The Russian Church and Russian Dissent/Chapter 6
CHAPTER VI.
Reunion of the Polish to the Russian Church.—Dissent.—Peter the Great and his Successors.—Substitution of the Holy Synod for the Patriarchate.—Absorption of the Unia by the Russian Church.—Reforms.
During Feodor's short reign energetic measures were devised to arrest the progress of heretical and dissenting opinions, which had taken deep root among the peasants and lower classes. Strong efforts were made for the dissemination of education, as the most efficient mode of combating false doctrines, but they ceased at Feodor's death, when the country was again plunged into confusion by the disputed succession.
The patriarch Joachim favored Peter, to the exclusion of his imbecile elder brother Ivan, and the bloody struggles of rival factions resulted in the joint government of the two, with their sister Sophia as regent.
The period of Sophia's regency was signalized by the reunion of the Orthodox Churches of Little Russia and Poland to that of the empire.
When Little Russia was brought under the sway of Alexis, its Orthodox clergy, and that of Poland, asserted their affiliation with Constantinople, preferring a nominal dependency upon a distant see to real subjection under a powerful neighbor. Anarchy and intestine strife in succeeding years, aggravated in Little Russia by Polish invasion, were accompanied by dissensions in the Church. Rival prelates, supported by different factions, and each claiming ecclesiastical sovereignty, maintained their independence of Moscow.
The Russian patriarchs appointed guardians of the see of Kiev, but their authority was ignored.
To heal these divisions, and to settle the question of supremacy by an authoritative decision, reference was made to the Byzantine patriarch. The ecclesiastical dispute was decided simultaneously with the pacification of the Ukraine under the Hetman Samuelovitch, and its cession, with Kiev, to Russia by John Sobiesky, in 1685, as the price of her neutrality in his wars with the Turks. A formal decree from Constantinople united the Orthodox Churches of Russia and Poland under the see of Moscow, and terminated their separation of two centuries and a half.
This auspicious event was, however, followed by unfortunate and unforeseen consequences to the Polish establishment. Shorn of the comparative independence it had so long enjoyed, and insufficiently protected by Russia, it gradually lost energy and vitality, and yielded to the surrounding pressure. The government, jealous of any control by a foreign pontiff over its dioceses, endeavored to supplant Orthodox prelates by others of the Catholic or Uniate creeds. Its efforts were crowned with success, and eventually but a single Orthodox bishop remained in the realm. From the people, deprived of their spiritual advisers and exposed to unremitting and persistent persecution, nearly every trace of Orthodoxy disappeared, save among the peasantry of the more remote districts.
In Russia, meanwhile, the absence of a firm and settled government, and the disorder consequent upon the strife of rival factions greatly facilitated the growth and development of religious dissensions among the people. Although they were subjected to strict supervision, and all overt manifestations were suppressed by force, the feeling, among them, of hostility to the innovations inaugurated by Nikon had spread throughout the empire. The superior clergy, who generally accepted the reforms and were in sympathy with the nobles, treated the village priests, who were recruited chiefly among the people and shared their feelings, with arrogance and contempt. This aggravated the popular discontent, which, in turn, reacted upon the minor clergy. The prevalent and increasing dissatisfaction of the lower classes was fostered by unscrupulous and designing men in furtherance of their ambitious ends. The inveterate hatred of Russians for everything foreign was, notwithstanding the Greek origin of their Church, artfully fomented against innovations brought from Constantinople and against their advocates. In all the schemes and intrigues, in all the insurrectionary and political movements of those troublous times, the element of religious discord played an important part. Discontent and Dissent, acting and reacting, grew into a formidable political power, dangerous and threatening, even to the stability of the government.
The only military organization existing in Russia was that of the "Streltsi,"[1] an irregular kind of national guard, first created under Ivan IV. It was officered exclusively by Russians, and was largely recruited from among the people, with whom, as a body, it was in general accord, especially in dislike for everything of a foreign origin or nature. This turbulent militia, ever clamoring for whatever they deemed national or Russian, sympathized with the popular attachment to the old forms and ceremonies of religious worship; they joined the outcry raised against the changes introduced into the Church service as being heresies, subversive of the true faith, and demanded a return to ancient custom.
