conditions which might have made the bravest falter, is an eloquent proof of their loyalty to their creed.

These Eastern Christians form a simple and homogeneous religious body; they are all indissolubly united in matters of dogma with the Church of Constantinople and with one another. They have the same traditions, the same creeds, and are governed by the same system of canon law; and, although the several Churches are independent and self-governing, their unity and solidarity are greater even than that of the Roman Church. The fundamental fact necessary to explain their theological attitude is to remember that they represent the Christianity of the Byzantine Empire. For 500 years the Christian Church in East and West remained undivided both in name and reality. During that period the theology, the creeds and organisation of the Church were developed and formulated; and up to that point East and West shared in the inheritance. For 300 years more they remained united in name, but in spirit and temper were drifting further and further apart. While the East consolidated and stereotyped its worship and life, the West was occupied in the conquest, the conversion and the religious assimilation of the successive waves of barbarism that invaded the Western Empire. While the East was subject to the rule of the Emperor at Constantinople, the Western Patriarch acquired greater independence and power, and finally himself became the creator of the new emperor. While in the East a political autocracy was developed, in the West it was a spiritual empire that grew up. The separation was already far advanced when Photius, the learned Patriarch of Constantinople, excommunicated Pope Nicholas I in 867 and the Roman Church returned the compliment. There was a patched-up peace for a time, but in 1054 strife was again stirred up by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, who made violent accusations of heresy against the Roman Church. Roman bishops in Constantinople formally excommunicated the Eastern Patriarch in the Church of St Sophia itself; the Eastern Church retaliated and burnt the anathema; and the breach became final.

The formal cause of difference was the dispute concerning what is technically known as the filioque clause in the Creed and the doctrine of the Double Procession

of the Holy Spirit, and certain smaller points which seem trivial now. The real causes were two-fold. The first was the rivalry of the two Patriarchates, and in particular the determination of the Roman See to win for itself a universal spiritual sovereignty. It is this more than anything else which has been, and still remains, as the great cause of separation between East and West; and any acquaintance with the theology of the Eastern Church at the present day will reveal that its opposition to the claims of Rome is as strong as ever it was. The second cause was the great and increasing difference in tone and temper between East and West, between the inheritors of the older civilisation and the vigorous, if undisciplined, peoples of the West. While East and West preserved, as we have pointed out, their common inheritance of the ages of unity, the theology of the West developed on lines very different from that of the East. In particular, the East has never been influenced, as the West was, by the theology of St Augustine and by the Schoolmen of the Middle Ages as well as by the legalism due to the dominance of Roman Law. It knows nothing of the later development of the Roman Church-its mechanical theory of the sacraments, its doctrines of merit, of indulgences and purgatory, and the claims of papal infallibility. The division has been further illustrated by the charge that the Easterns bring against the Protestants of the West, which is that they are really influenced by the Roman Church, and have formed their faith either on what they have learned from that Church, or in a spirit of opposition to it.

While it is to Byzantine traditions that we may trace the separation of the Eastern Church from Rome and the West, it is the same cause which has produced the numerous schisms which have created the separated Churches of the East. All these are nominally heretical; and in some cases it is probable that the heretical tendency corresponds to deep religious and racial differences. But, broadly speaking, the heresies arose either owing to the resentment of the subject nations against the Byzantine Church and State policy, or to the accident of political separation. The Coptic and Syrian Jacobite Churches represent a definite revolt. The Armenians, on the other hand, were outside the Eastern

Empire during the third and fourth General Councils; but, although they remain loyal to their heresy as almost the only sign of their national existence, it is doubtful whether their creed is really unorthodox. Nestorianism, banished from the Empire, founded great Churches in the East which were destroyed by the devastating waves of the Mongol and Tartar invasions. The Maronites of the Lebanon first showed their opposition to Constantinople by rejecting the Sixth General Council, and at a later date by accepting the Roman supremacy as a uniate Church.

The Orthodox Church would describe itself as the Church of the Seven General Councils and the Seven Sacraments; and that dogmatic statement admirably sums up its theological and liturgical position. It also hints at one of its characteristics which becomes more conspicuous on further enquiry. The Eastern Church represents a certain type of Christianity worked out with completeness and finality. This has been the result of its history. It is not indeed true that it is as unchanging as some of its members think, but it is true that the atmosphere of the East for the last thousand years has not been progressive; and that, in these circumstances, particularly when loyalty to creed was the only conceivable position, it is natural that there should have been a tendency to stereotype its conditions.

