صور الصفحة
PDF
النشر الإلكتروني

conquered only as a despised and tolerated superstition, its ecclesiastical organization only as a convenient mechanism for governing a subject and tributary population. It is true that the Eastern Church made up in some sort for her losses by missionary conquests elsewhere. Greek Christianity became the religion of the Slavs as Latin Christianity became that of the Germans; but the Orthodox Church never conquered her conquerors, and the historian is too apt to enlarge on her past glories and forget her present strength.

Early History.—The early history of the Eastern Church is outlined in the article Church History. Here it is proposed only to give in somewhat more detail the causes of division which led (i) to the formation of the schismatic churches of the East, and (2) to the open rupture with Latin Christianity.

The great dogmatic work of the Eastern Church was the definition of that portion of the creed of Christendom which Coatn- concerns Ihcolofy proper—the doctrines of the essential nature of the Godhead, and the doctrine of the Godhead in relation with manhood in the incarnation, while it fell to the Western Church to define anthropology, or the doctrine of man's nature and needs. The controversies which concern us are all related to the person of Christ, the Thcanthropos, for they alone are represented in the schismatic churches of the East. These controversies will be best described by reference to the oecumenical councils of the ancient and undivided church.

All the churches of the East, schismatic as well as orthodox, accept unreservedly the decrees of the first two councils. The schismatic churches protest against the additions made to the creeds of Nicaea and Constantinople by succeeding councils. The Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan creed declared that Christ was consubstantial (otioounos) with the Father, and that He had become man (ipvdpbfln^nif). Disputes arose when theologians tried to explain the latter phrase. These differencestook two separate and extreme types, the one of which forcibly separated the two natures so as to deny anything like a real union, while the other insisted upon a mixture of the two, or an absorption of the human in the divine. The former was the creed of Chaldaea and the latter the creed of Egypt; Chaldaca was the home of Nestorianism, Egypt the land of Monophysitism. The Ncstorians accept the decisions of the first two councils, and reject the decrees of all the rest as unwarranted alterations of the creed of Nicaea. The Monophysitcs accept the first three councils, but reject the decree of Chalcedon and all that come after it.

The council of Ephesus (a.d. 431), the third oecumenical, had insisted upon applying the term Thcotokos to the Virgin Mary, and this was repeated in the symbol of Chalcedon, which says that Christ was born of the Virgin Mary, the Theotokos, "according to the manhood." The same symbol also declares that Christ is "to be acknowledged in two natures . . . indivisibly and inseparably." Hence the Ncstorians, who insisted upon the duality of the natures to such a degree as to lose sight of the unity of the person, and who rejected the term Theotokos, repudiated the decrees both of Ephesus and of Chalcedon, and upon the promulgation of the decrees of Chalcedon formally separated from the church. Nestorianism had sprung from an exaggeration of the theology of the school of Antioch, and the schism weakened that patriarchate and its dependencies. It took root in Chaldaea, and became very powerful. No small part of the literature and science of the Mahommcdan Arabs came from Nestorian teachers, and Nestorian Christianity spread far and wide through Asia (sec Nestorius and Nestoeians).

The council of Chalcedon (451), the'fourth oecumenical, declared that Christ is to be acknowledged "in two natures— unconfuscdly, unchangeably," and therefore decided against the opinions of all who either believed that the divinity is the sole nature of Christ, or who, rejecting this, taught only one composite nature of Christ (one nature and one person, instead of two natures and one person). The advocates of the one nature theory were called Monophysites fo.r.), and they gave rise to numerous sects, and to at least three separate national

churches—the Jacobites of Syria, the Copts of Egypt and the Abyssinian Church, which are treated under separate headings.

The decisions of Chalcedon, which were the occasion of the formation of all these sects outside, did not put an end to Christological controversy inside the Orthodox Greek Church. The most prominent question which emerged in attempting to define further the person of Christ was whether the will belonged to the nature or the person, or, as it came to be stated, whether Christ had two wills or only one. The church in the sixth oecumenical council at Constantinople (680) declared that Christ had two wills. The Monothclitcs (o.v.) refused to submit, and the result was the formation of another schismatic church— the Maronite Church of the Lebanon range. The Maronites, however, were reconciled to Rome in the I2th century, and arc reckoned as Roman Catholics of the Oriental Rite.

