as
of the dominant faith," and immediately afterwards it is said that "the
autocratic power acts in the ecclesiastical administration by means
of the most Holy Governing Synod, created by it."* This describes very
fairly the relations between the Emperor and the Church. He is merely
the defender of the dogmas, and cannot in the least modify them; but he
is at the same time the chief administrator, and uses the Synod as an
instrument.

* Svod Zakonov I., 42, 43.

Some ingenious people who wish to prove that the creation of the Synod
was not an innovation represent the institution as a resuscitation of
the ancient local councils; but this view is utterly untenable. The
Synod is not a council of deputies from various sections of the Church,
but a permanent college, or ecclesiastical senate, the members of which
are appointed and dismissed by the Emperor as he thinks fit. It has no
independent legislative authority, for its legislative projects do not
become law till they have received the Imperial sanction; and they are
always published, not in the name of the Church, but in the name of
the Supreme Power. Even in matters of simple administration it is
not independent, for all its resolutions require the consent of the
Procureur, a layman nominated by his Majesty. In theory this functionary
protests only against those resolutions which are not in accordance with
the civil law of the country; but as he alone has the right to
address the Emperor directly on ecclesiastical concerns, and as all
communications between the Emperor and the Synod pass through his hands,
he possesses in reality considerable power. Besides this, he can always
influence the individual members by holding out prospects of advancement
and decorations, and if this device fails, he can make refractory
members retire, and fill up their places with men of more pliant
disposition. A Council constituted in this way cannot, of course,
display much independence of thought or action, especially in a country
like Russia, where no one ventures to oppose openly the Imperial will.

It must not, however, be supposed that the Russian ecclesiastics regard
the Imperial authority with jealousy or dislike. They are all most loyal
subjects, and warm adherents of autocracy. Those ideas of ecclesiastical
independence which are so common in Western Europe, and that spirit of
opposition to the civil power which animates the Roman Catholic clergy,
are entirely foreign to