rnia il IRVINE, RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Russia and the English Church DURING THE LAST FIFTY YEARS VOLUME I. CONTAINING A CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN MR. WILLIAM PALMER FELLOW OF MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD AND M. KHOMIAKOFF, IN THE YEARS 1844-1854 EDITED BY W? J?' BIRKBECK, M.A., F.S.A. MAGDALEN COLLEGE, OXFORD PUBLISHED FOR THE EASTERN CHURCH ASSOCIATION RIVINGTON, PERCIVAL & CO. KING STREET, CO VENT GARDEN LONDON 1895 S.B.N. - GB: 576. 99190. Z Republished in 1969 by Gregg International Publishers Limited Westmead, Farnborough, Hants. , England Printed in offset by Franz Wolf, Heppenheim/Bergstrasse Western Germany PKEFACE ONLY a few words are necessary by way of Preface to the following collection of letters, in order to explain the purpose of the Eastern Church Association in publishing them. They have been selected as the best means of putting before English Churchmen a point of view in matters of theology, of which they are for the most part very ignorant. Many of us are acquainted with the Anglican or Roman or Nonconformist way of looking at things. We ignore even the existence of the Russian Church, in many ways the most vigorous and powerful of all Christian bodies, with a very clear and definite theology of its own. The following letters between a very friendly but very definite Russian layman and William Palmer, once Fellow of Magdalen College, Oxford, will serve to put before English people a theological position vi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH different from that to which they are accustomed. It is felt too that the publication of these letters may do something to preserve the me- mory of one of by no means the least interesting members of the Oxford Movement, one who was an early pioneer in work towards reunion, who at a time when such ideas were, even more than at present, looked on as Quixotic and visionary, felt himself drawn towards the great and vener- able churches of the East. His chivalrous self- sacrifice and his eager zeal for truth deserve not to be forgotten. It only remains on behalf of the Association to thank Mr. Birkbeck for the trouble that he has taken in editing the letters, and the many friends, both in England and in Russia, who have helped in the publication. ARTHUR C. HEADLAM, Secretary of the Eastern Church Association. CONTENTS CHAPTER I MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. PALMER PAGE Origin of Correspondence 'To my Children' Mr. Palmer's transla- tion, 1 CHAPTER II MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIRST LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1844] The sign of the Cross Communion of prayer between living and dead Misrepresentations of Mr. Khomiakoff's opinions about England Reunion of Christendom Different views of Rome and the Orthodox Church Obstacles to Reunion between Eastern and Western Communities Mr. Palmer's eyesight Report of Dr. Newman's secession, 4 CHAPTER III MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIRST LETTER [1845] Mr. Palmer's book of poems and hymns Its contents and objects Letter dedicatory The English Church and the sign of the Cross Invocation of Saints Prospects of the Reunion of Christendom Duty of the Russian Church in the matter Reply to Mr. Khomiakoff's strictures upon Rome Union of the English Church more possible with the East than with Rome The question of Filioque, 12 mi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH CHAPTER IV MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SECOND LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1845] PAGE Obstacles to Eeunion of Western and Eastern Churches, moral even more than doctrinal Mr. Palmer's strictures upon the Eastern Church partly, but not entirely, fair Invocation of Saints- Protestant objections to it due to inheritance of Roman traditions The procession of the Holy Spirit Western breach of the Church's unity Mr. Khomiakoff's opinion of the English Church, 27 CHAPTER V MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SECOND LETTER [1846] Mr. Palmer's Harmony of Anglican and Eastern Doctrine Question as to whether the West is still a part of the Catholic Church Inconsistency of the Eastern Church in this matter Agreement possible between the Eastern and English Churches upon the question of the Invocation of Saints Eemarks upon various points raised by Mr. Khomiakoff, . 41 CHAPTER VI MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S THIRD LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1846] Moral Obstacle to the West accepting Orthodoxy The Eastern Church defended from the charge of lack of missionary zeal And from charge of inconsistency with regard to FilioqueAtiA. with regard to the Re-baptism of Westerns Replies to some further remarks of Mr. Palmer upon Filioque and the Inquisition Difficult for Westerns, whether Latin.s or Protestants, to join the Orthodox Church The Church cannot be a harmony of discords Latent power and great future of the Orthodox Church, .... 55 CHAPTER VII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S VISIT TO ENGLAND. [1847] Mr. Khomiakoff visits London and Oxford His letter to the ' Moskvitjaniu ' about England London and Moscow compared An English Sunday 73 CONTENTS ix CHAPTER VIII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FOURTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1847-1848] PAGE The unity of the Church Self-contented Individualism of Protestant Germany Contrast with England Count Protasoff upon reunion The Metropolitan Philaret's conditions Dr. Hampden's nomina- tion as Bishop of Hereford A call to join the Orthodox Eastern Church The revolution in France and elsewhere, ... 77 CHAPTER IX MR. PALMER'S ANSWER TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FOURTH LETTER [1849] Mr. Palmer's ' Appeal to the Scottish Bishops ' Compulsory auricular Confession Preparations for a book upon the Patriarch Nicon Plans for the future Mr. Allies's book upon the Papal Supremacy, 82 CHAPTER X MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIFTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1850] Letter of Pius ix. to the Oriental Christians Reply of the Orthodox Patriarchs The Church consists of the totality of the ecclesiastical body, not merely of the hierarchy Orthodox theory of the Church vindicated Hopes for the future both in Russia and in England - Ecclesiastical news from Oxford, 91 CHAPTER XI MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SIXTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1851] The Gorham judgment The Papal aggression Their real significance Anglican position deliued Only one solution, .... 99 CHAPTER XII MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIFTH LETTER [1851] Mr. Palmer's literary schemes Outline of 'Dissertations upon the Orthodox Communion' Journey to the East In the South of Russia Mr. Palmer applies for admission into the Greek Church Question of Re-baptism Question as to how far the laity have a voice in the teaching of the Church, 104 x RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH CHAPTER XIII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SEVENTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1852] The Archbishop of Kazan on Mr. Palmer's case Death of Mme. Khomiakoff, 112 CHAPTER XIV MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SEVENTH LETTER. Account of Mr. Palmer's 'Dissertations' HLs present ecclesiastical position Difficulty of joining either the Greek or the Russian Church Claims of Rome, 115 CHAPTER XV MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S EIGHTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1852] Sympathy with Mr. Palmer Difficulty concerning Re-baptism, not without precedent in the Early Church Criticism of Mr. Palmer's attitude towards Rome and the East Defence of the Greek Church, and of the Russian Church, against Mr. Palmer's stric- turesScheme for reconciling Anglicans to the Orthodox Church A request Communion with the departed Proofs of the authenticity of the Gospels, 122 CHAPTER XVI MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S NINTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1852] Mr. Khomiakoff's commission to Mr. Palmer Further proofs of the authenticity of the Gospels, ... .... 135 CHAPTER XVII MR. PALMER'S ANSWER TO KHOMIAKOFF'S EIGHTH LETTER. [1853] Mr. Khomiakoff's commission Mr. Palmer's plans His literary work Ecclesiastical movement in England Mr. Palmer's own position The question of Re-baptism Reasons for turning to- wards Rome Criticisms of an Essay by Mr. Khomiakoff Com- munion with the departed, 11'^ CONTENTS xi CHAPTER XVIII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S TENTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1853] PAOI Mr. Palmer's objections inapplicable to the whole Orthodox Eastern Church They refer to mere local and temporary defects No books yet received from Mr. Palmer 157 CHAPTER XIX MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S ELEVENTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1853] Mr. Khomiakoffs commission Mr. Palmer's book upon 'The Holy Places' A Russian opinion upon Mr. Palmer's 'Dissertations,' . 161 CHAPTER XX MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S TWELFTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER. [1854] Mr. Khomiakoff upon the Eastern Question His opinion of Mr. Palmer's ' Dissertations ' Distinction between the two higher Sacraments and the other five Mr. KhomiakofFs letter upon the outbreak of the Crimean War 164 CHAPTER XXI MR. PALMER JOINS THE ROMAN COMMUNION. [1855] Mr. Palmer's Profession of Faith upon joining the Roman Church, 177 CHAPTER XXII MR. PALMER'S LETTER TO THE CHIEF PROCURATOR OF THE RUSSIAN HOLY SYNOD. [1858] Mr. Palmer in the Roman Communion Journey in Egypt and the Holy Land Visit to Constantinople and Asia Minor Last attempt at Philadelphia to join the Eastern Church Starts for Rome Stops at Corfu on the way Makes his terms of submis- sion to Rome with Fr. Passaglia His present feelings with regard to the Eastern Church Symbolical pictures St. John Chrysostom, St. Thomas of Canterbury, and the Patriarch Nicon, . 182 xii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH CHAPTEE XXIII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S ESSAY ON THE CHURCH. [Circa 1850] PAGE Introduction 1. The Church is one 2. The Church on earth 3. Her notes 4. She is One, Holy, Catholic, and Apostolic 5. Her Scripture, Tradition, and Works 6. They are manifestations of the gifts of the Spirit ; of faith, hope, and love 7. The Church's Confession of Faith The clause ' Filioque ' not a part of it 8. The Church Her visible manifestation Baptism Other Sacraments The Eucharist Ordination Con- firmationMarriage Penance Unction of the Sick 9. In- ward life of the Church Gifts of the Holy Spirit Faith- Justification by faith, and works The Church, but no single individual within her, is necessarily infallible Distinction between 'opus operans' and 'opus operatum' superfluous The law of adoption of sons, and of love which is free Communion of prayer Invocation and worship of the Saints Prayers for the living and the dead, and also for those as yet unborn No pre- sumption in praying even for the Saints The worship of the Church an expression of her love The use of images sanctioned by the Church The Liturgy 10. The Church's hope The Ilesurrection of the body The Last Judgment Orthodox doctrine of grace The distinction between ' sufficient ' and ' effectual ' grace superfluous Faith, hope, and love are eternal, but love alone will preserve its name 11. The Orthodox Eastern Church is the whole of the Catholic Church now living upon earth The titles 'Orthodox' and 'Eastern' merely temporary The whole world belongs to her, .......... 192 APPENDIX TRANSLATIONS BY WILLIAM PALMER OF POEMS BY KHOJ1IAKOFF ON GREAT BRITAIN AND RUSSIA ..... 223 INTRODUCTION MY original intention in undertaking to write a book upon the relations of the Russian and English Churches during the last fifty years was to give English readers the opportunity of forming some idea of the opinions concerning the English Church that I have come across during seven journeys in Russia, undertaken with the object of studying the ecclesiastical affairs of that interesting country. English Churchmen, although they have long taken an interest in the fortunes of the Eastern Church, and have always regarded her as an integral part of the One Holy Catholic and Apostolic Church, have had, as a rule, very few oppor- tunities of acquainting themselves at first hand with the Russian Church, which in numbers constitutes four-fifths, and in learning represents at least nine- tenths, of the whole Eastern Orthodox Communion. If they know anything about her at all, their knowledge is derived from books, and these for the most part written by men who, however much they may sym- pathise with her, have had little practical experience of her methods of thought and action upon her native soil. Our chaplains at St. Petersburgh and Cronstadt, more than one of whom have conferred a lasting benefit upon Anglican readers by their excellent translations of Orthodox service-books, histories, and dogmatic writings, have nevertheless little time or opportunity xiv RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH for travelling about Russia, and acquainting themselves with the actual working of the Russian Church, which is certainly not seen to its greatest advantage in the cosmopolitan surroundings of the modern capital. Even Dr. Neale himself, who perhaps did more than any other Avriter, since the beginning of the great Anglican revival of the present century, to acquaint English Churchmen with the history, doctrines, and services of the Orthodox Church, never himself went to Russia ; indeed, his whole personal experience of the Eastern Church was confined to a visit of a few days to the capital of the little principality of Montenegro. As a rule, English Churchmen have little idea either of what the Orthodox Church really is, or of the view that her theologians take of the English or of any other Western Communion. They are possessed with the notion that she lives in a state of semi-petrified stagnation, and that she cares little or nothing for what goes on outside of her own limits. They are hardly at all aware of the intelligent interest which is taken by Russian ecclesiastics and theologians in the religious phenomena of the West at the present day, still less have they any notion of the immense amount that has been written about the English Church herself, and the movements which have taken place within her during the present century. It was in order to give Englishmen some conception of what Russian Church- men during the past half-century have thought and written about the English Church, and by the same means to throw some light upon the tendencies and principles of modern Russian theology, that I set out INTRODUCTION xv upon my task. Two limits in point of time naturally suggested themselves to me. The first was to begin where Dr. Newman's volume containing the account of Mr. Palmer's visit to the Russian Church ended, namely, in the year 1842 : this constituted an obvious point of departure. The second was, the cordial recep- tion afforded to the Archbishop of Canterbury's letter at the Festival of the ninth centenary of the first Conversion of the Russian Grand Duke Vladimir and his people, celebrated at Kieff in 1888. This, and the Metropolitan Plato's warm-hearted reply, expressing for the first time an explicit desire for the Reunion of the two Churches, seemed to suggest the closing of the old era of estrangement and misunderstandings, and at least provided a suitable termination to a book of the kind that I was contemplating. I naturally first of all turned my attention to the letters of Mr. Khomiakoff to Mr. W. Palmer of Magdalen, published in a Russian translation in the second volume of his works. I had already begun to translate some of these back into English, when in the summer of 1893, while staying with some Russian friends in the neighbourhood of Moscow, I was informed that Mr. Khomiakoffs original letters in English had been returned by Mr. Palmer to his relations after his death, and were now preserved in the library of the Historical Museum at Moscow. With the assistance of my friends I obtained leave to copy them, and a few weeks later, in St. Petersburgh, came by chance upon a copy of Mr. Palmer's collection of hymns, in which one of his answers is contained in the shape of xvi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH a letter dedicatory. 1 In the hopes of retrieving the rest of Mr. Palmer's answers, I obtained an introduction to Mr. Khomiakoffs son, Mr. Dmitri Khomiakoff ; but although he was able to give me much valuable in- formation concerning Mr. Palmer's relations with his father, and even remembered accompanying him on his visit to Oxford in his early childhood, no trace of the letters was to be found. In the course of the following year, however, three of them were discovered in an old writing-desk by Miss Khomiakoff, who now lives in Mr. Khomiakoffs former house in Moscow, and in the spring of the present year two more were found. These, together with other material which I collected, seemed sufficient for a volume in itself; while the outbreak of the Crimean War, which was the beginning of a new epoch, both in the relations between Russia and England, and in the internal history of Russia herself, seemed to suggest a natural point of division. I therefore decided to divide my subject into two volumes, and to devote .the first entirely to the correspondence and relations between Mr. Palmer and Mr. Khomiakoff. The latter's name is not altogether unknown in England ; his essays in the French language upon the Latin Church and Protestantism, which were published early in the sixties, are to be found on many of our theologians' book- shelves; but few Englishmen have any notion of the influence which his writings have had of late years in the Russian Church, and it seemed therefore all the more desirable that this volume should be confined to 1 See chapter iii. of the present volume. INTRODUCTION xvii its present limits, in order that as much emphasis as possible should be laid upon his work, and the changes which his writings, and those of the Slavophile school to which he belonged, and of which he was to a great extent the pioneer, have brought about in the modern school of Russian Orthodox theology. I intend there- fore to devote the greater part of this Introduction to a description of Mr. Khomiakoff himself, and to give special prominence to his views concerning England, and his influence upon Russian theology. Mr. Palmer's personality is already too well known in England from Cardinal Newman's description of him in his Introduc- tion to his Notes of a Visit to the Russian Church, and from Sir William Palmer's Narrative of Events, to require any notice here. 1 Alexis Stepanovich Khomiakoff was born on May 1st, 1804. Both on his father's and on his mother's side he was of the purest Russian descent. The ancient, noble family to which he belonged could boast of never having intermarried with foreigners, not even in the cosmopolitan days of the eighteenth century, when the conquests of the western provinces of Russia brought so much German, Swedish, and Polish blood into the ranks of the Russian nobility. His father traced his ancestry back through many generations of Russian history, and in their home were preserved numerous family relics and documents from the times of the Empress Elizabeth, her father Peter the Great, and his father, the Tzar Alexis Michaelovich. At the court 1 An account of Mr. William Palmer, written by Lord Selborne, will shortly be published. b xviii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH of the latter his ancestor, Peter Semenovich Khomiakoff held the post of Grand Falconer, and appears, from the letters preserved in the family archives, which the Tzar wrote to him, to have enjoyed that monarch's special favour. But it was not only memories of the past which contributed to the patriotism and deep religious feeling which formed the main features of Khomiakoff 's life and work. The good old traditions of Russia were to him something more than a mere abstraction: all their best characteristics, a sober and perfectly sincere faith, an unostentatious and yet strict and ungrudging attention to the duties of religion, a sympathy for the Russian people and peasantry entirely unartificial and free from cant, and last, but not least, that sound common sense and healthy way of looking at things which Khomiakoff himself used to say (and I am quite inclined to agree with him), are to be seen nowhere to such advantage as in Russian and English families brought up in the true traditions of their country, 1 were all to be found at their very best in the home in which he was brought up. His father owned two estates in the country, one at Lipetzy, in the Govern- ment of Smolensk, in the west of Russia, and the other at Bogocharovo, in the Government of Tula, to the south of Moscow, and in one or other of these they used to pass their summer. But the greater part of the year they lived in Moscow, and it was the ancient capital, ' the heart of Russia,' which of all places was ever 1 And not in those of other countries or civilisations, as, unfortu- nately for their country, has been the case with too many Russian families during the last two centuries. INTRODUCTION xix nearest and dearest to Khomiakoff's heart. Moreover, the years of his childhood were among the most re- markable and stirring years of Russian history : and it is easy to realise what the effect upon his youthful imagination of the overthrow of Napoleon must have been. Indeed, ' the Deliverance of the Church and State of Russia from the attack of the Gauls, and of the twenty nations which accompanied them ' for this is how that event is described in the Church service-books was in itself the commencement of the emancipation of Russia from the yoke of those foreign influences, which had so long hindered her true national development, and was the signal for the beginning of that great movement in favour of the intellectual independence and self-con- sciousness of the Russian nation, in which Khomiakoff was afterwards destined to take so prominent a part, and which has made Russia, both in Church and State, the great and influential power that she is at the present day. Both his parents, and more especially his mother, were highly gifted and cultivated, and he received an excellent education at home, thoroughly mastering, amongst other things, the French, German, and English languages, as well as Latin, which he read with perfect ease. The latter language was taught him by the Abbe Boivin, a French priest who lived in their family : and it seems that even at this age he used occasionally to try his hand in those polemical discussions for which he afterwards became so famous ; for there is an amusing story of how one day he discovered, in a book that he was reading, a solecism in the Latin of a Papal Bull, and xx RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH immediately put the question to the good Abbe as to how after this he could ever again believe the Holy Father to be infallible ! It is needless to say that the Abbe had little difficulty in escaping from the dilemma, but the episode is interesting as suggesting the possi- bility that the very fact of a man who belonged to a different religion from the rest of the household living in close intercourse with them for so many years, may have had something to do with inculcating in him a taste for the study of the various religious confessions of Christendom, and for the investigation of the prin- ciples which underlie their differences. When he was eleven years of age the whole family moved to St. Petersburgh, where they spent two years. Two characteristic stories are told about him in respect to this event. It was the year 1815. All the world was talking about Napoleon's escape from Elba, and war was in the air; and accordingly Alexis and his elder brother, Theodore, during the whole journey to St. Petersburgh, talked of nothing else but of how they would go and fight Napoleon, until at last they came almost to believe that this was the object of their journey. On arriving at St. Petersburgh, however, they heard to their disappointment of the battle of Waterloo, and realised that their services would therefore not be required. ' W T ho is there now for us to go and fight with ? ' said the elder brother. ' I shall go and raise a revolt amongst the Slavonians,' answered the future leader of the Slavophile movement. Where he got this idea from at the age of eleven he himself never could make out, unless it was from the pictures of the INTRODUCTION xxi Servian leader, George the Black, which he remembered seeing posted up on the walls of the post-stations be- tween Moscow and St. Petersburgh, and which may have suggested the first feelings of sympathy and enthusiasm for the Slavonic nations under Turkish and Austrian rule. But it probably, in reality, came from his home surroundings, as undoubtedly did the second point which is related concerning this journey, namely, the aversion with which the first sight of St. Petersburgh inspired him. On their arrival in the modern capital, with its wide streets and foreign, or rather cosmopolitan, appearance, so utterly unlike their beloved Moscow with her golden-domed Kremlin, her churches and monasteries, and everything which appeals most to the patriotism and faith of the* Russian nation, it was quite impossible to get out of the boy's head that they had found their way into some heathen city, the inhabitants of which were certain to try sooner or later to force them to change their religion : and both boys made a firm resolve together that, rather than accept the re- ligion of the foreigners, they would undergo every kind of torture, and even martyrdom itself. After remaining two years in St. Petersburgh, the family returned to Moscow, where they remained for three years, until Khomiakoff had to return to St. Peters- burgh in order to serve his time in a regiment of Horse Guards. During this period at Moscow he made great progress in his studies, and to the year 1818 or 1819 belongs his first printed work, namely, a translation of Tacitus's Germania, a selection which, in view of his future historical studies, was certainly very significant. xxii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH In 1825 he made his first journey abroad, spending some time in Paris, and returning to Russia through Austria, and thus making his first personal acquaintance with the Western Slavonic nationalities, whose cause afterwards interested him so much. Soon after this, the war of 1828, which the Emperor Nicholas undertook on behalf of the Orthodox populations in Turkey, broke out, and Khomiakoff immediately entered a regiment of White Russian Hussars, and served with distinction in Bulgaria throughout the campaign. In 1829 he re- turned straight from Adrianople to Moscow, and on the conclusion of peace resigned his commission and retired from the army. After this, with the exception of his journey to England, of which some account is given in Chapter vn. of this book, he never left Russia, but passed nearly the whole of his life either at Moscow or on one or other of his two country estates. His elder brother died in 1828 and his father in 1836, so that he inherited both, as well as his father's two houses in Moscow. It is impossible to describe, in the short space afforded in an Introduction of this sort, the full scope and extent of Khomiakoff 's many-sided activity. His literary labours, although they for the most part took the form of pamphlets or contributions to periodicals, are quite astonishing, now that we can see them collected together in the complete edition of his works, not only for their number and their originality, but also for the number of subjects upon which they treat. Philosophy, philo- logy, history, law, art, and poetry, are all represented. Nor was his activity confined to purely literary or INTRODUCTION xxiii speculative pursuits. At the same time that he was elaborating new theories upon the origin of the Edda or the Buddhistic cosmogony, he was writing projects for the emancipation of the serfs in Russia, preparing schemes for the establishment of savings-banks in the country districts, and generally interesting himself in the movements and requirements of his surroundings. A friend of his thus describes him : l ' At the very time when most busy with his literary work, he would be engaged over the invention of some machine or other which he was going to have patented in England, and exhibit in the London International Exhibition, or in- venting a new sort of gun, or devising new methods for distilling brandy or refining sugar, or doctoring all the ill- nesses in the neighbourhood. Next day he would be out with his harriers on his country estate for there was no better judge of horse or hound in the country than he or winning the first prize in some shooting-match ; and then in the evening he would come home and convulse us all with laughing over his stories, perhaps about some mad Bishop that had been caught in the forests of Kostroma, or else about the zeal of some petty official in the government of Perm for the spread of Christianity, who, when he was re- commended for the Order of St. Vladimir in reward for his services, turned out after all to be a Mohammedan, and so was not allowed to receive it ! Very few moments after Khomiakoff came into the room, every one in it was sure to be in peals of laughter, frowns would disappear from even the most morose and gloomy faces, all troubles would be forgotten, and then a discussion would begin, which, whether it were upon the most important or the most trifling subject iii the world, was certain to be a lively one. For in discussion 1 Mr. M. Pogodin : speech before the Russian Literary Society at Moscow, Nov. 6, 1860. xxiv RUSSIA ANI> THE ENGLISH CHURCH Khomiakoff was in his true element, and the more lively and exciting the argument became, the more his creative powers were aroused, and to follow him on one of these occasions when he was, so to speak, on his mettle, was a real psycho- logical treat. ' In his arguments, as in his ordinary conversation and his writings, there was much that was paradoxical ; his proposi- tions were sometimes inaccurate, and even his conclusions, perhaps, contradictory, but his sallies were so original, so unexpected and fresh in their character, and were delivered with such kindliness, good-nature, and skill, that they always were suggestive and pleasant to listen to. He would often end his sentences with a simple merry laugh, accompanied by an inquiring pause, more especially after some clever retort or happy simile, or when he had detected a fault in his opponent's quotations. Sometimes for a moment he would exasperate you, so that you were ready to abuse him with all your might ; but the next moment you would be laughing even more heartily than he himself at your own dis- comfiture.' As far as his machine at the London Exhibition, which is mentioned more than once in the course of the corre- spondence with Mr. Palmer, was concerned, I cannot resist relating an amusing incident to which it gave rise. He had christened it ' the Silent Motor,' expecting that it would work in complete silence. However, when, on its arrival in London, it was put together by his friends and set in motion on trial before being sent to the Exhibition, it made such an appalling noise that the inhabitants of the neighbouring lodging-houses sent to know the reason for the unwonted and horrible sounds, and