I-;-.-'--

3.g

JSibliotbecae IKeblenst
ACCESSIT HIC LIBER EX LEGATIS
GULIELMI BRIGHT, S.T.P.
AEDIS CHRISTI CANONICI
NECNON HUIUS COLLEGII CONSILIARII.
MCMI.
KEBLE COLLEGE LS3RARY

YALE UNIVERSITY
LIBRARY

THE LIBRARY OF THE
DIVINITY SCHOOL

THE TEACHING
OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

PUBLICATIONS OF
THE EASTERN CHURCH ASSOCIATION
Crown Zvo. 8s. 6d.
EAST SYRIAN DAILY OFFICES
Translated from the Syriac, with Introduction, Notes, and Indices,
and an Appendix containing the Lectionary and Glossary.
By ARTHUR JOHN MACLEAN, M.A.,
Dean of Argyll and the Isles,
Joint-Author of 'The Catholicos of the East and his People.'
Crown %vo. js. 6d.
RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH
DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS
Volvvte I.
Containing a Correspondence between Mr. William Palmer,
Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, and M. Khomiakoff,
in the Years 1S44-1854.
Edited by W. J. BIRKBECK, M.A., F.S.A.,
Magdalen College, Oxford.
*#* Both these Works can\be obtained at a reduced rate by Members
of the Eastern Church Association on application to the Secretary.
In Preparation.
RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH
DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS
Volume II.
ANSWERS OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH
TO THE PAPAL ENCYCLICALS
CATECHISMS OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH

LONDON: RIVINGTONS

THE
Teaching of the Russian Church
BEING NOTES ON POINTS ON WHICH
IT DIFFERS FROM THE ENGLISH CHURCH

BY

ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, B.D.
RECTOR OF WELWYN, HERTS
FORMERLY FELLOW OF ALL SOULS' COLLEGE, OXFORD

PUBLISHED FOR
THE EASTERN CHURCH ASSOCIATION

RIVINGTONS
KING STREET, CO VENT GARDEN
LONDON 1897

Yale Divinity Library
New Haven, Conn.

PREFACE
The following Paper was read originally before
a Society of East London Clergy, and is now
published on the advice of several friends, in a
somewhat enlarged form, and with a few neces
sary alterations.
The. Paper can naturally make no pretence to
completeness. It has two purposes. The first is
to give, in the language of authorised documents,
or of writers who may be regarded as represen
tative interpreters of their Church, the teaching
of the Russian Church on those subjects particu
larly about which questions might be asked,
namely those points on which its teaching differs
ifrom that of our own Church, or of the Church of
^Ttqme, or those on which controversy and dis
cussion have been raised.
The second purpose is to try and bring out
what the writer believes to be the temper and

vi THE TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
spirit of the Russian Church. Two Churches may
have exactly the same offices and professions of
Faith, and yet their life and spirit may be quite
different. The same beliefs may be held in very
different ways.
It has been thought convenient to add at
the end a short list of the service books and
authorised doctrinal statements of the Russian
Church, and of translations of them into English,
with a few books, accessible to English readers,
on the Russian Church.
It has been thought advisable in some points
to contrast the teaching of the Russian Church
with that of Rome. That form of Roman
teaching has been selected which is most
commonly presented to us, and imitated by
members of our own Church. Historically,
Rome has much more in common with the
East, but unfortunately the historical side
of Rome's teaching is that which we are
least allowed to see. A. C. H.

THE TEACHING
OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
The Russian Church is, as is well known, a branch —
by far the largest and most important branch — of the
Orthodox Eastern Church, the Holy Synod, which is its
governing body, having the authority of a Patriarch,
and the Church being an independent Patriarchate
on the same footing as the older Patriarchates of Con
stantinople, Antioch, Alexandria, and Jerusalem.
The Eastern Church professes to be the only true
Church, both Catholic and Orthodox, and in its general
position is strongly anti-Roman in the sense of protest
ing with great vigour against the uncatholic and un-
historical claims of the Pope.
Speaking broadly, it bases its claims to be the Catholic
and Orthodox Church on the acceptance of : —
(1.) Holy Scripture.
(2.) The Mceno-Constantinopolitan Creed.
(3.) The Seven General Councils.
(4.) The Seven Sacraments.
In the following pages an attempt will be made to
illustrate its teaching on certain points selected, not for
their actual, but for their controversial importance.
They represent either those doctrines which have
unfortunately been subjects of controversy between

2 THE TEACHING
different Christian bodies, or those about which dis
cussion exists at the present time.
The two principal documents used are The Longer
Catechism, of the Russian Church, and The Treatise on
the Duty of Parish Priests. The former, although
based on older documents, is, as it at present stands,
the work of Archbishop Philaret, the well-known Metro
politan of Moscow, and was promulgated by the Holy
Synod in 1839. It was translated into Greek, and
sent to the Eastern Patriarchs. The Treatise on the
Duty of Parish Priests was first printed at St. Peters
burg, in a.d. 1776. It is used by the whole Russian
Church, and all candidates for Holy Orders are required
to have read it, and to show their acquaintance with
its contents. Both these documents are quoted in a
translation published by the Rev. W. Blackmore in
1845.1 With regard to the latter, it may be remarked that
it represents an admirable compendium of priestly
duties. There is a general idea current in England
that the clergy of all other churches, and especially
those of the Eastern Church, are, compared with our
own clergy, miserably educated. Such judgments of
others are always unjust and arrogant, and certainly
many candidates for Orders in the Church of England
would gain greatly by possessing an authorised manual
such as this, from which to learn their duties.
Both these documents are, in a sense, authoritative

1 The Doctrine of the Russian Church, by the Rev. R. W. Black-
more, B.A., formerly of Merton College, Oxford. Aberdeen, A.*Brown
and Co. 1845.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 3
publications, but they have no symbolical authority.
The Eastern Church has no general doctrinal tests
beyond the Creed itself.
' As regards the question of doctrinal authority generally,
it is important to understand that the members of the Eastern
Church are neither bound in conscience, on the one hand, to
every word and letter of any modern documents, nor left
free, on the other hand, to indulge in an unlimited licence of
criticism. Beyond the Creed itself, the Eastern Church has
no general doctrinal tests ; no Oath, like that of Pope Pius
IV. ; no Symbolical Books, strictly speaking, like those of
the Protestants and the Eeformed ; no Thirty-nine Articles,
like those subscribed in England. But still she is not the
less on that account provided with a sufficient security that
the true faith, in its fullest sense, shall be held and taught
under the letter of the Creed, and that the doctrinal decisions
of former ages shall be maintained. This security lies in a
living spirit of orthodoxy, protected against gainsayers, in
case of necessity, by the terror of excommunication. What
ever is felt or known to form part of the faith of the Church,
even though it be as yet unwritten, must be received with
implicit veneration, as coming from the infallible Spirit of
God : much more all doctrine of faith which has been written
by orthodox men, or even by whole Synods, so far as it is
felt and known to have the sanction of the Church.'1
Reference is occasionally made to other documents,
and to illustrate the more authorised statements much
use has been made of the works of the well-known
Russian writer, A. S. Khomiakoff. L'figlise et le Pro-
testantisme au point de vue de I'Eglise d'Orient was
published at Lausanne in 1872, while his correspond
ence with Mr. Palmer, and his Essay on the Church,
1 Blackmore, op, cit. p. viii,

4 THE TEACHING
have been translated for the Eastern Church Asso
ciation.1 In order to prevent an erroneous idea which might
arise from the special subjects here touched upon, that,
in the teaching of the Russian Church, there is any
false sense of proportion, and that what we rightly call
the Evangelical doctrines are not taught, it may be
noticed that the true proportion of the Christian faith
is very apparent in both the official documents with
which we are concerned. In the instructions to parish
priests, for example, under the heading of 'What the
priest ought to teach, and whence,' it is said : —
' It is the priest's duty to teach his flock the Faith and the
Law ; the word law being used for the good works of the
law. These two things Christ Himself taught, and began
His preaching thus : Repent ye, and believe the Gospel (Mark i.
15). And the Apostle Paul in like manner taught both
Jews and Greeks repentance towards God, and faith towards
our Lord Jesus Christ (Acts xx. 21). To repentance belong
the works of the law, to the Gospel, faith in Christ.'
Of the faith it is said : —
'The Faith consists in divers Articles, which Christians
must believe and confess ; of which some are principal, and
so necessary to salvation, that without the knowledge of
them a man cannot be saved, any more than he can live
without the principal members of the body, as the head, the
heart, and the like ; while others, especially for simple
people busied with their worldly callings, are less necessary,
1 Russia and the English Church during the last Fifty Years, vol. i.,
by W. J. Birkbeck. Published for the Eastern Church Association.
London, Rivington, Percival, and Co., 1895. Of M. Khomiakoff him
self a full account is given in the Preface to the latter work.

