Library › A. N. Mouravieff › History of the Church of Russia
History of the Church of Russia
A. N. Mouravieff, tr. Blackmore, 1842
d1
During a residence of twenty-two years in this country, I have not been altogether an inattentive observer of what has passed in my own. My profession, and the situation I have filled here, have naturally led me to turn my thoughts chiefly to religious matters; and I have been both surprised and grieved to find, that while the politics, statistics, and history of Russia have very naturally, from the vast extent of her territories, and her brave, hardy, and numerous population, occupied no small portion of the public mind, the doctrines, discipline, and history of her Church, to which that population is so devotedly attached, and which is so closely and intimately connected with the State, have been almost entirely neglected. And this has not arisen from any indifference to religious subjects, for seldom has the public mind been more warmly interested in them; nor altogether from a want of curiosity respecting foreign Churches; but while the Church and Communion of Rome, the changes that are taking place among the Lutherans of Germany and the Calvinists of Geneva, the Syrians on the Malabar coast, and even the history of a small community in the valleys of Piedmont, have by turns excited general attention, the Church of Russia, its past and present state, and its future prospects, and I may add the whole of the Eastern Orthodox Church, including in its communion more than a quarter of the Christian world, have been comparatively overlooked: while even in the numerous works which have lately issued from the press, expressly treating on the Catholic Church, this large and important portion of it has scarcely been mentioned. It is difficult to assign an adequate reason for this glaring inconsistency; it may perhaps be in part accounted for, by our usually dividing Christianity into the two great heads, of Papists and Protestants; while the Orientals are ignorantly ranged with the former, or altogether passed over in silence, as if they did not exist, or as if they had but little in common with us, and there were nothing in their history, doctrine, or discipline, that could interest or instruct us. A closer examination will be sufficient to shew, on how very slight a basis either of these reasons for our overlooking the Eastern Church are founded; and that although there is a great similarity between it and the Communion of Rome in the splendour and pomp of their external rites and ceremonies, and in many of those customs which they have in common derived from the earlier ages of our religion, and which we in our zeal for getting rid of corruptions, have—perhaps hastily, and inconsiderately—dropped, yet that in essentials, both of Faith and Discipline, and in its spirit, as well as in its differences from the modern Roman theology, it has very many points which bear a striking resemblance to our own. Derived from the same high source, the Greek Patriarchates and the British Churches have indeed for centuries ceased to hold intercourse with each other, but yet our Christian inter-communion has never been formally broken off by any open act of either party. It is only by long custom and mutual prejudice that it is assumed to have become impossible, neither party sufficiently considering that all the Churches of the world were not necessarily implicated in the temporary quarrels and reconciliations of the archbishops of Rome and Constantinople. We certainly both profess to derive our faith from the same pure sources, the same canon of Scripture, primitive tradition, and the practice of the Apostolic times; they asserting that they have never swerved from these venerable guides, we that we have returned to them, or sought at least to return by a Reformation, i. e. by repentance and amendment in those points in which we found ourselves to have sinned against their authority. At the same time it must be confessed, that we do in fact now differ from one another, (in our outward form of religion and in popular opinions at least,) in some important particulars; and it is much to be wished, that by a better knowledge of each other’s divinity, history, and practice, we may gradually elicit the truth, so as mutually to correct each other’s faults and deficiencies, and thus in due time attain to the greatest of the privileges of the Apostolic age, unrestricted communion. But under present circumstances, very many sources of prejudice conspire to give the members of both Communions the most erroneous ideas of each other; the Easterns supposing that they are justified by our language and habits in confounding us with Lutherans and Calvinists, and other “non-episcopalians,” while the English, with at least equal injustice, confound them, as I have before said, with the Papists.
To remove as far as it is possible this ignorance, and thus promote the restoration of that inter-communion which is so much to be desired between two great branches of the Catholic Church, which is a duty prescribed by our Lord Himself, the great Head of the Church, for which both Churches continually pray, and which would prove a tower of strength to either party against their common adversaries, must surely be an object well worthy the attention of every reflecting and well-disposed member of our Church.
From my long residence in Russia I have been led to feel this more perhaps than many others; and have been hitherto prevented from undertaking it, solely by the consciousness of my inability to do justice to such a subject. My acquaintance with the language will enable me however to do that which will, I trust, prove more satisfactory to my readers than any thing I could myself have written, namely, to present to them the Russian Church, speaking for herself through the medium of translation. For the Church of Russia, although a comparatively recent scion of the Church of Constantinople, may still, both from the number of her members, the political and moral influence which the Emperor, from the relation in which he stands to her, possesses throughout the East, and lastly from the superior learning and acquirements of many both of her Clergy and Laity, justly claim to be considered as the most eminent and powerful portion of the whole Orthodox Communion of the Eastern or Greek rite.
