YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE INTERNATIONAL CATHOLIC LIBRARY
Edited by Rev. J. Wilhelm, D.D., Ph.D.
Joint Author of the Manual of Catholic Theology

I. HISTORY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By L'AbbiS Jacquiek. Vol. I. St. Paul and His Epistles.
Authorised translation from the 5th French Edition, by Eev.
James Duggan. Price 7s. 6d.
II. HISTORY OF THE BOOKS OF THE NEW TESTAMENT.
By L'Abbe Jacquier. Vol. II. The Synoptic Gospels. Autho
rised translation from the French, by Rev. James Duggan.
[In preparation.
III. TEN LECTURES ON THE MARTYRS. By Paul Allard.
With a Preface by Mgr. Pechenard, Eector of the Catholic
University of Paris. Authorised translation by Luigi Cappa-
delta. Price 7s. 6d
IV. THE CATHOLIC CHURCH. THE RENAISSANCE.
PROTESTANTISM. By Alfred Baudrillart, Rector of the
Catholic Institute of Paris. Translated by Mrs. PHILIP GIBBS.
Price 7s. 6d.
V. THE BLIND SISTERS OF ST. PAUL. By Maurice de la
Sizerannk. Authorised translation by L. M. Leggatt. With
Frontispiece, 7s. 6d.
VI. SURSUM CORDA. Letters of the Countess de Saint-Martial
in religion Sister Blanche, Sister of Charity of St. Vincent de Paul.
With Memoir by her brother. Baron Leopold de Fischer.
Authorised translation from the French. With two portraits.
Demy 8vo, price 7s. 6d.
VII. MADAME LOUISE DE FRANCE. Authorised translation
from the French by Meta and Mart Brown. With Illustrations.
Demy 8vo, price 6s.
VIII. THE GREAT SCHISM OF THE WEST. By L. Salembier,
Professor at the Catholic University of Lille. Translated by M. D.
IX. CHURCHES SEPARATED FROM ROME. By L. Duchesne.
Authorised translation by A. H. Mathew.
X. THE FINDING OF THE CROSS. Historical Researches by
Loots de Combes. Authorised translation byLuIGI Cappadelta.
Price 6s.
XI. THE TEMPORAL SOVEREIGNTY OF THE POPES. By
Mgr. L. Doohesne.

KEGAN PAUL, TRENCH, TRUBNER, & CO. L™-
DEYDEN HOUSE, GERRAED STEEET, W.

The International Catholic Library
Edited by
REV. J. WILHELM, D.D., Ph.D.
Vol. IX.

$iftil obstat JOSEPH WILHELM, S.T.D.
Censor deputatus
Emprimt potest GULIELMUS Episcopus Arindelensis
Vicarius Generalis
Westmonasterii die 5 Maii 1907

THE
CHURCHES SEPARATED
FROM ROME

BY
Mgr. L. DUCHESNE
(DIRECTOR OF THE ECOLE FRANCAISE AT ROME)

AUTHORISED TRANSLATION
FROM THE FRENCH BV
ARNOLD HARRIS MATHEW
(De jure Earl of Landaff, of Thomastown, Co. Tipperary)

NEW YORK, CINCINNATI, CHICAGO
BENZIGER BROTHERS
PRINTERS TO THE HOLY APOSTOLIC SEE
1907

TRANSLATOR'S PREFACE
Mgr. Duchesne is too well known and his erudi
tion as an ecclesiastical historian is too universally
recognised among scholars to make it necessary for
me to introduce him to the readers of this volume.
I have to express my thanks to the Monsignor
for his kind permission to translate this small but
learned volume. I venture to offer it to the British
public in the vernacular as a contribution towards
the literature dealing with reunion of separated
Christendom, at any rate of that portion of it
which is in this island nearest in its constitution
and liturgy to "the Mother and Mistress of all the
Churches." Should the labour of translation be rewarded by
the favourable reception of one more of Monsignor
Duchesne's works in this country, I shall be amply
repaid for having undertaken it.
A wider and more accurate knowledge of the
causes and results of the principal existing and the
dying or already defunct schisms cannot fail to
prove helpful to all who are anxious that the Divine
prayer for ecclesiastical unity (St. John xxii.),
may ere long find an echo in the heart of every
one claiming the honoured title of Christian.
Ut omnes unum sint !
ARNOLD HARRIS MATHEW.
Chelsfield, Kent, May 1907.

AUTHOR'S PREFACE
Various circumstances have lately led me to study
the position of those Churches which are actually
separated from the communion of the See of Rome.
Some of my works have already appeared before
the public, recalling attention to events concerning
old problems. Others, of a more serious character,
have been written for special classes of readers.
These works I am now amalgamating, hoping they
may prove to be of interest at a time when the
Holy See, faithful to its old traditions, is reminding
the Christian world that schism has ever been a
misfortune and unity ever a duty.
None need seek in this little book answers to
the numerous questions raised by the admirable
writings of His Holiness, Pope Leo XIII. But in
it some light may perhaps be thrown upon the
causes of certain separations, as well as upon the
origin and titles of certain ecclesiastical self-govern
ing bodies.
"Self-government" and "separation" are not
synonymous terms. Although individualism has
sometimes hindered the preservation of Christian
unity, it would be a mistake to think that this
unity is incompatible with legitimate diversity, and
exclusive of all local organised life. Ecclesiastical
centralisation, it cannot be repeated too emphati
cally, is not an ideal condition, but a means to an
end. Under the stress of circumstances, the Roman
Church, the one centre of Christian unity, has been

viii AUTHOR'S PREFACE
obliged to tighten and strengthen the bonds be
tween herself and the churches confided to her
care. But in less straitened times she formed, as
her history abundantly proves, a different system of
relationship between herself and them. Though,
in this volume, I have only spoken of such auto
nomous systems as have degenerated into schism,
it may be possible for me, later on, to study, in
their turn, those which continue to exist without
detriment to the unity of the Church.
It is upon the past that my searchlights flash,
for in the Church no thought of the future can
detach itself from her tradition. But I am not old-
fashioned enough to believe that the future of Christi
anity depends upon the restoration of any former
state of affairs, whatever such a restoration might
have to recommend it. Neither am I conservative
enough to believe that whatever is, must continue to
be, indefinitely. St. Peter has no intention of casting
anchor, nor of making his ship retrace her former
course on the waters. Due in altum ! He steers
with holy liberty, faithful the while to the word of
Christ. Neither fear nor unexplored waters will stop
him, nor will the protestations of archaeologists bring
him back to the shores whence he set forth as the
fisher as well as the shepherd of men. L. DUCHESNE.

CONTENTS

chap. PA0B
I. The Church of England . ... 1
II. The Eastern Schisms —
1. The National Churches East of the Roman
Empire . . . . . . .13
2. The Monophysite Schisms . 21
III. The Encyclical of the Patriarch Anthimius . 40
IV. The Roman Church before the Time of
Constantine . . . . . . .76
V. The Greek Church and the Greek Schism . 109
VI. Ecclesiastical Illyria . . . 154
VII. The Christian Missions South of the Roman
Empire —
1. The Sahara . . .... 180
2. Nubia ... . .183
3. AXOUM AND HlMYAR .190
4. The Arabs . . . 210
Index . . . .221

THE CHURCHES SEPARATED
FROM ROME
CHAPTER I
THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
I
ORIGINS OF THE ANGLICAN CHURCH
England is, of all the countries of the world, the
one where ecclesiastical origin is most visibly con
nected with the Holy Apostolic See of Rome.
Deep obscurity envelops the primitive times of the
Churches of Africa, Spain, and France. In a cele
brated letter, Pope Innocent I. declares that these
countries received their first pastors from Rome,
and that, at any rate, it is impossible to prove the
contrary. No established fact can deny this positive
assertion, while historical probability is in its favour.
Details, however, are not forthcoming. Putting aside
unauthorised legends, we have no documents relating
to the first evangelisation of these countries. On
the contrary, the history of the foundation of the
Enghsh Church is known to us ; firstly, by the
writings ofthe Venerable Bede, a conscientious Anglo-
Saxon historian, who possessed more knowledge than
any of his contemporaries, and who wrote only one
century after the first missions ; secondly, by the
original letters of Pope St. Gregory the Great and

2 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
his successors. We can scarcely demand more evi
dence than this.
The evangelisation of Germany is also clearly
known. Like that of England, it was the result of
pontifical solicitude. There is, however, this differ
ence. In Germany the initiative is Anglo-Saxon
and not Roman. The Popes intervened, doubtless,
but only to further and direct a work undertaken
by others than themselves. The Erwalds, Willi-
brords, and Bonifaces set themselves independently
to their own tasks. At an early period, it is true,
the two latter solicited the Roman patronage, which
was most readily granted to them. But one cannot
give to the Popes Sergius, or Gregory II., or
Gregory III., or Zachary the title of "Apostle" of
the Frisians or Teutons, whereas no Englishman will
refuse to consider St. Gregory the Great as the
Apostle of the English nation. It is to this great
Pope that the honour reverts of having conceived
and put into execution the project of evangelising
the Anglo-Saxons, owing to his having sent across
the Channel, missionaries, chosen from the circle of
monks who were his intimate disciples. Who is
there among the Christians of England who can
approach without emotion the solitary avenues of
the Clivus Scauri where the memory of this cele
brated Pope still flourishes ? Among those ruins of
an ancient monastery, in that basilica, in those gardens
and oratories, he seems to be gazing on the cradle
of his religion — almost on that of his nation : —
Ad Christum Anglos convertit pietate magistra
Adquirens fidei agmina gente nova.
Thus was the conversion of England commemo
rated in the epitaph of St. Gregory. This triumph

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 3
of the "Consul of God" has never been con
tested. Like all works of this kind, the English mission
met with many difficulties. The first contingent of
monks found their ranks diminishing. New mission
aries had to be sent, new leaders especially, for
labourers for the Lord's vineyard began to flock in
from Ireland and France. It was Pope Vitalian who
gave to the English Church its definite organisation
in the person of Theodore. It was under the guidance
of this great bishop that the elements composing evan
gelising communities were gathered together; that
ecclesiastical formalism was arrested ; that law, in
struction, and the administration of religious rites
were solidly established.
The Church of England was, then, a colony of the
Church of Rome. This relationship was exhibited
even in the architecture and the nomenclature of the
churches. In the metropolitan town of Canterbury
the principal church was called after the Lateran
Church of Rome, St. Saviour's. At a little distance
from it one finds, as in Rome, a church erected in
honour of the Forty Martyrs. Beyond the walls
of the town there was a church, named after the
Holy Apostles Peter and Paul, which contained
the tombs of the archbishops and kings of Kent.
Canterbury was a miniature Rome ; the English
Church a daughter of the Church of Rome — per
chance a better-loved one than those already in exist
ence, certainly bearing a nearer resemblance to her
and nestling closely under the maternal wings. Such,
in rough outline, is undoubtedly the history of the
origin of the Christian Church among the Anglo-
Saxons. Such the starting-point of the great ecclesi
astical development which produced, in the sixteenth

4 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
century, that Church upon which the so-called re
forming experiments of Henry VIII., Edward VI.,
and Elizabeth were practised. Separated at length
from unity with the Church of Rome, she has kept
up her establishment and office as the "National
Church of England." She may suppose, indeed, that
the changes brought about in the sixteenth century
have, from a Protestant point of view, re-established
her in " primitive Christianity," but she cannot deny
that her origin is other than what has been shown,
and that her present attitude towards the Roman
Church is peculiarly inexplicable. One is able to
understand that Christian Churches which can claim
apostolic founders such as St. John, St. Thomas,
and St. Andrew may have a colourable excuse for
claiming, from such a circumstance, a pretext for in
dividualism, and that they boast of their antiquity
and apostolical descent ; but in England, historical
evidence is clear. The English Church can claim to
be apostolic only in so far as she is Roman.

II
I am aware that efforts have been made to avoid
the consequences of this fact. I have read, with much
benefit, remarkable works on Celtic Christianity,
with which distinguished members of the Anglican
clergy strive to connect the existing establishment.
Their efforts to throw light on the history of ancient
books, and on English and Irish customs, are much
to be commended ; but it would be chimerical to
believe that they will ever draw from these studies
any serious argument bearing on the present dis
cussion. The English Church, it is true, succeeded
a Celtic one in Great Britain. But the succession

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 5
was a purely material one. There was no bond of
union between the two. The Hungarian Church of
the eleventh century is established in the same
country as the Pannonian Church of the fourth
and fifth centuries. Can it be said, however, that
the archbishoprics of Gran or Colocza have suc
ceeded those of Guirinus of Siscia, of Irenaeus or
of Anemius of Sirmium ? Can a succession be
shown in ecclesiastical matters from the Church in
the fifth century to the Church in the eleventh ?
Surely not. Between the old Latinised Christianity
of the Danubian provinces and the Christianity pro
pagated about the year 1000 among the newly
arrived pagan Hungarians, there is identity of doc
trine truly, but at the same time historical discon
tinuity. In England the situation is not less evident.
The ancient British Church is not the mother of
the Church of England — she is an older but an
unfriendly sister. The situation is a well-recognised
one. The conquering Anglo-Saxons drove those of
the Christian population whom they did not slay
westward. Teutonic paganism established itself
in place of Roman Christianity in the dominion
occupied by the conquerors. Neither the English
authors, Gildas, nor Nennius, nor the Anglo-Saxon
Bede have given any indication of the persistence
of Christianity anywhere in the invaded territories.
The documents treating of the conversion of the
Anglo-Saxons only speak of the pagans and the
Roman missionaries. No bishop, clerk, or layman
appears in these recitals to cast even a shadow of
the modern idea of a transmission or continuity,
however slight, of British Christianity in England.
Moreover, the Church of Britain is mentioned, in
deed, but only as having formally and solemnly

6 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
refused to associate itself with the work of evan
gelising the pagan conquerors. The few British
Christians Avho survived in Wales seem to have
lived in dread of meeting their hated spoliators in
heaven! They may be passed over. But once
the Roman missionaries and the Irish monks had
founded the English Church, a distinct and com
plete schism separated this new foundation from
the old British one. This situation is too well
known for it to be insisted upon here. I would only
point to one fact. St. Chad had been appointed to
the archbishopric of Northumbria at a moment
when the episcopal See was vacant and the Anglo-
Saxon Church was disorganised. His consecration
was at Wessex, by Wini, an Anglo-Saxon bishop,
assisted by two British bishops. In the trying
position in which he found himself, Wini had
thought he might appeal to the clergy of the neigh
bouring country. This act sufficed to produce the
following result. The primate Theodore, having
entered on his primatial duties, declared Chad's
consecration to be null and void. Then, not wishing
to lose the services of so capable an ecclesiastic, he
actually re-ordained him for the Church of Mercia
and the archbishopric of Lichfield.
Even in those days the validity of ordinations
was discussed on principles evidently different from,
and even more strict than those of the present day.
In whatever way the change may be regarded, the
re-ordination of St. Chad demonstrates the hostility
of the relations between the British and the English
Churches. But, it may be remarked, surely the
Anglo-Saxon Church is Celtic — that is, Irish — if not
British in her origin. No one is more desirous than
I am not to diminish the importance of the part

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 7
played in Northumbria, and in other Anglo-Saxon
kingdoms, by the saintly apostles of Lindisfarne.
To the venerable figures of St. Aidan, St. Finian,
St. Colman, and St. Cuthbert I yield deep and
almost patriotic respect. I acknowledge their work
for the evangelising of England after the time
of St. Augustine and St. Paulinus. But can it
possibly be denied that their efforts were entirely
absorbed in the general movement emanating from
Rome and Kent ? It is impossible to admit that
the English Church, definitely organised under the
government of Theodore, with his chosen and accepted
staff, ever saw in them her real directors. Zealous
missionaries, renowned ascetics, preachers by their
example even more than by their words, they have
been, and always will be, venerated and invoked by
the Christians of England. But from the very begin
ning the English were remarkable for that spirit of
order which even now distinguishes their descendants.
Between Irish enthusiasm and Roman discipline
there was but brief hesitation. By the year 664
the Scottish rite had been abandoned in North
umbria, only thirty years after the arrival of the
first Scottish missionaries. The primatial See of
Canterbury represents the primitive Roman colony.
The patrons of the other metropolitan See, that
of York, are Paulinus, the Roman missionary, and
Wilfrid, the ultramontane Englishman, to whom
Theodore himself appeared to be the very essence
of moderation. Ill
The " bonds of union " between Celtic Chris
tianity and the English Church can now be clearly
seen. Need we probe further? Let us admit for

8 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
a moment, and for the sake of argument, that these
"bonds" are historically proved, instead of being,
as indeed they are, historically inadmissible. Let
us look at that British Church from which, it
is true, Irish Christianity was derived, through
St. Patrick. What do we know of its history,
and above all of its hierarchical rule ? Little or
nothing. Passing over the first three centuries of
Christianity, of which the history of Britain gives
us no account, we can only at the most trace
back to a persecution anterior to that of Diocletian
the martyrs mentioned by Gildas, St. Alban of
Verulam, St. Aaron and St. Julian of Caerleon.
In the fourth century three or four English dioceses
were represented at the Council of Aries in 314;
the English bishops protested, in 357, against the
introduction of an Arian creed ; many of them
assisted, in 859, at the Council of Rimini, where,
if they failed like the rest, they nevertheless gave
great edification by their apostolic poverty and in
dependence of character. In the fifth century,
when the Roman authorities had left the island,
Pelagianism, of which the author was a British
monk, broke out in the country, and necessitated
the sending of an orthodox legation. St. Germanus
of Auxerre, designated by the bishops of Gaul,
but delegated by Pope Celestine, arrived in Great
Britain, and succeeded, during the course of two
successive missions, in bringing back the British
clergy to orthodoxy. Palladius, a British or Roman
deacon, was ordained bishop by Pope Celestine,
and sent by him to govern the converted Scots.
In 455, the year in which the Paschal computation
gave rise to special difficulties, the English Church
at the request of Pope Leo, altered the date which

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 9
had been previously fixed for the observance of
Easter. And this is all, excepting of course legends,
which, though ancient, are untrustworthy from the
historian's point of view. Can any special inde
pendence towards the See of Rome be traced in
this series of facts ? Personally I observe in this
meagre information several very distinct points to
be noticed concerning the relations between the
ancient British Church and the Apostolic See. The
British bishops, together with the bishops of Con
stantine's empire, signed, in 314, the synodical
letter addressed to Pope Sylvester, wherein the
Pope figures, categorically, not only as the Chief
Bishop of the West, but as the Superior of the
whole western episcopacy. In the fifth century
the Pope makes efforts to maintain the British
Church in orthodoxy and to increase it by further
ing the progress of the missionaries. He takes
precise measures for both causes, delegating and
authorising special persons. Bearing in mind the
customs of these ancient times and the rarity of
known facts, can we reasonably ask for further
proofs ? The Church of Great Britain resembled,
in her relationship with Rome, the French and
Spanish Churches, and, indeed, all the western
Churches in union with the Holy See.

IV
This resemblance is willingly admitted, and in
order to escape from having to acknowledge the
Roman supremacy, refuge is taken by some in
French tradition. It is, moreover, quite natural that
the relationships of the Church of Britain should
be found to be identical with those of the French

10 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
Church. Unless we accept the improbable legends
on the evangelising of Great Britain by Joseph of
Arimathea, or the accounts, not quite accurate, per
haps, but more authentic, of the relations between
Pope Eleutherius and King Lucius, we must admit
that Christianity was propagated, only by slow degrees,
in those distant western regions, and that it wasj
carried over from Gaul to England. These condi-l
tions of origin include the hierarchical conditions of
the Church of Britain with that of Gaul ; possibly
the Church of Gaul may have been subordinate to
that of Great Britain. Now, what do we know of
the relations between the Gallic Church and the
Church of Rome ? Of the period before Constantine
the Church of Gaul can produce only three documents,
and no more. Two come from Lyons, the third from
Africa, but this last presupposes other Lyonese
writings. The first document is a compendium of
histories of the martyrs of the year 177, and partly
emanating from them. The second is the literary
work of St. Irenasus ; the third is a letter [the sixty-
eighth] of St. Cyprian, written at the instigation of
Faustin, Bishop of Lyons.
" Nothing is better fitted than these writings for
showing the close union which existed between Rome
and the Churches of Gaul, notably those of Lyons
and Aries. The martyrs of 177 are in correspondence
with Pope Eleutherius ; they write to him about the
Montanists' prophecies, calling him their Father,
Pater Eleutherius, and recommending to him the
bearer of the letter, the priest Irenasus, in terms
which presuppose former relations and mutual esteem.
As to St. Irenasus himself, connected as he was with
the interior affairs of the Roman Church, he is per
haps, of all the Fathers, the one who has spoken most

THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND 11
strongly on the necessity of being in union with the
Apostolic See. In the middle of the third century
a letter of St. Cyprian proves the existence of this
union ; if any serious disorder arose in the Church of
Gaul, care was taken that the Pope should be in
formed, the responsibility was considered to devolve
upon him, and it was to him that the duty and the
right were attributed of dismissing and replacing a
bishop who had gone astray." 1
The above facts are not new ; the relations wliich
they prove are very clear, and in no way appear to
have been interpreted in a contrary sense to that
which would naturally result from Roman origin in
each case. We may then admit that, whatever were
the national elements of which they were composed,
the old Christian communities on Gallic soil con
sidered themselves to be daughters of the Roman
Church. Thus, even admitting the very problemati
cal relationship with the British Church, the Anglican
Church finds herself, from her most remote origin, in
the same hierarchical position as the one so clearly
deduced from the documents relating to her real
foundation in the time of St. Gregory and under his
care. This situation is surely a very different one from
that which results for the Church of France, in her
present relations, or from that in which the schism of
the sixteenth century found the Anglican Church.
Between these two extremities of the chain there is
what may be termed ecclesiastical centralisation. It
would take too long to enter here on an examination
of the history of this centralisation. Let us be satisfied
with affirming that its development is easily traced to
1 Duchesne, Fastes episcopaux de I'ancienne Gaule, vol. i.
p. 87.

12 THE CHURCH OF ENGLAND
its source, and that if, in its successive stages, it shows
great variety of form and intensity, it is inspired on
the whole, throughout, with the same principles, and
tends towards the same goal. Principles and end
may be described in one word : Unum sint. Central
isation is the organisation of unity, and is also its
safeguard. Now and again it has been reproached
for narrowness and for over-minuteness. Like ail
institutions in this world, it is subject to abuses and
to reform. If occasion for criticism presents itself,
let us not forget the essential services it has rendered.
Neither must we lose sight of the higher aims which
are the goal of its existence. Unity is the church's
ideal ; it is her distinctive mark in the Creed : Credo-
in unam . . . Ecclesiam. Whether we arrive by one
or another path, the essential point is to attain to
unity. Our one duty, then, is to maintain it.

CHAPTER II
THE EASTERN SCHISMS
I
THE NATIONAL CHURCHES EAST OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE
In studying the origins of Christianity, the Roman
Empire alone is usually taken into consideration.
It was on its eastern frontier that Christianity was
born, and the light of the Gospel moved westward,
conquering those provinces subject to the Roman
Empire. At all events, this is the principal feature
of its progress dwelt upon by historians.
Nevertheless there were, outside the Roman
Empire, important States bounding it on the east ;
first of all the Empire of Parthia, then the king
doms of Armenia and Ethiopia. This latter king
dom, curious to relate, subsists, at the present day,
much in the same condition as it was known to the
contemporaries of Justinian. There is now neither
a Roman emperor nor a king of Armenia known,
save by a few coats of arms — the Shah of Persia is
quite another being from the " King of Kings " ; but
there is still a Negus, a Christian king of Ethiopia,
who may yet survive many centuries, although at
this moment he has at his heels a nation both
powerful and contemptuous of the antiquities of
political rights.
Sooner or later all these kingdoms were reached
13

14 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
by the preaching of the Gospel. Christian centres
were formed and grouped themselves into churches,
practically, that is for all ordinary purposes, inde
pendent of the Byzantine Church. In Armenia
and Ethiopia these Churches very soon acquired an
official position. The sovereign became a Christian,
As protector of the Church he concurred in the
choice and direction of its principal representatives,
in the same respects as in the Roman Empire.
In Persia it was otherwise. There, there was
another official religion which would, without doubt,
have ended in yielding to Christianity, without much
violence, that place from which Islamism ultimately
forced it ; but in point of fact, as long as the Sassa-
nide dynasty lasted, it remained the religion of King
and State. Christianity was only tolerated.
But let us go more into detail, beginning with
Persia. The boundary between the Roman and the
Parthian or Persian Empires crossed the Euphrates
in an almost desert region, traversed only by
nomadic Arabs. Towards the north, in the direc
tion of the Tigris, it ran through a more thickly
populated country of the Syriac tongue. Edessa
was still, in the first century, the capital of a self-
governing State, more or less a vassal of Rome, but
in the third century it was incorporated into the
provincial territory.
At Nineveh the boundary came under the
dominion of the Iranian monarch. Between Edessa
and Assyria the fortress of Nisibis changed masters
several times. For a long period it belonged to
the Romans, who, in 363, relinquished it to the
Persians, and they retained possession of it.
To the west as well as to the east of thev

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 15
frontier the same language was spoken, which facili
tated religious intercourse. Edessa was won over
to Christianity at an early date, and sent mission
aries into the neighbouring countries, who, little by
little, converted all the pagans on the banks of the
Tigris, on the southern slopes of the tableland of
Armenia, and in the fertile plains of Chaldea and
Suzon. The Parthian kings seem not to have put
a single obstacle in the way of this propaganda ;
their successors, who were Persians, from a.d. 226,
were more strict in their attachment to " Mazdeism,'
but they still allowed the Christians to multiply
and organise. However, about a.d. 340, war broke
out between Persia and the now Christian Roman
Empire. The faithful of the Armenian or frontier
provinces, crossed by the routes of invasion, were
suspected of being in league with the enemy.
Persecution consequently broke out in its turn,
and was both long and cruel. The King of Persia
at that time was the famous Sapor II. Towards
the middle of the following century there were
troublous times, after which the relations be
tween Church and State became tolerable. It was,
it is true, forbidden to proselytise the Mazdeists ;
but, so long as the faithful addressed themselves
only to pagans and Jews, they had not much to
fear. It was under these conditions that the Church
in Persia was organised. From the beginning of
the fourth century it was governed by numerous
bishops, and, a little later on, this episcopate was
divided into ecclesiastical provinces, governed by
metropolitans, precisely after the manner estab
lished in the empire. The supreme head was
bishop of the royal town of Aramenia, the double

16 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
city of Seleucia-Ctesiphon, to whom was given the
Greek title " Catholicos," which signifies " Charge
of all." The Syriac territories of Assyria and Chaldea,
with the mountainous dependencies of Kurdistan,
were nearly, if not entirely, Christian. The faithful
were less numerous in the eastern provinces of
Media, Khorassan, and Persia, properly so called.
Nevertheless, in all these countries there were
bishoprics, extending even to the deserts of Turkestan
and the oasis of Merv. The metropolitan of Persia
had suffragans on both shores of the Persian Gulf,
and even beyond it, in the islands of Socotra, Ceylon,
and on the coasts of Malabar. These ramifications
were, doubtless, more missions than Christian com
munities firmly established, and the same may be
said of still farther distant affiliations in Tartary,
and onwards into the very heart of China.
The dominion of the " Catholicos " of Seleucia
was of no mean dimensions, and by the extension
of his jurisdiction this high ecclesiastical dignitary
figures in the same light as the greatest of the
Byzantine Patriarchs. We might almost go farther
and say that, inasmuch as we can compare the
Persian Empire to the Roman, the Persian Church
may be compared to the Church of the great
western power.
Between these two branches of the Christian
world the relations were of the easiest, united as
they were by one faith, one morality, and the same
general discipline, and governed by the same institu
tions ; but communication was rare owing to political
difficulties. There was nearly always a breach
between the two empires, and when not actually
fighting, they were usually preparing for war. The

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 17
Persian bishops hardly ever showed themselves at
the Byzantine Councils, except in very exceptional
cases. Nevertheless, the decisions of these Councils,
and even the religious regulations of the Roman
Emperors, entered into the ecclesiastical code of
the Persian Church. They possessed the sentiment
of unity, and expressed it as best they could.
These relations became troubled towards the end
of the fifth century by theological disputes, of
which I shall speak later on. Let us, first of all,
say a word about the actual state of things. What
remains now of this immense development ? Very
little indeed. Islamism overran the Persian Empire
about the middle of the seventh century, and in
the eighth and ninth the invasions of the Mongols
completed the state of ruin, and the old religion of
Zoroaster ended by being extirpated in the land of
its birth ; it no longer exists, save in the colonies
of refugees, among the Parsees of Bombay. Chris
tianity held out a little longer, and is now repre
sented by the Nestorian or Chaldean communities
of Kurdistan and Mesopotamia. The Chaldean
Catholics represent those Christians of the ancient
Persian Church who, in recent ages, have made their
submission to the Holy See. The Nestorians are
those who have remained in schism, or rather, who
have reverted to it after an interval of union. They
live amongst the Mussulmans of Kurdistan on the
high mountains of Hakiari, and are in a state of
semi-barbarism. Among them is to be found the
traditional successor of the " Catholicos " of Seleucia,
who, for some long time, has always adopted the
name of Simon (Mar Schimoun) which has thus
become a sort of title.
Outside these two colonies we must also mention
B

18 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
the important communities on the coast of Malabar,
who are separated on the ground of doctrinal differ
ences and heresy, but they are all the descendants
of the ancient missions sent out from the Persian
Empire in the sixth century, and even in the fourth,
if not still earlier.
I said just now that Armenia had also its national
Church, whose origins are very clearly explained by
the legend of St. Gregory the Illuminator, but from
a strict historical standpoint they are somewhat
obscure. In any case, they do not seem to go back
further than the time of Constantine, in whose family
the movement began — every one was converted after
the example of the sovereign, and organisation was
thus made easy. Here, as in other places, the pre
vailing tongue was made the liturgical language,
and the supreme direction of the Church was confided
to a bishop-in-chief — a " Catholicos," under whom
were ranged the other prelates, distributed according
to the circumscriptions of the different provinces.
This hierarchy maintained its unity throughout the
kingdom, and adapted itself to its boundaries. When,
in 440, the Armenian kingdom disappeared, the
Armenian Church was strong enough to survive it,
and retain its nationality. The kingdom was divided
between the two great neighbouring empires, and there
arose a Roman and a Persian Armenia, but neither
the Byzantine nor the Persian Churches benefited by
this division. The Armenian bishops neither entered
the fold of the Patriarch of Constantinople nor that
of the Catholicos of Seleucia, but remained grouped
around the national primate, despite the change of
frontiers. And yet, at this time, no dogmatic differ
ences existed. The ecclesiastical monophysitism
was yet to come, the Persian Church was not yet

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 19
Nestorian. Nothing seemed to stand in the way
of fusion, yet it did not take place. Furthermore,
for the Greek colonies, which were founded in Roman
Armenia, new bishoprics were formed, like that of
Theodosiopolis (Erzeroum), dependent on the metro
politan of Csesarea. In the Persian district Syriac
bishoprics arose, attached to the metropolitan Sees
of Adiabene or Media. Neither the Greeks of
Pontus nor the Araminians of Mesopotamia found
themselves at home in the Armenian Church. This
seems to me a very remarkable circumstance, and
one that is not appreciated as it ought to be. I
need scarcely remind my readers that the Armenian
Church still exists, full of life, counting its faithful
by several millions, still grouped, at all events in
theory, around the national primate, the Catholicos
of Etchmiadzin. This residence, or at all events
the canton in which it is situated, corresponds to
the ancient capital. There were situated in ancient
days the royal burghs of Artaxasa, Valarschapat
and Dovin.
The isolation of the Church of Ethiopia is
guaranteed by its geographical situation. Between
Egypt and Abyssinia the distance is great, whilst
the population is small and scattered. There were,
without doubt, missions in these countries, but
strangely enough, they came directly from Con
stantinople, and not from Egypt or Ethiopia. In
this latter country the Gospel did not attain complete
success — that is to say, the conversion of the monarch
and the bulk of the nation — till about the beginning
of the sixth century. The successful missions came
from the patriarchate of Alexandria, to which also
belonged the earlier attempts at missionary enter
prise. This was the situation of the Church in the

20 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
East, before it was modified by the monophysite
heresy. There were, within the Roman Empire,
the four patriarchates, Constantinople (Thrace and
Asia Minor), Antioch (Syria, Silicia, and Meso
potamia), Jerusalem (Palestine), and Alexandria
(Egypt) ; outside the empire, the national Churches
of Persia, Armenia, and Ethiopia. All these were
united in one faith, and held more or less frequent
intercourse with each other. They concurred, with
the remembrance of their evangelisation, in main
taining exterior union, in so far as the difference
of language and political events permitted.
It is well also to note here that in ancient times
the divergencies of ritual were not very pronounced,
and very little remarked, and the languages them
selves offered no pretext for division. It took some
time for the idea to become popular that the people
had no need to understand the liturgical formulae.
Even in the empire itself, the liturgy was always
celebrated in the language understood by the people.
Thus, Coptic was used for liturgical purposes in
Egypt, long before the schism of the sixth century.
In Syria, sometimes Greek, sometimes Syriac was
used. In the towns where several languages were
spoken, Greek was the dominant liturgical language,
but there were interpreters who translated the
Lessons, the Homilies or the Prayers, either into
Syriac, or even into Latin, Avhere the Westerns
were congregated in numbers. At the present time
these questions of ritual and liturgical languages
have assumed great importance, but the difficulties
they give rise to are the result of the habits formed
and cultivated during the Middle Ages ; they are not
closely connected with the formation of the ecclesi
astical communities which we are now studying.

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 21
11
THE MONOPHYSITE SCHISMS
We know well how the Eastern Church in Byzan
tium was agitated by religious disputes, some of
which introduced such profound differences as to
create permanent schisms, dissentient churches, which
continued to live outside the orthodox Church and
in opposition to it. Time did not always overcome
these parasitical organisations. The Arians, or Ano-
mians, the Novatians, the Paulinists, and some other
sects, disappeared, more or less rapidly, but it was
not thus with the monophysite schism — it exists
still ; the points of dissent prepared in the fifth and
acted on in the following centuries have more or
less modified the religious equilibrium in the East,
and they have lasted till our own time. They are
always in schism. Why is this ? The majority of
the Nestorian, Coptic, Armenian, and Jacobite clergy
would simply reply, " We are separated because
we always have been so." In the beginning they
could have given a better reason to their orthodox
adversaries ; and this reason I am now going to try
and explain, without going too deeply into meta
physics. From all time, since the very foundation of
Christian theology, there have been two ways of
considering the divinity of Jesus Christ. Some have
looked on Him as a man become God, and others
as God become man ; and first of all I must establish
the fact that this second conception is the only
orthodox conception, and if the first has, at various
times, been maintained, it has always been by here
tics, or imprudent persons. This theory introduced

22 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
into the Incarnation a kind of series of progressive
stages, the steps of which were marked by the miracu
lous Birth of Christ, His Baptism, His Resurrec
tion, and His Ascension. Jesus Christ was supposed
to have become God by degrees. This idea has had
several forms of expression, from Cerinthus down to
Ibas of Edessa ; and between these two we can
count Hennas, Paul of Samosata, Diodorus of
Tarsus, and Theodoras of Mopsuestia. But not
withstanding the different stages which circum
stances created for it, the principle was the same ; its
right and true name is " Nestorianism." Nestorius,
the Patriarch of Constantinople, constituted himself
its interpreter and patron. The opposition which
he met with was strong enough to banish him from
his See in 431, and to send him into exile.
The other — the orthodox doctrine — which trans
lates and develops the Verbum caro factum est, had
need, in order to convey the true Christian idea, to be
guarded from certain excessive consequences. Those
who defended it had always experienced great diffi
culty in safeguarding the physical reality of the
human nature in the sacred person of our Saviour.
God becoming man, as it were, consumed the
humanity which He associated with Himself, making
it evanescent and, as it were, transforming it into a
mere phantom.
Docetism, or the theology of the " apparent," but
not real, Christ, flourished at Antioch in the earliest
ages, and holds a front place in the Gnostic ideas
of the Incarnation. In the fourth century the falsi
fier of the epistles of St. Ignatius was much occupied
about it. Apollinarius disguised in a more compli
cated, and, on first sight, in a more satisfying manner,
these same principles. According to him, Christ had

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 23
a human body and a sensitive human soul, but in
place of the intellectual soul He had the nature of the
Incarnate Word. By this a composite nature is pro
duced, in which the divinity is most closely united
to an incomplete humanity. This composition leaves
little to be desired on the question of unity, but it
is a " hybrid " being — Jesus Christ is not truly and
really man ; and on this point the tradition of the
Church is assailed.
The celebrated St. Cyril of Alexandria took up
this most difficult question. He certainly was
tainted by the influence of Apollinarius, whose
writings came under his notice without the name
of their real author, and bearing the names of writers
of good repute. It is not, however, less true, that
his doctrine was formed under the influence of the
true Christian tradition, and that if specific formulas
of his appear at first sight disquieting, it was always
possible to give them a perfectly orthodox interpre
tation. However, this happy result was not to be
attained till after more than a century of reflection
and kindly efforts. Cyril is the great authority
of the Monophysites, and also of the orthodox
Christians, which proves that it is, and was always,
possible to construe his meaning in the two
senses. In the affair of Nestorius, the Patriarch of Alex
andria acted as the Syndic-general in the interests
of orthodoxy, and in particular as the spokesman of
the Pope. If we lay aside the violence, which was
only to be expected after having aroused the
Pharaoh of Christian Egypt, all must recognise that
his triumph over Nestorius was ratified by the
almost absolute unanimity of contemporary ecclesi
astical opinion. Nevertheless, this opinion went no

24 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
further in its unanimity. It adopted Cyril, inas
much as he represented the elimination of the
anti-traditional and anti-religious doctrine of Theo
doras of Mopsuestia and Nestorius, but it did not
follow him so faithfully in his personal explanations,
or rather particular formula?.
The Cyril of the Council of Ephesus was the
one they had kept in Rome, and whom they had
brought to a reconciliation with the Syrians, who
were more or less compromised by the heresy of
Nestorius. But the Cyril of the Council of Alex
andria, where he had promulgated twelve celebrated
anathemas (anathematismes), was kept for long in
quarantine. At the Council of Chalcedon, in 451, this dis
tinction revealed itself. The Council had been
convoked on account of the excesses in doctrine,
taught by a too advanced and erring follower of
Cyril, the monk Eutyches, and by the conduct of
the successor of Cyril, Dioscorus, Patriarch of Alex
andria. Without hesitation Eutyches and Dioscorus
were condemned, and if matters had gone no further,
it is probable that religious peace would have been
maintained in the East. Unfortunately, the situa
tion of affairs seemed to demand the establishment
of a new formula of faith. The imperial govern
ment, uncertain and flurried, having no guide for
its conduct but the condemnation of persons, insisted
that a symbol should be formulated.
But these disputes about mysteries are better
arranged by silence than by definitions. When it
becomes a question of adopting a positive and precise
formula, peace is at once disturbed. We have only
to read the official reports of this celebrated Council
to see that it ended in outward unanimity, but

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 25
with a morally enforced acceptance of a definition
which satisfied only a portion, and that a small
portion, of the Greek episcopate. It was declared
that in Christ there are two natures, but not two
persons. This seems to be nothing new, and after
events proved that, with a little goodwill, the
differences could have been amicably settled. As it
was, all those who were inspired by Cyril, and all
who revered him as a master of theology, felt them
selves injured and conquered. The Nestorians, who,
up to this time, did not exist as a separate sect, who
had no ecclesiastical organisation, and who merely
represented a school, or theological tendency, were
persuaded that they were aimed at. Undoubtedly,
the name of Nestorius had been coupled with that
of Eutyches in the list of condemned persons ; but
the formula issued did not displease his former allies,
and they determined to make capital out of it, and
hoped to do so easily. To help them in this work
their two great chiefs had been somewhat too easily
reinstated. Ibas and Theodoret were orthodox in
manners and formula?, but not in education or
leanings. It was not so with the great doctor of
their party, Theodore of Mopsuestia, whose name
could not have been mentioned with praise, nor with
out blame. In fine, the Roman legates and the
Emperor Marcion obtained, at the Council of Chal
cedon, only a very doubtful victory. Without being-
aware of it, they had managed to wound to the quick
the majority of the Greek theologians, and, with
them, a vast number of religiously-minded people who
thought, or rather felt, with Cyril and his party in
these questions. Cyril may have employed expres
sions that were too severe, or not well balanced ;
but, in reality, his passion for the unity of Christ

