In the year 1642 another synod took a significant course. It condemned Cyril's confession and Calvinism together, thus plainly showing that the hishops perceived the connection between them; this synod did not name Cyril as the author of the obnoxious document. But in the synod of Jassy in Moldavia, which was held a little later, this confession was again attributed to Cyril. Among the bishops assembled at Jassy was Peter Mogila, the Russian ecclesiastic, who issued a counterblast in the form of another confession of faith which came to be accepted as a standard test of orthodoxy. It was not till thirty-four years after Cyril's death that a public official denial of his authorship of the confession that bears his name, was put forth. This was at the famous synod of Bethlehem, which Dositheus, the patriarch of Jerusalem—himself a Cretan—took the opportunity of the dedication of the new church in the year 1672 to gather together there. The synod condemned the Calvinistic confession and denied that Cyril Lucar was its author, A patriarch of Constantinople emitting such poison! The idea was too horrible! It could not be so! We can appreciate the psychological attitude. But in view of sober historical criticism, can we attach any real value to this repudiation? The further back we go, the closer and surer is Cyril's connection with the confession. A late denial of it to which the policy of convenience strongly urged has no weight whatever.[1]
- ↑ Moreover, there is plenty of collateral evidence showing that the confession was quite in accordance with Cyril's views expressed elsewhere, and demonstrating his essential Protestantism. Thus he writes to the archbishop of Spalatro, in the year 1618, stating that for three years he has compared the doctrine of the Greek and Latin Churches with that of the Reformed, and adding as the result of this prolonged study, "I left the Fathers and took for my guide Scripture and the analogy of faith alone. At length, through the grace of God, because I discovered that the cause of the reformers was the more just and the more in accordance with the doctrine of Christ, I embraced it." What could be more explicit than that? He continues, "I can no longer endure to hear a man say that the comments of human tradition are of equal weight with Holy Scripture." Then he states with approval the Calvinistic doctrine of original sin. He professes to affirm what he calls "the Greek doctrine of the sacraments"; but he repudiates the "chimera of transubstantiation." It must be remembered
21
