Galileo, Condemnation of.—Through the suggestion of the Dominicans, Galileo was now summoned to Rome to account for his conduct and opinions before the Inquisition. He was accused of having taught that the earth moves; that the sun is stationary; and of having attempted to reconcile these doctrines with the Scriptures. The sentence was that he must renounce these heretical opinions, and pledge himself that he would neither publish nor defend them for the future. In the event of his refusal he was to be imprisoned. With the fate of Bruno in his recollection, he assented to the required recantation, and gave the promise demanded. The Inquisition then proceeded to deal with the Copernican system, condemning it as heretical; the letters of Galileo, which had given rise to the trouble, were prohibited; also Kepler’s epitome of the Copernican theory, and also the work of Copernicus. In their decree prohibiting this work, “De Revolutionibus,” the Congregation of the Index, March 5, 1616, denounced the new system of the universe as “that false Pythagorean doctrine utterly contrary to the Holy Scriptures.” ...SBBS 180.3

In 1632 he ventured on the publication of his work, entitled “The System of the World,” its object being to establish the truth of the Copernican doctrine.... Galileo was therefore again summoned before the Inquisition, the Tuscan ambassador expostulating against the inhumanity of thus dealing with an old man in ill health. But no such considerations were listened to, and Galileo was compelled to appear at Rome, February, 1633, and surrender himself to the Holy Office.... The trial being completed, Galileo was directed to appear, on June 22, to hear his sentence. Clothed in the penitential garment, he received judgment. His heretical offenses were specified, the pledges he had violated recited; he was declared to have brought upon himself strong suspicions of heresy, and to be liable to the penalties thereof; but from these he might be absolved if, with a sincere heart, he would abjure and curse his heresies. However, that his offenses might not altogether go unpunished, and that he might be a warning to others, he was condemned to imprisonment during the pleasure of the Inquisition, his dialogues were prohibited by public edict, and for three years he was directed to recite, once a week, the seven penitential psalms.... He died, January, 1642, in the seventy-eighth year of his age, the prisoner of the Inquisition.—“History of the Intellectual Development of Europe,” John William Draper, M. D., LL. D., Vol. II, pp. 262-265. New York: Harper & Brothers.SBBS 180.4

Galileo, Decree Concerning Teaching of.—By order of the Holy Office, Cardinal Bellarmine summoned him [Galileo] before him, and admonished him in the name of the Pope and of the Holy Office, under pain of imprisonment, that he must give up the opinion that the sun is the center of the world and immovable, and that the earth moves, and must not hold, teach it, or defend it either by word or writing; otherwise proceedings would be taken against him in the Holy Office. Galileo submitted, and promised to obey.SBBS 180.5

But it was not enough that Galileo should be personally warned against holding the heliocentric theory of the universe; the whole world must be similarly instructed; and this was done by another tribunal. On March 5, 1616, the Congregation of the Index, a committee of cardinals appointed by the Pope for the prevention of the circulation of dangerous books, published the following decree:SBBS 181.1

“Since it has come to the knowledge of this Holy Congregation that the false Pythagorean doctrine, altogether opposed to the divine Scripture, of the mobility of the earth, and the immobility of the sun, which Nicolas Copernicus, in his work, ‘De Revolutionibus Orbium Colestium,’ and Didacus a Stunica, in his Commentary on Job, teach, is being promulgated and accepted by many, as may be seen from a printed letter of a certain Carmelite Father (Foscarini), entitled, etc., wherein the said father has attempted to show that the said doctrine is consonant to truth, and not opposed to Holy Scripture; therefore, lest this opinion insinuate itself further to the damage of Catholic truth, this Congregation has decreed that the said books, Copernicus’ ‘De Revolutionibus,’ and ‘Stunica on Job,’ be suspended till they are corrected, but that the book of Foscarini the Carmelite be altogether prohibited and condemned, and all other books that teach the same thing.”-“The Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, D. D., pp. 235, 236. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914.SBBS 181.2

Galileo, Dropped from the Index.—At the beginning of the present century the astronomer Lalande made great exertions at Rome to have the names of Galileo, Copernicus, and Foscarini removed from the Index; but in vain. Accordingly, the Index for 1828 contains the names of these three culprits; but the prohibition against all books teaching the mobility of the earth was quietly dropped out of the later editions of the Index. It was only on the accession of Gregory XVI, the predecessor of Pius IX, that the important step was taken, and the attempt to insist on believing in the immobility of the earth was finally abandoned. For the first time for some two hundred years an index of prohibited books was published, in which no confession of previous error was made, but the names of Galileo, Copernicus, and Foscarini were silently withdrawn.—Id., p. 238.SBBS 181.3

Gallicanism.—This term is used to designate a certain group of religious opinions for some time peculiar to the Church of France, or Gallican Church, and the theological schools of that country. These opinions, in opposition to the ideas which were called in France “Ultramontane,” tended chiefly to a restraint of the Pope’s authority in the church in favor of that of the bishops and the temporal ruler.—The Catholic Encyclopedia, Vol. VI, art. “Gallicanism,” p. 351.SBBS 181.4

Gallicanism and Infallibility.—One of its fundamental doctrines was, that the doctrinal decisions of the Pope were not to be regarded as final; that they might be reviewed and corrected, or even rejected, by a general council or by the church at large. A formal treatise of Bossuet in proof of this principle was a storehouse of arguments, largely drawn on in the controversies of the years 1869-70. But this principle of his was condemned with an anathema at the Vatican Council of the latter year.—“The Infallibility of the Church,” George Salmon, D. D., p. 87. New York: E. P. Dutton & Co., 1914.SBBS 181.5

Gallicanism, Universality a Characteristic of.—In this theory the Pope is only the leading bishop of Christendom, and is by no means a necessary organ in proclaiming infallible truth. Whatever doctrine the whole church agrees in is infallibly true. Of course this characteristic cannot be predicated of any doctrine from which the Pope dissents, since such a dissent would deprive the doctrine of that universality of acceptance which the theory imposes as a condition; but if a Pope declares a doctrine, it is nevertheless not guaranteed as infallibly true if a council dissent; or even though Pope and council declare it, if it is not received by the bishops throughout the world. The important thing is, the universality of acceptance: the mode of promulgation is immaterial.—Id., p. 262.SBBS 182.1

Genealogy of Christ.—David’s successor was his son Solomon, and Matthew traces the genealogy through Solomon to Joseph; but the bar was put up against him at the time of the captivity and the last king Jechoniah (1:11). Luke traces the genealogy, not through Solomon, but through another son of David against whom there was no bar, viz., Nathan (Luke 3:31; 1 Chronicles 3:5), and so on down to Mary, for only through her was the imposed condition fulfilled that Jesus should be “the fruit of David’s body.” And it could have been fulfilled only by some one in that line. Luke 1:32; Acts 2:30; Romans 1:3; Acts 13:23. It seems indubitable, therefore,-the “scholars” to the contrary notwithstanding,-that Luke does not trace the royal line of Joseph as does Matthew, but gives the lineage which belongs to Mary. So far, so good.SBBS 182.2

