On the appointed evening, the vizier's janissaries broke into the building to arrest Metaxas. He was not there; And when, a few minutes later, he walked down the street, accompanied by the secretary of the English Embassy, they could not believe that this elegant gentleman in English suit was the one they were looking for. They expressed their disappointment by destroying the printing house and removing scraps of manuscripts and machine wreckage from there for all to see.

The printing house was put out of action. However, the plan failed. The Grand Mufti, to whom the vizier had sent Cyril's treatise, declared it harmless. Christians were allowed to assert their views, he said, even if they contradicted Islam. Scarcely had the vizier received this decision than Sir Thomas Rohe demanded an audience, attacked him for insulting a friendly power, and reminded him that he himself had given permission for the importation of the printing-house. Influenced by the Grand Mufti's decision, and knowing that Sir Thomas was on friendly terms with the Sultan, the vizier changed his policy. People who deceived him had to be punished. Three Jesuit brothers and Canaccio Rossi were thrown into prison. When the Comte de Cecy came to protest, he was received not by the vizier, but by his deputy, the Grand Kaimak, who told him that if he did not behave as an ambassador should, he would rather leave the country. Two months later, all the Jesuits were expelled from the Sultan's possessions. "They are ready to die of vexation because they have been exiled," wrote Sir Thomas Rohe. "I hope that they will disturb the unfortunate Greek Church as little as possible; their actions cost them twelve thousand thalers, not to mention the last attempt on the life and power of the Patriarch and on my honor."434

In the same year, Sir Thomas Rohe left Constantinople, taking with him, as a token of the patriarch's gratitude, a manuscript of the Bible known as the Codex Alexandrinus, which Cyril had brought with him from Alexandria and sent as a gift to King Charles I.435 The Comte de Cecy left three years later. His successor, the Comte de Marcheville, was allowed to re-establish the Jesuits as his chaplains. But the prestige of the French embassy was not high. In Rome, it was decided to entrust further action against Cyril to the ambassador of the Austrian emperor, Rudolf Schmid-Schwarzenhorn, who arrived at the beginning of 1629. Meanwhile, the tasks of the Jesuits were transferred to the Capuchins. The famous Father Joseph, the "gray cardinal" of Richelieu, was assigned to Constantinople to organize a campaign; Richelieu, however, forbade him to leave France. In the meantime, the Congregation was debating the extent to which bribery and intrigue could be legally used to destroy such a dangerous heretic.

Cyril Lukaris was supposed to play into their hands. Sir Thomas Rohe's departure was a blow to him. He quickly struck up a friendly relationship with Sir Thomas's successor, Sir Peter Witch. In 1635 he became godfather to Sir Peter's son, the future President of the Royal Society; he was also on good terms with Edward Pocock, chaplain at Aleppo from 1630 to 1638, who visited Constantinople from time to time. But his long-time correspondent, Archbishop Abbott, had been in disgrace since 1627 and died in 1633, and although his successor, Archbishop Laud, was interested in the Greek Church, neither he nor King Charles I could have a sympathetic attitude towards a bishop known as a Calvinist. Kirill had to rely more and more on his Dutch friends. In the autumn of 1628, a new chaplain arrived at the Dutch embassy. He was a Savoy Huguenot, named Antoine Léjé, who was educated in Geneva and associated with the Calvinists. He soon became a close friend of the patriarch, reinforcing Cyril's theological views and perhaps persuading him to express them openly. The printing house in Constantinople was destroyed; but Léger agreed that the Geneva printing house would print any work that Cyril offered.437

The first book published by Cyril was a translation of the New Testament into modern Greek, made by the learned monk Maximus Kallipolitos. For many Orthodox Christians, the very idea of changing the text of the Holy Scriptures is not the same. seemed outrageous, however incomprehensible it may be to the modern reader. To appease them, Cyril published the original and modern texts in parallel columns, and added only a few indisputable remarks and references. Since Kallipolit died shortly after the manuscript was delivered, Cyril read the proofs himself. The book was published in 1630, and despite Cyril's precautions, it provoked a storm of disapproval from many of his bishops.438

The bishops were even more amazed when it became known that the Patriarch had written a highly controversial book. Cyril Lukaris's Confession of Faith was published in Geneva in March 1629 with a dedication to van Haag. A manuscript of the Greek text, written by Cyril and dated 1631, is preserved in Geneva. This text was published with a Latin translation in Geneva in the same year and was reproduced in 1633. Translations into various European languages followed; The English version, without addition, was published by Nicholas Bourne in London in 1629, and a complete English translation was published in 1671 in Aberdeen, translated by William Wright.439

