XIIIThe Church

Division II. About God the Saviour and his special relation to the human race.

Such is the title of this division. All this division, with the exception of the last chapter about retribution, is occupied with the exposition of the teaching about the church and its mysteries.

Chapter I. About God as a sanctifier. 165. Conception of sanctification; participation of all the persons of the Most Holy Trinity in the matter of sanctification, and recital of means or conditions for sanctification. In this article, after the teaching and the proofs of the fact that all three persons take part in our sanctification (the Father is the source, the Son — the cause, the Holy Ghost — the one who achieves the sanctification), it says :

"IV. In order that we might be able to make the deserts of our Saviour our own and really be sanctified, he (1) founded on earth his kingdom of grace, the church, as a living instrument through which our sanctification takes place; (2) communicates to us in the church and through the church the grace of the Holy Ghost, as a force which sanctifies us; and (3) has established sacraments in the church, as means through which the grace of the Holy Ghost is communicated to us." (p. 187.)

Christ has founded the church for our sanctification. The concept of the church I met in the very beginning of the Theology. In the very beginning it said that a dogma was a decree of the church, and later on, in the whole exposition of the dogmas, their correctness was defined by stating that the church taught so in regard to them. But heretofore there has been no definition of the church, of what is to be understood by the word. From everything which I knew before, from everything which had been expounded so far, I assumed that the church was a collection of believers, established in such a way that it can express and determine its decrees. But now begins the teaching about the church as being an instrument for the sanctification of men. It says that the church is Christ's kingdom of grace, that it communicates to us the grace of the Holy Ghost, and that it has sacraments, but nothing is said about the church on which the dogmas which have been expounded heretofore are based; on the contrary, the church receives here an entirely different meaning from what I ascribe to it as the foundation of the whole teaching about faith. Then follows :

166. The different meanings of the word "church." The sense in which the teaching about it will be expounded here, and points of view on the subject. The various meanings of the word "church "are explained. All three meanings which are ascribed to the word "church "are such that with them is impossible the conception of that church which has established the dogmas.

The first meaning of the word "church "is, according to the Theology, "a society of all the rational and free beings, that is, of the angels and of the men who beheve in Christ the Saviour, and of the men who are united in him as in their one head." (p. 187.)

Such a definition of the church not only does not make clearer the conception of the church which estabhshes dogmas, but imparts in advance to the -.forth coming definition of the church certain symptoms, with which it is still harder to understand how such a church could ever have established any dogmas. The further elucidations of this first meaning do not clear it up. All it says is : "that in the dispensation of the fulness of times he might gather together in one all things in Christ, both which are in heaven, and which are on earth; even in him : and set him at his own right hand in the heavenly places, far above all principality, and power, and might, and dominion, and every name that is named, not only in this world, but also in that which is to come : and hath put all things under his feet, and gave him to be the head over all things to the church, which is his body, the fulness of him that filleth all in all (Eph. i. 10, 20-23)." (p. 188.)

This, according to the Theology, forms one meaning of the word "church." Here is the second meaning :

"According to the second, less broad and more accepted meaning, the church of Christ embraces all men who profess and who have professed the faith of Christ, every one of them, no matter at what time they have lived and wherever they may be, whether living upon earth, or already in the country of the dead."

According to this second meaning, the church cannot be what I supposed it to be, and cannot establish dogmas, for an aggregate of all men living and of those who have lived at any time cannot express any dogmas. Then follows an analysis who of the dead belong to this church and who do not (pp. 190, 191), and after dividing the church into militant and triumphant, there is given the third meaning of the word "church."

"Finally, in a still narrower, but most accepted and usual sense, the church of Christ signifies only the militant church of the New Testament, or Christ's kingdom of grace. 'We believe as we have been taught to believe,' say the bishops of the East in their epistle on the Orthodox faith, ' in the so-called and real, the One, Holy, Catholic, Apostolic Church, which embraces all in every place, no matter who they may be, who believe in Christ, who, still existing in their earthly pilgrimage, have not yet taken up their abode in the kingdom of heaven.' In this sense we are going to take the church in the present exposition of the doctrine concerning it." (p. 191.)

According to this meaning, by the word "church "are understood all those who believe or have believed in Christ. This meaning is in general intelligible, but even in this sense the church does not correspond to that activity of the church, the sanctification of men, and still less to that other activity, the establishment of dogmas, of which the Theology has been speaking in all preceding chapters. Such a church cannot serve as an instrument of sanctification, for, if by church are to be understood all the believers in Christ, then all believers will be sanctifying all believers. In order that the church should be able to sanctify all believers, it must of necessity be a special institution among all the believers. Still less can such a church establish any dogmas, for, if all believing Christians believed alike, there would be no dogmas and no teaching of the church in refutal of heretical teachings. The fact that there are believers in Christ who are heretics and who reject some dogmas and put forward others which in their opinion are true, shows that the church must of necessity be understood not as all behevers in Christ, but as a certain establishment, which not only does not embrace all the Christians, but even is a special institution among Christians who are not heretics.

If there are dogmas which are expressed in definite, unchangeable words, these words must be expressed and worked out by an assembly of men who have agreed to accept this, and not another expression.

If there is an article of a law, there must of necessity exist lawgivers or a legislative assembly. Although I may be able to express myself by saying that the article of the law is a true expression of the will of the whole nation, I, in order to explain this institution, must show that the legislative assembly which gave the law is a true exponent of the will of the people, and for that I must define the legislative assembly as an institution. Just so the Theology, which has expounded so many dogmas, which has recognized them as the only true ones, and which asserts their truth by saying that the church has accepted them as such, must tell us what the church itself is that has established these dogmas. But the Theology does nothing of the kind : on the contrary, it gives to the church the meaning of a union of angels and men, both living and dead, and the union of all believers in Christ, from which can result neither sanctification, nor the establishment of dogmas. The Theology in this case acts as would act a man, who, trying to assert his right to a legacy, instead of announcing first of all those grounds on which he bases his rights, should speak of the legality in general and of the right of inheritance, should prove the falseness of the pretensions of all the others, and should even explain his own management of the debatable property, but should not say a word about that on which his rights are based. That is precisely what the Theology does in all this division about the teaching of the church. It speaks of the foundation of the church by Christ, of the heretical teachings which do not agree with the church, of the activity of the church, but not a word is said as to what is to be understood by the true church, and the definition of the church as such which corresponds with its activity — the sanctification of men and the establishment of dogmas — is given only at the end, and here again not in the form of a definition, but in the form of a description and subdivision. And thus, without giving a definition of the church which would correspond to reality, the Theology says :

"In order that this exposition may be as detailed as possible, we shall view the church : (1) from the more external side, namely, from the side of its origin, dissemination, and purpose; (2) from a more internal side (' more ' — for it is impossible entirely to separate the internal from the external side of the church), and we shall speak of the composition and internal structure of the church; (3) finally, as a consequence from everything which has been said, we shall give an exact idea about the essence itself of the church and of its essential properties." (p. 191.)

