Greek Church.

THE. Western Christendom has for many centuries been so much engrossed with its own concerns that it has paid little attention to the Greek Church, and knows little about the distinctive character or position of that large section of professing Christians. But recent events have rendered it necessary to give a somewhat more minute account of the origin, progress, and present position of the Greek Church than formerly.

Those who have paid attention to the effect upon human opinion of diversities in race and language, will be prepared to expect a considerable difference to appear in certain points between the churches of the Eastern and Western divisions of Christendom. In the Eastern division the chief seats of influence, from the earliest period, were Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. In the Western division Rome naturally obtained pre-eminence, as being the seat of imperial power, though not on account of any special right as a church. The peculiar claims of Alexandria arose out of the reputation which that city had obtained as a seat of learning and philosophy. Nearly all the doctrinal controversies which agitated the church for the first three centuries, were more or less directly connected with Alexandria; but while thus African as to their locality, they were Oriental in their real source and character. The tendency of the Oriental mind was very evidently displayed in its proneness to speculative inquiries into the spiritual mysteries and metaphysical regions of thought, and the dim theosophic mysticisms, which seemed to be connected with the great and primary truths of Christianity. On the other hand, the tendency of the Western mind to the steady pursuit of power, manifested the result of that training which the stern Roman republic and domineering Roman empire had given to Europe. It was not as having been the bishopric of the Apostle Peter, either in fact or in pretence, that Rome at first sought and began to acquire pre-eminence; but it was as the abode of secular dominion, the imperial city, in whose inhabitants ambition and love of power had become both a universal passion and an imagined right. The Eastern mind delighted in intellectual subtleties, and strove to gain the high position of supremacy in the regions of thought. The Western mind was characterized by a stern, invincible will, and sought the tangible dominion of absolute power and personal supremacy. These leading and characteristic distinctions may assist us in tracing the subject of investigation.

It was not till after Constantine the Great had resolved to raise Byzantium into the rank of an imperial city, to give it his own name, to divide the empire into two, and to make Constantinople the seat of the Eastern empire, that the characteristic distinctions already stated began to manifest their antagonistic tendencies. The Bishop of Constantinople became then the metropolitan in a second seat of empire, and ere long greatly absorbed the influence of the elder metropolitans of Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria. The title of metropolitan was raised to that of patriarch in all these apostolic seats, as they were beginning to be termed, but still the seat of Eastern empire gave pre-eminence to the Patriarch of Constantinople above the other Eastern patriarchs.

At length the great barbarian invasion of Huns, Goths, and Vandals overthrew imperial Rome, and reduced it to a simple monarchy. This event gave opportunity to the Bishop of Rome to assume and exercise a large measure of civil influence and power. In him seemed to be vested the heritage of imperial Rome's fallen greatness; and on that very account the Western nations readily acceded to the Pope of Rome the pre-eminence which had been wielded by the previous emperors. The very name of Rome was still a word of power, a spell wherewith to evoke the demon of ambition, and the Pope was the mighty magician to whom alone that word of power belonged. The popes, as already remarked, seemed naturally to imbibe the spirit of ambition and love of power by which the haughty city had been so long possessed. They were, therefore, very ready to avail themselves of the opportunity thus presented; and as the empire passed away, the popedom arose, grew, and succeeded to all the proud pretensions of the imperial Caesars.

In the meantime the Eastern seat of power, Constantinople, seemed to be, at least in secular affairs, the proper successor of imperial Rome; but in consequence of its position, it looked more like the successor of the empire founded by Alexander the Great. It began, therefore, to receive designations indicative of that position, and to be called the second, or the Lower Greek Empire. At a subsequent period, when the Eastern Church and the Western became separate, and hostile or rival bodies, the designation Greek Church, was given to the Eastern division, from that of Lower Greek Empire, which had become distinctive.

