(μαγάλα δυναμένης μάλιστα τῆς ἀναιμάκτου θυσίας), which individuals offer for their departed relatives, and which the Catholic and Apostolic Church daily offers for all alike. The liberation from this intervening state of purification will take place before the resurrection and the general judgment, but the time is unknown.

This is essentially the Romish doctrine of purgatory, although the term is avoided, and nothing is said of material or physical torments.'

To these eighteen decrees are added four questions and answers, with polemic reference to the similar questions at the close of the enlarged edition of Cyril's Confession.2 The first question discourages and even prohibits the general and indiscriminate reading of the Holy Scriptures, especially certain portions of the Old Testament. The second denies the perspicuity of the Scriptures. The third defines the extent of the canon including the Apocrypha. The fourth teaches the worship of saints, especially the Mother of God (who is the object of

3

1 The same doctrine is taught in the Longer Russian Catechism of Philaret (on the 11th article of the Nicene Creed). It is often asserted (even by Winer, who is generally very accurate, Symb. pp. 158, 159) that the Greek Church rejects the Romish purgatory. Winer quotes the Conf. Metrophanis Critopuli, c. 20; but this has no ecclesiastical authority, and, although it rejects the word up кa≈aprýpiov (ignis purgatorius), and all idea of material or physical pain (τὴν ἐκείνων ποινὴν μὴ ὑλικὴν εἶναι, εἴτους ὀργανικήν, μὴ διὰ πυρός, μήτε aλAŋç üλnç), it asserts, nevertheless, a spiritual pain of conscience in the middle state (áλà διὰ θλίψεως καὶ ἀνίας τῆς συνειδήσεως), from which the sufferers may be released by prayers and the sacrifice of the altar. The Conf. Orthodoxa (P. I. Qu. 66) speaks vaguely of a πpóokaiρog kódaoig kaTaptıkǹ twv &vxwv, ‘a temporary purifying (disciplinary) punishment of the souls.' The Roman Church, on her part, does not require belief in a material fire. The Greek Church has no such minute geography of the spirit world as the Latin, which, besides heaven and hell proper, teaches an intervening region of purgatory for imperfect Christians, and two border regions, the Limbus Patrum for the saints of the Old Testament now delivered, and the Limbus Infantum for unbaptized children; but it differs much more widely from the Protestant eschatology, which rejects the idea of a third or middle place altogether, and assigns all the departed either to a state of bliss or a state of misery; allowing, however, different degrees in both states corresponding to the different degrees of holiness and wickedness. Comp. § 15, p. 57.

2

3 The following Apocrypha are expressly mentioned (Vol. I. p. 467): The Wisdom of Solomon, Judith, Tobit, History of the Dragon, History of Susannah, the books of the Maccabees, the Wisdom of Sirach. The Confession of Mogilas, though not formally sanctioning the Apoorypha, quotes them frequently as authority, e. g. Tobit xii. 9, in P. III. Qu. 9, on alms. On the other hand, the less important Confession of Metrophanes Critopulus, c. 7 (Kimmel, P. II. p. 104 sq.), mentions only twenty-two canonical books of the Old Test., and excludes from them the Apocrypha, mentioning Tobit, Judith, Wisdom of Solomon, Wisdom of Sirach, The Russian Catechism of Philaret omits the Apocrypha in Baruch, and the Maccabees. enumerating the books of the Old Test., for the reason that they do not exist in Hebrew,' but adds that they have been appointed by the fathers to be read by proselytes who are preparing for admission into the Church.' (See Vol. II. 451, and Blackmore's translation, pp.38,39.)

6

hyperdulia, as distinct from the ordinary dulia of saints, and the latria or worship proper due to God), as also the worshipful veneration of the cross, the holy Gospels, the holy vessels, the holy places,' and of the images of Christ and of the saints.2

In all these important points the Synod of Jerusalem again essentially agrees with the Church of Rome, and radically dissents from Protestantism.

