Holy Synod. History of creation. Church reform of Peter I Formation of the synod under Peter 1

§ 9. The Holy Synod and the church policy of the government (1817–1917) a) The dual ministry, in which only one of the departments was involved in the affairs of the Orthodox Church, existed until May 14, 1824. All this time, the activities of the department were fully determined by religious

Stories of Peter We have several books from early Christianity that tell the story of Peter. Their plots were almost entirely invented by Christian authors unknown to us. In our system of definitions, these texts are not forgeries, since they are not

§ 35. Orthodoxy under Peter I The Council Code was continued under Peter I (1672–1725). Russia became an empire. If earlier the state and the Church went together, now the Church found itself in a more subordinate position. In 1721, having become emperor, Peter I abolished the position

ХLVI Apostolic activity and martyrdom of St. Petra. Conciliar Epistles of St. Petra. The activities of other apostles Simultaneously with the apostle. Paul suffered martyrdom and the apostle. Peter, who thus ended his apostolic activity also in the capital

Church reform is a set of measures carried out by Peter I in the period 1701-1722 to reduce the influence of the church, its independence and strengthen control over its administrative and financial issues. One of the most important transformations was the actual abolition of the position of Patriarch and the approval on January 25, 1721 of a new highest church body - Holy Governing Synod, or Spiritual College.

Church reform scheme

Reasons and background

The clergy did not approve of the reforms carried out by Peter I - many monks considered the king to be the Antichrist, which they were not afraid to say out loud and even distributed handwritten leaflets in cities and villages.

Excessive authority of the church - The patriarch had no less opportunity than Peter I himself to influence ordinary people; this did not fit into the absolutist model of the state, where the emperor is the only full-fledged ruler.

Economic independence of the church— numerous wars and industrial development required more and more financial and human resources, some of which were in the possession of monasteries and churches not accountable to the state.

Goals and objectives

Elimination of economic and administrative autonomy - a detailed audit of property, followed by secularization, the introduction of positions appointed by the state apparatus, as well as clear regulation of financial flows and responsibilities assigned to the church.

Decrease in the number of clergy - determining the required number of clergy and monks based on the number of citizens served, limiting “wandering” priests and banning the construction of monasteries.

The fight against beggary the tsar was a categorical opponent of spontaneous beggary; he believed that only the “blessed” and outright disabled people could be allowed to live on alms.

Table “Content and progress of church reform”

The essence and significance of the church reform of Peter I

The main point The church reforms undertaken by Peter I consisted of the elimination of autonomy and the integration of the church institution into the state apparatus, with all the accompanying characteristics - reporting, a limited number of personnel, etc.

Creation of the Spiritual College, or Holy Synod

The key figure in the organization of the Theological College was the Little Russian theologian, rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Feofan Prokopovich. On June 1, 1718, he was named bishop of Pskov, and the next day he was consecrated to the rank of bishop in the presence of the sovereign. Soon Prokopovich was entrusted with drawing up a project for the creation of the Theological College.

January 25, 1721 Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological College, which soon received the new name of the Holy Governing Synod.

Feofan Prokopovich

The composition of the Holy Synod was determined by the regulations of 12 officials, of whom three must certainly bear the rank of bishop.

Before entering into the position assigned to him, each member of the Synod had to take an oath and swear allegiance to serve the reigning sovereign and his successors, and were obliged to report in advance about damage to His Majesty’s interest, harm or loss.

May 11, 1722 a special person was ordered to be present at the Synod Chief Prosecutor. The main responsibility of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The Chief Prosecutor was subject to trial only by the sovereign. At first, the power of the Chief Prosecutor was exclusively observational, but little by little the Chief Prosecutor becomes the arbiter of the fate of the Synod and its leader in practice.

Any decisions made by the Synod were controlled by the chief prosecutor, and therefore by Peter I himself. The active fight against beggary, the distribution of the number of clergy and monks depending on the number of parishioners and the extension of uniform taxes and recruitment kits to church peasants - all these measures transformed church services to yet another institution, another cog in the general mechanism of the country that was completely dependent on the emperor.

Administrative significance of church governance reform in the general key of the policy of Peter I - the centralization of power in the hands of the monarch, the establishment of the church in the service of the tsar (and later the emperor) and the state.

Economic significance - optimization of human and financial resources, increasing the efficiency of taxation and use of property previously completely controlled by the church

Estate meaning - decrease in the influence of the clergy class.

Results and results of the Church reform

• The position of Patriarch has been virtually eliminated
• The Church began to lose financial and administrative autonomy
• Reduced the number of monks and monasteries
• Increased number of taxes
• Recruitment sets are being made from church peasants

The spiritual regulations were issued by Peter I with a special Manifesto and determined the legal status of the Russian Orthodox Church. The regulations were the fruit of the joint creativity of the tsar himself and the Pskov bishop Feofan Prokopovich. Archpriest Georgy Florovsky described the Regulations as a “reasoning”, rather an explanatory note to the law rather than the law itself, since it contained more denunciations of the old order than “direct positive decrees.” However, as a result of the adoption of this document, which began the reform of the Church, the latter lost its independence from secular power.

When Patriarch Adrian died in 1700, Peter I did not appoint a successor, but entrusted the management of church affairs to Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan. Facts indicate that the idea of ​​​​establishing a Synod did not appear to the tsar right away. In the conditions of the outbreak of the Northern War, Peter I was inclined to the opinion of the “profit-maker” Andrei Kurbatov that, from the point of view of state interests, it was irrational to concentrate such significant land and human resources in the hands of the Church.

The Tsar’s first step was the approval of the young Ryazan Bishop Stefan Yavorsky as a “temporary” locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, under whom church administration was actually concentrated in the Monastic Prikaz, restored in 1701. This completely secular institution, consisting of officials headed by the former Astrakhan governor Musin-Pushkin, took over not only the administrative and economic affairs of the disbanded patriarchal court, but also the management of church estates through secular persons appointed by it. This made it possible to use the income of the Church to satisfy national needs and, above all, for military needs. It was forbidden to give estates to monasteries for the funeral of the soul. In return for the duties collected by bishops and monasteries from the clergy subordinate to them, it was intended to assign strict salaries and staffing levels to bishops, monasteries and parish clergy. Which made the Church even more dependent on the state. The monastic order not only put ordinary monks on starvation rations, but also, through the establishment of monastic states, stopped the growth of their numbers. Which again was beneficial for the Treasury.

Because of this, the establishment of a new order of church government in 1721 was quite painless. Moreover, the Synod, although it arose according to the general plan of collegial reform, was established later than other higher state institutions - the Senate and collegiums. Various arguments were used to justify such a reform - from the advantages of the impartiality of the board to the danger of the patriarchate for the absolutist government. By the way, the benefits for the authorities from the abolition of the patriarchate were not even hidden in the text of the “Regulations”: “The common people... think that such a ruler is a second Sovereign, equal to or greater than the Autocrat, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better State.” .

The new law was prepared without any participation from the church. The Pskov bishop Feofan Prokopovich, who drafted the Regulations, was only carrying out the tsar’s task. Peter gave Prokopovich the task of writing a project for the Spiritual Collegium (“Spiritual Regulations”) back in October 1718, and in In 1719, a commission was created to develop new principles of church government. By February 1720 the text was ready, but Peter I I made my own edits there. According to the decree of the Senate, which previously examined the project, the text of the Regulations was proposed to the consecrated Council of six bishops - Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, Smolensk Metropolitan Sylvester Kholmsky, Nizhny Novgorod Archbishop Pitirim Potemkin, bishops of Tver (Varlaam Kossovsky), Karelian (Aaron Eropkin), Pskov (Feofan Prokopovich) and three archimandrites. Under pressure from the king, they were forced to sign a document, which was then was sent by messenger to bishops, archimandrites and abbots of the most important monasteries. In total, the signatures of 19 bishops, 48 ​​archimandrites, 15 abbots and 5 hieromonks were collected (often not without pressure). Moreover, which is typical for the emerging new relations between the authorities and the church, there were no objections or amendments to the project.

On January 25, 1721, Peter I issued a manifesto on the establishment of the “Spiritual Collegium, that is, the Spiritual Council Government,” and on February 14, after a prayer service in the Trinity Cathedral of the Alexander Nevsky Lavra, the opening of the Spiritual Collegium took place. According to legend, at the first meeting of the board, in response to a timid proposal to revive the patriarchate, the tsar stuck a dagger into the table with the words: “Here is the iron patriarch for you!” A compromise was reached through a new name for the newly created body - the Holy Governing Synod. That is, with The essence of the reform was the abolition of the patriarchate and the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod in its place. The Synod included: a president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors. The Tsar's representative in the Synod was the Chief Prosecutor. That is, with the departure of the Synod was typical for secular colleges. He even had fiscal documents with him.

The position of the Synod in the general system of government bodies from the very beginning turned out to be very unstable, as evidenced by constant conflicts not only with the Senate, but also with the collegiums. Of course, the Synod had the right to draw up bills on issues of church government and, even in the absence of the tsar, could issue laws and publish them, but only with the consent of the Senate. Thus, in 1722, setting off on the Caspian (Persian) campaign, Peter I officially subordinated the Synod to the Senate. On the other hand, the Synod had the highest judicial power not only over the clergy, but also over secular persons in marriage, blasphemous and other matters. And the administrative activities of the Synod were very extensive: spiritual education and publication of liturgical books, construction of churches and establishment of parishes, monitoring the correct maintenance of metrics, etc. But all this is under the strict control of the secular authorities and the tsar personally.

The Synod had no permanent members. Temporary members were invited for certain periods by the emperor from among the bishops, archimandrites and archpriests. The chairman and vice-chairman were also appointed by the sovereign. In addition, the imperial government did not undertake the obligation to appoint to the highest church positions the persons proposed by the Synod. The management of church property was entrusted to the monastic order established under the Synod, and in 1724 a Chamber Office was established to manage collections from monastic estates and make expenses, which included secular persons. Subsequently, the policy of removing the Synod from the management of church property only expanded, reaching its logical conclusion in the form of the secularization of church lands under Catherine II.

The church reform of Peter I was also clearly utilitarian in nature. The Spiritual Regulations obliged diocesan bishops to create schools for the children of the clergy, institutionalized spiritual censorship, abolished places of “miraculous phenomena” not recognized by the Synod, and prohibited men from becoming monks under 30 years of age. Monks were required to confess and receive communion at least four times a year. They were forbidden to visit nunneries and private houses. In turn, nuns were prohibited from taking final vows until the age of 50. In addition, compulsory labor was introduced in monasteries.

The former locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky became the president of the Synod. In May 1722, by decree of the emperor, the position of chief prosecutor of the Synod was established, who was assigned the role of “the eye of the sovereign,” that is, he was entrusted with control and supervision over the activities of the highest church body. But already this year, after the death of Yavorsky, the post of President of the Synod was abolished. Which actually put the Chief Prosecutor at the head of the Synod. Having achieved recognition of the Synod from all the Ecumenical Patriarchs, Peter I established a position that the Synod could exercise the highest legislative, judicial and administrative power in the Church only with the consent of the emperor. It is known that the resolutions of the Synod throughout the synodal period were issued with the stamp: “By order of His Imperial Majesty.” Until 1901, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod, when taking office, were required to take an oath, which defined the emperor as a “spiritual judge.” But the process of nationalization of the church began long before the reign of Peter Alekseevich (from the middle of the 16th century). Peter I only completed this process, giving it legal registration.

The anonical defectiveness of the established system of governance of the Church was manifested in the fact that from the reign of Peter I until the beginning of the First World War, the proportion of the Orthodox population did not grow, and even decreased slightly - from 66% to 63%. The rise of spiritual education in Russia and the flourishing of domestic church science were associated with the rejection of utilitarianism in relation to the Church in the 19th century. But at the same time, completely in the Petrine tradition, the Russian Orthodox Church finally turned into part of the state apparatus of the empire. In official documents, even the term “church” was replaced by the concept of “department of the Orthodox confession.”

Royal Majesty's decree
announced for the sake of public news to everyone.

We are Peter the First Tsar and Autocrat of All Russia,
and so on, and so on, and so on

Among many who, in accordance with the duty of the God-given power to us, are charged with the correction of our people, and the other States subject to us, looking at the spiritual order, and seeing in it a lot of disorganization, and the great poverty in His deeds, we had a fear on our conscience that we would not appear. be ungrateful to the Most High, even if we have received from him much success in the correction of both the military and civil ranks, we will neglect the correction and rank of the spiritual, and when he, the unhypocritical judge, asks us for an answer about such an assignment handed to us from him, let us not be unresponsive . Therefore, for the sake of the image of the former, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the pious Kings took care of the correction of the spiritual rank, and not seeing the best way to do this, more than a conciliar government, since in one person it happens not without passion, and also not hereditary power, for this reason, is more neglected; We establish the Spiritual Collegium, that is, the spiritual council government, which, according to the following Regulations, has all spiritual affairs, to govern the All-Russian Church, and we command all our faithful subjects, of every rank, spiritual and secular, to have this for an important and strong government, and it has extreme to ask for spiritual affairs, decisions, and decisions, and to be satisfied with its determined judgment, and to listen to its decrees, in everything, under the great for resistance, and disobedience, punishment against other Colleagues, this Collegium must exist, and henceforth supplement its Regulations with new rules, These rules will be required in various cases, but the Spiritual College must do this not without our permission; We determine to be named members of this spiritual College. One President, two Vice-Presidents, four Advisors, four Assessors.

Genuine by His Royal Majesty's own hand, January 25th.

Regulations or charter of the Theological College

Manifesto

Among many, in accordance with the duty of the God-given power to Us, who are concerned about the correction of Our people, and other States subject to Us, looking at the Spiritual order, and seeing in it a lot of disorder and great poverty in its affairs, not vain on Our conscience, We had fear, yes We will not appear ungrateful to the Most High, even though we have received success from Him in the correction of both the Military and Civil ranks, and we will neglect the correction of the Spiritual rank. And when He, the unfeigned Judge, asks us for an answer about the order handed down to Us from Him, let us not remain unanswered. For this reason, in the image of the former, both in the Old and in the New Testament, the Pious Kings, taking care of the correction of the Spiritual rank, and not seeing the best way to do this, especially the Council Government. Sometimes in one person there is not without passion; Moreover, it is not hereditary power, for the sake of which they do not bother anymore. We establish the Spiritual Board, that is, the Spiritual Council Government, which, according to the following Regulations here, has the authority to manage all Spiritual affairs in the All-Russian Church. And we command all Our faithful subjects, of every rank, Spiritual and temporal, to have this for an important and strong Government, and it has extreme affairs of Spiritual government, to ask for decisions and decisions, and to be content with its definite judgment, and to listen to its decrees in everything, under the great for resistance and disobedience with punishment, against other Colleges.

There must be this Collegium, and from now on it will supplement its Regulations with new rules; various cases will require these rules. However, the Spiritual College must do this on the basis of Our permission.

We determine in this Spiritual College to be named Members: one President, two Vice-Presidents, four Advisors, four Assessors.

And yet it was mentioned in these Regulations in the first part, in the seventh and eighth paragraphs, that the President is subject to the judgment of his brethren, this is the same Collegium, even if he has sinned in any significant way; For this reason, we determine that he will have one and equal voice with the others.

All Members of this Collegium, when entering into their business, have to take an oath or promise before the Holy Gospel, according to the attached oath form.

Oath to Members of the Spiritual College

I, the below-named, promise and swear by Almighty God, before His Holy Gospel, that I must, and according to my duty I will, and I will strive in every possible way in the councils and courts and all the affairs of this Spiritual Governing Assembly to always seek the most real truths and the most real righteousness, and act in accordance with the statutes written in the Spiritual Regulations, and if the cue continues to be determined by the consent of this Spiritual Government, and with the permission of the Tsar's Majesty. Now I will act according to my conscience, not being affected by partiality, not by enmity, envy, stubbornness, or simply being captivated by passions of any kind, but with the fear of God, always keeping in mind His unwashed judgment, with the sincerity of God’s neighbor’s love, believing in all thoughts and to my words and actions, as the ultimate guilt, the glory of God, and the salvation of human souls and the creation of the entire Church, not sought by me, but by the Lord Jesus. I swear by the living God that always, remembering His terrible word: cursed is everyone who does the work of God with negligence, in every work of this Governing Assembly, as in the work of God, I will walk lazily, with all diligence, to the utmost of my strength, neglecting all pleasures and my rest. And I will not feign ignorance; but if there is any confusion in my mind, I will try in every possible way to seek understanding and knowledge from the sacred scriptures, and the rules of the cathedrals, and the consent of the ancient great teachers. I swear again by Almighty God that I want and must eat to my natural and true Tsar and Sovereign Peter the Great, the All-Russian Autocrat and so on, and according to him to His Royal Majesty the High Lawful Heirs, who, by the will and Autocratic power of His Royal Majesty, have been determined, and henceforth determined, and will be honored to receive the Throne. And to Her Majesty, Empress Catherine Alekseevna, be a faithful, kind and obedient slave and subject. And all to the lofty His Royal Majesty autocracy, the power and authority of the rights and prerogatives (or advantages), legitimized and henceforth legitimized, according to the utmost understanding, the power and ability to warn, and to defend, and in that case not to spare one’s life if necessary. And at the same time, at least try to promote everything that can relate to His Tsar’s Majesty’s faithful service and benefit in any case. As soon as I learn about the damage to His Majesty’s interest, harm and loss, I will not only announce it in a timely manner, but I will also take every measure to avert it and prevent it from happening. When, for the service and benefit of His Majesty, or the church, what secret matter, or whatever it may be, which I am ordered to keep secret, and then keep it in complete secrecy, and not announce it to anyone who should not know about it, and will not be ordered to announce. I confess with an oath the extreme Judge of the Spiritual College, to be the Most All-Russian Monarch, Our All-Merciful Sovereign. I also swear by the All-Seeing God that all this, which I now promise, I do not interpret differently in my mind, as I proclaim with my lips, but in that power and mind, the words written here are revealed to those who read and hear. I affirm with my oath, God be the Seer of my Heart, the Witness of my promises, as if they are not false. If there is something false and not according to my conscience, be the same Just Avenger for me. At the conclusion of my vows I kiss the words and cross of my Savior. Amen.

