ideas about the Church of England. This book is therefore not a book giving the results of learned research, but is intended to be a popular, though I hope accurate, account of the Church of England in her continuous life from the sixth century to the twentieth, special attention being paid to the events of the sixteenth century, when the enemies of our Church try vainly to make out that there was a breach of continuity.

When I wrote the lectures, I had no idea of publishing them in English, though I thought it possible that I might be asked to allow them to be published in Russian. As a matter of fact, they are going to be published in Russian. But it has been represented to me that the lectures deal with a subject which would interest many English readers, and might be of real use to some of them; so I have determined to publish them not only in Russian, but also in English.

I am indeed very sensible that there are matters which ought to be treated in a book of this sort, and which nevertheless are not treated here. I cannot pretend that the book contains an exhaustive discussion of its subject. But I was limited to a course of four lectures, and I preferred to discuss what seemed to be the most important points with some measure of fullness, rather than to treat a large number of points inadequately.

I am not professing to give in this Preface a full account of my visit to S. Petersburg, which lasted sixteen days; but there was one discussion held with a number of the Professors attached to the S. Petersburg Spiritual Academy, which seemed to be so fruitful in its results, that I cannot pass it over in silence. The meeting was

held in one of the apartments occupied by the Bishop of Kholm, and he presided, there being also present Bishop Innocent of Yakutsk. The subject proposed for discussion was the Eternal Procession of the Holy Ghost, about which, as is well known, endless controversies have been carried on between the Eastern and Western divisions of Christendom. The very distinguished Professor Brilliantoff acted on this occasion as the principal speaker on the Russian side; and he began the discussion by asking me what meaning was attributed by the Church of England to the Filioque clause1 in the Constantinopolitan Creed.

I commenced my reply by reminding the assembly that in the course of the third Action of the second Council of Nicaea (A.D. 787) the Letters of enthronization sent by S. Tarasius, Patriarch of Constantinople, to Hadrian of Rome and to the three other Patriarchs were read; and that in those letters the assertion is made that the Holy Ghost proceeds "from the Father through the Son" (EK TOû Пaтpòs di' Yioû)2; and that immediately afterwards the replies sent to S. Tarasius by the representatives of the three Eastern Patriarchal sees were read, expressing the joy of the writers at the orthodoxy of S. Tarasius's letters; and that finally the synodic letters of Theodore, Patriarch of Jerusalem, were read, in which letters the Holy Ghost is confessed as proceeding eternally "from the Father," no mention being made of His Procession through the Son.3 A

1

1 In the Eastern form of the Creed it is stated that the Holy Ghost "proceeds from the Father." In the Latin and English forms it is stated that He "proceeds from the Father and the Son" (Filioque). * Coleti, Concilia, ed. Venet., 1729, viii. 812.

3 Op. cit., col. 825.

protocol was afterwards entered in the Acts of the Council to the effect that the whole Council consented to and received the definition of orthodoxy of the most holy Ecumenical Patriarch, Tarasius, which had just then been read, and also the reply sent to S. Tarasius. by the representatives of the other Eastern Patriarchal sees, and the synodic letters of Theodore of Jerusalem.1 I pointed out that these facts make it clear that the second Council of Nicaea synodically approved the formula which speaks of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father, and it also approved the formula which speaks of the Holy Ghost as proceeding from the Father through the Son. The Council evidently saw no reason why both these formulas should not be accepted. And, when we remember that there have been Eastern theologians who have repudiated the formula "ex Patre per Filium," and when we also remember that the second Council of Nicaea is reckoned by the whole Eastern Church among the Ecumenical Councils, the approbation given by the Council to the formula "ex Patre per Filium" appears to be a decision of the highest importance.

2

I went on to say that the theologians of the Church of England repudiate all idea of there being more than one ȧpxý or Fountain-head of Deity. The Father alone is the primary Source from whom the Son proceeds, and He alone is also the primary Source from whom the Holy Ghost proceeds; but in the Eternal Spiration of the Holy Ghost the Son intervenes with a certain 1 Op. cit., col. 841.

2 Bishop Edgar Gibson of Gloucester well sums up our English teaching in his explanation of the fifth Article (The Thirty-nine Articles, edit. 1908, p. 213).

2

mediating co-operation,1 so that the Holy Ghost proceeds eternally from the Father through the Son, and therefore in a sense it may be said that the Holy Ghost proceeds from the Father and the Son. In other words, our English theologians regard the formula " Filioque " as equivalent to the formula "Per Filium." "

3

Professor Brilliant off then said that my explanation was entirely in accordance with the teaching of the Orthodox Eastern Church.

Afterwards the question of the insertion of the Filioque clause into the Constantinopolitan creed by the English and other Western Churches was raised.

In regard to that matter I stated by way of preliminary that the Church of England makes no complaint against the Eastern Church for adhering strictly to the Creed as it was sanctioned by the Council of Chalcedon. The English Church accepts the Council of Chalcedon as an Ecumenical Council, and the Creed as sanctioned by that Council is therefore for us also an Ecumenical document of the highest authority. But the Council did not put forth the Creed as a formula to be used

1 Cf. S. Greg. Nyss., Quod non sint tres Dii—ad Ablabium, circ. fin. ; P.G., xlv. 133.

2 On this subject I would venture to urge the instructed reader to study the illuminating Études de Théologie Positive sur la Sainte Trinité by Père de Regnon. See, for example, the third and fourth chapters of his Étude xxii. (vol. iii. pp. 130-150) and many other passages of his masterly work.

* Tertullian, the very fountain-head of the theological language of the West, admirably combines the ideas of the "Filioque" and the "per Filium." He says (Adversus Praxean, cap. viii.):-"Tertius enim est Spiritus a Deo et Filio, sicut tertius a radice fructus ex frutice, et tertius a fonte rivus ex flumine, et tertius a sole apex ex radio. . . . Ita Trinitas per consertos et conexos gradus a Patre decurrens monarchiae nihil obstrepit" (Corp. Scriptt. Eccll. Latt., Vindobon., xlvii. 239).

in the Liturgy of the Altar. At the time when the Council of Chalcedon was held, no Creed was said in the Liturgy. When we introduced the Creed into the Liturgy, we were not bound to introduce it in the exact form in which it was sanctioned by the Council. Moreover, both in the West and in the East it had been customary for local Churches to add clauses to Creeds of very high authority. In the West the Apostles' Creed is the Creed which is used at Baptisms and on most other occasions when a Creed is used; it is not, however, used at the service of the Altar. Now the Apostles' Creed is the Creed of the early Roman Church, and was probably composed not later than during the first half of the second century. Yet local Western Churches on their own authority added clauses to it. Thus in the fourth century or earlier the Church of Aquileia added to the Apostles' Creed the clause about the descent of our Lord into Hades.1 And in the fifth century or earlier the Gallican Churches, or some of them, added the clause about the Communion of Saints.2 Yet no complaints were raised by the Roman Church or by other Western Churches on account of these clauses having been added. On the contrary some centuries later these additions were accepted by the Roman Church herself and ultimately by all the Western Churches. Similarly in the East, the original Nicene Creed was

1 Cf. Rufin., Commentar. in Symbol., §§ 14, 18; P.L., xxi. 352, 356. Whether the clause originated at Aquileia I do not know.

2 This clause did not get into the Roman Creed until later, but it is found in the Creeds of Niceta of Remesiana and of S. Jerome as early probably as the fourth century (compare Dr. A. E. Burn's text-book, The Apostles' Creed, pp. 41, 43).

3 In putting on paper the statement which I made to the Conference about the interpolation of authoritative Creeds in the East, I have