churches, as I shall prove. The Oriental churches are included in the Catholic church by all our theologians, though they observe with regret certain imperfections, abuses, and errors among them, which detract from their perfection, but do not deprive them of the character of Christian churches. Bishops Jewell, Bramhall, Laud, Stillingfleet, &c. may be cited to prove this. 6. These churches are apostolical. Many of them still subsist after an uninterrupted succession of eighteen hundred years; such as the churches of Smyrna, Philadelphia, Corinth, Athens, Thessalonica, Crete, Cyprus. Many others, founded by the apostles, continued to subsist uninterruptedly, till the invasion of the Saracens in the seventh century, and revived again after their oppression had relaxed. Such are the churches of Jerusalem, Antioch, Alexandria, and others: from these apostolical churches the whole Oriental church derives its origin and succession; for whenever new churches were founded, it was always by authority of the ancient societies previously existing. With these all the more recent churches held close communion; and thus, by the consanguinity of faith and discipline and charity, were themselves apostolical. They were also apostolical in their ministry; for it is undeniable, that they

bishops and clergy; and at Jeru salem he received from Païsius, patriarch of that see, his patriarchal seal (the regular sign of credence among them), to express his desire of communion with the church of England. (See Basire's Life and Correspondence, by Darnell, p. 116.) He was also permitted to preach frequently in the Greek churches at Constantinople; where, in testimony of his doctrine, he presented to the pa

triarch of Jerusalem, in the presence of all the priests and people, the Catechism of the Church of England, which was also highly approved by the other Oriental patriarchs. (Ibid. p. 123, 124.) However, the communion between the British and Oriental churches, which was interrupted in the middle ages by misunderstandings, has not yet been restored.

can produce a regular uninterrupted series of bishops, and of valid ordinations in their churches, from the beginning. No one denies the validity of their ordinations.

7. Since the Oriental churches have therefore all the external signs of a part of the true church, it only remains to examine the facts of the division between them and the Western churches, and from these to determine whether schism or heresy is to be imputed to either party.

SECTION II.

ON THE DIVISION OF THE EASTERN AND WESTERN

CHURCHES.

(1.) THE EVENTS IN THE TIME OF CERULARIUS, DID NOT RENDER EITHER THE EAST OR THE WEST SCHISMATICAL, SO AS TO BE CUT OFF FROM THE CATHOLIC CHURCH.

In order to establish this, we must briefly review the events alluded to. Though there had been, at various times, occasional schisms between the particular churches of Rome and Constantinople, yet in the middle of the eleventh century, the Eastern and Western churches held communion, and acknowledged each other as parts of the same holy catholic church. Their intercourse was interrupted in the following manner.

In 1053, Michael Cerularius, patriarch of Constantinople, a man of turbulent spirit, addressed a letter to the bishop of Trani, in Apulia, to be communicated to the Roman pontiff, and the whole Western church °. In this letter he strongly inveighed against several of

This epistle is found in Canisii Thesaurus Monument. Eccl. tom. iii. 281. It was to be com

municated " ad ipsum reverendissimum Papam."

their rites and customs, and especially that of using unleavened bread in the eucharist, which, he argued, must render that sacrament invalid. At the same time he closed the churches and monasteries of the Latins at Constantinople.

These unreasonable and uncharitable proceedings naturally excited indignation in the West. Pope Leo wrote to complain of them; and, the Greek emperor and Cerularius having expressed their wish for peace, he sent, in 1054, three legates to Constantinople, of whom the principal was Cardinal Humbert. A worse selection could scarcely have been made, with a view to concord and unity. Having presented to the emperor his replies to Cerularius and to Nicetas, a studite monk, (who had written against the Latin customs,) in which he bitterly retorted the charge of error on the customs of the Greeks, and threatened them with an anathema P; Humbert and his colleagues proceeded to visit Cerularius, whom they treated with marked rudeness, and arrogantly declared, that they had not come to discuss any of the points in dispute, but to insist on the adoption of their own rites and customs". This latter charge, it is true, rests on the testimony of Ceru

P His reply to Cerularius terminates thus: "Pro quibus omnibus et aliis quos longum est scripto prosequi erroribus, nisi resipueritis et digne satisfeceritis; irrevocabile anathema hic et in futuro eritis a Deo et ab omnibus Catholicis."-Canisii Thesaurus, iii. 307. His reply to Nicetas was equally violent. Ibid. p.

