Chapter VI: The Church Outside of the Roman Empire.185 (1)

§ 64. MISSIONARY OPERATIONS IN THE EAST.

The real missionarizing church of this period was the Western (§ 75 ff.). It was pre-eminently fitted for this by its practical tendency and called to it by its intimate connection with the hordes of the migrating peoples. Examples of organized missionary activity in the East are rare. Yet other more occasional ways were opened for the spread of Christianity outside of the empire, by Christian fugitives and prisoners of war, political embassies and trade associations. Anchorets, monks and stylites, too, who settled on the borders of the empire or in deserts outside, by their extraordinary appearance made a powerful impression on the surrounding savage tribes. These streamed in in crowds, and those strange saints preached Christ to them by word and work.

§ 64.1. =The Ethiopic-Abyssinian Church.=[186]--About A.D. 316
a certain Meropius of Tyre on a voyage of discovery to the
countries south of Egypt was murdered with his whole ship’s
company. Only his two nephews Frumentius and Aedesius were spared.
They won the favour of the Abyssinian king and became the tutors
of the heir apparent, Aizanas. Frumentius was subsequently, in
A.D. 438, ordained by Athanasius bishop of the country. Aizanas
was baptised, the church spread rapidly from Abyssinia to
Ethiopia and Numidia. A translation of the bible into the Geez
dialect, the language of the country, is attributed to Frumentius.
Closely connected with the Egyptian mother church, it fell with
it into Monophysitism (§ 52, 7). In worship and discipline,
besides much that is primitive, it has borrowed many things
from Judaism, and retained many of the old habits of the country,
_e.g._ observing the Sabbath alongside of the Sunday, forbidding
certain meats, circumcision, covenanting. Their canon comprised
81 books: besides the biblical, there are 16 patristic writings
of the Pre-Chalcedonian age.

§ 64.2. =The Persian Church.=--The church had taken root in
Persia as early as the 3rd century. With the 4th century there
came a sore time of bloody persecution, which was constantly fed
partly by the fanatical Magians, partly by the almost incessant
wars with the Christian Roman empire, which aroused suspicion of
foreign sympathies hostile to the country. The first great and
extensive persecution of the Christians broke out in A.D. 343
under Shapur or Sapores [Sapor] II. It lasted 35 years and during
this dreadful time 16,000 of the clergy, monks and nuns were
put to death, but the number of martyrs from the laity was far
beyond reckoning. Only shortly before his death Shapur [Sapor]
stopped the persecution and proclaimed universal religious
toleration. During 40 years’ rest the Persian church attained
to new vigour; but the fanaticism of Bishop Abdas of Susa who
caused a fire-temple to be torn down in A.D. 418, occasioned
a new persecution, which reached its height in A.D. 420 under
Bahram or Baranes V. and was carried on for 30 years with the
most fiendish ingenuity of cruel tortures. The generosity of a
Christian bishop, Acacius of Amida in Mesopotamia, who by the
sale of the church property redeemed a multitude of Persian
prisoners of war and sent them to their homes, at last moved
the king to stop the persecution. The Nestorians driven from the
Roman empire found among the Persians protection and toleration,
but were the occasion under king Firuz or Peroz of a new
persecution of the Catholics, A.D. 465. In A.D. 498 the whole
Persian church declared in favour of Nestorianism (§ 52, 3),
and enjoyed forthwith undisturbed toleration, developed to an
unexpected extent, retained its bloom for centuries, gave itself
zealously to scientific studies in the seminaries at Nisibis,
and undertook successfully mission work among the Asiatic tribes.
The war with the Byzantines continued without interruption.
Chosroes II. advanced victoriously as far as Chalcedon in
A.D. 616 and persecuted with renewed cruelty the Catholic
Christians of the conquered provinces. Finally the emperor
Heraclius plucked up courage. By the utter rout of A.D. 628
the power of the Persians was broken (§ 57, 5), and in A.D. 651
the Khalifs overthrew the dynasty of the Sassanidæ.

§ 64.3. =The Armenian Church.=--There were flourishing Christian
churches in Armenia so early as Tertullian’s time. The Arsacian
ruler Tiridates III., from A.D. 286, was a violent persecutor
of the Christians. During his reign, however, Gregory the
Illuminator, the Apostle of Armenia, carried on his successful
labours. He was the son of a Parthian prince, who, snatched
when a child of two years’ old by his nurse from the midst
of a massacre of his whole family, received in Cappadocia a
Christian training. In A.D. 302 he succeeded in winning over
to Christianity the king and the whole country. He left behind
him the church which he thus founded in a most prosperous
condition. His grandson Husig, his great grandson Nerses I.
and his son Isaac the Great held possession of the patriarchal
dignity and flourished even in the hard times, when Byzantines,
Arsacides, and Sassanidæ fought for possession of the country.
Mesrop, with the help of Isaac, whose successor he became in
A.D. 440 (dying in A.D. 441), gave to his church a translation
of the bible into their own tongue, for which he had to invent
a national alphabet. Under his successor, the patriarch Joseph,
the famous religious war with the Persian Sassanidæ broke
out, who wished to lead back the Armenians to the doctrine
of Zoroaster. In the fierce battle at the river Dechmud in
A.D. 451 the holy league was defeated. But Armenia still
maintained amid sore persecution its Christian confession.
In A.D. 651 the overthrow of the Sassanidæ brought it under
the rule of the Khalifs.--The Armenian church had vigorously
and earnestly warded off Nestorianism, but willingly opened
its arms to Monophysitism introduced from Byzantine Armenia.
At a synod at Feyin, in A.D. 527, it condemned the Chalcedonian
dogma.--Gregory the Illuminator had excited among the Armenians
an exceedingly lively interest in culture and science, and when
Mesrop gave them an independent system of writing, the golden age
of Armenian literature dawned (the 5th century). Not only were
many works of classical and patristic Greek and Syrian literature
made the property of the Armenians through translations, but
numerous writers built up a literature of their own. The history
of the conversion of Armenia was written in the 4th century
by Agathangelos, private secretary of the king. Whether this
was composed in Greek or in Armenian is doubtful; both texts
are still extant, evidently much interpolated with fabulous
matter and also in many points conflicting with one another.
In the 5th century Eznik in his “Overthrow of Heretics” addressed
a vigorous polemic against pagans, Persians, Marcionites and
Manichæans. Moses of Chorene, also a scholar of Mesrop, composed
from the archives a history of Armenia, and Elisaeus described
the Armeno-Persian religious war, in which, as secretary of the
Armenian commander in chief, he had taken part. On the service
done by the Mechitarists to the old Armenian literature, see
§ 164, 2.[187]