Later History.—The relation of the Byzantine Church to the Roman may be described as one of growing estrangement from the sth to the nth century, and a series of abortive attempts at reconciliation since the latter date. The Sj**** estrangement and final rupture may be traced to the Rome. increasing claims of the Roman bishops and to Western innovations in practice and in the doctrine of the Holy Spirit, accompanied by an alteration of creed. In the early church three bishops stood forth prominently, principally from the political eminence of the cities in which they ruled—the bishops of Rome, Alexandria and Antioch. The transfer of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople gave the bishops of Rome a possible rival in the patriarch of Constantinople, but the absence of an overawing court and of meddling statesmen did more than recoup the loss to the head of the Roman Church. The theological calmness of the West, amid the violent theological disputes which troubled the Eastern patriarchates, and the statesmanlike wisdom of Rome's greater bishops, combined to give a unique position to the pope, which councils in vain strove to shake, and which in time of difficulty the Eastern patriarchs were fain to acknowledge and make use of, however they might protest against it and the conclusions deduced from it. But this pre-eminence, or rather the Roman idea of what was involved in it, was never acknowledged in the East; to press it upon the Eastern patriarchs was to prepare the way for separation, to insist upon it in times of irritation was to cause a schism. The theological genius of the East was different from that of the West. The Eastern theology had its roots in Greek philosophy, while a great deal of Western theology was based on Roman law. The Greek fathers succeeded the Sophists, the Latin theologians succeeded the Roman advocates (Stanley's Eastern Church, ch. i.). This gave rise to misunderstandings, and at last led to two widely separate ways of regarding and defining one important doctrine—the procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father or from the Father and the Son. Political jealousies and interests intensified the disputes, and at last, after many premonitory symptoms, the final break came in 1054, when Pope Leo IX. smote Michael Cerularius and the whole of the Eastern Church with an excommunication. There had been mutual excommunications before, but they had not resulted in permanent schisms Now, however, the separation was final, and the ostensible cause of its finality was the introduction by the Latins of two words FUioqtu into the creed.1 It is this addition which was and which still remains the permanent cause of separation. Ffoulkes has pointed out in his second volume (ch. 1-3) that there was a resumption of intercourse more than once between Rome and Constantinople after 1054, and that the overbearing character of the Norman crusaders, and finally the horrors of the sack of Constantinople in the fourth crusade

1 After the words "and in the Holy Ghost " of the ApostleV Creed the Constantinopolitan creed added "who proceedeth front the Father." The Roman Church, without the sanction of an oecumenical council and without consulting the Easterns, added "and the Son." The addition was first made at Toledo (5801 in opposition to Arianism. The Easterns also resented the Konvan enforcement of clerical celibacy, the limitation of the right of ccafirmation to the bishop and the use of unleavened bread in the Eucharist.

(1*04), were the real causes of the permanent estrangement. It is undeniable, however, that the Fitioque question has always come up to bar the way in any subsequent attempts at intercommunion. The theological question involved is a very small one, but it brings out clearly the opposing rtrv' characteristics of Eastern and Western theology, and so has acquired an importance far beyond its own worth. The question is really one about the relations subsisting between the persons of the Trinity and their hypostatical properties. The Western Church affirms that the Holy Spirit "proceeds from" the Father and from the Son. It believes that the Spirit of the Father must be the Spirit of the Son also. Such l theory seems alone able to satisfy the practical instincts of the West, which did not concern itself with the metaphysical ispect of the Trinity, but with Godhead in its relation to redeemed humanity. The Eastern Church affirms that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only, and takes its stand on John xv. 16. The Eastern theologian thinks that the Western double procession degrades the Deity and destroys the perfection of the Trinity. The double procession, in his eyes, means two active principles (afrku) in the Deity, and it means also that there is a confusion between the hypostatical properties; a property possessed by the Father and distinctive of the First Person a attributed also to the Second. This is the theological, aad there is conjoined with it an historical and moral dispute. The Easterns allege that the addition of the words Filioque was made, not only without authority, and therefore unwarrantably, but also for the purpose of forcing a rupture between East and Wat in the interests of the barbarian empire of the West.

Attempts at reconciliation were made from time to time afterwards, but were always wrecked on the two points of papal supremacy, when it meant the right to impose Western .iftaiiviri usages upon the East, and of the addition to the creed. JJ^^ First there was the negotiation between Pope Gregory IX. (1227-1241) and Germanus, patriarch of Constantinople. The Roman conditions were practically recognition of papal jurisdiction, the use of unleavened bread and permission to omit Filicque if all books written against the Western doctrine were burnt. The patriarch refused the terms. Then, later in the I3th century, came negotiations under I nnocent IV. and Clement IV., in which the popes proposed the same conditions as Gregory IX., with additions. These proposals were rejected by the Easterns, who regarded them as attempts to enforce new creeds on their church.

