In the early Spring of 1909 an effort was made in Tokyo towards bringing about open communion between the Nippon Sei Ko Kwai (that is, the Japanese Church in communion with the Anglican Church) and the Haristos Sei Kyo Kwai, (or the Japanese Church founded Abp. Nicolai of the Russian Church).

It is so much more convenient to narrate the story in the first person that I venture to do it in that way, fully realizing that I may incur the charge of making myself prominent beyond what is right.

I had been asked to become Secretary in Japan of the Anglican and Eastern-Orthodox Churches Union, and, speaking of this to a Japanese priest, I was advised to call a meeting and see what could be done towards unity. It had so happened that Archbishop Nicolai had consented to be a Vice-President and Patron of this Union, and my first step was to call upon him in company with Archdeacon King of the Church of England, and ask him if he would approve the effort. This he readily consented to do and promised active help. Then I gained the hearty approval of my own Bishop, Dr. McKim of the American Church Mission in Tokyo, and also of Bp. Cecil of the English Church "in South Tokyo." I also asked a number of representative Japanese clergy of the Nippon Sei Ko Kwai, in particular, Rev. J. S. Motoda, Ph. D., Rev. J. T. Imai, and some of the English and American clergy--notably the Ven. A. F. King, and Rev. Arthur Lloyd. The meeting was held in my house in Tokyo May 31, 1909, and, true to his [i/ii] promise to give active help to the effort we were making, Aixhpishop Nicolai came himself, bringing with him Mr. Senuma, the Head of his Theological Seminary, and the Arch priest Chiba. The two Anglican Bishops were absent from Tokyo, but sent letters of encouragement.

After some general remarks I stated the reason for calling this meeting and asked for a definite answer then and there to the question whether the representatives of the two Churches felt that they ought to make an attempt to bring about more sisterly and loving relations. Without one word of dissent every person in the room--and there were fifteen present--lifted his hand, voting approval. By instruction of the meeting I appointed a committee chosen from the two Churches, to arrange for a second meeting to be held as soon as possible. The venerable Archbishop then offered prayer for God's blessing upon the undertaking and gave us his benediction.

It was the understanding then that although our final purpose was unity, and although we all believed it was possible, possible even then, yet since in fact we were separated we should begin by an effort to bring about better mutual understanding.

As an interesting example of good will, and as an earnest of even better and more intimate relations we may here note that on June 27, 1909 the American Church Mission held a jubilee service of thanksgiving for fifty years of work in Japan, and Archbishop Nicolai accompanied by a priest as Chaplain not only came to our cathedral but sat in the sanctuary during the whole service.

On June 28 the second meeting was held at the house of Rev. Arthur Lloyd, three Bishops,--the Russian coadjutor, Bishop Sergius and Bp. McKim and Bp. Cecil came. Archbishop Nicolai sent two other representatives besides Bp. Sergius, and, altogether, about forty persons were present. A society called the Society of Reconciliation and Peace was organized to deal with all subjects between the two Churches "in a spirit of sisterly love and confidence."

[iii] It was observed by one or two of us that some of the Japanese present were desirous to extend the scope of the new society, and also that the Easterns seemed not quite happy over the large attendance. Indeed Archdeacon King, and I too, (though to a less degree than the Archdeacon), knowing the whole case, were inclined to think we were perhaps a little too enthusiastic over an enterprise which had its troubles all before it. And when an eager brother sent an account of our meeting to the press, which was noticed in the American newspapers and came back to Japan in the columns of The Literary Digest, a publication made up of extracts from all sorts of journals and magazines, then we began to fear lest the men we most wished to reach should withdraw from our society. In fact it was a work needing special gifts of learning and research, and not one to be dealt with before a general audience even if made up of good men anxious for the right.

It was arranged that a joint executive committee of three from each Church should be formed, Archdeacon King to be Chairman, and that a regular meeting should be held some time in the autumn.

I was at work during the summer upon the subject of the Ministry, expecting to read a paper before the society upon that subject. I had chosen this because from many conversations with Abp. Nicolai I was aware that the objections he made towards Anglican teaching gathered around the sacramental system; and they were quite practical, relating not so much to to the language or meaning of the English Prayer Book as to the practical apprehension in daily life by Anglicans of the need of sacramental grace.

But before the summer was over the Chairman of the executive committee of the society, Ven. A. F. King, asked me to prepare a paper dealing with all the differences between ourselves and the Easterns in one view. Accordingly I set to work to write such a paper as soon as I had assured myself that I was in possession of a case stated on behalf of the Easterns.

[iv] The paper which follows--"Eastern and Western Forms of the Catholic Religion, an essay on Variations and Differences" was read at a meeting of the Society for Reconciliation and Peace held at St. Andrew's House in Tokyo, October 25, 1909. Four or five Eastern representatives were there. Bishop McKim and Bishop Cecil were also present and a large number of clergymen, American, English, Japanese of the Sei Ko Kwai, as well. The paper had been translated into Japanese and printed, and copies were given to all who attended. As soon as the paper had been read the Head of the Eastern Theological Seminary asked for the original and it was given him. The promise was made that the next meeting would be held with the Easterns as hosts. But that meeting has not been held. It was evident very soon that the publication of the detailed account of our earlier meetings should never have been made in the general press. Nevertheless, although he did not encourage farther work in this manner, the Archbishop continued to be as friendly as ever in his attitude, and under his direction and with his express approval an answer was, after many months, given to the Essay. This answer is much more detailed than the Essay, and its general tone is sympathetic and appreciative. A baldly literal translation of the portion dealing with the Ministry is appended to this brochure. The argument is subtle and able. It is noteworthy that the writer takes up one by one all the arguments offered by me for the objective validity on Catholic principles of the Ministry in the Anglican Church and grants them all. The recognition by him of the status of our clergy as priests, however, by no means follows. It is astonishing to see that the sole reason advanced for not making this recognition is the fact that the English Church does not teach unqualifiedly that there are seven sacraments.

In my Essay here reprinted there is to be noted an argument intended to meet this objection. My essay has in fact been re-written. It is not however, substantially altered; nothing has been added which was not either given in detail or else spoken of in [iv/v] its first form, but, with more time at my disposal, I have written more carefully, and have made a more expanded study of some points. I tried in my Essay to indicate the main points on which we Anglicans rely, and to call attention to the turning points, historical and doctrinal. I relied upon our Prayer Hook language, which has needed next to no explanation. The only thing needed for understanding the natural meaning and intention of that language is comparison of that language with typical "Protestant" formularies, to show that the Prayer Book is a Catholic document. Manifestly it was impossible to do more than indicate these things in outline in such a paper, and I could not have done this but for the paragraphic form of the Orthodox Encyclical which I was discussing. The only places where I tried to develop my thought were the Filioque, and the Eucharistic Epiclesis. I venture to say that I think that I have taken a good line in treating the Epiclesis.

The whole is now put forth as a memoire pour servir. It shows also a certain gain in Japan, for since then the Easterns, who until this effort was made regarded us as hardly more than Protestants using stated forms in worship, now speak of us in terms implying (to say the least) true priesthood; and in this view the late Archbishop Nicolai agreed, for he granted the objective validity of our Ordinations, which needed only the ratification of the Eastern Patriarchs in order to assure full recognition of our status. But this idea, it would seem, is based upon the notion that I and my fellows sought for terms in order to make corporate submission,--which was by no means our purpose.

My intention in writing this Introduction was to give a succinct account of our undertaking, without comment further than may be useful for showing the steps taken and their direction and purpose.

C. F. S.

Since the Society of Peace and Reconciliation has been formed in Japan in order to study the differences between our churches in a sisterly spirit, it has been thought wise to enter at once upon a consideration of all such varying matters as can be ascertained to exist. One reason for this promptness comes from the hope of the writer that some of these may be at once removed from the field of discussion; for if such are acknowledged as capable of composition then we can enter with less of hindrance upon the study of such remaining differences as cannot be so readily disposed of. Doubtless there are other reasons at least as good, but this one suffices.

I have, then, first of all, tried to learn what notable adverse criticisms have been made by Eastern Patriarchs upon Western beliefs and customs.

In 1895 Pope Leo XIII addressed an Encyclical (known as "Praeclara") to the Holy Eastern Church, urging the duty of reconciliation with the Holy See. In no long time the Ecumenical Patriarch issued a counter-encyclical (signed by all the Eastern Patriarchs) in which, after due expression of gratitude for Pope Leo's most Christian and paternal desires for the union of the churches, he declares his readiness to accept the proposition for reunion "on the sole condition that the Bishop of Rome should suppress once for all every sort of innovation against the Gospel which has been brought forth in his Church, and which has led to the fatal separation of the Churches of East and [1/2] West, and if he will return to the basis of the Seven Ecumenical Councils."

Moreover, the Patriarch alleged certain specified errors in the faith and morals of the West. And it is to a consideration of these allegations that I call your attention to-day. Some of them, indeed, are purely Papal in their relations, but it is of more than historic interest to think even of these, because some points of practical belief of the English-Speaking Church and of its affiliated Churches can only be rightly estimated when seen vis à vis the Papal Church.

Therefore I quote from the Patriarchal Encyclical the declarations against the addition to the Symbol of the phrase Filioque, against the use of azymes in the Eucharist, against purgatorial fire, against baptism in any other manner than by triple immersion, against the Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin, and against the plenary power and infallibility of the Bishop of Rome. The Patriarch declares that in all these matters the whole Church, East and West alike, was united before the ninth century, and consequently he professes an entire willingness to agree with Rome if the latter is able to demonstrate that the West has not innovated from primitive tradition.

The Patriarchal declarations are as follows:

A.--The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father; but in the West, from the IX cent, the Sacred Symbol of the Faith which had been drawn up and sanctioned by the General Councils was altered, and the idea began to prevail that the Spirit proceeds also from the Son. Leo III in the year 809 in open Synod proscribed this addition (of the Filioque) as opposed to the Gospel and unlawful, and published the Sacred Symbol in its simple form, without the addition, in the form set forth by the First and Second General Councils, writing upon the Greek and Latin copies that he (Leo III) had published these "through love and for the security of the [2/3] orthodox faith." [Haec Leo posui amore et cautela fidei orthodoxae].

It would, I think, be wise to study this grave charge at once, for we ("Anglicans") fully share any blame that may be laid at the door of the Pope, in this matter of the Filioque. We recite it at every celebration of the sacrifice of the altar, and in our vernacular--the whole congregation vocally joining the priest in this solemn recitation of the Nicene Symbol.

Has there been true innovation in the West; is there a formal difference between us who hold to the Filioque and the united Church of the conciliar period? Our answer is made without compromise and in the most positive manner, that by no means have we in the West innovated.

So far is it from true that the doctrine of the so-called Double Procession is an innovation made subsequent to the schism between East and West, that, on the contrary, there is historic proof in abundance to show that the doctrine--if not the very phrase--is found in the teaching of both Latins and Greeks during the first nine centuries, Quotations from accepted Doctors will be given to show this. But, before making such quotations, we venture to ask whether a doctrine tolerated by the East in the conciliar period may not be tolerated now? And whether when its full meaning and its exact scope have been carefully determined, and all its implications and reasonable inferences delicately traced, it should justify and warrant the continuation of a scandalous schism? Is there any reason why the East should not reckon it as one form of the Creed of the Church, and allow its lawfulness in the Churches of the West? For, as regards this last query it is a well-known fact that in the West the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds "from the Father and the Son" in no manner implies the notion that the procession is from Both as from two sources; the West denies as positively as the East that there are two founts of Deity. In this regard the West is as firm as the East in maintaining the Divine Monarchy.

[4] Moreover, the doctrine of the Double Procession is a safeguard against an unwarrantable and unlawful inference on the other side, that is to say, the assertion that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Father only. And this danger is by no means imaginary, for the innovating addition has actually been made.

Let us now proceed to a study of the whole tradition of the Church, beginning from the Evangelical record.

The words of Scripture upon the subject are wellknown;--indeed they are appealed to by both parties to the controversy, and here they are quoted as giving us a definite point of departure.

Our Lord and Saviour tells His Apostles that He will send to them the Holy Spirit. [Pemyw auton proV umaV, St. John xvi. 7]. The Holy Ghost will receive from Christ from that which belongs to our Lord, and will make Him known to the Apostles to whom our Lord was then speaking; "He shall receive of Mine and will make-it known to you." [Ek tou emou lhyetai kai anaggelei umin. St. John xvi. 14]. So too, our Lord gives the Holy Ghost to the Apostles, for He breathed on them and said, "Receive the Holy Ghost--" [Labete Pneuma agion, ktl St. John xx. 22]. And our Lord also asserts that all things that the Father has are possessed as well by Himself; "all things whatsoever that the Father hath are mine." [Panta osa ecei o Pathr ema estin. St. John xvi. 15].

The argument upon these well-known texts is quite natural and simple. Is it possible to consider them as having no relation to the procession of the Holy Ghost? How could our Master send or give the Holy Ghost if the Spirit did not proceed from Him? And how could Jesus Christ say that He has all the fulness of the Father's eternal Being if He did not have the Spiratio activa? And in what way could the Holy Ghost receive what is from the Son unless from the Son He receives the Spiratio passiva? Finally, St. Paul who was caught up into Heaven in his rapture says the Spirit is "the Spirit of the Son," [4/5] declaring "through Him Who is the Spirit of the Son we are enabled to call God, Father." [Exapesteilen o QeoV to Pneuma tou Uiou autou ktl. Gal. iv. 6.].

Continuing along the line of authentic tradition we next examine the doctrine of the Greek Fathers. There can be no question as to their authority. In their teaching we find abundant proof that they held substantially the same teaching as that which is now condemned as a Western innovation.

In his Third Discourse against the Arians St. Athanasius "says, The Son is not a participant of the Spirit in order to be by Him in the Father: He does not receive the Holy Spirit, but rather He it is who gives Him to all. It is not the Spirit who unites the Word to the Father, but rather it is the Spirit who receives from the Word. For the Word gives to the Spirit, and all that the Spirit has He has from the Word." "[Ou gar UioV metecwn esti tou PneumatoV, ina dia touto kai en tw Patri genetai, oudi lambanwn esti to Pneuma, alla mallon toiV pasi touto corhgei kai ou to Pneuma tw Patri ton logon sunaptei, alla mallon to Pneuma para tou logon lambanei. AutoV gar tw Pneumati didwsi, kai osa ecei to Pneuma, para tou logou ecei.]

In his Fourth Letter to Serapion St. Athanasius says again: "The Spirit is the Spirit of the Son, and the receives all from the Son." [Tou Uiou esti to Pneuma, kai para tou Uiou panta decetai to Pneuma.] Finally, St. Athanasius calls the Son " the Source of the Holy Spirit." [Thn phghn tou Agiou PneumatoV]

St. Epiphanius has expressions so exact and precise that it would be difficult to find sharper statements even in the Latin writers who treat of the subject. He says that "since Christ has issued forth from the Father, God that is to say, is believed to be from God, and also the Spirit of God is from Christ seeing that He proceeds from Both; as Christ Himself bears witness: "He proceedeth from the Father," He says, and "He shall take of what is mine." [Kai to Pneuma ek tou Cristou, h para [5/6] amfoterwn, eV fhsin o CrwtoV, o para tou PatroV ekproeuetai, kai outoV ek tou emou lhyetai.]