The Orthodox Church has never set itself the goal of bringing together dogmatic propositions. In the "Exact Exposition of the Orthodox Faith" of St. John of Damascus, everything that was necessary was said, although later councils could shed light on incomprehensible or controversial questions. But various patriarchs from time to time published summaries on doctrinal issues, usually for practical purposes. Gennadius himself prepared such a text at the request of Sultan Mehmed the Conqueror; Jeremiah II's response to the Lutherans was of the same kind. Such expositions were of a completely private character.440 They were respected because they came from the patriarchal office, and also because of the personal reputation of the compilers. But they could not be binding on the Church, since they were not confirmed by the Ecumenical Councils. They were supposed to serve as a guide, not proclaim dogmas. It is clear that Cyril published his "Confession of Faith" in the hope of strengthening his flock in anti-Latin sentiments and laying the foundation for the reform of the modern Orthodox Church, as well as creating a basis for negotiations with other Churches.

With the exception of the appendix, which contains four questions and answers, the Confession of Faith consists of eighteen articles. The first, about St. He declares that the Holy Trinity. The Spirit proceeds from the Father through the Son. The second says that St. Scripture is inspired by God and its authority is above the authority of the Church. The third declares that God, before the beginning of the world, predestined the election of some to glory independently of works, while others are rejected, and this has as its final cause the will of God, and the immediate cause the righteousness of God. The fourth article declares that God is the Creator of all things, but not the cause of evil; the fifth, that God's Providence is incomprehensible; the sixth, that original sin extends to all people; the seventh says that Jesus Christ is God and Man, the Rewarder and the future Judge; the eighth, that He is the only Mediator, High Priest, and Head of the Church. The ninth declares that salvation is accomplished only through justification by faith in Christ. The tenth says that the universal church includes all who have died in the faith, as well as living believers, and repeats that Christ is its only Head; the eleventh is that only those who are chosen for eternal life are true members of the church, and others are tares mingled with wheat. The twelfth article declares that the Church may err in accepting the false for the true, but the light of the Holy Spirit is not the same. He will save us through the labors of believing pastors. The thirteenth asserts that man is justified by faith alone; Good works in themselves are not sufficient for salvation, but they should not be neglected, since they testify to faith. The fourteenth article states that free will in a person who has not been regenerated spiritually is dead, and such people cannot do good; but the regenerated one does good with the help of the Holy Spirit. Spirit. In the fifteenth it was said that Christ instituted only two Sacraments and entrusted them to us as a pledge of God's promises; However, they cannot give grace if there is no faith. The sixteenth declares that baptism is necessary for deliverance from both original and committed sins. In the seventeenth, Cyril declares his faith in the real presence of Christ in the Eucharist, but only when there is faith when it is celebrated; material transubstantiation does not take place, since the Body of Christ is not that which is seen in the Sacrament, but that which faith understands spiritually. The eighteenth article says that after death there are only two states, heaven and hell; a person is judged in the state in which death found him; After the end of this life, he has neither the strength nor the possibility of repentance. Purgatory is a fiction. Those who are justified in this life have no sickness or suffering in the future, but the wicked go straight to eternal punishment.

Additional answers to the questions read, first, that the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must be read by all believers, and great harm is done to Christians when they are deprived of the opportunity to read it or listen to its reading; secondly, St. Scripture is quite readable by all people who are regenerated and enlightened; thirdly, the canonical books are those listed at the Council of Laodicea; fourthly, the worship of images is condemned by the Holy Scriptures. Scripture must be abolished; but since painting is a noble art, images of Christ and the saints may be made, provided that no veneration is given to them.441

It should be noted that in the Confession there is not a single dogma specifically condemned by any Ecumenical Council, with the exception of the answer about images, which is difficult to reconcile with the canons of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. Nevertheless, as it is easy to see, it contained decrees that hardly fit into the Orthodox tradition. While most Greeks of the time should have welcomed the appearance of directives that would protect them from the shadows of Rome, the views proclaimed by Cyril must have astonished them.

