{"collection":"scripture-revelation","full_text_available":true,"graph_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/api/page/gutenberg_13388/graph","html_url":"https://unchartedknowledge.5gfusion.net/v2/page/gutenberg_13388","id":"gutenberg_13388","license":"Public Domain (US)","rights_basis":"gutenberg_metadata_copyright_false","source":"gutenberg","source_url":"https://www.gutenberg.org/ebooks/13388","summary":null,"tags":["Category: Philosophy & Ethics","Category: Religion/Spirituality","Christianity","Orthodox Eastern Church","Slavs -- Religion"],"text":"*St. Margaret's, Westminster*\n\nSERMONS ON SUBJECTS SUGGESTED\nBY THE WAR\n\nTHIRD SERIES\n\n*THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT\nOF THE SLAVS*\n\nTHREE LECTURES GIVEN IN LENT, 1916\n\nBY\n\nThe Rev. FATHER NICOLAI VELIMIROVIC\n\n_Priest of the Serbian Church, and Professor of Theology in the\nUniversity of Belgrade_\n\nI. SLAV ORTHODOXY\nII. SLAV REVOLUTIONARY CATHOLICISM\nIII. THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT OF THE SLAVS\n\n\n1916\n\n\n\n\n\n\nI\n\nSLAV ORTHODOXY\n\nThe Holy Synod and Tolstoi.\n\n\nWhen Count Tolstoi was excommunicated by the Holy Synod of Russia because\n\"he preached the teachings which are contrary to the Christian faith,\" the\nworld was divided in opinion and sympathy into two parts. The partisans of\nTolstoi were in the majority in the Western world; those of the Holy Synod\nin Russia and the Orthodox East. Yet Holy Russia rejected Tolstoi with much\nmore compassion than Western Europe approved of him. It was a human tragedy\nwhich is not often repeated in history and was understood only by Russia.\nThe conflict was more stern than appeared on the surface. The problems in\nquestion meant not less than the dilemma: either the Christian world was to\ncontinue or it must return to the starting point of human history and begin\nall anew. A little blade of grass in the field said to its green\nneighbours: \"Why do we grow up? It is nonsense and pain. In growing up we\ngrow in complications, which enhance the darkness and pain of our lives. I\npropose, therefore, to go back into seeds, from which we have grown big and\nunhappy.\"\n\nSo spoke one blade of grass to the field. And the field replied: \"Although\nperhaps we are growing in nonsense and pain, still we cannot return, we\nmust grow and go our way in the belief that we are not mistaken.\"\n\nThat is the simile of Tolstoi and the Holy Synod.\n\n\nA Circle or a Drama.\n\nTolstoi perceived life as a circle, with the beginning everywhere and with\nthe end everywhere. The Holy Synod, representing Slav Orthodoxy, perceived\nlife as a drama with a beginning and an end in space and time. From his\npoint of view, Tolstoi thought it possible for mankind to stop a mistaken\ncourse of things and to begin anew, to cast away all the burdens of\nculture, of State, Church, militarism, worldly ambitions, the vanities of\ntowns, to draw the curtain on the past and to come back to the field and\nforest, to plough and sow, to listen to the life of Nature and to live with\nNature and God in unison.\n\nThe Holy Synod, from their point of view, thought that the past is the very\nfoundation of the present and future, and that in separating us from the\npast we were as an uprooted plant, condemned to inevitable death, while in\ncontinuing the world-drama we are going the only possible way. The\nbeginning of sin in this drama is in Adam, the beginning of salvation is in\nChrist. We cannot live without taking notice even of the life of Adam and\nwithout connecting our life with Christ's. And all the other millions of\nhuman beings between those two milestones, between Adam and Christ, and\nChrist and us, are greater or smaller foundations, or conditions, or even\ndisturbances of our own life.\n\n\"My understanding is against your traditions,\" said Tolstoi.\n\n\"Our traditions are against your understandings,\" replied the Holy Synod.\n\nBut that was not all.\n\nThe difference existed also in views on\n\n\n\nHAPPINESS AND ATONEMENT.\n\n\nTolstoi was much troubled by the suffering of men. He himself saw, felt and\ndescribed an immense amount of this suffering in various forms. The problem\nof happiness was his most cherished problem. He believed that men can be\nmade happy in this life, and even more--that they are created in order to\nbe happy. He refused quite definitely the idea of atonement as\ninconceivable and contrary to the idea of God. Human life has been normal\nand happy as long as men lived their simple life without towns and without\nall urban complications. Life can again be made a normal and happy one as\nGod wills, if we only return to the primitive simplicity of the peasants.\n\nThe Holy Synod was not opposed to the happiness of men, but they did not\nbelieve either that happiness is attainable in this world or that it is the\naim of our life on earth. Did it not occur quite in the beginning of the\nworld's history that there lived on earth two brothers, Cain and Abel, two\nfarmers, without any burden of culture, and with all the Tolstoian\nsimplicity of life? Yet is it not reported that one killed the other?\n\nLife is a drama, a tragic drama even, and not at all a metaphysical\nimmobility or a quasi-mobility, or even an eternal _circulus viciosus_.\nThere are three stages of human life: the first stage before the sin, in\nGod-like _na\u00efvet\u00e9_, the second in sin, and the third after the atonement,\nlife in perfection, when there will be \"a new earth and a new heaven.\" We\nare in the middle stage, where life means sin and atonement, therefore in\nthe most tragic stage. Life in the first and third stages may consist\nentirely in contemplation, but the life which we are actually living\nconsists of deeds, of sins and virtues, _i.e._, of the struggle between\ngood and evil, of suffering and purification, of a tragic heroism, of\natonement.\n\n\n\nDREAMS ABOUT THE REALITY.\n\n\nIt was not until the decline of the glorious Byzantine Empire that the\nSlavs embraced Christianity. For nine hundred years the Greeks were the\nprincipal representatives, protectors, elaborators and explorers of\nChristianity. When the Greeks visited the Slav country with their divine\nmessage, the Slavs were heathens. Their heathenism was like a confusing\ndream. Nature stood before them with its contradictory forces. The\nprimitive Slavs regarded all the forces of Nature encircling a human\ncreature as being alive and stronger than this creature. All the forces,\nwhether friendly or unfriendly to man, are man like, anthropomorphic, and\nnone of them are indifferent to human life and doings. The practical\nconclusion come to was: men must give sacrifices to both of them, to the\ngood and to the evil; to the good in order to encourage them to be more\ngood, to the evil in order to induce them to be less evil. It was necessary\nto pray equally to the good as to the evil gods. The best worship was the\nbest balance between the good and bad spirits; not to offend any of them,\nbut to be reconciled with all of them! Skilful diplomacy was indeed needed\nin worshipping all the terrible, invisible representatives of the forces of\nNature seemingly fighting around man and because of man. And men are too\nweak to take their part decisively in one or other fighting camp.\nEverything useful or beautiful for men was regarded as being possessed by a\ngood god or spirit. Everything dangerous and unfriendly was considered to\nbe possessed by an evil god or spirit. The supreme god Perun, supreme\nbecause the strongest, was considered as acting equally for good and for\nevil. The curious fact is that the supreme divinity in every pagan theology\nwas imagined to be acting equally strongly for good and for evil, as Zeus\nJupiter, Wothan. You cannot call Zeus or Jupiter or Wothan or Perun a\n_good_ god, but only a _mighty_ god. With Christianity came into the world,\nincluding the Slav world, decisiveness, and every confusion disappeared.\nThe Slavs learned to know that they could not serve two masters, but only\none, and that they had not to balance between good and evil but to go\nstraightway on the side of _good_.\n\n\n\n\nReality as a Dream.