  always  been  the  leaders  of  their 
countrymen  ;  they  pride  themselves  on  speaking  the  purest 
Greek,  their  strong  national  feeling  has  formed  the  nucleus  of 
the  hatred  of  Slav,  Roumanian,  and  Bulgar,  that  is  still  the  chief 
note  of  Greek  policy,  and  even  now  that  part  of  their  people 
are  independent,  Greeks  all  over  the  world  look,  not  to  Athens 
and  the  Danish  Protestant  who  reigns  there,  but  to  the  Phanar 
as  the  centre,  and  to  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  as  the  chief  of 
their  race.1 

We  shall  come  back  to  the  Phanar  and  the  organization  of 

1  A  Greek  said  to  Professor  Gelzer  in  1898  :  "  Le  chef  de  notre  nation 
n'est  pas  ce  petit  roitelet  a  Athenes,  mais  le  patriarche  cecoumenique  "  (Gelzer  : 
Gcistliches  u.  Weltliches  aus  dem  Turk-Griech.  Orient,  p.  24). 


244      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  patriarchate  when  we  come  to  the  state  of  the  Orthodox 
Church  to-day  (p.  338).  Meanwhile  it  is  only  fair  to  remember 
that  much  of  the  degradation  of  the  patriarchal  throne  during 
the  long  dark  ages  of  Turkish  oppression  was  not  the  fault,  but 
the  very  great  misfortune  of  the  Christians.  And  many  of  those 
patriarchs  who  had  to  serve  the  tyrant  so  basely  stood  out 
valiantly  against  him  when  it  came  to  a  point  that  no  Christian 
possibly  could  concede.  Gennadios's  immediate  successor, 
Isidore  II  (145 6-1463),  was  murdered  for  refusing  to  allow  a 
Christian  woman  to  become  the  second  wife  of  a  Moslem. 
Maximos  III  (1476-1482)  was  mutilated  for  the  same  cause, 
and  so  there  have  been  many  confessors  of  the  faith  on  the 
patriarchal   throne   down  to  the  martyr- patriarch,  Gregory  V 

(P-  344 

Summary. 

The  great  turning-point  of  history  for  the  Orthodox  Christians 
after  the  schism  was  the  Turkish  conquest  of  their  lands  that 
ended  with  the  taking  of  Constantinople  on  May  29,  1453.    The 
old  Roman  Empire  then  ended  with  the  glorious  death  of  the 
last   Emperor,   Constantine   XII.      The   Christian   subjects   of 
the  Porte,  called  Rayahs,  were  allowed  to  keep  their  religion 
and  customs,  and  were  tolerated  as  an  inferior  and  subject  race. 
But  they  continually  tried  to  revolt,  and  were  each  time  cruelly 
put  down ;  even  when  they  did  not  revolt  the  Turks  often  broke 
their  own  law  and  persecuted  them.     The  Porte  organized  all 
the  Rayahs  in  different  nations,  meaning  thereby  religions,  and 
each  nation  was  put  under  its  ecclesiastical  head  in  civil  matters 
too.    So  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch  became  the  civil  head  of  his 
people,  thus  gaining  even  more  authority.    But  he  was  degraded 
by  having  to  be  invested  by  the  Sultan,  and  each  patriarch  was 
forced  to  pay  a  heavy  bribe  for  his  appointment ;  from  this 
beginning  Simony  became  a  characteristic  of  every  rank  in  the 
Church.     The  patriarchs  were  very  rich,  but  the  Sultan  changed 
them  continually  for  the  sake  of  the  bribes.     During  the  cen- 
turies  of  Turkish   tyranny   the    Rayahs   kept   their  faith,   and 
thousands  of  them  suffered  valiantly  for  Christ. 


CHAPTER   IX 

ORTHODOX  THEOLOGY 

The  Orthodox  Church  during  the  four  centuries  of  Turkish 
oppression  naturally  sank  to  a  low  level  of  culture.  One  cannot 
expect  any  great  theological  movements,  nor  look  for  the  names 
of  famous  scholars  in  a  community  that  was  ground  down  as 
were  the  Rayahs  before  the  more  tolerant  laws  of  the  19th 
century.  The  one  duty  of  the  Orthodox,  then,  was  to  keep  their 
faith  in  spite  of  everything,  and  this  they  did  very  nobly. 

However,  their  Church  was  not  really  quite  dead.  She  pro- 
duced some  theologians  ;  was  very  conscious  of  her  own  position 
when  the  Protestants  wanted  to  make  an  alliance  with  her,  and 
she  was  on  one  occasion  convulsed  by  a  really  serious  trouble  in 
the  affair  of  Cyril  Lukaris.  These  three  points  now  require 
some  notice. 

1.  Theologians  since  1453. 

The  names  of  a  few  of  the  theologians  whose  works  are  still 
read  over  there,  and  who  enjoy  a  reputation  as  classical  ex- 
ponents of  the  Orthodox  faith,  ought  at  least  to  be  mentioned. 
These  theologians  all  studied  at  the  Western  universities  :  there 
were  no  means  of  education  in  Turkey.  Venice  had  a  large 
colony  of  Greeks  ;  and  Greek  students  came  to  Padua,  Pisa, 
Florence,  Paris,  Oxford,  even  Rome. 

Since  the  Council  of  Florence  there  have  always  been  a  number 
of  Eastern  Christians  of  every  rite  who  have  accepted  its 
decrees  and  who  therefore,  while  keeping  the  liturgies,  rites, 

245 


246      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  customs  of  their  fathers,  acknowledge  the  Roman  Primacy, 
and  are  in  communion  with  the  Holy  See.  These  Catholics 
of  Eastern  rites  are  called  Uniates,  and  for  the  Greek  and 
Ruthenian  Uniates  Pope  Gregory  XIII  (1572-1585)  founded 
the  Greek  College  at  Rome.  Of  the  students  of  the  Greek 
College  the  greater  part  of  course  remained  Uniates  when 
they  went  back  to  their  own  country  and  worked  for  the  cause 
of  the  Pope  ;  but  some  afterwards  joined  the  majority  and 
turned  Orthodox.  So  the  Pope's  College  at  Rome  has  the 
quite  undesired  honour  of  being  remembered  by  Orthodox 
historians  as  one  of  the  Western  sources  from  which  their 
fathers  drew  the  knowledge  that  adorned  in  them  the  Orthodox 
Church.  The  Greek  colony  at  Venice  was  the  first  to  found  an 
Orthodox  school.  Thomas  Phlangenes  of  Kerkyra  established 
the  Academy,  called  after  him  the  Phlangenion,  in  1626  ;  it  lasted 
till  1795,  and  was  the  central  home  of  their  theology  during 
that  time.  At  last,  in  the  18th  century,  the  Phanar  managed 
to  set  up  colleges  and  schools  at  home.  The  great  "  School 
of  the  Nation"  (<rxo\ri  rod  yevovq)  at  Constantinople  was  the 
first  of  these  ;  then  Smyrna,  Janina,  Mount  Athos,  Bucharest, 
and  other  towns  had  schools  too. 

Most,  indeed  nearly  all,  of  the  work  of  the  Orthodox  theo- 
logians during  this  time  has  been  written  against  the  Pope 
and  the  Latins.  One  can  understand  this.  To  the  Eastern 
Christians  the  enormously  greater,  more  powerful,  and  more 
prosperous  Catholic  Church  looms  very  large  ;  the  question 
why  they  are  not  in  union  with  the  bishop,  who  should  be 
the  first  of  the  patriarchs,  is  always  the  burning  one.  And 
the  Popes  have  never  ceased  trying  to  convert  them  back  : 
papal  missionaries  and  schools  are  to  be  found  all  over  Eastern 
Europe  (except,  of  course,  in  Russia)  ;  there  has  always  been 
a  Latinizing  party  among  the  Orthodox,  and  they  continually 
hear  of  some  priest  or  bishop,  sometimes  of  whole  communities, 
that  have  made  their  submission  to  the  Pope.  So  to  people  who 
believe  that  the  claims  of  the  Holy  See  rest  upon  nothing  but  a 
monstrous  tissue  of  lies  and  forgeries,  who  look  upon  the  Papacy 
as  something  almost  diabolical  (and  many  of  these  Orthodox 
writers  hate  Rome  as  violently  as  the  wildest   Protestants),  to 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  247 

such  people  as  this  naturally  the  first  duty  is  to  justify  their 
schism,  to  defend  themselves  against  papal  aggression  ;  Rome 
is  the  greatest,  the  most  untiring,  the  most  dangerous  enemy. 
They  dare  not  try  to  convert  Turks  ;  Protestants  have  not  infer- 
fered  with  them  very  much  on  the  whole  (though  there  has  been 
trouble  on  this  side  too,  see  p.  254),  the  unorthodox  Eastern 
Churches  are  quite  harmless — no  one  ever  thinks  of  changing 
from  Orthodox  to  Jacobite  or  Copt — so  the  great  question 
of  all,  here  as  all  over  the  Christian  world,  is  that  of  the 
enormous  united  communion  that  may  be  hated  but  cannot 
be  ignored.  Still  from  any  point  of  view  the  fact  that 
they  have  done  hardly  anything  but  discuss  us  all  this  time 
is  a  disadvantage.  Controversy  is  never  the  highest  kind  of 
theological  literature,  and  certainly  one  reason  why  Orthodox 
theology  is  so  very  far  behind  ours  is  that  while  Catholics  during 
the  last  four  centuries  have  written  on  every  branch  of  theology, 
and  have  elaborated  their  system  from  every  conceivable  point 
of  view,  the  others  have  been  doing  scarcely  anything  but  fuss- 
ing over  and  over  again  about  the  Filioque  and  the  Primacy, 
and  repeating  the  feeble  accusations  they  always  ferret  out 
against  our  rites  and  customs.  Another  difference  that  is 
very  clearly  marked  is  between  the  rigid  consistency  of  Catholic 
theology  and  the  really  amazing  confusion  of  their  ideas.  We 
noticed  the  germ  of  this  difference  long  ago  (p.  no),  and  we  shall 
come  back  to  some  startling  examples  of  it  later  (p.  384  seq.). 

In  the  15th  century  the  only  Orthodox  theologian  was 
Maximos  Peloponnesios  (Maximos  III  of  Constantinople,  1476- 
1482).  He  opens  the  tradition  of  the  whole  school  by  writing 
against  the  Council  of  Florence  and  a  "  Refutation  of  the 
Seven  Chapters  which  were  written  by  one  of  the  Western 
Frati."  x     It  is  not  known  who  his  Western   Frate  was. 

In  the  16th  century  the  chief  writer  is  Meletios  Pegas  (MsXetlos 
6  lirjyaQ,    1535-1603).2      He  was    a    Cretan   who    studied  at 

1  Ma.ZLp.ov  tov  Ue\o7rovvT](Tiov  'AiroXoyoi  ?)  avarpoTT^  riibv  £'  K£<f>a\aiu)v 
liTrep  empype  tiq  tCjv  dvrucijjv  (pparopcjv.  &pa.Tu>p  is  an  engaging  word, 
meaning  Frater.  Of  course  he  is  not  going  to  call  a  Latin  'lepo- 
fiovaxog. 

2  Meyer,  o.c.  pp.  53-69.    Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  136. 


248      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Padua,  and  then  became  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (1590-1603). 
Leo  Allatius  had  known  him,  and  it  was  he  who  sent  Lukaris 
to  Poland  (p.  264).  His  chief  work  bears  the  rather  ponderous 
title :  "  A  writing  of  the  most  blessed  the  Pope  of  Great 
Alexandria,  Lord  Meletios,  concerning  this  :  which  is  the  true 
Catholic  Church,  and  who  is  her  legitimate  and  real  Head,  and 
concerning  the  origin  of  the  Pope  of  Rome,  dedicated  to  the 
most  holy  Silvester  his  (Meletios's)  predecessor  and  elder."  ' 
As  the  title  says,  this  book  is  a  polemical  work  against  the 
Pope's  claim.  The  legitimate  and  true  Head  of  the  Church 
is  our  Lord  ;  the  true  Catholic  Church  is  made  up  of  all  those 
who  acknowledge  this,  apparently  including  Latins  and  "  those 
from  Luther."  It  is  the  beginning  of  a  sort  of  branch-theory 
that  was  not  destined  to  survive  among  Orthodox  theologians. 
Meletios  Pegas  also  wrote  an  "  Orthodox  Christian  Dialogue," 
a  letter  to  Sigismund  III  of  Poland  in  Latin  against  the  Roman 
Primacy,  and  a  number  of  other  works,  nearly  all  of  which, 
except  one  treatise  against  the  Jews,  are  directed  against 
Catholic  belief  and  rites.  His  idea  of  the  origin  of  the  patri- 
archates is  curious.  Constantine  made  Rome  and  Constanti- 
nople patriarchal  sees.  As  they  then  were  jealous  of  one 
another,  and  always  quarrelled,  Alexandria  was  also  made  a 
patriarchate  to  judge  between  them ; 2  then  Jerusalem  was  put 
in  the  lowest  place  among  the  patriarchal  sees  out  of  love 
for  the  holy  places,  but  also  because  Christ  who  had  lived 
there  was  so  humble.  He  seems  to  have  forgotten  Antioch.3 
Jeremias  II  of  Constantinople  (1572-1579,  restored  1580-1584; 
restored  again  1586-1595)  is  famous  chiefly  because  of  his 
correspondence  with  the  Tubingen  Protestants  (p.  252).  But 
he  also  wrote  against  the  Latins.  He  protested  against  the  use 
of  the  Gregorian  Calendar  which  Pope  Gregory  XIII  (1572- 
1585)  had  introduced  in  the  West,  and  which  some  Greeks 


Printed  in  the  Tofiog  %apdQ  of  Dositheos  of  Jerusalem,  1705,  pp.  553-604. 

2  The  title  "  Judge  of  the  Universe"  is  borne  by  the  Patriarch  of  Alexandria 
(see  p.  349). 

3  In  his  second  letter  (to  the  Orthodox  Russians  in  Poland,  1597),  printed 
at  Constantinople  in  1627  ;  see  Leo  Allatius,  de  perp.  cons.,  p.  996,  and 
Meyer,  o.c.  p.  64. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  249 

wanted  to  adopt ;  he  wrote  an  answer  to  "  The  Prince  of 
illustrious  Venice  "  (Nicholas  Daponte)  *  who  had  proposed  as  a 
general  principle  that  Catholics  and  Orthodox  should  keep  the 
same  feasts,  protested  against  the  leave  given  by  the  Porte 
to  the  Jesuits  to  come  to  Constantinople,  and  generally  showed 
himself  to  be,  as  Manuel  Malaxos  in  his  History  calls  him, 
"a  Pontiff  just,  irreproachable,  true,  godly,  merciful,  holy,  not- 
bad,  and  pure."  The  Bishop  of  Kythera  (the  large  island  close  to 
the  south  of  the  Peloponnesus),  Maximos  Margunios  (Mapyovvtoc, 
t  1602),  who  lived  chiefly  at  Venice,  was  really  anxious  to 
restore  the  union.  But  the  only  way  that  seemed  possible 
to  him  was  by  converting  the  Latins  from  their  heresy  about 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost.  So  nearly  all  his  writings 
("Three  books  concerning  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost," 
M  Handbook  of  the  Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,"  "  Arguments 
against  the  Latins,"  "  Dialogue  between  a  Greek  and  a  Latin  "  2) 
are  defences  of  their  view  on  this  question.  He  was  a  very 
zealous  and  pious  person,  and  wrote  so  moderately  and  charit- 
ably against  us  that  he  got  into  trouble  with  his  own  friends  as  a 
disguised  Latinizer.  Really  he  was  nothing  of  the  kind,  and  he 
never  wavered  for  a  moment  from  the  Orthodox  position.  So 
great  was  his  zeal  that  he,  like  other  good  people,  went  all  the 
way  to  Rome  on  the  rather  hopeless  errand  of  trying  to  convert 
the  Pope  (Clement  VIII,  1592-1605)..  Clement  appears  to  have 
received  him  quite  kindly,3  and  he  argued  and  argued.  Then 
he  went  back  to  Venice.  Manuel  Malaxos  (f  c.  1581),  some- 
time notary  of  the  Metropolitan  of  Thebes  in  Bceotia,  and  then 
a  private  tutor  at  Constantinople,  wrote  a  "  History  of  the 
Patriarchs  of  Constantinople."  *  A  contemporary  description 
of  him  is  not  flattering  :  "  This  is  a  very  old  man  ;  he  teaches 
boys  in  a  small  and  wretched  house  by  the  Patriarch's  palace. 
He  hangs  up  dried  fishes  in  it,  and  then  eats  them.     He  writes 

1  Upiyicrjip  twv  kKuvwv  Bevetiiov. 

8  Meyer,  pp.  69-78.    He  doubts  the  authenticity  of  the  Dialogue. 

3  Kyriakos's  statement  that  the  Inquisition  threatened  him,  and  that  he  had 
to  flee  for  his  life  (iii.  p.  137)  is  a  mistake  ;  the  Serenissima  gave  him  a  safe- 
conduct,  which  was  scrupulously  observed  (Meyer,  p.  71). 

4  Printed  in  M.  Crusius  :  Turcogrcecia  (Basel,  1584),  pp.  107-184. 


250      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

books  for  money,  and  spends  it  all  on  wine.  He  is  fat  and 
hearty."  * 

In  the  17th  century  the  most  important  person  was  Cyril 
Lukaris  (p.  264).  After  him  one  should  mention  Metrophanes 
Kritopulos  (f  1 641),  who  was  sent  by  Lukaris  to  study  at 
Oxford  and  at  the  German  universities.  He  became  Patri- 
arch of  Alexandria  in  1630,  and  wrote  a  "  Confession  of  the 
Orthodox  Church " 2  (p.  364).  Peter  Mogilas  (f  1647)  was  a 
Moldavian  who  became  Metropolitan  of  Kiev  in  Russia.  He 
wrote  in  Latin  3  an  "  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Eastern  Church,"  which  was  very  soon  done  into 
Greek,  was  accepted  by  the  Patriarchs  as  an  authentic  statement 
of  their  faith,  and  has  always  been  one  of  the  chief  Orthodox 
symbolic  books  4  (p.  364).  Gabriel  Seberos  (f  1616),  George 
Koresios  (f  1641),  Meletios  Syrigos  (f  1662),  Nektarios,  Patriarch 
of  Jerusalem  (f  1676),  all  acquired  some  name  as  theologians 
by  writing  against  Latin  heresies.* 

The  greatest  Greek  scholar  of  the  18th  century  was,  without 
question,  Eugenios  Bulgaris  (Evyevioc  BovXyapie,  f  1800).  He  was 
born  in  Kerkyra,  and  studied  at  Padua.  Then  he  taught  philo- 
sophy at  Janina  and  at  the  new  school  founded  at  Mount  Athos  ; 
eventually  he  was  called  to  Russia  by  Catharine  II  (1 762-1 796) 
and  made  Archbishop  of  Cherson  (not  far  from  Odessa). 
Bulgaris  was  a  philologist,6  theologian,  and  especially  philo- 
sopher. He  was  the  first  man  who  introduced  modern 
philosophy  to  the  Greek  world,  and  what  he  taught  was  an 
eclectic  combination  of  Descartes,  Leibnitz,  Locke,  &c.  It  was 
because  of  this  that  he  was  rather  persecuted.  At  that  time 
to  the  Orthodox,  as  intermittently  to  Catholics,  the  only 
Christian  philosophy  was  Aristotle.  The  Athos  monks  drove 
him  out  with  contumely  as  an  atheist  and  blasphemer.     Besides 

1  Gerlach  in  Meyer,  p.  162.  2  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  138. 

3  For  a  very  long  time,  and  even  now  to  some  extent,  Latin  is  the 
learned  language  in  Russia.     See  Palmer's  Visit,  p.  299,  &c. 

4  Meyer  in  the  Realenz.  s.v.  Mogilas  (1903,  vol.  xiii.  pp.  249-253). 

5  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  137-139. 

6  He  is  said  to  have  spoken  fluently  Greek,  Latin,  German,  Italian, 
French,  Hebrew,  Turkish,  Arabic,  and  Russian — which  is  a  very  good 
record. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  251 

his  philosophical  works  he  wrote  on  mathematics  and  astronomy, 
translated  various  foreign  books  into  Greek  (Ps.-Augustine  : 
Soliloquia,  &c),  did  the  yEneid  into  Homeric  Hexameters ; 
wrote  a  Compendium  of  Theology,  and  of  course  added  to 
his  many-sided  collection  of  writings  a  treatise  u  On  the  Proces- 
sion of  the  Holy  Ghost"  and  a  "  Little  Book  against  the  Latins." 
Bulgaris  was  an  ardent  Philhellene,  and  may  be  looked  upon 
as  the  father  of  the  modern  Orthodox  school.  Nearly  all  the 
writers  of  the  19th  century  learned  directly  or  indirectly  from 
him.  He  was  also  the  father  of  the  much-discussed  fashion  of 
writing  as  near  an  imitation  of  old  Attic  Greek  as  possible, 
forming  an  artificial  literary  language  to  take  the  place  of  the 
common  speech  of  his  time.1  Other  Greek  theologians  of  the 
1 8th  century  were  Elias  Meniates  (f  17 14),  who  wrote  a  work 
called  "The  Stumbling-block"  (ITeVpa  aicavdaXov  =  Rock  of 
scandal,  a  delicate  allusion  to  the  name  Peter),  which  is,  one 
need  hardly  say,  the  Roman  See,  also  Athanasios  Komnenos 
Hypsilantes  (|  c.  1789),  Alexander  Helladios,  Meletios  of  Janina 
(t  1714),  who  all  cooked  up  again  the  everlasting  arguments 
against  the  Filioque  and  our  habits  generally.  We  shall  come 
to  some  writers  of  the  19th  century  later  (p.  315).  Mean- 
while these  few  names  will  serve  to  show  that  Greek  letters 
were  not  altogether  dead  during  these  ages,  although  their  life 
lingered  almost  exclusively  in  anti-Catholic  polemics. 

1  Modern  Greek  has  gradually  lost  very  many  of  the  old  inflections  (future, 
optative,  all  duals,  &c.)  ;  has  made  many  forms  regular  (/xeydXog,  fieydX?], 
fieyaXov,  elfiat,  elcrai,  elvai,  k.t.X.)  ;  has  adopted  any  number  of  Turkish  and 
Italian  words  (tov^eki,  a  gun,  XovXovddici,  flower,  <ro(pag,  sofa,  KaraapoXa,  sauce- 
pan, &c.)  ;  and  has  recklessly  simplified  the  grammar  (nearly  all  prepositions 
with  accusatives,  &c).  The  question  still  hugely  agitated  all  over  the  Greek 
world  is  what  to  do  with  this  tongue.  There  are  three  schools  :  (i)  To  restore 
Attic  Greek  and  make  classical  compound  words  for  new  things  (mdrjpodpofiog, 
railway,  dr/xoTrXoiov,  steamer)  ;  (2)  to  cast  out  the  foreign  words  and  leave  the 
rest  alone  ;  (3)  to  leave  it  all  alone,  and  use  this  modern  dialect  as  a  literary 
language.  The  Phanar  has  a  tradition  of  very  respectable  Byzantine  Greek, 
which  may  be  compared  to  our  Church  Latin.  So  in  Greece  the  porter  talks 
to  you  in  a  language  you  must  learn  anew  just  as  much  as  Turkish,  the  bishop 
talks  like  St.  John  Chrysostom,  and  the  schoolmaster  like  Demosthenes.  The 
parish  priest  wavers,  but  greatly  tends  to  gravitate  towards  the  porter.  The 
classical  work  on  new  Greek  philology  is  Hatzidakis  :  Einleitung  in  die 
ncngriech.  Gramm.  Leipzig,  1892.     For  Bulgaris,  see  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  143,  seq. 


252      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

2.  The  Orthodox  and  the  Lutherans. 

It  was  natural  that,  soon  after  the  Reformation,  the  Protes- 
tants, who  had  thrown  off  the  Pope's  authority,  should  remember 
and  try  to  set  up  relations  with  the  people  in  the  East  of  Europe 
who,  as  far  as  this  point  went,  had  already  for  centuries  stood 
in  the  same  position.  It  is  to  the  credit  of  the  conservative 
spirit  of  the  Orthodox  Church  that  she  has  always  refused  com- 
munion with  any  religious  body  except  on  terms  of  the  complete 
acceptance  of  the  Orthodox  faith.  As  we  shall  see,  she  believes 
herself  to  be  the  whole  and  only  real  Church  of  Christ,  just  as 
Catholics  do.  So  any  sort  of  alliance  with  other  Churches  on 
mutual  terms  is  impossible,  and  the  idea,  often  cherished,  of 
building  up  a  great  united  anti-papal  Church  to  rival  and  balance 
the  Catholic  body  has  always  broken  down  because  of  her 
refusal,  as  well  as  for  other  reasons. 

The  first  in  this  field  were  the  Lutherans.  A  certain  Demetrios 
Mysos  was  studying  at  Wittenberg  in  the  16th  century  ;  when 
he  went  back  to  Constantinople,  Philip  Melanchthon  (f  1560) 
gave  him  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession,  and  a 
letter  to  the  Patriarch  Joasaph  II  (1 555-1 565).  Nothing  came 
of  this.  The  Tubingen  theologians  made  a  much  more  impor- 
tant attempt.1  In  1574  James  Andrea  and  Martin  Crusius,  both 
professors  at  that  university,  sent  to  Jeremias  II  (p.  248)  another 
translation  of  the  Augsburg  Confession  with  a  mightily  civil 
letter  asking  him  for  his  opinion  of  it.  Jeremias  answered, 
giving  his  opinion,  which  was,  of  course,  simply  the  most  cate- 
gorical re-statement  of  the  Orthodox  faith  (1575).  He  blames 
the  Filioque  (one  can  never  understand  why  Protestants  have 
kept  the  Filioque),  baptism  by  infusion  (see  p.  420),  their  denial 
of  Transubstantiation,  penance,  prayers  for  the  dead,  prayers  to 
Saints,  and  religious  orders.  In  one  point  especially  a  greater 
gulf  separated  the  Reformers  from  the  Orthodox  than  from 
Catholics.  The  Protestants  made  Justification  by  Faith  alone 
one  of  their  chief,  dogmas  :  and  the  Orthodox  belief  was  and  is 

1  All  the  acts  of  this  history  in  Acta  theologorum  Vitenb.  See  also  the 
article  Jeremias  II  in  the  Realenz.  (1900,  viii.  p.  660,  seq),  and  Renaudin  : 
Lutheriens  ct  Grecs-Orthodoxes. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  253 

at  the  very  extreme  other  end  of  the  scale  in  this  matter  (p.  108). 
Jeremias  exposes  what  is  really  pure  semi-Pelagianism  ("  a  man 
must  first  determine  himself  to  what  is  good,  and  then  God 
gives  him  grace  ;  otherwise  there  would  be  no  free  will"1). 
Lastly,  he  insists  on  tradition  as  a  source  of  revelation. 

Luke  Osiander  answered  this  letter  in  1577,  refuting  each  of 
the  Patriarch's  arguments  from  the  Protestant  point  of  view  ; 
the   Patriarch   wrote   back    and   refuted   Osiander,   and    then 
Osiander  answered  refuting  the  Patriarch.     By  this  time,  then, 
the  correspondence,  which  had  been  meant  to  lead  to  an  alliance, 
had  become  simply  a  rather  acrimonious  controversy.     So,  in 
1 58 1,  Jeremias  did  a  very  sensible  thing.    He  wrote,  saying  that 
evidently  they  would  never  agree  :  they  started  from  different 
principles,  and  it  was  no  good  arguing  any  more.     He  would 
be  very  pleased  to  hear  from  them  again  if  they  would  write  for 
love  ((piklae  epsKa),  but  he  did  not  want  any  more  Protestant 
theology.     Whether  the  Tiibingers  wrote  him  any  letters  for 
love  I  do  not  know  ;  but  that  was  the  end  of  the  attempt  at  a 
Lutheran- Orthodox  union  from  Tubingen.      Another  abortive 
attempt  was  made  in  Poland  in  1599.     Both   Protestants  and 
Orthodox  were  then  being  much  worried  by  the  Catholic  kings, 
and  so  the  Protestants  wrote  to  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch,  pro- 
posing a  defensive  alliance  against  the  common  enemy,  Popery. 
Meletios  Pegas  (p.  247),  who  happened  to  be  then  administrator 
of  the  vacant  See  of  Constantinople  (1 597-1599),  answered  by 
asking  them  if  they  were  prepared  to  acknowledge  the  jurisdic- 
tion of  the  (Ecumenical  throne.     They,  of  course,  said  certainly 
not.     What  they  proposed  was  to  give  the  Patriarch  the  right 
hand  of  friendship,  as  St.  Paul  gave  it  to  the  elder  Apostles. 
But  to  take  the  right  hand  of  friendship  in  ecclesiastical  matters 
from  people  outside  his  communion  is  as  impossible  for  the 
Patriarch  as  for  the  Pope.     So  Meletios  could  only  answer  that 
he  was  sorry  to  find  them  schismatics  and  heretics,  and  that  he 
would  be  glad  to  hear  from  them  again  as  soon  as  they  were 
prepared  to  join  the  Orthodox  Church.     The   great  affair  of 
Lukaris  (p.  264)  is  connected  with  this  question  of  Orthodox 
and  Protestants.     Count  Zinzendorf  (f  1760),  the  founder  of  the 
1  See  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  87. 


254      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Moravian   Brethren   sect,  again  opened  negotiations  with  the 
Patriarch  Neophytos  VI  (i 734-1 740,  and  again,  1 743-1 744)  in 
1737.     But  Zinzendorf  practically  wanted  to  make  Neophytos  a 
Moravian,  and  Neophytos  quite  openly  wanted  to  make  Zinzen- 
dorf Orthodox,  and,  of  course,  neither  succeeded.     However, 
so  far  the  Easterns  had  not  been  ill-disposed  towards  Protes- 
tants ;  in  spite  of  the  most  radical  disagreements,  their  common 
opposition  to  the  Pope  was  a  great  tie  of  sympathy.     What 
crushed  all  friendly  feeling  was  the  Protestant  missionizing  in 
the   East.     The  Orthodox  hate  any  attempt   at   proselytizing 
among  their   people  above   measure.     In  the  first  place,  like 
Catholics,  they  hold  their  communion  to  be  the  whole  and  only 
true  Church.     So  to  be  an  apostate  from  it  is  to  them,  as  to  us 
in   our   case,  an   infinitely  greater   calamity   than   the   loss   of 
members  to  the  Protestant  bodies,  who  all  claim  to  be  only  a 
branch  of  the  Church,  although,  of  course,  always  the  best  and 
purest  branch.     And  then,  to  the  Easterns  their  communion  is 
not  only  the  true  Church,  it  is  their  nation  as  well.     We  have 
seen  how  the  only  national  organizations  they  have  under  the 
Turk  are  the  religious  bodies.     The  Orthodox  Church  is  the 
Roman  nation,  and  every  true  son  of  Hellas  must  belong  to  that 
nation.     It  is  their  one  bond  ;  it  has  kept  alive  the  sacred  fire 
of  Greek  patriotism  during  the  centuries  of  bondage  ;  it  has 
been  the  rallying  point  of   the  "  Love  of  Hellas "  under  the 
barbarian.     The  metropolitans  and  priests  have  been  leaders, 
patrons,  protectors  of  the  Rayahs  when  there  was  no  one  else 
to  care  for  them  ;  and  when  the  first  whisper  of  liberty  went 
abroad,  it  was  from  the  bishops'  houses,  the  monasteries,  the 
poor  cottages  of  the  Papades,  that  the  people  heard  the  sum- 
mons to  try  once  more  and  to  strike  for  Christ  and  Hellas.1 
The  Orthodox  Church  is  the  heir  of  all  the  Greek  traditions. 

1  These  two  causes  always  went  together  : — 

Tid  rrjg  7ra.TpL8og  ri\v  kXevOepiav, 

Tid  tov  xpwTov  Trjv  tc'igtiv  ttjv  dyiav, 

Fl  avrd  rd  dvo  TroXefiu), 

M'  avrd  vd  Zfoau  £7ri9v[iuJf 

Kc  dv  dev  rd  a7roicrr]cr<i> 

Ti  fx'  uxpeXti  vd  Z,r\ooi  ; 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  255 

The  old  glories  of  the  free  Greek  States,  vague  memories  of 
Marathon  and  Salamis,  the  majesty  of  the  Roman  Empire,  their 
cause  against  Persian  and  Arab,  Frank  and  Turk — it  is  all 
gathered  together  and  still  lives  in  the  Holy  Apostolic  Orthodox 
Catholic  Church  of  the  Seven  Councils.  So  one  can  understand 
how  they  feel  about  a  renegade  from  that  Church  :  he  betrays 
the  true  faith  of  Christ,  and  he  betrays  the  cause  of  the  Father- 
land. And  one  can  understand,  too,  how  the  Church  resents 
attempts  at  seducing  her  children.  She  trained  them,  pro- 
tected them,  and  cared  for  them  all  through  the  long,  dark 
days  that  are  at  last  just  passing,  and  now  people  come  over 
from  across  the  seas  to  try  to  make  them  leave  her.  And  yet 
the  Orthodox  Church  is  unceasingly  harried  by  missionaries  of 
other  religions.  The  Catholic  missions — Jesuits,  Franciscans, 
and  so  on — have  been  her  bugbear  for  centuries.  Of  course, 
the  Catholic  Church  cannot  act  otherwise.  Since  the  basis  of 
her  whole  position  is  that  she  is  the  only  true  Church,  to  which 
God  wishes  all  men  to  be  called,  she  will  never,  and  can  never, 
cease  sending  out  missionaries,  whose  work  is  to  try  to  convert 
any  and  every  human  being  who  is  outside  her  communion, 
whether  heathen,  Mohammedan,  Protestant,  or  Orthodox.  It 
is  the  obvious  and  perfectly  consistent  policy  she  follows 
throughout  the  world,  and  which  any  reasonable  person  who 
understands  her  faith  must  always  expect.  At  any  rate,  one 
must  expect  the  Holy  See  to  believe  in  the  Roman  Catholic 
claims,  and  to  complain  of  the  Pope  because  he  does  not  act 
according  to  theories  which  are  the  exact  contrary  of  his  faith 
is  mere  foolishness.  But  one  must  see  an  Orthodox  paper  to 
understand  what  they  think  of  the  Roman  Propaganda,1  which, 
instead  of  converting  the  heathen  (!),  sends  out  wolves  and 
serpents  to  ruin  other  Christian  Churches.  And  when  Protes- 
tant missioners  began  to  come  out,  too,  to  help  their  Catholic 
enemies  rend  Orthodox  lambs,  then  even  the  precious  bond  of 
the  fact  that  they  were  all  against  the  Pope  was  no  longer 
enough  to  make  Orthodox  and  Protestants  friends.  The  trouble 
began  with   the   Bible  societies.     Various  English,  American, 

1  They  will  not  translate  this  word,  but  they  spell  it  out  in  Greek  letters, 
r)  7rpoTraydvda,  which,  for  some  unaccountable  reason,  looks  perfectly  fiendish. 


256      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  German  societies  printed  and  distributed  Greek  and 
Russian  Bibles.1  At  first  the  Orthodox  Hierarchy  saw  no  harm 
in  that,  and  even  approved  and  blessed  the  work.  A  Greek 
society  for  the  distribution  of  Holy  Scripture  was  formed  in 
1818  to  work  in  union  with  the  British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society.  But  it  soon  became  evident  that  the  tendency  of  these 
societies  was  inconsistent  with  the  Orthodox  faith.  In  1840  a 
new  modern  Greek  Bible  appeared  in  London.  And  now  their 
Protestantism  was  manifest.  This  version  was  done  straight 
from  the  Massoretic  text,  ignoring  the  Septuagint,  and  it  left 
out  the  Deuterocanonical  books.2  At  the  same  time  schools 
were  being  set  up  in  the  chief  towns  under  Protestant  teachers, 
and  their  pupils  began  to  seek  a  purer  faith  by  attending 
Evangelical  prayer  meetings.  Then  there  came  conventicles 
with  Bible  classes,  pleasant  Sunday  afternoons,  hymn-books 
provided  and  Gospel  teas.  An  American — King — at  Athens 
was  the  chief  of  these  missioners.  So  at  last  the  Patriarch 
(Gregory  VI,  1835-1840  and  1867-1871),  in  a  synod  of  the  year 
1836,  forbade  the  use  of  these  Bibles,  and  very  properly  excom- 
municated all  who  attended  the  Protestant  meeting-houses. 
Since  then  there  has  been  no  persecution  of  the  missioners. 
They  have  set  up  centres  all  over  the  Near  East,  and  no  one 
prevents  them  from  preaching  ;  but  every  one  now  knows  that 
to  join  them  is  to  leave  the  Orthodox  Church.  In  Russia, 
where  other  ideas  of  liberty  prevail,  the  Bible  Society  was 
expelled,  and  its  Bibles  forbidden.  These  Protestants  have 
made  an  infinitesimal  number  of  converts,  who  call  them- 
selves EvayyeXiKoi,  and  the  Orthodox  feel  nearly  as  bitter 
towards  non-Anglican  Protestants  (AiafiaprvpofievoL)  as  towards 
Catholics.3 

1  New  Testament  in  modern  Greek,  London  (British  and  Foreign  Bible 
Society),  1810,  Bible  in  Russian,  1821,  and  then  continually  reprinted. 

2  The  LXX  has  always  been  the  official  version  of  the  Byzantine  Church, 
as  the  Vulgate  is  ours.  Protestants,  on  the  other  hand,  make  quite  a  fetish  of 
the  Massora.  But  to  print  a  Greek  Bible  without  using  the  LXX  is  an  almost 
incredible  piece  of  arrogance  and  absurdity.  Two  Englishmen  made  this 
new  version  and  thought  they  could  do  better  than  the  LXX  ! 

3  For  the  story  of  the  Bible  societies,  see  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  97-103,  and 
for  Russia,  Palmer,  p.  521. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  257 

3.   The  Orthodox  and  the  Anglicans. 

The  relations  of  the  Orthodox  Church  to  the  Church  of 
England,  of  late  years  especially,  have  been  very  much  more 
friendly  than  towards  any  other  religious  body,  except,  perhaps, 
the  Armenians.  The  first  connection  was  in  the  affair  of  Lukaris. 
Naturally,  it  has  always  been  the  High  Church  party  in  England 
that  has  wished  for  union  with  the  Orthodox.  In  1672  the 
Eastern  Patriarchs  sent  a  document  to  England  to  answer  the 
question  :  "  What  are  the  sentiments  of  the  Eastern  Church  ?  " 
In  1677  Henry  Compton,  Bishop  of  London,  built  a  church  in 
his  own  city  (St.  Mary,  Crown  Street,  Soho)  "  for  the  nation  of 
the  Greeks,"  and  in  1694  Worcester  College,  Oxford  (then 
Gloucester  Hall),  was  to  be  a  Greek  College,  although  nothing 
came  of  this  plan.  In  1 710,  Samuel  Kapazules,  Orthodox  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  finding  his  see  in  great  financial  difficulties,  sent 
out  people  to  all  parts  of  the  world  to  collect  alms  for  it.  Two 
of  these  collectors,  Arsenios,  Metropolitan  of  the  Thebais,  and 
Gennadios,  Archimandrite  at  Alexandria,  come  to  England 
with  letters  from  Samuel  to  Queen  Anne.  They  arrive  in  1714, 
and  Anne  gives  them  ,£200.  Then,  instead  of  going  back  at 
once,  they  wander  about  England  collecting  more  money,  and 
at  last  in  1716  they  meet  the  Non-jurors.  Archibald  Campbell 
and  Thomas  Brett,  who  were  leading  men  of  that  party,  now 
conceived  the  project  of  a  union  with  the  Orthodox.  Peter  the 
Great  of  Russia  (1689-1725)  was  to  be  the  intermediary.  So 
they  draw  up  a  document  addressed  to  the  Eastern  Patriarchs, 
in  which  they  describe  themselves  as  the  "  orthodox  and 
catholic  remnant  of  the  British  Churches."  The  chief  differences 
of  belief  and  practice  noted  in  this  first  document  are  that  the 
Non-jurors  fear  to  pay  too  much  honour  to  the  Blessed  Virgin 
and  Saints,  say  that  the  Real  Presence  is  only  subjective  in  the 
soul  of  the  communicant,  and  prefer  to  have  no  images.  They 
then  make  two  most  astonishing  propositions,  first  that  the 
Bishop  of  Jerusalem  shall  be  the  first  bishop  of  Christendom,1 
and  secondly,  in  order  to  secure  uniformity  of  rites,  they  want 

1  It  is  just  such  a  proposition  as  would  naturally  be  made  by  Protestants 
who  know  a  great  deal  about  the  Bible,  but  have  no  knowledge  at  all  of  the 
history  and  development  of  the  hierarchy.  How  utterly  opposed  their  idea 
is  to  the  whole  of  Christian  antiquity  will  be  seen  from  Chapter  I,  pp.  25-27. 

18 


258      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN   CHURCH 

to  restore  everywhere  a  primitive  liturgy,  to  be  specially  drawn 
up.  The  Bishop  of  New  Rome  is  to  be  in  every  way  equal  to 
his  brother  of  Old  Rome,  and  the  Church  of  England  (that  is 
themselves)  is  to  be  recognized  as  an  independent  branch.  The 
whole  plan  is  curiously  Protestant  and  reckless  of  tradition. 
Arsenios  and  Gennadios  then  take  this  paper  with  them  to  Peter 
the  Great,  who  sends  it  on  to  Constantinople.  The  Patriarchs 
answer  as  might  have  been  expected.  Their  Church  has  always 
kept  the  Orthodox  faith  intact  and  has  nothing  to  modify  ;  they 
insist  on  her  teaching  about  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
and  proceed  to  instruct  the  Non-jurors  on  the  other  points, 
as  one  would  instruct  catechumens.  The  idea  of  making  the 
Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  first  bishop  is  absurd  and  revolutionary. 
If  the  Anglicans  like  to  put  themselves  under  his  jurisdiction,  of 
course  they  may,  and  he  would  then  appoint  bishops  for  them 
(this  was  the  last  thing  the  Non-jurors,  with  their  hope  of  being 
an  equal  branch,  wanted).  As  for  a  primitive  liturgy,  there  is 
one  already,  the  Byzantine  rite,  which  the  Anglicans  would  do 
well  to  adopt.  Without  Chrism,  they  say,  no  one  is  a  perfect 
Christian,  and  so  on.  They  do  not  wonder  that  Englishmen 
brought  up  in  the  principles  of  Luther  and  Calvin  should  be  so 
mistaken  as  the  Non- jurors  are,  but  they  should  now  be  con- 
verted to  the  Orthodox  faith  ;  and  the  Patriarchs  end  with 
a  tremendous  curse  against  all  who  deny  it.  In  spite  of  so 
great  a  snub,  however,  the  correspondence  dragged  on  till  1725. 
Then  Archbishop  Wake  of  Canterbury  (171 6-1 737)  found  out 
what  was  going  on,  and  wrote  to  warn  the  Patriarchs  against 
these  "  schismatic  presbyters  "  ;  "  we,"  he  says,  "  are  the  true 
bishops  and  clergy  of  the  Church  of  England."  That  was  the 
end  of  the  negotiations.1  The  abortive  Anglican- Lutheran 
Bishopric  at  Jerusalem  in  1841  (to  1881)  of  course  gave  great 
offence  to  the  Orthodox,  and  confirmed  them  in  their  conviction 
that  there  is  nothing  much  to  choose  between  Anglicans  and 
any  other  Protestants.2     In  1840,  William  Palmer  of  Magdalen 

1  See  for  this  story  G.  Williams,  The  Orthodox  and  the  Non- jurors;  G.  B. 
Howard,  The  Schism  between  the  Orthodox  and  Western  Churches,  and  the 
Echos  d'Orient,  viii.  pp.  321-328. 

a  There  is  another  Anglican  Bishopric  "  in  "  Jerusalem  now,  of  quite  a 
different  type,  which  gives  no  offence  to  anyone. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  259 

(Oxford)  went  to  Russia  in  the  naive  hope  that,  as  a  member  of 
the  Church  universal,  he  would  be  admitted  to  Orthodox  Sacra- 
ments. Of  course,  he  was  told  by  every  one  that  he  must  first 
join  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  on  May  20,  1841,  he  received  a 
formal  answer  from  the  Metropolitan  of  Moscow  to  that  effect.1 
He  was  annoyed  to  find  that  every  one  spoke  of  an  Anglican 
clergyman  as  a  Pastor,2  and  confused  Anglicans  with  Lutherans 
and  Calvinists  ;  also  the  Metropolitan  had  nothing  good  to  say 
of  the  XXXIX  Articles.3  At  the  two  Union  Conferences  held 
at  Bonn  in  1874  and  1875  under  the  auspices  of  the  Old 
Catholics,  Anglicans  met  Orthodox.  Anglican  orders  and  the 
Filioque  were  discussed,  but  they  did  not  arrive  at  any 
agreements 

It  is  during  the  last  twenty  years  or  so  that  the  relations 
between  these  two  Churches  have  become  very  friendly.  It  is 
easy  to  understand  their  mutual  good  feeling.  Of  course  the 
ordinary  Greek  layman  still  calls  Anglicans  Protestants,  and  the 
average  British  tourist  in  the  East  is  quite  content  to  accept 
that  respectable  name.  But  the  extreme  High  Churchmen 
represent  their  Church  to  the  Orthodox  authorities  as  something 
very  different.  Their  ideal  is  Catholicism  without  Popery,  which 
sounds  exactly  like  that  of  the  Eastern  Churches.  Diomedes 
Kyriakos  tells  us  that  "the  Eastern  Church  rejects  both  the 
Roman  Church  because  of  her  errors  and  the  Protestant  Churches 
because  of  their  opposite  errors  ;  she  holds  a  middle  place 
between  Catholicism  and  Protestantism.,,  s  As  this  is  just  what 
High  Churchmen  want,  no  wonder  that  they  think  of  union 
with  her.  And  the  Orthodox  have  reason  to  be  friendly  to 
Anglicans.  We  have  seen  how  they  hate  proselytizing,  and  how 
they  have  long  been  harried  by  proselytizers,  both  Catholic  and 
Protestant.  The  Anglicans  arrive  sounding  a  very  different 
note.  They  protest  that  the  last  thing  they  would  dream  of 
doing  would  be  to  try  to  seduce  any  Orthodox  Christian  from 
the  venerable  and  beautiful  Church  to  which  he  belongs.     On 

1  W.  Palmer,  Visit  to  the  Russian  Church,  p.  415. 

2  Ibid.  p.  44.  3  Ibid.  p.  395. 

4  Berichte  iiber  die  Unions-Conferenzen,  Bonn,  1874,  1875. 
s  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  89, 


26o      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  contrary,  their  highest  ambition  is  to  be  somehow  recognized 
by  that  Church.  They  very  piously  attend  her  offices  and 
liturgy,  they  are  beside  themselves  with  joy  if  they  are  allowed 
to  stand  inside  the  Ikonostasis,  and  they  would  give  anything  to 
receive  a  Sacrament.  Naturally  this  tone  is  soothing  to  Eastern 
ears.  Of  course,  also,  these  High  Churchmen  represent  the 
Church  of  England  as  believing  everything  Orthodox — she  has 
seven  Sacraments,  believes  in  the  Metusiosis,  if  not  in  Tran- 
substantiation,  prays  to  Saints,  honours  the  holy  ikons,  prays 
for  the  dead  ;  they  are  generally  willing  to  give  up  the  Filioque.1 
The  Easterns  know  quite  well,  of  course,  that  all  Anglicans  do 
not  think  like  this,  but  if  what  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
a  year  or  two  ago  called  u  the  Ritualist  sect "  ever  becomes  the 
whole  Church'  of  England,  then,  indeed,  in  faith  there  would 
be  little  to  choose  between  Anglicans  and  Orthodox. 

Meanwhile  a  great  step  has  been  taken  :  in  September,  1899, 
the  Patriarch  (Constantine  V),  in  answering  an  exceedingly 
friendly  and  courteous  letter  from  the  Archbishop  of  Canter- 
bury, declared  that  he  desired  that  a  friendly  and  brotherly 

x  See  the  Bonn  Conferences,  1874,  Langdon,  p.  12  ;  1875,  Howson,  p.  42  ; 
May,  p.  66 ;  Plunkett,  p.  69,  &c.  See  also  G.  F,  Browne,  (then)  Bishop  of 
Stepney:  TheContinuity  of the  Holy  Catholic  Church  in  England  (S.  P.  C.K.  1897), 
p.  7  :  "  I  regret  that  the  Church  of  England  was  dragged  into  that  addition  (the 
Filioque)  by  its  union  with  a  Church  from  which  we  afterwards  had  to  break." 
The  last  attempt  to  persuade  the  Orthodox  that  Anglicans  agree  with  their  faith 
was  one  whose  good  faith  it  would  be  difficult  to  defend.  In  September  and 
October,  1903,  Bishop  Grafton  of  Fond  du  Lac  (in  the  Protestant  Episcopal 
Church  of  America)  paid  a  visit  to  Russia.  He  left  a  document  for  the  considera- 
tion of  the  Russian  Holy  Synod  purporting  to  describe  the  faith  and  practice  of 
his  own  communion.  Of  course  he  does  everything  possible  to  make  it  look 
Orthodox  and  he  explains  away  the  Articles  in  the  usual  Ritualistic  manner, 
quoting  St.  Thomas  Aquinas  in  support  of  Art.  XXVIII !  As  a  specimen  of  the 
way  in  which  he  represents  things,  he  admits  that  Anglican  bishops  confirm 
by  the  laying  on  of  hands,  but  he  says  that  priests  may  also  anoint  with 
chrism  blessed  by  a  bishop,  and  "  we  believe  that  grace  is  equally  conferred 
by  either  way."  One  wonders  how  many  members  of  the  Church  of  England 
would  admit  that  the  grace  of  Confirmation  may  be  given  by  a  priest  with 
chrism,  and  how  many  of  their  bishops  would  accept  that.  The  whole 
document  is  the  extremest  example  of  advanced  Ritualism,  described  without 
qualification  as  the  belief  of  "  our  Church."  How  many  Anglican  bishops 
would  acknowledge  it  as  a  fair  description  of  the  Church  of  England  ?  The 
text  is  published  in  E.  d'Or.,  viii.  pp.  143-148. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  261 

feeling  should  prevail  between  the  members  of  both  Churches. 
He  is  glad  to  hear  that  the  Anglicans  do  not  mean  to  proselytize, 
although  he  cannot  spare  the  Archbishop  a  sharp  passage  about 
the  Bible  societies  and  their  "  scandalous  pamphlets  {oKavla\ulr\ 
(3tfi\apia)."  However,  he  agrees  to  communicate  any  important 
news  from  his  communion  to  the  Archbishop,  and  also  accepts 
the  other  proposal  that  on  special  feast-days  the  Orthodox 
clergy  in  London  and  the  Anglican  clergy  in  Constantinople 
should  pay  their  respects  to  the  authorities  of  the  other  Church.1 
This  brotherly  feeling  is  not,  as  was  carefully  explained,  inter- 
communion. Is  a  real  communion  between  these  Churches 
possible  ?  It  is  with  no  prejudice  against  either  that  one 
realizes  that,  unless  the  Orthodox  fundamentally  change  their 
whole  system,  it  is  not.  The  first  and  greatest  objection  is  that 
they  answer  the  question  :  What  is  the  true  Church  ?  from 
their  standpoint  just  as  we  do  from  ours.  The  Orthodox 
Communion  is  the  whole  and  only  legitimate  Church  of  Christ. 
To  be  outside  that  communion  is  schism,  to  disagree  with  her 
faith  is  heresy  (p.  365).  Of  course,  any  one  may  join  their 
Church,  and  they  have  elaborate  forms  of  reception  for  converts 
(p.  366)  ;  that  would  involve  accepting  all  their  faith  and,  at  any 
rate  hitherto  invariably,  their  liturgy  and  rites  too.  But  even 
Greek  inconsistency  cannot  allow  a  religious  body  that  holds 
that  position  to  make  an  alliance  on  equal  terms  of  inter-com- 
munion with  another  body.  Secondly,  they  are  very  undecided 
about  the  validity  of  Anglican  orders.  On  the  whole  their 
theologians  are  more  inclined  to  reject  them.  They  have, 
indeed,  a  special  reason  for  doing  so  in  their  belief  that  the 
grace  of  Holy  Orders  dies  a  natural  death  in  schismatical  or 
heretical  bodies  (p.  423).  At  the  Old  Catholic  Conference  at 
Bonn  in  1874  the  Orthodox  members  refused  to  pass  the  §  9,  b  : 
u  We  acknowledge  that  the  Church  of  England  and  the  Churches 
derived  through  her  have  maintained  unbroken  the  Episcopal 
succession."  None  of  them  absolutely  denied  the  thesis,  but 
they  said  that  Anglican  orders  are  doubtful,  and  appealed  to 
the  opinion  of  Philaret  of  Moscow  (the  chief  dogmatic  theo- 

1  See  Gelzer :  Geistl.  u.  Welti.,  p.  67,  seq.,  who  also  notices  the  curious 
haughtiness  of  the  Patriarch  in  his  address  to  the  Archbishop. 


262      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

logian  of  the  19th  century  in  Russia)  as  supporting  that  view.1 
Provost  Alexis  Maltzew,  who  is  a  great  authority  among  the 
Orthodox  on  liturgical  questions,  says  that  union  with  the 
Anglican  Church  is  impossible,  because  she  has  neither  the 
Apostolic  succession,  nor  certainty  about  Dogmas,  nor  true 
teaching  about  the  Holy  Eucharist,  nor  valid  orders.2  On  the 
other  hand  Professor  A.  Bulgakoff  of  Kiev  thinks  that  Anglicans 
have  a  succession  of  orders,  but  doubts  whether  heresy  has 
not  extinguished  its  effects  In  any  case,  then,  the  Orthodox 
would  have  to  make  up  their  minds  about  this  point,  too,  before 
there  could  be  any  question  of  corporate  union  between  them 
and  the  Anglicans.*  But,  indeed,  the  only  idea  these  Easterns 
can  conceive  is  simply  conversion  to  the  Orthodox  Church  ; 
and  the  negotiations  from  which  Anglicans  hope  so  much  for 
the  general  reunion  of  Christendom  appear  to  them  simply  as 
first  steps  towards  conversion.  This  is  the  way  they  look  at 
the  movement:  "A  few  Englishmen,  such  as  the  Ritualists, 
went  further  and  were  ready  to  give  up  their  teaching  and 
principles  for  the  sake  of  union  between  the  Churches.  Such 
English  theologians  were  present  at  the  Synod  of  Bonn  (1874), 
in  which  representatives  of  the  Orthodox,  Anglican,  and  Old 

1  Bericht  (1874),  pp.  35-37.  Canon  Liddon  said  that  Philaret  had  told  him 
that  his  doubts  were  only  derived  from  Roman  theologians  (ibid.  37).  Professor 
Rhossis  of  Athens  ended  by  saying  that  in  the  Greek  Church  the  question  has 
not  yet  been  decided,  but  that  it  is  to  be  hoped  that  it  will  soon  be  so. 

2  Maltzew :  Oktoichos  (Berlin,  1904),  vol.  ii.  p.  xxviii.  seq. 

3  Bulgakoff  :  The  Question  of  Anglican  Orders  (S.P.C.K.,  Church 
Historical  Society  publication  No.  LV,   1899),  pp.  44,  45. 

4  Quite  lately  there  has  been  a  case  which  shows  how  little  they  have 
made  up  their  minds  to  acknowledge  Anglican  orders.  In  October,  1905,  a 
certain  Dr.  Irvine,  a  clergyman  of  the  Protestant  Episcopal  Church  of 
America,  got  into  trouble  with  his  own  bishop  (Bishop  Talbot  of  Central 
Pennsylvania).  He  then  turned  Orthodox,  and  was  of  course  received  by 
Archbishop  Tykhon  of  Alaska  (p.  297),  who  proceeded  to  reordain  him.  But 
Anglicans  need  not  feel  really  hurt  at  this  sort  of  thing  ;  the  Orthodox  have 
reordained  Latin  priests  and  bishops  too  (p.  423) :  The  case  of  Dr.  Irvine  in 
E.  d'Or.  ix.  pp.  124-125.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Deacon  Hierotheos  Tekno- 
poulos,  who  was  sent  by  the  Patriarch  Constantine  V  to  study  at  Oxford, 
came  back  having  joined  the  Church  of  England,  made  a  great  deal  of 
trouble  in  Cyprus  for  a  year,  and  eventually  went  away  to  England  in  1901. 
He  was,  of  course,  excommunicated  and  degraded  by  the  Orthodox  Church 
(£.  d'Or.  iv.  pp.  60-62,  243-244). 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  263 

Catholic  Churches  assembled  in  the  hope  of  union.  They  were 
prepared  to  renounce  the  word  Filioque  as  being  false  ; ■  more- 
over, they  acknowledged  Tradition,  as  also  Confession,  Penance, 
the  Eucharist  as  a  sacrifice,  and  even  prayer  for  the  dead 2  .  .  . 
(an  account  of  the  second  Conference  in  1875).  But  most  of 
the  theologians  of  England  and  America  rejected  these  con- 
cessions of  the  genuine  friends  (he  does  not  say  of  what)  as 
being  a  return  to  Catholicism,  and  they  held  fast  to  the 
principles  of  Protestantism.  Only  a  few  Englishmen,  such  as 
the  theologian  Overbeck  and  his  followers,  eventually  joined  the 
Orthodox  Church."  3  So  far  the  view  of  the  chief  Greek  Church 
historian.  Undoubtedly  they  would  all  welcome  the  conversion 
of  any  number  of  Anglicans  to  the  Orthodox  Church  ;  short  of 
that  it  is  difficult  to  realize  any  further  possibility.  And  if  it  is  a 
question  of  being  converted  to  anything,  it  would  perhaps,  on 
the  whole,  be  more  dignified  as  well  as  more  natural  for 
Anglicans  to  be  (as  a  Russian  theologian  said  to  Mr.  Palmer) 
"  first  reconciled  to  their  own  Patriarch "  the  Pope,*  than  to 
become  yet  another  (the  seventeenth)  of  the  very  unequal  and 
very  quarrelsome  bodies  that  make  up  the  Orthodox  Com- 
munion, s 

1  This  is  quite  untrue.  They  all  argued  about  the  Filioque  without  end. 
The  Old  Catholics  did  not  mind  giving  it  up,  but  it  was  the  Anglicans  who 
would  not  do  so  ;  see  the  Berichte,  passim. 

2  This,  too,  is  quite  a  distorted  account.  The 'Anglicans  would  only  agree 
to  a  sort  of  compromise  on  each  of  these  points.  Indeed,  the  only  occasions 
on  which  the  whole  Conference  agreed  were  when  Dollinger  read  out  some 
denunciation  of  Popery. 

3  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  104-105.  The  philologist  will  be  interested  to  notice  in 
Kyriakos's  History  that  the  Greek  for  Ritualist  is  Te\er6<pi\og .  They  can  form 
words  for  anything. 

♦  Palmer,  p.  230. 

s  There  is  another  point  that  deserves  mention.  Have  the  pious  and  irre- 
proachable English  gentlemen  who  go  to  the  East,  and  there  flatter  the 
Orthodox  bishops  they  meet,  any  idea  what  sort  of  people  they  are  honour- 
ing ?  If  one  may  believe  eye-witnesses  like  Mr.  Brailsford  (Macedonia, 
pp.  192-194, 217,  &c),  the  official  Green  Book  just  published  by  the  Roumanian 
Government  (Echos  d 'Orient,  pp.  109-115),  or  even  the  most  moderate  of  the 
endless  Bulgarian  accusations  (C.  Bojan,  Les  Bulgares  et  le  patriarchc 
cecumenique,  passim),  the  Greek  metropolitans  in  Macedonia  are  directly  and 
formally  guilty  of  murder,  massacre,  and  unspeakable  atrocities  in  their 
campaign  against  the  Bulgars,  Vlachs,  and  non-Hellenic  people  generally 


264      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN   CHURCH 

4.  Cyril  Lukaris  and  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem,  1672. 

The  great  event  of  Orthodox  Church  history  in  the  17th 
century  is  the  affair  of  Cyril  Lukaris  (t  1638),  some  time 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch.  He  was  a  Protestantizer  who  formed 
a  party  of  Calvinists  in  his  Church,  and  his  opinions  were  after- 
wards condemned  by  four  synods.  Constantine  Lull 
(AovKapic,  he  took  the  name  of  Cyril  when  he  became  a  monk) 
was  born  in  Crete  in  1572.  He  studied  at  Venice  and  Padua, 
then  went  to  Alexandria,  where  he  was  ordained  priest,  made 
archimandrite  of  a  monastery  and  an  officer  of  the  Patriarch's 
court.  Meletios  Pegas,  the  Patriarch  (p.  247),  sent  Lukari 
Poland  to  comfort  the  Polish  Protestants  against  Popery,  and 
to  see  if  they  could  be  made  Orthodox.  It  was  during  this 
journey  that  he  became  very  friendly  with  Lutherans,  and 
especially  Calvinists,  and  began  to  adopt  their  ideas  ;  he 
gradually  wandered  towards  the  West  and  is  said  to  have  been 
at  both  Wittenberg  and  Geneva.  He  also  had  relations  with 
English  Protestants.  In  1603  Pegas  died  and  Lukaris  was 
made  Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  He  now  quite  openly  speaks 
of  his  conversion  to  the  ideas  of  the  Reformation  :  "  Since  it 
pleased  the  merciful  God  to  enlighten  me  and  to  show  me  my 
errors,  I  began  to  seriously  consider  what  I  ought  to  do.  And 
what  did  I  do  ?  For  three  years,  having  constantly  prayed  to 
the  Holy  Ghost,  I  read  the  books  of  certain  Evangelical  Doctors, 
which  I  had  got  by  the  kindness  of  my  friends,  but  which  our 
East  had  never  yet  seen  nor  even  heard  of,  because  of  the 
bishops'  censures  ;  and  I  compared  the  teaching  of  the  Reformed 
Church  with  that  of  the  Greeks  and  Latins."  x  He  corresponded 
with  many  Protestants  abroad,  among  others  with  George 
Abbot,  Archbishop  of  Canterbury  (1610-1633),  Hugo  Grotius, 

(c/.  infra,  pp.  275,  &c).  "  It  would  be  well,"  says  Brailsford,  after  a  hideous 
account  of  torture  in  monasteries  (on  lunatics),  "if  the  excellent  Anglican 
Churchmen  who  are  trying  to  promote  a  union  with  the  Eastern  Church 
would  use  their  influence  to  reform  such  abuses  as  this,  instead  of  perpetuat- 
ing by  their  ludicrous  flatteries  the  complacency  which  explains  them  " 
(Macedonia,  p.  68). 

1  Letter  to  Mark  Anthony  de  Dominis,  quoted  by  Ph.  Meyer,  Lukaris,  in 
the  Rcalcnzyklopadic  (1902),  xi.  p.  686. 


ORTHODOX   THEOLOGY  265 

De  Dominis,  &c.  He  was  already  known  abroad  as  "a  friend 
of  the  Reformed  Church."  l  His  idea  seems  to  have  been,  not 
to  join  any  form  of  Protestantism  already  set  up,  but  to  bring 
about  a  reformation  of  the  Orthodox  Church,  just  as  the 
Western  Protestants  had  reformed  the  Catholic  Church.  In 
1620  he  was  made  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  His  reign 
there  is  one  of  the  very  worst  examples  of  the  way  in  which 
the  Porte  deposes  and  reappoints  patriarchs.  He  was  Cyril  I 
of  Constantinople,  was  deposed  and  then  reappointed  no  less 
than  four  times,  so  that  there  are  five  separate  periods  during 
which  he  was  Patriarch,  with  other  bishops  in  between 
(1620-1623,  1623-1630,  1630-1634,  1634-1635,  1637-1638  : 
in  1630  one,  and  in  1634  two  other  patriarchs  had  a  few 
months  between).  In  1628  Lukaris,  still  very  friendly  with 
Abbot  of  Canterbury,  sent  as  a  present  to  King  Charles  I  of 
England  what  is  now  one  of  the  chief  treasures  of  the  British 
Museum,  the  Codex  Alexandrinus.2  While  he  was  intermittently 
Patriarch  the  Catholic  missions  in  the  East  were  very  flourish- 
ing, the  Jesuits  had  great  influence,  protected  by  the  French 
Ambassador,  while  Venice  held  Crete  and  other  islands.^  At 
that  time,  then,  great  efforts  were  being  made  to  convert  the 
Orthodox  to  the  Catholic  Church,  and  there  was  a  considerable 
oizing  party  among  them.  Of  these  Latinizers,  of  the 
Jesuits  and  France,  Lukaris  was  the  uncompromising  enemy. 
His  friends  were  the  ambassadors  of  the  two  chief  Protestant 
Powers,*  England  and  Holland.  In  1628  Anton  Leger  arrived 
as  preacher  at  the  Hollandish  Embassy,  and  then  he  and 
Lukaris  spoilt  everything  by  trying  to  go  too  fast.  They  wanted 
to  make  all  the  people  Protestants  straight  away.  They  set  up 
a  Protestant  school  at  Constantinople,  and  published  a  modern 

1  Sandy,  quoted  ibid. 

3  The  Codex  Alexandrinus  is  an  uncial  Greek  Bible  of  the  5th  century 
the  third  oldest  Bible  known  (the  Codices  Vaticanus  and  Sinaiticus  are  4th 
century).  Lukaris  took  it  from  the  Patriarchal  library  at  Alexandria.  A 
volume  of  it  is  exhibited  in  the  British  Museum  MS.  Department,  Case  G.  1. 

3  Venice  had  held  Crete  ever  since  1204  ;  the  Turks  took  it  in  1641-1669 — 
their  last  conquest. 

4  In  spite  of  all  the  German  Protestants  the  Empire  was  always  a  Catholic 
Power. 


266      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Greek  Bible  of  an  openly  Protestant  type,  which  was  made 
and  printed  at  Geneva.  All  the  same,  Lukaris  as  Patriarch  had 
to  canonize  a  Saint — St.  Gerasimos  the  New  (f  1579).  One 
wonders  how  he  felt  while  he  was  doing  it. 

At  last,  in  1629,  Lukaris  published  his  famous  Confession.1 
This  Confession  is  quite  frankly  Protestant  and  Calvinistic  : — 
The  Bible  has  more  authority  than  the  Church,  God  has  abso- 
lutely predestined  the  Elect  and  rejected  the  Reprobate  without 
any  regard  to  their  merits,  Christ  alone  intercedes  for  us,  the 
Church  is  the  congregation  of  the  faithful  of  Christ  throughout 
the  world,  and  only  the  Elect  really  belong  to  it,  the  Church  can 
err,  men  are  justified  by  faith  alone,  there  is  no  free  will,  all  the 
works  of  the  unregenerate  are  sins,  there  are  only  two  Sacra- 
ments, Baptism  and  the  Eucharist,  in  which  Christ  is  present  by 
the  spiritual  apprehension  of  faith,  without  faith  there  is  no 
Presence  j  there  is  no  middle  state  between  Heaven  and  Hell.2 
Lukaris  had  now  quite  formed  a  Protestantizing  party  to  oppose 
the  Latinizers.  But  in  1638  his  enemies  persuaded  the  Sultan 
(Murad  IV,  1 623-1 640)  that  he  was  stirring  up  rebellion  among 
the  Cossacks.  He  had  already  been  deposed  so  often  that  this 
time  Murad  meant  to  make  an  end  of  him  altogether.  So  he 
sent  some  Janissaries  to  throttle  him  and  throw  his  body  into  the 
sea.3  His  friends  found  it  washed  down  far  from  Constanti- 
nople and  gave  him  Orthodox  burial  with  the  repeated  prayers 
for  his  soul  that  he  would  himself  have  abhorred  when  alive. 
But   his  party  did  not  die   with   him.     Meletios    Pantogallos, 

1  Oriental  Confession  of  the  Christian  Faith,  Latin  version  in  the  same  year, 
and  French,  English  and  German  versions  almost  at  once.  Printed  in  Greek 
and  Latin  in  Kimmel,  pp.  25-44. 

2  D.  Kyriakos  (iii.  p.  94),  who  is  anxious  to  minimize  this  quarrel  and  to 
represent  the  whole  story  as  a  Jesuit  intrigue,  denies  that  this  Confession  is 
authentic,  and  thinks  it  was  a  forgery  of  the  Jesuits  to  bring  Lukaris  into 
disgrace.  It  is  the  worst  thing  in  his  History.  There  is  no  sort  of  doubt  that 
Lukaris  wrote  the  Confession  ;  he  speaks  of  it  with  pride  as  his  own  work 
continually.     See  Meyer,  I.e.  p.  688. 

3  June  27,  1638.  Naturally  the  Jesuits  have  been  accused  of  having  him 
killed.  They  had  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  his  death  really.  The 
enemies  who  accused  him  to  the  Sultan  were  Cyril,  Metropolitan  of  Berrhcea, 
and  his  party.  Cyril  of  Berrhcea  was  the  rival  Patriarch.  Cf.  E.  d'Or.  vi. 
pp.  97-107  :  Les  dernieres  annees  du  Patriarche  Cyrille  Lucar. 


ORTHODOX    THEOLOGY  267 

Metropolitan  of  Ephesus,  Sophronios  of  Athens,  and  Neophy- 
tos  III  of  Constantinople  (1636-1637),  were  his  chief  pupils. 
The  Orthodox,  however,  in  the  enormous  majority  were  true 
to  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  and  in  the  years  following  the 
murder  of  poor  Lukaris  they  held  four  synods,  at  Constan- 
tinople (1639),  Iasion  (Yassy  in  Moldavia,  1643),  Jerusalem 
(1672),  and  again  at  Constantinople  (1672),  in  which  they  drew 
up  most  uncompromising  professions  of  the  real  Orthodox  faith, 
and  condemned  and  anathematized  Lukaris's  Confession  and  all 
his  followers.  It  was  Lukaris's  successor,  Cyril  II  (three  times 
Patriarch,  1634,  1635-1636,  1638-1639),  who  held  the  Synod 
of  Constantinople  in  1639,  his  successor,  Parthenios  II  (1644- 
1645,  I04-8-i:65i),  that  of  Yassy,  and  Dionysios  IV1  the  other 
Synod  of  Constantinople  (1672).  It  was  also  as  a  refutation 
of  Lukaris's  heresies  that  Peter  Mogilas  of  Kiev  (p.  364)  and 
Dositheos  of  Jerusalem  (1661-1669,  p.  364) 2  drew  up  their 
Confessions. 

The  Synod  of  Jerusalem  was  by  far  the  most  important  of  all, 
and  its  Acts  are  the  last  official  pronouncement  of  the  Orthodox 
Church.  Dositheos  was  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  from  1669  to 
1707.  At  the  consecration  of  a  church  at  Bethlehem  in  1672  he 
announced  his  intention  of  summoning  a  synod  ;  3  it  met  in 
the  same  year  at  Jerusalem.  About  seventy  members  attended, 
among  others,  Nektarios,  ex-Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  six 
metropolitans  and  two  representatives  of  the  Russian  Church  ; 
Dositheos  presided.  The  synod,  of  course,  in  the  first  place 
insists  on  all  the  Orthodox  doctrines  denied  by  Lukaris's 
Confession — free  will,  the  seven  Sacraments,  "  adoration 
(irpocncvvr}(TiQ)"  of  images,  &c.  ;  Protestants  are  "  patently  heretics 
and  leaders  of  heresy  "  (Kimmel,  p.  330).  The  Fathers,  how- 
ever, are  anxious  to  save  Lukaris's  reputation.  So  they  draw  up 
a  history  of  the  wicked  attempts  made  by  the  Calvinists  to 
poison  the  Orthodox  Church  with  their  heresy,  of  which  history 

1  Five  times  Patriarch,  1671-1673,  1676-1679,  1683-1684,  1686-1687, 
1693-1694. 

2  Kimmel,  pp.  45~52- 

3  Because  the  summons  was  made  at  Bethlehem,  this  synod  is  often, 
although  quite  incorrectly,  called  the  Synod  of  Bethlehem. 


268      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  chief  feature  is  that  they  absolutely  deny  that  Lukaris  wrote 
the  Confession,  quote  sentences  which  they  say  various  people 
had  heard  him  speak  in  his  sermons,  and  which  are  Orthodox 
on  the  points  on  which  the  Confession  is  Protestant,  and  ana- 
thematize any  one  who  shall  ever  say  that  he  was  its  author.1 
The  Acts  of  the  synod  were  published  under  the  heading  : 
M  Christ  guides.  A  Shield  of  the  Orthodox  Faith,  or  an  Apology 
and  confutation  against  those  who  slanderously  say  that  the 
Eastern  Church  thinks  heretically  concerning  God  and  Divine 
things,  as  the  Calvinists  falsely  state,  drawn  up  by  the  synod 
held  at  Jerusalem  under  Dositheos,  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem."2 
As  an  appendix  to  the  Acts  follows  a  long  "  Confession  of 
Dositheos."  The  Acts  of  Jerusalem  and  Dositheos's  Confession  are 
printed  by  the  Orthodox  in  all  their  collections  of  Symbols,  and 
are  considered  one  of  the  most  important  as  well  as  the  last  of 
the  official  pronouncements  of  their  Church.  And  in  all  the 
proceedings  of  this  synod  there  is  not  a  single  word  against  the 
Azymite  Creed-tampering  Latins.  They  were  so  busy  with 
these  new  enemies,  the  Calvinists,  that  they  quite  forgot  us. 
As  this  is  the  only  occasion  in  history  on  which  Greek  bishops 
met  without  letting  us  know  what  they  think  of  us,  the  fact 
deserves  to  be  noted.  After  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  one  hears 
no  more  of  Protestantism  within  the  Orthodox  Church. 


Summary. 

There  was,  then,  a  certain  amount  of  theological  activity 
among  the  Orthodox  after  the  fall  of  Constantinople,  although 
it  chiefly  took  the  form  of  polemics  against  the  Latins.  The 
chief  theologians  are  Maximos  III  of  Constantinople  in  the 
15th  century,  Meletios  Pegas  in  the  16th,  Cyril  Lukaris, 
Metrophanes  Kritopoulos,  Peter  Mogilas,  and  Eugenios  Bulgaris 

1  This  denial  of  his  authorship  is  a  piece  of  palpable  bad  faith.  In  spite  of 
the  anathema  of  Jerusalem  every  Western  scholar  at  least  now  knows  for 
certain  that  Lukaris  did  write  it.  R.  Hofmann  (art.  Jerusalem  Synode,  in  the 
Realenz.  viii.  p.  704,  1900)  says  :  "  Although  the  falsehood  of  this  statement 
is  quite  obvious,  it  is  repeated  by  the  latest  Greek  dogmatist,  Prof.  Mesoloras 
of  Athens."  We  have  seen  that  it  is  also  repeated  by  Prof.  Kyriakos  of  Athens. 

2  The  Acts  in  Kimmel,  pp.  325-488,  Michalcescu,  pp.  123-182. 


ORTHODOX  THEOLOGY  269 

in  the  18th.  Meanwhile  the  German  Protestants  had  made 
overtures  to  the  Orthodox  which  came  to  nothing.  The 
correspondence  between  the  Patriarch  Jeremias  II  and  the 
Tubingen  theologians  is  the  most  famous  case.  The  English 
Non- jurors  made  equally  futile  proposals.  But  of  late  years 
especially  the  Orthodox  authorities  have  been  very  friendly 
towards  Anglicans,  who  alone  do  not  try  to  proselytize  in  the 
East.  On  the  other  hand,  the  belief  that  they  are  the  whole 
Church  held  by  the  Easterns  seems  to  make  any  hope  of  cor- 
porate reunion  between  them  and  Anglicans  impossible.  Cyril 
Lukaris  of  Alexandria  and  Constantinople  caused  the  greatest 
trouble  during-this  period.  He  was  a  Protestantizer  who  wrote 
a  purely  Calvinist  Confession.  After  the  Sultan  had  killed 
him  four  councils,  of  which  the  most  important  was  that  at 
Jerusalem  in  1672  under  Dositheos,  condemned  his  heresies. 