The negotiations at the council of Lyons (1274) were, strictly speaking, between the pope and the Byzantine emperor, and were more political than ecclesiastical. Michael Palacologus ruled in Constantinople while Baldwin II., the last of the Latin emperors, was an exile in Europe. Palacologus wished the pope to acknowledge his title to be emperor of the East, and in return promised submission to the papal supremacy and the union of the two churches on the pope's own terms. This enforced union lasted only during the lifetime of the emperor. The only other attempt at union which requires to be mentioned is that made at the council of Florence. It was really suggested by the political weakness of the Byzantine empire and the dread of the approach of the Turks. John Palacologus the emperor, Joseph the patriarch of Constantinople, and several Eastern bishops came to Italy and appeared at the council of Florence— the papal council, the rival of the council of Basel. As on former occasions the representatives of the East were at 6rst deceived by false representations; they were betrayed into recognition of papal supremacy, and tricked into signing what could afterwards be represented as a submission to Western doctrine. The natural consequences followed-—a repudiation of what bad been done; and the Eastern bishops on their way home took care to make emphatic their ritualistic differences from Rome. Soon after came the fall of Constantinople, and with this event an end to the political reasons for the submission of the Orthodox clergy. Rome's schemes for a union which meant an unconditional submission on the part of, the Orthodox Church did not cease, however, but they were no

longer attempted on a grand scale. Jesuit missionaries after the Reformation stirred up schisms in some parts of the Eastern Church, and in Austria, Poland and elsewhere large numbers of Orthodox Christians submitted, either willingly or under compulsion to the see of Rome (see Rohan Catholic Church, section Uniat Oriental Churcnes).

Doctrines and Creeds.—The Eastern Church has no creeds in the modern Western use of the word, no normative summaries of what must be believed. It has preserved the older idea that a creed is an adoring confession of the church engaged In worship; and, when occasion called for more, the belief of the church was expressed more by way of public testimony than in symbolical books. 'Still the doctrines of the church can be gathered from these confessions of faith. The Eastern creeds may thus be roughly placed in two classes—the oecumenical creeds of the early undivided church, and later testimonies defining the position of the Orthodox Church of the East with regard to the belief of the Roman Catholic and of Protestant Churches. These testimonies were called forth mainly by the protest of Greek theologians against Jesuitism on the one hand, and against the reforming tendencies of the patriarch Cyril Lucaris on the other. The Orthodox Greek Church adopts the doctrinal decisions of the seven oecumenical councils, together with the canons of the Concilium Quinisextum or second Trullan council (692); and they further hold that all these definitions and canons are simply explanations and enforcements of the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan creed and the decrees of the first council of Nicaca. The first four councils settled the orthodox faith on the doctrines of the Trinity and of the Incarnation; the fifth supplemented the decisions of the first four. The sixth declared against Monothelitism; the seventh sanctioned the worship (SouXela, not &\rj6tv^ Xarpcta) of images; the council held in the Trullus (a saloon in the palace at Constantinople) supplemented by canons of discipline the doctrinal decrees of the fifth and sixth councils.

The Reformation of the i6th century was not without effect on the Eastern Church. Some of the Reformers, notably Mclanchthon, expected to effect a reunion of Christendom by means of the Easterns, cherishing the same j^,*^, hopes as the modern Old Catholic divines and their and the English sympathizers. Mclanchthon himself sent a Orthodox Greek translation of the Augsburg Confession to ctlunltJoasaph, patriarch of Constantinople, and some years afterwards Jacob Andreae and Martin Crusius began a correspondence with Jeremiah, patriarch of Constantinople, in which they asked an official expression of his opinions about Lutheran doctrine. The result was that Jeremiah answered in his Ccnsura Orientalis Ecclesiae condemning the distinctive principles of Lutheranism.

The reformatory movement of Cyrillos Lucaris (9.5.), patriarch of Constantinople (1621), brought the Greek Church face to face with Reformation theology. Cyril conceived the plan of reforming the Eastern Church by bringing its doctrines into harmony with those of Calvinism, and by sending able young Greek theologians to Switzerland, Holland and England to study Protestant theology. His scheme of reform was opposed chiefly by the intrigues of the Jesuits, who in the end brought about his death. The church anathematized his doctrines,- and in its later testimonies repudiated his confession on the one hand and Jesuit ideas on the other. The most important of these testimonies are (i) the Orthodox confession or catechism of Peter Mogilas, confirmed by the Eastern patriarchs and by the synod of Jerusalem (1643), and (2) the decree of the synod of Jerusalem or the confession of Dosithcus (1672). Besides these, the catechisms of the Russian Church should be consulted, especially the catechism of Philaret, which since 1839 has been used in all the churches and schools in Russia. Founding on these doctrinal sources the teaching of the Orthodox Eastern Church is':—

1 This summary has been taken, with corrections, from G. B. Winer, Comparative Dantcllunt des Lehrbctrijfs der versckiedtnen Kirchtnpartricn (Leipzig, 1824, Eng. tr., Edin., 1873). Small capitals denote differences from Roman Catholic, italics difference! from Protestant doctrine.