\n\n\nThe Byzantine Emperors promised to the Serbs peace and land in their Empire\nin the Balkans if they accepted the Christian faith. And the Serbs accepted\nthe Christian faith. The Emperors Basil and Constantine agreed to give\ntheir sister in marriage to Vladimir, King of Kieff, if he would embrace\nthe Christian faith. And King Vladimir embraced the Christian faith. These\nmay be considered very petty motives! Yet this was not the price to tie the\nmighty idol Perun on a horse's tail and to carry him into the water of\nDnieper. The principal motive was the striking reality of the Christian\nfoundation. The Christian message was like a dream (\"We have been in\nHeaven,\" reported the Russian delegates, returning from Saint Sophia)--the\nSlavs loved dreams and poetry very much; but the Christian faith was stated\nto be a reality, and the Slavs, as men the world over, considered reality\nas more solid than any dream. Instead of a nightmare of youthful dreams, as\nthe Slav pagan theology was, came now a bright poetry warranted both as a\n_past_ and _present_ reality.\n\nIt will remain as the greatest wonder in history how a poor Man, who\npreached in Palestine for about two years, who scarcely had a hundred\nfollowers at the end of His mission, who was crucified and died a shameful\ndeath, whose cause seemed a quite desperate episode, scornfully rejected or\nfearfully abandoned by all those who knew it--how this poor Man replaced\nsuccessively the mightiest gods the human imagination ever invented: Zeus\nin Olympus, Jupiter in the Capitol, Wothan in the North, and at last also\nPerun in Kieff. The secret lies, I think, in the reality of His human life,\nin the mystery of His resurrection, and in the amazing enthusiasm with\nwhich thousands of His followers afterwards suffered death for Him and His\ncause.\n\nHowever, Christ entered the Slav world in an epoch when, not only one man\nafter another bowed before Him, but nation after nation. He came to our\nancestors no more as a humble preacher, but as a Lord, under whose feet lay\nalready conquered Zeus, Jupiter and Wothan. He came to us, not from a poor\nBethlehem cottage, but from the most brilliant temple upon earth, from the\nSaint Sophia in Constantinople. He came with a wonderful three-fold\nmission, to serve, to fight, to reigning one word, to be \"all in all.\" He\nentered the Roman world as a humble servant. I am afraid He remained in\nthis world for ever only as a servant. But He entered the Slav world as a\nLord, and until to-day He remains there as the Lord.\n\n\n\nCHRISTUS MILITANS.\n\nWith Christ's coming among the Slavs the balance between good and evil\nspirits was lost. Quite unlike Perun, Christ was a decisive fighter for\ngood. He showed only one--exclusively one--way, the narrow way leading to\nthe kingdom of good, which is the Kingdom of God, the Highest and the Best,\n_Deus Optimus_, not only as a dream of Pagan humanity, but as a provable\nreality. Although good seems very often to be a weak and losing party in\nthis world, men must not waver but always take cheerfully the part of good.\nEvil spirits in men and around men are very powerful in this world. Christ\nHimself was overwhelmed for a time by the evil spirits of this world. But\nit was only for a time which is now over. It was at the new beginning of\nthe world, so to say, when He came to break the power of Pagan men, hold\nthe balance between the good and evil spirits and to stop the serving of\n\"two masters.\" The start was very unpromising; He was trodden down, but He\ngot up and proved Himself the victor. He came now as a victor to the Slavs\nto make new armies of men, who would consent to undertake His burden, and\nto go His exclusive way of good, worshipping and serving only one God, His\nFather and the Father of all men. He came claiming everyone, telling each\none \"not to be ashamed\"--as it is wonderfully expressed in the English\nBaptism formula--\"manfully to fight under His banner, against sin, the\nworld, and the devil, and to continue to be Christ's faithful soldier and\nservant unto his life's end.\"\n\nTolstoi exalted only Christ's Sermon on the Mount, _i.e.,_ only Christ's\nteaching, or part of Christ's teaching. The Orthodox Church exalted Christ\nhimself, as an exceptional, dramatic Person, suffering for good; as a\ndivine hero, fighting against all the evil powers of the world. A teaching\nor a life drama--_i.e.,_ Tolstoi or Orthodoxy! The Church thought: there is\nsomething greater than Christ's words, that is Christ Himself. His words\nare extraordinary, it is true, no man spoke as He, but His person and His\nlife were more extraordinary still. Thousands of martyrs died for _Him_,\nnot for the _Sermon on the Mount_. His words died with His death and came\nto life again only with His resurrection. The fate of His words was quite\ndependent on the fate of His person. Consequently His words have been only\na shadow of His personal drama, only an inadequate expression of His\nindividuality and His world mission, only the secondary fascination for the\ncoming generation. He himself was the essence of the human drama; He\nhimself--the essence of God and Man; He himself--the incarnated good and\nthe standard of the good in the world's history. He is incomparably better\nthan Zeus, Jupiter, Wothan or Perun, because He is a reality, a divine\nreality among men.\n\n\n\nThe \"Petrified\" Church.\n\n\nSo Professor Harnack from Berlin called the Orthodox Church of the East. I\nknow his reasons for that very well. Comparing the unchangeable image of\nChrist, fixed in the East once for all, with the confusing thousand\n_opinions_ of Christ in Protestant Germany, he was quite justified in\ncalling our Church by a striking name, so differentiating her from his own.\nI am glad that he invented the name \"petrified.\" With the proud spirit of a\nProtestant scientist, I wonder why He did not invent a worse name for\nEastern Orthodoxy. I wonder much more that Professor Harnack, one of the\nchief representatives of German Christianity, omitted to see how every\nhollow that he and his colleagues made in traditional Christianity in\nGermany was at once filled with the all-conquering Nietzscheanism. And I\nwonder, lastly, whether he is now aware that in the nineteen hundred and\nfourteenth year of our Lord, when he and other destroyers of the Bible, who\nproclaimed Christ a dreamy maniac, clothed Christianity in rags,\nNietzscheanism grew up the real religion of the German race.\n\nWhat is the fact about the \"petrified\" Church? If \"petrified\" means intact,\nor whole, or undestroyed or living always in the same dress, but still\nliving, then the famous Professor may be right. Yet this petrified Church\nhas always come victorious out of any test to which she has been put. The\nChristian Church is always on trial, and I think she is never so much\nChristian as when she is being tested. She does not shine or develop or\nmake progress otherwise than through hard tests. Christianity is founded\nupon a drama and not upon a science; therefore its growth and development\nare dramatic and not scientific. Let us take an example. Eastern Orthodoxy\nwas put to the test for centuries to fight for its existence and its ideals\nagainst the ruling Islam. Roman Catholicism was put to a similar test in\nSpain. German Protestantism was put to the test of German science. What\nhappened? Islam was defeated in Russia and in the Balkans, not only\nphysically, but morally and intellectually. The epoch of the catacombs and\nthe bloody days of Nero and Diocletian have been repeated once more in the\nBalkans, in Russia, and are still being experienced in Armenia and Asia\nMinor. The killed and martyred kings, princes, bishops, priests and laymen\nfrom these countries will not be ashamed before the martyrs from the\nColiseum. Orthodox Christianity stood the test very well. It saved itself;\nit gave the inspiration for resistance; it showed itself superior even\nafterwards when the enslaved countries were liberated. Holy Russia counts\nher greatness from the time when she got rid of Islam. During the five\nyears of their freedom Serbia, Greece and Bulgaria built more than the\nTurks built during 500 years of Turkish rule.