Regulations or Charter of the Spiritual College,
according to which she knows her duties, and all spiritual ranks, as well as worldly persons, since they are subject to spiritual management, and at the same time has to act in the administration of her affairs

This Regulation is divided into three parts, according to the number of three spiritual needs, knowledge of the worthy and management of those requiring, which are:

1) Description and important faults of such a government.

2) Affairs subject to management.

3) The stewards themselves are office, action and power.

And the basis of government, that is, the law of God, proposed in the Holy Scriptures, as well as the canons, or rules of the Council of the Holy Fathers and civil statutes, consistent with the word of God, require their own books, but do not fit here.

Part I- What is the spiritual Collegium, and what are the important faults of such a government?

A government collegium is nothing more than a government assembly, when the affairs of a certain person are not owned by a single person, but by many who are willing to do so, and are established by the Supreme Authority and are subject to administration.

Otherwise the Collegium is a one-time thing, and another is an everlasting one. One-time is when for one thing that has happened, or for many, but in a single time, the decision of their requirement, persons who are willing to do so gather. These are the church Synods and civil ones, through customary investigations, tribunals, and councils.

The Collegium always exists when certain specific cases, often or always occurring in the fatherland, are determined for the management of a certain number of satisfied men.

Such was the ecclesiastical Sanhedrin in the Old Testament Church in Jerusalem, and the civil court of the Areopagites in Athens, and other governing assemblies in the same city, called the Dicastery.

It is similar in many other States, both ancient and modern.

The Most Powerful Tsar of All Russia, Peter the Great, wisely established His powers for the benefit of the Fatherland in the summer of 1718, according to the differences in the affairs and needs of the State.

And as the Christian Sovereign, the guardian of orthodoxy and every kind of deanery in the Church of the Saints, having looked at the spiritual needs, and desiring every better management of them, he deigned to establish the spiritual Collegium, which would diligently and constantly observe, for the benefit of the church, and everything according to order there are, and may there not be disorder, if it is the desire of the Apostle, or rather the good pleasure of God Himself.

Let no one imagine that this administration is not desirable, and it would be better for a single person to rule over the spiritual affairs of the entire society, just as private countries or dioceses are governed by each individual bishop. Important points are offered here, which show that this eternal conciliar government, and like the everlasting Synod or Sanhedrin, is most perfect and better than an individual government, especially in the Monarchical State, which is Our Russian.

1. Firstly, it is better known that truth is sought by a assembled class than by a single person. The ancient saying is Greek: other thoughts are wiser than the first; then if there are many thoughts, reasoning about a single matter, they will be wiser than one. It happens that in a certain difficulty a simple person will see something that a bookish and witty person cannot see; then how is it not necessary to have a Council Government, in which the proposed need is analyzed by many minds, and what one does not comprehend, another will comprehend, and what this one does not see, he will see? And such a questionable thing is better known and will be explained more quickly, and what kind of definition it requires will not seem difficult.

2. And since the news is in knowledge, so the power in determining the matter is great, here there is a greater emphasis on assurance and obedience in favor of a conciliar verdict than an individual decree. The power of monarchs is autocratic, which God Himself commands to obey for the sake of conscience; They have more than their advisers not only for the sake of the best truth, but so that disobedient people do not slander what this is, or it is by force and according to their whims, rather than the monarch commands with justice and truth: how much more so in the Church government, where there is a non-monarchal government , and the ruler is commanded not to rule over the clergy. Where even if there is only one rule, opponents can, by slandering one person, take away the power of the rule, which is not possible, where the determination comes from the conciliar class.

3. This is especially strong when the Collegium of Government under the Sovereign Monarch exists and is established by the Monarch. It is clear here that the Collegium is not a certain faction, an alliance formed in secret for its own interests, but for the common good by the command of the Autocrat, and His and the other consideration of the assembled person.

4. Another important thing is that in individual rule there is often a continuation and stop of work due to the necessary needs of the ruler and due to illness and disease. And when he is no longer alive, then things are stopped even more. It is different in the rule of the Council: not belonging to a single, even the most important person, others act, and things go on in an unstoppable flow.

5. But what is most useful is that in such a Collegium there is no place for partiality, deceit, or covetous judgment. How can things happen in the intercession of the guilty party, or in the condemnation of the innocent party, where even if one of them is biased or furious towards the person being judged, both the other and the third and others are free from that anger and bias? How can bribery overcome, where not because of power, but for the right and important reasons, the matter is done, and one (unless the blessed one shows his guilt) will be disgraced, so that he will not be recognized in his bribery? This is especially true when the Collegium takes place in such persons, for whom it is by no means impossible to secretly gather together and sit together, even if there are persons of different ranks and titles: Bishops, Archimandrites, Abbots and from the authorities of the White Priesthood. In truth, one cannot see here how such people dare to reveal to each other some insidious intention, other than agreeing to wrong.

6. And this is similar to the fact that the Collegium has the freest spirit in itself towards justice: it is not as if the sole ruler is afraid of the wrath of the powerful; It’s not as convenient to look for reasons for many, and even different types of persons, as for a single person.

7. This is also great, that from the conciliar government the fatherland will not be afraid of rebellions and confusion, which come from its own spiritual ruler. For the common people do not know the difference between spiritual power and autocratic power; but amazed by the great honor and glory of the Most High Shepherd, he thinks that such a ruler is the second Sovereign of the Autocrat, equivalent, or even greater than him, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better State, and the people themselves are accustomed to think so. What if the tares of power-hungry spiritual conversations are also added, and fire is added to dry boastfulness? Such simple hearts are corrupted by this opinion that they do not look at their Autocrat as if they were the Supreme Shepherd in any matter. And when some kind of discord is heard between them, everything is to the spiritual ruler rather than to the worldly ruler, even if they blindly and madly agree, and for him they dare to fight and rebel, and the damned flatter themselves that they are fighting according to God Himself, and do not defile their hands, but sanctify, even if they rush to bloodshed. For the sake of the same opinion among the people, great people are not simple, but insidious people; They are hostile to their Sovereign, when they see a quarrel between the Sovereign and the Shepherd, they kidnap them for a good opportunity in their malice, and under the guise of Church zeal, they will not hesitate to lay hands on Christ the Lord; and besides lawlessness, as if for the cause of God, the common people strive. Well, when even the Shepherd Himself has such an arrogant opinion of himself and does not want to sleep? It’s hard to say, how much disaster comes from here.

And God would not have given it fiction, so that it would only be powerful to think about this, but more than once in many States this seemed to be the most prophetic thing. Just delve into the History of Constantinople, below the times of Justinian, and much will appear. Yes, and the Pope overcame in no other way, not only did he suppress the Roman State in half, and steal a great part of himself, but he also shook other States almost to the point of extreme ruin more than once. Let us not remember our former swings like these!

There is no place for such evil in the Council Spiritual Government. For there is no great glory here and on the President himself, and the people are surprised by glory, there is no unnecessary lordship and shame, there is no high opinion of him, caresses cannot exalt him with boundless praise. As long as any good thing is done by such a Government, it is impossible for a single President to sign up for it. The very name of the President is not proud, it means nothing else, only the Chairman; He cannot, therefore, think less of himself, or anyone else, to think highly of him. And when the people still see that this Council Government has been established by the Royal Decree and the Senate verdict; then, even more so, he will remain in his meekness, and will greatly put aside the hope of having help for his rebellions from the spiritual order.

8. This will also please the Church and the State from such a Conciliar Government, that in it there will not only be one person from the neighbors, but the President or Chairman himself will be subject to the judgment of his brethren, that is, the same way the Collegium, even if he has sinned in some way, will not How does it work where there is only one autocratic shepherd in control: for he does not want to be sued by the Bishops who are his assistants. Even if he were forced to do this, then among simple people, ignorant of justice, and blindly reasoning, such a court would be suspicious and subject to reproach. Why does it happen that due to the evil of such a sovereign there is a need to convene an Ecumenical Council, which happens with the great difficulty of the entire fatherland, and with no small dependence, even in modern times (when the Eastern Patriarchs live under the yoke of Tours, and the Turks of Our State are greater than first feared) it does not seem possible to be.

9. Finally, in such a Council Government there will be a kind of school of spiritual government. For from the communication of many and various reasonings, and advice and correct arguments, such as frequent affairs require, everyone can conveniently learn spiritual politics from their neighbors, and learn through everyday practice how best to manage the house of God; and therefore the most desirable persons from among colleagues, or neighbors, will appear to ascend to the level of the Hierarchy worthy of ascending. And so in Russia, with the help of God, rudeness will soon disappear from the spiritual rank and hope for all the best.

Part II.- Affairs subject to management

Discussing the affairs that are managed in the spiritual Collegium, there are two types of them: the first type of affairs of the entire church, both spiritual and secular rank, and all great and small ranks of officials, as well as ordinary persons necessary, where it is appropriate to observe , if everything is done correctly according to the Christian law. And if anything is found that is contrary to him, and if there is any lack of instruction that is appropriate for every Christian, about which a little more will be said below.

The second type of work is necessary according to one’s own rank.

These five-numbered ranks are:

1. Bishops, 2. Elders, deacons and other church clergy, 3. Monks, 4. School houses, and in them teachers and students, as well as church preachers, 5. Worldly persons, since the essence of spiritual instructions is involved, which happens about the right and irregular marriages and other matters affecting secular people.

About all of this, what is important is offered here.

General affairs. Here two people should look, according to the proposal described above. First, if everything is done correctly and according to the Christian law, and if anything is being done and where it is contrary to the law.

The second instruction, if the Christian is satisfied, is used.

For the first consideration, the following points are essential:

1. Find newly composed and composed Akathists and other services and Prayers, which, especially in our times in Little Russia, were composed; there are not a small number of them; are they compositions in accordance with sacred scripture? and do they not have something in themselves that is contrary to the word of God, or at least something obscene and vain?

2. Also, determine that these numerous prayers, even if they were direct, are not due to everyone, and by the will of everyone alone, and not in a church council, they should be used powerfully, so that over time they would not become part of the law, and conscience would the human one was not burdened.

3. Look at the Stories of the Saints to see if some of them are falsely fictitious, telling what did not happen, or contrary to Christian Orthodox teaching or idle and worthy of laughter. And such stories should be exposed and prohibited, with the announcement of the lies found in them. For the essence of such things is clearly false and contrary to sound teaching. For example, in the life of Euphrosynus of Pskov, the dispute about the dual alleluia of singing is clearly false, and from a certain idler, fictitious, in which, in addition to the very vain dogma of the double alleluia, Savelli's, Nestor's and other heresies are found. And although that author erred in ignorance, it is not proper for the spiritual government to tolerate such fictions, and instead of healthy spiritual food, present poison to people. It is especially important when ordinary people cannot reason between the gums and the teeth, but they see something written in a book and hold on to it tightly and stubbornly.

4. In fact, it is appropriate to diligently search for these inventions that lead a person into bad practices or deeds, and offer a flattering image of salvation. For example, do not do it on Friday and celebrate, and they say that Friday is angry with those who do not celebrate, and comes with a great threat against them. Likewise, fast on certain twelve Fridays, and then for many physical and spiritual gains; In fact, it is also more important than other times to honor the services of Mass of the Annunciation, Matins of the Resurrection and Vespers of Pentecost. This, for example, is remembered, because it harms the few and the simple. Although one should have concern for the few and for one brother, lest he be tempted by that one, for his sake Christ died; Otherwise, they are the same teachings, which even the most honest people are likely to consider for their simplicity, and therefore the most harmful essence. And this is the legend of the Kiev-Pechersk Monastery that a person buried there, even if he died without repentance, will be saved. And how far this and similar stories lead away from the path of salvation, everyone, although a little accustomed to the Orthodox teaching, but a person of good conscience, confesses it not without sighing.

5. There may be some obscene or harmful ceremonies. It is heard that in Little Russia, in the Starodubsky regiment on a special holiday, they bring a simple-haired woman under the name of Friday, and they lead her in a church ceremony (is it true what they say) and at church the people honor her with gifts and with the hope of some benefit. Also in another place the priests and the people pray before the oak tree; and the priest distributes the branches of this oak tree to the people for blessing. Find out if this is how it works, and if the Bishops know about this place. If this and others like it are found, they lead people into open and shameful idolatry.

6. About the relics of saints, where any doubtful ones will appear, to look for: much has been confused about this. For example, some alien ones are offered: the body of the Holy Protomartyr Stephen lies in Venice on the outskirts, in the Benedictine monastery, in the church of St. George, and in Rome in the country church of St. Lawrence; there are so many nails of the cross of the Lord, and so much milk of the Most Holy Theotokos throughout Italy, and countless others of the like. Let us see if We too have such idleness?

7. Regarding the icons of the Saints, look at what is written in the promise of the appointed Bishops.

8. Another thing to observe, so that as it happened, it would not happen in the future: they say that some Bishops, in order to help poor churches, or to build new ones, ordered to look for the appearance of an icon in the desert, or at a source, and the icon itself testified to being found miraculous.

9. A bad and harmful and very ungodly custom has come into being: church services and prayers are sung with two voices and many voices, so that Matins or Vespers are dismantled into parts, suddenly many people sing them, and two or three prayer services are suddenly performed by many singers and chanters. This happened out of laziness of the clergy, and became a custom, and of course such prayers should be translated.

10. Greatly shameful and this was found, (as they say) prayers to people far away, through their messengers to give in the cap. For memory this is written, so that sometimes you can taste whether this is still happening.

But here there is no need to count all the wrongs: in a word, say that either can be called in the name of superstition, and it is superfluous, indecent for salvation, invented for one’s own interest from hypocrites, and deceiving the common people, and like snow marks, prohibiting the right path of truth. All this is added to this inspection, as a general evil: it can be found in all ranks. And here some are offered only as examples, so that it would be powerful to observe and so on.

And the first type is general affairs.

The second type of general affairs is, as it was predicted, to examine whether we have a Christian teaching sufficient for correction?

For although it is known that the Holy Scripture itself contains perfect laws and covenants for our salvation, necessary, according to the voice of the Apostle, 2 Timothy 3: all Scripture is inspired by God and is useful for teaching, for reproof, for correction, for punishment, even in righteousness that the man of God may be perfect, prepared for every good work; On the other hand, few know how to honor a book, and from bookstores, few can collect everything from Scripture that is most necessary for salvation; For this reason, they require the guidance of the most perfect men. For this reason, the pastoral order was ordained by God, so that he could teach the flock entrusted to himself from the Holy Scriptures.

And yet, contrary to the Russian Church of many peoples, there are few presbyters who could preach the dogmas and laws of the Holy Scriptures by heart; then there is an absolute need to have some kind of short, clear and understandable books for ordinary people, which will contain everything that is sufficient for the instruction of the people; and read these books in parts on weekly and holiday days in church before the people.

And although there are quite a number of such books, such as Homology or the Orthodox Confession, there are also some great teachers of the Saints, interpretive conversations and moralizing words; Otherwise, this is a teaching that is inconvenient for everyone, especially for the common people. For the book of the Orthodox Confession is a considerable one, and for this reason it is difficult to accommodate in the memory of ordinary people and is written in a difficult language, and for this reason it is not intelligible to ordinary people. Likewise, the books of the great teachers, Chrysostom, Theophylact and others were written in the Hellenic language, and in that language the essence is clear, but their Slavonic translation has become obscure and difficult to understand from people and those trained, and is by no means incomprehensible to simple ignoramuses. And besides this, the teachers’ interpretive conversations contain many high theological mysteries; Likewise, many people say that it was appropriate to say then according to the inclination of different peoples, and according to the circumstances of those times, which now an impolite person does not know how to use to his advantage. But it is often appropriate to instill in the common people that which is common to all, and which is due to everyone, according to their rank. It is also impossible to have these books in all the rural churches, except in the city ones, and even then the rich ones. For this reason, it is appropriate to heal human weakness in a different way. And such reasoning comes, if only we knew all the most important dogmas of our faith, and which is the view of our salvation arranged by God; and if they knew the commandments of God to turn away from evil and do good, then the instruction would be sufficient for them. And if someone, even with such knowledge, remained corrupted; then such a person himself would be irresponsible before God, and not the pastoral rank, which serves his salvation well.

And for this reason, you need to write three small books. The first is about the most important saving dogmas of our faith; The same is true about the commandments of God contained in the Decalogue.

The second is about your own positions of every rank.

The third one, in which clear sermons will be collected from various Holy teachers, both about the most important dogmas, and especially about sins and virtues and, in fact, about the positions of each rank. The first and second books will have their own arguments from the Holy Scripture itself, but they will be understandable to everyone and brief. The third is from the Holy Fathers, who teaches in the first and second.

Reading these books in this order will go a long way. On Sunday or a holiday, at Matins, read a small part from the first book, and in another row, a part from the second book, and on the same day, after mass, read the word from the third book about the same thing that was read at Matins. And so the same teaching, heard at Matins and confirmed at Mass, can be better cemented in the memory of those who hear it.

And then divide all these parts so that all three books can be read in a quarter of a year. For in this way the people will hear all their necessary instructions four times a year, and what they hear will be able to remember well.

But also be aware that children can learn the first and second books from the beginning of their ABC teaching.

And although these books will number three; Otherwise, all three can be contained in one small book, so that they can be bought with a small amount of money, and not only in churches, but also in the houses of any hunter without difficulty.

Bishops' Affairs. There was a word about general affairs, something has already been proposed about our own, what Bishops, Presbyters, monks and others should

About the Bishops, this following is the essence of knowledge worthy.

1) Bishops must have all Ecumenical and local councils, and what is commanded in them, both for their own rank and for the entire clergy, must know much, which cannot be done without diligent and frequent reading.

2) We must first of all know the degrees of homogeneity and kinship, and which ones can accommodate marriage and which ones cannot, either according to the commandment of God in the books of Leviticus, chapter 18, or according to the church, in the canons of the Fathers and the Tsar. They would know this themselves, and not descend on anyone else, even if they had a person skilled in this.

3) And since both the first and second above-mentioned positions cannot be well known without diligent reading; but whether everyone will be keen on reading is unknown: for this reason, a decree will be given to all Bishops from the Collegium of the Spiritual, so that everyone at his meal should read the canons appropriate to himself, and perhaps this could sometimes be omitted on the days of great holidays, or in the presence of worthy guests, or for some other correct guilt.