167. Here the Theology speaks of the establishment of the church by our Lord Jesus Christ. It is proved that the church, according to the definition of the Theology, — as men who believe in Christ, — was established by Jesus Christ. In this article it is proved that Jesus Christ wished that men, having accepted the new faith, should not maintain it separated from each other, but should form for this purpose a separate rehgious society.

"The desire to form one society out of his followers, the Saviour has frequently expressed, for example, (a) after the Apostle Peter, in the name of all the apostles, professed him as the Son of God : Upon this rock, that is, on this confession, our Lord then said to us, will I build my church, and the gates of hell shaU not prevail against it (Matt. xvi. 18); (&) in the parable of the good shepherd, in these words : I am the good shepherd, and know my sheep, and am known of mine. And other sheep I have, which are not of this fold : them also I must bring, and they shall hear my voice; and there shall be one fold, and one shepherd (John x. 14, 16); (c) in the prayer to the Heavenly Father : That they all may be one; as thou. Father, art in me, and I in thee, that they also may be one in us (John xvii. 20, 21). With the idea of founding his kingdom of grace upon earth he began his first sermon to men, as the Evangelist Matthew tells us : From that time Jesus began to preach, and to say, Eepent : for the kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. iv. 17). With the same sermon the Lord sent his disciples out among the Jews : Go, he said to them, to the lost sheep of the house of Israel. And as ye go, preach, saying, The kingdom of heaven is at hand (Matt. x. 6-8). And how often lie spoke to men about this kingdom of God, both in parables and not in parables ! (Matt. xiii. 24, 44-47; xxii. 2; xxv. 1; Luke viii. 10, and elsewhere)." (p. 192.)

All that so far only tells us that Christ wanted to disseminate his teaching, — the teaching about the kingdom of heaven. So far nothing contradicts the meaning which the Theology ascribes to the church. All believers in Christ naturally had to unite in faith in Christ. But after that the Theology says :

"(2) What Christ intended to do, that he accomplished. He himself laid the foundation for his church, when he chose his twelve disciples, who, believing in him and being under his power, formed one society under one head (John xvii. 13) and formed his first church; when, on the other hand, he himself arranged everything necessary in order to form a definite society out of his followers, namely : {a) he established the order of the teachers who were to disseminate his faith among the nations (Eph. iv. 11, 12); (h) he established the sacrament of the baptism, in order to receive into that society all those who believed in him (Matt, xxviii. 19; John iii. 22; iv. 1; Mark xvi. 1 6); (c) the sacrament of the eucharist, for the closer union of the members of the society among themselves and with him, as the head (Matt. xxvi. 26-28; Mark xiv. 22-24; Luke xxii. 19, 20; 1 Cor. xii. 23-26); {d) the sacrament of repentance, for the reconcihation and new union with him and with the church of those members who violate his laws and decrees (Matt, xxviii. 15-18), as also all other sacraments (Matt, xviii. 18; xxviii. 19; xix. 4-6; Mark vi. 13, and elsewhere). For that reason the Lord spoke in the days of his public service about his church as already existing (Matt, xviii. 17)." (p. 193.)

Here with the words "definite society" begins the obvious departure from the given meaning of the church, and there is introduced an entirely different idea of the church than as being a union of believers. Here the Theology is apparently speaking of the teaching church, of which nothing has as yet been said. It says that Christ appointed teachers for the dissemination of his faith among the nations, although the idea of the teaching church does not enter into the definition of the church as being a union of believers. Still less do the sacraments enter into that definition : both define the church of the chosen among the believers. But let us suppose that the Theology is not sticking closely to its definition, that it expounds the teaching about that exclusive church which has the power to teach and impart the mysteries. Let us see what it is based upon. It says that Christ himself established the church with its teachers and with the sacraments of the baptism, eucharist, and repentance, and the texts are referred to, but not quoted. Here are the texts:

"And now come I to thee; and these things I speak in the world, that they might have my joy fulfilled in themselves (John xvii. 13)." This is adduced as a proof that Christ established the one society, the church. It is evident that the text has nothing in common with the establishment of the church.

"And he gave some, apostles; and some, prophets; and some, evangelists; and some, pastors and teachers; for the perfecting of the saints, for the work of the ministry, for the edifying of the body of Christ (Eph. iv. 11-12)." These words of Paul, who did not even know Christ, are ascribed to Christ. The other texts have been quoted, but striking is the text which proves that Christ established the sacrament of repentance :

"And Jesus came and spake unto them, sayiag. All power is given unto me in heaven -and in earth (Matt, xxviii. 18)."

On this passage the Theology bases the establishment of the sacraments by Christ, without considering that all that is said here is that (according to an incorrect interpretation of the Theology, which will be examined later)

Christ transfers his power to the apostles. But it does not say wherein this power is to consist. Consequently any false teaching may with equal right be based upon these words. But, having picked out these quasi-confirmatory texts, the Theology in the end corrects itself and admits that in the time of Christ there did not yet exist a church with sacraments and teachers. In these discussions the Theology already prepares the reader for that substitution for the conception of the church a-s a union of all believers of the conception of a teaching and sacramental church.

In the following discussion the church is mentioned no longer in the sense in which it was mentioned before, as being a union of all believers, but as an exclusive church, separate in its structure and in its rights from all the other behevers.

"(3) Having received power from above (Luke xxiv. 45), the holy apostles, after receiving the divine message, went forth, and preached everywhere, the Lord working with them, and confirming the word with signs following (Mark xvi. 20), and (a) from the believers in various places tried to form societies which they called churches (1 Cor. i. 2; xvi. 19); (b) enjoined these believers to have gatherings in which to hear the word of God and send up prayers in common (Acts ii. 42, 46; xx. 7); (c) exhorted them to keep the unity of the spirit in the bond of peace, presenting to them that they formed one body of the Lord Jesus, of whom they were but members in particular, and had one Lord, one faith, one baptism (Eph. iv. 3, 4; 1 Cor. xii. 27), and were all partakers of the one bread (1 Cor. x. 17), that is, had everything for their internal as well as their external union; \d) finally, they were commanded not to forsake their assemblings, under the penalty of expulsion from the church and eternal perdition (Heb. x. 24, 25). Thus, with the will and cooperation of the Saviour, who himself immediately put down the foundation of his church, it was then planted in all the corners of the world." (p. 194)

It says that the church was not one, hut that there were many separate churches. It says that they were all one body of Christ, but that at the same time there was one church, from which were expelled those who left the assemblings. What kind of a church it was that expelled members it does not say. Thus, it is evident that the Theology no longer is treating about the church which it defined before, but some other church, of which the definition is not given. In the proper place I will show how incorrectly the Theology makes use of the texts of the Gospel, in order to confirm its statements. In the next article it becomes apparent that there is no longer any mention of the church as a union of all the believers in Christ, but of some other kind of a church.