But the other obstacle: while Mary was of a royal line, she was not of the royal lineage-the regular, legal, required lineage through which it was indispensable that descent must course-not of the Prince of Wales line, so to speak, if such an illustrative anachronism can be allowed. How, then, could her son get into that royal line? Why, by her marriage with some one who was in that line! And that is just what took place-the marriage with Joseph.SBBS 182.3

The absolute necessity for the two genealogies thus seems apparent; but there is a seeming discrepancy which needs to be solved. According to Matthew 1:16, Joseph is the son of Jacob, and according to Luke 3:23 he is the son of Heli. He could hardly be the son of both.SBBS 182.4

Joseph was the son of Jacob in the strict sense, for Matthew says: “Jacob begat Joseph the husband of Mary, of whom was born Jesus, who is called Christ” (1:16). But Luke does not say that Heli begat Joseph, but says, “Joseph, which was ... of Heli” (3:23), the translators gratuitously putting in the words, “the son.” Remembering the omnibus-content of the word “son” before noted, ^{10We commonly understand by a son, one begotten by a father and born of a mother. Now, the Hebrew language has no word for grandson, and so, with the Hebrews, a “son” may be a lineal male descendant more than one remove down the line. Daniel, addressing Belshazzar, says: “God gave Nebuchadnezzar thy father” (5:18), “and thou his son, O Belshazzar” (5:22), although the relation between them was that of grandfather and grandson. And Christ speaks of Zaccheus as “a son of Abraham” (Luke 19:9), though Abraham lived some two thousand years before. Accordingly, between two names that stand in juxta position as father and son, it is possible that a number of names may intervene} manifestly we need to put into it the meaning which the situation here calls for, which is son-in-law; even as in 1 Samuel 24:16, where Saul says, “Is this thy voice, my son David?” when David was his son-in-law. So, as Joseph could not, by natural generation, be the son of both Jacob and Heli, and as it says that “Jacob begat Joseph” and does not say that Heli begat Joseph, the natural and satisfactory explanation is that Joseph was the son-in-law of Heli.SBBS 182.5

There is another consideration that seems to add conclusiveness to the foregoing. The Jews, in constructing their genealogical tables, reckoned descent entirely in the line of males, and when the line passed from father to grandson through a daughter, the daughter herself was not named, but her husband was counted as the son of the maternal grandfather. Thus it is plain how Joseph, the actual son of Jacob, who married the daughter of Heli, is, as son-in-law, put in the genealogy as Heli’s son.SBBS 183.1

Joseph’s right to the Davidic throne was not voided by the Jechoniah inhibition,-only the occupancy of it. Thus Jesus acquired the right to the throne of David through his reputed (step-) father, Joseph, and is eligible to sit on it as David’s son through Mary. As Wilkinson puts it: “By that marriage Jesus escapes the two barriers in the genealogy of Matthew, and walks over the one barrier in the genealogy of Luke. The two genealogies were necessary.”-“A Study in the Genealogy of Jesus,” Rev. William H. Bates, D. D., Washington, D. C. Reprinted from the Bibliotheca Sacra, April, 1917.SBBS 183.2

The line in Matthew is the regal line through Solomon, exhausted in Joseph. The line in Luke is the legal line through Nathan, an elder brother (2 Samuel 5:14), exhausted in Mary.—“The Companion Bible,” note on Matthew 1:16. London: Oxford University Press.SBBS 183.3

Genseric.—See Rome, 437, 438, 456, 457; Seven Trumpets, 499, 502-504.SBBS 183.4

Geographical Society.—See Increase of Knowledge, 226.SBBS 183.5

Gepida.—See Rome, Its Barbarian Invaders, 443.SBBS 183.6

Gnosticism, Definition of.—An eclectic system of religion and philosophy, existing from the first to the sixth century. It attempted, in order to commend Christian doctrine to the philosophical tenets of the age, a system of mediation between the two, by teaching that knowledge, rather than faith, was the key to salvation, and incorporating some of the features of Platonism, Orientalism, and Dualism with Christianity. The Gnostics held that God in himself is unknowable and unapproachable, but that all existences, material and spiritual, are derived from the Deity by successive emanations, or eons. Gnosticism borrowed certain elements from the current Persian philosophy, but more from the Greek doctrines connected with Neo-Platonic ideas of Logos and Nous. Christ was merely a superior eon.—New Standard Dictionary, art. “Gnosticism,” p. 1047. New York: Funk and Wagnalls Company, 1913.SBBS 183.7

Goths.—See Papal Supremacy, 361; Rome, 437, 438, 444-450.SBBS 183.8

Grant, Gen. Ulysses S.—See Eastern Question, 156; Religious Liberty, 418.SBBS 183.9

Greece, Historical Sketch of, to 500 b. c.—The beginnings of life in the Agean world are unknown. The Oriental peoples were already far advanced in civilization when the first light breaks on this region. But by 2000 b. c. a high culture was produced in Crete under Egyptian influence, probably by a pre-Greek people. About 1500 b. c. this culture was diffused over the Agean world, modified in many respects, and possessed by the Greeks who had migrated into Greece from the north. This so-called Mycenaan age was brought to an end by the descent of rude tribes from the north, which is called the Dorian migration. This cut off Greece from the outer world, and set in motion new forces of political and social organization. Changes from tribal life to local settlement created the city-state and put at its head the aristocratic government.SBBS 183.10

When the newcomers had adjusted themselves to their new homes, commerce began to revive on the shores of the Agean. The cities on the Asia Minor coast came forward. New relations with the Orient arose. Wealth gave leisure and opportunity for the new growth of literature and art and religion. Epic poetry reached its height in Homer. The Greeks began to know themselves as one people, the Hellenes, and to form their ideals of social, religious, and political life....SBBS 184.1

Two states rose above the others as the age drew to an end. Sparta illustrates the tendency to maintain and harden the old tribal system with its equality and its military bent. It grew by conquest, until it occupied two fifths of the Peloponnesus and formed a political league embracing almost all the rest. Thus it was the leading Greek state. Athens went to the other extreme. Its lawgivers, Solon and Cleisthenes, led the way in the establishment of popular government. Pisistratus, the Athenian tyrant, gave the state a leading place among the commercial powers of the time. Thus by 500 b. c. the Greek world had reached a point at which, its political institutions fixed and its states firmly established, it was prepared to take its place and do its work in world politics. This place and work in the world were opened to it in the rapidly approaching complications with the Persian Empire.—“A History of the Ancient World,” George Stephen Goodspeed, Ph. D., pp. 123-125. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.SBBS 184.2