\n\nRoman Catholicism in Spain came through its test very badly. Before the\nIslamic invasion, and after it for a long time, the Christian population\nshowed itself inferior to the Moors, in work, in justice, in progress. But\nto the honour of Roman Catholicism I must say that it stood the test very\nwell in Croatia and in Hungary in its struggle against Islam. German\ncathedral Protestantism failed in its test. It is destroyed as a religion,\nit exists only as an archival science. It ceased to be what Christianity\nreally sought to be--a drama; it is transformed into an indifferent\nscientific medium for reading, exploring, classifying, comparing,\ncriticising. It is no more a living, dramatic being--no more the serving,\nruling and suffering Christ. There is very little heroic or divine in it!\n\nWhy not then worship Wothan again instead of Christ?\n\nAnd Anglicanism? It had the worst enemy. That was wealth, comfort, quiet\nbusiness, lack of big disturbances and of great sufferings. The English\nChurch still succeeded in preventing all the misuses and abuses of life\nunder such circumstances. This success can be appreciated only if the\nBritish Empire is compared with an antique Pagan Empire. Where in this\nEmpire is there a Lucullus or a Caracalla? The astonishing luxury, the\nbestial, insatiable passions? Or the furious competitions in petty things\nwith which the social life of Rome was daily intoxicated? Yet English\nChristianity is neither so dramatic and full of contrasts as Dante's\nCatholicism, nor so vibrating a lyric as Dostojevsky's Orthodoxy, but\nrather a quiet, smooth epic like Milton's poetry.\n\n\n\nTHE GREAT DOGMA OF SIN AND SUFFERING.\n\nThe Anglican Church has formulated this dogma much in the same words as\nthat of the Orthodox Church. Yet it is not nearly so vivid in the daily\nfaith of the English people as in that of the Slavs. The friends of the\nreunion of the Anglican and Orthodox Churches never mention this\ndifference, which is, I think, the only really great difference between\nthem. This life on earth for the English Christian conscience is a normal\none with some few objections. Given some correction, and life here on earth\nwould be quite normal and perfect. Slav Orthodoxy, on the contrary,\nemphasises very emphatically the abnormality of human life on earth from\nthe beginning. Sin is the beginning of life, and sins are the continuation\nof it. The first man deviated in some way from God's will; the first\nbrother killed his younger brother; the first-born nation made war with the\nsecond-born nation, and this bloody business of men, of which, in the\ngreatest degree, we are the witnesses to-day, continued through many\nthousands of years. The development of human virtues is not so obvious as\nthe development of human sins. Still, nobody has written a work on the\ndevelopment of sins. The Orthodox Church believes quite seriously in this\nfatal development; she believes more than seriously that \"the whole world\nlies in evil.\" Suffering is a consequence of sin. Even the righteous man\nsuffers, not because of virtue, but because of sin. If he himself has no\npersonal sins still he must suffer because of the sins of other men, no\nmatter if near or far from him in space or time. For all men from the first\nto the last are made from the same piece of clay, therefore they all, from\nthe first to the last, form one body and one life. Each is responsible for\nall, and each is influencing all. If one link of this body sins, the whole\nbody must suffer. If Adam sinned, you and I must suffer for it. If St. Paul\nsuffered, it is because his suffering is a consequence of the sins of other\nlinks of the same body. If Christ suffered and died because of Adam, it is\nalso just. It is not good, but it is just. The suffering of nature around\nus is incomparably small compared with the suffering of men. The\nabnormality of the animal, plant or mineral world is not nearly so obvious\nas the abnormality of our life. God's creatures, who were created on the\nsixth day and destined to be the most perfect among creatures, are abased\nby sin to an imperfection which is unknown among the creatures made before\nthe sixth day.\n\n\n\n\nTHE REPETITIONS.\n\n\nIn no other Churches are there so many repetitions, in no other so many\nsymbols, as in the Orthodox Church. The whole worship is a continual\nrepetition for thousands of years. In Byzantium was fixed the image of\nChrist, His mission, His worship. The whole system of belief and worship\ncame, fixed and accomplished, over to us Slavs. To keep that system intact\nfor ever was the first duty taught us by those who brought it. Its tendency\nwas to impress the image of Christ in the imagination and heart of the\ngenerations as much as possible and always in the same way. We are living\nin a world of evil; Christ is leader of the struggle against this evil. Men\nlived thousands of years wavering between good and evil, worshipping good\nand evil. Now they must be for good. They are educated and accustomed to\nweighing things for themselves. Therefore it has become necessary to ask\nthem every day, every hour even, to confess that they are with Christ. They\nmust _repeat_ it again and again, in prayers, in signs, in symbols, until\nit becomes a new custom, a new education, a new blood and spirit, a new\nman, a new earth. They must be reminded in every place and at all times\nthat they are soldiers of Christ and not of Perun. Churches, shrines,\nchapels, ikons, candles, processions, priests, bells, monasteries,\ntravelling preachers, every day's saints, fast seasons--everything is the\nrepetition of the same idea, namely, that Christ is the ruler of life and\nwe are His followers. Christ must be expressed everywhere, indoors and\noutdoors. Many Englishmen have remarked that the Bible is read very seldom\nin the home in Russia and Serbia. That is true. People read the Bible more\nin symbols, pictures and signs, in music and prayers, than in the Book, Our\nreligion is not a book religion, not even a learned religion. _It is a\ndramatic mystery_. The Bible contains the words, but in this dramatic\nmystery there is something higher and deeper than words. Slav Christianity\nis something greater than the Bible. Looking at an ikon, a Russian _mujik_\nperceives the Bible incarnated in a saint's life-drama. Mystery of sin,\nmystery of atonement, mystery of heroic suffering, mystery of the daily\npresence of Christ among us in holy wine, in holy bread, in holy water, in\nholy word, in holy deed, in every sanctified substance, even in matter as\nin spirit, mystery of communion of sins and of virtues--all are recorded\nonce in the Bible, and all are recorded and repeated also in our daily\nlife--that is what we call our Slav Orthodoxy. We take the mystic outlines\nof the Bible and do not care about the details. In those mystic outlines we\nput our daily life, with its details of sins and sufferings. We conceive\nthe Christian religion neither so juristic as the Roman Catholics, nor so\nscientific as the Protestants, nor even so reasonable and practical as the\nAnglicans, but we conceive it rather as dramatic.\n\n\n\n\nSLAV ORTHODOXY IS NOT SELF-SUFFICIENT.\n\n\nWe are quite conscious that our religion is not solely Christ's work. Every\ndrop of blood of a Christian martyr is a stone in the work. Every suffering\nman with heroic Christian hopes, and every dying human being with\noptimistic Christian belief is a collaborator of Christ, or is a founder of\nour Church. The Church is not at all solely Christ's work, she is the\ncollective work of many and many millions who, in the name of Christ,\ndecisively took part in this mystic race of earthly life. That is just what\nChrist wanted and prophesied. That is why He washed the feet of His\ndisciples.\n\nThe work of Tolstoi is the work of a man; Slav Orthodoxy is the work of the\ngenerations. Orthodoxy was first defined by the Christian Jews and Greeks\nduring the first eight hundred years. During the other thousand years\nOrthodoxy was enriched by the Slav Bible, _i.e.,_ by Slav religious\nexperiences, by Slav martyrs, saints, heroes, by Slav sins and repentances,\nby Slav struggles and convulsions for Christ. It is a very large record, a\nvery large Bible indeed, a wonderful drama, quite new, fresh, original,\nalthough in old forms and words, and signs. Still Slav Orthodoxy is not\nself-sufficient. She would become by human inertia self-sufficient, unless\nProvidence sent her punishment from time to time. Tolstoi was for Orthodoxy\na punishment. He was like a whirlwind which pulls down many things but at\nthe same time purifies the unhealthy air. He was not at all a demon, but a\nman sent by God to help our Church; and he helped very much indeed--as all\nthe sects and critics of Christianity from the beginning have helped the\nChristian cause, ridiculing and exposing the Christian Paganism manifested\nin ecclesiastical pride, in superstitions, prejudices, intolerance, etc.