Cancellation of St. George's Day and the introduction of the patriarchate Soon, in June 1591, the Crimean Khan Kazy-Girey attacked Moscow. In the letters sent to the tsar, he assured the sovereign that he was going to fight with Lithuania, and he himself came close to Moscow. Boris Godunov opposed Khan Kazy Giray and in battles,

Friendship with Peter So, successfully and deftly getting out of all difficulties, invariably emphasizing his devotion to Russia, Mazepa ruled the Left Bank, taking part in the campaigns undertaken by Peter, both in the south and in the west and in the Baltic states. Peter showered Mazepa with gifts and

The establishment of the patriarchate fell Tsargrad, and with it the significance of the Tsargrad, or Byzantine, patriarch fell: he became, as it were, a prisoner of the Turkish sultan. The Turks looked at the Christians with contempt, pressed them in every possible way, robbed them - and the once rich Christian regions on

To the story "The Establishment of the Patriarchate" Tsargrad - Constantinople, since 1453 Istanbul, the capital of the Turkish Sultan. Tolmach -

4. The abolition of the patriarchate Next is the question of the abolition of the patriarchate. Patriarch Adrian dies. It was the very first time of the Great Northern War, and Peter corresponded with those who remained in Moscow about the management of the Church from the camp near Narva. Not for the first time the Church was left without

Another obstacle limiting the power of the absolute monarch was the church. Most of the clergy were hostile to the reforms, and this is not surprising - since ancient times the church has been the custodian of Russian traditions, which were eradicated by Peter's reforms. Therefore, the church was involved in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, and by no means on the side of his father.

After the death of Patriarch Adrian, Peter only appointed an acting locum tenens to his post, and did not hold elections for the patriarch. In 1721, the “Holy Governing Synod”, or the Spiritual College, was formed, also subordinate to the Senate, the actual head of which was Feofan Prokopovich. It was he who composed the "spiritual regulations" - a set of the most important organizational and ideological regulations of the church organization in the new conditions of absolutism. According to the regulations, the members of the Synod swore allegiance to the tsar as officials and pledged "not to enter into worldly affairs and rituals for anything." Church reform meant the elimination of the independent political role of the church. She turned into constituent part bureaucracy of the absolutist state. In parallel with this, the state increased control over the income of the church and systematically withdrew a significant part of them for the needs of the treasury. These actions of Peter I aroused the discontent of the church hierarchy and the black clergy and were one of the main reasons for their participation in all kinds of reactionary conspiracies.

Peter carried out a church reform, expressed in the creation of a collegial (synodal) administration of the Russian church. The destruction of the patriarchate reflected Peter's desire to eliminate the "princely" system of church authority, unthinkable under the autocracy of Peter's time. By declaring himself the de facto head of the church, Peter destroyed its autonomy. Moreover, he made extensive use of the institutions of the church to carry out police policy. Citizens, under pain of large fines, were obliged to attend church and repent of their sins at confession to the priest. The priest, also according to the law, was obliged to report to the authorities about everything illegal that became known during confession. The transformation of the church into a bureaucratic office protecting the interests of the autocracy, serving its needs, meant the destruction for the people of a spiritual alternative to the regime and ideas coming from the state. The Church became an obedient instrument of power and thereby lost the respect of the people in many respects, which subsequently looked with indifference both at its death under the rubble of the autocracy and at the destruction of its temples.

Eastern Slavs in the era of transition to statehood
The ancestors of the Slavs (Proto-Slavs) can presumably be found among the Bronze Age tribes that inhabited the basins of the Odra, Vistula, and Dnieper rivers (Central and Eastern Europe). The neighbors of the Proto-Slavs were the ancestors of the Germanic tribes in the northwest, the ancestors of the Baltic tribes in the north, the proto-Iranian (Scythian) tribes in the south and southeast. From time to time...

Thinking
One of Richter's strongest performing qualities is, of course, his musical thinking. Every time you listen to Richter, there is a feeling of extreme clarity, integrity and organic performance. Researchers note that the power of Richter's intellect increased especially towards the late period of his work. In his youth he...

Alexander Nevsky - 1252-1263
In 1251, Alexander Yaroslavovich Nevsky came to Bath with a complaint against his brother Andrei, accusing him of not paying tribute in full. Batu sent an army against Andrei Yaroslavovich. Andrei tried to organize resistance, but only his brother, Prince of Tver Yaroslav Yaroslavovich, supported him. On June 24, 1252, near Pereyasl...

The era of Peter the Great in the life of the Russian Church is full of historical content. First, both the relation of the church to the state and the church government became clear and took on new forms. Secondly, the internal church life was marked by a struggle of theological views (for example, the familiar dispute about transubstantiation between the Great Russian and Little Russian clergy and other disagreements). Thirdly, the literary activity of the representatives of the church revived. In our presentation, we will touch only on the first of these points, because the second has a special church-historical interest, and the third is considered in the history of literature.

Consider first those measures of Peter I, which established the relationship of church to state and the general order of church government; then we will move on to particular measures regarding ecclesiastical affairs and the clergy.

The relationship of church to state before Peter I in the Muscovite state was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666-1667. The Greeks recognized in principle the supremacy of secular power and denied the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle between church and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Nikon). The enormous moral authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority of state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch (for example, Metropolitan Philip against Ivan IV), then he never left the moral ground.

Peter I did not grow up under the strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he made friends with the "heretic Germans" and, although he remained an Orthodox person by conviction, he nevertheless treated many rituals more freely than ordinary Moscow people, and seemed infected with "heresy" in the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety. It can be said with confidence that Peter, from his mother and from the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once met with condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met with no more sympathy for his innovations, following Joachim and Adrian, he forbade barbering, and Peter thought to make it obligatory. At the first decisive innovations of Peter, all those who protested against them, seeing them as heresy, sought moral support in the authority of the church and were indignant at Adrian, who was cowardly silent, in their opinion, when he should have stood for orthodoxy. Adrian really did not interfere with Peter and was silent, but he did not sympathize with the reforms, and his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter, as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only ecclesiastical, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have been a powerful opponent of Peter I if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Adrian, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch, and appointed Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a learned Little Russian, as the "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne." The management of the patriarchal economy passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. There is no need to assume, as some do, that immediately after the death of Hadrian, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate. It would be more correct to think that Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of a patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because he was convinced many times how strongly they did not sympathize with the reforms. Even the best representatives the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the whole nationality of the foreign policy of Peter I and helped him as best they could (Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), and they were against the cultural innovations of Peter. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant the risk of creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: they themselves were influenced by Western culture and science and sympathized with the innovations of Peter I. But it was impossible to appoint a Little Russian patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim, Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society, as people with Latin delusions; for this they were even persecuted. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore lead to a general temptation. In such circumstances, Peter I decided to remain without a patriarch.

The following order of church administration was temporarily established: at the head of the church administration were locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastery Order, with secular persons at the head; the council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion; Peter himself, like the former sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its management. This participation of Peter led to the fact that in the church life an important role began to play the bishops of the Little Russians, who had been persecuted before. Despite protests both in Russia and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian learned monks to the episcopal chairs. The Great Russian clergy, poorly educated and hostile to the reform, could not be an assistant to Peter I, while the Little Russians, who had a broader mental outlook and grew up in a country where Orthodoxy was forced into an active struggle against Catholicism, brought up in themselves a better understanding of the tasks of the clergy and the habit of broad activities. In their dioceses, they did not sit idly by, but converted foreigners to Orthodoxy, acted against the schism, started schools, took care of the life and morality of the clergy, and found time for literary activity. It is clear that they were more in line with the wishes of the reformer, and Peter I valued them more than those clergy from the Great Russians, whose narrow views often got in his way. One can cite a long series of names of Little Russian bishops who occupied prominent places in the Russian hierarchy. But the most remarkable of them are: Stefan Yavorsky, mentioned above, St. Dmitry, Metropolitan of Rostov and, finally, under Peter, Bishop of Pskov, later Archbishop of Novgorod. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activity much more than to abstract science, but he was very educated and studied theological science not only at the Kyiv Academy, but also in the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of Catholic schools did not affect Theophan's living mind, on the contrary, it planted in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not getting satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, then poorly and little developed, Theophanes turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk. This inclination towards the Protestant worldview, on the one hand, was reflected in Theophan's theological treatises, and on the other hand, helped him get closer to Peter I in his views on reform. The king, brought up in Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in Protestant theology, understood each other perfectly. Acquainted with Theophan for the first time in Kyiv in 1706, Peter summoned him to Petersburg in 1716, made him his right hand in church administration and defended him from all attacks from other clergy, who noticed the Protestant spirit in Peter's favorite. Theophanes, in his famous sermons, was an interpreter and apologist for Peter's reforms, and in his practical activities he was a sincere and capable assistant to him.

