# The Uniate Eastern Churches/Chapter 3

CHAPTER III
THE MELKITES
The next group of Byzantine Uniates is that of the Melkites. These are the Catholics of this rite in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, who all now speak Arabic. They are the most closely organized of the Byzantine Uniates; they alone in this rite have a Patriarch of their own. Perhaps the most striking fact about them is that it is their Patriarch who, by direct descent and undoubted historical continuity, represents the original line of Antioch. It is the same case as that of the Chaldees and Malabar Christians. The Uniates are the old line, which after several vicissitudes has at last come back definitely to union with the Holy See. The Orthodox of Syria, who pretend to be the old Church, are a schism away from that Church, formed in the eighteenth century, when she returned to her original Catholic obedience.

## 1. Before Cyril VI (1724)

The word "Melkite" is now commonly used for Uniates of the Byzantine rite in Syria and Egypt. Originally it meant ​those who accepted the Emperor's religion — that is, the faith of Chalcedon — as opposed to the Monophysites. Then, after the schism of the ninth and eleventh centuries, it meant both Catholics and Orthodox in these parts, though for many centuries there were but few Catholics. As far as opposition to Monophysism went, these two agreed. It is a curious development that the name is now commonly used for the Catholics only. This is the result of the proceeding of the Uniate Patriarch Cyril VI (see p. 201) at the beginning of the eighteenth century. At that time the two names "Orthodox" and "Melkite" meant the same thing in Syria. Cyril tried (in vain) to get the Turkish Government to recognize the Uniates as a separate body from the Orthodox. It is one of the early attempts to procure civil emancipation for the Uniates, which was at last obtained by Maximos III (p. 218). So, in order to describe his people and to distinguish them from the others, he left the more common name to his rivals and annexed "Melkite " for his flock. He did not succeed in his attempt to procure emancipation for the Uniates; but his artificial distinction of name has remained ever since. To this day the people of Syria and Egypt mean one thing by "Orthodox," another — namely, Uniate of the Byzantine rite — by "Melkite." ​It is merely a fictitious distinction, as far as any meaning of the name in their natural sense goes. Indeed, "Melkite" seems specially inappropriate for Catholics; it has an Erastian sound, and, of course, we think we are really the Orthodox Christians. Yet, on the general principle of common sense, I keep this term, and by a "Melkite" mean always and only a Catholic of the Byzantine rite in Egypt or Syria.
There is a question, really superfluous, of which we must notice something before we go on to the history of the Melkites — namely, the much vexed one of their ethnological origin. Really there is no question here at all. They are of the same race, of the same mixed blood as all the other inhabitants of these lands, whether Christian or Moslem. The religious body to which a man belongs does not affect his blood; though the Melkites themselves think it does. They protest eagerly that they are Greeks, in the ethnological sense, descended from Greeks of Hellas. At first it seems to the Western reader absurd that anyone should hold this theory, with its obvious confusion between religion and race. No one in England discusses of what blood Methodists may be. But it is the commonest confusion in the East. Its origin is the way the Turks always class people by fictitious races according to their religions. Each religious body is a "nation" (millet) to the Turk. He has some confused idea that the differences of religion in his empire come from the fact that each group is descended from a race which once held that particular religion. Since so much civil law, and the state of each subject in temporal matters, depend on the religious body to which he belongs, it is not so surprising that, at last, the Christians themselves have begun to look upon themselves as different nations, in the ordinary sense. This is encouraged by the fact that it has always been extremely difficult for a man in the Turkish Empire to change his religion. We are so used to seeing people change from one religion to another that it would be impossible for us to confuse religion with race. But out there this hardly ever happens. Each man is, in religion, what his fathers were before him; he marries a woman of the same Church; so something like a distinction of blood often does, at last, occur between the Churches. They think that it is so essentially. They talk of their "nation," meaning their Church, and they do not realize that this is a purely artificial use of the word introduced by the Moslems, because these had no other way of classifying their Christian subjects.
As a matter of fact, the situation is simple enough; it applies ​to all the inhabitants of Syria, whatever their religion may be. In origin they are the old Semitic population of the land, Aramæans, called in later language Syrians. From the time of Alexander the Great there was considerable Greek influence throughout Syria, mostly in the towns. Greek became the common language of all the Eastern Mediterranean basin, spoken by the more educated townsmen; while peasants went on speaking Syriac and Coptic. Certainly there was considerable infiltration of Greek blood. Alexander and the Seleucid kings brought many Greeks from Hellas to Syria. But this strain of Greek blood has long been lost in the general mass. It has not formed one "nation" among the others. As far as blood is concerned, a Moslem of Syria is just as likely to have Greek blood as a Melkite. Then, with the Moslem conquest of the seventh century, came a new influence. Arabic became the language of the Government, then of the whole people. The Greek influence died out; even Syriac was forgotten; so now they all talk only Arabic. No doubt, from the time of the Moslem conquest there have been infiltrations of Arabic blood too; but this is lost in the general mass, as the Greek blood was before. The language people speak is never a safe nor a final test of their blood. The population of Syria, then, is mixed, as is that of nearly all countries. Fundamentally it is Syrian; it has Greek and Arabic elements. The case is exactly parallel in Egypt. Here we have a population, originally Egyptian, with Greek and Arabic strains lost in the general mass. Probably no single person in either land knows how much of each element he has in his veins. The mixture is the same for all. It has nothing whatever to do with the various religious distinctions, which owe their origin to entirely different causes.
Now we turn to a more serious question, the ecclesiastical origin of the Melkite Church. We have not here the case of ​a Church springing up suddenly at some definite moment by the conversion of a large number of people. The situation is more complicated, so that it needs attention. To begin with, the matter of the schism of the East is not so simple as many people think. Indeed, it is very difficult to say exactly when the Orthodox, outside Constantinople, became schismatics.
It will be remembered that both the quarrels with the Holy See, that of Photius in the ninth and of Cerularius in the eleventh century, were, in themselves, purely local quarrels of Patriarchs of Constantinople. Nor has the Holy See ever excommunicated the Eastern or "Orthodox" Church as such. It is only because, eventually, the other Eastern Patriarchs and bishops took the side of Constantinople, remained in communion with the Œcumenical Patriarch, that they, too, share his state of schism. But when did they do so? In the first schism, of Photius, apparently they never did. I doubt very much if we can speak of a general schism of the East, or of an "Orthodox" Church, meaning a separate religious body, at that time at all. At the eighth General Council (Constantinople iv, 869), when Photius was tried and condemned, the Imperial Commissioner asked the Legates of the other Eastern Patriarchs why they had not condemned him long ago. They answered that the right of Ignatius was so evident that it did not need their support, and that, in any case, the Pope had done all that was wanted. From this it appears that they had never intended to share Photius's schism. It would seem, then, that the other Eastern Patriarchs had remained in communion with the Holy See throughout that quarrel. So I do not think we can speak of a general schism in the East, at least till the time of Cerularius.
Nor did such a state of things occur at once under Cerularius. His quarrel, too, was a purely local one at Constantinople, perhaps even more so than that of Photius. In one case, especially, we know that one of his brother Patriarchs protested vehemently against his course, and declared that he would not break communion with the Pope. This Patriarch, Peter III of Antioch, was certainly not a schismatic. Nor can we say exactly when his successors fell into schism. The final test would be when they removed the name of the Pope from their diptychs. But we do not know when this happened. Probably for a long time none of them realized that a permanent state of schism between East and West had broken out. Hitherto they had been in ​communion with both the Pope of Rome and the Patriarch of Constantinople. They knew, of course, that these two were now quarrelling, but, presumably, they thought that this quarrel was no business of theirs. They, no doubt, hoped that it would be made up in time; meanwhile they intended to keep out of it and to remain in communion with both. It is true that eventually the nearness of Constantinople, the unhappy and degrading dependence that these other Patriarchs had learned to accept under the Emperor's Patriarch dragged them, too, with him into schism; but it would be most difficult to define exactly when this happened. In their case it was always the participation in the guilt of another rather than any spontaneous movement of their own. And, as they went into schism only dragged by Constantinople, so ever since there have been times and periods when, it would seem, they renewed relations with Rome and were not in schism at all. For one thing, we must remember that, even as far as Constantinople itself, the home of the schism, was concerned, the excommunication of Cerularius was not the last step. Since then there have been the reunions of Lyons in 1274 and of Florence in 1439. These applied to the other Patriarchates too. If they were in schism after Cerularius they came back to union in 1274; if again they glided into schism after that, they came back in 1439.
But the curious thing is that besides these two famous cases there have been many relations between the other Eastern Patriarchs and Rome. They never seem to have forgotten that, in theory, they should be in communion with the chief Patriarch of all, in the West. Communications were difficult; yet, even so, there are a number of cases in which a Patriarch of Antioch, or of Alexandria or Jerusalem, succeeded in renewing relations with the Pope, and so must be counted as a Catholic. Often, no doubt, when they could not do so, being then under the heel of the Turk, they believed all the Catholic faith, and intended to be in communion with the Pope. So we must look upon the present distinction between the Orthodox and the Melkites in Syria and Egypt as the result of a gradual, a very gradual, parting of the ways. The Melkites represent the tendency, never quite extinct, towards union with Rome, now crystallized in one Church; the Orthodox represent the other tendency towards Constantinople crystallized in another.
The late Melkite Patriarch, Peter IV (Giraigīrī, p. 222), said that between Nicholas I of Antioch (847-869) and Cyril VI (Tānās), under whom the final reunion took place ​(p. 197), there were no less than twenty-five Patriarchs of Antioch of whose catholicity we can be absolutely certain. This number is perhaps an exaggeration; but there are a surprising number of perfectly authentic cases of Patriarchs of Antioch in union with Rome in that interval. First among them again I name Peter III. His correspondence with Pope Leo IX (1048-1054) leaves no doubt at all that just then, when Cerularius was causing his schism, Peter was entirely Catholic. His successor, Theodosius III, however, seems to have been a schismatic. In 1057 he came to Constantinople and made common cause with that Patriarch. It was he who proclaimed Isaac Komnenos (1057-1059) Emperor. But now we see how the defection of one Patriarch was not considered as contaminating the whole line of his successors. When John IV was Patriarch of Antioch (c. 1090-c. 1103) the Crusaders took the city (1098). They would not set up a Latin Patriarch, because it is against the canons that there should be two bishops in one see. Clearly they treat him as a Catholic. Very likely at first he was. But later the Crusaders behaved badly to him; he quarrelled with them and fled to Constantinople (he was himself a Greek). Here he must have joined the Byzantine schism, and the Crusaders, considering the see vacant by his flight, appointed a Latin successor, Bernard of Valence. When John IV died at Constantinople, the Greeks of that city gave him a Greek successor (Theodosius IV). It was the beginning of that series of absentee Patriarchs, Greeks living at Constantinople, which was not only a deplorable calamity for the Christians of their lands, but also did much to fix the state of schism.
The Greeks of Constantinople were naturally the great promoters of the schism. Theodore IV of Antioch (1186-1203), the famous Theodore Balsamon, was undoubtedly a schismatic. He is still the chief Orthodox Canonist. This Theodore, a Byzantine Greek, is responsible for the last degradation of the other Patriarchal Sees by the Œcumenical Patriarch, inasmuch as it was by his advice that their own far more venerable rites were taken from them and they were forced to adopt the modern one of Constantinople. Theodosius V signed the union of Lyons in 1274. He was himself of Frank blood, of the family of Villehardouin, Princes of Achaia. When ​the union was rejected by the Emperor (Andronikos II, 1282-1328), Theodosius was consistent to his principles, and resigned his see rather than go into schism. Dorotheos I (1464) accepted the union of Florence (1439). This union was broken at Constantinople when the Turks took the city in 1453. It was their machinations that broke it. They did not want the Christians under them to be friendly with the West, so they set up Gennadios II (of Constantinople, 1454-1456), a fanatical hater of the Latins, just because he would undo the work of Florence. He did so, as far as his own city is concerned. It is often said that the Florentine union was abandoned by the whole East as soon as the delegates got home. This is not true. It is true that in 1443 the Patriarchs retracted their adherence to Florence, yet later they came back on several occasions. The successor of Dorotheos, Michael III of Antioch, as soon as he succeeded, summoned a synod and formally renewed his profession of union with Rome. He sent an archdeacon, Moses, to Rome to tell the Pope of this. The Pope (Pius II, 1458-1464) received Moses in full audience in 1460 and sent him back with letters, confirming Michael's union with himself.
Michael's successor, Theodore V († 1465), was also a Catholic. He maintained union with the Pope and died in his communion. It seems that the union of the Patriarchate of Antioch lasted at least a century. Joachim V (living in 1560) was also a Uniate. "He kept the definitions of Florence, published an encyclical in which he forbade any injurious language about the Pope, and proved his primacy over the whole Church, appealing to the Holy Canons of Councils." From the time of Athanasius III († 1619) there is a very strong movement for union in the Antiochene Patriarchate. Athanasius himself was a Catholic. He held a synod at Damascus, in which he accepted the definition of Florence. Euthymios II (1643) received the Council of ​Florence and gave the Jesuits, then first establishing their missions in the Levant, the charge of educating the boys of his Patriarchate. They were to teach these boys to "despise the sayings of the enemies of the Roman religion." The Greeks of Constantinople persecuted him for this; so that he was called upon to pay a large fine to the Turks. He could not find the money and resigned. His successor, Eutychios (1643), also adhered to the Council of Florence. Then came Makarios III (Za'īm, 1643). Lequien counts Makarios as a Catholic, and says that he made a formal profession of the Catholic faith in 1646. However, in 1668 he was present at the Synod of Constantinople which approved the Confession of Peter Mogilas; so he can hardly be counted as having remained one.
But all this time there was a very considerable Catholic movement throughout the Patriarchate. The Jesuits converted Euthymios, Metropolitan of Tyre, who "proclaimed loudly that the Church of the Franks and Maronites is most holy and the true Church. ... He allowed all those whom the missionaries brought to preach in his church." Meanwhile at Damascus there were 7,000 recognized Uniates, with the most handsome church in all Syria. It is noticeable that at this time there was still no external parting of the ways. The union of Florence had never been irretrievably broken; the local bishops were, apparently, recognized by the Jesuit missionaries as the Ordinaries; there was no opposition hierarchy. The point of view of the missionaries seems to be that all these people were, at least officially, Catholic, until any of them formally went over to schism. The missionaries' work was rather to purify these Catholics from schismatical tendencies.
After Makarios III came Cyril V († 1720). He appears to have come to a clearly Catholic position through a conference he held with the Maronite Patriarch Stephen II (1671-1704). One of the Jesuits writes at that time to his ​Superior about this Patriarch: "Far from opposing the conversion of the Greek schismatics, his flock, he favoured, as much as he could, their return to the Roman Church. He admitted that he was displeased with the Greeks of Constantinople for having separated themselves from her." Still, for a time, he had not the courage to proclaim union with Rome. The Patriarch of Alexandria had done so (p. 196): Cyril would have liked, had he dared, to follow this example. Yet he was so well known as a favourer of the Latins, that the Turks, always afraid of relations with the West, put him in prison in 1707. As soon as he came out he received a most cordial letter from Pope Clement XI (1700-1721), encouraging him to proclaim his Catholic sentiments aloud. He received this letter with all respect, summoned a synod, and proclaimed the decrees of Florence. With him several other bishops made their submission to Rome, notably the Metropolitan of Beirut and Euthymios of Tyre. Cyril V wrote a book in favour of reunion. He died in 1720, and was succeeded by his old rival Athanasius IV (Dabbās, 1720-1724). Athanasius, too, had already taken steps in favour of reunion. The movement seems at this time to have gained nearly the whole Patriarchate. But his opposition to Cyril drove him into the other camp. For a time, at least, he persecuted the Catholic party, and imprisoned its leaders, including Euthymios of Tyre. It is disputed whether he died a Catholic or not. His successor, Cyril VI, finally and definitely brought this line back to union with the Pope; then the schismatical party set up a rival one.
In Egypt we see the same state of things. The Alexandrine Patriarchate was never excommunicated by the Pope. At first the quarrel of Cerularius was no affair of the Egyptians. Then, certainly, the Orthodox of Egypt slipped into schism, through the fact that they maintained communion with Constantinople. But here, too, it seems to have been a gradual and almost unconscious process. Then in Egypt, as in Syria, there are an astonishing number of cases of Patriarchs in union with Rome since the eleventh century. In Egypt, too, Catholics ​seem to take the line that the whole Patriarchate is not contaminated finally; so that each individual Patriarch, or even his subjects, were judged on their own merits. If one Patriarch was a schismatic, that did not exclude the possibility that his successor might be a Catholic.
The first case of, at least, friendliness towards the Latins is perhaps only a small one; but it is significant. The Emperor Manuel I (Komnenos, 1143-1180) was notorious for his Latin sympathies. Because of these he made himself very unpopular at Constantinople. He was accused, not without reason, of trying to impose Frank customs and the Frank religion on his subjects. For a time he was allied with the Norman kings of Sicily; he married twice, both his wives (Bertha of Sulzbach and Mary, daughter of Raymund, Prince of Antioch) were Latins, and he gave his children in marriage to Frank princes. He wrote to Pope Alexander III (1159-1181) asking that Greeks and Latins might again be united as one flock under one shepherd, the Pope. In short, Manuel I must almost, if not quite, be counted a Catholic. His second marriage with Mary, in 1166, was most unpopular among the Greeks. I suppose we should count it as a Catholic marriage; or, if it was mixed, it was only very slightly mixed. I do not know what rite was used, no doubt that of Constantinople; but the significant thing is that, not the then formally schismatical Patriarch of Constantinople, but Sophronios II of Alexandria (c. 1166-c. 1180) came to bless this marriage.
Then, in the thirteenth century, we find Athanasius III of Alexandria (1268–1271), of whom Lequien says that he would never pronounce either for or against the schism. That certainly does not make him a Catholic; but it shows again how much less bitter was the feeling against the Latins in these other Patriarchates than at Constantinople. Niphon (c. 1367) is said definitely to have made his submission to the Holy See. He received a friendly letter, exhorting him to do so, from Pope Urban V (1362–1370). Philotheos I. (c. 1439 and 1450) signed the union of Florence, retracted it, and then accepted ​it again. Philotheos II (c. 1523) sent his submission to Pope Adrian VI (1522-1523). In 1711 a Jesuit missionary in Egypt, Father William du Bernat, writes of the Patriarch of Alexandria (not named): "He kept up relations with Rome, and in conversation he wanted to appear orthodox. He told me that Prelates from Italy pressed him to declare himself publicly and to reunite his Church with the Roman Church; but, he says, they do not know what it is to be under Turkish dominion. If only they will set us free, reunion will be accomplished at once." We must not think this too important. It may be only civil things said to a Latin missionary; Eastern people are often great flatterers. Very likely the same man would have said to a Greek of Constantinople how thankful he was to be free of the tyranny of Rome. However, it is certain that at that time there was a great movement towards reunion in Egypt, as in Syria. The French missionaries had done much work; already there was a large number of people who professed the Catholic faith, recognized all the rights of the Holy See, and declared their intention to be in union with the Pope; though they were not yet constituted as a separate body. In Egypt, too, we hear of Uniate churches, priests, and congregations.
Then we come to a Patriarch of whose catholicity there is no doubt at all. This is Samuel Kabasilas, Patriarch of Alexandria (c. 1721). During his reign he heard that Lawrence de Saint Laurent, O.F.M., then Guardian of the holy Sepulchre, was in Egypt. So he sent for him, had conversations with him, in which he "found consolation and light." So he was converted to the Catholic Church. He made his profession of faith before Franciscan missionaries, gave every assurance as to the disputed points of faith, and then sent a Franciscan to Rome with a letter for the Pope in 1713. The Pope (Clement XI, 1700-1721) received this ambassador in solemn public audience, accepted the Patriarch's profession, and sent him a pallium. He also wrote to Louis XİV of France and the Doge of Venice, asking them to use their influence with the Turkish Government that Samuel should not be annoyed. There is, then, no doubt that this Samuel was a Catholic. After him we ​hear no more about the union in Egypt; it must have fallen through. At any rate, the line of Patriarchs of Alexandria became schismatical again, and the Catholics in Egypt remained without a Patriarch till their Patriarchate was joined to that of Antioch (p. 203).
For the third Patriarchal see, Jerusalem, there is only one little incident to note here. A Metropolitan of Palestine assured Father John Gauthier, S.J., that both Sophronios V of Jerusalem (1579-1608) and his successor, Theophanes IV (1608-1646), were in union with Rome.