threatened legal proceedings if they did not cease. Khomiakoff, when he heard of these unexpected pranks INTRODUCTION xxv on the part of his ' Silent Motor,' ordered it to be re- named ' the Moscow Motor.' It may easily be believed that he did not soon hear the end of this episode amongst his friends in Moscow ! Khomiakoff had from his earliest days the greatest regard and admiration for England. He was thoroughly welF acquainted with our history and our literature, his works are full of references to them, while his friends tell me that he used to recite whole pages of Shake- speare and Byron by heart. A letter which he wrote to a Moscow journal when he came to England in 1847, giving his impressions of the country, is one long panegyric of almost all our customs and peculiarities. Foreigners might think little of us, but this was because, next to Russia, no country was so little known in Europe as England. And the reason of this was that Englishmen did not care to describe themselves, and as for other nations, they tried to imitate us, and imitators are the worst hands at describing that which they endeavour to copy. Englishmen were said to be inhospitable to foreigners, but this he had found by experience to be anything but true. It was merely that Englishmen did not go out of their way to court foreigners, and this for the reason that they could do without them, whereas some nations, not content with the traditions of their own country, ran after foreigners in order to learn from them, while the German liked foreigners because they came to him as pupils, and the Frenchman because they allowed him to show off be- fore them. Foreigners might call the English stiff and ceremonious, and might laugh at their black coats anu xxvi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH white shirt-fronts, but while it was true that those hideous appendages of modern civilisation were worn more in England than elsewhere, this was only because English- men like cleanliness and tidiness, and everything that witnesses to these qualities. If they were disinclined to talk on the railway, and were sometimes brusque in their manners to strangers, they were more ready than any other nation to help a foreigner if he was really in need of assistance, as he himself had once experienced in Switzerland, when he had run short of money, and an Englishman, whom he had only known for two days, had lent him enough to get back to Russia without any security except his note of hand. If Englishmen were less ceremonious than other nations, it was only because they were more natural. Where was such simplicity of life to be seen as in the London parks, where people rode, not for the sake of showing off, but for their own amusement, and whole families of grown-up people might be seen enjoying themselves as naturally as children ? Compare, again, the simple but energetic and incisive oratory of an English member of Parlia- ment with the stilted, artificial phraseology of the French deputy. Where else were men so practical, and where did they go so straight to the mark ? You had a gathering of two or three hundred gentlemen lounging in their everlasting black coats in a large room, and some one or other amongst them just standing up in his place and saying what he had to say, and then sitting down again. And this was the English Parlia- ment, the greatest motive power of modern history. It was in this strain that Khomiakoff described INTRODUCTION xxvii these and many more of our national idiosyncracies. And when he came to our more serious characteristics he was just as generous in his estimate of us. Foreigners might say that we were a nation of shop- keepers, and care about nothing but amassing wealth, but England did more for the spread of Christianity, and spent more of her wealth upon religion and philan- thropy, than any other country in Europe. England had taken the lead in abolishing the slave trade, and had so earned the gratitude of the whole human race. He unreservedly maintained that she came nearest to Russia of all countries in her respect for religion, and no Englishman will deny that in this respect he did her full justice. His description of an English Sunday I have given in Chapter vn. Even the ranters in the Park on Sunday and the crowds that listened to them were to him an evidence of the deep religious feeling of the country, however contrary to Russian ideas their methods and doctrines might be. He took a deep interest in the English party politics of that time, which it must be remembered was the period immediately following upon the first Reform Bill of 1832. He looked upon the Tory party as represent- ing the true traditions of the country, tracing it from the time of the Reformation as being the national party in Church and State, whereas the Whigs he regarded as lineal descendants, through the Puritans, of the foreign Protestant elements then introduced. While recognising that the English party system was an integral part of the nation's life indeed, he said that if he had to answer the question, 'What is England ?' xxviii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH in a single sentence, he should say : ' The land in which Tories fight with Whigs ' he was very far from taking the view which was usually accepted on the Continent at that time that Toryism represented nothing but reaction and class privilege, while Whiggism included all that is covered by the words 'freedom' and 'pro- gress.' On the contrary, he maintained that 'to the intelligent observer, and certainly to any impartial Russian, the paralysing aridity of Whiggism when it is engaged in destroying the past, and its sterility, and, so to speak, lifeless lack of feeling when it attempts to construct, are only too evident.' Although perhaps we may here trace the influence of his Oxford friends and of conversations held upon ' green lawns ' and under ' deep shades ' in a certain English university, there is no doubt that such a view corresponded exactly with the principles and theories of the national or Slavophile school of thought then arising in Russia, of which Khomiakoff was one of the first and foremost leaders. His poem, 'The Island,' written ten years before his visit 1 to England or Oxford, shows that he had already made up his mind in this respect, while in this letter he applies the Slavophile theory to English religious and political history in the following words : i A translation of this poem, and another upon Russia, which was made by Mr. Palmer, was kindly copied out and sent to me by the late Lord Selborne, and is to be found in an appendix at the end of this volume. It was written in or about the year 1836, and was not im- probably suggested by the events which led to Keble's famous sermon upon National Apostasy and to the Tractarian movement, and shows the interest which Khomiakoff took in England even at this early period of his life. INTRODUCTION xxix ' Every community is of necessity in constant motion. This motion may be rapid enough to strike the eye even of an unexperienced observer ; it may be so slow as almost to escape the most attentive and intelligent observation. But in any case complete stagnation is impossible ; whether it be progress or decline, motion of some sort there must be. This is an universal law. Sound and progressive motion of a community of rational beings is constructed out of two powers or forces, differing indeed in their nature and origin, but capable of harmony and agreement. One of these is fundamental and rooted, belonging to the whole structure, the whole past history of the community ; it is the power of life developing itself, of its own accord, from its own beginnings, from its own organic principles ; the other, which is the reasoning power of individuals, being grounded upon the power of the com- munity, and only deriving life from its life, is a power which of itself can neither construct nor attempt to construct anything, but being constantly at hand it watches the work of common development, and prevents it from passing over into the blind- ness of a lifeless instinct, or from surrendering itself to irrational one-sidedness. Both of these powers are necessary, but the second, which is that of the intelligence or intellect, ought to be bound by a living and loving faith to the former, which is the real power of life and creativeness. If the bond of faith and love between the two be broken, dissension and strife make their way in. England once was a Christian state in the fullest sense of the word, but the one-sidedness of Western Catholicism, after fully establishing its supremacy, necessitated and gave rise to Protestantism. The latter, which was born in Germany, passed over from there to England, and was received by her ; but England in receiving Protestantism did not recognise its true character. The memories of a Church which once had been free, and of even recent struggles to preserve the remains of this freedom, deceived the English : they assured themselves that they had preserved their religion unchanged, whereas it was clear that they had changed or reformed it, and had abandoned or xxx RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH rejected that which, through the course of long ages, they had regarded as sacred and true; they believed in their own Catholicism even after they had become Protestants. Such is Anglicanism. 1 The other sects saw more clearly what they were about, and took a deeper plunge, and developed the freedom of Protestant scepticism with stricter logic. It was inevitable that the religious movement should soon con- vert itself into a movement of the whole community. The two intellectual forces of the nation were broken asunder, and entered into conflict with one another. The one, organic, living, historical, but weakened by the decline of village community life and by the scepticism of Protestantism, which it had unconsciously admitted, constituted Toryism. The other, individualistic and analytical, not believing in its past, prepared for long previously by the same decline of village community life, and reinforced by the whole of the disin- tegrating force of Protestantism, constituted Whiggism. 1 Mr. KhomiakofFs final opinion concerning the Anglican Church is contained in his third Essay upon the Western Confessions, written in 1858, two years before his death. It is as follows : ' Ainsi le mensonge patent dans le monde romain, 1'absence avou6e de la Ve'rite dans la Reforme, voila tout ce que nous trouvons hors de 1'Eglise. L'ineredulite n'a qu'a se croiser les bras ; Rome et 1'Allemagne travail- lent pour elle avec line egale ardeur. Plus profondcmeut, plus sincerement religieuse que toutes les deux, 1'Angleterre parait faire exception dans le mouvement general des confessions occidentales ; et cependant, tout en rendant justice a ce pays, je trouve inutile d'en parler. En tant que romaine on dissidente, 1'Angleterre vogue dans le sillage de la pensee continentale ; en tant qu'anglicane elle est dopourvue de toute base qui puisse nit-riter un examen serieux. L'anglicanisine est un contre-scns dans le monde rt-formu comme le gallieunisme dans le monde romain. Le gallicanisme est mort ; 1'angli- canisme n'a pas de longs jours ;'i vivre. Amas fortuit de principes conventionnels sans lien intime qui les unisse 1'un a 1'autre, ce n'est qu'une etroite jetee de terres sablonneuses, battues par les vagues puissantes de deux Oceans ennemis et qui va s'eboulant des deux cotus dans le romanisine ou la dissidence. L'anglicanisine par ses repre- sentantsles plus distingues a condamne le schisme romain dans tous ses dogmes distinctifs (e'est a dire, dans la suprematie papale et dans INTRODUCTION xxxi ' ... In reality every Englishman is a Tory at heart. There may be differences in the strength of convictions, in tendency of mind ; but the inner feeling is the same in all. Exceptions are rare, and are as a rule found only in people who either are altogether carried away by some system of thought or beaten down with poverty or corrupted by the life of the large towns. The history of England is not a mere thing of the past to the Englishman ; it lives in all his life, in all his customs, in almost all the details of his exist- ence. And this historical element is Toryism. The English- man loves to see the beafeaters guarding the Tower in their strange mediaeval costume ... he likes the boys in Christ's Hospital still to wear the blue coats which they wore in the time of Edward VI. He walks through the long aisles of AVestminster Abbey, not with the conceited vanity of the Frenchman, nor with the antiquarian delectation of the German, but with a deep, sincere, and ennobling affection. These graves belong to his family, and a great family it is ; 1'acklition du Jilioque, addition que les savants de I'Allemague et entre autres M. Bunsen nomment egalement une falsification 6vidente). L'anglicanisme n'a pas une seule raison a donner et n'en a jamais donne une seule pour ne pas etre orthodoxe. II est dans 1'Eglise par tous ses principes (j'entends par la ses principes reels et caracteris- tiques) ; il est hors de 1'Eglise par son provincialisme historique, provincialisme qui lui impose un faux-air de protestantisme, qui le pvive de toute tradition et de toute base logique, et dont il ne vent pourtant pas se defaire, en partie par orgueil national, en pavtie par suite du repeat habituel de 1'Angleterre pour le fait accon>pli. L'anglicanisme est en meme temps la plus pure et la plus antilogique de toutes les confessions occidentales : on plut6t plonge' tout entier dans le sein de 1'Eglise par tout ce qn'il a de religieux, il est tout ce qu'il y a de plus oppose a 1'idue meme de TEglise ; car il u'est ni une tradition, ni une doctrine, mais une simple institution nationale (an establishment), c'est a dire 1'ceuvre avoueo des homines. II est juge et il se meurt.' (L'JSgliac Latine et le Protestant 'i\ie, Lausanne et Vevey, 1872, p. 257-258). This was written soon after the secession of Mr. Palmer and others, and when it appeared as if the whole Catholic movement was likely to come to an end. It would be in- teresting to know what Mr. Khomiakoff would have thought on this subject at the present day. xxxii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH and I am not speaking now merely of the peer or the pro- fessor, but about mechanics and cab-drivers ; for there is just as much Toryism in the common people as there is in the upper ranks of society. True, this merchant or that artisan will give his vote to the Whigs, if he be convinced that either the public good or his private material interests require it of him ; but in his heart he loves the Tories. He will vote perhaps for Russell or Cobden, but all his sympathies are with Wellington and Bentinck. Whiggism may be his daily bread ; but Toryism is all his joy in life ... his sports and games, his Christmas decorations and festivities, the calm and sacred peace of his family circle, all the poetry, all the sweet- ness of his daily existence. In England every old oak with its spreading branches is a Tory, and so is every ancient church-spire which shoots up into the sky. Under this oak many have enjoyed themselves, and in that ancient church many generations have prayed.' Such were Mr. KhoiniakofFs views about England. I have given them at great length in order that English Churchmen may see that, however unfavourable his views concerning Anglicanism, expressed both in the extract already quoted and in the letters which follow, may seem to be, they certainly were not inspired either by prejudice or by national antipathy. Some of his criticisms will be admitted by all candid Anglicans to have had their justification, others are the inevitable result of the attitude which Eastern theologians are almost logically obliged to assume towards all the Western confessions, whether Roman, Protestant, or Anglican. All will at least admit that the tone in which he conducted his case against the English Church was as free from bitterness and offence as it was, under the circumstances, possible to make it. INTRODUCTION xxxiii I have lately elsewhere 1 given some account of the Slavophile movement in Russia, and do not therefore propose to describe k it here at any length. It was a great national movement, in many ways closely re- sembling the movements which in Italy and Germany has led during the present century to the re-establish- ment of national unity, and which in other countries have exercised so much influence upon literature and art. It was also a religious movement, a great revival of religious self- consciousness hi many respects analo- gous to our Tractarian movement, and to the other religious revivals for which the nineteenth century has been so conspicuous. But it differed from these move- ments in other countries hi thatt represented thenational and religious movements in combination : and that this was possible is entirely due to the fact that hi Russia the relations between Church and State which existed in the first centuries after the conversion of the Roman Empire are still preserved intact, so far as the actual constitution of Church or State is concerned. In Italy the national movement has been carried forward in the teeth of the opposition of the Church, in Germany the Protestant Church of Prussia, being a mere department of the State, has had little influence either one way or the other with regard to the question of German unification. In Russia, on the contrary, the national and religious movements have gone hand hi hand together, and have overcome all obstacles. What these 1 The, Prospect of Reunion with Eastern Christendom, in special relation to the Russian Orthodox Church. London : English Church Union Office, 1894. C xxxiv RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH obstacles were may be easily seen from the correspon- dence contained in this book: but it only requires acquaintance with the Russia of the present day to see how almost completely they have now disappeared. The great work of Khoniiakoff's life was undoubtedly the definite direction which he gave to the Slavophile movement in Russia in its relation to the Orthodox Church. It is not an exaggeration to say that his theo- logical writings have given a logical form to the idea of the Church which, although it has never received the sanction of an (Ecumenical Council, nor even of a general Council of the Eastern Churches, nevertheless undoubtedly underlies the teaching of the Orthodox Church wherever she is met with. This is obviously a matter upon which a member of the Eastern Church can speak with more ease and accuracy than one who belongs to a branch of the Western Church, and I think, therefore, that in order to enable English readers to appreciate the services which Khomiakoff rendered to the Russian Church, and to understand the nature of the change which he was the means of introducing into her current theology, I cannot do better than translate a description of it written by his friend and disciple, Mr. George Samarin, in his introduction to the second volume of Mr. Khoniiakoff's works, in which his principal theological writings are contained : 1 ' According to our ordinary conceptions, the Church is an institution an institution, it is true, of a special kind, and indeed unique, inasmuch as it is divine but all the same an institution. This conception has the fault which characterises 1 Khomiakoff's Works, vol. ii. ; Introduction, pp. xx-xxx. INTRODUCTION xxxv almost all our current definitions and notions concerning religious matters. Although it does not in itself contain any direct contradiction to the truth, it is quite inadequate ; it brings the idea of the Church down into too low and common- place a sphere, and in consequence of this the idea itself be- comes commonplace, by reason of its close association with a group of phenomena, with which, whatever may be their out- ward resemblance, she has essentially nothing whatsoever in common. An institution we know what that word means; and to conceive of the Church as an institution, according to the analogy of other institutions, is easy enough indeed, rather too easy. There is a volume which we call " the Criminal Code ; " there is also a volume which we call " Holy Scripture " ; the law has its doctrine and also its forms ; the Church has her traditions and her rites ; there is also a criminal court, where the criminal code is administered, and which has to bring it to life, to apply it, to administer it, etc. ; and thus the Church appears to some of us to be something analogous, inasmuch as she, guided by the Scriptures, pro- claims her doctrine, applies it, settles doubtful points, judges and decides. In the one case we have conditional truth, namely, the law, and along with it the legal body, the officials of the law, charged with its administration ; in the other we have absolute truth and here, of course, there is a difference but, after all, a form of truth which, like the other, is contained either in a book or in a form of words, and she also has her officials and administrators, that is to say, the clergy. ' Now it is certainly true that the Church has a doctrine of her own, and that it constitutes one of her indefeasible manifes- tations ; it is also true that, looking at her from another that is to say, from the historical point of view it is as an institu- tion of her own particular kind that she comes into contact with other institutions. Nevertheless, the Church is not a doctrine, nor a system, nor an institution. She is a living organism, the organism of truth and love, or rather, she is truth and Jove, as an organism. xxxvi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH 'From this definition, her attitude towards error of all kind follows as a natural consequence. Her bearing towards error is just that of every organism towards whatever is hostile to, and incompatible with, its own nature. She separates error off from herself, rejects it, and casts it away, and by the very act of drawing a line between herself and error she defines herself, that is to say, the truth ; but she does not herself condescend to argue with error, neither does she refute, explain, or define it. Controversy, and the refuta- tion, explanation, and definition of errors are the business, not of the Church herself, but of her theologians. It is the task of ecclesiastical science, or in other words, of theology. ' The heresies of the East gave occasion to an Orthodox school of theology, in order to work the Church's teaching concerning the essence of God, the Trinity and the God-Man, into a harmonious [system of] doctrine ; and the cycle of this magnificent development of human thought enlightened by grace from on high was completed before Rome fell away from the Church. Shortly after this the historical destinies of the East underwent a change ; her learning and enlighten- ment were no longer what they had previously been, and, accordingly, the intellectual productiveness of the Orthodox school of theologians necessarily underwent impoverishment. Meanwhile the stream of rationalism, which the Roman schism had admitted into the Church, gave birth to new theological questions in the West, of which the Orthodox East had no cognizance, and as this stream continued its course further, it became divided into two channels, and at length gave birth to two opposite systems of doctrine Latinism and Protestantism. 1 All these new formations arose out of local and exclusively Romano-German elements : Catholic tradition played in them the part of a passive material which was gradually transformed, mutilated, and adjusted to the notions and requirements of these nations ; the whole of this intellectual movement, from Nicholas I. down to the Council of Trent, and from Luther and Calvin down to Schleiermacher and INTRODUCTION xxxvii Neander, went on entirely outside the Church, and she took no part whatever in it. Nor could it possibly have been otherwise. The Church remained what she had been before ; the lamp which had been intrusted to her had not ceased to burn, nor was its light obscured. But the attacks upon her from the West, the formidable efforts of Western propaganda, its attempts, first to refute the Catholic tradition which the Eastern Church held and still holds, and next to make friends and enter into a bargain with her, necessitated the entry of an Orthodox school of theologians into the contest, drew them into controversy, and obliged them to take up some position or other in relation to Latinism and Protestantism. And what was it that our school of theologians did 1 Its action may be described in one word, it parried; 1 in other words, it took up a position which was essentially defensive, and which consequently subordinated its form and manner of action to those of its adversaries. It took into consideration the questions which Latinism and Protestantism proposed to it, and took them in the same form as that into which Western controversy had shaped them, without even suspecting that error was to be found not only in the conclusions, but also in the very manner in which these questions were stated indeed, perhaps even more in this than in the conclusions themselves. Accordingly, involuntarily and unconsciously, and without foreseeing the consequences, our school moved off from the terra firma of the Church and passed over on to that land of quagmires, pitfalls, and mines, whither the Western theologians had long been endeavouring to entice it. On advancing thither it was sub- jected to a cross fire, and was forced, almost of necessity, in order to defend itself against the attacks directed upon it from two opposite sides, to seize upon the weapon which had long before been prepared and adjusted to the work by the Western confessions in their own internecine, domestic the imperfect tense of the reflexive form of the verb to parry, or to ward off. xxxviii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH conflicts. The inevitable result of course was that, as step by step they entangled themselves more and more in Latino- Protestant antinomies, the Orthodox theologians themselves ended by becoming divided into two sections. They formed themselves into two schools, the one exclusively anti-Latin, the other exclusively anti-Protestant ; an Orthodox school in the strict sense of the word ceased to exist. It is, of course, hardly necessary to say that they were unsuccessful in the conflict. A good deal of zeal, learning, and perseverance was no doubt displayed, and not a few individual successes were achieved, more particularly in exposing instances of Latin frauds, concealments, and trickery of all sorts. As far also as the final results were concerned, it is hardly necessary to say that Orthodoxy was not shaken ; but for this no thanks are due to our theologians, and indeed we cannot but admit that the contest was conducted by them upon anything but the right lines. ' The mistake which they made at the very outset, in allow- ing themselves to be led over on to alien soil, entailed three inevitable consequences. T n the first place, the anti-Latin school admitted into itself a Protestant, and the anti-Pro- testant school a Latin leaven ; secondly, and as the result of this, each success of either of these schools in its conflict with its rival always resulted in injuring the other, and provided for the common enemy with which both had to deal a fresh weapon against themselves ; and thirdly, and most important of all, the rationalism of the Wed filtered through into Orthodox theology, and crystallised itself there in the form of a scientific setting to the dogmas of the faith in the shape of proofs, ex- planations, and deductions. For such of our readers as are unacquainted with the subject we will bring forward some examples of this in a shape which all can understand. ' " Which is the more important, and which serves as the ground to which : Scripture or Tradition 1 " ' This is how the question is put by Western theology. In this way of stating it Latins and Protestants are at one, and it is in this form that they submit it to our consideration. Our INTRODUCTION xxxix theologians, instead of rejecting it and pointing out the senselessness of opposing to one another two phenomena, each of which is devoid of meaning without the other, and which are both indivisibly intermingled in the living organism of the Church, accepts the question for investigation as it stands, and on this soil enters upon a disputation. Against some Martin Chemnitz or other an Orthodox theologian of the anti-Protestant school enters the lists and says : " It is from tradition that the Scriptures receive their definition, as revealed truth, as revelation ; consequently it is from tradi- tion that they receive their authority ; moreover, in them- selves the Scriptures are not complete, they are obscure and difficult to understand, they often give occasion to heresies, and therefore, taken by themselves, they are not only in- sufficient, but even dangerous." A Jesuit hears all this. He comes up to the Orthodox theologian, congratulates him on his victory over the Protestant, and whispers into his ear : "You are perfectly right, but you have not followed your argument up to its logical end; there yet remains for you one small step take the Scriptures away from the laity altogether." ' But at the same time an Orthodox theologian of the anti- Papal type appears on the scene and says : " You are quite wrong ! The Scriptures contain within themselves both inward and outward signs of their divine origin ; Scripture is the norm of truth, the measure of all tradition, and not tradition the measure of Scripture ; the Scriptures were given to all Christians in order that all might read them ; they are complete, and require no supplementing, for whatever is not found within them in actual words may be abstracted from them by accurate logical reasoning; and lastly, in every matter necessary to salvation they are clear and perfectly intelligible to the understanding of every man who searches them in good faith." "Excellent!" says the Protestant; "just so; the Bible as the object, the individual intellect investigating it in good faith as the subject, and nothing more is wanted ! " xl RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH ' Another question : " By what is a man justified ? By faith alone, or by faith with the addition to it of works of satisfaction ? " This is how the question is stated in the Latino-Protestant world, and our Orthodox theologians re- iterate it, not perceiving that the very raising of such a question indicates a confusion between faith and irresponsible learning, and between works in the sense of a manifestation of faith, and works in the sense of a manifestation which has passed over into the domain of tangible and visible facts. And so a fresh dispute commences. ' The Jesuit_ hurries lip to the Orthodox theologian of the anti-Protestant school, and enters into a conversation with him, somewhat as follows : "Of course you abhor the sophi- stries of the Lutherans when they assert that works are not necessary, and that a man may be saved by faith alone 1 " "Yes, we abhor them." "That is to say, besides faith works are also necessary 1 " " Yes, certainly." " And therefore, if it is impossible to be saved without works, works have a justifi- cative power?" "Yes, so they have." "But then, suppose the case of the man who, on account of his faith, has repented and received absolution, but has none the less died without having succeeded in accomplishing works of satisfaction ; what about him ? For such an one we have purgatory, but what have you 1 " " We," replies our anti-Protestant Orthodox theologian, after talking it over a little bit, " we have some- thing of the same sort : sufferings." " Quite so ; that is to say, the place exists ; we only differ about what to call it. But that is not all : there is another question besides that of whether there is such a place and what we are to call it. In- asmuch as in purgatory men can no longer perform works of satisfaction, while at the same time these are just what those who have been sent there require, we advance them to them out of the Church's treasury of good works and merits which have been left over to us as a reserve fund by the Saints. But how is it with you 1 " The anti-Protestant Orthodox theologian begins to get confused, and answers in a low voice : " We have also the same sort of capital ; that is to say, INTRODUCTION xli the merits of works of supererogation." "But how is it then," the Jesuit, catching him up, replies, "that you reject in- dulgences and their sale 1 For, after all, these are only acts of transference. We put our capital out to the exchangers, whereas you keep it hid under the earth. Is this right of you?" ' At the very same time, however, and at the other end of the theological arena, another disputation is being held. A learned Protestant pastor is putting questions to one of our Orthodox theologians of the anti-Latin school : " Of course you reject that nonsense of the Papists, which attributes to the works of men the significance of merits in the sight of God, and a justificative power 1 " " Of course we do." " And you know that men are saved by faith, and faith alone, without anything more in addition to it 1" "Certainly." "Then be so good as to explain to me your reason for having all thse penances of yours, and your so-called counsels of perfection, and your monasticism 1 What is the use of them all ? And what value do you expect to receive for them 1 Moreover, I would ask you to prove to me that it is necessary to have re- course to the intercession of the Saints. What do you want it for ? Or is it that you have no confidence in the power of redemption, made one's own by personal faith 1 " The Ortho- dox theologian thoughtfully takes out his text-books, and searches them for the necessary proofs and answers, and finds none. His opponent soon realises this, and proceeds to press the matter home, and asks him : "To pray of course moans to ask God something in the hope of obtaining it ? " " True." " And one can only pray, when one expects to obtain some- thing in return for the prayer 1 " " That also is true." " And there is no intermediate state between hell and heaven, be- tween damnation and salvation for of course purgatory is nothing but a fable, invented by the Papists, which it is hardly necessary to say that you do not accept 1 " " Oh ! of course not." "Very well then : why do you waste your prayers and expend them all to no purpose by praying for the dead 1 One thing or the other : either you are Papists, or else you are xlii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH behind the times : you have not yet got so far in your religious development as we Protestants." 