Many of the articles might not have provoked criticism. The Orthodox could accept without objection the first article, on the question of the procession of the Holy Spirit. Spirit; the fourth, on creation; the fifth, on the incomprehensibility of God's Providence; the sixth, on original sin; the seventh and eighth, that Christ is the Head of the Church and the Saviour; tenth, on the essence of the Church; the twelfth, that it is possible to err without the help of the Holy Spirit. Spirit; the sixteenth, on the necessity of baptism. Of the answers, those that concerned the reading of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and lists of canonical books could be accepted unconditionally. Cyril's other views reflected those expressed by theologians of the past and which were never specifically rejected. Until the thirteenth century, two sacraments, baptism and the Eucharist, were generally recognized as essential, while the other five were inferior. 442 But the Orthodox faith has always held that these five sacraments were unconditionally established by the written words of Christ, even if their celebration had no spiritual basis. Indeed, it would be difficult to prove faith in the apostolic succession of the priesthood if ordination were not a sacrament; And such a faith was firmly held by the Orthodox. We do not know what Kirill thought about this. Again, few Orthodox Christians could have liked the decisive rejection of transubstantiation. The Church, it is true, has never defined its faith in this dogma. Thomas Smith, in his survey of the Greek Church, written several decades later, believed that the word ???????????, which exactly means "transubstantiation," was first used by Gabriel Severus in the late sixteenth century in his book on the seven sacraments. This is not entirely accurate. The term was often used before; but Severus seems to have been the first Greek theologian to take dogma for granted. As Smith notes, at the Liturgy of St. Basil the Great, the words are pronounced that the bread and wine become "substitutes" for the Body and Blood of Christ. In his response to the Lutherans, Jeremiah II follows an ancient tradition and avoids the use of the word ???????????. The words he uses ???????? and ???????????, as well as the word ???????????????, which are often found in early theologians, do not necessarily imply a material change of the elements. As we have seen, its exposition is deliberately vague. Consequently, the Church preferred to consider the question as a sacrament by which a certain dogma could not be required and could not be created. Cyril's categorical rejection of transubstantiation was thus a challenge to some of his Orthodox brethren, and a temptation to others.443 Nor could his categorical rejection of purgatory be accepted unconditionally. Some Greek theologians, among whom was his cousin Meletius Pigasus, were against this dogma; but the usual Orthodox view was that mortal man could not claim to know what intentions God might have for the souls of the dead, for God did not wish to reveal anything to us on this matter. We cannot say whether purgatory exists or not. Cyril's opinion about the prevailing authority of the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures could be accepted by all Orthodox; but it was strange for them not to find mention of the Ecumenical Councils or the Fathers of the Church. They also, although less authoritative, ensured the relations granted by the Holy Spirit. Spirit. No better was the absence of any mention of the oral tradition of the Church, of which the Church was the guardian, unless it suspected it of being erroneous.444

At the same time, these omissions caused less concern among the Orthodox than the positive statements of the Confession. The answer to the question about images was amazing for almost every Greek. The worship of (???????) images was indeed forbidden by the Fathers of the Seventh Ecumenical Council. They, however, approved of the reverence (???????) shown to them; for the image is a reflection of the original and partakes of its holiness. Cyril probably did not even approve of veneration; In his opinion, icons could only be allowed as decoration. In this he certainly went against the tradition of the Church. But serious theologians were far more concerned about his unprecedented defense of predestination and justification by faith alone.

Neither doctrine was expressly forbidden by the Church; But none of them was consistent with the accepted tradition. There were two traditional points of view on predestination. Mark Eugenicus asserted that God's foreknowledge is absolute, but predestination is relative; only good works are predestined and known in advance to God, because only they are in accordance with His will. On the whole, the Church preferred another, more definite position of George-Gennadius Scholarius: it, with slight differences in terminology, coincides with the teaching of St. John of Damascus. It says that foreknowledge precedes predestination. The initiative to create good or evil comes from the created will. Predestination is in the power of God, but it itself has no power over God's knowledge and wisdom. This view was briefly presented in the response to the Lutherans of Jeremiah II.

Cyril's view of justification by faith alone without works was equally unacceptable. Here again we can assume that the position of the Orthodox of this time was influenced by what Jeremiah II answered the Lutherans: namely, that faith needs works, and works need faith; one without the other is dead. The Orthodox Church has never approved of Pelagianism and did not like the calculation of merit, which was introduced by the Roman dogmas about indulgences and purgatory. It could go further in the development of the idea of justification by faith than the Catholics; but at the same time it could hardly accept the dogma of justification by faith alone.445