§ 18. THE SYNODS OF CONSTANTINOPLE, A.D. 1672 AND 1691. Three months previous to the Synod of Jerusalem a Synod was held at Constantinople (January, 1672), which adopted a doctrinal statement signed by DIONYSIUS, Patriarch of Constantinople, and forty-three dignitaries belonging to his patriarchate.3 It is less complete than the Confession of Dositheus, but agrees with it on all points, as the authority and infallibility of the Church, the extent of the canon, the seven mysteries (sacraments), the real sacrifice of the altar, and the miraculous transformation of the elements.

Another Synod was held in Constantinople nineteen years afterwards, in 1691, under Patriarch CALLINICUS, for the purpose of giving renewed sanction to the orthodox doctrine of the Eucharist, in opposition to Logothet John Caryophylus, who had rejected the Romish theory of transubstantiation, and defended the Calvinistic view of Cyril Lucar. The Synod condemned him, and declared that the Eastern Church had always taught a change (utraßon) of the elements in the sense of a transubstantiation (uerovoíwois), or an actual transformation of their essence into the body and blood of Christ.5

· προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ τιμῶμεν τὸ ξύλον τοῦ τιμίου τοῦ ζωοποιοῦ σταυροῦ, κ. τ. λ.

* τὴν εἰκόνα τοῦ Κυρίου ἡμῶν Ἰησοῦ Χρ. καὶ τῆς ὑπεραγίας Θεοτόκου καὶ πάντων τῶν ἁγίων προσκυνοῦμεν καὶ τιμῶμεν καὶ ἀσπαζόμεθα.

It is called DIONYSII, Patr. Const., super Calvinistarum erroribus ac reali imprimis præsentía responsio, and is published in some editions of the Confession of the Synod of Jerusalem; in Harduini Acta Conciliorum, Tom. XI. pp. 274-282; and in the second volume of Kimmel's Monumenta, pp. 214-227.

On this the document teaches (Kimmel, P. II. p. 218) that when the priest prays, 'Make (oingov) this bread the precious blood of thy Christ,' then, by the mysterious and ineffable operation of the Holy Ghost, ὁ μὲν ἄρτος μεταποιεῖται (transmutatur) εἰς αὐτὸ ἐκεῖνο τὸ ἴδιον σῶμα τοῦ σωτῆρος Χριστοῦ πραγματικῶς καὶ ἀληθῶς καὶ κυρίως (realiter, vere, ac proprie), ὁ δὲ οἶνος εἰς τὸ ζωοποιόν αἷμα αὐτοῦ.

I have not been able to procure the proceedings of this Synod; they are omitted both by Hardouin and Kimmel. They were first printed at Jassy, 1698; then in Greek and Latin by

§ 19. THE DOCTRINAL STANDARDS OF THE RUSSO-GREEK CHURCH.

I. Russian Doctrine and Theology:

Literature.

The Catechisms of PLATON and PHILARET (see below).

R. W. BLACKMORE: The Doctrine of the Russian Church, etc., Aberdeen, 1845.

W. GUETTEE (Russian Priest and Doctor of Divinity): Exposition de la doctrine de l'église catholique orthodoxe de Russie, Paris, 1866.

THEOPHANES PROCOPOWICZ: Theologia Christiana orthodoxa, Königsberg, 1773-1775, 5 vols. (abridged, Moscow, 1802).

HYAC. KIRPINSKI: Compendium orthodoxa theologiæ, Lips. 1786.

II. Worship and Ritual:

The divine Liturgy of ST. JOHN CHRYSOSTOM (the Liturgy used in the Orthodox Eastern Church), Greek ed. by DANIEL, Cod. Liturg. Tom. IV. P. II. p. 327, etc.; by J. M. NEALE, in Primitive Liturgies, 2d edition, London, 1868; English translations by KING, NEALE, BRETT, COVEL, J. FREEMAN Young (the last publ. New York, 1865, as No. VI. of the 'Papers of the Russo-Greek Committee'). Comp. also the entire fourth volume of DANIEL's Codex Liturg. (which gives the Oriental Liturgies), and NEALE'S Primitive Liturgies, and his Introd. to the History of the Holy Eastern Church (Lond. 1850).