324.

See the Epistle of Cerularius to Peter, Patriarch of Antioch, in Cotelerii Eccl Græc. Monu

menta, ii. 138, 139. He complains of their unspeakable insolence, boasting, and temerity in his presence; but what was most offensive of all, they said, őrɩ ov διδαχθησόμενοι ἢ διαλεχθησόμενοι, τὰ ἐνταῦθα κατέλαβον, ἀλλὰ διδάOvreç μãλλov kai πεiσovтEL Kрατεῖν ἡμᾶς τὰ δόγματα τούτων· καὶ ταῦτα μετ ̓ ἐξουσίας καὶ ἀναισχυντίας ὑπερβαλλούσης.—p. 145. He repeats the same complaint in his second letter, p. 164.

larius, but it is rendered credible by their subsequent conduct. Supported by the emperor, who was desirous of conciliating the favour of the Roman see, and procuring its aid against the Normans, they compelled Nicetas to abjure his writings, and to anathematize "all who contradicted the faith of the Roman church "." They also themselves publicly excommunicated "all who contradicted the faith of the holy, Roman, apostolical see "." And, finally, before they left Constantinople, they placed on the altar of St. Sophia a paper containing an excommunication of Cerularius and his adherents, in which they made a charge of heresy on those who maintained several ancient and established customs of the Eastern church. Cerularius in his turn denounced anathema against the authors and supporters of the excommunication", and the Roman pontiff did not disown the act of his legates, so that the two churches of Rome and Constantinople and their adherents became mutually estranged.

From this it appears evident that the fault did not rest exclusively or peculiarly with either party. In fact, it would be difficult to determine which were more guilty of harsh and uncharitable conduct; Ceru

r

s. 8.

Fleury, Hist. Eccl. liv. 60.

Canisii Thesaurus, iii. 328.

* This excommunication is found in Canisii Thesaurus, iii. p. 326. It begins thus: "Sancta et Romana prima et apostolica sedes, ad quam tanquam ad caput solicitudo omnium ecclesiarum specialius pertinet," &c. and having accused Michael and his followers of numerous heresies on the most frivolous grounds, concludes as follows: "Michael abusivus patriarcha neophytus.....

atque cum eo Leo Acridanus episcopus....et omnes sequaces eorum in præfatis erroribus et præsumptionibus, sint Anathema Maranatha, cum Simonaicis, Vallesiis, Arianis, Donatistis, Nicholaitis, Severianis, Pneumatomachis, et Manichæis, et Nazarenis, et cum omnibus hæreticis, imo cum Diabolo et angelis ejus, nisi forte resipuerint. Amen. Amen. Amen."

" Leo Allatius, de Lib. et rebus Eccl. p. 161. gives this excommunication.

larius, in depriving the Latins of their churches, or the legates, for their arrogance, and their needless and uncharitable denunciation of such customs as the marriage of the clergy, and the use of the Nicene Creed without the addition of "filioque," which had never been received in the East, and which the Roman church itself did not afterwards insist on, in its temporary reunions with the Oriental churches.

But blameable as the conduct of both these parties unquestionably was, still it does not follow that either was absolutely separated from the catholic church; for neither act of excommunication was known and approved by the majority of that church. At most, therefore, they merely separated the particular churches of Rome and Constantinople from friendly mutual communion. Nor can it be pretended that either the Greeks or the Latins separated themselves from the majority of the church the Roman pontiffs and those who accused the Greeks of schism, did so on another ground, “their separation from the chair of Peter."

It is not to be imagined that either the church of Rome or of Constantinople was by these acts separated from catholic unity; and still less, that the whole West or the whole East could be cut off from the Christian church by the acts of one or two passionate and prejudiced bishops. Such notions would be opposed to all reason and precedent.

(2.) THE CHURCH GENERALLY DID NOT CONSIDER either

PARTY EXCOMMUNICATED.

We find that long after the time of Cerularius, a certain degree of communion still subsisted between the East and West. Leo Allatius has produced se

▾ Leo Allatius, de Consens. p. 624, &c.