\n\nWhat are the present needs of Slav Orthodoxy? Oh, her needs are great, her\nthirst is immense. She does not need so much what Tolstoi proposed for her,\nor what Harnack could give her, neither does she thirst after the stricter\nand clearer juristic definitions, nor after a \"sweet reasonableness,\" as\nMatthew Arnold expressed Christ's being, a new theology or a new worship.\n\nShe needs more Christian dramas blended in one. She needs more of Christ on\nearth, more votes for Christ, all the votes for Christ instead of dividing\nthem between Olympus and Golgotha. She needs to be united with all other\nChurches in one Christ-like body and spirit, in order that all the pieces\nof a broken mirror may be recomposed and that Christ could see in it His\nwhole face. She is thirsty for more stigmata, more suffering, more sins.\nYes, she is thirsty for more sins, I say, and more virtues; she likes to\nhave all the sins and all the virtues of the world confessed and recognised\nas the common burden and common good. She is thirsty for a communion of\nsins and virtues among men, she is thirsty to call you _brothers_. She is\nthirsty to cry in exaltation to every man under the sun: \"Poor child, give\nme just your sins (you don't need them) and I will give you my virtues, in\norder that I may be ashamed of your sins and you may be proud of my\nvirtues.\"\n\nFor centuries Slav Orthodoxy seemed to the Western world like an immobile\ntortoise with a multi-coloured shell and with no great probability of its\nbeing inhabited by a living being. The outside world looked at this\nmulti-coloured, hard and unchangeable shell, sometimes with love, sometimes\nwith horror--always with an intense curiosity and almost always with a\ndoubt that there could be any living thing in it. I will try to show you\nthat there was and still is a living being contained therein, with many\nmore movements, dissatisfactions, convulsions, longings and sufferings than\nit seems possible could exist.\n\nII\n\nSLAV REVOLUTIONARY CATHOLICISM\n\nA FAR AIM AND A NARROW WAY.\n\n\nIf Providence bestows on the English Church only once in every half century\na man like Bishop Westcott, this Church, I think, can be sure of a solid\nand sound longevity. Well, this Bishop Westcott spoke once enthusiastically\nof \"_the noble catholicity which is the glory of the English Church_.\" My\nintention in this lecture is to describe to you an island in the Roman\nCatholic Church among the Slavs, which island is distinguished by a _noble\ncatholicity_. \"I believe in the holy _catholic_ apostolic church.\" This\nsentence that you repeat in London, as do the Roman Catholics in Rome, and\nwe Orthodox in Moscow, has always two meanings, a sectarian and a\nuniversal, or a narrow one and a sublime one. The first meaning belongs to\nthe people who imagine Christ standing at the boundary of their Church,\nturned with his face to them and with his back to all other \"schismatic\"\npeoples. The second belongs to the people who think that Christ may be also\nbeyond their own churchyard; that the dwelling of their soul may be too\nnarrow for His soul, and that their self-praisings and schismatic\nthunderings are very relative in His eyes. I propose to speak to-night\nabout the people of this second category, _i.e._, of the people who are in\nthe Christian history like a link connecting the different parts, the\ndifferent Churches, into a higher unity. I will limit my considerations in\nthis lecture to Slav Roman Catholicism. I call my theme of to-night \"Slav\nRevolutionary Catholicism.\" Why \"revolutionary\"?\n\nWhy not? Is not Christianity a revolutionary movement from its very\nbeginning? Is it not the most wonderful and the most noble among the\nrevolutionary movements in history? Cardinal Newman and many others spoke\nabout the evolution of Christianity. _Revolution_ is the word much more\napplicable to it. The spreading of this revolution from a poor village in\nGalilee over all the world--that is the history of the Church; or, if you\nlike, the evolution of a revolution. As a volcano is an internal movement\nof the earth which gives a new shape to the surface, so the Christian\nrevolution was also an internal movement, which gave a new form to the\ndrama of human life. The Christian religion seemed very simple, it was even\npoor in simplicity, and still--what an incalculable impression it made! It\nwas simple in aims and in means. It had but one aim, and there was one way\nonly to it: to attain good only by good deeds; to fight for justice only\nwith means that were just; to realise Love only by Love itself; to push\ndarkness away, not by a greater darkness, but by light; to come to God the\nPerfect by a perfect way. Christ preached a new aim and showed a new way--a\nvery sublime aim and a very limited way indeed. In the pre-Christian world\nthere were manifold aims and manifold ways and means. In Sparta,\nskilfulness in sinning and hiding sins was tolerated and even applauded. In\nancient Rome, till the full sunset of its strength, a good man was regarded\nas a weak man. Among the pagan Slavs, a prosperous man was envied more than\na virtuous man. Christianity cleared the spiritual atmosphere and deepened\nhuman life. \"Ye cannot serve God and Mammon.\" It was very clear. \"Narrow is\nthe way which leads unto life.\" It was very deep. Through Hell you never\nwill reach Heaven. In making the devil your companion you will never come\nto God. And God is the only aim, Christ the only way to that aim; a very\nfar aim, a very narrow way.\n\nJAN HUSS'S REVOLUTION.\n\n\nYour great compatriot, Wycliffe, is rightly considered as the beginner of\nthe Reformation. Wycliffe spoke, and his word was his great mission on\nearth. But his word in Bohemia became flesh--yea, more than flesh--blood\nand fire. Human words are never great except when transformed into a\ndrama--when incarnated into life. Wycliffe was never so great in England as\nhe became in Bohemia. Christianity in Bohemia was at that time relatively\nyoung, nearly three times younger than in Rome. But since Prince Borivoj\nwas baptised by the Slav Apostle, Methodius, never did Bohemian\nChristianity stand nearer to the primitive Bohemian paganism than at the\ntime when King Wenceslas ruled in Bohemia, and Pope John XXIII ruled in\nRome, and Jan Huss served as preacher in a Prague chapel called the\nBethlehemian. The paganism under the style of poor Jesus, against which\nfought Huss, was much more obstinate and aggressive than the paganism under\nthe style of Perun, against which fought St. Methodius. Everywhere was\nfound a substitute for Christ, everywhere a pretext for an easy life and\nfor a broad way instead of the narrow one. Sins and virtues had been\nequalised by means of money. The Church buildings had been transformed into\npublic places for the exchange of sins and virtues. \"_Repentance_, not\n_Money!_\"--exclaimed Jan Huss. But his voice was stifled by the piercing\nsounds of the drums by which the sale of absolution for sin was announced\nin the streets. Again exclaimed Jan Huss: \"The whole Bohemian nation is\nlonging after Truth.\" But the traders in Christ's blood and tears laughed\nhim to scorn. The doctors of theology asked their colleague Huss to confess\nthat \"the Pope is the head and the Bishops the body of the Church, and all\ntheir orders must be obeyed.\" But Huss did not care very much either about\nthe head or the body, but principally about the _spirit_ of the Christian\nChurch. And this spirit he saw eclipsed. He saw men again falling back to\nthe creed of serving \"two masters.\" He looked to the heart of the Christian\nreligion and saw that it was sick, and his soul revolted against it. But\nhis righteous revolution was regarded as a malevolent innovation, his words\nas a scandalous licence, and his tendencies as a deliberate destruction of\nChristianity. Therefore Jan Huss was brought before a tribunal of Christian\njudges, condemned to death and burnt to ashes, _ad magnam Dei gloriam_, as\nthe Bishop of Lodi preached on that occasion.