St. Basil has some words which are of very high importance because of his own character, and because he is the Special Doctor of the doctrine of the Holy Spirit. He says in his Treatise on the Holy Spirit, (xviii. 47) " natural goodness and holiness according to nature and by kingly majesty comes from the Father by the Only Son to the Holy Spirit." ['H fusikh agaqothV, kai o kata fusin agiasmoV, kai to basilikon axiwma, ek PatroV, dia tou MonogenouV, epi to Pneuma dihkei.] Another quotation is taken from his controversy with Eunomius, with whom he argues thus: "Who is ignorant that no operation of the Son is separate from the Father, and that all that is of the Son there is nothing to which the Father is a stranger? for it is written All that is yours is mine and mine is yours" "How then does he (Eunomius) attribute to the Son alone to be the principle of the Holy Ghost?" It is St. Basil's constant teaching that the Father is the primordial source, phgh, the root, riza, of divinity. He is of Himself (di eautou) the immediate source of the Son.

He is the source also of the Holy Spirit by the Word, dia tou Logou. Consequently this theory, that the Father is the supreme cause of the Holy Ghost, dia tou Logou expresses clearly the thought that the Father and the Son are one and the same principle of the Spiration of the Holy Ghost.

St. Basil in all this follows closely the teaching of St. Athanasius--viz: The Holy Spirit is to the Son what the Son is to the Father: wV ecei o uioV proV ton Patera, outw proV ton Uion to Pneuma.

Dr. Pusey calls attention to the great Synodical Epistle of St. Cyril of Alexandria which was read and approved in the Ecumenical Council of Ephesus.

In this great Letter St. Cyril says that the Holy Ghost is not alien from the Son," for He is "called the 'Spirit of Truth," and Christ is 'the Truth,' and He is shed forth from [6/7] Him just as He is out of God the Father." [Ei gar kai estin en uposasei to pneuma idikh kai dh kai noeitai kaq eautou kaq o pneuma esti kai ouc uioV all oun estin ouk allotrion outoui pneuma gar olhqeiaV wnomastai, kai esti CristoV h alhqeia. Kai proceitai par autou, kaqaper amelei kai ek tou qeou kai patroV]

Then, besides this, St. Cyril is his Ninth Anathematism says that Holy Spirit belongs to the Son; and in the declaration belonging to the same Anathematism he says that not only does the Son and the Holy Ghost each possess His own nature, but he adds that the Holy Ghost is from the Son, and is essentially in Him.

[Kai idion ecwn to ex autou, kai ousiwdwV em-pefukoV autw pneuma agion.]

St. John Chrysostom, comparing the Holy Ghost to a stream flowing from a fountain (The Father and the Son) adds, "on account of this He proceeds also from the Father." It is evident that St. John Chrysostom held it as an axiom that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son; else why should he argue that He proceeds also from the Father! The Greek makes it quite clear that the doctrine of the double Procession was held by the great Confessor--[dia touto kai ek tou PatroV ekporeuetai.]

We shall not offer more than one or two citations from Latin Fathers of the early ages, since it is agreed on all sides that they held the doctrine that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. Among them all we cite from St. Hilary: "Spiritus Sanctus, Patre et Filio auctoribus, confitendus est"--(we must believe that the Holy Ghost has the Father and the Son for His source of being) De Trinitate II 29.

And again: "Quidquid Spiritus Sanctus accipiet, a Filio accipiet ille mittendus, quia Filii sunt universa quae Patris sunt"--(Whatever the Holy Ghost receives He receives from the Son Who is His Sender-forth, because all things that are of the Father are also of the Son)--De Trinitate VIII. 20.

[8] St. Augustine, the greatest of the Latin Fathers, says so many things about the Procession of the Holy Ghost that it would be impossible to use them in a paper like this; we can only select two. Thus he says--the Holy Ghost is not the spirit of One of the Two--the Father and the Son--but of Both, and he is the Spirit of Both because He is the love, the mutual love of Father and Son--Spiritus Sanctus non est unius eorum Spiritus, sed amborum (In Joan; tr. xcix, 6) societas dilectionis (de Trin. 10-9) unitas, sanctitas, caritas amborum, communis charitas Patris et Filii; communis quaedani consubstantialis Patris et Filii; communitas Patris et Filii; a Patre bono et Filio bono effusa bonitas; societas Patris et Filii (de Trin.)

St. Augustine conceives the Holy Spirit as the mutual love of the Father and the Son, the bond uniting the Father and the Son; which brings him to assert that the Holy Ghost depends for origin upon the Father and the Son; as follows--"Pater principium non de principio; Filius principium de principio, sed utrumque simul, non duo, sed unum principium. Nec Spiritum Sanctum ab utroque procedentem negabo esse principium" (Contra Maximinum XVII. 4)--and the Holy Ghost is the Spirit of the Father and the Son because He proceeds from both: quoniam ab utroque procedit; the Father is the author of the procession of the Holy Ghost because He begets the Son, and in generating Him He gives to Him also the power of producing the Holy Ghost: gignendo ei dedit ut etiam de ipso procederet Spiritus Sanctus. (Contra Max: XIV. 1.)

Finally, St. Augustine foresaw and refuted the objection made by Photius, and frequently used since by Orthodox theologians, viz: that if the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Son as well as from the Father then there would be two distinct principles in the Holy Trinity. He says "The Father and the Son are not two principles of the Holy Spirit, but one sole principle. Just as the Father and the Son are only one God, and in relation to creatures one single Creator and only one [8/9] Lord, so also in relation to the Holy Spirit they are but one principle, and in relation to the created world the Father and the Son and the Holy Ghost are only one Creator and one Lord" (De Trin. V. 13. 14).

Both Latins and Greeks professed one and the same belief. The Latin Fathers professed in the clearest and most explicit manner that the Holy Spirit proceeds from the Son, and that He has as His only principle of origin the Father and the Son.

The Eastern Fathers kept the same doctrine, for they professed that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father by the Son, that He proceeds from the Father and from the Son, and from Both as from One Origin. In speaking thus the Fathers, Latin and Greek, express the same truth, both being moved by the same Spirit.

We shall now bring forward one or two corroboratory pieces from the West since they received the approbation of both Churches. One of these is the Formulary of the Faith sent by Pope Hormisdas to the Emperor Justinian in the year 521, for in it is stated concerning the Procession of the Holy Ghost. "It is known that it belongs to the Father to generate the Son; it belongs to the Son that He should be generated from the Father, equal to the Father; it belongs to the Holy Ghost that He should proceed from the Father and from the Son in one substance of Deity."

["Notum est quia proprium est Patris ut generaret Filium; proprium Filii ut ex Patre Patri nasceretur aequalis; proprium Spiritus Sancti ut de Patre et Filio procederet sub una substantia Deitatis"].

Now this formula was signed by the Greek Bishops when it was presented to the Eighth Council.

There is another Western document of the very highest authority, short of express authorization by Ecumenical Councils, which explicitly declares the double Procession,--the Athanasian Symbol--a very early document, dating from about the middle [9/10] of the fifth century, and so, far within the period when East and West held a common belief.

This common belief of East and West is expressed in the East by dia tou uiou, in the West by Filioque, which phrase has simply the force of per Filium. The West rejects as positively as the East the idea that there are in the Godhead two Fontes, two arcai.

The doctrine of procession of the Holy Spirit from the Father and the Son results from speculative considerations upon the mystery of the Holy Trinity based upon certain common principles, held by Greeks and Latins.

If these principles are accepted then by rigorous deductions theological speculation settles that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. The conclusion follows from the principle by the inevitable law governing all thought.

The Holy Ghost is the Third Person of the Trinity. He proceeds from the Father Who has generated the Son; it follows that the Son has a certain priority of origin over the Holy Ghost. This priority does not bring in any relation of time, for the divine processions are all accomplished in the timeless now of eternity. If the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father who has begotten the Son, then both Father and Son are presupposed. St. Athanasius gives us a second common principle. He asserts that everything is to be attributed to the Son that is attributed to the Father, paternity excepted. St. Basil, and other Greek Fathers of the 4th Cent, develop this concept. Their doctrine may be thus stated: Everything is common to the Divine Persons, except where there is opposition of personal relations. Now, the argument proceeds in this way: The Holy Ghost, since He is the Third Person, presupposes the Father and the Son. Between the Father and the Son everything is common, except he opposed relations of paternity and filiation. If this is true we must admit that the power "to spirate" the Holy Ghost belongs at once to both the Father and the Son, because this power is in no wise opposed to paternity and filiation. By the light of [10/11] revelation we lay down a real distinction between the personal relations in God, and we admit between the Divine Persons priority and posteriority of origin. Without this order of the divine processions, without this akolouqia kata taxin, we could no longer speak of a Second and a Third Person in God. The unity of God would be safeguarded but the real distinction of the divine Persons would vanish. If this order of origin is necessary, the Son, since He would not be the Third must be the Second Person; and the Holy Ghost, being the Third Person would not be the Second. And if the Holy Ghost is necessarily the Third in the Order of Origin it is evident that He depends, so far as regards His origin, from the Second as well as the First. The whole was never more succinctly expressed than in the characteristic phrase of St. Gregory of Nyssa: ek tou PatroV dia tou Uiou proV to Pneuma--from the Father by the Son to the Spirit.

[Before continuing with the course of the argument it is well to call attention again to a remark made earlier to the effect that there is some reason for objection, on the part of Western Theologians, to rationalizing innovation by some Eastern controversialists, who have added a word to the Gospel text--reading ek tou PatroV monou ekporeuetai--"proceedeth from the Father only" [Vide Mesoloras, Sumbolikh thV orqodoxou anatolokhV EkklhsiaV. Athens, 1901; and also, SuntomoV apariqmhsiV kai anatoph twn kainotomiown thV papikhV EkklhsiaV, Constantinople, 1900.]

The simple facts explanatory of the so-called addition are that in the Sixth Century when the Goths of Spain were converted to the Catholic Faith, certain Arian, Macedonian and Flunomian errors had been prevalent It was widely believed that the Son was less than the Father, and also the Spirit less than the Son, made from the Son. It was, then, in order to teach the true faith and to illustrate the true tradition, and to bear witness to the truth that the words "Filioque" were added to the Creed. No one dreamed, in East or West, that a belief contrary to the true faith of Christians was taught by this phrase, [11/12] or even a different faith. It appeared to all concerned as a clearer, a more explicit and detailed statement of the common belief of East and West. It was looked upon as, and designed to be, a safeguard against those errors, and it was looked upon as in the nature of an explanation rather than a substantial variation.

There is a further question, however which is how far any one particular Church has a right to alter the language of a Symbol set forth by Ecumenical authority. This is asked in view of the express declaration of the Council of Ephesus that "no one may set forth a different faith, or subscribe to, or compose any definition different from that of the Holy Fathers who were gathered together in the Nicene Council in the presence of the Holy Spirit." [wrisen h agia synodoV eteran pistin mhdeni exeinai prosferein hgoun suggrafein h suntiqentai para thn orisqeisan para twn agiwn paterwn twn en th Nikaewn synelqon twn sunagiw Pneumati. . . "] This question has been answered, in part, by the general acceptance of the doctrine (of the Filioque as safeguarded) during the first nine centuries. But the prohibition s evidently disciplinary rather than dogmatic, although the discipline is very closely allied to dogma, inseparable from it in fact. The sense of the expression eteran pistin, a different belief, is evidently a faith directly opposed to the faith of Nicaea.

The word employed--eteroV--not alloV--implies the thought of contrariety, and of opposition, and not of mere variation. And this grammatical argument is supported by the fact that the Council itself did not keep to a merely verbal repetition of the Nicene Creed, for it allowed another profession of faith, even while it was dead against an opposed declaration. Now such a variation in wording was all that was ever intended by the phrase Filioque. The Ephesine prohibition was manifestly not directed against a Western form of the Creed, approved by the great Latin Patriarch, but against private teachers who should take it upon themselves to put forth dogmatic Symbols--"a different faith."

In whatever manner the subject may be treated hereafter [12/13] by our Episcopal Governors in Council, our purpose here is wholly to seek for peace, and to urge, as a preliminary step, for each side to desist from controversy, and to no longer seek for victory. One and the same Faith is held in East and West alike. The East seeks for recognition by all that the Monarchy is in the Father. The West seeks for recognition by all that the Only-begotten Son and the Holy Ghost are co-eternal and coequal with the Father. Each holds all this faith. So each should, we humbly and reverently say, accept the other's good faith.

It has been the sound sense and charity of the Roman Church to act upon this principle. She requires of such Easterns as conform to her to acknowledge that the Son shares with the Father in the procession of the Holy Ghost; but, while noting the variation of terminology between Greeks and Latins, she permits the Greeks to recite the Symbol without the Filioque. [Vide the Bull of Benedict XIV, May 26, 1742--in which he says that the Greeks, although bound to believe that the Holy Ghost proceeds also from the Son are not bound to pronounce it in the Symbol. Bull Etsi pastoralis].

B.--"The One, Holy, Catholic and Apostolic Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils baptizes by three immersions in water. Pope Pelagius calls this triple immersion 'the disposition of the Lord,' which, until at least the XIII Cent, was in practice in the West. Of this custom the Baptisteries still preserved in the Churches of Italy are the monument. But in later days the custom of baptizing by aspersion or by affusion was introduced in the Papal Church, against the old tradition. In this way the gap between East and West became deeper and wider, and this innovation continues in full vigour in these times. Yet the Eastern Orthodox Chuiches, remaining faithful to the apostolical tradition and to the practice of the Seven Ecumenical Councils make warfare in behalf of the common patrimony of the treasure of the holy Faith."

The Comment simply is that to make the manner of ministering Baptism, (so long as the application of water to [13/14] the person baptized with the invocation of the Three Persons of the Holy Trinity is made) a dogmatic question would make all reunion impossible. If the mode of giving Baptism is elevated to equality with a doctrinal matter, such as the Filioque, then Baptism long ages ago vanished from the West. In this respect we of the Anglican Churches are in full agreement with the Papal Church. Both alike count the mode as a matter of allowable varying discipline--a mere matter of rite or ceremony. There is nothing in it which can affect the unity of the Faith. Either manner of conferring Baptism may be freely used. Even a passing glance at the history of the Church will show that each method has been used, indifferently. The instances of Baptism given in the New Testament show this. The Baptism of the eunuch, by St. Philip the Deacon seems to have been by immersion, although it cannot be certain; St. Paul speaks in a way that indicates immersion as the method naturally followed, for he says that Christians are "buried in Baptism." Yet it also seems probable that the first ministration of Baptism by St. Peter and the Apostles was by affusion, for otherwise, how could all the thousands baptized on the day of Pentecost have been baptized in Jerusalem by immersion;--Jerusalem a city with so meagre a supply of water that rain water has to be stored in tanks in order to give a bare sufficiency for the needs of daily life? So too, when St. Paul and St. Silas were imprisoned at Philippi and the jailer and his family were baptized, it is almost a certainly that it was by affusion. When we look at the history of the primitive Church we find abundant proof of the Baptism of the sick and even of the dying. This clinical Baptism was looked upon as irregular, and those who were so baptized were, in times of persecution, looked upon with some suspicion. Nevertheless, the full validity of Baptism ministered otherwise than by immersion was never questioned, and, consequently we need .not hesitate to make use of the same liberty. Thus we read in the Didache this passage: Peri de tou baptismatoV, outw baptisate. tauta panta proeiponteV [14/15] baptisate eiV to onoma tou patroV kai tou uiou kai tou agiou pneumatoV en udati zwnti. Ean de mh echV udwr zwn, eiV all udwo baptison. Ei d'ou dunassai en yucow, en qermw. Ean de amfotera mh echV, ekceon eiV thn kefalhn triV udwr reiV onoma PatroV kai uiou kai agiou pneumatoV.