Christianity is a Divine revelation communicated to mankind

through Christ; its saving truths arc to be learned from the Bible and tradition, the former having been written,

Compart' Qn(^ fa fatffj. maintained uncorrupted through the influcnce of the Holy Spirit; the interpretation of the Bible Mangy to tke Church, which is taught by the Holy Spirit.

Praflibut every believer may read the Scriptures.

jLLj * According to the Christian revelation, God is a Trinity, ^ f L | (fjatis, tne Divine Esscnceexists in Three Persons, perfectly

equal in nature and dignity, the Father, the Son and the Holy Ghost;

The Holy Ghost Proceeds From The Father Only. Besides the

Triune God there is no other object of divine worship, but homage

(£>ircp£ovXla) may be paid to the Virgin Mary, and reverence (iowWa) to

the saints and to their pictures and relics.

Man is born with a corrupt bias which was not his at creation;

the first man, when created, possessed Immortality, Perfect

WISDOM, AND A WILL REGULATED BY REASON. Through the first sin

Adam and his posterity lost Immortality, And His Will Received A Bias Towards Evil. In this natural slate man, who evrn before he actually sins is a sinner before God by original or inherited sin, commits manifold actual transgressions; but he is not absolutely without power of will towards good, and is not always doing evil.

Christ, the Son of God, became man in two natures, which internally and inseparably united make One Person, and, according to the eternal purpose of God, has obtained for man reconciliation with God, and eternal life, inasmuch as He by His vicarious death has made satisfaction to God for the world's sins, and this satisfaction Was PERFECTLY COMMENSURATE WITH THE SINS OF THE WORLD.

Man is made partaker of reconciliation in spiritual regeneration, which he attains to, being led and kept by the Holy Ghost. This divine help is offered to all men without distinction, and may be rejected. In order to attain to salvation, man is justified, and when so justified Can Do No More Than The Commands Of God. He may fall from a state of grace through mortal sin.

i Regeneration is offered by the word of God and in the sacraments, which under visible signs communicate God's invisible grate to Christians when administered cunt intentione. There are seven mysteries or sacraments. Baptism entirely destroys original sin. In the Eucharist the true body and blood of Christ are substantially present, and the elements are chanted into tke substance of Christ, whose body and blood are corporeally partaken of by communicants. All Christians should receive the bread and the Wine. Tke Eucharist is also an expiatory sacrifice. The new birth when lost may be restored through repentance, which is not merely (i) sincere sorrow, but also (a) confession of each individual sin to the priest, and (3) the discharge of penances imposed by the priest for the removal of the temporal punishment which may have been imposed "by Cod and the Church. Penance accompanied by the judicial absolution of the priest makes a true sacrament. The Church of Christ is the fellowship of All Those Who Accept

AND PROFESS ALL THE ARTICLES OF FAITH TRANSMITTED BY THE

Apostles And Approved By General Synods. Without this visible Church there is no salvation. It is under the abiding influence of the Holy Ghost, and therefore cannot err in matters of faith. Specially appointed persons are necessary in the service of the Church, and they form a threefold order, distinct jure divino from other Christians, of Bishops, Priests and Deacons. The FOUR Patriarchs, Of Equal Dignity, Have The Highest Rank Among The Bishops, And The Bishops united in a General Council represent the Church and infallibly decide, under the guidance of the Holy Ghost, all matters of faith and ecclesiastical life. All ministers of Christ must be regularly called and appointed to their office, and are consecrated by the sacrament of orders. Bishops must be vnmarried, and Priests And Deacons Mit Not Contract A Second Marriage. To all priests in common belongs, besides the preaching of the word, the administration of the six SacramentsBaptism.

CONFIRMATION, PENANCE, EUCHARIST, MATRIMONY, UNCTION OF

The SICK. The bishops alone can administer the sacrament of orders.

Ecclesiastical ceremonies are part of the divine service; most of

them hare apostolic origin; and those connected with the sacrament

must not be omitted by priests tinder pain of mortal sin.

