sources. Large estates in Bessarabia-now part of Roumaniaand Moscow ceased to yield rents. The annual pilgrimage of thousands of Russian pilgrims visiting Palestine during the Easter festivals also stopped, together with their offerings. From the Bessarabian estates alone the income in 1913 was 27,000l. Similarly, properties in Asia Minor, Greece, Cyprus and Crete either failed to produce any return or yielded insignificant sums. The only source of revenue available was the income from properties in Palestine. On the other hand, the expenditure during the first years of the war was doubled, and the Church had added to its troubles the care of the Orthodox congregation. It preserved the community from starvation, paid the military taxes demanded by the Turks, and gave heavy sums to ward off the deportation of numbers of persons to Anatolia. Money was borrowed and scraped together at ruinous rates of interest; every expedient was devised and explored to obtain funds in order to maintain even a semblance of educational work; the necessities of life were provided by issuing promissory notes in exchange for food and other articles. During a period of eight years no interest was paid, the interest charges accumulating at the rate of 25,000l. per annum.

Before the entry of the British Army into Jerusalem the Turkish Government had removed the Patriarch and his synod to Damascus. He remained absent until January 1919, the synod returning to the convent in November of the previous year. They seized the opportunity to arouse fresh antagonism towards the Patriarch. To Western Christianity, unaccustomed to frequent and violent changes among its ecclesiastical heads, it may seem strange that the advent of British rule in Palestine should have been chosen as an appropriate moment to push designs of this nature; but the Fraternity, during its long history, has lived in a state of constant militancy, either opposing the hostility of its rulers or in opposition to its own Patriarch. On July 23, 1918, after a meeting of the Fraternity, a memorandum was transmitted to the Governor of Jerusalem charging the Patriarch with arbitrary and cruel administration, and imputing to him the serious economical situation of the Church. It recommended that the deposition of 1908 be revived, nominating the Archbishop of Sinai as his successor. Previous to the presentation of this document a resolution drawn up by the Brotherhood proposed appealing for assistance to the Greek Government. It confided 'its fate entirely and unreservedly to the Royal Hellenic Government,' and it accepted economic reformation and the good and sound arrangement of all questions affecting the Confraternity of the Holy Sepulchre.' In justice to the Fraternity it should be mentioned that they were under the erroneous impression that the British Government acquiesced in this policy.

The urgency of adopting immediate measures to meet the constant demands of the creditors was meanwhile the subject of concern to the Palestine Government. A moratorium was declared for an indefinite period, which, while relieving the Patriarchate of pressure exerted by creditors, prevented them from applying to the courts for legal remedy.

A proposal was then submitted to the Government by the National Bank of Greece. The Bank was prepared to advance the necessary loan for the entire settlement of the debt provided the Patriarch and synod agreed to its terms, which were of a very stringent character. They involved placing the entire management of the properties, revenues, and finances under the control of a foreign bank, as well as the hypothecation of all movable and immovable property of the Church both in Palestine and in any other country. It is obvious that the effect of this proposal would be to bring the Church of Jerusalem completely under Hellenic influence, and, in fact, under a foreign Government. The Palestine Administration was unable to agree to these terms, particularly as they were bound up closely with a demand made by the Fraternity that a new constitution for the Church should be promulgated.

The reorganisation of the constitution of the Patriarchate became the subject of violent controversy. A committee sitting at Athens under the presidency of Meletios Metaxakes, then Metropolitan of Athens, prepared a draft set of new 'Internal Regulations,' which altered the whole constitution of the Church. They destroyed its autocephalous and independent character by admitting the right of a tribunal to depose the Patriarch. Provision for a Supreme Court' was made, consisting of one member of each of the Orthodox Churches of the Levant and of all the Bishops of the Church of Jerusalem. The new regulation was an important amendment to the Ottoman Regulations of 1875, which omitted all reference to deposition.

The Patriarch was strongly opposed to the adoption of the new regulations. He recognised that the episcopal character of the Church would be altered, and, as guardian and trustee of the rights of an ancient Patriarchate, he was not prepared to submit to pressure exerted by the Fraternity in favour of placing the virtual control of the administration under external influences. In this attitude he was vigorously supported by the laity, who rallied to the side of their pastor, protesting to the secular power against the usurpation of authority by the monastic clergy.

On July 27 the Bishops formally broke off all relations with their Patriarch. They denounced him to the other Orthodox Churches and invited them to try the Patriarch and, if necessary,

to depose him. The Patriarch replied by suspending the sittings of the synod.