PART    IV 
THE   ORTHODOX  CHURCH  AT  THE  PRESENT   DAY 


This  last  part  is  to  contain  some  account  of  what  is  a  tangled 
subject,  the  present  state  of  the  Orthodox  Church.  In  the 
first  place  we  must  distinguish  three  great  groups  of  Eastern 
Christians  :  (i)  the  Orthodox  Churches  in  communion  with  the 
Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  (2)  the  other  schismatical  Churches, 
that  is,  the  four  Monophysite  bodies,  Armenians,  Jacobites,  Copts, 
and  Abyssinians,  and  the  one  Nestorian  body,  all  of  whom  are 
out  of  communion  with  either  Pope  or  (Ecumenical  Patriarch, 
(3)  the  people  who  in  order  of  honour  should  come  first,  the 
Uniates,  Christians  of  Eastern  rites,  who  are  in  communion 
with  the  Holy  See,  and  who,  of  course,  are  just  as  much 
Catholics  as  we  are.  It  is  important  to  remember  the  difference 
between  groups  1  and  2  above.  Group  1  (the  Orthodox)  con- 
sists of  sixteen  Churches,  all  independent,  but  all  in  union  with 
one  another  (except  for  one  schism  now  going  on).  Group  2 
(the  non-Orthodox)  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  those 
sixteen  Churches.  Thus  we  speak  of  the  Church  of  Russia,  of 
Greece,  of  Armenia ;  but  we  must  remember  that  the  Churches 
of  Russia  and  Greece  are  in  full  communion  with  one  another, 
whereas  the  Armenians  are  to  them  as  much  heretics  and  schis- 
matics as  Latins  or  Protestants.  We  have  here  to  consider  only 
the  Orthodox  communion,  which  is  enormously  the  largest  and 
most  important  of  the  Eastern  Churches.  It  will  be  convenient 
to  discuss  it  in  this  order  :  first,  a  sketch  of  the  political  situa- 
tion in  general  will  clear  the  ground,  then  a  list  of  the  Churches 
of  which  it  consists,  with  a  word  about  their  rise,  development, 
and  numbers.  Descriptions  of  the  Orthodox  Hierarchy,  Faith, 
Calendar,  Rites,  and  Liturgy  will  then  complete  our  account. 
And,  last  of  all,  there  will  be  something  to  say  about  the  question 
of  reunion  between  Catholics  and  Orthodox. 


CHAPTER  X 

THE  CONSTITUTION  OF  THE  ORTHODOX  CHURCH 

The  Orthodox  Church  consists  of  sixteen  separate  independent 
bodies,  who  all  profess  the  same  faith,  use  the  same  liturgy 
(though  in  different  languages),  and  are  all  (with  one  exception) 
in  communion  with  one  another  and  with  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople ;  though  he  has  no  authority  over  them.  The  list  of 
these  sixteen  Churches  is  :  i.  The  Great  Church  (Patriarchate  of 
Constantinople).  The  Churches  of  :  2.  Alexandria.  3.  Antioch. 
4.  Jerusalem.  5.  Cyprus.  6.  Russia.  7.  Carlowitz.  8.  Monte- 
negro. 9.  Sinai.  10.  Greece.  11.  Hermannstadt.  12.  Bul- 
garia (in  schism).  13.  Czernowitz.  14.  Serbia.  15.  Roumania. 
16.  Bosnia  and  Hercegovina.1  It  is  curious  to  note  how  in 
this  complex  system  the  most  unequal  bodies,  the  colossal 
Russian  Church  and  the  one  monastery  of  Mount  Sinai,  for 
instance,  are  ranged  side  by  side  as  equal  branches  and 
sister-Churches. 

1.  The  Political  Situation  and  the  Great  Church. 

It  is  with  no  malicious  pleasure  that  one  has  to  record  the  fact 
that,  in  spite  of  their  inter-communion,  the  dominant  note  of  these 
sixteen  bodies  in  our  time  is  their  extreme  quarrelsomeness. 
The  thing  is  too  patent  to  be  ignored.     It  is  the  cause  of  nearly 

1  From  Kattenbusch:  Orient,  kirche  in  the  Realenz.  (1904),  xiv.  pp.  436-467. 
See  also  Silbernagl :  Verfassung  u.  gegenw.  Bestand,  pp.  3-214.  This  order 
from  No.  4  to  No.  16  is  chronological,  according  to  the  date  of  their  inde- 
pendence. 

19  273 


274      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

all  their  activity.  One  has  only  to  look  at  any  modern  Greek 
newspaper  ■  to  see  the  way  they  speak  of  each  other;  and  since 
the  Bulgarian  schism  (p.  316)  especially,  the  Orthodox  Church 
lifts  up  her  voice  and  wails  in  the  market-places  ;  both  sides,  or 
rather  all  sides,  for  there  are  many,  besiege  any  one  who  will 
hear  them,  even  the  Ambassadors  of  the  Great  Powers,  with 
complaints  of  one  another.  The  enemies  of  a  man  are  of  his 
own  household,  and  now,  although  one  still  fairly  often  reads 
a  violent  digression  against  the  perfidious  Papic  Church,2  the 
burden  of  their  tale  is  one  long  recrimination  against  each  other. 
No  one  will  wish  meanly  to  rejoice  because  of  this  :  it  is  quite 
naturally  explained  by  various  unfortunate  political  circumstances, 
and  it  certainly  does  not  prevent  hundreds  of  their  bishops  and 
thousands  of  their  priests  from  living  the  most  zealous  and  God- 
fearing lives,  and  from  generously  devoting  themselves  to  the 
cause  of  Christ  among  their  people.  But  one  cannot  give  even 
the  shortest  account  of  the  Orthodox  Church  without  noticing 
the  quarrels  that  absorb  her  political  activity. 

An  outline  of  the  situation  will  help  to  explain  what  follows. 
First,  the  Greeks  think  that  they  ought  to  be  the  leading  Christian 
race  in  the  Balkans.  They  remember  the  old  Empire,  that  was 
Roman  in  name  but  practically  a  Greek  State  :  they  are  also  full  of 
vague  memories  of  their  past  greatness.  Marathon  and  Salamis, 
Homer,  Plato,  even  Herakles  and  Apollo — every  Greek  school- 
boy knows  all  about  these.  On  the  other  hand,  in  the  northern 
Balkans — now  that  the  southern  part  has  become  a  Greek 
kingdom — they  are  only  a  small  minority.  There  are  other 
nations  who  have  no  less  strong  a  national  feeling.  These  "  bar- 
barians" are  Slavs  of  three  races,  Bulgars,  Serbs,  and  Roumans.s 

1  The  'EiackrioicHTTiicrj  'AKrjOua  is  the  official  organ  of  the  Phanar.  KuvaTavn- 
vovirokiQ  is  semi-official.  Taxvdpofiog  is  unofficial  and  hates  the  Kuvaravri- 
vovitoKiq.    The  Nta  'Hfikpa  of  Trieste  is,  perhaps,  the  best  Greek  newspaper. 

2  17  7ra7riK»)  UKXrjcria,  this  attractive  name  has  become  quite  the  classical  one 
now,  though  when  they  do  not  mean  to  be  rude  they  call  us  Catholics  quite 
naturally. 

3  The  original  Bulgars  were  Turanians,  now  the  strain  of  Turanian  blood 
has  long  been  absorbed.  They  speak  a  Slav  language,  and  are  simply  a  Slav 
people.  The  Roumans  too,  in  spite  of  their  Romance  language  (with  an 
enormous  number  of  borrowed  Slav  words),  may  be  counted  as  Slavs.  The 
Albanians  do  not  count  in  these  ecclesiastical  quarrels. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX   CHURCH    275 

The  first  element  of  Balkan  discontent  is  the  mutual  hatred  of 
Greek  and  Slav.  It  is  now  far  more  active  than  their  old  enmity 
against  the  Turk.  Indeed,  both  sides  are  always  appealing  to 
the  Turk  against  each  other.1  A  further  complication  is  that 
Bulgars,  Serbs,  and  Roumans  hate  each  other  only  less 
than  they  all  hate  Greeks.  It  would  be  a  fundamental 
mistake  to  confuse  these  races  with  the  States  set  up 
during  the  last  century.  When  they  rose  against  the  Turks, 
the  Great  Powers  felt  they  must  give  them  some  result  for 
their  fighting  :  on  the  other  hand,  if  they  had  all  been  made 
free  there  would  have  been  no  Turkey  left.  So  bits  were  cut  off 
where  these  populations  were  supposed  to  be  thickest  and  made 
into  the  kingdoms  of  Greece,  Servia,  Roumania,  and  the  prince- 
dom of  Bulgaria.  The  people  of  Montenegro,  who  have  always 
been  free,  are  Serbs.  But  these  four  races  went  on  as  before, 
scattered  all  over  the  Balkans  and  overflowing  into  Hungary. 
A  Serb  of  Turkey,  for  instance,  is  just  as  much  a  Serb  as  his 
brother  in  the  kingdom  of  Servia.  So  in  Turkey,  in  Macedonia 
especially,  these  four  nations  all  live  together  in  great  confusion, 
while  the  Turkish  regiments  march  up  and  down,  keeping  order 
by  plundering  and  murdering  all  impartially. 

All  their  bad  feelings  are  reflected  in  the  affairs  of  their  Church.2 

1  Quite  lately,  since  the  Bulgars  have  become  the  strongest  element  in 
Macedonia,  the  situation  has  become  that  of  an  alliance  between  Turks  and 
Greeks  against  them.  The  war  of  1897  is  forgotten,  the  Sultan  showers  his 
decorations  on  Greek  statesmen,  and  during  the  Macedonian  insurrection  of 
1903,  officers  from  Free  Greece  were  not  ashamed  to  offer  their  swords  to  the 
Turk  (with  the  full  consent  of  their  Government)  against  the  Bulgars.  Pending 
the  day  when  it  shall  all  become  Greek  they  would  rather  see  Macedonia 
under  the  Turk  than  free  and  Bulgarian. 

-  The  accounts  of  the  way  in  which  the  Patriarchist  (Greek)  metropolitans 
in  Macedonia  carry  on  their  campaign  against  the  other  races  sound  like  the 
most  lurid  stories  of  a  frankly  savage  age.  Mr.  Brailsford  tells  of  a  bishop 
who  hired  assassins  to  murder  a  wounded  Bulgarian  chief  and  then  kept  a 
photograph  of  the  blood-dripping  head  as  a  pleasant  souvenir  (p.  193),  who  is 
believed  to  have  been  responsible  for  a  massacre  of  sixty  Bulgars  on  April  6, 
I9°5  (P«  217)-  They  convert  Bulgars  by  threats  of  massacre  (p.  215)  and  by 
denouncing  them  to  the  Turks  (p.  211).  Another  bishop  refused  to  admit  any 
wounded  Bulgars  to  his  hospital  for  the  simple  reason  :  "  They  are  our 
enemies  "  (pp.  199-200).  "  They  can  all  come  in,"  said  he,  "  if  they  will  only 
acknowledge  the  Patriarch  "  (p.  201). 


276      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

They  are  all  Orthodox  ;  and  for  centuries  the  Greeks  have  thought 
that  the  government  of  the  Orthodox  Church  is  their  business.  Its 
head  is,  or  was,  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch,  always  a  Greek,  and 
its  ruling  caste  is  the  Phanar.  Until  the  wars  of  independence 
began  the  Patriarch  got  to  be  as  near  a  Pope  as  any  one  ever 
has.  And  the  Phanariote  Greeks  kept  all  the  perquisites  of  the 
Church  for  themselves  ;  the  poor  village  priests  might  be  Serbs 
or  Bulgars  or  Roumans,  they  were  married,  and  so  in  any  case 
they  could  never  rise  to  any  higher  place,  but  all  the  metropoli- 
tans were  Greeks,  sent  out  from  Constantinople.  And  whatever 
the  people  might  speak,  the  Holy  Liturgy  was  sung  in  Greek. 
So  for  centuries  there  was  sullen  discontent  among  the  non- 
Greek  people  and  lower  clergy  against  these  Phanariote  bishops. 
This  was  not  only  the  case  among  the  Slavs;  the  Arabic- speaking 
Orthodox  in  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Palestine  had  just  the  same 
complaint. 

Another  feature  that  is  rather  astonishing  is  that  the  Rayahs 
began  more  and  more  to  confuse  the  Phanar  with  the  hated 
Turkish  rule.  We  have  seen  that  the  Patriarch  was  the 
acknowledged  civil  Head  of  all  the  Orthodox  before  the  Porte. 
It  is  also  true  that  these  rich  Phanariote  Greeks  were  always 
very  ready  to  be  the  instruments  of  Turkish  oppression  over  their 
fellow-Christians.  The  Vaivodes  of  Roumania,  horrible  tyrants 
sent  by  the  Sultan  to  misrule  the  Roumans,  were  all  Phanar- 
iote Greeks.1  So  the  other  Rayahs  saw  in  the  Phanar  simply  the 
shadow  of  the  Turk  and  hated  the  Greeks  even  more  than  their 
real  masters,  since  they  were  traitors  to  the  cause.  When 
Alexander  Hypsilanti  in  1821  made  his  fatuous  attempt  to  raise 
the  Greek  flag  in  Moldavia  and  issued  proclamations  about  the 
sacred  cause  of  Hellas  to  those  Roumans,  he  was  surprised  that 
none  of  them  would  help  him.  Naturally  they  would  not  fight 
for  another  Vaivode.2    The  result  of  this  feeling  is  that  as  soon 

1  De  la  Jonquiere,  Hist,  des  Ottomans,  pp.  364-368.  "  The  Greeks  of  the 
Phanar,  lowest  and  most  corrupt  servants  of  the  Porte.  It  would  be  impossible 
to  find  greater  abjectness  united  to  greater  vanity."  The  Vaivodes  made 
huge  fortunes  and  invented  absurd  princely  titles  for  themselves,  but  they 
were  flogged  by  the  Turk  if  he  was  not  pleased  with  them. 

2  W.  A.  Phillips,  The  War  of  Greek  Independence,  chap.  iii.  p.  30,  seq. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    277 

as  ever  a  Balkan  State  gets  independent  of  the  Sultan  it  makes 
its  Church  independent  of  the  Patriarch  ;  they  will  not  let  their 
metropolitans  any  longer  obey  the  authority  at  Constantinople, 
which  seems  to  them  to  be  all  too  closely  allied  to  their  enemy 
the  Porte.  So  it  has  become  a  regular  principle  that  wherever 
there  is  a  free  State,  there  shall  there  be  a  free  and  independent 
national  Church.  It  is  again  the  old  Byzantine  idea  of  making 
the  Church  follow  the  vagaries  of  civil  politics,  that  we  saw  to 
be  the  root  of  the  claims  of  the  See  of  Constantinople,  and 
indeed  the  original  root  of  the  great  schism.  Only  the  idea  is 
turned  against  the  very  see  that  had  grown  and  flourished  on  it. 
And  that  see  finds  the  national  and  political  idea  much  less 
sympathetic  now  that  she  stands  to  lose  by  it.  The  principle  of 
the  independent  Church  in  the  independent  State  finds  no 
favour  in  the  Phanar.  The  Patriarchs  worked  so  hard  and 
grovelled  so  low  in  the  old  days  for  the  sake  of  getting  a  big  4 
Patriarchate,  naturally  they  do  not  like  losing  it  piece  by  piece, 
as  they  have  done  throughout  the  19th  century.  The  process  is 
nearly  always  the  same.  As  soon  as  the  first  National  Assembly, 
or  House  of  Deputies,  or  whatever  it  may  be,  of  the  new  State 
meets,  it  passes  a  law  that  the  national  Orthodox  Church  of  the 
land  acknowledges  no  Head  but  Christ  ;  it  then  forms  a  Holy 
Synod  on  the  Russian  model,  giving  all  possible  authority  over  the 
Church  to  the  civil  government  ("  no  Head  but  Christ "  always 
means  this),  and  lastly  sends  a  note  to  the  Patriarch  to  inform 
him  that  he  has  ceased  to  reign  in  the  land  in  question.  Of 
course  the  Patriarch  is  furious,  generally  begins  by  excommuni- 
cating the  new  schismatics  in  a  mass,  but  eventually  has  to  accept 
things  (Russia  makes  him  do  so  as  a  rule),  and,  swallowing  his 
pride,  he  receives  the  Holy  Synod  as  his  "  Sister  in  Christ." 
Only  in  the  quite  specially  bitter  case  of  the  Bulgarian  Church 
has  he  hitherto  refused,  and  the  Bulgars  are  still  excommunicate. 
But  here,  too,  he  will  have  to  give  in  at  last. 

Naturally  the  Phanar  hates  the  national  idea  ;  in  1872  it  held 
a  synod  to  declare  that  Philetism  ■  (the  love  of  one's  race  in 
ecclesiastical  matters)  is  the  latest  and  most  poisonous  heresy. 
But  it  is  a  most  astonishing  case  of  poetic  justice.     It  was  on 

1  <j)i\og  and  "trrjQ. 


278      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  strength  of  this  very  national  idea  that  centuries  ago  the 
Patriarch  waxed  strong  and  rebelled  against  his  over-lord,  the 
Pope.  Now  he  sees  his  own  children,  having  learned  it  from 
him,  also  wax  strong  on  it  and  rebel  against  him.  And  so  he 
finds  Philetism  to  be  a  deadly  heresy.  Poor  Patriarch  !  in  his 
glory  he  was  only  a  very  feeble  imitation  of  the  Pope,  and  now 
he  is  fixed  between  two  theories,  and  either  way  he  loses. 
Shall  he  denounce  Philetism,  stand  out  for  the  old  rights  of  the 
hierarchy  and  of  the  chief  sees,  preach  unity  and  ancient 
councils  ?  Alas  !  his  see  is  not  even  an  Apostolic  one  ;  he  would 
have  to  go  down  below  Alexandria  and  Antioch.  Every  one 
knows  which  is  the  first  see  in  Christendom,  and  every  one 
knows  that  unity  means  returning  to  the  obedience  of  that  see. 
Or  shall  he,  taking  up  a  cry  that  seems  to  come  more  naturally 
from  Constantinople,  talk  of  equality  and  national  Churches, 
national  rights  and  no  aggression,  no  Head,  in  short,  but  Christ  ? 
But,  then,  what  shall  he  say  to  the  Bulgars  ?  Of  course  what  he 
wants  is  just  enough  national  idea  to  disobey  the  Pope  and  not 
enough  for  the  Bulgars  to  disobey  him.  And  so  the  irony  of 
development  has  landed  him  in  that  most  hopeless  of  positions,  a 
via  media  between  two  consistent  and  mutually  exclusive  systems. 

But  we  have  not  yet  exhausted  the  list  of  his  troubles. 
Servia  and  Roumania  have  national  Churches,  covering  just 
these  two  new  kingdoms.  But  throughout  the  poor  remnant  of 
the  Patriarchate  there  are  Serbs  and  Roumans  too.  And  the 
Phanar,  which  never  repents  and  never  learns,  goes  on  sending 
Greek  metropolitans  to  rule  over  these  people.  So  they,  too, 
are  violently  discontent,  clamour  for  bishops  of  their  own  race, 
and  for  the  liturgy  in  their  own  language,  and  openly  ask  to  join 
the  independent  Churches  of  their  free  brothers.  So  even  after 
he  has  lost  so  much  of  his  "  broad  lands  "  the  Patriarch  has  no 
peace  with  what  is  left. 

His  most  dangerous  enemy  of  all,  however,  is  the  Russian 
Holy  Synod.  What  the  Russian  Government  wants  is  quite 
simple — unity  within,  expansion  without.  And  in  this  matter, 
as  in  all,  the  Holy  Synod  that  rules  the  Church  of  Russia 
is  the  willing  tool  of  the  Government.  So  in  Church  matters 
Russian   policy   works    out   as    being    uniformity   within,   and 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    279 

the  Orthodox  Church  in  its  Russian  branch,  with  the 
Russian  Liturgy  and  the  rule  of  the  Russian  Holy  Synod, 
without.  We  shall  come  back  to  the  way  in  which  uniformity 
in  Russia  is  procured,  the  abominable  persecution  of  the 
Ruthenian  Church,  the  crushing  out  of  the  Georgian  Church, 
the  harrying  of  the  Armenians.  As  for  the  preaching  of  the 
Orthodox  faith  in  other  lands,  one  has  only  to  look  for  the 
places  where  the  Russian  Government  wants  a  sphere  of  in- 
fluence, there  is  the  Orthodox  Russian  faith  preached.  Russia, 
for  instance,  has  great  interests  in  Persia.  A  port  on  the 
Persian  Gulf  would  suit  her  admirably  ;  she  would  like  to,  and 
if  the  other  Powers  let  her,  probably  will,  some  day  swallow 
Persia  whole.  Meanwhile,  Persia  is  getting  more  and  more 
under  her  sphere  .of  influence  ;  she  has  the  railway,  and  the 
Persian  Christians  (Nestorians)  are  being  persuaded  to  join 
the  Russian  Church.  She  has  interests  in  Syria  and  Palestine. 
A  belt  of  Russian  territory  stretching  from  the  Caucasus  by 
Tiflis  to  the  Mediterranean  by  Jaffa  would  be  the  very  thing. 
It  would  cut  the  Mohammedan  world  in  two,  greatly  hasten 
the  day  on  which  the  Russian  eagle  is  to  fly  over  Constan- 
tinople, and  it  would  secure  Jerusalem,  the  Holy  City  of  all 
Christendom,  for  the  Czar.  So  the  Russian  Church  is  infinitely 
active  in  Syria  and  the  Holy  Land.  She  has  two  objects — 
to  convert  all  Christians  there  to  the  Orthodox  faith,  and  to 
make  that  faith  synonymous  with  the  Russian  national  Church. 
It  is  by  this  second  object  that  she  falls  foul  of  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch.  The  halcyon  days  when  the  two  Patriarchates 
(Antioch  and  Jerusalem)  and  the  metropolitan  sees,  abbacies, 
and  good  places  generally  were  perquisites  kept  for  Phanar- 
iote  Greeks,  are  over.  Here,  as  everywhere,  Russia  takes  up 
the  cause  of  the  native  population  against  the  Phanar,  and  the 
Phanar,  which  ignored  the  complaints  of  the  wretched  Syrians, 
cannot  ignore  Russia.  So  Russia  has  an  anti-Greek  candidate 
for  all  these  places  now,  and  her  candidate  gets  them. 

That  is  not  all.  Orthodox  Syria  and  Palestine  are  already 
almost  Russian  colonies.  There  is  a  Russian  Imperial  Palestine 
Society  under  the  Czar's  special  protection,  that  commands 
enormous  resources  and  that  spends   them  to  cover  the  land 


280      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

with  Russian  institutions.  There  are  sixty-four  Russian  schools 
scattered  all  over  Syria  and  Palestine  where  native  children  are 
taught  the  Orthodox  faith  and  the  fear  of  God  and  the  Czar.1 
The  Russian  Palestine  Society  is  founding  preparatory  schools 
for  priests,  who  are  then  to  be  sent  to  finish  their  studies  at 
Russian  universities.  It  has  built  great  establishments  where 
a  hospital,  home  for  pilgrims,  Russian  Consulate,  &c,  cluster 
around  a  church  in  which  the  Russian  services  are  held.  At 
Jerusalem  the  enormous  Russian  buildings  on  the  road  to 
Jaffa  dominate  the  city,  besides  the  great  Russian  Gethsemani 
Church  and  five  other  establishments  belonging  to  the  same 
society  ;  at  Ain-Kerim,  Hebron,  Bethlehem,  Nazareth,  Ramleh, 
Jericho,  &c,  the  high  towers  of  the  Russian  buildings  stand  up 
above  every  other  building  as  if  they  were  already  the  houses  of 
Russian  colonial  governors.2  Then  come  the  Balkan  States. 
Here,  too,  Russia  prepares  the  day  when  she  can  swallow  them 
by  teaching  them  to  look  to  the  Czar  as  their  natural  protector. 
She  always  takes  up  the  cause  of  the  Slavs  against  the  Phanar, 
she  made  the  Sultan  constitute  the  Bulgarian  Church,  and,  in 
spite  of  the  schism,  the  Russian  Church  remains  in  communion 
with  it.  And  Mount  Athos,  the  holy  mountain  and  centre  of 
Orthodox  monastic  life,  is  getting  swamped  with  Russians. 
In  fact,  Russians  say  quite  openly  now  that  their  Holy  Synod 
had  better  take  over  the  government  of  the  whole  Orthodox 
communion  ;  nine-tenths  of  that  communion  are  Russians,  the 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch  may  doubtless  keep  a  shadowy  primacy 
of  rank,  but  practically  Orthodoxy  is,  and  should  be,  Russian.3 
Of  course,  all  this  is  gall  and  wormwood  to  the  Phanar  ;  the 
Patriarch  always  makes  quite  hopeless  attempts  to  persuade  the 
Porte  not  to  accept  pro- Russian  candidates  for  the  other  sees, 
and  quite  recently  he  ventured  on  a  protest  against  the  doings 
of  the  Russian  Palestine  Society,  addressed  to  the  Holy  Synod 

1  Echos  d'Orient,  iii.  pp.  177-181  :  Les  ecoles  russes  de  Palestine  et  de  Syrie. 
In  the  seminaries  all  the  Arab  ecclesiastical  students  are  carefully  taught  the 
Russian  language.    E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  117. 

2  Echos  d'Orient,  iv.  pp.  202,  seq.,  275,  scq. :  La  politique  russe  dans  la 
Palestine  et  la  Syrie. 

3  So  the  Metropolitan  of  Moscow  in  1899  :  Echos  d'Orient,  ii.  246  (April, 
1899). 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    281 

at  Petersburg.  He  was  told  in  answer  that  that  society  had 
as  patron  no  less  a  person  than  His  Imperial  Majesty  the 
Czar  ;  had  His  Holiness  the  Patriarch  realized  this  fact  when 
he  made  his  complaint  ?  His  Holiness  would  do  well  to  look 
after  his  own  diocese.1 

Another  point  to  be  mentioned  is  one  that  affects  Catholics. 
It  is  the  influence  of  Austria- Hungary.  The  Emperor  of 
Austria  is  throughout  the  Balkans  looked  upon  as  the  pro- 
tector of  the  Catholics,  and  the  Catholic  cause  is  identified 
with  that  of  Austria — or  rather  of  Hungary,  for  it  is  as  King 
of  Hungary  that  Francis  Joseph  II  is  chiefly  concerned.  This 
fact  is  a  disastrous  one  for  us.  For  a  long  time  two  great 
lords  overshadowed  these  lands,  the  Czar  as  protector  of  the 
Orthodox,  and  the  Emperor- King  as  chief  of  the  Catholics. 
The  issue  is  no  longer  quite  so  simple.  Formerly  all  Slavs 
looked  to  Russia.  They  all  dream  of  a  great  Slav  Empire,  for 
in  no  man's  breast  does  the  sacred  fire  of  national  feeling  burn 
with  so  clear  a  flame  as  in  that  of  a  Slav.  They  used  to  look 
to  incorporation  with  Russia  as  the  realization  of  that  dream. 
But  the  myth  of  the  Czar-liberator  is  pretty  well  exploded  now. 
It  flourished  luxuriantly  till  he  began  to  liberate  ;  now  he  is 
such  a  perfect  terror  to  those  he  has  set  free  (the  Georgians  and 
Armenians,  for  instance)  that  they  look  back  to  the  gentle  Turk 
with  tears  of  affectionate  regret.  And  the  Catholic  Slavs 
(Czechs,  Croats,  &c.)  always  have  the  wholesome  example  of 
Poland  before  their  eyes.  The  hope  of  all  of  them  is  now 
rather  a  union  of  independent  Slav  States  in  the  closest  alliance. 
But  the  great  obstacle  to  all  such  dreams  of  Panslavism  is  the 
Dual  Monarchy  ;  and  so  the  Balkan  Slavs  hate  and  dread  this 
great  neighbour.  Not  far  off  across  the  Save  are  the  Croats 
who  sit  under  the  crown  of  St.  Stephen  ;  absolutely  the  only 
difference  between  a  Croat  and  a  Serb  is,  that  the  Croat  is 
Catholic  and  uses  the  Latin  alphabet,  the  Serb  is  Orthodox  and 
writes  exactly  the  same  language  in  Cyrillic  letters.  And  no  two 
races  ever  yet  hated  each  other  as  the  Serbs  and  Croats  do.  So 
to  ask  a  Serb  to  become  a  Catholic  is  like  asking  him  to  turn 
Croat,  look  to  Austria- Hungary  for  protection,  and  give  up  the 
1  Echos  d'Orient,  iv.  p.  205. 


282      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Panslavist  hope.  That  is  why  these  ridiculous  little  Balkan 
States  are  so  angry  with  Catholic  missionaries,  why  they  some- 
times become  active  persecutors,  and  why  one  hears  such  absurd 
statements  as  that  the  question  of  the  Catholic  schools  is  one  of 
M  life  or  death  for  Bulgaria."  The  life  or  death  of  these  Balkan 
States  depends,  not  on  the  Catholic  nuns  who  teach  in  these 
schools,  but  on  Russia.  Really,  of  course,  the  comparison  be- 
tween Russia  and  Austria  that  these  people  make  (Orthodox  = 
Russia,  Catholic  =  Austria)  is  quite  absurd.  On  the  one  hand,  the 
cause  of  Russia  is  that  of  Orthodoxy  now.  Every  Russian  is,  or 
should  be,  Orthodox.1  All  the  Orthodox  will  apparently  soon 
be  Russian,  the  Orthodox  missionaries  are  all  Russians  paid  and 
sent  by  the  Holy  Synod,  that  is  practically  a  department  of  the 
government  of  Petersburg.  There  is  nothing  like  this  in  the 
case  of  Austria.  The  Catholic  Church  is  no  more  committed  to 
the  Dual  Monarchy  than  to  any  other  State,  and  Austria  is  not 
in  the  least  committed  to  the  Catholic  cause.  It  is  a  tolerant 
and  civilized  State  in  which  people  of  any  religion,  Catholics, 
Protestants,  Orthodox  or  Mohammedans,  live  in  entire  freedom 
and  content.  Doubtless  Austria- Hungary  has  interests  in  the 
Balkans,2  but  it  does  not  make  a  ray  of  difference  to  the  states- 
men at  Vienna  whether  the  Balkan  peoples  are  Catholic  or 
Orthodox  or  Mohammedan.  So  the  Catholic  missions  have 
nothing  to  do  with  Austria  and  do  not  receive  any  help  from 
Vienna.  The  missionaries  are  chiefly  Frenchmen  or  Italians 
sent  out  by  the  Roman  Propaganda.  From  every  point  of  view 
a  comparison  between  Russia  and  Austria  is  absurd.  Russia 
means  a  barbarous  and  intolerant  tyranny,  and  no  sane  man 
would  be  at  the  mercy  of  its  Government  if  he  could  possibly 
help  it.     Austria  is  a  constitutional  country  of  which  the  citizens 

1  Of  course,  there  are  the  Raskolniks,  &c.,  but  the  point  is  that  Russia's  idea 
is  one  vast  Russian  Orthodox  Church  and  nothing  else. 

2  If  Austria  were  to  annex  or  occupy  Albania,  Macedonia,  and  Thrace,  the 
various  nations  that  devour  these  lands  with  their  quarrels  would,  at  any  rate, 
have  the  advantage  of  a  tolerant  and  civilized  Government  which  would  protect 
all  their  religions  and  languages  equally  while  preventing  them  from  perse- 
cuting one  another.  It  is  difficult  to  conceive  any  other  solution  of  the  eternal 
Nearer  Eastern  question  that  would  answer  so  well.  Bosnia  and  Hercegovina 
show  that  even  the  Turk  is  enormously  better  off  under  Austria  than  under 
the  Sultan. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    283 

enjoy  as  much  liberty  as  those  of  any  land  anywhere.  The 
story  of  the  Poles  and  of  the  Ruthenian  Church  shows  how 
Russia  treats  Catholics.  In  Austria,  on  the  other  hand,  the 
Orthodox  enjoy  every  advantage  they  could  possibly  wish  for  ; 
the  Government  pays  their  bishops,  subsidizes  their  schools,  and 
has  made  a  Concordat  with  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  for  their 
advantage.  However,  the  inveterate  habit  the  Balkan  Slavs 
have  of  confusing  Catholicism  with  Austria- Hungary  is  the  great 
hindrance  to  Catholic  missions  there. 

One  of  the  most  interesting  questions  concerning  a  religious 
body  is  that  of  its  size.  Statistics  in  this  case  are  specially 
difficult,  because  the  Turk  has  no  idea  of  such  things,  and  the 
Russian  persecution  of  dissenters  makes  it  impossible  to  know 
how  the  figures  would  show  if  the  people  were  free  to  profess 
what  faith  they  like.  I  find  the  total  number  of  Orthodox 
Christians  reckoned  at  from  ninety-five  to  one  hundred 
millions,1  of  which  between  four-fifths  and  nine-tenths  belong 
to  the  Russian  Church.  Something  must  now  be  said  about 
each  of  the  sixteen  branches. 

'H  fxeyaXr}  eKKXrjarla  (the  Great  Church)  is  the  official  name  for 
the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople,  which  still  takes  precedence 
of  all  the  others.  What  is  now  left  of  this  patriarchate  after  all 
the  national  Churches  have  been  cut  off  from  it,  covers  as  much 
of  the  present  Turkish  Empire  as  is  not  occupied  by  the  other 
patriarchates  or  Cyprus,  that  is  to  say,  Turkey  in  Europe  and 
Asia  Minor  ;  although  even  in  this  greatly  reduced  territory 
wherever  there  are  Bulgars  the  Patriarch's  jurisdiction  is  dis- 
puted by  their  Exarch.  As  we  shall  see,  in  the  Great  Church 
the  title  "  Metropolitan "  has  become  the  common  one  for 
bishops,  even  when  they  have  no  suffragans.  The  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch  rules  over  seventy-four  metropolitans  and  twenty  other 
bishops.2     Canonically  he  has  no  jurisdiction  outside  of  his  own 

1  Hickmann  (Katie  der  Verbreitungsgebictc  dcr  Religionen,  Vienna,  Freytag 
u.  Berndt)  :  ninety-five  millions  ;  Kattenbusch  (Orient  Kirche,  ox.  p.  445)  : 
u  Something  over  one  hundred  millions." 

2  The  Metropolitans  of  Ephesus,  Heraclea,  Thessalonica,  Crete,  and  Smyrna 
divide  these  twenty  bishops  among  their  provinces.  The  other  metropolitans 
have  no  suffragans.  For  the  list  of  sees  and  their  revenues,  see  Silbernagl  : 
Verfassung  u.  gegenwcirtiger  Bestand  sCimtlicher  Kirchcn  des  Orients,  p.  35. 


284      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

patriarchate.  On  the  other  hand,  he  is  still  the  official  civil  head 
of  the  whole  Roman  nation  in  the  Turkish  Empire,  and  the  other 
Orthodox  Patriarchs  (of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem),  as 
well  as  the  bishops  of  Cyprus,  belong  to  that  nation.  So  the 
CEcumenical  Patriarch  has  a  sort  of  civil  authority  over  them  ; 
for  instance,  they  can  only  approach  the  Porte  through  him. 
The  Phanar  has  constantly  tried  to  change  that  vague  civil 
authority  into  real  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction,  and  for  a  long  time 
it  succeeded.  From  the  Turkish  conquest  till  the  beginning  of 
the  19th  century  the  other  patriarchs  were  very  poor  and  help- 
less, and  during  that  time  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
reached  the  height  of  his  ambition,  and  became  something 
very  like  a  Pope.  He  especially  claimed  the  right  of  confirming 
the  election  of  the  others,  and  no  one  was  strong  enough  to 
resist  his  claim.  Now,  however,  that  Russia  is  taking  up  every 
one's  cause  against  the  Phanar,  these  other  patriarchs  are  able 
to  assert  their  complete  independence  of  every  one  save  Christ 
and  the  seven  general  councils.  The  last  attempt  to  judge  of 
an  election  was  made  by  Germanos  IV  of  Constantinople  (1842- 
1845  and  1852-1853),  in  the  case  of  Jerusalem  in  1843.  But  the 
bishops  of  Jerusalem  indignantly  denied  his  right  to  interfere, 
and  as  Russia  was  on  their  side  Germanos  had  to  give  in,  after 
the  quarrel  had  lasted  two  years.1  No  such  claim  has  been 
advanced  since,2  although  the  Phanar  still  tries  to  assert  a  kind 
of  shadowy  jurisdiction  by  keeping  a  permanent  legate  at  the 
other  Patriarchs'  Courts.  For  the  present  it  has  succeeded  at 
Antioch  and  Jerusalem,  but  has  failed  at  Alexandria,  where  a 
very  energetic  and  strongly  anti-Phanariote  Patriarch  under  the 
English  rule  can  afford  to  defy  it  (p.  286  n.  3).  A  similar  case 
is  that  of  the  trouble  about  Sinai  in  1866  (p.  310). 

The  only  remnant  of  jurisdiction  beyond  his  patriarchate 
still  left  to  the  honorary  chief  of  the  Orthodox  Church  is 
the  much-disputed  right  of  consecrating  the  holy  chrism. 
Undoubtedly,  in  the  East  originally,  as  in  the  West  always,  the 
holy  chrism  was  consecrated  by  the  bishop  who  would  use  it. 
Then,  apparently  only  because  the  chrism  in  the  East  is  a  very 

1  Silbernagl,  p.  24. 

3  However,  something  similar  is  going  on  at  Cyprus  at  this  moment. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    285 

difficult  and  expensive  thing  to  prepare,  the  custom  grew  up  of 
making  and  consecrating  large  quantities  at  Constantinople, 
and  sending  portions  to  all  the  other  bishops.  Since  about 
the  13th  or  14th  century  the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  have 
claimed  this  as  an  absolute  right.  They  alone  can  lawfully 
consecrate  chrism.  All  other  Churches,  whether  otherwise 
independent  or  not,  must  receive  it  from  them.  However, 
lately  especially,  this  claim,  too,  has  been  hotly  disputed. 
Russia  consecrates  her  own  chrism  since  the  17th  century  ; 
Roumania  has  begun  to  do  so,  too,  after  a  fierce  quarrel.  I 
believe  that  all  the  other  Orthodox  Churches  still  receive  theirs 
from  Constantinople,  though  not  always  very  willingly.1  We 
shall  come  back  to  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  and  his  Court  in 
the  next  chapter  (p.  338). 

2.  The  Patriarchate  of  Alexandria. 

The  next  Church  in  rank  is  that  of  Egypt.  As  the  great 
majority  of  Egyptian  Christians  are  Copts,  and  so  out  of  com- 
munion with  the  Orthodox  Church,  the  Orthodox  Patriarch  of 
Alexandria  has  only  a  small  flock,  about  thirty-seven  thousand 
souls.  In  the  first  part  of  this  book  it  is  said  that  the  Orthodox 
of  Egypt  and  Syria  were  called  Melkites  (p.  14).  It  should 
now  be  noted  that  that  name  is  at  present  generally  used  for 
the  Uniates  in  communion  with  Rome.  So  it  is  better  in  modern 
times  to  speak  only  of  the  "  Orthodox"  of  Egypt,  Syria,  and 
Palestine.  The  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  claims,  of 
course,  to  be  St.  Mark's  successor,  just  as  does  his  Coptic  rival. 
In  the  17th  and  18th  centuries  he  lived  at  Cairo  ;  now  he  has 
returned  to  Alexandria,  Since  1672  the  sees  of  this  patriarchate 
have  been  reduced  to  four  ;  their  bishops  are  all  called  metro- 
politans, although  they  have  no  suffragans,  and  they  do  not 
reside  in  their  titular  dioceses  (Ethiopia,  Cairo,  Damietta,  and 
Reshid),  but  form   the  Patriarch's  Curia.2 

Quite  lately  there  has  been  trouble  in  this  Church,  as  in  the 
other  patriarchates.     Photios  was  one  of  the  most  determined 

1  Cf.  Echos  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  1-7  :  Du  pouvoir  de  consacrer  le  saint  Chreme. 

2  Silbernagl,  o.c.  pp.  24,  36. 


286      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

opponents  of  Russia  in  Syria.  After  having  been  Patriarch  of 
Jerusalem  for  a  short  time,  he  was  elected  to  Alexandria  when 
the  late  Patriarch  Sophronios  died  in  1899.  It  is  said  that  the 
Russians  sent  him  there  to  get  rid  of  him.1  He  took  posses- 
sion of  his  see  in  September,  1900.  But  the  Phanar  would 
not  have  him  there,  and  persuaded  the  Sultan  not  to  give  him 
the  Berat,  without  which  he  could  not  reign.  At  last,  in 
September,  1900,  he  got  his  Berat  and  took  possession  of  his 
see.  At  once  he  was  met  by  the  complaints  of  the  Orthodox 
Arabs,  who  would  like  a  Patriarch  of  their  own  race.  For 
a  time  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch,  Constantine  V,  still  refused 
to  acknowledge  him.2  But  since  then  Constantine  has  been 
deposed,  and  Joachim  III  restored  at  Constantinople.  I  believe 
that  Joachim  recognizes  him,  and  that  things  have  now  quieted 
down.  It  is  said  that  His  Beatitude  speaks  Arabic  quite  well, 
and  is  conciliating  his  discontented  subjects.3 


3.  The  Patriarchate  of  Antioch. 

The  Orthodox  Church  of  Antioch  is  now  only  a  shadow  of 
what  the  great  " third  see"  was  in  the  days  before  Ephesus. 
The  Nestorian  and  Jacobite  Churches  are  formed  at  her  expense  ; 
she  has  lost  Palestine  and  Cyprus ;  the  Byzantine  Patriarchate  has 
filched  all  Asia  Minor  from  her,  and  there  are  a  large  number  of 

1  Echos  d'Oricnt,  iii.  p.  185. 

2  That  was  still  the  case  when  the  last  edition  of  Silbernagl  was  published, 
p.  25.     See  the  Echos  d'Orient,  iv.  p.  183,  seq. 

3  However,  the  troubles  are  not  over  yet.  Lord  Photios  has  just  categori- 
cally refused  to  allow  a  legate  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  to  reside  at  his 
court,  and  the  Phanar  still  counts  him  as  an  enemy.  A  weak  point  in  his 
position  has  been  this  :  he  has  only  three  metropolitans.  Now  the  Canons 
require,  for  the  election  of  a  bishop,  a  synod  of  at  least  three  members  besides 
the  patriarch.  As  soon,  then,  as  a  metropolitan  dies,  Lord  Photios  only  has 
two  left,  and  cannot  canonically  elect  a  new  one.  So  he  has  to  send  to  Con- 
stantinople to  ask  the  synod  there  to  elect  for  him.  Since  the  whole  of  his 
policy,  as  that  of  the  other  patriarchs,  is  to  shake  off  any  pretence  of  authority 
still  claimed  by  the  Phanar,  this  obviously  very  much  weakens  his  position. 
The  latest  news  from  Alexandria  is  that  His  Holiness  is  about  to  reorganize 
the  Church  of  St.  Mark,  so  as  to  do  away  with  this  inconvenience.  Of 
course,  he  has  only  to  found  two  or  three  more  titular  sees. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    287 

Uniates  in  these  parts.1  So  the  Orthodox  Patriarch  of  Antioch, 
like  his  brother  at  Alexandria,  lives  rather  on  memories  of  his 
past  splendour  than  on  any  practical  importance.  He  rules 
over  twelve  metropolitans 2 — all  that  are  left  of  the  hundred  and 
fifty  sees  that  once  obeyed  his  predecessors — and  about  two 
hundred  and  fifty  thousand  Orthodox  subjects,3  nearly  all  Syrian 
Arabs,  who  know  no  Greek.  He  also  has  two  or  three  titular 
metropolitans  to  form  his  court.  He  now  lives  at  Damascus. 
There  has  been  trouble  at  Antioch,  too,  lately.4  Since  1724  all 
the  Orthodox  Patriarchs  have  been  Phanariote  Greeks,  who 
could  not,  as  a  rule,  even  speak  Arabic.  However,  at  last  the 
Arab-speaking  people,  who  were  always  discontented  with  that 
arrangement,  got  their  chance.  In  1899,  the  see  being  vacant, 
they  elected  Meletios,  Metropolitan  of  Laodicea,  to  be  Patriarch, 
and  the  Russian  Palestine  Society  warmly  took  up  his  cause. 
Meletios  was  an  Arab,  so  the  Phanar  would  not  have  him.  Of 
course,  as  always,  the  only  question  was,  what  the  Sultan  would 
decide.  The  Phanar,  backed  by  the  French  Ambassador,  im- 
plored the  Sultan  not  to  give  him  his  Berat ;  the  Russian  Ambas- 
sador insisted  on  his  having  it.  For  a  whole  year  the  Sultan 
wavered,  the  see  was  vacant,  and  Meletios  hoped  and  doubted. 
Then,  of  course,  Russia  won  ;  the  Berat  arrived  in  1900,  and 
Meletios  became  Patriarch.  But  the  Phanar,  the  Greeks  of 
Jerusalem,  and  the  Greek  Church  still  obstinately  refused  to 
recognize  him.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Russian  and  Roumanian 
Churches  were  on  his  side.  He  was  pointedly  left  out  in  the  last 
Encyclical  from  Constantinople  (p.  345,  n.  3),  and  all  the  Greek 
papers  spoke  of  him  as  a  schismatical  intruder,  and  persecutor 
of  the  Greek  clergy  in  his  patriarchate.  On  February  8, 1906, 
Lord  Meletios  died  at  his  residence  at  Damascus.     In  June, 

1  There  are  no  less  than  seven  Churches,  each  of  which  represents  a  fraction 
of  the  old  Antiochene  Church  (£.  d'Or.  iii.  p.  223,  seq.) 

2  Aleppo,  Amida,  Arcadia,  Beirut,  Emesus,  Epiphania,  Laodicea  (in  Syria), 
Seleucia,  Tarsus,  Theodosioupolis  (Erzerum),  Tripolis,  Tyre  -  and  -  Sidon. 
Cf.  Echos  d'Orient,  iii.  p.  143  ;  Silbernagl,  pp.  25,  36. 

3  So  the  Echos  d'Orient,  I.e.  Silbernagl  reckons  28,836  families;  Kyriakos, 
200,000  souls. 

4  For  the  endless  internal  schisms  and  quarrels  that  have  rended  this  see 
since  the  15th  century,  see  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  56-59. 


288      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Gregory  Hadad,  Metropolitan  of  Tripoli,  also   an   Arab,  was 
elected  as  his  successor,  and  the  schism  still  continues.1 


4.  The  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem. 

The  See  of  St.  James,  the  "  brother  of  God  "  (rov  adeXtyodiov), 
has  always  been  the  smallest  and  the  poorest  of  the  patriarchates. 
Its  jurisdiction  stretches  over  Palestine  from  Ptolemais  down 
to  the  peninsular  of  Sinai,  of  which  the  extreme  point  is  occu- 
pied by  the  autocephalous  monastery.  Thirteen  metropolitans 
and  about  fifteen  thousand  people  obey  the  Orthodox  Patriarch.2 
He  lives  by  the  Orthodox  monastery  of  the  Holy  Sepulchre  (the 
Anastasis).  The  modern  history  of  this  Church,  too,  consists 
chiefly  of  a  series  of  quarrels  and  schisms.  Since  the  16th 
century  all  the  Patriarchs  have  been  Greeks,  whereas  the 
Orthodox  people  are,  of  course,  Syrian  Arabs.  When  the 
Synod  of  Constantinople  against  the  Bulgars  was  held  in  1872 
(p.  319),  Cyril  II  of  Jerusalem,  although  he  was  then  in  the 
city,  refused  to  take  part  in  it,  or  to  have  any  share  in  the 
proceedings  against  the  Bulgarian  Church.  His  motive  was 
obvious.  The  Russians  from  the  beginning  had  warmly  taken 
up  the  Bulgarian  cause  ;  they  were  all-powerful  in  Palestine — 
indeed,  the  only  protectors  of  the  Orthodox  Church  there — and 
Cyril  did  not  dare  offend  his  patrons.  But  his  absence  from 
the  synod  made  all  the  difference.  It  prevented  the  excom- 
munication pronounced  against  the  Bulgars  from  being  the 
unanimous  verdict  of  all  the  Orthodox  Patriarchs,  so  the  Phanar 
was  very  angry  with  him,  and  had  him  deposed,  setting  up 
Prokopios  in  his  stead.  Cyril  was  a  Greek,  but  he  had  taken 
the  anti-Phanariote  ("  national  Church,"  or  Philetist)  side,  and 
Russia  was  his  friend.  So  Russia  and  the  Palestine  Syrians 
were  on  his  side,  still  considered  him  Patriarch,  and  still  kept 

1  For  the  whole  story,  see  E.  d'Or.  iii.  p.  183,  seq.,  iv.  p.  186,  v.  p.  247,  seq., 
ix.  pp.  123,  176-183.  It  was  said  that  Meletios  sent  to  Petersburg  for  the  holy 
chrism  (I.e.  iv.  p.  186). 

3  The  dioceses  are :  Caesarea  (Pal.),  Bethsan  (Skythopolis),  Petra,  Acre, 
Bethlehem,  Nazareth,  Lydda,  Gaza,  Jaffa,  Nablus,  Samaria,  Tabor,  Philadel- 
phia.   Silbernagl,  p.  37. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    289 

his  name  in  the  Holy  Liturgy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  Phanar, 
the  other  Patriarchs,  and  nearly  all  the  rest  of  the  Orthodox 
world,  acknowledged  Prokopios.  At  last  the  Russians  forced 
Prokopios  to  resign  (1875)  ;  Cyril  died,  and  Hierotheos  was 
elected  Patriarch.  But  he,  to  every  one's  surprise,  sided  with 
the  Phanar  against  the  Bulgars.  The  Russian  Government  then 
fell  foul  of  him,  too,  and  seized  the  opportunity  to  carry  out  a 
plan  it  had  long  contemplated.  The  Holy  Sepulchre  possessed 
some  property  in  Bessarabia  (in  Russian  territory).  The 
Government  now  said  it  would  relieve  the  Patriarch  of  all 
anxiety  concerning  this  distant  property,  and  administer  it  for 
him.  How  it  did  so  may  be  imagined.  It  promptly  proceeded 
to  pay  itself  one-fifth  for  its  trouble,  confiscated  two-fifths  for 
what  it  described  as  "  pious  purposes  "  in  Russia,  and  sent  only 
two-fifths  of  the  income  to  Jerusalem.  All  the  Greek  world  is 
still  helplessly  furious  at  this  robbery.  Hierotheos  died  in  1882. 
There  were  then  three  candidates  for  the  vacant  see — Niko- 
demos,  Gerasimos,  and  Photios,  who  is  always  a  determined 
opponent  of  Russia,  and  who,  as  we  have  already  seen,  is  now 
Patriarch  of  Alexandria.  Photios  was  elected  quite  canonically, 
but  the  Russians  made  the  Sultan  refuse  him  the  Berat,  and 
give  it  to  Nikodemos  instead.  Gerasimos  became  Patriarch  of 
Antioch  in  1885.  Photios  had  to  go  to  be  a  monk  again  at 
Sinai.1  But  he  did  not  rest  there  in  peace  ;  the  Phanar  was  for 
him  at  that  time,  and  by  1890  they  had  persuaded  the  Sultan  to 
change  his  mind  and  to  depose  Nikodemos.  Photios  arrives  at 
Jerusalem  with  the  Sultan's  Irade,  and  Nikodemos  is  made,  as 
usual,  to  sign  a  document  declaring  that  he  is  too  old  to  reign 
any  longer,  and  that  he  wishes  to  go  back  to  his  monastery. 
He  is  still  there  at  St.  George's  Laura  at  Halki,  a  very  pious 
and  kind  old  gentleman,  though  he  has  been  heard  to  whisper 
to  visitors  that  the  Orthodox  Church  would  get  on  all  right 
were  it  not  for  Lord  Photios.2  But  the  Russians  said  that  what- 
ever happened,  they  would  not  have  Photios  at  Jerusalem. 
So  the  third  of  the  original  candidates,  Gerasimos,  was  per- 

1  We  shall  see  that  practically  all  bishops  and  candidates  for  bishoprics 
throughout  the  Orthodox  Church  are  monks  (p.  351). 

2  Ech,  d'Or,  iii.  185. 

20 


290      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

suaded  to  resign  the  more  honoured  See  of  Antioch  and  to 
become  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  Photios  became  Metropolitan 
of  Nazareth.  But  that  city,  too,  is  a  great  Russian  centre,  and 
he  was  still  a  thorn  in  their  side,  till,  in  1899,  the  old  Patriarch 
of  Alexandria,  Sophronios,  died.  We  have  seen  how  the 
Russians  then  got  rid  of  Photios  by  helping  his  candidature  to 
that  see,  where  they  have,  as  long  as  the  English  rule  there,  no 
interests,  and  how  he  has  since  become  an  enemy  of  the 
Phanar.  In  1897  Lord  Gerasimos  of  Jerusalem  died,  and  again 
there  was  a  great  struggle  between  the  Russian  and  Greek 
parties.  The  1  leader  of  the  Russian  side  is  Euthymios,  Archi- 
mandrite of  the  monastery  of  the  Anastasis.  This  is  the  person 
who  was  responsible  for  the  outrage  against  the  Latin  Francis- 
cans in  November,  1901.  However,  the  Greek  candidate, 
Damianos,  Metropolitan  of  Philadelphia,  was  elected,  and  he  is 
now  Patriarch.  Lord  Damianos  has  been  staying  for  a  long 
time  at  Constantinople  in  the  charitable  hope  of  helping  to 
settle  some  of  the  disputes  that  rend  the  Orthodox  Church, 
the  quarrel  against  Gregory  of  Antioch,  the  trouble  in  Cyprus, 
and,  above  all,  the  great  Bulgarian  schism.  His  Holiness  has 
now  returned  to  his  see.1  The  quarrel  about  Mount  Sinai 
(p.  310)  also  concerns  the  Church  of  Jerusalem. 


5.  The  Church  of  Cyprus. 

We  have  seen  that  the  Cypriote  bishops,  on  the  strength  of 
their  succession  from  St.  Barnabas,  persuaded  the  Council  of 
Ephesus  to  recognize  their  Church  as  independent  of  the  See 
of  Antioch  (p.  47.)  Since  then  this  little  Church  has  had 
many  adventures  ;  it  was  persecuted  by  the  Crusaders  and 
Venice ;  2    and     after     the    Turkish     conquest    the    Cypriote 

1  For  all  this  story  see  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  62-65,  and>  f°r  the  latest  develop- 
ments, the  Ech.  cVOr.  iii.  pp.  183-186,  and  v.  p.  247.  We  may  expect  at  any 
time  to  hear  that  Damianos  has  been  made  to  resign,  and  is  succeeded  by 
Euthymios. 

2  For  the  story  of  Nea  Iustiniane,  see  p.  48.  King  Richard  Lion-heart 
of  England  conquered  Cyprus  in  1191,  the  Crusaders  set  up  a  Latin  kingdom 
and  a  Latin  hierarchy,  and  treated  the  Greek  bishops  badly ;  Venice  became 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    291 

Christians  had  to  submit  to  the  civil  authority  of  the 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch  like  the  rest  of  the  Orthodox.  But  the 
Church  of  Cyprus  had  been  ever  since  the  Council  of  Ephesus 
an  autocephalous  Church,  obeying  no  Patriarch.  It  is  so  still, 
and  it  ranks  immediately  after  the  patriarchates  as  the  fifth 
Church  of  the  Orthodox  Communion.  It  is  true  that  here,  as 
elsewhere,  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  has  constantly  tried 
to  usurp  some  sort  of  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction  ;  but  the 
Cypriotes  have  always  indignantly  withstood  him,  taking  their 
stand  on  the  decree  of  Ephesus.  Except  the  patriarchates  no 
other  branch  of  their  communion  has  so  good  an  argument  for 
its  independence  as  the  decree  of  a  general  council,  so  on 
the  whole  Cyprus  has  always  succeeded  in  its  claim.1  The 
head  of  this  Church  is  the  Archbishop  of  Cyprus,  who  resides 
at  Nicosia  ;  under  him  are  three  suffragan  metropolitans,2 
and  about  one  hundred  and  forty  thousand  Orthodox. 
In  1 82 1  Archbishop  Cyprian  was  strangled  by  the  Turks 
for  helping  the  Greek  insurrection.  It  is  unfortunate 
that  when  we  come  to  the  present  state  of  these  venerable 
Churches  there  is  nothing  to  chronicle  but  the  story 
of  violent  quarrels.  One  of  the  worst  of  all  is  now  rending  the 
Church  of  St.  Barnabas.  Lord  Sophronios  the  Archbishop  died 
in  May,  1900.  The  See  of  Paphos  was  then  vacant,  the  only 
Cypriote  bishops  left  were  Cyril  of  Kyrenia3  and  Cyril  of  Kition/ 
Each  became  a  candidate  for  the  Archbishopric,  and  their  rivalry 
has  torn  the  Church  of  Cyprus,  indeed,  the  whole  Orthodox 
world  ever  since.  My  Lord  of  Kition  is  a  politician  and  strongly 
Philhellenic  in  his  sympathies.     His  enemies  say  that  he  is  a 

mistress  of  the  island  in  1489,  and  continued  the  same  policy.  The  Turks 
conquered  it  in  157 1  ;  the  English  occupy  it  since  1878.  Besides  the  Latins 
there  have  been  Armenian  and  Maronite  bishops  in  Cyprus.  But  the  old  line 
of  the  Cypriote  Church  has  gone  on  throughout.  For  its  troubles  under  the 
Crusaders  and  Venice,  see  Hergenrother-Kirsch,  Kirchengesch.  ii.  pp.  725, 
seq.,  780. 

1  In  the  year  1600  Joachim  of  Antioch  made  a  belated  attempt  to  assert  the 
old  jurisdiction  of  his  see  over  Cyprus.  It  was  Meletios  Pegas  of  Alexandria 
who  pointed  out  to  him  that  that  had  been  done  away  with  at  Ephesus  and 
that  you  cannot  go  behind  a  general  council  (Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  66). 

2  Of  Kyrenia,  Paphos  and  Kition. 

3  Cyril  Basiliu.  4  Cyril  Papadopulos. 


292      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Freemason.  My  Lord  of  Kyrenia  is  a  very  pious  Churchman 
and  godly  bishop.  His  enemies  say  that  he  is  a  poor,  weak 
creature,  quite  unfit  to  guide  the  Cypriote  Church.  All  the 
Philhellenes  are  for  him  of  Kition  ;  the  English  Government 
would  prefer  the  Kyrenian.  But,  scrupulously  just  and  respect- 
ful of  established  order  as  English  authorities  in  the  Colonies 
always  are,  the  High  Commissioner  for  Cyprus  told  the  ecclesi- 
astical authorities  to  choose  an  archbishop  exactly  according  to 
precedent  and  their  Canon  Law  ;  the  Government  would  then 
acknowledge  him.  But  their  Canon  Law  leaves  the  final 
appointment  to  the  Holy  Cypriote  Synod,  and  that  synod  has 
only  two  members — these  very  two  candidates.  To  make  a 
long  story  short,  the  storm  ;has  raged  ever  since,  and  is  still 
unabated.  The  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  has  repeatedly  tried  to 
interfere,  and  has  been  told  each  time  that  he  has  no  juris- 
diction in  Cyprus.  The  Orthodox,  long  accustomed  to  look  to 
an  unbelieving  Government  to  have  their  quarrels  settled,  have 
several  times  appealed  to  the  English  Colonial  Office,  and  our 
Mr.  Joseph  Chamberlain  has  told  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch 
that  the  Government  would  allow  no  interference  in  the  affairs 
of  the  Church  of  Cyprus.  The  Kyrenian  party  tried  to  get  a 
majority  by  filling  the  third  see,  Paphos,  with  one  of  their 
friends.1  So  they  chose  the  Archimandrite  Panaretos  Duligeris 
of  Athens,  who  had  already  written  strongly  against  Cyril  of 
Kition.  But  the  Phanar  informed  them  (quite  correctly)  that 
as  long  as  the  Primatial  See  is  vacant  they  cannot  canonically 
fill  any  of  the  others.  Again  they  answered  (equally  truly)  that 
the  See  of  Constantinople  has  no  rights  over  their  island,  and 
that  they  would  take  no  notice  of  its  objection.  Only  Panaretos 
cannot  get  ordained.  The  Church  of  Greece,  once  so  bitter  an 
enemy  of  the  Phanar,  is  now  making  common  cause  with  it 
against  the  Slav  peril  ;  so  Panaretos  has  been  seeking  in  vain 
for  three  Greek  bishops  who  would  agree  to  ordain  him,  and  he 
remains  at  Athens,  Metropolitan-elect  (albeit  uncanonically)  of 

1  This  would  have  secured  two  votes,  those  of  the  Metropolitan  of  Paphos 
and  of  Cyril  of  Kyrenia,  for  Cyril  of  Kyrenia  against  one,  his  own,  for  the 
other  Cyril.  So  the  Kyrenian  would  have  been  elected  by  a  majority  of 
two-thirds. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    293 

Paphos,  and  he  has  no  vote  in  the  Cypriote  Synod.1  One  need 
not  tell  of  all  the  endless  ramifications  of  this  quarrel,  how  the 
Parliament  of  Cyprus  is  divided  into  Kitiacks  and  Kyrenians, 
how  Damianos  of  Jerusalem  is  vainly  trying  to  make  these  two 
Cyrils  agree  to  elect  some  third  person,  how  Meletios  of 
Antioch  put  in  his  oar — of  course,  against  the  Phanar — how 
politicians  and  canonists,  ministers  and  deputies,  are  travelling 
about  seeking  to  strengthen  their  sides.  Meanwhile  the  See  of 
Cyprus  is  still  vacant,  and  one  of  the  endless  questions  that 
divide  the  Orthodox  all  over  the  East  is  that  of  whether  they 
are  Kitiacks  or  Kyrenians. 

These  five  Churches — the  four  patriarchates  and  Cyprus — are 
the  old  elements  of  Eastern  Christendom,  and  so,  although  they 
are  neither  in  size  nor  power  the  most  important  branches,  they 
take  precedence  in  the  above  order.  We  now  come  to  the 
Churches  that  have  been  formed  by  separation  from  the 
Byzantine  Patriarchate.  They  have  no  established  order  of 
dignity  among  themselves,  so  the  obvious  arrangement  will  be 
according  to  the  dates  of  their  independence. 

6.  The  Church  of  Russia  (autocephalous  since  1589). 

There  is  only  space  here  for  the  merest  outline  of  the  story 
of  the  Church  that  is  really  the  infinitely  preponderating  partner 
of  all  this  Communion.  The  Russians  date  their  conversion 
since  the  year  988.  In  the  9th  century  a  Norman  dynasty  of 
rulers  set  up  the  first  monarchy  over  Russians.  Novgorod  was 
their  original  capital.  Soon  after  they  made  Kiev  "  the  mother 
of  all  Russian  cities."  One  of  these  Norman  kings,  Vladimir, 
the  son  of  Svyatoslav,  after  having  defeated  his  brothers  and 
made  himself  the  only  king  (984-1015),  became  a  Christian  and 
forced  all  his  people  to  be  converted  too.2  He  is  said  to  have 
hesitated  between  various  religions — Judaism,  Mohammedanism 

1  I  cannot  understand  why  he  does  not  go  to  Russia  ;  he  would  easily  find 
consecrators  there,  or  even  in  Serbia  or  Roumania.  Has  he,  perhaps,  a 
feeling  that  that  would  be  too  disloyal  to  the  great  cause  of  Hellas,  which 
every  born  Greek  must  fight  for,  even  if  he  hates  the  Phanar  ? 

2  There  had  been  Christians  in  Russia  before,  of  whom  Vladimir's  grand- 
mother St.  Olga  was  one. 


294      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  Christianity — and  to  have  at  last  settled  on  Christianity 
in  its  Byzantine  form.1  The  fact  has  deeply  affected  all 
Russian  history.  The  daughter-Church  of  Constantinople  has 
always  looked  toward  that  city  as  her  ideal,  has  shared  the 
Byzantine  schism,  and  Russia  is  an  Eastern  European  Power, 
whereas  Poland,  who  got  her  faith  from  Rome,  is  to  be  counted 
among  the  Western  nations.  St.  Vladimir,  the  Apostle  of 
Russia,  was  baptized  with  great  crowds  of  his  subjects  in  988. 
A  hierarchy  was  set  up  under  the  Metropolitan  of  Kiev,  and 
was  added  to  the  Patriarchate  of  Constantinople.  The  first 
Russian-born  metropolitan  was  Hilarion  (1051-1072) ;  but  all 
Russia  used  the  Byzantine  Liturgy.  That  liturgy,  still  read  in  Old 
Russian  (Church  Slavonic),  is  the  only  one  used  in  this  Church. 
After  the  schism  of  Cerularius,  Russia  remained  in  communion 
with  Rome  for  about  a  century  ; 2  eventually,  however,  she  took 
the  side  of  her  Patriarch.  After  the  Mongol  invasion  (1222- 
1480)3  the  centre  of  gravity  shifted  from  Kiev  to  Moscow, 
and  Moscow  had  a  metropolitan,  the  rival  of  him  of  Kiev. 
Feodor  Ivanovitch  the  Czar  (1581-1598)  in  1589  bribed 
Jeremias  II  of  Constantinople  (1572-1579,  1580-1584,  1586- 
I595)  to  acknowledge  the  Metropolitan  of  Moscow  as  a 
Patriarch  and  the  Russian  Church  as  no  longer  subject  to 
Constantinople.     A  synod  of   the   other   Orthodox   Patriarchs 

1  When  Vladimir  had  settled  that  he  would  be  a  Christian  he  marched 
against  the  Empire  at  Constantinople.  Since  this  religion  was  a  desirable 
thing,  there  was  of  course  only  one  way  in  which  a  Norman  and  a  gentleman 
could  acquire  it — by  conquest.  So  he  seized  the  Chersonesos  and  then  sent  a 
message  to  the  Emperor  (Basil  II),  saying  that  what  he  wanted  was : 
(1)  Priests  to  baptize  him  and  his  people  ;  (2)  relics  of  Saints  for  churches  ; 
(3)  Basil's  sister  Anne  to  marry  him.  If  his  wishes  were  not  attended  to  at 
once  he  would  come  and  destroy  Constantinople.  The  Emperor  promptly 
sent  the  priests,  the  relics,  and  the  lady.     Rambaud  :  Hist,  de  la  Russie,  p.  57. 

2 f  For  Russian  acknowledgements  of  the  Roman  Primacy,  see  Gondal : 
L'Eglise  Russe,  p.  24,  seq.,  and  Nilles  :  Kalendarium,  i.  p.  100,  seq. 

3  The  Mongols  (Tatars)  under  Jenghis  Khan  ("  the  great  Lord  ")  came  to 
the  Russian  frontier  from  Central  Asia  in  1222.  At  the  battle  of  Kalka  (1223) 
they  annihilated  the  Russian  armies  and  formed  a  sort  of  over-lordship  over 
the  Russians  which  was  not  finally  shaken  off  till  the  battle  of  Oka  in  1480,  in 
which  Ivan  III  (1462-1505)  defeated  them.  But  they  did  not  really  much 
interfere  with  the  internal  affairs  of  the  country  nor  much  influence  its 
development.     A  very  like  case  is  that  of  the  Moors  in  Spain. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    295 

in  1591  confirmed  this  acknowledgement  and  gave  the 
Patriarch  of  Moscow  the  fifth  place,  after  Jerusalem.  The 
classical  number  of  five  Patriarchs  was  now  happily  restored 
to  the  Orthodox,  and  they  said  that  God  had  raised  up  this  new 
throne  of  Moscow  to  make  up  for  the  fallen  one  of  Rome. 
However,  that  state  of  things  did  not  last  long.  The  third  epoch 
of  Russian  history  is  marked  by  the  change  of  the  centre  of 
gravity  to  Petersburg.  Kiev,  Moscow,  and  Petersburg  stand  for 
the  three  periods.  Peter  the  Great  (1689-1725),  as  is  well 
known,  set  up  his  capital  on  the  Neva  and  reformed  the  whole 
administration  of  his  Empire.  Among  other  things  he  reformed 
the  Church  so  as  to  bring  it  under  the  power  of  the  civil  govern- 
ment. For  this  purpose  he  abolished  the  Patriarchate  of 
Moscow  and  established  the  Holy  Directing  Synod  to  rule  the 
Church  of  Russia  in  1721.1  Jeremias  III  of  Constantinople 
had  to  make  the  best  of  it  and  to  acknowledge  the  Russian 
Holy  Synod  as  his  "  Sister  in  Christ."  The  constitution  of 
this  Holy  Synod  remains  unchanged  since  its  formation,  and 
under  it  the  Russian  Church  is  the  most  Erastian  Christian 
body  in  the  world.2  No  sovereign  has  ever  been  more 
absolutely   master   of  a  Church   than   is  the   Czar. 

In  the  first  place  the  Holy  Synod  decides  every  ecclesiastical 
question  in  Russia,  the  preservation  of  the  faith,  religious  in- 
struction, censorship  of  all  books  that  concern  religion,  all 
questions  of  ritual.  It  is  the  last  court  of  appeal  for  all  questions 
of  Canon  Law,  and  all  metropolitans,  bishops,  clerks  of  every 
rank,  monasteries  and  convents,  are  under  its  jurisdiction.  And 
the  Holy  Synod  is  the  shadow  of  the  Czar.  It  is  composed  of 
the  Metropolitans  of  Kiev,  Moscow,  and  Petersburg  and  the 
Exarch  of  Georgia  (p.  305)  ;  the  Czar  then  appoints  five  or  six 
other  bishops  or  archimandrites  to  sit  in  it  at  his  pleasure  ;3  the 


1  Adrian,  the  last  Patriarch  of  Moscow,  died  in  1700.  The  Czar,  instead  of 
appointing  a  successor,  set  up  various  temporary  administrators  until  the 
scheme  of  his  synod  was  ready. 

2  Peter  copied  the  idea  of  the  Lutheran  Consistories  in  his  synod. 

3  Bishops  having  a  diocese  sit  in  the  synod  for  six  months  each  year  and 
for  the  other  six  months  look  after  their  sees.  They  can  be  dismissed  from 
the  synod  at  any  time  by  the  Czar. 


296      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Czar's  chaplain  and  the  head  chaplain  of  the  forces  are  also 
members.  And  the  chief  man  in  the  Holy  Synod  is  the  Procu- 
rator (Ober-Prokuror),  a  layman,  generally  a  soldier,  appointed 
by  the  Government  to  see  that  its  laws  are  carried  out.  Russians 
themselves  realize  how  completely  their  Church  now  lies  under 
the  heel  of  the  autocracy.  When  Mr.  Palmer  was  in  Russia, 
the  common  joke  was  to  point  to  the  Procurator  in  his  officer's 
uniform  and  to  say,  "That  is  our  patriarch,"1  and  one  continually 
hears  of  their  hope  of  restoring  the  old  independence  of  their 
Church  by  setting  up  the  Patriarchate  of  Moscow  again.2 

Meanwhile  the  Russian  Church  is  governed  by  Imperial 
Ukazes.3  It  would  be  quite  untrue  to  say  that  she  recognizes 
the  Czar  as  her  head.  Every  Russian  would  indignantly  declare 
that  the  Head  of  his  Church  is  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  which  is, 
of  course,  just  what  Catholic  children  learn  in  their  Catechism 
too,  and  what  a  member  of  any  of  the  numberless  Christian  sects 
would  affirm.  As  far  as  practical  politics  are  concerned,  however, 
that  answer  leaves  things  much  as  they  were.  The  question  only 
shifts  one  degree,  and  one  asks  through  whom  our  Lord  governs 
his  Church.  And  the  Russian  must  answer:  "  Through  the  Holy 
Synod."  Possibly  he  would  first  say:  "  Through  the  bishops  "  ; 
but  there  is  no  question  that  the  synod  rules  the  bishops,  and  the 
synod  is  its  Procurator,  and  he  represents  the  civil  government. 
The  incredible  thing  is  that  Russians  boast  of  the  freedom  of  their 
Church  from  the  yoke  of  Rome,  just  as  the  Orthodox  in  Turkey 
do.  If  the  Church  is  to  have  any  visible  government  at  all,  one 
would  imagine  that,  even  apart  from  any  consideration  of  theo- 
logy or  antiquity,  the  first  Patriarch  would  be  a  more  natural 
governor  than  the  Czar  or  the  Sultan.     The  Czar's  Empire  con- 

1  Visit  to  the  Church  of  Russia,  pp.  48,  73,  221,  &c. 

2  E.  d'Or.  iv.  pp.  187,  232,  viii.  p.  176,  &c.  See  Palmer, passim,  esp.  pp.  100- 
105,  110-114,  for  examples  of  Russian  Erastianism.  On  p.  160  is  an  amusing 
tu  quoque  argument  from  a  Russian  to  the  Anglican. 

For  the  constitution  and  jurisdiction  of  the  Russian  Holy  Synod,  see 
Silbernagl,  pp.  101-110.  The  eldest  metropolitan  presides  at  the  meetings, 
but  has  no  more  authority  than  the  others.  See  there  also  the  incredibly 
Erastian  oath  taken  by  each  member  of  the  synod  :  "  I  acknowledge  him 
(the  Czar)  for  the  supreme  judge  in  this  spiritual  assembly,"  &c.  Throughout 
the  Russian  Church  the  Holy  Synod  is  named  in  the  liturgy  instead  of  a 
patriarch.  3  Cf.  e.  gr.  E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  247,  seq. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    297 

tains  about  130  million  victims  of  his  government.  Of  these 
from  eighty  to  eighty-five  millions  are  members  of  the  Orthodox 
established  Church.1  So  the  Church  of  Russia  is  enormously 
the  greatest  part  of  the  Orthodox  Communion;  she  alone  is  about 
eight  times  as  great  as  all  the  other  Churches  together.  She  is 
ruled  by  eighty-six  bishops,  of  whom  three  (Kiev,  Moscow,  and 
Petersburg)  are  always  metropolitans,  and  fourteen  archbishops. 
In  Russia  the  title  of  metropolitan,  which  in  most  Eastern  Churches 
has  come  to  be  the  common  name  for  any  bishop,  is  much  rarer. 
Besides  the  three  above  mentioned,  others  have  it  given  to 
them  as  a  compliment  or  reward  by  the  Czar.  In  any  case  it  has 
quite  lost  its  real  meaning,  and  is  only  an  honorary  title.  No 
Russian  bishop  has  any  extra-diocesan  jurisdiction  ;  the  Holy 
Synod  rules  all  equally.  There  are  also  thirty-seven  auxiliary 
bishops,  whom  they  call  vicars.  There  are  481  monasteries  for 
men,  and  249  convents  of  nuns.2  The  last  Saint  canonized  by  the 
Holy  Synod  is  the  monk  Seraphim,  who  was  an  ascetic  like  those  of 
the  first  centuries.  He  spent  a  thousand  days  and  nights  under 
the  shelter  of  a  rock,  doing  nothing  but  repeating:  "  Lord,  have 
mercy  on  me  a  sinner  "  ;  then  for  five  years  he  spoke  no  word, 
and  he  died  in  the  odour  of  sanctity  at  the  monastery  of  Sarov 
in  1833.  The  Holy  Synod  examined  his  cause  and  proved  the 
miracles  he  had  wrought,  and  the  Czar  ratified  his  canonization 
in  January,  1903.3  The  Russian  Church  has  missions  throughout 
Siberia,  and  in  Japan,  Alaska,  and  the  United  States.  A  Russian 
bishop  with  the  title  of  Revel  lives  at  Tokio  and  governs  twenty- 
five  thousand  Orthodox  converts  ;  the  Bishop  of  Alaska,  who 
resides  at  San  Francisco,  has  fifty  thousand  subjects  in  the 
States,  mostly  Uniates  from  Hungary  and  Galicia  who  have 
left  the  Catholic  Church.4 

1  At  least  outwardly.  Under  a  tyranny  like  that  of  Russia,  it  is  impossible 
to  know  what  people  really  wish  to  be.  The  dissenters  are  those  who  have 
the  courage  of  their  opinions  even  in  Russia.  Moreover,  among  these  eighty- 
five  millions  are  the  unhappy  Catholic  Ruthenians  who  have  been  so  ruthlessly 
harried  into  schism. 

2  Silbernagl,  pp.  110-124 ;  E.  d'Or.  iv.  pp.  231-235,  vi.pp.  396-399.  For  the 
monasteries  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  135-146. 

3  E.  d'Or.  vi.  p.  398. 

4  E.  d'Or.  ibid,  and  iv.  p.  235.  There  is  a  Russian  mission  at  Pekin  under 
the  Bishop  of  Revel  with  an  archimandrite  and  about  five  hundred  converts. 


298      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

It  is  impossible  to  wish  well  to  the  Russian  missions  any- 
where. Undoubtedly  one  would  rejoice  to  see  heathen  baptized 
and  taught  the  faith  of  Christ,  if  only  it  were  done  by  any  one 
except  by  Russians.  But  Russian  missions,  enormously  subsidized 
by  the  Government,  are,  always  and  everywhere,  the  thin  end 
of  the  wedge  for  Russian  conquest. 

