The 18th century opened a new page in the history of the Russian Church. In Russia, which adopted the theory of a “symphony of two powers” ​​from Byzantium, the Church was never completely free from the state, but did not depend on it in its structure. How is it that the Russian Church, such an influential, in secular terms, organization, penetrating almost all spheres social, cultural, economic and political life of the country, so quickly gave up its positions and submitted to the state? What was the starting point for such a radical change in the former “symphony of Church and state”? The formation of an 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 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 twentieth century.

The Russian Church, despite difficult times, still remains the largest of all Orthodox autocephalous Churches and the most powerful representative of 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 continuously growing for hundreds of years. In terms of its significance, the Peter the Great era as a turning point in our national history can only be compared with the Baptism of Rus', the abolition of serfdom, and the October Revolution.

The 18th century was an era of radical changes 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 began. The political life of the country and its economy are built on the model of Western European states. Western European forms of culture are being vigorously introduced. Although Russia began to become acquainted with many of these phenomena of Western European life back in the 17th century, under Peter I they all began to be imposed 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 sides of Peter’s reform.

With the death of Patriarch Adrian (1700), the era of the Spiritual College (Holy Synod) in the Russian Orthodox Church began. Characterizing this era as a whole, church historians usually call it “the era of state churchism.” The relationship between the Church and the state is fundamentally changing: “Now the Russian Church is losing its former, very high, position in Muscovite Rus' and is being 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 works on the history of the Russian Orthodox Church is highly assessed. 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 is worth noting the already classic works on the history of the Russian Church by P. V. Znamensky, A. V. Kartashev, E. Poselyanin, I. K. Smolich. The following monographs by Archpriest Fr. Georgy Florovsky, V. A. Fedorov The small, but significant in terms of generalizing conclusions, works of Fr. Ioanna (Ekonomtseva), M. Sheftel. Among modern researchers of 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. For Peter I, such suspicions grew 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 suitable for the role of a person capable of vigorously defending the Church before the young Tsar. Adrian, who rejected everything coming from the West, took a position of passive rejection of all Peter's innovations. “Patriarch Adrian once again emphasized 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, coming from ancient times, which was at odds with the views of the great statist 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 “fault” of Patriarch Adrian was, strictly speaking, that he still defended the worldview traditional for the Moscow state, which, although shared by all the clergy, was by no means professed by everyone as openly as Patriarch Nikon (1652 - 1667) did for half a century back. We know that Patriarch Hadrian even tried in his “articles” and district messages to remind the young king that the priesthood (sacerdotium) was higher than the kingdom (imperium). After Nikon, this was the only attempt by one of the hierarchs to officially renew this kind of 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 royal decree, the economy of bishops' houses and monasteries ("ruinous estates") was taken under state control, and construction activities were prohibited for the monasteries. In other words, church, episcopal and monastic land ownership was again under state control. In 1698, the payment of state ruble (that is, money and bread) to churches that had land and parish yards was stopped. For churches that did not have land or parish yards, the punishment was reduced by half. The church lands themselves were declared quitrent items for the treasury. After the death of the Patriarch, Peter I took further steps to further subordinate the church system in Russia 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 removing financial and economic issues of the Church from his jurisdiction and transferring into the hands of the state: “you see, even now, if the same sovereign is in charge, no good will happen... About the election But, Sovereign, I think the Patriarch is worth discussing for the time being, but in everything you yourself deign to see your autocracy.” Next, he proposes to establish control over the “house treasury” of the patriarch: “Greatly, sir, now everything seems weak and faulty. Also, sir... so that in the bishops’ and monastery estates he can look and, having rewritten the volosts, give everything for protection, choosing someone who is zealous for you, sir, in every zeal, issuing a special order for this purpose. Truly, sir, the treasury, which is now perishing at the whims of the rulers, will be collected much from that discretion.” Kurbatov was not interested in the appointment of a new patriarch, but in the control and disposal of the patriarch's estates and income from episcopal and monastic estates. Kurbatov was well aware of Peter’s opinions and plans, but in addition, his letter at the same time reflected the position of the secular administration, dissatisfied with the privileges of church estates.