168. The extension of the church of Christ: who belongs to this church, and who does not belong to it.

In this article the proof is brought that to this still undefined church belong all the Orthodox believers. But it does not say who decides the question of Orthodoxy and un-Orthodoxy. At the same time there is a detailed definition of who these un-Orthodox believers are. That is discussed on ten pages. This discussion about the heretics and dissenters, who are excluded from the Orthodox Church, which is not yet defined, is remarkable :

"In order to judge correctly in respect to the propositions disclosed by us as to the heretics and dissenters, it is necessary to know what heresy and what dissent is, and what kind of heretics are meant here. About heresy and dissent we receive the following ideas from the ancient teachers of the church : (a) From Basil the Great : ' The ancients understood one thing by heresy, another by dissent, and still another thing by arbitrary concourse. They called heretics those who feU off and became es- tranged from faith; dissenters — those who differed in opinion in regard to certain church subjects and questions which admitted of heahng; but arbitrary concourses — meetings formed by disobedient presbyters and bishops and the ignorant people; ' (b) from St. Jerome : * Between heresy and dissent there is, in my opinion, this difference, that heresy consists in the subversion of the dogma, while a dissent similarly expels from the church on account of a disagreement with the bishop (propter episcopacem dissensionem). Consequently these two things may in certain relations appear different by their origin; but in reality there is no dissent which has not something common with some heresy in its revolt against the church.' "(p. 202.)

Why not tell the truth ? The following words are not merely remarkable, but simply disgusting :

"When we say that the heretics and the dissenters do not belong to the church, we do not mean those who hold the heresy or dissent in secret, trying to appear as belonging to the church and outwardly carrying out its regulations; or those who are carried away by heretical and schismatic errors in their ignorance and without any malice or stubbornness, for it is evident that neither have they absented themselves from the society of the believers, nor have they been excommunicated by the power of the church, although they may already be excommunicated by the judgment of God, though neither they nor we may know it : such people it is best to leave to the judgment of him who knows all the secret thoughts of man, and searches their hearts and entrails. But we mean the declared heretics and dissenters, who have already separated themselves from the church or are excommunicated by it, consequently intentional, stubborn, and therefore in the highest degree guilty heretics and dissenters. Against them were chiefly directed the utterances of the holy fathers and teachers of the church, which we have quoted above." (p. 203.)

That is, lie before God, and we will not excommunicate you; but seek the truth and dare not to agree with us, and we will curse you. The church, in the sense in which the Theology takes it, consists in all the behevers in Christ, and this church separates the heretics and excommunicates them.

169. The aim of the church is the sanctification of sinners. "The church is ordained and therefore obliged : (a) to preserve the precious pledge of the saving faith (1 Tim. vi. 20; 2 Tim. i. 12-14) and to disseminate the teaching of that faith among the nations; (h) to keep and use for the good of men the divine mysteries and sacraments in general; (c) to preserve its government as established by God and to make use of it in conformity with the intention of the Lord." (p. 206.)

The church is understood as all those who believe in Christ, and yet it speaks of the church as having to perform sacraments, and govern. It is evident that all the believers are not able to perform the sacraments and rule themselves, and so the Theology by the word "church "understands something different, which it puts in the place of the first definition of tlie church. Farther on it says:

170. Outside the church there is no salvation, and the proof is given that it is necessary to belong to the church. This is asserted in the following way :

"(1) The faith in Jesus Christ who reconciled us with God: for there is none other name under heaven given among men, whereby we must be saved (Acts iv. 12), and even before that the Saviour said: He that believeth on the Son hath everlasting life; and he that believeth not the Son shall not see life; but the wrath of God abideth on him (John iii. 36). But the true teaching of Christ and about Christ is preserved and preached only in his church and by his church, without which there cannot be a true faith (Eom. x. 17)." (pp. 206 and 207.)

Thus the faith in Christ is no longer merely a definition of the church, but it turns out that in the place of the belief in Christ is put the belief in the church.

"(2) The participation in the holy sacraments, whereby are given unto us all divine powers that pertain unto Kfe and godhuess (2 Pet. i. 3)." (p. 207.) And — "(3) Finally, the last, a good, godly life."

The proofs for all that :

"Outside the church there is no hearing, no comprehension of the Word of God; there is no true divine worship; Christ is not found; the Holy Ghost is not communicated; the death of the Saviour does not furnish salvation; there is not the feast of the body of Christ; there is no fruitful prayer; there can be no works of salvation, nor true martyrdom, nor exalted virginity and purity, nor fasting salutary for the soul, nor the benevolence of God. (2) In the church, on the contrary, there is the benevolence and grace of God; in the church abides the triune God; in the church is the knowledge of truth, the knowledge of God and of Christ, and a superabundance of spiritual benefits; in the church are the true saving dogmas, the true faith as derived from the apostles, true love, and the straight path of life." (pp. 209 and 210.)

Everything has been said about the church that the Theology has to say. It was said that it was founded by Christ; it was determined who belonged to it, and who not; its aims and means have been mentioned; it was said that it is necessary to belong to it in order to obtain salvation, but the church itself has not yet been defined. All that was said was that its meaning is — all the believers in Christ, but with this proviso, that the church is composed by those who believe in Christ precisely as the church teaches them to believe in him, that is, the meaning of the church is now modified to mean : all those who beheve in the church. But what this church itself is, which sanctifies men and establishes dogmas, has not yet been determined. Only in the 2d Division, in Art. 171, this mysterious church at last gets, not a definition, but a description, from which, at last, we can deduce its definition, which corresponds to its activity, — the sanctification and the establishment of dogmas.

"171. Having determined the extent of his church, having pointed out to it its aim, and having given it the proper means for the attainment of that aim, the Lord Jesus gave it at the same time a definite structure, by which the attainment of this aim is secured and made easy. The organization of the church consists in this : (a) according to its composition, it is divided into two essential parts : the congregation and the divinely established hierarchy, which are placed in a certain relation to each other; (b) the hierarchy is subdivided into its three essential degrees, which are distinct from each other and are connected among themselves; (c) the congregation and the hierarchy are subject to the supreme judgment of the councils, and {d) last, the whole harmonious body of the church, which is formed from so many different and wisely apportioned members, has its only head in the Lord Jesus Christ himself, who vivifies it with his Holy Ghost." (pp. 210 and 211.)