(Now concerning Baptism, thus baptize: having said all these things, baptize unto the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost, in living water. But if thou have not living water, baptize in other water; and if thou canst not in cold, in warm. But if thou have neither, pour water upon the head thrice unto the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost.) This passage is from the Teaching of the Twelve Apostles, a book dating possibly from Apostolic times, certainly not later than the age of the Apostolic Fathers. Unquestionably the ordinary practice was, everywhere, to baptize with three immersions more or less complete. But the Didache provides for a variation. The Didache is of Syrian or Palestinian origin. For centuries, however, the Syrians of all rites have abandoned the practice of complete immersion, and baptize by a triple affusion. A decree of James of Edessa prescribes that in case of danger a child may be baptized anywhere, provided there is water to pour upon its head.

We believe--speaking under correction--that the Russian Church allows the validity of Baptism by aspersion or affusion, as well as by immersion. In the English Church Baptism by immersion is not only permitted but preferred, and any priest may, if he chooses, baptize by triple immersion.

C.--The next complaint against Western custom is that although for more than a thousand years Westerns as well as Easterns celebrated the divine sacrifice of the Eucharist with leavened bread, the Western Church in the eleventh century innovated by introducing asymes in the mystery of the divine Eucharist. Later on this use of azymes was made obligatory everywhere in the West.

The Comment upon this article is, in substance, the same [15/16] as in regard to triple immersion. Wheaten bread, either leavened or unleavened, is the only lawful matter (for the bread) and in this allowance the Churches of the West are not rationalizing innovators. The primary purpose of the West in adopting azymes as the only permitted bread for the Eucharist was to secure the more perfect following of Christ's own acts at the time when He instituted the Eucharist. Then, there is little doubt our Lord made use of unleavened bread, because the Jews by express legislation strictly prohibited the keeping of leaven during the Passover. The testimony of St. Mark, St. Matthew, and St. Luke, is that our Lord kept the Jews' Passover. There is, however, no positive proof on the subject, and the incidental remarks of St. John (that "some of the Apostles thought that Jesus had said to Judas Buy those things we have need of for the feast," St. John xiii. 29; and again--that "they went not into the judgment hall lest they should be defiled, but that they might eat the Passover, St. John xviii. 28) cause the inference that perhaps our Lord did not eat the Passover Supper. It is an admittedly dark point of New Testament exegesis and history, and there is nothing in Church history to clear it up. Some incidents in Church history make it probable that the bread used in the early days of the Church was leavened, and taken from supplies brought by the faithful to the Synaxis. Yet it is impossible to suppose that a mere matter of order and discipline can so offend the law of Christ as to justify the continuance of a separation of Christians and so keep followers of Christ from uniting in the open keeping of their Lord's dying command--do this in remembrance of Me.

In the xvi Cent, the English Church began to permit the use of leavened bread, though with a distinct preference for unleavened bread. This simple permission has become a matter of general practice, for various reasons. In recent years the use of unleavened bread has become more and more frequent, as being more convenient because less liable to crumble than common bread, and, since made especially for the Eucharist, as [16/17] more conducive to reverence. In regard to this matter there are some things which may be noticed by us who are in communion with the Nippon Sei Ko Kwai. First, if we use common bread we had better make a small loaf especially for the Eucharist. To use common bread cut off in slices which are afterward cut again into small pieces may be open to censure, because not in exact conformity with the example of Scripture, and, also, as not duly reverent. Then too, yeast and leaven are not identical. Again, it sometimes happens that wheaten bread cannot be obtained from Japanese shops, and the clergyman or his family may not know how to make bread from flour. In such a case unleavened bread can be easily and quickly made by mixing a cup of wheat flour with a little boiling water until a paste is made and then baking it, or else putting it between the folds of a piece of clean white cloth and smoothing it over with a hot smoothing iron. Unleavened bread is thus easily obtained, it keeps well, it is convenient for use, and, being separate and apart from common use, made for the Eucharist, its use commends itself to our reason.

In the Council of Florence Greeks and Latins agreed that consecration with azymes or with leavened bread was lawful, and in accordance with true traditions.

We conclude this part of our subject with the expression of the hope that both East and West will be patient with each other in this matter, counting it as not contrary to the spirit of all valid tradition to use either sort of bread in our obedience to the mandate of our Lord.

D.--"The Church of the Seven Ecumenical Councils teaches that the precious oblations [in the Eucharist] are consecrated through prayer for the invocation of the Holy Ghost, as is attested by the ancient Ritual Orders of Rome and of Gaul. In this regard the Papal Church has innovated, maintaining of her own will, that the oblations are consecrated by pronouncing the words of our Saviour: 'Take, eat; this is My Body;' and also, 'Drink ye all of this, for this is My Blood.'"

[18] No adequate or truly worthy discussion of so grave a subject as this can be given here. Remembering, as we all do, that before the act of consecration in the Eucharistic celebration the Holy Church has sung the triumphal hymn of the Seraphim and Cherubim and that angelic armies keep guard around our altars, we shall not dream that we may lawfully dispute with our fellow Christians over so deep a mystery as the consecration of our oblations that they may become the Body and Blood of Christ our God. Yet, since we are seeking to bring about peace and manifest unity between believers, we may venture reverently to seek for common ground upon which all who believe in the perfect reality of the Eucharistic gift and sacrifice may stand.

At the outset, however, we ought to call attention to the fact that no Church in Christendom is so obnoxious to the hostile criticism of the Eastern Patriarchs as the Church of England. Their reproach is directed towards her much more than to the Papal Church, because the Prayer of Consecration in the English Prayer Book ends with the recital of the words of institution, and (if the rubric about a second consecration is taken into consideration) clearly makes consecration consist essentially in the pronunciation of our Saviour's words. The Prayer in the American book, and also the Prayer in the Scottish book contain an invocation of the Holy Spirit upon the oblations, following the recital of the words of our Lord. In the Nippon Sei Ko Kwai the priest may use either form of consecration.

In undertaking to reconcile these two means of effecting the consecration of the Eucharist I would venture to say that the difference of rite in nowise affects the integrity of our Lord's institution. What I offer for consideration is simply this: If we examine all the liturgies that have ever been used in different parts of the Catholic Church we find that in each of them the consecration of the bread and wine is made the essential part of the sacrificial Action, and that in each of them this is [18/19] effected by a Prayer of Consecration pronounced by a priest, in the course of which he recites the words spoken by our Lord as a part of a solemn rehearsal of the institution of the Eucharist. Besides, there is a concurrent series of acts done by the ministering priest while he recites the institution of the Eucharist. These acts are the taking up of the bread and of the cup into his hands, the blessing of each kind, and the breaking of the bread;--all done after the pattern of the evangelical narrative of the institution by Christ.

So far, this is true of all the great liturgies of the West, the Roman, the Ambrosian, the Gallican and the Mozarabic, and also of the English rite descended from the Roman. In the great Eastern liturgies however, (such as those of St. John Chrysostom and of St. Basil) the priest, after reciting our Lord's words, just as the Western rites do, proceeds to add a prayer in which he invokes the Holy Spirit that He may "convert this bread so that it may become the Body of Christ, and the wine that it may become the Blood of Christ."

Now it is to the absence of such a prayer of invocation in the Roman Mass Book that the Eastern Patriarchs direct their censure of the Papal Church.

The whole subject has been deeply studied by special students for some centuries and a considerable number of treatises can be found dealing with the matter. Relying upon such as may be available I now attempt to scrutinize the evidence and to make a suggestion.

Historically it does not seem quite certain that the Easterns have always held that the consecration is effected by the Epiclesis of the Holy Ghost. There is a difficulty here, however, from the fact that the word Epiclesis is often used of prayer in general. In fact, the exclusive application of the word Epiclesis to the calling down of the Holy Ghost in order to effect the Eucharistic consecration is a modern use. The result of this differing use or differing application of a word is that we may easily be confused. St. Irenaeus calls the prayer of [19/20] consecration itself "the epiclesis of God" (thn epiklhsin tou Qeou); or "the word of Epiclesis" (ton logon thV epiklhseoV). And such language is frequently found in places where, manifestly, it has not the special application to the Eucharist under consideration here.

As an incidental proof of the remark as to early Greek belief we may cite the words of St. Gregory of Nyssa: "The bread is straightway changed to the Body when the words spoken by the WORD are uttered--This is My Body." [O artoV . . . euquV proV to swma dia tou logou metapoioumenoV, kaqwV eirhtai upo tou Logou, oti touto estin to swma mou.]

It is well known that St. Gregory of Nyssa speaks of the sanctification of the Holy Ghost given to the bread and wine of the oblations whereby they become the Body and Blood of Christ, but we shall not have St. Gregory's real thought and intention if we limit this " hallowing by the Holy Spirit." [ton agiasmon ton tou PneumatoV] to the special eucharistic prayer we are now studying. According to him the Holy Ghost sanctifies the water of Baptism and the oil of Confirmation. In regard to Baptism St. Gregory speaks of an Epiclesis, saying that the things through which the baptismal new birth is effected are "prayer to God and the invocation of heavenly grace, karitoV ouraniaV epiklhsiV the water and the faith"; and again he mentions "prayer and the invocation of the divine power upon the water, euch kai dunamewV qeiaV epiklhsiV epi tou udatoV ginomenh. St. Cyprian has the same thought when he says "the oblation cannot be hallowed where the Holy Ghost is not,--nec oblatio sanctificari illic possit ubi Spiritus Sanctus non sit " (Epistl. LXIV, 4). St. John Chrysostom is emphatic in his statements of the joint or common necessity for the intervention of the Holy Ghost and of the consecratory efficacy of the words of our Lord. Thus he says--' what doest thou, O Christian? What! at the moment when the priest standing before the altar and stretching out his hands towards heaven and calling upon the Holy Ghost to come and touch the oblations, when thou [20/21] seest the Lamb immolated and consumed, it is then that thou dost raise up trouble and tumult!" Such words seem to make the Epiclesis the truly consecrating words, but his full thought is not yet made apparent, for he says, time and again, that the priest at the altar represents Christ, and that he repeats in the name of Christ and in the person of Christ the very same words that Christ spoke in the Upper Chamber, this My Body, this is My Blood, and that these words make the consecration. His words are "It is not man who makes the oblations become the Body and Blood of Christ; but Christ Himself crucified for us. The priest is there who represents him and pronounces the words, but the power and grace are of God. "This is My Body, says he; this word transforms the oblations." [Touto mou estin to swma fhsi Touto to rhma metarruqmizei ta prokeimena] [De-Prod, Judae. homil. I., II, n. 6.] In his Homilies on St. Matthew he says, "the words which God pronounced then are the same as those which the priest still pronounces now; therefore the oblation is the same." The interpretation which we would venture to offer of these statements of St. Chrysostom will be indicated later. Let us observe that we find in them and in all the early writers, Latin as well as Greek, a clear and positive belief in the action of the Holy Ghost in the Eucharistic consecration.

It seems clear that the Eastern Patriarchs wrote their censure of the Roman form of consecration upon the supposition that the Roman Rite has no Epiclesis. In fact it has not in such terms as are used in the Eastern Rites, but liturgiologists have seen a true Epiclesis in the prayer of the Roman Mass: "we suppliantly pray Thee, O Almighty God to command that these things may be taken up by the hands of Thy holy Angel to Thy sublime altar on high before the face of Thy divine Majesty, that so many of us as by participation of this altar take the Body and Blood of Thy Son may be filled with all heavenly benediction and grace." The point of difference between East and West is that the prayer of the Western Church asks that the [21/22] Gifts may be carried up to the Altar on high, while the prayer of the Eastern Church asks that the Holy Ghost may come down upon Gifts as they lie upon the earthly Altar. But the meaning of the two prayers is the same, viz: that after the gifts have been hallowed, or constituted sacramentally, they may be given to God's people for their spiritual advantage, and that the consecration and the beneficial reception are brought about by the Holy Spirit.

Accepting, then, the conclusion of the learned scholars who see in this prayer Supplices rogamus a true invocation upon the Eucharistic Gifts, and also bearing in mind the existence of a true and explicit verbal invocation in the American and Scottish rites, we would urge as considerations making for peace the following:

The Eucharistic Consecration is a solemn act of prayer and benediction effective by virtue of the institution of Christ through the co-operation of the life-giving Holy Spirit. As such it is one indivisible thing, integrally, and spiritually, and organically, total and complete. This Act of prayer is addressed to the divine Father, the divine Son Incarnate is the Principal Agent; and the divine Spirit is the constituent Agent, the Three Persons of the Trinity thus concurring (may it not be said) in the Act. The Eucharistic Act has, as a necessary part of the whole, the recitation of the Saviour's Words of Institution which form the natural centre of the prayer. There may be an explicit verbal invocation of the Holy Spirit, or there may be no such verbal invocation, but in any case the whole act is efficacious because it is a prayer, and as such, is effective necessarily through the Holy Spirit. The efficacy of the act depends then upon the institution of Christ, which includes the hallowing action of the Holy Ghost. This hallowing of the gifts by the Holy Ghost is what makes our Eucharist truly effective of the divine institution, and the continuance, so to speak, of the very thing done by our Lord. Without this action of the Holy Ghost our priests would be merely imitating our Lords acts, making a naked or empty commemoration of what He did, but of no more sacramental [22/23] efficacy than the rite of feet-washing sometimes performed by Kings. But with this the earthly act is done "in Christ" and becomes effective of all that was worked by Him. If this Prayer-Act not only includes the words of our Lord, but also a verbal invocation it is rather with a view to our own edification than to any necessary effect dependent upon the utterance of this particular word of invocation. The eucharistic consecration, although an indivisible unity, takes place in time and by means of human agents. Words spoken must, from the nature of things, be spoken in succession. As a divine work it is common to all Three Persons of the blessed Trinity; as a human work its actual effect depends upon our obedience to the institution of Christ, a necessary part of which is the utterance by the human priest of the words of our Lord Jesus Christ, and they are effective of the illapse upon the oblations of the Holy Ghost to make them the Body and Blood of Christ. If a form of prayer for this illapse is added it must be at some other time than the utterance of the words of Christ. Some writers have seen a concurrent Epiclesis in the signs of the cross used by the priest when he says "blessed"--thus--"bene + dixit" etc.; such an invocation would be quite as real as words of prayer.