It was Feofan who developed and, perhaps, even the very idea of ​​that new plan of church administration, on which Peter I stopped. For more than twenty years (1700-1721) a temporary disorder continued, in which the Russian church was governed without a patriarch. Finally, on February 14, 1721, the "Holy Governing Synod" was opened. This spiritual college forever replaced the patriarchal authority. She was given the Spiritual Regulations, compiled by Feofan and edited by Peter I himself, as her guide. The regulations frankly pointed out the imperfection of the patriarch's sole administration and the political inconveniences resulting from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal authority in state affairs. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. According to the regulations, the composition of the Synod is defined as follows: the president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (they included representatives of the black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to that of the secular boards. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as at the colleges; the representative of the person of the sovereign in the Synod was the Chief Procurator, under the Synod there was also a whole department of fiscals, or inquisitors. The external organization of the Synod was, in a word, taken from the general type of organization of the collegium.

Speaking about the position of the Synod in the state, one should strictly distinguish its role in the sphere of the church from its role in common system government controlled. The significance of the Synod in church life is clearly defined by the Spiritual Regulations, according to which the Synod has "the power and authority of the patriarch." All spheres of jurisdiction and all the fullness of the ecclesiastical authority of the patriarch are inherent in the Synod. The diocese of the patriarch, which was under his personal control, was also transferred to him. This diocese was administered by the Synod through a special collegium called a dicastery or consistory. (According to the model of this consistory, consistories were gradually organized in the dioceses of all bishops). Thus, in church affairs, the Synod completely replaced the patriarch.

But in the sphere of public administration, the Synod did not fully inherit the patriarchal authority. We have various opinions about the significance of the Synod in the general composition of the administration under Peter. Some believe that "the Synod was in everything compared with the Senate and, along with it, was directly subordinate to the sovereign" (such an opinion is held, for example, by P. Znamensky in his "Guide to Russian Church History"). Others think that under Peter, in practice, the state significance of the Synod became lower than that of the Senate. Although the Synod strives to become independent of the Senate, the latter, considering the Synod as an ordinary collegium for spiritual affairs, considered it subordinate to itself. Such a view of the Senate was justified by the general idea of ​​the reformer, which was the basis of the church reform: with the establishment of the Synod, the church became dependent not on the person of the sovereign, as before, but on the state, its management was introduced into the general administrative order and the Senate, which managed the affairs of the church until the establishment of the Synod , could consider himself higher than the Theological College, as the supreme administrative body in the state (such a view was expressed in one of the articles by Professor Vladimirsky-Budanov). It is difficult to decide which opinion is fairer. One thing is clear, that the political significance of the Synod never rose as high as the authority of the patriarchs (on the beginning of the Synod, see P. V. Verkhovsky "The Establishment of the Spiritual College and the Spiritual Regulations", two volumes. 1916; also G. S. Runkevich " Establishment and initial structure of the Holy Synod, 1900).

Thus, by establishing the Synod, Peter I got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform preserved authoritative power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of that political influence with which the patriarchs could act. The question of the relationship between church and state was decided in favor of the latter, and the eastern hierarchs recognized the replacement of the patriarch by the Synod as completely legitimate. But these same Eastern Greek hierarchs under Tsar Alexei had already resolved in principle the same question and in the same direction. Therefore, Peter's church transformations, being a sharp novelty in their form, were built on the old principle bequeathed to Peter by Moscow Russia. And here, as in other reforms of Peter I, we meet with the continuity of historical traditions.

As for private events for church and faith in the era of Peter I, we can only briefly mention the most important of them, namely: the church court and land ownership, the black and white clergy, the attitude towards non-believers and schism.

Church jurisdiction was very limited under Peter: a lot of cases from church courts moved to secular courts (even a trial of crimes against faith and the church could not be carried out without the participation of secular authorities). For the trial of church people, according to the claims of secular persons, the Monastic order with secular courts was restored in 1701 (closed in 1677). In such a limitation of the judicial function of the clergy, one can see a close connection with the measures of the Code of 1649, in which the same trend affected.

The same close relationship with ancient Russia can also be seen in the measures of Peter I regarding real estate church property. The land estates of the clergy under Peter were first subjected to strict state control, and subsequently were withdrawn from economic management clergy. Their management was transferred to the Monastic order; they turned, as it were, into state property, part of the income from which went to the maintenance of monasteries and lords. This is how Peter tried to resolve the age-old question of the land holdings of the clergy in Russia. At the turn of the XV and XVI centuries. the right of monasteries to own estates was denied by a part of monasticism itself (Nil of Sora); to late XVI in. the government drew attention to the rapid alienation of land from the hands of service people into the hands of the clergy and sought to, if not completely stop, then limit this alienation. In the 17th century Zemstvo petitions insistently pointed out the harm of such alienation for the state and the noble class; the state was losing lands and duties from them; nobles became landless. In 1649, a law finally appeared in the Code, which forbade the clergy from further acquisition of land. But the Code has not yet decided to return to the state those lands owned by the clergy.

Concerned about raising morality and well-being among the clergy, Peter paid special attention to the life of the white clergy, poor and poorly educated, "indistinguishable from arable peasants," in the words of a contemporary. Alongside his decrees, Peter tried to cleanse the milieu of the clergy by forcibly diverting its superfluous members to other estates and occupations and persecuting its bad elements (the wandering clergy). At the same time, Peter tried to better provide the parish clergy by reducing their number and increasing the area of ​​parishes. He thought to raise the morality of the clergy by education and strict control. However, all these measures did not give great results.

Peter I treated monasticism not only with less care, but even with some enmity. It proceeded from the conviction of Peter that the monks were one of the causes of popular dissatisfaction with the reform and stood in opposition. A man with a practical orientation, Peter poorly understood the meaning of contemporary monasticism and thought that the majority became monks "from taxes and from laziness in order to eat bread for nothing." Not working, the monks, according to Peter, "eat up other people's works" and in inaction breed heresies and superstitions and do not do their job: excite the people against innovations. With such a view of Peter I, it is understandable his desire to reduce the number of monasteries and monks, to strictly supervise them and limit their rights and benefits. The monasteries were deprived of their lands, their income, and the number of monks was limited by the states; not only vagrancy, but also the transition from one monastery to another was prohibited, the personality of each monk was placed under the strict control of the abbots: writing in cells was prohibited, communication between monks and laity was difficult. At the end of his reign, Peter I expressed his views on the social significance of monasteries in the "Announcement of Monasticism" (1724). According to this view, monasteries should have a charitable purpose (the poor, sick, disabled and wounded were placed in monasteries), and in addition, monasteries should have served to prepare people for higher spiritual positions and to provide shelter to people who are inclined to a pious contemplative life. . With all his activities regarding monasteries, Peter I strove to bring them into line with the indicated goals.

In the era of Peter I, the attitude of the government and the church towards the Gentiles became softer than it was in the 17th century. Western Europeans were treated with tolerance, but even under Peter the Protestants were favored more than the Catholics. Peter's attitude towards the latter was conditioned not only by religious motives, but also by political ones: Peter I responded to the oppression of the Orthodox in Poland by threatening to persecute the Catholics. But in 1721, the Synod issued an important decree on the admission of marriages between Orthodox and non-Orthodox - and with Protestants and Catholics alike.

Political motives were partly guided by Peter in relation to the Russian schism. While he saw the schism as an exclusively religious sect, he treated it rather mildly, without touching the beliefs of the schismatics (although from 1714 he ordered them to take a double taxable salary). But when he saw that the religious conservatism of the schismatics leads to civil conservatism and that the schismatics are sharp opponents of his civic activities, then Peter changed his attitude towards the schism. In the second half of the reign of Peter I, repressions went along with religious tolerance: schismatics were persecuted as civil opponents of the ruling church; at the end of the reign, religious tolerance seemed to have decreased, and restriction followed civil rights all schismatics, without exception, involved and not involved in political affairs. In 1722, the schismatics were even given a certain attire, in the features of which there was, as it were, a mockery of the schism.

The 18th century opened a new page in the history of the Russian Church. In Russia, which adopted the theory of “symphony of two powers” ​​from Byzantium, the Church was never completely free from the state, but did not depend on it in its structure. social, cultural, economic and political life of the country, so quickly surrendered its positions and submitted to the state? What has become Starting point so fundamental change the former "symphony of Church and State"? The formation of the empire and the establishment of the Holy Synod are two inextricably linked processes in our history. And the fall of the autocracy in 1917 coincides with the moment of deliverance from the “captivity” of the Russian Church. After all, it is precisely in the imperial-synodal period that one should look for the causes and origins of the tragedy of our Church during the difficult years of persecution in the 20th century.

