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

These Eastern Christians form a simple and he geneous religious body; they are all indissolubly u in matters of dogma with the Church of Constantinand with one another. They have the same tradit the same creeds, and are governed by the same sy of canon law; and, although the several Churches ar dependent and self-governing, their unity and solida are greater even than that of the Roman Church. fundamental fact necessary to explain their theolo attitude is to remember that they represent the Ch anity of the Byzantine Empire. For 500 years Christian Church in East and West remained undiv both in name and reality. During that period theology, the creeds and organisation of the Ch were developed and formulated; and up to that). East and West shared in the inheritance. For 300 y more they remained united in name, but in spirit temper were drifting further and further apart. V the East consolidated and stereotyped its worship life, the West was occupied in the conquest, the version and the religious assimilation of the succe waves of barbarism that invaded the Western Em While the East was subject to the rule of the Em] at Constantinople, the Western Patriarch acquired gr independence and power, and finally himself becam creator of the new emperor. While in the Ea political autocracy was developed, in the West it a spiritual empire that grew up. The separation already far advanced when Photius, the learned Patri of Constantinople, excommunicated Pope Nicholas Ii and the Roman Church returned the compliment. T was a patched-up peace for a time, but in 1054 strife again stirred up by the Patriarch Michael Cerularius, made violent accusations of heresy against the Ro Church. Roman bishops in Constantinople forn excommunicated the Eastern Patriarch in the Ch of St Sophia itself; the Eastern Church retaliated burnt the anathema; and the breach became final.

The formal cause of difference was the dispute cerning what is technically known as the filioque cl in the Creed and the doctrine of the Double Proces

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 Council but, although they remain loyal to their heresy as almo the only sign of their national existence, it is doubtf whether their creed is really unorthodox. Nestorianis banished from the Empire, founded great Churches the East which were destroyed by the devastating wav of the Mongol and Tartar invasions. The Maronites the Lebanon first showed their opposition to Constan nople by rejecting the Sixth General Council, and at later date by accepting the Roman supremacy as a unia Church.

The Orthodox Church would describe itself as th Church of the Seven General Councils and the Seve Sacraments; and that dogmatic statement admirab sums up its theological and liturgical position. It al hints at one of its characteristics which becomes mo conspicuous on further enquiry. The Eastern Chur represents a certain type of Christianity worked o with completeness and finality. This has been the resu of its history. It is not indeed true that it is as us changing as some of its members think, but it is tr that the atmosphere of the East for the last thousa years has not been progressive; and that, in the circumstances, particularly when loyalty to creed w the only conceivable position, it is natural that the should have been a tendency to stereotype its condition

As regards its ecclesiastical organisation, the Easter Church is divided first of all into the four ancient Patr archates of Constantinople, Alexandria, Antioch ar Jerusalem; of these the Patriarchate of Constantinop is the ecumenical patriarchate, and is the only one great importance from the number of Christians in i jurisdiction. The other three are but the remains ( great Churches devastated and destroyed by Mahon medan rule. Then there is the autocephalous Churc of Cyprus, a Church which still preserves the ancier privileges granted to it by Justinian; there are th national churches, detached from the patriarchate c Constantinople, of Greece, of Serbia, of Montenegro, c Bulgaria, and of Rumania. As each of these portion of the Turkish empire frees itself from a state of subjec tion, it organises its Church on a national basis. Th 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 ar ideals of the Imperial Procurator, but in spite of th some progress was made. A commission was appointe to prepare schemes for the reform of the administrati areas, of the Canon Law and Church courts, parod ial organisation, finance, education, and of orthodox do trine and controversy with non-orthodox bodies. The was much criticism of bishops, of monasteries, and epi copal government. It was emphasised that the monast habits and outlook of the bishops were one of the ma causes of the existing defects; it was proposed th bishops should be appointed by a Synod containing r presentatives of the clergy and laity; and it was desire to strengthen the power of the Church Councils, against the autocratic rule of the Holy Synod.

Great hopes were aroused; but in this, as in mar other directions in Russia, the Tsar had not the courag to throw himself into the path of reform. First can postponement, then a half-hearted acquiescence, arr then the scheme was quietly laid aside. In the earl days of the recent Revolution, before the reign of terro began, and when the great mass of the nation desired t unite on wise reform, a national council of the Churc was summoned, the Patriarchate was restored, and som of the reforms which had been previously outlined wer we are told, carried out. But once more the hope for the Church were clouded; the terrible scourge ( Bolshevism arose; and the anti-religious element gaine the upper hand. There is, we are informed, nothin that has made Bolshevism so unpopular as its ant religious policy. The Bolshevists attempted to impriso clergy, but the populace rose against them; and, althoug the new Patriarch has had the courage to excommunicat these anarchists, they have not been able, so far at an rate, to retaliate by executing him. What the futur may have in store for Rnssia we do not know.

As we pass further south, we come to the region 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 a least three portions. There is the national Church of Rumania, under an archbishop; there is the autonomous Church of Hermanstadt (Nagyszeben), for the Rumanians