noble, however vague imaginations of a world where he believed the most exalted spirits found a home when the turmoils of this life were over, best developed in the well-known fragment of Scipio's Dream. One thing may be further remarked: in his mind the alternative lay between happiness in the next world, and annihilation. A state of misery, even of just punishment, in the next world, he seems (in the Tusculan Questions, I. 5) to have been unable to bring his mind to contemplate seriously, even as a hypothesis; the mythical dress in which it was clothed by his religion, shocked his satirical and scoffing spirit; that sense of sin and weakness which, in many minds under heathenism, was a kind of supply or substitute for faith, being, to all appearance, singularly wanting in the mind of Cicero.

It is with a certain kind of dreariness that we quit the subject of the religious side of Cicero's character, remembering how much we owe to him, more than to any of his fellows, as well in the Latin language as an instrument of philosophical and even of theological thought, as in the material benefits of noble and refined culture, in his case with so little of the base admixture that degraded the bulk of heathen literature. It is best, perhaps, with the school of Clement of Alexandria, to consider heathen philosophy to a certain extent as the work of Providence, and to accept it as among the natural gifts that surround us, ministered by crowds, whether in so-called Christian countries or in the heathen lands of the present day, whose eternal destinies appear very dark, but of whom individually we cannot pronounce, whilst it is equally true that for all there was and is but one way to salvation, the Church of God that was from the beginning.

ROBERT ORNSBY, M.A.

ART. II. THE GREEK CHURCH: ITS HISTORY, DOGMA, DISCIPLINE, RITES, ORGANIZATION, AND ITS FUTURE.

N a former Article* we saw the obstacles opposed by Islamism to the growth and propagation of the different Eastern Christianities. The treaty of Berlin, by guaranteeing to all Christians indifferently, freedom of worship, access to public services and the right of property, has much ameliorated

their condition in the Mussulman Empire. But other obstacles prevent the Eastern Churches from reviving and resuming their ancient splendour. The greater part of them remain, so far, separated from the Roman Church; error and schism have violently torn them from the centre of unity. They are branches separated from the trunk, and sapless; they are doomed, sooner or later, to perish. The deadly poison of error permeates, more and more, their dogmatic teaching; discipline grows relaxed, manners corrupt. There is one thing which ought greatly to facilitate the return of the Eastern Christians to the one fold of which St. Peter and his successors have been constituted heads by Jesus Christ himself; that is, their own ancient doctors, their own ancient rites, so full of majesty, the numerous and touching prayers of their liturgical Offices, which they preserve with a jealous attachment, and in which, if they would look closely, they would find the condemnation of their own errors, and the necessity of union with the See of Rome. The Sovereign Pontiffs, on their side, have neglected nothing to make union easy and lasting. They have continued to converted Oriental prelates their dignities and offices. They have always urged the preservation of the Eastern rites, and have forbidden, in most precise terms, abandonment or modification of them in anything whatever, excepting the correction of abuses that had crept in, and the reforming of what was contrary to faith, hurtful to souls, or destructive of union itself. For some years past a Union has been promoted between Anglicanism, the "Old-Catholicism" of Germany, and the Eastern Schism. The attempts have been fruitless, and justly so. For Anglicanism is also a branch cut off from the sap-bearing trunk of the Catholic Church, and "Old Catholicism," which has been still more recently separated, sufficiently shows, by its self-imposed title of "Old," that it draws near the tomb, as, furthermore, everything appears to indicate. There is for all these Churches one only means of again flourishing-to unite themselves with the centre of unity at Rome. There is their future; otherwise, sooner or later, they will die out, in indifference or in still more modern errors: the detached branch can have only one history-it lives awhile by its own sap, then it languishes, is dried up, and perishes. What we shall now say concerning the Greek Church will show that the salvation of that Church which rules over the vast regions of Russia and Turkey lies in its union with the Roman Catholic Church; its history, its liturgical books, its doctors, the saints whom it worships, all proclaim this on every side. It takes all the obstinacy of heresy, and all the ignorance of the masses, to keep the eyes closed to a truth which grows every day more patent, according as the history and monuments of the Russian

Church are better known, and the schism of Photius and Michael Cerularius more carefully studied.

1. The Greek Schism: Photius.

The Greek Church, with its principal See at Constantinople, the capital of the Eastern Empire, was, up to the ninth century, united to the Roman Church in a community of belief and in obedience to the Roman Pontiff, but with different rites and with a discipline of its own. Then appeared a man of illustrious birth, allied to royal blood, versed in all the sciences of his time, an orator and poet; of marvellous activity and consummate ability, of easy access, trained to business, but ambitious, full of cunning and dissimulation, quick to lay hold of circumstances and turn them to his own profit, recoiling from no means in order to arrive at his aim. Such was Photius, the first author of the Greek Schism. It is necessary to know his history. Cardinal Hergenröther has published it, in our time, in a learned work.* Private secretary of the Eastern Emperor Michael III., and commander of the guard, from being a simple layman, Photius became, in six days, Patriarch of Constantinople. It was under the following circumstances:-The See of Constantinople was at that time held by a holy patriarch named Ignatius, and the imperial throne by a young man, Michael III., who governed under the wise tutelage, of his mother, the Empress Theodora. Michael had an uncle named Bardas, an ambitious man, of abandoned morals, living incestuously with his step-daughter. At the instigation of Bardas, Michael shook off the tutelage of his mother, and banished her, with his sisters, to a monastery, where he wished to force her to take the veil. Bardas thus became all-powerful in the Empire. He hated Ignatius, who had reproved his dissolute manners, and had, on Epiphany Day, refused him communion because of his incestuous connexion. As Ignatius refused to give the veil to Theodora against her will, Bardas seized the opportunity to gratify his hatred of him. He made out the Patriarch to be a seditious man, who was in league with Theodora in a conspiracy. The artifice succeeded. Ignatius was condemned unheard, driven from his see, and exiled (23rd November, 857). A month later (25th December), Photius took possession of the patriarchal throne—against all right, since Ignatius had not abdicated. A bishop, who had

*" Photius, Patriarch von Constantinopel, sein Leben, seine Schriften und das Griechische schisma." Regensburg, 1867. 3 vols. The works of Photius have been edited by Migne, "Patrol. Græca," tom. ci.-civ.

