A new history of ecclesiastical writers containing an account of the authors of the several books of the Old and New Testament, of the lives and writings of the primitive fathers, an abridgement and catalogue of their works ... also a compendious history of the councils, with chronological tables of the whole / written in French by Lewis Ellies du Pin.

CHAP. VII. (Book 7)

An Account of the Controversies on foot between the LATIN and the GREEK Churches in the Eleventh Century.

THO' The Latin and Greek Churches were not in a close Communion with each * 1.1 other ever since the Affair of Photius, yet they did not proceed to an open Rupture till the time of Pope Leo IX. and of Michael Cerularius Patriarch of Constantinople. This Breach began by a Letter which the Latter wrote in the Year, 1053. in his own Name and in the Name of Leo Arch-bishop of Acridia and of all Bulgaria, to John Bishop of Trani in Apulia, that he might communicate it to the Pope and to all the Western Church. In▪ this Letter they reprov'd the Latins. (1.) Because they made use of unleaven'd Bread in the celebration of the Eucharist. (2.) Because they Fasted on the Saturdays in Lent. (3.) Because they Eat the Blood of Beasts, and things Strangled. (4.) Because they did not Sing ALLELUIAH in Lent. At the same time Michael Cerularius order'd the Churches of the Latins who were at Constantinople to be shut up, and to deprive the Abbots and Latin Religious, who would not renounce the Ceremonies of the Roman Church, of the Monasteries which they held in that City.

This Letter of Michael being brought into Italy by an Officer of the Emperor Constan∣tine * 1.2 Monomachus, who went thither to carry on a Treaty with the Pope against the Nor∣mans, was communicated to Cardinal Humbert, who was at Trani; he turn'd it into Latin, and sent a Copy of it to Pope Leo. This Pope wrote upon that Subject a Let∣ter to Cerularius and to Leo of Acridia, wherein he extols the Dignity of the Church of Rome, and complains of the unkind usage which the Greeks had shewn to the Latins at Con∣stantinople without discanting on any of the particular Points. He only observ'd in ge∣neral, that the Diversity of Ceremonies is no lawful Foundation for the breach of the unity of the Church. This is the first Letter of Leo, of which we have made mention in another place.

The Greek Emperor, whose interest it was to hold it fair with the Pope, that he might * 1.3 still be Master of that little which he had in the West, wrote him a Letter, whereby he declares that he was willing to procure the Union of both Churches: And the Patriarch of Constantinople took notice to him likewise that he desir'd the same. The Pope who as much desired this reunion as the Greeks, as well for the Welfare of the Church, as because he was willing to be secur'd against the Normans in Apulia, the next Year sent three Le∣gats * 1.4 to Constantinople, viz. Cardinal Humbert Bishop of Blanchesolva, Cardinal Frederick Arch-deacon and Chancellor of the Church of Rome; and Peter Arch-bishop of Melphi. He sent them with Letters to the Emperor and to the Patriarch, wherein he commends the Zeal, which the Emperor express'd for the Peace of the Church, and complain'd of the Pa∣triarch's Proceedings against the Church of Rome, even at a time when he pretended to be desirous of Peace. These are the sixth and seventh Letters of Leo. In that which is di∣rected to the Patriarch he upbraids him with four Things of which mention is made * 1.5 be∣fore, and which 'tis not thought fit to repeat. This Letter is •…•…ated in January, 1054.

The Legats being arriv'd at Constantinople on the Feast of S. John Baptist, were kindly receiv'd by the Emperor Humbert, who was the Spokesman who presented to that Prince the Pope's Letters, and gave Michael that which was directed to him. He likewise presented to the Emperor a Writing which he had Compos'd in answer to the Letter of Cerularius,

with a Resutation of the Treatise compos'd by Nicetas Pectoratus Monk of Studia, against the Practices of the Latins. The Emperor having caus'd them to be turn'd into Greek, made them to be Publish'd in Constantinople, concealing the Names of Humbert and Michael under those of Romanus and Constantinopolitanus.

