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 (1()43), 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