The Russian Church, despite the difficult times, is still the largest of all Orthodox autocephalous Churches and the most powerful representative of the Ecumenical Orthodoxy among other Christian confessions. The historical fate of the Russian Church is inextricably linked with the fate of the Russian people, whose role in world history has been steadily growing for many hundreds of years. In terms of its significance, the Petrine era as a turning point in our national history can only be compared with the Baptism of Russia, the abolition of serfdom, the October Revolution.

The 18th century was an era of radical change in many aspects of the life of the Russian people. With the reign of Peter I, the period of the so-called "Europeanization" of Russia begins. The political life of the country and its economy are built on the model of the Western European states. Western European forms of culture are being vigorously introduced. Although in Russia they began to get acquainted with many of these phenomena of Western European life as early as the 17th century, under Peter I they all began to be planted from above - forcibly and immediately. The unjustified destruction of national cultural traditions and forms of state life undertaken at the same time points to one of the vulnerable aspects of the Petrine reform.

With the death of Patriarch Adrian (1700), the era of the Theological College (Holy Synod) in the Russian Orthodox Church began. Describing this era as a whole, church historians usually call it "the era of state churchness." Relations between the Church and the state are fundamentally changing: "Now the Russian Church is losing its former, very high, position in Muscovite Russia and is reduced by Peter's church reform to the position of one of the state institutions."

The elaboration of the historical problem of the establishment of the Holy Synod in the works on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church is highly appreciated. I would especially like to note the authors who specifically dealt with this issue: P. V. Verkhovsky, A. S. Pavlov, Yu. F. Samarin, I. A. Chistovich. It should be noted that the works on the history of the Russian Church by P. V. Znamensky, A. V. Kartashev, E. Poselyanin, and I. K. Smolich, which have already become classics, should be noted. The following monographs by Archpriest Fr. Georgy Florovsky, V. A. Fedorov John (Ekonomtsev), M. Sheftel. Of the modern researchers in the history of the Russian Orthodox Church, one should single out, as reflecting directly opposite positions, Archpriest Fr. V. Tsypin and D. Pospelovsky.

§ 1. Prerequisites for the establishment of the Holy Synod

Why did Peter I abolish the patriarchate and largely deprive the Church of its former freedom? Until the end of the 19th century, all responsibility was placed exclusively on the Russian Church itself.

Even Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich was seriously worried about the excessive ambitions of Patriarch Nikon: he was sure that in the presence of two rival rulers of the empire, unrest and riots could not be avoided. Peter I had such suspicions even stronger: he was not one of those who could tolerate the existence of rivals. The emperor was determined to reduce the size of the Church's possessions, reduce its influence and take control.

Patriarch Adrian (August 24, 1690 - October 15, 1700) was least of all suited to the role of a person capable of energetically defending the Church before the young tsar. Adrian, who rejected everything coming from the West, took the position of passive rejection of all the innovations of Peter. “Patriarch Adrian emphasized once again to Peter the Great that even an inactive and unpopular patriarch would not be his sincere collaborator, since the main duty of the patriarch is to defend the privileged status quo of the Church, which comes from ancient times, which was at odds with the views of the great statesman and ideological champion of centralization – Peter Great." Therefore, Patriarch Adrian can be "considered one of the culprits who pushed the sovereign to church reform, expressed in the abolition of the patriarchate and the establishment of the Holy Synod." The “guilt” of Patriarch Adrian consisted, in fact, in the fact that he still defended the worldview traditional for the Muscovite state, which, although shared by all the clergy, was by no means so openly confessed by everyone, as Patriarch Nikon (1652 - 1667) did for half a century back. We know that Patriarch Adrian tried even in his "articles" and district epistles to remind the young king that the priesthood (sacerdotium) is superior to the kingdom (imperium). After Nikon, this was the only attempt by one of the hierarchs to officially renew such a demand before the sovereign. Adrian's predecessor, Patriarch Joachim, although he was much more energetic and active than Adrian, did not express such opinions, caring more about the practical side of the matter than about theoretical discussions.

So, Peter I began his transformations in the structure of church life, based on considerations of “state benefit”, during the lifetime of Patriarch Adrian. Thus, in 1697, by a tsarist decree, the economy of the bishop's houses and monasteries (“indestructible patrimonies”) was taken under state control, and construction activities were forbidden to the monasteries. In other words, ecclesiastical, episcopal, and monastic landownership was again under the control of the state. In 1698, the payment of the state rugi (that is, money and bread) to churches that had land and parish yards was stopped. For churches that did not have land and parish yards, the rug was reduced by half. The lands of the churches themselves were declared quitrent articles of the treasury. After the death of the Patriarch, Peter I takes further steps with the aim of subordinating the church system in Russia even more to the interests of tsarist absolutism. What were they?

A. Kurbatov recommends that Peter establish a temporary church administration of reliable people, at the same time withdrawing financial and economic issues of the Church from its jurisdiction and transferring it to the hands of the state: But, Sovereign, I think the patriarch is worthy of time to discuss, but in everything you yourself deign to see your autocracy. Further, he proposes to establish control over the "house treasury" of the patriarch: Also, sovereign ... to see in the bishops and monastic estates and, having rewritten the volosts, give everything for protection, choosing someone in every zeal for you, the sovereign, zealous, inflicting a special order on that. Truly, sovereign, much from that discretion, the treasury will be collected, which is now perishing in the whims of the rulers. Kurbatov was not interested in the appointment of a new patriarch, but in the control and disposal of the patriarch's estates, income from episcopal and monastic estates. Kurbatov was well aware of the opinion and plans of Peter, but in addition, his letter reflects at the same time the position of the secular administration, dissatisfied with the privileges of church estates.

Whether the advice of A. Kurbatov had influence, or not, but Peter considered it appropriate to "wait until the time" with the decision on the issue of the patriarchal successor. In general, according to tradition in the Muscovite state, the patriarch was elected at the will of the tsar. If young Peter had expressed any wishes regarding the candidacy of the new patriarch, then this would not have been anything new for the church circles in Moscow, for this would have been only a continuation of the traditional relations between the state and the Church. But Peter was at that time with the army near Narva, and all his attention was absorbed by the war. Therefore, it is quite understandable that the young tsar had neither the time nor the opportunity to rush to Moscow to take part in such an important matter as the election of the head of the Church. At this time, Peter did not yet have definite plans for a significant transformation of the highest church administration. In addition, Peter was not inclined to look for candidates for the patriarchs. On December 16, 1700, a decree was issued on the appointment of the Metropolitan of Ryazan, Stefan Yavorsky, "exarch, guardian and administrator" of the patriarchal throne. The same decree also contained instructions on the organization of higher church administration. At the same time, some privileges of the hierarchy in matters of church court were limited.

Immediately after the appointment of the locum tenens (in January 1701), the Monastic order was restored, headed by the former Astrakhan governor Musin-Pushkin, who was ordered to "sit in the patriarch's court in the chambers and write by the monastery order". The monastic order, in charge of which the management of all church estates and the disposal of fees and outfits from them passed. For the maintenance of bishops and monasteries from the order, salaries were now assigned, and extremely curtailed - "without which it is impossible to live." The rest of the amounts received from fees from church estates were supposed to be used for state and public needs, in particular for the creation of schools and charitable institutions (hospitals, almshouses for the poor, crippled soldiers, etc.). However, if almshouses were set up at monasteries, parishes or episcopal houses, then the estates were again returned to the respective spiritual authorities under their own control, although with state control over the income from them.

Freed from economic concerns, Stefan Yavorsky had almost no power in purely spiritual matters. Personnel issues were resolved in addition to him on the proposal of Musin-Pushkin, Menshikov and other persons. Musin-Pushkin was in charge of the patriarchal printing house, was in charge of translations, the publication of books, and even the correction of the Holy Scriptures. The powers of the guardian were also limited by a constant meeting of bishops, who were alternately called to Moscow. Peter himself cared little about observing the differentiation of powers established by him, issuing decrees on confession, attending church on public holidays, teaching children by clerics, accounting for those who do not come to confession, and about ordination to the bishops when filling vacancies.