JOHN GLEN KING (Anglican Chaplain at St. Petersburg): The Rites and Ceremonies of the Greek Church in Russia, Lond. 1772. Very instructive.

III. History and Present Condition of the Russian Church:

ALEX. DE STOURDZA: Considérations sur la doctrine et l'esprit de l'église orthodoxe, Weimar, 1816. STRAHL: Contributions to Russian Church History, Halle, 1827; and History of the Russian Church, Halle, 1830.

MOURAVIEFF: History of the Church of Russia, St. Petersburg, 1840; translated by Blackmore, Oxford, 1842. Comes down to 1721.

PINKERTON: Russia, London, 1833.

HAXTHAUSEN: Researches on Russia, German and French, 1847-52, 3 vols.

THEINER: Die Staats-Kirche Russlands, 1853.

H. J. SCHMITT: Kritische Geschichte der neugriechischen und der russischen Kirche, Mainz, 2d ed. 1854. Prince AUG. GALITZIN: L'église Græco-Russe, Paris, 1861.

Dean STANLEY: Lectures on the History of the Eastern Church, Lond. and N. Y. 1862, Lect. IX.-XIL BOISSARD: L'église de Russie, Paris, 1867, 2 vols.

PHILARET (Archbishop of Tschernigow): Geschichte der Kirche Russlands, transl. by Blumenthal, 1872. BABAROFF: Russische orthodoxe Kirche. Ein Umriss ihrer Entstehung u. ihres Lebens, Stuttgart, 1873. Also the Occasional Papers of the Eastern Church Associations' of the Church of England and the Protestant Episcopal Church in the United States, publ. in Lond. (Rivington's), and N. York, since 1864.

The latest doctrinal standards of Greek Christianity are the authorized Catechisms and Church-books of the orthodox Church of Russia, by far the most important and hopeful branch of the Eastern Communion.

Russia received Christianity from the Byzantine Empire. Cyril and Methodius, two monks of Constantinople, preached the gospel to the Bulgarians on the Danube after the middle of the ninth century, translated the Scriptures' into the Slavonic language (creating the Slavonic 'alphabet in quaint Greek characters), and thus laid the foundation of Slavonic literature and civilization. This event was contemporary with the founding of the Russian Empire by Ruric, of the Norman race (A.D. 862), and succeeded by half a century the founding of the Eusebius Renaudot, together with some other Greek writings on the Eucharist, Paris, 1709; in German by Heineccius, in his Abbildung der alten und neuen Griechischen Kirche, 2 Parts, Leipz. 1711, Appendix, p. 40, etc. So says Rud. Hofmann (in his Symbolik, Leipz. 1857, p. 135), who has paid careful attention to the Greek Church.

The Psalms and the New Testament, with the exception of the Apocalypse.

German Empire under Charlemagne, in close connection with Rome (A.D. 800). As the latter was a substitute for the Western Roman Empire, so the former was destined to take the place of the Eastern Roman Empire, and looks forward to the reconquest of Constantinople, as its natural capital. The barbarous Russians submitted, in the tenth century, without resistance, to Christian baptism by immersion, at the command of their Grand Duke, Vladimir, who himself was brought over to Christianity by a picture on the last judgment, and his marriage to a sister of the Greek Emperor Basil. In this wholesale conversion every thing is characteristic: the influence of the picture, the effect of marriage, the power of the civil ruler, the military command, the passive submission of the people.

Since that time the Greek Church has been the national religion of the Slavonic Russians, and identified with all their fortunes and misfortunes. For a long time they were subject to the jurisdiction of the Patriarch of Constantinople. But after the fall of this city (1453) the Metropolitan of Moscow became independent (1461), and a century later (January, 1589) he was raised by Patriarch Jeremiah II. of Constantinople, then on a collecting tour in Russia, to the dignity of a Patriarch of equal rank with the other four (of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch, Jerusalem).' Moscow was henceforward the holy city, the Rome of Russia.

