Maronites

MARONITES

In ecclesiastical history, a sect of eastern Christians who follow the Syrian rite, and are subject to the pope; their principal habitation being on Mount Libanus. Mosheim informs us that the doctrine of the Monothelites, condemned and exploded by the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the Mardaites, a people who inhabited the Mounts Libanus and Atilibanus, and who about the conclusion of the seventh century, were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop; a name which they still retain. None (he says) of the ancient writers give any account of the first person who instructed these mountaineers in the doctrine of the Monothelites: it is probable, however, from several circumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they adopted; and that this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived in the character of a monk in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of Mount Libanus. One thing is certain, from the testimony of Tyrius and other unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic records, viz. that the Maronites retained the opinions of the Monothelites until the twelfth century when abandoning and renouncing the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were re-admitted in the year 1182 to the communion of the Roman church.

The most learned of the modern Maronites have left no method unemployed to defend their church against this accusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies, that their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, in their attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the doctrine of the Monophysites, or Monothelites. But all their efforts are insufficient to prove the truth of these assertions to such as have any acquaintance with the history of the church, and the records of ancient times; for to all such, the testimonies they allege will appear absolutely fictitious, and destitute of authority. Faustus Noiron, a Maronite settled at Rome, has published an apology for Maro and the rest of his nation. His tenet is, that they really took their name from the Maro, who lived about the year 400, and of whom mention is made in Chrysostom, Theodoret, and the Menologium of the Greeks. He adds, that the disciples of this Maro spread themselves throughout all Syria; that they built several monasteries, and among others one that bore the name of their leader; that all the Syrians who were not tainted with heresy took refuge among them; and that for this reason the heretics of those times called them Maronites.

Mosheim observes, that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff 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 poverty, under the tyrannical yoke of the Mahometans, the bishop of Rome is under the necessity of furnishing them with subsidies as may appease their oppressors procure a subsistence for the bishop and clergy, provide all things requisite for the support of their church and the uninterrupted exercise of public worship, and contribute in general to lessen their miseries. It is certain 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 non-conforming 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. The Maronites have a patriarch who resides in the monastery of Cannubin, on Mount Libanus, and assumes the title of patriarch of Antioch, and the name of Peter, as if he seemed desirous of being considered as the successor of that apostle. He is elected by the clergy and the people, according to the ancient custom; but, since their re-union with the church of Rome, he is obliged to have a bull of confirmation from the pope. He keeps a perpetual celibacy, as well as the rest of the bishops, his suffragans: as to the rest of the ecclesiastics, they are allowed to marry before ordination; and yet the monastic life is in great esteem among them. Their monks are of the order of St. Anthony, and live in the most obscure places in the mountains, far from the commerce of the world. As to their faith, they agree in the main with the rest of the Eastern church. Their priests do not say mass singly, but all say it together, standing round the altar. They communicate in unleavened bread: and the laity have hitherto partaken in both kinds, though the practice of communicating in one has of late been getting footing, having been introduced by little and little. In Lent they eat nothing, unless it be two or three hours before sun-rising: their other fastings are very numerous.

Fuente: Theological Dictionary

Maronites

Name of one of the Uniat Churches numbering about 300,000, scattered through Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, Egypt, and the United States (37 churches). Their name is said to have originated from Saint Maron (350-433 ), a Syrian hermit who, with a few disciples on the banks of the Orontes, remained faithful during the Monophysite heresy. Authorities disagree as to their history before the 16th century, some claiming that they succumbed to the Monothelite heresy (6th century) and were converted from it in the 12th century, others stating that they were governed by an unbroken line of patriarchs commencing with Saint John Maro (whose existence seems doubtful) and were never schismatical or heretical. From the time of the Fifth Lateran Council (1512-1517) the Maronites have been in permanent and uninterrupted communion with Rome. They use the rite of Saint James in the ancient Aramaic language, which was the language of Our Lord.

Fuente: New Catholic Dictionary

Maronites

This article will give first the present state of the Maronite nation and Church; after which their history will be studied, with a special examination of the much discussed problem of the origin of the Church and the nation and their unvarying orthodoxy.

I. PRESENT STATE OF THE MARONITES

A. Ethnographical and Political

The Maronites (Syriac Marunôye; Arabic Mawarinah) number about 300,000 souls, distributed in Syria, Palestine, Cyprus, and Egypt. Of this number about 230,000 inhabit the Lebanon, forming nearly five-eighths of the population of that vilayet and the main constituent of the population in four out of seven kaïmakats, viz., those of Batrun, Kasrawan, Meten, and Gizzin (the Orthodox Greeks predominating in Koura, the Catholic Greeks in Zahlé, and the Druses in Shûf). They are of Syrian race, but for many centuries have spoken only Arabic, though in a dialect which must have retained many Syriac peculiarities. In the mountain districts manners are very simple, and the Maronites are occupied with tillage and cattle-grazing, or the silk industry; in the towns they are engaged in commerce. Bloody vendettas, due to family and clan rivalries, are still kept up in the mountain districts. The population increases very rapidly, and numbers of Maronites emigrate to the different provinces of the Ottoman Empire, to Europe, particularly France, to the French colonies, but most of all to the United States. The emigrants return with their fortunes made, and too often bring with them a taste for luxury and pleasure, sometimes also a decided indifference to religion which in some instances, degenerates into hostility.

For many centuries the Maronite mountaineers have been able to keep themselves half independent of the Ottoman Empire. At the opening of the nineteenth century their organization was entirely feudal. The aristocratic families — who, especially when they travelled in Europe, affected princely rank — elected the emir. The power of the Maronite emir preponderated in the Lebanon, especially when the Syrian family of Benî Shibâb forsook Islam for Christianity. The famous emir Beshîr, ostensibly a Mussulman, was really a Maronite; but after his fall the condition of the Maronites changed for the worse. A merciless struggle against the Druses, commencing in 1845, devastated the whole Lebanon. Two emirs were then created, a Maronite and a Druse, both bearing the title of Kaïmakam, and they were held responsible to the Pasha of Saïda. In 1860 the Druses, impelled by fanaticism, massacred a large number of Maronites at Damascus and in the Lebanon. As the Turkish Government looked on supinely at this process of extermination, France intervened: an expedition led by General de Beaufort d’Hautpoult restored order. In 1861 the present system, with a single governor for all the Lebanon, was inaugurated. This governor is appointed by the Turkish Government for five years. There are no more feudal rights; all are equal before the law, without distinction of race; each nation has its sheik, or mayor, who takes cognizance of communal affairs, and is a judge in the provincial council. Every Maronite between the ages of fifteen and sixty pays taxes, with the exception of the clergy, though contributions are levied on monastic property. In contrast to the rule among the other rites, the Maronite patriarch is not obliged to solicit his firman of investiture from the sultan; but, on the other hand, he is not the temporal head of his nation, and has no agent at the Sublime Porte, the Maronites being, together with the other Uniat communities, represented by the Vakeel of the Latins. Outside of the Lebanon they are entirely subject to the Turks; in these regions the bishops — e.g., the Archbishop of Beirut — must obtain their bérat, in default of which they would have no standing with the civil government, and could not sit in the provincial council.

Like the other Catholic communities of the Turkish Empire, the Maronites are under the protection of France, but in their case the protectorate is combined with more cordial relations dating from the connection between this people and the French as early as the twelfth century. This cordiality has been strengthened by numerous French interventions, from the Capitulations of Francis I to the campaign of 1861, and by the wide diffusion of the French language and French culture, thanks to the numerous establishments in the Lebanon under the direction of French missionaries — Jesuits, Lazarists, and religious women of different orders. It is impossible to foresee what changes will be wrought in the situation of the Maronites, national and international, by the accession to power of the “Young Turks”.

B. The Maronite Church

The Maronite Church is divided into nine dioceses: Gibail and Batrun (60,000 souls); Beirut and one part of the Lebanon (50,000); Tyre and Sidon (47,000); Baalbek and Kesraouan (40,000); Tripoli (35,000); Cyprus and another part of the Lebanon (30,000); Damascus and Hauran (25,000); Aleppo and Cilicia (5000); Egypt (7000). The last-named diocese is under a vicar patriarchal, who also has charge of the Maronite communities in foreign parts — Leghorn, Marseilles, Paris — and particularly those in America.

