Page:Uniate Eastern Churches.pdf/227

Rh 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,