Library › Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors › Correspondence (1716–1725)

Correspondence (1716–1725)

Eastern Patriarchs and the Nonjurors, ed. Williams, 1868

No. 5: Copy of a Reply to the Answers of the Orthodox of the East

To the most Reverend Lords the Patriarchs of the Orthodox oriental Church, the Lord Jeremias of Constantinople, the Lord Samuel of Alexandria, the Lord Athanasius of Antioch, and the Lord Chrysanthus of Jerusalem: and to the Right Reverend the Metropolitans and Bishops, and to the whole Clergy and the rest of the Orthodox of the Greek Church.

The Reply of the Catholick Remnant in Britain, to the Answer sent them by the Orthodox Oriental Church, in order to their mutual Agreement.

Before the Catholick Remainder of the British Church proceed to a Reply to the Answer of the four most reverend Patriarchs of the Catholick Oriental Church, they think themselves obliged to return their most hearty thanks to their Patriarchal Lordships, for the trouble they have given themselves, in drawing up an Answer to our Proposals, and transmitting it to so distant a country as Great Britain: Hoping that this charitable disposition and generous ardour which their Patriarchal Lordships express for procuring an Harmony between us, and enlarging the Union of Christendom, may be carried on to a happy conclusion. And, as the Catholick Remainder of Britain will omit nothing, in order to so desireable an issue, but willingly stretch to the utmost length within their power; so having the satisfaction to understand, that their Patriarchal Lordships refer the difference of sentiments beween us to the decision of the Scriptures and primitive Church, they have no uncomfortable prospect of a coalition. For since the determining rule is equally received by the Oriental Churches and the Catholic Remainder in Britain; since the inspired Writings of the Old and New Testament, as interpreted by the primitive Fathers, are the common standard of Faith and Worship to both; we do not despair, but that by the blessing of God, when the case shall be farther examined by the Catholic Oriental Church, such allowances and concessions may be made, as may dispose both parties to unite in Communion with each other. And now, after this short mention of our wishes and regard, we shall proceed to speak to the Answer their Patriarchal Lordships have done us the honour to send us.

“As to the Articles agreed on between us, they shall be passed over unmentioned, excepting as they stand in number.

1, 2, 3, 4, 5. To the Answer to the first five Propositions we have nothing to except; only we conceive, that the British Bishops may remain independent of all the Patriarchates.

6. Under this Article we never intended to prescribe to the Wisdom, or question the Learning of the Catholick Oriental Church: Our meaning by the word παιδεία relating only to points of Discipline.

7. The answer of their Patriarchal Lordships is here agreed to.

8. It is likewise agreed, that the Liturgy by which we now officiate shall be translated into Greek, and transmitted to their Patriarchal Lordships to be inspected by them.

9, 10, 11, 12. The Answer to the ninth, tenth, eleventh, and twelfth Proposals is agreed to.

Farther our Reply to their Answers to the Articles agreed on in our Proposals is as follows.

1, 2, 3. As to the first, second and third Answers, we make no Exceptions, provided all other Points shall be adjusted.

4, 5, 6, 7. The fourth, fifth, sixth and seventh Articles in their Answer shall be considered when we come to speak to the Answer of the Catholick Oriental Church to the first Proposition, in which there is still remaining some Diversity of Opinion between them and the Catholick British Church.

8. The Answer to this Proposal is agreed to.

9, 10, 11. As is also that to the ninth, tenth, and eleventh.

12. With respect to the twelfth, we believe the prayers of the Living, together with the Eucharistick Sacrifice, are serviceable to the Dead, for the improvement of their happiness during the interval between Death and the Resurrection: but then we declare no further upon this Article.

As to the Answer to the last five Articles, in which there still continues some difference to be adjusted, we desire to observe in general, that what conjectures soever the Catholick Oriental Church might have to suspect us of Luthero-Calvinism, we openly declare, that none of the distinguishing principles of either of those Sects, can fairly be charged upon us; and we farther believe, that upon the perusal of our Reply they will readily acquit us of any such imputation.

To come now to particulars.

i. Our reply to the answer to the 1st Proposition, relating to the reception of the seven General Councils, as of equal authority with the Holy Scriptures, must be made with somewhat in abatement of regard. We willingly declare, we receive the Faith decreed in the first six General Councils, as being agreeable to the Holy Scriptures; tho’ our sentiments cannot advance so far as to believe the Fathers of those Councils assisted with an equal degree of Inspiration with the Prophets, Evangelists, and Apostles; but here we desire not to lye under any restraint imposed by the disciplinary Canons of those Councils. To this we must subjoin, that as to the seventh General Council assembled at Nice, we think ourselves obliged to declare, that we cannot assent to the giving even the worship of Dulia to Angels or departed Saints. Some of our reasons are these.