§ 64.4. =The Iberians=, in what is now called Georgia and Grusia,
received Christianity about A.D. 326 through an Armenian female
slave Nunia, whose prayer had healed many sick. The church then
extended from Iberia to the =Lazians= in what is now Colchias
and among the neighbouring =Abasgians=. In =India= Theophilus
of Diu (an island of the Arabian Gulf?) found in the middle
of the 4th century several isolated Christian communities. He
was sent by his fellow-citizens as hostage to Constantinople and
there was educated for the Arian priesthood. He then returned
home and carried on a successful mission among the Indians.
The relations of the Indian to the Persian church led to the
former becoming affected with Nestorianism (§ 52, 3). Cosmas
Indicopleustes (§ 48, 2) found in the 6th century three Christian
churches still surviving in India. Theophilus also wrought in
=Arabia=. He succeeded in converting the king of the Himyarite
kingdom at Yemen. In the 6th century, however, a Jew Dhu-Nowas
obtained for himself the sovereignty of Yemen and persecuted the
Christians with unheard of barbarity. At last Eleesban king of
Abyssinia interfered; the crowned Jew was slain, and from that
time Yemen had Christian kings till the Persian Chosroes II. made
it a Persian province in A.D. 616. Anchorets, monks and stylites
wrought successfully among the Arab nomadic hordes.

§ 65. THE COUNTER-MISSION OF THE MOHAMMEDANS.[188]

Abu Al’ Kasem Mohammed from Mecca made his appearance as a prophet in A.D. 611, and founded a mixed religion of arid Monotheism and sensual Endæmonism drawn from Judaism, Christianity and Arabian paganism. His work first gained importance when driven from Mecca he fled to Medina (Hejira, 15th July, A.D. 622). In A.D. 630 he conquered Mecca, consecrated the old Heathen Kaaba as the chief temple of the new religion, Islam (hence Moslems), and composed the Coran, consisting of 114 suras, which had been collected by his father-in-law, Abu Bekr. At his death all Arabia had accepted his faith and his rule. As he made it the most sacred duty of his adherents to spread the new religion by the sword and had inspired them with a wild fanaticism, his successors snatched one province after another from the Roman empire and the Christian church. Within a few years, A.D. 633-651, they conquered all Syria, Palestine, Egypt and Persia, then, in A.D. 707, North Africa, and, in A.D. 711, Spain. Farther, however, they could not go for the present. Twice they unsuccessfully besieged Constantinople, A.D. 669-676, and A.D. 717-718, and, in A.D. 732, Charles Martel at Tours completely crushed all their hopes of extending further into the West. But the whole Asiatic church was already reduced by their oppressions to the most miserable condition, and three patriarchates, those of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem, were forced to submit to their caprices. Amid manifold oppressions the Christians in those conquered lands were tolerated on the payment of a tax, but fear and an eye to worldly advantages led whole crowds of nominal Christians to profess Islam.

§ 65.1. =The Fundamental Principle of Islam= is an arid
Monotheism. Abraham, Moses and Jesus are regarded as God-sent
prophets. The miraculous birth of Jesus, by a virgin, is also
accepted, and Mary is identified with Miriam the sister of Moses.
The ascension of Christ is also received. Mohammed, the last and
highest of all the prophets, of whom Moses and Christ prophesied,
has restored to its original purity his doctrine, which had
been corrupted by Jews and Christians. At the end of the days
Christ will come again to conquer Antichrist and give universal
sovereignty to Islam. Most conspicuous among the corruptions
of the doctrine of Jesus is the dogma of the Trinity, which
is without more ado pronounced Tritheism, and conceived of as
including the mother of Jesus as the third person. So too the
incarnation of God is regarded as a falsification. The doctrine
of divine providence is strongly emphasized, but is contorted
into the grossest fatalism. The Mussulman is in need of no
atonement. Faith in the one God and His prophet Mohammed secure
for him the divine favour, and his good works win for him the
most abundant fulness of eternal blessedness, which consists in
absolutely unrestricted sensual enjoyments. The constitution is
theocratic; the prophet and his successors the Khalifs are God’s
vicegerents on earth. Worship is restricted to prayers, fastings
and washings. The Sunna or tradition of oral utterances of the
prophet is acknowledged as a second principal source for Islam,
alongside of the Coran. The opposition of the Shiites to the
Sunnites is rooted in the non-recognition of the first three
Khalifs and the prophet’s utterances only witnessed to by them.
Mysticism was first fostered among the Ssufis. The Wechabites,
who first appear in the 12th century, are the Puritans of Islam.

§ 65.2. =The Providential Place of Islam.=--The service under
Providence rendered by Mohammedanism which first attracts
attention is the doom which it executed upon the debased church
and state of the East. But it seems also to have had a positive
task which must be sought mainly in its relation to heathenism.
It regarded the abolition of idolatry as its principal task.
Neither the prophet nor his successors gave any toleration to
paganism. Islam converted a mass of savage races in Asia and
Africa from the most senseless and immoral idolatries to the
worship of the one God, and raised them to a certain stage of
culture and morality to which they could never have risen of
themselves. But also upon yet another side, though only in a
passing way, it has served a providential purpose, in spurring
on mediæval Christianity by its example of devotion to scientific
pursuits. Syncretic, as its religious and intellectual life
originally was, during its flourishing period from A.D. 750,
under the brilliant dynasty of the Abassidean Khalifs at Bagdad
in Asia, and from A.D. 756 (comp. § 81) under the no less
brilliant dynasty of the Ommaiadean Khalifs at Cordova in Spain,
driven out by the Abassidæ from Damascus, it readily appropriated
the elements of culture which the classical literature of
the ancient Greeks afforded it (§ 42, 4), and with youthful
enthusiasm its scholars for centuries on this foundation kept
alive and advanced scientific studies--philosophy, astronomy,
mathematics, natural science, medicine, geography, history--and
by their appropriation of those researches the Latin Middle Ages
reached to the height of their scientific culture (§ 103, 1).
But also the reawakening of classical studies in the Byzantine
Middle Ages (§ 68, 1), which is of still more importance for the
West (§ 120, 1), is preeminently due to the impetus given by the
scientific enthusiasm of the Moslems of Bagdad, who shamed the
Greeks into the study of their own literature. With the overthrow
of those two dynasties, the culture period of the Moslems closed
suddenly and for ever, but not until it had accomplished its task
for the Christian world.[189]

THIRD SECTION.