The ambitious tendencies of the Bishops of Rome were very early manifested. The first instance of that arrogance which produced a general disturbance in the church, and introduced the element of strife, causing a permanent difference, was that respecting the celebration of Easter. The Oriental churches followed the reckoning of the Jews as to the time of the Passover. The Western or Latin Church adopted a different computation. In the year 196, Victor, Bishop of Rome, addressed a letter to the Asiatics, expressly commanding them to conform to the practice of Rome. They convoked a synod, deliberated on the question, and refused to comply. Victor issued an edict of excommunication against the Oriental churches, which they indignantly repelled. The assumption of supremacy thus displayed by Rome was not admitted by the rest of the Christian Church; but neither was it withdrawn by Rome. Roman ambition appeared in the attempt repeatedly made by successive Popes to claim the right of ultimate jurisdiction, by having it conceded that in difficult or disputed cases there should be an appeal to Rome. This claim was, of course, favoured by parties who thought themselves injured, or who, in their desire to gain some peculiar point, sought the support of Rome—a support which she was willing to grant to any case, provided she could thereby obtain confirmation to her claim of appellate jurisdiction.

Early in the fifth century, the metropolitan jurisdiction of Constantinople was considerably extended, and the jealousy of Rome thereby excited. This was greatly increased when, in 451, the council of Chalcedon conferred on the Bishop of Constantinople the same honours and privileges which were already possessed by the Bishop of Rome, notwithstanding the strenuous opposition of Leo the Great, who was at that time Pope. Leo perceived very clearly the advantage which the rival pontiff enjoyed from the residence of the emperor; and to counteract that influence he appointed a resident legate in Constantinople to watch over the Papal interests, and to maintain a constant correspondence with the Vatican. The contest continued for nearly a century and a half, keeping the whole church in a state of incessant intrigue and agitation—the advantage on the whole inclining to Rome, chiefly in consequence of the ready countenance and support which the Popes gave to the discontented and turbulent who sought her aid, and thereby strove to strengthen the claim to appellate jurisdiction, in which supremacy was necessarily involved. In the year 588, in a synod held at Constantinople, John the Faster, Patriarch of Constantinople, adopted the title of universal bishop, a title which was vehemently condemned by Pope Gregory, although it does not seem to have been intended to confer any authority by that title at first, but to be merely an empty honour. In the possession of a Patriarch of Constantinople it could not indeed, confer power; because the emperor himself always contrived to retain all power, even ecclesiastical, in his own hands. The result was very different when the same title was conferred on the next Pope, Boniface III., by the em- peror Phocas in 606, which no subsequent emperor could recall, nor in any great degree control, in consequence of the independent position and residence of the Popes.

The contest for supremacy which had so long been waged between the Eastern and Western Churches, became at length a schism, in consequence of the introduction of a doctrinal element into the dispute. The most important doctrinal controversies which agitated the early church were those relating to the doctrine of the Trinity. The Arian heresy was a denial of the divinity of Christ. This was condemned in the council of Nice in 325. The divinity of the Holy Spirit was also disputed, but was affirmed in the council of Constantinople in 381, when also the Nicene Creed was revived and enlarged, so as to contain a clear statement and definition of the faith of the church. In that creed, so revived and authenticated, the definition of the Holy Spirit contained the words "proceeding from the Father." But at the council of Toledo, held in 447, the following words were added, "and the Son (Filioque) so that the definition became, 'proceeding from the Father and the Son.'" This clause did not attract much attention for some time; but when it did, it was immediately opposed by the Greek Church. It was, however, favourably received by the Western Church; was affirmed by a council held at Gentilly, near Paris, in 767; and was re-affirmed at the council of Aix-la-Chapelle in 809, where Pope Leo III admitted the truth of the doctrine, but objected to making it an article of faith. Rome, however, soon adopted the expression; and in order to defend it by authority, falsified the canons of the council of Constantinople by interpolating the very clause in dispute. This was of course easily detected, and added greatly to the bitterness of the controversy. But Rome adhered to the favourite maxim of Papal policy, never to retract any statement or assumption however false; because answers and refutations may be forgotten, but the incessant repetition of the false statement will finally lodge it in men's minds, by the mere force of iteration and re-iteration.