26 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
clung to the very fibres of the Eastern mystic's
nature. For a disciple of Theodoras of Mopsuestia,
as for a disciple of Pelagius, the question of the
relations between man and God is, more than any
thing else, a question of merit and demerit. In the
great book of " Retribution " each one has his account
in two columns, owing and owed. By accumulating
merits and diminishing faults, the condition of the
soul is improved. The operation finished, God
strikes the balance, and classes one according to the
excess of the active over the passive. Now this is
pure morality ; it is not religion. What is the place
of the Incarnation or of the Cross in this system ?
Jesus Christ is a model, nothing more. He is not
the true Saviour, the real Redeemer, who by His
divine presence purifies all, elevates all, consecrates
all, and makes of us divine beings, in as far as our
limited nature does not obstruct this communication
of the Divinity to us. Very different is the spirit
which animates the theology of St. Cyril. Jesus
Christ is truly God in us. The Christian is in direct
contact with Him by a physical union, though at the
same time a mysterious one, under the sacramental
veil of the Holy Eucharist. By this Body and
Blood the Christian arrives at union with God,
because in Jesus Christ he has an equally physical
union with the Divinity. Plotinus, another teacher
of Alexandria, had also imagined that he could
attain to absolute contact with the Divinity, but
only by asceticism and ecstasy.
But Cyril permitted the poor labourer in the Delta,
or the unknown workman of the Pharos, to touch
God, even in this world, without ecstasy or extra
ordinary asceticism, and to ensure for himself by this
means a sort of mystical relationship, from which

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 27
devolved sure guarantees for the future — and not
only guarantees of immortality, but of glory. Place
these two mysticisms, or, rather, this mysticism and
rationalism, side by side, and say to which of them
religious souls should lean. At Chalcedon they had
enforced theology, as it were, by police regulations,
but they had not united the hearts of the dissentients.
Hearts, true hearts, are not happy unless they are
gratified. Rome is the seat of government, not the
home of theology, nor the paradise of mysticism. The
Greek Empire did not trouble itself about these two
latter powers unless they raised a storm. The
diplomatic instrument of Chalcedon, which was,
all the same, but a Greek version of a Latin letter of
St. Leo's, was raised to the status of regula fidei — a
rule of faith. Nevertheless there were loud protesta
tions in the East, at Antioch, at Jerusalem, and above
all at Alexandria ; and as these protestations took
the form of bloodshed and strife, the empire was
forced to interfere. It triumphed in Jerusalem,
it compromised at Antioch, but at Alexandria the
populace was completely successful in its movement,
and forced the agents of the government to retire.
Thirty years after the Council of Chalcedon they
had to use every endeavour to retire gracefully and
" save their face," as the Chinese saying goes. For
this purpose the Henotikon was invented, an im
perial edict addressed to the Egyptians in 482, the
most pointed declarations of St. Cyril were placed
on the canon, and anything that had been said, either
at Chalcedon or elsewhere, was repudiated. The
Patriarch of Constantinople, Acacius, patronised this
arrangement. It was, in reality, the renunciation of the Council
and of the " tome " of St. Leo, a repudiation well

28 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
dissimulated, and covered by a silence which, with
a little goodwill, could have been qualified as
respectful. This combination was most displeasing to
Rome. The emperor was not addressed personally ;
it was the Patriarch Acacius who was held to be
responsible. Things went so far that Pope Felix
III. pronounced sentence of deposition against him,
and, as the entire Greek Church sided with Acacius
and supported the Henotikon, a frightful schism
(sckisma nejarium) once more, and, alas ! not for the
last time, divided the Roman Empire into two hostile
communities. Left to itself the Byzantine Church soon became
a prey to domestic troubles. The majority of the
faithful held to the Henotikon, interpreted in the
sense that the theology of Cyril had triumphed
absolutely, and with regard to the formula? and
reconstructions promulgated at Chalcedon, they re
conciled them as best they could with Cyrillian
orthodoxy. But there were numerous fanatics,
especially in Egypt, and in the monasteries of Syriac
Syria, to whom this conciliation seemed not only
impossible but monstrous. According to the leaders
of this movement it was not silence that was be
coming, it was protestation. The Council of Chal
cedon and Nestorianism were identical ; to distinguish
between them was folly. A true Christian, a faithful
bishop, a monk worthy of the name, could be nothing
less than a fierce adversary of this accursed Council,
and of its instigator, Pope Leo. Thus the Henotikon
was variously interpreted without interference, so long
as it preserved the official status given to it by
the Emperor Zeno.
Anastasius, Zeno's successor, was markedly
favourable to the extreme interpretation most ad-

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 29
verse to the Council. It was by his means that, in
512, Severus was installed as Patriarch of Antioch.
He was an ultra Cyrillian, exaggerated in his views,
severe in his government, harsh and powerful in
oratory. Syria, already much agitated during the
intermittent episcopate of Peter the Fuller, for the
most part succumbed to monophysitism. In Egypt
this doctrine was ostensibly the law, whatever may
have been the attitude of the secular authority.
In 518 the Emperor Anastasius died, and his
successor, Justin, forthwith changed the direction of
rehgious government. The wind which had blown
him into power came from Rome and the imperial
countries, where the Council of Chalcedon was re
spected. Severus, and the other monophysite leaders
in the East and in Asia Minor, were deprived of
their Sees, and fled to Egypt, a refuge open to the
followers of " Cyrillian orthodoxy." Communion
was re-established with the Holy See and the Latin
Church. But to make arrangements in Constanti
nople was one thing, to carry them out in the Eastern
provinces quite another.
We do not know what took place in Egypt ;
what is certain is that the Council of Chalcedon was
not then proclaimed there. In Syria, after several
efforts and much prudence, all of the anti-Chalce-
donian bishops were got rid of, but the majority
of the monks still resisted, and allowed themselves
to be turned out of their monasteries rather than
accept the imperial decrees.
The troublous times continued from 520 till
the accession of Justinian in 527. Justin, the pre
decessor of Justinian, seems to have accepted no
compromise. It was necessary to acknowledge the
Council, or to become an outlaw. Justinian ascended

30 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
the throne with orthodox principles ; he made no
pretence of abandoning or of falsifying the Council's
decrees, but he lent a willing ear to interpretations
of them, which reduced them to the level of Cyrillian
theology. As a matter of fact, Cyril had been
exaggeratedly represented as a martyr. At Rome
he had not been so much as spoken of for a hun
dred years, save when, by necessity, the Council
of Ephesus and its preliminaries were mentioned.
Many of the Popes had had occasion to write on
this subject, and it is easy to see, from their letters,
that they avoided speaking of Cyril, and above all
that they never mentioned the famous synodal
epistle, wherein were contained the twelve Ana
themas — that is to say, the most important writings
of the great doctor on the question of the Incar
nation. Pope Gelasius wrote a whole treatise on this
subject, in which he gathered together all the
opinions of the Fathers, especially of the Greek
Fathers, but he made not the smallest allusion to
the works of St. Cyril. This system of ignoring
the Saint was truly formidable. Add to this the
fact that the Popes also patronised the monastery
of the Acemites in Constantinople, which was a
hot-bed of Nestorianism, where they did not shrink
from fabricating false documents in favour of the
theology of Mopsuestia. Under these conditions,
we cannot be surprised if people of good faith found
some difficulty in accepting the Council of Chalce
don, and in considering its defenders as perfectly
orthodox. Explanation was necessary to demon
strate that the formula of 451 was not a passport
given to a system of theology already crushed by
St. Cyril. It was necessary to interpret this formula

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 31
according to the Cyrillian idea, and to free it from
the Nestorian interpretation ; in other words, it was
necessary to reconcile the orthodoxy of Leo with
that of Cyril.
This is what was finally obtained by insisting
that the Pope should admit a new formula, patron
ised in the East by the best and most peaceful of
the Cyrillians.
At Rome there had, at first, been some hesitation
with regard to the acceptance of the text Unus
de Trinitate passus est in came, but in the end
it was finally decided that it was really orthodox.
We must add that it is far less obscure than the
expression of St. Cyril : Una natura Dei Verbi
incarnata, or that of the Patriarch Severus : Una
natura Dei Verbi incarnati. Here the unity of
person is stated, not the unity of nature. It is, to
say the least, an equivocal expression, and one that
could never pass muster without explanation.
The new formula was solemnly promulgated
and inserted, with the principal documents concern
ing it, at the head of the Justinian code. The
emperor also brought about the holding of confer
ences between the leaders of the opposition and
several orthodox bishops. The satisfaction claimed
for a long time by the anti-Chalcedonians was at last
granted to them, somewhat tardily it must be owned.
This was the condemnation of the memory of
Theodore of Mopsuestia, the proscription of his
writings, and of all that was anti-Cyrillian, in the
writings of Theodoret and Ibas.
These measures had some effect on public
opinion, but all did not allow themselves to be
convinced. The opposition was still kept up in
certain circles in Constantinople, and in some towns

32 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
of the dioceses of Asia, but above all in the patri
archates of Antioch and Alexandria. The dis
sentients banded together, refused the sacraments
of the official church, and had recourse to the
ministrations of proscribed priests. The government
ended by fearing that a schism was in progress.
Justinian having a strong arm, and conscious of
having neglected no conciliatory measures, thought
himself bound to resort to practical precautions.
Those of the bishops who refused to adhere to the
Council of Chalcedon were not only banished from
their Sees, but arrested, and imprisoned in monasteries,
under strict surveillance. The object of this step
was to prevent the formation of a nonconformist
hierarchy : without bishops there could be no ordi
nations, and without ordinations there would be no
dissentient priests. It was about the year 536 that
this system was inaugurated, and it was extended to
Egypt, where there were but few orthodox believers.
The Patriarch Theodosius was removed to Con
stantinople with many other bishops. But, in spite
of everything, some remained who retained both their
views and their Sees, either because the agents of
the State prevaricated, and sent in false optimistic
reports, or because some of the prelates signed
contrary to their consciences.
In Syria the success was more complete. Here
the monophysite party, strong in their resolution not
to hold communion with orthodox priests, saw with
dismay the thinning of the ranks of the dissentient
clergy. But they were saved from destruction by
two combined well-wishers — the Ghassanic Emir,
Arethas, and the Empress Theodora.
The Empress Theodora had always been full of
tenderness for the Monophysites, whose passions if

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 33
not their doctrines also, she shared. She was unable
to protect them officially, but contrived to do so
secretly. The Emir Arethas, on the other hand, had
been, since 531, invested with the military governor
ship of the eastern provinces of Syria, precisely those
in which Syriac was spoken, and where the opposi
tion to the confession of faith numbered most of
its adherents. During a journey to Constantinople
he came to an understanding with the Empress
Theodora for the appointment of a schismatic bishop ;
he seems even to have asked for two — one for himself
and one for the Arabs of the Persian Empire, of
which the political capital was Hertha, or Hira, to
the south of ancient Babylon.
There was no lack of monophysite bishops in
Constantinople, but being in prison they were not
available. However, two monks were found deeply
imbued with the heresy, and well able to endure
poverty and hardship. Having been secretly con
secrated bishops, by prelates who were either in
prison or in hiding, they were sent forth on their
mission. One was named Theodorus, and was
appointed to occupy the See of Hira; it is un
known whether he reached his destination or not.
The other, James (Jacobus), surnamed Baradaius,
gave his name to the Jacobites, and this was the
origin of the Jacobite Church. James reached the
States bordering on the Euphrates; but, although
he had been given the title of Bishop of Edessa, he
could not take up his abode in that important city
as the police would have raised difficulties. He
was perpetually on the move, going from one
village to another; misleading his pursuers by his
rags, his poverty, and the rapidity of his migrations.
Before long, a goodly number of his priests were

34 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
found in the monophysite localities. But bishops
were needed. For episcopal consecrations, three
bishops were necessary. James found two monks,
who were both resolute and well -instructed, and,
going to Constantinople, sought for letters of re
commendation from the Patriarch Theodosius. Ac
companied by his two candidates, he journeyed into
Egypt, where, as I said before, it was easy to find
prelates ready to take the risk of such proceedings.
The three bishops returned into Syria, where they
chose, out of the monasteries near the Euphrates,
monks who accepted the imaginary titles of Bishops
of Laodicea, Mabourg, Seleucia, &c. Hands were
imposed on them, and thus, having constituted a
staff of suffragans, they proceeded to elect the
Patriarch. Choice fell upon a certain Sergius, for
a long time the intimate companion of James
Baradaius, by whom he was consecrated, the
others assisting.
Such was the organisation of the Jacobite patriar
chate of Syria. The chief took the title of Patriarch
of Antioch, a city where it was impossible for him
to reside ; the others reconstructed, by their titles,
the original framework of the orthodox patriarchate.
But they were not satisfied to rest there. Be
sides the patriarchate of Antioch, which was im
perial ground, they desired to have a " Catholicos " for
the Persian Empire. This they achieved with some
difficulty, as monophysitism was looked upon with
disfavour beyond the frontier ; but they did succeed
finally. Even at this present time we can distin
guish the jurisdiction of the Jacobite Patriarch and
that of the " Maphrian." The former is the repre
sentative of the Patriarch of Antioch ; the other
is a phantom of the " Catholicos." Neither the one

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 35
nor the other, as we see, represents a national Church,
like those of Persia, Armenia, or Ethiopia. Both are
schismatics, the first from the Byzantine Church,
the latter from the Church in Persia. In Egypt
things had fallen much into the same lines. The
Patriarch Theodosius, from the depths of his exile,
was still considered as the legitimate head of the
Church. There was, no doubt, an official Patriarch
at Alexandria, and the provincial episcopate was
supposed to obey him. In reality, behind this
visible episcopate, there was another. If death
made vacancies, it was not difficult to fill them up.
Theodosius survived Justinian ; and a few years
after his death, the Egyptians contrived to obtain
for themselves a Patriarch, no longer buried in a
distant monastery, but living in Alexandria or its
environs. According to this arrangement Egypt possessed
two Patriarchs and two hierarchies. The dissentients
called themselves " Copts," that is to say, Egyptians ;
and they bestowed on the others the nickname of
" Melchites," or imperialists, which ever after clung
to them. The patriarchate of Jerusalem escaped this dis
union, as did also that of Constantinople. A few
monophysite bishoprics had been established by
James Baradaius, but they do not seem to have
survived, even to the end of the sixth century.
Altogether in the empire, therefore, there were,
in opposition to the four orthodox Patriarchs, only
two unorthodox, those of Antioch and Alexandria.
These were not subject one to the other, but con
tented themselves with keeping up communion with
each other, interrupted, however, by numerous dis
putes. Beyond the empire, these theological differ-

36 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
ences created much commotion, but were unable,
except in Persia, to bring about internal schisms.
The Church of Ethiopia had been founded by
monophysite monks, who came into Egypt at the
time of the Henotikon — that is to say, when the
Copts and Melchites were still united. The schism
once founded, the Ethiopians naturally joined the
religion taught by their masters, and went over to
the Coptic Patriarch in a body. In Armenia, there
seem to have been greater complications, and the
facts have not even yet been brought clearly to
light. Before the Council of Chalcedon, the Cyrillian
tendency was strongly represented in this country,
and people easily rallied to the opposition, which
the Council raised in the eastern provinces of
the empire, and which showed itself clearly under
the Emperors Zeno and Anastasius. On the other
hand, Nestorianism crept into the Persian Church
towards the end of the fifth century.
The Armenians, at this time harassed by the
Sassanide kings, naturally inclined towards those
doctrines and rites which would distinguish them
from the Christians of the oppressing State, and in
repudiating the Council, they drew nearer to the
Romans. Later on, in 519, when the wind had
changed at Constantinople, and the decrees of the
Council were imposed instead of being disputed,
it was too late. The Armenians remained Mono
physites ; it was in vain that, time after time, the
Byzantines tried to induce them to follow their lead :
they conformed sometimes, exteriorly or partially,
but always reverted to their schism.
There were moments when the missions of the
heretical Julianists, or Eutychians, seemed to gain a
considerable following among them, but at heart,

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 37
and as a whole, the Armenians remained on the
same level as the Monophysites of Egypt and Syria.
When James Baradaius founded his schism, they did
not refuse him their support.
What they most of all clung to was the pre
servation of their individuality, and to raise up, by
means of their religion, barriers for the defence of
their nationality. They succeeded in this, partly by
dogma, but above all by ritual, such as the pro
hibition of the mixed chalice, the use of leavened
bread, the combination of the feasts of Christmas
and the Epiphany, and other peculiarities of this
nature. The Church in Persia had taken no part in the
Council of Chalcedon. I have already said that,
although the Council condemned Nestorius, it was
not badly thought of by some of his former allies.
Indeed two of them, Ibas of Edessa and Theodoret,
had been solemnly reinstated by it. But they and
their followers continued to cultivate the opinions
of Theodore of Mopsuestia, to the great scandal of
the Cyrillians. Edessa the Holy contained one of
the principal nests of this movement, the body
known as the " School of the Persians," with Ibas
as its leader. At the time of Zeno it was directed
by a master of the name of Barsumas. Teaching of
this nature became absolutely intolerable under the
regime of the Henotikon. The government came
to an understanding with the bishop, Cyrus, and
the school was abolished and its members dispersed
in 489. The frontier was not far distant, and Nisibis re
ceived the refugees, and there Barsumas rallied them.
The clergy of the Persian Church were more in
sympathy with the doctors of Antioch, Diodorus,

38 THE EASTERN SCHISMS
Theodoras, Ibas, and Theodoret, than with the
Alexandrians. The disciples of Barsumas, for the
most part of a very bellicose nature, were not slow
in making their ascendency felt.
The King of Persia could not but view with
a favourable eye the dogmatic barrier about to be
raised on his western frontier. A few years after
the arrival of Barsumas, the ecclesiastical authorities,
with the Catholicos at their head, were won over
to the new doctrines ; Barsumas was given the
metropolitan bishopric of Nisibis, his friends were
installed in other • important Sees, and the Persian
Church became Nestorian.
It was sixty years since the condemnation of
Nestorius. His party which, up to that time, had
been nothing more than a theological group, became,
towards the end of the fifth century, a great national
Church. Such were the consequences of the Heno
tikon of Zeno. Henotikon signifies an edict of
union, and we see how far the name corresponds
with the reality. Schisms in two patriarchates out
of four, nonconformist organisations everywhere,
ecclesiastical plague-spots, of the gravity of which
we can judge, when Mahomet appears on the horizon ;
— outside the empire the three national Churohes
of Persia, Armenia, and Ethiopia separated from
Catholic unity, and lying in schism and heresy.
How much better inspired would the actors in this
drama have been, if, instead of philosophising so
much over the terminology, instead of disputing
about the physical union, or the hypostatic union,—
the two natures which form but one person, or the
sole hypostasis which rules the two natures,  they
had been a little more preoccupied about things
less sublime but far more vital in their consequences.

THE EASTERN SCHISMS 39
Whilst fighting to the death about the unity of
Christ, which is a mystery, they sacrificed the unity
of the Church, which it was their bounden duty to
uphold. In 362, immediately after the Arian crisis,
Athanasius returned from exile, and gathered round
him the remains of the orthodox episcopacy, but
these confessors began at once to dispute. Some
contended that there was but one person in God,
the others held that there were three. The great
bishop listened patiently to them, and then delivered
a judgment worthy of Solomon : " I see well that
your terms differ, but that in reality you believe
the same thing ; you can therefore give the right
hand of fellowship to one another." Whereupon
they embraced each other.
Why, before it was too late, was there not found
a man of noble heart as well as of great judgment,
to speak in such language to these two parties, who,
both firmly believing in the unity of Christ, yet came
to grief at the Council of Chalcedon ? With all their
goodwill neither the Emperor Marcion in the fifth
century, nor Justinian in the century following,
had the necessary authority. On the vast horizon of
the Christological controversy we see many clever
men, many distinguished theologians, but there is
no Athanasius. It is for this reason that the Eastern schisms still
exist, and that they present us with such difficult
problems. But we may well believe that these
problems are much more in need of our charity,
and of our love of peace, than of our theological
erudition.

CHAPTER III
THE ENCYCLICAL OF THE PATRIARCH
ANTHIMIUS
In his encyclical Prceclara, addressed on June 20,
1894, to "Princes and Peoples," his Holiness
Pope Leo XIII. spoke first of the East, "from
whence salvation spread over the whole universe."
The Sovereign Pontiff said to the Orientals how
deeply he regretted to see prolonged the lamentable
schism which separated them from us, and for such
trivial reasons. He insisted on the necessity of eccle
siastical unity ; he said that this unity must be a
real unity, but that it was possible to reconcile it
with diversities of ritual and traditional privileges.
To these advances of the Holy Father, a reply
was made by the Patriarch of Constantinople and
his Synod. This letter 1 furnishes evidence of a spirit
which, I knew, animated some of the inferior classes
of people in the Greek Church, but which I could
never have believed it possible to see placed on record
in a document of such importance. On the other
hand, it seems to me that Church history in those
parts must be very much below the level we are
accustomed to, in our own schools, thanks to the re
searches of modern erudition. Nor is it less evident
that, even in the highest ecclesiastical spheres of the
Greek Church, faith in the absolute necessity for
1 I refer to the Greek text, which appeared in the 'EKKXr]o-iao-TiKr)
KX-qOua of 29 September (October xi, 189.5).
40

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 41
visible union between the different branches of the
Christian family is not so strong as with us. I
should therefore like, while on the subject of this
patriarchal letter, to return to the subject of the
Greek schism, very old in its remote beginnings,
but full of actuality in the problems that it puts
before us.
I will, first of all, notice this new manifesto of
the Greek Church, and then I will show what are
the most ancient traditions of the relations between
the Holy See and the whole of Christianity ; and,
finally, I shall endeavour to show how the Greek
Church constituted her autonomy, and how by the
development of her particularism she finally broke
away from the unity of Christianity.

I have first to complain of the general tone of
this patriarchal and synodal encyclical.1
Its authors, the Patriarch and the twelve bishops
of his Synod, had to reply to a more than paternal
exhortation. It is impossible to conceive words
sweeter or more amicable than those contained in
the letter Proeclara. The Holy Father had put
all his heart into it ; I might almost say, he had
put only his heart into it. Not one mortifying
expression, not a single word of reproach, not a
grievance spoken of with that precision which it is
so difficult to separate from bitterness, do we find
therein. What then did they discover to offer to
him in reply ? Insults — from the very first words !
1 The document is signed after the Patriarch by the Bishops
of Cyzicus, Nicomedia, Nice, Broussa, Smyrna, Philadelphia, Lemnos,
Durazzo, Bera, Alassona, Carpathos, and Eleutheropolis.

42 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
They hastened to declare that " the devil had
inspired the Bishops of Rome with an intolerable
pride, from which arose innumerable impious innova
tions, contrary to the Gospels." A little farther on
they accused him of claiming, not only the spiritual
supremacy, but likewise the temporal supremacy
over the whole Church, and of calling himself the
sole representative of Christ on earth, and of being
the dispenser of all graces. Not only do they refuse
the embrace of his outstretched arms, but they make
him clearly understand that he has reversed the
order of things, and that, if he desires reunion, he
must first of all retract all that he and his pre
decessors have introduced, as " innovations," into
the tradition of the Church. This retractation, they
say, is claimed by "the one Holy, Catholic, and
Apostolic Church " — the Church of the Seven
(Ecumenical Councils. She it is who draws up the
programme, in terms of a harsh and dry solemnity.
We are well acquainted with this programme, for
it is not by any means the first time that a similar
answer has been made to the exhortations of the
Roman Church. But it might have been hoped
that friendly reasoning, such as Pope Leo's, might
have produced some impression, and above all, that,
in the present state of Christendom, the East would
have felt, like the West, the little relative importance
of the particular details against which they have
been running their heads for a thousand years. For
in truth, for the most part, they are details, trivial
matters, which a sarcastic writer might easily term
sacristy questions: a word inserted in the Latin
Symbol without a previous consultation with the
Greek Church ; unleavened substituted for leavened
bread ; the exclusive importance accorded at the

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 43
consecration to the words of our Lord, " This is My
Body," &c. — the lay communion under one species ;
baptism by affusion. The objections to Purga
tory, the Immaculate Conception, and the Papal
Infallibility, appear more serious, and they would
have done well to confine themselves to these instead
of confusing them with the other difficulties.
I am ready to admit that on all these heads
they believe themselves to be in the right. But
what follows? Is this conviction an obstacle to
reunion, or at all events to the preliminaries of an
understanding, or to the efforts to arrive at such an
understanding ? They say that they desire reunion
and that they pray for its realisation. Is reunion
best arrived at by thrusting forward all that can
cause separation, and keeping in the background all
that could tend to conciliation ? Is the following the
kind of style to help on such a reunion : " Our
orthodox Church is prepared to welcome the proposal
for reunion, on the understanding that the Bishop of
Rome, once for all, rejects the many and various
novelties introduced into his Church contrary to
the Gospels — innovations which were the origin
of the lamentable separation of the Eastern and
Western Churches — and provided that he puts him
self under the rule of the seven Holy (Ecumenical
Councils " ?
It would be impossible to use more haughty
terms to signify their ultimatum of non-acceptance.
We have to deal with an offended people, who wish
to have nothing to do with us, and tell us so without
any hesitation. But why are they offended ? Is the
language of the Pope new? Are they not accus
tomed to hear it? Have they any fresh grudge
against him ? Yes, they have one, and I find it a

44 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
few lines farther down than those I have just quoted.
"The papistical Church" (what a polite epithet!)
" forsaking the ways of persuasion and discussion, has
for some time been sending into the East men
whom St. Paul calls ' perfidious labourers, who
disguise themselves as apostles of Christ.' '' Who
are these obnoxious beings ? " They are clergy who,
adopting the costume and wearing the head-dress of
the orthodox priests, make use of many other deceits
to proselytise." It appears that lately there were to be seen, in
Constantinople, at Smyrna, and elsewhere, either
Melchite priests, or other uniates, from Syria, or
even, perhaps, they may have been some Basilian
monks from Italy. Naturally, they wore their
" kamelafkias " and their long flowing robes. This is
their habitual garb. Because they are not disguised
as Latin priests, or as English tourists, it cannot be
alleged against them that they are as wolves in
sheep's clothing. Is it worth while to be disturbed
by such trifles ?
And yet it was this childish incident which
gave us the patriarchal encyclical, as his Beatitude
Anthimius expressly declares. Of the encyclical
of the Pope he took no heed ; he even disdained to
read it : — " We have kept silence till this moment,
we have disdained even to cast our eyes on this
papal encyclical, considering it useless to speak to
those who are deaf." But "kamelafkias" had been
seen going about the East, which did not cover
orthodox heads. From that moment they decided
to overcome their repugnances ; the Phanar con
descended to grant an audience to the Vatican.
They cast their eyes on the encyclical, and a solemn
ecthesis was drawn up, containing eight articles,

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 45
destined to prove to others as well as to themselves
that they were not at fault in even refusing to hear
reunion mentioned. Let us now consider this
document. II
Each of the articles is drawn up in this form :
" The Church of the seven (Ecumenical Synods, one,
holy, catholic, and apostolic, believes and professes
that " . . . " The papal Church on the contrary," &c.
Let us first speak of this formula. They re
proach us with having added one word to the
Creed ; but I maintain that here they add a fifth
characteristic mark to the four by which the Symbol
defines the true Church. The Church is not only
one, holy, catholic, and apostolic ; she is also the
Church of the seven (Ecumenical Synods. Wherefore
do they add this qualification ? Is there anywhere in
the Gospels, or in the Apocalypse, a prescription in
virtue of which the future Church might, or was to,
qualify herself thus ? Did the seventh (Ecumenical
Council shut the door after itself, prohibit all other
similar assemblies, prescribe that all should abide
only by it, and be called after it ? I think that
" No " is the answer to these questions.
Do they mean to say that the Roman Church
does not recognise the seven Councils, or that the
Greek Church has particular rights over them ?
It is indeed the time to use St. Paul's words :
" Are they Israelites ? so am I ; children of Abraham ?
so am I ; servitors of Christ ? I, more than they."
These Councils belong to us as much as to them,
nay more than to them. I know well that they
were held in the East, that the emperors residing
or governing in the East procured their assembly.

46 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
But, for the most part, they only represent an
orthodox Roman victory won over an Eastern
heresy ; or, to speak more charitably, a remedy
applied by the Latin Church to her Greek sister,
infected by some doctrinal malady.
Let us sum them up. Arius was condemned at
Nice. Was he a Latin ? No ; he was a priest of
Alexandria. Who defended him, both before and
after the Council ?— above all, Eusebius, Bishop of
Nicomedia and then of Constantinople. Two of
the signatories of the patriarchal encyclical must
recognise themselves as successors of Eusebius.
Where did the Council of Nice find its most
numerous and ardent partisans and defenders ? In
Egypt and in the West. From whence came the
famous term homoousios which has served as a pass
word for Nicene orthodoxy ? Most probably from
Rome. Why was the second (Ecumenical Council held ?
To uphold the faith of Nice, continually fought
against in the East, during upwards of half a
century. Who convoked it ? The Latin Emperor
Theodosius. Who declared that he knew no other
faith than that which was preached to the Romans
by St. Peter, which was taught in Home by Pope
Damasus, and at Alexandria by the Bishop Peter,
successor to Athanasius ? Who were the heretics
condemned at this Council ? Eudoxius and Mace
donius of Constantinople; Apollinarius of Laodicea
in Syria; Eunomius, Aetius, and other members
of the Greek clergy. Not a single Latin figures
amongst these names. Against whom was the third
(Ecumenical Council at Ephesus held ? Against
Nestorius, the Patriarch of Constantinople, the fourth
heretical predecessor of his Beatitude Anthimius.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 47
Eutyches, a monk of Constantinople, and Dios
corus, Patriarch of Alexandria, by their excesses
either in doctrine or jurisdiction, brought about
the assembly of the fourth Council at Chalcedon.
What did this Council do ? It deposed Dioscorus,
and punished his accomplices, under the effective
direction of the papal legates, in virtue of the
orders brought by them. Furthermore, it drew up
a profession of faith, in which is found the famous
expression in duabus naturis. From whence
came this dogmatic term, this new password of
orthodoxy ? From the East ? No ; the greater
number of the members of the Council abhorred
it. It came from Rome, and figures as an essential
element in the exposition of faith addressed by
Pope Leo to the Patriarch Flavian ; that is to say,
in a document of which the ecthesis of Chalcedon
is only a Greek reproduction.
The fifth Council, it is true, scores a temporary
victory, won by the Emperor Justinian and the
Greek episcopate, over Vigilius ; but, all the same,
no point of doctrine or of faith was discussed
at it. It was simply a question as to whether
the condemnation of certain books was opportune
pr not. The Pope was inopportunist, the Council
opportunist, and for the sake of peace, the Pope
gave in to the decree of condemnation. But the
proof that he was in the right is shown by the
fact that this very condemnation was misunder
stood in the West, and caused serious troubles
and prolonged schisms.
At the sixth Council let us now see what
was the position taken by the papal legates.
They arrived, bearing letters from the Pope, where
the orthodox doctrine was exposed and inculcated

48 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
against the monothelite heresy, which had been
prevalent for more than forty years in all the
patriarchates of the East, save that of Jerusalem.
At the time of the Council, and at the assembly
itself, this heresy was openly represented by the
Patriarch of Antioch, and secretly by the Patriarch
of Constantinople. This latter, seeing the legates
supported by the emperor, decided to join their
side. In the final condemnation, besides the Patriarch
of Antioch, and a few other monothelites of Con
stantinople, we see figuring the names of several
former Patriarchs, of whom four Avere of Constanti
nople. It is true that we also find that of Pope
Honorius, who had made the mistake, quite at the
beginning of the affair, of allowing himself to be
guided by the Patriarch Sergius, under whose in
spiration he wrote imprudent letters, which his
clergy and successors hastened to repudiate.
And what of the seventh Council, that of the
Images '( In 754 the Greek episcopate, ever docile
to the wishes of the court, condemned, in an almost
plenary l assembly, the practice of venerating images,
which, indeed, had been proscribed for over twenty
years by the government. At Rome, during the
same period, the use and veneration of images was
maintained, but not without tlie endurance of persecu
tion. But this practice triumphed at last — but not
for good — at the (Ecumenical Council of Constanti
nople in 787. It seems to me that from all this it
is evident that, if there is one place in the world more
1 At the iconoclastic Council there were present 336 bishops.
Taking into consideration the limits of the empire at the time,
this figure represents many more than the majority of the occupied
Sees.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 49
than another where they can claim the seven (Ecu
menical Councils, it is in Rome ; and that if there is
one place more than another where the mention of
them can raise gloomy reflections, it ought to be
Constantinople. We will count up the Patriarchs whose memory
has been condemned at these Councils, and who
showed themselves openly to be against their deci
sions : Eusebius, Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophelus,
Nestorius, Acacius, Timotheus, Anthimius, Sergius,
Pyrrhus, Paul, Peter, John VI., Anastasius, Con
stantine, Nicetas, Theodotus, Anthony, John VII.
Nineteen heretical Patriarchs, and that in a period
of only 500 years. And I have only here mentioned
the chiefs of the clan, the notorious heretics. The
list would be mightily prolonged if we had to give
a place in it to all the Patriarchs who could be
taxed with hesitation, faults of conduct, such as
those that are held up in triumph against the Popes
Liberius, Vigihus, and Honorius.
But they will say to me, if it is true that, on the
whole, the first seven (Ecumenical Councils represent
an orthodox faith defended agamst us by the
Roman Church, at least we can say that we have
upheld this orthodoxy, whereas the Roman Church
has either abandoned or corrupted it. Abandoned
it ? In what ? Which is the dogma defined in
these Councils that the Church of Rome has since
repudiated ? What is the formula established by
them that does not figure expressly in her pro
fessions of faith ?
Corrupted ? Under this head come the accusa
tions emunerated above, the Filioqiie, baptism by
affusion, unleavened bread, &c. They would do well
to point out to us, in the ancient Councils, one
D

50 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
decree, one canon, one word which represents a pro
hibition relating to any one of these points. Which
of the (Ecumenical Councils regulated the doctrine
of the Procession of the Holy Ghost,1 the mode of
administering baptism, the efficacy of such or such
a portion of the Eucharistic liturgy, the choice
between leavened or unleavened bread, the con
ditions of expiation beyond the tomb, or the re
lation between the ban of original sin and the
special position of the Blessed Virgin-Mother.
But, in specifying, we should have added — What
of yourselves ? In denying our definitions, in treating
them, not only as doubtful, but as erroneous, do you
not define as much as we do — do you not dogmatise
as much as we do ?

Ill
But let us come to details, and let us begin with
the celebrated Eilioque. You are forced to allow
that this interpolation into the Symbol is not the
doing of the Roman Church ; that she submitted
to it far more than she introduced it. You ex
pressly avow it ; you even quote, in order to
strengthen your statement, texts which, by the
way, might have been more exactly quoted,2 but
1 We shall see farther on that the Symbol attributed to the
second Council does not actually belong to it. What it says of
the Holy Ghost — "Et in Spiritum Sanctum, Dominum et vivifi-
cantem qui ex Patre procedit, qui cum Patre et Filio simul adora-
tur et conglorificatur, qui locutus est per prophetas" — expresses
neither the divinity nor consubstantiality of the Holy Ghost. In
381 a pneumatomast might have signed this formula. And it is
a good sign that it did not emanate from a Council where this
precise heresy was condemned.
2 The Liber pontificahs in the life of Leo III. says that this
Pope caused to be engraved on two tablets in the Confession of
St. Peter, the text of the Symbol in Greek and in Latin : " Hic

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 51
all the same this raises no doubts among you.
Certainly the Roman Church ended by tolerating
and then admitting the Filioque ; she put herself
into the position of being accused of a crime, if this
is a crime. " Yes, it is a crime," you say, " surely,
and one which is most abominable." Let us see.
Where is the ecclesiastical law that forbids adding
to the Creed necessary explanations or even useful
ones ?
The most ancient Symbol is surely not that
which we say or sing at the Mass : this one does
not date back farther than the fourth century.
Before this, only the Creed called the Apostles' Creed
was known — that is to say, as the latest researches
of erudition have proved, the very ancient Baptismal
Creed of the Roman Church. At the time of the
Council of Nice, all the Churches of the East, as well
as the West, used this venerable formula, everywhere
identically the same save for a few amplifications
added here and there ; for, in those ancient times,
no great inconvenience was felt in touching up the
text of the Symbol.
The Council of Nice added words and even
absolutely new phrases, with the precise intention
of eliminating, among those who recited it, the
least suspicion of Arianism. " This is true," you
will say, " but it was the Council of Nice." Agreed ;
but let us take the Nicene Creed and compare it,
save for the Filioque, with the Creed which is
common to us. Who drew up this common Symbol,
this sacred Creed, which you reproach us for
vero pro amore et cautela orthodoxae fidei fecit scutos ex argento
II., scriptos utrosque symbolum." . . . His Beatitude transforms
the original text of the narration into an inscription : " Haec Leo,
posui amore et cautela," &c.

52 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
having augmented? Was it the first (Ecumenical
Council? No. Was it the second? No; because
it is certainly older than this Council. Therefore,
being neither of the first nor of the second (Ecu
menical Councils, but composed somewhere in the
East between the two, it can only be from some
authority inferior to an (Ecumenical Council.
Now, let us compare its text with the authentic
text of Nice. The difference is enormous. Not,
be it well understood, that there is any contradic
tion between the two, but from the point of view
of development. Certain beliefs are expressed in
the second that were not so in the first. If it is
abominable to have added to the Creed the ex
pression of the belief in the Procession of the Holy
Ghost, cv filio, how much more so is it to have
added all this series of dogmas: —
1. The birth of Christ by the operation of the
Holy Ghost, from the womb of the Virgin Mary.
2. His crucifixion under Pontius Pilate.
3. His burial.
4. The scriptural prediction of His resurrection.
5. His place in heaven at the right hand of the
Father. 6. His eternal reign (against Marcellus of
Ancyra). 7. (The Holy Ghost), Ruler, Life-giver, pro
ceeding from the Father, adored and glorified with
the Father and the Son, the Inspirer of Prophets.
8. The Church, one holy, catholic, and apos
tolic. 9. The remission of sins by baptism.
10. The resurrection of the dead.
11. Life everlasting.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 53
It will be objected that the majority of these
doctrines are found, under different forms, in the
Apostles' Creed, long before the Council of Nice.
I grant it, but it is not a question here of the
orthodoxy or of the traditional character of this or
that doctrine, but only of the inviolability of the
formula. Now, I do not see that this inviolability
was ever claimed for the Apostles' Creed. I main
tain that, on the contrary, it was often retouched,
even in Rome, the place of its origin. I look in
vain among the ecclesiastical laws anterior to the
Council of Ephesus, the third (Ecumenical Council,
for any prohibition to this effect.
The Symbol of Nice had often been remodelled,
in the most orthodox centres, and combined in
divers ways with the Apostles' Creed, for use at
baptism. The Creed of Constantinople is the result
of one such combination. It seems to be nothing
more nor less than the baptismal Symbol of Jeru
salem, seemingly drawn up by St. Cyril, and adopted
for its own use by the Church of Constantinople ;
not before the second (Ecumenical Council, because
at that time she was Arian, but later, between 381
and 451. Nothing authorises us to believe that
this Creed was promulgated by the Council of 381.
It is certain, in any case, that the next Council,
that of Ephesus, held in 431, ignores it absolutely.
For the Council of Ephesus, there was only one
Creed, that of Nice, the true and the primitive one.
If it prohibits any other Symbol, it is in favour of
that of Nice and not of that of Constantinople.
It is useless, therefore, to bring forward the
Council of Ephesus against us. If the prohibition
given by this Council represents anything but a
temporary measure, if it is a perpetual law, then

54 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
it attacks, not only the Filioque, but the Symbol of
Constantinople in its entirety.
But this Symbol was, in the end, accepted, and
it was submitted to the Council of Chalcedon, con
jointly with that of Nice ; the Church of Rome has
introduced it into her baptismal ritual. That is true.
With regard to the Roman Church, the introduction
of the Symbol of Constantinople was late, it dates
back only to the time of Justinian ; it represents one
of the fruits of the religious policy of that prince,
who was very much preoccupied with the promo
tion of unity and conformity between the different
Churches of his empire. Perhaps the Church of
Rome might have done better to keep to her old
tradition and to assure to the Apostles' Creed the
exclusive place it had held till then. It is evident
that, for the sake of peace, "for a certain time " she
substituted for it the Symbol of Constantinople, in
the same way as she tolerated that the Churches of
France and Spain should chant this Symbol at the
Mass, with the addition of the Filioque, which seems
to have been first introduced in Spain towards the
sixth century. Her resistance to this last innovation
continued down to the eleventh century. It was not
that she considered the addition of the Filioque as
a violation of the essential ecclesiastical laws, but
knowing better than the Frankish clergy the state of
mind of the Greeks, and their propensity to take um
brage at any divergencies, she judged it inopportune
to give them any cause for criticism. Thus the Creed
which they accuse us of having interpolated contains
nothing, either in its origin or its authority, which for
bids necessary interpolations. It comes neither from
the Council of Nice nor from that of Constantinople ;
it represents in itself an enormous violation of the

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 55
imaginary prohibition which they oppose to the
Filioque. It is the Nicene Creed seriously inter
polated by a particular authority, without previous
consultation with the assembly of the Churches.
If, then, they discover a mote in our eye, let them
first begin by taking the large beam out of their
own. But they do not confine themselves to disputing the
right in virtue of which the Latin Church completed
her Symbol. They deny the doctrine formulated
in this addition. But I have no intention of tread
ing on theological ground. For long centuries the
Greeks and Latins have quarrelled over this subject,
the Greeks proving to the Latins that the Holy
Ghost proceeds only from the Father, the Latins
demonstrating to the Greeks that He proceeds from
the Son also. All the arguments, all the texts,
have long been well known. They can be found in
any number of books, so that I shall confine myself
to two observations. First of all, this question
seems to be of a very metaphysical order. It is
difficult to see in what way it interests the religious
sentiment. Could it not, ought it not to be allowed
to remain quiet directly it becomes clear that it
compromises ecclesiastical peace ? Long before the
Greek theologians began to make a case of conscience
of it, the Filioque existed in the Creeds of Spain and
France, and still longer had it been taught in the
West that the Holy Ghost proceeded ex utroque.
Photius was the first to raise the question, and he
was urged on to this by his desire to find the
Latins in fault. Ought we not, amongst our far-
off ancestors, to prefer the Apostles to the makers
of discord, and desire times of union and not schis
matical crises?