In order to check the prevalent dissatisfaction, which ever and anon found seditious expression, the authorities consented to a public disputation upon the points in controversy. Nikita, formerly a priest, then a dissenter, and who, under threat of punishment, had recanted and again relapsed, led the popular side; but the meeting, convened with due solemnity in presence of the tsars and the regent, with the patriarch and clergy, ended in a noisy riot, put down with a strong hand. The Streltsi, overawed by display of force, and cajoled by promises, abandoned Nikita, with his adherents, to their fate. He, and many of his disciples, were executed and order restored. Notwithstanding vigorous measures of repression, the great mass of the people were infested with the poison of Dissent; sect after sect arose, each with its local following and peculiarities, but all professing, as their single common bond of union, opposition to reform and to the established Church, as having fallen away from the ancient and true faith.
As Peter grew to man's estate, a giant in mind and body, his haughty, imperious nature could ill brook a divided authority. Sophia was equally ambitious, and incited the Streltsi to rise in her behalf. Peter, warned in season, fled to the Troïtsa monastery, where already, when a boy of ten years of age, he had, with his mother Natalia, found protection against rebellious subjects. There the patriarch and his clergy, together with the loyal nobles, rallied to his support. The insurrectionary movement was checked and Sophia was deposed.
Ten years after, in 1698, this wild and undisciplined soldiery again raised the standard of revolt. Peter was absent from Russia, but, hurrying back, he abolished the institution, and wreaked such fearful and bloody vengeance upon the rebels as to call forth remonstrance, "in the name of the Mother of God," from Adrian, who was then patriarch. "Get thee home," was the fierce reply; "know that I reverence God and his most Holy Mother more earnestly perhaps than thou dost. It is the duty of my sovereign office, and a duty that I owe to God, to save my people from harm, and to prosecute, with direst severity, crimes that tend to the common ruin." His impatience of control and his growing determination to break down all opposition, even that of the Church, to his will, were thus early made manifest.
The patriarch Joachim died in 1690; although a lifelong enemy of Nikon, he, with the higher clergy, had accepted the changes in the Church service which Nikon introduced, but he shared the general dislike felt by all Russians of high and low degree for foreigners, and mourned the tsar's deplorable predilection for their society. His opposition to them, otherwise unavailing, was successfully exercised against teachers of foreign religions; the toleration hitherto extended to Calvinists and Lutherans was greatly restricted; Catholics were prohibited from celebrating mass in public; the Jesuits were banished; and Germans, accused of disseminating false and blasphemous doctrines, were burned at the stake. He left testamentary admonitions to the tsar, urging him to drive from Russia all heretics and unbelievers, enemies of the Orthodox faith, and to destroy their places of worship. His administration of the Church was characterized by decision and energy, and, notwithstanding the growth of Dissent and the influx of foreign ideas, its power and the extent of its sway was largely increased. Its conquests followed those of the State, and spread Christianity to the farthest regions of Eastem Siberia; a bishopric was established at Irkutsk, and the incumbent, Innocentius Koulchinsky, was head of a church mission to Pekin. In 1684 a garrison of four hundred Cossacks defended a frontier fortress at Albasin, on the river Amoor, with such distinguished bravery that their survivors, when compelled by starvation to capitulate, were granted their lives and were settled in Pekin, with permission from the Emperor of China to retain their religion and to receive priests of their Church from Russia. Descendants of this captive colony of Christians exist in Pekin at the present day.
Peter was but eighteen years of age, and the gigantic schemes which were to immortalize his name, and transform the empire, were still ideas or aspirations vaguely conceived, without having as yet assumed in his mind definite shape and proportion. He did not then probably realize the importance for his plans which attached to the choice of a head for the Church, and while preferring Marcellus, Metropolitan of Pskov, a "learned and civilized" person, he acquiesced in the selection of Adrian, Metropolitan of Kasan, an aged prelate, narrow-minded, strongly imbued with antiquated and national prejudices, the favorite of the lower clergy, and of what may even then be considered as the old Russian party. He was a rigid Churchman, and during his pontificate the confession of Peter Mogila, which had been generally received in Russia, was formally adopted as embodying the doctrines and belief of the Church. His influence was in constant opposition to the wishes of the tsar; Western habits, which Peter was eager to follow, were an abomination in his sight; the use of tobacco, the wearing of foreign apparel, he condemned as sinful; by a decree in due form he anathematized all who shaved their beards, an "ornament given by God to man, whom He created in His own image, which had been worn by all the holy prophets and apostles, by the saints of the Church, and by our Saviour Himself."
Peter's growing determination to bring his people within the pale of Western civilization was strengthened by his travels. He was the first tsar who had left Russia since Isiaslav took refuge in Germany with the emperor Henry, in 1073. On his return from foreign countries Peter applied himself vigorously to his task, with haughty disregard of edicts of his predecessors, of decrees of patriarchs, and of ancient customs.
