London: Published for the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association by the Society for Promoting Christian Knowledge, 1921.

IN the past few years, largely owing to opportunities of closer intercourse created in great measure by the war, a great advance has been made in what we may term, for the sake of convenience, the Reunion movement. The presence in this country, one after another, of Eastern prelates of high rank, has afforded an opportunity of arranging a series of services in our London cathedrals, and elsewhere, at which we have been able to see and hear these distinguished representatives of the Orthodox Church.

These services all followed the same general outline. The visiting prelate was received at the west end of the cathedral, with the customary greeting to an Eastern Bishop, "Is polla ete, Despota." (Long life to the Lord Bishop). After the procession to the choir, a sermon was preached, and after prayers and a hymn, a Litany was sung in procession, translated from the Orthodox Litanies of St. John Chrysostom. The Te Deum sometimes followed, with prayers for the Unity of the Church, and for the Departed, and the Blessing was given by the Orthodox Bishop. A copy of these services is included in this Report as a memento for those members who were unable to be present on any of the occasions.

Besides this, Conferences have been held with some of the visitors, details of which are published elsewhere; and a great advance has been made in understanding the position of the two Churches, much preliminary ground has been covered, and many fancied difficulties have been smoothed away.

Committees. Another valuable addition to the cause of Reunion has been the formation in this country, and in different parts of the Eastern Church, of Official Committees, to take cognizance of all matters affecting the relations of the Churches.

A great advance was made in the rapprochement between the Anglican and Eastern Churches, when in December, 1919, the Archbishop of Canterbury appointed an official Committee to take cognizance of Eastern Church affairs. This step was the outcome of an expressed opinion of more than one Lambeth Conference, and it was taken at a very opportune moment, in view of the importance of Eastern affairs in the forthcoming Lambeth Conference, and the part played there by the official Delegation from the Oecumenical Patriarchate. The new Committee took the responsibility for the entertainment of the delegates, and other kindred official matters, for which in the past our own Association had been the only available [3/4] intermediary. The relations between the Committee and the Association have been of the closest possible kind, and the personnel of the latter has been well represented on the former, since amongst the members of the Committee are the President of the Association (the Bishop of London) and four Episcopal Vice-Presidents, the Chairman and seven members of the General Committee, and various other members of the Association; and more important still the General Secretary--the Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton--was unanimously chosen as the Secretary of the Archbishop's Committee.

In Constantinople, a Committee of the Holy Synod was appointed in February, 1920, especially to consider relations with the Anglican Church, under the chairmanship of the Archbishop of Cyzicus. Among its members are Germanos, Metropolitan of Seleucia, and Principal of Halki (the training school, through which most of the higher ecclesiastics of the Orthodox Church pass) and four other of the Halki theological professors, with the secretary of the Holy Synod (the Bishop of Irenopolis), and Professor Constantine of Robert College. The appointment of the committee is a great proof of good will, and should mark a stage in the ever-increasing entente between the Anglican and Orthodox Churches.

At Athens, a similar Committee has been formed, and a project has been put forward by Archbishop Meletios, for the establishment of a Professorial Chair at the University, for the study of the English Church, to be filled alternately by a Greek and an Anglican. While one of the first acts of the newly established Russian National Church Council was to form a committee for the same purpose; thus establishing an official committee to supplement the labours of the already existing voluntary Russian Society for Reunion, exactly in the same way as the Eastern Churches Committee in England has followed on the work of our own Association.

The following instances of official interchange of ecclesiastical relations, have been communicated to us, and are chronicled here, in order to indicate the extent to which such interchange is taking place.

From the U.S.A. The Bishop of Harrisburg laid the foundation of the second Bulgarian church in America, and at the close of the Turco-Balkan war, the same Bishop sang the Te Deum in this church, and then with the Bulgarian priest and some of the congregation, proceeded to the Greek church, and there performed the same office. In the Church of the Advent, Philadelphia, on a certain Sunday it occurred that the first Mass was sung by the rector in Slavonic for the Serbians, the second by a Roumanian priest, who [4/5] before he administered the Holy Oil, received the signation himself first from the rector as acknowledging his jurisdiction. The third Mass was for the Armenians. Just before this, a procession went from the church to the new church built for the Ruthenians with a Russian priest bearing the Blessed Sacrament from the Tabernacle of the Advent, where It had been reserved for these people for four years. Episcopal churches have frequently been used for the services of Greek, Russian, and Syrian Orthodox. On one occasion the Greek Archimandrite preached in Trinity Church, Sacramento; while at a service held during the Provincial Synod in St. Peter's Church, Springfield, there were present two American bishops, two Greek priests, a Russian, a Syrian, and a Polish Old Catholic priest, who vested and took part in the procession.

From the Colonies. In Halifax, Nova Scotia, at Easter, 1915, some members of the Russian colony kept a watch in St. Luke's Hall from midnight. At dawn the Rev. V. E. Harris intoned "Christ is risen." Mass then followed, during which six men received Holy Communion, after which an address was given, the food was blessed, the Kiss of Peace was exchanged, and the ceremony ended with the repetition of "Christ is risen." A mission church has been provided for the Russians in this place, in which the services are rendered mostly in Russian, whilst weekly classes of instruction are held in the boarding houses. In South Africa in 1914, the Bishop of Pretoria consecrated a new Greek church. In 1919, the Bishop of Southern Rhodesia, with Bishops Gaul and Smyth, attended a celebration of the Orthodox Liturgy, at which Professor Norton, of Capetown University, read the Epistle and Creed in Greek. The new Archimandrite, Father Katsis, was also introduced by Professor Norton to the Provincial Synod.

In Australia, St. George's Day, 1915, was observed by Solemn Evensong in St. Saviour's Church, Redfern, at which the Syrian Exarch was present in the sanctuary, read an Arabic letter, recited a prayer for King George in Greek, and took part in the procession.

At Sydney, in October, 1916, a meeting was held to form a branch of the Association, at which two Greek priests, the Revs. Seraphim Phocas and Demetrius Marinakis, were present. Next morning Mass was said by the Bishop of Bunbury with the same two priests present.

From the Far East. In Corea, Bishop Trollope assisted the Russian mission financially, during a time of difficulty, with the warm approval of the Standing Committee of the S.P.G.

In Honolulu, the clergy of the Episcopal American Church [5/6] received instructions and authority to baptize, marry, and bury Greek and Russian Orthodox. In Hawaii, in 1915, the Archpriest, J. Korchinsky, conducted the first services (including the Liturgy) of the newly-formed Russian Church, in the Trinity chapel of the Cathedral.

From Russia. At Petrograd, in 1915, a meeting took place between the Metropolitan Pitirim and Bishop Bury, with the late Mr. Birkbeck present as interpreter. The two prelates embraced three times on meeting, and Bishop Bury conveyed to the Metropolitan the congratulations of the Archbishop of Canterbury on his election. Archbishop Pitirim sent his compliments and best wishes to the Archbishop in return, and presented Bishop Bury with his portrait. At Moscow, the Bishop attended service in the Uspensky Sobor Cathedral, vested in full pontificals, and carrying his episcopal staff; on arrival he was embraced by the Metropolitan who was the celebrant, taken to the altar, and after the Liturgy shared the ceremonial breaking of the fast, and was placed behind the Metropolitan in the retiring procession. At Omsk, in Siberia, in 1919, the Archbishop of the See gave permission for English services to be held in the cathedral for British troops stationed there; while at Aleppo the Greek Archbishop was present at a parade service, which included the Mass. He gave an address in Arabic, and the blessing in Greek, and afterwards entertained those present to a collation.

Eastern Visitors to England.

One of the most striking features of the period covered by this Report, has been the succession of visits paid to this country by Eastern Prelates and others of high rank. The significance of these visits will be seen when it is realized that representatives of practically every Eastern Church, except the Coptic, met with us in friendly intercourse during the war. The various visits of Father, now Bishop Nicolai Velimirovic, with his colleague Father Janic, have been chronicled elsewhere.

The Rev. Fr. Cicerone Jordachesco, a Roumanian priest in Paris, visited this country several times, and was present at one of our anniversary meetings. A Conference was held in Oxford with him and Father Janic, at which matters of importance between the Churches were discussed. Our Roumanian Secretary, the Archimandrite Scribau, has also visited us.

Besides the visits of the Serbian Bishop Barnabas, of Monastir, and the Archbishop Barsaum of the Syrian Church, we had for the first time in England, in 1919, a representative of the Serbian Church in Austria-Hungary, the Vicar-Bishop Hilaire Zeremski, of Karlovitz, who was accompanied by Father S. Michaeldic, Archpriest, and Dr. I. Ziric, Archdeacon of the Diocese. Amongst other doings in London they visited the Archbishop of Canterbury, inspected the work of the S.P.C.K., and were present at a meeting arranged by the Association in Sion College. His visit was marked by the first Pontifical celebration of the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, in an English church in this country; since he celebrated in the Church of St. Augustine, Queen's Gate, in London; and again in the Church of the Cowley Fathers, at Oxford, on the occasion of his visit to that town. While there he stayed with the Cowley Fathers, where a Conference was held on one night of the visit. He visited several Colleges, and St. Stephen's House, where the Serbian students were living then; the party were entertained to lunch at Christ Church, and attended a reception at Magdalen. On the Sunday of the visit the Bishop attended High Mass at St. Barnabas, giving a short address and the Episcopal Blessing, holding in his hands the symbolic triple and double lights. In the afternoon he was received by the Archdeacon of Oxford, where he met and conversed with the Bishop of the Diocese. In the evening he attended Evensong at St. Margaret's, again giving an address and his Blessing. His impressions of his visit may be fitly summed up in his own words: "In the midnight of Serbia's martyrdom I never dreamed that this [7/8] wonderful opportunity would be given me of visiting England, and seeing and realizing all that has been granted to me; I can only pray that it may not stop here, but that this may only be the beginning of a greater end."

His Beatitude Zaven, Patriarch of the Armenian Church in Constantinople, was the first representative of that Church of so high a rank to visit England; though not the spiritual head of the Armenian Church, he is the civil head of all Armenians in the Turkish Empire, owing to the requirement of the Turkish law that a civil head of the Christian nationalities must reside in Constantinople. He came to this country in the spring of 1920 to plead the cause of his persecuted people, and was accorded the honour of being received by His Majesty the King.

About the same time arrived also the Archbishop of Trebizond, the head of the Greek Church in Pontus. He took a great interest in visiting English institutions and churches. Occasion was taken of the coincidence of the visits of the Archbishop of Trebizond, the Armenian Patriarch, and Archbishop Barsaum, to arrange three events of great importance. The three Prelates were officially received at Lambeth by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and at Fulham by the Bishop of London. On March 9th, a Solemn Service of Intercession on behalf of our Christian brethren in the East (for their liberation from Turkish oppression, from affliction, and danger of death) was arranged by the Association in the Cathedral Church of St. Saviour, Southwark: it was attended by the Archbishop of Canterbury, who gave a message of welcome to the three Eastern Prelates. The sermon was preached by the Rev. J. A. Douglas, and subsequently published under the title of "Death's Ride in Armenia and Anatolia." On March 12th a Conference was held with the Archbishop's Eastern Committee in the Jerusalem Chamber at Westminster Abbey, Bishop Gore being in the chair and Dr. Ryle, Dean of Westminster, and several other priests and laymen being present. Details and a full list of those taking part are published elsewhere in the Report.

In 1919, and again in 1920, we were honoured by a visit from his Beatitude the Archbishop of Cyprus. His visits were of peculiar interest and importance, inasmuch as he is the head of an autocephalous Church of Patriarchal rank, independent since the fifth century on account of its Apostolic foundation by St. Barnabas. He came to England on a political mission connected with the freedom of his island home, but he took every opportunity of informing himself about the Church in England. Among his other [8/9] engagements he attended Evensong at St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey, and assisted at High Mass at St. Matthew's, Westminster, vested in crown and mantya and bearing his episcopal staff. He was also present at a meeting of welcome in Sion College, arranged by the Association, visited the houses of the Cowley Fathers at Westminster, and the Sisters of the Church at Kilburn, and during his later visit he took part in the opening procession and High Mass of the Anglo-Catholic Congress at St. Alban's, Holborn, and was present during one of the Congress meetings in the Albert Hall.

Of equal importance in the ecclesiastical sphere was the visit in 1918 of Archbishop Meletios, late of Athens, coming not only as head of the Church of the Kingdom of Greece, but also officially to visit the Church of England and to establish close relations with us. He was welcomed at Liverpool by the Rector and others in the Parish Church of St. Nicholas with a service, during which the Rector read an address and the Archbishop gave the Blessing. In London he was present at a Solemn Service in St. Paul's Cathedral, the first of a series arranged by the Association, at which Dr. Bury, the Bishop for North and Central Europe, representing the Bishop of London, preached, pointing out in the course of his sermon that the Archbishop's name, Meletius, was by a happy omen the same as Mellitus, the first of the long line of Bishops of London. The Archbishop was received by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and presented with an address of welcome from the President of the Association (the Bishop of London), the priest-members, and other clergy, in the hall of Sion College. (The text of the address is printed in full in No. 79 (January, 1919) of "Bible Lands," the quarterly paper of the Jerusalem and the East Mission.) At Oxford he received the honorary degree of D.D., attended Evensong at Christ Church Cathedral, and afterwards addressed a meeting in the Chapter House. During his visit to Oxford a Conference was held with him and his suite, at which some forty Anglican representatives were present, the subjects for discussion being Baptism and Confirmation. A further visit of His Grace to this country, in the spring of this year, enabled him to be present and speak at a Mass and service in St. Martin's-in-the-Fields on March 1st, arranged for the intention of the Restoration of St. Sophia. No prelate has evinced a warmer interest in the details of English Church life and the many institutions of all kinds which he visited.

The visit of Archbishop Dimitri, of Belgrade, was in point of time the earliest of this succession of visits, taking place in the spring of 1916, but it is mentioned here as of special importance, since [9/10] he is the head of the Serbian Church and is now elected Patriarch of the Re-united Church of Jugo-Slavia. He came to this country in April, and was present at service in St. Paul's Cathedral and Westminster Abbey at Eastertide. He visited Windsor, Clewer, and, of course, Oxford, since naturally he was peculiarly interested in the work being done there by the Association for the Serbian theological students; he also inspected some of the Refugee Settlements, and the work of the Serbian Relief Fund. The Metropolitan was welcomed in London at Sion College in Easter week by a gathering of English clergy, invited by the Association, under the presidency of the Bishop of Willesden as representing the Bishop of London. An address and a gift of books were presented to the Archbishop, who replied in Serbian with much eloquence and animation, and honoured the Association by becoming one of its patrons. Fr. Nicolai also delivered an address, a full account of the proceedings and speeches being printed in the Church Times of May 5th, 1916.

Not least in interest, and greatest perhaps in pathos, was the presence amongst us in exile of the Lady Surma, the sister of the late Catholicos of the East Syrian, commonly called the Nestorian Church, to which the Archbishops of Canterbury have for so many years sent a mission of help and instruction. The young Patriarch, who had been educated with his sister by the English priests, was murdered when pleading with the Kurdish Chief for the safety of his people. His young brother, a boy of thirteen, succeeded him as Patriarch and Chief of the remnant of his people, who are in exile under British protection, after the massacre of about one-third of the whole race. Lady Surma, of high culture and gracious personality, amazing in a persecuted mountain tribe, but living proof of what the ancient Christian faith produces in the midst of the barbarous rule of the Turk, pleaded with winning eloquence in many meetings the cause of her people threatened with extinction, and is an earnest advocate of reunion between the English Church and her own, which is regarded by many of our best theologians as to-day practically exculpated of any technical heresy, which it may have held in early centuries. Lady Surma has been specially permitted by the Archbishop of Canterbury to receive Holy Communion during her residence in London.