In the Reply to the Letter of Cer••larius, Humbert accuses the Greeks of tolerating Here∣ticks * 1.6 among them, and surpassing all of them in their Rashness; because they had the Con∣fidence to confront the Church of Rome, and to Anathematize it openly; which never any Heretick dar'd to do. He afterwards demonstrates that 'tis a piece of Malice to accuse the Latins of imitating the Jews in Unleaven'd Bread, and in the Sabbath: Since they observe not the Ceremonies of their Passovers; and are so far from Feasting on their Sabbath, that they Fast on that Day. That this reflected rather on the Greeks, who spent the Saturday in Mirth, as if it were a ••estival Day. He proves that the Unleaven'd is the true Bread, and enlarges himself on the Advantages and mystical Significations, which it may have. He observes that the Bread which is offer'd in the Church of Rome is a great deal more pro∣per and convenient than that which the Greeks make use of; because 'tis made in the Ve∣stry with fine Wheat, and clear Water by the Ministers of the Altar, and they offer a whole Loaf: Whereas the Greeks make use of all manner of Bread, of which they cut a round Piece to put upon the Altar, and return or * 1.7 interr the Remainder, a Practice which Humbert Condemns as contrary to the Respect due to those Holy Mysteries. As to the second Charge, relating to the Saturday's Fast, Humbert only re∣plies in one Word, that the Latins do not Feast on the Sabbath or Saturday, as do the Jews, neither in Lent nor out of Lent. As to the third Point relating to things Strangled, he says that the Latins make use of that Liberty which the Apostle has given them, of eating all manner of Meats; but withal observing the Custom of the Churches wherein they Live, that they might give no occasion of Offence. He adds, that they likewise abhor Eating of Blood, or the Flesh of such Animals as are Drown'd or Stifled, and that they enjoyn Pennance to those who do it: But as to Beasts kill'd or taken in Hunting, 'tis their Custom to eat thereof without any Scruple. In short, as to the last Head, which relates to the omission of singing ALLELUIAH in Lent, He makes it appear that the Latins do not omit it out of any Aversion thereto; but that they look upon it as an Hymn of Thanksgiving, which is not so suitable to that holy time of Pennance and Humiliation. In this Treatise he speaks very sharply against the Greeks, whom by way of Induction he ac∣cuses of being Marcionites, Manichees, Theopaschites, &c. He upbraids them with Re-bap∣tizing the Latins; with suffering Children to Dye without Baptism, if they be not eight Days old; with interring the remainder of the Holy Eucharist; with permitting marry'd Men to wait at the Altars, even at a time when they have had to do with their Wives, when at the same time they refus'd to give the Communion to Women newly brought to Bed, or who have their usual Infirmities upon them; with tolerating Sarabait Monks guilty of Fornication, whereas they blam'd the Rule of S. Benedict, which allows the Monks of that Order to wear Breeches in a Journey, and to eat of Flesh when they have occasion for it; and lastly because they represent in their Crucifixes the figure of a dying Man, so that upon the Cross of JESUS CHRIST a sort of Anti-Christ is exhibited to be ador'd as a God.

The writing of Nicetas Pectoratus, a Studite Monk, against the Latin Church is a great * 1.8 deal more fierce than the Letter of Michael Cerularius. He begins with an Admonition to the Latins, to hearken with Humility and Charity to the Remonstrances which he would offer to them, concerning Unleavened Bread, the Fast on Saturday, and the Marriage of Priests. Upon the first Point he says, That those who make use of Unleavened Bread are still under the shadow of the Law: That they assist at the Table of the Jews, and do not eat that Bread which is Supersubstantial, or Consubstantial to us; because Unleavened Bread is Dead Bread which has no Virtue or Efficacy in it: That 'tis not such Bread as is perfect, complea••, or compos'd of three Things which figure out to us the Body of JESUS CHRIST, which are the Leaven, the Meal, and the Water; representations of the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood of our Saviour. He pretends that JESUS CHRIST made use of Leaven'd Bread in the Institution of the Holy Eucharist; because he instituted it on the Thirteenth, and not on the Fourteenth Day of the Moon of March before the Feast of Unleavened Bread; and that the Apostles forbad the making use of Unleavened Bread. As to the second Point, he asks the Latins upon what they ground the Fast on Saturday, since S. Clement has instituted the Fasts on Wednesday and Friday, because JESUS CHRIST was betray'd on Wednesday, and fasten'd to the Cross on Friday: But that he prohibited the Fast on Saturday, since there was not the least colour for it. He moreover Cites the Canons of the Apostles, the Constitutions of S. Clement, and a Canon which is attributed to the sixth Council. He likewise found fault that the Latins did celebrate the whole Mass on Fast Days; and to refute this Custom he produc'd a Canon of the Apostles, several Canons of the Councils of Gangres and Laodicea, and of the Council of Trullo▪ which he again Cites under the name of the sixth Council, which he makes use of to Authorise the

Usage of the Mass of Preconsecrated Bread every Fast Day, which he sets sorth in these Terms.