Liturgy and Worship.—The ancient liturgies of the Eastern Church were very numerous, and have been frequently classified. J. M. Neale makes three divisions—the liturgy of Jerusalem or of St James, that of Alexandria or of St Mark, and that of Edcssa or of St Thaddaeus; and Daniel substantially agrees with him. The same passion for uniformity which suppressed the Galilean and Mozarabic liturgies in the West led to the almost exclusive use of the liturgy of St James in the East. It is used in two forms, a shorter revised by Chrysostom, and a longer called the liturgy of St Basil. This liturgy and the service generally are cither in Old Greek or in Old Slavonic, and frequent disputes have arisen in particular districts about the language to be employed. Both sacred languages differ from the language of the people, but it cannot be said that in

the Eastern Church worship is conducted in an unknown tongue —" the actual difference," says Neale, "may be about that t>ctween Chaucer's English and our own." There are eleven chief service books, and no such compendium as the Roman breviary. Fasting is frequent and severe. Besides Wednesdays and Fridays, there are four fasting seasons, Lent, Pentecost to SS. Peter and Paul, August 1-15 preceding the Feast of the Sleep of the Theotokos, and the six weeks before Christmas. Indulgences are not recognized; an intermediate and purificatory state of the dead is* held but not systematized into a doctrine of purgatory. The Virgin receives homage, but :he dogma of her Immaculate Conception is not admitted. While ikons of the saints are found in the churches there is no 'graven image" apart from the crucifix. There is plenty of singing but no instrumental music. Prayer is offered standing towards the East; at Pentecost, kneeling. The celebration of the Eucharist is an elaborate symbolical representation of the Passion. The consecrated bread is broken into the wine, and both elements arc given together in a spoon.

The ritual generally is as magnificent as in the West, but of a more archaic type. (For the liturgical dress see Vestments and subsidiary articles.)

Monastic Life.—Monasticism is, as it has always been, an important feature in the Eastern Church. An Orthodox monastery is perhaps the most perfect extant relic of the 4th century. The simple idea that possesses the monks is that of fleeing the world; they have no distinctions of orders, and though they follow the rule of St Basil object to being called Basilians. A few monasteries (Mt Sinai and some on Lebanon) follow the rule of St Anthony. K. Lake in Early Days of Monasticism on Mount Athos (1900) traces the development through three well-defined stages in the oth and loth centuries— (a) the hermit period, (b) the loose organization of hermits in lauras, (c) the stricter rule of the monastery, with definite buildings and fixed rules under an ^yorjiecos or abbot. The monasteries now have taken over the name lauras. They arc under the jurisdiction of the metropolitan; a few of the most important deal direct with the patriarch and arc called Stateropegia. The convent on Mt Sinai is absolutely independent. Apart from hermits there are (i) KotvofitaKoi, monks who possess nothing, live and eat together, and have definite tasks given them by their superiors; (2) I8to,pv8fiojtoi, monks who live apart from each other, each receiving from the monastery fuel, vegetables, cheese, wine and a little money. They only meet for the Divine Office and on great feasts, and are the real successors of the laura system. The most famous monasteries arc those on Mount Athos; in 1002 there were twenty lauras with many dependent houses and 7522 monks there, mainly Russian and Greek. The monks are, for the most part, ignorant and unlettered, though in the dark days of Mahommcdan persecution it was in the monasteries that Greek learning and the Greek nationality were largely preserved. Since priests must be married and bishops must not, only monks are eligible for appointment to bishoprics in the Eastern Church. Sec further, Monasticism. The Branches of the Church.—In addition to the ancient churches which have separated themselves from the Orthodox faith, many have ceased to have an independent existence, owing either to the conquests of Islam or to their absorption by other churches. For example, the church of Mount Sinai may be regarded as all that survives of the ancient church of northern Arabia; the autoccphalous Slavonic churches of Ipek and Okhrida, which derived their ultimate origin from the missions of Cyril and Methodius, were absorbed in the patriarchate of Constantinople in 1766 and 1767 respectively; and the Church of Georgia has been part of the Russian Church since 1801-1802. At the present day, then, the Orthodox Eastern Church consists of twelve mutually independent churches (or thirteen if we reckon the Bulgarian Church), using their own language in divine service (or some ancient form of it, as in Russia) and varying not a little in points of detail, but standing in full communion T\ iih one another, and united as equals in what has been described &s one great ecclesiastical federation. However, in using such language it must be remembered that we are not dealing with bodies which were originally separated from one another and have now entered into fellowship, but with bodies which have grown naturally from a single origin and have not become estranged.

