CHAP. I. Of the Belief and Customs of the Modern Greeks.

SEEING all the Sects that are at pre­sent in the Eastern Countries, have sprung from the Greeks, and that ex­cepting some particular Points, for which they have separated from them, they agree in the rest of their Belief and Ceremonies, it is necessary that we treat first of the Religion of the Greeks, before we come to those others that depend upon it.

The Greek Church subject to the Patriarch of Constantinople was not always of that vast extent, to which it attained after that it plea­sed the Eastern Emperours to lessen other Patriarchates for greatening that of Constantino­ple: which they could the more easily do, because their Power, as to things of that Nature, hath been far greater than that of the Em­perours of the VVest, and that for erecting of new Bishopricks, or granting new Rights and Jurisdictions, they stood but very little on the consent of Patriarchs; whereas in the Western Church, the Popes by Degrees have become Supreme in these Affairs, and Princes must now have their recourse to them.

There are several Lists of Churches which are subject to that of Constantinople: but be­cause they are ancient, and do not sufficiently inform us of the Extent to which that Church pretends, we shall produce two that are later, one made by a Greek not much known, called Nilus Doxapatrius, See the Lists that are at the End of the Book. A. and related by Leo Al­latius. And the other mentioned in the Letter of Mr. Smith In the same Place. B. concerning the Present State of the Greek Church, which he assures us he had from some Greeks of Constantinople. Both these Lists are in Greek and Latin, subjoined to the end of this Treatise. Let it now suffice us to observe here, that most of the Greek Metropolitans still retain certain Dignities or Titles of Honour, which distinguish them one from another; so that when the Patri­arch of Constantinople writes to the Archbi­shops, nay and to some Bishops, he never fails to give them their Titles, even in the misera­ble State to which they are at present redu­ced. [Page 3]The Greeks, in all times, have been nice in distinguishing themselves by Titles of Ho­nour, and by lofty and magnificent Names: which by many is attributed to an Oriental vanity: whilst they who are more sparing in Censure, will attribute it to their Politeness and Civility. Though the Church of Constan­tinople hath lost the great Splendour, which it enjoyed under Christian Emperours, yet the Churchmen still take to themselves Titles of Honour and Pompous Names, of which they are proud. Nor are the Monks and Re­ligious free from that Ambition; And that's the reason why Modern Greek VVriters attri­bute commonly to themselves such kinds of Titles, and prefix them to their Books; as, for instance, Doctour of the Great Church, and the like, which do not always excuse them from the ignorance wherein they are plunged. But let us now speak of their Belief.

Since the Greek Church hath been reduced to the sad State wherein we see it at present, the Latins have imposed many things upon them without cause, and the Emissaries have often called them Hereticks without any ground. But, at length, some Learned Men at Rome under Pope Urban VIII. perceived the ignorance of the Latin Divines, that con­demned for Heresie what ever they had not learnt in their Schools. This hath been alrea­dy observed by an Authour who published his Travels to Mount Libanus, with some pret­ty large Remarks, wherein he explains the Theology of the Eastern Churches. That Authour alledges, that the Latins often accuse the Greeks of Innovation, without any reason, [Page 4]and that if Theology were traced to its source, it would be found that the Greeks have stuck closer to Antiquity than the Latins have done.

We have, of late, some learned VVorks on that Subject, which seem to have been com­posed by an Authour, that hath solidly refuted what the ablest Protestants of France alledged in that matter. However, I think the Au­thour of the Notes upon Gabriel of Philadelphia hath come nearest the Truth, by keeping a mean betwixt both Parties, and distinguishing the new Greeks who have read the Books of the Latins, or have studied in their Schools, from those who have had no Commerce with them; he confesses that the former agree more with the Latins than the other, at least as to the manner of Expression. The Authour of the Remarks on the Voyage to Mount Liba­nus hath gone farther: for the affirms that the Modern Greeks do for most part but Copy the Books of the Latins; not following in all things the Sentiments of their Forefathers; and besides, that their minds being raised but little above Popular traditions, they take no pains to search for Divinity in its Original. Nay he adds, that the VVorks of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia, though he be in the Number of those who are not reunited to the Latin Church, are no more but a medly of the Theology of the Greeks and Latins; which is chiefly to be understood of the me­thod and expressions. P. Morin was also of that opinion, when in his VVorks of Penance and Ordinations, he speaks of the Archbishop of Philadelphia.

If we follow that Principle, which is very well grounded in these two Authours, we shall more easily discover what the Belief of the Greeks is, and it will be no hard matter to reconcile the different Opinions of those who have written on that Subject. I could not, in my Judgment, make the Belief of the Modern Greeks more apparent; than by in­serting the Catalogue which Caucus Archbi­shop of Corfou hath made of the Errours which he imputes to them; and by adding at the same time, some necessary Reflexions for distin­guishing what is true from what is false in that matter, which hath been variously treated by different Authours.

Caucus in Hist. de Graec. recentiorum Haeresibus. Caucus a Noble Venetian and Archbishop of Corfou, in the Book that he wrote concer­ning the Errours of the New Greeks, dedica­ted to Pope Gregory XIII. observes the follow­ing Errours.

I. They re-baptise all the Latins that em­brace their Communion.

II. They delay the Baptism of Children untill the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, tenth and eighteenth Year of their Age.

III. Of the seven Sacraments of the Ro­man Church, they admit not Confirmation, nor Extreme Unction.

IV. They deny Purgatory, though they pray for the Dead.

V. They acknowledge not absolutely the Primacy of the Pope.

VI. They deny that the Church of Rome is the true Catholick Church, and that she is Mistress of all other Churches. They even prefer their own Church before the Latin [Page 6]Church, and on Holy Thursday excommunicate the Pope, and all the Latin Bishops as Here­ticks and Schismaticks.

VII. They deny that the Holy Ghost pro­ceeds from the Father and the Son.

VIII. They refuse to adore the Holy Sacra­ment in the Mass of Latin Priests who consecrate in unleavened bread, according to the ancient Custome of the Roman Church confirmed by the Council of Florence. Nay they wash the Altars on which the Latins have celebrated, and will not suffer Latin Priests to celebrate upon their Altars, because they pretend that the Sacrifice ought to be performed with lea­vened bread.

IX. They say that the Ordinary words wherein the Latins make the Consecration to consist, are not sufficient to change the Bread and the Wine into the Body and Bloud of our Lord, if some Prayers and Benedictions of the Fathers be not added.

X. They affirm that the Communion under both kinds is to be given to Children, even be­fore they can distinguish that Nourishment from another, because that is a matter of Di­vine Right. And therefore they give the Com­munion to Children immediately after Bap­tism, and they account the Latins, who are of a contrary Judgment, Hereticks.

XI. They hold that Lay-men are by Divine Law obliged to communicate under both kinds, and call the Latins Hereticks for maintaining the contrary.

XII. They affirm that Believers when they have attained to years of discretion, are not to be forced to communicate every Year [Page 7]at Easter; but that they are to have liberty of Conscience.

XIII. They shew no Respect, Worship, nor Veneration to the Holy Sacrament of the Eu­charist, even when their Priests celebrate, and they carry it to the Sick without Torch-light. Besides, they keep it in a little Bag and Box, without other Ceremony, than fastening it to the VVall; whereas they light Lamps be­fore their Images.

XIV. They believe that the Host consecra­ted on Holy Thursday, is much more efficacious, than those which are consecrated on ordinary Days.

XV. They deny that the Sacrament of Marriage is a Bond which cannot be broken. And therefore they accuse the Church of Rome of Errour, for teaching that Marriage cannot be dissolved in the Case of Adultery, and that it is not allowed to marry again in that Case. But the Greeks teach the contrary, and practise it daily.

XVI. They condemn fourth Marriages.

XVII. They solemnize not the Festivals of the Virgin, Apostles and other Saints instituted by the Catholick Church and the Fathers, on the same Days that the Western Church ce­lebrates them: and besides that they do it af­ter another manner, they also despise the Feasts of many very ancient Saints.

XVIII. They say that the Canon of the Latin Mass ought to be abrogated, as being full of Errours.

XIX. They deny that Usury is a mortal Sin.

XX. They deny that Subdeaconship is at present a sacred Order.

XXI. Of all the General Councils that have been celebrated in the Catholick Church by Popes at different times, they admit of none after the seventh General Council which is the second of Nice, that was called against those who rejected Images. The Greeks ac­knowledge none of the rest, and submit not to their Decrees.

XXII. They deny Auricular Confession to be of Divine Right, pretending it onely to be a Positive and Ecclesiatical Constitution.

XXIII. They say that Lay-mens Confessions ought to be arbitrary. And therefore amongst them, Laicks are not constrained to confess once a year, and they are not excommunica­ted for neglecting it.

XXIV. They pretend that in Confession it is not necessary, nor of Divine Right, that men should confess all their Sins in particular, nor yet tell all the Circumstances that alter the nature of a Sin.

XXV. They give the Communion to Laicks, both in Health and Sickness, though they have not before confessed their Sins to a Priest; and that, because they are perswaded that Con­fession is arbitrary, and that Faith is the onely and true Preparation for receiving the Eucha­rist.

XXVI. They slight the Vigils of the Latins, before the Festivals of Our Lord, the Virgin and Apostles; aswell as the Fasts of the Em­ber-weeks. Nay on these Days they eat Flesh in contempt of the Latins.

XXVII. They accuse the Latins of Heresie, because they eat flesh that hath been strangled, and other Meats that are condemned in the Old Testament.

XXVIII. They deny that simple Fornication is a mortal Sin.

XXIX. They affirm that it is lawfull to de­ceive an Enemy, and that it is no Sin to doe him Injury.

XXX. As to Restitution they are of the Opinion, that it is not necessary to Salvation to restore what one has robbed.

XXXI. In fine, they believe, that he who hath once been a Priest, may return again to a Lay-condition.

These are the Opinions that distinguish the Greeks from the Latins, if we credit Caucus, who attributes that Belief not onely to the Greeks of Corfou, but also to the other Greeks who are separated from the Church of Rome.

But if we listen toCaucus Ve­netus Archie­piscopus Cor­cyrensis, vir nullius plane doctrinae vel Judicii . . . Li­bello edito de Graecorum re­centiorum hae­resibus, Graecos omnes non sine evidenti ca­lumnia diffa­mavit . . . an mendacio, an scelere, an fraude, an fa­laciis . . . sum­morum Ponti­ficum gratia demerenda est? Leo Allat. lib. 3. de Consens. cap. 10. Leo Allatius, Caucus is an Ignorant, a Slanderer and a Man with­out Judgment, who thought to oblige the Pope by multiplying the Errours of the Greeks, and hath attributed to all, what he learnt and saw in Corfou. Nevertheless, it is no hard matter to justifie Caucus in most part of the Opinions which he imputes to the Greeks, unless, per­haps, in what concerns Morality, the Cor­ruption whereof proceeds rather from private Persons, than an universal and appro­ved Belief; and it is to be feared that it may be objected to Allatius, that he hath softned a great many things in the Opinions of the Greeks, through a Design of Reconciliation, and to curry Favour with Pope Urban VIII. who at that time proposed to himself the Re­union of the Greeks to the Church of Rome, by soft and mild ways. In effect, if we care­fully examine the Errours which Caucus im­putes [Page 10]to the Modern Greeks, we shall find that few Men have more exactly observed them. And, indeed, the Pope having enjoined him to doe it, there is no probability that he would have imposed upon the Pope, in an affair of that importance. Seeing he was not learned in the Divinity of the Ancients, he hath refer­red all to School-Divinity, and the Decisions of the Council of Trent, which he took to be the Rule according to which he ought to condemn as erroneous, what ever did not con­form thereunto; and in that his sincerity ap­pears the more. For, for a long time he had informed himself wherein they agreed with the Church of Rome, and wherein they diffe­red, condemning, nevertheless, too boldly what suited not with the Practice of his Church. But let us consider more particularly, whether Caucus be so great a Slanderer, and whether he hath imposed so much on the Greeks, as Leo Allatius would have the World believe.

In the first Place, as to the re-baptising of the Latins, it is certain that they have done it in other Places, besides Corfou; and that be­cause of the Enmity they bear towards them, looking upon all their Ceremonies as abomi­nable. And for the same reason they condemn the Mass of the Latins, wash their Altars af­ter a Latin Priest hath celebrated on them, as if they had been polluted, and consider the Unleavened bread consecrated by the Latins as an impure thing. Proofs of this may be had not onely in Catholick Writers, but even in the Oriental Canon Law, and especially inResp. De­metrii Archi­ep. Bulgar. the Answers of the Patriarchs, where most [Page 11]cases that concern the Ceremonies of the La­tins, [...]. are proposed, and resolved against those who made appear so great an Aversion to the Ceremonies of the Latins. Whence it may be inferred, that most part of the Greeks re­jected the Ceremonies that are observed in the Church of Rome, as impure and profane, and that none but some Learned Men amongst them, have endeavoured to moderate that great Aversion which was generally had a­gainst the Ceremonies of the Latins. And we ought not to be surprised at this, seeing the Latins have not been more favourable to the Baptism and Leavened bread of the Greeks, as Appears by several Letters of the PopesEpist. Cle­ment. VII. apud Allat. lib. de interst. who have written in their favour. Besides that some School Divines have doubted of the Validity of their Baptism, and their other Sa­craments, as might easily be proved.

Secondly, that which hath made Caucus say, that the Greeks acknowledge not the Sacra­ments of Confirmation and Extreme Unction, is because he considered them with relation to the Practice of the Church of Rome, wherein the former of these Sacraments is administred se­parately from Baptism; and is at present one of the great Functions of Bishops (to whom it is re­served,) in their Visitations. The other is never ad­ministred in the Church of Rome, but to those who are at the Point of Death; from whence that Sacrament hath been called Extreme Uncti­on. But the Greeks administer that first Sacra­ment at the same time they do Baptism, and the Oriental Church hath always retained that Custome, which differs from the Practice of he Western. Besides, amongst the Greeks, as in [Page 12]all other Parts of the East, the Priest admi­nisters that Sacrament, as may be seen in the Dissertation whichLuc. Hol­sten. dissert. de sacr. Confirm. apud Graecos. Holstenius made on that Subject, and which was Printed at Rome by Order of Cardinal Francisco Barbarini. That Learned Man affirms, that that Practice is so ancient in the Greek Church, that the Power of confirming is become common to Priests, as if established by Law. As for Extreme Unc­tion, the Greeks delay it not, as the Latins do, till the sick Person be at the Point of Death, nor do they call that Sacrament Extreme Unc­tion: On the contrary, the Sick goe to the Church to receive it, when they can conve­niently, and it is administred to them as often as they are sick, because they think that St. James in his Epistle speaks of those that are sick, and not of such as are at the Point of Death.

In the third Place, as to Adoration which they render not to the Holy Sacrament after the Consecration, that ought not neither to be generally understood, because it is certain they adore that Sacrament, but onely with relation to the Adoration which the Latins pay to the Eucharist, so soon as the Priest hath pronoun­ced these words, This is my Body. Seeing the Greeks place not the Consecration in these words, but in some Prayers that come after, it is not to be thought strange, if Caucus, who made the Practice of his Church his Rule in judging of the Errours of the Greeks, hath said that they adored not the Eucharist: nay more, when they have consecrated, which, in their opinion, is done after the invocation of the Holy Ghost, they use none of that Cere­monial [Page 13]adoration which is observed in the La­tin Church; but they think it enough to adore Jesus Christ who is presented to them by ele­vating the Host after their way, a little before the Communion. However Caucus is not to be excused in that he took all his measures according to the Practice of his own Church, unless, probably he had Orders to reform all things according to that Standard.

Fourthly, it is of Publick Notoriety, that the Orientals communicate in both kinds, and that they pretend to be warranted in that by the words of Jesus Christ himself. In that manner the Patriarch Jeremy speaks in his first answer to the Divines of Wittemberg. [...]. Hierom. Pa­triar. Constant. Ye say that one must communicate in both kinds, and in that ye say right: which they extend even to Children, to whom they give the Communion after Baptism in a spoon. In a word, all the Oriental Church observes that Custome; and our chief School Divines do even agree, that that Practice of communicating under both kinds was religiously observed in the Latin Churches untill these latter Ages, when for good reasons it was thought fit to change it.

Fifthly, as to Confession, it is not to be thought strange that they believe it to be onely of Positive and Ecclesiastical right, because they are perswaded that [...]. Id. Hieron. Patriarch. properly speaking onely Baptism, and the Eucharist have been institu­ted by our Lord, and that the rest have been appointed by the Church; as may be seen in the second answer of the Patriarch Jeremy, to the Divines of Wittemberg. Caucus then hath asserted nothing as to that Point, which does not agree to the real Belief of the [Page 14] Greeks. However it cannot be denied, but that Auricular Confession is in use in the Greek Church, as well as in the Latin, and that the Greeks confess their Sins in particular, that they may receive Penance according to the Nature of their Offences, of which, by conse­quent, they must discover the nature and kind to their Confessour. [...]. It is necessary, saith the Patriarch Jeremy after St. Basil, to declare all Sins to the Confessour. And this may be seen more at large in the Book of Christopher Angelus, of the Discipline of his Church. There is, nevertheless, this difference, if we will credit Metrophanes Critopulus, that the Confessour informs himself not of the Place where the sin hath been committed, nor of those who have been concerned in it, nor yet of the manner, because, according to the same Authour, that is both needless and too curious, which is sufficient to justifie Caucus. For as to the Eastern Communion, which ought yearly to be received in the Latin Church, it is a Custome peculiar to that Church.

Sixthly, Caucus attributes nothing to the Greeks in what concerns Marriage, which they do not positively maintain, and pretend to be agreable to the New Testament, the Fathers, the Oriental Canon Law, and the Ordinan­ces of the Emperours. They say that there is nothing clearer than these words of the Gospel, [...]. Matth. 19.9 Whosoever shall put away his Wife, except it be for Fornication, and shall marry another, com­mitteth Adultery. It is manifest then, say they, that the Gospel permits the dissolving of Mar­riage in the Case alledged; and declining the Authority of St. Augustine, and some other La­tin [Page 15]Fathers as to that Point, they affirm that the Greek Fathers never explained that Passage otherways, and that besides, the whole Eastern Church therein agree with the Greeks. Nay, it is easie to prove by the Histories of the Councils of Florence andF. paolo nella sua Isto­ria del Concil. Card. Palavic. nella sua Istor. del Concil. di Trent. of Trent, that it is the Practice of all the Greek Church. And therefore it was, that the Ambassadours of Venice addressed themselves to the Council of Trent, for obtaining some qualification to be made in the Canon which was ready to be published against those who said, that Adultery dissol­ved Marriage. And the thing that set the Republick of Venice upon this was, that the Greeks of Candia, Cyprus, Corfou, Zante, and some other Places, Subjects of the State, pra­ctised that which the Council was about to condemn. In effect, the Ambassadours had satisfaction, because their reasons were thought good, as Cardinal Palavicini acknowledges in his History of the Council. It is nevertheless true, that the Greeks dissolve their Marriages too easily, and not in the Case of Adultery a­lone; But they still pretend that therein they Conform to the Canon and Civil Laws, which ought to be moderated, because of the too great Liberty they have taken to themselves. How­ever, Caucus having onely mentioned the Case of Adultery, seems to have been too reserved, inasmuch as he might have told a great many other Cases of less importance, wherein the Greeks make no scruple to divorce.

Seventhly, it is not to be thought strange, that the Greeks eat no flesh that hath been sti­fled or strangled, bloud, nor other meats that are not onely forbidden in the Old Testament, [Page 16]but also in the New, as appears in the Acts of the Apostles; a thing not singular to the Greeks of Corfou onely; but which is generally prac­tised by all the Christians of the East, and not very long since it was wholly abolished in the West.

In the Eighth place, as to the Article which concerns the Supremacy of the Pope, it may be thought strange, that Leo Allatius should fall so foul on Caucus in that Point, as if he were one of the greatest Impostours in the World. It is but too true, that the Greeks who are not Latinised, nay and all the rest of the Eastern Churches, do not at present own that Primacy of Rome over the other patriarchs, in the manner that it is acknowledged in the Western Church.Metroph. Critop. in Epit. Doctr. Eccl. Orient. Metrophanes Critopulus assures us, that the Eastern Church acknow­ledges no other Head but Jesus Christ, who hath the Qualities of Head of the Church; that amongst the Patriarchs there is no diffe­rence, unless it be of the See, [...], as he speaks. The Patriarch of Constantinople takes the first place, He of Alexandria the Se­cond, the Patriarch of Antioch the Third, and he of Jerusalem the Fourth. Every one is Supreme within his own Jurisdiction, and if they all meet together in one place, they mu­tually kiss one anothers hands. So that none of them takes the Title of Head of the Ca­tholick Church, as the same Critopulus observes, who would thereby condemn the Pope who assumes these Titles. As to what Leo Allatius addsLeo Allat. de Consens. Ec­cl. Occid. & Orient. that Caucus imposes upon the Greeks, when he saith that they excommunicate the Pope and Latin Bishops on Holy Thursday, that [Page 17]is a thing which hath not onely been observed by Caucus in Corfou, but by many other Tra­vellers also in several places. The Jesuit Dan­dini who travelled to Mount Libanus, in Qua­lity of Nuncio under Clement VIII. in the de­scription that he makes of the Isle of Candy, speaks of the Greeks in these terms.Girolamo Dandini in Miss. Apost. cap. 5. I should have a great many things to say, if I would relate all the impurities of the Prelates, Priests and other Churchmen of that Nation, their separation from the Latin Church, the Maledictions and Excom­munications which they thunder against her on the most Holy Days, and at the same time when we pray to God for their Conversion.

Ninthly, we may easily believe, that the Greeks reckon Sub-Deaconship amongst the in­feriour Orders, which are not Sacred, to speak in the Terms of the Latins, since it is not very long since the Latins themselves have made it a sacred Order.

In the tenth Place, it may be seen in the Books of Greek Writers, that to own but seven General Councils, is not a thing peculi­ar to the Greeks of Corfou. Nay one would think it a little too much, to oblige them to receive the Latin Councils wherein they have had no share, or those others wherein they say, they were forced to be present, more for the Interests of State, than the Concerns of Re­ligion. They are permitted to live in this Belief, in the States of the Republick of Ve­nice.

Lastly, as to what concerns Festival Days, Fasts, and many other Matters of Discipline, it is certain, the Greek Church does not agree therein with the Latin, and Caucus had reason [Page 18]to say, that the Greeks admitted them not, nor yet part of the Saints of the Roman Church, which they laugh at when they see them in Churches, as may be seen in the History of the Council of Florence, written by Syropulus, where he saith, [...]. When I enter into any Church of the Latins, I salute none of the Saints whom I see, because I know none of them. Nay, I have much adoe to know Jesus Christ there, whom I do not adore neither, because I know not in what manner they represent him.

I think this may be enough to justifie Caucus in what he attributes to the Greeks: and if that Authour hath been pleased sometimes to exaggerate their Errours, and to impose upon them, it may also be said, that Leo Allatius hath not always kept within bounds in making their Defence. I confess the way that he hath taken to reunite the two Churches, would be more effectual for reconciling the Greeks to the Roman Communion, than the Course that hath been followed by the Emissaries who have encreased their Errours, and continue to doe so daily, instead of lessening them: but for all that, we may know the true Sentiments of the Greeks, if we can but lay aside our or­dinary Prejudices, and distinguish those who are Latinised, from those that are not.

We forgot to observe their Belief as to Purga­tory, Hell and Paradise.Caucus, ib. ac supra. Caucus with ma­ny other Writers does affirm, that the Greeks deny Purgatory, and that notwithstanding they pray for the Dead: which is to be understood with relation to the Opinion of the Latins, who commonly establish a Place of Purgatory, and a Fire which torments Souls. [Page 19]But the Greeks deny both, though they ac­knowledge a certain State of Purgatory; and therefore they pray to God for the Dead. It is certain that Prayers for the Dead have been appointed in the Church in the very first ages, as appears by Tertullian and the Ancien­test of the Fathers, aswell as by the most An­cient Liturgies. Perhaps the Church took that Ceremony from the Jews, who likewise pray to God for the Dead; which was a Custome practised in the Synagogues long before the Birth of Christianity, and is to be found prac­tised at that time when the Jews were under the Dominion of the Grecians. There is this dif­ference, nevertheless, betwixt the Greeks and the Latins, as to their praying for the Dead, that the latter have explained themselves more fully; whereas the former, and all the other Orientals, have continued in more General Terms. The Latins, however, in their Pray­ers for the Dead at Mass, retain the Ancient form, which agrees pretty well with what the Greeks believe of Hell, Purgatory and Paradise. This is the manner of praying for the Dead in the Mass of the Latins. Domine Jesu Christe, libera animas omnium fidelium defunctorum de poenis inferni & de profundo lacu: libera eas de ore I eonis, ne absorbeat eas Tartarus, ne cadant in obscurum, &c. These words seem to con­firm the Opinion of the Greeks and other Christians of the East, for they suppose but one Place, which is Hell, where the Souls are detained as in a dark Prison, and they pray that the Souls may pass from that obscure Place, to a Place of Light and Rest, which is Paradise: and this exactly agrees with the [Page 20]Prayer that the Priest says at the Mass which is called in die obitus.

As to what concerns Hell, we shall not speak here of the Opinion of Origen, who hath ne­vertheless been followed by some Greek Doc­tours; we shall onely mention what is most generally approved by them. When they pray that God would deliver Souls out of Hell, that is to be understood of the State of Pur­gatory; I mean, that in that obscure Prison which they call Hell, there are two sorts of Souls; one sort whose Sins are not so enormous as to be condemned for them to Eternal Pu­nishment there; and another who are really condemned to Hell, there to abide for ever. Of these last it may be said, that in inferno nulla est redemptio; whereas in respect of the first sort of Souls, it may be said, that in inferno est redemptio. This may serve to explain the Liturgies and Books of the New Greeks, which seem to suppose that the Souls shall not remain in Hell for ever, and that so the Punishment of the damned is not Eternal. If we take this Rule along with us, we may have an easie ex­plication of all the Prayers that are said for the Dead in the Greek Church.

As to Paradise, the Greeks and other Orien­tals are in this perswasion, that Souls enjoy not Eternal Bliss, and that they are not pu­nished with the Pains of Hell, before they receive Sentence from God at the last day of Universal Judgment. And therefore according to the Sentiment of the Greeks we must distin­guish two Paradises. The first is that Place of Light and Rest, mentioned in their Prayers and Liturgy, where the Souls of the Blessed [Page 21]repose expecting the last Judgment. That Place is called in the publick Office, that is said for the Dead, Paradise, Light, Life, Bles­sedness, Abraham's Bosome, the Land of the Living, &c. The second Paradise is that Eter­nal Bliss which they shall enjoy in heaven after the Universal Judgment; and they think that Opinion to be more agreeable to the Texts of Holy Scripture, than that of the Latins: for it shall not be, say they, but at that day, that Jesus Christ who will come in quality of Judge, shall say to the Elect,Matth. 25. Come ye blessed of my Father, inherit the Kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the World, &c. They pretend that the Opinion of the Latins concerning Pa­radise and Hell before the last day of Judg­ment is not founded on Antiquity. Besides, we may observe, that the Greeks have not sub­tilized so much upon the Light of the Glory of the Blessed, as most of the Latine Divines have done, who have spoken of it with extraordina­ry nicety. Nay, there are some who affirm, that the Greeks Fathers deny, that the Angels and Blessed see the Essence of God in Heaven; relying upon these words of Theodoret, Theod. Dial. immut. The Angels see not the Divine Essence, which compre­hends all things, and cannot be comprehended, nor known, but they see a certain species which is proportionate to their Nature. And this they con­firm also by the Testimony of many Fathers.

