Some Issues in regard to the Proposed Reunion of the Anglican and Russo-Greek Churches

We are all familiar with the saying which tells us with so much assurance that there is nothing really new, that things seemingly the newest are but fresh forms of older truths, ideas and questions, in a different dress perhaps, but animated by a world-old spirit. So this discussion of the possibilities of reunion between the Russo-Greek and Anglican churches has behind it the innumerable prayers for unity of the whole church and the increasing sense among all Christian people of the harmfulness of division, one expression of which is the collect, "For the Unity of God's People", added to the Prayer Book in the revision of 1892. But the question even in its present form is not a new one, for as long ago as 1862 the General Convention appointed a joint committee "to consider the expediency of opening communication with the Russo-Greek church and to collect authentic information bearing upon the subject", and reports were made in 1865 and 1868, the latter, which was "extended, hopeful, and very sympathetic," being signed by five bishops of the American church. The proposals then, like the

ones we are about to consider and which are, in their present form, only a few weeks old, were entirely academic. No immediate action is now expected or indeed wished for by those who have the cause of reunion most at heart, but a fair examination of the points at issue by the clergy and people of the churches involved is much to be desired before any further steps are taken towards a practical result. This consideration of a purely academic question is the very thing that it is difficult to get people, particularly Americans, to attend to, for as Matthew Arnold says, "The mass of mankind will always treat lightly even things the most venerable if they do not present themselves as visible before its eyes."

The academic nature of the proposals involved in the present question is shown by the fact that the advances on both sides were unofficial. Bishop Grafton on his late visit to Moscow bore no formal commission from the American church, and the expressions of the Russian ecclesiastics, while very friendly and energetic, were not made as final and authorized statements of the Russo-Greek church. It is reported, however, that a special commission, consisting of three members and a president to consider questions in regard to the union of the Russo-Greek and Anglican churches has been officially formed by the Holy Synod. This, if true, may lead to more definite action, but hardly in the near future.

Another fact that must keep the question of reunion for a long time entirely academic is the degree of difference between the position taken by the theologians in either Russia or America and that assumed by a majority of the people, who cannot be considered thoroughly educated along theological lines, however jealous they may be for what they hold as the belief of their church. A certain number of Christian people anywhere are ill-informed as to the true theological position of their religious body and the logical results which would follow from that position, and this difference between theologians and people is seen not less where the latter are educated and enlightened along other lines of thought than where they are superstitious and illiterate. Thus many popular Roman beliefs are neither authorized or defended by Roman Catholic theologians as, for instance, the worship sometimes paid to pictures or statues or to the persons of saints. This is contrary to the doctrine of the Roman Catholic church, which says that veneration in its highest

form or what is generally called "worship" can be paid to God alone but that honor is due to the saints and in a lesser degree to representatives of them and to things used in the service of the church. Again the idea often held by ignorant Roman Catholics that the repetition of certain prayers is of value apart from the spirit with which they are said is plainly contradicted in the teachings on the Mass which distinctly state that the disposition of the soul is the essential thing and "without these (right dispositions) all outward worship is unprofitable and vain." So in the Anglican church there is a great difference between the written theology of its ecclesiastics and much generally received by its people. Many calling themselves Anglicans do not accept the authority of the church, though the statement that the church possesses authority is made in the Articles, and the unique character of the priesthood as compared with Protestant clergymen is very often overlooked in spite of the teaching of the Anglican church concerning their sacred functions. With Protestant bodies the condition is much the same for almost anywhere it is possible to find people holding views distinctly opposed to those taught by the religious organization to which they belong. This is often seen to be the case with Calvinists, many of whom do not hold or seem to be acquainted with certain distinctively Calvinistic doctrines though they consider themselves members of that body. This difference between people and teaching makes any union on exclusively theological grounds extremely unwise, and a campaign of instruction leading to greater sympathy between the people in both Russia and America would have to go before and prepare the way for any practical action on the part of authorities in both churches.