(1) The Patriarch

The official title is Patriarcha Antiochenus Maronitarum. The Maronite patriarch shares the title of Antioch with three other Catholic patriarchs — the Melchite, the Syrian Catholic, and the Latin (titular) — one schismatical (Orthodox), and one heretical (Syrian Jacobite). The question will be considered later on, whether, apart from the concession of the Holy See, the Maronite patriarch can allege historical right to the title of Antioch. Since the fifteenth century his traditional residence has been the cloister of St. Mary of Kanôbin, where are the tombs of the patriarchs. In winter he resides at Bkerke, below Beirut, in the district of Kesraouan. He himself administers the Diocese of Gibail-Batrun, but with the assistance of the titular Bishops of St-Jean d’Acre, Tarsus, and Nazareth, who also assist him in the general administration of the patriarchate. He has the right to nominate others, and there are also several patriarchal vicars who are not bishops. The patriarch is elected by the Maronite bishops, usually on the ninth day after the see has been declared vacant. He must be not less than forty years of age, and two-thirds of the whole number of votes are required to elect him. On the next day the enthronization takes place, and then the solemn benediction of the newly elected patriarch. The proceedings of the assembly are transmitted to Rome; the pope may either approve or disapprove the election; if he approves, he sends the pallium to the new patriarch; if not, he quashes the acts of the assembly and is free to name a candidate of his own choice. The chief prerogatives of the patriarch are: to convoke national councils; to choose and consecrate bishops; to hear and judge charges against bishops; to visit dioceses other than his own once in every three years. He blesses the holy oils and distributes them to the clergy and laity; he grants indulgences, receives the tithes and the taxes for dispensations, and may accept legacies, whether personal or for the Church. Before 1736 he received fees for ordinations and the blessing of holy oils; this privilege being suppressed, Benedict XIV substituted for it permission to receive a subsidium caritativum. The distinctive insignia of the patriarch are the masnaftô (a form of head-dress), the phainô (a kind of cape or cope), the orarion (a kind of pallium), the tiara, or mitre (other bishops wear only the orarion and the mitre), the pastoral staff surmounted with a cross, and, in the Latin fashion, the pastoral ring and the pectoral cross. To sum up, the Maronite patriarch exercises over his subjects, virtually, the authority of a metropolitan. He himself is accountable only to the pope and the Congregation of Propaganda; he is bound to make his visit ad limina only once in every ten years. The present (1910) occupant of the patriarchal throne is Mgr. Elias Hoysk, elected in 1899.

(2) The Episcopate

The bishops are nominated by the patriarch. The title of Archbishop (metropolitan), attached to the Sees of Aleppo, Beirut, Damascus, Tyre and Sidon, and Tripoli, is purely honorary. A bishop without a diocese resides at Ehden. It has been said above that the patriarch nominates a certain number of titular bishops. The bishop, besides his spiritual functions, exercises, especially outside of the Vilayet of the Lebanon, a judicial and civil jurisdiction.

The bishops are assisted by chorepiscopi, archdeacons, economi, and periodeutes (bardût). The chorepiscopus visits, and can also consecrate, churches. The chorepiscopus of the episcopal residence occupies the first place in the cathedral in the absence of the bishop. The periodeutes, as his name indicates, is a kind of vicar forane who acts for the bishop in the inspection of the rural clergy. The economus is the bishop’s coadjutor for the administration of church property and the episcopal mensa.

(3) The Clergy

Of the 300 parishes some are given by the bishops to regulars, others to seculars. Priests without parishes are celibate and dependent on the patriarch. The others are married — that is to say, they marry while in minor orders, but cannot marry a second time. There are about 1100 secular priests and 800 regulars. The education of the clergy is carried on in five patriarchal and nine diocesan seminaries. Many study at Rome, and a great number in France, thanks to the “Œuvre de St Louis” and the burses supported by the French Government. The intellectual standard of the Maronite clergy is decidedly higher than that of the schismatical and heretical clergy who surround them. The married priests of the rural parishes are often very simple men, still more often they are far from well-to-do, living almost exclusively on the honoraria received for Masses and the presents of farm produce given them by the country people. Most of them have to eke out these resources by cultivating their little portions of land or engaging in some modest industry.

(4) The Religious

These number about 2000, of whom 800 are priests. They all observe the rule known as that of St. Anthony, but are divided into three congregations: the oldest, that of St. Anthony, or of Eliseus, was approved in 1732. It was afterwards divided into Aleppines and peasants, or Baladites, a division approved by Clement XIV in 1770. In the meantime another Antonian congregation had been founded under the patronage of Isaias, and approved in 1740. The Aleppines have 6 monasteries; the Isaians, 13 or 14; the Baladites, 25. The Aleppines have a procurator at Rome, residing near S. Pietro in Vincoli. The lay brothers give themselves up to manual labour; the priests, to intellectual, with the care of souls, having charge of a great many parishes. The monastic habit consists of a black tunic and a girdle of leather, a cowl, mantle, and sandals. — There are also seven monasteries, containing about 200 religious, under a rule founded by a former Bishop of Aleppo. At Aintoura, also, there are some Maronite sisters following the Salesian Rule.

(5) The Liturgy

The Maronite is a Syrian Rite, Syriac being the liturgical language, though the Gospel is read in Arabic for the benefit of the people. Many of the priests, who are not sufficiently learned to perform the Liturgy in Syriac, use Arabic instead, but Arabic written in Syriac characters (Karshuni). The liturgy is of the Syrian type, i.e., the liturgy of St. James, but much disfigured by attempts to adapt it to Roman usages. Adaptation, often useless and servile, to Roman usages is the distinguishing characteristic of the Maronite among Oriental Rites. This appears, not only in the Liturgy, but also in the administration of all the Sacraments. The Maronites consecrate unleavened bread, they do not mingle warm water in the Chalice, and they celebrate many Masses at the same altar. Communion under both kinds was discouraged by Gregory XIII and at last formally forbidden in 1736, though it is still permitted for the deacon at high Mass. Benedict XIV forbade the communicating of newly baptized infants. Baptism is administered in the Latin manner, and since 1736 confirmation, which is reserved to the bishop, has been given separately. The formula for absolution is not deprecative, as it is in other Eastern Rites, but indicative, as in the Latin, and Maronite priests can validly absolve Catholics of all rites. The orders are: tonsure, psalte, or chanter, lector, sub-deacon, deacon, priest. Ordination as psalte may be received at the age of seven; as deacon, at twenty-one; as priest, at thirty, or, with a dispensation, at twenty-five. Wednesday and Friday of every week are days of abstinence; a fast lasts until midday, and the abstinence is from meat and eggs. Lent lasts for seven weeks, beginning at Quinquagesima; the fast is observed every day except Saturdays, Sundays, and certain feast days; fish is allowed. There are neither ember days nor vigils, but there is abstinence during twenty days of Advent and fourteen days preceding the feast of Sts Peter and Paul. Latin devotional practices are more customary among the Maronites than in any other Uniat Eastern Church — benediction of the Blessed Sacrament, the Way of the Cross, the Rosary, the devotion to the Sacred Heart, etc.

(6) The Faithful

In the interior of the country the faithful are strongly attached to their faith and very respectful to the monks and the other clergy. Surrounded by Mussulmans, schismatics, and heretics, they are proud to call themselves Roman Catholics; but education is as yet but little developed, despite the laudable efforts of some of the bishops, and although schools have been established, largely through the efforts of the Latin missionaries and the support of the society of the Ecoles d’Orient, besides the Collège de la Sagesse at Beirut. Returning emigrants do nothing to raise the moral and religious standard. The influence of the Western press is outrageously bad. Wealthy Maronites, too often indifferent, if not worse, do not concern themselves about this state of affairs, which is a serious cause of anxiety to the more intelligent and enlightened among the clergy. But the Maronite nation as a whole remains faithful to its traditions. If they are not exactly the most important community of Eastern Uniats in point of numbers, it is at least true to say that they form the most effective fulcrum for the exertion of a Catholic propaganda in the Lebanon and on the Syrian coast.

II. HISTORY OF THE MARONITES

All competent authorities agree as to the history of the Maronites as far back as the sixteenth century, but beyond that period the unanimity ceases. They themselves assert at once the high antiquity and the perpetual orthodoxy of their nation; but both of these pretensions have constantly been denied by their Christian — even Catholic — rivals in Syria, the Melchites, whether Catholic or Orthodox, the Jacobite Syrians, and the Catholic Syrians. Some European scholars accept the Maronite view; the majority reject it. So many points in the primitive history of the nation are still obscure that we can here only set forth the arguments advanced on either side, without drawing any conclusion.

The whole discussion gravitates around a text of the twelfth century. William of Tyre (De Bello Sacro, XX, viii) relates the conversion of 40,000 Maronites in the year 1182. The substance of the leading text is as follows: “After they [the nation that had been converted, in the vicinity of Byblos] had for five hundred years adhered to the false teaching of an heresiarch named Maro, so that they took from him the name of Maronites, and, being separated from the true Church had been following their own peculiar liturgy [ab ecclesia fidelium sequestrati seorsim sacramenta conficerent sua], they came to the Patriarch of Antioch, Aymery, the third of the Latin patriarchs, and, having abjured their error, were, with their patriarch and some bishops, reunited to the true Church. They declared themselves ready to accept and observe the prescriptions of the Roman Church. There were more than 40,000 of them, occupying the whole region of the Lebanon, and they were of great use to the Latins in the war against the Saracens. The error of Maro and his adherents is and was, as may be read in the Sixth Council, that in Jesus Christ there was, and had been since the beginning only one will and one energy. And after their separation they had embraced still other pernicious doctrines.”

We proceed to consider the various interpretations given to this text.