First, there is no clear instance in the Old Testament that the Jews worshipped Angels, but rather the contrary. Had that nation believed the worship of these superior Beings lawful, they had particular motives for such an application: for, Angels had appeared to the Patriarchs, delivered the Mosaic Laws, conducted them through the wilderness, and Michael is said to be their Prince, and to have the Guardianship of their country. (Dan. x.) ‘Tis true Abraham is said to bow down before the Angels; but then it is plain by his entertainment, he took them only for men. ‘Tis granted Moses and Joshua were commanded to put off their shoes, and told that the place was holy by the Angel that appeared: But, the Fathers generally believed it was our Saviour under this quality and denomination. Particularly St Justin Martyr, St Irenæus, Tertullian, and St Athanasius declare for this opinion. (Justin Martyr, cum Tryph. Iren. lib. 4. cap. 22. Tertul. lib. adv. Judeos. Athanas. lib. 4. contra Arian.) Thus the Fathers observe, that when Angels appeared, they refused adoration, as the angel that appeared to Manoa, and St John. (Judges and Revelation.) Besides it is not the same thing to worship visible and invisible Angels. When they are visible, there is a regard due to the superiority of their Nature, to their Character and Message; which reasons for regard don’t hold when they are unseen and possibly out of reach. Farther, Origen tells Celsus “he slandered the Jews” (Origen contra Cels. lib. i.) “in saying they worshiped angels. That, nothing is to be worshiped but God Almighty: neither are prayers to be addressed to any but the Sovereign Being: That the right way of worshiping God is by directing our devotions to Him by Jesus Christ, without Application to Angels: That if we are so happy as to have God’s favour, all the Angels and blessed Spirits will be our friends, and pray for us without application.” (Ibid.) There are several texts in the Old and New Testament from whence we may conclude the worshiping Angels unlawful. (Deut. vi. 13, with reference to verse 4. 1 Sam. vii. 3, where the word in LXXII. is δουλεύσατε, which overthrows the distinction between Latria and Dulia. To these we may add Luke iv. 8, Coloss. ii. 18, 19, with Theodoret’s Comment.) To mention some more of the Fathers. Irenæus (lib. ii. cap. 57.) declares expressly, “The Church did not work any miracles by invocation of Angels, or by any unlawful curiosity.” Theophilus Antiochenus gives the reason why the Christians could not adore the Emperor, “’Twas because his majesty was not God.” (ad. Autolyc.) The Council of Laodicea, (Canon 35,) denounced an anathema against those that worshipped Angels. But here ’tis pretended, this Canon is only levelled against those hereticks who held the angels brought salvation by delivering the Law, and worshipped them exclusively of our Saviour. But that this is not the meaning of the Council may be made good, 1st, Because the Council condemns Angel-worship in general and comprehensive terms, without any restraining clause or limitation: Whereas had they thought it lawful in any respect, such a prudent Assembly, as we may reasonably collect, would have distinguished the case, remarked the fault, and pointed their anathema only upon the irregularities and excesses of such a worship. 2ndly. Though those that are censured are said to forsake the Church, yet this implies no more than that they held private conventicles, as the Canon intimates. For had they maintained the Angels brought salvation by publishing the Law, had they looked upon them as their proper and primary Mediators, had they neither prayed to our Saviour, nor worshipped Him, they had been no Christians. And if so, they were out of the jurisdiction of the Council: For as St Paul says, What have we to do with them that are without? ‘Tis not the custom of the Church to excommunicate Jews, Pagans, or Apostates; for that would be to exclude those from her society that had gone off already. And besides, her power does not extend beyond the Pale of Christendom. ‘Tis plain therefore the anathema of the Council is levelled against those who had not wholly abandoned the worship of our Saviour; what therefore could they be condemned for but for worshipping the Angels together with Him, and making more Mediators in religious worship than one? St Athanasius in his discourse against the Arians (lib. iv.) having proved, that the Angels waited upon our Saviour and worshipped Him, adds, “They adored Him not because He was of an higher Order than themselves, but because He was of a distinct, and uncreated Nature. For if dignity and height of station were a sufficient ground for adoration, all inferior Angels should worship their Superiours: But it is not so; κτίσμα γὰρ κτίσματι οὐ προσκυνεῖ, for one creature is not to worship another.” And after he has produced the instance of St Peter forbidding Cornelius to worship him, (Acts x.) and the angels forbidding St John, (Rev. xix.) he concludes “that God alone is to be worshipped.” (Athan. cont. Arian, pp. 286, 394, edit. Par.) Epiphanius, reporting the Heresy of those who worshipped the blessed Virgin, argues thus; “Neither Elias, who was carried in a fiery chariot to heaven, and is now living, nor St John, who was particularly favour’d by our Saviour, nor any of the Saints is worshiped. If God does not allow the Angels to be worshipped, much less the daughter of Anna and Joachim.” (Epiphan. Hæres. 79.) And elsewhere he declares, that “no created Being ought to be worshipped.” To these we shall only subjoin one testimony from St Austin, who tho’ a Latin Father, was a person of great character for piety and learning, and wrote in some part of the fourth and fifth centuries. This Father remarks, that the Angel in the Revelations forbids the paying him any worship, that “he was the Apostle’s fellow-servant, and that God was only to be worshipped.” (Aug. de Doctrin. Christian. lib. i. cap. 33.) To draw towards a conclusion. As some of those testimonies expresly discountenance religious application to the Saints; so those other authorities, which point particularly upon the Angels, seem by more than parity of reason, to comprehend the Faithful departed under the same direction. For if the Angels, whom the Scriptures declare guardians and ministring spirits, to the heirs of salvation, (Ps. xxxiv, Heb. i.) are not to receive application and worship, the consequence of this Prohibition will come stronger upon the Saints deceased, because they have no such commission for protecting mankind, no such liberty for revisiting this world, (at least that we know of,) and therefore our reasons for address and acknowledgment must proportionably abate. As to the texts of Scripture produced for maintaining application to the Saints departed, we conceive the proof alledged falls short of conviction. For instance, King Hezekiah’s being delivered from Sennacherib’s army by David then deceased, this passage seems plainly foreign to the argument. For the text only says that God promised to defend Jerusalem for his servant David’s sake and for His own sake; but here is not the least mention that the Jews made any application to David for his intercession, without which their Lordships’ arguments can’t bear. Their next citation from Acts xii. 5, where it is said that Prayer was made without ceasing of the Church unto God for St Peter; this proves no farther, than that one part of the Church militant prayed for another: Neither does St Paul’s desiring the Romans to join with him in prayers to God for his deliverance from the unbelieving, reach any farther; neither do we deny any such mediation. Farther, we are willing to grant that the Saints departed intercede for the Faithful upon earth: but this does by no means prove, that we are to address them for this purpose; both because we may reasonably conclude the benevolence of their nature will prompt them to assist us without religious submission: and besides, we are not assured they are within the reach of our petitions.