OP THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 5
as being implied in the first, and belonging only to their
more exact statement and explanation.
'To the first class of Articles belongs the mystery of the
Holy Trinity; the mission of the Son of God into the world ;
our Justification by His Death ; God's mercy to fallen man,
and His Grace leading to repentance; and the like.'
'All the Articles of the Faith are contained in the Word
of God, that is, in the Books of the Old and New Testa
ments.' ' The Law of the Ten Commandments is likewise contained
in Holy Scripture, in the twentieth chapter of Exodus ; and
since it is innate in us, and the mirror of that Image of God
in which man was created, it follows that every Christian,
without exception, is most certainly required to know it, and
to lead his life by it, doing good works, and eschewing
evil.' 1
We may pass on now to the teaching concerning the
Sacraments. The Russian Church recognises and con
siders essential to a true Church seven Sacraments or
Mysteries, viz. : ' Baptism, Unction with Chrism, Com
munion, Penitence, Orders, Matrimony, Unction with
Oil.' A mystery or sacrament is defined as 'a holy act,
through which grace, or, in other words, the saving
power of God, works mysteriously upon man.'
' In Baptism man is mysteriously born to a spiritual life.
In Unction with Chrism he receives a grace of spiritual
growth and strength. In the Communion he is spiritually
fed. In Penitence he is healed of spiritual diseases, that is,
of sin. In Orders he receives grace spiritually to regenerate,
feed, and nurture others, by doctrine and Sacraments. In
1 A Treatise on the Duty of Parish Priests, translated by Rev. R.
W. Blackmore, pp. 159-161.

6 THE TEACHING
Matrimony he receives a grace sanctifying the married life,
and the natural procreation and nurture of children. In
Unction with Oil he has medicine even for bodily diseases, in
that he is healed of spiritual.'1
Of the Sacraments generally, it is said : —
' It is the Priest's duty before he administers any Sacrament
to teach him who desires to receive it, if he be ignorant, what
is the virtue of the same Sacrament. . . . For if he, to whom
the Sacrament is administered, be left uninstructed of this,
he will not know himself what he receives ; consequently,
neither can he have faith, which naturally follows only upon
the knowledge of what is to be believed ; and so he will not
receive that grace of God, which is given in the Sacrament :
for our faith alone is the hand by which we receive all those gifts of
God, which have been obtained for us by our Lord Jesus Christ.'2
We may now pass on to the Doctrine of the Holy
Eucharist. It will be most convenient to begin by
some extracts from the Longer Catechism of the
Russian Church.
' Q. What is the Communion ?
' A. The Communion is a Sacrament in which the believer,
under the forms of bread and wine, partakes of the
very Body and Blood of Christ, to everlasting life.
' Q. What is the most essentia] act in this part of the
Liturgy (i.e. in the Liturgy of the faithful).
'A. The utterance of the words which Jesus Christ spoke
in instituting the Sacrament : Take, eat, this is My
Body ; Drink ye all of it, for this is My Blood of the
New Testament, Matt. xxvi. 26, 27, 28. And after
this, the invocation" "of the Holy Ghost, and the
1 The Longer Catechism, Blackmore, p. 84.
2 Duty of Parish Priests, Blackmore, p. 204.

OP THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 7
blessing the gifts, that is, the bread and wine, which
have been offered.
' Q. Why is this so essential 1
' A. Because at the moment of this act the bread and wine
are changed, or transubstantiated, into the very
Body of Christ, and into the very Blood of Christ.
' Q. How are we to understand the word Transubstantiation 1
'A. In the exposition of the faith by the Eastern
Patriarchs, it is said that the word transubstantia
tion is not to be taken to define the manner in which
the bread and wine are changed into the Body and
Blood of the Lord, for this none can understand but
God ; but only thus much is signified, that the bread
truly, really, and substantially becomes the very true
Body of the Lord, and the wine the very true Blood
of the Lord.'
And then comes a quotation from St. John of
Damascus : —
'It is truly that Body united with the Godhead, which
had its origin from the Holy Virgin : not as though that
Body which ascended came down from heaven, but because
the bread and wine themselves are changed into the Body
and Blood of God. But if thou seekest after the manner
how this is, let it suffice thee to be told, that it is by the
Holy Ghost, in like manner as by the same Holy Ghost the
Lord formed flesh to Himself, and in Himself, from the
Mother of God ; nor know I aught more than this, that the
word of God is true, powerful, and almighty, but in its
manner of operation unsearchable.' — IV. xiii. 7.
' Q. What benefit does he receive who communicates in
the Body and Blood of Christ 1
'A. He is in the closest manner united to Jesus Christ
Himself, and in Him is made partaker of . everlasting
Life.'1 1 The Longer Catechism, Blackmore, pp. 91-92.

8 THE TEACHING
The first point that we notice is, that the word
Transubstantiation is used; and this is quite clearly
and definitely part of the authorised teaching of the
Eastern Church. But when once that is admitted, it
becomes apparent that it is not used in the Roman
sense.1 That this is so, is shown by a study of the Acts
1 Since the above was written, the following quotation from a
Russian periodical, which appeared in the Guardian of May 12th,
1897, puts the Russian objection to Roman doctrine very much more
strongly than is done in the text. It may be noted that the whole
question is at present the subject of a discussion in Russian magazines.
THE VIEWS OF THE METROPOLITAN PHILABET OF MOSCOW UPON THE
LATIN DOCTRINE OF TRANSUBSTANTIATION.
Under the above heading the official journal of the St. Petersburg
Ecclesiastical Academy, the Tzerhovny VUstnik (Church Messenger)
of March 27th (April 8th) contains an account of a conversation held
between the former Bishop of New York, Dr. Young, and the famous
Metropolitan Philaret of Moscow, which, in view of a recent dis
cussion which took place in our columns, will be read with interest by
many of our readers. The interview between Dr. Young and the
Metropolitan Philaret took place during the visit of the former to
Russia in the early sixties, a few years before the death of Philaret
in 1867 :—
' Upon Dr. Young putting some questions with regard to the use of the
word Transubstantiation in the Russian Church, the Metropolitan Philaret
answered in substance as follows : — "This word was introduced into Russia
through Kieff in the seventeenth century, by means of the Roman Catholic
theological literature which was then imported thither." [N.B. — At that
time Kieff was still in the hands of the Poles, and every possible means were
being taken to Latinise the Orthodox population of that part of Russia.]
" Since that time some of our theologians have adopted it, but others very
strongly disapprove of it. I myself belong decidedly to the latter class.
The manner of our Lord's presence in the Blessed Eucharist is a mystery to
be apprehended by faith, and not a matter to be speculated and dogmatised
upon, or to be reasoned about. All definitions or pretended explanations,
such as the use of the word Transubstantiation (Transsubstantziatzija), are
nothing but attempts to penetrate into the mystery, and thereby they over
throw the essence of a sacrament."
'"But," said Dr. Young, "is not the word Transubstantiation used in
your Longer Catechism ? "
' "No," replied Philaret with emphasis, "it is not. In Russian we say

