GREEK
75S
GREEK
putes and the famous schism of Antioch (330-415) to
proclaim its own autonomy. Once the schism ended,
the Patriarchs of Antioch tried to reassert their au-
thority; Cyprus resisted and even took advantage of
the absence of the Syrian patriarch to have its inde-
pendence recognized by the oecumenical council.
Later, this independence was reaffirmed by the Em-
peror Zeno and by a coimcil held at Constantinople in
4S8. The head of the Cj-priot Church has never had
the title patriarch, but only that of Archbishop. The
acknowledgment of an independent Cypriot Church
was a serious loss for the Patriarchate of Antioch ; fol-
lowing on this blow came two others in quick succes-
sion, the one beyond the frontiers of the Roman
Empire, the other within those boundaries, which
greatly diminished the influence of Antioch and the
extent of its jurisdiction. Beyond the frontier, in the
Persian kingdom of the Sassanides, were many Chris-
tians of Syrian speech, governed by a number of bish-
ops. The Gospel had come to them from many
points, principally from Edessa and other Churches
subject to Antioch. There was, therefore, a certain
bond of affection and gratitude between these Syrian
Churches of the Persian Empire and those of the Ro-
man Empire. In order to impose his authority on all
the bishops of Persia, Papa bar Aggai, Bishop of Seleu-
cia Ctesiphon, the capital of the kingdom, had re-
course to the Syrian bishops of the Roman Empire
during the early years of the fourth century. They
hastened to aid him, and by methods whose nature is
unknown to us succeeded in placing the Bishop of
Seleucia Ctesiphon at the head of the Persian Church,
and in bringing that Church under the jurisdiction of
Antioch. The bishops of the other important sees in
Persia accepted very unwillingly the primacy of the
Bishop of Seleucia, and there were continuous revolts
against it. Tlie Bishop of Seleucia always fell back on
the support of the western Syrian bishops subject to
Antioch, especially in 410, when Marutasof Maiphergat
in this way overcame all opposition. The Bishops of
Seleucia had had recourse to Antioch only as an ex-
pedient for imposing their supremacy upon their Per-
sian brethren; that end once attained, they, in their
turn, shook off the tutelage of Antioch. The Council
of Seleucia, held in 424 laid down that the bishops of
Persia " could bring no complaint against their patri-
arch before the patriarch of the Westerns (Antioch),
and that every cause which could not be settled by
their own patriarch was to be reserved for the tribunal
of Christ". That ended the matter. By this council
the Church of Persia cut itself off definitively from the
Greek Churches. The pity is that a few years later, by
adopting Nestorianism as its national doctrine, it also
cut itself off from the Catholic world.
In 451, at the Council of Chalcedon, another Church was set up to the detriment of Antiochene prestige, viz., that of Jerusalem. The bishop of the Holy City had obtained from the Council of Nicaea (325) the purely honorary rights which his successors had en- deavoured to turn into tangible realities. St. Cyril of Jerusalem, and especially Juvenal, tried to shake off the yoke of Ca^sarea Maritima, the religious capital of Palestine, and, after Ca-sarea, the yoke of Antioch, the patriarchal see of the East. Juvenal, elected in 424, acted, indeed, as if he were already independent. Afterwards he sought official approbation for the usurpations he had been guilty of. He applied first to the Council of Ephesus (431) and put forward forged documents, which St. Cyril of Alexandria re- fused to admit. Next he turned to the "Robber Council" of Ephesus (449), and his demands were con- ceded. At the same time he extorted a decree from Theodosius II granting his Church jurisdiction over the three provinces of Palestine, also over Arabia, and a part of Phoenicia. Two years later, at Chalcedon, through fear of losing more, Maximus, Patriarch of Antioch, came to an understanding with Juvenal
whereby the Church of Jerusalem was to remain in
possession of the three provinces of Palestine. In
consequence of this agreement, which was ratified by
the council, Juvenal became patriarch of Jerusalem.