As a next step towards the development of our thought we proceed now to remark that even if we assert that the Words of Christ are the true words of consecration it by no means follows that every manner of using them makes them words of consecration. If, for example, a priest makes a mere statement in these words, bread and wine being in the same place, there can be no consecration then. Or, if he reads them as an historical statement, or reads them as a lesson to believers, there can be no consecration then--bread and wine in each case being present Nor, it would seem, could he consecrate bread and wine by merely speaking these words, not even if he had the actual intention of consecrating. In all these cases he would not be fulfilling his ministry according to the mind of the Church. It is only when he acts in obedience to her command and according to her method that [23/24] he accomplishes this ministration. The words of our Lord are effective only as a necessary part of an act of prayer, and the prayer itself is, as a whole, the divine epiklhsiV tou qeou. This great prayer of the Divine and Eternal Priest is heard and seen and accepted as one thing before the throne of God, although since it is spoken by an earthly, mortal priest under human conditions it goes on in a succession of acts and words.

I am convinced that it is rationalizing for Romans or Easterns to insist upon either the consecratory force of our Lords' words alone {i.e. not as part of a prayer), or to postpone the actual consecration till the particular and special verbal invocation of the Holy Spirit has been uttered. With the very purest intention on each side men may be led in the eagerness of discussion, or in the pursuit of a logical demonstration to lay a stress upon either side of the controversy. But if we look upon the consecration as essentially an act of prayer in which the words spoken by Christ are recited, but not as a mere narration, then this act of prayer and benediction is of itself an invocation of the Three Persons of the ever-blessed Trinity, and we may find in this thought a reconciliation of East and West. But in this connexion we must note that we do not insist upon the necessity of pronouncing the whole of any particular liturgical rite. That would be difficult to harmonize with Scripture or sound tradition. In insisting upon the necessity of a Eucharistic Prayer (with the words of institution as its climax) we are thinking of the Canon of Consecration, independently of all the other liturgical prayers.

There is no essential difference between the Eastern and the Western liturgies, for in all this central prayer is found, in all our Lord's words of institution are repeated by the priest as Christ's agent, in all the Father is addressed, in all the Holy Ghost makes the Act effectual in making present the risen, ever-living and glorious Body and Blood of the eternal Son.

E.--The Eastern Patriarchs censure the Church of Rome because she refuses the communion of the Cup to all [24/25] except the celebrant of the Mass, and thus mutilates the lord's Institution, for He consecrated both kinds, and the Church for many centuries gave communion in both kinds to all the faithful.

Upon this point we need simply call attention to the well-known fact that all the Churches of the English Communion agree in admitting all communicants to the communion of the Cup as well as of the Holy Body.

It is not necessary to maintain that the Roman Church "mutilates the Lord's Institution" because she denies the Cup to all but the Celebrant of the Mass. Such condemnatory words are not charitable, and we who do not follow this custom are bound by the law of Christian love to take notice of the purpose and intention of even those whom we oppose. Yet, making this observation, we agree fully with the Easterns when they say that the Cup itself should be given to all who communicate. Our only point of difference is as to our manner of administering the Cup. We give each kind separately; so that each person drinks from the Cup in the same manner as the priest.

F.--The Eastern Patriarchs in the next paragraph assert that while the Eastern Churches " walking in the inspired teaching of the Holy Scripture and the original apostolical tradition pray and invoke the mercy of God for the pardon and rest of them that have fallen asleep in the Lord (Heb. xi, 40; 2 Tim. i. 18; 2 Macc. xii, 44, 45); but the Papal Church from the twelfth century onward invented and heaped together in the person of the Pope as the sole possessor of the privilege, a multitude of innovations touching a purgatorial fire, touching a superabundance of merits on the part of the saints, and the distribution of them to those that need, and the like; propounding also a perfect retribution for the righteous before the general resurrection and judgment.

Upon this subject we would remark that there is not so much difference between the two communions (the Orthodox and the English) as need even hinder or retard union, to say [25/26] nothing of keeping us apart. We Anglicans positively do not believe that there is a material fire in purgatory, nor in any superabundance of merits in the saints, nor, again, that any merits of saints may be attributed to repenting souls by way of indulgences except by prayer. Consequently we cannot be comprehended among the number of those censured by the Eastern Patriarchs.

In saying this we do not overlook the fact that in the Paragraph under discussion there is an inference on the positive side as well as a condemnatory side. It is, therefore, our duty to discuss the positive portion of the subject, and we undertake this work with the intention of speaking words that shall make for peace in the whole company of believers.

The English Church admits that it is lawful to pray for those who have fallen asleep in the Lord. We may even advance and say that there must be an intermediate state or condition of holy souls, and that this "intermediate state in a purely spiritual sense must be a purgatory designed for the purifying of the soul" [The quoted words are from Martensen's "Christian Dogmatics." p. 457.]

It would appear then that since the Holy Orthodox Church has always prayed for the dead in Christ, since the like custom has always been followed in the Latin Church, since the Anglican Church permits such prayer and in a very carefully guarded form even enjoins it upon all her people, and, further, since a learned Lutheran theologian, Dr. Martensen, asserts in unequivocal words the necessity of "a purgatory of purely spiritual significance," there is practical agreement that it is truly lawful to invoke God's mercy for the pardon and repose of those who have fallen asleep in the Lord." If this be granted then we may well add that there is nothing even in the dogmatic teaching of the Roman Church which should hinder agreement. That teaching is most moderate, and is limited to the bare statement that "there is a Purgatory and the souls there detained are relieved by the prayers of the faithful, but chiefly by the acceptable [26/27] Sacrifice of the Altar." That private teachers and authoritative documents such as the Catechism called the Catechism of the Council of Trent teach a highly developed form of this doctrine is certain, and such teaching may deserve the blame of the Patriarchs. Nevertheless this statement is the actual form under which the dogma is enjoined upon the Roman Church. If we compare this particular statement with the words of the Orthodox Confession of the Eastern Church "We are taught by the Holy Scripture and by the exposition of this Father (Theophylact is meant) that we ought by all means to pray for the departed, to offer the Unblooody Sacrifice for them, and to dispense our alms with a liberal hand, seeing they can no more perform these good works for themselves"--if, we say, we compare these two dogmatic statements we find no difference in substance, the only difference being that on one hand the Roman statement says nothing about giving alms for the help of the departed, and the Eastern statement has nothing about the existence of Purgatory. It is possible that unity of faith, such as appears here does not in fact exist, but there can be no question as to apparent agreement in belief. Such remaining differences as, are de fide do not prove actual opposition, but may be the results of differing mental dispositions and manner of thought, as well as of varying circumstances. They may be, not so much opposed statements as counter-truths, one balancing and completing the other. Or, they may be partial estimates, each complementary to the other. Different minds instinctively emphasize different phases or different elements in a complex truth. If my words seem apologetic of Roman teaching rather than of Anglican, I shall be glad if they make for a better understanding all the same. Anglican teaching, so far as it is special in this regard, is vague and intentionally indefinite. The chief objection of Anglicans to the mediaeval teaching has always been that the Roman language was too sharp, too clear, too precise,--in view of the New Testament language. Our emphasis has [27/28] been rather upon individual duty before death, and our statements of doctrine have been in the less precise and less developed form in which the state of the departed appears in the first three centuries.

G.--As regards the Blessed Virgin Mary the Anglican Church holds the same belief as that stated by the Eastern Patriarchs, that "the supernatural incarnation of the only begotten Son, the Word of God of the Holy Ghost and the Virgin Mary is alone pure and immaculate," and that "the doctrine of an immaculate conception of the Theotokos and ever-Virgin Mary was unknown to the ancient Church."

It would appear that we and the Eastern Patriarchates alike believe that the Blessed and glorious St. Mary is truly Theotokos, the Bringer forth of God.

H.--As regards Papal Infallibility we hold that there is justly due to the Roman See a certain primacy or precedence of honour, exactly in the sense in which the Eastern Churches allow it. But we reject the idea that open communion with the Roman Bishop is necessary in order to membership in the visible Catholic Church, and likewise the idea that the Roman Bishop as the successor of St. Peter possesses by divine right a monarchy over the Catholic Church, and that he possesses such infallibility as is taught by the Vatican Definition.

Having thus in a brief way run over the chief matters urged by the Ecumenical Patriarch in 1895, I now take up two related subjects in which I shall try to sketch not the purely Western statements of doctrine, but the teaching peculiar to ourselves who are called "Anglicans," or "Episcopalians," or of the "Nippon Sei Ko Kwai."

One of these subjects is the Ministry, the other, Sacraments. And in ea h I shall try to show that our teaching adequately states the doctrine of the apostolical Church, and that this teaching in no degree falls short of Catholic tradition.

In the first place, then, the Church of England has continuously held as her only authoritative doctrine the ancient, [28/29] catholic, or traditional teaching that the Ministry of the Church was not set up by men, but by our Lord Jesus Christ alone, and that this ministry is in three divine or holy grades, ranks, or orders--Bishops, Priests, and Deacons. Even during the revolutionary conflicts of the sixteenth and seventeenth centuries the Church of England maintained this, in the face of most violent attacks from all sides. When Roman controversialists were eagerly attacking her, when keen and fearless innovators steeped in the poison of Calvinism were trying secretly to set up in England the sect now called "Congregationalists;"--even then the testimony of the English Church to the ancient traditions was steadfastly given. And, later, when numerous sects arose, which brought forth many good works of faith and spiritual holiness through prayer, and in consequence charitable teachers among us wished the ministry of these new churches to be recognized as valid, even then--and now also--no such variation from the ancient faith and practice has ever been made or allowed. All such ministers, Lutheran, Presbyterian, or Methodist, or Baptist (or any other ministers) must be ordained upon their entry into the ministry of our Church. On the other hand, such clergy of the Roman Church (or of any other Catholic Churches) as come to us from time to time are not ordained, but received as they are, for the reason that they have already been ordained by a true Bishop. The principle upon which we act is that in the Catholic Church no ministry is lawful except a ministry given by a Catholic Bishop, for he alone can give ordination.

This statement is true not only as regards the Church of England, but in the independent churches in communion with her. This testimony has been given, for example, so recently as 1892, in America by the synodical action of the whole American Church. And a few years later, that is, early in 1S97, the two Archbishops of the English Church, Primates and Metropolitans, set forth a Latin Letter addressed to "the whole body of the bishops of the Catholic Church." This Letter was a [29/30] response to the Letter Apostolicae curae of Pope Leo XIII, in which he had denied that we possess the Catholic ministry. These two venerable and highly learned Pastors rightly estimated that the Papal attack was fatal to us if the Pope's statements about us were accepted as the actual truth. I call your attention to their words. They say that the Papal Letter "aimed at overthrowing our whole position as a Church." Surely, no one but a Catholic would think that a church could be overthrown by a denial of its ministry. No Protestant would ever maintain that a ministry is essential to a Church. Protestant teaching everywhere in these days is that the ministry is a mere agency or representative of the company of believers, a mere convenience for the sake of order, but subject altogether to the believing body, and priesthood is especially denied, except, perhaps, as diffused throughout the number of the faithful. Priesthood is asserted of Christ, but even in Him Protestants hold that it was altogether fulfilled and accomplished when He ascended into Heaven and thence sent down the Holy Spirit to rest upon the Church. Very recently Presbyterians in Australia have deliberately permitted unordained men to minister the Lord's Supper. People who do such things do not believe that the Church exists in virtue of the ministry. The two English Metropolitans, however, take the Catholic, the traditional or Apostolic position, for they declare that they were, themselves, "truly ordained by the Chief Shepherd to bear a part of His tremendous office in the Catholic Church." Evidently these two Archbishops did not suppose that their office was of human origin, or that Christ left no ministry behind Him. but that Christ's own office of Pastor is shared by the men who are ordained in the Church. Let us, then, look at the terms in which they defend our Catholic heritage.

They call attention to the positive intention of the Church of England as expressed in the Ordinal, in which document of the very highest authority the historical fact is noted that "it is evident that there have been Bishops, Priests and Deacons in [30/31] Christ's Church from the Apostles' times, and that the Church of England sets forth (a form of ordination) to the intent that these Orders be continued in her. Such was not the case in France, Switzerland, Germany, or Scotland, when in those regions men who separated from the Roman communion established churches for themselves. In Scotland, for instance, the Calvinists expressly denied the rightfulness of any such ministry (as that spoken of in the English Ordinal) and counted the ancient ministry as blasphemous and anti-Christian. In Scotland, accordingly, they made a new ministry, called Presbyterian, driving out the former priests from their churches, forbidding them to continue to exercise any ministry at all,--indeed, denying that it was possible for the ancient ministry to be in any sense Christian. In certain rare and exceptional cases they permitted the priests who might conform to the new religion to become school-masters. So also in England the adherents of the same sect and all the new Dissenters required that all previously ordained priests who conformed to them must specifically renounce their old ministry of priesthood. Upon which we may note that one objection made by Puritans against Anglican Ordinations was thus expressed: (Whitgift's Works, Parker Society, ii. p. 408) "their Pontifical whereby they consecrate Bishops, make ministers and deacons, is nothing else but a thing, word for word, drawn out of the Pope's Pontifical." A reasonable criticism of the Anglican Ordinal must take into consideration the circumstances of the time when it was drawn up. Now the English Church recognizes no other form than this priesthood which these Dissenters declared to be anti-Christian--yes, even the very ministry of Satan.

It is priesthood which is the very essence of the ministry of Christ's Church. Yet priesthood is now, and always has been the special object of the hatred and fear of all Protestants. It has ever been rejected by them. In modern times some have even denied that our Lord was a Priest! The reason for all this fear and dread of the Priesthood lay in the notion held by all [31/32] these reformers that the priests claimed the power to exclude at their will all believers from all approach to sacraments except upon terms abhorrent to their consciences. Now the English Church felt the full force of this dread, and in her desire to unite and to conciliate removed much that was holy and good, even sacrificing for the sake of weak or timorous consciences things she would have been glad (under happier circumstances) to keep. What then she did not surrender she must have felt was a part, an integral part, of the sacred deposit of tradition. And this explains her continued hold, in the face of evil report, upon the priesthood. Her testimony thus becomes all the stronger. Her testimony was given in the face of enemies on both sides;--one declaring that since she was out of the Papal communion she was out of the apostolic Church; the other asserting no less vehemently that since she had become separate from the Papal communion she ought not to cling so desperately to one of the very worst evils of an apostate Church and that in so doing she was sharing in the condemnation due to those who denied Christ (so bitter and so fierce were the champions of those stormy days!).

Next, the Archbishops speak of "the succession and continuation of these offices from the Lord through the Apostles and the other ministers of the primitive Church," and "assert that the intention of our Fathers was to keep and continue these offices come down to them from the earliest times and reverently to use and esteem them in the sense in which they had been received from the Apostles."

They also argue that, since the English Reformers were about to use the English language for the public services they chose to leave out certain prayers and ceremonies which, although illustrative and symbolical were not necessary Consequently the Archbishops say of the Reformers that "they aimed first at simplicity, and concentrated the parts of the whole rite on one prominent point so that no one could doubt at what moment the grace and power of the priesthood was given. For, such [32/33] is the force of simplicity that it lifts men's minds towards divine things more than a long series of ceremonies united by however good a meaning. And in this matter they intentionally followed the example of the Apostolic Church, . . . and they especially set before our Priests the pastoral office, ... and, as regards the sacraments, they gave the first place to our Lord's own words, and, lastly, they placed in juxtaposition the form which imprints the character and the form which confers jurisdiction."