Some time after the rise of this controversy, a person of the name of Photius, a layman of great learning and ability, was made Patriarch of Constantinople by the Emperor Michael, who deposed Ignatius to make room for Photius. The deposed Patriarch appealed to Rome. Pope Nicholas assembled a council at Rome in 862, pronounced the elevation of Photius illegal, and excommunicated him and all his supporters. Photius retaliated, held a council at Constantinople, and pronounced deposition and excommunication on the Pope. From that time the contention between the Roman and the Greek Churches may be fairly said to have assumed the character of a schism; and, indeed, it is called by Romanist authors the Photian schism. But there was another event at a later period from which the actual schism is more commonly dated. About the middle of the eleventh century, when the power of Rome had been established over all the Western Churches, ambition urged on the proud claim of the Pope to universal supremacy; and Leo IX attempted to induce the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Antioch to submit to his sway. This drew forth the indignant opposition and remonstrances of Michael Cerularius, Patriarch of Constantinople; and after some angry correspondence with Rome, the Pope pronounced on him the sentence of excommunication. This was not at once final. The Papal legates were invited to Constantinople, with a view to heal the schism; but their insolence provoked severe retorts. The breach widened; and, at length, in the church of St Sophia, they publicly excommunicated the Patriarch and all his adherents, deposited their written sentence on the great altar, shook off the dust from their feet, and departed. This event took place on the 16th of June 1054; and the schism between Rome and Greece was completed.

From that time forward the Greek and Roman Churches have continued in a state of separation from each other, and generally in a state of considerable hostility. One attempt to obtain a reconciliation between them was made at the council of Florence in the year 1438. At that time the Greek Patriarch and his friends seemed disposed to concede almost everything in dispute for the sake of a re-union with Rome. Constantinople was then violently assailed by the Turks; and as the Greek empire was not able to resist the formidable enemy, the idea was entertained of attempting to organize a new crusade for its relief. But great as was the political danger, greater still was the ecclesiastical rivalry; and although the parties who attended the council at Florence would have yielded everything for the sake of a crusade, the Greek Church as a body was not disposed to ratify such extensive concessions, and the attempt proved abortive. The Greek Church would not admit the insertion of the Filioque clause, nor the supremacy of Rome, and nothing less could satisfy Rome. At a later period, when the Reformation had shaken the power of Rome in Europe, she was inclined to adopt a more conciliatory course with the Greek Church, and seemed really desirous of reunion. But it may easily be perceived that no such union is practicable, unless the Greek Church submit to the supremacy of the Pepe, which is not only a necessary principle, but the necessary principle with Rome. And, as the Filioque clause is inserted in the creed of Rome, it also must be admitted by the Greek Church, and with it every other Papal innovation. This would not be union, but absorption—the extinction of the Greek Church, and the extension of Papal Rome.

But there is another element of a very formidable character which has greatly increased the impracticability of such a union or absorption. Christianity was introduced into Russia from Constantinople about the year 866. The Church of Russia thus received its creed and ritual from the Greek Church before the schism between the Greek and Latin Churches had been consummated, yet so near the period of that schism as to receive with its creed a dislike to Rome. During several centuries the Russian Church was governed by a metropolitan bishop, whose seat was successively at Kieff, Vladimir, and Moscow. At length, in 1589, the Patriarch Jeremiah of Constantinople, on whose patriarchate the Russian Church had been dependent, went to Moscow, and consecrated the metropolitan bishop, Job, to the rank of Patriarch of all Russia. From that period the Church of Russia ceased to be dependent on the Greek Patriarch, though it continued to be identical in doctrine and ritual with the Greek Church. This was in many respects a very important event. The Lower Greek Empire had been overthrown when Constantinople was taken by the Turks in 1453. From that time forward, although the Patriarch of Constantinople was allowed by the Sultan to reside in that city as the official head of the Greek Church, yet his power and influence had undergone a sad decline. It was no longer possible that he could exercise much authority in the East, or maintain Christianity against the sway of the haughty Moslem. In the meanwhile Russia, relieved from the Mongolian domination, had begun to emerge out of barbarism, and to assume the position of an independent and growing power in the northern regions of both Asia and Europe. All the other Oriental patriarchates had also fallen under the Mohammedan power. Alexandria, Jerusalem, and Antioch were little more than names, once venerated, but now sinking into oblivion. If, then, the Greek Church was to continue in the enjoyment of an independent existence, that was possible only by its seat of power being transferred to Russia. And when so transferred, it became possible not only that its independent existence could be prolonged, but that as the church of a great and rapidly-increasing nation its own influence might also increase. There was still another change awaiting the Greek Church in Russia. The patriarchate had continued for little more than a century, when, on the death of the tenth Patriarch, Adrian, in the year 1700, a new crisis came. The sceptre of Russia was at that time swayed by the vigorous arm of that sublime barbarian Peter the Great. The genius of that marvellous man was set on the vast achievement of raising Russia at once to the rank of a great and even of a civilized power. For the accomplishment of such an enterprise, the possession of all power, civil and ecclesiastical, in the most absolute form, was necessary, that he might, by his sole unfettered energy, do the work of centuries in a lifetime. He prevented the election of another Patriarch, made himself head alike of both state and church, and appointed Stephen Yavorsky to the nominal rank of Guardian of the Patriarchate. Through this novel agency he ruled the church at his will, as he was also ruling the state. Finding a little disposable leisure in the year 1721, Peter set himself to frame a new constitution for the church. He constituted a supreme court for its government, called the most holy synod, of which he appointed himself president, and delegated a procurator to occupy his position in his absence, without whom no meeting of the synod could be held, and without whose consent no decision could be valid. Since that time the emperors of Russia have held the most absolute supremacy over the Church of Russia. It may be added, that as the Greek Church has no means of maintaining its independent existence in either Papal or Mohammedan countries, but must look to Russia as the only powerful country that adheres to its faith, the Russian autocrat may be said to hold the most absolute supremacy over the Greek Church wherever it exists, or at least to be naturally regarded as its protector.