The most important official visit that has ever been paid directly to the English Church by an Orthodox prelate was that of the Metropolitan of Demotica, since he came at the head of an official delegation sent at the invitation of the Archbishop of Canterbury, by the Patriarchate of Constantinople to the Lambeth Conference. [10/11] The other members of the delegation were Professor Komninos of Halki Theological College, and two priests resident in England, the Great Archimandrite Constantine Pagonis, and the Arch-priest Constantine Callinicos, heads respectively of the Greek Church in London and Manchester. They arrived on July 1st, 1920, and were met at the station by some Bishops and representatives of the Archbishop and of the Association. They were received by the Archbishop at Lambeth on the following Saturday, and the next day attended the opening service of the Lambeth Conference at Westminster Abbey, being seated on the right hand of the Dean in Choir. In the evening they attended Evensong at St. Paul's Cathedral. On Tuesday, 6th, they paid a visit to the Community of St. John the Baptist, Clewer, on their Festival Day, and then to Windsor Castle and St. George's, dining in the evening with the Archbishop at Lambeth. On the 7th they were officially introduced by the Archbishop to the full Session of the Conference in Lambeth Library, speeches being made of welcome and greeting on each side. That evening they attended the dinner given by the Lord Mayor to the Bishops, accompanied by the Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton, Secretary of the Eastern Churches Committee, who with Mr. Athelstan Riley was officially attached to them for their visit, the former escorting them on their various visits throughout the time. On the 8th Mr. Athelstan Riley gave them dinner in the Athenaeum, with a company of distinguished guests, including the Archbishop.

Among other engagements they attended an "At Home" given by Lord Salisbury, inspected the South Kensington Museums, and were received by the clergy at Brighton and Chichester, and attended the Festival of Lancing College, thus having the opportunity of seeing something of a cathedral, a central parish, a theological college, and a public school. On the 19th they had a full day's discussion with the Commission of the Lambeth Conference dealing with the Eastern Churches, and this was continued on the 21st. In the evening of the 21st they attended a reception of the Association at. Sion College (details of which may be found in No. 3 of the "Christian East"); on the 23rd a reception by the Vice-Chancellor and some of the Professors of the London University, Kensington. On the 22nd the delegates were received by His Majesty the King at Buckingham Palace. Visits were also paid to the Cowley Fathers at Westminster, to the Tower of London, and the Zoological Gardens, and to the Scouts' Jamboree at Olympia, where they inspected the Greek Scouts. Sir Samuel Hoare invited them to meet some members at tea in the House of Commons, and His Excellency Mr. [11/12] Gennadius gave them luncheon; and they also had the opportunity of meeting many of the Bishops socially at tea at Lambeth and on other occasions. On Sunday, the 25th, the Metropolitan attended and spoke at the Russian Liturgy at St. Mary-le-Bow, and on August 1st the Metropolitan celebrated a magnificent Pontifical Liturgy and Te Deum in the Greek church, Bayswater, in thanksgiving for the capture of Adrianople. On Tuesday, the 3rd, they went to Oxford and visited the Cowley Fathers, Magdalen, and Oriel Colleges, the Bodleian Library, and St. Sava's Serbian Hostel. On Thursday, the 5th, a service was arranged in Southwark Cathedral on similar lines to the others, at which the Metropolitan and other members of the delegation were present, attended by the General Secretary and the American General Secretary as Deacons of Honour. There were also present the Bishops of Southwark, Woolwich, Coventry, and Harrisburg, U.S.A., the Armenian Archbishop of Smyrna, a Polish Old Catholic Bishop from America, and a Russian Archimandrite. The Bishop of Southwark and the Metropolitan both addressed the congregation, and the latter gave the Blessing. On the 8th they attended the closing service of the Conference at St. Paul's Cathedral, the Metropolitan being vested in his mantya.

The delegates were entertained by the Eastern Churches Committee at King's College Hostel, where many of the foreign Bishops were also staying. After a few days' rest at the country house of Lord Cozens-Hardy, the delegates bade adieu to the Archbishop, who was leaving London on August 12th. On many days throughout this period Conferences were held between the delegates and the members of the Eastern Churches Committee, when they discussed various theological questions and the general problem of mutual relations and co-operation. Certain questions, also, which had been put by the delegates to the Lambeth Conference Commission, were referred by it for discussion and answer to the Eastern Churches Committee. Less formal "conversations" also were held between the delegates and English theologians, members of A. and E. A. Committee, and others, which resulted very happily in a fuller grasp of the point of view on each side concerning many doctrinal questions.

The final visit that remains to be narrated is in some ways the most eventful of the series, since on March 2nd of this year there arrived in London His Holiness Mgr. Dorotheos, the Metropolitan of Brusa and Locum-Tenens of the Oecumenical Throne of Constantinople. During the vacancy no election to the See has taken place, because the Greeks, feeling the intolerable burden and, [12/13] as we must all recognize it, the iniquity of having to submit the names of the candidates for the See to the Sultan, who by no means desired the appointment of the best and strongest man as Patriarch, have postponed election until the Powers may free them from this law, and they may have freedom of appointment. The Metropolitan, who was the ecclesiastical head of the whole Orthodox Church and the civil head of the Greeks in the Ottoman Empire, came to this country, accompanied by Archdeacon Germanos, Second Secretary of the Holy Synod, and two lay delegates of the National Council of the Patriarchate, in order to represent the cause of the Unredeemed Greeks in the Turkish Empire before the Peace Conference in London.

He was received by the Archbishop of Canterbury on the next day, and was entertained in the evening at the Atheneum by Mr. Athelstan Riley, with a distinguished circle of guests, including the Archbishop of Canterbury, Lord Robert Cecil, Lord Bryce, and Sir Robert Newman. Father Fynes-Clinton put himself at the disposition of the delegation, and was arranging various opportunities of meeting members of the clergy, of Parliament, visits, and conferences. He was introduced to His Majesty the King by the Archbishop of Canterbury, and had promised to speak at a public meeting on March 17th in Sion College, arranged by "The World Alliance for Promoting International Friendship through the Churches," the Primate presiding; but he had contracted a chill, and Archdeacon Germanos read his speech.

This, alas, was the beginning of a unique tragedy. In spite of doctor's orders, he insisted on going out to keep an appointment for an interview with Lord Curzon at the Foreign Office, to fulfil, as he said, his mission in the terrible crisis of his people. This increased the illness of a body already enfeebled by ascetic privations; a failing heart received a final shock in the continuous news of fresh outrages by the Turks upon the Greeks of Asia Minor left undefended by their own army at the command of the Christian (!) Powers. The outrage and cruel murder of the mother, aunt, and two nieces of the Metropolitan's old friend the Archbishop of Chataldja were imprinted on his mind, and his death drew near.

Among his last words he told us of his hope that he had done something to advance the aim that he had always so much at heart, of bringing into close union the two Churches. After his preoccupation with the primary humanitarian end of his mission, he had determined to devote himself to making acquaintance with English Church life and personalities for this purpose. One notable event in [13/14] this direction, at least, he achieved. On March 10th the Locum-Tenens and his suite were entertained to luncheon at Lambeth; amongst the notable gathering present there were, by a curious coincidence, 'the heads of the Orthodox Church and the Church of England, and a high representative of the American Episcopal Church in the person of the Bishop of New York, who was present, as well as the Archbishop of York. In the afternoon the Locum-Tenens presented the Archbishop with an historic, ecclesiastical emblem, of great value and beauty, known as an Encolpion, bearing the crowned doubleheaded eagle of the Patriarchate, originally made for the illustrious Patriarch Joachim III., and worn by five successive Patriarchs as the emblem of their office, which the Holy Synod of Constantinople had resolved to present to the Archbishop of Canterbury. The presentation was made in the Chapel of Lambeth Palace, the Archbishop being fully robed, and attended by his chaplain carrying his Primatial Cross, in the presence of several Bishops, priests, and laymen. Extremely friendly sentiments were exchanged by the two Prelates, expressive of the close relations and mutual esteem existing between the two Churches. Our Greek friends remarked that it was a very significant fact that the last episcopal signature ever penned by the Metropolitan was in the visitors' book at Lambeth; and his last portrait shows him seated by the side of the English Primate, who is wearing the Patriarchal insignia.

In the evening of Friday, March r8th, the acting head of the whole Orthodox Communion passed peacefully away at the Ritz Hotel, after receiving the Last Sacraments from the Archimandrite Pagonis. The body was removed to the Greek church in Bayswater, and at the funeral, which took place on Tuesday the 2znd, the great wish of the Metropolitan was fulfilled. The Primate in precedence of the whole Anglican Communion, stood robed with his Primatial Cross by his side under the dome of the church, which embodies in its likeness the St. Sophia at Constantinople, whose restoration to Christ is still the unsatisfied and yearning desire of every Greek and Anglican. The Archbishop was placed in the Episcopal Throne, having the Bishop of London on his right, with the Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton as his Chaplain, and Dr. Gore, chairman of the Eastern Churches Committee, and the Rev. J. A. Douglas on his left. On a seat in front was Lord Stanmore, representative of His Majesty; and among those present were, most happily, the new Minister of King Constantine, M. Gounaris, as well as the late Minister of Greece, M. Caclamanos, and the Hon. Minister, Dr. Gennadius.

[15] Amongst a crowded congregation of Greek and English mourners there were present Viscount Bryce, Dean Inge, the Serbian and Roumanian Ministers, representatives of the Foreign Secretary and the Foreign Office, of various Eastern Societies, and of our own Association. The service was conducted by the Great Archimandrite Pagonis, assisted by the Archimandrites from Paris, Manchester, Liverpool, and Cardiff, together with four deacons who are at present studying at Oxford. The Archbishop of Canterbury established an unique precedent in the history of the relations between the two Churches by reading the Gospel in English, after which Dr. Pagonis delivered a short address and the priests present approached one by one to kiss the Primate's ring. The departure of the Archbishop after the service, continuously stopped in his progress down the aisle by those who wished to kiss his hand and receive his blessing, was impressive in the extreme.

On March 28th there arrived in London the Metropolitan of Seleucia, Archbishop Germanos, the President of Halki Theological College, to take home the body of the Locum-Tenens. After an early Service of Prayer in the crypt of the Greek church on April 2nd, the body was taken to Folkestone, accompanied by Archbishop Germanos, the Greek priests, the delegates, and the Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton, appointed by the Archbishop of Canterbury to escort it to the limits of British territory. The British Government marked its respect and sympathy by sending a destroyer to Brindisi to take the party to Constantinople.

All concerned felt most deeply that in this sad and disappointing event our hearts have been drawn into closer sympathy than they could have been by ordinary intercourse, and the determination has been strengthened to sweep away the obstacles to the fulfilment of what our Communion is more and more instinctively feeling to be a necessity. And while considering the circumstances of the death of the late Archbishop, hastened as it undoubtedly was by his exertion on behalf of his oppressed people and his emotion at their suffering, our instinctive feeling finds expression in the words of our Blessed Lord in the Gospel of St. John, "Greater love hath no man than this, that a man lay down his life for his friends"; it is our earnest hope and prayer that this wise and holy Prelate may have helped to accomplish by his death what he was not allowed to see achieved in his life, namely the fulfilment, in at any rate one direction, of the last prayer of the same Lord Jesus Christ for His Church, "That they all may be one."

Our Relations with Serbia.

Our alliance with Serbia in the Great War brought about a very close intercourse between the Serbian Orthodox Church and our own. Many and various were the occasions, in which the results of this rapprochement were manifested, and some account of the chief of these is given under separate headings.

THE VISITS OF FATHER NICOLAI.

The chief personality in this rapprochement is Father Nicolai Velimirovic, Bishop of Ochrida in Old Serbia. After seeing the opening of the war in Belgrade, he was sent on a mission to America, and on his return in the autumn of 1915, he stayed for a prolonged visit in England. He rapidly made a large circle of friends, and the General Secretary of the Association helped to introduce him in ecclesiastical and other quarters where he might carry out his aim of interpreting the aspirations, character, and history of his nation, previously so little known to English people, and at the same time of creating close bonds of sympathy and co-operation between the two Churches. The wideness of his vision, and the depth of his thought, his force of character and personal lovableness, won for him everywhere a hearing, sympathy, and friendship. Among other permanent ties, he valued most highly his close personal intercourse with the Archbishop of Canterbury.

At the Anniversary of October, 1915, he spoke on the Serbian Religion and upon Reunion, and prophesied the great influence of the British Empire for justice and liberty, if its future policy was founded on Christian principles. With the leave of the Bishop of London, and the approval of the Archbishop of Canterbury, he gave lectures in St. Margaret's, Westminster, and other churches. A memorable precedent was made by the Dean and Chapter of St. Paul's Cathedral, which invited him to preach at the Statutory Service on Sunday morning, July 22nd, 1917. This was rapidly followed by invitations to preach and speak all over the country, and in each case the Diocesan Bishops gave him the necessary permission, among whom were the Archbishop of York, and the Bishops of Winchester, Oxford, Peterborough, Birmingham, and Edinburgh. This was followed by a concession of still greater significance on the part of the Bishops, allowing him and other Serbian priests, who had arrived [16/17] the country with the students elsewhere mentioned, to celebrate the Holy Liturgy according to the full Orthodox rite. Services were regularly held on Sundays for the refugees in London in the Sisters' Chapel of the House of Charity, Soho.

The Liturgy was regularly celebrated in Parish Churches where there were Serbian refugee boys living, and also in the Chapel of St. John's College, Oxford, for the Serbian and Roumanian undergraduates.

On February 16th, 1919, the full beauty of the Byzantine rite was seen in an English cathedral for the first time, when the Serbian Liturgy was celebrated at Birmingham, in the presence of the Rector of the Cathedral, Bishop Hamilton Baines. The music of the Liturgy was performed here, as elsewhere, by a choir composed of the Serbian students. In the evening, Father Nicolai gave a lecture on the Serbian Church, and sermons were given on the Sunday in several Birmingham churches by him and Brother Iriney Georgevitch and English preachers on behalf of the Serbian Students' Fund.

At this time, Father Nicolai also paid a special visit to Oxford, where meetings and services were held under the auspices of the S.P.C.K. He spoke at an afternoon meeting at Oriel College, and again in the evening at the Union Society: a specially interesting feature of both meetings was the rendering of the Serbian National Anthem in Slavonic by the Serbian students in St. Stephen's House. On the Sunday morning Father Nicolai preached at the Church of the Cowley Fathers, and in the evening at St. Barnabas; but perhaps the most interesting event of the visit was the service in the Cathedral Church of Oxford on the Sunday afternoon; by permission of the Dean and Chapter, a short Orthodox Service was rendered in Slavonic, consisting of the Hymn of the Trisagion, the Deacon's Litany, Slavonic Anthem, and the Te Deum. Father Milan, vested in Epitrahelos and Phelonion, acted as Deacon; Father Nicolai, similarly vested, wearing a large pectoral cross, preached the sermon, in the course of which he said: "For eight hundred years this glorious building has stood here, and this is the first time in its long history that a representative of the Eastern Church has been privileged to officiate in it."

During Father Nicolai's visit in 1918, the Serbian colony in London celebrated on October 10th, the Fourth Anniversary of the war. In the morning, a Liturgy was celebrated in Slavonic in the Greek church of St. Sophia, Moscow Road, Bayswater, two Serbian priests, Father Janic and Father Ilic, and the Russian Deacon Theocritoff, taking the service, and the students' choir providing the [17/18] music; the Russian, Serbian, Greek, and Roumanian Ministers were present, together with a mixed congregation, containing many representatives of the Orthodox nations. The afternoon Thanksgiving Service took place in Southwark Cathedral, at which there were present the Bishop of Southwark, the Prime Minister of Serbia, M. Pashitch, and the Serbian Minister to St. James; Father Nicolai preached the sermon, in which he took the opportunity of rendering Serbia's thanks to England for all the help that her Church and people had given to Serbia during the war.