The social and civil changes he first introduced struck a fatal blow at the most cherished prejudices, and at the religious belief of his people. They were followed by others more radical and fundamental, as well in the Church as in the body politic.
During his travels he had examined for himself the different religious systems of Western Europe. He had listened to Protestant preaching in Holland, to exhortations of Quakers and of Anglican divines in England, and, in Austria and Poland, had lent an apparently willing ear to arguments of Catholic priests in favor of a union of the Greek and Latin Churches, but always without conviction as to his religious belief. Gilbert Burnet, Bishop of Salisbury, judged him accurately in his shrewd remark, "that he was anxious to understand our doctrines, but he did not seem disposed to mend matters in Muscovy."
The Catholic prelates felt more encouragement, and the papal nuncio at Vienna reported to Rome that Peter had evinced a desire to be received into the bosom of the true Church. With them, however, the wish was father to the thought. While he evidently inclined to toleration, he violently resented any reflection, in his hearing, upon the Orthodox Church. At Mitau he attended mass, and a Polish senator ventured to urge upon him the union of the Greek and Roman Churches, but Peter replied: "Sovereigns have rights only over the bodies of their people; Christ is the sovereign of their souls. For such a thing a general consent is necessary, and that is in the power of God alone." Whatever may have been Peter's intentions towards the Church, in its relations to the State, he had no wish to disturb the religious belief of the people.
The patriarch, Adrian, died in 1700, at the moment when Peter was engaged in remodelling the national code, and in establishing clear distinctions between civil and ecclesiastical jurisdiction. The election of a successor was postponed by the tsar's orders, upon pretext of his absence with the army, and probably also on account of his solicitude that the choice should not, while he was away, fall upon a prelate hostile to his views. As a temporary measure, Stephen Yavorsky, Metropolitan of Riazan, a man of great learning, ability, and prudence, was named guardian of the see, with the title of Exarch.
The reorganization of the ecclesiastical administration was speedily commenced. Questions of theology, and of Church discipline, were reserved to the patriarchal tribunal, but the charge of the property and of the material interests of the Church, together with general supervision over clerical affairs, was confided to the "Department of the Monasteries," created for the purpose.
The religious establishments in Russia were very numerous and very wealthy; many were very ancient, with exclusive and peculiar privileges, dating back anterior to any codified laws. There were in all 557 monasteries and convents, whose vast possessions comprised 130,000 peasant houses and many hundreds of thousands of serfs; the richest was the great Troïtsa monastery, near Moscow, which owned 20,400 houses and upwards of 100,000 serfs, representing, at the present time, a value of nearly four millions sterling;[2] then came the official property of the patriarchate, which was reckoned at 8900 houses, and that of the see of Rostov, comprising 4400 houses, with proportionate numbers of serfs.
The Department of the Monasteries was empowered to take charge of, and manage, this enormous property for the general good of the Church, paying an annual sum to each establishment for the support of its inmates.
The thriftless and lazy thronged in and about religious communities in order to enjoy an easy and comfortable existence, and to secure exemption from military service. To remedy this evil, really serious from the sparseness of the population, the number of residents in each institution was prescribed by law, and stringent regulations were enacted for entrance to religious life. It was prohibited to minors—to such as could not read nor write — to those of noble birth, and to all in the employment of the State. The limit of age for admission was fixed at thirty years for monks and at forty for nuns, and the previous consent of the tsar was necessary. The inmates of each establishment were compelled to remain within its walls, and were subjected to rigid observance of strict monastic discipline. Allowances and salaries were assigned to the higher spiritual authorities in lieu of their estates, and of the dues hitherto exacted from the parishes. The surplus income of the fund was to be devoted to charitable objects and military hospitals, and finally to the current necessities of the State.
The measure was calculated to elevate the character of the whole religious body, and, by depriving it of its worldly superfluity, to purify its ranks of the army of parasites and mendicants fattening upon it in sloth and ignorance. It was, however, practically, one of confiscation, and, together with strict enforcement of discipline, it caused very great discontent among the clergy, whose persistent and bitter opposition delayed its thorough execution until the reign of Catherine II. Clerical jealousy was also aroused by the reorganization of the Academy of Moscow, where the introduction of foreign teachers, and of professors from Kiev, was rendered necessary by the incapacity and ignorance of the native clergy.
