Library › A. N. Mouravieff › History of the Church of Russia

History of the Church of Russia

A. N. Mouravieff, tr. Blackmore, 1842

17. The Most Holy Synod, A.D. 1721

And now was solemnly opened in the presence of the Emperor Peter this standing spiritual synod, which was for the future to rule the Russian Church under the name of the Most Holy Governing Synod; and this title was inserted in all the Litanies¹ and prayers where the patriarchs were formerly mentioned. To its administration were committed all the estates of the bishops and monasteries, which had got into disorder under the management of the Monastery Court. The election of bishops, the supreme right of jurisdiction over spiritual persons, except in capital cases, which were to be tried in the different courts, all matters of heresy and schism, as well as of marriages and divorce, which had formerly belonged to the patriarchal Court of Requests, and afterwards had been under the cognizance of the Metropolitan Stephen, the Guardian of the throne, were referred to the jurisdiction of the synod; and the meek Stephen himself, after having so long ruled all the Church, was honoured with the title of President of the Most Holy Synod, with the same voice as the other members; and he executed the duties of this office for two years longer till the time of his blessed decease. He departed this life at Riazan, and was buried there in the magnificent cathedral which he himself had built. Two Vice-presidents were also appointed, Theodosius, who had not long before been consecrated archbishop of Novogorod, and Theophanes of Pskoff. The other members who took part in the consultations of the synod, were Leonidas, archbishop of the Steeps, Gabriel, archimandrite of the Lavra of St. Sergius, the archimandrites of the three Stauropegial monasteries at Moscow, the Choudoff, the Novospassky, and the Simonoff, the distinguished Theophylact Lopatinsky², Hierotheus, and Peter, the Hegumens Athanasius Tolgsky from Yaroslavla, and Barlaam Ougreshsky from near Moscow, one priest-monk named Theophilus, and two arch-priests of the new collegiate churches in St. Petersburgh, John of the Trinity, and Peter of that of the two Chief Apostles. Such was the original composition of the Most Holy Synod³.

This synodal form of ecclesiastical government was proclaimed to the people throughout all Russia, but there still needed, in order to its permanent establishment, the recognition of the other Eastern Churches, that the unity of the Catholic Church might not be violated. The Emperor Peter had several times during the course of his reign applied to the see of Constantinople, at one time for dispensations for the contraction of marriages with persons of different religions, and for authority to discontinue the previous custom of re-baptizing Lutherans and Calvinists⁴ converted to the Orthodox faith, whereas the proper course was to receive such by administering to them only the Mystery of the Holy Chrism or Confirmation; at another time for granting a dispensation from the Fasts to soldiers engaged in actual service in the field; and now on this occasion he wrote a letter with his own hand to the Patriarch Jeremiah. In it he informed him of those necessities of the Russian Church, which had induced him to take it under his special care after the example of other religious sovereigns in old time, and to institute a spiritual synod with authority equal to that of the former patriarchs for its government; and he expressed his hope that Jeremiah also, as the first hierarch of the Eastern Catholic Church, would favourably recognise this institution, and would inform the other most blessed patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch, and Jerusalem, of it, and that he would hold communion and correspondence with the Most Holy Synod in the same way that he formerly had done with the patriarchs of all the Russias.

It is a remarkable fact, that the name of the patriarch to whom Peter applied on the institution of the synod, was Jeremiah, the same having been also the name of that prelate with whom the Tsar Theodore held communication at the time of the establishment of the Russian patriarchate. Several other curious coincidences were also noticed: on this occasion, as well as on the former, the person most of all engaged in forwarding the views of the Tsar and the Lord of Constantinople was the patriarch of Antioch, while both times the patriarch of Alexandria died during the negotiations. Another important business occupied the attention of the Œcumenical patriarchs at the time they received this letter from the Tsar, and the Russian Church also took some slight share in the same matter. A certain bishop of Thebais who appertained to the throne of Alexandria, happening to be in Great Britain in quest of alms, suggested to the Anglican bishops the idea of uniting themselves to the Œcumenical Church, and was the bearer of a letter from them to the patriarchs.