OE THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 9
of the Synod of Bethlehem, or — as it is sometimes
called — of Jerusalem. This Synod was held in the
year 1672, at a time when the Eastern Church was
largely under Roman influence, and represents that
one of the authorised formulae of the Church which
approaches nearest to Roman teaching. In 1838, but
not till then, these Acts were translated into Russian.1
But in a considerable number of ways their language
was changed, and all the more distinctly Roman
expressions were taken out. In particular, all reference
to the ' accidents ' is omitted ; for example, where the
Russian says : —
' We believe that though the Body and Blood of our Lord
[not transsubstantziatzija, but] presushchestvlenie, a word corresponding
exactly to the Greek word /lerovataais."
'"But," said Dr. Young, " it is vised more than once by Blackmore in his
translation of the Russian Catechism."
'" In that case," replied the Metropolitan, "the translation is incorrect.
We have taken good care that the word should not appear in our Catechism."
'This conversation, described by Dr. Young, is extremely interesting, as
showing the extraordinary acuteness of our famous Metropolitan's theological
intellect, in thus finding a means of preserving the Orthodox teaching
concerning fierovirtoxris (presushchestvlenie) from the irruption into it of the
coarse metaphysics of the schoolmen, with their self-made and, even from
a philological point of view, unnatural term, Transsubstantiatio.'
We may add that the word presushchestvUnie is the exact Slavonic
equivalent of the Greek /MTovaiaas, the Slavonic word sushchestvo
philologically corresponding not to substantia, but to oiala [essentia),
and being formed in just the same way from sushchi, present participle
of the verb bytj, to be. When it is remembered that the Metropolitan
Philaret was himself the author both of the Longer Catechism and
of the translation of the Articles of the Synod of Jerusalem in the
form in which the Holy Synod of Russia finally accepted them, it
will be difficult to exaggerate the importance of this conversation,
and of the fact that it has been reprinted just at this time in one of
the leading ecclesiastical journals of Russia.
1 See J. M. Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, vol. ii. p.
1173.

10 THE TEACHING
are divided and separated, yet this takes place in the
mystery of the Communion only with respect to the species of
bread and wine by which alone they may be seen or touched.'
The Greek has it : —
' The Body and Blood of our Lord are divided and separated
by hands and teeth in their accidents alone, and in their
accidents of bread and wine.'
The object clearly is to avoid accepting the scholastic
philosophy, which is implied in such phraseology ; and
all that is implied in this is shown by the following
extract from Khomiakoff 's essay on the Church : —
'She does not reject the word " transubstantiation "; but
she does not assign to it that material meaning which is assigned
to it by the teachers of the Churches which have fallen away.
The change of the bread and wine into the Body and Blood
of Christ is accomplished in the Church and for the Church.
If a man receive the consecrated gifts, or worship them, or
think on them with faith, he verily receives, adores, and
thinks on the Body and Blood of Christ. If he receive
unworthily he verily rejects the Body and Blood of Christ;
in any case, in faith or in unbelief he is sanctified or con
demned by the Body and Blood of Christ. But this Sacrament
is in the Church, and for the Church ; not for the outside
world, not for fire, not for irrational creatures, not for
corruption, and not for the man who has not heard the law
of Christ. In the Church itself (we are speaking of the
visible Church), to the elect and to the reprobate the Holy
Eucharist is not a niere commemoration concerning the
mystery of redemption, it is not a presence of spiritual
gifts within the bread and wine, it is not merely a spiritual
reception of the Body and Blood of Christ, but is His true
Body and Blood. Not in spirit alone was Christ pleased to
unite Himself with the faithful, but also in Body and in
Blood; in order that that union might be complete, and not
only spiritual but also corporal.'1
1 Russia and the English Church, p. 207.

OE THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 11
This extract will help to illustrate what underlies
the discussion about a word. If transubstantiation
or /ieTouo-tWt? or* any similar word be used to guard
the doctrine of a real Sacramental Presence in the
Eucharist, it would express adequately the teaching of
the Russian Church; but if the use of the word is
supposed to mean the acceptance of the Roman
doctrine represented by it, then the word is misleading.
The reality of the sacramental teaching of the Russian
Church is undoubted, but equally strong is its rejection
of the materialised doctrine of the Roman Church.
The language used in authorised books on the
subject of the Eucharistic Sacrifice is, in accordance
with patristic language. For instance, in the Duty of
Parish Priests, it is said : —
'More especially is earnest prayer required of the Priest
in the service of the Divine Liturgy ; for herein not only is
that Mystery performed which Christ instituted at His last
and mystical Supper, but also the whole economy of our
salvation, wrought out by our Lord Jesus Christ, the Son of
God, is commemorated, according to the commandment, This
do in remembrance of Me."1
So in reference to Prayers for the Dead, (of which I
shall say more later) allusion is especially made to
' such as are offered in union with the oblation of the
Bloodless Sacrifice of the Body and Blood of Christ,'2
and then a passage from St. Cyril of Jerusalem is
quoted : ' Very great will be the benefit to those souls
for which prayer is offered at the moment when the
holy and tremendous Sacrifice is lying in view.'
1 The Duty of Parish Priests, Blackmore, p. 283.
2 The Longer Catechism, Blackmore, p. 99.

12 THE TEACHING
The general meaning of the sacrificial language must
be gathered from the Liturgy itself, which is, as is
well known, the Greek Liturgy. In the Liturgy of St.
Chrysostom there is : — •
(1.) The prayer of the faithful immediately after the
dismissal of the Catechumens, in which the Priest prays :
' Make us to become worthy to offer to Thee prayers and
supplications and unbloody sacrifices on behalf of all Thy
people.' (2.) In the prayer before the offertory, the Priest prays
for himself that he may be held fit that ' by me Thy sinful
and unworthy servant, these gifts may be offered. For Thou
art He that offereth and art offered, that receiveth and art
given, 0 Christ.'
(3.) Immediately after the recital of the words of institu
tion, at the invocation, the Priest prays: 'Remembering
therefore this saving command, and all things done for us,
the cross, the tomb, the resurrection on the third day, the
ascension into heaven, the sitting on the right hand, the
second and glorious coming, we offer to Thee Thine own
(to. era eK rwv au>v), in all things and for all things, we
praise Thee, we bless Thee, we give thanks to Thee, we
beseech Thee, our God, and we offer to Thee this reasonable
and unbloody service (Xarpdav), and we beseech Thee, and
entreat and supplicate Thee, send down Thy Holy Ghost
upon us and upon these gifts lying before Thee, and make
this bread the precious Body of Thy Christ, and that in this
cup, the precious Blood of Thy Christ.'
4 (4.) The intercession begins, 'And also we offer to Thee
this reasonable service on behalf of those who have gone to
rest in faith.'
I will conclude these extracts, which are, I think,
necessary for our purpose, by one from a work of
Khomiakoffs which will, I hope, shortly be translated.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 13
He is describing the difference between the worship of
his own Church, and that of the Protestants and the
Romans. Of the one he speaks of the coldness; of
the other he says, 'A wretched theory of terrestrial
diplomacy, extended to the invisible world, has come
to replace the faith in the organic unity of the Church.'
Of his own Church he says —
' The man thus (by faith and love) united to Christ is no
longer what he was, an isolated individual, he is become a
member of the Church which is the body of Christ, and his
life is hecome an integral part of that higher life to which
he has so freely submitted himself. The Saviour lives in the
Church, He lives in us. He intercedes, and it is we who
pray : He recommends us to the Divine Favour, and it is we
who mutually recommend ourselves to the Creator : He offers
Himself in eternal sacrifice, and it is we who present to the
Father this sacrifice of glorification, of gratitude and of pro
pitiation, for ourselves and for all our brothers, whether they
are still engaged in the dangers of terrestrial conflict or
whether death has made them already pass into a condition
of serene upward movement.'
I might multiply extracts, but I think that those
which I have given, taken partly from authorised
formulae and partly from popular religious writings, are
sufficient to let us see something of the belief and
temper of the Russian Church in contrast both to that
of Rome and to many theologians among ourselves.
This difference may be, I think, summed up somewhat
as follows : —
1. The Russian and the Eastern Church generally
avoid, as much as possible, definition. The Roman
Church is always trying to define the manner of the