4) If a difficult case arises, and the Bishop is at a loss what to do; then first write about it, asking for advice, to another nearby Bishop, or to another skilled person; and then, if he were already dissatisfied, he would write to the Spiritual Collegium in the Reigning St. Petersburg clearly, and clearly, and in detail.

5) The essence of the canons is that prohibiting Bishops from lingering outside their Diocese for a long time (everyone can tell from the cathedral book). If a necessary need arises, holding him outside the Diocese, the turn, for example, of serving in the Reigning City, or another correct fault, also if a serious weakness comes, and it is very prohibitive to manage affairs (for such a weak person is, as well as not present) : in this case, the Bishop, in addition to his ordinary house stewards, must assign to the affairs of a certain intelligent and honest man, an Archimandrite or an Abbot, assigning to help him several other intelligent people from the monastic or priestly rank; and they would inform him of important matters in writing to the absent Bishop, and they would inform him in words in words, if he can listen due to his weakness. And if things happened that their administrators were perplexed to decide, they would write about it to the Spiritual Collegium, as was said above about the Bishops themselves.

6) A similar commandment and decree would be given to the Bishop and his assistants, the Archimandrite, the Abbot, the Builder, the parish Priest, when great weakness or important guilt comes to them, keeping them outside the monastery or their parish.

7) And if the Bishop, due to extreme old age, or due to some other incurable illness, comes to extreme exhaustion, without hope of better health, so that it will be impossible for him to manage his duties; and at that time the Bishop, in addition to the above-mentioned extraordinary ones, in place of his certain stewards, must register with the Spiritual Collegium. Even if the Bishop did not want to write about himself, then his stewards should write about him. And in the Spiritual Collegium there will be a discussion about what to do, whether to give an Administrator to this Diocese, or to install a new Bishop.

8) The Bishop must watch, which he promised to watch with an oath at his installation, to sit about the monks, so that they do not drag themselves around aimlessly, so that unnecessary uninhabited churches are not built, so that false miracles are not invented for the icons of the Saints; also about cliques, about the bodies of the dead unattested, and other things that are good to observe.

However, in order to more conveniently go into action, the Bishop must indicate in all cities, so that the ordering officers, or the deans specially appointed for this, like spiritual fiscals, will oversee everything and report it to the Bishop. If such something were to appear somewhere, under the guilt of an eruption, who would want to hide it?

9) Greatly, for the correction of the church, it is useful to eat this, so that every Bishop has in his house, or at his house, a school for the children of priests, or others, in the hope of certain priesthood. And in that school there would be a smart and honest teacher, who would teach children not only pure, clear and accurate honor in books (which, although necessary, is still a dissatisfied thing), but would teach honor and understanding. And if you read the first two books mentioned above powerfully and by heart: one about the dogmas of faith; and another about the positions of all ranks, when such books will be published. And if a student were extremely stupid, or even though he was witty, he was depraved, and stubborn and invincible laziness, such a one would, out of temptation, be dismissed from school, having taken away from them all the hope of the priestly rank.

10) The same students assigned to the Bishop’s school (when, with God’s help, their number will be sufficient) should be promoted to the priesthood; or if someone elects the monastic rank from them, then to Archimandrites, or Abbots, unless some important guilt appears that does not allow him to do so.

And if the Bishop ordains a person unlearned in that school to the priesthood, or to the monastic degree, bypassing the scientist, and without the correct guilt: then he is subject to punishment, which will be determined in the Ecclesiastical Collegium.

11) But so that there is no grumbling from the parents of the students for the great cost of their teacher, and for the purchase of books, as well as for the food of their sons, far from the home of their students: it is appropriate that the students be fed and taught when they are ready Bishop's books.

And so that this could happen, the reasoning about this is as follows: from the most noble monasteries in the Diocese, take 20 shares of all bread, and from the church lands, where they are, take 30 shares of all bread. And so many people would have enough bread for food and other needs (clothing is not included), if there were so many disciples with the necessary servants.

And the Bishop himself would be content with the teacher or teachers with food and money from the Bishop’s treasury, as the Spiritual Collegium is determined by the judgment of the place.

12) Extortions like these from monasteries and church lands will not bring even a little poverty to the churches and monasteries, as long as they have good and faithful house-building. And throughout the years the Bishop was given knowledge of the quantity of all the grain that had been collected; and the Bishop would supervise where this bread goes, which exceeds all proper needs with its content.

And for the sake of this, let the Spiritual Collegium contain books of income and expenses of all the most noble monasteries in Russia. The word here about expenses is ordinary and always, and not extraordinary, occasional ones, for example, for the necessary building, etc.

However, even for such extraordinary expenses, it is appropriate to make prudent guesses at the Collegium, against the needs of every monastery and against the parishes.

13) And so that the Bishops do not complain that it will be unprofitable for them to equip a teacher or teachers, they are instructed not to keep unnecessary servants, and not to build necessary buildings (unless the buildings are profitable, for example, mills, etc.); So they did not multiply their sacred attire and all their clothing, beyond what they required for their honor.

But for better management of all, there should be books from the Episcopal parishes in the Spiritual Collegium. Everything else about teachers and teaching will be in its place below.

14) Every Bishop would know the measure of his honor, and would not think highly of it and the matter would be great, but there is no honor, even a noble one, defined in scripture. The Apostle, destroying the opinion of the Corinthians, who were arrogant about their shepherds, says that the pastoral work has all its haste and fruit from God himself, who acts in the hearts of men. Az, speech, planted, Apollos gave water, God will grow. And therefore it suggests that for this return the person has no praise left. Neither plant nor feed, but God gives the increase. And he calls shepherds there, servants of God, and builders of His mysteries, if only they remain faithful in that work. For precisely the outward work of the pastor is to preach, to insist, to forbid in time and untimely, and to build the rites of the Mysteries of the Saints. The internal work of turning hearts to repentance and renewal of life is the work of one God, through His grace through the word and the secret action of shepherds, and also through an instrument acting invisibly.

For the same reason, it is proposed to tame this great cruel glory of the Bishops, so that their hands, which are still healthy, are not forced, and the brethren at hand would not bow to the ground. And these fans, willingly and impudently, crawl on the ground, and slyly, in order to obtain a degree for themselves unworthy, in order to cover up their fury and theft. The truth is that the pastoral work, if only it is done, although external, is no small thing, like the embassy of God. And God commands that the elders who practice goodness will be given special honor, especially those who labor in word and teaching. 1. Timothy 5. In both cases, this honor is moderate, but it will not be superfluous and even royal; and it is not for the shepherds themselves to seek for moderate things and to torture them from their assistants, but to be content with what is freely given.

16) It follows from this and that that the Bishop should not be impudent and quick, but long-suffering and judicious in the use of his binding power, that is, in excommunication and anathema. For the Lord gave this power for creation, and not for destruction, says the Apostle 1 Corinthian 10. And the intention of that same teacher of the nations was to betray the Corinthian, clearly a sinner, to Satan for the destruction of the flesh, so that the spirit would be saved. 1 Corinth. 5. For this power to be used correctly, two things need to be looked at:

First, what kind of guilt is worthy of punishment.

Another thing is how a Bishop should act in punishment, vol.

Guilt can be determined by this consideration: if someone clearly blasphemes the name of God, or the Holy Scripture, or the Church, or is clearly a sinner, not ashamed of his deeds, but even more arrogant, or without the correct guilt of repentance and the Holy Eucharist does not accept the Holy Eucharist for more than a year, or does anything else, with obvious abuse and ridicule of the law of God, such a person, after repeated punishment, remains stubborn and proud, and is worthy of being judged by a great deal of execution. For it is not just for sin that one is subject to anathema, but for the obvious and proud contempt of the judgment of God and the authority of the Church with the great temptation of weak brethren, and that such a stench of atheism emits from oneself.

The following or action of this matter will be correct. First, the Bishop will send his confessor to him to reprimand him for his guilt alone with meekness and admonition, so that he ceases his deeds. And yet, as if by obvious sin and pride, he seduced the Church; then the spiritual one will beg him, so that on the approaching holiday day he would bring repentance to the spiritual father, and would accept penance, and would partake of the Holy Eucharist in front of the people, so that his change would become obvious, and the temptation would be ruined, and would not return to his vomit. And if, having heard this, the guilty one submits and does what is commanded, the Bishop has acquired his brother, and there is nothing more to do.

And if this embassy is in vain, then the Bishop, having lost some time, will call him to himself honestly with a request, and then repeat the instruction to him in secret, present only to the only spiritual one who went to him. And if he listens, he has a brother.

And if the one who is called does not go to the Bishop, then the Bishop of the same spiritual person with other certain honest persons, spiritual and worldly, especially with his friends, will send him to admonish him in the same way as before. And here, if he bowed down and did it according to instructions, the work was done.

And if he remains adamant and proud, he will also powerfully renovate the same embassy.

If everything goes in vain, then the Bishop will order the protodeacon on a holiday in the church to notify the people with these or similar words: the person known to you (name), with such obvious sin, is seducing the church and is a despiser of the wrath of God, and the pastoral instruction, repeated to him more than once , dismissed with an oath; For this reason, your shepherd (name) prays to your father’s love, that you all pray to the gracious God for him, that he may soften his hard-heartedness, and may his heart be pure in him and incline him to repentance. And whoever has the closest communication with him, exhort him, and beg him, both individually and with others together with all zeal, to bring repentance, and report to him that if he is uncorrected and despised, he will remain until such a time (the time will be determined according to reasoning); then he will be subject to eruption from the church.

And if for this reason the criminal remains adamant and stubborn, then the Bishop will not proceed to anathema; but first he will write to the Spiritual Collegium about everything that happened; and having received permission from the Collegium in a letter, he will clearly anathematize the sinner, having drawn up such or a similar formula or sample, and commanded the protodeacon in the Church in front of the people to read: a man (name) previously known to you has seduced the Church by such and such an obvious crime of God’s law, and he despised the repeated pastoral exhortation leading him to repentance; watch out for his rejection from the church, unless he repents, having destroyed what was announced in the hearing of the people, he remains to this day in his hardness of heart, not giving hope for his correction: for this reason our Shepherd, according to the commandment of Christ, given to himself by the same Lord’s authority, casts him out from society He cuts off a Christian, and like an indecent member, from the body of the Church of Christ, informing all the faithful that he is not involved in the gifts of God acquired for us by the blood of our Savior and Lord Jesus Christ, until he truly repents from the heart. And for this reason, it is forbidden and not blessed for him to enter the church, since he cannot be a participant in the church, or in his home, or in any other place, except for the holy and terrible mystery of the Eucharist and other Holy Mysteries and church requirements. And if he had entered the church secretly or openly, but by force; then he is subject to greater condemnation, and even more, if he dares to partake of the Holy Mysteries insidiously or by force. Let the priests forbid him in every possible way from entering the church; and if they cannot prevent him for the sake of his strength, then except for the liturgy, let him cease from all church services, until he leaves. Likewise, let the priests not go to him with prayer, blessings and the Holy Sacraments, under deprivation of their rank.

If it were known to everyone that he (name) himself is solely subject to this anathema, but neither his wife, nor his children, nor his other household, would they even want to be jealous of his fury, and would they proudly and clearly dare for this oath imposed on him? rebuke the church of God.

This, or another example which the Collegium considers in its deliberation, will stare at the example of anathema, after reading it will be stuck on the doors of the church, the single Throne, or in all the Diocese of that church, the Collegium will judge.

Then, if the ejected person comes to his senses and wants to repent; then he must himself, or, if he himself is not able, then through honest other persons, bring his repentance with all humility publicly in the church to the Bishop, and ask for permission with confession of his sin and proud contempt. And then the Bishop will ask him questions: if truly and for the sake of forgiveness of sins, fearing the wrath of God and asking for God's mercy, he repents; and if he believes that the pastoral power to decide and knit is not vain, but strong and real and terrible; and if it is promised that from now on he will be an obedient son of the church and will not have the power of pastoral disdain: and according to his answers, spoken in the hearing of all the people, the Bishop will command him to firmly trust in God's mercy, for the death of the Savior the sinner who repents, and to read the permission over him. Also, having taught him about the correction of his life (which teaching can be written later), the designated holiday day will indicate to him, after confession before his spiritual father, to come to the communion of the Holy Eucharist.

And if the exiled one, without repenting, begins to curse the church anathema, or even to do dirty tricks on the Bishop or another clergyman; and then the Bishop will send a petition about this to the Spiritual Collegium, and the Collegium, having found the truth, will insistently ask for judgment from the appropriate worldly authority, or from the Tsar's Majesty himself.

Only the Bishop will firmly indicate this to the Collegium, so that they do not do both anathemas and permission for the sake of their own profit or any other self-interest, and that they seek in such an important matter not their own, but the Lord Jesus.

Such an act is correct, in agreement with the word of God and not subject to suspicion.

But this word was anathema, a curse, a punishment similar to death. By anathema, a person is cut off from the mental body of Christ, that is, from the church, and therefore a non-Christian remains alienated from the inheritance of all the blessings acquired for us by the Savior’s death. This is because it comes from the words of God: Be like a pagan and a publican, and it is fitting to betray such a person to Satan, and other similar things.

There is also a lesser punishment in the Holy Church, called excommunication or prohibition. This is when the Church does not clearly anathematize a sinner and does not expel him from the flock of Christ; but he only humbles him by excommunicating him from communication with the faithful in common prayers, does not order him to enter the churches of God, and for some time forbids him to partake of the Holy Mysteries. To put it briefly, through anathema a person is like someone who has been killed, but through excommunication or prohibition he is like someone who has been arrested for arrest.

Both of these great and lesser executions are represented at church councils, where heretics are anathematized. And criminals of the cathedral rules are punishable by excommunication.

The guilt of a lesser penalty, that is, worthy of excommunication, is a certain great and obvious sin, but not the greatest obvious sin, about which we have already spoken above. For example, when someone clearly commits misbehavior, withdraws from church singing due to duty, having clearly offended or dishonored an honest person, he does not ask for forgiveness; The Bishop himself, or through a confessor, has taught such people, so that they will bring clear repentance, even if they do not want to do it, although, without showing great pride and contempt, he can humble them with excommunication without these great warnings through the protodeacon, but only on a small hartin by writing the guilt of the criminal and excommunication his.

And in such a matter, the Bishop should not go to the Spiritual Collegium for permission, but he himself is free and strong to do this, if only he does this not out of passion, but also with diligent search. If someone who is innocent is excommunicated, and he seeks his trial in the Collegium, the Bishop will be punished, according to the reasoning of the Spiritual Collegium.

17) There was a word above under the number eight, so that the Bishops would look to see whether the presbyteries and monks and others were keeping these commandments throughout his Diocese, and so that he would have spiritual fiscals for this. Either way, this is not enough; for these fiscals, being friends with their benefactors, or the bribes of the earth, hide a lot: for this reason it is fitting for a Bishop to embrace and visit his Diocese once every year, or every two years. And there is this, besides many others, the great image of Paul the Apostle, as appears in Acts ch. 14, art. 21, 22. and Acts ch. 15, art. 36. Romans ch. 1, art. 11, 12. 1 Corinthians ch. 4, Art. 12, 1 Thessalonica ch. 3 tbsp. 2. 1 Solunyan chap. 3, art. 10.

How better could this visit be, the following regulations are necessary:

1. Summer time seems to be a better time to visit than winter time. This is because the Bishop himself and the churches visited are not as much in the summer as in the winter to spend on food and other needs. There is no need for hay, and little firewood is required. Bread, fish, horse feed are cheaper. And maybe the Bishop, not far from the city, in a field in a tent, will stay for a while, so as not to work for the priesthood, or the citizens with an apartment, especially where the city is wretched.

2. Upon his arrival, the Bishop, on the next day or on the third, having gathered the city and village presbyters, will perform the sacred liturgy; according to the Liturgy, with all the Priests, he will sing a prayer service for the health and victory of the Most Sovereign Monarch, for the correction and well-being of the churches, for the conversion of schismatics, for the goodness of the air. , about the abundance of the fruits of the earth, and so on. And our own canon will be compiled, containing all kinds of needs.

3. Then, after all the singing has been completed, he will speak a teaching word to the priesthood and the people about true repentance, and every office, especially the priestly rank. And there he will add an admonition to suggest to him who has certain spiritual needs and doubtful cases of conscience, as well as what is seen in the church clergy not corrected and so on. And since not every Bishop can compose a pure word, for this reason it is appropriate to compose such a word in the Spiritual Collegium, and then the Bishops would read it in the churches they visit.

4. The Bishop may secretly ask the lesser churchmen, and if anyone else appears, how the presbyters and deacons live. And although it is not proper to believe everyone’s report soon, in both cases the best reason for consideration and correction will appear.

5. Until the Bishop manages the reported affairs, he does not invite guests to himself, and the one who is invited does not go to others, lest he be deceived by the treaty, or become suspicious of himself that he is judging by partiality for his own pleasure.

6. If a matter arises for a long time due to the absence of witnesses, or due to some other obstacle: then, having written it down, put it aside for management in your house. And then so that he would not stay in one place for long, and he would have time to visit the entire Diocese.

7. If the Bishop wants to invite guests to himself, then he would send the entire treaty from his own treasury, and would not impose taxes on the priesthood or on monasteries. And he cannot excuse himself by his misery: for it is not out of duty, but out of his free will, whether he will invite guests or not.

8. Other deeds and actions, both of the priesthood and of parish people, can be hidden before the Bishop, although they are obvious to the people; and to secretly and skillfully inquire about such people. And this cannot be hidden, whether the Priest reads on holidays the instructional books about which we spoke above. And if anyone does not read because of laziness, he will be punished in front of the other priests according to reason.

9. The Bishop will ask the priesthood and other people whether superstitions are being made anywhere? Are there any cliques? Doesn’t anyone show false miracles at icons, treasure chests, springs, etc., in order to bring about evil? And such idleness should be prohibited with the threat of an oath against stubborn ones.

10. It is better to ask the clergy and laity in towns and villages about the government and behavior of nearby (if not where the essence) monasteries are, rather than loudly muttering about the same thing in the monasteries themselves.

11. And so that the Bishop does not remember what he should observe in the churches and monasteries he visits; For this reason, I would have with me the written off monastic and priestly positions, which follow here below:

12. The Bishop must firmly command his servants, so that in the cities and monasteries they visit they should remain orderly and sober, and not create temptation; Most of all, they would not ask the monks and priests for food and drink, and extra horse feed. How much more would they not dare to rob under the guilt of cruel punishment. For the bishop's servants are usually the ones who eat the best cattle; and where they see the power of their ruler, there with great pride and recklessness, like Tatar, they rush to kidnap.