*

been deposed for crimes, had, contrary to all canons, conferred upon him all the sacred orders, including the Episcopate. To legitimize this sacrilegious usurpation there was a pretence of election, and Photius declared, in writing, that he would be only the coadjutor of Ignatius. But soon, feeling himself strong in the support of the Emperor and Bardas, he threw aside the mask. The bishops who remained faithful to the legitimate Patriarch, assembled together in the church of St. Irene, and declared Photius intruded and excommunicated. He, on his side, assembled his partisans, bishops, priests, and laics in a Conciliabulum in the church of the Holy Apostles, and pushed audacity so far as to depose and excommunicate Ignatius. This Synod lasted until the autumn of 858. Meanwhile Photius had busied himself in making friends and placing his adherents on episcopal thrones. To silence the many voices raised on all sides against the usurpation, Photius and Bardas felt that they must get the Sovereign Pontiff on their side. Hitherto, in fact, the Pope of Rome had been recognised as supreme Head of the Church. He had presided, by his legates, at the General Councils held at Constantinople, at Ephesus, at Nicæa, at Chalcedon : more than once he had with his supreme ruling interfered in the affairs of the patriarchate of New Rome. Photius, therefore, wrote to Pope Nicholas a lying letter in which he dared to affirm that Ignatius had abdicated voluntarily by reason of age, and that he was living retired and honoured in a monastery.

I cannot (he added) express the sorrow which fills my soul when I see myself charged with the weight of the episcopate. But the assembled metropolitans, all the clergy and the people, moved by I know not what strange impulse, unanimously shouted my name as soon as my predecessor had renounced his dignity. Without heeding my excuses and earnest entreaties, they imposed on me the episcopal charge; they did violence to me and carried their own wish in spite of my tears and

sorrow.

*Not only did the canons of Councils prohibit any ordination without observance of the interstitia, but even the Justinian Code itself. See "Can. Apost.," 80; "Sardic." 10; "Cod. Justinian,' Nov." 123, c. 1, § 2. The intrusion of Photius was therefore illegitimate: 1, because the see was not vacant; 2, because his ordination was against the canons; 3, because he was ordained by a bishop deposed, and consequently without legitimate power: he had thus incurred the penalty of suspension.

Congregavit concilium et una cum sequacibus suis depositis et damnatis, excommunicatis et anathematizatis, et aliis sine sedibus, atque cum his a quibus vel ille irregulariter et illicite provectus fuerat, vel quos ipse temere ac indebite provexerat, contra Ignatium depositionem facere et anathema dicere ausus est. Nicol. I., Ep. 7.

Epist. I. ad Nicolaum Papam. Migne, "Patrol. Gr.," cii. 58, sqq. The pseudo-patriarch wrote similar letters to the patriarchal Churches of the East.

These hypocritical protestations were sent to the Sovereign Pontiff by an ambassador of Michael III. and four Greek bishops. The Emperor, on his side, affirmed the same things, and added that troubles had arisen on this occasion, and that the Iconoclast party threatened to be revived. Consequently he prayed the Sovereign Pontiff to send thither legates who would pacify men's minds. To make the imposition the more successful, the embassy carried to the Pope presents of unheard-of magnificence.

Neither hyprocrisy, nor lies, nor presents succeeded in seducing the Sovereign Pontiff. He refused to ratify the irregular ordination of Photius; but he consented to send two legates to Constantinople to examine the facts of the case.

6

We have (he wrote a little later to the Emperor*) enjoined on our legates to confine themselves to an examination of the cause of Ignatius, who has been driven from his church without having been accused by any one, and to sending an exact report to us. In the interval, it is our conviction that the consecration of Photius cannot be admitted: consequently, we have commanded our legates not to communicate with him frequently and readily. For,' as says the great Pope Leo in his letter to Flavian, 'we, who desire that the judgments of priests should be maturely discussed, cannot, without knowledge of the cause, pass a judgment prejudicial to one of the parties; it is necessary, first of all, that we know exactly the whole affair.' have only authorized them to regulate whatever justice and piety shall demand in the question of the images of our Lord Jesus Christ, of his holy Mother the Virgin Mary, and of the Saints.

We

The legates were bearers of two letters, one for the Emperor, and one for Photius. In his letter to the Emperor the Sovereign Pontiff complains that, contrary to the rule traced by the Fathers, Ignatius had been deposed and Photius consecrated without the consent of the Holy See. In his letter to Photius he praises the profession of faith made by Photius, but he blames the irregularity of his ordination; nevertheless he will recognise him as Patriarch, if it can be done after the report of his legates. After their arrival at Constantinople the legates, first placed in confinement during a hundred days, then threatened with prison and exile by the Emperor, and corrupted by presents from Photius, betrayed their trust. They took part in the deposition of Ignatius in a Council of 318 bishops whom

*Nicolai I., Epist., 8.

"Ad cujus, sicut ipsi scitis, integritatem observationis, multoties conventus factus fuerit sanctorum Patrum, a quibus et deliberatum ac observatum extitit, qualiter absque Romanæ Sedis Romanique Pontificis consensu nullus insurgentis deliberationis terminus daretur." Nicolai, Epist., 2.

S.