There remains somewhat to be said of the Morals, Discipline, and Ceremonies of the Greeks. As to their Morality, seeing they have the same Principles as the Latius have, it cannot be much different from theirs; unless it be, that wanting the use of School Divinity, they are not so great Metaphysicians as the [Page 22] Latins; wherein they are not to be blamed, when they mingle no Logick nor Metaphy­sicks in their Books of Morality, if you except some Greeks who have studied in the Schools of Italy, or have read the Books of the Latins.

It may be, notwithstanding, that the Greeks and other Christians of the East do not walk up to the strictness of the Rules of Morality, because of the sad condition to which they are at present reduced. Their Church-men are accused of Simony, because the Bishops sell Orders; and the Priests the Administration of Sacraments: but if matters be throughly ex­amined, perhaps they are not so blameable as people think. There is a necessity that they live by their Calling; and seeing they have no Benefices, as they are at present established in the Church of Rome, why are they not to be allowed to take money for the Administra­tion of Sacraments? There is no fault found with the Custome that is introduced into the West, of taking money for Masses, Confessions, and many other things; and shall a poor Pa­pas be accused of Simony, for being paid for an Absolution that he giveth, and for having rated it according to the nature of the Sin? Nor do we think it strange, neither, that certain Sins are rated at Rome, because we are accus­tomed to the practice. Will the new distinc­tion of Divine Right and Ecclesiastical Right, that some Divines and Canonists have invented in these last Ages, put the Pope without the reach of Simony; and shall not that extreme necessity to which the Patriarch and Greeks Bi­shops are reduced render them at all excusable before God and Man, in that they take money [Page 23]for Ordinations? It is not that I would excuse the Greeks in all things: for it is certain they ma­ny times take too much Liberty to themselves, and that they are not carefull enough to square their Consciences according to the Rules of Christian Morality. But the Ignorance and Poverty wherein they are at present, are the cause of their Disorders, which nevertheless the vertuous Men amongst them prevent as­much as they can, as the Patriarch Jeremy, who openly [...]. Jerom. Patr. Const. reproves Confessours who make a Traffick of Holy Things, and exact Presents. He says that such deserve to be pu­nished by God, and that when he finds any a­mongst his People, he chastises them, and deprives them of their Office.

As to Ecclesiastical Discipline, they conform not in all things to the Prescript of their Ca­nons. For instance, they observe not exactly the Age that is required for Priesthood and Episcopacy; besides, they mind but very little the Intervals, and take several Orders together at one time. The Election of their Patriarch is not always Canonical; for he that gives most to the Grand Signior, is commonly preferred before the rest: And therefore there are many times several that take the Title of Patriarch. Monsieur de Nointel Ambassadour for the French King at the PortMonsieur Noint. Tom. 3. de la Perpet. takes notice of four Patriarchs alive in the Year 1671. The Greeks are ambitious, and therefore they take all courses to rise to that Dignity; which is the Cause of great Troubles in that Church.

Besides the money that the Patriarch Elect gives to the Grand Signior for Letters of Con­firmation, he is also obliged to buy the Voices [Page 24]of the Bishops who elect him: and every one upon that Occasion is willing to make the most of his Voice. But, on the other hand, the Patriarch knows very well how to make him­self amends, when he makes any Bishop: which the Bishops also doe in regard of their Papas, to whom they sell Orders and Cures as dear as possibly they can; and all, at length, falls upon the poor People, who pay very dear for the Administration of Sacraments; and that's the reason they goe but seldom to them.

The Patriarch and Bishops are not married; but the Priests marry before their Ordination: and that Practice which is General over all the Levant is ancient. I do not here examine whether it be agreeable to the Primitive Canons of the Church, or a Deviation for the Anci­ent Canons. It is certain the Greeks pretend to be warranted, as to that, by the Canons called the Canons of the Apostles, andConcil, in Trullo. they accuse the Latins of having contravened the Ancient Canons of the Church. If a Priest happen to marry after that he hath been called to be a Priest, he cannot afterward perform any Functions of the Priesthood, which is ac­cording to the Council of Neocaesarea; but the Marriage is not therefore dissolved: whereas in the Latin Church the Marriage is null, be­cause Priesthood is an impediment that breaks it. I believe Caucus meant of those Priests that marry after ordination, when he saith,Cauc. in Hist. de Graec. errorib. that the Greeks believe that he who hath been once a Priest, may again return to the State of Lay-men. In effect, he retains nothing of Priesthood, unless it be some Honour in the Church, where [Page 25]he hath a Seat separate from the Place of La­icks.

Monachism is in great esteem amongst the Greeks, as appears by the Answer which theJerem. Pa­triarch. Re­spons. 1. & 2. Patriarch Jeremy made to the German Divines, who spoke of Monks as of useless Members; to which Divines he opposes St. Basil, and the other Greek Fathers, who have made an Elogy of the Monastick Life, and have lookt upon it as a Pure and Angelical way of living: And this he confirms, besides, by the Authority of Councils wherein many good regulations were made concerning Monks. Metrophanes Critopulus also praises Monachism, as a most ancient thing in the Church, [...]. say­ing, that it is an Ornament to it. Their way of living, according to the same Authour, is very austere, because they never eat Flesh, though they be not engaged to that by any Vow, but onely by Custome which they never violate. None of them ever sleep more than four Hours, and some but two. They goe to Prayers in the Church thrice a day, and they who apply themselves not to study, work with their hands; so that there is no Monastery, where all sorts of Workmen may not be found.

Leo Allat. de Consens. Eccl. Occid. & Orient. l. 3 c. 8. Leo Allatius treats more at large of the Greeks Monks that are now-a-days in the Le­vant, and that very exactly: which obliges me to give here an Abridgment of what he hath observed.

Though there be different kinds of Monks amongst the Greeks, yet they all derive their Original from St. Basil, who is the first and sole Authour of Monastick Discipline▪ All the Monks look upon him as their Father, [Page 26]and it would be a Crime amongst them to de­viate in the least from his Rule. There are to be seen all over Greeks many fair Monasteries with well built Churches, where these Monks sing day and night. However, they have not all one and the same way of living; for there are some called [...], others [...]. The first live together in Society, eat in the same Refectory, have nothing singular amongst them as to their Habit; and, in fine, have all the same Exercises, none being exempted. There are nevertheless two Orders amongst them; for one is of [...]. the Great and Angeli­cal Habit, who are of a Degree more elevate and perfect than the rest, and profess a more perfect way of living: these are in greatest number. The others who are of [...]. the Little Habit, otherways [...], are of an in­feriour rank, and lead not so perfect a life. The second, which are named [...], live according as they please themselves, as their Name does import. And therefore before they take the Habit, they give some money for a Cell, and some other Necessaries of the Monastery. The Yeoman of the Cellar or Butler furnishes them with Bread and Wine as he does the rest: and so being exempted from the Duties of the Monastery, they mind their own business. These last leave by Will what they possess, aswell within as without the Monastery, to their Servant or Companion, whom they call Disciple, and whom they have chosen from among the Monks to assist them in their occasions. This Man after the Death of the other, by his ma­nagement improves the goods that he hath [Page 27]inherited, and leaves by Will what he hath purchased, to him whom he hath chosen for his Companion: the rest of the goods which he possessed, that is to say, what his Master left him when he died, falls to the Monastery, which afterwards sells them to those that please to purchase. Nevertheless amongst these last Monks there are some so miserably poor, that having nothing to purchase a piece of Land with, are obliged to work and labour for the Monastery, and to apply themselves to the basest employments. These do all for the pro­fit of the Convent, and therefore the Convent supplies them with Necessaries; and if they have any spare time after their work is done, they employ it in Prayers.

There is a third Order of these Monks, who goe by the Name of Anchorites. These not being able to work, nor support the other Duties of the Monastery, have, notwithstan­ding, a mind to live in the repose of solitude. They buy a Cell out of the Monastery, with a little piece of Land on which they may live, and never goe to the Monastery but on Holy days, to assist at the Office; after which they return to their Cells, where they mind their own Affairs, having no hours appointed them for Prayers. There are, nevertheless, some of these Anchorites who have left their Monastery with the Consent of their Abbot, that they may lead a more retired life, and ap­ply themselves more to Meditation and Prayer. The Monastery sends them once a month Pro­visions to live on, because they possess neither Lands nor Vineyards: but those who will not depend upon the Abbot, hire some Vineyard [Page 28]near to their Cell, of which they eat the Grapes; others live on Cherries or such like Fruit. They also sow Beans in the Season of the year; and some gain their living by transcribing Books.

Besides the Monks, there are Nuns also who live in Community, and are shut up in Mo­nasteries under the Institution of St. Basil. They are no less strict than the Monks, as to Fasting, Praying and the other Offices of the Monastick Life. They chuse one of the Anci­entest and most virtuous of their Community to supply the place of Abbess; and these Ab­besses are the same with them, as the Abbots are with the Monks. Nevertheless, that Mo­nastery of Women depends always on an Ab­bot, who assigns them one of the oldest and most virtuous Monks to confess and administer the Sacraments to them. This Monk lives near their Monastery, that he may be at hand to assist them readily in their occasions. He says likewise Mass for them; and orders the other Offices.

These Nuns wear all the same Habit, and a Cloak of the same colour. Their Arms and Hands are covered to their Fingers ends; and their Habit is of plain Woollen Cloth. Their Heads, besides, are shaven, and every one hath a Cell apart where they lodge conveni­ently. The richer sort have a Maid; and sometimes they bring up in their Houses young Girles, whom they bring up in the Duties of Piety and Devotion. When they have perfor­med their ordinary Duties, they work with their Needle; and the Turks who bear a respect towards these Nuns, come to their Monaste­ries [Page 29]to buy Girdles of their making. The Ab­besses willingly open the Doors of their Con­vent to the Turks who come to buy the Ma­nufacture of these good Nuns, who return to their Appartment so soon as they have sold their Wares.

I have read a Manuscript Relation, that speaks not so much to the advantage of these Nuns. The Authour of that Relation observes that the Nuns called Caloyeres, who live at Constantinople, are Widows, some of which have had several Husbands, and that they em­brace not that Profession, but when they are well stricken in years: Then he adds, that they make no Vows, that all their Sancti­ty consists in wearing a Black Veil upon their Head, and declaring that they will Marry no more; that, after all, they live most common­ly at home, where they mind their House-wifery, their Children and Relations. He confesses, nevertheless, that there are some of them who live in Community, but that these are more miserable than the former: that both go about wheresoever they please: and that, in fine, they have more Liberty under that Re­ligious Habit, than they had before.

The Fasts of the Greeks are different enough from those of the Latins: for the Fasts of the latter would be Festival Days, and Days of good Cheer amongst the Orientals, in regard they not onely abstain from Flesh, and all that comes from it, as Butter and Cheese; but they eat not so much as Fish, contenting themselves with Fruits and Pulse, with some small portion of Oil, and drink very little Wine. The Monks are more strict in their Fasting, because [Page 30]they never taste Wine nor Oil, unless on Sa­turdays and Sundays. Yet the Moscovites are allowed to eat Fish, because they have neither Wine nor Oil. Wednesdays and Fridays they abstain from Flesh, and all that comes of it; but on these days they are allowed to eat Fish. I shall say nothing of their Lent, nor private Fasts; onely must observe that the Greeks and other Eastern Nations exceedingly blame the Saturdays Fast of the Latins, because they say, that Day is a Festival as well as Sunday; which they prove by the Ancient Canons and the practice of the first Ages. In fine, as to their Ceremonies, it may be said in general, that no Nation in Christendom hath so many. Their Euchology or Ritual, with the Notes of P. Goar, may be consulted as to that point. So ex­cessive is the Worship they render to Images, that in a Manuscript which I have read con­cerning the Errours of the Latins, they upbraid them [...]. MS. Bibli­oth. Bodlei. Oxon. Tit. [...]. with want of respect to Images; which cannot well be understood, unless it be that the Latins omit an infinite number of Ceremonies before their Images, which are observed by the Greeks. On the Festival day of a SaintMetroph. Critop. they place his Image in the mid­dle of the Church, and that Image or Picture, represents the History of the Festival that is Celebrated: for instance of the Nativity or Resurrection of our Lord: Then they that are present kiss the Image; which in their Lan­guage is called [...], and in Latin, Adora­re. That Adoration is not performed by Kneeling, Bowing, or any other Gesture of Body, but onely by kissing the Image. If it be the Image of our Lord, they commonly [Page 31]kiss the Feet: if an Image of the Virgin, they kiss the Hands: and in a word, if it be the Image of some Saint they kiss the Face.

These and many other Ceremonies, which the Greeks observe in the Adoration of their Images, have been much augmented since the second Council of Nice, where the Patrons of Images obtained a great Victory over the Ico­noclasts. And it is chiefly since that time that the Greeks have published the Miraculous His­tories of their Images, of which their Books are full: and as if they had not had enough a­mongst themselves at home, they have searched at Rome and other places for Miracles that have been wrought by virtue of Images.

After all, the Greeks ground most of their Ce­remonies upon their Traditions. They take no great care to examine, whether these Tra­ditions be Ancient, or not. It is enough that they are in practice, to make them pass for Apostolical. And seeing there are but few able Men amongst them, they are incapable of Judging whether or no their Traditions be real­ly founded on Antiquity. One of the Cere­monies which hath most astonished the Latins, is that which they observe with great Pomp in respect of the Mysteries, when they are up­on the little Altar, which they call the Altar of Proposition; and that before the Consecra­tion. For, which is surprizing, they render Extraordinary Honours to the Bread and Wine before they are consecrated, and onely barely blessed. Amongst their Ceremonies which are onely grounded on Tradition, but Apostolical, may be reckoned most part of their Sacraments: because, as we have observed before, they do [Page 32]not believe that Jesus Christ was the imme­diate Authour of them. All these Sacraments are accompanied with a great many Ceremo­nies, because they are perswaded, that too much external respect cannot be given to Holy things. And therefore they Celebrate their Li­turgy and other Offices with far greater Pomp, than the Church of Rome doth. They have besides a great many Books of their Offi­ces, but no Breviaries for the use of private Persons, as the Latins have; because, say they, the Office ought to be said publickly in the Church, and not privately in a Chamber.Jan. Nic. Erythr. in Pinacoth. Francis Arcudius having thought fit to make a kind of Breviary for the use of the Greeks, which he compiled out of their Books of Offi­ces, met not with the Satisfaction that he pro­posed to himself: for the Greeks despise that Breviary, and there are none but the Monks of St. Basil, of the Monastery of Crypta Ferra­ta Fifteen Miles from Rome, who use it in their Travels.

We shall not insist longer on the Ceremonies of the Greeks; for it requires a whole Volume to describe them fully. Most part of these Ce­remonies have a Mystical Sense, if we will Credit some of their Doctors who have written on that Subject. But all Men know, that there is nothing worse grounded than that My­stical and Allegorical Divinity. I could rather have wished that I could have represented here in Abridgement the Singing and Musick of the great Church of Constantinople: but besides that that would be too tedious, there would be need also of a great many Figures. I shall one­ly add by way of Supplement, a Discourse con­cerning [Page 33]belief of Transubstantiation, which is at present no less known to most of the Greeks, than it is to those of the Church of Rome.

CHAP. II. Of Transubstantiation. Whether it be ac­knowledged by the Greeks who are com­monly called Schismaticks.

(*) THough this Question hath been largely handled by Mr. Arnaud in his Books a­gainst Mr. Claude, yet it still lies under great difficulties; Nay there are a great many, espe­cially amongst the Protestants, who do not al­together credit the great number of Attestati­ons produced by that Doctour in his Book of the Perpetuity; because, say they, he gives one­ly a Vulgar Translation of all these Attestations, without publishing the Originals; and it may be they have been ill Translated: besides that, say the same Protestants, some things are to be found in these Testimonies, which are no ways the Belief of the Greeks, and which, by conse­quent give occasion to doubt of the Sincerity of these Records. Wherefore some Jesuits have had a design of publishing more Authen­tick Attestations, and in the same Languages they have been made in: which will certainly be of great use. However, till that be done, I shall here produce some Proofs of the Be­lief of the Greeks, concerning Transubstantiati­on, [Page 34]which, in my Opinion, ought to be pre­ferred before all the Attestations that can be brought from the Levant; because the Jesuits will not onely be suspected by Protestants, but they will not fail also to say, that these Atte­stations have been gain'd by artifice, and that the modern Greeks may be made to doe any thing for Money: whereas Testimonies taken out of Books that have been composed by Greeks before these Disputes, are Proofs that cannot be excepted against. Mr. Arnaud, who saw the Force of such Proofs, objected to Mr. Claude the Authority of Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia, who in formal Termes asserts Transubstantiation, in the same manner as the Latins do. But seeing he had not the Book of that Authour, he took it altogether upon the Testimony of Cardinal Perron, who cited it in his Book of the Eucharist; from whence Mr. Claude hath taken occasion to reject that Authority, as being suspect, in as much as the Cardinal, who mentions commonly the Greek words of the Authours whom he cites, related onely in French the Testimony of that Archbi­shop. Monsieur Claude eluded also the Testi­monies of the same Gabriel cited in Greek by Arcudius, pretending that he had not Transla­ted the words of that Greek Authour, but that he had enlarged them by paraphrasing them after his way. In this manner did that Minister elude many other Proofs of Fact by mere Subtilties, untill Father Simon caused the Works of Gabriel of Philadelphia to be printed in Greek and Latin, with many other Pieces ta­ken out of Good Originals, which cannot be called in Question.

(*) Since that, Mr. Smith, a Protestant of the Church of England, who travelled into Greece, hath published a Letter concerning the Present State of the Greek Church, wherein he freely acknowledges, that Transubstantiation is owned by the Greeks, and that in a Confession of Faith not long since published in the Name of all the Greek Church, the word [...], which signifies the same as the Latin Transubstantiatio, is used. These are the words of that Confes­sion. [...]. The Priest hath no sooner said the Prayer, called the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, but that the Transubstantiation is made, and the Bread changed into the real body of Jesus Christ. And the Wine into his real Bloud, nothing more remaining but the bare Species or appearances. These are as plain and formal words as any can be, and contained in a Book that is gene­rally approved all over Greece. Nevertheless Mr. Smith is so far from submitting to so Au­thentick and Publick a Confession, that though he could not accuse the Authours of Falshood, as Mr. Claude not very judiciously hath done, yet he hath his recourse to other Niceties, which have some shew of reason, and to which it is necessary to give an answer, that the Faith of the Greeks may be clearly and un­doubtedly known. He pretends that the term [...], hath been lately invented for autho­rising a new opinion: that Gabriel of Philadel­phia is the first, at least, one of the first that hath made use of it: that that Archbishop ha­ving lived a long time at Venice, and having filled his head with School Divinity, nay and being won by the Arts and Tamperings of those of the Church of Rome, had asserted [Page 36]that by a new word, which Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople, by whom he was consecrated Bishop, was wholly ignorant of. He farther adds, that since Gabriel of Philadelphia, the word [...], hath been but little used by the Greek Writers: that the Synods held a­gainst Cyrillus Lucaris have forborn it: that it is a word unknown to the Ancient Fathers: that it is neither to be found in their Litur­gies nor Confessions: that, in fine, Transub­stantiation is so far from being believed amongst the Greeks, that the contrary is evidently to be proved from their Liturgy, where the Sym­bols, even after they have been consecrated and called the Body and Bloud of Christ, are nevertheless at the same time [...]. called the Antitypes of the Body and Bloud of Christ. And these are the strongest Arguments that the Protestants have to object against the Modern Greeks who acknowledge Transubstantiation; whereby they think to confute all the large Volumes composed by Mr. Arnaud upon that Subject. This hath obliged me to examine these answers particularly, and to shew the weakness of the same.

In the first Place, it is not true that Gabriel of Philadelphia is the first Authour of the word [...] among the Greeks. Gennadius, who lived above an Hundred years before that Archbishop, and who is thought to have been the first Patriarch of Constantinople after the taking of that City by the Turks, in one of his HomiliesSee the Collections at the end of the Book C. makes use indifferently of the words [...] and [...]. Besides he explains how it can be, that in that wonder­full change, there remains [...]. no more but [Page 37]the Accidents of Bread, without any thing of the Substance of the same Bread, and that the real Substance of the Body of Jesus Christ is hid under the same Accidents. I shall not here examine the particular Qualities of Gen­nadius, and whether or not he was one of the Latinized Greeks: It is sufficient that I make appear, that Gabriel of Philadelphia is not the first Authour of the word [...], since it is to be found in Greek Books written above an hundred Years before him. At least it cannot be said, that Gabriel, who makes use of it, hath been corrupted by the Latins, as Mr. Smith affirms without any Proof. That is so far from being true, that Gabriel of Philadel­phia wrote a Book against the Council of Florence, having openly declared himself for the Party of Mark of Ephesus, against those of his Church who had adhered to that Council; and besides, he was linked in intimate Friend­ship and Interest with one Miletius, a great Ene­my of the Church of Rome. I confess he fol­lowed his Studies at Padua, where he learnt School-Divinity, of which he uses the Terms in his Books. But Cyrillus Lucaris, who wrote a Confession of Faith in favour of the Calvi­nists, and which he hath taken almost verba­tim out of the Works of Calvin, studied also at Padua, and was more learned in Divinity than Gabriel, who onely made use of the Terms of the Latin Divines, because he thought they explained his Belief more clearly, and not for authorising a Novelty. That affecta­tion of the Language of the Schoolmen, which appears in all the Writings of Gabriel, con­cerns onely the Method and Expressions, and not the Substance of the Matter; and so [Page 38]he ought not to be blamed for having intro­duced new Terms into his Church: and in­stead of concluding with Mr. Smith, that he hath at the same time introduced Novelties, it ought, on the contrary, to be inferred, that the word [...] of the Greeks, which signi­fies onely a change, and which is to be found in Ancient Authours, is the same with the Term transubstantiatio invented by the La­tins; seeing a Greek, learned in the Expressions both of the Greeks and Latins, makes use in­differently of the words [...] and [...], which is the same as transubstantiatio, for ex­pressing the Change of the Symbols into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ.

But Jeremy Patriarch of Constantinople, who consecrated Gabriel of Philadelphia, and made Learned Answers to the Divines of Wittemberg upon that Subject, say they, never made use of the word [...]. It is true, that Patri­arch make use of the word [...], because it is Greek, and [...] is not. He was not willing to bring into fashion a barbarous word unknown to the Ancients. Nevertheless he makes it apparent enough, that by the word [...], he means the same thing as [...], or the transubstantiatio of the Latins. The Divines of Wittemberg, who caused his Answers to be Printed, and who have no less Aversi­on to Transubstantiation, than the Protestants of England and France have, were so strongly perswaded that the Patriarch meant the Tran­substantiation of the Church of Rome by the word [...], that on the margin oppo­site to that word, they have placed [...], as signifying the same thing in the thought of [Page 39] Jeremy; and on the margin of the Latin Tran­slation they have placed opposite to Mutari, the Term transubstantiatio. The same Divines in their answer to the Patriarch shew clearly, that in the question that was betwixt them; they reckoned the words. [...], to be chan­ged, and [...], to be transubstantiated, to be synonymous. Jeremy wrote to them, that [...]. according to the Belief of the Catholick Church, the Bread and the Wine after the Consecration, were by the Holy Ghost chan­ged into the Body and Bloud of Christ. To which those of Wittemberg answered. [...]. that they believed that the Body and Bloud of Christ were really in the Eucharist; but that they do not believe for all that, that the Bread was changed into the Body of Christ. They make use of no other Terms in their Answer to express the Transubstantiation of the Latins, than the Greek verb [...], which the Patriarch had also employed. In fine, Jeremy having read the reply of the Divines of Wittemberg, returns them this An­swer, [...]. that the Bread becomes the Body of Christ, and the Wine and the Water his Bloud, by means of the Holy Ghost that chan­geth them; and that that change is above the reason of Man. From whence it is easie to ga­ther that these words [...], and other such like, which the Greeks commonly make use of to denote the change of the Symbols, signifie the same thing as the barbarous word [...], which hath been made according to that of transubstantia­tio by the latter Greeks, who had read the Books of the Latins, and studied in their Schools. [Page 40]The new Greeks onely adopted that word, because they thought it expressed very well the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Christ, and that it suited every way with their Belief. And, which is most remarkable in that matter, Gabriel of Philadelphia employs hardly any other word but that, in an Apology, that he wrote on purpose for those of his Nation against some Divines of the Church of Rome, who unjust­ly accused them of Idolatry.

It is moreover objected, that since Gabriel of Philadelphia, the word [...] occurs not in the books of other Greek Writers, nor yet in the two Synods of Constantinople held against Cyrillus Lucaris; but that Objection seems to have less ground than the former. In the year 1635. there was Printed at Venice under the Name of a Greek Monk and Priest called Gregory, a small Abridgment of the Divinity of the Greeks, by way of a Catechism, where the word [...], is not onely to be found; but the manner also how Transubstantiation is made, is therein declared at length. The Au­thour shewing the difference betwixt the Eu­charist and the other Sacraments, says that the other Sacraments contain onely Grace, whereas [...]. Greg. in Sy­nopsi Dogmat. Ecclesiae. the Eucharist contains Jesus Christ present; and that it is for that reason, that the change which is made in that Sacrament is called [...], or transubstantiatio. This Greek takes the Title of Protosyncelle of the great Church, and resided in a Monastery of the Isle Chios. In his Preface he acknowledges himself indebted for the best part of his Work to George Coressius, whom he calls one of the [Page 41]Learnedst Divines of his Church, and who, in effect, takes the Title of Divine of the great Church, being besides a Physician by Profession. This Coressius who bitterly wrote of the Errours of the Latins, prefixt his appro­bation to that Book, affirming, [...]. that it con­tains nothing but true and Orthodox Do­ctrine.

Besides this Work, there was a far more considerable Book written in the year 1638. by Meletius Syrigus against the Confession of Faith attributed to Cyrillus Lucaris Patriarch of Constantinople, which was Printed in Greek and Latin at Geneva. The Title of that Book which was not Printed, runs in these Terms. [...]. The Authour vigorously refutes that pretended Confession of the Eastern Church, by a great many Arguments taken from the Fathers and other Ecclesiastical writers down to our times, and makes it evidently appear that the Con­fession of Cyril hath been taken out of the Works of Calvin: then towards the End of his Book he adds, a particular Dissertation a­bout the word [...]. [...], or Transubstan­tiation; and by many instances shews that though that word was not anciently used, yet there was reason for making use of it or some such at present, because of Hereticks. And for the better Explication of the change that is made in the Sacrament of the Eucharist, you may consult thatSee the Collections at the end of this Book D. Dissertation subjoi­ned to this Book in Greek, which Mr. Arnaud [Page 38] [...] [Page 39] [...] [Page 40] [...] [Page 41] [...] [Page 42]hath inserted in French in his last Tome of the Perpetuity.