13. But the news is that every Bishop, whatever his degree, whether a simple Bishop, or an Archbishop, or a Metropolitan, is that he is subordinate to the Spiritual Collegium, as the supreme power, and must listen to its decrees, and must be content with its determination. And for the sake of this, if we offend our brother another Bishop, we will offend him, it is appropriate for him not to take revenge himself, not with slander, not with stories, even if they were true, of his sins, not less with the instigation of certain powerful persons, spiritual or worldly, and especially not dares to anathematize his enemy the Bishop; but he offers his grievances as a report to the Spiritual Collegium, and there he asks for two judgments for himself.

14. It follows that every Archimandrite, Abbot, Builder, parish priest, as well as deacons and other clerics, freely and freely ask the Ecclesiastical Collegium for judgment against their Bishop, if anyone is seriously wronged by him in any way. So, if someone is not satisfied with the court of his Bishop, he is free to cause a provocation, sit down, transfer the case to the court of the Spiritual Collegium; and the Bishop must allow such petitioners and plaintiffs this freedom, and not restrain them, nor threaten them, nor, after their departure to the Ecclesiastical Collegium, print or plunder their houses.

But so that this does not cause many to blame for the fearlessness and contempt of their shepherds, the Spiritual Collegium imposes considerable punishment on those who would dare to demand their shepherds with a false report, or would in vain commit a provocation from the Episcopal court to the court of the Spiritual Collegium.

15. Finally, every Bishop will have to send reports to the Collegium twice a year, informing the Collegium about the state and behavior of his Diocese, whether everything is good, or whether there is some non-correction that he cannot rearrange. And even if everything were good, then the Bishop must inform the Collegium that, thank God, everything is good. But if he had announced that everything was good, and from there it would have seemed that something superstitious or clearly ungodly was going on in his Diocese; The bishop, knowing this, would have concealed it and not reported it to the Collegium; then the Collegium will call him to trial, and, having been satisfied with the conviction, he will be subject to punishment, which will be determined.

School houses and in them teachers and students, as well as church preachers

It is known to the whole world what poverty and weakness there was in the Russian army when it did not have the correct teaching for itself, and how its strength incomparably increased, and its arrogance became great and terrible when our Most Powerful Monarch, His Royal Majesty Peter I, taught it with considerable regulations. The same is true of Architecture, and Medicine, and Political Government, and all other matters.

And especially the same can be understood about the government of the church: when there is no light of teaching, there cannot be good behavior for the church, there cannot be disorder and many laughable superstitions, as well as discord and insane heresies.

It is bad that many say that the teaching is guilty of heresies: for besides the ancients it is from proud stupidity, and not from the teaching of the raving heretics, the Valentines, Manichaeans, Caphars, Euchites, Donatists and others, whose stupidity is described by Irenaeus, Epiphanius, Augustine, Theodoret and others; Is it not because of rudeness and ignorance that our Russian schismatics became cruelly enraged? And although there are heresiarchs from learned people, there was Arius, Nestorius and others; but the heresy in them was born not from teaching, but from the meager understanding of the sacred scriptures, and grew and strengthened from anger and pride, which did not allow them to change their bad opinion, even after knowing the truth against their conscience. And although from their teaching they had the power to compose sophisms, to eat insidious arguments from their wisdom: otherwise, whoever attributed this evil simply to teaching, would be forced to say that when a doctor gives someone poison to drink, that doctor’s teaching is guilty; and when a learned soldier cunningly and powerfully defeats him, his military training is to blame. And if we look through history, like through telescopes, at the past centuries, we will see all the worst in the dark times than in the bright times of teaching. The Bishops did not become so arrogant until the four hundredth year, as afterward they caught fire, especially the Bishops of Constantinople and Rome; for then there was teaching, but afterwards it became scarce. And if the teaching of the Church or the State were harmful, then the best individuals themselves would not study Christianity, and would forbid others to study: otherwise we see that all our ancient teachers studied not only the Holy Scriptures, but also external Philosophy. And besides many others, the most glorious pillars of the church also fight about external teaching, namely: Basil the Great in his words to learning infants, Chrysostom in books on monasticism, Gregory the Theologian in his words on Julian the Apostate. But there would be a lot to say, if only there was a special word about this one thing.

For good and solid teaching is of all benefit, both to the fatherland and to the church, like the root and seed and foundation. But this is something that must be carefully observed so that there is good and thorough teaching.

For there is a teaching that is not even worthy of its name; and in both cases, people, although smart, but ignorant, are judged to be for direct teaching.

Many people usually ask: in which schools was Onsitsa? And when they hear that he was in Rhetoric, in Philosophy and in Theology; People are highly regarded for their single names, which is often a mistake. For not everyone learns good things from good teachers, either because of their dullness of mind or because of their laziness, especially when the teacher is little skilled in his work, or less skilled.

It is fitting that from the year five hundred to the year fourteen hundred, nine hundred years later, in all of Europe, almost all teachings were in great poverty and lack of art, so that among the best authors who wrote in those times, we see great wit, but we do not see great light . In the year four hundred and a thousand, the most curious and therefore skillful teachers began to appear, and little by little many Academies became much larger, and from those ancient Augustan years they gained great power: many of both schools remained in the same mud, so that among them Rhetoric, and Philosophy and other teachings the names are exactly the essence, but that’s not the point. The reasons for this are different, which are not mentioned here for the sake of brevity.

The stupidest people who have tasted such, such, visionary and dreamy teachings come from the unlearned. For beings are very dark, they imagine themselves to be perfect, and thinking that everything can be known, they have learned, they do not want, but they think lower than the honor of the book, and learn more. When, contrary to direct teaching, an enlightened person never has satiety in his knowledge, but never stops learning, even if he survived the Methuselah age.

It is unfortunate that these unfounded sages are not only not useful, but are also harmful to the community, the fatherland and the church; They humble themselves to the utmost before the authorities, but cunningly, so as to steal their mercy and climb to the level of honesty. People of equal rank are not hated; and if anyone is praised for his teaching, they try in every possible way to vilify and blaspheme him before the people and the authorities. They are prone to riots when they perceive high hopes. When they theologize, they must not avoid being heretical; Because of their ignorance, they will let it slip for their own convenience, but they do not want to change their stated opinions, so as not to show themselves that they do not know everything. And the wise men affirmed this saying among themselves: it is the property of a man to be wise to cancel his opinion.

This proposal was judged for the good that if the Tsar's Majesty wanted to found an Academy, the Spiritual Collegium would discuss which teachers to identify first, and what kind of teaching to show them, so that the State's dependence would not go in vain, and instead of the expected benefit, there would not be a vanity worthy of laughter .

And how to cope with this dangerously and skillfully, the following regulations are:

1. It’s not like many teachers at first, but the first year it’s enough to have one or two who would teach Grammar, that is, the language correctly to know Latin, or Greek, or both languages.

2. The next year, and the third, and others, going on to greater teachings, and not delaying the first for new students, a larger number of teachers will be added.

3. Tempt in every possible way what kind of person he is in his work who wants to be a school teacher: for example, wanting to know whether he is skilled in the Latin language, order him to translate the Russian addition into Latin, and also the Latin word of a certain author famous in that language, translate into Russian; and order the skilled to examine and testify his translations, and it will immediately appear whether it is perfect, or average, or even worse, or very nothing. The essence of other teachings is inherent temptation, which can be especially powerful to write off.

4. And although he may seem unskilled in the required teaching, it is still powerful to know that he is witty, it is significant that he did not achieve it due to laziness, or because of his bad teacher, and command him to study for six months or a year from authors who are skilled in this matter, as long as the teacher wants to be. Only to do this for the poverty of people, and it would be better not to rely on such people.

5. Order certain and good teachers to first tell their students briefly, but clearly, what the power of real teaching is, Grammar, for example, Rhetoric, Logic, etc.; and what do we want to achieve through this or that teaching, so that the disciples can see the shore to which they are swimming, and have a better hunt and know their daily profit, as well as their shortcomings.

6. To select the most distinguished authors in any teaching, who testify in the glorious Academies: namely, in Paris, by the command of King Louis the fourth, the Latin Grammar was so briefly and completely concluded; What a powerful hope for a witty student to fully learn the Onago language in one year, when in our country few people postulate in five or six years. What can you know from the fact that a student of Philosophy or Theology cannot translate even the average Latin style. Having chosen, as they say, the best authors in Grammar, Rhetoric and other teachings, submit them to the Academy and order that they be the leaders, and not others, taught in schools.

7. In Theology, actually order to teach the main dogmas of our faith and the law of God. If only a theological teacher would read the Holy Scriptures, and would learn to rule how to know the direct, true power and interpretation of the Scriptures, and would strengthen all dogmas with the testimony of the Scriptures. And to help this matter, the Holy Fathers would diligently read the books, and such Fathers, who diligently wrote about dogmas, due to the need for strife in the church that happened, with a feat against the opposite heresies. For the ancient teachers were actually about dogmas, one writing about this, the other about another. For example: about the Trinity mystery, Gregory of Nazianzus in his five Theological Words, and Augustine in his books on the Trinity and on the Divinity of the Son of God, besides these, Athanasius the Great in five books on Arian on the Divinity of the Holy Spirit, Basil the Great in five books on Eunomia; about the hypostasis of Christ Cyril of Alexandria on Nestoria; about the duality of natures in Christ, one message from Leon, Pope of Rome to Flavian, Patriarch of Constantinople, is enough; about original sin and about the grace of God Augustine in many books on the Pelagians and others. In addition, the actions and conversations of the Ecumenical and Local Synods are extremely useful. And from such teachers, with the Holy Scriptures, the Theological teaching will be in vain. And although the Theological teacher can seek help from the newest teachers of other faiths; but should not learn from them and rely on their tales, but only accept their guidance, what arguments they use from Scripture and from ancient teachers. Especially in the dogmas in which the Gentiles agree with us; but it is not easy to believe their arguments, but see if there is such a word in Scripture, or in the books of the Fathers, and whether it has any force, in which they accept. Many times these gentlemen lie, and they come up with things that never happened. Many times the true word is corrupted. Be here one, for example, the word of the Lord to Peter: I pray for you, that your faith may not fail, said about Peter personally, about the person of Petrov himself, and the Latins draw it to their Pope, suggesting that the Pope cannot sin in faith, at least I wanted to. A theological teacher must teach not according to other people’s tales, but according to his own knowledge and, sometimes choosing his own time, show it in his books to his students, so that they themselves are known, and do not doubt whether their teacher is telling the truth or lying.

8. On this occasion, because of the passing advice, I remember that in schools the library should be happy. For without a library, the Academy is like without a soul. And you can buy a satisfied library for two thousand rubles.

The library is not forbidden to be used by the teacher at all days and hours, as long as the books are not sorted out from cells, but they are kept in the library office itself. And for students and other hunters to open the library on designated days and hours.

And those who know the language would go to the library at special hours and days due to duty, and at others for hunting and at scheduled times. Every teacher would ask which author he honors, and what he read, and what he wrote; and if he didn’t understand something, then the teacher would explain it to him. This is very useful and quickly transforms a person into someone else, even before there were rude customs.

9. Turning to school teachings, this seems to be very successful, that two or three people can suddenly study in one hour and do one thing. For example, when teaching Grammar, a teacher can also teach Geography and History: first, according to Grammar rules, you need to do exercises, learn translations from my language, into the language I am studying, and from that language into mine language. It is powerful to order students to translate Geography, or External History, or Church History, or both of those teachings at a time.

Otherwise, since History is an honor without the knowledge of Geography, it is as if walking blindfolded through the streets; For this reason, sound advice is to divide the year, determined by grammar, into two parts; and the first six months to teach Grammar with Geography, a special day in the week is determined in which the teacher will show compasses, planisphericity and the universal situation of the world on the map. And it would be even better to do this on a globe, and teach students in such a way that they can point with their finger when someone asks them: where is Asia? where is Africa, where is Europe? and to which sides does America lie beneath us? The same is true about States: where is Egypt? where is Hina? where is Portugal? and so on. And another thing is to give an exercise for six months to translate a universal and brief History, if only there was an author of the pure Latin language, who is Justin the Historian, and it will be powerful to look after others.

And this is very useful; for students will have a great desire for learning when the joyless teaching of the language is dissolved by the joyful world, and the knowledge of past affairs in the world, and soon rudeness will disappear from them, and even on the shores of the school, many valuable goods will be found.

10. The order of teaching seems to be as good as this: 1. Grammar together with Geography and History. 2. Arithmetic and Geometry. 3. Logic or Dialectics, and one dual doctrine. 4. Rhetoric, combined or separately with poetic teaching. 5. Physics, adding a brief Metaphysics. 6. Puffendorf's brief politics, if it is needed, will be judged to be, and maybe it will be added to Dialectics. 7. Theology. The first six will take a year, and Theology will take two years. For although every teaching, except Dialectical and Grammatic, is extensive; However, in schools it is necessary to interpret it in abbreviated form, and only the most important parts. After long reading and practice, whoever receives such good guidance will be perfected. The Greek and Hebrew languages ​​(if there are teachers) between other teachings will take their due time.

11. The Rector and Prefect should be considered diligent people, and whose teachings and works are already known. And the Spiritual Collegium will direct them to be careful in their work, with such a threat that if the teachings proceed inappropriately and unsuccessfully; then they themselves will be subject to judgment in the Spiritual Collegium. And for this reason, we must look to see whether teachers always go to school and whether they teach as they should. And the Rector and the Prefect must visit two schools a week, and another two in another week, and so on and so forth. And when they arrive at school, the teacher will teach in front of them, and they will hear, even after half an hour; Also test the students with questions to see if they know what they should already know.

12. If someone from the teachers seems to be contrary to the Academic Rules, and is adamant to the Rector’s instructions: the Rector will announce such a person to the Spiritual Collegium, and if he follows, he will be dismissed or punished according to his judgment.

13. It is also powerful to appoint fiscal officers who would supervise whether everything in the Academy is decent.

14. This is a discussion about the students: all Archpriests and rich and other Priests should send their children to the Academy. It is powerful to point out the same thing to the city’s best officials, and about the nobles, as the Tsar’s Majesty’s own will will be.

15. The coming students would be at the Academy until the end of all teachings, and the Rector should not be allowed to leave the school without the knowledge of the Spiritual Collegium. And if the Rector or the Prefect, or anyone else who released the student, pay back the bribe given, and impose a severe punishment on such a criminal.

16. Everyone everywhere knows that where there is a person learned in the Academy, and certified by the Academy, he cannot be advanced to the level of spiritual or civil honor by an unlearned person with a great fine on the authorities who would have done otherwise.

17. The newly arrived student will taste memory and wit; and if he seems very stupid, do not accept him into the Academy: for he will lose years and learn nothing; Otherwise, he will have the opinion of himself that he is wise and that such people are the worst idlers. And so that no one pretends to be stupid when he wants to go home, just as others pretend to be physically infirm from being a soldier; the temptation of the mind to put it down for a whole year. And an intelligent teacher can come up with methods of temptation that he cannot know and contrive.

18. If a child of invincible malice appears, ferocious, quick to fight, a slanderer, unconquered, and after a year it will be impossible to overcome him with either admonishment or cruel punishment, even if he was witty: expel him from the Academy, so as not to give the madman a sword.

19. The location of the Academy is not in the city, but on the side in a pleasant place, where there is no noise from the people, below the frequent occurrences that usually interfere with studies and are seen to steal the thoughts of young people and do not allow them to study diligently.

20. There is no need to boast about the Academy, but to look lower at the fact that it has many students: this is very vain; but to look at how many witty and good students there are, with great hope, and how to keep them constant until the end.

21. And this is by no means indecent, and even more so, it is vain for students, no matter what they come, to be accepted with the Sovereign’s daily money. For many come not for teaching, but still others, incapable by nature, only for a salary, drawn by poverty. Others, who are capable, live at the Academy as long as they want, and when and where they want, they go. So what of this good thing? Only a vain loss.

Students would be accepted with consideration of wit, and they would sign on themselves that they would remain in the Academy until the end of their studies, under a great fine, if they did not fulfill their vow unless absolutely necessary. And so it will be possible, after completing school work, to present them to the Tsar’s Majesty and, by His Majesty’s decree, to assign them to various matters.

22. But what is most important, and almost the only thing necessary and useful, is to be at the Academy or, at the beginning and without the Academy, a Seminarium for the teaching and education of children, which are invented quite a few in foreign countries. And here a certain image appears:

1. To build a house in the image of a monastery, whose space and housing and all kinds of supplies for food, clothing and other needs would be in proportion to the number of children (which will be determined by the will of the Tsar's Majesty) fifty, or seventy or more, as well as the necessary stewards and ministers.

2. In that house children and older youths live in groups of eight or nine people in one hut. Both with this arrangement: large ones in one hut, medium ones in another, small ones in a third hut.

3. A place for everyone should be assigned to the wall instead of his own office, where there is a folding bed for him, so that on the day of the lair he will not know; There is also a cabinet for books and other things, and a chair for sitting.

4. In every hut (how many of them there will be), there should be a Prefect, or overseer, a person, although uneducated, but of honest living, as long as he is not fierce and not melancholic, from 30 to 50 years of age. And this is his job: to see that there are no quarrels, fights, foul language, or any other disorder among the Seminarians (as those brought up in that house are called) and that at the appointed hours everyone does what he should. And every Seminarian would not leave his hut without his blessing, and then only with an announcement of the reason, where and for what he was leaving.

5. In the same house there should be at least three learned people, a monk or a layman, of whom one will be the Rector, the steward of the entire house, and two examiners, who will be the investigators of the teaching, whether one studies, lazily or diligently.

6. In every hut, the Prefect has the power to punish his subordinates for a crime, but small ones with a rod, and medium and large ones with a threatening word, and then report those who do not correct themselves to the Rector.

7. Examiners will do the same for laziness in teaching with small, medium and large students and report to the Rector.

8. The rector, the supreme power of all, can punish with any punishment according to his judgment. And whoever is adamant about correction will not be released by the Rector from the Seminarium without the knowledge of the Spiritual Collegium.