A. The Maronite Position

Maro, a Syrian monk, who died in the fifth century and is noticed by Theodoret (Religionis Historia, xvi), had gathered together some disciples on the banks of the Orantes, between Emesa and Apamea. After his death the faithful built, at the place, where he had lived, a monastery which they named after him. When Syria was divided by heresies, the monks of Beit-Marun remained invariably faithful to the cause of orthodoxy, and rallied to it the neighbouring inhabitants. This was the cradle of the Maronite nation. The Jacobite chroniclers bear witness that these populations aided the Emperor Heraclius in the struggle against Monophysitism even by force (c. 630). Moreover, thirty years later when Mu‘awyah, the future caliph, was governor of Damascus (658-58), they disputed with the Jacobites in his presence, and the Jacobites, being worsted, had to pay a large penalty. The Emperor Heraclius and his successors having meanwhile succumbed to the Monothelite heresy, which was afterwards condemned in the Council of 681, the Maronites, who until then had been partisans of the Byzantine emperor (Melchites), broke with him, so as not to be in communion with a heretic. From this event dates the national independence of the Maronites. Justinian II (Rhinotmetes) wished to reduce them to subjection: in 694 his forces attacked the monastery, destroyed it, and marched over the mountain towards Tripoli, to complete their conquest. But the Maronites, with the Catholic Patriarch of Antioch, St. John Maro, at their head, routed the Greeks near Amiun, and saved that autonomy which they were able to maintain through succeeding ages. They are to be identified with the Mardaïtes of Syria, who, in the Lebanon, on the frontier of the Empire, successfully struggled with the Byzantines and the Arabs. There the Crusaders found them, and formed very close relations with them. William of Tyre relates that, in 1182, the Maronites to the number of 40,000, were converted from Monothelitism; but either this is an error of information, due to William’s having copied, without critically examining, the Annals of Eutychius, an Egyptian Melchite who calumniated the Maronites, or else these 40,000 were only a very small part of the nation who had, through ignorance, allowed themselves to be led astray by the Monothelite propaganda of a bishop named Thomas of Kfar­tas. Besides, the Maronites can show an unbroken list of patriarchs between the time of St. John Maro and that of Pope Innocent III; these patriarchs, never having erred in faith, or strayed into schism, are the only legitimate heirs of the Patriarchate of Antioch, or at least they have a claim to that title certainly not inferior to the claim of any rival. — Such is the case frequently presented by Maronites, and in the last place by Mgr. Debs, Archbishop of Beirut (Perpétuelle orthodoxie des Maronites).

B. Criticism of the Maronite Position

(1) The Monastery of St. Maro before the Monothelite Controversy

The existence since the sixth century of a convent of St. Maro, or of Beit-Marun, between Apamea and Elmesa, on the right bank of the Orontes, is an established fact, and it may very well have been built on the spot where Maro the solitary dwelt, of whom Theodoret speaks. This convent suffered for its devotion to the true faith, as is strikingly evident from an address presented by its monks to the Metropolitan of Apamea in 517, and to Pope Hormisdas, complaining of the Monophysites, who had massacred 350 monks for siding with the Council of Chalcedon. In 536 the apocrisarius Paul appears at Constantinople subscribing the Acts of the Fourth Œcumenical Council in the name of the monks of St. Maro. In 553, this same convent is represented at the Fifth Œcumenical Council by the priest John and the deacon Paul. The orthodox emperors, particularly Justinian (Procopius, “De Ædific.”, V, ix) and Heraclius, gave liberal tokens of their regard for the monastery. The part played by the monks of St. Maro, isolated in the midst of an almost entirely Monophysite population, should not be underrated. But it will be observed that in the texts cited there is mention of a single convent, and not by any means of a population such as could possibly have originated the Maronite nation of later times.

(2) St. John Maro

The true founder of the Maronite nation, the patriarch St. John Maro, would have lived towards the close of the seventh century, but, unfortunately, his very existence is extremely doubtful. All the Syriac authors and the Byzantine priest Timotheus derive the name Maronite from that of the convent Beni-Marun. The words of Timotheus are: Maronîtai dè kèklentai àpò toû monasteríon aútôn Marò kalonménou èn Suría (in P.G. LXXXVI, 65 and note 53). Renaudot absolutely denies the existence of John Maro. But, supposing that he did exist, as may be inferred from the testimony of the tenth-century Melchite Patriarch Eutychius (the earliest text bearing on the point), his identity has baffled all researches. His name is not to be found in any list of Melchite Patriarchs of Antioch, whether Greek or Syriac. As the patriarchs of the seventh and eighth centuries were orthodox, there was no reason why St. John Maro should have been placed at the head of an alleged orthodox branch of the Church of Antioch. The episcopal records of Antioch for the period in question may be summarized as follows: 685, election of Theophanes; 686, probable election of Alexander; 692, George assists at the Trullan Council; 702-42, vacancy of the See of Antioch on account of Mussulman persecutions; 742, election of Stephen. But, according to Mgr Debs, the latest Maronite historian, St. John Maro would have occupied the patriarchal See of Antioch from 685 to 707.

The Maronites insist, affirming that St. John Maro must have been Patriarch of Antioch because his works present him under that title. The works of John Maro referred to are an exposition of the Liturgy of St. James and a treatise on the Faith. The former is published by Joseph Aloysius Assemani in his “Codex Liturgicus” and certainly bears the name of John Maro, but the present writer has elsewhere shown that this alleged commentary of St. John Maro is no other than the famous commentary of Dionysius bar-Salibi, a Monophysite author of the twelfth century, with mutilations, additions, and accommodations to suit the changes by which the Maronites have endeavoured to make the Syriac Liturgy resemble the Roman (Dionysius Bar Salibi, “expositio liturgiæ”, ed. Labourt, pref.). The treatise on the Faith is not likely to be any more authentic than the liturgical work: it bears a remarkable resemblance to a theological treatise of Leontius of Byzantium, and should therefore, very probably, be referred to the second half of the sixth century and the first half of the seventh — a period much earlier than that which the Maronites assign to St. John Maro. Besides, it contains nothing about Monothelitism — which, in fact, did not yet exist. John Maro, we must therefore conclude, is a very problematic personality; if he existed at all, it was as a simple monk, not by any means as a Melchite Patriarch of Antioch.

(3) Uninterrupted Orthodoxy of the Maronites

It is to be remembered that before the rise of Monothelitism, the monks of St. Maro, to whom the Maronites trace their origin, were faithful to the Council of Chalcedon as accepted by the Byzantine emperors; they were Melchites in the full sense of the term — i.e., Imperialists, representing the Byzantine creed among populations which had abandoned it, and, we may add, representing the Byzantine language and Byzantine culture among peoples whose speech and manners were those of Syria. There is no reason to think that, when the Byzantine emperors, by way of one last effort at union with their Jacobite subjects, Syrian and Egyptian, endeavoured to secure the triumph of Monothelitism — a sort of compromise between Monophysistism and Chalcedonian orthodoxy — the monks of St. Maro abandoned the Imperialist party and faithfully adhered to orthodoxy. On the contrary, all the documents suggest that the monks of Beit-Marun embraced Monothelitism, and still adhered to that heresy even after the Council of 681, when the emperors had abjured it. It is not very difficult to produce evidence of this in a text of Dionysius of Tell-Mahré (d. 845) preserved to us in the chronicle of Michael the Syrian, which shows Heraclius forcing most of the Syrian monks to accept his Ecthesis, and those of Beit-Marun are counted among the staunchest partisans of the emperor. One very instructive passage in this same chronicle, referring to the year 727, recounts at length a quarrel between the two branches of the Chalcedonians, the orthodox and the Monothelites, where the former are called Maximists, after St. Maximus the confessor, the uncompromising adversary of the Monothelites, while the latter are described as the “party of Beit-Marun” and “monks of Beit-Marun”. We are here told how the monks of St. Maro have a bishop in their monastery, how they convert most of the Melchites of the country districts to Monothelitism and even successfully contend with the Maximists (i.e., the Catholics) for the possession of a church at Aleppo. From that time on, being cut off from communion with the Melchite (Catholic) Patriarch of Antioch, they do as the Jacobites did before them, and for the same reasons: they set up a separate Church, eschewing, however, with equal horror the Monophysites, who reject the Council of Chalcedon, and the Catholics who condemn the Monothelite Ecthesis of Heraclius and accept the Sixth Œcumenical Council. Why the monks of Beit-Marun, hitherto so faithful to the Byzantine emperors, should have deserted them when they returned to orthodoxy, we do not know; but it is certain that in this defection the Maronite Church and nation had its origin, and that the name Maronite thenceforward becomes a synonym for Monothelite, as well with Byzantine as with Nestorian or Monophysite writers. Says the Chronicle of Michael the Syrian, referring to this period: “The Maronites remained as they are now. They ordain a patriarch and bishops from their convent. They are separated from Maximus, in that they confess only one will in Christ, and say: ‘Who was crucified for us’. But they accept the Synod of Chalcedon.” St. Germanus of Constantinople, in his treatise “De Hæresibus et Synodis” (about the year 735), writes: “There are some heretics who, rejecting the Fifth and Sixth Councils, nevertheless contend against the Jacobites. The latter treat them as men without sense, because, while accepting the Fourth Council, they try to reject the next two. Such are the Maronites, whose monastery is situated in the very mountains of Syria.” (The Fourth Council was that of Chalcedon.) St. John Damascene, a Doctor of the Church (d. 749), also considered the Maronites heretics. He reproaches them, among other things, with continuing to add the words staurotheis dì emâs (Who didst suffer for us on the Cross) to the Trisagion, an addition susceptible of an orthodox sense, but which had eventually been prohibited in order to prevent misunderstanding [maronísomen prosthémenoi tô trisagío tèn staúrosin (“We shall be following Maro, if we join the Crucifixion to our Trisagion” — “De Hymno Trisagio”, ch. v). Cf. perì &#242rthoû phronematos, ch. v.]. A little later, Timotheus I, Patriarch of the Nestorians, receives a letter from the Maronites, proposing that he should admit them to his communion. His reply is extant, though as yet unpublished, in which he felicitates them on rejecting, as he himself does, the idea of more than one energy and one will in Christ (Monothelitism), but lays down certain conditions which amount to an acceptance of his Nestorianism, though in a mitigated form. Analogous testimony may be found in the works of the Melchite controversialist Theodore Abukara (d. c. 820) and the Jacobite theologian Habib Abu-Raïta (about the same period), as also in the treatise “De Receptione Hareticorum” attributed to the priest Timotheus (P.G., 86, 65). Thus, in the eighth century there exists a Maronite Church distinct from the Catholic Church and from the Monophysite Church; this Church extends far into the plain of Syria and prevails especially in the mountain regions about the monastery of Beit-Marun. In the ninth century this Church was probably confined to the mountain regions. The destruction of the monastery of Beit-Marun did not put an end to it; it completed its organization by setting up a patriarch, the first known Maronite patriarch dating from 1121, though there may have been others before him. The Maronite mountaineers preserved a relative autonomy between the Byzantine emperors, on the one hand, who reconquered Antioch in the tenth century, and, on the other hand, the Mussulmans. The Crusaders entered into relations with them. In 1182, almost the entire nation — 40,000 of them — were converted. From the moment when their influence ceased to extend over the hellenized lowlands of Syria, the Maronites ceased to speak any language but Syriac, and used no other in their liturgy. It is impossible to assign a date to this disappearance of hellenism among them. At the end of the eighth century the Maronite Theophilus of Edessa knew enough Greek to translate and comment on the Homeric poems. It is very likely that Greek was the chief language used in the monastery of Beit-Marun, at least until the ninth century; that monastery having been destroyed, there remained only country and mountain villages where nothing but Syriac had ever been used either colloquially or in the liturgy.

