on which they had a right to insist ;-that he shrank from distinctly claiming, for the Church in communion with Rome, her divine authority, as the one ark of salvation, the one infallible teacher of Truth;-such an allegation is disproved by the most superficial study of what took place at Ferrara and Florence. Whether you look at the preliminaries, the deliberations, or the definitions of the Council, the falsehood of this allegation is equally apparent. But this is really to understate the fact. That the Church in communion with Rome is infallible;-that all nations of the earth are peremptorily bound to enter her communion on her own terms;-that the Pope is her divinely appointed centre of union, and is invested by God with a certain supremacy over all other bishops;-this (as Archbishop Manning has pointed out) is held by Gallican and Ultramontane alike: it is the very foundation, on which every Catholic builds his faith. That this great truth was expressly and prominently testified by the Westerns at Florence, it is the first purpose of our present argument to establish. But more than this is undoubtedly true. It was not the Church of Rome only, but the See of Rome, for which infallibility was claimed. The duty held forth as incumbent on all nations, was not simply communion with the Roman Catholic Church, but unreserved submission to the Roman Pontiff. The Western doctrine at Florence to which the Easterns ultimately gave their full assent-was in no respect Gallican, but purely Ultramontane. Here then are the two theses which we undertake to establish. Thesis the first: "The Westerns at Florence represented the Roman Catholic Church in no other light, than as constituting exclusively the One Catholic Apostolic Church; as teaching infallibly; as the one ark of salvation, which all men are commanded by God to enter." Thesis the second: "The Westerns at Florence represented the Supreme Pontiff in no other light, than as infallible in all his teaching ex cathedrâ; as invested by God with fullest spiritual supremacy over all baptized persons; as not limited, in the exercise of that power, by any human authority whatever, whether bishop or council; but on the contrary, as himself the one sole source of all ecclesiastical jurisdiction." Of these two theses, it is the former only which is required for our present argument, and on which therefore it is necessary here to insist. But it is plain that the second, if established, adds indefinite corroboration to the first. Moreover, as we shall need the second for our future article on Papal supremacy, and as of course every portion of the Council's procedure throws much light on every other portion, -it seemed far more convenient to consider the second thesis also in this place. Indeed, as the Florentine is remarkable among all councils for being that one, wherein Catholics and Schismatics met to promote corporate reunion;—so also it is remarkable among all for being that one, wherein the assembled Church formally and solemnly defined her doctrine on the Pope's primacy. We have said that we include in our general argument the preliminaries" of the Council. We cannot exhibit our meaning on this head more clearly, than by a few extracts from Popoff's work, mentioned at the head of this article. Take, for instance, the following: 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 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 (pp. 15, 16). Then next year 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 (p. 17). And lest the Easterns should misunderstand the sense in which he agreed to a council, Pope Martin V. expressed himself with great frankness. The Pope, on the other hand, proposing to the Emperor to assemble a Council in Italy, was far from wishing that the causes of disagreement be tween the Churches should undergo lawful investigation by a Council. This was only the wish of the Greeks, to which, as he says himself, he acceded from condescension (p. 185). 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 (p. 18). 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 (p. 19). Popoff adds, indeed : 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 (ib.). But throughout his volume he gives no hint, nor have we found anywhere a hint, of Eugenius giving the Easterns any different impression of the Papal claims. And so, when the Patriarch ultimately arrived at Ferrara 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 (pp. 38, 39). Eugenius, of course, didnot "pretend," but really entertained, "a sincere desire for peace." He refused, however, to receive the Greek Bishops in public, lest a false impression should be produced, that he waived his claim of supremacy; or as Popoff amiably expresses it, "to conceal his forced humility from the people." Passing from these preliminaries to what took place afterwards-and by way of contrast to what we have just statedit should be observed, that when peace was concluded and the Easterns had accepted orthodox doctrine, their demeanour to the Pope was most different. "As the other fathers, the Latin, came to the Supreme Pontiff, kissing the hem of his garment and doing him reverence, so also did the Greek Fathers."* Joseph, indeed, the good Patriarch of Constantinople, exhibited by Popoff in so invidious a light, was not on earth to see that day; but it so happens, that he also had an opportunity of exhibiting a similar change of spirit. The very day before his death he wrote his last testament, which runs thus :— Joseph, by God's grace Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Ecumenical Patriarch. Whereas I have attained the limits of my life, and shall soon have to pay the universal tribute: I do now with God's help announce my opinion to all my children. I do myself confess and agree to everything held and taught by the Catholic and Apostolic Church of our Lord Jesus Christ, the elder Rome. I avow the Pope of the elder Rome to be the most blessed Father of Fathers, the Supreme Pontiff, and Vicar of Christ. I certify this before all. I admit the Purgatory of Souls.† As to what followed Joseph's death, the writer of the Latin Acts, who was present at the Council, gives these particulars; to which we solicit particular attention. "There seemed so many and such great proofs of [the Patriarch's] complete conversion [totalis reductionis] that the Supreme Pontiff, with approval of the assembly of Latins, pronounced him admitted to the Church's communion; and he was buried with a great pro * Latin Acts, just before they recite the Decree. + Popoff indeed adds (p. 145) that "there are reasons for doubting the truth of this narrative;" which he proceeds to give. Our general argument is of course wholly unaffected by the question. But both the Greek and Latin Acts contain this testament; and Gibbon and Milman, impartial judges, accept the narrative as genuine. cession of prelates, all the most reverend cardinals assisting, &c., &c."* All this, it will be at once admitted, tells very forcibly for our first thesis; and is in full accordance, so far as it goes, with our second. Then there is another circumstance, recorded both in the Greek and Latin Acts, which also bears on our first thesis. Three Eastern bishops, whom the Pope had urged to forward matters, "pressed" the Emperor much for the union; saying this to him, among other things, "if your majesty (n Baoílá σov) refuses to be united, we are united [without you]."+ And the Latin writer brings out the implied doctrine somewhat more clearly. "Shortly the report transpired, that several of the Greek fathers, who had hitherto said nothing, went to the Emperor and Patriarch, stating that since God had manifested to them the Truth, they intended to follow it." Had these Easterns understood the question to be, whether two independent societies could come to terms of union, the whole of this would have been simply unmeaning. Those who are acquainted, ever so superficially, with the position held in ecclesiastical affairs by a Greek emperor, must admit that if he were not brought to terms, corporate union could not be thought of. In such an event, these prelates declare their intention of providing for their own souls, by personal submission. Let us next refer more particularly to our second thesis; let us consider the language held by the Western champions concerning Papal prerogatives, throughout the deliberations. For instance. It was a most vital controversy between West and East, as all our readers are well aware, whether the Church had any right to add "Filioque" to the Nicene Symbol of Faith. On Nov. 11, 1438, the Bishop of Forli stood forth to vindicate this right. What ground did he take up? And since you touch but superficially on the authority of the Roman Church, wishing afterwards to enter on it more profoundly [viz., when the formal discussion of Papal prerogatives should come before the Council], you imply nevertheless that you deny the power of adding to the Symbol of Faith, even to Ecumenical Councils and the Universal Church; much more to the Roman Church. To this we answer that such liberty and authority cannot be taken away from Ecumenical Councils, or the Universal *Recorded just after the twenty-second Conference. Recorded in the Greek Acts shortly after Bessarion's speech. |