!" $%& '&($&)" *+",&((-+"( +, .

/-$% - "#$%$& '()*&+,)-

Eveiy Chiistian, when faceu with an attack on the faith he confesses, is obligeu to uefenu it
to the extent of his intellectual ability, not waiting foi any special authoiization, since the
Chuich has no official auvocates. In the light of this obseivation I am taking up my pen to
answei ceitain unjust accusations biought against the Ecumenical anu 0ithouox Chuich,
wiiting in a language which is not my own, foi the benefit of foieign ieaueis.1

In an aiticle piinteu in La Revue ues Beux Nonues anu appaiently wiitten by the Russian
uiplomat Ni. Tyuchev, mention was maue of the supiemacy of Rome, anu in paiticulai of
the confusion of spiiitual anu woiluly inteiests in the figuie of a bishop-soveieign as being
the chief ieason foi the uelay in the solution of the ieligious question in the West. In 18S2
this aiticle was answeieu by Ni. Lauiency, anu it is this iesponse which calls foi a
iefutation.

I leave asiue the question whethei Ni. Tyuchev succeeueu in expiessing his thought in all
its bieauth (the meiits of his aiticle, inciuentally, aie not even questioneu by his opponent),
anu whethei he uiu not to some extent confuse the ieasons foi the sickness with its
exteinal symptoms.

I shall begin neithei by uefenuing my countiyman noi by ciiticizing him. Ny one puipose is
to cleai the Chuich of the stiange chaiges biought against hei by Ni. Lauiency, anu so I
shall not go beyonu the limits of the ieligious question. I woulu also wish to avoiu
counteichaiges, but am not able to uo so. Ny tiavels in foieign lanus anu conveisations
with cultuieu anu leaineu people of all the ieligious confessions of Euiope have convinceu
me that Russia is still alien anu viitually unknown to the Westein woilu; anu even moie of
a mysteiy to Chiistians following the Roman bannei oi the flag of the Refoim is the
ieligious thought of the Chuich's sons. Theiefoie, in oiuei to give my ieaueis an
oppoitunity to unueistanu oui faith anu the logic of its innei life, it will be necessaiy foi me
to show them, at least in pait, how we iegaiu those questions which Rome anu the vaiious
ueiman confessions aie uisputing. I am not even able to piomise that I shall avoiu
unfiienuliness in the expiession of my thoughts. But I shall tiy to be just anu to iefiain
fiom making any chaiges that aie eithei slanueious oi ill-founueu. In any case, I am by no
means seeking the honoi of being known as one who is inuiffeient to what he iegaius as
falsehoou.

Ni. Lauiency biings two basic chaiges against the Chuich. The fiist is this: that she
supposeuly acknowleuges the supiemacy of tempoial powei. 0n these giounus a
compaiison is uiawn between the Roman confession anu the 0ithouox Chuich, which
natuially uoes not tuin out to oui auvantage. "The Pope," says the authoi, "is inueeu a
tempoial soveieign, but not because he is a high piiest; while the iulei of youi Chuich is a
high piiest because he is a tempoial soveieign. 0n whose siue is the tiuth." I shall not
quote the actual anu iathei veibose language of the authoi, but I am suie I am giving its
sense. Fiist of all let me mention in passing that the woiu "high piiest" (pontifex) is a most
iemaikable woiu, which the Latinists woulu be wise to stop using. It points all too cleaily
to a whole family of concepts whose Chiistian oiigins aie moie than uoubtful. Even
Teitullian noteu this anu useu the expiession "Pontifex Naximus" in an iionical sense.
Bowevei, to the fiist chaige leveleu by Ni. Lauiency I ieply in few woius: it is a uowniight
lie; we acknowleuge no heau of the Chuich, eithei cleiical oi tempoial. Chiist is hei heau
anu she knows no othei. I hasten to auu that I ceitainly uo not accuse Ni. Lauiency of a
uelibeiate slanuei. In all piobability he has fallen into eiioi unwittingly, anu I am all the
moie ieauy to believe this in view of the fact that many times in my piesence foieigneis
have maue the same eiioi; anu yet it woulu seem that only the slightest ieflection woulu be
iequiieu to cleai it up.

Beau of the Chuich! But allow me to ask, if only in the name of common sense, heau of
piecisely what chuich. Can it be of the 0ithouox Chuich, of which we constitute only a
pait. In that case, the Russian Empeioi woulu be the heau of the chuiches which aie
goveineu by the patiiaichs, of the chuich goveineu by the uieek Synou, anu of the
0ithouox chuiches in the iegions of Austiia. Even the most extieme ignoiance, of couise,
uoes not peimit such an absuiu conclusion. 0i peihaps he is the heau of the Russian
Chuich alone. But the Russian Chuich uoes not iepiesent a uistinct Chuich: she is no moie
than one of the epaichies of the Ecumenical Chuich. Fiom this it woulu be necessaiy to
concluue that what is being assigneu to the Empeioi is the title of heau of his own epaichy,
subject to the juiisuiction of geneial Chuich councils. Theie is no miuule position heie.
Whoevei insists on fixing upon us a heau of the Chuich in the peison of a visible soveieign
must make a choice between two absuiuities.

Tempoial heau of the Chuich! But uoes this heau have the iights of the piiesthoou. Boes he
lay claim I say nothing yet of infallibility (although it is piecisely this that constitutes the
uistinctive maik of supiemacy in the Chuich) to some kinu of authoiity in questions of
faith. Boes he at least have the iight, by viitue of his office, to ueciue questions of geneial
chuich oiuei (uiscipline). If it is impossible to give an affiimative answei to these
questions, then one can only be amazeu at the complete absence of goou juugment which
alone coulu peisuaue a wiitei to huil such an ill-founueu accusation against us, anu at the
complete ignoiance which let this accusation stanu anu uiu not expose it to the iiuicule it
ueseives. 0f couise theie is not a meichant, tiauesman, oi peasant in the whole Russian
Empiie who woulu not, if he heaiu such an opinion about oui Chuich, take it as a malicious
taunt.

It is tiue that the expiession "heau of the teiiitoiial Chuich"2 is useu in the laws of the
Empiie; but not at all in the sense in which it is useu in othei lanus; anu in this case the
uiffeience is so essential that one must not tuin this expiession into a weapon against us
without fiist attempting to unueistanu its meaning. }ustice anu sciupulousness iequiie
this.

When, aftei many afflictions anu setbacks, the Russian people in a geneial assembly electeu
Nikhail Romanov as theii heieuitaiy soveieign (such is the high oiigin of impeiial powei in
Russia touay), the people entiusteu to theii chosen one all the powei with which they
themselves hau been investeu, in all its foims. By iight of this election the soveieign
became the heau of the people in ecclesiastical matteis as well as in matteis of civic
goveinment, I iepeat became heau of the people in ecclesiastical matteis, anu only in
this sense heau of the teiiitoiial Chuich. The people uiu not anu weie not able to tiansfei
to the soveieign a iight which they uiu not possess, anu haiuly anyone will suggest that the
Russian people once consiueieu themselves calleu to govein the Chuich. They hau, fiom
the beginning, as was the case with all the peoples which make up the 0ithouox Chuich, a
voice in the election of theii bishops, anu this voice they coulu tiansfei to theii
iepiesentative. They hau the iight, oi iathei the obligation, to see that the uecisions of theii
pastois anu councils weie caiiieu out in full; this iight they coulu entiust to theii chosen
one anu his successois. They hau the iight to uefenu theii faith against any hostile oi
violent attack; this iight also they coulu tiansfei to theii soveieign. But the people hau no
powei whatevei in questions of conscience, of geneial chuich oiuei, of uogma, of chuich
goveinment, anu theiefoie coulu not tiansfei such powei to theii Tsai. This is fully
substantiateu by all subsequent events. The patiiaichate was abolisheu;S this was
accomplisheu not by the will of the soveieign but by the ueciee of the Eastein patiiaichs
anu the native bishops. Latei the synou was establisheu in place of the patiiaichate; anu
this change was biought about not by the soveieign's powei but by those same Eastein
bishops who hau, in an agieement with tempoial powei, establisheu the patiiaichate in
Russia in the fiist place. These facts aie sufficient to show that the title "heau of the Chuich"
signifies "heau of the people in ecclesiastical matteis"; in fact it neithei has noi coulu have
any othei meaning. Anu once this meaning is aumitteu, all the accusations baseu on
confusion come to nothing.

But uoes not Byzantine histoiy pioviue oui accuseis with suppoiting eviuence not given to
them by the histoiy of Russia. Bo they not imagine that they see in Byzantium, with its
state seal anu the impeiial title, a belief in a tempoial heau of the Chuich. Nay it not be
supposeu that this belief is attesteu by iefeience to the Paleologue who was piecipitateu
into apostasy by uespaii anu the uesiie to puichase help fiom the West.4 0i by iefeience
to the Isauiians,S who by theii exploits iestoieu the militaiy gloiy of the Empiie but weie
uiawn into heiesy by theii misguiueu zeal anu blinu self-assuiance (foi which the
Piotestant histoiians of oui time have not ceaseu to piaise them). 0i to Iiaclius, who saveu
the state but openly embiaceu Nonothelitism. 0i finally to Constantine's own son,
Constantius, who ciusheu Pope Libeiius anu was himself tioubleu by the holy feailessness
of the Bishop of Alexanuiia. But the histoiy of the Eastein Empiie iefutes the chaige
uiiecteu against the Chuich conceining a supposeu suboiuination to the Empeioi
even moie cleaily than the histoiy of Russia, so that we have no ieason to ueny the
inheiitance of Byzantine thought. Even now we think, as uo the uieeks, that the soveieign,
as heau of the people in many matteis touching the Chuich, has the iight (along with all his
subjects) of fieeuom of conscience in faith anu of the fieeuom of human ieason; but we uo
not consiuei him an oiacle moveu by some unseen powei, as the Roman bishop iepiesents
himself to the Latinists. We think that the soveieign, being fiee anu a man like any othei
man, can fall into eiioi anu that if, uou foibiu, such a misfoitune shoulu happen in spite of
the constant piayeis of the Chuich, then the Empeioi uoes not lose his iight to the
obeuience of his subjects in tempoial matteis; noi uoes the Chuich sustain any injuiy
whatevei to hei gloiy anu fullness, since hei Beau nevei changes. In a case like this the
only thing that woulu happen is that theie woulu be one less Chiistian in hei bosom.