56 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
The other observation that I feel bound to make
is this : When in this question they do not confine
themselves to counting and weighing the scriptural
texts, the testimony of the Fathers, and the meta
physical arguments — when they endeavour to become
acquainted with the story of the dispute, beginning
with its most profound causes, this is what they arrive
at. From the fourth, or even the third century, not
to go still farther back, two systems of theology were
running concurrently, each endeavouring to explain
the inexplicable mystery of the Blessed Trinity.
The one adhered to in the West placed the essence
of the mystery in the consubstantiality ; it cultivated
above everything else the idea of the Divine Unity,
subordinating to it the idea of the Triple Personality.
The other system, prevailing in the East, leaving more
or less aside the hierarchy of the Divine Persons,
concentrates its attention upon the Divine Unity.
For the Easterns, the Trinity is, beyond everything
else, cosmological, for by it they explain the origin of
the world. Of necessity the existence of the world
demands the existence of divine persons.1 For the
West, the Trinity has nothing to gain from the
world ; it is a necessity of the Divine Being.
Here the Trinity is immanent; there, it is eco
nomic. It is useless to dissimulate. We agree on
the symbolical formula?, except only the Filioque;
1 I do not pretend to say here that such a proposition is
expressly affirmed by the Fathers of the Greek Church. What I
mean to say is, that this idea is found more or less deeply, under
lying all their theological developments. The correction of these
comes, not from philosophical conceptions which serve as the sub
stratum, but from ecclesiastical tradition formulated in the Councils
or elsewhere. In the East, as with us, respect for tradition has
often prevented persons from drawing from doubtful principles,
false conclusions, such as would have caused the erection of orthodox
theology upon a system of philosophy, more or less open to criticism.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 57
we agree on the acceptance of the traditional
doctrines that they express ; but we do not always
agree upon the way of explaining this formula, or of
combining these ideas. Faith unites us; theology
often separates us. St. Augustine in his theory
of the Trinity, in his philosophical manner of
conceiving it, differs widely from St. Gregory
of Nazianzen. But which of them is right? I
have just said, how little religious interest these
questions of pure theology or of high and dry meta
physics possess. Should I then conclude that every
one is wrong, and that it is an offence against God
to try and penetrate His mysteries ? Certainly not.
Should I settle the question by showing on which
side the Roman Church is to be found ? Again I
say "No." I will confine myself to pointing out
an historical fact. The Greek theology has been
defined on this point, by the hands of the great
Cappadocian doctors, Basil, Gregory of Nazianzen,
and Gregory of Nyssa, in the same way as the
Latin theology received its definite guidance from
St. Augustine. Far be it from me to depreciate
the three great servants of God, who, in the decline
ofthe fourth century, shed such a pure light of doctrine
and virtue over Eastern Catholicism. Yet we cannot
conceal the fact that these theologians represent the
orthodoxy of converts. Their masters, their pre
decessors, had been, as we hear, semi- Arians. They
breathed the same atmosphere as Basil of Ancyra,
Eustathius of Sebaste, and others equally celebrated
for their hostility to the consubstantiality. When
this theological world, after much hesitation and
weakness, finally gave in to the Council of Nice,
it was not without reservations. They stipulated
for the three hypostases, with more insistence than

58 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
it would have become true champions of Nice,
or the Pope of Rome, or St. Athanasius to have
exhibited. It would not be astonishing if — I do
not say in their faith, but in their theology — they
had retained some attachment to their former ideas.
They accepted the Symbol of Nice, but they ex
plained it in the light of the philosophy of Origen
and Eusebius of Ca?sarea.
St. Augustine is free from these influences. He
treats the faith of Nicaea directly by reason, without
having his mind preoccupied by some previous
system of theology. Origen does not weigh his
thoughts ; if, long before his time, they reasoned
and disputed about the doctrine of the Trinity, he
quietly ignores the fact. To an indifferent observer
this would be a circumstance in his favour. I only
wish to touch upon it, for were I to develop it
I should soon have to go beyond the limits of
this work. Perhaps we might find ground for some
mutual understanding or discussion if persons really
desirous of ceasing disunion and disagreement, men
well instructed in dogma and tradition, would unite
to confer on the Procession of the Holy Ghost.
Why could not this be arranged ? Diplomacy settles
many quarrels, by examining them coolly and in
a pacific spirit ; and this is a vital condition. The
pacific spirit does not reveal itself in this patriarchal
encyclical. IV
After the recriminations on the Filioque, a
long series of protestations follows against certain
Latin usages which are not to be found in the Greek
Church, and which, for that reason, appear to the
Oriental mind extremely reprehensible, e.g. baptism

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 59
by affusion ; the consecration of unleavened bread ;
the neglect of the Epiclesis ; and, finally, communion
under one species. These diversities of custom do
not appear to us, Latins, to be of great importance.
The Roman Church, while remaining faithful to her
own proper usages, allows other Churches to observe
their own rites. At different epochs the Popes have
even intervened to prevent their representatives in
the East from insisting upon the Uniates conforming
their traditional customs, in these particulars, to
the Latin rite. The Orientals, on the other hand,
manifest no such spirit of toleration. The heads of
the Greek Church insist that we should follow their
ceremonies in every detail. They go so far as to see
in our particularities a cause of nullity ; at times
they recognise neither our baptism, nor our Eucha
rist ! In former ages their list of complaints against
us was much longer. They protested against the
Latin discipline of ecclesiastical celibacy ; against
the fast of Saturdays in Lent ; to the interruption
of the Alleluia during the weeks before Easter ; to
the shaven faces of the clergy, &c, &c. It was like
the case of an inexperienced traveller who, on first
leaving his native land, found everything wrong
which was not done as he had been accustomed to
see it.
The Byzantine Greeks did not reflect that the
tables could be turned upon themselves, and that
they could be called upon to give an account of
certain usages peculiar to them. Why, for instance,
do they put hot water into the consecrated chalice ?
Why has the Patriarch alone the power of consecrat
ing the holy chrism ? This last point is a manifest
encroachment on the rights of the bishops. Why
are the Patriarchs, whose office was always as im-

60 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
movable as that of all their bishops, now changed
as often as parliamentary ministers ? x
I do not wish to enlarge upon this circumstance,
for I am more anxious to defend the Latin Church
than to attack the Greeks. I therefore return to the
objections they make against us.
First, with regard to baptism, they say that the
Church of the seven Synods baptizes by a triple
immersion in the water, that Pope Pelagius desig
nated this triple immersion " a precept of our Lord,"
and that the ancient baptisteries of Italy are built
so as to show that, until the thirteenth century,
immersion was in use there.
The text of Pope Pelagius's degree is not given
by the Patriarch, and I have had some trouble in
finding it, as it is not contained in the collection of
his letters hitherto published. It figures, however, in
the Decree of Yvo of Chartres, i. 161. But, having
found it, I am able to say that it does not prove
what the Patriarch wishes it to prove. The Pope
is answering an inquiry of Gaudentius, Bishop of
Volterra, who had submitted the following case to
him : " Whether the heretics of the Bonosiac sect,2
must be baptized when they wish to become Catholics,
or only reconciled ? What rendered their baptism
doubtful was that they baptized only in the name of
Christ,3 and by a single immersion — quia in nomine
1 His Beatitude Anthimius has once more verified this grave
departure from the ancient discipline. Having been Patriarch for
about one year, he has been compelled, between the composition of
this article and the correction of the proofs, to tender his resigna
tion to the Synod ! What a pity !
2 The name of the sect is not mentioned, but it refers either
to the Photinians or Bonosiacs, for the Pope speaks of Sirmium
and of Singidunum as the classic land ofthe heresy in question.
3 This form is used by the sect known as the Swedenborgians
at the present time.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 61
solummodo Christi, una etiam mersione se asserunt
bapthari. Against this proceeding Pelagius quotes
the words of our Lord : " Go ye and teach all
nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father,
and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." He says
that this evangelical precept bids us administer bap
tism in the name of the Blessed Trinity, by a triple
immersion — in nomine Trinitatis trina etiam mersione.
It is perfectly clear that he in no way opposes im
mersion to affusion, but only the ritual of thrice
to the ritual of once, and the formula " in the name
of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy
Ghost " to the formula " in the name of Christ,"
or "Jesus." Again, we must remark that, in the
text, the words trina mcrsio have but very secon
dary importance. He goes on to tell the Bishop of
Volterra to find out if the heretics of whom there
is question have been baptized with the formula,
" In the name of the Father," &c, or with the
other, and to admit their baptism as valid in the
first case, but to reject it in the second. The
triple immersion is not again alluded to, which
proves clearly that, where he spoke of the evan
gelical precept given by our Lord Himself, he only
had in his mind the text of St. Matthew, " Go
and teach ye all nations," &c. Therefore, if he
mentions the trina mersio, it is merely to signalise
in the matter a correspondence with the triplicity of
the form, and not at all to show that this was of
divine ordinance. This interpretation is also con
firmed by the attitude of St. Gregory with regard
to the use in Spain, where the mersio was single.
St. Gregory declares that he sees no objection to
their baptizing by a single immersion. It was pre
cisely on this point that the great Pope formulated

62 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
the principle that, in the Church, the unity of faith
had not suffered by the diversity of usages : In una
fide nil officii sanctce Ecclesice consuetudo diversa.
Thus the text of Pelagius is of no value whatever
in the present question. His Beatitude ought to
have abstained from quoting it, or, having done so,
he should at least not have mutilated it. Neither
Pelagius nor Gregory dreamt of opposing the mersio
at baptism by another act. For them the mersio
was the only way of conferring baptism known at
that period for general use.
Let us now examine a little more closely what
underlies this technical term. His Beatitude seems
to be very sure that immersion was practised in the
West up to the thirteenth century. As far as
words go, appearances seem to favour his assertion.
The principal act in the ceremony of baptism is
generally called mersio, or immersion, as we have
just seen. The old rituals say mergis, where they
indicate to the celebrant what he is to do. But, all
the same, we must not adhere to the ordinary
meaning of words where it is a question of such
specific acceptation of them.
We constantly see representations of the celebra
tion of baptism on monuments ; the Gospel scene
of the baptism of our Lord, or even ordinary
baptisms. But do we ever see total immersion, the
neophyte plunged into the water so as to disappear
completely ? Such a thing is never seen. This im
mersion, which is the Greek form, is never to be met
with, either in the mosaics of ancient churches, or
in the paintings of the Catacombs, nor in ordinary
pictures or domestic objects, glasses, spoons, &c,
nor sculptured, nor engraved on marble. In all such
ancient monuments the neophyte appears standing,

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 63
his feet in the water, but the greater part of the
body out of the water, while water is poured on his
head, either with the hand or with a vase, often in
the shape of a dove. This is baptism by affusion,
not baptism by immersion ; it is not a bath taken
by plunging into deep water or into a tank; it is
more like a douche taken over a large vase.
But they will say, — between your baptism by
simple affusion and this ancient rite there is, at all
events, this difference : in the old Latin ritual the
feet are immersed. Agreed ; but all will allow that
here the ablution of the head is of more importance
than that of the feet. Furthermore, the technical
expression mersio, mergis, does not refer to the
washing of the feet, but only to the pouring of the
water. Mergis eum tertio, the rituals say. It is
quite clear that when this action takes place the
neophyte has already gone down into the tank ; his
feet are in the water, but he is not yet baptized.
He will only be so after the mersio, accompanied
by the sacramental words. This mersio is repeated
three times, without the neophyte's moving or going
out of the font. It can, therefore, only be the act
by which the celebrant pours the water upon the
head that is regarded as essential, and nothing else.
The baptisteries which the patriarchal encyclical
alludes to bear testimony to our custom and not to
his. Not one of them has the necessary depth for
the water to cover even a man of middle stature.1
In fact, there is in this a mistaken interpretation.
The immersion spoken of in the old texts is nothing
else but the actual pouring, practised, without doubt,
1 A font in St. Martin's Church, Canterbury, dating from the
sixth century, demonstrates that no adult could have been baptized
in it by total immersion, but only by affusion.

64 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
with a greater effusion of water, but without any
essential difference, in early times.
And this belief finds confirmation in the use
of the words tinctio, tingere, to designate baptism.
This synonym has been used in ecclesiastical
language since the days of Tertullian. Now what
does tingere mean ? Simply " to wet," not " to
immerse." Is there any need to add that baptism by im
mersion presupposes a free disposal of a large
quantity of water, and for this reason is incompatible
with certain situations and certain facts ? How, for
instance, are we to believe that the 3000 Jews
baptized in Jerusalem, on the day of the first Pente
cost, were treated in this manner? (Acts ii. 41).
And, lastly, it is an absolutely undeniable fact that
the baptism of invalids, and clinical baptism, as it was
called, was not, and could not be, performed by im
mersion ; it was administered by the simple pouring of
the water. Without doubt this baptism was looked
upon as a sort of makeshift, for it was always
considered more desirable to be baptized with all
the ceremonies of the Church and in a public and
solemn assembly. But this preference was in no
wise founded upon the idea that clinical baptism
was invalid. No one ever thought of iteration of
such baptisms. From this we conclude that, if
baptism by affusion is valid under any circumstances,
why should not this minimum suffice also for persons
in good health. It is possible to dispute over the
opportuneness of the simplification, but not over
the validity of the simplified rite.
" The Church of the seven (Ecumenical Councils,
&c, after the example of the Lord, celebrated the
Eucharist with leavened bread — a custom followed

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 65
for more than a thousand years in the East as well
as in the West; but the papistical Church in the
eleventh century made an innovation by the in
troduction of the use of unleavened bread." Here
are some precise assertions, but, unfortunately, they
are very far from being verified as facts. One point
alone is certain, and that is that it was only in
the eleventh century that the Greeks began to
quarrel with the Latins about the use of unleavened
bread. But as to the date when the use of un
leavened bread was introduced, or what was the
rapidity of the spread of this usage, no one can say ;
in the present conditions of historical research it
is absolutely unknown. In fixing the dates, the
Patriarch affirms what he does not and cannot know
or prove. He knows still less whether the example
of our Lord (which is the sole foundation for his
exclusiveness), is in favour of his or of the Latin
usage. The three Gospels of St. Matthew, St. Mark,
and St. Luke relate the last moments of Christ,
starting from the idea that He celebrated the Pasch
just before his death. St. John vi. gives a different
impression ; and it seems certain that we shall never
succeed in arriving at a solution of this question.
If the conclusion drawn from the text of St.
John were the only legitimate one, the Greek usage
would have the example of our Lord in its favour ;
but if our Lord celebrated the Pasch on the eve of
His death, it is clear that His example is followed
by the Latin and condemned by the Greek usage.
So that there is, at all events, a doubt on the point.
Under these conditions of historical knowledge, why
should liberty be restricted ? The only logical solu
tion is, that both usages are equally authorised ;
and this is the Roman solution. E

66 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
They also reproach us with admitting that, in the
consecration of the Blessed Eucharist, the efficacious
words are those of the institution, "This is My
Body," " This is My Blood," while, according to the
Church of the seven (Ecumenical Councils, the effi
cacious words are the invocation of the Holy Ghost.
And they pretend that the ancient Roman and
Gallican rituals support this view, and thus condemn
the behef and practice of the "papistical Church."
The truth is, that this belief, which has not, so far
as I am aware, been formulated directly and explicitly
in any dogmatic decision, is authorised by very
ancient testimonies. We could even find precedents
for it in the usage of the Greek Church itself.
According to their rite, the words of institution are
pronounced in a loud voice, with great solemnity,
whereas the epiclesis is recited in a low voice. But
what it behoves us to examine before anything else
are the liturgical Latin texts.
Now, in the formula of the Roman Mass, which
for its details dates back at least to the time of
Pope Damasus1 (366-384), there is no question of
the Holy Ghost. In the Gallican formula?, which
differ greatly from one another, there are some
that speak of the Eucharistic transformation as being
performed by the power of the Holy Ghost, but there
are others that do not thus speak of it. This form
of prayer was, therefore, not considered obligatory
in the West. To admit the contention of the modern
Greeks would be to declare the nullity of the greater
1 The Byzantine liturgies, called of St. Basil and St. John
Chrysostom, would be about contemporary with Damasus, if these
Fathers were their authors, which is not proved. As to the
Roman canon it is attested since the days of Damasus, but it
bears the name of no author, and nothing goes to prove that it is
not much more ancient.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 67
part of the Masses celebrated in the West, since the
fourth century at least. Would the Greek Church
have waited till modern times to protest against
such an enormity and to try to remedy such a fright
ful disorder had she believed it to exist ?
His Beatitude Anthimius, towards the end of
his encyclical, reminds us of the famous words of
Vincent of Lerins : " In the Catholic Church, we
must adhere with care to whatever has been believed
everywhere, in every place, by every body." This is
a case in point. In a liturgical formula, or in a
ritual, where are the essential parts?
To know this we have only to compare the
texts with the usages. What is essential is found
everywhere, and is found in every instance, however
far back we may go. It is thus that our theologians
proceeded in deahng with the sacramental forms,
notably in the case of Holy Orders.1 The Middle
Ages had handed down most precise formula? and
very expressive rites, wherein, according to appear
ances, the essential parts of the sacramental forms
should be sought. But neither these formula? nor
these rites were to be found in the Greek usage,
and it was also discovered that they were not con
tained either in the more ancient Latin books. From
this fact, our theologians did not hesitate to repudiate
a deeply rooted tradition — they considered as essen
tial what was common to all the Churches, and not
what, at first sight, appeared to have the greatest
power of expression.
Let the Greeks do the same. Let them weigh
1 In the ordinations of bishops, priests, and deacons the essen
tial matter and form in all valid ordinals, ancient and modern,
are imposition of hands, accompanying a prayer called oratio
consecrationis.

68 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
well that, if they have liturgical antiquities, so have
we. That the Roman Church dates back to most
primitive times ; that its liturgical usages were
already arranged and fixed at a time when the
Church of Constantinople had not yet been founded.1
If they wish to lean upon Jerusalem, or Antioch,
or the Apostles, we can follow them on the same
ground. It is apparently from Jerusalem and
Antioch, even before the days of Nero, that the
founders of Roman Christianity come. St. Peter
and St. Paul are, I think, well qualified to support
tradition. The last liturgical grievance has to do with
the use of the chalice. It is certain that, in doing
away with communion under the species of wine,
or rather in reserving it almost exclusively to priests,
the Roman Church broke with an ancient usage.
She did not do so without regret, or without rais
ing opposition ; but she considered that, in spite of
this, she had to do so for grave reasons, into the
details of which I need not enter here. The patri
archal encyclical reproaches her with having, in this
respect, violated a divine precept formally given in
the Gospels. This would be most extraordinary,
as the Roman Church does not, any more than
the Greek Church, arrogate to herself the right to
alter things of divine precept. Let us consider
this more closely. The Gospel text quoted by his
Beatitude is taken from the account of the Last
1 As may be imagined I attach no importance to the account
of apostolical origins attributed to St. Andrew and his disciple
Stachys. These legends rest solely on an apocryphal work
attributed to a certain Dorotheus, Bishop of Tyre, who, however,
never existed. The Church of Byzantium, considered as distinct
from that of Heraclea, dates back to the end of the third century
at earliest.

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 69
Supper in St. Matthew. Our Blessed Saviour,
presenting the chalice to His Apostles, said to them,
"Drink ye all of this." From this invitation ad
dressed to all the guests at the Last Supper, his
Beatitude formulates a precept which he considers
binding upon all Christians in all ages. This is a
most extravagant deduction. It is refuted, not
only by the text to which it is applied, but by the
parallel passage in St. Mark : " And having taken
the chalice, giving thanks, He gave it to them, and
they all drank of it." Who are " they " ? Evidently
the Apostles only. There is, therefore, no precept
of our Lord. And, furthermore, do we not know
that communion under one species (as an exception,
it is true) dates back to the most ancient times ?
The Blessed Eucharist, which the Christians re
served in their houses during the time of persecu
tion, the Holy Communion as it was ordinarily
given to the sick, and privately in the churches,
was always under the species of bread, and that
only. The Liturgy of the Presanctified, common to
both the Latin and Greek rites, but more frequent
among the latter, excludes the consecration of the
chalice altogether. Here, as in the case of baptism,
the Latin Church, taking into consideration the
circumstances, changed the exceptional form into
the ordinary form, and she in no way exceeded
her rights or authority by doing so.

Let us now come to the points of dogma on
which the Greeks raise objection : —
" The Church of the seven (Ecumenical Councils,
holy, catholic, &c, following the teaching inspired

70 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
by the Holy Scriptures and the apostolical tradi
tion, prays and invokes the mercy of God to obtain
pardon and repose for the souls of the faithful who
have slept in the Lord ; but the papistical Church,
since the twelfth century, has invented and invested
in the person of the Pope, as sole dispenser, a
number of novelties on the fires of Purgatory,
on the superabundant merits of the just, and their
distribution to those who need them, and so on,
promising thus to the just an entire reward before
the general resurrection and the Last Judgment."
Here his Beatitude imputes to the Roman
Church a number of things for which she could
not accept responsibility. As far as Purgatory and
Indulgences go, the doctrine of the Church of Rome
must be sought for in the two decrees annexed to
the 25th session of the Council of Trent. These
decrees mention and proscribe many abuses and
exaggerations of speech and practice. It is to be
desired, without doubt, that these wise regulations
should be better carried out. I do not fear to say
that, in this department, there would be much to
reform again. It is not easy always to prevent the
indiscreet curiosity of theologians, nor the indiscreet
devotion of pious souls. Having no authority to
say what it would be best to do against such or
such an abuse, I can at least (and here I must) bring
to light the difference there is between the official
teaching of the Church and the systems, or absurdities,
which fill small books of piety, or which find their
way, though always as private opinions only, into
works of theology. The Church teaches " that there
is a Purgatory, and that the souls therein detained
are solaced by the suffrages of the faithful, and
principally by the sacrifice of the altar." This is

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 71
exactly, under another form, what his Beatitude
declares to be the belief of the Church of the seven
(Ecumenical Councils. In fine, if this Church has
always prayed for the faithful who sleep in the Lord,
it is because she judges that these departed souls have
need of prayers. They are not damned souls, and
they are not the elect, already in possession of celestial
happiness. They are faithful souls who, without
being absolutely condemned by the Divine Justice,
have still some debt to pay to His Divine Majesty.
This is exactly the category of souls classed in
Purgatory by the Council of Trent.
As to the fire of Purgatory, there is no question
of it in this decree. The Catholic Church has never
canonised this detail. The poets, from Homer to
Dante, seem to know many things about the other
world. Their imaginations, like those of artists,
orators, and philosophers, may have their utility in
fixing ideas and in causing them to enter into certain
minds. All the same, even with simple people,
the Council of Trent forbids the use of these means
of instruction. It prescribes that we " should avoid
in sermons preached to the masses difficult and
subtle questions, devoid of interest for edification
and piety." It forbids, no matter whom, to write
or dispute on uncertain and contestable points. As
to practices in which only vain curiosity, the passion
of gain, or superstition are concerned, it recommends
them especially to the severity of the bishops. It
is but too evident that these wise prescriptions are
often violated. For my own part, I have heard
more than one sermon in which they were forgotten.
Those who are charged with enforcing the decrees
of the Council of Trent would have enough to do
if they had to punish all the extravagant language

72 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
which imprudent preachers allow themselves to use.
But these intemperances are not evils peculiar
to the Latin Church. I do not think that his
Beatitude Anthimius would claim as his own all
the theories propounded in the pulpits of the " Church
of the seven (Ecumenical Councils," or which circu
late in the little pamphlets destined for the Greek
populace. What I have just said about Purgatory can also
be said about Indulgences. The Council of Trent,
in its decree, devotes only a few words to the official
doctrine, which brings it down to two obligatory
points, viz., the utility of indulgences and the right
of the Church to grant them. The rest of the decree
is only a long protestation against the exaggerations
and the abuses which have arisen on this point. I
am not going to enter here into a long dissertation
on the theory of indulgences. Those who are willing
to study it calmly have no difficulty in seeing that
it is an extremely ancient usage in the Church.
Why do they speak to us of the twelfth century ?
During the persecutions, were not the apostates
pardoned in consideration of the martyrs ? Have
not the bishops always recognised the right to
shorten the length of expiatory punishments when
they judged it useful to do so ? As to the principle
of the matter, where is the father of a family who
does not almost daily grant indulgences to his
children ? One of them has been very good, the
other, on the contrary, very naughty. The first
intercedes, and the punishment of the culprit is
lessened by the father, in consideration of the merit
of the good child. It is thus that God deals with
His Christian family. Naturally, He does not act
Himself, it is the Church which regulates the

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 73
details. This is the chief point of the incriminated
doctrine, represented to us as a " novelty of the
twelfth century " !
Assuredly there has been, and there will without
doubt again be, more than one fault to be found
when we come to the domain of its application.
Where are there not abuses ? Instead of taking
scandal, they would do much better to help us to
extirpate them. If ecclesiastical reunion could be
re-established, it would not be profitable to the
Greeks only. The Latins would have their share ;
they would be sure, at all events, that an eye would
always be open to certain exaggerations, certain
weaknesses, which then would appear all the more
dangerous since they might jeopardise the re-estab
lished unity.
The last question which remains for me to treat
of to-day is that of the Immaculate Conception.
This dogma presents two aspects. Is the doctrine
of the Immaculate Conception traditional or not ?
Has the Latin Church the right to proclaim it by
herself ? On the first question, I will avoid all
discussion from the outset, and will confine myself
to one single observation. The Patriarch affirms,
with all the pomp of his formularies, that the Church
ofthe seven (Ecumenical Councils, one, holy, catholic,
and apostolic, proclaims as a dogma that only one
conception was immaculate — that of Christ ; whereas
the papistical Church innovated, forty years ago,
by proclaiming as a dogma that the Blessed Virgin
was also conceived without sin.
Very well, let us admit with his Beatitude that
the " papistical Church " has innovated in settling
the question in one way ; but has not the non-
papistical Church innovated in settling it in another

74 THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS
way ? Which is the (Ecumenical Council in which
the solution upon which they now dogmatise was,
I do not say arrived at, but even proposed? In
what book of the early Greek Fathers do we find
this problem even formulated ? It is true that the
occasion would hardly have presented itself, for the
Greek theologians scarcely treated of the doctrine of
original sin. It was not the same with the Latin
theologians, beginning with St. Augustine, the first
of our doctors who had to deal with questions of
this kind.
They tell us that this dogma was unknown in
the ancient Church. In the form in which recent
decisions have stated it, that is true ; but it was
implicitly contained in other beliefs. It is not con
trary to the Eastern Church that the Council of
Ephesus canonised the celebrated title of Mother
of God. At this same Council the Greek Church
accepted officially, for the second time, the con
demnation of Celestius and Pelagius, pronounced
fifteen years earlier by the head of the Latin
Church. These two dogmas, of original sin and
the divine maternity of Mary, could not be brought
in contact with each other without casting a light
upon the subject now before us. They say that
" some illustrious papist theologians " have equally
contested the dogma of the Immaculate Conception.
That is true, but even illustrious papist theologians
are liable to err. Here, those in favour of whom
the dogmatic sentence has been pronounced are those
best inspired with that devotion towards Mary
which the Greek Church has, as it were, inculcated
by her example, by her liturgical institutions, and
by the writings of her doctors. In its most ancient
forms, the honour paid to the Blessed Virgin is of

THE ENCYCLICAL OF ANTHIMIUS 75
Byzantine importation. It is extraordinary to see
this tide going backwards, and to hear from the
East episcopal voices raised in protest against the
new honours given by us to the Mother of God.
As to the right, in virtue of which the dogma
of the Immaculate Conception was proclaimed, in
1854, by Pope Pius IX., it is too closely linked with
the prerogatives of the Holy See for me to speak
of it before I have treated of them.

CHAPTER IV
THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE THE TIME
OF CONSTANTINE
It is evident, at least from our point of view, that the
reasons for the difficulties raised by the Patriarch
Anthimius are frivolous enough. There is no pro
portion between such cavillings and the all-import
ant question of the unity of Christendom. It is
not in its defence that irritation and divisions arise,
that the dearest wishes of our Blessed Lord meet
with opposition, and that His most formal recom
mendations are counted as of no importance.
Neither is it on that account that the division
was made. The Greek Church began by separating,
and when once the separation was effected, she
looked out for pretexts to justify it. These pre
texts have varied, and some which were formerly
insisted upon are now abandoned. In Russia, where
special reasons exist for not blaming too severely
any innovations in the liturgy, they now only
bring forward two grievances : the Filioque and the
prerogatives of the Pope. The latter point does
not even appear in the controversies of the eleventh
century. There were then in the East some persons
of a moderate turn of mind, such as Peter, Patriarch
of Antioch, who, while blaming the custom of the
use of unleavened bread and other Latin usages,
laid stress only on the question of the Holy Ghost.
76

THE ROMAN CHURCH 77
Even on this point the good Patriarch found some
extenuating circumstances. "We ought not," said
he, "to expect too much exactitude from these
barbarians ; it is a great deal if they believe as we
do in the Trinity and in the Incarnation." If
Peter, instead of Michael Cerularius, had been
Patriarch of Constantinople, we may believe there
would have been no quarrels in 1054.
Then, however, it was not peacemakers who
had undertaken negotiations. Cerularius had begun
hostilities ; he wished for war, he made it, and suc
ceeded all the better because, on the side of the
Latins, arrogance and bitterness of speech were not
sufficiently avoided. Now the gulf exists ; the at
tempts to fill it up again, made at Lyons in 1274
and at Florence in 1439, had but a passing success.
As time goes on it only widens. In the East all
possible efforts are made to keep it open and to
augment its depth. The letters of M. Khomrakoff,
lately pubhshed by Mr. W. Birkbeck,1 are very in
structive in this respect. Ecclesiastical separation
seems to have become a sort of ideal cultivated
with affection. Not only is the very thought of an
agreement repulsed with horror, but even the idea
of the possibility of discussion with Rome is avoided,
whilst all anxiety as to catholic unity is laid aside.
The right of the Eastern Church is evident of itself ;
it is almost an impiety to speak in its defence — so
they appear to think !
With such illuminati, it is evident that words
are lost ; let us leave them to their mysticism and
let us only deal with people who stand on their
feet. The latter are well represented by the Synod of
1 Russia and the English Church, torn. i. London, 1895.

78 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
the Patriarch Anthimius. They make use of their
intelligence, though they only employ it in finding
out new reasons for persuading themselves that they
are right, and we are wrong. Such a state of mind
is extraordinary. How is it that Christians and
bishops can recite their creed, read the Gospel, and
yet do all they can to keep up this schism, which is
as absurd as it is impious ? They believe they are
right. And we also believe we are right ; but does
that prevent us from constantly seeking to make
peace ? Never has the Church of Rome resigned
herself to schism, and she never will. Her repre
sentatives may sometimes have taken steps that are
to be regretted, yet she has never ceased acting.
Our oriental brethren, it is true, repeat the ancient
prayers of the liturgy, in which they ask of God
to maintain the union of the Churches, but those
prayers were composed prior to the schism, and do
not aim at it specially. Besides, must we confine
ourselves to prayer alone ? The Church of Rome
prays also, both in its ancient forms of prayer and
in the supplications to which its pastors are continu
ally inviting us, but she does not confine herself to
prayer alone. She acts. Where is action on the
Greek side ? In Russia ? Since they believe us to
be in error, why do they not seek to bring us out
of it ? It is clear that they feel satisfied with their
isolation, and have but a very vague desire to
abandon it. Here, again, we find a state of mind
which has become traditional ; reasonings and texts
have little effect upon such dispositions. Perhaps
history may have more. Ever since the beginning
of Christianity there have been cavillings about
texts of Scripture ; and since theologians began to
reason, the most complicated arguments have been

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 79
both made and refuted. But what can be done
when we are face to face with facts ?
I shall endeavour in this chapter, and in the one
that follows it, to bring forward, though somewhat
briefly, the vicissitudes to which the unity of the
Church has been exposed from the time of the origin
of the schism until its final consummation, and I
shall pay particular attention to what concerns the
Christians of the Greek rite.

I
St. Irena?us wrote his great treatise on heresies
soon after the reign of Marcus Aurehus, a.d. 180.
Against the Gnostics, he advances the tradition of
the great Churches, beginning by quoting that of
Smyrna, which, through St. Polycarp, dates back
to the Apostle St. John ; then he continues : —
" But it would be too long to enumerate here
the series of all the Churches ; it suffices to point out
the apostolic tradition, the teaching that has come
down to us by episcopal succession in the Church
of Rome, the greatest and most ancient of all,1 known
everywhere, and founded in Rome by the two glorious
Apostles, Paul and Peter. This tradition suffices
of itself to confound all those who, in one way
or another, by self-conceit, vainglory, blindness, or
erroneous judgment, have deviated from the truth.
Indeed, the superior pre-eminence of that Church is
such that every Church — I mean the faithful of any
country whatsoever — necessarily agrees with her,
that is every Church in any country in which the
apostolic tradition has been preserved without inter
ruption."2
1 Maxima et antiquissimcc. ~ Irenaeus, iii. 3.

80 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
It would be difficult to meet with a clearer
assertion :
1. Of unity of doctrine in the universal Church.
2. Of the sole sovereign importance of the Church
of Rome, as witness, guardian, and organ of the
apostolic tradition.
3. Of her superior pre-eminence over the whole
of Christianity. It suffices, however, to cast a glance upon the
state of the Church towards the end of the second
century to see how just is the impression trans
mitted to us by the holy Bishop of Lyons. Where
were then the great Sees which, later on, occupied
such a prominent place in the sacred hierarchy ?
Jerusalem had but a little flock of Greek Christians,
colonists from the Hellenic towns of Palestine, having
no link with the primitive community that had lived
with the Apostles. Of Byzantium it is useless to
speak ; everything causes us to believe she had not,
as yet, any bishop at all. Alexandria had one, and
her series of bishops may be traced to the very days
of tlie Apostles ; but when St. Irena?us wrote,
Alexandria was hardly known, except by her fecun
dity in producing the Gnostic heresies. Antioch
was a little more in evidence, thanks to recollections
of the New Testament, and of one of her earliest
bishops, the celebrated martyr St. Ignatius. It
would be difficult to say anything about the suc
cessors of the latter. If Theophilus of Antioch had
already written his books of apology, if the Peda
gogue, and other works of Clement, were already in
circulation among the learned in Alexandria, the
ink with which they had been written had scarcely
had time to dry. And those literary works have
really nothing which characterises them as the ex-

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 81
pression of any hierarchical tradition. We must
wait until the time of Demetrius of Alexandria and
Serapion of Antioch — that is to say, until the time of
Severus — to see the rise of those two great Sees. In
short, there was but one situation to be compared,
as regards tradition, to that of Rome, the situation
of Asia Minor itself, the country which had kept
up the sacred memories of St. John, St. Philip,
St. Polycarp, Papias, Thrasius, Mellitus, and many
other illustrious Christians. St. Irena?us shows a
very just appreciation of ecclesiastical relationships
when quoting the tradition of those Churches by the
side of that of Rome.
But the latter had, even at that epoch, a special
pre-eminence, as is proved by the following facts.

II
1. St. Paul's Epistle to the Romans shows the
celebrity of that still infant Church. " Your faith,"
says he, " is spoken of in the whole world." With
out this significant congratulation the very fact
that St. Paul addressed this Epistle to the Church
of Rome proves the special importance of that com
munity. The Epistle to the Romans is, indeed, a
grand dogmatical treatise. In it the Apostle re
sumes his long debates with the judaising Christians,
and expresses his views on the universal character
of the Gospel. It is difficult to believe that this
exposition of doctrine was suggested by any pre
possessions concerning the condition of the Church
of Rome. He only knew that Church, as yet, from
hearsay, and it does not appear that the preaching
of the Gospel at Rome had been hindered by any
opposing judaising mission, as had been the case at
F

82 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
Antioch, in Galatia, and at Corinth. Why, then,
did St. Paul think he ought to explain his doctrine
before the Roman Church ? Doubtless because from
the time of her foundation he recognised her great
importance. 2. Later on, Paul came to Rome. St. Peter
resided there also, at a date and during a space of
time not easy to determine ; there, both Apostles
suffered martyrdom ; there, both had their sepul
chres. Thus the metropolis of the Roman world
received its consecration as the centre of Christian
unity. Long before, the conscience of the Jews had
opposed, in its reveries and in its prophecies, the
great " Babylon " of the West to the Holy City of
Jerusalem. Now, at the epoch when St. Peter and
St. Paul died, Jerusalem witnessed the departure
of the early Christians and the approach of the
imperial armies that were to put an end to her
political destinies. Antioch, the second Christian
See in the order of time, might have succeeded
her ; but Antioch was too out of the way with
respect to the rest of the empire ; its sphere of
influence Avas too limited. Rome was therefore
chosen. No doubt she was the capital of the empire, and
many have tried thus to explain the pre-eminence of
her Church. Let us look into this question. First
of all, the ecclesiastical traditions, which agree in
recognising in the Bishops of Rome the successors
of the Apostle Peter, and, as such, in acknowledging
their eminent prerogatives, have never once alluded
to those prerogatives as the result of the fact that
the Popes had their See in the capital, but always
as being inherent in the office of successors and vicars
of St. Peter. If there have been exceptions to this

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 83
way of viewing things, they are only to be found in
the Byzantine world, and only there by way of
invidious comparison, introduced since the time of
Theodosius, between the Pontiffs of the new Rome
and the Popes of the ancient one.
Then, even if it be true that the situation of
Rome, as capital of the empire, contributed to
increase the importance of its Church, have we not
a right to see therein a means prepared by Divine
Providence for assuring a centre to Christianity at
its very inception? Believers all agree in seeing
the finger of God in the marvellous history of the
Roman Empire, and in the services which her peace
able institutions rendered to the propagation of the
faith. Why should it not be allowed to us to
perceive the designs of Providence in the selection
of Rome as the abode of St. Peter and the See of his
successors ? 1
3. Towards the year 97, the Church of Corinth
was agitated by serious internal discords. The
Church of Rome having heard of them, considered
it to be her duty to interfere. It was not the
Corinthians who begged her to do so; when she
1 I regret to find in the encylical letter of the Patriarch that
the sojourn of St. Peter at Rome was classed among things that
were doubtful, and that efforts were made to explain the universal
tradition on this point by the apocryphal pseudo-Clementines.
This system, contrary to the opinion admitted unto this day both
in the Greek and in the Latin Churches, is derived from the
lucubrations of F. C. Baur, of the rationalistic school of Tubingen.
It is now abandoned by all scholars in Germany and elsewhere.
Several of those who had allowed themselves to be led away by it,
such as the illustrious Anglican, Bishop Lightfoot, have returned
to the ancient tradition. Renan himself regretted the concessions
he at first made to it. Is it not lamentable to see bishops thus
accepting unsound theories, later on to be thrown aside, and
abandoning the traditions of all their predecessors and of all
the doctors of their own church ? Can it be that they are thus
led astray by passion ?