Whether A. Kurbatov’s advice had influence or not, Peter considered it appropriate to “wait until the right time” to resolve the issue of a patriarchal successor. In general, according to tradition in the Moscow state, the patriarch was elected at the will of the tsar. If young Peter had expressed any wishes regarding the candidacy of a new patriarch, then there would have been nothing new for the church circles of Moscow, for this would have only been 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 in 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 government. In addition, Peter was not inclined to search for a candidate for patriarch. On December 16, 1700, a decree was issued appointing Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky as “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 patriarchal courtyard in the chambers and write with the monastic order.” The monastic order, which was responsible for the management of all church estates and the management of fees and orders from them. The order now assigned a salary for the maintenance of bishops and monasteries, and it was extremely cut - “without which it is impossible to live.” The remaining amounts received from collections 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 established at monasteries, parishes or bishops' houses, then the estates were returned to the corresponding spiritual authorities under their own management, although while maintaining 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 apart from him on the proposal of Musin-Pushkin, Menshikov and other persons. Musin-Pushkin was in charge of the patriarchal printing house, in charge of translations, publication of books, and even correction of the Holy Scriptures. The powers of the guardian were also limited by a permanent meeting of bishops, who were alternately called to Moscow. Peter himself cared little about observing the division of powers established by him, issuing through the Monastic Order in his own name decrees on confession, attending church on holidays, teaching children by clergy, accounting those who do not come to confession, and about ordination to the bishopric 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. The bishop's houses became scarcer from year to year, the monastery buildings fell apart without repair, and the number of households in the estates was sharply reduced due to unbearable fees. Arrears in collections from church estates constantly grew, reaching in 1721–1722. a huge amount for that time - more than 1.2 million rubles. The activity of the Monastery Prikaz, established in 1701 and lasting until mid-1720, falls exactly during the period of 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 locum tenens can be considered 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 Stephen 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 relationship between state and church power in church life itself changed significantly towards 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 would be issued not even by the royal authorities, but by the boyar duma; and under Metropolitan Stephen, the Senate issued such decrees and even reprimanded the locum tenens, and this despite the fact that as a person, Metropolitan Stephen was a more powerful and stronger person than the last patriarch of the 17th century, Adrian. The second circumstance is connected with the significant Western influence on church life already at the beginning of the 18th century, which could not have happened 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 precisely dated to 1700), as the replacement of episcopal sees by people from the Kyiv Academy and persons educated in the West, which has become a characteristic and common practice, applies to all the most representative church figures of the era. And, finally, the third circumstance that makes us consider the beginning of the 18th century to be the beginning of a new period in church history was that the establishment of the Synod was not a completely unexpected event; the reform was thought about, 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. Taking into account all these circumstances, the time of locum tenens should still be included in the synodal period, as is traditionally done, but in it it naturally constitutes a special era.

The dissatisfaction of part of the clergy with the introduced orders irritated Peter I, and often brought repressive measures on the dissatisfied. Thus, back in 1700, Bishop Ignatius of Tambov, who supplied the book writer Grigory Talitsky with money and “with tears” read his notebooks, which proved that Peter I was the “Antichrist,” was deprived of his chair. 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 the case of Tsarevich Alexy brought especially many painful experiences to a considerable number of representatives of the clergy, not excluding the exarch himself. Many associated the restoration of former customs with Tsarevich Alexy. Having fled abroad in 1716, Tsarevich Alexy maintained contact with some clergy (Bishop of Rostov Dositheus, Metropolitans of Krutitsy Ignatius (Smola) and Kiev Joasaph (Krakow), etc.). When the prince was returned to Russia in 1718, during the search (investigation) carried out by his father, Peter I named “conversations with priests and monks” as the main reason for the enmity that arose between them. At the same time, after being defrocked, Bishop Dosifei, the prince’s confessor, Archpriest Jacob Ignatiev, and the cleric of the cathedral in Suzdal, Theodore the Desert, were executed. Metropolitan Ignatius was deprived of his chair, and Metropolitan Joasaph (of Krakow), who was summoned for questioning, died on the way from Kyiv. When investigating the matter in 1718, it was discovered that, although there were no plans for a coup among the clergy, the spirit of opposition was still strong and widespread within it. It became clear to Peter that he must take certain measures to protect his reforms from opponents from church circles. The conflict with Tsarevich Alexei was supposed to push the tsar to a final solution to the church problem. These events convinced Peter of the need to establish a new type of church government: to eliminate the patriarch as a sole ruler and establish a collegium, that is, an order that, in Peter’s opinion, was the best in principle and limited the arbitrariness of individuals in all areas of government. Peter decided to completely subordinate the new collegial church administration to state power in order to exclude the slightest independence if it turned out to be in conflict with the interests of the state.

During the period of 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 government institutions - the Senate and the Monastic Prikaz. This intervention eventually became commonplace, 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.