## 2. Union under Cyril VI of Antioch (1724-1759).

Turning back to the Antiochene Patriarchate, we come to the final reunion which constituted the present Melkite Church. This was the work of the Patriarch Cyril VI.
Athanasius IV died in 1724. There was at that moment a very strong movement in favour of reunion with Rome throughout the Patriarchate. Latin missionaries (chiefly French Jesuits) had worked hard for this; they had already converted many, and had convinced others that reunion was at least most desirable. The Metropolitans, Euthymios of Tyre (Aftīmūs Ibnu-ṣṢaifi) and Neophytos Naṣri of Ṣaidnāiā, were Catholics; at Damascus, Aleppo, Sidon, Tyre, Acre, the majority of Christians of the Byzantine rite were Catholics, at least at heart. Now it seems that Athanasius IV had intended that a certain Silvester, a monk from Cyprus, his friend, should succeed him. Some say that he actually nominated Silvester his successor; this would make no difference, as he had no power of doing so. It seems that rivalry between the communities of Aleppo and Damascus is at the bottom of the quarrel which now follows. Silvester was considered to be the nominee of Aleppo. So hurriedly, to prevent his election, the people of Damascus elected Seraphim Tānās. Seraphim was a Catholic, nephew of Euthymios of Tyre; he was also in favour with Othman Pasha, ​Abu-Tauḳ, the Wali of Damascus. The election was held on September 25, 1724. No bishop was present; it was made by priests and lay "notables." Seraphim was then ordained Patriarch by Basil Fīnān, Metropolitan of Baïas, Neophytos Naṣrī of Ṣaidnāiā, and a third bishop, Euthymios of Furzul, himself ordained for this occasion. According to custom, Seraphim changed his name as Patriarch and became Cyril VI. There were then fifteen sees in the Patriarchate; of these ten bishops adhered to Cyril VI.
Meanwhile his rival, Silvester the Cypriote, did not remain idle. He went off to Jerusalem, and told that Patriarch of the alarming progress Popery was making in the neighbouring country. He presented his own claim, as nominee of the last Patriarch of Antioch, and explained that, if he were appointed, he would put down this tendency. So Jerusalem took his side and informed the Synod of Constantinople of what was happening. Constantinople and Jerusalem now declare for Silvester. He was then ordained at Constantinople. He succeeded also in alarming the Turks about the defections of so many Syrians to the Frank religion, and came back to Syria armed with laws against Catholics. All those who have joined the communion of the Pope are to return, no intercourse with the missionaries is tolerated, and they are to be expelled. The Government ​recognizes Silvester as Patriarch; the Synod of Constantinople imposes a profession of faith on all who recognize Silvester, and all whom the Turks force so to do, explicitly denying the Filioque. Cyril flees before his rival to a monastery in the Lebanon.
Much depends on the question of Cyril VI's election. Was it valid? There is no uniform rule for the election of bishops, recognized throughout Christendom, nor even throughout the Catholic Church. All one can say is that an election is valid if it conforms to the Canon Law (either written or by custom) of the time and place. Against Cyril is the fact that no bishop took part in his election. It was conducted by priests and laymen. That certainly seems an argument against it. On the other hand, there is evidence that, since the transference of the Patriarch's seat from Antioch to Damascus, the right of the Damascenes to elect had been recognized and used repeatedly. The Pope's Consistory later said expressly that Cyril had been elected "according to the custom of the Greeks." More important is the fact that the considerable majority of his Metropolitans acknowledged him. This gives him a later ratification, a sanatio in radice for whatever may have been irregular in the actual election. At any rate, so many Eastern Prelates have been elected by a popular vote and under all kinds of irregular conditions, yet by the acceptance of their Suffragans have held their position undisputed, that it would be impossible for the Orthodox to lay down a general principle that only one method is valid. Patriarchs of Constantinople have been nominated by the Sultan, yet no one hesitate to count them in that line. The only possible rule, in the East especially, is that the bishop de facto becomes bishop de iure by tacit consent. Cyril was certainly Patriarch de facto, recognized by the great majority, till his rival began to persecute his adherents. Indeed, the Synod of Constantinople itself acknowledged him, since in 1724 it deposed him. In this pronouncement the only argument against his election is the nomination of Silvester by the former Patriarch. Five years later, in 1729, Propaganda, having examined the whole question at leisure, declares as its first resolution that "nothing is ​against the valid and free election of Cyril as Patriarch of Antioch." This was after his enemies (for he had some among the Catholics too) had presented every argument against him. In any case, the appointment of his rival was utterly invalid. Silvester of Cyprus was simply nominated by the Synod of Constantinople. Now there is nothing that the Orthodox of Syria, Egypt, and all parts outside Constantinople hold more firmly than that the Œcumenical Patriarch has no jurisdiction beyond his own Patriarchate. The modern Orthodox, who trace the line of their Patriarchs of Antioch through Silvester, cannot object to the proceeding of Cyril's election; because equally irregular elections have been the commonest thing in all their sees. Their real reason for rejecting him is not that, but the fact that he came into communion with the Pope. But, if that is an impediment, what becomes of all the Antiochene Patriarchs of the first centuries? They have also in their favour the shameful protection that Silvester sought and obtained from the Turkish Government. It is indeed surprising that Christian bishops should seek such an argument; but it has been the constant recourse of the Orthodox, ever since the Turk first held their lands. Silvester of Cyprus at Antioch is only one out of countless Orthodox bishops who have rested their claim to rule in the name of Christ on the approval of Mohammed.
Unless we admit such arguments as these, it seems impossible to deny that the present Orthodox line of Patriarchs of Antioch, coming through Silvester, is not historically the old line, but a new schism therefrom beginning with him. The old line of Antioch is in union with Rome since Cyril VI.
Fortified then by the protection of the Turks, by the recognition of Constantinople and Jerusalem, Silvester carried on a fierce persecution of the Uniates, to restore the Orthodoxy — that is, schism from Rome — which had been so endangered in the Patriarchate for the last century. Meanwhile Cyril VI sought refuge from him in the famous monastery of St Saviour (Dair al Mukhallis) in the Lebanon. The Turks imprisoned Germanos, Metropolitan of Aleppo, a partizan of Cyril, also Euthymios Saifi of Tyre, and many Uniates at Damascus, Aleppo, Tripoli, Sidon. The greater part of the clergy then ​submit to Silvester; the others go off to Cyril in the Lebanon. There is now a clear parting of the ways, and two Churches, that of the Orthodox under Silvester, that of the Melkites under Cyril; though for a time each still claims the whole body and tries to attract his rival's supporters. Aleppo for a long time remained one of the chief centres of the Melkite party. In 1732 the Metropolitan Germanos resigned; but his successor, Maximos Ḥakīm, also declared for Cyril. After he had opened his campaign Silvester went off and wandered about Wallachia; then he came back to Damascus and began ordaining bishops to replace those who were faithful to Cyril.
Both rivals then asked for and obtained a firman from the Government. Cyril did so, in spite of the laws against him, in 1743; Silvester then got one too. It seems that already the Turk was beginning to recognize the existence of two Churches. The Orthodox succeed in seizing the Church at Aleppo. Nevertheless Cyril has many Catholics, especially among the laity, who were less exposed to persecution. He had 9,000 followers at Damascus.
But all this time Cyril was still unrecognized at Rome. Now that he had taken a definitely Catholic line, naturally he was much concerned to regulate his position on Catholic principles. In 1729 Pope Benedict XIII (1724-1730), who had heard of the events in Syria, sent a Capuchin, Father Dorotheus a SS Trinitate, to receive Cyril's profession of faith according to the formula of Urban VIII. Then another question had to be considered. The famous Euthymios of Tyre had introduced certain changes in the liturgy. Cyril, his nephew, adopted and defended these. But many of his people were vehemently opposed to them; so there was already division among the Melkites. The Pope demanded that he should undertake to change nothing in the services of the Church without the consent of Propaganda. Cyril made the profession of faith and all the engagements required; then there was further delay because of the death of the Pope (1730). It was not till 1744 that Benedict XIV (1740-1758) at last sent the pallium. It was on this occasion that he published his ​famous Constitution Demandatam cœlitus for the regulation of the Melkite Church (see pp. 34, 35).
But the Patriarch still had difficulties. He had opponents among his own Melkites; he also had trouble with the other Uniate Churches; notably the mutual dislike of Melkites and Maronites, so long a disturbance among the Catholics of Syria, already showed itself. The Latin missionaries, too, gave him trouble. He complained that they administered sacraments, baptized in the Roman rite, heard confessions, and collected money from his people without his authority. The Maronite Patriarch also, on the strength of an ancient Roman Constitution authorizing him to receive heretics and schismatics into the Church, began turning Melkites into Maronites. This so annoyed Cyril that he tore up certain pictures of St John Maro, declaring that he had been a Monothelete. The Maronites complained of this at Rome, and Benedict XIV wrote a stern letter, Inter cætera, in 1753. At last, worn out with his troubles, Cyril VI made up his mind to resign his see. First he nominated the son of his nephew, Ignatius Ǵauhār, as his successor, and then abdicated in 1759. The next year he died.