On Saturday and Sunday (says he) about nine a Clock we offer the Sacrifice, and Con∣secrate as much Bread as will serve the rest of the Week: On other Days about three a Clock in the Afternoon, when the Service is ended by the * 1.9 Complines, the Priests and Deacons come in carrying a Censer; and after they have read the Prophesies, and said the Prayers prescrib'd by S. Basil, before the Altar where the Sacred Mysteries lye, we repeat the Lord's Prayer; and afterwards we elevate the Preconsecrated Bread, and say, SANCTA SANCTIS: After which we receive the Communion of the Bread and Cup, and having return'd thanks to God, we send away the People, and those▪ who please, take their repast of Pulse and Water. And there are some who go the whole Week without any other Nourishment than that of the Communion.

Lastly upon the last Head, which is concerning the Marriage of Priests, he ask'd the Latins who taught them to hinder marry'd Persons from being ordain'd Priests, or to force them to part from their Wives? He confuted this Custom by the Constitutions of S. Clement, and by the Council of Trullo. He concludes this Treatise with an Exhortation to the Latins to submit to his Admonitions, or to produce manifest Authorities from the Holy Scriptures to justify their Customs.

Humbert in his Reply begins with casting Reflections and Reproaches on this Monk, and took it very ill that he (contrary to the Duties of his Profession) should concern himself in * 1.10 writing against the Roman Church. He rejects his Thought concerning the Consubstantiality of the Leaven'd Bread, as a Chimera bred only in his own Brain; and his Application of the Passage out of S. John concerning the Spirit, the Water, and the Blood, as wresting the true Sense of the Scripture: And he takes an occasion to charge him with Heresie, because he had said that the Quickning Spirit remain'd in the Body of JESUS CHRIST after his Death. He does not enlarge himself much about the use of Unleavened Bread, supposing that he had said enough in his Reply to Michal Cerularius; he only observes that it cannot be said that JESUS CHRIST celebrated the Passover the thirteenth of the Moon of March, and with Leaven'd Bread, because if it had been so, he would have been gu••lty of a double Breach of the Law, which he had observ'd in all its parts with the greatest strict∣ness imaginable. He rejects the Constitutions and Canons of the Apostles, except the first Fifty, as Apocryphal Pieces. He pretends, that after the Sixth Council, the Emperor Con∣stantine Heraclius having ask'd the Pope's Legats after what manner they celebrated the Eu∣charist, they return'd this Answer, viz. That they made use of Wine mingled with Water, and of Unleavened Bread; and that the Emperor approv'd of the Tradition of the Holy Apostolical See. This is a Matter of Fact of Humbert's advancing that cannot be met with in any Record: As to what concerns the Saturday's Fast, he says that since the Greeks think it requisite to ••ast every Wednesday and Friday in the Year, because our Saviour was be∣tray'd and Crucified on those Days, and since they were likewise willing to Fast on Holy Saturday, because of his remaining in the Sepulchre on that Day, they ought for the same Reason either to Fast every Saturday in the Year, or else to Fast only on the Wednesday and Friday of the Holy Week▪ and to celebrate Easter Sunday only in Honour of the Resurrection of our Saviour. He rejects the Canons of the Council of Trullo, as supposititious or cor∣rupted; he disapproves of the making use of preconsecrated Bread on Fast-days, as being contray to the Practice of the Apostles, and the example of JESUS CHRIST, who consecrated the Bread just before they distributed it. He calls Nicetas a perfidious Ster∣conanist, because he seems to suppose that the Eucharist broke the Fast, from whence he con∣cludes that he believ'd that the Body and Blood of JESUS CHRIST were of the same nature with other Aliments, and were turn'd into Excrements. He says that in the Latin Church they usually celebrated Mass on Sundays and Holydays at the * 1.11 Tierce Hour, and on Fast-days at Noon, or about Night; but that when necessity required, it might be celebrated at any Hour without breaking one's Fast. He reproves the Greeks, because in breaking the Consecrated Bread they took no Care to gather up the Crumbs which fell; because they rub'd their Patines with Leaves, or a Brush; because they crouded the Consecrated Bread into their Boxes, by thrusting it down with their Hands; because in elevating the Conse∣crated Bread, at the Mass of the Preconsecrated Bread, they seem'd to offer one and the same Oblation twice; because they did not observe the Decretal of Pope Clement, who re∣quir'd that no more Hosts should be Consecrated than what were sufficient for the Com∣municants, and that if any were left, they should not be kept till the Morrow, but be con∣sum'd; because immediately after they had communicated they fell to Ea••ing; because that a great many of them did not observe Lent, and because several others fasted only a Week, the which they stil'd the Lent of Theodorus. Lastly, he charges Nicetas with being a Nico∣laitan, because he oppos'd the Celibacy of Priests and Deacons. He explains the Canons which prohibit Priests from parting with their Wives; of the Care which they ought to take of them, in looking upon them still as their Wives, tho' they have no Carnal Knowledg of them. He produces the Canon of the Council of Nice, concerning Women who live with Clerks, and several Authorities of the Popes, to prove that Priests ought to live chastly.

