Content:

It was at an early period that the spirit of supremacy began to show itself in the Pontiffs of Rome. As soon as their unceasing and strenuous efforts to spread their spiritual monarchy over the whole of the West were crowned with success, they, not content with this, sought also the submission to their pontifical throne of their own equals — the Eastern Patriarchs, and thus occasioned that great division of the West and East, which, commencing under Photius, and ended in the final schism of the Church of Rome from the Orthodox Church of the East. It was not love of power alone that caused this division; but also an obstinacy in adhering to many material regressions from the ancient doctrine and discipline of the Church. Time, instead of abating this love of power and eradicating errors, only promoted their development and strength. Thus it was, that the division of the Churches became more and more permanent, while the Eastern Christians, true to their ancient Orthodoxy, were strengthened in their aversion to the Latin Church.

The calamitous state of the Eastern Empire, bereft of strength, and at the same time open to the ravages of barbarous and rude nations from the north and east, also suffered from the encroachments of its own brethren from the West. The East on more then one occasion engendered a wish in its rulers to restore the former spirit of love and peace between the Churches, hoping by these means to find effectual aid from the head of Western Christianity against enemies who threatening the Empire with ruin and desolation. The Popes, with the goal of attaining supremacy and dominion over the Four Eastern Patriarchates, were happy to receive such demonstrations from the East. Nevertheless, it was very evident, that as long as the Popes retained such an object in view, and refused to return to the pure ancient doctrine and practice of the Church, no such efforts of reconciliation would prove successful.

The fruit of these efforts on the part of the Eastern Empire, was a Council initially convened at Ferrara, but later moved and concluded in Florence.. The Council was twenty years in preparation, and was attended by the Eastern Emperor, the Patriarch of Constantinople with other Patriarchal Vicars and Bishops, on the one side, and that of the Pope, with his numerous suite of Cardinals and Bishops on the other; then, again, the long duration of the conferences on the principal causes of the division; lastly, the very minuteness with which the points in dispute were brought under the notice of the Synod — all this together enhances the special value of a history of the Council. Whereas, again, its close, so contrary to the hopes and expectations nourished at its opening by those who came from the far east, contrary to, the evident superiority of the last named in truth and justice, gives rise to a very laudable curiosity as to how affairs were really carried on in this assembly. A son of the Orthodox Graeco-Russian Church has besides this a more special inducement to acquaint himself with the history of this Council, not only because it included among its members a Russian Metropolitan, who took no little interest in the acts, though himself no great defender of the ancient Orthodoxy of his Church; but also because the decrees of Florence served as a foundation for the so-called "Unia" organized in the southeastern provinces of our country, thanks to the Jesuits of the sixteenth century. An impartial history will show how unjustly the canons of the Council of Florence were, and even are, counted as the production of Greeks, ever the true sons of their Orthodox Church.

The contemporary description of this Council by Syropulus, known by the name of a Truthful History of an unjust union," is the first and principal source for the History of this Council.. Sylvester Syropulus, a Greek by birth, was the son of a Church-teacher, by whom he was educated, and soon formed an intimate acquaintance with many pious and learned men of his time. Ordained deacon of the Constantinopolitan Church, with the title of Ecclesiarch and Dikeophylax, he accompanied the Patriarch to the Council of Florence, was present at it in the capacity of a member, and thus saw and heard all things transacted there, even taking part in many of the minor meetings of the Bishops; lastly, he was more than once sent by the other members of the Council to the Pope. His steadfastness in the Orthodox doctrine and aversion from the union drew on him the Emperor’s anger, and was the cause of much indignation on the part of the Latins and the Greek apostates from Orthodoxy. At the urgent demands of the Emperor’s officers, he signed the Council’s decrees; but shortly afterwards sincerely repented of what he had done; and, withdrawing himself from the union and his Church office, wrote his history of the Synod.

The history of Syropulus closes with the events of the years 1444 and 1445; we can, with great likelihood, suppose that it was written just about this time; and, consequently, during the lifetime of the Emperor, John Palaeologus, and many other members of the Council. This circumstance attests the truth of his history. He himself affirms in many places, that there is nothing but truth in his history, that he even wished to omit many things, but could not do so, as the witnesses of these events were still alive. Without going into the details of the public disputes, written down during the very sittings of the Council, he relates the private conferences of the Greek Bishops, generally using their own expressions. When describing the preliminary intercourse of the Emperor and Patriarch with the Popes, he makes use of the "γραμμάτα" entered into the Church codex; he also finds place in his history for some of the genuine acts of the Council, e.g., the opinions of the Patriarch and the Emperor on the Procession of the Holy Ghost; also for the objections of the Latins against the exposition of the same doctrine made by the Greek Bishops. With rare honesty he refuses witnessing to subjects more or less unknown to him, but narrates what he himself had heard. Speaking of the principal authors of the union, he is far from concealing their good qualities, remarking that it is unjust to pass them over in silence; neither is he silent upon many injudicious acts of the defenders of Orthodoxy; he then relates, with great frankness and sincerity, how he was obliged to sign his name to the Council decree, and tries to exculpate himself, by saying, that it was not done for money. Lastly, we must say that the memoirs of Syropulus correspond in the principal points with other Greek and Latin narratives of the Council. All these circumstances attest the sincerity of the writer and the truth of his history.

We have already mentioned,, that Syropulus does not give place in his history to any of the public disputes at the Council; but to make up for this he endeavours to disclose the object held in view by the Emperor, the Pope and their party, and the motives from which they acted at the Council. His description of the private, secret intercourse between the Latins and Greeks after the public sittings of the Council, brings to light many of their dark doings, which, were it not for Syropulus, would have remained until now unknown to us. Generally speaking, were it not for his memoirs, the description of this Council by other authors would hardly have proved satisfactory.

Out of all the annals of this Council, published by the Church of Rome, the best is very rightly reckoned to be, — the History of the Council of Florence, written in Greek by one of its members, Dorotheus, Metropolitan of Mitylene. It principally consists in an exposition of the Council disputes, very likely composed with the help of notes, made at the very Council, and to which the historian now and then refers. On finishing the Acts of the Council, the author commences his own diary of the chief occupations of the Greek Bishops until the close of the Synod. The diary is short, because the writer, who was one of the most active partisans of the Church union, only finds place for such subjects as seemed most important for his object in view, and looks upon them besides in his own light. In the course of our history of the Florentine Council, we can, under the guidance of Syropulus, also avail ourselves of the memoirs of Dorotheus, endeavoring as far as possible to clear the truth from falsehood, and to amplify one narrative by the other.

The Russian annals and memoirs, on the voyage of the Metropolitan Isidore to the Council, may also be of use in showing several circumstances, touching the Russian Metropolitan, of which there is no mention made in Syropulus, or in the Latin descriptions of the Council.

A complete history of the Council of Florence must not only show the progress of the Council and its results; but also give an introductory sketch of the contemporary state of the Eastern Empire and the Church of Rome. By doing this it will serve to explain the reason of the strenuous efforts made by the Emperor and Pope to convene a Council and accomplish the union of Churches.

Pitiable was the state of the Empire of Constantinople, when Manuel II (1391) began those negotiations with the Pope, which resulted in the Council of Florence. At that time everything was in the hands of the Turks. Manuel himself, during the very lifetime of his father, was forced by Bajazet II to join him in his expeditions. Μanuel’s father, by the Sultanas order, was compelled to raze to the ground the city fortifications then only in course of erection. Then came the demands from Bajazet, that a mosque should be erected, and a cadi appointed in the town for the Turks, demands coupled with threats of shutting up the inhabitants within the city walls, in case of a refusal. True to his threat, Bajazet commenced ravaging towns and villages in the suburbs of Constantinople, forcing the poor inhabitants to migrate into other places; at the same time his armies devastated the Peloponnesus and demolished towns on the coast of the Euxine. The armies of Islam stationed close to the town cut off the import of corn; hunger drove the inhabitants to despair. Such was the beginning of Manuels reign! Six years afterwards, Manuel at the demand of Bajazet was obliged to divide his nearly powerless authority between himself and his nephew Andronicus, who proclaimed himself the Sultan’s tributary – and personally to seek the aid of the monarchs of Western Europe. During his absence Constantinople nearly fell a prey to the ambitious views of Bajazet. Luckily for the town the Sultan met with a dreadful rival in the person of Timour. His victories over the Sultan sustained for a time the Empire's existence and made Manuel once more master of his own throne. Mahomet I, son and successor of Bajazet, kept the peace with the Greek Emperor.

But what remained now to the Emperor from out of his at one time vast possessions? In Asia he was no longer master of a single province, of a solitary town. True, Mahomet did restore the ruins on the coast of the Black Sea, the Propontis and in Thessaly, but then these ruins alone, with Constantinople, were all that remained to him of the once great Empire. Even of this he was master only at the Sultan’s grace. Such a state of affairs could not continue long. In the reign of Manuel’s successor, John VIII Palaeologus, the limits of the Empire were still less; the Emperor paid the Sultan Murad II 100,000 aspres. In reality it was the latter who was unlimited master of the Empire, having the power even of levying troops from among the Greeks. The Turks pillaged towns, devastated whole provinces, and expelled the inhabitants. The Emperor could only witness the calamities of his subjects, but help them he could not. His army for the most part consisted of mercenaries, his fleet was insignificant, the finances of the Empire were in the greatest disorder, so that at last John was brought to the necessity of selling Thessalonica to the Venetians, in order to pay the expenses of his court.

The Empire was evidently on the brink of ruin, and well aware of this were the poor owners of Constantinople. They knew besides, that as long as the town remained in Greek hands, they might still find some help on the part of the Western Monarchs, and hope for some success over the Turks. But it was just as evident to them, that as long as the division of the Churches continued, the Western Christians would sooner stand by, and allow the Turks to annihilate all the East, than offer a helping hand in its defense. This then was the reason why Manuel, in hopes of saving his Empire, determined on entering into negotiations with the Pope, which were carried on by John with the view of attaining an union of Churches by means of an Ecumenical Council. They were in hopes, that such a Council could, on the authority of Holy Scripture and Holy Tradition, solve all the points of dissension between the Churches; the East and West would make peace with each other on the subject of faith, and that then all Christian nations, the cause of their religious enmity being done away with, would give their hands and hearts to the defense of the faithful against the infidels. It was no secret, that the hope of receiving help for the Empire by means of a Council, was the real motive both the Emperors had in proposing this union to the Pope. Even the Turks guessed the designs of the Emperors and dreaded the alliance. The Emperor, John Palaeologus, himself more than once told his spiritual and civil nobles, at Constantinople, then at Ferrara, and Florence, that this was the very object of assembling the Council.

We will now turn our attention to the contemporary state of ecclesiastical affairs in the West. It will then be plain, why the Pope evinced so sincere a readiness to take on himself the assembling of the Council, for the union of Churches.

Since the removal of the Papal seat to Avignon (1308), the Western Church was disturbed by many violent commotions, which led to the so-called "great schism" (1378-1428). During half a century the Church of the West was divided between two Popes, of whom one remained in Italy, and the other resided in France. The Popes and anti-Popes by leveling anathemas at each other caused great disturbances among the clergy and laity: the people arid their rulers were quite at a loss, whom to receive as the lawful rulers of the Church; the party of one Pope persecuted the party of the other, and both used the most unlawful means for augmenting their incomes. It was during these universal commotions, that the monarchs and the clergy of the West became persuaded in the necessity of a reform in this Church, beginning with her head and ending in her members, fully conscious at the same time, that this reform must be made by means of an Ecumenical Council, and not by the Popes themselves. Thus, the Western Church by a series of calamities returned to the old persuasion, however opposed it might have been to that of the Popes, that the only visible, universal authority, must be, without exception, that of the Ecumenical Councils. So that at the beginnings of the fifteenth century Councils were convened in the West, which claiming to themselves the title of Ecumenical also claimed the right of judging the Popes, and with unequal success set about reforming the many abuses caused in the Church by Papal avarice and ambition.

