and reverencing of saints, ikons and relics, monasticism and liturgical forms, as well as Baptism and the Holy Communion. These doctrines or lack of doctrine, were based on the theory that Christ is not both God and man, but only appeared to be a man, and that the world was created not by God but by the daemon.

He next considers the Greek Evangelicals from a patriotic viewpoint, and in this chapter he adopts a strictly national and Orthodox attitude. Orthodoxy has always been one of the glories of the Greek people, ever since the early ages of the Church. Very many of the Anglicans, Old Catholics, and some Protestants acknowledge this and admire the loyalty which the Greeks have always held to their faith. If however, we consider that the leaders of the Greeks have corrupted the Faith of Christ as the Evangelicals urge, it means that both the leaders and the people have been false to their trust and a man who thinks that of his nation cannot be a sincere and enlightened patriot.

Can the true Church be Protestant? It must be One and Apostolic. Yet there are many Protestant Churches and they are often called by the names of their founders, Lutherans, Calvinists, etc. St. Paul (I Cor. I 10-13) condemned the Corinthian Church for separating itself into sects with the names of Paul Peter, and Apollos, furthermore there is no unity of faith among these Protestant sects. Consider merely their doctrines of the Sacraments. Some acknowledge two, others none, and this is merely one of the questions on which they disagree.

They claim Apostolicity, although they willingly confess that they can have no direct historical connection with the Apostles. Yet St. Matthew (XXVIII, 19-20) quotes the words of Christ with His institution of Baptism: "Lo, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." The phrase used for " alway (πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας) implies that there can be no such gap as that of the sixteen hundred years between the time when the Church became corrupt and the time of its reformation, during which Christ seems not actually present to guide His Church.

An attempt is made to avoid this dilemma by the putting

forth of the theory that the true Church, One and Apostolic, is invisible and is known only to God and is accordingly distinct from all visible churches which contain sinners as well as saints.

Yes, but the Protestant Churches are also visible churches. Consequently this theory, instead of conferring apostolicity upon the Protestant churches, merely takes it from all churches, "following the example of those evil men who have no property of their own but ravage others with fire and sword." But the Greek Evangelicals go further and claim that "the true Church is the invisible communion of the saints of every age and place, known only to God." Where did these saints develop? Where, that is, until the rise of Protestantism? Of course in the visible congregations which were not Protestant. But if those churches or any section of them were endowed with the Divine grace to the extent that they could train men to be saints, why did the Protestants attack them so violently and why do they do so now? What was the need of these new foundations, if for sixteen centuries the ranks of the saints were entirely recruited from churches which were not Protestant? How can it justify its attacks on Christian churches which for sixteen centuries were the only means of preparing the elect for heaven? If these churches were so false and corrupt, they could not have trained saints. We are forced to confess then that these bodies were parts of the true Church. Logical analysis also shows that Rome has left the Faith and consequently Orthodoxy is the true Church.

Tradition is the next subject to be discussed at length. Here again the Greek Evangelicals and the Protestants generally are shown not to be evangelical in the sense of being in accord with the Scriptures. The "Diaphora " of King states that: "The Holy Scriptures are the only infallible rule and guide of faith and of action." Here we may fairly ask the nature of tradition. It was originally the complete teaching of Christ which was during His life and for some time after handed down orally as it was given by the Master to His disciples. Afterward, it remained that portion of His teaching which was not written down and included in the New Testament but was committed to writing

later and the validity of which was accepted by the decrees of the Ecumenical Councils, the unanimous consent of the Fathers, or the general life of the Church. Even the Protestants admit that the entire teaching of our Lord was preserved orally for some time but they claim that all the valuable portions were incorporated in the New Testament. Is this possible or probable? The Apostles were men of action rather than of letters and it is more than likely that they would not put on paper all their thoughts and knowledge.

Have we any evidence that they did not do so? Yes. St. Paul exhorts Timothy several times (I Tim. I, 13-14 and II, 2) to hold fast to the form of sound words and to the oral teachings of the Church and to hand them on to others. Yet by the time that St. Paul wrote these words, most of the New Testament had been already written. In his Gospel, St. John (XX, 30-31) definitely states also that he has not included in his work all the teachings and deeds of Christ. More than that, we find preserved in Acts XX, 35 words of Christ which are not recorded elsewhere,-" It is more blessed to give than to receive." We find in II John, 12 another instance of a disinclination to write. If we were to accept only the doctrines and the words of Scripture, we would expect a statement in the latest book of the New Testament to the effect that from henceforth tradition could be disregarded, but there is no such statement made.

