THE ANGLICAN FUNDAMENTAL 17

blunders and fiasco, was still prevalent. In spite of

the labours of Bishop Wordsworth of Salisbury and
others, the preparation of a terrain of mutual intercourse
and understanding had hardly been begun in England.
But in the light of the past six years, it is apparent that
if, as seems certain, Professor Androutsos was speaking
as the mouthpiece of the then (Ecumenical Patriarch, 1
and if, for example, the bishops and priests of the English
Church Union had answered him in the fashion that
he expected, for practical purposes what may be termed
economical Intercommunion would now be habitual
21

and widespread between Anglicans and the Eastern-

Orthodox.
In saying this I do not mean that there would have
been any likelihood of an Act of Union being proclaimed
between the Anglican and Eastern-Orthodox Churches.
As has been said above, I am convinced that for the
Eastern-Orthodox full and formal Reunion can be
considered only on the basis of Dogmatic Union. 8
When for example, Professor Headlam suggested in
his Bampton Lectures last should propose
year that we
Reunion to the Eastern-Orthodox on the dogmatic
basis of our common acceptance of the so-called Nicene
Creed, but with freedom to differ from each other,
for example, on the doctrine of the Ministry and the
Sacraments, he proposed something which the Eastern-
Orthodox are bound, firmly if kindly, to refuse even to
discuss.
It may, indeed, well be, as he urged, that there is no
other basis on which the totality of Christians can unite.
The respectful and sympathetic attention which
those who cannot altogether accept his conclusions

1
The famous Joachim III, with whom I myself had more than one conversation on
the subject.
*
See below, Chapter IV.
* Thus "
Meletios, Archbishop of Athens, told us in London in 1919 that Union must
be not a mere arrangement between the hierarchies but a union of the faith and heart*
of the people."
1 8 PRELIMINARY TO INTERCOMMUNION
must give is not due
his lectures, simply to their being
the fruit of his thought and study.
life's

If I may say so, as one who believes creeds when used

as affirmations to be unifying and stimulating, but
distrusts credal tests as deadening and disintegrating,
I cannot but admire and warm to the courageous
hope
with which he tells us that Anglicans and Non-epis-
copalians in England can and ought promptly to rally in
their Master's service under the common banner of
the historic Creed. His vision is a great vision. No
one can read what he wrote 1 without wishing to be
persuaded.
But whether his arguments be valid and his hope
be cogent to us, is immaterial in relation to the Eastern-
Orthodox. When he suggests l that there is a possibility
of their entering into Union with the Anglican Churches
as they are, or with the totality of the United Non-

Papalist Christianity of England simply on the basis

of the Creed with provisos of an agreement as to the

Filioque, of the mutual recognition of orders and of

mutual liberty as to the doctrine of the Eucharistic
Presence, he is holding out an expectation which, as
things are, is
altogether illusory. It is obvious that a
Church in which Dr. Sanday, Dr. Henson, Dr. Gore,
Canon Lacey, Dr. Weston and Father Puller can go
on together would find no difficulty in an act of union
on such terms, in agreeing to any other than which
it ishard to conceive unanimity among Anglicans. It is
otherwise with the Eastern-Orthodox. Eighty years
ago, when Palmer explored the Russian Church, or in
the days when Neale did his work and Pusey wrote his
Eirenicon, the Eastern-Orthodox were as strange to
English folk as were the Japanese in the 'eighties. Their
Church life, their theology, their very psychology were
indeterminate to us and ours to them. To-day that is
* state of the past. Mutual study and, above all, the
1
Bampton Leetuiw for 1920, pp. 297, 198.
 EASTERN-ORTHODOX FUNDAMENTAL 19

sharing of the most sacred intimacies of Religion have

begun to bring us to know them and them to know us,
with the knowledge that kinsmen who are neighbours
have of each other. It is not now a question of their
finding out where we are or of our finding out where
they are. We are aware of their position and they are
aware of ours.
Some of us might wish it otherwise, but it is not only,
as Dr. Headlam is almost certainly right in saying,
that the Faith of the age of Chalcedon is the only basis
on which Reunion with Non-episcopalian Christians
in England is possible. Over and above the bearing
of the fact upon that Home Reunion which is alike the
great need of our nation and the obvious, if not the
necessary, preliminary to any movement for world-wide
Reunion, it is patent that, without the risk of disruption
in the Anglican Churches, no other basis of Reunion
could be formulated to-day by a majority, if one could
be obtained among us to formulate it.
On the other hand, the Eastern-Orthodox have made
it
plain, and that repeatedly, in the last three and a half
centuries, that the only basis of Reunion which they
can conceive, is that of the Faith of the Undivided
Church of the first nine centuries. 1 It was on the ground
that the rising claims of the Papacy in the Eighth and
Ninth Centuries were an innovation upon that Faith
that the Greeks were unwilling even to discuss them.
It is first and foremost because they hold the
2
Filioque, Baptism by Affusion, the use of azymite
bread and the absence of the Epiklesis in the Western
Eucharist, the withholding the chalice from the laity
1
See the quotation* in Appendix i i.
2
Pope Leo III had ordered the Creed without Filioque to be inscribed in silver
tablets, and so affixed to the doors of St. Peter's at Rome in 809. The subsequent
defence of the interpolation by Pope Nicholas I raised fierce protest in the East, lest
on account of itself than on account of the Papal claim to alter proprio motu the
(Ecumenical Creed. That ground of protest has always been in the forefront of the
Eastern-Orthodox case and hat always been obscured by Papalittt, tee Burns, Introdttf-
tio* t the Creed*) pp. 116-119,