^{page 417 note 1} Zernov, Nicolas, Eastern Christendom: A Study of the Origin and Development of the Eastern Orthodox Church (London, 1961), p. 136.Google Scholar See also Ware, Timothy, The Orthodox Church (Harmondsworth, Middlesex, 1963), p. 10.Google Scholar

^{page 417 note 2} Eusebius (Historia Ecclesiastica, Bk. 5) cites a dispute in A.D. 190 between Victor, Bishop of Rome, and the Asian Bishops over the date for Easter celebration; in Giles, E., ed., Documents Illustrating Papal Authority A.D. 96–454 (London, 1952), pp. 14–19.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 1} Ware, p. 223. See Meyendorff, John, The Orthodox Church: Its Past and Its Role in the World Today, trans. Chapin, John (London, 1962), pp. 56f.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 2} This thesis is in Benz, Ernst, The Eastern Orthodox Church: Its Thought and Life, trans. Richard, and Winston, Clara (New York, 1963), pp. 167–171.Google Scholar

^{page 418 note 3} The Council of Constantinople (A.D. 381), Canon 3, in Giles, p. 130.

^{page 419 note 1} Bilanuik, Petro B. T., The Fifth Lateran Council (1512–1517) and the Eastern Churches (Toronto, 1975), pp. 2, 155.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 2} The Eastern position is in Khomiakov, Alexei S., The Church is One, trans. Palmer, W. (London, 1968), pp. 26ff.Google Scholar Summaries are also in Runciman, Steven, The Eastern Schism: A Study of the Papacy and the Eastern Churches During the Xlth and XHth Centuries (Oxford, 1955), pp. 29–33 and Ware, pp. 5gf.Google Scholar

^{page 419 note 3} Khomiakov, p. 27.

^{page 419 note 4} Ware, p. 58.

^{page 420 note 1} This Eastern disdain for Charles is expressed in a note on the developing schism from the ninth century which refers to Leo II summoning ‘a certain Charles’, whom he crowned emperor, Monumenta Graeca Ad Photium Ejusque Historiam Pertinentia, ed. Hergenröther, J. (Regensburg, 1869), p. 157.Google Scholar The irony of Charlemagne's charge against Nicaea II is that it is based on an extremely bad translation of the documents. See Hefele, J., Histoires des coneiles d'apres Us documents originaux, trans. LeClerq, H. (Paris, 1910), t. III, 2e Partie, p. 1061.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 2} See Congar, Yves, After Nine Hundred Tears: The Background of the Schism between the Eastern and Western Churches (New York, 1959), pp. 21ff, 53.Google Scholar

^{page 420 note 3} Meyendorff, p. 56.

^{page 420 note 4} For the Fourth Crusade see Runciman, Steven, A History of the Crusades, 3 vols. (Cambridge, 1955), III, pp. 107–131.Google Scholar From the Western viewpoint eyewitness accounts are in Villehardouin, and de Joinville, , Memoirs of the Crusades, trans. Marzials, F. T. (New York, 1958)Google Scholar and Robert of Clari, The Conquest of Constantinople, trans. McNeal, E. H. (New York, 1969).Google Scholar For the Eastern view see Choniates, Nicetas in Corpus Scriplorum Historiae Byzantinae, ed. Niebuhr, B. G. (Bonn, 1835), 41, pp. 726–770.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 1} Meyendorff, pp. 56f.