Yavorsky was indefatigable in his efforts to regenerate and reform the Church, and was at first assured of the friendship and support of the tsar, but he was dismayed at the storm of opposition he encountered, by the clashing of conflicting authorities, by quarrelling between the monastic department and the patriarchal court; he was, moreover, subsequently discouraged by frequent differences with the sovereign, for whom the Church was rather a powerful political lever than an institution of pecullar sanctity. To share and lighten his labors there were, fortunately for Peter's plans, a few noble and disinterested men who could appreciate the wisdom of the changes inaugurated; who could rise above the narrowminded bigotry of their clerical brethren and the prejudices of the day, to become able and zealous coadjutors in the great reformatory work. The archimandrite Dimitri brought to its support his earnest piety, profound learning, and historical research; he is famous in the annals of the Church for his "Lives of the Saints," which is still a religious classic, and has himself been canonized; his writings, aimed especially against the fallacies of Dissent, and intended to expose and dispel its errors, were widely disseminated. Job, Metropolitan of Novgorod, lavished the revenues of his see on establishments of benevolence and charity, and on institutions of learning; he created a school for the higher education of the clergy, and by his influence obtained the release from confinement of many victims of clerical intolerance and jealousy. Metrophanes, Bishop of Voronege, the last saint added to the Russian calendar, was animated by a spirit of unselfish patriotism. By exhortation and example he allayed the discontent of the peasantry of his diocese, who were impatient of the burdens imposed upon them, and induced them to labor willingly on the construction of the fleet which Peter destined for an attack upon Azov. His bold and fearless character was singularly attractive to the rough-and-ready tsar, whose irregularities and extravagances he did not hesitate to chide, while he proved his loyalty and devotion by the sacrifice of his private fortune to help relieve the pressing necessities of the government.
In 1702 Peter issued his famous manifesto inviting foreigners to Russia, and establishing the principle of religious toleration. He declared therein that, "as in our residence of Moscow the free exercise of religion of all other sects, although not agreeing with our Church, is already allowed, so shall this be hereby confirmed anew in such wise that we, by the power granted to us by the Almighty, shall exercise no compulsion over the consciences of men, and shall gladly allow every Christian to care for his own salvation at his own risk."[3]
The toleration shown by the tsar to foreign religions was not extended to Jews or to native Dissenters.
The latter had increased in numbers as a result of the changes and innovations introduced in the State and Church; they enjoyed, at times, a precarious immunity as a consequence of the constant wars in which Peter was involved. When not engaged in weightier matters, he pursued them with relentless severity; less, however, from any religious motive, than from a stem determination to crush all opposition to his reforms.
Fanaticism grew with persecution; discontent among the people became hatred of the oppressor, and the traditional veneration for the tsar turned to pious horror. Serious outbreaks, which required a strong force for their repression, occurred in different parts of the empire, and even in Moscow. The frontiers of Poland and Livonia, the neighborhood of the great lakes, the marshes of Olonetz, the wilds of Perm and Siberia, the shores of the White Sea, the forests of Nijni-Novgorod, the banks of the Volga and of the Don, were thronged with colonies of schismatics, all at variance one with another, and proclaiming doctrines as extravagant as their enthusiasm was fervid, but all animated by a fanaticism stronger than death. Thousands left their homes to perish in the wilderness; whole families deliberately sought voluntary martyrdom in the flames of their burning houses, kindled by their own hands.
Against the fervor of this popular spiritual uprising the efforts of the Church and the power of the State were exerted in vain. Dissent was rooted in the hearts of the people, never again to be extirpated.
The relations between the tsar and the exarch were no longer harmonious. Peter was exacting and arbitrary, impatient of clerical control, and inclined to use ecclesiastical patronage in furtherance of his political plans. Yavorsky, while faithful and loyal, was independent, and rigid in his devotion to the Church. A new favorite supplanted him at court. Feofan Procopovitch attracted Peter's attention by his eloquence, and ingratiated himself by his wily and insinuating address. He preached absolute submission to the monarch's will, advocated his reformatory measures, and defended his private character. In the grievous dissensions between Peter and the tsarevitch Alexis, he energetically supported the father, while Yavorsky sympathized with the son. Procopovitch had studied under the Jesuits at Rome, and his religious convictions had varied with his prospects of advancement; alternately Orthodox, Uniate, and again Orthodox, his latitudinarian opinions were suspicious to Yavorsky, who accused him of heresy, and arraigned him before a council of the Church. By the tsar's favor he issued triumphantly from this trial, and Yavorsky, in comparative disgrace, was ordered to remove to the new capital, St. Petersburg.
