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 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 to (1) Caucus 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 Re-union of the Greeks to the Church of Rome by soft and mild ways In effect if we carefully examine the Errours which Caucus imputes 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
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 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 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 words of the Liturgy when he speaks of those that draw near to the Holy Mysteries (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (4) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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
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 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 a (1) Breve 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 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 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 And (1) Circal 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 (2) 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 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
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 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 (1) 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 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 Homilies (2) See 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 (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 no more but 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 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 that (3) See the Collections at the end of this Book D. Dissertation subjoined to this Book in Greek which Mr. Arnaud 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (3) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 Luther a wicked and abominable Heresiarch and Apostate who by his Doctrine had seduced an infinite Number 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 Terms of the first Synod held under Cyrill of Borrhea in the Year 1638. (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 〈◊〉
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 Book (1) See 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 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 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 (1) 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 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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 (2) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 that they who have called 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 (1) 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 〈◊〉 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
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 subjoyned (1 See the Collections at the End of the Book F. at the End of this Book and since 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 (1) 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 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 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 as (1) Brerew 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 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 which (1) Joan. 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
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 (2) 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 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 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 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