## 3. History to Maximos III (1759-1833).

Ignatius Ǵauhār assumed the name Athanasius V. There were then eleven Melkite bishops. Seven of them recognized him; but the other four protested against his nomination and appealed to Rome. As a matter of fact, Cyril had no right at all to nominate his successor, nor had he the right to resign without the Pope's consent; further, Ǵauhār was only twenty-seven years old, under the canonical age. So, in 1760, Clement XIII (1758-1769) quashed the resignation and nomination. But, as meanwhile Cyril was dead, the see was vacant. The Pope therefore himself appointed Maximos Ḥakīm Metropolitan of Aleppo. In doing so he declared that this was only the result of the special dispute then raging, that he did not intend to interfere with the right of the Metropolitans ​to elect their Patriarch in general. Maximos II reigned from 1760 to 1761 only. At first Ǵauhār had a party which protested and sent complaints of Maximos to Rome. Then he submitted and was given the see of Sidon. Maximos II represented the party of the Shuwair monks, as opposed to those of St Saviour (see pp. 205-208). He resided at Shuwair, where he died on November 28, 1761. The chief event of his reign is that he introduced the feast of Corpus Christi in his Patriarchate, for which he composed an excellent office, according to Byzantine rules. Before he died he appointed Athanasius Dahān, Metropolitan of Beirut, his coadjutor.
After Maximos's death this Athanasius Dahān was elected his successor, and took the name of Theodosius VI (1761-1788). Ignatius Ǵauhār made another attempt to get himself made Patriarch, and sent a protest to Rome against Theodosius; but he did not succeed, and again had to submit. Theodosius resided at the monastery of St Antony at Ḳarḳafah. In 1773 Clement XIV (1769-1774) submitted the few Melkites of Palestine and Egypt to the Patriarch of Antioch. But no title was yet given for these.
Then, when Theodosius died, at last Ignatius Ǵauhār, who had so long tried to be Patriarch, was elected lawfully. Rome confirmed his election, and he became Athanasius V (1788-1794). He was of the party of St Saviour, and resided there. In 1790 he summoned a synod, which made twenty canons against the monks of Shuwair. These were all quashed at Rome. Cyril VII, Sīāǵ, a monk of St Saviour, succeeded (1794-1796), but died before he received the pallium. Agapios Maṭār (Agapios III, 1796-1812), formerly Metropolitan of Sidon, monk of St Saviour, had trouble with the Latin missionaries, and obtained decrees from Rome against their attempts to turn his Melkites into Latins. In 1806 he held the famous of Synod of Ḳarḳafah (p. 209). He summoned another synod in 1811, at 'Ain Trāz, and founded a seminary ​there for the education of his clergy. As first rector of this seminary he appointed the famous Maximos Maẓlūm, who was to become the greatest Patriarch of this line (pp. 210-221). He also had great trouble with one of his Metropolitans, Ignatius Ṣarrūf of Beirut, who founded a religious Congregation at Mār Sim'ān, near Biskinta. The Patriarch would not recognize this Congregation. Ṣarrūf was defended by the Latin missionaries and appealed to Rome. Meanwhile Agapios suspended him from the use of pontificalia. After a long quarrel Propaganda declared for the Patriarch and Ṣarrūf had to submit. When Agapios died Ṣarrūf succeeded him, becoming Ignatius IV (1812). He was murdered ten months later by a Christian before he had time to receive the pallium. Athanasius VI (Maṭār, 1813) and Makarios IV (Ṭauwil, 1813-1815) succeeded in short periods, each dying of the pest soon after his appointment.
Then came Ignatius V (Ḳaṭṭān, 1816–1833). Several important events took place in his reign. There was a great persecution of the Melkites, which lasted from 1817 to 1832. The Orthodox, seeing the growing power of the Melkite Church, persuaded the Turks that these people were turning Franǵi and becoming a danger to the state. The persecution which followed raged chiefly at Aleppo and Damascus. Many Melkites were murdered, others were exiled, imprisoned, flogged. Only in the Lebanon under the powerful Christian (mostly Maronite) Emirs was there peace. Lately the question of the cause of these martyrs has been discussed at Rome. It was also under Ignatius V that the separation of the Shuwair Congregation of monks into two took place (p 208). He ordained the first Catholic Coptic bishop since the old schism; lastly, in his time the Sultan Maḥmūd II (1808-1839) granted the Melkites civil independence from the Orthodox, making the Uniate Patriarch of the Armenians civil head of all Uniates in his empire. Ignatius went blind at the end of his life, and died at the monastery Ẓuḳ Mīkhā'īl on February 9, 1833. His successor was the great Maximos III.

## 4. The Monks of St Saviour and the Monks of Shuwair.

Two Congregations of Melkite monks have played so important a part in the history of their Church that we must add some notice about them here. It is well known that in Eastern Churches, at least originally, there was no such thing as a distinction of religious orders. An Eastern monk is simply a monk; no further description is needed. All, or nearly all, follow the rule of St Basil; each monastery, possibly with its dependent houses, is a community independent of all others, though subject to the jurisdiction of the Ordinary. However, this old principle has been considerably modified in the case of the Uniate Churches. Under Western influence most of these now have what comes to much the same thing as our distinction of religious orders. That is to say, Congregations are formed under one general head. Such a congregation adopts the rule of St Basil to its own special needs and circumstances, so as to make practically a rule of its own. Generally, all are Basilian, but with differences. Perhaps the best parallel in the West would be the various divisions of the Franciscan order. And then, of late years, there have been totally new Congregations, founded entirely on Western lines, like our Jesuits, Redemptorists, Passionists, and so on.
Two such Congregations of monks, eventually three, play a great part in Melkite history, forming rival centres, around which parties are grouped. These are the Congregations of the Salvatorians and the Shuwairites. The Salvatorians were founded by the famous Euthymios Ibnu-ṣṢaifi, Metropolitan of Tyre and uncle of the Patriarch Cyril VI. In 1687, under Cyril V, Euthymios founded the monastery of St Saviour (Dair alMukhallis), near the village Ǵūn in the Kharrūb district of the Southern Lebanon. He sent there a certain Father Na'amatullah as Superior, with several monks. In 1708 they began building their monastery. Needless to say, in view of their founder's known zeal, this monastery became a great centre of reunion. It was, of course, faithful to Cyril VI in his quarrel with Silvester of Cyprus; as soon as the Uniate Melkite Church was organized the monks of Dair alMukhallis ​were part of it. In 1743 they asked for, and obtained, confirmation of Pope Benedict XIV for their Constitutions — that is, the rule of St Basil adapted to their circumstances. In 1745 the rule was printed in Arabic at Rome for them. They formed a chapter which, in 1751, elected Augustine Za'arur Superior General. In the same year Benedict XIV sent them a Brief, Etsi persuasum, telling them to observe their rite exactly, and to send all acts of their chapters to Rome to be confirmed. Gradually a number of other houses were built for the Salvatorian monks, so that they became a large Congregation. Many of them have always served in parishes. Indeed, it seems that this was their founder's idea. They are less strictly organized as a monastic order than their rivals of Shuwair. Cyril VI resided at their mother-house, Dair alMukhallis. His successor, Maximos II, represented the other party, of Shuwair. Athanasius V was again a Salvatorian and lived there. So there has been an alternation of influence between the two Congregations.
The story of Shuwair begins a little later. Gerasimos and Sulaimān, formerly students of the Jesuit missionaries, entered the monastery of Balāmand near Tripoli. They converted many monks to union with Rome; but the others finally expelled them and their party. So they went to Cyril V and received his approbation. Encouraged by him, they then founded a monastery of St John the Baptist (Mār Ḥanna) near the village of Shuwair, in the district Kesruān, between Beirut and Ba'albek. Others came to join them. But Gerasimos and Sulaimān disagreed; so that Sulaimān went back to Balāmand. Gerasimos remained Superior of Mār Ḥanna at Shuwair. In 1718 these monks built their church; soon ​after a considerable sum of money was left to them. Gerasimos became Metropolitan of Aleppo. Other monasteries joined them. In 1727 Nicholas Ṣā'īgh was elected Superior; they then determined that there should be a new election every third year. Ṣā'īgh († 1756) was a poet of some reputation. They wanted to be joined to the Italian Basilian Congregation; but Propaganda did not encourage this idea. However, in 1734 Pope Clement XIII (1758-1769) gave them the church of St Mary in Dominica at Rome, commonly called "Santa Maria della Navicella." This still belongs to the Congregation; they use it as their agency at Rome. Ṣā'īgh composed their Constitutions, which were approved by Benedict XIV in 1756. The Shuwairites are rather more strictly organized than the Salvatorians. But they, too, serve the parish churches. They have had a number of famous men, including bishops and Patriarchs.
Neophytos Naṣrī, Metropolitan of Ṣaidnaia, is one of the chief Catholic bishops of the first period, under Cyril VI. He was one of Cyril's ordainers (p. 198). He died at Rome in 1731, leaving the reputation of a saint. There has been a great dispute as to whether he was a Shuwairite monk. On the whole, the evidence seems that he was. 'Abdullah Zakher (1680-1748), who entered Shuwair in 1722, was famous for his learning. At four years old he could read Arabic easily. As a Shuwairite monk he founded a printing press which produced many liturgical and other useful books; this was one of the first presses for printing Arabic. The Congregation also had nuns, whose rule was approved at Rome in 1763. In 1735 Cyril VI made an attempt to unite the Congregations of St Saviour and Shuwair; but it came to nothing. He was himself a partizan of St Saviour, being nephew of its founder; the Shuwairites represent his plan as an attempt to merge ​Shuwair into Dair alMukhallis. At any rate, they resisted it successfully.
Instead of union between the two existing Congregations, a dispute a hundred years later produced three, by dividing the monks of Shuwair. For some time there seems to have been mutual jealousy and unfriendly feeling between the Shuwairites at Aleppo and their brethren in the Lebanon. The monastery at Aleppo was at some distance from the others, and developed independently of them. It is said that the Aleppo monks affected to be superior to those of the Lebanon, despising them as rude mountaineers. In 1826 there was a schism (monastically, of course, not ecclesiastically) between Aleppo and the mountain monks. But the Emir Bashīr Shahāb reconciled them. However, the feeling persisted; in 1829 it broke out again. This time the quarrel was too serious to be healed by reunion. So the Patriarch Ignatius V (1816-1833) and Propaganda agreed that they should be separated. Each then formed a separate Congregation with its own Superior General. At first they were the "Country Shuwairites" and the "Aleppo Shuwairites." Now it seems that the country branch has kept the old name; so they are Shuwairite Basilians, the others Alepin Basilians. This makes, with St Saviour, three Congregations.

## 5. Germanos Ādam and the Synod of Ḳarḳafah.

With the constant opposition of the Orthodox at their side, one would have thought that the Papacy was so much the cause of the Melkites that they would have been always Ultramontane to excess. It is, then, rather startling to find that in the early nineteenth century there was a considerable movement among them of what is called variously Gallicanism, Febronianism, even Jansenism. This was the work chiefly of a Melkite theologian of unimpeachable piety and considerable learning.
Germanos Ādam was born at Aleppo and studied at Propaganda, which shows that not even the things they teach at Rome are a quite safe guarantee. From the beginning he had a great reputation for his knowledge. He spoke Arabic, Greek, Latin, Italian, and French fluently. In 1774 Ādam ​became Metropolitan of Acre; in 1777 he was translated to Aleppo, the second see of the Patriarchate. As Metropolitan of Aleppo he had many quarrels with the Latin missionaries. Cyril Charon says, with truth, that not all the wrongs in these quarrels were on his side. Thus the Custos Terræ sanctæwanted to reconfirm children confirmed at their baptism according to their own rite. Germanos supported his Patriarch in the affair of Ignatius Ṣarrūf of Beirut (see p. 204); but on other occasions he seems to have quarrelled with him too.
Now comes the great matter of his Gallicanism. He had made friends with Scipio Ricci, Bishop of Pistoia, while he was in Italy. No doubt it was from him that he acquired these ideas. In 1799 he wrote against the missionaries in the affair of Ṣarrūf. Here already appears the poison. He thinks that the Primacy of the Pope is only of honour, that a General Council is above the Pope. In the controversy that followed he appealed to the Declaration of the Gallican clergy of 1682. Then he took up and defended the ideas of Febronius. Already in 1802 the news of his ideas had reached Rome. Pius VII (1800-1823) then ordered his works to be sent to be examined.
On July 23, 1806, the Patriarch Agapios III opened the Synod of Ḳarḳafah, in the monastery of St Antony at that place. Nine bishops attended, as also the Superiors General of St Saviour and of Shuwair; the Egyptian Melkites were represented by a Salvatorian monk, those of Damascus by another, those of Aleppo by Michael Maẓlūm, the future Patriarch. Lewis Gandolfi, the Papal Visitor, was also present, and signed the acts. The only explanation of this seems to be that he did not know enough Arabic to understand what they were. The Maronite Patriarch Joseph Tiān also approved of them. There is no doubt that Germanos Ādam was the soul of the synod, and that he drew up the acts. They contain all his views, that a General Council is above the Pope, that not the Pope, but only the whole Church, is infallible; the Primacy is reduced to hardly more than an honorary precedence.
Ādam defended other theories displeasing to the authorities at Rome in his many works, notably that the Consecration of the holy Eucharist is effected not only by the words of Institution, but also by the Invocation of the Holy Ghost. But not ​all he wrote is of this kind. He was a good theologian, and published many works of acknowledged merit. Chief among these is the Smaller Catechism he wanted to see adopted in the Patriarchate in place of a translation of Cardinal Bellarmine's Catechism, hitherto used. Although this was condemned by name specially, nevertheless, after correction, it has been reprinted and is still used in the Jesuit schools in Syria.
Ādam died in 1809, submitting all he had written to the judgment of the Holy See. In 1816 Pius VII condemned all his writings, especially the Catechism. It was not till 1835 that Gregory XVI (1831-1846) condemned the acts of the Synod of Ḳarḳafah. The Melkite Patriarch, Maximos III, adhered to this condemnation; gradually the whole movement disappeared. No one need fear Gallicanism among the Melkites to-day. The Jesuits have schools and missions all over the Patriarchate.