It would be pleasant to be able at least to say that the orthodoxy of the Maronites has been constant since 1182, but unfortunately, even this cannot be asserted. There have been at least partial defections among them. No doubt the patriarch Jeremias al Amshîti visited Innocent III at Rome in 1215, and he is known to have taken home with him some projects of liturgical reform. But in 1445, after the Council of Florence, the Maronites of Cyprus return to Catholicism (Hefele, “Histoire des counciles”, tr. Delare, XI, 540). In 1451, Pius II, in his letter to Mahomet II, still ranks them among the heretics. Gryphone, an illustrious Flemish Franciscan of the end of the fifteenth century, converted a large number of them, receiving several into the Order of St. Francis, and one of them, Gabriel Glaï (Barclaïus, or Benclaïus), whom he had caused to be consecrated Bishop of Lefkosia in Cyprus, was the first Maronite scholar to attempt to establish his nation’s claim to unvarying orthodoxy: in a letter written in 1495 he gives what purports to be a list of eighteen Maronite patriarchs in succession, from the beginning of their Church down to his own time, taken from documents which he assumes to come down from the year 1315. — It is obvious to remark how recent all that is. — The Franciscan Suriano (“Il trattato di Terra Santa e dell’ Oriente di fr. Fr. Suriano”, ed. Golubovitch), who was delegated to the Maronites by Leo X, in 1515, points out many traits of ignorance and many abuses among them, and regards Maro as a Monothelite. However, it may be asserted that the Maronites never relapsed into Monothelitism after Gryphone’s mission. Since James of Hadat (1439-48) all their patriarchs have been strictly orthodox.

C. The Maronite Church since the Sixteenth Century

The Lateran Council of 1516 was the beginning of a new era, which has also been the most brilliant, in Maronite history. The letters of the patriarch Simon Peter and of his bishops may be found in the eleventh session of that council (19 Dec., 1516). From that time the Maronites were to be in permanent and uninterrupted contact with Rome. Moses of Akbar (1526-67) received a letter from Pius IV. The patriarch Michael sought the intervention of Gregory XIII and received the pallium from him. That great pontiff was the most distinguished benefactor of the Maronite Church: he established at Rome a hospital for them, and then the Maronite College to which the bishops could send six of their subjects. Many famous savants have gone out of this college: George Amira, the grammarian, who died patriarch in 1633; Isaac of Schadrê; Gabriel Siouni, professor at the Sapienza, afterwards interpreter to King Louis XIII and collaborator in the Polyglot Bible (d. 1648); Abraham of Hakel (Ecchelensis), a very prolific writer, professor at Rome and afterwards at Paris, and collaborator in the Polyglot Bible; above all, the Assemani — Joseph Simeon, editor of the “Bibliotheca Orientalis”, Stephanus Evodius, and Joseph Aloysius. Another Maronite college was founded at Ravenna by Innocent X, but was amalgamated with that at Rome in 1665. After the French Revolution the Maronite College was attached to the Congregation of Propaganda.

In the patriarchate of Sergius Risius, the successor of Michael, the Jesuit Jerome Dandini, by order of Clement VIII, directed a general council of the Maronites at Kannobin in 1616, which enacted twenty-one canons, correcting abuses and effecting reforms in liturgical matters; the liturgical reforms of the council of 1596, however, were extremely moderate. Other patriarchs were: Joseph II Risius, who, in 1606, introduced the Gregorian Calendar; John XI (d. 1633), to whom Paul V sent the pallium in 1610; Gregory Amira (1633-44); Joseph III of Akur (1644-47); John XII of Soffra (d. 1656). The last two of these prelates converted a great many Jacobites. Stephen of Ehdem (d. 1704) composed a history of his predecessors from 1095 to 1699. Peter James II was deposed in 1705, but Joseph Mubarak, who was elected in his place, was not recognized by Clement XI, and, through the intervention of Propaganda, which demanded the holding of another council, Peter James II was restored in 1713.

Under Joseph IV (1733-42) was held a second national council, which is of highest importance. Pope Clement XII delegated Joseph Simeon Assemani, who was assisted by his nephew Stephanus Evodius, with an express mandate to cause the Council of Trent to be promulgated in the Lebanon. The Jesuit Fromage was appointed synodal orator. According to the letter which he sent to his superiors (published at the beginning of Mansi’s thirty-eighth volume), the chief abuses to be corrected by the ablegate were: (1) The Maronite bishops, in virtue of an ancient custom, had in their households a certain number of religious women, whose lodgings were, as a rule, separated from the bishop’s only by a door of communication. (2) The patriarch had reserved to himself exclusively the right to consecrate the holy oils and distribute them among the bishops and clergy in consideration of money payments. (3) Marriage dispensations were sold for a money price. (4) The Blessed Sacrament was not reserved in most of the country churches, and was seldom to be found except in the churches of religious communities. (5) Married priests were permitted to remarry. (6) Churches lacked their becoming ornaments, and “the members of Jesus Christ, necessary succour”, while, on the other hand, there were too many bishops — fifteen to one hundred and fifty parishes. (7) The Maronites of Aleppo had, for ten or twelve years past, been singing the Liturgy in Arabic only.

With great difficultly, J. S. Assemani overcame the ill will of the patriarch and the intrigues of the bishops: the Council of the Lebanon at last convened in the monastery of St. Mary of Luweïza, fourteen Maronite bishops, one Syrian, and one Armenian assisting. The abuses enumerated above were reformed, and measures were taken to combat ignorance by establishing schools. The following decisions were also taken: the Filioque was introduced into the Creed; in the Synaxary, not only the first six councils were to be mentioned, but also the Seventh (Nicæa, 787), the Eighth (Constantinople, 869), the Council of Florence (1439), and the Council of Trent; the pope was to be named in the Mass and in other parts of the liturgy; confirmation was reserved to the bishop; the consecration of the holy chrism and the holy oils was set for Holy Thursday; the altar bread was to take the circular form in use at Rome, must be composed only of flour and water, and must contain no oil or salt, after the Syrian tradition; the wine must be mixed with a little water; communion under both species was no longer permitted except to priests and deacons; the ecclesiastical hierarchy was definitely organized, and the ceremonial of ordination fixed; the number of bishoprics was reduced to eight.

The publication of the decrees of this council did not, of course, completely transform Maronite manners and customs. In 1743, two candidates for the patriarchate were chosen. Clement XIV was obliged to annul the election: he chose Simon Euodius, Archbishop of Damascus (d. 1756), who was succeeded by Tobias Peter (1756-66). In the next patriarchal reign, that of Joseph Peter Stefani, a certain Anna Agsmi founded a congregation of religious women of the Sacred Heart; the Holy See suppressed the congregation and condemned its foundress, who, by means of her reputation for sanctity, was disseminating grave errors. Joseph Peter, who defended her in spite of everything, was placed under interdict in 1779, but was reconciled some years later. After him came Michael Fadl (d. 1795), Peter Gemaïl (d. 1797), Peter Thian (1797-1809), and Joseph Dolci (1809-23). The last, in 1818, abolished, by the action of a synod, the custom by which, in many places, there were pairs of monasteries, one for men, the other for women. Under Joseph Habaïsch the struggles with the Druses (see I, above) began, continuing under his successor, Joseph Ghazm (1846-55). Peter Paul Masssaad (1855-90) during his long and fruitful term on the patriarchal throne witnessed events of extreme gravity — the revolt of the people against the sheiks and the massacres of 1860. The Maronite Church owes much to him: his firmness of character and the loftiness of his aims had the utmost possible effect in lessening the evil consequences and breaking the shock of these conflicts. The immediate predecessor of the present (1910) patriarch, Mgr. Hoyek, was John Peter Hadj (1890-99).

