UNION
132
UNION
bour to allay their hostility and induoc them to accept
the union; they would not yield, and they refused to
recognize Rahosa as their metropolitan.
All attempts failing to win over this opposition to the union, the Rutheiiian bishops, on 9 October, wearing t heir pontifical vestments, went in procession to the Church of St. Nicholas and celebrated the Liturg>', at the conclusion of which Hermogenes, Archbishop of Polotsk, mounted the pulpit and read the declaration of the Ruthenian episcopate accepting the union with Rome. When this had been read, the Latin and Ruthenian bishops embraced each other and then repaired to the Latin Church of the Most Blessed Virgii) to sing the "Te Deum" again. Next day another solemn ceremony was celebrated in the Church of St. Nicholas, and Father Skarga preached on the imity of God's Church. Bishops Gideon Bal- aban, of Lemberg, and Michael Kopystenski, of Przemysl, having declared themselves opposed to the union, were deposed and excommunicated. Their dioceses remained in schism until 1720. The enemies of the union ijublished, on 9 October, a protest against the Ruthenian episcopate. The Prince of Ostrog became the soul of the opposition, and the struggle was maintained, particularly in the field of theology. But Sigismund III efficaciously under- took the defence of the union; in an edict of 5 De- cember, 1590, he ordered the Ruthenians to recognize as bishops only those who had accepted the act of union.
Thus came to pass one of the most auspicious events in the history of Catholicism among the Slavic peoples. The LTnion of Brest would have produced most abundant fruit, and would have contributed greatly to the triumph of Catholicism in Russia if the statesmen and the Latin clergy of Poland had realized its political and religious utility, and had used all their efforts to favour it, and if, after the par- tition of Poland, Russia had not destroyed it in the conquered provinces by methods of the most brutal violence.
Skarga, Synod brzeski: obrona synodu brzeskieijo (The Synod of Brest; A Defence of the Synod of Brest) (1.596), repriiited in Pamjalniki polemilcheshoi Uteralury v zapadnoi Rusi (^Ionument^ of the Polemical Literature of Western Russia) (St. Petersburg, 1882), 939-1002; -Exfleo-.s, abo krotkie zebranie spraw. ktore sie dzialy na partyculamym synodzie w Brzesciu liteu'skim (Small Col- lection of Documents relating to the Special Synod of Brest) (Cracow, 1597; Moscow, 1879) in Pamjalniki, III (St. Peters- burg, 1903), 329-76; Phil.4Lethes, 'Attokpio-i?, abo odpowiedz na xiazk-i o synodzie brzeskim (Reply to Father Skarga's Work on the Synod of Brest) (Vilna. 1597; 1599; Russian tr., Kieff, 1870) in Pamjatniki, III, 1003-1820; Arcudius; ^Kvripp-quv^, apo apologia przeciwko Krzystofowi Philalelawi (Apology against Christopher Philalethes) (Vilna, 1600) in Pamjalniki, III, 477-982; Zoch- owsKi, Colloquium luhelskie (Lemberg, 1680) ; Kdlc2tn8Ki, Speci- men ecdesice rulhenica (Rome. 1733; Paris, 1859); Harasiewicz. Annules eccl. ruthencB (Lemberg, 1862), 111-61; Likowski, Historya unii kosciola ruskiego z rzymshim (History of the Union of the Ruthenian Church with Rome) (Posen, 18"75), French tr. L'union de Viglise grecque ruthene en Pologne avec I'^g. rom., con- clue d Brest, en Lilhuanie, en 1696 (Paris); Malinowski, Die Kirchen-und Staats-Satzungen beziiglich des griechisch-kathol. kitus der Ruthenen in (Jalizien (Lemberg. 1861): Bartoszewicz, Szkic dziejdw kosciola ruskiego w Polsce (Hist. Sketch of the Ruthenian Church in Poland) (Cracow, 1880) ; Pelesz. Gesch. des Union der ruthen. Kirche mil Rom. I (Wurzburg, 1881), 498-556.
