nor have they any day set apart in honor of his memory. The Patriarch once rebuked me for calling his people Jacobites, and said it was a term given to them by their enemies. I have often heard it, however, among the laity, especially as used to distinguish themselves from the seceding party, and the firmans and other documents issued by Government generally, not always, contain it. The Latins do their utmost to fix it upon them, while they call the seceding party Syrian Catholics. Both terms seem to me unjust, the first because they themselves discard it, and because there seems to be no more propriety in calling them from the name of Jacobus Baradaeus, than there would be in calling ourselves Parkerites; the second because the Catholicity of the seceders consists primari-· ly in their acknowledgment of Papal supremacy. In these pages I call the first Syrians, which is the name (Syriani) by which they are commonly known in the East. The seceders I call Syrian Papists, or Papal Syrians, not from the desire to convey any reproach thereby, but because it indicates most precisely the leading difference between them and the Church from which they have seceded. A Roman Catholic writer says, that the Eastern Christians recognize in this the only difference between themselves and the Church of Rome. "As for you [Roman] Catholics, they [the Armenians, Nestorians and Jacobites,] used to say to us, 'only one question divides us-obedience to the same chief. Prove to us the necessity of this and a reunion will be effected." "2 Nothing could more clearly show the nature of Roman Catholic operations among the Eastern Churches, and well might the people understand that that was the only difference which is the only difference insisted upon. There is no other term than Papist, then, which gives an exact idea of an Eastern Christian who has seceded from his own Church to that of Rome. I adopt it, therefore, simply as the most appropriate.

Thirdly, as to the term Monophysites, it seems to me clearly that the justice of it must depend upon the real belief of the Syrians. Monophy

1) This, however, has been brought about by the Latins in their controversies with the Syrians, before the Porte.

2) Correspondance et Memoires d'un Voyageur en Orient. Par Eugene Boré, I. 343. -It does not appear from the author's pages that he ever questioned the truth of this remark, or gave these Christians to understand that it was further necessary, in order to become "Catholics," that they should recognize the Councils which they reject, and receive the faith of the Universal Church. And this is in exact accordance with the teachings of Latin emissaries wherever, throughout the Turkish Empire the present writer has witnessed any thing of their operations. The question of Papal supremacy is every where thrust forward and made all in all, and the Eastern Christians universally understand by the word Catoleek simply and solely one who acknowledges the Pope, Such, however, we must call Papists.

sitism is the name universally appropriated to the doctrine of Eutyches, which the Syrians do not hold; in this sense, therefore, they are not Monophysites, and I think it must create both confusion and needless preju

dice to call them so.

We proceed now to show what their real doctrine is. And,

1. They do not hold the doctrine of the absorption of the human into the divine nature, in Christ. This was the heresy of Eutyches which was condemned by the Fourth General Council. The Syrians reject this doctrine altogether, not only in their words, but in their standards, and every Bishop, at his consecration, is required to denounce and anathematize it.

2. They do not hold to the mingling or confusion of the two natures in Christ, but discard the doctrine and speak most strongly and unequivocally against it, as do also their ancient writers, Bar Hebraeus for example. Thus I have frequently heard them use such comparisons as these—that the two natures are not mingled, as we say that wine and water are mingled; nor does the one pervade the other, as we say that leaven diffuses itself through the lump.

3. To speak affirmatively, they distinctly and clearly hold that there are two natures in Christ, the divine and the human, and that these two natures are in the incarnation brought together in one, not mingled, nor confounded, but united.

But,

4. They say that the result of this union is most properly described as one nature. Up to this point they seem to agree with us, but here, in words at least, they differ. They do not, however, deny the truth of our own doctrine-that the two are united in one person-but admit it. Yet they say, this is not enough, for it does not sufficiently express a real and indivisible union. To the whole of our second Article those to whom I have shown it, cordially agree, but they think it stops short of the full expression, and that it would more exactly describe their own doctrine if the word nature were substituted for, or added to, the word person. Thus they say that "the two whole and perfect natures were joined together in one nature" as well as in one person. What now do they mean by this?

5. And here I will say that I have never been able to discover the slightest difference between their meaning of the word nature, when used to express the result of the union of the two natures in Christ, and our meaning of the word person, when so used. I will not positively affirm that there is no difference, (for this is a subject on which I feel extremely diffident of my own judgment,) but I do say that I cannot comprehend the difference, if it exists. After discussions almost innumerable with their Patriarch, Bishops and other clergy, (for it is a matter to

which they frequently recur,) it does seem to me that what they wish to assert by the oneness of nature in Christ, is precisely what we assert by the oneness of person. Why, then, do they use a different term? Because they imagine that the word person implies only an outward presence, as used by us, while the words one nature, with them, imply an inward and real union, by which the one Christ is spoken of as a single individual, from whom, as from one, all his words and actions proceed. Thus they say, (to illustrate this union,) it was the same Christ who performed miracles, and who ate and drank,-in both actions the same individual Christ. Yet they acknowledge that some actions belong to him as divine, others belong to him as human. For example, they assert, it was Christ in his humanity who suffered upon the Cross; but to guard, again, against the notion of a separation of natures, they add, the Christ who suffered upon the Cross was divine, for he forgave the penitent thief and promised him Paradise, and the Scriptures also say that God gave his only begotten Son to die for us. They say, moreover, that generally the actions of Christ are to be affirmed of him as one,—one by the indivisible union of the two natures. Thus they use illustrations like these, which I have recorded from their own lips: It was Christ who asked where Lazarus lay; it was also Christ who raised him from the dead. It was Christ who was sleeping in the storm; it was also Christ who calmed its rage. In each case appear by different acts his humanity and his divinity. He inquired and he slept as man; he raised the dead and allayed the tempest as God; for this he did, not as an instrument, like the Apostles, but in his own power. Yet both the one and the other belong to the single individual Christ. They condemn Eutyches for confounding these two natures, and Nestorius for separating them, and they refer to the writings of Cyril of Alexandria, especially his Twelve Letters against Nestorius, as giving a true exposition of their doctrine.