14 THE TEACHING
change in the Sacraments : the Eastern Church says it
is a mystery. The tendency of the rest of the Western
Christian world has been to try and define what it
does not believe. The Eastern Church possesses much
more the tone of the early fathers : an intense reality
and boldness of belief; the building up of the service
in the words and language of Scripture; an absence
of rigidity and exactness of language, where human
language is felt to be inadequate and unnecessary.
2. The Russian Church avoids the obtrusively
'priestly' language of the modern Roman Church.
'Did they,' says Cardinal Vaughan, 'claim the power
to produce the actual living Christ Jesus by tran
substantiation upon the altar, according to the claims of
the priesthood of the Eastern and Western Churches ? '
I do not know whether this exceedingly crude language
would be accepted by modern Roman Catholic theo
logians : it certainly has a very different ring to that of
the Russian Church. In their instructions to Parish
Priests they say : ' Before giving the communion of the
most holy Body and Blood of Christ, the Priest should
duly instruct them that wish to communicate, that
This, the Body and Blood of Christ, is not only in name
what it is called, but also verily and indeed is His
Body and His Blood, under the forms of bread and
wine: for that which consummates this Sacrament is
the operation of the Holy Ghost, to Whom nothing is
impossible.' The Roman language speaks of the power
of the Priest, the Russian of the prayers of the Priest
and the work of the Holy Ghost.
3. The Roman Church dissociates the Priest from

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 15
the Church, the Eastern associates him with it. How
much this is so any one can see who studies the struc
ture of the Eastern services. So the Sacraments are in
and for the Church. ' The seven sacraments are not in
reality accomplished by any single individual who is
worthy of the mercy of God, but by the whole Church
in the person of one individual, even though he be
unworthy.' "¦ This is the teaching which probably most
of us have learned through the best English work on the
Church and the ministry, and perhaps we are surprised
to find it put before us so definitely in the far East.
How wonderfully this theory influences all the teaching
of the Church may be seen by the book on the duty of
the Parish Priests, where the true proportion of the
. Christian ministry is preserved, as it is in the Encyclical
of the English Archbishops.
In reference to Baptism, it is worth while to quote
the Baptismal formula, as illustrating one of the points
mentioned above. It is as follows : —
1 N. The servant of God is baptized in the Name of the
Father. — Amen. And of the Son. — Amen. And of the
Holy Ghost. — Amen. Now and ever, world without end. —
Amen.' This brings out very clearly what was said above
about the manner in which the Orthodox Church avoids
' priestly ' language. There are several of our formulae,
derived from Latin sources, to which it would object that
they exalt too much the authority of the Priest. This
might be further illustrated by the Ordination offices.
As it has sometimes been thought that the Russian
1 KhomiakofF, Russia and the English Church, p. 206,

16 THE TEACHING
Church does not recognise Western Baptism, it is
worth while quoting an authoritative statement on the
subject : —
' There are some ignorant men among the clergy who
would re-baptize Romans, as well as Lutherans and Calvin-
ists, when they come over to the Eastern Church ; while the
schismatics among ourselves are not ashamed even to
re-baptize those of their people who fall away from the
Church, in order to go over to their errors. But the seventh
canon of the second Oecumenical Council sufficiently refutes
both the ignorance of the first and the blindness of the last :
for that holy Council, in the canon cited, forbids to re-baptize
not only such as the Romans, Lutherans, and Calvinists
(who all clearly confess the Holy Trinity, and admit the work
of our salvation accomplished by the Incarnation of the Son
of God), but even the Arians themselves.'1
On the future state and prayers for the dead, the
Catechism teaches : —
' Q. In what state are the souls of the dead till the general
resurrection ?
'A. The souls of the righteous are in light and rest, with a
foretaste of eternal happiness ; but the souls of the
wicked are in a state the reverse of this.
' Q. Why may we not ascribe to the souls of the righteous
perfect happiness immediately after death 1
' A. Because it is ordained that the perfect retribution
1 Duty of Parish Priests. Blackmore, p. 209. See also Birkbeck on
Russia and the English Church, vol. i. p. 63, where a full history of
the Eastern custom with regard to re-baptism is given. The custom
of re-baptizing Westerns has been in practice surrendered within the
last five-and-twenty years, by both the Church in Greece and the
Patriarchate of Constantinople.
Whether the other Patriarchates have followed the example set by
these two in their Churches, I do not know.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 17
according to works shall be received by the perfect
man, after the resurrection of the body and God's last
judgment.
' Q. Why do we ascribe to the souls of the righteous a fore
taste of bliss before the last judgment 1
'A. On the testimony of Jesus Christ Himself, who says in
the parable that the righteous Lazarus was immedi
ately after death carried into Abraham's bosom.
' Q. What is to be remarked of such souls as have departed
with faith, but without having had time to bring forth
fruits worthy of repentance 1
' A. This ; that they may be aided towards the attainment
of a blessed resurrection by prayers offered in their
behalf, especially such as are offered in union with
the oblation of the Bloodless Sacrifice of the Body and
Blood of Christ, and by works of mercy done in faith
for their memory.'.1
The Russian Church does not believe in Purgatory.
As Archbishop Philaret (who drew up the Catechism in
its present form), wrote : —
' The condition of a man's soul after death is fixed by his
internal state ; and there is no such thing as Purgatory, in
which souls have to pass through fiery torments, in order to
prepare them for blessedness. . . . There is no need of any
other kind of purification when " the Blood of Jesus Christ
cleanseth us from all sin." '
And Khomiakoff writes : 2 —
'We pray for the living that the grace of God may be upon
them, and for the dead that they may become worthy of the
vision of God's Face. We know nothing of an intermediate

1 Catechism, Blackmore, pp. 98, 99.
2 See Comparative Statement of Rwsso-Greel: and Roman Catholic
Doctrines, in Papers of the Russo-Greek Committee, No. iv.
B

18 THE TEACHING
state of souls, which have neither been received into the
kingdom of God, nor condemned to torture, for of such a
state we have received no teaching either from the Apostles
or from Christ ; we do not acknowledge Purgatory, that is,
the purification of souls by sufferings from which they may
be redeemed by their own works or those of others ; for the
Church knows nothing of salvation by outward means, nor
any sufferings whatever they may be, except those of Christ ;
nor of bargaining with God, as in the case of a man buying
himself off by good works. . . . We pray in the spirit of
love, knowing that no one will be saved otherwise than by
the prayer of all the Church, in which Christ lives, knowing
and trusting that so long as the end of time has not come, all
the members of the Church, both living and departed, are
being perfected incessantly by mutual prayer.' 1
It seems to me to be of particular importance to
dwell on this teaching at the present time. It is recog
nised that prayers for the departed have never been
condemned by the English Church, and it is felt' that
the coldness and hardness of what may be called our
traditional customs in that matter want correction.
There is a natural tendency, especially for the more
ignorant, to turn to the one system which lies clearly
opened before us, and some are inclined to take over
wholesale the modern Roman doctrine and practice
concerning Purgatory. I venture to think that this is
very much to be lamented. That system has had most
deplorable practical developments ; it is certainly alien
to the whole spirit of early Christianity for centuries ;
it is a late and corrupt growth. On the other hand, we
know that the custom of praying for the departed dates
from the very beginning of Christianity, that it finds a
1 Russia and the English Church, vol. i. p. 217.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 19
regular place in all Liturgies, and answers to the needs
of the human heart. The teaching that we have quoted
gives a perfectly consistent basis for this, and deserves
our most careful attention.
I do not want to dwell too much on controversial
points, but it is perhaps necessary to remind you that
you will often be told that the Russian Church does
teach Purgatory, and the Synod of Bethlehem will be
quoted. This is another of the passages where the
text of the articles of that Synod was altered before
being circulated in Russia.
On the Invocation of Saints, the Russian Church
teaches as follows : — •
' Q. What means of communion has the Church on earth
with the Church in heaven 1
' A. The prayer of faith and love. The faithful who belong
to the Church militant upon earth, in offering their
prayers to God, call at the same time to their aid the
Saints who belong to the Church in heaven ; and
these, standing on the highest steps of approach to
God, by their prayers and intercessions, purify,
strengthen, and offer before God the prayers of the
faithful living upon earth, and by the will of God
work graciously and beneficently upon them, either
by invisible virtue, or by distinct apparitions, and in
divers other ways.' x
This is the official teaching, and it is very carefully
guarded. The fact that all the Saints are prayed for in
the Liturgy, including the Blessed Virgin, is significant.
And Archbishop Philaret tells us that 'No one has
the power to deliver sinners from torments by the
1 Catechism, Blackmore, p. 78.