Soon 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 government. The idea of ​​eliminating the patriarchate of Peter was suggested, without meaning to, by Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky. In the fall (November 20), 1718, Stefan informed the tsar that it was inconvenient for him to live in the capital, since the management of the Ryazan diocese was suffering because of this (perhaps Stefan simply tried to free himself from the position of locum tenens). However, from his report, the tsar, who was employed in this time with the formation of collegiums, he made completely different conclusions: “And for better management in future, it seems to be convenient for the Spiritual College, so that it would be possible to correct such great things more conveniently.” These ideas arose from Peter not without the influence of Bishop Feofan Prokopovich, a man whom he liked more and more Peter, and who was destined to become one of the main participants in the creation of a new highest church government - the Synod.

§ 2. "Spiritual Regulations"and Peter's church reform

Peter did not deny the Church as an institution, but addressed it from a pragmatic side - as an institution that brings double benefits to the state: in the field of education and through moral influence on its flock. Therefore, Peter consistently strove to transform the Church into a part of government that had an impact on the people. Which is justified from the point of view of rational religiosity, which reduced all religion and religious life to morality. This worldview determined all the activities of spiritual power directed by him. Peter and his duties as an autocrat in the same way. The duty of an autocrat: governing 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 underestimated the metaphysical side of Orthodoxy. In religion, he recognized only its ethical content and, accordingly, its impact on society as valuable - the most important aspect of religion for the state life of the people. Peter understood the internal connection of the Russian people with Orthodoxy and the significance of Orthodoxy for national and, therefore, state self-awareness. 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 began to reorganize church government. According to Peter, state institutions should have been entrusted with control over the Church. This attitude is unambiguously expressed already in the decree of March 2, 1717, which states that the “clerical 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 collegiums (1718 - 1720), reporting to the Senate, and reforms of local administration (1719), a new structure of the state apparatus was determined. Now the time has come to adapt church leadership to the state mechanism, incorporating the former into the latter. The need for a collegial principle of governing the Church seemed to the tsar to be as self-evident as the subordination of the Church to his royal 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 of Peter finally matured and the time had come 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 Pskov Archbishop Feofan Prokopovich.

Feofan was by far the most educated person in Peter's entourage, and perhaps even the most educated Russian person of the 18th century. with universal interests and knowledge in the fields of history, theology, philosophy and linguistics. Theophan was a European, he “shared and professed the typical doctrine of the century, repeated Puffendorf, Grotius, Hobbes... Theophan almost believed in the absoluteness of the state.” It was important for Peter not only that Theophan had all this knowledge, there was another good reason to trust to him the rationale for the planned restructuring of church government: Peter was convinced of Theophan’s devotion to his reforms. Feofan understood this and carried out the task, sparing neither effort nor time, putting all of himself into the work. 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.” Theophan'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” are the main act of Peter’s legislation on the church, which contains the most important principles of reform and a number of individual measures, of which the most prominent place is occupied by the replacement of individual patriarchal power with the collegial government of the Synod. “The regulations were a common matter between Feofan Prokopovich and Peter himself. In Feofan, 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 image of laws. Theophan drew up regulations precisely for such a “collegium” or “consistory”, which were established and opened in the reformed principalities and lands for spiritual affairs.”

It seems that Peter gave Feofan some directives, but in general the content of the “Regulations” reflects Theophan’s ecclesiastical and political views, while his unconstrained temperament is visible in the style. The “Regulations” were intended not only as a commentary on the law, but were also supposed to contain the basic law of church government. However, this goal was achieved only partially and far from the best way, since the written text does not even have clear legal definitions of the structure and powers of the governing bodies.

The author of the Regulations divided it into three parts: in the first, he gives a general definition of the new structure of church government 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 responsibilities of individual clergy, paying special attention to bishops . In its form and partly in its content, the “Spiritual Regulations” are not only a purely legislative act, but at the same time a literary monument. With its tone, “Spiritual Regulations” makes one think of Hobbes’s “Leviathan.” It proclaims the necessity of autocracy, since all human beings are by nature vicious and inevitably begin to fight with each other if they are not restrained by a firm autocratic power, which did not happen before, when the power of the patriarch competed with the power of the king. The nature of his presentation is entirely imbued with the spirit of the modern struggle of reform with prejudices and phenomena that opposed it, and therefore is distinguished by its expository direction, tendentiousness, and even passion. About the benefits of the new form of church government, it says that collegial government, in comparison with individual management, can decide matters more quickly and impartially, is less afraid of strong people and, like a conciliar government, has more authority.