We have besides two Editions of the Book of Agapius a Greek Monk of Mount Athos, the first Printed in the Year 1641, and the second in 1664. both at Venice, with the Title of [...], the Salvation of Sinners. Though that Authour still retains the ancient words [...], and the like, yet in formal Terms he asserts Transubstantiation, and acknowledges that Jesus Christ [...], Agap. Monach. Grae­cus. hath hid as under a Veil, the Divine Substance un­der the Accidents of Bread and Wine. I omit the many Miracles, that the same Agapius mentions to prove the Truth of Transubstan­tiation, because these Miracles, whether they be true or false, make nothing to our pur­pose.

To the Monk Agapius, we may join Mi­chael Cortacius of Crete in the Sermon which he preached, and dedicated to the Patriarch of Alexandria. That Sermon was Printed at Venice in the Year 1642. with the Title of [...], A Discourse concerning the Dignity of Priesthood. In that Discourse Cortacus compares the Priest with God, and amongst other things says, that as [...]. Mich. Cortac. Serm. de ign. Sa­cerd. God hath chan­ged the Water into Wine so the Priest chan­ges, or, to use his word, transubstantiats the Wine into the Bloud of Christ. Besides he declames against those that believe not the truth of that Mystery; and the better to distinguish them, he calls [...]. Luther a wicked and abominable Heresiarch and Apostate, who by his Doctrine had seduced an infinite Num­ber [Page 43]of People. After all, we ought not to be surprised, to see a Greek inveigh so bitterly against Protestants, nor infer from thence, that that Sermon hath been suggested to him by some Latin Monk an Enemy of theirs. They who know what happened at Constantinople un­der the Patriarchate of Cyrill a great Favourer of Protestants, and who engaged a great ma­ny Bishops in that Party, will not at all be astonished at the Invectives of Cortacius, which at that time were seasonable.

After this, I think Mr. Smith dare hardly affirm that there are no Authours who have made use of the word [...], in imitati­on of Gabriel of Philadelphia. It may be said with better reason, that there are but very few that have not made use of it since that time: And had I been so happy as to have travelled into the Levant, as well as Mr. Smith, I could have furnished the Publick with a great many more.

But the two Synods held at Constantinople against Cyrillus Lucaris, make no mention, says Mr. Smith, of the word [...], whence he infers, that they purposely forbore it, that they might not countenance a Novelty: there cannot be a worse grounded Objection. The business of these two Synods was to condemn some Propositions published by Cyrill, in name of the Eastern Church. And so these Synods thought it enough to mention the Propositions of Cyrill in his own Terms, and to Anathematise them. If Cyrill in his pretended Confession of Faith had made use of the Term [...], the Bishops of these two Councils would not have failed to have made use of it. These are the [Page 44]Terms of the first Synod held under Cyrill of Borrhea in the Year 1638. [...]. Anathema to Cyrill, who teaches and believes, that the Bread and the Wine which are upon the Altar of Proposition, are not changed into the real Bloud and Body of Christ by the Benediction of the Priest, and the Descent of the Holy Ghost. That alone is a convincing argument, that among the Greeks the verb [...], is the same as the new word [...], which answers to the Latin transubstantiari, seeing Cy­rillus Lucaris makes use of it to deny the Tran­substantiation of the Church of Rome. Moreover the Bishops of that Synod plainly shew, what their Belief is concerning that Mystery, when in the same place they Anathematize these words of Cyrill, taken out of the 17th, Article of his Con­fession. [...]. What is seen with the Eyes and recei­ved in the Sacrament is not the Body of our Lord. Can there be a clearer Argument to probe Transubstantiation, than that Anathema? The second Council held at Constantinople in the Year 1642. under Parthenius, confirmed the Belief of the Latin Church, with the same evidence as the former. They do no more but relate the words of the Confession of Cyrill, and condemn them as Heretical. These words are taken out of the 17th, Article, where Cyrill asserts, [...]. that the Divine Eucha­rist was no more but a pure and simple Figure. The Bishops assembled in that Synod object a­gainst that, [...]. that Jesus Christ said not, this is the Figure of my Body, but this is my Body, to wit, that which is seen, received, broken, and which hath been already sanctified and Blessed.

To these two Synods I might add a third held at Jerusalem in the year 1672 printed at Paris in 1676. with a Latin Translation done by a Benedictine Monk, who hardly could read the Greek, so full of faults is that Transla­tion. but seeing that Synod was called on purpose against Mr. Claude, who in the Preface is called [...]. Minister of the Calvinists of Cha­renton; the Protestants, I fear will hold it for suspected; though nothing past in it, but accor­ding to the Ordinary course. These Bishops were at that time at Jerusalem for the Dedica­tion of a Church, and they were entreated to pronounce their Judgment upon Articles that were presented to them, wherein the Protes­tants of France attributed their own Errours to the Greek Church. They seem to have been very well informed of the matters in Question, Judiciously making use of the Authority of several Books written by those of their Com­munion, wherein these Errours were condem­ned. Amongst other Books, they alledge the answers of the Patriarch Jeremy to the Divines of Wittemberg, a Book of John Nathanael Priest and Oeconomus of the Church of Constantino­ple, which contains [...]. an Explication of the Liturgy, Gabriel Severus, Archbishop of Phila­delphia, whom they call [...], Archbishop of their Brethren who reside at Venice: which the Translatour hath render'd, Archbishop of our Brethren of Crete. They cite, besides, the Orthodox Confession of the Ea­stern Church, which was published six or seven Years before, since Corrected and Explained by Meletius Syrigus by order of a Synod of Mol­davia, and afterward printed by the care of [Page 46] Signor Panagioti. From all these Acts they conclude that it is rather impudence than igno­rance in the Protestants of France, to impose upon the Simple People, by attributing their Errours to the Eastern Church. In fine, the same Bishops endeavour to justifie the Memory of Cyrillus Lucaris, by opposing other Works of his, to his pretended Confession, which shew him to be of a contrary Judgment. There are many other things in the same Synod for Authorising Transubstantiation; especially, the word [...] is not left out; but seeeing there is a second and more Correct Edition come forth, I shall insist no longer on that Synod. Onely I must subjoin somewhat, by way of a Cha­racter of Cyrill, who hath been so variously talked of, according to the different interests that Men have defended; which will not a little serve to prove the belief of Transubstanti­ation in the Greek Church.

Cyrillus Lucaris, who is become so famous a­mongst the Greeks and Latins, was born in Crete, and entred very young into the service of Meletius Patriarch of Alexandria, who was also of Crete, and who having found him to be a Man of Parts, and Studious, ordained him Priest. After that, he went to Padua to pro­secute his Studies; from whence returning to Alexandria, Meletius made him Head of a Mo­nastery, and sent him into Walachia: which gave him occasion in passing through Germany, to have Conferences with the Protestants of that Countrey, understanding the Latin Tongue and School Divinity excellently well. Being come back from his Commission, he made use of the Money that he had gathered [Page 47]for the Necessary occasions of the Patriarch; to get himself chosen Patriarch: and being raised to that Dignity, he entertained his Correspon­dence with the Protestants, employing for that purpose Metrophanes Critopulus, who has writ­ton a Book concerning the belief of his Church, Printed at Helmstadt. This Metrophanes went in Name of his Patriarch into England, and over a good part of Germany, where he informed himself, as exactly as he could, of the State of the Protestants, whereof he made a report to Cyrill whom he found at Constantinople, where he was casting about how he might get into the Patriarchate of that Church. This made him contract a Friendship with the Ambassadours of England and Holland then at the Port, espe­cially with the latter, who proved afterward usefull to him for advancing his Affairs. Cyrill being as yet but a Monk, had got a particular acquaintance with the Heer Cornelius Haga, who then travelled in the Levant, and who being afterward come back to Constantinople in Quality of Envoy from the States General, re­newed his Ancient Acquaintance with Cyrill, who at that time was Patriarch of Alexandria, and who entreated him to send for some Books of the Protestant Divines, professing to have some liking of their Opinions. This being a desire which the Heer Haga could not refuse, gave advice of it to his Masters, who failed not presently to send as many Books to Con­stantinople as were sufficient to have corrupted all Greece, had they been written in the Lan­guage of the Countrey. It was impossible but that the affairs of Cyrill must make a Noise, es­pecially having the Jesuits of Constantinople for [Page 48]Enemies, who in every thing opposed his de­signs, publishing aloud that he was a Heretick; and gave advice of it to the Jesuits of Paris, that the King might be informed of the same. The matter was represented to the Ambassa­dor of the States at Paris, who wrote about it to Constantinople. From that time forward Cy­rill observed no such measures with the Jesuits as he had done before. He made no Scruple to give the Heer Haga a Confession of Faith writ­ten in Latin with his own Hand, which some time after he turned into Greek. It is the same Confession which was Printed at Geneva in Greek and Latin, and which made the French Protestants say, that the Greek Church agreed with them in the chief points of their belief; especially as to the matter of the Eucharist. Cy­rill, in the mean time, who had a strong Par­ty in Constantinople against the Jesuits and Court of Rome, was chosen Patriarch, and for the space of five or six Months after, made nothing appear in his Actions that might give any sign of Defection from the Religion of his fore-Fa­thers. But seeing he had the Jesuits for Ene­mies, he thought himself obliged to declare for the Hollanders that he might be seconded by them; he engaged also in his party a considerable Number of Bishops and Churchmen, who re­lished his opinions, and were in the same Dis­position as he was, to introduce Novelties in­to the Greek Church. But they were not the Stronger, because the Jesuits, who have a Col­lege at Constantinople where they teach the Youth Gratis, easily gained the People, who made an Insurrection against Cyrill. The Greeks held an Assembly in the year 1622. wherein [Page 49]he was deposed from his Patriarchate, and ba­nished to the Isle of Rhodes. Another Patri­arch was chosen in his Place, who by Let­ters submitted himself to the court of Rome, that had forwarded his Election. But seeing Cyrill still entertained a Party in Constantinople, and that the Dutch supplied him with great Summs of Money, it was not long before he was restored to his Patriarchate. Then it was that he revenged himself on the Jesuits, and those who had espoused the Interests of the Court of Rome; and that Calvinism reigned at Constantinople. This brought great Disorders into that Church, for Cyrill set every thing to sale, that he might pay the Money which he had borrowed of the Dutch. The Jesuits and Court of Rome finding that Cyrill had ab­solutely got the better on't, endeavoured to gain him, by proposing terms of accommoda­tion, and representing to him the danger of his Church, if he continued those Intrigues with the Calvinists. He seemed to be very willing to embrace an accommodation: but seeing he still continued his Practices with the Dutch, the Court of Rome made a fresh attempt to turn him out of his Chair: which succee­ded; but for a very short time, because the Dutch Money soon recalled him again to his Patriarchate. The Court of Rome doubling their efforts against Cyrill, sent one to Constan­tinople in Quality of Vicar of the Patriarch, for maintaining the Orthodox Faith in that Church, which seemed to be upon the brink of Ruine. Cyrill's Party failed not to lay hold on that occasion, to render the Jesuits and their Party odious to the Turks, who were [Page 50]jealous of that Envoy of Rome: Insomuch that he was very ill used by the Turks, and Cyrill cruelly revenged himself on all the Greeks, whom he thought to be his Enemies. Nevertheless he rendered himself so odious by his great vexations, and had so powerfull a Party, as the Jesuits of Constantinople seconded by the Court of Rome, to deal with, that he at length fell, and was strangled by express Orders from the Grand Signior.

This is the History of the Patriarch Cyrillus Lucaris, in whose Name the Huguenots Printed a Confession of Faith, boasting that they a­greed in Opinions with the Greek Church. But with the glance of an Eye one may judge, what kind of a Confession of Faith it is. It is true it was written by a Patriarch of Constantinople, with the Title of, The Belief of the Eastern Church; but it was not written in name of that Church, nor hath it any publick approbation. Cyrill gave it privately to the Dutch Ambassadour, whose assistance he needed to defend him against the Jesuits of Constantinople. That work of Cyrill's is much like the Book that is said to have been made by William Postel for a Nun, whom he per­swaded, that he might squeeze a little Money from her, that the Messiah came into the world onely for Men, and that she Lady Jean was to be the Messiess of the Women. There is as much likelyhood of truth in that Con­fession of Cyrill's, that went under the name of the Greek Church, as there is in the Impo­stures of that famous Normand William Postel: and I wonder that Protestants should still dare to object to Catholicks that pretended [Page 51]Confession. Grotius gave a better Judgment of it in a Book that he published some time af­ter that Confession came abroad in the word, wherein he frankly says,Nuper Con­stantinopoli Cyrillus sine Patriarchis, sine Metropo­litis, sine Epis­copis novum nobis propina­vit Symbolum. Grot. de Anti­christ. that Cyrill for­ged a new Symbol, without the assistance of any Patriarchs, Archbishops or Bishops. Now, after all, I have related the History of this Cyrill with all the exactness I could, without any regard to what the Dutch have written of him, nor to what Leo Allatius hath said, who also exceeds the bounds of moderation. I have scarcely mentioned any thing but what is a­greed upon by both the opposite Parties.

Besides Cyrill, there are other Greeks of less note, who have written in favour of the Pro­testants, and amongst others one Gergan a Bishop, who hath published a Catechism, where­in he openly denies Transubstantiation, but with this difference from Cyrill, that he follows not the Confession of Geneva, but that of Ausbourg. If we compare the Doctrine of this Catechism with that of the Greek Church, we shall find it almost different in every Point, that it may be accommodated to the Sentiments of Protestants: as when it saith that Scripture alone is sufficient, without the help of Tradition to prove the Articles of our Creed; That the Scripture is plain and clear as to the Points of Faith, and that Scripture ought to be interpreted by Scripture. In a word, Gergan is a Protestant, and onely a Greek in Language, and that too a base Vul­gar Greek. Nevertheless he dares boast, that he is none of those false Brethren [...]. who have been poisoned at Rome. But it is gene­rally known, that the Greeks themselves who [Page 52]have no Commerce with Rome, confirm nei­ther the Confession of Ausbourg, nor of Gene­va in their Books. Protestants may also rec­kon amongst the Greeks of their Communion Nathanael of Crete, who promised some time agoe to the Dutch, that he would translate Calvin's Institutions into Greek, and teach his Countrey-men Calvinism, provided they gave him the Summ of Money which he deman­ded.

Mr. Claude adds to all these Greek Calvi­nists, the Testimony of one Meletius Metropo­litan of Ephesus, in an answer he made about thirty Years agoe to the Divines of Leyden, as to several Questions that had been put to him. Father Simon made answer to Mr. Claude, that he doubted not but that that was the Act of some Greek gained by the Dutch Divines, who answered their Questions as they them­selves would have him; and that to judge of that answer, it would be proper to publish it in the Authours Language. I procured by means of one of Mr. Claude's Friends, whom he could not deny, a Copy of that answer; and having read it, I found that Father Simon's conjec­ture, was a real truth. For Meletius, who in that Letter takes the Title of Archbishop of Ephesus, not onely denies Transubstantiation, but also the Honour that is rendered to the Virgin and Saints, and many other Points which all Men do agree the Greeks believe. And that one may the better judge of it, I shall subjoin at the End of this BookSee the Acts at the End of the Book. E. the abstract which I had of Mr. Claude written by the Hand of one of his Friends. It is suffi­cient to refer Protestants to the Confession [Page 53]of Faith composed by Metrophanes Critopulus, who was one of their Friends, and written at their Solicitation even when he lived amongst them. By that Confession of Metrophanes they may judge, whether that which Mr. Claude hath published under the Name of Meletius Archbishop of Ephesus, have the least colour of truth. But it is time now to return to the objections of Mr. Smith.

It is still objected against the Belief of Tran­substantiation in the Greek Church, that the word [...], is not to be found neither in the Fathers, Liturgies, nor Symbols, nay and that in the Liturgy the Bread and Wine are called Antitypes even after the Consecration; which seems wholly to exclude Transubstantia­tion.(1) Quid vetat, quo minùs quae captui nostro perplexa in Scripturis im­pedità (que) sunt, ea verbis pla­nioribus ex­plicemus. Calv. lib. 1. Inst. cap. 3. (2) Hujusmodi autem verbo­rum novitas tum potissi­mum usu ve­nit, dum ad­versus calum­niatores asse­renda est veri­tas, qui tergi­versando ip­sam eludunt. Ibid. But that is a very frivolous negative Argument, which from a single word con­cludes a positive thing. If it were put to Protestants to stick to their Principle, which is the Scripture alone, and even to the Anci­ent Symbols, they would find themselves much perplexed. But that I may more plainly shew the fallacy of that way of reasoning, I shall oppugn it by no other Authour, than John Calvin in his Institutions, where he ju­diciously refutes the Heresie of Servetus con­cerning the Trinity of the Persons in God. He lays down this for a Maxime, (1) that it is lawfull to invent new words to explain things more clearly (2) especially when we have to doe with Cavillers, who by the help of words perplex things. In that manner, adds he, the Church hath been obliged to in­vent the Names of Trinity and Persons. We should have a care, saith that Authour, lest [Page 54]by rejecting Names which have not been rashly invented, we be accused of Pride and Temerity: Quando temerè non inventa sunt nomi­na, cavendum esse ne ea repudiando, superbae teme­ritatis arguamur. Hic effer­buit impietas, dum nomen [...] pessi­mè odisse & execrari Ari­ani coeperunt. Ibid. Impiety immediately broke out, says Calvin still, when the Arians began to hate and abhor the word Consubstan­tial. These Principles of Calvin may be easi­ly applied to the matter in hand. Both the Eastern and the Western Churches had no need of inventing new Terms in regard of the Eucharist, so long as no body doubted the truth of that Mystery. The Western Church was the first that made use of such, nay and the onely Church for many Ages, because she had the Berengarians to deal with. There was no necessity then, that the Greek Church should make use of that term, because she had no occasion for it, or any other of the like nature. But since the new Berengarians be­came known to some of them, and that they perceived that the word transubstantiatio, inven­ted by the Latins, as happily expressed the change that is made in the Eucharist, as their [...] explained the Consubstantiality of the Son with God the Father, they have thought fit to make use of it, and it hath been more frequently employed by them since the great Bustle they had with Cyrillus Lucaris their Patri­arch. And this I take to be the plain and natural reason of the omission of the word [...] in the Ancient Greek Books. To which we may add, that if the Argument of Mr. Smith were consequential, it would in the same manner prove that the Latins believe not Transubstantiation, because that word [Page 55]is not to be found neither in their Mass nor Symbols. But let us, at length, come to the last objection.

The Symbols of Bread and Wine are called Antitypes or Figures, even after the Consecra­tion, in the Liturgy of the Greeks: whence it is inferred, that in that they differ very much from the Belief of the Latins. But it seems Mr. Smith is not very Learned in the Theo­logy of the Greeks, since he says generally, that they call the Symbols Antitypes, even after the Consecration. There is not a Greek at present, nor hath there been for these nine Hundred Years any of that opinion. It is certain all the Modern Greeks pretend, that the Consecration is not performed till after the Prayer which they call the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, which Prayer in the Li­turgy follows the words, that call the Sacred Symbols Antitypes. Mark of Ephesus, who was Head of the Party against the Latins in the Council of Florence, makes use of that Place of the Liturgy, to prove that the Con­secration consists not in these words, This is my Body, but in the Prayer or Benediction of the Priest made afterward by invocating the Holy Ghost. That zealous Champion for the Faith of the Greeks, grounds his assertion chiefly on this, that St. Basil in his Liturgy calls the Symbols [...]. Antitypes, after the Priest hath said these words, This is my Body: whence he concludes, that they are not as yet conse­crated, seeing they still retain the Name of Antitypes or Figures. The Patriarch Jeremy speaks of Antitypes also in the same manner, and he affirms [...]. that they who have called [Page 56]the Bread and Wine Antitypes, have onely given them that Appellation before the Con­secration. In that they agree with the Opinion of all the Greek Authours since the Eighth Century, when that Question was handled in the second Council of Nice. The Deacon Epiphanes declared in name of all the Bishops in that Council, that the Terms [...]. Antitypes could not otherways be understood in the Liturgy of St. Basil, that for the Gifts before the Consecration, and that after the Consecra­tion they were called the real Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ. St. John Damascene, Nicephorus Patriarch of Constantinople, and, in a word, all the Defenders of Image-worship, are of that Judgment, and object it to the Iconoclasts as a strong Argument to authorise the Honour paid to Images, since Honours, say they, are rendered to the Holy Gifts, whilst they are as yet but Antitypes, or Ima­ges, before the Consecration. Since that time all the Greeks speak the same Language. They, however, who have any knowledge of the Greek Fathers, are obliged to confess, that the Bishops of the Council of Nice were mistaken in matter of fact, and that the Anci­ent Fathers gave the Name of Antitypes to the Symbols, even after their Consecration, not thinking that that word signified any thing contrary to the real presence of Jesus Christ in the Eucharist. It appears manifestly by the Dispute, that was betwixt the Iconoclasts and the Patrons of Images, that there was no Difficulty betwixt them concerning the Body of Jesus Christ, which both Parties acknow­ledged to be in the Eucharist after the Conse­cration. [Page 57]They differed onely in this, to wit, whether after the Consecration, the Bread ought still to be called an Antitype. The Ico­noclasts affirmed it, and had Antiquity on their side, the Defenders of Images denied it, and fell into a mistake of a matter of fact, which did not the least prejudice the Affair in Que­stion. So that what way soever the word Antitype be interpreted, Protestants can draw no consequence from it against the Belief of Transubstantiation.

CHAP. III. Of the Adoration of the Sacrament of the Eucharist: whether it be in use amongst the Greeks.

THough this Adoration be a necessary Con­sequent of Transubstantiation, yet there are some Protestants, who freely confess that the Greeks are much of the same Judgment with the Latins as to the Matter of Transub­stantiation; but they deny that they adore Je­sus Christ in the Consecrated Symbols, preten­ding that their Worship terminates on Jesus Christ in Heaven. They are confirmed in this Opinion chiefly, because the Greeks in the Celebration of their Liturgy, render not much Honour to the Sacred Symbols after their Consecration, as the Latin Church doth. But we are not always to pass a Judgment on [Page 58]things by the External Worship; and in that many Emissaries have been mistaken, aswell as Protestants, when they would measure the Orientals by the Practice and Custome of their own Church. It is certain, we shew greater Respect and Veneration to Jesus Christ in the Eucharist, than we did before the time of the Berengarians, nay and before the time of the Protestants too, at least in what con­cerns the exteriour. It is chiefly but since the Birth of Nestorianism, that greatest Respect has been shewn to the Virgin. Besides, the Greek Church never rendered such excessive Honours to Images, but since the Iconoclasts were so incensed against them.[*] [*] It must not, therefore, be said, that before that time no Honour was rendered neither to the Virgin nor Images. The case is the same with the Greeks and other Eastern Christians, who have continued in their Ancient simplicity, because they have not had the same reasons as the Latins had to come out of it; and if they be accused that they adore not the symbols, the Ancients are likewise to be accused for not having adored them, because there is no­thing to be found neither in their Books nor Liturgies that comes near the External Wor­ship of our times. In this manner we are to understand the words of Caucus, when he affirms that no Nation under the Sun renders less Honour to the Sacrament of the Eucha­rist than the Greeks do; and it is not to be denied but that he goes too far in what he relates, comparing them to some Reformers of the West. But after all, we cannot make a better Judgment of the Practice of the Greeks, [Page 59]than by the Books the have written on that Subject. Gabriel Archbishop of Philadelphia, whom we have mentioned before, asserts so vigorously that Adoration in a Book that he wrote on purpose against the Latins, that it is impossible to doubt of it. That Archbishop established two sorts of Honour or Adoration, which are rendered to the Symbols of Bread and Wine. The first is but a bare respect paid to them, whilst they are as yet but Blessed and Antitypes. But the second wherewith they are honoured after Consecration [...]. Gabr. Philad. in A­pol. Orat. Lat. is not a simple Veneration, saith Gabriel, but a Wor­ship of Latria, or real Adoration. This he explains more at large after Cabasilas, Si­meon of Thessalonica and many others, who also assert those two sorts of Honour rendered to the Holy Gifts both before and after the Con­secration. Nay he remarks the time when the last and real Adoration is performed, to wit, when the Symbols have been consecrated, and when the Priest standing at the door of the Sanctuary, cries with a loud Voice, let all draw near with Faith, Reverence and Love. Then they do not say, continues the same Gabriel, as they do, when they honour the Antitypes, Lord, Remember me in thy King­dom, but [...]. I believe, Lord, that thou art Jesus Christ the Son of the Living God: which words are directed to Jesus Christ under the Symbols of the Bread and Wine that are pre­sented to the People. And at that time, saith Gabriel, the Priest [...]. ibid. gives them notice to adore with a Worship of Latria.

We are to expound the thought of Cabasilas with relation to the same time and to the [Page 60]words of the Liturgy, when he speaks of those that draw near to the Holy Mysteries [...]. who, says he, as an Expression of their Piety and Faith, adore, bless and praise Jesus Christ as God, whom they acknowledge to be in the Consecrated Symbols. Simeon of Thessalonica, whom Gabriel of Philadelphia follows in all his Works, distinguishes, as well as he, two Ho­nours rendered to the Symbols, in one of his answers related by Allatius, where he says, that [...]. if they honour the Holy Gifts whilst they are but Antitypes or Images, by stron­ger reason they ought to honour them after their Consecration, when they are become the real Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ. To these Authours may be added Metrophanes Critopulus, whose Testimony is the more con­siderable, that he hath done all he could in his Book, to disguise the Belief of his Church in favour of the Protestants of Germany. He ac­knowledges the change of the Bread and Wine into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ, and saith, [...]. that the manner how that change is wrought, is unknown to us, and inscrutable: then he onely blames the Latin Church in that they carry the Body of Jesus Christ with Pomp a­bout the Streets, acknowledging nevertheless, that it is carried to the Sick to be given them as a viaticum: and in the same Place [...]. he proves that the Symbols never lose their Con­secration, if they have been once consecrated; for that end alledging the Example of Wool, which being once died, never loseth its Tinc­ture. Whence it may be clearly gathered, that that Authour acknowledges the Body of Jesus Christ in the Symbols when they are not [Page 61]applied to use, and by consequent that they ought to be adored, not condemning the Ado­ration and Honour, that those of the Church of Rome render in-general to Jesus Christ in that Sacrament, but onely that great Pomp and Ostentation, when it is carried about the Streets on Corpus Christi day.

CHAP. IV. Of the Belief of the Melchites.