‘Tis too well known indeed, that the ill nature of men is often such, that they will do nothing without courtship and servile application: they spoil the grace of an obligation by delays and distance, and morose behaviour; and sometimes there is more trouble with ’em than the thing is worth. They believe their greatness consists in the littleness of others; and therefore they will not part with their favours without submissions; they think they are slighted when they are not flattered, and endeavour to make up their defects in solid advantages, by haughtiness and pretending. But all this proceeds from scandalous principles, from ignorance, and weakness, and malice. The climate of this miserable world does not differ more from the regions of happiness, than such a temper from those who dwell there. The blessed Spirits understand their own height too well to fancy our observance can make any addition, and are too good to have any thing of state or exceptiousness in ’em. There has been no pride in the mansions of bliss since Lucifer was thrown out; and therefore we need not fear that those who are there will be disobliged with the omission of a little ceremony; especially when they know we do not forbear it out of disrespect, but for fear of offending God. Their goodness is too absolute to clog their assistance with any incumbrance; Their greatness is without vanity, their kindness without design: and therefore all their favours will come unbespoken of themselves. Their generous charity is sufficient to oblige them to do their utmost; so that it is needless for us to go about to waken their beneficence by importunity and homage. And whereas they assert that our Saviour’s Mediation relates only to Original Sin, and that we are to address the Saints to intercede with the God of the Universe for the remission of post-baptismal sins; this assertion, with all due regard to their Patriarchal Lordships, we conceive repugnant to plain Scripture, and derogatory to the Mediatorial Office of our Saviour as God and Man. For our blessed Saviour plainly commands the Apostles, and by consequence all the faithful, to apply immediately to God. Whatsoever ye shall ask, says He, in My name that will I do; and, in the next verse, If ye shall ask any thing in My name, I will do it, (John xiv. 13, 14,) and in Chapter 16 our Saviour assures His disciples, that whatsoever they shall ask the Father in His name He will give it them. From whence our Lord continues, Hitherto ye have asked nothing in My Name; ask and ye shall receive, that your joy may be full (ibid.). Thus we see there is as express command for addressing God directly for all the blessings relating to this life and the other. And that the same rule holds for immediate application to God, for the remission of post-baptismal sins, we may learn from the same Apostle’s 1st Epist. c. ii. v. 12, where we are told, If any man sin, we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ the righteous, and He is the propitiation for our sins. By the Apostle’s dedaring, that if any man sin we have an advocate with the Father, Jesus Christ, it is evident actual sins are only meant; for original sin was contracted long before any persons were in being in St John’s time. Besides, the Apostle’s affirming our Saviour to be then an Advocate and Propitiation for our sins, manifestly implys His Intercession with God the Father for post-baptismal transgressions ever since His Ascension.