The “Regulations” are filled with general theoretical considerations, for example, about the superiority of collegial management over individual management. The regulations contain various projects on the establishment of academies in Russia, and often fall into the tone of satire. Such are, for example, passages about episcopal power and honor, about bishops’ visits, about church preachers, about popular superstitions shared by the clergy. “The regulations are essentially a political pamphlet. There are more denunciations and criticisms in it than direct and positive decisions. This is more than a law. This is a manifesto and declaration of a new life. And with the intention of such a pamphlet and almost satire, signatures were taken and required from spiritual authorities and officials - and, moreover, in the order of official obedience and political trustworthiness.” In general, the Spiritual Regulations set out in strictly legislative form only the general principles and order of synodal administration, 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 range of activities 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 in the same form, as defined by Peter in his Spiritual Regulations. But this same legislative act gives the Synod the right to supplement its Regulations 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 whole thing written here was first written by the All-Russian monarch himself, His Royal Sacred Majesty to listen to what he had in front of him, to reason and correct, in 1720, on the 11th day of February. And then, by order of His Majesty, the bishops, archimandrites, and also the government senators listened and, reasoning, corrected this same February 23rd day. The same, in confirmation and fulfillment, is immutable, according to the attribution of the hands of the clergy and senatorial persons present, and His Royal Majesty himself deigned to sign with his own hand.” The project compiled 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 an absolute monarch. Next, the document was submitted for consideration to senators and a number of clergy, among whom, in addition to the author of the document, were the following bishops: Stefan Yavorsky, Sylvester Kholmsky, Pitirim of Nizhny Novgorod, Aaron Eropkin, Varlaam Kosovsky. The clergy, noting the need for minor corrections, stated with regard to the Regulations as a whole that “everything has been done fairly well.”

After the meeting, Peter gave the following order to the Senate: “Just yesterday I heard from you that both the bishops and you listened to the project on the Theological College and accepted everything for the good, for this reason the bishops and you should sign it, which I will then consolidate. It’s better to sign two and leave one here, and send the other to other bishops for signing.” However, this order was addressed not to the locum tenens, but to the Senate, by whose decree in May 1720, Major Semyon Davydov and Archimandrite Jonah Salnikov collected the signatures of the bishops of all twelve dioceses (with the exception of Siberian dioceses due to its remoteness), as well as archimandrites and abbots of the most important monasteries . The Senate’s instructions to the commissioners stated: “And if anyone does not sign the letter, take the letter from him by the hand, for which reason he does not sign, so that he will show it specifically... and that he will have a signer, about that he will Write to the Senate at the post office all week.” The bishops were well aware of the consequences of refusal, and the tsar had no difficulty in achieving his first goal: the highest Russian clergy unquestioningly signed the “act of surrender” of the Church to the state.

As a result, the Regulations were signed by all the bishops, with the exception of Belgorod and Sibirsk (to the latter, apparently, it was a long journey), 48 archimandrites, 15 abbots and 5 hieromonks. Only the locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Stefan Yavorsky, for some time avoided signing the “Spiritual Regulations,” citing the ambiguity of some of its 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. By the manifesto, the president of the Theological College was endowed with equal rights with its other members, and thus his ability to exert any special influence on the resolution of church issues was paralyzed. The imperial manifesto obliged members of the highest church body to take an oath before taking office “to the extreme Judge of the Spiritual College, the All-Russian monarch himself.” From the 25th January to February 14, gradually all the appointed 11 members of the Collegium appeared in the Senate, received a decree and took the oath, as was customary for all collegiums serving the sovereign and being under one senate “cap” covering them.

In the fall of 1721, more than six months after the opening of the Synod, the “Spiritual Regulations” were printed. The printed edition of the “Regulations” received the following title: “Spiritual Regulations”, by the grace and mercy of the Humane God, and by the diligence and command of the God-given and God-wise Most Serene Sovereign Peter the Great, Emperor and Autocrat of All-Russia, and so on, and so on, and so on, in the holy the Orthodox Russian Church was composed by the permission and verdict of the All-Russian ecclesiastical rank and the Governing Senate.”

The grounds for replacing the Patriarchal administration with the synodal administration are set out in detail in the preface to the “Spiritual Regulations” itself. A council can sooner find the truth than one person alone. The definitions emanating from the Council are more authoritative than individual decrees. With sole government, 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 some time. There is no place in the college 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 anger and revenge 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 riots and unrest, which can occur from one spiritual ruler. All members of the collegium have equal votes and everyone, not excluding its president, is subject to trial by the collegium, while the patriarch might not want to be tried by 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, it would be necessary to convene an 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 government.