The refusal (contrary to their own promise, and the requests of the Emperors and Bishops) of Gregory XII chosen Pope by the Italian Cardinals, and of Pope Benedict XII then at Avignon, to surrender their claims to the Papal chair, was followed by the Council of Pisa, which being convened against them, transferred the Papal tiara to Alexander V, branding them with the name of schismatics, heretics, and perjurers. But this election, far from quieting the disturbances in the Church, only served to augment her calamities by the addition of a new Pope. On the death of Alexander, John XXIII continued anathematizing his rivals — Gregory and Benedict. At last the Council of Constance wishing (1414) to put an end to all disturbances, solemnly proclaimed that "this Ecumenical Council has received immediate authority from our Lord Jesus Christ; and every member of the Church, not excepting the Pope, must obey the Council in all matters pertaining to faith, the putting down of schism and ecclesiastical reform. If, contrary to this canon, the Pope or any one else refuses to receive this, or any other Ecumenical Council, he shall be sentenced to penance, and when necessary be even visited with legal punishment." This decree was enforced on John XXIII; he was sentenced to be deprived of the Papal chair. He was succeeded by Otho Colonna, who took the name of Martin V ( Nov. 11, 1417 ). The Council next betook itself to the reform of the Church, though in reality it limited itself to a very few changes, as the Pope would not allow any serious alteration to be made, managing to postpone the settling of the general demands from one Council to another. Thus in the lifetime of the same Pope Martin, the Council of Constance was successively followed by that of Pavia, (1423), Sienna, (1424), with no better success, and lastly, by that of Basle (1431), which was so much dreaded by Martin’s successor, Eugenius IV.

It was at this very period of time, when the Papal authority had received so severe a check from the schism, when the former conviction of the infallibility and absolute power of the Pope had lost its force and made way for the opinion, that the authority of Ecumenical Councils was greater than that of the Pope; then it was, that the Popes, fearful of entirely losing their power over the Church, and unable to contend with the prevalent spirit of reform, joyfully acceded to the Emperor’s proposal of the union of Churches, the more readily as this union seemed very likely to be of service in sustaining their now tottering power. They might well expect to become the Supreme rulers of the whole Christian world, and then to be able to destroy with ease all the reformers of the West, as soon as the union of Churches should be attained at an Ecumenical Council.

Thus the Council, at which it was purposed to bring about the union of Churches, offered great advantages both to the Emperor and the Pope.

The negotiations between Constantinople and Rome concerning the union of Churches began in the lifetime of the Emperor, Manuel Palaeologus. Pope Martin V, influenced by the Greek legate Eudaemon, had most graciously accepted the Emperor’s proposal, and sent letters to him and the patriarch Joseph, elected patriarch from Metropolitan of Ephesus (1416). The Constantinopolitans found tokens of the Pope’s disposition to peace in the fact that he styled the Patriarch brother; that he gave his consent to the marriage of two princesses of the Roman faith, with John and Theodore the Emperor’s sons; and lastly, that he sent indulgences for those about to defend the newly erected fortifications in Morea. The Emperor and the Patriarch returned thanks to the Pope for his interest in the proposed union of Churches, noticing at the same time, that in their opinion an Ecumenical Council offered the only means of restoring peace to the Church. This Council, said they, free from external influence, and avoiding unnecessary disputes, could well investigate the causes of disagreement between the Churches, and as soon as its decision, founded on the doctrine taught by the ancient Fathers of the Church, should be sincerely and unanimously received, then could the union take place. To this the Emperor subjoined a petition for aid against the Turks. Martin published a bull, inviting all European monarchs to join in the extirpation of the Turks, at the same time ordering his Bishops to preach a crusade against them (July 10,1420); appointed the Cardinal of S. Angelohis legate in Constantinople, with instructions to treat about the peace, and then in order to meet the expenses of the proposed Council demanded pecuniary aid from the Archbishops of Cologne, Mayence, and Treves.

On receiving from Constantinople the sudden news, that the Turks had made several movements hindering the convocation of a Council, the Pope delayed his projected plans, and sent his nuncio, Antonio Massana, to make some preliminary arrangements as to the place and time of the Council, and the conditions under which the union might take place. The Emperor received the nuncio very graciously (Sept. 16, 1422), and had already named the day for treating on the conditions, when all of a sudden he was taken to his bed, struck by a fit of apoplexy, and was thus obliged to entrust all State affairs to his son John.

After much delay, Antonio managed at length to lay the Papal demands first before the Emperor, and then before the Patriarch, in the presence of the other Bishops. The nuncio declared, that the Pope heartily wished for the union, demanding only that the Emperor should, according to his promise, receive the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and obey it; that the Pope is agreeable to a convocation of a Council, but wishes to know when and where it will be convened. In answer to this unexpected demand, a letter was sent from Constantinople, stating, that the Emperor gave no unconditional consent to the union, but only promised to convene a Council like unto the seven Ecumenical Councils, and assent to all the decisions of the Fathers, made by them under the inspiration of the Holy Ghost. The Emperor fixed upon Constantinople for the Council, but could not determine the time of its session, as the town was then threatened by the Turks. In the end of his letter, the Emperor on his part demanded that the Pope should oblige all the Christian monarchs of Europe to declare war against the unbelievers.

The Pope laid the Emperor’s answer before the Council convened first at Pavia, and then removed to Sienna, for settling the affairs of the Western Church. But as this same Council was soon after broken up by Martin, who feared its decision might prove unfavorable to him, the project of union remained without any results at all.

In the meantime, John, who looked upon the union as the only means for bettering the condition of his empire, made his way to Sigismund, Emperor of Germany, and tried his utmost to incline him to a war against the Turks. Sigismund, who was then himself warring with the Hussites, simply advised John to bring on the union as soon as possible.

Acting upon this advice, and true to the promise given to the Pope, through the nuncio, John, on his return from Hungary, renewed his negotiations with Rome concerning the Council; but this time the legates found their former proposition of assembling the Council at Constantinople strenuously opposed by the Pope. The Cardinals, with strange assurance, told them, that "the Church of Rome is the mother, the Eastern Church the daughter; it is not usual for the mother to go to the daughter, but the daughter to go to the mother -" and then demanded the convocation of the Council in Italy. To keep his part of the compact, the Pope promised to send ships and an army to defend the town of Constantinople, and pay the Greeks 100,000 florins to cover the expenses of their journey to the Council, and living during its session. The Greek legates refused to accede to such a proposal without the Emperor’s consent. To give more force to his demand, the Pope sent back with them his own legate Andrew, Archbishop of Colossus, who, born a Greek, had afterwards joined the Church of Rome. At first the Emperor apparently consented to go to Italy; but after asking the Patriarch’s advice, he retracted his words, and dismissed the Papal legate without any answer, at the same time sending his general, Jagaris, and Macarius, the Protosyncellus, with a note to the Pope, the contents of which, Syropulus writes, as well as the Pope’s answer to it, are unknown to us.

Day by day the relations of the empire to the Sultan were becoming more and more embarrassing. In April, 1430, he took Thessalonica by force of arms; in October Joannina was also his conquest. Harassed on all sides, the Emperor was brought to the necessity of acceding to the Papal demands. He forthwith sent an embassy to Rome, with his consent to Martin’s proposal.

The Patriarch, though in public he agreed to the Emperor’s wish, and obediently to his will asked the Pope’s consent and aid to the union of Churches, nevertheless, in private, when in company with the more intimate of his Clergy, told them that he would on no account go to the Council in Italy. "To be paid by the Pope," said he, "means, to recognize his authority over myself. And how shall a hireling slave refuse obedience to his master? Think, also, what state shall we be in, if, once in a strange land, we meet with a refusal to pay our expenses and give us the means of returning home And why not convoke a Council here in Constantinople? Those who come here from the West will be in no need of our help. If even 100,000 aspres were required, they might easily be collected from the Bishops. The Russian Metropolitan alone will bring as much to the Emperor, who can well spare 20,000 out of it; as much can be obtained from the Archbishops of Georgia and Servia; the Eastern Patriarchs can give 2,000, or at least 1,000 florins; our rich folk will readily give 1,000 each, some 600, others 300 and 100 aspres." So thought the Patriarch; but the Emperor had other plans.

The legates came to Rome only in time to be present at Martin’s death-bed, (Feb. 20, 1431). He was succeeded by Eugenius IV, (March 3,1431). In his letter to the Emperor and Patriarch, the new Pope agreed to assemble a Council in Italy, but evinced no great energy in its cause. The Greeks were very much offended with several of his expressions, and rather troubled with some demands not mentioned to them by Martin. Eugenius was also put into a very perplexing position, as the sums collected by Martin for the assembling of the Council had been embezzled by his relations, so that Eugenius was obliged to enter into open war with them

But very soon the Council of Basle made the Pope more attentive to the scheme of the union of Churches, and induced him to lay aside his pride and arrogance while in intercourse with the Emperors of the East.

Eugenius soon after the opening of the Council of Basle, (July 23, 1431) noticed that the Council intended to act in the same spirit of independence from the Pope, as its predecessor the Council of Constance. This determined him to close the Council, (Dec. 18, 1431) and fix upon another one at Bologna, to be held in a year and a half’s time, under plea that the Greeks had promised to come to Italy for the union. But the Council of Basle, backed by the Emperor Sigismund’s authority and the interest of all the German princes, and France, gave the Pope a very decisive answer, stating, that the Council does not intend changing its place of convocation, or finishing its business in hand, but rather means to set itself to the extirpation of heresies, the amelioration of morals, and restoration of peace; and hopes at the same time that Pope Eugenius will favour the Council opened under his own auspices and those of his predecessor. At the same time, the Council confirmed the Constance decree respecting the submission of every person, the Pope included, to the authority of the Council; demanded the Pope’s appearance at it; threatening, in case of his refusal, to judge him according to the laws of the Church. The Pope, at one time fearing decisive steps on the part of the Council, at another oppressed by his discontented subjects, who compelled him to fly from Rome, was obliged to accede to the demands of the Fathers of Basle (Dec. 15, 1433), and sent his plenipotentiaries to sit at the Council.

During these disputes the Council had, of its own accord, opened negotiations with the Greek Emperor; for Andrew, Archbishop of Colossus, sent by the Pope to negotiate with the Council had persuaded its members that the Greeks sincerely desired the union of the Churches.

Having sent Anthony, a Bishop, and Albertus, a Doctor, to Constantinople, the Council invited the Greeks to join, bringing forward, as an inducement to them, the superiority of the Council’s authority to that of the Pope, and its better ableness to bring about the union; showing also that many kings, and even the Emperor Sigismund, sided with it, and that therefore there were more hopes of aid for the Greeks from the Council than from the Pope, whose glory was fast ebbing away.

The Emperor John, notwithstanding he had already begun negotiating with Eugenius, assented to the advantageous proposals of the Council and sent his ambassadors to Basle with letters from himself and the Patriarch, authorizing them to agree to anything decided upon by the Council, with their consent, and conducive to the peace of the Churches. Among these ambassadors was Isidore, hegumen of the monastery of S. Demetrius, and afterwards Metropolitan of Russia.

Eugenius, on learning of the Emperor’s embassy to the Council, contrary to his former plan, informed the Emperor of his readiness to convene a Council in Constantinople. One. can explain such a change in Eugenius’s tactics by supposing that he could not part with his idea of breaking up the Council, notwithstanding he was then at peace with it. The present circumstances seemed very opportune for his plans Unaware what success his negotiations with the Council of Basle would meet with, the Emperor consented to the Pope’s proposal, informing the Council of such a step on his part.

In the meantime the Emperor’s ambassadors at Basle, after a long deliberation with the Council deputies, entered into a treaty with them (Sept. 17, 1434). They declared, that (1) if the Council for the union of Churches is to be convoked at Constantinople, all the expenses connected with it will be paid by the Emperor; in the contrary case, the Western Church must aid the Greeks (2). The Council may be convoked, besides Constantinople, in Calabria, in Milan, or Ancona, or in any other seaport town; in Bologna, or some other Italian town; out of Italy, in Vienna, Buda, or in Savoy. (3). The ambassadors promised that the Emperor, Patriarch, and other necessary persons would come to the Council. On hearing these conditions, the Council agreed to take upon itself the expenses necessary for the maintenance and journey to Constantinople and back of the Emperor and Bishops; promised to send a fleet and army to defend Constantinople in the absence of the Emperor; showed readiness to convene the Council in any of the above-mentioned places except Constantinople itself; and lastly, promised the Pope’s consent to all these conditions. To have this treaty ratified by the Emperor, three members of the Clergy were sent to Constantinople — John of Ragusa, Henry Manger, and Simon Freyron, who brought the Greeks 8,000 florins to prepare with for the journey.

