AFTER the overthrow of the pro-German party in Greece and the restoration of Venizelos to power, the Most Reverend Meletios Metaxakis was appointed Metropolitan of Greece, and brought to his office a well trained mind, an executive experience of high order and a viewpoint which was thoroughly modern and liberal in the best sense. He was a careful student of the educational development of the past century, and had labored hard in a successful effort to improve the intellectual condition of the clergy of Greece.

In the autumn of 1918 he came to America to learn the condition and need of Greeks, and to study the American method as applied to religion. Before leaving he, together with leading theologians of Greece who accompanied him, joined in a conference with the committee chosen by the Presidents of the Anglican and Eastern Association and the Christian Unity Foundation, for a careful review of the relations between the Greek Orthodox and Episcopal Churches, and an unofficial statement of their points of agreement. An account of this meeting is contained in the Report of an Unofficial Conference on Unity, published by the Department of Missions of the Episcopal Church, 1920.

The following letter was written by the Secretary of the American Committee. With the approval of the other members, it was submitted to the Metropolitan and his theologians, and accepted by them as a satisfactory basis of discussion. The contents were framed as a result of careful study of points of difference, as well as points of [4/5] contact, and many discussions with the leading clergy and laity of the Orthodox Churches in America.

It may be of interest to add that a copy of the letter and the conference which followed it, was sent to England in the anticipation of the Metropolitan's visit there. The English Committee, in reviewing these documents, agreed that, inasmuch as the conference in America had not sufficient time to consider all the points, they would use the programme outlined in the following letter as a basis of their conference also.

A brief review of the result of these conferences might be of interest; I therefore submit the following as reported by the English Committee. Speaking of the American Conference it states:

"At the conference between the Metropolitan and his theologians and the members of the joint committee of the Anglican and Eastern Association and the Christian Unity Foundation, the historic fact of the authenticity of Anglican Orders was accepted, although the Greeks asked for a clearer definition of the relation of ordination to our sacramental system. The troublesome question of the so-called 'Filioque clause' in the Creed, that is, the addition of the words 'and the Son' to the original form of the Nicene Creed, was discussed. The explanation of the Anglican position was generally accepted and it was suggested that an endeavor be made to arrange for some explanatory phrase which would overcome the difficulty on both sides.

"At the meeting in England it was agreed that the present aim of such conference with the Orthodox Church was not for union in the sense of 'corporate solidarity,' based on the restoration of intercommunion, but through clear understanding of each other's position. The general understanding was that there was no real bar to communion between the two Churches, and it was desirable that it should be permitted, but that such permission could only be given through the action of a General Council.

"At the third conference, at Oxford, the questions of Baptism and Confirmation were considered. It was shown that, until the eighteenth century, re-baptism of non-Orthodox was never practiced. It was then introduced as a protest against the custom in the Latin Church of baptizing, not only living Orthodox, but, in many cases, even the dead. Under orders of Patriarch Joachim III, it has become the Greek custom not to re-baptize [5/6] Anglicans who have been baptized by English priests. In the matter of Confirmation it was shown that, in the case of the Orthodox, the custom of anointing with oil, called Holy Chrism, differs to some extent from our Confirmation. It is regarded as a seal of orthodoxy, and should not be viewed as repetition of Confirmation. Even in the Orthodox Church, lapsed communicants must receive Chrism again before restoration.

"The fourth conference was held in the Jerusalem Chapel of Westminster Abbey, under the presidency of the Bishop of Winchester. This discussion was confined to the consideration of the Seventh Oecumenical Council. It is not felt by the Greeks that the number of differences on this point touch doctrinal or even disciplinary principles. The Metropolitan stated that there was no difficulty on the subject. From what he had seen of Anglican Churches, he was assured as to our practice. He further stated that he was strongly opposed to the practice of ascribing certain virtues and power to particular icons, and that he himself had written strongly against this practice, and that the Holy Synod of Greece had issued directions against it."

As the result of these several conferences, the Metropolitan was so impressed that he established a Professorship of Anglican Theology in the University of Athens and suggested that similar professorships be established in Oxford and America. [A full account of these conferences will be published very shortly, as one of the pamphlets of this series entitled Historical Contact of the Eastern Orthodox and Anglican Churches and Looking towards Unity.]

At the time of the visit of Metropolitan Meletios to this country the Most Reverend Alexander of Rodostolo was appointed Acting Archbishop of America, and the friendly relation between the two Churches has been increasing. His Grace attended the meeting of the Synod of the Province of Washington and again in June attended the ordination services conducted by the Bishop of Harrisburg, in Saint John's Church, Lancaster, Pennsylvania. He has been in close touch with clergy of our Church, and has learned to turn to them for advice in matters pertaining to the welfare of his Church.

[7] TO HIS GRACE [* The proper form of address to a Metropolitan is "Your Eminence"; but inasmuch as this form was used by the compatriots of the Metropolitan, it seemed wisest to address him as an archbishop.] THE MOST REVEREND MELETIOS METAXAKIS, Archbishop of Athens and Metropolitan of All Greece, MOST REVEREND FATHER IN GOD:

The ALMIGHTY FATHER, who by his Holy Spirit, didst preside in the councils of the Blessed Apostles and has promised through His Son Jesus Christ to be with His Church to the end of the world, has taught those brought up in the nurture of this Church to pray through our only Saviour, the Prince of Peace, that He would, "give us grace seriously to lay to heart the great dangers we are in by our unhappy divisions; and to take away all hatred and prejudice, and whatsoever else may hinder us from a godly union and concord: that as there is but one Body and one Spirit, and one hope of our calling, one Lord, one Faith, one Baptism, one God and Father of us all, so we may be all of one heart and of one soul, united in one holy bond of truth and peace, of faith and charity, and may with one mind and one mouth glorify Him." With sorrow often does the priest finish his act of supplication and go forth to his labor though being vividly conscious that such labor is limited to but a fragment of the wounded and dismembered Church of God. In recent years, hope has begun to fill our hearts as fellow Christians of the Orthodox rites have come to our shores, reminding us again of our kinship with the most ancient portion of the Christian Church, the spiritual Mother of all Anglican Christians. It is with sadness mingled with hope that we recall an inheritance, which caused disunion, not resulting from any formal [7/8] or historical act, but largely because of confusion in the use of the form of sound words or misunderstanding of the causes, racial, climatic, educational or ethnical, which have colored acts of devotion or affected the form and method in administration of Sacraments.