From this historical survey we can mark the relations of the Greek Church to other Christian churches. Its relations to that of Rome may be very easily seen and understood. Till the period of the fifth century there was no other essential ground of difference between them than what arose from their conflicting claims of supremacy. In doctrinal matters they were nearly identical. They had not borrowed from each other, but both held the doctrines which had been declared by the general councils. From that position the Greek Church has scarcely moved. An accurate knowledge of the doctrines and ritual of the Church in the fifth century will therefore adequately represent and explain all that is common to the Churches of Greece and Rome. The schism which took place at a later period has rendered the Greek Church a standing testimony against Rome with regard to the subsequent errors and corruptions of that rival system—a testimony with which Papal controversialists find it very difficult to deal.

The controversy between the Greek Church and Rome must needs be interminable as a ground of separation, unless Rome renounce her claims both of universal supremacy and of infallibility,—that is, unless she cease to be Papal; or unless the Greek Church submit so entirely to all the claims of Rome, that she would cease to have any independent existence. But, still more, the position which the Greek Church so long held, as independent of Rome, was almost entirely the result of its direct connection with the Lower Greek Empire, and its dependence upon the emperors. Throughout all the period of its existence the Greek Church has been subservient to the civil power. Its elevation to patriarchate dignity was due solely to its connection with the seat of empire. Its Russian branch obtained similar rank in consequence of the rise of Russia into a great monarchy. The absorption of all ecclesiastical power by the state under Peter the Great, though placing it in a condition of greater suberviency than it had ever before experienced, was nevertheless only the extreme development of its hereditary servitude. It is not, therefore, now in the power of the Greek Church to unite with Rome without the permission of the Emperor of Russia. The memory of her former intercourse with Rome can have left no such favourable impression on Russia as to make her willing to resume it. About the year 1590, Ignatius Potsi, Bishop of Vladimir, commenced a series of intrigues for the purpose of effecting a union between the Russian Church and that of Rome; and, in 1596, a strong party was formed in the Polish and Lithuanian provinces, termed Uniates, from their support of the proposed union, whose adherents soon amounted to four millions. Every effort of force, fraud, treachery, and rebellion—all that Jesuits could suggest, and traitors accomplish—was tried by the Uniates for many years, causing incessant turmoil and bloodshed in the large district which they inhabited—making Lithuania an Ireland to Russia. This continued till so recent a period as the year 1839, when three millions of the Uniates were reconciled to the Russian Church, to the great delight of the Emperor Nicholas. The sufferings inflicted on the nuns of Minsk may testify by what peculiarly Russian persuasives this reconciliation was effected. It may be very confidently believed that there is not the slightest probability of any cordial agreement between the Roman Church and the Russian element, now the ruling one, of the Greek Church.