\n\nThe fact was that the Council of Constance was a great innovator, and that\nHuss stood for the true catholicity of old. He fought for the primitive\nChristian spirit which always inspired, vivified and purified the Christian\nworld, and his judges introduced a quite anti-Christian, a quite new spirit\ninto the Church, the spirit of _judging_ and _killing_. The sufficient\nproof--if you need proof at all--of this is that Huss suffered as a\nChristian martyr and through painful _suffering_ brought his cause to\nglory; whereas his judges killed him in the hope through a _crime_ to\npromote the Christian cause, and so covered their names with shame. The\ntruth and glory of Jan Huss's cause were manifested last year throughout\nthe whole of the globe. The whole world celebrated the quincentenary of his\nmartyr death. I participated in this celebration in New York. It was a rare\nspectacle, that the New World saw. The Orthodox Christians, Roman\nCatholics, Protestants, Anglicans, Methodists and Baptists, all the\nChurches and denominations participated in it. We went together, we prayed\ntogether, and we felt united in one and the same spirit. That was a great\nmoment, for many of us the unique moment, when we _experienced_ what is\nmeant by the _catholicity_, by the noble catholicity, of the Christian\nChurch, as Bishop Westcott called it. It was an elevated and sweet feeling.\nThe diabolical spirit of the Council of Constance never could unite us, but\nthe Christian Catholic spirit of Jan Huss united us. The memory of Pope\nJohn XXIII divides the world, whereas the memory of the great apostle of\nthe Bohemian nation unites it. Yet the revolution of Jan Huss was not of a\npersonal character. It was not directed against John XXIII, or against the\nVatican as Vatican--it was directed against the spirit of _Forum Romanum_\nwhich crept into the Vatican and dwelled there. It was directed against\nJupiter, who took the place of Christ in Rome and who invisibly inspired\nthe Council of Constance; and against Perun, who, disguised, smiled from\nevery church in Prague, and with a smile ruled over the souls in Bohemia\nunder the name of Christ.\n\n\n\n\nTHE POLISH REVOLUTION.\n\n\nMickiewicz, Sienkiewicz! Two great milestones in the history of the Polish\nsoul; two great milestones in Christian history also! Both Roman Catholics\nand both revolutionists in religion. The religious revolution they made can\nbe characterised only by the words \"noble catholicity.\" Both of them were\nattracted by Primitive Christianity much more than by the official Church\nof their own time. Sienkiewicz's work \"Quo Vadis?\" is by far better known\nthan Mickiewicz's lectures on \"The Official Church and Messianism.\" Yet the\nsame religious ideal has been pictured in both these works. Mickiewicz put\non record as the true Christian _men of suffering, of intuition and of\naction_ (\"_hommes de douleur, d'intuition, d'action\"_). Sienkiewicz\ndescribed the first Christians as being such men. He revived the first days\nof Christianity in Rome. What striking contrasts between paganism and\nChristianity! Two quite different worlds in conflict--one world consisting\nof men of pleasure, and the other of men of suffering. On one side: Nero,\nPetronius, Vinicius, Seneca himself, and a mass harassed only about _panem\net circenses_. On the other side: Paul of Tarsus, Petrus, Lygie, Ursus and\nmany others willing to suffer and to die, and singing in suffering and in\ndying: _pro Christo! pro Christo!_ On the one side, the proud Roman\ncitizens, who adored force and who gave sacrifices to good and to evil\nspirits equally in order to save or procure their miserable, fleeting\npleasure. On the other the humble inhabitants of the suburbs of Rome who\nadored only the Good Spirit of the Universe and did not care about\npleasure, but about Justice and Love. Nero or Christ! The Emperor of the\n_Casa Aurea_, who, oversaturated and annoyed by life, finished by suicide;\nor the Prophet from Nazareth who came to establish the Kingdom of God on\nearth and who was forcibly crucified by the adorers of darkness!\n\nI have read many Roman Catholic teachers of catechism. I doubt whether all\nthose _teachers_ did for Christianity as much as an _artist_--Sienkiewicz\n--did with his charming story, \"Quo Vadis?\" He aroused so much interest,\nand so many sympathies even among the unbelievers; I am sure he converted\nto Christianity many more than any _propaganda fides_ working on a\nhalf-political, half-scientific foundation. He put Christianity on a purely\nreligious foundation, and he was understood not only by the Roman Catholics\nbut by the whole world. He found the very heart of the \"noble catholicity,\"\nand he inspired the world. He showed once more that Christianity is a drama\nand not a science.\n\nSienkiewicz loved Christianity, but he saw that it was still far from\ngaining a decisive victory. He knew the horrible injustice done to his\nChristian nation by the surrounding Christian nations. He was horrified\nlooking at Bismarck. He called Bismarck the \"true adorer of Thor,\" because\nhe was a true follower of a pagan philosophy expressed in the Iron\nChancellor's sentence--_Might over Right_. Yet Sienkiewicz prophesied that\n\"Germany in the future cannot live with Bismarck's spirit.\" She must change\nher spirit, she must expel Thor and again kneel before Christ, because the\n\"Christian religion of two thousand years is an invincible power, a much\ngreater power than bayonets.\"\n\nMickiewicz hoped that only the Christian religion can save mankind. Christ\nis for him the central person in the world's history. Christ never made\nconcessions to evil. But His Church to-day is making compromises with all\nkinds of evil. The official Church is publishing diplomatic Notes and\npromoting the publishing of books. That is all. The Church is afraid of\nsuffering, although \"there are even to-day enough occasions for the Church\nto suffer.\" \"Prelates wear the purple which symbolises martyrdom: But who\non earth has heard lately of the martyrdom of a Cardinal?\" Mickiewicz\nbitterly complains that the \"high clergy deserted the way of the Cross.\nThey never would suffer. In order to escape suffering they fled as refugees\nto books, theology and doctrines. But _la force ne vient que de la\ndouleur_.\" \"The lower clergy, the Russian as the Polish, conserved the\ndepot of faith intact,\" but still they are in a darkness of prejudice and\nvice. It is remarkable how large a view of the Christian Church had\nMickiewicz. He did not care only for the Roman Church. He called the\nRussian Orthodox and the Polish Roman Church by one name--\"the Church of\nthe North.\" He cared about Christ's Church, and he believed steadfastly in\nher Messianic _r\u00f4le_ in the world. \"The men of conventions must be\ndefeated,\" he said. The pride of the high clergy and the fear of suffering\nmust disappear. \"The first need for a modern man is to be inspired and\nelevated, _de s'allumer et de s'\u00e9lever_.\" The Church is the only bearer of\ninspiration and elevation; not the official Church, but the Messianic\nChurch of \"men of suffering, intuition and action,\" i.e., the primitive\nChurch of Christ, which Sienkiewicz so magnificently described and for\nwhich Jan Huss so heroically fought.\n\n\nTHE SOUTHERN SLAV REVOLUTION.\n\n\nIn the beginning of the sixteenth century, a preacher of the Gospel in\nTrieste and Laibach, _Primus Trubar_, published successively the New\nTestament, Psalter and Catechism in the vulgar Slovene language. It\nproduced the greatest imaginable excitement amongst the Slovene clergy and\npeople. Christ and the Prophets spoke for the first time to the people in\nmountainous Carniola and Istria in a language that the people could\nunderstand. A minority of the clergy shared the popular excitement, whereas\nthe majority was filled with fury against the innovator. But Trubar went\nhis way courageously and continued to publish and republish the sacred\nbooks in the Slovene tongue. The affair had the usual ending: the violent\npersecution of the disturbers of the _semper eadem_, and the victory of the\npersecuted cause. Trubar died in exile from his country, his books were\nburnt, the churches in which his books had been read pulled down, and the\npeople who dared to speak with Christ and the Prophets in their native\nlanguage terrified. At the same time, the Turks, after having devastated\nSerbia and Croatia, descended on Slovenia with the sword, burning pulling\ndown, and terrifying everywhere.