I have made this long quotation from the Letter of the English Archbishops because it is a recent statement by the highest office-bearers in our Church. In it they not only point to the public document called the Ordinal, but they claim for us the full office of the apostolic ministry in the ancient and perennial Catholic sense. But, and this is perhaps the special value of the Letter for us to-day, they show that this is the living active practical belief of the English Church about ordination. In short, that the English Church holds, and constantly acts upon nothing else than this traditional Catholic interpretation of the ministry of Christ's Church which she received from the mediaeval Church and handed on to us of these latter days. I may add also that no bishop of our Church anywhere has ever given or received ordination otherwise.

As regards the doctrine of the Sacraments time would fail me if I tried to give a detailed exposition, but I call attention to the fact that our only authorized dogmatic teaching is that "sacraments are ordained of Christ to be sure witnesses and effectual signs of grace, by which God works invisibly in us, and they not only give life but strengthen and establish our faith in God."

These sacraments are "ministered by Christ's commission and authority, so that the effect of Christ's institution is not taken away by the wickedness of evil men," because "sacraments are effectual by Christ's institution and promise."

As to what they are, it is also taught that "sacraments are outward, visible signs of inward spiritual grace given us unto [33/34] us." Christ Himself constituted them to be the "means whereby we receive grace and as pledges to make us sure of this fact."

We may expound this teaching best by taking it in detail: Sacraments are "sure witnesses" of grace; that is, they make us certain that in receiving the sign we also receive the grace proper to the sacraments, provided, that is, we are spiritually capable of it. Sacraments are "effectual signs" of grace; that is they effect the purpose of their divine institution, at least they do so when not hindered. The effect of their due use follows because of the divine promise. Sacraments are means and instruments "by which God works invisibly in us"; that is, God has so vitally and organically joined the grace of a sacrament with its visible sign that the physical reality of the sign actually conveys instrumentally the spiritual reality of grace, just as a surgeon's instrument, a mere dead bit of steel in its physical nature, in the surgeon's hand conveys into the suffering body of a sick man the knowledge and skill and human sympathy of the surgeon.

Here again, as in other places, we must compare this doctrine of sacraments with contemporary Protestant teaching if we would see its true nature. Nowhere does Protestant language, Lutheran, Calvinistic, or Moravian, rise to such a positive assertion of the efficacy of sacraments. The teachers who belong to these persuasions were precluded from it by their primary and characteristic beliefs as to justifying faith and absolute predestination. The English Church endeavoured in truth to mediate so as to include as many as possible,--which explains the phrase about sacraments making our faith in God be strong. But this particular concession (if concession it be) was made to little purpose, for all Puritan nonconformists have steadily refused to accept this teaching about the sacraments.

Concerning Baptism and the Eucharist there is explicit and exact teaching, fully adequate to traditional and Catholic belief.

As regards Baptism we are taught in the English Catechism that "the outward sign is water wherein the person is baptized [34/35] in the Name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost." The inward and spiritual grace of Baptism is declared to be "a death unto sin and a new birth unto righteousness; for being by nature born in sin and the children of wrath, we are hereby made the children of grace."

And in the Baptismal services prayer is made before the act of immersion (or of affusion) that the persons to be baptized may be washed and sanctified and "received into the ark of Christ's Church," and also that they may "receive remission of their sins by spiritual regeneration," and again, that "they may receive the fulness of God's grace." And as soon as the act of baptism is done they are signed with the sign of the Cross upon the forehead, and received into the Church, and then follows a solemn announcement by the minister to the whole congregation present that the persons just baptized "are regenerate and grafted into the body of Christ's Church." Again, in the form of service for Confirmation the Bishop declares in a prayer that the children who are to be confirmed have been regenerated "by Water and the Holy Ghost" and have thus received in Baptism "forgiveness of all their sins."

Concerning the Eucharist we are taught that "the outward part or sign is bread and wine which the Lord hath commanded to be received," and "the inward part or thing signified is the Body and Blood of Christ which are verily and indeed taken and received by the faithful in the Lord's Supper." The benefits of this feeding on the Lord's Body and Blood are said to be "the strengthening and refreshing of our souls by the Body and Blood of Christ, as our bodies are by the bread and wine."

At the time of communion the communicants being conveniently placed for the receiving of the holy Sacrament, the Priest is caused to remind them about their duty to examine themselves "before they presume to eat of that Bread, and drink of that Cup. For as the benefit is great, if with a true penitent heart and lively faith we receive that holy Sacrament; [35/36] (for then we spiritually eat the flesh of Christ, and drink His blood; we are one with Christ, and Christ with us); so is the danger great if we receive the same unworthily. For then we are guilty of the Body and Blood of Christ our Saviour, we eat and drink our own judgment, not considering the Lord's Body.''

Before the Consecration the Priest prays "in the name of all them that receive the Communion" that God will grant that they "so eat the flesh of His dear Son Jesus Christ and drink His blood, that their sinful bodies may be made clean by His body."

And again, after Communion the Priest thanks God because He has vouchsafed "to feed us with the spiritual food of the most precious Body and Blood of His Son, our Saviour Jesus Christ."

It might lead to unprofitable controversy to speak against any other form of sacramental teaching, but we may with decency and even with charity say that this is a sufficiently full statement of our teaching on the matter and that it is an adequate statement of the true Catholic tradition, and that it is the exact meaning intended by the Anglican churches. If we compare these statements with the teaching of the great Protestant Churches we note in ours the lack of their distinctive beliefs and conclusions, and on the positive side we observe studied effort to safeguard all sides of the Catholic tradition. Our statements are full enough to indicate their true meaning, intention and right implication and emphasis, yet they are moderate, that is, measured and reasoned, in tone, and never controversial. They are urgent in their call to conscience, yet they never press merely logical conclusions upon minds. They are not meant to overcome an opponent, but rather to win and persuade him to act upon a call from Christ, because our teachers have steadfastly clung to the thought that if individuals act consistently upon the principle that we all ought to obey Christ's explicit commands' by this obedience we shall more and more be brought into charity with all men, and so make controversy impossible.

There is a question between us and the Eastern and Roman [36/37] Churches about the number of the Sacraments. Yet even in this it is believed that there can be found, if not complete concord, a principle of common belief.

The great historic Churches of East and West assert that there are Seven Sacraments or divine Mysteries of ministration of grace. We, on the other hand say that if we search the New Testament for explicit statements about Sacraments instituted by Christ we find but two "necessary for salvation." Nevertheless it is to be noted that in saying this we by no means say that there are only two sacraments. What is said is that the New Testament gives the record of the institution of two as established by our Lord Himself "as generally necessary to salvation." Unquestionably other rites are mentioned, but there is only an inference, an implication based on use, that our Lord was their founder. We make the notable and special qualification that these Two are necessary for all Christian people. Of the other Five, some are not necessary for all to receive,--no woman may be made a priest, no child is capable of marriage. As to these Five, they are left out of the class of the Two, not because they are denied to be means of grace, but because they, manifestly, have not the like nature of sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper. They may be sacraments, but no such sacraments as those two. Bishop Bramhall, a bishop of the period when controversy was very keen and eager between Anglicans and Calvinists says about ordination "we deny not Ordination to be a Sacrament, though it is not one of those two Sacraments which are generally necessary to salvation." Bp. Bramhall is a fair representative of the general current of Anglican teaching about sacraments, using the word in the less limited sense.

In making use of this particular method of reckoning and defining "Sacraments of the Gospel" the English Church does not innovate upon primitive tradition. There is nothing earlier than the twelfth century either in East or West directly and explicitly to compel assent to the proposition that there are Seven Sacraments, neither more nor fewer in number.

[38] Thus, St. Justin and St. Irenaeus mention two, Baptism and the Eucharist. Tertullian, St. Basil, St. Cyprian of Carthage, St. Cyril of Jerusalem, St. Ambrose, speak of three. Baptism, Confirmation, and the Eucharist. St. Augustine to these three adds Order, making four. Even as late as the twelfth century Hugo of St. Victor writes about sacraments as if everything of the nature of mysteries of faith (such as holy water, ashes, blessing of palm branches, ringing of bells, signs of the Cross, and the like) were sacraments. St. Bernard, "the Last of the Fathers " says that there are many sacraments. St. Peter Damianus gives the number as twelve. In fact it was not until Peter Lombard made a precise classification of ceremonies and divided the Sacraments from the minor ceremonies mentioned that the teaching began to prevail that there are Seven Sacraments.

If the East dots not alter its estimate of the Latin Church on account of these variations surely it cannot call in question the actual validity of the rite of Ordination in the English Church because of a variation in classification For, to use the words of a living English theologian, "we may call Holy Order, with Hooker, a carisma or gift of the Holy Spirit, and its effect a certain character indelibly impressed upon the recipient. We may say, with Jeremy Taylor, that in Ordination is conferred a twofold grace of sanctification, by which, on one hand, the recipient is separated for the work of the ministry,, and, on the other, he is rendered capable of worthily fulfilling his vocation We may say, with the whole Church, that this grace is given by an outward sign by public prayer with the imposition of hands. When we have said this the question whether Ordination ought to be called a sacrament is a mere question of words," not of realities.

Again, I may quote from words of one of the most wise and scholarly Bishops of the Church of England, Dr. John Wordsworth, Bishop of Salisbury (who died in 1911). In a review of a recent French work he says concerning the words of the writer, M. Saltet, "both as regards Sacraments in general [38/39] and as regards Ordination we are in complete agreement with him. Using the word 'Sacrament' in the broader sense given to it by ancient theology, which, of course, includes under the term other efficacious signs of sacred realities than those of the two great Sacraments of the Gospel, we hold in the Church of England, quite as strongly, I think, as it is held in any part of Christendom, that the 'Sacrament of Order' requires laying on of hands, with prayer suitable to the office conferred, and with a general intention of making a man what the Church intends as a Bishop, Priest, or Deacon. We hold that such an Ordination conferred by a Bishop, as sole or chief Minister, who has been himself so ordained, even if he is a heretic, is valid and cannot be reiterated without sacrilege, and that it is impossible to bind the power so conferred by Church censure."

East and West have always taken .diverging courses in regard to the practice of re-baptizing and of re-ordaining, and the East has usually been more severe and more rigid in these matters than the West. The Greek Church has always been more severe in its judgments regarding sacraments administered outside the visible limits of the Church. This is for the reason that even in early times there were more heretical sects in the East than in the West. So also the hierarchical organisation of the Greek patriarchates was much less strong than that of the Roman patriarchate. Danger from heresy was much greater in the East because there was less force promptly available against it. We, however, are not pleading for favourable consideration of the Anglican status with a view to our being received into Eastern Communion, but simply for recognition of our existing status. We this hold to be true, that the Anglican clergy are as certainly Bishops, Priests, and Deacons, as any clergy in the whole world. If we are not then no one living is!

It might, indeed, be said that these theologians are all Western (and English), but that in the East the tradition has been constant that the sacraments are exactly seven in number. [39/40] Yet in fact this is not true; for in the first six or seven centuries the Easterns made no attempts to number the sacraments, and there was no traditional teaching on the point, except that St. Theodore of the Studium, who died in the early part of the ninth century, held that Christ instituted six sacraments, Baptism, Eucharist, Consecration of the Chrism, Ordination, the Monastic habit, and the Rites relating to those who die holily.

Nor is there at any later time any Greek teaching on the number of the sacraments until the list as given by Peter Lombard had become the accepted teaching in the West. It seems probable that the present list of Seven was taken over from the West to the East. Among the points which Pope Gregory X required the Emperor Michael Palaeologus to assent to at the Council of Lyons in 1274 were such as Greeks and Latins had disputed about, and, along with the Filioque, Purgatory, and the Roman Primacy, was the number of the sacraments--seven. [N.B.--I owe these two paragraphs about the Greek tradition regarding the number of the Sacraments to Rev. F. W. Puller, S S.J.E., who put them at my disposal.]

Here again, to indicate the lack of a true tradition among the Greeks, it is to be observed that although the Greeks began to count seven sacraments they did not agree either with the Latins or with each other as to what rites were called sacraments. So that, in fact, there is no Apostolic tradition that the Sacraments are seven in number, that is to say, Baptism, Confirmation, Eucharist, Penance, Ordination, Matrimony, and Unction of the sick.

Hence we may conclude that our Anglican classification does not harmfully affect, far less destroy, the substance of Catholic and Apostolic tradition about sacraments, and that in varying from the present general teaching we do not dissent from the integrity of the truly Apostolic tradition about sacraments.

In fact our position here is one which may help to reconcile extremes. The East and Rome assert Seven Sacraments. Protestants teach that there are "two only." We have no such teaching as the latter, for, although we say there are two only, yet we [40/41] immediately make the qualification (or the authoritative explanation) that these two were certainly instituted by Christ as necessary for the salvation of all men. This English declaration at first view seems to be at variance with all the rest of the Christian world--Protestant no less than Catholic. But the qualification that the other Five in a less absolute sense are sacraments is an essential part of the teachings and so also is the characterization of the Two in terms of agreement with Catholic tradition. Our position then is mediatory.

The English Church is emphatic in its teaching that the Sacraments are effectual signs of grace. Not only is this true of the dogmatic documents already quoted but it is found everywhere in the various prayer-services for sacramental ministrations, in rubrics, exhortations addressed to the people, and, above all, in prayers. If I may, in an expository paper like this, venture to speak about my personal opinions, I may say that I look upon dogmatic language in prayer as having the essential character of an oath, and I cannot conceive it possible for a Church to make assertions of this kind before God Himself in prayer unless the Church holds them formally, nor, again, can I conceive it possible for a minister to make positive dogmatic statements to God in prayer unless, with all his heart and soul he believes them.

The dissenters of whom I have spoken were unable to use such language, and, in obedience to their conscience, left the English Church. Who can doubt their good faith? But, on the other hand, since the English Church puts such strong Catholic doctrine in the mouths of her clergy, and since they use it and no other language, who can question their good faith, or doubt that what they say they mean?

We must insist upon the objective validity of Sacraments. When they are ministered according to the requirements of our Lord's institution, (and this is a matter perfectly easy to ascertain), then no personal opinion of the minister either one way or the other can possibly affect their efficacy. Nor can even a mistaken classification of a rite as non-sacramental or sacramental [41/42] effect the validity of a ceremony which, otherwise has been duly performed by its proper minister. A variation in rite does not of necessity mean a difference in meaning. This may be illustrated by the long discussions in the primitive Church over the terms which ought to be used to indicate person and essence in the Symbolic doctrine of the Holy Trinity. It was a long time before the thing was finally settled. It may be remembered that it was not until the Meletian Schism brought up once more the question as to what was meant by ousia and upostasiv that, in the Council of Alexandria, in 362, under the wise guidance of St. Athanasius, it was agreed that both parties were right in intention, and that each party might retain its own usage, since questions of words must not be suffered to divide those who think alike. (St. Athan. Tom. ad Antiochenos § 5).

This discussion had continued in the Church for much more than a century. There could have been no discussion or difference if the words in question had been a matter of tradition. There was, in fact, no difference as to the doctrine, although there was difference as to the best words to be used. These had to be studied in their implications and suggestions no less than in their natural meaning. And it was only by the closest scrutiny, sometimes made in a hostile temper, that at last the Church settled upon ousia as the synonym for the Latin essentia, and upostasiV as the synonym for persona, and so revealed the absolute unity of faith that prevailed in the Greek and Latin communions upon the central mystery of the Godhead. May there not be something for us all, Anglicans, Easterns, Roman, and Protestant, Theists of every land, nay, for all who have any religion, in these ideas?