[graphic]

A. The Four Ancient Patriarchates I. Tkt Patriarchate of Constantinople or Nero Rome.—The ancient patriarchate of Constantinople included the imperial dioceses of rontus, Asia. Thrace and Eastern Illyricum—i.e. speaking roughly, the greater part of Asia Minor, European Turkey, and Greece, with a smaJI portion of Austria. The imperial diocese of Pontus was governca by the exarch of Caesarea, who ruled over thirteen metropolitans with more than 100 suffragans. Asia was governed by the exarch of Ephesus, who ruled over twelve metropolitans with more than 350 suffragan bishops. In Asia Minor the church maintains but a small remnant of her former greatness; in Europe it is otherwise. The old outlines, however, arc effaced wherever the Christian races have emancipated themselves from the Turkish rule, and the national churches of Greece, Servia and Rumania have reorganized themselves on a new basis. Where the Turkish rule still prevails the church retains her old organization, but greatly impaired. Still, the Oecumenical Patriarch, as he has been called since early in the 6th century, is the most exalted ecclesiastic of the Eastern churches, and his influence reaches far outside the lands of the patriarchate. His jurisdiction extends over the dominions of the Sultan in Turkey, together with Asia Minor and the Turkish islands of the Aegean; there are eighty-two metropolitans under him, and the " monastic republic " of Mount Athos. He has great privileges and responsibilities as the recognized head of the Greek community in Turkey, and enjoys also many personal honours which have survived from the days of the Eastern emperors.

The patriarch under the old Ottoman system had his dwn court at Phanar, and his own prison, with a large civil jurisdiction over, and responsibility for, the Greek community. In ecclesiastical affairs he acts with two governing bodies—(a) a permanent Holy Synod ('I«pd Z6rofct rift 'Em.Xijjiar KbWrojTU'OLnr&Xcbn), consisting of twelve metropolitans, six of whom are re-elected every year from the whole number of metropolitans, arranged in three classes according to a fixed cycle; (6) the Permanent National Mixed Council (Aiopaii 'Effvufo Murdr Zo^o&Xuw). a remarkable assembly, which is at once the source of great power by introducing a strong lay element into the administration, and of a certain amount of weakness by its liability to sudden changes of popular feeling. It consists of four metropolitans, members of the Holy Synod, and eight laymen. All of these are chosen by an electoral body, consisting of all the members of the Holy Synod and the National Mixed Council, and twenty-five representatives of the parishes of Constantinople. The election of the patriarch is also, to a considerable extent, popular. An electoral assembly is formed for the purpose consisting * of the twelve members of the Holy Synod, the eight lay members of the National Mixed Council, twentyeight representatives of as many dioceses (the remaining dioceses having only the right to nominate a candidate by letter), ten reprc?«-nuti\ es of the parishes of Constantinople, ten representatives of all person* who possess political rank, ten representatives of the Christian trades of Constantinople, the two representatives of the secretariat of the patriarchate, and such mctropolitansj to the number of ten but no more, as happen to be in Constantinople at the time for some canonical reason (VapfrtiiKtovvrtt). On the death or deposition of the patriarch, the Holy Synod and the National Mixed Council at once meet and elect a temporary substitute for the patriarch (ToT<mjp»fr$t). Forty days afterwards the electoral assembly meets, under his presidency, and proceeds to make a list of twenty candidates (at the present day they must be metropolitans), who may be proposed either by the members of the electoral assembly or by any of the metropolitans of the patriarchate by letter. This list is sent to the sultan, who has by prescription the right to strike out five names. From the fifteen which remain the electoral assembly chooses three. These names are then submitted to the clerical members of the assembly, i.e. to the members of the Holy Synod and the ropmJwiovrrtt, who meet in church, and, after the usual service, make the final selection. The patriarch-elect is presented to the Porte, which thereupon grants the berat or diploma of investiture and several customary presents; after which the new ruler is enthroned. The patriarch has the assistance and support of a large household, a survival from Byzantine times. Amongst them, actually or potentially, are the grand steward (jAyax tAxtvopm), who serves htm as deacon in the liturgy and presents candidates for orders; the grand visitor (jikyia traxcAX&ptot). who superintends the monasteries; the sacristan (o««po^6Xot); the chancellor •, i.-r>i.>>af i, who superintends ecclesiastical causes; the deputyvisitor (A rov <ra*fXXlov), who visits the nunneries; the protonotary (rpvrBwriptof); the logothete (Xofvftnp}, a most important lay officer, who represents the patriarch at the Porte and elsewhere outside; the censer-bearer, who seems to be also a kind of captain of the guard (*a*wTpf<ruw or <ajwrp4»<ru>0; the referenda ); the secretary (famtunivovp&fatir); the chief syndic

1 The numbers have varied from time to time. XX 6*

who is a juoge of lesser causes; the recorder (bpopwbtu*): and so on, down to the cleaners of the lamps (Xo/iroJdpioO. the attendant of the lights (rtpuurcpx^poot). and the bearer of the images (0a0ra-rdptor } and of the holv ointment (ju/paHmfi).