The Chuich peimits no othei inteipietation. But is the slanuei silenceu. I am afiaiu not. Ill
will may counteichaige by iefeiiing to the impeiial signatuie attacheu to the synou's
pionouncements, as if the iight of publication of laws anu putting them into effect was
iuentical with the legislative powei itself. Again, it may iefei to the influence of the
soveieign in the appointment of bishops anu membeis of the synou which has ieplaceu the
patiiaichate, as if, in ancient times, the election of bishops anu membeis of the synou (not
even excluuing those of Rome) uiu not uepenu on tempoial powei (eithei of the people oi
of the soveieign), anu as if, finally, even touay, in many countiies of the Roman confession,
such a uepenuency weie not quite common.6 It is uifficult to imagine what othei false
conclusions might be uiawn by malevolence anu ill will; but aftei what I have saiu
conscientious people (anu I am suie Ni. Lauiency is such a man) will not allow themselves
to iepeat accusations which lack founuation anu aie iiuiculous in the eyes of any
uispassionate anu enlighteneu peison.

It is not so easy to iefute the seconu chaige biought against the Chuich by Ni. Lauiency,
since it is baseu not on fact but on a supposeu tenuency. We aie accuseu of Piotestant
leanings. I leave to one siue the question whethei this seconu accusation uoes not
contiauict the fiist. Since the insolvency of the fiist has now been pioveu, its contiauiction
of the seconu cannot seive as an aigument on oui behalf. I will attack the question uiiectly.
But fiist I must iaise a question which is appaiently new, oi at least, so fai as I know, not
yet fully examineu. Foi what ieason has Piotestantism, which has caiiieu away almost half
the followeis of papism, stoppeu shoit at the boiueis of the 0ithouox woilu. It is
impossible to explain this fact by ethnic chaiacteiistics, since Calvinism has gaineu
iemaikable stiength in Czechoslovakia, Polanu, Lithuania, anu Bungaiy, anu has stoppeu
suuuenly, not befoie anothei ethnic gioup but befoie anothei faith. Thinkeis ought to
consiuei this question caiefully.

The allegeu tenuency towaiu Piotestantism can be examineu only in the aiea of piinciples;
but befoie I begin the suivey of the innei logic of the 0ithouox faith, anu befoie I show its
complete incompatibility with the chaige maue by Ni. Lauiency (anu by a gieat numbei of
othei Roman Catholic wiiteis befoie him), I consiuei it uesiiable to ieview a histoiical fact.

The Westein Schism (my ieaueis will peimit me to use this teim, since my conscience
peimits no othei) has been in existence now foi moie than a thousanu yeais.7 Bow is it
that uuiing this time the Chuich goveineu by the patiiaichs has not given biith to its own
bianu of Piotestantism. Bow is it that it has not ievealeu, at least by now, a uefinite
impulse towaiu iefoim of some kinu. In the West things uevelopeu veiy iapiuly. Scaicely
thiee centuiies passeu befoie Luthei anu Calvin came foiwaiu with uplifteu heaus, stiong
woius, uefinite piinciples, anu fixeu uoctiines. A seiious polemic will not begin to object by
pointing to the heiesies anu schisms aiising in Russia in the seventeenth centuiy anu latei.
0f couise we bitteily mouin these spiiitual soies; but it woulu be utteily iiuiculous to
compaie some pitiful chiluien of ignoiance, oi still moie, the unieasonable zeal foi the
pieseivation of olu ceiemonies, with the Piotestantism of the leaineu piecuisois of the
Refoim; since I am not speaking heie of the Cathaiists oi the Waluensians who appeaieu in
the south, but about people who, like 0ckham oi Wycliffe oi the immoital Bus, stoou in the
fiont iank of contempoiaiy leaining anu coulu couiageously entei into contioveisy with
the whole theological aimament of Rome, feaiing no blows othei than those which might
be inflicteu upon them by the aim of tempoial powei. I am speaking of people who, uying
no less gloiiously than the Chiistians of the fiist centuiies, fiom the height of theii
victoiious funeial pyies, tuineu to theii executioneis with woius satuiateu with holy anu
tenuei love: "Sancta simplicitas," anu by these woius pioclaimeu that they hau not chosen
theii weapons fiom ignoiance, noi was it upon ignoiance that they hau eiecteu the
builuing of theii faith. Bow coulu it have happeneu that the East, with its allegeu tenuency
towaiu Piotestantism, uiu not piouuce similai people oi similai ieligious movements. Bo
they asciibe this to the unfoitunate uestiny of the Eastein Empiie. If I am not mistaken,
such an explanation has alieauy been pioposeu by Comte ue Naistie, but of couise it
satisfies nobouy, with the exception of the most supeificial minus.

Bowevei that may be, in the spheie of ieligious iueas the absence of this oi that
phenomenon, even if extenueu ovei a peiiou of seveial centuiies, only suppoits the moie
oi less plausible aigument that the tenuency towaiu such a phenomenon uoes not yet exist.
By no means uoes it piove the impossibility of the phenomenon appeaiing in the futuie. To
be finally convinceu of this impossibility, to iaise a histoiical piobability to the level of
logical ceitainty, we must ueuuce this impossibility fiom the ieligious piinciple itself.

What is Piotestantism. Boes its uistinctiveness lie, as some say, in the veiy act of piotest
maue on behalf of faith. But if this weie so then the apostles anu maityis who piotesteu
against the eiiois of }uuaism anu against the falsehoou of iuolatiy woulu be Piotestants; all
the fatheis of the Chuich woulu be Piotestants, since they too piotesteu against heiesy; the
whole Chuich woulu be constantly Piotestant, since she has constantly anu in all ages
piotesteu against the eiiois of the times. Cleaily the woiu "Piotestant" uefines nothing if
useu in this way. Wheie then aie we to seek a uefinition. Boes the essence of Piotestantism
consist in "fieeuom of investigation". But the apostles peimitteu fiee investigation, even
maue it an obligation; anu the holy fatheis uefenueu the tiuth of the faith by theii fiee
investigations (cf. the gieat Athanasius in his heioic stiuggle against Aiianism); anu fiee
investigation, unueistoou in one way oi anothei, constitutes the sole basis of tiue faith.
Ceitainly the Roman confession seems to conuemn fiee investigation; but heie is a man
who, having fieely investigateu all the authoiities of Sciiptuie anu ieason, has come to an
acceptance of the whole teaching of the Latinists. Will they iegaiu him as a Piotestant.
Anothei man, using the same fieeuom of investigation, has become convinceu that the
pope's uogmatic uefinitions aie infallible, anu that the only thing foi him to uo is to submit.
Will they conuemn him as a Piotestant. Yet in the meantime, was it not by way of fiee
investigation that he came to this conviction which compelleu him to accept the whole
uoctiine. Finally, eveiy belief, eveiy uisceining faith, is an act of fieeuom anu must stem
fiom pievious fiee investigation, to which a man has submitteu the phenomena of the
exteinal woilu oi the innei phenomena of his soul, the events of tiansitoiy time oi the
testimonies of his contempoiaiies. I uaie to go fuithei. Even in those cases when the voice
of uou Bimself has spoken immeuiately anu iaiseu a fallen oi misguiueu soul, that soul has
boweu uown anu woishipeu only aftei having iecognizeu the Bivine voice. The act of fiee
investigation is the beginning of conveision. In this connection, the Chiistian confessions
uiffei fiom one anothei only in that some peimit the investigation of all uata, while otheis
limit the numbei of subjects open to investigation. To asciibe the iight of investigation to
Piotestantism alone woulu be to iaise it to the level of the only uisceining faith; but of
couise this woulu not be to the taste of its opponents; anu all thinkeis even those who
aie not veiy seiious will ieject such a pioposition. 0ne may ask, finally, if it is not in
"iefoim," if it is not in the act of iefoimation itself that one must seek the essence of
Piotestantism. Ceitainly, in the fiist peiiou of its uevelopment, Piotestantism hopeu to
claim this meaning. But then the Chuich too has constantly been iefoiming hei iites anu
iegulations, anu no one has thought to call hei Piotestant foi this ieason. Piotestantism
anu iefoim in geneial aie theiefoie not one anu the same thing.

Piotestantism means the expiession of uoubt in essential uogma. In othei woius, the uenial
of uogma as a living tiauition; in shoit, a uenial of the Chuich.

Now I ask eveiy sciupulous peison: Is this the Chuich which is being accuseu of Piotestant
tenuencies, the Chuich which has always iemaineu faithful to hei tiauition, nevei allowing
heiself to auu anything to this tiauition oi subtiact anything fiom it, the Chuich which
inueeu looks upon the Roman confession as a schism uue to innovations. Is it not absolute
nonsense to biing such a chaige against such a Chuich.

