His first duty to the Christians was to establish a new administrative system for them. His decision followed the directions traditional for Muslim possessions. The Moslem rulers had long treated the religious minorities in their dominions as milets, or nations, allowing them to govern their internal life according to their own laws and customs, and making the religious head of the community responsible for its administration and for their due obedience to the prevailing authority. This was the system by which Christians in the Caliphate were governed, including the communities of the Eastern Orthodox Patriarchates. Now the system was extended to the Patriarchate of Constantinople. For practical reasons, it has always been followed in the dioceses of the Patriarchate located in the Turkish possessions. Where the civil authorities were expelled or fled, the Christians naturally expected their hierarchs to undertake negotiations with the conquerors; It was the hierarchs who had to govern their flock day after day and as best as possible. But until now, like the Orthodox patriarchs of the East, they had an Orthodox emperor in Constantinople, to whom they remained loyal and whose duty it was to protect them even when he could no longer govern them. In recent years, the protection he could provide from his impotent and impoverished state has been more nominal; but, nevertheless, it gave them authority; it elevated them above heretical Churches, such as the Coptic and Jacobite Churches, which had no civil protector and were completely slaves to the Muslim monarchy. Now, with the departure of the emperor, even this nominal protection disappeared. The Orthodox were equated in status with heretical Churches, at least in theory. In practice, their position was better, for they formed the most numerous, wealthy, and educated Christian community in the Sultan's dominions; and Sultan Mehmed, with his sense of history, was inclined to pay special attention to them.

The Sultan was also well aware that the Greeks could be useful to his Empire. The Turks will provide him with rulers and soldiers; but they had no skills in trade and industry; few of them were good sailors; and even in the countryside they were more cattle breeders than farmers. For the economy of the Empire, cooperation with the Greeks was essential. The Sultan saw no obstacle to them living side by side with the Turks in his dominions, as long as their rights were guaranteed and they understood that he was their supreme ruler.

Since the Greek miletus was to be organized, the first task was to provide it with a head. Sultan Mehmed was well aware of the difficulties that arose in the Greek Church in trying to impose a union with Rome on it; and soon after the conquest he was pleased to discover that the average Greek considered the patriarchal throne vacant. It was generally accepted that when Patriarch Gregory Mammas left for Italy in 1451, he renounced the throne. It was necessary to find a new patriarch. After conducting some investigation, Mehmed decided that it should be George Scholarius, now known as the monk Gennadius. Gennadius was not only the most outstanding scholar in Constantinople who lived there at the time of the capture of the city. He was universally respected for his impeccable honesty, and he was the leader of the anti-union and anti-Western party in the Church. You could rely on him not to start intrigues with the West. A month after the conquest of Constantinople, the sultan sent officials who brought Gennadius to him. At first, they could not find him. It turned out that he had been taken prisoner during the fall of the city, and had fallen into the possession of a wealthy Turk in Adrianople, who was fascinated by his learning, and treated him with an esteem seldom enjoyed by slaves. He was ransomed from his master and honorably escorted to Constantinople to the Sultan. Mehmed persuaded him to accept the patriarchate; Together they worked out the terms of the constitution that could be granted to the Orthodox. Its basic tenets may have been adopted before the sultan left the conquered city for Adrianople at the end of June, although six months elapsed before Gennadius actually took over the administration of the patriarchate. [257]

The enthronement took place in January 1454, when the sultan returned to Constantinople. Mehmed had to play, as far as his own religion permitted, the role that had previously belonged to the Christian emperors. We know nothing about the necessary convocation of the Holy Synod; but, apparently, it was composed of those metropolitans who could be assembled, and their task was to declare the patriarchal throne vacant and, on the recommendation of the sultan, to elect Gennadius to it. Then, on January 6, Gennadius received an audience with the Sultan, who presented him with the signs of his ministry - a mantle, a pastoral staff and a pectoral cross. The original cross was lost. It is not known whether Gregory Mammas took it with him when he left for Rome, or whether he disappeared during the storming of the city. So Mehmed himself gave him a new cross, silver with gilding. At the installation of the patriarch, he pronounced the following formula: "Be a patriarch, may good luck accompany you, and be sure of our disposition, possess all the privileges that the patriarchs enjoyed before you." Since Hagia Sophia had already been converted into a mosque, Gennadius was escorted to the church of St. Sophia. Apostles. There, the Metropolitan of Heraclius, whose traditional duty was to consecrate all the new patriarchs, performed the rite of consecration and enthronement. The Patriarch then rode in procession around the city on a magnificent white horse presented to him by the Sultan and returned to his residence on the grounds of the Church of St. John. Apostles. In addition, he received an expensive gift of gold from the Sultan. [258]