In short, he charges the Greeks for not ordaining Ministers till after they had oblig'd them to Marry, and concludes all by anathematizing Nicetas.

Cardinal Humbert was not satisfied with having refuted this Monk in so blunt a way, he * 1.12 was willing likewise to make him recant; and when he went with the Emperor and the other Legats to the Monastery of Studius, he oblig'd him to Condemn and Burn his own Writing, and to anathemat••ze all those who deny'd that the Church of Rome was the chief Church of the World, and who Dar'd to call its Doctrin into Question. The next Day Nicetas went him∣self to wait upon the Legats at the Palace of Pigi, without the City, where they resided; and after he had a second time Condemn'd what he had written or done against the Holy See, he was admitted into their Communion, and became one of their Friends. But as for Michael Cerularius he was not so forward to revoke what he had written; on the contrary he avoided meeting with the Legats, and holding any Conference with them. When the Le∣gats * 1.13 perceiv'd that he continu'd Obstinate, they went July the Sixteenth, which happen'd to be a Saturday, to the Church of St. Sophia about Nine a Clock, when they were just upon celebrating Mass; and after they had complain'd of the Obstinacy of Michael Cerularius, they lay'd on the high Altar in the presence both of Clergy and Laity, a Sentence of Excom∣munication against that Patriarch, drawn up in these Terms.

HUMBERT, by the Grace of God, Cardinal Bishop of the Holy Church of Rome, PETER Arch-bishop of Melphi, FREDERICK Deacon and Chancellor, to all the Sons of the Catholick Church Greeting.

The Holy Apostolick See of Rome, which is the Chief of the whole World, to which as to the Head belongs in a more especial manner the Care of all the Churches; has sent us to this Royal City in the quality of its Legats for the Welfare and Peace of the Church, that as it is Writ∣ten, we should go down and s••e whether the Cries which pierce its Ears from this great City be true or no. Let therefore the Empe••ors, Clergy, Senate and People of this City of Constantinople know, That we have here found more Good to excite our Joy, than Evil to raise our Sorrow. For as to the supporters of the Empire, and the principal Citizens, the City is wholly Christian and Orthodox: But as for Michael, who took upon him the false title of Patriarch, and his Adhe∣rents, we have found that they have sown Discord and Heresie in the midst of this City, because they sell the Gifts of God like the Simoniacal; because they imitate the Valesians, in causing Eunuchs to take upon them Holy Orders, and in advancing them to the Episcopacy it self; be∣cause they Re-baptiz'd, as did the Arians, those who had been Baptiz'd in the Name of the Bles∣sed Trinity, and particularly the Latins; because with the Donatists they maintain that the Greek Church is the only true Church, and that the Sacrifices and Baptism of none else are Valid; because with the Nicolaitans they allow of Priests cohabiting with their Wives; because with the Severians they enjoyn'd the Observation of the Law of Moses; because they have struck out of the Creed the Procession of the Holy Ghost from the Person of the Son, as the Pneumatomachi (that is the Macedons, who deny'd the Divinity of the Ho••y Ghost;) because with the Manichees they ascrib'd a Soul to the Leaven'd Bread; because with the Nazarens they were such strict obser∣vers of the Legal Purity, that they would not Baptize Infants, who dy'd within eight Days after they were Born, nor admit Women in Travail, or who had the usual Infirmities of Nature upon them, to Baptism or the Communion; and lastly, because they Condemn'd and Excommunicated those who shav'd their Beards, according to the Custom of the Roman Church. Michael having been advertis'd of these Errors, and reprov'd for several other proceedings by the Letter of Pope Leo, has still persisted in them, and when that we would have apply'd a Remedy to these Evils, he refus'd to appear before, or to have any Conference with us, and has likewise forbad our entrance into the Churches to perform Divine Service therein, forasmuch as he had formerly shut up the Churches of the Latins, calling them Azymitae, Persecuting and Excommunicating them, all which reflected on the Holy See, in contempt whereof he stil'd himself OECUMENICAL or UNIVERSAL PATRIARCH. Wherefore not being able any longer to tolerate such an unheard of Abuse as was offer'd to the Holy Apostolical See; and looking upon it as a Vio∣lation of the Catholick Faith in several Instances: By the Authority of the Holy Trinity, by the Authority of the Holy Apostolical See, whereof We are Legats, by the Authority of all the Or∣thodox Fathers, the Seven Councils, and the whole Catholick Church, WE do Subscribe to the Anathema which our most Holy Father the Pope has denounc'd against Michael and his Adhe∣rents, if they do not retract their Errors; and in pursuance hereof we declare that Michael, stiling himself Patriarch, a Novice, who was made Monk only by the fear of Men, one of a dis∣solute and Vicious Life; Leo of Acridia, stiling himself Bishop; Constantine, Michael's Chap∣lain, who had trodden under Foot the Sacrifices of the Latins; and all the followers of their Errors, and the abetters of their Proceedings are Anathematiz'd, with the Simonists, Valesians, Arrians, Donatists, Nicolaitans, Severians, Pneumatomachi, Manichees, Nazarens, and all the other Hereticks, or rather with the Devil and his Angels, if they do not Repent. At the same time in the presence of the Emperor and his Court they pronounc'd viva voce, an Excommunication against all those, who should contradict the Faith of the Church of Rome,