HISTORY OF THE GRÆCO-BYZANTINE CHURCH
IN THE 8TH-15TH CENTURIES
(A.D. 692-1453).

I. Developments of the Greek Church in Combination
with the Western.

§ 66. ICONOCLASM OF THE BYZANTINE CHURCH (A.D. 726-842).[190]

The worship of images (§ 57, 4) had reached its climax in the East in the beginning of the 8th century. Even the most zealous defenders of images had to admit that there had been exaggerations and abuses. Some, _e.g._, had taken images as their godfathers, scraped paint off them to mix in the communion wine, laid the consecrated bread first on the images so as to receive the body of the Lord from their hands, etc. A powerful Byzantine ruler, who was opposed to image worship from personal dislike as well as on political grounds, applied the whole strength of his energetic will to the uprooting of this superstition. Thus arose a struggle that lasted more than a hundred years between the enemies of images (εἰκονοκλάσται) and the friends of images (εἰκονολάτραι), in which there stood, on the one side, the emperor and the army, on the other, the monks and the people. Twice it seemed as if image worship had been completely and for ever stamped out; but on both occasions a royal lady secured its restoration. In practice indeed the Roman church remained behind the Greek, but in theory they were agreed, and in the struggle it gave the whole weight of its authority to the friends of images. On the part taken by the Frankish church, see § 92, 1.

§ 66.1. =Leo III., the Isaurian, A.D. 717-741.=--Leo, who was
one of the most powerful of the Byzantine emperors, after the
attack of the Saracens on Constantinople, in A.D. 718, had
been successfully repelled, felt himself obliged to take other
measures against the aggressions of Islam. In the worship of
images abhorred by Jews and Moslems he perceived the greatest
obstacle to their conversion, and, being personally averse to
image worship, he issued an edict, in A.D. 726, which first
ordered the images to be placed higher in the churches that
it might be impossible for the people to kiss them. But the
peaceable overcoming of this deeply rooted form of devotion
was frustrated by the unconquerable firmness of the ninety-year
old patriarch Germanus in Constantinople, as well as by the
opposition of the people and the monks. The greatest dogmatist
of this age, Joh. Damascenus, who was secured from the rage
of the emperor in Palestine under Saracen rule, issued three
spirited tracts in defence of the images. A certain Cosmas
took advantage of a popular rising in the Cyclades, had himself
proclaimed emperor and went with a fleet against Constantinople.
But Leo conquered and had him executed, and now in a second edict
of A.D. 730 ordered all images to be removed from the churches.
Now began a war against images by military force, which went
to great excess in fanatical violence. Repeated popular tumults
were quelled in blood. Only in Rome and North Italy did the
powerful arm of the emperor make no impression. Pope Gregory II.,
A.D. 715-731, treated him in his letters like a stupid,
ill-mannered school-boy. In proportion as the bitterness
against the emperor increased enthusiasm for the pope increased,
and gave expression to itself in the most vehement revolts
against the imperial Council. A great part of the exarchate
(§ 46, 9) surrendered voluntarily to the Longobards and so
much of it in the north as remained with the emperor proved
more obedient to the pope than to the sovereign. Gregory III.,
A.D. 731-741, at a Synod in Rome in A.D. 731 excommunicated
all enemies of images. The emperor fitted out a powerful fleet
to chastise him, but a storm broke it up. He now deprived the
pope of all his revenues from Southern Italy, severed Illyria
(§ 46, 5) in A.D. 732 from the papal chair and gave it to the
patriarch of Constantinople, but in doing so he cut the last
cord that bound the Roman chair to the interests of the Byzantine
Court (§ 82, 1).

§ 66.2. =Constantine V. A.D. 741-775.=--To the son and successor
of Leo the monks gave the unsavoury names of Copronymus and
Caballinus in token of their hatred, the latter on account
of his love of horses, the former because it was said that
at his baptism he had defiled the water. He was like his father
a powerful ruler and soldier, and in the battle against images
yet more reckless and determined. He conquered his brother-in-law
who had rebelled with the aid of the friends of the images, and
caused him to be cruelly treated and blinded. As popular tumults
still continued, he thought to get ecclesiastical sanction
for his principles from an œcumenical Council. About 350 bishops
assembled in Constantinople, A.D. 754. But, as the chair of
Constantinople had just become vacant, while Rome, which had
excommunicated the enemies of images, refused to answer the
summons, and Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem were under Saracen
rule, there was not a single patriarch present at the Synod.
The Council excommunicated all who made images of Christ, for
it declared that the Supper was the only true image of Christ,
and condemned every kind of veneration of images. These decrees
were now relentlessly carried out with savage violence. Thousands
of monks were scourged, imprisoned, banished, chased through
the circus with nuns in their arms for the sport of the people,
or forced into marriage, many had their eyes gouged out, or had
their nose or ears cut off, and the monasteries were turned into
barracks or stables. Even in private houses no image of a saint
was any longer to be seen. From Rome Stephen II. protested
against the decisions of the Council, and Stephen III. from
a Lateran Synod of A.D. 769 thundered a fearful anathema against
the enemies of images. But in the Byzantine empire monkery and
image worship were well nigh extinguished.