Look  at  the  countries  where  Russia  has  political  interests  or 
ambitions — Syria,  Persia,  Manchuria,  China,  Japan,  Alaska — there 
you  will  find  Russian  missionaries  ;  lookiat  places  where  the  Czar 
has  no  policy — Egypt,  Africa,  South  America,  &c. — there  the 
Church  of  Russia  is  unheard  of.  And  Russia,  even  when  it  has 
only  a  protectorate,  means  at  once  intolerance  and  persecution 
of  every  other  form  of  Christianity.1  One  remembers  the  long 
list  of  crimes  wrought  by  the  tyrants  at  Petersburg  and  by  their 
servant  the  Holy  Synod,  the  ghastly  story  of  Poland,  the 
Ruthenian  persecution,  the  dead  Georgian  Church,  the  Rou- 
manian Church  crushed  in  Bessarabia,  the  ruthless  harrying 
of  the  Armenians,  and  one  realizes  that  Russia  and  her  eccle- 
siastical arrangements  are  the  common  enemy  of  the  rest  of 
Christendom.2  And  of  all  the  millions  of  people  who  rejoice 
at  the  crushing  defeat  of  this  barbarous  State  in  the  late  war  no 
one  has  more  reason  for  joy  than  the  Catholic  missionaries  who 
can  now  again  breathe  in  peace  in  Manchuria.  It  is  wonderful 
that,  in  spite  of  the  intolerance  of  the  Government,  Russia  should 
teem  with  dissenters.   Leaving  out  of  account  at  present  the  Latin 

Silbernagl,  pp.  146-147.  An  Imperial  Ukaze  has  given  the  Bishop  of  Alaska 
two  vicars  (in  1903  and  1904)  for  the  Russian  Church  in  the  United  States. 
See  E.  d'Or.  vii.  pp.  231-235,  and  viii.  p.  103. 

1  Three  years  ago  Russia  and  China  made  a  treaty  about  Tibet.  This  is 
one  of  its  clauses  :  "  In  Tibet  complete  liberty  of  worship  shall  be  established 
for  the  Orthodox  Russian  Church  and  for  the  Buddhist  religion.  Every 
other  religion  shall  be  absolutely  forbidden  "  (E.  d'Or.  viii.  p.  50).  The  treaties 
of  1858  and  i860  that  marked  the  advancement  of  Russia  in  Manchuria  put  an 
absolute  end  to  the  Catholic  missions  there.  Meanwhile,  under  the  rule 
of  the  more  civilized  yellow  man,  Leo  XIII  was  able  to  establish  four 
Catholic  sees  in  Japan. 

2  Even  of  her  Orthodox  sisters.  Nothing  can  exceed  the  hatred  now 
shown  by  the  Phanariote  and  Greek  Orthodox  for  Russia,  who  is  responsible 
for  all  the  Bulgarian  trouble,  and  for  the  gradual  destruction  of  their 
supremacy  everywhere.  For  the  violent  language  they  use  against  the 
11  persecutor  of  all  the  Churches  of  God,"  see  E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  366. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    299 

and  Uniate  Catholics,  the  Armenians,  Jews,  and  Moslems,  we  find 
twenty-five  millions  of  Russians  who  live  in  schism  from  the 
established  Church.  These  people  are  the  Raskolniks  and  the 
members  of  the  numberless  sects  that  have  grown  out  of  that  move- 
ment. The  Raskol  schism  began  in  the  17th  century  when  Nikon, 
Patriarch  of  Moscow,1  reformed  the  Russian  liturgical  books. 
Gradually  a  number  of  errors,  misspellings,  and  mistranslations 
had  crept  into  these  books.  Nikon  carried  out  his  correction 
of  them  very  conscientiously  ;  he  sent  an  Archimandrite  to 
Constantinople  to  collect  copies  of  the  original  Greek  books 
from  which  the  Russian  ones  had  been  translated,  and  his  only 
object  was  to  restore  the  correct  text.  The  changes  that  he 
made  were  that  people  should  make  rather  fewer  prostrations 
(jj.eTapoiai)  during  service,  should  sing  Alleluia  twice  instead  of 
three  times  in  the  liturgy,  and  should  make  the  sign  of  the  Cross 
with  three  instead  of  with  two  fingers.  It  is  characteristic  of 
the  Slav  mind  that  these  changes  should  have  produced  an 
uproar  all  over  Russia.  The  Patriarch  was  tampering  with  the 
holy  books,  was  changing  the  faith  of  their  fathers,  was  under- 
mining the  Christian  religion  ;  he  had  been  bought  like  Judas 
by  the  Jews,  the  Mohammedans,  and  the  Pope  of  Rome  (this 
was  specially  hard,  because  Nikon  could  not  abide  the  Pope  of 
Rome).  So  numbers  of  people  left  his  communion,  calling 
themselves  Starovjerzi  (Old  Believers)  ;  they  were  and  still  are 
commonly  known  in  Russia  as  Raskolniki  (apostates).  From 
the  very  beginning  these  absurd  people  were  most  cruelly 
persecuted  by  the  Government,  and  the  persecution  produced 
the  usual  result  of  making  them  wildly  fanatical.  Peter  the 
Great  was  tolerant  to  every  sect  except  to  the  Raskolniks  ;  he 

1  Nikon  (f  1681)  was  one  of  the  last  patriarchs  before  Peter  the  Great 
abolished  the  patriarchate.  He  was  a  very  admirable  and  saintly  person.  In 
1660  he  was  deposed  by  the  Government  for  trying  to  be  independent  in 
ecclesiastical  affairs.  That  he  made  an  enormous  fuss  about  quite  absurd 
things  (for  instance,  whether  the  sign  of  the  Cross  should  be  made  with  two 
or  with  three  fingers),  and  that  he  quite  lost  his  head  in  cases  of  Popery  (he 
had  all  the  ikons  that  were  painted  in  Latin  fashion  seized,  their  eyes  poked 
out  and  then  ignominiously  broke  them  on  the  church  floor — "  Latin  fashion  " 
meant  that  the  figures  were  correctly  drawn,  as  in  Western  Europe) — these 
things  only  mean  that  he  was  a  true  son  of  the  Orthodox  Church.  Cf. 
Bonwetsch  :  Nikon,  in  the  RealcnzykL  xiv.  pp.  86-89. 


300      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

had  them  hunted  down  in  the  forests  and  massacred,  shut  up 
in  their  churches  and  burnt,  tortured,  flogged,  and  exiled.  The 
whole  Raskolnik  movement  forms  the  weirdest  and  most  un- 
savoury story  of  religious  mania  in  the  world  ;  not  even  the 
maddest  Mohammedan  sects  have  gone  to  such  an  extreme 
of  lunacy  as  these  Old  Believers.  When  a  Slav  peasant 
gets  religious  mania  he  gets  it  very  badly  indeed.  Their 
original  indictment  against  Nikon  and  the  State  Church 
was  that  he  had  introduced  these  abominations  :  to  make  the 
sign  of  the  Cross  with  three  fingers  instead  of  with  two,  to 
pronounce  the  Holy  Name  Iisus  instead  of  Isus,  to  say  in  the 
Creed,  "the  Holy  Ghost,  Lord  and  Lifegiver,"  instead  of 
11  true  one  and  Lifegiver,"  »  as  well  as  various  other  changes  of 
the  same  importance.  Because  of  these  innovations  and  heresies 
they  declared  that  the  established  Church  had  become  the 
kingdom  of  Antichrist,  New  Rome  (which,  of  course,  stood  by 
Nikon  and  his  reform)  had  fallen  as  low  as  Old  Rome,  they,  the 
Raskolniks,  alone  were  the  true  Church  of  God,  and  Noah's  ark 
in  the  universal  flood.  The  Raskolniks  then  split  into  two  chief 
factions,  the  "  Priestly"  and  "  Priestless  "  Old  Believers.  They 
had  few  priests  and  no  bishops  at  first,  so  the  question  soon 
arose  :  How  were  they  to  go  on  ?  Some  determined  to  do  the 
best  they  could  and  to  manage  with  the  few  priests  who  occa- 
sionally joined  them,  or  even,  in  the  case  of  necessity,  to  receive 
Sacraments  from  the  clergy  of  the  established  Church.  These 
priestly  Raskolniks  are  the  less  radical  party  ;  they  have  stayed 
where  they  were  when  the  schism  began,  and  still  differ  from 
the  Orthodox  only  in  the  matter  of  Nikon's  changes.  In 
1846  a  deposed  Bosnian  metropolitan  joined  them,  set  up  a  see 
at  Belokriniza  in  Bukovina,  and  ordained  other  bishops  ;  so 
they  got  a  hierarchy  of  their  own  at  last.  They  also,  after 
centuries  of  persecution,  now  receive  some  measure  of  toleration 
in  Russia,  and  about  a  million  of  them  have  joined  the  State 
Church  as  Uniates  (the  only  Uniates  in  the  Orthodox  world), 
that  is,  they  are  allowed  to  go  on  using  their  ante-Nikonian 

1  The  word  "  true  one  "  instead  of  "  Lord "  was  just  one  of  the  many 
errors  that  had  crept  into  the  Old  Slavonic  books.  The  original  Greek  is,  of 
course,  to  icvpiov,  to  ^wottowv. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    301 

books.  These  Uniates,  the  Edinoverz  ("  United  Believers  "),  have 
about  two  hundred  and  forty-four  churches.  When  Russians 
speak  of  Raskolniks  they  usually  mean  the  priestly  sect,  and 
they  are  always  anxious  to  convert  them  all  to  the  established 
Church.  One  of  the  chief  arguments  used  by  Russian 
bishops  against  any  new  proposal,  such  as,  for  instance, 
official  recognition  of  the  Church  of  England,  is  that  it 
would  tend  to  frighten  away  the  Raskolniks.1  It  is  among 
the  'priestless  Raskolniks  that  the  wildest  beliefs  have  arisen. 
They  made  a  virtue  of  necessity,  and  declared  that  now 
that  Antichrist  is  reigning  the  ministry  of  priests  and 
bishops  must  cease ;  they  baptize  their  children  and  hold 
prayer-meetings  led  by  elders.  And  they  have  broken  into 
endless  sects  on  all  sorts  of  points.  One  great  quarrel  was 
about  what  letters  should  be  put  on  the  crucifix  ;  where  we 
write  INRI,  some  of  them,  in  spite  of  John  xix.  19,  &c,  insisted 
on  ICXC  (Iesus  Christ)  only.  They  began  all  manner  of  strange 
abstinences — tobacco,  sugar,  potatoes,  cooked  hare  were  unclean 
and  never  to  be  touched.  Some  of  them,  to  hasten  the  Second 
Coming  of  our  Lord,  preached  suicide,  and  thenquarrelled  as  to 
whether  suicide  by  fire  or  by  hunger  were  more  pleasing  to 
God.  They  were  all  the  wildest  Millennianists,  miracle-mongers, 
and  seers.  Horrible  licence  alternated  with  suicidal  mortifica- 
tions.2 In  a  wild  anarchy  of  mad  opinions  and  mutual  cursing 
they  were  held  together  only  by  their  insane  fury  against  the 
Orthodox.  And  these  sects,  sprung  out  of  the  old  Raskol 
movement,  still  exist,  are  still  horribly  persecuted,3  and,  as  usual, 
answer  that  persecution  by  a  tenfold  fanaticism. 

There  are  the  Philipovzi,  whose  Gospel  is  suicide  by  fire,  the 
Beguni,  who  always  wander,  will  eat  from  no  stranger's  plate,  and 
practise  the  abominations  of  "  free  love  "  instead  of  marriage  ; 
there  are  the  Moltshaljniki,  who  never  speak  ;  the  Chlysti,  who 
believe  that  in  1645  God  the  Father  came  down  in  a  chariot  of  fire, 

1  E.gr.  Palmer,  p.  360,  &c. 

2  There  is  a  gruesome  picture  of  the  conventicles  of  these  madmen  in 
D.  de  Merejkowski  :  Pierre  le  Grand,  Livre  III,  "  La  Mort  rouge."  French 
translation,  Paris,  1904. 

3  But  the  religious  tolerance  now  proclaimed  in  Russia  has  brought  them 
some  relief  at  last. 


302      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  was  incarnate  in  a  peasant  named  Daniel  Philippov.  Their 
service  consists  in  dancing  and  in  nameless  horrors  that  follow. 
There  are  the  Skopzi,  whose  god  is  a  man  named  Selivanov, 
whom  they  believe  to  have  been  a  reincarnation  of  our  Lord 
and  of  the  Czar,  Peter  III  ;  they  practise  self- mutilation,  and 
hope  that  when  they  have  converted  144,000  virgins  (Apoc.  xiv. 
1-4)  the  end  of  the  world  will  come.1  The  Duchoborz  believe 
in  successive  reincarnations  of  our  Lord,  and  worship  a  number 
of  their  own  prophets  who  claimed  to  be  the  Son  of  God.  In 
1898,  after  a  very  sharp  persecution,  they  fled  to  Canada,  and 
gave  endless  trouble  to  its  Government  by  going  out  to  meet 
the  Second  Coming  in  a  place  where  they  would  have  all  died 
of  cold  and  hunger.  But  one  need  not  go  on  describing  the 
blasphemous  madness  of  these  unhappy  lunatics.  That  there 
are  about  twenty-five  millions  of  Russians  who  belong  to  such 
sects  is  the  only  point  that  is  significant.  The  Stundists  lastly 
are  people  of  quite  different  kind,  simply  Protestants  of  the 
Lutheran  type,  and  entirely  respectable  in  every  way.2 

Returning  to  the  established  Church  of  Russia  after  these 
fanatics,  one  finds  in  it  as  a  vivid  contrast  the  profoundest 
peace.  We  have  seen  some — and  we  shall  unfortunately  see 
more — of  the  quarrels  that  now  rend  various  branches  of  the 
Orthodox  Communion  ;  it  is  relief  to  be  able  to  point  out  that 
there  are  no  quarrels  in  the  Church  of  Russia.  The  Holy  direct- 
ing Synod  and  the  Imperial  Russian  police  take  care  of  that. 
But  it  would  not  be  fair  to  say  nothing  about  the  Russian  clergy 
but  the  servility  of  its  hierarchy.  Throughout  that  enormous 
Empire  there  must  be  thousands  of  village  priests  who  stand 
for  the  cause  of  Christ  among  their  people,  who  baptize  the 

1  Selivanov's  secret  Gospel,  which  is  the  raving  of  a  lunatic,  has  been  done 
into  German  by  K.  Grass  :  Die  geheime  h.  Schrift  der  Skopzen,  Leipzig,  1904. 

2  For  all  this  movement  see  Bonwetsch  :  Raskolniken  in  the  Realenzyklo- 
pddie  (1905),  xvi.  pp. 436-443.  He  counts  fifteen  millions  as  the  highest  probable 
figure  ;  the  E.  d'Or.,  that  are  always  well  informed,  give  twenty-five  millions 
as  the  number  (iv.  p.  231).  One  advantage  of  their  existence  is  that  they  afford 
unequalled  opportunities  for  the  scientific  study  of  lunacy.  Russian  doctors 
and  psychologists  are  taking  up  the  matter  from  this  point  of  view,  and  they 
publish  most  deserving  works  on  the  pathology  of  mind-disease — they  have 
plenty  of  material  to  study. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    303 

children,  celebrate  the  holy  liturgy,  and  bring  the  last  comfort 
to  the  dying  ;  who  (when  they  can  resist  its  temptations  them- 
selves)  do   at  any  rate  something  towards  putting  down  the 
drunkenness  that  is   the   curse  of  the   Russian   peasant  ;   and 
who,  since  they  are  married  and  so  can  never  hope  to  become 
bishops,  know   nothing   of  higher  Church   politics,   but    lead 
simple  godly  lives  in  the  care  of  souls.     When  Mr.  Palmer  was 
in   Russia  he  lodged  for  a  time   with   a   parish  priest   named 
Fortunatov.  M.  Fortunatov  was  a  charming  example  of  his  kind. 
His  house  swarmed  with  vermin,  and  the  windows  could  not  be 
opened  all  the  winter.1     But  he  was  a  person  of  some  culture, 
speaking   Latin   and   a   little   German.2      He  had  studied  the 
Bible  as  well  as  many  other  things  at  the  Spiritual  Academy, 
and  he  always  helped  himself  to  food  before  his  wife  on  the 
strength   of  Gen.  i.3      When  his  little  daughter,  looking  at  a 
picture-book,  pointed  to  each  woodcut  and  delightedly  called 
them   "  little   god  !  "  he   could   not   understand    Mr.  Palmer's 
pious  horror.     Such  "  sheer  and  gross   ignorance "  he  found 
natural    in    peasants   and   women/      He   could   discourse    on 
philosophy,  and  had  a  perfect  genius  for  aphorisms  :  "  Aristotle 
goes   only   on   experience   (!),   Plato  is   imaginative,   Socrates 
religious."  5     He  was  no  truckler  to  modern  science  :  "  All  the 
modern  geologists  overturn  religion,  especially  by  interpreting 
the  six  days  of  Creation  to  be  six  periods."  6  And  he  had  a  most 
engaging  way   of   putting   an   end    to    religious    controversy. 
When   Mr.  Palmer  showed  him  a  controversial  letter  he  had 
written  to  the  President  of  Magdalen  "  Mr.  F.  criticized  it  freely 
and  ended  by  going  to  his  piano  and  singing  the  Trisagion,  the 
Cherubicon,  the  Ter  Sanctus,  the  hymn,  Nunc  dimittis  and  Te 
Deum."  7     When  one  learns  that  so  much  talent  and  tact  were 
developed  on  an  income  of  about  £9  a  year,8  one  realizes  that 
the  Russian  clergy  cannot  be  accused  of  teaching  things  which 
they  ought  not  for  filthy  lucre's  sake. 

1  Palmer,  o.c.  pp.  287,  288.  2  P.  298. 

3  P.  289.  *  P.  316.  s  p.  300. 

6  Ibid.  7  p.  360. 

8  P.  297.    He  admits  that  a  student  can  live  on  £5  a  year  only  "  in  the  very 
poorest  way."    On  his  £9  he  "  lived  well." 


304      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

6a.  The  Church  of  Georgia. 

This  Church  is  not  to  be  counted  among  the  branches  of  the 
Orthodox  Communion  because  it  has  now  ceased  to  exist.  We 
have  seen  how  the  Georgians  or  Iberians  were  converted  by  St. 
Nino,  how  they  became  a  separate  body  independent  of  the 
Patriarch  of  Antioch  (pp.  17, 18).  The  Church  of  Georgia  under 
the  Katholikos  of  Tiflis  ■  had  its  own  rite  in  the  Georgian  lan- 
guage. It  was  almost  entirely  Orthodox  and  free  from  any  sus- 
picion of  Nestorianism  or  Monophysism.  In  the  7th  century 
Georgia  was  conquered  by  the  Saracens,  and  a  great  persecution 
filled  the  Calendar  of  Tiflis  with  names  of  martyrs.  In  the  nth 
century  the  country  was  again  free,  and  the  native  Georgian 
kings  reigned  at  Tiflis  till  the  beginning  of  the  19th  century. 
They  were  continually  attacked  and  overrun  by  the  Persians  ; 
but,  on  the  whole,  the  land  was  free,  and  the  valiant  Georgian 
warriors  formed  one  of  the  bulwarks  of  Christendom  against 
Islam.  Meanwhile  the  Church  of  Georgia  shared  the  fate  of 
the  kingdom  ;  she  was  persecuted  whenever  the  Georgians  were 
defeated,  and  she  shared  their  triumph  when  they  won.  Almost 
inevitably  this  little  distant  Church,  surrounded  by  other 
Orthodox  Churches,  shared  their  schism,  probably  hardly  or  not 
at  all  realizing  the  fact.  But  the  Russians  can  scarcely  afford 
to  blame  her  for  that,  and  otherwise  no  shadow  of  reproach  can 
be  brought  against  her.  The  most  ancient  Church  of  a  heroic 
people,  she  deserved  to  remain  one,  and  one  of  the  most 
honoured  of  the  Orthodox  allies.  In  1802,  however,  the 
greatest  misfortune  happened  to  Georgia  that  can  happen  to 
any  nation.  It  was  made  a  Russian  province.  And  from  that 
time  its  Church  has  ceased  to  exist.  The  upstart  tyrants  at 
Petersburg,  of  course,  cared  nothing  for  the  rights  of  a  Church 
that  was  by  five  centuries  more  ancient  and  more  venerable 
than  their  own,  nor  for  the  national  feeling  of  the  heroic  race 
that  for  centuries  had  guarded  the  frontier  of  Christendom. 

1  Tiflis,  the  capital  of  Georgia,  was  built  in  455.  Its  name  means  "warm  " 
(Slav,  tefl ;  the  same  name  as  Teplitz  in  Bohemia),  from  the  hot  springs  near 
the  city.  Iberia  is  the  older  name  of  the  country  :  it  is  called  Grusia,  or 
Kursia,  too. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    305 

They  simply  applied  their  usual  policy  of  making  every  one 
a  Russian  who  came  in  their  power.  So  at  one  stroke  the 
Georgian  nation  and  the  Georgian  Church  were  wiped  out. 
What  all  the  barbarians  who  had  attacked  the  land  unceasingly 
for  nine  hundred  years — Tartars,  Kurds,  Persians,  and  Turks — 
had  not  succeeded  in  doing,  that  the  Czar  did  with  one  Ukaze. 
All  Georgians  were  declared  members  of  the  Russian  Church  ; 
the  Katholikos  of  Tiflis  disappeared,  and  his  place  was  taken 
by  an  Exarch  of  the  Province  of  Georgia,  who  is  simply  a 
Russian  bishop  under  the  Holy  Synod.  Throughout  the  land 
the  Russian  Liturgy  alone  is  allowed,  just  as  at  Petersburg  and 
Moscow.  The  Georgian  language  is  forbidden  to  be  taught  in 
schools  under  the  direst  penalties.  The  Georgian  Uniates  had 
to  flee  into  more  tolerant  Turkey,  or  were  forced  into  the 
Russian  schism.  Quite  lately,  in  1904,  when  the  storm  they 
had  brought  upon  themselves  frightened  the  Russian  Govern- 
ment into  some  unwilling  pretence  of  tolerance,  the  Georgians 
hoped  that  they,  too,  might  at  last  receive  better  treatment.  So 
they  presented  a  petition  to  the  Czar  in  which,  with  the  most 
piteous  protestations  of  loyalty  towards  the  tyrant  who  perse- 
cutes them,  they  implored  him  to  allow  them  again  their 
own  Church  and  their  own  language.1  And  equally,  of  course, 
no  notice  has  been  taken  of  their  petition.  Meanwhile  the  only 
remnant  of  the  old  Georgian  Church  remains  in  the  few  Uniates 
abroad  in  Constantinople.  It  is  not  the  Pope  who  destroys 
ancient  Churches.2 


7.  The  Church  of  Carlovitz  (1765). 

Next  in  order  of  time  come  the  Orthodox  Serbs  in  Hungary. 
We  have  not  yet  mentioned  three  mediaeval  Churches  that  have 
long  ceased  to  exist,  those  of  Achrida  for  the  Bulgars,  of  Ipek 
for  the  Serbs,  and  of  Tirnovo  for  the  Roumans.  All  were 
recognized  as  extra-patriarchal,  and  so  held  the  same  position  as 

1  For  the  text  of  this  petition  see  the  E.  d'Or.  viii.  pp.  177-178. 

2  For  all  this  see  Kaulen  :  Ibcrien  in  the  Kirchenlexikon  (1889),  vi.  p.  559, 
seq.,  and  Nilles  :  Aus  Iberien  oder  Georgien  in  the  Innsbrucker  Zeitschrift  f. 
Kath.  Theol.,  1903,  p.  652,  seq.    See  also  O.  Wardrop  :  The  Kingdom  of  Georgia. 

21 


306      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Cyprus.  The  Primates  of  Achrida  and  Ipek  are  occasionally 
called  Patriarchs,  though  they  were  never  considered  the  equals 
of  the  five  great  Patriarchs.  We  are  now  concerned  with  Ipek.1 
In  this  city  (now  a  small  village  in  Northern  Albania)  St.  Sabbas, 
the  national  Saint  of  the  Serbs,  set  up  his  throne  as  Metropolitan 
of  Servia  in  1218.2  At  that  time  the  Latins  held  Constantinople, 
and  the  Orthodox  Emperor  and  Patriarch  had  fled  to  Nicaea 
(p.  22J).  In  the  midst  of  their  own  troubles,  the  Byzantines  did 
not  care  much  about  the  affairs  of  Ipek,  so  in  1221  they  agreed 
that  the  Serbs  should  elect  their  own  metropolitan,  and  that  he 
should  be  only  confirmed  by  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch.  During 
the  troubles  of  the  Eastern  Empire  in  the  13th  and  14th  cen- 
turies, the  Serbs  managed  to  set  up  a  great  independent  Power 
under  King  Stephen  Dushan  (f  1355),  which  at  one  time 
stretched  from  the  Danube  to  the  Gulf  of  Corinth,  and  from  the 
Adriatic  to  the  ^Egean  Sea.3  King  Stephen  Dushan,  who  was 
always  at  war  with  the  Empire,  would  not  let  the  Imperial 
Patriarch  rule  over  his  Church,  so  in  a  synod  of  the  year  1347 
the  Serbs  declared  their  Church  autocephalous,  and  gave  to  the 
Metropolitan  of  Ipek  the  title  of  Patriarch.  Constantinople,  as 
usual,  excommunicated  them,  but  eventually,  in  1376,  had  to 
recognize  the  Servian  Church.  In  1389  came  the  crushing 
defeat  of  Kossovo,  in  which  the  Turks  utterly  annihilated 
Dushan's  great  kingdom,  and  nothing  more  is  heard  of  Servia 


1  For  Achrida,  see  p.  317,  and  for  Tirnovo,  p.  328. 

2  St.  Sabbas  (f  1237)  was  the  son  of  Stephen  II,  Prince  of  Servia.  He  had 
been  a  monk  at  Mount  Athos.  He  crowned  his  elder  brother,  Stephen  III, 
with  a  crown  given  by  Pope  Honorius  III.  The  Serbs  keep  his  feast  on 
January  14th  ;  they  call  him  Sava.  Cf.  Nilles  :  Kalend.  i.  p.  446,  and  p.  438  for 
the  very  complete  acknowledgements  of  the  Roman  Primacy  made  by  the 
Church  and  princes  of  Servia  at  this  time.  E.gr.  Stephen  II  writes  :  "  I 
always  follow  the  footsteps  of  the  holy  Roman  Church,  as  did  my  father 
of  happy  memory,  and  always  obey  the  command  of  the  Roman  Church." 
In  1 199,  a  Servian  national  Synod  declares  that  :  "The  most  holy  Roman 
Church  is  the  mother  and  mistress  of  all  Churches  "  (ibid.).  That  the  Serbs 
were  also  in  communion  with  schismatical  Constantinople  shows  once  more 
how  little  simple  people,  living  away  from  the  centres  of  the  quarrel,  realized 
its  importance. 

3  See  e.gr.  Freeman's  Historical  Geography,  ed.  J.  Bury  (1903),  p.  392,  seq. 
and  map  xli. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    307 

as  an  independent  Power  till  the  revolt  of  1817.1  The  Servian 
Church  went  on  for  a  time  after  the  destruction  of  the  king- 
dom, but  the  Phanar  persuaded  the  Porte  that  any  sort  of 
national  organization  among  the  Serbs,  even  a  purely  ecclesi- 
astical one,  was  a  danger  to  the  Sultan's  rule,  and  that  the  best 
safety  for  the  Turkish  Government  would  be  in  the  destruction 
of  the  Church  of  Ipek,  and  in  the  submission  of  the  Orthodox 
Serbs  to  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  So  after  centuries  of 
bickering  and  machinations,  at  last,  in  1765,  the  Sultan  put  an 
entire  end  to  the  Servian  Church.  Since  then,  all  the  Serbs  in 
Turkey  have  to  obey  the  Patriarch,  although,  as  we  shall  see, 
they  do  so  very  unwillingly,  and  always  hope  for  a  great  united 
Servian  Church  under  a  Patriarch  of  Ipek  again.  But  in  three 
cases  where  the  Porte  does  not  rule  over  Serbs,  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch  has  no  authority  either.  One  of  these  is  that  of  the 
new  kingdom  of  Servia  (p.  325),  the  others  are  those  of  the 
Churches  of  Carlovitz  and  Czernagora,  which  still  represent  the 
legitimate  continuity  from  Ipek.  In  1690,  while  the  Serbs  were 
being  much  harassed  by  the  Porte  and  the  Phanar,  King  Leo- 
pold I  of  Hungary  (Emperor  Leopold  1, 1658-1705)  invited  them 
to  come  over  to  his  land  and  to  try  the  advantages  of  a  civilized 
country.  Thirty-seven  thousand  Servian  families  did  so,  and 
many  more  followed  in  1737.  With  the  approval  of  Arsenius  III 
(Zrnojevitch),  the  shadowy  Patriarch  of  Ipek,  they  founded  the 
Orthodox  Metropolitan  See  of  Carlovitz  (Karlocza  on  the  Danube, 
in  Slavonia).  Eventually  Arsenius  came  himself.  So  the  See  of 
Carlovitz  has  the  best  claim  to  represent  the  extinct  Patriarch- 
ate of  Ipek.  We  have  seen  how  the  Orthodox  Georgians  fared 
under  a  Government  of  their  own  religion.  The  happier 
Orthodox  Serbs  under  a  Catholic  Government  have  always 
enjoyed  the  most  absolute  freedom.  In  1695  the  King  of 
Hungary  guaranteed  entire  liberty  to  them  to  do  whatever  they 
liked,  and  no  one  has  ever  thought  of  disturbing  them  since. 
As  long  as  any  sort  of  See  of  Ipek  existed,2  the  Metropolitan  of 

1  It  was  a  tributary  principality  under  the  Turk  for  a  short  time,  from 
1442  to  1459. 

2  The  Turks  had  allowed  a  successor  (Kallinikos  I)  to  be  appointed  at  Ipek 
when  Arsenius  III  went  to  Hungary. 


308      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Carlovitz  considered  himself  dependent  from  it,  and  at  first 
he  described  himself  as  "  Exarch  of  the  throne  of  Ipek." 
When  there  was  no  longer  a  throne  of  Ipek  to  be  Exarch  of,  he 
became  quite  independent.  There  are  now  six  Servian  dioceses 
under  Carlovitz  scattered  through  Hungary  and  Slavonia,1  with 
twenty-seven  monasteries,  and  just  over  a  million  of  the  faithful. 
A  last  example  will  show  the  invariable  tolerance  and  good- 
nature of  the  Government  of  the  Habsburgs.  Hitherto,  the 
common  official  name  for  all  the  Orthodox  in  the  Dual  Mon- 
archy was  Greek-Oriental  (griechisch-morgenlandisch) ;  so  the 
Church  of  Carlovitz  was  officially  known  as  the  Servian  national 
Greek-Oriental  Church.  But  they  did  not  like  this  name.  They 
feel  very  strongly  that  they  are  not  Greeks  ;  the  Greek  Patriarch 
of  Constantinople  had  destroyed  their  old  national  Church  of 
Ipek,  and,  although  they  are  in  communion  with  him,  they 
cannot  abide  him  and  his  ways.  So  they  protested.  The 
courteous  statesmen  at  Vienna  and  Pesth  have  nothing  to  do 
with  the  everlasting  internal  quarrels  of  the  Orthodox,  but  they 
are  always  studiously  anxious  to  make  every  one  happy.  So 
they  said  that,  of  course,  they  would  be  delighted  to  do  anything 
they  could  for  the  Serbs  :  What  would  the  gentlemen  like  to  be 
called  ?  They  were  told  ;  and  now  the  official  name  is  the 
Servian  national  Orthodox-Slav  (Pravoslav)  Oriental  Church. 
This  body  is,  of  course,  in  communion  with  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch  and  with  all  the  other  Orthodox  Churches,  but  it  has 
no  Head  but  Christ,  and,  as  they  sit  in  peace  under  the  Habs- 
burg  double  crown,  this  does  not  mean  the  Procurator  of  a 
Holy  Directing  Synod.2 

8.  The  Church  of  Czernagora  (1765). 

This  Church  represents  the  other  fragment  of  the  old  Patri- 
archate of   Ipek.     The    people   of    Czernagora  (Mons   Niger, 

1  Carlovitz,  Bacs,  Buda,  Karlstadt,  Pakracz,  Temesvar,  Versecz.  The 
Hungarian  Government  pays  the  Metropolitan  of  Carlovitz  80,000  fl.  a  year, 
and  the  others  10,500  fl.  They  have  an  ecclesiastical  Congress  to  arrange 
their  own  affairs,  which  is  entirely  independent  of  the  State,  and  all  sit  in  the 
Hungarian  House  of  Lords. 

2  For  all  this,  see  the  E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  156,  seq.,  v.  p.  164,  seq.,  vii.  p.  358,  seq. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    309 

Montenegro)  are  simply  Serbs,  in  no  way  different  from  those 
of  Turkey  or  in  the  new  kingdom  of  Servia,  and  they  form  a 
separate  principality  only  because  of  the  accidents  of  politics. 
For  whereas  the  Serbs  of  Turkey  groan  under  the  tyranny  of 
the  Sultan,  and  those  of  the  kingdom  have  lately  won  their 
freedom,  the  valiant  men  of  the  Black  Mountain  have  never  had 
to  submit  to  the  barbarian.  They,  alone  of  all  the  Balkan 
Christians,  have  always  kept  their  freedom  ;  while  for  five 
centuries  they  waged  a  continual  war  against  the  Turk,  they  have 
always  succeeded  in  driving  him  down  from  the  slopes  of  their 
Black  Mountain.  And  so  the  old  Servian  Church,  destroyed  in 
Turkey,  set  up  again  by  the  exiles  in  Hungary,  has  always 
existed  independent  as  the  national  religion  of  Czernagora.  Till 
quite  lately,  the  same  person  was  both  Prince  and  Bishop  of 
the  Black  Mountain.  In  15 16,  Prince  George,  fearing  lest 
quarrels  should  weaken  his  people  (it  was  an  elective  prince- 
dom), made  them  swear  always  to  elect  the  bishop  as  their  civil 
ruler  as  well.  These  prince-bishops  were  called  Vladikas,  and 
lasted  till  about  fifty  years  ago.  In  the  18th  century  the  Vladika 
Daniel  I  (1697-1737)  succeeded  in  securing  the  succession  for 
his  own  family.  As  Orthodox  bishops  have  to  be  celibate,  the 
line  passed  (by  an  election  whose  conclusion  was  foregone)  from 
uncle  to  nephew,  or  from  cousin  to  cousin.  At  last,  in  1852, 
Danilo,  who  succeeded  his  uncle  as  Vladika,  wanted  to  marry, 
so  he  refused  to  be  ordained  bishop  and  turned  the  prince- 
bishopric  into  an  ordinary  secular  princedom.  Since  then, 
another  person  has  been  elected  Metropolitan  of  Cetinje,  accord- 
ing to  the  usual  Orthodox  custom.  The  Vladikas  acknowledged 
an  at  least  theoretical  ecclesiastical  over-lordship  of  the  Patri- 
archs of  Ipek  as  long  as  that  line  existed.  Since  1765,  the 
Church  of  the  Black  Mountain  has  been  autocephalous.  Its 
hierarchy  consists  of  only  one  bishop,  the  Metropolitan  of 
Cetinje,  and  about  ninety  parish  priests.  It  has  thirteen 
monasteries.1 

1  See  W.  Gotz  :  Montenegro,  in  the  Realenz.  (1903),  xii.  p.  430,  seq. 


3io      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


g.  The  Church  of  Sinai  (1782). 

One  of  the  chief  shrines  to  which  the  Orthodox  for  many 
centuries  have  gone  in  pilgrimage  is  Mount  Sinai,  the  "  mountain 
trod  by  God  "  (rd  Qtofiarbv  opog).  On  this  mountain  stands  the 
great  monastery  of  St.  Katharine.1  It  became  very  rich,  and 
has  metochia  (daughter-houses)  at  Cairo,  Constantinople,  Kiev, 
Tiflis,  and  all  over  the  Orthodox  world  (fourteen  altogether). 
Since  the  10th  century  the  Abbot  (Hegoumenos)  of  Mount 
Sinai  has  joined  to  his  office  the  diocese  of  Pharan  in  Egypt, 
has  always  been  consecrated  bishop,  and  has  borne  the  title  of 
Archbishop  of  Mount  Sinai.  He  has  always  been  and  still  is 
ordained  by  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem,  and  formerly  he  obeyed 
that  patriarch's  jurisdiction.  However,  chiefly  because  of  the 
distance  of  his  monastery  from  the  Holy  City,  he  succeeded 
after  a  great  struggle  in  being  recognized  as  independent  of 
any  superior  authority.  In  1782  this  position  was  officially 
acknowledged  by  the  patriarchs  ;  and  so  the  Archbishop  of 
Sinai  rules  over  the  smallest  of  the  Orthodox  Churches,  having 
himself  no  superior  but  Christ  and  the  seven  councils.  Since, 
however,  he  is  ordained  at  Jerusalem,  and  since  the  Orthodox 
are  always  disposed  to  consider  that  the  right  of  ordaining 
involves  some  kind  of  jurisdiction,  the  Patriarchs  of  Jerusalem 
have  continually  tried  to  reassert  their  old  authority  over  him 
and  his  monastery. 

The  last  dispute  was  in  1866.  In  that  year  the  Archbishop- 
Abbot,  Cyril  Byzantios,  had  a  great  quarrel  with  his  monks. 
Unable  to  manage  them  alone  and  unwilling  to  appeal  to 
Jerusalem,  lest  that  should  seem  an  acknowledgement  of  de- 
pendence from  that  see,  he  sent  to  Constantinople  to  ask  the 
CEcumenical  Patriarch  to  help  him  keep  his  monks  in  order. 
Of  course  the  Phanar  was  delighted  to  have  an  excuse  for 
asserting  some  sort  of  authority  over  another  Church,  so  the 
Patriarch  (Sophronios  III,  1 863-1 866)  wrote  back  that  he  would 
gladly  support  his  brother  of  the  God-trodden  mountain.    Then 

1  The  legend  is  that  angels  brought  St.  Katharine's  body  from  Alexandria 
to  Mount  Sinai. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    311 

the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  (also  named  Cyril)  heard  of  what 
had  happened  and  summoned  a  synod  in  1867,  which  declared 
that  the  Great  Church  had  no  authority  to  interfere  in  anything 
that  happened  outside  its  own  patriarchate,  and  that  if  there 
was  any  trouble  on  Mount  Sinai  the  proper  person  to  put  things 
right  was  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem.  "If  we  acted  otherwise," 
declared  this  synod,  "people  would  think  that  we  tolerate  such 
anti-canonical  interference,  and  that  we  acknowledge  foreign 
and  unknown  authorities  in  the  Church  as  well  as  the  only 
lawful  and  competent  high  jurisdiction  of  the  CEcumenical 
Synods." «  Cyril  of  Jerusalem  sent  the  Acts  of  his  council  to  all 
the  other  autocephalous  Churches,  and  once  more  they  all  rose 
up  against  the  usurpation  of  the  Phanar.  He  also  deposed 
Cyril  Byzantios  for  what  he  had  done  and,  although  Sophronios 
of  Constantinople  stood  by  him,  the  feeling  against  them  both 
was  so  strong  throughout  the  Orthodox  world  that  Byzantios 
had  to  submit  to  his  deposition  and  Sophronios  had  to  resign.2 
However,  Mount  Sinai  is  recognized  as  an  independent  Church, 
and  stands  with  its  one  bishop  and  handful  of  monks  on  just 
the  same  plane  as  the  enormous  Russian  Church.  Its  arch- 
bishop lives  at  the  Sinaitic  metochion  at  Cairo  ;  he  rules  over 
only  the  monastery  and  its  fourteen  metochia,  and  his 
authority  is  very  much  limited  by  the  council  of  monks  (lepa 
(rvvatig),  who  share  the  government.3  The  present  archbishop 
is  Lord  Porphyrios  Logothetes,  who  was  formerly  the  Orthodox 
priest  in  Paris.  His  Beatitude  has  brought  from  the  land  of 
the  Latins  a  great  dislike  for  their  Church,  and  when  he  was 
consecrated  at  Jerusalem  on  October  30,  1904,  he  took  the 
opportunity  of  speaking  very  bitterly  against  Catholics,  a  pro- 
ceeding that  was  the  less  graceful  in  that  a  number  of  Catholic 
priests  had  been  invited  to  the  ceremony  and,  with  the  easy 

1  For  this  story  see  Kyriakos,  'I.E.  iii.  p.  62,  seq. 

2  Gregory  VI,  who  had  been  deposed  in  1840  and  who  had  seen  eleven 
CEcumenical  Patriarchs  succeed  him,  was  then  appointed  for  the  second  time 
(1835-1840,  1867-1871). 

3  For  the  constitution  of  the  Synaxis,  see  E.  d'Or.  viii.  p.  182.  The  diocese 
of  Pharan,  originally  joined  to  the  monastery,  no  longer  exists.  The  only 
remnant  of  the  old  jurisdiction  of  Jerusalem  is  that  the  name  of  that  patriarch 
is  mentioned  in  the  Holy  Liturgy  on  Mount  Sinai. 


312      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

tolerance  that  is  characteristic  of  the  East,  were  showing  their 
friendliness  by  a  very  respectful  attendance.1 

10.  The  Greek  Church  (1850). 

The  established  Church  of  the  modern  kingdom  of  Greece  is 
the  only  body  that  ever  describes  itself,  or  can  in  any  way 
correctly  be  described,  as  the  "  Greek  Church."  It  is  the  oldest 
of  the  national  Churches  that  in  quite  modern  times  have  been 
cut  away  from  the  Byzantine  Patriarchate,  and  it  was  born  in 
the  throes  of  one  of  the  greatest  of  the  many  domestic  quarrels 
of  the  Orthodox.  As  soon  as  there  was  any  beginning  of  a 
Greek  Government  during  the  War  of  Independence  the 
Greeks  declared  their  Church  free  from  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople.2  The  Phanar  had  so  long  identified  its  policy 
with  that  of  the  Porte  that  the  men  who  were  fighting  the 
Sultan  would  acknowledge  no  sort  of  dependence  on  the 
Patriarch.  The  first  Greek  National  Assemblies  in  1822  and 
1827  declared  that  the  Orthodox  faith  is  the  religion  of 
Greece,  and  pointedly  said  nothing  about  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch. 3  In  July,  1833,  the  Greek  Parliament  at  Nauplion 
formally  declared  the  National  Church  autocephalous,  and  set 
up  a  Holy  Directing  Synod  to  govern  it,  in  exact  imitation  of 
Russia.  The  Head  of  the  Church  of  Greece  is  Christ,  its 
governor  in  external  affairs  the  king.  The  same  Parliament 
then  proceeded  to  suppress  most  of  the  monasteries.4      In  1844 

1  The  speech  in  E.  d'Or.  viii.  p.  181,  seq.  His  Beatitude  described  these 
French  friars  (in  their  presence)  as  "locusts  that  the  Western  Powers  expel 
like  noxious  insects."  But  (as  often  happens  to  modern  Greeks)  the 
flood  of  Attic  eloquence  carried  him  away,  and  he  got  so  mixed  up  with  his 
classical  Greek  periods  that  he  talked  about  casting  one's  nets  to  fish  on  all 
sides  for — sheep  who  have  no  shepherd  !  Since  then  Lord  Porphyrios  has 
been  fishing  for  sheep  at  Cairo.  For  the  Church  of  Mount  Sinai,  see  Kyriakos, 
iii.  pp.  76-77  ;  Silbernagl,  pp.  26,  27  ;  and  the  E.  d'Or.  viii.  p.  309. 

2  It  will  be  remembered  that  Greece,  which  is  part  of  Illyricum,  originally 
belonged  to  the  Roman  Patriarchate.  It  was  Leo  the  Isaurian  who  pre- 
tended to  add  these  lands  to  Constantinople. 

3  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  155. 

4  All  those  which  had  less  than  six  monks.  There  was  some  excuse  for 
this,  as  a  number  of  monasteries  lingered  on  with  practically  no  inmates,  often 
with  one,  who  elected  himself  abbot.  But  the  civil  Government  had,  of 
course,  no  authority  to  do  so. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    313 

the  same  law  was  repeated  :  "  The  Orthodox  Church  of  Hellas 
acknowledges  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ  as  its  Head.  It  is  in- 
separably joined  in  faith  with  the  Church  of  Constantinople  and 
with  every  other  Christian  Church  of  the  same  profession,  but 
is  autocephalous,  exercises  its  sovereign  rights  independently 
of  every  other  Church,  and  is  governed  by  the  members  of  its 
Holy  Synod."  «  Copies  of  these  laws  were  duly  sent  to  Con- 
stantinople and  to  all  the  other  Orthodox  Churches.  Naturally 
the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  was  indignant  that  his  subjects  should 
so  coolly  throw  off  his  authority  without,  having  even  consulted 
him.  So  he  first  refused  to  acknowledge  the  Greek  Holy 
Synod  at  all.  Among  the  Greeks,  too,  a  large  party  resented 
the  whole  uncanonical  proceeding. 

In  1849  the  Greek  Government,  anxious  to  get  the  Patriarch's 
consent  to  what  it  had  done,  sent  him  the  Order  of  St.  Saviour 
that  it  had  just  founded,  and  a  friendly  message  from  the 
"  Church  of  Hellas."  The  Patriarch  (Anthimos  IV,  1840-1841, 
1848-1852)  took  the  Order,  and  then  said  he  knew  nothing  about 
a  Church  of  Hellas.  However,  Russia  and  the  other  Orthodox 
Churches,  always  willing  to  humble  the  Phanar,  acknowledged 
this  new  sister  and  insisted  on  his  doing  so  too.  So  in  1850 
Anthimos  held  a  synod  which  published  the  famous  Tomos 
(decree).  The  Tomos  did  recognize  the  Greek  Church  as  auto- 
cephalous, but,  still  anxious  to  assert  some  sort  of  authority  over 
it,  prescribed  the  way  in  which  it  must  be  constituted.  It 
especially  forbade  any  interference  of  the  State  in  Church  affairs 
and  added  an  amusing  tirade  against  Erastianism.2  It  also  in- 
sisted that  the  Patriarch  should  be  named  in  the  Holy  Liturgy 
throughout  Greece,  that  the  Holy  Chrism  should  be  sent  from 
Constantinople,  and  that  the  synod  should  submit  all  important 
questions  to  the  Patriarch.3  This  Tomos  excited  great  indigna- 
tion among  the  nationalist  Greek  party.  They  had  determined 
to  have  nothing  more  to  do  with  the  Phanar  at  all.     Theoklitos 

1  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  160. 

2  One  wonders  what  would  happen  if  the  Phanar  ever  dared  to  talk  like 
this  to  the  Church  of  Russia. 

3  This  is  just  the  case  of  the  causce  maiores  that  among  Catholics  have  to 
go  to  Rome.  It  is  very  curious  how  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch  always  tries 
(though  quite  futilely)  to  be  a  Pope. 


314      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Pharmakides,  their  chief  leader,  wrote  an  angry  refutation  : 
"  The  Synodical  Tomos,  or  concerning  Truth,"  1  and  the  only 
suggestions  they  would  accept  from  the  Tomos  were  that  the 
Metropolitan  of  Athens  should  be  ex-officio  president  of  the 
Holy  Synod,  and  that  the  chrism  should  be  supplied  by  the 
Patriarch.  After  a  great  deal  more  quarrelling,  at  last  the 
Phanar  had  to  submit  and  to  acknowledge  one  more  sister  in 
Christ,  the  Greek  Holy  Synod.  Since  then  there  has  been  no 
more  question  about  the  autonomy  of  the  Church  of  Hellas,  and 
in  face  of  the  common  Slav  danger,  the  Free  Greeks  and  the 
Phanar  have  now  forgotten  their  differences  and  have  become 
firm  allies.  Since  its  original  constitution  the  Greek  Church  has 
received  two  additions.  In  1866  England  ceded  the  Ionian 
Isles  to  Greece,  and  at  once  the  Greek  Government  separated  the 
dioceses  of  those  islands  from  the  Patriarchate  and  joined  them 
to  its  own  Church.  Again  the  Phanar  protested,  and  there  was 
a  rather  angry  correspondence  between  Constantinople  and 
Athens,  but  by  now  the  principle  that  political  independence 
and  political  union  must  be  exactly  reflected  in  the  Church  was 
becoming  more  and  more  openly  recognized  by  the  Orthodox. 
So  this  union  was  made  without  much  trouble.  In  1881  Thessaly 
and  part  of  Epirus  were  added  to  Greece,  and  again  the  ten 
dioceses  of  these  lands  were  joined  to  the  Greek  Church.  This 
time  the  Phanar  did  not  even  protest.  The  Church  of  Hellas 
has  now  thirty-two  sees,  of  which  the  first  is  that  of  Athens.  At 
present  in  Greece,  as  in  most  Orthodox  lands,  the  majority  of 
these  bishops  bear  the  quite  meaningless  title  of  Metropolitan, 
but  the  Holy  Synod  has  decreed  that  as  the  present  metropoli- 
tans die  their  successors  shall  be  called  simply  Bishops,  and  that 
the  only  see  with  the  Metropolitan  title  in  future  shall  be  Athens. 
There  are  to  be  no  provinces  nor  graduated  jurisdiction,  all 
bishops  shall  be  immediately  and  equally  subject  to  the  Holy 
Synod.  Of  that  synod  my  Lord  of  Athens  is  president,  four  other 
bishops  are  chosen  by  rote  to  be  members  for  one  year,  the 
Royal  Commissioner  must  be  present  at  every  session,  and 
without  his  signature  no  decree  is  valid.  The  Greek  Holy 
Synod,  then,  is  an  exact  copy  of  the  Russian  one,  and  under  it 
1  6  avvoSucbg  rofiog,  rj  Trepl  aXtjOUag,  Athens,  1852. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    315 

the  Greek  Church  is  just  as  Erastian  as  the  Church  of  Russia, 
with,  however,  this  exception,  that,  instead  of  being  at  the 
mercy  of  an  autocrat,  it  has  to  submit  to  the  even  worse  rule 
of  a  Balkan  Parliament.1  In  spite  of  this,  however,  the  little 
Greek  Church  is  as  orderly  and  well  organized  as  any  of  the 
Orthodox  Communion.  Its  bishops  and  clergy  are  reasonably 
well  paid  by  the  State,  so  they  have  not  the  disadvantage  of 
grinding  poverty,  and  the  University  of  Athens  has  a  theological 
faculty  quite  well  equipped  for  their  education.  The  two  most 
important  theologians  of  this  Church  have  been  Theoklitos 
Pharmakides  (f  i860),  who  was  the  leader  of  the  Liberal  school, 
friendly  to  Protestants,  anxious  for  practical  reforms  in  the 
Church,  for  free  discussion  and  higher  Bible  criticism,  advoca- 
ting more  education  and  fewer  monks,2  and  his  opponent 
Oikonomos  (f  1857),  who  had  been  educated  in  Russia  and  the 
East  and  was  a  rigid  Conservative,  valuing  the  Septuagint 
above  new  translations  from  the  Hebrew,  more  diligent  in  the 
study  of  the  Fathers  of  the  Church  than  curious  about  the 
Tubingen  theories,  rather  fearful  of  losing  the  old  Orthodox 
faith  than  anxious  for  new  reforms.  He  was  also  a  famous 
orator  and  preached  the  sermon  over  the  body  of  the  martyr- 
Patriarch  Gregory  V  at  Odessa  (p.  341),  that  is  by  far  the  finest 
piece  of  modern  Greek  oratory.  But  he  thought  that  the 
Septuagint  is  inspired,  and  believed  in  Pseudo-Dionysius.  The 
Greek  Church  has  vindicated  its  right  as  a  living  Christian  body 
by  producing  a  fair  proportion  of  heretics.  Theophilos  Kaires 
(Katprjg),  a  priest,  left  the  Orthodox  Church  and  founded  a  new 
religion  which  he  called  "  God-worship "  (Oeorrefiaofiog),  and 
which  is  a  sort  of  Deism  on  the  lines  of  the  Encyclopaedists, 
varied  by  the  fact  that  its  prayers  are  said  in  Doric  Greek.  He 
was  excommunicated,  of  course,  and  considerably  persecuted 
till  he  died  in  prison  in  1853.     Laskaratos  founded  a  form  of 

1  Diomedes  Kyriakos  is  very  much  concerned  to  deny  the  Erastian 
character  of  his  Church  (iii.  pp.  155-156  ;  he  is  professor  of  Church  History  at 
the  University  of  Athens).  The  laws  under  which  the  Greek  Holy  Synod 
acts  show  how  hopeless  his  defence  is  ;  see,  for  instance,  Silbernagl,  pp.  67-71. 

2  Pharmakides  was  one  of  the  many  Greeks  who  studied  at  the  German 
universities  and  brought  back  many  German  ideas  to  Greece  with  them. 
And  of  such  is  M.  Kyriakos  himself. 


316      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Presbyterian  Protestantism  ;  Papadramantopoulos  a  Positivist 
sect ;  Plato  Drakulis  revived  the  wildest  Gnostic  theories.  At 
present  the  enormous  influence  of  Western,  and  especially 
French,  ideas,  which  accompanies  the  feverish  anxiety  of  the 
Greeks  to  be  a  European  people,  produces,  besides  most  quarrel- 
some politics  and  a  vast  debt,  a  strong  tendency  towards  free- 
thinking  and  scorn  of  their  Church  among  the  young  men  who 
dress  in  French  clothes  and  smoke  very  bad  cigarettes  in  the 
cafes  at  Athens.1 


ii.  The  Church  of  Hermannstadt  (1864). 

This  is  the  Church  of  the  Roumans  or  Vlachs  in  Hungary. 
There  are  a  great  number  of  Vlachs  in  Transylvania,  of  whom 
most  are  Orthodox.  Originally,  the  Metropolitan  of  Carlovitz 
was  the  head  of  all  the  Orthodox  in  the  Dual  Monarchy.  But 
the  inevitable  racial  hatreds  of  these  peoples  led  to  quarrels  in 
Hungary,  as  everywhere,  and  at  last  the  Government,  always 
anxious  to  do  well  to  all  its  subjects,  granted  the  petition  of 
these  Vlachs  to  be  made  into  a  separate  autonomous  Church. 
In  1864  the  Metropolitan  of  Hermannstadt  (Nagy-Szeben)  in 
Southern  Transylvania,  was  made  the  head  of  the  Orthodox 
Roumanian  Church  in  Hungary,  and  was  given  two  suffragan 
sees.2  His  jurisdiction  extends  over  sixty-two  protopresbyteries 
(unions  of  parishes  like  our  deaneries)  and  one  monastery,  in 
various  parts  of  Eastern  and  Southern  Hungary. 


12.  The  Bulgarian  Exarchate  (1870). 

The  question  of  the  Bulgarian  Church,  still  in  schism,  is  by 
far  the  greatest  of  all  to  the  Orthodox.     We  have  seen  that  the 

1  For  the  Greek  Church  see  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  150-201 ;  Silbernagl,  pp.  66-76, 
and  the  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  285-294. 

2  Arad  (N.  of  Temesvar)  and  Karansebes  (S.E.  of  Temesvar).  These  three 
bishops  are  also  generously  paid  by  the  Government  (Hermannstadt,  25,000  fl., 
the  others,  10,000  fl.),  form  a  congress  for  their  ecclesiastical  affairs,  and  sit  in 
the  House  of  Lords.  As  they  have  the  good  fortune  to  be  under  a  Catholic 
Government,  there  is  no  Holy  Synod  as  an  instrument  of  civil  oppression, 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX   CHURCH    317 

foundation  of  this  Church  was  one  of  the  chief  causes  of  dispute 
between  Rome  and  Constantinople  at  the  time  of  Photius 
(p.  151).  Eventually,  Constantinople,  helped  by  the  Emperors, 
succeeded  in  joining  the  Bulgars  to  her  own  patriarchate,  send- 
ing them  the  Holy  Chrism,  and  making  them  use  her  liturgy. 
Since  then  the  Bulgars  have  always  belonged  to  the  Eastern 
half  of  Christendom.  In  spite  of  the  old  rights  of  Rome  over 
Illyricum,  no  one  has  thought  of  making  them  Latins.  But 
they  did  not  remain  obedient  children  of  Constantinople  either. 
From  the  9th  to  the  nth  centuries  the  Bulgars  also  managed  to 
set  up  a  great  independent  kingdom.1  In  this  kingdom  was  an 
independent  Church,  which  both  the  Pope  and  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch  recognized.2  Its  head,  the  Bulgarian  Primate,  reigned 
first  at  Preslau  (Prjeslau,  now  in  Bulgaria,  between  Tirnovo  and 
Varna),  and  then,  when  the  Emperor  had  conquered  that  city 
back  (c.  970),  at  Achrida  (now  Ochrida),  in  Macedonia.  When 
Basil  II  had  destroyed  the  Bulgarian  kingdom,  he  allowed  the 
Church  of  Achrida  to  go  on,  but  he  brought  it  into  some  sort  of 
submission  to  the  Patriarch.  The  election  of  the  Bulgarian 
Primate  had  to  be  confirmed  at  Constantinople.  After  the 
Turkish  conquest  the  Church  of  Achrida  met  the  same  fate  as 
that  of  Ipek.  The  Phanar  persuaded  the  Porte  that  the  best 
way  of  keeping  the  Bulgars  in  submission  was  to  destroy  any 
sort  of  Bulgarian  organization  ;  so,  in  1767,  the  Church  of 
Achrida  was  entirely  suppressed,  all  Bulgars  were  made  mem- 
bers of  the  Roman  nation  under  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch, 
just  like  Greeks,  Serbs,  and  Vlachs.  From  that  time  began 
the  persecution  of  which  the  Bulgars  so  bitterly  complained. 
Of  all  the  rivalries  between  the  Balkan  Christians,  that  between 
the  Greeks  and  the  Bulgars  has  always  been  by  far  the  most 
bitter.    The  Greeks  hate  a  Serb,  a  Vlach,  an  Albanian — any  one 

1  Its  greatest  extent  was  from  the  Danube  to  Epirus,  and  from  the  Black 
Sea  above  Thrace  to  the  Adriatic.  Simeon,  the  Bulgarian  King  (923-934), 
was  their  chief  conqueror,  the  Emperor  Basil  II,  the  Bulgar-slayer  (991-1022), 
their  destroyer.  This  Bulgarian  kingdom  covered  much  of  the  same  land  as 
the  later  Servian  kingdom  (p.  306).  See  Freeman's  Historical  Geography  (ed. 
Bury,  1903),  p.  376,  seq.,  and  map  xxxiv. 

2  King  Simeon  asked  the  Pope  to  make  his  chief  bishop  an  extra-patriarchal 
primate.    Pope  Formosus  (891-896)  did  so. 


318      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

who  has  a  nationality  to  oppose  to  their  dream  of  a  great  Hellas 
covering  all  the  Balkan  peninsula,  but  they  hate  a  Bulgar  far 
the  most  of  all.  The  Bulgars  are  the  most  numerous,  active 
and  generally  dangerous  of  their  rivals.  During  the  horrors  of 
the  insurrection  of  1903  any  sort  of  sympathy  for  the  unhappy 
Bulgarian  insurgents  on  the  part  of  a  European  State  was  met 
by  shrieks  of  indignation  at  Athens  against  such  Philobulgarism.1 
Until  1870,  the  Phanariot  Greeks  then  systematically  ignored 
the  Bulgars.  They  appointed  Greek  bishops  for  every  diocese, 
including  Ochrida,  which  had  become  an  ordinary  metropolis  ; 
they  allowed  only  Greek  as  a  liturgical  language ;  the  very  name 
Bulgar  was  proscribed  and  almost  forgotten.2  At  last,  in  i860, 
the  Bulgars  determined  to  bear  the  treatment  of  the  Phanar  no 
longer.  As  with  all  the  Balkan  Rayahs,  the  only  real  issue  was 
the  political  one  :  they  wanted  to  be  a  people,  and  the  only  way 
to  be  a  people  under  the  Turk  was  to  have  a  national  Church,  a 
millet,  in  fact.  The  vital  thing  was  to  have  nothing  more  to  do 
with  the  Phanar.  At  first  they  thought  of  joining  the  Catholic 
Church.  They  applied  to  the  Uniate  Armenian  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople,  and  were  assured  by  him  that  the  Holy  See 
would  allow  them  to  be  a  Uniate  Church,  keeping  their  own 
Canon  Law,  and  using  the  Byzantine  liturgy  in  their  own  tongue. 
Napoleon  III  was  to  be  their  patron  and  defender.  A  large 
number  of  them  then  abjured  schism,  and  a  certain  Archiman- 
drite Sokolski  was  consecrated  Archbishop  of  the  Bulgars  by 
Pius  IX  himself  in  186 1.  It  was  Russia  who  put  a  stop  to  this 
movement.  Catholicism  in  the  Balkans  would  not  suit  her  plans 
at  all.  So  the  Russian  Government  tried  very  hard  to  persuade 
the  Phanar  to  allow  a  national  Orthodox  Bulgarian  Church  to 

1  During  all  that  time  there  were  endless  examples  of  this  race-hatred. 
Here  is  one  that  made  some  noise  at  the  time.  In  August,  1903,  two  Greeks 
treacherously  betrayed  the  Bulgarian  leader,  Thomas  Saef,  with  ninety-eight 
men  into  the  hands  of  a  whole  regiment  of  Turks.  The  Bulgars  were  all 
killed.  Afterwards  the  Bulgars  caught  the  two  Greeks,  and  the  Revolutionary 
Committee  sentenced  them  to  be  slowly  cut  in  small  pieces  in  the  market- 
places of  two  towns.    This  was  done  in  September. 

2  Voltaire,  in  Candide,  wrote  of  an  imaginary  "  Bulgarian  "  army  that  did 
"  Bulgarian  "  exercises  as  one  would  write  of  fairyland  or  the  Utopians.  He 
had  no  idea  that  there  was  a  real  Bulgaria.  See  Brailsford,  Macedonia, 
p.  100. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    319 

be  formed.  As  the  Phanar  would  not  hear  of  such  a  thing,  the 
Russians  then  turned  to  the  Porte,  and  made  it  set  up  a  new 
millet — the  Orthodox  Bulgarian  nation.  Since  the  Sultan  had 
agreed,  it  did  not  matter  in  the  least  what  the  Patriarch  did,  so 
the  millet  was  duly  constituted,  and  the  Bulgarian  Church  was 
born.  To  stop  the  Catholic  movement  the  Russians  then  kid- 
napped Sokolski,  and  shut  him  up  in  Kiev  till  he  apostatized 
and  turned  Orthodox  again.1  Religious  motives  count  for 
nothing  in  this  story,2  the  only  thing  the  Bulgars  wanted  was 
to  be  a  nation,  and  as  soon  as  they  found  they  could  be  one 
without  the  Pope,  they  gave  up  the  idea  of  being  Catholic.3 
What  has  made  this  quarrel  specially  bitter  is  that  the  Bulgars 
are  not  content  with  a  local  autocephalous  Church  covering  a 
certain  area.  That  is  bad  enough,  but  the  Phanar  has  so  often 
had  to  accept  such  an  arrangement  that  it  would  without  doubt 
have  done  so  in  this  case,  too.  But  the  Bulgars  have  taken 
more  than  that.  Like  the  Armenians,  they  want  all  their  people 
to  belong  to  their  Church  wherever  they  may  live  ;  and  so  they 
measure  the  jurisdiction  of  their  hierarchy,  not  by  area,  but  by 
nationality  and  language.  As  head  of  their  Church  they 
set  up  a  bishop  with  the  title  of  Exarch  in  Constantinople,  and 
he  and  his  suffragans,  with  the  consent  of  the  Porte,  have  juris- 
diction over  Bulgars  all  over  Turkey.  This  the  Phanar  cannot 
forgive.  In  1872,  Anthimos  VI  of  Constantinople  ♦  held  a  great 
synod,  in  which  he  excommunicated  the  Bulgarian  Exarch  and 
all  his  followers,  and  declared  them  guilty,  not  only  of  schism, 
but  of  the  new  heresy  of  Philetism,  which  means  national  feel- 
ing in  Church  matters.  The  Acts  of  this  synod  were  signed 
by  Anthimos,  by  the  four  ex- Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  who 
were  then  waiting  for  a  chance  of  re-election,  by  the  other 
Patriarchs,  except  Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  who  dared  not  offend  the 

1  E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  36.  There  is  no  doubt  about  the  kidnapping.  See  Brails- 
ford,  Macedonia,  p.  73. 

2  How  little  religion  matters  is  shown  by  the  fact  that  when,  in  1903,  they 
found  that  Russia  would  not  help  them,  they  all  wanted  to  turn  Catholic  or 
Protestant,  to  get  the  sympathy  of  either  Austria  or  England.  Brailsford, 
o.c.  p.  74. 

3  There  is,  however,  still  a  small  Uniate  Bulgarian  Church. 

4  1845-1848,  restored  1853-1855,  and  again  1871-1873. 


320      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Russians  by  signing  (p.  288),  and  by  twenty-five  metropolitans 
and  bishops.  It  has  never  been  repealed,  and  so  the  Bulgars 
are  still  in  open  schism  with  Constantinople.  In  1878  the 
Berlin  Congress  established  the  almost  independent  Princi- 
pality of  Bulgaria.  In  the  other  cases  (Servia  and  Roumania), 
as  we  shall  see,  the  Balkan  States  have  at  once  set  up  an  auto- 
cephalous  Church  to  cover  their  territory.  In  this  case  it  was 
not  necessary,  as  the  Exarchate  already  existed.  So  the  Ortho- 
dox Church  in  communion,  not  with  the  Greek  Patriarch  but 
with  the  Bulgarian  Exarch,  was  declared  the  State  religion  of 
the  new  principality;  and  when,  in  1885,  Eastern  Roumelia  was 
added  to  Bulgaria,  the  Exarchate  was  established  there,  too. 
But  it  is  still  not  shut  in  by  the  Bulgarian  State.  The  Exarch 
lives  at  Constantinople,  and  rules,  not  only  over  the  Church  of 
the  principality,  but  over  his  communion  throughout  Macedonia 
and  Thrace  as  well.  The  first  Exarch  was  one  Anthimos,  his 
successor  now  is  Lord  Joseph.1  In  the  principality  there  is  the 
usual  Holy  Synod,  sitting  at  Sofia.  As  the  Exarch  lives  at  Con- 
stantinople, he  appoints  one  of  the  bishops  (at  present  Lord 
Gregory  of  Rustsuk)  to  be  his  vicar  and  representative.  In 
the  principality  are  eleven  sees ;  in  Macedonia  and  Thrace 
the  Bulgars  have  set  up  twenty-one  sees,  nearly  all  of  which 
are  rivals  of  Greek  dioceses  in  the  same  towns.  So  throughout 
Turkey  the  Orthodox  are  now  divided  into  two  rival  com- 
munions :  the  Patriarchists,  who  stand  by  the  Patriarch  of 
Constantinople — that  is,  all  the  Greeks,  most  Roumans  and 
Albanians  (as  far  as  they  are  Orthodox),2  and  a  few  Bulgars  who 

1  Professor  Gelzer  publishes  an  interesting  account  of  his  interview  with 
the  Exarch  Joseph  in  his  Geistliches  u.  Weltliches,  p.  Ill,  seq.  See  also  his 
very  clear  and  temperate  account  of  the  whole  quarrel  (ibid.). 

2  The  Albanians  are  the  only  Balkan  people  whose  national  feeling  is  con- 
fused by  no  theological  side  issue.  They  call  themselves  Skipetars  (the  Greeks 
call  them  'A\/3aviroi),  and  consist  of  two  great  tribes,  the  Gega  in  the  north, 
and  the  Toska  in  the  south.  They  speak  a  very  interesting  Aryan  language, 
which  they  try  to  express  sometimes  in  Greek  and  sometimes  in  Latin  letters 
(there  is  now  a  great  movement  in  favour  of  their  language  throughout 
Albania,  a  newspaper  is  printed  in  it  in  Italy,  and  there  is  a  chair  of  Albanian 
at  Vienna).  As  regards  religion,  most  of  them  are  Moslems,  who,  however, 
still  keep  many  Christian  customs  ;  there  are  some  Orthodox  (Patriarchists), 
and,  in  the  north,  very  many  Catholics,  taught  and  cared  for  by  heroic  Fran- 


CONSTITUTION   OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    321 

have  been  frightened  by  the  excommunication  of  1872  ;  and,  on 
the  other  hand,  the  Exarchists — that  is,  nearly  all  the  Bulgars 
and  some  Roumans.  These  two  Churches  hold  exactly  the 
same  faith,  and  use  the  same  rites,  the  Patriarchists  in  Greek 
and  the  Exarchists  in  Bulgarian,  but  their  mutual  hatred  is  the 
salient  feature  of  Church  politics  in  Turkey.  The  Bulgars  are 
always  trying  to  spread  their  Church  among  their  countrymen 
everywhere,1  and  the  cause  of  the  revolutionary  committees  in 
Macedonia  is  practically  identified  with  that  of  the  Exarchate. 
The  Greeks,  who  always  dream  of  their  M  great  idea  " — that  is, 
of  a  Hellas  that  shall  cover  the  Balkans,  and  have  its  capital  at 
Constantinople — hate  the  Bulgarian  movement  more  than  any- 
thing in  the  world  ;  they  hate  the  Exarchist  schismatic  and  the 
revolutionary  committees  so  much  that,  pending  the  realization 
of  the  great  idea,  they  always  side  with  the  Turkish  soldiers  in 
hunting  down  the  insurgents.2  The  schism  has  caused  immense 
annoyance  to  the  Phanar.  Five  Patriarchs  have  already  re- 
signed explicitly  because  of  this  trouble.3  In  1890,  when  the 
Sultan  gave  his  firman  for  the  erection  of  two  more  Exarchist 
sees  (Ochrida  and  Skopia),  the  Phanar  declared  the  Orthodox 
Church  to  be  in  a  state  of  persecution,  and  proclaimed  an  inter- 
dict from  October  4th  till  December  25th.  As  the  people  then 
foresaw  that   they  would  have  no  liturgy  even  on  Christmas 

ciscan  missionaries  and  Sisters  of  Charity.  And  they  all  unite  in  reverencing 
their  two  great  national  heroes,  ithe  Catholic  George  Alexander  Castriot 
(Scanderbeg,  i.e.,  Alexander  =  Iskandir  Bey),  and  the  Moslem  Ali  Pasha  of 
Janina.  Cf.  Gelzer,  Vom  Heiligen  Berg,  u.s.w.,  "  Im  Lande  der  Toska," 
pp.  182-225,  and  Brailsford,  Macedonia,  chap,  viii.,  "The  Albanians,"  pp.  221- 
289,  where  he  has  much  to  say  about  the  civilizing  influence  of  the  friars  and 
nuns.  Both  Austria  and  Italy  have  designs  on  Albania ;  but  of  all  Balkan 
races  they  most  deserve  independence  and  autonomy. 

1  In  Bulgaria  are  about  three  and  a  half  million  Exarchists,  in  Macedonia 
about  eighty-eight  thousand  families  as  against  twenty-one  thousand  Patri- 
archist  families.  E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  no;  Gelzer,  Geistl.  u.  Welti,  p.  125,  and 
Brancoff,  La  Macedoine,  for  tables  of  statistics  and  maps. 

2  In  Brailsford,  Macedonia,  p.  193,  is  a  photograph  of  the  Patriarchist  Bishop 
of  Kastoria  gracing  a  review  of  Turkish  soldiers.  His  Beatitude  stands 
blandly  and  quite  shamelessly  side  by  side  with  the  Kaimakam  and  the  ruffians 
who  are  going  to  hunt  down,  shoot,  and  torture  the  Christian  patriots. 

3  Anthimos  VI  in  1873,  Joachim  II  in  1883,  Dionysios  V  in  1891,  Neo- 
phytos  VIII  in  1894,  and  Anthimos  VII  in  1897.     See  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  46-47. 

22 


322      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Day,  they  became  so  excited  that  the  Phanar  was  frightened, 
and  removed  the  interdict ;  but  the  two  Exarchist  sees  were 
founded  and  still  exist.  In  August,  1903,  the  Patriarchist 
bishops  wailed  aloud,  and  sent  round  to  the  Ambassadors  of 
the  Great  Powers  a  memorandum  in  French  against  the 
"aggressions  of  the  schismatical  Bulgarian  Exarchate."1  The 
most  absurd  part  of  the  situation  is  that  the  great  Russian 
Church,  which  from  the  beginning  has  been  the  warm  friend 
and  protector  of  the  Exarchists,  is  in  communion  with  both 
sides.  The  Phanar  dares  not  excommunicate  all  Russia,  of 
course,  but  in  the  long  list  of  its  grievances  against  that  country, 
one  of  the  chief  is  the  Russian  patronage  of  the  Bulgarian 
schism.  It  is  true  that  the  Synod  of  1872  declared  schismatic 
and  excommunicated  every  one  who  should  aid,  abet,  or 
acknowledge  the  Exarchate,  but,  except  a  few  very  ardent 
Greeks,  no  one  has  dared  apply  that  law  to  the  obvious  case  of 
Russia.  Meanwhile,  the  Exarchists  get  their  Holy  Chrism  from 
Petersburg,  and  the  Russians  hold  open  communion  with  the 
excommunicate.  Occasionally  a  very  public  case  raises  a  storm 
of  angry  protest  from  the  Greek  papers,  but  no  one  takes  any 
notice  of  it.2  To  the  furious  accusations  of  the  Phanar  the 
Bulgars  answer  in  a  language  that  is  common  to  all  schismatics : 
they  are  not  schismatics  at  all,  but  a  national  branch  of  the 
Church  Catholic,  using  their  sacred  right  to  manage  their  own 

1  The  text  in  E.  d'Or.  vi.  pp.  408-410.  Its  language  against  the  "  apostles 
of  Panslavism  "  is  extraordinarily  violent :  "  Ces  fureurs  et  ces  brutalites," 
"  cette  persecution  inexorable  contre  les  habitants  grecs  orthodoxes,"  &c.  On 
the  other  hand,  "  Heureux  de  nous  sentir  guides  par  la  main  paternelle  de 
notre  auguste  souverain  le  sultan  Abdul  Hamid,  nous  souhaitons  ardemment 
a  ces  provinces  si  eprouvees  le  prompte  retablissement  du  regime  de  l'ordre," 
&c.  Only  a  Phanariot  Greek  can  grovel  like  this.  "  La  Macedoine  n'est  pas 
slave,"  say  these  bishops,  which  is  a  categorical  falsehood.  They  estimate  the 
Turkish  and  Greek  population  at  three-quarters  of  the  whole  ! 

2  For  instance,  the  'EWrjvHTfiog  (an  Athenian  paper)  of  November  15,  1902, 
published  a  furious  protest  against  an  atrocity  that  had  lately  been  perpetrated 
at  Sipka,  in  Eastern  Roumelia.  The  atrocity  was  that  three  Russians — Alex- 
ander Zelobovski,  the  head  chaplain  of  the  Russian  forces,  John  Philosophov, 
and  Alexis  Mestcherski,  both  Protopopes  at  Petersburg — had  publicly  con- 
celebrated  with  Methodius,  the  Exarchist  Metropolitan  of  Stara-Zagora,  in 
open  defiance  of  Photios,  Patriarchist  Metropolitan  of  Philippopolis,  in  whose 
diocese  Sipka  lies.    The  Russian  Holy  Synod  had  sent  them  officially  to  do  so. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    323 

affairs  in  their  own  way.  They  have  never  excommunicated 
the  Patriarchists  :  on  the  contrary,  they  are  ready  at  any  moment 
to  restore  intercommunion  with  them  (of  course,  on  their  own 
terms).  It  is  not  their  fault  that  they  are  so  monstrously  perse- 
cuted, but  they  cannot  and  will  not  stand  the  sort  of  treatment 
they  received  before  1870.  They  wring  their  hands  at  these 
unhappy  feuds,  but  it  is  some  comfort  to  know  that  they  are  not 
their  fault.  As  far  as  one  can  foresee  the  future,  however,  it 
seems  certain  that  eventually  the  Phanar  will  have  to  give  in  in 
this  case,  as  it  has  had  to  in  all  the  others.1 

13.  The  Church  of  Czernovitz  (1873). 

This  is  the  communion  of  the  Orthodox  Ruthenians  and  all 
other  Orthodox  in  Austria.  In  1775  Bukovina  was  added  to  the 
Austrian  House-lands.  The  Orthodox  Bishop  of  this  country 
sat  at  Radautz  ;  in  1781  he  moved  his  throne  to  Czernovitz,  the 
civil  capital,  but  still  kept  the  title  Metropolitan  of  Radautz. 
For  a  time  this  bishop,  like  all  the  Orthodox  in  the  Monarchy, 
was  subject  to  the  See  of  Carlovitz.  But  in  1873,  as  Part  °f  tne 
general  administrative  reforms  that  more  exactly  divided 
Austria  and  her  tributary  States  (Cisleitanien)  from  the  Hun- 
garian half  (Transleitanien),  and  also  because  since  the 
separation  of  Hermannstadt  the  Church  of  Carlovitz  had 
become  a  purely  Servian  Communion,  the  Government  agreed 
to  join  all  the  Orthodox  in  Cisleitanien  in  a  separate  and 
independent  body.  The  head  of  this  body  (under  Christ  and 
the  seven  councils)  is  the  Metropolitan  of  Czernovitz  in 
Bukovina,  and  under  him  the  two  Dalmatian  Bishops  of  Zara 
and    Cattaro.2      Under    this    hierarchy   stands   the   Orthodox 

1  For  the  story  of  the  Bulgarian  schism  see,  besides  Gelzer,  o.c,  Silbernagl, 
pp.  85-93,  and  E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  275,  vi.  pp.  141,  328,  408,  vii.  p.  no.  Kyriakos 
(iii.  pp.  42-49),  being  a  Greek,  of  course,  makes  out  a  case  against  the 
Bulgars,  but  he  is  not  intemperate,  and  it  is  interesting  to  see  his  side,  too. 