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

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

The “Spiritual Regulations” place church administration under 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: members of the Synod in the oath they took were obliged to swear “to confess the ultimate judge of the spiritual board of the existence of the All-Russian monarch himself.” " In its form, the new administration was agreed upon with the civil administration: The Spiritual Regulations do 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 College, held on February 14, 1721, the question immediately arose of what form to remember the Governing Spiritual Assembly (Synod) in churches during services. With a certain timidity, they proposed to call him His Holiness, assuring the king that this title applied only to the entire assembly. Peter graciously agreed, replacing “assembly” with the word “synod.” Thus, from the first meeting, the Spiritual College became the Holy Synod, which somewhat softened its not entirely ecclesiastical character and, as it were, equated it with the dignity of the patriarch. As “heirs” of patriarchal power, members of the Synod and employees of its office hastened to divide the patriarchal property among themselves. The transformation of the Spiritual College into the Holy Synod had another meaning, since it was connected with the relationship of this body with the Senate, to which the government Colleges were subordinate. At the very first meeting, its members raised this question, noting that “no decrees were sent to the patriarchal name from anywhere, the Ecclesiastical College has the honor, strength and authority of the patriarch, or almost more.” And this issue was resolved positively. The Synod was given equal rights with the Senate and subordinated directly to the monarch.

So, in 1721 the Theological College was opened. The first composition of the Holy Synod: 1) president - Stefan Yavorsky; vice-presidents: 2) Feodosius Yanovsky and 3) Feofan Prokopovich; advisors: 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 Semenov, 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 abbot of the Tolga monastery; from then on he was mentioned in documents under the name Athanasius; from 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, Peter Grigoriev was appointed protopresbyter of the Peter and Paul Cathedral and was released 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 “Balti Greek” Nausias (probably a priest) as the sixth adviser; he remained in the Synod until his death, on February 11, 1725.

The main figure in the Synod was Theophanes - the right hand and obedient pen of the king. Theodosius, although considered the first vice-president, began to lose Peter's favor due to his arrogant and power-hungry character; Forgetting that he owed everything to the tsar, 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 post of President of the Synod was virtually abolished. But Archbishop of Novgorod Theodosius Yanovsky began to sign himself as “the first member of the Holy Synod.” And in 1726, the titles of president, vice-presidents, councilors 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. It, however, soon turned into the College of Economy and was removed from the Holy Synod, which became hierarchical in composition. Just like the Senate and the Collegium, the Holy Synod from the very beginning was placed under the supervision of the monarch’s confidant, the “eye of the sovereign,” the chief prosecutor, who was instructed to “closely monitor” the activities of the highest church body. The instructions charged him with the duty of constantly attending the meetings of the Synod and carefully observing 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 begin 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 strove with no less zeal to win the favor of the monarch and had greater access to him. Their petitions were submitted to the tsar without any mediation from the chief prosecutor. Moreover, the latter was placed in a humiliating position in relation to them. His salary was half that of an ordinary synodal official, which forced the chief prosecutor to “most humbly” ask the Holy Synod to “reward” him with a certain amount of money. So, the mechanism for integrating the highest church leadership into the state bureaucratic machine was perfectly fine-tuned.

The Synod was the highest administrative and judicial authority of the Russian Church. With the consent of the Highest Authority, he had the right to open new departments, elect hierarchs and place them in dowager departments. He exercised supreme supervision over the implementation 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 and to canonize holy saints. The Synod published the Holy Scriptures and liturgical books, and also subjected the supreme censorship to works of theological, church-historical and canonical content. He had the right to petition the Highest Authority 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 served as a court of appeal in cases decided in diocesan courts. The Synod had the right to make final decisions on most divorce cases, as well as on cases of defrocking clergy and anathematization of laity. Finally, the Synod served as the body of canonical communication of the Russian Church with the autocephalous Orthodox Churches, with Ecumenical Orthodoxy. In the house church of the First Member of the Synod, the names of the Eastern Patriarchs were raised during the service. In addition to 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, renamed, however, into the dicastery (in Moscow) and the Tiun office (in St. Petersburg). But after the opening of the Moscow and St. Petersburg dioceses in 1742, the Synodal region ceased to exist. Only the Kremlin Assumption Cathedral and stauropegic monasteries remained under the direct jurisdiction of the Synod from the former Synodal region.