The conditions which are, so far as can be seen now, favorable to ultimate unity between Anglicans and Greeks are the bonds of sympathy which draw them together as opposed to Romanists and Protestants and the actual points of likeness in doctrine which they possess. The Eastern branch of the Catholic church has, of course, unceasingly protested against the presumption of the Latins in the West in claiming supremacy over the whole church and the fact that there is in the West a branch of the church holding ancient tradition and belief, but objecting to the claim of supremacy by one part over the others, is in itself a powerful reason with the Greeks for wishing to reunite with

it. The desire for Catholic unity follows from this position since neither branch of the church desires to absorb or do away with the other, for though there is a strong pro-Roman party in Russia and a less vigorous one in the American church, the same sort of unity between one of these churches and Rome could not be effected, for the latter demands as a condition of unity complete submission and not merely friendly relations with equal rights. In the same way, the conception of the church as held by Anglicans and Greeks is a bond of sympathy between them, for in neither is the church believed to be a "body under one visible Representative of Christ to whom obedience is due, but the church is one spiritual organism embracing all Christ's members," united to their Lord by sacraments and preserved from schism by canon law. The East, never having been under the influence of feudalism, developed throughout its whole history a sense of apostolic equality between the national branches of the church, while the Anglicans made a protest against the assumption by one bishop of powers over his brethren in the episcopate and revived the equality of bishops in the West. The orthodox church does not ask that Anglicans submit to its customs or government, but it does ask whether they hold the same ancient faith. Bishop Grafton says in his paper on the reunion of Oriental and Anglican churches, "we may differ, must now differ in matters of discipline, ceremonial, ritual; but the essential matter is, do we profess the same scriptural and traditional faith with themselves?" This question the Easterns are eagerly waiting to have answered and the burden of proof rests with the American church because it, free from the political and historic complications which retard the action of the church of England, can examine into the reasons for and foundations of its faith and clear the situation of much that now causes grave misunderstanding and consequently scandal between the scattered branches of the Catholic church.

But among the doctrines which are held in common by the Russo-Greek and Anglican churches, those which they consider essential must be ones held also by the Roman church, for to be Catholic "they must be doctrines put forth or believed in as essential by the whole and undivided church, not by any one part Latin, or Eastern, or Anglican," thus the doctrines and practices in which two of the branches of the Catholic church differ from Rome are not essential, from the point of view of

belief, however important as matters of discipline or expediency. The most important of these differences is the question concerning the authority of ecumenical councils. The Greeks have always held that a council of the whole church was the only authority binding on all parts of it and that nothing could be considered as of faith which had not been decreed by such a council. This view is held by Anglicans and was so held by Latins before the separation of East and West, the modern belief among them being that the authority of the Pope, speaking ex cathedra, is equal to that of a council of the whole church. This pretension cannot, of course, be accepted by either Anglicans or Greeks as it would overthrow the principle of equality among the bishops of Christendom and would do away with the test, so long received, of universality, antiquity and consent, as applied to any doctrine or practice of the church. Another point in which Easterns and Anglicans differ from Rome is in giving the chalice to the laity, but this is not an essential matter, for the whole Body and Soul of Christ is believed to be present in the bread and wine separately, so that communion in either kind is a receiving of Him, though whether the Roman custom can be proved to be ancient or advantageous is a debatable question and it certainly departs from the practice of the undivided church. The marriage of the clergy, which is allowed to certain grades of those in holy orders in the East and to all grades of Anglican clergy, but prohibited by Rome, is a matter of discipline and rests on the idea of the sacredness of a priest's calling and the devotion demanded of him, but has no binding authority. So with the case of the language used in the liturgy, Easterns and Anglicans celebrate divine service in a tongue understood by the people in contrast to the general use of Latin by the Romanists, and since either method may be used as far as any ecumenical authority goes, the matter may be decided by each national branch except as greater unity in practice is desirable for the whole church. In common with Rome and the orthodox Greek church, Anglicans hold a belief in the Holy Scriptures as the inspired word of God to be interpreted by the church; in the apostolic succession of bishops and the threefold order of the ministry,-with the result that the latter have lawful administration of the sacraments; in the sacraments themselves as means of actual grace; and in the historic creeds. Anglicans, with the other branches