The guardians of Eastern Orthodoxy, having consulted together in council, made answer at length to the enquiries of the British, laying before them those unalterable foundations of the faith of their ancestors, on which alone the Eastern Church could receive⁵ them into her bosom, for she had already in the past century⁶ had an example of a false union with the Calvinists, who had deceived Cyrill Lucar, patriarch of Constantinople, and endeavoured to propagate their heresy in the East under his name. The successor of Lucar, another Cyrill, known as Cyrill of Berœa, was obliged⁷ to deliver over the doctrines ascribed to his predecessor to an anathema. But the learned Dositheus, patriarch of Jerusalem, convoked a council at Bethlehem⁸, and set forth at large in eighteen articles the whole Orthodox Confession of the Catholic Church, with a rejection of the German⁹ doctrine, grounding himself upon the already existing “Orthodox Confession” of Peter Mogila¹⁰, which had been acknowledged by the whole Church.

In the mean time the British bishops, through James Protosyncellus of Alexandria, entered into communication on the same subject with the Most Holy Synod, and transmitted to it their rejoinder to the answers of the patriarchs, with the request that they might be forwarded to Constantinople. But the Russian prelates, seeing with what heresy the Anglican document was filled, rejecting the traditions of their fathers, for the invocation of the saints, and the reverencing of Icons, proceeded in the same guarded manner as the Greek bishops, requesting them to give their advice in council, without which they would undertake nothing. Upon this, three of the Œcumenical patriarchs, Jeremiah of Constantinople, Athanasius of Antioch, and Sophronius of Jerusalem, together with the bishops that were in Constantinople, immediately sent to the Most Holy Synod the synodical Confession of the Patriarch Dositheus, as the best refutation to oppose against the Anglican¹¹ and Calvinistic doctrines, and entreated them by a circular letter, to remain steadfast in the pious doctrines of Orthodoxy; as they had long since been thoroughly sifted and decided by the Œcumenical Councils, and the holy Fathers, and had been uninterruptedly held and preserved by the service of the Catholic Church, and it was impossible either to add any thing to them or to take any thing away.

At the same time the patriarchs wrote letters to the Most Holy Synod, concerning its recognition by the whole Œcumenical Church, after the example of the throne of Constantinople, upon which in ancient times the metropolitan chair of all the Russias had depended. The letter from Constantinople was as follows: —

Jeremiah, by the mercy of God Patriarch of the city of Constantinople.

Our Humility, by the grace and power of the all-holy and life-giving Spirit, the sole Author of all governance, legitimatizes, confirms and proclaims the Synod, which has been instituted in the great and holy kingdom of Russia, by the most pious and pacific Autocrat, the Holy Tsar, Sovereign of all Muscovy, of Little and White Russia, and all the Northern Eastern, Western, and many other countries, the Lord, Lord Peter Alexaevich, Emperor, whom we love, and of whom we desire to have refreshment in the Holy Ghost. It is, and is to be named “our Brother in Christ, the Holy and Sacred Synod,” by all pious and Orthodox Christians, both Clergy and laity, Rulers and subjects, and by all official persons and dignitaries; and it has authority to do and perform, all that is done or performed by the four Apostolical and Most Holy Patriarchal thrones. Moreover, we put it in remembrance, we exhort and enjoin on it, to hold and preserve inviolably the customs and Canons of the seven Holy and Œcumenical Councils, and all besides that the Holy Eastern Church acknowledges and observes; and so may it stand fast for ever. The Grace of God, and the Prayer and Blessing of our Humility, be with you. — In the year 1723, this 23rd day of September.

(Signed), Jeremiah, by the mercy of God Patriarch of Constantinople, your Brother in Christ.