^{page 421 note 2} Innocent II, letter 126, Patrologiae Latinae, ed. Migne, J.-P. (Paris, 1891), 215, pp. 699–702Google Scholar provides a frank account of the atrocities reported to him. See also Bradford, E., The Great Betrayal: Constantinople 1204 (London, 1967), pp. 155–174.Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 3} Runciman, Crusades, pp. 124fF. A more extensive study is in Longnon, J., L'Empire latin de Constantinople el la principautée de Morie (Paris, 1949).Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 4} p. 69. The causes of the disaster from contemporary sources are examined in Quellar, D. E., ed., The Latin Conquest of Constantinople (New York, 1971).Google Scholar

^{page 421 note 5} The closure of most educational institutions (the Patriarchal Academy at Constantinople being the most notable exception) after the Turkish conquest drove would-be scholars to the West, principally Venice and Padua. See Runciman, S., The Great Church in Captivity: A Study of the Patriarchate of Constantinople from the Eve of the Turkish Conquest to the Greek War of Independence (Cambridge, 1968), pp. 208–225Google Scholar, and Geanakoplos, D. J., Greek Scholars in Venice (Cambridge, Mass., 1962), for consideration of this phenomenon.Google Scholar

^{page 422 note 1} The Anglican chaplain Covel, John in ‘Early Voyages and Travels in the Levant’, Works Issued by the Hakluyt Society, ed. Bent, J. T. (London, 1893), LXXXVII, pp. 149fGoogle Scholar, writes of a plot organised by the French ambassador and the Jesuits to remove the Patriarch of Constantinople. Smith, Thomas, An Account of the Greek Church, as to its Doctrine and Rite of Worship (London, 1680), pp. 252fGoogle Scholar, writing of Sir Thomas Roe, the English ambassador, refers to ‘his generous protection of it [i.e. the Greek Church] against those who endeavored … to destroy its very being’.

^{page 422 note 2} Crusius, Martin, Turcograeciae Libri Octo (Basle, 1584), p. 557Google Scholar, gives the text of an unanswered letter of Philip Melanchthon to Joasaph II, Patriarch of Constantinople. Paulova, M. in ‘L'Empire byzantin et les Tcheques avant la chute de Constantinople’, Byzantinoslavica, 14 (1953), pp. 208–225Google Scholar, describes an ill-fated Czech Hussite visit to Constantinople. Apparently the only matter held in common was a dislike of the Pope.

^{page 422 note 3} See Petit, L., ‘Jérémie II Tranos’, Dictionnaire de Thiologie Catholique (Paris, 1924), VIII, 1, pp. 886–894.Google Scholar For a modern assessment of Jeremias'' contact with the Lutherans see Florovsky, Georges, ‘Christianity and Culture’, The Collected Works of Georges Florovsky, Volume 2 (Belmont, Mass., 1974), pp. 143–155.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 1} The text of the correspondence is in Acta et Scripta Theologorum Wirtembergensium et Patriarchae Constantinoplitani D. Hieremiae (Wittenberg, 1584), cited in Runciman, Captivity, p. Q56n. A list of the letters is in Legrand, Émile, Bibliographic hellénique des XV et XVI siecles (Paris, 1962), IV, p. 244.Google Scholar

^{page 423 note 2} Runciman, Captivity, p. 248, citing Acta et Scripta.

^{page 423 note 3} ibid., p. 200.

^{page 423 note 4} ibid., p. 210.

^{page 423 note 5} For a more detailed analysis See ibid., pp. 248–54.

^{page 424 note 1} ibid., p. 254.

^{page 424 note 2} The others were the Confession of Metrophanes Kritopoulos (1625), the Orthodox Confession of Mogila (1642), the Acts of the Synod of Jerusalem including the Confession of Dositheus (1672). A brief summary of each is in French, R. M., The Eastern Orthodox Church (London, 1951), pp. 88f.Google Scholar Mogila and Dositheus are treated more extensively in Runciman, Captivity, pp. 338–59. The text of Mogila, Peter is in Schaff, Philip, The Creeds of Christendom (Grand Rapids, 1889), II, pp. 275–400.Google ScholarDositheus', Confession is in The Acts and Decrees of the Synod of Jerusalem, trans. Robertson, J. N. W. B. (London, 1899).Google Scholar

^{page 424 note 3} The life of Cyril is described in Thomas Smith, op. cit., pp. 239–91. Much of Cyril's correspondence is in Legrand, op. cit., IV. Modern accounts of Cyril's life are in Runciman, Captivity, pp. 259–88, and Hadjiantoniou, George A., Protestant Patriarch: The Life ofCyril Lucaris (1572–1638) Patriarch of Constantinople (London, 1961).Google Scholar

^{page 425 note 1} Smith, p. 244, writes: ‘Our Cyril was of the number of the Non-uniti or Dissenters’.