And, to apply them more closely to the subject under discussion, can it be possible that a failure to recognise not the sacramental nature of Ordination (for none among us would, I believe, question that) but to say simply and absolutely that Ordination is a Sacrament proves that the English Church does not recognize or teach that Ordination is an [42/43] institution of Jesus Christ Himself? Or, can it be said that a Church which has clung to the Episcopate in the face of every form of objection in reality looks upon the Ministry as a mere human invention, alterable at will, or even one which might be given up entirely, and of no more vital necessity than holy water? A study of the English Church for the last four or five hundred years would show no mere legal external continuity, but a vital and organic continuity, maintained by the channel of sacramental ministration.

Theology in the West has settled with considerable precision the doctrine of the Church as to sacraments. In regard to Ordination it distinguishes two effects; the first is the character or sacramental power; the second is the grace of the sacrament Provided that an ordination is made by an authorized minister (always a Bishop) using the prescribed form of prayer with laying-on of hands, with the intention to do what the Church does, then, whatever may be the unworthiness of the minister or of the ordained man, the ordination confers upon the latter the sacramental character. In consequence the transmission of this power of order can be made by means of a series of unworthy ministers, or ministers who are heretics, schismatics, or excommunicated. This power conferred is indestructible and independent of the dispositions of the subjects. But as regards the other effect of ordination, like the effect of baptism, the grace of ordination is given exclusively to those who receive ordination with the moral dispositions or qualities commanded by God's laws.

This doctrine, in which the Anglican Churches unquestionably concur, is the result of two principles. On one part it affirms the objectivity of the sacraments, that is, because they are effectual on account of the institution of Christ independently of the dispositions of the minister or of the receiver. On the other part, it proclaims the necessary subordination of" both minister and subject to God and to the Church. The doctrine has two chief consequences. The objectivity of the sacraments is a guarantee to the Church of security. What would happen [43/44] if the administration of sacraments was, as regards their essential validity, dependent upon the moral or religious worth of men? The greatest uncertainty would prevail, not only as to the spiritual condition of individuals, but as to the reality of the power of order in the clergy. There would be no way out of such a state of affairs, and the Church would be unable to be certain of her principal mission, that of being the steward of the means of grace. The doctrine of the objectivity of sacraments enables the Church to be free from this danger.

But, there is a second aspect of the matter, that sacraments can exist and be transmitted in communities of heretics or schismatics, subject, that is to the definition by the Church of what is necessary to maintain the substantial character and permanent identity of the sacraments. These conditions are treated in theological books under the heads at form, matter, intention, and minister. When these four are found in an act of sacramental ministration then the objective qualities of a sacrament are assured.

It would appear that in the Eastern Church acceptance of ordination and reception into the full communion of the Church are only two phases of one indivisible act.

Nevertheless East and West agreed in this in the most ancient times that the sole essential rite of Ordination consisted in the imposition of hands conferred with the corresponding prayer, as is proved by the most ancient of the books called sacramentaries. Nor, is it required that the prayer which accompanies the laying-on of hands should specify either order of priesthood or its grace and power; and this is proved by the recently published Sacramentary of Sarapion.

What hinders then the acceptance by the Eastern Church kat' oikonomian of the Ordinations of the Anglican Communion?

There remains one part of sacramental doctrine which must be looked at. In itself it is of the highest importance, and one which has kept the attention of the most philosophical minds among the great theologians of the whole Church, held the hearts of the saints and fed the multitudes from the beginning. [44/45] I allude to the Eucharistic Sacrifice. Unworthy to deal with such a sublime mystery as well as incapable of treating it worthily I shall here bring nothing before you except the language of the two English Metropolitans, and taken from the same Letter which has already been quoted about our ministry. They say: "We truly teach the doctrine of Eucharistic Sacrifice, and do not believe it to be a naked commemoration of the Sacrifice of the Cross. For, first we offer the sacrifice of praise and the thanksgiving; then next we plead and represent before the Father the Sacrifice of the Cross, and by it we confidently entreat remission of sins and all other benefits of the Lord's Passion for the whole Church; and lastly we offer the sacrifice of ourselves to the Creator of all things, which we have already signified by the oblation of His creatures. This whole action, in which the People necessarily takes its part with the Priest we are accustomed to call the Eucharistic Sacrifice."

There is great significance in this brief doctrinal summary. First of all the Archbishops describe the effect of the consecration of the bread and wine in the Eucharist to be that the gifts "become to us the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ," and here in the Latin original of their Letter the words I have quoted are taken from the Canon of the Roman Mass, where they immediately precede the formula of consecration. But then, the Archbishops carefully distinguish between the preliminary oblation of the bread and wine at the Offertory (the Great Entrance of the Eastern Liturgies) and the sacrifice made in the act of consecration. There have been persons who have tried to dilute the doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice, making the sacrifice a mere offering of bread and wine, thus reducing it to the level of Jewish or ethnic sacrifices. No doubt there is such presentation of bread and wine, but it is only a decent and reverent bringing into the Church of the necessary bread and wine, and a necessary preparation for the Eucharistic Oblation made in and by the Act of Consecration. Of this, the true Sacrifice, the Archbishops say that they [45/46] will not make "too precise definitions of the manner of the sacrifice or of the relation which unites the sacrifice of Christ the eternal Priest and the sacrifice of the Church which in some way are certainly one thing (quae aliquo certo modo unum sunt)." That is, the teaching of the Church of England is that the Sacrifice of the altar made by the Church Militant is in some way one thing with the sacrifice of the eternal Priest on the Cross.

This authoritative declaration of the English Metropolitans is a sufficient statement of the Catholic, the traditional doctrine of the Eucharistic Sacrifice. That doctrine has been stated by the great Doctors of the undivided Church, and by the Theological Masters, in such various terms as make it clear that human language is inadequate to the elucidation of this great mystery of the Faith. The doctrine has been held from the very earliest times, but the richness of its contents is so great as to overtax the power of thought or of words. In truth the doctrine does not exist in isolation but is a part of a still deeper mystery. When we know the full meaning of our Lord's offering of Himself in the Incarnation "for us men and for our salvation," then, and not until then, will the Church of the Redeemed see the full richness of her commemoration of that Sacrifice made upon her altars. Meanwhile there can hardly be framed a single sentence more suited for conveying the meaning of the belief of the Church than this: "The Sacrifice of Christ the eternal Priest and the Sacrifice of the Church in some way are certainly one thing."

Venerable Fathers and Brethren! I humbly ask that your thoughts may be applied to these matters, and that your prayers may be offered for the open unity which our Lord in the night in which He was betrayed prayed that His Church might display, so that the world may know His divine Mission.

Sept. 30, 1909.

CHARLES F. SWEET.

(June 25, 1912.)

SEIKYOKWAI OYOBI SEI KO KWAI.

A Translation of the Rejoinder on the Part of the Russian Ecclesiastical Mission to the Paper of Rev. Charles F. Sweet; or rather, the Portion of the Rejoinder dealing with Ordination.

SECOND PART.

Questions concerning doctrinal points specially connected with the Sei Ko Kwai.

I have thus far examined critically from the Sei Kyo Kwai point of view the arguments of Mr. Sweet touching matters of doctrine held by the Sei Ko Kwai in common with the Roman Catholic Church. We must now investigate the points mentioned by Mr. Sweet touching doctrine peculiar to the Sei Ko Kwai, and make clear the differences between the teaching of the Sei Kyo Kwai and that of the Sei Ko Kwai in relation to them. These points are mainly two, Holy Orders and Sacraments.

I. Holy Orders.

It is a plain fact, as Professor Sweet shows, that the English and American Sei Ko Kwai are different from the various Protestant sects ("new teaching"), and that they recognise a Holy Ministry not chosen by men but established by God Himself to be a necessary requisite for the existence of a Church. And, with regard to the three fold rank in Holy Orders, namely Bishops, Priests, and Deacons the English and American Sei Ko Kwai are at one with the Eastern Seikyo Kwai and the Western Church of Rome. It has therefore to be asked for what reason we make a distinction between the Holy [47/48] Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai and those of the great Eastern and Western Churches, and recognise a special difference in the Sei Ko Kwai doctrines touching their institution. It is this that I wish to discuss in this place.

The Letter dated Sept. 13. 1896 which was sent out by Leo XIII, the Pope of Rome, entirely disapproved the claim of the Sei Ko Kwai to a valid ministry of divine origin, in spite of its apparent agreement with the ministry of the two great churches, Eastern and Western, as mentioned above.

Despite the fact that the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai [appears thus] to have all the qualifications of the Holy Orders of the Orthodox Church in outward form, it has ever been a theological question whether [this agreement was actual or only apparent]. Moreover, this question is not of recent origin, but arose from the very time when the Sei Ko Kwai began its newly established Holy Orders independently in entire separation from the Roman Church. And to-day this remains an unsettled question. The Letter of the Roman Pope, mentioned previously, altogether disapproved [the claim of the Sei Ko Kwai] to a divinely established ministry. This Letter seems to give a final solution to the question, and also, to quote from the controversial Letter of the Two English Archbishops "to entirely overthrow the position of the Sei Ko Kwai as a Church." This, however, is a matter limited to the Roman Church for the Papal Letter has no influence at all over Churches which do not recognize the supreme authority of the Roman Pope. Of course the position of the Sei Ko Kwai has not [in fact] been overthrown. Some people in the Church entirely failed in their great attempt to effect a reconciliation with the Roman Church, and they then turned their aim towards a union with the Orthodox Church, looking away from the Western Church to the Eastern Church.

The Letter of the Roman Pope produced a negative result, but later on the controversial Letter of the Two Archbishops of the English Sei Ko Kwai was written, and the Church of England and the Roman Church asked the Eastern Churches (i.e. [48/49] the Greek and the Russian Sei Kyo Kwai) their opinion on the subject. Consequently the question of the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai has since then become an interesting subject not only to Christian Theologians, but also to secular scholars and students. If the books and essays upon this subject written by English, Italian, French, and Russian scholars were collected the mere list of titles is sufficient to make a pamphlet. The cardinal points, which before had not been certain, of the matter have thus been settled at last. It would require a great number of pages to discuss all these points, and I shall therefore give only the general substance.

Those who study the question of Holy Orders in the Sei Ko Kwai generally divide it into two parts, one historical, and the other vital or theological.

If we begin with the former question we ask, whether the Holy Orders of the present Sei Ko Kwai are directly connected with the Holy Orders of the Apostolic period. In other words we ask whether the ceremony of laying on of hands has continued in the Church from the Apostles' times or not.

As to the latter question it can be expressed in these words: Whether the Holy Orders of the present Sei Ko Kwai have the qualities necessary to the existence of Holy Orders as established by our Lord Himself or not. In other words whether we can recognise the genuineness of the Church [Sei Ko Kwai] or not.

I. Historical Aspect of the Question.

The historical question has been regarded as a grievously weak point in the Anglican case, and for a long time caused much discussion within and without the Sei Ko Kwai.

The question as to the consecration of Matthew Parker, Archbishop of the newly-organized Church after the Church of England separated from the Roman Church was the point at issue between those who held that when the English Church became independent of the Roman Church she continued the [49/50] ceremony of imposition of hands, and those who held that she did not. If the first archbishop of the independent Church of England had not really received the grace of the Holy Spirit through the laying on of hands, which had been handed down from Jesus Christ to the Orthodox Church through the Apostles then the present Sei Ko Kwai has no true Holy Orders, and we must say that it has no foundation as a Church. But from investigations by scholars it has been ascertained to be the undoubted fact that Archbishop Parker received the formal ceremony of imposition of hands in Lambeth Cathedral. [Lambeth Palace Chapel] Dec. 17, 1559 from four Bishops who had been consecrated before the Church revolution.

Moreover another very important fact was established,--that there were four other Bishops, Grindal Bishop of London, Cox Bishop of Ely, Meyrick Bishop of Bangor, and Sandys Bishop of Worcester, whom we ought to recognize as founders of the independent Church of England besides Archbishop Parker, because they received the imposition of hands two days later than the consecration of the Archbishop, from the Archbishop and three other Bishops who had indisputable qualifications. Thus, even if Archbishop Parker had not received the right ceremony of laying on of hands, if there were four other Bishops who received the proper ceremony besides him, then we can say that the present Sei Ko Kwai through these four Bishops keeps certain in the line of ordination through the grace of the Holy Spirit thus handed down from the holy apostles.

According to the historical facts above mentioned one aspect of the question of Holy Orders in the Sei Ko Kwai, or the historical and canonical question has obtained a solution favourable to the Sei Ko Kwai. Even the Roman Church could find no room for condemning the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai in this aspect. Naturally we do not find any word as to this aspect in the previously mentioned Letter of Pope Leo XIII. I will therefore proceed to investigate the other question of the vital or theological aspect of the matter.

[51] II. Theological Aspect of the Question.

When we discuss the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai with a view to the full truth of the matter we have to settle the following questions:

(a) The question of external formality.

(b) The question of the doctrine of the Sei Ko Kwai, so far as it is connected with the system of Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Ordination.

(c) The question as to the whole substance of faith and the doctrines of the Sei Ko Kwai.

These are now to be taken in order.

(a) The external formality of the Sacrament of Ordination.

In anshurei or the visible ceremony of Ordination there must be according to the doctrine of the Sei Kyo Kwai, as its necessary condition the act of laying on of hands of a Bishop upon the head of a person about to be ordained and a prayer at the time of this laying on of hands invoking the Holy Ghost to send down His grace upon the person to be ordained. This is what the Orthodox Church has received and still keeps unchanged from the time of the holy Apostles. It is proved by the Bible and by ancient service-books, by the canons of Oecumenical Councils, and by the writings of the holy Fathers and Doctors of the Church. If we compare the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai with it we shall be able to see clearly whether the ordination ceremonies of the Sei Ko Kwai have the right qualities of a true sacrament or not.

I. In the Sei Ko Kwai the laying on of hands of Bishops is used in the same way as is done in the Sei Kyo Kwai, as a so-called outward symbol or instrument. This is carefully explained by Professor Sweet in his lecture, and it is plainly declared in the Preface to the anshushikibun [Ordinal] of the Sei Ko K,wai, which Mr. Sweet also quoted, that the persons who ordain any man to the Orders of Bishops Priests, and Deacons, are the Bishops, and that the essential ceremony is the laying on of hands. In [51/52] these points we can say that the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai (contrary to the Roman Church which newly added to its anhushiki (Ordination ceremonies) a ceremony called the traditio [or porrectio] instrumentorum, that is, the handing of a paten with bread and a chalice with wine and water) coincides with the pure ceremony of the original Church.

