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
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
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 〈◊〉
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
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 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 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 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 (1) 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 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
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 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 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 a (1) Dissert 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 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