There is one other point to which reference may be made, rather as a matter of curiosity than on account of its public importance. About the year 1723 there was a proposal made by certain Anglican bishops respecting the possibility of union with the Greek Church. But when the creed of the Church of England was examined, it was found to be far too deeply imbued with the principles of the Reformation to suit the views of the Eastern Church; and though there was no formal rejection, the proposal was laid aside. It is of some interest also to know that similar notions about a possible union with the Greek Church have been promulgated by certain Puseyite clergymen at present. Their attempt, it may be anticipated, will prove equally abortive, though it may somewhat embarrass British statesmen.

The chief points of difference between the Greek Church and that of Rome are the following:—1. The Greek Church does not admit—1. The supremacy of Rome. 2. The Filioque clause in the creed. 3. The enforced celibacy of the parochial clergy; though monks and bishops must be unmarried. (The reason of this is, that although the monastic system had begun before the schism, the celibacy of the regular clergy had not been enforced till a later period, and this was not adopted by the Greek Church.) 4. The doctrine of transubstantiation, in the Papal sense of that term, is not held by the Greek Church. (Rome itself did not adopt this strange tenet till the council of Lateran in 1215.) 5. The dogmas of purgatory and penance, as taught by Rome, are not held by the Greek Church; yet some of their views bear a close resemblance to the Papal theories on these points. 6. The Greek Church disagrees with that of Rome about the use of leaven in the Eucharist. In almost all other respects there is little difference between the Greek and Roman Churches, because both are as corrupt as the church of the fifth century, and both have hitherto rejected the Reformation. The Greek Church is thoroughly hierarchical; holds the monastic system; worships pictures, although it rejects the worship of images; gives to the Virgin Mary as high a degree of worship as even Rome can—its theory of the Panagia being scarcely distinguishable from that of the Immaculate Conception.

The following inferences, of some importance in the present state of European and Eastern affairs, may be fairly drawn:—1. The Greek Church cannot unite with Rome, in consequence of Rome's claim of supremacy, and the hereditary rivalry of the two on that point. 2. The Greek Church cannot submit to Rome, because the ecclesiastical supremacy of the Emperor of Russia is the exact counter- part and express antagonism of the Pope. 3. The errors which the Greek Church holds in common with Rome are not derived from Rome, but are those common to the whole church in the fifth century. 4. The Greek Church could become Protestant, because it never has denied, and cannot, consistently with its own creed, deny, either the authority or the free circulation of the Scriptures. 6. One single Christian-minded and wise Russian emperor could place the Greek Church in Russia in friendly relation with evangelical Protestantism, which, indeed, the Emperor Alexander I. seemed inclined to do. Even in Russia there is one element looking in that direction, namely, the Staroveri, or Staroverets, or "Old Believers," who dissent from the doctrine of Imperial Supremacy, and are active in diffusing the Bible. That body amounts, it is said, to about five millions of native Russians. They are, however, discountenanced, depressed, and to some extent persecuted by the Czar. But although there is no necessary antagonism between the Greek and Protestant Churches, yet the Greek Church hates, opposes, and persecutes Protestants, so far as it can.

The Greek Church bears, in its organization and external forms, a very close resemblance to that of Rome; as might be expected from their mutual origin in the corrupt Christianity of the fifth century. The Patriarch of Constantinople was the virtual Pope of the Eastern Church till the taking of Constantinople by the Turks, with this special difference, that the Patriarch was never allowed to exercise any civil authority. Since that period the Sultan has allowed the existence of the Patriarch, and recognised his religious superiority over those of his own creed; but has himself held the power of appointing to, or deposing from, that office, for which he exacts a tribute or purchase before investiture. Archbishops and bishops also are required to purchase their official dignity by the payment of a tribute to the Turkish government. The officiating clergy of the Greek Church are the Patriarch, archbishops, and bishops, and subordinate to these are the parishes or parish priests. All the dignitaries are taken from among the caloys or monastic orders, and are not allowed to marry; but the parishes may be married, with these special limitations—that they be married previous to their consecration, and may not marry a second time, should they become widowers. Hence they are commonly married before taking orders, and invariably select young and healthy women for their wives. The revenues of the dignitaries are raised by a tax imposed on each family, while the parish priests are supported chiefly by means of what they can wring from the superstitions of the people as perquisites of office, such as money paid for absolutions, benedictions, exorcisms, ceremonial sanctifications of water, sprinklings of streets and tombs, granting divorces, and innumerable ritualistic observances. They are almost universally a base and degraded class themselves, extremely ignorant, and they keep the people in equal degradation and ignorance, partly because such is their own state, and partly that they may secure their influence.

