Of Religion.
At this time Peter laboured more than ever to reform the clergy. He had
abolished the patriarchal office, and by this act of authority had
alienated the minds of the ecclesiastics. He was determined that the
imperial power should be free and absolute, and that of the church
respected, but submissive. His design was, to establish a council of
religion, which should always subsist, but dependent on the sovereign,
and that it should give no laws to the church, but such as should be
approved of by the head of the state, of which the church was a part. He
was assisted in this undertaking by the archbishop of Novogorod, named
Theophanes Procop, or Procopowitz, i.e. son of Procop.
This prelate was a person of great learning and sagacity: his travels
through the different parts of Europe had afforded him opportunities of
remarks on the several abuses which reign amongst them. The czar, who
had himself been a witness of the same, had this great advantage in
forming all his regulations, that he was possessed of an unlimited power
to choose what was useful, and reject what was dangerous. He laboured,
in concert with the archbishop, in the years 1718 and 1719, to effect
his design. He established a perpetual synod, to be composed of twelve
members, partly bishops, and partly archpriests, all to be chosen by the
sovereign. This college was afterwards augmented to fourteen.
The motives of this establishment were explained by the czar in a
preliminary discourse. The chief and most remarkable of these was, 'That
under the administration of a college of priests, there was less danger
of troubles and insurrections, than under the government of a single
head of the church; because the common people, who are always prone to
superstition, might, by seeing one head of the church, and another of
the state, be led to believe that they were in fact two different
powers.' And hereupon he cites as an example, the divisions which so
long subsisted between the empire and the papal see, and which stained
so many kingdoms with blood.
Peter thought, and openly declared, that the notion of two powers in a
state, founded on the allegory of the two swords, mentioned in the
apostles, was absurd and erroneous.
This court was invested with the ecclesiastical power of regulating all
penances, and examining into the morals and capacity of those nominated
by the court to bishoprics, to pass judgment _en dernier ressort_ in all
causes relating to religion, in which it was the custom formerly to
appeal to the patriarch, and also to take cognizance of the revenues of
monasteries, and the distribution of alms.
This synod had the title of _most holy_, the same which the patriarchs
were wont to assume, and in fact the czar seemed to have preserved the
patriarchal dignity, but divided among fourteen members, who were all
dependant on the crown, and were to take an oath of obedience, which the
patriarchs never did. The members of this holy synod, when met in
assembly, had the same rank as the senators; but they were like the
senate, all dependant on the prince. But neither this new form of church
administration, nor the ecclesiastical code, were in full vigour till
four years after its institution, namely in 1722. Peter at first
intended, that the synod should have the presentation of those whom they
thought most worthy to fill the vacant bishoprics. These were to be
nominated by the emperor, and consecrated by the synod, Peter frequently
presided in person at the assembly. One day that a vacant see was to be
filled, the synod observed to the emperor, that they had none but
ignorant persons to present to his majesty: 'Well, then,' replied the
czar, 'you have only to pitch upon the most honest man, he will be worth
two learned ones.'
It is to be observed, that the Greek church has none of that motley
order called secular abbots. The _petit collet_ is unknown there,
otherwise than by the ridiculousness of its character, but by another
abuse (as every thing in this world must be subject to abuse) the
bishops and prelates are all chosen from the monastic orders. The first
monks were only laymen, partly devotees, and partly fanatics, who
retired into the deserts, where they were at length gathered together by
St. Basil, who gave them a body of rules, and then they took vows, and
were reckoned as the lower order of the church, which is the first step
to be taken to arise at higher dignities. It was this that filled all
Greece and Asia with monks. Russia was overrun with them. They became
rich, powerful, and though excessively ignorant, they were, at the
accession of Peter to the throne, almost the only persons who knew how
to write. Of this knowledge they made such an abuse, when struck and
confounded with the new regulations which Peter introduced in all the
departments of government, that he was obliged in 1703 to issue an
edict, forbidding the use of pen and ink to the monks, without an
express order from the archimandrite, or prior of the convent, who in
that case was responsible for the behaviour of those to whom he granted
this indulgence.
Peter designed to make this a standing law, and at first he intended,
that no one should be admitted into any order under fifty years of age;
but that appeared too late an age, as the life of man being in general
so limited, there was not time sufficient for such persons to acquire
the necessary qualifications for being made bishops; and therefore, with
the advice of his synod, he placed it at thirty years complete, but
never under; at the same time expressly prohibiting any person
exercising the profession of a soldier, or an husbandman, to enter into
a convent, without an immediate order from the emperor, or the synod,
and to admit no married man upon any account, even though divorced from
his wife; unless that wife should at the same time embrace a religious
life of her own pure will, and that neither of them had any children. No
person in actual employ under government can take the habit, without an
express order of the state for that purpose. Every monk is obliged to
work with his own hands at some trade. The nuns are never to go without
the walls of their convent, and at the age of fifty are to receive the
tonsure, as did the deaconesses of the primitive church; but if, before
undergoing that ceremony, they have an inclination to marry, they are
not only allowed, but even exhorted so to do. An admirable regulation in
a country where population is of infinitely greater use than a monastic
life.