During Peter's life, the Spiritual College, later renamed the Holy Governing Synod, operated for only four years. As we will see later, the college did not evolve during these 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 of its founding. At the same time, the Synod of Peter the Great was very different from the Synod of the subsequent period. The organization of the Peter the Great 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 began to develop independently, expanding and forming into a governing body. But this side of his story was of little significance either then or subsequently. Another characteristic is that the relationship between the Synod and state power is changing. The Chief Prosecutor's Office is gaining strength, which, although it was established under Peter, initially occupied a modest place. And the fact that after a century the power of the chief prosecutor became equal to that of the minister, 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 Peter’s orders. One might even say that the state church itself, consciously created by Peter, has also changed greatly. For two hundred years, the Holy Synod remained the bearer of the state church, and it was actually governed by the minister - the chief prosecutor. Therefore, anyone who reproaches Peter for his church reform must take into account its post-Petrine evolution. Peter was responsible only for the creation of state churchism, 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 churchism were the result of post-Petrine development.

If the highest Russian clergy was forced to submit to the wishes and commands of Peter, bearing in mind 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 church-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 for its eternal firmness the recognition of the other Eastern Churches was still required, so that the unity of the Catholic Church would be inviolable.”

Peter's letter of September 30, 1721 to the Patriarch of Constantinople Jeremiah III (1715 - 1726) contains a Greek translation of the manifesto of January 25, 1721 with significant changes to the text. The absence of a church-political (canonical) justification for the church reform shows, first of all, that Peter and Theophan, who, without a doubt, drew up this letter, were clearly aware that there were no canonical grounds for the reform. Changes in the text of the manifesto leave no doubt that the patriarch was informed not only inaccurately, but completely incorrectly. The message presents the matter as if it were a question of replacing the patriarch with a Synod possessing the same powers. There is only a passing mention of a certain “instruction”, but the patriarch is not informed that it means such a far-reaching document as the “Spiritual Regulations”. Not a word is said about the inclusion of the Holy Synod (Ecclesiastical Collegium) in the collegial system of government, about the subordination of the Church to the will of the monarch and about state control over the Church.

In his first response 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 it was possible to contact other patriarchs. On September 23, 1723, the emperor received the long-awaited answer from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch. The patriarchs announced that “the Synod in the Russian holy great kingdom exists and is called our holy brethren 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 serious illness of the Patriarch of Jerusalem are reported and an assurance is 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 willingness of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch to make concessions regarding the non-canonical 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.

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

Hiddenly, the overwhelming 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, people began to call the Spiritual Regulations a cursed book. Among the bishops under Peter II (ruled 1727 - 1730), an opposition party was formed, led by Archbishop Georgy (Dashkov) of Rostov, which sought to overthrow the synodal form of government of the Church and restore the patriarchate. At the beginning of the reign of Elizabeth Petrovna, two prominent members of the Synod - Metropolitan of Rostov Arseny (Matseevich) and Archbishop of Novgorod Ambrose (Yushkevich) 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 absolute need to restore the patriarchate in the Russian Church as an ideal form of church government. Both projects remained without consequences. Among the laity at that time, a prominent opponent of church reform was the state councilor, director of the St. Petersburg printing house, Mikhail Petrovich Avramov (1681 - 1752). 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 a heretical book. The replacement of the patriarchal authority and the authority of the Council by the Synod violated the 34th rule of the Holy Apostles and the 9th rule of the Antioch Council: 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 is the weakness of pastoral leadership. This weakness had two main manifestations: the sad tendency of the Russian Bishops to submit to the unlawful claims of worldly superiors and the comparatively low authority of the parish pastor. It should be noted that, despite all the obvious disadvantages and losses, the Church has experienced an amazing rise over these two hundred years. This was 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 seemed to turn to completely forgotten or even completely new forms and methods of work. Publishing has reached a new level, 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 Scriptures 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 much humiliation and oppression, but it also did not flourish as in the 19th century (with the exception of the time of St. Sergius of Radonezh).

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 have been no Petrine church reform. In turn, the latter determined the further new direction of Russian church life.

The ecclesiastical college has no resemblance to the ancient councils, differing from them both in tasks and in the method of convening, in the method of forming 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 provide 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 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 animation. Those who could not come to terms with official decency and sought complete satisfaction of their religious needs went into sects and schism. Those who did not have the motivation to decide on this completely cooled down, becoming an “intellectual”. The rest became silent. History has shown that the objectives of the reform were undoubtedly good, the determination and firmness were commendable, but the methods were completely wrong.

See: Beglov A.L. Historical background 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. The Orthodox Church in the history of Rus', Russia and the USSR. Tutorial. / D. Pospelovsky. – M.: Publishing house of the Biblical-Theological Institute of St. Andrey, 1996; Pospelovsky D. Totalitarianism and religion. D. Pospelovsky. – M.: Publishing house of the Biblical-Theological Institute of St. Andrey, 2003.