2  It  was  a  strange  chance  that  joined  these  two  Servian  dioceses  to  what 
is  almost  a  Roumanian  See  at  the  extreme  other  end  of  Austria.  The  reason 
was  simply  that  there  are  so  few  Orthodox  in  the  Austrian  half  that  it  was  not 
worth  while  making  two  independent  Churches  for  them.  Practically  it 
would  have  been  more  reasonable  to  join  these  sees  to  Carlovitz,  but  that 
is  in  the  Hungarian  half.  For  the  Orthodox  in  Dalmatia  see  E.  d'Or.  v. 
pp.  362-375. 


324      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Church  and  parish  of  the  Holy  Trinity  at  Vienna,  and  all  the 
Orthodox  in  Vienna  who  are  neither  Turkish  subjects  nor  Slavs 
belong  to  this  parish.  The  one  Orthodox  parish  in  Trieste  also 
forms  part  of  this  Church.  The  three  bishops  form  a  Congress 
of  which  my  Lord  of  Czernovitz  is  president.  They  are  paid 
by  the  Government  out  of  funds  amounting  to  fifteen  million 
florins,  and  they  sit  in  the  House  of  Lords  at  Vienna.  The 
Church  of  Czernovitz  counts  about  five  hundred  and  eighty-four 
thousand  of  the  faithful,  divided  into  three  hundred  and  thirty- 
nine  parishes  which  are  organized  in  twenty-one  proto- 
presbyteries  (deaneries)  ;  it  has  three  monasteries  in  Bukovina, 
and  eleven  in  Dalmatia.1  Its  autocephalous  character  is,  of 
course,  recognized  and  accepted  by  all  the  other  Orthodox 
bodies.  The  original  movement  for  separation  from  Carlovitz 
was  a  Vlach  one  ;  but  only  about  half  the  members  of  this 
Church  are  Vlachs  and  half  Slavs  i (chiefly  Serbs).  There  is 
now  a  party  of  the  Slavs  who  accuse  the  Vlachs  of  keeping  all 
the  emoluments  for  themselves,  of  not  allowing  the  Servian 
language  its  due  place  in  the  liturgy ; 2  in  short,  of  trying  to 
Roumanize  the  whole  body.3  On  the  strength  of  these  com- 
plaints they  want  to  divide  this  little  Church  further  into  two 
independent  communions,  one  for  the  Vlachs  and  one  for  the 
Slavs.  The  Government  has  not  as  yet  shown  much  sympathy 
with  this  plan  (which  the  Vlachs  strongly  oppose),  and,  indeed, 
if  one  were  to  grant  all  their  wishes,  there  would  be  no  end  to 

1  According    to    the    official    Austrian    Schematismus   the    exact    figures 


are: — 

Parishes. 

Protopresbyteries. 

Orthodox  Population. 

Czernovitz  ... 

Zara     

Cattaro 

242 
54 

43 

339 

12 
5 
4 

21 

478,118 
76,866 
28,722 

583,706 

2  Theoretically  the  liturgy  is  to  be  said  either  in  Roumanian  or  Servian 
according  to  the  language  most  used  in  each  parish.  Really  it  depends 
rather  on  what  language  the  priest  prefers. 

3  The  present  Metropolitan  of  Czernovitz  (Vladimir),  a  Vlach,  is  accused  of 
this  policy. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    325 

the  disintegrating  influence  of  Orthodox  jealousies,  till   each 
diocese  became  an  autocephalous  Church.1 


14.  The  Church  of  Servia  (1879). 

We  have  already  seen  that  there  was  once  a  great  inde- 
pendent Servian  Church,  of  which  the  centre  was  Ipek, 
and  that  it  was  destroyed  by  the  unholy  alliance  of  the 
Porte  and  the  Phanar  (p.  307).  In  1810  a  part  of  the  lands 
occupied  by  Serbs  became  independent  under  the  famous 
Black  George  (Kara  Georg).  The  free  Serbs  at  once  broke 
away  from  Constantinople  (which  had  carried  out  its  un- 
changing policy  of  trying  to  Hellenize  them  by  sending  them 
Greek  bishops  and  allowing  only  Greek  as  the  liturgical 
language),  and  put  themselves  under  the  jurisdiction  of  Carlo- 
vitz.  In  1830  Prince  Milos  Obrenovitch  set  up  an  independent 
metropolitan  at  Belgrade  with  three  suffragans.  At  first  the 
Phanar  was  allowed  the  right  of  confirming  their  election, 
but  in  1879,  as  a  result  of  the  greater  territory  given  to 
Servia  by  the  Berlin  Congress,  the  Church  of  the  land  was 
declared  entirely  autocephalous.  This  time  the  Phanar,  taught 
by  the  Bulgarian  trouble,  then  at  its  height,  made  no  difficulty 
at  all.  The  hierarchy  of  the  Servian  Church  consists  of  the 
Metropolitan  of  Belgrade,  who  is  Primate,  and  four  other 
bishops.2  They  unite  to  form  a  Holy  Synod  on  the  Russian 
model.  There  are  forty-four  monasteries  in  Servia,  and  one 
Servian  monastery  at  Moscow  is  allowed  by  the  Russian 
Government  to  send  money  to  Belgrade  and  to  acknowledge 
some  sort  of  dependence  from  that  metropolitans  On  the 
whole  the  relations  between  the  established  Church  of  Servia 
and  the  Phanar  have  been  friendly.  But  there  are  Serbs  in 
Macedonia  who  have  had  just  the  same  complaint  against  the 

1  For  Czernovitz  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  207-214  ;  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  126  ;  E.  d'Or. 
v.  pp.  225-236,  vii.  pp.  227-231.  Kyriakos  counts  about  four  million  Orthodox 
in  Austria  and  Hungary  altogether. 

2  Of  Usice,  Nis,  Timok,  and  Sabac. 

3  For  the  Servian  Church  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  162-175  ;  Kyriakos,  iii. 
PP.  37-39- 


326      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Patriarch  as  the  Bulgars.  North  of  Uskub  (Skopia)  by  Prizrend 
and  towards  Mitrovitza  especially,  in  that  part  of  Macedonia 
that  is  called  Old  Servia,  the  bulk  of  the  population  is  Servian. 
The  policy  of  these  Serbs  has  wavered  continually.  At  one 
time  they  sided  with  the  Bulgars  against  the  Greeks,  then  when 
the  Bulgars  became  enormously  the  most  powerful  of  the 
Christian  parties,  they  veered  round  and  made  common  cause 
with  the  Greeks  against  them,  and  quite  lately  they  have  again 
begun  to  quarrel  with  the  Greeks.1  After  long  intrigues,  helped 
by  the  Government  of  Belgrade,  the  Macedonian  Serbs  have 
now  succeeded  in  claiming  the  two  Sees  of  Uskub  (Skopia)  and 
Prizrend  (Greek:  Raskoprisreni ;  Serb:  Racka-Prizren)  for  their 
countrymen.  These  two  sees  still  belong  to  the  Great  Church, 
but  they  now  have  Servian  Metropolitans,  use  Servian  for  the 
Holy  Liturgy,  and  there  is  every  probability  that  they,  too,  will 
break  away  from  the  Patriarchate  and  form  yet  another 
autocephalous  Orthodox  Church.  The  Lord  Meletios,  Metro- 
politan of  Prizrend,  a  Greek,  died  in  1895.  At  once  all  the 
Serbs  both  of  Servia  and  Macedonia  united  to  compel  the 
Phanar  to  allow  a  Servian  successor.  They  succeeded  in  1896, 
and  a  born  Serb,  Lord  Dionysios,  was  appointed,  in  spite  of  the 
cries  of  alarm  of  the  whole  press  at  Athens.  He  uses  the 
Servian  language  in  his  Churches,  and  makes  no  secret  of  his 
Philo-Serb  policy.  The  case  of  Uskub  was  more  complicated. 
The  Metropolitan  Methodios,  a  Greek,  died  in  1896.  The 
Phanar  at  once  hastened  to  appoint  another  Greek,  Ambrose, 
Metropolitan  of  Prespa,  to  succeed  him.  But  when  he  arrived 
to  take  possession  of  his  cathedral  at  Uskub  he  found  it  shut 
and  barred  and  all  the  Servian  population  in  revolt.  The 
Turkish  soldiers  forced  the  church  open  and  Lord  Ambrose 
sang  the  Holy  Liturgy  in  Greek,  but  in  the  presence  of  no  one 
save  the  Turks  who  stood  in  the  nave  with  fixed  bayonets  to 

1  The  situation  in  Macedonia  is  quite  simple.  Each  of  the  three  races — 
Greek,  Bulgar,  and  Serb — wants  to  assert  its  own  nationality  as  far  as  possible 
and  as  far  as  it  can  to  claim  Macedonia  for  itself.  As  soon  as  one  becomes 
very  powerful  the  other  two  unite  against  it.  Now  the  Vlachs  are  beginning 
to  develop  a  national  feeling  too,  so  there  is  a  fourth  element.  The 
Albanians  do  not  enter  the  lists  because  they  are  secure  in  their  mountains, 
and  no  one  tries  to  Hellenize,  or  Bulgarize,  or  Serbianate,  or  Vlachize  them. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    327 

keep  the  Serbs  from  a  riot.  He  stayed  in  his  diocese  till  July, 
1897,  and  then,  having  found  himself  completely  boycotted 
there,  he  went  back  to  Constantinople.  The  Phanar,  since  the 
Bulgarian  schism,  is  at  last  beginning  to  be  afraid  of  irritating 
its  subjects  too  much,  so  in  this  case,  too,  it  gave  in,  although  as 
grudgingly  as  possible.  Ambrose  obtained  perpetual  leave  of 
absence  from  his  diocese,  and  a  born  Serb,  Firmilian,  was  made 
his  Protosynkellos  (Vicar-General)  at  Uskub.  In  October,  1899, 
after  long  negotiations  between  the  Government  of  Belgrade  and 
the  Phanar,  Ambrose  was  transferred  to  Monastir  (Pelagonia),  and 
Firmilian  was  elected  Metropolitan  of  Uskub.  Even  then  the 
Phanar,  although  they  had  agreed  to  the  change,  sulkily  refused 
to  consecrate  him.  From  October,  1898,  till  June,  1902,  he  had 
to  wait,  Metropolitan-elect,  but  not  yet  bishop.  At  one  time 
the  Serbs  even  approached  the  Bulgarian  Exarch,  asking 
whether  he  would  undertake  to  ordain  Firmilian.  But  Russia 
forced  the  Porte  to  force  the  Patriarch  to  give  in  ;  and  so  at 
last  the  consecration  took  place.  Sulky  to  the  last,  the 
Patriarch  would  not  let  it  be  done  in  either  Constantinople  or 
Uskub.  At  a  distant  monastery  (Skaloti)  three  metropolitans 
met  Firmilian  in  a  sort  of  secret  way  and  unwillingly  conse- 
crated him.  But  the  Russian  and  Servian  Consuls  and  the 
Turkish  Kaimakam  came  to  see  that  they  really  did  it.  He 
used  Slavonic  in  the  liturgy,  and  all  the  Serbs  were  content.1 
The  Greeks  of  his  diocese,  on  the  other  hand,  were  so  angry  that 
they  went  into  schism  against  him  and  applied  to  the  Greek 
Metropolitan  of  Salonike  for  their  priests.  And  the  Phanar, 
though  it  had  to  submit  to  Firmilian,  makes  no  secret  of  its 
sympathy  with  them.  But  the  Porte  now  recognizes  these  two 
sees,  Prizrend  and  Uskub,  as  a  new  millet  separate  from  the 
"  Roman  nation  "  under  the  civil  jurisdiction  of  the  Patriarch. 
This  means  that  they  will  soon  become  an  autocephalous 
Church,  and  there  will  be  one  more  fraction  of  the  dismembered 
(Ecumenical  Patriarchate  to  register.2 

1  Firmilian  died  in  December,  1903,  at  Belgrade  ;  the  free  Serbs  and  those 
of  Macedonia  at  once  agreed  on  the  deacon  Sebastian  of  Belgrade  as  his 
successor,  and  the  Phanar  had  to  acknowledge  him. 

2  For  the  case  of  Firmilian  of  Uskub,  which  made  a  great  deal  of  noise  at 
the  time,  see  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  343-351,  v.  pp.  390-392,  vii.  pp.  46-47,  111-112, 


328      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

15.  The  Roumanian  Church  (1885). 

The  Vlachs,  too,  have  the  memory  of  an  old  independent 
Church  afterwards  destroyed  by  the  Phanar  and  the  Porte.  In 
the  12th  century,  long  after  the  Emperor  Basil  II  (976-1025) 
had  destroyed  the  original  Bulgarian  kingdom,  an  alliance  of 
Bulgars  and  Vlachs  rose  against  the  Empire  under  two  brothers, 
Hassan  and  Peter,  and  founded  a  joint  Bulgaro- Roumanian 
State  in  1186.  In  the  13th  century  under  King  John  Asan 
(1218-1241),  this  kingdom  reached  its  greatest  extent,  stretching 
from  the  Danube  to  Salonike,  and  from  the  Black  Sea  to  Prizrend. 
It  was  the  rise  of  Dushan's  great  Servian  kingdom  (p.  306)  that 
broke  the  power  of  these  Bulgaro- Vlachs.  The  Empire  con- 
quered back  part  of  their  land,  too,  and  at  last  the  Turk  came 
and  swept  them  all  away  (after  the  battle  of  Kossovo,  1388, 
p.  306). *  While  their  kingdom  lasted,  as  usual  they  set  up  an 
autocephalous  Church  independent  of  Constantinople.  At  first 
they  were  Catholics,  and  it  was  Pope  Innocent  III  (1 198-12 16) 
who  granted  them  their  autonomy.  But  they  went  into  schism 
soon  after  the  fourth  Crusade  (1204).  Their  State  never  included 
Achrida,  so  they  made  Tirnovo  (Trnovo,  now  in  Bulgaria)  the 
centre  of  their  Church  and  the  seat  of  their  Primate.  We  have 
then  a  Vlach  Church  (for  it  was  chiefly  Vlach)  of  Tirnovo  to 
match  Servian  Ipek  and  Bulgarian  Achrida.  After  the  Turkish 
conquest,  this  body  was  also  reunited  to  the  patriarchate,2  and 
the  only  thing  that  was  left  of  it  was  the  vague  memory  of  the 
Vlachs  that  they,  too,  had  once  had  a  Church  and  been  a  nation. 
The  Phanar  treated  the  Orthodox  Vlachs  just  as  badly  as  the 
Bulgars  and  Serbs,  when  they  had  them  in  their  Rum  millet. 
But  there  was  this  difference  :  the  Vlachs  have  always  been 
a  feeble  folk,  afraid  to  fight  against  their  stronger  neighbours, 
but  rather  glad  to  take  shelter  under  some  one  else's  wing.  So 
the  Hellenizing  policy  of  the  Phanar,  that  altogether  failed  with 
Bulgars  and  Serbs,  seemed  to  succeed  with  the  Vlachs.     When 

1  See  Bury-Freeman  :  Historical  Geography,  pp.  384,   431-433  (the   third 
kingdom  of  Bulgaria),  and  maps  xxxix  to  xli. 

2  This  was  in  1393  under  Bajazet  I   (the  Thunderbolt,  1389-1402),  so  the 
Church  of  Tirnovo  had  only  a  short  existence. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX   CHURCH    329 

Greeks  publish  statistics  of  Macedonia,  nearly  all  the  people  they 
brazenly  write  as  "  Hellenes  "  are  really  these  half-Hellenized 
Vlachs,  men  who  talk  Greek  abroad,  who  sometimes  even  call 
themselves  Greeks,  but  who  around  their  own  firesides  always 
fall  back  into  the  beautiful  Romance  tongue  of  their  fathers.1 
And  lately,  since  there  has  been  a  free  Roumania,  the  Roumans 
of  Turkey,  too,  have  begun  to  realize  that  they  are  a  people  ; 
they  are  no  longer  ashamed  of  their  own  language  now  that  it 
is  the  recognized  tongue  of  a  sovereign  State,  and  they,  too,  are 
now  moved  by  very  strong  anti-Phanariot  feeling.  In  1829, 
the  Peace  of  Adrianople  gave  the  two  provinces  of  Moldavia 
and  Vallachia  internal  autonomy  under  the  protectorate  of 
Russia.  In  1864,  Alexander  John  Cusa  made  himself  master  of 
these  lands,  and  in  1881,  Charles  von  Hohenzollern  was  pro- 
claimed king  of  what  now  became  an  entirely  independent  State 
with  the  name  Roumania.2  In  1885,  as  a  natural  consequence 
of  the  national  independence,  the  Church  of  Roumania  became 
autocephalous.  The  Patriarch  made  no  difficulty  about  this  ; 
but  soon  very  bitter  disputes  began  between  the  new  Church 
and  the  Phanar.  The  Roumanian  Church  is  governed  by 
a  Holy  Synod,  of  which  all  the  bishops  are  members.  The 
president  is  the  Archbishop  and  Metropolitan  of  Vallachia  and 
Primate  of  Roumania,  whose  see  is  Bucharest ;  after  him  come 
the  Archbishop  and  Metropolitan  of  Moldavia,  who  sits  at 
Yassi,  and  six  other  bishops.3  Each  has  an  auxiliary-bishop 
(Archiereu),  who  helps  in  the  work  of  the  diocese,  and  who  also 
has  a  seat  in  the  synod.  There  are  now  twenty-two  monasteries 
and  nineteen  convents  for  nuns  in  Roumania  ;  for  the  secular 
clergy  two  seminaries  and  a  theological  faculty  at  the  University 
of  Bucharest.     According  to  the  census  of    1899,  there  were 

1  A  curious  remnant  of  this  is  that  in  the  Roumanian  language  their  own 
word  for  themselves  {Roumdn),  at  any  rate  in  the  country  parts,  is  a  word  of 
abuse,  and  means  "  uneducated  boor  "  ! 

2  He  became  Prince  of  the  tributary  States  (Moldavia  and  Vallachia)  when 
Cusa  was  made  to  resign  in  1866.  The  kingdom  of  Roumania  then  consists 
of  these  two  provinces,  which  had  always  had  a  certain  amount  of  autonomy 
under  the  Phanariot  Vaivodes,  now  made  into  an  independent  State.  See 
De  la  Jonquiere  :  Histoire  des  Ottomans,  pp.  538-544. 

^  Of  Rimnik,  Roman,  Buzeu,  Hug,  Arges,  and  the  Lower  Danube. 


330      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

about  five-and-a-half  million  Orthodox  in  the  kingdom.  The 
first  quarrel  with  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  was  about  the 
monasteries.  In  1864,  Cusa  secularized  and  confiscated  all  the 
monastic  property  in  Roumania  ; 1  part  of  this  property  belonged 
to  the  Holy  Sepulchre  at  Jerusalem,  Mount  Athos  and  Mount 
Sinai,  who  had  metochia  in  Moldavia  and  Vallachia.  As  an 
indemnity,  the  Roumanian  Government  offered  twenty-seven 
million  francs  to  the  proprietors.  But  they  refused  to  accept 
any  compensation,  indignantly  denying  the  right  of  the  State  to 
touch  their  property  at  all.  They  appealed  to  the  Porte  and  to 
the  Great  Powers,  but  in  vain,  and  at  last,  in  1867,  King  Charles 
of  Roumania  declared  the  matter  settled  since  the  monasteries 
had  refused  the  money.  So  now  the  offer  of  the  twenty-seven 
millions  is  withdrawn.  What  makes  the  case  harder  for  the 
Greeks  is,  that  the  Roumanian  Government  is  using  the  money 
they  have  taken  from  these  monasteries  for  their  national  pro- 
paganda in  Macedonia,  so  one  can  understand  the  indignation 
that  every  Greek  feels  on  the  subject  of  "  Cusa's  robbery."  But 
this  is  not  the  only  cause  of  estrangement.  In  1870,  the  Patri- 
arch (Gregory  VI)  made  a  belated  attempt  to  reclaim  some 
jurisdiction  over  the  autocephalous  Church.  He  demanded 
that  all  metropolitans  and  bishops  should  have  their  election 
confirmed  by  him  before  their  consecration,  and  that  his  name 
should  be  mentioned  in  the  Holy  Liturgy  throughout  Roumania. 
But  in  1873,  after  a  long  dispute,  his  successor,  Anthimos  VI, 
was  obliged  to  withdraw  these  demands  and  to  acknowledge  the 
complete  independence  of  the  Roumanian  Church.  As  in  all 
the  Churches  that  have  a  Holy  Synod,  that  body  is  named  in 
the  Roumanian  service  instead  of  the  Patriarch.  There  was 
also  a  great  quarrel  about  the  Vlach  Skite  on  Mount  Athos, 
whose  monks  claimed  independence  of  any  laura.  Joachim  II 
(1860-1863,  1873-1878)  had  granted  this,  and  Joachim  III 
(1878-1884)  withdrew  the  concession.  The  troubles  in  Mace- 
donia also  caused  very  angry  feelings  between  the  Phanar  and  the 
Roumanian  Synod  ;  and,  lastly,  reports  were  circulated  that  the 
Church  of  Roumania  was  about  to  introduce  certain  radical  and 

1  A  third  of  the  landed   property  in  Roumania  belonged  to  the  Church 
before  Cusa's  confiscation. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    331 

most  unorthodox  reforms,  namely,  the  Gregorian  Calendar,  bap- 
tism by  infusion,  the  abolition  of  the  kalemaukion  (the  universal 
Orthodox  hat  for  clerks),  leave  for  second  marriage  of  priests, 
and  the  burial  service  for  suicides.1  However,  the  Roumanian 
Holy  Synod  denied  these  accusations.  On  the  other  hand,  in 
1882,  the  Roumans  took  the  very  serious  step  of  preparing  their 
own  chrism,  instead  of  sending  to  Constantinople  for  it.  This 
was  an  openly  unfriendly  act  towards  the  Phanar.  Theoretically, 
their  Church  is  just  as  autocephalous  as  that  of  Russia,  and  has 
just  as  much  right  to  make  its  own  chrism  as  its  big  sister 
across  the  Pruth.  But  the  Phanar  has  always  been  very 
tenacious  of  this  right  even  in  the  case  of  independent  Churches, 
and  the  fact  that  it  has  long  had  to  submit  to  Russian  arrogance 
in  this  matter  did  not  make  it  in  any  way  more  willing  to 
receive  a  similar  rebuff  from  Roumania.  The  Patriarch 
Joachim  III,  on  July  10,  1882,  sent  an  angry  letter  to  the 
Roumanian  Holy  Synod  reproaching  it  for  so  dangerous  an 
innovation.  The  synod  answered,  claiming  the  same  right  as 
the  Church  of  Russia,  and  the  Patriarch,  fearing  such  another 
schism  as  that  of  the  Bulgars,  was  once  more  obliged  to  swallow 
the  affront  and  pass  oven  in  silence  what  he  would  not  openly 
approve.  Roumania  is  the  only  Balkan  State  that  now  prepares 
its  own  chrism.2 

But  it  is  in  Macedonia  that  the  enmity  between  Greeks  and 
Roumans  is  strongest.  In  this  seething  cauldron  of  races  there 
are  five  hundred  thousand  Vlachs  who  are  now  awakening  to  the 

1  The  Vlachs  are  becoming  more  and  more  conscious  that  their  language 
joins  them  to  the  Western  and  Romance  world,  and  they  are  very  much 
inclined  to  model  their  institutions  after  those  of  the  Western  States,  especially 
of  France.  These  rumours,  at  any  rate  as  far  as  the  Calendar,  infusion,  and 
dropping  the  kalemaukion  are  concerned,  were  connected  with  the  reports  of 
their  Western  tendencies  that  go  about  among  their  neighbours. 

2  Both  Belgrade  and  Athens  have  already  shown  signs  of  an  inclination  to 
follow  the  example  of  Bucharest.  The  Roumanian  Parliament  voted  10,000 
francs  for  the  expenses  of  the  vessels  and  materials  needed  for  the  Holy 
Chrism.  The  king  attended  the  ceremony,  and  all  Roumania  was  triumphant 
at  what  they  considered  so  great  an  assertion  of  complete  independence.  The 
Greeks  at  first  denied  the  fact,  and,  when  that  was  no  longer  possible,  began 
a  series  of  bitter  attacks  against  the  Roumanian  Church,  that  lasted  for  three 
years. 


332      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

fact  that  they  are  neither  Hellenes  nor  Bulgars  nor  Serbs,  but 
children  of  the  same  stock  as  the  free  Roumans.  The  Govern- 
ment of  Bucharest  has  eagerly  taken  up  a  national  propaganda 
among  them,  and  spends  large  sums  of  money  on  building  Vlach 
schools,  paying  Vlach  priests,  and — say  the  Greeks — bribing 
peasants  to  learn  Roumanian  and  call  themselves  Vlachs.  The 
famous  Apostol  Margariti  (f  1903)  was  the  leader  of  this 
Roumanizing  movement ;  and  the  Roumanian  Minister  at  Con- 
stantinople, M.  Alexander  Lahovary,  jealously  watches  over  its 
interests.  So  the  Greeks,  the  Patriarch ists,  are  steadily  losing 
their  supporters  in  Macedonia,  and  numbers  of  peasants  who 
used  to  call  themselves  Hellenes  are  now  becoming  as  bitter 
enemies  of  the  "  Great  Idea  "  as  the  Bulgars  and  Serbs.  Natur- 
ally, as  soon  as  these  Macedonian  Vlachs  awoke  to  the  fact  that 
they  were  a  separate  race,  they  too,  like  every  one  else,  wanted 
to  be  a  millet  and  to  have  the  only  special  organization  possible 
under  the  Turk — an  ecclesiastical  one.  Many  of  them  were  so 
anxious  to  break  away  from  the  Patriarch  and  his  Rum  millet 
that  they  joined  the  Bulgars  and  turned  Exarchist.1  But  that 
only  caused  the  Turkish  authorities,  who  are  nothing  if  not 
consistent  to  their  scheme,  to  take  the  names  of  these  Vlachs 
off  the  register  of  the  Roman  nation  and  to  add  them  to  that 
of  the  Bulgarians.  Whereas  what  they  want  is  to  be  a  Vlach 
nation.  So  a  number  of  those  who  remained  Patriarchists  began 
to  assert  their  national  feeling  in  the  usual,  obvious,  and,  indeed, 
only  way.  Their  priests  said  the  Holy  Liturgy  in  Roumanian. 
The  Phanar  knows  that  if  all  the  Vlachs  go  there  will  be,  indeed, 
nothing  but  a  slender  remnant  of  its  Roman  nation  left  to  work 
for  the  "  Great  Idea  "  in  Macedonia.  So  it  has  set  its  face  des- 
perately against  the  Roumanian  movement,  as  it  does  against  all 
national  feeling  among  the  Christians  that  it  will  pretend  to  think 
Greeks.  For  years  there  has  been  a  regular  persecution  of  these 
Vlachs  ;  every  priest  who  spoke  Roumanian  in  church  was 
promptly  excommunicated ;  the  Greek  papers  never  ceased 
heaping  abuse  on  Margaritis  and  his  work,  and  there  has  been 
a  long  chain  of  nationalistic  squabbles  under  pretence  of  ecclesi- 

1  Gelzer  counts  430  Exarchist  Vlach  families  in  Macedonia,  Geistlichcs  u. 
Weltliches,  p.  125. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    333 

astical  disputes  between  these  two  parties  as  ludicrous  to  the 
outsider  as  they  are  degrading  to  the  Orthodox  Church.1  But 
now  it  seems  that  the  Vlachs  are  going  to  get  what  they  want. 
On  May  23,  1905,  Abdurrahman  Pasha,  Minister  of  Justice 
and  Religion,  sent  to  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch  a  copy  of  the 
Teskereh,  by  which  the  Sultan  has  constituted  a  Roumanian 
Church  in  Macedonia.  "The  Government,"  says  this  inimit- 
able person,  "  treats  all  the  different  nations  who  live  under 
the  paternal  care  of  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  Sultan  on  a 
footing  of  perfect  equality."  Therefore  it  decrees  that  the 
Vlachs  "  are  not  to  be  prevented  from  having  their  own  priests 
and  their  own  language  in  the  liturgy,  they  may  teach  their 
own  language  in  their  schools,  choose  their  own  moukhtars 
(village  headmen),  and  be  admitted  to  the  election  for  local 
municipal  councils."  °  But,"  continues  this  Canonical  Law- 
giver, "they  shall  still  be  dependent  from  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch."  "This  decision  has  been  submitted  to  H.I.M. 
your  august  sovereign,  and  has  received  his  imperial  sanction. 
Wherefore  I  have  to  inform  Your  Holiness  of  what  is  above." 
Having  laid  down  so  much  Canon  Law,  Abdurrahman  pro- 
ceeds to  date  his  decree,  18  Rabi'  al-awwal,  1 323.2  The  latest 
news  from  Constantinople  is  that  the   Phanar   is   indignantly 

1  Here  is  one  example  for  many  :  "  In  1904  a  Vlach  died  at  Monastir.  His 
relations  wanted  to  bury  him  in  Roumanian,  the  Greeks  insisted  on  Greek. 
The  Bishop  (a  Greek)  forbade  a  Roumanian  funeral,  the  relations  would  not 
have  a  Greek  one.  As  usual,  both  sides  appealed  to  the  judge  of  ecclesiastical 
affairs,  the  Turkish  Kaimakam.  The  Kaimakam,  as  usual,  could  do  nothing 
without  instructions  from  Constantinople,  and  the  Porte,  as  usual,  could  not 
make  up  its  mind.  So  there  came  a  preliminary  order  to  put  off  the  funeral 
till  the  Government  had  considered  the  case.  Meanwhile,  as  it  was  becoming 
quite  time  to  do  something,  the  wretched  man  was  embalmed.  Time  passed 
and  nothing  was  settled.  Then  both  sides  began  fighting  over  the  body,  the 
market-place  was  shut  up,  and  two  charges  of  cavalry  could  not  disperse  the 
mob.  The  Wali,  desperate  and  helpless,  at  last  telegraphed  direct  to  the 
Sultan  imploring  him  to  let  the  man  be  buried  somehow  before  the  mob  had 
pulled  the  town  down.  At  last  the  decision  came.  The  Government  could 
not  afford  to  gratify  either  side,  so  the  man  was  to  be  just  put  in  the  ground 
without  any  burial  service  at  all.  See  the  newspaper  report  in  Brailsford  : 
Macedonia,  pp.  189-190.  "Nothing,"  adds  Mr.  Brailsford,  "could  be  more 
Turkish,  and  nothing  could  be  more  Greek." 

2  E.  d'Or.  viii.  pp.  302,  303. 


334      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

protesting,  but  no  one  takes  any  notice  of  that.  Once  more 
in  the  history  of  the  Orthodox  Church  the  Yildiz- Kiosk  has 
spoken,  the  cause  is  finished.  So  the  Macedonian  Vlachs  now 
have  a  Roumanian  Liturgy  and  Roumanian  schools  ;  they,  too, 
are  a  millet,  and  without  question  the  next  step  will  be  to  give 
them  a  Roumanian  bishop  or  two,  who  will  become  autoce- 
phalous  as  soon  as  the  two  Servian  bishops  in  Macedonia  do, 
and  there  will  be  two  more  independent  sister-Churches  for  the 
Phanar  to  recognize.1 

16.  The  Church  of  Hercegovina  and  Bosnia  (1880). 

The  last  Church  of  this  list  is  that  of  the  two  provinces 
occupied  by  Austria  since  the  Berlin  Congress.  It  is  known 
that  the  Sultan  remains  the  nominal  sovereign  of  these  lands, 
and  that  Austria  administers  them,  much  as  in  the  parallel  case 
of  England  and  Egypt.  The  position  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
corresponds  to  this  state  of  things.  According  to  the  general 
principle  that  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch  reigns  in  the  Balkans 
just  as  far  as  the  Porte,  Hercegovina  and  Bosnia  have  not  been 
formally  declared  autocephalous  ;  but  just  as  the  rule  of  the 
Sultan  is  merely  titular  here,  so  are  their  Churches  really  com- 
pletely independent  of  the  Phanar.  On  March  28,  1880,  a 
Concordat  was  drawn  up  between  the  Austrian  Government 
and  the  Patriarch  which  regulates  the  position  of  this  Church. 
The  Patriarch  is  still  named  in  the  Holy  Liturgy,  and  the 
chrism  is  sent  to  them  from  Constantinople.  On  the  other 
hand  the  Emperor  appoints  the  bishops  without  consulting  the 
Phanar  (the  Austro- Hungarian  Ambassador  to  the  Porte  then 
informs  the  Phanar  of  the  appointment 2),  they  consecrate  each 

1  A  Roumanian  paper  counts  394,700  Vlachs  in  Macedonia,  20,000  in 
Albania,  160,000  scattered  throughout  Turkey,  220,000  in  Greece,  and  100,000 
in  Bulgaria  {E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  179).  The  Roumanian  Government  has  just  pub- 
lished a  Green  Book  in  French  (Le  Livre  vert  roumain,  Bucarest,  1905) 
containing  a  most  appalling  indictment  of  the  Patriarch's  persecution  of  the 
Macedonian  Vlachs,  accusing  the  Greeks  among  other  things  of  wholesale 
murder. 

2  As  a  matter  of  fact  the  Phanar  goes  through  this  farce  each  time  :  as  soon 
as  they  hear  of  the  Emperor's  appointment  they  set  up  the  new  bishop  with 
two  others  as  candidates  for  the  see,  hold  an  election,  and  elect  the  one  the 
Emperor  has  chosen. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    335 

other,  they  do  not  take  their  turn  to  sit  in  the  Holy  Synod  at 
Constantinople,  as  do  all  bishops  of  the  patriarchate,  nor  do 
they  pay  any  taxes  to  the  Phanar.  To  make  up  for  this  the 
Austrian  Government  pays  the  Patriarch  58,000  piastres  a  year. 
There  are  now  four  sees  in  these  provinces  ;  that  of  Sarajevo 
in  Bosnia  holds  the  primacy,  and  the  present  Metropolitan 
(Nicholas  Mandich)  proposes  to  express  that  fact  by  changing 
his  title  of  Metropolitan  to  that  of  Archbishop »  or  even  Exarch. 
He  receives  from  the  Government  an  income  of  8,300  florins  ; 
the  other  three  metropolitans  have  from  4,500  to  6,000  florins.2 
These  bishops  meet  in  a  consistory  with  an  archimandrite  and 
one  or  two  other  ecclesiastical  persons  under  the  presidency  of 
my  Lord  of  Sarajevo  to  discuss  the  affairs  of  their  Church  ; 
owing  to  the  exceptional  position  of  their  country,  however, 
they  do  not  sit  in  the  upper  chamber  at  Vienna,  just  as  the 
people  have  no  votes.  They  are  all  supposed  to  be  still  subjects 
of  the  Sultan,  whose  land  is  only  administered  by  Austria. 
There  are  three  Orthodox  monasteries  in  Bosnia,  and  eleven 
in  Hercegovina.  In  1895  there  were  673,000  Orthodox 
Christians  ;  there  does  not  seem  to  have  been  any  complete 
religious  census  since.3  They  are  all  Serbs,  and  so  have  no 
regrets  whatever  for  their  former  dependence  on  the  Phanar. 
When  the  inevitable  happens  and  the  present  form  of  admin- 
istration is  changed  for  open  annexation  the  obvious  thing 
would  seem  to  be  to  join  these  Orthodox  Serbs  to  the  Church 
of  Carlovitz.  On  the  other  hand  Orthodoxy  always  breaks  up 
and  never  unites,  so  probably  Bosnia  and  Hercegovina  will 
remain  what  they  are  now  really — one  more  autocephalous 
Church.*  The  unparalleled  change  in  these  two  provinces 
since  they  have  enjoyed  peace,  tolerance,  and  security  under  a 

1  There  seems  to  be  an  idea  among  the  Orthodox  that  the  rare  title  Arch- 
bishop means  something  more  than  the  almost  universal  one  of  Metropolitan. 

2  The  sees  are  :  in  Bosnia,  Sarajevo  and  Zvornik  ;  in  Hercegovina,  Hersek 
(residence  at  Mostar)  and  Banjaluka. 

3  All  authorities,  however,  agree  that  the  Orthodox  population,  as  all  the 
population  of  the  land,  has  increased  enormously.  The  Government  is  now 
preparing  complete  statistics  and  maps. 

4  For  the  Church  of  Bosnia  and  Hercegovina  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  63-65  ; 
E.  d'Or.  ii.  pp.  243-244  ;  viii.  pp.  35~40. 


336      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

civilized  Government  is  known  to  every  one  and  may  easily  be 
verified  by  a  visit  to  Sarajevo.  The  Austrians  have  made  no 
attempt  to  interfere  in  any  religious  questions,  they  impartially 
protect  and  support  all  the  sects  they  found,  they  pay  Catholic, 
Orthodox,  and  True  Believing  religious  bodies  equally,  and  you 
may  see  there  the  astonishing  sight  of  Mohammedan  Turks, 
delivered  at  last  from  the  tyranny  of  their  own  Government, 
going  on  Friday  afternoon  to  offer  most  sincere  prayers  for 
their  protector,  Francis  Joseph  II.1 

This  ends  the  long  story  of  the  constitution  of  the  sixteen 
independent  Churches  that  make  up  the  Orthodox  Communion. 
It  is  unfortunate  that  it  is  almost  entirely  a  story  of  internecine 
quarrels  and  mutual  race-hatred.  These  quarrels  certainly  do 
not  prevent  the  fact  that  thousands  of  simple  Orthodox  priests 
lead  admirable  lives  in  the  service  of  Christ  and  work  zealously 
for  his  cause  among  their  people.  The  quarrels,  as  a  rule,  affect 
only  the  higher  orders  of  the  hierarchy,  and  they  are  the  result, 
not  of  the  Orthodox  faith,  but  almost  always  of  the  hopeless 
confusion  of  races  and  violent  national  feelings  among  the 
members  of  this  great  body.  But  one  conclusion  seems 
inevitable.  Catholics  are  also  citizens  of  many  States,  and  are 
still  more  divided  among  different  nations.  We  have  at  least  as 
many  mutual  race-antagonisms  as  the  Orthodox  ;  there  are 
Polish  and  Russian  Catholics,   there   are   Greeks,   Armenians, 

1  For  Hercegovina  and  Bosnia  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  63-65,  and  Echos  d' Orient, 
ii.  pp.  243-244  ;  viii.  pp.  35-40.  The  Russian  official  papers  carry  on  a  campaign 
of  libel  against  the  Austrian  administration  of  these  lands.  When  the  governor, 
Baron  von  Kallay,  whose  indefatigable  care  for  the  good  of  the  provinces 
was  admired  throughout  civilized  Europe,  died  in  1903,  a  Russian  paper, 
inspired  by  its  Government,  wrote  a  scurrilous  attack  on  him  beginning  : 
"Yesterday  millions  of  hearts  breathed  again  freely  ...  at  the  death  of 
Kallay  a  whole  people  as  one  man  cried  out :  Glory  to  God  in  heaven  ! "  &c. 
Really  Kallay  was  the  man  who  had  built  roads,  established  courts  of  law 
that  every  one  had  to  respect,  put  down  brigandage  and  religious  persecution, 
and  had  taught  these  wretched  people  for  the  first  time  after  four  centuries 
of  martyrdom  what  it  is  to  sleep  in  safety  without  fear  of  having  their  throats 
cut  in  the  night.  But  Austria  is  Catholic,  and  so  the  Russians  like  to  pretend 
that  she  persecutes  the  Orthodox.  The  irony  of  Russians  accusing  another 
State  of  intolerance  is  really  unique.  J.  V.  Asboth  :  Bosnien  und  die  Herzego- 
wina  (Vienna,  1888)  gives  an  account  of  the  enormous  benefits  wrought  in 
these  provinces  by  the  Austrians  since  they  have  administered  them. 


CONSTITUTION  OF  ORTHODOX  CHURCH    337 

Croats,  Vlachs,  Bulgars,  and  Arabs  in  our  communion,  but  their 
national  feelings  do  not  produce  such  an  endless  catalogue  of 
schisms,  mutual  excommunications  and  bitter  feeling  in  ecclesias- 
tical affairs — simply  because  in  these  affairs  we  all  acknowledge 
one  central  authority  that  has  the  right  to  settle  our  quarrels. 
Catholic  bishops,  too,  sometimes  disagree,  but  they  have  a 
Court  of  Appeal  to  whom  they  can  all  turn  and  whose  decision 
is  final.  The  See  of  Constantinople  is  no  such  Court  to  the 
Orthodox.  It  is  itself  a  litigant,  and  now  always  the  losing  one, 
besides  the  fact  that,  as  we  still  have  to  see,  the  Great  Church 
itself  is  torn  by  what  are  almost  the  worst  quarrels  of  all 
(p.  342,  seq.).  So  the  conclusion  that  forces  itself  upon  any  one 
who  considers  the  present  state  of  the  Orthodox  Church  is  that 
that  body  wants  many  things  to  restore  it  to  its  old  glory,  but 
it  wants  nothing  quite  so  much  as  the  authority  of  the  Pope. 

Summary. 

The  Orthodox  Communion  consists  at  present  of  sixteen 
independent  Churches,  over  which  the  Patriarch  of  Constanti- 
nople has  a  primacy  of  honour,  but  no  jurisdiction  except  in  his 
own  Patriarchate.  These  Churches  are,  first,  the  four  Eastern 
Patriarchates — Constantinople,  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jeru- 
salem, as  well  as  the  old  independent  Church  of  Cyprus.  Since 
the  schism  eleven  other  Churches  have  been  added  to  these, 
which  are  all  formed  at  the  expense  of  the  Byzantine  Patriarch- 
ate. It  has  become  a  recognized  principle  that  each  politically 
independent  State  should  have  an  ecclesiastically  independent 
Church,  so  there  are  the  national  Churches  of  Russia,  Greece, 
Servia,  Montenegro,  Roumania,  Bulgaria.  In  the  Austro- 
Hungarian  Monarchy  are  four  Orthodox  Churches — Carlovitz, 
Hermannstadt,  Czernovitz,  and  Bosnia- Hercegovina.  The 
monastery  of  Mount  Sinai  is  also  an  independent  Church. 
There  has  been  great  friction  about  the  establishment  of  most 
of  these  bodies  ;  in  the  case  of  the  Bulgars  the  schism  still  lasts. 
Meanwhile,  Russia  has  entirely  destroyed  the  old  Georgian 
Church.  Questions  of  politics  and  rival  nationalities  lead  to  end- 
less quarrels  among  the  Orthodox  bishops,  while  Russia  is  steadily 
trying  to  absorb  the  whole  body  into  her  sphere  of  influence. 


CHAPTER     XI 

THE    ORTHODOX    HIERARCHY 

The  Canon  Law,  liturgy,  and  faith  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
that  we  now  have  to  consider  are  common  to  all  these  sixteen 
bodies.  Although  they  are  independent  of  one  another,  and,  in 
spite  of  their  quarrels,  they  all  recognize  each  other  as  sister- 
Churches  in  Christ,  all  use  the  same  rites  (in  different  lan- 
guages) and  the  same  formulas  of  belief.  A  priest  of  any  one 
of  these  Churches  can  celebrate  the  Holy  Liturgy,  and  the  faith- 
ful can  receive  Holy  Communion  at  the  altars  of  any  other  one.1 
In  short  they  make  up  together  one  great  body,  which  habitu- 
ally speaks  of  itself  as  the  Orthodox  Church.  The  hierarchy 
of  this  Church  consists  of  the  Patriarchs,  other  bishops,  priests, 
deacons,  and  clerks  ;  there  are  also  monks  and  nuns.2 

i.  The  CEcumenical  Patriarch  and  his  Court. 

Various  Turkish  reforms  in  the  19th  century  have  consider- 
ably modified  the  position  of  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople. 
Although  he  is  still  the  official  head  of  the  "  Roman  nation," 
neither  he  nor  any  other  bishops  now  have  civil  jurisdiction  ;  in 
their  place  certain  so-called  mixed  tribunals  (/mctci  SacaaTripia) 
are  established.3     A  "  national  assembly  "  of  the  Roman  nation 

1  The  exceptions  to  this  are,  of  course,  the  cases  where  quarrels  have 
developed  into  formal  schism,  as  in  the  case  of  the  Bulgars. 

2  Monks  and  nuns  are  not  members  of  the  hierarchy,  but  they  may  be 
discussed  in  this  chapter  as  being  at  any  rate  ecclesiastical  persons. 

3  These  tribunals  were  established  by  the  Hatti  Humayun  of  1856,  which 
after  the  Crimean  War  and  Treaty  of  Paris  first  made  the  life  of  the  Rayahs 

338 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  339 

in  1857  drew  up  a  series  of  "new  Canons''  concerning  the 
election,  synod,  rights,  duties,  and  income  of  the  Patriarch  and 
other  bishops,  which,  having  received  the  Sultan's  consent,  now 
determine  all  these  matters.  According  to  the  new  Canons  the 
Patriarch  is  assisted  in  his  rule  by  two  assemblies,  a  synod  for 
purely  ecclesiastical  matters  and  a  mixed  national  council  (jmktov 
idviKov  <Tvfxfiov\iov)  for  affairs,  such  as  cases  of  marriage,  wills, 
and  the  administration  of  Church  property,  which  are  partly 
ecclesiastical  and  partly  temporal.  The  synod  consists  of 
twelve  metropolitans  of  the  patriarchate,  who  sit  in  rote,  the 
mixed  council  of  four  members  of  the  synod  and  eight  laymen 
elected  by  the  Orthodox  population  of  Constantinople.  Both 
assemblies  sit  for  two  years  and  are  then  dissolved,  after  which 
new  ones  are  elected. 

When  the  see  is  vacant  a  new  Patriarch  is  chosen  in  this 
way.  Every  candidate  must  be  a  subject  of  the  Porte.1  Each 
metropolitan  of  the  patriarchate  may  propose  one  candidate, 
the  mixed  council  chooses  three  candidates  (by  a  majority  of 
two-thirds)  ;  the  list  is  then  sent  to  the  Porte,  which  may  strike 
off  not  more  than  three  names.  The  mixed  council  chooses 
out  of  this  corrected  list  three  persons,  and  the  synod  elects 
one  of  these  three.  Lastly,  the  Patriarch-elect  must  be  con- 
firmed by  the  Sultan,  who  can  even  now  reject  him.  As  soon 
as  he  is  finally  appointed  the  new  Patriarch  pays  an  official  visit 
to  the  Grand  Wezir,  who  gives  him,  in  the  Sultan's  name,  his 
berat,2  and  makes  him  a  present  of  a  handsome  suit  of  clothes 
(a  kaftan,  cloak,  and  hat),  a  patriarchal  staff  and  a  white 
horse.  The  Patriarch -elect  must  then  visit  all  the  other 
Ministers  of  the  Porte,  and  on  the  next  day  he  is 
solemnly  enthroned  in  his  cathedral  (St.  George's  Church  in 
the  Phanar),  in  the  presence  of  the  Turkish  officials,  who  first 
read  out  the  berat.  The  Metropolitan  of  Ueraclea  has  the 
right  of  enthroning  the  new  Patriarch  (it  is  the  last  shadow 

more  tolerable.  It  also  abolished  the  punishment  of  death  for  a  Christian 
who,  having  turned  Moslem,  went  back  to  his  original  faith,  and  forbade  any 
one  to  persecute  or  abuse  the  religion  of  any  subjects  of  the  Porte. 

1  He  must  also  be  a  bishop  who  has  governed  his  diocese  without  blame 
for  at  least  seven  years. 

2  The  Patriarch  has  still  to  pay  a  large  sum  of  money  for  the  berat. 


340      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  the  authority  he  once  had  over  the  See  of  Byzantium)  :  he 
seats  him  on  the  throne,  and  gives  him  his  hat  and  staff,  while 
the  people  cry  out  "  Worthy  !  "  (atiog)  three  times.  Then 
follows  the  Holy  Liturgy,  and  the  people  are  dismissed  with 
the  Patriarch's  blessing.1  Theoretically  the  Patriarch  can  be 
deposed  only  for  some  very  grave  offence  against  the  Church 
or  State.  As  a  matter  of  fact,  perhaps  the  greatest  abuse  in 
the  modern  Orthodox  Church  is  the  incredible  way  in  which 
the  Patriarchs  of  Constantinople  are  changed.  Sometimes  the 
Sultan  deposes  them,  but  much  more  often  it  is  the  Orthodox 
themselves  (always  divided  into  endless  parties),  who  petition 
for  their  removal.  And  the  Porte  grants  their  request — it  gets 
a  new  fee  for  every  new  berat.  Scarcely  any  Patriarch  reigns  as 
long  as  two  years  before  he  is  deposed  ;  and  there  are  at  this 
moment  four  ex- Patriarchs  waiting  in  angry  retirement  till 
their  parties  get  the  upper  hand  again  and  they  are  re-elected. 
The  Patriarch's  title  is  :  "  The  most  holy,  the  most  divine, 
the  most  wise  Lord,  the  Lord  Archbishop  of  Constantinople, 
New  Rome  and  (Ecumenical  Patriarch." 2  He  is  addressed 
as  "  Your  Most  Divine  Holiness  "  (rj  v/ieripa  deiorarr}  UavayioTrjs 
=really  "  All-Holiness "),  and  it  is  polite  to  describe  oneself 
when  addressing  him  as  "  your  least  and  the  commands  of 
your  Holiness  awaiting  servant."  3  He  uses  as  arms  on  his 
seal  a  spread-eagle  imperially  crowned.  His  extra-liturgical 
dress  is  a  brown  or  black  cassock  (the  usual  monk's  dress), 
and  over  this  the  Mandyas  (fiavhvag)  a  long  brown  cloak  having 
at  each  of  its  four  corners  a  square  of  pale  blue  and  around 
the  lower  edge  two  white  and  one  red  band.  He  wears  a 
violet  kalemaukion  (KaXrj^iaviciop,  the  invariable  hat  of  the 
Orthodox  clergy,  like  a  top-hat  without   a  brim   and  with   a 

1  Silbernagl,  pp.  9-15  ;  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  32-34  ;  Miillinen,  pp.  8-9. 

2  'O    Travayi&TctToc ,    6    Oeiorarog,    6    ao^uyraroQ     Kvpiog,    6    ' Apxiztt'igkottoq 

KWVGTaVTIVOVTCoktWQ,  VSCIQ  'Pdiifirjg  KCti  TTaTpidpXVQ  OlKOVfieVlKOQ. 

3  These  titles  and  addresses  are  the  result  of  modifications  introduced  by 
the  modesty  of  the  late  Patriarch,  Constantine  V.  Before  his  time  the  other 
Orthodox  bishops  had  to  begin  their  letters  to  him  in  this  manner  :  "  All- 
holiest  Lord,  glorious,  God-crowned,  God-uplifted,  and  God-favoured  one  ! 
Servilely  I  cast  myself  before  you  and  kiss  your  sacred  hands  and  venerable 
feet"  (Gelzer,  Geistl.  u.  Welti,  p.  25). 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  341 

veil  hanging  down  behind),  with  a  light  blue  cross  in  front.1 
He  also  enjoys  the  right  of  riding  a  horse  (which  until  quite 
lately  no  other  Rayah  in  Turkey  might  do),  of  being  accom- 
panied by  his  followers  in  the  street,  of  having  a  cross  and 
two  candles  borne  before  him.  Every  bishop  and  priest  in 
the  patriarchate  must  say  his  name  in  the  Holy  Liturgy.2  The 
recent  history  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarchs  is  neither  dignified 
nor  edifying.  We  can,  however,  first  mention  a  story  that 
is  entirely  glorious.  In  1822,  while  the  War  of  Greek  Inde- 
pendence was  at  its  height  and  the  Turks  had  suffered  some 
bad  defeats,  Gregory  V  (1797-1798,  1806-1808,  1818-1822) 
was  Patriarch  of  Constantinople.  He  had  taken  no  sort  of  part 
in  the  war,3  but  he  was  the  responsible  head  of  the  Rum 
millet  that  was  then  revolting  against  the  Sultan  (Mahmud  II, 
1 808- 1 839),  and  as  the  Porte  could  not  defeat  the  insurgents 
it  revenged  itself  upon  the  old  Patriarch.  On  Easter  Sunday 
morning  (April  22,  1822),  immediately  after  the  Holy  Liturgy, 
a  messenger  arrived  from  the  palace  and  ordered  the  metro- 
politans present  to  depose  Gregory  and  to  choose  a  successor. 
Tremblingly  the  wretched  bishops  obeyed.  They  hurriedly 
elected  Eugene  II  (1 821-1822),  and  while  they  were  robing 
him  inside  the  patriarchal  palace,  Gregory  was  led  forth  and 
hanged  over  his  own  gate,  still  in  his  sacred  vestments.  The 
body  was  left  hanging  for  two  days  as  a  warning  ;  it  was  then 
cut  down  and  given  to  the  Jews  to  be  dragged  through  the 
streets  and  thrown  into  the  sea.  In  the  night  the  Greeks 
recovered  his  relics  and  took  them  in  a  ship  to  Odessa,  where 

1  The  Patriarch's  liturgical  vestments  are  the  same  as  those  of  other 
bishops  (p.  405). 

2  Silbernagl,  pp.  18-19.  Tne  Porte  pays  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople 
500,000  piastres  a  year,  the  metropolitans'  fees  come  to  370,000  piastres,  the 
faithful  contribute  130,000  piastres,  Austria  pays  58,000  piastres  for  Herce- 
govina  and  Bosnia.  So  he  has  an  income  of  1,058,000  piastres  (£9,522)  a 
year.  Really  he  receives  much  more  than  this,  as  he  has  all  the  property  of 
bishops,  priests,  and  monks  who  die  without  legal  heirs,  and  very  many 
stole-fees  and  presents.  He  has  to  pay  the  Porte  20,000  piastres,  and 
10,000  piastres  to  the  Sultan's  guard  a  year,  as  well  as  the  bribe  for  his 
berat  (Silbernagl,  pp.  19-20). 

3  In  1821,  forced  by  the  Sultan,  he  had  even  excommunicated  the  patriot 
Greeks. 


342      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

they  were  buried  with  such  honour  as  a  martyr  for  the  cause 
of  Hellas  deserved ;  and  Oikonomos  made  an  impassioned 
funeral  oration  over  the  grave.  In  1871  the  relics  were 
brought  to  Athens,  and  now  outside  the  Athenian  University 
there  stands  a  statue  of  the  old  martyr- Patriarch.1  The  very 
latest  affairs  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarchate  are  as  confused 
and  unedifying  as  any  part  of  its  long  history.  In  1894  Lord 
Neophytos  VIII  occupied  the  see.  He  was  a  prelate  who 
really  cared  for  the  dignity  and  independence  of  his  Church, 
and  by  way  of  restoring  them  he  ventured  on  a  feeble  attempt 
at  resisting  the  tyranny  of  the  Porte  in  canonical  matters. 
But  when  he  asked  the  other  Orthodox  Churches  to  help  him 
(Russia  could  have  claimed  almost  anything  as  the  acknow- 
ledged protector  of  all  Orthodox  Rayahs),  their  jealousy  of 
the  Phanar  was  so  much  greater  than  their  zeal  for  ecclesiastical 
independence  that  no  one  would  do  anything.  The  Bulgarian 
trouble,  to  which  of  course  he  could  not  put  an  end,  alienated 
his  own  friends — they  always  seem  to  accuse  the  perfectly 
helpless  Patriarch  when  the  Bulgars  become  specially  unbear- 
able— so  the  Porte  had  no  difficulty  in  making  them  depose 
him.  On  October  25  (O.S.),  1894,  the  synod  and  the  mixed 
council  agreed  that  he  must  resign,  and  a  deputation  of  five 
members  waited  on  him  to  inform  him  of  their  unanimous 
decision.  So  Neophytos  VIII  had  to  go  back  to  private  life 
in  his  house  on  the  Antigone  Island.2  Having  got  rid  of  the 
Patriarch,  the  synod  and  the  mixed  council  quarrelled  so 
badly  about  his  successor  that  their  members  excommunicated 
each  other,  and  things  came  to  an  absolute  block,  till  the 
Minister  of  Religions,  Riza  Pasha,  wrote  to  say  that  he  had 
annulled  all  their  acts,  and  that  they  were  to  elect  a  new 
Patriarch  at  once.  In  defiance  of  the  law  the  Porte  struck 
off  seven  names  from  the  first  list  of  twenty-eight  candidates 
which  was  sent  up  ;  one  of  these  names  was  that  of 
Germanos  of  Heraclea,  who  would  otherwise  almost  cer- 
tainly  have   been   chosen.      The   popular   candidate   was   the 

x  Kyriakos,  iii.  p.  20  ;  W.  A.  Phillips,  War  of  Greek  Independence,  pp.  76-77. 
2  It   was  here  that  Professor  Gelzer  visited  him  in  1899  (Geistl.  u.   Welti. 
pp.  48-50).     He  lives  with  his  nephew,  who  is  a  doctor. 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  343 

ex- Patriarch,  Joachim  III  (1878- 1884),  but  (it  was  said  at  the 
time)  Germanos  managed  to  get  his  name  struck  off  too  ; 
so  at  last  Anthimos  VII  (Metropolitan  of  Leros  and  Kalymnos) 
was  elected.  There  was  a  tumult  at  his  enthronement  ; 
the  people  wanted  Joachim,  and  would  cry  "  Unworthy  " 
("AvdifAog  avatiog)  instead  of  the  proper  form.  Germanos 
had  prudently  retired  to  Vienna.  However,  Lord  Anthimos 
began  the  reign  in  which  he  chiefly  distinguished  himself  by 
his  unpardonably  offensive  answer  to  the  Encyclical  of  Pope 
Leo  XIII  (p.  435).  In  two  years  the  popular  party  succeeded 
in  having  him  deposed.  The  immediate  reason  was  the  affair 
of  Ambrose  of  Uskub  (p.  326),  in  which  he  was  accused  of 
betraying  the  cause  of  Hellas.  No  accusation  could  have  been 
more  unjust.  The  cause  of  Hellas  is  the  one  thing  that  no 
CEcumenical  Patriarch  ever  betrays  ;  he  was  only  helpless 
before  the  Porte  and  the  Russians.  He  did  his  best  to  keep 
his  see.  As  soon  as  he  heard  that  the  synod  wanted  him  to 
retire  he  suspended  the  leaders  of  the  opposition  and  ordered 
them  to  go  back  to  their  dioceses.  Of  course  they  refused  to 
obey.  Poor  Anthimos  did  all  a  man  could.  He  went  to  the 
Yildiz- Kiosk  and  implored  the  Sultan  to  protect  him,  but  the 
Sultan  had  other  things  to  think  about,  and,  on  February  8, 
1897,  he  went  to  swell  the  number  of  ex- Patriarchs,  who  wait 
in  hope  of  being  some  day  re-elected.1  There  were  now 
three — Joachim  III,  Neophytos  VIII,  and  Anthimos  VII. 
Constantine  V  (Valiades)  was  elected  Patriarch  in  April.  Lord 
Constantine  seems  to  have  been  one  of  the  best  of  all  the  later 
CEcumenical  Patriarchs.  He  set  about  reforming  the  education 
of  priests,  insisted  that  the  services  of  the  Church  should  be 
celebrated  with  proper  reverence,  and  modified  some  of  the 
incredibly  pretentious  etiquette  which  his  court  had  inherited 
from  the  days  of  the  old  Empire.2  There  seemed  no  possible 
reason  why  he  should  be  deposed,  except  that  the  parties 
of  the  ex- Patriarchs  wanted  their  candidates  to  have  another 

1  Gelzer    saw   him    too,    sitting   on   the   same   bench    as    his   old   rival, 
Neophytos   VIII   (o.c.  ibid.). 

2  This  was  the  Patriarch  whom  Gelzer  saw  in  1899,  and  of  whom  he  gives 
a  charming  account  (Geistl.  u.  Welti,  pp.  25-30). 


344      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

chance.  In  the  spring  of  1901  it  was  first  rumoured  that  Lord 
Constantine  V  was  shaking  on  his  throne.  Twelve  metro- 
politans of  his  synod  and  six  laymen  in  the  mixed  council 
voted  for  his  resignation.  The  rich  bankers  and  merchants 
of  the  Phanar  were  all  in  favour  of  Germanos  Karavangelis, 
of  Pera.  Constantine  tried  to  remove  that  danger  by  sending 
him  to  be  Metropolitan  of  Kastoria,  a  long  way  off  in  Macedonia. 
Nevertheless,  on  April  9th,  Constantine's  resignation  was  de- 
manded by  both  synod  and  mixed  council.  But  he  did  not  want 
to  resign,  and  for  a  time  the  Porte  supported  him.  The  Greek 
paper  Anatolia,  strongly  partizan  of  the  ex- Patriarch,  Joachim 
III,  all  too  hurriedly  announced  that  Constantine  had  ceased 
to  reign.  It  was  immediately  suppressed  by  the  Government, 
and  its  proprietor  was  put  in  prison.  The  free  Greeks  of  the 
kingdom  were  also  all  for  Constantine.  But  in  Holy  Week  his 
metropolitans  again  waited  on  him  with  the  demand  that  he 
should  resign.  He  was  naturally  indignant  that  they  should 
disturb  him  during  these  august  days,  and  he  declared  that 
his  health  was  perfectly  good  and  that  he  intended  to  go  on 
presiding  over  the  Orthodox  Church.  Four  metropolitans 
were  on  his  side.  He  celebrated  the  services  of  Holy  Week 
surrounded  by  these  four,  but  boycotted  by  all  the  rest  of  his 
synod.  The  opposition  then  sent  an  order  to  the  four,  for- 
bidding them  to  communicate  with  the  deposed  one,  and  they 
besieged  the  Minister  of  Religions,  Abdurrahman,  with  peti- 
tions for  his  removal.  The  Porte  tried  to  save  him  as  long 
as  it  could,  but  the  opposition  was  too  strong.  Again 
there  was  an  absolute  block  at  the  Phanar.  The  synod  refused 
to  sit  under  Constantine  ;  and  so  he  fell.  He  retired  to  Chalki, 
and  Joachim  III  was  re-elected.  Lord  Joachim,  the  reigning 
Patriarch,  had  already  occupied  the  throne  of  Constantinople 
from  1878  to  1884.  Since  then  he  had  been  an  ex- Patriarch 
with   a   strong  party   demanding   his  re-election.     On  Friday, 

1  This  is  the  person  who  had  composed  the  answer  to  Pope  Leo  XIII's 
Encyclical  (p.  435,  n.  1),  who  let  himself  be  photographed  with  Turkish  mur- 
derers (p.  321,  n.  2),  who  declared  himself  a  freethinker  to  Mr.  Brailsford,  and 
kept  a  photograph  of  the  head  of  a  Bulgar  whom  he  had  had  murdered 
{Macedonia,  p.  193). 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  345 

June  7  (O.S.),  1901,  after  the  fall  of  Constantine  V,  he  was 
chosen  by  eighty-three  votes,  and  the  Porte  then  gave  him 
his  berate 

One  of  the  first  steps  His  Holiness  took  was  to  present  to 
the  synod  the  following  questions  for  their  consideration  :  the 
composition  of  an  Encyclical  letter  to  all  the  other  Orthodox 
Churches  with  a  view  of  taking  some  common  action  (probably 
a  general  council)  to  put  an  end  to  all  the  questions  that 
disturb  their  mutual  good  understanding  (the  aggression  of 
Russia,  the  Macedonian  troubles,  the  quarrels  at  Antioch  and 
Cyprus,  and,  above  all,  the  Bulgarian  schism)  ;  secondly,  he 
proposed  the  question  of  the  reunion  of  Christendom,  and 
especially  of  union  with  the  Old  Catholics  (he  did  not  mention 
the  Church  of  England  expressly)  as  a  thing  to  be  yet  again 
attempted,  and  he  submitted  to  their  special  attention  the 
question  of  the  Calendar  (p.  398),  the  reform  of  the  monasteries, 
and  possibly  a  modification  of  the  four  long  fasts  observed  by 
the  Orthodox.2  This  measure  argues  a  prelate  who  is  both 
zealous  for  the  good  estate  of  his  Church  and  wise  in  seeing 
her  weaknesses.  And,  indeed,  one  hears  nothing  but  what 
is  good  of  Lord  Joachim  III.  Unhappily  the  old  jealousies 
against  the  Phanar  still  go  on  among  the  other  Orthodox 
Churches,  and  so  they  are  little  disposed  to  help  his  efforts. 
He  sent  round  a  wise  and  edifying  Encyclical^  in  which  he 
asked  the  sister-Churches  to  consider  whether  some  steps 
could  not  be  taken  towards  reunion  with  the  other  Christian 
bodies.  He  divides  these  other  bodies  strangely  into  three 
classes — the  "  Western  Church  "  (i.e.,  of  course,  the  Latins),  the 
" Protestant  Church"  (which  is,  indeed,  a  comprehensive  term), 
and,   lastly,   the   infinitesimal    "  Old   Catholic   Church."       His 

1  The  other  candidates  were  Constantine  of  Chios  (seventy-two  votes),  and 
Polycarp  of  Varna  (sixty-nine  votes). 

2  E.  d'Or.  v.  pp.  243-245. 

3  The  text  is  published  in  the  'Eicic\r)<na<TTiKr}  d\r)9eia  of  April  4,  1903.  It  is 
significant  that  the  Church  of  Antioch  is  left  out  from  the  address  at  the 
beginning.  The  letter  is  addressed  to  the  "  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and 
Jerusalem,  and  to  the  autocephalous  Churches  of  Cyprus,  Russia,  Greece, 
Roumania,  &c."  Joachim  regarded  Meletios  of  Antioch  as  a  usurper.  Of 
course  Bulgaria  is  ignored  too. 


346      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Holiness  speaks  of  the  Latins  with  every  possible  charity, 
moderation,  and  courtesy,  and  hopes  for  reunion  with  us. 
Which  hope  may  God  fulfil.  The  difference  of  his  tone  from 
that  of  Anthimos  VII,  in  the  famous  answer  to  Pope  Leo  XIII, 
is  very  remarkable.  The  answers  of  the  sister-Churches,  how- 
ever, show  how  little  they  are  disposed  to  listen  to  the  voice  of 
their  honorary  chief.  Alexandria  and  Cyprus  did  not  answer 
at  all.  Lord  Photios  of  Alexandria  is  still  angry  with  the 
Phanar,  and  the  quarrel  between  the  two  Cyrils  is  still  raging  at 
Cyprus.  Jerusalem  answered  cordially  and  sympathetically. 
The  Patriarch  Damianos  said  that  it  is  unhappily  hopeless  to 
think  of  reunion  with  Latins  or  Protestants  as  long  as  they  go 
on  proselytizing  in  the  East.  But  union  with  the  Anglicans 
is  possible  and  very  desirable.  The  Calendar  should  be  re- 
formed, but  not  till  the  Latins  cease  their  "  scandalous 
proselytizing."  Athens  answered  that  no  union  is  possible, 
least  of  all  with  the  Old  Catholics,  who  will  not  give  a  plain 
account  of  what  they  do  or  do  not  believe.  Bucharest  said 
that  the  only  union  possible  would  be  the  conversion  of  Latin 
and  Protestant  heretics  to  the  one  true  Orthodox  Church  ;  the 
Old  Catholics  are  specially  hopeless,  because  they  have  given 
up  confession  and  fasting,  try  to  unite  to  the  Anglicans,  and  do 
not  know  what  they  themselves  believe.  His  Holiness  had 
better  let  the  Calendar  alone.  Belgrade  likes  the  idea  of  union 
with  the  Old  Catholics  especially.  Both  the  Julian  and  the 
Gregorian  Calendars  are  wrong.  What  the  Orthodox  want  is 
a  quite  new  one.  Russia  answered  at  great  length  and  very 
offensively.  What,  said  the  Holy  Russian  Synod,  is  the  good 
of  talking  about  reunion  with  other  bodies  when  we  are  in  such 
a  state  of  disorder  ourselves  ?  It  went  on  to  draw  up  a  list  of 
their  domestic  quarrels,  and  hinted  plainly  that  they  were  all 
the  fault  of  the  Phanar.  For  the  rest,  union  with  the  Latins 
is  impossible,  because  of  the  unquenchable  ambitions  of  the 
See  of  Rome,  which  long  ago  led  to  her  fall.  As  for  the 
Anglicans,  the  Church  of  Russia  has  always  been  well  disposed 
towards  them:  "We  show  every  possible  condescension  to 
their  perplexities,  which  are  only  natural  after  so  long  a 
separation.      But  we  must  also  loudly  proclaim  the   truth  of 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  347 

our  Church  and  her  office  as  the  one  and  only  heir  of  Christ, 
and  the  only  ark  of  salvation  left  to  men  by  God's  grace." 
They  are  also  friendly  to  the  Old  Catholics,  and  have  already 
established  commissions  to  examine  the  faith  of  both  these 
bodies.  As  for  the  Calendar,  His  Imperial  Majesty  the  Czar 
is  already  considering  the  question.  The  whole  tone  of  the 
letter,  as  one  might  have  expected,  is  that  the  Church  of 
Russia  alone  is  quite  competent  to  do  whatever  is  wanted. 
The  See  of  Constantinople  has  always  been  rather  a  hindrance 
and  source  of  trouble  than  a  help.1  So  far  then  Lord  Joachim 
III  has  shown  himself  a  wise  and  admirable  Patriarch.  Alas  ! 
he  has  one  fault,  and  that  is  an  unpardonable  one.  He  has 
already  reigned  five  years,  and  the  rival  parties  think  it  is  quite 
time  for  him  to  retire,  so  as  to  give  their  favourites  another 
chance.  Already  the  opposition  to  him  in  his  synod  has 
declared  itself.  In  January,  1905,  there  was  a  scene.  Lord 
Prokopios  of  Durazzo  led  the  anti-Joachimite  side,  and  in  a 
long  speech  attacked  a  number  of  the  Patriarch's  actions. 
"  Holy  man  of  Durazzo,"  said  Joachim  angrily,  "  thou  hast 
learnt  thy  lesson  well.  These  are  the  plots  brewed  in  the 
conventicles  of  the  holy  man  of  Ephesus."  "All  holy  one," 
said  Joachim  of  Ephesus,  "  there  are  no  conventicles  held  in 
my  house."  Then  he,  too,  made  a  list  of  accusations,  and  eight 
metropolitans  ranged  themselves  on  his  side.  The  Patriarch 
tried  the  old  and  always  hopeless  expedient  of  forbidding 
Prokopios  to  attend  the  meetings  of  the  synod.  That  only 
brought  matters  to  a  climax.  The  eight  members  at  once 
deposed  Joachim  and  telegraphed  the  news  to  Petersburg, 
Bucharest,  Athens,  Belgrade,  &c.  Then,  as  usual,  both  sides 
appealed  to  the  Sultan.  Abdulhamid  once  more  had  the 
exquisite  pleasure  of  lecturing  them  all  on  charity  and  concord. 
"  Patriarch  Effendi,"  says  he,  "  you  are  breaking  the  laws  of  the 
Church.  You  have  no  right  to  exclude  Prokopios,  and  you 
must  make  it  up  with  the  eight  metropolitans."  Then  he  sent 
for  the  eight.  "  My  metropolitans,  what  right  have  you  to 
depose  the  Patriarch  ?  It  is  not  right.  You  must  make  it  up 
with  Lord  Joachim."  He  further  hinted  that  if  the  precepts  of 
1  The  texts  of  these  letters  are  in  the  E.  cPOr.  vii.  pp.  91-99. 


348      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

their  own  Prophet  are  not  enough  to  control  their  passions 
and  to  make  them  live  in  peace,  he  would  have  to  refer  the 
matter  to  the  invincible  Ottoman  Police.  Eventually  the 
Minister  of  Religions,  our  inimitable  friend  Abdurrahman, 
last  November,  sent  a  note  to  Joachim,  telling  him  his  duty 
and  the  Canons  of  the  Orthodox  Church,  and  exhorting  him  to 
be  a  good  Patriarch  ;  but  so  far  the  Porte  is  for  him  and  he 
still  reigns.  However,  the  opposition  is  by  no  means  dead, 
and  we  may  hear  any  day  that  he  has  gone  the  weary  way  to 
Chalki  once  more,  and  that  a  new  bishop  rules  over  the  Great 
Church.1 

Besides  the  synod  and  mixed  council  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch  has  a  court  or  curia  of  officers,  whose  titles  and 
functions  in  most  cases  come  down  from  the  days  of  the  old 
Empire.  They  are  :  the  Great  Economist  (fieyag  6ik6vo^oq)}  a 
deacon  who  administers  the  finances,  presents  candidates  for 
ordination,  and  governs  the  patriarchate  when  the  see  is 
vacant ;  the  Great  Sakellarios,  who  looks  after  the  monasteries  ; 
the  Great  Sacristan  (jj-iyac  oKevotyvkal) ;  the  Chancellor  (xapro()>v\a£) ; 
the  Sakellion  (aaiceWtcop),  who  is  responsible  for  convents  ;  the 
Protonotary  (irp^TovoTaptog,  Byzantine  Greek  has  a  number  of 
Latin  and  hybrid  words),  who  is  the  Patriarch's  secretary  ; 
the  Warden  of  the  Robes  (tccurrprivmoQ)  ;  the  Rephendarios 
{pe^epMpioQ),  who  is  sent  on  embassies  ;  the  Great  Logothete,  who 
keeps  the  seal ;  the  Hypomnematographos,  who  writes  down 
protocols  of  synods  and  counts  votes  j  the  Protekdikos,  who  is 
judge  of  smaller  cases  ;  the  Hieromnemon,  who  keeps  the 
liturgical  books  ;  the  Hypogonaton,  who  helps  vest  the  Patriarch 
and  holds  the  paten  at  Holy  Communion  ;  the  Hypominmeskon, 
who  receives  petitions  ;  and  the  Didaskalos1  who  explains  the 

1  The  details  of  all  this  account  will  be  found  in  the  Greek  newspapers  of 
the  last  eight  years.  See  also  Tournebize  :  L'Eglise  grecque-orthodoxe, 
i.  pp.  57-61.  E.  d'Or.  iv.  pp.  307-309,  368-373  ;  v.  pp.  243-244  ;  vi.  pp.  275- 
277  ;  vii.  91-99  (the  answers  to  Joachim  Ill's  Encyclical),  305-306,  362-366  ; 
viii.  pp.  51-53,  179-181.  The  ex-Patriarch,  Anthimos  VII,  has  written  a  letter 
full  of  reproaches  to  Joachim  III  ;  but  the  popular  candidate  for  the  succes- 
sion seems  to  be  Joachim  of  Ephesus.  The  language  they  use  about  each 
other  is  incredible.  This  Joachim  is  pleasantly  described  in  the  Patriarch's 
organ  as  an  animal  who  should  carry  parcels  and  an  eater  of  hay. 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  349 

Gospel  and  the  Psalms  to  all  the  others.  The  above-named 
persons,  divided  into  three  sets  of  five  each,  stand  on  the  right 
side  of  the  altar  when  the  Patriarch  celebrates.  On  the  left 
are  seventeen  officers,  namely,  the  Protopope  and  the  Second 
Priest  (devrepeiHov),  the  Exarch,1  the  Head  of  Churches  (6  apx<ov  rihv 
EKic\r)(Tiibv)f  who  keeps  the  holy  chrism,  the  Catechist,  Periodeutes, 
who  visits  country  churches,  the  Baptist ,  First  Singer  (7rpioTo\p6Xrrig), 
two  other  Singers  and  Primicerii,  the  Choirmaster  {rrpoj^og),  who 
tells  the  others  which  is  the  dominant  of  the  mode  they  are 
singing,  Master  of  Ceremonies,  Church-cleaner,  Doorkeeper,  Lamp- 
lighter, the  Dean,  who  persuades  the  clergy  that  their 
cathedratica  (patriarchal  fees)  are  not  too  great,  and  the  Deputy, 
who  goes  before  the  Patriarch  and  tells  the  crowd  to  stand 
back.  So  the  CEcumenical  Patriarchs,  during  their  short  reigns, 
are  able  to  enjoy  the  dignity  of  quite  a  large  court.  The  Great 
Logothete  is  the  only  one  of  these  officers  whose  position  is 
really  important.  He  is  always  a  layman,  whose  appointment 
must  be  confirmed  by  the  Porte,  and  he  is  the  official  inter- 
mediary between  the  Phanar  and  the  Turkish  Government. 
All  synodal  acts,  appointments  to  sees,  depositions,  and 
canonical  acts  generally  must  be  countersigned  by  him.  And 
in  the  intrigues  that  flourish  round  the  throne  of  Constantinople, 
the  Great  Logothete  plays  a  very  important  part.2 

2.  The  other  Patriarchs,  Bishops,  Priests,  and  Clerks. 

We  have  seen  something  of  the  state  of  the  other 
patriarchates  at  the  present  time.  Here  we  need  only  add 
their  titles  and  arms.  In  Egypt,  Libya,  and  Arabia  the 
Orthodox  are  ruled  by  the  "  most  divine  and  all-holy  Lord, 
the  Lord  Patriarch  of  Alexandria,  Judge  of  the  World."  3     He 

1  This  is  the  person  who  examines  marriage  cases — Defensor  matrimonii. 
He  must  not  be  confused  with  the  Bulgarian  Exarch. 

