length, is for the purpose of demonstrating, that Popery, like the plague, is indiscriminate, implacable, and insatiable in its ravages; sparing neither age nor sex, neither Greek nor Jew, neither Barbarian nor Scythian, neither bond nor free. The entire history of the Greek Church, so far as I am acquainted with it, breathes a consistent spirit of hatred and hostility to the power and pretensions of Rome. Karamsin is at great pains to convince his readers, that Russia did not derive its Christianity from so profane and polluted a source. "Greece," says he, was to us, so to speak, a second country. The Russians always remembered with gratitude, that to HER they were indebted for Christianity, the fine arts, and different advantages of social life. At this time (1453), Constantinople was spoken of at Moscow, as Paris was in the time of Louis XIV.," &c.—(v. p. 436.) Nor does he fail, when instituting a comparison between the Greek and Romish clergy, to speak of the latter in terms of grave and merited disparagement. "Notwithstanding the splendour of our church-notwithstanding the important part which it played, our clergymen never showed that unmeasured ambition, with which history so justly taxes the Romish clergy. By the mutual consent of the parties, but without any legal right, the metropolitans served as arbiters in the quarrels of princes-they guaranteed the sincerity and the sanctity of oaths-while they spake to the consciences, they abstained from wielding the temporal sword, with which the Popes generally menaced those who dared to brave their pontifical will. In fine, it was a happiness for us, that Vladimir preferred Constantinople to Rome.”—(P. 463–5.) An old Russian annalist, who wrote in the fifteenth century, says, "There remains now no other orthodox empire but that of the Russians."

Even the prospect of imminent and otherwise inevitable destruction could not induce the Greeks to adopt the errors, and submit to the yoke, of the Papacy. "Before his death," says Gibbon (vi. 481), "the Emperor John Paleologus had renounced the unpopular measure of a union with the Latins -nor was the idea revived, till the distress of his brother Constantine imposed a last trial of flattery and dissimulation.. A legate was more easily granted than an army, and about six months before the final destruction, the Cardinal Isidore of Russia appeared in that character, with a retinue of priests and soldiers. The emperor saluted him as a friend and father; respectfully listened to his public and private sermons; and with the most obsequious of

the clergy and laymen, subscribed the act of union, as it had been ratified in the Council of Florence. But the dress and language of the Latin priest, who officiated at the altar, was an object of scandal-and it was observed with horror, that he consecrated a cake or wafer of unleavened bread, and poured cold water into the cup of the sacrament! A national historian (Phranza) acknowledges with a blush, that none of his countrymen, not the emperor himself, were sincere in this occasional conformity. Their hasty and unconditional submission was palliated by a promise of future revisal; but the best or the worst of their excuses was in the confession of their own perjury. . . . A rigorous penance was imposed on those who had received the communion from a priest who had given an express or tacit consent to the union. No sooner had the church of Sophia been polluted by the Latin sacrifice, than it was deserted as a Jew's synagogue or a heathen temple by the clergy and people. THE LATINS WERE THE MOST ODIOUS OF HEATHENS AND INFIDELS; and the first minister of the empire, the great duke, was heard to declare, that he had rather behold in Constantinople the turban of Mahomed, than the Pope's train or a cardinal's hat."—(P. 483.) It is even asserted by Ducas, one of the Byzantine historians, that "had an angel offered to exterminate their foes, if they would consent to the union of the church, even then, in that fatal moment [of capture], they would have rejected their safety, or have deceived their gods.”—(P. 501.)

ones.

Even in their amicable intercourse with the Papacy, the Russian sovereigns were always on their guard against being duped or overreached by the wily policy of Rome. In 1525, an envoy from Clement VII. to the Grand Duke Vassili, endeavoured to persuade him to agree to a union between the Greek and Latin Churches, and, "by way of compensation, offered to him" (as Leo X. had done)" the royal dignity. This experiment was not more successful than the preceding Vassili, satisfied with the titles of Prince and Czar, cared little for being styled King,. and had not forgotten the disastrous results of the Council of Florence."(Karamsin, vii. 176.) The Papal ambassador was honourably treated during a two months' residence at Moscow, and an envoy from Russia accompanied him, for whom the Pope "prepared a richly decorated apartment at the Castle of St Angelo.". "The magnificence of the divine service, and the music of the Pope, excited his admiration; but the Pope had the chagrin of hearing him declare, that he had no

order from the Grand Prince to enter upon any negotiation relative to the affairs of the state or of the church.” (P. 177.)

It is not a little curious to perceive in what light the Reformation was viewed by the Russian historian :-"For a long time," says he, "the spiritual power, or the Papal authority, polluted by so many abuses, had weakened itself in the kingdoms of the west; but, obstinately attached to its arrogant pretensions, refused, notwithstanding the progress of enlightenment, to return to the true spirit of Christianity. A poor monk then appeared, who, throwing aside the cowl, ventures to treat the Pope as Antichrist, to accuse him of imposture, greediness, and profanation; and, in spite of the thunder of the church, in spite of councils, and the anger of Charles V., Martin Luther founds a new religion, equally based on evangelical morality," &c.-(vii. 245.) The prejudice and ignorance which Karamsin displays in reference to Luther and his followers, when he states, that "the bold reformer limited himself to preaching only Christian morality," and "set himself up as chief of the church" (p. 246), only renders his testimony against the Papacy the more valuable and important, inasmuch as we thus see, that he was in no degree influenced by Protestant prejudice, when he speaks of the "yoke of the proud, intriguing, and ambitious court of Rome." He asserts, indeed, that "the Catholics were as well entitled to tax the Lutherans with hypocrisy, imposture, and illegal conduct;" but he premises, that "the enemies of the Latin Church justly reproached it with being unfaithful to the true spirit of Christianity."-(P. 247.) My object, of course, has been, not to establish the existence of any sympathy in respect to doctrine, government, or discipline, between the Greek and Protestant Churches, but to demonstrate, that the millions, who belong to the former communion, instead of having ever recognised the pretended supremacy of the Romish usurper, not only now concur with, but anticipated by many ages, the various Protestant denominations, in resolving to have no fellowship with Rome's unhallowed works of darkness, but rather to reprove and stigmatise them as intolerable, unfounded, and inadmissible.