84 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
bestirred herself, it was of her own accord and from
consciousness of the duty imposed upon her by the
circumstances. In her name, her bishop, Clement,
wrote to the Church of Corinth a long letter, in
which he accumulated exhortations to bring about
concord and submission to the ecclesiastical author
ities. This letter was carried to Corinth by three
messengers, viz., Claudius Ephebus, Valerius Bito,
and Fortunatus. It concludes in words well suited
to give an idea of the tone of authority which per
vades the whole document : " You will cause us
great joy if, complying with what we have written
to you in the Holy Spirit, you at once set aside
the unjust excess of your anger, as we have exhorted
you to do in recommending to you peace and
concord by this letter. We have sent faithful and
prudent men, who, from their youth up until their
old age, have lived among us without reproach ; they
will be witnesses between you and us. If we act
thus, it is because our only anxiety has been, and
still is, to see your speedy return to peace."1
Whether we consider this spontaneous act of
Rome in itself or whether we weigh the terms of
the letter, we cannot escape this impression — that,
as early as the end of the first century of the
Christian era, i.e. about fifty years after her founda
tion, the Roman Church was conscious of possess
ing supreme and exceptional authority, which she
will never cease hereafter to claim. The Apostle
John was still living at Ephesus at the time when
Clement wrote. We find no trace of his interven
tion, nor of that of any of his friends. And yet
communication was easier between Ephesus and
Corinth than between Corinth and Rome.
1 I. Clem., 58.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 85
But how did the Corinthians receive the exhor
tations and the messengers of the Church of Rome ?
So well, that St. Clement's epistle was placed by
them almost on a level with the Holy Scriptures.
Seventy years later it was still read on Sundays in
the assemblies ofthe faithful.1
4. About twenty years after these events, St.
Ignatius, Bishop of Antioch, was carried to Rome as
a prisoner, to be exposed to the wild beasts in the
amphitheatre. From the coast of Asia he wrote to
the Church of Rome. Let us see the tone in which
he speaks. During his abode in Asia, he had already
had reasons for writing to the illustrious Churches
of Ephesus, Smyrna, Philadelphia, and others ; the
beginning of his letters always contained a number
of laudatory epithets in honour of the Christian
communities to whom he wrote. For the Church
of Rome these epithets are more numerous and also
more significant. Her pre-eminence is spoken of:
" She presides in the country of the Romans ; she
presides at the love-feasts," 2 or " the charities." If
the martyr had been writing to the Bishop of Rome,
these presidencies might be considered merely local
in character, because, in his own diocese, the bishop
always presides. But here there is no question of
the bishop, but of the Church. Over what did the
Roman Church preside ? Was it merely over some
other Churches, or dioceses, within a limited area?
Ignatius had no idea of a limitation of that kind.
Besides, were there in Italy any Christian commu
nities distinct in their organisation from the com
munity of Rome? The most natural meaning of
such language is that the Roman Church presides
1 Denis of Corinth, in Eusebius's Eccl. Hist., iv. 23.
2 UpOKadri/xivq Trjs dydirins.

86 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
over all the Churches. As the bishop in his diocese
presides over its works of charity, so does the Roman
Church preside over those same works throughout
Christendom.1 And let us remark that Ignatius speaks with a
thorough knowledge of the matter ; he knows the
Church of Rome in the past, he even makes allusion
to attitudes and acts, the remembrance of which is
lost : " You have never led astray (or deceived2) any
one ; you have taught others. My will is that all
that is prescribed by your teaching should remain
uncontested." Of what teaching, of what prescriptions, is there
question here ? We can hardly think he means the
Letter to the Corinthians — that is too special a case ;
it is not even certain that Ignatius had any know
ledge of it. We do not find him in contact with
Corinth. Does he mean the Pastor of Hennas ? It
is very doubtful if that book had then been published.
The simplest thing is to admit^nx-e^ollection of some
other acts and other document' x. Dfwere f Sh in the
mind of Ignatius, but which \? ^'-avesince perished
and been forgotten. In any ca th\? m£uner in which
he speaks of the authority of the Roman Church in
matters of doctrine, and of the present tions addressed
by her to other Churches, is well wortny of attention.
5. I have just mentioned the Pastor qf Hernias.
From the ;tone of this book, we see that the visions
it contains were received, not for Hermas alone, or
only for the Romans, but for all the Churches ; they
1 That is precisely what M. Adolf Harnack acknowledges in an
interesting paper read, on 6th February 1896, at the Academy of
Berlin, but of which I only heard after the publication of this
chapter. 2 Ad. Rom. 3. 'E/3aer/<avaTe, the meaning of this word is a little
obscure, but it corresponds pretty well to the translation I give.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 87
are to be communicated to them all. And, indeed,
the book of Hermas enjoyed universal notoriety and
consideration in the primitive Church. Its credit
fell later on, but not before the third century. For
a hundred years after it had appeared, it was so
much esteemed that, in certain places, it was actually
ranked with the canonical books. A like honour was
attributed to the Epistle of St. Clement.
However, if we set aside the books which, rightly
or wrongly, bear on their title-page the names of
Apostles, the Letter * of Clement and the Pastor of
Hermas are the only works which have thus been
esteemed, in certain Churches of the East, being in
cluded either in the canon or in its appendices. That
extraordinary honour paid to two Roman authors is
quite worthy of remark. Later on, a similar con
sideration was attached to a book, true or fictitious,
attributed to a third Roman, St. Hippolytus. One
of the canonical collections of the Coptic Church
contains a certain number of the canons of Hip
polytus of Rome.
6. As regards Clement, one might point out other
traces of the great esteem in which his memory was
held in the East. I say in the East, for the West
hardly perceived that halo of glory, save by transla
tions from the Greek made somewhat later, i.e. since
the beginning of the fifth century. It was in Syria,
before the time of Origen (that is, towards the end of
the second century), that the famous story of the peri-
grinations of St. Peter from Jerusalem to Antioch
was composed. In this story, Clement plays one of
the principal parts ; he is the companion of St. Peter,
1 I ought to say the Letters, for the Homily generally called
" the Second Epistle of St. Clement to the Corinthians " was treated
like the first as soon as the name of Clement had been attached
to it.

88 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
his chosen disciple, his witness, and his helper in the
struggle against Simon Magus. Besides, it is he who
is supposed to be the author of the book. Among
the papers annexed to the principal composition, a
letter of his, addressed to James, Bishop of Jerusalem,
relates in detail how, before his martyrdom, the
Apostle Peter had presented Clement to the faith
ful in Rome as being destined to govern the Church
after his death.
Another Syrian composition of the third century,
but retouched in the following one, called the Apos
tolical Constitutions, has preserved for us a record
of the discipline and liturgy of those ancient times,
under the form of prescriptions derived from the
Apostles. The Apostles are supposed to hold a
great council, in which each one draws up his pre
scriptions on such or such a point of ecclesiastical
discipline. They are not alone ; Clement is with
them : he assists them as secretary, it is to him
they confide the duty of promulgating their decrees.
The same office of secretary and interpreter of
the Apostles is assigned to Clement in a composi
tion similar to the preceding one, and still more
ancient, that of the Ecclesiastical Canons, which
figures at the head of one of the books of Egyptian
ecclesiastical law. The same thing is to be remarked
in the celebrated collection called Canons of the
Apostles, which at the Council of Trullo (692) was
inserted in the code of the Byzantine Church.
Identically the same idea always prevails. Clement,
successor of St. Peter in the See of Rome, is the
most accredited witness of apostolical tradition ; the
Apostles have charged him to give it form in writing
and to communicate it to the Churches.
And let me not be reproached for making use

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 89
of apocryphal documents. I know very well that
those documents have but an historical value of
little or no weight. But they exist; they were
composed in the third and fourth centuries, not in
the Latin ecclesiastical world, but in the East;
those who edited them would not have presented
Clement as the disciple, secretary, and successor of
the Apostles if they had not held a very high idea
of the authority attached to his name and to his
position in the hierarchy. It is that idea upon
which I lay stress and of which I take advantage.
One might say, strictly speaking, that it may have
been suggested by a passage from the Pastor, where
Clement seems to be represented as charged with
the correspondence between the Church of Rome
and the other Churches. But from that to the
extraordinary part attributed to him, both in the
Clementines and in the divers Apostolical Constitu
tions, the distance is very great. Such an explana
tion would evidently be insufficient.
7. Thus the East voluntarily placed its rules of
disciphne under the patronage of the ancient Roman
Church. Serious indications, much more import
ant than the compositions I have just spoken of,
allow us to attribute to the Roman Church the
compilation of the most ancient of the creeds.1
1 One might say as much of the formation of the New Testa
ment. Upon this point, however, I abstain from entering into
details. To do so would lead me too far. Nevertheless, the
demonstration for which M. Adolf Harnack has collected divers
elements in his Dogmengeschichte, torn. i. p. 363, cannot have its full
value unless we take into account the fact of the exceptional
influence of the Roman Church in the second century. As that
is precisely the fact I wish to establish here, I think I ought to
avoid all appearance of begging the question. But for my part,
I think with M. Harnack that the books of the New Testament
were put together at Rome, after an understanding with the
Churches of Asia.

90 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
As early as the middle of the second century,
at the very least, the Roman Church possessed a
rule of faith which was to be recited at baptism,
which the baptized bound themselves to profess all
their lives, and which served as a test or rule of
faith for all, viz., the Apostles' Creed. The writings
of Irena?us and Tertullian show it to be not only
existing in their day but in possession of its full
doctrinal authority. It is only found in the East
later on, and first of all in the writings of Origen
in the following generation. It was completed there
in different ways, as it was also in the West ; but
the substance of the Creed remains everywhere the
same. It is clear that a formula so explicit could
not have been drawn up in the same terms in
different countries. It has a birthplace, and Rome
is the one indicated by chronological proofs.1
8. It is from Rome again that we have the
most anciently attested among the lists of bishops.
Sooner than elsewhere, it seems, care was taken to
give to the idea of apostolical succession this signifi
cant expression. Though they are of great interest,
the lists of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria
are only attested by the use made of them by Euse
bius at the beginning of the fourth century; the
Roman list is found in St. Irena?us, and it existed
some time before the end of the second century.
9. St. Irena?us was right in saying that the
Church of Rome was " known to all." It is wonder
ful indeed to see visitors flocking thither from all
countries of the world during the second century.
Some are sincere Christians who intend remaining
firmly rooted in the ancient faith, and who under-
1 See the discussion of these latter in the erudite work of
Caspari, Quellen zur Geschichle des Taufsymbols, torn. iii.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 91
take the journey to Rome for purposes of edification.
St. Justin comes from the Greek part of Palestine ;
Hegesippus from the Syrian part; Tatian from
Assyria; Abercius Marcellus from Phrygia. Asia,
above all, furnishes a remarkable contingent of
travellers, of whom some pass on, others remain.
St. Polycarp, at that time more than eighty years
of age, does not hesitate to transport himself from
Smyrna for the purpose of arranging the question
long since pending between the Church of Rome
and the Churches of Asia regarding the Easter
observance. After him we must mention Irena?us
himself, the future Bishop of Lyons. In the following
generation, Origen undertakes the journey to Rome
solely with "the desire of seeing that very ancient
Church." In Africa, Tertullian has his mind con
stantly preoccupied about the Church of Rome,
whether he puts her forward as an authority against
the Gnostic heresies, or whether, having become a
Montanist and a rigorist, he pursues her with his
bitter invective. As to the Christian community of
Carthage, already so important, he does not seem
to care much about it ; the centre of authority and
of Catholic guidance he places at Rome and not
in Africa. 10. The heretics are not less numerous. They
also are attracted by the importance of the Roman
community, where they hope to recruit disciples.
Some of them went further ; they formed the
design of getting into their hands the direction of
the affairs of the Church. This is certain in the
case of Marcion, perhaps also in that of Valentinian.
Marcion came from Pontus, Valentinian from Egypt,
from whence, under the episcopacy of Anicetus,
there arrived another celebrated heretic, Marcellinus,

92 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
teacher of the Carpocratian sect. The Syrian,
Cerdon, had sojourned there before Marcion himself.
All these sowers of cockle among the wheat man
aged, it is true, to lead away some few weak minds ;
but they came into collision with the vigilance of
the heads of the Church, whom they vainly tried
to deceive by false protestations or pretended con
versions. It is clear that they cling to Rome so
as to profit by the influence of that great Christian
centre for the success of their enterprises. In the
time of St. Irena?us, a Gnostic doctor, Florinus,
managed to dissimulate so completely that they gave
him a place in their ecclesiastical college. The latter
were Gnostics. At the end of the second century,
we see other heretical celebrities arrive. The doc
trine that will be condemned later on in the persons
of Paul of Samosata and Photinus created much
stir in Rome, through the influence of Theodotus
of Byzantium.1 About the same time, Praxeas and
Epigonus came from Asia to open a school of
modalistic theology, the system to which the name
of Sabellius has remained attached. The Montanists
also showed themselves there, and, a little later on,
the Elkasaites of Syria, represented by a certain
Alcibiades. It seems as if the East could not give
birth to any heresy without feeling at once the
need of bringing it upon the scene in Rome. That
was sure to procure for it a prompt and signal
condemnation. Valentinian, Cerdon, and Marcion
were excluded from the Church of Rome as soon as
they had made themselves known ; it was the same
with regard to Theodotus of Byzantium, Sabellius,
and many others.
1 This Theodotus is the most ancient Byzantine Christian with
whom we are acquainted.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 93
The Montanists of Phrygia tried for a long time
to gain over the authority of the Church of Rome
to their heresy. In their own country they had
met with very lively opposition. Nevertheless their
prophecies and their austerities led many people
astray. From Lyons the martyrs of 177 appealed
to Pope Eleutherius in their favour. Ten years
later, St. Irena?us treated them leniently in his
treatise on heresies. In Rome, always so faithful
to tradition, there was hesitation as to the use of
rigour against the prophesyings and Paraclitus.
The affair dragged on until the beginning of the
third century. A last effort of the agents of the
Montanists seemed at first, says Tertullian, to have
won the approbation of Pope Zephyrinus. To urge
him to a decision, they quoted documents come
down from his predecessors, auctoritates prcecessorum
ejus.1 But Zephyrinus drew back in time, and
instead of supporting the Montanist movement, he
solemnly condemned it.
From this history, the details of which remain
obscure, it may be gathered that the Phrygian
agitation found an echo at Rome, that the leaders
of the movement, though repudiated by many
bishops of their own country, did not consider them
selves compromised beyond hope ; that documents
{auctoritates) written in the name of the Bishop of
Rome obtained for them at first sight a certain
amount of credit ; that, later on, the character of the
new prophecy having become better known, it
received a positive condemnation from the same
authority which until then had maintained a more
reserved attitude.
Besides, if the condemnation was delayed, it
1 Tertullian, Adv. Praxeam, i.

94 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
must be remarked that from the origin of the move
ment in the pontificate of Eleutherius, the Church
of Rome had been drawn into it. Montanism at
first was but a local affair, interesting only to the
Churches of Phrygia and Asia. If the martyrs of
Lyons were alarmed at it in 177, it was precisely
because many important members of their Church
were Asiatics or Phrygians. Even at the time
when Tertullian wrote against Praxeas, the question,
at least for the Pope, had as yet only a purely
Asiatic character. It was discussed far from Rome
by letters sent backwards and forwards in Asia and
Phrygia.1 In proceeding thus, the Popes interfered in a
debate wliich did not directly concern their own
Church. It was a repetition of the affair at Corinth
in a.d. 97.
11. Nor is it the only one. How instructive is
the dispute about Easter in the time of Pope Victor
(about a.d. 190). Two recognised customs are found
to be in contradiction to each other : that of Rome,
followed nearly everywhere, ordered the Christian
Easter to be observed on the Sunday after the
Jewish Passover (or Pasch) ; the custom of the
Asiatic province accepted the Jewish Pasch for the
date of the Christian feast. The Asiatics claimed
for themselves the highest authorities : the Apostles
John and Philip, their disciples Papias and Poly
carp, and some celebrated prophets and martyrs.
Their Churches are famous throughout Christendom,
their tradition is universally esteemed. Rome, how
ever, did not yield. She also had her tradition,
which was manifested precisely by her opposition
to the Asiatic custom, and which existed since the
1 Tertullian, loe. cit.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 95
days of Trajan and Adrian. It was in vain that
the venerable Polycarp came as far as Rome to
arrange that matter ; he was unable to convince
Pope Anicetus. Under his successor, Soter, negotia
tions became less friendly. Victor determined to
decide the question, but first of all he submitted it
to the other Churches. At his request the bishops
assembled in every country of the Empire and even
beyond it. They took cognisance of the case and
sent the result of their deliberations to Rome. All
these Councils, except the Council of Asia, were
favourable to the Roman custom. This is signifi
cant ; we see how difficult it was, even for Churches
hke those of St. John, to compete with the tradition
of Rome. At the end of the second century the
Roman custom for the celebration of Easter was
accepted nearly everywhere.
But the most important thing in the first period
of the quarrel is the convocation of the Councils.
All were held at the invitation of Pope Victor, even
the Council of Asia. Polycrates, Bishop of Ephesus,
who writes in the name of that Council,1 and who
upholds its opinion with the greatest zeal, recognises
expressly that, if he gathered his colleagues together,
it was at the request of Rome. Does one see
claims of this kind made by any other Church ?
Where are the Bishops of Antioch, of Ephesus,
or of Alexandria, who ever conceived the idea of
convoking thus the whole episcopate from Gaul to
Pontus, Osrhcene, and Palestine ? This initiative of
Pope Victor alone, an initiative proved to be effec
tive, suffices to show how evident in those ancient
times was the exceptional situation and the oecu
menical authority of the Roman Church.
1 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, v. 24.

96 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
But let us continue the story. The Asiatics
resisted. They protested that they would never give
up their tradition. Victor then proceeded against
them by excommunication. He cut them off from
" the common union," rrj$ koivw evwo-ews, is the ex
pression of Eusebius. The Pope is, therefore, con
scious that he, as head of the Church of Rome, is
the guardian of universal communion, that it is in
his power not only to break off his intercourse with
any ecclesiastical body, but to separate that body
itself from the unity of the whole Church. What
term are we to make use of if we are forbidden to
apply the title of " Head of the Church " to one
who is depositary of such plenary authority ?
St. Irenasus, it is true, and other bishops with
him, thought that Pope Victor's severity was ex
cessive, and they let him know it. This has been
used as an argument against the authority of the See
of Rome, as if the Church of Rome were inacces
sible to advice, as if, even in our days, the Pope
were not always ready to listen to the warnings of
his colleagues in the episcopate. It is possible that
Victor had, indeed, gone beyond what was strictly
just. I say this with reserve, for we have only
very incomplete information about this affair, and
especially we have not the documents which came
from the Pope himself. However that may be,
and however Victor may have been blamed by certain
bishops, one point is henceforth clear — the Asiatics
gave up their custom, not after the Council of
Nice, as is still often repeated, but a very long
time before it. The dispute about Easter, ?vbiafc
was settled at Nice, concerned the Giurches of
Antioch and Alexandria. From the beginning of
the fourth century, those who held to the old

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 97
custom of Asia were represented in their own
country by a small schismatical sect, and not by
the legitimate episcopate. The latter was in perfect
agreement, as regards the date of Easter, with
Rome and Alexandria.1 In whatever degree the
severe measures of Pope Victor may have been
applied or maintained, they were followed by the
complete submission of the Asiatics.
12. A similar conflict, the issue of which, how
ever, was a little different, arose in 256 between
Pope Stephen and the Church of Africa. The head
of the latter Church, St. Cyprian, cannot be accused
of hostility towards the Church of Rome. His inter
course with her was incessant ; in his letters, and
in his other works he always shows the greatest
respect for the "chair of Peter " and for the " sovereign
(principalis) Church from which proceeds the unity
of the episcopate." As to Pope Stephen personally,
it is clear from different circumstances that Cyprian
did not revere him personally so much as his pre
decessors. They had come into collision on other
points, and disagreed on the subject of baptism con
ferred by heretics. Such baptism was recognised
as valid at Rome, but set aside as void at Carthage.
These divergencies of custom might be justified by
doctrinal arguments ; at that time they were re
garded, not as a question of faith, but of discipline.2
1 I have discussed this question at length in the Revue des
questions historiques, July 1880.
2 We must notice that it was nearly always the same when
there was a question of determining what heretics were to be re
baptized and what heretics were only to be re-confirmed. The Greek
and Russian Churches, for instance, have varied much in the treat
ment to which they submitted Latins converted to "orthodoxy."
After the Latins had been driven from Constantinople in 1260,
and after the rupture which took place at Florence in 1484, they
confined themselves to re-confirming. In 1629, the Russian Church,
G

98 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
Cyprian, supported by all the African bishops,
who assembled in council under his presidency, and
by a letter from Firmilian, Bishop of Cassarea in
Cappadocia, one of the most illustrious of the
Eastern prelates, resolved to maintain his custom.
Stephen had, however, threatened excommunication.
Did he carry out his threat ? We know not. In any
case, the Africans saw in this dispute no reason for
disunion, and forbore to disturb the concord of the
Church. Moreover, neither they nor Firmilian denied
the authority of the Apostolic See ; but went only
so far as to think and to affirm that the question
contained an element of abuse.
The successors of Stephen, to begin with the
celebrated martyr Sixtus 1 1., did not maintain the
rigours announced or proclaimed. The rupture, if it
was really consummated, lasted only a few months.
Stephen died on the 2nd of August 257. His suc
cessor, Sixtus, lived on good terms with Cyprian,
to whom his biographer gives the title of a good
and peaceful bishop. Shortly after, towards 260,
messengers from Rome brought to the Christians of
Ca?sarea, suffering from an invasion of barbarians,
alms and words of consolation. The letters of St.
which until then had followed this system, imposed the renewal
of baptism. But the Patriarchs of Constantinople, Nicon and
Joasaph, in 1655 and in 1667, in agreement with the other Greek
Patriarchs of the East, brought her back to the ancient custom.
In 1718, both in Russia and in the Greek patriarchates, even the
baptism of Lutherans and Calvinists was admitted. There was
a change again in 1756 when the four Patriarchs declared the
baptism of the Western Church to be " invalid," on the pretext
that it is not given by immersion. Lastly, !since about the year
I860, the Synod of Athens, as well as the patriarchate of Con
stantinople, again decided that confirmation alone should be re
peated. It is clear that, in thus modifying their custom for baptism,
the Orientals did not intend to vary in their faith. I borrow this
information from Mr. W. Birkbeck, Russia and the English Church,
torn. i. p. 63.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 99
Denis of Alexandria * agree with these facts, proving
that the dissension did not survive Pope Stephen.
However, neither the Africans nor the Orientals
had given up their custom ; it was only in the fourth
century that, little by little, it was brought into
conformity with that of Rome, and the divergence
was left to dissident sects, the Donatists and the
Arians. 13. These disputes regard questions of rites.
Others concern questions of faith, and particularly
that part of our doctrine which is now called
" Christology." We have already seen that, from the time of
Popes Victor, Zephyrinus, and Callistus (189-222), the
Church of Rome had intervened to condemn the
heresy of Theodotus of Byzantium, which was causing
scandal at Rome. By the side of this school, another,
that of the Modalists (or Patripassians), escaped for a
time the censures of ecclesiastical authority. It was
so easy, with a little artfulness of language, to give to
that teaching an appearance of orthodoxy ! In the
fourth century it again met with success. The illus
trious Athanasius very reluctantly made up his mind
to recognise in Marcellus of Ancyra a dangerous
ally. At Rome, Pope Callistus, after divers attempts
to lead back Sabellius, the head of that school, into
the right path, decided on excommunicating him.
The author of the Philosophumena, who does all he
can to implicate Callistus in the cause of Sabellius, is
nevertheless obliged to declare that it was Callistus
who pronounced the condemnation. It was, he said,
"to avoid being blamed by the other Churches."
With such idle disputes and imputations of motives,
history is not concerned. Spite of this kind, however,
1 Eusebius, Ecclesiastical History, vii. 5.

100 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
is but another token of the great notoriety of the
Roman Church, and of the extreme deference paid to
all her proceedings.
14. But it was not only to events taking place
within her own bosom that the Church of Rome paid
attention. It is well known that Origen had serious
difficulties with Demetrius, Bishop of Alexandria.
Between them there were disputes on points of
discipline. Although the singular audacity of his
teaching had raised up much opposition after his
death, and had been remarked upon by a few even in
his lifetime, we do not find that any ecclesiastical
authority in the East ever called Origen to account
on the subject of his teaching. But towards the end
of his career he was obliged to justify himself before
Pope Fabian and to retract certain propositions.1
15. Origen was but a very influential theologian,
and one much before the public. His disciple and
former fellow-labourer, Dionysius, Bishop of Alex
andria, was, on the contrary, the head of a Church, and
that a very important one. Must it be recalled here,
how, being too much imbued with the doctrines of his
master, and carried away by the ardour of his con
troversy against the Sabellians, he went so far as to
let fall some propositions touching the inferiority of
the Eternal Word, which led the Arians to boast of
him as an ancestor ? His propositions and his writ
ings having been denounced to Rome by the faithful
of his diocese, Pope Dionysius wrote the very serious
and eloquent letter from which St. Athanasius has
preserved a long quotation, and which is one of the
most valuable documents of Christian theology an
terior to the Council of Nice. With much modera-
1 Eusebius, vi. 36 ; St. Jerome, Ep. 84 ; Rufinus, Hieronymum,
i. 44.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 101
tion of language, the Bishop of Alexandria is there
reminded of the orthodox tradition on the Holy
Trinity, he is even asked not to reject the term
consubstantial, which had already been brought into
use, at least at Rome, though it was not to become
classical till the following century. Besides this long
admonition, in which, I think, he was not actually
named, Dionysius of Alexandria received from Rome
an invitation to explain himself in the matters of
which he was accused. He did so, he modified his
language and brought his teaching into conformity
with tradition, meriting thus to be defended by St.
Athanasius against the claims of the Arians.1
This legitimate interference of the Church of
Rome in the doctrinal affairs of the Church of
Alexandria in no way altered the friendly inter
course that existed between the two Sees. Before
that incident as well as after, during the persecu
tions of Decius and Valerian, in the midst of the
long siege of the Bruchium, during the crisis raised
by the schism of Novatian, and during the baptismal
controversy, we always find Dionysius in correspon
dence with the succeeding Popes who occupied the
chair of St. Peter, and even with members of their
clergy.2 The Church of Alexandria was as much
mixed up as that of Carthage with the ecclesi
astical circle in Rome. Dionysius is really a second
Cyprian ; he shows himself even more conciliatory
than the latter, and more ready to yield to the
exhortations addressed to him.
16. Let us hasten on now to a more consoling
1 St. Athanasius, Dedecretis Niccence synodi, c. xxvi. . De sententia
Dionysii. 2 Among forty-seven letters or treatises known to have been
written by him, about eighteen are addressed to Rome.

102 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
subject than that of conflicts concerning doctrines,
prophecies, rites, and discipline. It was not merely
owing to the superior authority of her tradition that
the Church of Rome was known and esteemed. For
the faithful in general, her most striking pre-emi
nence was the pre-eminence of her charity. Let the
ecclesiastical disputes of every country resound in
Rome ; what most easily found a hearing there were
the sufferings of the other Churches. Rome was at
once affected by even the most distant calamities,
whether caused by ordinary adversities, by the
scourge of war, or by persecution. Messengers
were sent off in her name to console the afflicted,
and to carry them abundant alms. Such was her
constant tradition At the time of the Emperor
Marcus Aurehus, Dionysius, Bishop of Corinth,
bears witness to this in a letter to Pope Soter : " It
has been, from the beginning, an established custom
with you to load with favours all the faithful, to
send supplies to a number of Churches in every
country. Thus you relieve the misery of those who
are in want, you bestow alms on those of our
brethren who are condemned to the mines, and
maintain thus the tradition which you, Romans,
have received from the Romans your predecessors." J
After the persecutions of Decius and Gallus,
Dionysius of Alexandria2 reminds Pope Stephen of
the letter which the Church of Rome had just
written, and of the assistance she had so constantly
sent to " all the Churches of Syria 3 and Arabia."
Two years later the Goths and the Borans invaded
Pontus, penetrated into Cappadocia, and sacked the
great city of Ca?sarea. Firmilian was still bishop
1 Eusebius, iv. 9. 2 Eusebius, vii. 5.
3 Coelo-Syria, Syria in Phoenicia, Syria in Palestine.

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 103
there. No one at Rome remembered the way in
which he had spoken but a short time previously
about Pope Stephen. The treasury of the Church,
exhausted by the generous sacrifice of its arch
deacon, St. Lawrence, had scarcely had time to be
refilled. No matter ! Ca?sarea was suffering, and
money must be found for Ca?sarea. " We know,"
writes St. Basil1 to Pope Damasus, "both by the
recollection of our forefathers and also by letters
which have been preserved among us, how Diony
sius, that Pontiff of blessed memory, who was as
iUustrious for the rectitude of his faith as for his
other virtues, formerly came to the help of our
Church of Ca?sarea ; that he consoled us by his
letters, sending at the same time persons charged
with ransoming our brethren who had been taken
captive." That charitable custom lasted as long as the
persecutions. Eusebius attests that it was still in
vigour during the time of Diocletian and Maximian
(304-312). A few facts only have come down to
us, but it is clear, from the manner in which they
are stated, that they represent many others of the
same kind. It is, so to speak, an oecumenical
charity, verifying the words of St. Ignatius, "the
Church of Rome, pre-eminent in charity."
Ill
Thus all the Churches throughout the known
world, from Arabia, Osrhcene, and Cappadocia to
the extreme west, felt the incessant influence of
Rome in every respect, whether as to faith, disci
pline, administration, ritual, or works of charity. She
1 Ep. 70.

104 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
was, as St. Irena?us says, "known everywhere and
respected everywhere, and her guidance was uni
versally accepted." No competitor, no rival stands
up against her ; no one conceives the idea of being
her equal. Later on there will be patriarchs and
other local primates, whose first beginnings can be
but vaguely perceived during the course of the
third century. Above these rising organisations,
and above the whole body of isolated Churches, the
Church of Rome rises in supreme majesty, the
Church of Rome represented by the long series of
her bishops, which ascends to the two chiefs of the
Apostolic College ; she knows herself to be, and is
considered by all, the centre and the organ of
unity.1 Her position is so evident that even pagans them
selves remark it if they do but turn their attention
in any way to the organisation of Christianity.
The emperors in particular are better able to ap
preciate it than others ; it is even a necessary part
of their government to study it. In 272 the Em
peror Aurelian was suddenly called upon to decide
a serious dispute which was dividing the Christians
of Antioch. The bishop of that city, Paul of
Samosata, had, by his teaching and by his conduct,
incurred the loss of his See. The sentence was pro
nounced in a great Council held by the neighbouring
bishops, and communicated to the heads of the
1 Even distant Edessa felt her influence, and sought connection
with her. Pope Victor convoked a council at Osrhcene towards
the year 195. According to the local tradition, Palut, the first
bishop after the two founders Addal' and Aggai', had been ordained
by Serapion, Bishop of Antioch, who himself had received con
secration from the hands of Zephyrinus, Bishop of Rome, and
successor of St. Peter {Doctrina Addaei, see end ; cf. Cureton, Ancient
Syriac Documents, pp. 41 and 63).

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 105
Churches of Rome and Alexandria. But Paul made
light of his condemnation, and continued to reside
in the bishop's house, from which the new bishop
sought to expel him. The affair was brought before
the emperor. It was a novel situation for a pagan
prince. Between two bishops, each declaring that
he was in the right, how was he to decide ? " He
settled the question in the most reasonable way,"
says Eusebius, " by ordering that the bishop's house
should be given over to the one accepted, by reason
of his doctrine, and the letters of the Bishops of
Italy and of the city of Rome." x A century later
Theodosius acted in a similar manner, when he de
clared that he only considered as legitimate those
bishops who were in communion with Damasus of
Rome and Peter of Alexandria.
I must conclude this study of facts with the last
part of the third century. After that date, ecclesi
astical history becomes, for a time, very obscure.
Excepting the events of the great persecution, it
tells us very little until we come to the schism of the
Donatists in the West, and the troubles caused by
Arius in the East. The details which I have collected
and classified here are taken mostly from one book,
the Ecclesiastical History of Eusebius, which, in spite
of the author's painstaking, is far from satisfying the
demands of our curiosity. Other facts are borrowed
from contemporary writings, such as those of St.
Irena?us, Tertullian, and St. Cyprian. All these
works, except those of St. Cyprian, were very little
known in Rome during the fourth century. Those of
1 Eusebius, vii. 31. To the emperor it was evident that,
between the Bishops of Italy and the Bishop of Rome no diver
gence was to be expected, otherwise he would have been more
explicit.

106 THE ROMAN CHURCH BEFORE
Eusebius were only read there later on in the pitiful
translation of Rufinus ; the writings of Clement and
Irena?us, even in the Latin versions, soon became
literary rarities. The same may be said of Tertullian.
We have seen that Cyprian, while using the most
respectful language, gives the example of a very
marked attachment to autonomy. It is not, there
fore, from literature that the Romans, at the end of
the fourth century and the beginning of the next,
sought to prove the authority of their Church.
Damasus (366) and his successors Zosimus, Boniface,
and Celestine (417-432), whose words manifest such
great confidence in the prerogatives of their See, had
not at their disposal the documents which enable us
novv to appeal to Christian antiquity. By the side of
a very vague literary tradition, almost effaced, they had
hardly any other arguments to adduce but the tomb
of St. Peter, their succession from him, and the
testimony of the Gospels. More fortunate than
they were, we can now prove by historical documents
that they were right ; that the pompous style of
certain pontifical letters is no vain pretension, but
merely an exaggerated expression of the true primi
tive tradition.
I said above that the Byzantines of the ninth cen
tury did not complain of the supremacy of the Pope.
The Roman Church indeed caused them no uneasi
ness ; if they had abstained from picking a quarrel
with her, she would no doubt have continued to leave
them in peace. Even at the present day, it is pro
bable that, if reunion should take place, the most
liberal autonomy would be granted to them. How
ever, between the feudal papacy, which ends with
Benedict IX. (1033), and the reforming papacy vhich
comes into view with Hildebrand and asserts itself

THE TIME OF CONSTANTINE 107
under Gregory VII. (1073),1 there is undoubtedly a
remarkable difference ; a difference great enough to
explain why, on this account, a new protestation
should be added to the one formerly made at Con
stantinople. It would be both incorrect and out of
place to deny such a change.
But, if I am ready to acknowledge it, I am not
less convinced that the active, reforming, and organis
ing policy inaugurated by Gregory VII. is guaranteed
not only by right but by tradition. Let us for a
moment suppose Popes Clement, Victor, Dionysius,
and others reappearing during the tenth or eleventh
century in the midst of ecclesiastical Rome ; they
would not have understood the situation. They
would have inquired, " Where is the East ? " and they
might have been shown the way thither by a road
so obstructed by bogs and thorns that it was most
difficult to travel by it. The West, which was more
accessible, would only appear as the scene of scandals.
Recall them to life, on the contrary, two centuries
later and they would find themselves no doubt little
at home, but at least their successor would no longer
appear to them under the double aspect of an officiat
ing minister in a great cathedral, and an admini
strator of important temporal concerns. They would
find in him what they had been themselves — a true
Head of the Church. Still less than their predeces
sors of the fifth century had the Popes who followed
Gregory VII. a clear idea of remote ecclesiastical
antiquity. Their casuists, it is true, produced many
proofs venerable by their antiquity, if they had only
been authentic ; but they were, in reality, misleading
both to themselves and to the public. The false
1 See Hildebrand, the Napoleon of the Church, 3 vols : A. H.
Mathew.

108 THE ROMAN CHURCH
Decretals are now discredited, and the early de
fenders of the Holy See are blamed for having
made use of them. If the Patriarch Anthimius is
to be beheved, the whole edifice of papal supremacy
reposes upon them. This is unjust and monstrous.
In reality, the false Decretals were only a temporary
argument, defective in itself, but made use of in all
the sincerity of good intentions. In any case, it was
not from these documents that Gregory VII. derived
his keen appreciation of the miseries which afflicted
the Church, nor his conviction that the Pope, as
successor of St. Peter, could still wield great moral
force if he were free, disinterested, and faithful to his
duty. He well knew that such had been the senti
ments of the great Popes of bygone days, such as
St. Leo, St. Gregory, and others, and in their ex
amples he found hope and support. Better informed
than we could have been in his time, we now see
how, far beyond the time of those illustrious
Pontiffs, he went back to a still earlier and more
venerable tradition, to that of the Popes of the
primitive Church, to the epoch when, in spite of
her material insecurity, she was not hindered in her
spiritual activity ; when the emperors, if not yet
her sons, were nevertheless not her oppressors.
When Gregory was raised to the See of St. Peter,
the East was no longer spoken of; the road thither
had been forgotten for centuries. How this had
come to pass, is now the question which remains for
us to study.

CHAPTER V
THE GREEK CHURCH AND THE GREEK SCHISM
In the preceding chapter I tried to call the attention
of my readers to the perfect union existing among
the early Christians, to their frequent intercourse
with Rome, to the exceptional position which was
hers, as a centre of authority of guidance and of
action. During that golden age of Christianity
there was really but one heart and one soul in a
single body. But during the following centuries we
no longer see that beautiful, smooth, and salutary
union. Already we may perceive certain rough
nesses which become more and more evident ; soon
sharp edges and fissures arise, until at last we come
to the great rupture of the eleventh century.
We must now concentrate our attention on this
last stage of the great separation. The accomplish
ment of the schism had been prepared for, for
centuries past ; people had become used to the idea
of a definitive isolation. I may say, indeed, that
it had been attempted several times. From the
accession of Constantine to the empire of the East
(323) until the seventh (Ecumenical Council (787),
— that is to say, during a space of four hundred and
sixty-four years — I count no less than two hundred
and three years during which, either the whole of
the East (comprising also Egypt and Illyricum) or
only the regions depending upon Antioch and Con
stantinople — that is to say, the " imperial Church "
109

110 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
— remained in schism, i.e. out of communion with
the Apostolic See. Let us make a calculation : —
1. On account of St. Athanasius and Arianism,
from the Council of Sardica (343) until the
succession of St. John Chrysostom to the See
of Constantinople (343-398) . . . 55 years
2. About the condemnation of Chrysostom (404-
415)  • • 11 „
3. With regard to Acacius and the Henotikon of
Zeno (484-519)  35 „
1. On account of Monothelism (640-681) . . 41 „
5. On account of veneration of images (726-787) 61 „

Total . . . 203 years
And 1 have omitted certain slight ruptures which
were only transitory. Thus, during the five cen
turies which followed the persecutions, the Greek
Church passed nearly half of her time out of com
munion with Rome and in schism. How different
from her condition in the primitive ages !
Nor was that all. If the last three schisms
finally calmed down, it was much more because
the emperors willed it to be so, and willed it with
insistence, than because the Greek clergy spontan
eously aspired to reconciliation and unity. They
accepted communion with Rome rather than they
sought for it.
How could this have come about ? How could
the deep feeling of solidarity which existed univer
sally before Constantine have become thus weak
ened ? That is what we are now about to endeavour
to elucidate.