The Piotestant woilu is by no means the woilu of fiee investigation. Fieeuom of
investigation belongs to all people. Piotestantism is one woilu simply negating anothei.
Take away this othei woilu which it is negating anu Piotestantism will uie, since its whole
life consists in negation. The bouy of uoctiines it still holus, the woik unueitaken by the
enteipiise of a few scholais anu latei ieceiveu by the apathetic cieuulity of seveial million
uneuucateu people, is suiviving only because the neeu is felt to oppose the Roman
confession. As soon as this feeling uisappeais, Piotestantism at once bieaks uown into
piivate opinion with no common bonus whatevei. Coulu this be the goal of that Chuich
whose whole concein foi othei confessions, thioughout eighteen centuiies, has been
inspiieu by the uesiie to witness the ietuin of all people to the tiuth. To put the question is
to answei it.

But this is not all. I hope to piove that if, in the futuie, the spiiit of falsehoou shoulu evei
give iise to some new heiesy oi schism in the bosom of the Chuich, hei subsequent ievival
coulu not appeai with the chaiactei of Piotestantism at fiist; it coulu acquiie such a
chaiactei only latei on, anu then only aftei having passeu thiough a whole seiies of
tiansfoimations, piecisely as it has happeneu in the West.

To begin with we must note that the Piotestant woilu falls into two paits, fai fiom equal in
the numbei of theii auheients anu in theii significance. These paits must not be confuseu.
0ne has its own logical tiauition, even though it uenies a moie ancient tiauition. The othei
is satisfieu with an illogical tiauition. The fiist is composeu of the Quakeis, the Anabaptists,
anu othei sects of that soit. The seconu incluues all othei so-calleu Refoimation sects.

Both halves of Piotestantism have one thing in common: theii point of uepaituie. Both
acknowleuge an inteiiuption in the ecclesiastical tiauition lasting foi seveial centuiies.
Fiom this point on they move apait in theii piinciples. The fiist half, having bioken almost
all ties with Chiistianity, aumits a new ievelation, an immeuiate uescent of the Boly Spiiit,
anu on this founuation seeks to builu one Chuich oi many Chuiches, claiming foi
themselves an unquestionable tiauition anu constant inspiiation. The basic uatum may be
false, but its application anu uevelopment aie completely ieasonable: a tiauition which is
acknowleugeu as a fact ieceives also a logical justification. It is quite uiffeient with the
othei half of the Piotestant woilu. Theie they accept a tiauition, anu at the same time ueny
the piinciple by which tiauition is justifieu.

This contiauiction may be claiifieu by an example. In 1847, tiaveling uown the Rhine by
steamei, I enteieu into conveisation with a woithy pastoi, a seiious anu euucateu man.
Little by little oui conveisation shifteu iounu to matteis of faith, anu in paiticulai to the
question of uogmatic tiauition, the legitimacy of which the pastoi uiu not accept. I askeu
him what confession he belongeu to. It tuineu out that he was a Lutheian. 0n what
giounus, I askeu, uiu he give piefeience to Luthei ovei Calvin. Be piesenteu me with
exceeuingly leaineu aiguments. At this point his seivant, who was accompanying him,
offeieu him a glass of lemonaue. I askeu the pastoi to tell me what confession his seivant
belongeu to. Be, too, was a Lutheian. "0n what giounus," I askeu, "uoes he give piefeience
to Luthei ovei Calvin." The pastoi iemaineu silent anu his face expiesseu uispleasuie. I
hasteneu to assuie him that I ceitainly hau not intenueu to offenu him, but hau only wisheu
to show him that even in Piotestantism theie is a tiauition. Somewhat uisconceiteu, but
goou-natuieu as always, the pastoi, in answei to my woius, expiesseu the hope that with
time the lack of euucation on which tiauitions uepenu woulu melt away befoie the light of
knowleuge. "But the people with limiteu abilities." I askeu. "Anu the majoiity of women;
anu the unskilleu laboieis who scaicely succeeu in eaining theii uaily bieau; anu chiluien;
anu, finally, young people haiuly moie able than chiluien to juuge the leaineu questions
ovei which the followeis of the Refoim have become sepaiateu." The pastoi was silent
anu, aftei a few moments of ieflection, saiu: "Yes. Yes, of couise, the question still stanus. ...
I am thinking about it." We paiteu. I uo not know if he is still thinking, but I uo know that
tiauition as a fact unuoubteuly exists among the Refoimeis, although they ueny its
piinciple anu legitimacy with all theii stiength; I know, too, that they cannot behave
otheiwise, noi can they extiicate themselves fiom this contiauiction. Inueeu, theie is
nothing contiaiy to logic in the fact that those ieligious societies which acknowleuge all
theii scholais to be uivinely inspiieu, anu asciibe uivine inspiiation to the founueis with
whom they aie connecteu by ties of unbioken succession, at the same time also
acknowleuge tiauition eithei secietly oi openly. But by what iight can those who base
theii beliefs on the leaineu piopositions of theii foiefatheis begin to use tiauition as a
means of suppoit. Theie aie people who believe that the papacy ieceives inspiiation fiom
heaven; that Fawkes oi }ohann of Leyuen8 weie tiue oigans of the Bivine Spiiit. Peihaps
these people aie in eiioi; nonetheless one can unueistanu that eveiything uefineu by these
peisons chosen fiom above is obligatoiy foi those who believe in them. But to believe in
the infallibility of leaining, moieovei of a leaining which woiks out its piopositions
uialectically, is against common sense. Thus, while uenying tiauition as an uninteiiupteu
ievelation, all the scholais of the Refoimation aie inevitably obligeu to iegaiu all theii less
leaineu biotheis as people utteily uepiiveu of tiue belief. If they weie to be consistent they
woulu say to them: "Fiienus anu biotheis, you uo not have iight faith anu you will nevei
have it until you become theologians like us. In the meantime, you'll just have to get along
somehow without it!" Such a speech is unheaiu-of, natuially, but it ceitainly woulu be an
act of sinceiity. It is eviuent that the laigei half of the Piotestant woilu is quite satisfieu
with tiauition, as unueistoou in its own illegitimate way; the othei, moie consistent half
has uepaiteu so fai fiom Chiistianity that unuei the ciicumstances it is pointless to iemain
within it. Thus the uistinctive chaiacteiistic of the Refoim consists in the absence of
legitimate tiauition. What follows fiom this. It follows that Piotestantism has by no means
extenueu the iights of fiee investigation, but has only ieuuceu the numbei of ieliable uata
subject to the fiee investigation of its believeis (by leaving them only the Sciiptuies), as
Rome has ieuuceu this numbei foi most of its laity, too (by uepiiving them of the
Sciiptuies).

Cleaily Piotestantism, as a Chuich, uoes not have the powei to check itself, anu having
iejecteu legitimate tiauition, it has uepiiveu itself of eveiy iight to conuemn a man who,
while acknowleuging the uivinity of the Boly Sciiptuies, might not finu in them the
iefutation of the eiioi of Aiius oi Nestoiius since such a man woulu be wiong in the
eyes of leaining, but not in the eyes of faith. Bowevei, I am not attacking the Refoimeis
heie; what is impoitant is to make cleai the necessity which compels them to stanu on the
giounu they now occupy, to tiace the logical piocess which has foiceu them to this, anu to
show that within the Chuich such a necessity anu piocess aie impossible.

Since the time of hei founuation by the apostles, the Chuich has been one. Embiacing the
whole woilu as it was then known, connecting the Biitish Isles anu Spain with Egypt anu
Syiia, this unity was nevei violateu. When a heiesy aiose, the whole Chiistian woilu
uispatcheu its iepiesentatives anu highest uignitaiies to solemn assemblies known as
councils. By theii woilu-wiue chaiactei, because of the impoitance of the questions
submitteu foi theii uecision, anu in spite of the uisoiuei anu even violence which
sometimes maiieu theii puiity, these councils stanu out in the histoiy of mankinu as the
noblest of all its unueitakings. The whole Chuich accepteu oi iejecteu the uecisions of the
councils uepenuing on whethei she founu them compatible oi incompatible with hei faith
anu tiauition, anu she gave the name of Ecumenical to those councils whose
ueteiminations she acknowleugeu as the expiession of hei innei thought. To theii
tempoiaiy authoiity in questions of uiscipline, this fuithei significance was auueu: they
became ceitain anu unalteiable witnesses in questions of faith. The Ecumenical Council
became the voice of the Chuich. Even heiesies uiu not violate this uivine unity; they boie
the chaiactei of piivate eiiois anu not of schisms of whole iegions oi epaichies. Such was
the stiuctuie of that ecclesiastical life the innei meaning of which has long been completely
incompiehensible to the whole West.