———————————–

I. For the councils of 1596 and 1736 see MANSI, Sacrarum conciliorum nova et angmplissima collectio (Florence and Venice, 1759-98). For the history of the Maronites, MICHAEL THE SYRIAN, Chronicle, ed. NAU in Opuscules Maronites in Revue de l’Orient Chrétien, IV. II. ANCIENT WORKS. — Maronite: NAÏRONI, Dissertatio de origine nomine ac religione Maronitarum (Rome, 1679); IDEM, Evoplia fidei (Rome, 1694); J. S. ASSEMANI, Bibliotheca orientalis, I (Rome, 1719), 496 sqq. Western: DANDINI, Missione apostolica al Patriarrca e Maroniti (Cesena, 1656), French tr., SIMON, Voyage du Mont. Liban (Paris, 1685); LE QUIEN, Oriens Christianus, III: Ecclesia Maronitarum de Monte Libano, 1-100. See also the works of the travellers and missionaries among the Maronites; the chief, besides WILLIAM OF TYRE, are JACQUES DE VITRY; LUDOLF OF SUCHEN, De itinere hierosolymitano; GRYPHONE, SURIANO, FROMAGE. III. MODERN WORKS. — Maronite: DEBS, La perpétuelle orthodoxie des Maronites (Beirut, s. d.); CHEBLI, Le patriarcat Maronite d’Antioche in Revue de l’Or. Chrét., VIII, 133 sqq.; for the Maronite theory, NAU, Opuscules maronites in Rev. de l’Or. chrét., IV. Western: LAMMENS, Fr. Gryphon et le Liban au XVIe siècle in Revue de l’Or. Chrét., IV, 68 sqq.; and especially the articles of VAILHÉ in Echos d’Orient, Origines religieuses des Maronites, IV, 96, 154; V, 281; Melchites et Maronites, VI, 271; Fra Suriano et la perpétuelle orthodoxie des Maronites, VII, 99; Le monothélisme des Maronites d’après les auteurs Melchites, IX, 91; L’Eglise Maronite du Ve au IXe siècle, IX, 257, 344; also NEHER, in Kirchenlex., s. v. Maroniten; KESSLER in Realencyc. für prot. theol., s. v. Maroniten.

J. LABOURT Transcribed by WGKofron With thanks to St. Mary’s Church, Akron, Ohio

The Catholic Encyclopedia, Volume IXCopyright © 1910 by Robert Appleton CompanyOnline Edition Copyright © 2003 by K. KnightNihil Obstat, October 1, 1910. Remy Lafort, CensorImprimatur. +John M. Farley, Archbishop of New York

Fuente: Catholic Encyclopedia

Maronites

a community or sect of Christians, numbering some 150,000, in Syria, particularly in the northern part of Mount Lebanon, and said to be of very ancient origin.

I. History. Considerable controversy has arisen as to the real origin of this most peculiar Christian people; the most probable account represents them as descendants of a remnant of the honothelites (q.v.), who, fleeing from the repressive measures of the emperor Anastasius II, in the early part of the 8th century, settled on the slopes of the Lebanon, and gradually yielded their distinctive Monothelite views. According to Mosheim (Eccles. Hist. 1:457; 3:127), many Monothelites, after the Council of Constantinople, found a refuge among the Mardaites, signifying in Syriac rebels, a people who took possession of Lebanon A.D. 676, and made it the asvlum of vagabonds, slaves, and all sorts of rabble; and about the conclusion of the 7th century these Monothelites of Lebanon were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop. None, he says, of the ancient writers give any certain account of the first person who converted these mountaineers to Monothelitism; it is probable, however, from several circumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they have adopted; and that this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived, in the character of a monk, in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of Mount Libanus.

Gieseler (Eccles. Hist. 2:419), however, takes exception to this identification of the Maronites with the Mardaites, and, by authority derived from the writings of Anquetil Duperron (Recherches sur les migrations des Mardes, in the Mellr. de l’Acad. des Inscript. 1:1), holds that the Mardaites or Mards, a warlike nation of Armenia, were placed as a garrison on Mount Libanus by Constantine Pogonatus, A.D. 676 (Theophanes, p. 295), and were withdrawn as early as 685 by Justinian II (Theophanes, p. 302). Madden (Turkish Empire, 2:154), upon the authority of the learned Benedictine St. Maur (Histoire Maonastique de l’Orient, p. 348), holds that the Maronites were founded by St. Maro, a patriarch of Syrian Christians in the 5th century, and that they existed under that name in the 7th century, when the Saracens ravaged the country, and were afterwards persecuted as Mardaites (comp. here Churchill, Mount Lebanon, 3:58). There is certainly much in favor of this argument, not the least of which is the fact that, at the commencement of the 7th century, the entire range of mountains from Antioch to Jerusalem was in the hands of the Syrian Christians, who formed a political power under chiefs or emirs, exercising a hereditary government (Churchill). But, however great may be the darkness surrounding their earliest history, one thing is certain, from the testimony of William of Tyre and other unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic records, namely, that the Maronites retained the opinions of the Monothelites until the 12th century, when, abandoning and renouncing the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were readmitted into the communion of the Roman Church. Jacques de Vitry, bishop of Acre in the 12th century, thus speaks of the Maronites in his Historia Hierosolymitanza, drawn up at the request of pope Honorius III: Men armed with bows and arrows, and skillful in battle, inhabit the mountains in considerable numbers, in the province of Phoenicia, not far from the. town of Biblos. They are called Maronites, from the name of a certain man, their master, Maron, a heretic, who affirmed that there was in Jesus but one will or operation. The Christians of the Lebanon, dupes of this diabolical error of Maron remained separate from the Church nearly five hundred years. At last, their hearts being turned, they made profession of the Catholic faith in presence of the venerable father Amaury, patriarch of Antioch, and adopted the traditions of the Roman Church. The most learned of the modern Maronites have left no method unemployed to defend their Church against this accusation; they have labored to prove, by a variety of testimonies, that their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, and in their attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the doctrine of the Monophysites or Monothelites (compare Churchill, Mount Lebanon, 3:51). But all their efforts are insufficient to prove the truth of these assertions, and the testimonies they allege appear absolutely fictitious and destitute of authority.

There can be no doubt that the Maronites were brought back to the communion of Rome by the influence of the Crusaders. Even in our day the Maronites, warranted, indeed, both by historical and traditional records, allude in terms of pride and satisfaction to the service done by their ancestors to the armies of the Crusaders, and estimate in round numbers 50,000 of their population as having fallen under the standards of the Cross (Churchill). During the early part of the 12th century the communications between the Maronite patriarch and the papal see were of frequent recurrence, and thus the way was easily paved for reunion. But though the Maronites joined the communion of Rome in this very age, it required three centuries more before the sturdy mountaineers could be brought to acknowledge Rome’s supremacy in matters of ecclesiastical discipline, and we are afforded a picture of a Christian Church existing for three centuries, popish in all its forms and doctrines, saving the cardinal point of submission to the pope.

They had entered the Romish communion on the establishment of the Latin kingdom of Jerusalem in the 12th century, but they did not enter into a formal act of union with Rome until the Council of Florence in 1445, and only formally subscribed to the decrees of the Council of Trent in 1736. Mosheim observes that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff was agreed to with this express condition, that neither the popes nor their emissaries should pretend to change or abolish anything 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 savors of popery, if we except their attachment to the Roman pontiff. It is also certain that there are Maronites in Syria who still hold the Church of Rome in the greatest aversion and abhorrence (Schaff, Church Hist. 3:783); 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 17th century, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of these non-conforming 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, flew into Corsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa against the violence of the inquisitors.

Their union with Rome gave the Maronites the protection of European powers, especially that of the devoted Frank; but when the Franks were expelled from Syria, in 1300, by Malek Ashraf, the Maronites were compelled to defend their independence against the Mameluke sovereigns, and the greater part of them became mixed up with the Druses, still keeping up, however, their connection with Rome. In the 17th century they placed themselves under the direct protection of France, Louis XIV and Louis XV granting them Letters of Protection; and for some time the French consul at Beirut exercised almost regal sway over them, the Maronites regarding themselves as the French of the East. In the early part of the 18th century the Druses called the Mohammedan family of the Shehabs to govern Lebanon, and in 1713 the Turks made the first attempt to bring the inhabitants under the direct rule of a pacha. They resisted successfully, defeating the Turks in the battle of Aindara; but in 1756 several emirs became Maronites, and, incited by the Maronits clergy, showed great favor to their new brethren, thereby displeasing the Druses, and provoking a feeling of ill-will between the Druses and the Maronites, which has not yet subsided. The pachas of Acre, since Jezzar, carefully promoted this misunderstandinug, for they felt that the tribes of Lebanon, fully united under an enterprising chief, would become dangerous to the Porte. Yet there was no feeling of religious animosity between the two nations at this early date, and, whenever political troubles broke out, Druse and Maronite sided indiscriminately with both parties. Emir Beshir Shehab (1789-1840), although in secret a Maronite, was always surrounded by the most important among the Druses, and, whenever he needed help, asked it of them rather than of the Maronites. Thus the Druses and the Christians were living peaceably side by side until 1831, when Syria passed under the rule of Mohammed Ali, and he commissioned his son, Ibrahim Pacha, to govern the province.