When Peter was at Paris, in 1717, the theologians of the Sorbonne made him proposals for a union of the Greek and Latin Churches. They dwelt at length upon the general accord of their doctrines and sacraments, and on the similarity of their ecclesiastical discipline; they made light of the dogma of the Double Procession, instancing the creed of the Uniates, which, with the pope's assent, ignored it; and they laid still less stress upon recognition of the pope's supremacy, adducing the independence and liberties of the Gallican Church.
Procopovitch prepared the reply to these proposals. It declared that the Russian bishops could not venture to decide alone so momentous a question, which concerned the whole Church universal; it should be submitted to a general conclave, in which the Eastern patriarchs should take part, and, meanwhile, any close connection of their own with a foreign Church might seriously endanger the ancient unity of the Orthodox communion.
A similar movement towards union with the Russian Church was made by the English clergy, but it also proved abortive, and was again revived some years later.
In spite of all opposition, Peter had accomplished the cherished aim of his ambition, and given Russia her fitting place among the powers of the civilized world. Satisfied with the result of his changes in the constitution and government of the State, he turned his attention to the Church. For many years it had been deprived of its official head, and was administered by an authority, originally instituted as a temporary expedient, but which was no longer equal to the emergency. He was also pressed to a definite settlement of the ecclesiastical question by the urgent solicitations of the metropolitan Yavorsky, still guardian of the patriarchate, who, waxing old and no longer possessing the full confidence of the emperor, was anxious to be relieved from the increasing cares and responsibilities of the office. To intrust the full power and influence of the Church to a single individual seemed a measure fraught with danger, and Peter was reluctant to feel again, by the side of the throne, a personal authority almost equal to his own, in a degree beyond control, and possibly antagonistic. The creation of a senate, the establishment of colleges, or boards of commissioners, for the administration of civil affairs, had proved successful; he had seen, in Protestant countries, the possibility of applying a similar form of government to the Church, and he determined to adopt it in Russia.
To Feofan Procopovitch, under his personal supervision, was confided the preparation of "The Spiritual Regulation," as the basis of the new reform.
It was put in force in 1721, and the motives which guided the emperor in his decision are thus plainly expressed in the document itself: "From the collegiate government in the Church there is not so much danger to the country of disturbances and troubles as may be produced by one spiritual ruler, for the common people do not understand the difference between the spiritual power and that of the autocrat; but, dazzled by the splendor and glory of the highest pastor, they think that he is a second sovereign of like powers with the autocrat, or even with more,, and that the spiritual power is that of another and a better realm. If, then, there should be any difference of opinion between the patriarch and the tsar, it might easily happen that the people, perhaps led by designing persons, should take the part of the patriarch, in the belief that they were fighting for God's cause, and that it was necessary to stand by Him."
The supreme power of the Church was vested in a body, at first termed "the Spiritual College," and which was afterwards, and still is, designated as "The Most Holy Governing Synod." It was originally composed of ten members chosen from the different ranks of the clerical hierarchy, and, subsequently, the number was reduced to eight. To its charge were committed the administration of air the estates of the Church; the election of bishops; supreme jurisdiction over all the clergy, save in capital cases, and over all matters of heresy, schism, marriage, divorce, and Church discipline.
The "Spiritual Regulation" was submitted to a council convened at Moscow, comprising the highest dignitaries of the Church and the State. Notwithstanding the hostility of the old Russian party, and the objections urged by many prelates, who preferred the maintenance of the patriarchate, the authority of the tsar bore down all opposition, and the measure was approved. Yavorsky was made president of the Synod, with Feodoceï Yanovsky and Feofan Procopovitch as vice-presidents.
The new institution was announced to the patriarch of Constantinople in an autograph letter from the tsar, setting forth the necessities of the Russian Church and the reasons which had dictated a change in its form of government. He expressed the hope that the Synod might receive the recognition of the Eastern patriarchs, and ever maintain, in close communion with them, the ancient unity of the Orthodox faith.
Favorable replies were returned by them all, and the constitution of the Russian Church, thus confirmed and sanctioned by the œcumenical fathers, still continues in full force, as established by Peter.
A union between the Anglican and Oriental Churches, which had been already suggested to Peter, had meanwhile been pressed in the East by certain members of the English clergy, but without any prospect of success. This visionary scheme received at the same time a definitive settlement. The Eastern fathers and the Russian divines joined in emphatically repudiating the heretical and Calvinistic doctrines with which they declared the English Church to be tainted, and, mutually exhorting each other to be steadfast in the faith, they reasserted the truth of the Orthodox confession, as set forth by Peter Mogila and proclaimed by Dositheus, Patriarch of Jerusalem, at the Council of Bethlehem, in 1672.