THE GREEK SCHISM 111

During the first three centuries of Christendom,
a denomination such as the Greek Church would
have been impossible and incomprehensible. I do
not mean that in the present day it is an official
title ; but when we speak of the " Greek Church "
we mean something definite. The Patriarch
Anthimius prefers the term of Church of the Seven
(Ecumenical Councils, which, as we have seen, can
hardly be justified. In any case, there exists out
side the pale of the Church of Rome, and exclusive
of the Nestorian and Monophysite Churches which
fell away in the sixth century, an important ecclesi
astical group, which we mean to designate when we
employ the term " Greek Church." All those who
compose it do not speak Greek ; far from that,
the greater number are Slavs who, even in their
liturgy, make use of their national languages.
Unity is far from existing among them. A dozen
minor groups may be counted, forming national
Churches, or provinces, having individual heads hold
ing but little intercourse with each other. Many
of these subdivisions, and the most important of
them, are formed of nations converted in the ninth
and tenth centuries. They joined the patriarchates
of the Eastern Empire, relatively the most ancient
nucleus of all that formation. One alone of those
four patriarchates presents the imposing form of an
edifice. Those of Alexandria and Antioch are but
the merest facades since the sixth century, and the
little patriarchate of Jerusalem has almost disap
peared, being absorbed by Islamism. There remains
the patriarchate of Constantinople, considerably re-

112 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
duced in strength by the Turks in Asia Minor and
by the Bulgarians in Thrace.
In Justinian's time and after him, we often meet
with the opinion that the Church is presided over
by five Patriarchs, and this notion has been kept
up by Byzantine law. At Rome it was accepted
in official language, but without enthusiasm, as being
a novelty, and in her own documents there is no
mention of five Sees before the pontificate of Vigilius
(537-555), when the Byzantine restoration took place
in Italy, and many endeavours were made by the
imperial court to regulate ecclesiastical affairs. St.
Gregory the Great announced his accession to
the four Patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria,
Antioch, and Jerusalem. That did not prevent him
from keeping up, in his private correspondence, the
old notion of three Patriarchs (Rome, Alexandria,
and Antioch) seated on the same " chair of St.
Peter." This notion, which I qualify as ancient, may be
traced back to the Council of Chalcedon ; it is a
sort of protest against the patriarchates of Constanti
nople and Jerusalem, which were founded by that
Council, but which were received very coldly by
the Holy See. Nor was her protest the only one.
In the struggle for or against the maintenance of
the Council of Chalcedon this question of hierarchy
had its place side by side with the question of
faith. The Metropolitans of Cassarea and Ephesus,
who were particularly wronged by the foundation
of the Byzantine patriarchate, were the first to offer
opposition. The heretical Patriarch of Alexandria,
Timothy iElurus, managed (475) to get the Bishop
of Ephesus to join with him against the Council,
by restoring to him his position as Patriarch, of

THE GREEK SCHISM 113
which dignity the Council had deprived his pre
decessors. This circumstance decided the attitude
assumed by Acacius, Patriarch of Constantinople,
who immediately took up the defence of the Council
of Chalcedon. Later on, however, Acacius found
a means of shifting the question by abandoning the
dogmatical decrees of the Council without giving
up any of the prerogatives 1 belonging to the See
of Constantinople. In this manner, all resistance
at length calmed down ; the new patriarchates were
henceforth regarded in the East as a matter of
course. Justinian eventually obtained their accept
ance at Rome.
In fact, neither the system of five Patriarchs,
nor that of three great Apostolic Sees, represents any
idea conceived in the primitive Church. We never
hear of the "three Sees" before Constantine. The
Council of Nice defined clearly the rights of the
See of Alexandria over the episcopate of Egypt ;
less clearly those of the See of Antioch ; it never
caused it to be understood that those two Sees,
united or not with the See of Rome, constituted a
legitimate authority, charged with the ecclesiastical
government, either of the whole Church or of only
the Churches comprised in the Eastern half of the
Roman Empire. Besides, this supposed commission
of three, or of five, great primates represents in
no way the Greek Church, considered as distinct
from, or as a rival of the Latin Church ; it is rather
a symbol of what was still remaining of ecclesiastical
unity from the decline of the fifth century.
The centre of attraction that caused the special
coalition to which the Greek Church owes its origin
is the emperor with his court. Previous to the
i Evagrius, H. E., iii. 6, 7, 13, 14. H

114 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
fourth century, in the provinces of the East which
were situated beyond the range of the Latin tongue,
we find only three ecclesiastical groups having some
sort of individuality : that of proconsular Asia, which
soon lost its original autonomy; that of Egypt,
already known for its narrow spirit in the third
century, and becoming more and more remarkable
for its "particularism" ; and, thirdly, Antioch. This
latter group comprised, from the middle of the
third century, all the bishoprics of Eastern Asia
Minor, which were soon united as the diocese of
Pontus. As early as the year 251, we hear of a
Synod which was to be held at Antioch, Fabius,
bishop of that city, appearing to incline to Nova-
tianism. The promoters of this assembly were the
Bishops of Tarsus, of Ca?sarea in Palestine, and of
Cassarea in Cappadocia.1 A few years after, in 256,
Dionysius of Alexandria,- speaking of the Churches
of the East which had been agitated by that conflict,
names those of Antioch, Ca?sarea in Palestine,
zElia (Jerusalem), Tyre, Laodicea in Syria, Tarsus,
and Caesarea in Cappadocia. A little later, from
264 to 268, the affair of Paul of Samosata caused
several meetings of bishops at Antioch in order to
protect the interests of that Church. They always
came from the same provinces : extending from
Pontus Polemoniacus (Neocaesarea) to Arabia (Bos
tra and to Palestine (Cassarea, iElia). Immediately
after the persecution of Galerius and Maximinus, a
celebrated Council at Ancyra, presided over by the
Bishop of Antioch, brought together fifteen bishops
from the same countries. This time the provinces
of Bithynia, Phrygia, and Pamphylia were repre-
1 Eusebius, viii. 44. 2 Ibid., vii. 5.

THE GREEK SCHISM 115
sented ; but Asia, properly so called, still remained
apart.1 Antioch was, therefore, earlier than Asia and
Egypt the most important ecclesiastical centre, the
one which was most willingly chosen as a rallying
point. That tendency began to vary as soon as
there existed out of Antioch a Christian court and
a court-bishop. The latter becoming naturally the
counsellor, the confidential director of princes or
princesses, his influence, little by little, predominated
over all other influences in the Eastern Churches.
Already under Licinius and Constantine, Eusebius,
Bishop of Nicomedia, was more powerful than his
colleague of Antioch. The latter regained his pres
tige under Constantius, precisely because the court
was transferred to Antioch, but when once the seat
of the empire was definitively fixed at Constanti
nople, Antioch was soon left in the shade.
In the fourth century the bishop of the court,
whether he resided at Nicomedia, at Constantinople,
or at Antioch, was always the centre and the organ
of the resistance to the Nicene Creed and of the
opposition to St. Athanasius. A sort of permanent
Council, composed of members who varied in number,
was constantly assembled within reach of the imperial
palace. If the sovereign found it useful to bring
them into direct communication with the bishops of
the West, as he did in 343 for the great Council of
Sardica, he would send them off in a body to the
place of meeting in a long line of post-carriages
and under the protection of an official overseer. If
the emperor himself went to sojourn elsewhere, the
whole episcopacy moved with him, even far from the
East, as was seen at Sirmium, at Milan, and at Aries.
1 L. Duchesne, Origines' du culte chretien, p. 19.

116 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
It would be difficult to imagine an episcopal body
better organised, easier to guide, and easier to be
transported from place to place. But it is evident
that this remarkable discipline did not proceed from
the same traditions as did the subordination of the
African or Egyptian Churches to the Bishops of
Carthage and Alexandria. The Bishop of Antioch had
sometimes the honour of the first signature in official
documents,1 but it is clear that this precedency did
not suppose any actual superiority. The Bishops of
Asia, of Thrace, even of those of Pontus and Cap
padocia, did not in the least consider themselves
subject to his jurisdiction. To give its true name
to this episcopal body we ought to call it " the
emperor's episcopate."
And yet, if there were nothing else to object to,
its anti-traditional formation, administrative rather
than ecclesiastical, political rather than religious, would
call for our protest ! But this unnatural coalition
resembles an army determined upon that saddest of
all wars, civil war. In 335, the whole Eastern episco
pate was invited to meet in Palestine for some great
solemnity. They profited by the circumstance to
hold a Council at Tyre where, after absolutely illegal
proceedings, they deposed St. Athanasius. In 339,
they endeavoured to appoint a bishop to the Arians of
Alexandria, although Athanasius, thanks to a change
1 The Council of Tyre was presided over by Eusebius of Ca;sarea
in Palestine; the letter of 341 began with the name of Dianius,
Bishop of Cassarea in Cappadocia ; the Eastern encyclical of
Sardica, with that of Stephen of Antioch. At the Council of
Seleucia (359), if we may judge by the analyses of Socrates (for the
authentications are lost), the presidency seems to have devolved
upon the bishops, Acacius of Csesarea in Palestine and Georges
(intended bishop) of Alexandria, Eudoxius of Antioch being present ;
the signatures to the letter addressed by all to Jovian (363) began
with the name of Meletius of Antioch.

THE GREEK SCHISM 117
of sovereigns, had again taken possession of his See ;
in 340 they tried to give a bishop to the whole of
Alexandria in place of Athanasius. Invited in 341
by Pope Julius, to whom they themselves had re
ferred that affair, to let it be debated in a Council,
they answered, by an arrogant letter, declaring that
Athanasius had already been deposed at Tyre, and
that judgments pronounced in the East ought not to
be annulled in the West. In 343, after renouncing
that claim, the bishops left in a body for Sardica.
Stopping short at the first difficulty they turned their
backs on the legitimate Council, and set out again for
Antioch, after having promulgated a spiteful ency
clical by which they purported to depose Julius,
Athanasius, and Osius, all leaders of orthodoxy.
During the following years, even when the emperor
of the West sought with the greatest zeal to repress
the schism, they persisted in refusing to accept the
Nicene Creed, as well as all reconciliation with
Athanasius. As soon as the Emperor Constantius
had become sovereign of the whole empire, they
transported their operations into the West, misled or
persecuted the minor prelates of Italy and Gaul, de
posed or exiled them, until all resistance was crushed ;
then, disputing among themselves, they hesitated for
a time as to which course to adopt, finally choosing
the one which wounded the Christian conscience the
most deeply. In 359, that episcopal body, in a mock
(Ecumenical Council, held without the participation
of the Pope, sanctioned the radical abandonment of
the tradition and creed of the Council of Nice. After
the brief reigns of Julian and Jovian, which caused a
halt, this schism resumed its course, but its official
influence and the abuse so often made of it affected
the East alone, until the moment when, meeting with

118 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
resistance in the reaction of orthodoxy, and held in
awe by an emperor who was devoted to the faith
of Nice, it yielded of necessity to the course of
events. The dogmatic crisis ended about 381, and the
orthodox members of the Eastern episcopacy gained
the upper hand ; the others (with the exception of a
few fanatics, who allowed themselves to be deposed
and persecuted) followed the imperial court. As to
the ecclesiastical crisis, it continued ; the antecedent
movement had succeeded too well to be abandoned,
and was maintained. From the lower Danube to
the Syrian desert, the episcopate continued to form
a body of which the emperor was morally the head.
Constantinople, founded half a century previously,
had been endowed with exceptional privileges ; they
considered it not only as a great city that had been
created on the shores of the Bosphorus, but as a new
ecclesiastical Rome. After the death of Constantine,
there had almost always been two empires, one in
the West the other in the East. The new Eastern
Rome took the place of Antioch, both as the capital
and as the metropolitan See. In 381, the Council
claimed for its bishops the same honours as for the
bishop of ancient Rome.1
If this Council favoured a return to orthodoxy,
it is evident that it showed much less solicitude
for the maintenance of ecclesiastical unity. It can-
1 This Council was at first little spoken of. There remain but
four of its canons in the canonical collections. Most of the eye
witnesses do not mention it ; thus St. Jerome, St. Amphilochius of
Iconium, St. Gregory of Nyssa (except in his funeral oration of
Meletius pronounced on the spot). St. Gregory of Nazianzen,
after having presided over it, made it the subject of a very
cutting satire {Carmen de vita sua, v. 1506, et seq.). The historians
of the following century hardly pay any attention to it either.

THE GREEK SCHISM 119
not be denied that this assembly, whilst returning
to the true faith, still remained in hostility towards
the two great Churches of Rome and Alexandria.
Personal questions kept up, if not a schism properly
so called, at least certain difficulties of intercourse,
which had no longer any pretext as to doctrine. The
most elevated mind in that assembly, the illustrious
St. Gregory of Nazianzen, perfectly understood the
situation and its dangers. He made no mistake as
to the spirit which animated the greater number of
his colleagues, nor as to their servility towards the
civil powers, their low moral value, and the untrust-
worthiness of their faith. With what animation he
describes the insolence of its younger members, and
the absurd sayings of the elder ones, proud of having
put forth the famous argument of climate : " It
was not in the West, but in the East that the
Saviour was born." " It was also in the East that
He was put to death," answered the witty bishop.
At length, feeling disgusted with the whole assembly,
he went away, leaving to others the presidence of
the Council and the bishopric of Constantinople.
When he was gone, affairs took exactly the turn
he had wished to avoid. The local schism that it
would have been so easy, just then, to overrule, was
maintained at Antioch, and the attitude assumed
towards Rome and Alexandria became almost as
haughty as in the time of the Emperor Constantius.
Convoked by Pope Damasus to a real (Ecumenical
Council, which, being assembled at Rome, might
have settled amicably all the questions in debate,
and have obtained real peace for the whole Church,
the Eastern episcopacy rephed by a refusal full of
irony, boasting of all it had done and suffered for the
faith, notifying its decisions concerning the Sees that

120 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
were contested, and insinuating that the choice of
bishops was the business of their fellow-suffragans.1
The object of their irony was the attitude of
the West, and in particular that of Damasus him
self, during the reign of Valens. It must be acknow
ledged that, on this point, Damasus had given some
adhesion to it. The orthodox reaction of which I
have spoken, headed by Basil of Ca?sarea, Meletius
of Antioch, and Eusebius of Samos, had not been
supported by the Pope as fully as those illustrious
bishops would have wished. The Church of Rome
patronised in the East certain persons that it would
have been better to have left alone. From the time
of Pope Julius the Church of Rome incurred the
disapproval of the East by rehabilitating Marcellus
of Ancyra, whose heretical teaching differed only
slightly from the ancient Sabellianism. Under Pope
Liberius, a whole body of semi- Arians went to Rome
to get themselves approved of by him. It is true
that, in both cases, professions of faith were required,
which had not, however, the necessary precision to
serve as a guarantee. At Antioch a small party was
kept up in opposition to that venerable Church, and
was provided with a bishop by Lucifer, the fanatical
Bishop of Cagliari, in contravention of canon law
and of all the rules of prudence. At Laodicea there
was a similar situation, in opposition to Bishop Pela
gius, who was recognised by the Eastern episcopacy,
and support was given to Apollinarius, who though
then doubtless a great theological celebrity, was
destined soon to give his name to a new heresy.
1 How many deviations from this principle had they not
authorised since Eusebius of Nicomedia had procured the deposi
tion of the Bishops of Antioch and Alexandria ! Was it their
fellow-suffragans who had installed Auxentius at Milan, Felix at
Rome, Germinius at Sirmium, and many others ?

THE GREEK SCHISM 121
Paulinus of Antioch was also a suspected person ;
he was said to be a Marcellian or a Sabeliian, pro
bably because he would not admit of the three
hypostases. In all those questions Pope Damasus followed
the advice of Peter, Bishop of Alexandria, who, as
an exile, had been obhged to take refuge in Rome,
and who naturally represented the affairs of the
East as they were regarded in Alexandria. This
was not the most desirable point of view. The con
flicts in the time of St. Athanasius had left bitter
recollections in Alexandria. People wished to sup
port the very few friends they had found in the East
during that painful crisis, and were little disposed
to sacrifice them to the adherents of that new
orthodoxy, among whom, no doubt, might be found
some honourable persons, such as Basil of Ca?sarea,
but also many who were to be mistrusted. They
were often bitterly spoken of, and treated as though
they were still Arians. Meletius, Eusebius of Samos,
and even Basil himself, were thus stigmatised at
Alexandria, and even at Rome, by those around the
Pope. This intimate friendship with Alexandria
was not without its drawbacks for the Holy See,
for it tended to prolong the conflict beyond all
reasonable limits. But how could that friendship
be abandoned, existing as it had done, in spite of
so many trials, since the time of Novatian until
that of Constantius and Valens. Besides, excepting
Alexandria, there was no other source of informa
tion. For the preceding two or three generations
communication between the Church of Rome and
the Greeks of the East was no longer what it had
been. Pilgrimages to the Holy Land, most attrac
tive since the time of Constantine, kept up, it is

122 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
true, a certain intercourse. Many illustrious visitors
went, even from Rome, to Palestine. But these
journeys to and fro, besides being now less frequent,
were not a medium for serious ecclesiastical com
munication. Indeed, a still greater number of
persons might have gone from East to West or from
West to East, leaving both regions just as firmly
closed as ever one towards another. The difference
of language had raised between them a barrier over
wliich it was difficult to pass. At first, the Roman
Church spoke Greek ; among the books written by
Christians in Rome, the most ancient and the most
important were written in Greek : as the Epistle of St.
Clement, the Pastor of Hermas, the anti-Montanist
Dialogue of Cains, and all the literature of Hip
polytus. Latin was not used until quite the end
of the second century, after the canon of Muratori
and the homilies attributed to St. Victor, if in
reality they were his. The correspondence with
the Churches speaking Greek was carried on in
that language ; the epitaphs of the Popes, until the
end of the third century, were drawn up in Greek.1
In the fourth century, and later on, it was quite
different ; the Latin tongue alone prevailed in epi
graphs, literature, and liturgy, as well as in epis
tolary correspondence.2
It is well known that, on their side, the Greeks
have never shown any inclination to speak Latin.
1 The only exception is that of Pope Cornelius, which, however,
does not belong to his first tomb, but to a tomb whither the body
of that Pope was transferred we know not how many years after
his death.
2 The letter of Pope Julius (341) to the Orientals, which still
exists, and which seems really authentic, is in Greek ; but the
Pope was just then surrounded by Greek bishops, and, besides,
the style of the letter and certain details of importance make it
likely that St. Athanasius had a hand in it.

THE GREEK SCHISM 123
Whether sacred or profane, Latin literature remains
practically closed for them. They never cared to
bestow upon the Latin tongue more consideration
than they would now bestow upon Bulgarian writ
ings. Even when the imperial court was held in
their midst, it did not succeed in teaching them
Latin, which rather became Hellenised. Latin was
used in the law-courts ; St. Gregory Thaumaturgus,
in order to follow the lessons given in the schools
of Berytus, was obliged to learn " the very difficult
language of the Romans." But, from the time of
Justinian, the translation of the laws was begun,
and soon they were published in Greek. A Greek
who spoke Latin was seldom to be met with.
Photius, who knew so many other things, did not
know Latin. Except at the imperial chancery, it
was a difficult matter to translate a document
written in Latin. Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, in
the eleventh century, on receiving a letter from
Pope Leo IX., was obliged to send it to Constan
tinople to know what it contained. It is certain
that in Rome, ignorance of Greek never went so
far as this. Persons capable of translating it were
never at any time wanting. Since the establish
ment of the Byzantine rule, in the middle of the
sixth century, there was always to be found in
Rome a pretty considerable Greek colony, which,
by renewal in some way or other, was perpetuated
all through the Middle Ages, and existed at least in
certain monastic communities. During the seventh
and eighth centuries there were several Popes be
longing to families of Greek origin ; but beyond
those particular cases, the higher Roman clergy
only knew Latin, and took little trouble to acquaint
themselves with Greek. Pope Vigilius dwelt eight

124 THE GREEK CHURCH »AND
or nine years at Constantinople without having
learnt Greek ; we may say as much of his illus
trious successor, St. Gregory the Great, who also
passed several years in the Byzantine capital as
nuncio, or apocrisiary.
The apocrisiary, or manager of the nunciature,
which, after the time of Justinian, the Pope main
tained at Constantinople, besides having only existed
there for a century or a century and a half, was him
self but an imperfect medium of communication.
That functionary had to do with the emperor and
not with the Patriarch. The latter often gave him
more annoyance than help. It happened most fre
quently that he neither understood nor spoke the
language of the country, and consequently could re
ceive but very indifferent information. Sometimes,
when great Councils were held at Constantinople,
legates arrived from Rome ; but their ignorance of
the language left them at the mercy of official inter
preters, who, under the influence of the Patriarch,
often procured unpleasant deceptions for them. This
is a self-evident fact ; but what is of great import
ance in the question of which we are now treating
is this : — in order to maintain concord, or to recover
it, people must necessarily understand each other ;
how can they understand each other if they cannot
speak to one another ?
But to return to Pope Damasus and to his time.
Damasus, like his illustrious colleague, St. Ambrose,
was far from being well acquainted with the religious
affairs of Syria and Asia Minor ; and thus, influenced
unconsciously by some past grievances of the Alex
andrians, he was too much inclined to favour certain
little cabals, while he did not appreciate the true
worth of the great bishops, to whom after all was

THE GREEK SCHISM 125
due the movement which brought the East back
to the faith professed at the Council of Nice. St.
Basil tried more than once to enlighten him, and to
make him take a part in that salutary reaction, but
the Saint only met with a discouraging coolness, of
which he justly complains in his letters. Meletius,
Eusebius of Samosata, and many others had reason
to be discontented also. It is not surprising if five
or six years later, the Eastern episcopate remembered
them, and that this bitter remembrance should mani
fest itself, as we have seen, in 381 and 382. l
After a time matters took a turn for the better.
Towards the end of the fourth century, the great
Churches of Antioch and Constantinople resumed
their customary intercourse with Rome. The Little
Church of Antioch, abandoned by Rome, was soon
absorbed in the great one, and of all the quarrels of
the fourth century nothing would have remained but
the remembrance thereof, had they not given rise
to what is now known as the Greek Church.
That Church, as we have seen, was the consequence
of two historical circumstances, viz., the opposition
to the Council of Nice, and the grouping of the
bishops around the emperor in order to uphold that
opposition. Even when the Council of Nice was
accepted, this grouping did not cease to exist. It
survived its cause ; it has been perpetuated until
our own days.
1 Among the lamentable mistakes then made, one of the most
serious was to prevent St. Gregory of Nazianzen from remaining
in the See of Constantinople. It was putting aside a man of
great moral and intellectual worth, and of a most conciliatory
character, and to replace him by an absolute simpleton.

126 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
n
The bishops of the Council of 381, successors of
those who had founded the imperial Church, were
determined to make Constantinople the centre of that
Church. Without saying so expressly, they decreed
that " the Bishop of Constantinople should be
honoured next to the Bishop of Rome, Constantinople
being new Rome." Another canon regulated that
the Bishops of Alexandria and Antioch were not to
interfere with the Churches situated beyond their own
jurisdiction, i.e. the dioceses of Egypt and ofthe East ;
that, moreover, the Bishops of Pontus, of Asia, and
of Thrace were to settle their affairs with each
other, and between themselves. This measure was
directed principally against the Bishops of Alexan
dria, who, trusting to their own importance, to their
firm allegiance to Rome, and to the prestige due
to their success in the question of the orthodoxy
of Nice, began to act as if they were heads of
the Eastern Church. St. Gregory of Nazianzen had
been enthroned in the See of Constantinople, and
if Nectarius succeeded him, it was in spite of
Timothy, the Patriarch of Alexandria, who wished
to impose another candidate.
He was beaten on that occasion. But the struggle
continued between the two Primates of Constan
tinople and Alexandria, and the question was to
know which of the two would command the new
ecclesiastical body of the Eastern Empire. Constan
tinople had in its favour the letter, and above all the
spirit, of the recent Council, and felt itself upheld by
the traditions of the official imperial Church, whose
presidents had been Eusebius of Nicomedia, Stephen
and Leontius of Antioch, Acacius of Ca?sarea,

THE GREEK SCHISM 127
Eudoxius of Constantinople, and, lastly, the blessed
Meletius. It succeeded to these presidents much
more than to the former titulars of the See of
Byzantium or Constantinople. Placed as it was in
the immediate neighbourhood of the court, its pri
mate seemed a useful and almost necessary inter
mediary between the provincial episcopacy and the
superior powers. On this account, its influence
could not fail to assume enormous proportions.
Its attributes had not been clearly defined by the
Council ; it was free to extend them. As far as
Antioch at least, who could resist it ?
On the other hand, the Bishop of Alexandria,
besides the orthodox tradition which he represented,
had the advantage of a well-defined authority conse
crated by long usage. The hundred bishops of his
jurisdiction were under his sway ; none of them
would have dared to act in opposition to him, nor
to speak until they had taken his advice. He was
supported also by the monks who were just then
becoming a popular element of strength. They had
stood by him in his campaign in favour of Atha
nasius, who had, himself, never ceased to protect
them. This alliance between the monks and the
Bishop of Alexandria (already styled the episcopal
Pharaoh) was complete and indissoluble. At a sign
from him the deserts of Nitria, of Fayoum, and of
Upper Egypt would have sent forth troops of monks
fanatically devoted to his cause. From the fact of
his high ecclesiastical position he was regarded as
the first personage in Egypt. The imperial prefect
and the military commander had to reckon with him.
Woe to them ! woe to the public peace ! if they
ventured to oppose him ! His prestige was not even
wanting in a certain literary superiority. The school

128 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
of Origen still subsisted, its leaders were talked of
in the solitary dwellings of Nitria, learned monks
meditated upon the books of their former master.
It was the Bishop of Alexandria who regulated the
Paschal computation, his decisions were law through
out the Eastern Empire ; even at Rome, where there
was less skilfulness in those calculations, his were
almost always accepted. Lastly, if any theological
dispute arose, the great prelate showed that he was
also a doctor who did not shrink from polemics.
This was the case with Athanasius, with Theophilus,
and Cyril. The court, it is true, was far away ;
but there were many Egyptians at Constantinople.
Every spring the service of the Annona sent thither
an immense fleet, whose crews escorted the Pontiff
of Alexandria when he landed at the Golden Horn.
He had his nunciature, entrusted to men of his own
choice, and well supplied with funds ; much could
be obtained at the court by money, and money was
not wanting to this Egyptian prince.
Conflict was inevitable between those two powers.
Alexandria at first prevailed. At each vacancy of
the See of Constantinople the Egyptian Patriarch
put forward his own candidate. If this candidate
was unsuccessful, or if the one elected was not
pleasing to Alexandria, the slightest pretext brought
about a tragedy. Three times in less than half a
century the Greek Church was witness of the deposi
tion of a bishop of Constantinople by a bishop of
Alexandria: Chrysostom in 403; Nestorius in 431;
Flavian in 449. And they were not simply deposi
tions in theory ; those three prelates were really
deprived of their Sees and banished. Indeed, all the
three died in consequence of their afflictions. I
know that, in point of law, differences are to be

THE GREEK SCHISM 129
made in the three cases : that the deposition of
Nestorius was ratified by the papal legates at the
Council of Ephesus ; that Chrysostom and Flavian,
who were innocent victims, were defended and rein
stated by the Holy See, to whose support they
had appealed. But, in the three cases, the Eastern
episcopacy accepted, or submitted to, the sentence
of Alexandria ; by its silence at least, it sided with
the victorious Pharaoh.
What might have happened if that series of suc
cesses had continued ? Would the " Pope of Alex
andria " (for they gave him that title) have been
recognised as head of the Greek episcopacy ? Would
that situation have been secured to him by some
official decree ? In reahty his third triumph was his
last. At the Council of Chalcedon (451) Dioscorus,
Patriarch of Alexandria, was seen at the bar of the
accused, while the Roman legate was heard to
pronounce this solemn sentence : " The most holy
and blessed Archbishop of great and ancient Rome,
Leo, by us and by the Holy Synod here present, in
union with the Blessed Apostle Peter, who is the
corner-stone of the Catholic Church, has deprived
Dioscorus of episcopal dignity and has forbidden
him all sacerdotal functions."
Dioscorus, indeed, was cast down, but the blow
reached still farther. Egypt did not accept the
deposition of her Patriarch ; she remained faithful
to him and even gave him successors, who never
ceased to protest against Pope Leo the Great and
the Council of Chalcedon. All the efforts made
to bring her back failed ; from the middle of the
fifth century she may be considered as lost to the
unity of the Catholic Church. Following her
example, Eastern Syria was transformed into a

130 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
schismatical Church. Both in Syria and in Egypt
the orthodox Christians formed but a small minority.
In the seventh century the conquests of Islamism
suppressed the three official patriarchates of Alex
andria, Jerusalem, and Antioch. When they re
appeared a hundred years later, a considerable part
of the native Christians had abandoned Jesus Christ
for Mahomet. The Christian communities of Egypt and Syria,
being separated from the others by heresy, schism,
and the religious and political success of Islamism,
could no longer pretend to exercise over them any
direction or influence whatsoever. Their disappear
ance turned to the profit of the patriarchate of Con
stantinople, the only one that really survived. Its
organisation had been regulated at the Council of
Chalcedon, in the 28th canon. In vain did Pope
Leo protest ; the nominal concessions granted to
him in no way stopped the progress of an ecclesi
astical centralisation around the capital and its arch
bishop. The Pope had his reasons for protesting. The
new organisation infringed upon the rights of others,
and threatened, more or less directly, the justly
acquired positions ofthe ancient Churches of Antioch
and Alexandria ; it rested, moreover, upon a wholly
inadmissible statement, which runs thus : " The
Fathers justly decreed special honours to the See of
ancient Rome, because Rome had the rank of a
capital; thus we, &c. . . ." This "decree" of the
Fathers is yet undiscovered. Unless it could be
admitted that the assembly of Chalcedon refers to
some secret general Council, all traces of which have
disappeared, and of which Eusebius and the other
contemporaries of the Council of Nice would not

THE GREEK SCHISM 131
have had the least knowledge, I do not see what
they could mean. Besides, any such general Council
must have been previous to the third or even to the
second century, for in those times we see the Roman
Church invested, not only with honorary preroga
tives, but with universal and uncontested authority.
Going back thus, we easily come to the apostolic
age. But that is not what the Bishops of Chalcedon
meant ; the " Fathers " of whom they speak are not
apostles but bishops ; they mean to bring down to
the level of their own authority, the authority from
which the supremacy of the Roman Church is de
rived. In this they erred : the Church of Rome
owes nothing to Councils ; her authority comes from
a higher source. The emperors could have founded
a new Rome ; to create a second Roman Church is
far above all episcopal powers.

Ill
Thus indisputably provided with a centre and a
head, the Byzantine Church continued to work out
its destiny. In itself, this autonomy of the Greeks
had nothing that was incompatible with ecclesiasti
cal unity. The African autonomy, organised long
before, found means of living in peace with the Holy
See. To come to an understanding was the only
thing now requisite, and it must not be imagined
that this was never accomplished. Excepting during
the intervals of schism already indicated, there had
been periods of absolute concord. When studying
the divers manifestations of Byzantine opinion, it is
easy to recognise certain sentiments in favour of
peace. Firstly, the sentiment of the unity of the Church.

132 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
This sentiment was shown by the introduction,1
almost everywhere, after the end of the fifth century,
of the Constantinopolitan Nicene Creed into the
liturgy of the Mass. This sentiment, not yet stifled
by subtle distinctions, prevented the populace from
feeling and from being resigned to the guilt of
schism. Schism appeared as an irregular, and an
inferior state ; there was always a sort of general
remorse of conscience in opposition to it. No trouble
was spared to bring back the Monophysites to unity
of faith. The Henotikon of Zeno, the conferences
procured by Justinian, the rigorous measures against
the dissident bishops, the condemnation of the
" Three Chapters " and of Monothelism, were so
many different proceedings tried, one after another,
with a rare perseverance, for so laudable an object.
Nothing, however, was gained. It would have been
easier to come to an understanding with the Pope.
There was but one attitude to abandon ; yet, owing
to frequent changes on the part of individuals, it
was easy for either of them to throw the responsi
bilities upon their predecessors. Lastly, the emperor
was there to procure an understanding, to calm sus
ceptibilities, to favour, and, if need be, to impose,
the re-establishment of peace.
There was, moreover, then a much clearer appre
hension of the supremacy of the Pope than in our
own days. That supremacy was uncontested. In all
documents where episcopal Sees are enumerated in
their order of precedence, the list always begins with
1 That introduction was made by the heretical Patriarchs, Peter
the Fuller of Antioch and Timothy of Constantinople. In pre
scribing the reading of that formula, they meant to protest against
the one drawn up at the Council of Chalcedon. We see that the
Church of Rome had her reasons for hesitating so lono- before
inserting the Credo in the liturgy ofthe Holy Eucharist.

THE GREEK SCHISM 133
that of Rome. The Patriarch of Constantinople,
whatever rights he claimed over the Greek Church,
and however tenaciously he held to the title " oecu
menical," never regarded himself as superior, or even
equal to the Pope. Even as late as the twelfth cen
tury, one hundred years after Cerularius, the canonists,
Zonaras and Balsamon, recognised expressly this papal
superiority. They even entered a protest against
such writers as put forth another interpretation of
the third canon of Constantinople, which states that
the Bishop of Constantinople has honours after the
Bishop of Rome, and who falsely inferred therefrom
that Constantinople had received first honours, while
Rome already possessed them.1 Zonaras and Bal
samon do not fall into this error ; they rightly see
in the text not posteriority, but absolute inferiority.
The Roman supremacy was not looked upon as a
mere matter of form. Frequently Greek writers and
1 There were even found persons to advance the pretension
that the See of Constantinople was of greater antiquity than the See
of Rome. In order to lend credence to that absurd pretension, a
forgery, which dates, perhaps, from the close of the sixth century,
and which is certainly anterior to the ninth century, was produced,
a pretended list of bishops carried up from Metrophanes, the first
known Bishop of Byzantium, to Stachys, disciple of St. Andrew, and
even on to that Apostle himself. That forgery, obscure in its
origin, ended by gaining credence to a certain extent. At the
opening ofthe ninth century, Theophanes treated it as of no account,
whilst his contemporary, the Patriarch Nicephorus, upheld it. One
cannot but regret to see a writer of the value of Manuel Gedeon
accepting it in his work {Jlarpiapy^iKol irivaKes, published at
Constantinople, 1886). It is merely the equivalent of those
legendary lists of bishops by which certain of the occidental Churches
seek to make themselves direct descendants of the disciples of St.
Peter. One such, published two hundred years ago, the French
clergy unanimously rejected, whereas now such documents are
credited, even by some bishops. Evidence of antiquity does not
transform an apocryphal document into an authentic one, either in
Constantinople or nearer home ; but when education is at its lowest
ebb, victims of such false evidence are likely to increase both in
number and importance.

134 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
Councils acknowledged it as a right and a duty of the
Pope to exercise general control over the religious
concerns of their country, and claimed his support
against the oppression of those in power, and ad
dressed him by the most significant and high-sounding
titles. Texts of this nature having often been com
piled in theological and controversial writings, a few
observations thereon will suffice.
In matters of dogma and of ecclesiastical inter
course, the participation, or at least the consent, of the
Pope was deemed necessary for the definite solution
of any question, as the prolonged schisms already
enumerated conclusively prove. An endeavour was
made, in 340, to obtain the papal sanction for an
usurping bishop in Alexandria. For the questions of
Monothelism, and of the prohibition of images, the
Pope's advice was asked, even though not acted upon
by those who had recourse, in spite of his decision, to
the support of the government. When there was a
rupture, it was not the Greek Church which declared
it ; she had only to yield to it. It was always from
Rome that the Non licet emanated, and, whilst the
Greek Church managed to withstand Rome every
now and then, it had always to submit in the end.
Supreme in doctrinal authority, the Holy See was
also the highest court of appeal beyond which there
was no imaginable resource. Many ecclesiastical
sentences pronounced by the Eastern Church in
council, or by its most renowned leaders, have been
reversed by Rome, as, for instance, the deposition of
St. Athanasius in the Council of Tyre. The judges,
it is true, for a time, denied the Pope's competency
which they had previously implicitly acknowledged
when asking him to settle the question. No later
than 346, by accepting the re-integration of St.

THE GREEK SCHISM 135
Athanasius in his See of Alexandria, by waiving the
grievances urged against him at the Council of Tyre,
they implicitly recognised the reversal of their sen
tence. Their successors, on their return to orthodoxy,
acted likewise in the most formal manner. Another
instance is the deposition of St. John Chrysostom,
which was reversed by Pope Innocent. In this case,
as in the former one, the Greek bishops at first re
sisted ; but a very few years later they had to ac
knowledge themselves in the wrong. Chrysostom
had appealed to the Pope. In 449 three bishops :
Flavian of Constantinople, Eusebius of Doryleum,
Theodoret of Cyr, who had been condemned by the
(Ecumenical Council of Ephesus, appealed formally
to Pope Leo against the decision of the Council.1
Several Greek Patriarchs were deposed by the
Pope : among others, Dioscorus of Alexandria, in
450 ; Acacius and Anthimius of Constantinople, in
484 and in 536. Acacius, upheld by the emperor,
made light of the sentence of Pope Felix III. ; but
the two other sentences were duly executed. It
was in the very town of Constantinople that Pope
Agapitus pronounced the deposition of Anthimius,
and immediately installed Menas as his successor.
It was not to be expected that appeals to Rome
would be of frequent occurrence in the Eastern
Church.2 The Greek Patriarchs seldom found it
necessary to appeal to the supreme tribunal of
Christendom. As to the minor prelates, priests,
or other clerics, local jurisdiction was not wanting
i The letters of Theodoret have been long known, those of
Flavian and Eusebius were published but recently, firstly by M.
Aurelli and afterwards by M. Mommsen, Neues Archiv, lxi. (1886)
p. 362. 2 I do not, of course, allude here to the provinces of Illyricum,
which were comprised in the Roman patriarchate.

136 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
for the settlement of their lawsuits. Nevertheless,
were we in possession of more than the barest
remnants of the archives of the Holy See, these
would very likely furnish some interesting facts on
this subject. During the pontificate of St. Gregory,
two priests of the patriarchate of Constantinople,
John of Chalcedon and Athanasius of Isaura,
condemned as heretics by the Patriarch's judges,
appealed to Rome and obtained a sentence of ab
solution.1 I printed, some years ago,2 a hitherto
unpublished fragment from the great Council of
394, held near Chalcedon, under the presidency
of Nectarius of Constantinople and Theophilus of
Alexandria. That assembly had to concern itself
about a conflict between two bishops, Badagios
and Agapios, who opposed one another, each laying
claim to the metropolitan See of Bostra. This fact
was patent, but what was less generally known was
that this matter had been laid before the Council
by Pope Siricius, to whom it had been first referred
by both disputants.3 It was about the right course
to pursue according to the fifth canon of the
Council of Sardica. An appeal against a sentence
in Council can be addressed to Rome ; the Pope
decides whether or not the appeal is well founded.
Should he deem it right to order a new trial, this
would take place, not in Rome, but before a con-
ciliary tribunal in the neighbourhood of the first
judges. The Council of Sardica had only been recog-
1 Jaffe, 1257, 1357, 1393-1396.
2 Annates de philosophic chret, annee 1885, p. 281.
3 Pro causa quorumdam Badagii et Agapii de episcopatu Bostrince
ecclesiw qua; est metropolis Arabia: sic diuturno tempore certantium ut
etiam Romam pergerent el Mine ad sanctum Theophilum cum litteris
beati papw Sirieii mitterentur.

THE GREEK SCHISM 137
nised by a fraction of the Greek Church, viz., the
Egyptian episcopate. The decisions of that Council
found place eventually in the collections of Byzan
tine canons ; but one must not conclude that all
concihary laws, inserted in ecclesiastical collections
as such, held force of law for the countries where
they obtained currency. It would be more prudent
to look upon such facts as the exception rather
than the rule. In the Middle Ages, when there was
question of the reunion of the Churches, the right
of appeal to the Pope was what principally alarmed
the Byzantine clergy. It is not my business to de
termine what would be the conditions laid down
were fresh negotiations entered into ; but it seems
to me that, were the right of appeal limited to very
rare, exceptional cases, matters would be placed
very much as they were previously to the great
upheavals of the ninth and eleventh centuries.
Besides the sentiment of Christian unity and of
the supremacy of the Church, the veneration in
which Rome was held in the East, as it was through
out Christendom, undoubtedly made for peace.
Pilgrimages from the East to Rome, though less
frequent than those to the Holy Land, were, how
ever, often undertaken. From the middle of the
sixth century, a Greek colony was formed around
the Palatinate, composed of resident families, brought
thither either in the interests of commerce or in
some administrative capacity, and the quarters they
occupied seemed, so to speak, a fragment of Con
stantinople transported to the banks of the Tiber.
^zantine saints were in special honour among
m : to wit, St. Anastasia ^ St. George, St. Theo-
Saints Sergius and fhe }hus, St. Hadrian, St.
f*e, and St. S?,1 which ie military confrater-

in

138 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
nity of the district (Schola Grcecorum) had its
chapel placed under the title of St. Mary in Cos-
midin. The Greek liturgy was partly used in
most of the churches. Even in public ceremonies,
where the Roman Church was convoked, and where
the Pope officiated, the Greek liturgy was employed
side by side with the Latin.
Those Greeks of Rome formed a most useful
link between Italy and the Byzantine world ; keep
ing up a connection which greatly facilitated travel
ling from the East, and rendered pilgrimages thence
to Rome not only frequent but easy to undertake.
Further and even greater facilities of communi
cation were provided by the Greek monasteries so
numerous in Rome. The twofold attraction of the
Roman sanctuaries and of the Byzantine colony estab
lished there, the invasion of the Eastern provinces
by Mussulman Arabs, the persecutions carried on in
the seventh century by monothelite princes, and
in the eighth and ninth centuries by iconoclastic
governments — all these causes brought about a series
of migrations from the East, and of settlements in
Rome, of large numbers of Greek monks, men of
influence and learning, who had to be taken into
serious consideration and who were able at certain
moments to be of great use to the Roman cause.
Thus it was that Rome and Constantinople lived,
so to say, side by side in perfect understanding and
mutual goodwill, giving evidence of the possibility
of a complete reconciliation, even as in walking one
proves the possibility of movement. The monks of
St. Erasmus and of St. Sabas equalled their fellows
of Antioch or of Bito^ynia in the length of their
beards ; celebrated the^""^ e offices, the same liturgy,
in the tongue and ac> "n the ritual of their

THE GREEK SCHISM 139
own country ; they were well aware of the Western
rite for administering baptism, and of the Roman
doctrine concerning the Holy Ghost and Purgatory.
As no position in Rome was too high for them to
attain to, it was one of their number, Pope Zachary,
who translated for them the Dialogues of St.
Gregory, a book which treats largely of the doc
trine of Purgatory. Nothing that they saw or
heard of Roman doctrine or practice gave rise on
their part to any suggestion of heresy, or to any
wish to detach themselves from communion with
Rome. At Constantinople, on the contrary, there were
no Latin communities. There is no trace of any
corporate organisation, or of any churches specially
set apart either for Italians, Africans, or any other
Western people sojourning in the Byzantine capital.
The inner chapel of the Placidian Palace, which
was the official residence of the papal nuncio, was
the only spot in Constantinople where the Roman
liturgy was celebrated. IV
I have briefly enumerated such institutions and
such tendencies as might have helped towards re
union. Small things in themselves they were, no
doubt; still such as, in a spirit of goodwill, might
have led to perfect concord. The terrible upheaval
of the fourth century might have been classed as
a mere historical event, and have given way to a
state of things more in accordance with original
traditions. Unfortunately, goodwill was the one
thing wanting. The Bishops of Constantinople, far
from being satisfied with the preponderant and anti-
traditional situation, which they held from the

140 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
assemblies of 381 and of 451, nourished but one
ambition — that of becoming the absolute heads of
the Church. Infatuated by the magnitude of their
city, by their preponderance in the Councils of the
emperor, incapable of realising the importance of
aught outside the Greek sphere of influence, they
came to look upon themselves as the centre of
Christendom. From the close of the sixth century,
they adopted, despite all protests from Rome, the
fantastical title of " (Ecumenical Patriarch."
It is clear that, in their pretensions, they did
not go so far as to place themselves above the
Pope ; in fact, they even constantly declared their
unwillingness to lessen the authority of other Greek
Patriarchs. But wherefore, then, did they adopt
this title of " (Ecumenical," i.e. universal ? Either
it gives one to understand that the Patriarch of
Constantinople is the Universal Patriarch, and in
that case, what remains to the others ? or it is an
absolutely meaningless title, equally pompous and
misleading, and presents but a sorry picture of the
modesty of those who invented it. Formerly, the
Patriarch refrained from travelling on horseback,
humbly contenting himself with riding on an ass.
How preferable it would have been to have travelled
in a coach-and-four rather than adopt titles so
excessive in regard to himself, and so insulting
towards others.
And that was far from all ! After having been
so frequently guided back from error to ortho
doxy by the vigilance of the Church of Rome,
the Greek Church presumed to dictate to her on
grounds of discipline, as was seen in 692 in the
Council in Trullo, or Quini-Sexte, which assembly
undertook the task of introducing uniformity into

THE GREEK SCHISM 141
divers ecclesiastical customs. In Rome, in Africa,
and in Armenia several details of discipline or of
liturgy were at variance with those in use at
Constantinople. In Africa, on Maundy Thursday,
the celebration of the Holy Eucharist followed
immediately upon the repast, the idea being to re
produce with greater exactness the historical circum
stances of the Last Supper. The Armenians did
not mix water in the chalice, neither did they, on
the Sundays in Lent, refrain from the use of eggs
and cheese ; and, again, their priests accepted in
church joints of meat brought to them by their
parishioners. In Rome the number of deacons was
limited to seven, whilst at Constantinople it was
unhmited. Mass was celebrated every day through
out Lent ; but at Constantinople only on Saturdays
and Sundays. On the other hand, the Occidental
Church fasted on Saturdays in Lent, not so the
Oriental ; and at Easter and Pentecost offered at
the altar milk and honey for the newly baptized,
a custom also unknown to the Byzantines. Greek
priests and deacons could live in the married state,
provided marriage had been contracted prior to
ordination ; a licence not extended to the Latin
clergy.1 The Council condemned equally as abuses all
purely local particularities. Any differences from
the proceedings in vogue at Constantinople were
declared " contrary to tradition " ; the Byzantine
rule was to be enforced, and that under the
severest penalties. Excommunication was pro
nounced against such of the Roman laity as fasted
on the Saturdays in Lent, and dismissal was the
1 African Customs incriminated by the Council, canon 29 ;
Armenian, c. 32, 33, 56, 99; Roman, c' 13, 16, 30, 52, 55, 56, 57.