Summing up the twenty years of activity of the monastery order, it must be said that it led the church economy to extreme disorder. Bishop's houses became leaner from year to year, monastic buildings fell apart without amendment, the number of households in the estates was sharply reduced due to excessive fees. Arrears in fees from church estates were constantly growing, reaching in 1721-1722. a huge amount for that time - more than 1.2 million rubles. The activities of the Monastic order, established in 1701 and which existed until the middle of 1720, fall exactly on the period of the locum tenens. It was liquidated on August 17, 1720, with the introduction of collegiums, whose competence also included the affairs of the Monastic order.

The period of the locum tenens can be regarded as a continuation of the previous, patriarchal era, since legally, until the Holy Synod was established, the patriarchate was not abolished. But real church life under the Patriarchal Locum Tenens, Metropolitan Stefan of Ryazan, had a significantly different character than in the 17th century, under the patriarchs. One can point to a number of factors that bring this era closer to the subsequent, and not to the previous period. The ratio of state and church power in the church life itself has changed significantly in the direction of the predominance of the state, in this regard, the restoration of the Monastic order in 1701 was a significant event. Under the patriarchs, it was unimaginable that decrees on church affairs were issued not even by the tsarist authorities, but by the boyar duma; and under Metropolitan Stefan, the Senate issued such decrees and even reprimanded the locum tenens, and this despite the fact that, as a person, Metropolitan Stefan was a more powerful and powerful nature than the last patriarch of the 17th century, Adrian. The second circumstance is connected with a significant Western influence on church life already at the beginning of the 18th century, which could not have been on such a scale in the 17th century: it is enough to refer to such phenomena as the Latinization of the theological school (in relation to the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, this Latinization can be accurately dated to 1700), as it has become characteristic and commonplace for the replacement of bishops' chairs by people from the Kyiv Academy and persons educated in the West - this applies to all the most representative church figures of the era. And, finally, the third circumstance, forcing us to consider the beginning XVIII century the beginning of a new period in church history was that the establishment of the Synod did not become a completely unexpected event; the reform was thought over, planned and prepared from the moment it was decided to postpone the election of a new patriarch. After all, in a normal way, the election should have taken place no later than a year after the death of Patriarch Adrian. Considering all these circumstances, the time of the locum tenens should still be included in the synodal period, as is traditionally done, but in it, of course, it constitutes a special era.

The dissatisfaction of part of the clergy with the introduced orders irritated Peter I, and often brought repressive measures on those who were dissatisfied. So, back in 1700, Bishop Ignatius of Tambov was deprived of his chair, supplying the book scribe Grigory Talitsky with money and reading his notebooks “with tears”, in which it was proved that Peter I was “Antichrist”. In 1707, Metropolitan Isaiah of Nizhny Novgorod was deprived of his chair and exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery, who sharply protested against the actions of the monastery order in his diocese. But especially a lot of painful experiences brought a considerable number of representatives of the clergy, not excluding the exarch himself, the case of Tsarevich Alexy. Many associated the restoration of former customs with Tsarevich Alexy. Having fled abroad in 1716, Tsarevich Alexy kept in touch with some clergy (Bishop Dosifei of Rostov, Metropolitans Ignatius of Krutitsy (Smola) and Kyiv Joasaph (Krakovsky), etc.). When, in 1718, the tsarevich was returned to Russia, during the search (investigation) initiated by his father, Peter I named “conversations with priests and blacks” as the main reason for the enmity that arose between them. At the same time, after being defrocked, Bishop Dositheus, the confessor of the prince, Archpriest Jacob Ignatiev, and the dean of the cathedral in Suzdal, Theodore Pustynny, were executed. Metropolitan Ignatius was deprived of his chair, and Metropolitan Joasaph (Krakovsky), who was summoned for interrogation, died on the way from Kyiv. When investigating the case in 1718, it was found that, although there were no plans for a coup among the clergy, the spirit of opposition was still strong and widespread in it. It became clear to Peter that he must take certain measures to protect his transformations from opponents from church circles. The conflict with Tsarevich Alexei was supposed to push the tsar to the final solution of the church problem. These events convinced Peter of the need to establish a new type of church government: eliminate the patriarch as sole ruler and establish a collegium, that is, such an order, which, according to Peter, was the best in principle and limited the arbitrariness of individuals in all areas of government. Peter decided to completely subordinate the new collegiate church administration to state power in order to exclude the slightest independence if it were in conflict with the interests of the state.

During the period of the locum tenens, the highest church administration was forced to endure constant interference in its affairs, not so much from the tsar himself, but from secular state institutions - the Senate and the Monastic order. This intervention eventually became a common occurrence, preparing the position of the Church, which, after the publication of the "Spiritual Regulations" and the establishment of the Holy Synod, received a legal basis.

Shortly after the end of the case of Tsarevich Alexei, Peter for the first time, as far as we know, announced the need to change the structure of church administration. The idea of ​​liquidating the patriarchate of Peter was suggested, unwittingly, by Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. In the autumn (November 20), 1718, Stefan informed the tsar that it was inconvenient for him to live in the capital, since the administration of the Ryazan diocese suffers because of this (it is possible that Stefan simply tried to free himself from the post of locum tenens). However, from his report, the tsar, employed in this time, by forming colleges, he made completely different conclusions: “And for better management in the future, it seems to be convenient for the Theological College, so that it would be more convenient to correct such great deeds.” Peter, and who was destined to become one of the main participants in the creation of a new higher church administration - the Synod.

§ 2. "Spiritual Rule"and the church reform of Peter

Peter did not deny the Church as an institution, but turned to it from a pragmatic side - as an institution that brings two benefits to the state: in the field of education and through moral influence on his flock. Therefore, Peter consistently strove to turn the Church into a part of state administration that has an impact on the people. Which is justified from the point of view of rational religiosity, which reduces all religion and religious life to morality. Such a worldview determined all the measures of spiritual power directed by him. Peter and his duties as autocrat in the same way. The duty of an autocrat: ruling the people and transforming the life of this people in a direction pleasing to the tsar. Peter was a believer, but he did not understand or underestimate the metaphysical side of Orthodoxy. In religion, he recognized as valuable only its ethical content and, accordingly, its impact on society - the most important side of religion for the public life of the people. Peter understood the inner connection of the Russian people with Orthodoxy and the significance of Orthodoxy for national and, consequently, state self-consciousness. Therefore, he saw in the Church an institution necessary for the interests of the state.

For a long time, Peter was content with temporary measures, but from 1718, when the victory over the Swedes left no doubt, he intensively engaged in the reorganization of church administration. According to Peter, state institutions should have been entrusted with control over the Church. Such an attitude is already unambiguously expressed in the decree of March 2, 1717, which states that the "spiritual rank" must be subordinate to the Governing Senate. The policy of the Senate soon placed the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne in a dependent position. After the establishment of colleges (1718 - 1720), accountable to the Senate, and the reforms of local administration (1719), a new structure of the state apparatus was determined. Now the time has come to adapt the church leadership to the state mechanism, incorporating the former into the latter. The necessity of the collegiate principle of governing the Church seemed to the tsar as self-evident as the subordination of the Church to his tsar's will. It was clear to Peter that the introduction of this order through an official decree looked like a decisive revolution in the eyes of the clergy and the people, and therefore he wanted to give his reform a motivated and intelligible justification. When the idea of ​​abolishing the patriarchate in Peter finally matured and it was time to issue a legislative act that would explain and justify this innovation, the only one to whom Peter could entrust this delicate and responsible matter was the young Archbishop of Pskov Feofan Prokopovich.

Feofan was by far the most educated person in Peter's circle, and perhaps even the most educated Russian person of the 18th century. with universal interests and knowledge in history, theology, philosophy and linguistics. Theophanes was a European, he "shared and professed the typical doctrine of the century, repeated Puffendorf, Grotius, Hobbes ... Theophanes almost believed in the absoluteness of the state" to him the rationale for the planned restructuring of church administration: Peter was convinced of Theophan's devotion to his reforms. Theophanes understood this and fulfilled the assignment, sparing neither effort nor time, putting all of himself into the cause. He was a devoted supporter of Peter's reforms and an official apologist for government measures, which was manifested more than once, especially in his treatise "The Truth of the Will of the Monarchs." Feofan's views on the relationship between the state and the Church completely coincided with the views of Peter: both were looking for a suitable model in the church institutions of Prussia and other Protestant countries. It was natural for the king to entrust the writing of the "Spiritual Regulations" to Theophanes, just as it was natural for Theophanes to wait for such an assignment.

The “Spiritual Regulations” is the main act of the Petrine legislation on the church, containing the most important principles of reform and whole line separate measures, of which the most prominent place is occupied by the replacement of the sole patriarchal power by the collegiate administration of the Synod. “The regulations were the common cause of Feofan Prokopovich and Peter himself. In Theophanes, Peter found an understanding executor and interpreter of his wishes and thoughts, not only helpful, but also obsequious. It is generally characteristic of the Petrine era that ideological programs were published under the guise of laws. Theophanes drew up regulations precisely for such a “collegium” or “consistory”, which were established and opened for spiritual affairs in the reformed principalities and lands.

