generally speaking, either suddenly abandon the church of Rome, or express their attachment to it in such ambiguous terms as are only calculated to deceive. Those who, like the Nestorian bishop of Diarbek," continue steadfast in the profession of the Roman faith, and even transmit it with an appearance of zeal to their posterity, are excited to this perseverance by no other motive than the uninterrupted liberality of the Roman pontiff.

On the other hand, the bishops of Rome are extremely attentive and assiduous in employing all the methods in their power to maintain and extend their dominion among the Christians of the east. For this purpose, they treat with the greatest lenity and indulgence the proselytes they have made in these parts of the world, that their yoke may not appear intolerable. Nay, they carry this indulgence so far, as to show evidently, that they are actuated more by a love of power, than by an attachment to their own doctrines and institutions. For they do not only allow the Greek and other eastern proselytes the liberty of retaining in their public worship the rites and ceremonies of their ancestors, though in direct opposition with the religious service of the church of Rome, and of living in a manner repugnant to the customs and practice of the Latin world; but, what is much more surprising, they suffer the peculiar doctrines that distinguish the Greeks and orientals from all other Christian societies, to remain in the public religious books of the proselytes already mentioned, and even to be reprinted at Rome in those that are sent abroad for their use." The truth of the matter seems to be briefly this that at Rome, a Greek, an Armenian, or a Copt, is looked upon as an obedient child, and a worthy member of the church, if he acknowledges the supreme and unlimited power of the Roman pontiff over all the Christian world. XXIV. The Maronites, who inhabit the mounts Libanus and Antilibanus, date their subjection to the spi

The Maronites.

ritual jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff from the

u Otherwise named Amidad and Caramit.

w Assemanni complains in many passages of his Biblioth. Orient. Vatican. that even the very books that were printed at Rome for the use of the Nestorians, Jacobites, and Armenians, were not corrected, nor purged from the errors peculiar to these sects; and he looks upon this negligence, as the reason of the defection of many Roman converts, and of their return to the bosom of the eastern and Greek churches, to which they originally belonged. See, on the other hand, the Letters Choisies du R. Simon, tom. ii. let. xxiii. p. 156, in which this author pretends to defend this conduct of the Romans, which some attribute to indolence and neglect, others to artifice and prudence.

time that the Latins carried their hostile arms into Palestine, with a view to make themselves masters of the holy land. This subjection however was agreed to, with this express condition, that neither the popes nor their emissaries should pretend to change or abolish any thing that related to the ancient rites, moral precepts, or religious opinions of this people. So that, in reality, there is nothing to be found among the Maronites that savours of popery, if we except their attachment to the Roman pontiff, who is obliged to pay very dear for their friendship. For, as the Maronites live in the utmost distress of pover

x The Maronite doctors, and more especially those that reside at Rome, maintain, with the greatest efforts of zeal and argument, that the religion of Rome has always been preserved among them in its purity, and exempt from any mixture of heresy or error. The proof of this assertion has been attempted, with great labour and industry, by Faust. Nairon, in his Dissertatio de origine, nomine, ac religione, Maronitarum, published in 8vo. at Rome, in the year 1679. It was from this treatise, and some other Maronite writers that De la Roque drew the materials of his discourse concerning the origin of the Maronites, together with the abridgment of their history, which is inserted in the second volume of his Voyage de Syrie et du Mont Liban, p. 28, &c. But neither this hypothesis, nor the authorities by which it is supported, have any weight with the most learned inen of the Roman church; who maintain, that the Maronites derived their origin from the Monophysites, and adhered to the doctrine of the Monothelites,* until the twelfth century, when they embraced the communion of Rome. See R. Simon, Histoire Critique des Chretiens Orientaux, ch. xiii. p. 146. Euseb. Renaudot, Histor. Patriarch. Alexand. in Præfat. iii. 2, in Histor. p. 49. The very learned Assemanni, who was himself a Maronite, steers a middle way between these two opposite accounts, in his Biblioth. Orient. Vatic. tom. i. p. 496, while the matter in debate is left undecided by Mich. Le Quien, in his Oriens Christianus, tom. iii. p. 1, where he gives an account of the Maronite church and its spiritual rulers. For my own part, I am persuaded, that those who consider that all the Maronites have not as yet embraced the faith, or acknowledged the jurisdiction of Rome, will be little disposed to receive with credulity the assertions of certain Maronite priests, who are, after the manner of the Syrians, much addicted to boasting and exaggeration. Certain it is, that there are Maronites in Syria, who still behold the church of Rome with the greatest aversion and abhorrence; nay, what is still more remarkable, great numbers of that nation residing in Italy, even under the eye of the pontiff, opposed his authority during the last century, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of these nonconforming Maronites retired into the valleys of Piedmont, where they joined the Waldenses; another, above six hundred in number, with a bishop and several ecclesiastics at their head, fled into Corsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa against the violence of the inquisitors. See Urb. Cerri Etat present de l'Eglise Romaine, p. 121, 122. Now may it not be asked here, what could have excited the Maronites in Italy to this public and vigorous opposition to the Roman pontiff, if it be true that their opinions were in all respects conformable to the doctrines and decrees of the church of Rome? This opposition could not have been owing to any thing but a difference in point of doctrine and belief; since the church of Rome allowed, and still allows, the Maronites, under its jurisdiction, to retain and perform the religious rites and institutions that have been handed down to them from their ancestors, and to follow the precepts and rules of life to which they have always been accustomed. Compare with the authors above cited, Thesaur. Epistol. Crozian, tom. i. p. 11.

y The reader will do well to consult principally, on this subject, the observations subjoined by Rich. Simon, to his French translation of the Italian Jesuit Dandini's Voyage to Mount Libanus, published in 12mo. at Paris, in 1685. See also Eusch. Renaudot, Historia Patriarch. Alexandr. p. 548.