2. The Patriarchate of Alexandria, consisting of Egypt and its dependencies, was at one time the most powerful, as it' was the most centralized, of all, and the patriarch still preserves his ancient titles of " pope" and "father of fathers, pastor of pastors, arch

Bnest of archpnests, thirteenth apostle, and oecumenical judge." ut the secession of the greater part of his church to Monophysitism I Coptic Church], and the Manommedan conquest of Egypt, have eft him but the shadow of his former greatness; and at tne present time he has only the bishop of Libya under him, and rules over some 20,000 people at the outside, most of whom are settlers from elsewhere.

3- The Patriarchate of Antioch has undergone most changes in extent of jurisdiction, arising from the transfer of sees to Jerusalem, from the progress of the schismatic churches of the East and from the conquests of the Mahommedans. At the height of his power the patriarch of Antioch ruled over 12 metropolitans and 250 suffragan bishops. In the time of the first crusade 153 still survived* now there are scarcely 20, 14 of which are metropolitan sees. The patriarch, though he is " father of fathers and pastor of pastors," thus retains little of his old importance. His jurisdiction includes Cihcia, Syria (except Palestine) and Mesopotamia. Cyprus has been independent of Antioch since the council of Ephesus.

4. The Patriarchate of Jerusalem.—In the earlier period of the church, ecclesiastical followed civil divisions so closely that Jerusalem, in spite of the sacred associations connected with it, was merely an ordinary bishopric dependent on the metropolitan of Caesarea. Ambitious prelates had from time to time endeavoured to advance the pretensions of their see, but it was not until the council of Chalcedon, in 451. that Jerusalem was made a patriarchate withjurisdiction over Palestine. From this time on to the inroad of the Saracens the patriarchate of Jerusalem was highly prosperous. It ruled over three metropolitans with eighty suffragans. The modern patriarch has under his jurisdiction 5 archbishops and 5 bishops. The chief importance of the patriarchate is derived from the position of Jerusalem as a place of pilgrimage.

B. The Nine National Churches

G. Finlay, in his History of Greece, has shown that there has been always a very close relation between the church and national life. Christianity from the first connected itself with the social organization of the people, and therefore in every province assumed the language and the usages of the locality. In this way it was able to command at once individual attachment and universal power. This feeling died down to some extent when Con«antine made use of the church to consolidate his empire. But it revived under the persecution of the Arian emperors. The struggle against Arianism was not merely a struggle for orthodoxy. Athanasius was really at the head of a national Greek party resisting the domination of a La tin-speaking court. From this time onwards Greek patriotism and Greek orthodoxy have been almost convertible terms, and this led naturally to revolts against Greek supremacy in the days of Justinian and other emperors. Dean Stanley was probably correct when he described the heretical churches of the East as the ancient national churches of Egypt, Syria, and Armenia in revolt against supposed innovations in the earlier faith imposed on them by Greek supremacy. In the East, as in Scotland, the history of the church is the key to the history of the nation, and in the freedom of the church the Greek saw the freedom and supremacy of his race. For this very reason Orthodox Eastern Christians of alien race felt compelled to resist Greek domination by means of independent ecclesiastical organization, and the structure of the church rather favoured than interfered with the coexistence of separate national churches professing the same faith. Another circumstance favoured the creation of separate national churches. While the Greek empire lasted the emperors had a right of investiture on the election of a new patriarch, and this right was retained by the Turkish sultans after the conquest of Constantinople. The Russian people, for

[graphic]

tiave produced various national churches which are independent or autocehalous and yet are one in doctrine.

Rus, Church Of.

the

, frc

lucntly resides in Egypt. It has, however, a few branch houses [JMTixta) in Turkey and Greece. The archbishop is chosen, from a list of candidates submitted by the monks of St Catherine, by the patriarch of Jerusalem and his Synod; and the patriarch consecrates lim.