It seems that Peter gave Feofan some directives, but on the whole the content of the "Regulations" reflects Theophan's ecclesiastical and political views, while his unrestricted temperament is visible in the style. The "Regulations" was conceived not only as a commentary on the law, but was supposed to contain in itself the basic law of church government. However, this goal was achieved only partially and not in the best way, since the written text does not contain clear legal definitions even the structure and powers of the governing bodies.

The author of the Rules divided it into three parts: in the first he gives a general definition of the new structure of church administration through the spiritual college and proves its legality and necessity, in the second he defines the terms of reference of the Synod, in the third - the duties of individual clergy, while paying special attention to bishops . In its form and partly in its content, the "Spiritual Regulations" is not only a purely legislative act, but at the same time a literary monument. In its tone, the "Spiritual Regulations" brings to mind the "Leviathan" of Hobbes. It proclaims the necessity of autocracy, since all human beings are inherently vicious and inevitably go to war with each other if they are not restrained by a firm autocratic power, which was not the case before, when the power of the patriarch competed with the power of the king. The nature of his exposition is entirely imbued with the spirit of the modern struggle of the reform against the prejudices and phenomena that oppose it, and therefore is distinguished by an exuberant direction, tendentiousness, even passion. About the guilt of the new form of church government, it says that collegiate government, in comparison with the sole one, can decide things faster and more impartially, is less afraid of strong people and, like a conciliar one, has more authority.

The "Regulations" is filled with general theoretical arguments, for example, about the superiority of collegial management over the sole one. The regulation contains different projects about the establishment of academies in Russia, and often falls into the tone of satire. Such, for example, are passages about episcopal power and honor, about hierarchal visitations, about church preachers, about popular superstitions shared by the clergy. “The regulation is essentially a political pamphlet. It contains more accusations and criticism than direct and positive decisions. This is more than the law. It is a manifesto and declaration of a new life. And with the intention under such a pamphlet and almost a satire, signatures were taken away and required from the spiritual authorities and ranks, and, moreover, in the order of official obedience and political reliability. In general, the Spiritual Regulation sets out in a strictly legislative form only the general principles and procedure for synodal government, and only in this part of its content does it still retain its binding force: the establishment of the Synod instead of the patriarchate, the circle of activity of the central church administration, the attitude of the Synod to the highest authority and to regional church (diocesan administration) - all this in essence remains the same, as determined by Peter in his Spiritual Regulations. But this same legislative act gives the Synod the right to supplement its Rules with new rules, submitting them for the highest approval.

The details of the entire legislative process are set out at the end of the “Regulations” in the following words: “This is all written here first by the All-Russian monarch himself, His Royal Most Sacred Majesty, to listen before him, to reason, to reason and correct, he deigned to 1720, February 11th day. And then, by decree of His Majesty, His Grace, the bishops, archimandrites, and also the ruling senators, listened and, reasoning, corrected this same February 23rd day. The same for the affirmation and fulfillment of the immutable, by attributing the hands of the spiritual and senatorial persons present, and His Royal Majesty himself with his with my own hand willing to sign." The project drawn up by Feofan was corrected by Peter (mainly the personal form of the document was replaced). This first moment of the birth of church reform takes place in complete secrecy from the church and its hierarchy. Reform is a product of the will of the absolute monarch. Further, the document was submitted for consideration by senators and a number of clergy, among whom, in addition to the author of the document, were such bishops: Stefan Yavorsky, Sylvester Kholmsky, Pitirim Nizhny Novgorod, Aaron Eropkin, Varlaam Kosovsky. The clergy, noting the need for minor corrections, stated in relation to the Rules as a whole that "everything was done pretty well."

After the meeting, Peter gave the following order to the Senate: “Yesterday I heard from you that both the bishops and you listened to the draft on the Theological College and accepted everything for the good, for this reason it is necessary for the bishops and you to sign it, which I will then fix. And it’s better to sign two and leave one here, and send the other for signing to other bishops.” However, this order was addressed not to the locum tenens, but to the Senate, by decree of which in May 1720 Major Semyon Davydov and Archimandrite Iona Salnikov collected the signatures of the bishops of all twelve dioceses (with the exception of the Siberian one due to its remoteness), as well as archimandrites and abbots of the most important monasteries . The instruction of the Senate to the commissioners was: “And if someone does not become a signatory, and from him to take on a letter by hand, which, for the sake of this parable, does not sign, so that he shows exactly that ... and that he will have a chinitsa, about that to him in The Senate writes at the post office all week long. The bishops were well aware of the consequences of the refusal, and it was not difficult for the tsar to achieve his first goal: the highest Russian clergy unquestioningly signed the "act of capitulation" of the Church to the state.

As a result, the Rules were signed by all the bishops, with the exception of Belgorod and Siberia (the latter, apparently, it was a long way to go), 48 archimandrites, 15 abbots and 5 hieromonks. Only the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Stefan Yavorsky, for some time shied away from signing the "Spiritual Regulations", referring to the ambiguity of its individual points, but he also had to give in. Having successfully completed the "combat operation", Lieutenant Colonel Davydov returned to St. Petersburg on January 4, 1721, and on January 25, Peter signed a manifesto on the establishment of the Theological College consisting of the president - Stefan Yavorsky, two vice-presidents - Theodosius Yanovsky and Feofan Prokopovich. The Manifesto gave the president of the Theological College equal rights with its other members, and thus paralyzed his ability to exert any special influence on the resolution of church issues. The Imperial Manifesto obliged the members of the supreme church body before taking office to take an oath "to the extreme Judge of the Spiritual Board, the most All-Russian monarch." From the 25th From January to February 14, gradually all the appointed 11 members of the Collegium appeared in the Senate, received a decree and took an oath, as was the case for all collegiums serving the sovereign and consisting under one Senate “cap” covering them.

In the autumn of 1721, more than half a year after the opening of the actions of the Synod, the "Spiritual Regulations" was printed. The printed edition of the “Regulations” received the following heading: “Spiritual Regulations”, by the grace and mercy of the Humanitarian God, and by the diligence and command of the God-given and God-wise most luminous sovereign sovereign Peter the Great, emperor and autocrat of all Russia, and so on, and so on, and so on, in the holy Orthodox Russian Church composed by the permission and verdict of the All-Russian spiritual rank and the Governing Senate.

The grounds for replacing the Patriarchal Administration with a Synodal Administration are set out in detail in the preface to the Spiritual Regulations itself. The council is more likely to find the truth than one person. The definitions emanating from the Council are more authoritative than individual decrees. With sole control, affairs are often suspended due to the personal circumstances of the ruler, and in the event of his death, the course of affairs stops altogether for a while. In the collegium there is no place for partiality, from which one person may not be free. The college has more freedom in the affairs of government, because it does not need to fear the wrath and vengeance of those dissatisfied with the court, and one person may be subject to such fear. And most importantly, from the conciliar government, the state has nothing to fear from rebellions and troubles, which can occur from one spiritual ruler. All members of the college have equal votes and everyone, not excluding its president, is subject to the court of the college, while the patriarch might not want to sue the bishops subordinate to him, and this very court in the eyes of the common people would seem suspicious, so for the court over the patriarch would need to convene Ecumenical Council, which, in view of Russia's relations with the Turks, is very difficult. Finally, the conciliar government must become a school of spiritual administration.

With the release of the Spiritual Regulations, the Russian Church becomes an integral part of state structure, and the Holy Synod is a state institution. The Russian Church is losing close ties with universal Orthodoxy, with which it is now connected only by dogma and ritual. The Russian jurist A. D. Gradovsky defines it this way: The Most Holy Governing Synod, formerly called the Spiritual College, was established by a state act, and not by a church one - “Spiritual Regulations” ... According to the “Regulations”, the Synod was supposed to be a state institution, depending from secular power.

§ 3. The establishment of the Holy Synod and its subsequent history

The "Spiritual Regulations" places church administration in strict subordination to the supreme authority. The idea of ​​the supremacy of the sovereign in church affairs, characteristic of Peter the Great and Feofan Prokopovich, found expression not only in the motives of the law, but also in its very content: the members of the Synod, in the oath they took, were obliged to swear “to confess the extreme judge of this spiritual college to be the All-Russian monarch himself ". In its form, the new management was agreed with the civil administration: the Spiritual Regulations and does not determine the procedure for the actions of the Synod, directly referring in this regard to the General Regulations.

