a position of independence and authority eminently suited to their spiritual office, he guided the frail barque committed to his care with such consummate skill, with such prudence, such patience, such mildness, and at the same time such steadfast determination and energy as to win the homage even of those who were most opposed to his aims, and to make the loss of temporal power less of an evil than it might have been. Emperors, kings, potentates of every description have testified to the beneficent influence he exercised in the world. More important, however, than any of these manifestations is the evidence of love and sorrow which was everywhere witnessed amongst the poorer classes whom Leo XIII. laboured all his life to serve. Catholics have lost a father whom they loved and revered beyond any other ruler in the world. Ireland has lost a devoted friend, who watched over her welfare with paternal and increasing care. In no country in Christendom will keener regret be felt for the loss of the great Pontiff than in the land of St. Patrick. We shall have many opportunities of returning to the life and labours of Leo XIII. For the present we have only to give expression to our heartfelt share in the universal sorrow at the departure of a Pontiff whose words and thoughts have filled our pages for the past twenty-five years.

J. F. HOGAN, D.D.

'FATHERS, EASTERN AND WESTERN'

N his History of Christian Dogmas1 Neander writes: 'Christianity entered a world that was foreign to its nature, where it had to acquire a certain form; and this form was in part dependent on existing tendencies;' the truth of this statement is nowhere, perhaps, more manifest than in the writings of the Fathers of the Church, both Eastern and Western.

A comparison of Eastern with Western patristic literature unveils a curious phenomenon, and one to which all readers of the Fathers will be well advised to give their attention.

In the first place, we find the Fathers of the Eastern Church with a style of composition and method of treatment quite different to those of the West; and, secondly, even the subject-matter of which they treat is not the same; the former being apparently much more in their element when handling subjects that enter into the field of philosophic thought, and which, in consequence, demand more care and accuracy in the use of terms; while the Westerns are more concerned with the practical issues of theology; for them the concrete rather than the abstract seems to possess the greater attraction.

These facts are not to be summarily accounted for by saying that the Fathers of one age naturally fell into one groove, and that it was equally natural for a later age to

1 C. i., 33.

G

cultivate a line of thought and argument somewhat different; because the similarity alluded to is found to exist on the one hand in writers of succeeding ages, while the contrast is evident in the case even of contemporaries.

In accounting for this we have to look to the place where, rather than to the epoch in which they flourished. The division of the Church from the earliest times into East and West is familiar to all, and each of these sections has been responsible for its own particular method of enunciation or exposition of revealed truth. There is no intrinsic reason why an Eastern Father should differ from a Western; but, apart from the fact that the rise of this or that heresy would naturally call into existence then and there, special treatises on the particular doctrine attacked-with the result that the patristic writings of the East would differ from those of the West according as heresy in the East differed from the West -we have to bear in mind that the whole atmosphere of Eastern thought was permeated by an influence that never penetrated in any appreciable degree to the West. The centre of that influence was the catechetical school of Alexandria.

During the first four centuries, Alexandria, the capital of Egypt, was the principal seat of Christian philosophy and literature. Founded by St. Mark, the favoured disciple of St. Peter, the patriarchal see of this city was the first in order and dignity after that of Rome-the see of St. Peter himself. Its Christian school, founded early in the third century, had produced a Clement, a Dionysius, and an Origen. The see numbered amongst its illustrious occupants the glorious names of St. Alexander, St. Athanasius, and St. Cyril; and the list of those who pursued their studies, and whose views were largely formed in this Sedes sapientiae is a long and imposing one.

The whole atmosphere of Alexandria was charged with philosophy. Three hundred years B.C. had Ptolemy Soter, one of Alexander's captains, founded an academy called the Museum, in which a society of learned men devoted themselves to philosophical studies and the improvement of all the other studies; he also gave them a library which was

It was there that

prodigiously increased by his successors. Grecian philosophy was engrafted on the stock of ancient oriental wisdom; there that the Jewish mind, four centuries before Christ, was first brought into contact with Greek philosophy and speculation; there also that Christianity and paganism met with every facility for mutual discussion and criticism. The result that followed is a most important factor in the history of Greek patristic literature.

When once the first principles of the Christian faith were brought face to face with heathen wisdom and civilisation, it was inevitable that they should be largely affected by their new environment. Not that the framework of revealed doctrine could ever be enlarged or diminished or even modified -truth can never make any compromise with falsehood--but as St. Augustine has it: 'Quisquis bonus verusque Christianus est, Domini sui esse intelligat ubicunque invenerit veritatem ; "2 and doctrines hitherto undeveloped or unexplained would naturally be sifted, tried in the crucible of philosophic analysis, and assume new shapes and colours accordingly.

In the face of the old-standing philosophies the question naturally arose, How was the Church to act? What was to be her attitude towards science as she found it? What the relation of the new faith to already existing systems of thought? The policy of the Church was that of assimilation rather than of absolute antagonism or annihilation. Greek philosophy was not to be regarded as altogether hostile; it was not to be denounced as profane; it was to serve as a help rather than a hindrance to the accurate expression of revealed truth.

The Church's champions recognised their opportunity, pressed into service the current philosophic terminology, and boldly endeavoured to lay hold of and assimilate all the treasures of wisdom and knowledge which had been accumulating in the ages before Christ. Under the Church's ægis they were well qualified to accomplish what the eclectic school of philosophers had tried to do, but in vain. They were better calculated to sift the true from the false, to build up a

secure edifice of truth, and to bring to their theological studies something better than mere speculation or the ephemeral teaching of the particular schools of thought that happened to be flourishing at the time.

There was, of course, a certain element of danger in the close proximity of the home of pagan philosophy, especially when we remember that every conceivable sect was recognised at Alexandria; for a general permission had been given by Alexander to the promiscuous crowds assembled in that flourishing emporium of the East-whether Egyptians, Grecians, Jews, or others--to profess their respective systems of philosophy without molestation. Hence we are not altogether surprised to find that Origen, who followed and favoured the eclectic method of philosophising, thought to form a coalition between the Gospel and Aristotle, while others reasoned in the same way as to Stoicism, and the majority as to Platonism.

History does, indeed, record some defections, but in the main the danger of being overwhelmed by the tide of pagan philosophy was never more than a nominal one. In this connection the following passage from Neander3 is not without interest :

The Alexandrian Fathers, on account of their studying the Grecian philosophy, exposed themselves to the danger of being taxed with heresy by the other parties. Clement frequently rebukes the ignorant brawlers,' who, as he says, are frightened at philosophy as children at a mask. He endeavours to show the advantages and necessity of studying it for the teachers of the Church; that they ought to know it well even to controvert it and prove its injurious effects. Philosophic culture, he asserted, was also a necessary preparation in order to be able to develop Christian truths in a scientific form. What' the ancients said of the relation of dialectics to philosophy that it is a fence for truth,' applied also to the relation of the culture so gained to Christian truth-not that any addition was made by this means to its contents, but an instrument was gained for defending it against the Sophists.

These considerations serve to account, partially at least, for the characteristic structure of the writings of the Greek

Op. Cit., C. i., p. 63.