## 6. Maximos III (1833-1855).

By far the greatest man of the Melkite Church is the Patriarch Maximos III. Michael Maẓlūm was born at Aleppo of Melkite parents in 1779. He studied at his native city under a priest, Michael Naḥāwī, who is said to have been imbued with the ideas of Germanos Ādam. No doubt it was from him that Maẓlūm acquired those Gallican ideas that he never quite abandoned. He went to no seminary. Among the Melkites then it was still common (as in the schismatical Eastern Churches) that a priest should take young men to his house and teach them what theology, liturgy, and so on he could. Maẓlūm was ordained priest by Germanos Ādam of Aleppo and, at least for a time, became one of his foremost defenders. He was secretary of the Synod of Ḳarḳafah; there is no doubt that he then shared all its opinions. In 1810 ​he was ordained Metropolitan of Aleppo by the Patriarch Agapios III, and took the name Maximos. In 1811 he became the first rector of the new seminary at 'Ain Trāz. But in the same year Propaganda refused to recognize his appointment to the see of Aleppo. The Patriarch and nearly the whole Melkite hierarchy refused to submit to this measure. In 1813 he went to Rome to regulate his affair. At last he submitted to his deposition from Aleppo and was made titular bishop, first of Abydos, then of Myra. Basil 'Araḳtingī, Superior General of Shuwair, became Metropolitan of Aleppo. Then the seminary at 'Ain Trāz, suspect of the ideas of Ādam, was closed.
În 1818 Maẓlūm went to Trieste, where he had an audience of the Emperor Francis I, who made him protector of all Melkites, as far as Austria was concerned. Then Maẓlūm founded the still existing Melkite Church at Marseilles. He was still supposed to be not sufficiently submissive to Papal authority, and all this time was under a cloud. He went back to Rome and stayed there till 1831. In that year Gregory XVI (1831-1846) became Pope. He was much more friendly to Maẓlūm, and the old quarrel of Melkite Gallicanism was becoming forgotten. Maẓlūm was sent back to Syria with two Jesuits, who apparently had the duty of looking after him. Before going he had to sign a promise of fidelity to the Holy See. As soon as they landed in Syria he dodged his Jesuits, and went off to the Patriarch Ignatius V, at Zūk Mikhā'īll. He now wanted to be made Patriarchal Vicar; but he did not succeed. Ignatius V died in 1833. There were then eight bishops to elect a successor. The Papal Delegate warned them that they must not elect Maẓlūm. But they did elect him all the same. When the news came to Rome the authorities there seem to have hesitated. First they demanded of the Patriarch-elect a denunciation of the Synod of Ḳarḳafah and of the ideas of Germanos Ādam. In 1835 the Pope published the Bull, Melchitarum catholicorum synodus, condemning Ḳarḳafah. Maximos accepted this with entire submission. But he had still not received his pallium when he summoned and held the Synod of 'Ain Trāz in 1835. At last, in the same year, Gregory XVI confirmed his election.
The Synod of 'Ain Trāz is of great importance to the ​Melkites. It is the only one that has been approved at Rome, that has real force of law. It was opened on December 1, 1835. At the opening only two bishops, besides the Patriarch, were present. Aleppo sent a procurator, Ba'albek did not appear; the Metropolitans of Tyre, Acre, and Zaḥleh were dead. Maximos ordained a bishop for Tyre at the opening of the synod. Twenty-five canons were drawn up, concerning the administration of sacraments, the rite, offerings to churches, holidays of obligation, life and manners of clerks, regulars, the seminary of 'Ain Trāz, canonical visitations, care of the poor, fast and abstinence, vows and pilgrimages, usury. All bishops present signed, and Maximos added the signature of the Metropolitan of Ba'albek, though he was not there.
There was a quarrel about the precedence of Aleppo and Tyre, each of these sees claiming to be the Protothrone — that is, first See of the Patriarchate. The question of the Gregorian Calendar was discussed, but put aside for the present.
When the acts of the synod were sent to Rome, at first Propaganda was much annoyed because Maximos had held it before he had received the pallium. This is a violation of Canon Law. He had performed other Patriarchal acts before he had the pallium. It seems clear that he was acting on his Febronian theory that synods may be held without the intervention of the Pope. However, he had received the pallium meanwhile, so, after a good deal of discussion, at last the acts of 'Ain Trāz were formally approved by Propaganda in 1841.
Meanwhile Maximos obtained leave of the Government and came to Damascus. It was the first time a Melkite Patriarch had done so since Cyril VI fled to the Lebanon (p. 200). Then he made a journey in the Haurān and ordained a bishop for that district. There were very few Melkites in it; afterwards his enemies said that he did this only to increase the number of his adherents by ordaining useless bishops. There are other cases in which the same was said of him. He ​ordained a bishop for Ḥomṣ, Ḥāma, and Yabrūd, thereby taking those places from the diocese of Beirut. Athanasius 'Ubaid of Beirut complained to Rome of this, and Propaganda took his side. This did not prevent Maximos from carrying out his plan. He ordained a bishop for Diyārbakr; but this time the result was most tragic. The bishop was Peter Sammān, who took the name Makarios. In 1843 the see of Aleppo was vacant, and Makarios of Diyārbakr applied for it. The Patriarch, however, did not give it to him; so he turned sulky and, after a period of playing a double part, finally he went off to the Orthodox at Constantinople. The apostasy of this wretched man acquired some fame because of the extraordinary things the Orthodox did to him. He was to be Orthodox Metropolitan of Diyārbakr. He had received all sacraments, including his bishop's orders, according to the Byzantine rite, exactly the same as that of the Orthodox. Nevertheless they not only reordained him, but began proceedings by rebaptizing the man. It is a famous case illustrating their belief that no sacraments are really valid except those administered in the Orthodox Church.
Another bishop of unhappy memory in the time of Maximos III was the once notorious Athanasius Totūnǵī of Tripoli. His ordination was a further mistake of Maximos, always too ready to multiply bishops. He was Superior of the seminary of 'Ain Trāz. Maximos had turned out the Jesuits who had been in charge of that seminary after the troubles of Germanos Ādam (p. 211), and had put this Totūnǵī there as rector. There was not the slightest need to make him a bishop. Seminaries get on quite well with a priest as rector. Still less was there any need to make a bishop for Tripoli. Charon says there were then at most ten Melkites there. The Patriarch's idea was that he should administer the diocese while residing at 'Ain Trāz and conducting the seminary. Then very serious rumours about Totūnǵī's moral conduct got abroad. Maximos examined them; Totūnǵi pleaded guilty and gave the Patriarch a written confession. Maximos then told him to go to Ḥomṣ, to be quiet, and out of the way till the scandal had blown over. However, Totūnǵī fled to the refuge of all discontented Melkites, ​Rome. Here he accused his Patriarch of tyrannical conduct towards himself, and told many lies. At Rome they were quite kind to him, they even gave him a pension, but they told him to go back to Syria. He got as far as Malta, then dodged and came to Marseilles and Paris. Maximos ordered him home; but now, in open disobedience to his Patriarch and the Roman authorities, he came to England, pretending that he had been sent to collect alms for his poor flock. Wiseman, then Vicar Apostolic of the London district, gave him a celebret and leave to collect alms. People were less suspicious then of these begging Orientals than we have become since. For a time he celebrated in the Catholic church at Chelsea. But meanwhile he was talking to the Anglicans, and telling them a very different story. This came out, and Wiseman withdrew his faculties. Totūnǵī went off to Lord Palmerston and the Archbishop of Canterbury. The Anglicans, of course, were delighted. They seem not to have had the vaguest idea who he was. Anglicans never do understand who these people are who come and beg from them. All they thought was that he was a "bishop of the Syrian Church" (whatever that might mean) who was persecuted by the Pope of Rome. Needless to say, every Anglican heart went out to the Apostolic person so ill-used (hardly an Anglican alive understood the difference between a Melkite and the Orthodox; very few knew that between Orthodox and Jacobites). So the Archbishop of Canterbury gave him a sum of money, just to show, says he, "the sympathy between the Catholic Church of England and the Church of Syria." Totūnǵī got up a meeting at Leamington under the auspices of Anglican bishops. There was a great crowd and much enthusiasm. A parson, Mr. Craig, explained to the meeting that the illustrious person before them wanted to become a British citizen in order to enjoy the protection of Empire. "The presence of this eminent Prelate in our country will help to convince the members of our Church that our brethren in the East have preserved the doctrines of the Church of England. ... The creed of the Bishop of Tripolis is in perfect accord with that of the Catholic Church of Jesus Christ. Deprived of help from France and Austria, ​he turns to the Church which, like his, acknowledges two sacraments as necessary to salvation." Then Totūnǵī, having learned the right sort of patter for his audience, assured them that his object was to educate his people "on true scriptural principles." He implored them to provide his flock with copies of the unmutilated Word of God; and hoped that the money for this purpose would be entrusted to himself. He also received Communion in an Anglican Church from Mr. Craig. Great was the joy of the Anglicans at this reunion of Christendom. But then the fellow got arrested, was sent about his business, and finally, having exhausted the credulity of everyone over here, did go back to Syria. There he wanted to follow the example of Makarios Sammān and turn Orthodox. But they would not promise him a diocese; so he made an attempt to start a private little schism of his own at Aleppo. This came to nothing; finally the poor fellow came back to the Church, repented, did penance, and died a Catholic at Aleppo in 1874. His queer story is typical, and should be a warning to High Church enthusiasts. It is not always safe to believe Orientals who come here and say they are persecuted by the Pope because they want the pure Bible and two sacraments. It would also be wise to acquire some little knowledge of Eastern Christendom, so as not to talk nonsense about "the Church of Syria."
We have seen that, already under Theodosius VI, Propaganda had made the few Melkites of Egypt and Palestine subject to the Melkite Patriarch of Antioch (p. 203). Since then their number had increased. In 1836 Maximos III made a journey to both these lands, built churches, and left Patriarchal vicars at Cairo and Jerusalem. He showed great zeal in maintaining the Byzantine rite among his people there. There were many children of Byzantine parents who, for want of clergy of their own rite, had adopted that of Rome. Maximos insisted on their coming back to the custom of their fathers. Not all of them were willing to do so, after having accustomed themselves to Roman ways. Again there was a dispute; Propaganda in ​1843 made one of the important decisions which still affect this difficult question. We shall come back to the laws; here it will be enough to say that, as always, this decision was scrupulously respectful of the rights of the Uniate Church. Now comes a great and famous quarrel, which to the Western reader may seem slightly ridiculous, though it caused much heart-burning at the time. It is the question of the hats of the Melkite clergy.
In 1837 the Orthodox Patriarch of Constantinople, Gregory VI, alarmed at the progress of the Melkite Church, obtained a firman from the Sultan which forbade the Melkites to make any converts from the Orthodox and commanded their clergy to change their dress, so that no one should mistake them for Orthodox. Naturally, since the division under Cyril VI, the clergy of both sides kept the same dress as before. It was a black cassock without buttons (ἀντερίον, Arabic ḳumbāz), with a cloth belt, a cloak with wide sleeves (ῥάσον, ǵubbah), and the kalymauchion (καλυμαύχιον, ḳallūsah). This is the cylindrical hat without a brim worn by all the Byzantine clergy. Now the Orthodox wanted to make the Melkites change their dress. This was a humiliation for them. It would make them look like some new strange sect. Why should they not go on wearing the same dress, respected by their people, as had been worn for centuries by their predecessors? Indeed, since the Melkites represent the old Patriarchate of Antioch, they could urge with reason that, if there is to be any change, it should be made by the followers of the new schismatical line of Silvester the Cypriote. First the Orthodox insisted that, as the Melkites were practically Europeans, they should be made to dress like French priests, wearing the French hat. The malice of this is obvious. It would have stamped them as foreigners at the first glance, would have confused them with the Latin clergy, and would ​have lost to them the sympathy of natives. It is a common trick to injure a rival religion by representing it as foreign, and so hostile to all patriotic citizens. Then it was proposed that they should wear a square kalymauchion. The Melkites persisted in claiming that they would go on dressing exactly as their fathers had dressed, in the traditional costume of their rite. The quarrel lasted with great bitterness for ten years. At last a compromise was made by the Government. The Melkite clergy were to wear a kalymauchion, not round, but six-sided; their cassock was to be, not black, but blue or violet. This was made law by the Turk in 1847. But it was not long observed. The blue or violet got darker and darker, the six angles of the hat became more and more blunted, till there is now nothing to distinguish the Melkites from the Orthodox in dress.
A greater work, the greatest work of Maximos's life, was the civil emancipation of his people. It is known that, at any rate till the revolution of 1908, the Turkish Government grouped its Christian victims according to their religions. Each religion was a "nation," dependent on its religious head in civil matters too; these heads were responsible to the Porte for the behaviour of their people. When the division between Melkites and Orthodox came, at first that made no difference to the Turk. He still looked on them as one nation. Since the Government eventually took the side of the Orthodox Patriarchs, Silvester and his successors, these still had civil jurisdiction over the Melkites. Such a state of things was intolerable to them. Naturally, the Orthodox used their authority to vex, annoy, and persecute the followers of the Melkite Patriarchs in every possible way. It was not till 1830 that the Sultan freed all Uniates from dependence on their rivals. At first he put all under the civil authority of the Armenian Patriarch, as representing the largest and best known ​community of Uniates (p. 204). Maximos III, after enormous labours, at last obtained the repeal of this law, and the complete civil autonomy of the Melkites under their own Patriarch. First he obtained his own appointment as agent (murakhkhaṣ) of the Armenian Patriarch for the Melkites. But there was then a general movement in favour of separation among all the other Uniates. The Syrian and Chaldæan Uniates demanded the same thing as the Melkites, though they did not obtain quite so much. In 1846, after long negotiations, Maximos persuaded the Government to recognize the Melkites as a quite separate nation under himself and his successors. From that time the Melkite Patriarch has a berat from the Porte giving him this authority.
But the civil arrangements of the Turkish Government are not quite the same thing as ecclesiastical jurisdiction, given only by the central authority of the Church at Rome. Maximos seems to have thought that it is. So, on the strength of his berat from the Turk, he began to assume ecclesiastical jurisdiction also over all Uniates of the Byzantine rite in the Turkish Empire. He even tried this over the few Byzantine Uniates of Constantinople. He built a church there and quarrelled with the Latin vicar, who would not allow people to attend it. Ecclesiastically he was only Patriarch of Antioch. However, already in 1773 the Pope had entrusted the Melkites of the other two Patriarchates, Alexandria and Jerusalem, to the Patriarch of Antioch; though so far no title had been granted for these (p. 203). Maximos now asked at Rome that he might be recognized as "Patriarch of the Greek Melkite Catholic Church." So strange and new a title, with its vague claim, was not approved. But Pope Gregory XVI, in 1838, granted him, as a personal favour which was not to continue to his successors, the titles of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Since he ​was already Patriarch of Antioch, and known under that title, since the other two were, so to say, only accidental additions, not necessarily to continue after his death, Maximos used the form "Patriarch of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and of all the East," with Antioch first. We shall see how this title has maintained itself, illegally, among his successors (p. 224). Maximos built a Patriarchal church at Jerusalem, and he had one already at Cairo. For Egypt and Palestine he appointed Patriarchal vicars, which practice has continued ever since.
In 1849 Maximos summoned a synod at Jerusalem, which was to complete the work of that of 'Ain Trāz in 1835. But at once strong opposition showed itself. Three bishops, those of Tyre, Beirut, and Ba'albek, wrote to Rome to protest. They did not see the good of a new synod, they resented Maximos's lordly ways over his Metropolitans, they did not want to go to Jerusalem at all. However, he held his synod, with great external pomp. One of the first questions that came up was what to do with Athanasius Totūnǵī, who had now repented. The folly of Maximos's mania for ordaining bishops was shown most clearly in this case. Had Totūnǵī been a priest, no doubt a post could have been found for him easily; but a bishop must, according to Melkite ideas then, have some sort of diocese. He was not a monk, so they could not send him back to his monastery. The wretched man who had already given so much trouble now gave more by causing the great quarrel between the Patriarch and Ag'apios Ri'āshī, Metropolitan of Beirut. In order to provide Totūnǵī with a see, Maximos said he would cut off Ǵebail from the diocese of Beirut, and make him bishop of that new see. Ri'āshī was furious, and appealed to Rome. Maximos at his synod then told the Metropolitans to suspend Ri'āshī from the use of pontificalia. They said they could not do so till the bishop's case had been heard. Ri'āshī succeeded this time, and Totūnǵī was not made bishop of Ǵebail; but the quarrel between Ri'āshī and the Patriarch continued, and caused the chief trouble of the end of Maximos's reign. The Salvatorian monks also were opposed to the synod, and sent protests to Rome. It made forty canons. There are many things in its acts which would offend Propaganda. First Maximos declares that he holds this synod in the fullness of his Patriarchal power, again ignoring the need of Roman approval. When the acts were sent to Rome, the authorities there also blamed the magnificence with which the Patriarch loved to surround himself, the pomp of his titles repeated over and over again, the exaggerated claim to authority over his ​suffragans, even a studious imitation of Papal titles and style. No bishop is to settle anything without the Patriarch's leave; whereas he acts with too great independence of his superior, the Pope. There are supposed to be Jansenist infiltrations in expressions about grace and sacraments; there were decrees annoying to the Salvatorians. For all these reasons the synod was said to be tainted with the errors of Ḳarḳafah; it was never approved at Rome. In this synod the old quarrel of precedence between Tyre and Aleppo came up again.
Meanwhile Ri'āshī of Beirut was still in opposition against his Patriarch, and the Shuwair monks of his diocese were in opposition against him. They wanted independence of the Metropolitan and immediate dependence on the Patriarch. After a long quarrel which embittered Maximos's last years, Rome decided for Ri'āshī. Maximos was summoned to Rome, and refused to go. It is even said that very grave remonstrances were about to be sent to him by Propaganda when he sickened and died. Certainly at his death the Patriarchate was in a great state of disorder. Maximos fell sick at Cairo in the spring of 1855. He would not use any relaxation of the severe fast of Lent according to his rite, saying that the Patriarch, above all, should give a good example of fidelity to the laws of his Church. He received the last sacraments, died a holy death on August 11, 1855, and is buried at Cairo.
Maximos III had many enemies during his long career. He was accused of pride and too great pomp. Certainly he loved to surround himself with attendants; he loved grand titles and splendid ceremonies. His weakness was ordaining useless bishops and then quarrelling with them. Yet he was by far the greatest Patriarch, perhaps the greatest bishop, the Melkite Church has had. He was a man of great erudition, author of a score of valuable works on grammar, history, liturgy, and theology. He inherited the Gallican ideas of Germanos Ādam, which he never quite laid aside. For all that, he was a man of unquestioned piety, zeal, and energy for the good of his Melkites. In spite of his Gallicanisms and assumptions of independence, he was never anything approaching a heretic or schismatic. Now all his faults are long forgotten by his people. ​They remember him only as the great Patriarch who did so much for them, who, above all, obtained for them their civil independence.