Notes

The word is in the original “Ecteneiae,” which answer only partially to our Litany, not having the same penitential character, but resembling it in the number of petitions which are given out or bidden by the deacon standing on the ambon, while the people make short responses after each, crossing themselves and bowing towards the sanctuary in token of concurrence at the same time.
Theophylact Lopatinsky was of Volhynian extraction; he studied and received the tonsure at Kieff, was prefect of the Spiritual Academy at Moscow from 1706 to 1708, and then rector of the same academy till 1722, when he became archimandrite of the Choudoff, and a member (counsellor) of the newly instituted synod. In 1723 he was ordained bishop of Tver and Kashinsk, and in March 1725 was raised to the rank of archbishop; and became the second of the two vice-presidents of the synod, (Theophanes Procopovich being the first.) In 1728 he published a book against “the Lutheran and Calvinistic heresies,” in defence of the “Rock of Faith” of Stephen Yavorsky, which as well as that work gave great offence to the Duke Biron, and subjected its author to various persecutions, and to imprisonment as a common lay person for five years, till the death of the Empress Anne and the fall of Biron, which took place in 1740, when he was set at liberty, and publicly reinstated by the synod in full assembly, but died of paralysis before he could resume the charge of his diocese. He left behind him another work in MS. under the following title: “A Rejoinder to the Answer of Franciscus Buddeus, addressed to a friend living at Moscow, on the Lutheran heresy, against the book of the late Most Reverend Metropolitan of Riazan entitled the Rock of Faith.”
The synod as at present constituted consists of eight members, of whom six are bishops, and two (the high-almoners of the army and fleet) archpriests, who may be said in some sense to represent the White clergy.
“Of rebaptizing Lutherans and Calvinists,” and also as it should seem “Papists;” though that abuse had been once before dropped and a second time (after it had been resumed by the Patriarch Philaret) corrected synodically with the assistance of the Patriarch Macarius of Antioch, in the time of Nikon. — See above, p. 184.
A treaty for union between a Church believing itself to have preserved the whole Catholic Faith and discipline, and another which it supposed to have fallen away in various points from both, naturally involved to the former the idea of a conversion, and must ever do so unless a real unity in the Catholic Faith be supposed, in spite of any apparent misunderstandings or differences, to have been preserved in both Churches alike throughout from the beginning.
Cyrill Lucar was first made patriarch of Constantinople, November 5, A.D. 1621: he was exiled five times, and finally strangled in 1638. See Smith’s “Account of the Greek Church,” (London 1680,) and Miscellanea, (1686,) and Aymon’s work, printed at the Hague in 1708.
How Cyrill of Berœa was “obliged” to do what he did will be better understood by those who know the history of the struggle, which was carried on at Constantinople, between the French Papists and Calvinists, and in which the Turks and the Greeks were only subordinate agents.
The council of Bethlehem was not convoked on purpose to condemn the Calvinists; but the occasion was taken by Dositheus to comply with the request and follow the suggestions of M. de Nointel, the French ambassador at Constantinople. The following are the words of M. de Nointel, taken from the formal declaration signed by himself and his secretary, and appended to the two editions of the acts of the synod, which he caused to be published shortly afterwards at Paris. “Nous * * * attestons a tous qu’ il appartiendra, que le Sieur Dosithée, a present patriarche Grec de la sainte ville de Jerusalem, ayant été obligé de venir a Constantinople, nous a déclaré qu’ il avait pleinement satisfait a ce que nous avions souhaité de lui, suivant les avis qu’ il en avait receus par nos lettres, et qu’ il esperait &c. C’est la confiance qu’ il nous a témoignée, nous mettant entre les mains le present livre, &c.” p. 360. Edit. 2dæ. 1678.
The Russian writers frequently use the word German (much as the Orientals do that of Frank) for whatever is Western or Latin, because they are themselves immediately in contact with the Teutonic races, and even the nations which are further off from them, as the Italians, the French, the Spanish, and still more the English, are in some sense German, as opposed to Slavonian. But besides this, the Orientals themselves join the Calvinistic and the Lutheran forms of Protestantism together, and call them both indifferently the German Heresy, because Luther was a German, and the Calvinistic Reformation seemed only to follow in the wake of the Lutheran or German Protestantism. So in the Preface to the Synod of Bethlehem, though held professedly against the Calvinists, the patriarch and his bishops refer to the answers of Jeremiah (printed at Wittemberg, in 1584) to the Lutherans, as being just as much to their purpose against the Calvinists, as if they had been addressed to them. “For, say they, after fifty years of the madness of Luther, Martinus Crusius of Tubingen in Germany, with other sophists of the novelties of Luther (for Luther is in mind and spirit twin brother to Calvin, in spite of their seeming to differ in some particular points) sent the heads of their heresy to the patriarch who then sat at the helm of the Apostolical Church which is in Constantinople.” — Ib. p. 22.
