these were of opinion that those christians should be allowed to retain nearly all their long established peculiarities both of rites and usages, and of doctrine; which the Latin doctors had formerly deemed insufferable: for rites and usages, they said, do not pertain to the essence of religion; and their doctrines should be explained and understood, so as to appear to differ as little as possible from the opinions and institutions of the Latins; because those christians would feel less repugnance to union, if they could be persuaded that they had long been Romanists, and that the pontiffs did not require them to abandon the principles of their fathers, but only to understand them correctly. Hence arose those erudite works, composed however with little ingenuousness, published by Leo Allatius, John Morin, Clement Galanus, Lucas Holstenius, Abraham Echellensis, and others; in which they undertook to prove that there was little or no difference between the religion of the Greeks, Armenians, and Nestorians, and that of the Romans, provided we set aside a few rites and certain unusual words and phrases adopted by those foreign christians. This project of uniting the Greeks with the Latins, was by no one more firmly resisted than by Cyrillus Lucaris, patriarch of Constantinople, a learned man, who had travelled over a great part of Europe. For he signified clearly, indeed more clearly than The work of Leo Allatius, de Concordia Ecclesiae Orientalis et Occidentalis, is well known; and the most learned men, among both the Lutherans and the reformed, with the greatest justice, charge it with bad faith. He also published his Græcia Orthodoxa, Rome, 1652 and 1659. 4to. which contains the tracts of the Greeks, that favoured the Latins. From the pen of Lucas Holstenius, who was far superior to Allatius in learning and ingenuousness, we have only two dissertations, de Ministro et Forma Sacramenti Confirmationis apud Græcos; which were published after his death, Rome 1666. 8vo. The very learned works of John Morin, de Pænitentia, and de Ordinationibus, are well known by the learned: and every one that peruses them can see, that the author aims to evince that there is a wonderful agreement, on these subjects, between the christians of the east and the Latins, provided the thorny subtilties of the scholastics are kept out of sight. Clemens Galanus, in a prolix and elaborate work, published at Rome, 1650. [1690. 2 vols.] folio, laboured to prove, that the Armenians differ but little from the Latins. Abraham Echellensis, both elsewhere, and in his notes to Hebed Jesu, Catalogus Librorum Chaldaicorum, maintains, that all the christians throughout Asia and Africa, coincide with the Latin church. Other writers on this subject are passed over. [Among these were Fred. Spanheim's Diss. de Ecclesiæ Græcæ et Orientalis a Romana Papali perpetua dissensione; in his Opp. tom. ii. p. 485, &c. and Ja. Elsner's Latest Account of the Greek Christians in Turkey, ch. v. (in German.) Schl.] was prudent, that his mind was inclined towards the religious opinions of the English and the Dutch, and that he contemplated a reformation of the ancient religion of the Greeks. The Jesuits, aided by the influence of the French ambassador, and by the knavery of certain perfidious Greeks, vigorously opposed this powerful adversary for a long time, and in various ways, and at length vanquished him. For they caused him to be accused before the Turkish emperor of the crimes of treason and rebellion on which charge he was strangled in the year 1638. He was succeeded by the Greek who had been the 5 There is extant a confession of faith, drawn up by Cyrillus Lucaris, and repeatedly published, particularly in Holland, 1645. 8vo. from which it clearly appears, that he favoured the reformed religion more than that of his countrymen. It was published among Jac. Aymon's Monumens authentiques de la Religion des Grecs, p. 237. Yet he was not averse from the Lutherans: for he addressed letters about this time to the Swedes, whose friendship he endeavoured to conciliate. See Arkenholtz's Mémoires de la Reine Christine, tom. i. p. 486, and tom. ii. append. Documents, 113, &c. The same Aymon has published twentyseven letters of this prelate, addressed to the Genevans, and to others professing the reformed religion; ubi supra p. 1-199, which more fully exhibit his disposition and his religious opinions. The life and the unhappy death of this, in various respects, extraordinary man, are described by Thomas Smith, an Englishman, in his Narratio de Vita, Studiis, Gestis et Martyrio Cyrilli Lucaris; which is inserted in his Miscellanea, Lond. 1686. 