Greece, Alexander “First King” of Imperial.—And it happened, after that Alexander, son of Philip the Macedonian, who came out of the land of Chettiim, had smitten Darius king of the Persians and Medes, that he reigned in his stead, the first over Greece. 1 Maccabees 1: 1.SBBS 184.3

With Alexander the New Greece begins.—“Story of Greece,” Prof. J. A. Harrison, p. 499. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons, 1890.SBBS 184.4

Greece, Arrian on Alexander as Leader of All Grecia.—Alexander, then about twenty years of age, ascended his [Philip’s] throne, and marched into Peloponnesus, where in a grand council of all the Greeks of those parts, he requested to be made general of the intended expedition against the Persians (an honor which had been before conferred on his father Philip). This was granted by all, except the Lacedamonians, who alleged that by an ancient custom of theirs, deduced from their ancestors, the Lacedamonians ought not to obey the orders of a foreign general, but themselves to have the command of any army raised for a foreign expedition. The Athenians were also busy in contriving to bring some innovation about; but were so terrified at Alexander’s approach, that they decreed him more honors than they had before promised his father. He then returned into Macedonia, to raise forces for his expedition into Asia.—“History of Alexander’s Expedition,” Arrian, book 1, chap. 1, Rooke’s translation (Vol. I, p. 3). London, 1814.SBBS 184.5

Greece, Alexander Formally Recognized as Imperial Head of.—The congress of the confederacy met at Corinth to elect Alexander general in his father’s place. Alexander was chosen supreme general of the Greeks for the invasion of Asia; and it was as head of Hellas, descendant and successor of Achilles, rather than as Macedonian king, that he desired to go forth against Persia.... The welcome ... and the vote, however perfunctory, which elected him leader of the Greeks, were the fitting prelude to the expansion of Hellas, and the diffusion of Hellenic civilization, which destiny had chosen him to accomplish. He was thus formally recognized as what he in fullest verity was, the representative of Greece.—“History of Greece,” J. B. Bury, Vol. 11, p. 330.SBBS 184.6

Greece, Alexander as Leader.—Alexander is the flower of the Greek race, the supreme figure in its gallery of heroes. In physical strength and beauty, in mental grasp and poise, in moral purpose and mastery, he was pre-eminent among the men of his time. Of high, almost sentimental, ideals of honor, a warm-hearted, genial companion and friend, the idol of his troops, fearless even to recklessness in the day of battle, he knew how to work tirelessly, to hold purposes with an iron resolution, to sweep all opposition from his path, and to deny himself pitilessly for the fulfilment of his plans. To reach so high a station, to stand alone at the summit of human achievement, was for so young a man almost fatally dangerous. Alexander did not escape unharmed. Power made him sometimes arbitrary and cruel. Opposition drove him to crimes which are without excuse.... In thirteen years of incessant activity he mastered the world and set it going in new paths. While accomplishing this task he made his name immortal.SBBS 185.1

The greatness of Alexander as a general is clearly revealed in the full accounts of the battles he fought and the campaigns he carried through to success. He was the mightiest conqueror the world had ever seen. But it has been reserved for modern scholars to emphasize the most splendid and enduring elements of his career: his genius for organization, his statesmanship, his far-reaching plans of government and administration. Like all his great predecessors in the field of arms, he was no mere fighter for the sake of fighting, nor did the lust of acquisition spur him on to useless and empty conquests. The crowning and decisive proof of this is seen in the cities which he founded. No conquest was complete until he had selected sites for new settlements, and these sites were chosen with unerring insight into the opportunities for trade as well as for defense. Sixteen Alexandrias all over the east go back to him as founder, the greatest of which was the Egyptian metropolis. It is said that he founded in all some seventy cities. Many of them were so wisely planted that they exist to this day as flourishing centers of commercial life....SBBS 185.2

Alexander had had himself greeted as a son of Zeus by the oracle of Amon, which enjoyed a great repute in the entire Greek world in the fourth century b. c. In 324 b. c. he demanded that each city should enrol him in its circle of deities. This was done reluctantly in some places, as in Athens and Sparta, but in general it was done with enthusiasm; for henceforth the cities could take orders from Alexander without loss of self-respect. To obey their gods was a duty, while on the other hand, to acknowledge the authority of an outside king would have been humiliating to places which in theory were free and self-governing. This was the way in which Alexander organized his vast empire.—“A History of the Ancient World,” George Stephen Goodspeed, Ph. D., pp. 242-247. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1912.SBBS 185.3

Greece, Universal Dominion.—In the tenth year after he had crossed the Hellespont, Alexander, having won his vast dominion, entered Babylon; and resting from his career in that oldest seat of earthly empire, he steadily surveyed the mass of various nations which owned his sovereignty, and revolved in his mind the great work of breathing into this huge but inert body the living spirit of Greek civilization. In the bloom of youthful manhood, at the age of thirty-two, he paused from the fiery speed of his earlier course: and for the first time gave the nations an opportunity of offering their homage before his throne. They came from all the extremities of the earth, to propitiate his anger, to celebrate his greatness, or to solicit his protection.—“History of Rome,” Thomas Arnold, Vol. II, chap. 30, par. 1.SBBS 185.4

Greece, Appian on Alexander’s Ambition.—He [Alexander] was never defeated, and he finished almost every war in one or two battles.... He overran almost the whole of Asia. To sum up Alexander’s fortune and power in a word, he acquired as much of the earth as he saw, and died while he was devising means to capture the rest.—“The Roman History,” Appian of Alexandria, translated by Horace White; “The Civil Wars,” book 2, chap. 21, par. 149 (Vol. II, p. 204). New York: The Macmillan Company, 1899.SBBS 186.1

Greece, Arrian on World-Empire.—I am persuaded, there was no nation, city, nor people then in being, whither his [Alexander’s] name did not reach; for which reason, whatever origin he might boast of, or claim to himself, there seems to me to have been some divine hand presiding both over his birth and actions, insomuch that no mortal upon earth either excelled or equaled him.—“History of Alexander’s Expedition,” Arrian, book 7, chap. 30, Rooke’s translation (Vol. II, p. 185). London, 1864.SBBS 186.2

Others [say of his plans of conquest just as he died] that he proposed to coast round Sicily, by the promontory Iapygium; for then it was that the Roman name began to spread far and wide, and gave him much umbrage. Thus are authors divided in their opinions concerning his ambitious designs. As for my part, I can neither tell for certain what he designed, nor care much to proceed to guess work.—Id., book 7, chap. 1.SBBS 186.3

Wherever you fly [wrote Alexander to the retreating Darius], thither I will surely pursue you.—Id., book 2, chap. 14.SBBS 186.4

“Vain in his hopes, the youth had grasped at all,
And his vast thought took in the vanquished ball.”SBBS 186.5