9. The Seminarian determines the times for every activity and rest, when to go to bed, when to get up, pray, study, go to meals, take a walk, and so on. And all these hours would be marked by a bell, and all the Seminarians, like soldiers to the beat of drums, or to the voice of bells, would set about the task that was appointed for the appointed hour.

10. Do not let anyone leave the Seminarium to go to the cities, or wherever they are, to visit their own people, until the Seminarist has become accustomed to being in the Seminarium and has felt the significant benefits of such upbringing, namely: until the age of three, upon everyone’s arrival at the Seminarium, emit nowhere; and in the third year, no more than twice a year, allow you to go out to visit your parents or relatives, and then not far away, so that no more than seven days pass from the invasion to the return to the Seminary house itself.

11. And when a Seminarian is sent out as a guest, then it is better to assign him an honest person, like an Inspector or observer, who would be with him everywhere, and always and on all occasions, and upon his return would give a report to the Rector about what was happening. And if that dowry Inspector, while reproaching him, had hidden something bad: such a rogue would be much harder to beat. And it will be possible to know this by this fact that the returning Seminarian cannot help but show in himself some of his former morals and desire for betrayal.

12. And when some relatives come to the Seminarium to visit their relative there, and those guests, with the knowledge of the Rector, are brought into a meal, or another common hut, or into the garden, and there they talk with their relatives, and treat them with food and drink in moderation it is possible, to the present Rector himself or to one examiner, according to the judgment of the persons.

13. Such a life for young people seems to be oppressive and similar to captivity. But whoever gets into the habit of living like this, even after just one year, will find it very sweet.

In addition to curing boredom, the following regulations are useful:

14. Do not accept until the Seminarium only small children from 10 to 15 years of age, and above that, unless at the request of honest persons testifying that the child lived in his parents’ house in fear and good supervision.

15. Every day, assign 2 hours for the Seminarists to walk, namely: at lunch and in the evening, and then they would involuntarily study with anyone, and have books in their hands. And the walk would be with honest and physical games, in the summer in the garden, and in winter in his own hut. For eating this is good for health and drives away boredom. And it’s even better to choose those who, with fun, give some useful instruction. Such, for example, is water navigation on regular ships, Geometric dimensions, the structure of regular fortresses, etc.

16. You can once or twice a month, especially in the summer, travel to the islands, to fields and fun places, to the country courtyards of the Sovereigns, and at least once a year to St. Petersburg.

17. At the meal the reading will be about military stories and about church stories. And at the beginning of every month, after two or three days, let us tell you about men who have shone in the teaching, about great church teachers, as well as about ancient and modern Philosophers, Astronomers, Rhetors, Historians, and so on. For hearing such stories is sweet, and encourages wise people to imitate them.

18. You can also do some actions, debates, comedies, or rhetorical exercises twice a year or more. And this would be very useful for instruction and for resolution, to eat honest courage, which is required by the preaching of the word of God, and the ambassadorial work, but such actions also make a cheerful mix.

19. Certain honors may also be given to students who are kind and thorough.

20. It is good to be at the table of these Seminarians on great holidays with the voice of musical instruments; and this is not difficult: for the first thing is only to hire a master, and from him the willing Seminarians who have learned will have to teach others to take their place. And these seven mentioned rules serve to amuse the students.

21. It is appropriate to be in the Seminary church, pharmacy and Doctor, and the school is in the nearby Academy, where Seminary students will go to study. And if the Seminarium has both schools and teachers, then the Academy and the Seminarium will be together. And for other students who do not want to live in the Seminarium, several housing units can be built outside the Seminarium and rented out to students.

22. The regulations of teachers, teaching and students, described above in the Academy, must be kept here.

23. The seminarians alone will be poor people, and you, by the mercy of the Tsar’s Majesty, will receive food and clothing and other necessities. And other rich people are children, who will have to pay for food and clothing, and the price will be the same, forever determined.

24. How the Seminarian will come to a perfect mind and achieve great teachings; then he must take an oath in the Seminary Church with the rest of his brethren that he wants to be faithful to the Royal Majesty and His Heir, and is ready for service, before which he is pleased and will be called by decree of the Sovereign.

25. The Rector will not release the Seminarists who have completed their studies from the Seminarium until he first brings them to the Spiritual Collegium, and the Collegium will present them to the Royal Majesty. And then he will give them absheet with evidence of their skill.

26. And which Seminarians, after completing their teaching, will seem most suitable for spiritual matters, and they would be closer to every degree of sovereignty among the Bishops than others, even if equally skilled, but not trained in the Seminary, unless there is some notable vice on the Seminarist appeared, and that would not have been a defect from slander. And severe punishment will be imposed on envious people and slanderers.

Up to here about the Seminary.

And in the future it will be possible to come up with more information, or to seek information from the best foreign Seminars; and from such upbringing and teaching one can truly hope for great benefit to the fatherland.

23. Regarding the preachers of the word of God, the following useful regulations are:

1. Let no one dare to preach in this Academy who is not learned, and who has not been certified by the Spiritual Collegium. But if someone studied with the Gentiles, he would first show himself in the Spiritual Collegium, and test him there: how skilled he is in the Holy Scriptures, and would speak a word about what the Collegium commands him to do: and if he seems skilled, then give him a testimony, that if he wants to be in the priestly rank, preach to him powerfully.

2. Preachers would preach firmly, with the argument of the Holy Scriptures, about repentance, about the correction of life, about reverence for authorities, especially the highest royal authority, about positions of every rank. We would exterminate superstition; We would root the fear of God in people's hearts. In a word, they said: they would test from the Holy Scriptures that there is the will of God, holy, acceptable and perfect, and then they would say.

3. To talk about sins in society, and not to name anyone, would it be published on behalf of the entire church.

But even when an unkind rumor spreads about a certain person, about this or that particular sin, and then the preacher must remain silent about such a sin in word. For if he remembers the sin of that one, even if he does not remember the face; Otherwise, the people will think that there is thunder on that face. And thus his sadness will increase, and he will begin to think not about his own correction, but even more about taking revenge on such a preacher. What good is that? If someone’s great sin, with contempt for the law of God, will be revealed spontaneously from a proud sinner; then it is up to the Bishop, and not to any Presbyter, to fine him, in the same way as was said above in the cases of Bishops about anathema.

4. It is the custom of some preachers, if someone angers him in any way, to take revenge on him during his preaching, although not precisely by tormenting his glory, but in such a way that the listener can know who he is talking about: and such preachers are the very idlers, and they would be subjected to severe punishment.

5. It is unbecoming for a great preacher, especially a young one, to speak about the sins of those in power, or to expose his listeners in an accusatory manner. So for example: you have no fear of God, you have no love for your neighbor; If you are unmerciful, you will offend each other. But we must moreover say this in the first person, in the plural: we have no fear of God, we have no love for our neighbor; We are unmerciful, we will offend each other. For this image of the word meek is, even though the preacher himself is among the sinners, hindering himself, just as the truth itself is: for we all sin much. And so Paul the Apostle, denouncing teachers who, placing themselves highly, wanted to call their students by their name, without remembering them specifically, seemed to accept the blame on himself, in the first letter from Corinth in chapter one, and also on his friends Peter, Apollos. Each person says from you, “I am Pavlov, I am Apollosov, I am Cephas, I am Christov.” Food stripped Christ? Did Paul fall apart for you, or was he baptized in the name of Paul? and so on. And that he brought this guilt upon himself and others, he himself testifies. For having talked about this for a long time, the same one confesses in chapter four: “These my brethren have transformed Apollos on ourselves for our sake, so that from us you may learn no more than the wisdom of what is written and so on.”

6. Every preacher must have the books of Saint Chrysostom and be diligent about this honor: for in this way he must learn to write the purest and clearest word, although he will not be equal to Chrysostom; and there wouldn’t be any frivolous executioners, of which there are especially Polish ones.

7. If a preacher sees benefit from his word among the people, let him not boast about it. If he doesn’t see, let him not be angry, and let him not reproach people for this. Their business is to say: but the conversion of human hearts is the work of God. Az planted, Apollos gave water, God will grow.

8. Preachers who raise their eyebrows, show proud movements, and say something in their words from which you can know that they are surprised at themselves, act madly. But a prudent teacher, with all his might, strives both in word and in his whole body by action to show himself that he thinks less of his wit or eloquence. And for this reason, it is often appropriate to mix brief reservations with a kind of humble self-deprecation. For example: I pray for your love, don’t look who’s talking; What can I testify about myself to you, that I am a sinner? Believe the word of God: for it is from the Holy Scriptures, and not from my imagination, that I strive to offer, and the like.

9. There is no need for a preacher to stagger around as if he were rowing an oar in a ship. There is no need to dance with your arms, lean on your sides, jump up, laugh, and you don’t need to cry; but even if the spirit is indignant, it is necessary, as powerfully as possible, to calm down the tears; All this is superfluous and unseemly, and it outrages the hearers.

10. According to the word, even if it happens to be a guest, or in any conversations with people, it is not appropriate for a preacher to remember his word, and not to praise his word exactly, which is a great lack of study, but also not to self-inflictly degrade: for it will seem that he encourages others in praising his word in this way. And even if someone began to praise his word, the preacher must show in himself that he is ashamed to hear it, and in every possible way divert him from praise and start a different conversation.

Worldly persons, since they participate in the essence of spiritual instructions. Although not much should be said in this part, it is appropriate to suggest a small preface to a better understanding: why are the laity called laity, and in what way do they differ from the spiritual rank?

This name world in the triple mind is used:

1. The world is called the whole sunflower, inhabited by man, but it is not in this mind that men, the church service of the poor, are called laity; for the priestly rank lives in the same world as others.

2. The world is simply accepted as people, as they are a corporeal, but intelligent creature. And it is not according to this world that we call the laity, who are outside the clergy of church services. Even the Priest and any cleric will not want to renounce being called a layman in such a mind. And in this mind there is the name world, where something good is attached to it, for example: so God loved the world, etc.

3. The world often signifies human malice and vanity, or people themselves; Because they are evil and vanity, as John the Apostle says in his first epistle, in chapter two: love not the world, neither those who are in the world. If anyone loves the world, the love of the Father is not in him: for everything in the world, the lust of the flesh, and the lust of desire, and the pride of life, is not from the Father, but is of this world. And the laity are not of this world; for John writes not to the priesthood, but generally to Christians. And as he himself speaks there to fathers, youths, children, this is to everyone of all ages. And it cannot be said that with this word he slanders them into becoming monks or churchmen.

In the same way, as this name, spiritual, which is contrary to the world, is used in the third sense, it is not shown by the monks and clergymen of Paul the Apostle in the first letter to the Corinthians, in the second chapter at the end, where he discusses the mental and spiritual man. For there he calls the spiritual one who, without the grace of the Holy Spirit, is naturally inclined towards all evil, but is very powerless towards godly good, which are all unrenewed essences. He calls the spiritual one who is enlightened and renewed, and is led by the Holy Spirit. Even if the Priest, even if the layman is angry, he is spiritual; and despite whether a priest or a layman, led by the Holy Spirit, he is spiritual. And therefore Saint Peter gives the name of the priesthood not to a single church servant, but to all Christians in common. 1. Peter. Chapter 2. You are a chosen race, a royal priesthood, a holy tongue, people of renewal, so that you may proclaim virtues from the darkness who called you into His wonderful light. The Apocalypse, chapter 5, is similar: God created us, Kings and Priests.

This was appropriate to propose because due to ignorance of this, many soul-destroying stupidities are acted and affected. Do not know this, a worldly person sometimes thinks that he cannot be saved for the very reason that he is not spiritual, but is worldly. Without knowing this, another monk tells another to leave his wife, child, parents, and hate them; In other words, the imam’s commandment: do not love the world, and those who are in the world.

But why are the laity vilified? Answer. Because it was fitting to be a certain spiritual servant and steward of the teachings, they are Bishops and Presbyters: for this reason, but for some kind of superiority, they received the title of spiritual rank. And for the sake of service, bloodless victims are given the title of superiority and priesthood. And therefore the others, who are listeners and disciples of them, are simply called laymen.

Speech: from which of the three above-mentioned minds of the world are the laity so called?

This naming is appropriate for the second mind; All both priests and non-priests are laymen, that is, humans. But laymen are simply called not priests; since they are not stewards and ministers of certain spiritual teachings, but hearers. And something needs to be said about the laity, since they belong to spiritual leadership.

1. Everyone knows this: first of all, let it be that every Christian should listen to Orthodox teaching from his pastors. Just as shepherds do not shepherd if they do not feed their sheep with the word of God: so the sheep are not sheep, but they are called such in vain if they do not want to be shepherds by the shepherds. For this reason, if someone despised and scolded, or something worse, would try to prevent the reading or preaching of the word of God, without extreme need, for one certain proud malice: he is subject to church punishment, or to the Episcopal court, about which there was a word above, where about anathema, or, if it is strong, the Spiritual Collegium itself will follow and decree.

2. Every Christian must partake of the Holy Eucharist often, and at least once a year. This is also our most graceful thanksgiving to God for the great salvation accomplished for us by the Savior’s death. As often as you eat this bread and drink this cup, you proclaim the death of the Lord until it comes. And parting words to the living eternal. Unless you eat the body of the Son of man and drink His blood, you do not have life within you. And there is a character or sign by which we show ourselves to be the members of the one mental body of Christ, to be the accomplices of the one Holy Church, as the Apostle says in 1 Corinth. Chapter 10. We bless the cup of blessing; is there not fellowship in the blood of Christ? Bread, we break it, isn’t there fellowship of the body of Christ? For as there is one bread, there is one body of many; We all partake of the same bread. For this reason, if a Christian seems to be moving far away from Holy Communion, he thereby reveals to himself that he is not in the body of Christ, he is not an accomplice of the church, but a schismatic. And there is no better sign than to recognize a schismatic. This should be diligently observed by the Bishop and ordered that the parish priests inform them throughout the years about their parishioners, which of them have not received communion in a year, some in two, and some never. And to compel such people to confess an oath, even if they are sons of the church, and whether all the schismatic regiments that are found anywhere in Russia are cursing. This compulsion to swear, and there is no other way, can only be a threat, that if they do not want to swear, and curse precisely all schismatic agreement; then an announcement about them will be published that they are schismatics. It is no small benefit to know about this: for many schismatics, hiding under the clothing of Orthodoxy, instead of being afraid, are still instigating persecution against the church. And not only do they scold the sacred order and, as much as they can, do dirty tricks on it, but they oppress the worldly, those who disagree with their madness, in every possible way, as people worthy of faith can testify to.

3. And when in such a different way a schismatic is declared; then the Bishop must inform in writing about this schismatic to the one under whose judgment he is, who has to send him to the Spiritual College.

4. It is useful for the Collegium to know how many schismatics there are in all the Dioceses; This is helpful for many cases that require reasoning.

5. It is a great sin that cannot tolerate spiritual silence, that certain worldly masters, knowing schismatics in their areas, cover up for the bribe given to them.

It’s a different matter with obvious schismatics; for there is no need to avoid misfortune from those; but the schismatics, under the guise of living Orthodoxy, cover up this stinking matter with atheism. And for this the Bishops must be jealous and report this to the Spiritual Collegium; and the Collegium, on a spiritual search, can anathematize such gentlemen, if they do not want to correct themselves. The spiritual search should be carried out in this way: the Bishop will submit a report to the Spiritual College against a worldly master not simply because he has schismatics; but that that master strongly does not allow the Priest to come, or even those sent by the Bishop to seek out and expose the schismatics residing in his patrimony, and the names of reliable witnesses to this will be reported. And the Collegium, having listened to the witnesses, will write an admonishment to this master, asking him to allow him to freely search for schismatics in his estate. And if the master listens, then don’t bother him anymore; If he disobeys, he will testify about himself that he is an intercessor for the schismatics. And then the Collegium will begin to punish him spiritually in the same manner as is written above about anathema. And this matter is not about open schismatics, but about secret schismatics, as stated above, if they are simple people: but if teachers, and perhaps schismatic shepherds, are, this matter is about those, both secret and open. Spirituals who have subjects behind them are also judged in the same way.

6. Throughout Russia, no one from the schismatics should be elevated to power, not only spiritual, but also civil, even to the last beginning and administration, so as not to arm us with fierce enemies, both to the State and the Sovereign, who constantly think evil.

And if anyone is suspected of schismatics, even if he shows an appearance of Orthodoxy, the first thing to do is to take an oath, along with an oath against himself, and that he is not and does not think to be a schismatic; and announce to him a cruel punishment, if the opposite were to appear on him afterwards, and sign him with his own hand. This is the guilt: when someone, by his noble deed, creates suspicion for himself, for example [*]: if he never partakes of the Holy Mysteries without any blessed guilt; If he covers schismatic teachers in his house with the knowledge that they are such, and if he sends alms to schismatic monasteries and so on; and in such cases, whoever is convicted by obvious arguments, then he is subject to suspicion of schismaticism.

And if something contrary to this appears somewhere, then the Bishop should quickly write about it to the Theological College.

7. From now on, no one from the world (except the name of the Tsar's Majesty) will be in the houses of churches and priests of the cross: for this is superfluous, and comes from sheer arrogance, and is reproachful to the spiritual rank. Gentlemen would go to parish churches and would not be ashamed to be brothers, even if they were their own peasants, in the company of Christians. In Christ Jesus there is neither slave nor freedom, says the Apostle.

8. When parishioners or landowners who live in their estates elect a person in their church to be a priest, then you must testify in your report that he is a person of good and unsuspicious life. And if the landowners themselves do not live in those estates, this certificate about such people must be submitted to the people and their peasants, and in petitions to write exactly what abuse or land will be given to him. And the chosen one would also put his hand to the fact that he wants to be satisfied with that other land or land, and not leave the church to which he is dedicated until death. And if this chosen one appears before the Bishop in some kind of suspicion or schism, and is unworthy of his rank, this is left for the Bishop’s consideration.

9. The gentlemen would not accept priests who drag themselves as their confessors. For the Priest was expelled for a crime, or willfully left the church entrusted to himself, and is no longer a Priest, and accepts great sin, acting priestly. And the master who accepts it is a participant in that sin, and purely: for he is both an assistant to that sin and an adversary to the church government.

Strong lay people would not force priests to enter their homes to baptize babies, but would carry them to church, unless the baby were very ill, or some other great need came.

