pire on a new basis, and long strove to create a universal
Christian theocratic State, in which kings and other civil authorities
should be the subordinates of Christ's Vicar upon earth. The Eastern
Church, on the contrary, has remained true to her Byzantine traditions,
and has never dreamed of such lofty pretensions. Accustomed to lean on
the civil power, she has always been content to play a secondary part,
and has never strenuously resisted the formation of national churches.

For about two centuries after the introduction of Christianity--from
988 to 1240--Russia formed, ecclesiastically speaking, part of the
Patriarchate of Constantinople. The metropolitans and the bishops were
Greek by birth and education, and the ecclesiastical administration was
guided and controlled by the Byzantine Patriarchs. But from the time of
the Mongol invasion, when communication with Constantinople became more
difficult and educated native priests had become more numerous, this
complete dependence on the Patriarch of Constantinople ceased. The
Princes gradually arrogated to themselves the right of choosing the
Metropolitan of Kief--who was at that time the chief ecclesiastical
dignitary in Russia--and merely sent their nominees to Constantinople
for consecration. About 1448 this formality came to be dispensed with,
and the Metropolitan was commonly consecrated by a Council of Russian
bishops. A further step in the direction of ecclesiastical autonomy was
taken in 1589, when the Tsar succeeded in procuring the consecration of
a Russian Patriarch, equal in dignity and authority to the Patriarchs of
Constantinople, Jerusalem, Antioch, and Alexandria.

In all matters of external form the Patriarch of Moscow was a very
important personage. He exercised a certain influence in civil as well
as ecclesiastical affairs, bore the official title of "Great Lord"
(Veliki Gosudar), which had previously been reserved for the civil head
of the State, and habitually received from the people scarcely less
veneration than the Tsar himself. But in reality he possessed very
little independent power. The Tsar was the real ruler in ecclesiastical
as well as in civil affairs.*

* As this is frequently denied by Russians, it may be well
to quote one authority out of many that might be cited.
Bishop Makarii, whose erudition and good faith are alike
above suspicion, says of Dmitri of the Don: "He arrogated to
himself full, unconditional