## 7. History after Maximos III (1855-1915).

After the death of Maximos III thirteen bishops elected Clement Baḥūth, a Salvatorian monk and Metropolitan of Acre, to be his successor (1855-1864). The great event of his reign was the adoption of the Gregorian Calendar, which led to dreadful trouble and a schism of part of his flock. So far the Melkites had used the old Julian Calendar, like the Orthodox. But it was felt, at least at Rome, that in so vital a matter as this the whole Catholic Church should agree. The question does not affect the special feasts and fasts of each rite. In spite of those, there are the great cardinal feasts of the year: Easter, Epiphany, Pentecost, and others, such as Christmas, kept by all. It was certainly a strange anomaly that Catholics should keep these on different days. Moreover, everyone knows that the Julian Calendar is hopelessly wrong. Already at the synod of 'Ain Trāz in 1835 the question had been discussed; but the feeling against a change was so strong that it was shelved. Now the Patriarch Clement thought it could be no longer put off. The Maronites had already adopted the Gregorian Calendar in their synod of 1736. Clement ordered its use throughout the Melkite Church in 1857. At once there was an enormous uproar. Eastern people are very tenacious of their old customs, especially in such external matters. Many Melkites protested that the Patriarch was tampering with their faith, that he was a Franǵi trying to latinize them. Books and violent pamphlets were written on either side. A considerable number of Melkites at last flatly refused to obey the order, and were excommunicated by Clement. Their leader was a secularized monk, Ǵibarra. Protected by the Russians, he opened chapels for the sect that gathered round him. He called this the "Eastern Church" (alkanīsat ashsharḳīyah). The schism lasted for about three years. Then, during the ​troubles of Syria in 1860, many of these Sharḳiyīn came back to the Church. By 1865 nearly all were converted. They kept the feast of Candlemas in union with the Melkites, on the Gregorian date, and the chief trouble was over. Only Ǵibarra himself with very few followers kept a schismatical chapel at Beirut. I believe that the whole schism is now ended. But meanwhile Clement, worn out with this trouble, resigned his see in October, 1864, and went back to his monastery, St Saviour.
He was succeeded by Gregory Yūsuf (1864-1897). Gregory had been a student of the Jesuit college at Ǵazīr, then of the Greek College at Rome. He was a Salvatorian monk, and Bishop of Acre. He was elected by the bishops of the Patriarchate at Shuwair, and confirmed by Pius IX in 1864. He founded the Patriarchal school at Beirut; in his time the French "White Fathers" opened their admirable College of St Anne at Jerusalem for the education of the Melkite clergy. At the Vatican Council Gregory was an Inopportunist. He died on July 13, 1897. Then came Peter IV, whose family name was Ǵiraiǵīrī (1897-1902). He was born at Zaḥleh in 1841, and had studied for four years at the seminary of Blois, to learn French. He was ordained priest in 1862; in 1886 he was made Bishop of Bānīās (Paneas), which is Cæsarea Philippi. He was the first bishop of this see since before the time of Cyril VI.
When the bishops met at the monastery of St Saviour to elect a Patriarch, the Turkish Government declared that it would not allow the presence of any foreigner at the election. But it was the rule that the Apostolic Delegate should be present. The French Ambassador protested, and the Government gave way. Peter IV intended to summon a Melkite synod, and went to Rome to make arrangements for this in 1899. The synod was never held; they still wait for it, and many demand it. At one time Orthodox papers spread the rumour that Peter had tendencies away from Rome and towards their Church. This was, of course, indignantly denied. When Peter died the bishops elected Cyril Ǵiḥā, Metropolitan of Aleppo, who became Cyril VIII (1902-1919).