142 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
penalty for any clerk guilty of a similar practice.
Deposition was also the penalty incurred by any
priest or deacon refusing to cohabit with his wife,
as well as by those who denied the lawfulness of
such cohabitation. It is clear from what we have
seen that even the Pope — indeed, I may say, especi
ally the Pope — was attainted by such threats of de
position. Refusal to accept the Byzantine ruling
in place of the ancient customs of the Roman
Church, would warrant the Pope's being dispos
sessed of his See and of his sacerdotal dignity.
It is a sad sign of those times that Roman
legates could be found capable of signing such
decrees, which, more lamentable again to relate, did
not meet, even in Rome itself, with such clear and
universal reprobation as they deserved. One must
allow that Justinian II. was a tyrant, whose will it
was hard to oppose, and who confirmed the decisions
of his Council by deeds of violence. Under the
Popes Sergius (687-701), John VII. (705-707),
and Constantine (708-715) imperial commissaries
visited Rome, carried off the papal councillors, and
tried to rule the Pope by terrorism. But neither
measures of violence, nor measures of clemency,
which sometimes intervened, obtained any definite
result. Pope John VII. has been accused of weak
ness ; never, however, did he append his signature.
The conflict ended by the voyage of Pope Con
stantine to the imperial court, where, though he
uttered no condemnation against the Council, he at
any rate succeeded in making the emperor accept
his motives for remaining passive. The death of
Justinian II. freed Rome from those obsessions ; but
the disputable canons remained in Byzantine law,
a lasting witness of an undertaking, which failed

THE GREEK SCHISM 143
certainly, but was significantly directed against the
independence and dignity of the Roman Church.
Had Rome remained part of the Byzantine Empire,
it is more than probable that such attempts would
have been followed by similar ones. But, from the
coming to the Lombard throne of King Liutprand,
the Byzantine rule in Italy became more and more
precarious. An attempt at religious reform, the
abolition of the veneration of images, inaugurated in
726 by the Emperor Leo the Isaurian, fell through
completely in Italy in face of the opposition raised
by Popes Gregory II. and Gregory III. It became
at last evident to the Byzantine Government that
it now lacked power enough to oppress consciences
in those distant countries. After some further
attempts, it made up its mind to molest the Pope
no further, and even made use of his influence to
negotiate with the much-dreaded Lombards.
The quarrel about images, which raged so violently
in the East (726-842), brought about fresh schisms
between Rome and the patriarchate. The Greek
monks gave active support to the use of images,
encouraged in this by public opinion and by the
approval of persons of piety ; but the episcopate and
the army were on the government side. The con
dition of things was much the same as in the
fourth century, in the time of St. Athanasius and
the Arians. Rome took little or no part in the
quarrel, feeling itself safe from any territorial ag
gression on the part of the Greek Empire. It con
tented itself with giving refuge to the persecuted
monks, and with defending its traditions with the
help of Councils.
Precisely at the time of this religious crisis, an
event occurred of considerable importance in the

144 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
political sphere, which helped greatly to complicate,
and even to embitter, relations between the Latin
Church and the Greek. This event was the passing
of Rome from under the dependence of the Byzan
tine Empire to the protectorate of the Franks. No
matter what concourse of circumstances contributed
to bring about this change of influence, it will be
readily understood that such a change could not
but be highly displeasing to the Byzantine court,
and absolutely antagonistic to Greek opinions as a
whole ! Rome detached from the Roman Empire,
Rome under the yoke of barbarians, Rome no longer
Roman ! It was thus that the change presented
itself to the Byzantine mind, and a monstrous thing
it appeared ; a sufficient plea indeed for detaching
from the Roman patriarchate the ancient Greek
provinces of Illyricum, and annexing them to the
patriarchate of Constantinople, as also the bishop
rics of Sicily and of lower Italy. In a word, wher
ever the authority of the emperor continued to be
recognised, these enactments were enforced.
The above measures, intended merely as provi
sional during the eighth and ninth centuries, became
definitively estabhshed about the year 900. The
catalogues of the episcopal Sees in the Greek patri
archate give a very clear account of their origin as
follows : " These provinces," they explain, " have
been annexed to the Synod of Constantinople be
cause the Pope of ancient Rome is in the hands
of barbarians ; the same has been done, and for a
similar motive, by the provinces of Seleucia and of
Isauria, now detached from the Eastern patriarchate. ?
Effectively, the Eastern patriarchal see of Antiocl t
had fallen under the power of the Caliph, whils
the province of Isauria remained under that of the a

THE GREEK SCHISM 145
emperor. The Frankish state and the Mussulman
state are here placed on a similar footing.
During the severe persecutions which they had
to undergo in the defence of images, the Greek monks
looked frequently to Rome. Many of them emi
grated thither ; others, like St. Theodore Studitus,
earnestly invoked the support of the Holy See. Very
eloquent passages have been drawn from his letters
concerning the primacy and the authority of the
Pope. They are the continuation of the appeals of
St. Basil, of St. Chrysostom, of Flavian, of Eusebius
of Doryleum, of Theodoret, of Sophronius, and of
many others. History repeats itself. When in want
of the Pope's help, when there appears a chance of
obtaining something from him, his prerogatives are
clearly established, clearly set forth, placed in bold
relief, exalted in all the pomp of eloquence. When,
on the contrary, his help is not required, all his
rights and prerogatives are promptly lost sight of,
or ignored. Proof of this was amply provided towards the
close of the ninth century, during the well-known
quarrel between Ignatius and Photius. Ignatius,
dispossessed of his See by Photius, immediately
appealed to Rome. Barely, however, re-installed
in his patriarchate by the Holy See, Ignatius at
once started an intrigue with the Bulgarians tend
ing to withdraw their newly founded Church from
the Roman obedience, and persisting in his rebellious
attitude despite the papal protest. An ultimatum,
accompanied by threats of deposition, had just been
launched against him by the Holy See, when the
news of his death reached Rome.1
1 Baronius places him in the Roman martyrology; which is
certainly displaying great indulgence. K

146 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
The details of this affair are well known, and
modern research has from time to time thrown fresh
light on the subject. One may come to the con
clusion that Pope Nicholas, badly or unfortunately
advised, started, without due consideration, a most
serious quarrel, which it would, at the time, have
been easy to avert, and in the course of which the
Holy See lost, in the East, much of the considera
tion it had hitherto enjoyed. Nicholas, and several
of his successors, employed a very determined tone
in treating with Photius. Many of their letters, it
is true, failed to reach their destination, and to those
that were received by him, Photius replied in an
equally imperious tone. Nicholas deposed Photius ;
Photius deposed Nicholas — neither sentence pro
ducing the slightest effect. Twice, it is true, Photius
lost his patriarchal See, but each time as a conse
quence of political changes, and not in virtue of
the pontifical decrees. Whilst the Council of 869
ratified his deposition, that of 879 confirmed his re-
establishment, the one like the other being presided
over by papal legates, neither of whom was disowned
at Rome on any important point. By comparing
the documents of those two assemblies, it is easily
seen that, whereas the sentence of 869 was submitted
to with great repugnance by the whole Greek episco
pate, that of 879 met with enthusiastic acquiescence.
At last, Pope John IX. decided to forgive and
forget all these quarrels, and to recognise impartially
all the Greek Patriarchs, whether Photians or Igna-
tians; while Constantinople agreed to recognise all
the Popes, whether they had been favourable to
Photius or not.

THE GREEK SCHISM 147

Two things survived this useless quarrel : Firstly,
the remembrance of a contest maintained, not un
successfully, against the Church of Rome, and,
secondly, the writings of Photius. In Photian litera
ture appears for the first time in writing the Greek
protest against the Filioque; there for the second
time (repeating the error of the Council in Trullo)
one notes the head of the Greek Church calling the
Latin Church to account for the peculiarities of its
customs, and presenting its point of view with the
utmost literary and polemical talent. Such books
were bound to excite and maintain restlessness and
anxiety of opinion concerning Occidentals. They
found readers and imitators ; indeed all Byzantine
controversialists went to them for inspiration. It
is clear that, whilst Photius showed defects similar
to those of Ulysses, he likewise possessed the re-
doutable qualities of his renowned compatriot.
In the matter of Photius, as in that of sacred
images, the Holy See leant, in the East, on a more
or less important religious party. Siding with
Rome were the monks, the supporters of the use
of holy pictures ; also, the followers of Ignatius, few
in number, but very tenacious. Rome triumphed
with the first-named, and resigned herself regarding
the latter. Both were honourable allies ; but, in
the tenth century, we again see the Pope mixed up
in Byzantine concerns, and this time with far less
honourable allies, and condescending to play a part
little calculated to raise him in the esteem or con
sideration of religious persons.
First of all, there was the tetragamy affair. The
emperor, Leo VI., had contracted marriage four

148 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
times, and it must be admitted that he had excellent
motives for so doing. But Greek custom allowing
one to contract marriage but twice, a conflict arose
between the Sovereign and his clergy, the latter
being led on by a man as clever as Photius and
almost as cultivated, the Patriarch Nicholas Mysticus.
As a last resource, the emperor determined to call
together a sort of (Ecumenical Council, convoking
from the territory under Mussulman rule three repre
sentatives of the Eastern Patriarchs. From Rome,
Pope Sergius III. sent legates (907), who naturally
took precedence over all others in the management
of the business in hand, as also all responsibilities
concerning it. It was impossible for the papal
legates to canonise the Byzantine law in respect of
marriage, since the Latin Church knows no such
matrimonial restrictions, and Charlemagne had offered,
in his own conduct, an illustrious and significant
example. The papal legates gave their decision in
favour of the Byzantine emperor. Many religious
persons, even among those who were hostile to the
Patriarch and who eventually helped to substitute
another in his stead, looked upon the decision of the
papal legates as a grave infringement of Christian
morality. How much greater must have been their painful
astonishment when, twenty-six years later, legates
came from Rome to Constantinople commissioned to
impose upon them a Patriarch only thirteen years
old, under the pretext of this child's being the son of
the reigning emperor, himself an usurper, Romanus
Lecapenus ? The protestations raised by the great
canonists against so extraordinary an installation
have come down to our own time. They disputed
the Pope's right of interference in the election of

THE GREEK SCHISM 149
Patriarchs, stating that his action in this case was
without precedent ; they allowed that, in cases of
disagreement in matters of faith, it was customary
to invoke the help of the Pope and of the other
Patriarchs, but they argued that the enthroning of
the Archbishop of Constantinople had always taken
place without such assistance. Sad to say, their
objections on the score of legality were not the only
ones that could be offered.1
The two facts given above, whilst they un
doubtedly produced at the time a deplorable im
pression in the Eastern Church, may serve, however,
to demonstrate :
1st. That the terms of communion between
Rome and Constantinople remained the same as
had been established in 900, under the direction of
John IX.
2nd. That the authority of the Patriarch was
always looked upon as inferior to that of the Pope,
whether the latter was supported or not by the
Greek Patriarchs. Such had been the Byzantine
principles before the time of Photius, and such they
continued to be.
3rd. That the harsh writings of Photius con
cerning discipline, or the Filioque were no more
remembered in Constantinople.
The situation remained the same for more than
a hundred years after, until the time of Michael
Cerularius. The most we can say is, that perhaps,
from the fact of the conquest of Sicily by the Sara
cens having caused a fresh inrush of Greek popula-
1 It is as well to state that Pope John XI., the sender of those
legates, was himself very young, and was also, like the little
Patriarch Theophylact, the son of an usurper. His mother,
Marozia, represented in Rome the existing temporal power, but
not the legitimate one.

150 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
tion into Italy, its consequences may have caused
some increase in the Greek patriarchal influence on the
ecclesiastical organisations of that country. Already,
towards the close of the ninth century, there
existed at Reffgjo and at Santa Severina two
metropolitans, suffragans of Constantinople. The
tenth century witnessed the further erection of
the Sees of Otranto, Tarentum, and Brindisi. The
Pope, on his side, opposed to the above foundations
the Latin Sees of Capua, Salerno, Beneventum, Bari,
Naples, Sorrento, and Amalfi. But this action of
the Pope did not entail an open rupture. Though
he never ceased, theoretically, to protest against this
parcelling out of the country, formerly under his
jurisdiction, in practice he resigned himself to it,
until the Normans, by the changes they wrought in
political divisions of the land, brought back ecclesi
astical obedience to its primitive state.
The rupture ought, therefore, by rights to be
attributed to Cerularius and his followers. But,
from the above, it is easy to conclude that they had
but little to do in order to complete a work already
so far advanced. The faintest breeze was sufficient
to bring down so ripe a crop of fruit.
In point of fact, the Greek schism dates as far
back as the fourth century ; its real authors were
neither Cerularius, nor yet Photius, but Eusebius
of Nicomedia and his accomplices, in his opposition
to the Council of Nice. It was under the guidance
of this party that the autonomy of the Byzantine
episcopate was first organised and established. This
autonomy revealed itself from the first under two
most unfortunate aspects. From the dawn of its
history, the Greek Church was at war with Christian
tradition concerning the divinity of our Lord Jesus

THE GREEK SCHISM 151
Christ, and at the same time was on very good terms
with imperial despotism. The doctrinal war came
to an end, to break out later, alas ! on other points ;
but the cringing to imperial despotism continued
and ended in that sad alliance known by the name
of Ca?saro-papism. It is quite possible that, even setting aside all
rehgious conflict, even supposing that the whole
Greek episcopacy had accepted the Council of Nice,
the attraction of the court and of the capital might
have caused a grouping of the Eastern Churches
around the See of Constantinople, and thus have
brought about, more or less rapidly, the formation
of a Greek autonomy. The divergence of tongues,
combined with the Hellenic contempt of the Latin
race, might also have contributed to a like result.
The Roman Empire had succeeded in overpowering
and even in suppressing the tongues of all the other
conquered nations — such as the Syriac, Coptic, Celtic,
Iberian, Phoenician, Etruscan, and many others ; but
it had never attempted anything in the direction of
the Greek language. The result was that Greek
ranked side by side with Latin as a second official
tongue, and this cause brought about the division
of the empire. Nor was it merely a question of
tongues. Latins as well as Greeks knew and recog
nised that all intellectual culture in the West had its
origin in Greek antiquity ; hence arose a superiority
that, when once the empire was divided, promptly
gave to the Greek portion a preponderance over the
Latin. Similar causes produced in the Church similar
effects. If we see Photius speaking so disdainfully
to Pope Nicholas, and again Cerularius making a
jest of the legates of Leo IX., if the Patriarch

152 THE GREEK CHURCH AND
Anthimius adopts so haughty an attitude towards
Rome, we may take it, up to a certain point, as
originating in the fact that Plautus was the pupil
of Meander, and Virgil the pupil of Homer. The
good old Christians of Phrygia and Achaia, during
the days of persecution, were much more occupied
with the Gospel and with thoughts of the last judg
ment than with the literary glories of Athens. The
kingdom of Heaven was much more to them than
Greek tradition, and so long as Christianity was
confined to them, all went well; but, in course
of time the cultivated Greeks were likewise con
verted, and with them the literary infatuation of
Hellenism and of its philosophy penetrated into the
Church : a philosophy which injured belief, some
times by direct attacks, at other times by a defence
that was even more dangerous from the form it took.
Literary infatuation upheld political pride and helped
to vitiate the ecclesiastical conscience completely.
The servants of God gave themselves up to the
pursuit of things not pertaining to the kingdom of
God, and, no longer caring to preserve its unity, they
sought only honours and dignities.
But all that belongs to the history of the past.
There is no longer a Roman Empire, either Latin
or Greek ; scarcely can we say now that there is a
Patriarch at Constantinople : those who bear such a
title are mere puppets, mere shadows, appearing and
disappearing according to the dictates of some more
or less secret committee, itself guided by no religious
interest whatever. AVe of the West now represent
all that survives of Hellenism ; it is we who have
kept up the traditions of Greek scholarship, who,
day by day, regain some fragment, artistic or literary,
of antique civilisation. It is our laws, our customs,

THE GREEK SCHISM 158
and our industries that combine to call back to life,
little by little, the East of former days, and which,
even more than our armies or our diplomacy, offer
it the possibihty of throwing off the oppression under
which it still groans. There is a complete reversal
of the former order of things : the sun still rises in
the East, but spiritual light comes from the West.
Ex oriente lux, ex occidente lex.
Why, then, need we cling to all this ecclesiastical
archaeology? Why allow all these dead bones to
weigh down our living Christianity ? Our ancestors
quarrelled — some were right, some were wrong ; they
were perhaps not always the same. Why not let
them slumber in the pages of history ? And we who
possess the living Gospel, we, to whom unity is
offered as an absolute and essential duty, let us hold
fast by the centre clearly marked out for us in those
luminous words : " Thou art Peter, and upon this
rock I will build my Church, and the gates of hell
shall not prevail against it '

CHAPTER VI
ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
The five patriarchates, according to the Byzantine
idea, were Rome, Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch,
and Jerusalem, without including the autocephalous
province of Cyprus.
It was said that where the patriarchate of Rome
ended there that of Constantinople began. This must
not be understood to mean that the boundaries were
rigidly defined or identified. Towards the end of the
sixth century, the patriarchate of Constantinople
extended no farther than the ancient diocese of
Thrace, and its most easterly provinces were those
of Marcianopolis, Thrace, and Rhodopulus. Later
on the greater part of Southern Italy, the whole
of Sicily, a great many of the isles on the coast
of Dalmatia, and all that remained of the Greek
provinces in Illyria were annexed to this growing
patriarchate. This we learn from various official
documents preserved in the archives of the bishops of
the period or as historical records.
The most ancient of these documents, the IIaXa«a
TaKTiKcl, seem to date from a period corresponding to
that at which Illyria was independent of the Byzan
tine patriarchal dominion, and the series continues
as late as the end of the ninth century. Others, the
Ne'a Tuktikcl, which seem to date from about the year
900, represent the ecclesiastical provinces of Illyria,
grouped with the other suffragan provinces of Con-
154

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 155
stantinople. It does not seem unlikely, as one of the
ancient records (Notitia I. of Parthey) goes to prove,
that previous to these changes the above-mentioned
provinces formed part of the great Roman patri
archate. Notitia I. after enumerating the bishoprics of the
provinces formerly owing allegiance to the Patriarch,
goes on to add the seven Sees of Thessalonica,
Syracuse, Corinth, Reggio, Nicopolis, Athens, and
Patras, saying that they had been detached from the
patriarchal diocese of Rome to be joined to that of
Constantinople, and this " because the Pope of ancient
Rome is now subject to the barbarians." The same
may be said, he continues, of the province of Seleucia,
detached from the patriarchate of Antioch. Docu
ments, bearing the date of the seventh century,
coincide with the historical notices above quoted.
At the Councils of 681 and 692, at Constantinople,
the Bishops of Illyria joined the Roman patriarchate.
In 692 the Metropolitan of Crete (Gortyne) calls
himself "the representative of the entire Synod of
the Holy Church of Rome." Finally, in 681, the
three Metropolitans of Thessalonica, Corinth, and
Crete take the same title.
The acts of supreme jurisdiction exercised in these
countries by the Popes appear to have been fairly
frequent. Thus, for instance, the Metropolitan of
Nicopolis was summoned to Rome in 625 by
Honorius, who suspended his election and subjected
him to judicial inquiries. In 649 Pope Martin de
posed the Metropolitan of Thessalonica, sending him
a letter in which he expressly stated that his diocese
was subject to the Holy See. Finally, in 668,
Pope Vitalian annulled the sentence of deposition
which had been formulated by the Metropolitan of

156 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
Crete against his suffragan, the Bishop of Lappa.
Instances might be multiplied, if the correspondence
of the Popes of the seventh century had not been
almost entirely destroyed.
Of the remainder of the pontificate of St. Gregory
the Great, no fewer than twenty-one letters are in
existence, all relating to Western Illyria. One has
but to read them to see the position held by the Holy
Father in their regard. He sanctions the elections
of their bishops, delivers the Roman pallium, and
annuls or confirms their decisions when represented
to him. He counsels the local clergy in disputed
questions concerning the faith, he provides material
help to bishops unjustly expelled from their Sees by
barbarian invasions — in fact, nothing of importance
escapes his eye, and from Sardinia and Scodra to
Crete his authority is felt by all. In the exercise
of his rights and of his solicitude Gregory seems
hindered by no authority whatever. Indeed, one
cannot trace even the smallest interference or op
position on the part of the Patriarch of Constanti
nople, much less on the part of the emperor. On
the contrary, the authority of the Pope was even
employed by the government in cases where certain
laws and rules which might otherwise have had a
doubtful reception had to be made known to the
Illyrian bishops. Thus, in 591, Gregory sent a
circular to the said bishops to strengthen and up
hold an imperial decision relating to the maintenance
of bishops suffering under barbaric invasions.
In 597 he notified an important regulation con
cerning the admission of soldiers into Holy Orders
and the religious state. This notification was made to
all his metropolitans, and is a very remarkable docu
ment. These examples are specimens of similar acts

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 157
by which the Greek Patriarchs communicated their
decisions to their suffragans. This ordeal is men
tioned in a great number of the imperial letters ; the
patriarchal letters corresponding are, however, not to
be found, though there must have been many once in
existence. Gregory heads his circular by the names
of all the persons to whom it is specially addressed.
They are the Metropolitans of Thessalonica, Dyrra-
chium, Milan, Nicopolis, Corinth, Justiniana, Crete,
Scodra, Larissa, Ravenna, Cagliari, and the Bishops
of Sicily. This list is especially interesting from the
fact that it enumerates, with scarcely an exception,
the ecclesiastical provinces of the empire depending
immediately on the Roman patriarchate.
Transalpine countries situated outside the empire
are not on the list at all. Also the metropolitan Sees
of Aquila and Salona are omitted, the first .because it
was separated through schism, and the latter |on
account of serious differences with the Holy See.
On the other hand, however, all the episcopal Sees
of Italy are mentioned : the provinces of Milan,
Ravenna and Cagliari, the Sicilian bishoprics, which,
without having a metropolitan organisation, formed
a considerable part of the suffragans depending
immediately on the Holy See.
For Illyria all the provinces of the south are men
tioned : Macedonia, ancient Epirus, modern Epirus,
Thessalonica, Achaia, and Crete. But not so in the
northern diocese, of which Scodra and Justiniana
are named. The barbarians had, in all probability,
invaded the other three, viz., Upper Mesia, Fluvial
Dacia, and the Mediterranean Dacia. We find the
names of these dignitaries of Illyria enrolled without
method or order with those of Italy, which may,
however, be accounted for if they are chronicled

158 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
in order of precedence. They all seem equally
dependent on the Vicar of Christ, and he appears
to make no more difference between them than
the Patriarch of Constantinople made between the
Metropolitans of Synnada, Philippopolis, Cyzicus,
or Amasis. There is no question of Africa, and the reason
may be that the ecclesiastical organisation of those
times considered this continent as more self-govern
ing than Illyria could afford to be. This interpreta
tion of the situation may be further proved by the
fact that the Roman Pallium was not sent to the
Bishop of Carthage — as far as one can trace by
the correspondence of that period.
During the pontificate of St. Gregory, the whole
of Illyria seems to have been comprised in the
patriarchal province of the Holy See, and to have
been as entirely subject to his authority in most
matters as an ordinary province is subject to its
lawful and ordinary Patriarch. Here we see not
only the fact but the right recognised and acted upon.
With the beginning of the eighth century a new
state of affairs gradually asserted itself, resulting
not in the slightest degree from ecclesiastical causes,
but entirely from political reasons.
But how far back in time did this Western
extension of the Roman patriarchate reach ? The
period of twenty-five yeirs which separated Justinian
from St. Gregory is represented in the papal archives
by a very small correspondence, the letters preserved
being few and far between. However, it is well
known that Pope Pelagius II. had withdrawn
Hadrian, the Bishop of Thebes, in Thessalonica,
from the jurisdiction of the Metropolitan of Larissa.
This important event, the consequences of which

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 159
were felt under the pontificate of St. Gregory, bears
witness that the relationship then in existence was
much the same as in his own day. Bearing in mind
the state of Italy and of the empire in general from
the time of Justinian, and in particular the difficulty
of communication resulting from the invasion of the
Lombards, we shall not be tempted to assign to
this period of history the origin of a like institution.
Therefore, it seems natural to conjecture that this
origin may date at least from the time of Justinian,
and that this prince, who regulated almost as many
religious as profane and civil matters, may have
instituted or sanctioned the ecclesiastical organisation
of Illyria, such as we know it at the end of the
sixth century.
It is a somewhat singular fact that the Justinian
Code contains a law of Theodosius II. , of 14th July
421, which places the provinces of Illyria under the
jurisdiction of the Bishop of Constantinople. This
law is also to be found in the Theodosian Code —
from whence it seems that the union of Illyria to the
Roman patriarchate was of a later date than the
promulgation of the Code (534) and in contradiction
to a former state of affairs. But let us examine
this point more closely. A few months after the
publication of the Code, 14th April 535, the Emperor
Justinian addressed a second to Castelhanus, Arch
bishop of Scupi Uskub, declaring that the bishop
of this city (hitherto metropolitan of the province
of Dardania), should be henceforth archbishop of
several provinces. These provinces formerly made
up the diocese of Dacia, together with the remains
of the empire of Pannonia, which were then almost
entirely occupied by savage tribes. The bishops of
these countries were declared exempt from all

160 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
connection with Thessalonica, which would suppose
a pre-existing union.
By way of strengthening the grounds for this
change, Justinian points out that the prefecture of
Illyria, which formerly had its seat at Sirmium, had
been transferred to Thessalonica during the time of
Atila, and that from this circumstance had ensued
a prerogative for the bishop of the last-named city ;
but that this same prefecture, being restored by him
to Justiniana Prima, it was only fair that ecclesias
tical honours should follow civil honours, and that
the Bishop of Justiniana Prima should acquire special
pre-eminence. This manoeuvre was effected by the
emperor without intervention of either Pope or
Patriarch of Constantinople, and, needless to say,
was scarcely sufficient, for naturally, if such legisla
tions corresponded to the relations then existing, the
consent of the Patriarch would have been taken into
consideration. If, on the other hand, the Illyrian Churches de
pended immediately on the Pope, one would expect
at least some mention of his name on this occasion.
At the very least one would expect to hear that
one or other of the two Patriarchs would make
himself heard ; and such was the case in point of
fact, for the Pope entered into negotiations with
the emperor.
In answer to an embassy sent by Justinian, Pope
St. Agapitus wrote to him on 15th October 535.
He nevertheless gave no direct answer concerning
the affair of Justiniana Prima, but charged his legates
to decide on the subject. Agapitus went himself
to Constantinople the following year, but when he
died in 536, nothing had been yet decided upon.
Things remained in this state until the pontificate

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 161
of his successor, Vigilius, who took decisive measures.
These measures are investigated in the Novelle, 131,
of 18th March 545, which regulates the rights of the
titular of Justitiana Prima as follows : He shall have
under his jurisdiction (with the power of ordination)
the bishops of the six provinces of maritime Dacia,
Prevalitania, Dardania, and Upper and Lower
Pannonia ; that he himself shall be elected by his
own council ; that he shall be the representative of
the Holy See of Rome, as defined by the holy Pope
Vigilius, in all the provinces of his circumscription.
Without actually entering into the minute details
of the powers of vicar and legate, one may be justi
fied in concluding that the idea of their approbation
by the Pope is irreconcilable with that of the fact
of there having been a possibihty of their dating
from the law of Theodosius II. , reproduced in
the Justinian Code. If this had been the genuine
expression of the real relations, they would have
asked for a delegation not from the Pope but from
the Patriarch. The idea of addressing themselves
to the Pope on this occasion would have been less
natural in 535, from the fact that, when the negotia
tions began to take place under Agapitus, Rome was
still subject to the King of the Goths.
To break with secular tradition, irritate the
Byzantine clergy by considerably diminishing the
territory of the Patriarch, and that simply for the
benefit of distant ecclesiastical authority, would
indeed have been to act with little prudence. There
fore it is clearly more natural to agree that the
organisation we see at work, after Justinian, should
date from before his time, and that the Theodosian
law, even thus corroborated by its insertion in the
Code, is contradictory to tradition.

162 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
But there are other reasons for this belief. The
letter of Pope Agapitus also contained certain ex
planations bearing on the partiality towards Con
stantinople exhibited in a sentence pronounced by
the Holy See upon a bishop named Stephen. The
sentence could not have been different without
sanctioning contempt for the appeal to the Roman
Pontiff. To this must be added the ordination of another
bishop, named Achilles, brought about in opposi
tion to the wishes of the Holy See by Epiphanius
at the emperor's command. The legates received
full powers to decide these questions.
It would appear from this letter that Stephen
had been deposed by the Patriarch of Constantinople,
who installed Achilles in his stead. The See in
question is not categorically named in the letter,
but it is clearly situated within the imperial terri
tory, and in a country where there might be conflict
between the Patriarch and the Pope, namely, in
Illyria. All agree that the bishop, Stephen, was no other
than the one whose affairs were treated of in Rome
in 531 under Boniface II. The minutes of the
ecclesiastical process have been transmitted to us
in an ancient tenth-century manuscript of Bobbio,
preserved in the Vatican archives, No. 5751. Un
fortunately it is incomplete, breaking off in the
second session of the Council.
A certain bishop had been elected to the See of
Larissa. Some people appear to have regarded his
election as irregular; the matter was put before
Epiphanius, Patriarch of Constantinople, who de
clared it to be null. Stephen then urged that the
case in point did not come under the jurisdiction of

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 163
the Patriarch, and appealed to the Pope's tribunal
at Rome. The Patriarch, nevertheless, disregarded
this appeal, and summoned Stephen to Constanti
nople, where he was forced to appear before the
patriarchal court, which unfrocked him and threw
him into prison. Fortunately for the prisoner he
had a friend in Theodosius of Echinaeus, who set
out immediately for Rome, furnished with letters
from Stephen and various other documents, among
which may be mentioned a collection of pontifical
letters and of other writings which were of a nature
to establish the fact that Illyria did not belong to
the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople
at all, but to the Pope.
Theodosius demanded that these letters should be
read and verified by comparing them with the original
papal documents preserved in the Vatican, which
privilege was accorded to him. Unfortunately the
account of the trial is here interrupted towards^the
end of the twenty-sixth section, so that neither the
verifications nor the continuation of the debates
have come down to us. M. Freidrich, in a memoir
published in 1891 in the Sitzungsberichte of the
Academy of Munich, pages 771 to 887, argues
against the authenticity of this collection. He dis
cusses several of the papers contained in it, but does
not state at all clearly what he accepts or what he
rejects. Thus he omits to say whether he considers
the whole account of the proceedings of the Council
to be fabricated or authentic ; or whether he be
lieves in the letters to Pope Boniface from the
Bishop of Larissa ; and he gives no probable date
for the supposed falsification. As to this matter,
he simply remarks that the correspondence of the
Popes Nicolas I. and Adrian I. already depended

164 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
upon falsified documents and therefore he supposes
their existence. The law of 14th July 421, is, for
him, the true expression of the hierarchical organisa
tion of Illyria both before and after the year 531.
To this decree he refers all the documents in ques
tion, and mercilessly rejects all that tend to show
that the Pope may have had any special jurisdic
tion over these countries.
True it is, too, that he quietly ignores the volu
minous correspondence on the subject of St. Gregory
and his successors of the seventh century as well as
the Councils and the episcopal notices of the same
period. It is not worth our while to follow from
point to point a discussion that is so incomplete and
wanting in precision. It suffices to note the follow
ing facts : —
I. If the Roman Council of 531 was invented,
either wholly or in part, it must admittedly have
been fabricated in defence of the Holy See's rights
over Western Illyria. But these rights had been
exercised entirely without opposition from the time
of Justinian. The forger would then have had to
work under this prince with a view to influencing
either his or the Pope's mind. For this he would
have needed to be exceedingly skilful. His docu
ments are dated December 531, therefore the false
hood cannot go back farther than 532. And yet
the impression they were desired to produce was
actually produced three years afterwards on the
person of Pope Agapitus, one of the most im
portant members of the Roman clergy even before
the time of Boniface II. , a man of letters, of noble
lineage, and a friend of Cassiodorus. This is the
person, they would argue, by whom false coin was
accepted as genuine, newly concocted documents

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 165
believed in as true, when he had in his own archives
the means of detecting their forgery. Moreover,
they cannot plead that the Pope may have himself
been an accomplice in such underhand work, without
at the same time introducing the imperial govern
ment and the patriarchate of Constantinople into the
affair, or without granting the fact of their having
been easily deceived by these impostures. That in
fact, in order to conform themselves to the pretended
letters of the Pope, they abandoned their rights and
traditions. Credat Judceus Apella !
II. Such suspected documents seem scarcely
likely to find their way into the Latin collections
of canon law. They have reference to a particular
country and that under quite special conditions.
As it is, the pontifical letters forming the privileges
of the Church of Aries are kept in a separate
collection, and were not considered as forming part
of the canonical writings of the times of the
Merovingians. There are, however, exceptions. Of the twenty-
two letters put into the collection of Theodosius,
three at least cannot be called apocryphal, as they
are to be found elsewhere as well as in the collection.
And the others can hardly be discredited from the
simple fact that they are not there.
III. A letter of St. Leo relating to the vicari
ate of Thessalonica and to the ecclesiastical
organisation of Illyria is to be seen outside of and
apart from the collections of 531. Treating as it
does of several points of discipline, it had been
placed in several canonical books. That it is not in
the Vaticanus, 5751, may be accounted for by the
mutilation of this MSS. It is interrupted just in
the middle of the letters of St. Leo.

166 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
It is perfectly evident that, if this letter is
authentic, no shadow of doubt can possibly be cast
upon the collection of 531. M. Friedrich has done
his best to contradict this. According to him, it
had been made up under the pontificate of Pope
Hormisdas, about 517. But, putting aside any
intrinsic difficulties in proving this, the extrinsic
difficulties are many and grave.
The letter in question is in the collection of
Denis the Short, as well as in the Freiburg MSS.
collection and the Guesnel collection. All three
of these collections are exceedingly ancient. Two
of them date probably from the year 500, and
the collection of Denis cannot be much more recent.
M. Friedrich only speaks of the Denis collection,
and ignores the evidence borne by the other two,
while he repeatedly insists that the forging of false
letters and the concocting of sham councils were
common practices of the sixth century. He forgets
to add that not a single false letter has ever found
its way into the collection of Decretals formed
by Denis, and that the letter to which he so much
objects would have been the first apocryphal epistle
to be cast out.
IV. Mommsen, in his Neues Archiv, fully
approves of Friedrich's argument, but insists on
one point only, the style of two imperial letters
contained in the collection of Theodosius.
These letters refer to the law of 14th July 421.
In the first, Honorius transmits to Theodosius II.
a complaint of the Pope's concerning the violation
of certain rights of the Holy See in IUyricum.
This letter is addressed to Theodosius. In the
second, Theodosius replies to Honorius that the
Pope's request will be attended to, and that orders

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 167
to this effect have been given to the prefect of the
province of Illyria.
Mommsen judges, and rightly, that these docu
ments are not drawn up in the form customary in
legal acts, and that they should at least be headed
by the names of the two emperors.
To this we may answer : —
(a) No one knows how these documents were
entitled, as the original superscriptions do not exist.
The collection omits them and replaces them by
titles evidently composed by the collector himself:
Exemplar epistola? piissimi imp. Honorii ad Theo-
dosium aug. — Rescript. Theodosii aug. ad Honorium
aug. (b) The letters in question are nowhere given in
the collection of 531 as legislative acts, but simply
as expressing the personal determination of the two
emperors. (c) A legislative act is referred to the rescript of
Theodosius : ad viros illustres prafectos prcetorii
Illyrici, nostri scripta porreximus, ut cessantibus, &c.
But this is not to be found in the collection.
If Theodosius's dispositions had not changed
after his letter to Honorius, this edict would be
found in the Theodosian Code, and not in the one
of 14th July 421. In any case he is the man from
whom we should expect the legal formalities which
M. Mommsen appears surprised not to find in our
rescript. V. Among the suspected documents there exists
an entire series which mentions a Metropolitan of
Corinth, named Perigenus, who, though chosen to
occupy the See of Patras by his predecessor, had not
been accepted by the faithful of that town. He
returned to Corinth and pleaded his cause with the

168 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
Holy Father, who, on the death of the metropolitan,
installed him in the latter See. Though the docu
ments concerning Perigenus are to be found nowhere
except in this collection, the circumstances concern
ing his promotion are mentioned in Socrates' Ecclesi
astical History.
This agreement is no small proof of authenticity,
and M. Friedrich, in order to extricate himself from
the dilemma, is forced to conjecture that the " forger "
drew his inspiration from the translation of Socrates
by Epiphanius the Scholastic. But this translation
can hardly be earlier than the year 540, which would
place the falsification at a date which would make
it useless. VI. When a forger, writing a full century after the
events he is describing, allows himself to introduce
proper names into his productions, it is highly pro
bable that he will make some considerable mistakes,
unless the dates and persons he quotes are exceed
ingly well known. In the collection under con
sideration this is not the case. One meets with
names of Bishops of Thessalonica and of various
other prelates of Illyria, and frequently these names
occur among the signatories to the decrees of the
(Ecumenical Councils of 431 and 451. Pope Boniface,
writing to Rufus of Thessalonica (J. 363), names at
least five Bishops of Thessalonica without indicating
their Sees, viz., Perrevius, Pausianus, Cyriacus, Cal-
liopus, and Maximus. The letter is dated a.d. 422.
Three of these prelates assisted at the Council of
Ephesus — Perrevius on the orthodox side, Pausianus
and Maximus on that of Nestorius.
It so happens that in the above letter the Pope
defends Perrevius, whilst he pronounces ecclesiastical
censures against the others. This coincidence is

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 169
surely sufficiently remarkable to deserve notice. The
Thessalian bishops regarded as disreputable in 422
at Rome appear in the opposing Council of 431.
The letter (J. 366) is addressed by Pope Celestine
to nine Illyrian bishops. Of these five are identified
by the signatures of the Council of Ephesus and by
other documents as the Metropolitans of Corinth,
Nicopolis, Larissa, Scodra, and Sardinia. Besides
this the letter mentions Rufus of Thessalonica and
Fehx, Metropolitan of Dyrrachium, and we may well
believe that the four remaining prelates are the
Metropolitans of the four other provinces, Crete,
Mesia, the Dardanelles, and littoral Dacia.
The letter (J. 404) is a circular addressed to various
Metropolitans of Illyria. It was written by St. Leo
in the year 446, and of the six names first mentioned
in it, three are from other evidence known to be
those of the Metropolitans of Scodra (Senecio)
Dyrrachium (Lucas), and Larissa (Vigilantius).
Atticus, Metropolitan of Nicopolis, about whom the
letter (J. 141), was written, also doubted by M.
Friedrich, appears with his title among the signa
tories of the Councils of Ephesus, 449, and Calcedon,
451. Practically it may be said, without hesitation,
that, with very rare exceptions, the names of all the
bishops mentioned in the incriminated documents
are verified by the acts of contemporary Councils,
and that the remaining names are not excluded by
any evidence whatever. This fact is hardly reconcil
able with the theory of falsification. In addition to
this the consular notes agree with the actual records,
and the formula? and style are in perfect accordance
with the customs of the pontifical chancery of the
time. There is in reality nothing whatever to be said

170 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
against these letters, unless it is that they do not
accord with a special system in the ecclesiastical
organisation of Illyria. We have, therefore, no right
to disregard the documents doubted by M. Friedrich.
The history of the ecclesiastical organisation of
Eastern Illyria will remain such as it has been
hitherto. From the time of the first Theodosius, the Pope
Siricius confided to the Bishop of Thessalonica
superiority over the episcopate of these provinces,
and the vicariate thus established continued its
operations until the rupture between the Greek
Church and Pope Felix III. in 484.1
It was a cause of dispute between the Patriarchs
of Constantinople, Atticus and Proclus, twice at
least during the first century of its existence. It
was during the episcopate of Atticus, and un
doubtedly at his instigation, that the law contrary
to the papal possession was published on 14th July
421, and during the episcopate of Proclus, the
Theodosian Code appeared in which this law had
been inserted. But in spite of both law and code
the Popes succeeded in maintaining their right.
This state of things was interfered with by the
schism caused by affairs in Acacia (484-519), the
Bishops of Thessalonica, who maintained the same
attitude as the Byzantine bishops, consequently lost
communion with the Pope, as a matter of course.
From henceforth there could be no question of
allowing them the rights of vicars-apostolic. It
would seem that during this period the Patriarchs
1 Pope Hilary, again, treated the Bishop of Thessalonica as his
vicar, as is proved by a literary fragment (Jaffe 565) which the
Regesta Pontificum has mistakenly relegated to a place among
apocryphal writings.