Christopher, the Papal legate, arrived at the same time as the ambassadors of Basle; for the Council, on coming to know of the agreement made between the Pope and the Emperor, had represented to the Pope how contrary to the honour of the Emperor, Pope, and Council it was to break treaties solemnly made; how great a danger threatened Constantinople, surrounded as it was by the Turks. Eugenius, though in his epistle to the Council of Basle (Feb. 22, 1435) he insisted on the opening of the Council in Constantinople, had sent off his own plenipotentiary with the legates from Basle, who was ordered to confirm all the decisions made by the Council; but in reality secret instructions were given him by the Pope, to hinder the Council as much as possible, to disconcert its relations to the Greeks, and principally to work upon the aged Patriarch, who of all was most inclined for the assembling of the Council in Constantinople.

On coming to the Emperor’s presence, the ambassadors of Basle endeavoured to persuade him to convene the Council in Basle instead of any of the other places mentioned. The Emperor inclined to their proposal. But before giving his full consent, he formed a committee of clergy and laymen to look over the treaty, or rather the decree of the Council of Basle.

In the very beginning of the decree, amongst many other strange expressions, there was one as follows: "The Fathers are assembled at the Ecumenical Council (of Basle) to extirpate the newly risen heresy of the Bohemians (Hussites) and the ancient heresy of the Greeks" Great was the astonishment of the Orthodox on reading these words, insulting to all the Church, and instantly it was demanded, that these words should either be omitted or corrected. The ambassadors pleaded as an excuse, that the words so offensive to the Greeks were owing to the fault of the writer of the decree, and even tried to put all the blame on the Greeks themselves, as they had heard the decree read at the Council, and might then have demanded the correction of expressions unpleasant to them. At last it was decided to make a new preface to the decree, and send it over to Basle to receive the Council seal. The other parts of the treaty were received without a word. As to the place for the Council, that was to be fixed upon as soon as the Greeks should be ready to start.

The ratification of all these things by the Pope’s legate was the next thing demanded. After many vain efforts to avoid a decisive answer, the legate told the Greeks, that he had the Pope’s authority to ratify, and did ratify all arrangements made until that time, and as a proof of his words showed the Council the Papal decree, which indeed authorized him to act as he did.

Thus the decree was copied and sent to Basle with the letters from the Emperor, his brother Constantine, and the Patriarch (Nov. 1435), containing besides the former conditions, a new demand of the Pope’s personal appearance at the Council, as the Head of the Latin Church and the West

The following year the revised decree was sent from Basle with the Council seal. The Emperor began to assemble the Bishops. Legates with letters and presents were sent into different provinces of the Eastern Church. The holy Fathers began to assemble in Constantinople. Georgia sent two Bishops and a royal minister; Trebizond sent a Metropolitan and a legate; the Metropolitan of Moldovlachia also arrived with his suite. Isidore, a short time before this ordained Metropolitan of Russia, was ordered on his departure for Moscow to arrange affairs, so as for Russia also to take part in the union of Churches, and to bring Russian legates and Bishops back with him to Constantinople. An embassy was also sent to the despot of Servia, but neither letter, nor legate was ever received from him. The envoys sent to the Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, brought back letters from them, in which the Patriarchs, though refusing to appear personally at the Council, at the same time named their representatives. The Alexandrian Patriarch chose Antony Metropolitan of Heraclea, and Marcus Eugenicus, then as yet a plain monk; the Patriarch of Antioch chose Joasaph of Ephesus, and the Emperor’s confessor, Gregory; the Patriarch of Jerusalem named Dionysius of Sardis, and the Russian Metropolitan Isidore. All these appointments were made under the direction of the envoy, conformably with the Emperor’s wish, and even without any preliminary consent of the Patriarch of Constantinople.

In the γράμματα given to the Patriarchal vicars (επiτροποι) the Patriarchs authorized them to give their consent only to such things as were conformable with the rules of the Councils and the writings of the fathers. Such conditions were anything but agreeable to John the envoy from Basle, and the Emperor; they were found to be too mean for the patriarchal vicars, as limiting too much their liberty of action. The Emperor demanded that the Patriarch should send new instructions writing them in a form already sent to them. The demand was complied with, and besides this, the Patriarchs changed some of the appointments.

Having dismissed the envoys to the Eastern Fathers, the Emperor informed the Pope of his readiness to start for the Council with the Patriarch and clergy. Another envoy was dispatched to the Fathers of Basle with a demand, that the promised galleys should be sent to Constantinople by the autumn.

In the mean time the Emperor assembled a council of the most illustrious nobles out of the clergy and laity, well known for their learning, and bade them enter into some preliminary discussions about the approaching dispute with the Latins. Cantacuzene, one of the highest nobles in the empire, and a strict upholder of Orthodoxy, said, that the first subject for the Council ought to be the addition to the symbol of faith, as one of the principal points in dispute between the Churches. Georgius Scholarius, the most learned man of his time, gave his advice, remarking, that, in order to reconcile the Churches, the Council must carefully investigate the disputed doctrine, and confirm it with the clear and incontrovertible words of the Church Teachers. Should the Emperor seek the union from political views, then there is no need of troubling many persons; two or three envoys alone could very well end the affair. The Emperor himself was far from wishing the Greeks to give way to the Latins without any dispute. For this reason it was determined to look over the works of the former defenders of Orthodoxy, written during their disputes with the Latins, and especially the works of Nilus Cavasilas. It was also intended to send to Mount Athos for some of the old books, but these were never received. Lastly, came the discussion as to the persons fit to be sent to the Council, among whom was one Nilus Tarchaniotes; but the Emperor fearing that Nilus, being a monk, would be too firm in his opinions, and thus spoil the whole affair, would not agree to send him.

In the meantime great disturbances were going on at Basle between the members of the Council, who could not agree as to where the Synod should be assembled, and found the proposed sum insufficient for paying the Greeks the expenses of their voyage and stay. A final rupture between them and the Pope was the result. The greater part of the Council resolved to hold a Council at Basle, and in case of the Greeks disagreeing to this, — at Avignon or some city in Savoy; to cover expenses, — indulgences were liberally promised to those who would materially aid the holy cause of the union, and a tithe was to be collected from the Western Clergy. Nevertheless the ambassador who arrived from Constantinople with the news of the Greeks’ readiness to start for the Council (Feb. 7,1437) opposed the plan of assembling the Council either at Basle or at Avignon, as these towns were not named in the Emperor’s treaty with the Council; he would not even agree to any town in Savoy for the Council, though that was named in the treaty, under the plea, that the Greeks applied this name not to the province itself, but to the towns belonging to the Duke of Savoy in Italy. The Pope also, ever aiming at the dissolution of the Council of Basle, sent his Legate there announcing his disapproval both of the places named for the Council session, and of the means for collecting money for the Greeks. On the 7th of May, 1437, ballot was resorted to, in order to put an end to all dissension, two-thirds of the members voting for the former towns, and the rest for Florence or Udino. Both parties wrote down their votes, which were read in the Cathedral, and the Council seal was then affixed to the decision carried by the majority of votes. It was then that the weaker party had recourse to a very uncreditable action: in the night the Council seal was carried off and affixed to their own decision. The Pope, availing himself of all these disturbances, ratified the decision of the weaker party, favourable to his own views (29th June), though afterwards he changed his mind and fixed upon Ferrara for the Council. Meanwhile the discontented members leaving Basle sided with the Pope. Among them was Julian Caesarini, who, in after time, played a prominent part in the acts of the Ferraro-Florentine Council.

In order to anticipate the arraignments of the Council of Basle, the Pope sent off some galleys with a legate to Constantinople, and three Bishops inviting the Emperor and Greek Bishops to a Council in Italy. The Emperor’s arrival in Italy was an event of great importance to the Pope. As the Council of Basle had promised that the Pope should, as a matter of course, take part in the union of Churches, and Eugenius himself would have nothing to do with the Council, it became very evident that the Council would soon pass its judgment against him, and elect another Pope.

The legate declared that the Pope had made peace with the fathers of the Council; that the Council was dissolved, and another was to be convened in Italy. At the same time, a learned Greek, George of Trebizond, who then lived in the West and was a son of the Latin Church, wrote to the Emperor, and assured him that during the distorted condition of the Western Church — during the contests between the Pope and the Council — the appearance of the Emperor in Italy on the Pope’s side would of itself alone terminate all disputes.

The Emperor had already. given orders for all appointed to attend the Council — to get ready for the voyage. But twenty days had scarcely elapsed since the arrival of the Papal ships, when suddenly the galleys promised by the Council of Basle entered the Bosphorus. The rivals would have engaged each other in a naval fight, if the Emperor had not restrained them. The Papal legates and those of Basle spared neither efforts nor money to press the Greeks to their separate views. But soon the real state of Western affairs became evident to the Greeks, and made them still more puzzled which party to join. The Legates of Basle declared that peace had been, and was at the time impossible between the Council and the Pope. One of them, a long resident in Constantinople, advised the Patriarch, as a friend, not to go either to Basle or to Italy. Many of the Bishops inclined the Emperor to the same step. Even Sigismund sent a courier to Constantinople, persuading the Emperor to delay the union of Churches for a time, until the internal dissentions in the Western Church came to an end. Lastly, Sultan Murad counseled the Emperor to rely more on the stability of an alliance with him than with the Latins. But, notwithstanding all these counsels and advises, the Emperor, rejecting the proposals of the Council of Basle, determined to sail for Italy in the galleys of Rome.

As soon as the voyage to Italy was decided upon, the Patriarch chose the Bishops who were to accompany him to the Council. They were twenty-two in number, including those sent from Trebizond, Georgia, and Moldavia, viz.: — Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus; Dorotheus of Trebizond; Antony of Heraclea; Metrophanes of Cyzicus, Bessarion of Sardis, Macarius of Nicomedia, Dionysius of Sardis; and the Metropolitans of Ternovo, Monemvasia, Lacedaemon, Amasia, Mitylene, Stauropolis, Moldovlachia, Rhodes, Melenicus, Drama Joannina, Silistria, Anchialus, and Georgia, with one Bishop. At the same time the Patriarchal γράμματα were given to the Vicars, in whose election some changes were made. The Metropolitan of Heraclea was appointed Vicar of the Patriarchate of Alexandria; the Emperor’s Chaplain, Gregory, with the Russian Metropolitan, of the Patriarchate of Antioch; the Metropolitan of Ephesus and Sardis of the Patriarchate of Jerusalem.

First in learning, firmness of character, and orthodoxy among the Greek Bishops, was Mark, Metropolitan of Ephesus. A native of Constantinople, he, in his youth, received an education suitable to his age, and especially gave himself up to theological studies and the practice of eloquence. He was Principal of the Constantinopolitan school, and acquired so great a reputation for his sermons, that many persons from other provinces often asked him to write a sermon for such and such a festival. Belonging to the κλήρος of the great Constantinopolitan Church, he chose to seclude himself from the world and entered the Monastery of Mangana. Here, in a lonely cell, invisible even to his relations, he made the study of the Holy Scriptures and the Works of the Fathers the exclusive and favourite study of his mind and heart. This was how Mark came to acquire a thorough knowledge of the principles of the Orthodox Faith. His clear, disciplined mind quickly saw the errors of the enemies of Orthodoxy, and found a ready apology for the truth; his deep religious feeling sustained him in the contest, and he would sooner die than turn traitor to the truth.