8vo. p. 49-130, also by Jo. Henry Hottinger, Analecta Historico-Theol. append. Diss. viii. p. 550, and by others, whom Jo. Alb. Fabricius has enumerated, Bibliotheca Græca, vol. x. p. 499. [Cyrillus Lucaris was born in 1572, in Candia, the ancient Crete, then subject to the Venetians. Possessing fine native talents, he first studied at Venice and Padua, and then travelled over Italy and other countries. Disgusted with the Romish religion, and charmed with that of the reformed, he resided a while at Geneva. On his return to Greece, he connected himself with his countryman Meletius Piga, bishop of Alexandria, who resided much at Constantinople, and was often legate to the patriarch. Cyril became his chaplain, and then his Archimandrite. The efforts of the Romanists, in 1595, to gain the Russian and Polish Greek churches, were resisted at Constantinople, and Cyril was active in opposing the defection. His efforts in this cause, exposed him to the resentments of the Polish government; and in 1660 he had to quit that country. He went to Alexandria, was there highly respected, and on the death of Meletius, in 1602, he succeeded him in that see. He now kept up a correspondence with several reformed divines; and among them, with Geo. Abbot, archbishop of Canterbury. It was at this time, that he sent to England the celebrated Alexandrine codex of the Bible, containing St. Clement's epistle to the Corinthians. His aversion to the Romish church drew on him the hatred and persecution of the Jesuits, and of all in the East who favoured the Romish cause. In 1612 he was at Constantinople, and the Romish interest alone prevented his election to the patriarchal chair. He retired to Alexandria; but in 1621 he was elected to the see of Constantinople, in spite of the Romish opposition. But his persecutors never ceased to traduce him, and to plot against him. He was, besides, too far in advance of the Greeks to be popular with the multitude; and the Turkish government would at any time depose a patriarch, and admit a new one, for a few thousand dollars. In 1622 he was banished to Rhodes, and Gregory of Amasa pur principal assistant to the Jesuits in the destruction of this great man, namely Cyril of Berrhoea, a man of a malignant and violent temper; and as he apostatized to the Romish religion, the union of the Greeks and Latins now seemed no longer dubious. But the unhappy fate of the man suddenly dissipated this hope. For this great friend of the Roman pontiff, in a little more than a year, was put to death in the same manner as his enemy before had been; and Parthenius, who had the hereditary hostility of his nation to the Latins, was placed at the head of the Greek church. From this time onward, no good opportunity was found by the Romans for assailing the Greek patriarchs, or for drawing them over to their interests. § 3. Yet very many complain, and none more than the Reformed, that the flatteries, the sophistry, and the gold, both of the French ambassadors in Turkey, and of the Jesuits, have chased the office for 20,000 dollars; but not having the money on hand, he also was sent away, and Anthimus, bishop of Adrianople, having money, purchased the office. But the Greeks would not submit to him, and he was obliged to resign to Cyril, who was restored, on paying a large sum for the privilege. The Romanists still plotted against him. He sent a Greek to London, to learn the art of printing, and to procure a printing press. On its arrival, his enemies charged him with employing it for political purposes, and caused him great trouble; though the English and Dutch ambassadors interposed in his behalf. In 1629, having a little respite, he called a council of Greeks, to reform that church: and here he proposed his confession of faith, which was adopted. In 1633, Cyrillus Contari, bishop of Berrhoea, the personal enemy of Cyril Lucaris, and supported by the Romish party, bargained with the Turks for the patriarchal chair: but being unable to pay the money down, he was exiled to Tenedos, and Lucaris retained the office. The next year Athanasius of Thessalonica, paid the Turks 60,000 dollars for the office; and Lucaris was again banished. But at the end of a month he was recalled and reinstated, on his paying 10,000 dollars. But now Cyril Contari had See Elias Veiel's Defensio Exercitationis de Ecclesia Græca, p. 100, &c. in which, p. 103, is a letter of Urban VIII., to this Cyril of Berrhoea, highly commending him for having successfully averted from the Greeks the pernicious errors of Lucaris, and exhorting him to depose the bishops that were opposed to the Latins, with the promise of aid both from Rome and from the Spanish government. This Cyril died a member of the Romish church. Henry Hilarius, Notes to Phil. Cuprii Chronicon Ecclesiæ Græcæ, p. 470. had so much effect, of late, upon the ignorance and the poverty of the Greek bishops, that they have departed from the religion of their fathers in several respects, and especially on the doctrine of the eucharist; and have adopted, among other errors of the Latins, the inexplicable doctrine of transubstantiation. And this, they say, was especially done in the celebrated council of Jerusalem, which Dositheus assembled in the year 1672'. This charge, whether it be true or false, was first advanced upon occasion of a dispute between the papists and the Reformed in France. The latter, at the head of whom was the very eloquent and erudite John Claude, maintained that many opinions of the Romanists, and especially that which