The Augsburg Confession, Article XII., is as follows:

Of Penance and Amendment.

Of Penance it is taught that they who are fallen into sin after baptism, can always obtain forgiveness of sins, whenever they repent and amend, and that God's Church shall pronounce absolution and the forgiveness of sins to such as do penance and amend.

And the eleventh Article, on Confession and Absolution, reads:

Of Confession it is taught that private confession should be retained in the Church, but so that it be not necessary that one reckon up all his sins, for that is really impossible, etc.

In Section VII. of the Apology for the Augsburg Confession they go beyond us somewhat in calling absolution or the sacrament of Penance the third of the great sacraments commanded by Christ, but their doctrine does not really differ from ours.

As a further matter of fact, finally, one of our Church clergy, and much more our Church laity, could read through many sermons regarded as standard in the Swedish Church, if accurately translated, without finding one word or expression to jar on his feelings or habits of thought, and without a suspicion that the author was other than a clergyman of our Church. He might, after a long time, find something he disapproved of, but probably no sooner than he might in one of our own authors.

Mr. Embry concludes his vigorous article with a statement and a prayer. The statement, which I shall examine, is by the late Canon Bright, and the prayer by Dr. Pusey. May I venture to criticise them both in passing, in view of the dawn of better days?

Dr. Bright's words quoted by Mr. Embry are: "I confess I do not look forward with any great hopefulness toward the

Scandinavian communion." (I have noted that each of the three Scandinavian Churches is entirely independent, and has no responsibility to the other for its confession of faith, and that they differ radically. Hence merely in using the term "the Scandinavian communion," Dr. Bright was unscientific, and weakens his own great authority.) "It is essentially Lutheran, and I should gravely doubt whether a body pervaded and animated by Lutheran tradition could, as such, conform itself to the Churchly type." (I have further pointed out that no succinct definition of Lutheranism is possible: that Lutheran tradition is not uniform, and I should add that Dr. Bright's experience might easily be less with Lutherans than ours in this western land, where thousands of them have been incorporated, heart and soul, with our "Churchly" body without the least sentiment of violent disturbance of their ideals. Further, experience can contradict theory successfully always. The Swedish Church has approached us peacefully.) “I believe Luther cast off advisedly and thoroughly the whole sacerdotal conception of the ministry." (It makes no difference what Luther did as long as there is no evidence that the Swedish Church did so. I have searched for such evidence. I do not agree with those who think they have found it.) So far with the quotation from Dr. Bright. The brief remainder needs no

answer.

Dr. Pusey's prayer was this:

"May God, who brought to naught the building of the tower of Babel, bring utterly to naught all attempts to connect us with the Scandinavian bodies, so long as they retain the faith destroying Confession of Augsburg."

I do not believe that Dr. Pusey had any reason to be proud of this prayer. The Swedish Church has maintained, ever

since the beginnings of her reformation, her adherence to the

three great creeds. The Augsburg Confession has not destroyed that. And the use of the term "the Holy Christian Church" in the creed, for a portion of this period, calls for much less comment than foreign critics would suppose. It refers back to the original language. But the Swedes have now returned to "allmännelig," an exact translation of Catholic.

The reference to the Tower of Babel is also unfortunate. Those whose speech and language were there confounded were originally one, united against God. We, who desire to return nearer to Christ and each other, are divided in language, are praying for light, and are asking help from the Author of Peace and Lover of Concord to learn how to fulfil His mind. Let us therefore pray with the Master rather than His servant, "That they all may be One."

NOTE: When I admit that I have frequently translated the Swedish word "församling" by Church, instead of congregation, perhaps I may be charged with pressing my own views. But indeed the Swedes do not use their word "Kyrka" where we use "Church," with anything like the same regularity or emphasis. In the adjective form they use it, but not as the noun. And I have translated according to my convictions of the real meaning, and would have done so had it spoiled my case.

Illustrations may be useful. For instance församling in general would be assembly or congregation, but Guds församling, den christelige församlingen, or haus församling, haus referring back to Gud, would certainly be God's Church, the Christian Church, or His Church. My chief authority is Björkman's great dictionary, but I have enquired exhaustively of good scholars besides.

XIV.-PRACTICAL POSSIBILITIES TOWARD CLOSER RELATIONS WITH THE SWEDISH CHURCH.

HE precedents for dealing with clergymen in Swedish orders in this country are various and somewhat conflicting. The first series of precedents runs from 1638 down to nearly two hundred years afterwards, at the death of the Rev. N. Collin in Philadelphia. During the colonial period the Swedish clergy officiated under stipends from the S. P. G. for English congregations, whenever any emergency requiring their services arose. Their services were thus rendered under arrangement with the commissary of the Bishop of London, and a good deal of correspondence is extant on the subject. But of any direct license issued to them by the Bishop of London I have not been able to secure an example. There were friendly letters and commendations enough from London to prove that the Swedish Orders were, on the whole, highly respected and their validity allowed to pass without question. That there was any profound investigation of the subject may well be doubted. But there is no documentary trace of any doubt existing among the colonial clergy about the propriety of fellowship and interchange with the representatives of the Swedish Church. If one or more of these were not episcopally ordained, as seems probable, knowledge or scruple about it, if any, was insufficient to break the general cordiality. It is just as clear that the Swedes were in close fellowship with the German Lutherans, whose relation at that time was more friendly to us than has since been the case.

It has sometimes been said that Dr. N. Collin, the last of the Swedish clergy of the original sending, sat as a member of the convention of the diocese of Pennsylvania. Bishop Thomas F. Davies, who was conversant with the facts, told me that this was not the case. Dr. Collin, all of whose assistant clergy were clergymen in our orders, attended the convention as an honored guest. But he could not be a real member of convention, unless he became by transfer or otherwise a clergyman of the Protestant Episcopal Church. It is no disparagement to his orders that he did not become a member of convention. An English priest officiating simply under license would have no membership.

About 1861 Jacob Bredberg was received on his Swedish Orders by Bishop Whitehouse, and became rector of St. Ansgarius', Chicago, and a member of the diocesan convention of Illinois.

Other Swedish clergy have officiated under license without seeking or obtaining membership in the Convention. The most notable case is that of Professor Mellin of the General Theological Seminary.

In 1893, when we had the canon allowing immediate ordination of applicants from other bodies who were university graduates and thirty-five years of age, a case came up in the Missionary District of Northern Michigan. The Swedish pastor at Ironwood applied to be received. Bishop Davies was then the provisional Bishop, but Bishop Kendrick was by arrangement performing a visitation. It was decided that the clergyman should be ordained in our Church under the "immediate❞ canon, as it involved him in so little delay. But as both Bishops concerned felt that much could be said for Swedish Orders, the ordination was made as near a conditional one as our use allows, i.e., a declaration was made the candidate that what