Carrying out his father’s enlightened views, Ibrahim Pacha applied himself to the improvement of the condition of his Christian subjects, and, in spite of the opposition of the Mohammedans, they were raised to civil and military offices. The Syrians, however, accustomed to the indolent Turkish rule, revolted against this energetic and active Egyptian management, and it was some time before the insurrection was quelled, the Druses being the last to submit. They had asked the Maronites to join them, and the latter, who had held back when there was some chance of success, now rose under the most frivolous pretenses. In the mean time, in 1840, the allied fleet of England, Austria, and Turkey were employed to secure the restoration of Syria to Turkey. Turkish agents were busy among the Maronites, fanning the flame of rebellion; most of these wretches were Englishmen. Finally, France not upholding Egypt, Syria was returned to Turkish rule. The position of the Christians now became worse than ever, and their merchants were obliged to invoke the protection of the European consuls against the spoliation of the Turks. Lord Stratford of Redcliffe interfered in their behalf at Constantinople, and quiet was for a while restored. The Turkish government wished to appoint a Turkish governor over Lebanon, but the English finally succeeded in obtaining the appointment of emir Beshir Kassim Shehab, a Christian. The Druses, however, took exception to this arrangement, and when subsequently the Maronite patriarch attempted to confiscate all civil authority for the benefit of the Maronites, they became exasperated. Colonel Rose, the English consul-general, wrote on that occasion, The Maronite clergy show a determination to uphold their supremacy in the mountains at the risk of a civil war. And a civil war was the result of this obstinacy. The patriarch (for his functions among the Maronites, see below, under III. Religious Status. 1. Clergy) at the same time, by his mismanagement, excited the jealousies of the Turks, and displeased the English, whom the Druses hailed as their friends.

On Sept. 14,1841, a first affray took place between the Druses and the Christians at Deir el-Kamar; it was repressed by the efforts of colonel Rose. The Druses rose again, however, on Oct. 13, 14, and 15, and the entire destruction of the town was only prevented by the arrival from Beiruit of colonel Rose and Ayieb Pacha on the 16th. But the war had commenced, and the Druses, assisted by the Turks, who willfully and purposely promoted the hateful strife, soon got the better of the Christians, and, had it not been for the interference of the English consul, Turkish fanaticism would have extinguished every Christian life on and near Mount Lebanon.

Quiet was restored, however, only for a season. See DRUSES. On Aug. 30, 1859, an affray took place at Bate-mirri, three hours from Beirut, originating in a quarrel between a Druse and a Christian boy, in which the Druses were defeated; but the next day, Sunday, they renewed the fight in greater numbers, and were victorious. The Druses now commenced burning the Maronite villages; the Turks fearing the power of European governments, Kurchid Pach put an end to the disturbance, yet without punishing the offenders. The Maronites, perceiving or believing that a secret understanding existed between the Druses and the Turks, promptly commenced arming. In April, 1860, Kurchid Pacha received despatches from Constantinople; soon afterwards Seid Bev Jumblatt assembled a Druse divan at Muchtara, and great agitation commenced to pervade the Druse districts; Christians were murdered either singly or in small parties, and a great number of them, leaving their villages, fled to the stronger places of Zachle and Deir el-Kamar. On May 4 some Druses broke into the convent of Amik, near Deir el-Kamar, and murdered the superior in his bed. The Maronites still sought to obtain peace, but found that they would be compelled to meet force with force. Three thousand men from Zachle attacked the Druse village of Aindara, but were beaten by a much smaller force, their arrangements, and especially their discipline, being much inferior to that of the Druses. Kurchid Pacha had a Turkish camp in the immediate vicinity of Beiriut, and commanding the plain, but he did not interfere now as he had done on the former occasion. On the contrary, after encouraging the Maronites by promising them his protection against the Druses, he gave the signal of their massacre on May 30.

One hundred Turkish soldiers and the irregular Turkish cavalry joined the Druses in cutting down the Maronites. The Druses would have pushed on to Beirat had they not been prevented by the Turks. The European consuls now attempted to interfere; they were met with fine protestations by the Turkish authorities, and nothing was done to repress the outrages. At the end of May the Druses blockaded Deir el-Kamar, and on June 1 it was attacked by 4000 of them. The city surrendered the next day. The pacha, after entering the city, upbraided the Maronites as traitors, rebels, etc., because they had thought it wise to defend themselves against the Druses. At the same time 2000 Druses, commanded by Seleb Bev Jumblatt, took Jezin, and murdered the inhabitants. Roman Catholic convents shared the same fate as those of the Maronites, being sacked, plundered, and burned: in that of Meshmfisy alone thirty monks had their throats cut; the plunder was enormous. Ali Said Bey’s district was given up to fire and the sword. Sidon was only saved by the timely arrival of captain Maunsell, with his English ship the Firefly, on June 3. In the Anti-Lebanon, Said Bev’s sister followed her brother’s example and instructions, causing the Christians of Hasbeya and Rasheva to be inveigled into the serail of the former place, under promise of their being taken safely to Damascus; they were there murdered in cold blood by the Druses, without distinction of age or sex, on June 10. The Turkish soldiers crowded into the serail to enjoy the sight, and some of them even took part in the butchery. On June 14 Zachle was invested and taken and on the 19th Deir el-Kamar met with the same fate.

The entire male population was ruthlessly massacred, and the city given a prey to the flames. The surviving widows and children fled to the coasts. On June 22 a disturbance broke out at Beirut, in which even the Europeans were assailed, but it was repressed with the aid of general Kmety (Ismail Pacha). The purely Maronite districts of Lebanon now became greatly alarmed, the more as Turkish soldiers were quartered there under the pretense of protecting them. The European consuls advised together, and drew up a remonstrance to the Druse chiefs, which a Mr. Grahamr was sent to deliver to them. Said Bey Jumblatt, however, when appealed to, declared only his respect for England and his willingness to see this struggle end, but added that he had no power over it, and that the Druses would not obey him. Most of the Druse sheiks contrived to avoid Mr. Graham, and those he did meet gave him but evasive answers. Finally, on July 10, the Mohammedans of Damascus rose against the Christians, of whom there were some 25,000 in the city.

The Christian quarter was soon a heap of smoldering ruins, beneath which numberless corpses were buried. Women, married and unmarried, were wandering through the streets, and were seen to cry for assistance, with heads uncovered and feet naked, appealing to the murderers for mercy. Many were sold as slaves for a few piastres, or taken away to the desert. The streets were crowded with fanatics, who shouted continually, Death to the Christians! Let us slaughter the Christians! Let not one remain! Every church and convent was plundered and afterwards burned. The silver plate, jewelry, and gold coin taken from these sanctuaries were not allowed to be plundered by the rabble, but were removed by soldiers. These are the words of the British consul, Mr. Brant. The consulates of France, Russia, Austria, Belgium, Holland, and the United States were all burned. Those of England and Prussia escaped, as they were not situated in the Christian quarter, and they became an asylum for as many as were able to reach them. Others were saved in great numbers in the house of Abd-el-Kader, and in the citadel; but the governor, Ahmed Pacha, was an unmoved witness of the devastation, or an accomplice in the lawless deeds of the plundering rabble (Lond. Rev. 1860, Oct., p. 160). As has already been stated in the article DRUSES SEE DRUSES (q.v.), the French and English governments were obliged to come to the rescue of the Syrian Christians, and the Porte was forced to inflict punishment upon those whom the Turkish officers had made pliant tools for the destruction of the Maronites. On Aug. 3 a conference of the great powers Britain, Austria, France, Prussia, Russia, and Turkey as well-met, but the meeting was closed without accomplishing any real good. All that was secured was the promise that the Sublime Porte had endeavored and would continue to do its duty; but what this duty consisted in, it has been hard to determine to this day. Only a few weeks previously the Christian emirs had been compelled by the Turkish pacha to testify that the conduct of the Turks was irreproachable, when the emirs felt constrained afterwards to acknowledge their extorted perjury. In October, finally, the international conference of the plenipotentiarics of European powers convened at Beirut, and crowned their labors successfully, June 9, 1861, by a special treaty concerning the administration of the Lebanon. SEE DRUSES.