Their places of worship are built generally in form of a cross. The choir is always placed towards the east; and the people turn their faces in that direction when they pray. Their public religious service is liturgical and exceedingly protracted. They have four liturgies; and the service consists chiefly of prayers, hymns, recitative chants, and frequent crossings, with such numerous repetitions that it often occupies five or six hours, without any sermon. During this long service the people stand leaning on the supports of the few seats in the church, or on a kind of crutches provided for that purpose. No images are allowed within their churches; but they are plentifully decorated with rough and glaring paintings, and the more rough and glaring these are, the better are they in the estimation of the worshippers. Their music is without any aid from instruments, and is chiefly a kind of chanting, but is said to be often beautiful and touchingly plaintive, although monotonous. The vestments of the clergy are very varied in form, and often of fine texture, gorgeous in colour, and ornamented with jewellery of great value. Each of these vestments has its mystic meaning and virtue, to which great importance is attached. The worship of saints, angels, and the Virgin Mary is carried to as great an excess as it can be at Rome; and it is long since the Greek Church held that the "Mother of God," as they term her, was without original sin. It may be said, indeed, that the Panagia, or Holy Virgin, is the peculiar deity of the Greeks, as much as ever Pallas Athene was of the ancient Athenians. Everywhere, in church, palace, or cottage, a little coarse picture, intended to represent the Holy Virgin, may be seen, often with a lamp burning before it as the object of special adoration.

The Greek Church is also burdened by an immense number of fasts and saints' days. The secular Greeks observe four Lents, and the caloys or monks, two more. The first of these lasts two months, the second forty days, the third is variable, and the fourth continues from the 1st of August till the festival of the Assumption, on the 15th. All Wednesdays and Fridays are fasts, and a vast number of saints' days are also observed, so that of the whole year there are only about 130 days free from fasts or festivals, by means of which the common people are either crushed into idleness and poverty, or rendered regardless of religion.

The Russian division of the Greek Church has nearly absorbed the whole, so far as regards its relation to other communities. The Patriarch of Constantinople has long been dependent on the Sultan. The Patriarch of Alexandria is obeyed by only two churches. In Antioch the adherents of the patriarchate can be all accommodated in a single room in a dwelling-house. The Patriarch of Jerusalem resides chiefly at Constantinople, and owes any power he possesses to the holy places held by Greek monks in Palestine, which the Romanists, by means of a French agent, recently attempted to seize, an attempt which tended to precipitate the present war, in consequence of the intervention of Russia as the avowed protector of the Greek Church.

An approximation is all that can be made towards an estimate of the numbers adhering to the several divisions of the Greek Church; and in this we follow Marouviéff and Neale,—chiefly the latter, as the most recent authority.

| Division | Number | |----------------------------------|--------------| | In Russia | 50,000,000 | | In Turkey | 12,000,000 | | In Greece, Montenegro, &c. | 800,000 | | In the Austrian dominions | 2,800,000 | | In the Patriarchate of Alexandria| 5,000 | | In Asia Minor and Cyprus | 150,000 | | In the Patriarchate of Jerusalem | 15,000 |

Total, about 65,770,000

Of these, as will be seen, at least 50,000,000 belong to Russia alone, forming the only division of this ancient nominally Christian Church, which has now any degree of power for good or evil, and possessing that power only as the Russian autocrat may please to permit, or may think proper to employ it, as an engine of despotism. The jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople extends nominally over the Greek Church in Turkey, Servavia, Galicia, Anatolia, and the Ionian Isles; but his influence has sunk to the merest semblance of power in all these countries. In Servia the metropolitan Bishop of Belgrade maintains an independent authority. There seems no probability that the Greek Church, either in Turkey or Asia, can again be united under one Patriarch, so as to become active and powerful; and it may be hoped the course of modern events will so protect and encourage the progress of a sound and free Bible Christianity, as to rescue from superstition, enlighten, and elevate the inhabitants of that lovely and fertile region of the earth, the ancient home of freedom, and closely connected with the birth-place of true religion. (W.M.H.)