The Orthodox in America

We have followed with fraternal love the progress of the Orthodox in this land and learn with thankfulness of the increase of religious opportunity in many places; and yet we have grieved greatly over those who, as, "sheep going astray" have been lured into the Protestant or Roman fold, or have drifted into infidelity. We recognize the need of services accepted by the Orthodox Church for the Orthodox, and desire to co-operate in meeting this need, in hope that on our American soil Orthodox and Anglican may with one heart and one mind worship after the manner of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church. In this hope we would seek to take counsel with Your Grace and your associates, that by a full acknowledgement of the many things that we most surely hold in common, and a careful consideration of those in which we seem to differ, we may, as regards our two Churches, further that unity so dear to the heart of the Churches' Most Holy Head. Conscious of our own weakness and unworthiness to undertake so great and so sacred a task, we pray God that He will abide in our councils and so guide us in the cause of truth, and make us serve as such efficient instruments in the way of unity, that the good work begun in us may continue till at length the whole of His "dispersed sheep, being gathered into one fold, may be partakers of everlasting life."

Reasons for Letter

In addressing Your Grace in the hope of advancing the cause of closer affiliation between the Episcopal Church in America and the Holy Orthodox Church, we are prompted by several considerations. The conditions obtaining in America are such that, in order to serve the best interests of American life, we must provide religious opportunities for all the people of our land after a manner that will meet existing spiritual needs.

Two factors enter largely into the determination of the nature of the need for such service.

(a) Industrial Causes

[9] Unlimited industrial opportunities draw members of the Orthodox Church to all parts of our vast domain. In places it has been possible for the several hierarchies of the Orthodox Church to provide both churches and priests for the people. In other communities priests have been sent, but the congregations have not been able to erect churches. In many such places the use of the Episcopal church has been offered and accepted. There are many places which no priest can at present visit or where only a rare visit can be made. Concern for the souls of these children of the Orthodox Church especially moves us to devote prayers and energies towards hastening the day when the Episcopal Church may appease their spiritual hunger until the arrival of the Orthodox priest fully meets their need. We would hope, therefore, that full consideration of the claims of the two Churches to a lawful and historic ministry, to the teaching of a doctrine substantially the same, to the administration of sacraments to conveying the same spiritual refreshment and strength, may reveal such great similarity in mission and identity [9/10] of purpose that each may effectively administer to the communicants of either Church.

(b) Shifting Population

A second consideration arises from the changing conditions of American life by which in some centres the older inhabitants are being replaced by those who accept the ministry of the Orthodox Church. It is quite probable that already there exist communities where an Episcopal church has lost almost all its members and Orthodox abound; or it may be that in some communities, newly created by the discovery of mineral deposits or the establishment of a large industry, a few members of the Episcopal Church may be employed among a large number of Orthodox. It would seem neither to the glory of God, nor the welfare of man, that such conditions should lead to the multiplying of churches. It ought not to exist where the spiritual needs of the two groups approach identity. Is it not possible, following the suggestions we have already made, so to adjust the relations of the two Churches that there be neither a duplication of effort nor separation in worship based merely on ethnic differences?

Spiritual Responsibilities

Two other considerations of great importance confront us at the present time.

(a) At Home

The generous response of Orthodox Christians to the call of the American Army, illustrated by the 65,000 Greeks alone in the American service, placed a large spiritual responsibility upon the American [10/11] Church. We fear that there are not sufficient priests of the Greek Church available for even the chaplaincies alloted to that Church. We know that under the disorganized conditions of the Church in this country, additional service through volunteer chaplaincies has been impossible. The Episcopal Church has gladly given spiritual and material help to the Orthodox who have been brought to her attention. Through lack of organic unity it has been impossible for her to minister to them in the same manner and with the same thoroughness she has employed among her own children.

(b) In the Near East

Secondly, Your Grace has reminded us of a responsibility, sure to arise after the war, for evangelization of those countries freed from the Turkish yoke. If we rightly understood the suggestion made by Your Grace as a request that the Episcopal Church prepare to co-operate in the Apostolic work of the regeneration of the Near East, it would seem necessary that we enter upon such work with such clear and defined understanding of the relation of the Episcopal and Orthodox Churches, each to the other, that even suspicion of schism might be remote from so great an undertaking. We recall vividly the results of misguided efforts in the past, and resent with indignation, as intense as that of the Orthodox Church, the efforts made by Roman and Protestant bodies to gain converts in the Near East. The Episcopal Church, in her anxiety to help, should not allow her zeal to open the gates of suspicion. A clear pronouncement on the mutual relations of the Churches should preface any attempt at joint missionary effort.

End to be Sought

[12] To meet the requirements of the conditions which have arisen it would seem desirable to arrive at some concordat by which:

(a) Children of Orthodox or Anglican parentage, born in communities where there is a priest of but one branch of the Church, may be baptized by that priest, and such Baptism accepted by both Orthodox and Anglican alike as regular and canonical.

(b) Should investigation reveal that the gift of Orders in both Churches be identical, and the Mission of their Ministry of undoubted authenticity, we should determine whether the Blessed Sacrament of Our Lord's Body and Blood should not be administered by the priests of either Church according to the rites and ceremonies of that Church to those rightly and duly admitted as communicants.

(c) The question of the burial of the dead would naturally present itself, were it not already determined by the Encyclical of Gregory, by the Mercy of God, Archbishop of Constantinople, the New Rome, and Oecumenical Patriarch, October 11, 1869.

Moved by such thoughts and conscious of the searching challenge of the momentous days through which we are passing, we read again the prayer of the Holy Synod of Greece in an address to the Primate of all England, June 11, 1870.

"May the all-blessed Spirit, who from Heaven visiteth men, lightening their understanding with divine light, and guiding them into all truth, and warming their hearts with divine love, guide all into concord in Christ, and unity of faith: or if not all, at least the Christians of the Eastern Church and your own, which, abiding by [12/13] the enactments of the Apostles and holy synods, neither admit of any absolute, arbitrary, and irresponsible monarchy in the flock of Christ, nor all the faith to be defined after each man's fancies."

Two years later, His Grace Theophilos of Athens, in a letter addressed to the Reverend Charles R. Hale, afterwards Bishop of Cairo, September 20, 1872, suggests the following basis of unity.

"Unity, then, and union with the Orthodox Church is not a fusion nor a taking away of the natural and ethnical diversities inwrought by God; it is not a slavish subjection of some to others; it is not a despotic raising up or tyrannical leveling of national peculiarities or differences, but a certain brotherly, harmonious binding together of spirit, manifested through a common creed, voluntarily accepted, of the fundamentals of the faith, which the divine Scriptures, the Apostolic traditions and the Oecumenical Councils of the Church have defined for us."

Anglican and Orthodox Differences

The contracting circle of the globe effected by the conveniences of modern days, has brought to the mind of the nations a fuller and more perfect understanding of "the natural and ethnical diversities inwrought by God"; and we are able to ascribe new phases of thought and modes of expression to such "natural and ethnical diversity," rather than to diversity in intention. We believe that, while to the East has been given the gift of right definition of those things which pertain to the Orthodox faith, the Anglican Church has had the more difficult task of rightly applying in life and practice things that sometimes are not perfectly uttered by the tongue.