or condemn it's Sacrifice; and declar'd that such Persons ought not to be look'd upon as Christians, but as Hereticks.

After they had publish'd these Excommunications, they set in order the Latin Churches; * 1.14 prohibited under pain of Excommunication, the receiving the Communion from the Hand of any Greek Priest, who should Condemn the Sacrifice of the Latin Church. And when they had taken leave of the Emperor, they went out of Constantinople, July the 17th, and set for∣ward on their Journey homeward. But the Emperor caus'd them to return again on the 19th of the same Month, at the instance of Michael Cerularius, who promis'd him to enter into a Conference with them. The design of this Patriarch was to draw them into the Church of St. Sophia, under colour of holding a Council there, and to cause them to be ston'd by the Peo∣ple, by reading to them the Legat's Decree of Excommunication, which he had corrupted in Translating it, in order to render it the more odious. The Emperor foreseeing what would happen, would not permit the Legats to appear in any Assembly out of his Presence. Michael having refus'd this Offer, the Emperor sent the Legats away; which incens'd that Patriarch so far, that after he had excommunicated them by a Publick Writing, he rais'd an Insurrection against the Emperor himself, who was forc'd to deliver up the Legats Interpreters, who were abus'd and cast into Prison. The Legats sent the Emperor, by his Courriers, a true Copy of the Excommunication which they had denounc'd against Cerularius, by which that Patri∣arch was convicted of being an Impostor. This occasion'd an entire Rupture between the Patriarch and the Emperor, who drove out of his Court all the Relations and Friends whom Michael had there, and would never have pardon'd him, if he had liv'd longer. But he dy'd the same Year, leaving the Empire to Theodora Porphyrogenita, Daughter to Constantine, and Sister to Zoe, under whom as well as under Michael Strationicus, to whom she left the Empire, dying within two Years after. Cerularius continu'd in quiet Possession of the Pa∣triarchship, and grew so great, that he oblig'd the latter to resign the Empire in the Year 1057. to Isaac Commenius. By this means, the Church of Constantinople was wholly separat∣ed from the Church of Rome; and these two Churches, which till then, were in a manner to∣lerated and treated with Respect, were look'd upon as Enemies, Schismaticks and Hereticks, and became almost irreconcilable through the fault of the Greeks.

Within a while after the Latins endeavour'd to withdraw Peter Patriarch of Antioch from Communion with the Patriarch of Constantinople. They thought this the more feasible be∣cause * 1.15 that Patriarch immediately after his Advancement, had writ to Pope Leo, who had re∣turn'd him an Answer, whereby he approv'd of the Profession of Faith which he had sent him, and took notice to him, of his being very well inclin'd to carry on the Union of both Churches. The Patriarch of Grado nam'd Dominick, who held the greatest Correspondence with the Greeks, because the Provinces of Venice and Istria belong'd to his Patriarchship, was order'd to write to Peter of Antioch about it. He did it in such a manner as might have engag'd that Patriarch to enter into the Interests of the Church of Rome. For in the beginning of his Letter he declares, that without mentioning the Submission, the Deference, and the Amity which ought to be had for the Church of Antioch, which is the Sister of the Church of Rome, and the second Church of the World: The Reputation of his Piety and the particular Esteem which he had for his Person, inclin'd him to desire an Interest in his Respects, and to wish to be in an entire Friendship with him. He tells him that he thought himself oblig'd to let him know that his Church had been Founded by St. Mark, that St. Pe∣ter conferr'd upon it the Dignity of a Patriarchal See, and that he had the Right of Pope in the Councils which were held in Italy: That he would inform him upon what these Privi∣leges were Founded, when they could come to have a Correspondence with each other by Letters, but that at present he only wrote to him to have the happiness of being acquainted with him, and to begin a Friendship which might be hereafter Corroborated: That however he could not forbear acquainting him, that he understood that the Clergy of Constantinople blam'd the Church of Rome, because it celebrated the Holy Mysteries with Unleaven'd Bread, and believ'd by reason of that, that the Latins were separated from the Unity of the Church; that tho' the Latins make use of Unleaven'd Bread, according to the Tradition of JESUS CHRIST and the Apostles, yet they Condemn'd not the Custom of the Greek Church, because as the mixture of Leaven with the Meal may be the Figure of the Incarnation of JESUS CHRIST, so the Unleaven'd Bread may likewise represent the Purity of the Flesh of JESUS CHRIST. That therefore he thought it expedient that he should ad∣vertise the Greeks not to Condemn the Custom of the Latins, nor to maintain that all their Sacrifices were null, and that they were out of the Road to Eternal Salvation.