However, it must be confessed that the Patriarch Dositheus, in his zeal to condemn Calvinism and to oblige M. de Nointel, though by no means (as the Calvinists pretended of all who gave similar testimony against them) a dishonest or Latinizing Greek, but a man of no small merit, and sincerely attached to his own communion, still did his work rather too “effectually,” and went somewhat beyond the strict limits of the doctrine of his own Church. For not to mention the word and definition of transubstantiation, in which he followed the Orthodox Confession of Mogila, or rather (and especially with respect to that very point) of Meletius Syriga, … On the subject of purgatory also, he goes so far in order to symbolize with the Latins, that he really leaves no more than a verbal difference. But these inaccuracies, which were not made matter of examination or discussion at the time, and on which neither Dositheus nor Parthenius before him had any notion of making new determinations in the name of their Church, can never derive any authority from the reception and approbation given to the documents themselves, in which they were contained. Those documents, both the Orthodox Confession, and the eighteen articles of the synod of Bethlehem, have been reasonably approved, as answering the end for which they were designed, and embodying in substance the doctrine of the Eastern Catholic Church; but any accidental Latinisms which may have been adopted without reflection, in speaking at the instance of the French ambassador, and through the mouth of the divines of the Port Royal, to bear testimony to the common doctrine of both the Greek and Latin Churches against the Calvinists, on points on which the Greeks were least of all then likely to suspect or look for any differences, besides those which were of historical notoriety; — any such incautious admissions, I say, of Roman phraseology or opinions (which many causes would concur in making probable) are of no sort of authority to establish any new decision in the name of the Church, but may as easily be omitted or corrected as mere errors of grammar or typography, as soon as ever they are perceived to contain any thing contrary to the traditionary standard of Orthodoxy.
The Orthodox Confession of Peter Mogila (or rather of Meletius Syriga) has already been mentioned above, pp. 395, 396, 401, and 405. It has been received and set forth by synodical authority in all the four Eastern patriarchates, and also in the Church of Little Russia. In Great Russia it seems to have come in of itself, by virtue of its approval elsewhere, without any re-examination or approval; and has served for the basis of most of the catechisms which have proceeded in later times from the pens of different Russian prelates.
The Eastern patriarchs accused the British of being “Lutherano-Calvinists.” The eighteen articles of the synod of Jerusalem seem first to have come into Russia on the occasion mentioned in the text. The eighteen articles themselves, have since been published in Russ, with some slight but important corrections introduced by the authority of the synod.
With respect to the two points of the traditional doctrine of the Eastern Church which the Anglican Bishops are here said to have rejected, and the rejection of which is termed heresy, it may be worth while to make a few observations, not for the sake of entering into any abstract doctrinal questions, but in order to let the reader know precisely what were the facts of the case in the correspondence in question. The two points are the invocation of saints and the outward reverencing of Icons or pictures.
On the first point, the British argued as if the “worshipping” of Angels or Saints according to the sense and practice of the Eastern Church was a deification of creatures, and consequently a plain heresy and apostacy from the true faith:
On the second, that if the worshipping of the creatures themselves was unlawful, much more the worshipping of their pictures or images must be so: and besides, that it was a direct breach of the second Commandment:
Upon these grounds they desired to have a formal permission from the Orientals to reject their doctrines and usages; and yet at the same time they signified that the Eastern Church might continue to worship creatures, and teach idolatry as before, without in any way thereby disqualifying herself for their communion.
The patriarchs, on the other hand, maintained that the doctrine of venerating and invoking the saints was scriptural and primitive; and that it as well as the canon of the second Council of Nice decreeing the “worship” of images, was of Œcumenical authority, and had been received by the whole Church; that therefore to reject either the one or the other was a heresy inconsistent with the catholic religion.
At the same time, it is curious and important to remark, that putting aside mere verbal ambiguities, misunderstandings about facts, and self-contradictions, on one side or the other, there does not appear to have been any difference between the two parties which really need have prevented union even on their own principles: For,
1. On the Invocation of Saints, the Eastern patriarchs distinctly offered not to insist on the adoption of any direct addresses by the English, but were ready to content themselves with the acknowledgment of the Intercession of the Saints, by some allusion or mention of it introduced in their prayers to God; while of course, they expected that the direct Invocations retained in their own offices should no longer be confounded with that divine worship which it would indeed be heretical and apostatical to offer to any creature.
The British bishops on the other hand, in their correspondence, most fully and distinctly admitted the Intercession of the Saints, and though the death of Peter the Great prevented the continuance of the correspondence at that time, yet it is a fact, that some of the most eminent bishops of their own communion in England, had already actually done all that the Easterns insisted upon, namely, made mention of the prayers of the saints in prayer to God; and that not only as a matter of private liberty, but in a public service appointed in the year 1661, in pursuance of an Act of Parliament, and at the command of the Crown, through the archbishop of Canterbury, to be used in all churches on the day of King Charles the Martyr. The following is an extract:
“We beseech Thee to give us all grace to remember and provide for our latter end, by a careful studious imitation of this Thy blessed Saint and Martyr, and all other Thy Saints and Martyrs that have gone before us, that we may be made worthy to receive benefit by their prayers, which they in common with Thy Church Catholic offer up unto Thee for that part of it here militant, and yet in fight with and danger from the flesh.” — Cardwell’s Conferences, &c. p. 388.