20 THE TEACHING
application of the works of supererogation, of Jesus
Christ and of the Saints : because the merits of Jesus
Christ are not under the control of man ; and works of
supererogation in the Saints are impossible, as they
themselves are only saved by grace.' 1
What is implied is, that the whole company of the
faithful in heaven and earth are one. United to one
another in the Communion of Saints, the prayers of the
whole Church ascend to heaven on behalf of all ; as we
are benefited by the prayers of the living, so are we
benefited by the prayers of those who have gone before.
As we are benefited by the love of the living, so are we
benefited by the love of the departed. And the whole
Church is ever striving to rise upward. Beings who
are not perfect must continually be striving after greater
and greater sanctification, and the departed are in a
state of ' serene upward progress.' 2
1 Archbishop Philaret, Comparative Statement, etc., p. 16.
2 In the excellent little work by the Rev. George Body, on The
Present State of the Faithful Departed, he writes (p. 50) : ' This belief
of the intercession of the Saints does not involve the practice of direct
invocation. Throughout I am using the term Saints to designate the
whole company of those who are with Jesus in Paradise. To invoke
these with direct invocation has never been the wont of any portion of
Catholic Christendom : no one has ever prayed to his mother or to his
friends.' This statement is incorrect. The practice mentioned is the
habitual custom of the Russian Church. So in the poem of Khomiakoff
on his dead children : —
' Dear children, at that same still midnight do ye,
As I once prayed for you, now in turn pray for me ;
Me who loved well the Cross on your foreheads to trace ;
Now commend me in turn to the mercy and grace
Of our gracious and merciful God. '
Russia and the English Church, Birkbeck, p. 2.
Often, when a child who has lost its mother is praying, he may be
heard adding her name to those of the other saints whom he asks to
pray for him. Mutual prayer of the dead for the living, of the living

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 21
On some other points I will now give, as shortly as I
can, the teaching of the Russian Church.
On Eikons, it is said: 'We ought to honour them,
but not to make Gods of them : for Eikons are merely
representations, which serve to remind us of the works
of God and His Saints, to the intent that we, by look
ing upon them, may be stirred up to the imitation of
holiness.' On Chrism, the language is very frank and definite.
To the question, ' Is the outward form of unction with
Chrism mentioned in Holy Scripture ? ' it is answered :
' It may well be supposed that the words of St. John
(1 John ii. 20, 27), refer to a visible as well as to an
inward unction ; but it is more certain that the Apostles,
for imparting to the baptized the Gifts of the Holy
Ghost, used imposition of hands, Acts viii. 15, 17. The
successors of the Apostles, however, in spite of this,
introduced unction with Chrism, deducing, it may be,
their precedent from the unction used in the Old Testa
ment.' 1
The definition of Knowledge and Faith is very inter
esting —
' Knowledge has for its object things visible and compre
hensible; Faith, things which are invisible and even in
comprehensible. Knowledge is founded on experience, on
for the dead, and of both for the whole Church, is to the Russian the
bond which links together the Church in one Communion of Saints.
We are not now discussing the evidenceand authority for this custom
of invocation, nor how far it is beneficial. What is necessary is to
realise that this is very different from the more developed forms of
Adoration of the Saints.
1 Catechism, Blackmore, p. 88.

22 THE TEACHING
examination of its object ; but Faith, on belief of testimony
to truth. Knowledge belongs partly to the intellect, although
it may also act on the heart; Faith belongs principally to
the heart, although it is imparted through the intellect.'
On Faith and Works, the Catechism teaches as
follows : —
' Q. What should be the effect and fruit of true faith in the
Christian ?
' A. Charity or love, and good works conformable thereto.
1 Q. Is not faith alone enough for a Christian, without love
and good works 1
'A. No ; for faith without love and good works is inactive
and dead, and so cannot lead to eternal life.
' Q. May not a man on the other hand be saved by love and
good works, without faith 1
' A. It is impossible that a man who has not faith in God
should really love Him; besides, man, being ruined'
by sin, cannot do really good works, unless he receive
through faith in Jesus Christ spiritual strength, or
grace from God.
' Q. What is to be thought of such love as is not accompanied
by good works 1
' A. Such love is not real : for true love naturally shows
itself by good works.' 1
On the Scriptures and Tradition, the teaching in the
Duty of Priests is : — •
1 Since the Articles of the Faith and the Law of the Ten
Commandments are contained in Holy Scripture, as afore
said, it follows, beyond dispute, that we hold the Word of
God, that is, the books of the Old and New Testaments, as
1 The Longer Catechism, Blackmore, pp. 118-119.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 23
the source, foundation, and perfect rule both of our holy
Faith, and of the good works of the Law. Wherefore it is our
duty to search the Word of God, and draw from it divine truth,
to teach the people ; and to confirm our own words from the Word
of God ; and to this test to bring all doctrine, which either we our
selves may hear from others, or others from us, receiving what is
agreeable thereto, and rejecting what is contrary. '
' The writings of the holy Fathers are of great use : for
they contain either the very same articles of the faith ex
plained from the Word of God ; or instructions serviceable
for holy living; or else canons and rules for the discipline
and good order of the Church, and of the whole Christian
community, which we call traditions ecclesiastical. Where
fore we both may, and on occasion ought, in our discourses to
quote from the writings of the holy Fathers also such
passages as may be suitable for the explanation of any
article of faith, or for confirmation of our doctrine delivered
to the people. But neither the writings of the holy Fathers,
nor the traditions of the Church, are to be confounded or
equalled with the Word of God, and His commandments ;for
the Word of God is one thing ; but the writings of the holy Fathers,
and traditions ecclesiastical, are another.' 1
I will give one more extract, this time from the
writings of Khomiakoff, which will, I think, suggest the
teaching of his Church : —
' The Spirit of God, who lives' in the Church, ruling her
and making her wise, manifests Himself within her in divers
manners; in Scripture, in tradition, and in works; for the
Church, which does the works of God, is the same Church
which preserves tradition, and which has written the Scrip
tures. Neither individuals, nor a multitude of individuals
within the Church, preserve tradition or write the Scrip
tures ; but the Spirit of God, which lives in the whole body
of the Church. Therefore it is neither right nor possible to
1 Duty oj Parish Priests, pp. 161, 164.