An impasse had now been reached. The administration of the Church could not be indefinitely carried on without reference to the synod. The continuance of the dispute might also occasion the renewal of public disturbances, which had perturbed the civil authorities in the years preceding the war. The secular powerthe British High Commissioner for Palestine-had once more to intervene. The High Commissioner appointed a commission under the presidency of Sir Anton Bertram, Chief Justice of Ceylon, to advise the Government whether any authority provided by the constitution of the Orthodox Church existed to adjudicate upon the dispute or to depose the Patriarch, and further to report upon the measures necessary to restore the financial position. After a patient and learned investigation, the Commissioners found that no external ecclesiastical authority possessed the inherent right to depose the Patriarch or intervene in the settlement of the dispute. The attitude of the Patriarch in refusing to accede to the adoption of the new Internal Regulations was approved, on the ground that they fundamentally changed the ancient constitution of the Church. Before, however, harmony was restored, the Government found it necessary to support the Patriarch in ordering certain recalcitrant members of the synod to retire to Egypt.

The financial recommendations were of a very drastic order. The Commissioners state in their report that

The Patriarchate can neither pay its debts nor the interest thereon, nor meet its current expenses. It is temporarily insolvent, and the special moratorium is equivalent to a declaration of its insolvency.

To deal with this situation the Commissioners urged that a commission of control should be appointed, whose task

would be to liquidate the debt of the Patriarchate, to introduce economies into its annual budget, to increase its revenues by the introduction of improved methods of administration, and to secure that when the debt is liquidated, and full powers of financial administration are restored to the Patriarchate, its affairs should be upon a sound footing.

The Financial Commission, which includes two members of the Palestine Administration, assumed control in September 1921. It is armed with the fullest powers. The entire immovable property of the Church is subject to its administration, and it may sell properties that do not include lands attached ab antiquo to any monastery, or any property developed by buildings within the walls of Jerusalem, for the purpose of liquidating the debt. For the disposal of immovable property the consent of the Patriarch in synod is necessary. The annual budget has been reduced from

VOL. XCV-No. 564

U

60,000l. in 1921 to 46,000l. in 1922 and to 34,000l. in 1923, while the income has been doubled. The financial situation, however, is still in a parlous condition. It is not possible to find the large sums required for the liquidation of the debt without outside assistance in the form of a loan, or without soliciting donations and contributions from other Churches. In this connection it is interesting to note that the Episcopal and Protestant Churches of America are planning an appeal to Protestant bodies in the United States on behalf of the Church of Jerusalem, and for the preservation of the sacred shrines of Christendom. The philanthropic work of the Patriarchate has been largely discontinued. Expenditure on monastic establishments, schools, orphanages, hospitals, and dispensaries has been reduced to a minimum, and poor relief has practically ceased. Unfortunately, there seems to be no likelihood of the revenues reaching their pre-war figures for many years. The properties in Russia are in the hands of the Soviet authorities, and the Bessarabian estates have been confiscated in an arbitrary manner by the Government of Roumania without making any payment as compensation. In Smyrna the great fire of 1922 gutted a most valuable building property. The Patriarchate must rely in the future upon the revenues derived from its endowments in Palestine, and upon external assistance.

In so far as the Patriarch and his synod are concerned, the dispute appears to be happily settled. The laity, however, has recently resumed its hostility to the monastic clergy, and. has included the Patriarch Damianos within the range of its criticism. A congress of Orthodox laity was held at Haifa in July last year. It put forward a number of general demands which formulate a definite attempt to transform the Church into a local institution of a racial character. The international character of the Church of Jerusalem as trustee on behalf of Christendom of the Holy Places is ignored, the historical interest that binds Christianity to this most ancient Church is not realised, and the far-reaching effects of any change in the status quo are obviously not appreciated. It cannot be said that the Patriarchate authorities have deliberately closed their eyes to the spiritual needs of their flock. Services in the parish and village churches are held in the vernacular, and the priests in charge are chosen from among their congregations. In this respect the Orthodox Church is not less advanced than other Churches, though its administration is in the hands of a non-Arab body of monastic clergy. The laity has put forward the proposal that the mixed council should be reorganised on a wider basis, its members containing one-third lay representatives and one-third ecclesiastical. Lay councils, presided over by a cleric, are to be formed in each parish, and a college is to be opened for Orthodox Arabs from which the ranks both of

the monastic and parochial clergy are to be drawn. The apprehensions of the community are disclosed in these resolutions. They do not appear unreasonable or difficult of solution.

In certain aspects, the Congress has approached subjects that can only lead to controversy of a very complex kind. The privileges of the Patriarch are provided for by law, and are the result of ancient grants made by the Ottoman Sultans confirming the immemorial customs of the early Church. Any curtailment of these powers, or amendment to the constitution, must lead the ruling authorities on to difficult ground, and it is probable that the Congress has not appreciated the significance of changes of this nature.

The weight and power of the Hellenic element of the Church has protected the Orthodox community in the past from the oppression of a Government wholly Mohammedan. It has done more than this, for it has waged unceasing strife against the pretensions of other Churches, whose powerful organisations would unquestionably have destroyed the homogeneity of the native community. These services should not be lost sight of; yet all sympathy is due to the awakening of responsibility among the laity and their earnest desire to introduce internal reforms in the Church.

J. B. BARRON.