§ 66.3. =Leo IV., Chazarus, A.D. 775-780.=--The son of
Constantine was of the same mind with his father, but wanted
his energy. His wife =Irene= was an eager friend of the images.
When the emperor discovered this, he began to take active
measures, but his suspiciously sudden death put a stop to
operations. Irene now used the freedom which the minority
of her son Constantine VI. afforded her for the introduction
of image worship. She called a new Council at Constantinople
in A.D. 786, which also Hadrian I. of Rome attended, while the
other patriarchs, being under Saracen rule, took no part in it.
But the imperial guard attacked the place where they were sitting,
and broke up the Council. Irene now arranged for the =Seventh
Œcumenical Council at Nicæa, A.D. 787=. The eighth and last
session was held in the imperial palace at Constantinople, after
the guards had been withdrawn from the city and disarmed. The
Council annulled the decisions of A.D. 754, and sanctioned image
worship for it allowed the bowing and prostration before the
images (τιμητικὴ προσκύνησις) as a token of the reverence
which was due to the original, and declared that this in no
way interfered with that worship (λατρεία) which was due to
God alone.[191]

§ 66.4. The next emperors were friendly to image worship, but
the victory had departed from their standards. Then the army,
which had always been hostile to images, proclaimed =Leo V.,
the Armenian, A.D. 813-820=, emperor, an avowed opponent of
images. He proceeded very cautiously, but the soldiers set aside
his prudence and launched out into violent raids against images.
At the head of the patrons of images was Theodorus Studita, abbot
of the monastery of Studion (§ 44, 2), a man of unfeigned piety
and unfaltering decision of character, the most acute apologist
of image worship, who had even in exile been eagerly promoting
the interests of his party. He died in A.D. 826. Leo lost his
life at the hand of conspirators. His successor, =Michael II.,
Balbus, A.D. 820-829=, allowed at least that images should be
reverenced in private. His son =Theophilus, A.D. 829-842=, on
the other hand, made it the business of his life to root out
entirely every trace of image worship. But his wife =Theodora=,
who after his death conducted the government as regent, had it
formally reintroduced by a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 842.
Since then all opposition to it has ceased in the Greek church,
and the day of the Synodal decision, 19th February, was appointed
a standing festival of orthodoxy.

§ 67. DIVISION BETWEEN GREEK AND ROMAN CHURCHES AND
ATTEMPTS AT UNION, A.D. 857-1453.[192]

The second Trullan Council in A.D. 692 had given the first occasion to the great schism which rent the Christian world into two halves (§ 63, 2); Photius gave it a doctrinal basis in A.D. 867; and Michael Cærularius in A.D. 1053 completed its development. The increasing need of the Byzantine government drove it to make repeated attempts at reconciliation, but these either were never concluded or the union, if at all completed, proved a mere paper union. The Sisyphus labour of union efforts ended only with the overthrow of the Byzantine empire in A.D. 1453. The three stages referred to--the early misunderstandings, the avowed doctrinal divergence, and the final decisive separation--as well as the persistent rejection of attempts at reunion, were not wholly owing to the importance of ceremonial differences. After as well as before there had been free church communion between them. It was not owing to the importance of the almost solitary point of doctrinal difference between them, in reference to the _filioque_ (§ 50, 7), where if there had been good will a common understanding might easily have been won. It was really the papal claims to the primacy to which the Greeks absolutely refused to submit.

§ 67.1. =Foundation of the Schism, A.D. 867.=--During the
minority of the emperor Michael III., son of Theodora (§ 66, 4),
surnamed the Drunkard, his uncle Bardas, Theodora’s brother,
directed the government. Ignatius, patriarch of Constantinople
at that time, himself descended from the imperial family, lashed
severely the godless, vicious life of the court, and in A.D. 857
kept back from the communion the all-powerful Bardas, who lived
in incestuous intercourse with his own daughter-in-law. He was
then deposed and banished. =Photius=, the most learned man of his
age, previously commander of the imperial bodyguard, was raised
to the vacant chair, and inherited the hatred of all the friends
of Ignatius. He made proposals of agreement which were proudly
and scornfully rejected. He then held a Synod in A.D. 859, which
confirmed the deposition of Ignatius and excommunicated him. But
nothing in the world could make his party abandon his claims. Now
Photius wished to be able to lay in the scales the Roman bishop’s
approval of his questionable proceedings. He therefore laid
an account of matters highly favourable to himself before Pope
=Nicholas I.=, and sought his brotherly love and intercessions.
The pope answered that he must first examine the whole affair.
His two legates, Rhodoald of Porto and Zacharias of Anagni, were
bribed and at a Council at Constantinople in A.D. 861 gave their
consent to the deposition of Ignatius. Nicholas, however, had
other reporters. He excommunicated his own legates and pronounced
Ignatius the lawful patriarch. Bitterness of feeling reached its
height in Constantinople, when soon thereafter the Bulgarians
broke their connection with the Byzantine mother church and
submitted to the pope (§ 73, 3). Photius now by an Encyclica
of A.D. 866 called the patriarchs of the East to a Council
at Constantinople, and charged the Roman church with the most
extreme heresies; that it enjoined fasting on Saturday (§ 56, 1),
allowed milk, butter and cheese to be eaten during the first
week of the Quadragesima (§ 56, 7), did not acknowledge married
priests (§ 45, 2), did not prohibit the clergy from shaving the
beard (§ 45, 1), pronounced anointing by a presbyter invalid
(§ 35, 4), but above all, that by the addition of the _filioque_
(§ 50, 7) it had falsified the creed, recognising thus two
principles and so falling back into dualism. With such heresies
too the pope had now infected the Bulgarians. The meeting of the
Council took place in A.D. 867. Three monks, tutored by Photius,
represented the patriarchs under Saracen rule. Excommunication
and deposition were hurled against the pope, and this sentence
was communicated to the Western churches. The pope was evidently
alarmed. He justified himself before the Frankish clergy and
insisted that they should answer the charges of the Greeks
in a scholarly reply. This was done by several, most ably by
Ratramnus, monk at Corbie. But during that year, A.D. 867, the
emperor Michael was murdered. His murderer and successor Basil
the Macedonian undertook the patronage of the party of Ignatius,
and asked of Pope Hadrian II. a new investigation and decision.
A =Synod at Constantinople, A.D. 869=, counted by the Latins
the 8th œcumenical, condemned Photius and restored Ignatius.
The deciding about the Bulgarians, however, was not committed
to the Council but to the reputed representatives of the Saracen
patriarchs as impartial umpires. They naturally decided in favour
of the Byzantine patriarch. In vain the legates remonstrated.
Photius in other respects under misfortune displays a character
worthy of our esteem. For several years he languished without
company, without books, under the strictest monastic rules.
Yet he reconciled himself to Ignatius. Basil entrusted him with
the education of his children, and on the death of Ignatius in
A.D. 878, restored him to the patriarchate. But still the ban of
an œcumenical Council lay upon him. Only a new œcumenical Council
could vindicate him. John VIII. agreed to this against the
remonstrances of the Bulgarians. But at the ninth =Council
at Constantinople, A.D. 879=, the eighth according to the Greeks,
the papal legates were completely duped. There was no mention of
the Bulgarians, the Council of A.D. 869 was repudiated, and every
one excommunicated who dared add anything to the creed. The pope
afterwards indeed launched an anathema against the patriarch,
his Council, and his followers. The succeeding emperor, Leo the
Philosopher, A.D. 886-911, again deposed Photius in A.D. 886, but
only that he might put an imperial prince in his place. Photius
died in monastic exile in A.D. 891.