As regards its ecclesiastical organisation, the Eastern Church is divided first of all into the four ancient Patriarchates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem; of these the Patriarchate of Constantinople is the ecumenical patriarchate, and is the only one of great importance from the number of Christians in its jurisdiction. The other three are but the remains of great Churches devastated and destroyed by Mahommedan rule. Then there is the autocephalous Church of Cyprus, a Church which still preserves the ancient privileges granted to it by Justinian; there are the national churches, detached from the patriarchate of Constantinople, of Greece, of Serbia, of Montenegro, of Bulgaria, and of Rumania. As each of these portions of the Turkish empire frees itself from a state of subjection, it organises its Church on a national basis. The Patriarch of Constantinople was subject to Turkey; and

finally it was felt that an independent State could not recognise his authority. In the case of Bulgaria this policy was intensified by a strong opposition to Greek influence which had prevailed in the past. Serbia even attained to the dignity of a patriarchate at the time of its great emperor Stephen Dushan. In the later days of the Turkish Empire, especially in the 18th century, the influence of the Greeks of the Phanar had been great in Church affairs; and the revolt of these States involved a demand for both ecclesiastical and national freedom.

In the north, the Russian Church, owing its Christianity to Constantinople, inherited much of Byzantine imperialistic conditions. It had been organised as the Fifth Oriental Patriarchate; but Peter the Great, anxious to assert his authority over the Church as well as the nation, put the Patriarchate in commission, if we may use the phrase. He substituted a Synod, which consisted of certain selected prelates, and was largely under the influence of the Procurator, who represented the Emperor. This official was a layman, and in many ways the ruler of the Church. At all meetings of the Synod, the empty chair of the Tsar was placed as a symbol of the sovereign supremacy, as is done at meetings of the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council in this country. It was the office of Procurator of the Holy Synod which was held by Pobiedonostsiev, a high-minded supporter of reactionary ideals, and a great promoter in many ways of the well-being of the Church, but largely responsible for that unfortunate policy, both in national and religious matters, which prepared the way for the revolution.

Such are the conditions of the Eastern Church. It is not true to say that it has not changed. Every religious body inevitably changes in some direction. It has again and again shown a desire for reform, but only too often its efforts have been thwarted. At the present time the external circumstances are altering everywhere, and a new era seems to be dawning for the Christians of the East. Let us begin with Russia. The disasters which befell that country in the years 1904-5 awoke a new spirit. A reform movement began, demanding liberty and self-government and summoning a national Church

Council. This was entirely contrary to the aims and ideals of the Imperial Procurator, but in spite of that some progress was made. A commission was appointed to prepare schemes for the reform of the administrative areas, of the Canon Law and Church courts, parochial organisation, finance, education, and of orthodox doctrine and controversy with non-orthodox bodies. There was much criticism of bishops, of monasteries, and episcopal government. It was emphasised that the monastic habits and outlook of the bishops were one of the main causes of the existing defects; it was proposed that bishops should be appointed by a Synod containing representatives of the clergy and laity; and it was desired to strengthen the power of the Church Councils, as against the autocratic rule of the Holy Synod.

Great hopes were aroused; but in this, as in many other directions in Russia, the Tsar had not the courage to throw himself into the path of reform. First came postponement, then a half-hearted acquiescence, and then the scheme was quietly laid aside. In the early days of the recent Revolution, before the reign of terror began, and when the great mass of the nation desired to unite on wise reform, a national council of the Church was summoned, the Patriarchate was restored, and some of the reforms which had been previously outlined were, we are told, carried out. But once more the hopes for the Church were clouded; the terrible scourge of Bolshevism arose; and the anti-religious element gained the upper hand. There is, we are informed, nothing that has made Bolshevism so unpopular as its antireligious policy. The Bolshevists attempted to imprison clergy, but the populace rose against them; and, although the new Patriarch has had the courage to excommunicate these anarchists, they have not been able, so far at any rate, to retaliate by executing him. What the future may have in store for Rnssia we do not know.

As we pass further south, we come to the regions which have been devastated by the war and for which hopes of liberation have now dawned. The Church of the Rumanian people has hitherto been divided into at least three portions. There is the national Church of Rumania, under an archbishop; there is the autonomous Church of Hermanstadt (Nagyszeben), for the Rumanians