BOOK VI

SECTION XV

COUNCIL OF BETHLEHEM.

It might seem that the Calvinism which had infested the Greek Church had been thoroughly crushed in the Councils of Constantinople and Tassy; but the fact was far otherwise. Thirty years only had elapsed since the death of Cyril Lucar : many of the those who had been personally acquainted with him still survived, and a comparison between his personal holiness, and the avaricious and profligate lives of his successors, the notoriously Latinising tendency of some, and the worldliness of all, could not but raise considerable prejudice in favour of his belief. Add to which that the state of the Church of Constantinople had been such as to preclude anything like settled belief : in fifteen years, there had been fourteen occupiers or reoccupiers of the Ecumenical Throne : and these had borne the deadliest enmity to those whom they removed, or by whom themselves were supplanted.

It was evident that some steps must be taken to give authority to the decisions of Constantinople and Jassy. The first who seems to have been alive to the danger, and to have taken steps for averting it, was Hilaron Tzigalas, Archbishop of Nicosia, and one of the most learned Oriental Prelates of his age. He was, at the same time, much opposed to Latinism : and is said to have assisted Nectarius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, in the composition of his work on the Primacy of the Pope.

In the year 1668, he convened a Synod of his Suffragans and the clergy, in which the Calvinistic heresy was exposed and anathematized. The Acts were probably signed by the three Bishops of Pafo, Cyti, and Cerinia.

Four ycars after this time, the celebrated Dositheus was raised to the Patriarchal Throne of Jerusalem, by the resignation of Nectarius. He was, as all the most learned Greeks of his time, a Cretan : and had been Archbishop of Csesarea. On his accession, he diligently employed himself in completing a new church at Bethlehem, which his predecessor had begun : and conceived that this would be a favorable opportunity of summoning a General Council of the Eastern Church. Happening to be called to Constantinople, and to be introduced to M. de Nointel, the French ambassador, he mentioned to him the idea which had struck him; and the latter, who unlike his predecessors, seems to have been a true friend to the Oriental Church, suggested that it would be a favorable opportunity to weed it of its Calvinism. The thought pleased Dositheus, and on mentioning the scheme to Dionysius, then Ecumenical Patriarch, the latter prepared an encyclical letter, to be signed by those who should not be able to attend the Council. This, after having been signed by himself and those Prelates who were present in the Imperial City, was afterwards sent to others for their approval and subscription. It is dated January, 1672, which was two months previous to the actual meeting of the Synod of Bethlehem.

It begins with a statement of the difficulties which had been raised, and of the duty of the Bishops and Pastors of Christ's Flock, to satisfy them as far as possible. The Seven Sacraments are, in the first place, asserted and described. The language on the Holy Eucharist is remarkable, and seems purely Oriental : free on the one hand, from Roman Scholasticism; on the other, from Calvinian profanity.

"With respect to the tremendous sacrament of the Eucharist, we believe and confess unwaveringly, that the Living Body of our Lord Jesus Christ is invisibly present, with a Real Presence in the Mystery. For when the Celebrant, after the Lord's Words, saith, 'Make this Bread the Precious Body of Thy Christ,' &c. then, by the operation of the Holy Ghost, in a manner beyond nature and ineffable, the Bread is really, and truly, and properly changed into the Very Body of our Saviour Christ, and the Wine into His Life-giving Blood."

Further on it declares : "It,"—the Holy Eucharist,—"is offered up as a Sacrifice for all Christians, both quick and dead."

The doctrine of Baptism is then clearly defined : the necessity of Infant Baptism asserted : final perseverance denied : the necessity of Episcopacy to a Church set forth : the superiority of Virginity to Matrimony proved : the infallibility of the Catholic Church maintained; the invocation of Saints and worship of Images, justified; the perpetual use and necessity of fasting declared.

With respect to the Apocrypha the encyclical letter differs, as we shall see, from the Council of Bethlehem. The former speaks of it in almost the same terms as the Articles of our own Church : the latter adds it to the Canon of Scripture. This letter is signed by Dionysius, Patriarch, Paisius, Dionysius, and Methodius, Ex-Patriarchs of Constantinople : Paisius of Alexandria : and forty-one other Metropolitans and Bishops. So that its authority, as a document, is vastly superior, in points where they differ, to that of the more celebrated Council of Bethlehem, or, as it is more commonly called, of Jerusalem.

Dositheus, on his return to his own See, lost no time in opening the Council. He was bent on two points : the first, to prove that the Oriental Church was not Calvinistic, and this led him rather to overstep her definitions, and to lay himself open to a charge of Latinism; and to this, his friendship for M. de Nointel still further engaged him : the second, to defend the memory of Cyril Lucar, for whom, perhaps as being his countryman, he seems to have entertained a great veneration. And this imparts a character of inconsistency to some part of the proceedings of the Synod. Still, on the whole, its spirit and decrees are highly honorable to the learning and piety of the assembled fathers : and the rage with which it is mentioned by Calvinian writers only proves their own chagrin at its conclusions.