Only now do we at last get a definition of what the church is which has been talked about all the time, the same that is to sanctify men, the same th£j,t has uttered all the dogmas which have been expounded heretofore. I do not yet protest against this, that the establishment of the church which has determined all the dogmas is one and holy and has Christ for its head^ and that it is not possible to find salvation outside it, but I should like first the subject uttered, and then the predicate; I should like first to know what they are talking about that is holy and one and has Christ for its head, and then only that it is holy, and so forth. But in the exposition of the Theology the reverse order has been observed. All the time it spoke of the unity, holiness, infallibility of the church and expounded its teaching, and only now it says what it is. Only now it becomes clear from Art. 171 what that church is which sanctifies men through sacraments, and which, amidst false dogmas, establishes those that are true. It says that the church is divided into a hierarchy and the congregation. The hierarchy sanctifies and teaches, the flock is sanctified, ruled, and taught by the hierarchy. It must obey, consequently it is only the hierarchy that sanctifies and estabhshes dogmas, and so the hierarchy alone answers that definition of the church, from which results its activity of the sanctification and of the estabhshment of the dogmas, and so the hierarchy alone is holy and infallible, and only the hierarchy answers completely to that which has all the time been mentioned under the name of the church. In Art. 173, it says that the pastors must teach the flock, must perform the sacraments for it, and must govern it, and that the flock must obey.

"St. Gregory the Divine says : * As in the body some parts govern and, as it were, preside, while the other parts are under their rule and dominion, even so it is in the churches. God has decreed that some, for whom tliis is more useful, should by word and deed be directed to the performance of their duties, should remain herded and under rule, while others, standing above the rest in virtue and nearness to God, should be pastors and teachers for the perfecting of the church, and should have the same relation to others that the soul has to the body, and the mind to the soul, so that one and the other, the defective and the superabundant, being like the members of the body, united and joined into one composition, bound and coupled with the Spirit, may represent one body, perfect and truly worthy of Christ our head. For that reason the societies of the Christians, who of their own will departed from their obedience to the bishop and the presbyters, were regarded by the ancient teachers of the church as unworthy of the name of the church, and were called heretical, a rabble of apostates, evil-thinking, harmful, and so forth.'" (p. 217.)

The church, the one upon which the whole teaching is based, is the hierarchy. The Theology before that expounded about the one church, the kingdom of grace, the body of Christ, the church of the living and the dead and the angels; then of all those who believed in Christ; then by degrees it added to this first definition another concept; then at last the hierarchy is substituted for that church. The Theology knows very well that according to its conception the church is nothing but the hierarchy, and sometimes it says so, as in the Introduction to the Dogmatic Theology, as in the expressions of the Eastern Patriarchs, as always in the expressions of the Catholic Church; but the Theology has at the same time to confirm its definition that the church is an assembly of all the believers, and so it does not like to say directly that the church is the hierarchy. The Theology knows that the essence of the matter is the infalhbility and sacredness of the hierarchy, and so it has to prove first that the hierarchy was established by Christ, and that the Theology is an exposition of the dogmas as confirmed by that same hierarchy. All that is necessary is to prove that the hereditary hierarchy was established by Christ, and that we are the inheritors of this hierarchy, and then, no matter how you may understand it, the church, the essence of the church, as the keeper of truth, will be nothing but hierarchs. For that reason the Theology uses all its efforts to prove, the impossible, namely, that Christ established the hierarchy, and a hereditary one at that, and that our hierarchy is the legitimate heir, and such and such a hierarchy, not ours, is illegitimate.

172. The flock and the divinely established hierarchy with their mutual relations. "I. It is not difficult to show, in spite of the opinion of certain evil-thinking men, that the division of the church into the two abovementioned classes has its origin with the Saviour himself. Unquestionably the Lord himself founded in his church a special order of men, who formed the hierarchy, and empowered those men, and only those, to make use of those means which he gave to the church for its purposes, that is, he empowered them to be teachers, ministers of the sacraments, and spiritual guides, and in no way left it indiscriminately to all the believers, having, on the contrary, enjoined them to obey the pastors." (p. 211.)

"The Protestants, who do not acknowledge that Christ established in the church a special priesthood, or hierarchy, affirm that all the behevers, by force of the sacrament of the baptism, are equally priests of the most high God; but as it is impossible for all to perform the duties of priesthood, the believers choose from their own midst special men as their representatives, whom they clothe in the rights of priesthood."

In the above quotation it says that a large part of Christendom, the Protestants, do not recognize the hierarchy. This proof is very important, for the whole teaching of the church has been reduced to the doctrine about the hierarchy. It turns out that Christians who are not worse or more stupid than we directly deny according to Scripture what we assert, that is, the hierarchy. Here is the way the Theology proves the establishment of the hierarchy by God. I cite the following places from the Theology, which are supposed to prove the establishment of the hierarchy by Christ. I quote every one of them, not in order to refute them, for any one who reads them will see how useless that is, but in order to present all the proofs of the church in favour of the hierarchy.

"(1) As we read the Gospel, which contains in itself the history of the life and w^ords of our Saviour, we see :

(a) that he chose from among his followers twelve disciples whom he called apostles : And when it was day, says St. Luke, he called unto him his disciples : and of them he chose twelve, whom also he named apostles (Luke vi. 13), and so he said to them: Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you (John xv. 16)." (p. 211.)

That is the first proof. Christ chose twelve apostles. Apostle means messenger in Greek, and so it says that Christ chose twelve messengers. If he had chosen seventeen, he would have sent seventeen messengers. The Theology adduces that as a proof that the hierarchy was established by Christ. To that are added the words : Ye have not chosen me, but I have chosen you. These words were said in the chapter of the farewell speech, where Christ spoke of his love for his disciples, and have nothing in common with the passages in connection with which they are quoted, and still less with the establishment of the hierarchy.

Second proof: "(&) That to them alone he gave the command and the power to teach all the nations, to perform the holy sacraments for them and to direct the believers to salvation (Matt, xxviii. 19; xviii. 18; Luke xxii. 19)."

The verses are not cited. Here they are : Go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy, Ghost (Matt, xxviii. 19). Verily I say unto you. Whatsoever ye shall bind on earth shall be bound in heaven : and whatsoever ye shall loose on earth shall be loosed in heaven (Matt, xviii. 18). And he took bread and gave thanks, and brake it, and gave unto them, saying. This is my body which is given for you : this do in remembrance of me (Luke xxii. 19).