Many circumstances have combined to render the present period peculiarly favourable to an undertaking of this kind. There has lately arisen in Russia a great disposition to cultivate and develop the energies and resources of the Church, as well as of the State; the beneficial consequences of which, may be traced in the improved tone of feeling among the clergy; in the recent augmentation of the number of the Bishoprics, corresponding with the increasing numbers and spiritual wants of the population; in the multiplication, as well as in the ameliorated state of the schools for secular and religious learning; in the better training of candidates for Holy Orders; and in the care taken to place only men of good morals, and suitable education, in the cure of souls. The same is also apparent in the growing efficiency and marked success of their missions in Siberia, and the Aleoutine Islands, in which last a new diocese has lately been founded, and the pious and zealous missionary, Veniamineff, who has so long laboured among the natives, has been appointed their first Bishop: also in the great and increasing number of the converts to the national Church, which is stated on good authority to be upwards of 20,000 persons a-year, principally drawn from those who have formerly been Dissenters. A striking example of success in this pious work is also to be found in the reconciliation of 1,600,000 Uniates to the Russian Church, which took place in 1839, and an official account of which, published by authority of the Synod, will be found appended at the end of this volume. And here it would be an act of injustice not to remark, that the greater part of the improvements above alluded to, may be attributed to the fostering care and paternal measures of the truly great Sovereign of this Empire; particularly to his judicious choice of that enlightened Nobleman, Count Pratasoff, as High-Procurator of the Most Holy Governing Synod, the duties of which important office he has fulfilled, as far as I have had opportunities of learning, with equal zeal and judgment, to his own honour, and the benefit and satisfaction of the Church.
But the chief circumstance which renders the present moment so favourable to my undertaking, is the increased activity of the Russian Church, in publishing translations of the Fathers, by which their writings have become generally accessible to the people, and by which they have been taught to look back to the earlier and purer ages of our religion, and the number of other useful and original works, which have lately issued from her presses. Many learned and pious individuals have partaken in, and promoted this movement, but two have been particularly conspicuous in it, from the superiority of their abilities and acquirements, as well as from the number and value of the books they have published. These are Philaret, Metropolitan of Moscow, and Andrew Nicholaevich Mouravieff, author of the work, a translation of which is now presented to the public.
The Metropolitan of Moscow has not indeed written so much as his best friends could have wished; having been prevented probably by the variety and importance of his occupations, as a leading member of the Most Holy Governing Synod, and as Pastor of one of the most important dioceses in the Russian Empire. His chief works are a History of the Bible, for the use of Students in Divinity,—Dialogues on the differences between the Eastern and Western Churches,—two volumes of very superior Sermons,—a Translation of the Book of Genesis from the original Hebrew into modern Russ, with copious and learned commentaries,—a Longer, and a Shorter Catechism,—the one for Students of Divinity and the higher classes, the other for the lower classes of schools; which two last, as they have been revised and approved by the Synod, and published as the Catechisms of the Church herself, and introduced by authority into all the schools of the Empire, may be reckoned as the latest official exposition of the doctrines of the Russian Church.
M. Mouravieff is Chamberlain to His Imperial Majesty, and Under-Procurator of the Most Holy Governing Synod; and, although a layman, has devoted himself to the service of the Church, and may justly be esteemed one of the brightest modern ornaments of Russian literature. His claims to this title are, his Pilgrimage to the Holy Land, written in 1830, when the author was quite a young man, and published in 1832,—his Letters on the Services of the Eastern Catholic Church,—his History of the First Four Ages of Christianity,—his Exposition of the Niceno-Constantinopolitan Creed, which has received the formal approbation of the Synod,—his Letters on the Salvation of the World by the Son of God, — his “Law of the Œcumenical Church in relation to the Roman and other Patriarchal Thrones,” very recently published, and lastly, his History of the Church of Russia. I have selected this last work as that, which seemed calculated to be of most service in making the Church of this country better known in England; and in the hope of contributing something towards this end, I now present the Translation of it to the British public. Should this attempt be favourably received, it may probably be followed by Translations of some others of the works I have mentioned above; especially of the Catechism of the Church, with other documents illustrative of her doctrines, which the same friend, who has engaged to conduct this volume through the press, and without whose assistance, placed as I am at a distance from my native country, it could never have appeared, has kindly offered to edit for me in like manner.