Bessarion, like Mark, was also one of the most learned men of his time. Well versed in theological science, he at the same time evinced such facilities of speech, that even the Greeks avowed his superiority in this respect over their favourite, Mark. Besides these qualities, he had acquired renown among his contemporaries for being a subtle philosopher and warm defender of Plato. He was the favourite of the Emperor John Palaeologus, who sought his advice on nearly everything, when about to depart for the Council. But failings he had also: that firmness of character, that pure and incorruptible love of the truth, that soundness in the development of ideas, — traits so characteristic in Mark, — were not to be found in Bessarion. His egotism was likely to make him very soon break his friendship with one who was evidently becoming his rival. This is why Bessarion could never be a trusty coadjutor of Mark, in a cause to join which he was called upon by the Emperor.

Joseph, the Patriarch of Constantinople, whose high rank made him an influential person in the Council, proved by his administration that he was hardly equal to his office in the Church and the circumstances of the time. Old, weak, and undecided, he allowed himself to be influenced by the laity in nearly every step he took, and, as a matter of course, could not successfully defend the Orthodox party of the Council against the attacks of a strong opposition. At times, it is true, he showed a sincere desire of guarding Orthodoxy from her enemies; but sound faculties and firmness of character were wanting in him, to enable him to enter into an open contest with these enemies. While nourishing hopes of success and glory among his posterity, he had always a ready answer in case of unsuccess: "If even," he used to say, "the Latins force us to something, we will always keep to the sound doctrine of the Fathers. Let them threaten us with tortures; we will sooner suffer any pain than turn traitors to anything received by us from the Ecumenical Councils and the holy teachers of the Church: we will either be martyrs in deed, or martyrs in will." But time proved Joseph false to his own words.

Six spiritual lords of the great Constantinopolitan Church were to accompany the Patriarch to the Council, in the capacity of his councilors. Among them was the great Ecclesiarch, Syropulus, author of the history of this Council; also three hegumens, the Emperor’s lower chaplain, three monks (hieromonachs), and several members of the clergy. Gregory the emperors chaplain, called Mammas, possessing particular rights as vicar, first of the Patriarch of Antioch, and then of Alexandria, closely attached to the Emperor, was nevertheless incapable of using his rights to advantage in the cause of the Church. His character — mean, irritable, without any set rules of conduct, and at the same time egotistical — repelled every one who came into contact with him, and made him an object of universal hate. It really is astonishing how such a man could creep into the confidence of the Emperor, a man always so cautious and prudent.

Many laymen also accompanied the Emperor to Italy. Besides the Emperor’s brother, Demetrius, the despot, several court officers and learned men also joined the Imperial suite. High in the list of these persons, on account of his great knowledge of theology and philosophy, stood George Scholarius. Enjoying the confidence and good-will of John, he was at the same time on friendly terms with Mark of Ephesus, his teacher. The celebrated though aged philosopher, Gemistes Pletho, was also taken to the Council. His advice was sought by the Emperor at the beginning of negotiations with the Church of Rome. In the Council he was a warm defender of orthodoxy, and at the same time revived in the Florentines a love for Plato’s philosophy, by his animated lectures on that subject while in Florence.

November 27th, 1437, the Emperor, Patriarch, and other members of the clergy and laity, after many Te Deums in the great Church of Constantinople and the monastery of the Hodigetria, set out of their voyage..

In the meantime Pope Eugenius, on the 18th of October in the same year, published a bull, in which it was said, that for the more advantageous union of the Churches and the bettering of Church affairs, brought by the Council of Basle into a condition worse than their former one, a Council was about to be convened in Ferrara, and that all the cardinals, bishops, and abbots are to remove immediately from Basle to Ferrara, to discuss ecclesiastical affairs. Nicholas Albergati, Cardinal of the Holy Cross of Jerusalem, at the Pope’s commission came to Ferrara with several bishops (Jan. 8,1438), and opened the Council. When Eugenius himself arrived with his cardinals to the second sitting of the Council (Feb. 14), there were already more than seventy bishops present. Then was read the Papal bull, excommunicating all present at the Council of Basle, degrading all the members of the clergy and laity from their respective ranks, and bidding the city magistrates expel all the Fathers of the Council from Basle, and that too in the course of a month, under pain of excommunication.

The Council of Basle for its own part (in the sittings of October 12, 1437, and January 24, and March 24, in 1438) declared the Council of Ferrara and all its acts illegal; and after many invitations to Eugenius to come to Basle, excommunicated him, and finally demanded that all the bishops assembled in Ferrara should, in the course of a month, come to Basle, under pain of ecclesiastical punishment for disobedience. Thus arose a new dissension in the Western Church; and what was still worse, it was caused by those very persons who took upon themselves the duty of reconciling the Church of the East with their own.

On the arrival of the Greeks at Venice, the Pope first sent Nicholas Albergati and then Julian Caesarini, inviting the Emperor and Patriarch to Ferrara. Here, again, the Greeks questioned themselves, whether to go to Basle or to Ferrara. The Doge of Venice advised them to wait for the arrival of a new embassy from Basle. On the other hand, the Legate Christopher did his utmost to prevail upon the Emperor and Patriarch to join the Pope, more than once betaking himself to presents and the most eloquent persuasions. At last the Greeks fell into his snares. The three weeks spent in Venice acted so beneficially on most of the Greeks, and even on some of the bishops, that they called it the promised land. Here was another dangerous rock for the future defenders of orthodoxy! Comparing the miserable state of their own empire, then nearly overpowered by the Turks, with the luxury, liberty, and comforts of Western life, the weaker Greeks were easily tempted to a peace, promising much for their earthly welfare.

At Francolino, a village situated at about an hour and a half s ride from Ferrara, the Emperor was met by the Papal legate, the city governor, and other town officials. The next day (March 4) the Emperor, accompanied by his suite, the Pope’s bishops and the officials of Ferrara, made his solemn entry into the town. The Pope, with the cardinals, bishops, and abbots, awaited him in the palace. On the Emperor’s entrance the Pope arose, embraced him, and giving him his hand, which the Emperor kissed, seated him beside himself. After a private conversation, the Emperor retreated to the palace prepared for him.

The Patriarch arrived at Ferrara later than the Emperor. As soon as Joseph neared Francolino, a magnificent galley was sent out for him, and brought him to land with the bishops and the rest of the clergy. The next day the Emperor informed the Patriarch that the Pope expected him to bend his knees before him, and kiss his shoe. This was a sad blow for the Patriarch, who little expected such a welcome from his brother in Christ. While at Venice, he said to one in the Pope’s confidence: "If the Pope is older than I am, I will respect him as a father; if my equal in age, I shall look upon him as my brother; if younger, he shall be as a son to me." In the afternoon six bishops were sent to congratulate Joseph on his arrival, and demand the usual obeisance to the Pope. The Patriarch told the bishops straightforwardly that he could only consent to a brotherly embrace; and, assembling his bishops, indignantly told them of the papal demand. The Metropolitan of Trebizond reminded him that he was advised, while in Venice, to think upon the subject carefully; but then his answer was, that the Pope would receive all with honour and respect. The Metropolitan of Heraclea declared, that he and the Metropolitan of Monemvasia, when presented to the Pope, did not kiss his shoes, and cared very little for his anger. Meanwhile, the Emperor sent another messenger, saying, that he was still disputing with the Pope as to the means of preserving the Patriarch’s dignity. Joseph made the following answer to the bishops sent a second time to him by the Pope: "Tell me, why does the Pope appropriate such privileges to himself? What Council, what Church canon has confirmed this custom? If the Pope is the successor of the Apostle Peter, we are the successors of the other Apostles. And did the other Apostles kiss Peter’s feet? Who has ever heard of this?" The legates answered that the custom was of ancient date, and that bishops, kings, the Emperor of Germany, and even the Cardinals, who are higher than the Emperor, remain true to it. But the Patriarch with great decision kept to his former demand of a brotherly welcome from the Pope, promising, in case of refusal, not to land, or let any of his bishops do so either. At last the Pope acquiesced to Joseph’s demand, pretending a sincere desire for peace.

On the 8th of March, four cardinals, about twenty-five bishops, the city governor, with many court officers, came to the Patriarch, and early in the morning accompanied his with his clergy to the papal palace. The Pope, to conceal his forced humility from the people, would not give the Eastern fathers a solemn audience, but received them in his cell. On the entrance of the Patriarch, with six Metropolitans, Eugenius arose, and gave him a brotherly kiss. The rest of the bishops next came up, six at a time, and kissed the Pope’s hand and right cheek. During the presentation of the Greeks, the Patriarch alone sat on a low stool, to the left of the Pope, behind the legate Christopher, who acted as an interpreter: the other bishops remained standing. The same day the Patriarch asked the Pope’s permission to officiate in the liturgy according to the rites of the Greek Church.

The arrangement of seats for the members of the Council in the cathedral of S. George was also the subject of many disputes. The Latins wished the Papal throne to be erected in the center of the church, and the Latin and Greek Bishops to take their places at the right and left side of the throne. On meeting with a refusal in this from the Greeks, the Latins determined to move the Papal throne to the right aisle, and there construct places for the Latin Bishops, leaving the opposite side for the Emperor, Patriarch, and the other Greeks. Next to the Papel seat, and throne was created for the Emperor of Germany; then followed the seats for the Cardinals and Bishops. On the left hand side a similar throne was constructed for the Greek Emperor; next to him a throne for the Patriarch and seats for the Eastern Bishops. In the center of the church a separate place was left for the speakers, or those, who were to enter into dispute with each other. But even then the Greeks experienced much that was unpleasant. The Papal throne differed a good deal, not only from the Patriarch’s, but even the Emperor’s throne, by being more elevated and of richer material. The Patriarch complained. The Emperor simply remarked, that there was nothing but worldly vanity in the arrangement of the Council, contrary to the rules of the Church.

Desiring to put in order the affairs of the Empire with the aid of the Western monarchs, John expressed his wish to the Pope, that not only the Western Bishops should preside at the Council, but also the sovereigns of Europe, or at least their representatives. The Pope at first refused to comply with the Emperor’s wish, seeing an impediment for it in the different wars and dissensions between the different kingdoms of Europe; but at the Emperor’s urgent request, he promised to send his legate to the Kings and Princes of Europe with invitations to the Council. On this account the discussions on doctrinal subjects were put off for the space of four months. But in order not to lose time, the Pope, with the Emperor’s consent, determined on opening the Council to entice a few Bishops from Basle by letting them know of the opening of the Council, gain over the general opinion and thus strengthen the worker party. According to the Popes arraignment, delegates from both sides were to occupy themselves during these four months with private discussions on subjects of disagreement between the Greeks and Latins.

At the same time, the Emperor with great difficulty persuaded the Pope to allow the Greeks money for their maintenance, instead of the daily rations of food they were receiving like beggars, quite contrary to the agreements made in the treaty. Generally speaking, the Greeks made constant complaints about this during the whole time of the Council session in Ferrara and Florence. The Pope found this the best way of making the Greeks obedient. For whenever the Greeks refused to comply with any of his wishes, he immediately stopped their pay, so that many of the Bishops were obliged to sell their clothes. But as soon as the Greeks agreed to his proposals, their wages were immediately given out as a sort of reward for their obedience. So it was at this very time. As long as the Greeks disputed about the Council seats, no money was given them. But when the disputes were ended, their monthly allowance was paid out.

A short time before the opening of the Council, new changes took place in the appointments of the vicars of Patriarchs. Gregory the chaplain was appointed second vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria, together with the Metropolitan of Heraclea, and Mark of Ephesus, Vicar of Antioch with the Russian Isidore. It seems very evident, that the Emperor wished by means of these changes, to find in case of need among these representatives of the Patriarch at least one on his own side. With this object in view he appointed Gregory and Isidore, persons both very weak in character, together with the firm defenders of Orthodoxy — Antony of Heraclea and Mark of Ephesus. Dionysius the vicar of the Patriarch of Jerusalem was then ill and died soon after the opening of the Council. Ash Wednesday, the 9th of April, was fixed upon by the Pope for the opening of the Council, The Patriarch refused to be present under plea of illness, but gave his consent to the opening.