1 Finally, a Jesuit (belonging to the newest 1 school) comes for- ward, and turning to the anti-Protestant Orthodox theologian begins to question him once more : " Surely you do not agree with those thrice accursed Protestants in thinking that an isolated individual with a book in his hands, but living outside the Church, is able to discover the truth and the way of salvation by himself ! " "Of course not : we believe that there is no salvation outside the Church, which alone is holy and infallible." " Excellent ! But if this be so, then the first object of every man's care must be not to forsake the Church, but to be at one with her in all things, both in faith and deed 1 " "Certainly." "But then, as you know, sophisms and flattery have often forced their way into the Church, and have led the faithful astray under the mask of ecclesiasticism." "Yes, we know that." "And this shows the necessity of a tangible outward sign by means of which every man may unmis- takably distinguish the infallible Church 1 " " Yes, this is necessary," the Orthodox theologian replies, not seeing the trap into which he is being led. "This we have got, namely, the Pope ; but how about you ? " " With us it is the full manifestation of the Church in her teaching, and the organ of her infallible faith is an (Ecumenical Council." " Yes, and we also acknowledge the authority of an (Ecumenical Council ; but explain to me how an (Ecumenical Council is to be distinguished from one that is not (Ecumenical, or merely local ? By what visible sign, I mean 1 Why not, for in- stance, acknowledge the Council of Florence as oecumenical ? And do not tell me that you only admit that Council to be oecumenical in which the whole Church recognises her own voice, and her own faith, that is to say, the inspiration of the Holy Ghost ; for the very problem which we now have before us is to arrive at what and where the Church is." The anti-Protestant Orthodox theologian finds himself at a loss for This was written in 1867. INTRODUCTION xliii an answer, and the Jesuit, as a final farewell, says to him : " There is a great deal of good in you, and you and we are both on the same road; but we have arrived at the end, whereas you have not got there yet. We both agree in acknowledging the necessity of an outward mark of the truth, or, in other words, a, sign of what is and what is not the Church, 1 but you are searching for one, and cannot find it, whereas we have got one the Pope ; that is the difference between us. You also are in essence Papists, only you do not follow the consequences of your own premises." ' It was on lines such as this that for nearly two centuries the controversy of our two Orthodox schools of theology with the Western confessions dragged along. It was accompanied, as was to be expected, by constant controversy at home between the two schools themselves. As the most complete, exact, and able expression in writing of the line taken by each of them, one has only to mention Theophanes Proco- povich's Latin Theology [on the anti-Latin side], and Stephen Javorski's Rock of the Faith [on the anti-Protestant side] ; 2 all that was published afterwards grouped itself round one or other of these thoroughly representative works, and repre- sented nothing more than extracts from them, more or less feebly restated. Let it be remembered, we are now speaking of our theologians, not of the Church herself. The fortress indeed withstood the assault, and was not shaken by it : but the reason that it was not shaken was that this fortress was the Church of God, and therefore could not fail to maintain 1 3iiaMciii>i HcpKOBiiocTii. These words, which in the original are in italics, are particularly difficult to translate on account of there being no English equivalent for the word qepKOBHOCTi.. ' Sign of churchness,' or ' churchify,' would exactly render it, if either of these words existed in English. 2 Stephen Javorski, Metropolitan of Biazan, on the death (A.D. 1700) of the Patriarch Adrian of Moscow, was appointed "Guardian of the Patriarchal Throne," until the establishment of the Holy Synod in 1721. Theophanes Prokopovich, Archbishop of Pskoff, a favourite of Peter the Great, author of the Ecclesiastical Regulation* set forth by the Holy Synod, of which he was the presiding member. xliv RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH her ground ; as far as the defence itself was concerned, it is impossible not to admit that it was thoroughly weak and insufficient. The spectators who watched the conflict from outside (and all our cultivated society, with very few excep- tions, maintained the attitude of disinterested spectators towards it), judged of the justice of the cause according to the quality of its defence, and were left in perplexity ; doubt seized upon many of them, while many more actually took the side of the enemy, some in mysticism, others in Popery, the greater number of course in the latter, inasmuch as there the satisfaction hoped for in taking the step was more cheaply gained. People who considered themselves entirely impartial, that is to say, who imagined, that in having left one shore and not having reached the other, they had, from the lofty height of their religious indifferentism, acquired an aptitude for passing judgment upon the Church, arrived at the notion that Orthodoxy was nothing more than an antiquated and indifferent medium out of which, according to the laws of progress as seen in the West, which was far in advance of us in enlightenment, two tendencies, the one Latin and the other Protestant, had to apportion themselves, and that these, as more fully developed forms of Christianity, were destined in time to divide Orthodoxy between them and eventually to swallow her up. Others there were which said that Latinism and Protestantism, inasmuch as they were contradictory poles mutually excluding one another, could not be the final expressions of the Christian idea, and that, earlier or later, they would have to come to terms and them- selves disappear, certainly not in Orthodoxy, which was obsolete and played out, but in some new form of religion which would regard the universe from a higher standpoint. 1 Popery, mysticism, and eclecticism all three were very seriously preached in our midst, and each of them -found followers, and met with hardly any resistance from the point 1 'Bi KaKoB-niitfyAb noBoft, Bbicnieii *opM* pejnriosnaro Mipocoacpqanin,' literally, ' In some new, higher form of religious world-contemplation.' INTRODUCTION xlv of view of the Church. It is evident that our school of theology could not provide materials for a successful resist- ance. It continued to carry on its polemics on the treacherous soil already described without changing its position : in a word, it simply acted on the defensive. But to defend one- self is not the same thing as to repulse, still less is it the same thing as to gain the victory ; in the domain of thought one can only regard as conquered that which has been finally understood and defined to be error. And our Orthodox school of theology was not in a position to define either Latinism or Protestantism, because that in departing from its own Orthodox standpoint, it had itself become divided into two, and that each of these halves had taken up a position opposed indeed to its opponent, Latin or Protestant, but not above him. 'It was Khomiakoff who first looked upon Latinism and Protestantism from the Church's point of view, and therefore from a higher standpoint : l and this is the reason that he was also able to define them. ' We have already said that foreign theologians were per- plexed by his brochures. They felt that there was something in them which they had never met with before in their controversies with Orthodoxy ; something quite unexpected and new to them. Very likely they were sometimes unable clearly to realise of what this new element consisted ; but we at any rate understand what it was. They had at last heard the voice of a theologian not of the anti-Latin, nor the anti- Protestant, but of the Orthodox school. And having met with Orthodoxy in the region of ecclesiastical science for the first time, they began in a confused sort of way to feel that hitherto their whole controversy with the Church had turned upon certain misunderstandings ; that their everlasting litiga- tion with her, which had seemed to them almost on the point of completion, was in fact only now beginning, and upon entirely new ground, and that the very position of the two 1 'Ess Ifepxeu, cj*40BaTe.ibno ceepxy,' literally, 'out of the Church, consequently from above.' xlvi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH sides had changed, inasmuch as they, Papists and Protestants, had become the accused instead of the accusers, they were called upon for an answer, and it was they that had to justify themselves. . . . 'Not less striking in its novelty was the system upon which Khomiakoff conducted his controversial undertakings. Up to his time our learned theological disputes had lost themselves in particularism. Each position of our opponents, and each of their deductions, were analysed and refuted separately. We were engaged in detecting forged additions to texts or omissions, and in recovering the meaning of corrupted passages. We compared text with text, and witness with witness, and pelted one another with proofs from Scripture, tradition, and reason. When we succeeded in gaining our point the result was that the proposition of our adversaries was not proven, sometimes perhaps it was even shown to be contrary to Scripture and tradition, and therefore false and to be rejected, but nothing more. Of course this was suffi- cient in order to refute the error in the form in which it had presented itself : but this obviously was not all that was wanted. The questions, how, why, arid from what inner motive causes it had sprung, and what exactly it was in these that was false, and wherein lay the root of the error, re- mained still unanswered. These questions they never solved, and hardly even touched upon, and consequently it some- times happened that after having shaken off an error expressed in one form (as a dogma or decision), we did not recognise it in another form ; it sometimes even happened that in the very refutation itself we appropriated it, by transferring over into our own point of view the very motive causes which had given rise to it ; its root remained all the same in the earth, and the fresh shoots which it threw out often cumbered our ground. Khomiakoff sets to work in a very different manner. Passing from manifestations to their original causes, he re- produces, if one may so express it, a physical genealogy of each error, and brings them back together to their common starting-point, in which the error, on being exposed to view, INTRODUCTION xlvii reveals itself in its inner inconsistency. This is nothing less than to tear error up by the roots. ' If we go further into Khomiakoff 's theological writings, and pass from his system to their contents, we shall find another distinguishing characteristic. They have the appear- ance of being primarily of a controversial nature ; but in reality polemics occupy in them a secondary place, or, to put it more exactly, of polemics in the strict sense of the word, that is to say, of refutations of a purely negative character, there is hardly a trace. It is impossible to take the negative side of his controversies namely, his objections and refutations, apart from the positive side that is to say, his explanation of the teaching of Orthodoxy; and this is so, because the one cannot be separated from the other, for they always form one indissoluble whole. There is not a single argument to be found in his works which he has borrowed from the Protestants to use against the Latins, nor has he taken a single argument from the Latin arsenal to use against the Protestants ; not one of his arguments but which will be found to be double-edged, that is to say, which is not just as good against the Latins as against the Protest- ants, and this is because each of his demonstrations is in its essence not a negation, but an affirmative proposition, although it be pointed with a view to controversy. . . . 1 When a man stands in a cloud or a fog, he is conscious only of the absence or want of light, but whence the fog came, or how far it extends, or where the sun is, he neither knows, sees, nor can say. ' On the contrary when the sky is clear, and the sun is shining brightly, every passing vapour shows itself off against the sky in all its outlines and limits, as a cloud, as an object the opposite of light. ' Khomiakoff cleared the region of light, the atmosphere of the Church, and consequently false doctrine as it passed across it appeared of its own accord in the shape of a nega- tion of the light, as a dark spot on the sky. The boundaries and outlines of false doctrine became evident and self-defined. xlviii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH We speak of false doctrine in the singular and not in the plural number, although we include both Latinism and Protestantism under the term, because from henceforth these two confessions will constitute for us but one single form of error ; and this their intrinsic unity can only be seen from one point of view, namely that of the Church, and it was just this that Khomiakoff pointed out to us. Before his time our theologians always took Latinism and Protestantism to be two contradictories, mutually excluding one another. And this is what they are actually represented to be in the West, because there religious consciousness is irrevocably divided into two parts, and has lost the very notion of the Church, that is to say, of that centre from which these two confessions separated themselves under the influences of the elements which they had imbibed from Rome and Germany. A similar view of them passed over from the West to us, and we adopted their definitions ready made, and looked upon Latinism with Protestant eyes, and vice versa. At the present time, thanks to Khomiakoff, all this is changed. Formerly we saw before us the two clearly defined forms of Western Christianity, and Orthodoxy between them, having, as it were, pulled herself up at the parting of the ways, but now we see the Church, or, in other words, the living organism of truth, intrusted to mutual love ; and outside the Church, logical knowledge cut off from a moral basis, that is to say, Rationalism, in two aspects of its development, namely, reason clutching at a phantom of the truth, and selling its freedom into bondage to an external authority which is what Latinism is, and reason, trying to find out a self-made truth for itself and sacrificing unity to subjective sincerity or, in other words, Protestantism.' Such was the change brought about in the current theology of the Kussian Church by Khomiakoff s theo- logical writings. Illustrations of his method will be found both in the present volume and in his three Essays in the French language upon the Latin Church INTRODUCTION xlix and Protestantism which have been already referred to. Its great importance consists in the fact that whatever may be thought of its intrinsic merits and of course no Western can accept Khomiakoff's views without certain very considerable limitations it has undoubtedly given logical form and expression to what has been implicitly held by the whole of the Orthodox Eastern Church from the time of the Great Schism downwards. The great fact to remember about Russia is that she has not in Church or State gone through either a feudal or a scholastic period ; and this she owes to the fact of her belonging to the Eastern Orthodox Church. The theology borrowed from the West, which was partly adopted in the seventeenth and eighteenth centuries in the Eastern Church, has never sunk very deeply into Eastern religious consciousness. Even documents such as the Articles of the Synod of Bethlehem, which re- ceived the approval of the four Patriarchs, are now looked upon as to a great extent obsolete ; indeed, in Russia they were never accepted except in a modified form and this because they were from the first felt not to be in accordance with the true spirit and tradition of the Eastern Church. If any one wishes to estimate what Khomiakoff has done for Orthodox theology, let him first read the Notes of Mr. Palmers Visit to the Orthodox Church, published by Cardinal Newman, and in the conversations of those with whom Mr. Palmer had his first discussions re- cognise the results of the schools of theology which Mr. Samarin has described as existing before Khomiakoff s time in Russia, and then, after reading Khomiakoff's d 1 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH theological treatises, let him go to Kussia and study the Church there as she exists at the present day. He will not be long in realising how completely the channel into which the Slavophiles led contemporary Russian theological thought corresponds with actual facts. Mr. Khomiakoff always regarded .the declaration of the Eastern Patriarchs given in reply to the encyclical of Pius ix. to the Oriental Christians as the point of departure from which the modern school of Orthodox theology should start. And indeed, just as the Vatican decrees may be said to be the logical outcome of the line taken by Rome at the Great Schism, so when the Eastern Patriarchs declared, ' We have no sort of worldly inspectorship, or, as his Holiness calls it, sacred direction, but are united only by the bond of love and zeal for our common Mother in the unity of the faith. . . . With us neither Patriarchs nor Councils could ever introduce anything new, inasmuch as with us the body itself of the Church is the guardian of her Orthodoxy,' they were for the first time formulating a definition of the principle which underlies the whole teaching of the Orthodox Church. Khomiakoff seized upon this de- claration of the Patriarchs, applied it in every imagin- able Avay to Orthodox tradition and practice, and found that it always corresponded with them. It will be found to underlie the whole of his essay upon the Unity of the Church at the end of this volume ; while in the second of his Essays upon the Latin Church and Protestantism, after maintaining that it was clearly indicated on the day of Pentecost, for the Holy Spirit, Who was sent to lead the disciples into all truth, came down not only INTRODUCTION li upon the Apostles, but upon all the disciples, he thus defines the difference between the East and West upon this point : : ' When, after having overcome death, the Saviour of men withdrew His visible presence from them, He did not leave them comfortless, but consoled them with the promise that He would be with them to the end of the world. This promise was fulfilled. The Spirit of God descended on the heads of the disciples gathered together in the unanimity of prayer, and restored to them the presence of their Saviour, no longer a presence indeed such as could be apprehended by the senses, but an invisible presence, a presence no longer external, but dwelling within them. From that time forward, notwithstanding the trials that awaited them, their joy was full. And we also have this full and perfect joy, for we know that the Church has not, like the Protestants, to search for Christ, for she already possesses Him, and that she possesses and obtains Him constantly by the inward action of love, without requiring an external phantom of Christ, such as the Romans believe in. The invisible Head of the Church had no need to bequeath her with an image of Himself in order to pronounce oracles, but has inspired the whole of her with His love in order that she may have the unchangeable truth within herself. ' Such is our faith. The Church, even on earth, is a thing of heaven ; but both the Eoman and the Protestant judge of heavenly things as if they were earthly. "There will be disunion," says the Roman, " unless there is an authority to decide questions of dogma." "There will be intellectual servitude," says the Protestant, " if everybody is obliged to agree with all the others." Is this way of speaking in accord- ance with the principles of heaven or with those of the earth 1 . . . Catholicism, or rather the universality of known truth, and Protestantism, or rather seeking for the truth, are as a matter of fact elements which have always co-existed 1 L' Byline Latin et le Protestantisms, pp. 111-116. lii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH together in the Church. The first belongs to the totality of the Church, the second to each of her members. We call the Church universal, but we do not call ourselves Catholics when this word (or the word Orthodox) is used in speaking of an individual it is only an elliptical form of language for this word implies a perfection to which we are very far from pretending. When the Spirit of God permitted that the holy Apostle of the Jews should deserve the blame of the Apostle of the Gentiles, He gave us this sublime truth to understand, that the highest intellect and the mind most illuminated from heaven ought to humble itself before the catholicity of the Church, which is the voice of God Himself. Each of us is constantly seeking that which the Church ever possesses. Ignorant, we seek to understand ; evil, we seek to unite ourselves to the sanctity of her inward life ; ever imperfect in all things, we press forward towards that perfection which is to be found fully displayed only in the manifestations of the Church herself, in her writings, which are the sacred Scriptures, in her dogmatic traditions, in her sacraments, in her prayers, in her decisions, and which, in short, make themselves heard every time that there is an error to refute, a difficulty to solve, or a truth to proclaim within her bosom, in order to sustain the trembling steps of her children. Each one of us is of the earth, the Church alone is of heaven.' And here we will take leave of Khomiakoffs theological works and opinions. The reason that I have tried to present them as far as possible in his own words, or in those of his disciples, must by this time be obvious. If I had attempted to describe them in my own words, I must, of necessity, have presented them to English readers in a modified form. My object in writing about the Russian Church has ever been to represent her as being not necessarily what I should like her to be, but what she is; and if 'my readers will INTRODUCTION liii forgive a personal reminiscence, I may say that I think that one of the proudest moments of my life was when, in a criticism of one of my articles in The Guardian upon Russia, which appeared hi a Protestant journal, published at Leipzig, and which was anything but friendly towards the line which I took, the writer began his final sentence by the words: 'Birkbeck bemiiht sich doch objectiv zu sein ' ! The time for telling half- truths about the Russian Church, even if it ever existed, has certainly now quite passed away; the question of the Reunion of Christendom is ever coming more and more to the front, and the Russian Church, quite apart from the other Orthodox Eastern Churches which are in full communion with her, is by far the most important national Church now existing, and indeed, next to the Roman Church, is the largest Christian body on the world's surface at the present time. It must be patent to all intelligent observers and it is well known that no one appreciates the fact better than Leo xni. himself that the Reunion of Christendom will not be brought about without her. As Eugenius iv. said of Mark of Ephesus, when he heard that he had not signed the Act of Union at the Council of Florence, so we may say with regard to Russia : ' Without her, all our labours are lost.' And therefore the first object of those who are interested in, and who long for, the Reunion of Christendom, should be, to get really to know her, and to see things from her own point of view. This pre- liminary step is absolutely indispensable. Whether the views of her theologians are absolutely true, or whether they are only relatively so, is comparatively an liv RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH unimportant matter, and may be discussed hereafter. There is much in Mr. Khomiakoff's writings, both in this correspondence and in his other works, which no Anglican can unreservedly accept. While we can readily admit that, there was much in the development of Western theology after the Great Schism which was one-sided, and much that was even altogether erroneous, we can never admit that the West ceased to be part of the Church, or that the whole truth has been committed to the East alone since that unhappy event. We can of course allow that, inasmuch as the East has never admitted the principle of development, and as a matter of fact has obviously hardly changed, even outwardly, since the division between East and West, she is a perfectly faithful representative of the Eastern Church before that unhappy event, while those who really know her, and have seen her practical working, her services, her missions, her monasteries, her guilds, her charities, and all the daily evidences of her vitality in the vast Empire of the Tzars, will certainly allow that she has been wise in adhering to her traditions, that in this lies her great strength, and that that good part which she has chosen is extremely unlikely to be taken from her. But the object for which this book has been published will be very much mistaken, if it is thought that it is intended to throw away doubt upon the claims, both of the English and the Roman Churches, to be considered true members of the Catholic Church. No English Churchman could wish to do this. To return once more to Mr. Khomiakoff: he repeatedly expresses his admiration for the English system of education, and gives the warmest praise to our public schools and INTRODUCTION lv universities. Yet at the end of his account of his visit to England he relates how, when he was at Oxford, a clergyman belonging to the Tractarian School said to him : ' How are we to arrest the pernicious effects of Protestantism ? ' Khomiakoff 's ready reply was : ' Shake off your Roman Catholicism ! ' He seemed hardly to realise that to do this would be to bury the English university and public school system and all that it represents under the earth, and if this conversation took place at the high table of Magdalen, which, as he was Mr. Palmer's guest during his stay at Oxford, is not improbable, it must have been almost enough to make the portraits of Waynflete, Wolsey, and Pole over his head weep from their frames ! That it was difficult for an Anglican to join the Church of Rome when once he had realised what the Eastern Church is, even in the discouraging times of the Secession of Dr. Newman and of the Gorham Judgment, is made abundantly clear by the latter part of this correspondence, and at the present day such a thing would be quite impossible. On the other hand, even now that the difficulty about Baptism exists no longer, Eastern writers admit that Reunion of East and West is not in the least likely, even if desirable, to be brought about by individual conversions to Orthodoxy. 