Looking East: Bramhall praising the Orthodox and Oriental Orthodox

An extract from Bramhall, again responding to a work by the Roman titular Bishop of Chalcedon, robustly denying the suggestion that the Eastern Churches are schismatic and thus not part of the Catholic Church. In looking to the Churches of East as an example of episcopal national churches, holding to the Faith of the Councils and belonging to the Church Catholic, Bramhall is, of course, claiming that the Church of England is such a Church.  Also worth noting - as previously seen - is Bramhall's contention that the Oriental Orthodoxy are not 'Nestorian', an anticipation of contemporary ecumenical agreements with the Oriental Orthodox. As for the Filioque, he rejects the suggestion that the Eastern Churches must accept it or that it indicates a difference in the Trinitarian confession. Underpinning it all is the generous Catholic vision that animated the Laudians, of non-papal episcopal Churches sharing in the confession of Trinitarian and Christological orthodoxy, the administration of the Sacraments - with communion in both kinds, married clergy, and vernacular liturgies - and refusing any claims of jurisdiction over each other.

I answer, that those Churches which he is pleased to undervalue so much, do agree better both among themselves and with other Churches, than the Roman Church itself; both in profession of Faith, for they and we do generally acknowledge the same ancient Creeds and no other, and in inferior questions, being free from the intricate and perplexed difficulties of the Roman schools. In point of discipline they have no complaint against them, saving that they and we do unanimously refuse to acknowledge the spiritual monarchy of the Roman Bishop. And concerning the administration of the Sacraments, I know no objection of any great moment which they produce against them. How should they, when the Pope allowed the Russians the exercise of the Greek religion? It is true, that they use many rites which we for bear; but difference in rites is no breach of communion, nor needeth to be, for any thing that I know, if distance of place and difference of language were not a greater impediment to our actual communion, so long as the Sacraments are not mutilated, nor sinful duties enjoined, nor an unknown tongue purposely used. How are they then "schismatical" Churches? Only because they deny the Pope's supremacy. Or how are they "heretical" Churches ? Some of them are called Nestorians, but most injuriously, who have nothing of Nestorius but the name. Others have been suspected of Eutychianism, and yet are in truth orthodox enough. They do not add the word "Filioque" - "and from the Son" to the Creed, and yet they acknowledge that the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Son, which is the very same thing in senses. 

From The Works of The Most Reverend Father in God, John Bramhall, Volume II.