The Pope was the first to enter the cathedral, and immediately sat down on his throne in the northern aisle. After him came the Emperor, with his brother, the patriarchal vicars, and the Bishops, with the lower orders of the clergy, and sat down opposite to the Pope. The Latin Church was represented by eight Cardinals, a great number of Bishops and lower clergy. On a desk in the center of the church before the altar, the gospel was placed, and on its sides the statues of S. Peter and S. Paul.1 As soon as silence was enforced, the Pope exclaimed: "Blessed be the Lord God of Israel!" Some psalms were then sung, and prayers said, after which the Greek Archdeacon read the patriarchal decree inviting all to take part in the Council. "All the higher orders of the clergy, kings, and princes," the decree said, "are to send their vicars and ambassadors, if not able to come themselves. Whosoever will not come to the appointed time, and afterwards will not receive the decrees of this Council, shall be excommunicated from the Church." The Papal decree was then read, relative to the opening of an Ecumenical Council in Ferrara, and then this first short sitting was closed by hymns.

The Pope sent copies of this decree to the Western monarchs, urging them to dispatch their envoys to the Council. But all the expectations of the Pope proved fruitless. The Council of Basle continued to threaten the Papal throne, and threatened to excommunicate any one who should only dare to go to the Council convoked by the Pope. It is true, that the imperial court on Sigismund’s death, declared that they would neither receive any Council decrees against the Pope, nor those of the Pope against the Council, but that they receive both the Council and the Pope. But not one of the western monarchs either approved of the Council convened by the Pope, or wished to oppose the Council of Basle, and sent no envoys to the Council convoked in Italy. It was only towards the end of the Council sittings at Ferrara, that the envoys of the Duke of Burgundy arrived; on entering the Council they kissed the Pope’s slipper, but showed no marks of respect to the Emperor, behaving just as if he had never been present.

After Easter (April 13) the Pope required the Greeks to commence the private discussions. The Greeks delayed, waiting for the envoys of Basle. But at last, after the Pope had repeated his demands three times, ten persons were chosen from both sides, who were to assemble three times a week in the church of a monastery, to discuss upon the different points of dispute. The Greeks chose from their side — the Metropolitans of Ephesus, Monemvasia, Nicaea, Lacedaemon, Anchialus, and five other members of the Council. The imperial officer Manuel Jagaris, was also ordered to be present. Strict orders were given by the Emperor that only Mark and Bessarion should enter into disputes with the Latins, who were, nevertheless, in case of necessity, to seek counsel from the rest; that nothing was to be said on the more serious points of dispute, and that a report should be made to him at the end of every sitting. Generally speaking, the Emperor wished that the impossibility of reconciling Orthodoxy with the Latin doctrine should not become too evident before he had attained the object in view.

Soon after his arrival in Ferrara, Mark of Ephesus, at the instigation of Cardinal Julian, determined to write a letter of thanks to the Pope for the assembling of the Council; and noticed in it, that if the Church of Rome wishes to finish as well as she has begun, then she must retract her doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost, and not perform the Liturgy in azymes. The Emperor on learning this nearly gave Mark over to the judgment of the Greek Council for daring to express such thoughts to the Latins. And even now, when authorizing the chosen persons to dispute with the Latins, he bade them not reject the Latin opinions simply on account of their disagreeing with the Greek doctrine, but to look upon every question as not yet decided, and then by universal efforts attain its solution, looking upon the opinion of all as final and decisive. The Latins chose for carrying on disputes two cardinals, Julian Caesarini and Nicholas Albergati; Andrew, the Bishop of Colossus or Rhodes; John de Turrecremata; and several other abbots.

In the third sitting of the Council, Julian, after mutual congratulations, showed that the principal points of dispute between the Greeks and Latins were in the doctrine (a) on the procession of the Holy Ghost, (3) on azymes in the Eucharist, (γ) on purgatory, and (δ) on the Papal supremacy; and then asked them which of these subjects was to be discussed first. The Greeks delayed discussing the first point till the opening of the Ecumenical Council, and promised to give a speedy answer about the others as soon as the Emperor’s advice should be heard. The Emperor fixed upon one of the two last subjects to commence discussions upon. The Latins agreed to discuss upon purgatory.

In the fifth sitting (June 4) Cardinal Julian gave the following definition of the Latin doctrine on purgatory: — " From the time of the Apostles," he said, "the Church of Rome has taught, that the souls departed from this world, pure and free from every taint, — namely, the souls of saints, — immediately enter the regions of bliss. The souls of those who after their baptism have sinned, but have afterwards sincerely repented and confessed their sins, though unable to perform the epitimia laid upon them by their spiritual father, or bring forth fruits of repentance sufficient to atone for their sins, these souls are purified by the fire of purgatory, some sooner, others slower, according to their sins; and then, after their purification, depart for the land of eternal bless. The prayers of the priest, liturgies, and deeds of charity conduce much for their purification. The souls of those dead in mortal sin, or in original sin, go straight to punishment.

The Greeks demanded a written exposition of this doctrine. When they received it, Mark of Ephesus and Bessarion of Nice each wrote their remarks on it, which afterwards served as a general answer to the doctrine of the Latins.

When giving in this answer (June 14th), Bessarion explained the difference of the Greek and Latin doctrine on this subject. The Latins, he said, allow that now, and until the day of the last judgment, departed souls are purified by fire, and are thus liberated from their sins; so that, he who has sinned the most will be a longer time undergoing purification, whereas he whose sins are less will be absolved the sooner, with the aid of the Church; but in the future life they allow the eternal, and not the purgatorial fire. Thus the Latins receive both the temporal and the eternal fire, and call the first the purgatorial fire. On the other hand, the Greeks teach of one eternal fire alone, understanding that the temporal punishment of sinful souls consists in that they for a time depart into a place of darkness and sorrow, are punished by being deprived of the Divine light, and are purified — that is, liberated from this place of darkness and woe — by means of prayers, the Holy Eucharist, and deeds of charity, and not by fire. The Greeks also believe, that until the union of the souls to the bodies, as the souls of sinners do not suffer full punishment, so also those of the saints do not enjoy entire bliss. But the Latins, agreeing with the Greeks in the first point, do not allow the last one, affirming that the souls of saints have already received their full heavenly reward.

In the following sitting the Latins presented a defense of their doctrine on purgatory. As much as can be concluded from the answer given by the Greeks to it, they tried to prove their doctrine by the words of 2 Mac. 12:42-46, where it is said that Judas Maccabaeus "sent to Jerusalem to offer a sin offering," remarking at the same time "that it was an holy and good thought. Whereupon he made a reconciliation for the dead, that they might be delivered from sin." They also quoted the words of Jesus Christ, "Whosoever speaketh against the Holy Ghost, it shall not be forgiven him, neither in this world, neither in the world to come" (S. Matt. 12:32). But their especial defense was founded on the words of the Apostle S. Paul (1 Cor. 3:11-15): "For other foundation can no man lay than that which is laid, which is Jesus Christ. Now if any man build upon this foundation gold, silver, precious stones, wood, hay, stubble; every man’s work shall be manifest: for the day shall declare it, for it shall be revealed by fire, and the fire shall try every man’s work, of what sort it is. If any man’s work abide which he hath built thereupon, he shall receive a reward. If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss: but he himself shall be saved, yet so as by fire." Different extracts were also made by the Latins from, the works of the Eastern Fathers — Basil the Great, Epiphanius of Cyprus, John Damascene, Dionysius the Areopagite, Theodoret, Gregory of Nyssa; and the Western — Augustine, Ambrose, and Gregory the Great. They did not also forget to quote the authority of the Church of Rome in defense of their doctrine, and to make use of their usual sophistries.

To all this the Orthodox party gave a clear and satisfactory answer. They remarked, that the words quoted from the book of Maccabees, and our Saviour’s words, can only prove that some sins will be forgiven after death; but whether by means of punishment by fire, or by other means, nothing was known for certain. Besides, what has forgiveness of sins to do with punishment by fire and tortures? Only one of these two things can happen: either punishment or forgiveness, and not both at once.

In explanation of the Apostle’s words, they quoted the commentary of S. John Chrysostom, who, using the word fire, gives it the meaning of an eternal, and not temporary, purgatorial fire; explains the words wood, hay, stubble, in the sense of bad deeds, as food for the eternal fire; the word day, as meaning the day of the last judgment; and the words saved yet so as by fire, as meaning the preservation and continuance of the sinner’s existence while suffering punishment. Keeping to this explanation, they reject the other explanation given by S. Augustine, founded on the words shall be saved, which he understood in the sense of bliss, and consequently gave quite another meaning to all this quotation. "It is very right to suppose, wrote the Orthodox teachers, "that the Greeks should understand Greek words better than foreigners. Consequently, if we cannot prove that any one of those saints, who spoke the Greek language, explains the Apostle’s words, written in Greek, in a sense different to that given by the blessed John, then surely we must agree with the majority of these Church celebrities" The expressions σωθηναι, σωζεσθε, and σωτηρια used by heathen writers, mean in our language continuance, existence (διαμενειν, ειναι). The very idea of the Apostle’s words shows this. As fire naturally destroys, whereas those who are doomed to eternal fire are not destroyed, the Apostle says that they continue in fire, preserving and continuing their existence, though at the same time they are being burned by fire. To prove the truth of such an explanation of these words by the Apostle, (ver. 11, 15) they make the following remarks. The Apostle divides all that is built upon the proposed foundation into two parts, never even hinting of any third, middle part. By gold, silver, and stones, he means virtues by hay, wood, stubble that which is contrary to virtue, i.e., bad works. Your doctrine they continue to tell the Latins, "would perhaps have had some foundation if he ( the Apostle) had divided bad works into two kinds, and had said that one kind is purified by God, and the other worthy of eternal punishment. But he made no such division; simply naming the works entitling man to eternal bliss, i.e., virtues, and those meriting eternal punishment, i.e., sins. After which he says, (Every man’s work shall be made manifest, and shows when this will happen, pointing to that last day, when God will render unto all according to their merits: ‘For the day, he says, ‘shall declare it, because it shall be revealed by fire. Evidently, this is the day of the second coming of Christ, the coming age, the day so called in a particular sense, or as opposed to the present life, which is but night. This is the day when He will come in glory, and a fiery stream shall precede Him (Dan. 7:10; Ps. 1:3; 97:3; 2 Pet. 3:12,15). All this shows us that S. Paul speaks here of the last day, and of the eternal fire prepared for sinners. ‘This fire, says he, ‘shall try every man’s work of what sort it is, enlightening some works, and burning others with the workers. But when the evil deed will be destroyed by fire, the evil doers will not be destroyed also, but will continue their existence in the fire, and suffer eternally. Whereas then the Apostle does not divide sins here into mortal and venial, but deeds in general into good and bad; whereas the time of this event is referred by him to the final day, as by the Apostle Peter also; whereas, again, he attributes to the fire the power of destroying all evil actions, but not the doors; it becomes evident that the Apostle does not speak of purgatorial fire, which even in your opinion, extends over not all evil actions, but over some of the minor sins. But these words also, ‘If any man’s work shall be burned, he shall suffer loss,’ (ζημιωθησεται, i.e. shall lose) shows that the Apostle speaks of the eternal tortures; they are deprived of the Divine light: whereas this cannot be spoken of those purified, as you say; for they not only do not lose anything, but even acquire a great deal, by being freed from evil, and clothed in purity and candour."

In answer to the words quoted by the Latins from Basil the Great (in his prayer for Pentecost), Epiphanius, John Damascene, and Dionysius the Areopagite, — the defenders of the orthodox doctrine remarked, that these quotations did not prove anything to the advantage of the Church of Rome. They could not even find the testimony of Theodoret adduced by the Latins. "Only one Father remains, they continued, "Gregory the blessed priest of Nyssa, who, apparently, speaks more to your advantage than any of the other Fathers. Preserving all the respect due to this Father, we cannot refrain from noticing, that he was but a mortal man, and man, however great a degree of holiness he may attain, is very apt to err, especially on such subjects, which have not been examined before or determined upon in a general Council by the Fathers." The orthodox teachers, when speaking of Gregory, more than once restrict their words by the expression: "if such was his idea," and conclude their discussion upon Gregory with the following words: "we must view the general doctrine of the Church, and take the Holy Scripture as a rule for ourselves not paying attention to what each has written in his private capacity (iδια)."