They think that their mode of stating the union of the two natures is necessary, in order to guard against the doctrine of their existing distinctly in the same person, or under the same outward presence, for so they declare they understand the word person as here used. They supposed our doctrine, or rather the Latin, for of us they had known nothing, to be nearly the same with that of Nestorius, viz., that the two natures act separately and independently of each other, as in two individuals. They were, therefore, agreeably surprised with the definition of our second Article, which declares that "the two natures were joined together in one person, never to be divided, whereof is one Christ;" only they thought that the word person (pi), as used by the Latins, denoted alone the

outward and visible appearance, and that to say merely that the two natures are in one person, meant only that they coexist under one outward presence. The statement, therefore, of our Article, that they are joined together, and never to be divided, and that of this union is one Christ, seemed to present to them a new view of the Western faith, as recognizing, under the outward presence, the very union of natures which they wish to affirm by calling the result nature instead of person. They seemed never to have looked upon the one person of the Western Creed as the result of the union of the two natures, but only as the external form which inclosed or contained them. In other words, they were not aware of our asserting an actual joining together of the two natures, but only of their coexistence under one presence. Nor were they at first willing to take this view of the Western Creed, when I pressed it upon them, for it led at once to the conclusion that they had been separated from the great body of the Christian Church for so many centuries causelessly. On the contrary they at first endeavored to show that there must be a difference, as this alone would justify their separation, but finally in every instance they came to the conclusion, that if there was any, it was too subtil to be apprehended. Thus, I was once called upon to act as arbitrator between a Syrian Papal Bishop and two Syrian Bishops, who met for a discussion of this subject-the nature of Christ. The conference continued for three successive days, and at the conclusion the two Syrian Bishops unanimously declared that they saw no real difference between the Syrian and Western belief-that it was a mere logomachy-and that they were ready to assent to and affirm the Western tenet as their own, and to enter into intercommunion, so far as this was concerned, with the Western Church. No other difficulty, they thought, remained with regard to the Church of England and our own; but as for the Latin, they could not acknowledge the Supremacy of the Pope. This is only one case out of perhaps fifty which I have been acquainted with, all which seemed to reach the same conclusion. I say, then, that there is great reason to believe that the Syrians do not in reality differ from us on the nature of Christ; and I may add, that the voice of history, to any one who will carefully consider the circumstances attending the separation in Syria subsequent to the Fourth General Council, must, I think, speak the same language. [Upon the historical argument, however, I cannot here enter.] But,

6. The Syrian Church rejects and condemns the Fourth Ecumenical Council, and also Leo, the Bishop of Rome, whose Epistle was approved by the Council. Every Syrian Bishop, at his consecration, is

1) This argument is given in the work from which the present extract is taken.

required to anathematize both him and the Council. They also defend Dioscorus, who was condemned by the Council, but not Eutyches, as I have said, nor his heresy. These they reject as strongly and clearly as the Council itself. Why, then, do they not receive the Council nor its Decrees? The reason, they say, is because it acted unjustly and violently towards Dioscorus, who, they affirm, did not hold the heresy of Eutyches; and they condemn Leo because, as they say, he was the principal insti-" gator of the proceeding against Dioscorus. Yet they do not pretend to defend Dioscorus in his violent and intemperate proceedings at the PseudoCouncil of Ephesus, A. D. 449. They do not approve of that Council nor the object of Dioscorus in obtaining it, which was to effect a reversal of the sentence against Eutyches, passed by the Council convened in Constantinople the preceding year. They do not agree with Dioscorus in his defence of Eutyches, but they affirm that he did not hold the same doctrine with Eutyches, and that the action of the Council of Chalcedon against him was excessively severe and unjust, since not for clear heresy, but for a mere act of imprudence, which they also acknowledge him to have been guilty of, he was condemned and deposed by a General Council.

The Syrian rejection of the Council, therefore, does not imply a dereliction from the faith, but rather (may we not hope?) a mere dissatisfac tion with the Synod for certain alleged improprieties in its action, while they agree with the Synod in the main object of its proceedings and in the main action itself, which was the condemnation of Eutyches. The Syrian Bishops before referred to, entirely approved the declaration of faith put forth by the Council, and were willing, after reading it, (they had never seen it or heard of it before,) to declare their assent to it, and also to recognize the Council, with a single salvo concerning the treatment of Dioscorus. The Syrians, I may add, receive, without any exception, the first three General Councils of Nice, Constantinople, and Ephesus, and the several minor Councils approved by the Council of Chalcedon. They have also, and use daily, the Nicene Creed, and acknowledge the Apostolical Constitutions and Canons. What more can we ask?

But I must conclude. On such a subject as this my every feeling prompts me to speak with diffidence and caution. I have no wish for hurried or forced amalgamations. I have no desire to depart one step from the position-the truly Catholic position-which our Church maintains. But is there nothing in all this to inspire hope? May we not with brighter confidence look forward to the day when strifes shall be healed, and when the mystical Body of our Blessed Saviour, now rent,