GREEK
762
GREEK
1892) ; Burt, A Hi-slory of the Later Roman. Empire from 395 to
800 (London, 1889).
(b) The Emperor; Relations between East and AVest; Liturgy.— In the foregoing sketch of the eccle- siastical bod}' the Byzantine emperor has not ap- peared. Yet no one has a greater right to a place in that body. Heir of the Roman emperors, the Basileus had inherited also the office of pontijcx maximus, and, though after the fifth century that title no longer ap- pears on public documents, yet every Greek looked up to the Basileus as the head of the national religion. Moreover, the emperor was the chosen of God, Who had raised him above humanity in order to draw him nearer to Himself. As Eusebius of Caesarea tells us, "His intelligence is a reflexion of the Divine intelli- gence, he is a partaker of the power of the Almighty." In his "Instruction" to the "most divine" Justinian, the deacon Agapetus reproduces under another form these ideas so prevalent at Bj'zantium: " It was a sign from God that pointed out "the Basileus for the em- pire ; he was predestined in the designs of God to rule the world, even as the eye is set within the head to control the body. God has need of no one ; the em- peror needs only God. Between the Deity and the emperor there is no intermediary" (P. G., LXXXVI, 1177). Tlie Divine call to the empire gave the emperor asacred character, and the anointing, the sign of priest- hood, became his by Divine right. To take the life of the Basileus or attack his authority was to resist the will of heaven and to commit a sacrilege, unless the one who did so happened to be, like David of old, also the chosen one and the anointed of the Lord. This anoint- ing and the priesthood which it conferred gave the em- peror a high place among the ministers of the altar. He became the I<ra7r6(rToXos, the equal of the Apostles, or even the thirteenth Apostle. Hence he held a special position between \ay society and the ecclesiastical body. He dominated, and belonged to both, imiting in him- self both elements of the social order, the civil and the ecclesiastical. Moreover, this special sacerdotium reserved for the emperor secured him special rights and powers. "I also am a bishop", said Constantine to the prelates of his day. " You are the bishops as- signed to look after the domestic affairs of the Church; I am appointed by God to oversee all that lies out- side." And Leo III, the Isaurian, wrote to Gregory II: "Do you not know that I am both priest and king?" — Priest, bishop, Isapostolos, Apostle himself, the Basileus was placed there to guard the puritj- of dogma; he gave legal sanction to the decisions of councils and inserted their canons in the public code. He convened general coimcils, was present at their sessions, or sent his representative to them; he con- trolled their disciLssions, and only permitted the bish- ops to leave when they had defined and legislated according to the Faith and the canons, or even accord- ing to his own wishes. If he frequently chose patri- archs and bishops, he was not remiss in deposing them as soon as they stood in his way. Orthodox and virtuous patriarchs were the victims of wicked em- perors, while immoral or heretical ones were cast out by orthodox emperors. But it was always a matter of politics, and the Church was merely a pawn in the despotic hands of the State. This condition has been happily described by an expressive barbarism as the rule of Caesaropapism.
The relations that grew up between Rome and the Greek Churches during the long period from the death of Constantine the Great to the end of the Iconoclast persecutions (3.37-84.3) were far from cordial. In principle East and West were united; in fact they were separated during most of that time. During those 506 years the Greek Church was in open schism with Rome during seven periods aggregating at least 248 years. The sum total is reckoned thus: (1) The schism in connexion with St. Athanasius and Arian- ism, from the Council of Sardica (343) to the accession
of St. John Chrysostom to the See of Constantinople
(398) — 55 years ; (2) in connexion with the condemna-
tion of St. John Chrysostom by the ejiiscopate of the
East (404-15) — 11 years; (3) in regard to the Byzan-
tine patriarch Acacius and the Emperor Zeno's
" Henoticon " edict (484-519) — 35 years; (4) arising
out of the Monothelite movement of Sergius and Her-
acfius (640-81) — 41 years; (5) arising out of the first
Iconoclastic conflict, begun by Leo III, the Isaurian
(726-87) — 61 years; (6) arising out of the adulterous
marriage contracted by the Emperor Constantine VI
(795-81 1 ) — 16 years ; (7) in connexion with the second
Iconoclastic persecution (814-43) — 29 years. This
gives a total of 248 years of schism and heresy out of a
period of 500 3'ears, i. e. nearly one-half the time.
Again, it must not be forgotten "that divisions vexed
certain individual Churches — e. g., the Schism of
Antioch (330-415), which had its effect not only on
the Churches of the East but also on those of the West.
It must also be confessed that when circumstances
demanded strength of will and determination the
Greek bishops were very oft«n culpable. Of all these
heresies and schisms they might at least have lessened
the duration and importance, if not altogether avoided
them, had they better understood and realized their
duty. In the patriarchal See of Constantinople, tlie
premier see of the Greek Empire, we find nineteen
heretical patriarchs, whom the first seven fficuraenical
Councils, all held in the East, condemned by name, or
who vehementh' opposed the decisions of such coun-
cils. These nineteen were: Eusebius of Nicomedia,
Macedonius, Eudoxius, Demophilos, all four Arians;
Xestorius, Acacius, Timotheus, Anthimus, of whom
the last three were Monophysites ; Sergius, Pyrrhus,
Paul, Peter, John VI, all Monothelites; Anastasius,
Constantine II, Nicetas, Theodotus Cassiteras, An-
thony, John VII Lecanomantos, all Iconoclasts. And
this list might be increased, if we were to include the
patriarchs who, though not formally heretics, would
not condemn their heretical predecessors, and because
of this weakness were unable to obtain communion
with the Holy See. If in the two patriarchates of
Alexandria and Antioch the mmiber of excommuni-
cated patriarchs is less, it is because there an almost
immediate rupture took place between the Catholics
and the Monophysites or Monothelites. Hence we
meet fewer heretics in these patriarchal sees for the
very good reason that in these places the heretics
quickly set up their own separate churches, whereas in
Byzantium, the seat of the central power, both Catho-
lics and heretics either could not or did not dare set up
ecclesiastical bodies distinct from the State Church,
but were constrained to accept orthodox or heterodox
teaching according to the bias of the emperors. Often
were the Greek bishops constrained to stifle the voice
of conscience. Probably no Church can furnish so
many examples of the kind. In 449 more than two
hundred bishops at the Robber S3aiod of Ephesus de-
fined Monophysitism as a dogma, while two 3'ears later,
at the Council of Chalcedon, six hundred and thirty
bishops approved the dogma of the two natures. In
470 the Basileus made five hundred bishops sign a re-
tractation of the teaching of the Coimcil of Chalcedon,
while in 458 Emperor Leo I obtained an equal number
of signatures in favour of that same council. The
same bishops said Yea and Nay within a few 3'ears of
each other with a facility that, to sa\' the least, is dis-
concerting. In 681 at the Sixth CEcumenical Council
the whole Greek episcopate pronoimceil itself in favour
of the two wills in Jesus Christ, 3'et, in 712, the same
episcopate, with the exception of a few bishops, sol-
emnly approved the condemnation of the former
council pronounced by the Emperor Philippicus, and
retracted its disapproval one 3'ear afterwards. In
753, at the conciliabulum of Hieria, near Chalcedon,
388 Greek bishops applauded the Iconoclast edicts of
Constantine Copronymus, and in 787, at the Seventh