## 8. The Melkite Church at the Present Time.

The Melkites, then, are the Arab-speaking Catholics of the Byzantine rite in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt. The Head of their Church, under the Pope, is their Patriarch. As soon as the Patriarch dies, the Holy See appoints a Vicar Apostolic Patriarchal, who corresponds to the Vicar Capitular in the West. He may be any bishop of the Patriarchate. He then summons a synod to elect the new Patriarch. Propaganda always desires that the Latin delegate be present and preside at this synod; but he has no vote. As a matter of fact, synods to elect a Patriarch have often been held without the presence of the delegate. The matter seems still uncertain. All the bishops of the Patriarchate, whether Ordinaries or titular, have a vote, no one else. Till now an absolute majority has been sufficient. As soon as the Patriarch is elected, and has accepted his election, he is proclaimed and enthroned. The president hands him the Patriarchal Dikanikion, all the bishops come up and kiss his hand; then they sing a Polychronion in his honour. It is curious that this ceremony takes place before he is confirmed at Rome. Then the synod and the Patriarch-elect write to the Pope. He sends a profession of faith and begs for the pallium. In theory he should come to Rome for his pallium; but he never does. There have been many cases of Melkite Patriarchs using jurisdiction before they had the pallium, and much dispute about this. If the Pope approves of the election, he sends the pallium, which is given to the Patriarch by the Latin Delegate. On this occasion the Patriarch makes a new profession of faith. He is then confirmed by the Turkish Government and receives his Berat.
The Patriarch's title is the result of the development of his position. Originally he was Patriarch of Antioch only, succeeding Cyril VI in that line. Then, when there were a few Melkites in Palestine and Egypt, but not enough to justify the erection of separate Patriarchates, these were entrusted to the care of the Patriarch of Antioch, at first without any title for them. Then the Pope allowed Maximos III to call himself also Patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem; but this was a personal favour, not to continue to his successors. When ​Maximos died, his successor, Clement, without any justification, used these other titles. For this he was reproved by Propaganda, and at once expressed his regret. Then Pius IX renewed the titles for him, again as a personal favour. They have never been renewed since. Gregory Yūsuf assumed them with no right. Circumstances were at that time so difficult in Syria that Rome left this matter alone. But the Gerarchia Cattolica described him scrupulously as "Patriarca antiocheno dei Melchiti" only. All Roman documents still recognize the Melkite Patriarch as of Antioch only. He has no right to any further title. Nevertheless, since Maximos III, each Patriarch adds those of Alexandria and Jerusalem. Maximos made a further change in the title, which remains as used by them. If the three sees are to be united in one person, Alexandria should come first. That see has precedence over Antioch and is second in Christendom. But, since Antioch was the older title for this Patriarch, the only one to which he had right by succession, Maximos and his successors put it first. The old style of Antioch was "Antioch and all the East," meaning the Roman Prefecture of the East. But the Melkite Patriarchs put these words at the end of all, and call themselves "Patriarchs of Antioch, Alexandria, Jerusalem, and all the East." This seems to give a new meaning to the "East." They are not, of course, really Patriarchs of anything like all the East in the usual meaning. The Melkite has jurisdiction over Melkites in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt only. He has never received nor assumed the title of Constantinople; though I have heard it whispered in Syria that Cyril VIII, having already so many titles, had vague dreams of being Œcumenical Patriarch. People in the East love titles. The full style of this Patriarch, used in his solemn φήμη, is: "The most blessed, most holy, most venerable, our chief and lord, Patriarch of the great cities of Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem, of Cilicia, Syria, and Iberia, of Arabia, Mesopotamia, and the Pentapolis, of Ethiopia, all Egypt, and all the East, Father of Fathers, Shepherd of Shepherds, Pontiff of Pontiffs, ​and thirteenth Apostle." However, since he is the only Melkite Patriarch, the usual and convenient rule is to call him so simply. According to Eastern custom he is "His Beatitude." At Rome they do not seem to recognize this. To them he is "Eccellenza reverendissima."
Antioch has long been abandoned as the Patriarchal residence. When the Ottoman Turks conquered Syria in 1516 Damascus became the political centre of the province. The Patriarch of Antioch then went to live there. Antioch is now a poor town of about 35,000 inhabitants, mostly Noṣairi. It has a few Orthodox Christians, a handful of Latins, Maronites, and Uniate Armenians, I believe no Melkites at all. The Orthodox Patriarchs then resided at Damascus; for a time there was still a Metropolitan of Damascus as well. Then, since the Patriarch was there himself, he assumed the administration of that see. This is still the case with both Orthodox and Melkites. When the division between Cyril and Silvester came, Cyril had to flee Damascus. From 1724 to 1834 the Melkite Patriarchs resided at the monastery of St Saviour, or at 'Ain Trāz, or Zūk Mikā'īl (p. 204). Meanwhile they appointed Vicars Patriarchal for Damascus. In 1834 Maximos III returned to Damascus (p. 212), but now, having also the administration of Egypt, he spent a great part of his time in his house at Cairo. Peter IV did not like Damascus; so he built himself a large house next to the Patriarchal College at Beirut. But he did not live to inhabit it. Since then this house is let. The present custom is for the Patriarch to divide his time between Cairo and Damascus, at both of which he has houses. It depends on his own preference where he spends most of his time. He is rarely at Jerusalem, where his flock is very small. He has a country house at 'Ain-Trāz.
The Patriarch has Vicars Patriarchal representing him. These are generally, but neither necessarily nor always, bishops. At present there are such vicars at Cairo (for Egypt), at ​Jerusalem (for Palestine), at Damascus, at Constantinople (to represent the Patriarch's interests with the Government), at some outlying cities in the East, where are a few Melkites; at Rome, Paris, and other places in the West, including America.
The number of Melkite sees has varied considerably. At present there are twelve Ordinaries, besides the Patriarch himself. Antioch is a mere title; the Patriarch is Ordinary of Damascus. Then there are Bishops of Tyre, Aleppo, Boṣra-and-Haurān (united), Ḥomṣ, Beirut, Acre, Sidon, Paneas, Tripoli, Baʿalbek, Yabrūd, Furzul-and-Zaḥleh (united). There are no suffragan sees in Palestine or Egypt.
So far I have generally called all these bishops Metropolitans. This is the usual term among all Christians in the East. It is a development of Byzantine law to give to every Ordinary this title; obviously meaning no more than bishop. From the Greek μητροπολίτης the Arabs formed the word Muṭrān. This is now used in Arabic as meaning no more than bishop. Every bishop, even a titular one, is called Muṭrān. The Latin translation of the acts of the third synod of ʿAin-Trāz uses "Metropolitanus" for Muṭrān, and gives the title to every bishop. As a matter of fact, I believe that there are now no real provinces nor Metropolitan jurisdiction among the Melkites at all. All their bishops are immediately subject to the Patriarch. He ordains them all, blesses the chrism for all, and rules all on the same level. But Cyril Charon desires a reform in this matter. He points out that, originally, there were real provinces and Archbishops, as in the West. He insists on this as the legal position still. His scheme, based on antiquity, is this: Tyre is the first see under the Patriarch. Under Tyre as Metropolis he groups Acre, Sidon, Paneas, Tripoli. Aleppo is the second see, a Metropolis without suffragans. Damascus is the third Metropolis having as suffragan sees Baʿalbek, Yabrūd, Furzul-and-Zaḥleh. Then ​Ḥomṣ and Beirut are Metropolitan sees without suffragans. It may be that the new synod, the fourth of ʿAin-Trāz (1909), has made some legislation to this effect. The ordinary bishops, as well as the Patriarch, have certain civil rights over their flocks; each receives a berat from the state to this effect.
When a see is vacant, the Patriarch proposes three candidates; of these the diocesan clergy should choose one. As a matter of fact, the laity, the "Notables of the Nation," play a considerable part in the election. Only at Aleppo is there a special rule, approved by Rome. Here the clergy and notables have absolutely free choice. The Holy See has no voice nor part in the election of Melkite bishops. They are ordained by the Patriarch, with two assistants. Besides the diocesan Ordinaries there are a certain number of titular bishops, either Patriarchal Vicars or Ordinaries who have retired. The Patriarch may name and ordain any titular bishops he pleases. They are called Synkelloi. Their titles are those of ancient sees in the country which no longer have Ordinaries.
A curious right of the Ordinary is that no one may marry without his consent.
The lower clergy is either secular or regular. Till the time of Maximos III the Melkite clergy consisted almost entirely of monks of the two Congregations. One of that Patriarch's ​chief works was to organize a normal diocesan clergy. Even now, by far the greater number of churches are served by monks. There are no organized parishes with a rector and his curates. Where several priests live together, they stand all on the same level, each having a district. There is the curious custom that a family will choose one priest to be its director. This family then supports him, and, in return, he administers all sacraments to its members. There will be more to say about the clergy when we come to Uniate Canon Law in general. Here it will be enough to note that the diocesan clergy increases very much in modern times, and that the practice of celibacy becomes more and more common among secular priests. All the modern colleges and seminaries encourage celibacy. The priests are poor. They live from stole fees and small collections. The usual stipend for a liturgy is two or three piastres (4d. or 6d.). But they need little to live. They eat a handful of rice, a cucumber, an olive or two, a little laban, and an onion. The title Chorepiskopos is now given to many priests as an honour. The Melkite chorepiskopos is never ordained bishop. The real Archimandrite is head of a monastery. But there are many titular Archimandrites, again merely an honour given to any deserving priest. The Protopapas is a rural dean. The secular priest wears a dark cassock with no buttons, a cloth belt, a cloak, and the kalimaukion black. Monks and dignitaries wear a veil (epanokalimaukion) over this, and a leather belt. Some priests now begin to wear the French douillette, thinking that more European. It is ugly, hot, and inconvenient in their climate. All priests let the hair grow long. When not officiating in church they gather it up, just as a woman does. All, of course, must wear the beard.
The chief religious orders are the three Congregations of Salvatorians, Shuwairites, and Alepins (Ḥalibi). These monks claim certain districts as belonging to their orders. ​They serve by far the greater number of churches. As an example, in the diocese of Sidon of forty-six priests, thirty are Salvatorian monks, the other sixteen are married. In Ba'albek, of fifteen priests ten are Shuwairites, one Alepin, four secular. Most bishops are monks; though this is not a rule.
Besides these three monastic Congregations there is a Congregation of priests, on the lines of those we know in the West, which must be mentioned with special honour. Lord Germanos Mu'aḳḳad was Metropolitan of Ba'albek from 1887 to 1894. He had difficulties there and resigned. So the Patriarch gave him the title of Laodicea (Laḏaḳiyeh), and he went to live in the Lebanon. Here, in 1896, with the encouragement and blessing of Pope Leo XIII, he founded the Congregation of Missionaries of St Paul. They are trained and have their convent in his house, at Harissa near Bkerki, close to the great statue of our Lady of the Lebanon. His idea was to train priests who should go out to give missions, in the same manner as the Latin Redemptorists. The Congregation is still small; but it has done, and is doing most noble work. Under the guidance and with the example of their saintly founder, the missioners reach perhaps the highest level of zeal, piety, and sound learning that you will find in the Melkite Church. Already they have done untold good in raising the level of religion in the country parishes. Lord Germanos of Laodicea was the chief influence in the late Synod of 'Ain-Trāz. He died the death of the righteous on February 11, 1912. May he rest in peace; cuius memoria in benedictione erit. His work has not died with him. As a legacy to his Church he leaves his missioners of St Paul; in their admirable work he still lives.
There are nuns of each Congregation. Dair alBishārah (Convent of the Annunciation) close to the monastery of St Saviour, is Salvatorian; Dair anNiyāḥ (Convent of Rest) at Kafar Taiy near Beirut is Alepin; Dair anNiyāḥ near Mār Sim'ān and Dair alBishārah at Zūḳ-Mīkā'īl are Shuwairite.
The Melkites are now well provided with colleges for the education of their clergy. The chief, most important, and meritorious of these is the College of St Anne at Jerusalem, under the direction of Cardinal Lavigerie's White Fathers. ​There was an old church of St Anne, built by the Crusaders, by the Bāb Sitti Mariam, opposite the north side of the Ḥaram ashSharīf. It is a most beautiful example of French twelfth-century Romanesque, with the arches just pointed; but it had long been desecrated and was used as a stable. Mgr. Lavigerie, supported by the French Government, bought this in 1877. In 1882 he opened here a seminary for the Melkite clergy. Under the wise direction of the White Fathers it has prospered exceedingly. It is now, without question, the most important and useful establishment of its kind. The French professors keep their Roman rite; but all the students are Melkites; the Byzantine rite dominates the whole house. All the ceremonies carried out in the church are Byzantine; the prayers and devotions of the students are scrupulously formed on Byzantine model They are taught their rite by the Fathers who have become experts in its history and rules. Perhaps nowhere in the East will you see the Byzantine liturgy carried out so carefully and with such reverence as at St Anne's Church, or when the students go to serve and sing at the Patriarchal Church. Nor does any Melkite priest or bishop know half as much about his own rite as do the Latin professors of St Anne. It is only modestly in the early morning that you may see one of them say his own Roman Low Mass. The students all know how to serve this strange liturgy – which does them no harm. But they themselves are loyal and enthusiastic Byzantines. Cardinal Lavigerie made a rule that none of them may enter his Congregation, so that danger of possible latinization is removed. The seminarists of St Anne have by far the best education of any Melkites. Not only among the Melkites, among all Eastern clergy they are a real aristocracy. They all know French thoroughly. If you wish it, they will explain the Canon Law, rites, and practices of their Church to you in beautiful French. They learn Greek really, ​not the mere smattering of letters one so often finds, and they learn Latin — an almost unique phenomenon in their Church. Many of the old-fashioned priests at first did not like students of their rite to know Latin, thinking this to be the beginning of latinization. But it does no one any harm to know another language, and you cannot go far in Catholic theology without Latin. From St Anne, of which Germanos of Laodicea was a warm friend, his Congregation of missioners has been formed exclusively. It is the proud boast of the college that every one of their students has kept celibacy. So from St Anne at Jerusalem, year by year, young priests, trained in all a priest should know, with a formation of sound piety, go out to serve the Melkite Church. St Anne is, more than any other institution, the source from which all good for Melkites may be expected.
The Salvatorian monks have their house of studies at St Saviour, and they send a few students to St Anne and the Greek College at Rome. The monks of Shuwair have theirs at Beirut, whence the students frequent the courses of philosophy and theology at the Jesuit University of St Joseph. The Alepins have rather rudimentary studies in their monasteries. The old seminary of 'Ain-Trāz, after many vicissitudes, was closed finally in 1899. It is now only a country house of the Patriarch.
Except at St Anne, in these colleges what is best taught is Arabic grammar, language, style, and literature. To the Moslem these, with fine writing, form pretty well the sum total of human knowledge; they are still almost the only things that can be acquired thoroughly in the country, at least among natives. The students of Melkite colleges learn a little, a very little, Greek and some French. As textbooks of theology they have Gury's "Moral Theology" and Perrone's "Dogmatic Theology" translated into Arabic. A good number of Melkite students attend the admirable University of St Joseph, conducted by the Jesuits at Beirut. Here a complete course of European education in general and Catholic theology is given. Here, too, the students have the advantage of learning Latin, and so being able to read the usual Catholic theological literature. The Jesuits have students of all Uniate Churches, who hear the same lectures, and then have each their own liturgical practices. ​There are a few Melkite students at the Greek College at Rome, at St Sulpice and at Propaganda.
Concerning Melkite Canon Law there will be more to say later. Meanwhile, we may note that, so far, except for the old law, not easy to define in the case of Uniates, they have only one synod approved by the Pope — namely, the third of ʿAin-Trāz in 1835 (p. 211). Strictly speaking, the twenty-five canons of this synod are the only special Melkite Canon Law. But they quote and refer to their other synods as well. When the Acts of the fourth synod of ʿAin-Trāz (p. 227) have been approved, this will, of course, be another authentic source.
Of their rite there is little to say here. It is simply the Byzantine rite; almost entirely in Arabic. There is hardly any difference in rite between Byzantine Uniates and the Orthodox, only such points as, naturally, the insertion of the Pope's name in their Diptychs, and certain local differences in the use of special troparia and kontakia, such as occur between the various Orthodox Churches also. As regards language, the Melkites may use either Arabic or Greek. In practice, nearly all is Arabic. Only a few exclamations and Ekphoneseis, sometimes on great occasions the lessons, are sung in Greek. In these the practice varies according to the competence of the celebrant or deacon, or the solemnity of the occasion. I have assisted at Melkite liturgies in which not one word of Greek was used. At others, in the larger towns, the celebrant will sing: Ἄνω σχῶμεν τᾶς καρδίας, Εὐχαριστήσωμεν τῷ κυρίῳ, Λάβετε φάγετε ..., Πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες.... Τὰ ἅγια τοῖς ἁγίοις· Εἰρήνη πᾶσιν, and so on (roughly the Ekphoneseis) in Greek. The μυστικῶς prayers are almost always said in Arabic.
In Syria most of the Melkites live in the towns. Their chief centre is Zaḥleh in the Lebanon, then Aleppo, Damascus, ​Beirut. Most of them are merchants and shopkeepers; on the whole they are a prosperous community, except that everything in Syria now gives way to the competition of Western imports. In Egypt they are perhaps the most prosperous Christian community. There they hold important offices under the Government; many become extremely rich, even millionaires, in commerce. But the community suffers from the curse of all Christians in the Near East, constant emigration, chiefly to America and Australia. There are many Melkites in the States, South America, Australia, some in South Africa. When they have made their fortune, they generally come home again and build themselves a house in their native village. But they are nearly always spoiled by their voyage. It is among these returned travellers that one finds detestable imitation of the worst vulgarities of the West, horrid ready-made European clothes, houses furnished with pretentious vulgarity and cheap showy furniture; women in appalling French modes, men who talk to you in Yankee English with an impertinence they think a sign of fine breeding. The semi-Europeanized Levantine is a horrid creature.
In the Antiochene Patriarchate the proportion of Melkites to Orthodox is one to two; it is less in Palestine and Egypt. Charon calculates that there are about 150,000 Melkites altogether, of whom 7,000 are in the West.