2  Silbernagl  :  Verfassung,  u.s.w.  pp.  20-23. 

3  'O  Quotcltoq  teed  7ravayiu)Tarog  Kvpiog,  6  Ttarpiap^g  'AXtZavSphag,  diKacrr^g 
tov  Koafiov.  This  curious  title  may  be  a  reminiscence  of  the  days  when 
St.  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  the  great  hero  of  the  Egyptian  Church,  judged  and 
deposed  Nestoriusof  Constantinople  at  Ephesus  (431).  The  Coptic  Patriarch 
uses  it  too.  I  have  also  seen  a  longer  title  adding  that  he  is  Patriarch  of 
Abyssinia,  Nubia,  and  all  the  places  where  St.  Mark  preached. 


350      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

is  also  called  "Your  All-holiness"  (iravayLdrrjg).  He  bears  as 
arms  the  lion  of  St.  Mark,  sejant-guardant,  crowned  and 
winged,  bearing  in  the  dexter  jambe  a  closed  book  surmounted 
by  a  cross  urdy.  The  head  of  Orthodox  Syria,  Cilicia,  and 
Mesopotamia  is  the  u  most  divine  and  holy  Lord,  the  Lord 
Patriarch  of  the  great  God-favoured  city  Antioch  and  of  all  the 
East."  ■  He  is  his  "  Holiness  "  (aywrrjg)  only,  and  he  bears  for 
his  arms  a  representation  of  the  Apostles'  Church  at  Antioch, 
between  the  Holy  Apostles  St.  Peter  and  St.  Paul  statant 
affronty  attired  with  their  symbols.  Over  Orthodox  Palestine 
reigns  the  "  most  divine  and  holy  Lord,  the  Lord  Patriarch  of 
the  Holy  City  Jerusalem  and  of  the  whole  Land  of  Promise." 2 
He  is  called  his  "  Holiness,"  and  bears  a  representation  of  the 
Church  of  the  Anastasis.3  The  chief  bishop  of  Cyprus,  when 
at  last  there  is  one,  will  be  "  Archbishop  of  Justiniane  and 
all  Cyprus."  4  Except  in  Russia  nearly  all  Orthodox  bishops 
are  metropolitans.  A  few  have  real  provinces  and  suffragans 
(these  suffragans  are  the  only  persons  usually  called  bishops), 
the  great  majority  have  no  extra-diocesan  jurisdiction,  but  all 
depend  immediately  on  their  Patriarch  or  Holy  Synod,  although 
they  all  bear  the  quite  meaningless  title  metropolitan  instead  of 


1  '0  Oeiorarog  Kai  ayuorarog  Kvpiog,  6  TraTpidpxrjg  rrjg  fiiyaXrjg  Kai  QeioTarrig 
7r6ksu>g  ' AvTiu)x^iaQ  Kai  Traarig  rrjg  dvaToXrjg.  This  title  is  not  really  so  pre- 
tentious as  it  sounds.  The  "  East "  (dvaroXr))  means  the  old  Roman  Diocese 
of  the  East,  ruled  by  the  Comes  Orientis,  see  p.  22.  His  Holiness  of  the 
God-favoured  city  also  has  a  longer  title  including  Cilicia,  Iberia,  Syria, 
Arabia,  and  all  the  East — melancholy  remnant  of  better  days. 

8  '0  Oeiorarog  Kai  ayiwrarog  Kvpiog,  6  TraTpidpxVQ  i~rjg  dyiag  7r6Xe(og 
'Iepov<Ta\r)n  Kai  Tcdar\g  rf\g  yrjg  rrjg  ewayyeXiag. 

3  I  have  only  seen  these  arms  on  seals,  and  cannot  find  the  tinctures. 
Probably  they  are  all  very  late.  Heraldry  is  a  Western  art.  Orthodox 
bishops  do  not  impale  their  paternal  coats  with  the  see.  They  have  none  to 
impale.  The  Empire  evolved  some  sort  of  rudimentary  heraldry  (it  bore 
the  spread-eagle  sable  in  a  field  or),  and  under  the  Venetian  Government 
some  of  the  Corfiote  families  began  to  use  arms.  Quite  lately,  too,  there  has 
been  a  beginning  of  heraldry  in  the  Balkan  States  (they  have  all  taken  arms) 
as  part  of  the  general  imitation  of  Western  manners.  But  the  whole  thing 
is  really  strange  to  Greeks  and  still  more  so  to  Arabs. 

4  ' ApxiEirioKOTTog  rrjg  lovanviavrjg  Kai  Traor}g  ILvirpov.  The  title  of  Justiniane 
is  the  curious  relic  of  Justinian's  attempt  to  transport  the  islanders  to  Thrace 
(p.  49). 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  351 

that  of  bishop.1  One  does  not  often  hear  of  an  archbishop. 
The  name  occurs  in  the  official  title  of  the  Patriarch  of  Con- 
stantinople, and  in  the  case  of  one  or  two  heads  of  autocephalous 
Churches.  The  title  Exarch  is  also  kept  for  a  metropolitan 
who  fills  some  exceptional  and  important  position,  as  the 
Exarch  of  Georgia.  So  the  Bulgars,  not  quite  daring  to  call 
the  head  of  their  Church  Patriarch,  made  him  an  Exarch. 
There  is  nothing  corresponding  to  our  Cathedral  Chapters. 
All  bishops  are  appointed  by  the  Patriarch,  Holy  Synod,  or 
other  head  of  their  Church.  They  must  be  celibates,  and  so 
are  practically  always  chosen  from  the  monasteries.  They 
must  be  thirty  years  old,  and  are  consecrated  by  the  Patriarch 
or  chief  Metropolitan  of  their  Church  (or  by  their  deputy) 
assisted  by  two  other  bishops.2  The  idea  that  to  consecrate  a 
bishop  involves  jurisdiction  over  him  still  prevails  in  the  East. 
Metropolitans  (and  other  bishops)  are  addressed  as  "  Your 
Beatitude,"  they  are  "  most  Blessed  Lords,"  and  are  spoken  of 
as  the  "  Holy  man  "  of  such  a  place.  The  title  Despot  (which 
in  Greek  has  of  course  nothing  of  the  bad  associations  of  its 
English  form)  is  often  used  too  ;  the  Turks  usually  speak  of  the 
bishop  as  the  Despot  Effendi.3  All  bishops  are  exempt  from  the 
law  which  forbade  Rayahs  to  ride  a  horse  or  to  have  followers. 
Their  names  are  mentioned  throughout  their  dioceses  in  the 
Holy  Liturgy.  They  wear  the  usual  dress  of  monks,  a  long  black 
cassock  and  cloak  with  the  invariable  black  kalemaukion  (brim- 
less  hat),  and  are  only  distinguished  by  the  superior  material  of 
their  clothes  (the  cloak  is  often  fur-lined,  &c),  the  medal  they 
wear  round  their  neck,  their  veil,  and  the  handsome  ivory  or 
silver-headed  walking-stick  they  carry.-*  The  institution  of  the 
Chorepiscofii    (xuptniaKoirog,   Country   Bishop)   in   the    East   has 

1  The  Greek  Church  will  gradually  change  this  (p.  314).     'Apxiepevg  is  a 
rather  grandiloquent  name  for  any  bishop  or  abbot. 

2  In  Turkey  every  bishop  must  receive  his  berat  from  the   Government 
before  he  is  consecrated. 

3  'XfitTEpa  [x,aica.pi6Ti]g'  MaKapidJrarog  Kvpiog'  'O  liyiog  tu>v  A9r]vu>v,  tov  KopivQov 
k.t.X.  AevTrorrjg. 

4  They  have  no  rings,  and  are  very  angry  with  our  bishops  for  wearing 
them.    This  was  one  of  Cerularius's  complaints  against  us  (p.  191). 

For  liturgical  vestments  see  p.  405. 


352      THE    ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

been  the  cause  of  much  discussion.     The  Chorepiscopus  is  a 
person  who  takes  rank  between  the  town  bishop  (that  is  the 
bishop  who  has  his  see  in  some  city)  and  the  priest.     The  first 
time  they  are  mentioned  is  at  the  Synod  of  Ancyra  in  314.     It 
is  much  discussed  whether  they  had  bishops'  orders,  so  as  to  be 
auxiliary  bishops,  or  whether  they  were  priests  with  delegate 
authority  over  other  priests,  like  rural  deans.      There  seems 
evidence  for  both  statements.     It  is  possible  that  the  office  of 
Chorepiscopus  was  one  that  could  and  generally  was  held  by  a 
priest,  although  some  of  them  may  have  been  also  ordained 
bishop,  just  as  the  provost  of  a  chapter  or  rector  of  a  church 
with  us  may  be  a  bishop.1     Chorepiscopi  still  exist  in  all  the 
Eastern  Churches.     Among  the  Uniates  I   believe  they  never 
have  bishops'  orders.   The  Orthodox  Chorepiscopus  is  generally 
bishop  of  a  titular  see,  and  then  Chorepiscopus  of  some  place 
within  the  real  diocese.     Thus  Germanos  Karavangelis,  before 
he  became  Metropolitan  of  Kastoria,  was  bishop  of  some  titular 
place  (I  forget  what  it  was  called)  and  Chorepiscopus  of  Pera. 
The  secular  clergy  are  educated  at  various  seminaries  and  at 
the  theological  faculties  of   universities.     The  great  seminary 
of  the  Byzantine  Patriarchate  is  at  Chalki,  one  of  the  Princes' 
Islands  in  the  Sea  of  Marmora.     It  was  founded  in  1844,  and 
last    summer    had    eighty-three    students.2     There    are    other 
seminaries  at   Caesarea   in   Cappadocia,   Janina,   and    Patmos. 
Alexandria  has  no  seminary.      Meletios  of   Antioch   has   just 
founded  one  at  Balamand  (near  Tripolis  in  Syria),  Jerusalem 
has  two — the  Holy  Cross  College  for  Greeks,  just  outside  the 
city,  and  the  college  of  the  three  Hierarchs  3  inside,  for  Arabs. 
Russia    has   a   famous   "  Spiritual    Academy "   at    Petersburg/ 
besides  many  other  seminaries.     The  Rizarion  at  Athens  is  a 
large  college  of  the  same  kind,  and  there  were  others  at  Syros, 

1  Cf.   F.   Gillmann :    Das   Institut   der  Chorbischofe   im    Orient,  Munich, 
1903. 

2  For  a  description  of  this  seminary  see  E.  d'Or.  viii.  pp.  353-361,  and 
Gelzer,  Geisil.  u.  Welti,  pp.  46-48. 

3  The    three  Hierarchs  are    SS.  Basil,   Gregory  of  Nazianz,  and  John 
Chrysostom. 

4  W.  Palmer  visited  it  in   1840.    See  his   Visit  to  the  Russian  Church, 
pp.  299-305. 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  353 

Chalkis,  Tripolis  (in  Greece),  and  Kerkyra.1  The  universities 
of  Athens  and  Bucharest  have  theological  faculties.  Neverthe- 
less, the  Orthodox  clergy  has  not  the  reputation  of  being  a 
learned  one.2  In  order  that  they  may  acquire  more  scholarship 
than  can  be  procured  at  home,  a  number  of  students  are 
now  sent  by  their  bishops  to  study  at  the  German  Protestant 
theological  faculties  ;  and  Berlin,  Leipzig,  Jena,  Halle,  &c,  are 
full  of  Greek  students,  who,  with  the  versatility  of  their  race, 
very  soon  learn  to  talk  German  perfectly,  and  to  think  and 
argue  about  theological  questions  like  German  higher  critics. 
The  disadvantage  of  the  arrangement  is  that  they  generally 
take  the  rationalistic  ideas  they  have  learnt  back  with  them. 
There  is  much  more  freethinking  among  the  better  educated 
Orthodox  clergy  than  would  be  supposed.3  It  is  often  said  that 
Orthodox  priests  may  marry.  This  is  a  mistake.  The  Sacra- 
ment of  Holy  Order  is  a  diriment  impediment  to  marriage  with 
them,  as  with  us.  But  if  they  are  married  before  ordination, 
they  may  keep  their  wives  ;  and  this  is  what  always  happens 
among  the  secular  clergy.  They  are  appointed  to  parishes  by 
the  bishops,  and  live  on  small  stipends  paid  by  their  parishioners 
and  stole-fees.  In  Turkey  a  marriage  costs  from  5  to  10 
piastres,  a  baptism  1  to  3  piastres,  a  funeral  3  to  5  piastres, 
a  requiem  about  5  piastres.4  Collections  are  made  in  churches 
on  Sundays  and  holidays.  A  priest  who  has  faculties  to  hear 
confessions  is  called  a  Pneumatikos  (Ghostly  Father)  ;  he  must 
be  forty  years  old,  and  he  receives  jurisdiction  from  the  bishop 
specially.  The  Diaconate  is  a  much  more  actual  thing  in  the 
Orthodox  Church  than  with  us.  It  is  not  merely  the  last 
stepping-stone  to  the  priesthood,  but  numbers  of  clerks  remain 
deacons  all  their  lives  and  help  as  curates  in  the  parishes. 
Under  the  Diaconate  there  are  four  minor  orders,  those  of  the 

1  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  105,  seq.  These  other  schools  have  come  to  an  end  from 
being  insufficiently  attended. 

2  Kyriakos  himself  continually  complains  of  this  (e.gr.  I.e.)  ;  but  he  is  of  the 
German  Protestantizing  school  (he  studied  at  Halle),  who  always  speak 
scornfully  of  the  clergy  educated  at  home. 

3  Brailsford,  Macedonia,  p.  193,  tells  of  a  metropolitan  who  avowed 
himself  a  freethinker.    It  is  that  impossible  person  Germanos  Karavangelis. 

«  Silbernagl,  p.  42. 

24 


354      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

Subdeacon,1  Reader,  Exorcist,  and  Doorkeeper.  Of  course  all 
priests  have  received  these  orders  too.  The  secular  clergy  wear 
a  cassock,  cloak,  and  kalemaukion  (priests  have  no  veil  over  it). 
They  have  no  tonsure,  but  wear  long  hair  and  a  beard.  To 
have  their  hair  cut  and  be  shaven  is  the  mark  of  disgrace  when 
they  are  suspended. 

3.  The  Monks. 

Monasticism  is  a  very  important  feature  of  the  Orthodox 
Church.  In  general  it  may  be  said  that  it  has  gone  through 
none  of  the  development  that  has  gradually  modified  our  idea 
of  the  religious  life,  and  that  it  still  represents  the  system  that 
St.  Basil  knew  in  the  East  and  St.  Benedict  found  already 
existing  in  the  West.  Indeed,  an  Orthodox  monastery  is  the 
most  perfect  relic  of  the  4th  century  left  in  the  world.2  We 
have  different  orders  with  various  titles,  rules,  and  objects  : 
there  are  teaching  orders,  nursing  orders,  orders  for  doing  the 
work  of  the  secular  clergy,  orders  for  preaching  to  the  poor, 
orders  for  saving  the  rich.  And  with  us  a  religious  is  either 
a  monk,  or  a  friar,  or  a  canon  regular,  &c.  ;  they  have  various 
letters  after  their  names,  honour  different  holy  founders,  and 
obey  different  rules.  The  Orthodox  monk  understands  nothing 
of  all  this.  He  belongs  to  no  special  order,  has  no  letters  after 
his  name,  and  he  would  indignantly  declare  that  the  only 
founder  of  his  order  is  our  Lord  himself.  If  one  were  to  ask 
him  what  he  does — whether  he  teaches,  nurses,  preaches,  or 
hears  confessions — he  would  explain  that  these  things  are 
done  by  people  in  the  world  ;  he  is  a  monk.  They  still  have 
the  ideal  of  the  religious  life  as  meaning  only  one  thing,  to 
flee  the  world.  It  is  that  of  the  fathers  of  the  desert.  One 
would  describe  them  as  being  all  contemplative,  except  that 
they  never  contemplate.  That,  too,  is  a  Latin  innovation. 
They  say  enormous  quantities  of  vocal  prayers,  sing  endless 

1  The  Subdiaconate  has  always  been  a  minor  order  in  the  East. 

2  Harnack  :  Das  Mifnchtum,  Seine  Ideale  u.  Seine  Geschichte  (Giessen,  1880, 
also  printed  in  his  Reden  u.  AufstUze,  Giessen,  1904,  i.  pp.  81-139)  is  a  very 
illuminating  study  of  the  gradual  development  of  the  ideal  of  a  religious  order 
in  the  West. 


THE  ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  355 

psalms,  fast  incredibly  ;  and  that  is  all.  Most  of  them  are  not 
priests,  and  those  that  are  never  have  the  care  of  souls  outside 
their  monastery.  That  is  the  business  of  the  bishops  and  secular 
clergy.  They  are  monks  who  have  left  all  that.  And  they  have 
no  distinctions  of  orders.  A  monk  is  just  a  monk  and  needs  no 
other  name.  They  all  follow  the  rule  of  St.  Basil,1  but  they  are 
indignant  if  one  calls  them  Basilians.  They  do  not  belong  to 
St.  Basil's  order,  they  explain,  but  St.  Basil  belonged  to  theirs. 
And  the  object  of  their  life  is  to  be  like  the  Angels  ;  it  is  the 
M  Angelic  life,"  and  their  habit  is  the  M  Angelic  dress."  Each 
monastery  (Xavpa)  is  independent  of  all  the  others — they  have 
no  generals,  nor  provincials.  Most  lauras,  however,  are  under 
the  jurisdiction  of  the  Metropolitan  ;  a  few  of  the  greatest  are 
immediately  subject  to  the  Patriarch  and  are  called  Stauropegia 
((TTCLvpoirriyiov).'2  Many  lauras  have  daughter-houses  subject  to 
their  abbot ;  such  a  house  is  called  Kellion  (keXXIop)  or  Kalyba 
(*a\v/3a),  and  they  are  sometimes  grouped  in  a  sort  of  village 
called  a  Sketa  (<r^ra).3  The  head  of  a  laura  (abbot)  is  the 
Hegumenos  (rjyovfievog,  leader).*  He  is  appointed  by  the  Metro- 
politan (or  Patriarch),  after  having  been  elected  by  the  monks, 
is  blessed  and  enthroned  by  the  same  Metropolitan,  while  the 
monks  cry  "  Worthy  "  (a&og)  ;  and  he  then  rules  for  life,  unless 
he  be  deposed  for  very  scandalous  conduct.  A  Hegumenos  is 
absolute  master  of  his  laura  and  its  kellia  ;  but  he  must  govern 
according  to  the  Canons  and  St.  Basil's  rule,  and  he  is  generally 
assisted  by  a  parliament  of  the  elder  monks  (the  Synaxis).     The 

1  There  are  a  few  monasteries  that  still  follow  an  older  rule,  called  that  of 
St.  Antony.  Mount  Sinai  does  so,  as  well  as  some  on  Lebanon  and  by  the 
Red  Sea  (Silbernagl,  p.  46). 

2  One  laura,  Mount  Sinai,  as  we  have  seen,  is  independent  even  of  any 
Patriarch. 

3  This  is  a  shortened  form  of  dtTKrjTrjpia,  a<jKi\Ta.  Such  a  group  or  village 
of  monks'  houses  is  united  by  the  one  church  used  by  all. 

*  The  Hegumenos  of  a  specially  important  laura  is  called  ^Archimandrite 
— ap\i\iavZpiTi\g^  apx^v  rrjg  pdvSpag.  Maudpa  means  hurdle,  then  sheepfold. 
The  name  begins  about  the  5th  century.  It  has  often  been  used  as  synony- 
mous with  riyovfievog,  and  also  occurs  in  the  Latin  Church  (cf.  Ducange,  s.v.). 
Silbernagl  is  wrong  in  thinking  that  every  priest-monk  is  an  archimandrite 
(p.  46).  Cf.  Cabrol  :  Dictionnaire  d' archeologie  chretienne  et  de  liturgic 
(Paris,  1906,  in  course  of  publication),  s.v.,  col.  2,739,  seq. 


356      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

head  of  a  kellion  under  the  Hegumenos  is  the  Geron,  the  head 
of  a  Sketa,  the  Dikaios.  The  present  Canon  Law  orders  that 
any  one  who  wishes  to  be  a  monk  shall  first  obey  the  rule 
for  three  years  in  lay  dress  (as  a  novice).  This  time  may, 
however,  be  shortened  in  the  case  of  older  men  who  show 
great  piety  and  gravity.  After  the  noviceship,  the  monk  re- 
ceives the  first  habit,  a  cassock,  leather  belt,  and  kalemaukion. 
He  is  now  a  beginner  (apxaptog),  and  wears  a  large  tonsure  with 
long  hair  and  a  beard.  After  about  two  more  years  he  makes 
solemn  vows  of  poverty,  chastity,  and  obedience,  and  receives 
a  short  cloak,  the  mandyas  (fiavdvag).  After  some  years  more, 
he  at  last  has  the  complete  angelic  dress,  a  great  cloak  (kovkovXiov) 
marked  with  five  crosses,  and  a  scapular  (avaXafiag).  Most 
monks  have  no  orders  ;  they  form  the  usual  class,  and  are 
called  simply  monks  (yuovaxot),  some  are  ordained  deacon  and 
some  priests,  who  then  become  priest-monks  (lepofjioraxoi).  The 
common  people,  however,  call  all  of  them  of  any  age  or  rank 
"  good  old  men  "  (icaXoyepoi),  and  "  good  old  man  "  is  the  usual 
name  for  a  monk  all  over  the  East.1  All  monks  sing  the  whole 
of  their  enormously  long  office  every  day  in  choir,  and  this  takes 
up  the  great  part  of  the  day  ; 2  on  the  eve  of  great  feasts  they 
spend  the  whole  night  in  their  church,  too,  keeping  the  vigil 
with  the  office  of  the  night-watch  (6\orvKnic6i>).3  The  rest  of  the 
time  they  rest  from  the  labour  of  saying  the  office,  sleep,  dig  in 
the  garden,  or  do  work  for  the  monastery.  The  Athos  monks 
seem  to  spend  a  good  deal  of  time  rowing  boats.  Although 
there  are  no  different  religious  orders,  there  are  two  very 
different  kinds  of  monastery.  The  stricter  monasteries  are 
Ccenobia  (koip6j3lcl).  In  these,  the  monks  possess  nothing  at  all, 
live  and  eat  together  and  have  definite  tasks  appointed  to  them 
by  their  superiors.  But  there  are  also  many  Idioryihmic  monas- 
teries (Idiopvdfia)  in  which  the  monks  live  entirely  apart  from  one 

1  The  Turks  have  taken  the  word  into  their  language. 

2  Rather  more  than  eight  hours.  They  divide  the  twenty-four  hours  of  the 
day  into  three  parts— eight  hours  for  the  office,  eight  for  hand  work,  eight  for 
food,  sleep,  and  recreation.  That  is  the  theory.  Really,  except  on  great 
feasts,  they  chant  the  office  very  fast  and  get  through  it  in  about  six  hours 
altogether. 

3  Also  called  agrypnia. 


THE  ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  357 

another.  Each  receives  from  the  monastery  fuel,  wine,  vege- 
tables, cheese,  and  about  £2  or  £3  a  year.  The  rest  he  must 
earn  for  himself.  They  only  meet  for  the  Divine  Office  and  on 
great  feasts  for  dinner.  Otherwise  they  do  what  they  like.  But 
their  lives  are  quite  simple,  poor,  and  edifying. 

Besides  the  monasteries  there  are  a  few  hermits  who  live 
entirely  alone,  chiefly  in  Macedonia.1     Monasteries  are  spread 
all  over  the  Orthodox  world.     The  Meteora  lauras  in  Thessaly, 
perched  on  the  top  of  crags  to  which  one  is  hauled  up  in  a 
basket,  are  famous  ;  Sveti  Naum,  on  Lake  Ochrida,  has  been 
much  discussed  lately  as   a   forepost   of   Hellenism   in  Mace- 
donia,2 Jerusalem  has  ten  Orthodox  monasteries,  Cyprus  four- 
teen, Russia  four  hundred^  &c.     We  have  already  spoken  of 
Mount  Sinai  (p.  310).     But  the  most  famous  of  all,  and  one  of 
the  great  centres  of  the   Orthodox   Church,  is   the  monastic 
republic  on  the  Holy  Mountain,  Athos.     Mount  Athos  is  at  the 
end  of  the  northernmost  of  the  three  peninsulas  that  jut  out 
from  Chalcis.     The  whole  peninsula  is  a  colony  of  monasteries  ; 
even  the  Turks  call  it  Ay  on  Oros  (to  ay 10  v  opog).     In  the  10th 
century   a   certain   St.   Athanasius   built  a  great  laura  here  ;  4 
gradually  others  were  founded  round  it,  and  now  there  are 
twenty  lauras,  which  have  many  more  kellia  and  sketai  under 
them.      All  these  lauras  are  stauropegia — no   bishop   but   the 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch  has  any  jurisdiction  on  the  Holy  Moun- 
tain— and  all  but  one  are  "  Imperial  lauras."     When  the  Turk 
came  he  allowed  autonomy  and  special  privileges  to  the  monks' 
republic,  and  in  this  case  he  has  honourably  kept  his  word. 
The  result  is  that  the  only  Rayahs  who  ever  speak  well  of  the 
Sultan  are  the  Athos  monks.s     The  most  important  of  these 

1  For  monastic  life  in  the  Orthodox  Church  see  Silbernagl,  pp.  43-60,  and 
the  books  on  Mount  Athos  quoted,  p.  xxv. 

2  Cf.  Gelzer  :  Vom  hlgen  Berge,  u.s.w.,  pp.  189-201. 

3  The  three  greatest  lauras  in  Russia  are  the  Holy  Trinity  at  Moscow,  St. 
Alexander  at  Petersburg,  and  the  Holy  Wisdom  at  Kiev.  Mr.  Palmer  spent 
some  time  at  the  Moscow  laura  (Visit,  &c,  pp.  183-220). 

4  There  are  wonderful  legends  about  Athos,  tracing  the  foundations  back  to 
St.  Constantine,  the  "equal  of  the  Apostles,"  and  telling  of  endless  apparitions 
and  miracles  (Gelzer,  o.c.  pp.  10-14).    See  also  the  real  history  (pp.  14-28). 

s  All  Mohammedans  have  a  great  respect  for  any  sort  of  ascetic,  holy  man 
or  monk.    They,  too,  know  what  fakirs  are. 


358      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

twenty  lauras  are  the  great  laura  of  St.  Athanasius  (Greek),  the 
enormous  Russian  Panteleimon  (Russiko),  the  old  Georgian 
monastery  of  the  Falling  Asleep  of  the  Mother  of  God  (Iviron, 
now  Greek),  Vatopedi,  Esfigmenu,  Zografu,  &C.1  Each  is 
governed  by  its  own  Hegumenos,  and  no  one  has  authority 
over  another,  though  many  have  dependent  kellia,2  which,  of 
course,  obey  their  mother-house.  Some  lauras  are  Coenobic 
and  others  Idiorythmic.  But  there  is  a  general  administration 
for  the  whole  commonwealth  chosen  in  this  way.  Each 
monastery  sends  one  deputy  and  one  assistant-deputy  to 
Karyaes,  in  the  middle  of  the  peninsula.  The  twenty  deputies 
are  divided  into  five  groups  of  four  each,  and  each  group  takes 
it  in  turn  to  preside  over  the  whole  colony.  They  have  no 
authority  over  the  internal  arrangements  of  each  laura,  but 
they  have  to  judge  between  them  in  disputes  and  represent  the 
whole  in  exterior  affairs,  that  is  with  the  Porte  and  the  Phanar. 
A  Turkish  Aga3  also  lives  at  Karyaes.  The  Government  of 
Athos  keeps  a  representative  at  the  Phanar  and  at  Salonike. 
The  various  lauras  have  metochia*  all  over  Macedonia,  and 
even  as  far  off  as  Tiflis  and  Moscow.  The  Metropolitan  of 
Heraclea  comes  to  hold  ordinations,  but  always  as  the  guest  of 
the  Hegumenos  of  each  laura,  and  on  the  distinct  understanding 
that  he  has  no  jurisdiction.  The  monks  are  exceedingly 
hospitable  to  guests,  but  the  guests  must  be  men.  One  of  the 
strictest  of  all  laws  here  is  that  no  woman,  nor  even  any  sort  of 
female  animal,  may  ever  set  foot  on  the  Holy  Mountain.  The 
Aga  during  his  time  of  office  has  to  live  in  unwilling  celibacy. 
In  1902  there  were  7,522  monks  at  Athos — 3,615  Russians, 
3,207  Greeks,  340  Bulgars,  288  Vlachs,  53  Georgians,  and  18 
Serbs.  Unhappily  the  international  quarrels  that  rend  all  the 
Orthodox  Church  flourish  exceedingly  on  the  Holy  Mountain. 
Here,  too,  Greek,  Bulgar,  Vlach,  and  Serb  hate  and  persecute 


1  The  complete  list  in  Gelzer,  o.c.  pp.  28-29  \  Silbernagl,  pp.  53-54. 

9  There  are  290  kellia  and  11  sketai  at  Athos. 

s  An  Aga  is  a  small  sort  of  governor. 

*  A  metochion  is  a  daughter-house  or  farm  a  long  way  off,  administered  by 
monks  sent  from  the  laura.  It  differs  from  a  kellion  in  being  a  source  of 
revenue  to  the  parent-house. 


THE   ORTHODOX  HIERARCHY  359 

each  other.  And  here,  too,  of  course,  Russia  is  the  common 
enemy.  Formerly  the  Greeks  had  managed  to  drive  out  nearly 
all  the  other  elements.  They  had  seized  and  Hellenized  Iviron 
(the  Georgian  laura),  the  Russian  Pantelei'mon,  and  the  Bul- 
garian monasteries  Philotheu,  Xenophontos,  and  St.  Paul.  But 
now  those  days  are  over,  and  at  Athos,  as  everywhere,  the 
Russians  are  eating  everything  up.  They  are  already  the 
majority.  Since  the  Phanar  will  not  let  them  have  any  other 
laura  besides  Pantelei'mon,  they  have  made  that  enormously 
big,  and  have  founded  kellia  and  sketai  all  over  the  peninsula, 
dependent  on  Pantelei'mon,  but  really  larger  and  richer  than 
many  lauras.  And  so  on  the  Holy  Mountain,  too,  the  traveller 
hears  chiefly  one  endless  wail  of  the  Orthodox  against  each 
other.1  This  centre  of  monasticism  has  specially  set  its  face 
against  any  degradation  of  the  monastic  ideal  into  a  life  of 
study.  Eugenios  Bulgaris  (p.  250)  tried  to  found  a  school  to 
teach  the  monks  something  of  scholarship.  Indignantly  they 
tore  it  down  ;  it  still  stands  a  ruin  and  a  warning  that  the  Angelic 
life  has  nothing  to  do  with  such  vanities  as  knowledge,  even  of 
theology.  Knowledge  puffeth  up,  but  charity  edifieth.  But 
not  every  stranger  is  edified  by  a  scorn  for  knowledge  which 
is  most  certainly  not  caused  by  great  zeal  for  charity.  The 
Protestant  Professor  Gelzer,  who  is  exceedingly  well  disposed 
towards  the  Orthodox  Church,  has  this  to  say  about  it :  "  While 
the  Catholic  Orders  as  teaching  or  nursing  bodies  have  become 
an  important  element  in  the  civilization  of  the  19th  century, 
what  have  Athos,  Sinai,  Patmos,  or  Megaspilaion  been  doing  ? 
The  Greeks  often  bitterly  complain  of  the  mighty  progress  of 
the  Catholic  Propaganda  ;  but  they  must  themselves  own  that 
the  best  schools  and  hospitals  in  Turkey  belong  to  the  Catholic 
Orders.  ...  It  is  no  good  scolding  and  complaining.  If  the 
monks,  like  their  Western  brethren,  would  work  for  the  educa- 
tion and  social  improvement  of  their  people,  then  the  monas- 
teries would  have  a  real  reason  for  their  existence.  .  .  .  The 
more  cultured  people,  who  are  full  of  Western  ideas,  look  on 

1  About  Mount  Athos  cf.  Gelzer  :  Vom  hlgen  Berge,  part  I.  Ech.  d'Or.  iv. 
La  vie  cenobitique  a  V Athos,  pp.  80-87,  I45-I53  J  Les  monasteres  idiorrhythmes 
de  V Athos,  pp.  288-295. 


360      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

monks  with  scorn,  even  with  hatred,  and  the  unlimited  reverence 
that  simple  folk  once  had  for  the  'good  old  man'  is  visibly 
disappearing.  Nothing  can  put  off  the  ruin  of  monasticism 
except  a  great  moral  revival  which  would  make  an  imitation  of 
the  splendid  Catholic  example  possible.  .  .  .  And  it  cannot 
be  said  that  this  is  opposed  to  the  spirit  of  Eastern  religious 
life.  The  Mechitarists,  who  are  united  to  Rome  but  true  sons 
of  Armenia,  have  for  a  long  time  kept  flourishing  schools  both 
at  Constantinople  and  in  the  provinces." x  Of  course,  the 
Orthodox  monk  would  answer  all  this  by  saying  that  neither 
the  Protestant  professor  nor  the  Catholic  Frati  are  capable  of 
understanding  the  Angelic  life.  The  Orthodox  Church  has  also 
convents  of  nuns  whose  rule  and  manner  of  life  correspond  to 
that  of  the  monks.     The  Abbess  is  called  ^  rjyov^ivLacra. 


Summary. 

At  the  head  of  the  Orthodox  hierarchy  stands  the  (Ecumenical 
Patriarch.  Although  still  the  official  chief  of  the  Roman  nation, 
he  has  now  no  longer  any  civil  jurisdiction.  He  is  assisted  by 
a  synod  of  his  bishops  and  by  a  mixed  council,  and  these  two 
bodies  elect  the  Patriarch  when  the  see  is  vacant.  The  old 
abuse  of  continually  deposing  patriarchs  still  flourishes  exceed- 
ingly. All  bishops  are  celibates,  and  most  are  now  titular 
metropolitans.  The  secular  clergy  are  married  before  ordination, 
and  they  keep  their  wives.  There  are,  however,  very  many 
celibate  monks  and  nuns,  and  the  East  is  covered  with  Orthodox 
monasteries,  of  which  the  most  important  are  the  twenty  lauras 
with  their  dependent  houses  that  make  up  the  commonwealth 
of  monks  on  Mount  Athos. 

1  Geistl.  u.  Welti,  pp.  93-95.  See  the  whole  chapter,  "  Catholic  Orders  a 
Model  for  Greek  Monks." 


CHAPTER   XII 

THE   ORTHODOX   FAITH 

The  faith  of  the  Orthodox  Church  agrees  in  the  enormous 
majority  of  points  with  that  of  Catholics.  In  order  not  to  fill 
up  this  chapter  with  an  exposition  of  what  we  learnt  in  our 
catechisms,  we  will  notice  only  the  differences.  But  a  list  of 
such  differences  is  liable  to  falsify  one's  sense  of  proportion.  In 
considering  what  they  believe  it  would  be  absurd  to  think  of 
the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  questions  of  the  Epiklesis, 
Purgatory,  the  Primacy,  as  the  chief  points.  The  foundations 
of  the  Orthodox  faith  are  belief  in  one  God  in  three  Persons,  in 
the  Incarnation  of  God  the  Son,  Redemption  by  the  Sacrifice 
of  his  life,  the  Church  founded  by  him  with  her  Sacraments, 
the  Resurrection  of  the  body,  and  Life  everlasting.  Let  it  then 
be  said  at  once  that  the  pious  Orthodox  layman  lives  in  the 
same  religious  atmosphere  as  we  do.  His  Church  stands  in 
every  way  nearer  to  the  Catholic  Church  than  any  other  religious 
body.  The  Orthodox  use  the  Apostles'  Creed  and  the  Nicene 
Creed,  and  understand  every  word  of  them  (but  for  one  fatal 
clause  in  the  latter)  just  as  we  do.  But  these  are  only  what  we 
may  call  the  oecumenical  Christian  ideas.1  The  same  could  be 
said  of  Trinitarian  Protestants.  It  is  in  the  points  about  which 
Protestants  disagree  that  we  see  how  near  the  Orthodox  Church 
is  to  us.  The  Orthodox  believe  in  a  visible  Church  with 
authority  to  declare  the  true  faith  and  to  make  laws.  They 
have  a  hierarchy  against  which  our  only  complaint  is  that  it  has 

1  It  is  Harnack's  expression. 
361 


362      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

lost  the  topmost  branch  ;  they  accept  the  Deuterocanonical 
books  of  Scripture  as  equal  to  the  others,  they  believe  in  and 
use  the  same  seven  Sacraments  as  we  do,  they  honour  and  pray 
to  Saints,  have  a  great  cult  of  holy  pictures  and  relics,  and  look 
with  unbounded  reverence  towards  the  all- holy  Mother  of  God. 
Their  sumptuous  ritual,  gorgeous  vestments  and  elaborate 
ceremonies,  their  blessings  and  sacramentals,  all  make  their 
Church  seem  what  she  so  easily  might  once  more  become — the 
honoured  sister  of  the  great  Latin  Patriarchate.  It  is  only 
when  one  examines  the  niceties  of  theology  that  one  finds 
four  or  five  points  in  which  they  are  heretics,  and  of  these 
most  are  doubtful.  Both  sides  in  this  quarrel  recognize  that 
the  real  issue  is  one  rather  of  schism  than  of  heresy.  Whereas 
the  Protestant  Reformation  produced  schisms  because  of  its 
heresies,  the  issue  between  East  and  West  has  produced  some 
heresies  because  of  the  schism.  The  chief  points  we  have  to 
consider  are  the  questions  of  the  Church  and  Primacy,  of  the 
Filioque,  Transubstantiation  and  the  Epiklesis,  Purgatory,  and 
the  Immaculate  Conception.  But  first  we  must  see  in  what 
books  they  have  declared  their  faith. 

i.  Orthodox  Symbolic  Books. 

The  Orthodox  faith  is  contained  first  of  all  in  the  Apostles' 
Creed  and  in  the  Nicene  Creed  (of  course  without  the  Filioque).1 
Then  in  the  decrees  of  the  seven  councils  that  they  acknowledge 
as  oecumenical,  that  is  the  first  seven.2     They  insist  very  much 

1  They  print  a  Greek  translation  of  the  Athanasian  Creed  in  the  Horologion 
(without  the  Filioque),  but  they  do  not  ever  say  it  liturgically. 

2  i.  Nicea  (325) ;  2.  Constantinople  I  (381)  ;  3.  Ephesus  (431)  ;  4.  Chalce- 
don  (451)  ;  5.  Constantinople  II  (553)  ;  6.  Constantinople  III  (681)  ;  7.  Nicea 
II  (787).  Although  they  still  sometimes  speak  of  their  Photian  Synod  of  879 
as  the  eighth  general  council,  they  always  refer  only  to  the  first  seven.  It  is 
one  of  the  points  in  which  they  are  inconsistent,  and  seem  to  acknowledge 
the  consent  of  the  West  and  its  Patriarch  as  necessary  for  an  entirely  general 
council.  They  might  just  as  well  require  the  consent  of  the  Nestorian  and 
Monophysite  bodies  (since  we,  too,  are  heretics  and  schismatics),  and  this 
would  leave  only  the  first  two.  They  also  sometimes  speak  of  general 
councils  in  quite  another  sense.  Kyriakos  calls  the  Vatican  Council  an 
"  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  the  Latin  Church."  Many  of  them  are  anxious  to 
summon  a  great  council  now  to  settle  their  difficulties.     If  it  does  meet,  will 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  363 

on  their  conservatism,  and  eagerly  maintain  that  they  and  they 
alone  still  hold  the  faith  of  the  seven  councils  unchanged  and 
entire.  That  and  that  alone  is  the  faith  of  the  Orthodox. 
"  Our  Church  knows  no  developments,"  as  a  Russian  archi- 
mandrite told  Mr.  Palmer.  For  all  that,  since  the  meaning  of 
many  decrees  of  the  seven  councils  is  a  matter  of  discussion 
(Latins  see  in  some  of  them  quite  plain  acknowledgement  of 
the  Pope's  primacy),  and  since  there  certainly  are  points  which 
these  councils  have  not  explicitly  defined  (they  say  nothing 
about  seven  Sacraments,  nor  the  Epiklesis,  for  instance),  the 
Orthodox  have  been  just  as  much  obliged  as  every  one  else  to 
draw  up  more  modern  forms  declaring  quite  plainly  how  they 
understand  the  old  faith  and  establishing  their  position  in 
regard  to  later  controversies.  And  this  already  involves  de- 
velopment. 

The  symbolical  documents  of  the  Orthodox  Church x  are 
these  :  1.  The  Confession  of  Gennadios.  This  is  Gennadios  Scho- 
larios,  who  was  a  determined  enemy  of  the  Florentine  Union, 
and  who  became  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  in  1453  (p.  241). 
Sultan  Mohammed  II,  who  was  well  disposed  towards  him,  asked 
for  an  account  of  the  faith  of  his  Church.  In  answer  he  drew  up 
a  %l  Confession  of  the  true  and  genuine  faith  of  Christians  "  in 
twenty  paragraphs.2  It  was  translated  into  Turkish  by  Ahmed, 
Kadi  of  Berrhcea,  and  has  been  continually  reprinted  and  edited 
since.     Gennadios's    Confession    has    traces   of    the    Platonic 

it  be  only  an  "  (Ecumenical  Synod  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  or  as  universal 
as  the  first  seven  ?  According  to  their  own  claims  and  profession  they  should 
say  the  latter.  As  they  feel  no  great  need  of  being  consistent  and  have  a 
sort  of  shyness  about  saying  quite  plainly  that  the  whole  of  the  enormous 
Catholic  body  is  a  negligible  institution,  they  will  probably  say  the  former. 
It  is  curious  that  an  accident  of  fate  has  given  the  Orthodox  one  more 
example  of  the  holy  number.  They  have  not  only  seven  Sacraments,  seven 
gifts  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  seven  deadly  sins,  and  seven  days  in  the  week,  but 
seven  general  councils,  dimly  foretold  long  ages  ago  by  the  seven-branched 
candlestick. 

1  They  will  be  found  in  Greek  and  Latin  in  Kimmel :  Monumenta  fidei 
ecclesice  orientalis,  and  in  Greek  in  Michalcescu  :  Die  Bekenntnisse  .  .  .  der 
gricch.  -orien  t.  Kir  die. 

2  Kimmel,  i.  pp.  11-23  J  Michalcescu,  pp.  17-21.  Kimmel  also  prints  a 
probably  unauthentic  Dialogue  between  Gennadios  and  Mohammed  II,  i. 
pp.  1-10. 


364      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

philosophy  he  favoured  (God  is  the  "  Demiurgos "  of  all 
things,  there  are  three  "  Idiomata "  in  God),  and  he  avoids 
calling  the  three  Persons  "  Prosopa,"  possibly  so  as  not  to 
shock  the  Mohammedan.  2.  The  next  document  is  the  Orthodox 
Confession  of  Peter  Mogilas  (p.  250).  It  was  translated  from 
Latin  into  Greek,  accepted  by  the  Patriarchs  and  the  Synod 
of  Jerusalem  in  1672,  and  is  published  with  prefaces  by  Nek- 
tarios  of  Jerusalem  and  Parthenios  of  Constantinople.1  This 
M  Orthodox  Confession  of  the  faith  of  the  Catholic  and  Apostolic 
Eastern  Church  "  is  a  very  long  document  in  three  parts,  drawn 
up  as  a  catechism  in  the  form  of  question  and  answer.  The 
first  part  (one  hundred  and  twenty-six  questions  and  answers) 
goes  through  the  Nicene  Creed,  the  seven  gifts  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  the  commandments  of  the  Church,  and  the  seven  Sacra- 
ments ;  the  second  part  (sixty-three)  speaks  of  prayer,  the  Our 
Father  and  the  Beatitudes  ;  the  third  part  (seventy-two)  dis- 
cusses good  works,  different  kinds  of  sin,  the  ten  commandments, 
worship  of  Saints,  relics  and  holy  pictures.  This  Confession, 
having  been  accepted  and  promulgated  by  the  Synod  of 
Jerusalem,  may  be  considered  as  part  of  its  Acts.  However, 
when  that  synod  is  quoted,  the  other  Acts,  in  two  parts,  are 
meant.  The  first  part  contains  the  rejection  of  all  Cyril 
Lukaris's  protestantizing  ideas  and  a  long  argument  to  prove 
that  he  did  not  really  write  his  Confession.  The  second  part,  or 
appendix,  is  (3)  the  Confession  of  Dositheos  (Nektarios's  successor 
at  Jerusalem),  consisting  of  eighteen  decrees  and  four  questions 
and  answers,  each  drawn  up  in  opposition  to  the  eighteen 
decrees  and  four  questions  of  Lukaris's  Confession.2  4.  The  Con- 
fession of  Metrophanes  Kritopulos,  Patriarch  of  Alexandria  (t  1641, 
p.  250),  is  the  last  of  these  symbolic  books.  It  is,  however,  only 
a  private  confession  that  has  not  been  officially  recognized  by 
the  other  Patriarchs,  and  so  it  has  less  authority  than  that  of 
Mogilas.     It  is  also  slightly  influenced  by  Protestant  theology.3 

1  Kimmel,  i.  pp.  45-324  ;  Michalcescu,  pp.  26-122. 

2  Kimmel,  i.  pp.  325-487  ;  Michalcescu,  pp.  126-182.    The  history  of  the 
Synod  of  Jerusalem  above  (p.  267). 

3  Kritopulos  was  sent  by  Lukaris  to  England  to  bring  the  Codex  Alex- 
andrinus  to  Charles  I.     He  was  a  friend  of  Lukaris  and  studied  at  Protestant 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  365 

But  it  is  quoted  by  the  Orthodox  and  printed  in  collections  of 
their  symbolic  works.1  It  consists  of  twenty-two  chapters 
arranged  in  no  order,  in  which  he  discusses  not  only  the  faith 
but  such  customs  as  praying  towards  the  East  (chap.  21),  and 
not  kneeling  on  Sundays  and  during  Pentecost  (chap.  22).  The 
last  part,  "  of  the  state  of  the  Eastern  Church,"  is  made  into  a 
separate  chapter  (23)  by  Kimmel  and  Michalcescu.  It  is  a  short 
summary  of  their  Canon  Law.  Kritopulos  makes  a  speciality 
of  arguments  against  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost  from  both 
Persons  ;  he  divides  the  Sacraments  into  two  classes,  of  which 
only  the  first  class  (Baptism,  Holy  Eucharist,  Penance)  are 
strictly  Sacraments.2  His  division  of  " simple"  and  " eco- 
nomical "  theology  3  is  curious  and  is  part  of  his  protestantizing 
tendency.  He  is  very  much  opposed  to  the  Latins.  Besides 
these  Confessions  the  liturgical  books  of  the  Orthodox  Church 
contain  prayers  and  declarations  from  which  its  faith  may  be 
deduced.*  These  are  the  sources  to  which  one  must  refer  for  a 
genuine  interpretation  of  their  beliefs. 

2.  The  Church  and  the  Primacy. 

The  Orthodox,  of  course,  believe  that  Christ  our  Lord 
founded  one  Church  only,  of  which  all  his  followers  should  be 
members.  It  is  of  this  Church  that  they  understand  the  texts 
about  the  Kingdom  of  Heaven,  and  they  acknowledge  in  her 
the  triple  authority  of  teaching,  ruling,  and  sanctifying.  And 
this  Church  is  absolutely  and  exclusively  their  own  communion. 
Every  one  who  is  outside  that  communion  is  a  schismatic  ; 
every  one  who  denies  any  part  of  its  faith  is  a  heretic. 
Nothing  can  be  clearer  than  this  in  their  formulas,  prayers,  and 
declarations.  It  is  the  faith  of  their  official  documents,  and  it 
is  the   consciousness  of  all  their  people.     They    continually 

universities— Oxford,  Wittenberg,  Tubingen,  &c.  But  he  took  part  in  the 
Synod  of  Constantinople  in  1638  against  Lukaris.  Cf.  Michalcescu,  pp.  183- 
186,  who  quotes  the  protestantizing  clauses  in  his  Confession. 

1  Kimmel,  ii.  pp.  1-213  ;  Michalcescu,  pp.  186-252. 

2  Chap.  5,  Michalcescu,  p.  214.  3  Chap.  1,  Michalcescu,  p.  187. 

4  A  collection  of  such  prayers,  &c,  is  printed  as  an  appendix  to  Michal- 
cescu's  Bekenntnisse,  pp.  277-314. 


366      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

speak  of  the  different  branches  of  the  Church,  but  they  mean 
the  sixteen  bodies  who  are  in  communion  with  one  another, 
and  who  together  make  up  the  Orthodox  Church.  The  idea  of 
a  Church  made  up  of  mutually  excommunicate  bodies  that  teach 
different  articles  of  faith  and  yet  altogether  form  one  Church  is 
as  inconceivable  to  them  as  it  is  to  us.1  In  this  matter  from 
their  point  of  view  they  hold  the  same  position  as  we  do. 
Schism  means  exclusion  from  the  visible  Church  of  Christ ;  all 
members  of  that  Church  are  in  communion  with  one  another  ; 
she  teaches  one  and  the  same  faith  everywhere,  and  is,  in  short, 
really  one  Church.  The  issue  between  us  and  them  is,  Which 
body  is  the  Church  of  Christ,  ours  or  theirs  ? 

They  have  forms  for  receiving  Latins  into  their  Church  3  in 
which  these  expressions  occur  :  "  Lord,  mercifully  receive  thy 
servant  N.  who  abandons  the  heresy  of  the  Latins  .  .  .  bring 
him  to  the  unity  of  the  true  teaching  of  thy  Catholic  and 
Apostolic  Church."  The  priest  thanks  God  for  having  given 
the  convert  grace  "to  seek  the   refuge  of  thy  holy  Catholic 

1  The  Branch  theory,  of  which  we  hear  so  much  in  England,  is  really 
common  to  all  Protestants.  Every  Protestant  sect  considers  itself  to  be,  not 
the  whole,  but  a  part,  of  the  universal  Church  of  Christ,  though,  of  course, 
always  the  purest  and  most  apostolic  part.  The  only  thing  peculiar  to  the 
Anglican  form  of  this  theory  is  the  exclusiveness  with  which  they  admit  no 
other  Protestant  bodies  as  branches  except  their  own.  In  the  East  especially 
it  is  very  difficult,  with  the  best  intention,  to  find  out  what  they  mean  by 
their  theory.  Which  are  the  branches.  Are  valid  orders  the  test  ?  Then 
the  Nestorian  and  Monophysite  bodies  are  branches  ?  The  Archbishop  of 
Canterbury's  mission  to  the  Nestorians  and  the  civility  of  Anglicans  to  the 
Armenians  would  seem  as  if  they  thought  so.  In  that  case  three  of  the  four 
Orthodox  Patriarchs  (those  of  Alexandria,  Antioch,  and  Jerusalem)  are  as 
much  schismatics  as  Roman  Catholic  bishops  in  England.  But  probably 
most  Anglicans  would  say  that  Nestorians  and  Monophysites  are  not 
Catholics  because  they  are  heretics  condemned  by  general  councils.  To 
which  they  would  answer  that  Ephesus  and  Chalcedon  were  not  general 
councils.  They  no  more  acknowledge  them  (the  Nestorians  neither,  the 
Monophysites  not  Chalcedon)  than  Anglicans  acknowledge  Trent  or  Vatican. 
Mr.  Palmer  went  to  Russia  with  the  simplest  of  theories  :  the  Church  consists 
of  three  branches — the  Eastern  (presumably  he  meant  only  the  Orthodox) 
and  the  "Western,  subdivided  into  the  Continental  and  the  British  (e.gr.  Visit, 
p.  174).  Of  course  every  one  asked  him  :  Why  three,  and  why  those  three  ? 
How  entirely  they  all  denied  this  theory  may  be  seen  throughout  the  book. 

2  E.  d'Or  ii  pp.  129-138.  The  later  one  is  imitated  from  the  form  drawn 
up  by  Pope  Gregory  XV  for  receiving  them  into  the  Catholic  Church. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  367 

Orthodox  Church  " ;  he  formally  absolves  him  from  schism  and 
heresy  after  having  made  him  say  that  he  desires  union  with  the 
"holy,  Catholic,  Orthodox,  Eastern  Church."  The  Confessions 
of  Mogilas  and  Kritopulos  say  the  same  thing  less  directly.1 
D.  Bernadakes  wrote  the  Catechism  used  in  their  schools 
throughout  Turkey  and  Greece.  In  it  he  explains  the  four 
notes  of  the  Church,  that  she  is  one,  holy,  Catholic  and 
Apostolic,  and  establishes  that  these  are  the  notes  of  the 
Orthodox  Church  only.  The  child  is  made  to  exclude  ex- 
plicitly the  Roman  and  Protestant  Churches.2  And  this  is  the 
conviction  of  all  the  Orthodox.  Palmer's  Visit  to  the  Russian 
Church  is  full  of  conversations  in  which  the  author  elaborately 
expounded  his  new  Branch  theory  to  bishops,  archimandrites, 
priests,  to  the  Procurator  of  the  Holy  Synod,  even  to  noble 
ladies.  And  all,  without  exception,  answer  that  they  have 
never  heard  of  it  before,  and  that  it  is  absolutely  opposed  to 
the  teaching  of  their  Church.  Long  ago  St.  Metrophanes  of 
Voronege  (f  1703,  canonized  1832),  one  of  the  famous  Russian 
Saints,  had  left  as  a  legacy  to  his  people  a  last  address  in  which 
he  says  :  "  As  without  faith  it  is  impossible  to  please  God,  so 
also  without  the  Holy  Eastern  Church  and  her  divinely- 
delivered  doctrine  it  is  impossible  to  be  saved."  3  So  the 
Archimandrite  of  the  laura  at  Moscow  :  u  Our  Church  is  in  truth 
the  whole  Orthodox  Catholic  Church,  and  she  calls  herself  so 
distinctly."  4  The  Archpriest  Koutnevich,  "  High  Almoner  of 
the  Army  and  Fleet,"  says :  "  We  are  unbending  concern- 
ing the  Eastern  Church,  which  we  believe  to  be  altogether 
right,  while  all  others  have  fallen  away."  He  goes  on  to  say 
that  "  Rome  and  the  Latin  Church  has  all  Christianity,  only 
deformed  by  one  or  two  heresies."  s  The  Procurator  of  the 
Holy  Synod,  Count  Pratasov,  "  seemed  to;  be  staggered  at  the 
idea  of  one  visible  Catholic  Church  being  made  up  of  three 
communions,  differing  in  doctrine  and  rites,  and  two  of  them  at 

1  Mogilas  makes  union  with  the  (Orthodox)  See  of  Jerusalem,  "mother  and 
mistress  of  all  Churches,"  the  condition  (i.  qu.  84).  Kritopulos  says  there 
are  four  Patriarchs  of  the  universal  Church — they  are,  of  course,  the  four 
Orthodox  ones  (chap,  xxiii.  ;  see  also  chap.  vii.). 

2  Quoted  in  Kattenbusch  :  Orient.  Kirche,  in  the  Realenz.  xiv.  p.  456. 
!  Palmer's  Visit,  p.  95.  4  Ibid.  p.  196.  s  ibid.  p.  268. 


368      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

least  condemning  and  anathematizing  the  others."  l  One  can 
understand  the  Count's  astonishment.  We  have  seen,  too,  how 
the  Russian  Holy  Synod  quite  lately  again  insisted  that  the 
Orthodox  Communion  is  the  "  one  and  only  heir  of  Christ,  and 
the  only  ark  of  salvation  "  (p.  347).  In  short,  in  spite  of  all 
kindly  and  pious  hopes  for  reunion  with  other  Christians  (such 
as  Catholics  also  express),  in  spite  of  their  courtesy  and 
hospitality  to  guests  of  other  Churches  (this,  too,  will  be  found 
in  countless  Catholic  monasteries),  the  Orthodox  are  quite  as 
definitely  committed  to  the  belief  that  their  Church  is  the  only 
true  one  as  Catholics  are  on  their  side.2  The  reunion  of 
Christendom  means  to  the  Orthodox  simply  the  conversion  of 
other  Christians  to  their  Church.  Latins  and  Protestants  are 
not  only  schismatics  but  also  heretics.  They  call  us  so  con- 
tinually. The  Filioque  alone  is  a  black  and  soul-destroying 
heresy,  so  are  Papal  Infallibility,  the  Immaculate  Conception, 
and  so  on.  And  although  these  Eastern  people  are  not  remark- 
able for  the  consistency  of  their  ideas,  they  have  never  let  the 
confusion  become  so  great  as  to  believe  that  a  body  publicly 
and  officially  committed  to  heresy  can  be  a  branch  of  the  true 
Church.  And  yet  there  are  points  that  seem  to  contradict  this. 
Why,  for  instance,  if  they  believe  themselves  to  be  the  only 
true  Church,  have  they  never  sent  missionaries  to  convert  us  ;  3 
why  have  they  set  up  no  real  Orthodox  bishops  instead  of  the 
Latin  heretics  who  occupy  the  Western  sees,  although  (as  we 
shall  see)  they  are  doubtfully  baptized,  have  doubtful  orders, 
and  a  doubtful  Eucharist  ?  And  why  do  the  Orthodox  count 
only  seven  general  councils  ?  If  they  are  the  whole  Church, 
why  cannot  they  hold  a  general  council  that  shall  be  as 
legitimate  as  Nicaea  ? 

The  first  question  can  be  easily  answered.  In  any  case,  it 
proves  nothing.  Till  the  Russians  began  their  missions  the 
Orthodox  sent  no  missionaries  anywhere.     They  did  not  try  to 

1  Palmer's  Visit,  p.  278.    See  also  pp.  160,  seq.,  176,  seq.,  248,  seq.,  &c.,  &c. 

2  Ingenuous  Anglicans  admit  this.  "  The  Eastern  Church  professes  to  be 
the  only  true  Church,  both  Catholic  and  Orthodox  "  (A.  C.  Headlam  :  The 
Teaching  of  the  Russian  Church,  p.  1). 

3  Mr.  Palmer  continually  urged  this  point  to  the  Russians  and  with  great 
effect  {Visit,  p.  249,  &c). 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  369 

convert  any  one — heathen,  Mohammedan,  or  Christian.  Nor 
can  one  blame  them  for  that.  At  the  very  beginning  of  the 
schism  they  hardly  understood  what  had  happened.  Then 
they  hoped  rather  to  convert  the  Latins  in  a  body  by  some 
such  council  as  Florence.  Then  came  the  Turks,  and  they  had 
other  things  to  think  of  than  converting  unbelievers.  During 
those  dark  centuries  one  could  hardly  ask  the  Orthodox  to  do 
more  than  to  keep  the  faith  themselves.  One  can  never  forget 
that  they  did  this  heroically.  And  now,  in  spite  of  their  indigna- 
tion against  propaganda,  they  do  send  out  Orthodox  priests  and 
bishops,  even  to  the  West.  It  is  true  that  these  priests  chiefly 
have  to  look  after  the  Orthodox  communities  in  Paris,  London, 
Berlin,  and  so  on ;  but  they  are  always  ready  and  glad  to  receive 
any  converts  to  the  Orthodox  faith.  There  are  well-known 
cases  of  Catholics  and  Anglicans  being  received  (generally  even 
re-baptized)  by  the  Orthodox.  Nor  have  they  any  confused 
ideas  about  a  Latin  being  a  schismatic  in  Constantinople,  but  a 
true  Catholic  at  Rome.  These  conversions  take  place  at  Paris, 
in  England,  and  in  America.  Let  anyi  one  go  to  the  nearest 
Orthodox  Protopope  or  Archimandrite,  and  ask  what  he  should 
do  to  serve  Christ  and  God.  There  will  be  no  question  but  that 
the  answer  will  be:  "Join  the  Orthodox  Church,"  and  the 
Protopope  will  gladly  instruct  and  receive  him,  just  as  a  Catholic 
priest  would.  That  they  have  not  organized  missions  to  us,  and 
that  they  take  so  little  trouble  to  convert  us,  only  shows  that 
they  have  not  such  means  at  their  disposal  as  the  Roman  Propa- 
ganda, and  that  they  have  not  the  zealous  missionary  spirit  of 
the  Catholic  Church.  But  that  they  are  so  angry  with  our 
missionary  friars  in  the  East  is  absurd.  These  friars  are  doing 
from  their  point  of  view  exactly  what  the  Orthodox  do  in  the 
West  from  theirs,  only,  being  Catholics  and  Westerns,  they  are 
doing  it  more  consistently,  zealously,  and  efficiently.  As  for  the 
lack  of  a  general  council  since  the  schism,  it  is  true  they  have 
held  none — they  have  hardly  had  an  opportunity.  But  it  does 
not  follow  that  they  think  themselves  incapable  of  so  doing.  I 
have  no  evidence  either  way,  but  unless  they  are  quite  unusually 
inconsistent  in  this  matter,  they  must  hold  that  they  could 
summon  a  general  council  now  that  would  be  as  truly  cecumeni- 

25 


370       THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

cal  as  the  first  seven.  True,  the  Latins  would  not  attend,  but 
there  have  always  been  heretics  who  stayed  away  from  such 
councils,  nor  can  their  heresy  and  schism  mutilate  the  true 
Church  of  her  most  important  power  and  right.  True,  also, 
that,  of  the  five  thrones,  one,  and  the  first  of  them,  would  be 
empty,  because  its  occupier  has  fallen  away.  But  at  Chalcedon 
Dioscur  of  Alexandria  appeared  only  as  a  culprit  to  be  judged. 
There  seems,  then,  to  be  no  conceivable  reason  why  the  (Ecu- 
menical Synod  about  which  they  are  now  talking — if  it  ever 
meets — should  not  be  the  equal  of  the  old  ones.  Pity  that  it 
will  spoil  the  holy  number,  seven,  and  rob  the  seven-branched 
candlestick  of  its  prophetic  symbolism. 

With  regard  to  the  Primacy,  all  the  Orthodox,  of  course, 
indignantly  deny  that  the  Bishop  of  Rome  has  any  sort  of 
authority  over  the  whole  Church.  They  continually  repeat  that 
the  Head  of  the  Church  is  not  the  Pope,  but  Christ  our  Lord.1 
If  this  is  meant  as  an  argument,  it  leaves  things  exactly  as  they 
were.  Christ  our  Lord  is  presumably  the  Head  of  each  local 
Church,  each  diocese,  province,  and  patriarchate  too.  Yet  he 
has  visible  vicars  who  rule  in  his  name — patriarchs,  metro- 
politans, bishops.  Is  he  not  the  Head  of  the  new  national 
Churches,  too — of  the  Churches  of  Russia,  Greece,  Roumania? 
Yet  here  the  highest  law-giving  authority  rests  with  a  Holy 
Synod  which  uses  jurisdiction  that  can  only  come  from  our 
Lord.  If  our  Lord,  in  spite  of  the  fact  that  (as  we  all  believe) 
he,  and  he  only,  is  the  Head  of  the  Church,2  has  vicars  who 
rule  in  his  name  over  local  Churches  and  great  patriarchates, 
there  is  no  difficulty  (from  this  consideration)  in  admitting  that 
his  vicars  may  have  a  head  vicar  set  over  them,  as  they  are  set 
over  the  faithful  and  over  subordinate  vicars.3  However,  they 
all  make  much  of  this  point,  triumphantly  quote  such  texts  as 

1  Mogilas,  i.  qu.  85<;  Kritopulos,  chap,  xxiii.  (Kimmel,  p.  210,  Michalcescu, 
p.  251),  &c. 

2  Every  Catholic  has  learnt  this  in  his  Catechism.  See,  for  instance,  the 
English  Catechism,  Q.  85 :  "  Who  is  the  Head  of  the  Catholic  Church  ? 
A.  The  Head  of  the  Catholic  Church  is  Jesus  Christ  our  Lord." 

3  The  bishop  is  vicar  of  Christ  over  his  flock,  the  metropolitan  over  bishops, 
the  patriarch  over  metropolitans.  But  the  Orthodox  theologian  sees  an 
inherent  impossibility  in  there  being  a  vicar  over  patriarchs. 


THE  ORTHODOX  FAITH  371 

Eph.  v.  23  ("  Christ  is  the  Head  of  the  Church  ")  against  us, 
and  persist  in  representing  our  difference  in  the  monstrous  and 
libellous  form  that  Catholics  believe  the  Pope  to  be  the  Head 
of  the  Church,  whereas  the  Orthodox  say  that  it  is  Christ.  And 
in  rejecting  the  Roman  Primacy,  as  we  have  seen  (chap,  ii.), 
they  have  forsaken  the  faith  of  their  fathers.  Their  theologians, 
however,  still  hold  to  the  not  very  old  ideal  of  a  Pentarchy. 
There  should  be  five  Patriarchs  set  over  the  Church  universal, 
five  Vicars  of  Christ  for  the  whole  Church.  But  this  Pentarchy 
has  been  now  ruthlessly  lacerated.  One  Patriarch  has  altogether 
fallen  away,  and  has  become  a  prince  of  heresies.  And,  even 
among  the  faithful  four,  developments  have  happened  that  the 
seven  councils  never  foresaw.  Although  the  Orthodox  are  the 
Church  that  knows  no  change,  the  Fathers  of  the  second  Nicene 
Synod  would  greatly  wonder  at  their  organization  now.  Three 
Patriarchs  are  shadows,  and  there  are  nine  national  Churches 
cut  away  from  the  other.  The  overwhelming  majority  of  the 
Orthodox  obey  no  Patriarch  at  all.  The  conservative  theologian 
would  desire  as  an  ideal,  first,  the  conversion  of  the  Roman 
Patriarch  to  Orthodoxy  and  the  rejection  of  his  arrogant  claims  ; 
secondly,  the  restoration  of  Russia,  Greece,  Bulgaria,  Roumania, 
&c,  to  the  obedience  of  Constantinople.  One  hope  is  about  as 
likely  to  be  fulfilled  as  the  other.  But  if  that  did  happen,  the 
Roman  Patriarch  would  again  take  his  place  as  the  first  of  all 
bishops.  His  authority  would  stretch  over  all  the  West,  but  he 
would  have  no  jurisdiction  in  the  East.  Second  and  almost 
equal  to  him  in  honour  would  come  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch, 
ruling  over  vast  lands,  then  the  Pontiffs  of  Alexandria,  Antioch, 
and  Jerusalem,  and,  lastly,  the  Church  of  Cyprus.  How  little 
this  ideal  really  answers  to  primitive  conditions  we  have  seen 
in  the  history  of  the  development  of  the  patriarchates.  If  the 
Orthodox  really  want  to  go  back  to  the  state  of  the  early 
Church,  they  must  acknowledge  the  Roman  Patriarch  as 
supreme  Pontiff  everywhere  and  Patriarch  of  the  West,  then 
the  Patriarchs  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch,  and  that  is  all.  Con- 
stantinople and  Jerusalem  would  be  nowhere.  But  in  this  case, 
as  always,  what  they  mean  by  antiquity  is  development  up  to  a 
certain  point,  and  then  an  arbitrary  full  stop.     Meanwhile,  their 


3;2      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCti 

misfortune  is  that,  whereas  they  can,  and  do,  absolutely  refuse 
to  acknowledge  our  claims,  they  cannot  help  acknowledging 
such  changes  as  these  new  national  Churches,  which  really 
are  opposed  to  the  organization  left  by  their  seven  councils. 
The  Roman  Patriarch,  then,  if  he  repented,  would  have  a  sort  of 
primacy  of  honour,  as  well  as  real  jurisdiction  over  his  own 
Western  lands.  As  it  is  at  present,  he  has  nothing.  He  is  the 
head  of  a  heretical  Church,  no  more  to  be  taken  into  account 
than  the  Armenian,  Coptic,  or  Jacobite  Patriarchs.1  It  is  only 
if  he  turns  Orthodox  that  he  may  again  be  counted  in  the 
Pentarchy,  and  then,  indeed,  there  would  be  joy  among  the 
angels,  for  the  lost  istar  would  be  restored  to  the  Orthodox 
firmament. 

3.  The  Filioque. 

The  Filioque  is  still  the  great  shibboleth.  This  is  the  most 
noxious  of  Latin  heresies  ;  one  shudders  to  think  what  rivers  of 
ink  have  flowed  because  of  this  question  since  Photius's  happy 
thought  of  making  this  grievance  against  us.  Nevertheless  we 
must  now  say  something  about  it.  The  accusation  against  us  is 
twofold,  first,  that  we  believe  and  teach  heresy  on  this  point ; 
secondly,  that  we  have  tampered  with  the  Creed  by  inserting  the 
word,  and  have  thereby  incurred  the  anathema  pronounced  by 
the  Council  of  Ephesus.  When  looking  back  on  this  long  and 
bitter  controversy  one  realizes  most  of  all  that  the  question,  one 
way  or  the  other,  has  never  yet  affected  the  piety  or  the 
practical  faith  of  any  human  being.  We  all  adore  one  God  in 
three  Persons,  we  all  worship  the  Holy  Ghost,  the  Lord  and 
Lifegiver,  who  with  the  Father  and  Son  is  adored  and  glorified. 
Has  any  one  ever,  when  praying  to  the  great  Spirit  of  God, 
stopped  to  consider  and  to  be  influenced  by  so  high  and  dark  a 

1  At  least,  that  would  be  the  consistent  theory.  But  it  is  always  hopeless 
to  look  for  consistency  in  Orthodox  theology.  They  have  never  attempted  to 
let  up  a  rival  Orthodox  Roman  Patriarch  (the  position  of  such  a  person  with 
regard  to  Constantinople  is  a  fascinating  speculation),  as  they  have  rival 
Patriarchs  in  Egypt,  Syria,  and  Palestine,  and  generally  they  practically 
acknowledge  the  Pope  as  head  of  the  Western  Church  and  legitimate  first 
Patriarch,  and  they  really  only  complain  of  his  universal  claim. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  373 

mystery  as  whether  he  proceeds  from  both   Persons  or  only 
from  God  the  Father  ?     And,  secondly,  the  question  is  still,  as 
always,  the  accusation  of  the  Orthodox  against  Catholics,  not 
ours  against  them.     They  greedily  found  this  charge,  and  they 
have  never  ceased  clamouring  about  it  as  if  it  were  the  root  of 
the  whole  Christian  faith.      True,  two  of  our  councils  (Lyons  II 
and  Florence)  defined  the  Filioque,  though  with  every  possible 
moderation  and  tolerance  towards  their  view ;  but  that  was  only 
after   they   had    talked    about    it,   and  anathematized   us   for 
centuries.     Even  now  Rome  has  never  asked  them  to  say  the 
words  in  their  Creed,  the  Uniates  do  not  do  so,  although,  of 
course,   every  Catholic    must    believe    what    was    defined  at 
Florence.     It  is  they  who  cannot  forgive  us  for  saying  it  in 
our  Creed.     A  question,  first  raked  up  simply  as  a  convenient 
weapon  against  the  Pope,  has  loomed  so  large  to  them  that 
they  really  seem  to  think  it  the  chief  point  of  the  faith.     Let 
any  one  look  at  the  confessions  and  documents  they  have  drawn 
up  since  the  schism  and  count  the  pages  devoted  to  this  ques- 
tion alone.     And  they  all  know  about  it.     Schoolboys  learn  at 
the  very  beginning  of  their  catechism  about  the  horrible  heresy 
of  the  Latins  on  this  point.     Greek  officers,  boatmen,  porters, 
are  not  distinguished  for  theological  scholarship,  but  they  all 
know  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  alone. 
The   young   men   at   Athens,   who    have    dabbled    in    higher 
criticism  and  Darwinism,  are  shaky  about  many  points  of  the 
Christian  faith,  but  on  one  point  they  never  swerve  :  the  Holy 
Ghost  does  not  proceed  from  the  Son.     Mr.  Skarlatos  Byzantios 
has  composed  a  very  useful  Greek- French  lexicon.1     When  he 
comes  to   the   preposition  ££,  one  example  of  its  use  at  once 
occurs  to  him,  and  he   illustrates   the   fact  that  it  takes  the 
genitive  by  this  sentence  :    To  aywv  Hvevfxa  eKiropevETai  etc  fiovov 
rov  ILarpoQ    which  he  proceeds  to   translate   for  the  Western 
student  by  informing  him,  "  le  Saint-Esprit   procede  du  Pere 
seul."    At  any  rate  the  Catholic  Church  has  kept  a  righter  sense 
of  proportion.     We  do  not  teach  our  children  much  about  this 
question.     When  its  place  comes  in  the  treatise  de  Deo  trino  our 
theologians  learn  what  has  to  be  said  about  it,  but  in  sermons 

1  Athens,  1888, 


374      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

and  catechism  and  certainly  in  dictionaries  we  have  other 
things  to  discuss.  With  regard  to  the  first  point,  the  doctrine 
itself,  we  should  note  that  the  difference  is  not  so  great  as  is 
commonly  supposed  and  that  the  whole  question  at  issue  is  not 
so  entirely  arbitrary,  the  opposed  assertions  are  not  really  such 
wanton  statements  about  the  unknowable  as  the  non-theologian 
would  think.  It  will  be  as  well  to  begin  by  explaining  what  the 
"  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost "  means.  God  the  Father  is  the 
source  of  the  Divine  nature.  The  other  Divine  Persons  receive 
this  same  nature  from  him.  God  the  Son  receives  it  by 
generation  :  he  is  born  of  the  Father  before  all  ages.  There- 
fore he  is  always  called  the  Son  and  he  is  distinguished  from 
God  the  Father  by  this  relationship  of  birth  or  generation, 
Filiatio.  The  Holy  Ghost  receives  the  same  Divine  nature 
from  the  Father  (and  also  from  the  Son  as  Catholics  believe)  but 
not  by  generation  :  otherwise  he,  too,  would  be  a  Son  of  God. 
The  Divine  nature  is  communicated  to  him  by  another  relation, 
to  which  we  know  nothing  analogous,  and  for  which  we  there- 
fore have  no  proper  name.  For  this  relation  the  words  Spiratio 
or  Procession  (Processio,  emropevmQ)  are  used  ;  and  we  say  that 
whereas  the  Second  Person  of  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  born,  the 
Third  Person  proceeds  (procedit,  EKTropevsTat) — at  any  rate  from 
the  Father.  God  the  Son  proceeds  from  the  Father  too,  but  for 
his  procession  we  have  and  use  the  special  name  generation.1 
The  theological  difference  then  (apart  from  the  other  question  of 
tampering  with  the  Creed)  is  whether  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds 

1  The  schoolmen  explain  this  difference  by  saying  that  God  the  Son 
proceeds  from  the  Father  by  the  Intellect,  he  is  the  Word  (idea)  of  God, 
and  they  establish  that  to  proceed  in  this  way,  if  the  Word  is  a  person, 
exactly  satisfies  the  conditions  of  birth.  A  Word  that  is  a  person  is  also 
necessarily  the  son  of  the  person  who  produces  it.  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Holy  Ghost  proceeds  by  the  will  as  the  act  of  love.  This  procession  does  not 
establish  the  relationship  of  a  son,  so  the  Holy  Ghost  is  not  the  Son  of  God. 
As  our  will  does  not  produce  an  act  of  love  really  distinct  from  the  operation, 
we  have  no  way  of  expressing  this  relation,  and  so  we  must  fall  back  on  the 
general  words  "proceeds"  and  "procession."  Our  understanding,  on  the 
other  hand,  does  produce  an  idea  or  word  (verbum  mentale)  that  is  really 
distinct  from  the  operation,  so  that  we  have  a  much  closer  analogy  for  the 
generation  of  God  the  Son  than  for  the  procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
See  St.  Thomas,  Summa  theol.  i.  qu.  xxvii.,  art.  2,  pp.  3,  4  ;  and  Billot :  de  Deo 
Wio  et  trino,  qu.  27,  theses  1,  2,  3,  pp.  338-368. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  375 

from  the  Father  and  Son,  or  from  the  Father  alone.     But  the 
issue  is  not  quite  so  simple  as  that.      Catholics  say  that  he 
proceeds    from   both    Persons   as  from    one   principle.      The 
Orthodox  in  the  first  place  admit  that  the  temporal  mission  of 
the  Holy  Ghost  (his  office  as  source  of  grace  among  men  and 
angels)  comes  from  both  Father  and  Son.     On  this  point  our 
Lord's  words  are  too  clear  :  "  The   Comforter  whom   I   shall 
send  you  from  the  Father,  the  Spirit  of  truth  who  proceeds 
from  the  Father  "  (John  xv.  26).1     Some  of  them  at  any  rate  are 
disposed   to   admit  that   the  Holy  Ghost  receives  the  Divine 
essence  from  (or,  as  they  prefer  to  say,  through)  God  the  Son,2 
but  they  all  deny  that  his  Personality  proceeds  from  or  through 
the  Son.    And  that  is  the  point  about  which  we  have  argued  for 
a  thousand  years.     Yet  the  issue  is  not  really  so  unimportant  as 
might  seem.    It  is  involved  by  two  different  ways  of  considering 
the  mystery  of  the  Blessed  Trinity.     The  Latin  Church  through 
her  schoolmen  has  evolved  a  system  of  metaphysics  that  is  one 
of  the  most  wonderful  examples   of   subtle   consistency  ever 
thought  out.     As  far  as  it  concerns  this  point  it  is  this  :  All 
creatures  are   made   up   of   two    principles    called   actus  and 
potentia.     The  actus  is  the  principle  of  perfection,  the  potentia 
receives  and  by  receiving  limits  that  perfection.     Throughout 
nature    these    two    principles    are    seen,   always  in    couples. 
Potentia  alone  would  have  no  perfection,  could  not  be.     Actus 
alone   would   be   unlimited   perfection.     So  all  creatures  that 
have  a  limited  nature  and  limited  perfection  are  made  up  of 
double  principles.     All  creatures  are  composite.     God  alone  has 
no  potentia,  he  is  pure  actus,  unlimited,   infinite  perfection. 
God  alone  is  simple.     Therefore   in  God  all  things  are  really 
the  same,  they  are  all  identified  with  his  one  simple,  infinite 
essence.     Goodness,  might,  wisdom,  love,  all  perfections  that  in 
us  are  received  into  a  potentia  and  are  really  distinct  from  our 
essence  which  limits  them,   in  God   are    not    received    into 
anything ;  they  are  his  essence. 