[14] We should never forget that the spiritual transformation of the Anglican Church took place at the time when England was trying to express the glories of the newly-discovered treasures of the East in language that was not yet crystalized. There doubtless exists in the minds of many Orthodox a confused idea of the inner meaning of the English Reformation, due to a confusion of it with the German Reformation. Both occurred at about the same time. That in England was inspired by the re-discovery of the religious ideals of the Orthodox which were revealed to her along with the literary and philosophical treasures of the "New Learning." She was striving for expression of her protest against the abuses with which Rome had beclouded the teachings of the Early Church. She took advantage of the reforming spirit which had come from the Continent, and of the King's conflict with Rome, to re-assert her independence, and claim a right to worship after the purer and freer manner of the East. The purpose of the English Reformation may be compared with that of Patriarch Nikon of Moscow, who, in 1654, with the approval and advice of the Patriarch of Constantinople, undertook the reformation of the abuses in the Russian Liturgy. Despite the protest of the Staroviersti, or Old Believers, who, after the manner of Rome, anathematized the reformers, he was able to preserve the continuity of the Church and effect an agreement with the liturgies and ceremonies of other patriarchates.

Need of Conference

During the years through which the Churches have been growing closer and into fuller understanding of each other, various conferences and meetings have been held, and definite conclusions reached which would [14/15] seem to require but the joint approval of a conference such as that to which Your Grace has invited us, that certain barriers to intercommunion and unity may be forever ignored.

The Validity of Anglican Orders

The validity of the Orders of the Anglican Church has always been pushed to the front by the machinations of the Church of Rome. We would commend to your consideration the conclusions of a treatise which we believe is well known to Your Grace and the learned theologians who accompany you: Enquiry into the Hierarchy of the Anglican Episcopal Church, by Professor Basil Sokoloff, of Moscow. This book is significant, not merely for its soundness in research, but for its acceptance by the Most Holy Governing Synod of Russia as the thesis of Professor Sokoloff for the degree of Doctor of Divinity. While the acceptance of the book as a thesis does not assume the character of a synodal endorsement, we are led to believe that the Most Holy Governing Synod found therein nothing that a priest of the Orthodox Church should not believe and teach. We would likewise refer to the learned work of the Reverend C. Androustos on Anglican Ordination, and A. Bulgekoff, The Question of Anglican Orders, which, while lacking such official recognition as that accorded the thesis of Professor Sokoloff, are, we understand, generally received and recognized as authoritative and satisfactory considerations on the whole subject of Ordination in the Anglican Church.

The conclusions of Professor Sokoloff are: (1) that there can be no doubt of the regularity of the consecration of Bishop Parker; (2) that the intention of the Church is the same as that of the Orthodox Church; [15/16] (3) that even if a suspicion of heresy in the Anglican Church was justified, there does not exist sufficient heresy to prevent the free operation of the Holy Ghost in the consecration of her ministers. [* The following note is from a similar letter addressed to the Metropolitan Platon, July 7, 1919, by the writer: "We, of course, know that even so sympathetic a theologian as Sokoloff finds difficulty in the scant references to the gift of Orders as a sacrament. This omission is due largely to the desire of English speaking people to confine the word 'sacrament' to those sacraments which are essential to salvation and are described as 'sacraments of the Gospel'. The other sacraments, known by theologians as 'sacraments of the Church', are not considered of the same necessity. Very often in conversation, both the Russian and the Greek, terms are translated 'mysteries', which is a more general term than the English word 'sacrament'. We should never forget that there is a tendency in the English language to narrow the use of words to a technical meaning, based upon the essential use of the object or action described. 'Coal', for instance, has lost its general meaning, and is now applied merely to a substance dug from the earth. In like manner the term 'sacrament' has become to be applied to the two sacraments absolutely essential to life in Christ. This is merely a development of the tendency of both Eastern and Western Churches, which in former centuries had chosen seven particular sacraments from the number of so-called sacraments, and had decreed that these, and these alone, should be considered as sacraments in the theological sense of the word. Careful study of the Article on Sacraments in the Thirty-nine Articles will show that in no respect is the sacramental nature of the word 'sacrament' denied."]

We submit this conclusion to Your Grace that we may determine whether the validity of the Orders of the Anglican Church is sufficiently well attested to exclude further necessity of discussion upon this fundamental question.

At the Bonn Conference, in 1874, the following decision was published as one of the theses.

"We acknowledge that the number of sacraments was fixed at seven first in the twelfth century, and then was received into the general teaching of the Church, not as a tradition coming down from the Apostles or from the earliest times, but as the result of theological speculation.

[17] "Catholic theologians (e. g. Bellarmine) acknowledge, and we acknowledge with them, that Baptism and the Eucharist are principalia, praecipua, eximia salutis nostrae sacramenta."

Nature of Differences

The validity of Orders once determined, there remains to be considered whether those matters which appear to separate the Churches are questions of error in doctrine or misunderstanding and misinterpretation of expressions; and whether error, if found, is of sufficient weight to prevent the acts of charity and comity that would be promoted by reciprocal privilege of ministration.

Our study of the causes of difference has led us to the following classification:

(1) Apparent doctrinal differences,
(2) Matters of devotion and pious opinion,
(3) Difference in the manner of administering sacraments,
(4) Matters of domestic legislation.

In the first class we would place the addition of the "Filioque Clause" to the Creed, (b) the Doctrine of the Eucharist, and (c) the number of sacraments.

(a) Filioque Clause

I- Doctrinal Differences

The first of these questions has been the matter of frequent discussions. We believe that Your Grace knows the discussion which took place between the Reverend F. W. Puller of the Anglican Church and Professor Brilliantoff in the presence of the Bishop of Kholm and Bishop Innocent of Yakutsk. In this discussion the interpretation of this addition was so clearly set forth, and the justification of its addition to the Creed so clearly [17/18] stated, that Father Puller was able to report to his Russian audience, "at the close of the conference the Presiding Bishop, the Bishop of Kholm, authorized me to tell my audience . . . Though the Russian and the English differ in the wording of their respective formulas, yet the conference had, after hearing explanations, concluded that the two Churches are agreed as to the substance of the teaching concerning the Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost." Theologians of the Anglican Church, almost without exception, agree with the learned American theologian, the late Bishop Arthur Cleveland Cox, that "The words of the Filioque are yet in the Symbol although our most learned divines agree that, however true they may be, they are not part of the faith." This statement was accepted as part of the report of the Committee of the General Convention, and inserted in its official report, 1862. ["We must not forget, however, that they have come to be a recognized part of the Creed as used in the West, and are especially viewed as our official condemnation of the Unitarian doctrines found in many parts of our country. An absolute rejection of the phrase at this time would doubtless be viewed as a rejection of the Deity of our Lord Jesus Christ." (The writer's letter to the Metropolitan Platon of Kherson and Odessa.)]