§ 67.2. =Leo VI., the Philosopher, A.D. 886-911.=--This emperor
was three times married without having any children. He married
the fourth only when he had assured himself that she would not
be barren. The patriarch Nicolaus [Nicolas] Mysticus refused
(§ 61, 2) to celebrate the marriage and was deposed. A Synod
at Constantinople in A.D. 906, attended by the legates of Pope
Sergius III., approved the marriage and the deposition. But
on his deathbed Leo repented of his violence. His brother and
successor Alexander restored the patriarch Nicolas, and Pope
John X. attended a Synod at Constantinople in A.D. 920, which
condemned the Council of A.D. 906, and pronounced a fourth
marriage absolutely unallowable, but showed no inclination to
make any concessions to the pope. New negociations were begun
by the emperor =Basil II.= In consideration of a large sum of
money the venal pope John XIX. was willing to acknowledge the
Byzantines as œcumenical patriarchs of the East, and to resign
all claims of the chair of Peter upon the Eastern church. But the
affair became known before it was concluded. The removal of the
new Judas was loudly demanded throughout the West, and the pope
was compelled to break off his negociations.

§ 67.3. =Completion of the Schism, A.D. 1054.=-Though so many
anathemas had been flung at Rome by Byzantium and at Byzantium
by Rome, they had hitherto been directed only against the persons
and their followers, not against the respective churches as
such. This defect was now to be supplied. The emperor Constantine
Monómachus sought the papal friendship which he thought necessary
to the success of his warlike undertakings. But the patriarch
=Michael Cærularius= frustrated his efforts. In company with the
Metropolitan of the Bulgarians, Leo of Achrida, he addressed in
A.D. 1053 an epistle to bishop John of Trani in Apulia, in which
he charged the Latins with the worst heresies, and adjured the
Western bishops to separate from them. To the heresies already
enumerated by Photius, he added certain others; the use of blood
and things strangled, the withdrawal of the Hallelujah during
the fast season, and above all the use of unleavened bread in
the Supper (§ 58, 4), on account of which he invented for the
heretics the name of Azymites. This letter fell into the hands
of Cardinal =Humbert=, who translated it and laid it before pope
Leo IX. A violent correspondence followed. The emperor offered
to do anything to restore peace. At his request the pope sent
three legates to Constantinople, among them the occasion of the
strife, Humbert (§ 101, 2), and Cardinal Frederick of Lothringen,
afterwards pope Stephen IX. (§ 96, 6). These fanned the flame,
instead of quenching it. Imperial pressure indeed brought the
abbot of Studion, Nicetas Pectoratus to burn his controversial
treatise before the legates, but no threat nor violence could
move to submission the patriarchs, on whose side were the people
and the clergy. The legates finally laid a formal decree of
excommunication on the altar of the church of Sophia, which
Michael together with the other Eastern patriarchs solemnly
returned, A.D. 1054.

§ 67.4. =Attempts at Reunion.=--The crusades increased the breach
instead of healing it. Many negociations were begun but none of
them came to much. At a Synod at Bari in Naples, in A.D. 1098,
Anselm of Canterbury (§ 101, 1), who then lived as a fugitive
in Italy, proved to the Greeks there present the correctness
of the Latin doctrine of the Procession of the Holy Spirit.
In A.D. 1113, Petrus [Peter] Chrysologus, Archbishop of Milan,
vindicated it in a complete discourse before the emperor at
Constantinople. And in A.D. 1135, Anselm of Havelberg, who
went to Constantinople as ambassador for Lothair II., disputed
with the Archbishop Nicetas of Nicomedia, and afterwards at the
command of the pope wrote down the disputation with creditable
faithfulness. The hatred and abhorrence of the Greeks reached
its climax on the erection of the Latin empire at Constantinople,
A.D. 1204-1261 (comp. § 94, 4). Nevertheless =Michael Palæologus,
A.D. 1260-1282=, who brought this dynasty to an end, strove
on political grounds in every way possible to overcome this
ecclesiastical schism. The patriarch Joseph of Constantinople
and his librarian, the celebrated =Joannes Beccus=, stubbornly
withstood him. The latter indeed in imprisonment became convinced
that the differences were unessential and that a union was
possible. This change of mind secured for him the patriarch’s
chair. Meanwhile the negotiations of the emperor with the pope,
Gregory X., in which he acknowledged the Roman chair to be the
highest court of appeal in doctrinal controversies, were brought
to a point in the œcumenical =Council at Lyons, A.D. 1274=,
reckoned by the Latins the fourteenth. The imperial legates here
acknowledged the primacy of the pope and subscribed a Roman creed,
while to them was granted liberty to use their creed without the
addition and to practise their peculiar ecclesiastical customs.
Beccus vindicated this union in several treatises. But a change
of dynasty overthrew him in A.D. 1283. Joseph was restored and
the union of Lyons was broken up leaving no trace behind.