Was this tradition to be followed also in after years? Yes, for the Holy Spirit was to guide the disciples into all truth (St. John, XVI, 13). If the Apostles were good men, would they not give their followers and pupils all the teachings and information which they had received? Furthermore it is only through the acceptance of tradition that we are able to reach any agreement as to the proper interpretation of many passages. The Apostolic Fathers, as Papias, Ignatius, a pupil of St. John, and Polycarp, another pupil of the same Apostle, all recognize the authority of the oldest churches and their traditions. So do Cyprian, Athanasius, Basil, Chrysostom, and all the great saints of the Church. It is certainly extremely surprising that so many

centuries elapsed before it was discovered that tradition was to be disregarded.

There must be an official explanation of the Bible, for the sacred text, holy as it is, does not save a man from falling into heresy. Arius and the Paulicians are instances of this. Nay, at the present time, there are many serious students of the Bible and many German professors who do not confess that Christ is God. In the face of these facts, what becomes of the Protestant contention that it is safe to disregard the traditional explanation? There are Protestant confessions of faith - why should not the Ecumenical Councils have the right to formulate one? Can the comfortable disciples of the present day understand the Bible so much better than the martyrs of old that they are a really infallible guide to the meaning of the Holy Scriptures? Next we come to the question of the Sacraments. First, the Priesthood. The Protestants advance the theory that there can be no separate priesthood, because we are all priests. (Rev. V, 19 and I Pet. II, 5). Does this necessarily follow? In the first passage we are called kings but this is not used as an argument against kingship. In Exodus XIX, 6, we read that God said to the children of Israel through Moses: "And ye shall be unto me a kingdom of priests, and an holy nation." Nevertheless the Jews had, by God's appointment, the priesthood of the old dispensation, Hight Priest, Priests, and Levites. This example completely invalidates any argument based on the passages in the New Testament which might seem at first sight to contradict the position assumed by the Church. That the priest is more than a mere representative of the people is shown by many passages as I Tim. IV, 14; V, 22; II Tim. I. 6. These indicate that the Church is right and that the priesthood is endowed with a special grace of God conferred by the laying on of hands by the rulers of the Church.

Then as regards nomenclature. It is true that bishops are also called presbyters. What of it? What was Peter? An Apostle. Yet he says that he is a fellow presbyter (μpsσßútspot) of others. (I Pet. V, 1-2.) Were Apostles and presbyters

identical? The Protestants do not claim this. In the Old Testament Aaron is called a priest as well as high priest. The difference between the grades of the hierarchy is seen in I Tim. V, 19 or in Titus I, 5-6, where the commission given is clearly that of a bishop. Timothy was not the first presbyter in Ephesus nor Titus in Crete but they were counted as the first bishops in those places.

Galanos attacks the view of Baptism held by the Greek Evangelicals, according to which the sacrament does not confer grace but is a Christian rite replacing the Jewish circumcision. He quotes Acts II, 38, where Peter emphasizes the need and meaning of the sacrament. Regeneration takes place in Baptism. The conferring of the Holy Ghost upon Cornelius and his household prior to Baptism was exceptional and took place only to show that God was no respecter of persons and was desirous of having the Gentiles included in His Church. The Orthodox doctrine harmonizes with the passages in the Bible describing the sending of Peter and John to Samaria, (Acts VIII, 14–16) and of St. Paul at Ephesus (Acts XIX, 1ff), for the Holy Ghost is, according to Orthodox teaching, conferred by another rite, that of Chrism. The Protestant view is not really Christian at all for it at most represents the baptism of John (St. Mark, 1, 8).

In the section on the Holy Eucharist, Galanos emphasizes the doctrine of the Real Presence of the Body and Blood of Christ in the Sacrament of the Altar. He considers St. Paul's testimony corroborative of the teaching of the Church in I Cor. XI, 27ff: "Whosoever shall eat this bread and drink this cup of the Lord, unworthily, shall be guilty of the body and blood of the Lord," for in view of this statement it would be utter folly to hold the bread and wine mere symbols.

The sacramental character of marriage is shown by two facts: first, that only thus can the twain be made one flesh, even though they continue to appear as two people; and secondly, if this were not so, the comparison of Christ and His Church to a man and wife would be absurd.

From all this it follows that the Protestants cannot accept the