The Theology gives only the number of the verses, but does not quote the passages themselves, knowing that the verses do not confirm the statement that Christ gave to anybody a special right to teach the nations. There is nothing there about the power, and nothing about the sacraments. Something is said about baptizing, but it does not say that the breaking of the bread is a sacrament, or that these actions are left in charge of the hierarchy. One cannot help observing the strange phenomenon that Continually exactly the same obscure texts are chosen to prove all kinds of theses : such are the texts Matt, xxviii. 19, Luke xxii. 19, John xx. 23, and several others. These texts are repeated a hundred times. On them is based the Trinity, and the divinity of Christ, and the redemption, and the sacraments, and the hierarchy. That is all about the second proof.

Third proof : "(c) That he transferred the power to the holy apostles just as he received it from the Father: All power is given unto me...; go ye therefore, and teach all nations, baptizing them in the name of the Father, and of the Son, and of the Holy Ghost (Matt, xxviii. 18, 19); as my father hath sent me, even so send I you. And when he had said this, he breathed on them, and saith unto them, Eeceive ye the Holy Ghost : whose soever sins ye remit, they are remitted unto them; and whose soever sins ye retain, they are retained (John xx. 21-23)." (p. 212.)

In order to confirm the power which is supposed to be transferred, the texts are tampered with here. The text is quoted as, "All power is given unto me...; go ye," and so forth. The real text runs like this : "All power is given unto me in heaven and in earth. (Period.) Go ye therefore, and teach all nations." Considering the period, it cannot be said that he gave the power; but with the several dots and by omitting "in heaven," which cannot refer to the disciples, it is possible to interpret it as that he gave the power to the disciples. The text from John does not say anything about the hierarchy or about the power; all it says is that Christ gave the

Holy Ghost to his disciples and commanded them to teach men, that is to deliver them from sin, as it is correctly translated; but even if it be translated by "remit the sins," the hierarchy does not in any way result from the remission of the sins.

Fourth proof : "{d) That to these twelve he immediately added seventy definite disciples, whom he sent out on the same great work. (Luke x. 1, et seq.y (p. 212.)

The fact that Christ sent out, at first twelve messengers, and then seventy more men, whom he ordered, like pilgrims, without a supply of clothing, without money, to visit the cities and villages, is regarded as a proof that the ruling liierarchy of the present day derives its origin by heredity from Christ. Those are all the proofs that Christ himself established the hierarchy. Everything that could possibly be adduced, has been adduced. In the opinion of the Theology, the quotations with their tampered texts confirm the establish melit of the hierarchy. No other proofs could be found. After that follow proofs that later this power was transferred from the apostles to the fathers of the church, and then to the hierarchy which came after them. This is the way the transmission is proved :

"(e) That transmitting his heavenly message to the twelve disciples, he wanted it to pass from them directly to their successors, and from these, passing from generation to generation, to be kept in the world to the end of the world itself. For, when he said to the apostles. Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature (Mark xvi. 15), he immediately added, I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world (Matt, xxviii. 20). Consequently he, in the person of the apostles, sent out for the same work and encouraged by his presence all their future successors, and in the hteral sense gave the church not only apostles, prophets, and evangelists, but also pastors and teachers (Eph. iv. 11)." (p. 212.)

Here again the texts are changed in order to bring forward a specious proof. It does not follow from anything that after the words, "Preach the gospel to every creature/' he said "immediately. "afterward, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world." Nor can it in any way be said that one passage follows immediately after the other, since one thing is said by one evangelist, Mark, while the other is said by Matthew. Mark says : "Go into all the world, and preach the gospel," which has no meaning of any transmission; but the words, "I am with you alway, even unto the end of the world. Amen," are the concluding words of the Gospel of Matthew, and therefore can by no means signify that he wanted to transmit the power to them. But even if that meant what the Theology wants it to mean, there is nothing to warrant the assertion that he encouraged with his presence all their future successors. That cannot be argued out of anything.

Here is the second proof of the succession :

"(/) Finally, that, having in this manner clothed his apostles with divine power, he, on the other hand, very clearly and with terrible curses compelled all men and the future Christians to receive the teaching and the sacraments from the future apostles, and to obey their words : He that heareth you, heareth me; and he that despiseth you, despiseth me; and he that despiseth me, despiseth him that sent me (Luke x. 16); Go ye into all the world, and preach the gospel to every creature. He that believeth and is baptized shall be saved; but he that belie veth not shall be damned (Mark xvi. 15, 16; cf. Matt. X. 14; xviii. 15-19)." (p. 212.)

I do not leave out a single word. And that is given out as a proof not only of the establishment of the hierarchy, but also of the succession, and it says :

"And that is why, even when the Lord ascended to heaven, Matthias was, by his indication, added to the eleven apostles, in the place of Judas (Acts i. 26); and only by the voice of the Holy Ghost were Barnabas and Saul separated for the work whereunto our Eedeemer had called them (Acts xiii. 2; cf. ix. 15)." (p. 212.)

This last proof, the meaning of which I absolutely fail to make out, contains the first part of the proofs as to why the hierarchy is to be considered as founded by Christ.

After that follow proofs from the Acts and the Epistles. One would think that here it would be easier to find texts which might confirm the divine origin of the hierarchy, but again the same takes place. It turns out that in all the texts, quoted and not quoted, there is nowhere a word about those rights (as though it were a legal establishment) which the Theology proclaims from the very first words.

"(2) Still more clearly is this intention of the Lord seen in the actions of the apostles who were guided by his Spirit. These actions are of two kinds and both equally refer to the confirmation of the truth under discussion. The actions of the first kind are the following : (a) the holy apostles constantly asserted their right and carried out the obligations which the Lord had enjoined on them (Acts v. 42; vi. 1-5; 1 Cor. iv. 1; v. 4-5; ix. 16), in spite of all obstacles on the part of the enemies who tried to take that divine power from them (Acts iv. 19; V. 28-29)." (pp. 212 and 213.)

These references to the apostles and especially to the Acts are remarkable. The author does not write them out, because he knows that, if anything at all is to be deduced from them, it is the very opposite of what he is trying to prove. Every passage where Christ's disciples preach his teaching is adduced as a proof that the hierarchy was established; for example, in Acts iv. 19, Peter and John said : "Whether it be right in the sight of God to hearken unto you more than unto God, judge ye."

The other references are of the same kind. Thus it goes on for two pages, from which it is clear, to any one who has read even a short Seminary history of the church, that no one at any time, during the first centuries of Christianity, ascribed any especial rights or power to himself. Elders (presbyters, bishops, overseers) were appointed, and all those appellations meant one and the same thing, and were a human institution, which was diversified according to men and places. All that is evident from the texts which are quoted by the Theology itself.