1 Mr. Khomiakoff died in the year 1860. He had been staying for about a month, towards the end of the summer, on a small property which he owned in the government of Riazan, looking after its affairs. His eldest son had been with him most of the time, but he 1 Of. an article upon W. Palmer published last month (August) in Moscow in the Rmkij Archiv. Ivi RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH had sent him home to Bogocharovo, intending to finish off some literary work which he had on hand, and to follow him in three days. On the night before his death his bailiff had been with him arranging about the affairs of the estate, and left him at two o'clock in the morning of 23rd September in perfect health. He then sat down to write, and continued to do so until about five o'clock, when he felt the first symptoms of cholera. The suddenness of the attack is best illustrated by the fact that his manuscript ended abruptly in the middle of a sentence, at the word ' in.' At seven o'clock, feel- ing himself getting worse and worse, he sent for the priest, who arrived at eight o'clock, and after confessing and communicating him, administered to him the Sacrament of Unction. During the whole of this service, which in the Eastern Church is extremely long, he retained his consciousness, holding a candle in his hand, at times repeating the prayers with the priest in a whisper, and making the sign of the cross. At three o'clock he became unconscious, and the priest, thinking that the end had come, began reading the commendatory prayers. However, afterwards he recovered conscious- ness, and the village doctor told him that his pulse was improving. ' Are you not ashamed of yourself,' answered Khomiakoff, ' after having seen so much sickness, not to know the pulse of a dying man ? ' About twenty minutes before the end, his neighbour, Mr. Muromtzeff, who was the only person with him besides the priest and doctor, said to him : ' You are getting better ; the warmth is returning to your limbs, and your eyes are brighter.' ' But to-morrow how bright they will be ! ' replied Khomiakoff. These were his last words. He INTRODUCTION Ivii died at a quarter to eight in the evening. His body was removed to his beloved Moscow, where it now lies in peace in the cemetery of the great Danileffski Monastery on the outskirts of the city. Co CBHTLIMB ynoKofi, Xpicre, Ayffiy pa6a Tsoero ! The letters of Mr. Khomiakoff throughout this volume have been given in almost exactly the same words as they were written. Any addition which I have made I have put into square brackets, and any alteration which could in any possible manner alter the sense, I have indicated in a footnote. The alterations which I have made without noticing them are extremely small in number, and consist merely of such details as the occasional transference of the position of an adverb, or the alteration of ' will ' into ' shall ' where the English idiom seemed to require it. I have been careful to initial my own footnotes, and, for the rest, to indicate whether they were those of Mr. Khomiakoff himself or of his Russian translator. With regard to the orthography of Russian names spelt in English letters, I have throughout reduced them to one system, in order to avoid confusion. The only exception I have made is in the case of Mr. Khomiakoff s own name, which I have left in every case as he spelt it at the end of his letters. The diversity in spelling comes from the very fugitive character of the sounds of unaccented Russian vowels. The name in Russian is spelt XOMHKOBT>, and the first two syllables being short, may very easily be represented by letters other than o and ja. The S sound in Russian, however, resembles rather the sound of the English o in Iviii RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH the word ' testim6ny ' than the broad sound of a. The Kh at the beginning is equivalent to the German Ch. Perhaps the best way of indicating the true sound of the name would be to spell it ' Homiakoff.' In conclusion, I would express my gratitude for the assistance I have had in preparing this work for the press. It would be difficult to say how much I owe to the late Lord Selborne, not only for providing me with his brother's Confession of Faith upon joining the Church of Rome, and the two poems at the end of the volume, but also for his kind assistance throughout the whole undertaking. All my MSS. of Mr. Palmer's letters were looked over and corrected by him, and the punctua- tion in them was added by him in pencil. The assist- ance of the Very Rev. Archpriest E. Smirnoff, Chaplain to the Russian Embassy in London, has also been invaluable : it would be impossible to exaggerate how much I owe to him, not only for helping me in the biographical details in the footnotes, but also for his constant readiness to help me to clear up any difficulty which occurred in the course of the work. I have also to thank many friends in Russia, especially Mr. Dmitri and Miss Mary Khomiakoff, for their assistance through- out, Mine. Bachmetieff for relieving me of much of the labour of copying Mr. Khoiniakoff's letters, Mr. Peter Bartenieff for furnishing me with the original text of Mr. Palmer's letters in 1858 to the Chief Procurator of the Holy Synod, and to Canon Bramley of Lincoln for his valuable help with the theological terms in my transla- tion of Khoiniakoff's Essay on the Church. W. J. BIRKBECK. THROPE, September 23rd, 1895. CORRESPONDENCE BETWEEN ME. WILLIAM PALMER AND M. KHOMIAKOFF 1851-1853 CHAPTER I MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S CORRESPONDENCE WITH MR. PALMER Origin of correspondence ' To my Children' Mr. Palmer's translation. THE correspondence between Mr. William Palmer and Mr. Alexis Khomiukoff commenced in the year 1844. On neither of his two visits to Russia had Mr. Palmer made the acquaintance of the great Slavophil leader. This was probably because that up till then none of Mr. Khomiakoff's theological treatises had been published. Such of his writings as had appeared in Russia were either of a philo- sophical or of a historical complexion, and only indirectly touched upon questions such as Mr. Palmer went to Russia to study. The reasons for this will be perfectly clear from what has been already said in the Introduction, and it is therefore unnecessary to repeat them here. It was through their mutual friend, Mr. Redkin, that the correspondence which we are publishing in this volume commenced, and which led to their subsequent friendship. Upon the death of his two eldest children, Mr. Khomiakoff had written in the year 1839 his touching and beautiful poem upon the death of his two eldest children, which at the present day is known wherever the Russian language is spoken. Mr. Palmer translated it into English, and sent a copy of his translation to Mr. Redkin. The following is Mr. Palmer's translation ; and to it we append Khomiakoff's Russian text, the exquisite grace and pathos of which it is impossible adequately to render in any language but in the original. RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH TO MY CHILDREN (Translated from the Russ of A. S. Khomiakoff by W. Palmer of Magdalen. ) Time was, when I loved at still midnight to come, My children, to see you asleep in your room ; The Cross' holy sign on your foreheads to trace, And commend you in prayer to the love and the grace Of our gracious and merciful God. To keep gentle guard, and watch over your rest, To think how your spirits were sinless and blest, In hope to look forward to long happy years Of blithe merry youth, without sorrows or fears, Oh how sweet, how delicious it was ! But now, if I go, all is silence, all gloom ; None sleep in that crib, nothing breathes in that room ; The light that should burn at the image l is gone : Alas ! so it is, children now I have none, And my heart how it painfully throbs ! 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. 1 That is to say, the Eikon, or sacred picture placed in the corner of every Russian room, before which a lamp often hangs, which is kept burning when the room is occupied, more especially on Sundays and Festivals. [\V. J. B.] MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S POEM K'b Ebieajio, n'b r.iy6oi;iii nojiyHoitibitt saci>, MajiioTKH, npn r i,y jiK>6oBaTbca na naet ; EbiBa.io, .1106.110 Bact Kpec-roM-b BuaMenaTb, yA6T-B na Bact 6jiaroAaTb, BccAcp;KHTe.ia Bora. Cxepenb VMH.IOIIIIO iiauri, r vi.Tci;iM HOKOH, TOMt, KUKt Bbl HHCTbl OJirHXT. H CHaCTwIHBblXT. Baei., 6e33a6oTiibix'i> H MHJIUXI. Kai; - b c.ia^uo, i;airi, pa^ocTHo ubi.io ! Teuepb npHxojKy a : 11 i.T't in> KOMHarb H;H3HH, Kpon.rrKa Hb .ia.M[ia,.T,b iiorao'i. npi'A'i. HKOHOIO cui/rb .... Mnt rpycTHO, MajiwroKi. MOHVL yate iikTi! M cepAHe Taiii. 6ojibHO COWMCTCH ! AfcTH, B-b rjiydoKiH iiii.iMKi'iMi.iii iacT., MOJlHTCCb TOMT., KTO MO.lH^Cn BaCT>, TOM I., KTO .IHIOH.Vb Uaci. ICpOCTOMT, 8 II UN! CM. IT I, ; yACTT. H c% HHMT> BceAep%HTC.in Bora. CHAPTER II MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIRST LETTER TO MR. PALMER [1844] The sign of the Cross Communion of prayer between living and dead Mis- representations of Mr. Khomiakoff's opinions about England Reunion of Christendom Different views of Rome and the Orthodox Church Obstacles to Reunion between Eastern and Western Communities Mr. Palmer's eyesight Report of Dr. Newman's secession. As has been already stated, Professor Redkin had received from Mr. Palmer a copy of his translation of Mr. Khomiakoff's poem, and showed it to the latter. The result was the following letter, which proved to be the commencement of a theological correspondence which lasted for ten years, and which forms the greater part of the present volume : SIR, The elegant and faithful translation of some stanzas written on the death of my first children, which you have had the goodness to include in your letter to Mr. Redkin, has been received by me with the utmost gratitude and pleasure. Yet give me leave to say, that, highly as I value the honour conferred on my poetry, I rejoice still more in the conscious- ness that it has been paid rather to the human feeling which has inspired my verses than to the merit of the expression. 1 It is indeed a great joy for me to have met with your sympathy, and the more so as I have met with it in the highest of all regions, in the communion of religious sentiments and convictions. In one respect it is even more than I could have anticipated, [inasmuch] as the sign of the Cross and 1 ' to their poetical deserts.' [R. T.] THE SIGN OF THE CROSS 5 the belief in a communion of prayers between living and dead are generally rejected by the over-cautious spirit of the Reformation. You are, methinks, very right in approving of them. Those who believe that the Holy Cross has been indeed the instrument of our salvation cannot but consider it as the natural symbol of Christian love ; and if they reject a most natural and holy sign for fear of idolatry, they seem to be almost as inconsistent as a man who should condemn himself to voluntary dumbness for fear of idle words. In the like manner I think [it] rather reasonable [than otherwise] to believe that no bond of Christian love can be rent asunder by death in the spiritual world, whose only law is love. The Episcopal Church of England seems in the last times to have adopted that principle. 1 Perhaps I should [here] add a few words for my own justi- fication, as some ridiculous calumnies have been circulated in Germany about my having expressed sentiments of hate to- wards your noble and highly enlightened country, and may have found their way to England. These calumnies origin- ated in the writings of an Oratorian (Theyner), and were repeated by Jesuits and reprinted in some newspapers. It was a strange thing to see England's cause defended by unlooked-for champions seldom considered as her friends. But a deep and implacable hatred towards Russia and the Oriental Church had inspired them suddenly with a fervent love towards England. Yet I will not attempt a justifica- tion; I am sure that English good sense and justice will always prove a sufficient defence against the brazen-faced hypocrisy of an Oratorian or a Jesuit. Permit me rather to add some few observations on the last passage of your letter to Mr. Redkin, which he has communicated to some of his friends. You say : ' Those who desire to be true patriots and true 1 ' This principle, it appears, has begun to be admitted of late by the Episcopal Church of England. ' [R. T.] RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH cosmopolites should repeat, not with their lips only, but from their inmost heart, the words "o coc^HHeiiiH uc-fex-B" 1 whenever they occur in the services of the Church.' Indeed, sir, I think that many are the cultivated Russians who repeat that part of the Liturgy not only with their lips and breath but with their heart and soul. I, for my part, having been educated in a very religious family, and particularly by a pious mother, still living, have been taught to join sincerely in that beautiful prayer of the Church. When very young, almost a child, my imagination was often delighted by a hope of seeing all the Christian world united under one banner of truth. Later, that became less vivid as the obstacles grew more and more visible. At last, I must confess it, what was a hope has dwindled into a desire relieved from despair by nothing but a faint glimmering of a possible success after many and many ages. The South of Europe, in its dark ignorance, is out of the question for a long while. Germany has in reality no religion at all but the idolatry of science ; France has no serious longings for truth, and little sincerity. England with its modest science 2 and its serious love of religious truth might [seem to] give some hopes ; but permit the frank expression of my thoughts England is held by the iron chain of traditionary custom. You add that ' most serious people in England think only of union with Rome.' This conclusion seems to me very natural. Union cannot 1 ' For the union of them all,' taken from the third clause of the Great Ectene : ' For the peace of the whole world, for the welfare of the holy Churches of God, and for the union of them all, let us make our supplications to the Lord. Kyrie eleison.' The Great Ectene is said at the Liturgy, Vespers and Matins, and many other offices of the Eastern Church. [W. J. B.] 2 In the original MS., as also in his reply when he quotes this passage (see page 17), Mr. Palmer has inserted a question mark after the word 'modest.' But Mr. Khomiakoff obviously intended, in using this expression, to show that he appreciated the more humble tone of Anglican theological literature, as contrasted with that of Protestant Germany. [W. J. B.] UNITY, NOT UNION 7 be understood by any Orthodox otherwise than as the con- sequence of a complete harmony, or of a perfect Unity of Doctrine. (I do not speak of rites, excepting in the case when they are symbols of a dogma.) The Church has in itself nothing of a state, 1 and can admit of nothing like a conditional Union. It is quite a different case with the Church of Rome. She is a state. She admits easily of the possibility of an alliance even with a deep dis- cordance of doctrine. Great is the difference between the logical slavery of Ultramontanism and the illogical half- liberty of Gallicanism, and yet they stand both under the same banner and head. 2 The union of the Nicene Symbol and Roman obedience in the United Church of Poland was a thing most absurd, 3 and yet that Church was admitted by 1 'The Church in her structure [cocrani = ffforrina] is not a state.' [R. T.] 2 It must be remembered that this letter was written before the suppression of Gallicanism during the pontificate of Pins ix. |\V. J. B.] :! That is to say, the Nicene Creed in its original form, without the Western addition. The Easterns will never admit that the Creed with the addition Filioque is the Nicneo-Constantinopolitan Creed at all. On the other hand, when the Unia was effected in 1596, by the terms of which the Metropolitan of Kieff and several other Orthodox bishops in the Russian and Lithuanian provinces of Poland submitted to the supremacy of Rome on condition that they were allowed to retain the Oriental Rite, the Uniats were not required to bring the Nicene Creed into conformity with the Latin form, but only to acknowledge the supremacy of the Pope. This of course implied the formal accept- ance of the Florentine decree in favour of the Latin doctrine, but practically this did not affect the rank and file of the Uniats, who together with the Eastern form retained the Eastern belief. Indeed, in Austria I have come across uninstructed Uniats who to this day are entirely unaware that they are not still in full communion with the Russian Orthodox Church. To understand Khomiakoff's argument, it must 1)0 remembered that Eastern theologians maintain that the insertion of Filioque fundamentally alters the meaning of the whole clause of the Creed, and that, as they stand, the Eastern and Western formula* contradict one another, inasmuch as the first implies one ht the second two &p\al, in the Godhead. Accordingly he 8 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Rome very naturally, because the Church of Rome is a state, and has a right to act as a state. The Union with Rome seems to me the more natural for England, [inasmuch] as Eng- land in truth has never rejected the authority of the Roman doctrine. Why should those who admit the validity of the Pope's decree in the most vital part of Faith in the Symbol reject it in secondary questions or in matters of discipline ? Union is possible with Rome. Unity alone is possible with Orthodoxy. It is now more than a thousand years since Spanish bishops invented Inquisition l (in the time of the Goths), and an addition to the Symbol. It is almost as much since the Pope confirmed that addition by his word of might. 2 Since that time the Western communities have nurtured a deep enmity and an incurable disdain for the unchanging East. These feelings have become traditional argues, that while it is of course possible for a state to recognise and accept the two forms, and the difference of doctrine which they involve, in two different parts of its dominions, just as with us the State recognises Anglicanism in England and Presbyterianism in Scot- land, it is impossible that contradictions in a vital clause of the Symbol of the Faith should co-exist together in the same Church. And therefore he concludes that Rome is not a Church, but a state. [W. J. B.] 1 These words are given exactly as Mr. Khomiakoff wrote them. In the MS. Mr. Palmer has underlined the word 'invented,' and has written over it in pencil : ' advanced the principle of.' He then erased the word ' advanced ' and substituted for it ' decreed.' This is written tolerably clearly, but the last word might possibly be intended for ' devised,' and this would correspond better with the Russian trans- lation, ' ii:mf>|rl;rii.iii HiiKi:n3Huiio,' which literally means 'invented' (or 'contrived') 'the Inquisition.' On the whole passage, and the his- torical objections which may be raised to it, it will be best to refer the reader to Mr. Khomiakoff 's own explanation on page 65. [W. J. B.] - In the original MS. Mr. Palmer has underlined the word ' might ' in pencil, but what he has written above it is now illegible. It may be 'authority.' The Russian translation givSs : eMcmbn n cJ,oeaM& CBOHMT,, 'by his own authority and words.' The italics are those of Russian version. [W. J. B.] THE GREAT OBSTACLE TO UNITY 9 and, as it were, innate, 1 to the Roman-German world, and England has all the time partaken of that spiritual life. Can it tear itself away from the past ? There stands, in my opinion, the great and invincible obstacle to Unity. There is the reason why so many individual attempts have met with no sympathy and no success at all, and why communi- cations on points of theological science not unknown to many of your divines (as for example to the [Scottish] Bishop of Paris, 2 to Dr. Pusey and others), have not even been brought forward to the knowledge of the public. It is an easy thing to say : ' We have ever been Catholics ; but the Church being sullied by abuses, we have protested against them, and have gone too far in our protest. Now we retrace our steps.' This is easy, but to say : ' We have been schismatical for ages and ages, even since the dawn of our intellectual life,' is next to impossible. It would require in a man an almost superhuman courage to say it, and in a nation an almost incredible humi- lity to adopt that declaration. These, sir, are the reasons why, in Russia, the most ardent wishes for universal unity are so little mixed with hope, or why hope (where it exists) turns itself rather to the Eastern communities, Nestorians, Eutychians, and so forth. 1 The word in the MS. is 'innated.' Mr. Palmer has written ' natural ' over it in pencil. ' Innate ' seems however to be the best word. The Russian translation renders it cpociHCb c^. [W. .T. B.] 2 Bishop Luscombe, consecrated at the request of some of the British residents in France, and with the consent of the heads of the English hierarchy, by Bishop Gleig, Primus of the Scottish Church, assisted by Bishops Low and Sandford, on Sunday, March 20, 1825, on which occasion Dr. Hook preached the sermon. In the letters of Collation delivered to him by his consecrators, it was stated that his administrations were to be confined to members of the Churches of England and Ireland, and of the Scottish and American Episcopal Churches on the Continent, and that he was ' not to disturb the peace of any Christian society established as a national Church in what- ever nation he may chance to sojourn.' He resided at Paris, where he built the English Church in the Rue d'Aguesseau. He died in 1846. [W. J. B.] 10 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH They are certainly further from Orthodoxy than the Churches of the West, but are not withheld from a return by feelings of proud disdain. Now, my dear sir, permit me to turn to a question more individual, but extremely interesting for me, as it concerns a man for whom I feel the sincerest esteem, and who has had the goodness to give me a never-to-be-forgotten proof of sympathy and goodwill. You complain of the weakness and irritation of your eyes, a terrible complaint for one who loves study as you do. I am somewhat of a physician (a quack doctor, if you like it), and though I am sure you have had the counsels of men by far more able than I am, I will take the liberty of proposing to you a remedy of which I have made many experiences with the best and most astonishing effects. The remedy is simply a dilution of one part of alum with one hundred and fifty parts of water, to be applied to the eyes on very fine linen three or four times a day. If you find it worth trying, I hope it will do you good ; if you do not, I am sure my good intention will excuse the absurdity of the proposition. I forgot to say that the first application is a little irritating, but generally the ameliora- tion is very remarkable in the space of a few days. I pray you, my dear sir, to excuse the barbarous style of a foreigner and the indiscretion of a man who has taken the liberty of addressing himself to you without having the honour of a personal acquaintance, and to accept the assur- ance of the most sincere respect and gratitude of, your most humble and obedient servant, ALEXIS KHAMEKOFF. P.S. Since this letter was written, I have seen in the newspapers the conversion of Mr. Newman and many others to Romanism, 1 and must confess that I think a critical moment very near at hand for the Church of England. My 1 The writer is probably referring to the premature reports which found their way into the London papers of November 2, 1844. ( Vide Liddon's Life of Pusey, vol. ii. p. 444.) As a matter of fact, Newman did not join the Roman Communion until October 9, 1845. [W. J. B.] MR. KHOMTAKOFF'S MOSCOW ADDRESS 11 address is: Ito MOCKBI;: AJICKC*IO CrenaHORHHy XOMHKOBJ', BT> C06CTBCIIHOMT> ,V>MI; Mil Co6aibCH Il.l()lll,;i r T, !i BOSJl-fc AjtoaT.'l. 1 Perhaps the way indicated l>y yourself, through the medium of Mr. Ijaw, will yet be the surest and best. Knowing the interest you take in Russian literature, I take the liberty to send you a little selection of verses by Yazikoff. The Wth ofDeceml)er 1844. 1 To Moscow : To A lexis Stepanovich Khomiako/, In his own house in Hounds' Place, beside the Arbat. In Moscow the houses in the same street are not, as with us, distinguished by numbers, but by the names of their owners, so that if a man lives on his own freehold, his letters are directed to ' his own house,' but if he hires a house, ' to the house of N.,' the name of his landlord. Mr. Khomiakoff's house in ' Hounds' Place ' (so called after the kennels of the Tzar John the Terrible which in the sixteenth century stood on this site) is still owned by the family, and is at present occupied by his daughter Miss Mary Khomiakoff. The Arbat is one of the principal streets of Mos- cow. [W. J. B.] CHAPTER III MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FIRST LETTER [1845] Mr. Palmer's book of poems and hymns Its contents and objects Letter dedicatory The English Church and the sign of the Cross Invocation of Saints Prospects of the Reunion of Christendom Duty of the Russian Church in the matter Reply to Mr. Khomiakoffs strictures upon Rome Union of the English Church more possible with the East than with Rome The question of Filioque. MR. PALMER'S reply took the form of a small volume, privately printed, entitled 'Short Poems and Hymns, the latter mostly Translations,' printed by T. Shrimpton at Oxford, 1845. 1 On the English title-page occurs the follow- ing quotation from the great Ectene of Eastern Liturgies : ' For the peace that is from above, For the welfare of the holy Churches of God, And for the union of all, Let us pray unto the Lord. ' Upon the outside paper cover a Russian title is printed in an amusing combination of English, Russian, and Greek capital letters CTHXOTBOPEHIH. AIAKOHA B. B. HAAMEPA. O K C $ P A 'J>. 2 1845. 1 Not 1843, as is erroneously stated in the list of Mr. Palmer's works given at the end of his Visit to the Russian Church, edited by Cardinal Newman. 2 ' Poems of the deacon V. V. Palmer, Oxford. ' The initials V. V. stand for ' Vassili Vassilievich,' or ' Basil, the son of Basil,' ' Basil ' being always used in Russia as the nearest equivalent for 'William' to be found in the Calendar of the Eastern Church. MR. PALMER'S POEMS AND HYMNS 13 This shows that Russian type was at this time not so acces- sible at Oxford as it has since become. The volume com- mences with five poems by Mr. Palmer himself, the first of which is entitled ' Anticipations, on hearing of the events of the three so-called Glorious Days at Paris, in July 1830,' while the last is his translation of Mr. Khomiakoff s poem as already given in the first chapter. A collection of hymns follow, which are mostly translations from the Latin made by Mr. Palmer himself or others. It also contains some well-known English hymns, including Bishop Ken's for the Morning and Evening. Mr. Palmer's first object was to show how much nearer Anglicanism was to Eastern Christianity than the ordinary Protestantism of Germany, with which at that time the English Church was usually identified by uninstructed people in Russia. Although it cannot be denied that Mr. Palmer's collection was in considerable advance of the hymnals in ordinary use at that time, they would not now be thought so ; indeed, they contain no expression for which a parallel may not be found in Hymns Ancient and Modern, and many other popular collections at the present time. But the main object of this book was to give expres- sion to Mr. Palmer's longing for the Reunion of Christendom. This is apparent from cover to cover. That he realised that the task was not an easy one is evident from the heading which precedes the metrical paraphrase of the psalm Qui regis Israel with which the volume concludes. Besides the passage from the Liturgy already quoted, this heading con- tains the following sentences : ' Ask those things that be great, and the lesser shall be added unto you ' ; ' The things which are impossible with men are possible with God : for with God nothing is impossible ' ; and, in Slavonic, Bert HAtHte xomex-b, no6t5KAaeTca ecxecTBa HH'HI (God, whereso- ever He willeth it, overcometh the order of nature). But the chief interest in this little volume undoubtedly lies in the ' Letter Dedicatory ' to Mr. Khomiakoff with which it commences, which is, in fact, his reply to Mr. Khomiakoff's first letter, which we now reprint. 14 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH A LETTER DEDICATORY TO MR. A. S. KHOMIAKOFF [1845] MY DEAR SIR, While I thank you for your letter of the 10th of December last, arid for the poems of M. Yazikoff which accompanied it, you must allow me to offer you a small return in kind in the following pages, and at the same time to add a few reflections of my own on ecclesiastical matters, partly suggested by what you have been pleased to write to me. 1. You say that the sympathy of an Anglican with the feelings which inspired those verses of yours, which I trans- lated, and which you will find again printed below at p. 6 of these present sheets, ' was in one respect a pleasure greater than you could have anticipated, as the sign of the Cross and the belief of a communion of prayers between living and dead are generally rejected by the over-cautious spirit of the Reformation. You are, methinks,' you continue, 'very right in approving of them. Those who believe that the Holy Cross has been indeed the instrument of our salvation cannot but consider it as the natural symbol of Christian love ; and if they reject a most natural and holy sign for fear of idolatry, they seem to be almost as inconsistent as a man who should condemn himself to voluntary dumbness for fear of idle words. In the like -manner, I think it reasonable to believe that no bond of Christian love can be rent asunder by death in the spiritual world, whose only law is love. The Episcopal Church of England seems in our own times to have admitted this principle.' Upon this passage I need not say anything for myself, as the contents of the following pages will sufficiently show how cordially I agree both with your belief and your feelings ; but I wish to draw your attention to a point of some interest and importance as regards the character of the Anglican or British Church, of which I am a member. It is unhappily but too true, and too notorious to all the world, that Anglicans have practically laid aside that salutary use of the INVOCATION OF SAINTS AND ANGELS 15 sign of the Cross by which Christians have ever been dis- tinguished from Jews and heathens ; also that they have now no Invocations of the Blessed Virgin or of the Saints in the public Offices of their Church ; while in their private opinions they commonly reject all such things as tending to separate us from Christ, in Whom alone, and not apart from Whom, they ought properly to be viewed and considered. However, you may not, perhaps, be aware, and I am sure you will be pleased to learn, that the Anglican Church in herself is not nearly so corrupt on either of these two points as she is in tlie prejudices of her members, and so is quite capable of a very great improvement, whenever it may please God to turn our hearts from our own deep spiritual and intellectual idolatries to Himself. She actually requires the use of the sign of the Cross in Baptism, which, you will agree with me, is the root and germ of all other subsequent use of it, whether in the worship of the Church or in daily life ; and in one of her canons she defends at length its frequent use on all occasions against the objections of the Puritans or Calvinists, and signifies her own sympathy with the Primitive Church in regarding those who revile this most holy sign as the enemies of the Cross itself and of Christ crucified. On the other point, of addresses to spirits and souls departed, I will only remark here, that even those Anglican Bishops who are least inclined to favour the spiritual move- ment called Puseyism do not fail, nevertheless, to acknow- ledge that their Church has never in any way condemned apostroplies and poetical addresses to Saints and Angels ; for in truth it would be most absurd to retain the Psalms and Hymns of the Old Testament, in which holy David and others speak spiritually both to Angels and to the souls of the righteous, and to their own souls too, and to all things, absent or present, animate or inanimate, and remind God of His departed servants, in order to give efficacy to their own prayers ; it would, I say, be most absurd to retain all these addresses from the Church of the Old Testament, as we do still in the Offices of the Anglican Church, and yet refuse to 16 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH the Church of the New Testament the like liberty of speak- ing spiritually and in Christ to all Angels and spirits, to all persons and things, in all such manners as may be natural and suitable under the new dispensation. But the truth is, the real objection of intelligent and well-disposed Anglicans is not against such poetical addresses as are to be found in your verses, or in the Hymns of your Church, or in those which I now send you, and which are mostly translations, but against payers in prose seriously addressed to spirits or souls not present in the body, as a service of homage and devotion. This is a subject into which I will not now enter ; nor indeed is it necessary, for if we Anglicans would only practically re-admit and appreciate that most beautiful and touching sacred poetry, which is common both to the Greek and Latin Churches, and even to the long-separated Nestorian and Eutychian com- munities, and which our own Anglican Church has never condemned, there would be no fear of any great difficulty remaining afterwards on this point in the way of peace. You complain of some calumnious reports which originated, as you say, in the writings of an Oratorian, Theyner, and were repeated by Jesuits, whom you charge, not unjustly, I fear, with a deep and implacable hatred against Russia and the Oriental Church. It is indeed true that almost every- thing relating to Russia comes to us doubly dyed in the religious and political gall of the Poles and of the German and French democrats. Still, setting politics aside, I must confess that I think both we in England and you in Russia will do well to say as little as possible about the faults of the Roman Catholics, at least till such time as we ourselves shall set them a better example, either by a general spirit of prayer and intercession for their improvement and reconcilia- tion, or else, if we really think them external to the true Church, by an active zeal for their conversion. In allusion to what I had written about the duty of praying for unity, you tell me you 'are convinced that there are very many in Russia who repeat those words in the Offices of their Church, to which I referred, "for the union NEED OF MUTUAL KNOWLEDGE AND SYMPATHY 17 of all" not only with their lips and breath, but from their inmost heart and soul.' You say of yourself that you 'were taught to join sincerely in that beautiful prayer of the Church ; and that while very young, almost a child, your imagination was often delighted by the hope of seeing all the Christian world united under one banner of Truth ; that later, however, this hope became less vivid, as the obstacles grew more and more visible. At last,' you conclude, ' I must confess it, what was a hope has dwindled into a desire relieved from despair by nothing but a faint glimmering of a possible success after many and many ages. The south of Europe in its dark ignorance is out of the question for a long while ; Germany has in reality no religion at all but the idolatry of Science ; France has no serious longings for truth, and but little sincerity ; England, with its modest (?) science and its serious love of Religious Truth, might have offered some hope ; but, permit the frank expression of my thoughts, England is held by the iron yoke of Traditionary Custom.' In answer to this passage, I must say, that nothing can be more thankfully received by us, nothing can be more con- solatory and refreshing, than to be assured that there are in the Eastern Church some hearts, at least, which beat for unity and peace, some, at least, that pray not vaguely and mechanically, but intelligently and fervently for the reunion of the West. Would to God that this were more distinctly known and felt among us here in England ! Would to God that you in Russia knew and felt more distinctly how many thousands, both of clergy and laity, there are in England who day and night most earnestly implore God for the reconciliation of Christendom ! Such mutual knowledge might do much to increase our zeal, and prevent that despondency which, as it is, you are obliged to confess has crept over many. Now, that there are difficulties in the way of a general reconciliation I well know ; that these difficulties should become more and more visible and seem insuperable, as we advance in years and experience, is no wonder at all ; but, still, my dear sir, you must allow me to say that even if B 18 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH there were no such counterbalance of encouraging circum- stances as I think there is in our days, I should feel it a duty to entreat you never to give way as long as you live to that evil despair of which you speak. Even supposing that the thing desired seems impossible, still, 'What is impossible with men is possible with God ' ; ' With God nothing is impossible.' 