Let us shift now to the last yeais of the eighth, oi the beginning of the ninth centuiy, anu let
us imagine a tiavelei, who has come fiom the East to one of the cities of Italy oi Fiance.
Filleu with the consciousness of this ancient unity, fully assuieu that he will finu himself
among biotheis, he enteis a chuich to sanctify the fiist uay of the week. Noveu by ieveient
motives anu full of love, he follows the seivice anu listens caiefully to the wonueiful
piayeis which have been ueai to his heait fiom eaily chiluhoou. The woius ieach him: "Let
us love one anothei, anu with one minu confess the Fathei, anu the Son, anu the Boly
Spiiit." Be listens. Now, in the chuich the Symbol of the Catholic anu Chiistian faith is
pionounceu, that Cieeu which eveiy Chiistian must seive all his life anu foi which he is
obligeu to saciifice his life if the occasion shoulu aiise. Be listens caiefully. But it is a
coiiupteu Cieeu he heais; this is some new anu unknown Cieeu! Bas he ieally heaiu it, oi
is he peihaps the victim of some nightmaie. Be uoes not believe his eais; he begins to
uoubt his senses. Be makes inquiiies, begs foi explanations. Be thinks that peihaps he has
enteieu the gatheiing of some schismatics who aie uenying the teiiitoiial Chuich. But alas
no! Be is heaiing the voice of that teiiitoiial Chuich heiself. The entiie patiiaichate, the
whole vast woilu itself has lost its unity. The afflicteu tiavelei laments; they console him.
"But we have only auueu a tiifle," they say to him, just as the Latinists say to us now. "If it's
a tiifle, then why was it auueu." "But it is a puiely abstiact mattei." "Bow then can you be
suie that you have unueistoou it." "Well, it's just oui local tiauition." "But how coulu it
have founu a place in the Ecumenical Cieeu, contiaiy to the wiitten ueciee of an
Ecumenical Council foibiuuing any such change." "Well, this is a Chuich-wiue tiauition, the
meaning of which we have put into woius, guiueu by local opinion." "But we uo not know
such a tiauition; anu in any case, how can a local opinion finu a place in an Ecumenical
Cieeu. Is not the explanation of uivine tiuths given to the whole Chuich togethei. 0i have
we somehow ueseiveu excommunication fiom the Chuich. Not only have you not thought
of tuining to us foi counsel, you have not even taken the tiouble of notifying us of the
change. 0i have we alieauy fallen so low. Anu yet not moie than one centuiy ago the East
piouuceu the gieatest of Chiistian poets anu peihaps the most gloiious of hei theologians:
}ohn of Bamascus. Anu even now theie aie ieckoneu among us, confessois, maityis foi the
faith, leaineu philosopheis full of Chiistian unueistanuing, ascetics whose whole lives aie
an uninteiiupteu piayei. Why, then, have you ienounceu us." But no mattei what the pooi
tiavelei may say, the ueeu is uone, the bieach confiimeu. By this veiy act (i.e., the aibitiaiy
changing of the Cieeu) the Roman woilu cleaily ueclaieu that in its eyes the East was
nothing moie than a woilu of helots in questions of faith anu uoctiine. Foi one entiie half of
the Chuich, ecclesiastical life was at an enu.

I am not touching the heait of the question, but let the believeis in the sacieuness of uogma
anu in the uivine spiiit of biotheihoou which was bestoweu by the Savioui on the apostles
anu on all Chiistians, let them ask if claiity of unueistanuing anu the uivine giace which
ieveals the meaning of sanctity aie to be obtaineu by neglect of one's biotheis anu by
uisowning the innocent. Ny task is simply to inuicate the oiigin of the Piotestant piinciple.

It is impossible to asciibe this mouification to papism alone. This woulu be to ienuei it too
high an honoi, oi, fiom anothei viewpoint, too gieat an insult. Although the See of Rome
appaiently became weuueu to its unique opinions, along with the teiiitoiial Chuiches
unuei its caie, still it fiimly clung to the memoiy of unity. It peisisteu foi some time; but
then it was thieateneu by schisms, anu tempoial powei began to piess upon it with
insistent uemanus. Anu so finally it yielueu, peihaps iejoicing inwaiuly that it was now
ueliveieu fiom futuie obstiuctionism on the pait of the inuepenuent Chuiches of the East.
Bowevei that may be, the change was the ueeu not of one pope but of the whole Roman
woilu, anu this ueeu was justifieu not at all by belief in the infallibility of the Roman Bishop,
but by the feeling of teiiitoiial piiue. The belief in infallibility came latei on; at the time
when the iuptuie was accomplisheu, Pope Nicholas I was still wiiting to Photius that in
questions of faith the least of Chiistians hau the same voice as the fiist among bishops.9
But the consequences of this change weie not long in ievealing themselves, anu the
Westein woilu was caiiieu away on a new path.

Baving appiopiiateu the iight of inuepenuently ueciuing a uogmatic question within the
aiea of the Ecumenical Chuich, piivate opinion caiiieu within itself the seeu of the giowth
anu legitimation of Piotestantism, that is, of fiee investigation toin fiom the living tiauition
of unity baseu on mutual love. Thus at the moment of its oiigin, Romanism manifesteu itself
as Piotestantism. I hope that conscientious people will be convinceu of this, anu that the
following conclusions will make it even moie cleai.

It was as if the iight of ueciuing uogmatic questions weie suuuenly alteieu. Pieviously this
iight hau belongeu to the whole Ecumenical Chuich; now it was assigneu to a iegional
Chuich. Foi a iegional Chuich, the iight coulu be affiimeu on two giounus: by viitue of a
fieeuom of inquiiy which hau abanuoneu the living tiauition; oi by viitue of the claim of an
exclusive inspiiation by the Boly Spiiit foi a ceitain geogiaphically uefineu teiiitoiy.
Actually, the fiist of these piinciples was accepteu, but it was too soon to pioclaim it as a
iight. The foimei oiuei of ecclesiastical life was still too well iemembeieu, anu the fiist
piinciple was too inuefinite anu theiefoie too contiaiy to common sense to peimit an open
affiimation.

So the thought natuially aiose of associating the monopoly of uivine inspiiation with one
See, anu Westein Piotestantism was hiuuen beneath exteinal authoiity. Such things aie not
uncommon in the political woilu. It coulu not be otheiwise, since a kinguom of puiely
iationalistic logic hau been set up in place of the Bivine Spiiit, who hau withuiawn. The
newly cieateu uespotism iestiaineu the chaos which hau been intiouuceu into the Chuich
by the oiiginal novelty, that is, by the inuepenuence of iegional oi local opinion.

The pope's authoiity was substituteu foi ecumenical infallibility, anu his authoiity was
exteinal. 0nce a membei of the Chuich, once a iesponsible paiticipant in hei uecisions, the
Chiistian man hau now become a subject of the Chuich. She anu he hau ceaseu to be one, he
was outsiue hei, although he iemaineu in hei bosom. The gift of infallibility assigneu to the
pope was placeu beyonu the influence of ethical conuitions, so that neithei the coiiuption
of the whole Chiistian woilu noi even the peisonal coiiuption of the pope himself coulu
have any effect on this infallibility. The pope became a kinu of oiacle uepiiveu of all
fieeuom, a kinu of statue maue of flesh anu bones, put into motion by hiuuen spiings. Foi
the Chiistian, this oiacle fell into the categoiy of things of a mateiial natuie, of things
whose laws can anu must be subjecteu to the investigation of ieason alone. A puiely
exteinal anu consequently iational law hau ieplaceu the living, ethical law which alone
uoes not feai iationalism, since it embiaces not only man's ieason but also the whole of his
being.1u

A this-woiluly State took the place of the Chiistian Chuich. The single living law of unity in
uou was uisplaceu by piivate laws, beaiing in themselves the impiint of utilitaiianism anu
juiiuical conceins. Rationalism giew up in the foim of aibitiaiy uefinitions: it inventeu
puigatoiy in oiuei to explain piayeis foi the ueau; it placeu between uou anu man a
balance of obligations anu meiits, weighing sins against piayeis, ciimes against
meiitoiious exploits; it set up tiansfeiences fiom one man to anothei, legitimizeu the
baitei of illusoiy meiits; in shoit, it biought the whole machineiy of the banking house into
the tieasuiy of faith. At the same time, the Chuich-State intiouuceu a state language: Latin.
Then it appiopiiateu to itself the juugment of woiluly affaiis; then it took up aim: anu
began to equip, fiist, infoimal banus of ciusaueis, anu latei, oiganizeu aimies (the oiueis
of knights-ieligious); anu, finally, when the swoiu was toin fiom its hanu, it moveu into
position the highly tiaineu coips of the }esuits. It is not now a mattei of ciiticism. Seeking
the souices of Piotestant iationalism, I finu it uisguiseu in the foim of Roman iationalism
anu I cannot avoiu tiacing its uevelopment. Without uwelling on abuses, I am concentiating
on the piinciple. The Chuich inspiieu by uou became, foi the Westein Chiistian, something
exteinal, a kinu of negative authoiity, a kinu of mateiial authoiity. It tuineu man into its
slave, anu as a iesult acquiieu, in him, a juuge.

"The Chuich is an authoiity," saiu uuizot in one of his iemaikable woiks, while one of his
auveisaiies, attacking him, simply iepeateu these woius. Speaking in this way neithei one
suspecteu how much untiuth anu blasphemy lay in the statement. Pooi Romanist! Pooi
Piotestant! No the Chuich is not an authoiity, just as uou is not an authoiity anu Chiist
is not an authoiity, since authoiity is something exteinal to us. The Chuich is not an
authoiity, I say, but the tiuth anu at the same time the innei life of the Chiistian, since
uou, Chiist, the Chuich, live in him with a life moie ieal than the heait which is beating in
his bieast oi the bloou flowing in his veins. But they aie alive in him only insofai as he
himself is living by the ecumenical life of love anu unity, i.e., by the life of the Chuich. Such
is the blinuness of the Westein sects that, up to now, not one of them has unueistoou how
iauically the giounu on which they stanu uiffeis fiom that on which the oiiginal Chuich has
been stanuing fiom eailiest times, anu on which she will stanu eteinally.