\n\nYet the great question of the ecclesiastical language could not be stifled.\nEven before and after Trubar, the Slavs on the Adriatic coast of Dalmatia\nand Istria insisted on the so-called _Glagoliza_ as the language which\nshould be used in the divine service. _Glagoliza_ is not the common\nlanguage of the Croats and Slovenes, but it is an old and sacred form of\nthe same tongue. Rome opposed for a long time, declined afterwards, opposed\nor half-opposed again, till the question is to-day brought to a very acute\nphase. Pope Paul V permitted the use of the _Glagoliza_ in the Church. This\npermission was repeated by John VIII. and Urban VIII. There was printed a\n_Missale Romanum, slavic\u00e2 lingu\u00e2, glagolitico charactere_ (Rome, 1893).\nStill, one can say that although it is theoretically allowed, it is\npractically forbidden. It is used to-day in some new places, like Krk,\nCherso, Zara, Sebenico, in Senj, Spalato, etc. But the fact remains that\nthe Southern Slavs, or the Slavs generally, do not like the Latin language\nin the divine service. For the Slav conscience it is something incongruous:\nthe Latin language of Nero and the spirit of Christ. Every language is the\nbearer of a certain spirit. Latin is the bearer of a juristic and despotic\nspirit. Ranke said: \"The Papal Church is a legacy of ancient Rome.\"[1] If\nthis be true, the language doubtless was one of the principal reasons for\nit. With the language of the C\u00e6sars also crept into the Church the spirit\nof the C\u00e6sars. This spirit was brought to a triumph in 1870 at the Council\nof the Vatican.\n\nAs the Croats and Slovenes protested against the language of the C\u00e6sars, so\nthey protested also against the triumphant spirit of the C\u00e6sars in the\nChurch. Bishop Strossmayer opposed the dogma of Papal Infallibility with a\nsincerity, obstinacy and eloquence which can be compared only with the\nspirit of the \"_golden age_\" of Christian history. In a letter to an old\nCatholic friend, he wrote: \"It is nonsense to say that the Popes cannot\nlive without these miserable rags called temporary possessions.\"[2] Is this\nnot true apostolic language? Again he wrote: \"What occurs to-day in Rome is\nobviously God's punishment and at the same time a providential way to those\nreforms which the Church needs in order to fulfil her mission with more\nsuccess in the future than she has done till now.\"[3] And to Dr. D\u00f6llinger\nhe confessed quite openly: \"And what about my nation and its future? It\nseems to me quite certain that it will one day get rid of Roman\ndespotism.\"[4]\n\n\n[Footnote 1: \"History of the Popes,\" Chap. I.]\n[Footnote 2: \"Letter to Professor Reinkens,\" Schulte: _Der\nAltcatholicismus.,_]\n[Footnote 3: _Ibid._]\n[Footnote 4: _Ibidem._]\n\n\n\nTHE SCIENTIFIC REVOLUTION.\n\n\nBy its interference, religion can inspire science, and again science by\nits interference can purify religion. The most beautiful spectacle in\nhuman society is a priest contributing to science and a scientist\ncontributing to religion. The one-sided man is always an imperfect man;\nand an imperfect man as a teacher of perfection is a dangerous teacher\nfor young generations.\n\nTwo Slavs, Nicolaus Copernicus, from Thorn, and Ruggiero Boscovich, from\nRagusa, both Roman Catholic priests, were at the same time both ardent\nscientists. Copernicus postulated the heliocentric planetary system instead\nof the geocentric. This happened soon after Columbus made a great\nrevolution in geographical science by discovering America. Some people\nthought the end of the Church had come after Copernicus' discovery that the\nsun and not the earth is the centre of the world. But Copernicus not only\ndid not think so, but continued quietly in his vocation as a priest and\ndedicated his famous work to Pope Paul III.\n\nRuggiero Boscovich was not such a great discoverer as Copernicus; still he\nwas one of the most distinguished scientific and philosophic minds in the\neighteenth century. In his \"Theoria philosophi\u00e6 naturalis,\" he tried to\nprove that bodies are composed not of a continuous material substance but\nrather of innumerable point-like structures or particles which are without\nany extension or divisibility. These elements are endowed with a repulsive\nforce which can, under special circumstances (of distance), become\nattractive. Boscovich's philosophical system can be called a dynamistic\n_atomismus_.\n\nMen with much smaller scientific successes sometimes consider it their duty\nto separate themselves from the Christian Church. But great men like\nCopernicus and Boscovich possessed in a high degree the _noble catholicity_\nwhich should always exist between religion and science. For every great\nrevolution in science meant also a great revolution in religion. A\nscientific revolution could never shake the realities of religion, but only\nthe illusions of religion.\n\nThis was likewise the great result of the religious revolutions among the\nSlavs: not to shake the realities but the illusions of religion. Pride,\nsuperstitions and hatred have produced all the revolutions in the Church,\nthe revolutions which meant for the Church real ventilation or punishment.\nThese revolutions gave light and air to the Roman Church. Either the\nofficial books admit it, or they do not. No matter; the living Church\nadmits it. She has built monuments to the prophets whom she killed or\npersecuted. No one is without a glorious monument--neither Huss nor\nSavonarola, neither Bruno nor Hieronymus of Prague, neither Trubar nor\nStrossmayer. The living Church always admired men of suffering and not men\nof pleasure. It was not the self-sufficient prelates who promoted the\nChristian cause, with their books and notes and discussions, but the\nsufferers, hungry and thirsty for the Kingdom of God. Christ was victorious\nover Nero in the Coliseum, but oftentimes afterwards Nero was victorious\nover Christ in the Church. But Nero must go, and Christ come. We have all\npledged our word in our childhood to act so that Nero's spirit may decrease\nand Christ's spirit increase in the world. We cannot otherwise keep our\npledge unless we adhere to the _noble catholicity_ of the Christian Church,\nwhich is the very kernel of vulgar and verbal catholicity. But we cannot\ngrasp all the Christian centuries and generations behind us and bind our\nown life with what is _noble_ and _catholic_ in all of them unless we are\nmen of suffering, intuition and action. And we can be all three.\n\nIII\n\n*THE RELIGIOUS SPIRIT OF THE SLAVS*\n\n*WE ARE NOT ALONE IN THIS WORLD.*\n\n\nThat is the principal feeling of the Slav soul: we are neither alone in\nthis world nor destined for it. Whether I wander in the streets of London\nor stand in the green fields outside, I have always the same feeling of\nhuman loneliness and helplessness on one side, and the company of some\noverwhelming and invisible powers on the other. I say the _feeling_ and not\n_thought_, because I feel they touch me and I am unhappy because I cannot\ntouch them. They seem to be like shadows, and still I am sure they are\ngreater realities than I am. My life is dependent on theirs and their lives\nare connected with, but not dependent on, my life. My being is quite\ntransparent to these higher intelligences, while their beings I can feel\nonly in the most lucid moments of my life. The dreamy nature around me is\npervaded by them, and my own life, I feel, is pervaded by them also. In\nsome way they disindividualise me, but on the other hand they give me\nstrength, light and inspiration.\n\nWhat is the number of these powers surrounding us? \"Many,\" answered\nPaganism. \"One only,\" answered Judaism and Islam. \"One in Trinity,\"\nanswered Christianity.\n\nSo--_Christianity is a vi\u00e1 media_ between limitless Polytheism and absolute\nMonotheism. Professor Haeckel of Jena, in his hatred of Christianity,\ninstanced Mohammedanism as a better religion and scornfully called the\nChristian religion \"Polytheism.\" The definition is not altogether untrue.