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

Russian Orthodox Church, 988-1988. Essays on the history of the I-XIX centuries. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchate, 1988, issue. 1. // 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 the I-XIX centuries. M.: Publishing house. Moscow Patriarchate, 1988, issue. 1. // Abolition of the patriarchate by Peter I and the establishment of the Holy Governing Synod. – Published by John (Economtsev). The national-religious ideal and the idea of ​​empire in the Petrine era: to the analysis of the church reform of Peter I. / Ioann (Ekonomtsev) // Orthodoxy. Byzantium. Russia. – M.: Christian Literature, 1992. P. 157.

John (Ekonomitsev). The national-religious ideal and the idea of ​​empire in the Petrine era: to the analysis of the church reform of Peter I. / Ioann (Ekonomtsev) // Orthodoxy. Byzantium. Russia. – M.: Christian Literature, 1992. P. 157 – 158.

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

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

Speaking briefly about the progress of Peter I's church reform, it is important to note its thoughtfulness. At the end of the reform, Russia, as a result, received only one person with absolute full power.

Church reform of Peter I

From 1701 to 1722, Peter the Great tried to reduce the authority of the Church and establish control over its administrative and financial activities. The prerequisites for this were the protest of the Church against the changes taking place in the country, calling the king the Antichrist. Having enormous authority, comparable to the authority and complete power of Peter himself, the Patriarch of Moscow and All Rus' was the main political competitor of the Russian reformer tsar.

Rice. 1. Young Peter.

Among other things, the Church had accumulated enormous wealth, which Peter needed to wage war with the Swedes. All this tied Peter’s hands to use all the country’s resources for the sake of the desired victory.

The tsar was faced with the task of eliminating the economic and administrative autonomy of the Church and reducing the number of clergy.

Table “The essence of the reforms being carried out”

Events	Year	Goals
Appointment of the “Guardian and Manager of the Patriarchal Throne”		Replace the election of the Patriarch by the Church with an imperial appointment	Peter was personally appointed as the new Patriarch
Secularization of peasants and lands		Elimination of the financial autonomy of the Church	Church peasants and lands were transferred to the management of the State.
Monastic prohibitions		Reduce the number of clergy	It is forbidden to build new monasteries and conduct a census of monks
Senate control over the Church		Restriction of administrative freedom of the Church	Creation of the Senate and transfer of church affairs to its management
Decree limiting the number of clergy		Improving the efficiency of human resource allocation	Servants are assigned to a specific parish and are prohibited from traveling
Preparatory stage for the abolition of the Patriarchate		Get full power in the empire	Development of a project for the establishment of the Theological College

January 25, 1721 is the date of the final victory of the emperor over the patriarch, when the patriarchate was abolished.

TOP 4 articleswho are reading along with this

Rice. 2. Prosecutor General Yaguzhinsky.

The relevance of the topic was not only under Peter, but also under the Bolsheviks, when not only church power was abolished, but also the very structure and organization of the Church.

Rice. 3. Building of 12 colleges.

The Spiritual College also had another name - the Governing Synod. A secular official, not a clergyman, was appointed to the position of Chief Prosecutor of the Synod.

As a result, the reform of the Church of Peter the Great had its pros and cons. Thus, Peter discovered for himself the opportunity to lead the country towards Europeanization, however, if this power began to be abused, in the hands of another person Russia could find itself in a dictatorial-despotic regime. However, the consequences are a reduction in the role of the church in society, a reduction in its financial independence and the number of servants of the Lord.

Gradually, all institutions began to concentrate around St. Petersburg, including church ones. The activities of the Synod were monitored by fiscal services.

Peter also introduced church schools. According to his plan, every bishop was obliged to have a school for children at home or at home and provide primary education.

Results of the reform

• The position of Patriarch has been abolished;
• Taxes increased;
• Recruitment from church peasants is underway;
• The number of monks and monasteries has been reduced;
• The Church is dependent on the Emperor.

What have we learned?

Peter the Great concentrated all branches of power in his hands and had unlimited freedom of action, establishing absolutism in Russia.

Test on the topic

Evaluation of the report

Average rating: 4.6. Total ratings received: 222.

The era of Peter the Great in the life of the Russian church is full of historical content. Firstly, both the relationship of the church to the state and church governance became clearer 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 church representatives 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.

Let us first consider those measures of Peter I that established the relationship of the church to the state and the general order of church government; then we will move on to specific measures regarding church affairs and the clergy.