'If ye have faith as a grain of mustard seed,' says our Saviour, ' ye shall remove mountains ' ; and ' WJiatsoever two of you shall agree to ask here upon earth, it shall be done for you in heaven.' 'Whatsoever two of you,' He says : how much more, then, if many of us agree now to ask together upon earth that which our Saviour Himself asked for us beforehand so earnestly on the night of His agony 1 The very thought of Christians ever despairing in such a cause should be an intolerable thorn to Christian souls. This, I say, even on the supposition that all appears absolutely dead and stiff, that to recall Christians in the divided Churches to the practice of earnest prayer for re- union is as hopeless, humanly speaking, as to attempt to raise the Dead, and yet even the Dead might be raised by Faith. But in truth things are not so; there are several plain grounds for hope in the prospect before us ; I will notice one or two on different sides. First, if you in Russia sincerely and heartily believe that the Eastern Catholic, or Orthodox, or Greek Church is really, as it has pretended to be since the Schism, the whole of the true Church, that it alone and exclusively is the depository of the True Faith, the Ark of Salvation, this of itself ought always and under all con- ceivable disadvantages to be a sufficient motive for the most unwearied energy, both in prayer and action, and for the most confident and unbounded hope of success in the work of evangelising the unbelieving world, and bringing back all heretics or schismatics, whether Romanists, Anglicans, Lutherans, or Calvinists, into the true Fold. On the other hand, if you do not feel quite sure of this theoretical position of the Eastern Church, or if your eyes and senses tell you, that, whatever she may say upon paper, she herself does not REUNION A NECESSITY AT THE PRESENT TIME 19 practically believe her own pretensions, then, I grant, you would have among yourselves some reason at first for perplexity and dejection. But, still, the very circumstances of the world and of the present age, circumstances which are daily bringing all men into closer communication, which are popularising all questions and all knowledge, and unchristianising and demoralising all Governments and all nations, especially the higher classes, this gigantic develop- ment, I say, of general sensualism and infidelity, horrible though it be, and a plain sign of the last days, has still an element of hope in it for those whose hearts seek Christ and the Unity of His Church. ' Then lift up your heads,' He says Himself, 'for your redemption draweth nigh ' : and indeed this may be true, in some sense, even before the end, even in our own time. If steam-communication and railroads go on multiplying, if what is called civilisation and education, and with them sensualism in practice and liberalism in belief, go on spreading in all countries from the higher classes to the lower, then neither in England, nor in Rome, nor in Russia, can the well-disposed minority remain exactly where they now are. They have been fixed and crystallised, perhaps, by influences partly political and partly religious for generations : but now all is broken up ; and as for you, in Russia, either the Eastern Church must evolve from herself a new spirit, to stem the torrent of evil flowing in from the West, to convert and heal, not the ' heretical ' and ' schismatical ' Latins only ivithout, but too often also her own people within, or she must eventually submit to Rome, or else, for these are the only three alternatives, she must come to think of a fair reconciliation, on whatever terms it may be effected. Thus the very development of evil in society all around us both suggests grounds of hope and will also afford some con- siderable facilities for the pressing and fusing together of the divided elements of good. As regards England more particularly, there is at the present moment a very striking promise of futxire good. Nowhere, perhaps, is the development of evil more 20 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH tremendous, both in a religious and in a social point of view ; and yet nowhere is there more ground for hope. Only, we may fear lest, while all the world is beginning to be in- quisitive about the Religious Movement in England called Puseyism, the Eastern Church should present to Englishmen nothing to engage towards herself any share of those sym- pathies, which are returning towards Rome. It matters comparatively little whether you seek our conversion, as of heretics or schismatics, or our reconciliation, as of brethren, who may perhaps be able to explain their seeming heresies, and show that they have never absolutely denied the Orthodox Faith. It matters little, I say, whether you take the one line or the other, either with Anglicans, or with Roman Catholics ; only, pray, do one or the other; show something like Christian zeal and energy ; either such as may become the whole, if you are the whole, of the true Church, or else such as may become a part, if indeed you are so much as a part : only do one or the other ; and that ' proud disdain ' of which you accuse us will be at an end, we shall be drawn towards you by any sign of life, even though its first energy may seem to be directed against ourselves. Not only France, but North America also, and England, are quite open to all religions. Why does not then the sole true Orthodox Greek Church send at least one Missionary to England ? to Oxford 1 which now, all the world knows, is the centre of an important religious movement. Seek whichever you please, I repeat, it matters little, either our conversion or our reconciliation : but do one or the other. Do not go on for ever folding your hands in a shocking self-complacency, outwardly showing not tolerance only, but something very like fraternal recognition to worse heretics than either Romanists or Anglicans, while you inwardly say in your heart, ' We alone are the true Church, and they are all heretics in the way of darkness and destruction,' they, whom you do not so much as move a finger to bring into your exclusive Ark of salvation ! You say ' it seems to you very natural that serious people in England should think only of union with Rome : because ROMAN VIEW OF UNITY 21 a union cannot be understood by any Orthodox Christian,' (i.e. by Christians of the Greek or Eastern Church) ' other- wise than as the consequence of a complete harmony, or perfect unity of doctrine, (you do not speak, you say, of rites, excepting so far as they may be symbols of any dogma). The true Church has in itself nothing of a state, and can admit nothing like a conditional union. It is quite a different case,' you proceed, ' with the Church of Borne. That Church is a State. It admits easily the possibility of an alliance even with a deep discordance of doctrine. Great is the difference between the logical slavery of Ultramontanism and the illogical half-liberty of Gallicanism ; and yet they both stand under the same banner and the same head. The union of Nicene Creed and Roman obedience in the Uniat Church of the Polish provinces was a thing most absurd ; and yet that Church was admitted into Communion by Rome very natur- ally, because the Church of Rome is a state and has a right to act as a state. Union is possible with Rome, unity alone is possible with Orthodoxy.' Upon this passage I must remark, that we in England, and the Pope too, and all Roman theologians entirely agree with you and with the Eastern Church in holding that the true Church can never admit any political or conditional union, nor anything short of absolute unity in doctrine ; but the Roman Catholics would think your remarks upon their ad- mission of the Uniats and upon their toleration of Gallicanism unjust. For the Uniats by communicating with the Pope and his Churches, in which the Creed is sung with the addi- tion, and that not as equals with equals, but as inferiors with their superior, virtually submitted to the Latin doctrine, although the Pope tolerated the prejudice or weakness, as he would think it, in the merely external point of form. And as for Gallicanism, that again is viewed as an evil tendency in an inferior and particular Church, by no means recognised as of right, but distinctly condemned by the superior authority, and only tolerated de facto within certain limits, so long as not fully developed to its consequences ; just as in 22 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH every society, and in the Eastern Church herself no less than in the rest, many particular opinions contrary to the ruling spirit have ever been, and ever will be, tolerated, until they are so developed or rise to such practical importance, as to force the supreme authority either to add to its authoritative decrees, or to require submission to those which exist already with more minute and strict vigilance. Thus, in the Eastern Church, it was at one time free for a bishop, say for Epi- phanius, to reject pictures ; but when the controversy in later times was developed, such toleration ceased. And now 1 in the Latin Church it is free to deny that the Blessed Virgin Mary was conceived without sin, while in the Eastern it is free to assert the contrary proposition, though the general sentiment in the Latin Church is in favour of the Immaculate Conception, and in the Eastern perhaps against it. But, to dwell no more on this, it is enough to say that you greatly mistake the present religious movement in England, if you think it has been characterised by any desire of a hollow, political, or conditional union, or that any such desire has prompted that inclination which now shows itself in many towards Rome. It began in a spirit of the most loyal Anglicanism evoked by the successful attacks of the Pro- testant sectaries and the Roman Catholics, aided by a Liberalist Government, upon the Established Church ; it pro- ceeded, up to a certain point, in a spirit of resolute hostility to Popery no less than to Sectarianism ; and it was only as increased knowledge and continued efforts after self-improve- 1 That is to say, in the year 1845. The Immaculate Conception of the Blessed Virgin Mary was declared to be a dogma of the Roman Church on December 8, 1854. The Greeks have long kept upon December 9 the festival of the ' conception of St. Anne, the Mother of the Mother of God,' and the Canon for the day was written by St. Andrew of Crete (A.D. 660-732), but nothing which either this Canon or any other part of the service for the day contains refers in any way to the doctrine of the Immaculate Conception. Indeed the whole service is, as was the mediaeval office in the English service books for that day, merely a complement to the offices for the Nativity of B. V. M. 011 September 8. [W. J. B.] POSSIBILITY OF EVENTUAL REUNION 23 inent and certain unhappy signs of the dominancy of evil among ourselves, revealed more and more the inconceivable mass of traditionary prejudice and ignorance under which we are all buried, that some of the most earnest and influential minds were carried on to doubt even of the Spiritual exist- ence of the Anglican Church, and to desire reconciliation with Borne not conditionally, but simply, and with feelings of the most abject self-abasement and self-renunciation. For myself, I do not profess to go all lengths with this feeling in favour of simple and absolute submission to Rome ; not, I hope, from any unwillingness to confess myself or my Church heretical or schismatical, if truth require it ; but because as a matter of fact I have not come to the conviction either that the Anglican Church has lost the continuity of her spiritual life, or that simple and absolute submission to Rome is at present either possible or desirable for her as a body. So far as my studies have gone, I am persuaded that the declaration of unity, not the negotiation of any political or conditional union, with the Eastern Church is much more possible and much more desirable at present than with the Roman : though God forbid that I should ever think or speak of any such thing otherwise than as a step both for us and for the Easterns towards ultimate union with Rome. I re- peat it, I think that unity (not union) with the Eastern Church is a thing both desirable and possible for the Anglican Church : not immediately indeed, nor even soon, but eventu- ally : and that, by no organic or violent change on either side, but by a natural and gradual development of what exists at present. I do not suppose that the Eastern Church ought either now or at any future time to alter one jot of her doctrine in favour of any prejudices or reasonings of Anglican bishops, nor that she should admit the Anglican Church in her present state, or any of her members to her communion : for that would only be to introduce anarchy among her own members, and to declare it free to admit or reject upon pri- vate judgment the greater part, or at least a very great part, of what are now rightly held in her for holy and inviolable 24 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH traditions. Still less do I suppose that the AngKcan Church or her members could ever gain any good thing by becoming professors of Greeko-Russicism or Orientalism : not that they should be withheld by feelings of pride or of disdain : but the thing is in itself impossible, that any man of under- standing, whatever his opinion may be of the particular character of the particular Eastern Church, should ever come to be drawn to her as a convert upon the general ground of Cat/tolicity. Without any such vain anticipations, I declare to you seriously, as one who has passed some years of his life in Ecclesiastical studies, that I am perfectly sure of the existence in the Anglican Church of an element of faith and doctrine not only like, but identical with, the faith and doctrine of the Eastern Church : so that though union with the present Anglican Church, which is made up of conflicting and undeveloped tendencies, partly orthodox and partly heretical, is out of the question, union with the orthodox element of the Anglican Church, whenever it shall have asserted its own exclusive ascendency, and expelled its heretical antagonist, will be perfectly natural and easy, and scarcely need any negotiation or conference, except for merely subordinate matters of discipline and ritual. To illustrate what I mean, I may mention the Armenian Church, which seems, in like manner with the Anglican, to have had a double existence from a very remote period. Now, though union with the Armenians without explanation or change on their part would be union with heresy, still, if that Church were to do again what she has already done more than once, that is to say, explain her heretical language in an orthodox sense, and formally reject and disuse the language as well as the spirit of heresy for the future, Unity being thus declared and received, Union would be no longer objectionable. But what I have here said needs some reservation ; for there is certainly one point on which, though I have a very strong opinion of my own that your faith virtually agrees with ours, yet I cannot speak with such absolute certainty as I can on questions relating to my own personal Faith, or the Faith of that Church of which I am a member, and which so THE QUESTION OF FILIOQUE 25 I contemplate from within, while I know the Eastern Church only by external evidence. And this brings me to the last part of your letter, in which you speak of the great difference between the Western and Eastern Churches, the question of the addition of the words ' Filioque' to the Creed. This difference you judge ' to be the greatest obstacle not only to union, but even to the thought of union.' I fully admit that this is indeed so; and, far from inviting a member of the Greek or Eastern Church to underrate this difficulty, I agree with him in thinking that it is right and natural, and even his duty, in tlie first instance, to think the Latins heretics (not schismatics merely) upon this point, just as it is right and natural for us on our side also, in the first instance, to think the Greeks schismatics at least, or, as I should rather say, heretics, upon the same. Still, this should not be done on either side by an ignorant and bigoted tradition, which neither seeks to understand its own faith aright, nor to estimate rightly the error of the heretics, nor sighs with charity for their return to the truth, nor seeks diligently to remove all unnecessary obstacles, whether on the one side or the other ; but rather, I contend, if this point of the ' Filioque ' is really the wall of separation which causes our distinct Churches to regard each other as heretical, then surely the minds and prayers of all Christians on both sides, according to their ability, should be constantly turned upon this point, seeking not from any foreign conferences, or even from Synods, but from the Holy Ghost Himself, the Bond of union between Father and Son in the Holy Trinity, and the Giver of all truth, peace and concord upon earth, that this also may be revealed to us. We should be constantly trying to make progress in the knowledge and appreciation of our own faith on this point, constantly trying to discover what stumbling-block there may be in the way of our separated brethren, which prevents them from agreeing with us ; while, on the other hand, we should be jealously fair and charitable in ascertaining that we do not misrepresent or calumniate their belief, and so wilfully make a difference where there need be none, or, where there is one, make the 26 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH difference greater than it really is. Michael the Archangel, it is written, feared to bring a railing accusation, even against the Devil. How much more, then, should we be cautious how we speak bitterly even against heretics ! And if even civil judges are careful to give all prisoners who are brought before them every possible allowance, and every fair advan- tage toward their defence, how much more should the members of Christ be careful in judging two-thirds of tlie Christian world, and the first Bisliop, as when you accuse the Latins, or one-third of the Christian world, and jive patriarchs, as when they accuse you ? But I will not attempt now to go deeply into this question. I do not desire, even if I were able, to suggest the thought that all difficulties can be over- come at once, even theoretically ; but rather I would entreat you to sympathise yourself and bring others to sympathise with that moral and spiritual yearning for unity, which, with all our faults, we certainly have now in some degree in the Anglican Church, and which, if it showed itself among you also, would sooner or later obtain from God all that may be necessary to enable us to arrive at the desired end. For the present it will be enough if you on your side seek daily to realise more and more within yourselves that faith, which is indisputably the tradition of your Church, that the Holy SPIRIT is from all eternity truly and properly the SPIRIT of tlie Son, even as He is the SPIRIT of the Father ; while it is heresy to say that tlie SON is the SON of the Spirit : and seeing that there are many among us in England who certainly desire unity, and you assure us that there are some at least in the Eastern Church who desire the same, let us strive henceforth with one another in our prayers, each asking, both for our- selves and for the others, that we may grow ever more and more in the truth which we have, and that whatever is lack- ing to us on either side may be supplied. And so I conclude my letter, begging you to believe me to be, my dear Sir, yours most sincerely and respectfully, W. PALMER (Deacon), Fellow of St. Mary Magdalene College, OXFORD, June 4, 1845. in the University of Oxford. CHAPTER IV MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SECOND LETTER TO MR. PALMER [1845] Obstacles to Reunion of Western and Eastern Churches, moral even more tliau doctrinal Mr. Palmer's strictures upon the Eastern Church p.irtly, but not entirely, fair Invocation of Saints Protestant objections to it due to inheritance of Roman traditions The procession of the Holy Spirit Western breach of the Church's unity Mr. KhoniiakoiTs opinion of the English Church. MOST REVEREND SIR, Accept my sincerest thanks for your friendly letter and the copies of your short Poems and Hymns, which I have received by post, and the expressions of my gratitude for the Letter Dedicatory which is printed at the head of that instructive and elegant edition. The honour you have conferred on me in affixing my name to your Poems, unforeseen and unmerited as it was, is deeply appreciated, and shall always be cherished by me as a proof of a dear and never-to-be-forgotten sympathy. I should be happy indeed if I could by work or word show myself not unworthy of it. The reflections you have been pleased to address to me on ecclesiastical matters call for a reply. They have not been inspired by a cold spirit of scholastic dispute, but by a warm and Christian desire of universal unity; and deficient as I think myself in many points of theological knowledge, I feel that I have no right to evade the duty of answering the questions you have proposed and the opinions you have stated about Church and doctrine. Both your letters contain some friendly reproaches directed to me personally, and some which seem addressed to all our Eastern communities. There is in them much of truth 28 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH which I will not attempt to extenuate, but 1 will take the liberty to say a few words of justification, as I think you are not quite right in the point of view which you have chosen. In the first place I readily admit that the hopelessness with which I consider the obstacles that oppose the return of the Western communities to Orthodoxy may prove and proves me indeed but of little faith and of a faintness in my desires for that return. Warmer feelings and a more Chris- tian disposition would probably have shown me things in a different light, or at least would have turned my eyes from the calculations of worldly probabilities to the thoughts of divine Providence and its inscrutable ways. This fact being once admitted, I may be allowed to say that I think myself right in the statement of things as they stand at present (the future being in the hands of a merciful God), and in the opinion that the greatest obstacles to Unity are not in the visible and formal difference of doctrine (us theologians are apt to suppose), but in the spirit which pervades the Western communities, in their customs, prejudices, and passions, but, more than all, in a feeling of pride which hinders a confession of past errors, and a feeling of disdain which would not admit that divine truth has been preserved and guarded for many ages by the long-despised and darkened East. My words have not been, perhaps, quite useless, if they have turned your attention to the latent feelings which widen the chasm between the Eastern and Western communities. The reproach you seem to address to all Eastern com- munities, and particularly to Russia, for want of Christian zeal and energy, and for evident indifference about the diffusion of true doctrine is a bitter one, and yet I will not deny its justice. Perhaps we could find some excuses in the long sufferings of our country, and of Greece, in the Mahometan yoke, in political causes and in the spiritual battle which is unceasingly to be fought within the precincts of our own country against errors, schisms, and the continual attacks of modern scepticism ; but all such excuses are in- sufficient. More than half of the world is still in complete IMPOSSIBILITY OF RUSSIAN MISSIONS TO THE WEST 29 darkness; our nearest neighbours in the East live still in utter ignorance of the Word and Doctrine of Christ; and that could not have happened if we had inherited the burning zeal of the Apostles. We have nothing to say against these proofs. We stand convicted, and should be quite unworthy of the grace and mercy that have been shown to us if we did not confess how worthless indeed we are. Humility is a duty not only for individuals, but also for nations and com- munities. In Christians it is not even a virtue ; it is simply obedience to the voice of reasonable conviction. We can only request and expect that the Faith which we hold may not be judged by our actions. The justice of your reproach being confessed in its full extent, I think I may add that it cannot at least be inferred from our seeming indifference for the reconciliation or conversion of our Western brothers. Apostles brought to the world new tidings of joy and truth ; our missionaries could do the same in the pagan or Mahometan Eaat ; but what can we do in the West ? What new tidings have we to bring ? What new sources of informa- tion can we open to Europe, and particularly to England 1 Is not the Holy Scripture as well and (to our shame be it said) better known to the majority of your nation than to ours 1 Is not your clergy, and even a part of your laymen, as conversant with the Fathers and Ecclesiastical history as our most learned Divines 1 Is not Oxford a centre of Science which we cannot rival 1 What can a missionary bring to you except unavailing eloquence and, perhaps, some indi- vidual errors from which no man is sure to be free, though the Church is 1 There was a time when Christian society preached by example even more than by word. The indi- vidual example of a missionary would prove nothing at all ; and as for national example, what shall we say 1 Our only request should be that your eyes may be turned away from us ; for our good qualities are hid and our vices are audaciously brought to view, particularly in that capital and in that part of society which are foremost to meet the ob- servation of a foreigner. The rites and ordinances of our 30 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Church are despised and trampled on by those who should set the example of obedience. The only way left for us (though it may subject us to seemingly just accusations), is, perhaps, to wait with anxious expectation for the result of the struggle which is going on everywhere (and in England certainly with more earnestness than anywhere else), and to express our sympathy by prayers to God that He may give victory to the better part of human nature. Now, to return to your reflections on matters of ecclesias- tical doctrine. I am well aware that Luther himself was inclined to re-admit the sign of the Cross and the communion of prayer between living and dead (which he has attacked many times), and that the Anglican Church has never form- ally rejected them; but a practical rejection seemed to prove that Anglicans had gone further on in the way of Protestantism than in earlier ages, and I could not but rejoice in seeing signs of return to good and Christian doctrines. Yet allow me a remark which, though directed to a single point, seems to me extremely important, as it brings on conclusions about the whole spirit of the Western Churches. You say that ' even those Anglican bishops who are least inclined to favour the spiritual movement called Puseyism, do not fail nevertheless to acknowledge that their Church has never in any way condemned apostrophes and poetical addresses to saints and angels, but that the real objection of intelligent and well-disposed Anglicans is against prayers in prose seriously addressed to Spirits and Souls not present in the body as a service of homage and devotion.' I think the word service, though certainly often used in the acceptation you give to it, throws some confusion on the question. The song of triumph which meets the victorious warrior on his return to his native land has never been called a service, though it is assuredly joyful homage and an expression of gratitude and devotion. In the like manner, the homage paid by Christians to the noble warriors who have fought the Spiritual battle of the Lord through ages and ages, and have held aright the tradition of the Church, should not perhaps be INVOCATION OF SAINTS 31 called a service, but an expression of joy and humble love. We cannot properly be said to serve our fellow-servants, though their station be infinitely exalted above our own. The objection of Anglicans and other Protestants has truth in it if directed against the word, none if against the thing itself. No enlightened member of the Orthodox Church could indeed understand it unless he was acquainted with the Roman definitions l and theories which have in fact given birth to almost all the errors of Protestantism. But another objection remains. We address to created Spirits not only the homage of our praises, but very earnest requests (as this expression would in this case perhaps be more correct than the expression 'prayers'), asking for their intercession and prayers before the Majesty of our Saviour. ' Where is the use of such requests ? Where is our right to them ? Do we want any other advocate but Christ our Lord ? There can be no serious meaning in our addresses to created beings, and we may as well reject all those useless and idle forms.' There is the question. I will answer it with another. Was the Apostle serious when he asked for the prayers of the Church 1 Are the Protestants serious when they request their brethren (as they often do) to pray for them ? Where is, if you please, the logic of the distinction ? A doubt about the possibility or reality of a communication between living and dead through Christ and in Christ is too un-Christian to want an answer. To ascribe to the prayers of living Christians a power of intercession which is refused to the Christians admitted into heavenly glory would be a glaring absurdity. 