« EelmineJätka »
successful exertions of Cyrillus Lucaris, the patriarch of Constantinople, to prevent it, are also known: but a full and judicious history appears to be wanting.
Wherever the Turkish empire extends, the Greek church is in a state of subjection; but, in an immense part of the globe, as both the Russias, Georgia, Circassia, Mingrelia, and the islands in the Mediterranean, belonging to the Venetians, the Greek church is that of the state. Even in his present condition of degradation, the patriarch of Constantinople holds his pre-eminence over every other prelate of the Greek church. Mr. Dallaway observes, that, "since the close of the sixteenth century, the Russian church has claimed a jurisdiction independent of the See of Constantinople; nevertheless, appeals have been made to this See, in cases of extraordinary importance." This is confirmed by Mr. King, in his Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek church of Russia. Thus, ever since the separation of the churches, each of the two prelates, the bishop of Rome and the patriarch of Constantinople, has been the centre of different systems.
The Greek church has many important documents of her faith, subsequent to her separation from the church of Rome: two of them are entitled to particular mention. The first, is the Confession of her true and sincere Faith, which, on the taking of Constantinople by Mahomet the
second, in 1453, Gennadius, its patriarch, presented to the conqueror. It was favourably received, and Mahomet delivered into the hand of Gennadius, the crozier or pastoral staff, as an emblem of his investiture of the patriarchal See, and authorized him to assure the Greeks in his name, of their lives, their liberties, and the free exercise of their religion. An account of the interview is given in the Historia Patriarcharum qui sederunt in hac magná catholicáque ecclesiá Constantinopolitanensi postquam cepit eam Sultanus Mechemeta: written in modern Greek, by Emmanuel Malaxus, a Peloponnesian, translated into Latin by Crusius, Professor at Tubingen, and published by him, in his Turco-Græciæ, Libri octo. A copy of this curious work, containing also the Germano-Græcia of the same author, is in the University library, Cambridge.
The second, and by far the most authentic document, which we possess of the creed of the Greek church is, The Orthodox Confession of the Catholic and Apostolic Greek Church. It was published in 1642, by Mogila, the metropolitan of Kiow: It is written in the form of a catechism, and has the approbation of three Russian bishops, his suffragans. It was afterwards approved, with great solemnity, by the patriarchs of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem; by the bishops of Ancyra, Larissa, Chalcedon, Adrianople, Beræa, Rhodes,
of the chief officers of the Greek church of Constantinople. An edition of it in the Greek, Latin and German languages was published at Wratislaw, in octavo, in 1751. An ordinance of Peter the Great, of the patriarchs of Moscovy and the perpetual synod, declared it to express the religious credence of the Russian church; and that the doctrine of it should be universally followed and taught. An abridgment of the most interesting articles in this catechism, is inserted in the Appendix to this work, Note 1.
It was the wish of the writer of these pages, to insert in them an historical account of the confession of faith of Cyrillus Lucaris, the patriarch of Constantinople, subscribed by him in 1621, and of the counter-confession of the council of Jerusalem, held in that city in 1672, and presided by Doritheus, its patriarch; but after much research, the materials for it have not fallen within his reach.
THE SYMBOLIC BOOKS OF THE LUTHERAN
THE Council of Trent was attended with this incalculable good, that, in a series of short canons, it propounded all the articles of catholic faith, in
explicit terms; and thus, by a reference to them, both the members of the roman-catholic church, and the members of the churches separated from her, might readily perceive the points, in which the churches agreed; the points, in which they disagreed; and the nature and extent of the disagreement. A similar exposition of their faith had been previously given by the Lutherans in the confession presented by them at the diet of Augsburgh. It was originally called the Confession of Augsburgh. I. That Confession, II. The Defence of it by Melancthon, III. The Articles of Smalcald, IV. The Great and Little Catechism of Luther, V. And the Form of Concord, which we shall afterwards notice, compose the Symbolic Books of the Lutheran church. We shall give an account of them in this chapter: VI. Then, notice the Saxonic and Wirtemburgh Confessions, VII. Then, offer some general observations on the Constitution and Liturgy of the Lutheran Church, VIII. And on the difference between the Roman-catholic and Lutheran churches on the Doctrine of Justification. IX. We shall conclude the chapter by an account of some communications between the divines of Wirtemburgh and the patriarch of Constantinople, on the Confession of Augsburgh.
The Confession of Augsburgh.
IN 1530, a diet of the German princes was convened by the emperor Charles the fifth, to meet in that city, for the express purpose of pacifying the religious troubles, by which most parts of Germany were then distracted. "In his journey towards Augsburgh," says Dr. Robertson, "the emperor had many opportunities of observing the dispositions of the Germans, in regard to the points in controversy, and found their minds every where so much irritated and inflamed, that nothing tending to severity or rigour ought to be attempted, till the other methods proved ineffectual. His presence seems to have communicated to all parties an universal spirit of moderation and desire of peace. With such sentiments, the protestant princes employed Melancthon, the man of the greatest learning, as well as the most pacific and gentlest spirit among the reformers, to draw up a confession of faith, expressed in terms as little offensive to the roman catholics, as a regard to truth would admit. Melancthon, who seldom suffered the rancour of controversy to invenom his style, even in writings purely polemical, executed a task, so agreeable to his natural disposition, with moderation and
The best account of this important document, which has come to the knowledge of the writer of