But the most striking instance of Rome's unprincipled audacity, so far as Russia is concerned, remains still to be noticed. About the beginning of the seventeenth century, a daring and reckless adventurer, during the reign of Boris Gudounoff, assumed the name and character of Demetrius (son of John the Terrible), who had been murdered a few years before. The

romantic and almost incredible adventures of that impostor, who surmounted every obstacle, and reigned for several months at Moscow, after the sudden decease of Boris, and the murder of his son, Fèdor (1605–6), occupy nearly half a volume of Karamsin's history (pp. 160-425). But I merely invite your attention to the share which the Papacy took in these transactions, for the purpose of showing, that it is just as much opposed to, and as much detested by, the dignitaries and adherents of the Greek Church, as by us Protestants, and just as unscrupulous in its devices for effecting their subjugation. Otrèpieff (for such was the impostor's real name) entered into the service of a Lithuanian nobleman; and feigning a dangerous malady (p. 169), discovered his pretensions to his patron's Jesuit confessor, and his cause was immediately espoused "by_the_Papal nuncio and the intriguing Jesuits, who then reigned in Poland, governing the conscience of the feeble Sigismund. They thought not of the truth, but solely of the advantage to be derived from these intrigues. The nuncio was already intimately connected with the impostor, and the indefatigable Jesuits conducted the negotiation. The false

Demetrius pledged himself, in writing, to unite himself and all Russia to the Latin Church, and the nuncio to be his advocate, not only in Poland and Rome, but throughout Europe. The abjuration took place in the house of the Jesuits at Cracow. The unfrocked monk was covered with the rags of misery, and hid his face, that he might not be recognised.. He selected a Jesuit confessor," &c. After he had accomplished his triumphant entry into Moscow, and obtained possession of the supreme power, "his inconsistencies soon cooled the love, which the people felt for him. . . . . . He would not make the sign of the cross before the images. Nor were the Russians less scandalised by the preference which he showed for the Jesuits, to whom he gave the finest house in the Kremlin to celebrate the Latin mass."-(P. 294). "No one served the impostor's interests with more zeal than the Pope's nuncio. Addressing his congratulations to him on his accession, in an emphatic and pompous letter, he praised God, and said, 'We have conquered!' and expressed his hopes that the reunion of the churches would be the fruit of his immortal actions! Your portrait is already in the hands of the holy father," &c.—(P. 310). "It appears that the impostor's zeal to render the Russians PAPISTS was much abated, for in spite of his natural

want of forethought, he understood the danger of so absurd a project; and it is doubtful if he would have been willing to have executed it, even if he had reigned longer.”—(P. 313). The impostor married a Polish lady, belonging to the Romish communion. "Notwithstanding all the inconsiderate acts of the unfrocked monk, the Muscovites were persuaded, that he would not dare to give the title of Czarina of Russia to a woman of a DIFFERENT RELIGION, and that Maria would adopt ours; but she was seen decorated with the diadem and the imperial crown, and did not ABJURE the Latin Church, although she had kissed the holy images," &c. -(P. 365). . . . . . "This appeared to be a new SACRILEGE," and, a few days thereafter a general conspiracy broke out, which found the impostor (in spite of many warnings) quite unprepared; he jumped out of a window, and was put to death; his body, dragged from the tomb, was reduced to ashes, then mingled with gunpowder, and a cannon being loaded with them, was fired in the direction, by which the impostor had entered Moscow, in all his magnificence.”– (P. 408).

66

"In

The arts and machinations of Rome, and of the priests, had essentially contributed to the success of the impostorthe horror which the Muscovites cherished against these very confederates was the chief cause of his ruin. the name of the Eternal, march against the odious HERETIC! was the language of Schouisky, his adversary and successor (p. 386). The people pillaged the houses of the Jesuits (p. 394); and amongst the most cruel executioners," who attacked his Polish allies, were disguised priests and monks, who cried on all sides, 'Massacre the enemies of our religion!"—(P. 395).

66

These facts, my friends, and the occasional commentary of the enlightened historian, by whom they are narrated, are sufficient to demonstrate, that the Greeks are as much opposed as the Protestants to the arrogant pretensions and monstrous usurpations of the Romish antichrist; and that, instead of fraternising or sympathising with the "Papists," the Russian Church regards them as involved in the guilt of heresy and schism.

Although "the disciples were first called Christians at Antioch" (Acts xi. 26), they were de facto Christians prior to that period. Although the opponents of antichristian usurpation were first denominated Protestants at Spire in 1529, it is a great mistake to designate that epoch as constituting