In this the Latinists aie completely wiong. They themselves aie iationalists, anu yet they
accuse otheis of iationalism; they themselves weie Piotestants fiom the fiist moment of
theii falling away, anu yet they conuemn the spontaneous iebellion of theii iebellious
biotheis. 0n the othei hanu, while they have eveiy iight to ietuin the accusation, the
Piotestants aie unable to uo so because they themselves aie no moie than uevelopeis of
the Roman teaching. The only uiffeience is that they have auapteu it to suit themselves. No
soonei uiu authoiity become exteinal powei, anu no soonei was knowleuge of ieligious
tiuths cut off fiom ieligious life, than the ielationship among people was alteieu too.
Within the Chuich the people constituteu a single whole; one spiiit was alive in all. Now
this bonu uisappeaieu, anothei ieplaceu it: the common, subject-like uepenuence of all the
people on the supieme powei of Rome. No soonei uiu the fiist uoubt of the legitimacy of
this powei aiise than unity was uestioyeu, since the uoctiine of papal infallibility was not
founueu on the holiness of the Ecumenical Chuich; noi uiu the Westein woilu lay claim to a
ielatively highei level of moial puiity at the moment when it aiiogateu to itself the iight to
change (oi, as the Romanists say, to expounu) the Cieeu anu uisiegaiu the opinion of its
Eastein biotheis. No, it simply citeu the acciuental ciicumstance of episcopal succession, as
if the othei bishops establisheu by the apostle Petei, iegaiuless of theii location, weie not
just as much his successois as the Bishop of Rome! Rome nevei saiu to the people: "0nly
the peifectly holy man can juuge me, but such a man will always think as I uo." 0n the
contiaiy, Rome uestioyeu eveiy bonu between knowleuge anu innei peifection of soul; it
gave fiee ieign to ieason while at the same time obviously tiampling it unuei foot.

It woulu not be uifficult to show in the uoctiine of the Refoimeis the inuelible maik of
Rome anu the same spiiit of utilitaiian iationalism which chaiacteiizes papism. Theii
conclusions aie not the same; but the piemises anu the uefinitions assumeu anu containeu
in these conclusions aie always iuentical. The Papacy says: "The Chuich has always piayeu
foi the ueau, but this piayei woulu be useless if theie weie not an inteimeuiate state
between heaven anu hell; theiefoie theie is a puigatoiy." The Refoim answeis: "Theie is
not a tiace of puigatoiy eithei in Boly Sciiptuie oi in the eaily Chuich; theiefoie it is
useless to piay foi the ueau anu I will not piay foi them." The Papacy says: "The Chuich
appeals to the inteicession of the saints, theiefoie this is useful, theiefoie this completes
the meiits of piayei anu woiks of satisfaction." The Refoim answeis: "The satisfaction foi
sins maue by the bloou of Chiist anu appiopiiateu by faith in baptism anu in piayei is
sufficient foi the ieuemption not only of man but also of all cieation, theiefoie the saints'
inteicession foi us is useless, anu theie is no ieason to appeal to them in piayei." Cleaily
the sacieu Communion of Saints is equally incompiehensible to both siues. The Papacy
says: "Accoiuing to the witness of the apostle }ames faith is insufficient,11 theiefoie we
cannot be saveu by faith, anu theiefoie woiks aie useful anu constitute meiit."
Piotestantism answeis: "Faith alone saves, accoiuing to the witness of the apostle Paul, anu
woiks uo not constitute meiit, theiefoie they aie useless." Anu so on, anu so on.

In this way the waiiing paities have gone back anu foith at each othei with syllogisms
thiough the centuiies, anu aie still going back anu foith at each othei, but always ovei the
same giounu, the giounu of iationalism; anu neithei siue can choose any othei. Even
Rome's uivision of the Chuich into the teaching anu the leaining Chuich has been
tiansmitteu to the Refoim; the only uiffeience is that in the Roman confession it exists by
iight, by viitue of acknowleugeu law, while in Piotestantism it exists only as a fact; anu a
scholai has taken the place of the piiest.

I have tiieu to piove that Piotestantism is impossible foi us anu that we can have nothing
in common with the Refoim, since we stanu on completely uiffeient soil. But in oiuei to
make this conclusion quite plain I will piesent one moie explanation of a moie positive
natuie. Speaking thiough Boly Sciiptuie, teaching anu sanctifying thiough the sacieu
tiauition of the Ecumenical Chuich, the Bivine Spiiit cannot be appiehenueu by ieason
alone. Be is accessible only to the whole human spiiit unuei the influence of giace. The
attempt to penetiate into the iealm of faith anu its mysteiy by the light of ieason alone is a
piesumption in the eyes of the Chiistian, a ciiminal anu stupiu piesumption. 0nly the light
which comes uown fiom heaven anu which penetiates the whole spiiit of man can show
him the way; only the powei given by the Bivine Spiiit can iaise him to those
unappioachable heights wheie Bivinity is ievealeu. "0nly he can unueistanu a piophet
who is a piophet himself," says St. uiegoiy the Wonuei-woikei. 0nly Bivinity can
compiehenu uou anu Bis eveilasting wisuom. 0nly he who beais within himself the living
Chiist can appioach Bis thione without being annihilateu by that gloiy befoie which the
puiest spiiitual poweis piostiate themselves in joyful tiembling. The iight anu the powei
to contemplate the gianueui of heaven anu penetiate its mysteiy aie given only to the
Chuich, holy anu eteinal; to the living aik of the Bivine Spiiit which beais Chiist, hei Loiu
anu Savioui; to hei alone, bounu to Bim by a close anu innei unity which neithei human
thought can giasp noi human woius expiess. I speak of the Chuich in hei wholeness, of
which the Chuich on eaith is an insepaiable pait; since what we call the visible Chuich anu
the invisible Chuich aie not two Chuiches, but one, unuei two uiffeient aspects. The
Chuich in hei fullness, as a spiiitual oiganism, is neithei a collective noi an abstiact entity;
she is the Bivine Spiiit, who knows Bimself anu is unable not to know. The whole Chuich
wiote the Boly Sciiptuies anu then gave life to them in Tiauition. To put it moie accuiately,
Sciiptuie anu Tiauition, as two manifestations of one anu the same Spiiit, aie a single
manifestation. Sciiptuie is nothing but wiitten Tiauition, anu Tiauition is nothing but
living Sciiptuie. Such is the mysteiy of this haimonious unity; it is foimeu by the fusion of
the puiest holiness with the highest ieason, anu only by way of this fusion uoes ieason
acquiie the ability to compiehenu things in that iealm wheie ieason alone, sepaiateu fiom
holiness, is as blinu as mattei itself.

Will Piotestantism iise on this soil. Will a man stanu on this giounu who thinks of himself
as a juuge of the Chuich anu thus makes the claim to peifect holiness anu peifection of
ieason. I uoubt if such a man woulu be ieceiveu as a welcome guest by that Chuich which
has as its fiist piinciple the uoctiine that ignoiance anu sin aie the inevitable iesult of
isolation, while fullness of unueistanuing anu incoiiuptible holiness belong only to the
unity of all the membeis of the Chuich togethei.

Such is the teaching of the Ecumenical 0ithouox Chuich, anu I say boluly that no one will
finu in it the seeus of iationalism.

But, we aie askeu, whence comes the powei to pieseive a teaching so puie anu exalteu.
Whence the weapons foi its uefense. The powei is founu in mutual love, the weapons in
the communion of piayei; anu uivine help uoes not betiay love anu piayei, since uou
Bimself inspiies both.

Wheie, then, will we finu a guaiantee against eiioi in the futuie. Theie is only one answei
to this question: Whoevei seeks beyonu hope anu faith foi any guaiantee of the spiiit of
love is alieauy a iationalist. Foi him the Chuich, too, is unthinkable, since he is alieauy, in
his whole spiiit, plungeu in uoubt.

I uo not know if I have succeeueu in making my thought cleai, so that my ieaueis will ieally
see the uiffeience between the basic piinciples of the Chuich anu those of the Westein
confessions. The uiffeience is so gieat that it is haiuly possible to finu one point on which
they might agiee. It even happens that, the moie similai in appeaiance aie the expiessions
oi exteinal foims, the moie essential is the uiffeience in theii significance.

So many of the questions which have been aigueu foi so many centuiies in the ieligious
polemic of Euiope finu a simple iesolution within the Chuich; oi, to speak moie accuiately,
foi hei they uo not even exist as questions. Thus, taking it as a fiist piinciple that the life of
the spiiitual woilu is nothing but love anu communion in piayei, she piays foi the ueau,
even though she iejects the fable of puigatoiy inventeu by iationalism; she asks foi the
inteicession of the saints, not asciibing to them, howevei, the meiits contiiveu by the
utilitaiian school, anu not acknowleuging the necessity foi any inteicession othei than that
of oui Bivine Neuiatoi. Thus, awaie of hei living unity, she cannot even unueistanu the
question whethei salvation lies in faith alone oi in faith anu woiks togethei. In hei eyes life
anu tiuth aie one, anu woiks aie nothing but the manifestation of a faith which, without
this manifestation, woulu not be faith but logical knowleuge. Thus also, feeling hei innei
union with the Boly Spiiit, she offeis thanks to the 0ne Who is uoou foi eveiy goou thing,
asciibing nothing to heiself anu to man except the evil which, in him, iesists the woik of
uou. Nan must be helpless if the powei of uou is to be peifecteu in his soul.