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 171
of Constantinople gave up all attempt at annexation.
Illyria was left to itself, the Popes merely endeavour
ing to do their utmost to preserve from the schism
a certain number of episcopal centres which were
disposed to remain loyal to the pontifical authority.
Thus Gelasius resumed relations with the bishops of
the Dardanelles and the neighbouring provinces,
which, being Latin countries, were more accessible
and more amenable to the counsels of the Apostolic
See. These relations were maintained, for we find
a letter (J. 763) of Pope Symmachus addressed to the
bishops of these countries. Anastasius II. exchanged
letters with the Bishop of Lychnidos in New Epirus.
Previous to the death of the Emperor Anastasius the
province of ancient Epirus had, through the in
tervention of its metropolitan, Aleyson, Bishop of
Nicopolis, returned to communion with the Apostolic
See, and this not without a certain amount of risk.
The Emperor Anastasius was annoyed, and sent for
the Bishops of Nicopolis, Lychnidos, Sardinia, Na'issus,
and Pantalia to come to Constantinople, where two
of them died, of whom the Metropolitan Aleyson
was one.
At this juncture an important manifestation of
the Bishops of Illyria took place. Forty bishops of
these regions, indignant as they naturally were on
hearing that the Metropolitan of Thessalonica had
entered into communion with Timothy, the intruded
Patriarch of Constantinople, met and formulated a
solemn declaration by which they publicly broke off
all relations with him, and re-entered into communion
with Rome.
In relating this incident, Theodore the Reader
gives the title of Patriarch to the Bishop of Thessa
lonica, which seems greatly to astonish Theophanes

172 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
to whom we are indebted for this fragment of
Theodore. Theodore cannot be said to have been
altogether in the wrong, for it is not impossible that
the title of Patriarch may have been given to the
Bishop of Thessalonica, or at any rate adopted by
him. The title itself had not, at that time, the
special signification given to it later on, and thus one
hears of its being bestowed on the Bishops of Tyre,
Hierapolis, and Phrygia.
It is, moreover, certain that the authority exercised
by the Bishops of Thessalonica over the metropolitans
and other prelates of Illyria very much resembled
patriarchal jurisdiction. It differed from it in one
point alone, viz., that whereas patriarchal jurisdiction
was ordinary, i.e. inherent in any special See, the juris
diction of Thessalonica was only delegated, for it
was the patriarchal jurisdiction of the Pope exercised
by his Holiness's special permission to the bishop.
The union with Rome once broken (484) the
delegated powers ceased ipso facto. The Bishops of
Thessalonica made many and great efforts to escape
the consequences naturally resulting from this separa
tion. From the time of Felix III., Andrew, who
then occupied the See, endeavoured to be again
united with Rome without losing favour with the
government. The task was no easy one, and he
failed. His successor, Dorotheus, began by showing
the same disposition, but the clergy of Thessalonica
were already influenced by theological opinions un
likely to promote schemes for union. When the
empire at last submitted to Pope Hormisdas (519)
resistance was still prolonged for a time at Thessa
lonica and hostile feeling ran so high that the
papal legates sent from Rome to celebrate the recon
ciliation were personally assaulted.

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 173
Dorotheus was responsible for these disorders,
but their chief instigator was a priest named Aristides
against whom Pope Hormisdas had shown much
irritation. Hormisdas wished that Dorotheus should
be deposed, on condition that his place should not be
filled by Aristides. The dispute cooled down, how
ever, though we are not informed how or when.
Suffice it to say that Dorotheus remained bishop,
and that his successor was none other than Aristides.
Prelates such as these were not the men the Popes
would choose to represent them, especially in times
when the monophysite party were still powerful
though vanquished, and were ever trying by various
devices to regain the position lost to them in
519. To tolerate Dorotheus and Aristides for the
sake of peace and to avoid a greater evil was just
possible, but to go so far as to allow such suspected
characters as these to represent the authority of the
Holy See in the midst of a divided episcopate and to
act as its legates in such delicate circumstances,
would have been a grave act of imprudence. There
fore we shall look in vain for any trace of a delegation
of powers, or of an apostolic vicariate, in the time
of Dorotheus and Aristides. Relations were re
established between Rome and Thessalonica, that
was all. In other ways things, after 519, were just
as they had been during the schism.
In the trial of Stephen of Larissa in 531 the
ancient documents of the vicariate of Thessalonica
were brought forward, not to bear witness to the
actual existence of the trial, but as proof of the special
authority exercised by the Pope over Illyria. The
letters of Stephen himself and those of his suffragans
do not mention Thessalonica as exercising inter
mediary jurisdiction between the metropolitans and

174 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
the patriarchal authority. The debate is restricted
to the Pope and the Bishop of Constantinople. The
question is, to which of the two does it belong to
confirm the election of the Metropolitan of Larissa ?
Thessalonica is mentioned, and there it is that
we find Stephen when he had been joined by the
emissaries of the Patriarch. He went there, perhaps,
for counsel and advice, and possibly the documents
of Theodosius come from there, but certain it is
that the Bishop of Thessalonica kept clear of the
whole affair. In spite of all that has been said,
Thessalonica enjoyed certain ecclesiastical honours.
Justinian alludes to them in his Novelle II, and
connects them with the transference of the pre
fecture .- Tunc ipsam prafecturam et sacerdotalis
honor secutus est et Thessalonicensis episcopus non sua
auctoritate sed sub umbra prcefecturce meruit aliquam
prozrogativam. Here it is necessary to distinguish between the
fact and the explanation of the fact. Justinian de
clares the See of Thessalonica to be in possession of
a certain prerogative, which prerogative was, he ex
plains, that the Bishop of Smyrna had jurisdiction
over it. But it is impossible to find any trace of
the jurisdiction of the Bishop of Sirmium in Eastern
Illyria, therefore Justinian is certainly mistaken on
this point. But he is not wrong in attributing to
the neighbourhood of the prefecture the honours
given to the See of Thessalonica.
Thessalonica, both on account of its own import
ance and also from the fact of its being the residence
of the first magistrate of all Illyria, was the most
conspicuous and noteworthy town in these countries.
Its bishop was, moreover, the head of a numerous
clergy and of a great Christian population. The

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 175
tendency of those days, especially in the East,
to make the ecclesiastical authority coincide with
the civil administration, led to giving him an
importance analogous to that of the Bishops of
Antioch, Ephesus, and Caesarea in Cappadocia. He
occupied the first rank in the ancient Councils.
But, passing from the question of honours to that
of jurisdiction, we find that no regulations whatever
were made by any Council concerning the position
of the Bishop of Thessalonica which was defined
only by the pontifical vicariate. This vicariate, after
having exercised its functions for nearly one hun
dred years, ceased to exist for seventy or eighty.
But it was neither probable nor possible that no
trace should remain of relations that had existed
during a century. Naturally it sometimes happened
that insignificant disagreements arose between the
metropolitans and the vicars who held the place
of the Pope, but, on the whole, the inferiors fully
recognised the authority of their superiors.
The See of Thessalonica was one of the central
points of these relations with Rome, and metro
politans always at least notified their accession to
its bishop. But during the schism the Popes
forbade the bishops of the Latin provinces, of the
Dardanelles, and others to conform to this custom.
When the bishops of ancient Epirus returned to the
Roman communion they were also forbidden to do
so. It must not be imagined that this notification
of their accession on the part of the metropoli
tans implied the least dependence or subordination.
It was a sign of ecclesiastical inter-communion,
and nothing more.
When Pope Hormisdas forbade it to the Bishops
of Epirus, he was preoccupied by one thing only,

176 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
that was the question of communion. And if, in
one of his letters, he introduces the word " confirma
tion," he does so without dwelling on the special
sense of that word. As a matter of fact, when any
bishop, to whom a colleague writes to notify his
election, acknowledges the letter he may be said to
" confirm " the election. In a word, one may say
that what best remained to the See of Thessalonica
was the remembrance of its pre-eminence in the
former century, and the deep conviction that, peace
once made with the Holy Father, this pre-eminence
would inevitably return. This conviction was doubt
less right. Pope Hormisdas himself, writing to
Bishop Dorotheus of Thessalonica, reproaches him
for not following the example of the other bishops
who had returned to the communion of the Holy
See, when he ought to have set them the example
in this matter: Quod debueras primus assumere.
Later on the Pope blames him for presuming to
use pontifical privileges even while in revolt against
Rome : Quo pudore, rogo, privilegia circa te illorum
manere desideras quorum mandata non servas 1 Pope
Hormisdas further instructs his legates, in the
event of Dorotheus' returning to communion with
the Church of Rome, to restore to him his rights
and privileges: Certe redeat ad unitatem, et nos
cum eo insistemus, ut omnia privilegia, quoecumque
consecuta est a sede apostolica ecclesia ejus, inviolata
serventur. It may be said, in passing, that these expressions
refer to the old pontifical vicariate and to its
rights and privileges. Unfortunately these good in
tentions of the Holy Father were without visible
result, for the Bishop of Thessalonica showed an
uncongenial attitude and refused to respond.

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 177
In 535 the bishop found himself in the position
already described, as the most important metro
politan of Illyria, whose See was also the seat of
prefecture. As regards higher ecclesiastical jurisdic
tion, properly so called, there remained but the
remembrance — magni nominis umbram.
Such was the state of things when Justinian
set about rebuilding the ancient city of Scupi
(Uskub) calling it by his own name. He decided
that the Bishop of Justiniana Prima should hold the
rank of a superior metropolitan in regard to the
ecclesiastical provinces of ancient Dacia. This affair
he submitted to Pope Agapitus, and about the year
545 it was definitely regulated by Pope Vigilius.
This newly founded primacy was organised under
the form of an apostolic vicariate, somewhat similar
to that of the Bishop of Aries and to that which
had existed a century before in Thessalonica.
Little is known of this new vicariate. Among
the correspondence of St. Gregory there is often
question of the authority of the Pope in Illyria,
but rarely of that of his vicars. However, there
exist papers relating to the powers conferred on
John of Justiniana Prima ; and letters addressed to
the Metropolitans of Sardinia and Scodra, subordi
nate to the vicar, also mention these powers. A
very severe letter, addressed to the bishop himself,
who had prevaricated in passing judgment, also
speaks of them. No bishop of this See is heard
of later than the time of St. Gregory. The Bishop
of Thessalonica was himself also a vicar of the
Pope. This fact is worth mentioning, as it is far
from clearly alluded to in the correspondence of
St. Gregory. Hardly a single passage from his
letters so much as hints at a superiority exercised M

178 ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA
by this prelate over the other metropolitans of
Central Illyria. In the seventh century the Bishop
of Thessalonica had the title of vicar, and Pope
Martin severely reproaches one of them for not so
subscribing himself in his letters. At the sixth
(Ecumenical Council the Bishop of Thessalonica, in
addition to his title of " legate " of the Holy See
signs himself " vicar," the former title being borne
by the Bishops of Corinth, Gortygna, Athens,
Reggio, and Tempsa as well, while that of " vicar "
was peculiar to himself. In fact, the Bishop of
Thessalonica, in this instance, ranks second to none
below the Patriarchs in dignity. To recapitulate : —
1. Until the middle of the eighth century the
ecclesiastical provinces of Eastern Illyria were
considered as forming part of the Roman patri
archate. If at rare intervals, towards the end of the
fifth and beginning of the sixth centuries, some
fruitless attempts were made to attach these pro
vinces to the See of Constantinople, they completely
ceased after the arrangements made between the
Pope and the Emperor Justinian.
2. From the fifth century to the schism in 484,
the Popes exercised their authority over this part
of their spiritual dominions through the interme
diary of the Bishop of Thessalonica, whom they
entitled vicar.
3. About the year 484 the vicariate entirely
disappeared, and the tactics employed by the Em
perors Zeno and Anastasius consisted chiefly in
putting forward every possible obstacle to hinder
the direct patriarchal jurisdiction of the Pope.
4. Under Justinian the vicariate again reap
peared, and was divided between the two Metropo
litans of Justiniana Prima and Thessalonica. But

ECCLESIASTICAL ILLYRIA 179
the title being, practically, merely honorary, the
Pope directly exercised his powers as Patriarch.
In this part of the world, as in many others, the
reign of Justinian marks an epoch, and his practical
genius found new outlets here in which to exercise
itself. From his time, Illyria and Italy were both
subject to the same government. It was no easy
task for the Pope to make his authority respected so
long as there were two political powers to be obeyed.
But from Justinian's reign they became united, and
the vicariate, which had been instituted under other
circumstances, after losing its practical utility, passed
to the rank of an ecclesiastical decoration only.

NOTE
In the Neues Archiv, torn. xix. pp. 433-435, M. Mommsen comes
back to the question of imperial letters shown in the Thessalonican
collection. This time he distinguishes between the collection
considered in itself and the authenticity of the two letters of
Theodosius II. and Honorius. These latter appear to him to be
false, but the fact that two such letters, written at a very remote
date, are found in the collection, does not, he thinks, affect the
value of the collection.
I might declare myself perfectly satisfied, but I do not see
why the two letters are necessarily to be cast aside. I own, with
M. Mommsen, and I have never denied the fact, that these letters
are not legislative texts, nor are they acts of public administra
tion. They are personal letters, not in familiar style, but letters
in which emperors do not come forward as organs of imperial
authority as yet unformulated in theory.
Translator's Note. — I have ventured to omit the remainder of
the author's footnote, which covers four pages, and is unnecessary
for the general purposes of his argument.

CHAPTER VII
THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH OF THE
ROMAN EMPIRE
In this chapter I have collected together a series of
studies on the propagation of Christianity in the
regions bordering upon the Roman frontier in
Africa and Arabia, extending from the ocean to
the Persian Gulf and the Euphrates. It has not
occurred to me to attempt to teach Orientalists,
who have already studied the matter for themselves,
nor do I flatter myself that my solutions on all
points are unassailable. Documents are for ever
accumulating. Letronne was better instructed than
either Renaudot or Lequien could have been ; since
Letronne's time the writings of many authors and
many inscriptions have been either discovered and
published for the first time, or at least better ex
plained. I simply wish to show the results achieved
at the present stage of our discoveries and researches,
hoping that newer discoveries still may soon im
prove upon what I am now writing.

1
THE SAHARA
Roman civilisation was a long way from subju
gating the entire north of Africa, and from assimilat
ing its inhabitants and institutions. Excepting the

THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS 181
oriental provinces of Africa and Numidia, all the
mountainous region west of the Aures, the plains
overlooked by the Tell, and even certain parts of
the coast, remained, after the annexation of Mauri
tania, in very much the same condition as regards
culture as they were before.
Nothing could be more vague than the so-called
boundaries of the province at the southern extremity.
Between the towns of Tell, nomadic tribes were
occasionally to be found, who peopled these districts,
Mauritanians, as they were called, who formed part
of the provincial system, through the intermediary
of their national chiefs. The plains were occupied
by the Getuli, a nearly independent population, who
spread over the Sahara and the country west of the
Atlas, i.e. the present Moroccan Empire.
There existed, however, between these peoples
and the masters of the regions bordering on the
sea, much the same relations as at the present day,
as far as commerce is concerned, such relationship
being regulated by the nature of the soil and of
the climate. Tax-gatherers, recruiting officers, and
mihtary expeditions penetrated for a considerable
distance into the interior. From time to time the
barbarian vassals of the empire raided the territory
already occupied, and pushed forward their incur
sions as far as the coast. Some went so far as to
cross the Straits of Gades and to sack the rich pro
vince of Betica. In short, whether subject, tribu
tary, or independent, the Berber tribes represented
a very considerable native population, careful to pre
serve all that distinguished them from the Romans,
and capable of transforming the distinction into
opposition and the opposition eventually into hos
tihty. When at last the Roman power began to

182 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
decline, the Mauritanian sway soon made itself
felt. From the fourth century the Moors showed
their power, and forced the empire to take account
of them, detaining by force part of the troops
sent to preserve order. In face of the Vandals in
the fifth century they not only maintained their
position, but strengthened it. The Byzantine occu
pation in the following century was even more
transient than the Vandal establishment had been.
Berberan Africa extended itself gradually, and
strengthened itself, in spite of transmarine colonisa
tion. From a religious point of view, the culture
of the Moors was originally of the simplest de
scription ; in fact, under the Roman Empire they
worshipped hardly any gods but their former kings.
Christianity, according to Tertullian, found its way
to them in the third century.
However this may be, we find a certain number
of the African bishoprics in the fourth and fifth cen
turies belonging to Moorish localities. It is not
easy to discover the exact time when the Gospel was
preached in these parts. Monuments and inscrip
tions prove that political fluctuations, notably the
changes in the Roman frontier, did not in any way
influence Moorish religion. The Moors themselves
were converted at the same time as the Roman
populations, and we occasionally see, at the time
of the Donatists, a Moorish prince, in common
with the officers of the empire, taking the part of
one communion or another. In fact, the history
of the evangelisation of this part of the coast is
identical with the history of the evangelisation of
the rest of Africa. We know of no particular
Apostle of the Moors, nor do we find any church

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 183
or ecclesiastical organisation peculiar to this people.
Christianity was introduced little by little, and
by degrees bishoprics were founded in various
provinces. But their Church always remained the
Church of Africa.

II
NUBIA
To the north of the Egyptians, between them
and the country of the negroes, the valley of the
Nile was inhabited by the dark-skinned Ethiopian
tribes, who were also somewhat nearly related to
the Egyptians and to the primitive inhabitants of
Abyssinia. These Ethiopians called their tribe by
the name of Kasch or Kousch, which name is found
in the Bible.
The Egyptian conquest was the means by which
civilisation was carried into this country. This con
quest, with the exception of a few expeditions
directed towards the south, hardly passed the con
fluent of the Blue Nile, a little below which the
town of Meroe arose. A religious centre was estab
hshed at Napata (Muraoni), down the river, near the
Fourth Cataract, with a great sanctuary connected
with Theban worship. There also was the capital of
the political establishment. From being originally
the vassal of Egypt, Ethiopia was at length in a
position to give masters to this country, and only
after many troubles and vicissitudes did the destinies
of these two countries separate.
From the time of the reign of Psammetichus
the Ethiopians lived in their own country. At the
Roman conquest the reigning dynasty, which was
chiefly represented by queens bearing the title of

184 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
Kandake, resided at Napata, but the more southern
part of the Ethiopian state had for its capital Meroe\
Under Augustus, a detachment of the Roman
army, commanded by Petronius, the Prefect of
Egypt, was brought into the country owing to a
frontier difficulty. As a result of this expedition it
was arranged that the provincial territory should not
extend farther than the First Cataract, the traditional
boundary of Egypt. However, along the southern
extremity, lines of Roman posts were planted the
whole length of Dodecaschene to Hiera Sykaminas.
About the end of the third century two robber
tribes were to be found on this frontier, probably
akin in race to the Blemmyes and the Nobades.
These latter no doubt owed their name to Napata,
and represented, though in a much less civilised
degree, the ancient Ethiopians of Napata and Meroe\
At this period they distinguished themselves by
their raids in the oasis of the Libyan desert. As for
the Blemmyes, of still more barbarous manners and
customs, they attacked the Egyptian frontier on the
south-east, and the towns in the valley of the Nile.
They are generally ranked with the Bicharri and the
Bedja of the present day, who inhabit the lands
comprised between the Great Nile, the Blue Nile, the
mountains of Abyssinia, the Red Sea, and on to the
Egyptian deserts. The Emperor Diocletian decided,
by way of keeping his dangerous neighbours quiet,
to give up to them the Dodecaschene, so that they
became next-door neighbours to the Egyptians.
The Blemmyes installed themselves near to the
frontier. Among other agreements is to be found
their right to the worship of Isis in the temple of
Phila?, with express permission at certain times to
carry the statue of the goddess into the interior of

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 185
their country. This custom the Blemmyes kept up
even after the empire had become converted to
Christianity when the temples were closed. The
most pious among the emperors, such as Marcian and
even Justinian, were obliged to leave open the doors
of the temple of Phila?. The treaties required it.
The Nobadians and the Blemmyes were only
converted at a very late period. There lived, about
the year 543, in the household of Theodosius, the
monophysite Patriarch of Alexandria, a priest called
Julian, who conceived the idea of devoting his life to
the evangelisation of the Nobadians. This project
was encouraged by the Empress Theodora. Jus
tinian, who would have preferred orthodox mission
aries, succeeded in sending some, but Julian arrived
before them, presented himself to Silko, the king of
the Nobades, and not only induced him to embrace
monophysite errors, but also brought about the ex
pulsion of the orthodox missionaries sent by the
emperor. Thus the conversion of the Nobades was
effected under the auspices of the Patriarch Theo
dosius, who was considered the chief and leader of
the Monophysites, and of their acknowledged pro
tectress, the Empress Theodora.
Julian remained two years in the midst of his
neophytes, whom he eventually committed to the
care of Bishop Theodore of Phila?. He then re
turned to Constantinople, and this state of affairs
continued for some years. It was during this interval
that the date of the foundation of a Church at
Dendour, near Kalabscheh (Talmis), is placed.
A Coptic inscription mentioning Bishop Theodore
of Phila? as chief ecclesiastical authority in the matter,
possibly about the year 559, preserves the memory
of the event. Silko was then no longer king of

186 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
the Nobades. An ancient inscription gives their
sovereign the name of Eirpanome.
In 567, shortly before his death, Theodosius de
signated as his successor and director of the Nubian
mission, Longinus, another of his priests, who was
only consecrated bishop. But the imperial police
detained him at Constantinople for three years more.
He succeeded in making his escape in 569, and
rejoined the faithful, in whose midst he lived for
six years. In 575 we find him in Egypt deeply
engaged in the disputes of the monophysite party.
About this time the envoys of the king of the
Nobades, coming to Constantinople, brought glow
ing accounts of the newly converted kingdom and
highly praised their apostle, Longinus. Not only in
the great towns of the empire was he spoken of, but
the news of the conversion of the Nobades travelled
also far south in the direction of the people of the
Alodes, who having heard what had taken place
declared their wish to embrace the Christian religion.
Their king wrote to Awarfioula, the king of the
Nobades, asking him to send Longinus.
The latter was at this time in Alexandria, en
gaged in supporting the Patriarch Theodore, whom
he had himself consecrated, in opposition to his rival,
Peter by name, who had been elected by the people
of Alexandria. In the middle of this schism, which
greatly agitated the Monophysites of Egypt and the
empire, the envoys of the king of the Nobades arrived
and reclaimed their spiritual chief. The partisans
of Peter attempted to lay hands on the neophytes
of the Upper Nile, but they stood firm. Awarfioula's
emissaries would hear of no one but Longinus, and
rejected the two bishops and their attendants who
had been sent by Peter to the Alodians.

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 187
In the meantime Longinus had returned to the
Nobades, whom he soon left to go to his new mission.
He had no little trouble in reaching his destination,
for he had to make his way through the country of
the Makourites, whose king, being badly disposed
towards him, set guards on all the roads, as far as
to the Red Sea. Awarfioula sent the bishop to the
king of the Blemmyes, under whose protection he
managed to cross that dangerous country, not
however without having much to suffer from heat
and thirst. He himself fell ill, and lost seventeen
camels. Arrived at length at the frontier of the
Alodes, he was received by a functionary called
Itiko, who conducted him with great pomp to the
king, who received him with enthusiasm, asked to be
instructed, and finally received baptism with a great
number of his people. The news of this happy
event reached the king of the Nobades two hundred
days after the departure of the missionary. Messen
gers from Longinus brought a letter from the king
of the Alodes and one from Longinus himself, who
begged him to forward it to Alexandria.
The Nobadian king sent these documents to the
Patriarch Theodore, with a letter written in his own
name. These documents have been preserved for
us by John of Ephesus. This took place about the
year 579.
The Makourites, of whom mention has just been
made, can be no other than those who sent an
embassy to Constantinople about the same time.
John of Biclar registers this fact as occurring in
the seventh year of the reign of Justin II. (v.
573) : Legati gentis Maccurritarum Constantinopolim
veniunt, dentes elephantinos et camelopardam Justino
principi munera offerentes sibi cum Romanis amicitias

188 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
collocant. The country of Muqurra or Makouria is
sometimes identified with Nubia, and sometimes
presented as one of its subdivisions near the Second
Cataract. This situation, it is true, scarcely agrees
with the accounts and documents of John of Asia ;
from these we might infer that the Makourites lived
to the south of the Nobades. They could, in fact,
bar the passage of the Nile and even station their
posts up to the Red Sea ; but on this side, by passing
through the country of the Blemmyes and getting
an escort from them it was possible to escape.
As to the Alodes, they must have been neighbours
of the Abyssinians ; for Longinus remarks in his
letter that he had enlightened some Axoumitans,
who had adopted the fantastic errors of Julian of
Halicarnassus. One can hardly help connecting
their name with the town of Aloa, now in ruins, which
flourished on the right bank of the Blue Nile, a few
miles from Khartoum. Aloa was built on the site
of Meroe. It was until the fifteenth century the
capital of a Christian State, and its ruins still bear
some traces of Christianity. It was probably with
these Nubians that Abyssinia had had to deal during
the fifth century, in the reign of the Negus Ezana,
son of Ela-Amida. Their expedition against the
High Plateaux ended in a defeat, which was followed
by an invasion of the Axoumites, who also were
victorious. On the Noba, at the confluent of the
Atbara and the Nile, they plundered the country
of Merv and seized several of the towns, among
others Aloa.
As to the Blemmyes, it seems probable that their
conversion took place before that of the Alodes.
There had been long-standing quarrels between
them and the Nobades. We are told something

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 189
of the relations existing between them by a curious
and now celebrated Greek inscription found at
Talmis. It dates from the conversion of the
Nobades : " Silko, King of the Nobades and of all
the Ethiopians " — then follows the description, in
pompous language, of all the victories he won " by
God's help " over the Blemmyes, and the terms of
peace to which he made them swear " on their idols."
From this time the Blemmyes were placed be
tween two Christian States, of which the Roman, the
more friendly of the two, succeeded in putting an
end to the functions of the Temple of Isis. This
sanctuary was closed in the latter part of Justinian's
reign, and in 577 Bishop Theodore changed it into
a church. The inscriptions commemorating this
event may be seen to this day. There might easily
have been a coincidence between the closing of
the temple of Phila? and the conversion of the
Blemmyes. These Blemmyes, at the time of the mission of
Longinus among the Alodes, were on good terms
with the king of the Nobades, or, at any rate, were
strongly influenced by him. M. E. Revillout con
jectures, not without reason, that Silko's victories
over the Blemmyes may have had the effect of
evicting them from the valley of the Nile and of
driving them into the interior of the country, in the
direction where their descendants are now thought
to be found, i.e. between the Nile and the Red Sea.
After these accounts of the missions, darkness
closes over the religious history of the Upper Nile
for a time. Numerous epitaphs, in Greek or in
Coptic, may be seen in different parts of this
country, between Talmis in ancient Dodecaschene
and Wadi-Gazal, beyond the Fourth Cataract near

190 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
to ancient Napata. They are mostly of the seventh
and eighth centuries, and the greater number
(following a custom which reminds us of the ancient
Egyptian manner of burying the dead), with a copy
of the funeral ritual containing extracts of the burial
liturgy according to the rite of Constantinople. This
latter circumstance, united with the peculiar con
struction of the Greek language used, agrees with
what John of Asia tells us of the origin of Chris
tianity in Nubia. Other Christian remains are also
to be met with, as far as the environs of Khartoum.
Nubia was invaded by the Mussulman Arabs in
641-642, but Christianity was preserved there for a
long time, and even as late as the sixteenth century
it is possible to trace some remains of it. The
bishops of this country were subject to the mono
physite Patriarch of Alexandria. Their number and
the number of their Sees are equally unknown, all
records having disappeared. There are no native
Christians at present remaining in this country.

ill
AXOUM AND HIMYAR
In olden days commerce was carried on between
the Indian Ocean and the Mediterranean by two
natural routes : those of the Euphrates and the Red
Sea. By means of the Red Sea, the exchanges were
not made directly, for the ships from Egypt did not
go to India, neither did the Indian ships sail all the
way to Egypt.
The Arabs of Yemen acted as intermediaries
between the two countries, and concentrated in Aden
the commerce of the Indies and of the east coast of

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 191
Africa. From here their merchandise was taken by
sea to the Egyptian ports of Berenice, Lenkoslimen,
Myos, Ormos, and Klymia (Suez), or by land, starting
from the fertile valleys of incense, myrrh, and aloes,
to reach Southern Syria, Vlat, Petra, and Gaza. These
commercial conditions passed on from the Egyptian
kings to those of Persia, and finally to the Lagides
and to the Romans. It even helped to determine
the frontiers, which remained much the same through
all the succeeding changes of government. The
Egypt of the Lagides did not extend on the western
side of the Red Sea beyond Berenice, in the latitude
of Syene. Two more southern points on the coast, Ptole-
ma'is, Theron, and Adonlis, temporarily occupied under
the Ptolemies, had been abandoned at the time of
the Roman conquest, and were afterwards neglected.
On the other bank, the Nabathean kingdom, which
included the peninsula of Sinai and the whole north
west of the Arabian peninsula, extended no farther
north than the port of Leuke-Kome, nearly opposite
to Berenice. When this kingdom had been annexed
to the empire under Trajan, the frontier on this side re
mained che same. Between Leuke-Kome" and Yemen
(the modern Hedjaz), as well as on the opposite side
as far north as Abyssinia, the scattered population
belonged practically to no one great State. How
ever, even at that time, the people frequented the
sanctuary of Kaaba, dedicated to the Semite gods,
who were worshipped by the Arabs of the desert.
In Arabia Felix, about the times of Cassar and
Augustus, a political centre was established in the
city of Safar. This was known as the kingdom of
the Himyarites. It comprised the southern angle of
the Arabian peninsula as far as Moka and Aden,

192 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
and made its influence felt on the African side up to
Zanzibar and beyond. This new power was a cause
of anxiety to Augustus, who desired to destroy the
position enjoyed by the Arabs as intermediaries be
tween India and Egypt.
The Homerites saw themselves threatened in
730, when C. Aelius Gallus headed an expedition,
which was defeated under the walls of Meriaba (the
famous Saba of the Bible), and afterwards they were
menaced with the destruction of Aden by a Roman
fleet. Yet in spite of this and of the growth of the
Egyptian navy under the protection of the Roman
government, they continued to maintain their politi
cal existence, and even their commercial position.
The Abyssinian people owe their civilisation to
the Arabs of Yemen, who had emigrated to the
opposite coast, or rather to the high tablelands
above. They mixed with the natives tribes related
to the Egyptians and to the other neighbouring
Africans, Gallas, Somalis, and Dunkalis, and imposed
upon these their language, to which combination the
dialects in use at the present time probably owe their
origin. This emigration may well have taken place
in 1000 B.C. Only considerably later did an Abys
sinian State, with Axoum for its capital, appear —
hence the name of the kingdom of the Axoumites.
Axoum communicated with the exterior by means
of the port of Adoulis, as it does now by that of
Massowah. Towards the end of the first century there were
questions involving the Axoumite kingdom. A
Greek inscription, copied in 520, gives some informa
tion as to its beginnings. Cosmas Indicopleustes
copied the inscription, but the name of the sovereign
is not to be seen, as the first lines are missing;

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 193
however, D. H. Muller identifies it quite satis
factorily with the Zoskales, of whom the author
of the Pcriple of the Red Sea speaks as a contem
porary. The author lived in the time of Vespasian.
The expeditions of this King of Axoum extended
for a considerable distance, both in the direction of
the barbarian tribes, who lived near the Gulf of
Obock and Cape Guardafui and also in an opposite
direction, towards the borders of the Red Sea, as far
as Egypt on the west and Leukd-Kome' on the east.
Therefore he must have been in the Hedjaz ; but
he had not touched the Sabean kingdom. Later on
a different story is told. The kings of Axoum called
themselves the kings of the Axoumites and of the
Homerites, which supposes that they exercised a
certain suzerainty over the princes of Arabia Felix.
The Axoumites and the Homerites professed
originally the ancient Sabean religion, a variety of
Semitic polytheism. The god Mahrem held a place
of special importance with the Axoumites ; the gods
of the pagan period were all called " Sons of the
invincible Mahrem ! " In the Greek texts Mahrem
is changed into Ares, and the names of Zeus and
Poseidon may be seen in the inscription of Adoulis.
The influence of Greece, clearly visible in these
transformations and in the language of several of
the inscriptions, manifests itself almost as clearly in
art, and chiefly in the monuments of Axoum. First
among these was a fine temple, containing a sacred
enclosure, approached by a long avenue of statues
and monoliths.
Owing to favourable circumstances about the
commencement of the Christian era, the Jewish
propaganda began to do away with Sabean poly
theism. After the disasters which fell upon the

194 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
nation in the times of Pompey, Vespasian, and Had
rian, certain Israelite colonies, formed by emigration
from Palestine, settled in the central region of
Arabia, at Teima, Kaiber, and Gathrib, between the
Roman province of Arabia and the Sabean State.
To these colonies, then, was probably due the pro
pagation of the Jewish religion among the Homerites.
The same means were employed later on by the
missionaries of the Gospel. At any rate it is certain
that towards the middle of the fourth century, the
Jewish religion was professed by a considerable
number of Homerites, while the rest of the nation
remained attached to the polytheism of its ancestors.
According to Eusebius it would seem that the
philosopher Panta?nus, master of Clement and Origen,
who had before their time directed the catechetical
schools of Alexandria, had preached the Gospel to
the Indians. They say also that Christians were
found among them, who read the Gospel of St.
Matthew in Hebrew, as it had been brought to them
by St. Bartholomew, their first Apostle.
This Eusebius relates from public rumour ; he
does not seem to be positively certain of its authen
ticity. It is, moreover, not easy to determine the
exact locality of the India evangelised by Pantaenus.
It may have been on the western side of India, as
St. Jerome thought, or the port of Adoulis, or again
the land of the Homerites. It was perhaps the last-
named country which Rufinus designated in speaking
of " Nearer India," as does also the author of Passio
Bartkolomcei in the collection of the false Abdias.
The Byzantine catalogues of the twelve Apostles are
more precise. They send Bartholomew to Arabia
Felix. But these later texts, being but arbitrary inter-

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 195
pretations of that of Eusebius, do not help in the
elucidation of the traditions related by him. The
religious history of Abyssinia is enveloped in still
greater mystery. Neither Eusebius nor Lucius
Charinus possesses any tradition to bring for
ward on the subject. Ethiopia is not even men
tioned. Rufinus alone would have us believe that
St. Matthew evangelised this country, and in this
opinion he is followed by the false Abdias. Little or
no credit should be given, however, to the apostolic
accounts of the false Abdias, especially to those of
which he is the sole author, such as the Records of
St. Matthew and St. Bartholomew. It is, moreover,
exceedingly difficult to determine precisely which
parts of the country the authors meant by " Ethiopia "
in those days, whether it was Nubia or the Auxoumite
kingdom. When Rufinus speaks expressly of this kingdom,
in commenting on Frumentius, he is silent on the
subject of St. Matthew's mission, which would be
unaccountable had that mission actually taken place.
In a word, if we confine ourselves to traditions
justly meriting belief, the religious history of these
regions begins no earlier than the fourth century.
Rufinus relates a curious story, taken from a good
source, in the continuation of the Church History of
Eusebius. It runs as follows :—
A certain philosopher, Metrodorus by name,
made a voyage of discovery in this part of the world ;
and, following his example, another philosopher,
Meropius of Tyre, undertook the same expedition,
in company with two children, Frumentius and
iEdesius, with whose education he was charged.
During the journey a dispute took place, probably
at Adouhs, between the natives and the attendants

196 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
of Metropus, and the latter were all massacred, the
children alone escaping. These were taken to the
king, brought up at his court, and treated with great
favour. One of them, Frumentius, was eventually
made secretary, and the other, iEdesius, chief cup
bearer. At the king's death, the queen kept the two
Tyrians in order that they might complete the edu
cation of her son, who was still quite young. They
did not fail to profit by their influence in order to
encourage the practice of religion among Christian
merchants, drawn thither by Roman commerce.
About this time also, a few churches were built.
When the young prince came of age, they asked and
obtained permission to return to their native country.
^Edesius settled at Tyre, became a priest, and
himself told his story to Rufinus. Frumentius went
to Alexandria, where he met Athanasius and related
the narrative to him, begging him to send a bishop
into a country of such promise and so well prepared
to receive the faith. Athanasius deemed Frumentius
the best fitted for this post, consecrated him bishop,
and sent him back into Abyssinia, where his labours
were crowned with complete success.
The consecration of Frumentius took place under
the Emperor Constantius, either shortly before the
year 340 or shortly after the year 346, for during the
interval between those two years Athanasius was
absent from Alexandria. As soon as he had been
placed by Constantius among the enemies of the
State, the imperial government began to feel anxiety
about the Abyssinian mission. An imperial letter
was addressed to the Axoumite princes, Aizan and
Sazan. They were invited to send back to Alex
andria the Bishop Frumentius, "for fear," the

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 197
Emperor added, "the errors of Athanasius might
have been communicated to him." George, the
newly elected Bishop of Alexandria, would be
charged with putting him back into the right place.
The tone of the imperial letter would lead one
to believe that the two princes to whom it was
addressed were already Christians. But an inscrip
tion of Aizan tells us that they were still pagans.
The writer speaks of himself alone as king, but
he mentions his two brothers Saiazam and Adepas,
the former of whom without a doubt was associated
with him before 356.
About the time that Frumentius was preaching
the Gospel to the Ethiopians, the land of the
Homerites was also receiving the first seeds of
Christianity. The Emperor Constantius (337-361)
sent thither an embassy conducted by the Bishop
Theophilus. Theophilus was an Indian, born in the
island of Dibous. He had been sent as a hostage
to the court of Constantine (323-337). Being then
very young, he received a Christian education, and
his training may also be said to have been ascetic.
Eusebius of Nicomedia (341) promoted him to the
diaconate, and when just about to set out on the
embassy he was consecrated bishop. The date is
uncertain, but it seems not unlikely that the letter
of Constantius to the kings of Axoum may have
been sent on this occasion, in which case the journey
must have been made about 356, or a little after that
date. The mission with which he was charged had in
view to obtain from the king of the Homerites
liberty of Christian worship for both Roman mer
chants and newly converted natives. The envoys,
carrying rich presents, were received with due

198 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
honour. The king gave orders for the erection at
his own expense of three churches, one being at
Safar and one at Aden. The site of the third is
unknown. Philostorgius says that he inclined to the
true faith himself, but it is evident that he was
never actually converted. The government in this
country appears to have halted between Judaism and
the ancient Sabean worship, but Judaism eventually
prevailed, and the local dynasty finally embraced it
also, whilst the Christians at Yemen became more
and more isolated. The first traces of ecclesiastical
organisation appear in the reign of the Emperor
Anastasius (491-518).
John Diacrinomenos assures us that the Homer
ites, who had been Jews from the time of the Queen
of Saba, were converted under this prince, and re
ceived a bishop, probably Silvanus, bishop of the
Homerites, uncle of John Diacrinomenos, who
engaged the latter to write his Church History.
This prelate took up his abode probably in the
town of Nedjran, in the interior, situated consider
ably to the north of Safar, the capital. Apparently
about the same date, in Ethiopia, the Christian re
ligion was becoming the dominant worship of the
State by the conversion of the Negus.
This event seems to harmonise with the founda
tion of the Christian colony at Nedjran. This, at
any rate, is what Malala says : " Damianos, king of
the Homerites, in revenge for the bad treatment to
which the Jews had been compelled to submit in the
Roman Empire, ordered a general massacre of all
Byzantine merchants passing through his country.
Andan, king of the Axoumites, deeming the con
sequences of this treatment to be prejudicial to
his commercial relations, declared war, defeated

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 199
Damianos, killed him, and ravaged his country.
This king, who was still a pagan, had made a vow
to become a Christian if he were victorious. In
order to fulfil his vow, he addressed himself to
Justinian, who sent him a bishop, John by name,
of the church of St. John at Alexandria."
This story passed from Malala into the History
of John of Asia, and the Chronicle of Theophanes.
His account of the campaigns of Elesbaas 1 in Yemen
is not drawn from the same source as ours. He
probably refers to a much earlier expedition, which
was followed by the conversion of the first Christian
Negus. But it is nevertheless strange that Malala
should have misplaced this event so far as to place it
during the reign of Justinian. However, be this as
it may, the conversion of the Axoumite king must
have taken place towards the end of the fifth century.
The Senkessar Chronicles, and Lives ofthe Ethiopian
Saints are unanimous in placing the coming of the
nine holy Egyptian monks in the reign of Ela
Amida. The history of Dhu-Nowas, from whatever source
it may be drawn, supposes that at a certain
time, before the years 520-523, Ethiopian interven
tion had taken place in the affairs of Himyar, that
the power had been removed from the ancient
dynasty and placed by the Axoumites in the hands
of another princely family. But at what date pre
cisely, or even approximately, the conversion of Abys
sinia took place is no easy matter to determine.
One can hardly accept seriously the assertion that
the nine Saints received their habit from the hands
of St. Pachomius (349).
Another story, of legendary origin no doubt, but
1 Kaleb.

