the contrary, their highest ambition is to be somehow recognized by that Church. They very piously attend her offices and liturgy, they are beside themselves with joy if they are allowed to stand inside the Ikonostasis, and they would give anything to receive a Sacrament. Naturally this tone is soothing to Eastern ears. Of course, also, these High Churchmen represent the Church of England as believing everything Orthodox—she has seven Sacraments, believes in the Metusiosis, if not in Transubstantiation, prays to Saints, honours the holy ikons, prays for the dead; they are generally willing to give up the Filioque.[1] The Easterns know quite well, of course, that all Anglicans do not think like this, but if what the Patriarch of Constantinople a year or two ago called "the Ritualist sect" ever becomes the whole Church of England, then, indeed, in faith there would be little to choose between Anglicans and Orthodox.
Meanwhile a great step has been taken: in September, 1899, the Patriarch (Constantine V), in answering an exceedingly friendly and courteous letter from the Archbishop of Canterbury, declared that he desired that a friendly and brotherly
- ↑ See the Bonn Conferences, 1874, Langdon, p. 12; 1875, Howson, p. 42; May, p. 66; Plunkett, p. 69, &c. See also G. F. Browne, (then) Bishop of Stepney: The Contintuty of the Holy Catholic Church in England (S.F.C.K. 1897), p. 7: "I regret that the Church of England was dragged into that addition (the Filioque) by its union with a Church from which we afterwards had to break." The last attempt to persuade the Orthodox that Anglicans agree with their faith was one whose good faith it would be difficult to defend. In September and October, 1903, Bishop Grafton of Fond du Lac (in the Protestant Episcopal Church of America) paid a visit to Russia. He left a document for the consideration of the Russian Holy Synod purporting to describe the faith and practice of his own communion. Of course he does everything possible to make it look Orthodox and he explains away the Articles in the usual Ritualistic manner, quoting St. Thomas Aquinas in support of Art. XXVIII! As a specimen of the way in which he represents things, he admits that Anglican bishops confirm by the laying on of hands, but he says that priests may also anoint with chrism blessed by a bishop, and "we believe that grace is equally conferred by either way." One wonders how many members of the Church of England would admit that the grace of Confirmation may be given by a priest with chrism, and how many of their bishops would accept that. The whole document is the extremest example of advanced Ritualism, described without qualification as the belief of "our Church." How many Anglican bishops would acknowledge it as a fair description of the Church of England? The text is published in E. d'Or., viii. pp. 143–148.