(b) Doctrine of the Eucharist

The next point, that of the Doctrine of the Eucharist, was likewise considered by this committee of the General Convention and its findings officially reported and accepted. The Reverend J. B. Young, afterwards Bishop of Florida, reporting on this subject states:

"The Catholic Church of the East, and likewise the Russo-Greek Church used, it is true, the word transubstantiation; Greek (metousiwsiV), understanding thereby, not a physical and carnal transubstantiation, but sacramental and mystical . . . The manner of the Lord's [18/19] Presence in the Blessed Eucharist is a mystery to be apprehended by faith and not a matter to be speculated and dogmatized upon or reasoned about. All definitions or pretended explanations such as the use of the word transubstantiation are but attempts to penetrate the mystery and in so far tend to overthrow the very nature of the sacrament." (Convention Journal, 1862.)

Philaret, the Metropolitan of Moscow, who wrote the Longer Catechism of the Russian Church, and translated the Articles of the Synod of Jerusalem in the form in which they were finally accepted by the Russian Synod, claims that the word transubstantiation is not found in the Longer Catechism. He adds, "In Russian we say not transubstantzija but presushchestylenie, a word corresponding exactly to the Greek (metousiwsiV)." ["In this connection we would add the following report of the conversation between Bishop Young and the Metropolitan Philaret: 'We may add that the word presushchestylenie is the exact Slavonic equivalent of the Greek metousiosis, the Slavonic word sushchestvo philologically corresponding, not to substantia, but to ousia (essentia), and being formed, in just the same way from suschi, present participle of the word bytj, to be'. When it is remembered that the Metropolitan Philaret was himself author, both of the Longer Catechism, and of the translation of the Articles of the Synod of Jerusalem in the form in which the Holy Synod of Russia finally accepted them it will be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this conversation." (The writer in his letter to Metropolitan Platon.)] On the other hand, Bishop Guest, who wrote the Twenty-seventh Article, which refers to the Presence of our Lord in the Eucharist, declared that "despite the efforts of others to read another meaning," "yet I would not for all that deny anything that I have spoken for the Presence."

The Archbishop of Syra, at a conference with the Bishop of Ely, November 4, 1870, says: "In the Eucharist the Church has not defined how far the properties of the outward and inward parts are preserved entire to each." [19/20] Also, "My individual opinion is, that the Bread remains bread in the mouth, and the Wine remains wine in the mouth, but at the same time as we receive them, we receive the whole of Christ. Others have taken up the opinion of the Latin Church and rolled them into our Church. The question is not authoritatively settled."

[* It may be useful to append the Article of Synod of Bethlehem (or Jerusalem) explaining the sense in which the term transubstantiation is accepted by the Eastern Church.

Greek Version A.D. 1672

"Further we believe that after the consecration of the Bread and Wine, the very (samyjipse) bread and wine no longer remains, but the very Body and Blood of our Lord under the appearance and form of bread and wine, that is to say, under the accidents of the bread and wine.

"The Body and Blood of our Lord are divided and separated by hand and teeth in their accidents alone, or in the accidents of bread and wine, through which they may be seen or touched."

Russian Version A.D. 1833

"Further we believe that after the consecration of the Bread and Wine, the very (samyjipse) bread and wine no longer remain but the very Body and Blood of our Lord under the appearance or form of bread and wine.

"The Body and Blood of our Lord are divided and separated, yet this takes place in the mystery of the Communion only with respect to the species of Bread and Wine through which alone they may be seen and touched."

In an article in the Guardian of May 31st, 1897, on The Russian Church and the Council of Trent, Birkbeck pointed out how careful the Russian ecclesiastical authorities have been "not to commit themselves to the alien theological definitions of the West, more especially those of the Council of Trent and the Catechism of Pope Pius V."]

This is not merely in substantial, but in actual agreement with the accepted doctrine of the Episcopal Church. [See Appendix I.]

Allied to this is the use of the Invocation of the Holy Spirit in the consecration of the Holy Eucharist. [20/21] In this the Episcopal Church in no respect differs from the Orthodox. The Invocation, while in the English Prayer Book by implication only, has been inserted in full form in the American Book after the manner of the Episcopal Church of Scotland.

(c) Number of Sacraments

Confusion has arisen concerning the number of sacraments acknowledged by this Church, partly because terms employed have changed their significance, if not their real meaning, since Pre-Reformation days, and partly because the terms employed in defining the greater sacraments and explaining the lesser sacraments have been misunderstood. Provision has been made in the Prayer Book for all the sacraments except Unction, which, while repugnance for Roman doctrine has caused postponement of official authorization of a definite service, its use has never been forbidden, nor has the custom of the Pre-Reformation Church been absolutely discontinued. There is but little doubt that a service will be authorized by the next General Convention.

II-Matters of Devotion and Pious Practice

Under the heading of matters of devotion and pious practice, we should chiefly consider the Invocation of Saints, Prayers for the Departed, Sacramental Absolution. In all these instances we have been brought into such close contact with the abuses of the Roman Church that our own synodal actions are apt to confuse the Orthodox mind.

(a) Prayers for Departed

The practice of Prayers for the Departed has never been discontinued, although never officially provided for. The Reverend F. G. Lee, in a full and scholarly consideration of The Christian Doctrine of the Departed (London, 1872), [21/22] devotes twenty-six pages to quotations from official documents, prayers and addresses of archbishops, bishops and leading scholars of the Anglican Church since the Reformation, in which the practice of Prayers of the Departed is commended and exemplified. Twenty pages are devoted to quotations from Graces used at the Colleges of Oxford and Cambridge and elsewhere commemorating Benefactors and the Faithful Departed, from monuments in cathedral and parish churches from 1550 to 1870. In this list of 178 of which he had personal knowledge, forty-three belong to the sixteenth century, fifty-five to the seventeenth, sixty to the eighteenth and twenty to the nineteenth centuries. This by no means testifies to the abandonment of the doctrine or cessation of the practice.

(b) Merits of Saints

The recognition of the merits of the saints and especially the Blessed Virgin, have been regularly commemorated in the appointed Saints' Days of our Church and the teaching of the Book of Common Prayer. The national habits of the Anglo-Saxon prompt him to restraint in manner of expression and in acts of outward devotion. His customary salutations are such that acts of respect, devotion or reverence, modelled after the customs of the East, might easily be mistaken for acts of worship by his compatriots.