After that follows the third part of the proofs, in which it says directly in the name of the holy fathers that this power was given to the hierarchy by Christ himself. But here we get the proofs only of the fact that those men who ascribed the power to themselves asserted quite arbitrarily that the power had passed to them from God, that is, what now our, and any other, hierarchy asserts at the present time. Here it says :

"(b) The pastors, who formed that special class, always deduced their power from Jesus Christ himself and called themselves the successors of the apostles and the representatives in the church of the Saviour himself. Here, for example, are the words of Clement of Eome : ' Having received a full foreknowledge, the apostles appointed the above-mentioned men (that is, bishops and deacons) and at the same time handed down the rule that when they deceased other experienced men should take up their ministry.' St. Ignatius Theophorus : ' Bishops are appointed in all the corners of the world, by the will of Jesus Christ.' St. Irenseus : ' We can name those whom the apostles have placed as bishops and their successors over the churches down to our time, but they taught nothing of the kind and knew nothing of what the heretics have invented. For, if the apostles knew the secrets, which they revealed only to the perfect, and to no other, they

SO much the more certainly revealed them to those to whom they entrusted the churches themselves: for the apostles wished that those whom they left as their successors, transmitting to them their own ministration of the teaching, should be quite perfect and -without a blemish in every respect.' St. Cyprian : ' We are the successors of the apostles, ruling the church of God by the same power.' St. Ambrose : ' The bishop represents in his person Jesus Christ and is the vicegerent of the Lord.' St. Jerome : ' With us the place of the apostles is occupied by the bishops.'" (pp. 214 and 215.)

Having armed itself with these proofs, that is, with the barren assertions of those men who appropriated to themselves the divine power, that this power had been transferred to them from God, the Theology now gives the direct definition of the church, a part of which (namely, the words of Gregory the Divine) I have quoted before. After that it says (from p. 217-229) that there are three degrees of the ecclesiastic hierarchy : the episcopal, the presbyteral, and the diaconal; but, it is necessary to remark that there are no more of them. The utterances of the fathers of the church confirm that :

"Clement of Alexandria : * The degrees of bishops, presbyters, and deacons, which exist in the church, are, in my opinion, the representation of the angelic order.' Origen : ' Paul speaks to the rulers and chiefs of the churches, that is, to those who judge the ^people who are in the church, namely, to the bishops, presbyters, and deacons.' Eusebius of Csesaria : ' Three orders : the first of the presiding officers, the second of the presbyters, the third of the deacons.' "(p. 223.)

174. There is a detailed description of the different orders of the spiritual persons among themselves and in relation to their flocks.

"The bishop is the chief overseer in his own particular church (Acts xx. 28; cf. Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs about the Orthodox faith, section 10). First of all he has the power over the hierarchy under his rule and over the clergy. All priests and servants of the church are obliged to obey his injunctions, and without his permission nothing is done in the church; all are subject to his surveillance and judgment (1 Tim. v. 19), in consequence of which he may subject them to various punishments. In addition to the clergy, the whole flock which is entrusted to his care is subject to the spiritual power of the bishop. He is under obligation to watch over the execution in his eparchy of the divine laws and church commandments. He has more especially and preeminently the right to bind and loose, according to the rules of the holy apostles, the holy councils, and according to the unanimous testimony of the ancient teachers of the church. For that reason the apostles so forcibly impressed all the believers with the necessity of obeying the bishops. The presbyters have also power to bind and loose, and in general to feed the flock of God which is entrusted to them (1 Peter v. 1, 2), but this power they receive from their archpastor by means of the sacramental ordination. Some chosen ones are, by the will of the bishop, admitted, in general to bear with him the burden of the church government and even form with him for that purpose a permanent council. But, according to an old expression, they only serve in the place of the bishop's eyes and in themselves, without his consent, can do nothing. But the deacons have not received from the Lord the right to bind and loose, and so in themselves do not have any spiritual power over the believers. But the deacons may be the eye and the ear of the bishops and presbyters, as also the hands of the presiding officers, with their consent, for the purpose of performing ecclesiastic duties.

"After all which has been said, we find quite comprehensible the high names and expressions which are applied to the bishops, such as that they are alone, in the strict sense, the successors of the apostles, that the church is resting firmly on its bishops, as on supports; that a bishop is ' a living image of God on earth, and, by force of the sacramental power of the Holy Ghost, a prolific source of all the sacraments of the church, by means of which he procures salvation; and so he is as necessary for the church as breathing is for man, as the sun is for the world ' (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Section 10); that in the bishops is the centre of the believers who belong to his eparchy; that he is even the particular head of his spiritual realm; that, finally, as Cyprian says, ' the bishop is in the church, and the church (which is subject to him) is in the bishop, and that he who is not in communion with the bishop is not in the church.'" (pp. 227-229.)

The pastors of various degrees, united among themselves, decide, and the people have to obey, and all that which is called the church not merely as an ornament of speech, but in reality, that is, that organ which expresses the faith which men must follow, — that church is the bishops.

175. This article shows that the church is the bishops, and that the higher power above them is an assembly of all the bishops, which is called a council, that is, of several bishops. In this article there is a very detailed account, such as is given in the Statute about the justices of the peace, about the relations of all these persons among themselves :

"From this may be seen, without any new proofs, that the right to sit in councils, both local and oecumenical, and the right to pass on ecclesiastical matters belong exclusively to the bishops as the heads of the separate churches; and the presbyters, who in everything depend on their local archpastors, may be admitted to the councils only by their consent, and then only as counsellors, or assistants, or their plenipotentiaries, and may occupy only the second place. Even so may be admitted the deacons, who must stand before the face of the bishops. For this reason the councils were by the holy fathers of the church generally called assemblies of the bishops. The Second CEcumenical Council called the Symbol of Faith which was composed at the first council, 'the faith of 318 holy fathers ' (for that was the number of bishops present at that council); the council in Trullo called the definitions of faith of all the previous oecumenical councils ^profession or faith of the holy fathers, the bishops, according to the number of those who met at these councils.' "(p. 231.)

Then comes Art. 176, in which we have an exposition of Christ's being the head of the church. That is apparent (1) from the fact that Christ before the ascension said, not to the church but to his disciples, "I am with you to the end of the world. Amen." In the Theology, the following words are added to that : "and with all your future successors," and that is taken as a proof that all those who call themselves the interpreters of Christ regard themselves as his successors.

"(2) From this fact in particular that, although he entrusted the power of teaching to the apostles and their successors, he told them to call him only the supreme teacher, who invisibly, through them, taught the believers (Matt, xxiii. 10), and so he said: He that heareth you heareth me; and he that despiseth you despiseth me (Luke X. 16)." (p. 232.)

This passage with its references is striking. I thought that nothing in the Theology would startle me, but the boldness with which this verse is quoted, and with which an opposite significance is given to it, is staggering. Here is the verse, or, rather, the whole passage : But be not ye called Rabbi : for one is your Master, even Christ; and all ye are brethren. And call no man your father upon the earth: for one is your Father, which is in heaven.