There are only two Histories of the Russian Church which have come to my knowledge, those of the Metropolitan Platon and of M. Mouravieff, both beginning from the introduction of Christianity into this country, and both terminating with the institution of the Holy Governing Synod. Of these, the first gives rather the annals than the history of the Church; in many particular points it is diffuse, while it passes over others of great interest with comparatively little notice, and throughout it supposes that the reader is already thoroughly acquainted with the Civil History of Russia. Mouravieff on the contrary gives a clear, succinct, and regular account of the events which marked the introduction and progress of Christianity in his native country; he notices every material incident, places it in its due light, and affords it that attention and space its importance demands. These reasons have induced me to prefer his work, without however entirely overlooking the other; from which I have given extracts, in the shape of notes, wherever the subject seemed to require it.
It is perhaps to be regretted, that our author finishes his work where he does, without bringing down the narrative to our own time. But it is a difficult task to write contemporary history of either Church or State impartially, without prejudice or flattery, in any country; and in Russia it would be perhaps less easy than elsewhere. He has however brought down his relation to the last great epoch in the government of the Church: and the Synod has continued ever since to exist, as it was at first instituted by Peter the Great and allowed and confirmed by the Eastern Patriarchs, and to exercise its high functions to the benefit and prosperity of the Church it presides over, and to the general satisfaction, so far as I have been able to learn, both of the clergy and laity.
The union between the Church and the State was so close during the whole period of which our Author has treated, their interests and their actions were so closely interwoven with each other, that it would have been impossible to have composed a history of the one without speaking of the other. He has accordingly given very ample details of the civil and military transactions of those times. But as he has still written for his countrymen, who would naturally be more or less acquainted with the earlier institutions of their own country, I feared lest some parts of his work, especially at the beginning, might appear obscure to the general reader; and have therefore given rather copious extracts from a modern Russian historian, Oustreloff, in the shape of notes. I have here also to acknowledge my obligations to my friend the Rev. E. Law, Chaplain to the British Embassy at St. Petersburgh, for placing at my disposal some unpublished MSS. of the late learned Baron Rosenkampf, from which also several of the notes have been taken or compiled; for others, which relate chiefly to doctrinal matters touched upon in the History and seeming to require some illustration, I am indebted to my Editor.
The ecclesiastical part of the History itself which I have translated exhibits the interesting picture of a National Church, which has preserved throughout a filial respect for its mother in the Faith, without at any time becoming unduly dependent on foreign rule. She acknowledged indeed for several centuries a certain subordination to the see of Constantinople, whose patriarch had the privilege of consecrating or confirming her metropolitans, chosen generally by the Great Princes and the bishops, and when referred to, he was the final arbitrator in all ecclesiastical questions; but the Russian Church admitted no right of ordinary interference with her internal jurisdiction and self-government. On the other hand, when political circumstances had influenced the Great Princes to set aside the privileges of the Church of Constantinople, and cause the metropolitans to be elected by the synod of their own bishops, we do not find that either the patriarchs of Constantinople, though they probably considered themselves wronged, broke off communion on this account, or that the Russian metropolitans now become independent made any boast of having returned at the command of the civil power, or by any pretended vindication of their own rights to the letter of the Œcumenical canons. On the contrary, after a full century of actual independence the conscience both of the Church and the State dictated a public acknowledgment that something was still wanting to legitimatize the independence which had been acquired, while the patriarch of Constantinople not only made good by his consent what had been done, but concurred with his brethren of the East to raise the very see which he might have said had rebelled against him to a dignity equal with his own, and that too at the instance of a successor of those same princes, by the interference of whose temporal authority his own privileges had been diminished. It is to be lamented that a spirit so very different from that of the Eastern Church, should have been manifested in questions affecting their own dominion and supremacy by the Popes of Rome.
The Church of Russia began her course with a well-defined system, derived from Constantinople, and based on the decrees of the Councils, as collected in the Nomocanon, in which her rights, as well as those of the State, were clearly defined and limited, so that the one could never interfere with the other. We therefore find but little mention in the History before us, of those contests and struggles between the civil and ecclesiastical authorities, which have been so common in the West. During her long career, she has constantly, and with untiring zeal and loyalty, supported and preserved the State, through all the difficulties and dangers, whether arising from internal dissensions or external assaults, to which it has been exposed. In the midst of the feuds and distractions caused by the appanage system, and the dominion of the Tartars, a space of near five hundred years, the Church was the sole bond of union to the nation; and it is hazarding little to say, that had it been deprived of this bond, the great Russian Empire itself would have been dissolved into a number of petty, independent states, or perhaps even barbarous and wandering tribes, and have ceased to exist as an independent whole. Nor were these beneficial influences much less felt during the afflictive periods of the Pretenders, the disputed succession, and the invasions of the Poles; while during the peaceful times which succeeded, the clergy afforded the greatest assistance to the government in its paternal endeavours to heal the wounds of the nation, and promote the return of peace, order, and prosperity. And all this they did without stepping beyond their own appropriate and peculiar sphere of action; they never degraded their calling by personally taking up arms as partisans, and never had recourse to them except in the case of self-defence, but limited their exertions to mediation between contending parties, to exhortations and persuasions to union and concord. They frequently and unsparingly indeed exposed their lives for the good of their country; but it was by entering into barbarous and hostile camps as messengers of peace; and when they appeared on the field of battle, it was for the purpose of administering temporal and spiritual assistance to the wounded and dying; and in this latter respect, the present generation have shewn themselves the worthy descendants and imitators of their forefathers.