In the beginning of the eighteenth century, Peter the Great, a second Constantine, founded St. Petersburg (1703), made this city the political and ecclesiastical capital of his Empire, and created, in the place of the Patriarchate of Moscow, the Most Holy Governing Synod,' with the Czar as the head (1721). This organic change was sanctioned by the Eastern Patriarchs (1723), who look upon the emperorpope of Russia as their future deliverer from the intolerable yoke of the Turks.

The Empire of Russia, by its vast conquests in Europe and Asia, embraces a variety of religions, even the Mohammedan and heathen. Other forms of Christianity enjoy toleration, but not liberty; they are

1

Mouravieff, 1. c. pp. 303-320, gives a circumstantial description of the election and installation of the first Russian Patriarch (Job) at Moscow in the presence of the Czar and the Russian Synod, and of the very gorgeous festivities which followed.

Mouravieff, 1. c. pp. 283 sqq.

4

strictly forbidden to propagate their faith, while secession from the national Church is severely punished.' The Greek Church, as the religion of the State, is protected by special legislation, endowed with special privileges, interwoven with all the political interests, and in sole possession of the right of missionary labor and progress in this ever-progressing Asiatic-European Empire, which seems mainly, though by no means exclusively, intrusted with the future of Eastern Christianity and the civilization of Northern and Central Asia. The GræcoRussian Church now numbers over 50,000,000 of members, about 90 bishops, and nearly 40,000 priests. Its most hopeful feature is the comparatively free circulation of the Scriptures, which is more highly esteemed and more widely read there than in other parts of the Eastern Church, or in the Church of Rome.2

The present and prospective condition of Russia gives considerable

1 There is a vast difference between religious liberty—as an inherent and inalienable right of the rational creature to worship God according to the dictates of his own conscience, a right which the civil government is bound to respect and to protect as much as the property and life of its subjects-and religious toleration, as a concession of the government made from necessity or from policy, and subject to its supervision, control, and curtailment. Old Rome was tolerant towards foreign modes of worship, and yet persecuted Christianity. Turkey tol erates all forms of Christianity, yet despises them, and forbids them to touch Mohammedanism. Russia, however, is making progress in the direction of liberty. The emancipation of 23,000,000 serfs by the sovereign will of Alexander II. (in 1863) is certainly one of the greatest events of the century. On the state of religious liberty in Russia, see my Report of the Deputation of the American Branch of the Evangelical Alliance appointed to memorialize the Emperor of Russia in behalf of Religious Liberty, New York, 1871.

Dr. Pinkerton, an English Independent, who for many years resided and traveled in Russia, as agent of the British and Foreign Bible Society, in his work on Russia, p. 56, makes the following statement, which is confirmed by other travelers: 'I shall never forget the impression made on my mind on entering Russia in 1805. Without any farther knowledge of the service, people, and principles of the Greek Church, the traveler must at once come to the conclusion that the Eastern Church is, in all respects, as corrupt in doctrine, and as superstitious in practice, as the Church of Rome. ever, he finds this a hasty conclusion, and not borne out by facts; for the Church that perOn obtaining better information, howmits every one of its members to read the Scriptures in a language which he understands, and acknowledges this Word as the highest tribunal in matters of faith on earth, is possessed of the best reformer of all superstition.' Alexander I., who was brought into experimentai contact with evangelical piety through Moravians, Madame de Krüdener and others, permitted the British and Foreign Bible Society, in 1813, to establish a branch in Russia. Nicholas, who favored the old orthodox party, withdrew the permission in 1825, but Alexander II., who follows more in the path of Alexander I., has partially restored it, as far as the Protestant population is concerned. The printing and publication of the Russian translation, and within the Orthodox Church, is under the control of the Holy Synod. Hepworth Dixon (Free Russia, p. 290) says that the Russians, next to the Scotch and New Englanders, are the greatest Bible readers. But it should be considered that probably not more than one out of ten Russians can read at all.