Father Nicolai took the opportunity of making intimate acquaintance with all the phases of English Church life in parishes, religious houses, schools, and institutions, as well as with the leaders of Nonconformity.

We were glad to welcome him again in December, 1919, returning to England as Bishop, consecrated to the See of Zica. He was attended by his Deacon, Father Popovic. He paid a visit of three days to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and on his return to London was received in a lengthy private audience by the King. He met the members of the newly formed Eastern Churches Committee. On the 18th, a solemn Service of Intercession, similar to that held for the Archbishop of Athens, was arranged by the Anglican and Eastern Association in St. Paul's Cathedral. There were present the Bishop for North and Central Europe, Dr. Bury, who represented the Bishop of London, and officiated at the Processional Litany, and gave an address of welcome, and a message from the Primate; also the Rt. Revs. Dr. C. Gore, late of Oxford, E. King, Secretary of the S.P.G., the Bishop of Madagascar, and the Vatoped of the Armenian Church, Dr. Abrahamian. Bishop Nicolai preached on "Christian Unity," and took his place at the Altar in mantya and crown, as Officiant at the Solemn Te Deum of Thanksgiving for the victory and partial liberation of Eastern Christendom, and gave the Blessing.

Among other doings, he was entertained at luncheon by the Lord Mayor, paid a visit of inspection to the Serbian Red Cross, and the Serbian Relief Fund Offices, spoke to a meeting: of City men at the Mansion House, by the invitation of the Lord Mayor, on "The Call of Christ to-day in the Business World," and delivered a remarkable address to a crowded audience at King's College in the presence of the Vice-Chancellor and Professors on "The Spiritual Re-Birth of Europe." He preached at St. Alban's, Holborn, and at a Mass of Intercession for the Redemption of St. Sophia, in St. Paul's, Covent Garden, arranged by the Society of the Faith; he pontificated [18/19] at the Russian Chapel in Welbeck Street on New Year's Day, the Bishop of Willesden also being present, and delivering a Greeting to our Russian Allies from the Bishop of London, and visited the Serbian Hostel at Oxford.

A PARTING PRESENTATION.

Father Nicolai Velimirovic could not have been allowed to leave England without some mark of the regard and affection in which English Churchmen have come to hold him during the years of his exile in England, and early in 1919 a considerable number of his friends met at Lambeth Palace to offer him, through the Archbishop of Canterbury, a pectoral cross and an album containing the names of those who have joined in the presentation.

Among those present were the Archdeacon of London, Father Puller, the Rev. R. G. D. Laffan, the Rev. E. Hermitage Day, Mr. Athelstan Riley, Dr. J. Gennadius, military representatives of the Serbian Legation, and priests and Religious of the Orthodox Church.

The cross is of silver-gilt enamelled red with the raised figure of Christ, dependent from a medallion enamelled with the arms of the See of Canterbury, as emblematic of the origin of the gift and of his relations with the Church of England; above is a central link containing the stamp of the Orthodox Host, viz., I.C., K.C. Nika, and a cross, emblematic of the gospel of suffering and the victorious resurrection which he has so consistently preached here during the war. The chain is composed of alternate links: NN for himself and his patron saint, and a cross with four CCCC from the Serbian arms, initials of the Serbian words "Samo Sloga Srbina Spassava"--"Only unity saves the Serbians"--emblematic of the racial salvation in unity which he has done so much to promote by his work.

The Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton read letters expressing the regret of several who were unable to be present, including the Archbishop of York, the Bishops of London, Winchester, and Southwell, the Duke of Newcastle, and Lord Finlay. He explained that owing to the unexpected early date of Father Nicolai's departure it had not been possible yet to complete the enamelling of the cross. He also made the very interesting announcement that one generous English donor had given site in Bayswater for the erection of a Serbian church, and that another had offered the sum of £10,000 towards its erection, an announcement which was received with applause.

The Archbishop of Canterbury said that the meeting would [19/20] probably prove hereafter to have been of no small importance and significance. He himself had had many opportunities of expressing his gratitude to Father Nicolai for the message that he had brought to us. Through the sufferings of the war Serbia had been revealed to us; the contrast was striking between our ignorance of that country before the war and our present knowledge. Struck by the dauntless heroism of her people, we had turned to history, to find there that time after time Serbia had stood as a barrier between Christendom and Islam. Nor had her heroism alone been revealed, but also her art, in the sculptures of Mestrovic, and her religious life in the person and message of the great teacher who was with them that day. He had had a varied experience since first he came to London as a student some years ago, as the foremost professor of theology in his own country, as chaplain to the Serbian forces in the field and to King Peter. During his exile in England he had been regarded with growing affection and respect, as one who was essentially a spiritual guide. By his words and his pen he had taught many lessons, he had gained many friends, and the cross which they were offering him would be the symbol and the reminder of English friendship. Destined to be a leader in Church and State in his own country, it was no small thing that Father Nicolai should know England and English life and thought. There were links between the two countries, but the strongest link of all was the time that Father Nicolai had spent here. Ideas of union were in the air, we knew not to what they would grow. His Grace offered the cross in the name of the donors, with the hope and the prayer that it would recall unforgettable days.

Father Nicolai, who was very warmly received, said that his Grace had trusted him from the beginning, and the trust had brought to him new life and strength for the great work which he was trying to do. These years of war had been a strange time, like a dream, like a legend. Even amid the destruction of the war, spiritual men discerned germs of good for the future. The bards and the spiritual seers of Serbia had foretold the help of a great kingdom in the West; they looked to Rome and to Canterbury, and they were conscious of essential unity. Not in England alone, but in Scotland also he had found the strong desire for reunion. Four things had strengthened the friendship between the Church of England and the Serbian Church: the help rendered to their deported clergy in Austria; the aid to the Serbian students, who had been very happy in England; the gift by the S.P.C.K. of tens of thousands of Serbian prayer books to the troops, who had left their country carrying only rifles, and the prayer [20/21] which throughout England had been made for Serbia. He had no words to express his gratitude; their reward would come from the Lord, whose work they had been doing. The cross would be a symbol of unbreakable spiritual unity, it would give him strength and encouragement in his work, and when he returned to Serbia he would say to his countrymen that he had found England a country gifted with talents to use not for herself alone, but for all the earth.

Count Mijatovitch, formerly Serbian Minister to the Court of St. James, as the oldest member of the Serbian colony in London, expressed in the name of the Serbs their gratitude for the honour done to a representative of the Serbian Church. Father Nicolai had the heart of a true Serb; to hear him was to hear Serbia speaking. Serving his country, he had served also higher ideals. There could be no true League of Nations without a League of Churches, and to that Father Nicolai had given all his efforts.

The ceremony over, those present went to the chapel, where the Archbishop said prayers for Father Nicolai's safe journey and protection and for his future work, and gave him a special benediction before the general blessing.

THE SERBIAN STUDENTS IN ENGLAND.

During the early part of the visit of Father Nicolai, the work of rescuing from among the Serbian refugees in Western Europe, students who had been preparing for Holy Orders, and giving them an opportunity to continue to fulfil their spiritual vocation, was begun by Father Nicolai and Father Fynes-Clinton, Secretary of the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association. Between three and four thousand boys, who had been brought from the retreating army from the villages in the great retreat to be saved for the future of this heroic nation, were scattered in France, Corsica, and North Africa. The two seminaries of Belgrade and Prizrend had been closed, the elder students being drafted into the Army Medical Service. Free education for everything but preparation for the priesthood was generously provided by the French Government; and these students were obliged to relinquish spiritual and theological study, in order to obtain education in other professions.

This sad state of affairs led to the bringing over to England of four picked members of the Seminary at Belgrade, of which Father Nicolai had been Professor. These were placed in St. Stephen's House, Oxford, under the care of the Rev. G. H. Bown, where they made such excellent progress in learning and character, that others were collected and placed in the same house.

[22] The sudden death of Father Bown, Bishop-elect of Nassau, was an inestimable loss in spiritual influence for the students. He was succeeded by the Rev. Father W. H. Frere, Superior of the Community of the Resurrection, Mirfield, who with the aid of Father Hallward, kindly gave much of his time and unceasing care to the work of supervising the life and studies of a dozen students.

Meanwhile, the work had been officially approved by Archbishop Dimitri, of Belgrade, who sent a request, to the Archbishop of Canterbury that we should undertake the charge of as many of the young seminary students who survived, or could be found. In order to undertake this new responsibility, Father Fynes-Clinton called a meeting of sympathisers in the house of Mr. Athelstan Riley, Bishop Bury taking the chair. At this meeting it was resolved to form a public council to raise the necessary funds, to which the Association should hand over its responsibility. With the help of the Rev. Canon W. H. Carnegie, a powerful council was formed of many of the leading men of England, including the Archbishop of Canterbury as patron, the Marquis of Salisbury as Chairman, the Lord Chancellor and the Speaker, the Archbishop of York, the Bishop of London and others as members. An Executive Committee was formed, Canon Carnegie as Chairman, the Revs. H. J. Fynes-Clinton and E. St. G. Schomberg as Honorary Secretaries, and Mr. E. F. Knapp Fisher as Honorary Treasurer.

At the same time a Committee was formed at Oxford, of the tutors of the students and others, with the Rev. Dr. Headlam, Regius Professor, as Chairman, to supervise their academical work and direct their studies. With the funds collected, aided by a grant from Government funds, some sixty boys and young men were brought to England, and placed in our theological colleges of Cuddesdon and Dorchester, under the care respectively of the Revs. J. B. Seaton and C. P. Hankey; with them came some Serbian Professors, Father Voyislav Janic devoting himself with great zeal and ability to the whole work in the three centres, as well as representing Father Nicolai and others concerned in the promotion of the national cause and rapprochement in London.

The arrival of groups of these students in nondescript clothing, often suffering from mal-nutrition and exposure, to which a few of them at last succumbed after arrival, and their evident relief and joy in entering the grounds of these two beautiful colleges, which were to be for them real homes, after the miseries of their exile, gave us indeed a glad moment of thankfulness, and a realization of the amazing opportunity granted by God to the English Church of [22/23] affording the highest spiritual, as well as material, help to her sister in distress. After tea, for the first time they worshipped together with their English friends in thanksgiving and prayer for their future, and Father Fynes-Clinton, in an address, made them welcome, and explained the desire of the English Church to help them to remain truly Orthodox, and prepare themselves for the great part it would be their duty to take in the reconstruction in the national and religious life of their country.

At the beginning of 1919 most of these students, after passing their Serbian Seminary Examination, returned home for their ordination; from among them fifteen were selected, and ultimately, twelve, to study in St. Stephen's House in Oxford, for the Degree of Bachelor of Letters. For this they read in theology, and present a thesis, two years of residence only being necessary, their previous Seminary course being accepted by the University as preliminary. At the end of the summer term 1919, the students returned for their vacation to Serbia, and to visit their friends.

Since the Public Council seemed to be unable to find further funds for the purpose of continuing their maintenance, the Anglican and Eastern Association, with Father Fynes-Clinton as Secretary, resumed the responsibility.

A public appeal was made, and funds sufficient to recall the students from Serbia were collected, and now, since St. Stephen's was wanted for English students after the war, we opened our own Hostel of St. Sava and St. George, in 16, Parks Road, Oxford, in October 1919, with fourteen students. We were fortunate in obtaining the Principal, the Rev. R. M. French, who had been Chaplain at Petrograd, and during the war, Military Chaplain in Roumania and Serbia. The authorities of Keble College have kindly lent the side-altar of the college chapel for the Daily Mass, at which the students sing in Slav the Sanctus and other chants.

Several have returned home to Serbia, most of them having successfully taken their degree, and in June next we shall be left with four to continue their course, but are expecting that new students will be sent by the Synod of the Serbian Church. That they should come to Oxford and thus establish a permanent and ever more intimate connection with the English Church is most significant, and the new opportunities which we have in the East afford the soundest and most promising basis of true unity. During vacations a great point is made of enabling the students to study intimately the life and work of the English Church. They stay in town and country Vicarages and Clergy Houses, in Religious [23/24] Communities and in Theological Colleges during the Oxford summer term. By this means they find, and indeed enthusiastically acknowledge, that they can glean something that may be of real use to them in their future ministry from our parochial, monastic, social, and evangelistic methods.

At this moment, having to relinquish the lease of our present hostel, we are anxiously wondering whether funds will be forthcoming for the necessary purchase of a house, which may be a permanent hostel for this blessed work of spiritual co-operation with the Eastern Church. There are several Greek theological students also resident in Oxford, and we are expecting the coming of Roumanians and others. It is most desirable that all these should have the benefit of living in the atmosphere of theological college life, and we hope that the Association will at least not fail to continue its aid towards the maintenance of a hostel for the Serbs, who will in future themselves pay for the greater part of the cost.

ENGLAND IN SERBIA.

At Easter, 1915, the Rev. Percy Dearmer, D.D., sometime Chairman of the General Committee of the Association, went to Serbia as chaplain to the British Hospital Missions in that country, remaining there till the middle of July. He has since been followed by the Revs. H. E. Simpson, of the House of Charity, Soho, A. H. Sewell, of Bristol, and B. R. K. Moilliet, of St. Andrew's, Starbeck, Harrogate: and it is hoped that henceforth there will be a permanent chaplaincy in this country. Dr. Dearmer carried out one hundred guineas, subscribed by members of the Association. At Nish he called on the Metropolitan of Belgrade, who is at present living with the Bishop of Nish, and presented His Grace with the money to be distributed amongst the poor of Serbia. He was received by the Metropolitan and the Bishop with the utmost kindness, and had a long conversation with them. On all occasions the Serbian Church authorities showed great friendliness to the English Church, especially in the two following instances. One of the nurses of the Mission, Miss Ferris, died of enteric fever. The authorities arranged to give her a funeral with military honours, and asked if the Mission would like to have the English service in the principal church, the Cathedral of Kragujevatch. Permission was accordingly sought from the Metropolitan, who gave the characteristically generous and charitable reply: "Let them do in our church exactly as they would do in their own church at home." [24/25] When Mrs. Dearmer died a week later, the English service was said in the camp in a temporary chapel, her body was then taken to the cathedral, where the Serbian service was held, and at the graveside both the English committal was recited and the Serbian service was sung by the local clergy; thus both rites were used together.

The extremity of Serbia's need aroused a great sympathy in England, and the Association joined in the work of spiritual and material succour. The Rev. H. J. Fynes-Clinton was asked to be joint secretary with Dr. Seton Watson of a special committee, of which Dr. Elsie Inglis was chairman, to promote the observance in England of the great national commemoration of Serbia's defeat by the Turks on the field of Kossovo in 1389. Large numbers of Serbian refugee children had arrived in England, chiefly under the care of the Serbian Relief Fund. This committee issued explanatory letters and pamphlets, which were sent to all the schools of England, asking that the heroic story and needs of Serbia might be brought before the children. Lectures were given in schools, drawing-rooms, and public halls. A letter was sent to all churches and chapels throughout the British Isles, with special'prayers, with a request for addresses and collections, and an assurance of the cordial sympathy of the Archbishop of Canterbury with the commemoration. The chief celebration was made in St. Paul's Cathedral, when, after intercessions for Serbia, the Archbishop of Canterbury preached a sermon, expressing the deepest sympathy of the nation with her ally in her great distress, and an assurance that we, never forgetting her inspiring example of devotion to the great cause, would stand with her to the end. The service was attended by Admiral Troubridge, by the ministers or representatives of all the allied nations, of the War and Foreign Offices, of the Serbian Relief Fund, and other societies, and of the nursing detachments serving in Serbia. After the playing of a verse of the Serbian National Hymn, all hearts were deeply stirred by the moving and pathetic sound of the voices of 300 refugee boys under the dome singing in their national tongue the hymn which they had last heard amid the horrors of the great retreat through the mountains.