At the first meeting of the Spiritual Board, which took place on February 14, 1721, the question immediately arose of what form to commemorate the Governing Spiritual Assembly (Synod) in churches during the service. With a certain timidity, they proposed to call him the Most Holy, assuring the king that this title applies only to the entire assembly. Peter graciously agreed, replacing "assembly" with the word "synod." Thus, from the first meeting, the Theological Board became the Holy Synod, which somewhat softened its not quite ecclesiastical character and, as it were, equated it with the dignity of a patriarch. As "heirs" of the patriarchal power, the members of the Synod and the staff of its office hurried to divide the patriarchal property among themselves. The transformation of the Theological Board into the Holy Synod had another meaning, since it was connected with the relationship of this body with the Senate, to which the government Boards were subordinate. At the very first meeting, its members raised this issue, noting that “no decrees were sent to the patriarchal name from anywhere, the Theological College has the honor, strength and power of the patriarchal, or almost greater.” And this issue was resolved positively. The Synod was equal in rights with the Senate and subordinated directly to the monarch.

Thus, in 1721 the Theological College was opened. The first composition of the Holy Synod: 1) President - Stefan Yavorsky; vice-presidents: 2) Theodosius Yanovsky and 3) Feofan Prokopovich; advisers: 4) Peter Smelich, Archimandrite of the Simonov Monastery, 5) Leonid, Archimandrite of the Vysokopetrovsky Monastery, 6) Hierotheus, Archimandrite of the Novospassky Monastery, 7) Gabriel Buzhinsky, Archimandrite of the Ipatiev Monastery; assessors: 8) John Semyonov, archpriest of the Trinity Cathedral, 9) Peter Grigoriev, priest of the church of St. Sampson, 10) Anastasius Kondoidi, a Greek priest who was tonsured a monk on March 2, 1721 and then appointed hegumen of the Tolga Monastery; since then he has been mentioned in documents under the name Athanasius; on February 14, 11) monk Theophilus Rabbit became the fifth assessor; On February 18, 12) Theophylact Lopatinsky, archimandrite of the Zaikonospassky Monastery and rector of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, was appointed a member of the Synod. On March 3, Pyotr Grigoriev was appointed protopresbyter of the Peter and Paul Cathedral and dismissed from the Synod, and Theophylact Lopatinsky took the place of the fifth adviser. Thus, the Synod now consisted of 11 members. But on March 6, Peter ordered the appointment of the “Greek-Balets” Nausius (probably a priest) as the sixth adviser, he remained in the Synod until his death, February 11, 1725.

Theophan, the right hand and obedient pen of the king, was the main figure in the Synod. Theodosius, although he was considered the first vice-president, began to lose Peter's favor due to his arrogant and power-hungry character; forgetting that he was indebted to the tsar for everything, he began to speak very sharply both against the ecclesiastical states and against the humiliation of the church by secular power. After the death of Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky in November 1722, the position of President of the Synod was effectively abolished. But the Archbishop of Novgorod Theodosius Yanovsky began to sign as "the leading member of the Holy Synod." And in 1726, the titles of President, Vice Presidents, Councillors, and Assessors were officially abolished due to their secular nature. In the same 1726, the Holy Synod was divided into 2 apartments. The first included 6 bishops. The second was formed from 5 laymen. However, it soon turned into the College of Economy and was withdrawn from the Holy Synod, which became bishops in its composition. Just like the Senate and the Collegiums, the Holy Synod was from the very beginning placed under the supervision of the confidant of the monarch, the “eye of the sovereign”, the chief prosecutor, who was instructed to “keep a close watch” on the activities of the highest church body. The instruction charged him with the obligation to constantly attend the meetings of the Synod and carefully monitor that its members were strictly guided in their activities by the highest decrees and regulations. The executive bodies of the Synod and the Chancellery were placed in a subordinate position to the chief prosecutor. All this gave him the opportunity to actively intervene in synodal activities. It is curious that in the absence of the tsar, the Synod had the right, if the chief prosecutor committed a crime, to arrest the "eye of the sovereign" and start a judicial investigation against him. However, no matter how great the powers of the chief prosecutor, in practice his role in resolving church issues turned out to be very modest. Synodal members, with no less zeal, sought to win the favor of the monarch, had greater access to him. Their petitions were submitted to the tsar without any mediation of the chief prosecutor. In addition, the latter was placed in relation to them in a humiliating position. His salary was half that of an ordinary synodal official, which forced the Chief Prosecutor to "humbly" ask the Holy Synod to "reward" him with a certain sum of money. So, the mechanism for including the highest church leadership in the state bureaucratic machine was perfectly fine-tuned.

The synod was the highest administrative and judicial body of the Russian Church. With the consent of the Highest Power, he had the right to open new sees, elect hierarchs and put them in widowed sees. He exercised supreme supervision over the fulfillment of church laws by all members of the Church and over the spiritual enlightenment of the people. The synod had the right to establish new holidays and rituals, to canonize saints. The synod published the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, and also subjected to supreme censorship works of theological, church-historical and canonical content. He had the right to intercede before the Highest Power about the needs of the Russian Orthodox Church. As the highest ecclesiastical judicial authority, the Synod was the court of first instance for accusing bishops of anti-canonical acts; it also represented the court of appeal in cases decided in the diocesan courts. The synod had the right to make final decisions in most divorce cases, as well as in cases of defrocking clerics and anathematizing of the laity. Finally, the Synod served as an organ of canonical communion between the Russian Church and the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. In the house church of the Primate member of the Synod, the names of the Eastern Patriarchs were raised during the service. Besides the fact that the Synod was the central governing body of the Russian Church, it was also the diocesan authority for the former Patriarchal Region, renamed Synodal. The synod ruled it through the same orders that existed under the Patriarchs, however, renamed the dicastery (in Moscow) and the Tiun office (in St. Petersburg). But after the opening of the Moscow and St. Petersburg eparchies in 1742, the Synodal Region ceased to exist. Only the Kremlin Dormition Cathedral and stauropegial monasteries remained in the direct jurisdiction of the Synod from the former Synodal Region.

During Peter's lifetime, the Theological College, later renamed the Holy Governing Synod, operated for only four years. As we shall see below, the board has not evolved over the years. When Peter died on January 28, 1725, the Synod was in principle no different from what it was on January 25, 1721, the day it was founded. At the same time, the Synod of Peter the Great differed greatly from the Synod of the subsequent period. The organization of the Petrine Synod was very simple, and although it had some connection with the Senate, it was directly subordinate to the authority of the tsar. After the death of Peter the Synod begins to develop independently, expanding and forming into a governing body. But this side of his story, neither then nor subsequently, was of particular importance. Another characteristic is that relations between the Synod and state power are changing. The chief prosecutor's office is gaining strength, which, although it was established under Peter, but at first occupied a modest place. And the fact that, after a century, the power of the chief prosecutor became equal to that of the ministers, and the chief prosecutors themselves turned into a mediastinum between the bishops of the Synod and the monarch, was hardly part of Peter's plans. This was already a distortion of the Petrine order. It can even be said that the state ecclesiasticism itself, consciously created by Peter, has also changed greatly. For two hundred years, the Holy Synod remained the bearer of the state ecclesiasticism, and it was actually controlled by the minister - the chief prosecutor. Therefore, anyone who reproaches Peter for his church reform must take into account its post-Petrine evolution. Peter is responsible only for the creation of the state church system, which was expressed in the direct subordination of the church college, i.e., the Holy Synod, to the head of state. All subsequent changes in the relationship between the Church and state power within the framework of state churchhood were the result of post-Petrine development.

If the higher Russian clergy were forced to submit to the wishes and orders of Peter, mindful of his severity in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, then the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs to all this was by no means clear to Peter. Meanwhile, their approval was of great importance for ecclesiastical and political reasons: such approval would serve in the eyes of the Russian people and clergy as an authoritative sanction of the newly established Holy Synod and would strengthen the position of the latter in the fight against the ever-widening schism. Much later, in the 19th century, the historian of the Church A. N. Muravyov formulated the essence of the matter as follows: “This Council government was promulgated throughout Russia, but the recognition of other Eastern Churches was still required for its eternal firmness, so that the unity of the Catholic Church would be inviolable.”