\nPaganism was not wholly false. The Christian dogma of the Trinity in\nrelation to this world symbolically means unity in multitude. This dogma\nexpresses a principle, an idea, rather than a number. As we cannot define\nGod's being chemically, historically, psychologically, etc., how can we\nhope to define Him mathematically? God is beyond numbers; He is beyond\nscientific research; beyond all expression. _One in three_, that is\nhalf-way to Polytheism and to Monotheism. _One in three_ gives the\nsubstance of God's life and binds Him to His own work, the created world.\n\nGod's own life is dramatic internally, and externally (in relation to the\nworld). That is the real meaning of the dogma of the Trinity. God is\nsomehow one, and yet not one; rather He is a pluralistic unity. He can take\npart in the human drama and still remain the God of the Universe. He can\nsuffer and still remain perfect. He can be omnipresent in the world and\nstill not be wholly immersed in it. \"I cannot understand it; it is a\nmystery to me,\" exclaimed Tolstoi. Certainly he could not understand it;\nwho could? We cannot understand our own beings. Modern biology discovered\nthat a human body consists of millions and millions of corpuscles, minute\norganic cells which live their life and go their way unconscious of the\nhuman person formed by themselves. New discoveries may open up new\nproblems, but the ancient mysteries about everything in the world continue\nto be omnipresent. How could we have more knowledge about God except some\nfew glances, some imperfect allusions, some symbolical combinations?\n\nHowever, lacking a clear and perfect understanding, we still feel that we\nare not alone in the world. God is all round us like the atmosphere that we\nbreathe. The more we try to escape from this atmosphere, the closer it\nseems to pervade us. Tolstoi felt this as strongly as the most orthodox\nFathers of the Church. Yet his doctrines on God, vague and pantheistic as\nthey are, slow to ascribe to God any traditional qualities and trying in\nvain to invent new ones--his doctrines on God are less comprehensible than\nthe dogma of the Trinity--less comprehensible, less applicable, and\nunfruitful.\n\n\n*GOD ONLY IS GREAT*\n\n\nNot Napoleon, but God; not London, but God. Tolstoi analysed Napoleon's\nlife and character, and found that he was no better or greater than\nthousands of other men who followed him. Why should London be called great?\nYes, perhaps it can be called great compared with anything on earth, except\nGod. I say, _except God_, because after a thousand years, i.e., after one\nGod's day, God will be surely the same, and London? Will it be in existence\na thousand years hence? Who knows? Walking in the streets of London I look\nround me and see nothing great except God.\n\nThe famous Russian literature from Gogol to Dostojevsky is the finest\npsychological analysis of men. The result of this analysis was: there\nexists no great man. No one is great: neither Shakespeare nor Napoleon,\nneither Peter the Great nor Kutuzov, neither the Russian landlords nor the\nCzar himself, neither Prince Bolkonsky nor Raskolnikov, neither Nero nor\nSt. Paul, neither Beaconsfield nor Osman Pasha, neither Pope nor Patriarch,\nneither Dalai-Lama nor Sheik-ul-Islam. How could they be great since they\nmust sleep, and eat, and be sick and disappointed, and despair, and die? A\nreview was made by the Russian authors--a review of ancient and modern\ngreat men--and a verdict arrived at. For a thousand years Christian Russia\nkept silent and listened to the hymns to the ancient and modern great men,\nto the heroes whom they worshipped. She listened to the hymns and worship\nof the great men while she begrudged praise to the good and saintly and\nsuffering men. Russia is called \"Holy,\" not because she pretends to be\n_holy_, but because her ideal is holiness--not greatness but holiness. She\nfirst made use of the word in the nineteenth century. The poet Pushkin\nfirst used it, and he used it in the customary way, like Lord Byron, or\nGoethe, praising the great men, although still alluding here and there to\nthe true Russian ideal--to the good and saintly man. But he spoke not in\norder to say a new, an original word to the world, but only to break the\nsilence and to attract the attention of the world to Russia. He was the\nfirst of a series of preachers. He was listened to and applauded, but he\nsaid nothing new. After him followed the preachers: Gogol, Tolstoi,\nGoncharov, Tchehov, Turgeniev, Dostojevsky, and many others, like a choir,\nin which three voices are still the strongest and most expressive: Gogol,\nTolstoi, Dostojevsky. What did they say?\n\nThey held a grand review of the souls, of the ancient and modern souls, and\nfound that there exists no great man among them. That was their verdict. In\nall their writings they tried to show in the clearest manner, and to the\nsmallest detail, that there is no great man in the world. They analysed\neveryone who was mentioned and adored by worldly society or by tradition as\na great man, and proved that he was not a great man at all. It was very\ncourageous indeed to speak like that in a world which was accustomed from\nthe beginning, in the pagan as in the Christian epoch, to adore greatness,\nto divinise great men, to imitate and to worship heroes. It was still more\ncourageous to speak like that in the nineteenth century, when the worship\nof great men found so many advocates, when the name of the demi-god\nNapoleon filled every corner of the earth; when German philosophy, poetry\nand music emphasised personality and individuality when the whole\ncontinental theology followed the way of C\u00e6sar and interpreted Christianity\nas a teaching and promotion of individualism in human life. Yea, it\nhappened in the time when Carlyle, fascinated by German theories, ended the\nmatter and pressed the whole world's history into some few biographies.\nCarlyle's \"Heroes and Hero-Worship\"--curiously enough--was published about\nthe same time as Tolstoi's \"War and Peace.\" Two antipodes! Dostojevsky's\n\"Brothers Caramazov\" was published nearly at the same time as Nietzsche's\n\"Zarathustra\" with its message of the Superman. Again two antipodes! You\nwill in vain try to find such contrasts in the world as the Russian and\nGermano-Carlylean literature. Petronius and Seneca could read and\nunderstand very well Goethe and Carlyle, but they could not read and\nunderstand Tolstoi and Dostojevsky, nor could they understand the\nChristianity of their own time.\n\n\"Great men!\" exclaimed the Roman world on their dying beds.\n\n\"Great men!\" exclaimed rejuvenated Western Europe in the nineteenth\ncentury. History consists of great men. The very aim of history is to\nproduce great men.\n\n\"No,\" answered Holy Russia, who kept silent for a thousand years. The ideal\nof the great man is the fast ideal of the childhood of mankind, of the\nyouthful Pagan world. We are grown up in the Christian spirit; we can no\nlonger live in the childish illusions and dreams of great men. We see them\nas they are. There has never existed and does not yet exist a great man. No\none great man ever existed.\n\nOn this point Tolstoi and the Holy Synod were in agreement with each other\nand with the common spirit of the Russian people. They all agreed with\ntheir whole heart in the denial of the Greco-Roman worship of great men,\nwhich worship was everywhere revived in modern Europe in poetry,\nphilosophy, politics, art and even in theology. For eighteen hundred years\nWestern Europe was the spokesman of the Christian world and Russia kept\nsilent. When, after eighteen hundred years, Russia came to the world, her\nanswer was a decisive _No_. But that was not all she had to say. She had\nalso to say a decisive _Yes_.\n\n*PANHUMANISM.*\n\n_No_ and _Yes_. There is in the Slav religious conscience a _No_ and a\n_Yes_.\n\n_No_--for a great man; _Yes_--for a saintly man.\n\n_No_--for pride; _Yes_--for humility.\n\n_No_--for individualism; _Yes_--for panhumanism.\n\n_No_--for longing after pleasure; _Yes_--for longing after suffering.