200 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
not improbable, and fairly reconcilable with existing
facts, is that the King Kaleb, before his departure
for his transmarine expedition in 524, went to con
sult a hermit who had lived for forty-five years
in seclusion ; and hagiographic tradition seems to
identify this recluse with St. Pantaleon, one of the
nine monks. This would carry back the arrival of
the monks to a date before the year 480. Axoumite
inscriptions neither help on nor hinder the solution
of this question, except inasmuch as all of them,
whether they are in Gheez, Sabean, or Greek, pre
suppose official paganism. Muller has recently
established this fact, basing his principles on the
epigraphic account of Bent's travels.
The Christian establishment of Nedjran was not
the only one to be met with in Himyar. At Safar
there was also a church, and there it was that the
Abyssinian viceroy lived, under the protection of an
Ethiopian garrison. At the time of which we are
speaking, and in all these countries, the propagation
of Christianity went hand in hand with the Roman
alliance. It was certainly favoured by the repre
sentatives of the Negus. It is, therefore, natural that
it should have had against it, besides the attach
ment to Sabean and Jewish religions, the sentiment
of national independence, and of sympathy with the
enemy of Rome and Ethiopia — the Persian Empire.
A prince of the ancient royal family, driven
out by Abyssinian administration, took advantage
of a favourable opportunity to hoist the flag of
Homerite independence. This was Dhu-Nowas.
Like the kings, his ancestors, he professed the
Jewish religion. The viceroy of Ethiopia having
died at the beginning of the winter, and the rigour
of the season rendering communication with the

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 201
Abyssinian coast somewhat difficult, he managed
to seize Safar, massacred the garrison and the
clergy, and changed the church into a synagogue.
On hearing this, as may well be imagined, the
Negus thought at once of suppressing the revolt.
Cosmas Indicopleustes was at Adoulis in the be
ginning of Justin's reign, and witnessed the prepara
tions made by the King of Axoum to enforce his
despised authority. It is not possible to ascertain
how long these preparations were in progress, nor
the exact date at which the Homerite insurrection
took place. This must have been considered by
all the Christians of the country as menacing their
safety. At Safar, Dhu-Nowas had exterminated a
Christian colony representing the Axoumite occu
pation. In several other places, and notably in
Nedjran, there were some Christians of different
origin. A distinction might have been made
between their cause and that of the Ethiopian
mission. It seems, as a matter of fact, that there
must have been an interval of uncertainty when
the Christians of Nedjran had to suffer ill-treatment
from the hands of their infidel compatriots without
being threatened directly by the new king. It was
probably to this time that James, Bishop of Saroug
in Osrhoene, refers in the letter in which he pities
them for having so much to endure from the Jews,
and consoles them as best he can with theological
considerations. But soon the situation became more serious.
In 523 Dhu-Nowas laid siege to Nedjran. Fore
seeing a descent of the Axoumites, he had to avoid
leaving behind him a sufficiently large colony of
Christians, who would not fail to join the Negus
in military operations. The siege dragged on in-

202 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
definitely, and in order to make an end of it, the
Homerite prince had recourse to stratagem. He pro
posed capitulation, which was accepted ; then, being
master of the town, he violated his promise, and
had all the Christians who refused to apostatise
massacred. Among his victims must be named the
chief of the tribe of the Harith-ibn-Kaab. This
Emir and his people, to the number of three hundred
and forty, had shut themselves up in the town ; they
had given the Nedjranites energetic counsels, which
had not been accepted, so that those brave nomads
suffered the humiliation of being butchered without
having an opportunity of drawing their swords.
We also hear of two women, one named Daume,
wife of the prince of the Nedjranites, who was
decapitated with her two daughters. They even
had the barbarity to make her assist at her children's
deaths, and to pour their blood into her mouth.
The other was the mother of a little child of three,
whom Dhu-Nowas had saved, as he spared all under
the age of reason. In vain did he try to caress him,
the little fellow did nothing but revile him. His
mother when dying commended him to our Lord
Jesus Christ. When he grew up, he was sent on
an embassy to Constantinople, where John of Asia
recognised him. He was called Baisar ; but though
every one thought him to be the child grown to
manhood, he would not own to the fact. The
executions naturally began with the clergy, and
Paul, the bishop, who had been dead for two years,
was disinterred, and his corpse thrown into the
flames. Into an enormous burning ditch, they
threw priests, monks, and "consecrated virgins," or
nuns, to the number of four hundred and twenty-
seven persons ; then followed the burning of the

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 203
church, and lastly a fiendish massacre of four
thousand Christian persons. No sooner were these
atrocities committed than Dhu-Nowas hastened to
communicate to his friends, Kawad, the King of
Persia, and the Emir of Hira, Al-Moundhir, the
capture of Nedjran.
His envoys met Al-Moundhir at ten days' journey
south-east of Hira. This brought them to the
environs of Houfhouf (El-Hassa), not very far from
the maritime regions by which the Nedjed borders
the Persian Gulf. The Emir was somewhat near
the theatre of these horrible events. At the same
time the envoys of the Emperor Justin came to
him, in company with the priest Abramos, son of
Euphrasios, and Bishop Sergius of Rosapha, with
several other ecclesiastics and laymen, among whom
was Simeon, Bishop of Beth-Arsam, head of the
Monophysites in the Persian Empire. It was owing
to this circumstance that the horrors committed at
Nedjran were known almost immediately in the
Roman Empire.
The embassy of Dhu-Nowas arrived at the camp of
Al-Moundhir on 20th January 524. This very year,
or the year following, John the Psalmist, in a Greek
hymn, commemorated the town of Nedjran and its
martyrs, with Hareth their leader. John was Abbot
of Beth-Aphtonios, a monastery in the neighbourhood
of Chalcis. The letter of James of Saroug shows
that the situation of Nedjran and of its Christian
colony awoke interest in the Syro-Euphrasian world.
Besides which John Psaltes must have derived his
information from a letter which Simeon of Beth-
Arsam wrote on arriving at Hira, and addressed to
his namesake, Simeon Abbot of Gabula, a Syrian
town near Chalcis.

204 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
The Bishop of Beth-Arsam wished the account
of these events to be given to the Patriarch of
Alexandria, so that the latter might persuade the
King of Abyssinia to interfere ; also that notice
thereof should be given to the Bishops of Antioch,
Tharsis, Caesarea of Cappadocia, and Edessa, recom
mending them to pray for the survivors and to
make a commemoration of the martyrs. He likewise
desired them to make sure of the Elders of the
Jewish community at Tiberias, and that they should
take it upon themselves to make these Elders
responsible for the persecutions endured by the
Homerite Christians.
Simeon's document is not the only one we
possess concerning these events. An anonymous
author, who was probably Sergius, Bishop of
Rosapha, one of Justin's ambassadors to Al-
Moundhir, gives a clearer account in the form
used in the times of the martyrs. This document
as handed down to us is in Greek; it is the
Martyr ium Arethas published by Boissonade and
the Bollandists. Instead of the ending of Simeon's
account, we find actually first an account of the
steps taken by the Emperor Justin and the
Patriarch of Alexandria towards Elesbaas, King
of Ethiopia, and even the letter of the emperor
to the Negus is reproduced — according to the
imagination of the hagiographer, no doubt. Then
comes the history of the expedition of Elesbaas,
with precise details and of evident authenticity.
Finally, the last chapter contains an account
of the reparation exacted by Elesbaas, of the in
vestiture which the viceroy Abramos received at
his hands, and, last of all, of the edifying death of
the pious Negus. The Armenian translation, made

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 205
from the Syriac text of the Martyrium, is without
this triple appendix, and it is highly probable that
we have here earlier additions coming from equally
reliable sources.
The Martyrium and Simeon's letter both savour
of monophysite opinions, which is not astonish
ing when we consider that Simeon of Beth-
Arsam was an ardent Monophysite, and that the
Bishop of Rosapha could hardly be expected to
entertain other religious views. Putting this aside,
one notices also that in the two documents many
things are dramatically related. For instance, in
one place Simeon gives his account the form of a
letter, written as it were by Al-Moundhir to Dhu
Nowas. He owns, it is true, that he has greatly
lengthened the text of the letter, from the oral
reports brought by the envoys. Other details were
furnished by messengers sent expressly from Hira
to Nedjran. The whole account, taking it as it stands, must
be true, but the atrocities committed in this region
are no worse than others committed in this same
oriental world at the present day, as every one knows.
They, however, left an indelible impression on local
tradition. Even Mohammed, in the Koran, makes
mention of the ditch of fire into which the martyrs
had been thrown, and he condemns the persecutors to
the everlasting flames of hell. In the eighth century
Ibn-Ishag speaks of the victims as numbering 20,000.
Retribution soon began to overtake the persecutors.
The details of Elesbaas' expedition may be read in
the Martyrium, and Procopius also relates that :
" Ellestha?os, king of the Ethiopians, a fervent
Christian, having heard that the Homerites on the
other side of the sea, who were partly Jews, partly

206 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
attached to their ancient religion, were oppressing
beyond measure the Christians of this country, col
lected an army and a fleet with which he marched
against them. Having conquered and killed their
king, he substituted in his place another, a Homerite
also, but a Christian, called Esimpha?os." Shortly
after this the Homerites revolted against Esimphasos ;
they were headed by Abramos, an Abyssinian
Christian, a former slave of a Roman lawyer of
Adoulis. Ellestha?os, who had returned to his own
country, on hearing of this, sent an army com
manded by one of his own relations to aid Esim
phasos ; but this Abyssinian prince was betrayed and
killed on the way by his own soldiers, who passed
over to Abramos. A second army, sent to avenge
him, was cut to pieces, and only after the death
of Ellesthasos did Abramos consent to recognise
the suzerainty of the Ethiopians. The Byzantine
Empire endeavoured to profit by the new state of
affairs. Several ambassadors (among whom first
Julian, then Nonnosus) were sent to the Kings of
Akoum and Himyar. The empire would have
liked to direct the trade in silk to this region, which
trade had hitherto always been carried to Persia,
probably by way of Ormuz.
There were also certain military projects in the
air. Justinian had fixed upon a certain Cais, who had
quarrelled with Esimphasos, intending to make him
phylarch of the Arabs of Kinda and Nedjed. Once
installed in this office Cais was to make friends with
the Homerites, with a view to attacking the Persians.
All this was without much result. Oman was too
far for the Homerites ; silk still continued to reach
the Romans by means of the Persian trade. Cais
was certainly installed in Nedjed ; he left it to be-

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 207
come Phylarch of Palestine. As for the expeditions
against the Persians, they did not go further than
a thrust at Mecca, during the time and under the
leadership of Abramos, who, no doubt, was helped
by the people of Kinda and Maad.
With the exception of an allusion of Procopius,
this expedition is known only in the Arabian legends
of the eighth and ninth centuries. They relate that
Abraha, having had a magnificent church built at
Sana, desired to draw thither the pilgrims of all
Arabia, whereupon a Koreischite, offended by this
apparent attempt to outdo the Kaaba, set off to
profane the church of Sana. Then Abraha declared
war against Mecca, but no armed resistance was
made against him ; the divinity " defended his sanc
tuary by prodigies and scourges, which obliged the
Abyssinian king to return to his country."
Abraha was succeeded on the Homerite throne
by his two sons, Yaksoum and Massong, but the
"black" Abyssinians oppressed their subjects too
much, and this led to an expedition from Persia about
the year 570, which put an end to the Ethiopian
dynasty. In its place a national king, called Saif, was
elected, depending on the Sassanide Empire. Some
time after, this Saif perished a victim to an Abys
sinian reaction. Then Chosroes I. sent his general,
Wahriz, who had all the Abyssinians massacred, and
remained himself in the country as governor.
These Persian interferences were regarded at
Constantinople as detrimental to the interests of
the empire, and were brought forward among the
motives for the rupture which took place between
the two great States in the reign of Justin II.
This change was clearly most unfavourable to
Christianity. Perhaps the church of Sana was

208 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
maintained, but the Persian governors could not
interest themselves in the worship of which it was
the centre. The Christian population of Nedjran
survived, and it even resisted the progress of the
Mussulman religion sixty years later. Mohammed
speaks of a bishop of this Church, Koss-ihn-Saida by
name, whom he had heard preach ; he was renowned
for his eloquence and talent as a politician.
But the Mussulmans did not allow this Christian
centre to exist much longer. The Caliph Omar
banished from the country all the Christians who
would not apostatise and embrace Islam. This
exodus from the country led them towards the
lower Euphrates, in the neighbourhood of Konfa,
where, towards the end of the eighth century,
the Catholicos, Timothy, gave them a bishop. In
the letter in which Timothy speaks of this event
the Nedjranites are represented as having until then
held the impious doctrines of Julian Halicarnassus,
which meant, in other words, that they were Mono
physites of the deepest dye.
The history of Arethas, Elesbaas, and Abraha,
has been written more than once by Byzantine hagio-
graphers. It has already been said that in one of
the appendices at the end of the Martyrium, Elesbaas
is reported to have himself invested Abraha before
returning to his kingdom. John of Asia notes the
same fact. This is decidedly untrue. But to this
fact is attached another document, which we do not
possess in its integrity, viz., the Life of St. Gregen-
tios, Archbishop of Safar. The feast of this Saint
is kept on December 19th. According to some
Greek authors he was the founder of a town, some
times called Milan, sometimes " Lopliana in finibus
Avarice et Asia?." Here one recognises Lipljan,

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 209
the ancient Ulpiana in Dardania. But that matters
little. The parents of Gregentios were Agapios and
Theotecna. He went to Egypt, became a hermit,
and after some time was sent to direct the Church
of the Homerites. The first part of his life, as sum
marised by the compilers, has neither been published
nor signalised in any way. As for the remaining
part it may be thus divided : 1, The account of the
miraculous election of Abramos ; 2, The legislation
of Abramos regarding his subjects ; 3, A long dispute
between Gregentios and the Jewish Doctor Erban.
At the end of this dispute, which included no fewer
than five discussions, all the Jews were converted.
The king and the archbishop live holy and happy
lives. Abramos reigns thirty years, and is succeeded
by his son Serdidos. Gregentios follows him shortly
to his eternal reward. The dispute with this satis
factory termination was long known and even pub
lished by Boissonade from a manuscript of Coistin.
Other manuscripts on the subject exist, but the
beginning of the history has not yet been extracted
from them. The legislation was evidently ideal, of
a monachal kind ; faults against morality occupy
the writer to a great extent, and the penalties im
posed for these faults are of a most extraordinary
description. It is evident that all takes place at
Salente. We are also treated to relations of events of
a marvellous character. At the moment of the
election Abramos rises in the air by the power of
the Lord, and is borne into the presence of Elesbaas.
When the legislation has been promulgated, the
copies of the code laid on the altar go by them
selves into the hands of those destined to receive
them. Christ appears at the end of the dispute

210 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
like a deus ex machind to confound the incredulity
of the Jews. One is inclined to doubt not only
these "facts," but even the very existence of St.
Gregentios ! IV
THE ARABS
Arabia is bounded on the north by the Syrian
provinces of the Roman Empire, and by the equally
Syrian or Aramean regions of the Persian Empire.
In their unceasing migrations towards the north
the Arabian tribes, constantly met with Aramean
populations speaking Syriac, or some dialect nearly
connected with it. The line of contact rarely
coincided with the political frontier. From the first
century even, Central Mesopotamia was filled with
Arabs. Though nomadic as a rule in their habits,
they had one stable establishment in the fortress
of Hatra, a few miles to the south of Nineveh, on
the right bank of the Tigris.
The Euphrates, at least from the Roman frontier
at Abon Serai, flowed entirely through Arabian
territory. The chiefs of those tribes owed allegiance
to the King of Persia. Those of Hatra enjoyed
under the Parthian dynasty full autonomy, which
the Sassanides did not respect. One of the first
kings of this family, Ardaschir, or Sapor I., took
the fortress which had defied all the efforts of Trajan
and Severus, and put an end to this vassal State.
Another was soon formed, of which the centre was
at Hira, south of ancient Babylon, and not far
from Mesched-Ali, one of the holy towns of the
Chiites on the borders of the great stony desert.
This place became the seat of a dynasty of Arabian

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 211
princes, vassals of the Sassanide Empire, who re
duced to subjection all the scattered tribes of
Mesopotamia on the banks of the Euphrates and
the Persian Gulf as far as the Bahrein Isles. In
the seventh century Hira was replaced by Konfa,
founded near it by the first caliphs.
On the Roman frontier the ethnical situation
was much the same, but the political conditions
were very different. The ancient Nabathean king
dom, annexed in 105, included many deserts, the
Sinaitic peninsula, the coast beyond the Gulf of
Akubar as far as Lenke-Kome, and, nominally at
least, the interior between Medina and Damas.
Also, farther back, Damas, Palmyra, and Circesium
to the borders of Aleppo, an immense region where
nomadic tribes alone could subsist. There they
wandered at will, but on approaching the cultivated
country they were confronted by a line of fortresses
which stopped their advance. These tribes had little
but commercial intercourse with the Romans, and
no political tie united them among themselves. So
that one cannot speak, during the period of the
predominance of the Western Empire, of any Arabian
vassals of the Romans. There is nothing here to
compare with the establishment of Hatra in the
Parthian kingdom.
The Romans, however, came, though somewhat
late, i.e. in the time of Justinian. In 531, an
Arabo-Roman State was created, to counterbalance
to some extent the Arabo-Persian State of the
Kings of Hira.
As a consequence of a tolerance imposed by
circumstances, we find that from the third century
some isolated tribes had established themselves
within the boundary line, notably in the regions of

212 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
Bostra and Damascus. These tribes were led by
their own sheiks, invested by the Roman government
somewhat in the same way as were the Moorish
princes in African Barbary. Administratively they
were called " Phylarchs." Little by little these
Arabian organisations multiplied ; they were given
a military government, and grouped into provinces.
There were phylarchs even of Palestine and Arabia,
and this means of defence was recognised as so
important and necessary, that a general phylarch
was elected, he being the chief of the tribe of the
Ghassanides. This person was a kind of vassal
king, who exercised authority over the Arabs of all
the oriental provinces of ancient Syria as far as
the desert. On one side he resisted the subjects
of Hira, and on the other he opened the Roman
frontier to emigration from the south, and thus
paved the way for the Mussulman invasion. But
the Ghassanide Emir had theoretically no authority
over the subjects of the empire. Municipal organi
sations and provincial law courts continued to exist ;
in fact it is clear that the military chief was master.
This was manifest even in religious matters.
These Syrian Arabs had been Christians for some
time, and even had in certain places bishops of their
own. The history of the origin of these Saracen
Churches is, as far as we know, as follows : Rufinus
tells the story of a queen of the Saracens, Maouria
by name, who had long fought against the Romans,
and agreed to make peace on condition that they
would give as bishop to her tribe a certain monk of
the neighbouring desert, named Moses, greatly re
nowned for his sanctity and miracles. The Emperor
Valens, who favoured the Arians and persecuted the
orthodox, was then reigning. Valens consented to

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 213
grant the request of Maouria, and the monk Moses
was taken to Alexandria to be consecrated by the
Arian bishop, Lucius. Moses, however, belonging to
the orthodox faith, refused to be consecrated by a
heretic, and held his ground so firmly that they were
obliged to seek some Catholic bishop in exile to
impose hands upon him. This event took place
about 374. About the fourth century the conversion
of the Sheik Locoum took place, as related in the
history of Sozomen. This sheik, being in great
distress at having no children, had recourse to a
hermit, who prayed for him and promised him pos
terity on condition that he became a Christian.
On the promise being fulfilled, Locoum and all his
tribe asked for the waters of baptism. In these
anecdotes the great veneration which the children of
the desert had for anchorites whose sanctity shone
forth from their wild solitudes may be perceived.
St. Hilarion also, the great monk of Gaza, whose life
was prolonged till 371, appears to have impressed
them very deeply. In the next century, according
to Theodoret, who was an eye-witness, St. Simon
Stylites exercised great influence over the Syrian
Arabs of the north and of Mesopotamia. Little by
little, thanks to the marvellous influence of these
saintly hermits, all the nomadic tribes living in the
interior of the Roman province were converted to
Christianity. The tribes of the exterior when they
crossed the frontier were not slow to fall under the
same influence.
Cyril of Scythopolis (sixth century) in his Life of
St. Euthymius, a hermit of Pharan, between Jericho
and Jerusalem, gives an account of the conversion of
a tribe which, about the year 420, was changing its
quarters near the Euphrates to go to live in Palestine.

214 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
The sheik was called Aspebastos ; his son Terebon,
still a child, was paralyzed, and in this condition
Aspebastos presented him to the hermits of Pharan.
Euthymius cured him miraculously, and after the
miracle the entire tribe embraced Christianity.
Their own chief, Aspebastos, consecrated bishop by
Juvenal of Jerusalem, was sent back to feed them
as his flock, having taken the name of Peter in
baptism. These stories enable us to trace the foundation of
two episcopal Sees. The first, that of Moses, seems
to be identical with the bishopric of Pharan, which
for some time existed in the valleys of Mount Sinai
and ended by becoming attached to the celebrated
Convent of St. Catherine. As for the one which
had as its first bishop the sheik converted by St.
Euthymius, it bore the name of Parembolas. Its
bishop, the former sheik, assisted personally at the
Council of Ephesus, 431.
A bishop of the same title, called Valens, is men
tioned in 518 among the suffragans ofthe patriarchal
See of Jerusalem. Therefore the Saracens converted
by St. Euthymius had their tents, not in the provinces
of Arabia, but in that of Palestine. A third establish
ment of this description is met with farther north
in the province of Phoenicia IL, or Damascus. One
titular bishop, named Eustasius, who assisted at the
Council of Chalcedon, and who was still governing
his diocese in 453, is known. He gives himself the
title of " Bishop of the nation of the Saracens." At
the same time as the above-named bishop there lived
at Chalcedon another Saracen bishop, named John,
who bore exactly the same title as Eustasius. He
was possibly a bishop of Parembolas. We find, at
the Council of Ephesus in 449, one Auxilaos, bishop

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 215
of the allied Saracens. It is hard to determine to
which of the two Sees he must have belonged.
The bishop of the Isle of Iotabe" must also be
mentioned. This islet, now called Tiran, situated at
the entrance of the Gulf of Akabah, was an important
centre of commercial transactions and the receipt of
customs. An Arab, called Amorkesos, quitting the
country subject to the King of Persia, established
himself here in 470. In 473, he sent Peter, a bishop
of his nation, to the Emperor Leo, in order to obtain
for him the position of phylarch of the Saracens of
Arabia-Petrasa. Leo sent for the Emir, loaded him
with honours, and conferred upon him authority, not
only over Iotabe", but also over several other places.
In 498 the island was taken back by Romanus,
general of the Emperor Anastasius. But the bishop
ric remained. We hear of a certain bishop of Iotabe
called Anastasius, who assisted at the Council of
Jerusalem in 536. Perhaps this See was nothing but
a passing continuation of that of Pharan or Sinai.
These foundations remained isolated for the Saracen
bishoprics and were never grouped into a national
Church. On the contrary, they entered into the
provincial system of the Greek Church, and were
subject to the Metropolitans of Petra, Jerusalem,
and Damascus. The constitution of the Ghassanide
State the foundation on this frontier of an Arabian
kingdom as a vassal of Rome, took place too late
to interfere with the canons of the Church in this
country. It had, however, its influence on religious affairs.
The Monophysites, repressed with a firm hand by
the successors of Justinian, found in the Emir Al
Moundhir an energetic protector.
There lived on the central plain of Arabia (Ned-

216 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
jed), on the banks of the Persian Gulf, the tribes of
Kinda and of Maad. From the times of the Emperor
Anastasius, they had relations with the Romans. At
that time their chief was the Emir Hareth, to whom
Anastasius sent a certain Euphrasios, charging him
to bring about friendly intercourse with the empire.
Hareth's son, Cais, was in communication with
Justinian, through the son of Euphrasios, named
Abramos, and his grandson Nonnosos. Abramos
obtained from him, as hostage, his own son Mavia,
whom he sent to Constantinople.
Nonnosos was deputed to bring Cais himself, the
emperor having designs upon him, which, however,
were not successful. Success was reserved for
Abramos, who for the second time made the journey
to Nedjed. In the interval Cais became involved in
difficulties with the Homerite King Esimphasos,
through a blood feud, and was driven out of the
country. He accepted Abramos's offer, confided his
tribe to the care of his sons, Amr and Yezed, set out
for Constantinople, and received the governorship of
Palestine, where several of his relations followed him.
This Cais, a Christianas identified with the Arabian
poet Imrulcais, the author of one of the seven poems
famous among the Arabians under the name of
" Moaltakas." But it was only by the means of these
Byzantine connections that Christianity penetrated
into Central Arabia. The Persian Church had at
least four bishoprics on the borders of the Persian
Gulf, at Katar, Honfhonf, Pasa-Ardachir, and in
the Isle of Darin.
They are heard of about the end of the sixth
century in the Council of the Catholicos of Seleucia.
And again a hundred years later they showed signs
of life, which proves that they resisted the assaults

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 217
of the Moslem propaganda for a considerable time.
Now, however, all trace of Christianity has dis
appeared in these countries, where the Turks them
selves are regarded as " infidels " by the natives,
the fanatical Wahabis. The Arabian bishoprics on
the Persian Gulf must have disappeared towards the
end of the ninth century, as they are not mentioned
in the list drawn up by Elias of Damascus. At
Hira, the capital of Persian Arabia, there were
also Christians, split up, it is true, into separate
schisms each under its own bishop. The date of
the first Church is uncertain, but, from the begin
ning, it owed allegiance to the Catholicos of Seleucia,
chief of the regular hierarchy in the Persian Empire.
When the Jacobite schism began in 543, by
the clandestine ordination of James Baradai, the
religious needs of the Monophysites of Persian
Mesopotamia were, at the same time, attended to,
and they were provided with a Maphrain, or Anti-
catholicos. To this illegal jurisdiction the bishopric
of the Arabs was eventually attached. It appears,
under various titles, in Jacobite documents. The
letter quoted above, of Simon of Beth-Arsam, shows
that from the time of Justin I. these religious
conflicts had been raging round the Prince of
Hira. This potentate left his Christian subjects in
peace, but continued himself to adore the ancient
Semitic divinities, in particular the goddess Ouzza,
the Arabian Venus, to whom they sometimes
offered human sacrifices. To her it was that
Moundi-ribn-Amraalquais, the same who treated
with Dhu-Nowas and Simon Beth-Arsam, immo
lated 400 Christian virgins. But having taken
prisoner the son of his rival, Hareth the Ghassanide,
he sacrificed him also.

218 THE CHRISTIAN MISSIONS SOUTH
This same terrible prince Moundhir had a Christian
wife, who came from the family of the Ghassanides ;
her name was Hind, and she was sister of the young
prince immolated to Ouzza. This princess had
founded a monastery at Hira, the inscription of
which has been preserved by the scientific author
Yakout. It runs thus : " This Church was built
by Hind, daughter of Kings and mother of the
King Amr-ibn-Moundhir, the servant of Christ,
mother of His servant and daughter of His servants,
under the reign of the King of Kings, Chosroes
Anouscharwan, in the time of the Bishop Mai
Ephraim. May the God for whom she has built this
monastery pardon her her sins, may He have pity
on her and on her son, may He receive her and
make her reside in His abode of peace and truth, and
may God be with her and with her son, for ever and
ever." This inscription was engraved in the reign of
Amr, son of Moundhir (554-569) ; it leads us to
suppose this prince to have been a Christian. But
the Gospel was spread and disseminated with diffi
culty in this imperious and sanguinary family.
After Amr it relapsed into paganism if not under his
brother Kabous, at least in the reign of Moundhir-
ibn-Moundhir, also a brother and the successor of
Kabous. After Moundhir came Naaman, who at first wor
shipped idols and offered human sacrifices, but was
converted about 594. The Confession of Faith
adopted by the Emirs of Hira was the Nestorian.
The Catholicos Jesuyab I., died at Hira in 594 or
595, and was buried in Hind's monastery. Naaman
is the last of his family who reigned at Hira.
One of his sons, Moundhir-ibn-Naaman, is heard

OF THE ROMAN EMPIRE 219
of in the beginning of Islamism at the head of the
Christian Arabs of Bahrein who refused to acknow
ledge Mahomet. He died in 533, fighting against
the Mussulmans.
As to the double bishopric of Hira it continued
to exist, and is mentioned in the archives of both the
rival Churches. The foundations we have studied
in this memoir have generally either ended in becom
ing national Churches or episcopal Sees attached to
ecclesiastical provinces of the Roman or the Persian
Empire. The national Churches of Nubia, Abyssinia,
and the Homerites blended their self-government
with a certain amount of dependence on the Patriarch
of Alexandria, the Monophysite Patriarch of course,
for none of these Churches date from the time when
the Alexandrian patriarchate was Catholic and
undivided. And of all this widespread Christianity in the
country of the Arabs and the Chamite people, what
is now left ? One single Church, that of Abyssinia,
which, like the Abyssinian State itself, has been
maintained through many and great vicissitudes, and
still keeps its singular autonomy, its Monophysite
confession of faith, and its Alexandrian allegiance.

INDEX

Aabon (M.), 8
Abraha, 207
Abramos, 203/., 209
Acacius, 27/., 113
Aetius, 46
Agapitus, Pope, 135, 160/., 177
Aidan, 7
Alban (M.), 8
Alexandria, 19/., 27, 32, 34, 100/
Aloa (the ancient Meroe), 188
Anastasius, Emperor, 28/., 215
Ancyra, Council of, 114
Anicetus, Pope, 95
Anomians, 21
Anthimius, 40/
Antioch, 20
Apollinarius, 22/, 46, 120
Apostles' Creed, 51, 90
Apostolical Constitutions, 88
Arabia, 191/
Aramiuians, 19
Arethas, 32/
Aristides, 173
Arius, Arians, 21, 46, 105
Armenia, Armenians, 13/, 18, 36/
Athanasius, 39, 99, 116, 134, 196
Augustine, 57/
B^etica, 181
Balsamon, 133
Baptism, 60/
Baronius, 145
Barsumas, 37/
Basil, 120, 125
Basilian monks, 44
Bede, 1, 5
Boissonade, 204, 209
Boniface I., Pope, 106
Boniface II., Pope, 162
Byzantium, see Constantinople

Cais, 206, 216
Callistus, Pope, 99
Canons of the Apostles, 88
Canterbury, 7
Celestine, Pope, 8, 106
Celtic Christianity, iff.
Cerinthus, 22
Chad, 6
Chalcedon, Council of, 24/., 39, 47,
112/., 129/
Chaldeans, 17
Chalice for laity, 68
Chosroes I., 207
Christ, 21/
Chrysostom, 135
Clement of Eome, 84/
Colman, 7
Constantine, Pope, 142
Constantinople, 20/, 68, 118, 133
Constantinople, I. Council of (2nd
General), 46, 50, 118/
Constantinople, II. Council of (5th
General), 47
Constantinople, III. Council of (6th
General), 47/
Constantinople, Quini Sextum Council,
140/
Constantinopolitan Creed, 53, 132
Copts, Coptic, 20, 35, 87
Cosmas Indicopleustes, 192, 201
Ctesiphon, 16
Cuthbert, 7
Cyprian, 97/
Cyril of Alexandria, 23/
Cyril of Scythopolis, 213
Damascus, 211/
Damasus, Pope, 105/, 119/, 124
Demetrius of Alexandria, 100
Denis, see Dionysius

222

INDEX

Diodorus of Tarsus, 22
Dionysius of Alexandria, 90, 100/,
114
Dionysius of Corinth, 85, 102
Dionysius, Pope, 100
Dioscorus, 24, 47, 129
Docetism, 22
Donatists, 105
Dorotheus, 173, 17G
Duchesne, 11
Ecclesiastical Canons, 88
Edessa, 14/, 37, 104
Eleutherius, Pope, 10, 93
England, 1/
Ephesus, Council of, 46, 135, 214
Erzerum, 19
Etchmiadzin, 19
Ethiopia, 13/, 19, 36, 183
Eudoxius, 46
Eunomius, 46
Eusebius of Csesarea, 95/, 105/., 116,
194/
Eusebius of Doryleum, 135
Eusebius of Nicomedia, 46, 115, 120,
197
Eusebius of Samos, 120/
Euthymius, 213/
Eutyches, Eutychians, 24, 36, 47
Fabian, Pope, 100
Felix III., Pope, 28, 170
Filioque, 50/
Finian, 7
Firmilian, 98, 102
Friedrich, 163, 166
Frumentius, 196
Gelasius, Pope, 30, 171
Germanus of Auxerre, 8
Getuli, 181
Gildas, 5
Gnostics, 22
Greek Church, differences from
Eoman, 42/, 50, 59/, 141
Gregentios, 208/
Gregory I., Pope, 1, 61, 112, 124,
156/

Gregory II., Pope, 2
Gregory III., Pope, 2
Gregory, the Illuminator, 18
Gregory Nazianzen, 57, 125/
Gregory Thaumaturgus, 123
Halicaknassus, Julian, 208
Henotikon, 27/
Hermas, 22, 86
Hilarion, 213
Hippolytus, 87
Honorius, Pope, 48, 155
Hormisdas, Pope, 172/, 175/
Ibas, 22, 25, 31, 37
Ignatius, 85
Image-worship, 143, 145, 147
Immaculate Conception, 73/
Indulgences, 72/.
Innocent, Pope, 135
Iotabe, 215
Irenaeus of Lyons, 10, 79, 96
Irenaeus of Sirmium, 5
Isis, Temple of, 184/., 189
Jacobites, 21, see also James Bara
daius
James Barodaius, 33/, 217
Jerusalem, 20
Jews in Arabia, 194, 200
John VII., Pope, 142
John IX. Pope, 146
John XI., Pope, 149
John Diacrimenos, 198
John of Ephesus, 187, 199, 208
Joseph of Arimathaaa, 10
Julian of Caerleon, 8
Julius, Pope, 117, 120, 122
Justin, Emperor, 29
Justinian, 29/, 39, 158/, 185
KUSH, 183
Leo I., Pope, 8, 27/, 31, 47, 129
Leo XIII., 40
Leo the Isaurian, 113
Liberius, Pope, 49, 120
Lichfield, 6

INDEX

223

Lindisfarne, 7
Lucifer of Antioch, 120
Lucius Charinus, 195
Lucius, King, 10
Macedonius, 46
Malabar, 16, 18
Marcellus of Ancyra, 52, 99, 120
Marcion, Emperor, 25, 39
Martin I. , Pope, 155
Mauritania, Moors, 181 /
Melchites, 35, 44
Meroe, 184
Metrophanes, 133
Michael Cerularius, 77, 150 /
Mohammed, 38, 205, 208
Mommsen, 166, 179
Monophysites, 18, 20/, 185/, 215
Monothelites, 48, 132
Montanists, 93/
Muller, 193, 200
Napata, 184
Nennius, 5
Nestorius, Nestorians, 17, 22 /., 36
/. «
Nicaea, I. Council of, 46, 96
Nicaea, II. Council of (7th General),
48
Nicene Creed, 52/, 117
Nicholas, Pope, 146
Nisibis, 37/
Nonnosus, 206, 216
Novatians, 21
Nubia, 183
Obigen, 91, 100
Osius, 117
Pachomius, 199
Palladius, 8
Palmyra, 211
Pantaenus, 194
Pantaleon, 200
Paschal controversy, 94
Patrick, 8
Patripassians, 99
Paul of Samosata, 22, 101 /

Paulinists, 21
Paulinus, 7
Pelagius IL, Pope, 60/., 158
Pelagius, 26
Persia, or Parthia, 13/, 36, 38
Peter at Eome, 82 /
Peter of Alexandria, 105, 121
Peter of Antioch, 76
Peter the Fuller, 29, 132
Phanar, Greek quarter at Constanti
nople, 44
Pharan, 213
Philae, 184, 189
Philosophumena, 99
Philostorgius, 198
Photius, 55, 123, 145/
Polycarp, 91, 95
Polycrates of Ephesus, 95
Proclus, 170
Procopius, 205
Psammetichus, 183
Purgatory, 70/
Quini-Sextum, 140/
Ee-baptism, 97
EeVillout, 189
Eimini, Council of, 8
Eome, Church of, 79/
Bufinus, 195/, 212
Sabellius, 99
Sahara, 180
Sapor I., 210
Sapor II. , 15
Sardica, Council of, 110, 115 /.,
136/
Sassanide dynasty, 210/
Seleucia, 16
Seleucia, Council of, 118, 216
Sergius I., Pope, 142
Sergius III., Pope, 148
Sergius, Patriarch, 48
Simon Stylites, 213
Siricius, Pope, 136
Sixtus IL, Pope, 98
Soter, Pope, 95, 102
Sozomen, 213

224 INDEX
Stachys, 133
Stephen, Pope, 97/, 102/
Sylvester, Pope, 9
Symmachus, Pope, 171
Tertullian, 91
Theodore of Canterbury, 6
Theodore of Mopsuestia, 22, 24 /.,
31, 37
Theodoret, 25, 31, 37, 213
Theodosiopolis, 19
Theodotus, 92
Thessalonica, 170/
Tyre, Council of, 116

Unleavened Bread, 64/
Victor, Pope, 95/, 104
Vigilius, Pope, 47, 123, 161/, 177
Vitalian, Pope, 3, 155
Wilfrid, 7
Wini, 6
ZACHARY.Pope, 2, 139
Zeno, Emperor, 28
Zephyrinus, Pope, 93, 104
Zonaras, 133
Zosimus, Pope, 106

THE END

Printed by Ballantyne, Hanson &> Co.
Edinburgh &* London

3696 60H(