The Eastern teachers said, concerning the testimonies of the Western Fathers, that they were rather ignorant of them, not having any translation in Greek, and tried to excuse them by the circumstances under which they wrote, their misunderstanding the Apostle’s words (1 Cor. 3:11,15), the difficulty of drawing a general conclusion from many circumstances (founded on visions).

As regards the weight of the opinion of the Church of Rome pointed to by the Latins, it was found by the Greeks to be inconsistent with the subject then in hand.

Lastly, to the Latin sophistries, they opposed the more valid conclusions from the principles of the doctrine of Christ, from many works of the Fathers, from the parable of Lazarus, where mention is made of Abraham’ s bosom, — the place of bliss, — and of hell the place of punishment; and nothing is said of any intermediate place for temporal punishments.

The Greek answer was evidently intended to show the Latins the unsoundness of their newly-invented doctrine on the one side, and the steadfastness of the orthodox party in the faith handed down to them by the Apostles and the holy Fathers, on the other. In the course of the disputes the principal question branched off into so many light and abstract questions, that as a matter of course the solution of the chief one became still more difficult. The Latins for instance asked — where and how the angels fly? what was the substance of hell fire? The last question met with the following answer from Jasaris, the imperial officer: "the querist will get a satisfactory solution to his question, when he experiences the nature of the fire himself."

The question of purgatory not being agreed upon, another one was proposed — that about the blissful state of the righteous, alluded to by Bessarion in his treatise on the difference of the doctrines of both Churches on the condition of the departed souls. It was asked: whether the saints, departed from this life, attained entire bliss or not? Before discussing this question, the Greeks found it necessary to have a private conference with the other members of the Council. With this intention all the members assembled in the Patriarch’s cell (July 15) and read over different testimonies of the Fathers; the Emperor bade them collect their votes. Some gave a negative answer to the question, founding it on the Apostle’s words, (Heb. 11:39) others gave a positive answer. The next day, after a few disputes, the whole Council of Greek Bishops unanimously agreed, that though the souls of the saints, as souls, are already in the enjoyment of bliss, still when, at the general resurrection they will join their bodies, then their bliss will be greater; that then they will be enlightened like the sun. This was their last answer to the Latin doctrine on the state of souls after death.

What then were the fruits of these tedious discussions? Did they conduce in any manner to the solution of the principal question concerning the union of Churches? No! The Latin theologians could neither find firm proofs for their opinions, nor would they give them up. The Greeks again would not receive a doctrine not founded on any good proofs, nor could they incline the Latins to receive the orthodox doctrine.

To the misfortune of the Greeks, their own party also became divided, a circumstance which prognosticated nothing good. Bessarion, generally speaking, was not very earnest in the defense of the orthodox cause, and if he did dispute with the Latins now and then, it was only to show off his powers of speech. But meeting with a rival in Mark of Ephesus, he became still more passive in the cause of orthodoxy, and began to nourish a feeling of hatred towards Mark. Obliged to answer the Latins together with him, he usually left Mark to refute their various objections alone. It was in vain, that many prudent persons tried to reconcile Bessarion to Mark at the very commencement of the formers enmity to the latter, even calling to their aid the authority of the Patriarch, who by his meek reproofs might have ended the quarrel. The invalid Joseph would on no account meddle in this affair. Then again the cunning Gregory, offended that Mark did not find him worthy of being the vicar of the Patriarch of Alexandria, did his utmost to set Bessarion against Mark. Apparently he esteemed Mark, sat down lower than he did in the Council, voted after him, notwithstanding the privileges of a higher patriarchal throne were on his side; when his opinion was the same as Mark’s, he never spoke of himself, but always said: "I am of the same opinion as the holy Metropolitan of Ephesus." But this was sheer hypocrisy. In the presence of Bessarion and the Emperor, he placed Mark lower than the Archbishop of Nicsea, and found fault with everything he said, not caring about this self-contradiction. Thus it was, that as soon as the Greeks commenced discussions, there arose men who, separating from the true members of the Eastern Church, sacrificed the advantages of the Church to their own passions and advantages.

The disputes ended. More than three months had already elapsed since the opening of the Council. The Greeks remaining inactive, and suffering want in everything, began to feel dull and sorry that they had left their homes.

The Emperor, fearing that the discontented would prematurely leave the Council, ordered the city governor not to let any of the Greeks leave the town, nor to give any one passports without his permission and signature. He himself, having shut up the Greeks in Ferrara, settled in a monastery not far from the town, and spent his time in the field, hunting, as if he were even loth to remind himself of a business which had called him away from his Empire.

As soon as the time fixed upon for the opening of the solemn sessions of the Council had arrived, the Greeks asked the Emperor to return to town and make some arrangements about the Council. The Emperor answered, that he would not even think of opening a Council, which was to be an Ecumenical one, without the ambassadors of the Western monarchs, and a more numerous assembly of Bishops than the present one. But the members of the Council instead of increasing only diminished in number. Many fell victims to a frightful epidemic; others, from fear, retired to their homes; so that at the commencement of the solemn session, out of eleven Cardinals only five remained, and out of one hundred and fifty Bishops only fifty were present. It was at this time that the Greeks received a proof of Divine protection. None of them suffered from the epidemic.

One addition only was made to the Council in the person of Isidore, Metropolitan of Russia, who arrived on the 18th of August. He had returned to Russia after the conclusion of the treaty between the Emperor and the Council of Basle (in the end of 1436). With him was to have returned Jonah, Bishop of Riazan, sent to Greece to be ordained Metropolitan. Arriving at Moscow, Isidore was received by the Grand Duke Vasili Vasilievitch with all due honour. But soon after his arrival, he began telling the Grand Duke that the Greek Church intended to unite with the Church of Rome, that a Council had been convened by the Emperor and the Pope with this object in view,--to be followed by a solemn union of the East and West--and that it was very necessary that a representative of the Russian Church should take part in the Council. The Grand Duke answered, "Our fathers and grandfathers would not even listen to an union of the Greek and Roman laws; I myself do not wish it." Isidore urged him to consent, pleading his oath given to the Patriarch of coming to the Council. "We do not command thee to join the Council in the Latin land,’ said the Grand Duke at last, "but thou listest not, and wilt go. Remember then the purity of our faith, and bring it back with thee." Isidore swore to remain true to Orthodoxy, and (on Sep. 8, 1437) left Moscow with Abram, Bishop of Suzdal, Vassian the Archimandrite, the Priest Simeon, and other members of the clergy and laity, in all a hundred. On quitting Russia, Isidore very soon evinced a violent inclination to side with the Latins. Received in Livonia by the Bishop of Dorpat, and the Orthodox Clergy, he first saluted the Latin cross and only afterwards kissed the holy Russian icons. The companions of Isidore were horror-struck, and from that very moment lost all their confidence in him.

Eugenius was still expecting the arrival of his legate from France. And when he did arrive, the news was anything but favourable. France had secured herself from the Pope’s influence by means of the pragmatic sanction (July 7, 1438) founded on the decrees of the Council of Basle; at the same time Charles VII, King of France, prohibited his Bishops from going to Ferrara. At this juncture the Pope commenced pressing the Greeks to begin the formal discussions on the peace of the Churches. "You have been already seven months in Italy/’ he said to them, "and during that time you have signed but one paper — that announcing the opening of the Council." At length the Emperor returned to town, and after several private interviews with the Pope determined on opening the State Session of the Council on the 8th of October.

In the preliminary discussions between the Greeks it was determined to settle all disputes not by the majority of votes, which could always be more numerous in the Latin party than in the Greek one, but by the general assent of one or the other side. Otherwise — said the Greeks — the Latins will have more than two hundred votes against our thirty. It is necessary that the votes of one party, irrespectively of their number, should, when taken altogether, have as much force as the force of the opposite party’s votes. Those who shall leave the Greeks and join the Latins, and vice versa, are to be strictly punished.

Then, on calling together the six eldest Metropolitans, the Chartophylax, and Ecclesiarch, two hegumens, with a hieromonarch, and three learned Greeks — Scholarius Gemistes, and Amirutius, — the Emperor demanded their opinion as to what subject should open the discussions on the Procession of the Holy Ghost? Was it better to begin by discussing whether the doctrine of the Western Church on the procession of the Holy Ghost is Orthodox? Or, whether she had the right of making any addition to the Symbol, even if it had been a correct one? These two questions gave rise to two different opinions of the members present. Mark of Ephesus, arid Gemistes, the philosopher, chose the latter question, and most of the others joined them. Bessarion of Nicsea, Scholarius and Amirutius, demanded that the dogma itself should be discussed upon before anything else. The Emperor, joining the majority, settled that the disputes with the Latins should commence with the addition to the Symbol.

Lastly, the Emperor gave notice that, on consulting with the Cardinals, he had arranged that there should always be three Council sittings in the week; and that in case of the Emperor, Patriarch, or any of those appointed to attend the sitting, being absent, the sitting itself should not be put off to another day. The place of the absent member was to be occupied by the next one in order. Every sitting was to commence an hour and a half after sunrise, and continue till the sixth hour of the day. The Greeks gave their consent to these arrangements, signing their names to them, and demanded the right of proposing questions to the Latins. The Greek party appointed the following persons to take part:--the Metropolitans of Ephesius and Russia, the Archbishop of Nicaea, and with them Gemistes the philosopher, the Chartophylax and Skeuophylax. But in reality all the discussions with the Latins were entrusted by the Emperor to the Metropolitan of Ephesus, and the Archbishop of Nicsea, — the civil officers were forbidden to take any part in the Council affairs. The Latins, for their part, chose the Cardinals Julian Caesarini and Nicholas Albergati; the Bishops — Andrew of Rhodes, John of Forli, and two Doctors of Divinity — monks; one of whom, John, a provincial of the Dominican Order, took a special part in the Council discussions. The Cardinals announced the Pope’s will, that all the Council sittings should take place in his palace chapel, under the plea that it was not proper for the Pope and a few Bishops to make their way to the Cathedral Church through a crowd of people.

In all, fifteen sittings were held in Ferrara. Two months passed away in disputes, ending just like the former ones, in nothing at all. Both sides retained their respective opinions. The only advantage of the Greeks was, that they defended the truth.

On the appointed day the Emperor and all of the bishops assembled in the Papal palace, which was already surrounded by crowds of people. The Pope also soon made his appearance. The seats for the members of the Council were arranged just as they were before in the Church of S. George. In the center of the Chapel, between the Emperor and Pope, two benches were occupied by the twelve Greek and Latin speakers, who sat opposite to each other. By the side of the speakers stood the Greek and Latin reporters and translators.

Bessarion opened the meeting with a speech on the importance of peace between the Churches. In this speech he urged the Council not to spare any means for bringing the great enterprise to a successful end, at the same time supplicating the aid of the Holy Trinity for those assembled to investigate the truth, and for peace between the two separated parts of Christ’s one fold. He praised the Pope, Emperor, Patriarch and all present at the Council, for their sincere wish and firm resolution of reinstating peace in the Church, and begged the Pope and the Emperor to honour the Council with their constant aid and furtherance of its views. A similar speech was also made by the Latin Bishop Andrew of Rhodes.

After these preliminary speeches, Mark of Ephesus broached the chief subject of the Council discussions. "Love was bequeathed by our Lord Jesus Christ," he said, "to His disciples, and His peace He left them: but the Church of Rome began to neglect the commandment of love, and broke the peace at the present the same Church by assembling this Council, evinces a desire of reinstating the peace but this she can only accomplish by rejecting the opinion which has been and is the cause of disagreement between the Churches; and the present Council will then meet with success, when it agrees with the Canons of the former Ecumenical Councils. With this object in view, Mark then demanded, that the Canons of those Councils touching the subjects of the present disputes should be read in the Council before anything else.