On the occasion of the visit of M. Pashic, the great Prime Minister of Serbia, he took the opportunity of offering to the Archbishop of Canterbury and others of the English clergy the thanks of [25/26] Serbia for the aid which the English Church had been able to render to his country. They had, he said, done the most to relieve her sufferings, and, above all, the Anglican Church had taken care of the children of her sister of Serbia, by giving to her theological students the means of preparing themselves for the great pastoral mission which awaited them in the restoration of their country. After speaking of the martyrdom of great numbers of her priests and people, she would never forget, he added, all that the English Church had done for her during the present war. "May it be (he ended) that, by the aid of the Almighty, this work of charity for the Church of Serbia may be the foundation stone on which may be placed the rapprochement and the definite union of our two Churches for the good of all humanity." In recognition of the aid thus afforded, the King of Serbia graciously conferred the Order of St. Sava in various classes upon those who shared in the work. The first class was given to the Archbishop of Canterbury, and the Bishops of London and Oxford; the second class upon the Archbishop of York, the Revs. Dr. W. H. Frere, C.R., Canon W. H. Carnegie, H. J. Fynes-Clinton, and Dr. Hermitage Day. Among others who received the Order in different classes were the following members of the Association: (the third class) the Revs. Fr. Puller, S.S.J.E., Leighton Pullan, and R. G. D. Laffan; (the fourth class) the Revs. Canons Brightman and Lacey, Dr. A. C. Headlam, Fr. Bull, S.S.J.E., J. B.;.,Seaton, E. Simpson, W. K. Lowther Clarke, and Athelstan Riley, Esq.; (the fifth class) Canon J. H. B. Masterman, Provost Erskine Hill, and the Rev. C. P. Hankey.

The Investiture took place in the Serbian Legation, at the hands of Dr. Koyic, the Chargé-d'affaires.

Up to the time of the outbreak of the Great War, it would be true to say that our knowledge of; and interest in the Orthodox Church were centred chiefly, though not exclusively, on the National Church of Russia, since our intercourse with that country had rendered possible a close degree of relationship between the two Churches. The position that Russia occupied as our ally in the war did much to draw the Churches together in sympathy, by virtue of their common suffering and sacrifice. Since the outbreak of the Revolution, however, and the consequent internal chaos of Russia, intercourse has of necessity been difficult and restricted. We print here a Report from the Secretary of the Russian Society for Reunion, and also an account of the Russian Church from 1915 to 1918, translated from the pen of a Russian professor, Dr. Stephen Runkevich, by a well-known member of our Association, Madame Lucy Alexeyev, and reprinted by kind permission of the Anglican and Foreign Church Society.

Meantime, we may note one or two incidents of importance: in 1918, and again in 1919, the Archbishop of Canterbury received appeals from the Russian Metropolitans of Omsk and Odessa, asking him for the prayers and protection of himself and the Church in England for the Church in Russia during their time of persecution. The Primate telegraphed in each case, assuring the authorities of the Russian Church of the sympathy and prayers of the Church in England; and he added that he was doing all he could to render them assistance in any way possible. Prayers were sanctioned for use in church for the Russian Church in her hour of need, resolutions were passed in the Houses of Convocation and elsewhere of sympathy and support, and on August 12th, 1918, a Solemn Service of Intercession was held by the Association in the Church of St. Martin-in-the-Fields, consisting of the Great Litany from the Liturgy of St. John Chrysostom, sung in procession, the Bishop of Oxford, Dr. Gore, preaching the sermon. Afterwards the Contakion and Prayer for the Departed were sung, and the people received the Bishop's blessing. Among those present were the Russian Chargé d'affaires, the Serbian Minister, and the representative of the Foreign Office.

The Association co-operated in the work of assistance rendered to numbers of refugees from Russia who arrived in this country. A committee was formed to help the Russian Parish Council in any [27/28] way possible, which subsequently joined in starting the Christian Counter-Bolshevist Crusade. But perhaps the most important thing arranged for the assistance of the Russian Church was when we were able to secure the use of the Church of St. Mary-le-Bow, with the full approval of the Bishop of London and the cordial welcome of Canon Masterman, for the regular celebration of the Russian Liturgy on Sundays and Holy Days, for the Russian congregation, increased by the arrival of thousands of refugees from the Terror, beyond the capacity of the Russian Chapel in Welbeck Street.

The committee has felt deeply their impotence in trying to arouse the British public from its terrible and widespread apathy toward the awful persecution of the Russian Church, and the sufferings, spiritual and physical, of the people under the antiChristian tyranny. Several resolutions of sympathy adopted at meetings will be found elsewhere in this Report. We should like to take this opportunity of emphasizing a fact which has been much obscured in newspaper accounts of Russia and her Church. It is false to assert, as has been asserted, that religion is dead in Russia. On the contrary real religion is on the increase. It is true that large numbers of nominal adherents have been lost to the Church, but the Church herself, in spite of her well-nigh incredible suffering, persecution, and martyrdom, has in many ways gained from the upheaval. Free from state control to develop her own life, she has restored on constitutional lines the Patriarchal government, and her witness for the Faith and truth, and her influence in spiritual things is greatly enhanced. Thus does the Divine Wisdom overrule trial and suffering in this world for His own glory and the benefit of His Church.

January, 1917.

MY DEAR FR. FYNES-CLINTON,

I hope you have received and read the previous accounts of our Association. As you see from it, not very much has been done; yet we hope for more and better work in the future. On December 15th last there was the Annual Meeting of the members of our Society. The meeting was attended pretty well: His Grace the Archbishop Tichon, of Litvanski and Vilna, was the chairman. At the beginning was read the account of the work of our Society for 1912-1915. After this was done we paid the respect due to the late N. N. Lodizinsky and V. Dj. Birkbeck, singing all together "Eternal Memory." Then a short address was read on the life of the two mentioned persons. After there was laid before the Ipeeting a short account of the work of the Anglican and Eastern [28/29] Churches Association for 1912-1915. Then we elected the members Of the Council and of the Executive Committee, Mr. Field being elected in place of Mr. Hubbard, and the Rev. Fathers Puller and Frere elected honorary members, as also Mr. A. S. Mamantov. After that I read my paper on "Retreats."

At the very beginning the meeting accepted the following resolution of greeting to the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association: "The members of the Russian Society for the Rapprochement of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches, holding their first General Meeting since the beginning of the war, desire to send their fraternal greeting to the members of the Anglican and Eastern Churches Association, and to express their sincere hope that amidst the present cruel struggle the Lord will bless their labours for the furtherance of the peace of the Churches and a Christian Reunion." At the end of the meeting His Grace Sergius the Archbishop delivered a most beautiful address on the similarity and differences in the course of history, between the Eastern and Anglican Churches, and on the promising aspects of the Anglican Church. The meeting was opened and closed with singing the common prayers and hymns.

My account will be printed and I will send it to you. It is very desirable to arrange as often as possible such meetings, and I hope, God willing, we will manage to have it this year again. The Anglican priest here, Fr. French (now Principal of St. Sava's Hostel, Oxford), promised me to collaborate. I asked him to give a lecture on any subject from the history or dogmatics of the Anglican Church. We need really to know your Church as thoroughly as you know ours. On February 5th we are arranging a meeting with a lecture for all those who want to hear our programme and become members. Mr. S. V. Troitsky will read a paper on V. Dj. Birkbeck. At this meeting the choir of the St. Vladimir girls' school will sing, not only the hymns of the Orthodox, but also some of the Anglican Church (in English). In March Fr. French will read a paper on the subject, "The day of an Anglican priest."

I wish you all blessings, yours truly,

FATHER GRIGORI SERBARINOV.

The Russian Church in the Years 1915-1918.

[We owe this important article to the kindness of a Russian Churchman, who has been good enough to compile it for our Report. Dr. Stephen Runkevich is a Doctor of Ecclesiastical History, a member of the Russian Church "Sacred Council," and President of the Editorial Department of that Council; he is therefore peculiarly qualified for the task of writing its description and history. We have asked him to do us the honour of becoming one of our Corresponding Secretaries. Madame Alexeyev--now, thank God, safe back in England--has added to the many obligations she has conferred on our Society by translating Dr. Runkevich's exhaustive article; she has endeavoured to make the version as literal as possible, though no doubt the result has been that some of the sentences appear rather formal and ponderous in English. We cannot sufficiently thank Dr. Runkevich and Madame Alexeyev for their most valuable work.]

The four years under review, 1915-1918, will doubtless occupy one of the most remarkable and important pages in the history of the Russian Church during the course of her thousand years' existence.

Hitherto the Russian Church had always been in union with the monarchical State; now a Socialist State has brought about the separation of the Church, which has thus entered upon a new phase of life. The absence of practical adaptation to the new conditions of existence necessarily demanded the exercise of great ecclesiastical effort which was directed primarily to the regulating and ordering of the external side of Church life, which had been overthrown by the new State order.

In the first half of this memorable four years' period in the history of the Russian Church, the energies of the ecclesiastical rulers were chiefly occupied by conditions caused by a war unparalleled in history; and the second half was occupied by the Sacred Council, and the reform of Church government and order, during the time of revolution. Internally, during the first two years, the Church in the persons of her representatives had sunk to the lowest depths, though preserving an outward appearance of greatness; her leaders were completely under corrupt political influence, and the Church was suffering the consequences of age-long dependence upon the State. The last two years were taken up with the effort to adapt herself independently to the new social conditions of existence.

This period--in every respect difficult and fateful--did not bring into prominence among Church circles any names which might indisputably claim the right to find a place in the pages of history. It would seen that it pleased the Lord to guide the fate of His [30/31] Church in its most difficult conditions without the action of strong human personality on the course of her affairs.

THE CHURCH AND THE WAR.

The year 1915 began with the strenuous activity of the Church in regard to the war, which was continued from the preceding year.

The supreme spiritual authority, the Holy Synod, from the beginning of the war evidenced wide helpfulness and care in the exercise of Christian sympathy and mercy. Working together with the organs of the State, and sometimes anticipating them, the Holy Synod prescribed: (I) The organization of help to the sick and wounded and, later, to prisoners; (2) help for the families of those called to the ranks; (3) the establishment, from the sources of ecclesiastical foundations, of hospitals, homes, crèches, almshouses and workhouses for the maimed, with instruction in various crafts and industries; (4) religious instruction of those called to the army, and provision for them of books and tracts of a religious and moral character.

The universal desire to take part in the work of national defence, which was excited by the general enthusiasm, in some cases found its outlet in quick invention and practical application; but, as a rule, direction was sought as to the kind of help required, and in such cases the indications issued by the Holy Synod were found practicable and useful. Church bells were rung everywhere, in accompaniment to prayers in houses and in open places; prayers for divine help in victory, for safety on the way for those setting out, and for the repose of the souls of those who had laid down their lives on the battle-field, for Faith and country. Prayer united those near with those afar, the living with the dead, earth with heaven, and diffused the calm and courage so needful in every responsible action of the multitude. Public Church services acquired a special character. Solemn services were arranged, processions, and a special fast. After every Mass, prayers were offered for victory, and on Saturdays commemoration of those fallen in battle. At divine service special suffrages were introduced into the litanies for the granting of victory to the warriors at the front, and for the healing of the wounded in hospital. Prayer penetrated the trenches, accompanied attacks, was heard in the hospitals, and with gentle step traversed the whole face of the Russian land, rising together with the souls of the dead to higher spheres where there is neither suffering nor sorrow. The continued scourge of war called forth [31/32] the appointment in 1915 of a special three days of fasting and prayer for the whole of Russia.

According to general observation it was long since the votive tapers had burnt so brightly, long since such deep sighs, such heartfelt prayers, such fervent faith and hope had risen up on high. Russia prayed sincerely and fervently.

Preaching was heard everywhere. Sermons prefaced the reading of manifestoes, formed the farewell to troops starting for the front, to nursing units on setting out, and to those beginning their military service. Bishops preached in their See-cities and in visiting their dioceses, priests in their parishes, churches, in schools, hospitals, and houses. The time did not produce such remarkable preaching as to arrest the attention of all Russia. But not a few highly patriotic sermons were preached, and left noticeable traces. The important influence of preaching appeared in the course of time more and more clearly. The military authorities began to give special attention to it in the preparation of reserve forces. The bishops noticed the useful work of the clergy in anticipating and dispersing all kinds of disquieting rumours. One bishop of a manufacturing district bore decided testimony to the fact that if in his diocese there was not the agitation customary in it, and if a patriotic disposition prevailed amid continued tranquillity, this was due to the action of the clergy. A Don Cossack wrote to his bishop--also a Cossack--"We went into action keeping your Lordship's counsel in mind, and the result was striking." The relaxation of moral standards inevitable in war was the subject of special attention in preaching to, and in counselling, the troops under instruction. Sermons were not only preached verbally, but were also distributed in printed form. Gospels, prayerbooks, and millions of leaflets and pamphlets of a religious character were sent to the army and to the hospitals, both such as were already in hand, and others specially written and adapted to the circumstances of the war. And in this connection it may be noted with pleasure that some provincial localities were as active as the great centres.

Collections of all kinds were begun; of money, of warm clothing, and of presents. Collections made personally by the priests going round their parishes begging various articles and money; collections by different kinds of parish organizations formed in consequence of the war. Collections in churches; collections for many ecclesiastical organizations which, either by the direction of the Holy Synod, or of the diocesan authorities, the clergy were expected to support. The success of the collections may best be judged by the total [32/33] amount received; in regard to which, with all defects and incompleteness of the accounts not finally wound up, it may be positively asserted that, during the first two years of the war, ecclesiastical organizations collected not less than was collected in the same time by the Zemstvo and Town Unions; and, moreover, the Church organizations spent no part of the sums on themselves. Diocesan hospitals were opened wherever possible, and where this was not the case, beds were endowed in Red Cross, Zemstvo, Town and other hospitals.

Ladies' Circles were formed in connection with the hospitals, which provided them with linen and undertook the external supervision; and there were also Committees of care which provided the convalescents with linen, clothes, boots, and some pecuniary help.

In almost all the 35,000 parishes, with the exception of a few (not more than 2 or 3 per cent., where it was proved to be physically impossible), Boards of Guardians were formed for the care of the families of those called to the ranks. In the majority they acted together with the civil organizations formed for the purpose, mutually agreeing as to their operations and supporting one another, and in some cases almost uniting; in most cases dividing the work so that the investigation into the financial circumstances of the families to be assisted was undertaken by the Parish Boards. These Boards or Councils collected and distributed money, produce, corn, flour, and other cereals, provided wood for fuel, charcoal, and other articles, and repaired buildings. Especially valuable was the help given by the organization for work in harvesting and sowing the fields, although this comes under no regular report. Characteristic in this connection is the communication of one bishop, relating that in his diocese there occurred a case in which the priest with his own hands cut the rye of the family of a reservist called to the front, and that among the families of the reservists not one shock was left uncarried or unthreshed.

The monasteries reckoned up their entailed and reserve capital, and like foresters carried out a radical clearing of their thick undergrowth. Many regular priests went as military chaplains, many of the monastic brethren went with the nursing units, and many postulants were called to the ranks. Sisters from the convents nursed in the hospitals--chiefly those in their own localities. On the appeal of the Holy Synod many monasteries arranged for hospitals in their precincts, or gave premises for such, or for the accommodation of troops, or were ready to provide sanatoria for convalescent soldiers, and to organize the instruction of cripples in various trades. [33/34] The clergy prayed both with those leaving for the war, and with those left at home, seeing those setting out, and consoling those remaining behind, superintending the care of the families of reservists, writing letters to soldiers, supplying information of various kinds, presiding over the parish boards of guardians and over some of the district boards, taking upon themselves the whole work of the institutions.