—“Pharsalia,” Lucan, Nicholas Rowe’s translation, book 3.SBBS 186.6

“Driven headlong on by Fate’s resistless force, Through Asia’s realms he took his dreadful course: His ruthless sword laid human nature waste, And desolation followed where he passed....SBBS 186.7

“Ev’n to the utmost west he would have gone, Where Tethys’ lap receives the setting sun.”SBBS 186.8

-Id., book 10.SBBS 186.9

Greece, Rapidity of Conquest.—The empire of Alexander was splendid in its magnitude, in its armies, in the success and rapidity of his conquests, and it wanted little of being boundless and unexampled, yet in its shortness of duration it was like a brilliant flash of lightning. Although broken into several satrapies, even the parts were splendid.—“The Roman History,” Appian of Alexandria, Preface, par. 10, translation of Horace White (Vol. I, p. 5). New York: The Macmillan Company, 1899.SBBS 186.10

[Alexander] who shot like a star, with incredible swiftness, from the rising to the setting sun, was meditating to bring the luster of his arms into Italy.... He had heard of the Roman power in Italy.—“Morals,” Plutarch, article on “Fortune of the Romans,” par. 13.SBBS 186.11

Greece, Its Swift Progress Portrayed in Prophecy.—The rapidity of Alexander’s conquests is vividly portrayed by the progress of the he goat. Rapidly crossing the Hellespont with 40,000 Greek troops, Alexander gained his first victory over the Persian armies at the Granicas, b. c. 334, and overran in that year and part of the next the whole of Asia Minor. He took by siege several important cities, while other cities opened their gates at the mere summons of the conqueror. Alexander gained a decisive victory over Darius Codomanus, who commanded in person, at the battle of Issus in November of the next year (b. c. 333). He then invaded Phonicia and captured Tyre, thus destroying the base from which a Persian fleet might have operated. Palestine submitted to his authority. He besieged Gaza, overran Egypt, and, turning northwards to Babylon, defeated Darius in the decisive battle of Arbela, in b. c. 331. Ere b. c. 330, Alexander had taken possession of Babylon and Susa, burned Persepolis, and put an end to the Persian Empire. Thus did the he goat with its one horn cast down the two-horned ram to the ground and trample upon it.—“Daniel and His Prophecies,” Charles H. H. Wright, D. D., pp. 174, 175. London: Williams and Norgate, 1906.SBBS 187.1

Greece, Alexander’s Victory over Medo-Persia.—From Egypt Alexander retraced his steps to Syria and marched eastward. At Arbela, not far from the ancient Nineveh, his farther advance was disputed by Darius with an immense army, numbering, if we may rely upon our authorities, over a million men. The vast Persian host was overthrown with enormous slaughter. Darius fled from the field, as he had done at Issus, and later was treacherously killed by an attendant.SBBS 187.2

The battle of Arbela [331 b. c.] was one of the decisive combats of history. It marked the end of the long struggle between the East and the West, between Persia and Greece, and prepared the way for the spread of Hellenic civilization over all Western Asia.SBBS 187.3

From the field of Arbela Alexander marched south to Babylon, which opened its gates to him without opposition. Susa was next entered by the conqueror. Here he seized incredible quantities of gold and silver ($57,000,000, it is said), the treasure of the Great King.—“General History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, pp. 153, 154. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 187.4

Greece, Alexander’s Power “Broken” (“When He was Strong.” Daniel 8:8).—As he was now on his return to Babylon, from the remotest shores of the ocean, he received advice that ambassadors from Carthage, and the other cities of Africa, as also from Spain, Sicily, Gaul, Sardinia, and some places of Italy, attended his coming there. So much was the whole world awed by the terror of his name, that all nations came to pay their obedience to him, as one that was designed by fate to be their monarch. For this reason as he was hastening to Babylon, with a design, as one would think, to celebrate the Convention of the whole universe, a Chaldean soothsayer advised him not to enter that city.—“History of the World,” Junianus Justinus Justin, book 12, chap. 13.SBBS 187.5

Greece, Alexander Removed in the “Flower of His Age.”—Being thus taken off in the flower of his age, and in the height of his victories.... The conquered nations could not believe the report.—Id., book 13, chap. 1.SBBS 187.6

Greece, Alexander’s Incompleted Work.—The work was everywhere incomplete. Who could expect that this god should perish, and so young, in the strength of his age and mental vigor? His death struck the world with stupor.—“History of Greece,” Jean Victor Duruy, Vol. IV, p. 215, chap. 33. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1891.SBBS 188.1

Greece, Alexander’s Fall at Summit of Greatness.—Now, when he [Alexander] seemed to be at the summit of worldly greatness and prosperity, that space of life which he might have run through by the course of nature was cut short by the determination of fate.—“Historical Library,” Diodorus Siculus, book 17, chap. 12.SBBS 188.2

Greece, The Death of Alexander (323 b. c.).—In the midst of his vast projects Alexander was seized by a fever, brought on doubtless by his insane excesses, and died at Babylon, 323 b. c., in the thirty-second year of his age. His soldiers could not let him die without seeing him. The watchers of the palace were obliged to open the doors to them, and the veterans of a hundred battlefields filed sorrowfully past the couch of their dying commander. His body was carried first to Memphis, but afterwards to Alexandria, in Egypt, and there inclosed in a golden coffin, over which was raised a splendid mausoleum. His ambition for celestial honors was gratified in his death; for in Egypt and elsewhere temples were dedicated to him, and divine worship was paid to his statues.—“General History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, p. 155. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 188.3

Greece, Influence of Alexander’s Conquests on.—His genius and energy in war, in organization, and in planting colonies were marvelous. His mind expanded rapidly with the progress of his conquests. First king of Macedon, next captain-general of Hellas, then emperor of Persia, he aspired finally to be lord of the whole earth. His object was not to Hellenize the world, but to blend the continents in one nation and one civilization. But the dizzy height of power to which he had climbed disturbed his mental poise; in an outburst of passion he murdered his dearest friend; his lust for worship grew upon him till he bade the manly Macedonians grovel before him like servile Asiatics, and sent an order to the Greeks to recognize him as a god. Year by year he grew more egotistical and more despotic and violent.SBBS 188.4

It would be idle to speculate on what he might have accomplished had he lived to old age. We must judge him by his actual achievements. His conquests stimulated exploration and discovery, introducing a great age of scientific invention. They tended to break down the barrier between Greek and barbarian, and they gave Hellenic civilization to the world. People of widely separated countries became better acquainted with one another, and thus acquired a more liberal spirit and a broader view of mankind. The building up of an empire far greater than the Persian was itself a stage in the growth of the idea that all men are brothers. It is a fact, too, that Alexander’s conquests made easier the growth of the Roman Empire. On the other hand, the conquest conferred no lasting benefit on the masses of the conquered.—“A History of the Ancient World,” George Willis Botsford, Ph. D., p. 284. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911.SBBS 188.5

