HOLY
431
HOLY
theology, the spread of better ideas among them, and
study of the Fathers have evoked in Russia too the
ideal of the Church as a perfect society, a city of God
on earth, too sacred to be placed under the secular
government. The result is that some Russians, can-
didly admitting the hopeless Erastianism of Peter the
Great's arrangement, demand its abolition and the
restoration of the Patriarchate of Moscow. Agreeing
with Peter the Great that if the Church has one
head it is difficult for the State to control it, they de-
mand one head for that very reason. One hears con-
stantly of this movement in favour of a restored
patriarchate in Russia (see, for instance, the "Echos
d'Orient" for 1901, pp. 1S7, 232; for 1905, pp. 176,
etc.; and Palmieri, " La Chiesa Russa ", chap. ii). But
there is another class of Russians whose loyalty to
their Church leads them to defend her imder any cir-
cumstances, even those of Peter the Great's tyrannical
arrangement. To them everything is satisfactory,
the Holy Synod a free ecclesiastical tribunal, the rela-
tions between Church antl State in Russia the ideal
ones for a Christian and Orthodox land. Erastianism,
they protest indignantly, is a libellous misrepresenta-
tion by Catholic controversialists (most Protestants
make the same accusation, by the way). Of these
apologists is Dr. .Alexis von Maltzew, Provost of the
Russian Church at Berlin, certainly one of the most
learned and sympathetic of modern Orthodox theolo-
gians. Provost Maltzew constantly returns to the
question of this alleged Erastianism (Cofiaro pa pismus
is the German term used by him). His defence is
summarized especially in his " .\ntwort auf die Schrift
des hochw. Herrn Domcapitulars Rohm" (Berlin,
1896), §3 (Die Synode) and §■! (Staat uud Kirche).
The chief points upon which he insists are that only
members of the hierarcliy can vote in the synod, that
the Oberprocuror has no power to compel the bishops,
that the synod can even (if the tsar is absent) arrest
and try the Oberprocuror, that the synod has no in-
dependent authority in dogmatic questions — as siic-
cessor of the Patriarch of Sloscow it inherits neither
more nor less than his rights in matters of canon law;
where dogma is concerned the other patriarchs must
be consulted too — that Peter the Great sought and
obtained the consent of the patriarchs for his synod,
and finally that: " Only he who knows the strict order,
the admirable discipline, the stable organism that
distinguish the Orthodox Church of Russia, can prop-
erly appreciate the beneficent work done by the Holy
Synod under the exalted protection of the Orthodox
Emperor" (op. cit., p. 19). With every sympathy for
the provost's loyalty to his Church, one would answer
this by saying that a synod of which all members are
appointed by the State, whose members take such an
oath as the one quoted aliove, whose acts can at any
moment be quashed by the government agent, is not
an indepenilent authority. Certainly Peter's idea in
founding the Holy Synod was to put an end to the old
Imperium in imperio of the free Church, and to the patri-
arcn who had become almost a rival of the tsar. Peter
meant to unite all authority in himself, over Church as
well as State; and the Ru.ssian Government has con-
tinued his policy ever since. Never has the Church
been allowed the shadow of independent action.
Through his Oberprocuror and synod the tsar rules his
Church as absolutely as he rules his army and navy
through their respective ministries. That most mem-
bers of the synod are bishops is as natural as that most
members of the ministry of war are generals — the tsar
appoints both in any ci'se. It must be admitted that
in a country so exclusively committed to one religion
as is Russia there are advantages in Erastianism. It
is quite true that the synod (except by such small ways
as the canonization of saints) does not touch dogma;
to do so would be to provoke a schism with the patri-
archs and the other Orthodox Churches. Russia has
the same faith of the seven holy councils as Constanti-
nople, Greece, Bulgaria, etc. And in questions of
canon law it is a great advantage to have the strong
arm of the State to carry out decrees. There can be
no opposition, no persecution by the Government,
of a Church whose laws are countersigned by the
Oberprocuror. On the contrary the State — should
one not perhaps say: the other departments of the
State? — is at hand if it is wanted. Provost Maltzew
is right. The Russian Church is extraordinarily or-
derly, well-organized, uniform. The synod deposes
bishops, silences preachers, sends people to monas-
teries, excommunicates; and if there is trouble the
minister of police steps in.
The jurisdiction of the Holy Synod extends over every kind of ecclesiastical question and over some that are partly .secular. All bishops, priests, clerks, monks, and nuns have to obey the synod absolutely untler pain of tleposition, suspension, excommimica- tion, or maylje even imprisonment. The synod's chief duties are to watch over the preservation of the Orthodox faith, the instruction of the people, the cele- bration of feasts, and all questions of Church order and ritual. It has to suppress heresies, examine alleged miracles and relics, forbid superstitious practices. All Orthodox theological works are subject to its cen- sorship. The synod further administers all church property, controls the expenditure, is responsible for the fabric of churches antl monasteries. It presents candidates for episcopal sees, prelacies, and the office of archimandrite, to the tsar for nomination, and can examine such candidates as to their fitness. It is the last court of appeal against bishops or other ecclesias- tical superiors, can advise, warn, and threaten any bishop, and grant all manner of dispensations and indulgences. But to make new laws, even in church matters, it needs the tsar's assent. All processes for heresy, blasphemy, superstition, adultery, divorce, and all matrimonial causes are brought to the synod. Questions of testaments, inheritance, and education are settled by the synod in agreement with the Senate and are controlled further by the tsar's consent. To administer all these matters the synod has various sul> committees. It has an economic college for questions of church property and a committee of control that re-examines the matter. These committees consist of lawyers, chancellors, secretaries, treasurers, architects (for the buildings), etc. They are, of course, entirely suljjcet to the synod. Since 1909 bishops have to send all money for stipends (selling candles, i^rayers for the dead, free offerings?, collections, alms-boxes) to the synod to be redistributed. Expenses and profits of ecclesiastical schools are also controlled by a commit- tee of the synod. It pays for printing service-books and many spiritual works (prayer books and so on), also for all imperial ukases that affect the Church. It has special commissions for Moscow, Georgia, and Lithuania. There are two synodal presses, at Peters- burg and Moscow, where all Orthodox religious books must be printed, after they have passed the censor. The profits of these presses go to assist poor churches. For the censorship, finally, there are offices at Petersburg, Moscow, and Kiev. Throughout Russia the synod is named in the liturgy instead of a patriarch.
It will be seen then that the submission of the Rus- sian Church to the synod is so complete that the synod's relation to the State involves that of the whole Church.
III. The Greek Holy Si-nod. — The first other Orthodox Church to imitate the Russian Government by synod was that of Greece. The national assem- blies of free Greece in 1822 and 1827 began the process of making their Church independent of the Patriarch of Constantinople. In 1833 the Greek Parliament formally rejected the patriarch's authority and set up a Holy Directing Synod in exact imitation of Russia. After much dispute the patriarch gave in and ac-
