Hook's Christian taught by the Church Services; and this was his travelling companion at his death. He was in the habit of buying many religious books, as the titles struck him, at the railway stations and elsewhere, for reading or distribution, but this and Eucharistica, Nelson's Fasts and Festivals, and one or two others, to judge from the dates and pencil-marks of various years upon them, occupied a place in his attention next-by a long interval, yet apparently next-to the Holy Bible and the Book of Common Prayer."-Pp. 97-100.

REVIEWS AND NOTICES.

The Rev. C. A. STEVENS, Incumbent of All Saints', Blackheath, is we think, the third or fourth Clergyman who has taken the Bishop of S. David's to task for some of the many gratuitous attacks on dogma, which the Bishop thought well to put forth in his Charge. "The Conscience Clause Interference" is the subject of this letter, which is chiefly remarkable for the account which it furnishes of what is being effected by the Bishop of London to undermine the Parochial System and the authority of the Parish Priest. It appears, then, that the Bishop of London has re-organized his Diocesan Board of Education, and that in the distribution of its grants the concurrence of the incumbent is not required, "provided that the Bishop do signify his opinion that such concurrence may be dispensed with!" This is really a stretch of authority altogether without parallel, unless it is to be found in the conduct of the Northern Episcopate.

In connection with this subject we recommend a paper on Diocesan Synods, which was read at a Clerical meeting, apparently in the diocese of Lincoln, and is now published by Simpkin, Marshall and Co.

In a very short sermon, entitled Private Confession, (Bell and Daldy, London,) written with the most pastoral simplicity, Mr. GATTY, Subdean of York, undertakes to settle finally the question as to the meaning of the Great Commission, and the extent to which it is efficacious at the present day. The sermon itself is so exceedingly hazy that it is hard to say what the writer really believes; in some passages he appears to concede all that the most devout Catholic would ask as to the absolving powers of the priest, only insisting on the obvious fact, which no one in their senses ever contested, that it is GOD Who really forgives the sins of which the priest is commissioned to declare the remission; but while appearing to concede the theory, he utterly repudiates the practice, and the "anxious inquirer" to whom he addresses himself would certainly find no relief to his anxiety or answer to his inquiry in this publication, if the sermon proper were all that it contains: but it has a postscript in which Mr. Gatty, after having in his mild and misty sermon rendered the whole subject as confused as possible, suddenly fulminates against confession alike in theory and practice in the most unmistakeable terms. After saying in the sermon "that the priest's office in this matter has a sacramental character," he tells us in the postscript "that there is no warrant for this practice to be found in

either the Gospel or Prayer Book," that it is "a most pernicious habit," that "any one who accustoms himself to expose his moral nudity to a fellow-creature is in great danger of losing all sense of shame," that “ worse and more misleading counsel was never given" than to advise the young to seek this relief, and that parents and natural guardians are the only persons to be relied upon for Direction. Then follows this sentence which, as applied to the priest and penitent, is, we confess, unintelligible to us : "Such confidences often embarrass the recipient of them, and should this be the case, human nature is so selfish that the weakest is sure to be driven to the wall." Finally, he advises "the young to keep their spiritual secrets within the family circle," (pleasant for the family circle,) "and not to be tempted by 'Father' this or that to expose their weaknesses beyond it." The careful concealment of weaknesses is a counsel which the world will readily endorse, and we have no doubt therefore that this sermon will find favour with others besides Mr. Gatty's parishioners. He concludes by saying that he does not intend to distress himself at any criticism which may be made on his definition of this ordinance, as he feels sure he is "older and steadier" than any critic who may assail him. Juvenile as he concludes us to be, however, we venture to say that in respect of Private Confession as well as other matters, Mr. Gatty may possibly "live and learn."

Annie's Cross, (Masters, London,) is a true story very well told, illustrating the efficacy of Sisterhood work in parishes. It describes the bringing of a whole family of Baptists to the Church by means of a Sister's gentle and patient teaching of one little child.

Messrs. Parker have most seasonably reprinted Mr. KEBLE's Letter to a Member of Convocation on the Ritual question. It may be called the lamented writer's last legacy to the Church, and it is a true representation of his mind, and of the very genius of the Church of England.