The Proeme sets forth the duty of the Pastors of CHRIST's Flock to keep silence no longer when the Faith is at stake : and proceeds to state that a report was current in the West, to the effect that the Holy Eastern Church held and propagated the same sentiments with the Calvinists; that this was not only said by word of mouth, but actually published : that M, Claude of Charenton was one of its busiest propagators : that the Council,assembled for the dedication of the new church at Bethlehem, thought fit to state the true doctrine of the Eastern Church, to the end that the minds of the wavering might be settled, and the calumnies of the Calvinists exposed.

They then proceed to state the connection which had, at different times subsisted between the Protestant Conununities and the Eastern Church. That, fifty years after Luther, Martin Crusius, and other learned Lutherans, wrote to Jeremiah, then Ecumenical Patriarch, to learn the sentiments of the Oriental Church on the points in dispute between themselves and Rome, that Jeremiah had rejected their innovations, and written against them. That others, especially Nathanael, a Priest of Constantinople, and Gabriel Severus, Greek Archbishop of Venice, had clearly explained, on these matters, the doctrine of the Church; that the Calvinists, in opposition to these authorities, brought forward the confession of Cyril Lucar : that, however, this confession was not Cyril's, but a forgery. For this assertion, they give five proofs.

"1. The Eastern Church never knew Cyril to be such a person as the adversaries say, nor was acquainted with the articles as his composition.

''2. If it be granted that they are his, he must have published them secretly, without the knowledge of any of the Easterns, much less of the Catholic Church.

"3. Cyril's Confession is not the confession of the Eastern Church.

"4. One of two things is impossible; either that the Easterns were acquainted with this Confession, or that, if they knew it, they could be Christians.

"5. That the Easterns have always had such an aversion to these articles, that Cyril has been often known to teach with an oath, and in the Church, contrary to them; and only because he would not write against them, he was anathematized and excommunicated in two very crowded synods."

They go on to prove these assertions thus :

"That Cyril was never known in the Eastern Church as a Calvinist, is evident to every one who has no evil intention; for having been Pope of Alexandria after Meletius, and having been translated to the Throne of Constantinople (at a time when he was sojourning there) by the joint consent of the Clergy of Constantinople, neither in Synod nor in church, nor in the house of any orthodox person, and, in short, neither in public nor in private did he say or teach any one of those things which the adversaries say that he favored. And if the adversaries assert that Cyril said anything of the sort to any individual or to several, they know not what they say; for if they wish to bear witness, they ought not to derive their testimonies from themselves,—because they lie with us under the charge of slander and of not knowing Cyril, and consequently have no credit,—but from those who knew Cyril and his manner of life, of whom there are as many as ten thousand now living. But these people, who never knew him, vehemently affirm that he was a partaker of their heresy, whilst those who ministered to him in the business of many years, and knew every thing relating to him, assert that he was nothing of the sort.

"Secondly, because there appears no unsuspected writing of his, nor any written with his own hand, confessing any such thing as these heterodox people testify.

" Thirdly, because we have not only ten thousand witnesses who attest the well-known piety of Cyril, and that they never heard anything heretical from him, but also a book of the largest size written with Cyril's own hand, in which appear his sermons delivered at Constantinople on each Sunday and Festival, exhibiting quite the contrary to these forged articles; out of which we wall set forth some extracts in the present document for the perfect confirmation of our assertions.''

Now, these assertions prove two things : Firstly, the good feeling of the Council of Jerusalem towards one who lay under though such a load of calumny as Cyril : secondly, the high reputation which that Patriarch had left behind him for piety and holiness.

But they cannot for a moment lead us to doubt of the authenticity of Cyril's confession : for which, it must be remembered, we have more proofs, in his private letters, than the Fathers of this Council could possibly have known.

They then proceed wdth their endeavor to show that Cyril's sermons were at variance with his confession. On the first chapter, where he affirms that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, they produce two extracts, one from a Homily on Christmas Day, the other on Pentecost : in the one of which he says that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father alone : in the other that He proceeds from the Father, and is sent by the Son; and this is nearly identical with his Confession.

Against the second chapter, on the superior authority of Scripture to the Church, they seem to have found a difficulty in bringing forward anything satisfactory from the other writings of Cyril : the two extracts they give are nothing to the purpose. And the same thing may be said with regard to their other attempts, with one exception.

Against the seventeenth chapter, where Cyril expressly denies Transubstantiation, they bring forward an extract from a sermon which he delivered on the Miracle of the Five Loaves. "The Lord brake bread three times. Firstly, in the Mystical Supper, where He ordained that we should receive the Infinite Virtue of the Divinity, in the Transubstantiation of the Bread."

This is a remarkable passage : but it is impossible to believe that it ever proceeded from the pen of Cyril. For, firstly, we have seen by many proofs that he did not believe in the doctrine : secondly, we know enough of him to be sure that, with all his faults, he never was a hypocrite; thirdly, had he been so, it must have been with some hope of advantage : fourthly, on the contrary, the use of the word at all would have rendered him suspected by his two patrons, the English and Dutch ambassadors, and the single use of it would not have pacified the Romanists : fifthly, that in the extract, it does not seem to make very good sense : and may fairly be supposed to have been altered, either by mistake, or by some fraudulent transcriber.