Those who maintained, that notwithstanding the two natures in Christ, viz. the human and the divine; there was nevertheless but one will, which was the divine.

ty, under the tyrannical yoke of the Mahometans, the bishop of Rome is under necessity of furnishing them with such subsidies as may appease the voracity of their oppressors, procure a subsistence for their bishop and clergy, provide all things that are requisite for the support of their churches and the uninterrupted exercise of public worship, and contribute in general to lessen their misery. Beside, the college erected at Rome by Gregory XIII. with a design to instruct the young men, frequently sent from Syria, in the various branches of useful science and sacred erudition, and to prepossess them with an early veneration and attachment for the Roman pontiff, is attended with a very considerable expense. The patriarch of the Maronites performs his spiritual functions at Canobin, a convent of the monks of St. Anthony, on mount Libanus, which is his constant residence. He claims the title of patriarch of Antioch, and always assumes the name of Peter, as if he seemed desirous of being considered as the successor of that apostle."

z See Petitqueux, Voyage a Canobin dans le Mont Liban, in the Nouveaux Memoires des Missions de la Compagnie de Jesus, tom. iv. p. 252, and tom. viii. p. 355. La Roque Voyage de Syrie, tom. ii. p. 10. Laur. D'Arvieux, Memoires ou Voyages, tom. ii. P. 418.

ᏢᎪᎡᎢ I1.

HISTORY OF THE MODERN CHURCHES.

CHAPTER 1.

HISTORY OF THE LUTHERAN CHURCH.

of the Lu

church.

I. THE rise and progress of the evangelical, or Lutheran church, have been already related, so far as they The combelong to the history of the reformation. The mencement former of these titles was assumed by that church heran in consequence of the original design of its founders, which was to restore to its native lustre the gospel of Christ, that had so long been covered with the darkness of superstition, or in other words, to place in its proper and true light that important doctrine, which represents salvation as attainable by the merits of Christ alone. Nor did the church now under consideration discover any reluctance against adopting the name of the great man, whom Providence employed as the honoured instrument of its foundation and establishment. A natural sentiment of gratitude to him, by whose ministry the clouds of superstition had been chiefly dispelled, who had destroyed the claims of pride and self-sufficiency, exposed the vanity of confidence in the intercession of saints and martyrs, and pointed out the Son of God as the only proper object of trust to miserable mortals, excited his followers to assume his name, and to call their community the Lutheran church.

The rise of this church must be dated from that remarkable period, when the pontiff, Leo X. drove Martin Luther, with his friends and followers, from the bosom of the Roman hierarchy, by a solemn and violent sentence of excommunication. It began to acquire a regular form, and a considerable degree of stability and consistence, from the year 1530, when the system of doctrine and morality it had adopted, was drawn up and presented to the diet of

Augsburg. And it was raised to the dignity of a lawful and complete hierarchy, totally independent on the laws and jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff, in consequence of the treaty concluded at Passau, in the year 1552, between Charles V. and Maurice, elector of Saxony, relating to the religious affairs of the empire.

The sum and substance of its religious doctrine.

1. The great and leading principle of the Lutheran church is, that the Holy Scriptures are the only source from whence we are to draw our religious sentiments, whether they relate to faith or practice; and that these inspired writings are; in all matters that are essential to salvation, so plain, and so easy to be thoroughly understood, that their signification may be learned, without the aid of an expositor, by every person of common sense, who has a competent knowledge of the language in which they are composed. There are indeed certain formularies adopted by this church, which contain the principal points of its doctrine, ranged, for the sake of method and perspicuity, in their natural order. But these books have no authority but what they derive from the Scriptures of truth, whose sense and meaning they are designed to convey; nor are the Lutheran doctors permitted to interpret or explain these books so as to draw from them any propositions that are inconsistent with the express declarations of the word of God. The chief and the most respectable of these human productions is the Confession of Augsburg, with the annexed defence of it against the objections of the Roman catholic doctors. In the next rank

Ia When the confession of Augsburg had been presented to the diet of that city, the Roman catholic doctors were employed to refute the doctrines it contained; and this pretended refutation was also read to that august assembly. A reply was immediately drawn up by Melancthon, and presented to the emperor; who, under the pretext of a pacific spirit, refused to receive it. This reply was published afterward, under the title of "Apologia Confessionis Augustana;" and is the defence of that confession mentioned by Dr. Mosheim as annexed to it. To speak plain, Melancthon's love of peace and concord seems to have carried him beyond what he owed to the truth, in composing this defence of the confession of Augsburg. In the edition of that defence that some Lutherans, and Chytræus among others, look upon as the most genuine and authentic, Melancthon makes several strange concessions to the church of Rome; whether through servile fear, excessive charity, or hesitation of mind, I will not pretend to determine. He speaks of the presence of Christ's body in the eucharist in the very strongest terms that the Roman catholics use to express the monstrous doctrine of transubstantiation; and adopts those remarkable words of Theophylact, that "the bread was not a figure only, but was truly changed into flesh." He approves of that canon of the mass, in which the priest prays that "the bread may be changed into the body of Christ." It is true that in some subsequent editions of the defence or apology now under consideration, these obnoxious passages were left out, and the phraseology, that had given such just offence, was considerably mitigated. There is an ample account of this whole matter, together with a history of the dissen