UNION
146
UNION
far towards creating the tone of mind which rendered
the outbreak of Protestantism in the next century
possible. Still, when we compare this schism with
schisms like those of the Orthodox and the Protestants
an essential difference between them appears. In the
other eases the division was over some question of
principle; here it was over a question of fact only.
On both sides of the dividing line there was exactly
the same creed and exactly the same recognition of
the essential place of the papacy in the constitution of
the Church, of the method by which popes should be
elected, of the right to the obedience of the whole
Church which attaches to their office. The only
matter in doubt was: Had this person or that fulfilled
the conditions of a vaUd election? Was the election
of Urban VI due to the terrorism applied by the mob
to the electors, and therefore invahd; or had it been
unaffected by this terrorism and was therefore valid?
If Urban's election was valid, so too were those of his
successors of the Roman line; if his election was
invalid, Clement V'll's and Benedict XIII's were valid.
But the verification of facts is through the testimony
of those who have taken part in them, and in this case
the witnesses were at variance. To decide between
them belongs to the special articles on that schism.
In this article what concerns us is to appreciate the
difference between a schism of this sort over a ques-
tion of fact and a schism over a question of principle
like the others that have been instanced. We may
help ourselves by an analogy; for we may compare
this difference with that between a sword-stroke
which has dissevered a limb from the body and one
which has caused a deep wound in the body itself.
In the former case the life of the organism ceases at
once to flow into the dissevered part, and it begins to
disintegrate; in the latter, all tJie powers and processes
of the organism are at once set in motion for the
repair of the injured part. It may be that the injury
wrought is too serious for recovery and death must
be expected, but the life is still there in the organism,
and oftentimes it is able to achieve a complete resto-
ration. To apply this to the history, whereas in
schisms properly so called a depreciation of the value
of unity is wont to mark their commencement, in
this schism it was most remarkable how strong was
the sense of imity which expressed itself on every
side, so soon as the news of the rival lines set up
became known, and how steadily,, earnestly, dis-
cerningly, and unanimously the different parts of the
Church laboured, with ultimate success, to ascertain
which was the true pope, or to obtain the election of
one.
IV. Reunion Movements in the Past. — A. In the East. — As Constantinople had so often been in schism for a season, the popes took some time to realize that the schism accomplished by the Patriarch Ca'rularius was destined to continue. Even when they were at last disillusioned, they never ceased to regard the Eastern Christians as a choice portion of Christ's flock, or to work for the restoration of that portion to unity according to their opportunities. Thus it was not merely for the recovery of the Holy Places and the protection of the pilgrims that Urban II and his succes.sors originated and sustained the Crusades, but for the far more comprehensive object of bringing the concentrated strength of the Western Powers to the aid of their Eastern brethren, now threatened by a Turkish invasion which bade fair to overwhelm them. It is true that the intermingling of human passions and the clash of animosities, for which Easterns and Westerns were both to blame, not only brought to naught the realization of this splendid ideal, but actually enlarged the chasm which separated the two sides by intensifying the antipathy of the Easterns for their aggressive allies. Nor can it be denied that the Western populations often showed a very unsatisfactory spirit in their dealings
with the East and their feehngs towards them ; for the
Westerns, too, were dominated by the unbrotherly
passions that spring from excessive nationalism, and
it was just this that increased so seriously for the
popes the difficulty of bringing the two sides together
for the defence of Eastern Christendom.
But the important thing to observe is that the popes themselves, with wonderful unanimity, stood outside all these racial animosities, and, whatever were their personal affinities, never lost hold of the pure Christian ideal or thought to subordinate it to worldly politics. Thus a succession of popes from Gregory VII down to our own days (conspicuous among whom were Urban II, Blessed Eugenius III, Innocent III, Blessed Gregory X, Nicholas IV, Eugenius IV, Pius II, Calixtus III, St. Pius V, Clement VIII, Urban VIII, and Clement XIV) have manifested their strong desires and have striven most pathetically for the healing of this saddest of schisms, never losing heart even when the outlook was darkest, welcoming each gleam of sunshine as an occasion for repeating their assurances of a truly brotherly feeling, and a readiness to concede in the terms of union all that was not essential to the Church's faith and constitu- tion. On the Oriental side there has not been much response to this pathetic call of the popes; but two of the Eastern emperors made overtures which led on to the solemn acts of reunion in the Council of Lyons (1274) and the Council of Florence (1439). Unfor- tunately, these negotiations were prompted, on the Oriental side, by the instinct of self-preservation in face of the Turkish danger more than by any adequate appreciation of the necessity of rehgious unity, and were, besides, undertaken by sovereigns the mass of whose subjects were not prepared to follow them in a course that ran counter to their traditional resent- ments. Still, the second of these councils had its solid results; for it won over the last two emperors of the East, the last three patriarchs under the old empire, the two distinguished prelates Bessarion of Nica?a and Isidore of Kiev, besides originating the Uniat bodies. Though adverse circumstances have sometimes disturbed their allegiance, and have prevented their numbers from attaining to any high figures, these Uniats have done good service to the cause of reunion by their standing testimony to the mode of reunion which is all that the popes ask for, namely, acceptance of the entire deposit of faith including the Divine institution of the Roman prim- acy, but beyond that a full-hearted adherence to those venerable rites and usages which are dear to Eastern hearts as an inheritance bequeathed to them by the highest Christian antiquity.
Although, since the Council of Florence, no more proposals for healing the schism have come from the main body of the Orthodox and their rulers, one must include among the reunion movements of the past the one which, initiated by some Ruthenian bishops, led to the union accomplished at Brest in Lithuania in 1596 (see LTnion of Brest). By this union a considerable portion of the Ruthenians, the race that had formed the original nucleus of the Russian Em- pire, was officially reunited with the Holy See, but it was not for some tmie, and after the fiercest opposi- tion, that the main body of that people were gained over to the union. Having, however, at length accepted it, they remained firmly attached to it until the partition of Poland. Then one-half of these Uniats came tmder Austrian rule, the other under Russian nde. The former, meeting with toleration from their rulers, still remain constant, the latter have been the victims of a succession of the cruellest per- .sccutions undert.aken to drive them back into schism.
B. In the West.— In the first outburst of Protes- tantism neither its leaders nor their followers had any scruples about their separation from the communion of the ancient Church. They regarded it_ as an