The Fathers next proceed to explain the anathemas pronounced against Cyril by the Council of Constantinople : they were not fulminated, they say, because Cyril was the author of the Confession : but because knowing that it was published in his name, he did not suppress or anathematize it. But the reader has only to cast his eyes back to the Acts of that Council, to be convinced that it did anathematize him as the author of that Confession. However, this seems to be the belief of the Eastern Church to the present day : that the Confession was not Cyril's : but that he was anathematized for not sufficiently opposing the doctrines which it contained.

After this ineffectual attempt to exculpate Cyril, the Fathers of Bethlehem proceed much more satisfactorily. "Whosesoever was the Confession," they say, ''it never was that of the Greek Church, inasmuch as she never held its doctrines; and could in no sense be implicated in it. She that has stood firm in the midst of persecutions and martyrdoms, would never have believed one thing in the heart, and confessed another with the mouth."

Cyril, they affirm, denied his so-called chapters with an oath; and was justly condemned, nevertheless, because he did not more resolutely oppose them. If the Oriental Church had ever held these doctrines, it would have apostatized from the Faith : but it never did apostatize : therefore it never could have held these doctrines. Again, its anathemas, pronounced on Orthodoxy Sunday, (i.e. the commemoration of the Second Council of Niasea and the other Councils,) amply proves the same thing.

This appears to be the substance of the four first chapters of the Acts of this Council. The Fathers then proceed to repeat and to authenticate the Synods of Constantinople and Jassy and conclude with a confession of Faith, founded on that of Peter Mogila, though in many respects differing from it.

Art I. On the Trinity : and the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Father alone.

II. On the Authority of the Church to interpret Scripture.

III. Against the Doctrine of Irrespective Predestination.

IV. Against those, who call God the Author of Evil.

V. On the same subject : and the Divine Providence in turning evil into good.

VI. On original sin.

VII. On the Incarnation and Passion of our Lord Jesus Christ.

VIII. That there is but One Mediator, Jesus Christ; nevertheless that the Church may and ought to have recourse to the Intercession of the Blessed Virgin, Apostles, Prophets, Martyrs, and All Samts.

IX. That Faith working by Love, that is, by the fulfilment of the commandments, justifies.

X. That there is a visible Catholic Church : that episcopal government is necessary to it; that without this there can be neither Church nor Christian : that the Power of Episcopacy is received by Succession; that the Episcopate is entirely different from, and superior to, the Priesthood.

XI. Of those members of the Church who live in sin.

XII. Of the teaching of the Holy Ghost by the Fathers, and, more especially, by Ecumenical Councils.

XIII. Of good works, co-operating with faith to justification.

XIV. Of freewill, in opposition to Calvinians.

XV. That there are seven Sacraments.

XVI. Of the necessity of regeneration in Baptism, and the Eternal Damnation of those who receive it not.

XVII. Of the Holy Eucharist. Here transubstantiation is asserted in the strongest terms : and consubstantiation condemned : yet it may be fairly asserted that the Greek Church has not yet decided this question. Of the Synods of Constantinople and Jassy, the one affirms it, the other leaves it undecided : and so again, with the Synod of Bethlehem, and the encyclical letter of Dionysius. It is allowed on all hands that the word is new in Greek Theology : and probably the first instance of its use is to be found in a Homily of Gennadius, the first Patriarch of Constantinople, after the capture of that city by the Turks, and which was written, therefore, about a.d. 1460.

XVIII. Of the state of the departed. In this article there seems to be a plain discrepancy with the Faith of the Eastern Church, and a decided tendency to Latinism : the doctrine of Purgatory being clearly admitted.

The Fathers then proceed to answer Cyril's four questions. The first in the negative : to which the practice of the present Greek Church is opposed : the second, very truly, in the negative; in the third, as to the Canon of Scripture, they include the books of the Apocrypha. Herein they are opposed to the encyclical letter of Dionysius, which includes only the books named by the Council of Laodicfea : and they are guilty of gross irreverence to S. Cyril, asserting that he named them
Apocryphal foolishly, ignorantly, or perhaps maliciously. To the fourth, as to images, they reply as the second Council of Nicaea.

They conclude by a defence of Monachism and an enunciation of certain writers who, on the points in controversy, fairly stated the Belief of the Eastern Church : and among these Coressi, of whom Cyril Lucar speaks so harshly, holds a distinguished place.

The Acts are signed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem Nectarius, Ex-Patriarch, and seven other Prelates, one of whom had also a proxy: also by sixty-one other Ecclesiastics, of whom one or two were Russians. Ten signed in Arabic : the rest in Greek. The date is the 20th of March, 1672 : and the Acts were authenticated by M. de Nointel, a year and a half later.

This Council, notwithstanding the outcry raised against it by the Calvinists, decided the controversy. We have perhaps digressed too much from our Alexandrian History : but as the principal propagator of the new belief was a Patriarch of Alexandria, and as his successors were much concerned in the whole progress of the dispute, we thought it best to give a succinct, but it is trusted a fair, account of its rise, progress, and final decision.