DISTINGUISHING DOCTRINE OF THE Thus these Monophysites, both Asiatic and African, differ from other Christian societies, whether of the Greek or Latin communion, and from each other, in several points, both of doctrine and worship; though the principal reason of their separation lies in the opinion which they entertain concerning the nature and person of Jesus Christ. Following the doctrine of Dioscorus, Barsuma, Xenias, Fullo, and others, whom they consider as the heads, or chief ornaments of their sect, they maintain that in Christ the divine and human nature were reduced into one, and consequently reject both the decrees of the council of Chalcedon, and the famous letter of Leo the Great. That, however, they may not seem to have the least inclination towards the doctrine of Eutyches, which they profess to reject with the most ardent zeal, they propose their own system with the utmost caution and circumspection, and hold the following obscure principles:--that the two natures are united in Christ without either confusion or mixture; so that though the nature of our Saviour be really one, yet it is at the same time two-fold and compound. By this declaration, it appears, that those who look upon the difference between the Monophysites and the Greek and Latin churches, rather as a dispute about words, than things, are not so far mistaken as some have imagined. The truth is, that the terms used by the Monophysites are something more than equivocal; they are contradictory. It may also be observed, that those who pretend to hold a middle path between the doctrines of Nestorius and Eutyches, were greatly embarrassed, as it was almost impossible to oppose the one, without adopting, or at least appearing to adopt, the other.-But, be that as it may, "both the Asiatic and African Monophysites of the present times are, generally speaking, so deeply sunk in ignorance, that their attachment to the doctrine by which they are distinguished from other Christian societies, is rather founded on their own obstinacy, and on the authority of their ancestors, than on any other circumstance; nor do they even pretend to appeal, in its behalf, to reason and argument."* UNSUCCESSFUL ATTEMPTS OF THE CHURCH OF ROME TO CONVERT THEM. Thus situated, the votaries of Rome might well suppose that the Monophysites would become an easy prey, and be readily brought under the papal yoke; and they seem to have been no less indefatigable in attempting the subjection of the African Monophysites, than of those in Asia. The Portuguese having opened a passage into the country of the Abyssinians in the fifteenth century, this was thought to be a favourable occasion for extending the in * Dr. MOSHEIM's Eccl. Hist. vol. iv. pp. 262-3. fluence and authority of the Roman pontiff. Accordingly, John Bermudes was sent into Ethiopia for this purpose; and, that he might appear with a certain degree of dignity, he was clothed with the title of Patriarch of the Abyssinians. The same important commission was afterwards given to several Jesuits; and, at first, several circumstances seemed to promise them a successful and happy ministry. But the event did not answer this fond expectation, for the Abyssinians stood so firm to the faith of their ancestors, that towards the end of the sixteenth century, the Jesuits had almost lost all hopes of succeeding in that quarter. The attention of the Romanists was next directed to the Copts; and, in 1562, Christopher Roderic, a Jesuit of note, was sent by Pope Pius IV. to propagate the cause of Popery among that people. But this ecclesiastic, notwithstanding the rich presents and subtle arguments by which he attempted to change the sentiments and shake the constancy of Gabriel, the Coptic patriarch, returned to Rome, with no other effect of his embassy than fair words, and a few compliments. Towards the end of the same century, and during the pontificate of Clement the VIII., an embassy from Gabriel, another Coptic patriarch of Alexandria, appeared at Rome, and was considered as a subject of triumph and boasting by the creatures of the Pope; but the more candid and sensible, even of the Romanists, looked upon this embassy as merely a stratagem of the Jesuits, with a view to induce the Abyssinians to follow the pretended example of that patriarch, to whom they are accustomed to look up with respect and veneration. One thing, however, is certain, that, notwithstanding that ignorance and poverty which must expose the Copts to the seductions of sophistry and gain, they have all along stood firm to their principles; and, from that time to the present day, have ever made an obstinate resistance to all the promises, presents, and attempts, that have been employed by the papal missionaries to bring them under the Roman yoke. About the beginning of the seventeenth century, the Portuguese Jesuits renewed the mission to Abyssinia, under the most auspicious encouragement; for the emperor Susneius, alias Seltam Seguid, took them under his protection, created one of them, Alphonso Mendez, patriarch of the Abyssinians, and not only swore allegiance to the Roman pontiff in 1626, but also obliged his subjects to forsake the rites and tenets of their ancestors, and to embrace the doctrine and worship of the Romish Church. But the new patriarch ruined, by his intemperate zeal, imprudence, and arrogance, the cause in which he had embarked, and soon occasioned the total subversion of the Roman pontiff's authority and jurisdiction, which had at length been established upon solid foundations. So exasperated was the monarch at the violent proceedings of Mendez and his brethren, that in 1631 he annulled the orders he had formerly given in favour of Popery; and his son Basilides, in 1634, banished them, together with all Europeans connected with the mission, from his dominions, treating them with the greatest rigour and severity. From this period the very name of Rome, its religion, and its pontiff, have all along been objects of peculiar aversion among the Abyssinians; every art that the Romanists have since then fallen upon, and every attempt they have made to recover the footing they had thus lost in Abyssinia, have hitherto proved unsuccessful; nor have the pontiffs, or their votaries, been as yet able to calm the resentment of that exasperated nation, or to conquer its aversion to the worship and jurisdiction of the Church of Rome. So groundless is the assertion, that the emperor of Abyssinia embraced the communion of Rome in 1712, having previously made offer of his submission to Pope Clement the XI., that, so lately as about the middle of last century, "the edict prohibiting all Europeans to enter into Ethiopia, was still in force, and was executed with the greatest severity. Even the Turks are included in this prohibition; and, what is still more remarkable, the Egyptian Monophysites, who have once entered within the Abyssinian territories, are not allowed to return into their own country."* * Dr. MOSHEIM's Eccl. Hist. vol v. p. 143, note (x) where see more on this subject. |