4. As to their Patriarchal Lordships’ sentiment, maintaining the Bread and Wine in the Holy Eucharist being changed after Consecration into the natural Body and Blood of our Saviour, nothing of the elements remaining excepting the bare accidents void of substance, we can by no means agree with their Lordships’ doctrine: such a corporal Presence, which they call Transubstantiation, having no foundation in Scripture, and being by implication, and sometimes plainly, denied by the most celebrated Fathers of the Primitive Church. As to the Scripture, ’tis true our blessed Saviour calls the Eucharistic bread and wine His Body and Blood: but that these words are not to be restrained to a literal sense we may collect from other places of Scripture, where our Saviour calls Himself a Door and a Vine; and in other places of Holy Writ He is called the Lamb of God, and the Lion of the tribe of Juda. All which texts we doubt not, but the Oriental Church will allow must be construed to a metaphorical sense: and if these places are to be figuratively interpreted, why not the other at the institution of the Holy Eucharist, which if restrained to the letter is no less shocking than the rest? Farther, St Paul calls the Eucharistic Element Bread, even after Consecration, when it was to be received, (1 Cor. xi. 28.) And now to alledge some testimonies from the primitive Fathers. St Justin Martyr declares that “our bodies are nourished by the consecrated bread and wine.” (Apol. 2.) From whence the inference is plain, this Father believed the substance of the Eucharistic Elements to remain after Consecration. For if the doctrine of Accidents had been established, which ’tis pretty plain the primitive Fathers knew nothing of, supposing this doctrine current, which way could St Justin Martyr conceive our bodies could be nourished with bare Accidents? For Accidents are thrown out of all Substance; and then which way can it be supposed a body can receive nourishment and addition of parts from that which is no body? St Irenæus, who lived in some part of the same second century with St Justin, informs us the Holy Eucharist consists of two parts, an earthly and an heavenly: the first is the Bread and Wine, the other consists in the mystick force and supernatural efficacy conveyed by the descent of the Holy Ghost. St Cyril of Jerusalem, ’tis granted, has a passage that sounds strongly towards Transubstantiation. (Catech. Mystic. 4.) He observes, “that as our Saviour turned the water into wine at Cana in Galilee, so we have no reason to question but that He gave His Body and Blood at the holy Institution. Therefore, we may be certainly assured, that we receive His Body under the species of bread, and His Blood under the species of wine.” But that these expressions, how strong soever, are not to be mounted to Transubstantiation, seems pretty plain from his discourse upon the Holy Chrism. (Cat. Myst. 2.) The words are these. As the Eucharistick bread after the Invocation of the Holy Ghost, is no longer meer or common bread, but the Body of Christ; so this holy Ointment remains no longer meer or common ointment, after the invocation, but becomes the χάρισμα or grace of Christ, and the very presence and divinity of the Holy Spirit. From this reasoning we may conclude, that as the Holy Chrism cannot be supposed to be raised to the essence and sublimity of the Deity; so neither by the force of the comparison, can we infer that this Father meant any more than that the Eucharistick Elements had a supernatural force and beneficial energy transfused by Consecration upon them. The next testimony shall be the famous S. Chrysostom in his Epistle to Cæsarius. Here, this Father disputing against the Heresy of Apollinaris, brings an instance by way of illustration from the Holy Eucharist. The bread, says he, before consecration, is called bread; but after it has passed thro’ the force of the solemnity, and been consecrated by the Priest, it is then discharged from the name of bread, and dignified with the name of our Lord’s