The fact that such a prayer was issued by the archbishop and the bishops his brethren to be used in all the churches of England, is sufficient proof that there was nothing in the terms offered by the Eastern patriarchs on the subject of the Invocation of Saints, which need have thrown any impediment in the way of the re-establishment of unity between themselves and the British; inasmuch as these latter had, in fact, already done the very thing that was desired of them: while their own offer to make “a solid union” with the Eastern Church, although she should persist in retaining that whole system which they rejected for themselves as creature-worship and idolatry, was a virtual abandonment of those charges.
2. On the second point of the Icons, nearly the same reflections will hold good. …: while the English bishops, on the other hand, distinctly rejected the opinion of the Iconoclasts, admitted the use of images and pictures in the Church, and by no means denied that they, like all other things connected with religion, ought to receive a certain respect and reverence. As for their own rejection of the Second Council of Nice, as teaching creature-worship and idolatry, this they virtually neutralized and revoked by offering afterwards to make “a solid union” and communion with the Eastern Church, although it should persist in maintaining both the opinion and the usages sanctioned by the Nicene canon; while on the other hand one consideration which they alleged, (but to which they do not seem to have given its due importance,) namely, that the Nicene canon had never been synodically received by the British Church, might, if they could have made good their assertion, have afforded a sufficient ground to the Eastern Church for consenting to the continuance of that difference of usage between the Churches in this point after the re-establishment of unity, which had already existed before the correspondence was commenced; and that without any breach of ecclesiastical principle, or the admission of any arbitrary right to particular Churches to break laws to the enactment of which they had made themselves parties, and which had received, together with their own concurrence, the sanction of a wider and superior unity, or even of the whole Church.
What turn the correspondence might actually have taken it is impossible now to conjecture with certainty: the circumstances under which it was dropped were these: On the suggestion of Peter the Great the Russian Synod had written to the British bishops to request them to send two of their brethren to Russia “to have a friendly conference in the name and spirit of Christ with two that are to be chosen out of our brethren. Hereby, (such are the words of the synodal letter, taken from an English translation made apparently by Dr. Brett,) the opinions, arguments, and persuasions of each party may be more sincerely produced, and more clearly understood, and it may be more easily known what may be yielded and given up by one to the other, what on the other hand may and ought for conscience’s sake to be absolutely denied. In the mean time, no prejudice will befal either your communion or ours from such a private conference, nor the hopes of union be altogether lost thereby. This is the opinion of our monarch concerning this most holy negotiation; which seems indeed to us the best. We desire that as soon as may be, you will let us know how it appears to you. In the mean time God is seriously to be entreated by each of us, to be merciful to us and you.”
This letter was dated from Moscow, in February, 1723; but James the Protosyncellus (who was to be the bearer) being delayed, there arrived in the mean time from Constantinople the answer of the Greek patriarchs, with the book of the eighteen articles made by Dositheus against the Calvinists, which the synod forwarded together with their own letter which had been detained, and another dated February 2, 1724, the contents of which were as follows: “A year is now passed since we delivered letters to the Reverend Father the Protosyncellus, to be carried to you, but some impediments have retarded his journey to England till this time. We acquainted you in them how well pleased the most potent Emperor of All the Russias, our gracious sovereign, was, to be further assured of your pious desire for the peace of the Churches, and what advice he gave of the best method to bring this holy endeavour to effect. And because he still continues constant in the same opinion, we send the very same letters together with these, and we desire you will pardon this delay rather for the sake of your own goodness, than for any other excuse that might be made. We also send you a writing of the Greek prelates which we received from Constantinople during the time that the Father Protosyncellus was preparing for his journey, being desired by a letter from them to transmit it to you. In the mean time we desire your charity to know that if, according to the advice of our sovereign, you will send two of your brethren to a conference, which we again entreat you to do, we may hope to bring our wishes to a more easy conclusion; which that at length He, the Lawgiver of love, the God of peace, the Father of mercies, may prosper, is our hearty prayer and desire,” &c.
After the death of Peter, the High Chancellor Gallofskin, in a letter dated the 16th of September, 1725, acknowledged the receipt of letters of condolence from the British bishops, together with their compliments upon the new accession; and then with respect to the negotiation for an union continued thus: “As to the affair you have mentioned of an union, you may assure yourselves Her Imperial Majesty will support the same in such sort and manner as His late Imperial Majesty supported it; only at these mournful times your lordships will please to have some longer patience, till the first opportunity I can have to represent to Her Imperial Majesty of all more at large, and then I do assure you, I will not fail to acquaint you thereof,” &c., with which communication the correspondence closed.