Pobedonostsev: The Church (Part I)

REFLECTIONS OF A RUSSIAN STATESMAN
THE CHURCH

I

The more we consider the distinctive ethnical features of religion the more firmly we are convinced how unattainable is an union of creeds by a factitious accord in dogma, on the principle of reciprocal concessions in immaterial things. The essential in religion cannot be expressed on paper, or categorically formulated. The most essential, the most persistent, and the most precious things in all religious creeds are as elusive and as insusceptible of definition as varieties of light and shade as feelings born of an infinite series of emotions, conceptions, and impressions. The essential elements are so involved with the psychical nature of the race, with the principles of their moral philosophy, that it is futile to separate one from the other. The children of different races and different faiths, in many relations may feel as brethren, and give to one another their hands ; but to feel themselves worshippers in the same temple, joined in religious communion, they must have lived together long and closely, they must sympathise with the conditions of each other's existence, they must be bound by the most intimate links in the depths of their souls. A German who has lived long in our country may come unconsciously to believe as Russians believe, and to feel at home in the Russian Church. He becomes one of us, and is in complete spiritual communion with us. But that a Protestant community, situated far away, judging us by report, could, through abstract accord in dogma and ritual, combine with us in one church in organic alliance, and become one with us in spirit, is inconceivable. No reunion of churches based upon accord in doctrine has ever succeeded ; the false principle of such an alliance must sooner or later manifest itself, its fruit is everywhere an increase not of love but of mutual estrangement and hatred.

May God forbid that we should condemn one another because of faith ; let each believe as he will! But each man has a faith which is his refuge, which satisfies his spiritual needs, which he loves ; and it is impossible for him when brought into contact with another faith not to feel that it is not his own, that it is inhospitable and cold. Let reason prove, with abstract arguments, that all men pray to one God. Sentiment is repelled by reasoning such as this ; sometimes sentiment feels that in a strange church it prays to a strange god.

Many will laugh at this sentiment, or condemn it as superstition and fanaticism. They will be wrong. Sentiment is not always delusive, it sometimes expresses truth more directly and justly than reason itself.

The Protestant Church and the Protestant faith are cold and inhospitable to Russians. For us to
recognise this faith would be as bitter as death. This is a direct sentiment. But there are many
good reasons to justify it. The following is one which especially strikes us by its obviousness.

In the polemics of theologians, in religious dissensions, in the conscience of every man and of every race, one of the greatest questions is that of works. Which is the greater, works or faith? We know that on this question the Latin doctrine differs from the Protestant. In his theological compositions, the late M. Khomyakofif well explained how deceptive is the scholastic-absolute treatment of this question. Union of faith with works, like identity of words and thought, of deeds and words, is an ideal unattainable by human nature, as all things absolute are unattainable - an ideal eternally troubling and eternally alluring the faithful soul.

Faith without works is sterile. Faith opposed to works offends us with the consciousness of internal falsehood ; but in the infinite world of externals around mankind what can work, what can any possible work signify without faith ?

Prove me thy faith by thy deeds, a terrible command ! What can a believer answer when his questioner seeks to recognise the faith by the works. If such a question were put by a Protestant to a member of the Orthodox Church, what would the answer be? He could only hang his head. He would feel that he had nothing to show, that all was imperfect and disorderly. But in a minute he might lift his head and say : " We have nothing to show, sinners as we are, yet neither are you beyond reproach. Come to us, live with us, see our faith, study our sentiments, and you will learn to love us. As for our works, you will see them such as they are." From such an answer ninety-nine out of a hundred would turn with a contemptuous laugh. The truth is that we do not know, and dare not show our works.

It is not so with them. They can show their works, and, to speak the truth, they have much to show of works and institutions existing, and preserved for centuries in perfect order. See, says the Catholic Church, what I mean to the community which hears me and which serves me ; which I created, and which I sustain. Here are works of love, works of faith, apostolic works ; here are deeds of martyrdom ; here are regiments of believers, united as one, which I send to the ends of the earth. Is it not plain that grace is in me, and has been in me from the beginning until now?

See, says the Protestant Church, I do not tolerate falsehood, deception, or superstition. My works conform to faith, and reason is reconciled with it. I have consecrated labour, human relations, and family happiness ; by faith I destroy all idleness and superstition ; I establish justice, honesty, and social order. I teach daily, and my doctrine accords with life. It educates generations in the performance of honourable work, and in good manners. My teaching renews humanity in virtue and justice. My mission is to destroy with the sword of words and deeds corruption and hypocrisy everywhere. Is it not plain that the grace of God is in me, since I see things from the true standpoint ?