II. Social Position. The nation may be considered as divided into two classes, the common people and the sheiks, by whom must be understood the most eminent of the inhabitants, who, from the antiquity of their families and the opulence of their fortunes, are superior to the ordinary class. They all live dispersed in the mountains, in villages, hamlets, and even detached houses, which is never the case in the plains. The whole nation consists of cultivators. Every man improves the little domain he possesses, or farms, with his own hands. Even the sheiks live in the same manner, and are only distinguished from the rest by a bad pelisse, a horse, and a few slight advantages in food and lodging; they all live frugally, without many enjoyments, but also with few wants, as they are little acquainted with the inventions of luxury. In general, the nation is poor, but no one wants necessaries; and if beggars are sometimes seen, they come rather from the sea-coast than the country itself. Property is as sacred among them as in Europe; nor do we hear of robberies and extortions so frequently committed by the Turks. Travelers may journey there, either by night or by day, with a security unknown in any other part of the empire, and the stranger is received with hospitality, as among the Arabs: it must be owned, however, that the Maronites are less generous, and rather inclined to the vice of parsimony. Conformably to the doctrines of Christianity, they have only one wife, whom they frequently espouse without having seen, and always without having been much in her company. Contrary to the precepts of that same religion, however, they have admitted, or retained, the Arab custom of retaliation, and the nearest relation of a murdered person is bound to avenge him. From a habit founded on distrust, and the political state of the country, every one, whether sheik or peasant, walks continually armed with a musket and poniards. This is, perhaps, an inconvenience; but this advantage results from it, that they have no novices in the use of arms among them when it is necessary to employ them against the Turks. As the country maintains no regular troops, every man is obliged to join the army in time of war; and if this militia were well conducted, it would be superior to many European armies. From accounts taken in late years, the number of men fit to bear arms amounts to 35,000.

III. Religious Status. Although the Maronites are united with Rome, and though they are perhaps the most ultramontane people in the world, they nevertheless retain their distinctive national rites and usages.

1. Clergy. The most peculiar of all their institutions is undoubtedly the clerical. As we have seen above, it is supposed that the folunder of the Maronites constituted himself a patriarch, and this position remains the highest dignity among them. It is true they admit the supremacy of Rome, but for the home government of the Church the patriarch is the highest authority. and in his election, as well as in the selection of all the clergy, the Maronite exercises his own private judgment, independent of the papal power at Rome. Here it may not be improper to state that the patriarch is at present expected to furnish every tenth year a report of the state of his patriarchate. Associated with the patriarch in the ecclesiastical government of the Maronites are twelve bishops, but of the latter four are titular, or inpartibus. The patriarch himself is chosen by the bishops in secret conclave, and by ballot. The debates usually last for many days, and even weeks; at last, when the choice is made, the bishops present kneel down and kiss the new patriarch’s hands; the patriarch immediately writes letters to all the chief nobles of the mountain informing them of his nomination. The latter lose no time in assembling to pay him their respects and make their obeisance. A pelisse of honor shortly afterwards arrives for the patriarch from the governor of Lebanon. Fires, and rejoicing, and illumination extend throughout the whole range of the Maronite districts; a petition is now drawn up to be sent to the pope, praying him to confirm the choice which has just been made, and signed by the principal chiefs. It is open, however, to the clergy, or any party, to protest against the nomination. . . The pope, however, never fails at once to confirm a selection which has the support of the feudal aristocracy and principal clergy of Lebanon (Churchill 3:78).

In true puerile affectation and presumptuous inference, the patriarch of the Maronites, who is styled the Patriarch of Antioch, usually takes the name of Peter, intended to denote an official descent from the apostle Peter. His power, says Churchill, is despotic, and from his decision there is no appeal, either in temporal or spiritual affairs; even the pope’s legate, who resides constantly in Lebanon, and is supposed to superintend all the ecclesiastical proceedings of the Maronite Church, has no influence over the patriarch beyond what may be obtained by personal superiority of character…. The income of the patriarch may amount to about 5000 a year, derived principally from lands set apart exclusively for the office. He obtains likewise a sixth of the revenue of the bishops. The patriarch of the Maronites, says Madden (Turkish Empire, 2:160), formerly exercised very extensive power not only of a religious, but of a civil kind, for the protection of his people, who in those times possessed many important immunities and franchises, which, since 1842, have been either abrogated or assimilated to the privileges enjoyed by the Roman Catholic subjects of the Porte. But the Maronites still, in all great emergencies and dangers at the hands of their old and constant enemies the Druses, are wont to look for counsel and guidance to their patriarch rather than to the emir, their nominal civil protector.

The patriarch, in the winter, resides ordinarily at Kesruan, and in the summer at the monastery of Canobin, in the valley of Tripoli, supposed to be, on very insufficient grounds, where the venerated Maron had fixed his abode. The eight regular bishoprics of the Maronite Church are Aleppo, Tripoli, Jebail, Baalbek, Damascus, Cyprus, Beirut, Tyre, and Sidon. Thle incumbents of this, the second office, are, like the patriarch, possessed of stated revenues, that enable them to live in comparative affluence. Their election takes place as follows: When a bishop dies, the patriarch writes to the principal people of the village under the jurisdiction of the deceased prelate, requesting them to assemble together and nominate a priest to the vacant see; should there be a unanimity of voices, the patriarch confirms their selection; if; on the contrary, they cannot agree, he desires them to send him the names of three priests, and from this list he selects one for the bishopric. The inferior clergy of the Maronites, who have no fixed sources of income, subsist on the produce of their masses, the bounty of their congregations, and, above all, on the labor of their hands, i.e. they exercise trades, or cultivate small plots of ground, and are thus industriously employed for the maintenance of their families: it is one of the peculiar characteristics of the Eastern clergy that they are not strangers to the married state. The Maronite priests marry as in the first ages of the Church, but their wives must be maidens, and not widows; nor can they marry a second time. The poverty to which the Maronite clergy is doomed is, however, recompensed to them by the great respect the people award them. Their vanity is incessantly flattered; whoever approaches them, whether rich or poor, great or small, is anxious to kiss their hands, which they fail not to present…. It is perhaps to the potent influence of the clergy that we must attribute the mild and simple manners generally prevailing among the Maronites, for violent crimes are extremely rare among them. Retribution immediately follows every offense, however slight, and the clergy are rigorous in preventing every appearance of disorder or scandal among the members of their flocks. Before a young man can marry he must obtain the consent of his pastor and of his bishop. If they disapprove of the marriage they prohibit it, and the Maronite has no remedy. If an unmarried girl become a mother, her seducer is compelled to marry her, whatever be the inequality of their conditions; if he refuses he is reduced to obedience by measures of severity, fasting, imprisonment, and even bastinadoing. This influence of the clergy extends to every detail of civil and domestic life. The Maronite who should appeal from the decision of the clergy to the civil authority of the emirs would not be listened to by them, and the act would be regarded by the appellant’s bishop as a transgression to be visited with condign punishment (Kelly). The number of Maronite priests is said to be 1200, and the number of their churches 400.

2. Monastics. Of the more than 200 convents scattered through Lebanon, nearly one half belong to the Maronites, and contain from 20,000 to 25,000 inmates, who all wear a distinctive costume, and follow the rule of St. Anthony. They are divided into three different congregations those of St. Isaiah, those of the Alipines, and those of the Libanese or Baladites; besides which there are also a number of nunneries. Their dress, like that of all Greek monastics, consists of a black frockcoat, reaching to the knees, confined round the waist by a leathern girdle, and surmounted by a hood, which call be drawn over the head. This attire is called a cacooly. The temporal affairs of the convents are directed by a superior monk, called Reis el-Aam, a sort of accountant-general, who regulates all the disbursements of his fraternity. Lest the monks should form any particular local attachments, they are removed from convent to convent every six months, in a kind of rotation. They are, in general, exceedingly ignorant, but skillful in such trades as are necessary for their own wants and necessities. The monks, by the rules of their order, are not allowed to smoke or eat meat. The latter, however, is permitted in case of sickness, by the order of the physician and the consent of the superior. In making long journeys the bishop may give the same permission, provided they shall not indulge in it on the days in which its use is forbidden by the canons of the Church. Much stress is laid on the nunneries being built at a distance from the convents; and no nun or woman is allowed to enter a convent, nor a monk to enter a nunnery, except on occasions of great necessity, and with strict limitation. The monks are employed in their prayers, and in various occupations of industry; the lay-brothers tilling the lands of the convents, making shoes, weaving, begging, etc.; and the priests applying themselves to study, copying books, and other matters befitting the dignity of their office. The nuns are taught to read and sew. Both the monks and nuns vow the three conditions of a monastic life namely, chastity, poverty, and obedience; and, taken as a whole, both are extremely ignorant and bigoted.

IV. Peculiar Religious Usages. Like the Bohemians and the (Greek Christians, the Maronites administer the sacraments in both kinds, dipping the bread in wine before its distribution. The host is a small round loaf, unleavened, of the thickness of a finger, and about the size of a crown- piece. On the top is the impression of a seal, which is eaten by the priest, who cuts the remainder into small pieces, and putting it into the wine in the cup, administers to each person with a spoon, which serves the whole congregation (Kelly, Syria and the Holy Land, as compiled from Burckhardt. etc., p. 92). They also keep up public nightly prayers, which are attended by women as well as by men; have a peculiar commemoration of the dead in the three weeks preceding Lent, and their whole office during Lent is of immense length and peculiar to themselves. Indeed their ritual and liturgy differ in many respects from those of the Latin Church. The mass is recited in the Syriac language, with the exception of the Epistle and Gospel, and some prayers, which are recited in Arabic, the only language understood by the people, the Syriac being simply used in the services of the Church and the offices of the priests.