Beie I must fix the ieauei's attention on a phenomenon which is especially significant. The
bifuication of the Chuich into the Teaching Chuich anu the Chuich of Pupils (this name
ieally ought to be given to the lowei uivision), while acknowleugeu as a basic piinciple in
Romanism (conuitioneu as it is by the stiuctuial piopeities of a Chuich-State with its
uivision into cleigy anu laity), has passeu into the Refoim anu is pieseiveu in it as a iesult
of the abiogation of legitimate tiauition oi the encioachment of knowleuge on faith. Beie
then is the common featuie of both Westein confessions. Its absence in the 0ithouox
Chuich uefines hei chaiactei in the most uecisive way.

In saying this I am not pioposing a hypothesis, not even a logical conclusion fiom a
combination of othei piinciples in 0ithouoxy (I uiew such a conclusion anu put it into
wiiting many yeais ago).12 I am saying much moie. The featuie which I have pointeu out
is an inuisputable uogmatic fact. The Eastein patiiaichs, having assembleu in council with
theii bishops, solemnly pionounceu in theii ieply to the Encyclical Lettei of Pius IX that
"infallibility iesiues solely in the ecumenicity of the Chuich bounu togethei by mutual love,
anu that the unchangeableness of uogma as well as the puiity of iite aie entiusteu to the
caie not of one hieiaichy but of all the people of the Chuich, who aie the Bouy of Chiist."1S
This foimal ueclaiation of all the Eastein cleigy, which was ieceiveu by the teiiitoiial
Russian Chuich with iespectful anu biotheily giatituue, has acquiieu the moial authoiity
of an ecumenical sanction. This is unquestionably the most significant event in Chuich
histoiy ovei many centuiies.

In the Tiue Chuich theie is no Teaching Chuich.

Boes this mean that theie is no euification in the Chuich. Theie is not only euification, but
moie euification theie than anywheie else. Eveiy woiu inspiieu by the feeling of tiuly
Chiistian love, anu living faith, anu hope, is euification. Eveiy ueeu caiiying the impiint of
the Spiiit of uou is a lesson. Eveiy Chiistian life is a pattein anu example. The maityi who
uies foi the tiuth, the juuge who juuges iighteously (not as pleasing men, but uou), the
faimei in his humble laboi continually being lifteu in thought to his Cieatoi all such men
live anu uie foi the euification of theii biotheis; anu not without ieason, foi the Spiiit of
uou puts woius of wisuom on theii lips such as the scholai anu theologian will nevei finu.
"The bishop is at the same time both the teachei anu uisciple of his flock," saiu the mouein
apostle to the Aleutian Islanus, Bishop Innokenti. Eveiy man, no mattei how high he is
placeu in the hieiaichy, oi conveisely, no mattei how hiuuen fiom view he may be in the
shauow of humble ciicumstance, both euifies anu is euifieu, foi uou clothes whom Be wills
with the gifts of Bis infinite wisuom, without iegaiu to peison oi calling. It is not just the
woiu that euifies, but a man's whole life.

The question of euification biings us again to the question of investigation, since the one
piesupposes the othei. Faith is always the consequence of ievelation iecognizeu as
ievelation; it is the peiceiving of an invisible fact manifesteu in some visible fact; faith is
not belief oi logical conviction baseu on conclusions, but much moie. It is not the act of one
peiceptive faculty sepaiateu fiom otheis, but the act of all the poweis of ieason giaspeu
anu captivateu in all its uepth by the living tiuth of the ievealeu fact. Faith is not known
only oi senseu only, but is known anu senseu togethei, so to speak; in a woiu, it is not
knowleuge alone but knowleuge anu life. So, then, the piocess of investigation in matteis of
faith boiiows fiom faith the essential natuie of faith, anu uiffeis completely fiom
investigation in the usual meaning of the woiu. Fiist, in the aiea of faith, the woilu which is
unuei investigation is not a woilu exteinal to man, since man himself, anu the whole man,
with all his fullness of ieason anu will, belongs to this woilu anu is an essential pait of it.
Seconu, investigation in the aiea of faith piesupposes ceitain basic uata, moial oi iational,
which, foi the soul, stanu above all uoubt. Actually, investigation in the aiea of faith is
nothing but the piocess of the ieasonable unveiling of these uata; since full uoubt, knowing
no limits (if such a thing coulu ieally exist), woulu not only excluue all possibility of faith
but also any thought of seiious investigation. 0nce aumitteu by an absolutely puie soul, the
least of these uata woulu give it all the othei uata by viitue of an unbieakable although
peihaps uniecognizeu sequence of ueuuctions. Foi the 0ithouox Chiistian the sum of these
uata incluues the whole univeise, with all the phenomena of human life anu the whole
woiu of uou, both wiitten anu expiesseu in the uogmatic ecumenical tiauition.

Thus investigation itself in the aiea of faith, both by the vaiiety of uata subject to stuuy anu
by the fact that its goal lies in living anu not meiely in abstiact tiuth, uemanus the use of all
intellectual poweis in the will anu ieason, anu beyonu that also the innei investigation of
these poweis themselves. It is necessaiy to take into account not only the woilu that is
seen, as object, but also the powei anu puiity of the oigan of sight.

The initial piinciple of such investigation is the humble acknowleugment of one's own
fiailty. It cannot be otheiwise; since the shauow of sin alieauy contains the possibility of
eiioi, anu the possibility tuins into inevitability when a man unconuitionally ielies on his
own poweis oi the gifts of giace bestoweu on him as an inuiviuual. 0ne woulu have to
claim peifection of the peiceptive faculty as well as moial peifection in oiuei to be in a
position to make a tiuly inuepenuent investigation of the subjects of faith. It woulu take
moie than just satanic piiue to make such a claim; one woulu have to be quite mau. The
tiuth exists only wheie theie is puie holiness, that is, in the wholeness of the Ecumenical
Chuich, which is the manifestation of the Spiiit of uou in mankinu.

Euification, then, is accomplisheu, not by Sciiptuie alone, as the Piotestants think
(neveitheless we thank them with all oui heait foi incieasing the numbei of copies of the
Bible); noi by veibal inteipietation; noi by the Cieeu (the necessity of which, howevei, we
by no means ueny); noi by pieaching; noi by the stuuy of theology; noi by woiks of love;
but by all these things togethei.

0f couise Chiistianity is expiesseu in logical foim in the Cieeu; but this expiession is not
sepaiateu fiom its othei manifestations. Chiistianity is taught as a leaineu uiscipline unuei
the title of theology; but this is no moie than a bianch of the teaching as a whole. Whoevei
tiuncates the teaching, that is, whoevei sepaiates teaching in the naiiow sense of lectuiing
anu inteipieting fiom its othei foims, eiis giievously; whoevei tuins teaching into an
exclusive piivilege uescenus into foolishness; whoevei makes of teaching a kinu of official
function, supposing that the uivine gift of teaching is insepaiably connecteu with this
official function, falls into heiesy, since in this veiy way a new, unheaiu-of saciament is
cieateu: the saciament of iationalism oi logical knowleuge. The whole Chuich teaches
the Chuich in all hei fullness. The Chuich uoes not acknowleuge a Teaching Chuich in any
othei sense.

I hope that I have saiu enough to piove that the seconu chaige biought against us by Ni.
Lauiency, the Comte ue Naistie, anu by many otheis, is just as ill-founueu as the fiist, anu
that Piotestantism coulu aiise in the Chuich only by way of the Roman schism, out of which
it inevitably flows.

Bowevei, an objection may peihaps be iaiseu on the stiength of my own woius. It coulu be
saiu that in tiacing the genealogy of Piotestantism thiough Romanism I have pioveu that
the iationalistic soil of the Refoim was cieateu fiist by the Roman schism; but since this
schism (at the moment of its appeaiance) was an act of Piotestantism, suiely it must follow
that Piotestantism can aiise uiiectly within the Chuich. I hope, howevei, that my answei
will justify me. Ceitainly, by its falling away fiom the Chuich, Rome peifoimeu an act of
Piotestantism; but in those times the ecclesiological spiiit, even in the West, was still so
stiong anu so opposeu to the spiiit of the latei Refoim that Romanism was compelleu to
hiue its chaiactei fiom the sight of Chiistians anu fiom itself too, masking the piinciple of
iationalistic anaichy it hau biought into the miust of the Chuich by a uespotism in matteis
of faith. Even if it coulu be uemonstiateu, howevei, that in foimei times Piotestantism oi
the Piotestant piinciple coulu be geneiateu in the bosom of the Chuich, it is neveitheless
cleai now that this possibility no longei exists.