1 That is to say, the word ' service (Servitium beatae Mariae, etc. ) used in connection with the worship of the Saints. The Eastern Church does not employ the Western terms dulitt or hyperd\dia, but retains the more ancient terminology of the Seventh (Ecumenical Council, describing the relative and secondary worship which the Church offers to the Saints, the holy images, the book of the Gospels, etc., by the term Tt.uTp-iK^ irpoo-Aci^em as contrasted with \arpeia, or the absolute and primary worship which is due to God alone. [W. J. B.] 32 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH If Protestantism was true to logic, as it pretends to be, I may boldly affirm, that not only Anglicans, but all Protestant sects (even the worst) would either admit serious and earnest addresses to saints and angels, or reject the mutual prayers of Christians on earth. Why, then, are they rejected, nay, often condemned 1 Simply because Protestantism is for ever and ever protesting. Because the semi-pelagianism of Popery and its doctrine about merits and, as it were, self -worthiness of the Saints is ever present to Protestantism. Because Protestantism is not, nor ever can be, free. In short, because with its unceasing cry, 'No Popery,' it stands on Popish ground and lives on Popish definitions, and is as much a slave to the doctrine of utilitarianism (which is the ground-work of Popery) as the most fanatical Ultramontanist. Now we are free, and, though well aware that we want no intercessor but Christ, we give vent to our feelings of love and to our earnest longings for mutual prayer and spiritual communion not only with the living, but with the dead, who have not been saved by their own worthiness (for none, even of the best, was worthy, save Christ alone), but by the grace and mercy of the Lord, which, we hope, will be extended to us likewise. I readily concur with you in the opinion that if Anglicans would only practically admit and appreciate the beautiful poetry of hymns addressed to saints and angels, there would be no fear of any great difficulty remaining afterwards on this point in the way of peace ; nor would I have spoken on the matter if I had not considered it as an example and a proof of the constant subjection of all the Western communi- ties to the doctrines and spirit of Romanism. This subject is as evident in the negations as in the affirmations of Protes- tants, and the illustration of it which I find in their rejection of prayers addressed to the Church invisible could be corroborated by many other examples ; such as the dispute about Faith and Works, about Transubstantiation, about the number of the Sacraments, or the authority of Holy Scrip- ture and Tradition ; and, in short, by every question about ecclesiastical matters and every Protestant decision concerning THE ADDITION OF FILIOQUE 33 them. 1 But it is certainly most evident in that all-decisive point which you agreed with me in considering as the greatest obstacle not only to Unity between Orthodoxy and Anglican communities, but even to the thought of Union. I will not enter upon the question [of the Filioque] itself nor attempt to defend the Nicerie Creed in its original form ; I will not say that the Western has no authorities for it [i.e. the addition Filioque] excepting falsified passages of the Fathers, or texts from them which prove nothing, as regarding only the Mission ad extra, or even texts which, rightly understood, would prove the contrary of the Roman doctrine. Such is the passage of St. Augustine (if my memory fails me not), where he says, principaliter autem a Patre (that is, quoad principium), which if 1 This point is further worked out in the author's first Essay upon the Latin Church and Protestantism. ' II serait bien facile de montrer que 1'empreinte romaine a marque de son caractere indelebile les doctrines reformers, et que le meme esprit de rationalisme utilitaire, qui 6tait celui de la papaute, est encore celui de la Reforme. Les conclusions sont constamment diff^rentes, mais les premisses et leu definitions qu'elles contiennent implicitement restent toujours les niemes. La papaute dit : " L'Eglise a toujours prie pour les morts ; mais cette priere serait inutile s'il n'y avait pas d'6tat intermediate : done le purgatoire existe." La Reforme repond : "II n'y a pas trace de purgatoire dans les saintes Ecritures et dans 1'Eglise primitive : done il est inutile de prior pour les morts, et je ne prierai pas." La papaute dit : " L'intercession des saints a etc invoquee par 1'Eglise : done elle est utilt : done elle complete les mcrites de la priere et de 1'expiation." La Relorme repond : " L'expiation par le sang du Christ, acceptee par la foi dans le bapteme et dans la priere est suffisante pour racheter non seulement I'homme, mais tons les mondes possibles : done 1'intercession des saints est inutile, et nous ne leur iwlresserons plus de prieres." La saintete de la communion des ames reste inconnue aux deux adversaires. La papaute dit : "Lafoiselon saint Jacques est insuffisante : done elle ne pent pas nous sauver, et les rpuvres sont utiles et constituent un mtrite." Le protestantisme re"pond : "La foi seule peut sauver selon saint Paul, et les ceuvres ne constituent pas le m^rite : done elles sont inutiles," etc., etc. C'est ainsi que la lutte a continue et continue pendant des siecles a. coup de syllogisme, mais le terrain sur lequel elle a lieu reste le meme : c'est toujours celui du rationalisme, et aucun des deux adversaires n'en peut choisir d'autre.' L'Eglise Latine et la Protestantisme, p. 42. [W. J. P. 1 C 34 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH rightly translated means : ' the Spirit comes (i.e. ad extra) from the Father and Son, but originates from the Father.' l I will not recall the decisive approval given by an Oecumenical Synod to the anathema of Theodoretus against the doctrine of Procession from Father and Son. (The absurd explanation given by Jager in his life of Photius and by other Roman writers who pretend that the anathema was directed against Monophysite tendencies looks like anything rather than fair and Christian discussion of a theological question.) All this I leave aside. I could add nothing to promote knowledge, or to the strong attacks of the illustrious Zernikoff and Theo- phanes. I will only add an observation of my own. The Protestant world has been torn asunder by all sorts of errors ; it has given birth to most strange sects which differ Avidely the one from the other in almost every point of doctrine. Now this point [of the Filioque] every candid Protestant will admit to be at least a doubtful one (though in my opinion there is not even place for a doubt). How does it happen, if you please, that not one of these numerous sects has re- admitted the Nicenc Symbol ? 2 How happens it that some of them (evidently feeling doubts) have preferred excluding the words alxmt the Procession altogether to the necessity of using the orthodox form, though it is literally transcribed from the words of our Saviour 1 Does not that circumstance go far to prove undoubted though unconfessed subjection to 1 The passage of which A. S. Khomiakoff is here speaking is to be found in Augustine's treatise upon the Trinity, lib. xv. cap. 12, and is as follows : ' Et tamen non frustra in hac Trinitate non dicitur verbum nisi Filius, nee donum Dei nisi Spiritus Sanctus, nee de quo genitum est verbum et de quo procedit principaliter Spiritus Sanctus, nisi Deus Pater. Ideo autem addidi principaliter, quia et de Filio Spiritus Sanctus procedere reperitur. ' Adam Zernikoff in his well-known work proved, and after him Protestant theologians have maintained, that the word principaliter in the first sentence, and the whole of the second sentence (Ideo autem etc.), are nothing but a later insertion ' stercus falsatoris,' as one learned writer of the seventeenth century expressed it. [Note of the Editor of the Russian Translation.] 2 That is to say, the Nicene Creed without the Filioque. [VV. J. B.] ORIGIN OF THE INTERPOLATION 35 Roman precedents, and a deep-rooted feeling of repulsion against anything that could seem to confirm the truth of Orthodoxy ? I hope you will not accuse me of judging our ecclesiastical adversaries unfairly. The matter is most important in two respects, as it is not only a question of doctrine, but a question of morality. Leaving aside the first point, I will consider only the second. In the seventh century, the Catholic Church was one in full communion of love, and prayer, from the depth of Syria and Egypt to the distant shores of Britain and Ireland. About the middle of that century (perhaps even at the end of the preceding one) a change was introduced in the Symbol by the Spanish clergy. In the first letter I had the honour to address you, I added, that this change was made at the same time when the Inquisition was first introduced in its worst forms, 1 and by the same provincial Synods, with the inten- tion to recall to your memory that the first step towards schism was taken by the worst, most corrupted and most un-Christian clergy, swollen with the pride of exorbitant political rights. The innovation was left unnoticed, as having been made in a distant country which was soon overrun and conquered by Mohammedans. Still, unnoticed as it was in the East and even in Italy, the new doctrine crept on further and further through the Western communities. About the end of the eighth and beginning of the ninth centuries, the new Symbol was admitted by most of them as a thing of course. We have no right on that occasion to accuse the Roman See. The Popes felt the unlawfulness of the proceeding, they fore- saw its dreadful consequences, they tried to stem the flood, but could not. Their only fault (and a great one it was) was to have shown a want of energy in their resistance. The West felt itself of age ; it could speak for itself ; it had no want of anybody's opinion or assent in things of faith. The innovation was solemnly adopted without a general Synod being held, without the Eastern Bishops being invited to give 1 For this statement, see p. 65. [W. J. B.] 30 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH their assent, without even so much as a notice being given to them. The bonds of love were torn, the communion of faith (which cannot exist with different symbols) was rejected in fact. I will not say, ' Was that lawful 1 ' The idea of law and lawfulness may do for casuists and disciples of the jus Romanum, but cannot do for Christians. But I will ask : ' Was that moral 1 Was it brotherly ? Was it Christian ? ' The rights of the Catholic Church were usurped by a part of it. An unmerited offence was given to unsuspecting brothers, who till that time had fought with the greatest perseverance and certainly the greatest ability for Orthodoxy. This action was certainly a most heinous sin, and a most shocking display of pride and disdain. The bad inheritance has been accepted and held till now. Must it be held for ever ? Let worldly societies deviate from moral law ; let them sin and glory in their sins, and in the temporary advantages they have gained by them. I am not, nor can ever be, a political man ; therefore, I will not judge political communi- ties, though I do indeed suspect that every bad action of the fathers is or shall be visited on their children by the logic of providential history. But I know for certain that every man must answer for his sins and be punished for them until he confesses and repents. Still more assuredly do I know that there can be no sin in the Church of God, in the holy elect and perfect vessel of His heavenly truth and grace ; and that therefore no community which accepts the inheritance of sin can be considered as a real part of it. You may remark, most Reverend Sir, that I have not entered on the dogmatic part of the question, and only con- sidered the moral part of it. I may add that, left alone and rejected as we were by our usurping brethren, we have had a right to decide all sorts of questions by ourselves and by the authority of our own clergy and laymen ; yet we have not used that right. We are unchanged ; we are still the same as we were in the eighth century, before the West had rudely spurned its Eastern brethren. Let us be brought to the test. Oh that you could only consent to be again what you were ROMAN POSITION IN REGARD TO FIL10QUE 37 at that time when we were united by Unity of Faith and communion of spiritual love and prayer ! Some words more must be said in answer to the last part of your printed letter. You are right in giving the following rule : ' We should be jealously fair and charitable in ascer- taining that we do not misrepresent or calumniate the belief of our separated brethren, and so wilfully make a difference when there would be none, or, when there is one, make the difference greater than it really is.' I do not think that we are much inclined to fall into the said error, and, by the knowledge I have of my countrymen, I should rather suppose that they lean to the opposite extreme ; yet if the thing be disputed, I will readily admit that no man can be impartial either in his own cause or in the cause of his nation or com- munity. In the present case, I confess that I do not clearly see the possibility of an error. Either the addition has the meaning generally ascribed to it by the Romans as con- cerning the original l Procession of the Spirit, which cannot be considered by us in any other light than as an heretical proposition ; or it expresses only the procession ad extra, which no Orthodox can or dare dispute. In the first supposi- tion the difference is immense, and the question must be solved by scriptural and moral proofs, viz. : by considering whether the Western communities have any authorities for them in the Holy Scriptures, or in their early commentators, or in the decisions of (Ecumenical Synods, and whether there is any probability that the grace of the Holy Ghost may have dictated a change, which was accompanied by such an open 1 In KhomiakofFs MS. the world used is 'originary.' The word used in the Russian translation is naiajbiiuii, which corresponds exactly to the Greek dpxixds and the Latin principalis. The following is the Definition of the Council of Florence : Definimus quod Spiritw Sanctus a Poire et Filio eternaliter est . . . declarantes quod id quod sancti doctores et patres dicunt ex Patre per Filium procedere Spiritum Sanctum, ad hanc intelligentiam tendit, ut per hoc siynijicetur, Filium esse, necundum Graecos quidem causam, secundum Latinos verb prin- cijjium subaistentiae SpiritAs Sancti sicut et Patrem. This of course the Easterns reject. [W. J. B.] 88 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH usurpation of rights, and such an evident and un-Christian disdain shown to a considerable part of the Church. I think that both propositions would easily be negatived. In the second case there is indeed no difference at all. But the duty of rejecting the addition becomes still more imperative. Who can continue to use equivocal expressions when this double meaning has had, and has even now, such dreadful consequences ? Who can hold up the standard of ancient usurpation condemning at the same time in his heart the usurpation itself 1 The line of moral duty seems in this case to be quite evident. My real opinion of the Anglican Church is, in many respects, very near to your own. I believe seriously, that it contains many orthodox tendencies, perhaps not quite developed, but growing to maturity ; that it contains many elements of unity with Orthodoxy, obscured, perhaps, by nothing but unhappy habits of Roman scholasticism, and that the time is at hand when a better understanding will be followed by real union between long separated brethren. The seemingly heretical, or at least equivocal, language should only be explained in an orthodox sense, and the language and spirit of heresy should be formally rejected and disused for the future. These are your own expressions. In the first point the power usurped in the change of the Symbol should be frankly condemned as offensive to charity and love ; but there stands the great moral obstacle ; for such a condemnation would seem, and indeed would be, a confession and an act of penitence ; and, sweet as penitence is in its con- sequences, it is at first bitter and repulsive to the pride from which no man is free. And yet what good can be done without moral renovation, when every good consequence is sure to be derived from it, as it brings with itself the perfect grace of the Father of lights 1 But it is indeed no easy thing ; and there is the reason why, with so many apparent causes for hope, my hopes are so faint and null. I know I am not right in giving way to my fears, and yet I should be still more wrong if, entertaining such thoughts, I should not express MR. KHOMIAKOFFS OPINION OF ENGLISH CHURCH 39 them frankly. Certainly my greatest joy would be to be convicted of error and pusillanimity by the event. Having gone thus far, I will take the liberty to observe that, in my opinion, many, even of the best disposed amongst English divines, are apt to fall into a strange and dangerous delusion. This delusion is to suppose that not only every particular Church can run into partial errors without ceasing to belong to Catholicity, but that the whole of the Catholic Church can likewise be obscured by temporary errors, either the same in every part of it, or different in the different com- munities, so that Truth is to be distilled out of the corrupt mass by the rule of 'quod semper, quod omnes, quod ubique.' I have lately had the pleasure of reading a book, which you are probably acquainted with, of Mr. Dewar about German Rationalism. 1 I consider it a masterpiece of fair and sound logic, free from passions and prejudices. The sharp intelli- gence of the author has not only perfectly found out the reasons of the inevitable development of Rationalism in Protestant Germany, but has found its traces in Roman Catholicism, notwithstanding its continual pretensions to the contrary. This is certainly a great truth which could be corroborated by many other and even stronger proofs ; but, strange to say, Mr. Dewar excepts the Anglican Church from the general accusation, as if a Church which confesses to a reform did not stand self-convicted of Rationalism ! Indeed if the totality of the Church could ever have fallen into errors of doctrine, individual criticism would have become not only a right, but an unavoidable necessity ; and that is nothing but Rationalism, though it may hide itself behind the well-sounding words of 'Testimony of the Fathers,' whose writings are nothing but heaps of written pages ; or, 'Authority of the Catholic Church,' which has no meaning at all if it could not escape error; or, 'Tradition,' which, once interrupted, ceases to exist ; or even ' Inspiration from heaven,' which every man can pretend to be favoured with, 1 Dewar: German I>rote3tantim ; Oxford, 1844. [W. J. B.] 40 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH though no other believes his pretensions. The continual presence of the Holy Ghost is a promise given to us by Truth Itself; and if this promise is believed, the light of pure doctrine must burn and shine brightly, through all ages, seeking our eyes, even when unsought for. If it is once bedimmed, it is obscured for ever, and the Church must be come a mere word without a meaning in it, or must be con- sidered, as many German Protestants indeed do consider it, as a society of good men differing in all their opinions, but earnestly seeking for Truth with a total certainty that it has not yet been found, and with no hope at all ever to find it. These consequences are unavoidable, though some of your worthiest divines do not seem to admit them, and this is certainly a dangerous self-delusion. If you find some expressions of this letter rather harsh, I beg of you not to judge them too severely. It is perhaps in my turn of mind to see obstacles rather than the means by which they may be avoided ; and I hope I have been actuated by no desire of giving offence ; but by an earnest wish that every difficulty may be rightly understood so as to be the better solved with the help of Him whose blessing is sure to illuminate hearts that are honestly and humbly longing for Truth and moral perfection. Such hearts are certainly no rarity in your country. Accept, most reverend sir, the assurances of the sincere and perfect esteem with which I have the honour to call myself your most humble and obedient servant, ALEXIS KHAMECOFF. SMOLENSK, August 18, 1845. CHAPTER V MR. PALMER'S REPLY TO MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S SECOND LETTER [1846] Mr. Palmer's Hu.rnutny <>f Awjliean and Eastern Doctrine. Question as to whether the West is still a part of the Catholic Church Inconsistency of the Eastern Church in this matter Agreement possible between the English Church upon the question of the Invocation of Saints Remarks upon various points raised by Mr. Khomiakoff. ST. MARY MAGUALENK - COLLKGE, OXFORD, July 1, N.S., 1846. MY DEAR Silt, I am ashamed when I look at the date of your letter to me (August 18, 1845) to reflect that it is now nearly a year ago since I received it. My only apology for not acknowledging and replying to it sooner is this, that my eyes being still weak and unfit for much work, though getting better, and your letter being of considerable length, and deserving, as I felt, a full answer, and my eyes being generally tasked from day to day by business which I could not avoid, I was tempted or forced to procrastination. Be- sides this, I was employed during all my spare time on a work which is by no means irrelevant to the subject of our correspondence, entitled A Harmony of Anglican Doctrine vrith the Doctrine of the CatJwlic and Apostolic Church of the East* This work is at length finished, and I have requested my friend, Mr. Blackmore, our Chaplain at Cronstadt, for whom I have edited it, to send a parcel containing several copies of it to you in our joint names; you will perhaps do me Printed at Aberdeen, 1846.-[W. J. B. 42 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH the favour to dispose of the contents of this parcel in the following manner, according as you may find opportunities without putting yourself to any inconvenience. First, there will be a parcel enclosed for the Metropolitan [Philaret] of Moscow, containing six or seven copies, two for himself, one for the library of the Academy, one for the library of the Seminary, one for Mr. Kyriakoff and one for his colleague, Mr. NetzaefF, Professor of the Academy, and last, one for the Bishop Aaron, who I believe reads English. These I have mentioned in a separate letter to the Metropolitan, and I make no doubt he will be ready to take charge of them. Besides these, I must depend upon your kindness to let the following persons of my acquaintance have each a copy with my regards and remembrances, viz., the Princess Dolgorouky, nde Davidoff, or her aunt, Mme. de Novotsittsova (which will be the same thing), the Countess Potemkin, the younger Princess Meshchersky (her mother-in-law also should have one, if she is yet alive), and Professor Redkin. Besides these, you can at any time obtain from Mr. Blackmore other copies for any persons who you may think would like to have them, and upon whom they would not be thrown away. I will only observe further on this subject, that I shall hope in due time to receive your criticisms or reflections upon this work, to which I shall attach great interest ; also I may as well anticipate one just animadversion which you might otherwise make, by requesting you to make one correction in the book at p. 158, the seventh line from the bottom: Insert 'as' before the words 'from St. Augustine.' I am quite aware that the words are not from St. Augustine, but an interpolation ; they express, however, very well the Latin doctrine. In the same way I have myself no doubt at all that the Letter of Pope Leo at p. 160 is interpolated, and should never have admitted it, if I had not thought it worth while to draw attention to that part of Le Quien's Disserta- tions on St. John Damascene, from which it is taken. Now to return to your most interesting and valuable letter. I will begin by saying that I am very glad to find EASTERN VIEW OF THE WESTERN CHURCH 43 that you have avoided almost entirely entering upon any particular Doctrinal discussions, which I quite agree with you in thinking ought to have no place in such a corre- spondence as ours. On the other hand, all that relates to Christian morality, mutual edification, and to those first principles which common sense and common feeling tell us lie at the very foundation of Catholic or Orthodox Christianity and about which all ecclesiastical authorities are agreed all such topics as these may very well and very profitably be treated of even between private individuals. It was in this spirit that I addressed to you my short Poems and Hymns and the Prefatory Letter which accompanied them, and whatever ecclesiastical or doctrinal reflections were to be found in that letter, whether relating to the Anglican Church or to the Eastern, were not meant to involve anything like discussion, but only to excite good feelings by the application of principles already admitted. In the same spirit, I am happy to find, you have answered me ; and in the same I now propose to continue our correspondence. First then, so far as regards my ' amicable reproaches ' of the Easterns. You very frankly admit their justice so far as concerns the relations of your Church to heathens, Mohammedans, etc., and thus my whole object is answered if only your confession goes on to practice, and tends in any way to produce a change. But as regards the West, you excuse that want of zeal which you do not deny to exist. I also can find excuses for you, both those that you mention, and one greater than any of these (which you do not mention) and which alone makes them available. And this is the following, viz., that you know in your own consciences that the Eastern Church herself knows in her own con- science that yours is only a particular Church, not ex- clusively the Catholic Church ; and that the West, though it may have erred, yet has not vitally and essentially apostatised from the Faith. On this being allowed, it is very natural and very reasonable that the Eastern Church should have little zeal or charity to convert the Latins nay, that she even, 44 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH as a particular Church, should be deficient in energy towards the heathens. But on any other supposition her present attitude as regards the whole world of those that are without her is wholly inconceivable. You, indeed, like most other members of the Eastern Church, do not see this, and are far from being ready to admit it : you are fully convinced that your Church has exclusively the truth, that the Latin Doctrine on the Procession, taken in its proper sense, is heresy ; that we originally made the interpolation (when we ' felt that we were come to our full youth and could act for ourselves ') in a spirit of immoral pride and lawlessness, and have been ever since kept only by the same evil spirit of pride and disdain from opening our eyes to sec that the East alone has preserved the true faith, and from returning to that faith by confession and repentance. Now, in answer to this, I will only say that I allow and confess most freely that the West did act in a lawless and immoral manner in making the interpolation ; and that this is so far, no doubt, a prejudice against the doctrine itself which was interpolated. Whether the Latin doctrine be in fact a heresy or not, I will not examine now, at least not on theological grounds ; for that would be to do the very thing which I have already said neither I nor you ought to do in such a correspondence as the present. But this I will say, that if you think common people, laymen, or even priests, nay, if you think that even learned Bishops and Divines will for ever be content to rest their convictions upon such a point as the Controversy of the Procession upon their own private judgment concerning the intrinsic merits of the question alone you are, I think, very much mistaken. To illustrate what I mean the Nestorians, a community of perhaps 100,000 individuals in the mountains of Kurdistan, pretend that they have alone preserved the true faith, and that the Greek and Latin Church has apostatised in a vital point : I say that, under the circum- stances of the case, a reasonable man, so far from allowing himself to test the controversy by theological arguments aloite, would be only showing his good sense, and his piety, if EASTERN CLAIM TO BE THE WHOLE CHURCH 45 he utterly refused even to enter upon the question : and this, even if he were competent and learned ; and much more should all common and simple people perceive the voice of God Himself in the relative circumstances of the two con- tending parties. In exactly the same way, I say that the man who (not being bred in the Eastern Communion) could for one moment suppose it possible that the Eastern Church alone was the true, and had alone preserved the true faith, and that the Latin Church had erred fatally and essentially, I say that such a man would seem to me at least to be wanting in common-sense to be not far short of a madman. Now do not think that this comes of a spirit of pride or disdain. I am conscious of no such spirit ; and can con- template without any sense of absurdity the admission that the Anglican Church should have erred even fatally nay, I even think that the prima facie probability runs that way and I should be quite ready to deny my own spiritual existence, or that of my particular Church, if I were fully convinced that this was indeed