1  Mogilas  :  "  The  Spirit  proceeds  from  the  Father  alone  as  from  the  cause, 
but  he  is  sent  into  the  world  by  the  Son  "  (i.  qu.  71).  Kritopulos,  chap.  i. 
(Kimmel,  p.  29),  &c. 

2  See,  for  instance,  Palmer's  Visit,  p.  142,  &c. 


376      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

We  have  love,  power,  wisdom.  God  is  love,  power,  wisdom. 
So  we  come  to  the  first  great  axiom  about  God  :  In  God  aH 
things  are  the  same  ;  an  infinite  being  is  necessarily  a  simple 
one.  In  Deo  omnia  sunt  unum.  That  is  all  philosophy  can  tell 
us.  Revelation  tells  us  that  there  are,  however,  real  distinctions 
in  God  and  three  really  distinct  Persons.  The  schoolmen  now 
consider  the  difference  between  two  categories  of  things — 
absolute  things  and  relations.  Absolute  things  are  perfections ; 
they  concern  the  being  in  whom  they  are.  Goodness  makes  a 
being  good,  and  so  on.  Relations  are  not  perfections  ;  they 
concern,  not  the  being  in  whom  they  inhere,  but  something 
else.  Their  whole  nature  is  not  to  add  anything  in  themselves, 
but  only  to  connote  the  state  of  their  subject  with  regard  to 
something  else.  If  I  say,  for  instance  :  "  This  man  is  white,"  I 
say  something  about  his  own  quality.  If  I  say  :  "  This  man  is 
equal  to  that  one,"  I  say  nothing  positive  or  absolute  about  him. 
I  only  establish  how  he  stands  with  regard  to  the  other  one.  I 
have  stated  no  entity  in  him,1  but  only  his  relation  to  another. 
Now  in  God  all  absolute  and  positive  things  are  identified 
with  the  Divine  nature.  But  the  opposite  extremes  of  a  rela- 
tion cannot  metaphysically  be  identified  with  each  other,  or 
there  would  be  no  relation.  If,  then,  there  are  relations  in 
God,  these  mutual  relations  must  establish  real  distinctions. 
We  should  never  have  thought  such  relations  possible,  but 
Revelation  has  taught  us  that  they  exist.  There  is  the  relation 
of  Paternity  and  "  Filiatio,"  and  the  relation  of  active  and 
passive  "  Spiratio."  These  relations  are  also  identified  with 
the  Divine  essence,  but  they  necessarily  involve  real  distinctions 
between  themselves.  If  there  is  real  Paternity  and  "  Filiatio," 
there  must  be  a  really  distinct  Father  and  Son.  The  distinc- 
tion between  God  the  Father  and  God  the  Son  is  constituted 
solely  and  entirely  by  this  relation.  In  all  absolute  things 
they  are  identified.  Their  wisdom,  power,  goodness,  are  the 
same  thing  ;  these  qualities  are  simply  the  one  Divine  essence.2 

1  At  any  rate,  no  positive  entity  in  him.    Whether  a  relation  be  really 
distinct  from  its  fundament  is  another  question. 

2  Essence,  nature,  and  substance  in  scholastic  language  mean  the  same 
thing. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  377 

Therefore  the  Father  would  be  the  same  Person  as  the  Son,  but 
for  the  relation  between  them.  The  Persons  are  constituted  by 
the  relations.  Were  there  no  relations,  God  would  be  one 
Person  ;  the  three  relations  constitute  three  Persons.1  So  we 
come  to  the  great  axiom  about  the  Blessed  Trinity  :  "  In  God 
all  things  are  one,  except  where  there  intercedes  the  opposition 
of  a  relation" — Omnia  sunt  unum,  ubi  non  obviat  relationis 
opposition  Now  exactly  the  same  principle  applies  also  to  the 
Holy  Ghost.  The  Holy  Ghost  is  God,  is  identified  with  every 
perfection  of  the  simple  essence  of  God.  He  cannot  be  dis- 
tinguished from  the  other  Persons  by  anything  absolute  or 
positive  (otherwise  he  would  either  have  something  they  have 
not,  or  lack  something  they  have,  and  there  would  be  a  limita- 
tion in  God).  He  is  distinguished  from  God  the  Father  only 
by  the  mutual  relation  of  "Spiratio,"  or  Procession.  He  pro- 
ceeds from  the  Father,  and  so  is  distinguished  from  him.  If  he 
did  not,  he  would  be  the  same  Person  as  the  Father.  And 
he  proceeds  also  from  the  Son.  If  he  did  not,  there  would  be 
no  relation  between  them,  and  so,  again,  he  would  be  identified 
with  God  the  Son.  The  only  way  in  which  there  can  be  three 
really  distinct  Persons  in  the  Blessed  Trinity  is  that  there  is  a 
real  relation  between  each  of  them — Paternity  between  the 
first  and  second,  Procession  between  first  and  third,  and 
Procession  also  between  second  and  third.  So,  from  the  point 
of  view  of  scholastic  theology,  the  thesis  of  the  Latin  school- 
men is  unanswerable  :  "  The  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  ;  indeed,  if  he  did  not  proceed  from 
the  Son,  he  would  not  be  distinct  from  him.  Wherefore  the 
error  of  the  Greeks  in  this  matter  fundamentally  overturns 
the  truth  of  the  Trinity."  3     The  Orthodox  look  at  the  whole 

1  The  right  way  to  say  this  is  that  the  Persons  are  subsistent  relations. 

2  This  was  the  definition  at  Florence,  Decretum  pro  Jacobitis, 
Denzinger,  p.  598. 

3  Bilot,  o.c.  thesis  26.  All  this  reasoning  will  be  found  in  St.  Thomas, 
Summa  theol.  p.  i.  qu.  iii.  art.  7,  qu.  xxviii.-xxx.  xxxvi.  He  also  uses  it 
against  the  Greeks  continually,  cf.  opusc.  i.  contra  errores  Grcecorum,  &c. 
The  clearest  possible  exposition  of  the  whole  system  is  Billot,  de  Deo  trino, 
passim,  especially  the  prcevice  disputationes,  de  processionibus  (pp.  319-338), 
de  relationibus  (pp.  371-387),  de  personis  (pp.  422-428). 


378       THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

question  from  a  different  side.  They  have  never  troubled  much 
about  metaphysics ;  subtle  questions  concerning  simplicity  and 
composition,  the  absolute  and  relative,  or  the  principle  of 
distinction  in  the  Blessed  Trinity,  do  not  mean  very  much 
to  them.  They  begin  with  the  very  firm  conviction  that  God 
the  Father,  and  the  Father  only,  is  the  source  of  all  things, 
"from  whom  all  Fatherhood  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named" 
(Eph.  iii.  15).  He  is  the  cause  of  all  things,  and  they  say  that 
he  is  the  cause  (alria)  of  God  the  Son  and  the  Holy  Ghost  * — 
an  expression  that  has  always  sounded  wrong  to  Latin 
theologians.  From  this  one  principle  or  cause  the  other 
Persons  of  the  Trinity  derive  the  Divine  nature  from  all 
eternity  ;  creatures  derive  their  natures  in  time,  but  all  from 
the  one  cause  only,  from  God  the  Father.2  God  the  Son 
derives  his  Divine  nature  from  the  Father  by  generation,  God 
the  Holy  Ghost  derives  it  from  the  same  Father  by  his 
procession,  but  only  from  the  Father.  If  we  say  that  he 
derives  it  also  from  the  Son,  we  set  up  two  principles  or 
causes  in  God,  we  destroy  the  faith  by  which  the  Father 
alone  is  the  cause  of  all  things,  and  we  undermine  the  unity 
of  God  by  establishing  a  double  source,  instead  of  the  one 
only  root  and  cause  and  beginning  of  Divinity,  which  is  the 
Father.  Moreover,  we  should  thus  confuse  the  properties 
which  are  special  to  the  three  Persons.  The  incommunicable 
property  of  the  Father  is  that  he  is  the  source  ;  because  of  this 
he  is  distinguished  from  the  others.  The  property  of  the  Son 
is  to  be  born,  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost  to  proceed.  No  one  of 
these  properties  can  be  shared  by  another  Person  without  con- 
fusing the  truth  of  their  distinction.  And  so  the  Son  cannot 
share  the  property  of  being  a  source  (of  the  Holy  Ghost)  with 
the   Father,  any  more  than  the   Holy  Ghost   can  share  the 


1  A  number  of  Greek  Fathers  say  this,  e.gr.  St.  John  Damascene,  de  fide 
orth.  i.  10,  &c. 

2  The  Latin  theologians  deny  this  at  once.  In  all  relations  to  creatures 
God  acts  by  his  one  simple  essence  ;  in  this  regard  the  three  Persons 
are  not  distinguished,  but  only  in  their  mutual  relations.  God  is  the 
cause  of  all  things,  the  one  God,  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  not  the 
Father  only. 


THE  ORTHODOX  FAITH  379 

property  of  being  a  Son  with  him.1  So  the  Orthodox  theo- 
logian would  set  up  as  a  rival  thesis  to  that  of  the  scholastics  : 
"  God  the  Father  alone  is  the  source  of  the  Divinity  ;  indeed, 
if  he  were  not  so  God  would  not  be  one.  Wherefore  the  error 
of  the  Latins  in  this  matter  fundamentally  overturns  the  truth  of 
the  Divine  unity." 

The  question  was  discussed  at  the  second  Council  of  Lyons 
in  1274,  and  at  great  length  at  the  Council  of  Florence  (1439). 
The  Pope  and  the  Latins  began  by  making  a  great  concession 
to  the  Eastern  bishops.  To  say  that  God  the  Father  is  the  cause 
of  the  other  Persons,  and  that  they  are  caused  (curcara),  cer- 
tainly sounds  wrong  to  us.  It  seems  like  calling  them  creatures  ; 
the  essential  note  of  the  Divine  nature,  which  is  the  same 
in  the  three  Persons,  would  be  expressed  by  us  in  the  state- 
ment that  it  alone  is  uncaused.  However,  the  Byzantines  held 
strongly  to  their  expression,  it  had  certainly  been  used  by 
their  Catholic  Fathers,  and  it  was  recognized  that  after  all  they 
only  meant  what  we  say  when  we  call  God  the  Father  the 
principle  (principium).  So  their  word  was  allowed  and  acknow- 
ledged as  legitimate  in  their  language.  Then  the  council 
removed  their  difficulty  about  the  two  "  sources M  in  God  by 
emphasizing  strongly  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the 
Father  and  the  Son  as  from  one  source.  This  had  already  been 
defined  at  Lyons,  and  it  is  necessarily  involved  in  the  scholastic 
interpretation  of  the  mystery.  The  only  difference  between 
the  Persons  is  where  a  relation  intervenes  between  them.  But 
although  there  is  the  relation  of  generation  between  the  first 
and  second  Persons,  there  is  no  relation  between  them  where 
they  regard  the  third  Person.  So  in  this  consideration  they 
become  one  principle,  one  source  to  which  the  Holy  Ghost 
has  the  relation  of  procession.  And  lastly,  since  many  Easterns 
objected  to  saying  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the 
Son,  and  since  their  Fathers,  notably  St.  Basil,2  had  often  used 

1  This  is  the  reasoning  of  Kritopoulos,  chap.  i. :  The  leaching  of  the  Church. 
He  begins  his  whole  treatise  with  this  chapter,  which  is  all  about  the  proces- 
sion of  the  Holy  Ghost.  The  fact  is  significant.  No  Catholic  would  begin  a 
treatise  on  the  faith  with  a  long  chapter  against  the  heresy  of  the  Greeks 
concerning  the  Filioque. 

2  De  Spir.  scto.  viii.  21.     M.P.G.  xxxii.  106. 


380      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  form  "  from  the  Father  through  the  Son  "  ;  this,  too,  was 
admitted,  and  in  Greek  it  was  acknowledged  to  be  sufficient 
to  use  the  preposition  through  (foa)  instead  of  from  (i£).  The 
decree  of  Florence  which  for  us  defines  the  Catholic  faith 
and  which  the  Easterns  then  also  signed,  but  afterwards 
repudiated,  is  :  M  The  Holy  Ghost  is  eternally  from  the  Father 
and  the  Son,  and  he  has  his  essence  and  his  subsistent  being 
both  from  the  Father  and  the  Son,  and  he  proceeds  from  both 
eternally  as  from  one  principle  and  by  one  spiration.  And  we 
declare  that  what  the  holy  doctors  and  Fathers  say,  namely, 
that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  the  Father  through  the  Son, 
comes  to  mean  the  same  thing,  that  the  Son  also  is  the  cause, 
according  to  the  Greeks,  or  the  principle,  according  to  the 
Latins,  of  the  subsistence  of  the  Holy  Ghost."  * 

It  will  be  seen  how  the  council,  while  inevitably  maintaining 
the  essential  Catholic  faith,  was  scrupulously  conciliatory  and 
tolerant  towards  the  Easterns  in  every  point  that  possibly  could 
be  conceded.  And  this  faith  of  Florence  is  established,  not 
only  by  such  passages  of  Scripture  as  declare  that  the  Holy 
Ghost  is  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Son"  (Gal.  iv.  6,  Rom.  viii.  9)  just 
as  he  is  the  "  Spirit  of  the  Father "  (Matt.  x.  20),  that  he 
"receives  from  our  Lord"  (John  xvi.  13-15),  that  he  is  "sent 
by  Christ "  (John  xv.  26,  xvi.  7),  but  also  by  a  long  chain  of 
Fathers  both  Latin  and  Greek.  As  an  example  for  the  Latin 
Fathers  St.  Augustine  may  stand  :  "  Why  then  should  we  not 
believe  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  also  from  the  Son,  since  he 
is  the  Spirit  of  the  Son  ?  If  he  did  not  proceed  from  him,  (Christ) 
after  his  resurrection  would  not  have  breathed  on  his  apostles 
saying  :  Receive  the  Holy  Ghost.  What  then  did  that  breath- 
ing mean  but  that  the  Holy  Ghost  proceeds  from  him  too  ? " 2 
And  for  the  Greeks  St.  Athanasius  says:  "We  are  taught  by 
Holy  Scripture  that  he  (the  Holy  Ghost)  is  the  Spiration  of  the 
Son  of  God,  and  we  call  the  Son  of  God  the  source  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  3  So  in  this  matter,  too,  the  modern  Orthodox  have 
forsaken  the  faith  of  their  fathers. 

1  Denzinger,  p.  586.  2  Aug.  in  Ioh.  99,  6  and  7.    M.P.L.  xxxv.  1888. 

3  Athan.  de  Trin.  19.    M.P.G.  xxvi.  1212.     A  long  list  of  Fathers  will  be 
found  quoted  to  prove  this  thesis  in  any  textbook  of  dogmatic  theology.    See, 


THE  ORTHODOX  FAITH  381 

An  easier  matter  to  understand  is  the  question  of  the  insertion 
into  the  Creed.  Its  history  is  this  :  The  second  general  council 
(Constantinople  I,  381)  made  very  considerable  additions  to  the 
Nicene  Creed.1  These  additions,  together  with  the  original 
form,  make  up  what  we  call  the  Nicene  Creed,  with  one 
exception.  The  clause  about  the  Holy  Ghost  was  :  "  And  in 
the  Spirit,  the  Holy  One,  the  Lord,  the  Lifegiver,  who  proceeds 
from  the  Father,  who  with  the  Father  and  Son  is  adored  and 
glorified,  who  spoke  through  the  prophets."  So  it  has  remained 
unchanged  in  the  East.  In  the  West,  in  the  Latin  version, 
one  word  has  been  added  that  has  made  all  this  trouble,  and 
we  say  :  "  qui  ex  Patre  Filioque  procedit,"  "  who  proceeds  from 
the  Father  and  the  Son."  The  change  was  not  originally  made 
at  Rome.  It  is  first  seen  in  Spanish  synods  of  the  5th  and  6th 
centuries.2  The  Filioque  was  used  by  these  Spanish  bishops  as 
a  declaration  against  the  Arians,  whose  heresy  lasted  longer  in 
Spain  than  anywhere  else. 3  The  Arians  denied  that  God  the 
Son  is  equal  to  the  Father  in  all  things.  The  Filioque  was 
meant  as  an  assertion  of  that  equality  :  "  all  things  that  the 
Father  has  are  mine,"  said  our  Lord  (John  xvi.  15),  and  the 
Catholics  understand  that  to  include  the  procession  of  the 
Holy  Ghost.  This  declaration  in  the  Creed,  then,  was  a  further 
denial  of  Arian  heresy.  The  bishops  at  Toledo  who  ordered  it 
to  be  used  certainly  did  not  foresee  that  it  would  some  day  give 
so  much  annoyance  to  their  distant  brethren  at  Constantinople, 
nor  that  it  would  for  ten  centuries  be  the  cause  of  so  much 

for  instance,  Hurter,  ii.  pp.  144-155.  Chr.  Pesch.  ii.  pp.  284-294,  where  also 
will  be  found  the  explanation  of  the  only  really  difficult  passage,  in  St.  John 
Damascene. 

1  The  original  Nicene  text  in  Denzinger,  p.  17.  It  ends  simply  :  "  and  in  the 
Holy  Ghost." 

2  A  synod  in  447  uses  the  word  ;  the  third  Council  of  Toledo  (589)  orders  it 
to  be  sung  aloud  in  the  Creed  at  Mass. 

3  The  original  West-Gothic  kingdom  set  up  by  Athaulf  (Adolphus)  between 
the  Loire  and  the  Garonne  in  the  5th  century  was  entirely  Arian.  It  spread 
over  Spain,  and  for  a  time  the  Gothic  kings  violently  persecuted  Catholics. 
King  Recared  (586)  became  a  Catholic  through  the  influence  of  Leander, 
Bishop  of  Seville,  whom  Gregory  the  Great  made  his  Legate  for  all  Spain. 
It  was  in  the  reign  of  Recared  and  under  Leander  that  the  third  Council  of 
Toledo  was  held. 


382      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

discord.  From  Spain  the  Filioque  spread  into  Gaul  and 
Germany.  Charles  the  Great  among  his  many  occupations 
found  time  to  discuss  the  question,  and  in  794  he  wrote  a  letter 
to  a  certain  Elipand  defending  the  addition.  He  ordered  it  to 
be  sung  in  his  private  chapel  at  Aachen.  The  Synod  of  Aachen 
in  809  petitioned  Pope  Leo  III  (795-816)  to  introduce  it  at 
Rome.  The  Pope  refused.  He  had  no  sort  of  doubt  about 
the  doctrine.  In  the  West  especially,  since  St.  Augustine  had 
defended  it,  the  procession  from  both  Persons  was  accepted 
everywhere,  and  used  as  a  sort  of  anti-Arian  protest.  But  the 
Pope  did  not  see  why  at  that  time  he  should  make  any  change 
in  the  Creed.  At  last,  however,  Pope  Benedict  VIII  (1012- 
1024)  admitted  it  at  Rome  formally.  It  had  already  long  been 
used  all  over  the  Roman  Patriarchate.1 

The  Easterns  cannot  maintain  that  any  addition  to  any  creed 
is  unlawful.  Creeds  are  drawn  up  by  ecclesiastical  authority,  and 
the  same  authority  can  enlarge  them.  No  creed  contains  the 
whole  Catholic  faith.  None,  for  instance,  say  anything  about  the 
Holy  Eucharist,  or  about  any  Sacrament  except  baptism.  More- 
over, the  first  Council  of  Constantinople  made  enormous  addi- 
tions to  the  original  Nicene  Creed.2  The  Eastern  grievance  as 
to  the  Creed  (apart  from  the  question  of  the  doctrine  in  itself)  is 
first  that  we  made  the  addition  without  consulting  them.  To 
this  a  Catholic  would  answer  that  the  Pope  may  certainly  allow  a 
true  doctrine  to  be  expressed  in  the  Creed  without  asking  any  one. 
But  even  without  supposing  his  Primacy  one  would  point  out 
that  the  amount  of  truth  expressed  by  a  creed  is  a  disciplinary 
matter,  and  that  the  Roman  Patriarch  only  allowed  this  addition 
in  his  own  Patriarchate.  They,  we  may  retort,  made  a  long 
list  of  additions  to  the  Creed  of  Nicaea  without  consulting  us — 
there  were  no  Latin  bishops  at  Constantinople  II  ;  but  our 
Patriarch,   seeing  that  these  additions  are  all  statements  of 


1  For  the  history  of  the  Filioque  see  Hergenrother-Kirsch.  ii.  pp.  142- 
146. 

2  It  is  doubtful  whether  these  additions  really  were  made  by  the  first 
Council  of  Constantinople  at  all.  Mgr.  Duchesne  thinks  that  they  were  added 
later.  At  any  rate  our  present  Creed  is  always  counted  as  Nicene-Constanti- 
nopolitan. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  383 

true  doctrine,1  not  only  made  no  complaint  against  them  but 
even  adopted  them  all  for  his  own  people.  He  has  never 
asked  them  to  adopt  our  one  word,  but  only  not  to  rail  at  us 
for  using  it.  But  they  further  urge — and  this  is  the  great  point 
— that  by  adding  the  Filioque  we  have  incurred  the  anathema 
of  a  general  council.  The  Council  of  Ephesus  declared  that  : 
u  No  one  shall  say  or  write,  or  compose  another  faith  except 
that  one  which  was  defined  by  the  holy  Fathers  who  were 
gathered  together  by  the  Holy  Ghost  at  Nicaea."  2  This  decree 
makes  no  difficulty  to  us  at  all.  During  the  Arian  troubles 
every  one  was  continually  making  creeds,  every  synod,  Catholic 
or  Arian,  drew  upafo  rm  to  express  its  faith.  The  Council  of 
Ephesus  accepts  the  Creed  of  Nicaea,  with  its  strongly  anti- 
Arian  clauses  ("  God  of  God,  Light  of  Light,  true  God  of  true 
God  ")  as  the  final  pronouncement  of  the  Church  on  this  matter. 
No  one  is  to  draw  up  a  rival  creed,  no  one  is  to  say  or  write  or 
compose  any  symbol  opposed  to  or  denying  that  one.  It  is  the 
common  expression  of  every  council  :  "  If  any  one  presumes  to 
contradict  this  decision,  let  him  be  anathema.,,  It  forbids  any 
tampering  with  what  was  there  defined.  It  has  nothing  what- 
ever to  do  with  any  further  definition  on  other  matters. 

But  do  the  Orthodox  understand  this  decree  as  meaning  that 
no  one  may  add  anything  to  the  words  of  the  Creed,  even  if  the 
addition  be  quite  consistent  with  what  it  already  defines  ?  Then, 
indeed,  are  we  all  in  a  bad  case,  they  as  much  as  the  Latins,  for 
(and  this  is  the  point  of  the  whole  question)  the  Creed  that  the 
Council  of  Ephesus  had  before  it  when  it  made  that  decree 
was  not  our  Nicene-Constantinopolitan  Symbol,  but  the  original 
Creed  of  Niccea,  to  which  we  have  both  added  no  less  than 
eleven  clauses.3   If,  then,  its  anathema  affects  the  Latins  because 

1  Of  course  the  issue  is  complicated  by  the  fact  that  they  deny  that  the 
Filioque  is  true  doctrine.  We  have  already  considered  that  question.  Here 
we  are  only  concerned  with  the  Pope's  right  to  add  it  (supposing  it  true)  to 
his  Creed.  2  Act.  vi. 

3  Compare  the  original  Nicene  Creed  in  Denzinger,  No.  17,  with  the  form  we 
(and  they)  now  use,  No.  47.  See  Duchesne  :  Eglises  separees,  pp.  77-80,  who 
thinks  that  the  additions  to  the  older  form  were  not  even  promulgated  by  the 
second  general  council  at  all,  but  were  added  to  make  a  baptismal  symbol  at 
Jerusalem  between  381  and  451. 


384      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  the  Filioque,  it  affects  the  Easterns  too  for  all  their  additions. 
And  there  is  nothing  in  the  mixed  symbol  that  we  now  all  use 
to  make  it  specially  inviolable  or  to  forbid  the  addition  to  it  of 
any  number  of  clauses,  so  long  as  they  are  correct  and  not 
heretical.1 

4.  Transubstantiation. 

Some  Orthodox  theologians  now  seem  to  deny  that  their 
Church  believes  Transubstantiation.  But  there  does  not 
appear  to  be  a  real  difference  between  us  on  this  point.  They 
certainly  all  believe  in  a  quite  definite,  objective  Real  Presence  ; 
they  all  say  that  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  the  Body  and  Blood  of 
Christ,  they  understand  this  quite  literally  and  simply  ;  they 
adore  the  Blessed  Sacrament  and  vehemently  reject  any 
explanation  of  a  typical  or  subjective  presence,  or  of  a  presence 
of  which  the  mean  is  faith.2  And  until  lately  they  both 
defined  Transubstantiation  and  used  the  word.  The  Synod  of 
Jerusalem  defines  :  "  the  bread  and  wine  at  the  consecration  are 
changed,  transubstantiated,  converted  and  transformed^  the 
bread  is  changed  into  the  very  Body  of  the  Lord  that  was  born 
at  Bethlehem  from  the  Ever- Virgin,  baptized  in  the  Jordan, 
suffered,  was  buried,  rose  again,  sits  at  the  right  hand  of  God 
the  Father,  and  will  come  again  in  the  clouds  of  heaven,  and 
the  wine  is  converted  and  transubstantiated  4  into  the  very 
Blood  of  the  Lord  that  he  shed  on  the  cross  for  the  life  of  the 
world.  And  after  the  consecration  we  believe  that  the  sub- 
stance of  neither  bread  nor  wine  remains,  but  the  very  Body 

1  Mgr.  Duchesne  (pp.  80-81)  here  notices  that  the  Roman  Church  did  not 
accept  this  Creed  at  all  till  very  late  (at  the  time  of  Justinian,  527-565).  The 
form  that  we  call  the  Apostles'  Creed  is  really  the  old  baptismal  symbol  of 
the  Roman  Church.  Had  she  kept  to  her  own  traditional  form  alone  Photius 
would  not  have  discovered  his  famous  grievance,  and  we  should  have  been 
spared  all  this  quarrel.  But,  of  course,  no  one  could  foresee  that,  and  if  there 
had  been  no  Filioque  he  would  have  thought  of  Azyme  bread  or  bishops'  rings, 
or  something. 

2  Cf.  Mogilas's  Confession,  i.  qu.  106,  107.  Syn.  Jerus.  Dositheus  :  deer.  17, 
&c. 

3  (j.€Ta(3dXKE(r9ai,  [iBTOvmovaQai,  [neTaTrouKrOai,  fXErapovOfii^effOai. 

4  nETcnrouiaOai  /cat  fierovciovaOai. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  385 

and  Blood  of  the  Lord  under  the  appearance  and  figure  of 
bread  and  wine,  that  is  under  the  accidents  of  bread  ...  so 
also  that  the  Body  and  Blood  of  the  Lord  are  held  and  divided 
by  our  hands  and  teeth,  yet  only  by  accident  (Kara  o-v///3f/3r;fcoc, 
per  accidens),  that  is  according  to  the  accidents  of  bread  and 
wine."  "  It  has  been  said  that  the  Synod  of  Jerusalem  repre- 
sents a  Romanizing  tendency  and  a  very  strong  reaction  against 
Lukaris's  Protestantism.  However,  Mogilas  says  the  same 
thing  ;  he  answers  the  question  :  "  What  is  the  third  Sacrament 
(fiwrripiov)  ?  The  Holy  Eucharist,  or  the  Body  and  Blood  of  our 
Lord  Jesus  Christ  under  the  appearance  of  bread  and  wine  in 
which  really  and  properly,  that  is,  in  actual  fact  (/caret  to  Trpay^a), 
Jesus  Christ  is  present."2  Indeed,  it  is  impossible  to  find  an 
Orthodox  definition  of  this  Sacrament  which  does  not  exactly 
coincide  with  the  Catholic  faith.  Nor  did  they  ever  attempt  to 
establish  a  difference  on  this  point.  As  for  the  word,  they 
always  say  ^trovoYWtc,  which  is  an  exact  version  of  Transub- 
stantiation  (fi£ra  =  trans  ;  ovaia  =  substantia).  And  in  the  Russian 
translation  of  the  Acts  of  Jerusalem  they  form  a  derived  word 
from  the  Latin  Transubstantiatio  (transsubstantziatzija).  More- 
over, when  Mr.  Palmer  showed  his  book  with  a  denial  of  this 
faith  to  the  Archpriest  Koutnevich,  the  Archpriest  promptly 
said  :  "  But  we  believe  and  teach  transubstantiation."  3  Quite 
lately,  however,  some  of  their  theologians  are  disposed  to  deny 
it.  What  they  appear  to  mean  is  that  they  are  not  disposed  to 
commit  themselves  to  all  the  scholastic  theory  of  substance  and 
accident.4  To  which  we  may  answer  that  we  also  distinguish 
between  the  defined  dogma  and  its  philosophical  explanation, 
and  that  the  Catholic  Church  has  never  officially  committed 
herself  to  all  the  theories  by  which  her  theologians  try  to 
explain  her  mysteries.  Certainly  all  their  definitions  abun- 
dantly satisfy  us,  and  they  could  not  have  any  difficulty  in 
accepting  the  decree  of  Trent  on  Transubstantiation.s     As  for 

1  Dositheus  :  deer.  17.  2  Conf.  Orth.  i,  qu.  106. 

3  Visit,  p.  145. 

4  So  the  note  about  Philaret  of  Moscow  in  Headlam  :  The  Teaching  of  the 
Russian  Church,  pp.  8-9. 

5  Sess.  xiii.  cap.  4,  Denz.  p.  758. 

26 


386      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

the  word,  since  they  talk  Greek  and  we  Latin,  they  will  go  on 
saying  iierovaibxriQ  while  we  say  Transubstantiatio.1 

5.  The  Epiklesis. 

A  more  serious  discussion  about  the  Holy  Eucharist  concerns 
the  moment  at  which  this  change  takes  place.  All  the  Eastern 
liturgies  contain  the  words  of  institution,  our  Lord's  own  words 
"  This  is  my  Body,"  and  "  This  is  the  chalice  of  my  Blood."  2 
But  the  Orthodox  do  not  believe  that  these  are  the  words  of 
Consecration  ;  they  recite  them  merely  historically,  and  after- 
wards they  have  a  solemn  invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost, 
praying  him  to  change  this  bread  and  wine  into  the  Body 
and  Blood  of  Christ.  This  invocation  is  the  Epiklesis  (EttikX^itiq), 
and  they  believe  that  then,  and  not  till  then,  are  the  bread  and 
wine  consecrated.3  They  also  reproach  us  that  we  have  no 
Epiklesis  in  our  liturgy,  and  are  disposed  to  doubt  the  validity 
of  our  Holy  Eucharist  for  this  reason.  In  the  first  place  we 
have  an  Epiklesis,  although  a  hardly  recognizable  one.  The 
prayer  Supplices  te  rogamus  in  our  missal  is  the  remnant  of  the 
old  Latin  invocation.*  Secondly  the  Orthodox  admit  that  the 
words  of  institution  must  be  said  first,  and  that  an  Epiklesis 
alone  would  not  be  sufficient.  Both  sides  in  this  controversy, 
then,  use  the  two  forms,  words  of  institution  and  Epiklesis  ;  the 
only  question  at  issue  is  as  to  the  moment  at  which  Consecration 
takes  place,  as  to  which  is,  as  we  should  say,  the  form  of  the 
Sacrament.  The  Roman  Church  has  settled  the  matter  for  us 
by  commanding  the  priest  to  kneel,  adore,  and  then  elevate  the 
Blessed  Sacrament  immediately  after  the  words  of  institution 

1  The  Russians  now  seem  to  prefer  a  really  Slav  word,  presushchestvlenie, 
which  they  say  is  an  exact  rendering  of  fieTovaiuxng.  They  are  certainly  right 
in  avoiding  derived  words  as  far  as  possible. 

2  With  the  doubtful  exception  of  the  Nestorian  rite  ;  see  Brightman  : 
Eastern  Liturgies,  p.  285. 

3  The  Byzantine  Epiklesis  is  :  "  We  offer  to  thee  this  reasonable  and 
unbloody  sacrifice,  and  we  pray  thee,  beg  thee,  and  implore  thee  to  send 
down  thy  Holy  Spirit  on  us  and  on  these  present  gifts,  and  to  make  this 
bread  the  sacred  Body  of  thy  Christ,  and  to  make  what  is  in  this  chalice  the 
sacred  Blood  of  thy  Christ,  changing  them  by  thy  Holy  Spirit"  (Brightman, 
pp.  386-387).  4  See  Duchesne  :  Origines  du  culte,  p.  173. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITti  38; 

and  before  the  Supplices  te  rogamus.1  On  the  other  hand,  the 
Orthodox  service  book  adds  a  note  to  the  words  of  institution, 
saying  that  they  are  only  recited  historically,  and  that  therefore 
it  is  superfluous  and  contrary  to  the  right  mind  of  the  Eastern 
Church  of  Christ  to  show  the  bread  and  wine  to  the  people  at 
this  point.2  The  question  of  the  Epiklesis  is  a  long  one.  Two 
remarks  about  it  will  be  sufficient  here.  In  the  first  place  the 
Christians  of  the  first  centuries  certainly  did  not  ask  very  closely 
at  what  exact  instant  the  grace  of  any  Sacrament  was  given. 
They  obeyed  Christ's  commands,  said  the  prayers,  and  did  the 
actions  he  had  appointed,  and  they  believed  that  God  in  answer 
would  most  certainly  do  his  part.  But  they  did  not  discuss 
the  exact  instant  at  which  all  conditions  were  fulfilled.3  If 
they  had  thought  about  the  form  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  in  our 
terms  they  would  have  said  that  the  whole  great  Eucharistic 
prayer  is  the  form,  from  the  Preface  to  the  Our  Father. 
Secondly,  the  fact  that  all  the  liturgies  have  a  prayer  to  the 
Holy  Ghost,  asking  him  to  change  the  bread  and  wine  into 
the  Blessed  Sacrament,  is  no  evidence  against  the  change  having 
already  been  made.  The  Church  always  dramatically  repre- 
sents things  as  happening  successively  which  really  must  happen 
at  one  instant.  In  our  rite  of  baptism  the  priest  first  drives  out 
the  devil,  then  "  enlightens,  cleanses,  and  sanctifies  "  the  child 
by  an  imposition  of  hands,  drives  out  the  devil  again,  opens  the 
nostrils  and  ears,  anoints  for  "  life  everlasting,"  baptizes,  anoints 
with  chrism,  and  then  gives  the  white  robe  and  shining  light. 
Presumably  the  truth  of  all  these  symbols  is  verified  at  one 

1  The  elevation  is  a  late  ceremony.  It  began  in  France  in  the  12th  century 
(after  Berengar's  heresy)  and  spread  throughout  the  West  during  the  13th 
century.     Gregory  X  (1271-1276)  ordered  it  in  his  Ceremoniale  romanum. 

2  Euchologion  (Venice,  1898),  p.  63. 

3  Even  now  such  an  investigation  would  only  lead  to  absurd  subtleties. 
At  what  moment  is  a  child  baptized  ?  After  the  word  Spiritus,  or  not  till  the 
whole  word  Sancti  has  been  spoken  ?  In  the  case  of  Holy  Orders  the  question 
is  still  more  uncertain.  No  one  can  say  at  what  instant  the  subject  becomes 
a  priest.  Of  course  the  bishop  does  everything  scrupulously  :  the  subject  is 
certainly  not  a  priest  when  the  service  begins,  he  certainly  is  one  when  it 
ends.  And  if  one  must  determine  the  form  of  the  Sacrament,  one  would  say 
that  it  is  the  whole  prayer  from  the  first  laying  on  of  hands  to  the  giving  of 
the  instruments. 


388      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

instant  all  together.  But  words  take  time  to  say,  and  these 
things  cannot  all  be  expressed  at  once,  so  dramatically  they 
are  represented  as  happening  successively.  In  the  ordination 
service  the  same  thing  is  still  more  marked  ;  the  bishop  lays  on 
his  hands,  then  gives  the  subject  "the  grace  of  priesthood," 
gives  him  the  vestments,  blesses  again,  invokes  the  Holy  Ghost, 
consecrates  with  chrism,  gives  the  power  of  saying  Mass,  and, 
at  the  very  end,  after  the  subject  has  already  concelebrated, 
lays  on  hands  again  and  gives  him  the  power  of  forgiving  sins. 
One  could  argue  that  a  man  must  at  any  moment  either  be  a 
priest  or  not  be  one,  and  that  as  soon  as  he  is  a  priest  God  has 
given  him  all  these  things.  In  our  burial  service  we  pray  that 
God  may  not  hand  over  the  soul  of  the  dead  man  into  the  hands 
of  the  enemy  nor  let  him  bear  the  pains  of  hell.  That  matter 
was  settled  irrevocably  as  soon  as  he  died,  probably  some  days 
before.  These,  then,  are  examples  of  the  way  in  which  the 
Church,  necessarily  using  our  manner  of  speaking,  separates  in 
expression  things  that  before  God  must  happen  at  once.  And 
so  in  the  Mass,  just  as  we  speak  of  "this  spotless  offering " 
some  time  before  the  Consecration,1  we  might  invoke  the  Holy 
Ghost  to  work  the  great  change  afterwards  (as  all  the  Eastern 
Uniates  do),  without  doubting  that  really  the  spotless  offering  is 
made  and  the  Holy  Ghost  changes  and  consecrates  when  we 
say  the  words  of  institution.  But  since  we  now  do  ask  at  what 
exact  moment  the  bread  and  wine  are  consecrated,  Catholics 
are  most  certainly  right  in  fixing  it  at  the  time  we  say  our  Lord's 
own  words.  We  know  that  he  said  those  words,  and  that  he 
told  us  to  do  as  he  had  done.  There  is  no  evidence  for  any 
sort  of  Epiklesis  at  the  Last  Supper.2 

6.  Purgatory. 

The  Orthodox  appear  to  differ  from  us  as  to  what  happens 
after  death.   They  pray  for  the  dead  as  much  as  we  do,  but  they 

1  At  the  offertory  :  "  Receive,  holy  Father,  almighty  and  eternal  God,  this 
spotless  offering.  .  .  ." 

2  For  the  whole  question  of  the  Epiklesis  see  Lingens  :  Die  eucharistische 
Consecrationsform  in  the  Zeitschrift  fur  kath.  Theologie  (Innsbruck),  1897, 
pp.  51-106. 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  389 

conceive  their  state  in  another  way.  Their  opinion  seems  to  be 
that  all  the  dead  sleep  and  wait  passively  in  a  middle  state  till 
the  day  of  judgement.  Then  the  goodwill  go  to  heaven  and  the 
wicked  to  hell.  This  applies  to  the  Saints  too.  And  they  deny 
our  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  and  are  indignant  at  our  indulgences 
as  well  as  at  our  belief  that  Saints  enjoy  a  complete  reward  before 
the  last  day.1  In  this  case,  too,  there  is  practically  no  difference 
between  the  official  teaching  of  the  two  Churches.  The  Ortho- 
dox believe  that  "  by  no  means  all  who  die  in  sin  are  cast  into 
hell  "  and  that  "  we  must  offer  prayers  and  the  holy  Sacrifice 
and  generous  alms  for  the  dead."  2  The  sleep  in  which  the 
dead  wait  until  the  last  day  is  already  a  foretaste  of  their  future 
fate.  If  they  do  not  admit  a  special  place,  Purgatory,  they 
speak  of  a  part  of  hell  in  which  sinners  who  will  be  saved 
eventually  wait,  or  of  a  prison,  and  they  distinguish  between 
those  who  die  in  grave  sins  and  who  are  lost  for  ever  and  those 
who  die  in  sin  and  yet  will  be  saved  after  being  cleansed.3  The 
point  to  which  they  most  strongly  object  is  the  fire  of  Purgatory. 
At  the  Council  of  Florence,  Bessarion  argued  against  fire,  and 
the  Greeks  were  then  assured  that  the  Roman  Church  has  never 
committed  herself  to  belief  in  this  fire.  That  is  still  true. 
All  a  Catholic  is  bound  to  believe  about  Purgatory  is  contained 
in  the  definition  of  Trent  :  "  There  is  a  Purgatory  and  souls 
there  detained  are  helped  by  the  prayers  of  the  faithful  and 
especially  by  the  acceptable  Sacrifice  of  the  Altar."  4  It  is  diffi- 
cult to  see  how  the  Orthodox  could  deny  this.  As  for  the  sleep 
of  the  just  until  the  last  day,  such  a  belief  seems  inconsistent 
with  the  prayers  to  the  Saints  which  form  as  large  a  part  of 
their  devotion  as  of  ours  and  with  the  stories  of  miraculous 
apparitions  of  our  Lady  and  the  Saints,  of  which  they  have  at 
least  as  many  as  we  have.  They  are  wrong  in  saying  that  we 
believe  the  Saints  enjoy  perfect  happiness  before  the  last  day. 
Our  theologians  teach  that  the  resurrection  of  the  body  will  add 

1  This  is  how  Anthimos  VII  expressed  his  grievance  against  the  Papic 
Church  in  his  answer  to  Leo  XIII. 

2  Mogilas  :  Conf.  Orth.  i.  qu.  45. 

3  See  the  theologians  quoted  by  Hergenrother,  Photius,  iii.  p.  650.    We  have 
already  seen  what  the  great  Greek  Fathers  say  on  this  question  (p.  105  scq.). 

4  Sess.  xxv,  Denz.  p.  859. 


390      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

yet  another  element  to  the  joy  of  the  just.1  As  for  indulgences, 
here,  too,  they  should  distinguish  between  the  teaching  of  the 
Roman  Church  and  the  pious  imaginations  and  practices  of 
some  of  her  children.  The  Church  says  only  that  :  "  Since  the 
power  of  giving  indulgences  has  been  granted  by  Christ  to 
his  Church,  and  since  she  has  used  this  divinely-given  power 
from  most  ancient  times,  the  holy  Synod  (of  Trent)  teaches  and 
commands  that  the  use  of  indulgences,  which  are  exceedingly 
good  for  Christian  people  and  are  approved  by  the  authority  of 
general  councils,  shall  be  kept  in  the  Church. "  2  In  this  matter 
the  "Church  of  the  Seven  Councils,  one  holy,  Catholic,  and 
Apostolic,"  which  Anthimos  VII  so  vehemently  professed  to 
follow,  agrees  with  the  Council  of  Trent.  During  the  centuries 
of  persecution  the  libellus,  by  which  part  of  canonical  penances 
were  remitted  because  of  a  martyr's  intercession,  and  the 
libellaticus  who  had  procured  himself  such  a  remission  were  as 
well  known  as  indulgences  and  the  pious  persons  who  use  them 
are  to  us  now.  As  for  possible  excesses  of  zeal  and  imaginations 
beyond  what  the  Church  teaches  in  such  matters  as  these,  the 
same  Council  of  Trent  orders  that  :  "  More  difficult  and  subtle 
questions,  which  do  not  make  for  edification  and  from  which  as 
a  rule  no  one  receives  an  increase  of  piety,  shall  be  forbidden  in 
sermons  to  the  people.  And  bishops  shall  not  allow  uncertain 
things  or  such  as  bear  the  mark  of  falsehood  to  be  propagated 
or  discussed.  And  they  shall  forbid  as  scandalous  and  as  an 
offence  to  the  faithful  whatever  serves  only  for  curiosity  or 
superstition  or  whatever  savours  of  filthy  lucre."  3  That  popular 
abuses  exist  is  always  inevitable  ;  nor  would  it  be  just  to  make 
the  Orthodox  Church  responsible  for  everything  that  is  con- 
tained in  little  Greek  manuals  of  piety.  "  Where,"  says  Mgr. 
Duchesne,  "  are  there  not  abuses  ?  Instead  of  being  scandalized 
at  them,  it  would  be  better  to  come  and  help  us  repress  them. 
When  the  union  is  restored  it  will  not  only  be  good  for  the 
Greeks  ;  Latins,  too,  will  profit  by  it."  4 

1  Cf.  e.gr.  Chr.  Pesch.  :  Prcel.  dogm.,  ix.  (Freiburg,  1902),  p.  337.  Pope 
John  XXII  went  further  still  and  put  a  Dominican  in  gaol  for  contradicting 
him. 

•  Sess.  xxv.  Denz.  p.  862.  3  ibid.  p.  859.  4  Eglises  sep.  p.  108, 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  391 

7.  The  Immaculate  Conception. 

This  dogma,  too,  they  now  deny.  Lord  Anthimos  declared 
that  the  "  Church  of  the  Seven  Councils  "  had  defined  that  there 
is  only  one  immaculate  conception,  that  of  Christ,  and  that  the 
"  Papic  Church  M  defines  in  opposition  the  immaculate  concep- 
tion of  his  blessed  Mother  as  well.1  This  is  absolutely  false. 
The  Church  of  the  Seven  Councils,  that  is,  the  Catholic  Church 
down  to  the  year  787,  defined  nothing  on  this  subject  at  all. 
We  have  seen  that  the  feast  of  our  Lady's  conception  came  to 
us  from  the  East,  and  we  have  seen,  too,  how  some  of  the  Greek 
Fathers  already  imply  that  her  conception  was  holy  and  free 
from  original  sin  (p.  107).  After  the  schism  some  of  their 
theologians  taught  this  doctrine  plainly.  Isidore  Glabas, 
Metropolitan  of  Thessalonica  (f  c.  1393),  writes  :  "  The  all-pure 
Virgin,  as  is  right,  alone  can  refuse  to  apply  to  herself  the  words 
of  the  royal  prophet,  she  alone  can  say  :  I  was  not  conceived  in 
iniquity,  and  again  :  My  mother  did  not  conceive  me  in  sin  ; 
this  privilege  is  contained  in  the  great  things  done  to  me  by 
him  who  is  mighty."  2  Metrophanes  Kritopulos  was  the  first 
person  in  the  East  who  formally  denied  the  immaculate  con- 
ception^ but  others  still  defended  it  until  the  definition  of  1854 
seemed  a  sufficient  reason  to  these  people,  who  generally  are  so 
jealous  of  the  privileges  and  honour  of  the  all-holy  Mother  of 
God,  for  entirely  rejecting  what  a  Roman  Pope  had  declared. 

8.  Modern  Orthodox  Theology. 

There  are  other  points  in  which  the  Orthodox  differ  from  us 
in  questions  of  rite  which  involve  dogma,  such  as  the  adminis- 
tration of  baptism  and  extreme  unction,  and  which  may,  there- 
fore, be  discussed  in  the  next  chapter  (pp.  420-425).  They 
have  had  heated  theological  discussions,  such  as  the  question  of 
frequent  communion  at  Mount  Athos  in  the  18th  century,  the 

1  Eglises  sep.  p.  no. 

2  M.P.G.  cxxxix.  52.  See  a  number  of  quotations  in  the  Echos  d'Oricnt, 
vii.  pp.  257-270  :  Uimmaculee  conception  et  les  Grccs  modernes.  Bessarione, 
ix.,  x.,  xi.  :  U  immacolata  concezione  .  .  .  e  la  chiesa  ortodossa  (by  Mgr. 
Marini).  3  Ibid.  p.  260. 


392      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

question  as  to  where  the  portion  for  the  Mother  of  God  should 
be  placed  on  the  paten,  whether  Requiem  services  may  be  held 
on  Sunday  as  well  as  Saturday x  which,  as  Diomede  Kyriakos 
says,  "  show  the  simplicity  of  the  monks."  And  there  has  been 
a  great  discussion  about  the  portions  of  the  holy  bread  which 
they  put  aside  for  our  Lady  and  the  Saints  before  consecration 
(p.  417,  n.  1).  Not  only  are  they  uncertain  whether  these  por- 
tions are  consecrated  or  not,  but  some  of  them  have  proposed 
the  horrible  theory  that  they  are  changed  into  the  body  of  these 
Saints.2  But  these  are  less  important  matters  ;  the  heat  of 
controversy  they  evoked  is  over  now,  and  it  would  be  un- 
generous to  insist  on  them.  They  have  also  silently  given  up 
many  of  the  old  accusations  against  us.  One  hears  little  now 
of  the  wickedness  of  unleavened  bread  that  once  so  horrified 
them.3  Nor  are  they  any  longer  distressed  that  our  bishops 
shave  and  wear  rings.  On  the  other  hand,  Latin  bishops  have 
put  an  end  to  another  reproach  in  that  they  no  longer  go 
a-fighting.  As  for  our  celibacy,  that,  too,  they  have  learnt 
to  let  alone. 

The  great  weakness  of  Orthodox  theology  as  a  whole  is 
that  it  falls  between  two  ideals.  They  insist  very  much  on 
the  antiquity  of  their  belief  and  rites.  They  indignantly  deny 
that  their  Church  has  ever  developed,  and  they  are  never 
tired  of  protesting  against  Latin  "  novelties."  Antiquity  pure 
and  unchanged,  and  no  modification  for  modern  times,  is 
their  great  cry.  And  yet  their  antiquity  has  already  reached 
an  advanced  stage  of  development.  It  is  certainly  not  that  of 
the  time  of  the  Apostles.  They  accept  the  very  definite  decrees 
of  seven  councils,  they  print  in  their  books  the  accurate  analysis 
of  the  Athanasian  Creed.  Their  hierarchy  with  Constantinople 
as  the  chief  throne  is  quite  a  late  development.  Their  sump- 
tuous ritual,  gorgeous  vestments,  and  exact  rubrics  all  represent, 

1  Kyriakos,  iii.  pp.  74,  seq. ;  E.  tfOr.  ii.  pp.  321-331,  La  grande  controverse 
des  Colybes.  Strange  that  the  question  of  frequent  communion  agitated  the 
Orthodox  Church  at  the  same  time  that  the  Jansenists  were  arguing  against 
it  in  France. 

2  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  65-78,  La  preparation  des  Oblats  dans  le  rite  grec. 

3  But  Anthimos  VII  remembered  this  too,  in  his  answer  to  Leo  XIII 
see  p.  435). 


THE   ORTHODOX  FAITH  393 

not  the  first  age,  but  the  palmy  days  of  the  Byzantine  Roman 
Empire.  And  that  is  their  weakness.  One  can  understand  the 
Catholic  ideal  of  a  living  Church,  developing  always  under  the 
guidance  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  defining  more  closely  each  element 
of  the  old  faith  as  the  presence  of  some  new  heresy  makes  her 
more  conscious  of  what  she  has  hitherto  held  implicitly.  One 
can  understand  the  ideal  of  a  man  who  will  hear  nothing  of  any 
development  at  all,  who  will  allow  no  change,  and  who  wishes 
to  go  back  exactly  to  something  that  he  believes  to  have  been 
the  state  of  the  Apostolic  Church.  But  why  develop  down  to 
the  year  787,  and  then  rigidly  refuse  to  move  any  further  ? 
What  is  the  especial  sanctity  of  the  Byzantine  world  ?  Why 
accept  and  defend  such  innovations  as  the  place  of  New  Rome 
in  the  hierarchy  and  the  independence  of  Cyprus,  and  then 
boast  of  one's  unchanged  antiquity  ?  Why  accept  decrees  of 
councils  which  define  what  was  not  defined  before,  and  yet  rail 
against  any  later  definition  as  a  Papal  novelty  ? *  They  make 
so  much  of  their  ancient  customs  and  venerable  traditions  :  they 
think  it  so  horrible  a  sacrilege  even  to  discuss  them.  And  yet 
they  are  not  the  customs  of  the  age  of  Christ  or  the  Apostles, 
they  are  only  strangely  fossilized  remnants  of  the  dead  Empire. 
And  so  they  satisfy  no  one.  The  Protestant  thinks  them  as 
corrupt  with  their  images,  relics,  vestments,  and  incense  as  any 
Papist  ;  the  Catholic  thinks  their  Church  dead  and  petrified. 
The  radical  affliction  from  which  the  Orthodox  Church  suffers 
is  arrested  development. 

Summary. 

The  present  faith  of  the  Orthodox  Church  agrees  in  the  very 
great  majority  of  cases  with  ours.  It  is  without  comparison 
the  Communion  that  stands  nearest   to  the  Catholic  Church. 

1  It  is  no  answer  to  say  that  it  is  only  because  the  first  seven  councils  really 
were  oecumenical.  There  have  always  been  heretics  absent  from  councils. 
Has  the  true  Orthodox  Church  lost  the  power  of  summoning  a  general 
council,  or  why  has  she  let  that  power  get  atrophied  for  eleven  centuries  ? 
And  they  are  angry  with  many  of  our  "  novelties  "  in  Canon  Law  as  well  as 
in  faith,  in  spite  of  the  enormous  changes  made  by  the  founding  of  national 
Churches  among  them  during  the  19th  century. 


394      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

The  Orthodox  express  their  faith  by  the  Creeds,  the  decisions 
of  the  first  seven  general  councils,  and  also  by  certain  Con- 
fessions drawn  up  by  Gennadios  II  of  Constantinople,  Peter 
Mogilas  of  Kiev,  Dositheos  of  Jerusalem  (the  Synod  of 
Jerusalem),  and  Metrophanes  Kritopulos  of  Alexandria  ;  though 
this  last  one  has  less  authority.  They  believe  their  Communion 
to  be  the  only  true  Church  of  Christ,  and  entirely  reject  the 
Pope's  universal  supremacy.  They  say  that  the  Holy  Ghost 
proceeds  from  God  the  Father  alone,  and  are  indignant  that 
we  add  the  word  Filioque  to  the  Creed.  About  Transubstan- 
tiation  there  is  no  real  difference,  but  they  believe  that  that 
change  takes  place,  not  when  the  words  of  institution  are  said, 
but  at  the  Invocation  of  the  Holy  Ghost  (Epiklesis)  which 
follows  them  in  their  liturgy.  They  deny  Purgatory,  but  believe 
in  what  comes  to  the  same  thing,  though  they  specially  reject 
the  idea  of  a  cleansing  fire  ;  and  since  the  Pope  has  defined  our 
Lady's  Immaculate  Conception  they  deny  this  too.  In  spite  of 
their  boast  of  unchanging  antiquity,  their  theology,  rites,  and 
Canon  Law  represent,  not  the  first  ages  but  a  comparatively 
advanced  development,  that  of  the  Byzantine  Period.  And 
they  stay  there,  satisfying  neither  the  need  of  continuous 
development  that  is  the  mark  of  a  living  Church,  nor  the  rival 
ideal  of  unchanged  primitive  observance. 


CHAPTER    XIII 


ORTHODOX    RITES 


All  the  Orthodox  Churches  use  the  Byzantine  rite  in  various 
languages.  The  Church  of  Constantinople  has  even  foisted  her 
use  on  those  of  Alexandria  and  Antioch  ;  and  they  have  for- 
saken their  much  older  and  more  venerable  liturgies,  and  have 
adopted  that  of  the  comparatively  new  see  which  deposed 
them  from  their  original  places  in  the  hierarchy.  It  is  only 
among  the  Copts  and  Jacobites,  whether  Uniate  or  schismatic, 
that  the  ancient  rites  of  St.  Mark  and  St.  James  are  celebrated. 
The  Orthodox  all  follow  Byzantium.1  It  is  impossible  to  say 
exactly  when  the  older  uses  disappeared.  In  the  12th  century 
Theodore  Balsamon  says  that  the  Church  of  Jerusalem  had 
already  adopted  the  Byzantine  rite.  It  is  hardly  necessary  to 
point  out  how  different  this  intolerance  of  Constantinople 
is  from  the  attitude  of  Old  Rome.  True,  the  Roman  use  is 
enormously  the  most  wide-spread  in  the  Catholic  Church,  so 
much  so  that  many  people  apparently  think  that  it  is  the  only 
one.  But  that  is  part  of  the  general  confusion  of  the  Roman 
Patriarchate  with  the  Catholic  Church.     The  Roman  Liturgy 

1  There  are  two  exceptions  to  this.  At  Zakynthos  the  Greek  liturgy  of  St. 
James  is  celebrated  once  a  year  on  October  23rd  (St.  James's  feast)  ;  Dionysius 
Latas,  Archbishop  of  Zakynthos,  published  the  text  of  this  liturgy  in  1886. 
And  now  the  Patriarch  of  Jerusalem  has  also  restored  it  for  one  day  in  the 
year  (December  31st).  It  was  first  used  in  1900  ;  Lord  Epiphanios,  of  the 
river  Jordan,  celebrated  with  many  priests,  and  the  students  of  the  college  of 
the  Holy  Cross  sang.  The  edition  of  Latas  was  exactly  followed,  and  the 
service  lasted  three  hours.    See  E.  d'Or.  iv.  p.  247. 

395 


396      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

is  used  practically  throughout  the  Roman  Patriarchate,1  as  is 
natural ;  each  Patriarchate  has  its  uniform  rite.  But  the  Popes 
have  never  tried  to  force  their  liturgy  on  Catholics  of  the  other 
Patriarchates.  Still,  as  always,  the  Catholics  of  Alexandria, 
Antioch,  Jerusalem,  and  the  Melkites  who  represent  Constan- 
tinople use  their  own  venerable  rites,  as  do  the  Catholic 
Armenians  and  Chaldees.  And  that  in  the  Catholic  Church 
the  Latin  Patriarchate  is  now  so  enormously  greater  than  all 
the  others  put  together  is  due  simply  to  accident.  On  the  one 
hand  the  Western  lands  have  grown  and  flourished,  and  have 
been  enlarged  by  two  new  continents — America  and  Australia — 
while  the  East  remained  stagnant  and  was  overrun  by  Islam. 
No  one  could  foresee  this  when  Rome  took  for  her  Patriarchate 
Italy,  Illyricum,  and  then  the  wild  and  desolate  lands  of  North- 
western Europe,  full  of  savages  that  she  was  to  convert, 
whereas  Alexandria  had  the  fat  land  of  Egypt,  Antioch  had  flour- 
ishing Syria,  and  at  Constantinople  was  the  splendour  of  Caesar's 
new  home.  On  the  other  hand,  most  of  the  Eastern  Christians 
have  fallen  into  schism  ;  and  so,  of  course,  there  are  only  a  few 
(about  five  millions)  to  represent  their  rites  inside  the  Catholic 
Church,  as  against  the  225  million  Latins.  But  if  ever  that 
schism  be  healed,  then  a  more  equal  proportion  would  be 
established  between  our  different  liturgies,  and  with  a  Catholic 
Russia  that  would,  of  course,  go  on  using  her  own  Byzantine 
rite  in  Old  Slavonic,  no  one  could  any  longer  so  completely 
forget  the  Eastern  Catholics  as  to  say  that  all  our  priests  say  the 
same  Mass,  or  that  Latin  is  the  language  of  the  whole  Catholic 
Church.  Meanwhile,  whereas  the  preponderance  of  the  Latin  rite 
with  us  is  due  to  quite  natural  and  unforeseen  causes,  the  exclu- 
sive use  of  the  Byzantine  rite  among  the  Orthodox  is  due  to  the 
systematic  jealousy  and  ambition  of  the  Patriarchs  of  Constanti- 
nople. They,  not  Rome,  are  the  centralizers  who  ignore  history 
for  the  sake  of  uniformity,  and  when  people  accuse  the  Pope  of 
having  crushed  national  Churches  they  mistake  the  culprit,  they 
mean  the  Patriarch  of  New  Rome,  not  the  Pope  of  Old  Rome. 

In  one  point,  however,  there  is   no   attempt   at   uniformity 
among  the  Orthodox — in   language.      Whereas  they  must  all 

1  Except,  of  course,  for  the  Ambrosian  and  Mozarabic  rites. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  397 

use  the  same  rites,  they  may  celebrate  them  in  almost  any 
language  they  please.  Oddly  enough  the  result  of  this  is 
not  that  they  generally  use  a  language  understanded  of  the 
people.  In  most  cases  the  liturgical  language  is  an  older 
form  of  the  vulgar  tongue,  hardly  more  intelligible  to  the 
faithful  than  the  original  Greek.  The  Byzantine  rite,  after 
the  Roman  use,  by  far  the  most  widely  spread  of  any,  is  cele- 
brated in  these  languages  :  Greek  throughout  the  Great  Church, 
except  where  Servian  and  Roumanian  priests  insist  on  using 
their  own  languages  to  the  great  annoyance  of  the  Patriarch 
(pp.  326,  332),  throughout  part  of  Jerusalem,  most  of  the  Antio- 
ehene  and  nearly  all  the  Alexandrine  Patriarchate,  and  in  the 
Greek  Church  ;  Arabic  in  parts  of  Antioch  (it  has  spread  very 
much  since  Meletios,  p.  287)  and  Jerusalem,  and  in  a  few 
Churches  in  Egypt  ;  Old  Slavonic  or  Church  Slavonic  in  Russia, 
Bulgaria  (and  by  all  the  Exarchists),  Czernagora,  Servia,  and 
by  the  Orthodox  in  Austria  and  Hungary  ;  Roumanian  by  the 
national  Church  of  that  country.  These  four  languages  are 
the  chief  ones.  Later  Russian  missions  have  caused  the  follow- 
ing to  be  used  too  :  Esthonian,  Lettish,  and  German  in  the  Baltic 
provinces  ;  Finnish  and  Tartar  among  the  converts  in  Finland 
and  Siberia  ;  Eskimo  and  North  American  Indian  in  Alaska  and 
thereabouts  ;  Chinese  and  Japanese  by  the  missionaries  in  those 
countries  ;  and,  lastly,  English  by  a  body  of  Austrians  in  the 
United  States  who  were  originally  Uniates,  but  who  have  now 
placed  themselves  under  the  Orthodox  bishop  of  Alaska  at  San 
Francisco.1  Extinct  languages,  in  which  this  rite  is  no  longer 
celebrated,  are  Syriac,  once  used  by  the  Orthodox  under 
Antioch,  and  Georgian,  the  language  of  the  now  destroyed 
Georgian  Church. 

The  chief  points  in  connection  with  the  Byzantine  rite  are  the 
Calendar  and  feasts,  the  service  books,  churches  and  vestments, 
Church  music,  the  Holy  Liturgy,  and  lastly,  the  principal  other 
services,  the  Divine  Office,  administration  of  Sacraments,  and 
various  blessings  and  sacramentals. 

1  This  list  from  'Brightman  :  Eastern  Liturgies,  pp.  lxxxi.-lxxxii.  I  have 
left  out  the  Uniates,  who  use  the  same  liturgy.  The  four  languages  first 
named  are  the  more  important  ones  (Greek,  Old  Slavonic,  Arabic,  Rou- 
manian) ;  the  others  are  used  only  by  small  communities. 


398      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

i.  The  Calendar. 

All  the  Orthodox  still  use  the  Julian  Calendar  (Old  Style). 
By  this  time  (1907)  they  are  thirteen  days  behind  us  ;  they 
were  keeping  the  feast  of  the  Circumcision  (January  1st)  on 
our  January  14th.  They  calculate  Easter,  of  course,  just  as  we 
do  (the  first  Sunday  after  the  fourteenth  day  after  the  first  new 
moon  after  March  6th),  and,  as  they  see  the  moon  just  as  we 
do,  this  leads  to  further  complications — they  count  from  their 
March  6th  (our  March  19th),  and  the  new  moon  after  that  is 
not  always  the  same  as  ours,  so  the  whole  process  becomes 
doubly  wrong.  This  year,  for  instance,  our  Easter  Day  falls  on 
March  31st,  theirs  falls  on  their  April  22nd,  our  May  5th.  Some- 
times, however,  these  two  wrongs  make  a  right,  and  the  Easters 
coincide  ;  if  the  new  moon,  for  instance,  were  on  March  23rd 
(their  March  10th),  we  should  both  count  together  and  keep 
the  feast  on  the  same  day,  although  we  should  call  the  date 
differently.  All  the  Orthodox  know  quite  well  that  they  are 
wrong  in  their  Calendar,  and  that  we  are  as  right  as  any  one  can 
be.  But  it  is  a  point  of  honour  with  them  (as  it  was  in  England 
till  1740)  not  to  accept  the  correction  of  a  Roman  Pope.  They 
feel  the  inconvenience  of  disagreeing  with  the  whole  civilized 
world  in  this  matter  very  strongly  (dating  a  cheque  in  Greece  is 
a  portentous  matter),  and  they  are  everlastingly  discussing 
whether  they  cannot  put  things  right.  All  laymen  and  all  the 
Governments  want  to  adopt  the  Gregorian  Calendar ;  but 
hitherto  the  Orthodox  Church  has  resolutely  set  her  face 
against  any  change.  The  Church  of  the  Seven  Councils  cannot 
degrade  herself  by  accepting  a  Papic  innovation.1 

The  liturgical  year,  followed  by  all  this  Communion,  begins  on 
September  1st,  the  feast  of  St.  Simon  Stylites,  which  they  mark 

1  For  their  endless  discussions  on  this  subject  see  e.gr.  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  374- 
377  ;  iv.  pp.  306-307  ;  v.  p.  244  ;  vii.  pp.  91-99,  &c.  The  latest  news  is  that 
the  Russian  Government  is  considering  the  question,  and  proposes  to  intro- 
duce an  entirely  new  Calendar,  neither  Julian  nor  Gregorian.  Of  course,  it 
will  be  simply  the  Gregorian  Calendar  (nothing  else  is  possible)  with  some 
little  peddling  change  about  leap-year,  so  that  they  can  pretend  they  have  not 
taken  ours  and  can  call  it  something  else--the  Nicholas  II  Calendar  or 
something. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  399 

as  "  The  beginning  of  the  Indict,  that  is  of  the  new  year,"  and 
they  say  in  their  Menologion  (p.  402)  that  on  this  day  our  Lord 
began  his  public  life  by  preaching  in  the  synagogue  at 
Nazareth,  when  he  took  the  scroll  and  read  Isaias'  prophecy  : 
"  The  spirit  of  the  Lord  is  upon  me,"  &c.  (St.  Luke  iv.  16-30). 
The  civil  Indiction  of  the  Eastern  Empire  began  on  this  day.1 
The  first  great  fasting-time,  which  corresponds  to  our  Advent, 
begins  on  November  15th,  "the  fast  of  Christ's  birth,"  and  lasts 
till  Christmas  Eve — forty  days.  Then  comes  Christmas  (Decem- 
ber 25th)  with  its  cycle  of  feasts.  The  Easter  fast  (Lent) 
begins  on  the  Monday  after  the  sixth  Sunday  before  Easter 
(our  Quinquagesima)  ;  they  do  not  fast  on  Saturdays  nor 
Sundays  during  this  time.2  They  prepare  for  Lent  by  abstain- 
ing from  flesh  meat  after  the  seventh  Sunday  before  Easter 
(Sexagesima),  which  they  call  "  Sunday  of  Meatlessness  "  (r/)e 
aTTOKpiio),  but  they  still  eat  butter  and  cheese  during  the  week, 
and  they  call  it  "cheese- week"  (rtjg  Tvpivrjs).  The  really  severe 
fast,  including  abstinence  from  meat,  cheese,  butter,  eggs,  &c, 
begins  after  the  sixth  Sunday  before  Easter.  For  the  tenth 
week  before  Easter  (the  week  before  our  Septuagesima)  they 
have  an  attractive  rubric  :  "  It  should  be  known  that  the  horrid 
Armenians  keep  their  abominable  fast,  which  they  call 
Artziburion,  three  or  four  times  during  this  week  ;  but  we  eat 
cheese  and  eggs  every  day,  thereby  refuting  their  dogma  and 
heresy."  3  The  cycle  of  Holy  Week  and  Easter  then  comes, 
as  with  us  ;  and  Ascension  Day  and  Whit  Sunday  follow,  of 
course,  on  the  fortieth  and  fiftieth  days  after  Easter.     The  fast 

1  An  Indiction  in  Old  Rome  was  a  space  of  fifteen  years  arranged  for  tax- 
gathering — indicere  tributum.    See  Nilles  :  Kalendariutn,  i.  pp.  264,  scq. 

2  The  Church  of  Milan  follows  exactly  the  same  order  as  the  Byzantines, 
beginning  Lent  on  the  same  day  and  not  fasting  on  Saturday  and  Sunday 
(Nilles,  ii.  pp.  76-77,  notes  5  and  6).  It  will  be  remembered  how  distressed 
their  fathers  were  that  ours  fasted  on  Saturdays,  and  that  we  eat  cheese 
on  Monday  and  Tuesday  before  Ash  Wednesday  (pp.  153,  178). 

3  Nilles,  ii.  p.  8.  They  have  a  foolish  and  offensive  story  about  a  diabolical 
dog  called  Atzebur  (ibid.).  They  use  violent  language  against  the  Armenians 
for  beginning  Lent  before  them,  and  they  are  (or  were)  equally  angry  with 
us  for  beginning  it  two  days  later.  These  absurd  people  really  conceive  as 
the  ideal  for  the  whole  Catholic  world  an  exact  following  of  all  the  local 
customs  of  their  own  patriarchate. 


400      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

of  the  Apostles  begins  on  the  day  after  the  first  Sunday  after 
Pentecost  (which  is  their  All  Saints'  Day)  and  lasts  till  June  28th, 
and  the  fast  of  the  Mother  of  God  lasts  from  August  1st  to 
August  14th.  They  have,  then,  four  great  fasts  in  the  year,  all 
of  which  they  call  u  forty  days"  (reaaapaKoffTal),  although  they 
do  not  all  really  last  so  long.  Nor  are  they  kept  so  severely.  The 
Easter  fast  (Lent)  is  the  only  one  during  which  they  fast  every 
day  (except  Saturday  and  Sunday).1 

Throughout  this  year,  then,  fall  a  great  number  of  feasts.  They 
distinguish  them  into  three  classes — feasts  of  our  Lord  (lopral 
<W7rort/ccu),  of  the  Mother  of  God  (QeofirjrpiKai),  and  of  the  Saints 
(tCjv  aylwy).  The  feasts  of  our  Lord  are  Christmas,  the  Circum- 
cision, Epiphany  (on  which  they  chiefly  remember  his 
baptism),2  the  Holy  Meeting — vTrcnravrri  (of  our  Lord  and  St. 
Simeon,  the  Presentation,  February  2nd),  the  Annunciation,  the 
awakening  of  Lazarus  (Saturday  before  Palm  Sunday),  Palm 
Sunday,  Good  Friday,  Easter,  Ascension  Day,  Whit  Sunday,  the 
Transfiguration  (August  6th),  and  Holy  Rood  (September  14th). 
The  feasts  of  our  Lady  3  are  the  same  as  our  older  ones,  except 
that  they  count  Candlemas  and  Lady  Day  as  feasts  of  Christ. 
The  chief  ones  are  her  birthday  (September  8th),  Presentation 
(November  21st),  Conception  (the  child-bearing  of  the  mother 
of  the  Mother  of  God,  Anne,  December  9th)  and  her  falling 
asleep  (ko^o-ic,  August  15th).  On  July  2nd  they  keep,  not  the 
Visitation,  but  the  Preservation  of  the  robe  of  the  Mother  of 
God  at  the  Blachernae  (the  old  Imperial  Palace  at  Constanti- 
nople),4 and  December  26th  is  the  Memory  of  the  Mother  of 
God.  They  have,  then,  one  and  often  several  Saints  for  every 
day  in  the  year.s  They  divide  feasts  according  to  their 
solemnity  into  three   classes — great,  middle,  and  lesser  days. 

1  See  Kattenbusch  :  Conjessionskunde,  i.  pp.  475-478,  die  Fasten. 

2  They  call  the  Epiphany  the  feast  of  the  Holy  Lights  (to.  llyia  tptjra). 

3  'H  iravayia  Qeotokoq  is  what  they  regularly  call  our  Lady — the  all-holy 
Mother  of  God.  In  ordinary  conversation  one  generally  says  t}  iravayia  (the 
all-holy  Lady)  only. 

4  A  relic  brought  to  the  Church  of  the  Blachernae  in  the  5th  century 
(Nilles,  i.  pp.  200-202). 

s  Many  of  these  are  Saints  whom  we  should  certainly  not  consider  to  be  so 
(p.  103,  seq.).    St.  Photius's  feast  is  on  February  6th  (p.  16=;). 


ORTHODOX  RITES  401 

Easter  naturally  stands  alone  and  above  all  ;  it  is  "  the  feast  M 
(//  eopTrj),  then  follow  sixteen  other  great  feasts,  twelve  very 
special  ones — Christmas,  Epiphany,  Candlemas,  Lady  Day, 
Palm  Sunday,  the  Ascension,  Whit  Sunday,  the  Transfiguration, 
Falling  Asleep  of  our  Lady,  her  Birthday,  Holy  Rood  (Septem- 
ber 14th),  and  the  Presentation  ;  and  four  less  special  but  still 
great  days — the  Circumcision,  St.  John  the  Baptist's  birthday 
(the  birth  of  the  Forerunner,  June  24th),  and  beheading 
(August  29th),  and  SS.  Peter  and  Paul  (June  29th).  The  middle 
feasts  are  those  of  certain  chief  Saints,  the  Apostles,  the  three 
holy  Hierarchs  (SS.  Basil,  Gregory  Naz.,  and  John  Chrys., 
January  30th),  SS.  George  (April  23rd),  Constantine  and  Helen 
(May  21st),  Elias  the  Prophet  (July  20th),  Cosmas  and  Damian 
(November  1st),  Nicholas  (December  6th),  &c.  All  the  other 
days  are  lesser  feasts.  They  keep  a  number  of  our  Saints — 
SS.  Anastasius,  holy  martyr  of  Rome,  Clement  of  Rome, 
Boniface,  Leo  Pope  of  Rome  (Leo  I),  Benedict,  Martin  the 
Confessor  Pope  of  Rome,  Laurence,  &c,  as  well  as  a  great 
many  Old  Testament  Saints — Moses,  David,  Job,  and  all  the 
Prophets.1  They  name  the  Sundays  after  the  subject  of  the 
Gospel  read  ;  thus  our  Septuagesima  is  the  Sunday  of  the 
Prodigal  Son,  Sexagesima,  Sunday  of  the  Second  Coming  of 
Christ,  &c.2  The  first  Sunday  of  Lent  is  the  feast  of  Orthodoxy, 
the  memory  of  the  restoration  of  the  holy  pictures  after  the 
second  Council  of  Nicasa  (787). 3  The  Saturdays  before  Meat- 
less Sunday  (Sexagesima)  and  Whit  Sunday  are  both  All  Souls' 
Days,  and  the  Sunday  after  Whit  Sunday  (our  Trinity)  is 
All  Saints.4 

2.  The  Orthodox  Service  Books. 

The  books   that   contain   the   prayers  and  rubrics  for  their 

1  For  the  whole  Calendar  see  Nilles,  i.  'pp.  2-25,  and  the  Dissertation 
pp.  32-34. 

2  They  name  the  weeks  from  the  following  Sunday. 

3  Nilles,  ii.  pp.  101-121. 

4  Ibid.  pp.  20-21,  424-430.  November  1st  is  SS.  Cosmas  and  Damian,  the 
" holy  moneyless  (dvapyvpoi)  physicians,"  because  they  cured-  people  and 
would  take  no  fees.  For  the  Orthodox  Calendar  see  also  Kattenbusch  : 
Confessionskunde,  i.  pp.  447,  456,  das  Kirchenjahr. 