It is unlikely that a new constitution will ever be written. The general principles according to which the Christian Miletus was governed in Muslim territory were well known and did not need to be thoroughly developed anew. The imperial berat, which gave the sultan's approval for each appointment to the episcopal see, usually established the duties of the candidate, according to existing traditions. We only know by hearsay about two special documents issued by the conquering sultan. According to the historian Sfranzi, who was a prisoner of the Turks at that time and could have known about it due to his position, Mehmed handed Gennadius a firman signed by him, by which he granted the patriarch personal immunity, exemption from taxes, freedom of movement, a guarantee that he would not be deprived of the throne and the right to pass on these privileges to his successors. There is no reason to doubt this. It is indeed possible that the Sultan could grant the Patriarch some written guarantees concerning his position. It should be noted, however, that the guarantees regarding the preservation of the Patriarch on the throne did not, of course, imply interference with the traditional rights of the Holy Synod to depose a Patriarch if his election was uncanonical or if he was obviously unsuitable for the place he occupied. Patriarchate chroniclers, who wrote nearly a century later, claimed that the sultan had signed another document by which he promised that church traditions regarding marriage and burial would be legally sanctioned, that Easter would be celebrated, Christians would enjoy freedom of movement on the three holidays after Easter, and churches would no longer be converted into mosques. [259] Unfortunately, when the last point was violated by subsequent sultans, the ecclesiastical authorities were unable to produce a document which they rightly claimed had been destroyed in a fire in the patriarchate. But, as we shall see later, they could have grounds to prove the legitimacy of such claims. [260]

Be that as it may, it was generally accepted that the Patriarch, in agreement with the Holy Synod, had full authority over the entire church organization, bishops and all churches and monasteries, as well as their property. Although the Sultan's government had to approve the appointment of bishops, no bishop could be appointed or dismissed without the sanction of the Patriarch and the Holy Synod. Only the patriarchal court had judicial rights in relation to the clergy; The Turkish authorities could not arrest or try any of the bishops without the permission of the patriarch. In addition, in agreement with the Holy Synod, he controlled all issues related to dogmas. His power over the Orthodox people was almost as absolute. He was an ethnarch, the ruler of the Miletus. The Patriarchal Court had full jurisdiction over all cases concerning Orthodox Christians in connection with their religion, i.e., marriages, divorces, child guardianship, wills, and inheritance. The Patriarchal Court considered all disputed monetary cases if both parties were Orthodox. Although Christians were heavily taxed, clerics were exempt from paying taxes, although sometimes they could pay special taxes by personal agreement; And it was not easy for the Sultan to maintain this condition under pressure. The Patriarch could levy taxes on the Orthodox and, by the right of his authority, collect money for the needs of the Church. Complaints against the Patriarch were accepted only by the Holy Synod, and only if he unanimously agreed to hear them. The Patriarch could appeal to the Turkish authorities to be sure that his orders were carried out by his flock. In return, the patriarch was responsible for the correct and law-abiding behavior of his flock in relation to the ruling authorities and guaranteed the payment of taxes. He himself was not engaged in the collection of taxes. This was the responsibility of the elders of the local communities, who were responsible for maintaining the registers. However, if there were any difficulties in collecting, the government could ask the Church to punish the disobedient with excommunication from Holy Communion. [261]