HAving treated at length of the Greeks, there remains but little to be said of the Melchites, who differ hardly in any thing from them, either as to Belief or Ceremonies. The name of Melchites or Royalists, was onely gi­ven them because they followed the common Opinions of the Greeks, who submitted to the Decisions of the Council of Chalcedon, and as if they had onely done so to comply with the Will of the Emperour, their Enemies called them Melchites, thereby intimating that they were of the Emperour's Religion. However, at present we give the Name of Melchites to the Syrians, Cophties or Egyptians, and other People of the Levant, who not being true Greeks, are nevertheless of their Perswasion: And therefore Gabriel Sionita calls them indif­ferently Greeks or Melchites; who besides ob­serves that they are spread over all the Levant; Purgatori­um nullum existere pessi­mè credide­runt, indèque illis odium intestinum in summum Pon­tificem, ita ut eidem veracis­simo Christi in terris Vicario primatum per­tinaciter ab­negent. Gabr. Sion. de Rel. & Mor. Orient. that they deny Purgatory; that they are [Page 58] [...] [Page 59] [...] [Page 60] [...] [Page 61] [...] [Page 62]sworn Enemies to the Pope, whose Supremacy none of the East do so vigorously oppugn. But it is no wonder they are so great Ene­mies to the Church of Rome, seeing they re­tain all the Sentiments of the Greeks that are not Latinized. As to their Opinion concerning Purgatory, they differ not neither from the true Greeks; and though both deny that there is a particular place called Purgatory, where the Souls are punished by a material and real Fire, yet they deny not the truth of a Pur­gatory in the manner as we have explained it, when we spake of the Greeks. Besides, the Judgment of the Melchites, concerning the Primacy of the Patriarch of Rome, is also the same with that of the Greeks who have not submitted to the Decisions of the Council of Florence. In a word, if you except a few Points of small Importance concerning Ceremonies and Ecclesiastical Discipline, the Melchites are in all things true Greeks; they have even ren­dered into Arabick the Greek Euchology or Ritual, and most of their other Books of Offi­ces in which they are not singular, because the other Sects of the East have also translated for their own use the Greek Euchology and other Books of Ceremonies. But their Translations are commonly faulty, and the Arabick. Ca­nons of Councils are of no great Use; yet I think, the Arabick versions of the Melchites ought to be preferred before all others, be­cause they are true Greeks, though they want not their prejudices, which sometimes hinders them from being sincere. In general, the Chri­stians of the East are so far from being exact in their Translations of Greek Books, that they [Page 63]think it lawfull to paraphrase, after their way, upon the Authours which they translate. Eve­ry Sect defends their Opinions by all manner of ways; and I make no doubt, but that is the cause of the supposititious Canons, which have been published under the Name of the Canons of the Council of Nice translated from the Arabick. The great Authority of the Council of Nice hath given occasion of inven­ting those Arabick Canons, which the several Sects have accommodated to their own Senti­ments. The Melchites find enough in these Canons attributed to the Council of Nice, to defend them against the Jacobites: And the Jacobites, on the contrary, by the same Ca­nons defend their Opinion concerning the Unity of Nature in our Lord. Both of them make the Council of Nice to speak in their fa­vour. The Jacobites accuse the Melchites of having corrupted these Canons. The Maro­nites, who in the beginning were of the Sect of the Jacobites, reproach them with the same fault. John Baptista Leopard a Maronite, Archbishop of Esdron Abrah. Ec­chel. Not. in Can. Ar. Conc. Nic. in the Book which he intituled, The Vintage of the Sacraments, accuses the Melchites of having added to the 55th. Canon of the Council of Nice, some words that favoured their Opinion concerning the Repudiation of Wives; and he upbraids them that they had taken that Custome from the Mahumetans, which they afterward inser­ted into that Canon. But there is no ground for that reproach, since it is certain that the Greeks and other Eastern Nations may divorce from their Wives, and marry others, especially in the case of Adultery. The Melchites inserted [Page 64]nothing into that pretended Canon of the Council of Nice, but what was agreeable to the Practice of the Greek Church.

CHAP. V. Of the Belief and Customs of the Georgians or Iberians, and of those of Colchis or Mangrelia.

IN the HistoryClem. Ga­lan. in Concil. Armen. cum Rom. Edit. Rom. typ. Con­greg. de propag. fide. Ann. 1650. which Galanus hath cau­sed to be Printed at Rome, concerning the Reconciliation of the Armenian Church with the Roman, there are some Curious Pieces re­lating to the Present State of the Iberians, and other neighbouring People. Pope Urban VIII. sent Emissaries to these People, of which Fa­ther Avitabolis a Regular Priest was the chief: And this Monk wrote from that Countrey a Letter to the Pope, wherein he marks the Er­rours of the Iberians exactly enough, which are the same that are attributed to the Greeks; to wit, they acknowledge, indeed, a Purgatory, but not in the manner the Latins do, be­causePurgatori­um affirmant, non tamen per ignem, sed a­nimas cruciari in loco obscuro & maestitu­dinis. they onely believe that the Souls are in a Place of Obscurity and Sadness, without being tormented by Fire: they deny the par­ticular Judgment of Souls, being perswaded that when one dies, his Soul is by his Guardian Angel carried into the Presence of Christ; and if it be the Soul of a just Man that is without Sin, it is immediately sent into a Place of Light [Page 65]and Joy: if it be the Soul of a wicked Man, it is put into an obscure Place; if that Person dye in the Act of Repentance, it is sent for a time into the Place of Horrour and Obscurity, whence it is afterwards conveyed into the Place of Joy; and all expect the day of General Judgment, because they absolutely deny that the Souls see God before that time. The Ibe­rians, besides, according to the same Authour, believe that Infidels are onely judged in a par­ticular Judgment, and not at the General Judgment. They ground themselves upon these words of the Gospel,John. 3. He that belie­veth not is condemned already. Nor do they be­lieveInferorum poenas non fa­ciunt aeternas. that the Pains of the Damned are Eternal: but they say, that if a Christian dye in Mortal Sin, without Repentance, he may be relieved out of Hell before the Universal Judgment, by praying to God for him. How­ever, I think that that Belief which comes near to that of Origen, and which seems to have been followed by some new Greeks, is not the real Belief of the Iberians, who exactly con­form to the Faith of the Greek Church; but that which hath given occasion of imputing it to them, is because they own but one Place after Death where they put the Souls of the Damned, and those who are thought to be in Purgatory. Now seeing they pray indifferent­ly for all the Souls which are shut up in that Place which they call Hell, that God would deliver them from the Pains of Hell, and that he would remove them from that obscure Prison to the Place of Light and Joy which is Paradise; it hath easily been inferred from thence, that they believed not Hell to be Ever­lasting, [Page 66]which is to be understood with Limi­tation, and in regard of some Souls onely who endure their Purgatory in that Place.

The Iberians agree also with the Greeks, as to their Opinion of Confession, and speak of it after the same manner. They work on the most solemn Holy-days, even on Christmas-day: but that is not contrary to the Practice of the first Ages. This is their way of bapti­sing. In the first Place the Priest reads a great many Prayers over the Child; and when he comes to the words wherein we make the Form of Baptism to consist, he does not stop, but reads on, without Baptising the Child at that time: then so soon as he hath done rea­ding, the Child is stript, and is at length bap­tised by the Godfather, and not by the Priest; which is done without pronouncing other words, than those that were pronounced some time before. They are not very pressing to receive Baptism; and they rebaptise those who return again to the Faith after Apostasie. The Priest alone, amongst them, is the true Mi­nister of Baptism.In periculo obitûs si desit sacerdos, in­fans non bap­tizatur. So that for want of a Priest the Child must dye without Baptism; and some of their Doctours are of opinion, that in that case the Baptism of the Mother is sufficient to save the Child. With Baptism they administer to Children Confirmation, and the Eucharist. They confess for the first time, when they marry: which they doe also when they are at the Point of Death; but their Confessi­on is made in three or four words. If a Priest fall into any uncleanness which he confesses, the Confessour deprives him of the Power of celebrating Mass. And therefore the Priests, [Page 67]have a care not to confess those Kinds of Sins.Pueris mo­rientibus prae­bent Eucha­ristiam. They give the Communion to Children when they are a dying, and those that are come to Age receive it but seldom. The Prince forces the Churchmen, and even the Bishops to goe to the Wars: and when they return home again, they celebrate Mass with­out any Dispensation for their irregularity. They are of the Opinion, that no more than one Mass should be said in one Day upon one Altar and in one Church. They consecrate in Chalices of Wood,Eucharisti­am deferunt ad infirmos maxima cum irreverentia, sine comitatu & luminibus. And they carry the Sacrament to the Sick with great irreverence, without light or attendance. On some Holy­days the priests together assist at the Mass of the Bishop, who gives them the Sacrament in their hands, and they themselves carry it to their Mouths. The Churchmen do not daily say their Breviary; but one or two onely say it, and the rest listen. He that recites the Office is commonly a Priest, and they who are present for most part do not hear. Most of the Iberians hardly know the Principles of Re­ligion. If they have no Children by their Wives they divorce from them with the Per­mission of the Priests, and marry others; which they doe also in case of Adultery and Quarrel­ling. They alledge that there are no more Miracles wrought in the Church of Rome, andSentiunt Pontificem in jure duntaxat positivo dis­pensare posse, sed in re levi, non gravi. that the Pope can give no Dispensa­tions but in matters of positive Right, nor in these neither if they be of great conse­quence.

Avitab. Rel. Theatin.Father Avitabolis in the same Letter to Pope Urban VIII. describes the Politick State of the Iberians; and amongst other things ob­serves, [Page 68]the great Authority of the Princes and Nobles: for the Princes without any regard to that which is called Ecclesiastical Liberty or Immunity, use Priests as Servants. They slight the Bishops and punish them. They obey not the Patriarch, who takes the Title of Catho­lick or Universal; and yet it is not he who is the chief in Spiritual Affairs, but the Prince, who is Supreme both in Spirituals and Temporals. The Nobles doe the same within their own Lands in regard of the Bishops and Priests. The Prince has his Voice with the Bishops in the Election of the Patriarch, and all chuse him whom he desires. The Will of the Prince and of the several Lords within their Territo­ries stands for Law, and they have no Judges for examining the Justice of Causes; neither have they any particular Statutes to walk by, not so much as admitting Witnesses. The Princes dispose at their Pleasure of the Estates of their Subjects, as well as of their Persons. In fine, the Patriarch of Constantinople sends Caloyers often into that Countrey, to entertain them in their Enmity against the Pope.

That Letter was written in the Year 1631. by Father Avitabolis to Pope Urban VIII. from Goris in Georgia or Iberia; and in the same Book of Galanus are inserted the Letters of the Prince of the Georgians to Pope Urban VIII. which are kept amongst the Records of the Congregation de propaganda fide. That Prince amongst other things affirms that the Faith hath been preserved pure in his Domi­nions since Constantine the Great to his time, and he allows a Chapel to the Missionaries of Rome, that they may pray to God for him. [Page 69]This Letter is dated in the Year 1629. Pope Urban wrote back to that Prince, and sent a Letter also to the Metropolitan named Za­chary.

What the Prince of the Georgians wrote to Pope Urban concerning the Faith which he pretends to have been in his Dominions since the time of the Emperour Constantine, is con­sonantSocrat. lib. 1. cap. 6. to the History of Socrates. Balsam. An­not. in Can. 2. Conc. 2. Gene­ral. And Balsamon reckons the Churches of Iberia a­mongst those Churches which were absolute, and owned no Head on which they depen­ded. he observes that that was done in the time of Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, by a Sy­nodal Statute: and that at that time that Church depended on the Church of Antioch. And for that reason the Metropolitan of Georgia took the Title of Patriarch.

Galanus joyns to the Iberians those of Colchis or Mengrelia, saying, that as they are Neigh­bours, so they have the same Belief, onely with this difference, that the Mengrelians living on the Mountains, and in the Woods, are a wickeder sort of People than the Georgians; that they are so ignorant in Religion, that they know not so much as the words necessary for Baptism, which they administer after the manner of the Georgians, and to render it the more solemn, they sometimes Baptise with Wine without Water; but we have said enough of the Georgians. The exposition that hath been made of their Faith, confirms the Be­lief of the Greeks: And it would not be diffi­cult to prove it to be very Ancient, and that the manner also of their administring Baptism, Marriage and other Sacraments is lawfull; [Page 70]though it differ from the Practice of the Church of Rome. What we at present call Matter and Form of Sacraments amongst us, ought not to be a Rule to other Christian Nations who are ignorant of these Names. It is certain the Orientals acknowledge no other Form of these Sacraments, but the Prayers which they make in administring them. I shall say nothing in this Place of the Religion of the Muscovites, because in all things they follow the Belief of the Greeks, of whom we have treated at large.

CHAP. VI. A Supplement concerning the Belief and Customs of the Georgians and Mengre­lians.

I Have lately read aBreve com­pendio nel quale si rachi­ude tutto cio che à sacri riti e al divino cultos' aspetta della natione de Colchi detti Mengreli e Georgiani. Manuscipt Relation, attributed to Father Zampi, a Theatin, wherein are described at large the Ignorance and Errours of these people, and especially of the Mengrelians, most of whose Priests, if we will credit that Authour, cannot be cer­tain that they have really received Priest­hood, because it many times happens, that they who ordain them have not been bapti­sed. The Bishops who are commonly more ignorant than the Priests, never examine their Capacity, but onely if they have Money to pay for their Ordination; which amounts to [Page 71]the Price of a Horse. These Priests may not onely marry, according to the Custome of the Greek Church, before they are ordained, but they may also marry a second time, by pro­curing a Dispensation from their Bishop which costs a Pistol. Neither does the Patriarch or­dain a Bishop, without he pay him the Summ of 500 Crowns. When any Man falls sick he presently sends for a Priest, to assist him rather as a Physician, than as a Ghostly Father, who never speaks to his Patient of Confession; but by turning over the Leaves of a Book very attentively, he seems to search for the true Cause of the Distemper, which he imputes to the Anger of some of their Images; for these People have a Belief, that their Images are sometimes angry with them. And therefore the Priest orders the Patient to make an Of­fering to appease the Wrath of the Image, that Offering consists in Cattle or Money, and all the Profit comes to the Priest alone.

It is farther observed in that Relation, that so soon as a Child is born into the World, the Priest does not more but anoint it with Oil, making the sign of the Cross on its Fore­head, and that Baptism is deferred untill the Child be about two years old. Then they baptise it dipping it in hot-water, and anoin­ting it all over; at length they give it Bread that hath been blessed to eat, and Wine to drink: which appears to be the Ancient way of Baptism, when they administred at the same time Baptism, Confirmation and the Eucharist. These People believe that Baptism, consists chiefly in the anointing with the Oil that hath been consecrated by the Patriarch: [Page 72]which does not disagree with the Doctrine of the Orientals, who call that Unction the Per­fection of Baptism.

Father Zampi who was no less full with the prejudices of the Theology of the Latins, than the other Emissaries we mentioned be­fore, put many questions to them relating to that Theology. Amongst other things he asked them, whether when they administred any Sacrament, they had a real intention to administer it? AndCircal in­tentione, non sanno che sia, solo per usan­za celebrano e per l' Elemosi­na, per cio se sia valida la consecratione mi rimetto a' dottori. thereupon he doubts, whether they truely consecrate the Bread and the Wine, because they know not what that intention means. He asked them besides, wherein they made the Form of Consecration to consist? And having put that Question to many of them, there was but one who gave him any satisfaction, and who in effect re­hearsed the words of Consecration. But it is easie to judge, that the Mengrelian who there­upon satisfied Father Zampi, speaks rather in the Sense of the Father, than according to the Sentiment of those of his Nation. What is strangest of all, and which some will hardly believe, a Mengrelian Priest being by the same Father asked the Question,Interrogai uno di questi Reverendi, se fatta la con­secratione del pane e vino con le sodette paro­le veramente dopo que pane e vino fosse il corpo e sangue di Christo? Questo so­ridendo, come se gli havessi detta una fa­cetia, disse, chi porta Christo nel pane, e co­me puo venir­vi e come puo stare in cosi poco pane, e perche si vol partire dal ci­lo per venir in terra, ne mai si è vista simil cosa. whether after the Consecration of the Bread and the Wine, the same Bread and Wine were really chan­ged into the Body and Bloud of Jesus Christ! the Mengrelian smiling made answer, that one could not conceive how Jesus Christ could leave Heaven to come down upon Earth, and that he could be lodged in so small a Morsel of Bread. But this does not at all agree with the Testimony, that Father Zampi gives in another Place of the Belief of that [Page 73]People concerning the Eucharist. And seeing such kind of Questions are impertinently made by the Emissaries to the People of the East, who are not at all acquainted with our Disputes about that Sacrament, we are not to wonder at their Answers, if they suit not always with our Principles. The Mengrelian Papas on that occasion consulted onely his Senses, and made an answer much like to that which the Capernaites made to our Lord, How can this Man give us his Flesh? Father Zampi added another Question as impertinent as the rest. He asked the same Papas, whe­ther in Case the Priest should forget the words of Consecration, would the Mase be good? to which he answered, why not? The Priest, indeed would sin; but the Mass would still be good. It is strange an Emissary should put such Questions to People whom he knows to be in profound ignorance, and who are so far from understanding the Questions that have for some Ages onely been handled in the Schools, that they have but a slight Tinc­ture of the Principles of Christian Religion.

But that which scandalized Father Zampi the most, was the little Respect that the Papas of Mengrelia have for the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which they keep not, as the Latins do, in precious Vessels, but in a little bag of Leather or Cloath, which they always tye to their Girdle, carrying it about with them wheresoever they goe, to be made use of upon occasions, when they are to give the Viaticum to the sick. Nor doe they make any Difficulty to give it to be carried by others, whether it be Man or Woman: and seeing the [Page 74]Consecrated Bread is hard, they break it into little Pieces to be moistened, without much regard to the small Crums of that Consecra­ted Bread that fall upon the ground, or that sick to their Hands.[*] [*] I confess these People pay not Veneration enough to that August Sa­crament: but, on the other hand, it is not reasonable, to exact from them all the Exter­nal Worship that is rendered to it in the Western Church, seeing they have not the same reasons to doe it, having no Berengarians amongst them, that might oblige them to give those Exteriour Marks of their Belief. We can expect no more from them, than what was practised in the first Ages of the Church: And it is not peculiar to the Mengrelians alone to keep in a leathern Bag the Sacrament which is to serve for a Viaticum; the same is also ob­served in some Greek Churches, who in that manner keep it fastened to the Wall in their Churches.

CHAP. VII Of the Belief and Customs of the Nesto­rians.

THere are many Sects of Christians in the East, who bear the Name of Chaldeans or Syrians; but the most considerable of these Chaldeans, are those whom we call Nestorians, who, in effect, reverence Nestorius as their Pa­triarch, [Page 75]and invocate him in their Prayers. That Nation, aswell as the other Orientals, have several times desired to be reunited to the Church of Rome: which happened under the Pontificate of Julius III. to whom theEp. Nestor. ad Jul. III. ex Syro in Latin. conversa per Andr. Mas. Nestorians wrote, demanding of him the Confirmation of the Election which they had then made of a Patriarch; and praying him at the same time to protect him against a Fa­mily which for a long time had kept Possessi­on of the Patriarchate. This is to be obser­ved, because the Orientals commonly have no recourse to the Pope, unless for some particu­lar Interest; which is also the reason that these kinds of Unions are not very lasting.

The Reunion of the same Chaldean Nestori­ans with the Church of Rome, under the Pon­tificate of Paul V. is more considerable than the former, and seeing the Acts of these Reunions have been Printed at Rome, we shall here extract out of them what may conduce to the Discovery of the Belief of those People, and add some Reflexions thereupon.

Pet. Stroza de Dogm. Chald. Edit. Roma. 1617. Stroza who hath caused these Acts to be Printed, affirms that the Sect of the Nesto­rians is so great, that their Patriarch has Juris­diction over more than three hundred thousand Families, most of which have submitted them­selves to the Pope by means of the Jesuits. Pope Clement VIII. gave them a Jesuit to go­vern them in Quality of Metropolitan. Untill the time of Julius III. the Nestorians ac­knowledged but one Patriarch, who took the Title of Patriarch of Babylon: but Divisi­on happening amongst them, because they could not endure that the Patriarch should [Page 76]always continue in one Family, as it had for the space of above an hundred years, which appears by the LettersEpist. Nes­tor. ad Jul. III. they wrote to Ju­lius III. for having Confirmation of their new Election; the Patriarchate was also divided, for the Pope gave them for Patriarch Simon Jubacha a Monk of the Order of St. Pachome, who held his Residence at Caremit in Mesopo­tamia, where, in that Quality he ordained several Bishops and Archbishops. After the Death of Simon Jubacha, Abdjesu or Hebedjesu, to pronounce it after the manner of the Chal­deans, was made Patriarch in his Place. Abra­ham Ecchellensis, Abrah. Ecchel. who hath published a little Syriack Treatise of Abdjesu, gives him the Ti­tle of Metropolitan of Soba, in the Preface which he presixes to that Book. He takes no­tice of several Books composed by the same Hebedjesu, in favour of the Religion of the Nestorians: but that being come to Rome un­der Julius III. he made an Abjuration of Nestorianism. It is of him that mention is made in the Life of Pius IV. In whose Pontificate he made a second Voyage to Rome, for obtai­ning the Confirmation of his Patriarchship; and was present at the Council of Trent. Be­ing a Man of Parts, he had so much Address as to draw over many Nestorians to the Church of Rome. But they who succeeded him could not retain them, having neither his Parts nor Address.

Abathalla, who was also a Monk of St. Pachome, succeeded to Hebedjesu, and having lived but a very short time, Denha Simon was his Successour, who before was Archbishop of Gelu: but he was forced to leave Caremit and [Page 77]to retire to the Province of Zeinalbech in the utmost Bounds of Persia, having been obliged to yield to the Power of the Patriarch of Ba­bylon. His Successour whose Name also was Simon, resided in the same place: which lessen­ned much the Authority of that second Patri­arch. And this was the State of the Affairs of the Nestorians from the time of Julius III. untill Paul V. in whose Pontificate, Elias Patri­arch of Babylon made a solemn Reconciliation with the Church of Rome.

Stroza in proleg.This Elias having received Presents from Paul V. and a Formulary of Faith, sent some in his Name, to thank his Holiness, and to sub­mit himself wholly to him, acknowledging the Church of Rome as the Chief of all other Churches. He made a Profession of Faith in theEp. Patri­arch. Babyl. ad Paul. V. Letter which he wrote to the Pope, wherein he Anathematises even those who be­lieve not that the Church of Rome is the Mo­ther of all Churches. Then he adds, that his Church of Babylon differs from other Churches of Hereticks, which have multiplied Patri­archs, without any Title, and without the Participation of the Church of Rome: where­as the Patriarchate of Babylon hath been esta­blished by the Authority of the See of Rome, as is to be found in their Annals, where it is mentioned that the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church were ordained at Rome, whither they sent afterwards for obtaining the Confirmati­on of their Election. But seeing it happened often, that those who were sent were killed by the way, it was at length after a long time, concluded by the Pope in Council, that he would ordain them a Patriarch, and give them [Page 78]Liberty of Election for the future. And this, says the Patriarch Elias, is the Original of the Patriarchal See of Babylon, which we have not usurped, having received that Dignity from the Church of Rome.

It is easie to perceive that all this History concerning the Original of the Patriarchate of the Nestorians, hath been made on purpose by the Patriarch Elias who stood in need of the Assistance of Rome. The same Judgment we are to make of the Letters which the Nesto­rians assembled at Mosul for the Election of a new Patriarch, wrote to Pope Julius III. wherein they give him the Title of Head of all Bishops, in the same manner as St. Peter was of all the other Disciples. That is not the ordinary Language of the Orientals in regard of the Bishop of Rome, whom they do, indeed, acknowledge to be the chief of Patri­archs, but that, according to them, is onely a Primacy of Honour, and not of Jurisdiction and Power over the rest.

The same patriarch Elias annexed to his Letter the Confession of Faith of his Church, where amongst other Articles, it is said, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; that the Son hath taken a Body of the Holy Virgin; that he is perfect both in Soul and in Mind, and in all that belongs to a Man; that the Word having descended into a Virgin, was united to the Man, and became one thing with that Man, in the same manner as the Fire and the Iron are united together; that that Unity is without either Mixture or Confu­sion; and therefore it is, that the Properties of each Nature cannot be destroyed after the [Page 79]Union; that they believe that Jesus Christ who is begotten of his Father from all Eternity, as to his Divinity, was born of a Virgin in the fulness of time, and united with the Na­ture of his Humanity. As to what is objected to them, that they call not the Virgin, the Mother of God, but Mother of Jesus Christ: he answers, that they speak in that manner, to condemn the Apollinarians, who pretend that the Divinity is without the Humanity; and to confound Themistius, who affirmed that Christ was onely Humanity without Divinity. He farthermore adds, that that is the Belief of the Church of Rome, and that he receives all which that Church teaches; that he ac­knowledges the Pope to be Head of all Churches, and that out of the same Church of Rome there is no Salvation.

Now seeing Elias Patriarch of Babylon, o­therwise of the Nestorians, could not come to Rome himself, He dispatched to the Pope some of the ablest and most prudent Men a­bout him, to make the Reconciliation of the two Churches. They together framed an Expla­nation of the Articles of their Religion, where they laid down, at length, the manner of re­conciling their Belief with that of the Church of Rome. Abbot Adam, who was one of the Deputies, was charged with that Commen­tary or Explanation; and the Patriarch ac­companied him with a Letter to the PopeEpist. El. Patr. ad Paul. V. wherein he treats of that Reconciliation of Belief, and makes it appear that the two Churches differ onely in Ceremonies; but that as to the Doctrine of Faith all the Disputes with the Church of Rome, are but nominal. He [Page 80]reduces those Points of Belief, wherein he pretends to differ onely in Name from Rome, to five Heads, to wit, in that the Nestorians call not the Virgin the Mother of God, but Mother of Christ; in that they assign to J. C. but one Power and one Will; in that they acknowledge in J. C. but one Person; in that they say barely, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father; and, in fine, in that they believe that the Light which is made on Holy Saturday at the Sepulchre of our Lord is a Light truly miraculous. The Patriarch Elias, having taken the Advice of the most knowing Men about him, pretends that in all these Points, they understand not one ano­ther aright. And, in effect, Abbot Adam en­deavours to justify himself in a long Discourse, of which we shall onely here relate a Summa­ry, without speaking of the two last Articles which are common to all the Orientals; the three first onely, relating particularly to the Nestorians; and I find that that Abbot evi­dently proves that the Modern Nestorianism, is but a Heresie in Name, and that it hath onely been condemned, because not under­stood.

In the first place, the Abbot makes appear, that it is easie to reconcile the Roman Church which calls the Virgin Mother of God, with the Nestorian, which calls her Mother of Jesus Christ; because it is a Principle received by both Churches, that the Divinity neither ge­nerates, nor is generated, so that the Virgin hath engendered Jesus Christ, who is God and Man both together; but that it is not there­fore to be believed, that there are two Sons, [Page 81]but one onely true Son: insomuch that there is in Jesus Christ but one Filiation, and one onely visible Person, which the Nestorians call Parsopa. In fine, he concludes, that they deny not but that the Virgin may be called Mother of God, because Jesus Christ is really God, and that that Doctrine is agreeable to the words of St. John in his Gospel, of St. Paul, and St. Gregory Nazianzene: where­fore, says he, according to these Principles, the Church of Rome acknowledges really that the Virgin is the Mother of God, and the Orientals, with good reason, say also, that she is Mother of Christ; and yet for all that differ not in Judgment.