The same Council of Chalcedon, by its twenty- eighth canon, drawn up in the absence of the papal legates, regularized the situation at Constantinople; it promulgated anew the third canon of the Second (Ecumenical Council, which had made Byzantium the first see of the East and the second of the Christian world, giving it effective jurisdiction over the twenty- eight provinces of the three dioceses of Thrace, Asia, and Pontus, whose metropolitans it was to have the right of consecrating, and further authorizing it to ordain bishops for barbarian lands, which was the germ of its subsequent policy towards the Slav na- tions. Moreover, the council reserved to the bishop of the capital the right to decide on all appeals brought to his tribimal by the clergy of the three Eastern patriarchates and of the Archdiocese of Cyprus.
Beginning from the year 451, then, we find four Greek patriarchates (Constantinople, Alexandria, An- tioch, Jerusalem) and one aiitocephalous Church (Cyprus) under the rule of an archbishop. Beyond and within the limits of the Roman Empire two other Churches had secured autonomy and broken with the Greek Churches; these were the Persian and the Armenian Churches, offshoots from the Church of Antioch. Lastly, in Europe the majority of the Greek-speaking Churches looked to the pope as their patriarch.
Harnack, Die Mission und Ausbreitung des Christentums in den ersten drei Jahrhiinderten (Leipzig, 1902); Bdrkitt, Early Eastern Christianity (London, 1904); Batiffol. L' Eglise nais- sante et le Catholicisme (Paris, 1909); LiJBECK, Reichseinleilung und kirchliche Hierarchic des Orients bis zum Ausgang des vierten Jahrhunderts (Mxinster, 1901); Duchesne, Histoire ancienne de V Eglise (2 vols.. Pans, 1906-08); Duchesne, Eglises siparees (Paris, 1896); Labourt, Le christianisme dans V empire perse (Paris, 1904); Vailhe, L'ercction du patriarchal de Jerusalem in Remie de VOrient chrelien (1899). 44-57; Vaiube, L'Ancien patriarchal d'Antioche in Echos d'Orient (1898-99), 216-227; Id., articles Alexandrie, Antioche, Chypre, Constantinople in Did. de theol. cath.; Guldenpennig, Geschichte des ostro- viischen Reiches unter den Kaisem Arcadius und Theodosius II (Ilalle, 1881); Ephtaliotes. "lo-Topia t^s 'Piuittioo-i/riis (Athens, 1901); Athanasiades, Die Begrundung des orthodoxen Staates durch den Kaiser Theodosius den Grossen (Leipzig, 1902).
(2) Decay of the Greek Churches of the East, and Rise of the Byzantine Hegemony (451-847). — The definition of faith of the Council of Chalcedon (451) had curi- ously agitated the Byzantine Empire. The condem- nation of Eutyches, Dioscurus, and their adherents amounted in the eyes of many to a condemnation of St. Cyril of Alexandria and of the Council of Ephesus, if not to a victory for Nestorius. It happened that these religious disturbances reached their climax in the remotest provinces of the empire, in those which, while willingly or unwillingly subject to the Byzan- tines, had still retained a "lively memory of their former national independence and glory, together with their own language, liturgy, art and literature. Egypt, Syria, Armenia became for the most part Monophysite; Palestine also. Even the episcopate of Asia Minor, with the Metropolitan of Ephesus, who resumed, about 474, the title of Patriarch, was bitterly opposed to the new definition; in the end, however, order and orthodoxy prevailed in Asia Minor. Until the reign of Justinian (527-65) the doctrine for or against the two natures in Christ was officially tri- umphant according as the emperor happened to be Monophysite or Dyophysite, and lent to the accepted doctrine the support of his sword. Justinian, the Byzantine Louis XIV, finally caused Dyophysitism to triumph, but the violence he had to use lost him the support of all the Eastern and .4frican portions of the empire. The Church of Alexandria and that of Anti- och nominated Monophysite patriarchs, and thus be- gan the Coptic and Jacobite Churches which exist even