(c) Confession and Absolution

The continued practice of bishops and other clergy is sufficient evidence of our recognition and use of Confession and Absolution. At the same time, these have always been viewed as pious acts of devotion and discipline, and have never been universally imposed upon the faithful.

III-Administration of Sacraments

[23] The third point we are to consider is that of differences in administration of the sacraments. Here we are confronted with several problems: (a) the manner of Baptism, (b) the use of Unction and the Laying on of Hands in Confirmation, (c) the use of leavened bread and administration by Intinction of the Blessed Sacrament.

(a) Baptism

Referring to Baptism, we will not deny that immersion is the original and most desired form, and is likewise the preferred form in our Book of Common Prayer. At the same time, Baptism by affusion is permitted by our Prayer Book, and is the more common form for climatic reasons, just as for the same reason it is practiced by the Russian Church in Northern Russia and in Serbia and Montenegro. The injunction in the decree of the Second Council seems to have been inserted to correct the abuses of the Eunomians, who by immersing once symbolized an abuse that denied the Doctrine of the Trinity. The Canon, while attesting to the practice of immersing as a custom of the ancient Church, seems particularly to direct the three-fold repetition of the baptismal act. The same inference would be drawn from the Fiftieth of the Apostolical Canons, where objection was made to the custom of baptizing into Christ's death. [* The Holy Synod of Russia in the Synodal Epistle to the Most Holy Archbishop of Constantinople, New Rome, and Oecumencial Patriarch, Joachim III, on the attitude of the Orthodox Churches to non-Orthodox Christians in 1903, confirmed the custom of recognizing Latin and Protestant Baptisms and justified their action. "We believe," the Epistle states, "in the sincerity of their faith in the All Holy and Life Originative Trinity, and on that account we accept the Baptism of both one and the other."

(b) Confirmation

[24] In respect to Confirmation, there is a marked divergence both in the age at which the rite is conferred, and in the form and matter of its administration. The question of age seems to be one growing out of national temperament and should be placed among those subjects classed as Domestic Legislation. In this we see clearly the need of separate treatment of habits or custom due to national traits. The Anglo-Saxon mind is generally analytic and deals with thought subjectively. The result is a tendency to dispersion of ideas. In the East men think synthetically and objectively, and tend to focus ideas towards the verities of life and nature. A great spiritual calamity would befall children in the Anglican Church if they were deprived of the season of instruction and training preparatory to Confirmation, during which they are taught the meaning of the Faith and habits of religion. In the East the spirit of reverence and devotion seems to be natural. In the West, it is as a rule acquired, and must be maintained by habits carefully inculcated. In the form, manner and ministration of the sacrament, the difference is marked. In defense of her position, the Anglican Church can point to the Apostolic custom of the Imposition of Hands by a Bishop as the accepted mode of administering Confirmation, and even can refer to the larger Catechism of the Russian Church and the Catechism of Peter Mogila in justification of her acts. (See Blackmore, Translation of Longer Catechism, pp. 87, 88; Catechism of P. Mogila, Quest, pp. 104, 105.) There is no desire on our part to condemn the established practice of the Orthodox Church; and in return, we expect recognition of our own method.

(c) Holy Communion

[25] In the Blessed Sacrament of the Altar, difference of matter and manner are more apparent than real. Both leavened and unleavened bread are used, with possible preference, in general use, for leavened bread. Administration of the Elements by Intinction, though never officially authorized by the Church as a whole, has never been condemned or forbidden, and is frequently used under the authorization of individual bishops in many dioceses. [The custom of the Orthodox Church of administering to its clergy in both kinds, after the manner of the Anglican Church, should remove the question of administering the elements from the realm of controversy.]

IV-Domestic Legislation

The fourth matter is that of Domestic Legislation. This covers many points of divergence in practice and expression which arise neither from departure from the Faith nor radical innovations in the customs of the Church. Such points are a part of an historical setting and should be viewed and explained as such. Legislation, which is promoted by historical exigencies of one race, should not be considered binding upon people of another race, nor their acceptance considered a bar to social or ecclesiastical intercourse. It would seem quite far from the tolerant spirit of Christianity to refuse intercourse with another body of Christians because of dislike of some domestic practice; and equally wrong for the second to ground cause for disunion on the non-conformity of the other to that practice.

Seventh Council

[26] (a) Much confusion in a conference on union of the two branches of the Church could be avoided if the Seventh Oecumenical Council [See Appendix II.] were classified as domestic legislation, applying especially to conditions obtaining in the Eastern Church. While the Seventh Council has never been officially accepted nor rejected by the Anglican Church, nor by any council to which that Church has given her assent, the following considerations might lead us to regard it as having been accepted in spirit. The question and practice therein contained are those that bear upon the ethnic rather than the ethical inheritance of the race. The Easterners are naturally more demonstrative in their ceremonial expression of honor than the Anglo-Saxon race. Where Orientals prostrate (proscunew) themselves, before superiors whom they have no intention of adoring with (latreia), Anglicans reserve such methods of honor to God; and do not always realize that other races may prostrate themselves before created things without idolatrous meaning. This possibly explains the prejudice of many modern Anglicans against the authorization of dulia by the Seventh Council. We ask the Orthodox to recognize this difference of ceremonial custom and not to think, because prostration is only rare or occasional, that we are lacking in the proper spirit of reverence. It is always to be remembered that the Anglican Church has a two-fold mission. While on the one hand, for her spiritual consolation and strength, she clings lovingly to her Catholic inheritance and yearns for the inspiration and help of a closer union with her sister Church of the East; at the same time her daily mission brings her in close contact [26/27] with Dissenting and Protestant bodies differing from her either in faith or practice. She shares with them the same national hope and finds in them co-workers in the great social and ethical problems of the race. Instinctively she is guarded in her utterances. Christian love doth not permit the use of language so unsympathetic in the Protestant direction that it repels those who should be attracted and won. By speaking in terms which they can understand, she hopes, in time, that they may discover that in religious practice she relies on something not possessed by them, and that the hope of attaining this will lead them ultimately to assume the Panoply of Faith. We ought not to be expected to apologize for language used in charity nor to claim our right to its use without constant attestation that the quality of our language does not betoken a foresaking of the Catholic Faith and Order.