It would not be easy to name any other period of ten years in the history of the world beside the reign of Alexander in which as momentous a change passed over as large a part of the earth-a change which made such difference in the face of things. Suddenly the pageant of the greatest empire ever known had been swept away....SBBS 188.6

In the spring of 323 before Christ the whole order of things from the Adriatic away to the mountains of Central Asia, and the dusty plains of the Punjab, rested upon a single will, a single brain, nurtured in Hellenic thought. Then the hand of God, as if trying some fantastic experiment, plucked this man away.—“House of Seleucus,” E. R. Bevan, Vol. I, p. 28.SBBS 189.1

Greece, Alexander’s Empire Left “Not to His Posterity.”—The family of Alexander had a most tragical end: 1. His wife Statira was murdered soon after his death by his other wife Roxana. 2. His brother Aridaus, who succeeded him, was killed, together with his wife Euridice, by command of Olympias, Alexander’s mother, after he had been king about six years and some months. 3. Olympias herself was killed by the soldiers in revenge. 4. Alexander Agus, his son, together with his mother Roxana, was slain by order of Cassander. 5. Two years after, his other son Hercules, with his mother Barsine, was privately murdered by Polysperchon; so that in fifteen years after his death not one of his family or posterity remained alive!-“Commentary,” Dr. Adam Clarke, note on Daniel 11:4.SBBS 189.2

Now all the seed royal being extinct, and no successor remaining, every one of the captains who had possessed themselves of provinces or cities took upon themselves the titles and styles of kings.—“Historical Library,” Diodorus Siculus, book 19, chap. 7.SBBS 189.3

Greece, Divided Toward the Four Winds (Daniel 8:8; 11:4).—When Alexander died, the authority passed to his generals, all trained in war, yet none qualified to fill the place of the master. As his son was but an infant, and as the generals began to fight among themselves for the first place, the empire naturally fell to pieces. The decisive battle among these generals was fought at Ipsus in Phrygia (301 b. c.). This was one of the most important battles of ancient times, as it determined the history of the empire till it fell under the power of Rome.SBBS 189.4

The victors divided the empire into kingdoms for themselves: Seleucus received Asia from Phrygia to India; western Asia Minor and Thrace fell to Lysimachus; Ptolemy became king of Egypt; and Cassander, already governor of Macedon, was now recognized as sovereign. In this way four kingdoms arose from the empire. Somewhat later Lysimachus was killed and his realm divided. While most of his Asiatic possessions were annexed to the kingdom of Seleucus, barbarous tribes, including many Gauls, seized the interior of Thrace and threatened the Greek cities along the coast.—“A History of the Ancient World,” George Willis Botsford, Ph. D., pp. 296, 297. New York: The Macmillan Company, 1911.SBBS 189.5

Greece, Four “Notable” Divisions.—The vast empire created by Alexander’s unparalleled conquests was distracted by the wranglings and wars of his successors, and before the close of the fourth century before Christ, had become broken up into many fragments. Besides minor states, four well-defined and important monarchies arose out of the ruins.... Their rulers were Lysimachus, Cassander, Seleucus Nicator, and Ptolemy, who had each assumed the title of king. The great horn was broken; and instead of it came up four notable ones toward the four winds of heaven.—“History of Greece,” Philip Van Ness Myers, edition 1902, p. 457.*SBBS 189.6

A quadripartite division of Alexander’s dominions was recognized, Macedonia, Egypt, Asia Minor, and Syria (or Southwestern Asia) becoming thenceforth distinct political entities.—“The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,” George Rawlinson, M. A., chap. 3, p. 30. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 189.7

Greece, The Four Divisions Reduced to Three.—The result of the battle of Ipsos was not, however, the establishment of a more permanent division of the empire. We shall see later the number of kings again reduced; at present they are four; soon they will be only three.—“History of Greece,” Jean Victor Duruy, chap. 34; Vol. IV, p. 296. Boston: Estes and Lauriat, 1891.SBBS 190.1

[After the overthrow of Lysimachus] there were three great kingdoms-Macedonia, Egypt, Syria-which lasted each under its own dynasty, till Rome swallowed them up.—“Alexander’s Empire,” J. P. Mahaffy, p. 89.SBBS 190.2

Greece, Outline History of Three Divisions.—230. Macedonia (323-146 B. C.).-Macedonia was one of the first countries east of the Adriatic to come in hostile contact with the great military republic of the West. After much intrigue and a series of wars, the country was finally brought into subjection to the Italian power and made into a Roman province (146 b. c.).SBBS 190.3

231. Syria, or the Kingdom of the Selucida (312-65 B. C.).—Under its first ruler this kingdom comprised nominally almost all the countries of Asia conquered by Alexander, thus stretching from the Hellespont to the Indus; but in reality the monarchy embraced only Asia Minor, Syria, and the old Assyria and Babylonia. Its rulers were called Selucida, from the founder of the kingdom, Seleucus Nicator.SBBS 190.4

Seleucus Nicator (312-281 b. c.), besides being a ruler of unusual ability, was a most liberal patron of learning and art. He is declared to have been “the greatest founder of cities that ever lived.” Throughout his dominions he founded a vast number, some of which endured for many centuries, and were known far and wide as homes and centers of Hellenistic civilization.SBBS 190.5

The successors of Seleucus Nicator led the kingdom through checkered fortunes. On different sides provinces fell away and became independent states. Antiochus III (223-187 b. c.), called “the Great,” raised the kingdom for a short time into great prominence; but finally the country was overrun by the Roman legions and was made a part of the Roman Republic (63 b. c.).SBBS 190.6

232. Kingdom of the Ptolemies in Egypt (323-30 B. C.).-The Graco-Egyptian empire of the Ptolemies was by far the most important, in its influence upon the civilization of the world, of all the kingdoms that owed their origin to the conquests of Alexander. The founder of the house and dynasty was Ptolemy I, surnamed Soter (323-283 b. c.), a companion of Alexander.SBBS 190.7

Under Ptolemy, Alexandria became the great depot of exchange for the productions of the world. At the entrance of the harbor stood the Pharos, or lighthouse,-the first structure of its kind. This edifice was reckoned one of the Seven Wonders.SBBS 190.8

But it was not alone the exchange of material products that was comprehended in Ptolemy’s scheme. His aim was to make his capital the intellectual center of the world,-the place where the arts, sciences, literatures, and even the religions of the world should meet and mingle. He founded the famous Museum, a sort of college, which became the “University of the East,” and established the renowned Alexandrian Library. He encouraged poets, artists, philosophers, and teachers in all departments of learning to settle in Alexandria by conferring upon them immunities and privileges, and by gifts and a munificent patronage. His court embraced the learning and genius of the age.SBBS 190.9

Ptolemy Philadelphus (283-247 b. c.) followed closely in the foot-steps of his father. He added largely to the royal library, and extended to scholars the same liberal patronage that his father had before him. It was under his direction that the translation into Greek of the Hebrew Testament was made.SBBS 191.1