10. They say that sometimes civil rulers and other authorities, as well as powerful landowners, in the event of some matter that requires spiritual guidance, do not want to obey the Bishop in which someone lives in the Diocese, making the excuse that the Bishop is not their shepherd. Let everyone know that every person of any rank is subject in spiritual matters to the judgment of the Bishop in whom the Diocese resides, as long as it resides in that one.

11. But especially for worldly persons, many difficulties occur in dubious marriages, and for this reason, if such doubt happens to anyone, he would not dare to conceal it before the Priest. And the Priest, even if he himself doubts, would not dare to perform the wedding quickly, but would refer the matter to the consideration of the Bishop. But the Bishop would also refer him to the Spiritual Collegium if he himself is at a loss to decide.

And for the solution of such difficulties, it is necessary for the Spiritual Colleagues, having chosen their own time, to talk about them enough, and for every difficulty to write a strong solution from the Holy Scriptures, and from the reasoning of the glorious ancient teachers, as well as from the Tsar’s statutes.

12. And even if there was a doubtful marriage that seemed to take place; Otherwise, it is not appropriate to get married in another parish, in which neither the groom nor the bride lives; Moreover, it is not appropriate to get married in another Bishopric. Likewise, do not call priests from someone else’s parish or diocese for a wedding; for this, in addition to reproaching their shepherds, also shows that those who marry in such a way under suspicion are of the wrong combination.

Part III.- The very stewards of office, action and power

It’s time to talk about the very stewards who make up the Spiritual Collegium.

1. The number of persons in government is sufficient, 12. There should be persons of different ranks: Bishop, Archimandrite, Abbot, Archpriest, of which number, three Bishops, and other ranks, as many worthy ones can be found.

2. See to it that the Archimandrites and Archpriests are not in the rank of this meeting, which are the assistants of a certain Bishop who is found in this same meeting: for such an Archimandrite or Archpriest will constantly observe which side of the judged his Bishop is inclined to, and to that that Archimandrite and Archpriest will bow down, and so two or three persons will already be one person. The rest should be considered, what the Spiritual Collegium should do, and how to act and act in the matters brought, and what power it has to accomplish things. And these three are signified by the three things mentioned above in the title of this part, which are office, action and power. There is something to talk about about every individual.

Job title. 1. The first and only duty of this Spiritual Government is to know the essence of the positions of all Christians in general and Bishops themselves, Presbyters and other church ministers, monks, teachers and students; The same applies to worldly persons, since they are the instructions of a spiritual participant. And for this reason, certain positions of all these ranks are written down here. And the Spiritual Collegium must observe, while everyone remains in his rank; and instruct and punish those who sin. In addition, certain government positions are actually attached here.

2. To inform or publish to all Christians in general, of any rank, that anyone, having seen something useful for the better government of the church, can report to the Ecclesiastical Collegium in a letter, just as anyone is free to report to the Senate about the proper profits of the State. And the Collegium of the Spiritual will judge whether the advice is useful or unhelpful; and the useful will be accepted, but the unprofitable will be despised.

3. If anyone composes a Theological letter about something, it should not be published, but rather presented to the Collegium first. And the Collegium must examine whether there is any sin in this letter that is contrary to Orthodox teaching.

4. If an incorruptible body appears, or a vision or miracle works is heard, the Collegium must test that truth, calling for interrogation these narrators, and others who can testify to this.

5. If someone reproaches someone as a schismatic, or is the inventor of a new teaching, judge that in the Spiritual Collegium.

6. Some perplexed cases of conscience occur, for example, what to do when someone, having stolen someone else’s property, wants it, but cannot return it, or because of shame or fear, or that the person from whom he stole it is no longer there? And what should one do who happens to be in captivity among the filthy, and for the sake of his freedom accepts their godless faith, and then turns to the Christian confession? Bring this and other perplexities to the Spiritual Collegium, and from there we should diligently reason and decide.

7. The first thing to do here is to examine those promoted to the Bishopric, whether they are superstitions, hypocrites, holy merchants, where and how they lived; interrogate with evidence why he has wealth, if anyone shows up.

8. To refer the courts of the Bishops to the Spiritual Collegium, if anyone is not satisfied with them. The cases that are subject to this court are precisely these: confused marriages, faulty divorces, insults to the clergy or monastery from one’s own Bishop, insults made to a Bishop from another Bishop. And briefly: all the cases that were due for the Patriarchal Court.

9. The Collegium must examine who owns the church lands and how, and where the grain and profits, if they are monetary, are spent on. And if someone steals church belongings by thieves: the Spiritual Collegium should step on it, and the stolen person must be corrected on it.

10. When a Bishop, or a lesser church minister, suffers an insult from a certain powerful lord, although it is not against him in the Spiritual Collegium, but in the Justice Collegium or later in the Senate, it is necessary to ask for justice: however, the offended person will reveal his need to the Spiritual Collegium. And then the President and the entire Collegium, giving help to their offended brother, will send honest men from themselves to quickly ask for justice where appropriate.

11. The covenants or confessors of noble persons, if they seem to be in any doubtful form, are to be announced to the Spiritual Collegium and to the Justic Collegium, and both of these Collegiums will judge and make a determination.

12. The Spiritual Collegium should compose instructions on giving alms; for in this we sin no little. Many idle people, in perfect health, indulge in begging for their laziness and walk around the world without a cold; and others are moved into almshouses by promises from the elders, which is ungodly and harmful to the entire fatherland. God commands us from the sweat of our brow to eat bread from righteous providences and various labors, Genesis chapter 3; and do good not only for our own food, but also so that we have something to give to those who demand it, and food for the poor. Epistles to Ephesians chapter 5. And God forbids, but an idle man is below vest. 2. Epistle to Thessalonians chapter 3. And therefore in health, but lazy proshaks are disgusting to God. And if anyone supplies them, he is both a helper and a participant in their sin; and whatever he spends on such vain alms is all in vain for him, and not for spiritual benefit. But such bad alms also cause great harm to the fatherland, like rekhom; This is why bread is scarce and expensive in the first place. Consider, every prudent person, how many thousands of lazy scoundrels there are in Russia; there are thousands who do not make bread, and therefore there is no grain coming from them. But in both cases, impudence and crafty humility consume other people’s labors, and therefore a great deal of bread is wasted in vain. We should grab them everywhere and assign them to common affairs. Yes, from the same proshaks a great insult is done to the truly wretched: for as much as is given to them, only to the downright wretched is it taken away. And these idlers, even though they are healthy, soon resort to alms when weak beggars remain, while others lie almost half-dead on the streets, and with their illness and hunger they melt away. The bottom line is that even if we are deprived of daily food, we are ashamed to ask. If anyone has a true womb of mercy, having judged this, he cannot help but desire from his heart that there be a good correction for such outrage.

Moreover, in their laziness, these impudent people compose some crazy and soul-harming songs, and they sing them with feigned lamentation in front of the people, and they make the simple ignoramuses even more maddened, accepting the reward for themselves.

And who will briefly enumerate the harm caused by such idlers? On the roads, wherever they see, they crash; incendiaries are contracted to spy on rebels and traitors; they slander the high authorities, and the Supreme Power itself is treated with evil, and the common people are inclined to despise the authorities. They themselves don’t care about Christian positions; they don’t think it’s their business to enter a church, as long as they cry out incessantly in front of the church. And what else exceeds the measure is the lack of conscience and inhumanity of these, blinding their eyes with their babies, crooking their hands, and corrupting other members, so that they would be straight beggars and worthy of mercy: truly there is no more lawless rank of people. Because of this great position, the Spiritual Collegium must diligently think about this and advise on the best way to eradicate this evil, and determine the good order of almsgiving, and having determined, ask the Tsar’s Majesty to deign to approve it by decree of His Monarch.

13. And this is no small position, as if to turn the priesthood away from simony and shameless impudence. To this end, it is useful to consult with the Senators to determine how many households for one parish, from which each would give such and such a tax to the priesthood and other clergymen of their church, so that they would have complete satisfaction according to their measure, and would no longer ask for payment for baptism , burial, wedding, etc.

However, this definition does not forbid a willing person from giving to the Priest as much as anyone through his generosity desires.

Actually, every Collegium, both the President and others, at the beginning of accepting their rank, must take an oath that they are and will be faithful to the Royal Majesty; that not according to one’s passions, not for bribery, but for God and the benefit of people, with the fear of God and a good conscience, one will judge matters and advise, and will judge, accept or reject, other brothers’ opinions and advice. And he will pronounce such an oath on himself under the personal fine of anathema and corporal punishment, even if, after being contrary to his oath, he was caught and caught.

All this written here, first of all, the All-Russian Monarch Himself, His Royal Sacred Majesty, listened before him, and deigned to reason and correct on the 11th day of February 1720. And then, by decree of His Majesty, the Most Reverend Bishops, Archimandrites, and also the Government Senators listened and, reasoning, corrected this February 23 days. Also in confirmation and fulfillment of the immutable, according to the attribution of the hands of the present Spiritual and Senatorial persons, His Royal Majesty Himself deigned to sign with His Own hand.

Anisimov E.V. State transformations and autocracy of Peter the Great in the first quarter of the 18th century. M.: Dmitry Bulavin, 1997. 331 p.

Higher and central government institutions of Russia. 1801-1917. T. 1. St. Petersburg: Nauka, 1998. pp. 134-147

Levchenko I.V. Russian Orthodox Church and State. Irkutsk: Irkut Publishing House. state econ. acad., 1997. 159 p.

Nikolin A. Church and State: (History of Legal Relations). M.: Publication of the Sretensky Monastery, 1997. 430 p.

Nikolsky N.M. History of the Russian Church. Minsk: Belarus, 1990. 541 p.

What was the name of the document establishing the Holy Synod?

What three parts did the Spiritual Regulation consist of?

Who became the first President of the Synod?

What was the initial function of the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod?

How was the state’s utilitarian attitude towards the Church manifested?

In the Orthodox East, by the 15th century, the formation of the institution of a permanent council of bishops, called in Constantinople Σύνοδος ενδημούσα (“permanent council”) or “small synods” in other Churches, was completed under the primates of local Churches.

By their decrees, under the chairmanship of the Patriarchs, decisions were made on the most important issues. In Russia, the establishment of the Synod is associated with the reign of Peter I. Among the transformations of Peter I, the most important in its consequences was the reform of church government.

Reform of Peter I

Initially, Peter did not intend to change the established church order for centuries. However, the further the first Russian emperor advanced in carrying out state reform, the less desire he had to share power with another person, even a spiritual one. Peter I was rather indifferent to the Orthodox faith itself.

Patriarch Adrian died in 1700. Peter immediately took advantage of this circumstance. He does not see any worthy candidates for the Patriarchate among the representatives of the church hierarchy.

The Patriarchal throne remained vacant, and Locum Tenens Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky was appointed to govern the diocese of the Patriarch. The locum tenens was entrusted with the management of only matters of faith: “about schism, about the oppositions of the church, about heresies”

On January 24, 1701, the Monastic Order was restored, under the jurisdiction of which the Patriarchal Court, bishops' houses, monastic lands and farms were transferred. Boyar Ivan Alekseevich Musin-Pushkin was placed at the head of the order.

In all important cases, the Locum Tenens had to consult with other bishops, whom he was asked to summon alternately to Moscow. The results of all meetings were to be submitted to the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne for approval by the sovereign. This meeting of successive bishops from the dioceses was called, as before, the Consecrated Council. This Consecrated Council in spiritual matters, and boyar Musin-Pushkin with his Monastic Order in others, significantly limited the power of the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne in governing the church.

Since 1711, the Governing Senate began to operate instead of the old Boyar Duma. From now on, all government, both spiritual and temporal, had to obey the Decrees of the Senate as Royal Decrees. The locum tenens of the Patriarchal Throne could no longer install a bishop without the Senate. The Senate begins to independently build churches and itself orders bishops to install priests. The Senate appoints abbots and abbesses to monasteries.

In 1718, the Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne, temporarily staying in St. Petersburg, received a Decree from His Majesty - “he should live in St. Petersburg permanently and the bishops should come one by one to St. Petersburg, contrary to how they came to Moscow.” This management was clearly temporary. However, about twenty years passed before Peter brought his ideas to life. To implement them, he needed a like-minded person in the church environment. The process of the birth of church reform took place in complete secrecy from the Church and its hierarchy.

Feofan Prokopovich

The key figure in the organization of the Theological College was the Little Russian theologian, rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Academy Feofan Prokopovich, whom Peter met back in 1706, when he gave a speech welcoming the sovereign at the foundation of the Pechersk fortress in Kyiv. In 1711, Theophanes was with Peter on the Prut campaign. On June 1, 1718, he was named bishop of Pskov, and the next day he was consecrated to the rank of bishop in the presence of the sovereign. Soon Prokopovich was entrusted with drawing up a project for the creation of the Theological College.

By 1721, Feofan Prokopovich completed the drafting of the Spiritual Regulations - a document that determined the existence of the Theological College. Feofan openly expressed the reasons for replacing the Patriarchate with a spiritual college in the “Spiritual Regulations”:

“So that the common people would not be tempted to see in the patriarch some kind of second person in the state, almost equal to the first, or even superior to him...”

This document was presented by Peter for discussion in the Senate and only then brought to the attention of the Church Council of six bishops who found themselves in St. Petersburg. Under pressure from the secular authorities, they signed the document and assured that everything was “pretty well done.” Over the course of the year, signatures were collected from those bishops who did not participate in the Acts of the Council, as well as from the abbots of the most important monasteries. Often, government officials used force to obtain the required consent.

Holy Governing Synod

After the establishment of the Theological College, the question arose: how to make a prayerful proclamation of the new church government? The Latin word “collegium” in combination with “Holy” sounded dissonant, so different options were proposed: “assembly”, “cathedral”. Finally they settled on an acceptable Greek word for "synod" - the Most Holy Governing Synod. Synod or cathedral (from Greek Σύνοδος - “meeting”, “cathedral”; lat. consilium - council, consultation). In order to maintain the canonicity of the new spiritual government, Peter turned to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah for a blessing. The Patriarch's response was as follows:

“Our moderation... affirms and consolidates that the Synod established by the most pious autocrat Peter Alekseevich is and is called our brother in Christ...”

Similar letters were received from other Eastern Patriarchs. Thus, the Synod was recognized as a permanent Council, equal in power to the Patriarchs, and therefore bearing the title of His Holiness.

On January 25, 1721, Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological College, which soon received the new name of the Holy Governing Synod. On February 14, 1721, the grand opening of the new church administration took place.

Composition and structure of the Holy Governing Synod

The patriarchal orders were transferred to the jurisdiction of the Synod: spiritual, state and palace, renamed synodal, monastic order, order of church affairs, office of schismatic affairs and printing office. A Tiunskaya office (Tiunskaya Izba) was established in St. Petersburg; in Moscow - the spiritual dicastery, the office of the synodal board, the synodal office, the order of inquisitorial affairs, the office of schismatic affairs.

The composition of the Holy Synod was determined according to the regulations of 12 “government persons”, of which three must certainly bear the rank of bishop. As in the civil colleges, the Synod consisted of one president, two vice-presidents, four councilors and five assessors.

In 1726, these foreign names, which did not fit in well with the clergy of the persons sitting in the Synod, were replaced by the words: first-present member, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod. The President, who is subsequently the first person present, has, according to regulations, a vote equal to the other members of the board. Metropolitan Stefan was appointed President of the Synod.

A man devoted to Peter, Theodosius, bishop of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, was appointed vice-president. In terms of the structure of the office and office work, the Synod resembled the Senate and collegiums, with all the ranks and customs established in these institutions. Peter also took care of the organization of supervision over the activities of the Synod. On May 11, 1722, a special chief prosecutor was ordered to be present at the Synod.

Colonel Ivan Vasilyevich Boltin was appointed the first chief prosecutor of the Synod. The main responsibility of the chief prosecutor was to conduct all relations between the Synod and the civil authorities and vote against the decisions of the Synod when they were not consistent with the laws and decrees of Peter. The Senate gave the chief prosecutor special instructions, which were almost a complete copy of the instructions to the prosecutor general of the Senate.

The Chief Prosecutor was subject to trial only by the sovereign. At first, the power of the Chief Prosecutor was exclusively observational, but little by little the Chief Prosecutor becomes the arbiter of the fate of the Synod and its leader in practice.

Until 1901, members of the Synod and those present in the Synod, upon taking office, were required to take an oath, which, in particular, read:

I confess with the oath of the extreme Judge of the Spiritual Collegium of the existence of the All-Russian Monarch of our most merciful Sovereign

As a result of Peter's reform, the Church completely lost its independence from secular power. All resolutions of the Synod until 1917 were issued with the following stamp: "By order of His Imperial Majesty." In state papers, church authorities began to be called, along with other departments such as military, financial, and judicial, the “Department of the Orthodox Confession.”

Alexander A. Sokolovsky

Before Peter I, the clergy was free from basic state taxes and military duties. Already from the Azov campaigns of 1695–1696. Peter's clergy were involved in the construction of the fleet. To replenish the state treasury, valuables began to be confiscated from the monastery storehouses. Peter, trying to attract the entire population to the service of the state, significantly increased fees from the clergy: they not only paid taxes on all real estate (lands, baths, mills, etc.), but began to pay special “dragoon money” (for the maintenance of horse-drawn dragoon regiments ); A tax was introduced on the maintenance of the army clergy. The clergy began to be involved in various construction work, guard duty, and were entrusted with providing quarters for military units. The re-establishment of the Monastic Prikaz on January 24, 1701, to which the episcopal and monastic estates were transferred for management, especially undermined the economic well-being of the church.

Since Peter I, the clergy began to be used by the state to replenish the army of bureaucrats. “Debriefings” of the clergy became a practice, as a result of which “placeless priests” fit for military service were turned over to soldiers. Graduates of theological schools and seminaries, due to the lack of places for them as priests and clergy, supplied a significant contingent of officials for the civil service.

Since 1701, the functions and prerogatives of the church court were significantly limited. Previously, they were very broad, when in civil and criminal cases (“except for robbery, Tatin and bloody cases”) the church court had jurisdiction over everything: the clergy, the church clergy and people dependent on the clergy. This jurisdiction of the Church over a very wide range of matters extended to the entire population of the state. The so-called “spiritual cases” included not only cases of crimes against the Church, but also entire areas of civil and partly criminal law: cases of marriage and family, inheritance, etc. .