## Summary.

The Melkite Church, meaning thereby Byzantine Uniates of Arab tongue in Syria, Palestine, and Egypt, dates from the Patriarch Cyril VI in the eighteenth century, who, after tentative reunions of his predecessors, finally came back to Catholic unity. Cyril VI and his Catholic successors represent the old line of Antioch, now reunited to Rome. The greatest Patriarch of this line was Maximos III, during the end of the eighteenth and beginning of the nineteenth centuries. He organized the Church, obtained its civil autonomy, and founded many institutions that still remain. At his time there was a Gallican movement among them, which has long since disappeared. Two Congregations of monks, those of St Saviour and Shuwair, eventually three, by the division of Shuwair into Baladites and Alepins, have played a great part in the story. The Melkites use the Byzantine rite, almost entirely in Arabic. They are certainly one of the most prosperous and advanced communities in the Near East.
* ↑ For all the following account of the Melkite Church I am indebted, most of all, to the admirable work of Father Cyril Charon. Charon is a Frenchman by birth and a Catholic priest of the Byzantine rite. He spent many years as a member of the Melkite Patriarchal clergy in Syria, where I knew him. In 1907 he came back to Europe, changed his name to Karalevsky, and took up work among the Catholic Slavs of his rite. He commands an astonishing number of languages, to which he adds an intimate knowledge of the Melkite clergy and people, and a sound historical, theological, and liturgical instinct. Nothing could exceed his care to verify his facts from the original documents, the patience of his research, and the accuracy of his transcriptions. Armed with every possible qualification, he began a detailed history of the Melkite Church in the Echos d'Orient, iv (1900-1901), p. 268. Charon's articles continue to vol. xi (1908), bringing the story to the end of Maximus III (1855). Now he is engaged in remodelling and continuing his history in a complete work in three large volumes, "Histoire des Patriarcats melkites" (Paris, Picard, 1911 seq.). Of these all published so far are vol. iii, containing exhaustive information about the present state of the Church, its liturgy, Canon Law, organization, hierarchy, statistics (the account of liturgical books especially is a model how such things should be done), and the first part of vol. ii (history from 1833-1855). When this work is complete the Melkites will have a history of their Church which any other in Christendom may envy. May members of the other Uniate Churches be inspired by this model to write a history of their Patriarchates in the same way. Paul Bacel and Constantine Bacha (Bāsā), Melkite monks, have also contributed valuable articles to the Echos d'Orient, there are other sources, which will be mentioned in the notes below.
* ↑ "Lesser Eastern Churches," pp. 184-185.
* ↑ It does, however, still happen occasionally that "Melkite" is used for both Catholics and Orthodox. Since 1914 the Echos d'Orient, in its "Chronique religieuse" has begun to write two headings, "Melkites catholiques" and "Melkites orthodoxes." There is here the idea of harking back to the original meaning of the name. But it is a mistake. There would be no end to the confusion if we began to claim technical terms in what we believe to be their proper meaning, for, in this sense, we certainly claim that we are the orthodox Christians, and we are evangelical and unitarian. The only sensible course is to use all such names as commonly received technical terms by which no one is understood to concede what their origin or etymology implies. Note that the spelling "Melchite" is wrong. The third radical is kaph; CH represents Heth.
* ↑ The discussion about the ethnological origin of the Melkites is still lively over there. See C. Charon, "L'origine ethnographique des Melkites," Echos d'Orient, xi (1908), pp. 35-40; 82-91. H. Lammens, S.J., wrote against the supposed Greek origin in the Arabic review alMašriḳ, vol. iii (1900), pp. 267-273. Evangelos 'Id wrote, angrily defending it, "Étude sur les origines des Grecs melkites, réponse au R. P. H. Lammens, S.J.," Rome, 1901. Next year he published an Arabic version of this at Beirut. Constantine Bāšā, O.S.Bas. (Salv.) also wrote to defend their Greek descent, "Baḥthu-ntiḳādiyy fi aṣli-rrūmi-lmalakiyin, waluǵatihim" ("Critical Research Concerning the Origin of the Melkites and their Language"), Cairo, 1900. S. Vailhé sums up this discussion in the article, "Melkites et Maronites." Echos d'Orient, vi (1903), pp. 143-147.
* ↑ "Orth. East. Church," p. 185.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 157-158.
* ↑ Ibid., pp. 188-192.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, iv (1900-1901), p. 268.
* ↑ His reign began in 1053. The date of his death is not known; before 1057.
* ↑ "Orth. East. Church," pp. 188-192.
* ↑ The works of Balsamon are in P.G., cxxxviii.
* ↑ Cf. Lequien, op. cit., ii, 769; Allatius, "de Eccl. Or. et Occ. perp. Consensione," lib. iii, chap. iv, n. 1.
* ↑ Cyril Rizk, Melkite priest (now Patriarchal Vicar at Cairo), quoting the unpublished Taktikon of Antioch, in the Revue des Églises d'Orient, ii, pp: 411-412. See Charon, "L'Église grecque melchite catholique," Echos d'Orient, iv (1900-1901), pp. 273-274.
* ↑ Raynauld, Annales eccl. ad ann. 1460, No. lv (Lucca, 1753, tom. x, pp. 239-240). Lequien, "Oriens christ.," ii, 769-770.
* ↑ C. Rizk, quoting a contemporary Arabic manuscript by David, son of Moses Ganaf of Kūra, Rev. des Égl. d'Or., ii, 485; Éch. d'Or., loc. cit., p. 274.
* ↑ Rizk, loc. cit.
* ↑ Ibid., ii, 412; Charon, loc. cit., p. 275.
* ↑ So the report of Fr. Queyrot, S.J., at Aleppo. Charon, Echos d'Orient, iv, p. 326. Rizk, Rev. des Églises d'Orient, ii, 412.
* ↑ Rizk, loc. cit., ii, 412.
* ↑ "Oriens Christianus," ii, 774.
* ↑ Ibid.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, iv, 327, quoting Jos. Besson, S.J., "La Syrie Sainte" (Paris, 1660). This Euthymios (Aftīmūs ibnu-ṣṢaifi) is a very important person who forms the starting-point for the whole Melkite Church. He was uncle of the Patriarch Cyril VI, who brought about reunion, and founder of the first Uniate Congregation of monks (p. 205). It seems that nearly the whole movement in favour of reunion begins with him. We shall often have occasion to mention him (pp. 197, 201, etc.).
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, iv, 326 (again from Besson, op. cit.).
* ↑ P. Nacchi, S.J., "Lettres édifiantes et curieuses; Mémoires du Levant" (in Bousquet, "Les actes des Apôtres modernes," Paris, 1852, tom. i, 182-183).
* ↑ Bousquet, i, 183.
* ↑ Antoine Nacchi, S.J., to M. A. Tamburini, General, S.J. (Bousquet, op. cit., i, 183-184).
* ↑ Athanasius IV was present at a synod at Constantinople against the Catholic movement, in 1722.
* ↑ For Manuel I's latinizing policy see G. F. Hertzberg, "Gesch. der Byzantiner" in Onckel's Allgem. Gesch., Berlin, 1883), pp. 291-305, and K. Dieterich, "Byzantinische Charakterköpfe" (Leipzig, Teubner, 1909), chap. iv, pp. 35-48.
* ↑ Kinnamos, "Hist.," v, 4 (P.G., cxxxiii, 561).
* ↑ Op. cit., ii, 493.
* ↑ Raynauld ad ann. 1367, No. x (tom. vii, p. 153); Lequien, ii, 498-499. It was the time of proposed reunion under John V, Palaiologos (1341-1376).
* ↑ Lequien, ii, 500. Allatius, "de Consens," lib. iii, chap. iv, n. 1.
* ↑ Raynauld ad ann. 1523, No. cvii (who calls him Theophilus; tom. xii, p. 444); Lequien, ii, 501.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, iv, 331, quoting the "Lettres édifiantes; Mémoires du Levant."
* ↑ M. Picot, "Mémoires pour servir à l'Histoire ecclés. pendant le XVIIIᵐᵉ Siècle," 3rd edition, Paris, 1853, tom. i, pp. 326-327.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, iv, 333, quoting Gauthier.
* ↑ The origin of this Silvester is disputed; he is said to be a relation of Athanasius IV (Dabbās). Echos d'Orient, v, 18.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, xi, 41 (article by S. Vailhé). Although Silvester represented the schismatical party, the Catholics, and even Latin missionaries of Aleppo, for a time took his side. See the documents and letters in A. Rabbath, S.J., "Documents inédits," i, pp. 566-574.
* ↑ Seraphim Tānās was born in 1680, at Damascus, of Naṣr Tānās and his wife, Sispina, sister of Euthymios Ibnu-ṣṢaifi of Tyre. Both were Catholics of the Byzantine rite. His uncle, the bishop, educated him, sent him to the Propaganda College at Rome from 1702 to 1710, and ordained him priest at his return. In 1711 he was brought to Damascus by the Patriarch Cyril V († 1720) and made Khūrī biskūbūs (chorepiskopos). He went to Rome to assure the Pope (Clement XI) of Cyril V's catholic sentiments, and in 1716 received a Brief for Cyril in which the Pope exhorts him to declare himself openly (see above, p. 194). Then, while Athanasius IV was persecuting the Catholics, Tānās was put in prison. His election in 1724 is the sign of definite wish for reunion among the electors (see Bacha in Echos d'Or., x, 202-203).
* ↑ Abu-Tauḳ is the man's kunyah.
* ↑ Charon is mistaken in saying that the bishops elected Tānās (Ech. d'Or., v, 18); they confirmed the election later (see the discussion by Paul Bacel, Ech. d'Or., ix, 283, C. Bacha, ibid., x, 200-206; S. Vailhé, xi, 40-41).
* ↑ Baïas, near Aleppo, not Bānīās (Cæsarea Phil.), which was not restored as a diocese till 1886 (Charon, "Hist. des Melkites," iii, p. 295). But C. Bacha insists that all the documents call Basil Fīnān Metropolitan of Bānīās (Ech. d'Or., x, 206, n. 2).
* ↑ So the answer of Benedict XIV to the petition in his Consistory of February 3, 1744, "Cyril is head of a people which now includes a vast number of Catholics, governed by ten bishops who respect and honour him as lawful Patriarch" ("Bullarium Ben. XIV," ed. of Prato, 1845, tom. i, p. 643). The ten were the Metropolitans of Aleppo, Beirut, Sidon, Tyre, Ṣafad, Acre, Ba'albek, Baïas, Furzul, and Ṣaidnāiā.
* ↑ Charon says a synod was then being held at Constantinople (Ech. d'Or., v, 19). I think it must have been the permanent σύνοδος ἐνδημοῦσα.
* ↑ See the witness of a contemporary, Nihmet (sic, for Ni'mah) of Aleppo, quoted by Bacel, Éch. d'Or., x, 205.
* ↑ February 3, 1744. "Bullarium Ben. XIV" (Prato, 1845), i, p. 642.
* ↑ See the acts of this synod in Mansi, xxxvii, cols. 219-226.
* ↑ Coll. Lacensis (Freiburg, 1876), tom. iv, col. 442 seq.
* ↑ See pp. 201-202.
* ↑ For this monastery, see pp. 205-206.
* ↑ Aleppo has always been so great a centre of Melkites that, to this day, among the Greek-speaking Orthodox (for instance, at Constantinople), all Melkites are commonly called Χαλεπίδες.
* ↑ Ech. d'Or., v, 22.
* ↑ He was always a Catholic at heart. Only the difficult circumstances had prevented him from applying to the Pope for recognition sooner.
* ↑ In the Consistory of February 3, 1744, Benedict XIV made an allocution praising Cyril's predecessors and explaining that there was a great movement for reunion in Syria ("Bullarium Ben. XIV." ed. cit., i, 643). The Brief accompanying the pallium is Dum nobiscum, February 29, 1744 (ibid., i, 348-349). The pallium was conferred by the Latin Bishop of Babylon.
* ↑ "Bullarium Ben. XIV," ed. cit., tom. iii, p. ii, pp. 135-138.
* ↑ For the Patriarchate of Cyril VI see Charon in Echos d'Orient, v, 18-25; 82-86.
* ↑ The Metropolitans of Tyre, Homs (Emessa), Acre, Baīas (or Bānīās?), Furzul, Cana, Ḳara.
* ↑ Maximos Ḥakīm of Aleppo, Athanasius Dahān of Beirut, and two others.
* ↑ A French version of this will be found in John Oquet, "Manuel de Prières à l'usage des fidèles du Rite grec" (Beirut, Alex. Coury, 1902), pp. 618-624.
* ↑ For Maximos II, see Charon in Echos d'Orient, v, 86-89.
* ↑ Afterwards famous for its synod (p. 209).
* ↑ Theodosius VI, Ech. d'Or., v, 141-145.
* ↑ Athanasius V, Ech. d'Or., v, 145-147.
* ↑ Cyril VII, ibid., 147.
* ↑ Ain Trāz is a village near Rishmaia, about fifteen miles south-east of Beirut. The seminary there was for a long time the only one for Melkite clergy. It became a centre of their Church, and the Patriarch often resided in it.
* ↑ Biskinta (Basconta) is a village twenty miles north-east of Beirut.
* ↑ For Agapios III and the quarrel with Ṣarrūf see Charon, Echos d'Or., v, 203-206; 264-270.
* ↑ Ech. d'Or., vi, 16-17.
* ↑ Ibid., vi, 17.
* ↑ Ibid., vi, 17-18.
* ↑ The Emirs of the Shabāb family were then most powerful in the Lebanon. Many of these were Maronites.
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, vi, 113-118.
* ↑ By the sea between Beirut and Ǵibail.
* ↑ For Ignatius V, see Echos d'Orient, vi, 18-24.
* ↑ There are some monasteries that follow a rule ascribed to St Antony, the first hermit.
* ↑ Stauropegia monasteries are subject immediately to the Patriarch.
* ↑ Their early history is told by C. Charon, Echos d'Orient, v, 24. They occur again throughout all accounts of the Melkite Church.
* ↑ Between Ṣaidā (Sidon) and Beirut.
* ↑ "Bullarium Ben. XIV" (ed. Prati, 1846), tom. iii, pars i, pp. 274-275.
* ↑ The history of the Shuwairites is told at full length by one of their monks, Paul Bacel, in the Echos d'Orient, vi-xvii, in a series of twenty-two articles, bringing it down to 1794. Here will be found a translation of their Constitutions, lives of their great men, and full details of their story. Like most French writers, he spells Chouér and Chouérite. I apply my usual principle of transliteration. "Shuwairite" is an ugly hybrid compound; but I fear "Shuwairiyin" would look too odd in English.
* ↑ Balāmand is an old Cistercian monastery, built and then abandoned by the crusaders. The name is said to be "Bel mont." Another explanation is ἡ παλαιὰ μάνδρα.
* ↑ This was not apostasy. Sulaimān became Archimandrite of Balāmand and spent his life trying to make his monks Uniates. He died in 1712.