so. Further, I am separated from the Roman or Latin, which is bitterly hostile to us ; and in my individual sympathies and convictions on particular points, I greatly prefer the Eastern Church to the Latin, and so would not be likely without cause to give any advantage to the Roman side over the Greek. And yet, I assure you, I could more easily conceive myself to doubt of the very spiritual existence of the Eastern Church on account of her exclusive pretensions viewed together with the general com- parative phenomena of the two rival Communions, than I could conceive myself tempted to acknowledge her as the sole true Church, on account of any conviction of my private judgment (if I could arrive at such a conviction), that she was right in taxing the Latin Church with essential heresy on the point of the Procession. You have said indeed that you account for such feelings existing in all classes of Pro- testants as well as in Roman Catholics by the hypothesis that the Protestants are still all Crypto-Papists, either aa having inherited the Papal pride and disdain, or else from 46 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH some other traditionary prejudice which influences them in spite of themselves. About pride and disdain, so far as I myself am concerned, I have spoken already, and will now say further, that though my conscience witnesses to me no such feelings, but rather a very lively interest and zeal for the Eastern Church, and a desire to see her have her due influence on the world and on other Churches, still it is contrary to my principles ever to justify myself when accused, and therefore I will promise you both to seek myself and to try and induce others to cultivate especially the very contrary feelings to that pride and disdain towards the Eastern Church of which you accuse us. This being said, I must go on to give some reasons to show that pride and disdain are not the only motives (even if they exist) which forbid all the Westerns (may I not add, all the separated Easterns too ?) to think for one moment that the Greek Church can be the sole true and Catholic Church. The great argument and motive, as I have said above, lies in the general comparative circum- stances, history, and attitude of the Greek Church as com- pared with the Latin, since the division. This you and others bred up within the Greek Church tell me that you cannot see nor understand. Tell me then, can you understand the following ? I assert that I have never yet met with a single member of the Eastern Church herself, whether layman, priest, or Bishop, who evinced the faintest sign of real conviction that his own Church was the whole Church. I have never found one who did not, on being pressed, allow the true spiritual existence of the Roman and Latin Church ; I have never found one who so much as invited me to conversion from the spontaneous movement of his own faith, far less who used zealous arguments and prayers, as is common even among the poorest and simplest Roman Catholics, to bring all whom they consider wanderers to their Fold. You claim indeed that you should not be judged by your conduct or habits of mind, but only by a candid examination of the point of the Procession, etc. ; but you yourself must see that certain habits of mind (as well as certain circnm- PARALLEL OF THE NESTORIANS 47 stances) when they are very general or universal, impress a character on the Body, and are no longer mere individual defects. Individual members of the One True Church may be wanting in zeal to teach and convert the nations but the Body as a whole, and very many of its members, will always and necessarily have and show forth, even in the eyes of the world, the spirit of its mission. And if any body, as such, is felt and seen by the world at large not to have such a spirit, this alone, without seeking for other arguments, is a sufficient refutation of its claim to be alone the True Church. Would you not even laugh if a Nestorian, or an Abyssinian, or Armenian, on your remarking that their universal absence of zeal to proselyte the world and the other Apostate Churches (as they consider them) gives the lie to their miserable pretensions if they, I say, were to answer by excuses and explanations, drawn from the local and other particular circumstances of their history ? Such excuses might be true and reasonable enough for heretical or schismatical Bodies, or even for particular Churches which are not heretical or schismatical, but being only parts are not bound to exhibit all the necessary marks and notes of the wlwle : but such excuses, joined with exclusive pretensions to be the whole, only make the error more apparent, and the madness, because unconscious, the more pitiable. You must not judge us by the conduct or habits of our individual members, says the Nestorian : you must think only of the point of theology. You must not demand impossibilities. You see how we have been hemmed up in the mountains of Kurdistan ; how we are poor and oppressed, only 70,000 or 100,000 souls : how the sword of the Turk and the Persian is ever hanging over our heads : how we are without learning, without means of communication, in all respects at a dis- advantage when compared with those Greeks and Latins whom we rightly call heretics, and whom we are bound by our principles to wish to see converted ; though circumstanced as we mutually are, we cannot pretend to act upon them ; our only hope is that they may act upon themselves, and of 48 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH themselves return to the truth which now we alone hold. Now this is, I know, a caricature ; because the argument is exaggerated ; but still it is the very same argument as is used in defence of the Greek Church. Who is there that does not see that it is at once and of itself an absurdity to suppose that the One True Church could ever come to be so circumstanced 1 Even if the Nestorians were alone in the world, and no other Christian communities to confront them, it would seem that Christianity has been a failure, that the promises had come to nought, if the true Church had ever come to such a state or indeed if she had ever" come to want any of her essential marks. But when there is, side by side with that Body, which pretends to be alone the true Church, and yet is wanting in some essential characteristic, another greater Body in full possession of that which the first wants, it is no longer merely the defect of the one which proves that it is not what it pretends, but also the comparative con- trast presented by the other. Now the Latin Church pre- sents not one only, but many and notable points of snch superiority, when contrasted with the Eastern. Her own children, in common with all other Christians, disbelieve her exclusive claims ; even when they most try to do otherwise, they still in some way or other show this. You will be sur- prised perhaps when I say that I can find this disbelief even in your own letter. ' What can we do in the West ? ' you ask, etc., etc. 'The only way left to us is to wait with anxious expectation for the result of the struggle which is going on everywhere, and to express our sympathy by prayers to God that He may give victory to the better part of ' what 1 Of the nominally Christian world 1 i.e. to the true Church and her representatives, for they are ' the better part ' of nominal Christianity ? no ' to the better part of human Nature.' Far different from this must ever be the language and feeling of the one true Church and her members, no matter how numerous, how great, how powerful, how learned, the Nation's Bishops or Churches, heretical or schismatical, with which she may have to contend. This sentence alone, NEGOTIATIONS CONCERNING FILIOQUE 49 from you, even when you are most inclined to Orientalise, is a confession that you are either a nullity, or ,at'best only a particular Church. How different is the language and attitude of Rome of Rome, do I say 1 nay, even of the simplest and poorest old woman among the Papists, of such, that is, as have any piety. But it is not enough that there should be this contrast, and that its force should be added to the common sense and conscience of all Christians, your own Easterns included. In the very public acts and documents of the Eastern Church these have ever been used, and are still the most abundant avowals of her own inconsistency. I need only refer you to p. 161 of the volume which I have now sent you, and to the two following pages under the heads V., VI., VII, VIIL, IX., X., XL : from which it is clear, that the Eastern Church has all along been willing to drop the whole question of the sense of the Latin Doctrine on the Procession, and to leave the Latins in full possession of their own opinion, and to communicate with them, if only they would consent to restore the Creed in its canonical form. But if the Latin Doctrine were really intrinsically and necessarily a heresy subverting the true Faith, is it not blasphemy and absurdity even to suggest or think for a moment, that the True Church could communicate with its professors without exacting from them a full and unequivocal retractation and denial ? Can you conceive Athanasius, even when all the world (and perhaps the Pope too) were against him, offering to communicate with the Arians or Semi- Arians, provided that they would only abstain from interpo- lating their heresy into the Creed 1 You cannot even imagine anything of the sort : nor can you conceive it possible that the True Church should at many different times, and often for many years together, have communicated with vast Bodies publicly professing Nestorianism or Eutychianism, and even adding it to their own particular Creed ; certainly never retracting or condemning it. And yet this is what you well know, and all the world knows, the Eastern Church has repeatedly done with the so called Heretical Latin D 50 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Church. Surely it is the greatest of all unrealities to per- severe in this untenable and inconsistent language. You must see you must feel that whatever vehemence of language may have been used, even by Synods, against the Latin Church, such language must be modified and corrected, so as to make the Eastern Church consistent with herself. This, you may say, is l difficult. I know it is so. It is difficult to correct any bad habit, or excessive feeling, even in an individual character, however inconsistent it may be with other parts of the same character ; much more certainly must it be difficult to correct so deep-rooted a fault in such a Body as the Eastern Church. Still, it seems to me, it cannot remain for ever as it is : you must change eventually, either in one way or the other. You must eventually either say : ' We have done wrong in so often communicating or offering to communicate with the heretical Latin Church without ever insisting upon an essential abjuration ; we have done wrong, too, in showing so little faith in our own ecumenicity and consequent superiority, and so little energy or zeal for the conversion of the Latins ; but now we will change, and attempt for the future to behave as becomes our exclusive pretensions.' Either you must say this, or else you must say : ' We have done wrong and inconsistently in pretending so long to be the whole, when we have not the necessary attri- butes of the whole, and know very well that we are only a part : we have done wrong in calling the Latins heretics, and their doctrine Heresy, when we knew all the time that they were not, strictly speaking, heretics, and that if they corrected themselves in a point of form, we might communicate with them freely : for the future we will do so no longer : we con- fess that the Latin Church is a living part of the same Uni- versal Church with ourselves; that it has preserved the same faith essentially with our own. W T e accuse it indeed of certain acts of lawlessness and even perhaps of certain 1 The bottom of the page of the original letter is cut away, so that the top only of the word ' is ' is visible, and another short word (' very ' or ' most ' ?) before ' difficult ' is illegible. [W. J. B.] RESPONSIBILITY OF THE EASTERN CHURCH 51 secondary errors in doctrine or ritual ; we refuse to communi- cate with it till it returns to obedience to the (Ecumenical law : we support by our authority and recognition all those Churches and Christians in the West, who contend for such a return ; but we do not, as before, pretend that either they or the Churches to which they belong have ever so fallen away from the Faith itself as to need reconversion or recon- ciliation.' This, in my opinion, is the alternative before you. Which of the two lines of conduct you adopt in the first instance matters, I think, but little : I care not which you think right and which you think wrong, provided you only are serious and zealous enough to do either the one or the other. The only thing which I do really dread for you is the continuance of the present apparent insensibility and inaction. If you seem dead, you may be sure that you will exercise no influence upon us : we shall look more and more to Rome, which is evidently active and alive. If, on the contrary, you show signs of life, signs, I mean, of a returning sense of duties (of some kind or other) due to the whole Church, to the whole world, then we shall at any rate begin to feel an interest in you we shall respect you, even though your energies seem to be directed against us. And you yourselves, even if you attempted to be (Ecumenical (which seems to me impracticable) would yet assuredly be led on by the very effort to see your error, and correct yourselves if you were attempting an impossibility. There remains only one other point in your letter on which I will say a few words : that is on the subject of addresses or Invocations to Saints and Angels. I agree with you that Anglicans as well as the Protestants generally are held in bondage on very many points by their habit of seeing all things through Roman phraseology and scholasticism, or rather through their own mistaken ideas of both these. I also agree with you in what you say of the word ' service,' and of 'very earnest requests'; but in going into this question to the extent you have done, I think you must have failed to notice, that I had expressed beforehand, by 52 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH implication at least, my agreement with you on the whole subject : my remarks tended to show that the Anglican Church certainly admits all that is necessary in this matter for unity. It is true that the opinion held by many Anglicans against ' serious addresses ' to Saints or Angels would be intolerable, if imposed by them upon others ; but as a private opinion they might hold it without breach of unity themselves. Neither the Latin nor the Greek Church has decided anything for- mally on this point : and the Eastern Patriarchs in particular distinctly offered their Communion to certain British Bishops in the last century, even though these latter should, through a mistaken caution, refuse to admit any direct addresses to Saints or Angels at all. See p. 174 of the book I have sent you. But as we are fully agreed upon this subject, I need say no more upon it. In conclusion, I have one or two desultory remarks to make. (1) The passage from St. Augustine with 'princi- paliter ' is not St. Augustine, but an interpolation, as Zerni- koff has shown. It is the same as that which I have already referred to in a former part of this letter, as requiring correc- tion in the book that I have sent you. (2) Theodoret never argued at all against the Latin doctrine of the Procession from the Father and the Son, but against a very different doctrine of a procession from the Son alone, either absolutely or (by delegation) intermediately. This also you will find acknowledged by Zernikoff in his great work. At the same time I fully acknowledge that Theodoret clearly shows that he knew not nor received either the language or the idea of the modern Latins. (3) I quite agree that M. Jager's hypo- thesis is unworthy of notice. (4) What are the precise facts relating to the origin^ of the Inquisition which you allude to 1 Roman Catholic writers do not ascribe to it anything like the antiquity which you do ; nor do I remember anything which can fairly be identified with the Inquisition at that early period to which you refer. (5) I do not myself feel at all sure that the Symbol was really interpolated in Spain so early as you allow, i.e. in the middle of the seventh or end INFALLIBILITY OF THE CHURCH 53 of the sixth century. However, this is generally affirmed. (6) Also Zernikoff and others have shown that it was by no means allowed as a matter of course, even in the West, at the beginning of the ninth century. (7) You will see from the book I send you, that I fully admit that the interpolation ought to be taken out of the Creed. I will say more ; I fully admit that the Eastern phraseology is that of the Primitive and Universal Church, and, when rightly understood, and taken altogether, is fully sufficient for faith and piety. The Lit in language can claim no more than to be a variety in the expression without difference of sense. (See p. 156 (sic), 159, and 156 (sic) of the volume.) (8) Lastly, I must express my entire concurrence in your excellent remarks upon an error very common among Anglicans as well as Protestants generally : viz., that of supposing that not only every parti- cular Church can run into partial errors without ceasing to belong to Catholicity, but that the whole of the Catholic Church can likewise be obscured by temporary errors, either the same in every part or different in the different com- munities, so that truth is to be distilled out of the corrupt mass by private reason following the rule Quad semper, quod ubique, qiiod ab omnibus. This is certainly a very common notion and a very false one indeed heretical : that is, if the errors spoken of be supposed to be essential, whether in doctrine or practice. Otherwise, if you distinctly draw the line, and declare that you mean only secondary errors or abuses which do not subvert the faith, or amount to heresy ; in this limited sense I cannot deny but that particular Churches, or even the whole Church, may at times be more or less infected with such abuses and errors ; although, even so, piety will ever shrink from supposing any the least error or abuse to be prevalent even in a particular Church, without being absolutely forced to see that it is so. Thus, in the Roman Communion the sale of Indulgences and thus, in your own Russian Church the uncanonical rebaptizing of Chris- tians already baptized, was for many years prevalent, and even sanctioned by local Canons. Thus, for a time even great 54 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH heresies (as Arianism) have infected the whole Church and seemed on the point of arriving at dominancy for even this also is possible, so long as you do not suppose heresy to be established and taught by the public law of the Church ; for that would indeed be inconsistent with Christ's promise. (9) A ' Reformed ' Church (if the word ' reformed ' be under- stood of any essential point of faith), must certainly be heretical. I hope you will make my best remembrances to Professor Redkin. I saw the other day at Paris a friend of yours, M. Moukhanoff. I was very much obliged for the books sent me through Mr. Williams, and exceedingly sorry to hear of the death of Mr. Voronieff. Pray believe me to be always, my dear Sir, yours most sincerely, W. PALMER. CHAPTER VI MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S THIRD LETTER TO MR. PALMER [1846] Moral obstacle to the West accepting Orthodoxy The Eastern Church de- fended from the charge of lack of missionary zeal And from charge of inconsistency with regard to Filioque And with regard to the Re- baptism of Westerns Replies to some further remarks of Mr. Palmer upon Filioque and the Inquisition Difficult for Westerns, whether Latins or Protestants, to join the Orthodox Church The Church cannot be a harmony of discords Latent power and great future of the Ortho- dox Church. MOST REVEREND SIR, Accept my heartiest thanks for your friendly letter, and my excuses for having been rather slow in answering it. I cannot but call your letter a friendly one, though it contains some very severe attacks on us ; but a truly friendly disposition lies in my opinion at the bottom of them, and is manifested by the honest frankness of their expression. I think your attacks generally wrong, but they are sincere, and show a serious desire to find out truth, and to come to a satisfactory conclusion in the debated question. Every doubt, every difficulty, and every accusation, let it be ever so hard for the accused party, should be candidly and clearly stated ; this is the only way for establishing the differ- ence between right and wrong. Truth must never be evaded ; it should not even be veiled in truly serious questions. Permit me to resume briefly your accusations. First : ' If we pretend (as indeed we do) to be the only Orthodox or Catholic Church, we should be more zealous for the conver- sion of erring communities, as the Spirit of apostleship, which is the true spirit of Love, can never be extinct in the true 56 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Church ; and yet we are manifestly deficient in that respect. Secondly : ' Our pretensions are evidently contradicted by the admission (proposed by some of our most important divines) of a communion with the Latin Church on very easy condi- tions.' Thirdly : 'Slight errors (proved by a change of l rites) have been admitted by our own Church, and therefore we cannot logically uphold the principle that the true Church can never have fallen into a dogmatical error (be it ever so slight), or have undergone any change, be it ever so unim- portant.' I have fairly admitted our deficiency in Christian zeal, though at the same time I exculpated our Church from that accusation with respect to the Western communities. You explain that same faintness by a latent conviction of our Church, which, you suppose, feels herself to be no more than a part of the whole Church notwithstanding her pretensions to the contrary. This explanation seems to me quite arbitrary, and has no right to admission till it be proved that no other explains the case quite sufficiently. But the question stands differently. The distinction I made between our relations to the heathen and our relations to Europe you consider rather as an evasive than as a direct answer, yet I think it is easily maintained by a very high authority. I had said, ' What new tidings can we bring to the Christian West ? What new source of information to countries more enlightened than we arc 1 What new and unknown doctrine to men to whom the true Doctrine is known though disregarded ? ' These expressions imply no fear of a contention which indeed would show weakness and doubt, no distrust of the strength of our arguments and authorities, perhaps even no great want of zeal and love. They simply imply a deep conviction that the reluctance of the West to admit the simple truth of the Church arises neither from ignorance nor from rational objections, but from a moral obstacle which no human efforts 1 Mr. Palmer has underlined the words 'change of,' and has written in pencil over the top ' variations in some.' [W. J. B.] EASTERN CHURCH AND MISSIONARY WORK 57 can conquer, if it is not conquered by the better feelings of the better part of human nature, in those who can know the truth but do not wish to confess it. Such a disposition can exist, though the question is whether it exists in the case I am speaking of. Did not the Father of Light and Source of Love say in the parable by the lips of Abraham : ' Have they not Moses and the Prophets 1 If they do not listen to them, they will not listen to Lazarus, even if he was to rise from the dead.' Do not, I pray, consider this quotation as being made with an intention of offence. I would not make injurious accusations ; and, having once confessed a want of zeal in our country and people, I would confess it again ; but my conviction is, that indeed in the present case the words of Christ may fairly be applied, and that you are separated from us by a moral obstacle, the origin of which I have tried in my former letter to trace to its historical beginning. But does not this faintness of zeal which I admit (with regard to the heathen nations) imply a defect in the Eastern Church herself, and prove her to be no more than a part, perhaps even not so much as a part of the whole true Church ? This I cannot admit. It may be considered as a defect of the nations to whom the destiny of the Church is temporarily confided (be they Russians or Greeks), but can nowise be considered as a stain to the Church itself. The ways of God are inscrutable. A few hundreds of disciples in the space of about two centuries brought to the flock of Christ more millions of individuals than there were hundreds in the beginning. If that burning zeal had continued to warm the hearts of the Christians, in how short a space of time must not all the human race have heard and believed the saving Word ? Sixteen centuries have elapsed since that epoch; and we are obliged to confess with an unwilling humility that the greater and by far greater majority of man- kind is still in the slavery of darkness and ignorance. Where then is the zeal of the Apostle ? Where is the Church ? That would prove too much if it proved anything at all. Many centuries, particularly in the middle ages, and at the 58 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH beginning of modern history, have hardly seen some few examples of solitary conversions and not one national, and not one remarkable effort at Proselytism. This seems to inculpate the whole Church. The spirit of missions is now most gloriously awakened in England, and I hope that that merit will not be forgotten by the Almighty in the days of trial and danger which England has perhaps to meet; but this noble tendency is a new one, or at least has become apparent only very lately. Is it a sign that the Church of England is now nearer to truth than it was before 1 Is it a proof of greater energies or purity 1 No one can admit the fact. Or let us take the Nestorian community, which you hold out as a parallel to us. I do not consider the parallel as a caricature, though you have added that word, probably with an intention to avoid offence. The Nestorians are generally ignorant, but ignorance (in point of Arts and Sciences) was our own lot not more than a century ago. The Nestorians are generally speaking poor ; but that is no great blemish for any man and particularly for a Christian. They are few, but the truth of a doctrine is not to be measured by the number of its votaries. The Nestorians have been richer and more learned and more numerous than they are at present. They have had the spirit of Proselytism. Their missionaries have extended their activity over all the east as far as the inner India and the centre of China, and that Proselytism was not ineffectual. Millions and millions had embraced Nestorianism (Marco Polo's testimony is not the only one to prove their success). Was Nestorianism nearer to truth in the time of its triumph than in our time ? Mohammedanism and Buddhism would give us the same conclusion. Truth and error have had equally their time of ardent zeal or comparative coldness, and the characters of nations may certainly produce the same effects as the characters of epochs. Therefore I see no reason for accusing the Orthodox Church in herself of a defect or weak- ness which may, and in my opinion evidently docs, belong to the nations that compose her communities. Having thus distinguished the notes of the Church herself CHARACTER OF ROMAN MISSIONARY ZEAL 59 from the national qualities or defects of the Eastern com- munity which alone represents it temporarily, permit me to add that the comparison which you institute between the zeal of the Romanists and the seeming indifference of the Eastern World is not quite fair. I do not deny the fact itself, nor do I express any doubt concerning the apparent superiority of the Latins in that respect ; but I cannot admit their spirit of proselytism to be anything like a Christian feeling. I think it should be left quite out of the question, as being the necessary result of a particular national or ecclesiastical organisation, nearly akin to the proselytising spirit of Mohammedanism in the days of its pride. I will not condemn the zeal of the Romanists ; it is in some respects too praiseworthy to be ill or even lightly spoken of; I can neither praise nor envy it. It is in many respects too un-Christian to be admired, as having produced and being always ready to produce more persecutors than martyrs. It is, in short, a mixed feeling not dishonourable for nations which belong to Romanism, but quite unworthy of the Church, and not to be mentioned in questions of ecclesiastical truth. I am, I trust, very far from having the disposition to boast, and yet I cannot but call your attention to a strange and generally unnoticed fact, viz., that notwithstanding the appa- rent ardour of Romanism and seeming coldness of Orthodoxy as to proselytism, yet that since the time of the Papal Schism (which certainly begins not with the quarrels of Photius and Nicolas, but with the interpolation of the Symbol when the West declared itself de facto sole judge of Christian doctrine) it has been the destiny of Orthodoxy to be happier in its conquests than its rival community. No one will doubt the fact if he considers the numerical superiority of Russian Orthodox Christians over the inhabitants of Scandinavia and about a third part of Germany, which were called to the knowledge of Christ after the time of Charles the Great. To this comparison you must add that even of that lesser number more, and by far more, than a half was not converted, but driven into the Latin Communion by cudgel, sword, and fire. 60 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH I repeat that I am rather ashamed of our having done so little, than proud of our success ; but in the unaccountable ways of Providence it is perhaps a particular dispensation of the Eternal Goodness to show that the Treasury of Truth must and shall thrive though confided to seemingly careless hands. No Anscar or Wilfricd, no Willbrod or Columban came to instruct Russia. We met truth more than half-way, impelled by the grace of God. In after-times we have had our martyrs, we have had and still have our missionaries, whose labour has not been quite fruitless. I admit they are few in numbers ; J but is not the voice of truth which calls upon you, the voice of the whole Church ? You have as yet seen no Russian or Greek missionary. But did Cornelius reject the Angel's voice and declare that he would not believe till the Apostle came ? He believed, and the Apostle came only as a material instrument of Christian confirmation ; and shall the message of God, the emanation of the whole Church, the voice of truth, be the less powerful or the less acceptable because no single individual has been found worthy of bring- ing it to you ? The Church may have and has undoubtedly many different forms of preaching. The second point of accusation concerning the easy condi- tions on which Communion was proposed to the Latin Community may equally be answered without difficulty. Firstly, I readily admit that Mark of Ephesus went too far in his concessions ; but in a fair trial of that great man and eminent divine we should, I think, rather admire his un- daunted firmness than condemn his moments of human weakness. His was a terrible task. He felt, and could not but feel, that in rejecting the alliance of the mighty West he was literally condemning his country to death. This was 1 This is anything but the case at the present time. The mission work which has been done during the last forty years and is still going forward amongst the Mohammedan and other non-Christian populations within the Russian Empire need fear comparison with no other mission work in the world either for zeal or for success. [VV. J. B.] DISTINCTION BETWEEN FALSE DOCTRINE & HERESY 61 more than martyrdom for a noble spirit, and yet he stood the trial. Are we not to be indulgent in our judgment over an unwilling error inspired by the wish of saving his country, and are we not to bless the memory of his glorious opposition ? Other divines of a later period [may have] consented to a communion with Latins requiring nothing but a restitution of the Symbol to its ancient form and other less material changes in doctrine. These you consider as too easy conditions. ' Would Athanasius ' [you ask] ' have admitted Arius to communion, and allowed him the liberty of teaching Arianism everywhere excepting [in] the Symbol ? ' Very certainly he would not ; but there is an immense difference between the heresy of Arius and the false doctrine of the Latins. The first rejects the true doctrine ; the second admits it, and is only guilty of adding an opinion of its own (certainly a false one) to the holy truth. That opinion in itself has not been condemned by the Church, not being directly contrary to the holy Scriptures, and therefore does not constitute a heresy. The heresy consists in calumniating the Church and in giving out as her tradition a human and arbitrary opinion. Throw the interpolation out of the Symbol, and tradition is vindi- cated ; opinion is separated from Faith ; the keystone is torn out of the vault of Romanism, and the whole fabric falls to ruins with all its proud pretensions to infallibility, as if Romanism were the sole judge of Christian truth ; the rebel spirit is hewed down and broken. In short, all is obtained that need be obtained. A deeper insight into the question would show (and that observation did not probably escape our divines) that the [human] opinion which is [merely] added to [the true] traditionary doctrine and implied in the Filioque has indeed no other support but the decision of ignorant Synods, and the declarations of the Roman See. Being once rejected out of the Symbol, and consequently out of Faith and Tradition, it could not stand by itself, and would be sure to fall and be forgotten like many other partial and local errors, such as, for instance, the error of considering Melchizedek as an apparition (though no 62 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH incarnation) of Christ. The high majesty of the Church, most reverend sir, has nothing to do with individual opinions, though false, when they do not run directly against her own doctrine. They may, and do, constitute a heresy only when they dare to give themselves out as her doctrine, her tradition, and her faith. This seems to me a sufficient justification of the conditions proposed to the Romans and a proof that they did not imply the slightest doubt of the Eastern Orthodoxy and of her doctrine being the only true one. Your third accusation is not positively stated ; it is rather insinuated by a comparison with the sale of Indulgences than directly expressed ; but I cannot leave it without an answer. Your own expressions that ' the re-baptizing of Christians was prevalent for many years and even sanctioned by local canons ' would be sufficient for our justification ; for local errors are not errors of the Church, but errors into which individuals can fall by ignorance of the ecclesiastical rule. The blame falls on the individuals (whether they be Bishops or laymen signifies nothing). But the Church herself stands blameless and pure, reforming the local error, but never in need of a reform. I could add that in my opinion even in this case the Church has never changed her doctrine, and that there has only been a change of rites without any alteration in their meaning. All Sacraments are completed ' only in the bosom of the true Church, and it matters not whether they be completed in one form or another. Re- conciliation renovates the Sacraments or completes 2 them, giving a full and Orthodox meaning to the rite that was before either insufficient or heterodox, and the repetition of the preceding Sacraments is virtually contained in the rite or fact of reconciliation. Therefore the visible repetition of 1 Mr. Khomiakoff uses the expression ' are completed ' in the sense of the Russian ' coBepmaKm-H,' which is equivalent to the Latin ' con- ficiuntur.' [W. J. B.] 2 Here he used the word ' completes ' in the sense of the Russian 'jOBepniaeTCH,' which is equivalent to the ordinary English term, 'completes.'