Peter Patriarch of Antioch, answer'd him with a great deal of Integrity, without approving of his Opinion concerning the use of Unleaven'd Bread, or his Pretentions concerning the * 1.16 Patriarchship. For he makes it appear to him by his Letter, that there were never acknow∣ledg'd in the Church any more than Five Patriarchs, and that the Bishops of the Capital Cities of Provinces, greater than His, never assum'd this Quality. And with respect to the use of Unleaven'd Bread, he at first excuses the Patriarch of Constantinople, by saying, that he does not absolutely Condemn the Latins as Hereticks; but was only sorry that they swerv'd from the ancient Tradition of the Church, and did not make use of Perfect, but

of Unleaven'd Bread, in Imitation of the Jews. He afterwards opposes this Usage by seve∣ral Arguments, but particularly by the Passages of the Gospel, which seem to prove that JESUS CHRIST instituted the Eucharist before the Feast of the Passover, and at a time when they did not as yet make use of Unleaven'd Bread. At the Close of his Letter he takes notice that two Years ago he had wrote to Pope Leo in the beginning of his Pope-dom, to which he had not as yet received any Answer, and that he desir'd he might have a Sight of this.

Michael Cerularius on the contrary wrote to Peter of Antioch, to engage him to declare * 1.17 openly against the Church of Rome. After he had thank'd him in the beginning of his Let∣ter, for having at his Recommendation granted to a Deacon a Place which he had demand∣ed of him, he gives him to understand, that having some time since heard that the last de∣ceased Pope was a Virtuous, Honest and Learned Man, he had writ to him with a great deal of Humility about the Re-union of the two Churches, in order to procure his Favour, that he might give some Assistance to the Greeks against the Normans: That having com∣mitted this Letter to an Officer of the Emperors, who carry'd likewise another from that Prince, they were put into the Hands of Duke Argyrus, who detain'd them, as well as the Mony which the Emperor had sent by that Officer: That Argyrus thought fit to send three Persons to Constantinople in the quality of Legats of the Holy See, whereof one had for∣merly been Arch-bishop of Melphi, who he understood had been turn'd out of his Church five Years ago: Another had only the Title of Arch-bishop, but where his Diocess lay none could tell; and to the Third he had given the Title of Chancellor: That these Three Men having accosted the Emperor with a fierce and arrogant Air, caused the Cross and the Pastoral Rod to be carry'd before them: That afterwards they gave him a Visit, but in a way of Insolence and Contempt: And that without saluting him, or paying him the Respects which were due to him, they clap'd into his Hands a Letter sealed up, which con∣tain'd the same things concerning Unleaven'd Bread, as Argyrus had formerly advanc'd whilst he stay'd at Constantinople, for the which he had been Excommunicated: But that having examin'd the Seal he found it was false, and that it was nothing but a piece of Forgery of this Argyrus, as he had afterwards been assur'd by the Arch-bishop of Trani, and by his Chancellor, who had unravel'd the whole Mystery to him. After he had given this Account of that Transaction, he says, That it was Reported of him that he inserted the Names of the Popes in the Church Registers, and that the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem did the same: That however he did not suppose them so Ignorant, but that they knew that since the time of Pope Vigilius, who would not pronounce an Anathema against the Writings of Theodoret, and the Letter of Ibas, there was no notice taken of the Bishops of Rome, in the Churches of the East: That he likewise heard, that these two Patriarchs admitted to their Communion those who celebrated with Unleaven'd Bread, and that they made use of the same sometimes themselves: That not being fully satisfied of this matter of Fact, he left him to the Liberty of inquiring into it, and desired he would send him Word how the Case was: That moreover he had read the Letter which he had written to the Patriarch of Grado, wherein he oppos'd the making use of Unleaven'd Bread: But that the Latins hold a great many other Errors, which ought to be rejected; such as believing that one might Eat Things Strangled, that Men ought to be Shaven, to observe the Sabbath, to Eat unclean Things, that Monks might be permitted to Eat Flesh and Bacon: That one might Eat Flesh in the first Week of Lent, and in the Weeks wherein one ought to abstain from Flesh and Milk, as well as on every Wednesday in the Year: That they were guilty of Eating Cheese and Eggs in the Holy Week; of Fasting on Saturdays, all of them being Customs belonging to the Jews; of having added to the Creed, that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son; of not permitting Priests to be Married; of allowing two Brothers to Marry two Sisters; of observing that one of the Ministers of the Altar who has Eaten Unleaven'd Bread, shall embrace the rest in the Sacrifice, by giving Pax Vobis to them; of giving to the Bishops a Ring which they wear on their Thumb; of Baptizing only with one Im∣mersion; of not honouring the Relicks of the Saints, and several of them not so much as Images; of not reckoning among the Saints the Doctors of the Greek Church, such as St. Gregory the Theologue, St. Basil the Great and St. Chrysostom the Divine, and of not ob∣serving their Doctrin: But what is more strange is, that when they were at Constantinople they declar'd that they were not come to enter into a Dispute, nor to be inform'd of the Differences that might be between them, but to teach and perswade others to hold their Tenets