2. The second condition necessary to the outward ceremony of Shimpin Kimitsu [Ordination mystery] is a prayer said at the time of the imposition of hands. It is this prayer which makes the anshushiki [ordination ceremony] effective in bringing down grace of the sacrament upon the person to be ordained. In the letter of the Patriarchs of the Eastern Church (10 article) it is said that the imposition of hands and the prayer calling down the Holy Spirit are the essential parts of the Shimpin Kimitsu [Ordination Mystery]. A Russian Archbishop, Macarius, says in his book on Dogmatic Theology that "what constitutes the visible form of Shimpin Kimitsu is the imposition of hands with prayer." According to the Kitobun of this sacrament of the Sei Ko Kwai, prayers said at the time of laying on of hands are of three kinds, or are in three parts. The first prayer, (that the grace of God may always heal the weak and supply all needs) is said with a loud voice; the other two prayers are silent prayers. I wished to quote the Kitobun [Prayer Service] of the sacrament in full as used in the Sei Ko Kwai, and to criticise it, but it is very long, and, moreover, it differs according to each order of the three, and therefore I have left it out;--but I refer earnest investigators to the Kitobun of the Sei Ko Kwai [the Ordination services in the Book of Common Prayer].

Should we, on this account, condemn the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai and say that it is invalid because of its different wording? No; I believe that such a conclusion would not be free from blame as a hasty judgment When we compare the kitobun of the anshurei [formulae of prayer used in ordination used in Christian Churches of various countries we cannot find any fixed, exclusively valid, form among them; they all [52/53] differ one from another in their wording. If I mention here those which have remained from ancient times until now they would be the Kitobun in the so-called Hippolytan Canons, and the Shinto Kitei [Apostolical Canons] the Prayer Book of the ancient Roman Church, and the Gallican Church (French Catholic Church) the anshurei of the Sei Kyo Kwai, the Pontifical of the present Roman Church, and the Kitobun of the Coptic Sect, and of the Jacobite Sect of Syria, the Maronite Sect, the Nestorian Sect, and the Armenian Sect. If we compare these Prayer Formulae they all differ in their wording. If all churches have their own individual, proper, Prayer Forms, then I think that the Prayer Form of Shimpin Kimitsu, [Ordination Mystery] was hot fixed and unchangeable from the first, but, perhaps, the holy Apostles entrusted it to the Bishops of churches in various places [to appoint for their own countries]. In the paragraph of the Acts where we find a statement relative to anshurei it is there said that "when they had prayed they laid their hands on them" (Acts vi. 6), but the prayer itself is not given. Hence we may suppose that the holy Apostles left no fixed prayer as an essentially necessary part of anshurei for the future church of the whole world.

By what standard then can we ascertain the validity of the anshureishikibun [form of words used in the ceremony of ordination] of the Sei Ko Kwai? The Kitobun of the various churches above mentioned appear to differ from each other in their wording, but some scholars who have collated and compared them, have concluded that it is not difficult to find a certain unity of meaning in them. Relying upon the results of their investigations we find upon eliminating all their points of difference arid keeping all their points of agreement that four chief features are manifest:

(I). Those who impose hands lift up their faces to God, (2) call the name of the person who receives this imposition of hands (or else simply saying "this thy servant")--thus clearly designating the person ordained. (3) designate [53/54] in some manner more or less clearly the Order to which the man who receives the imposition of hands is raised; and (4) prayers to ask God to grant to him who receives this imposition of hands the grace of God and the character required in order that this man may be enabled to fulfil the duties of the life of the Holy Orders received. If you examine the Kitobun of the Sei Ko Kwai you will find that it contains all these cardinal provisions [for a valid conferring of Holy Orders]. We must say then that the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai is quite valid in this aspect also. We do not find that according to this discussion upon the general subject that there is any reason to disapprove the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai from the point of the external aspect of anshurei, or as regards the outward ceremony, which is the first part of the fundamental or necessary property of Ordination. Rather, we assert that it has these genuine and undoubted qualifications.

THE QUESTION OF DOCTRINES CONNECTED WITH HOLY ORDERS AND SHIMPIN KIMITSU.

The second part of the fundamental question, regarding the visible determination of anshurei, whether the institution of Holy Orders in the Sei Ko Kwai has kept the proper doctrines as to Holy Orders and the Sacrament of Ordination is the most important part of the whole question, and may be called the backbone of the following discussion. Anshurei celebrated with prayers which contain all the requirements for valid orders, i.e. The visible determination of Shimpin Kimitsu is a method instituted by God Himself as an instrumental means of sending His grace upon the subject of Ordination in the Church, but if the method is not used properly it would remain as a mere method and thus might have no effect at all. Of course, the external ceremony of Shimpin Kimitsu which has been established by God must be respected, but if it were void of inward meaning it could not have any practical validity as a sacrament, and a most forcible instance of it is seen in the [54/55] ordinations of the Lutheran Sect. You will see that this (Lutheran) form of ordination is also provided with all that we, from the standpoint of the Orthodox Church, think to be necessary qualifications in external ceremonies, prayers, imposition of hands, designation of person and order, and also the asking of God for His grace and for the character needed in Holy Orders. Thus this (Lutheran) form has all the necessary parts of the outward rites, but in spite of that the ordination of the Lutheran Sect is nothing more than an outward simulation of the Shimpin Kimitsu of the Orthodox Church, and this is because the Lutheran Sect has rejected altogether the use of Holy Orders; anshurei has been removed from the number of the sacraments, and they regard Shimpin [ordained persons] as ordinary officials who are not different from ordinary laymen in essential character, appointed by men, and without divine authority. If, then, their convictions about Shimpin Kimitsu and Anshurei be such as these, no matter how completely they may use the outward ceremonies it is an empty form, destitute of any inner reality, and we cannot recognize such ordinations [as the Lutheran, just described] as having the proper qualifications of Holy Orders.

God our Lord established the Church on earth through the Holy Apostles and consecrated men, and He gave them a special gift of His grace in a particular manner, showing them also at the same time in what way to use His gifts for the salvation of all men.

God's grace is a gift, and men are left free whether to receive a gift or not. He who receives it receives also its effect, but he who rejects it cannot receive the impartation of its effect. This is the case in the institution of Holy Orders, and of the sacraments as constituted by God. Those who do not recognize their true effect, and who refuse God's grace given in the sacraments cannot receive the effect of His salvation and of sacramental grace. The words of Homigakoff, a Russian scholar, "Sacraments will be realized by the belief of the Church," are, [55/56] I should say, quite true in this connection. Therefore it is plain that unless the Church has a living faith in the benefits of the sacraments and of their grace, as well as the use of the outward ceremonies of Anshurei, the system of Holy Orders will receive no effect. What I wish to investigate and discuss is whether the Sei Ko Kwai has this faith or not.

We find the following words in Prof. Sweet's lecture: "the English Sei Ko Kwai did not cease to insist as its only publicly recognized doctrine that the Holy Orders of the Church were established by our Lord Himself and not by men." And again he says: "even in the time of the revolutionary disturbances in the 16 Century the English Sei Ko Kwai insisted upon it, and never gave way even in the midst of the most violent attacks. At present also it never allows anything contrary to the ancient faith and custom, and it requires that when any ministers of various sects, i.e. the Lutheran Sect, Presbyterian Sect, Methodist Sect, and such-like, wish to enter the ministry of the Sei Ko Kwai they must individually receive ordination."

I wish to ascertain from the books of publicly recognized doctrines of the Church how far Mr. Sweet's words coincide with the doctrines of the whole Sei Ko Kwai.

Of the books concerned with the publicly recognized doctrines of Seikokwai, the "Thirty Nine Articles of Religion," which has ably been translated into Japanese for the Seikyokwai, with a brief note by Mr. Oshinin a Russian theologian, holds a very important position. It is said in the Twenty-Third Article, "No man who has not lawful authority ought to take upon him to preach in Church, or to minister the Sacraments. Lawful authority proceeds from those who are entrusted with the public right to ordain men to pastoral offices." This ordaining men to pastoral offices is called anshurei (ordaining consecration) in the Thirty sixth Article. According to the Twenty-sixth Article those who preach and minister Sacraments do not do them "in their own name but in the Name of Christ." Consequently even if these ministrations are performed by evil men we may use [56/57] their ministry. We find only these few words in the Thirty-nine Articles regarding the doctrines connected with Holy Orders. Therefore it is difficult to judge the Sei Ko Kwai doctrines [about Ordination] on this ground. What persons do they mean by "those who are entrusted with public right to ordain men to pastoral offices?" Were these Holy Orders set up by men or were they established by God Himself? Have the Ministers of the Church a special grace from God through anshurei, or have they a merely legal right?

Upon these questions were can obtain no definite answer from the Articles.

A book which is as important as the 39 Articles, among the books of doctrine of the Sei Ko Kwai, is the Book of Common Prayer. In this book we find the following works: "Almighty God, Giver of all good things, who by thy Holy Spirit hast appointed divers Orders of Ministers in the Church"--(a part of a prayer in the service for the Ordering of Priests). "Receive the Holy Ghost for the Office and Work of a Priest (or of a Bishop) in the Church of God, now committed unto thee by the Imposition of our hands;--" . . . and remember that thou stir up the grace of God which is given thee by this Imposition of our hands;" (a part of a prayer in the Ordering of Priests and Consecration of Bishops). "Poured down His gifts abundantly upon men, making some Apostles, some Prophets, some Evangelists, some Pastors and Doctors to the edifying and making perfect His Church; " (the same). From these passages and from many other prayers we can see clearly that the Sei Ko Kwai recognizes Holy Orders as an Institution established by God Himself; i.e. an Institution handed down from the Lord Christ through the Apostles, and an Institution which is necessary to the constitution of the Church.

When we read A Declaration of the Function and Divine Institution of Bishops and Priests, and the Institution of a Christian Man, which are works of about the 30th year of the 16th century, when the Church of England rejected Papal authority, [57/58] and also the recent Letter of the two Archbishops of the Church of England replying to the Letter of the Pope, it is not very difficult to find that the doctrine connected with Holy Orders which is stated in the Book of Common Prayer has been the belief constantly held since the beginning of the independence of the Church [from Papal authority] until the present time.

That is the gist of what is stated about Holy Orders in the chief books on the doctrines of the Church, and it entirely coincides with Prof. Sweet's words, already mentioned.

If the faith of the Sei Ko Kwai relating to Holy Orders be so can we then conclude that the Holy Orders of that Church are really genuine. In other words, can we recognize their Bishops as Bishops, their Priests as Priests, and can we communicate with them? Ought we to consider it to be irrational to insist upon the necessity of administering Shimpin Kimitsu when ministers of the Sei Ko Kwai enter the Sei Kyokwai? Alas! there is one.more obstacle lying between them and us,--an important obstacle to such a conclusion. It is the doctrine of the Sei Ko Kwai relating to Sacraments. The doctrine is plainly stated in the XXV Article of the 39 Articles, a publicly recognized book on doctrines, as I have said before. This XXV Article says "there are two Sacraments ordained of Christ our Lord in the Gospel, that is to say, Baptism and the Supper of the Lord." "Those five commonly called Sacraments, that is to say, Confirmation, Penance, Orders, Matrimony, and Extreme Unction, are not to be counted for Sacraments of the Gospel, being such as have grown partly of the corrupt following of the Apostles, partly are states of life allowed in the Scriptures; but yet have not like nature of Sacraments with Baptism and the Lord's Supper, for that they have not any visible sign or ceremony ordained of God."

According to this declaration the Sacraments positively recognized by the Sei Ko Kwai are two only that is to say, Baptism and the Lord's Supper. Orders and the other four sacraments have not the nature of true Sacraments in the Sei Ko Kwai. If [58/59] the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai be really not a Sacrament, then their Bishops and Priests are not Bishops and Priests in the sense that is recognized by the Sei Kyo Kwai, for except through a Sacrament the grace of God cannot be truly given to men. (See Letter of Metropolitans of the Eastern Church, Art. 15). In other words persons cannot be especially consecrated through the gift of God's grace otherwise than by a Sacrament so as to enable them to have the character of ministers in Holy Orders. Anshurei which is not a Sacrament cannot give men the grace of the Apostolic ministry established in the Church by our Lord Jesus Christ through the Holy Apostles, and cannot make them true successors of the apostles. How then can we recognize what Mr. Sweet asserts: "that there exist apostolic Holy Orders fully qualified in the sense of unbroken succession from ancient times" in the Sei Ko Kwai? Most Rev. Archbishop Nicolai teaches "us; if no grace of God were granted in Shimpin Kimitsu [Ordination Sacred Mystery] then where could there be found the authority to change the bread and wine in Holy Communion into the Body and Blood of Christ? Is it not the same as to establish Holy Orders with the right hand and destroy them with the left?"

Against this criticism some Sei Ko Kwai theologians argue, saying that anshurei can be called a Sacrament in a wider sense, as well as the four other ceremonies which are called Sacraments in the Eastern Church. Sacraments differ in their nature and effect, so that they ought to be classified as Sacrament strictly so called, and Sacraments taken in a wider sense. Sacraments in the strict sense are "external visible symbols of inward spiritual graces granted to us through means established by Christ Himself, through which means we receive the grace." (See Sweet's Lecture). Such are called Sacraments of Gospel. The Sei Kokwai does not disapprove of the other five recognizing only two Sacraments, but it simply divides them into two groups, that is to say higher Gospel Sacraments and lower Church Sacraments. Even the latter are not generally void of the character or [59/60] properties of Sacraments, but they "have not the like nature as Baptism and the Lord's Supper." Anshurei belongs to the class of Sacraments of the lower and wider sense, (Mr. Sweet calls it of light sense), | Mr. Sweet does not. C.F.S.] but that it does not belong among the Gospel Sacraments. For although anshurei was also established by God Himself and although it has a visible symbol and bestows invisible grace, this visible symbol was not established by Christ Himself, nor did He leave any clear record of this constitution in the Gospels. Moreover, this ceremony is not necessary for all men, but it confined to a small number of men, and is given to them not for the sake of their own salvation, but to give them the grace and the authority necessary for Holy Orders. Consequently, in the Sei Ko-Kwai anshurei is recognized as a sacrament in a wider sense, but it is not a "Sacrament of the Gospel" like Baptism and the Lord's Supper.

When we thus interpret the 25th Article it appears at a glance that there is such a meaning in it; but, if we consider it quietly we shall find that it is not an interpretation necessarily to be deduced from the text of the Article, and that it does not allow any other interpretation at all. For we cannot find any classifications of sacraments among all the 39 Articles, except the declaration to the effect that there are two sacraments. Consequently anshurei is not called a sacrament. Therefore those who may wish to interpret this Article in the purely Protestant sense would have no difficulty in so doing. Until then we find enough reason for interpreting this article in the former sense and not in the latter, the 25th Article will be a cause, preventing us, the members of the Sei Kyo Kwai, from believing entirely in the Holy Orders of the Sei Ko Kwai.

Some theologians of the Sei Ko Kwai say that in order to see the true meaning of the 25th Article it must be compared with the Book of Common Prayer, and especially with the "Form and Manner of Making and Consecrating of Bishops, Priests and Deacons" contained in that book, and interpret [60/61] the former (Book of Articles) by the latter (the Book of Prayer). Originally the 39 Articles were set forth under the pressure of the religious disputations prevalent in the 16th Century. In order to cause the rejection of various forms of erroneous teachings the 39 Articles condemned these errors instead of stating the positive doctrines opposed to them. Therefore the 39 Articles did not undertake to explain exhaustively all Christian doctrines. Furthermore, the several Articles of the 39 have not all the same value, for there are some which are of local and temporary nature, not applicable to other regions, or periods, or in different circumstances. In recent times such criticisms relative to the 39 Articles (the chief book of doctrines of the Sei Ko Kwai) have been much increased in frequency. The authority of the 39 Articles is, however, not only in nowise impaired, but the Articles remain as an inviolable doctrinal book, in the form of an agreement made between the General Council of the English Church and the British Parliament. It is the necessary rule that all those who wish to become ministers must recognize the Articles.