^{page 425 note 2} This development can be seen in the heavy correspondence between Cyril and the Dutch theologians J. Utenbogaert and David de Wilhelm beginning in 1613. See Legrand, pp. 29Iff.

^{page 425 note 3} Cyril emphasises only two (but not exclusively) in a letter to J. Utenbogaert dated 22nd September 1613, in Legrand, p. 300. Hadjiantoniou, p. 40, refers to a more conclusive statement from a letter dated October of the same year.

^{page 426 note 1} The text of Cyril's, ‘The Eastern Confession of the Christian Faith’ is in Robertson, , pp. 185–215Google Scholar, and Hadjiantoniou, pp. 141–5. The history of its publication and translation is in Smith, pp. 271ff.

^{page 426 note 2} The story of Cyril's death is in Smith, pp. 288–91. A brief account, blaming the Jesuits, is in Rycaut, Paul, The History of the Turkish Empire, from the year 1623, to the year 1677 (London, 1687), p. 386.Google Scholar

^{page 427 note 1} For the Confessions of Mogila and Dositheus see Robertson, op. cit.

^{page 427 note 2} Robertson, pp. IIIf. The charge by Partheneus (p. 91) that Cyril endorsed the Filiogue is false.

^{page 428 note 1} The word referred to is dulia (worship), but is distinguished from hyperdulia which is reserved for the Mother of God, and latria used only of God.

^{page 428 note 2} e.g. Hadjiantoniou.

^{page 428 note 3} e.g. Fortescue, Adrian, in The Orthodox Eastern Church, 2nd ed. (London, 1908), pp. 264–269.Google Scholar

^{page 428 note 4} Smith, pp. 273–80. Hadjiantoniou, pp. 102–9, gives a detailed defence of its authenticity. Meyendorff, p. 93n, writes: ‘Ancient and recent claims to question its authenticity are nothing more than pious attempts to save the good name of the patriarch’.

^{page 428 note 5} The Calvinist doctrines contained in Cyril's Confession are polemically anti- Roman. Items such as predestination are given with little background instruction. The Confession contains matters which are better suited for debates with Rome than for the edification of the Greek people.

^{page 430 note 1} Khomiakov, p. II.

^{page 430 note 2} Benz, p. 18.

^{page 430 note 3} ibid., p. II.

^{page 431 note 1} Ware, p. 41. The Orthodox view is expressed in the proceedings of the second Council of Nicaea (787) in Mansi, J. D., Sacrorum Conciliorum Nova, et Amplissima Collectio (Florence, 1763), XIII, cols. 378f.Google Scholar

^{page 431 note 2} French, p. 93.

^{page 432 note 1} Schaff, II, p. 449.

^{page 432 note 2} The New Man: An Orthodox and Reformed Dialogue, ed. Meyendorff, John and McLelland, Joseph (New Brunswick, New Jersey, 1973), pp. 147, 165.Google Scholar

^{page 432 note 3} Khomiakov, p. 31.

^{page 433 note 1} Niesel, Wilhelm, The Theology of Calvin, trans. Knight, H. (Philadelphia, 1956), pp. 223–228.Google Scholar

^{page 433 note 2} Alexander Schemann, ‘Theology and Eucharist’, St. Vladimir's Seminary Quarterly 5, No. 4, p. 8.

^{page 433 note 3} Ware, p. 9.

^{page 433 note 4} Zernov, p. 137.

^{page 433 note 5} She does this, perhaps to her own detriment, in relations with the state. See Benz, pp. 21 Iff.

^{page 433 note 6} Cassian, Bishop, ‘The Family of God’, The Ecumenical Review, 9 (1957), p. 142.Google Scholar