Holding firmly as he does to the theory that there is a natural harmony between state and church, it goes without saying that for Russia, where there are many creeds, the Orthodox church is to be the state church. "The state recognises one creed among all as the true one; it supports and favours one church exclusively; all other churches and creeds being regarded as of lesser value."
Such was the spirit in which Pobědonoscev, as chief procurator of the holy synod, treated the old believers and the sectaries, being especially harsh to the stundists.
When the decree of toleration was issued in April 1905 and was followed by a manifesto in October of the same year, the clergy demanded the summoning of a council for the revision of the existing relationships between church and state. In response to this demand, Pobědonoscev sent the chiefs of the eparchies a questionnaire, wherein, however, no reference was made to the thorny problem of the relationship between church and state. Despite his slavophilism, Pobědonoscev suddenly became a defender of Petrine ecclesiastical reform and of the uncanonically founded synod.
In Pobědonoscev's view, perfect harmony between church and state was to be realised by unmitigated absolutism. He was ever the most determined opponent of political no less than of religious reform. During the regime of Svjatopolk-Mirskii, when the question of political reforms was under discussion, Pobědonoscev, speaking in the name of religion, denied the tsar's right to limit in any way whatever the powers bestowed on him by the deity. Similar had been the ideas of the ecclesiastical politicians in the days of old Moscow.
It is said that as early as 1906 Pobědonoscev had elaborated a design to recruit from the clergy against the duma a clerical governmental party, and certainly the elections to the fourth duma realised this plan.
Pobědonoscev was by no means original. His Moscow Collection was a mere compilation of well-known ideas from numerous European and Russian conservatives and reactionaries. Most of the notions in the book may be traced back to Le Play. Pobědonoscev wrote a cordial appreciation of this Catholic adviser of Napoleon III. But Le Play was no more than one among the many French adversaries of democracy and revolution to exercise an influence upon Russian politicians and