Body, tho’ the nature of bread still remains in it. And thus by the form of the expression, and the application of the instance, he shews clearly that he believed the nature or substance of bread remained unchanged after Consecration. Theodoret, who is the last Greek Father we shall mention, has a passage full to the same purpose. It is in his second dialogue between Orthodoxus and Eranistes; The latter of these two persons represents an Eutychian. Now, by the Doctrine of the Eutychian Heresy, our Saviour’s human nature was absorbed by the divine. To make good this point, Eranistes argues from the change of the Elements in the Holy Eucharist. As the Symbols of our Saviour’s body and blood, says he, are one thing before the Invocation of the Priest, but after the prayer of Consecration has passed upon them, they are changed and become another; so our Lord’s body after His ascension, is transform’d into the Divine substance. You are catch’d in your own net, replies Orthodoxus (who stands for Theodoret) οὐδὲ γὰρ μετὰ τὸν ἁγιασμὸν τὰ μυσικὰ σύμβολα τῆς οἰκείας ἐξίσταται φύσεως· μένει γὰρ ἐπὶ τῆς προτέρας οὐσίας, &c. that is, the mysterious symbols don’t lose their nature upon consecration, but continue in their former substance. And to apply this matter farther. It is well known S. Chrysostom and Theodoret were never charged with any unorthodoxy or singularity of Opinion with regard to the Holy Eucharist; we may therefore safely conclude that their opinion in this matter, was no other than the Catholick Doctrine of the Primitive Church. These Authorities of the Eastern Fathers shall be fortified by three of the Western Church of famous memory: the first is Tertullian, who wrote in the beginning of the third, the other are S. Austin Bishop of Hippo, and Gelasius the first who lived in the fourth and fifth Centuries. Tertullian reports, (contra Marcion.) that our Saviour, by what He calls His Body in the Holy Eucharist, meant the Symbol and Representation of His body: Corpus meum, hoc est, figura corporis mei. S. Austin lays down the following rule as a Maxim for interpreting Scripture. If the text, says he, forbids something wicked and flagitious, and commands what is serviceable and beneficial, then the precept is to be literally understood; but if it seems to command a wicked action and forbid a good one, then it is a figurative expression: and to apply and illustrate this Maxim, he instances in the text of S. John’s Gospel (chap. vi.) urged sometimes in proof of the Corporal presence: Unless ye eat the flesh of the Son of man and drink His blood, ye have no life in you. Here something very ill and inhuman seems commanded, therefore the place has a figurative meaning: the sense is, that we ought gratefully to recollect our Saviour’s Passion, and entertain our memory with the contemplation, that His flesh has been crucified and wounded for us: His words are, “Figura est ergo præcipiens passioni ejus esse communicandum, et suaviter et utiliter in memoriâ recolendum, quod pro nobis Caro ejus crucifixa et vulnerata sit.” (Augustin. de doctr. christian. Lib. iii. cap. 15). And in the same book he expressly pronounces, that ’tis not really and strictly speaking our Saviour’s body, which will not continue with Him to all eternity. “Non revera Domini corpus est, quod cum illo non erit in eternum.” (Ibid, cap. xxxiii.) From hence nothing can be more evident, than that this celebrated Father did not believe the Eucharistick Elements were transubstantiated into our Saviour’s natural Body. For, ’tis granted on all hands that the Eucharistick Sacrifice will for ever cease at the Judgement day: For, when the final decision is past, and every one’s fate is fixt; when there will be no more remission of sin, or need of grace against temptation, the reason for sacrificing must drop of course: and when the Eucharistick Elements are no longer consecrated, the natural Body of our Saviour, supposed to emerge from thence, can no longer be produced, and by consequence cannot continue with him to all eternity.