To the present day Protestants and Catholics contend over the dogmatic signification of works in
relation to faith. But in spite of the total contradiction of their theological doctrines, both set works at the head of their religion. In the Latin Church works are the justification, the redemption, and the witness of grace. The Lutherans regard works, and, at the same time, religion itself, from the practical point of view. Works for them are the end of religion ; they are the touchstone which proves religious and canonical truth, and it is on this point more than on any other that our doctrine differs from the doctrine of Protestantism. It is true that these doctrines do not constitute a dogma of the Lutheran Church, but they pervade its teaching. Beyond all dispute they have an important practical value for this world ; and therefore many would set up the Protestant Church as a model and an ideal for us. But the Russian, in the depths of a believing soul, will never accept such a view. " Godliness is profitable unto all things," says the apostle, but utility is hardly one of its natural attributes. The Russians, as others, know that they ought to live by religion, and feel how ill their lives accord with their beliefs ; but the essence, the end of their faith is not the practical life, but the salvation of their souls, and with the love of religion they seek to embrace all, from the just man who lives according to his faith, to the thief, who, his works notwithstanding, would be pardoned in an instant.

This practical basis of Protestantism is nowhere shown more plainly than in the Anglican Church,
and in the religious spirit of the English people. It accords with the character of the nation as formed by history to direct all thought and action to practical aims, steadfastly and tenaciously pursuing success, and in all things taking those paths and measures which are short and sure. This innate tendency must seek a moral base, and must construct a system of morals ; and it is natural that these moral principles shall seek a sanction in a religious spirit corresponding to their nature. Religion indisputably consecrates the moral principle of activity ; its precepts teach us how to live and act ; it demands laboriousness, honesty, and justice. This no one will dispute. But, in the practical consideration of religion, we pass directly to the question : What of the faith of those who live in idleness, who are dishonest and false, corrupt, and disorderly, who cannot control their passions ? Such men are heathen, not Christian ; he only is a Christian who lives by the law, and in himself bears witness to its power.

This reasoning is logical in appearance. But who has not asked the question : What is the part in
the world and in the Church of the wanton and dishonest, who, in the words of Christ, shall take
a higher place in the kingdom of heaven than the just according to the law ?

It would be too much to suppose that such religious opinions constitute a positive formula of
the Church of England. Such a formula would be a direct negation of the precepts of the Evangel.
But such is precisely the spirit of religion among the most zealous and conscientious representatives of the so-called National Established Church, which they defend and extol as the first bulwark of the State, and, as the last expression of the national genius. In English literature, both religious and profane, this view is expressed, sometimes in trenchant words which would excite doubt and almost terror in the mind of a Russian reader.

In a work remarkable for depth and clearness of thought, written evidently by a believer deeply and jealously attached to his Church, the following remarks occur upon religion :

"Some forms of religion are distinctly unfavourable to a sense of social duty. Others have simply no relation to it whatever, and of those which favour it (as is the case in various degrees with every form of Christianity) some promote it far more powerfully than others. I should say that those which promote it most power- fully are those of which the central figure is an infinitely wise and powerful Legislator whose own nature is confessedly inscrutable to man, but who has made the world as it is for a prudent, steady, hard, enduring race of people, who are neither fools nor cowards, who have no particular love for those who are, who distinctly know what they want, and are determined to use all lawful means to get it. Some such religion as this is the unspoken deeply-rooted conviction of the solid, established part of the English nation. They form an anvil which has worn out a good many hammers, and will wear out a good many more, enthusiasts and humanitarians notwithstanding." Stephen (Sir James F.), "Liberty, Equality, Fraternity," pp. 305-6. London, 1873.

Such is the conception of religion held by a convinced Anglican churchman. The passage I have
quoted is a direct negation of the words of the Evangel, for it says : Happy are the strong and powerful, for they shall possess the kingdom ; to which we reply : Yes, the kingdom of the earth, but not the kingdom of heaven. The author makes no such limitation ; he sees no distinction between the kingdom of heaven and the kingdom of earth. What a terrible and despairing doctrine !

Such tendencies of religious thought were indisputably of the greatest practical value in Protestant countries, especially in England ; and it cannot be denied that Protestantism was a strong and beneficent influence towards social development among the peoples who accepted it, and with whose nature it accorded. But is it not plain that certain races, by their nature, could never accept or submit to it, because they do not find in this doctrine of Protestantism the vital principle of religion? They see not unity but a duality of the religious conscience ; not the living truth, but a factitious composition of speculation and falsehood.

"Woe to the weak and fallen ! Woe to the vanquished ! " Truly in this life this is inevitable truth, and the voice of worldly wisdom cries to us: Fight, get and hold by force if you would live in this world there is no place for the weak. But the soul will no more allow the absolute and dogmatic application of this rule to religion than it will accept the terrible Calvinist doctrine that some are predestined from eternity to virtue, to glory, to salvation, and to happiness ; while others, no matter what their lives may be, are condemned from eternity to the abyss of despair and eternal torment.