In the second place, he examines the diffe­rence that seems to be betwixt the Roman and Nestorian Churches, touching the Natures and Persons in Jesus Christ. It is certain the La­tins acknowledge two Natures and one onely Person in Christ: whereas the Nestorians say that there are two Persons in him, and one Parsopa or visible Person; and besides that there is but one Power and Virtue in him. He reconciles those two Opinions that seem at first so different, by the explication which he gives of that Mystery. The Orientals or Nestorians, says he, according to the two Na­tures that are in Christ, distinguish in their Mind two Persons; but with their Eyes they see but one Christ, who is onely the Parsopa or Appearance of one Filiation. And it is in that Sense also, that the Nestorians acknow­ledge but one Power or Virtue in Christ, be­cause they look upon him but as one Parsopa or visible Person; and so, by reason of that [Page 82]real and perfect Union which makes but one Compositum of two Natures, the Divine and Humane, they distinguish not a double Pow­er or Virtue, making the Terms to rest on the Unity of Filiation. Whereas in the Church of Rome, these Powers or Virtues are distin­guished into Divine and Humane, because they are considered with relation to the Na­tures, and it may easily be concluded from thence, that this Diversity of Judgment is onely apparent, since, in effect, the Nestorians confess with the Latins, that there are two Natures in Christ, and that each Nature hath its Power and its Virtue: and besides, both Churches acknowledge, that there is no Mix­ture nor Confusion of those two Natures, each retaining the Attributes which are proper to them. In fine, for a greater Illustration of his Opinion he adds these words: As the Fathers of the Church of Rome, acknowledge one Per­son because of one Filiation; so they of the East acknowledge one Virtue or Power because of one Filiation.

In the third place, he reconciles the Opinion of the Nestorians, who assign but one Will and one Operation in Christ, with that of the La­tins who acknowledge two VVills and two Operations in him. For compassing that, he insists upon the same Principle of one Filiati­on, which making but one Jesus Christ; the Nestorians say with relation thereunto, that there is but one VVill and one Operation in him, because he is really one and not two. This, nevertheless, hinders them not from ac­knowledging two VVills and two Operations, with relation to the two Natures, as the Latins [Page 83]doe: but they do not express themselves after their manner, because these two Natures making but one Compositum, which is Jesus Christ, they also say that he hath but one VVill and one Operation; which excludes not the two VVills and Operations that the Latins attribute to Christ, because the Nesto­rians own him to be perfect Man. But seeing these two Natures are united together, and that the one VVill is never separated from the other, they make both together but one and the same thing: and in that Sense they assert this Unity of VVill; in which manner Christ also speaks, when he saith, I am not come to doe my own Will, but the Will of him that sent me. Then he concludes with these words: Are there two contrary Wills in Jesus Christ? Not at all: but without any repugnance made by the Will of his Humanity, he wills that which the Will of his Divinity wills, to which it is submitted, not by constraint; and therefore he saith to his Father, not my Will be done, but thine.

In this manner the Nestorians justified to Paul V. the Belief of their Churches, and that Justification or Reconciliation was not the VVork of one Man, but of the ablest Men of the Nation whom the Patriarch Elias con­sulted. The truth is, there is flattery in the Articles which relate to the Sovereign Power of the Pope, and the Christians of the Levant are not so submitted to the Court of Rome, as the Nestorians in these Acts do testifie: but that is pardonable in poor VVretches that solicite the Protection of that Court, because there was no other means of approaching it, without giving the Pope that Supreme Power [Page 84]and Jurisdiction over all the Churches in the VVorld. As to the other Propositions which are peculiar to the Nestorians, it will be found that Modern Nestorianism is but an imaginary Heresie, and that the Diversity of Sentiments consists only in Ambiguities, inasmuch as the Nestorians take the word Person in another acceptation than the Latins do. However, seeing Councils had condemned the Heresie of Nestorius, it was, it seems, necessary that Nestorianism should appear at Rome to be a real Heresie, since it had been condemned in the Church by a General Council. That Course Stroza hath taken in the Collection he hath made of these Acts; for he heaps to­gether all that hath been said by the Fathers and Councils against the Opinion of Nestorius: Nevertheless, that he may not altogether thwart the Patriarch of the Nestorians, who affirmed that all the difference that was be­twixt the Church of Rome and his own, in relation to their Belief, consisted onely in Ambiguities; he frankly confesses, that it is probable enough that the Errour of the Mo­dern Nestorians, is more in the Understanding than Will, that is to say, that they are not Hereticks, as not being obstinate; but onely ignorant of true Theology, which makes them erroneous; as if it were an Errour not to know the Terms which have not been in use but in some latter Ages amongst the Divines of the West.

I do not think it needfull to produce in this Place all that Stroza alledges for condem­ning the Propositions of the Nestorians, be­cause he says nothing but what may be found [Page 85]in the Acts of Councils. I shall onely ob­serve, that from the same Acts some might infer, that Nestorianism is onely a Heresie in Name, and that if Nestorius and St. Cyrill had understood one another, they might have re­conciled their Opinions, and thereby hindered a great Scandal in the Church. But the Greeks have been always great Disputants; and therefore we find that most of the first Heresies had their Original amongst them; and that most commonly their Disputes were onely metaphysical, and about Ambiguities, from which afterwards, according to their Custome, they drew Consequences, and, at length, came to reproaches; whereby matters became irreconcileable: whereas if the parties had modestly explained their thoughts, there had not been, for most part, the least ap­pearance of Heresie in them. It seems to them that Nestorius hath always acknowledged two Natures in Christ, which united together, made but one Compositum; and that he called a Person in Greek [...], whence the Chal­deans have taken their Parsopa. Now it is certain, the Term [...], in the Ancient Greek Fathers, signifies that which we call Person and Hypostasis. For as to the two Persons which Nestorius assigned to be in Christ, it was onely to explain that there were really two Natures in him, and that both remained entire without Mixture or Confusion. In effect, besides those two Metaphysical Persons which were not distinguished in Nature, he admitted another real visible Person, in the manner as it is defined by the Ancient Fathers. Nay it will appear, that the Sentiment of Nestorius, if we [Page 86]bar the Consequences that St. Cyrill draws from it, is less perplexed with Difficulties, be­cause it is more simple, and always regards Jesus Christ in himself and as Son; whereas the other Opinion, most frequently considers him onely by parts, that is to say, sometime as God, and sometime as Man. Nor was the Opinion of Theodore of Mopsuestia, the Master of Nestorius, condemned in the Beginning, and it was never thought on, untill the Nestorians made use of his Authority. It is, neverthe­less, certain, That this Theodore, from whom Nestorius had learnt the Opinion, acknow­ledged two Natures and one Person in Jesus Christ, as appears by his words mentioned in the fifth General Council: And if he denied that the Virgin was the Mother of God, it was onely to refute the Heresie of Apollinarius, and in that Sense onely, that the Virgin could not conceive the Divinity, though otherways he whom she brought forth was very God. Let us now proceed to the other Articles of the Belief of the Nestorians.

Seeing the Sect of the Nestorians hath been rent from the Greek Church, it hath the same Opinions as she hath, except that which is pe­culiar to it, and which was the Cause of the Separation. It may be, however, the Nesto­rians are greater Libertines as to some Points of Morality and Discipline, than the Greeks are; and without doubt it is in that Sense that we ought to understandBrerew. of Lang, and Re­ligions, Chap. 19. what Brerewood relates concerning Confession, which he denies to be amongst them. It is true they neglect it very much, and the Archbishop Joseph, a Nestorian, who some years since was reconciled [Page 87]to the Church of Rome, had much adoe to re­establish it in Diarbequer, because the Nestori­ans, though most of them Latinized, would not submit to it, as I have learned from ano­ther Chaldean Archbishop, a great Friend of Joseph's, who hath suffered much for maintai­ning the Interests of Rome. We must then explain all the other Points of the Religion of the Nestorians, with relation to the Sentiments of the Greek Church, which is the source of all the Christianity in the East.

It is not to be denied, but that the Nestori­ans consecrate in Leavened bread. They moreover, put into their Bread Salt and Oil, as may be seen in the Notes upon the Works of Gabriel of Philadelphia, where the way of making and preparing that Bread, to make it proper for Consecration, is related. They have, for that end, a great many Prayers which they say; however they observe fewer Ceremonies than the Greeks, who to the An­cient have added an infinite Number of new ones.

CHAP. VIII. Of the Indians, or Christians of St. Tho­mas.

THE Indians or Christians of St. Thomas, and the Nestorians may be comprehended under one Head, because it is certain they [Page 88]make but one Sect, and have but one Patri­arch, whose Jurisdiction extends as far as In­dia: and the Chaldeans who live at Goa, Co­chim, Angamala, and other Places of those Quarters, are really of the Nestorian Sect. The Popes have often sent Emissaries into those Countries, especially since the Portuguese setled there. But he that laboured most in re­conciling these Christians of St. Thomas to the Roman Church, was Alexis de Meneses of the Order of St. Austin, who was made Archbi­shop of Goa, and took the Title of Primate of the East. Seeing there hath been a History made out of his Memoires, the relation of those who accompanied him into that Coun­trey, and of some Jesuits who have been in the same Places, we shall relate the State and Religion of those People at the time of that Famous Mission, which happened in the Year 1599. Many before Meneses had attempted the Reunion of the Christians of St. Thomas with the Church of Rome. Don John Albu­querque, Hist. Ori­ent. des pro­grés d'Alex. Men. en la reduct des Crestiens de St. Thomas. Imprimée à Brusseles en. 1609. of the Order of St Francis, was the first Archbishop of Goa; and under him, in the Year 1546. there was a College erected at Cangranor for instructing Children in the Ceremonies of the Latins. But the Jesuits who were more sagacious, soon perceived, that the Young Chaldeans bred after the man­ner of the Latins, were useless, and that it was in vain to think of converting the Christians of that Countrey without the Knowledge of the Chaldaick or Syrian Language. They there­fore erected another College about a League from Cangranor in the Year 1587. where they taught Children the Chaldaick Tongue, to the [Page 89]end that being grown up, they might be re­ceived into the Ministery as real Chaldeans. But neither did this do any great Service, be­cause it was not enough to be instructed in the Language of the Religion, there must be, besides, an agreement in Sentiments with the Prelates, to have the Liberty of Preaching in their Churches; whereas being taught by the Jesuits, their Doctrine and way of speaking were very different from what was common­ly received in the Countrey. And therefore it was impossible for the Jesuits to make them forsake their ancient Customs, and to with­draw them from the Submission which they rendered to the Patriarch of Babylon, who was not in the Pope's Communion, no more than the Bishops that were under his Jurisdicti­on.

The Remedy therefore that was found for that, was to seize the Person of a certain Bi­shop called Mar Joseph, who had been sent by the Patriarch of Babylon, to the end that by that means the People having no Pastour, the Design might the more easily be brought about. But that Bishop Mar Joseph ordered that Mass should be celebrated according to the Custome of Rome with Ornaments after the Latin Fashion, and that they should even make use of the Wine and Wafers of the Latins. Nevertheless he still persisted in Nestorianism, and taught the Portuguese who served him, to say, Holy Mary Mother of Christ, and not Mo­ther of God: which obliged the Archbishop and Viceroy to arrest him, in order to his being carried to Rome. But arriving in Portugal, he so well managed his Affairs, that he obtained [Page 90]Letters again to be received into his Bishop­rick of Serra. In the mean time, there was another Bishop already put in his Place, cal­led Mar Abraham, who to maintain himself in his Bishoprick, went afterwards to Rome to submit to the Pope, where having made an ab­juration of his Heresies, he was re-ordained. He had all the Orders given him anew, from the Tonsure to Priesthood; then he was con­secrated Bishop, and the Pope empowred him by Bulls for governing the Church of Serra, adding thereunto Letters of Recommendation to the Viceroy, which stood him but in little stead: for he was no sooner arrived, but that the Archbishop of Goa caused his Bulls to be examined; and finding that the Pope had been misinformed by Mar Abraham, and that his Holiness had been imposed upon, he was shut up in a Monastery, in expectation of an An­swer from Rome. But he escaped and retired into the Churches of his Bishoprick, where he was very well received by the Nestorians, who hoped no more for any Bishop from their Patriarch. In the mean time, Mar Abraham who still distrusted the Portuguese, retreated far up into the Countrey; and to shew that he was sincerely in the Pope's Communion, he ordained anew all those whom he had already ordained, that he might conform to the Roman Rite, and did all he could both with the Viceroy and the Archbishop, that he might appear to be really in the Judgment of the Latin Church. But he still preached Nesto­rianism in his Church of Serra, and would not suffer the Pope to be called Head of the Church, as owning no other Patriarch, but [Page 91]the Patriarch of Babylon. On the other hand, the Ancient Bishop of Serra Mar Joseph was accused of teaching the Heresies of Nestorius, and being thereupon questioned, he answe­red freely, that he had had a Revelation from God, assuring him that the Religion which he had received from his Ancestours was the true Religion. So he was immediately made Prisoner, and sent to Rome where he died.

From this History it may be gathered that the Portuguese have used great Violence to­wards the Nestorians about Matters of Reli­gion; that the Emissaries, being Men unac­quainted with the Theology of the East, have disturbed and molested them for Ceremonies of little or no Importance, and that they have thereby occasioned the temporising of the Nestorian Bishops, by introducing Novelties into their Churches, to which they were con­strained by Violence. And therefore it was that the same Mar Abraham having been obli­ged by the Pope's Brief, and more by the fear that he had of the Vice-roy, who gave him a Pass-port, to repair to a Council, he there again abjured all these Errours, and made Profession of the Roman Catholick Faith. But no sooner was he come back to his Church, but that he taught Nestorianism as before; and even wrote to his Patriarch of Babylon, that the Portuguese had forced him to be present at the Synod of Goa. The sequel of that Histo­ry discovers more plainly the Violences used by the Portuguese towards the Nestorians, to bring them to an Union with the Church of Rome, and to oblige them to subscribe to the Confession of Faith of Pius IV. which hap­pened [Page 92]in the time of Alexis de Meneses Arch-Bishop of Goa, who went into the Indies with a Brief of Clement VIII. to inform against Mar Abraham. In that whole Relation there ap­pears great Zeal in the Nestorian Christians of that Countrey, for the Defence of their Faith, which they pretended to retain as being once delivered unto them by St. Thomas: In so much that they put their hands before their Eyes at the Mass of the Latins, when the Priest elevated the Host to be adored by those that were present. Above all, they shew'd themselves zealous for their Patriarch of Ba­bylon; and when they were asked whether the Pope was not Head of the Church, they made answer that he was Head of the Church of Rome, which is a particular Church, other­wise called the Church of St. Peter, and not of the Church of St. Thomas, as being inde­pendent one of another, which they obsti­nately maintained. They, moreover, resolute­ly withstood the Sacrament of Confirmation which Archbishop Meneses would have admi­nistred unto them; and they accused him of Envy and Ambition, alledging that he endea­voured to overturn the Religion of St. Tho­mas, to make them embrace that of Rome, to the end that by that Artifice, he might re­main absolute Master of all the Churches of the Indies. And therefore, say they, that Archbishop calumniated the Patriarchs of Ba­bylon; protesting, however, that they would persevere in Submission and Obedience to their patriarch, and that they would never forsake their Religion to embrace that of Rome.

Notwithstanding all these oppositions on the Part of the Nestorians, Archbishop Meneses still persisted to inculcate to them that their Patriarch was an Heretick and Excommunica­ted; and that therefore they could not pray for him. This he did so vigorously, sparing neither Pains nor Money, that at length he softened them. Sometimes he used Violence, and was therefore often in danger of his Life. For under Pretext that he had full Power from the Pope, he exercised his Juris­diction in all Places, without minding the Or­dinaries of the Places, even before they had acknowledged his Character. And in this manner that Envoy of the Pope planted the Roman Religion in that Countrey, and spared no means to accomplish his Design. He gave Orders in spight of the Diocesan Bishops, and made those whom he Ordained first abjure the Errours of the Nestorians. Besides the Confession of Faith, they who entered into Orders were obliged to swear Obedience to the Pope, and to acknowledge no other Bi­shops, but such as were sent from him. But let us now come to the Errours of which Mene­ses accuses the Christians of St. Thomas.

I.Hist. Ori­ent. des progr. d' Alexis Me­neses, Chap. 20. They obstinately maintained the Er­rours of Nestorius, and besides that, they recei­ved no Images, admitting onely the Cross which they much honoured. Nevertheless, there were Images of some Saints in Chur­ches adjacent to the Portuguese.

II. They affirmed that the Souls of the Saints did not see God before the Day of Judgment.

III. They acknowledged but three Sacra­ments, to wit, Baptism, Orders, and the Eu­charist: and in the Form of Baptism there was so great an abuse amongst them, that in one and the same Church, different Forms of Baptism were in use; and by reason of that, it happened often that the Baptism was null: So that Archbishop Meneses secretly rebapti­zed most Part of that People. There were also a great many, especially the Poor, who lived in the woods, who had never been Bap­tised, because Baptism cost Money: And ne­vertheless though they had never been bap­tised, yet they went to Church, and received the Sacrament. Besides, they often enough delayed Baptism for several Months, nay and for several Years.

IV. They made no use of Holy Oil in the Administration of Baptism; unless that finding in their Rituals that there was mention made of anointing after Baptism, they anointed Children with an Unguent made of Indian Nuts, without any Benediction; and they estee­med that Unction Holy.

V. They had no Knowledge of Confirmation nor Extreme Unction; nay not so much as the Names of them.

VI. They abominated Auricular Confession, except a few that were Neighbours to the Portuguese: And as to the Eucharist, they communicated on Holy Thursday and many other Festival-days, without other Preparation, than coming to the Sacrament fasting.

VII. Their Books were full of considerable Errours, and in their Mass there were a great many Additions inserted by the Nestorians.

VIII. They consecrated with little Cakes made with Oil and Salt, which the Deacons and other Churchmen, who were but in infe­riour Orders, baked in a Copper Vessel, ha­ving for that purpose a separated Place in the Form of a little Tower; and whilst the Cake was a baking, they sung several Psalms and Hymns: and when they were ready to conse­crate, through a Hole that was in the Floor of that little Tower, they let the Cake in a little Basket made of Leaves slide down upon the Altar. Moreover, they made use of Wine made of Water, in which some dry Grapes had onely been infused.

IX. They said Mass but very seldom, and he that served at it, wore a kind of a Stole over his ordinary Cloaths, though he was not a Deacon. He had always the Censer in his Hand, and said almost as many Prayers as he that celebrated, adding thereto many unknown and impious Ceremonies.

X. They had so great a Veneration for Or­ders, that there was not a Family where some Body was not in Orders: and the reason of that was, because as Orders made them not incapable of other Employments, so they had every where the Precedence.

Besides, they observed not the Age requisite for Priesthood, and the other Orders; for they made Priests at the Age of 17, 18. and 20. Years: and when they were Priests, they married, even with Widows, and past to se­cond or third Marriages. The Priests Wives had some Place before others, aswell in the Churches as elsewhere, and they were to be known by a Cross which they carried about [Page 96]their Neck, or some other. thing that distin­guished them.

XI. They went daily to Church to reade the Liturgy aloud in the Chaldaick Tongue: but they did not think themselves obliged to repeat it elsewhere; neither had they any Breviaries for saying it in Private.

XII. They committed Symony in the Ad­ministration of Baptism and the Eucharist, set­ting rates of the Price they were to receive for them. For their Marriages, they made use of the first Priest that they found, especially those who lived in the Countrey.

XIII. They had an extraordinary respect for their Patriarch of Babylon, a Schismatick, and Head of the Nestorian Sect: on the con­trary they could not endure that the Pope should be named in their Churches, where most commonly they had neither Curate nor Vicar, but the ancientest presided in them.

XIV. Though on Sundays they went to Mass, yet they did not think themselves obli­ged to it in Conscience; so that they were at Liberty not to goe, nay there were some Places where Mass was said but once a Year, and o­thers where none was said in 6, 7. and 10. Years.

XV. The Priests discharged Secular Em­ployments. The Bishops were Babylonians sent by their Patriarch, and lived onely by sordid Gain, and Symony, selling Publickly Holy things, as the Collation of Orders, and the Administration of other Sacraments.

XVI. They are flesh on Saturdays; and were in this Errour in regard of the Fasts of Lent and the Advent, that if they had failed to [Page 97]Fast one day, they fasted no more, thinking themselves not obliged to it, because they had already broken their Fast.

These are the greatest Part of the Errours which Archbishop Meneses pretends to have found amongst the Christians of St. Thomas, and which the Compiler of that History ex­aggerates, to shew that extraordinary Labour was needfull for gaining these People. But if that Archbishop and other Emissaries into the East, had been well acquainted with the An­cient Theology, they would not have so mul­tiplied Errours. In effect, seeing they measu­red all things by the Rule of the Theology which is taught in the Schools of Europe, it is not to be thought strange, that they would needs reform the Oriental nations according to that Standard. I confess, there were abu­ses there that needed amendment; but they ought not to have been rectified according to our Customs. The Course that was to have been taken on these Occasions was to have turned back unto their Ancient Books, and to have reformed them according to the Con­tents thereof; and that might have been easily done, as will appear in the Sequel of this Dis­course. But we must first relate the rest of that History, that we may be able to make the better Judgment on the Conduct of Meneses, and of the pretended Errours of the Nestorians.

Archbishop Meneses called a Synod the 20th. of June 1599. where the Deputies of the Nestorians were present, to deliberate jointly with the Archbishop about Matters of Reli­gion. And that it might appear that the Nesto­rians had all the Liberty that is necessary upon [Page 98]such Occasions, and that on the other Hand, they might give their Consent to all that should be decreed there, the Archbishop gained Eight of the most Famous Churchmen, and fully in­formed them of his Design, and of the ways that were to be taken for succeeding in it, giving them the particulars of all the Decrees that were to be made there, and asking their Opinion upon every distinct Point, as if no­thing had as yet been resolved upon; to the end that being present in the Synod, they might doe the same, and thereby oblige the rest to follow their Example. He took many other measures for succeeding in his Designs, which, it would be to no purpose, to relate; and all that hath been hitherto alledged, is onely to shew the manner how the Roman Religion hath been established in the East, and that it is not to be thought strange, that all the Reconciliations that have been made with those People whom we call Schismaticks, have been of no long Duration.

It was then decreed in that Synod, that the Priests, Deacons, Subdeacons, and besides all the Deputies of Towns that were present should sign the Confession of Faith, that the Archbishop had privately made by himself; which was done, and all solemnly swore obedience to be Pope, whom they acknowledged to be Head of the Church, swearing also that they would enter­tain no more Commerce with the Patriarch of Babylon. Moreover they Anathematized the Person of Nestorius and all his Errours, owning Cyrill Patriarch of Alexandria for a Saint. Be­sides, a great many particular Statutes were made in that Synod, for reforming the Errours [Page 99]that Archbishop Meneses pretended to be in the Administration of their Sacraments, and in their Books. And therefore he caused their Liturgies and other Offices to be rectified. He regulated the matter of Marriage, according to the Decrees of the Council of Trent. The Sa­craments of Penance, Confirmation and Ex­treme Unction were likewise reformed, accor­ding to the Practice of the Church of Rome. Priests were for the future prohibited to mar­ry, and regulations were made for those who were already married. In a word, the Arch­bishop introduced the Religion of the Latins amongst the Chaldeans, as well in that synod, as in the Visitations which he made of several Churches. But let us now consider, if he had reason to introduce so many Novelties amongst the Christians of St. Thomas; which will serve to discover the Religion of those People.

I. As to what concerns the Errours which Archbishop Meneses imputes to them; we have in the foregoing Chapter reconciled the Sentiments of the Nestorians, with those of the Church of Rome; and that was the way that the Archbishop should have pro­ceeded with them, if he intended to have established a lasting Reformation: for he ought to have heard them, before he condemned them for being called Nestorians. When it had been made clear to them, that all the Disputes which they had with the Church of Rome, consisted onely in the Ambiguity of Terms, they would have become a great deal more tractable and docile.

II. As to Images, the Chaldeans reverence them not so much as the Greeks do, because that great Veneration of Images was not so firmly established in the Greek Church, but since the second Council of Nice, which was posteriour to all the Sects of the Chaldeans, who com­monly are satisfied with a Cross in their Hand; and that Cross wherewith the Priest blesseth the People, is of plain Metal without any figure. The Archbishop might very well have let the Christians of St. Thomas alone in that Ancient simplicity, because all that hath been since that time decreed concerning Images, is but barely matter of Discipline.

III. It is very true they administer not Bap­tism after the manner of the Latins; but it is not therefore to be thought, that the form of their Baptism is invalid; and it was far less ne­cessary to rebaptize those who had been bap­tized according to the Chaldean rite. That which deceives the Emissaries, when they treat about Affairs of Religion with the Ori­entals, is the prejudices which they have learned in the Schools concerning the Matter and Form of Sacraments. When, for instance, they see that the Child is not baptized at the same time that the words which denote the Action are pronounced, they take the Baptism to be null; without considering that the man­ner of administring the Sacraments amongst the Orientals, consists chiefly in certain Pray­ers which they say, and that they are not so great Metaphysicians as the Latins; which makes them ignorant of a vast number of Difficulties, that our Divines handle with much subtilty; but the Belief of the Nestori­ans [Page 101]is not therefore less pure, nor less Anci­ent.

IV. The Unction which they use after Bap­tism, is with them the Sacrament of Confir­mation, that differs much from that of the Latins: And it was not needfull that Archbi­shop Meneses should have introduced another Unction that was practised in his Church, and which at most was no more than a Ceremo­ny. He ought to have known that the Nesto­rians, according to the Ancient Practice of the Eastern Church, administer to Children Confirmation and the Eucharist with Baptism. It had been then fit, to have examined their Rituals, to see whether any abuse might not have crept into the Administration of that Sa­crament: whereas Meneses his chief care seems to have been, to abolish most Ancient Customs, because they were not agreeable to the Practi­ces of the Latins.

V. The Archbishop is mistaken, when he says that the Christians of St. Thomas had no Knowledge of Confirmation, nor of Extreme Unction, and were ignorant of the very Names. It may be, they might have been ignorant of the Names of these Sacraments, especially of Extreme Unction, which is no where known, but in the Latin Church: for though the Ea­stern Church hath the Custome of anointing the Sick, according to the words of St. James, yet she calls not that Ceremony Extreme Unction, for the reasons we mentioned before, when we spoke of the Greeks: and the same reasons may be also applied to Confirmation. The Priests administer that Sacrament amongst the Nestori­ans, as well as amongst the Greeks, at the same [Page 102]time they do Baptism, of which, according to them, it is a perfection that ought never to be separated from it. As to Auricular Confes­sion, which they had in abhorrence, it is cer­tainly an abuse introduced into that Church, because the use of Confession is in all the East, though most part think not themselves obliged to it by Divine Right.