There was no false or inharmonious note heard among the clergy during these hard years. The force of patriotic enthusiasm rose to a great height. One archpriest in Kamschatka sold his cutter and household belongings, and gave all he had, including his savings, amounting to 1000 roubles, to the expense of the war.

At this time accounts appeared in the press, of brilliant examples of personal heroism on the part of the priests serving among the troops. Much hardship was borne and courage shown during the retreats and the evacuations of their villages. The priests were assisted by their wives. In some places they formed independent organizations, wrote appeals, collected contributions, sent presents, and supervised hospitals.

The example of the priests was followed by the other members of the clergy--the deacons and clerks or readers. The ecclesiastical students as well as their fathers, laid great sacrifices on the altar of their country in consequence of the war. Many of the buildings of the ecclesiastical establishments were taken for hospitals, and used as barracks. If, for the ordinary day schools--frequented mostly by the inhabitants of the towns--the loss of their buildings was a sacrifice, in the case of ecclesiastical colleges and schools (the pupils of which came from other places and dwelt on the premises) the sacrifice was greater. The students made little collections among themselves, sent presents to the front, and arranged concerts; the older pupils visited the hospitals to read and sing to the patients; the students of the seminaries fulfilled the duties of medical assistants in transporting the wounded, and took part in associations for reaping the fields of the families of reservists, The pupils of girls' schools made linen and various other articles. In one diocesan girls' school, the pupils gave all their "valuables"--brooches and rings--for presents for the troops.

The general disposition of the people was religious and patriotic. An official enquiry was instituted by one diocesan -bishop as to the state of parish life under war conditions. Only four answers revealed a falling-off in religious observances; according to 28, no special difference was noticed; and the overwhelming majority of 520 [34/35] answers signified, with heartfelt satisfaction, a great change for the better. Almost all indicated an unprecedented increase in religious practices. The people saw in the war the judgment of God for their sin in having begun to forget Him--a divine chastisement, and awaited a renewal of life purified by blood. The churches were always full to an extent that was formerly only the case on great festivals. More occasional services of prayer, addresses of praise ("acathists") and of prayer for the dead were requested. The people became more considerate for the griefs of their neighbours, and more generous in giving help. Fewer cases of hooliganism came under notice. Sectarianism grew weaker. The enquiry also touched upon the evidence of intellectual demands among the people, and the measures taken to satisfy them; 370 answers testified to a great arousing and purifying of spirit among the people under the influence of the war. A conscious striving for moral improvement was clearly noticeable. Development took place.

With the end of the war a new life was to be begun with firm religious belief and effort towards spiritual improvement. At the same time the people began to realize more fully how backward they were in general cultivation. The schools were much fuller than in preceding years. An increased desire for instruction was evident everywhere. Many peasants emerged from their position to take up offices never before filled by people of their class, and they performed their duties with success.

THE CHURCH AND THE REVOLUTION.

The end of the year 1916 and the beginning of 1917 was a time of great distress for the Church, Dark forces, faithless and unprincipled, taking advantage of the superstitious disposition of the Empress, gained influence over the Emperor by means of the notorious Rasputin, who gave himself out as a devoutly disposed "Elder." In reality he was an infamous impostor and adventurer, who, by advancing the insignificant and unworthy Archbishop Pitirim to the post of Metropolitan of St. Petersburg, and other no less unworthy persons to posts in Church government as State representatives, brought terrible corruption into the life of the Church.

On March and, 1917, the abdication of the Emperor Nicholas II. occurred; and on March 3rd the renunciation of his rightful successor to the throne of the Russian Empire. The power passed to the people.

The Church was declared free of the oppression of State power. [35/36] The absence of civil discipline among the population, in consequence of the absence of conscious civil life, led to many excesses in connection with representatives of the clergy. A Special Commission (of which the author of this article was a member) was formed by the Holy Synod to draw up regulations for the adjustment of ecclesiastical procedure to the new conditions of State and social life, and for the immediate abolition of abuses which had grown up under the former order; this was to be done by spreading widely among the population the meaning of fundamental rights, and by the introduction into all departments of ecclesiastical-administrative life, where applicable, of The elective principle.

The newly-formed Temporary Government soon changed the composition of the Holy Synod and introduced into it four members of the "White" (or Secular) clergy. The limitation of civil rights hitherto suffered by clergy who had been deprived of their official position was abolished; priests deprived of their places were permitted to occupy posts in state, social, and private service. Many bishops, who for any reason had given dissatisfaction in one sphere or another, were dismissed from their dioceses.

After a short period of waiting, many kinds of Congresses began to be held in the dioceses for the consideration of socio-ecclesiastical questions. In July there was held in Moscow the All-Russian Clerical and Lay Congress, and a separate All-Russian Congress of Religions; in the Bizyukov Monastery in the Government of Kherson was held the All-Russian Missionary Congress, and in Nizhny-Novgorod the All-Russian Congress of the "One-Believers" (those from among the Old-Believers who have become reconciled to Orthodoxy but retain their own rites). And from the first days of the Revolution the thought of the Council revived.

THE PRE-CONCILIAR CONFERENCE AND THE PRE-CONCILIAR COUNCIL.

The Pre-Conciliar Conference which had ceased its work in the first year of the War, at the end of 1915, as though foreseeing the approach of the Council, began hastily to end its tasks, working hard at the project for the reform of the ecclesiastical courts; this was the conclusion of a series of fundamental legal projects for ecclesiastical reform. The projects regarding the Patriarchate and the Higher Church Government and Diocesan Government were finished before the war. Many distinguished authorities on scientific matters, who worked especially on the question of Divorce, were [36/37] called to take part in the deliberations of the Pre-Conciliar Conference. When, with the revolution, the idea of the Council was about to pass from the region of expectation and desire to that of realization, it was found desirable to revise the pre-conciliar, and accordingly the Pre-Conciliar Council was called with the representatives of various classes in the nation taking part. Besides the whole staff of the Holy Synod, it included delegates from among the diocesan Bishops, from the congress of the Clergy and Laity, from the Ecclesiastical Educational Establishments, from the professors of the Ecclesiastical Academies, from the Monasteries, from the "One Believers" (or Old-Believers united to Orthodoxy), and finally from persons especially invited; amounting altogether to the number of sixty.

The Pre-Conciliar Council opened on June 12th, 1917, and worked in Ten Departments: (I) For the conduct of elections to the All-Russian Local Church Council, its organization and the regulations to be made for it; (2) the organization of the Higher Church administration (Council, Synod, Ecclesiastical Districts); (3) Diocesan administration; (4) Ecclesiastical Courts; (5) Parish organization; (6) Of matters of faith, of divine service, of the One-Believers and Old-Believers; (7) Management of Ecclesiastical business; (8) the legal position of the Church in the State; (9) Monasteries and Religious; (10) Ecclesiastical Educational Establishments.

On July 5th, 1917, the day after the entrance of the Bolsheviks into Petrograd, the Holy Synod, summoned for the evening of that day, decided, in view of the special circumstances of the time, to convoke the Council at once, fixing the date for August 15th.

This was proclaimed by a Special Pronouncement of the Holy Synod. Measures were taken for the immediate publication of the statute to convoke the Council and for the conduct of the election of its members.

On July 31st, the Pre-Conciliar Council was closed promptly, having ended its work. On August and, 1917, there took place the last sitting in Petrograd of the Holy Synod, which then, together with part of its chancellery, removed to Moscow where it opened its sittings on August 9th, concluding the work of organization for the opening of the Council. The first presiding member of this session of the Council was Archbishop Plato, Exarch of the Caucasus, who received the title of Metropolitan on the eve of the opening of the council; he had formerly been Archbishop in North America.

THE COUNCIL.

The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church (or the Local All-Russian Church Council, as it was originally called before the decision of the Pre-Conciliar Council gave it the above name) was opened in Moscow on the Festival of the "Falling Asleep" of the Most Holy Mother of God (August 15th) in the great Cathedral of the "Falling Asleep" in the Kremlin; it was accompanied with unusually solemn ecclesiastical ceremony. [This is really the correct term (Dormitio) rather than Assumption, as it is usually called.] There was an innumerable gathering of people and clergy. The Temporary Government was present in the persons of its chief representatives. A sea of gilt banners from 255 of the Moscow cathedrals, monasteries, and churches, stretched in an unending stream on the way from the Cathedral to the service of prayer, held on the Red Place outside the Kremlin. At the end of the Liturgy, before leaving the Cathedral, the Prelate, who had been the chief celebrant, read the following edict of the Holy Synod announcing the opening of the Council:--

"In the name of the Father and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit; The Holy Governing Synod of the Orthodox Russian Church, offering thanksgiving to the Lord for granting to-day the realization of the cherished desire of the Orthodox Russian people, proclaims the opening of the All-Russian Church Council. May the Omnipotent Ruler of heaven and earth, the Lord Jesus Christ, our God, who created His Holy Church for our salvation, beneficently regard our Council; may He send down upon us His Holy Spirit and overshadow us with His grace, may He enlighten our minds, guide our judgment, strengthen our will, enkindle love and zeal for every good work, grant unity of spirit in the bond of peace and love, and direct all the acts of the Council towards the fulfilment of His commandment, Seek ye first the kingdom of God and His righteousness, and to the glory of His Holy Name, that with one heart and one mouth we may in truth confess the One God in Trinity, blessed for ever."

The next day, after a solemn celebration of the Liturgy in the Church of Christ the Saviour, the Council received greetings, and on the third day, August 17th, in the Council Chamber of the Diocesan House, it began its working session. The Holy Synod delivered to the Council in a special presentation, a prepared draft, in which it wrote:--

"For long the idea has been firmly rooted in the consciousness of the Orthodox Russian world that a considerable part of the defects and [38/39] irregularities in the life of the Russian Church, has come from the repression within her of the canonical conciliar principle; at the same time universal trust was felt, that the Council, desired by all, would correct these defects and irregularities. The changed order of the State has now created new conditions in state and social life demanding agreement with them in the life of the Church. The hard circumstances of our land and Church, of late, have brought about various kinds of disorder and have hindered the regular establishment of ecclesiastical order in the new social conditions. All this creates the necessity for speedy, definite and authoritative reformation and regulating of Church life in the new conditions. The Holy Synod, as the higher ecclesiastical administration, has paid attention to the due reformation of some sides of Church order and life in agreement with urgent practical questions; and of late, chiefly with regard to diocesan and parish organization, it has paid greater regard to the elective principle than formerly. At the same time the Holy Synod has the conviction that only the Council by its collective wisdom, guided by the Spirit of God, and by its sacred authority could bring all to one mind and spirit and give to our Church life such order as would provide for all the faithful children of the Church the possibility of the free and fruitful exercise of their active powers. In agreement with the foregoing, the work of the Holy Synod has been directed in the first place, not so much towards the realization, as to the preparation, of measures for Church reform. At the present time the chief importance is given to the issuing of articles relating to the rightful position of the Church in the State. Then follow a series of propositions for ecclesiastical organization, higher, diocesan and parochial, administrative and legal, in which the antiquated forms have for long required to be changed into new ones corresponding to the conditions of contemporary life. Then follow further, some special questions of Russian Church life urgently demanding decision; such as those relating to:--the 'One-Believers,' the management of Church property, ecclesiastical educational establishments and church schools and monastic life. All these subjects and matters to be brought to the consideration of the Council were referred by the Holy Synod for preliminary consideration and revision on a scientific and practical basis by the intervention of the Pre-conciliar Conference and Council and Presence, which concluded their preparatory work under the new conditions of our State and Social order.

"The troublous times through which our Fatherland is passing can but call forth an echo from the Sacred Council. On all sides voices are heard crying out that our native land is perishing, that some delusion has possessed the minds of many who have forgotten the laws of God and man. The people are sharply divided into parties, and have lost unity. No reasonable call can now attract the necessary attention of the people. Only the voice of Mother-Church could recall the many to reason. Only the voice of Christ's all-conquering love could quench the kindled enmity and wrath; only the light of the divine day could disperse [39/40] the gloom enveloping the minds of many. Faith alone, founded on the principle of the self-denying service of God and man, could arrest the manifestation of coarse instincts, of all-embracing usurpation and unbridled destruction.

"The work of the recovery of the Russian Land, so needful at the present time, is possible only on a religious foundation.

"A mighty call is expected from the Council to the people, to turn to God, and the appointment of next Sunday or of the three next Sundays for special prayer to the Lord for the salvation of the Fatherland and the recovery of the strayed, that the Lord would send down the light of His truth upon the peoples of the earth, and driving away enmity and wrath, would pour grace into their hearts."

The Council lasted, with two short intervals, until September 20, 1918, the time for the next Council being fixed for the spring of 1921, full continued membership being reserved to the existing members, and the Patriarch being authorized to convoke the Council at any time before 1921, in its present composition, should circumstances demand it.

The Council was the subject of such long and fervent expectation that, naturally, some exaggerated demands were made of it; and not all were fully satisfied by the results; but on the whole it was quite satisfactorily judged and no protest was made.

The whole number of the members of the Council according to the list drawn up at the beginning, was 541, and at the end, 427.

There were 170 full sittings of the Council, and, apart from these, 23 Conciliar Departments worked at the preparation of reports to be presented, some part of the latter being left unexamined by the full Council.

The Conciliar decisions and decrees appeared in the Church journals in the order of their acceptance by the Council, and were then published in four issues of the "Collection of the decisions and decrees" of the Council. The Acts of the Council presenting an almost: stenographic report of the full sittings have been published, up to the present time, to the extent of two-thirds, and then the issue was stopped in view of the insurmountable difficulties in the way of typographic work. The work of the Council took the forth of issuing ecclesiastical decrees and conciliar epistles, and acts of a liturgical character.

The legislative work of the Council was chiefly devoted to the reorganization of the government of the Church and the establishment of the new order of Church life in accordance with its altered conditions, and in consequence of the changes which have taken place in state and social life. The chief acts of this kind are: the [40/41] re-establishment of the Patriarchate; changes in the character and composition of Higher Church administration; and the reorganization of the autonomy of the parish.

The re-established Patriarchate is surrounded with detailed regulations as to the rights and obligations of the Patriarch; the order of his election; and the guardian of the Patriarchal throne.

One of the chief tasks was to avoid the possibility of autocratic tendencies on the part of the Patriarch, and to preserve the conciliar principle. To this end, the chief power in the Church--legislative, administrative, legal, and controlling--is committed to the Sacred Council, which is to be convoked periodically; the Patriarch is placed as an equal among the Bishops, the ecclesiastical government he shares with the Sacred Synod and the Higher Church Council, and he appears as head, chiefly in a moral sense and in regard to authority. However, it is reserved to him, in case of disagreement with the decision of the Synod and the Council, to carry his own decision, accounting for the same to the Sacred Council alone.

The Higher Ecclesiastical Administration is organized by the Sacred Council out of two chambers of equal authority--the Sacred Synod and the Higher Church Council--both under the presidency of the Patriarch, and holding united sittings for important matters.

The members of the Council are elected for three years, and the members of the Synod consist of bishops, half of them elected, and the other half sitting in turn from the remaining number of the diocesan bishops.

The Synod consists of twelve bishops and takes cognizance of affairs of the hierarchy, the faith, divine service, and missions.

The Council consists of bishops (three members from among those composing the Synod), clergy (one regular and five secular priests), and laity (six members).

The parish statutes organize parochial life on the principle of more active participation on the part of the community, and give over the direction of parochial affairs from the hands of the clergy into those of the parish assembly and the parish council.