A word of commendation is due to Mr. BURROWs' Sermon, preached before the Parochial Mission Women Association, (Parker.) It is thoroughly fitted to the occasion.

Mr. WORSLEY STANIFORTH has composed an excellent tune for Jerusalem, my Happy Home, (Masters) which Dr. Neale did such very good service in restoring to its original form. The profits are to go to S. George's Mission.

Truths of Catholic Doctrine is rather a large title for a little 24mo. book of 50 pages, (Masters,) but we welcome all efforts at leavening the minds of our people, and the Rev. E. HUSBAND's brief extracts from his sermons preached at Atherton will, we doubt not, do good.

Some time ago we noticed with great pleasure the able work of the Bishop of VERMONT on "Ritual" as a sign of the great increase of Church principles in America, and we have now a second proof of this in a New York publication now before us, entitled Conversations on Ritual, (Hurd and Houghton, New York.) Conversations do not form the most agreeable mode of conveying instructions, but the substance of this work is thoroughly sensible and orthodox, though decidedly moderate. It may help many in our own country as well as beyond the Atlantic to a better understanding of the points at issue.

391

FFOULKES ON THE GREAT SCHISM.

Christendom's Divisions. Part II., Greeks and Latins. Being a full and connected History of their Dissensions and Overtures for Peace, down to the Reformation. By EDMUND S. FFOULKES, formerly Fellow and Tutor of Jesus College, Oxford. London: Longmans. 1867.

(SECOND NOTICE.)

In our first notice of this most important work we brought down the history to that period and to that act which consummated the schism between the East and the West, the taking of Constantinople by the crusaders, and the setting up of the Latin kingdom there; and we showed that Mr. Ffoulkes clearly pointed out, that throughout the whole, the Latins were to blame; the Pope himself giving what may be called the finishing stroke of all, in consecrating a Latin patriarch, after the uncanonical deposition of the orthodox. We now proceed to consider the history of the attempts made at reconciliation.

However deep was the wound given by the Latins, it did not amount to a total alienation of the Greeks from the western Church. Ambassadors and messages still continued to pass between the two communities, and, on the part of many, with an earnest wish for reunion. Innocent IV., in A.D. 1254, received from the Emperor and the Patriarch nine propositions as the basis on which negociations could be carried on. They are as follows:

"1. The Roman See and its Pontiff to be recognised as supreme before [præ not super, says Mr. F. in a note] the other patriarchal sees; and its principality in the Catholic Church to be professed. 2. Canonical obedience to be professed to Innocent, and those who succeed him canonically. 3. Privilege to be allowed of appealing to the Roman Church, should any of the Greek clergy be aggrieved by their superiors. 4. Free recourse to the Roman Church to be allowed on any points disputed amongst the clergy. 5. Obedience to be paid to any sentences, not adverse to the canons, promulgated by the Pope. 6. The first seat in councils, and the first place in subscribing to their decrees, to belong to the Pope. 7. In questions of faith, the Pope to give his opinion, as he may see fit, before all others: to be received by all others obediently, provided it contains nothing contrary to the institutions of the Gospel or of the canons. 8. In all other ecclesiastical matters, or causes relating to persons, whatever the Roman Pontiff decrees [is] to be accepted by all, provided it is not opposed to the decrees of the holy councils. Lastly, the empire of Constantinople to be restored to John Vataces, and the patriarchates to the Greek patriarchs, the Latin Patriarchs to be removed in each case, except the Patriarch of Antioch, who may retain office for life."-P. 250.

VOL. XXIX.-SEPTEMBER, 1867.

3 F

To these Innocent agreed generally, only objecting to the qualifications introduced into the seventh, which evidently referred to the addition made to the creed. Six years later the Latins were expelled from Constantinople. Their exit was like their entrance, they pillaged everywhere, and took away whatever-sacred or secular-they could carry off. In the words of Mr. Finlay, "They stripped off the copper roofs from the public buildings, melted down every ornament of bronze that remained, to be coined into money; rifled the churches of the precious metals; pledged or sold the relics of the saints."