Altogether the Ptolemies reigned in Egypt almost exactly three centuries (323-30 b. c.). The story of the beautiful but dissolute Cleopatra, the last of the house of the Ptolemies, belongs properly to the history of Rome, which city was now interfering in the affairs of the Orient. In the year 30 b. c., the year which marks the death of Cleopatra, Egypt was made a Roman province.—“General History,” Philip Van Ness Myers, pp. 157-159. Boston: Ginn and Company.SBBS 191.2

Greece, Its Two Strong Divisions (Daniel 11:5).—Soon after Alexander’s death, his generals formed a compact for the government of his empire; but it was soon broken, and out of his conquests four kingdoms arose, of which the most important were those of Seleucus in Asia, and of Ptolemy in Africa.—“Bible Atlas,” Rev. Jesse L. Hurlbut, D. D., p. 95. Chicago: Rand, McNally & Co.SBBS 191.3

Greece, The Southern Kingdom Strong.—During the reign of its [Egypt’s] second monarch, Ptolemy Philadelphus (285-246 b. c.), its capital, Alexandria, was the London of the ancient world. Its only rival in trade and commerce was its neighbor to the west, Carthage. The golden age of the Ptolemies coincides with the one epoch in the history of the world in which Africa was the leader in business enterprise, in money power, in naval strength, in luxury, in science, and, till the real test came, in political prestige and influence. The commercial aristocracy of Carthage and the enlightened despots of Alexandria had the Mediterranean divided between them.—“Greek Imperialism,” W. S. Ferguson, p. 155.SBBS 191.4

Greece, The Northern Kingdom Strongest.—Of the four powers thus established [at Ipsus, 301 b. c.], the most important, and that with which we are here especially concerned, was the kingdom of Syria (as it was called), or that ruled for 247 years by the Selucida. Seleucus Nicator, the founder of this kingdom, was one of Alexander’s officers.—“The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,” George Rawlinson, M. A., chap. 3, p. 31. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 191.5

Greece, Appian on the Kingdom of Seleucus.—At this division [301 b. c.] all Syria from the Euphrates to the sea, also inland Phrygia, fell to the lot of Seleucus. Always lying in wait for the neighboring nations, strong in arms and persuasive in council, he acquired Mesopotamia, Armenia, the so-called Seleucid Cappadocia, the Persians, Parthians, Bactrians, Arabs, Tapryi, Sogdiani, Arachates, Hyrcanians, and other adjacent peoples that had been subdued by Alexander, as far as the river Indus, so that the boundaries of his empire were the most extensive in Asia after that of Alexander. The whole region from Phrygia to the Indus was subject to Seleucus.—“The Roman History,” Appian of Alexandria, “The Foreign Wars,” book 11, chap. 9, par. 55 (Vol. I, p. 314).SBBS 191.6

Greece, The North Becomes the Territory of Seleucus.—He [Seleucus] then [312 b. c.] proceeded to conquer Susiana, Media, and the eastern provinces of Alexander’s empire to the banks of the Oxus and the Indus. He carried on war, too, with an Indian king, Sandracottus or Chandragupta. In 306 he assumed the title of king, and in 302 he again joined Lysimachus, Cassander, and Ptolemy against Antigonus; and the victory at Ipsus in 301 was largely due to his generalship. By this victory he acquired half of Asia Minor and all Syria. After capturing Demetrius in 286 b. c., Seleucus declared war on Lysimachus, and defeated and slew him at Corupedion. This victory made Seleucus master of all Asia, and left the throne of Macedonia vacant. Seleucus crossed the Hellespont to seize it; but he was murdered in Thrace by Ptolemy Ceraunus, a son of Ptolemy, king of Egypt. He was a great conqueror, and founded many cities.... These foundations were centers of Greek life and culture; and two of them, Antioch in Syria and Seleucia on the Tigris, ranked among the greatest cities of the world.—Nelson’s Encyclopedia, art. “Seleucus,” Vol. XI, p. 91. New York: Thomas Nelson & Sons, 1907.SBBS 191.7

Greece, Capital of Seleucus Removed to North.—The empire of Seleucus might have been conveniently ruled from the site of the ancient Nineveh, or from either of the two still existing and still flourishing cities of Susa and Babylon.... Babylon was Seleucus’s first choice; and there his court was held for some years previously to his march against Antigonus. But either certain disadvantages were found to attach to Babylon as a residence, or the mere love of variety and change caused him very shortly to repent of his selection, and to transfer his capital to another site. He founded, and built with great rapidity, the city of Seleucia upon the Tigris, at the distance of about forty miles from Babylon, and had transferred thither the seat of government even before b. c. 301....SBBS 192.1

But after Ipsus a further change was made.... Seleucus once more transferred the seat of empire, exchanging this time the valley of the Tigris for that of the Orontes, and the central position of Lower Mesopotamia for almost the extreme western point of his vast territories. Antioch arose in extraordinary beauty and magnificence during the first few years that succeeded Ipsus, and Seleucus in a short time made it his ordinary residence. The change weakened the ties which bound the empire together, offended the bulk of the Asiatics, who saw their monarch withdraw from them into a remote region, and particularly loosened the grasp of the government on those more eastern districts which were at once farthest from the new metropolis and least assimilated to the Hellenic character. Among the causes which led to the disintegration of the Seleucid kingdom, there is none that deserves so well to be considered the main cause as this.—“The Sixth Great Oriental Monarchy,” George Rawlinson, M. A., chap. 3, pp. 34, 35. New York: Dodd, Mead & Co.SBBS 192.2

Greece, Warfare Between North and South over Palestine.—It was the fond dream of each “successor” of Alexander that in his person might, perhaps, be one day united all the territories of the great conqueror. Seleucus would have felt that he sacrificed his most cherished hopes if he had allowed the West to go its own way, and had contented himself with consolidating a great power in the regions east of the Euphrates.SBBS 192.3

And the policy of the founder of the house was followed by his successors. The three Seleucid sovereigns who reigned prior to the Parthian revolt were, one and all, engaged in frequent, if not continual, wars with the monarchs of Egypt and Asia Minor. The first Seleucus, by his claim to the sovereignty of Lower Syria, established a ground of constant contention with the Ptolemies; and though he did not prosecute the claim to the extent of actual hostility, yet in the reign of his son. Antiochus I, called Soter, the smothered quarrel broke out.—Id., chap. 3, p. 37.SBBS 192.4

The Ptolemies gained Cyrene and Cyprus, and struggled hard with the Syrian kings for the possession of Phonicia; Palestine was as of old the battlefield for the king of the north and the king of the south. The Ptolemies even held Seleucia at the mouth of the Orontes for some time. The history of these times is lost in its detail.—Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XV, art. “Macedonian Empire,” p. 144, 9th edition. New York: The Werner Company, 1903.SBBS 193.1