Moreover, diocesan administration is reformed by the admission to the Bishop's diocesan college (the diocesan council) of a lay element, and its organization on the elective principle.

The Church of the Ukraine, embracing ten south-western dioceses, has been granted autonomy. Special bishops are allowed for the "One-Believers," such bishops, however, to be dependent on the local diocesan bishops.

[42] Detailed regulations have been issued for the organization of home and foreign missions, of monastic houses and Religious.

General approval has been called forth by the laws promulgated by the Council, as to inviting women to active participation in various departments of the service of the Church; and as to Causes for Dissolving the Marriage Union. The latter law admits new causes for dissolving marriage, besides those in force hitherto, while striving to prevent the unreality practised up till now, in the setting forth of such causes, and to further the discovery by the court of the actual truth. The law stands firm on the principle that the conjugal union of man and wife, hallowed and strengthened in the sacrament of marriage by the means of grace, should be indissoluble for all Christian spouses; they all, accepting their lot in life with submission to the will of God, should to the end of their days share the joys and sorrows of wedded life, striving to fulfil the words of the Lord and Saviour: "What God hath joined together let not man put asunder." Holy Church admits the dissolution of the marriage union only in condescension to human weakness, in care for the salvation of men, in prevention of unavoidable crimes and in alleviation of unbearable suffering--under the conditions of the preliminary actual nullity of a union contracted, or the impossibility of its realization. A marriage union consecrated by the Church can be dissolved only on the decision of the ecclesiastical court--following the appeal of the spouses themselves, for definite cause. Properly proved causes for the dissolution of marriage, as well as those formerly admitted (adultery, pre-nuptial impotency, unaccountable absence, sentence to exile) are declared to be: renunciation of orthodoxy, unnatural vices, the contraction of leprosy or syphilis, attempt on the life or injury to the health of spouse or children, drawing advantage from the dissoluteness of the spouse, incurable insanity, and intentional desertion.

Part of the ecclesiastical laws accepted by the Council, as, e.g. the rightful position of the Orthodox Church in the Russian State, of Church property and economy, of religious instruction, of Church schools and others, have not yet been brought within the sphere of practical application in consequence of the political and social revolution.

The Epistles, or "Pastoral Letters," issued by the Council and the Patriarch were called forth by events contemporary with the Council, and exhorted the people to return to the commandments of Christ's Faith and to peaceful life; one Epistle exhorted to general repentance, and one was addressed especially to Missionaries.

[43] The Council ordered the chanting of a special prayer for the salvation of the Russian State, and a special prayer of repentance (during the Liturgy). Every decree of the Council on being accepted in its final form was submitted to the Conciliar Episcopal Conference--consisting of all the Bishops members of the Council under the presidency of the Patriarch for approval, in regard to its agreement with the Word of God, and the decrees, canons, and traditions of the Church.

After subscription by the appointed number of Bishops it was promulgated in the form of a conciliar decision. The Conciliar Episcopal Conference, moreover, formed from among its members the Episcopal Council, which decided on questions of the canonization of saints, and on various matters relating to, divine service; and gave judgment on affairs relating to Bishops.

Two prelates were canonized: Sophronius, Bishop of Irkutsk, deceased March 30, 1771, known for his ascetic life and his missionary activity; and Joseph, Metropolitan of Astrakhan, who died a martyr's death in May 1671, at 75 years of age, during a popular disturbance. According to the opinion of contemporaries, he shone as a bright star in the service of humanity: consoling in sorrow, helping in distress, teaching in almost inaccessible places, giving great care and attention in all needful matters. After being tortured by fire, he was thrown from a high tower.

The Episcopal Council appointed the festival of All Russian Saints on the first Sunday of St. Peter's Fast.

The Archbishop of Penza, Vladimir (Putiata), was degraded and excommunicated.

The Council was not in contact with the Bolshevik Government, and only chose a special delegation in case of necessary communications on particular affairs.

One of the Departments of the Council, the 23rd, under the presidency of the Archbishop of North America, Eudokim, was occupied in working out the question of the Union of the Christian Churches, and after its report, made during the last sitting of the Council, on September 20, 1918, the following resolution was accepted:--

"The Sacred Council of the Orthodox Russian Church, gladly seeing the sincere efforts of the Old Catholics and Anglicans towards union with the Orthodox Church on the foundation of the doctrine and tradition of the Ancient Catholic Church, bestows its benediction on the labours and efforts of those who are seeking the way towards union with the above-named friendly Churches. The Council authorizes the Sacred [43/44] Synod to organize a Permanent Commission with departments in Russia and abroad for the further study of Old Catholic and Anglican difficulties in the way of union, and for the furtherance as much as possible of the speedy attainment of the final aim."

For the sake of the more detailed acquaintance with the work of the Council, there are given Lists: (a) of the ecclesiastical laws passed by the Council, and (b) of the work of the departments.

(a) List of the Decrees and Resolutions of the Council, with Indications as to the Issue of the "Collection" in which each of the enumerated Ecclesiastical Regulations is printed.

1. Of the general regulation of the supreme administration of the Orthodox Russian Church (that the supreme authority of the Orthodox Russian Church--legislative, administrative, legal, and controlling belongs to the Council, and that the Patriarchate is restored) (4 Articles), I, i.

2. Of the rights and obligations of the Holy Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (13 articles), i, ii.

3. Of the order of the election of the Holy Patriarch (21 articles), 4, i.

4. Of the Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne (8 articles), 4, iv.

5. Of the Sacred Synod and the Higher Church Council, their composition and organization (26 articles), i, iii.

6. Of the various matters coming under the jurisdiction of the Higher Church Administration (the Sacred Synod and the Higher Church Council), i, iv.

7. Of the Salaries of the Members of the Sacred Synod and of the Higher Church Council (8 articles), 3, xii.

8. Of the Statutes and Constitutions of the Higher Church Administration (6 articles), 4, xxiii.

9. Of convoking the next succeeding Council and of the powers of the members of the Sacred Synod and of the Higher Church Council (2 articles), 4, xxvi.

10. Of the powers of the members of the Sacred Council of 1917-1918 (3 articles), 4, xvii.

11. Of the draft of the statute of the temporary Higher Administration of the Orthodox Church in the Ukraine (8 articles), 4, xviii.

12. Of ecclesiastical districts, 4, xx.

13. Of diocesan administration: ch. I, of the diocese, its organization and institutions; ch. 2, of the diocesan Bishops; ch. 3, of the diocesan Assemblies; ch. 4, of diocesan Conferences; ch. 5, of Archdeaconries (lit. "circuits of good order") (85 articles), 1, v.

14. Of the constitution of new dioceses and vicariates (7 articles), 4, iii.

15. Of Vicar-Bishops (6 articles), 3, ii.

16. Of District Assemblies (4 articles), 4, iii,

[45] 17. Of the organization of the Warsaw diocese within the boundaries of the former kingdom of Poland (5 articles), 4, xiii.

18. Of alterations in articles 8o and 83 of the Conciliar decisions as to diocesan administration, 4, xxi.

19. Of the Orthodox Parish (Introduction with supplements): I. of divine services, II. of dedication festivals, and III, of house-visiting. Parish statutes: ch. 1, general regulations; ch. 2, of the parish church; ch. 3, of the clergy; ch. 4, of the parishioners; ch. 5, of the administration of parish affairs; ch. 6, of parochial meetings; ch. 7, of the parish council; ch. 8, of parochial institutions; ch. 9, of the instruction of the people; ch. 10, of church and parish property; ch. 11, of cathedral or chief churches; ch. 12, of united parishes (all together 177 articles), 3, i.

20. Of home and foreign missions (46 articles), 3, iv.

21. Of church preaching (10 articles), 2, iii.

22. Of Monasteries and Religious (Fundamental article on the general regulation): ch. 1, the brethren of the community; ch. 2, the officials of the community; ch. 3, the monastic council; ch. 4, the interior order of the monastic life; ch. 5, monastic life and discipline; ch. 6, monastic property and economy; ch. 7, educational institutions for Religious; ch. 8, the missionary and instructional work of monasteries; ch. 9, the charitable work of monasteries; ch. 10, monastic direction; ch. 11, the Diocesan Monastic Assembly; ch. 12, the attendance of Religious at the Diocesan Assembly of clergy and laity; ch. 13, the All-Russian Monastic Congress; ch. 14, the learned Religious; ch. 15, the Monastic All-Russian Church-instructional Guild (altogether 97 articles), 4, xv.

23. Of the Superior and the educational work of the Laura of the Holy Trinity and S. Alexander Nevsky (2 articles), 2, viii.

24. Of the "One Faith" [the body of the "One Believers"]--its organization and direction (19 articles), 2, i.

25. Of inviting women to active participation in various spheres of Church work (2 articles), 4, xix.

26. Of the direction of ecclesiastical educational establishments and Church parish schools, and the organization of religious instruction for the pupils of secular educational establishments (2 articles), 4, xxii.

27. Of the restoration of a Festival in commemoration of All-Russian Saints (4 articles), 4, vii.

28. Of the order of the celebration of Saints for local veneration (15 articles), 4, ix.

29 Of the elevation to the priesthood of persons in an unmarried state, 4, i.

30. Of the second marriage of priests (3 articles), 4, ii.

3r. Of the possibility of restoring to the priesthood persons legally deprived (4 articles), 4, vi.

32. Of causes for the dissolution of the marriage union consecrated by the Church (22 articles), 3, xi.

33. Of additions to the Conciliar decrees as to causes for the dissolution of the marriage union consecrated by the Church (3 articles), 4, viii.

[46] 34. On the subject of decrees as to the dissolution of marriage and of civil marriage, 2, vii.

35. Of the formation of a General Church Fund and of securing provision for the teachers and workers in ecclesiastical educational establishments from September 14, 1918, 2, X.

36. Of collecting for the General Church Fund with petitions and documents, 4, xi.

37. Of collection in Church--"Church mites" (3 articles), 4, xiv.

38. Of financial economic Church institutions, 4, xii.

39. Of the distribution of local means for the support of the parish clergy (9 articles), 2, ix.

40. Of measures called forth by the present persecution of the Orthodox Church (17 articles), 3, ix.

41. Of measures for the suppression of disorders in Church life (12 articles), 3, x.

42. Of the protection of sacred objects from being blasphemously seized and dishonoured (11 articles), 4, xvi.

Besides the above-named, the Sacred Council issued some decrees which, by reason of the changes in state and social life, or in consequence of these changes, were not directly applicable, and remain authoritative and operative only as the expression of the conciliar opinion. These are:

43. Of the lawful position of the Orthodox Russian Church (the fundamental position which should, in the opinion of the Sacred Council, be taken in the State in order to secure the freedom and independence of the Orthodox Church in Russia) (25 articles), 2, ii.

44. Of ecclesiastical property and economy (the fundamental statute) (11 articles), 4, X.

45. Of religious instruction in schools (5 articles), 2, iv.

46. Of Church schools, 2, v.

47. Concerning the governmental draft as to Church parish schools, 2, vi.

48. Of the fundamental principles for the reform and introduction of new scales of remuneration in the Orthodox Ecclesiastical Academies (5 articles), 3, vi.

49. Of Ecclesiastical Seminaries and Schools, and of Pastoral Schools (4 articles), 3, vii.

50. Of Girls' Diocesan Schools and of those under the Ecclesiastical Department (4 articles), 3, viii.

(51.) One legislative measure: "Of collections with Church documents," 3, xii., was superseded by a later conciliar decision of a more detailed character (36).

(52.) And one, "Of appointing a special collection for covering the expenses of the Council," 2, xi., referred only to the year 1918.

[47] (b) Lists of the Departments of the Council.

I. Of Statutes: Was occupied in working out questions arising in the Council regarding the application of conciliar regulations or statutes to circumstances unforeseen by them: about an increase in the number of members of the Conciliar Council and Departments, and about the loss of their powers by the members in consequence of not attending the sittings. The reports on these points were in their turn examined by the Council. The report as to the carrying out by the Council of the higher control of ecclesiastical institutions, which was provided for by statute without indication as to the means of its realization, remained unexamined.

2. Of the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration: Worked out all questions decided by conciliar decree as to the reorganization of the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration (cf. List r, 6, 9, II, 12, 14), and prepared a report not examined by the Council, on the Councils of the Orthodox Russian Church and their composition.

3. Of Diocesan Administration: Presented a report for the decision of the Council as to the reorganization of diocesan government and various new organizations in this province (13, 15, 18, 1o), and also on questions arising in the Council, as to the possibility of change in some articles of the decisions of the Council, already issued. Three reports of the Department, with Instructions to Vicar-Bishops as to the management of Diocesan Conferences and as to the inclusion in the diocese of Baku, of the Daghestan and Trans-Caspian provinces and the Russian settlements in Persia, were handed over to be dealt with by the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration; and the first two, with some alterations, have come into force.

4. Of the Ecclesiastical Tribunal: On its report, three conciliar decisions have been issued--Two, on the dissolution of marriage consecrated by the Church, and one, as to the possibility of the restitution to the priesthood of persons condemned to deprivation (31­33); the decree of the Council as to the organization of the ecclesiastical court was not accepted by the Episcopal Conference, and finally, criminal and divorce affairs were handed over to the new organ of ecclesiastical government until the new organization of the ecclesiastical court.

The Department also prepared Reports: the statute of ecclesiastical punishments; the statute of the organization of ecclesiastical legal institutions; of the general principles of the statute for ecclesiastical legal procedure and the general principles of the procedure of affairs regarding the dissolution of marriages consecrated by the Church, and the recognition of their invalidity.

5. Of Parish Organizations: The Parochial Statute was drawn up by the Department (19), and instructions for the clergy, which were confirmed by authority of the Council, by the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration.

[48] 6. Of the Lawful Position of the Church in the State: Gave a report which was of service for the conciliar decision on this subject (43).

7. Of Divine Service, Preaching, and Churches: Carried four of its reports through the Council: those on preaching in church; on the restoration of the celebration of a day of commemoration of All-Russian Saints; of the order for celebrating Saints for local veneration (21, 27, 28); and of Alleluia in the service of penitence. Two through the Episcopal Conference: of the Canonization of the prelates Sophronius of Irkutsk and Joseph of Astrakhan; two through the Higher Church Administration: of a committee of care for Russian iconography and of the issuing of an Orthodox Church Kalendar in as good a form as possible; and it left for examination by the Higher Church Administration a report on the language of the Church services, on the regulating of the Church services and of Church singing, on the alteration of the reading of the Gospel at Vespers on Great (Good) Friday and of alterations in the order of the service of prayer for the New Year; of the order for the burial of deacons; of prayers sung in various needs and circumstances; of the order of offering up of petitions for the Russian State and its army; of the commemoration in the divine service of the Eastern Patriarchs; of the retention of the old style (Kalendar) for ecclesiastical reckoning; of the issuing of an accurate kalendar containing the names of all the Russian Saints; of complete and shortened books of prayer; of the Patriarchal chamber of ecclesiastical art and antiquities.

8. Of Church Discipline: Of drawing women into active participation in various spheres of the service of the Church; of the infeasibility of the second marriage of sacred ministers and of admission to the priesthood in an unmarried state of men under forty years of age without entering Religion, were accepted by the Council (25, 29, 30); those relating to the permission for sacred ministers to wear secular dress and cut short their hair -were rejected by the Episcopal Conference, and those referring to fasts, to the right of women to enter the Sanctuary, and to the restoration of the order of deaconesses, were referred for revision to the Higher Church Administration.