In the same category we would place the Thirty-nine Articles which were intended, not merely to correct the abuses of the Middle Ages, but even more especially aimed to combat modern innovations introduced by the Anabaptists of Germany and the Netherlands. They were drawn up during the time of ecclesiastical change and strife which was characterized by confusion in many things, rather than by a coherent state of error which could be accurately defined and condemned. The peace, both of the Realm and of the Church, seemed to call for quieting controversy rather than for setting forth clear definitions. They were dictated as to form to some extent by Queen Elizabeth; and were intended as a "political irenicon"--"Articles of Religion," but not "Articles of Faith." When clearly examined, they are [27/28] seen to be ambiguous in matters of immediate controversy, being intended to quiet rather than to decide controversy. This makes them open to diverse interpretations, but careful study will show that even when they seem most Protestant in tone, they also fall short of any denial of Catholic Doctrine. Today, they have ceased to have the importance among us which they once had, and are slowly sinking out of sight altogether. It is the ancient Creed and the working system of the Prayer Book which represents the real official position of the Anglican Church. From the earliest days, the fathers of the Anglican Church have always testified to the secondary position of the Articles among the formularies of the Church. Archbishop Laud of Canterbury who died in 1645 said, "The Church of England never declared that every one of her Articles are fundamental in the Faith . . . Besides, the Church of England prescribes only for her own peaceable consent in those doctrines of truth." About the same time the great Irish scholar, Archbishop Usher of Armagh wrote, "We do not suffer any man to reject the Articles of the Church of England at his pleasure, yet neither do we look upon them as essentials of saving Faith, or legacies of Christ and his Apostles. But in a mean as pious opinions, fitted for the preservation of peace and duty, neither would we oblige any man to believe them, only not to contradict them." And as recently as 1888, at the Lambeth Conference, the following resolution was unanimously passed by 145 bishops, representing all branches of the Anglican Church, "That as regards the duly constituted Churches, especially in un-Christian realms, it should be a condition of the recognition of them as in complete intercommunion with us, as especially of their receiving [28/29] from us Episcopal succession that we should receive from them satisfactory evidence that they hold substantially the same doctrine as our own, and that their clergy subscribe Articles in accordance with the expressed statements of our own standard of Doctrine and Worship; but that they should not necessarily be bound to accept in their entirety the Articles of Religion." (See Puller, Continuity of the Church, pages 47, 48.) It is regrettable that the choice of expression has been such as to cause offense to some members of the Orthodox Hierarchy. In the middle of the last century a work published by Nicholas Damala on the Anglican Church fully considered the clause to which exception is taken and arrived at the following conclusion: "This assertion here made by the Anglican Church is scriptural, rationally attested by history most true. As individuals, 'in many things offend all' (Saint James 3.2.) so also every particular Church may err and often has erred and been deceived."

["In the matter of the Councils in general, we are quite conscious that there exists some difference of opinion in the East and West concerning the forces or powers which give the validity. The Eastern Church has been more careful than the Western in defining the Church as 'a living organism of faith and love,' or, as one of them puts it, 'faith and love as an organism'; 'the Body of which Christ is the Head, and of which all those who have been, are or shall be brought into it are the members fulfilling itself indeed in time, but nevertheless constituting not an imaginary or allegorical, but a true and substantial unity'. Under these conditions it is the whole Church and not the hierarchy which established oecumenical authority of a council. The Anglican Church approaches the same end by making representatives of all the clergy and laity join with the bishops in councilar action. Our Church also can sympathize with the criticism of the Latin distinction between Ecclesia docens and Ecclesia discens which lead to the patriarchal reply to the Encyclical of Pius IX, in the year 1853, in which it plainly stated: We have no worldly office of inspection, or sacred direction, such as His Holiness speaks of, but are united in the unity of the faith only by the bond of love and zeal for our common mother. . . . With us neither Patriarchs nor Council [29/30] could introduce anything new, for the guardian of religion with us is the body itself, that is to say, the people of the Church'." (From the writer's letter to Metropolitan Platon.)]

[30] The marriage of the clergy would present several serious problems if allowed to be considered as a matter of primary importance. Again we are led to believe it is a question which affects merely the wise and proper administration of discipline, and need not be viewed as a matter of general obligation or as requiring universal consent.

(c) Marriage and Divorce

Vexed questions arising from the laws of marriage and divorce may properly be left to the disciplinary canons of the several Churches, provided that sufficient precaution be taken to prevent the use of the greater leniency of the one Church as a means of avoiding the strictures of the more rigorous canons of the other.

(d) State and Church

Questions arising from union of the State and Church are so rapidly disappearing that they no longer need consideration.

In these matters of Domestic Legislation, each Church should be permitted to follow her chosen or inherited course without criticism or condemnation from the other.

B-Practical Considerations

In consideration of the foregoing, we would place before Your Grace and your theological advisors, the following questions:

(1) Would you, in the light of the results of the historical researches of the last century, accept the judgment of learned theologians, and historians of the Orthodox Churches [30/31] and the unanimous testimony of the whole Anglican Communion, regarding the validity of the Orders of the Clergy of the Anglican Church; and of the intention to bestow and receive Mission similar to that received at Ordination in the Orthodox Church.

(2) Acknowledging, as we must, the unfortunate forms in which the doctrine of our Church is sometimes expressed, we would, at the same time, submit to Your Grace, evidence of an intention on the part of writers and compilers not to depart from the traditional teachings of the undivided Church; and would ask how far your Grace is prepared to accept our interpretation of these matters?

(3) We acknowledge the marked divergence in the devotions and pious customs of the Churches, and would ask whether Your Grace does not consider these as matters which should be regulated by the individual branch of the Church?

(4) In the matter of sacraments, we claim that we are in substantial agreement as to intention and efficacy, and that difference in mode or method is not sufficient either to prevent free operation of the grace conveyed or to cause confusion in the minds of the unlearned, and would ask Your Grace to give careful consideration to the following plan for the charitable administration of the sacraments.

a. In the matter of Baptism, first, that a priest of the Episcopal Church, acting in the absence of the Orthodox priest, baptize children of Orthodox parentage by trine immersion when so desired. Second, that a priest of the Orthodox Church, acting in the absence of an Episcopal clergyman, baptize children of Episcopal parentage after the manner of the Episcopal Church, when [31/32] so requested. Third, that in neither case should Baptism be considered irregular, nor be repeated as a condition to the reception of the other rites or sacraments.

b. In the matter of Confirmation, we would suggest that it would seem most desirable that there be a mutual recognition of the manner of administration treasured by the two Churches. Orthodox bishops should express a willingness to lay their Apostolic hands upon members of the Episcopal Church when presented by priests of either the Episcopal or Orthodox Churches. Likewise bishops of the Episcopal Church should be prepared to anoint with oil consecrated by themselves or some other bishop, members of the Orthodox Church who offer themselves for Confirmation. And priests of the Anglican Church administering to Orthodox should be ready to use Unction according to Orthodox custom. In neither case should the omission of the canonical form in one Church be considered by the other as a bar to the reception of the Blessed Sacrament of the Body and Blood of Our Lord Jesus Christ.

c. In the matter of the Eucharist, it would seem charitable that neither communicants nor clergy should insist upon the use or reception of either a form or matter unacceptable to the other.

d. In the case of Orders, there should be some formal expression upon indelibility of Holy Orders, and a full understanding that re-ordination of those legally ordained even though deposed is contrary to Christian comity.

e. In the matter of Matrimony: While recognizing the right of the individual Churches to legislate upon the question of re-marriage of divorced persons, we would hold that it would not be for the good of society for [32/33] one Church to sanction the marriage of members of the other Church who have been inhibited by the canons thereof.