§ 67.5. The advance of the Turks made it absolutely necessary
for the East Roman emperors to secure the support of the West
by reconciling and uniting themselves with the papacy. But the
powerful party of the monks, supported by popular prejudice
against the proposal, thwarted the imperial wishes on all sides.
The patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem too were
zealous opponents, not only animated by the old bitterness toward
their more prosperous rivals on the chair of Peter, but also
influenced against the views of the emperor by the policy of
their Saracen rulers. The emperor =Andronicus III. Palæologus=
won to his side the abbot =Barlaam= of Constantinople, hitherto,
though born in Calabria and there educated in the Roman Catholic
faith, a zealous opponent of the Western doctrine. Barlaam went
at the head of an imperial embassy to Avignon where the pope
at that time, Benedict XIII., resided, A.D. 1339. Negotiations,
however, broke down through the obstinacy of the pope, who
demanded of the Greeks above all unconditional submission in
doctrine and constitution, and also showed not once any wish
for renewing the conference.--On Barlaam, comp. § 69, 2.--The
political difficulties of the emperor, however, continually
increased, and so =Joannes V. Palæologus= took further steps.
He himself in A.D. 1369 in Rome passed over to the Latin church,
but neither did he get his people to follow him, nor did pope
Urban V. get the Western princes to give help against the Turks.

§ 67.6. The union attempts of =Joannes VII. Palæologus= had more
appearance of success. The emperor had won over the patriarch
Joseph of Constantinople, as well as the clever and highly
cultured archbishop =Bessarion= of Nicæa, and went personally
in company with the latter and many bishops, in A.D. 1438,
to the papal Council at =Ferrara= (§ 110, 8), where the pope,
Eugenius IV., fearing lest the Greeks might join the reformatory
Council at Basel, showed himself very gracious. The Council,
nominally on account of the outbreak of a plague at Ferrara
was transferred to =Florence=, and here the union was actually
consummated in A.D. 1439. The primacy of the pope was acknowledged,
though not altogether without dubiety of expression, the ritual
differences as well as the priestly marriages of the Greeks
tolerated, the doctrinal difference reduced to a misunderstanding
and the orthodoxy of both churches maintained. In the Latin text
of the decree referred to the pope was acknowledged as “Successor
of Peter, the chief of the Apostles, and the vicar of Christ,”
as “head of the whole Church, and father and teacher of all
Christians, to whom plenary power was given by our Lord Jesus
Christ to feed, rule, and govern the universal Church”--yet
with the significant addition “in such a way as it is set forth
in the œcumenical Councils and in the sacred Canons,” by which
certainly the Greeks thought only of the Canons of Nicæa and
Chalcedon referred to in § 46, 1, but the Latins mainly of the
Pseudo-Decretals of § 87, 2; and thus it happens that in most
of the Greek texts the propositions that define the universal
primacy of the pope are either wanting, or essentially modified.
The first place after the pope is given to the patriarch of
Constantinople. In regard to the doctrine of the Procession
of the Holy Spirit it was admitted that the Greek formula “_ex
Patre per Filium_” was essentially the same as the Latin “_ex
Patre Filioque_,” and by the definition “_quod Sp. S. ex P. simul
et F. et ex utroque æternaliter tanquam ab uno principio et unica
spiratione procedit_,” the latter was saved from the charge of
dualism. A new difference, however, came to light in reference
to Purgatory (§ 61, 4). The intercessions of the living and the
presenting of masses for the dead were allowed by the Greeks as
helping to secure the forgiveness of their still unatoned for
venial sins, but they decidedly opposed the view that any of the
dead could obtain this by his own temporary endurance of penal
sufferings, and they would not hear of a fire as a means for its
attainment. The Latins also taught that the unbaptized or those
dying in mortal sin immediately pass into eternal condemnation
and the perfectly pious immediately pass into God’s presence;
while the Greeks maintained that this happens only at the last
judgment. After long disputes, the Greeks, urged by their emperor,
at last gave in on both points. Without much difficulty they
accepted the seven sacraments of the Westerns (§ 104, 2). Thus
was the union consummated amid embracings and jubilant shoutings.
But in reality everything remained as of old. A powerful party at
whose head stood archbishop Marcus Eugenicus of Ephesus, who had
been shouted down at Florence, roused the whole East against the
union that had been made on paper. The new patriarch Metrophanes,
whom they repudiated, was ridiculed as Μητροφόνος, and in
A.D. 1443 the rest of the Eastern patriarchs at a Synod at
Jerusalem excommunicated all who maintained the union. When
moreover the hoped for help from the West did not come even
the union party lost their interest in it. Bessarion passed
over to the Roman church, became cardinal and bishop of Tuscoli,
and was as such on two occasions very near being made pope.[193]

§ 67.7. The Byzantine Christian empire went meanwhile rapidly
to decay. On the 29th May, 1453, Constantinople was stormed by
Mohammed II. The last emperor, Constantine XI., fell in a heroic
struggle against tremendous odds. Mohammed conferred upon the
patriarch Gennadius (§ 68, 5) the spiritual primacy and even
temporal supremacy and full jurisdiction over the whole orthodox
inhabitants of the empire, making him, however, answerable for
their conduct. The other two patriarchates of Jerusalem and
Antioch were in religious matters co-ordinate, in political
matters subordinate, to him. For the executing of his spiritual
power he had around him a Synod of twelve archbishops, of whom
four as holders of the four divisions of the patriarchal diocese
resided in Constantinople. The Synod chose the patriarchs and
the Sultan confirmed the elections.--All union negociations were
now at an end, for the Porte could only wish for the continuance
of the schism. The enormous crowds of Greek refugees who sought
protection in foreign lands, especially in Italy, Hungary,
Galicia, Poland, Lithuania, either went directly over to the
Roman Catholic church, or formed churches of their own under
the name of United Greeks, purchasing liberty to observe their
old church constitution and liturgy by accepting the Romish
doctrine and the papal primacy.

II. Developments in the Eastern Church without the
Co-operation of the Western.

§ 68. THEOLOGICAL SCIENCE AND LITERATURE.