3. The Hellenic Church.—The constitution of the Church of Modern Greece is the result of the peculiar position of the patriarch of Constantinople. The war of liberation was sympathized in, not nerely by the inhabitants of Greece, but by all the Greek-speaking Christians in the East. But the patriarch was in the hands of the Turks; he had been appointed by the sultan, and he was compelled

10,

[graphic]

who desired to join it within the vilayet of the Danube («^. the subsequently-formed* principality of Bulgaria), and those of Adrianople, Salonica, Kossovo and Monastir (i.e. part of Macedonia, Eastern Rumelia and a tract farther south). The members of this Church were to constitute a millet or community, enjoying equal rights with the Greeks and Armenians; and its head, the Bulgarian exarch, was to reside at Constantinople. Naturally, this was- resented by the patriarch Anthimus, who stigmatized the racial basis of the Bulgarian Church as the heresy of Pnyletism. A local synod at Constantinople, in August 1872,, pronounced it schismatic?!; Antioch, Alexandria and Greece followed suit; Jerusalem pronounced a modified condemnation; and the Servian and Rumanian churches avoided any definite expression of opinion. Russia was more favourable. It never actually acknowledged the Bulgarian Church, and Bulgarian prelates may not officiate publicly in Russian churches; on the other hand, the Holy Synod of Moscow refused to recognize the patriarch's condemnation, and Russian ecclesiastics have secretly supplied the Bulgarians with the holy oil. Above all, when Prince Boris, the heir-apparent of the principality, was received into the Bulgarian Church on I4th February 1896, the emperor of Russia was his godfather. The position is further complicated by the fact that many Bulgarians, both within and without the kingdom of Bulgaria, still remain subject to the patriarch. Nevertheless, the Bulgarian Church has made great headway both in Bulgaria itself and in Macedonia. The curious thing is that the Russian Church is in communion with both sides. Tne patriarch of Constantinople dares not excommunicate Russia, but the chief of its many grievances against that country is its patronage of the Bulgarian exarchate. The Bulgarians of course say they are not schismatics, but a national branch of the Church Catholic, using their sacred right to manage their own affairs in their own way, They have never excommunicated the Patriarchists. On the whole it seems likely that the patriarch will ultimately have to yield, io spite of the strong Greek feeling against the Bulgars.1

Present Position of the Orthodox Church.—Although the signs of weakness which have characterized the past are still present, there are some indications of improvement. The encyclical on unity of Pope Leo XIII. (1895) called forth a reply from the patriarch Anthimus V. of Constantinople and his Synod, which was eminently learned, dignified and charitable.1 The theological school of the patriarchate, at Halite", is not undistinguished, and the university of Athens has a good record. Whilst the parochial clergy are still as unlearned as ever, there are not & few amongst the higher clergy who are distinguished for their learning beyond the limits of their own communion: for elample, the metropolitan Ph. Bryennios, who discovered and edited the 'Didachi; the archbishop N. Kalogeras, who discovered and edited the second part of the commentary of Euthymius Zigabenus (d. c. 1118) on the New Testament; the archimandrite D. Latas, author of a valuable work on Christian archaeology (Athens, 1883); and the logothcte S. Aristarchi, who edited a valuable collection of 83 newly discovered homilies of the patriarch Photius. This was published in 1900 at the Phanar press, erected as a memorial to Theodore of Tarsus, archbishop of Canterbury, by Greek and English churchmen, which was set up by the patriarch Constantine V. in 1899. An authorized version of the Scriptures in ancient Greek is also one of the works undertaken by this institution. On the other band, the attempt made in 1001 by the Holy Synod at Athens, with the co-operation of Queen Olga of Greece (a Russian princess), to circulate a modern Greek version of the Gospels was resented as a symptom of a Pan-Slavist conspiracy, and led to an ebullition of popular feeling which could only be pacified by the withdrawal of the obnoxious version and the abdication of the metropolitan of Athens. The patriarch Constantine V. was deposed on the i:th of April 1001, and was succeeded on the 28th of May by Joachim III. (and V.), who had previously occupied the patriarchal throne from 1878 to 1884, when he was deposed through the ill-will of the Porte and banished to Mount Athos. His re-election had therefore no little importance. His progressive sympathies, illustrated by his proposals to reform the monasteries and the calendar, to modify the four long fasts and to treat for union (especially with the Old Catholics), were not very well received, and in 1905 an attempt was made to depose him. The sultan Abd-ul-Hamid, to whom the different parties appealed,

1 H. Brailsford in Macedonia. (London, 1906) brings a crushing indictment against the Patriarchist party.

* For a different opinion sec A. Fortescuc, The Orthodox Church, 435 sqq.

« السابقةمتابعة »