VI. As to the Errours which the Archbishop pretends to have found in their Books, so far as that they would have entirely abo­lished the Office of Advent, it was easie to have given a good meaning to all these preten­ded Errours; besides that, the Reformation which he made in their Liturgy was impro­per: for there is nothing worse digested than the Mass of the Nostorians, in the manner as it hath been reformed by Meneses, and as it is found inserted in the Bibliotheca Patrum. The whole Order of it is changed, in endeavouring to accommodate that Liturgy to the Opinion which the Latin Divines have of Consecrati­on, which they make to consist in these words, This is my Body, &c. whereas the Nestorians believe, as all the Orientals do, that the Con­secration is not completed, till the Priest hath ended the Prayer, which they call the Invoca­tion of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless Mene­ses makes the Nestorian Priests adore the Host, so soon as they have pronounced these words, This is my Body, though they believe it not to be as yet consecrated. About this Question the Notes on Gabriel of Philadelphia may be consulted, where the Authour particularly justifies the Nestorians, and proves clearly, that their Liturgies, even that which carries the [Page 103]Name of S. Nestorius, contain nothing but what is Orthodox: which is far from the Sen­timent of Meneses, who calls them impious and heretical, and who onely defends the Cor­rection that he hath made, by these general Terms, that their Liturgies were full of Blas­phemies. The same Authour affirms that in one of the Liturgies for the use of the Nestori­ans, which he had from a Babylonian Priest, the Name of Nestorius with many other things were blotted out, and others added that were not of the same hand writing, because the Nestorian Priest who made use of that Liturgy, was reconciled, at least in appearance, to the Roman Church; which obliged him to reform in his Missal all that might disgust the Divines of Rome. The Nestorians have also done the like on another occasion, as Stroza Petr. Stroza de dogm. Chald. relates: for so soon as they come to Rome, and hear Nestorius spoken of as an impious Person and Heretick, they tear out the Leaves of their Books where mention is made of him, taking away all that they believe to be contrary to the Theology of the Church of Rome.

VII. Their Custome of consecrating with Leavened bread, mingling therein Oil and Salt, ought not to be reckoned amongst their Er­rours, since that does not alter the Nature of Bread. The Ceremony, besides, which they observe to render, in some sort, the Bread more Holy before the Consecration, is Laudable, nay and Ancient. They thereby distinguish, as the Greeks do, the Bread that is destin'd to be made the Body of Christ, from all com­mon Bread, which they look upon as profane, before they have said over it a certain Number of Prayers and Psalms.

VIII. It is no matter of wonder, that the Chaldeans do not say Mass so often as the La­tins do, and that many Priests are present at the Bishops Mass, and take the Communion from his hands. That is an ancient Practice in the Church: whereas the Custome of say­ing so many Masses in the Latin Church, is very late, and hath been chiefly introduced by Mendicant Monks, as it is observed by Cardinal Bona; which Practice hath been much fortified since the Introduction of the new Law. It is also a very ancient Custome that they who serve and are present at Mass, rehearse a good part of it; and that, because the Liturgy is a Publick Action which concerns the People, and may be easily proved even by the Prayers of the Latin Mass.

IX. It is true the Nestorians and other Ori­entals, are grown remiss, in the Ancient Dis­cipline as to what relates to Orders, and that they observe not the Age required by the Ca­nons: But if that wanted to be reformed, as well as what concerns the Marriage of Priests, the Reformation should have been taken from their Laws, rather than from those of Rome. All Men know that in the Eastern Church Priests are allowed to marry before their Or­dination. This, Archbishop Meneses ought to have considered in reforming them, and not to have dissolved the Marriage of Priests, that he might conform to some Statutes made in the Synods held at Goa by some Latin Emissa­ries.

X. Meneses seems to have been mistaken in reckoning the Custome of not saying the Bre­viary out of the Church, amongst their Er­rours, [Page 105]because that Practice is new, and that the Breviary was not made to be said in pri­vate.

XI. I doubt whether the Rates that the Nestorian Priests set for the Administration of the Sacraments, ought to be called Symony, because that is to them instead of a Benefice; and what hath been said before when we spoke of the Greeks, may be applyed to them.

XII. I think the Submission that the Nesto­rians have for their Patriarch, ought not to be reckoned an Errour neither; because the Ori­entals look upon all Patriarchates, even that of Rome, as Powers established by positive Law: And if it be objected to them as a re­proach, that they have an Aversion to the Pope, they answer that the Pope takes to himself Rights over the Churches of the East, which these Churches do not acknowledge. As to their not having Curates nor Vicars, but that the Eldest Priest presides in their As­semblies; that cannot rationally be called an Errour: on the contrary, it is an Excellent Discipline; and it were to be wished, that it were established in all Churches, for a Re­medy to many abuses, which are at present in Benefices.

XIII. In fine, most part of that which Me­neses calls Corruptions amongst the Nestorians, is not so in effect, unless it be in the Imagina­tion of some Emissaries, who measure Religion according to what they have been taught in their Schools. Can it be said, for instance, that it is an Errour in these People, and other Christians of the East, to eat flesh on Saturday, [Page 106]which amongst them is a Festival-day agreeable to the ancient Practice of the Church? Can it be said also, that the Nestorians err in relation to Marriage, because they take the first Priest that they meet with to marry them? We must know that in the Eastern Church the Priest is not barely a Witness of the Marriage; but that he is the onely and true Minister of it, as of the other Sacraments and Ceremo­nies.

CHAP. IX. Of the Customs and Ceremonies of the Jacobites.

IF under the Name of Jacobites, we compre­hend all the Monophysites of the East, that is to say, all those to whom that Heresie is im­puted of acknowledging but one Nature in Jesus Christ; it is certain that that Sect is of a very large extent: for it comprehends the Ar­menians, the Cophties and the Abyssines, but they who are properly called Jacobites are but very few in number, and they live chiefly in Syria and Mesopotamia. They are not in all at most above forty, or five and forty thousand Families: And these too are divided about Doctrine; for some are Latinized, and others sitll continue in separation from the Church of Rome. Nay at present there is some Division among this last sort, for they [Page 107]have two Patriarchs opposite the one to the other, one residing at Caremit, and the other at Derzapharan. Besides them, there is another Latinized Patriarch, called Andrew, who re­sides at Aleppo, and depends on the Court of Rome, to which he is wholly subject. I have, moreover, been informed by a Jacobite Priest who lived at Aleppo, that the Patriarch suffers much because of the Emissaries that were there, and especially because of the Capuchins.

As to their Belief, all the Monophysites whe­ther Jacobites, Armenians, Cophties or Abyssines, are of the Opinion of Dioscorus, touching the Unity of Nature and Person in Christ; and therefore they are accounted Hereticks, though in effect they differ not from the Latin Di­vines, but onely in the manner of expressing themselves. The Learnedest of them acknow­ledge this at present, as appearsP. Sacchini. hist. Societ. Part. 2. lib. 6. by the Conference that Father Christopher Roderigo, sent by the Pope into Egypt, had with the Cophties about the Reunion of the two Chur­ches: for they confessed that they onely ex­pressed themselves in that manner, to distin­guish them from the Nestorians; but that in effect they differed not from the Church of Rome, which asserts two Natures in Christ. They even pretend that they explain the Mystery of the Incarnation, saying that there is but one Nature, because there is but one Christ, God and Man, better than the Latins do, who speak, say they, of these two Na­tures as if they were separate, and did not constitute a real Compositum. In that Sense is it also, that Dioscorus who softened some Terms of Eutyches, which appeared too harsh, said that [Page 108]he acknowledged that Christ was composedEx duabus naturis. of two Natures, but that he was notDuas na­turas. two Natures; which seems to be Ortho­dox: for they will not acknowledge that there are two Natures in Christ, for fear of asserting two Christs. Nor do I doubt, but that if some bold Expressions, and the Consequences that are commonly drawn from them, were laid aside in the Opinion of Eutyches, it might be easily reconciled with the Doctrine of the Church of Rome. All the difference proceeds onely from the different use of the words Na­ture and Person; and the desire of maintaining what once hath been asserted, as in effect, Eu­tyches defended his Opinion with headstrong Wilfulness and Obstinacy: so that all the Terms that he makes use of, are not to be taken ac­cording to the Rigour of the Letter; but they ought to be explained and limited according to the Idea which he had conceived of ad­mitting but one Christ, and therefore but one Nature, after that the Union of the two Natures, to wit, the Divine and Humane, is made in a manner which we cannot compre­hend. For that which is attributed to Euty­ches, that he believed that the Body of Christ was a Divine Body, and of a Nature diffe­rent from ours, is rather the Oratory of the Preacher, who might say that the Body of Jesus Christ after the Union was in a manner made Divine, than a real and physical Truth. However, there was reason for condemning that Sentiment, because such ways of speak­ing are to be avoided, which may be wrong interpreted, and occasion Errours in Religi­on.

As to the other Points both of the Belief and Ceremonies of the Jacobites, whatBrerewood of Languag. and Relig. Chap. 21. Brere­wood relates of them is not always true. For instance, they deny not Purgatory, nor the Prayers for the Dead, as he affirms after Tho­mas à Jesu; but they have the same Opinion, as to that, as the Greeks and other Orientals have. Nor is it true that they consecrate in Unleavened bread, unless it be understood of the Armenians, and according to Alvares, of the Ethiopians: for the true Jacobites, of whom we speak in this Place, consecrate with Leavened bread; and I make no doubt but that Gregory XIII. who had a Design of erec­ting a College at Rome for the Jacobites, as he had done for the Maronites, would have per­mitted them to consecrate in Leavened bread, in the same manner as it was allowed to the Greeks. In regard of Confession, neither is it true that it is not practised amongst them: but seeing they believe it not to be of Divine Right, no more than most of the Orientals do, that is the reason why it is neglected. As to Circumcision, that cannot be true but of some Cophties and Abyssines; nay and these look up­on it rather as an ancient Custome, than a Ceremony of Religion.

There is a great difference to be made then, betwixt the Jacobites, when under that Name are comprehended the Cophties, Abyssines and Armenians, and those who are properly called Jacobites: for though they all follow the Opi­nion of that same James from whom they have taken the Name, yet for all that, they differ in some Ceremonies. Abraham Ecchel­lensis alledges that the Jacobites believe aswell [Page 110]as the Latins, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son: but in that he is mistaken, aswell as in many other things relating to the Belief and Customs of the Christians of the Levant.

CHAP. X. Of the Belief and Customs of the Coph­ties.

IT is probable that the Cophties or Copties have had their Name from a Town called Coptus, which was heretofore the Metropolis of Thebais mentioned by Strabo and Plutarch. The Chris­tians of Egypt carry that Name at present, and they have also a particular Language, which is called the Coptick Tongue, though they use it not but in their Offices, Arabick being the Language of the Countrey: And that Language, which the Jesuit Kircher pretends to be a Mother-tongue independent of any other, hath been much altered by the Greeks: for besides that it still retains the Characters, a very great Number of its words are pure Greek.

The Belief of these People is the same as that of the Jacobites, for they are Monophy­sites, as we observed when we spoke of the Jacobites; and therefore it is to no purpose to repeat what we said in that Place. They have at several times made several Reconcilia­tions [Page 111]with the Church of Rome, but onely in outward appearance.Sacchini in hist. Societ. The Jesuit Roderigo, who was sent to that Nation by the Pope in the Year 1562, upon submissive and respect­full Letters which they had written to his Ho­liness, as if they owned the Church of Rome for Chief and Mistress of all others, will fur­nish us with a pretty instance of these counter­feit Reconciliations, which, most frequently, have no better Foundation than mere humane Interest. This Jesuit having had some Confe­rence with two Cophties, whom the Patriarch Gabriel had deputed for that purpose, easily perswaded them of the Pope's Authority: but when the Jesuit afterwards pressed the same Patriarch to send Letters of Submission and Obedience to the Pope, telling him that he ought not to scruple at that, seeing in his former Letters, he had called the Pope Father of Fathers, Pastour of Pastours, and Head of all Churches; he made answer, that since the Council of Chalcedon and the establishment of divers Patriarchs independent one of another, every one of them was chief and absolute Master in his own Church; and that if even the Patriarch of Rome fell into any Er­rour, he ought to be judged by the other Pa­triarchs. He farther answered, that as to the Letters which he had written to the Pope, it ought not to be taken strictly, what was onely meant for Civility and Modesty; and that though he spoke of Obedience and Submission, yet that was no more than Friends commonly doe one to another. In fine, he added, that if there was any thing in those Letters which he wrote to the Pope, that was not agreeable [Page 112]to the Doctrine of his Church, it ought not to be imputed to him but to the Carrier of the Letters, who without doubt had corrupted them. In this manner did the Patriarch of the Cophties entertain the Pope's Envoys, after that he had received from the Conful, the Money that was sent him from Rome. This History is more largely related bySacch. in hist. Societ. Par. l. 6. the Je­suit Sacchini: And I wave a great many other Reconciliations of that Church to the Church of Rome, which have had no better Foundati­on than this. The same Jesuit Roderigo ob­serves amongst the Errours of the Cophties, that they put away their Wives, and Marry others; that they circumcise their Children before Baptism; that they acknowledge, indeed, seven Sacraments; but that besides Baptism, Confession, the Eucharist and Orders, they reckon in the same rank, Faith, Fasting and Prayer, not to speak of others. He says far­ther, that the Cophties do not believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son; that they admit but of three Councils, to wit, of Ephe­sus, Constantinople and Nice. But some of these pretended Errours, are either common to all the Eastern Church, or they particularly con­cern the Jacobites, who have rejected the Coun­cil of Chalcedon. As to their reckoning amongst the Sacraments, Fasting, Prayer and Faith, they take not the word Sacrament in that strict Sense we do; and that inclines me to believe that they call none properly Sacraments, but the four first; and that some Mystical Doctors have afterwards added the other three, to make up the Mystical Number of Seven. In fine, we may observe that it is not true that [Page 113]the Cophties believe as the Latins do, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, asBrerew. of Languag. and Relig. chap. 22. Brerewood after Thomas à Jesu does assure us; for that belief is peculiar to the Church of the West. Kircher the Jesuit adds to this, that they pretend that none but their own, the Armenian and Abyssine Chur­ches, are true Churches; that they believe that the Souls of the departed goe neither to Heaven nor Hell before the Day of Judgment. I shall not spend time in refuting many Errours of Brerewood concerning the Religions of the East: It is enough I relate matters of fact as really they are, without giving my self the trouble to refute Authours who have written on that Subject.

P. Vasle Rel. della stato Pres. dell E­gitto.Father Vanslebio who hath written the Present State of the Christians of Egypt, Prin­ted at Paris in Italian, relates many other things which chiefly concern their Ceremonies. He observes, that when the Priest elevates the Host in time of Mass, they who are present knock their Breasts, casting themselves upon the ground, and making the sign of the Cross; and that they move their Cap a little; which seems to me to be a Latin Ceremony: nor do I think the Cophties elevate the Host, unless it be after the manner of the Orientals, to wit, a little before the Communion, which is of no long standing neither in their Church. Possibly Father Vanslebio might have seen that Ceremony in some of the Churches of the Abyssines, who might have taken it from the Portuguese, that have had Churches in Ethiopia, where Mass was celebrated after the manner of the Latins. The same Authour remarks, [Page 114]that when the Priest communicates, he breaks the bread in form of a Cross, and that he puts it into the Wine; of which he eats three little Morcels with as many Spoonfulls of the Species of Wine; ad that he communicates thereof to him who serves at Mass. He adds, that they keep not the Holy Sacrament after Mass; and that they never consecrate in private Pla­ces, but always in the Church; that they con­secrate with Leavened bread, which before the Consecration they all Baraca, that is to say Benediction; and Corban, or Communion and Eucharist, after it is consecrated; that they make use of little Loaves about the Bigness of somewhat less than a Crown piece, whereof they bake a great Number the Night before the Liturgy; and that they distribute them at the End of Mass to those who have been present.

He farther says, that they use not Tavern­wine, because they think it profane, and that in Places where no Wine is to be had, they infuse Rasins in water; that they never confess and communicate but in Lent; that the Laicks communicate in both kinds, and that they re­ceive the Wine in a Spoon from the Hands of the Priest; that they give the Communion also to Children so soon as they are baptized; that all reade the Holy Scripture in the Arabick Tongue, which is the Language of the Coun­trey; that they celebrate on Saturday as well as Sunday; and that in one Year they have two and thirty Festivals of the Virgin, which are reckoned up by the Authour: and amongst others, he takes notice of the Festival of a certain Image of the Virgin, which miracu­lously [Page 115]was changed into Flesh, the History whereof is written in an Ethiopian Book, which treats of the Miracles of the Virgin.

The same Father Vanslebio relates at large the Ceremonies which they observe in Bap­tism, and are performed in this manner: for that purpose they celebrate a Mass after Mid­night, accompanied with many Prayers; and after they have sung for some time, the Dea­cons carry the Children to the Altar, who are anointed with Holy Oil: and then they say that the Children are become new Spiritual Men. This being done, they begin to sing, and the Children are anointed a second time, making upon them the sign of the Cross seven and thirty times; which serves them for Ex­orcism. Again they continue to sing, and the Women who are present at the Ceremony make a loud Noise in token of Joy. In the mean time, water is put into the Baptismal Fonts, and the Priests draw near. He that baptises, blesses the water, pouring in Form of a Cross Holy Oil into the same: then with one Hand he takes the Child by the Right Arm and Left Leg, and with the other Hand, by the left Arm, making a kind of a Cross with the Limbs of the Child, which they cloath in a little white Garment; and during all this, the Priests still continue to reade and sing, and the Women to cry, or rather to houl. At length the Priest breaths three times in the Child's face, to the end, say they, that he may receive the Holy Ghost. No sooner is the Child baptized, but the Priest gives it the Communion; which he doth, by dipping his Finger into the Chalice, and putting it into the [Page 116]Child's Mouth. All these Ceremonies being ended, they light the Tapers, and make a Procession, singing in the Church. The Dea­cons carry the Children in their Arms, and the Priests goe before them; after them follow the Men and Women who have been present at the Ceremony, the Women houling after their ordinary manner.

They have, according to the same Authour, four great Fasts in the Year, the first whereof begins before Christmas, and lasts 24 days: The second is Lent, which lasts 60 days: The third is called the Fast of our Lord's Disciples, which begins the third Holy Day of Pentecost, and lasts 31 days: And the fourth, which lasts fifteen days, is the Fast of our Lady in August.

Images are held in great Veneration amongst them, though they have no Statues; and the most usual Images are those of Our Lord, of the Virgin, of St. George, of Angels, to wit, St. Michael, St. Gabriel, St. Raphael, and ma­ny others. They kiss those Images, and burn Lamps before them, with the Oil of which they anoint themselves when they are sick. It is probable they have no other Sacrament of Extreme Unction, but that kind of anoin­ting; unless perhaps they do it with a little more Ceremony.

It is to be observed that Father Vanslebio in his relation speaks of the Abyssines, aswell as of the true Cophties or Egyptians, because, in effect, they are both Cophties in Religion, and Subject to the same Patriarch, who commonly resides in Cairo; and because there are but a few Cophties in Alexandria, which ought to be the Place of his Residence. This Patriarch [Page 117]takes the Title of Patriarch of Alexandria and Jerusalem, and calls himself the Successour of St. Mark. He extends his Jurisdiction over both Egypts, over Nubia and Abyssinia. He hath besides eleven Cophty-Bishops depending on him, to wit, the Bishops of Jerusalem, Behnese, Atfih, Fiur, Moharrak, Montfallot, Sÿut, Abutig, Girgium, Negade on Girge, and lastly the Metropolitan of Abyssinia. After the Bishops, the Archpriests are next in degree, and are very numerous amongst them; next to them come in order, the Priests, Deacons, Readers and Chanters.

As to their Office; on Saturday in the Even­ing after Sun set, the Priest attended by his Ministers goes to Church to sing Vespers which last about an Hour; and those who are present sleep afterwards in the Church. They who do not sleep, smoke Tobacco and drink Coffee, or otherwise discourse about what they please. Two Hours after Midnight they say matins, and afterwards Mass, to which many do resort. When they enter the Church, they take off their shoes, and kiss the ground near the Door of the Sanctuary; then draw­ing near to the Archpriest, they kiss his Hand, bowing that they may receive his Blessing. If the Patriarch be present, and do not officiate, he sits on a Throne raised above the Priests, having a Copper Cross in his Hand; and after all have made the usual Reverence before the Sanctuary, they make it again before the Pa­triarch, and kiss the ground near him, after­wards they rise and kiss the Cross and Patri­arch's Hand.

Seeing most of these Ceremonies are com­mon to all the Orientals, I shall insist no lon­ger upon them, nor upon their way of cele­brating Mass, which may be seen in the Rela­tion of Father Vanslebio; besides, they differ but little from the Greeks, from whom they have borrowed a great Part of their Ceremo­nies. That which is observeable, and which might be brought into practice in the Latin Churches is, that they have a Book of Homi­lies taken out of the Chief Fathers, of which they reade somewhat, after the reading of the Gospel; and that serves as an Explication or Paraphrase upon the same Gospel, so that there is no need of Preachers to instruct them.

CHAP. XI. Of the Belief and Customs of the Abyssines or Ethiopians.

SEEING we have treated at large of the Religion of the Cophties, and that the Abys­sines differ not from them therein, we shall not be long on that Subject.

Ancient Ethiopia is at present called Abassia, and the People who inhabit it Abyssines. They have but one Bishop to govern them, who is sent to them by the Patriarch of Alexandria, that resides at Cairo; so that in all things they follow the Religion of the Cophties, excepting some Ceremonies that are peculiar to them. [Page 119]They have also a particular Language which they call Chaldaick, because they think it has been derived from Chaldea, though it be very different from the ordinary Chaldaick, and therefore it is called the Ethiopian Language. They use that Tongue in their Liturgies, and in other Divine Offices, though it be old, and different from the vulgar Ethiopian. They who understand Hebrew, may easily learn that Language, because there are many words common to both: yet it hath particular Cha­racters; and whereas in the Hebrew Language the Points which serve for Vowels are not joy­ned to the Consonants, in the Ethiopian Tongue there is no Consonant but which at the same time makes its Vowel.

The Abyssines have made many advances towards a Reunion with the Church of Rome. And there are several of their Letters written to Popes, of which the most considerable isEpist. Da­vid. ad Clem. VII. that of David, who takes the Title of Em­perour of the greater and upper Ethiopia and many other Kingdoms, written to Clement VII. to whom he made great Submissions, and pro­tested that he would obey him. But it is cer­tain that the Ethiopians have never had re­course to Rome and to the Portuguese, but for setling their Affairs, when they have been in Disorder; and that they have slighted them so soon as they were any ways succesfull, as may be seen in the Histories of the Portuguse, which need not to be mentioned in this Place. All Men know what became of John Bermu­des, who was made Patriarch of Ethiopia, and consecrated at Rome; at the solicitation of the Abyssines themselves, who pretended that for [Page 120]the future they would have no metropolitans but such as should be sent them from Rome. But no sooner had they mastered their Diffi­culties, but that they rejected those Patriarchs, and sent to Cairo for a Metropolitan from the Patriarch of the Cophties, despising the Church of Rome, and abusing the Portuguese that re­mained in their Countrey, without any re­spect to the great Services which they had ren­dered them.Alex. Me­nes. Hist. Ori­ent. Alexis Meneses, whom we mentioned before, thought himself obliged to use his utmost endeavours for reconciling those People to the Church of Rome, and having taken the Title of Primate of the Indies, he pretended to extend his Jurisdiction also over Ethiopia. And therefore he sent Emissaries with Letters to the Portuguese living in that Countrey, writing at the same time to the Metropolitan of the Abyssines, whom he earnest­ly exhorted to submit to the Church of Rome. He farther urged, that he ought not to make any difficulty of obeying that Church, since the Patriarch of the Cophties and his whole Church, had lately submitted to it; which he proved by the very Acts and Instruments of that Patriarch's Legation, which are inserted in the End of the fifth Tome of the Annals of Baronius, whereof he sent him a Copy, but he knew not that the Court of Rome had been overreached in that Point, and that Ba­ronius had too easily published these Acts under the Name of the true Patriarch of Alexandria, and of the Church of the Cophties.

Moreover, it is to be observed, that Mene­ses and many others are mistaken, when they accuse the Ethiopians of Judaizing in their Ce­remonies, [Page 121]because some of them observed Cir­cumcision; that besides, they celebrated Mass on Saturday as well as Sunday, and that they abstained from Blood and Flesh that had been Strangled. The Circumcision of the Ethiopi­ans differs from that of the Jews, who look upon it as an indispensable Precept, whereas the former reckon it onely a Custome that re­lates not at all to Religion; the Women amongst them being even Circumcised. This makes me think, that that Ancient Custome hath been onely introduced amongst them for ren­dering the Parts that are circumcised more pro­per for Generation. As to Saturday and things Strangled, that is not peculiar to the Abyssines: all the Oriental Church observes the same practice, without being dyable for that to the Censure of Judaism; since Saturday, ac­cording to the Ancient Canons, is a Festival day as well as Sunday. And as to their abstain­ing from Blood, and Meat that hath been Strangled, it is a Constitution of the New Tes­tament, which hath ever been observed in the Western Church. From this last remark, it may be concluded, that the Jesuit Roderigo ought not to have prest the Cophties so much in the Confe­rence that he had with them, to lay aside all those Ceremonies; and besides that, the Coph­ties did not speak sincerely, when they told him that they erred in their opinions concer­ning the Repudiation of Wives, Circumcision of Children, and their abstaining from Flesh that was Strangled. Besides these remarks, we are also to take notice, that many things are imputed to the Abyssines which are remote from their belief. For instance, it is alledged that [Page 122]they agree with the Latins as to the Procession of the Holy Ghost; which is confirmed by the Ethi­opian Liturgies Printed at Rome, wherein it is said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. But we are not always to rely upon what is Printed at Rome: for it is certain that the Abyssines differ not from the rest of the Orientals touching the Procession of the Holy Ghost.

Nor are we to believe neither, all that Tho­mas à Jesu hath written concerning the belief of the Abyssines; Nay and theThomas à Jesu. Acts that he hath inserted in his Book, touching their belief, are not always true, though the Confession of Faith which he produces comes from Tecla an Abyssine Priest: for it saith expresly, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son, which nevertheless is not their belief. It is likewise observed, that the Abyssines believe that the Transubstantiation of the Bread and Wine is made, when the Priest pronounces the words, wherein the Latins make the Con­secration to consist. It is notwithstanding cer­tain that the Liturgy of the Ethiopians is in that point agreeable to all the other Oriental Liturgies, and that the Consecration is not per­formed, according to their opinion, but when the Priest invokes the Holy Ghost, in a parti­cular Prayer, which is to be found in all the Missals of the Eastern Nations. I wave a great many other points, which are not altogether well express'd according to the belief of the Abyssines, especially those that relate to the Sa­craments: but these mistakes may easily be corrected by what we have said before, when we spoke of other Oriental Nations; so that [Page 123]we shall not insist any more upon that Subject; and it will be easie by that Method, to recti­fie what Brerewood hath related upon the Credit of these Authours.