Therefore we must regard the Thirty nine Articles as a publicly recognized book of doctrines side by side with the Book of Common Prayer, with never failing validity. How then can we harmonize these two documents with regard to anshurei? The former explains that there are only two sacraments, and the latter that all the necessary conditions of Shimpin Kimitsu in anshurei.

As has already been mentioned, some theologians of the Sei Ko Kwai assert that we must try to find the true meaning of the 25th Article from the Book of Common Prayer. Yet on what ground ought we, even by putting all due emphasis on the Book of Common Prayer, to lower the value of the 39 Articles? We can find no reason for making light of the Articles. Indeed, the history of the Sei Ko Kwai offers us the facts which give us strong ground for an entirely opposed consideration. A general council of the Sei Ko Kwai which took place in London in 1888 [61/62] on one hand without lowering the value of the 39 Articles took away the obligation of subscribing the Articles, but at the same time on the other hand it recognized the force of this Book, and placed it in the same position as the Book of Common Prayer, Kummosho, and anshureiten. In addition to that fact to which we ought to pay special attention in this case, is that doctrine with regard to sacraments in the 39 Articles was not only not altered in any way, not even in attempt, but it was freshly and publicly acknowledged. In other words, the following statement was put in a paragraph of the Resolutions of the Council in which all points which afford the necessary ground for unity among churches are stated: "Two sacraments established by Christ Himself are Baptism and the Lord's Supper, and these are to be ministered by the use of the words of Christ and by the use of the matter appointed by Him;"--and nothing whatever is said about other sacraments. This Resolution is also stated in exactly the same words in the Letter publicly sent to the branch churches of various countries from this general Council afterwards. If the Sei Ko Kwai recognizes Shimpin Kimitsu as a true sacrament why did not the church declare this doctrine upon such an important occasion?

More recently, in the Answer of the Two Archbishops of Sei Ko Kwai to the Rome Pope Leo XIII--in spite of their announced purpose of making clear the doctrines relating to the sacred Canons of the Church, and other matters, we cannot find any assertion that the Church does not reject Shimpin Kimitsu as a sacrament, and, besides, we do not see any place in which it states that Shimpin Kimitsu is a sacrament.

When we think over these facts it seems to us that the Sei Ko Kwai does not only say plainly in its book of faith that the sacraments are two only in number, but it also shows in action a purpose of avoiding the name of sacrament as rightly applied to Shimpin Kimitsu.

If this be really so then we think it is right that Professor Sokoloff of the Moscow Theological College should have [62/63] reached the following conclusion: "Are we not to reverse entirely the direction of our investigation and interpret anshureiten in the Book of Common Prayer by the doctrine of two sacraments in the Articles, exactly contrary to the theory held by some of the Sei Ko Kwai theologians who interpret the 39 Articles by the Book of Common Prayer? ("Holy Orders of the Church of England," page 264. I owe very much to this book for this chapter).

If the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai should be interpreted in that sense then it is no more than a simple ceremony which has only the external features of a sacrament. In fact, in the Sei Kyo Kwai also there is a ceremony which has all the necessary characteristics of outward forms of a sacrament, yet is not a sacrament. This is the Sei-sui-shiki [blessing of water] celebrated in the Senrei-sai of Christ. The basis, or source, of this Sei-sui-shiki is the consecration of the waiter of the River Jordan by Christ when He was baptized. Even "God's promises" about water are shown in the silent prayers offered by the ministers in this ceremony. In this Sei sui-shiki the visible part of the ceremony is the water which is to be consecrated, and also the prayers invoking the Holy Spirit to consecrate the water [O King Who lovest men, come down and consecrate this water by the overshadowing of Thy Holy Spirit]. In addition the prayers and blessings of this service speak in repeated terms of effect of grace and salvation given in this holy water to all those who use it. If we look at all these external symbols we might say that the ceremony of the Sei-sui-shiki contains all the requisites of a sacrament. Yet, judging from this alone we cannot say that this is not a ceremony but a sacrament. For the Sei Kyo Kwai clearly teaches us and says:--We believe that there are seven Gospel Sacraments in the Church, and that the Sacraments of the Church are neither more nor less than this number (letters of All Metropolitans of the Eastern Church, XV Article) And again it says: The seven [63/64] sacraments are, Baptism, Confirmation, Holy Communion, Penance, Orders, Matrimony and Unction." (Religion of the Sei Kyo translated into Japanese, page 419). Thus the Sei Kyo Kwai clearly shows the number and names of the sacraments and does not put Sei Sui Shiki in the list, from which it is quite plain that a ceremony may have all the elements of a sacrament not only in external form but in inward contents without, however, our having the right to call it a sacrament for that reason.

Wherefore, the final standard for discriminating a ceremony from a sacrament is the public belief of the Church. Some ceremonies are recognized publicly as sacraments by the Church, and, in consequence we can trust in them and recognize them as sacraments. As for other ceremonies the Church does not public by account them as sacraments, and therefore we have no way of speaking of them except as simple ceremonies, even if they contain all the outward constituents of sacraments.

If we in his way discuss our doubts about the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai they cannot but be felt in our brain with renewed keenness. In reality the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai may not be a sacrament, and so ought it not to be recognized as a simple ceremony, like the Sei Sui Shiki of the Sei Kyo Kwai? [And not an institution of our Lord]. We shall not be able to get a solution of the Question, even of we analyze the matter of anshurei by an exhanstive study of the Hoshiwaigaku (Canon Law). In fine, the Sei Ko Kwai has only to recognize it as a sacrament by a positive and declarative statement to that effect in the Book of Articles. Otherwise, on what ground can we believe that the anshurei of the Sei Ko Kwai is not a mere ceremony, but a sacrament? The difference between a sacrament and a ceremony is whether it has the certain power to grant God's grace to men or not.

According to the firm belief of the Sei Kyo Kwai "a sacrament causes those who receive it to receive surely the action of grace." (Letters from Metropolitans of the Eastern Church, 15 Article; "Teiri Shingaku," by Archbishop Macarius, vol. ii. [64/65] page 508). On the other hand ceremonies (such as Holy Water, Panchida Thanksgivings and Burial Services) are simply are "simply prayer relations of men towards God." (Vide Sei Kyo Kummo Kowa, by Ge. Chitofu, Archdeacon; vol. ii, page 6). "In ceremonies there is no sure proof of an actual gift of God's grace to men " ("Holy Orders of the Church of England," by Sokoloff, page 266). If the anshurei of the Seiko Kwai be such a ceremony then how can we prove that the grace of Apostolic Orders handed down unbroken in the Church from ancient times exists undoubtedly in that Church through the ceremony? We see have that the words of Archbishop Nicolai "Is this not to establish Holy Orders with the right hand and to destroy it with the left?" are quite right. Naturally then the following words by Mr. W. J. Birkbeck--a well known gentleman of the English Church--at the Pan Anglican Conference held in London in June 1908, incidentally enforce our argument. He said: "We must for ourselves recognize that the Bishops and theologians of Russia are anxious to know how far the Bishops of the Sei Ko Kwai themselves believe in the genuineness of their Holy Orders, so that they may come to a final decision upon the genuineness of the Holy Orders of the English Church. He also says: "The coming Lambeth Conference must go a step further (about this matter)."

Alas! the Lambeth Council, which was held in July 1908 did not go on further, so as to satisfy the members of the Se Kyo Kwai upon this point;--at least we have received no such good news yet.

[From this point the Rejoinder discusses the "whole faith" of the Anglican Church, and argues strongly that in certain test matters, such as saint-worship, image worship, transubstantiation, and eucharistic sacrifice, the Anglican Church has so widely varied from the true tradition as to indicate a settled purpose to deny the Catholic faith and to be simply " Protestant," and therefore cannot really believe in the ministry as a thing founded by Christ, and continued to the present time by the episcopate. The arguments [65/66] for this hostile interpretation are not, however, taken either from Anglican documents direct, or from approved Anglican expositions of these documents, but upon the writings of a Russian ecclesiastic, Sokoloff. I hardly need say that such a manner of interpreting public documents is quite without value. The writer of the Rejoinder has expressed the wish to know what Anglicans believe in practice, as well as what their authorized formularies declare. I have indicated the general purport of the documents by giving citations from the Book of Common Prayer. This language he finds unimpeachable. Instead of studying it, he seeks to turn its force by quotations from the Book of Articles, also a public document of the Anglican Church, but one without force or authority (except the force of moral influence) in Japan.

Then instead of seeking the interpretation of this Book of Articles from Anglican writers he chooses instead the writings of a Russian. And his conclusions, based apparently upon merely verbal acquaintance and with no knowledge of the historical aspects of the case, is taken as indicating the true meaning of Anglican formularies. Surely, this is the attitude of a hostile advocate, not that of one who seeks to study the differences between two systems in a "sisterly" spirit. We are dealing with no less a thing than that unity which our Lord prayed might be manifested in the Church He was then founding in His own Blood; we are not dealing with mere human logic. Consequently we have no right to press our own presuppositions and our own principles and definitions as if they and they alone in their narrowest literal sense were to be the criterion of judgment. And, since words have meanings and definitions have histories we must seek to know what men intend by their words,--otherwise we are in danger of violating the rule of Christian charity. When, then, we are approached in a spirit of good-will, we have no right to search out with diligence a reason for calling in question not only the good faith of such but also for concluding that they seek not unity, but gain for themselves.

[67] It seemed advisable to make this protest against the spirit of the discussion by the Orthodox Writer of the Anglican claim to have true and valid Holy Orders. It is perplexing to see the favourable interpretation in the earlier part of the Response all at once invalidated or weakened in consequence of a very subtle argument steadily pursued, and the most natural explanation appeared to be the hostile intention of the Orthodox Writer. It was adroit and clever to turn the 39 Articles from their true purpose (which was simply to make for peace and to allay burning discussions between Englishmen) and to assume that the Book of Articles is the chief dogmatic document of the whole Anglican communion. Upon this point it may not be amiss to observe that in Japan, in the Set Ko Kwai, the 39 Articles have no authority whatever; they are not subscribed either directly or indirectly either by clergy or laity. In the United States they are not subscribed, except as a part of the doctrinal documents which contain "the Doctrine" of the Church, and they are not specified by their Title. In England they are subscribed by the Office bearers, but only in a general form; the laity, as such, are not bound by them at all. Consequently the Articles, even if rightly understood, cannot be the supreme, determining standard of teaching, far less a private unauthorized interpretation by a stranger.

We shall, however, do well if we receive this hostile criticism cheerfully, and in a spirit of hopefulness, and heed certain considerations suggested by it.

In the first place the criticism is not necessarily hostile, and in assuming that it is we may have misjudged Orthodox Writer. Varying mentality must be allowed for in practical efforts for unity. We honestly try on our part to reveal our own mind and purpose, but seem to fancy that we need not take any steps to readjust our consciousness in consequence of a similar attempt on the part of Easterns to reveal their mind to us. We grieve because we are not all at once accepted upon our exparte statements.

[68] One weakness of Anglican argumentation has been our disregard of precision of language in popular discussions, and disregard for the inevitable inferences and implications of our words and acts. We have been conscious of our own good intentions, and of our loyalty to the Catholic Faith. Nevertheless we have persistently tried to minimize the area and the range of Catholic belief. This has been done in charity towards right-minded schismatics so as to make it easier for them to return to Catholic unity. In doing this we have neglected the great Roman and Orthodox communions, practically leaving them out of account. Their judgments upon us have been disregarded; if reunion between them and us is thought of, our steady assumption has been that they must be reconciled to us, and that there need be no sacrifices on our part in order to bring about what Dr. Pusey called " a healthful' reunion."

Yet, if they are asked to accept our status as a Catholic body, must we not show that we are zealous defenders of the Scriptures, of the deposit of belief, faithful stewards of the mysteries of grace, trainers of saints?

The criticism by the Orthodox Writer is an instance in point. The somewhat awkward phrase he uses about "the whole faith of the Church" indicates an aspect of the subject which cannot be overlooked if we would honestly and resolutely apply ourselves to the task of sympathetically studying the Orthodox Eastern mind. Anglican writers have pressed the objectivity of sacramental doctrine too hard, and have been dry and formal,--even mechanical. Valid ordination alone does not make a Catholic Church. The life of the Catholic Church is something infinitely richer and more various than the Episcopate. We have fallen into the way of dealing with the doctrine of the ministry as if, in proving we have the episcopal succession we prove that we have all we need in order to be Catholics. This is pressing sacramental doctrine beyond all reason, and making the religion of Christ a mere system instead of a gospel.

[69] Sacraments are of spiritual efficacy, and the moral presuppositions of the recipients, no less than inaptitude through sin, act as obices, hindrances to their effect. A Church which does not teach the full belief of the Catholic Church, a Church which takes no pains to establish her disciples in sanctifying grace, even if Ordination is ministered with due form, matter, and intention is only the semblance of a Catholic Church. It is doubt as to this practical and vital conformity to Catholic faith and manner of life which brought about the criticism of the Orthodox Writer. He thus expresses it: "unless the Church has a living faith in the benefits of the sacraments and of their grace, as well as the use of the outward ceremonies, the system of Holy Orders will receive no effect" [p. 54]. Here, then, is the true field of future work in the cause of unity. I am confident that there has been no such practical apostasy from the Catholic religion and the Catholic life among us. Our duty is to show this to our brethren of the East.

Meanwhile there has been a great gain in the fact that, at least in Japan, the Orthodox Eastern Church fully grants the objective validity of the Anglican Ordinations.

The continuity of the Ministry in its three Orders is allowed to be historically true.

The form is allowed to be valid and the matter likewise.

The belief of the Anglican Communion is received as sufficient, and the intention as satisfactory.

If the Anglican Communion could say, simply and without qualification, there are Seven Gospel Sacraments and one of them is Ordination, then the status of our clergy would be acknowledged to be completely satisfactory, whereas, at present it is hardly more than probably so. I believe that a study of sacramental theology as illustrated in history will prove that the Orthodox Writer with whose words we are dealing makes his requirement on an insufficient basis. It is well to have so clear an issue.

In conclusion may I ask for a charitable judgment upon myself and my work? It was taken up in a spirit of obedience, [69/70] and carried on with very little help from books other than those in my own library, and in the midst of the varied duties of a missionary. I owe many valuable ideas to my dear friend Archdeacon King. I also had the advantage of knowing what Archbishop Nicolai felt on the subject, for he allowed me the inestimable privilege of long interviews whenever I wished, and we spoke with perfect openness on these matters years and years before this last "attempt to reach unity" was made. He was in truth a Father in God. I make this request only because I have tried to be a peacemaker and to be true.

CHARLES F. SWEET.

Tokyo, Japan, July 2, 1912.

Project Canterbury