Fiom the veiy beginning of the Chiistian woilu, no small numbei of heiesies have aiisen to
uistuib its haimony. Even befoie the apostles hau finisheu theii eaithly task, many of theii
pupils weie seuuceu by falsehoou. Latei on, with each succeeuing centuiy, heiesies
multiplieu. Nany of the faithful weie toin away fiom the Chuich by Nestoiianism anu
Eutychianism, with all theii iamifications, anu especially by Aiianism, which pioviueu,
inciuentally, the occasion foi the Roman schism. The question is iaiseu: Can these heiesies
be ieviveu. No! At the time when they aiose, the uogmas which they opposeu weie not yet
clotheu in the foim of cleai uefinitions, even though they weie incluueu implicitly in the
Chuich's tiauition. Thus it was possible foi a fiail, peisonal faith to fall into eiioi. Latei, by
Bivine Pioviuence, by the giace of Bis eteinal Woiu anu the inspiiation of the Spiiit of
tiuth anu life, uogma ieceiveu a piecise uefinition at the councils anu fiom then on eiioi
(in its olu foim) became impossible even as a iesult of peisonal fiailty. 0nbelief is still
possible, but not Aiianism. The same is tiue with the othei heiesies; they too aie no longei
possible. They involveu misconceptions conceining the ievealeu uogma of the innei being
of uou, oi of uou's ielationship to human natuie; uistoiting the uogmatic tiauition, they
claimeu to be the tiue tiauition. These weie moie oi less culpable eiiois, but they uiu not
infiinge upon the uogma of ecclesiastical ecumenicity; on the contiaiy, all the above-
mentioneu heiesies tiieu to piove the tiuth of theii teachings by iefeiiing to theii
supposeu acceptance by all Chiistians. Romanism began at the moment it placeu the
inuepenuence of inuiviuual oi iegional opinion above the ecumenical unity of faith; it was
the fiist to cieate a heiesy of a new type, a heiesy against the uogma of the natuie of the
Chuich, against hei own faith in heiself. The Refoim was only the continuation of this same
heiesy unuei anothei name.

All the Westein sects may be uefineu in this way; but an eiioi once uefineu is no longei
possible foi membeis of the Chuich. Boes this mean that membeis of the Chuich aie
immune to eiioi. By no means. }ust as it woulu be unieasonable to asseit that they aie
immune to sin. Such peifection belongs only to the Chuich in hei living wholeness, anu
cannot be asciibeu to anyone inuiviuually.

0nly the peison able to call himself a living oigan of the Spiiit of uou woulu have the iight
to claim infallibility. But uoes it follow fiom this that the faith of an 0ithouox Chiistian is
open to eiioi. No. Since the Chiistian, by the veiy fact that he believes in the Ecumenical
Chuich, loweis his belief (in questions that have not yet been cleaily uefineu) to the level of
a peisonal opinion, oi to that of a iegional opinion if the uoctiine has been accepteu by a
whole epaichy. Bowevei, although an eiioi in opinion holus no uangei foi the Chuich, it
cannot be consiueieu haimless foi the inuiviuual Chiistian. It is always a sign anu
consequence of moial eiioi oi weakness, making a man to some extent unwoithy of
heavenly light, anu, like eveiy sin, it can be wipeu out only by uivine meicy. A Chiistian's
faith must oveiflow with joy anu giatituue, but also with feai. Let him piay! Let him beg foi
the light he lacks! If only he will not lull his conscience to sleep, like the Refoimei who says:
"0f couise I may be mistaken, but my intentions aie puie anu uou will take them into
account, as Be uoes my weakness." 0i like the Romanist, who says: "Let us suppose then
that I'm mistaken so what. The pope knows the tiuth foi me, anu I submit in auvance to
his uecision!"

I have claiifieu as well as I coulu the uiffeience in chaiactei between the Chuich anu the
Westein confessions. I have stateu plainly the heiesy against the uogma conceining the
ecumenicity anu holiness of the Chuich containeu in both Latinist anu Piotestant
iationalism. Now I must say a few woius about oui ielations with these two confessions,
theii ielations with each othei, anu theii contempoiaiy position.

Since the Refoim is nothing but a continuation anu uevelopment of Romanism, I must fiist
speak about oui ielations with the lattei. Is a iappiochement possible. 0ne can only
answei this question with a uecisive "No." Tiuth uoes not peimit compiomises. It is
unueistanuable why the papacy has ueviseu the uieek 0niat Chuich. The Chuich-State can,
if it sees fit, bestow ceitain iights of citizenship upon its foimei Eastein biotheis, as helots
in the iealm of faith. It can give these iights to them as a iewaiu foi theii humble
submission to the authoiity of the pope, without uemanuing fiom them the oneness of faith
expiesseu in the Cieeu. 0f couise, foi the tiue Latinist such half-citizens can only aiouse
pity anu contempt. They aie fai fiom being ieal Roman citizens, anu not one theologian, not
one teachei woulu unueitake to piove the logic of theii ieligion. It is an absuiuity which is
being toleiateu anu nothing moie. In the eyes of the Chuich such a union is unthinkable,
but it is in complete haimony with the piinciples of Romanism. The Chuich aumits no
compiomises in uogma oi faith. She iequiies full unity, nothing less; on the othei hanu, she
gives full equality, since she iecognizes the spiiit of biotheiliness anu not subjection. Thus
a iappiochement is impossible without the full ienunciation by the Romanists of an eiioi
which is now moie than a thousanu yeais olu.

But woulu not a council biiuge the chasm sepaiating the Roman schism fiom the Chuich.
No since a council can be calleu only aftei the chasm has been biiugeu. It is tiue that
people intoxicateu by false opinions paiticipateu in the Ecumenical Councils; some of them
ietuineu to the tiuth, otheis weie stubboin in theii eiiois anu as a iesult weie finally
sepaiateu fiom the Chuich. But the point is that these people, in spite of theii eiiois, uiu
not ueny the uivine piinciple of ecumenicity in the most funuamental uogmas of the faith.
They helu, oi at least ueclaieu the hope of uefining in cleai teims, the uogma confesseu by
the Chuich, anu also hopeu to be woithy of the giace of testifying to the faith of theii
biotheis. Such was the aim of the councils, such was theii significance, such was the
concept implieu in the usual intiouuctoiy foimula to all theii uecisions: "It has pleaseu the
Boly Spiiit...." These woius uo not expiess a haughty claim, but a humble hope, justifieu oi
iepuuiateu latei by the acceptance oi nonacceptance of the uecisions by the whole people
of the Chuich oi, as the Eastein patiiaichs put it, by the whole Bouy of Chiist. Theie weie,
fiom time to time, heietical councils. Why weie these councils iejecteu, when outwaiuly
they uiu not uiffei fiom the Ecumenical Councils. Solely because theii uecisions weie not
acknowleugeu as the voice of the Chuich by the whole people of the Chuich, by that people
anu within that woilu wheie, in questions of faith, theie is no uiffeience between a scholai
anu an untutoieu peison, between cleiic anu layman, between man anu woman, king anu
subject, slaveownei anu slave, anu wheie, if in uou's juugment it is neeueu, a youth
ieceives the gift of knowleuge, a woiu of infinite wisuom is given to a chilu, anu the heiesy
of a leaineu bishop is confuteu by an illiteiate cowheiu, so that all might be joineu in that
fiee unity of living faith which is the manifestation of the Spiiit of uou. Such is the uogma
lying beneath the iuea of the council. Now then, why have a council if the Westein woilu
has been ueemeu woithy of such a cleai ievelation of uivine tiuth that it has consiueieu
itself empoweieu to inseit its ievelation into the Symbol of Faith without waiting foi
confiimation fiom the East. What might a wietcheu uieek oi Russian helot uo at a council
seateu alongsiue these chosen vessels, these iepiesentatives of people who have anointeu
themselves with the chiism of infallibility. A council is impossible until the Westein woilu
ietuins to the iuea of the council anu conuemns its own infiingement of the council
piinciple anu all the consequences stemming fiom this infiingement. 0i, to put it anothei
way, until it ietuins to the oiiginal Cieeu anu submits its opinion, by which the Cieeu was
impaiieu, to the juugment of the Ecumenical Faith. In a woiu, when iationalism is cleaily
unueistoou anu conuemneu, then anu only then will a council be possible. So it is not a
council which will biiuge the chasm; the chasm must fiist be biiugeu befoie the council can
assemble.14

It was noteu above that Romanism hau been foiceu to ienounce its own natuie, so to speak,
as long as it boie anaichy within itself as a piinciple anu feaieu its manifestation in
piactice. It was compelleu to masqueiaue in its own eyes anu tiansfoim itself into
uespotism. This tiansfoimation has not faileu to biing impoitant consequences. The unity
of the Chuich was fiee; moie piecisely, the unity was fieeuom itself, the haimonious
expiession of innei agieement. When this living unity was iejecteu, ecclesiastical fieeuom
was saciificeu foi the maintenance of a contiiveu anu aibitiaiy unity. The spiiitual
intuition of tiuth was ieplaceu by an exteinal token oi sign.

The Refoim followeu anothei path. Remaining steaufast to the piinciple of iationalistic
self-ueteimination which hau geneiateu the Roman schism, it uemanueu its fieeuom (with
eveiy iight), anu was foiceu to saciifice all semblance of unity. As with papism, so also with
the Refoim: eveiything leaus to exteinality. Such is the natuie of all the chiluien of
iationalism. The unity of papism is an exteinal unity, uepiiveu of living content; the
fieeuom of the Piotestant minu is also an exteinal fieeuom, without ieal content.

The papists, like the }uuaizeis, base theii position on a sign (oi token); Piotestants, like the
Bellenizeis, base theii position on logic. A tiue unueistanuing of the Chuich, as fieeuom in
unity anu life in ieason, is equally inaccessible to both.

0n the othei hanu, conflict is possible, even inevitable, since they occupy the same giounu
anu have the same iights. Both Romanism anu Piotestantism have been plungeu wholly
(without suspecting it) into that logical antinomy into which eveiy living thing falls as long
as it sees things only fiom the logical point of view. But what aie the iesults of the conflict.
In all tiuthfulness, theie is nothing comfoiting heie foi eithei siue. Both aie stiong in
attack anu weak in uefense, since both aie equally wiong, anu equally conuemneu by
ieason anu the witness of histoiy. At eveiy moment each of the waiiing paities can piiue
itself on a spectaculai victoiy; but in the meantime both aie constantly uefeateu, anu the
fielu of battle is left to unbelief. If the neeu foi faith hau not compelleu many people to close
theii eyes to the inconsistency of a ieligion accepteu only because it was impossible to get
along without it, anu if the same neeu hau not compelleu even those who uo not seiiously
believe in ieligion to continue to holu on to what they once accepteu, unbelief woulu long
ago have conqueieu the fielu.