9. Of Foreign and Home Missions: Prepared in three reports material for the decision of the Council on Home and Foreign Missions (20); presented a report on the statutes of the Orthodox Missionary Society, on the Missionary Institute and the middle educational missionary establishments; on the missions in North America, Jerusalem, and Corea, on the organization of the Orthodox Church in Finland, on the representatives of the Patriarch of All Russia to the heads of the autocephalous Orthodox churches; on the rightful and material positions of workers in missions; on missionary collections.

10. Of the "One Faith" (i.e. those united to orthodoxy from among the Old Believers) and of the Old Believers. The statute regarding the "One Faith" was prepared and accepted by the Council (24).

11. Monasteries and Religious: Besides two reports on Monasteries and Religious and on the Superior and the cultural activity of the [48/49] Alexander-Nevsky Laura, which were passed by the Council (22, 23), the Department was occupied by questions called forth by the present attitude of the secular power towards Monasteries.

12. Of Ecclesiastical Academies: Presented the fundamental principle of the reorganization and staff of the Ecclesiastical Academies, which was accepted by the Council (48), and also the statute of the Academies and the conclusion on the draft of the Monastic Academies.

13. Of Ecclesiastical Educational Establishments: Presented three different reports, answering to the changed conditions of Church life; as to the character and direction of ecclesiastical-educational establishments and Pastoral Schools, and also a report on the Diocesan Girls' Schools and on the question of the remuneration of the staff for instruction and education of the ecclesiastical-educational establishments.

14. Of Church Parish Schools: Two reports of the Department were called forth by the law of the former Temporary Government as to the transference of the Church parish schools to the Ministry of Public Instruction, and served as material for the two decrees of the Council (46 and 47); and one report served for the 9th chapter of the Parish Statutes--that on the instruction of the population (19).

15. Of Religious Instruction: Presented three reports to the Council, of which one, on the obligation of religious instruction in educational establishments, served for a decision of the Council (45)--another, on the character of religious instruction in schools, was returned to the Department for detailed revision; and the third, on the instruction of the people outside of the church services and the schools, was in part accepted by the Council, and in part returned for the supplementary working out of some questions, which was done by the Department before the end of the Council.

16. Of Church Property and Economy: Presented a report on the fundamental regulations as to church property and economy; of the formation of a general church fund and collections for it with petitions and documents, and a special collection in church; and of providing for the teachers in ecclesiastical educational establishments, were accepted by the Council (44, 35, and 36); of a general plan of ecclesiastical economy and the organization of the financial balance; of financial economical ecclesiastical establishments, mutual ecclesiastical insurance, All-Russian Church co-operative societies, All-Russian parish union of credit, the central taper committee, were referred by the Council to be dealt with by the Higher Church Administration.

Reports were also presented by the Department on various measures of the Council of an economical character, partly carried out and partly prepared for execution; of the order of the delivery of church sums from the diocese; of the formation in connection with the Department of a financial statistical committee of information; of the organization of a special revisional commission for the administration of church property by the new organs of church government. One report was drawn up on account of the former bill for the requisition of church lands.

[50] 17. Of the Legal and Material Position of the Clergy: Two reports on the distribution of local means of support for the clergy were examined by the Council, and decision was given (39), and two reports as to material provision for the Orthodox Clergy and as to the legal position of the clergy and their cultural qualifications remained unexamined; the report on the provision made for Diocesan and Vicar Bishops, which was handed on by the Council for decision by the Higher Church Administration, was accepted.

18. Of the Organization of the Orthodox Church in the Trans-Caucasus in connection with the Declaration of the Georgians that their Church is Autocephalous: Presented reports as to the declaration by the Georgians that their Church is autocephalous; of the delegation of two members of the Council to the Trans-Caucasus as a special commission on church affairs; and of the organization of Orthodox Churches in the Trans-Caucasus and the Caucasus. The last-named report was passed on by the Council for decision by the Higher Church Administration.

19. Publishing: Two reports on the means and manner of acquainting the Orthodox population with the work of the Council, and two on the methods of spreading the messages of the Patriarch and the Council; besides a report with the statute of the ecclesiastical Publishing Council.

20. Of the Personal Composition: Was occupied in verifying the competency of the members of the Council.

21. Editorial: Determined and expressed the final form of the decisions of the Council, after which the Council decided on the acceptance of the decision in its entirety.

22. Biblical: Prepared a report with the fundamental statutes of the Biblical Council of the Higher Church Administration.

23. Of the Union of the Churches: Presented a proposition for the formation in the Sacred Synod of a Special Commission for all possible effort towards the speedy attainment of the Unity of the Churches. Besides the reports presented by the Department there were presented others prepared in united sessions of two or more Departments; two reports on the staff and maintenance of the members of the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration which were accepted by the Council (9 and 1o), and reports on the Patriarchal Administration and the chancelleries of the Higher Church Administration, which were referred for decisions to the Higher Church Administration (Departments 2 and 16), of the prolongation of the powers of the members of the Council (Departments 1 and 2), of the organization of the Warsaw Diocese (Departments 2 and 3), of the adaptation of the new Kalendar to Church life (Departments 7 and 6), of the management of ecclesiastical educational establishments and church parish schools, and of the organization of religious instruction for the pupils in secular educational establishments (Departments 13, 14, 15, and 19).

For the preparation of questions requiring speedy decision by the Council, Special Commissions were formed of the members acting in a manner similar to that of the Departments. On the reports of the [50/51] commissions, conciliar decisions were given; in regard to Governmental decrees on the dissolution of marriage, and on civil marriages; on measures called forth by the persecution of the Orthodox Church, and on measures for the correction of irregularities in Church life; on the protection of sacred objects from sacrilegious seizure and insult (30, 40, 42). The commission also worked on the preparation of drafts of the messages of the Council.

The control of economic affairs was confided to the Economical Managing Conference of the Conciliar Council.

There were also formed in connection with the latter, The Conference of Religious-Enlightenment, and the Juridical Conference.

Special Delegations were chosen for Negotiations with the Government, The last of these has been retained in connection with the Higher Church Administration after the conclusion of the sittings of the Council. The executive organ was the Conciliar Chancellery formed chiefly of the staff of the Chancellery of the Holy Synod and other Synodal institutions and also of the masters of the Moscow Ecclesiastical Seminary.

The Acts of the Sacred Council and the Collection of decrees and decisions are published by the Council for general use.

THE HOLY GOVERNING SYNOD.

The Holy Synod, at the beginning of the period of the four years under review, had no reason to expect the approach of any serious change in its position.

After a short period of expectation of reforms in the Higher Church Administration in 1906, and that not exclusively in the sense of the definite re-establishment of the Patriarchate, a firm conviction was re-established as to the security of the position of the Holy Synod.

The possibility of the early restoration of the Patriarchate vanished. In 1913, the Holy Synod--following the example of the Senate, which solemnly celebrated its two hundred years of existence--prepared a programme for the commemoration of the approaching tooth anniversary (in 1921) of its establishment, chiefly of a literary and scientific character. It was proposed to issue, in accordance with the full programme (prepared by the author of the present article), 23 monographs, giving altogether a full scientific account of the activity and life of the Russian Church of the Synodal period, in all its departments: administration; culture; divine service; the spread of the faith; inner Church life; mutual relations with other Churches; the development of canonical principles with the definition of the scope of canonical conception in Russian Church life.

[52] It was obvious from even a cursory view of the programme that, in all these departments, Russian Church life had made very considerable progress during the Synodal period.

The fall of the Imperial power did not in any way actually influence the Holy Synod, except in the way of increased activity, which in turn was called forth by the rise of social movements.

On August 5, 1917, the office of Ober-Procurator of the Holy Synod was abolished--that "eye and ear of the Sovereign," the organ of the Imperial power in Church Administration which had been established on May 11, 1722; and the Ministry of Religion was established, with an Assistant Minister for the affairs of the Orthodox Confession, the last Ober-Procurator, Anthony Michaelovich Kartashev, remaining as Minister of Religion.

The establishment of the Ministry of Religion did not materially affect the affairs of the Higher Ecclesiastical Administration in consequence of the attention of the Powers of the State being occupied by pressing affairs of a purely political nature on the one hand, and on the other on account of the approaching Council and the expected Church reforms.

On opening the Council, the Holy Synod appointed the offering up of special prayers for the Council at divine service, and itself took up the position of the executive organ of the Council and, while existing side by side with it, avoided giving the slightest occasion for conflict.

After the elevation of the Patriarch, the Holy Synod admitted him to its staff and he accepted the Presidency of the Synod, and then when the statute regarding the new organ of the Higher Church Administration was confirmed by the Council, and the members of these organs were chosen, the Holy Synod acknowledged its authority at an end, on February 14, 1918, and gave over all its affairs to the Holy Patriarch, the Sacred Synod, and the Higher Church Council. The Holy Synod had existed for two centuries (less three years) since its establishment on February 14, 1721.

THE HOLY PATRIARCH TIKHON.

The Patriarch Tikhon, who comes of a clerical family of the diocese of Pskov, was born in the year 1864. On finishing his higher Theological studies in the Ecclesiastical Academy of St. Petersburg in 1888, he became Professor of Theology in the Seminary of Pskov. In 1891 he entered Religion, and on December 22 [52/53] was ordained to the priesthood, and then continued his educational and clerical service as Inspector of the Holm Seminary.

On October 19, 1897, he was consecrated Bishop of Lublin, a Vicariate of the diocese of Warsaw. From 1898 to 1907 he served as Bishop in America, and later in Yaroslavl, Vilna, and finally, from June, 1917, in Moscow. From 1905 he bore the title of Archbishop, and from 1917, that of Metropolitan. He everywhere inspired unchanging affection.

It may be mentioned, as an indication of coming events, that in the Academy, where he acted as Students' Librarian, he was given the nickname of "Patriarch." On his translation from Yaroslavl to Vilna, he was elected honorary citizen of the former city.

While Archbishop of Lithuania (in Vilna) he was awarded military decorations at the front during the war.

After living about a year in Moscow, in consequence of the evacuation of Vilna, he had so won the sympathy of Moscow ecclesiastical circles, that he was elected Metropolitan of Moscow by the Diocesan Church Council.

The selection of three candidates for the Patriarchate took place on October 31, 1917, while all Moscow still echoed with the firing which had accompanied the passing of power into the hands of the Bolsheviks. On November 5, 1917, during Divine Service in the Church of Christ the Saviour (owing to the impossibility of entering the Cathedral of the "Falling Asleep" in the Kremlin), there took place the choosing, by the casting of lots, of the Metropolitan Tikhon as Patriarch, out of the three candidates elected by the Council, and on November 21 his enthronization followed in the great Cathedral of the "Falling Asleep." By that time the Cathedral, as well as the whole Kremlin, was more or less cleared from the traces of injury by the firing which took place at the end of October.

From the first days of his Patriarchate, his Holiness Tikhon addressed the Orthodox Russian people by Pastorals in which he displayed zeal for the triumph of the Faith and the Glory of the Church, as well as courage in the present circumstances.

THE EPISCOPATE.

The tendency to increase the number of Episcopal Sees has been noticed. But as for the establishment of new dioceses there were not sufficient available means for the support of administrative, legal diocesan institutions. Instead, therefore, of founding independent dioceses, it was decided to open semi-independent vicariates with [53/54] the rights in general of independent dioceses but without consistories, and therefore with the necessity of carrying the more important administrative and legal matters through the diocesan consistory, In 1916 special instructions were issued for such Vicar-Bishops.

In 1918 four new dioceses were founded. At the end of 1918 there were 70 dioceses and 88 Vicariates, and, moreover, two Bishops in foreign Church Missions (in Japan and America) and 26 in retirement. On the eve of the opening of the Council, on August 14, 1917, the newly-elected Archbishops of Petrograd and Moscow, the Most Reverends Benjamin and Tikhon (subsequently Patriarch), and the Exarch of the Caucasus, Plato, received the title of Metropolitans. Shortly after his enthronization, the Patriarch bestowed the title of Metropolitan on five Archbishops distinguished for the length and value of their services: the Most Reverends Arsenius of Novgorod; Anthony of Harkov (later of Kiev); Sergius of Vladimir (formerly of Finland); Agathangel of Yaroslavl; and James of Kazan. Two Bishops were deprived of their office: Nicon (Bezsonov) of Yeniseisk in 1917, Vladimir (Putiata) of Penza in 1918. Both were convicted of breach of discipline,

Of deceased prelates the best-known names were those of Flavian (Gorodetsky), Metropolitan of Kiev, who bequeathed to the Kiev-Pechersk Laura a valuable library, for which he built a separate two-storied edifice specially adapted; and to the Holy Synod a rich collection of photographs of almost all the Bishops from the time of its institution.

Also Anastasius (Alexandrov), Bishop of Yamburg, rector of the Petrograd Ecclesiastical Academy, a learned Slavist who entered Religion in advanced life, and was formerly a professor in the University of Kasan.

During the revolution many Bishops and priests were put to death, mostly by being shot. This martyrology begins with the names of Vladimir (Bogoyavlensky), Metropolitan of Kiev (formerly of Moscow), who was killed on January 25, 1918.

Among others slain was Hermogen (Dolganev), Bishop of Tobolsk (formerly of Saratov), known for his great zeal for the Faith and opposition to Rasputin, in consequence of which he was deprived of his see in 1912, and was in retirement for five years.

In 1917, Georgia, with three dioceses, fell away from the Russian Orthodox Church, declaring itself autocephalous, and at the end of the year the same tendency was evident in the Ukraine, in Kiev; but the Kiev-Ukraine Council, which was opened on January 7, 1918, and held three sessions with interludes during the year, remained [54/55] within canonical bounds, and accepted the autonomy granted it by the All-Russian Council.

STEPHEN RUNKÉVICH,

Doctor of Ecclesiastical History, Member of the Sacred Council, and President of the Editorial Department of the Council.

POSTSCRIPT.

A very interesting and pathetic detail in reference to the Russian sufferings has most kindly been contributed by Madame Olga Novikoff. It concerns the heroic death of the Grand Duke Nicolas Michailovich.

When he was told that he was to be shot by the soldiers, he said, "Very well; here I am; shoot me at once." The Russian soldiers dropped their rifles, exclaiming, "No, we cannot do that." The Grand Duke repeated his words, but the soldiers persisted in their refusal; then a member of the Soviet went behind the Grand Duke, and shot him in the head.

St. Sophia Redemption Committee, 1919.

Among the other works initiated by the Association during the war for the help of our Eastern brethren, a committee was formed for the purpose of arousing the English Church and people to a sense of the necessity of liberating from the age-long oppression of the Turk all Eastern Christians, if the Divine Will were to be accomplished as a result of the war; and to the duty of freeing and restoring to Christian worship the great Cathedral of St. Sophia in Constantinople, whose desecration is a symbol of the degradation of Christianity at Moslem hands.

The committee was representative of the Church and various denominations, with the Revs. H. J. Fynes-Clinton, J. A. Douglas, and F. B. Meyer as Secretaries, and first Lord Bryce, and afterwards Mr. Athelstan Riley, as Chairman.

The following important memorial was sent to the Prime Minister:--

"We address ourselves with some confidence to His Majesty's Government on the subject of the future of the great Church of St. Sophia. That building, from its antiquity, its structure, which marks the greatest advance ever made at one bound in architecture, its wonderful beauty, and its extraordinary history, is in some respects the greatest church in Christendom. For nine hundred years it had been the chief shrine of Christian worship in the East Roman world when Constantinople fell, and the Ottoman Emperor transformed it into a mosque as the symbol of Turkish sovereignty over Eastern Christendom. That sovereignty, by general consent, has gone for ever. The misrule and oppression of centuries have culminated during the great war in massacres of the Christian races so terrible that the conscience of Europe and America has been appalled, and is now aroused to the fact that the Turk, as the wielder of 'the sword of Islam' is a survival of barbarism which cannot any longer be tolerated. Even the Mohammedan world has separated itself from Ottoman cruelty and treachery, and the Sherif of Mecca has himself raised his standard against the Sultan. We urge that whilst the Suleimaniyeh and other great imperial mosques of Constantinople should remain in the hands of Islam, justice requires that the Christians of that city, who form the large majority of its inhabitants, should have their priceless building restored to them. It has no special sacredness for Moslems. Their shrine of pilgrimage lies outside the city. Nor is Constantinople to them a holy city like Mecca, Medina, Jerusalem, and Damascus. Its value in their eyes is purely political.