27 


402      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

various  services  are  much  more  complicated  than  ours.  They 
have  no  such  compendium  as  the  Roman  breviary.  There  are 
eleven  chief  books  :  The  Typikon  (tvttikov)  is  a  perpetual 
Calendar  containing  the  list  of  the  feasts  and  arrangements  for 
every  possible  coincidence  ;  each  special  office  is  noted,  and  the 
first  words  of  the  lessons,  hymns,  &c,  are  given  ; x  the  Eucho- 
logion  (ebxoXoyiov)  corresponds  more  or  less  to  our  missal.  It 
contains  the  complete  text  of  the  three  liturgies  that  they  use, 
but  also  the  administration  of  the  other  Sacraments  and  various 
sacramentals  (blessings  and  so  on)  ;  the  Triodion  (rpiuhiov) 
contains  the  Divine  Office  for  the  movable  days  from  the  tenth 
Sunday  before  Easter  (our  Sunday  before  Septuagesima)  till 
Holy  Saturday  ;  the  Pentekostarion  (irevrriKocTTaptov)  continues 
the  Triodion  from  Easter  Day  till  All  Saints'  Sunday  (first  after 
Pentecost)  ;  the  Oktoechos  (oktwtixog)  has  the  offices  for  the 
Sundays  during  the  rest  of  the  year  with  their  various  kinds  of 
hymns,  &c,  arranged  according  to  the  eight  modes  (6ktu>  rtxot)  ; 
the  Parakletike  (irapaKXriTiKii)  has  the  week-day  offices.  These 
books,  then,  make  up  the  movable  days  and  correspond  more  or 
less  to  our  Proprium  temporis.  The  Proprium  sanctorum  is 
contained  in  the  twelve  Menaias  (fxrjvaia),  one  for  each  month, 
which  gives  the  life  of  the  Saint  of  the  day  to  be  read  (our 
lessons  in  the  second  nocturn)  and  their  special  hymns  and 
prayers.  The  Menologion  {^-qvoXoyiov)  is  an  abbreviated  menaia. 
The  Horologion  (wpoXoyLov)  contains  the  day-hours  and  the  chief 
feasts  from  the  Menologion.  The  Psalter  (^aXrripiov),  Gospel 
(evayyiXiov),  and  Apostle  (a-KOffToXoQ  =  Epistles  and  Acts)  contain 
the  parts  of  the  Bible  read  liturgically.2 

1  Nilles,  i.  lxv-lxix,  gives  a  specimen  (the  Transfiguration,  August  6th) 
from  the  Tyfikon  published  at  Constantinople  in  1874. 

2  The  Greek  texts  of  these  books  are  published  by  the  Phoenix  Press  at 
Venice,  and  (for  the  Uniates)  by  Propaganda  at  Rome.  Then  there  are 
translations  into  the  other  liturgical  languages.  Provost  Maltzew  has  trans- 
lated the  Russian  ones  into  German,  and  Goar  edited  the  Euchologion  with 
copious  notes  (see  list  of  books,  p.  xxvi.,  seq.).  Nilles,  Kalendarium,  i.,  is 
adapted  from  the  Menaia,  and  ii.  from  the  Triodos,  Pentekostarion,  Oktoechos, 
and  Parakletike.  See  also  Kattenbusch :  Confessionskunde,  i.  pp.  478-486, 
die  hlgen  Biicher. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  403 

3.  The  Churches,  Vestments,  and  Sacred  Vessels. 

The  commonest  form  of  Orthodox  church  is  a  long  building 
with  transepts  and  with  three  apses  at  the  east  end,  of  which 
the  central  one  is  very  much  the  largest.  There  are  generally 
several  cupolas,  often  of  a  bulbous  shape,  in  Russia,  covered 
with  bright-coloured  tiles — green,  with  a  yellow  design  or  gold 
and  blue — bearing  gilt  crosses.  Sometimes  there  is  a  belfry 
standing  separate  by  the  church.  All  the  larger  churches  have  a 
narthex  across  the  west  end  ;  it  is  used  for  various  services  and 
for  a  great  part  of  the  funeral  rites.  From  the  narthex  one  or 
three  doors  lead  into  the  nave  of  the  church.  This  is  the  place 
of  the  laity.  The  men  are  separated  from  the  women  ;  either 
they  go  to  different  sides  or  the  women  have  a  gallery. 
Beyond  the  nave,  usually  raised  by  a  few  steps,  is  the  choir, 
where  the  singers  have  their  places  right  and  left,  as  with  us. 
In  the  middle  of  the  choir  stands  the  deacon's  ambon  (a/x/3wv), 
which  is  not  a  sort  of  pulpit  like  the  old  Latin  ones,  but  a  raised 
platform  on  which  a  small  reading-desk  is  placed  when  it  is 
wanted.  The  first  thing  a  stranger  notices  in  any  church  of  the 
Byzantine  rite  is  the  great  Ikonostasis  (eIkovootcktiq,  picture- 
screen)  that  stretches  across  the  church  behind  the  choir, 
reaches  high  up  towards  the  roof,  and  hides  the  sanctuary  and 
altar.  It  has  three  doors — the  royal  door  in  the  middle, 
deacon's  door  on  the  south  (to  the  right  as  one  looks  towards 
the  altar),  and  the  door  for  other  servers  on  the  north  side. 
These  doors  have  curtains  behind  them.  The  whole  of  the 
screen  is  covered  with  holy  pictures.  On  the  royal  door  itself 
is  always  an  Annunciation,  and  there  are  generally  the  four 
Evangelists  too.  The  other  pictures  iare  usually  arranged  in 
this  order  :  Our  Lord  on  the  right  of  the  royal  door,  and  the 
Blessed  Virgin  on  the  left ;  these  fill  up  the  spaces  to  the  other 
doors.  On  the  other  side  of  the  deacon's  door  St.  John  the 
Baptist  (the  Orthodox  do  not  forget  that  he  is  the  greatest  of 
all  Saints)  and  on  the  other  side  of  the  servers'  door  the  patron 
of  the  church.  Above  the  doors  comes  a  row  of  pictures  of  the 
events  of  the  chief  feasts,  above  that  are  the  twelve  Apostles, 
higher  still  the  prophets,  and  above  all  a  great  cross  (not  a 


404      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

crucifix)  reaching  up  into  the  roof.  Before  all  these  pictures 
one  sees  a  great  number  of  lamps  hanging.1  If  one  goes 
through  the  Ikonostasis  one  comes  to  the  sanctuary  (kpareiov)  ; 
the  laity  are  not  allowed  here.  In  the  middle  stands  the  altar, 
a  solid  square  of  stone,  covered  with  a  linen  cloth  down  to  the 
ground  all  round.  Over  the  linen  cloth  is  laid  a  handsomely 
embroidered  silk  or  velvet  covering.  Some  of  the  things  used  in 
the  Holy  Liturgy  are  placed  on  it,  otherwise  it  stands  bare  and 
empty.  There  is  never  any  sort  of  retable  or  reredos  ;  the  altar 
is  never  pushed  up  against  a  wall ;  there  are  no  crowded 
candlesticks  nor  pots  of  flowers.  Certainly  the  great  bare  altar, 
which  so  obviously  has  no  other  purpose  than  to  be  used  for 
the  holy  Sacrifice,  looks  very  dignified  and  stately.  The  rule 
is  to  have  only  one  altar  in  each  church  ;  although  some  very 
large  cathedrals  have,  as  a  matter  of  fact,  side  chapels  with 
altars.  The  Orthodox  also  have  a  curious  principle  that  the 
altar  as  well  as  the  priest  must  be  fasting  from  midnight,  that  is 
that  no  previous  liturgy  must  have  been  celebrated  on  it  that 
day.  So  there  is  practically  never  more  than  one  Holy  Liturgy 
each  day  in  their  churches.  On  the  north  side  of  the  altar 
is  a  large  credence  table  called  the  prothesis  (Trpodemg)  ;  on 
the  south  side  is  the  Diakonikon,  which  corresponds  to  our 
sacristy,  where  the  vestments  and  vessels  are  kept.  But  it  is 
in  no  way  separated  off  from  the  sanctuary.  Around  the 
central  apse  behind  the  altar  are  seats  for  the  priests,  with 
the  bishop's  i throne  (in  every  church)  in  the  middle.  When 
the  bishop  is  not  present  the  throne  remains,  of  course,  empty.2 

1  The  appearance  of  a  Greek  or  a  Russian  ikon  is  well  known.  To  protect 
it  it  is  covered  with  a  shield  of  metal  (silver  or  gilt)  on  which  the  outlines  of 
the  picture  are  stamped,  but  which  is  pierced  to  show  the  face  and  hands.  So 
one  sees  what  looks  like  a  metal  bas-relief  with  painted  (usually  almost 
black)  face  and  hands.  But  the  whole  oil-painting  (on  wood,  as  a  rule)  is 
underneath,  and  it  is  possible  to  persuade  the  sacristan  or  priest  to  take  off 
the  shield  and  to  show  one  the  whole  picture.  Our  Lady  of  Perpetual 
Succour  is  a  well-known  example  of  a  purely  Byzantine  ikon  among  us. 
Unfortunately  they  are  now  beginning  to  paint  imitations  of  Dusseldorf 
pictures. 

2  The  principle  of  having  the  bishop's  throne  in  every  church  of  his 
diocese,  which  waits  till  he  comes  to  fill  it,  is  again  one  of  the  very  beautiful 
and  right  practices  which  the  comparative  conservatism  of  the  Orthodox 


z 

8 


6 


ORTHODOX  RITES  405 

The  Orthodox  vestments  (they  are  used  by  the  Uniates  as  well, 
of  course)  correspond  more  or  less  to  ours.  It  is  a  very  curious 
case  of  a  parallel  evolution.  They  too,  like  ours,  have 
developed  out  of  the  ordinary  Roman  dress  of  the  first 
three  centuries  ;  only  difference  of  rite  and  taste  make  them 
now  look  quite  different.  In  the  first  place  they  have  nothing 
like  our  sequence  of  liturgical  colours *  and  no  idea  of  definite 
liturgical  colour  at  all.  Their  vestments  are  generally  white  or 
red  and  are  now  always  stiff  with  heavy  gold  embroidery. 
They  naturally  take  the  handsomest  set  (of  whatever  colour)  for 
the  greatest  feasts.  They  do,  however,  as  a  rule,  use  black  for 
funerals.2  When  a  Bishop  is  about  to  celebrate  the  Holy 
Liturgy,  he  first  puts  on  over  his  cassock  the  Sticharion 
(anxapiov).!  This  is  the  old  tunica  talaris,  our  alb,  but  it  may 
be  of  any  colour  and  is  generally  made  of  silk  or  even  velvet. 
It  is  a  long  shirt  with  sleeves,  reaching  to  the  feet  and  wrists, 
and  it  is  embroidered  at  the  bottom.  The  bishop's  sticharion 
has  red  and  white  bands  running  from  the  shoulders  to  the  feet 
{irorafioi,  the  Roman  clavus,  which  we  have  on  our  dalmatics). 
Then  he  puts  on  the  Epitrachelion  (eTrirpax^iov,  stole).  It  is 
worn  round  the  neck  and  hangs  down  in  front  nearly  to  the 
feet.     The  two  bands  are  generally  hooked  together  or  even 

Church  has  kept.  It  is  true  that  the  way  in  which  she  clings  to  one  stage  of 
development  is  altogether  unjustifiable  theologically,  but  it  results  in  a 
number  of  very  curious  and  picturesque  remnants  of  a  past  age,  which  exist 
only  in  her  services.  Nothing  in  the  world  is  more  dead  than  the  Empire 
that  fell  with  Constantine  XII,  and  yet  its  ghost  still  lingers  around  the 
Byzantine  altars.  For  the  Church  and  its  furniture  see  Kattenbusch  : 
Confessionskunde,  i.  pp.  487-488,  Kirchenraum. 

1  Our  regular  sequences  of  colour  do  not  appear  to  have  begun  before  the 
12th  century.  Even  then  there  was  for  a  long  time  an  enormous  variety  of 
uses.  Our  five  Roman  colours  were  not  introduced  everywhere  till  after 
the  Renaissance. 

2  They  also  very  commonly  use  red  for  times  of  fasting  or  penance,  because 
it  is  a  darker  colour  than  white.  Their  rule  of  colours  is  sometimes  expressed 
in  this  way  :  white  for  all  feasts,  red  for  fasts  and  black  for  funerals.  It  must 
then  be  added  that  any  colour  or  combination  of  colours  may  stand  for 
white. 

3  An  amice  is  often  used,  but  it  is  not  a  liturgical  vestment.  Its  object  is 
only  to  keep  the  vestments  clean  in  hot  weather,  like  the  strips  of  linen  that 
are  sometimes  tacked  to  our  stoles. 


406     THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

permanently  sewn  up,  leaving  a  loop  through  which  he  puts  his 
head.     It  is  ornamented  with  crosses  or  figures  of  Saints  and 
ends  in  fringes.1     The  Zone  (£u>vr},  girdle)  comes  next,  not  a 
cord,  but  a  narrow  belt  of  stuff  joined  behind  by  a  clasp.     It  is 
ornamented  with  crosses  and  holds  together  the  epitrachelion 
and   sticharion.      Over   the   wrists   the   bishop  then  puts   the 
Epimanikia  (iirtfiaviieta),  which  correspond  to  our  bishops'  gloves. 
They  are  bands  like  cuffs,  or  like  long  gloves  with  the  part  for 
the  hand  cut  off,  and  they  too  are  embroidered  with  crosses 
or  holy  images.     Their  origin  seems  to  have  been,  not  a  hand- 
kerchief, but  rather  the  old  idea  of  covering  the  hands  before 
touching  sacred  things.   They  do  not,  then,  answer  to  our  hand- 
kerchief-maniple.    Gradually  the  inconvenience  and  clumsiness 
of  gloves  caused  all  of  them  to  be  cut  away  except  the  cover- 
ing of  the  wrist.     They  now  just  cover  the  ends  of  the  sleeves 
of  the  sticharion,  and  are  worn  on  both  arms.     The  Epigonation 
(sTTiyovaTiop)  is  a  lozenge  of  stiff   stuff  (often  lined  with  card- 
board), about  a  foot  in  length,  with  a  cross  or  image  embroi- 
dered on  it.     It  hangs  at  the  right  side  from  the  girdle  by  a 
riband,  and  reaches  to   the  knee.     It  appears   that   this   was 
originally  a  handkerchief,  and  that  it  therefore  corresponds  to 
our   maniple.      Now   its   symbolical    meaning   is   a   sword   of 
justice.2     Every  bishop  now  wears  the  Sakkos  (o-aoroe).     This  is 
a  vestment  exactly  like  our  dalmatic,  a  tunic  reaching  to  below 
the  knees,  with  short  sleeves  and  divided  up  the  sides.     It  is 
very  richly  embroidered  all  over,  and  the  sides  are  joined  again 
by  bows  of  riband  or  clasps.     Originally  only  the  Patriarchs 
wore  the  sakkos,  and  other  bishops  had  the  same  phainolion 
(chasuble)  as  priests.     The  use  of  the  sakkos  among  all  bishops 
appears  to  date  from  about  the  time  of  the  fall  of  Constantinople. 
Over  the  sakkos  comes  the  Omophorion  (w/zo^OjOtov,  our  pallium). 
The  great  omophorion,  worn  at  the  beginning  of  the  liturgy,  is 
a  wide  band  of  silk  or  velvet  embroidered  with  crosses  and  a 
lamb.     The  bishop  passes  it  loosely  round  his  neck,  and  one 

1  It  is  considerably  wider  than  our  stole,  each  half  being  about  four  inches 
across  and  the  two  sewn  together  covering  eight  inches  at  least  down  the 
front  of  the  sticharion. 

2  The  Pope  alone  among  Western  bishops  wears  the  epigonation. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  407 

end  hangs  down  in  front  (from  the  left  side),  the  other  behind. 
It  is  then  kept  in  its  places  with  ornamented  pins.  The  small 
omophorion  is  simply  a  curtailed  form  of  the  great  one.  It  is 
worn  from  after  the  Gospel  to  the  end  of  the  liturgy,  and  for 
ordinations  and  other  functions.1  A  bishop  also  wears  a 
pectoral  cross  and  a  little  medal  containing  a  relic  (eyKoXwiov). 
The  Byzantine  mitre  {fiirpa)  is  a  metal  crown,  gilt,  ornamented 
with  jewels  and  lined  with  red  velvet.2  Bishops  carry  a  crosier 
(^iKaviKiop),  which  is  shorter  than  a  Latin  one  and  which  ends  in 
two  branches  curved  round  and  ornamented  with  serpents' 
heads.  Between  them  is  a  cross.  These  are  the  vestments 
used  for  the  Holy  Liturgy  and  certain  other  great  occasions, 
such  as  the  blessing  of  the  waters  on  the  Epiphany.  On  less 
solemn  occasions,  such  as  the  Divine  Office,  the  bishop  wears 
only  the  mandyas  (p.  340),  kalemaukion  (ibid.),  and  a  smaller 
staff  of  wood  with  an  ivory  cross  piece,  like  the  letter  T.  For 
certain  other  services  he  wears  the  epitrachelion  under  and 
the  small  omophorion  over  the  mandyas.  To  bless  the  people 
at  the  end  of  the  liturgy  he  has  in  the  right  hand  a  triple 
candlestick  with  lighted  candles  (rpiicripiov),  and  a  double  one 
(ducypiov)  in  the  left.  When  a  bishop  is  consecrated  he  stands 
on  a  small  round  carpet  (aerog),  on  which  are  worked  a  city  and 
above  it  an  eagle  surmounting  the  sun  in  its  splendour.3  The 
Priest's  vestments  are  the  sticharion,  epitrachelion,  girdle, 
epimanikia.  If  he  is  a  dignitary  of  any  kind  he  wears  the 
epigonation  too,  and  in  Russia  the  Czar  gives  mitres  to  specially 
deserving  priests.  Instead  of  the  sakkos  he  wears  the  Phai- 
nolion  (<f>aiv6\ioi>).     This  is  a  chasuble  (pcenula,  <paiv6\riQ  origin- 

1  The  Uniate  Patriarchs  wear  the  Roman  pallium  on  certain  days  as  well  as 
the  omophorion. 

2  This  mitre  came  into  use  after  1453  and  was  at  first  worn  only  by  the 
(Ecumenical  Patriarch.  The  traditional  story  is  that  he  took  the  crown  of 
the  Emperors  when  he  was  made  the  head  of  the  Roman  nation.  It  is 
certainly  nothing  but  a  copy  of  the  old  Imperial  crown.  I  have  an  edition  of 
the  Roman  History  of  Nikephoros  Gregoras  (Basel,  1562),  with  plates  of 
Emperors  in  toga  and  crown  (Palaiologoi  and  Komnenoi)  and  the  crowns  are 
exactly  the  Byzantine  "  mitre." 

3  In  Russia  this  carpet  is  still  used  by  the  bishop  for  all  functions.  It  is 
another  relic  of  the  Byzantine  Court  ;  the  Emperors  in  my  Nikephoros 
Gregoras  are  all  standing  on  cushions  embroidered  with  eagles. 


408      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

ally)  which  has  been  cut  away,  not  at  the  sides  as  ours  have, 
but  in  front.  It  is  then  a  great  bell-shaped  vestment  with  a 
hole  through  which  the  head  is  put,  reaching  to  the  feet  behind 
and  at  the  sides,  and  scooped  out  in  front  up  to  about  the 
waist.1  Before  all  bishops  used  the  sakkos  they  had  specially 
rich  phainolia  covered  all  over  with  little  crosses,  called 
Polystauria  (TroXwravpta — many  crosses).  The  priest  has  no 
omophorion.  He  wears  all  his  vestments  only  for  the  Holy 
Liturgy  and  on  a  few  other  occasions.  Generally,  if  he  is  not 
about  to  celebrate  the  liturgy,  he  wears  only  the  epitrachelion 
and  phainolion  over  his  cassock  ;  so  the  phainolion  is  used  as 
both  chasuble  and  cope.  The  Deacon  wears  the  sticharion  and 
epimanikia,  but  no  girdle.  As  his  sticharion  is  always  seen,  it  is 
generally  more  ornamented  than  those  of  the  bishop  and  priest 
and  it  has  shorter  sleeves.  It  looks  very  like  our  dalmatic. 
The  deacon's  stole  is  not  called  epitrachelion  but  Oration 
(tbpapiov) :  it  hangs  from  the  left  shoulder  (to  which  it  is  pinned) 
straight  to  the  ground  before  and  behind.  It  is  narrower  than 
the  epitrachelion  and  usually  has  the  word  Holy  (aywg)  em- 
broidered on  it  three  times.  Whenever  the  deacon  has  to  give 
a  sign  during  the  liturgy  he  takes  the  end  of  his  orarion  in  the 
right  hand  and  motions  with  it.  When  he  goes  to  receive 
Holy  Communion  he  winds  it  around  his  body.  Other  clerks 
wear  a  shorter  sticharion  and  an  orarion  wound  around  them.2 
All  wear  the  kalemaukion  (hat,  p.  340)  with  vestments  out  of 
doors,  at  processions,  &c.     They  have  no  sort  of  surplice.3 

The  vessels  used  for  the  Holy  Liturgy  are  the  Chalice  (norripiov), 
the  Diskos  (U(tkoq),  which  is  a  paten,  but  much  larger  and  deeper 
than  ours  (they  use,  of  course,  leavened  bread),  with  a  foot  on 

1  Some  phainolia,  however,  are  quite  long  in  front  too,  and  have  to  be  held 
up  over  the  arms  during  the  liturgy. 

2  This  is  an  abuse.  The  Council  of  Laodicea  (c.  360)  forbade  anyone 
below  the  rank  of  deacon  to  wear  an  orarion  (Canon  22  :  "  It  is  not  meet  for 
the  server  to  wear  an  orarion  nor  to  go  away  from  the  doors,"  Lauchert,  74). 

3  For  the  vestments  see  R.  Storf  :  Die  griechischen  Liturgien,  pp.  13, 14,  and 
especially  E.  d'Or.  v.  pp.  129-139  ;  for  the  garments  from  which  they  were 
evolved,  J.  Wilpert  :  Die  Gewandung  der  Christen  in  den  ersten  Jahrhunderten, 
Koln,  1898.  See  also  the  illustration  of  bishop,  priest,  and  deacon  vested  for 
the  Holy  Liturgy,  p.  405. 


INSTRUMENTS  USED  IN   THE   BYZANTINE   LITURGY. 

I.  The  Holy  Bread.     2.  The  Paten.     3.  The  Asterisk.     4.  The  Fan. 
5.   The  Spoon.     6.  The  Holy  Spear.     7.  The  Bishop's  Staff. 


\To  face  page  409. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  409 

which  to  stand.  It  is  never  placed  on  the  chalice.  Then  the 
Asteriskos  (atJTrjpiaKog),  a  cross  of  bent  metal,  which  stands  over 
the  diskos.1  Both  chalice  and  diskos  are  covered  with  small 
veils,  and  a  large  veil,  the  Aer  (a^p)  is  then  laid  over  both.  A 
spoon  is  used  for  giving  Holy  Communion,  and  the  holy  lance,  a 
long  knife,  for  cutting  up  the  bread.  They  have  a  sponge  for 
purifying  the  diskos,  and  a  fan  (pnridiov),  made  of  a  long  handle 
and  a  flat  picture  of  a  seraph  with  six  wings,  which  the  deacon 
waves  over  the  Blessed  Sacrament.2  All  these  vessels  stand  on 
the  prothesis  (credence  table)  when  the  liturgy  begins.  Candles 
in  candlesticks  are  carried  before  processions,  and  a  thurible 
with  incense  is  used  continually.  The  Antimension  (avTifjtrjpatov)^ 
corresponds  to  our  corporal  and  altar-stone.  It  is  a  square 
piece  of  linen  doubled,  in  which  are  sewn  up  relics  anointed 
with  chrism.  It  is  always  consecrated  by  a  bishop,  and  it  lies 
folded  upon  the  altar.  The  priest  unfolds  it  during  the  liturgy, 
and  folds  it  again  at  the  end.  It  is  generally  ornamented  with 
a  design,  representing  the  entombment  of  our  Lord,  with  the 
four  Evangelists  and  the  instruments  of  the  Passion,  printed  in 
black  ink.  I  have  seen  one  made  of  silk.4  There  are  no  relics 
in  an  Orthodox  altar :  the  antimension  is  really  a  sort  of  portable 
altar.  In  the  diakonikon  is  kept  a  vessel  of  hot  water  during 
the  liturgy  (p.  416). 

4.  Church  Music. 

Before  we  come  to  a  description  of  the  modern  Byzantine 
liturgy,  a  word  about  their  Church  music  will  be  interesting, 
especially  now  that  every  one  is  discussing  ours.  The  Ortho- 
dox, like  the  Catholics,  have  two  kinds  of  Church  music — plain 
song  and  figured  music.  But  their  figured  music  never  sank  to 
the  depth  of  degradation  from  which  Pope  Pius  X  has  now 
rescued  us.  No  Orthodox  Church  under  any  circumstances 
ever  has  any  musical  instrument  at  all  ;  all  their  music  is  unac- 

1  It  is  just  a  frame  to  keep  the  veil  from  touching  the  bread. 

2  See  the  illustration  of  the  vessels  and  instruments. 

3  avTi\ir\vaiov    and    l-rrifiaviKLa    are    both   hybrid   words   (aim-men sa,    Itv'i- 
manica). 

4  Cf.  E.  d'Ot.,  iii.  pp.  193-202,  L Antimension. 


410      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

companied  singing.  One  hears  the  figured  music  almost  exclu- 
sively in  Slav  churches,  in  Russia  especially.  It  is  a  very  digni- 
fied and  ecclesiastical  chant  in  strict  counterpoint,  of  the  type  that 
is  described  as  "  alia  cappella,"  and  it  suggests  the  music  of  the 
Italian  masters  of  the  16th  century.1  Their  choirs  are  composed 
of  very  carefully  trained  men  and  boys,  who  sing  in  eight  or  sixteen 
parts,  and  who  have  learned  to  command  an  enormous  compass. 
And,  as  all  the  Slav  peoples  are  born  musicians,  their  singing  is 
exceedingly  beautiful,  probably  the  most  beautiful  Church 
music  in  the  world.  Even  the  singing  of  Russian  sailors  on  a 
man-of-war  that  one  hears  across  the  water  on  a  Sunday  morn- 
ing, while  their  chaplain  is  celebrating  the  Holy  Liturgy,  sounds 
quite  heavenly.  But  the  Greeks  think  even  that  music  too 
secular  and  frivolous  for  churches.  One  can  imagine  the  feel- 
ings of  a  stray  Greek  who  goes  to  High  Mass  at  Dresden  or 
Vienna  to  see  what  the  Latins  are  doing.  In  Greek  churches 
one  hears  only  plainsong.2  They  ascribe  their  plainsong  to 
St.  John  Damascene  (f  744),  as  we  ours  to  St.  Gregory  the 
Great.  They  have  the  same  eight  modes  as  we,  but  they  count 
them  differently,  numbering  first  the  four  authentic  modes,  and 
then  the  four  plagal  ones.  The  modes  then  correspond  in  this 
way  : — 

Byzantine  Modes.  Latin  Modes. 

Doric  1st  authentic  1 

Phrygian  2nd  authentic  3 

Lydian  3rd  authentic  5 

Mixolydian  4th  authentic  7 

Hypodoric  1st  plagal  2 

Hypophrygian  2nd  plagal  4 

Hypolydian  3rd  plagal  6 

Hypomixolydian  4th  plagal  8  3 

1  As  a  matter  of  fact,  I  believe  most  of  it  was  written  by  Italians  of  about 
that  date. 

2  There  are  a  few  exceptions  now.  At  the  metropolitan  church  of  Athens 
they  are  beginning  to  introduce  polyphony.  Joachim  III  has  declared  that 
figured  music  is  lawful. 

3  Mode  in  Greek  is  6  ijxoq,  authentic  is  avQevTucog,  plagal  irXdyiog.  They 
call  the  dominant  to  laov.  These  are  the  names  of  the  notes  :  vrj  =  do, 
7ra  =  re,  (Bov  =  mi,  ya  =  fa,  di  =  sol,  ke  =  la,  £w  =  si. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  411 

But  there  is  this  fundamental  difference,  that,  whereas  our 
plainsong  is  strictly  diatonic,  and  its  intervals  are  constant, 
theirs  is  enharmonic,  and  has  varying  intervals.  Not  only  do 
they  sing  f  and  £  tones,  but  in  different  modes,  even  in  the 
same  mode,  according  as  the  melody  rises  or  falls,  the  interval 
between  two  notes  changes.  As  a  specimen,  this  is  the  ascend- 
ing scale  of  the  first  authentic  mode,  with  the  intervals  between 
the  notes  in  brackets  :  re  (V°),  mi  (if),  fa  (f),  sol  (V°),  la  (|), 
si  (rf)>  do  (f),  re.  When  it  descends  the  scale  becomes :  re  (f), 
do  (V°),  si  (»),  la  (V),  sol  (f),  fa  («),  mi  (V°),  re.'  On  the  other 
hand,  in  the  second  plagal  mode,  the  interval  re-mi  is  \%  tone, 
mi-fa,  £-£-§-,  &c.  To  Western  ears  this  music  certainly  sounds 
very  strange  and  barbarous.  It  is  much  discussed  whether  the 
enharmonic  intervals  are  really  Greek,  or  whether  they  are  due 
to  later  Asiatic  influence.  The  Byzantines  have  other  musical 
practices  that  make  their  singing  still  more  unpleasant  to  us. 
They  add  astonishing  grace  notes  and  incredible  pneums,  rush- 
ing through  quarter-tones  and  half-quarter  tones  round  about 
the  note  that  we  should  expect  them  to  hold.  Their  melodies 
continually  change  from  one  mode  to  another,  and,  as  they  have 
no  accompaniment  and  only  the  vaguest  pneums  printed  in 
their  books,2  it  is  difficult  for  the  singers  to  know  what  mode 
they  should  sing.  To  help  them,  a  boy  is  made  to  sing  the 
Ison  (torov,  dominant)  continuously  the  whole  time.  As  soon  as 
the  mode  changes,  the  Ison-boy  is  made  to  suddenly  raise  or 
drop  his  note,  and  the  whole  choir  knows  that  they  must  now 
sing  in  the  new  mode.  If  anything  were  wanted  to  make  this 
amazing  chanting  still  more  unbearable  to  us,  it  would  be  the 
continual  wail  of  the  Ison-boy  piercing  through  the  apparently 
irresponsible  vagaries  of  the  choir.  But  the  Western  European 
who  has  heard  what  seems  to  be  simply  a  confused  shrieking 
with  no  rhythm,  tune,  nor  method,  should  know  that  really 
their  chant  is  the  most  wonderful  display  of  accurate  ear  and 
skill  in  the  world.  Who  of  us  could  sing  such  intervals  as  f£§ 
tones  right,  or  at  one  flash,  as  the  Ison-boy  drops  his  doleful 

1  Tables  of  all  the  modes,  with  their  intervals,  are  given   in  E.  d'Or., 
iii.  pp.  213-215,  Uharmonique  chez  les  Grecs  modernes. 

2  They  have  never  used  our  system  of  stave-lines. 


412      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

wail,  calculate  that  he  has  shifted  from  do  to  la,  and  that,  there- 
fore, we  must  change  from  the  third  authentic  to  the  first  plagal 
mode  ?  Pity  that  so  much  skill  should  be  spent  to  produce  such 
a  hideous  result.  There  is,  however,  one  undoubted  advantage 
in  the  Byzantine  chant.  There  are  people  who  can  hear  no 
tune  in  Latin  plainsong.  Such  a  person  should  frequent  a 
Greek  church  for  a  time,  and  then  come  back  to  one  of  ours. 
If,  after  their  incredible  wailing,  he  can  still  find  no  melody  in 
our  Tantum  Ergo  or  Veni,  Creator,  he  must  give  up  looking  for 
tune  in  anything.1 

5.  The  Holy  Liturgy. 

The  Byzantine  rite  consists  of  three  liturgies  :  first,  the  older 
and  longer  liturgy  of  St.  Basil,  now  used  only  on  the  Sundays 
of  Lent  (except  Palm  Sunday),  Maundy  Thursday,  and  Holy 
Saturday,  the  Eves  of  Christmas  and  the  Epiphany,  and  on 
St.  Basil's  feast  (January  1st).  On  all  other  days  the  liturgy  of 
St.  John  Chrysostom  (a  shortened  form  of  that  of  St.  Basil)  is 
used,  when  the  holy  Sacrifice  is  offered  at  all.  But  on  the 
week-days  of  Lent  (except  on  Saturdays)  no  Mass  may  be  said. 
On  these  days,  then,  the  Liturgy  of  the  Presanctified  (rwv 
7rpor)yta<Tfxivu)v),  attributed  to  St.  Gregory  Dialogos  (our  St. 
Gregory  the  Great)  is  used.2  But  the  Holy  Liturgy  is  not 
celebrated  every  day.  An  Orthodox  priest  says  Mass  only  on 
Sundays  and  greater  feast-days.  Nor  is  it  said  more  than  once 
on  the  same  day  at  the  same  altar  (p.  404).  Where  many  priests 
are  present  they  all  celebrate  together,  and  the  rite  of  concele- 
bration,  which  we  have  only  at  ordinations,  may  be  seen  almost 
every  time  a  Byzantine  bishop  says  Mass.  It  would  be  long 
to  give  an  exact  account  of  all  these  three  liturgies.3     An  outline 

1  Gai'sser,  Le  systeme  musical,  &c,  gives  specimens  of  Byzantine  chants  as 
far  as  they  can  be  expressed  on  our  stave,  with  additional  marks  for  raising 
or  lowering  notes  by  |-tone,  and  explains  the  whole  system. 

2  It  is  doubtful  whether  any  of  these  liturgies  were  really  composed  by  the 
Saints  whose  names  they  bear  ;  that  of  St.  Gregory  certainly  was  not.  In  the 
Latin  Church,  too,  the  Mass  of  the  Presanctified,  now  said  only  on  Good 
Friday,  was  once  used  constantly  throughout  the  year  (C/.  Duchesne  : 
Origines,  pp.  222,  239). 

3  The  texts  of  them  will  be  found  in  the  books  quoted  in  the  list 
(p.  xxvi.,  seq.). 


ORTHODOX  RITES  413 

of  the  service  of  the  common  one — that  of  St.  John  Chrysostom 
— will  be  enough  here.  The  first  rubric  tells  the  priest  that  if 
he  is  about  to  celebrate  the  holy  Mysteries  he  must,  above  all 
things,  be  reconciled  to  all  men,  keep  his  heart  from  evil  thoughts, 
and  fast  from  the  evening  before.  The  priest  and  deacon  begin 
by  making  three  reverences  towards  the  Ikonostasis,  and  then 
say  the  preparatory  prayers  ■  in  the  choir.  When  they  have 
said  these  prayers  and  have  kissed  the  holy  pictures  (the  rubric 
says  all  the  pictures)  they  bow  to  the  choir  and  go  through  the 
deacon's  door  to  the  Diakonikon.  Here  they  vest,  the  priest 
blessing  each  vestment,  and  both  say  the  prayers  appointed.2 
They  wash  their  hands,  saying  the  same  part  of  the  25th  psalm  as 
we  do  (verses  6-12,  Lavabo),  and  then  go  across  to  the  Prothesis, 
where  the  deacon  has  already  laid  the  vessels  and  the  bread  and 
wine.  Here  begins  the  first  part  of  the  liturgy,  the  Preparation 
of  the  Offering.  The  bread  is  a  round  loaf  marked  with  divisions, 
the  parts  to  be  consecrated  have  a  cross  between  the  letters  IC. 
XC.  NI.  KA  (lr}(Tovg  ^kxtoq  viKq. ,  Jesus  Christ  conquers). 3  The 
priest  takes  the  holy  lance  and  cuts  away  this  part  and  stabs  it 
in  the  form  of  a  cross,  saying,  "  The  Lamb  of  God  is  sacrificed," 
&c.  This  part  of  the  bread  is  then  commonly  called  the  Lamb. 
The  deacon  pours  wine  and  water  into  the  chalice.  The  priest 
then  cuts  away  a  particle  from  the  rest  of  the  bread  in  honour 
of  our  Lady,  and  nine  others  for  various  Saints,  and  others  for 
the  bishop  and  Orthodox  clergy  and  for  people  for  whom  he 
wishes  to  pray.  These  particles  (irpoa^opd)  are  placed  on  the 
diskos  by  the  Lamb,  covered  with  the  aer  and  veils,  as  well  as 
the  chalice,  and  are  all  repeatedly  incensed. 4  The  deacon  then 
incenses  the  prothesis,  altar,  sanctuary,  nave,  and  priest.     They 

1  Brightman,  pp.  353~354-  2  Ibid.  pp.  354-356. 

3  See  the  figure  of  the  holy  bread  in  the  illustration,  p.  409.  The  triangle 
marked  on  the  left  is  the  portion  of  the  Mother  of  God,  the  others  are  those 
for  the  Saints. 

4  Meanwhile,  a  series  of  prayers  are  said  :  Brightman,  pp.  356-362.  There 
is  a  long  rubric  explaining  how  the  prosphora  are  to  be  arranged  around  the 
Lamb.  At  one  time,  the  Orthodox  Church  was  torn  by  controversy  on  this 
point.  The  portion  for  the  Mother  of  God  should  be  at  the  right,  because  of 
the  verse  :  "  The  queen  stands  at  thy  right  hand."  But  they  could  not 
make  up  their  minds  which  is  the  right  side.  Now  they  have  settled  it  is  the 
left  of  the  priest  who  faces  the  bread. 


414      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

both  go  to  the  altar,  kiss  the  book  of  Gospels  on  it,  and  the 
deacon,  holding  up  his  orarion,  says,  "  It  is  time  to  do  sacrifice 
to  the  Lord."  *  Here  begin  the  litanies  ((rvvcnrrai).  The  doors 
of  the  Ikonostasis  are  opened,  and  the  deacon  goes  out  into  the 
choir  through  the  north  (servers')  door.  They  stay  open  while 
he  recites  a  litany  praying  for  various  causes — for  peace,  for  the 
Church,  bishop,  king,  fruits  of  the  earth,  travellers,  sailors, 
prisoners,  &c.  Then  follows  the  first  Antiphon,2  and  the  priest 
says  a  collect.  The  second  litany  is  shorter  ;  the  deacon 
remembers  our  Lady  and  the  Saints,  and  the  choir  answers 
Kyrie  eleison,  and  "To  you,  Lord  (be  honour)."  They  sing 
a  second  Antiphon,  and  the  priest  says  a  second  collect.  The 
same  thing  is  then  repeated  a  third  time.3  The  Mass  of  the  Cate- 
chumens now  begins  with  what  is  called  the  little  entrance  (fiiKpa 
eiffoSog).  The  deacon  has  gone  back  to  the  priest's  side  in  the 
sanctuary  before  the  third  collect.  They  come  out,  the  deacon 
holding  the  gospels,  preceded  by  candle-bearers  in  procession. 
The  troparia  of  the  day  (short  hymns)  are  sung,  ending  with  the 
Trisagion.4  The  priest,  as  always,  is  saying  other  prayers  while 
the  choir  sings.  A  reader  sings  the  epistle,  and  the  deacon  the 
gospel  of  the  day,  having  incensed  the  book.  There  is  a  gradual 
after  the  epistle,  and  some  more  prayers  after  the  gospel.  Then 
follow  prayers  for  the  catechumens,  and  they  are  dismissed  by 
the  deacon  :  "  All  catechumens  go  out.  Catechumens  go  out. 
All  catechumens  go  away.  Not  one  catechumen  (shall  stay)."  s 
Here  begins  the  Mass  of  the  Faithful.  The  deacon  says  :  "  All 
the  faithful  again  and  again  pray  to  the  Lord  in  peace,"  and 
repeats  several  times  the  curious  exclamation  :  "  Wisdom  !  "  6 

1  For  a  detailed  account  of  the  Preparation,  see  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  65-78,  La 
preparation  des  oblats  dans  le  rite  grec. 

2  On  ordinary  Sundays  it  is  Psa.  cii. 

3  The  third  Antiphon  on  Sundays  consists  of  part  of  the  Beatitudes  with 
other  Stichera  (short  verses). 

4  This  is  what  we  sing  on  Good  Friday  :  "  Holy  God,  holy  strong  One, 
holy  immortal  One,  have  mercy  on  us,"  three  times,  followed  by  the  Gloria 
Patri,  Sicut  erat,  and  then  again  "  Holy  immortal  One,  have  mercy  on  us," 
and  lastly,  the  whole  first  verse  :  "  Holy  God,"  &c. 

s  Of  course,  there  are  no  catechumens  present  at  all.  For  the  prayers  said 
by  the  priest,  &c,  see  Brightman,  pp.  362-375. 

6  The  ejaculation  "  Wisdom  ! "  occurs  often.  Before  the  gospel,  the 
deacon  says  :  "  Wisdom  !   stand  up  (<ro<f>ia  dpOoi)." 


ORTHODOX  RITES  415 

There  are  other  prayers,  and  then  the  choir  sings  the  Cherubikon, 
"  Let  us,  who  mystically  represent  the  Cherubim  and  who  sing 
to  the  life-giving  Trinity  the  thrice-holy  hymn,  put  away  all 
earthly  cares  so  as  to  receive  the  Kingf  of  all  things  escorted  by 
the  army  of  angels.  Alleluia,  alleluia,  alleluia."  During  this 
hymn,  at  the  point  marked  f,  the  Great  Entrance  takes  place. 
This  is  the  dramatic  moment  of  the  whole  liturgy.  The  royal 
doors  are  opened.  The  priest,  having  again  incensed  the  altar 
and  sanctuary,  goes  with  the  deacon  to  the  prothesis  and 
incenses  the  bread  and  wine,  that  have  remained  there  since 
the  beginning  of  the  service.  He  covers  the  deacon's  shoulders 
with  the  aer  (great  veil),  and  gives  him  the  diskos  with  the  bread, 
covered  with  its  own  smaller  veil.  The  deacon  holds  the  diskos 
as  high  as  his  head,  and  the  censor  hangs  from  one  of  his  fingers. 
The  priest  follows  with  the  chalice  and  its  veil.  Candle-bearers 
go  in  front  and  form  a  solemn  procession.  They  come  out  of 
the  north  door  and  go  all  round  the  church,  coming  back  to  the 
sanctuary  through  the  royal  doors.  At  the  altar  the  priest  puts 
down  the  chalice,  takes  the  diskos  from  the  deacon,  puts  that 
down  too,  and  incenses  the  offering  again.  Meanwhile  the 
choir  finishes  the  Cherubikon.1  The  priest  and  deacon  say 
some  more  prayers  for  each  other  and  that  God  may  accept 
their  sacrifice,  and  then  the  deacon  cries  out  :  "  The  doors,  the 
doors.  Let  us  attend  in  wisdom,"  and  the  doors  of  the 
Ikonostasis  are  shut.  A  reader  then  says  the  Nicene  Creed 
outside.2  Here  begins  the  Anaphora  (Canon  of  the  Mass).  The 
priest  blesses  the  people  and  the  choir  answers  through  the 
closed  doors  :  "  And  with  thy  Spirit."  Pr.  "  Lift  up  your 
hearts."  Ch.  "  We  have  them  with  the  Lord."  Pr.  "  Let  us 
give  thanks  to  the  Lord."  Ch.  "  It  is  meet  and  just  to  adore 
the  Father,  Son,  and  Holy  Ghost,  one  consubstantial  and 
undivided    Trinity."  3     pr.  u  It   is   meet   and   just   to   sing   to 

1  All  this  ritual,  and  especially  the  Cherubikon,  with  its  reference  to  the 
King  of  all  things,  before  the  Consecration,  show  that  the  Byzantine  Church 
has  the  same  dramatic  representations  as  the  Latins  (p.  387).  The  Orthodox 
then  are  ill-advised  in  making  an  argument  from  the  Epiklesis  for  their 
theory.    Their  Cherubikon  answers  that. 

2  Brightman,  pp.  375-383. 

3  The  deacon  here  waves  the  fan  (ripidion)  over  the  offering. 


416      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

thee,  to  bless  thee,  praise  thee,  and  give  thanks  to  thee  in 
all  places  .  .  .  ."  And  so  the  Eucharistic  prayer  continues. 
This  first  part  (our  Preface)  never  changes  in  the  Byzantine  rite. 
It  is  said  silently  by  the  priest,  and  he  only  raises  his  voice  at 
the  words  :  "  Crying,  singing,  proclaiming  the  hymn  of  victory 
and  saying  :  "  Ch.  "  Holy,  holy,  holy,"  &c.  ;  just  as  in  our 
Mass.  At  the  end  of  a  short  prayer  the  priest  says  the  words 
of  institution  aloud,  and  each  time  the  choir  answers  Amen.1 
After  another  short  prayer,2  comes  the  Epiklesis  (p.  386,  n.  3), 
the  deacon  each  time  saying  :  "  Bless,  Master,  the  holy  bread," 
or  "  the  holy  chalice,"  and  waving  the  ripidion.  The  deacon 
incenses  the  Blessed  Sacrament,  and  the  royal  doors  are  thrown 
open.  Then  comes  the  memory  of  the  living  and  dead,  a 
blessing  of  the  people,  and  the  doors  are  shut.  After  another 
litany  (for  which  the  deacon  goes  out  into  the  choir),  a  reader 
says  the  Our  Father.  The  doors  are  opened,  the  deacon 
arranges  his  orarion  around  his  body,  goes  back  to  the  altar, 
and  says,  "  Let  us  attend."  Then  the  priest  slightly  elevates  the 
diskos  and  chalice,  saying,  "  Holy  things  to  the  holy,"  and  the 
choir  goes  on,  "  One  only  is  holy,  one  only  Lord,  Jesus  Christ 
in  the  glory  of  the  Father.  Amen."  The  doors  are  again  shut. 
The  priest  breaks  the  Host  by  the  crosses  on  it,  and  says, 
u  The  Lamb  of  God  is  broken  and  distributed,"  &c.  He  then 
puts  the  fractions  marked  IE.  into  the  chalice  and  the  deacon 
pours  in  a  little  hot  water.3  The  choir  sings  the  kinonikon 
(a  short  verse),  and  the  priest  comes  to  the  communion.  He 
says  :  "  Behold  I  come  to  Christ,  our  immortal  King  and  God," 
takes  a  part  marked  XC,  says  :  "  The  precious  and  most  holy 
Body  of  Jesus  Christ,  Lord  and  God  and  Saviour,  is  given  to  me, 
N.,  priest,  for  the  forgiveness  of  my  sins,  and  for  life  everlasting," 
and  receives  Holy  Communion.     He  then  gives  communion  in 

1  The  Uniate  Euchologion  prints  the  words  of  institution  in  capitals  {fiiKpbv 
IvxoXoyiov,  Rome,  1872,  p.  39),  and  the  Uniates  make  a  prostration  after  saying 
them.  The  Orthodox  books  print  them  straight  on  in  the  same  type,  and  add 
as  a  footnote  the  rubric  quoted  on  p.  387. 

2  The  avanvrjmg,  memory  of  our  Lord's  passion  death,  resurrection,  and 
ascension  (our  Unde  et  Memores). 

3  This  rite  of  adding  hot  water  :to  the  chalice  is  a  very  old  peculiarity 
of  the  Byzantine  Liturgy. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  417 

the  form  of  bread  to  the  deacon,  and  the  same  ceremony  with 
similar  words  is  used  for  the  chalice.  After  a  prayer  of  thanks- 
giving the  doors  are  opened,  the  deacon  shows  the  people  the 
chalice,  and  says  :  "  Approach  with  fear  of  God,  faith  and  love," 
and  the  priest  blesses  them.  It  is  at  this  moment  that  on  the 
rare  occasions  when  people  receive  Holy  Communion  (four  times 
a  year  among  the  Orthodox)  the  priest  goes  down  to  the  royal 
doors  and  distributes  it.  They  receive  it  under  both  kinds  ; 
the  priest  takes  with  a  spoon  part  of  the  Host  which  is  in  the 
chalice,  and  therefore  soaked  in  the  consecrated  wine,  and  gives 
it  to  the  communicant,  saying  :  "  The  servant  of  God,  N.,  receives 
the  holy  and  precious  Body  and  Blood  of  Jesus  Christ,  Lord, 
God,  and  Saviour,  for  the  forgiveness  of  his  sins,  and  for 
life  everlasting.,,  When  he  goes  back  to  the  altar,  the  deacon, 
with  a  sponge,  puts  all  the  prosphora  of  the  Saints  into  the 
chalice.1  After  incensing  the  chalice  he  carries  it  back  to  the 
prothesis.2 

Here  begins  the  last  part,  the  Dismissal.  The  deacon 
loosens  his  orarion  and  goes  back  to  the  choir,  where  he 
chants  a  short  litany  with  the  singers.  The  priest  then  also 
comes  out  and  says  a  prayer  before  the  image  of  our  Lord 
on  the  Ikonostasis.  The  deacon  goes  to  the  prothesis  and 
consumes  all  that  is  left  of  the  Holy  Eucharist  (with  the 
prosphora).  Meanwhile  some  bread  was  left  over  when  the 
offerings  were  first  prepared  (p.  413)  and  has  stayed  on  the 
prothesis  ever  since.  This  is  now  brought  to  the  priest,  blessed 
and  given  to  the  people  as  blessed  bread  (avrfitopop,  pain  benit). 

1  One  of  the  great  questions  is  whether  these  prosphora,  which  were 
broken  off  from  the  bread  at  the  beginning  (p.  413)  and  which  have  lain  on 
the  diskos  ever  since,  are  consecrated  (p.  392).  The  Orthodox  now  say  they 
are  not  consecrated,  and  their  deacons  put  them  into  the  chalice  after  the 
Communion.  At  one  time  they  were  certainly  put  in  before,  and  given  to  the 
people  as  communion.  So  if  the  Orthodox  are  right,  those  people  formerly 
received  Holy  Communion  under  one  kind  only — of  wine.  It  is  really  only 
a  question  of  the  priest's  intention.  The  Uniates  are  bound  to  intend  to  con- 
secrate all  the  bread  on  the  diskos  (by  Benedict  XIV),  the  prosphora  of  the 
Saints  are  put  in  the  chalice  immediately  after  the  priest's  communion,  and 
the  laity  are  communicated  with  them.  See  the  discussion  of  the  whole 
question  in  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  71-73  (I.e.). 

2  Brightman,  pp.  383-397. 

38 


418      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

After  a  few  more  prayers,  the  priest  and  deacon  go  to  the 
diakonikon,  the  doors  are  again  shut,  and  they  take  off  their 
vestments.  They  make  a  short  thanksgiving,  and  the  liturgy 
is  over.1  The  Byzantine  Liturgy  takes  two  or  three  hours  to 
celebrate.  It  is  undoubtedly  a  very  splendid  and  majestic  service, 
and  the  prayers  (the  Preface  especially)  often  reach  a  very  high 
point  of  emotional  poetry.  Is  it  Latin  prejudice  that  makes  one 
think  our  shorter  Mass,  at  the  open  altar,  with  its  absence  of  all 
emotionalism,  its  simple  ceremonies,  and  sternly  reticent  prayers, 
more  dignified  ? 2 

6.  Other  Rites ;  the  Sacraments. 

The  Divine  Office  in  the  Byzantine  Church  is  a  very  compli- 
cated thing.  There  is  no  Breviary,  so  the  different  parts  have 
to  be  read  from  the  various  books  described  above  (p.  401). 
It  is  also  enormously  long.  To  sing  the  whole  office  for  one 
day  is  said  to  take  about  eight  hours.  The  merest  outline  of 
this  office  will  be  enough  here.  Like  the  Western  hours  it 
consists  essentially  of  psalm-singing.  The  psalter  is  divided 
into  twenty  parts  (Kadie/mara),  containing  from  four  to  eight 
psalms  each,3  and  it  is  sung  right  through  in  a  week.  The 
office  also  contains  collects,  prayers,  litanies  and  an  immense 
variety  of  hymns  and  antiphons,  such  as  the  Heirmos  (elpfiog), 
which  is  a  hymn  having  a  tune  of  its  own,  the  Troparion 
(rpo7rapiov),  which  is  sung  to  the  tune  of  its  heirmos,  the  Kontakion 
(KovraKLov),  a  short  hymn  about  the  feast  of  the  day,  the  Oikos 
(oIkoq),  which  is  joined  to  the  Troparion  to  develop  the  ideas 

1  That  is  only  an  outline  of  the  service.  All  the  time  prayers,  hymns,  and 
antiphons  are  being  said  and  sung,  of  which  the  text  will  be  found  in 
Brightman. 

2  The  Orthodox  have  no  provision  for  Low  Mass.  Where  there  is  no 
deacon  the  priest  has  to  supply  the  deacon's  part  and  manage  as  best  he  can. 
But,  as  they  only  celebrate  on  Sundays  and  feast-days,  they  have  less  need  for 
any  service  like  our  Low  Mass.  The  Uniates  have  provided  for  it  though. 
The  Greek  College  at  Rome  has  a  number  of  little  manuscript  books  contain- 
ing a  ritual  for  the  liturgy  when  there  are  only  a  priest  and  a  server.  In  1893 
I  was  allowed  to  copy  this  book,  and  I  have  served  "low"  Uniate  liturgies 
from  it.  But  the  whole  thing  is  much  less  defined  than  our  Low  Mass.  For 
the  liturgy  see  Kattenbusch :  Confessionskunde,  i.  pp.  491-498. 

3  The  numbers  exactly  in  Nilles  :  Kalendarium,  I.  liv. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  419 

suggested  by  the  feast,  the  Sticheron  (crTixvpov),  a  hymn  for 
matins  and  vespers,  &c,  &C.1  The  hours  are  the  Night  Office 
(/AearovvKTiov,  Matins),  Orthros  (opdpog,  Lauds),  Prime,  Terce,  Sexte, 
and  None  (&pa  7rpu)Trj,  rpirr),  ektt),  evarr]),  HesperiflOfl  {k<TTTEpiv6vy 
Vespers)  and  Apodeipnon  (aTrofcnrvov,  Compline).  There  are 
further  shorter  offices,  called  Mesoora  (fjieaowpa),  to  be  said 
between  the  day  hours  and  between  None  and  Vespers.2 
Because  of  its  great  length  the  whole  office  is  only  said  by 
monks,  in  choir,  and  they  have  to  get  through  a  great  part 
of  it  by  very  quick  recitation.  Secular  priests  say  such  parts 
as  their  devotion  prompts  and  time  allows.3  Leaving  out  what 
would  be  a  very  dull  catalogue  of  psalms  and  complicated 
antiphons,  we  will  quote  instead  two  famous  hymns  of  the 
Byzantine  Office.  The  first  is  the  Hymnos  Akathistos  (vfivog 
aKaQioToq).  This  is  a  whole  office  in  honour  of  our  Lady,  and 
in  memory  of  her  Annunciation.  It  was  probably  composed  in 
the  7th  century,4  and  it  is  always  printed  at  the  end  of  the 
Horologion.  They  sing  it  with  great  solemnity  on  the  Saturday 
before  the  second  Sunday  before  Easter  (our  Passion  Sunday) 
and  they  sing  parts  of  it  every  Friday  evening  and  Saturday 
morning  during  Lent.  It  is  always  to  be  said  standing  (hence 
the  name  Akathistos — the  Standing  Hymn).  The  troparia, 
kontakia,  stichera,  &c,  of  which  it  is  made  up  are  superbly 
beautiful  hymns  to  our  Lady,  of  which  we,  by  the  way,  might 
have  translations  to  sing  instead  of  the  hymns  people  make  up 
now.5  "  Honoured  above  the  Cherubim,  more  glorious  than 
the  Seraphim,  bearing  the  incarnate  Word,  Mother  of  God,  we 

1  The  Kirchentexicon,  ii.  pp.  1278-1279  (Freiburg,  1883),  describes  twenty- 
two  of  these  different  kinds  of  chant. 

2  A  description  of  the  hours  will  be  found  in  the  Kirchentexicon,  ii.  pp.  1279- 
1283. 

3  The  Uniate  secular  clergy  are  allowed  to  leave  out  most  of  their  office  too. 
Every  now  and  then  some  of  them  ask  at  Rome  what  they  are  to  do,  and  the 
S.  Congregation  of  Rites  always  answers  :  Servetur  consuetude  They  simply 
cannot  say  it  all. 

*  The  Orthodox  attribute  it  to  Photius. 

s  The  whole  office  is  published  with  an  Italian  translation  by  Dom  P.  de 
Meester,  O.S.B.  :  Officio  dell'  inno  acatisto.  Benedict  XIV  has  granted 
indulgences  to  all  the  faithful  of  whatever  rite  who  devoutly  say  it  (ibid. 
xv-xvi). 


420      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

praise  thee."  "The  great  Angel  was  sent  from  heaven  to 
bring  his  message  to  the  Mother  of  God,  and  he,  wondering 
that  the  Lord  of  all  things  should  take  a  human  body,  greeted 
her  with  angelic  words.  Hail,  cause  of  our  joy  ;  hail,  end  of 
the  curse  of  Adam  ;  hail,  throne  of  the  King  ;  hail,  bearer  of 
him  who  bears  all  things.  Spouse  and  Virgin,  Hail."  I  The 
other  famous  hymn  of  the  Byzantine  office  is  the  Phos  hilaron 
(Owe  iXapov).  It  is  certainly  as  old  as  the  3rd  century,  and  is 
attributed  to  Athenogernes  (a  martyr  of  the  2nd  century,  whose 
feast  they  keep  on  July  16).2  It  is  sung  every  day  at  the  end 
of  Vespers,  as  the  last  rays  of  the  sun  disappear  :  "  Kindly 
light  of  the  Father's  glory,  blessed  and  holy  Jesus  Christ,  now 
that  we  see  the  setting  sun  and  light  the  evening  lamps,  again 
we  worship  God,  the  Father,  Son  and  Holy  Ghost.  At  all 
times  it  is  right  to  praise  thee,  Son  of  God  and  Life-giver,  and 
so  the  whole  world  shall  always  tell  thy  glory."  3 

There  are  certain  differences  in  the  administration  of  the  seven 
great  Mysteries*  The  Orthodox  always  baptize  by  immersion. 
The  priest  first  anoints  the  limbs  and  then  dips  the  child  three 
times,  having  turned  its  face  to  the  East.  Meanwhile  he  says 
the  form  :  "  The  servant  of  God,  N.,  is  baptized  in  the  name  of 
the  Father,  Amen,  and  of  the  Son,  Amen,  and  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  Amen."  s  They  think  baptism  by  immersion  so  neces- 
sary that  they  doubt  the  validity  of  any  other  kind,  and  so  they 
very  much  doubt  our  baptism.  All  the  Greek-speaking  Orthodox 
rebaptize  any  convert  who  comes  to  them  from  the  Latins  or 
Protestants.  But  the  Church  of  Russia  has  officially  declared 
that  she  has  no  such  doubt  and  that  she  will  not  do  so.6     Of 

1  De  Meester,  pp.  36-37.  2  Nilles,  i,  p.  213. 

3  Nilles,  i.,  pp.  lv-lvi.  F.  Cabrol :  he  livre  de  la  friere  antique  (Paris,  1900), 
pp.  142,  560,  &c. 

4  In  the  Euchologion  they  follow  the  three  liturgies  (Venetian  ed.  1898, 
pp.  136-288). 

s  The  whole  rite  in  the  Euch.  (ed.  cit.),  pp.  136-144. 

6  E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  93,  &c.  A  synod  of  Constantinople,  in  1756,  commanded  all 
Latins  who  should  join  the  Orthodox  Church  to  be  rebaptized  (E.  d'Or. 
ii.  p.  131).  In  1718,  however,  a  Patriarchal  constitution  had  declared  baptism 
by  infusion  to  be  valid  (ibid.  p.  132).  The  whole  question  is  in  the  usual 
Orthodox  muddle.  They  have  contradicted  themselves  on  this  point  back- 
wards and  forwards  again  in  i860,  1875,  1878  and  1888  (ibid.  pp.  134-135). 


ORTHODOX  RITES  421 

course,  if  our  baptism  is  not  valid  we  can  have  no  valid 
Sacraments,  our  Orders,  Penance,  and  Eucharist  are  alike  vain. 
So  it  would  hardly  seem  worth  while  making  so  much  fuss 
about  our  form  of  Consecration.  Only  in  this  point  again  one 
has  to  notice  the  vagueness  and  inconsistency  of  their  ideas. 
All  through  their  theology  one  is  struck  by  an  indefiniteness 
and  a  want  of  method  that  would  be  inconceivable  to  Catholic 
theologians.  Although  they  have  not,  as  we  shall  see,  our  idea 
of  the  indelible  character  of  the  three  Sacraments,  at  any  rate 
when  once  they  are  sure  of  valid  baptism  they  do  not  repeat  it.1 
Confirmation  is  administered  by  the  priest  immediately  after 
baptism.  The  whole  body  is  anointed  with  chrism,  and  the 
priest  says  the  form  :  "  The  seal  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy  Ghost. 
Amen."  It  should  be  noted  that  we  recognize  this  as  valid 
confirmation,  our  Uniates  do  so  too,  and  no  Latin  bishop  ever 
thinks  of  reconfirming  a  convert  from  Orthodoxy.2  But  the 
Orthodox  do  not  believe  that  the  character  of  confirmation  is 
indelible  :  two  sins  and  two  only  can  efface  it — heresy  and 
schism.  Confirmation  is  the  regular  means  by  which  any  one  is 
received  into  their  communion,  not  only  Latins  and  Uniates, 
but  even  people  who  were  originally  baptized  and  confirmed 
Orthodoxly,  and  who  have  since  fallen  away.3  We  have  seen 
how  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  administered  in  churches.  The  pious 
layman  goes  to  communion  four  times  a  year — at  Christmas, 
Easter,  Whit  Sunday  and  on  the  falling  asleep  of  the  Mother  of 
God  (August  15th).     The  Blessed  Sacrament  is  reserved  for  the 

1  They  have,  however,  sometimes  done  even  this  (E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  135)  ;  it 
is  the  case  of  an  Orthodox  Russian  in  Syria  who  turned  Catholic  (of  course 
we  did  not  rebaptize  him),  went  back,  and  was  rebaptized  by  them  ! 

2  This  fact  ought  to  sufficiently  answer  the  question  whether  a  priest  can 
validly  confirm.  It  is  known  that  the  Pope  gives  leave  to  do  so  to  certain 
Latin  priests  in  missions.  But  he  cannot  by  an  act  of  jurisdiction  give  them 
any  new  potestas  ordinis.  It  seems  certain  then  that  every  priest  has  the 
power  of  confirming,  although  in  the  Latin  Church  they  are  not '  allowed  to 
use  it,  just  as  a  layman  may  not  baptize  except  in  case  of  necessity.  The 
bishop  is  the  ordinary  minister  of  Confirmation. 

3  This  reconfirmation  is  an  innovation.  The  Greek  Fathers  taught  that  the 
character  of  confirmation  is  indelible,  just  as  did  the  Latin  Fathers.  See  the 
quotations  in  E.  d'Or.  ix.  pp.  65-76  :  La  reconfirmation  des  apostats  dans 
I'Eglise  greco-russe. 


422      THE  ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

sick,  more  or  less  under  both  kinds,  that  is  to  say,  that  the  Host 
that  has  been  dipped  into  the  chalice  is  taken  out  and  kept  in 
another  chalice,  where,  of  course,  it  becomes  quite  dry.  It  is 
given  to  the  sick  in  a  spoon  with  the  usual  form  (p.  417).  The 
chalice  containing  the  Holy  Eucharist  is  kept  in  a  small 
tabernacle  (aprofopiov  or  lepofyvXaKiov)  on  the  prothesis  or  on  the 
altar.  It  is  curious  that  they  seem  to  take  no  notice  of  the 
Real  Presence  in  their  churches.1  I  have  seen  an  Orthodox 
priest  walk  straight  in  front  of  his  artophorion  without  paying 
the  slightest  attention  to  it.  When  one  sees  the  enormous 
reverence  they  pay  to  the  holy  pictures,  the  burning  lamps, 
prostrations,  kissing  and  signs  of  the  Cross  they  make  before 
them,  one  realizes  how  little  they  trouble  to  be  logical  in  their 
religious  customs.2  The  Sacrament  of  Penance  (fieravoia)  is 
administered  as  rarely  as  Holy  Communion,  usually  only  on  the 
same  four  occasions.  It  takes  a  much  less  important  place  in 
their  religious  life  than  in  ours.  They  have  no  confessionals. 
The  ghostly  father  (Trvev fiaracog)  sits  before  the  Ikonostasis  under 
the  picture  of  our  Lord.  The  penitent  kneels  before  him  and 
several  prayers  are  said,  to  which  the  rubric  orders  the  choir  to 
answer  Kyrie  eleison(!).3  "  Then  the  ghostly  father  says  with 
a  cheerful  voice :  Brother,  be  not  ashamed  that  you  come 
before  God  and  before  me,  for  you  do  not  declare  to  me,  but  to 
God,  who  is  present  here."  He  then  asks  the  penitent  all  his 
sins,  reminds  him  that  only  God  can  forgive  them,  but  that  our 
Lord  gave  this  power  to  his  Apostles  saying  :  "  Whose  sins  you 
shall  forgive/'  &c,  and  finally  absolves  them  in  a  prayer,  of 
which  the  essential  form  is  :  "  May  this  same  God,  through  me 
a  sinner,  forgive  you  all  both  now  and  for  ever,"  and  he  goes 
on  :  "  May  he  set  you  without  blame  before  his  holy  altar,  and 
have   no   more   care   for   the   sins  you  have  declared.     Go  in 

1  The  Blessed  Sacrament  is  not  reserved  in  nearly  all  churches.  They 
have  no  such  rites  as  our  Benediction  or  Procession  of  the  Blessed  Sacra- 
ment. 

2  This  can  be  explained.  All  these  reverences  to  holy  pictures  are  ancient 
customs  that  grew  up  when  reservation  was  hardly  known.  The  conserva- 
tive Easterns  keep  to  the  old  customs,  and  dislike  new  ones,  however  much 
the  situation  may  be  now  changed. 

3  The  "choir"  must  be  really  the  penitent. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  423 

peace."  1      From   which   it   will   be   seen   that  the  Byzantine 
Church  absolves  with  a  deprecatory  form. 

Holy  Order  (x^porovia)  is  conferred  by  laying  on  the  right 
hand  only.  The  forms  are  :  for  the  deacon,  "  The  grace  of 
God,  that  always  strengthens  the  weak,  and  fills  the  empty, 
appoints  the  most  religious  subdeacon  N.  to  be  deacon.  Let 
us  then  pray  for  him,  that  the  grace  of  the  Holy  Ghost  may 
come  to  him."  2  The  ordaining  bishop  goes  on  with  a  long 
prayer  full  of  allusions  to  the  diaconate,  St.  Stephen,  &c,  still 
holding  his  hand  on  the  subject's  head.  He  then  vests  the 
new  deacon  and  gives  him  an  horarion  and  a  ripidion.  The 
ordination  of  a  priest  takes  place  in  the  same  way,  with  the 
obvious  difference  in  the  form  ("  the  most  religious  deacon  N. 
to  be  priest ")  and  in  the  allusions  of  the  prayer.  The  priest 
also  receives  his  vestments  and  instruments.3  The  bishop  is 
ordained  with  a  slightly  longer  form,  which,  however,  includes 
the  same  words  :  "  appoints  the  most  religious  elect  N.  to  be 
Metropolitan  of  the  most  holy  Metropolis  N.  Let  us  then  pray 
for  him,  &c."  And  there  follows  the  ordination  prayer,  after 
which  he  receives  the  omophorion.*  Only  the  Patriarch  or  his 
deputy  may  ordain  bishops.  Priests  and  bishops  concelebrate 
at  once  with  the  ordainer.  The  Orthodox  believe  that  the 
grace  of  holy  orders,  like  that  of  confirmation,  may  be  entirely 
lost  through  heresy  or  schism.  This  fact,  besides  our  doubtful 
baptism,  would  make  our  orders  invalid.  And  there  are  cases 
in  which  they  have  reordained  not  only  Latin  priests,  but  even 
Uniates  who  had  received  holy  orders  according  to  exactly  the 
same  form  as  the  Orthodox.5  But  the  Russians  have  declared 
that  they  recognize  our  orders  as  well  as  our  baptism,  and  that 
they  will  neither  rebaptize  nor  ordain  Latins.6  Nor  do  any  of 
the  Orthodox  really  straightforwardly  say  that  all  our  orders  are 

1  Euch.  (ed.  cit.),  pp.  221-223. 

2  The  whole  service  in  the  Euch.  160-163.  3  Euch.  163-166. 

4  Ibid.  166-168,  169-176,  176-181.  While  he  is  being  ordained  bishop  the 
subject  stands  and  kneels  on  the  Aetos  (p.  407). 

s  In  1840  Makarios,  Uniate  Metropolitan  of  Diarbekir,  left  the  Catholic 
Church  and  joined  the  Orthodox.  He  was  rebaptized,  reconfirmed,  and 
received  all  the  orders  again  {E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  132). 

6  E.  d'Or.  vii.  p.  93. 


424      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

invalid.  It  would  be  rather  too  wild  a  statement,  and  in  this 
point,  once  more,  they  have  not  quite  the  courage  of  their 
convictions.  They  do  not  seriously  make  this  charge  against 
us  in  their  controversy * — it  would  be  a  very  much  more  serious 
one  than  the  Filioque,  Azyme  bread,  or  celibacy,  and,  as  far  as 
my  experience  goes,  the  average  Orthodox  theologian,  if  directly 
asked  about  it,  hesitates,  is  obviously  embarrassed,2  and  eagerly 
turns  the  conversation  on  to  our  creed-tampering  habits.  He 
will  talk  about  that  without  end.  Really  in  the  questions  of  our 
baptism  and  holy  orders  they  do  not  know  what  they  believe. 
They  often  repeat  both  Sacraments  to  Latin  converts,  apparently 
chiefly  as  a  mark  of  general  scorn  for  Popery  ;  sometimes  they 
do  not  do  so,  and  they  shirk  a  plain  statement  about  it.  Once 
more,  it  is  quite  useless  to  look  for  consistent  dogmatic 
theology  among  them.  The  salient  feature  of  the  Sacrament 
of  Matrimony  (yafiog)  is  the  crowning  of  the  spouses,3  whence 
the  service  is  sometimes  called  the  crowning  (ore^avw/xa)  *  ;  the 
husband  and  wife  wear  their  crowns  for  a  week,  and  have 
a  special  service  for  taking  them  off  at  the  end.s  Marriage 
is  forbidden  within  the  seventh  degree,  as  well  as  between 
those  who  are  spiritually  or  legally  (by  adoption)  related.  The 
Orthodox  Church  dislikes  third  marriages.  A  fourth  is  abso- 
lutely forbidden.6  But  marriage  is  not  absolutely  indissoluble, 
and  divorce  is  granted  in  the  case  of  adultery. 

They  call  the  Anointing  of  the  Sick  Euchelaion  (evx^aiov),  but 
they  resent  the  name  extreme  Unction,  and  accuse  us  of  not 

1  Anthimos  VII,  in  his  answer  to  Leo  XIII  (p.  435),  said  everything  he 
could  against  us,  but  he  did  not  dispute  the  validity  of  our  baptism,  and  he 
said  nothing  about  our  orders. 

2  On  one  occasion  all  that  the  most  strenuous  efforts  could  get  out  of  an 
Orthodox  protopope  was  that  God  knows — which  is  perfectly  true. 

3  They  use  little  brass  crowns,  which  look  unspeakably  absurd.  It  appears 
to  be  not  uncommon  for  the  priest,  when  he  marries  people,  to  be  convulsed 
with  laughter  at  the  appearance  of  the  bridegroom  in  a  dress  suit  and  a  brass 
crown. 

*  The  nuptial  service  in  the  Euch.  238-241,  the  crowning  that  follows  it  at 
once,  241-252. 

s  Euch.  252. 

6  We  saw  how  much  trouble  the  fourth  marriage  of  the  Emperor  Leo  VI 
caused  (p.  167).     Even  second  marriages  are  not  crowned. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  425 

conferring  this  Sacrament  till  all  hope  of  the  sick  man's 
recovery  is  over.  The  accusation  is  false  ;  one  of  the  objects 
for  which  we  anoint  the  sick,  distinctly  expressed  in  our  prayers 
at  the  time,  is  that  "  the  prayer  of  faith  may  save  the  sick  man 
and  the  Lord  may  raise  him  up."  They  require  seven  priests 
to  administer  the  Euchelaion,1  and  again  reproach  us  that  we 
have  only  one,  in  spite  of  the  plural  in  St.  James's  Epistle  :  "  Let 
him  call  in  the  priests  of  the  Church  "  (verse  14).  The  matter  is 
olive  oil,  with  which  they  often  mix  wine 2  (in  memory  of  the 
Good  Samaritan)  ;  it  is  not  blessed  by  the  bishop,  but  by  the 
priests  just  before  it  is  used.  They  have  a  long  form  invoking 
our  Lady,  the  holy  "  moneyless  physicians "  SS.  Cosmas  and 
Damian,  and  other  Saints  ;  they  anoint  the  forehead,  chin, 
cheeks,  hands,  nostrils,  and  breast  with  a  brush,  and  each  priest 
present  does  the  same.  Their  service  is,  as  usual,  very  long  ; 
it  lasts  two  or  three  hours.  And  they  anoint  not  only  the  very 
sick,  but  people  quite  slightly  unwell,  and  regularly  on  certain 
days  of  the  year  every  one,  even  people  who  are  in  quite  good 
health,  as  a  preparation  for  Holy  Communion.3  A  Sacramental 
connected  with  this  Sacrament  is  the  anointing  of  persons  with 
oil  taken  from  a  lamp  that  burns  before  some  holy  picture.  In 
doing  so  the  priest,  by  some  strange  confusion,  sometimes  uses 
the  form  of  Confirmation  :  "  The  seal  of  the  gift  of  the  Holy 
Ghost."  4  The  holy  chrism  (fxvpov)  used  for  Confirmation  and 
other  consecrations  is,  as  we  have  seen  (p.  284),  a  subject  of 
very  angry  dispute.  The  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  thinks  that  he 
alone  should  bless  it  for  the  whole  Orthodox  world.  Its  com- 
position is  enormously  complicated,  and  certain  chemists  of 
Constantinople  are  officially  appointed  to  prepare  it.  Besides 
olive  oil  and  balsam,  fifty-five  other  substances  are  put  into  it, 
among  which   are   red  wine,  orange  and  rose-water,  mastic, 

1  A  less  number,  or  even  one  will  do  in  case  of  necessity. 

2  In  Russia  always. 

3  In  Russia  only  the  Metropolitans  of  Moscow  and  Novgorod  do  this  on 
Maundy  Thursday.  But  priests  in  their  faculties  are  expressly  forbidden 
to  administer  the  Euchelaion  to  people  who  are  not  sick.  See  E.  d'Or, 
ii.  pp.  193-203  :  V extremc-onction  chez  les  Grecs.  The  rite  in  the  Euch. 
260-288. 

*  E.  d'Or.  ii.  p.  202,  note  4. 