V. Educational Status. The Maronite clergy had formearly lands at Rome, the revenues of which were appropriated to keeping up a seminary for the education of young Christians from the Lebanon; and from this high school came forth some illustrious Romanists, e.g. Gabriel Sionita, Abr. Echellensis, the Assemani, etc. The resources of this appropriation were confiscated by the French during the first revolutionary war. Since then the court of Rome has granted them a hospitium at Rome, to which they may send several of their youth to receive a gratuitous education. It would seem that this institution might introduce among them the ideas and arts of Europe; but the pupils of this school, limited to an education purely monastic, bring home nothing but the Italian language, which is of no use, and a stock of theological learning from which as little advantage can be derived; they accordingly soon assimilate with the rest. Nor has a greater change been operated by the three or four missionaries maintained by the French Capuchins at Gazir, Tripoli, and Beirat. Their labors consist in preaching in their church, in instructing children in the Catechism, Thomas a Kempis, and the Psalms, and in teaching them to read and write. Formerly the Jesuits had two missionaries at their house at Antura, but the Lazarites have now succeeded them in their mission. The most valuable advantage that has resulted from these labors is that the art of writing has become more common among the Maronites, and rendered them, in that country, what the Copts are in Egypt, that is, they are in possession of all the posts of writers, intendants, and kaiygas among the Turks, and especially of those among their neighbors, the Druses. But, though the ability to read and write be thus general among the Maronites, it must not be inferred that they are a literary people. Far from it; the book-learning of all classes, both clergy and laity, can hardly be rated too low. There are native printing-presses at work in some of the monasteries, but the sheets they issue are all of an ecclesiastical kind-chiefly portions of the Scripture or mass-books in Syriac, which few even of the clergy understand, though they repeat them by rote (Kelly, p. 97).

The American Protestant churches, so ably represented by the Rev. W. M. Thomson and others, have done already a noble work for Syria. The MaIronite, of course, has not been forgotten, and his educational disadvantages it has been sought to ameliorate by bringing the influence of American schools to his very door. Tristram (Land of Israel [Lond. 1865], p. 22), who cites the opinion of the noteli pacha Daid Oghli, writes the following as from the mouth of the illustrious Mussulman ruler of Mount Lebanon: He spoke with much warmth and interest of the American mission-schools; and it was gratifying to hear his independent testimony to the importance and solid nature of the work they are carrying on, especially among the Maronites, with whom he considered they have met with greater success than with any any other sect. See Churchill, Mount Lebanon (Lond. 1853, 3 vols. 8voa, iii, chap. v-viii; id. Druse and Maronite (Lond. 1864, 8vo); Kelly, Syria, and the Holy Land (compiled from Burckhardt and others), chap. viii; Guys, leir-ut et le Liban (Par. 1860); Madden, Turkish Empire, ii, ch. vi; Ritter, Erdkutnde, 17:744; Robinson, Palestine, 2:572; Comte de Paris, Dumas et le Liben, p. 75-78; Neale, Hist. of East. Ch. (Introd.), 1:153 sq.; Cowper, Sects in Syria (Lond. 1860); Schnurrer, De eccl. Spurmit. (Tub. 1810 and 1811); Silbernagl Verfassung u. gegenwartiger Bestand sammtlicher Kiechen des Orients (Landshut, 1865); Foulkes, Christendom’s;Divisions. ii, ch. ix; New-Englander, 1861, p. 32; Westminster Review, 1862 (July).

Fuente: Cyclopedia of Biblical, Theological and Ecclesiastical Literature

Maronites

a sect of eastern Christians who follow the Syrian rite, and are subject to the pope: their principal habitation being on Mount Libanus, or between the Ansarians to the north and the Druses to the south. Mosheim informs us, that the Monothelites, condemned and exploded by the council of Constantinople, found a place of refuge among the Mardaites, signifying in Syriac rebels, a people who took possession of Lebanon, A.D. 676, which became the asylum of vagabonds, slaves, and all sorts of rabble; and about the conclusion of the seventh century they were called Maronites, after Maro, their first bishop; a name which they still retain. None, he says, of the ancient writers, give any certain account of the first person who instructed these mountaineers in the doctrine of the Monothelites; it is probable, however, from several circumstances, that it was John Maro, whose name they have adopted; and that this ecclesiastic received the name of Maro from his having lived in the character of a monk, in the famous convent of St. Maro, upon the borders of the Orontes, before his settlement among the Mardaites of Mount Libanus. One thing is certain, from the testimony of Tyrius, and other unexceptionable witnesses, as also from the most authentic records, namely, that the Maronites retained the opinions of the Monothelites until the twelfth century, when, abandoning and renouncing the doctrine of one will in Christ, they were readmitted into the communion of the Roman church. The most learned of the modern Maronites have left no method unemployed to defend their church against this accusation; they have laboured to prove, by a variety of testimonies, that their ancestors always persevered in the Catholic faith, and in their attachment to the Roman pontiff, without ever adopting the doctrine of the Monophysites or Monothelites. But all their efforts are insufficient to prove the truth of these assertions, and the testimonies they allege will appear absolutely fictitious and destitute of authority.

The nation may be considered as divided into two classes, the common people and the shaiks, by whom must be understood the most eminent of the inhabitants, who, from the antiquity of their families, and the opulence of their fortunes, are superior to the ordinary class. They all live dispersed in the mountains, in villages, hamlets, and even detached houses; which is never the case in the plains. The whole nation consists of cultivators. Every man improves the little domain he possesses, or farms, with his own hands. Even the shaiks live in the same manner, and are only distinguished from the rest by a bad peliss, a horse, and a few slight advantages in food and lodging; they all live frugally, without many enjoyments, but also with few wants, as they are little acquainted with the inventions of luxury. In general, the nation is poor, but no one wants necessaries; and if beggars are sometimes seen, they come rather from the sea coast than the country itself. Property is as sacred among them as in Europe; nor do we see there those robberies and extortions so frequent with the Turks. Travellers may journey there, either by night or by day, with a security unknown in any other part of the empire, and the stranger is received with hospitality, as among the Arabs: it must be owned, however, that the Maronites are less generous, and rather inclined to the vice of parsimony. Conformably to the doctrines of Christianity, they have only one wife, whom they frequently espouse without having seen, and always without having been much in her company. Contrary to the precepts of that same religion, however, they have admitted, or retained, the Arab custom of retaliation, and the nearest relation of a murdered person is bound to avenge him. From a habit founded on distrust, and the political state of the country, every one, whether shaik or peasant, walks continually armed with a musket and poinards. This is, perhaps, an inconvenience; but this advantage results from it, that they have no novices in the use of arms among them, when it is necessary to employ them against the Turks. As the country maintains no regular troops, every man is obliged to join the army in time of war; and if this militia were well conducted, it would be superior to many European armies. From accounts taken in late years, the number of men fit to bear arms, amounts to thirty-five thousand.

In religious matters the Maronites are dependent on Rome. Though they acknowledge the supremacy of the pope, their clergy continue, as heretofore, to elect a head, with the title of batrak, or patriarch of Antioch. Their priests marry, as in the first ages of the church; but their wives must be maidens, and not widows; nor can they marry a second time. They celebrate mass in Syriac, of which the greatest part of them comprehend not a word. The Gospel, alone, is read aloud in Arabic, that it may be understood by the people. The communion is administered in both kinds. In the small country of the Maronites there are reckoned upward of two hundred convents for men and women. These religious are of the order of St. Anthony, whose rules they observe with an exactness which reminds us of earlier times. The court of Rome, in affiliating the Maronites, has granted them a hospitium at Rome, to which they may send several of their youth to receive a gratuitous education. It should seem that this institution might introduce among them the ideas and arts of Europe; but the pupils of this school, limited to an education purely monastic, bring home nothing but the Italian language, which is of no use, and a stock of theological learning, from which as little advantage can be derived; they accordingly soon assimilate with the rest. Nor has a greater change been operated by the three or four missionaries maintained by the French capuchins at Gazir, Tripoli, and Bairout. Their labours consist in preaching in their church, in instructing children in the catechism, Thomas a Kempis, and the Psalms, and in teaching them to read and write. Formerly, the Jesuits had two missionaries at their house at Antoura, and the Lazarites have now succeeded them in their mission. The most valuable advantage that has resulted from these labours is, that the art of writing has become more common among the Maronites, and rendered them, in this country, what the Copts are in Egypt, that is, they are in possession of all the posts of writers, intendants, and kaiyas among the Turks, and especially of those among their allies and neighbours, the Druses.

Mosheim observes, that the subjection of the Maronites to the spiritual jurisdiction of the Roman pontiff 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. It is also certain 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 seventeenth century, and threw the court of Rome into great perplexity. One body of these non-conforming 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, flew into Corsica, and implored the protection of the republic of Genoa, against the violence of the inquisitors.

Fuente: Biblical and Theological Dictionary