* ↑ His Life (with portrait) is in Ech. d'Or., xi, 71-76; 154-161. His Dīwān (collection of poems: "Dīwān alkūrī") is published by the Imprimerie Catholique of Beirut, 1883.
* ↑ Alexis Kateb, "Église diaconale cardinalice de N.-D. de la Barque," Rome. Ech. d'Or., ix, 155-159.
* ↑ In the Echos d'Or., vii, 213-214, Haissa Boustani says he was a monk of Shuwair; viii, 87-88, C. Bacha (Salvatorian) denies that he was a monk at all (a Byzantine bishop in the eighteenth century not a monk?); viii, 361-363, P. Bacel (Shuwairite) agrees with Boustani and is angry with Bacha; ix, 160-161, Bacha returns to the charge and S. Vailhé sums up against him.
* ↑ Life of Zakher, with his portrait and list of works he wrote or printed, Ech. d'Or., xi, 218-226; 281-287; 363-372 (by P. Bacel).
* ↑ Echos d'Orient, x, 102-107; 167-173, "Essai de Réunion des Chouérites avec les Salvatoriens, 1734-1737" (by P. Bacel).
* ↑ Ash-Shuwairiyīn al-baladiyīn.
* ↑ Ash-Shuwairiyīn al-halibiyīn.
* ↑ The year of his birth is not known. For all this paragraph see C. Charon in the Echos d'Orient, v, 332-343.
* ↑ In practice Aleppo seems always to have been the second see and chief Melkite centre. But Tyre has historic and canonical claims to be the πρωτόθρονος. Hence frequent disputes (see pp. 212-229.
* ↑ Ech. d'Or., v, p. 333.
* ↑ The figure of Maximos III looms large in every history of the Melkites. Paul Bāshā has published a contemporary account, "Historic notice of what happened to the nation of the Rūm Kāthūlīk (=Melkites) in the year 1837 and afterwards" in Arabic, "Nabḏat tārikhīyat fīmā ǵarā liṭā'ifat arrūmi-lkāthūlīk munḏ sanat 1837 fīmā ba'dhā." Beirut, 1907). Although it is anonymous, he says the author is Maximos himself. Charon's "Histoire des Patriarcats Melkites," vol. ii, part i, now published (see p. 185, n. 1), begins with Maximos's life, and gives an exhaustive account of his life, reign, and times. Many more details will be found here (pp. 1-400).
* ↑ Afterwards he denied that he had ever been a partizan of Ādam. There is something of the nature of a mental restriction about this (Charon, "Hist. des Melk.," ii, p. 9).
* ↑ It was reopened soon after by the Jesuits.
* ↑ Polycarp Kayata (tit. Archimandrite and present rector of the church), "Monographie de l'église grecque catholique de Marseille et vie de S Nicholas de Myre," Marseilles, 1901. A view of the inside of the church will be found in Charon, op. cit., ii, p. 35.
* ↑ Agapios Rī'āshī of Beirut and Basil Kaḥīl of Sidon.
* ↑ Athanasius 'Ubaid of Ba'albek was then quarrelling with his Patriarch.
* ↑ The acts of 'Ain Trāz are in the "Collectio Lacensis," ii, cols. 579-592.
* ↑ For this dispute see Charon, op. cit., ii, pp. 115 and 243.
* ↑ The Haurān is the wild desert land south of Damascus (Basan in the Old Test.). Its chief town is Boṣrā. It is inhabited by Moslem Badawiin and Druges. There are few Orthodox Christians there, and still fewer Melkites.
* ↑ For the story of Makarios Sammān see Charon, op. cit., ii, pp. 117-122. His admission to the Orthodox Church has become a kind of test case and precedent. From this point of view it is discussed by L. Petit, "L'entrée des catholiques dans l'Eglise orthodoxe," Éch. d'Or., ii, 129-138.
* ↑ Op. cit., ii, 141. All Totūnǵī's story is told, ii, 140-146.
* ↑ Observe the gorgeous muddle of all this. "Our brethren in the East"; as if they were all one body in union with Totūnǵī, and committed to his views. "Preserving the doctrines of the Church of England," as a standard for Syria, is very funny.
* ↑ Mr. Craig did not know, of course, that the eminent Prelate was Bishop of Tripolis only on the strength of appointment by a Popish Patriarch. There was an Orthodox Metropolitan, his rival, all the time; the Anglicans ought to have put their money on that man — if they had known anything about it. How far had Mr. Craig examined Totūnǵī's creed before committing himself to this assertion? As a matter of fact, his creed was exactly that of the Pope of Rome, though his morals were not. So Craig, like Caiaphas, was right for once.
* ↑ These "two sacraments" are the gem of the whole story. Poor Mr. Craig; and what monumental lies Totūnǵī must have told!
* ↑ The chapter on the Canon Law of the Uniates was never written. For the decision referred to see Charon, "Hist. Melk.," ii, p. 148. [Editor's Note.]
* ↑ Gregory VI of Constantinople, 1835-1840 (deposed); after eleven other Patriarchates in between, restored 1867-1871. Then he was deposed again.
* ↑ Kalymauchion, kalymmaukion, also kamalaukion (and other spellings); supposed to be from κάμηλος, hat, and αὐχήν, neck. Arabic ḳalansuwah, then ḳallūsah (the usual word now).
* ↑ It is worn both out of doors and in choir; so it corresponds to both hat and biretta. Dignitaries wear a black veil over it, ἐπανωκαλυμαύχιον. You can distinguish all the Eastern clergy by the shape of their hats.
* ↑ Naturally, they exaggerated its importance. In a protest of 1841 the Melkites declare that their kalymauchion has been worn by all their clergy since the birth of Christ! (Charon, op. cit., ii, p. 193). The high cylindrical cap seems to be of Persian origin. It is, no doubt, originally the same thing as the red tarbūsh worn by everyone, Moslem or Christian, in the Levant. Modern Persians wear a cap of the same shape, but of black wool. The brim at the top of the Kalymauchion is not earlier than the nineteenth century. Students and clerks in minor orders still wear it without this brim.
* ↑ It is said that the Grand Wazīr suggested this form, taking it from the little six-sided tables on which Turks put their coffee cups and pipes. In Charon, op. cit., ii, p. 149, may be seen the portrait of a Melkite bishop wearing the six-sided kalymauchion.
* ↑ The story of the emancipation of the Melkites is told at length, with the full text of the documents in Charon, op. cit., ii, chap. iv, pp. 153-216. The text of Maximos's berat of January 7, 1848 (Muḥarram, A.H. 1264) will be found at pp. 202-207. The rights and privileges conferred are drawn up in twenty-three paragraphs. Notice the second. No one is to prevent him from "reading the Gospel (Kirā'at alInǵīl)". This is the regular Moslem euphemism for celebrating the holy liturgy. My Moslem mukäri used to take me to Franciscan convents in Syria that I might "read the Gospel" next morning.
* ↑ This question was settled eventually. The priest serving the church is nominated by the Melkite Patriarch, but has his faculties from the Latin Vicar Patriarchal (Charon, "Hist. des Melk.," i, p. 212).
* ↑ For the Synod of Jerusalem in 1849 see Charon, op. cit., ii, chap. v, pp. 217-251.
* ↑ His will is in Charon, op. cit., ii, 261-267. In it he protests his Catholic sentiments and fidelity to the Holy See. The story of his last hours is most edifying and touching (ibid., 259-260).
* ↑ The list of his works is given in Charon, op. cit., ii, 267-276.
* ↑ His name had been Michael, till he took that of Clement when ordained bishop for Acre in 1836, just after the synod of 'Ain Trāz. He is the only Patriarch of Antioch of this name.
* ↑ Step by step, and often at the cost of much disturbance, all the Uniate Churches have now adopted the Gregorian Calendar.
* ↑ Synod of Mount Lebanon ("Coll. Lac.," ii, 77) confirmed (September 1, 1741) by Benedict XIV in the Brief Singularis (Charon, iii, p. 368).
* ↑ Clement Bahūth died, leaving the reputation of a saint.
* ↑ He is often called "Gregory Joseph." But I believe that Yūsuf, or Ibnu-Yūsuf was his family name. There was a Gregory of Antioch in 579-584; so Yūsuf would be Gregory II. However, I have never seen him so called. I have seen "Grégoire-Joseph I."
* ↑ This was the beginning of systematic formation of secular clergy for the Patriarchate. Formerly nearly all parishes were served by monks. For the College of St Anne, see p. 229.
* ↑ The new Synod of 'Ain-Trāz (1909) desires a majority of two-thirds (Charon, "Hist. Melk.," iii, 402).
* ↑ E.g., see p. 212.
* ↑ All the laws for the election and confirmation of the Patriarch are given by Charon, op. cit., iii, pp. 394-408.
* ↑ See p. 203.
* ↑ P. 218.
* ↑ See, for instance, the Annuario pontificio for 1915, p. 62, "Antiochen. Græcorum Melchitarum."
* ↑ I have before me a portrait of Lord Cyril VIII, signed by himself, "Kīrilus ath-thāmin, Baṭrak Anṭākiyeh wAliskandariyeh wUrashalīm wasā'iri-lmashriḳ." Some day, when there are more Melkites in Egypt and Palestine, there will be separate Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem.
* ↑ The φήμη is the solemn proclamation of a bishop, in all his glory. It occurs in Polychronia, and (abbreviated) in Diptychs.
* ↑ A missionary in Syria was much puzzled by this "thirteenth apostle." The idea is simple enough. We all know the twelve apostles. The Patriarch is so great that he is practically a thirteenth, practically equal to the others.
* ↑ Ġibṭah, Μακαριώτης.
* ↑ For the φῆμαι and titles of Patriarchs and bishops see Charon, op. cit., iii, 409-423. Cyril VIII made up a coat-of-arms for himself. It may be seen ibid., p. 422. It is shocking bad heraldry.
* ↑ Charon (iii, pp. 452-488) gives a complete list of the Patriarch's ecclesiastical rights and duties, according to the Synod of Jerusalem in 1849, also (pp. 507-519) of his civil rights and duties.
* ↑ See the list in Charon, op. cit., iii, 280-284; cf. 535-545.
* ↑ To which are now joined the old sees of Byblos (Ǵebail) and Botrys (Batrūn).
* ↑ Charon gives a very complete list of all these bishops (in 1911) with portraits, the career of each and statistics of his diocese (op. cit., iii, 284-324). A "diocese," by the way, in the Byzantine rite is an "Eparchy," Ἐπαρχία, Ar. abrashiyeh.
* ↑ See "Orth. Eastern Church," pp. 350-351.
* ↑ It looks as if its source were rather Latin "metropolitanus."
* ↑ In the "Collectio Lacensis," ii, 579.
* ↑ Charon explains and defends his system, iii, 251-258. He follows it in his list (284-324) and in the table at p. 329. There are Arabic words which distinguish. A bishop is Usḳuf, an archbishop Raʿīs usāḳifeh. But one rarely hears them, except in solemn proclamations. In ordinary speech everyone calls every bishop Muṭrān.
* ↑ Charon gives an example of a berat — for Dimitri ʿAntākī of Aleppo, in 1846.
* ↑ These "Notables of the Nation" (ἄρχοντες τοῦ γένους, arkhanḍūs at Tāʿifeh) play a great part in all Eastern Churches in the Ottoman Empire. In theory they are the chiefs of tribes and leaders of the people. But the term is vague, and is given easily to any rich man.
* ↑ Pius VII approved this by his Brief, Tristis quidem of June 3, 1816. See the text in Charon, iii, p. 551.
* ↑ Charon quotes examples showing that sometimes at Rome they did not even know of the existence of certain Melkite Ordinaries (iii, 557).
* ↑ Σύγκελλος (σύν and cella), Ar. muṭrānu-lḳillāyeh. Originally this was an ecclesiastic who lived with the bishop or abbot, never quitting him, to be witness of his conduct and morals.
* ↑ The priest has to apply for a faculty for every marriage.
* ↑ Not entirely. It is sometimes said that Maximos III founded the Melkite secular clergy. This is an exaggeration; he greatly fortified and extended it; but there were secular priests before his time.
* ↑ See p. 216, n. 1.
* ↑ Of 172 secular priests in 1911, 92 were celibate (Charon, iii, 340).
* ↑ Ar. Ū́skufu-lḲaryeh.
* ↑ Of any dark colour, often blue, brown, grey. Only monks must wear black.
* ↑ For these see pp. 205-208. Salvatorians write after their name the letters bā and mīm (=bāsilī mukhallasī), Shuwairites and Alepins bā and ḳāf (=bāsilī ḳānūnī, "regular Basilian"). All monks by law are subject to the Ordinary. The Melkite Church has no stauropegia. For Melkite monastic Canon Law see Charon, op. cit., iii, pp. 383-387.
* ↑ As a result, of 315 Melkite monks alive in 1911, 220 lived not in monasteries, but serving parish churches (Charon, iii, 599).
* ↑ Two-thirds at present.
* ↑ July, 1909. See Echos d'Orient, 1912, p. 356 seq.
* ↑ I have rarely met any man who gave the impression of being a saint as did Germanos Mu'aḳḳad.
* ↑ It was not till 1897 that Leo XIII allowed the Benedictines in charge of the Greek College at Rome to use the Byzantine rite during their office there (p. 159). Before that a temporary change of rite was supposed to be impossible in Canon Law (see p. 34). The White Fathers at Jerusalem have never applied for the same privilege.
* ↑ The only sound modern textbooks of the Byzantine rite as used by Uniates are written by professors of St Anne (A. Couturier, "Cours de Liturgie grecque-melkite," Jerusalem and Paris, 1912; J. B. Rebours, "Traité de Psaltique," Paris, 1906).
* ↑ Except for this college, the White Fathers have only missions in Africa, where all is Roman. So they could do nothing with Byzantine subjects.
* ↑ The history of the college is told at length by Cyril Charon in the Echos d'Orient, xii (1909), pp. 234-241, 298-308.
* ↑ In their big church every Sunday morning various liturgies, Byzantine, Maronite, perhaps Armenian, Coptic, and Syrian, may be seen celebrated in various chapels, attended by groups of students. Yet it is impossible, where all rites are together, to educate the theological students, each in the atmosphere of his own. The Melkite priest from Beirut knows more about Molinism, but less about his own rite than the student of St Anne's.
* ↑ See p. 216, n. 1.
* ↑ The liturgy book published by Michael Abraham Raḥmeh (kitāb alLītūrǵiyāt alilahiyyeh), Beirut, 18° 1899, 12° 1900, gives a good idea of the usual mixture of languages (on this edition see Charon, "Hist. Melk.," iii, 84-96). On the other hand, the Great Euchologion of Jerusalem (kitāb alAfkhūlūgiyūn alkabīr, Franciscan Press, 1865; see Charon, ibid., iii, 122-124) is all Arabic. Charon has compiled a most laborious and exact bibliography of all Melkite liturgical books (and Orthodox Arabic books) with critical notes, from the earliest times to now ("Hist. Melk.," iii, chap. ii, pp. 23-134).
* ↑ See his table, "Hist. Melk.," iii, 354-355.