426      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

various  gums,  nuts,  pepper,  flowers,  and  ginger.1  It  is  made 
in  huge  vats  and  blessed  on  Maundy  Thursday.2  The  whole 
process  is  so  complicated  and  expensive  that  chrism  is  made 
and  blessed  only  on  rare  occasions.3  Besides  the  Antidoron 
given  out  at  the  end  of  the  Holy  Liturgy,  they  have  another  kind 
of  blessed  bread  called  a  kolyba  (/co\v/3a).  Kolybas  are  blessed 
solemnly  and  distributed,  either  in  honour  of  some  Saint  on  his 
feast  or  in  memory  of  some  other  kind  of  dead  person.  St. 
Augustine's  reference  to  the  funeral  feast — originally  food 
offered  to  the  Manes  of  the  dead — is  well  known  (Conf.  vi.  2)* 
The  Euchologion  contains  a  great  number  of  blessings  for 
various  occasions,  of  which  the  most  famous  is  the  blessing  of 
the  waters  (the  sea  or  nearest  river)  in  memory  of  our  Lord's 
baptism  on  the  Epiphany.  The  bishop  throws  a  cross  into 
the  water,  and  the  faithful  dive  in  and  fight  for  it  down  below. 
The  man  who  succeeds  in  getting  it  then  comes  out  and  makes 
a  collection.  They  have  many  exorcisms  too.  The  Orthodox 
fast  is  a  very  serious  thing  indeed.  It  means  really  only  one 
meal  a  day,  and  involves  abstinence  not  only  from  meat  but  from 
butter,  milk,  cheese,  eggs,  oil,  and  fish  as  well.  The  only  things 
left  are  bread,  olives,  fruit,  and  wine.  But  all  the  fasts  except 
Lent  are  relaxed,  and  even  in  Lent  the  average  Orthodox 
layman  no  more  fasts  than  the  average  Catholic.  It  is  bad 
for  his  health,  and  makes  him  feel  hungry.  So  he  asks  for 
a  dispensation.  But  they  usually  keep  the  abstinence,  and  on 
the  whole  there  is  much  more  fasting  and  abstaining  with  them 
than  with  us.s  And  an  Orthodox  monastery  in  Lent  is  a  living 
example  of  what  the  fasting  of  the  first  centuries  was.  Until 
quite  lately  the  art  of  preaching  was  an  almost  unknown  thing 
in  the  Orthodox  Church — strange  development  among  the 
successors  of  St.  John  Chrysostom.     However,  in  1893  a  society 

1  The  complete  list  in  E.  d'Or.  iii.  pp.  129-142  :  Composition  et  consecration 
du  saint-chremc. 

2  Euch.  156-160. 

3  Between  1850  and  1900  only  four  times — in  1856,  1865,  1879,  and  1890 
(E.  d'Or.,  I.e.). 

4  Cf.  E.  d'Or.  ii.  pp.  321-331 :  La  grand  controverse  des  Colybes.     There 
was  a  great  quarrel  at  Mount  Athos  about  the  kolybas. 

s  Every  Wednesday  and  Friday  is  a  day  of  abstinence  from  flesh  meat. 


ORTHODOX  RITES  427 

called  the  Eusebeia  (evaifieia,  piety),  composed  chiefly  of  laymen, 
was  formed  at  Smyrna  to  send  preachers  and  catechists  around 
to  the  parishes.  Mr.  Gregory  Vaphides  was  its  first  president, 
and  then  Lord  Basil  Chariupolis,  Metropolitan  of  Smyrna, 
consented  to  take  that  place.  The  Society  had  a  great  success. 
Its  preachers  spoke  in  churches,  schools,  even  in  the  streets, 
and  they  taught  children  the  catechism.  Other  metropolitans 
wrote  approving  letters  about  it  and  all  was  going  well, 
when  the  Phanar  took  fright.  The  Eusebeia  was  suspected 
of  protestantizing  tendencies,  and  most  of  its  preachers  were 
laymen.  Lord  Germanos  Karavangelis,  who  is  now  slaying 
Bulgars  at  Kastoria,  but  who  was  then  Chorepiscopus  of  Pera, 
had  taken  up  its  cause.  The  Phanar  then  published  in  its 
organ  ('EicKXiyo-taortio)  'AX^flaa,  September  27,  1897)  a  public 
reprimand  to  him  in  the  sharpest  terms,  ending  :  "  Let  His 
Beatitude  be  content  to  do  his  own  duties  faithfully  ;  to  go 
beyond  them  is  neither  virtuous  nor  praiseworthy."  However, 
the  Eusebeia  still  exists,  though  with  diminished  reputation.1 
The  funeral  service  begins  at  the  dead  man's  house,  goes  on 
in  the  church,  and  ends  at  the  grave.2  The  dead  are  usually 
carried  on  an  open  bier,  the  face  uncovered,3  and  a  long  pro- 
cession of  friends,  relations,  and  clergy  in  kalemaukion  and 
phainolion  follows,  singing  the  Trisagion.  And  after  her 
children  are  dead  the  Orthodox  Church  does  not  forget  them, 
but  continually  offers  the  holy  Sacrifice  for  the  repose  of  their 
souls,  while  their  friends  eat  kolybas  for  the  same  intention. 

Summary. 

In  spite  of  its  great  inconvenience  all  the  Orthodox  countries 
still  use  the  Julian  Calendar.     Their  ecclesiastical  year  begins 

1  See  the  article  on  the  Eusebeia  in  the  KuvaTavTivovTroXig  for  August  3, 
1897,  also  E.  d'Or.  i.  pp.  36-39,  and  Gelzer  :  Geistl.  u.  Welti.,  pp.  76-82. 

2  The  funeral  service  (aicoXovOLa  veKpuxTifiog)  in  the  Euch.  393-420  ;  for 
monks,  421-437  ;  for  priests,  437-47°- 

3  A  Greek  is  carried  to  the  grave  in  his  boots,  so  as  to  be  ready  for  his  long 
journey  ;  and  at  any  rate  in  some  of  the  islands  (Euboia,  &c.)  he  has  in  his 
right  hand  a  coin  to  pay  Charon — so  tenacious  are  religious  customs.  Some- 
times the  coin  becomes  a  disc  with  the  holy  name  stamped  on  it — one  more 
example  of  the  usual  evolution. 


428      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

on  September  ist ;  it  contains  four  great  fasts,  of  which,  how- 
ever, only  Lent  is  strictly  kept.  There  is  the  same  fundamental 
cycle  of  feasts  as  with  us,  although  some  of  the  feasts  have 
different  names.  The  most  striking  differences  are  that  our 
Trinity  Sunday  is  their  All  Saints,  and  that  they  have  two  All 
Souls'  days — the  Saturdays  before  Sexagesima  and  Whit  Sunday. 
They  have  ten  service  books,  very  complicated  and  difficult  to 
use.  In  all  their  churches  a  great  screen  cuts  off  and  hides  the 
sanctuary.  Each  of  their  vestments  corresponds  to  one  of  ours, 
but  they  look  quite  different.  They  also  need  many  more 
instruments  for  the  holy  liturgy  than  we  do.  Byzantine  plain- 
song  is  enharmonic,  and  so  sounds  weird  and  unpleasant  to  us. 
The  Holy  Liturgy  is  said  according  to  two  different  rites,  and 
there  is  a  third  for  the  Mass  of  the  Presanctified  in  Lent.  The 
common  use  is  that  of  St.  John  Chrysostom,  along  and  elaborate 
service  of  which  the  most  striking  feature  is  the  Great  Entrance, 
a  procession  of  the  oblations  round  the  church  just  before  they 
are  consecrated.  They  baptize  by  immersion,  rarely  hear  con- 
fessions, give  Holy  Communion  under  both  kinds,  confirm  by 
the  priest  immediately  after  baptism,  ordain  by  laying  on  one 
hand  only,  crown  the  spouses  at  marriage,  and  anoint  not  only 
the  sick  but  even  people  in  good  health,  by  seven  priests.  They 
doubt  our  baptism,  holy  orders,  and  holy  Eucharist.  Chrism  is 
a  mixture  of  many  substances.  They  have  two  kinds  of  blessed 
bread  and  many  sacramentals.  At  the  Epiphany  they  solemnly 
bless  the  waters  ;  they  fast  much  more  than  we  do,  hardly  ever 
have  sermons,  and  constantly  offer  the  holy  Sacrifice  for  the 
faithful  departed. 


CHAPTER   XIV 

THE   QUESTION   OF   REUNION 

At  the  end  of  all  our  account  the  question  that  will  finally 
interest  Catholics  is  that  of  reunion  between  this  great  Eastern 
Church  and  the  Holy  See.  What  hope  is  there  that  the  schism, 
now  a  thousand  years  old,  may  be  undone?  That  such  a 
reunion  would  be  an  untold  blessing  both  to  them  and  to  us  is 
obvious.  For  the  Orthodox  of  course  the  essential  point  of  all 
is  that  they  would  then  once  more  be  joined  to  the  communion 
of  the  Church  of  Christ.  And  even  from  their  point  of  view 
one  would  imagine  that  they  must  feel  uncomfortable,  separated 
from  the  great  Western  See  which,  even  now,  they  acknowledge 
as  the  first  of  the  thrones.  What  has  become  of  the  Pentarchy, 
the  union  of  the  five  Patriarchs,  of  which  they  have  always 
made  so  much  ?  Were  it  only  one  of  the  smaller  ones,  but  it 
is  the  first  of  the  great  five  who  stands  on  one  side  with  his 
vast  army  of  followers,  and  the  other  four,  who  together  can 
muster  only  about  a  third  of  the  millions  who  stand  by  Old 
Rome,  are  cut  away  from  their  natural  leader.  And  we  can 
imagine  what  their  own  Fathers  would  say  to  the  Orthodox  if 
they  came  back.  We  have  seen  what  Athanasius,  Basil,  Chry- 
sostom,  Cyril  of  Alexandria,  and  Theodore  of  Studium  have  to 
say  about  the  primacy  of  Old  Rome.  We  have  heard  what  the 
Fathers  of  Chalcedon  cried  out,  and  we  have  seen  the  Roman 
legates  preside  over  other  councils.  If  the  great  Fathers  whom 
they  honour  could  come  back  and  see  the  troubles  that  beset 

their  children  now,  what  could   they   suggest   except  that  a 

429 


430      THE    ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

council  should  be  summoned  and  that  the  successor  of  St.  Peter 
should  send  his  legates  to  make  peace  among  them  ?  And  what 
would  they  say  when  they  heard  that  for  ten  centuries  their 
Churches  had  rejected  the  communion  of  the  See  of  Peter  ? 
u  Now  is  the  acceptable  time,"  St.  Theodore  might  well  again 
say,  "  that  we  should  unite  ourselves  with  Rome,  the  summit  of 
the  Churches  of  God."  ■  And  indeed  it  is  an  acceptable  time. 
Never  yet  have  the  Eastern  bishops  stood  so  much  in  need  of 
their  natural  arbitrator  as  now.  We  have  seen  how  their  inde- 
pendence of  their  chief  has  ended  in  the  most  servile  dependence 
on  secular  governments  ;  even  the  unbaptized  tyrant  who  has 
robbed  the  Christian  East  of  her  lands  and  degrades  the  lawful 
heirs  of  those  countries  beneath  the  rabble  he  brought  with 
him  from  Asia,  even  he  has  to  step  in  to  arrange  their  quarrels. 
Do  they  really  think  that  Abdulhamid  is  the  right  man  to 
decide  what  language  shall  be  used  for  the  Holy  Liturgy,  and 
what  bishop  shall  reign  in  the  old  sees  of  Macedonia  ?  Do 
they  still,  after  having  felt  its  weight  for  over  three  centuries, 
prefer  his  turban  to  the  Pope's  tiara  ?  At  any  rate  the  Pope 
never  niched  their  children,  desecrated  their  churches,  nor 
murdered  their  bishops.  Who  is  ever  going  to  make  peace 
between  Greek  and  Bulgar,  Serb  and  Vlach  ?  It  will  not  be 
the  Oecumenical  Patriarch  ;  he  is  the  chief  offender  and  the 
avowed  leader  of  one  side.  Do  the  Slavs  want  a  chief  who 
will  not  try  to  rob  them  of  their  national  feeling,  forbid  their 
language,  and  persecute  their  priests  ?  Such  a  chief  is  waiting 
for  them  across  the  Albanian  mountains  and  Adriatic  Sea.  Let 
them  look  at  the  Uniates  and  see  how  scrupulously  their  rites 
and  languages  are  kept.  Does  the  Patriarch  himself  feel  the 
degradation  of  being  continually  deposed  by  his  own  metro- 
politans and  by  the  Turkish  Minister  of  Religions  ?  There  is 
a  greater  Patriarch,  whom  no  bishop  can  feel  it  degrading  to 
obey,  who  stands  for  the  rights  of  old  Canon  Law,  and  whose 
honour  is  still  in  the  firm  strength  of  his  brothers.2  And  for  us 
Catholics,  too,  reunion  would  be  the  greatest  of  blessings.  We 
want  back  the  great  sees  that  have  stood  aloof  from  us  so  long. 
We  want  the  communion  of  the  Christians  to  whom  St.  Paul 
1  Quoted  p.  67.  2  P.  39,  note  4. 


THE   QUESTION  OF  REUNION  431 

brought  the  faith  at  Ephesus  and  Corinth,  the  children  of  the 
men  of  Antioch  who  first  were  called  by  the  name  in  which  we 
all  glory.  And  we  need,  too,  the  righter  balance  that  would  be 
restored  by  reunion  with  the  Orthodox.  In  spite  of  our  loyalty 
to  our  own  rite,  and  in  spite  of  our  natural  pride  in  being  not 
only  Catholics  but  Latins  and  members  of  the  greatest  Patri- 
archate, we  have  to  realize  that  the  Latin  Church  is  not,  has 
never  been,  the  whole  Body  of  Christ.  We  may  forget  the 
Uniates  (it  is  a  shameful  injustice  to  them  if  we  do),  but  we 
could  not  forget  one  hundred  millions  of  Catholics  of  other 
rites.  And  we  need  their  ideas,  their  traditions  and  spirit  in 
the  Church  as  well  as  our  own.  Their  conservatism  now  means 
only  fossilization ;  joined  to  our  life  it  would  be  a  sane  and  use- 
ful balance.  Their  love  of  the  liturgy  and  dislike  of  innovations 
has  something  to  teach  our  people.  If  we  regret  the  too  sudden 
way  in  which  new  devotions  spread  amongst  us,  the  gradual 
divorce  of  the  people  from  the  real  rites  of  the  Church,  the 
slight  regard  paid  to  her  seasons,  the  exaggeration  of  pious 
fancies  above  the  old  and  essential  things,  the  abuses  in  such 
matters  as  indulgences,  privileges,  and  special  favours  against 
which  the  Council  of  Trent  spoke,1  we  should  find  the  remedy  of 
all  these  things  in  the  solid  piety  and  the  unchanging  loyalty 
towards  the  customs  of  their  fathers  among  Eastern  Christians. 
And  then  what  a  vast  body  we  should  make  together.  Our 
millions  joined  to  theirs  would  form  indeed  a  mighty  and 
compact  world-Church,  before  which  the  new  sects  would 
count  as  almost  nothing.  One  conceives  the  union  of  the 
five  Patriarchs  stretching  across  Europe  as  the  most  glorious 
realization  of  the  City  of  God  on  earth  ;  and  if  one  remembers 
all  the  sheep  that  are  not  of  this  fold  regretfully,  if  one  prays 
that  all  some  day  may  be  brought  back  to  the  one  fold  and 
the  one  Shepherd,  one  thinks  then  of  none  with  so  much 
sympathy  as  our  brothers  across  the  Adriatic.  For  with  them 
practically  nothing  is  wrong  but  the  schism.  In  the  case  of 
others,  one  sees  so  much  that  would  have  to  be  changed — 
false  doctrine,  reckless  mutilation  of  the  old  faith,  and  rival 
conventicles.     But  the  Eastern  schism  has  still  left  us  on  both 

1  P.  390. 


432       THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

sides  with  the  same  faith  in  almost  everything.  Of  course  they 
would  have  to  accept  the  whole  of  the  Catholic  faith.  In  that, 
no  desire  for  reunion,  no  spirit  of  conciliation,  can  ever  make 
the  Holy  See  waive  anything.  There  can  be  no  compromise  in 
matters  of  faith.  But  the  Orthodox  already  have,  and  jealously 
keep,  practically  all  that  faith.  As  for  the  points  they  would 
have  to  concede,  one  cannot  believe  that  they  really  think  the 
question  of  the  Filioque  so  vital,  nor  can  they  really  be  so 
unwilling  to  admit  the  special  privilege  of  the  all-holy  Mother 
of  God,  to  whom  they  are  so  devoted.  Infallibility  seems  a  big 
thing ;  but  in  this  point,  too,  it  should  not  be  so  difficult  to  make 
them  see  things.  If  God  so  carefully  guides  his  Church,  how 
can  he  allow  the  chief  Patriarch  to  teach  heresy,  since  he  is 
the  leader  and  judge  of  all  the  others  ?  Other  bishops  can  be 
put  right  by  appeals  to  Rome  :  to  whom  could  one  appeal  from 
the  Pope  ?  There  must  be  a  final  court  somewhere  ;  no  one 
could  suggest  any  other  than  Rome,  and  the  decision  of  the 
final  court  must  be  final.  That  means  infallibility.  Moreover, 
what  did  their  fathers  think  when  they  continually  appealed  to 
Rome  in  questions  of  faith  ?  Let  the  Orthodox  think  the  same. 
But  no  one  would  think  of  asking  them  to  accept  all  our  ideas, 
our  technical  terms  and  philosophy.  It  would  be  a  question  of 
some  such  formulas  as  those  of  Florence  again.  And  in  all 
other  matters  there  would  be  nothing  to  change.  No  one  would 
dream  of  touching  their  venerable  liturgies,  their  splendid  ritual, 
their  ancient  Canon  Law,  or  any  of  the  customs  that,  maybe, 
would  not  suit  us,  but  which  evidently  suit  them.  Not  a  metro- 
politan would  be  changed,  not  a  prayer  altered.1  Still  their 
strange  chant  would  echo  backwards  and  forwards  through  the 
gleaming  Ikonostasis,  while  the  deacon  waves  his  ripidion  over 
the  Holy  Gifts,  and  the  clouds  of  incense  are  borne  through  the 
royal  doors.  Still  the  people  would  crowd  up  for  the  Antidoron 
and  the  Kolybas,  dive  for  the  cross  at  the  Holy  Lights,  kiss  each 

x  Very  likely  Rome  would  allow  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  to  keep 
even  his  title  of  (Ecumenical  Patriarch.  It  has  become  quite  harmless,  and 
only  a  little  absurd,  now  that  he  has  lost  nearly  all  even  of  his  lawful  Patri- 
archate. His  brother  at  Alexandria  is  Judge  of  the  World.  And  if  these 
things  please  them,  what  do  they  matter  ? 


THE   QUESTION  OF  REUNION  433 

other  on  Easter  Day,  and  dance  for  the  Forerunner's  birth, 
while  the  psalms  from  the  Holy  Mountain  would  still  sound 
across  the  ^Egean  Sea.  Communion  under  one  kind,  celibacy, 
and  azyme  bread — these  are  Latin  customs,  which  they  would 
only  be  asked  not  to  call  silly  names  when  we  follow  them.1 
And  we  do  not  rebaptize  nor  reordain  just  for  spite.  But  the 
union  would  be  restored  with  that  distant  mighty  lord  whom, 
in  spite  of  all,  the  common  people  still  think  of  as  a  great  prince 
in  the  house  of  God,  and  they  would  no  longer  suffer  the  shock 
it  must  now  be  to  them  when  they  have  to  sing  of  the  primacy 
of  the  Roman  See  in  their  office.2  The  obstacle  to  reunion  is 
chiefly  their  fear  of  being  Latinized,  of  having  to  give  up  the 
rites  to  which  they  are  so  much  attached,  and  then  also  of  for- 
saking the  faith  of  their  fathers.  And  the  first  step  towards  it 
would  be  to  persuade  them  that  reunion  means  only  going  back 
to  the  state  of  things  before  the  9th  century.  There  was  then 
no  idea  of  Latinizing  the  Eastern  Churches,  nor  would  there  be 
now.  And  the  faith  of  their  fathers  involves  the  communion  of 
St.  Peter's  See. 

Is  there  any  hope  ?  Unhappily,  one  cannot  see  any  imme- 
diate prospect.  A  schism  always  becomes  stronger  by  sheer 
inertia  as  the  centuries  pass  ;  things  get  settled  down  in  that 
state,  prejudices  and  jealousies  fossilize  into  principles  that  seem 
too  obvious  to  allow  discussion,  immediate  antiquity — the  past 
that  people  know  best  because  it  is  just  behind  them — is  against 
reunion.  The  schismatical  party,  once  reckless  innovators, 
gradually  seem  to  be  the  conservatives.  It  is  true  that,  through- 
out the  Orthodox  Church,  there  always  has  been,  there  still  is, 
a  party  friendly  to  Catholics,  and  really  distressed  at  the  schism. 
These  people,  the  Latin-favourers  (Xareivotypoveg),  are  a  recognized 
feature  among  them.     Sometimes  the  party  has  become  very 

1  Nor  would  they  have  to  submit  to  our  special  centralization.  All  our 
cases  now  go  straight  to  Rome,  and  this,  too,  is  a  Patriarchal  matter,  not  one 
that  is  involved  in  the  Pope's  universal  primacy.  The  Eastern  Churches 
would  undoubtedly  still  have  their  own  patriarchal  courts  to  settle  their  own 
affairs,  as  before  the  schism  (p.  87),  and  only  the  causce  maiores,  the  causce 
omnium  maximce,  would  have  to  come  before  the  Pontiff,  who,  as  Pope 
holds,  not  the  first,  but  the  last,  court  of  appeal. 

2  Pp.  56  seq. 

29 


434      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

strong,  as,  for  instance,  during  the  reaction  against  Protestant- 
ism after  poor  Lukaris's  catastrophe ;  and  in  quite  modern  times 
it  has  again  come  to  the  fore,  especially  in  Russia.  Professor 
Harnack  says :  "  People  who  understand  Russia  know  that  there 
is  a  patriotic  Russian  party  (or,  rather,  tendency)  in  the  heart  of 
the  country,  in  Moscow,  and  among  the  most  educated  people, 
that  hopes  for  an  awakening  of  their  Church  in  the  direction  of 
the  Western  Church — that  is,  of  the  Roman,  not  the  Evangelical 
Communion — who  work  for  this,  and  who  see  in  it  the  only 
hope  for  Russia.  This  party  manifests  its  ideas  in  writing, 
as  far  as  circumstances  in  Russia  allow,  and  it  has  already 
shown  that  it  possesses  men  of  unusual  talent,  warm  love  of 
their  country,  and  undoubted  devotion  to  the  Greek  Church." x 
It  is  from  this  direction,  on  the  one  hand,  and  from  the  Uniates 
on  the  other,  that  one  hopes  for  the  beginning  of  an  under- 
standing. They  stretch  out  from  either  side  and  leave  no  very 
wide  chasm  between  them.  In  feeling,  sympathy,  and  attitude 
of  mind  there  is  no  great  difference  between  the  Latin-favouring 
Orthodox  and  the  Uniate. 

And  yet  the  men  who  rule  the  Orthodox  Church  have 
no  favour  for  Latins.  The  latest  events  show  them  to  be 
still  as  hard,  arrogant,  and  bitter  as  their  predecessors  who 
made  the  schism.  In  1894  Pope  Leo  XIII,  in  the  evening 
of  his  long  life,  looked  out  across  the  world  from  the  throne 
that  for  so  many  centuries  has  stood  above  all  the  nations. 
In  his  last  testament 2  he  spoke  to  us,  his  own  Catholics,  and 
he  remembered  also  the  great  masses  of  Christians  who 
have  broken  away  from  the  old  Church.  And  so  he  spoke 
to  the  Orthodox  and  Protestants  as  well.  One  would  think 
it  impossible  for  any  one  to  read  what  were  almost  the  last 
words  of  so  great  a  Pope  without  emotion.  And  nothing 
could  be  kinder,  more  generous,  more  gracious  than  what  he 
said  to  the  Orthodox.  There  is  not  one  harsh  word,  not  the 
shadow  of  any  blame.  The  Pope  leaves  argument  about  the 
Filioque  to  the  theologians  who  are  never  tired  of  discussing 
it.     His  last  message  is  only  of  peace  and  kindness.     And  so 

1  Redcn  und  Aufsiitze,  ii.  p.  279  (Das  Testament  Leos  XIII). 

2  The  encyclical  Praclara  of  June  20,  1894. 


THE   QUESTION  OF  REUNION  435 

he  finds  every  courteous  thing  that  can  be  said  to  them.  He 
begins  by  remembering  that  "from  the  East  salvation  came 
and  spread  over  the  world,"  he  remembers  the  antiquity  and 
splendid  history  of  their  sees,  he  mentions  the  Greeks  who  sat 
on  St.  Peter's  throne,  and  who  brought  honour  to  it  by  their 
virtue.  "  And  no  great  gulf  separates  us  ;  except  for  a  few 
smaller  points  we  agree  so  entirely  with  you  that  it  is  from  your 
teacliing,  your  customs  and  rites  that  we  often  take  proofs  for 
Catholic  dogma."  He  assures  them  that  no  Roman  Pope  ever 
wishes  to  lessen  the  rights  and  dignity  of  the  other  great 
Patriarchs  ;  and  for  all  their  customs  "  we  will  provide  without 
any  narrowness."  He  rejoices  "  that  in  our  days  the  Easterns 
have  become  much  more  friendly  to  Catholics,  and  that  they 
show  kind  and  generous  feeling  towards  us."  And  so  he  makes 
only  the  gentlest  and  warmest  appeal  to  them  to  come  back 
to  union  with  us.  One  cannot  understand  how  any  one  could 
answer  such  words  except  respectfully  and  courteously.  Did 
the  Orthodox  bishops  think  it  necessary  to  refuse  the  Pope's 
invitation,  at  least  they  might  have  done  so  without  offensive 
words,  with  the  respect  they  owe  to  St.  Peter's  successor,  and 
in  something  of  a  like  spirit  of  conciliation.  At  that  time  Lord 
Anthimos  VII  reigned  at  Constantinople,  and  he,  together  with 
twelve  of  his  metropolitans,  signed  an  answer  to  the  Pope's 
encyclical.1  Nothing  can  be  more  striking  than  the  different 
tones  of  the  two  letters,  nor  more  offensive  than  Anthimos's 
answer.  The  Pope  had  studiously  avoided  making  any  accusa- 
tion against  the  Orthodox.  Anthimos  in  return  has  nothing 
to  say  but  the  old  list  of  accusations  against  us — the  Filioque, 
our  baptism,  Azyme  bread,  the  Epiklesis  question,  communion 
under  one  kind,  Purgatory,  the  Immaculate  Conception,  &c. 
On  each  of  these  points  the  Patriarch  repeats  the  arguments 
that  their  theologians  have  made  and  ours  have  refuted  for 
centuries.     He  has  nothing  new  to  say  on  the  subjects  ;  it  is 

1  The  text  was  published  in  the  'Eo^o-iaon**}  'AXfjOeia  for  September  29, 
1895.  It  was  composed  by  Germanos  Karavangelis,  then  Chorepiscopus  of 
Pera.  This  person  since  got  into  trouble  with  his  own  authorities  (p.  427), 
was  made  Metropolitan  of  Kastoria,  and  is  now  one  of  the  leaders  of  the 
Bulgarian  atrocities  (p.  344). 


436      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

simply  one  more  compendium  of  anti- Latin  controversy,  not 
even  well  composed.1  And  it  is  the  only  way  he  thinks  fit  to 
answer  the  Pope.  Nor  do  false  accusations  ever  fail  in  such 
compendia  ;  in  this  one  there  is  a  monstrous  travesty  of  the 
Papal  claims,  ending  in  the  assertion  that  the  Pope  requires 
not  only  spiritual  but  also  temporal  supremacy  over  the  whole 
Church,  that  he  pretends  to  be  the  only  representative  of  Christ 
on  earth,  and  the  only  source  of  all  grace.  The  tone  of  the 
letter  is  perhaps  even  more  striking  than  the  fact  that  Anthimos 
thinks  such  controversy  a  suitable  answer  to  what  Leo  had 
said.  In  the  first  place  he  gives  the  Pope  the  title  that  is  the 
correct  one  for  just  any  bishop  or  metropolitan.2  According  to 
his  own  Orthodox  Church  the  Roman  Bishop  is  the  successor 
of  St.  Peter  and  the  first  Patriarch,  but  he  thinks  it  decent  to 
address  him  just  as  he  would  address  the  lowest  of  his 
suffragans.  He  even  affects  to  doubt  that  St.  Peter  was  the 
first  Bishop  of  Rome — a  fact  that  the  Orthodox  liturgy  con- 

1  See  Mgr.  Duchesne  :  Eglises  scparees,  pp.  59-112 :  Uencyliquc  du 
Patriarche  Anthime,  p.  75,  for  a  misquotation  of  Anthimos,  &c.  The  Patriarch 
drags  in  once  more  a  list  of  our  customs  that  are  different  from  his,  and 
again  seems  to  think  that  the  one  standard  for  the  whole  world  is  his  own 
patriarchate.  This  has  been  their  attitude  ever  since  Cerularius,  "  the  state 
of  mind  of  an  inexperienced  traveller  in  foreign  countries  who  thinks  every- 
thing bad  that  is  not  the  same  as  in  his  own  home  "  (ibid.  pp.  83-89).  If  it 
were  worth  while  to  retaliate  their  everlasting  accusation  of  Papic  novelties, 
one  could  make  a  catalogue  of  their  innovations  too.  By  what  right,  for 
instance,  do  they  change  the  form  of  baptism  left  by  our  Lord  and  interlace 
it  with  superfluous  Amens  ?  Why  are  practically  all  their  bishops  metro- 
politans ?  Why  does  the  Patriarch  of  Constantinople  arrogate  to  himself  the 
sole  right  of  consecrating  chrism  ?  They  put  hot  water  into  the  chalice, 
anoint  people  who  are  not  sick,  forbid  fourth  marriages,  never  make  a  secular 
priest  a  bishop,  hide  their  altars,  change  their  Patriarch  every  year  or  two, 
&c,  &c.  Above  all,  what  about  the  crowning  innovation  of  holy  directing 
synods  instead  of  a  graduated  hierarchy  ?  One  could  find  many  more  such 
novelties.  But  no  one  wishes  seriously  to  retaliate  in  this  way.  Catholic 
theologians  in  their  controversy  insist  on  the  real  issue,  the  Primacy,  and 
leave  such  mean  quibbles  to  the  Orthodox. 

2  Mampiwraroc.  The  manners  of  the  (Ecumenical  Patriarch  inevitably 
remind  one  of  the  insolence  of  the  parvenu.  For  all  his  pompous  title  he 
knows  that  he  is  the  successor  of  the  little  Byzantine  bishop  who  obeyed  the 
Metropolitan  of  Heraclea,  and  that  had  it  not  been  for  a  pure  accident,  and 
then  for  the  interference  of  emperors  in  ecclesiastical  affairs,  that  is  presum- 
ably all  he  would  be  now. 


THE  QUESTION  OF  REUNION  437 

tinually  asserts,1  and  that  none  of  the  old  Churches  have  ever 
doubted.     This  is  a  little  piece  of  rationalism  from  Tubingen, 
of  the  kind  that  Orthodox  bishops  generally  strongly  resent  in 
their  clergy  ;  but  anything  will  do  here  if  only  it  is  anti-papal.2 
Lord  Anthimos  then  draws  up  his  accusations  in  a  kind  of  litany, 
of  which  each  clause  is  in  this  pleasant  form  :  M  The  Church 
of  the  seven  General  Councils,  one,  holy,  catholic,  and  apostolic, 
believes  and  confesses  .  .  .  the  Papic  Church  (f/  eKKXrjcria  Tra-mitri) 
on  the  other  hand,  &c."     One  would  not  expect  him  in  an 
official  document  to  call  us  Catholics,  but  it  would  have  been 
easy  to  find  a  word  that  is  not  discourteous.     The  Pope  had 
spoken  of  the  Eastern  Churches  ;  why  not,  in  answering,  call 
us  the  Western  Church  ?    The  Latin  or  Roman  Church  would 
have  been  an  inoffensive  name  too.     "  Papic  "  is,  of  course,  just 
silly  rudeness.    His  All-holiness  of  Constantinople  even  pretends 
that  he  despises  the  Pope  too  much  to  think  it  worth  while 
to  answer  him  :  "  We  have  been  silent  till  now  ;  we  did  not 
deign  to  cast  our  eyes  upon  this  Papic  Encyclical,  thinking  it 
useless  to  speak  to  the  deaf."     Is  it  necessary  to  give  more 
examples  of  the  rudeness  of  which  the  Orthodox  themselves 
have  since  seemed  ashamed  ?     Pope  Leo  began  by  speaking  of 
the  dignity  of  those  ancient  Eastern  Churches,  from  which  the 
faith  came  to  us.     The  Patriarch  Anthimos  begins  :  "  The  devil 
has  prompted  the  Bishops  of  Rome  to  feelings  of  unbearable 
pride,  through  which  they  have  introduced  a  number  of  impious 
novelties  contrary  to  the  Gospel."  3     A  comparison  of  the  two 
letters,  then,  makes  one  point  clear  ;  the  Pope  wrote  with  the 
most  generous  courtesy,  the  Patriarch  could  not  even  write  like 

1  Nilles  :  Kal.  i.  pp.  107, 138,  193,  &c.  ;  Duchesne,  ox.  p.  124. 

2  One  need  hardly  say  that  St.  Peter's  Roman  episcopate  is  as  certain  as 
anything  in  the  1st  century  of  Church  history,  and  is  now  admitted  by 
serious  scholars  of  every  religion.  It  should  be  noted  that  the  Orthodox 
(Kyriakos,  for  instance)  still  print  St.  Andrew's  name  as  that  of  the  first 
Bishop  of  Constantinople.  The  attitude  of  mind  that  can  believe  that 
absurd  legend  (p.  29)  and  yet  doubt  St.  Peter's  Roman  See  is  indeed 
astonishing. 

3  Poor  Anthimos,  even  before  his  Encyclical  was  published,  was  deposed 
by  his  own  metropolitans.  The  Pope  would  at  any  rate  not  have  tolerated 
that  particular  kind  of  impious  novelty  that  really  is  opposed  to  all  old  Canon 
Law,  and  that  is  the  most  flagrant  abuse  of  the  Orthodox  Church. 


438       THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 

a  gentleman.     In  this  last  official  communication  between  the 
Churches  one  sees  once  more  the  old  story.     It  is  not,  it  has 
never  been,  Rome  that  is  haughty  or  unconciliatory.     Constan- 
tinople since  Photius  has  always  assumed  a  tone  of  arrogant 
defiance  and  insolent  complacency  that  argues  complete  satis- 
faction with  the  horrible  state  of  things  produced  by  her  schism. 
"  Evidently,"  says  Mgr.  Duchesne,  u  they  are  still  sore  and  hurt, 
will  have  nothing  to  do  with  us,  and  are  not  at  all  embarrassed 
in  saying  so  quite  plainly."     One  does  not,  then,  see  in  the 
leaders  of  the  Orthodox  Church  any  great  desire  to  heal  this 
lamentable  breach.     And  yet,  one  asks  oneself  at  the  end  of 
the  whole  story,  what  real  reason  can  there  be  for  the  schism 
now  ?     One  can  understand  the  original  causes.     Photius  was 
so  anxious  to  remain  Patriarch.     It  was  so  hard  for  him  to  be 
deposed  when  the  Emperor  and  all  the  court  were  on  his  side. 
Cerularius  wanted  to  be  a  sort  of  Pope- Emperor  himself,  and 
the  Crusaders  behaved  so  badly  to  the  Byzantine  people.     But 
now,  after   all   these   years,  who   cares   any  longer  for  those 
quarrels?     The   dusts   of    ten   centuries   have   gathered    over 
Photius's    unknown   grave ;   it    is    nine   hundred   years   since 
Cerularius,  who  had  been  so  rude   and   insubordinate   to  his 
over-lord,  went   to  give  his  account  to  the  over-Lord  of  all 
patriarchs.     Cannot  one  even  yet  let  the  dead  bury  their  dead  ? 
The  schism  came  about  through  the  jealousies  and  ambitions  of 
the  old  Roman  court  on  the  Bosphorus.     And  that  court  and 
all  the  Byzantine  world  has  been  dead  so  long.     Who  cares 
now  for  the  Caesar  in  his  gorgeous  palace,  or  for  the  political 
rivalries  of  Old  Rome  and  New  Rome  ?     The  Turk  swept  New 
Rome  away ;   and  only  here  and   there   a    student,   peering 
through  the   mists  of  centuries,  will  call  up   again  the  pale 
ghosts  of  the   men  who  intrigued  and  fought,   plotted  and 
murdered  around  the  gorgeous  halls,  the  stately  basilicas,  and 
the  crowded  streets  of  the  city  whose  marble  quays  rose  above 
the  Golden  Horn.     Her  watchwords  are  silent  and  her  causes 
are  forgotten,  as  the  world  moves  through  the  changing  ages. 
But  for  all  of  us,  for  the  children  of  dead  New  Rome  as  well  as 
for  us  who  stand  around  the  fisherman's  throne  in  the  eternal 
Old  Rome,  there  is  a  cause  that  does  not  die,  there  is  a  great 


THE   QUESTION  OF  REUNION  439 

city  of  God  on  earth  whose  foundations  are  laid  too  deep, 
whose  towers  are  built  too  high  for  any  change  to  destroy  her  ; 
and  there  are  words  that  do  not  pass  away  :  The  branch  that 
is  cut  away  from  the  vine  shall  wither,  and  :  On  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  Church. 


INDEX 


Abdurrahman      Pasha      and     the 

Roumans,    333 
Abgar  the  Black  of  Edessa,  16 
Achrida,  Metropolis  of  Bulgaria,  317 
Actus  and  Potentia,  375 
Addai  (Thaddeus),  Apostle  of  Edessa, 

17 

Agatho,  Pope  (678-681),  and  the 
Primacy,  60 

Akathistos  hymnos,  419 

Alexandria,  Church  of,  11-15  ;  calcu- 
lates the  calendar,  12  ;  school,  11  ; 
refuses  to  acknowledge  First  Coun- 
cil of  Constantinople,  33  ;  influence 
at  Rome  in  4th  century,  92  ; 
Primate  of  Alexandria  deposes 
Patriarchs  of  Constantinople,  13  ; 
Melkite  Primate  and  the  schism, 
187  ;  Patriarchate  now,  285-286 

Alexios  IV,  Emperor  (fi204),  226 

Altar,  404 

Ambrose  of  Uskub,  326 

America,  Russian  Bishops  in,  297 

Anaphora,  415 

Anastasis,  28 

Anatolius  of  Constantinople  (449- 
458),  36,  seq. 

Andrew,  St.,  at  Constantinople, 
legend,  29 

"Andrew,  Acts  of  St.,"  and  the 
B.V.M.,  108 

Andronikos  II,  Emperor  (1282-1328), 
207 

Anglican  orders,  261-262 


Anglicans  and  Orthodox,  friendly 
relations  between,  259 

Anselm,  St.  (tno9),  and  the  Synod 
of  Bari,  203 

Anthimos  IV  of  Constantinople 
(fi852)  and  the  Greek  Church,  313 

Anthimos  VI  of  Constantinople  ex- 
communicates the  Bulgars  (1872), 

♦  319 

Anthimos  VII  of  Constantinople, 
343  ;    his    answer   to    Leo    XIII 

(i895),  435 

Antimension,  409 

Antioch,  Church  of,  15-21  ;  juris- 
diction in  first  three  centuries,  16  ; 
school,  18  ;  Melkite  Primate  and 
the  schism,  188-192  ;  Patriarchate 
now,  286-290 

Appeals  to  Rome,  67-72 

Arabs  and  Greeks  in  Syria,  287,  seq. 

"Archbishop  of  Constantinople," 
title,  38,  340 

Argyros,  175,  seq. 

Armenian  Church,  24 

Armenians  at  Florence,  215 

Arsenios  of  the  Thebais  in  England 
(1714),  257 

Arsenius  III  of  Ipek,  307 

Artemonites,  101 

Asia,  Roman  civil  diocese  of,  23 

Asia  and  Constantinople,  35 

Asiatic  architecture,  122 

Athanasius,  St.  (t397),  and  the 
Primacy,  68  ;  and  the  Filioque,  380 


441 


442      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Athos,  Mount,  357-360 

Atticus  of  Constantinople  (t425)  and 
Illyricum,  35 

Augustine,  St.  (430),  on  schism,  101 ; 
and  the  Filioque,  380 

Austria,  Orthodox  in,  323 

Austria-Hungary  and  Catholic  mis- 
sions, 281-283 

Azyme  bread  for  the  Holy  Eucharist, 
178 

Balkans,  races  in  the,  274-275 

Baptism,  420 

Baradai,  James,  Monophysite  Bishop 

in  Syria  (543),  20 
Bardas  Caesar  (|866),  137 
Bari,  Council  of  (1098),  202-204 
Barnabas,  St.,  first  Bishop  of  Cyprus, 

47  ;  his  grave,  48 
Basel,  Council  of  (143 1),  208,  seq. 
Basil,   St.   (t379),  and  the  Primacy, 

52,  55  ;   and   Purgatory,   106 ;  his 

Rule,  355 
Basil   I,  the    Macedonian,  Emperor 

(867-880),  155,  seq. 
Bekkos,  John  (John  XI  of  Constanti- 
nople, 1274-1282),  206 
Belgrade,  Metropolis  of  Servia,  325 
Berat,  241  ;  rights  given  by,  242 
Bessarabia,  Russian  robbery  in,  289 
Bessarion,     Cardinal     (fi472),     212, 

218-219 
Bible    societies    and    the    Orthodox 

Church,  255-256 
Bishops,  Orthodox,  their  rights,  title, 

and  dress,  350  ;  vestments,  405 
Bogoris,    Prince  of    Bulgaria    (861), 

151 
Boniface  I,  Pope  (418-422),  and  the 
Primacy,  69  ;   refuses  to  acknow- 
ledge Canon  III  of  Constantine  I, 

34 
Bonn,   Union    conferences  at  (1874, 

1875),  259 
Bosnia,  Church  of,  334-336 
Bostra,  quarrel  at,  35 


Bulgarian  Church,  151-152,  316-323; 
principality,    320  ;     memorandum 
of  Patriarchists  against,  322 
Bulgaris,  Eugenios  (fi8oo),  250 
Byzantine  Church  and  the  Primacy, 

63-67  ;  liturgy,  118-119,  396,  seq. 
"  Byzantine  question,"  122 
Byzantios,  Cyril,  of  Sinai,  311 
Byzantium,  see  Constantinople 

Cesarea  in  Cappadocia,  Metropolis 

of  Pontus,  22,  seq. 
Caesarea  in  Palestine,  Metropolis,  25 
Calendar  of  Orthodox  Church,  398- 

401 
Carlovitz,  Church  of,  305 
Catholic  Church,  Eastern  idea  of,  100 
"  Cause "  of  Son,  God  the  Father, 

378-379 

Celestine  I,  Pope  (422-432),  and  the 
Primacy,  69 

Centralization,  Latin,  433,  n.  1 

Cerularius,  Michael,  of  Constanti- 
nople (1043-1058),  176,  seq.  ; 
elected  Primate,  176;  closes  Latin 
churches,  180 ;  overtures  to  the 
Pope,  182  ;  and  the  Roman  legates, 
183,  186-187  »  ms  schism,  184  ;  and 
Peter  III  of  Antioch,  190  ;  usurps 
civil  authority,  193  ;  exiled,  195 ; 
death  and  apotheosis,  195 

Cetinje,  Metropolis  of  Czernagora,  309 

Chalcedon,  Council  of  (451),  78-79  ; 
and  the  Patriarchate  of  Jerusalem, 
27  ;  condemns  Dioscur  of  Alex- 
andria, 14  ;  Canon  XXVIII,  37,  38  ; 
the  legates  protest  against  Canon 
XXVIII,  40  ;  its  letter  to  the  Pope, 
40 

Charles  the  Great  and  the  Filioque 
(794),  382 

Cherubikon,  415 

Chorepiscopi,  351 

Chrism,  its  substance,  425  ;  right  of 
consecrating,  284  ;  in  Roumania, 
331  ;  essential  for  Christians,  258 


INDEX 


443 


Chrysologus,  St.  Peter  (t45o),  and 
the  Primacy,  55 

Chrysostom,  St.  John  (1407),  and 
the  Primacy,  53,  55,  69  ;  and 
Invocation  of  Saints,  103  ;  and 
prayer  for  the  dead,  106 ;  and 
grace,  109 ;  his  liturgy,  413-418  ; 
and  the  Real  Presence,  102,  n.  8  ; 
uses  jurisdiction  outside  his  Patri- 
archate, 35 

Church,  Orthodox  idea  of,  365-370 

Church,  plan  of  Orthodox,  403 

Clement  of  Alexandria  (f2i7),  11-12 

Cluny,  reform  of,  173 

Ccenobia,  356 

Colleges,  Orthodox  theological,  352- 
353 

Communion,  rite  of,  416,  421 

Compton,  Henry,  Bishop  of  London 
(fi677),  and  Orthodox  Church  in 
London,  257 

Conception  of  the  B.V.M.,  feast, 
107 

Confession,  422 

Confessor  (Priest  who  hears  con- 
fessions), 353 

Confirmation,  421 

Constans  II,  Emperor  (641-668),  and 
the  Primacy,  96 

Constantine  I,  Emperor  (323-337), 
builds  Constantinople,  29,  124 ; 
civil  and  ecclesiastical  jurisdiction, 
31  ;  his  golden  church  at  Antioch, 

15 

Constantine  IX,  Monomachos,  Em- 
peror (1042-1054),  175,  seq. 

Constantine  XII,  Palaiologos,  Em- 
peror (1448-1453),  217,  229 ;  his 
letter  to  Mohammed  II,  230  ;  death 
and  burial,  232 

Constantine  V  of  Constantinople, 
343-344  ;  and  the  Church  of  Eng- 
land, 260 

Constantinople,  city,  124  ;  sack 
(1204)  and  Latin  empire,  226-228  ; 
fall  (1453),  229 


Constantinople,  see,  28-47  ;  Metro- 
polis of  Thrace,  33  ;  second  see,  42, 
seq.  ;  extent  of  Patriarchate  before 
the  schism,  35,  44-46  ;  now,  283- 
285  ;  Court  of  Patriarchate,  348- 
349  ;  Latin  Patriarchate,  226-227, 
206 

Constantinople,  Patriarch  of,  election 
338-340  ;  title,  arms,  and  rights, 
340-341  ;  civil  rights  as  head  of 
the  "  Roman  nation,"  239-240 

Constantinople,  First  Council  (381), 
32-35,  81-82  ;  Canon  II,  23  ; 
Canon  III,  32,  seq.  ;  Second  Coun- 
cil (553),  82-83  5  condemns  Origen, 
12  ;  Third  Council  (680),  79-80 ; 
and  Illyricum,  44  ;  Fourth  Council 
(869),  T57-I59  5  Canon  XXI,  49-50  ; 
Photian  Council  (879),  163-164 

Constitutions,  Apostolic,  and  prayer 
for  the  dead,  106  ;  and  the  Liturgy, 
114 

Conversion  to  the  Orthodox  Church, 
366,  369 

Coptic  Church,  14  ;  liturgy  and  the 
Real  Presence,  102  ;  Copts  at 
Florence  (1439),  215 

Councils,  general,  and  Papal  rights, 

73-75 
Court  of  the  CEcumenical  Patriarch, 

348-349 
Creed  of  Nicaea  and  Constantinople, 

381-383 
Creeds  in  East  and  West,  99  ;  Ortho- 
dox Creeds,  362 
Crete,    persecution    in    (1670),    237- 

238 
Crusades,  dates,  222,  n.  1  ;  and  the 

Orthodox,    224 ;    Fourth    Crusade 

(1204),  225-228 
Crusaders'  states  in  Syria,  223 
Cupola  and  Byzantine  architecture, 

125 
Cusa,  Alexander,  of  Roumania,  his 

robbery,  330 
Cyprus,  Church  of,  47-50,  290-293 


444      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Cyril  of  Alexandria,  St.  (t444)»  and 

the  Primacy,  58 
Cyril  of  Jerusalem,  St.  (f386),  and  St. 

Peter,  53 
Cyril  II  of  Jerusalem  and  the  Bulgars 

(1872),  288 
Cyril  Basiliu  of  Kyreneia,  291,  seq. 
Cyril    Papadopulos   of    Kition,   291, 

seq. 
Czernagora,  Church  of,  308-309 
Czernovitz,  Church  of,  323~325 

Damascus,  Pope,  366-384 ;  and 
Canon  III  of  Constantine  I,  34 

Damianos  of  Jerusalem,  290 

Dandolo,  Henry,  Doge  of  Venice 
(11204),  226 

Deacons  in  Orthodox  Church,  353  ; 
vestments,  408 

Depositions  of  Patriarchs  of  Con- 
stantinople, 241-242 

Development  of  doctrine,  363,  393 

Dioceses,  civil,  of  the  Empire  in  the 
4th  century,  21-22 

Dionysius  of  Alexandria  ^264)  and 
the  Primacy,  68  ;  on  schism,  100 

Dioscur  of  Alexandria  (444-451),  13 

Divisions  of  the  Empire  under  Dio- 
cletian (284-305),  21 

Dominic  of  Venice  (c.  1054)  and 
Peter  III  of  Antioch,  46,  n.  2,  189 

Dositheos  of  Jerusalem  (1669-1707), 
267  ;  his  "  Confession,"  268,  364 

Duligeris  Panaretos,  292 

Eadmer's  account  of  the  Synod  of 
Bari  (1098),  203 

"  East,"  Roman  diocese  and  prefec- 
ture, 22 

Eastern  Churches  from  5th  to  9th 
century,  49 

Edessa,  Church  of,  16  ;  school,  19-20 

Egeria's  pilgrimage,  26 

Egypt,  Church  of,  &c,  see  Alex- 
andria 

Egyptian  monks,  13 


Election  of  Primate  of  Constantinople, 

339-340 
Emperors,  Roman,  and  the  Primacy, 

61-62 
Enharmonic  intervals  in  Byzantine 

Plainsong,  411 
Ephesus,    Metropolis    of    Asia,    23  ; 

Metropolitan  called  Patriarch,  24 
Ephesus,   Council    of   (431),    76-77 ; 

and    see    of    Jerusalem,  26  ;    and 

Church  of  Cyprus,  47  ;  anathema 

against  additions  to  the  Creed,  383 
Ephrem,  St.  (fc.  379),  and  St.  Peter, 

53  ;  and  the  B.V.M.,  108 
Epiklesis,      386-388 ;      in      Roman 

liturgy,  386  ;  Byzantine  Epiklesis, 

386,  n.  3 
Epiphanius  (t403)  and  the  Primacy, 

54 

Epirus,  Orthodox  Church  in,  314 

Erastianism  of  Byzantine  Church,  30 

Ethiopia,  Church  of,  12 

Euchelaion,  424 

Eugene  IV,  Pope  (1431-1447),  208, 
seq. 

Eugenikos,  Mark,  of  Ephesus,  at 
Florence  (1439),  212 

Eulogion,  120 

Eulogius  of  Alexandria  (f6o8),  and  the 
Primacy,  54 

Eusebeia  Society,  427 

Eusebius  of  Caesarea  (fc.  340)  and 
the  Primacy,  52,  54 ;  and  the 
Church  of  Alexandria,  12 

Eutychius  of  Constantinople  (552- 
582)  and  the  Primacy,  59 

Exarch,  Bulgarian,  319,  seq. ;  Byzan- 
tine, 349 

Excommunication,  120  ;  of  Ceru- 
larius  and  his  party  (1054),  184-185 

Faith,  appeals  to  Rome  in  questions 

of,  57-61 
Fasts,  the  four  great,  399  ;   fasting, 

426 
Feasts  of  Orthodox  Church,  400-401 


INDEX 


445 


Ferrara — Florence,  Council  of  (1438- 
1439),  208-216 

Filioque,  Photius'  accusation,  153  ; 
at  Lyons  II,  206  ;  at  Florence,  214  ; 
not  in  Eastern  Uniates'  Creed, 
206-207  ;  Bishop  Browne  and  the 
Filioque,  260,  n.  1  ;  theology,  372- 
384  ;  first  used  in  Spain,  381 

Fire  of  Purgatory  at  Florence,  214, 
382 

Firmilian  of  Caesarea  (232-269),  24 

Firmilian  of  Uskub,  327 

Flavian  of  Constantinople  and  the 
Primacy  (449),  71 

Fortunatov,  Russian  priest,  303 

Fulgentius  Ferrandus  (jc.  546)  and 
the  Primacy,  58 

Funerals,  Orthodox,  426 


Gelasius  I,  Pope  (492-496),  and  the 
Primacy,  71 

Gelzer,  H.,  Professor  (fi9o6),  and 
Orthodox  monks,  359-360 

Gennadios  II  (Scholarios)  of  Constan- 
tinople (1453-1456),  217,  241  ;  his 
"  Confession,"  363 

Gennadios,  Archimandrite  of  Alex- 
andria in  England  (1714),  257 

Genoa,  republic  of,  and  the  fall  of 
Constantinople  (1453),  230 

Georgian  Church,  17,  304-305 

Gerasimos  of  Jerusalem  (fi897),  289 

Germanos  II  of  Constantinople  (1222- 
1240),  205 

Germanos  III  of  Constantinople 
(1267),  206 

Giustiniani,  John,  230,  241 

Glabas,  Isidore,  of  Thessalonica  (f  c. 
1393),  and  the  Immaculate  Concep- 
tion, 391 

Grace,  theology  of,  108 

Grafton,  Bishop  of  Fond  du  Lac, 
and  the  Anglican  Faith,  260,  n.  1 

Gratian,  Emperor  (390),  and  the  Pri- 
macy, 61-62 


"  Great  Church,"  the,  283 

Greater  Greece,  45-46,  174,  203 

Greek  Church,  312-316 

Greek  language,  modern,  251,  n.  1  ; 
Greek  language  for  the  Liturgy  in 
Macedonia,  276 

Greek-Ruthenian  College  at  Rome, 
246 

Gregory  Nazianzene,  St.  (fc.  390), 
and  the  ambition  of  Primate  of 
Constantinople,  34 

Gregory  of  Nyssa,  St.,  and  Purgatory, 
106 

Gregory  the  Illuminator,  St.,  24 

Gregory  I,  Pope  (590-604),  refuses  to 
acknowledge  Canon  III  of  Con- 
stantinople I,  34 ;  and  the  five 
Patriarchates,  44  ;  and    Illyricum, 

45 
Gregory    X,  Pope   (1271-1276),   and 

Lyons  II,  205,  seq. 
Gregory  V  of  Constantinople  (fi822), 

341-342 
Gregory  VI  of  Constantinople  (I-1871) 

and  the  Bible  societies,  256 
Gregory  Asbestas  of  Syracuse,  136 
Grottaferrata  monastery,  168-170 


Hagia  Sophia  at  Constantinople,  125- 

129 
Hannan,  the  notary  of  Edessa,  16 
Hegumenos,  title,  355 
Heraclea,  Metropolis  of  Thrace,  23, 

29 
Heraclius,  Emperor  (610-641),  121 
Hercegovina  and  Bosnia,  Church  of, 

334-337 
Hermannstadt,  Church  of,  316 
Hierarchy  in  the  local  churches,  5 
Hormisdas,  Pope  (514-523),  and  the 

Primacy,  71  ;  his  formula,  83-86 
Humbert  of  Silva  Candida,  Cardinal 
(fio63),  168,  179,  seq.',    his   "Dia- 
logue," 183  ;  Bull  of  Excommuni- 
cation, 184 


446      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Iberia,  sec  Georgia 

Idiorythma,  356 

Ignatius  of  Antioch,  St.  (fio7),  15 ;  and 
the  Hierarchy,  5 

Ignatius  of  Constantinople  (t846) 
elected,  135 ;  deposed,  138  ;  in  exile, 
141  ;  deposed  by  Synod  of  Con- 
stantinople, 144  ;  restored,  156  ;  and 
the  Bulgars,  160 ;  canonized,  160  ; 
his  character,  161 

Ikonostasis,  403-404 

Ikons,  129,  404,  n.  1 

Illyricum,  question  of,  44 

Images  and  relics,  104 

Immaculate  Conception,  107,  391 

Independence  of  Balkan  Churches, 
277 

Indulgences,  390 

Innocent  III,  Pope  (1198-1216),  and 
the  Fourth  Crusade,  225-226 

Investiture  of  Primate  of  Constanti- 
nople by  the  Sultan,  241 

Invocation  of  Saints,  103 

Ionian  Isles,  Orthodox  Church  in,  314 

Ipek,  Patriarchate  of,  306 

Irenaeus,  St.  (f202),  and  the  Primacy,  6 

Isaac  I  (Komnenos),  Emperor  (1057- 
1059),  194 

Isaac  II,  Emperor  (fi204),  226 

Isidore  of  Kiev,  Cardinal,  212 

Isidore  II  of  Constantinople  (1456- 
1463),  244 

Islam  a  theocratic  democracy,  236 

Ison  in  Byzantine  Plainsong,  411 

Jacobites,  20-21  ;  at  Florence  (1439), 

216 
James,  St.,  the  Less,  first  Bishop  of 

Jerusalem,  25  ;  his  liturgy,  115-116, 

395,  *•  1 
Janissaries,  236 
Jeremias  II  of  Constantinople (fi595), 

248  ;  and  the  Lutherans,  109,  252- 

253 
Jeremias  III    of  Constantinople  and 

the  Russian  Church  (1721),  295 


Jerome,  St.  (t42o),  and  the  Primacy, 
70 

Jerusalem,  See  of,  25-28  ;  now,  288- 
290  ;  title  and  arms  of  Patriarch, 
350  ;  Melkite  Primate  and  the 
schism,  187 

Jerusalem,  Latin  kingdom  (1099- 
1187),  221-224  ;  Anglican  Bishop- 
ric (1841-1881),  258 

Jerusalem,  Synod  of  (1672),  267-268  ; 
and  Transubstantiation,  384 

Joachim  III  of  Constantinople,  344  ; 
his  encyclical,  345-346 

John,  St.,  the  Evangelist,  first  Bishop 
of  Ephesus,  23 

John,  first  Bishop  of  Georgia,  18 

John  VIII,  Pope  (872-882),  acknow- 
ledges Photius,  162 

John  XXI,  Pope  (1276-1277),  requires 
the  Filioque  in  Eastern  Creed,  207 

John  IV.  (the  Faster)  of  Constanti- 
nople (582-595),  43 

John  II,  Palaiologos,  Emperor 
(1425-1448),   210 

Joseph  I  of  Constantinople  (1268- 
1274),  206 ;  restored,  208 

Joseph  II  of  Constantinople  (1416- 
1439),  210  ;  his  death,  213 

Joseph,  Bulgarian  Exarch,  320 

Julian,  Emperor  (361-363),  at  Antioch, 

15 

Julian  Calendar,  398 

Julius  I,  Pope  (337-352),  and  the  Pri- 
macy, 68 

Jurisdiction  and  ordination,  7,  38,  45, 
47-48  ;  jurisdiction  of  Primate  of 
Constantinople  outside  his  Patri- 
archate, 35,  284,  292,  3 10-3 1 1  ; 
limit  of  his  jurisdiction  now,  284 

Justin  Martyr,  St.  (fi66),  and  the 
Liturgy,  113 

Justin  II,  Emperor  (685-695),  and 
Cyprus,  48 

Justinian  I,  Emperor  (523-565),  121  ; 
and  the  Primacy,  62  ;  and  Illyricum, 
45 


INDEX 


447 


Juvenal  of  Jerusalem  (420-458),  27  ; 
at  Chalcedon,  36 

Kallay,  Baron,  Governor  of  Herce- 

govina    and    Bosnia   (fi903),   336, 

n.  1 
Karavangelis,  Germanos,  of  Kastoria, 

331,  n.  2,  344,  352,353, 427,  435,  »• I 
Kellion,  355 

Kiev,  Metropolis  of  Russia,  294 
Khalifah's  position  in  Islam,  233,  seq. 
Kolyba,  426-427 
Koran,  233,  seq. ;  and  Kafirs  and  Kita- 

bis,  234 
Kritopulos,  Metrophanes  (11641),  250, 

364 
Kyriakos,  Professor  Diomedes,  and 

the  Anglicans,  262 

Languages,  different  in  East  and 
West,  88  ;  liturgical  in  Orthodox 
Church,  397 

Lateran  Synod  (863),  148 

Latin  rights  at  the  Holy  Places,  224  ; 
Patriarchates  and  Sees  in  the  East, 
224 

Latin-favourers,  433-434 

Legates,  Roman,  at  Chalcedon,  36 
(see  also  each  Council)  ;  and  Pho- 
tius,  143,  seq.,  157,  163  ;  and  Ceru- 
larius,  183,  seq. 

Leger,  Anton,  265 

Leo  I,  Pope  (440-461),  refuses  to  ac- 
cept Canon  III  of  Constantinople  I, 
34  ;  and  Canon  XXVIII  of  Chal- 
cedon, 28,  41 

Leo  IX,  Pope  (1048-1054),  173,  seq.  ; 
and  the  Primacy,  174  ;  letter  to  Leo 
of  Achrida,  181  ;  letters  to  Cerula- 
rius  and  the  Emperor,  182 

Leo  XIII,  Pope  (1 878-1903),  and  the 
Orthodox  Church,  434-435 

Leo  III,  the  Isaurian,  Emperor  (717- 
741),  121  ;  and  the  Primacy,  72  ; 
gives  Isauria  to  Constantinople,  44 


Leo  VI,  Emperor  (886-912),  deposes 

Photius,  164 ;  his  fourth  marriage, 

167 
Leo  of  Achrida,  178 
Leopold   I,   Western    Emperor   and 

King  of  Hungary  (1658-1705),  307 
Liturgical  year,  Orthodox,  398-401 
Liturgies,  111-119,412  ;of  St.  Chryso- 

stom,  413-418  ;   Eastern  Liturgies 

and  Rome,  112 
Logothete,  the  Great,  349 
Logothetes,  Porphyrios,  of  Sinai,  311 
Lucian  of  Antioch,  18 
Lukaris,    Cyril,     of     Constantinople 

(I-1638),  264-268 
Lyons,  Second  Council  of  (1274),  204- 

208 

Macarius  (t39o)  and  the  Real  Pre- 
sence, 101 
Malaxos,  Manuel  (\c.  1581),  249 
Marcian,  Emperor  (450-457),  I4>  37 
Margariti,  Apostolos,  332 
Margunios,  Maximos  (fi6o2),  249 
Mark,  St.,  first  Bishop  of  Alexandria, 

11  ;  his  liturgy,  117-118 
Marriage  of  Orthodox  clerks,  353 
Martin  I,  Pope  (649-655),  56  ;  and  the 

Primacy,  72  ;  and  Illyricum,  45 
"  Marzuka,"  147 
Matrimony,  sacrament  of,  424 
Maurus  of  Ravenna  (666),  96 
Maximos  III  of  Constantinople  (1476- 

1482),  244 
Maximus,   Confessor   (7th    century), 

and  the  Primacy,  59 
Melanchthon,  Philip  (11560),  and  the 

Orthodox  Church,  252 
Meletian  schism  at  Antioch  (361-415), 

90-92 
Meletios  of  Antioch  (fi9o6),  287-288 
Melkite  Church    in    Egypt,   14 ;    in 

Syria,  20 
Menaion  of  Constantinople  and  the 

Primacy,  54,  57 
Meniates,  Elias  (fi7i4),  251 


448      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Metanoia,  119 

Methodius  of   Constantinople   (846), 

135 

Metochion,  358,  n,  4 

Metrophanes  I  of  Constantinople 
(4th  century),  29 

Metrophanes  II  of  Constantinople 
(1440-1443),  217 

Metropolitans  in  the  first  three  cen- 
turies, 7  ;  title,  8,  n.  1  ;  in  modern 
times,  350  ;  in  Greece,  314 

Metusiosis,  385 

Michael  III,  the  Drunkard,  Emperor 
(842-867),  137,  seq. ;  first  letter  to 
the  Pope,  143  ;  second  letter,  145  ; 
third  letter,  150  ;  his  manners,  147  ; 
death,  155 

Michael  VIII,  Palaiologos,  Emperor 
(1259-1282),  205-206 

u  Millet "  =  Nation,  239 

Mirian,  King  of  Georgia,  17 

Missions,  Russian,  298 

"Mixed  National  Council"  at  Con- 
stantinople, 339 

Modes  in  Byzantine  Plainsong,  410 

Mogilas,  Peter,  of  Kiev  (fi647),  250  ; 
his  "  Confession,"  364  ;  and  Tran- 
substantiation,  385 

Mohammed  II,  the  Conqueror,  Sultan 
(1451-1481),  228-230,  217 

Monastic  habit,  356 

Monks  in  Orthodox  Church,  354- 
360 

Monophysites  in  Egypt,  13  ;  Syria, 
20  ;  Armenia,  24 

Montenegro,  see  Czernagora 

Morosini,  Thomas,  first  Latin  Patri- 
arch of  Constantinople  (1204),  226 

Moscow,  Patriarchate  of,  294 

Moslem  conquest  of  Egypt,  14  ; 
Syria,  21,  27  ;  the  Balkans,  210  ; 
Constantinople,  229-232  ;  Moslem 
law,  233-236 

Murad  III,  Sultan  (i574~i595),  237 

Mysteries,  Seven  great,  101,  420- 
426 


"Nations"  in  the  Turkish  Empire, 

239 
Nea  Iustiniane,  49 
Nectarius  of  Constantinople  (381-397), 

34 
Neophytos  VIII   of    Constantinople 

(1894),  342 
Nestorianism  in  the  Antiochene  Patri- 
archate, 19 
Nestorians  at  Florence,  216 
Nicaea,  First  Council  of  (325),  75-76  ; 
Canon  VI  and  the  three  Patriarch- 
ates, 9;  Canon  VII  and  Jerusalem,26 
Nicaea,  Second  Council  of  (787),  80 
Nicaea,  Empire  at  (1204-1261),  227 
Nicholas  I,  Pope  (858-867),  141,  seq.  ; 
declares  for  Ignatius,  147  ;  letters 
to  Michael  III  and  Photius,  147  ; 
encyclical  to  Eastern  Patriarchates, 
148;  excommunicates  Photius,  149  ; 
and  the  Bulgars,  151 
Nicholas    III,     Pope     (1277-1280), 
excommunicates     the      Emperor 
Michael  VIII,  207 
Nicholas  V,  Pope  (1447-1453),  229 
Nikodemos  of  Jerusalem  (1890),  289 
Nikon  of  Moscow  (fi68i),  299 
Nilos,  St.,  at  Grottaf errata  (10th  cen- 
tury), 169-170 
Nino,   St.,   Apostle  of  Georgia  (4th 

century),  17 
Nisibis,  Church  of,  17 
Non-jurors  and  Orthodox,  257 
Nubia,  Church  of,  12 
Number  of  Orthodox  Christians,  283 
Nuns,  Orthodox,  360 

"  (Ecumenical  Patriarch,"  title,  43 

Office,  divine,  in  Orthodox  Church, 
418-420 

Oikonomos  (fi857),  315 

Order,  Holy,  423 

Orders,  Latin,  doubtful,  423  ;  Angli- 
can, 261-262 

Ordination  and  jurisdiction,  7 

Origen  (|254),  11 J  and  St.  Peter,  52 


INDEX 


449 


Orthodox    Churches,    list   of,     273 ; 

Orthodox,  only  true  Church,  365- 

370 
Osiander,   Luke,  and  the  Orthodox 

(1577),  253 

Palmer,  William,  of  Magdalen,  his 
visit  to  the  Russian  Church  (1840- 
1841),  258-259,  303 

Palut  of  Edessa  (2nd  century),  17 

Pantaenus  of  Alexandria  (f  c.  212), 
11 

"  Papic  Church,"  437 

Parastron,  John,  O.F.M.  (13th  cen- 
tury), 206 

Paschasius,  Roman  Legate  at  Chalce- 
don  (451),  14 

Patara,  Bishop  of  (4th  century),  and 
the  Primacy,  56 

Patriarch,  title,  first  use  of,  8 

Patriarch  of  Constantinople,  his  elec- 
tion, 339  ;  title  and  arms,  340;  dress, 
340  ;  privileges,  341 

Patriarchists  and  Exarchists  in 
Macedonia,  320-321 

Paul  of  Samosata  (260-269),  18 

Pegas,  Meletios  (fi6o3),  247,  253 

Peloponnesios,  Maximos  of  Con- 
stantinople (1476-1482),  247 

Peter,  St.,  Prince  of  the  Apostles,  52- 
54 ;  First  Bishop  of  Rome,  54 ; 
Anthimos  VII  of  Constantinople 
doubts  this,  436  ;  First  Bishop  of 
Antioch,  15 

Peter  the  Dyer  of  Antioch  (470-488) 
and  Cyprus,  48 

Peter  III  of  Antioch  (1052),  188, 46,  n 
2  ;  his  letter  to  Cerularius,  191 

Peter  I,  Russian  Czar  (1689-1725), 
295  ;  and  the  English  non-jurors, 

257 
Phanar  at  Constantinople,  243 
"  Pharaoh,"  the  Christian,  13 
Pharmakides,     Theoklitos      (fi86o), 

314-315 
Philetism,  277 


Phlangenion  at  Venice,  240 

Phos  hilaron,  420 

Photios  of  Alexandria,  285,  289 

Photiusof  Constantinople  (f89i),  138, 
seq.  ;  his  writings,  139  ;  intruded, 
140  ;  first  letter  to  the  Pope,  142  ; 
second  letter,  146  ;  excommuni- 
cated, 149  ;  Encyclical  to  the 
Bulgars,  151  ;  Encyclical  against 
the  Latins,  152  ;  at  Constantinople 
IV,  159  ;  his  followers' punishment, 
158  ;  exiled,  160  ;  restored,  162 ; 
second  exile,  164 ;  death  and 
apotheosis,  165  ;  character,  165 

Politics  in  the  Orthodox  Church, 
274-283 

Poly  carp,  St.  (fi66),  and  the  Roman 
Church,  67 

Pope,  his  different  rights,  9 ;  not 
Patriarch  in  the  East,  87  ;  Orthodox 
view  of  his  position,  370-372 

M  Porte,  Sublime,"  238,  n.  1 

Portrait  of  our  Lord  at  Edessa,  17 

"Prsedara"  Encyclical  (1894),  434- 

435 
Preaching  in  the  Orthodox  Church, 

426 
Predestination,  108 
Presence,  Real,  101 
Priest's  vestments,  407 
Primacy,  Roman,  at  Lyons  II,  206  ; 

at  Florence,  214 
"  Primacy  of  honour  "  of  Constanti- 
nople, 32 
Procession  of  the  Holy  Ghost,  374- 

380 
Prokopios  of  Durazzo,  346 
Proselytizing  in  the  East,  254-255 
Prosphora,  413 
Prothesis,  404 
Psellos,  Michael  (nth  century),  177, 

194 
Purgatory,  105,  388-391  ;  at  Florence, 

214 


Quinisextum,  Council  (692),  94-95 


30 


450      THE   ORTHODOX  EASTERN  CHURCH 


Raskolniks,  299,  seq. 

Ravenna  and  Byzantine  Art,  123 

Rayahs,  233-238  ;  their   disabilities, 

235 

"Relations"  in  the  Blessed  Trinity, 

376-377 
Relations  between  East    and    West 

after  Photius,  168-170 
Reservation   of   the  Blessed   Sacra- 
ment, 422 
Reunion  after  Photius,  166-167 
Rodoald  of  Porto,  Legate  (861),  143, 

seq. 
Roman    Primacy  in    the    first    two 

centuries,  6  ;  Roman  Patriarchate, 

9,  10 
Rome  cut  off  from  the  Empire,  93  ; 

her  attitude  towards  the  Eastern 

Churches,  201 
Roumanian  Church,  328-334 
Roumans  in  Macedonia,  332 
Russia,  Church  of,  293-303 
Russia  and  the  Phanar,  278-281  ;  in 

Syria,  279-280  ;  at  Athos,  359 
Russian     Palestine      Society,     280  ; 

Russian  heretics,  301-302 

Sacraments,  ioi,  420-426 
Sacramentals,  Orthodox,  119 
Saints  of  the  Byzantine  Church,  103 
Sarajevo,  Metropolis  of  Hercegovina 

and  Bosnia,  335 
Sardica,  Council  of  (343),  68 
Saturday,  Latin  fast-day,  178 
Schisms    between   Rome  and  Con- 
stantinople before  Photius,  96 
Selim  I,  Sultan  (1512-1520),  237 
Seraphim,  St.  (fi833),  297 
Serapion  of  Antioch  (7209),  17 
Sergius,    Monophysite    Primate    of 

Antioch  (6th  century),  20 
Servia      under     Stephen      Dushan 

(ti355),  306 
Servia,  Church  of,  325-327  ;  in  Mace- 
donia, 326 
Service  books,  Orthodox,  401-402 


Sinai,  autocephalous  monastery,  310- 
312 

Sketa,  355 

Society,  Byzantine  (527-1453),  120- 
121 

Sokolski,  Catholic  Bulgarian  Arch- 
bishop (1861),  318 

Sophronius  of  Jerusalem  (1638),  27  ; 
and  the  Primacy,  64 

Sozomen  (c.  450)  and  the  Primacy, 

55,57 
Stauropegia,  355 
Stethatos,    Niketas    (nth    century 

179,  184 
Successor  of  St.   Peter  inherits  his 

rights,  54-57 
Symbolic     books,    Orthodox,     362- 

365 
Synod,  Holy,  in  Russia,  295,  seq. 

Tarasius  of  Constantinople  and  the 

Primacy,  65 
"Teaching  of  the  XII  Apostles"  and 

the  Liturgy,  112 
Theodore  I,  Pope  (642-649),  and  the 

Primacy,  63,  71 
Theodore  of  Mopsuestia    (t429),  18, 

19 
Theodore  of  Studium,  St.  (f826),  and 

the  Primacy,  65-67 
Theodoret  of  Cyprus  (t458)  and  the 

Primacy,  56,  58,  70 
Theodosius   II,   Emperor   (408-450), 

and  the  See  of  Jerusalem,  27  ;  gives 

Asia  to  Constantinople,  35 
Theodosius       and       Theodore       of 

Gangres  (c.  669)  and  the  Primacy, 

64 
Theological     discussions      in      the 

modern    Orthodox    Church,    391- 

393 

Theology  in  the  East,  its  character, 

no 
Thessaly,  Orthodox  Church  in,  314 
"Through"  the  Son,  Procession  of 

the  Holy  Ghost,  380 


INDEX 


45i 


Tiflis,  Metropolis  of  Georgia,  18 

Timothy  the  Cat  of  Alexandria  (5th 
century),  14 

Tirnovo,  Metropolis  of  Roumania 
(13th  and  14th  centuries),  328 

Titles  and  arms  of  Orthodox 
Patriarchs,  340,  349-351 

Tomos  of  Anthimos  IV  of  Constanti- 
nople   against  the  Greeks   (1850), 

313 

Transubstantiation,  384-386 
Trebizond,    Empire  at    (1240-1461), 

227,  232,  11.  2 
Trent,   Council  of,    and    Purgatory, 

389  ;  and  Indulgences,  390 
Trinity,  Mystery  of  the  Holy,  in  3rd 

and  4th  centuries,  no 
Trullo,  First  Council  in  (680),  79-80  ; 

Second  Council  in  Trullo  (692),  94- 

96 
Turks  invade   Europe    (1354),    210  ; 

take  Constantinople  (1453),  219-232; 

Turkish  race,  237,  n.  1 


Urban  II,  Pope  (1088-1099),  and  the 
Council  of  Bari,  203 

Victor  I,   Pope  (189-199),  and  the 

Primacy,  67 
Vessels  used  in  the  Byzantine  rite 

408-409 
Vestments,  Byzantine,  405-408 
Vlachs,  see  Roumans 
Vladika  of  Czernagora,  309 

Wake,    Archbishop    of    Canterbury 

{U737),      and       the       Orthodox 

Patriarchs,  258 

Waters  blessed  on  the  Epiphany,  426 

Worcester  College,  Oxford,  proposed 

as  a  Greek  College,  257 

Zach arias  of  Anagni,  Legate  in  861, 
144  ;  excommunicated,  148 

Zanzalos,  James  (Barada'i),  Monophy 
site  Bishop  in  Syria  (543),  20 

Zinzendorf,  Count  (fi76o),   and    the 
Orthodox  Church,  253 


PRINTED  AND  PUBLISHED  BY 
THE  CATHOLIC  TRUTH  SOCIETY,  LONDON.