Summary

Summing up the thoughts which we have laid before Your Grace, we would submit the following questions:

(1) Do you accept as a basis of further negotiations the validity of Anglican Orders?

(2) If the doctrine and discipline of this Church is found to be in agreement with the Orthodox Church, would you consent to intercommunion between the Episcopal Church and the Greek Orthodox Church?

(3) In a council of the Churches of the East, would you be willing to recommend a like decision?

(4) Referring to the questions of practical application which we have laid before you, we would ask:

(a) Will you permit Baptism of children of the Episcopal Church by Orthodox priests by either method?

(b) Would you accept Baptism by an Episcopal priest as sufficient warrant for the administration of the other sacraments?

(c) Would you forbid the re-baptism of any person canonically baptized in the Episcopal Church?

(d) Would you accept Baptism and Unction with oil properly consecrated by a bishop, but administered by a priest of the Anglican Church, as equivalent to like ceremonies in the Orthodox Church?

(e) Would you insist upon any conditions for the reception of the Blessed Sacrament other than those that we considered sufficient by the Anglican Church?

(f) [34] May communicants of the Orthodox Church receive the Blessed Sacrament in the Episcopal Church without in any way affecting their standing?

(g) Will you accept the ministers of our Church as fully qualified for the duties for which they are set apart by the several acts of Ordination?

(h) Would you refuse re-ordination to any priest of the Episcopal Church, whether in good standing or under sentence of deposition, discipline or inhibition?

(i) Would you refuse permission to exercise his ministry to any minister of the Episcopal Church?

(j) Would you refuse to accept into your Communion any one lawfully excommunicated under the canons of the Episcopal Church?

(k) Would you forbid the solemnization of matrimony for members of the Episcopal Church whose marriage has been inhibited by the laws of that Church?

We have submitted these facts to you, because with us they have passed beyond the stage of purely academic considerations. Studying these problems from the angle of American experience, we have learned that they are intensely practical. We have witnessed the moral and spiritual downfall of Orthodox who have either abandoned or been deprived of the sacraments of their own Church. Before our eyes a propaganda, against the principles in which both Churches are in accord, has been conducted. In the absence of Orthodox priests, who can accept the hospitality offered by our churches, we are unable to combat this propaganda unless we enter the contest as an opposing propagandist.

We have addressed Your Grace in hope of establishing some basis leading to intercommunion and ultimate [34/35] unity. It is necessary for the moral and social welfare of America, that the Orthodox be kept in close contact with their native Church, or else receive sacraments from clergy of other Churches, whose ministrations are duly sanctioned by the Orthodox Church. We do not believe that Protestantism or excessive liberalism in religion will help the Orthodox get the best from American life, and we as surely believe that the influence of those returning to their native land, imbued with negative or ultra liberal ideas in the matters of religion, can only engender a harmful form of individualism in religious and ecclesiastical life. We are led, not merely to protest against Protestant propaganda as conducted in the Near East, but to do all in our power to forestall its extension through the misguided enthusiasm of American Protestants. The excesses of the Old Believers in Russia, and of the Non-Conformists, Dissenters and Protestants in England and America, reveal how both Orthodox and Anglican, acting apart from the grace and strength of the sacraments of the Holy Apostolic Church, press Eastern tendencies to rigidity in matters of discipline, as well as faith, and the Anglo-Saxon delight in logical deduction, to extreme and negative conclusions.

It would be impossible to Anglicize the East, and equally impossible to Orientalize the West. Union by fusion at this time would seem to be but an idle dream; yet, "It is a joyful and pleasant thing to dwell together in unity." This would be accomplished if we recognized national and racial difference, and tried to assist each other in maintaining those things most surely believed by the undivided Church and administering those sacraments ordained by our Blessed Lord for the help and salvation of all believers.

[36] It is with grateful recognition of the hope with which you have filled our hearts by the wise and charitable words you have spoken since coming to America, that we invite Your Grace to this conference. We believe that the cause of unity is dear to your heart; and that you come before us as a prophet of the new spirit which is filling the Church of God in both East and West. We trust that we are right in believing that God had sent you to these shores at this time as His chosen instrument in the cause of unity. Hoping that the Almighty Father may by our acts, further that cause which has so long been the object of the prayers of both Churches. We submit, in His Name, these thoughts to the considerations of Your Grace.

(signed)

FREDERICK COURTNEY, Chairman
EDWARD M. PARKER *
JAMES H. DARLINGTON
FREDERICK KINSMAN
HUGHELL E. FOSBROKE
F. H. HALL
ROCKLAND T. HOMANS
ROBERT G. GARDINER
S. G. CANOUTAS
W. C. EMHARDT, Secretary

[* The Right Reverend Edward M. Parker, who should have presided at one session, was detained at home, but telegraphed his approval.]

[37] APPENDIX I.

The Teaching of the Church on the Holy Eucharist as Gathered from Her Official Documents by the Reverend Dr. Pusey, Canon of the Cathedral Church of Christ in Oxford, and Regius Professor of Hebrew in the University of Oxford.