Neither be ye called masters: for one is your Master, even Christ (Matt, xxiii. 8-10).

This very verse, these words, which are said directly against those who call themselves teachers, fathers, and masters, — this verse is connected with the verse (Luke X. 16), which has absolutely nothing in common with the first, and is adduced as a proof that those very teachers, who call themselves so against the command of Christ, have Christ as their head. After that follow proofs that (Art. 177) the church is One, (179) Holy, (180) Catholic and Universal, and (181) Apostolic.

In Division III., about the Universal Church, it says :

"III. The special privilege of the Catholic, or Universal, Church consists in this, that in matters of faith ' it cannot err in any way, nor deceive, nor be deceived; but, like Divine Scripture, it is infallible and has eternal dignity ' (Epistle of the Eastern Patriarchs, Section 12), a privilege of which enough has been said by us in the proper place."

The moral apphcation of this dogma for the first time results directly from the dogma. The apphcation of the dogma consists in obeying the church.

"(1) The Lord Jesus founded his church that it might regenerate men and educate them for eternal life; and so our relation to it has to be that of children to their mother; we are obliged to love the church of Christ as our spiritual mother and to obey it in everything as our spiritual mother. In particular our Lord Jesus : (2) enjoined the church to keep and teach to men its divine doctrine; it is our duty to receive this teaching from the mouth of the God-given church, and to understand it precisely as the church, which is instructed by the Holy Ghost, understands it; (3) he entrusted to the church the performance of mysteries and, in general, sacraments for the sanctifi cation of men; it is our duty in awe to make use of the saving mysteries and all the other sacraments, which it performs over us; (4) he entrusted the church with the guidance of men and with confirming them in their godly hves; it is our duty without murmuring to submit to the inspiration of such a guide and hoHly to execute all the commands of the church; (5) he himseK established the hierarchy and priestly order in the church, pointed out the difference between the flock and the pastors, and showed each a definite place and service; it is the duty of all the members of the church, of the pastors and the flock, to be that which they are called to be, and to keep well in mind that we have gifts diftering according to the grace that is given to us (Rom. xii. 6), and that to every one of us is given grace according to the measure of the gift of Christ (Eph. iv. 7)." (p. 246.)

So that is what the church is as an establishment, as a keeper and announcer of truths, of dogmas I That on which the whole Theology is based is a self-constituted hierarchy and, in distinction from all others, a hierarchy which regards itself alone as holy and infallible and as being the only one that has the right to preach the divine revelation. Thus the whole doctrine of the church, as the Theology teaches it, is all based on establishing the conception of the church as the only true keeper of divine truth, in order to substitute for this conception that of a certain, definite hierarchy, that is, to connect a human institution, the outgrowth of pride, malice, and hatred, which utters dogmas and instructs the flock only in that teaching which it alone regards as true, with the conception of the assembly of all believers who have invisibly at their head Christ himself, — the mystical body of Christ. To that the whole teaching of the Theology reduces itself.

This teaching asserts that the only, true church, — the body of Christ, is it alone. The train of thought is as follows : Having collected the disciples, God revealed the truth to them and promised to be with them. That truth is complete and divine. The truth which we preach is the same truth. Even leaving out of discussion the fact that for every man who has read Holy Scripture and who has seen the arguments which the Theology adduces in proof, it is evident that Christ never established any hierarchy, any church, in the sense in which the Theology understands it; leaving out of consideration that for every one who reads history it is evident that many men have imagined themselves to be such churches, while they contended with one another and did one another harm, — there involuntarily rises the question : on what grounds does our hierarchy consider itself to be the true one, and the other hierarchies and assemblies not to be true ? Why is the Nicene symbol an expression of the true, holy church, and why not the Arian symbol, which our hierarchy has been contending against, for were not the bishops, partisans of Arius, as much ordained by succession from the apostles as the partisans of the Nicene symbol ? And if this ordainment does not save men from error, why is our church the keeper of truth, and not of untruth ? The Theology does not even make an attempt at answering this, for by its doctrine it cannot give any answer, since subjects that are arbitrarily passed upon cannot be proved, and so the hierarchy says only that it is right because it is holy and infallible, and it is holy and infallible, because it is a follower of the hierarchy which has acknowledged the Nicene symbol. But why is the hierarchy which has acknowledged the Nicene symbol the true one ? To that there is, and there can be, no answer, so that the recognition of the hierarchy, which calls itself the true, holy, only, universal and apostolic church, is only an expression of a demand that faith should be put in it, an assertion like the one made by a man who says, "Upon my word, I am right." But this assertion is particularly weakened by the fact that every assertion of the hierarchy about being holy is always due to this, that another hierarchy, which on some point disagrees with it, says precisely the opposite and asserts that it is right and to the words, "It is permitted to us and to the Holy Ghost," replies that the Holy Ghost lives in it, — something like what happens when two men swear, denying each other.

All the theologians, no matter how much they may try to conceal it, speak and do nothing else. The church — the union of all believers, the body of Christ — is only an adornment of speech, in order to add importance to a human institution, the hierarchy and its assumed succession, upon which everything is built up. Eemarkable and instructive in this respect are the attempts of the modern theologians, of Vinet and his followers, of Khomyakov and his scions, to find new supports for the teaching about the church, and to build up the definition of the church not on the hierarchy, but on the whole assembly of the believers, on the flock. These new theologians, without noticing it themselves, in their attempts to make stable the tree which is planted without roots, make it fall entirely. These theologians deny the hierarchy and prove the falseness of that foundation, and they think that they are giving it a different foundation. But, unfortunately, this other foundation is nothing but that sophism of theology, under which it tries to conceal the crudity of its doctrine about the church being the hierarchy. That sophism the new theologians take for a foundation and they completely overthrow the doctrine of the church, while they themselves are left with a most palpable sophism, but without a foundation.

Their error is like this : The church has received among believers two main meanings, — one, that the church is a human, temporal institution, and the other, that the church is the totality of men living and dead, who are united by one true faith. The first is a definite historical phenomenon : an assemblage of men subject to certain rules and regulations, and one from which statutes mayissue. Whether I speak of the Catholic Cliurch of such and such a year, or of the Roman, or Greek Orthodox Church, I am speaking of certain people, — the Pope, patriarchs, bishops, — who are organized in a certain manner and who in a certain way direct their flocks. The second is an abstract idea, and if I speak of the church in this sense, it is evident that attributes of time and place cannot be its definitions, and under no circumstance can there be definite decrees, expressed in definite words. The only definition of such a church, as the carrier of divine truth, is a correspondence with what is the divine truth.