CHAP. XII. Of the Belief and Customs of the Arme­nians.

THE Victories obtained by Scha-Abas King of Persia over the Armenians, within these late Years when he entred Armenia, have almost ruined that Church, which never­theless still retains the Names of some Arch­bishopricks, Bishopricks and Monasteries, but which are, for most Part, in great Disorder. I have informed my self exactly enough of the Present State of the Church of Armenia, ha­ving had many Conferences upon that Subject with an Armenian Bishop, who took the Title of Bishop of Uscovanch, and who was at Amsterdam in the Year 1662. for Printing an Armenian Bi­ble, according to the Commission he had from his Patriarch: For seeing the Manuscript Armeni­an Bibles were excessively dear, and that that hindered private Persons from reading the Scripture, the Patriarch took a resolution of causing it to be Printed. From that Bishop, who was called Uscam, I had the Memoirs of the Armenian Churches, which I have sub­joynedSee the Collections at the End of the Book. F. at the End of this Book; and since [Page 124]that time I have conversed with him freely at Paris; but having consulted him about several Points relating to the Theology of the Arme­nians, I found him not to be very skilfull in those matters. He died at Marseilles, whither he went by permission from the King to cause seve­ral Armenian Books to be Printed, for the use of his Countreymen. The Cardinals of the Con­gregation de propagandâ fide at Rome, were surprised that a Liberty of Printing all sorts of Armenian Books had been so easily granted in France; because, perhaps, he might have caused bad Books to be Printed, which might have favoured the Armenian Sect. But his Conduct during the time that he was in France, was very respectfull towards the Church of Rome.

Now concerning the Belief and Ecclesiastical Discipline of the Armenian Church, no Man hath treated of it more amply than Galanus, in the Book which he published at Rome con­cerning the Reconciliation of the Armenian Church with the Roman. Galan. Cler. Reg. in Concil. Eccl. Arm. cum Rom. That Book is divided into two Parts, of which the first is but an Abstract of the Histories of the Arme­nians: but seeing the Armenians have been di­vided amongst themselves for several Ages, and that they have had recourse to Rome in their Necessities, aswell as the other Orientals, I have found these Histories not to be always sincere and exact. And therefore what I here take from Galanus touching the Armenians, I shall accompany with some Reflexions. The same Authour hath added Notes upon his History: but because he was an Emissary and wrote at Rome, we must not, before we have [Page 125]exami­ned him, give credit to all he saith. Nevertheless that Book contains a great many Curious things concerning the State and Reli­gion of the Armenians.

It is to be observed then. I. That the Arme­nian Histories translated by Galanus, mention a certain Instrument of Reunion betwixt the Roman and the Armenian Churches under the Emperour Constantine and Tyridates King of the Armenians, Sylvester then possessing the See of Rome, and Gregory who is the great Patriarch of the Armenians possessing that of Armenia But besides that there are many things in that Instrument which appear to be fabulous, it is probable that that Piece, as to the greatest part of it, hath been forged in the following Ages, especially in the time of In­nocent III. when the Armenian Church sought to be reconciled to the Church of Rome. For there are in it ways of speaking concerning the Supremacy of Popes, which were not in use at that time. The Armenians, however, as Galanus observes, make use of that Instru­ment to prove the Antiquity of their Patri­archate, which was, according to them, erec­ten by Pope Sylvester: And they have even alledged it in their Disputes with the Greeks. But that will appear to be a weak Founda­tion to those who know Ecclesiastical History, and shall consider the great extent of Jurisdic­tion that Pope Sylvester takes to himself in that Instrument.

II. All Men know that the Armenians are of the Sect of the Monophysites, who acknow­ledge but one Nature in Jesus Christ. But as we have already observed when we treated of [Page 126]the Jacobites; that is but an imaginary Here­sie, consisting onely in the Ambiguities of words. And yet it occasions great Disputes at this day amongst the Armenians; for though they be for the most part ignorant in Divinity, yet they talk rationally of the Mystery of the Incar­nation, and of the Council of Chalcedon which they reject. We are to observe, however, that a good many Armenians are at present reconciled to the Church of Rome, whose Sentiments they follow, and that Galanus hath had a great hand in that Reconciliation in the time of Pope Urban VIII.

III. It is not true that the Armenians deny the real Presence of Jesus Christ in the Sacra­ment of the Eucharist, asBrerew. of Lang. and Rel. Chap. 24. Brerewood from no good Authour does affirm: for the Arme­nians and Orientals have not disputed so much about that Sacrament, as the Latins have, espe­cially since the time of Berengarius; and in respect the Armenians have never examined that difficulty, they have continued in the ge­neral Terms of the Change of the Symbols into the Body and Bloud of Our Lord. Ga­lanus, who mentions some of their Synods, and the Disputes they have had with the Greeks, takes no notice at all of that, but onely that they mingle no Water with the Wine in cele­brating the Liturgy, and that they consecrate in Unleavened bread, after the Manner of the Latins. What the same Brerewood affirms con­cerning Purgatory is to be understood accor­ding to what we have mentioned before of the Greeks and other Orientals; and it is very pro­bable, that what is said in the same place, that they deny that the Sacraments have the [Page 127]Virtue of conferring Grace, is the Chimera of some Scholastick Doctour, who imagined that the Orientals were acquainted with all the Ni­ceties of the Latins. Nor do I think it true that the Armenians refuse to eat of all Animals that are esteemed unclean in the Jewish Law, which Brerewood imputes also to the Abyssines: But that which hath given occasion to this Belief is, that the Armenians and Abyssines with the rest of the Eastern Christians abstain from bloud and things strangled; wherein there is no Superstition.

It is to no purpose to enlarge upon the Be­lief of the Armenians who are not Latinized; since there hath been enough said of that when we spoke of the Jacobites, from whom they differ in nothing but in some Ceremonies, and in what concerns Ecclesiastical Discipline. However, I think it will not be taken amiss, if I give here a Catalogue of the chief Errours, whichJoan. Her­nac. apud Galan. a certain Latinized Armenian attri­butes to them; and that will serve for a Con­firmation of what we have already alledged, and at the same time give occasion of clearing some other Points. That Authour reproaches his Countreymen who are not reconciled to the Pope, that they follow the Errours of Eu­tyches and Dioscorus concerning the Unity of Nature in Christ; that they believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds only from the Father; that the Souls of the Saints deceased goe not to Heaven, nor those of the damned to Hell, before the last Day of Judgment; that there is no place called Purgatory and Hell, and that the Church of Rome hath no Supremacy over other Churches. He farther adds, that [Page 124] [...] [Page 125] [...] [Page 126] [...] [Page 127] [...] [Page 128]the Armenians detest the Memory of Pope Leo, and of the Council of Chalcedon; that they observe not the Festivals of Our Lord after the Manner of the Church of Rome; nor Fasts according to the Canons of the Church; that they acknowledge not seven Sacraments, inasmuch as they use not Confir­mation, nor Extreme Unction; and more, that they are ignorant of the real essece of the other Sacraments; that at Mass they put no water into the Chalice; that they pretend that the Eucharist is not to be given to the People but in both kinds. He objects to them also their Custome of consecrating in Wooden and Earthen Chalices; that all Priests indifferently give absolution for all Sins, there being no reserved Cases amongst them; that they are subject to two Patriarchs, who several­ly take the Title of Patriarch of all Armenia; that the Curates and Bishops succeed to one another, as if their Dignities were Inheritan­ces; that the Sacraments are bought and sold amongst them; that Divorces are given for Money, without any reason; that they make no Holy Oil for Baptism and Extreme Uncti­on; and that in fine, they give the Commu­nion to Children before they attain to the use of reason.

From this whole Catalogue it appears that the Armenian who is the Authour of all these pretended errours, was Latinized; for as we have observed before, most part of these Opi­nions are common to all the Christians of the East, in the Manner as we have explained them when we treated of the Greeks. The Armenians are, indeed, to be blamed that they [Page 129]are too scrupulously addicted to certain Fasts which they have in great Number, and that they are not exactly enough instructed in the Mysteries of Religion. There are none in the Eastern Church that set a greater Value upon Fasts than the Armenians; and to hear them speak, one would say that their whole Religion consisted in fasting. As to their obsti­nate Perseverance in celebrating the Festival of Our Lord's Nativity, and the Epiphany always on one and the same day; they seem not to be blameable therein; because it was a Custome long practised in the Church; and in effect the Epiphany or Apparition of Our Lord is pro­perly nothing but his Birth.

The Title of Master or Doctour is so great amongst the Armenians, that they give it with the same Ceremonies that they confer Orders;Galan. in Concil. Eccles. Armen. cum Rom. and they say that that Dignity imitates the Title of Our Lord; who was called Rabbi, or Master. These are the Doctours who are consulted in Points of Religion, and who de­cide in them. The Bishops being lookt upon rather as Persons proper for administring Or­ders, than as Doctours. These are also the Doctours who Preach in the Churches, and who are the Judges of Differences that hap­pen betwixt private Persons. In a word, they hold the same rank amongst them, as the Rab­bins did amongst the Jews.

The Monastick Order hath been also in great reputation amongst the Armenians, since the time that Nierses one of their Patriarchs intro­duced that of St. Basil: but since their Reuni­on with the Church of Rome, they have whol­ly altered their Rule, accommodating them­selves [Page 130]to that of the Latins; and the Armenian whom we mentioned before to have made a Catalogue of Errours which he imputes to his Nation, being come to Rome, made a Vow that so soon as he returned home into the East, he and his Companions would live ac­cording to the Rule of St. Austin, and the Constitutions of St. Dominick. One Bartho­lomew, a Monk of St. Dominick, was the first that gave occasion to this Reformation not onely in Religion but Monachism. He made great Progresses in Armenia in the time of Pope John XXII. having by his Preaching drawn many Monks over to his Party, who were usefull to him in reuniting the two Churches. About that time was the Order of St. Domi­nick setled in Armenia, and these Monks were called United Friars, because of the new Reuni­on. This Order which was onely established to destroy the Ancient, got in a short time great Reputation; insomuch that the United Friars built Monasteries not onely in Armenia and Georgia, but also on the other side of the Eu­xine Sea, especially at Caffa, which at that time was subject to the Genoese. But since the Turks and Persians are become Masters of that Coun­trey, the Number of the United Friars is much decreased; and there remains but a few of them at present who have retired into the Pro­vince of Nascivan in the greater Armenia, where being at length, reduced to utmost Ex­tremity, they have united themselves with the Dominican Monks of Europe; and are at pre­sent subject to the General of that Order, who sends thither a Superiour Provincial.

They perform their Office in the Armenian Language, which is a rough Tongue, and but little known. Yet the Modern Armenian is dif­ferent from the Ancient, and the People have much adoe to understand the Liturgy, and o­ther Offices that are written in Armenian. They have the whole Bible also Translated in­to their Language, and that from the Septuagint Greek. This Translation of the Bible was made about the time of St. John Chrysostome by some of their Doctours who had Learned the Greek Language, and amongst others by one named Moses the Grammarian, and another called Da­vid the Philosopher. We may observe that the Armenians make one Mesrop and Holy Hermite to be the Authour of their Characters, who invented them in the Town of Balu near Eu­phrates, and lived in the time of St. John Chrysos­tome.

CHAP. XIII. Of the Belief and Customs of the Maro­nites.

THE JesuitGirolamo Dandini nella sua missione Apostolica. Dandini, who was sent by Clement VII. in Quality of Nuncio to the Maronites of Mount Libanus, hath written a Relation of his Travels in Italian, which hath been lately Translated into French, with Notes, declaring at large the Religion of those People. Seeing the Authour of these Notes [Page 132]hath played the Critick upon the Mistakes of that Jesuit, and of many others who have spoken of the Maronites, I thought I could not doe better, than here to give an Abridge­ment aswell of the Relation of the Jesuit Dan­dini, as of the Critical Remarks, from whence we may learn the Belief and Present State of those People.

It is hard to know exactly the Original of the Maronites. They who bear that Name pretend they derive it from one Maron an Ab­bot, whose life Theodoret hath written, and who lived about the beginning of the fifth Century. This Opinion, which is followed by Brerewood, is strongly confirmed by the JesuitSacchini in hist. Societ. Sacchi­ni, who pretends aswell as the Modern Marc­nites do, that these People were never separa­ted from the Unity of the Church, and that that which gave occasion of making them to be thought Schismaticks was, that the renewing of their Reconciliation to the Catholick Church hath been taken for a real Conversion to the Catholick Faith, and that the Errours which have been found amongst them, have been imputed to them, as if they had been the Au­thours of the same; whereas they were onely the Errours of Hereticks amongst whom they lived. But though this Opinion appear at first Glance to have some probability in it, yet there is no ground for it; and the Testimonies of Eutychius Eutych. in Annal. patriarch of Alexandria, of Gulielmus Tyrius, Jacobus Vitricensis, and many others, are evident Arguments to prove that that Nation hath really been of the perswa­sion of the Monothelites: and they who look upon Monothelism as an Heresie, ought also [Page 133]to consider Maron as an Heretick, though the Maronites honour him with the Title of Saint in all their Offices. It is to be believed then, as a certain truth, that these People having been separated from the Church about the space of five hundred Years, abjured their Heresie, whether true or imaginary, before Aymeric Patriarch of Antioch, who lived in the time of Gulielmus Tyrius. Before that time they professed that they acknowledged but one Will and one Operation in Christ, though they confessed there were two Natures in him.

The Maronites have a Patriarch who resides in the Monastery of Cannubin on Mount Li­banus, and takes the Title of Patriarch of Antioch. He meddles not at all in temporal Affairs; but there are two Lords who take the name of Deacons or Administratours, who govern the whole Countrey being under the Dominion of the Turk, to whom they pay great Tributes. The Election of that Patriarch is made by the Clergy and the People, accor­ding to the Ancient Discipline of the Church: but since they have been entirely reconciled to the Church of Rome, he is obliged to take Bulls of Confirmation from the Pope. He, and his Suffragan Bishops never Marry; and it is to be observed that there are two sorts of these Bishops: for some are really Bishops, having a true Title and People whom they go­vern; the others are properly no more than Abbots of Monasteries, and have no Cure of Souls. These last wear not the Habit of a Bishop, nor any Mark of that Dignity; but they are cloathed like other Monks, though, [Page 134]they are distinguished from them, by the Mi­tre and Crozier when they celebrate Mass. The Patriarch not being able alone to visit all Mount Libanus, hath always two or three Bishops about him; and besides the Bishops of Mount Libanus, there are others also at Da­mascus, Aleppo, and in the Isle of Cyprus.

As for the other Churchmen, they may all Marry before their Ordination; and the Pa­triarch himself not long since obliged the Priests to doe so, before he gave them Orders, unless they would become Monks: for the People who are jealous, are not pleased to see young Priests without Wives. However, since they have had a College at Rome, where part of their Churchmen are bred, they are allowed to live a single Life, without being molested for it. Before they studied at Rome, they were as ignorant as the common People, affecting no more but to learn to reade and write: And they passed for learned Men a­mongst them, who besides the Arabick, which is the Language spoken in the Countrey, had any Knowledge of the Chaldaick Tongue; be­cause their Liturgies and other Books of Offi­ces are written in that Language.

The Monastick Life is no less esteemed a­mongst the Maronites, than it is in all other places of the Levant. Their Monks are of the Order of St. Anthony: And it is probable they are a remnant of those Ancient Hermites, who inhabited the Desarts of Syria and Pa­lestine; for they are retired into the most hid­den and secret places of the Mountains, re­mote from all Commerce. Their Habit is mean and course, they never eat flesh, even in [Page 135]their greatest sickness, and drink Wine but very seldom. They know not what it is to make Vows: but when they are received into the Monastery, one of the Monks holds a Book in his hand, and all he does is, to reade in it somewhat that Concerns them, and admonish them of their Duty, for instance, that they observe continence; which is enough to pre­serve their Chastity without being ingaged to it by Vows, as those of the Church of Rome are. They have Goods and Money in property, which they may dispose of at their Death; and when they are weary of one Mo­nastery, they goe to another, without asking their Superiours leave. They can perform no Ecclesiastical Function, such as preaching and confessing; so that they are wholly their own Men, having no spiritual Exercise in common for the service of their Neighbour. They work with their hands and cultivate the ground according to their Institution. In fine, they signally practise Hospitality, espe­cially in the Monastery of Cannubin, where there is an open Table kept during the whole Year. We shall not here treat of their Belief, because it differs not from the other Orientals, except in that which caused their Schism, wherein they are no more at present, being entirely submitted to the Church of Rome. They even consecrate with Unleavened bread; but it is probable that they have taken up that Custome since their Reunion with the Church of Rome, though the Modern Maro­nites pretend that they never consecrated with Leavened bread.

Their Mass differed much from that of the Latins: But their Missal has been reformed at Rome, and they are prohibited to make use of any other Missal but of that which is reformed. They perform no Office without much censing, especially at Mass, wherein they neither use Maniple nor Stole, as the Latins do, nor so much as Chasables, unless since they have been sent them from Rome; but instead of Maniple, they wore on each Arm a little piece of silken or woollen stuff died, which is sewed to the Albe, or even sometimes loose. The Priests say not Mass privately, as Latin Priests do, but they say altogether standing round the Altar, where they assist the Celebrating Priest, who gives the Communion to all, and to the Laicks under both Kinds: but the Emissaries of Rome daily introduce the Com­munion in one kind. They made not the Consecration to consist in these words, This is my Body, &c. This is my Blood, &c. But in more words which contained the Prayer com­monly called the Invocation of the Holy Ghost. Nevertheless, at present, in that and many other things they follow the Sentiments of the Latin Divines, which have been taught them at Rome. As to the other Offices, they say them in the Church, whither they goe at Midnight to sing their Matins, or rather their Nocturns. They say their Laudes which may be called Prime, at break of day; their Tierce comes before Mass, after which they say their Sixth; their Nones are sung after Dinner; Vespers at Sun set; and at last, their Compline after Supper, before they goe to bed. Every Office is composed of a Preface, of two, three, [Page 137]and sometimes more Prayers, with a like Num­ber of Hymns betwixt them. They have moreover proper Offices for Holy days, Lent, the moveable Feasts, and for other days. The Priests and other Churchmen who are in Holy Orders, think not themselves obliged to say the Office, when they cannot be pre­sent in the Quire, unless it be since the Latins have thought fit to oblige them to it.

Their Fasts differ much from ours; they onely observe Lent, and then they do not eat till two or three Hours before Sun set. They fast not in the Emberweeks, nor in the Vigils of Saints, or of any other Festival; but instead of that they have other abstinences which they strictly observe; for they eat no Flesh, Eggs nor Milk two days of the Week, to wit, Wed­nesday and Friday, and on these two days they taste not of any thing, before Noon; but af­terwards, every one is free to eat asmuch and as often as he pleases. In the same manner they fast twenty days before Christmass, and the Monks prolong that Fast. At the Feast of St. Peter and St. Paul, they all fast during a fortnight, and as long at the Festival of the Assumption of the Virgin.

Bishops expect not the Emberweeks for con­ferring of Orders, as they do in the Latin Church; but they administer them indiffe­rently on all Holy days: and before the late Reformation was brought in amongst them, they gave in one day to one and the same Man, the Orders of Lector, Exorcist, Acolyte, Sub­deacon, Deacon, Priest, Archpriest and Bi­shop; and all in two or three Hours time. It is to be observed also, that they use as many [Page 138]Ceremonies in making an Archpriest, as in conferring other Orders; and it seems they look upon it as an Order distinct from the rest.

They keep no Water in their Baptisinal Fonts, that hath been blest on Holy Saturday, for administring the Sacrament of Baptism; as is done in the Latin Church: but as often as any is presented to be baptized, they bless the Water, by saying a great many Prayers; then they dip the Person to be baptized three times in the Water, or besprinkle it thrice therewith, it being first a little warmed. Yet they pro­nounce but once the necessary words when they name the Person; they make no use of Salt: but they anoint not onely the Head, but also the Breast with their open Hands. They anoint also the Body before and behind from head to foot; and besides that Unction which is performed before Baptism, they have another also after, which is properly the Con­firmation of the Orientals: but since their Re­conciliation to the Church of Rome, they have abolished it, that they may administer the Sa­crament of Confirmation after the Manner of the Latins.

Heretofore they took no great care to con­sess before the Communion: but the Emissa­ries of Rome have obliged them to it at present. All the Priests also were equal in Jurisdiction in Matters relating to Penance, before their Re­formation. There were no cases reserved to the Patriarchs and Bishops. Neither before that time, did they use great Reverence to­wards the Sacrament of the Eucharist, which they kept in their Churches without any lamp­light, [Page 139]shut up in a little box, and hid in a hole in the wall, or in some other place.

Nor did they then publish their Marriages in Churches, before the Ceremony was cele­brated: nay, and for that they took all sorts of Priests indifferently, not thinking it necessary to have recourse to the Curate. There were besides, some who Married before the Age of 12. and 14. Years. And as to the Impediments of Marriage, they differ'd much from the present practice of the Church of Rome: for in coun­ting the Degrees of Kindred, they reckoned not onely from the Head and first of the Line, but thought also that two branches springing from the stock, as two Brothers are, made two Degrees; so that imagining they Married not but in the sixth Degree, they married, in effect, in the third. On the con­trary, they held that for an impediment which was none; for they suffered not two Brothers to Marry two Sisters, nor the Father and the Son to Marry the Mother and the Daugh­ter.

They practise a certain Unction for the Sick, which they call Lamp, because, in reality, they make use of the Lamp-oil for it, in this man­ner. They make a little Cake somewhat big­ger than an Host, wherein they put seven Mat­ches twisted of little straws, and place all in a Basin with Oil, then reading a Gospel and an Epistle out of St. Paul, with some Prayers, they light all the Matches. That being done, they anoint with the Oil the Forehead, Breast and Armes of all that are present, and of him who is sick, saying at every Unction, by this Unction God pardon thy sins, strengthen and [Page 140]corroborate thy Members, as he strengthened and corroborated those of the Paralytick. Afterward they let the Lamp burn so long as the Oil lasts; and seeing that Oil hath onely been blessed by a simple Priest, many have believed, that that Ceremony was not the Sacrament of Extreme Unction, since it is ad­ministred to those who are not dangerously sick. But they who are acquainted with the Oriental Theology, will easily be perswaded that those People had no other Sacrament of Extreme Unction, before the Latins reformed them: nor indeed is the word Extreme Uncti­on any where in use but amongst the Latins, because they anoint not the sick but when they are at the Point of Death; a thing not observed amongst the Christians of the East.

Before I conclude this Discourse concerning the Maronites, I will here subjoin an abstract of whatP. Besson, Syrie Sainte. Father Besson the Jesuit hath obser­ved in his Book entituled La Syrie Sainte, where he chiefly speaks of the Maronites who inhabit that Part of Mount Libanus, which is called Quesroan. This Jesuit thinks that the Maronites derive their name from St. Maron a Syrian Abbot, and not from Maron the Heresi­arch; and amongst other Arguments that he alledges to prove this, he saith that the Ma­ronites have been accustomed after that the Clergy and People had chosen a Patriarch, to apply themselves to the Pope for obtaining his Confirmation. But he ought to have minded, that they had no recourse to the Pope before their strict Conjunction with the Church of Rome. He farther adds that Johannes Damas­cenus could not be ignorant of the Heresie of [Page 141]the Maronites, if they had really been Here­ticks, because he was their Neighbour; and yet in the List that he makes of Heresies, he speaks not of them. But that was needless, seeing they are comprehended under the He­resie of the Monothelites.

The same Authour in a few words takes notice of what the Jesuit Dandini, and some others of the Society have done amongst the Maronites; which we have mentioned more fully with necessary Reflexions on it. All that can be said, is that that Emissary Jesuit, seems to me to be sillier than the rest, when he speaks of the Belief of the Maronites. And therefore I think there is no credit to be given to a Mi­racle which he relates as an evident Proof of the Orthodox Faith of the Maronites. He af­firms that three Miles from Cannubin, near to a Village called Eden, there is a Metropolitan Church that goes by the Name of St. Sergius, and that above that Church there is a Chapel dedicated to St. Abdon and St. Sennan, where there is a Fountain of Spring-water, which runs under the Altar during Mass, the Day on which the Festival of those two Saints is celebrated. He says, besides, that though that Feast be moveable, falling always on the first. Sunday of May, yet there is never any change in the course of that Fountain, which is always constant to the first Sunday of May even since the Calendar hath been reformed by Gregory XIII. But I make no doubt but that this is a made story, possibly to authorize the Gregorian reformation of the Calendar, which that Peo­ple have on many occasions refused to admit. And the rather it appears to be suppositions, [Page 142]in that the Authour assures us that that Foun­tain which runs during Mass, sends forth water in greater abundance, when the Priest elevates the Host; not minding that the Ele­vation is not in use amongst the Maronites, in the manner that it is practised amongst the La­tins. However Father Besson relates this Mi­racle, as an evident Argument against the other Eastern Nations, for authorising the De­votion which the Maronites have towards the Church of Rome, and at the same time for confirming the Reformation of the Calendar. That Relation likewise affirms that the Maro­nites are of a very soft and sweet temper, and that they give good words at least, promising to doe what ever they are desired; that it is often in their Mouth, that God is bountifull, and that he will prosper the thing that is pro­posed to them; and that they frequently pro­nounce the Name of God, or some of his At­tributes. But as these People are of a good and easie Nature, adds the same Authour, so they are also very inconstant. After they have heard a good Sermon, you shall see them fully resolved to be converted, and to make an exact Confession of their Sins; but when they are to come to performance; they appear insensible. Their Women, are indeed, very modest, but the greater they are in Quality, the less they come to Church: insomuch that to enhance the Quality of a Lady, they say of her, that she never hears Mass but on Easter-day; nor does that happen yearly nei­ther. When a Maid is Married she keeps at home two years without going to Mass, and in the mean time she frequents the Baths and [Page 143]Weddings. It seems they are banished the Churches, as the Mahometan Women are ex­cluded the Mosques. There is nevertheless a Monastery of Nuns of the Order of St. An­thony, who are held in great Reputation of Sanctity. Their whole Fabrick is hardly any more than a Church, where these Nuns are lodged, like Pigeons in their Nests, in little odd holes made betwixt the Arch and the Floor. These little Cells are so low that they cannot stand upright in them, and hardly is there room enough to hold their Bodies. All their employment is to sing the Office, Me­ditate, Pray and Work. Their Prayers be­gin about two in the Morning; and they work from day break, busying themselves in cultiva­ting their Gardens, and the Grounds of their Monastery.

In fine, Father Besson assures us in the se­cond Part of his Book, wherein he shews the great Antipathy that is betwixt the Syrians, and the Franks, that in Syria they say com­monly but one Mass a day, even on Sundays; that they have but few Altars, and sewer Priests; that all, except the Maronites, conse­crate with Leavened bread; that the Priests who celebrate not, are notwithstanding pre­sent at Mass, and take their places, but in an ordinary Habit, unless they be those that serve as Deacons and Subdeacons; and lastly, that all communicate in both kinds, except the Maronites, whose Priests that communicate without celebrating the Liturgy, receive a little Piece dipt in the Bloud of Our Lord.