Proposals for reunion now came chiefly, if not entirely, from the Emperor; and his negociations were instigated by political reasons rather than religious. The Turk was advancing; one after another of the provinces of the empire were falling into the hands of the conqueror: nothing but western chivalry could stop the gradual absorption of the whole empire into that of the infidel. Michael had seized the throne, and secured his possession of it by putting out the eyes of the rightful sovereign, John Lascaris, and consigning him to perpetual imprisonment. For this act he was excommunicated by the Patriarch Arsenius, and refused absolution till he should abdicate. Here is another reason for his opening negociations with the Pope, and overlooking the conduct of the Latins at Constantinople. In A.D. 1271 Gregory X. addressed a letter to the Patriarch, calling him "his beloved brother in CHRIST."

In A.D. 1274, the second council of Lyon was held :

"On June 24 following, the Greek ambassador arrived, bearing letters from the Emperor, with his seal of gold affixed to them, and from the Greek Bishops. Presented to the Pope, they declared that they had come to pay all manner of obedience to the holy Roman Church, to acknowledge the faith professed by it, and his own primacy. Several points relating to their identity, the reception accorded to them, and the part taken by them in the council, it will be more convenient to reserve for discussion in a future chapter. According to the Latin narrative of what passed then, the creed in its interpolated form was twice chanted in Latin and in Greek after their arrival, and when chanted in Greek, the 'Filioque' clause was repeated thrice in one case, and twice in the other. Then in the fourth session, on the octave of SS. Peter and Paul, the Pope delivered a short address, in which he affirmed that, contrary to the opinion almost universally prevalent, the Greeks had come hither of their own accord, to make the declaration they were about to do, and not in quest of any temporal considerations (sic.) 'De quo multum dubitabatur,' adds his holiness or the narrator. And Nicephorus Gregory, the Greek historian, asserts in express terms, that the one condition, that lay at the bottom of this whole treaty for union, was that the Pope should prevent Charles from making war upon the empire.'"-P. 267.

Without quoting further, we may see clearly, that no such pro

For

posals of reunion would have come from the East, nor any such submission to the dictation of the Pope would have been made, had it not been for political considerations, and because of the critical state of the Eastern Empire. Who these Greek Bishops were we do not know, for they, for reasons of their own, designate them selves in their letter by the titles of their metropolitan or archiepiscopal sees, and keep back their own names. One very significant fact is given, that the patriarch, so far from having given them any commission, had directly opposed the whole design-in fact they were mere creatures of the Emperor, sent for a particular purpose, and that a political, and not a religious one: and, further, that neither they nor the Emperor himself, ever really intended to attempt to introduce the "Filioque" into the creed of the East. Michael writes to the Pope: "We entreat your grandeur that our Church may say the creed in that form, in which it was said before the schism, and is so still; and that we may not be disturbed in the use of our rites, that we had before the schism, which certainly are not contrary to the foregoing profession, to the commands of GOD, to the Old or New Testament, to the doctrine of the holy General Councils, or of the holy fathers received by those councils, that have been celebrated under the spiritual domination of the Church of Rome." No good could possibly come from a council held under such circumstances; neither Greeks nor Latins ever intended to give way. We need not dwell longer on the proceedings of the council.

Between this council and that of Florence, two events happened, which we must mention as showing how impossible it was at that period, with the feelings with which the Christian nations of the West regarded those of the East, to effect anything like a reunion, even if the ecclesiastics on each side had agreed in council. A body of troops, chiefly Spaniards, was formed in Sicily, for the purpose of carrying on the war with the House of Anjou in Naples. When the war was over, there was a difficulty in disposing of these troops; so they were despatched to the East, under the name of the Grand Catalan Company, to carry on a crusade against the Turks. They soon expelled the latter from the western provinces of Asia Minor, and then-as many of their predecessors had done, they turned round and plundered the Greeks, even making slaves of many of the Christians. For twelve years there was war between them and the Greek empire, which they succeeded in ruining. The other event was the conquest of Rhodes by the Knights Hospitallers in A.D. 1310. "They settled in Cyprus," says Mr. Finlay, "after they had been expelled from Acre, but were soon discontented to remain vassals of the King of Cyprus. . . . They therefore solicited permission from the Pope to turn their arms against the Greeks. His holiness applauded their Christian zeal, and bestowed on them innumerable blessings and indulgences, besides 9,000 ducats to