The iconoclastic struggle, A.D. 726-842, was to some extent a war against art and science. At least no period in the history of the Greek Middle Ages is so poor in these as this. But about the middle of the 9th century Byzantine culture awoke from its deep torpor to a vigour of which no one would have thought it capable. What is still more wonderful, for six hundred years it maintained its position without a break at this elevation and prosecuted literary and scientific studies with a zeal that seemed to be quickened as its political condition became more and more desperate. What specially characterized the scholarly efforts of this time was the revival of classical studies which from the 6th century had been almost entirely neglected. Now all at once the decaying Greeks, who were threatened with intellectual as well as political bankruptcy, began to realize the rich heritage which their pagan forefathers had bequeathed them. They searched out these treasures amid the dust of libraries and applied to them a diligence, an enthusiasm, a pride, which fills us with astonishment. The Hellenic intellect had, indeed, long lost its genial creative power. The most ambitious effort of this age did not go beyond explanatory reproduction and scholarship. Upon theology, however, bound hard and fast in traditional propositions and Aristotelian formulæ, the revival of classical studies had relatively little influence, and where it did break the fetters it only gave entrance to a deluge of heathen Hellenic views that paganized Christianity.

§ 68.1. The shame caused by the zeal with which the Khalifs
of the Abassidean line at the end of the 8th century applied
themselves to the classical Greek literature seems to have given
the first impulse to the =Revival of Classical Studies=. Behind
this we must suppose there was the influence of the Byzantine
rulers, unless they had lost all trace of national feeling.
Bardas, the guardian and co-regent of Michael III. (§ 67, 1),
if there is nothing else in him worthy of praise, has the credit
of having been the first to lay anew the foundation of classical
studies by establishing schools and paying their teachers. Basil
the Macedonian, although himself no scholar, patronized and
protected the sciences. Photius was the teacher of his children,
and implanted in them a love of study which they transmitted to
their children and children’s children. Leo, the Philosopher, the
son, and Constantine Porphyrogenneta, the grandson, of Basil were
the brilliant scholars in the Macedonian dynasty. Their place was
taken by the line of the Comneni from A.D. 1057, which introduced
a most brilliant period in the history of scientific studies.
The princesses of this house, Eudocia and Anna Comnena, won high
fame as gifted and learned authors. What Photius was for the
age of the Macedonians, Psellus was for the age of the Comneni.
Thessalonica vied with Constantinople as a new Athens in
the brilliancy of its classical culture. The rudeness of
the crusaders threatened during the sixty years’ interregnum
of the Latin dynasty, to undo the work of the Comneni. But
when in A.D. 1261 the Palæologi again obtained possession of
Constantinople, learning rose once more to the front and won
an ever increasing significance. And when the Turks took it in
A.D. 1453 crowds of learned Greeks settled in Italy and spread
their carefully fostered culture all over the West.

§ 68.2. =Aristotle and Plato.=--The revival of classical studies
secured again a preference for Plato, who seemed more classical,
at least more Hellenic, than Aristotle. But the ecclesiastical
imprimatur that had been given to Aristotle, which had been
formally expressed by Joh. Damascenus, formed a barrier against
the overflowing of Platonism into the theological domain. The
church’s distrust of Plato, on the other hand, drove many of
the more enthusiastic friends of classical studies into a sort
of Hellenic paganism. The eagerness of the struggle reached its
height in the 15th century. Gemisthus Pletho moved heaven and
earth to drive the hated usurper Aristotle from the throne of
science. He called for unconditional surrender to the wisdom of
the divine Plato and expressed the confident hope that soon the
time would come when Christianity and Islam would be conquered
and the religion of pure humanity would have universal sway.
Of similar views were his numerous scholars, of whom the most
distinguished was Bessarion (§ 67, 6). But Aristotle also
had talented representatives in George of Trebizond and his
scholars. Numerous representatives of the two schools settled
in Italy and there carried on the conflict with increasing
bitterness.--Continuation § 120, 1.

§ 68.3. =Scholasticism and Mysticism= (μάθησις and
μυσταγωγία).--By the application of the Aristotelian
method which Joh. Philoponus (§ 47, 11) had suggested, and
Joh. Damascenus had carried out, the scientific treatment of
doctrine in the Greek church had taken a form which in many
respects resembles the scholasticism of the Latin Middle Ages,
without being able, however, to reach its wealth, power, subtlety
and depth. But alongside of the dialectic scholastic treatment
of dogma there was found, especially in the quiet life of the
monasteries, diligent fostering of the mysticism based upon
the pseudo-Areopagite (§ 47, 11). Its chief representative
was Nicolas Cabasilas. This mysticism never ran counter to
the worship or doctrine of the church, but rather rendered to
it unconditional acknowledgment, and was specially characterized
by its decided preference for the symbolical, to which it is
careful to attach a thoroughly sacramental significance. No
reason existed for any hostile encounters between dialectic
and mysticism.

§ 68.4. =The Branches of Theological Science.=--About the
beginning of our period Joh. Damascenus collected the results
of previous =Dogmatic= labours in the Greek church by the use
of the dialectic forms of Aristotle into an organic system. His
Ecdosis is the first and last complete dogmatic of the old Greek
church. The manifold intercourse with the Latin church occasioned
by the union efforts was not, however, without influence on
the Greek church. In spite of the keenest opposition on debated
questions, the far more thoroughly developed statement by Latin
scholasticism of doctrines in regard to which both were agreed
communicated itself to the Greek church, so that all unwittingly
it adopted on many points the same bases and tendencies of
belief. =Polemics= were constantly carried on with Nestorians,
Monophysites and Monothelites, and fresh subjects of debate were
found in the iconoclastic disputes, newly emerging dualistic
sects, the Latin schismatics and the defenders of the union. By
the changed circumstances of the time =Apologetics= again came
to the front as a theological necessity. The incessant advance
of Islam and the Jewish polemic, which was now gaining boldness
from the protection of the Saracens, urgently demanded the
work of the Apologist, but the dominant scholastic traditional
theology of the Greeks in its hardness and narrowness was little
fitted to avert the storm of God’s judgment. Finally, too, the
revival of classical studies and the introduction of pagan modes
of thought were followed by a renewal of anti-pagan Apologetics
(Nicolas of Methone). In =Exegesis= there was no independent
original work. Valuable catenas were compiled by Œcumenius,
Theophylact and Euthymius Zigabenus. =Church History= lay
completely fallow. Only Nicephorus Callisti in the 14th century
gave any attention to it (§ 5, 1). Incomparably more important
for the church history of those times are the numerous _Scriptores
hist. Byzantinæ_. As a writer of legends Simeon Metaphrastes in
the 10th century (?) gained a high reputation.