There is likewise another Letter of Cerularius to the same Patriarch of Antioch, wherein he gave him a particular Account of what the Pope's Legats, (whom he still imagins to be Impostors sent by Argyrus, who had trump'd up these false Letters) had done against him at Constantinople, by excommunicating him, and exhorts that Patriarch to joyn with him in re∣venging the Affront.

Peter of Antioch reply'd to Michael Cerularius, That he wonder'd that Argyrus, who was * 1.18 a Laick, should concern himself in the disposal of the Affairs of the Church, and make use of such Artifices as he had acquainted him with: That the Name of the Pope was not in the Registers of the Church of Antioch; but that it could not be truly said that even since the Time of Pope Vigilius, the Name of the Bishop of Rome had been left out of the Registers of the Greek Church: That it was a gross Omission in his Secretary; since in the Sixth Council, held One hundred and twenty nine Years after Vigilius, Pope Agatho was recogniz'd: That when he himself was at Constantinople, about Five and forty Years ago, in the Time of Domnus the Patriarch, he found the Name of Pope Sergius in the Registers among the rest of the other Patriarchs; and that he could not tell upon what Grounds it had since been left out: That of the Errors and Faults which in his Letter he attributed to the Latins, there were some which ought to be avoided and abhor'd, several others which it were easie to remedy; and lastly, others at which it would be proper to connive.

For (says he) what is it to Us, if their Bishops do shave their Beards, and wear Rings on their Fingers? Do not we make a Crown upon our Heads, and do not we wear Gloves, Maniples and Stoles embroyder'd with Gold? Will not you likewise find some of our Monks who eat Flesh and Bacon? Do not the Monks of Bythinia, Thrace and Lydia, eat Magpies, Jays and Turtle-Doves? Do not the Holy Fathers leave us at liberty to eat indifferently of all manner of Things which God has Created?

In particular he demonstrates, that St. Basil and St. Pacomius allow'd their Religious to eat Bacon. But he does not pass the same Judgment on what was added to the Creed, and he pretends that 'tis a very great abuse, as well as to Baptize with only one Immersion: However, he thinks it requisite to be of a Temper inclinable to Peace, because the Latins are their Brethren, altho' through Rusticity or Ignorance, they might be in some Errors: That so punctual an exactness could not be expected from Barbarians; that it was very well that they held the true Doctrin about the Trinity and the Incarnation: That he blam'd them for their Custom relating to the Celibacy of Priests, and for their eating Flesh and Cheese the first Week in Lent. That as to the Question about Unleavened Bread, he had handled that in the Letter which he wrote to the Patriarch of Venice; and that he was of Opinion, that every Church ought therein to observe its ancient Customs; that as to that part of their Charge, of eating Things strangled, and of allowing one and the same Person to Marry two Sisters; it was to be believ'd, that this was not among them by the appro∣bation of the Pope and the Bishops, but by the abuse of some particular Persons, as there are a great many of the same Nature in the East, which 'tis very difficult to abolish. That moreover, he ought to insist particularly on the Addition to the Creed, and on the Marriage of Priests: That with Respect to the other Articles, it was not requisite to stand much upon them, because they are such as do not concern the Faith, and because most of them are false. That therefore he thought it proper, that being thus inclin'd, he should write to the Pope who was to be elected, who perhaps would disown what is impos'd on the Latins, or else alter his Mind: That no Person can imagine that the Romans do not honour Relicks and Images, since they set so high a Value on the Relicks of St. Peter and St. Paul; since Pope Adrian by his Legats was President of the Seventh Council, and Condemn'd the Iconoclasts; and since it was observable that several Images were brought from Rome, and that the Latins ho∣nour'd them. He therefore conjur'd the Patriarch of Constantinople to think upon an Accom∣modation, and to require nothing of the Latins beside the striking out the Addition which they had made to the Creed. Lastly, He acquaints him that he sends him Indors'd, the Letter which Pope Leo had written to him; and that the Letters which he had directed to the Patriarchs of Alexandria and Jerusalem, he had convey'd to them. These Four Letters have been Publish'd in Greek and Latin by Monsieur Cotelier, in the second Tome of his Monuments of the Greek Church.

