Page:Catholic Encyclopedia, volume 8.djvu/428

 JERUSALEM

366

JERUSALEM

apse were built; an aisle surrounded the choir and apse. At the junction with the round building they put a triumphal arch. All the various chapels opened into the central church. From the apse steps led down to the chapel of St. Helena. The entrance was at the south. In this way the Holy Sepulchre became one great building. From the choir one could see into the Anastasis and into all the chapels. This Crusa- ders' Church is the one that still stands: the beautiful Romanesque doors, at the south especially, still give it a Western appearance. Slight restorations were made in 1244, 1310, 1400 and 1719. In 1S08 the round building was burnt down. The Orthodox persuaded the Turkish government to allow them alone to restore it. Their architect closed up the triumphal arch, thus again destroying the unity of the whole, and replaced tlie old columns of the ro- tvmda by clumsy pillars. He also enclosed the tomb in the present ugly marble coxering. The choir of the Crusaders' Church became the present Orthodox Katholikon. The arches between it and its aisles were walled up; the aisles became dark passages. The cupola they built over the rotunda threatened to fall in 1869. France and Russia together had it restored by the iron dome that .still exists. It was the dispute between Catholics and Orthodox as to the keys of the Holy Sepulchre that immediately caused the Crimean War (1853). All the parts of the church now need repairs which are not executed, be- cause no religion will allow the other to undertake them for fear of disturbing their various rights. The inside of the cupola over the Anastasis especially is rotting daily. But the reparation of the roof is the most dangerous of all, since by Turkish law the right to repair implies possession and the possession of a roof means possession of all it covers. In the present building, walled up and divided into a complex mass of dark passages and chapels laden with tawdry ornament, it is still possible to trace the plan of the great Crusaders' Church. For the rights of the vari- ous religions see below.

(3) The Orthodox Patriarchate. — Through all the political changes, under Saracens, Egyptians, and Turks, the okl line of the Patriarchs of Jerusalem (who followed the Church of Constantinople into schism in the eleventh century) goes on. But there is little to tell of their history. The line was often broken, and there have been many disputed succes- sions. For the list of these patriarchs since Soph- ronius see Le Quien, "Oriens Christianus", III, 498- 516. When the Crusaders took .leru.salem (1099), the Orthodox patriarch (Simon II) fled to Cyprus. As long as the former held the city, it was impossible for the schismatical rival of their Latin patriarchs to live in it. In 1142 the Orthodox continued their line by electing .\rsenius II: he resided at Constantinople. After the .Moslems had recaptured the city, the Ortho- dox patriarchs came back and lived in or near it. The only event of any importance in the later history of the Orthodox Patriarchate of Jerusalem is the Synod of Jerusalem (often wrongly calletl the Synod of Bethlehem) in 1672. This synod represents the climax of the Orthodox reaction against the heresies of Cyril Lucaris (d. 1638). Cyril was Patriarch of Constantinople (Cyril I) at five separate intervals (1620-3, 1623-30, 16.30-4, 16:j4-5, 1637-8) ; he had imbibed Protestant ideas from his friends in Germany and England. As patriarch he organized — or tried to organize — a reforming party, and he wrote in 1629, a famous "('onfession" (Kastern Confession of the Christian Faith), which is full of pure Calvinism. Eventually Lucaris was accused of treason against the sultan, and strangled by the janizaries in KiiiS. lie left a certain number of Protestantizing disciples, but the enormous majority of the Orthodox abhorred his new doctrines. In the years following his death four synods were held — at Constantinople (1639),

Yassy in Moldavia (143), Jerusalem (1672), and Constantinople again (1672) — in which the Orthodox faith was asserted against Protestantism in the most uncompromising terms. Of these synods that of Jerusalem was by far the most important. It is indeed one of the most important, as it is the last, of the official pronouncements of the Orthodox Church, and may be compared to our Council of Trent. Dosi- theus, Patriarch of Jerusalem (1669-1707), who summoned the synod, was certainly the most dis- tinguished bishop of that line during this later period. He was one of the most important and learned of all modern Orthodox theologians. As patriarch he de- fended the claims of his see, did all he could to per- suade the Turkish Government to expel Latins and Armenians from the holy places, and reorganized the monasteries of his patriarchate on a stricter basis. As a theologian he wrote works against Catholics, and collected evidences from former writers about the various questions that were being discussed in his time — the eternal questions of the papacy and the procession of the Holy Ghost, the Hesychast contro- versy, etc., and then, most of all, the new questions raised by Lucaris and his friends. His chief works are T6^os KaraWayiJ! (1692), T6fios ayiirris (1699), T6/«)! xapSs (170.5). In the first of these he publishes the acts of a pretended Synod of Constantinople against the Latins in 1540. No such .synod was held; the acts are a palpable forgery. Dositheus also wrote a "History of the Patriarchs of Jeru.salem", published after his death (Biikarest, 1715). This work contains more than is promised by its title. It almost amounts to a general history of tlie Church from the Orthodox side with vehement polemics against other ('hurches. But Dositheus's chief work was the Synod of Jeru- salem. He siunmoned it on the occasion of consecrat- ing a church at Bethlehem in 1672 (hence the common name "Synod of Bethlehem"). It met in the same year at Jerusalem. The acts are signed by Dositheus, his predecessor the ex-patriarch Nectarius, six metro- politans and bishops, the .Archimandrite of the Holy Sepulchre, Josaphat, and a great number of other archimandrites, priests, monks, and theologians. There are sixty-eight signatures in all. The Church of Russia was represented by a monk, Timothy. The acts are dated 20 March, 1672; they bear the title: "Christ guides. A shield of the Orthodox Faith, or the Apology composed by the Synod of Jerusalem imder the Patriarch of Jerusalem Dositheus against the Calvinist heretics, who falsely say that the Eastern Church thinks heretically about God and Divine things as they do." The first part begins by quoting the text: "There is a time to speak and a time to be silent," which text is explained and en- larged upon at length. It tells the story of the summoning of the synod, and vehemently denies that the Orthodox Eastern Church ever held the opinions attributeil to L\icaris. To .show this the relations between the Lutherans and Jeremias II of Constan- tinople are quoted as well as the acts of former synods (Constantinople and Yassy). An elaborate attempt is then made to prove that Lucaris did not really write the famous "Confession". To do this the "Confession" is compared clause by clause with other statements made by him in sermons and in other works. This denial, it should be noted, is a palpable piece of bad faith on the part of the synod. There is no doubt at all as to the authenticity of Lucaris's "Confession". That he used other language on other occasions, especially in preaching, is well-known and very natural. In cliapt<'r ii the synod declares that in any case Lucaris showed the "Confession" to no one (this is also quite false), and tries to find further reasons for doubting his authorship. Cha|)ter iii maintains that, even if he had written it, it would not thereby become a confession of the Faith of the Orthodox Church, but woulil remain merely the