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.