24 THE TEACHING
look for the grounds of tradition in the Scriptures, nor for
the proof of Scripture in tradition, nor for the warrant of
Scripture or tradition in works. To a man living outside
the Church, neither her Scripture nor her tradition nor her
works are comprehensible. But to the man who lives
within the Church and is united to the spirit of the Church,
their unity is manifest by the grace which lives within
her.'1 I have now, I think, given quite enough extracts to
illustrate the teaching of the Russian Church on dif
ferent doctrines, and must conclude this part of my
subject with some more or less general observations.
1. In the first place, what is quite clear about the
Russian Church, as of the Eastern Church as a whole,
is that it represents a natural and organic development.
A Russian monk once said to me, speaking of the
Reformation, ' You, you have changed things ; we have ,
never changed anything from the days of the Apostles.'
The statement is, of course, in its extreme form, un
true, but in another sense it is perfectly true ; there has
never, or only in smaller matters, been any deliberate
change. The growth and modification has been natural,
unconscious, and organic. The Eastern Church has
never been in the position of having to make a selec
tion, so to speak, of what it will accept or reject; it has
never reconstructed and recast its teaching. An his
torian, looking over long periods, can notice changes.
He can, perhaps, date the first appearance of this or
that custom ; the modifications of the first three
centuries may be a matter of dispute, but a great
1 Russia and the English Church, vol. i. p. 198.

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 25
transforming influence like scholasticism, or the Re
formation, or the Council of Trent, the Eastern Church
has never known.
2. And this leads us to a second point. The Church
of Russia has never been influenced, except in details,
by the whole development of Western Theology, from
St. Augustine onwards. It preserves for us the tone
and the spirit and the thought of the Church of St.
Chrysostom and St. Athanasius. That this is altogether
a gain, I should be the last to assert. The first great
break in Christian unity was of infinite harm to the
Church, as all breaks have been, for it cut- off the East
from the active religious thought of the West, and it
took away any check that might have existed to what
all will probably recognise as the one-sided development
of Western thought. The West has retained and in
tensified a heightened sense of the individual life, of
the reality of sin, of the necessity of personal conver
sion; it has lost, in the introduction into all theology,
whether Roman or Protestant, of hard, legal ideas, of a
too rigid system, of an exaggerated desire for construc
tion, of a banishment of mystery, of the attempt to
solve, by human reason, problems which are quite
inexplicable. The early Councils anathematised those
who added to the creeds. The Eastern Church some
times dates the disunion of Christendom to the time
when the Western Church added the Filioque. At any
rate, an importation of philosophy into religious belief,
and an attempt at precision in many questions where
precision is impossible, has burdened us with creeds,
and articles of religion which are treated almost as

26 THE TEACHING
creeds, and which certainly subject all the different
Churches to the anathema pronounced at the Council
of Ephesus against those who added articles to the
Christian faith.
3. We shall find that a Russian theologian will tell
us that we in the West always look at everything
through Roman spectacles. Either we have received
our doctrines straight from Rome, or have developed
them in opposition to a Roman point of view. There
is, they would tell us — and tell us with truth — an older,
and a different point of view, from which they look at
things. They are not troubled with the conflict be
tween Scripture and tradition, for both alike are part
of the teaching of the Church ; the Bible is a part of
tradition, and tradition is in the Bible. They do not ask
whether a man in justified by faith or by works, as the
antithesis of the two is to them impossible. ' When we
ask, " Can true faith save without works ? " we ask a
senseless question ; or, better to say, no question at all.
If the faith is a living faith which does works, it is faith
in Christ, and Christ in faith.'
Enough has been said about the teaching of the Russian
Church and about its doctrinal attitude. It has, of
course, been necessary to touch only on some points,
but I hope that what has been said will not only have
elucidated those special points, but also will have given
some idea of the mental attitude of the Russian Church
as a whole. I must add now a few words on the ex
ternal side of the Russian Church life. A very unjust
and one-sided estimate is often taken of this.
The historical development of the Russian people

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 27
has been different from our own, they are of a different
race and character, and in civilisation they started
many centuries later than we did. Their religion, again,
is in many ways different, but no one can doubt its
intense reality and power. One of the elements of
power and stability in Russia is the hold religion and
the National Church have on the great mass of the
people. The universal belief in miracles, the venera
tion of the Eikons, and the passion for pilgrimages, are
all signs of this devotion, and help in turn to educate
and foster the religious feeling. There are few con
trasts greater than that of passing from a Greek
monastery on Mount Athos to the great Russian houses.
There is no sight in Palestine more impressive than
that of the devotion and enthusiasm and endurance
of the Russian pilgrims.
There are three characteristics of the Russian Church
that I should like to dwell on somewhat longer. The
first is, that it is a National Church. One of the
characteristics of the Eastern Church has been that it
has apparently so far solved the problem of combining in
Christian unity national churches, and of identifying the
National Church with the life of the nation without lead
ing to its separation from other bodies. Foremost among
these churches, certainly the largest National Church
in the world, is that of Russia, with perhaps 80,000,000
of adherents. It is a National Church, and it has been
bound up in an especial way with the fortunes of the
country. In the great struggle with the Tartars, it was
round the Church that the defence rallied, and some of
the monasteries were the great fortresses of resistance

28 THE TEACHING
against a foreign invader. So, too, the unique position
of the Tzar in the Church, however it be defined, and
however it be justified, is a sign of the identification
of the Church and the nation, and the nation with the
Church. Then, secondly, the Russian Church is the Church
of the laity. The theoretical side of this has been
referred to in what was said of the place of the laity in
the Church. The Eastern Church, and especially the
Russian, considers that to the whole body of the
Church— laity as well as clergy — belongs the Divine
Spirit, working through faith and love, which pre
serves the Church from error. Practically, this fact is
brought out by the extent to which the religious life of
the people never requires, as so often in this country,
to be kept alive by the energy of the clergy. The
drunken village pope has become a typical character in
fiction — and unfortunately he is not unknown in real
life — but if, in England, the parson is immoral or in
competent, the church is deserted ; in Russia, the pope
is compelled by the people to perform the ministrations
which he alone can do. Their religion comes from
themselves, and they are taught it as part of the
traditions which they inherit.
And then, thirdly, if we were to try and sum up the
distinguishing features of the Russian Church — just
as we might say that one great characteristic of the
English Church was practical philanthropy, or of
Germany a devotion to theological study, or of Scot
land a taste for metaphysical and theological discus
sion — so of Russia we might say that it was religious

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 29
devotion. There may be superstition, although that
is a word the meaning of which, except as a term of
abuse, is very difficult to fix ; there is probably in many
cases an insufficient grasp of the connection between
morality and religion, but of the deep religious devotion
of the people there can be no doubt. It is strong,
simple, deep, and makes Russia a more formidable
power, under certain circumstances, than we are inclined
to believe, or than perhaps many of its own rulers realise.
The half -religious, half -political movement which
presses Russia ever southwards to the holy places, is
one of the forces which will mould history in the future
much more surely than the skill of its statesmen.
Russia is a religious power not to be despised, one of
the great factors which will mould the religion of the
future. What, then, are its relations to England and
the Anglican Church ?
This is not a very easy question to answer, for it must
be remembered that in Russia, as in England and as in
Rome, there are two points of view. Just as with us
there are Bishops who write — as one wrote to me —
' that he considered the whole Eastern Church to be so
corrupt and idolatrous, that the less contact we have
with it the better,' so, not long ago, a Russian Bishop in
America wrote : ' Who, then, belongs to this One, Holy,
Catholic and Apostolic Church ? . . . Only the Eastern
Churches (remain) in the fold — the four Patriarchates
of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem ;
the Churches of Russia, Greece, Georgia, Roumania,
some Slavic countries, and others now known under the
name of Orthodox.' 'All the Western Christians, on