The question of limiting the powers of the church court was raised by the secular authorities in 1700. Patriarch Adrian was still alive then. At his command, the “Articles on Hierarchical Courts” were compiled, containing the canonical justification for the judicial privileges of the Russian Church. This was the last attempt to defend the integrity of the church court. After the death of Adrian on October 16, 1701, a number of cases were removed from the jurisdiction of the church court: marriage, divorce, forced marriages, rights of legal birth, adultery, violence against women, etc. Blasphemy, heresy, schism, etc. remained under the jurisdiction of the church court. magic and superstition, but in fact the church authorities conducted only a preliminary investigation into these cases (“exposed”, i.e. established the guilt of the criminal), and the final decision became the responsibility of the secular court. In connection with the restoration of the Monastic Prikaz in 1701, the trial of peasants who belonged to the Church came under its jurisdiction, along with the management of church property.

At the same time, Peter I obliged the clergy to perform some administrative and, to a certain extent, political functions. The parish clergy was entrusted with the responsibility of announcing all state laws to parishioners during Sunday services. The parish clergy was obliged to keep registers of baptisms, weddings, and burials of the population of their parish, and during population censuses (audits) to report those who evaded entry into the audit “lists,” to identify schismatics and monitor them.

It was considered a political crime for parish priests to miss at least one of the “time services” - divine services on the namesake days of the tsar and all members of the royal family, coronations and royal victories. An oath of allegiance to the emperor was introduced by the clergy. Before this, the priest swore an oath to follow only church statutes and “not to interfere” (not to interfere) in worldly affairs. The decree of April 22, 1722 required that everyone, upon entering into a spiritual position, take an oath “to be a faithful, kind and obedient slave and subject of the emperor and his legitimate heirs,” to defend the prerogatives and dignity of imperial power, “without sparing the stomach if necessary.” one’s own”, to report any damage, harm and loss to the interests of the emperor, “about theft, treason and rebellion against the sovereign discovered in confession or other evil intentions against the honor and health of the sovereign and the surname of His Majesty. In other words, the secular authorities demanded that the Orthodox priest violate the basic canonical rule - maintaining the secrecy of confession. The same decree stipulated that all secret matters that the priest would be entrusted with from the authorities should be “kept in complete secret and not announced to anyone.”

In the “Addition” to the “Spiritual Regulations,” this was again recalled, with reference to Holy Scripture: “With this announcement (reporting to the authorities about what was said in confession. - V.F.) confession is not discredited, and the confessor does not violate rules of the Gospel, but also fulfills the teaching of Christ: “Rebuke your brother, if he does not listen, command the church.” When the Lord already commands about a brotherly sin, then how much more about the malicious intent against the sovereign” (see Appendix 3.2).

Peter I issued decrees regulating religious activities, which should be qualified as an invasion of secular power into the canonical sphere of activity of the church. The law prescribes mandatory annual confession for parishioners (decree of 1718), which must be recorded in the “confessional books.” The priests had to strictly take into account the “non-existents” (those who had not been to confession) and report them not only to the church, but also to the secular authorities. This measure provided for the identification of “schismatics” who evaded confession. Anyone who stubbornly did not go to confession was recognized as a “schismatic.” Those who missed confession the first time were charged a fine of 5 kopecks, the second time the fine was doubled, and the third time it was tripled. It is customary to submit reports to the civil authorities about those who have attended confession “incorrectly”, and to “carry out punishments” based on these reports. Special decrees also required priests to ensure that parishioners “go to church for Vespers and Matins,” are not distracted during the service by “extraneous matters,” listen to the service “in silence and with reverence,” and that there is no “disorderly standing in the church.” .

The persecution of schism by church and state had its own characteristics. took a strict approach to deviations from Orthodoxy (involvement in heresy and schism), considering them the most important crimes (“more dangerous than murder, for it is not the body, but the soul that is stolen”), i.e. from the point of view of state "harm". The political aspect came to the fore here: the greatest danger was posed by those schismatics and heretics who did not recognize not only the Orthodox Church, but also the “Antichrist” state power, i.e. the reigning emperor was seen as the “Antichrist.” They were caught, subjected to cruel punishments and sent to monastery prisons “for correction” or to hard labor. Those who recognized official authority were treated more leniently. In 1716 they were subject to double capitation, were required to wear a special dress, and were prohibited from holding any administrative positions.

According to the decree of 1702, freedom of religion was granted to all foreigners living in Russia. But freedom of religion for foreigners did not mean recognition of the equality of faiths. Propaganda of their faith by foreigners in Russia was strictly prohibited. Seduction of Orthodox Christians into another faith was punishable, but conversion to Orthodoxy was encouraged in every possible way. It was forbidden for a non-Orthodox foreigner to be buried in Orthodox cemeteries.

The most important act in the confessional policy of Peter I was the subordination of the church in political and administrative terms, which was expressed in the abolition of the institution of the patriarchate and the establishment in its place of the highest secular collegial body for church affairs - the Holy Synod. This act marked the beginning of a new, synodal period in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church.

During the execution of the rebellious archers in 1698, Patriarch Adrian, by virtue of his duty and custom, dared to “sorrow” the tsar for the condemned, but this attempt was angrily rejected by Peter I. After Adrian’s death on October 16, 1700, Peter I, on the advice of his close associates decided to “hold off” on the election of a new patriarch. Instead of the patriarch, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan and Kolomna was appointed “exarch, guardian and administrator of the patriarchal throne.” He held this position for about 20 years - until the establishment of the Theological College, of which he was the first and last president.

Peter I was suspicious of the Russian clergy, seeing in them an opposing force to his reforms. He had good reasons for this. Indeed, the majority of hierarchs of the Russian Orthodox Church did not support Peter’s reforms, so Peter found supporters not among the churchmen of Russia, but in Ukraine, mainly among the students of the Kiev-Mohyla Theological Academy.

In 1700, Peter I issued a decree calling on Little Russian clergy who took leadership positions in the Russian Church. Among them were such prominent figures of the Russian Orthodox Church of the early 18th century as professor of the Kiev-Mohyla Theological Academy Stefan Yavorsky, immediately appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan and Kolomna, Dmitry Tuptalo, appointed in 1702 Metropolitan of Rostov, Filofei Leshchinsky - Siberian Metropolitan, Theodosius Yanovsky (from 1712, Archimandrite of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery in St. Petersburg) and the famous church leader and writer, rector of the Kiev-Mohyla Theological Academy (from 1718, Bishop of Pskov) Feofan Prokopovich, who became the closest associate of Peter I, a prominent ideologist of Peter’s church reforms .

According to the calculations of K.V. Kharlampovich, out of 127 bishops who occupied in 1700–1762. Russian bishops' sees, there were 70 Ukrainians and Belarusians. As noted by V.S. Shulgin, “the matter was not limited to the fact that Ukrainians occupied the majority of bishops’ sees. They became abbots of the most important monasteries and some cathedrals in Moscow and St. Petersburg; the staff of the court clergy was mainly formed from them; they made up the majority in the military, naval, and embassy clergy, and occupied prominent places in the diocesan administration. Finally, the entire system of theological education was in their hands, since the teaching staff of theological schools, including the Moscow Slavic-Greco-Latin Academy, was formed mainly from “scholars of Kiev.”

The Russian clergy was pushed into the background, which increased their hostility towards the newcomers, whom they saw as “heretics” and “Latins”. The Ukrainian clergy boasted of their learning and arrogantly treated the “ignorant” Russians. The “newcomers” did not cling to “ancient piety”, native Russian customs, they even neglected them and willingly supported Peter’s church reforms. They actively supported Peter's other political actions. However, as noted by V.S. Shulgin in the study we have already cited, the “newcomers” became so firmly entrenched that they themselves even became zealous adherents of the Old Russian church tradition, and some of them were no different in this from the Russian clergy and conservative-minded secular figures, and even became in opposition to Peter’s reforms. The leader of this opposition was the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Stefan Yavorsky, who, as the church reform deepened, became more and more at odds with Peter, making sharp attacks against his actions in relation to the church. He opposed economic measures against the church, did not approve of the tsar’s divorce from his first wife and his second marriage while his wife was alive, and unequivocally declared Alexei Petrovich as the legal heir to the throne. Stefan Yavorsky saw Peter's church reform "taken from the Protestant model." In his treatise “The Stone of Faith” (1718), Stefan Jaworsky sharply spoke out against the subordination of the church to the state and pursued the theory of “two powers” ​​(“Caesar’s to Caesar, and God’s to God,” i.e. the sphere of activity of spiritual and secular authorities should be clearly defined: to the king - civil affairs, to the shepherd - spiritual). Peter I banned the publication of this treatise (it was published in 1728).

In 1718, Peter I instructed Feofan Prokopovich to prepare a project for a collegial governing body of the Russian Orthodox Church, modeled on the civil colleges established at that time. In February 1720, the project was ready, corrected by Peter and submitted for discussion to the Senate, to the meeting of which 7 bishops and 6 archimandrites were invited. In the Senate, without any changes, the project was approved and signed by everyone, then its texts were sent to Moscow, Kazan and Vologda, where the rest of the bishops and abbots of the most important monasteries were supposed to arrive to sign it - for Peter it was important to obtain the written consent of all the highest clergy of the church . This procedure dragged on for almost a year. On January 25, 1721, by decree of Peter I, the Regulations were approved and in the same year published under the title “Spiritual Regulations of the Most Eminent, Most Sovereign Sovereign Peter the Great, Emperor and Autocrat of All Russia.”

The Spiritual Regulations consists of three parts: the first defines the new structure of church administration (the Spiritual Collegium), the second defines the terms of reference and functions of the Theological College, the third lists in detail the responsibilities of bishops and parish priests, and the establishment of a system of theological educational institutions (see Appendix 3.1).

The Regulations prove the legality and necessity of introducing a collegial supreme governing body of the church instead of a single one (patriarchal). The following arguments are put forward: collegial management, in comparison with individual management, can resolve matters more quickly and impartially, “what one does not comprehend, another will comprehend,” moreover, the collegium “has the freest spirit in itself” and is not afraid of strong people, and as a conciliar institution has more authority.

In addition, from collegial government one can “not fear the fatherland from rebellion and embarrassment, which arise from its own single spiritual ruler, for the common people do not know the difference between spiritual power and autocratic power; but amazed by the great honor and glory of the highest shepherd, he thinks that such a ruler is a second sovereign, equivalent to an autocrat, or greater.” As proof, the Regulations point to Byzantine history, the history of the papacy, and similar “we also have past attempts.”

However, as correctly noted by the historian of the Russian Church I.K. Smolich, “the main meaning of the “Regulations” lies not so much in the abolition of the patriarchate, but in the revolutionary restructuring of relations between the state and the church.” And this “perestroika,” we add, was expressed in the fact that the new church administration (like itself) was placed in strict subordination to the supreme secular power - the emperor, who in the Regulations is called “the ultimate Judge of orthodoxy and the guardian of all deanery in the Holy Church.” In other words, the emperor was declared the head of the Russian Orthodox Church, and the Spiritual Collegium established by him was the instrument of his management of church affairs, being in the position of the civil colleges created at the same time. The appointment of persons to the Theological College, as well as their dismissal, was carried out by royal command. All of them, upon taking office, were required to take an oath on the cross and the Gospel in the prescribed form: “I swear again by Almighty God that I want and owe it to my natural and true king and sovereign Peter the Great, the All-Russian autocrat, and so on and so forth and so on.. . and to Her Majesty Empress Ekaterina Alekseevna to be a faithful, kind and obedient slave and subject.” The Spiritual Regulations completed the measures aimed at eliminating the independence of the Russian Orthodox Church, i.e. completely subordinated it to secular power.

In May 1722, an “Addendum” to the Spiritual Regulations was published, called “Addendum on the rules of the clergy and monastic order.” It defined in detail the conditions and procedure for entering the priesthood, the duties of a priest in relation to parishioners, spiritual superiors and secular authorities, the procedure for entering monasticism, and the rules of monastic life (see Appendix).

The Ecclesiastical College was established on January 1, 1721 and was inaugurated on February 14 of the same year. Soon it received the name of the Holy Governing Synod. According to the Spiritual Regulations, the composition of the Synod was determined to be 12 “government persons”. But by a personal decree on January 25, 1721, instead of 12, 11 persons were appointed: one president (Stephan Yavorsky), two vice-presidents (Theodosius Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich), 4 advisers and 4 assessors from representatives of the monastic and white clergy. After the death of Stefan Jaworski in 1722, Peter did not appoint a new president, and this position was abolished. The main figure in the Synod was Feofan Prokopovich. Soon after the establishment of the Synod, the Tsar ordered that “to select from the officers of the Synod a good man who would have the courage and could know the management of the Synod’s affairs and be its Chief Prosecutor and give him instructions, applying the instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Senate.”

Colonel I.V. was appointed the first chief prosecutor. Boltin The instructions drawn up for him said: “The Chief Prosecutor is obliged to sit in the Synod and watch closely, so that the Synod maintains its position in all matters that are subject to Synod consideration and decision, truly, zealously and decently, without wasting time, according to the regulations and he ruled by decrees... that he was obliged to write everything down in his journal, and also to strictly see that in the Synod not only things were done on the table, but that the decrees were carried out by the action itself. He must also firmly see to it that the Synod, in its rank, acts righteously and unhypocritically. And if he sees the opposite of this, then at the same time he is obliged to propose to the Synod openly, with a full explanation, in what they or some of them are not doing as they should, so that they can be corrected. And if they don’t listen, then he must protest at that hour, stop this matter, and immediately report it to Us.” As can be seen from here, the power of the chief prosecutor at first was primarily of a supervisory nature. In the same instructions he is referred to as “the eye of the Sovereign and solicitor in state affairs.” Gradually his power expanded more and more: in the 19th century. he becomes in position and importance on a par with ministers (as will be discussed below).

In 1723, the Holy Synod was approved by the Eastern Patriarchs (Constantinople, Antioch, Alexandria and Jerusalem), who recognized him with all patriarchal rights and called him their “brother in Christ.”

Thus, as a result of the church reforms of Peter I, the Russian Orthodox Church actually found itself in complete subordination to secular authorities, and the established administration became part of the state apparatus. The clergy turned into a kind of service class in the spiritual department. The Church was no longer recognized as having any initiative even in its own affairs, which had grave consequences for it. N.M. frankly wrote about this in 1811 to Alexander I. Karamzin: “Peter declared himself the head of the church, destroying the patriarchate as dangerous for an unlimited autocracy... Since the time of the Petrovs, the clergy in Russia has fallen. Our high priests were already only saints of the kings and in the pulpit, in biblical language, they uttered words of praise to them... The main duty of the clergy is to teach the people virtue, and for these instructions to be all the more valid, it is necessary to respect it.” Karamzin emphasized that “if the church submits to worldly power and loses its sacred character, zeal for it weakens, and with it faith.”

2. Confessional policy under the successors of Peter I (1725–1762)

“Neither before nor after Anna did the Russian government treat the clergy with such mistrust and such senseless cruelty.” Archimandrite Dmitry Sechenov said later (in 1742) that the clergy “were so frightened that even the very shepherds, the very preachers of the word of God, were silent and did not dare to open their lips about piety.”

Changes were also made in the top management, pursuing the goal of even greater subordination to secular power. Instead of the abolished Supreme Privy Council, the Cabinet of Ministers was established, and the Synod was placed under its subordination, in which Feofan Prokopovich was in charge of all affairs. Historian of the Russian Church A.V. Kartashev notes: “The Synod was terrorized through him, and in the flow of cases that took on the character of a political investigation, he often ran ahead and recommended harsh measures before government bodies. The spirit of the dictatorship of the cabinet ministers made the management of the church dependent not only on state institutions, but also directly on the persons of the dictators, who were then called temporary workers.”

The reign of Anna Ioannovna was especially difficult for monasteries and monasticism. On October 25, 1730, she issued a decree on strict adherence to the ban on monasteries acquiring land under any form (purchases, donations, bequests). The land they acquired in violation of this decree was taken away. By decree of February 11, 1731, this ban was extended to Little Russian monasteries. The census of monasteries and monastics, carried out in 1732, revealed many who were tonsured as monks, contrary to the rules established by Peter 1 (only widowed clergy and retired soldiers were allowed to tonsure). The decree of 1734 required strict implementation of these rules. A fine of 500 rubles was imposed on the diocesan bishop. The abbot of the monastery, who allowed an “illegal” tonsure, was condemned to lifelong exile, and the one who took the tonsure was “cut off the tonsure” and subjected to corporal punishment. Vigilant surveillance was established over the “inhabitants” of the monasteries. The abbots and abbess of the monasteries were often summoned to St. Petersburg to the Secret Chancellery, where they were interrogated about the behavior of the monastics. Monasticism, like the white clergy, was also subjected to devastating “analysis” carried out by the Secret Chancellery. Young monks were recruited as soldiers, able-bodied ones were sent to forced labor in the Urals and Siberia, the rest, “illegally” tonsured, were deprived of their monastic rank and expelled from monasteries. During the “debriefings,” monastery abbots were also brought to justice for “illegal” tonsure as monks.

Under Anna Ioannovna, the fight against the “schism” intensified. However, the "schism" continued to spread. From government repressions, Old Believers took refuge in the forests and fled to Siberia, where they committed self-immolation as a sign of protest and as the surest way to “save their souls.” The most terrible “burnings” (self-immolations) took place in the Ural and Siberian forests in the 20-30s of the 18th century. Military teams were sent to catch the “schismatics.”

The accession to the throne of Elizabeth Petrovna was greeted by the clergy with jubilation and great hopes, which were soon justified. On December 15, 1740, three weeks after ascending the throne, Elizabeth issued a decree on a broad amnesty for political and church leaders who suffered during the reign of Anna Ioannovna. Innocently injured hierarchs, abbots of monasteries and church parishes were released from prison casemates and returned from Siberian exile. Their titles and positions were returned to them. As the famous historian of the Russian Church A.V. wrote. Kartashev: “No class, no sector of the state machine has experienced liberation from the nightmare of Bironovism with such triumph and enthusiasm as the Orthodox clergy.” From church pulpits, Elizaveta Petrovna was glorified as “the savior from the yoke of foreigners,” as “the restorer of Orthodoxy.” Elizaveta Petrovna declared herself as a “defender of Orthodoxy.” While still a princess, she demonstratively showed her piety and love for the clergy, for spiritual sermons, and for the splendor of church rituals. She remained as such on the throne - she went on pilgrimages, especially to her beloved Trinity-Sergius Monastery, which in 1744, at her command, was renamed the Lavra, observed all fasts, and made rich donations to monasteries and churches.