Pope Gelasius is no less strongly determining against Transubstantiation. This Pope, who wrote in the latter end of the fifth Century, plainly declares, the substance and nature of the Bread and Wine remains after consecration. (‘Tis in Tract. contra Nestorium et Eutychem.) ‘Tis true, he then tells us, the elements are changed into a Divine thing, i.e. raised to a divine efficacy by the operation of the Holy Spirit. Which change we most willingly confess, viz. that there is a mystick virtue and supernatural force transfused upon the Eucharistick Elements by the Priest’s pronouncing the words of Institution and his prayer for the descent of the Holy Ghost.

As to what has been urged from these Latin Fathers, their testimony can’t justly be excepted to: for, since they are early in time, and considerable in character, their being members of the Western Church, can be no disadvantage to their authority: For, they lived several Centuries before a rupture between the Greek and Latin Churches. And as for their not writing in Greek, we conceive, their Patriarchal Lordships will not consider them with any abatement upon that score.

Our Reply to the answer of the fifth article is; that since we can’t be convinced of any liberty for invocating the Saints and paying religious worship to them; we conceive, the argument lies rather stronger against giving relative worship or religious respect to their Images. For, since the Prototype cannot be thus addressed or regarded, ’tis still more difficult to imagine, the bare representation of such a Being can claim any such honour. To proceed. That neither the worship, nor so much as the use of them was very early in the Christian Church, is pretty plain from S. Epighanius Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, in his letter to John of Jerusalem, where he declares strongly against this practice¹. “When I came into a Country Church of Palestine called Anablatha, I found a curtain hanging over the door, upon which there was a picture painted like that of our Saviour or some Saint; (for, I can’t certainly remember whose picture it was:) However, seeing the figure of a Man in the Church of Christ, contrary to the Authority of Holy Scripture, I tore it, and gave order to the Churchwardens to wrap it about some corps and bury it, &c.” And tho’ this Father went too far, in asserting the unlawfulness of having Images in Churches: yet we may fairly infer, that this practice was not customary in Cyprus or Palestine in Epiphanius’s time.

To this we may observe, that the Council of Constantinople held under Constantine Copronymus against Images asserts, that there was no Prayer in the Church-service for consecrating Images; which suggestion the second Council of Nice does not deny. (Baron. A.D. 754. Concil. Labbe. Tom. vii.) And S. Austin mentioning some superstitious Christians, (for so he calls them,) says, he knew a great many who worship’d pictures. (Augustin. de moribus Eccl. Cath. Cap. 34.)

And for a farther Declaration of our Sentiment upon this Article, we willingly acknowledge, that the use of Images in Churches is not only lawful, but may be serviceable for representing the History of the Saints, for refreshing the memory, and warming the Devotion of the People. And thus, our reason for alledging the foregoing Testimonies, is not against the use, but only against the worship of Images. For, if the bare usage was sometimes condemned, and no where generally practiced in the Primitive Church, it follows à fortiori, that the worship of them in those early ages cannot be supposed.

And thus having represented the Differences between us, we are now to suggest a Temper, and offer a Compromise. If therefore, our Liberty is left us in the instances above-mentioned; If the Oriental Patriarchs, Bishops &c. will authentically declare us not obliged to the Invocation of Saints and Angels, the worship of Images, nor the Adoration of the Host; If they please publickly and authoritatively by an Instrument signed by them, to pronounce us perfectly disengaged in these particulars; disengaged, we say, at home and abroad, in their Churches and in our own: These relaxing concessions allow’d, we hope may answer the Overtures on both sides, and conciliate an Union.

And we farther desire their Patriarchal Lordships, &c. would please to remember, that Christianity is no gradual Religion, but was entire and perfect when the Evangelists and Apostles were deceased. And therefore the earliest Traditions are undoubtedly preferable, and the first Guides the best. For, the stream runs clearest towards the fountain’s head. Thus, whatever variations there are from the original state, whatever crosses in belief or practice upon the earliest ages, ought to come under suspicion. Therefore, as they charitably put us in mind, to shake off all prejudices, so we entreat them not to take it amiss, if we humbly suggest the same advice. We hope therefore, their Lordships’ impartial Consideration will not determine by prepossession or the precedents of later times; but rather be govern’d by the general usages and doctrine of the first four Centuries, not excluding the fifth; than think themselves unalterably bound by any solemn decisions of the East in the eighth Century, which was even then opposed by an equal Authority in the West.

And thus, presuming both parties will hold the balance even, and not wish for Truth, but prove it; we are not without expectation of advancing so far towards an Uniformity, as may make up the unhappy breach, and close the distance between us.

And to release their Patriarchal Lordships, and take leave with our most earnest Prayers, that the allwise and merciful God, who makes men to be of one mind in an house², who is the Author of Peace and the lover of Concord, may graciously please to continue their benevolent wishes, animate their zeal, and direct their measures for the finishing so glorious a work: That the Orthodox Oriental Church, and the Catholick Remainder in Britain, may at last join in the Holy Solemnities of Religion, and be made more intimately one Fold under one Shepherd³, Jesus Christ our blessed Lord and Saviour; To whom with the Father, and the Holy Spirit be all Honour and Glory, world without end. Amen.

This Reply was concluded and delivered to some Greeks in London, to be by them transmitted to the four Eastern Patriarchs, May 29, 1722.

Previous · Contents · Next