Other questions, which at different periods of the Church's history had been decided and redecided, now, in one way and again in another, were discussed, and to Peter's influence was due the more Catholic and Christian spirit in which they were finally settled.
The rebaptism of converts from Romanism had been already abolished in Russia, and it was now declared to be equally unnecessary in the case of Protestant Christian sects. Marriage between members of the Orthodox Church and those of a foreign creed were permitted, upon condition that no attempt should be made to subvert the belief of the Orthodox husband or wife, and that the children should be educated in the Orthodox faith.
The changes and reforms which Peter imposed upon the nation, once definitively settled and accepted, his treatment of dissenting sects, whose hostility was no longer dangerous to his institutions, became milder. Peaceful subjects, who held aloof from political affairs, were assured of protection. In passing through the deserts along the river Vyg, he visited a flourishing colony of these schismatics, and encouraged them in their efforts to reclaim the wilderness. He bade them pray for him. "God," said he, "has given power over the nation to the tsar, but Christ alone has power over the consciences of men." Yet, as a true believer, he considered Dissent an error, the propagation of which he wished to prevent; hence its adherents were doubly taxed, and compelled to adopt a peculiar dress; attendance upon the church service on Sundays, and communion at Easter, were made obligatory upon all, and any attack upon the Orthodox faith met with severe punishment. He pursued a similar policy of toleration towards Western religions, and their establishments were numerous; the Jesuits alone fell under his displeasure, from their inveterate habit of meddling in politics, and were banished from the empire in 1710.
Peter's intention, not only to prevent clashing of authority between Church and State, but also to make the former a dependency upon, and an auxiliary of, the latter, proved saccessful, and the result was, to his own mind, eminently satisfactory. On hearing read a comparison between himself and Louis XIV., greatly in his own favor, he remarked: "I do not think I merit the preference given to me, but I have been so happy as to be superior to the French monarch in one essential point; I have forced my clergy to obedience and peace, and Louis allowed himself to be subjugated by his." Peter's sense of the great importance of the Church, as an essential element of government, was evinced by his solicitude for its prosperity and dignity, not only within his dominions, but wherever the Greek faith existed. His alms and donations to the churches of the East were large and frequent, and the influence of his government was constantly exercised for the protection of his co-religionists, wherever found.
At the union of the Orthodox churches of Lithuania and Poland to the see of Moscow, and as one of the conditions of the treaty with John Sobiesky, in 1685, liberty of conscience and freedom of worship were guaranteal to the adherents of the Greek faith. Diplomatic stipulations, however, proved no bar to the spirit of intolerance, and the Orthodox population of those countries were subjected to fierce and constant persecution on the part of the Catholics and Uniates. Within a few years every Orthodox bishop, except Silvester of Mogilev, was deposed and replaced by others appointed by Cyprian, the Uniate metropolitan of Polotsk, an apostate from Orthodoxy, and its bitter enemy.
Peter, although engaged in constant and terrible wars, earnestly remonstrated and threatened, but received in reply only empty promises, never fulfilled. The highhanded measures of Cyprian were continued by his successor, Leo Zishka, with the approval of the national diet. The few monasteries and churches, which, in spite of oppression, had maintained a struggling existence, were suppressed and their property confiscated, while all who professed the Orthodox faith were declared incapable of holding public office. From 1718 to 1720 fresh remonstrances of the tsar, then at the zenith of his power, led to an apparent amelioration in the condition of the Orthodox sufferers. Strict orders for their protection were issued by Augustus of Poland, and the papal nuncio at Warsaw threatened with his apostolic curse all who should disturb the peace of the Orthodox Church, but the change was more apparent than real. The government in Poland was never sufficiently strong to repress the intemperate zeal of the clergy and the Jesuits, or to afford efficient protection to the Orthodox peasant from the rapacious exactions of his Catholic lord. Continued persecutions led to renewed appeals of the unhappy sufferers to the Polish king, and to the national diet. Russia, under the successors of Peter the Great, constantly interfered in their behalf, but without effectual result.
In 1762, during the reign of Elizabeth, George Kominski, the Orthodox bishop of White Russia, laid before Bang Stanislas, and the diet, a statement of the sad condition to which the adherents of the Greek faith had been reduced, with an earnest appeal for the redress of their wrongs. Two hundred of their churches had been forcibly seized and given over to the Uniates; they were prevented from repairing their ancient edifices, falling into ruins, and forbidden to erect new ones; their priests were hindered in their ministrations, imprisoned, tortured, and put to death without any form of trial; congregations were dispersed by force; Orthodox believers were deprived of all civil rights; freedom of worship and liberty of conscience, so often promised, had become words without meaning.