Greece, Outline History of Conflicts of the Kings of North and South.—Ptolemy became master of Palestine in 312 b. c., and though, as Josephus complains, he may have disgraced his title, Soter [Preserver], by momentary severity at the outset, later he created in the minds of the Jews the impression that in Palestine or in Egypt he was-in deed as well as in name-their preserver. Since 315 b. c. Palestine had been occupied by the forces of Antigonus. Ptolemy’s successful forward movement was undertaken by the advice of Seleucus (Diodorus xix. 80 sqq.), who followed it up by regaining possession of Babylonia. So the Seleucid era began in 312 b. c. (cf. Maccabees 1: 10) and the dynasty of Seleucus justified the “prophecy” of Daniel 11:5: “And the king of the south [Ptolemy] shall be strong, but one of his captains [Seleucus] shall be strong above him and have dominion.” ...SBBS 193.2

But when Seleucus came to claim Palestine as part of his share, he found his old chief Ptolemy in possession and retired under protest. From 301 b. c. to 198 b. c. Palestine remained, with short interruptions, in the hands of the Ptolemies....SBBS 193.3

Halfway through this century (249 b. c.) the desultory warfare between Egypt and the Seleucid power came to a temporary end (Daniel 11:6). Ptolemy II, Philadelphus, gave his daughter Berenice with a great dowry to Antiochus II, Theos. When Ptolemy died (247 b. c.), Antiochus’s divorced wife Laodice was restored to favor, and Antiochus died suddenly in order that she might regain her power. Berenice and her son were likewise removed from the path of her son Seleucus. In the vain hope of protecting his sister Berenice, the new king of Egypt, Ptolemy III Euergetes I, invaded the Seleucid territory, “entered the fortress of the king of the north” (Daniel 11:7 sqq.), and only returned-laden with spoils, images captured from Egypt by Cambyses, and captives (Jerome on Daniel loc. cit.)-to put down a domestic rebellion. Seleucus reconquered northern Syria without much difficulty (Justin 37:2, 1), but on an attempt to seize Palestine he was signally defeated by Ptolemy (Justin 27:2, 4).SBBS 193.4

In 223 b. c. Antiochus III the Great came to the throne of the Seleucid Empire and set about extending its boundaries in different directions. His first attempt on Palestine (221 b. c.) failed; the second succeeded by the treachery of Ptolemy’s lieutenant, who had been recalled to Alexandria in consequence of his successful resistance to the earlier invasion. But in spite of this assistance the conquest of Cole-Syria was not quickly achieved; and when Antiochus advanced in 218 b. c. he was opposed by the Egyptians on land and sea. Nevertheless he made his way into Palestine, planted garrisons at Philoteria on the Sea of Galilee and Scythopolis, and finally stormed Rabbath-ammon (Philadelphia) which was held by partisans of Egypt. [Daniel 11:10.] Early in 217 b. c. Ptolemy Philopater led his forces towards Raphia, which with Gaza was now in the hands of Antiochus, and drove the invaders back. The great multitude was given into his hand, but he was not to be strengthened permanently by his triumph (Daniel 11:11 sqq.). Polybius describes his triumphal progress (v. 86): “All the cities vied with one another in returning to their allegiance. The inhabitants of those parts are always ready to accommodate themselves to the situation of the moment and prompt to pay the courtesies required by the occasion. And in this case it was natural enough because of their deep-seated affection for the royal house of Alexandria.”SBBS 193.5

When Ptolemy Philopater died, in 205 b. c., Antiochus and Philip of Macedon, his nominal friends, made a secret compact for the division of his possessions outside Egypt. The time had come of which Daniel 11:13 sqq. says: “The king of the north shall return after certain years with a great army and with much riches. And in those times there shall many stand up against the king of the south.” ... Palestine was apparently allotted to Antiochus and he came to take it, while Philip created a diversion in Thrace and Asia Minor.... But in the year 200 b. c. Rome intervened with an embassy, which declared war upon Philip and directed Antiochus and Ptolemy to make peace (Polyb. xvi. 27). And in 198 b. c. Antiochus heard that Scopas, Ptolemy’s hired commander-in-chief, had retaken Cole-Syria (Polyb. xvi. 39) and had subdued the nation of the Jews in the winter. For these sufficient reasons Antiochus hurried back and defeated Scopas at Paneas, which was known later as Casarea Philippi (Polyb. xvi. 18 sqq.). After his victory he took formal possession of Batanaa, Samaria, Abila, and Gadara; “and after a little the Jews who dwelt round about the shrine called Jerusalem came over to him” (Polyb. xvi. 39). Only Gaza withstood him, as it withstood Alexander; and Polybius (xvi. 40) pauses to praise their fidelity to Ptolemy. The siege of Gaza was famous; but in the end the city [thus “fenced cities” were taken. Daniel 11:15] was taken by storm, and Antiochus, secure at last of the province, which his ancestors had so long coveted, was at peace with Ptolemy, as the Roman embassy directed.... But war between Rome and Antiochus was clearly inevitable-and Antiochus was joined by Hannibal. After much diplomacy, Antiochus advanced into Greece, and Rome declared war upon him in 191 b. c. (Livy xxxvi. 1). He was defeated on the seas and driven first out of Greece and then out of Asia Minor. His army was practically destroyed at Magnesia, and he was forced to accept the terms of peace, which the Romans had offered and he had refused before the battle. [At last one had “come against him” before whom he could not stand, the mighty power of Rome. Daniel 11:16].—Encyclopedia Britannica, Vol. XX, art. “Palestine,” pp. 618, 619, 11th edition.SBBS 194.1

Note.—It should be noted that in this article explanatory insertions in brackets [] are by the publishers of this book, while those in curves are in the Encyclopedia article itself.—Eds.SBBS 194.2

Greece.—See Rome, 431, 432.SBBS 194.3

Greek Church, Separation of, from Rome.—It [the separation between the Greek and the Roman Churches] is due chiefly to three causes. The first cause is the politico-ecclesiastical rivalry of the Patriarch of Constantinople backed by the Byzantine Empire, and the Bishop of Rome in connection with the new German Empire. The second cause is the growing centralization and overbearing conduct of the Latin Church in and through the Papacy. The third cause is the stationary character of the Greek and the progressive character of the Latin Church during the Middle Ages. [311] ...SBBS 194.4

The first serious outbreak of this conflict took place after the middle of the ninth century, when Photius and Nicolas, two of the ablest representatives of the rival churches, came into collision. Photius is one of the greatest of patriarchs, as Nicolas is one of the greatest of popes. The former was superior in learning, the latter in statesmanship; while in moral integrity, official pride, and obstinacy both were fairly matched, except that the papal ambition towered above the patriarchal dignity. Photius would tolerate no superior, Nicolas no equal; the one stood on the Council of Chalcedon, the other on Pseudo-Isidor.SBBS 194.5