It is terrible to read those English writers who sound with special emphasis this chord of English Protestantism. Carlyle, for instance, is seized with rapturous emotion through the strength and talent of the conqueror, while he despises the conquered. He honours his strong men as the incarnation of Godhead, and treats with thin, contemptuous irony the weak and unhappy, the incapable and the fallen, crushed by the triumphal chariot of the conqueror. His heroes personify the idea of light and order in the darkness and disorder of the cosmic chaos ; they create their own universe ; all whom they meet on their path who refuse to submit and to serve, yet have not the strength to resist, are justly and utterly destroyed. Carlyle's extraordinary talents infatuate the reader, but it is painful to read his historical writings, and see the name of God invoked in the struggle of the strong with the weak. The pagans of the classic age, with better sense, sent, by the chariot of the conqueror, a jester, who represented the moral principle, pursuing with his irony, not the conquered but the conqueror himself.

Most painful of all is it to read Froude, the celebrated historian of the English Reformation, and the best representative among historians of the principles of the English people in religion and in politics. Carlyle, at least, is a poet, while Froude speaks in the tranquil tones of the historian, loves dialectics, and knows no iniquity which he cannot justify by dialectics in the interest of a favourite idea. There is no hypocrisy which he does not glorify as truth in his justification of the Reformation and of its protagonists. Unshakeable and fanatical, he holds to the principles of Anglican orthodoxy, the base of which he declares is the recognition of social duty, devotion to the political idea and to the law, and the implacable chastisement of vice and crime and idleness, and all that is designated the betrayal of duty. In human affairs, all this is excellent ; but can we make such principles the beginning and end of religion, when we think how the words, duty, law, vice, and crime are variously interpreted day by day, and that men to-day call justice and courage what to-morrow may be condemned as falsehood and crime. For charity and compassion the religion of Froude has no place. How can he reconcile charity with indignation for vice and crime, for the violation of the law ? Speaking of the terrible punishments sometimes endured by the innocent as well as the guilty, this stern judge of human affairs eulogises his compatriots as a strong and severe people who know no pity where there is no legal cause for pity, and who, on the contrary, are filled with a sacred and solemn horror of crime, a sentiment which, as it develops in the soul, of necessity hardens it, and results in forming an iron character. The man of severe morality is inclined to compassion only when the disposition to good remains in conflict with evil : in cases of total corruption compassion is unjustifiable, and is conceivable only when in our hearts we confound crime with misfortune. Such, in effect, are the sentiments of Froude.

How the author would have despised us Russians, in whose minds there actually is such confusion, and who from time immemorial have called the culprit unfortunate (nestckastnui).

The characters of churches, as the characters of men, and the characters of races, have their merits and defects. The merits of Protestantism are well explained by the history of the German and Anglo-Saxon races. The spirit of Puritanism has created the Britain of the present day. The principle of Protestantism gave to Germany strength, and discipline, and unity. Yet we see with this some defects and tendencies with which we cannot sympathise. As every spiritual force, Protestantism is most inclined to fall where it seeks its firmest spiritual foundation. In aspiring to absolute truth, to the purifying of faith and its realisation in life, it is over-confident of its own righteousness, it is infatuated to idolatry with its justice, and it despises the strange faith which temporises with untruth. Thence springs the danger of hypocrisy and of pharisaical pride. And, indeed, how often do we hear with bitterness from the Protestant world that hypocrisy is the plague of rigorous Lutheranism ! On the other hand, while beginning by preaching toleration, and liberty of thought and belief, Protestantism, in its ultimate development, is inclined to fanaticism of a peculiar nature, the fanaticism of the pride of intellect, the fanaticism of a rectitude above all other faiths. Rigid Protestantism treats with contempt every faith which appears to it unclean, uninspired, defiled by the superstition and ritual which it has cast off as the fetters of slaves, the garments of children, the attributes to ignorance. Creating for itself a system of beliefs and ceremonies, it maintains its doctrine as the doctrine of the elect, the enlightened and the rational, and regards all those who hold to the ancient Church as beings of a lower race, who cannot rise to the height of pure reasoning. This contemptuous attitude is expressed unconsciously, but it is only too sensible by the adherents to other faiths. No religion is free from fanaticism, but the height of all absurdity is reached when Lutherans turn to us with such accusations. In spite of the tolerance which is inherent in our national character, we meet, of course, individual cases of exclusiveness and bigotry in religion ; but there never has been, and never can be, anything like to that contempt with which rigid Lutherans regard the attributes to our Church, and the qualities of our faith, which to them are incomprehensible, but to us are filled with a deep spiritual significance.