"There now remains only to sum up the teaching of the Church of England on the Real Presence in the Holy Eucharist. She teaches, then that 'sacraments ordained by Christ Himself' are means 'God doth work invisibly in us' 'means whereby we receive the inward part or thing signified' by 'the outward and visible sign'; and that they are 'pledges to assure us thereof'; (these passages are quoted from the Twenty-fifth Article and from the Catechism). She teaches that 'the inward part or thing signified' in the Sacrament of the Lord's Supper is 'the Body and Blood of Christ, which are verily and indeed taken and received in the Lord's Supper'; (this is quoted from the Catechism). She teaches that 'Almighty God our Heavenly Father hath given His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ to be our spiritual food and sustenance in that holy Sacrament'; and that this is 'a divine thing to those who receive it worthily'; (these passages are from the first warning Exhortation for the Celebration of the Holy Communion). She teaches that then 'we spiritually eat the Flesh of Christ and drink His Blood; then we dwell in Christ and Christ with us, we are one with Christ and Christ with us'; (this is from the longer Exhortation at the time of the Celebration of the Communion). She teaches that we 'come' there 'to the Body and Blood of Christ.' (This is quoted from S. Basil in the second part of the Homily concerning the Sacrament). She teaches that we 'receive His blessed [37/38] Body and Blood under the Form of bread and wine'; (this is from the Notice at the end of the First Book of Homilies). She teaches that 'at His table we,' if we would be faithful, 'receive not only the outward Sacrament but the spiritual thing also; not the figure only but the truth; not the shadow only but the Body'; 'spiritual Food, nourishment of our souls, a heavenly refection, an invisible meat, a ghostly substance'; that 'Christ' is our 'refection and meat'; that that Body and Blood are present there; for 'in the Supper of the Lord, there is no vain ceremony, no bare sign, no untrue figure of a thing absent'; (these passages are from the First Part of the Homily concerning the Sacrament). She teaches that 'the Bread' which is 'blessed' or 'consecrated' with our Lord's words, 'This is My Body' is 'the Communion or partaking of the Body of Christ'; that the Cup or wine which 'is blessed' or 'consecrated' with His word, 'This is My Blood of the New Testament,' 'is to such as rightly worthily and with faith receive the same,' 'the Communion or partaking of the Blood of Christ'; (these passages are from the rubric immediately following the words of administration, and from the Twenty-eighth Article). She teaches that if we receive rightly 'we so eat the Flesh of Jesus Christ, the Son of God, and drink His Blood, and our sinful bodies are made clean by His Body, and our souls washed through His most Precious Blood'; (this is from the Prayer of Humble Access in the Eucharistic Liturgy.) She teaches that, if we rightly receive, we are made 'partakers of His most Precious Body and Blood'; and so, 'partakers of Christ'; (these passages are from the Prayer of Consecration and the Twenty-ninth Article). She teaches that 'God Himself vouchsafes to feed those who duly receive these [38/39] holy Precious Mysteries with the spiritual Food of the most Precious Body and Blood of His Son our Saviour Jesus Christ'; (this is from the second Thanksgiving after Communion). She teaches that 'The Body and Blood of Christ which were given and shed for us,' when received by us, do, if we persevere, 'preserve our souls and bodies unto everlasting life'; (this is from the words of administration). She teaches that they are 'a salve of immortality, and sovereign preservative against death'; 'a deifical Communion'--'the pledge of eternal Health, the defence of faith, the hope of the Resurrection'; 'the Food of immortality, the healthful grace, the conservatory to life everlasting'; (these passages are from the first Part of the Homily concerning the Sacrament)."

(E. B. Pusey, The Real Presence of the Body and Blood of our Lord Jesus Christ The Doctrine of the English Church, edit. 1869, pp. 234-237.)

[40] APPENDIX II.

THE SEVEN OECUMENICAL COUNCILS

A number of Anglican divines accept the decisions of the first six councils.

Field, in his Book V, chapter LI., page 61, Of the Church, says of the first six general councils, and of the seventh, as follows:

"These were all the lawful general councils (lawful I say both in their beginning, and proceeding and continuance), that ever were holden in the Christian Church touching matters of faith. For seventh, which is the second of Nice, was not called about any question of faith, but of manners; in which our adversaries confess there may be something inconveniently prescribed, and so to be the occasion of great and grievous evils; and surely that is our conceit of the seventh council, the second of Nice; for however is it to condemn the religious adoration and worshipping of pictures, and seem to allow no other use of them but that which is historical, yet in permitting men by outward signs of reverence and respect towards the pictures of saints to express their love towards them, and the desire they have of enjoying their happy society, and in condemning so bitterly such as upon dislike of abuses wished there might be no pictures in the Church at all, for they seem to have given occasion, and to have opened the way unto that gross idolatry which afterwards entered into the Church *** So that there are but seven general councils that the whole Church acknowledgeth called to determine matters of faith and manners."

The Reverend Arthur Lowndes, the late Secretary of the Anglican and Eastern Association, wrote concerning these canons as follows:

[41] "An impartial review of the evidence proves in my mind that the Seventh Council was an Oecumenical one. Its decisions were accepted by the four Eastern Patriarchates, and by the Pope, and while it appears to me the twenty-two canons of the Seventh Council, with the possible exception of the seventh, could be accepted by the Anglicans, yet the wording of the decree which as I understand it does not form part of the canon, could not be accepted by the Anglicans, as binding, although they might agree that the acceptance of it by the Russians would not be a bar to Reunion."

THE DECREE OF THE HOLY, GREAT, OECUMENICAL SYNOD,
THE SECOND OF NICE, A.D. 787.

"We, therefore following the royal pathway and the divinely inspired authority of our Holy Fathers and the traditions of the Catholic Church (for, as we all know, the Holy Spirit indwells her) define with all certitude and accuracy that just as the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross, so also the venerable and holy images, as well in painting and mosaic as of other fit materials, should be set forth in the holy churches of God, and on the sacred vessels and on the vestments and hangings and in pictures both in houses and by the wayside, to wit, the figure of our Lord God and Saviour Jesus Christ, of our spotless Lady, the Mother of God, of the honorable Angels, of all Saints and of all pious people. For by so much more frequently as they are seen in artistic representation, by so much more readily are men lifted up to the memory of their prototypes, and to a longing after them; and to these should be given due salutation and honorable reverence, not indeed that true worship of faith which pertains alone [41/42] to the divine nature; but to these, as to the figure of the precious and life-giving Cross and to the Book of the Gospels and to the other holy objects, incense and lights may be offered according to ancient pious custom. For the honor which is paid to the image passes on to that which the image represents, and he who reveres the image, reveres in it the subject represented. For thus the teaching of our Holy Fathers, that is the tradition of the Catholic Church, which from one end of the earth to the other hath received the Gospel, is strengthened. Thus we follow Paul, who spake in Christ, and the whole divine Apostolic company and the Holy Fathers, holding fast the traditions which we have received. So we sing prophetically the triumphal hymns of the Church, 'Rejoice and be glad with all thy heart, Rejoice greatly, O daughter of Sion; Shout, O daughter of Jerusalem. The Lord hath taken away from thee the oppression of thy adversaries; thou art redeemed from the hand of thine enemies. The Lord is a King in the midst of thee; thou shalt not see evil any more, and peace be unto thee forever.'

"Those therefore who dare to think or teach otherwise, or as wicked heretics to spurn the traditions of the Church and to invent some novelty, or else to reject some of those things which the Church hath received (e.g. The Book of the Gospels, or the image of the Cross, or the pictorial icons, or the holy reliques of a martyr), or evilly and sharply to devise anything subversive of the lawful traditions of the Catholic Church or to turn to common uses the sacred vessels or the venerable monasteries, if they be Bishops or Clerics, we command that they be deposed; if religious or laics that they be cut off from communion."

[43] CANON VII

That to churches consecrated without any deposits of the reliques of the Saints, the defect should be made good.

Copies of this leaflet may be obtained from the Secretary for Foreign-born Americans, Church Missions House, 281 Fourth Avenue, New York, N. Y., by asking for No. 1513. Price, ten cents.

Project Canterbury