This demand was just; but the Latins of course could not accede to it, as such a step would more certainly have exposed the Church of Rome. This was the very reason why they contradicted Mark then, and afterwards in a private meeting did their utmost to prevent the Greeks furthering Mark’s demand. Two Cardinals, Julian and Nicholas, with several Bishops, came to the Patriarch’s cell, and there in the presence of the Emperor and many Greek Bishops, urged the Greeks to delay the reading of the Canons, or at least to change the solemn reading of the Canons in the Council into a private investigation of them. But neither of their propositions received the consent of the Greeks. The Latins were obliged to give in, though at the same time they solemnly declared, that this reading would be for the Greeks alone, and that it had not received the general consent of the members. Everything was done to lessen the solemnity of that sitting, in which the reading was to take place. The people were not allowed to enter the Cathedral in so great a number as before. The Gospel on the desk was closed, the statues of the Apostles were placed with their faces downwards, and no candles were lit before them.

On the appointed day (16th of October) the books containing the acts of the Ecumenical Councils were brought into the Council. The referendarius under Mark’s guidance read one by one the definitions of the Councils and Fathers on the Symbol of Faith. Nicholas Secundini translated them into Latin. Mark of Ephesus now and then interrupted the readings by his remarks.

"Let us begin," said Mark, "with the acts of the Third Ecumenical Council, so famed for its symbol of the Nicene Fathers, and by the Canon of the Ephesians Fathers themselves on the preservation of the Symbol in its original condition." Thus, the seventh Canon of the Council of Ephesus and the exposition of faith drawn up at the First Ecumenical Council were read, showing that the Church strictly prohibited the use of any other creeds, after the Nicene, threatening in case of disobedience — Bishops with being deposed, and the laity with excommunication. When these Canons were read, Mark said: "The Fathers of the Council having passed this Canon, have by their own example shown a great respect for the Nicene Creed, for they would not allow the addition of Theotocos, a name so necessary in the economy of our salvation. In the Canon of the Council of Ephesus, plane reference is made to the Nicene, and now the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, in which the dogma of the procession of the Holy Ghost is more developed. To explain this, Mark said, that the Fathers of Ephesus receive both Creeds as one, and call it the Nicene Creed from respect to the Council which gave rise to it, just in the same manner as the following Councils also called it the Nicene Creed. Lastly, to explain the Ephesine Canon, and confirm all in the conviction, that this Canon prohibits not only the drawing up of any other Creeds, but also any explanation whatever of the Nicene Creed by means of any addition, Mark quoted the words of S. Cyril of Alexandria, who presided over the Council of Ephesus, contained in his epistle to John of Antioch. In this epistle S. Cyril forbids any change whatsoever in the Symbol, be it even in a word, or syllable. This epistle, Mark continued, was read with many other epistles at the Fourth Ecumenical Council, which received and confirmed it.

Then was read the decree of the Fourth Ecumenical Council of Chalcedon (in the 5th act), commanding all to receive the Nicene Creed and Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creeds as one. "For the Fathers of this Council," added Mark, "on reading both these Creeds, said: This holy Creed is sufficient for the full knowledge of the truth, for it contains in itself the full doctrine on the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost."

Then followed the reading of the exhortation of John, Patriarch of Constantinople, to the people, contained in the acts of the Council of Constantinople (518), in which the Patriarch exhorts all to keep to the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed steadfastly and unerringly. The epistle of Eutychius, Patriarch of Constantinople to Pope Vigilius, taken from the acts of the Fifth Ecumenical Council, was also read. In this epistle the Patriarch testifies, that he receives all the definitions made by the four Ecumenical Councils, and truly preserves that faith which the holy Fathers explained and confirmed at those Councils.

The Canon of the Sixth Ecumenical Council was also read confirming the Creed drawn up by the two first Councils, and received as a rule of faith by the three following ones. After that extracts were made from the two epistles of Pope Agatho to the Greek Emperor, contained in the same acts of the Sixth Council. In these epistles the Pope says, that the Church of Rome upholds the faith bequeathed by the five Ecumenical Councils, and takes great care, that all defined by the Canons should remain unchanged, nothing added or taken away, and be kept inviolate both in words and thoughts.

In conclusion, the definition of the Seventh Ecumenical Council was read, in which the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed is repeated. On reading the acts of this Council it was remarked, that all present at the Second Ecumenical Council of Nice exclaimed, after listening to this Creed: We all believe this; we all think alike. This is the faith of the Apostles, this is the Orthodox faith. . . . Let him who receives not this faith be excommunicated.

When this passage from the acts of the Seventh Ecumenical Council, containing the Symbol of faith, was read, the Latins presented a parchment, in their opinion, very old Greek copy of the acts of this Council, where in the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed it is said, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. With the exception of the addition to the Creed, this copy, on being compared with another copy then in the hands of the Greeks, was found to correspond to it exactly. The Latins concluded from this copy, that the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council read the Symbol of Faith with the Filioque addition. Cardinal Julian also quoted some old historian, who as it were certifies, that the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council read the Symbol of Faith with the addition, but Julian did not mention this historian’s name.

It was then, that Gemistes in short and plain terms showed the Latins the erroneousness of their conclusion. "If the testimonies of your copy and your historian were just, or at least had been long ago known in the Church of Rome" said Gemistes, "then no doubt your Thomas Aquinases and the Divines preceding would not have made use of so many arguments to prove the validity of the addition. Instead of this, they might have simply referred to the addition made to the Creed by the Seventh Ecumenical Council. But your divines are silent about this." Evidently the copy produced by the Latins at the Council, was forged at the time of the controversy between the Orthodox and Latin Churches on the procession of the Holy Ghost.

On finishing the reading, Mark of Ephesus concluded by saying: "Thus, the Greeks, obeying the decrees of the Councils and the exhortations of the Fathers, and mindful of their oath, cannot admit the addition to the Creed to be a right and lawful one. Nevertheless they are ready to listen to the proofs brought forward by the Latins to attest the justness of their addition."

At the end of the sitting, many of the Latins themselves, especially the monks present at the Council, after having heard the Council decrees, and Mark’s explanation of them, avowed that they had never heard anything of the sort before, and that the Greeks teach more correctly than the Latin theologians.

Andrew of Rhodes answered to the arguments made use of by Mark against the addition to the Creed. In his lengthened speech during two or more sittings, he tried to prove, 1. That the words "and the Son "are no addition, but simply an explanation of the words, "Who proceedeth from the Father," contained in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed: 2. That such explanations are in no way prohibited by the Canons of the Councils: and 3. That the Church of Rome had a right of making such an explanation and inserting it in the Creed.

To prove that the Latin addition is not an addition, but only an explanation, — the Bishop of Rhodes entered into a preliminary discussion on the sense of the words "addition" and "explanation," and then applied the results of his disquisition to the subject in hand. "An addition," said he, "is the adding of something extra to a subject; an explanation is the exposition of what is within (intra) the subject only." "The addition of the ‘Filioque’ clause to the Creed," he continued, "is only an explanation of what is said in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed, viz., ‘Who proceedeth from’ the Father." In proof, Andrew quoted the words of S. Cyril of Alexandria, which, in his opinion, admitted the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son likewise as from the Father. But even if such an admission were actually contained in S. Cyril’s words, still it could not prove that the words: "and from the Son" are only an explanation of the words — Who proceedeth .... As little proof of this idea is contained in S. Basil the Grate's words, quoted by Andrew in favour of the Latin doctrine, for Andrew concluded from them, that it was impossible to represent the Father without implying the Son and the Holy Ghost.

No better arguments could the Latinized Greek find.

In defense of his assertion, that the addition of explanatory expressions to the Creed is no where prohibited, Andrew made use of many arguments, which had no reference to the subject discussed; for instance, he referred to S. Pauls words: "though we, or an angel from heaven, preach any other Gospel unto you, than that which we have preached unto you, let him be accursed" (Gal. 1:8). "And, notwithstanding this" said Andrew, "many additions were afterwards made to the doctrine of S. Paul and other parts of Scripture’ The Fathers of the Nicene Council also added a good deal to the Creed of the Apostles; the Fathers of the second Ecumenical Council, to the Nicene Creed; the Ephesine Fathers again, taught many things not to be found in the Creed of the Second Ecumenical Council. Andrew concluded from all this, that the Council’s prohibition only regarded the addition of false opinions to the already definite doctrine of the Church, but did not extend over the addition of explanatory words and expressions. But all this affords very little or rather no proof of the truth of Andrew’s assertion. Apparently his subsequent arguments have more weight, (a) The Apostle Paul says: one Lord, one faith, one baptism, one God and Father of all (Eph. 4:5-6); the Church is one, and consequently her authority is (always) one. But if the Church at different times, in cases of necessity, allowed herself to make additions (to the Creed); then in after times also, she must retain this right. Our Saviour said: ‘‘Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world" (Mat. 28:20). (b) The Church must necessarily oppose all heresies, whenever they arise, by means of her doctrine, and consequently she must add at times different explanations to the Creed, which might help to secure her members from these false doctrines.

Referring to the Canons, and the testimonies of the Fathers, adduced by Mark of Ephesus, Andrew endeavoured to prove, that the Canon of the Council of Ephesus only prohibits the exposition of any other faith or doctrine, but those contained in the Nicseo- Constantinopolitan Creed; whereas the doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost from the Son, Andrew repeated, is only an explanation of the words contained in the Creed itself. In answer to Mark’s remark, that the very Council of Ephesus would not add the word "Theotocos," to the Creed; Andrew said, that there was no necessity for such an addition, for the Creed, since it speaks of the Son of God, as the true God, and of His incarnation from the Virgin Mary, implies at the same time the word "Theotocos." All the decrees of the Councils and Fathers Andrew explained in the same manner as the Canon of the Ephesine Council, though many of those decrees strictly prohibited any change whatever in the Nicaeo-Constantinopolitan Creed, either in word or syllable (S. Cyril of Alexandria), or else plainly command the preservation of the Creed in the very words in which it was originally composed. (Pope Agatho).

The right of the Church of Rome to make the addition to the Creed, Andrew founded: (a) on the testimonies of the Fathers, who, as he would have it, taught that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; (b) on the circumstances which obliged that Church to make the addition, and (c) on the supreme authority and (c) on the supreme authority and power of the Papal throne.

To prove his first argument, Andrew referred to S. Augustine, S. Ambrose, S. Gregory the Great, and S. Hilary; but, thinking that the testimonies of the Greek Fathers would have more weight with the Greeks, he made some short extracts from Basil the Great, Gregory of Nyssa, Athanasius, Chrysostom, Epiphanius, Anastasius the Sinaite, and Simeon Metaphrastes. All these quotations, when explained in their true sense say nothing in fact for the Latin doctrine. They either refer to the consubstantiality of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity, or else to the temporary mission of the Spirit by the Son of God.

Explaining the circumstances under which the Church of Rome was obliged to make this addition to the Creed, Andrew said, that the Pope and a Council of Western Fathers had determined to include this addition in the Creed, as a refutation of the false opinions circulated by the Nestorians that the Holy Ghost does not proceed from eternity. This happened, Andrew said, before the sixth Ecumenical Council. But history makes no mention of any such Council or Council decree. On the contrary, it is well known that even in the ninth century Pope Leo III forbade any such addition to the Creed, and even had the Nieseo-Constaiitinopolitan Creed engraved on two silver tablets in Greek and Latin and without any addition.

Lastly, to prove the right of the Latin Church or of her head, the Pope, to make this addition of explanatory expressions, as the Latins called them, Andrew referred to S. Cyril of Alexandria, in whose works he purposed to find very plain allusions to the Pope’s authority for doing so; but at the same time Andrew took good care not to quote S. Cyril's own expressions. Cardinal Julian in his turn referred to Pope Agatho’s epistle read in the sixth Ecumenical Council, in which the Pope says, that all orthodox Councils and Church teachers always followed the doctrine of the Church of Rome, and that he fears being condemned by his Lord Jesus Christ, were he to keep silence on a truth, which he was commanded to preach to all Christian nations. It would not have been amiss to have remembered that there were many cases when the Church did not conform to the doctrine of the Latin Popes, and that the same Council condemned Pope Honorius.

