Of course, since the spheres of the Church and the state are to a certain extent opposed to each other, this or that delimitation of them is practically not a matter of little importance. And moreover, such a distinction must come from the state, for it needs it, and the one Church does not divide anything. But here it is necessary to distinguish between principles and practice.

In her relationship to the state and the world, the Church sets herself the goal of calling them to free self-perfection in the Kingdom of God. Pointing to this goal, it denounces their sinfulness and sins and in repentance opens the way for them to be corrected. It blesses their good intentions and teaches them the truths of the Christian faith and life. But it does not impose its teachings or its denunciations on those who do not believe in it. And it gives concrete instructions only if it considers them possible and inviolable to freedom, and only to those who freely turn to it, i.e., declare their faith in it. The Church does not and cannot take upon herself either the leadership of the worldly activity of man, or the leadership of the practical and concrete policy of the state, therefore, in essence, there can be no conflicts between the Church and the state. If, for example, the state is indignant at the denunciations of the Church, it will thereby show that it recognized itself as a believer in the Church only in words, because, recognizing its religious and moral authority, in fact it only wanted the Church to support and praise it. And if the state asks the Church for a blessing for a bad or even dubious deed, it must reckon with the fact that the Church may not give it its blessing. Consequently, before turning to the Church with such a request, the state, in order to avoid hypocrisy, must recognize and actually ensure the complete independence of the Church from itself in the sphere of her activity. Then the Church herself will have the opportunity to speak out in those cases in which, under other conditions, she is forced to refrain from any utterance. If, on the other hand, some ecclesiastical institution or some hierarch goes beyond the above-mentioned sphere of the Church, engages, for example, in concrete politics, it is obvious that they speak on their own behalf, and not on behalf of the Church, and the state, with all due respect for the Church and their position in it, will treat them in this way. This will not be a clash between the Church and the state.

Church organization is one of the empirical unions and, as such, from the side, so to speak, of the outer shell of the Church, quite naturally lives according to the laws of a given state, recognizing them and submitting to them. Church organization is an empirical manifestation of the fact that the Church exists as an empirical manifestation of its own, which cannot be confused with the Church itself. A believing state can recognize a church organization as a legal entity, protect its rights established by it, even more than the rights of other organizations. A godless state can persecute the Church in its external organization and even hierarchy. But the essence of the Church is not affected by all this, and under normal conditions there can be no conflicts between the Church and the state on this basis.

The state, if it is a believer and Orthodox, of course, protects the independence of the Church in every possible way, listens to her general teachings, always listens to her voice, but does not demand from her specific and detailed instructions, does not "extort" miracles and actions of God's grace. Acting in its own sphere, the state itself and freely strives to work out its own state ideology on the basis of the ecclesiastical worldview, to set and solve its purely empirical tasks. It is not subordinate to the Church as an ecclesiastical organization, for, like the Church, it knows what the task of the Church is and what its tasks are, the state's. And the deeper the awareness of this, the more intimate the relationship between the Church and the state, the fewer reasons for misunderstandings. Ideally, there is a concerted action of the Church and the state, their "symphony," to use the term of the Byzantine canonists.

17. It goes without saying that the symphony of Church and State is an ideal state, to which one must always strive, but to which one can only approach more or less. True, one should not treat the symphony with excessive distrust and consider it only an idyllic dream. There were moments of great approximation to it in Russian History, for example, in the era of the gathering of the Russian land by the Grand Dukes of Moscow. And even under Alexei Mikhailovich, even after Nikon's attempts to invade the sphere of the state, the Russian people were not inclined to recognize the subordination of the Church to the state as correct. It was not for nothing that Peter the Great himself did not immediately decide to abolish the patriarchate. However, it is practically expedient, especially under the present conditions, not to leave everything to the natural course of events, but to think about some formal consolidation of the relationship between the Church and the state.

First of all, it cannot be the result of some kind of agreement between the Church and the state, a "concordat," or even a bilateral act. The Church cannot interfere in this matter, for this is a matter of the state, and the Church cannot divide or defend its "rights."

The Orthodox State must, by its unilateral act, recognize the independence of the Church from the state and its duty to guarantee this independence, to make it real and to protect it in every possible way. This means, first, that the independence or freedom of the Church is recognized in her religious, theological, teaching, moral, educational, missionary, and cult activities.

This means, secondly, that the Church is recognized as having the right to denounce and morally instruct her children and the state itself, and the denunciation of the sins of the state can only come from the church hierarchy and be limited by the state only to the extent of extreme political necessity and not otherwise than according to the exact meaning of the laws.

This means, thirdly, that the state has no right to demand from the Church the blessing of him and his acts, although the Church herself can grant such blessings in her own free understanding.

This means, fourthly, that the state recognizes as a competent legal entity a church society headed by the church hierarchy.

In order for the independence of the Church not to remain an empty word, the state must:

1) to recognize the right of church society to acquire property and to possess it, although certain norms, the right of self-taxation and self-government may be established here;

2) to renounce all material support for the Church, for example, in the form of donations of property, the granting of possessions on preferential terms, salaries to the clergy, military chaplains, teachers of religion in schools, officials of church society, awards, etc.

3) to refuse to support the acts of the Church by the power of the state, for example, to persecute heretics and schismatics at the behest of the "Church", to help the church society in collecting the fees established by it.