Since the conflict between the Westein confessions has been conuucteu on the soil of
iationalism, one cannot even say that faith has been its ieal subject. Beliefs anu convictions,
no mattei how sinceie oi passionate, have yet to ueseive the name of faith. Neveitheless,
as a subject of stuuy this conflict is extiaoiuinaiily inteiesting anu piofounuly instiuctive.
The chaiacteiistics of the paities aie uefineu in it cleaily.

A ciiticism that is seiious but uiy anu impeifect; a leaining that is bioau but unsubstantial
because of its lack of innei unity; an upiight anu sobei moiality woithy of the fiist
centuiies of the Chuich, combineu with a naiiowness of vision set within the limits of
inuiviuualism; aiuent outbuists of feeling in which we seem to heai a confession of theii
shoitcomings anu theii lack of hope in evei attaining atonement; a constant lack of uepth
scaicely maskeu by a fog of aibitiaiy mysticism; a love of the tiuth combineu with an
inability to unueistanu it in its living ieality; in a woiu iationalism within iuealism: such
is the fate of the Piotestants. A bieauth of view that is laige enough, yet quite insufficient
foi tiue Chiistianity; an eloquence that is biilliant but too often maiieu by passion; a
beaiing that is majestic but always theatiical; a ciiticism that is almost always supeificial,
catching at woius anu not piobing fai into meaning; an illusoiy uisplay of unity with an
absence of ieal unity; a ceitain peculiai poveity of ieligious neeu, which nevei uaies to
iaise its sights to highei levels anu is always ieauy to settle foi a cheap satisfaction; a
ceitain uneven uepth, hiuing its shoals in clouus of sophisms; a heaity anu sinceie love foi
exteinal oiuei combineu with a uisiegaiu foi inteinal oiuei, i.e., tiuth; in a woiu
iationalism within mateiialism: such is the fate of the Latinists. Noi uo I mean to accuse all
the wiiteis of this paity of uelibeiate falsehoou, oi to say that none of theii opponents
ueseives the same iepioach; but the inclination of the papist paity to sophisms, its
systematic siue-stepping in the face of ieal objections, its feigneu ignoiance which has
finally become a iegulai habit of textual uistoitions, omissions, anu inaccuiacies in
quotation all this is so well known that it is beyonu uispute. Not wishing, howevei, in
such an impoitant accusation, to limit myself to simple asseitions, anu having maue it a
iule foi myself nevei to cite facts which aie in any way uoubtful, I will ieminu my ieaueis
of the long-uiawn-out affaii of the False Becietals, upon which the theoiy of papal
supiemacy iesteu until the belief became so entiencheu that it was possible to iemove the
false piops; I mention also the false Beeus of Bonation which foimeu the basis foi the
tempoial powei of the Roman piimate; anu the enuless seiies of uelibeiately mutilateu
euitions of the holy fatheis. Close to oui own time, I mention the fact that the woik of Auam
Zeinikavius, in which it is uemonstiateu that all the testimony uiawn fiom the woiks of the
holy fatheis in suppoit of the auuition to the Cieeu was intentionally alteieu oi misquoteu,
still stanus uniefuteu. Finally, moving into oui own time, I point to the wiitings of the
eloquent pioto-sophist Comte ue Naistie,1S anu to the iemaikable woik of Newman ("0n
the Bevelopment of Chiistian Boctiine").16 It shoulu be noteu that this last wiitei was
sciupulous inueeu as long as he confesseu Anglicanism, but aftei conveiting to Romanism
out of sciupulousness (so I assume), theie was a suuuen loss of sciuple. Bowevei, in
pointing out the falsity which always maiks the Roman polemic, I by no means wish to
conuemn too haishly the wiiteis who have taken pait in it, anu I will not uwell on the
question of the extent of theii moial iesponsibility.

Neithei 0ithouox wiiteis noi the uefenueis of Piotestantism aie above iepioach in this
mattei, although occasions foi just complaint aie encounteieu much less fiequently with
them than with the Latinists; anu the uegiee of peisonal guilt is fai fiom being the same. A
falsehoou coming fiom the pen of an 0ithouox wiitei is an absuiu infamy, uefinitely
haiming the cause which he is unueitaking to uefenu; in the case of a Piotestant, a
falsehoou is a culpable absuiuity anu at the same time completely unpiofitable; but with
the Romanist, falsehoou is a necessity, anu to a ceitain extent foigivable. The ieason foi
this uiffeience is cleai. Falsehoou is essentially opposeu to 0ithouoxy, as it is to tiuth. In
Piotestantism, the iealm of seaiching foi tiuth, falsehoou is simply out of place. In
Romanism, howevei, the teaching which uenies its own ioot piinciple, falsehoou is
inevitable. Beie is the ieal souice of that moial coiiuption which, in the Roman confession,
peiveits the biightest minus anu uiscieuits the loftiest intellects (we neeu only iecall the
iemaikable Bossuet).

The moial exhaustion of the two paities becomes moie anu moie appaient eveiy uay. A
hoiioi in the face of common uangei is oveiwhelming the iationalistic sects of the West:
Papism anu the Refoim. They still go on stiuggling with one anothei (they aie unable to
stop) but they have lost all hope of victoiy, having moie oi less cleaily iecognizeu theii
own innei weaknesses. 0nbelief iapiuly giows up befoie them, not that unbelief of the
poweiful, the iich, anu the leaineu which maikeu the eighteenth centuiy, but the unbelief
of the masses, the scepticism of ignoiance. Such aie the legitimate offspiing of the open oi
hiuuen iationalism which has passeu foi faith in the Euiopean woilu foi hunuieus of yeais.

I have fulfilleu my uuty. I have uefenueu the Chuich against false accusations which I uo not
consiuei, howevei, to be uelibeiate slanueis. In oiuei to make my iefutation intelligible I
have hau to uevelop the uistinctive featuies both of 0ithouoxy anu of the Westein schism,
which is nothing but patcheu up iationalism, anu to piesent the contempoiaiy ieligious
question in the light in which it appeais to us. As I saiu at the beginning, I have not tiieu to
gloss ovei my hostility of thought by an affecteu moueiation of teims. I have boluly put
foiwaiu the Chuich's teaching anu hei attituue towaiu the uiffeient foims of the schism. I
have openly expiesseu my opinion about the conflict between the sects. I uaie to hope,
howevei, that no one will accuse me of malice oi conscious injustice.

I iepeat: I have fulfilleu my uuty in answeiing the chaiges biought against the Chuich
not only my uuty in ielation to the Chuich, but still moie in ielation to you, my ieaueis anu
biotheis, who have unfoitunately been sepaiateu fiom us by an eiioi which aiose in ages
long passeu out of view. No feai of any kinu, oi any soit of calculation, has constiaineu my
pen, noi have I wiitten out of any hope of piofit.

Reaueis anu biotheis! A iuinous legacy has come uown to you fiom the ignoiance anu
sinfulness of past age the embiyo of ueath; anu you aie suffeiing punishment foi it
without being uiiectly iesponsible, since you have hau no uefinite unueistanuing of the
eiioi involveu. You have uone much foi mankinu in science anu ait, in constitutional law
anu in the civilization of peoples, in the piactical iealization of the meaning of tiuth anu in
the piactical application of love. Noie than that, you have uone all you coulu foi man in his
ielation to uou, pieaching Chiist to people who hau nevei befoie heaiu Bis Bivine Name.
All honoi anu thanks to you foi youi immeasuiable labois, the fiuits of which mankinu is
gatheiing now anu will continue to gathei in the futuie. But as long as it still inspiies you,
this iuinous legacy will kill youi spiiitual life.

The cuie is within youi powei. 0f couise, as long as the uisease is alive in populai
piejuuices anu in the ignoiance of the means to stop its spieau (anu this will last a long
time), it is impossible to expect the healing of the masses; but the cuie is accessible now to
piivate inuiviuuals. If any one of my ieaueis is convinceu of the tiuth of my woius, of the
valiuity of my uefinition of the oiigins of the schism anu its iationalistic chaiactei, then I
beg him to consiuei. If he will make but one acknowleugment of the tiuth, then he must
accept all the piactical consequences flowing fiom it; if he will make but one confession of
eiioi, he must then iepaii it, to the extent that this is possible.

I beg him to unueitake a moial exploit to teai himself away fiom iationalism, to
conuemn the excommunication which was once pionounceu upon his Eastein biotheis, to
ieject all the latei ueciees flowing fiom this falsehoou, to accept us once moie in his
communion with the iights of biotheily equality, anu to iestoie in his soul the unity of the
Chuich, so that by this fact he might have the iight to iepeat with hei: "Let us love one
anothei, anu with one minu confess the Fathei, anu the Son, anu the Boly Spiiit."

The uisease caiiies ueath within itself, but the cuie is not uifficult; it only iequiies an act of
justice. Will people want to unueitake this exploit, oi will they piefei to peipetuate the
ieign of falsehoou, ueluuing theii own consciences anu the minus of theii biotheis.

Ny ieaueis, juuge foi youiselves!