The contest between them was at first personal. The deposition of Ignatius as Patriarch of Constantinople, for rebuking the immorality of Casar Bardas, and the election of Photius, then a mere layman, in his place (858), were arbitrary and uncanonical acts which created a temporary schism in the East, and prepared the way for a permanent schism between the East and the West. Nicolas, being appealed to as mediator by both parties (first by Photius), assumed the haughty air of supreme judge on the basis of the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals, but was at first deceived by his own legates. The controversy was complicated by the Bulgarian quarrel. King Bogoris had been converted to Christianity by missionaries from Constantinople (861), but soon after applied to Rome for teachers, and the Pope eagerly seized this opportunity to extend his jurisdiction (866).SBBS 195.1

Nicolas, in a Roman synod (863), decided in favor of the innocent Ignatius, and pronounced sentence of deposition against Photius with a threat of excommunication in case of disobedience. Photius, enraged by this conduct and the Bulgarian interference, held a countersynod, and deposed in turn the successor of St. Peter (867). In his famous encyclical letter of invitation to the Eastern patriarchs, he charged the whole Western Church with heresy and schism for interfering with the jurisdiction over the Bulgarians, for fasting on Saturday, for abridging the time of Lent by a week, for taking milk-food (milk, cheese, and butter) during the quadragesimal fast, for enforcing clerical celibacy, and despising priests who lived in virtuous matrimony, and, most of all, for corrupting the Nicene Creed by the insertion of the Filioque, and thereby introducing two principles into the Holy Trinity.SBBS 195.2

This letter clearly indicates all the doctrinal and ritual differences which caused and perpetuated the schism to this day. The subsequent history is only a renewal of the same charges aggravated by the misfortunes of the Greek Church, and the arrogance and intolerance of old Rome. [312-314]—“History of the Christian Church,” Philip Schaff, Vol. IV, pp. 311-314. New York: Charles Scribner’s Sons, 1885.SBBS 195.3

Greek Church, Date of Final Separation of.—Leo [IX, 1049-1055] sent an embassy to Constantinople, at the head of which stood the masterful and passionate Cardinal Humbert. Leo’s letters censured the assumption of Michael Carularius, in calling himself the ecumenical patriarch, and desiring thereby to subordinate to himself the Eastern patriarchs; so also his procedure against the Roman custom in the Supper. Plainly under the pressure of the imperial wish, Nicetas Pectoratus, a monk of the monastery of Studion, agreed to repudiate his treatise against the Latins in the presence of the court and the Roman ambassadors, and the emperor caused it to be burned. But Michael Carularius [Patriarch of Constantinople] proved unapproachable and broke off all intercourse with the Roman legates. They then deposited a bull of excommunication against him on the altar of St. Sophia, on the 16th July, 1054, in which he was accused of all possible heresies, and every one who received the Supper from a Greek who blamed the Roman sacrifice was threatened with the ban. Once more the emperor induced the already departed legates to return; but the populace took the side of their Patriarch, the legates were obliged to take flight, and were placed under the ban by Michael at a synod, which the Oriental patriarchs also approved. The popular disposition, which was fostered by the Greek clergy, annulled the plans of the emperor. Although the council represented the matter as though Humbert and his companions were not really legates of the Bishop of Rome, as a matter of fact the decisive and momentous schism was thus completed.—“History of the Christian Church in the Middle Ages,” Dr. Wilhelm Moeller, p. 230. London: George Allen & Co.SBBS 195.4

Greek Church and Roman Compared.—No two churches are so much alike in their creed, polity, and cultus, as the Greek and Roman; and yet no two are such irreconcilable rivals, perhaps for the very reason of their affinity. They agree much more than either agrees with any Protestant church. They were never organically united. They differed from the beginning in nationality, language, and genius, as the ancient Greeks differed from the Romans; yet they grew up together, and stood shoulder to shoulder in the ancient conflict with paganism and heresy. They co-operated in the early ecumenical councils, and adopted their doctrinal and ritual decisions. But the removal of the seat of empire from Rome to Constantinople by Diocletian and Constantine, the development of the papal monarchy in the West, and the establishment of a Western empire in connection with it, laid the foundation of a schism which has never been healed. The controversy culminated in the rivalry between the Patriarch of Constantinople and the Pope of Rome.—The New Schaff-Herzog Encyclopedia of Religious Knowledge, Vol. IV, art. “Eastern Church,” p. 49.SBBS 196.1

Gregory VII, Last Days of.—As death approached, no consciousness of the great woes he had occasioned, of the fierce wars he had stirred up, of the ruin he had brought upon Germany, of the desolation he had spread over Italy, of the miserable fate of Rome, seems to have disturbed his sublime serenity. At one moment he had believed himself a prophet, at another an infallible guide; he was always the vicegerent of Heaven; and just before his death he gave a general absolution to the human race, excepting only Henry and his rival pope. He died May 25, 1085, having bequeathed to his successors the principle that the Bishop of Rome was the supreme power of the earth. This was the conception which Gregory plainly represents.—“Historical Studies,” Eugene Lawrence, p. 41. New York: Harper & Brothers, 1876.SBBS 196.2

Gregory VII was the creator of the political Papacy of the Middle Ages because he was the first who dared to completely enforce the Pseudo-Isidorian Decretals. He found the Pope elected by the emperor, the Roman clergy, and the people; he left the election in the hands of an ecclesiastical College of Cardinals. He found the Papacy dependent upon the empire; he made it independent of the empire and above it. He declared the states of Europe to be fiefs of St. Peter, and demanded the oath of fealty from their rulers. He found the clergy, high and low, dependent allies of secular princes and kings; he emancipated them and subjected them to his own will. He reorganized the church from top to bottom by remodeling the papal Curia, by establishing the College of Cardinals, by employing papal legates, by thwarting national churches, by controlling synods and councils, and by managing all church property directly. He was the first to enforce the theory that the Pope could depose and confirm or reject kings and emperors. He attempted to reform the abuses in the church and to purify the clergy. Only partial success attended these efforts, but triumph was to come later on as a result of his labors. His endeavor to realize his theocracy was grand but impracticable, as proved by its failure. It was like forcing a dream to be true; yet Innocent III almost succeeded in Western Europe a little more than a century later. The impress of Gregory VII’s gigantic ability was left upon his own age and upon all succeeding ages.—“The Rise of the Mediaval Church,” Alexander Clarence Flick, Ph. D., Litt. D., p. 470. New York: G. P. Putnam’s Sons.SBBS 196.3

Gregory VII. -See Papacy, 342, 349-351; Papal Supremacy, 359; Pope, 382, 383, 384, 385; Rome, 452, 453, 455; Sabbath, 467.SBBS 197.1

“F” Entries

“H” Entries