\n\nHistory has proved that a great man is impossible and, even more,\nundesirable, and that a saintly man is both possible and desirable. It is\nproved also that a so-called great man meant a great danger for mankind; a\nsaintly man never could be dangerous. We do not need great men at all, we\nneed good and saintly men. We ought not to seek after greatness, but after\ngoodness and saintliness. Greatness is no real virtue, but goodness and\nsaintliness are virtues. Greatness is only an illusion, but goodness and\nsaintliness are realities. Christianity came to impress these realities on\nthe human conscience and to sweep illusions away.\n\nThe whole history of Christianity is a continual struggle between realities\nand illusions. All the wars between Christians and pagans, and between\nChristians themselves, from the time of Christ until our time, had always\nthe same meaning--a struggle between the Christian realities of goodness\nand saintliness and the pagan illusions of greatness. The present War has\nthe same meaning as all the wars since Christ came until Bismarck. This war\nwas prophesied by Dostojevsky forty years ago. Dostoievsky was the only\ncontemporary man towards whom Nietzsche felt respect and even fear because\nof his deep thought and clairvoyance. With his genial insight into human\nnature, Dostojevsky saw clearly the inevitable conflict of the different\ncamps of Europe, whose apparent and hypocritical peace was only a busy\npreparation for conflict. \"Everything will be pulled down,\" he said,\n\"especially European pride.\" He had also a vision of what will come after\nthis great conflict. \"Christ,\" he said, \"nothing else but Christ Himself\nwill come in the form of panhuman brotherhood and panhuman love.\"\n\n\n\n\nYOUR SINS ARE MY SINS.\n\n\nLove the sinner as well! Do not fly away from the sinners, but go to them\nwithout fear. After all--whoever you may be--you are not much better than\nthey are. Try to love the sinners; you will see that it is easier to love\nthose whom you despise than those whom you envy. The old Zosim (from the\n\"Brothers Caramazov\") said, \"Brothers, don't be afraid of the sins of a\nsinner; but love a sinner also--that is the record of love upon earth.\" I\nknow you love St. Peter and St. John, but could you love the sinner\nZacch\u00e6eus? You can love the good Samaritan but love, please, the prodigal\nson also! You love Christ, I am sure; but what about Judas, the seller of\nChrist? He repented, poor human creature. Why don't you love him?\nDostojevsky--like Tolstoi and Gogol--emphasised two things: first, there is\nno great man; secondly, there is no worthless man. He described the\nblackest crimes and the deepest fall and showed that the authors of such\ncrimes are men just as other men, with much good hidden under their sins.\nServants and vagabonds, idiots and drunkards, the dirty _katorzniki_ from\nthe Serbian prisons--all those people are God's sons and daughters, with\nsouls full of fears and hopes, of repentance and longings after good and\njustice.\n\nBetween _saintliness_ and _vice_ there is a bridge, not an abyss. The\nsaintliest and the meanest men have still common ground for brotherhood.\nYour sins are my sins, my sins are your sins. That is the starting-point\nfor a practical and lucid Christianity. I cannot be clean as long as you\nare not clean. I cannot be happy as long as you are unhappy. I cannot enter\nHeaven as long as you are in Hell. What does that mean? It means that you\nand I are blended together for eternity, and that your effort to separate\nyourselves from me is disastrous for you and for me. As long as you look to\nthe greatest sinner in the world and say: \"God, I thank thee that I am not\nas that man,\" you are far from Christ and the Kingdom of God. God wants not\none good man only, He wants a Kingdom of good men. If ninety-nine of us are\ngood and saintly but one of our brothers is far from our solace and\nsupport, in sin and darkness, be sure God is not among us ninety-nine, but\nHe has gone to find our brother whom we have lost and forgotten. Will you\nfollow him or will you stand self-sufficient? Never has there existed in\nthe world such a social power binding man to man and commanding each to\ntake and bear the other's sorrows as Christianity did. Your sins are my\nsins, my sins are your sins. Such a conception of the Christian religion\nhad Tolstoi in common with Dostojevsky and Gogol, with the Holy Synod, with\nthe popular religious conscience of millions and millions of the living and\nthe dead, in the orthodox world, and with all the _jurodivi_, the fools for\nChrist's sake. That is the religious spirit of the best of the Slavs.\n\n\n\nCHRISTIANITY AND CIVILISATION.\n\n\nThe following is the Slav point of view: Christianity came into the world,\nnot in order to inaugurate a new civilisation, but to infuse a new\nreligious spirit, to clear and purify the human conscience. A perfect\nChristian spirit can exist quite outside civilisation as well as in the\nmidst of the most complicated civilisation. A Christian negro, in his\nnudity, picking up dates under a palm tree, can be as good and saintly a\nman as any business man from the Strand in London or from the Fifth Avenue\nin New York. And, on the contrary, the most civilised men, like Bismarck\nand Nietzsche can be of a much more anti-Christian spirit than any\nprimitive human creature in Central Africa or Siberia. Many civilisations\nhave been created without Christianity. You cannot say that Christian\nLondon is a more perfect and beautiful city than Pagan Rome or Mohammedan\nCordova were. But you may perhaps say that the spirit of London is more\nsublime and humane, more good and saintly, than the spirit of Rome and\nCordova. Well, it is the _spirit_ which regards Christianity, and nothing\nelse. Civilisation is only an occasion for Christianity to prove its\nspirit. It is an occasion of suffering, and also of corruption. In both\ncases Christianity has to be tested. Christianity has to fight against a\nPagan civilisation as well as a Pagan barbarism. It is sometimes harder for\nthe Christian spirit to fight against the first than against the second\nform of Paganism. It was easier for the Christian mission to Christianise\nbarbarous Africa than cultivated Rome. And imagine how much it will cost\ntill Bismarckian and Nietzschean Germany \"changes her spirit\" as\nSienkiewicz foretold.\n\nI mention this relation between Christianity and civilisation to prove that\na civilisation with _any_ spirit is not attractive to the Slav, but rather\nthe civilisation with the Christian religious spirit _only_. Tolstoi denied\nall civilisation just because he did not see the Christian spirit in it.\nThe Church was reserved towards modern science and art just because she saw\nthe anti-Christian, proud, egoistical spirit in many expressions of them.\nBetter the poor Christian spirit in a cottage of Macedonia than a rich and\ncultivated Paganism in Vienna. The spirit with which a railway is made\ncounts and not the railway itself. We are never alone but always in the\npresence of a great Spirit who encircles and inspires us. Whatever we do\nthrough this inspiration is living and good; whatever we do without His\ninspiration, but under the supposition that we are alone in this world, is\nwrong and dead. A great civilisation may be wrong and dead Yea, as there is\nno great man, there is no great civilisation. The ideal of Slav\nChristianity is a good and saintly man, and also a good and saintly\ncivilisation. The very essence of life is mystic and religious. What is a\nman or a civilisation without mysticism and religion? They are like a\npainted landscape on paper. You enjoy it from a distance, but when you\ntouch it you are disappointed. Everything without God is discontentment,\nemptiness.\n\nBlessed are those--I wish you all may be numbered among them--whose life is\nfull of God. They are connected with the sun and the stars, with the living\nand the dead, with the past and the future. They possess a wonderful bridge\nover every abyss in life, and they are always safe. They are bright in\ndarkness, joyful in suffering, hopeful in death. Their life on earth, in\nthis very limited sphere of life, is escorted by the whole of the Universe,\nfrom one end to the other. I wish that such a religious spirit belonged not\nonly to the Slavs but to all mankind.\n\n\nPRINTED IN GREAT BRITAIN BY R. CLAY AND SONS, LTD.\nBRUNSWICK STREET, STAMFORDSTREET, S.E., AND BUNGAY, SUFFOLK.","title":"The Religious Spirit of the Slavs: Three Lectures Given in Lent, 1916","tradition":"scripture-revelation","translated_text":null,"word_count":11101}