Tho' this Action of Cardinal Humbert seem'd to put a stop to the Re-union of the two Churches, yet the Popes were not quite out of hopes of bringing it about. For this purpose, * 1.19 Stephen IX. resolv'd upon sending Didier Abbot of Mount Cassin, and two other Legats to Constantinople, who set forward upon that design in the beginning of the Year 1058. but be∣ing detain'd at Bari by the badness of the Season, they there heard the News of that Pope's Death, and return'd home again. That same Year Michael Cerularius building too much upon the Obligation under which the Emperor Isaac Commenus lay to him, was for assuming to him∣self too great an Authority, threaming the Emperor himself, That if he did not follow his Councils, he would be an Instrument of making him lose that Crown which he had procur'd for him. This impudent Boldness, and his Pride in wearing Purple colour'd Shoes and Stockings, and in saying, That there was no difference between the Sacerdotal Office and the Empire, made Isaac resolve to Out him. But forasmuch as Michael was belov'd by the People of Con∣stantinople, he took an opportunity to cause him to be apprehended, when he went on the Feast of All-Saints to perform his Office in a Church of the Suburbs of that City. He sent thither several of his Soldiers, who pull'd the Patriarch out of his Episcopal Chair, and carry'd him immediately to the next Sea-Port, where they embark'd him and his Relations, to be con∣vey'd into Exile to Proconessus. The Emperor had a great mind to cause him to be de∣pos'd in a Council; but he durst not attempt it, because Michael was a Man of great Parts,

and had great Friends. The death of that Patriarch put an end to his Troubles, but made no alteration in the Affairs of the Church; nor did it procure the Re-union of the two Churches, which ever after remain'd divided, tho' frequent attempts have been made to re-unite them, and tho' there have been several Treaties between them, which never lasted long, by reason of the Inconstancy of the Greeks.

Notes

• * 1.1

  The Letter of Michael Cerulari∣us and Leo of Acri∣dia against the Church of Rome.
• * 1.2

  The Letter of Leo IX. to Ce∣rularius.
• * 1.3

  The Letter of the Greek Emperor to the Pope.
• * 1.4

  The Lega∣tion of the Pope to Constan∣tinople.
• * 1.5

  P. 25, 26. Humbert presents the Writings and Letters to the Em∣peror of Greece.
• * 1.6

  Hum∣bert's Re∣ply to the Letter of Cerulari∣us.
• * 1.7

  Is it not a great Sign that Cardinal Humbert and the other great Men of these Times had little to do, when they thus le••t the Substance ••o hun•• after the mere Shadow of Religion?
• * 1.8

  The Writ∣ing of Ni∣cetas against the Latin Church.
• * 1.9

  The Ro∣man Ves∣p••rs.
• * 1.10

  Humbert's Reply to Nicetas.
• * 1.11

  A Pop••sh Canonical Hour.
• * 1.12

  The Retrac∣tation of Nicetas.
• * 1.13

  The Ex∣communica∣tion of Mi∣chael Ce∣rularius by the Pope's Legats.
• * 1.14

  The De¦pa••ture of the Pope's Lega••s.
• * 1.15

  The Let∣ter of Do∣minick Pa∣triarch of Grado to Peter of Antioch.
• * 1.16

  The An∣swer of Peter of Antioch, to the Pa∣triarch of Grado.
• * 1.17

  The Letter of Cerula∣rius to Pe∣ter of An∣tioch.
• * 1.18

  The An∣swer of Pe∣ter of An∣tioch to Cerulari∣us.
• * 1.19

  A New Attempt made for the Re-uniting the Greek and the Latin Churches. The Banish∣ment of Cerulari∣us.