Peter's letter of September 30, 1721 to Patriarch Jeremiah III of Constantinople (1715-1726) contains a Greek translation of the manifesto of January 25, 1721, with significant changes in the text. The absence of an ecclesiastical-political (canonical) justification for the church reform shows, first of all, that Peter and Theophanes, who, no doubt, drew up this charter, were clearly aware that there were no canonical grounds for the reform. The changes in the text of the manifesto leave no doubt that the patriarch was informed not only inaccurately, but completely wrong. The Epistle presents the matter as if it were a matter of replacing the patriarch by a Synod with the same powers. A certain “instruction” is mentioned only in passing, but the patriarch is not told that it means such a far-reaching document as the “Spiritual Regulations”. Not a word is said about the inclusion of the Holy Synod (the Spiritual College) in the collegiate system of state administration, about the subordination of the Church to the will of the monarch and about the control of the state over the Church.

In the first reply message dated February 12, 1722, the patriarch congratulated the emperor on his victory over the Swedes and expressed the hope that the matter would be resolved successfully as soon as other patriarchs could be contacted. On September 23, 1723, the emperor received a long-awaited answer from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. The patriarchs declared that "the Synod in the Russian holy great kingdom is and is called our holy brotherhood in Christ and the Holy Synod ...". In an additional message from Patriarch Jeremiah to the Holy Synod, the recent death of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the grave illness of the Patriarch of Jerusalem are reported, and assurances are expressed that letters of confirmation from both of these patriarchs will arrive later. Thus, Peter's desire to receive sanction for his reform was fulfilled. The readiness of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch to make concessions in relation to the uncanonical actions of the emperor is explained not only by the reinterpretation of the essence of the matter that took place in Peter's letter, but also by the dependence of the patriarchs under Turkish rule on Russian subsidies.

Hence o. Alexander Schmemann assesses the situation in such a way that canonically the Synod was recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs and the sacramental-hierarchical structure of the Church was not damaged. Therefore, the sharpness of the reform is not in its canonical side, but in the psychology from which it grows.

Hidden the vast majority of Russian church society did not share the passion for reform. In the eyes of the people, the highest ecclesiastical authority has always been the hierarchs of the Church. After the death of Peter I, the people began to call the Spiritual Regulations a cursed book. Under Peter II (reigned 1727-1730), an opposition party formed among the bishops, headed by Archbishop Georgy (Dashkov) of Rostov, which sought to overthrow the synodal form of governing the Church and restore the patriarchate. At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, two prominent members of the Synod - Metropolitan Arseny (Matseevich) of Rostov and Archbishop Ambrose (Yushkevich) of Novgorod twice developed projects for the restoration of the patriarchate: one of them was dated April 5, 1742, the other - May 10, 1744. Criticizing the church reform of Peter I from various sides, the authors substantiate the unconditional need to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church as an ideal form of church government. Both projects remained without consequences. Of the laity at that time, Mikhail Petrovich Avramov (1681 - 1752), a state councilor, director of the St. Petersburg printing house, was a prominent opponent of church reform. He expressed his dissatisfaction with the reform in special notes, which he presented to Peter II, Anna Ioannovna and Elizaveta Petrovna. Avramov considered the Spiritual Regulations to be a heretical book. The replacement of the patriarchal authority and the authority of the Council by the Synod violated Canon 34 of the Holy Apostles and Canon 9 of the Council of Antioch: the primate of the Church and all the bishops of the Church must act as something really whole.

Conclusion.

For two hundred years (1721-1917) the Russian Church suffered from a serious illness, which largely paralyzed Her spiritual activity. The essence of this disease lies in the weakness of pastoral leadership. This weakness had two main manifestations: the sad inclination of the Russian Bishops to submit to the unlawful claims of worldly superiors and the relatively low authority of the parish pastor. At the same time, it should be noted that, with all the obvious minuses and losses, the Church has experienced a striking upsurge in these two hundred years. This was both a simple increase in the numerical composition of the flock of the Russian Orthodox Church, and a qualitative growth in church science and education. And the 19th century was a breakthrough in missionary activity (remember, for example, St. Innocent of Moscow).

In the 19th century, amazing ascetics and theologians appeared: St. Seraphim of Sarov, St. Ignatius Brianchaninov, St. Theophan the Recluse, St. Philaret of Moscow and others. And in general, it was during the Synodal period that the Russian Church turned, it seemed, to completely forgotten or even completely new forms and methods of work. On the new level publishing came out, especially for the poorest segments of the population (let's take Optina Pustyn as an example), missionary work, education, and translation works. And, finally, it was during this period that the famous Synodal translation of the Holy Scripture into Russian was made. The time we are considering is, in a sense, a time of paradoxes. There was no century like the 18th century when monasticism experienced so many humiliations and oppressions, but there was no such flourishing as in the 19th century (with the exception of the time St. Sergius Radonezhsky).

The establishment of the Holy Synod occupies a central place in the history of the Russian Church, dividing it into two completely different eras. Without previous events and characteristic phenomena, there would be no Peter's church reform. In turn, the latter determined the further new direction of Russian church life.

The spiritual board has no resemblance to the ancient councils, differing from them both in tasks and in the method of convocation, in the method of formation of the composition, in the composition itself, in the order of office work, in the degree of independence in decision-making, in the method of their development, etc. It is clear, therefore, that the Holy Synod, as if forcibly inserted into the body of the Russian Church, could not render the benefit for which it was intended. On the contrary, created in the spirit of a police state, the Synod brought Russian church life into a relative external order, and at the same time greatly influenced the rapid and steady cooling of religious zeal and the fading of the sincerity of inspiration. Those who could not come to terms with official decency and sought complete satisfaction for their religious needs went into sects and schism. Whoever did not have the impulse to decide on this, he completely cooled off, becoming an “intellectual”. The rest were quiet. History has shown that the objectives of the reform were indisputably good, the determination and firmness were commendable, but the methods were completely wrong.

See: Beglov A. L. Historical prerequisites for the establishment of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. – Published on Samarin Yu.F. Stefan Yavorsky and Feofan Prokopovich. - In the book: Samarin Yu.F. Works, vol. 5. M., 1880. See: Smolich I.K. History of the Russian Church. 1700–1917 / I. K. Smolich. - M., 1996; Smolich I.K. Russian monasticism. / I. K. Smolich. - M., 1997. Tsypin V. Church Law. / V. Tsypin. - M .: Publishing Center of the Russian Orthodox Church, 1994; Tsypin V. History of the Russian Orthodox Church. Synodal and Modern periods. M.: Publishing Center of the Russian Orthodox Church, 2004.

Pospelovsky D. Orthodox Church in the history of Russia, Russia and the USSR. Tutorial. / D. Pospelovsky. - M .: Publishing house of the Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Andrey, 1996; Pospelovsky D. Totalitarianism and Religions. D. Pospelovsky. - M .: Publishing house of the Biblical and Theological Institute of St. Andrew, 2003.

Hosking J. Russia: people and empire (1552 - 1917). / J. Hosking. - Smolensk: Rusich, 2000. S. 237 - 238.

Russian Orthodox Church, 988-1988. Essays on the history of I-XIX centuries. M.: Ed. Moscow Patriarchy, 1988, no. 1. // The abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I and the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod. – Published at http://www.sedmitza.ru/text/436396.html Russian Orthodox Church, 988-1988. Essays on the history of I-XIX centuries. M.: Ed. Moscow Patriarchy, 1988, no. 1. // The abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I and the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod. – Published by John (Ekonomtsev). The National-Religious Ideal and the Idea of ​​Empire in the Petrine Era: An Analysis of the Church Reform of Peter I. / John (Ekonomtsev) // Orthodoxy. Byzantium. Russia. - M .: Christian literature, 1992. S. 157.

John (Ekonomtsev). The National-Religious Ideal and the Idea of ​​Empire in the Petrine Era: An Analysis of the Church Reform of Peter I. / John (Ekonomtsev) // Orthodoxy. Byzantium. Russia. - M .: Christian literature, 1992. S. 157 - 158.

Verkhovskoy P. V. Establishment of the Spiritual College and Spiritual Regulations. / P. V. Verkhovskaya. - R.-on-D., 1916. S. 10; Chistovich I. A. Feofan Prokopovich and his time. - St. Petersburg, 1868. S. 73 - 98.

Znamensky P.V. History of the Russian Church. / P. V. Znamensky. M.: Krutitsy Patriarchal Compound, Society of Church History Lovers, 2000. P. 200. Beglov A. L. Historical prerequisites for the establishment of the Holy Synod of the Russian Orthodox Church. – Published on

Nevrev N.V. Peter I in a foreign dress
before his mother Tsarina Natalya,
Patriarch Andrian and teacher Zotov.
1903

Since its inception in 1589, the institution of the patriarchate has become the second political center of the Muscovite state after secular power. The relationship of the Church to the state before Peter was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666-1667. the supremacy of secular power was fundamentally recognized and the right of hierarchs to interfere in secular affairs was denied. The Moscow sovereign was considered the supreme patron of the Church and took an active part in church affairs. But church authorities were also called upon to participate in state administration and influenced it. Russia did not know the struggle between ecclesiastical and secular authorities, familiar to the West (it did not exist, strictly speaking, even under Patriarch Nikon). The enormous spiritual authority of the Moscow patriarchs did not seek to replace the authority of state power, and if a voice of protest was heard from the Russian hierarch, it was exclusively from a moral position.