- [W. J, B.] REBAPTIZINO OF WESTERNS 63 Baptism or Confirmation, though unnecessary, cannot be considered as erroneous, and establishes only a ritual differ- ence without any difference of opinion. You will understand my meaning more clearly still by a comparison with another fact in ecclesiastical history. The Church considers Marriage as a Sacrament, and yet admits married heathens into her community without re-marrying them. The conversion itself gives the sacramental quality to the preceding union without any repetition of the rite. This you must admit, unless you admit an impossibility, viz., that the Sacrament of Marriage was by itself complete in the lawful union of a heathen pair. The Church does not re-marry heathens or Jews. Now, would it be an error to re-marry them 1 Certainly not, though the rite would seem altered. This is my view of the question. The re-baptizing of Christians did not contain any error, but the admission of the error (if error it be) having been a local one is quite sufficient for the justification of the Eastern Church. 1 The case is quite different with the sale of 1 There has never been a period when the whole of the Eastern Church re-baptized Westerns. A Synod held at Constantinople in the 13th century after the expulsion of the Latins in 1260, and also another Synod held in 1484 after the failure of the Council of Florence, decreed that Westerns on joining the Church were to be anointed with Chrism, but not re-baptized. The Russian Church was the first to depart from this rule. A Synod held in 1629 under the Patriarch Philaret Nikitich Romanoff (the father of the Tzar Michael Romanoff, the founder of the present Russian dynasty) ordered the rebaptism of all Westerns. This however was reversed in the case of the Latins by a Synod held at Moscow under the Patriarch Nicon in 1655, and the reversal was confirmed in 1667 by his successor Joasaph, as well as by all four Eastern Patriarchs. The baptism of Lutherans and Calvinists was first acknowledged by the Russian Church in 1718, on the receipt of a letter from the Patriarch Jeremiah in. of Constanti- nople giving his assent. It was at a Council in 1756 that the four Eastern Patriarchs first instituted the rebaptizing of Westerns, on the ground that baptism without immersion was not (jdimffna. It was only during the last twenty-five years that first the Church of the modern kingdom of Greece, and soon afterwards the Patriarchate of Constantinople, conformed to the Russian Church and their own earlier practice in this matter. [ W. J. B.] 64 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Indulgences. It was an error of the whole Roman Church, being not only sanctioned by her infallible head, but eman- ating directly from him. But I will be content to leave that argument aside, decisive though it be for a true Romanist, and will admit that the sale of Indulgences was attacked by some divines who were never condemned as heretics. It matters little whether it be so or not. The error remains the same. .The sale of Indulgences cannot be condemned from a Roman point of view. As soon as Salvation is considered as capable of being obtained by external means, it is evident that the Church has a right to choose the means, considering the different circumstances of the community. Charity to the poor may be reasonably changed into charity to the whole body of the visible Church or to her head, the See of Rome. The form is rather comical ; but the doctrinal error does not lie in the casual form ; it lies in the doctrine itself of Romanism, a doctrine which is fatal to Christian freedom, and changes the adopted sons of God into hirelings and slaves. I have thought it necessary to answer the accusation hinted at by the comparison you institute between two errors of Romanism and Orthodoxy, yet I do not much insist on accusing Rome in that particular case. The only thing I wanted was to show that we have a right to uphold the doctrine that no error, even the slightest, can ever be detected in the whole Eastern Church (I neither speak of individuals nor of local communities) ; and permit me to add that without this doctrine the idea itself of a Church becomes an illogical fiction, by the evident reason that, the possibility of an error being once admitted, human reason stands alone as a lawful judge over the holy work of God, and unbounded rationalism undermines the foundations of faith. I must add some observations concerning the remarks that conclude your letter. 1. I have no doubts about the passage of St. Augustine (principaliter autem, etc.) being an interpolation. The proofs given by Zernikoff seem conclusive ; but I am inclined to ORIGIN OF THE INQUISITION 65 consider it as an ancient interpolation and no wilful falsifica- tion, and therefore thought it not quite useless to show that it contained nothing in favour of the Latin doctrine. 2. I am quite aware that the doctrine attacked by Theodoret was not the Latin one, which was quite unknown at that early period ; but the expressions of Theodoret are directly opposed to the addition in the Symbol, and this is quite sufficient to show that such an addition , would have been utterly impossible at the time of the Ephesian Synod, and is contrary to the doctrine then admitted as Orthodox. 3. The Inquisition of the Gothic period in Spain is not known under that name, and is not united by any visible historical link with the later one ; that is the reason why no historian has ever sought for the origin of that dark institu- tion in those remote centuries ; but the bloody and iniquitous laws which were so fiercely urged against Arians and Jews in the time of the predecessors of Roderick have all the character of [a] religious Inquisition in its most abominable form, and originated, as did the later Inquisition, from the will of the Clergy. That is the reason why I have given them a well-known name, though that name was not yet used in the Gothic epoch. It is to be remarked that neither the Mohammedan conquest, nor a struggle of seven centuries, nor all the changes of manners, habits, and civilisation which must have taken place during such a long space of time, could alter the national character of the Spanish Clergy. No sooner was Spain free and triumphant but it renewed its old institutions, a terrible and [hitherto] unnoticed example of the vitality of errors and passions and of their hereditary transmission to the remotest generations. 4. There is no doubt that at the end of the eighth, and at the beginning of the ninth century, the Filioque was not yet generally admitted by the Western Communities. Zernikoff is right in that respect, and a decisive argument may be derived from Alcuin's testimony ; but the Spanish origin of the addition is an undoubted fact, and I see as yet no con- clusive reason to suppose that the Acts of the Spanish K 66 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH Synods have been falsified. The addition itself may be easily explained by the struggle between Arians and Catholics at the time of the Goths, and by a desire of attributing all possible qualifications of the Father to the Son, whose divinity was denied by the Arians. This indeed is, I think, the only reasonable explanation of the arbitrary change in the Western Symbol. After the Arian struggle, and at the time of the Arabs, I can see no reason nor occasion to suggest such a change, and therefore have not the least doubt that the error originated from one of the Gothic Synods, though I am not quite sure whether it was from one of the earliest. At all events, it must have begun no later than the end of the scvetith century. Having thus answered your remarks, I will take the liberty, most reverend sir, to add some observations on the whole tenor of your friendly letter. It is a friendly one, not to me alone, but to all of xis children of the Orthodox Church. We could not have asked for larger concessions, nor for a greater agreement in points of doctrine. That yours is not a solitary instance may be inferred not only from your quotations in your most valuable book about the Russian Catechism, but still more from the letters and pro- fessions of the lieverend Bishop of [the Scottish Church at] Paris. Believe me, this assurance is a source of great and heartfelt joy for all who feel an interest in truth and unity ; and yet, sad to say, what have we gained 1 Nothing. We have been tried in our doctrine and found blameless; but now we are again tried in our morals (for zeal and love, which are the impelling motives of the Apostle, are nothing but a part of Christian morality), and we are found defective, as indeed we are, and our doctrine is to be condemned for our vices. The conclusion is not fair. You would not admit it if a Mohammedan was to bring it as an objection against Christianity itself, and yet you urge it against Ortho- doxy. Permit me to search into the latent causes of this fact, and excuse me if you find something harsh or seemingly offensive AFFINITY BETWEEN ROMANISM & PROTESTANTISM 67 in my words. A very weak conviction in points of doctrine can bring over a Romanist to Protestantism, or a Protestant to Romanism. A Frenchman, a German, an Englishman, will go over to Presbyterianism, to Lutheranism, to the Inde- pendents, to the Cameronians, and indeed to almost every form of belief or misbelief ; he will not go over to Orthodoxy. As long as he does not step out of the circles of doctrines which have taken their origin in the Western world, he feels himself at home; notwithstanding his apparent change, he does not feel that dread of apostasy which renders sometimes the passage from error to faith as difficult as from truth to error. He will be condemned by his former brethren, who will call his action a rash one, perhaps a bad one ; but it will not be an utter madness, depriving him, as it were, of his rights of citizenship in the civilised world of the West. And that is natural. All the Western doctrine is born out of Romanism ; it feels (though unconsciously) its solidarity with the past ; it feels its dependence from one science, from one creed, from one line of life; and that creed, that science, that life was the Latin one. This is what I hinted at, and what you understand very rightly, viz., that all Protestants are Crypto-Papists ; and indeed it would be a very easy task to show that in their Theology (as well as philosophy) all the definitions of all the objects of creed or understanding are merely taken out of the old Latin System, though often negatived in the application. In short, if it was to be expressed in the concise language of algebra, all the West knows but one datum, a; whether it be preceded by the positive sign +> as with the Romanists, or with the negative, as with the Protestants, the a remains the same. Now a passage to Orthodoxy seems indeed like an apostasy from the past, from its science, creed, and life. It is rushing into a new and unknown world, a bold step to take, or even to advise. 1 1 Cp. Khomiakoff : L'Eglise Latine et le Proteslantiame, p. 106-108 : ' En toutes choses la lutte de la veritxS centre 1'erreur est remplie de difficult^, quoique le triomphe lui soit finalement assure. Combien 68 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH This, most reverend sir, is the moral obstacle 1 have been speaking about; this, the pride and disdain which I attribute to all the Western communities. As you see, it is no in- dividual feeling voluntarily bred or consciously held in the heart; it is no vice of the mind, but an involuntary sub- mission to the tendencies and direction of the past. When the Unity of the Church was lawlessly and unlovingly rent by the Western clergy, the more so inasmuch as at the same time the East was continuing its former friendly inter- course, and submitting to the opinion of the Western Synods the Canons of the second Council of Nica-a, each half of Christianity began a life apart, becoming from day to day more estranged from the other. There was an evident self- complacent triumph on the side of the Latins; there was sorrow on the side of the East, which had seen the dear tics of Christian brotherhood torn asunder, which had been spurned and rejected, and felt itself innocent. All these feelings have been transmitted by hereditary succession to our time, and more or less, either willingly or unwillingly, we n'cst cllo pas plus clillirilr quaiul los obstacles ;'i la, reception do la vcrite se trouvent non sculement ilans la raison, mais encore dans la volonto et les passions. Ceci est particuliercment Ic cas dans les rapports de 1'Eglise envers les coiniiiunautcs qui s'en sont Separees. Quelles quo soient les liaiues et les defiances cntre les diflurentes con- fessions occidentalcs, les peuples qu'elles renferment dans leur sein soul plus ou inoius sur un pied d'egalitd entre cux. Us nc fonnent, pour ainsi dire, qu'une seule famille. ' C'est leur vie commune qui a fait 1'histoire de 1'Europe ; ce sont lours communs efforts qui ont fait la civilisation contemporainc. KM I'm, a I'exccption de 1'Italie et de 1'Espagne, il n'est pas un seul de ces peuples qui ne compte parmi ses citoyens des meinbrca de presque toutes les confessions occidentales. Le passage d'une croyance a une autre n'offre Hen d'insolite, rien qui blesse les deux formes, peut-ctre les plus invinciblcs de 1'orgueil humain, celui de la race et de la civilisation. 11 en est tout autrement dans les rapports de ces memcH peuples avcc 1'Eglise. Us ont a recevoir les verites do la foi d'une societe Be MPirfcd ri;xi, CIIJICKOIIOBI., KOiopue Bupatafon> npaBOCjasnun ii, npnn;M.io;i;un> in, Anr.iiiKaiicKoii UPPKBII, i.e. 'Ussher is almost a complete Calvinist ; but yet he, no less than those Bishops who give expression to Orthodox convictions, belongs to the Anglican Church. -[W. J. B.] VITALITY OF THE ORTHODOX CHURCH 71 [quantity] changes the whole equation to an unknown quantity, even though every other datum be as clear and as positive as possible. Do not, I pray, nourish the hope of finding Christian truth without stepping out of the former Protestant circle. It is an illogical hope ; it is a remnant of that pride which thought itself able and wished to judge and decide by itself without the Spiritual Communion of heavenly grace and Christian love. Were you to find all the truth, you would have found nothing ; for we alone can give you that without which all would be vain the assur- ance of truth. Do not doubt the energies of Orthodoxy. Young as I am, I have seen the day when it was publicly either scoffed at or at least treated with manifest contempt by [too many in] our [high] society ; when [I] myself, who was bred in a religious family and have never been ashamed of adhering strictly to the rites of the Church, was either supposed a sycophant or considered as a disguised Romanist; for nobody supposed the possibility of civilisation and Orthodoxy being united. I have seen the strength of the Eastern Church rise, not- withstanding temporary aggression, which seemed to be fatal, or temporary protection, which seemed to be debasing. And now it rises and grows stronger and stronger. Romanism, though seemingly active, has received the deadly blow from its own lawful child, Protestantism ; and indeed I would defy anybody to show me the man with true theological and philosophical learning who is still at heart a pure Romanist. Protestantism has heard its knell rung by its most distin- tinguished teachers, by Neander, though unwillingly, in his letters to Mr. Dewar, and consciously by Schelling in his preface to the posthumous works of Steffens. The ark of Orthodoxy alone rides safe and unhurt through storms and billows. The world shall flock to it. Let us say with the beloved Apostle : ' Even so, come, Lord Jesus." Accept my thanks for your book. I consider it as a very valuable acquisition not only for your countrymen, but for all truly and seriously religious readers. The books 72 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH contained in the parcel sent to me from Cronstadt I have forwarded to their respective addresses except the one for C. Potemkin, whose address I have not yet found out. Pray excuse the length of my letter and the frankness of some expressions which are perhaps too harsh, and believe me, most reverend Sir, your most obedient servant, ALEXIS KHAMECOFF. The 28th of November 1846. CHAPTER VII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S VISIT TO ENGLAND [1847] Mr. Khomiakoff visits London and Oxford His letter to the ' Moskvitjanin ' about England London and Moscow compared An English Sunday. I HAVE not succeeded in finding any answer from Mr. Palmer to this last letter. But as, shortly after it was written, Mr. Khomiakoff started on a journey to Western Europe, in the course of which he paid his only visit to England, 1 and spent some days at Oxford with Mr. Palmer, it is probable that the letter was never answered on paper, but that its contents were discussed vivd voce on ' the green lawns ' or under ' the deep shades ' of Magdalen. Very few records remain of his impressions of England. He was not in the habit of keeping a diary, while of the letters which his wife wrote at regular intervals to his mother, giving an account of their journey, only those which were written from Germany have at present been found. In the first volume of his works, however, there is a reprint of an interesting letter which he wrote the following year for a Moscow periodical, entitled the Moskvitjanin, giving an enthusiastic account of his experiences in London and elsewhere. The greater part of this letter only touches indirectly upon ecclesiastical questions, 2 and would therefore be out of place 1 This was in July 1847. 2 Mr. Khomiakoff's views of English politics, and their connection with religious questions which are expressed in this letter, have been already explained in the lutrodoction. 74 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH in this correspondence, but the following passage from it, which is interesting as containing one of the very few favour- able descriptions of the English Sunday which have been written by foreigners, and also as showing the friendly and sympathetic spirit with which he undertook the study of our customs and institutions, seems well worth translating. ' ... It is not the first time that I have travelled in Western Europe, and I have seen not a few cities and capitals. But they are all nothing as compared to London, and this because each one of them appears to me to be nothing but a feeble imitation of London. If a man has once seen London, then, as far as living cities are concerned (for I leave dead cities out of the question), there remains nothing for him to see except Moscow. London of course is by far the larger, there is none more magnificent, or more thickly populated, while Moscow is more picturesque, and more varied, richer in atmospheric outlines, and more pleasing to the eye. In both cities their historical life and tradition is as yet healthy and vigorous. The native of Moscow may succumb to the enchantment of London, without compromising his own feel- ings of patriotism. London and Moscow alike have a great future before them. ' We wandered about London for two days on end : and everywhere we met with the same movement, the same swarming life in the streets. The third day after our arrival was Sunday, and accordingly we went in the morning to Mass at our Embassy chapel. The streets were almost empty, only here and there a few people were hurrying along the pavement, late for church. About two hours afterwards we returned. There was still no traffic in the streets : one met with nothing but people on foot, on whose faces there was an expression of thoughtfulness : they were on their way back from church. A similar silence continued all day. This is the way Sunday is kept in London. The emptiness of the streets, and the silence of the day in the midst of the huge noisy city with its constant movement, is indeed strange and striking, and it must be admitted that it is hardly possible SUNDAY IN LONDON 7* to imagine anything grander than this extraordinary silence. For a short space the cares of commercial life had ceased, the allurements of luxury had disappeared. The shutters of those solid two-storied shop windows through which it seems as if all the treasures of the world are on view were closed ; and so were the workshops in which unceasing labour is hardly able to provide its daily bread for itself ; all the cares of life seemed to sleep : two millions of the most commercial, the most active people in the whole world had left their occupations, had made a break in their anxieties, and all this in obedience to one lofty idea. It was really delightful to me to see it. I could not help rejoicing over the high moral tone of national inclination, over this nobility of the human soul. It is extraordinary that there can be people in the world who neither understand nor appreciate the repose of an English Sunday : in this want of appreciation a certain pettiness of mind and scantiness of soul is displayed. It is of course true that not all, and indeed very far from all, Englishmen in reality keep Sunday holy anything like so far as they observe its external sanctity ; it is true that while everywhere in the streets a respectable quiet may be observed, nevertheless, in many houses and sometimes in those of the best families things go on which are anything but satisfactory. But what of this ? you will say that these people are Pharisees and hypocrites. Quite true, as far as they are concerned, but it is not true to say that the nation as a whole plays the Pharisee or the hypocrite. These failings and vices are those of individuals, but the nation itself acknowledges a higher moral law, obeys it, and lays its obligation upon its members. Let a German, and still more a Frenchman not understand this, their incapacity to appreciate it is excusable ; but it is pitiable to hear Russians, or people who call themselves Russians, reiterating the language of Frenchmen or Germans. Do not we in Russia keep Easter-day itself just as strictly as Sunday is kept in England ? Do the people in the Russian villages dance or sing songs in Lent 1 and is there any sort of entertainment in society even in the greater number of large 76 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH towns in that season ? Of course one comes across exceptions in the great towns, but these exceptions and their causes may be accounted for. The upper classes in Russia are so enlightened, and are inspired by such a highly spiritualised idea of religion, that they see no need of the external forms of national custom. England has not this good fortune, and accordingly is more strict in her observance of the common form. But perhaps you will say, If I am a Mohammedan I will keep Friday, if I am a Jew I will keep Saturday, but in either case what is the English Sunday to me ? Quite true ; but 'in a strange monastery one does not follow one's own rule,' l but on the 6ther hand the English nation pre-supposes that when it is in England it is at home.' 1 A Russian proverb, corresponding to our ' When at Rome do as Rome does.' [W. J. B.] CHAPTER VIII MR. KHOMIAKOFF'S FOURTH LETTER TO MR. PALMER x [1847-1848] The unity of the Church Self-contented Individualism of Protestant Germany Contrast with England Count Protasoff upon reunion The Metropolitan Philaret's conditions Dr. Hampden's nomination as Bishop of Hereford A call to join the Orthodox Eastern Church The revolution in France and elsewhere. September ISth, 1847. DEAR SlR, I am writing to you from the capital city of self-contented discord, from Berlin ; and my first word shall be Unity? Nowhere can I feel so deeply the necessity, the holiness, and the consoling power of that Divine principle. Unity 1 Not to be found in the vain and weak efforts of individual intellects (for every intellect makes itself its own centre, when indeed there is but one true centre : God) ; not to be hoped from the sympathetic power of nature (for that is nothing but the superstitious worship of an abstraction) ; but to be taken simply and humbly from the dispensation of God's mercy and grace. Unity ! The substantial character of the Church, the visible sign of the Lord's constant dwell- ing on earth, the sweetest joy of the human heart. An almost boundless Individualism is the characteristic feature of Germany, and particularly of Prussia. Here in Berlin it would be difficult to find one single point of faith, or even one feeling, which could be considered as a link of 1 This letter was directed to Magdalen College, Oxford. [W. J. 1$.] - KlumiiukofT wrote: 'and my word is Unity.' The Russian version gives : ' I am beginning with the word Unity.'-- [W. J. B. j 78 RUSSIA AND THE ENGLISH CHURCH true spiritual communion in the Christian meaning of the word. Even the desire for harmony seems to be extin- guished, and that predominance of Individualism, that spiritual solitude among the ever-busy crowd, send to the heart a feeling of dreariness and desolation. The hand of decay is on that country, notwithstanding its apparent pro- gress in material improvements. I will not say : ' nothing is to be hoped for Germany.' The ways of the future are known to God alone, and a change may come quite unexpectedly ; but the present certainly gives but little reason for hope. Still the earnestness of the German mind in all intellectual researches is not quite so disheartening as the frivolous and self-conceited gaiety of homeless and thoughtless France. A mind given to reflection has time, and may perhaps feel a desire, to listen to the voice of Divine truth. Of all countries I have visited in my short journey, England is certainly the only one I have felt a deep regret to part with, the only one which I shall always think about with a deep feel- ing of sympathy. I know very well that England lacks, as much perhaps as Germany itself, the blessing of religious unity ; the appearance of unity which exists there is more a show and a delusion than a truth ; but, delusive as it is, still its appearance is more consoling than its manifest absence. The numerous, and at times crowded, churches : the earnest- ness of prayer : the solemnity of ancient forms of worship not quite forgotton even the rather Puritanical sabbathising of the Lord's Day are full of deep and joyful impressions. They seem to indicate a community of spiritual life in the country. Even later, when the delusion is over, when a closer observation has discovered the latent discord under the veil of outward and arbitrary unity, there still remains a consolation in the evident longing for unity, which is felt by so many individuals, and which the multitude itself ex- presses by holding so strictly at least to its outward forms. Certainly a serious ignorance, searching for Divine truth, is much to be preferred to a proud or merry infidelity. December, 1847. I had begun but not finished this letter COUNT PROTASOFF ON REUNION 79 in Berlin. Since that time some months have elapsed, but I leave the beginning as it was, because it expresses feelings which h