§ 68.5. The most distinguished theologian of the 8th century
was =Joannes Damascenus=. He was long in the civil service of
the Saracens, and died about A.D. 760 as monk in the monastery
of Sabas in Jerusalem. His admirers called him _Chrysorrhoas_;
the opponents of image worship who pronounced a thrice repeated
anathema upon him at the Council of Constantinople in A.D. 754,
called him Mansur. His chief work, which ranks in the Greek
church as an epoch-making production, is the Πηγὴ γνώσεως. Its
first part, Κεφάλαια φιλοσοφικά, forms the dialectic, the second
part, Περὶ αἱρέσεων, the historical, introduction to the third or
chief part: Ἔκδοσις ἀκριβὴς τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως, a systematic
collection of the doctrines of faith according to the Councils,
and the teachings of the ancient Fathers, especially of the three
Cappadocians. His Ἱερὰ παράλληλα contain a collection of _loci
classici_ from patristic writings on dogmatic and moral subjects
arranged in alphabetical order. He wrote besides controversial
tracts against Christological heretics, the Paulicians,
the opponents of image worship, etc., and composed several
hymns for church worship.[194]--Among the numerous writings
of =Photius=, who died in A.D. 891, undoubtedly the most
important is his Bibliotheca, Μυριοβίβλιον. It gives reports
about and extracts from 279 Christian and pagan works, which
have since in great part been lost. In addition to controversial
treatises against the Latins and against the Paulicians,
there are still extant his Ἀμφιλόχια, answers to more than
300 questions laid before him by bishop Amphilochius, and his
Nomo-canon (§ 43, 3) which is still the basis of Greek canon
law, and was, about A.D. 1180, commented on by the deacon of
Constantinople, Theodore Balsamon in his Ἐξήγησις τῶν ἱερῶν καὶ
θείων κανόνων.--The brilliant period of the Comnenian dynasty
was headed by =Michael Psellus=, teacher of philosophy at
Constantinople, a man of wide culture and possessed of an
astonishingly extensive store of information which was evinced
by numerous works on a variety of subjects, so that he was
designated φιλοσόφων ὕπατος. He died in A.D. 1105. Among his
theological writings the most important is Περὶ ἐνεργείας
δαιμόνων (comp. § 71, 3). As this work is of the utmost
importance for the demonology of the Middle Ages, so the
Διδασκαλία παντοδαπή, a compendium of universal science on
the basis of theology, is for the encyclopædic knowledge of that
period. His contemporary =Theophylact=, archbishop of Achrida,
in Bulgaria, left behind him an important commentary in the form
of a catena. Euthymius Zigabenus, monk at Constantinople, in the
beginning of the 12th century, composed, by order of the emperor
Alexius Comnenus, in reply to the heretics, a Πανοπλία δογματικὴ
τῆς ὀρθοδόξου πίστεως ἤτοι ὁπλοθήκη δογμάτων in 24 bks.,
which gained for him great repute in his times. It is a mere
compilation, and only where he combats the sects of his own
age is it of any importance. His exegetical compilations are of
greater value. The most important personality of the 12th century
was =Eustathius=, archbishop of Thessalonica. As commentator on
Homer and Pindar he has been long highly valued by philologists;
but from the publication of his theological _Opuscula_ it appears
that he is worthy of higher fame as a Christian, a theologian, a
church leader and reformer of the debased monasticism of his age
(§ 70, 4). His friend and pupil, =Michael Acominatus= of Chonæ,
archbishop of Athens, treated with equal enthusiasm of the church
and his fatherland, of Christian faith and Greek philosophy, of
patristic and classical literature, and in a beautiful panegyric
raised a becoming memorial to his departed teacher. His younger
brother, =Nicetas Acominatus=, a highly esteemed statesman of
Constantinople, wrote a Θεσαυρὸς ὀρθοδοξίας in 27 bks., which
consists of a justificatory statement of the orthodox doctrine
together with a refutation of heretics, much more independent
and important than the similar work of Euthymius. He died in
A.D. 1206. At the same time flourished the noble bishop =Nicolas
of Methone= in Messenia, whose refutation of the attacks of the
neo-Platonist Proclus, Ἀνάπτυξις τῆς θεολογικῆς στοιχειώσεως
Πρόκλου is one of the most valuable productions of this period.
His doctrine of redemption, which has a striking resemblance
to Anselm of Canterbury’s theory of satisfaction (§ 101, 1), is
worthy of attention. He also contributed several tracts to the
struggle against the Latins. During the times of the Palæologi,
A.D. 1250-1450, the chief subjects of theological authorship
were the vindication and denunciation of the union. =Nicolas
Cabasilas=, archbishop of Thessalonica and successor of Palamas,
deserves special mention. He was like his predecessor the
vindicator of the Hesychasts (§ 69, 2), and was himself one
of the noblest mystics of any age. He died about A.D. 1354.
His chief work is Περὶ τῆς ἐν Χριστῷ ζωῆς. His mysticism is
distinguished by depth and spirituality as well as by reformatory
struggling against a superficial externalism. He also shares the
partiality of Greek mysticism for the liturgy as his _Expositio
Missæ_ shows. From his contemporary =Demetrius Cydonius= we have
an able treatise _De Contemnenda Morte_. Archbishop =Simeon of
Thessalonica= belongs to a somewhat later time, about A.D. 1400,
a thorough expert in classical and patristic literature and a
distinguished church leader. His comprehensive work, _De Fide,
Ritibus et Mysteriis Ecclesiast._ is an important source of
information about the church affairs of the Greek Middle Ages.
=Marcus Eugenicus= of Ephesus, the most capable opponent of the
Florentine union (§ 67, 2), besides controversial tracts, wrote
a treatise Περὶ ἀσθενείας ἀνθρώπου as a philosophico-dogmatic
foundation of the doctrine of eternal punishment at which the
emperor John VII. Palæologus had taken offence as incompatible
with divine justice and human frailty. His disciple Gregorius
[Gregory] Scholarius, known as a monk by the name =Gennadius=,
was the first patriarch of Constantinople after it had been taken
by the Turks. At the Council of Florence he still supported the
union, but was afterwards its most vigorous assailant. In the
controversy of the philosophers he contended against Pletho for
the old-established predominance of Aristotle. At the request of
the Sultan, Mohammed II., he laid before him a _Professio fidei_.