30 THE TEACHING
the other hand — the Roman Catholic Church and all
the Protestant communities, sprung out of the bosom
of this Church: Anglican, Episcopalian, Lutheran,
Calvinist, etc. — all these do not belong to the One Holy
Catholic Church? . . . ' The Anglican Church, besides
distorting the doctrine of the Sacraments and other
dogmas, cannot even, so far, prove her hierarchy's
claim to direct Apostolic succession, while other sects
have no trace at all of hierarchy or of Sacraments.'
And then he goes on very clearly, ' But it may be that
some persons will ask : " Is salvation possible in these
Christian communities ? Can it really be that it is not ? "
To this we answer directly and decisively that it is not'
I have made this quotation in order to make it clear
that there are extreme men in the Russian Church as
there are in the English, and I shall have to refer to it
again in conclusion. I may state definitely that this is
not the feeling of the Russian Church as a whole, and
the teaching implied is incorrect. It is perfectly true
that the Eastern Church considers that it alone is the
true Church, excluding the Roman Catholics quite as
much as ourselves, but its writers are careful to guard
against condemning those outside its own body.
'Inasmuch as the earthly and visible Church is not the
fulness and completeness of the whole Church which the
Lord has appointed to appear at the final judgment of all
creation, she acts and knows only within her own limits ; and
(according to the words of Paul the Apostle to the Corin
thians, 1 Cor. v. 12), does not judge the rest of mankind, and
only looks upon those as excluded, that is to say, not belong
ing to her, who exclude themselves. The rest of mankind.
whether alien from the Church, or united to her by ties

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 31
which God has not willed to reveal to her, she leaves to the
judgment of the great day. The Church on earth judges
for herself only, according to the grace of the Spirit, and the
freedom granted her through Christ, inviting also the rest of
mankind to the unity and adoption of God in Christ ; but
upon those who do not hear her appeal she pronounces no
sentence, knowing the command of her Saviour and Head,
"not to judge another man's servant."'1
Again, we should, I think, remember that although
not so hard or rigid as the Roman Church, and resent
ing its attitude very much, the Eastern Church in its
very nature is certainly more immobile. That arises
really, I believe, from the fact that it has, as I have
said, hardly ever made any conscious change ; that it
represents, in a way which no Western Church can,
an organic growth. So diplomatic arrangement of
doctrines will do no good in dealing with Russia,
whatever might be the case with Rome.
'The Church has in itself nothing of a State, and can
admit of nothing like a conditional union. It is quite a
different case with the Church of Rome. She is a State,
. . . and has a right to act as a State. Union is possible
with Rome. Unity alone is possible with Orthodoxy.'2
I have stated these facts definitely, because it seems
to me necessary. As soon as the recent decision of the
Pope on Anglican Orders had been published, I began
to receive letters from Colonial bishops and others, to
the effect that as the Church of Rome had rejected
us, I should take immediate steps for our reunion
with the East, while I read a letter in the paper from a
1 Khomiakoff, in Russia and the English Church, vol. i. p. 194.
2 Russia and the English Church, vol. i. p. 8.

32 THE TEACHING
distinguished English Prelate, saying we should take
steps to be reunited with the Presbyterian Church of
Scotland. There seemed to be something intensely
unpractical and decidedly undignified in these letters.
It was rather like a woman who, having failed to secure
the attentions of one suitor, should advertise to the
world her desire to get another.
You will never heal the divisions in the body of
Christ by methods such as these ; you will never thus
bring to an end differences which are the result not
only of doctrinal dispute, but of deep-seated diversity of
character and history, and have been intensified by
centuries of estrangement. The attempt at reunion
would be only too likely to bring to the front the
extremer sections on either side, just as, recently^ we
have had the doctrines of the Roman Church re-stated
for us by a Cardinal whose language is not only un
attractive to English Churchmen, but also would be
looked upon as extreme by a large number of members
of his own community, and those the most learned;
while I ask you, as sensible men, is our own Church
sufficiently educated to make a proposal for reunion
in any way practical ?
If we are to aim at reunion, our method must be
different ; it must be one which works without caring
for the immediate results, one which works by the sober
path of theological study, of mutual intercourse and
charity, of educating both ourselves and others.
The immediate practical conclusion that I wish you
to draw is : To realise the existence of the Russian
Church as a great fact in religion, and as a great

OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH 33
witness in Christian theology. Rome bulks very large
in the eyes of some of us. It is at hand, and we are
conscious of it. It is a good thing that we should
reahse that there is another Church which, on historical
grounds, has as great, or even greater claims to represent
the Catholic teaching of the undivided Church, — that,
in many points, it bears a living witness against the
teaching of the Roman Church, and that in all these
points it is on the side of our own Church. We cannot,
with the Eastern Church before our eyes, believe that
the claim the Church of Rome makes to be the one
Church, is true. Every historian knows that these
claims are untenable in history; the existence of the
Eastern Church is an object-lesson to the truth of
history. We, as English churchmen, appeal to an
undivided Church ; when the Church is — if it be God's
will — once more united, then we shall receive and
accept the testimony of that united body.
And a very definite work is before us. We have to
do what our position helps us very much to do, to build
up a sober exposition of Catholic truth, both historical
and scientific. We have much sympathy in doing so
from many outside our body. Even fifty years ago,
Khomiakoff wrote : ' England, with its modest science
and its serious love of religious truth, might seem to
give some hope.' It is our reverent criticism which has
attracted the best minds of the Roman Church.
We must remember that to be Catholic does not
mean to revive this or that mediaeval custom, or adopt
this or that formula. It means to realise the Catholic
faith in all its breadth and freedom. To understand
c

34 THE TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
that it is a body of truth which illustrates and is illus
trated by every side of truth and knowledge. We must
learn to be more historical, and more scientific, and
because we are both, more Catholic. And then, when
we look on the practical side, we have to realise that
our own Church, to deserve her name Catholic, should
be truly and in reality, what it is to only a certain
extent at present, the Church of the Nation, and the
Church of the Empire.
To perform these two tasks, we must learn to com
bine loyalty to our own Church, with charity towards^
other Christian bodies. Charity without loyalty is a
mere name. We must believe in our own Church, but
not allow that belief to make us rigid or narrow.
Sober research, earnest work, loyalty, charity, prayer —
these are the methods by which we can advance the
Reunion of Christendom.

APPENDIX
A. Service Books of the Russian Church. — The services
of the Russian Church are for the most part identical with
those of other branches of the Greek Church, and the service
books are largely the same, but translated into the Old
Slavonic or Church Language. The services may be divided
into (1) The Liturgy.
(2) The Daily Offices.
(3) The Occasional Offices, Rites, and Ceremonies.
The following are the principal books required :
1. Tipikon (Gr. tvttlkov), the book of the rules and
regulations to determine the service for the seasons
and days of the year. The services and directions
are both often very complicated.
2. Sloujebnik (Gr. AenovpyiKov). This contains the text
of the three Liturgies of St. Basil, St. Chrysostom,
and the Presanctified. This must be supplemented,
however, by the books containing the Deacons' portion
and the Fixed Hymns, while the variable portions are
given in the books mentioned below.
3. Trebnik (Book of Needs) or Euchologion. This con
tains most of the occasional sacraments and rites, and
also generally the fixed portions of the Liturgy.
4. Tshasoslow, in Greek 'f2poAoytov, contains the Canonical
Hours.
5. The Lections are usually contained in three separate
volumes with the 'Eira-yycAio-T^piov or table of lessons.