The chief works by Russian Orthodox writers on the Union of Brest are: Kamenskij, Izvlstie vozniksei v Pol' He unii (Notes on the Union concluded in Poland) (Moscow, 1805) ; FLERoy, Oxpra- mslavnyh cerkovnyh bralsticah protivoborslvovavshih unii (Orthodox Eccl. Confraternities which Opposed the Union of Brest) (St. Petersburg, 1857); Kojalovic, Litovskaya cerkovnaja unija (I-ithuanian Eccl. Union) (St. Petersburg, 1861). The principal Russian works, Catholic and non-Catholic, are given in Palmieri, Theologia dogm. orlho., I (Florence, 1911), 748-51, 783-98.
A. Palmieri.
Union of Christendom.— The Catholic Church is by far the largest, the most widespread, and the most_ ancient of Christian communions in the world, and is moreover the mighty trunk from which the other communions claiming to be Christian have broken off at one time or another. If, then, we limit the application of the term Christendom to this, it.s most authentic exjircssion, the unitv of Christendom
is not a lost ideal to he recovered, but a stupendous
reality which has always been in stable possession.
For not only has this CathoMc Church ever taught
that unity is an es.sential note of the true Church of
Christ, but throughout her long history she has been,
to the amazement of the world, distinguished by the
most conspicuous unity of faith and government, and
this notwith.standing that .she has at all times em-
braced within her fold nationahties of the most
different temperaments, and has had to contend with
incessant oscillations of mental speculation and
political power. Still, in another and broader sense
of the term, which is also the more usual and is fol-
lowed in the present article, Christendom includes
not merely the Catholic Chm-ch, but, together with
it, the many other religious communions which have,
either directly or indirectly, separated from it, and
yet, although in confhct both with it and among them-
selves as to various points of doctrine and practice,
agree with it in this: that they look up to our Lord
Jesus Christ as the Founder of their Faith, and claim
to make His teaching the rule of their lives. As these
separated communities when massed together, indeed
in some cases even of themselves, count a vast number
of souls, among whom many are consjjicuous for their
religious earnestness, this extension of the term
Christetidom to include them all has its sofid justifi-
cation. On the other hand, if it is accepted, it
becomes no longer possible to speak of the unity of
Christendom, but rather of a Christendom torn by
divisions and offering the saddest spectacle to the
eyes. And then the question arises: Is this scandal
always to continue? The Holy See has never tired
of appealing in season and out of season for its removal,
but without meeting with much resiionse from a world
which had learnt to live contentedly within its sec-
tarian enclosures. Happily a new spirit has lately
come over these dissentient Christians, numbers of
whom are becoming keenlj' sensitive to the paralyzing
effects of division, and an active reunion movement
has arisen which, if far from being as widespread and
solid as one could wish, is at least cherished on all
sides by devout minds.
In summarizing in this article the various matters that bear upon this question of the unity of Christen- dom, its present default, and the hopes for its resto- ration, the following points will be considered: I. The Principles of the Church's Unity; II. Unity in the Early Church and its Causes; III. The Divisions of Christendom and their Causes; IV. Reunion Movements in the Past; V. Reunion Movements in the Present; VI. Conditions of Reunion; VII. Pros- pects of Reunion.
I. Principles op the Church's L'^nitt. A. As Determined by Christ. — It is to the Gospels we must go in the first place if we desire to know what in the intentions of its Founder were to be the fundamental elements in the constitution of the Church, nor do the instructions He gave to His Apostles leave us in doubt on the subject. His last words, as reported by St. Matthew, are: "All power is given to Me in heaven and on earth. Going therefore make dis- ciples \nadriTei(raTe] of all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, teaching them to observe all things what- soever I have commanded you, and, lo, I am with you all days until the consummation of the world" (xxviii, 19, 20). St. Mark's account is to the same effect, but adds important details: "Going into all the world, proclaim the Gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be .saved, he that disbelieveth |6 di dirio-TijSaf] shall be condemned. And these signs shall follow those th:it believe: in my name theyshall cast out devils, speak with new tongues, and take up serpents, and if they shall drink any deadly drink it shall not hurt them; and they shall lay their hands on the sick and they shall be healed. . . .And