The Patriarchal Court administered justice on the basis of Byzantine canon law and Byzantine customary law. Customary law grew rapidly in scope, owing to circumstances to which codified law did not conform and which varied from place to place. In cases of civil cases, justice was administered according to the principle of an arbitration court. If either party was not satisfied with the decision, it could appeal to the Turkish court; In addition, if one of the parties insisted, the case could be transferred to the Turkish court of first instance. This was rarely done because Turkish courts were slow, costly, and often corrupt, and cases were heard in accordance with the Koran. The patriarchal court was remarkably incorruptible, although the wealthy Greeks, on whose financial support the Church depended, could no doubt exert some influence. A characteristic feature of the court was that the testimony given with an oath was considered valid; The oath was taken so seriously that it was rarely abused. Criminal cases such as treason, murder, theft, or rebellion were submitted to a Turkish court, except in situations where the defendant was a priest. [262]

Theoretically, the structure of the Great Church (as the Greeks called the patriarchate, although the Great Church itself, Hagia Sophia, was no longer a Christian temple) did not change after the conquest. The Patriarch was still officially elected by the Holy Synod, consisting of his metropolitans, and the election was confirmed by the Sultan. Just as in Byzantine times, the secular ruler almost invariably pointed to the candidate whom he wanted to be elected; formally the old tradition of presenting him with three names, which in late Byzantium fell into disuse, was adopted. But the increase in the administrative duties of the patriarch inevitably led to changes. St. The Synod initially consisted only of metropolitans, although the highest patriarchal dignitaries probably also sometimes attended meetings. Soon after the conquest, they were officially added to them; There was a general increase in the constitutional importance of the Synod. He retained his right to depose the Patriarch by unanimous decision. In addition, patriarchal decisions were not valid if they did not have the support of the Holy Synod. The Patriarch became no more than its chairman. In theory, this was a revival of the democratic principles of the Church. In practice, this meant that even if a strong and popular patriarch did not encounter difficulties, then the patriarchal dignity could always be undermined. Although Turkish officials did not openly interfere in the internal affairs of the Church, they exerted all possible influence through intrigues with specific members of the synod. [263]

The highest dignitaries of the Great Church continued to bear the same titles as before the conquest and theoretically performed the same duties; But in practice, their responsibilities were expanded. Lawyers have now divided them into nine groups of five, known as pentads.

Previously, he was in charge of the patriarchal prison, and now he was responsible for church discipline. Shortly before the conquest, a sixth office was added to the first pentad, the protekdik, who was originally obliged to investigate and pronounce his judgment on all requests for justice and help brought before the patriarchal court, and after the conquest he became the chief judge. The great steward and the great sacellarius had a slightly higher position than their counterparts in the pentad. As a symbol of their special power, each of them carried a sacred banner during religious ceremonies.

In the second pentad, the protonotary and logothete assisted the chartophylax as his chief secretaries and keepers of the seal; Castrinsius acted as a personal assistant to the patriarch; the referendary carried out contacts between the patriarch and the secular authorities; The Ipomnimograph was the secretary of the Holy Synod, recording its sessions in the Patriarchal registers.

The rest of the pentads consisted of officials whose duties were purely ecclesiastical or purely liturgical. There were many other officials who were not given a place in the official lists of the pentads, but they were nonetheless important; This was especially true of the judges who worked in the premises of the protekdik and made decisions of secondary importance. All the main legal decisions were pronounced by the Patriarch at the sessions of the Holy Synod. [264]

Metropolitans and bishops had their own officials on the model of the patriarchal court. In the provinces, civil court cases were heard by the community, the dimogeronts. But cases of religious significance, such as marriages and inheritance, were heard in the bishop's court. In any case, there was a possibility of appeal to the patriarchal court. [265]