36 THE TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
6. The variable portions of the service are contained in
the Octoich ('Oktujjxos), containing the variable hymns
for Sundays, the Triod (TpieuSiov), those for Lent
and the three preceding weeks, the Pentakostariy
(irevTrjKoo-Tapiov) those for Easter, and the Mineya
(M^i/ata), the immovable feasts.
Brightman, Liturgies, lxxxii ; King, Bites, etc., p. 42 ; Neale,
p. 819.
B. The three Liturgies in use are —
(1) The Byzantine Liturgy of St. Chrysostom, the Liturgy
in ordinary use.
(2) The Byzantine Liturgy of St. Basil, used upon all the
Sundays of the Great Fast, except Palm Sunday ;
upon Holy Thursday,, the vigils of Christmas and
Epiphany, and St. Basil's day.
(3) The Liturgy of St. Gregory Dialogos, or of the
Presanctified, used on Wednesdays and Fridays in
the Great Fast.
A complete and scholarly edition of the Greek texts of
St. Chrysostom and St. Basil is given in Brightman, Oriental
Liturgies, pp. 353, 411. The Greek use differs only in a few
rubrics from the Slavonic. Full accounts of these Liturgies
are given in Neale, with translations.
ft The Canonical Hours. — There are eight canonical hours,
but prayers are actually said three times daily. Matins
(MecrovvKTiKov), Lauds ('OpOpov), and Prime, being said early in
the morning; Tierce, Sext, and the Liturgy later; Nones,
Vespers ('Eo-n-eptvov or wetshernya), and Compline (airoSeiirvov)
in the evening. Neale, p. 894; King, p. 123.
D. The Occasional Offices are very numerous, including all
that is implied by both the Bituale and Pontificate in Latin,
and also a large number of Domestic Offices.

APPENDIX 37'
E. Translations into English : —
King, Bites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Bussia,
London, 1772.
This is the only translation made from the Russian. It
contains the Liturgies of St. Chrysostom and the Pre-
sanctifiedj the Daily Offices, and most of the Occasional
Offices, including the ordination services.
Neale, History of the Holy Eastern Church, vols. i. and ii.,
London, 1850.
Contains descriptions and translations of the Liturgy, and
much information, with translations, of the other offices.
Neale, The Divine Liturgy of our father among the Saints,
John Chrysostom. London, 1860.
Robertson, at dtiai Xeirovpyiat. ; the Divine Liturgies,
London, 1894.
Shann, Euchology. Contains a large number of the Daily
Offices. London, 1894.
Shann, Book of Needs. Contains many of the Occasional
Offices. London, 1894.
F. Doctrinal Statements of the Eastern Church. — As has
been explained above (p. 3) no document has symbolical
authority except the Creed. The theology of the Russian
Church is based on the Canons of the seven general councils
and on the fathers, especially the De Fide Orthodoxa of
St. John of Damascus. The chief modern authoritative
documents are the following : —
1. The Answers of the Patriach Jeremiah to the Lutherans.
These have not apparently ever been translated into
the Russian, or published there with authority.
2. The Orthodox Confessions of the Faith of the Catholic and
Apostolic Church of the East.— -This was written by Peter
Mogila, Metropolitan of Kieff, 1632-47.

38 THE TEACHING OF THE RUSSIAN CHURCH
' If it be asked how much weight is to be attached
to the Orthodox Confession, we answer that besides all
that we have related above of the care taken originally
in its composition and revision, and of its approval
both by the Synod of Jassy, and by the four Eastern
Patriarchs, it received afterwards the testimonies of
Nectarius, Patriarch of Constantinople, ... of
Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, with his Synod
held at Bethlehem in 1672; also at the same time of
Dionysius, Patriarch of Constantinople; again in
1691, that of a Synod held at Constantinople; and
lastly in 1696, that of Adrian, Patriarch of Moscow.
It is acknowledged by the Spiritual Regulations
subscribed by the bishops and clergy of Russia in the
year 1720, and all Russian theologians since have
rested very much on this book.' (Blackmore, p. xxv.)
3. The XVLII Articles of the Synod of Bethlehem.— The
Synod was held in 1672. The articles seem to have
been communicated to the Russian Church in 1721,
and published in an authorised Russian translation,
which differs in many points from the Greek, in 1838.
(See Neale, p. 1173). The Greek may be found in
Hardouin's Concil., xi. p. 180.
Both the above documents are somewhat tinged
with Latin teaching.
4. The Longer Catechism. — This in its present form was
drawn up by Philaret, Archbishop of Moscow. It was
adopted by the Holy Synod in 1839, and sent to all
the Eastern Patriarchs, and. to other churches of the
same rite and communion. Translated by Blackmore
(see below).
5. The Treatise on the Duty of Parish Priests. — Composed by
George Konissky, Bishop of Mogileff, with the assist
ance of Parthenius Sopkofsky, Bishop of Smolensk.
It was first printed at St. Petersburg, A.D. 1776.
It has been adopted by the whole Russian Church;

APPENDIX 39
and all candidates for holy orders in the Diocesan
Seminaries and in the Superior Spiritual Academies
are required to have read it. Translated by Black-
more.
6. To these we may add the declaration of Faith made by
a bishop at his consecration. It is translated by
King, p. 293.
G. Translations of Doctrinal Works : —
Blackmore, The Doctrine of the Bussian Church. Aberdeen,
1845.
Contents. — The Primer or Spelling Book ; The Shorter and
Longer Catechisms ; The Duty of Parish Priests.
H. Some Works on the Russian Church.
King, The Bites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in
Bussia. London, 1772.
Neale, A History of the Holy Eastern Church. London,
1850.
Romanoff, Sketches of the Bites and Customs of the Graeco-
Bussian Church. London, 1869. (Popular.)
Khomiakoff, L'Eglise Latine et le Protestantisme au point
de vue' de I'Eglise d'Orient. Lausanne and Vevey,
1872.
Birkbeck, Bussia and the English Church during the last fifty
years. London, 1895. Published for the Eastern
Church Association.
Stanley, Lectures on the Eastern Church. London, 1862.
Macaire, Introduction it, la Thiologie Orthodoxe, 1857-59.
Mouravieff, History of the Church of Bussia. Translated
by Blackmore, 1842.

Eastern C&urcf) toociation.

OBJECTS OF THE ASSOCIATION.
(1) To give information as to the state and position of the Eastern
Christians, in order gradually to better their condition through
the influence of public opinion.
(2) To make known to the Christians of the East the doctrine and
principles of the Anglican Church.
(3) To take advantage of all opportunities which the Providence of
God shall afford for Intercommunion with the Orthodox Church,
and also for friendly intercourse with the other ancient Churches
of the East.
(4) To assist, as far as possible, the Bishops of the Orthodox Church
in their efforts to promote the spiritual welfare and the educa
tion of their flocks.

STANDING COMMITTEE.
The Right Rev. the Bishop of Reading (Chairman), Christ Church,
Oxford.
The Very Rev. the Dean of St. Paul's.
Rev. N. T. Garry, Hon. Canon of Christ Church, Oxford.
Rev. W. C. E. Newbolt, Canon of St. Paul's, Amen Court, London, E.C.
Rev. T. A. Laoey, Madingley Rectory, Cambridge.
Rev. S. J. M. Price, St. Ive's Vicarage, Hunts.
Rev. R. Mileurn Blakiston, 7 Dean's Yard, Westminster, S.W.
Rev. F. E. Brightman, Pusey House, St. Giles', Oxford.
Sir Theodore C. Hope, K.C.S.I., CLE., 21 Elvaston Place, S.W.
Sir John Conroy, Bart., Fellow of Balliol College, Oxford.
G. W. E. Russell, Esq., 18 Wilton Street, S.W.
W. J. Birkbeck, Esq., 32 Sloane Gardens, S.W.
C. R. Freeman, Esq., 20 Gutter Lane, Cheapside.
Edwin Freshfield, Esq., LL.D., 35 Russell Square, W.C.
Athelstan Riley, Esq., 2 Kensington Court, W.
C. Knight Watson, Esq., F.S.A., 49 Bedford Square, W.C.
H. 0. Wakeman, Esq., Fellow of All Souls' College, Oxford.
Treasurer — G. T. Biddulph, Esq., 43 Charing Cross.
Secretary— Rev. A. C. Headlam, The Rectory, Welwyn, Herts.
Assistant Secretary — Miss Goodwin, Saltwood Rectory, Hythe, Kent.
Any one desirous of becoming a Member is requested to communicate
with the Assistant Secretary.

¦. ¦ ¦