"Finally, we submit that the claims of art should not be set aside. The great church is now in a serious condition, urgently needing structural repairs, and must inevitably collapse if it is not placed in [56/57] capable hands. The glorious mosaics, a precious heritage amongst the artistic treasures of the world, should be uncovered from the defacement which is necessarily imposed so long as the building, constructed and decorated for one faith, is alienated and devoted to another.

ALDENHAM, JOHN B. ARMAGH, ARGYLL, BALFOUR OF BURLEIGH, RONALD M. BURROWS, J. B. BURY, BRYCE, RANDALL CANTUAR, COSMO EBOR, HUGH CECIL, G. K. CHESTERTON, MARTIN CONWAY, JAMES COOPER, CREWE, JOHN DUBLIN, ARTHUR EVANS, P. T. FORSYTH, G. R. LANE-FOX, ALFRED PEARCE GOULD, A. C. HEADLAM, W. JOYNSON-HICKS, SAMUEL HOARE, R. F. HORTON, THOMAS GRAHAM JACKSON, F. G. KENYON, KINNAIRD, JOSEPH LARMOR, J. SCOTT LIDGETT, A. F. LONDIN, ARTHUR LIMPUS, HENRY S. LUNN, JAMES P. MAHAFFY, F. B. MEYER, GILBERT MURRAY, DONALD MCCLEAN, R. C. NORMAN, FRANCIS W. PEMBER, WM. FLINDERS-PETRIE, REAY, ATHELSTAN RILEY, W. SANDAY, W. B. SELBIE, SELBORNE, A. E. SHIPLEY, CECIL HARCOURT SMITH, FRANCIS B. STRONG, J. ST. LOE STRACHEY, H. WACE, C. C. WAKEFIELD, A. W. WARD, J. E. C. WELLDON, W. WHITLA, E. WINTON, WOLMER, EDWARD WOOD.

The country was flooded with literature, and meetings and services of intercession were held all over England, and other memorials and resolutions were constantly presented: co-operation was maintained with the Armenian, Syrian, and Greek Committees concerned. Finally, a public meeting was held in Trafalgar Square, addressed by speakers of various denominations.

It is a matter of unending regret and deep shame, that the Allies have failed to secure the entire liberation of Eastern Christendom, have left the Holy City of Constantinople, and second See of the Catholic Church, in thralldom to the foes of Christianity, and that England, with the opportunity in her hands of uplifting the Christian people of Palestine, has chosen instead to impose the Jewish yoke upon the Motherland of the Christian Faith. There can be no final peace in the present unjust and dishonourable settlement, and with the Armenian, and other Christians still exposed to massacre and persecution; and therefore we hope that our members will continue to pray for the final triumph of our cause, and await in patience another opportunity of united effort.

Among the literature printed and circulated on this subject, the following leaflets were issued, and are still available: "The Circular Letters," "A Catechism of Conscience," "The Turk and his Cattle," "A Paper of Prayers: for the Restoration of St. Sophia, for the Liberation of Eastern Christendom, and for the Suffering in Russia."

[58] The following memorial has reached us from our branch in America

To the President of the United States.

Sir,

At the Annual Meeting of the Anglican and Eastern Orthodox Churches Union, an organization composed of American Episcopalians, and of Russian, Greek, and Syrian members of the Orthodox Eastern Church, resident in the United States, the President and Secretary were directed to forward to you a Petition, urging you to make earnest representations to the German Government, the Ally of Turkey, with respect to the destruction, with many horrible accompaniments of cruelty, of hundreds of thousands of Armenian Christians. We would earnestly suggest that by a strong presentation of the deep concern of the American people, and of the prejudice that is produced in this country against Germany's cause by the absence of any known effort on her part to prevent the deliberate extermination of a Christian people by her Turkish Ally, the Imperial Government may be helped to put pressure on the Ottoman Government to give orders of an imperative character to its officials, to bring to an end this persecution and massacring.

We would further urge upon our National Authorities the earnest desire of the people of this country that by repeated protests to the Ottoman Government through our Ambassador at Washington, it may be made to feel that we are greatly roused by the injuries done to the Mission Schools conducted by American citizens in Turkey, to their scholars and teachers, and to the Armenian people whom we serve through them.

And particularly we would press upon our National Government, the privilege and duty of planning without delay, to transport in American war vessels or merchant ships such surviving Armenians as it may be possible to reach, to Christian countries where they may be protected and where their sufferings may be relieved by the Alms which the American people are eager to give.

For the Union,

(Signed) EDWARD MELVILLE PARKER, President, Bishop of New Hampshire. (Signed) ARTHUR LOWNDES, Secretary.

Conferences with the Eastern Churches.

A series of Conferences between Orthodox and Anglican theologians has taken place in the last few years, and the discussions and conclusions arrived at were not only of great interest, but of excellent promise for the future of our relations, and of an approach to intercommunion.

I. In America.

The first was held in America, in the General Seminary, New York, between the Most Rev. Meletios Metaxakis, Metropolitan of Athens; the Rev. Dr. Chrysoston Papadopoulos, Professor and Director of the Theological Seminary at Athens; a layman, M. Hamilcar Alivizatos, Professor of Canon Law; and on the other side the Bishops of Delaware, of Harrisburg, and Bishop Courtney, presiding over the English representatives; Dr. F. J. Hall, the Very Rev. H. Fosbroke, the Rev. R. Homans, and the Rev. W. C. Emhardt, Secretary of the Anglican and Eastern Association in America, and Mr. Gardiner, the Secretary of the Commission of the World Conference. The chair was taken by Dr. Headlam. At this Conference it was suggested by the Americans that the discussion should be chiefly upon practical matters of mutual recognition and administration of the Sacraments, but time forbade full treatment of all the matters that arose. The Metropolitan of Athens reminded the meeting that the Patriarch of Constantinople had in 1911 planned a Conference, but the Sultan forbade this meeting under penalty of death. Now such difficulties were removed there was every hope that we might be able to come to a close understanding.

THE POINTS AT ISSUE.

Father Chrysostom put the questions--Whether the Episcopal Church regards Holy Orders as a Sacrament, seeing that the view current among Greeks everywhere to-day is that Anglican Orders can be recognized without any doubt whatever as far as the heretical point is concerned--namely, that Archbishop Parker was regularly and canonically consecrated and had the right to ordain others; the second question was whether they recognized the infallibility of General Councils; the third question was what authority had the Articles of Religion had among the formularies of the Church? On the infallibility of Councils, the Metropolitan insisted that in order to be recognized as infallible they must represent the conscience of the [59/60] whole Church, both clergy and laity, and in this connection he pointed out that any agreement for reunion must receive the assent of the whole of each body concerned and express the unity of their consciousness. The Metropolitan expressed his approval of the forms used in the Ordination and Consecration Services. In the second session, Dr. Headlam taking the chair, the Filioque clause was discussed, and the Metropolitan pressed for its removal from our Creed, pointing out that it would be more easy for us to explain its omission to our better-educated people than for them to explain its annulance to their own, who had always been taught to object to it as a Western innovation. He suggested that a future Council might find a new clause which both would agree to accept.

In England.

Three Conferences were held in England, initiated by the Secretary of the Anglican and Eastern Association and by Dr. Headlam, Regius Professor at Oxford, a preliminary Conference taking place first, consisting of twenty-one Anglican theologians representative of various ways of thought to discuss the points such as the Filioque clause, the Eastern doctrine regarding the departed, the Seventh General Council, etc. It was agreed that what we were aiming at was not, at present at least, reunion in the sense of corporate solidarity based on the restoration of intercommunion. The general agreement was that there was no bar to intercommunion between the two Churches, and it was desirable that it should be permitted.

II.--At Oxford.

The Conference with the Rev. F. Cicerone Jordachesco, the Roumanian priest in Paris, and the Serbian Father V. Janic, was held on October 31st with ten Anglican representatives. The matters taken up were those postponed in America. Baptism.--The Easterns pointed out that Baptism by affusion was the usual practice in Serbia, and that there would be no difficulty in recognizing Anglican Baptism. The next question was whether the Easterns would recognize similarly our Confirmation, and it was agreed, after full discussion, that this question should be submitted to the authorities of the respective Churches as of immediate importance. Regarding Holy Orders, Father Jordachesco said that the chief question was whether Ordination was recognized by Anglicans as a Sacrament; if so, all follows; and he urged that our authorities should put forward the statement on the doctrine of Holy Orders.

THE SACRAMENTS.

With regard to mutual administration of Holy Communion, it was pointed out that among the Orthodox, except for those who were ill or infants, the preliminary requirements were Confession and Fasting from midnight, and the practice of an ecclesiastical Fast of at least three days. It seemed agreed that there was little to stand in the way of such mutual administration if an agreement were reached upon Confirmation and Orders. In Serbia already English Sisters and soldiers had been given Holy Communion when dying. A discussion followed upon Holy Matrimony, in which the Easterns held that doctrinally remarriage after divorce was allowable. In Roumania the Church admitted divorce for only one cause, but did not refuse remarriage of both parties in cases where there was civil divorce and approbation. By Serbian and Russian Canon Law, very many more causes were allowed for divorce. In these two countries also they thought that the Church would be quite ready to give Holy Communion to the dying. There was an official order in Serbia that burial should be given with full rites to Anglicans; and in Roumania a priest was obliged to give such burial to any who had expressed a desire for it. The general result of this Conference was that there seemed to be every hope that an agreement might soon be reached with regard to the mutual administration of the Sacrament,

III.--At Oxford.

BAPTISM.

The next Conference was that held with the Archbishop of Athens and the theologians in his suite at Oxford, about forty representatives of Anglicans being present, in which also a discussion took place upon mutual administration of Baptism and Confirmation. Father Chrysoston gave an account of the variation in the recognition of heretical or schismatic Baptism. Until the eighteenth century, regular Baptism of the non-Orthodox was recognized and not repeated; then the authorities of the Latin Church introduced confusion by their practice of rebaptizing Orthodox, and in cases even the dead. The Greek Church in self-defence then began to refuse recognition of heterodox Baptism; but now she was returning to the old practice, and would recognize such Baptism, especially Anglican. The doctrine of economy allowed the validity of Sacraments celebrated not according to the Orthodox form and Canons, so that the manner of celebration--for instance, of affusion--would [61/62] not be a difficulty. Father Callinicos, of Manchester, pointed out that he had several times, under the orders of the Patriarch Joachin III., refrained from rebaptizing Greek children who had been baptized by English priests, merely receiving them with the administration of Chrism. The Archbishop stated that where Baptism is administered to infants definitely for propagandist purposes and proselytism, he would not hesitate to declare it invalid and to require rebaptism. In answer to the practical question, he further stated that the Greek Church, if asked, would allow the Greek priests to baptize English children born in the East, who would be brought up as Anglicans.

CONFIRMATION.

With regard to Confirmation, the Orthodox stated that they envied the opportunity given by our late Confirmation for the moral preparation of the child, and wished to introduce something of the kind themselves; but that they could not understand or approve of the separation of Confirmation from Baptism. Asked whether they would recognize as valid our manner of Confirmation as a condition for receiving Holy Communion, and whether they would reconfirm with Chrism one who has been confirmed by an Anglican Bishop, the Metropolitan stated that the Church certainly could decide this favourably, but that to-day the Church must use Holy Chrism, as it is regarded as a seal of Orthodoxy. This did not, however, necessarily involve in their mind a repetition of the Sacrament, since an Orthodox who returns from heresy must receive again the Chrism on being received back into Communion.

IV.--At Westminster.

COUNCILS AND ICONS.

A Conference was held in the Jerusalem Chamber, Westminster, under the presidency of the Bishop of Winchester. The discussion was confined in a short morning session to the Seventh Oecumenical Council, time being left for the matter of relations of Church and State desired by the Metropolitan of Athens. On the Anglican side it was pointed out that there had not been that general and entirely clear acceptance which was necessary for the recognition of a Council truly Oecumenical, but that its decisions when examined would present no difficulty for our acceptance, and that full recognition would naturally come in reunion of the Churches. An interesting [62/63] and valuable discussion followed upon the use of icons. It was pointed out that the traditional objections felt by many against the use of images, was due largely to the wave of popular indignation in the sixteenth century against fraudulent and machine-worked miracles; secondly, that the English nature was far less demonstrative in modes of worship, but that none of our differences on this point touched documentary or even disciplinary principles. The Metropolitan stated that there was no insuperable difficulty on this subject, and that what he had seen in Anglican churches had reassured him as to our practice. The great picture over the Altar in Westminster Abbey had transported him to the heights of Zion. It was pointed out further that the decisions of the Seventh Council, as well as certain restrictions in England which were made by the Government rather than by the Church, were also meant to deal with the abuses in the use of images, so that their fundamental attitude was not different. Further criticism was made of the practice of ascribing particular virtue and power to certain icons. The Metropolitan replied that he had himself written strongly against this practice, and that the Holy Synod of Greece had issued directions against it. The Bishop of Winchester pointed out that our large experience in the Mission field led us to caution in using language which might compromise us in the ears of idolators. The Metropolitan: "I reply in the words of the Patriarch to the Isaurian--'Teach the people! Let this be our principle. Let us not abolish the icons, but the abuse of them: "

(A careful statement drawn up by Mr. Athelstan Riley on Icons was generally approved, and can be obtained from the S P.C.K.)

The presence in London of the Armenian Patriarch, the Archbishop of Trebizond and Archbishop Barsaum, was taken by the Secretary of the Eastern Churches Committee as an opportunity for arranging an unique Conference which, by the kindness of Dr. Ryle, the Dean of Westminster, was held in the Jerusalem Chamber under the presidency of Dr. C. Gore. At this Conference were representatives of the English, Armenian, Greek Orthodox, and Syrian National Churches, known to us usually as the Jacobite, as well as one of the Russian Church.

There were present some twenty English theologians, including most of the Eastern Church Committee. Since the main difference between these respective Churches is the question of the number of [63/64] the Oecumenical Councils, it was decided to discuss a point on which fundamental agreement should naturally be looked for, i.e. their respective teaching upon the position and authority of the Oecumenical Councils, leaving aside the question of their number, though unfortunately, one of our members raised this question. Upon the main question there was complete agreement amongst the Easterns. Amongst ourselves, the question of the number of the Councils is answered, of course, differently by those who believe, and those who do not believe, that provinces of the Church Catholic have a right, acting independently, to reject as Oecumenical, a council that the whole Church, East and West, including themselves, once held to be Oecumenical. The value of the Conference lies in the happiness that such an event took place between divers Communions in the historic Chamber of Jerusalem, of which the name speaks of "Peace."

The general outcome of these Conferences has been to increase the likelihood of fruitful Conferences of the same kind in the near future, and indeed the hope that in the mutual administration of the Sacraments and practical intercommunion a really important advance has been made during the last few years. Proposals are before us for instituting permanent Committees in Athens, Serbia, Roumania, and England for the purpose of carrying on these discussions. A Professorial Anglican Chair has been established in Athens University, and the Greeks ask us to do the same at Oxford. Secondly; it is hoped that a journal will be published for promoting mutual understanding, and, thirdly, that the plan for maintaining and educating Serbian theological students at Oxford may be extended to embrace those of the Greek and other Orthodox Churches.

Project Canterbury