asserts that the bread and the wine in the eucharist are so changed into the body and blood of Christ, as still to leave the external appearance of bread and wine, were wholly unknown in ancient times, and were not found among the Latins themselves before the ninth century: the catholics on the contrary, Anthony Arnaud, and his associates in managing the cause, contended that the Romish belief respecting the Lord's Supper, had been the received opinion among christians in every age; and that it was approved by all the sects of christians in the East, in particular by the Greeks. This controversy required authorities and testimonies. Hence the French envoys at Constantinople, with the Jesuits on the one part, and the Dutch and English ministers on the other, laboured indefatigably to collect opinions of the Greeks in favour of their respective sides. It so happened that the Romanists were superior both in the number and weight of their testimonies; but the Reformed contended, that all these were of no avail, being either purchased of the starving Greeks with money, or 7 The proceedings of this council were published, after an edition by a French Benedictine, by Jac. Aymon, Monumens Authentiques de la Religion des Grecs, tom. i. p. 263. See Gisbert Cuper's Epistolæ, p. 404, 407. Notes illustrative of it, may be seen, besides other places, in Jac. Basnage's Histoire de la Religion des Eglises Reformées, period iv. pt. cap. xxxii. &c. p. 452, and in Jo. Cowell's Account of the Present Greek Church, book i. ch. v. p. 136, &c. [See also Thom. Ittig's Heptad. Dissertat. No. v. de Synodo Hierosol. Schl.-The Acts of this council, Gr. and Lat., are in Harduin's Concilia. tom. xii. p. 179, &c. Tr.] 8 The names and works of the principal writers on this controversy, may be learned from Jo. Alb. Fabricius, Bibliotheca Græca, vol. x. p. 444, &c. and Christopher Matth. Pfaff, Dissertatio contra Ludov. Rogeri Opus Eucharisticum, Tubing. 1718. 4to. obtained from persons either ignorant of such matters, and thus incompetent witnesses, or deceived and ensnared by insidious language'. Whoever shall bring to the decision of this controversy a good acquaintance with Grecian affairs, and a mind unbiassed by prejudice, will judge, I apprehend, that no small part of the Greek church had, for many ages, possessed some obscure idea of transubstantiation, but received more clear and explicit ideas of it, in modern times, from the Romans'. § 4. Of the independent Greek churches, or those not subject to the Byzantine patriarch, the Russian is the only one that affords any matter for history; the others lie buried in vast ignorance and darkness. Among the Russians, about the year 1666, a certain sect showed itself, and produced no little commotion, which called itself Isbraniki, or the company of the elect, but by its adversaries it was called Roskolskika, that is, the seditious faction". What these find to censure in the modern Greek church, and what opinions and rites they hold, is not yet fully known. It appears, however, in general, that they distinguish themselves by a great show of piety, and represent the ancient religion of the Russians as much marred, partly by the negligence, and partly by the licentiousness of the bishops'. The Russians long assailed this factious throng with 9 Here should be consulted above all others, John Cowell, who was resident at Constantinople, when this drama was acted, and himself saw, by what artifices the Greeks were induced to give testimony in favour of the Latins: Account of the Present Greek Church, pref. p. ii. &c. and book i. ch. v. p. 136, &c. Maturin Viesse la Croze, who is well known to have been by no means partial to the Jesuits and to Romish opinions, supposed that the Greeks had long been infected with the doctrine of transubstantiation. See Gisb. Cuper's Epistola, edited by Beyer, p. 37. 44. 48. 51. 65. 2 Perhaps these are the very persons whom the celebrated Gmelin, in his Travels in Siberia, in German, vol. iv. p. 404. calls Sterowerzi. [They doubtless come under this denomination; for Rob. Pinkerton (Present State of the Greek Church in Russia. Appendix, p. 227,) tells us, "The national church in Russia gives the general name of Raskolniks, or Schismatics, to all the sects which have at different periods renounced her communion; but these separatists uniformly style themselves Starovertsi, or Believers of the old faith." Tr.] 3 See Nic. Bergius, de Statu Ecclesiae et Religionis Moscovitica, sect. xi. cap. vii. p. 69. Add sect. ii. cap. xvi. p. 218. and in the Append. p. 270. Jo. Mich. Heineccius on the Greek church, (written in German,) pt. iii. p. 30, &c. Peter Van Haven's Travels in Russia, p. 316. of the German translation. Some Lutheran writers have supposed or suspected, that these Isbraniki were a progeny of the ancient Bogomils. [Dr. Mosheim's account of the Russian dissenters is very lame. See the whole Appendix to Rob. Pinkerton's Present State of the Greek Church in Russia, ed. New-York, 1815, p. 227–276. He tells us, it is common to date the origin of sectarians in the Russian |