The patience of Russia was exhausted, and when the Orthodox Poles appealed to Catherine II., as head or defender of their Church, their demands for religious toleration, and for the restoration of their political rights were supported by Russian armies assembled on the frontier. Stanislas was ready with promises, but his authority was impotent before the fanatical intolerance of the Catholic diet, which, in 1766, refused to accede to any change, or to sanction any reform. Catherine's ambassador, Repnine, proved equal to the emergency, and, calling Russian troops into Poland, he seized the Catholic prelates Soltyk, Bishop of Cracow, and Zalusski, Bishop of Kiev, who were most bitter in their opposition, and sent them prisoners to Russia. This energetic, but high-handed measure, although a violation of the law of nations, received general approval throughout Europe, as having been taken in defence of liberty of conscience. It produced the desired effect; the diet yielded, recognized the principle of religious toleration and the equal rights of Orthodox with Catholic subjects; but these concessions, exacted by force, and grudgingly assented to, only embittered the strife. This great religious controversy was eventually one of the chief causes of the first partition of Poland, and of its final division in 1795, when, by the absorption of Polish territory, the sway of Russia again reached the extreme limits of the ancient dominions of Ruric.
In strong contrast with the fierce intolerance of the Polish government, the rule of Catherine II., in matters of conscience, was mild and liberal. Catholics were protected, and assured of immunity from persecution; even Jesuits, then under the ban of Europe and of the pope, were allowed the right of residence in White Russia. Her wise and judicious policy was followed, in the Polish provinces, by a strong reaction in favor of the Orthodox faith, and, before the end of her reign, nearly two millions of the inhabitants returned to their former belief. The reactionary religious movement led, as a natural consequence, to the healing of the schism in the Church, and to the reunion of the Unia with Orthodoxy. This result became the ardent desire of the Uniate clergy. It was earnestly advocated by the metropolitan Heraclius Lisovsky, early in the nineteenth century, and met with warm encouragement from the Emperor Nicholas, upon his accession to the thrones of Russia and Poland. In 1828, he established in Poland a spiritual college for the Uniates, under the direction of the metropolitan Josaphat Bulgak, and raised the Uniate Church to a footing of perfect equality with the Roman Catholic, in all its rights and privileges. The Uniate services were purified of all changes and alterations introduced under the rule of former kings, and were restored according to the ancient rites. and ceremonies of the Greek Church. In 1839, the Uniate bishops and clergy, assembled in council at Polotsk, under Joseph Siemaszko, then metropolitan, signed an act declaring it to be their wish, and that of their entire community, to be received back into full and complete communion with the "Holy Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church," and into inseparable union with the "Church of all the Russias." Their petition was presented to the Emperor Nicholas, and, by him, laid before the Most Holy Synod, accompanied by declarations to the same effect from the entire body of the Uniate clergy. The petition was at once granted, and the Holy Synod decreed, in March, 1839, with the ratification of the emperor, "To receive the bishops, clergy, and spiritual flocks of the hitherto-called Greek Uniate Church into full and complete communion with the Holy Orthodox Catholic Church, and so as to be integrally and inseparably incorporated with the Church of all the Russias."[4] By this measure about two millions of Uniates were joined to the National Church. The only act of profession required was the acknowledgment "that Our Lord Jesus Christ is the One True Head of the One True Church," and the Holy Synod, with wise and Christian forbearance, recommended "that an apostolic indulgence should be exhibited to local peculiarities not affecting the Sacraments or Faith."[5]
The position and constitution of the Church in Russia remained without material change under the immediate successors of Peter the Great. With the accession of Elizabeth, in 1741, the old Russian party obtained the ascendency, and their animosity against the German and foreign element, which had been so long predominant, was evinced by increase of Orthodox zeal, directed against heretics and schismatics. They were again subjected to violent persecution; their fanaticism had suffered no diminution, and, rather than yield, they sought voluntary immolation by hundreds in expectation of eternal happiness. Elizabeth was under the influence of priests, and acquiesced in their bitter opposition to native Dissent, and to the presence in Russia of strange religions.