This History also exhibits a most successful scene of missionary exertions; First, on the conversion of Russia herself to the Christian faith, by which the Oriental Church has nearly made up the losses she has sustained from the Mahometans, and has fully answered the objections of modern Roman doctors, that they, who are by any means separated from the Pope, are therefore necessarily cursed with barrenness and spiritual death; for so far from having become a lifeless stock, the Eastern Catholic Church has, since her alienation from the West, sent forth the most flourishing and widely-spreading branch of modern times, and has continued to support her own spiritual existence (as her daughter Church in Russia also did under the Tartar yoke) in the midst of the severest and most continued persecutions.
Secondly, in the continued efforts of the Russian Church, extending down to our own times, to spread wider and wider the limits of that faith she once so happily received from Greece; through which the wild and pathless forests of Perm and Viatka, and the deserts of Siberia have become enlightened with the life of Christianity. This most successful issue of missionary exertions, we may observe, was not effected by single and unsupported individuals, but by societies of devoted men, collected around some saint or hermit into monastic establishments, which became the outposts at once of civilization and Christianity, and new points from whence to make still further and more effective inroads into the territories of barbarism, as well as heathenism.
Lastly, this History exhibits the instructive spectacle of a Church, which ever since her first foundation, has faithfully retained that creed which was at the first delivered to her; which has not altered her doctrines, or services, her rites, ceremonies, or discipline, and very slightly her internal government, and that more in form than in spirit, for nearly nine hundred years; during which long period both clergy and laity have enjoyed free access to the Holy Scriptures, and made use of the sublime Liturgies of St. Basil and St. Chrysostom in their native tongue. Her Apostolic Hierarchy and Priesthood, first received from Greece, she has venerated through all the periods of her history alike, and has preserved with the most scrupulous care in all their integrity. She has always founded on her unbroken succession from the patriarchal throne of Constantinople and from the Apostles themselves, her claim to divine authority in teaching and administering the Sacraments, and in governing by ecclesiastical discipline the people committed to her charge. This divine and exclusive character of the true Church her clergy have constantly maintained; while on the other hand the laity have never ceased to be able to distinguish the priest from the man, to look upon him as filling, not a human, but a divine appointment, as being not a servant of the people or the state, but an ambassador of Christ, really commissioned to act in the name, and by the authority of the great Head of the Church. Hence they have never lost sight of the respect due to the successors of the Apostles, even when individuals of their order may have most swerved from Apostolic precepts and examples. … The firm persuasion in the minds of the people of their divine commission and authority from the Apostles and from Christ, has counterbalanced all the evil consequences of any partial deficiencies in the men themselves, whenever and in whatever degree they have existed or may still exist. May not we clergy of the Church of England learn something from this example? If in any thing our teaching of those entrusted to our care has been defective, if in any point we have failed to declare the whole counsel of God, it has been this. Hence it has naturally followed, that we have been too often looked upon merely as the teachers of an Act of Parliament Religion, or as ministers of the most wealthy and influential of those sects or persuasions, with which our country abounds. Our ministry has been therefore esteemed and respected for our learning, eloquence, or piety, or been despised for our want of them; and we have been either preferred or postponed to the sectarian preacher, who has intruded into our charge, from our superiority or inferiority to him in these qualifications; whilst our Apostolical descent, the true point of difference between us, and to which he does not even make any pretensions, has been ridiculed by our enemies, and too often but coldly and doubtfully defended by our friends. And the cause of this has been, that we have been untrue to ourselves; that from a morbid sensibility, or a foolish fear of appearing to magnify ourselves, if not from feelings still more culpable, we have neglected an important part of our duty, in not magnifying our office. A conviction of the truth of this, has, I am glad to learn, begun to be generally felt. May the example here presented before us of the happy effects which have accrued to the Church of Russia, the firm hold she retains on the public mind and affections, resulting in great measure from her deep-rooted belief of this important principle, add strength to the same conviction, which has never yet been lost among ourselves, and lead us to adopt such means as may best serve to repair the effects of our past sins, negligences, and ignorances, and bring down both on ourselves and our flocks the fulness of the Divine blessing.
R. W. BLACKMORE.
Cronstadt,
August 30th, 1841.