Page:Russian Church and Russian Dissent.djvu/169

154 this feeling was increased by the frequent necessity which arose of filling the ecclesiastical throne, when reference to, or waiting upon, Constantinople was an impossibility. It became a recognized principle that the primate should be of Russian blood, chosen by his clergy or named by the prince, and, although consecration by the Byzantine patriarch was still held to be essential, the idea of a national establishment was germinating. True to its origin and traditions, the Church was ever respectful to authority, and loyal to the legitimate sovereign. During long civil wars and foreign subjugation its influence expanded, and was less overshadowed by that of the State; it was favored and protected by Tatar khans, as well as by native princes. Conciliated by the former to strengthen and consolidate their dominion, by the latter to profit by its services as a mediator between themselves, or as an intercessor with their oppressors, it came to be the only bond which held the nation together—the safeguard and bulwark of the national existence. This was the most glorious age of the Russian Church, distinguished by unswerving patriotism, religious zeal, and intense nationality; the days of its great popular heroes and saints, and the epoch when its most celebrated institutions were founded. After the nation had issued triumphant from its tribulations, and the empire became independent and strong, the power of the Church dwindled before that of the State; it passively protested in the person of its only martyr, St. Philip, against the encroachments of the tsar, but it never rebelled against constituted authority, or strove to check the growth of autocratic government.

The ambition of Boris Godounov led to a recrudescence of its power; he encouraged the emancipation of the Church from foreign control, in order to win the sym-