The most important difference that the new order brought to the patriarchal studies was that he was now engaged in a number of secular affairs. The Patriarch, as the head of the Orthodox Miletus, was to some extent the heir of the emperor. He was to become a politician capable of defending his people before the Sublime Porte, as the Sultan's government was now called. He had to use his religious authority to make sure that the Orthodox accepted the sultan's authority and refrained from disorder. Although he himself was not engaged in the collection of taxes, he had to answer to the sultan for the receipt of taxes. In addition, in practice, the new system introduced the Great Church into legal and financial activities to a much greater extent than it had been before. The patriarch not only had to have good financiers who would give him advice on raising taxes for the faithful and on all matters of spending, but also good lawyers versed in civil law. It was difficult and hardly very correct for the clergy to enter deeply into the study of civil law. Inevitably, the laity began to occupy administrative positions in the Church. In Byzantine times, the highest ecclesiastical positions were held only by clerics. It was now necessary to appoint secular judges, and they had to be given more power, because it was impossible to get the advice of a secular financier unless he held an official position. Lawyers were included in the lower pentads and gradually worked their way up to the highest positions. The first layman, the great Chartophylax, appeared in 1554, 101 years after the conquest, and the first layman, the great skeuophylax, ten years later. Until 1640, Protekdik was a priest, but until then almost all of his office was occupied by the laity. The laity had already begun to occupy other departments; Their influence increased. The office of the logothete, which from 1575 was often headed by laymen on an equal footing with priests, began to take over many of the duties previously performed by the great steward; in the seventeenth century, the logothete was called the great logothete and was part of the first pentad. The ecclesiarch, who was the first sacristan of the patriarchal church and was listed only in the eighth pentad, was usually a layman from the beginning of the seventeenth century and soon began to perform the functions of skeuophylax and bore the title of great ecclesiarch. A new supreme office, also occupied by the laity, appeared at the beginning of the sixteenth century, the great rhetorician, or official representative of the Great Church. These new or reformed offices owed their existence to the fact that they were considered "basiliki," royal, i.e., imperial, and the assistants of the patriarch in his role as ethnarch (head of the people) inherited the functions performed by the emperor. It is believed that the growing role of the laity in the Church was due to the influence of families from Trebizond, such as the Ypsilantis, who were resettled by the conquering sultan to Constantinople, for the Church of Trebizond used secular lawyers from a certain point. But, as the name "basilikos" indicates, this was an inevitable result of the expansion of patriarchal power. During the XVIII century, measures were taken to ensure that the power of metropolitans did not become weaker than the power of secular elders. [266] This developed further as the Ottoman Empire spread southward. During the 16th century, the sultan extended his possessions to Syria and Egypt, thus incorporating the lands of the Orthodox Patriarchates of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem into the Empire. The Sublime Porte wanted the center to be in Constantinople – and the Great Church followed her wish. As a result, the Eastern Patriarchates were placed in an inferior position compared to Constantinople. The Eastern patriarchs theoretically did not lose any of their ecclesiastical rights or autonomy, and they continued to govern the Orthodox population within their thrones. But in practice it turned out that they could communicate with the Sublime Porte only through the intermediary of their Constantinople brother. When it happened that one of the patriarchal sees was vacant, it was the Patriarch of Constantinople who appealed to the sultan for permission to replace him; and since the sultan himself rarely showed interest in appointing a successor, it was easy for the Patriarch of Constantinople to secure the appointment of the candidate he considered suitable. The Eastern Patriarchates were comparatively poorer. The Patriarch of Jerusalem, despite the fact that his throne was the smallest, was the richest, because the glory of the Holy City attracted donations from all over the Orthodox world, and pilgrimages brought a steady income. The Patriarch of Antioch, whose residence since the Crusades had been Damascus, was the poorest and was heavily dependent on the Orthodox merchants of Syria, who were not always on good terms with the Greeks of Constantinople. The Patriarch of Alexandria was in a slightly better position, which was explained by the fact that a certain number of Greek merchants began to settle in Egypt after the Ottoman conquest. The Church of Cyprus retained its historical autonomy, but in fact during the Venetian rule on the island it depended on the support of the Patriarch of Constantinople, and even after the Turkish conquest, the influence of Constantinople remained paramount. The authority of the autonomous Archbishop of Sinai extended only to the monks of his monastery. [267]