CHAP. XIV. A Supplement to what hath been said con­cerning the Maronites.

THough what hath been mentioned before relating to the Maronites, seems to be built upon good grounds, yet a Learned Ma­ronite Professour of the Arabick Language in the College Della Sapienza at Rome, hath used all his endeavours to prove that his Countrey was never guilty of the Heresie that it is accu­sed of, and that Maron was really Orthodox and a Saint, and not an Heretick. Gabriel Sionita, and since him Abraham Ecchellensis, formed also a design of making an Apology for those of their Nation, and for their pre­tended St. Maron; but these Apologies have not appeared abroad in the World. Faustus Nairon, the Kinsman and Successour of Abra­ham, hath lately undertaken to make that Apo­logy in aDissert. de origine, nom. ac relig. Ma­ron. Autore Fausto Nairo­ne. Edit. Rom. Anno. 1679. Dissertation Printed at Rome, wherein, according to the common Opinion of the Maronites, he proves by the Testimo­nies of Theodoret, St. John Chrysostome and some other Authours, that Maron from whom the Maronites take their Name, in the same who lived about the year 400. and who is mentio­ned in the Menology of the Greeks. He adds that the Disciples of that Abbot Maron spread themselves over all Syria, where they built seve­ral Monasteries, and amongst others a very famous one called by the Name of Maron near [Page 145]the River Orontes. This Authour farther pretends, that all those Syrians who were not infected with Heresie, sheltered themselves with the Disciples of Abbot Maron, whom the Hereticks of those times called Maronites for that reason. It were to be wished that M. Nairon, had brought Arguments of less distance from those times to prove that Opinion; and I think we ought not absolutely to give credit to the Authority of Thomas Archbishop of Kfartab, who lived, as it is pretended, towards the Eleventh age, though he was of the Sect of the Monothelites: For if these Authours be carefully examined, they will not be found very exact in matters of History, and most fre­quently they relate for Matters of Antiquity, what happened in their own time, and which they have even drawn out of the Books of the Maronites, since their Reconciliation with Rome.

That which hath greatest appearance of truth in the Apology of M. Nairon for those of his Countrey, is the Argument he uses against the Testimony of Gulielmus Tyrius, who is an Authour exact enough, and who hath spoken of the Heresie of the Maronites, as an ocular wit­ness. He affirms that Gulielmus Tyrius took most part of his History, out of the Annals of Said Ebn Batrik, otherwise called Eutychius of Alexandria; and seeing Eutychius is not very exact in a great many matters of fact which he relates, it is not to be thought strange that Gulielmus Tyrius hath fallen into the same mistakes. Eutychius, says M. Nairon, affirms that Maron the Monothelite lived in the time of the Emperour Mauritius; and nevertheless Mo­nothelism [Page 142] [...] [Page 143] [...] [Page 144] [...] [Page 145] [...] [Page 146]was not as yet known at that time. But if the Authority of the Arabian Histori­ans be rejected, because of their not being exact in Chronology, there is not one of them but must be wholly laid aside. The Autho­rity of Gulielmus Tyrius is not so much made use of in the matter in hand, for what he re­lates out of the Annals of Eutychius; as for his own Testimony, speaking of a thing that happened in his own time, under Aymeric Pa­triarch of Antioch, who made the Maronites of that Countrey abjure their pretended Er­rours.

There is no likelyhood of truth in the story that M. Nairon alledges, and which hath been already mentioned byQuaresm. in dilucid. Terrae sanctae. Quaresmius, to wit, that Maron went from Antioch to Rome with a Legat or Envoy of Pope Honorius, who created the same Maron Patriarch of Antioch, because of his Orthodox faith. I pass over some other Acts of this nature, which are not to be found but in Arabick Books written since the Reconciliation of the Maronites to the Church of Rome. The least knowledge in Ecclesiastical History is enough to convince us that these His­tories have no ground in Antiquity, and that the Maronites and other Eastern People who are unskilfull Criticks in Historical Learning, have referred to Ancient times, what hath been onely in use amongst them for some latter Ages. According to this Principle, we must not easily give credit to the Authority of Jo­hannes Maron, whoseJoan. Maro. Comm. in Li­turg. St. Jacobi. Commentary upon the Liturgy of St. James, is not so very Ancient as some would have it, seeing it contains mat­ters of fact that are Posteriour to it by many [Page 147]Ages. After all, the Maronites, who pretend to have always preserved the Purity of their Faith, cast the errours that are to he found in the works of their own undoubted Authours, upon their Neighbours who were Hereticks, that had sown these errours amongst them, and who had even won over to their Sect some of the Maronites themselves: And so, though the Maronites pretend that they have always preserved the true Faith, yet they cannot de­ny but that some of their Nation, have enter­tained the Sentiments of the Jacobites, Petr. in Epist. Arab. ad Card. Ca­raff. Anno, 1578. Pe­ter Patriarch of the Maronites, in a Letter which he wrote to Cardinal Carraffa, says that the errours which occur in their Books, ought to be imputed to their Neighbours: but theSteph. Petr. in Epist. ad Faust. Naw. Ann. 1674. present Patriarch writing to M. Nai­ron, affirms that they have preserved many Books that are free from all these errours; and gives us hopes of a Volume of Oriental Liturgies which he pretends to reconcile with the Latin Mass. That must needs be a very usefull Work, and will clear to us a great many mat­ters of Fact concerning that affair, which lye as yet wrapt up in obscurity.

CHAP. XV. Of the Religion and Customs of the Maho­metans.

THE Religion of the Mahometans being for most part but a medly of the Christian and Jewish Religions, we have thought it per­tinent to give an Abridgment thereof in this place, to the end that they who travell into the Levant, may lay aside a great many pre­judices that they have conceived against that Religion, and that they may consider that it is indebted to the Jews and Christians for all the good that is in it, especially in relation to Morality. Mahomet, who was perswaded that all Religion ought to be founded on the word of God, and not upon the Dictates of Men, was obliged to take to himself the Title of God's Messenger; and the more to impose up­on Christians, he feigned himself to be that Paraclet or Comforter promised in the Gospel. Nay he hath borrowed part of their Maximes, and acknowledg'd Our Lord to be a great Prophet inspired by the Spirit of God. On the other hand, being willing also to gain the Jews, and of these two to make but one more perfect Religion, he hath brought into his pre­tended Reformation a great part of Judaism: and that makes the Mahometans pretend, that the two Laws, aswell that of Moses as that of Our Saviour, are at present abolished, and that so, Men are obliged to embrace Mahometanism, [Page 149]if they would be true Believers. They consess that both these Laws have been grounded upon the word of God; but still add, that they are no longer in force, since he hath empower­ed Mahomet to reform Religion. There are even some Mahometans who affirm, that nei­ther the Jews nor Christians can have certain and infallible Principles of their Religion, be­cause their Sacred writings have been corrup­ted. The Jews, say they, lost their Law and all their Holy Books during the time of the Captivity in Babylon, and what they call Cano­nical Books, are not so indeed, but onely some scraps of those Ancient Books which the Jews have pieced together, as well as they could after their Captivity. As for the Christians, they say that the Books of the New Testament have been corrupted by the different Sects, that have arisen amongst the same Chri­stians.

Mahomet then feigned, that during the space of 23 Years, God sent him by the Ministery of the Angel Gabriel, a certain Number of Pieces of Writing, whereof he composed the Book which is called the Alcoran; and that Book is to them the Holy Scripture, being the chief ground-work of their Religion. But as a­mong the Jews, besides the 24 Books of Scri­ture, there is also the Talmud which contains their Traditions; so the Mahometans have their Assonna, that declares to them the Tra­ditions which they are to follow. They have likewise Expositions on those Books, to which they submit; and besides, they distin­guish, aswell as we, that which is of Precept, from that which is onely Advice.

The Chief Article of their Belief is foun­ded upon the Unity of God; and therefore it is their ordinary saying; There is no other God but God; God is one; and they call those Idolaters, who acknowledge any Number in the Deity, thereby, condemning the Trinity of Persons which the Christians acknowledge to be in God.

The second Fundamental Article of their Religion consists in these words, Mahomet is the Messenger of God. By that they pretend to exclude all other Religions, because they say that Mahomet is the most excellent, and last of all the Prophets whom God was to send to Mankind: And as the Jewish Reli­gion was abrogated by the coming of Jesus Christ, so, in their Opinion, the Christian Religion was not to subsist any longer, after the appearance of their Prophet Maho­met.

They who introduce a new Religion, ought to shew some Miracles, that so their words may be the better believed. And therefore the Mahometans attribute some to their Le­gislatour. They affirm that he made water flow out of his Fingers, and that pointing to the Moon with his Finger he clave it asunder. They say also, that Stones, Trees and Beasts acknowledged him to be the true Prophet of God, and they saluted him in these Terms, You are the true messenger of God. They farther affirm, that Mahomet went in one Night, from Mecha to Jerusa­lem, from whence he ascended up into Hea­ven, where he saw Paradise and Hell; that he talked with God, though that be an Ho­nour [Page 151]reserved to the Blessed after their death; and that, in fine, he came down from Hea­ven the same Night, and was again in Mecha before Day.

Besides the Miracles of Mahomet, the Ma­hometans ascribe some also to their Saints, but with this difference, that they are not to be compared to those of their Prophet. They speak very well of God and his Perfections, removing from him every thing that can mark the least imperfection. They farther add, that these Angels who execute the Commands of god, and affirm that there is no distinction of Sex a­mongst them. They farther add, that these Angels differ in Dignity, and that they are appointed for certain Offices aswell in Heaven as on Earth; and that, in fine, they write down the Actions of Men. They attribute extraordinary Power to the Angel Gabriel; to wit, that he can in the space of an Hour come down from Heaven to Earth, and over­throw a Mountain with one Feather of his wing. The Angel Asrael is appointed to take care of the Souls of those that dye: and ano­ther named Esraphil holds a great Trumpet al­ways at his Mouth, ready to sound to the Day of Judgment. It would be needless and tedious to mention the Employments of the other Angels. They believe the General Resurrection of the Dead, and reckon up all the Signs that are to precede it: For then they pretend an Anti-Mahomet shall come, that Jesus Christ shall descend from Heaven to kill him, and establish the Mahometan Religion, to which they add a great many more Extra­vagances concerning Gog and Magog, and the [Page 152]Beast that is to come out of Mecha. They affirm besides, that at that time all living Creatures shall die, that the Mountains shall fly in the Air like Birds, and that, at length the Heavens shall melt and drop upon the Earth. Nevertheless they say that some time after, God shall renew the Earth, and then he shall raise the Dead, who shall appear stark naked from Head to Foot; but that the Pro­phets, Saints, Doctours and Just Men shall be cloathed with Garments, and carried by An­gels and Cherubims to the Empyrean Heaven; that for the rest, they shall suffer Hunger, Thirst and Nakedness, and that the Sun com­ing within a Mile over their Heads, they shall sweat in a strange manner, and endure many other Torments which we mention not. I shall onely observe, that they extend not the Pains which all are to suffer with Proportion to their Sins, beyond fifty thousand Years. Farthermore it is not onely amongst us that St. Michael is to be seen holding a Balance in his hand to weigh the good and bad Actions of Men, the Mahometans af­firm also, that at the Day of Judgment there will be a Balance, wherein good and evil are to be weighed; that they whose good Deeds shall weigh more than their bad, shall goe in­to Paradise; and that, on the contrary, they whose Sins are more heavy than their good Actions, shall goe into Hell, unless the Pro­phets and Saints intercede for them.

This Belief of the Mahometans concerning Paradise and Hell, comes pretty near that of the Jews and Christians, especially of the Ori­entals. 'Tis farther to be observ'd, that they [Page 153]acknowledge a kind of Purgatory; for they hold that they who dye in the Faith, whose Sins nevertheless have been heavier than their good Actions, and who have not been assisted by the Intercessions of the Just; they hold, I say, that these shall suffer in Hell in Proportion to their Sins, and that afterward, they shall goe into Paradise. And much after the same manner the Eastern Church acknowledges also a Purgatory, without admitting any other place besides Hell.

Besides that General Judgment wherein the Mahometans believe that God himself in Per­son, shall make all Men give account of their Actions, they acknowledge also a particular Judgment, which they call the Torment of the Grave; and that Judgment, in their Opi­nion, is performed in this manner. So soon as any one is dead and buried, two of the grea­test Angels, of which the one is called Munzir, and the other Nekir, come and interrogate the dead Person, asking what Belief he has con­cerning God and the Prophet, and concerning the Law and the Kiblé, that is to say, to what side one is to turn in Praying to God. The Just are then to answer, Our God is he that hath created all things: our Faith is the Mus­sulman and Orthodox Faith: and the true di­rection of our Prayers is the Kiabé. Unbelie­vers on the contrary not knowing what to answer, are condemned to suffer great Pains.

In the General Resurrection, they pretend that those who are destin'd for Paradise, shall, before they enter into it, drink of the water of certain Fountains appointed for that pur­pose, and that every Prophet shall have his [Page 154]Fountain or particular Source, where he and his followers shall drink. The Fountain where Mahomet and all of his Sect are to drink, shall be much larger than that of all other Prophets, and shall contain in length asmuch extent of ground as one can travell in a Month. there shall be, say they, on the brinks of that Fountain, more Lavers than there are Stars in the Firmament, and its water shall be swee­ter than Honey, and whiter than Milk. They who once drink of it shall never thirst a­gain.

It is very probable that all these things are rather parables than true Relations: And therefore we are not always to take literally what we find in the Books of Mahometan Doctours and other Orientals; in which sense we ought to understand a great part of that which they say of Paradise and Hell. For in­stance, in the Description they make of Para­dise, they affirm that it is all full of Musk; that its Buildings are of Bricks of Gold and Silver; that they who have once entered into it, ne­ver come out again; that their Cloaths never wear out; that all sorts of delicious meats are there; and that whatever one desires to have, comes ready drest to their hand; that none are subject to sleep in that place, nor to the other Necessities of the Body; that there are Divine and Celestial Women and Virgins there, who are free from all incommodities. And in this manner they describe their Paradise. As for Hell, they say that Unbelievers shall there remain Eternally with the Devils; that they shall be tormented by Serpents bigger than Camels, and Scorpions greater than Mules, [Page 155]Aswell as by Fire and Scalding water; that be­ing burnt and turned into a Coal, God shall raise them again for fresh Sufferings, and that so their Torments shall never have an end.

They commonly believe Predestination, and say that good and evil onely happen because God hath so ordained. He hath, say they, from all Eternity written on a Table, the things that are, and are to be, and it is im­possible that they can be otherwise. The un­belief and wickedness of the Infidel are as­much according to his Knowledge and Desire, as the Obedience and Faith of the Believer. They farther say, that if it be asked why God hath created the wicked and unbelievers, we are to answer, that it does not become us to inquire too curiously into the Secrets of God; that he does what he pleases, and no man ought to ask the reason of what he does. And therefore a true follower of Mahomet ought to say, I believe in God, in his Angels, in his Books and in the Day of Judgment. I far­ther believe that good and evil happen accor­ding as he hath ordained, and that, in fine, it is he that hath created both.

As to Believers who dye without repentance, they maintain that they continue in suspence af­ter their death, and that God disposes of them according to his good Will and Pleasure; that some he pardons, and condemns others to suffer the Punishment which they deserve be­cause of their Sins, being still assured to goe into Paradise after the Expiation of their Crimes. They are, in fine, perswaded that God pardons all sorts of Sins, except Atheism and Idolatry: and that is the reason why in [Page 156]the Prayers they make for the dead, they pray for the wicked aswell as for the good. They have a great esteem for Prayers, Charity, and other pious Actions that are performed for the dead, because that contributes to the Comfort and repose of Souls. They have a kind of Office appointed for that purpose, where are set down the Prayers to be said at Buryings, and the Surrates of Chapters of the Alcoran that are to be read at the Grave of the de­ceased; which reading being done, they who have been employed in that Office, say with a loud voice, With all our heart we give to this Person deceased, the Merit of all our reading. It is not out of Vanity that they erect Tomb­stones over their Graves, but that Passengers may remember to pray to God for the rest of their Souls.

The Mahometans not onely perform the in­ternal Acts of Faith, but also accuse them­selves of all their Sins, which they confess in the Presence of God, and to him alone. Pe­nance, say they, is but Repentance for the Sins which we have committed, with a firm resolution not to fall into the like again.

Their Morality consists in doing good, and eschewing Evil: which is the reason why they examine very carefully the Nature of Virtues and Vices; and their Casuists are no less sub­tile than ours are. I shall here mention some of their Principles, whence we may the more easily judge of their Morality. They are so perswaded that all Actions which are not ac­companied with Faith, are Sins, that they maintain that he who denies it, loses the Merit of all his good Works; that as often as he lies [Page 157]with his Wife, he commits so many Adulteries; in a word, that all he does during that time cannot be acceptable to God, untill he hath repented of his Sin; and that then he becom­eth a Mussulman or Believer anew, and must marry again a second time: and if he hath made the Journey to Mecha, he must make it over again, because all his good Actions have been blotted out by that denial; and Repen­tance cannot again revive them.

When they demand any thing of God in Prayer, they are to resign themselves wholly to his Will, and say to him, O my God, I beg of thee, not to grant what I ask, if it be not for my good. And when they have obtai­ned of God the favour they desired, they ought to thank him, confessing themselves un­worthy of the Mercies they have received, and that of themselves they are able to doe nothing.

They recommend nothing so much, as trust and confidence in God, whom they acknow­ledge to be their onely support; and they par­ticularly praise Humility, which, according to them consists, in esteeming others more than themselves.

They give excellent Precepts for bridling the Passions, and shunning vice. If thou woul­dest, say they, have Hell shut its seven Gates, take heed thou sin not with thy seven Mem­bers, which are they Eyes, the Ears, the Tongue, the Hand, the Foot, the Belly and the Privi­ties which they dare not name: and they rec­kon up all the particulars from which every one of these Parts ought to abstain. Slander and Backbiting is one of the Vices against which [Page 158]they most declame; and there is nothing they so much condemn as the Censurings of other People, even when they are true. Upon that Principle they ground this Maxime, that we ought not to speak of things that are hidden from us. For instance, they forbid to say, such a Man is dead, or shall dye in the Faith, because it belongs not to us to judge of things which God hath concealed: that, say they, can be done onely, when the Prophet hath spoken of them; and so it may be affirmed, that Abubekir, Homer, Osman and Haly deserve Paradise. For the same reason also, they say, that it is not lawfull to say that such a Person is dead in Unbelief, or that he deserves Hell; unless they speak of those who are expresly mentioned by the Prophet, as the Devil, Abu­saheb and Abugehel.

I wave the rest of their Morals, in respect that what I have alledged is sufficient to shew the Nature of it; and I dare affirm it is not so remiss as that of some Casuists of our Age. Onely let me add, that they have a great many good Precepts concerning the Duties of Pri­vate Persons towards their Neighbour, where­in they also prescribe Rules of Civility. They have also written of the Duty of Subjects to­wards their Prince; and one of their Maximes is, that it is never lawfull to kill him, nay nor to speak ill of him under Pretext that he is a Tyrant.

The Devotion of the Mahometans extends even to Holy Names: as when they pronounce the Name of God, they must bow, and add thereunto, most High, most Blessed, most Mighty, most Excellent, or the like, If one [Page 159]has pronounced the Name of Mahomet, he must add, may God augment his Graces: to the Names of other Messengers, they add, that God is satisfied with them. And, lastly, to the Names of other Doctours, they add, may the Mercy of God rest upon them.

There are no Monachal Constitutions that so much oblige Monks to obey their Superiour, as the Precepts of the Mahometan Doctours oblige Disciples to respect their Masters, whom they ought to obey in all things, without gain-saying, and in whose Presence they are not to speak too loud.

As they distinguish that which is of Divine obligation from what is onely of Humane Con­stitution, and that which is of Precept from that which is onely of Council; so there are to be found amongst them Devout People that obey Councils as punctually as Commands, as for instance, to goe to Prayers at Nine in the Morning, which is not of obligation, to pro­strate themselves there twice at least, or eight times at most. In fine, the Mahometans be­sides their Belief and Morality, have also their Ceremonies, which they strictly enough ob­serve. To distinguish them from the Jews, who are obliged to goe to Prayers but three times a day, Mahomet obliges his Followers to pray five times a day, as a Mark of greater Sanctity. They have a great many Traditions about the manner of praying, which would be tedious to relate.

They have some Prayers that are necessary upon Divine obligation, and others onely or Counsel and Decency. There are some Con­ditions which being neglected, render the [Page 160]Prayer invalid. For instance, in the Noon and Afternoon Prayers, which are of Divine obligation, they must reade them with a low Voice; but in that which is said in the Morning, and at Night before they go to bed, it is to be read aloud, if there be an Imam, that is to say, a Priest present. But if one pray alone, it is a Matter indifferent. Moreover, the Men ought at first to lift up their Hands to the Tip of their Ears, and the Women onely to their Jaws. When one standeth having the Right Hand upon the Left, if he be a Man, he ought to place his Hands below his Navel; and if she be a Woman, she is to put them up­on her Bosom. To pray with Order, they must accompany the Imam with a low voice, and imitate all he doeth. I should be too te­dious if I would reckon up the particular Po­stures they have in praying, especially when they prostrate themselves, and touch the ground with their Forehead and Nose: that is better understood by seeing them when they them­selves a are at Prayers.

Their Modesty at Prayers is so much the greater, that they are obliged to observe a great many things, if they expect to be heard: for their Prayers are esteemed ineffectual, if they talk or laugh in time of Prayer so as they may be heard; it is the same, if they weep too loud, by reason of any Misfortune that hath befallen them, or for other Causes, unless it be because mention hath been made of Para­dise or Hell, for then the Prayer is neverthe­less good. There are also a great many other Cases which render then Prayers null, as to scratch three times in one Place, to pass be­fore [Page 161]the Imam during a Prostration, to advance or goe the space of two ranks, to turn their Face from the Kiblé, to begin a Prayer, when they hear the Imam begin another, to commit any mistake in reading, to salute any one vo­luntarily; for if it happen by inadvertency, the fault is expiated, by making a Prostration, which is the usual Penance in that case.

They are moreover prohibited to pray to God in a habit, wherein they commonly work at home, and in which they would not pay a visit to Persons of Quality. Nor can they pray to God before the fire, though they are not hindred from doing it by a Candle or Lamp. But we should never make an end, if we mentioned exactly all that they are prohi­bited to do during the time of Prayer. Let us now say somewhat of their Washings. Amongst the Mahometans it is of Divine Obligation, to wash the Mouth, the Face, and then the whole Body: and the Tradition of Mahomet enjoyns, that this Ablution be made with intention of doing so; that for better cleansing the Body, Water is to be poured three times upon it, be­ginning from the right Shoulder to the left, then upon the Head, and afterwards upon all the parts of the Body. If one break wind during the Abdest, or Ablution, all that hath been done is good for nothing; for then the Ablution is null.

They reckon amongst the Commands of God, the washing of the Face once and the Arms up to the Elbow, to wash the fourth part of the Head and the Feet once: and the tradition of Mahomet ordains the Hands to be washed three times, the Teeth to be cleansed with a certain [Page 162]kind of Wood, and the Mouth after that to be washed three times, and the Nose as often, without interruption after one hath once be­gun; then the Ears are to be washed with the rest of the Water that was used for the Head. They are always to begin their washings by the right side: and when they wash their Hands or Feet, they are obliged to begin with the Fingers and Toes. There are many things al­so that render these Ablutions null: but we have insisted but too long upon these Ceremo­nies.

What I have hitherto said of the Religion of the Mahometans, is extracted out of a Book of Mahometan Divinity written by one of their Doctours who lived in the last age. That Doctour professes to follow the Doctrine most generally received at Constantinople, and the most approved by good Men. This is worth the observing, because the Mahometans are di­vided into a great many Sects, not to speak of the Persians, who differ much from the Turks. And that we may have some knowledge of these Sects, I shall relate what that Mahome­tan Divine hath judiciously said of them, and which deserves to be taken notice of.

He affirms that the matters which concern their Religion are indeed, written in their sa­cred Books; but that there are part of them which are obscure and hard to be understood, and that none but the Learned can dive in­to them: which has been the will of God, to the end that the Learned should busie them­selves in the study of these Books, and teach his mind to others. Seeing these Books are ob­scure, the Interpreters happen many times to [Page 163]mistake; but their Errours are not Sins, and it is even the will of God that they who have not applied themselves to study, should follow the judgement of Doctours, without examining too scrupulously, whether or not they tell the truth, because it is their part to submit; and if they be deceived, they are not therefore guilty of Sin.

Those who came after Mahomet, though they have written many things for the Confirmation and Explication of the Law, yet they could not write all; besides that, there was no great Necessity for it in those times, when there were not so many Novelties, and so many Cases of Conscience, as have happened since. But af­ter that the number of Believers encreased, they began to be divided in opinions, and it was Necessary that some should apply them­selves to the study of the Law, that they might digest into writing the Precepts which they drew out of Divine Books. And that gave oc­casion to the different Sects of Doctours: for every one explained the Law according to their Capacities and Talents, and gave their Inter­pretations to the People. So that, in a short time the People were divided into Factions: some followed Abuhanifé; others Chasihié; some Maliké; others Ahmed; others again Dudzahimé; In a word, the number of these Doctours was ve­ry great, and hath continued so to this present.

After all, these Sects have all the same be­lief as to the Fundamentals of the Faith, but they differ much one from another as to Mo­rals and Ceremonies: which diversity, say they, has undoubtedly come to pass by the permissi­on of God; so that there is no danger to their [Page 160] [...] [Page 161] [...] [Page 162] [...] [Page 163] [...] [Page 164]followers, for there is no Sect wherein one may not be saved. However, the Sect of Abuhanisé is to be preferred before all others, because he, being the most Ancient and best instructed, hath explained the difficulties the best of any: and he ought to be followed especially in what con­cerns Morals; and therefore it is more merito­rious to follow his Sentiments, than those of the other Doctours that came after him. In that sense these words are to be understood, I am of the Sect of Abuhanisé in what relates to Actions, the Worship of God and the Ceremonies. Ireceive all that he hath drawn from the Word of God and Traditions. I have chosen his Opinions for regula­ting my Actions. Thus ye have in a few words the Sentiment of our Mahometan Doctour con­cerning the Sects which are very numerous in his Religion, and which occasion no Schism nor Division that can be prejudicial to the State: For the Fundamental Articles of Mahometanisme consist onely in Professing that there is but one God, and that Mahomet is his Messenger, in be­ing exact in Prayers and Almsdeeds, in perfor­ming the Pilgrimage to Mecha, and in observing the Fast of Ramazan. These five Principal Articles contain others of less importance: for that of Prayer ought always to be attended with whatever can render the Prayer pure, such as are Ablutions; and Circumcision also belongeth to that External Purity which ought to be the Sign of the Internal. I might enlarge more on this Subject: But I think what I have already mentioned will be sufficient to make known the Religion of the Mahometans.