Formatting notes: This is the format for quotations.
— Endnotes/footnotes appear in this format. — More information.
Note: Your browser needs access to a Unicode font for some characters to be rendered properly.
Alexei Khomiakov
6/18 June 1851
Gorham judgment * Papal Aggression * Their real significance * Anglican position defined * Only one solution
Most Reverend Sir, —
England, in my opinion, has never been more worthy of admiration than this year. The Babylonian enterprise of the Exhibition and its Crystal Palace, which shows London to be the true and recognised capital of Universal Industry, would have been sufficient to engross the attention and intellectual powers of any other country; but England stands evidently above its own commercial wonders. Deeper interests agitate her, higher thoughts direct her mental energy. Europe, in its material tendencies and follies, does not understand the spiritual life, or at least the ardent longing for a spiritual life, which expresses itself in the agitation produced by Gorham and papal questions. The first has been laughed at almost everywhere as something childish and unworthy of an enlightened nation. The second is considered as something equally childish, and as a symptom of the morbid pride of England, and particularly of the English Church. I have lately heard a Frenchman and a countryman of mine concur in the following profound opinion: The self-love of all nations may console itself; England, the country of wonders, is foolish enough to speak whole months about the dogmatic frenzy of a parish priest and the unmeaning titles of a dozen bishops.
Certainly, such opinions only prove the mental degradation of those who utter them; yet it is impossible not to admit that the form which the religious agitation has taken in England has done much to conceal the importance of the debated questions. I am almost inclined to suppose that this form deceives even the greater part of your countrymen, and that perhaps they are glad of the deception which permits them to avoid the necessity of facing the true question in all its significance and importance. But it cannot be avoided.
In the Gorham case, this form was a dispute about jurisdiction; in the papal question, it is a dispute about titles; in both the form is nothing but a pretext. The Gorham question was in itself no more than a disagreement between a presbyter and a bishop about a doubtful opinion in theology, a revival of the old absurdity of opus operans and opus operatum. The true basis of the theological opinion, the only thing that could give it some importance, was the question whether unbaptised children are to be damned according to the teaching of Augustine, which, while pretending to be mild is in reality so cruel; or to be saved according to the spirit of genuine mildness which speaks in the Gospel. The question is one of pure curiosity, one about which nothing decisive is to be found in Revelation, nothing in Tradition, and which has been completely darkened by the subtleties of scholastic learning or, rather, of scholastic ignorance. The decision of the civil authority is, in my opinion, a very reasonable one; but the same decision admits, as a point of law, that questions of ecclesiastical discipline are to be judged by the civil magistrate and, what is more, that dogmatic doubts in the religious community may be put aside by civil authority without having been decided by the community. This is nothing but Prussian Protestantism. If the Anglican Church accepts the decision, it confesses itself to be completely Protestant, completely un-Catholic, and glides by an unavoidable necessity down into German Rationalism.
The Papal Aggression is in itself still less serious than the dispute about Baptism. The pope has an undoubted right to ordain bishops for Ireland; he has had for years de facto a right to direct the ecclesiastical affairs of Latins in England. Now he chooses to give his deputies in England a local habitation and a name. Where is the danger? Where is the serious offence? Geographical titles are important for a geographical, a Latin Church; but what is the importance of that whimsical pretension for England as a realm, or for Englishmen as Christians? If the Jacobite patriarch i.e. the Monophysite patriarch of Antioch was to send twelve bishops with twelve most pompous titles to England, would they be met by cries of anger? Peals of laughter would certainly be their only reception. Where then, is the difference? Yet, the effect has been quite different; and the reason of the difference is obvious. The Church of England, or rather, a considerable part of it, though having broken the ties which made it dependent on Rome, felt itself menaced by ultra-Protestantism, and adhered strongly to a shadow of Catholicity, with a latent hope that some compromise might still be entered which would give Anglicans a right to say that they had always held tradition, and had never been quite estranged from one of the churches of Apostolic foundation. Now, Rome has decidedly rejected them, and has shown that she denies, or, rather, willingly ignores their existence as a church. They are forced into Protestantism, which they feel to be the death of Religion, or reduced to confess that Anglicanism is no Church, but simply an Establishment. This seems to be the only key to the religious agitation of the last months. England has felt that Anglicanism, such as it is, cannot be upheld; and that England has felt it so deeply, so painfully (though indeed without confessing it), is a circumstance which reflects much honour on the earnestness and strength of her religious tendencies.
The government of England and the government of Rome have done all they could to put the question in the strongest light; and they have been understood. Numerous defections to Rome have happened in a short time, and have been much spoken of. The defections to ultra-Protestantism, though unnoticed, are more numerous still. Those who long for Catholicity feel that tatters of Tradition, arbitrarily chosen, without continuity and authority, and constantly exposed to doubt, cannot constitute a Catholic Church. Those who wish for the freedom of Protestantism feel that a liberty which is hemmed in by relics of Tradition and Authority is no true Protestantism. Every man takes to his own ways, and nobody is to blame. The position of Anglicanism is completely defined. It is a narrow ledge of dubious terra firma, beaten by the waves of Latinism and Protestantism, and crumbling on both sides into the mighty waters. The position cannot be maintained, but where is the egress?
Latinism is an unnatural tyranny; Protestantism is an unprincipled revolt. Neither of them can be accepted. But where is unity without tyranny? where is freedom without revolt to be found? They are both to be found in the ancient, continuous, unadulterated Tradition of the Church. There a unity is to be found more authoritative than the despotism of the Vatican, for it is based on the strength of mutual love. There a liberty is to be found more free than the licence of Protestantism, for it is regulated by the humility of mutual love. There is the Rock and the Refuge.
Rome, in the ninth century, broke the blessed bond of Love, and fell into that Dogmatic Error i.e. the Filioque which you yourself, most reverend sir, have so candidly confessed and so powerfully confuted. The wound of the Christian world must be healed. Why should not England begin that blessed cure? The more impending the crisis of the Anglican Church, the more powerfully are her members called upon to begin the work of renovation. Certainly, nothing at first is to be expected from the totality or even the majority of Anglicans. In England, as everywhere else, incredulity, worldly cares, ignorance, prejudice, custom, and apathy hold the great number in their slavery; but God is not in numbers. Let a few speak and act boldly, and though as few as the first Apostles, they may begin a rapid course of spiritual conquest, as did the ancient teachers of Christianity. I consider the present moment as eminently favourable, because it is eminently dangerous, and because the danger is manifest.
I hope you will not blame me for the frankness of my language. I cannot speak about the Church of England without an earnest emotion. I grieve for its present position, but I find a great source of hope in the zeal which is manifested by its members all over the world in the preaching of the name of Christ. May they find at home for themselves the peace of mind and spiritual joy they labour to spread over distant nations!
Accept, most reverend sir, the assurance of the sincere respect and devotion of a man who calls himself truly yours,
Alexei Khomiakov
6/18 June [1851], Moscow
Validated as Strict HTML 4.01 — before Geocities got hold of it!