The Synod ordered the suppression of Armenian and Protestant churches; Tatar mosques were closed, and Jews were expelled from the empire as enemies of "Christ our Lord." This revival of clerical intolerance was accompanied by efforts to improve the internal condition of the Church. Theological studies in Russian schools were as puerile as at the universities of the Middle Ages, Avhere it was discussed whether Jesus, at his ascension, had his clothes on or not; if not, did he appear naked to his apostles? if he had, what became of them? At the Academy of Moscow, divines seriously debated whether angels reason by analysis or by synthesis, and what may be the nature of the light of glory in the future life. The ignorance of the priests was severely reprobated; learned and intelligent professors were appointed in the ecclesiastical colleges, and attendance was strictly enforced.
The morals of the clergy were corrected by the rough discipline of the secular arm; drunkenness and disorder were punished by the lash; scandalous fairs, where dissolute priests and mendicant friars let out their services to the highest bidder, were suppressed, and the priests, who thus degraded their holy office, were sent to the whipping-post. The filthy condition of the sacred images, and of the churches, was stigmatized as a shame, and inspectors were appointed to keep them clean, to maintain decency of appearance among the officiating clergy, and to preserve order and decorum during the services. The necessity of issuing and enforcing regulations against abuses and evils of so gross a nature is sufficient comment upon the deplorable state of things existing in the lower ranks of the clergy, and among the devout, though superstitious, worshippers.
The short reign of Peter III., in 1762, inaugurated an era of toleration and religious freedom, as he felt no especial sympathy for the national faith, which he had embraced, under compulsion, at his accession to the throne. He checked the persecution of Dissenters, and, by promises of protection, and offers of grants of land in Siberia, he encouraged their return from exile. "Mahometans," he proclaimed by ukase, "and even idolaters, are tolerated in the empire; now the Raskolniks (Dissenters) are Christians."
The great Catherine continued, in matters of conscience, the liberal policy of her husband Peter III., and exercised severity only against those who disturbed public order, and, like Pougatchev, revolted against her authority as sovereign. Her measures of repression were not dictated by motives of religious intolerance, and she assured all Dissenters, who were willing to be law-abiding and faithful subjects, of immunity from persecution and of her protection, in earnest of which she relieved them of the double tax imposed by Peter the Great.
She permitted the establishment of foreign religions, and, in order to people the fertile, but uninhabited, regions of the Volga and the Ukraine, she encouraged immigration, and offered in her realm an asylum to all persecuted religious sects, with unrestrained liberty of conscience. Many thousands answered her appeal, and nearly two hundred towns sprang into existence as a consequence of this wise and enlightened policy.
Animated by views similar to those of her great predecessor, Peter, and determined to make the Church subservient to the State, she resumed, and carried into effect, the secularization of ecclesiastical property. An "Economical Commission" was charged with its administration; the monasteries, converted from land-owning proprietors to crown pensioners, received allowances, each in proportion to its wants, and the surplus revenues were applied to schools, invalid homes, and hospitals. In her correspondence with Voltaire she dwells with complacency upon this important measure, and upon the liberal spirit in which it was carried into effect. "I think," she writes, "you would be pleased with this assembly, where an Orthodox believer sits between a heretic and a Mussulman, the three listening to an idolater, and all four consulting together how to render their conclusions satisfactory to all."
Beyond her own dominions Catherine was the recognized, and oft-appealed to, protector of the Orthodox Church. She assumed the prerogative of "Defender of the Faith," not only in the countries along her borders, but also in the far East, where a quasi right of protectorate over the Christian subjects of the sultan was conceded by the treaty of Koutchouk-Kaïrnadji in 1774. This right, much cherished by Russian sovereigns, was frequently asserted and maintained by arms, until wrested from Nicholas by the disastrous war of the Crimea, in 1852.
The radical changes in the ecclesiastical organization made by Peter the Great, and maintained intact by his successors, aided by the extraordinary growth of the power of Russia and of its monarchs, the absolutely autocratic nature of its government, and the singularly submissive disposition of the Russian people, produced in time their anticipated result. The Church lost its individuality and independence, as a necessary consequence of the impersonal character of the Holy Synod, its governing body and head. Composed of many men holding, with few exceptions, their positions by the will and at the pleasure of the sovereign, severally liable to the influences of different, and possibly conflicting, motives, with a representative of the emperor, source of all power, in their midst, the Synod no longer possessed the singleness of purpose and the unity of action inherent to the authority of one supreme pontiff. By the suppression of the patriarchate all danger of rivalry, or conflict, between Church and State was averted, but with it disappeared, as well, the independence of the former, and much of its energy and vitality. It became practically, what it now remains, the vassal of the crown, an important, even the most important, of the departments of government, but still, only one of the many powers which make up the State, whereof the tsar is absolute head.