In 1742, a decree was issued according to which the trial of clergy was granted to the Synod in political cases. The Synod itself, previously subordinate to the Supreme Council and then to the Cabinet of Ministers, was restored to its former dignity with the title of "Governing".

Hopes were revived for the restoration of the former influence of the church. Speeches began to be heard among church leaders about the active role of the church in state affairs. Members of the Synod - Bishop of Novgorod Ambrose Yushkevich and Bishop of Rostov Arseny Matseevich submitted a report to the Empress (“The Most Submissive Proposal”), which proposed restoring the patriarchate or, in extreme cases, “in accordance with canonical requirements” restoring the post of president and not allowing secular persons to govern church affairs. However, Elizaveta Petrovna, who announced that she would comply with all the laws of Peter, did not agree to such changes. But she agreed to transfer the management of church estates from the jurisdiction of the College of Economy to the jurisdiction of the Synod.

Elizaveta Petrovna attached special importance to the composition and activities of the Holy Synod, which was replenished with new faces, almost exclusively bishops (8 people in total), among them such prominent church figures as Archbishop Dmitry (Sechenov) of Novgorod, who took a leading position in the Synod, Archbishop S. -Petersburg Veniamin (Grigorovich), Pskov Bishop Gideon (Krinovsky), who had a brilliant preaching gift, and the energetic Rostov Archbishop Arseny (Matseevich). Prince Ya.P. was appointed Chief Prosecutor of the Synod. Shakhovskoy is an enlightened man, “a strong zealot for state interest and all legality.” He selected experienced and competent officials for the Synod office and quickly put things in order in the Synod. Elizaveta Petrovna was constantly interested in the work of the Synod, demanding weekly reports from the chief prosecutor.

At the end of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, the issue of managing church estates became acute. The Synodal Office of the Economic Board, where management of these estates was transferred in 1744, did not increase their profitability. To resolve the issue of church estates, Elizaveta Petrovna in 1757 established a Conference of members of the Synod and secular persons. Based on the report of the Conference on September 30, 1757, on measures “to liberate monastics from worldly cares and to provide them with freedom from difficulties in obtaining patrimonial income,” a decree followed, which provided that bishops’ and monastic estates should be managed not by “monastic servants,” but by “retired officers"; transfer all duties of the monastery peasants to rent; so that nothing from the income is used for expenses in excess of the state and the rest is kept separately and is not spent on anything without a personal decree of Her Majesty, so that, knowing the size of the remainder, Her Majesty can distribute for the construction of monasteries.” However, on the advice of influential clergy, the Empress refused to implement this decree, and the management of the monastery estates was again transferred to the jurisdiction of the Synod.

Researchers consider this measure of Elizaveta Petrovna as the “first step” towards the secularization of church estates.

The first attempt to secularize church estates was made during the short reign of Peter III. The decree issued on March 21, 1762 announced the confiscation of lands and peasants from monasteries and bishops' houses and their transfer to the treasury. However, this decree had no real force. He reached the site only in the summer of 1762, when the emperor had already been overthrown from the throne.

3. Confessional policy of Catherine II and Paul I

On June 28, 1762, as a result of a coup d'etat, power passed to Catherine II, who declared the decree of Peter III on March 21, 1762 a “sacrilegious encroachment” on church estates, “an useless institution that was carried out without any order or consideration.” The Empress assured clergy that she had “no intention or desire to appropriate church lands for herself.” On August 12, 1762, she signed a decree returning all estates to the clergy. But it was a tactical move. In an effort to calm the clergy, Catherine II acted prudently and cautiously, preparing a large-scale program of secularization of church estates.

On November 27, 1762, by decree of the Empress, the Commission on Spiritual Estates was formed, equal in importance to a collegium, chaired by the actual Privy Councilor G.N. Teplov, consisting of the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod A.S. Kozlovsky, the three highest hierarchs of the Church and the three most influential nobles from clergy and secular persons. On November 29, 1762, a special instruction followed, which determined its competence and procedure; The instruction obliged the Commission to draw up an inventory of the monastic synodal, church and bishop's land property, and to record peasant duties. The commission drew up a basic bill on this matter, explaining the provisions and other regulations that formed the basis for the reform of church land ownership.

The year 1762 was marked by an unprecedented scale of unrest among the monastery peasants. The reason for the unrest was the cancellation by Catherine II of the decree of Peter III on the confiscation of monastery lands and peasants for the treasury. Military teams were sent to quell the unrest. In August 1762 - July 1763. decrees were issued to take measures to stop the unrest of the monastic peasants. Among these measures was a slight reduction in the duties of peasants.

The direct implementation of the secularization of church estates was entrusted to the College of Economy, recreated on May 12, 1763, acting in accordance with special instructions dated June 6, 1763. 77 chief officers were sent to the field, who compiled detailed descriptions of the monastic estates.

On February 26, 1764, a decree was issued on the secularization of church properties - mostly in the Great Russian dioceses. All the estates of the Synod, episcopal sees and monasteries went to the treasury and were transferred to the management of the College of Economy. The number of monasteries was reduced threefold, henceforth divided into regular ones (supported by the state) and supernumerary monasteries, which were to exist on their own “dependency.” By decree of April 10, 1786, the secularization of monastic estates was carried out in the Kyiv, Chernigov and Novgorod-Severskaya, and by the decree of April 26, 1788 - in the Ekaterinoslav, Kursk and Voronezh dioceses. (On the secularization of monastic estates, see Chapter 3. “Monasteries and Monasticism.”)

The secularization of church lands deprived the church opposition of its material base. The latest outbreak of church opposition was the speech in defense of the old (pre-synodal) order (especially against the secularization of church property) by Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich of Rostov and Yaroslavl.

Metropolitan Arseny was a bright and gifted personality in the Russian church hierarchy. He did not tolerate the intrusion of secular authorities into church affairs. Matseevich repeatedly sent “denunciations” to the Synod against the government’s policy towards the Orthodox Church. His last “report,” dated March 10, 1763, was directed against the intrusion of representatives of secular power into the economic affairs of his diocese. And back in February 1763, in the Rostov Cathedral, Matseevich performed the rite of “excommunication” against “those rebelling against the Church of God,” against their “advisers,” as well as against those who encroached on church estates (meaning their upcoming secularization).

For his speeches, Matseevich was summoned to trial at the Synod. He was defrocked and exiled to the Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery. But he continued his protests and found sympathizers among northern monasticism. In 1767, based on a denunciation, he was tried a second time. The sentence passed on Matseevich in accordance with the decree of Catherine II read: “1) Deprive of the monastic title; perform the rite of cutting the hair in the provincial (Arkhangelsk - V.F.) office itself; 2) dress him in peasant clothes and rename him Andrey Vral; 3) exile to eternal and hopeless detention in Revel under vigilant supervision; 4) do not give him paper, ink and even birch bark (!); 5) do not allow anyone to approach him under any circumstances. And, in a word, keep him in such a way that the guards, not only about his condition, but also about this vile name of his, do not know.” The guard soldiers were ordered to be taken from the local garrison, most of whom did not know the Russian language. Arseny Matseevich died in a casemate on February 28, 1772. The reprisal against him made a terrifying impression on the Russian hierarchs.

In Siberia, an investigation was conducted against Metropolitan Pavel of Tobolsk and Siberia (Kanyushkevich), who was seen as an “enemy” of the secularization of church estates. The case was based on suspicions that were not justified. He was also subjected to severe repression and was eventually deprived of his chair and sent to “retire” to the Kiev Pechersk Lavra.

In connection with secularization, some previous payments in favor of bishops' houses were withdrawn from parishes. According to A.V. Kartashev, Ekaterina “conducted reconnaissance about other bishops who met secularization with hostility.”

Such were the harsh measures of the enlightened monarch towards hierarchs who opposed her will. The credo of Catherine II, expressed by her back in 1761: “Respect faith, but not allow it to influence state affairs.” Upon her accession to the throne, in a speech to the Synod, she directly and bluntly stated that bishops are not only altar servers and spiritual mentors, but first of all “state officials,” her “most faithful subjects,” for whom “the power of the monarch is higher than the laws of the Gospel.”

Measures were taken to improve the position of the parish clergy. Decrees of 1764–1765 All “salary fees” that the parish clergy were obliged to pay to the bishop were cancelled, and burdensome taxes for supply and transfers from office were canceled or fixed with rigid tariffs. From now on, the episcopate transferred to state support from the income of secularized church estates, and the “bishop’s tax” was a thing of the past. Bishops were prohibited from defrocking clergy without the permission of the Synod and from using corporal punishment (decrees of 1765–1766). The nature of the bishop's court also changed: instead of frightening and public punishment, violence that humiliated the dignity of the clergy, correctional, “cell-based” punishments came into practice for reasons of supporting the authority of clergy. But “the traditional spirit of power still reigned in the bishop’s houses.” Along with this, in 1784, a new “analysis” of the clergy followed: again it was ordered (as in the previous “analysis”) that “placeless” clergy and clergy were assigned to the tax-paying classes, and those “fit” (for military service) were to be recruited .

A decree issued in 1773 proclaimed to the Synod the principle of religious tolerance. “As the Almighty tolerates all faiths on earth,” the decree said, “then Her Majesty, from the same rules, similar to His holy will, deigns to act in this, wanting only that love and harmony always reign among her subjects.” Muslims received the freedom to build mosques and their own theological schools, and the mullahs were even assigned maintenance from the treasury, as well as Buddhist lamas. (Edicts of 1788 and 1794)

At the beginning of his reign, Paul I introduced a number of benefits for the clergy. Upon his accession to the throne on December 6, 1796, Paul 1, at the request of the Holy Synod, by his first decree exempted clergy from corporal punishment for criminal offenses in civil courts until the moment of defrocking, since the punishment “inflicted in view of those very parishioners, who received saving secrets from them, disposes them to despise the sacred dignity.” On the same day, Paul I issued a decree on the swearing of allegiance to the emperor and serfs, which had never happened before. Many peasants perceived it as a law freeing them from serfdom. At the end of 1796 - beginning of 1797. Mass peasant unrest swept across 32 provinces. A number of parish priests also joined the rebellious peasants. On January 29, 1797, Paul I issued a Manifesto, which stated: “The clergy, especially parish priests, have the duty to warn their parishioners against false and harmful disclosures and to affirm good behavior and obedience to their masters, remembering that their neglect of the verbal flock, entrusted to them, as in this world they will be exacted by their superiors, so in the next century they will have to give an answer before the terrible judgment of God.”

On May 1, 1797, an “Appeal” was published to the bishops, so that they “would strictly monitor the behavior of clergy and clergy, trying in every possible way to prevent and avert popular disturbances.” It was indicated that those shepherds who bring the crowd into obedience should be “celebrated with decent honors or transferred to the most advantageous places.” If, on the contrary, “even just a suspicion of inclination of the peasants to indignation is noticed, then immediately take him to the consistory and entrust the parish to another, and send a most reliable priest to exhort the peasants.” The decrees of Catherine II were confirmed, prohibiting priests from writing petitions for peasants. It is characteristic that the decree of 1798 on the abolition of the right of parishioners to choose parish priests was also motivated by the following circumstance: “Due to the disobedience of peasants against their landowners that took place in some provinces, a mission of priests and clergymen, instead of instructing them for a long time, according to the rules of the church and the spiritual regulations prescribed, His parishioners, through their good behavior and obedience to the authorities placed over them, themselves gave reasons for the opposite.” In 1800, corporal punishment for the parish clergy was again introduced, abolished by decree on December 6, 1796.

However, other benefits and relief for the rural clergy were preserved and new ones were established. Land plots for rural parishes were increased, salaries from the treasury for parish priests were increased by 112%, measures were taken to care for and provide for widows and orphans of priests. In 1797, the entire clergy was exempt from taxes for the maintenance of the police. The royal favors also extended to the diocesan clergy. Treasury expenses for the maintenance of the diocese increased from 463 thousand to 982 thousand rubles. In 1797, the size of the land plots of the bishop's houses was doubled, and mills, fishing grounds, and other lands were additionally allocated.

In 1800, Paul I introduced the awarding of civil orders to clergy for special merits. The first to be awarded was Metropolitan Platon (Levshin) of Moscow. They say that he begged Paul not to bestow this honor on him and to give him the opportunity to “die as a bishop, and not as a gentleman,” but ultimately, in order not to “anger” the monarch, he accepted this award. But being of an unbalanced and hot-tempered disposition, Paul often subjected high clergy to disgrace. Thus, among them, the outstanding church leader Metropolitan Gabriel (Petrov) of Novgorod and St. Petersburg suffered only because Catherine II favored him. Pavel left behind him only the Novgorod See, from which he was forced to “retire” in 1799.

In his coronation manifesto on April 5, 1797, Paul I declared himself the head of the Russian Orthodox Church. This was later enshrined in the Code of Laws of the Russian Empire (1832). Its Article 42 (Vol. I, Part 1) read: “The Emperor, as a Christian sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of dogmas and the guardian of orthodoxy and all holy piety in the Church.”

Under Paul I, religious tolerance towards “schismatics” was proclaimed. The free activity of the Old Believer Church is allowed. The books taken from them were returned to the Old Believers. But punishments were provided for those who deviated from the schism.

Tolerance was shown towards the Uniates of Belarus and Right Bank Ukraine: the Kiev, Minsk, Zhitomir and Bratslav dioceses were warned that it was impossible to force the Uniates to convert to the Orthodox faith. Priests who violated this ban were deprived of their parishes. In 1798 the Department of Roman Catholic Confession was established. It was in charge of both Catholics and Uniates, for whom freedom of religion was recognized.

Paul I pursued a favorable policy towards Catholicism. He willingly responded to the request of Napoleon, who was liquidated in 1798 during the capture of Fr. The Maltese Order of the Ioannites took them under their protection. Having become Master of the Order of Malta, Paul awarded the Order of St. John of Jerusalem to some bishops, and elevated the court priests to the rank of knights of the order.

Paul gave shelter to the Jesuits, allowing them to elect their own vicar in Russia. In 1799, Paul favorably received the general of the Jesuit order, Pastor Gabriel Gruber, who obtained from him permission for the Jesuits to open “charitable institutions” in St. Petersburg. In 1800, the Catholic Church of St. Petersburg was transferred to the Jesuits. Catherine, under whom the Jesuit college was founded. Perhaps, not without Gruber's suggestions, Paul was inspired by the idea of ​​reuniting the Catholic and Orthodox churches. Paul sent Gruber's plan (for the reunification of churches) to the Synod. Metropolitan Ambrose (Podobedov) of St. Petersburg, who was first present at the Synod, resolutely opposed the Jesuit’s proposal. Ambrose was supported by the entire Synod. Since the Jesuit order was banned by Pope Clement XIV back in 1773, Paul obtained from Pope Pius VII the publication of a bull on March 7, 1801 on the restoration of the Jesuit order within Russia. It came into force already under Alexander I.

4. Changes in policy towards the Old Believers in the last third of the 18th century

In the last third of the 18th century. The policy towards the Old Believers softened significantly. By decree of Peter III of January 29, 1762, Old Believers who fled abroad were allowed to return to Russia. The decree prescribed that “there should be no objection from anyone in the content of the law, according to their custom and according to the old printed books.” On February 1, 1762, a decree was issued to terminate all investigative and judicial cases regarding the Old Believers, “and to immediately release those kept under guard to their homes and not take anyone away again.”

Catherine II confirmed these decrees and even granted a number of new concessions to the Old Believers. She ordered the local authorities to provide patronage to the Old Believers who came from abroad, protect them and not force them to wear the specified dress and shave their beards.

In 1762, she allowed the Old Believers who came from Poland to settle in the Saratov Trans-Volga region along the river. Irgiz, where they were allocated 70 thousand acres of land. In this case, the goal was to colonize this sparsely populated region. For the same purpose, in 1785, the governor of New Russia G.A. Potemkin was ordered to settle the Old Believers in the Tauride province. A number of measures were also taken to eliminate the administrative and legal isolation of the Old Believers.

In 1763, the Raskolnik Office, established in 1725 to collect double poll tax from Old Believers and beard tax, was abolished. In 1764, Old Believers who did not refuse “the sacraments of the church from Orthodox priests” were exempted from the double poll tax. Other discriminatory measures adopted by the previous “split” legislation were eliminated. The decree of 1783 read: “The secular authorities should not interfere in distinguishing which of the inhabitants are among the faithful, or who among the erring ones to honor, but is obliged to generally observe everyone, so that everyone acts according to the prescribed state laws.”

In 1783, 1,500 Old Believers of Starodubye submitted a petition to the Synod to be allowed to perform divine services using old printed (“Donikonian”) books and to appoint a bishop who, under the jurisdiction of the Synod, would manage the affairs of all Old Believers. In 1784, the Synod allowed them to give priests, although “a bishop was denied.” This was the beginning of Edinoverie - a compromise form of unification of part of the Old Believers-priests with the Orthodox Church on the condition that they retain their old rituals, but subject to its jurisdiction. Those who entered into common faith were freed from the curse to which the schism at the Church Council of 1667 was committed; fellow believers were allowed to receive priests from the diocesan bishop, and they submitted to him in matters of spirituality and church court.

Several Edinoverie churches and monasteries were opened in Starodubye and Novorossiya.

In 1797, in the Nizhny Novgorod diocese, up to 1 thousand Old Believers-priests joined the Edinoverie. Then part of the Old Believers-priests of the Kazan, Moscow, St. Petersburg and Irkutsk dioceses joined the Edinoverie. On March 12, 1798, a decree of Paul I was issued granting the Old Believers-Polovtsians the right “to have a church and special priests ordained by diocesan bishops to perform the service of God according to old printed books.” In 1799, Edinoverie churches were opened in Moscow and St. Petersburg. Metropolitan of Moscow Platon (Levshin) compiled the “Rules of Edinovery”, approved on October 27, 1800 by Paul I. Thus, Edinoverie received official status.