Peter was desirous that those unhappy females, whom God has destined to
people a kingdom, and who, by a mistaken devotion, annihilated in
cloisters that race of which they would otherwise become mothers, should
at least be of some service to society, which they thus injure; and
therefore ordered, that they should all be employed in some handy works,
suitable to their sex. The empress Catherine took upon herself the care
of sending for several handicrafts over from Brabant and Holland, whom
she distributed among these convents, and, in a short time, they
produced several kinds of work, which the empress and her ladies always
wore as a part of their dress.
There cannot perhaps be any thing conceived more prudent than these
institutions; but what merits the attention of all ages, is the
regulation which Peter made himself, and which he addressed to the synod
in 1724. The ancient ecclesiastical institution is there very learnedly
explained, and the indolence of the monkish life admirably well exposed;
and he not only recommends an application to labour and industry, but
even commands it; and that the principal occupation of those people
should be, to assist and relieve the poor. He likewise orders, that sick
and infirm soldiers shall be quartered in the convents, and that a
certain number of monks shall be set apart to take care of them, and
that the most strong and healthy of these shall cultivate the lands
belonging to those convents. He orders the same regulations to be
observed in the monasteries for women, and that the strongest of these
shall take care of the gardens, and the rest to wait on sick or infirm
women, who shall be brought from the neighbouring country into the
convents for that purpose. He also enters into the minutest details
relating to these services; and lastly, he appoints certain monasteries
of both sexes for the reception and education of orphans.
In reading this ordinance of Peter the Great, which was published the
31st January, 1724, one would imagine it to have been framed by a
minister of state and a father of the church.
Almost all the customs in the Russian church are different from those of
ours. As soon as a man is made a sub-deacon, we prohibit him from
marrying, and he is accounted guilty of sacrilege if he proves
instrumental to the population of his country. On the contrary, when any
one has taken a sub-deacon's order in Russia, he is obliged likewise to
take a wife, and then may rise to the rank of priest, and arch-priest,
but he cannot be made a bishop, unless he is a widower and a monk.
Peter forbid all parish-priests from bringing up more than one son to
the service of the church, unless it was particularly desired by the
parishioners; and this he did, lest a numerous family might in time come
to tyrannize over the parish. We may perceive in these little
circumstances relating to church-government, that the legislator had
always the good of the state in view, and that he took every precaution
to make the clergy properly respected, without being dangerous, and
that they should be neither contemptible nor powerful.
In those curious memoirs, composed by an officer who was a particular
favourite of Peter the Great, I find the following anecdote:--One day a
person reading to the czar that number of the English Spectator, in
which a parallel is drawn between him and Lewis XIV. 'I do not think,'
said Peter, 'that I deserve the preference that is here given me over
that monarch; but I have been fortunate enough to have the superiority
over him in one essential point, namely, that of having obliged my
clergy to live in peace and submission; whereas my brother Lewis has
suffered himself to be ruled by his.'
A prince, whose days were almost wholly spent in the fatigues of war,
and his nights in the compiling laws for the better government of so
large an empire, and in directing so many great labours, through a space
of two thousand leagues, must stand in need of some hours of amusement.
Diversions at that time were neither so noble or elegant as they now
are, and therefore we must not wonder if Peter amused himself with the
entertainment of the sham conclave, of which mention has been already
made, and other diversions of the same stamp, which were frequently at
the expense of the Romish church, to which he had a great dislike, and
which was very pardonable in a prince of the Greek communion, who was
determined to be master in his own dominions. He likewise gave several
entertainments of the same kind at the expense of the monks of his own
country; but of the ancient monks, whose follies and bigotry he wished
to ridicule, while he strove to reform the new.
We have already seen that previous to his publishing his church-laws,
he created one of his fools pope, and celebrated the feast of the sham
conclave. This fool, whose name was Jotof, was between eighty and
ninety. The czar took it into his head to make him marry an old widow of
his own age, and to have their nuptials publicly solemnized; he caused
the invitation to the marriage guests to be made by four persons who
were remarkable for stammering. The bride was conducted to church by
decrepit old men, four of the most bulky men that could be found in
Russia acted as running footmen. The music were seated in a waggon drawn
by bears, whom they every now and then pricked with goads of iron, and
who, by their roaring, formed a full base, perfectly agreeable to the
concert in the cart. The married couple received the benediction in the
cathedral from the hands of a deaf and blind priest, who, to appear more
ridiculous, wore a large pair of spectacles on his nose. The procession,
the wedding, the marriage-feast, the undressing and putting to bed of
the bride and bridegroom, were all of a piece with the rest of this
burlesque ceremony.
We may perhaps be apt to look upon this as a trivial and ridiculous
entertainment for a great prince; but is it more so than our carnival?
or to see five or six hundred persons with masks on their faces, and
dressed in the most ridiculous manner, skipping and jumping about
together, for a whole night in a large room, without speaking a word to
each other?
In fine, were the ancient feasts of the fools and the ass, and the abbot
of the cuckolds, which were formerly celebrated in our churches, much
superior, or did our comedies of the foolish mother exhibit marks of a
greater genius?