The equating of these two conceptions to each other, and the substitution of one for the other, has always formed a problem of all Christian confessions of faith. An assemblage of people, wishing to convince others that it possesses the absolute truth, asserts that it is holy and infallible. Its holiness and infallibility it builds on two foundations : on the manifestations of the Holy Ghost, which find their expression in the holiness of the members of that community and then in miracles, and on the legitimate succession of the teachership, which proceeds from Christ.

The first foundation does not stand criticism : holiness cannot be measured or proved; miracles are detected and proved deceptions, and so miracles cannot be adduced as proofs, so there is left but one proof, the correct succession of the hierarchy. That, too, cannot be proved, but equally it cannot be refuted, and so all the churches hold themselves on that foundation;^ on that argument alone do the churches at the present time hold themselves, and it is the only oue on which they can hold themselves. If a Cathohc, an Orthodox, an Old Ceremonialist, affirm that they have the truth, they can incontrovertibly base their assertions only on the infallibility of the succession of the keepers of the Tradition. The

Catholic Church recognizes the Pope as the head of the hierarchy, and in its development inevitably had to acknowledge the infallibility of the Pope. The Greek Church could fail to recognize the Pope, but in not recognizing the necessity of that supreme member of the hierarchy, it could not help but recognize the infallibility of the hierarchy itself; even so the Protestant Church, in failing to recognize Catholicism during its decadence, could not help but recognize the infallibility of that hierarchy whose dogmas it recognizes, for without the infallibility of the succession of the keepers of the Tradition it would have no foundation for the assertion of its truth.

All the churches maintain themselves only by recognizing the infallibility of that hierarchy which they accept. You may not agree in saying that such and such a hierarchy is the only correct one, but when a man says that he accepts as true the hierarchy whose dogmas he accepts, you cannot prove to him the incorrectness of his dogmas. That is the only indestructible foundation, and so all the churches cling to it. Now, the new theologians destroy this only foundation, thinking that they are substituting a better one for it. The new theologians say that divine truth is kept, not by the infallibility of the hierarchy, but in the totality of all believers who are united in love, and that only to men who are united in love is divine truth given, and that such a church is defined solely by faith and oneness in love and in concord. This reflection is good in itself, but, unfortunately, from it cannot be deduced a single one of the dogmas which the theologians profess.

The theologians forget that, in order to recognize a certain dogma, it was necessary to recognize Tradition to be holy and definitely expressed in the decrees of the infallible hierarchy. But by rejecting the infallibility of the hierarchy, it is impossible to affirm anything, and there is not a single proposition of the church which could unite all the believers. The affirmation of these theologians that they recognize those decrees which express the faith of all undivided Christians and reject all the arbitrary decrees of the separate Christians is quite incorrect, because there has never existed such a complete oneness of the Christians. Side by side with the Nicene symbol, there was an Arian symbol, and the Nicene symbol was not accepted by all, but only by one part of the hierarchy, and other Christians recognized that symbol only because they recognized the infallibility of the hierarchy which expressed it, saying, "It pleased us and the Holy Ghost." But there has never been a time when all the Christians agreed on anything, and the councils were assembled for the very purpose of getting in some manner away from the controversies about the dogmas, which divided the Christians.

Thus the oneness in love has, in the first place, never existed, and, in the second place, this oneness in love, by its very essence, cannot be expressed or defined in any way. The new theologians affirm that by church they understand the union of all the believers, the body of Christ, and by no means the infallible hierarchy and a human institution; but the moment they touch on matters of the church, it becomes evident that by church they understand, and must of necessity understand, a human institution. The cares of all these theologians, beginning with Luther, about the relation of church and state, prove conclusively that these theologians understand by church a still more debased human institution than is understood by the Catholics or the Orthodox. The church theologians are more consistent in their discussions. The church, according to their doctrine, is the bishops and the Pope; thus they speak, and so it is. The Pope and the bishops must, according to their teaching, stand at the head of all worldly institutions, and there can be no question about the relation of the church to the state. The church is always the head of everything. Among the Protestants there appears, in spite of the apparently high significance which they ascribe to the church, the question about the relations of church and state. They are all busy now separating or freeing the church from the oppression of the state, and all of them complain of the wretched condition of divine truth and of Christ at its head, who is in captivity under Bismarck, Gambetta, and so forth, but they forget that if the state can exert any influence on the church, it is evident that, in speaking of the church, we are speaking not of the divine truth which has Christ at its head, but of a human institution.

Men who believe in the teaching of the church cannot base their faith on anything but the legality, the regularity of the succession of the hierarchy. But the regularity and legality of the succession of the hierarchy cannot be proved in any way. No historical investigations can confirm it. On the contrary, historical investigations not only fail to confirm the regularity of any hierarchy, but show directly that Christ did not establish an infallible hierarchy, that in the first times it did not exist, that that system arose in the time of the decline of the Christian teaching, during the time of hatred and malice on account of some interpretation of dogmas, and that all the most varied Christian teachings have asserted just as positively their rights in the regularity of the succession in their church, and have denied that regularity in others, so that the whole doctrine of the Theology, which in regard to the church is not verified in any respect, comes down for me to the desire of certain persons to advance, in opposition to other teachings (which have just such pretensions and which with just as much right assert that they are in the right), their own teaching as the only one which is true and holy.

So far I have not seen in this teaching anything true and holy, and not even anything rational and good. The attempts of these theologians, especially of our Khomyakdv, to overthrow the foundation of the church, the infallibility of the hierarchy, and to put in its place the mystical conception of all the believers who are united in love, is the last convulsion of this church teaching, a support which brings the whole structure to its fall. Indeed, a remarkable quid pro qiio takes place here. To conceal its crude assertion that the church is the infallible hierarchy, the Theology cloaks itself with false definitions of the church in the sense of an assemblage of all the behevers. The new theologians grasp this external and false definition and, imagining that they are basing their church upon it, destroy the one essential support of the church, the infallibility of the hierarchy. Indeed, for any one who does not even wish to trouble himself to investigate the arguments of the church about the infallibility of the hierarchy, it is sufficient to read all that which the Protestant hterature has worked out in this respect. The foundation of the infalhbility of the hierarchy is destroyed in the name of the foundation of the church as an assemblage of believers united in love. However, an assemblage of behevers united in love can, obviously, not define any dogma, or a Nicene symbol, as Khomyakdv and other theologians believe.

An assemblage of believers united in love is such a general conception that upon it no common creed, or dogma, common to all the Christians, can be based, so that the work of the new theologians, if they are at all consistent, reduces itself to this, that the only foundation of the church, the infallibility of the church, is destroyed, but the new one is left what it was, a mystical conception from which can foUow no creed, much less a confession of faith. The only foundation is the infallibility of the hierarchy, — for those who believe in it.