In the following sittings the Greeks gave an answer to the objections raised by Andrew of Rhodes and Cardinal Julian. The learned Scholarius wrote a refutation of them and presented it to the Emperor, who handed it over to Bessarion of Nicaea, ordering him to place it before the Council. Bessarion first of all showed that the addition to the Creed must be looked upon not as an explanation contained in the Creed, but as an actual addition to it, for the Latins found it on another extraneous principle, such as, e.g., "all which the Father hath, the Son hath also."

All such additions to the Creed, even if they were really explanations, were strictly forbidden after the Council of Ephesus. It is not forbidden to explain the doctrine of faith. Before the Council of Ephesus the Church Ecumenical could insert such explanations into the Creed. But since the time of the third Ecumenical Council any additions whatever to the Creed were strictly forbidden. And this Canon was evidently not meant against those additions to the Creed, which disagreed with it, for those additions were always, even in former times, prohibited by the Church. In S. Cyril’s epistle to Acacius of Mitylene, Bessarion continued, it is said, "The holy Ecumenical Council assembled at Ephesus has prohibited the introduction into God’s Church of any confession of faith, but the one existing, which was handed down to us by the blessed Fathers, through whom the Holy Ghost did speak."

Thus, the Council prohibits any other composition of the confession of faith, and not the exposition of another faith; prohibits this not only as regards private individuals, but the whole Church, and even puts itself under this very prohibition. The Fathers did not add "Theotocos" to the Creed, though the notion expressed by this word is nothing more than a short explanation of the doctrine contained in the Creed, and the addition itself was useful and necessary as a refutation of the Nestorians. The Councils following also did not insert in the Creed those dogmatical definitions, which had been drawn up by them, though they also served to develop the doctrine contained in the Creed, and though the doctrine of the Council on the Two Natures and Two Wills in Christ would have served as a firm bulwark for the orthodox doctrine against the Monophysites and Monothelites. On the contrary we see as far as we can judge from the acts of the Ecumenical Councils, beginning with those of Ephesus, that the holy Fathers of these Councils had received and confirmed the Creed in the same form, in which it was left to the Church by the two first Ecumenical Councils, nor did they make any change in it.

At the same time the holy Fathers found means of ministering to the wants of the Church, without breaking the decrees of the Council of Ephesus. The Church stood in need of new expositions of doctrine in the Creed; the Fathers made these expositions in their definitions (οροι) which were not inserted in the Creed, but published apart.

This method of acting does not prove that the authority of the Church has in any way been lessened since the Council of Ephesus, but rather testifies to her unity. Remaining true to the former decrees, the Church shows that she had always one and the same will. By these means she preserves herself, otherwise she would have proved false to her own decrees. Thus, the Church of Rome cannot excuse the addition she has made to the Creed by any circumstances or authority which she has appropriated to herself; for the Council forbids any addition to the Creed even in case of necessity. And as to the authority of the Church of Rome, Bessarion added, much could be said about it, but this was not the time, nor the place for such discussions; we know well enough what rights and privileges the Church of Rome has; we are aware of her power as well as the limits of her power. How can an individual Church arrogate to herself the power of making an addition to the Creed when the same right is refused from the Councils even to the Church Catholic?

The Latin disputants, on hearing this answer, sought the advice of the Cardinals and Bishops, which resulted in a tedious speech made by Andrew of Rhodes, and one quite irrelevant to the subject discussed.

In the following sitting (Nov. 8), in answer to Bessarion’s speech, — John, Bishop of Forli, repeated the arguments already made use of at the Council, backing them by his Latin Divines; he said, that the "Filioque" clause is not an addition of a new article of faith, but a simple explanation contained in the expression, "ex Patre," as the Old Testament contains the New, &c.

The Latins at last perceived that the whole weight of the Greek arguments consisted in the definition of the third Ecumenical Council. This is why Cardinal Julian, who entered into a dispute with the Greeks after John, made use of all possible means to explain the prohibition made by that Council favourably for his own Church. It was made, said Julian, under particular circumstances shown in the acts of the Ephesian Council, and was in fact directed against the unorthodox creeds. It was thus. A certain Charisius, Priest of Philadelphia, came to the Council of Ephesus with a complaint against the Lydian Bishops, who had excommunicated him for not agreeing to receive the Nestorian Creed alone. At the same time, Charisius, to prove his orthodoxy, presented his own confession of faith, (which, though orthodox, did not correspond exactly to the Nicene Creed) and also the Nestorian Creed.

The Fathers, after having read both these creeds, found the Nestorian Creed full of false doctrines, and decreed that no one should dare to draw up another confession of faith, but the one received by all. Consequently, said Julian, if the Fathers did not reject Charisius’ creed, as an orthodox one, though differing from the Nicene Creed, and condemned the Nestorian Creed, then the prohibition regarded only unorthodox creeds.

In answer to Julian, Mark noticed that Charisius’ confession of faith, though not condemned by the Council by reason of its orthodoxy, was neither received as a creed of the Ecumenical Church, on account of its differing from the Nicene Creed, in many expressions. The Fathers found that Charisius’ Creed was only an orthodox confession of a private individual’s faith. And the Church, continued Mark, never forbade any one to confess his faith in different expressions, as long as his confession was orthodox, and not given out as a confession of faith for the whole Church. It is well known that, at many of the subsequent Councils, many of the members couched their confession of faith in whatever expressions they chose. Thus, the Pope Agatho, and Sophronius, Patriarch of Jerusalem, expressed their confession of faith in the Epistles read and approved by the sixth Ecumenical Council. The same is to be seen from those Synodal Epistles which every newly-ordained Bishop sends to the Church representatives in the East as a proof of his orthodoxy. This, then is the reason why the Council did not condemn Charisius’ creed notwithstanding it’s slight difference from the Nivene Creed. But every newly composed creed even though orthodox, would have been condemned by the Council if it had been used instead of the Nicene Creed for the teaching of catechumens at their Baptism, or, generally speaking, during Church service. And this is easily seen from the circumstance, that the holy Council of Ephesus, after condemning the Nestorian Creed, plainly and decisively prohibited the introduction of any creed, however orthodox, different to that of Nicsea; and this was done to preserve the Nicene Creed from any interpolations or changes. In saying this, added Mark, I do not judge for myself. S. Cyril explains the meaning of the Canon, and he was personally present at the Council. In his Epistles to John of Antioch, and Acacius of Mitylene, he explains this decree of the Council in the same way as it is understood by the Eastern Church, and as we ourselves have just shown.

Julian, objecting to such an explanation of the Church Canon, said, that the Council of Ephesus makes no difference between the private and general Church use of newly-composed creeds; but generally prohibits every Christian, whether belonging to the laity or clergy, to draw up any other confession of faith: hence Julian concluded again, that the Canon has force only as regards heterodox creeds. In answer to this objection, Mark showed that the Nestorian Creed, as was proved by Charisius, and could be seen from the signatures to it, was used not as a private confession of faith but offered to certain heretic’s who were to sign it as a condition of there being received into the Church. It was with this object in view that the Council prohibited the drawing up of any new creed — especially for general use in the Church. For this reason it did not condemn Charisius’ confession, which was in fact a private one, though it did not agree in many expressions with the Nicene Creed.

The Latins, however, obstinately repeated their former arguments in defense of the addition to the Creed. The indefatigable Cardinal tired his auditors with his long speeches; thinking his arguments invincible, he said to Mark, "If you adduce ten arguments, I for my part am ready to oppose ten thousand of them in defense of my opinion." And when he noticed that the Greeks continued to refute his arguments and proofs, he tried to incline them to change the subject of discussion. "Let us, holy Father," said he to Mark, "examine the very dogma itself, and if the addition to the Creed proves to be contrary to the Orthodox doctrine, why, then we will drop the subject and erase it from the Creed. If, on the contrary, it shall be proved that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son, then we must conclude that the addition is a correct one, and must retain it in the Creed."

These two months’ discussions were also without any real results (from Oct. 8th till Dec. 8th): for each party stood firm in its own persuasions. The Greeks finding all their efforts to incline the opposite party to their cause unavailable, wished to return home. The Latins however kept repeating, that it was necessary to examine the very dogma itself, and managed first of all to gain the Emperor over to their opinion, who readily yielded to their persuasions, hoping to ensure the Latin aid in the cause of the Empire.

But when the Emperor told the Bishops, that he also wished for an alteration of the discussions, he received the following answer: "The very reason why the Latins try to make us terminate the discussions on the addition is, that they find no suitable and sufficient answer to our arguments. It would then be very imprudent to forsake so impregnable a fortress." Gregory the Almoner was the only one who joined the Emperor, and was soon promoted by him to the rank of protopresbyter.

The Patriarch sided with the Bishops in this matter. Twice did the Bishops assemble in his apartments to take advice of each other, and at last determined to tell the Pope that the addition to the Creed inserted contrary to the Canons and the testimonies of the Fathers must be withdrawn; that it was on this condition only, that the Greeks would agree to begin the investigation of the dogma itself, and that in case of the Latins disagreeing to this, the Greeks would have nothing to do with them. At this juncture Bessarion of Nicsea declared himself to be quite of a contrary opinion. "Why should we not," he said, "discuss with the Latins on the very dogma? We can tell them many good things." But his voice was unheard by the rest of the Bishops.

The Greek Council coming to this decision, sent legates to the Emperor, who told him: "The Latins reject all our most forcible arguments on the question of the addition, and most dishonestly affirm that the decrees which anathematize every addition to the Creed have nothing to do with them. If then we pass on to the investigation of a dogma, in which the Latins found their arguments on the testimonies of teachers unknown to us, how shall we defend the truth? Leaning back on the Pope’s authority, they will say whatever they like, and will then declare that they have proved their opinion as plainly as the sun’s light: for they, contrary to all truth, are not ashamed to say that they have already made good the correctness of the addition to the Creed, though in reality they have proved nothing."

The Emperor reckoning only on the aid promised to him by the Pope, would not pay any attention to what the Greeks said. Concealing his real motives, he said: "The very reason for our coming to Italy was to make a strict examination of the doctrine on the procession of the Holy Ghost, which has been the principal cause of the division between the Churches. If we leave the question undecided, we shall show that we have no strong proofs in defense of the orthodox doctrine, and that we either agree with the Latins in some respects, or else avow their doctrine to be true. In my opinion, we ought most certainly to enter into a discussion on the procession of the Holy Ghost." After the remarks made by the Emperor, another Bishop, Dorotheus of Mitylene, also voted for a change of the subject then discussed.

Reckoning on several similar votes, the Emperor appointed another meeting in his palace to talk upon this subject. The Patriarch came, ill as he then was; after him came the Bishops. The Emperor pleaded the wants of the empire, and his own efforts to better its condition. "I have no children," he said, "no heirs; I seek not glory, but only the welfare of my Greek subjects." Isidore and Bessarion took his part very warmly. It was determined to decide the matter by votes. The Patriarch kept to his own opinion. The Bishops, persuaded by the Emperor’s words, inclined to his opinion also. Mark of Ephesus simply said: "As you find it good to pass on to the discussion of the dogma itself, I can but consent if the others wish it." The Chartophylax, the Protecdicus, and Syropulus, were the only persons among the Patriarch’s nearer officials who divided his opinion. But, notwithstanding this, the majority of votes carried the opinion that a decussion on the very doctrine contained in the addition to the Creed should be entered upon.

One obstacle alone remained to be done away with. The Pope refused to pay the expenses incurred by the Greeks during their stay in Ferrara, under the plea that he had been deceived by the town’s people, and could not receive the income due to him from his own towns, on account of their distance from Ferrara and the different circumstances of war. He then proposed to move the Council to another place, the more so as it was generally expected that the plague would again break out in Ferrara. He pointed to Florence, whose rich citizens had promised to lend him 40,000 gold pieces, if only the Council was held in their town. When making this proposition, the Pope on his part promised the Greeks 12,000 gold pieces besides their usual pay, and two galleys to succour Constantinople, and at the same time expressed his hopes of finishing all the affairs in the course of three or four months.

The Emperor was long ago aware of the Pope’s intention to transfer the Council to Florence, and had twice sent several persons thither to arrange the matter; but hid his intentions from the Bishops. But when his last agent returned, he then opened the Pope’s plan to the Greek Council, noticing tha