Page:Russian Church and Russian Dissent.djvu/168

Rh its universal practice, and by its early traditions, as exemplified in the relations which existed between the primitive Church and the first Byzantine emperors.

For a proper appreciation of this view of its position towards the State, it is necessary to follow the gradual development of the one alongside of the other, through the tolerably distinct phases, or periods, of Russian ecclesiastical history. These are, broadly: first, the period of the complete dependence of the Church upon the See of Constantinople; second, the transition period, during which it gradually acquired autonomy, and approached the time of its emancipation from foreign control; then, the period of the patriarchate, when its ecclesiastical independence had been definitively established, and it rose to its highest power; and finally, that of the Holy Synod, when it became subordinate to the State, and which still continues.

During the first period, the metropolitans of Russia had their seat primarily at Kiev, the capital of the great princes; they were almost invariably appointed, and sent thither, by the Patriarch of Constantinople; they were generally Greeks, ignorant of the language and customs of the people over whom they ruled; the Church was simply a diocese, a province of the Byzantine patriarchate.

The invasion of the Tatars, and the consequent removal of the seat of government from the banks of the Dnieper far to the interior of the country, separated the two Churches, and isolated them one from another; as the metropolitan accompanied the prince, the religious centre was displaced to follow the political. Communication became difficult, often impracticable, through immense wastes peopled with savage and warring tribes; a sense of independence on the part of the Russian Church was the natural result of rare intercourse, and