Peter did not grow up under the strong influence of theological science and not in such a pious environment as his brothers and sisters grew up. From the very first steps of his conscious life, he made friends with the “heretic Germans” and, although he remained an Orthodox person by conviction, he nevertheless treated Church Orthodox rituals more freely than ordinary Moscow people. Peter was neither a scolder of the Church, nor a particularly pious person - in general, "neither cold nor hot." As expected, knew the circle church service, he loved to sing on the kliros, to grab the "Apostle" at the top of his lungs, to ring the bells on Easter, to celebrate Victoria with a solemn prayer service and many days of church bells; at other times, he sincerely called on the name of God and, despite the obscene parodies of the church rank, or, rather, the church hierarchy that he did not like, at the sight of church disorder, in his own words, “the frivolous had fear on his conscience, but he would not be unresponsive and ungrateful Even the correction of the spiritual rank will neglect the Most High.”

In the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety, he seemed infected with foreign "heresy". It can be said with certainty that Peter, from his mother and the conservative Patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once met with condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690-1700), a weak and timid man, Peter met with no more sympathy for his innovations. And although Adrian did not explicitly prevent Peter from introducing certain innovations, his silence, in essence, was a passive form of opposition. Insignificant in itself, the patriarch became inconvenient for Peter, as the center and unifying principle of all protests, as a natural representative of not only ecclesiastical, but also social conservatism. The patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have been a powerful opponent of Peter if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all social life to immobility.

Realizing this danger, after the death of Adrian in 1700, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch. Ryazan Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky, a Little Russian scientist, was appointed "locum tenens of the patriarchal throne". The management of the patriarchal economy passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. It is unlikely that Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate immediately after the death of Hadrian. It would be more correct to think that at that time Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of a patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced of their rejection of the reforms. Even the best representatives of the old Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the whole nationality of Peter's foreign policy and helped him as much as they could (Mitrofaniy of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), also rebelled against Peter's cultural innovations. To choose a patriarch from among the Great Russians for Peter meant the risk of creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: they themselves were influenced by European culture and science and sympathized with Western innovations. But it was impossible to appoint a Little Russian patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim the Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society as people with Latin delusions. For this they were even persecuted. The elevation of a Little Russian to the patriarchal throne would therefore have caused a wave of protest. In such circumstances, Peter decided to leave church affairs without a patriarch.

The following order of church administration was temporarily established: at the head of the church administration were Locum Tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastery Order, with secular persons at the head. The council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion. Peter himself, like the previous sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its management. But he was extremely attracted by the experience of the Protestant (Lutheran) church in Germany, based on the primacy of the monarch in spiritual matters. And in the end, shortly before the end of the war with Sweden, Peter decided to carry out the Reformation in the Russian Church. This time, too, he expected a healing effect on the tangled church affairs from the colleges, intending to establish a special spiritual college - the Synod.

Peter made the Little Russian monk Feofan Prokopovich the domestic, tame Luther of the Russian Reformation. He was a very capable, lively and energetic person, inclined to practical activity and at the same time very educated, having studied theological science not only at the Kyiv Academy, but also in the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of the Catholic schools instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. However, Orthodox theology, then poorly and little developed, did not satisfy Theophan. Therefore, from Catholic doctrines, he moved on to the study of Protestant theology and, carried away by it, learned some Protestant views, although he was an Orthodox monk.

Peter made Theophan the bishop of Pskov, and later he became the archbishop of Novgorod. A man quite secular in the direction of his mind and temperament, Feofan Prokopovich sincerely admired Peter and - God be his judge - enthusiastically praised everything indiscriminately: the personal courage and selflessness of the tsar, the work on building a fleet, the new capital, collegiums, fiscals, as well as factories, plants, mint, pharmacies, silk and cloth manufactories, paper mills, shipyards, decrees on the wearing of foreign clothing, barbering, smoking, new foreign customs, even masquerades and assemblies. Foreign diplomats noted in the Bishop of Pskov "an immeasurable devotion to the good of the country, even to the detriment of the interests of the Church." Feofan Prokopovich never tired of reminding in his sermons: “Many believe that not all people are obliged to obey state power and some are excluded, namely the priesthood and monasticism. But this opinion is a thorn, or rather, a sting, a serpent's sting, a papal spirit, reaching us and touching us, no one knows how. The priesthood is a special estate in the state, and not a special state.

It was to him that Peter instructed to draw up the regulations for the new management of the Church. The tsar hurried the Pskov bishop very much and kept asking: “Will your patriarch be in time soon?” - “Yes, I’m finishing the cassock!” Feofan replied in a tone to the king. “Good, but I have a hat ready for him!” Peter remarked.

On January 25, 1721, Peter published a manifesto on the establishment of the Most Holy Governing Synod. In the regulations of the Theological College published a little later, Peter was quite frank about the reasons that made him prefer the synodal government to the patriarchal one: “From the cathedral government you can not be afraid of the Fatherland of rebellions and embarrassment, which come from a single spiritual ruler of your own.” After listing examples of what the clergy's lust for power in Byzantium and other countries led to, the tsar, through the mouth of Feofan Prokopovich, finished: “When the people see that the conciliar government has been established by a royal decree and a Senate verdict, they will remain in meekness and lose hope for the help of the clergy in riots. ". In essence, the Synod was conceived by Peter as a special spiritual police. By synodal decrees, heavy duties were imposed on priests that were not characteristic of their dignity - they were not only supposed to glorify and exalt all reforms, but also to help the government in detecting and catching those who were hostile to innovations. The most egregious was the order to violate the secrecy of confession: having heard from the confessor about the commission of a state crime by him, his involvement in a rebellion or malicious intent on the life of the sovereign, the confessor was obliged to report such a person to the secular authorities. In addition, the priest was charged with the duty to identify schismatics.

However, Peter was tolerant of the Old Believers. They say that merchants among them are honest and diligent, and if so, let them believe what they want. To be martyrs for stupidity - neither they are worthy of this honor, nor the state will have any benefit. Open persecution of the Old Believers ceased. Peter only overlaid them with double state taxes and, by decree of 1722, dressed them up in gray caftans with a high glued red trump card. However, calling on the bishops to verbally exhort those who were stagnating in schism, the tsar sometimes nevertheless sent a company or two soldiers to help the preachers for greater persuasion.

Among the Old Believers, the news was spreading more and more widely that far in the east, where the sun rises and “the sky is adjacent to the earth” and where the Rahmans-Brahmins live, who know all worldly affairs, about which the angels who are always with them tell them, lies on the sea - okiyane, on seventy islands, the wonderful country of Belovodie, or the Oponsky kingdom; and Marko, a monk of the Topozero monastery, was there, and found 170 churches of the “Asir language” and 40 pyc churches built by elders who had fled from the Solovetsky monastery from the royal massacre. And following the happy Marco, in search of Belovodye, in the Siberian deserts, thousands of hunters rushed to see with their own eyes all the ancient beauty of the church.

Having established the Synod, Peter got out of the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform preserved an authoritative body of power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of the political influence that the patriarch could use.

But in a historical perspective, the nationalization of the Church had a detrimental effect on both herself and the state. Seeing in the Church a simple servant of the state who had lost her moral authority, many Russian people began to openly and secretly leave the bosom of the Church and seek satisfaction of their spiritual needs outside of Orthodox teaching. For example, out of 16 graduates of the Irkutsk seminary in 1914, only two expressed a desire to remain in the clergy, while the rest were going to go to universities. In Krasnoyarsk, the situation was even worse: none of its 15 graduates wanted to take the priesthood. A similar situation was in the Kostroma seminary. And since the Church has now become part of the state system, the criticism of church life or the complete denial of the Church, according to the logic of things, ended in criticism and denial of the state order. That is why there were so many seminarians and priests in the Russian revolutionary movement. The most famous of them are N.G. Chernyshevsky, N.A. Dobrolyubov, I.V. Dzhugashvili (Stalin), A.I. Mikoyan, N.I. Podvoisky (one of the leaders of the capture of the Winter Palace), S.V. Petliura, but the full list is much longer.