orthodox Eastern and the Anglican' (p. 20). This fellowship of the two Churches will not only conduce to their preservation, but will establish for the remainder of Christendom a common standard of fellowship, and God willing, of union. This approximation consists in the recognition by each Church of the other as a Christian community, having the same Lord, and the same hope of salvation, and in the exhibition from time to time of proofs of mutual love by intercommunication between the bishops of both Churches, and by the grant of certain simple privileges to the members. As, for instance, his Holiness the Patriarch has given directions that the Christians of the Anglican faith should be buried by our priests in the absence of an Anglican Priest. So may other similar privileges hereafter be given. Thus means might be found to grant permission that English children should be baptized by the priests of the Eastern Church where there are no Anglican clergy, etc. This approximation, as stated before, will only tend to facilitate the work of a true and complete union.' 'Perhaps at the outset this great and God-loving work may appear to some difficult, if not impossible, owing to the differences which exist between the two Churches, but the more the scheme is ventilated the more the hope is increased that these differences will be smoothed away' (p. 22).

"The Liverpool branch of the English Church Union presented Archbishop Lycurgus, when he was about to leave that city, with an address, in which was expressed the hope that intercommunion between the Eastern and Anglican Churches

6

might be restored. 'He answered by warmly reciprocating their desires, and said that he should count himself happy if he could co-operate in their God-pleasing exertions' to that end; and more happy still if the Lord should vouchsafe him to see in his days the Anglican Church and the timehonoured mother of all Churches firmly knit together and indissolubly united, not only in the bonds of love, but also by identity of doctrine." *

Now let him who intends to read the following pages, do so with forbearance, and not turn aside either with contempt or with condemnation.

There may be mistakes in the argument, perhaps many; and there may be want of learning, perhaps grievous; but let the mistakes be set right in charity, and the want of learning atoned for by the sincerity of the intention.

The only reward that the writer seeks is the blessing of the Peace-Maker.

"BEATI PACIFICI."

Froome Selwood, Somerset.

July, 1882.

*(See "The Life of Alexander Lycurgus, Archbishop of the Cyclades. By F. M. F. Skene, with an introduction by the Lord Bishop of Lincoln," p. 80).-Morning Post, January 2, 1882.

QUESTION.

WHETHER IT BE JUSTIFIABLE ACCORDING TO THE

RULES OF FAITH AND DISCIPLINE OF THE UNIVERCAL CHURCH FOR A BISHOP TO EXERCISE

PUBLIC AUTHORITY, OR A PRIEST TO ADMINISTER PUBLIC SACRAMENTS IN A FOREIGN LAND, WITHOUT

THE SANCTION OF THE BISHOP OF THE DIOCEsk,

WHEREIN HE MAY BE.

PART I.

THE CANONS, THE COUNCILS, AND THE

FATHERS.

IN

the outset of this question we have, as far as the English Church is concerned, to agree upon two fundamental principles, upon which without a concurrence, it would be of no use to proceed further.

I. The first principle upon which we must agree is that the English Church is not a community standing by itself, in opposition to the other parts of the Catholic Church, but rests her foundation with all other National Churches upon universal usage, as defined by Saint Vincent of Lerins "Quod ubique, quod semper, quod ab

omnibus."

This is clearly stated in her thirtieth canon-"So far was it from the purpose of the Church of England to forsake and reject the Churches of Italy, France, Spain, Germany, or any such like Churches in all things which they held and practised, that as the Apology of the Church of England confesseth, it doth with reverence retain those ceremonies which do neither endanger the Church of God, nor offend the minds of sober men.”