The relationship of the church to the state before Peter I in the Moscow state was not precisely defined, although at the church council of 1666–1667. The Greeks fundamentally recognized the primacy 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 public administration and influenced it. Rus' 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 it never left the moral ground.

Peter I did not grow up under such a 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 adult life, he became friends with the “German heretics” and, although he remained an Orthodox man by conviction, he was more free in many rituals than ordinary Moscow people, and seemed infected with “heresy” in the eyes of the Old Testament zealots of piety. It is safe to say that Peter, from his mother and from the conservative patriarch Joachim (d. 1690), more than once faced condemnation for his habits and acquaintance with heretics. Under Patriarch Adrian (1690–1700), a weak and timid man, Peter found no more sympathy for his innovations; following Joachim and Adrian, he forbade barber shaving, and Peter thought to make it mandatory. At the first decisive innovations of Peter, all those protesting 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 church, but also social conservatism. The Patriarch, strong in will and spirit, could have become a powerful opponent of Peter I if he had taken the side of the conservative Moscow worldview, which condemned all public life to immobility.

Understanding this danger, after the death of Adrian, Peter was in no hurry to elect a new patriarch, but appointed Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky, a learned Little Russian, as “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.” Management of the patriarchal household passed into the hands of specially appointed secular persons. There is no need to assume, as some do, that immediately after the death of Adrian, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate. It would be more accurate to think that Peter simply did not know what to do with the election of the patriarch. Peter treated the Great Russian clergy with some distrust, because many times he was convinced how much they did not sympathize with the reforms. Even the best representatives of the ancient Russian hierarchy, who were able to understand the entire nationality of Peter I’s foreign policy and helped him as best they could (Mitrofan of Voronezh, Tikhon of Kazan, Job of Novgorod), were also against Peter’s cultural innovations. For Peter, choosing a patriarch from among the Great Russians meant risking creating a formidable opponent for himself. The Little Russian clergy behaved differently: it itself was influenced by Western culture and science and sympathized with the innovations of Peter I. But it was impossible to install a Little Russian as patriarch because during the time of Patriarch Joachim, Little Russian theologians were compromised in the eyes of Moscow society, like people with Latin errors; For this, even persecution was brought against them. 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 the locum tenens Stefan Yavorsky and a special institution, the Monastic Prikaz, with secular persons at the head; the council of hierarchs was recognized as the supreme authority in matters of religion; Peter himself, like previous sovereigns, was the patron of the church and took an active part in its governance. This participation of Peter led to the fact that Little Russian bishops, previously persecuted, began to play an important role in church life. Despite protests both in Rus' and in the Orthodox East, Peter constantly nominated Little Russian learned monks to the episcopal departments. 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 to actively fight against Catholicism, cultivated 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, founded 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 desires of the converter, 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: the above-mentioned Stephen of Yavorsky, 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 very educated and studied theology not only at the Kiev Academy, but also at the Catholic colleges of Lvov, Krakow and even Rome. The scholastic theology of Catholic schools did not influence Theophan’s lively mind; on the contrary, it instilled in him a dislike for scholasticism and Catholicism. Not receiving satisfaction in Orthodox theological science, which was then poorly and little developed, Theophan turned from Catholic doctrines to the study of Protestant theology and, being carried away by it, adopted 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, who was brought up in Protestant culture, and the monk, who completed his education in Protestant theology, understood each other perfectly. Having met Feofan for the first time in Kyiv in 1706, Peter in 1716 summoned him to St. Petersburg, made him his right hand in the matter of church administration and defended him from all attacks from other clergy, who noticed the Protestant spirit in Peter’s favorite. Theophan, in his famous sermons, was an interpreter and apologist for Peter's reforms, and in his practical activities he was his sincere and capable assistant.

Theophan was responsible for the development and, perhaps, even the very idea of ​​that new plan of church government on which Peter I settled. For more than twenty years (1700–1721), temporary disorder continued, in which the Russian church was governed without a patriarch. Finally, on February 14, 1721, the opening of the “Holy Governing Synod” took place. This spiritual college forever replaced the patriarchal power. It was given guidance by the Spiritual Regulations, drawn up by Theophan and edited by Peter I himself. The regulations openly pointed out the imperfection of the patriarch’s sole management and the political inconveniences resulting from the exaggeration of the authority of the patriarchal power in state affairs. The collegial form of church government was recommended as the best in all respects. The composition of the Synod according to the regulations is determined as follows: a president, two vice-presidents, four advisers and four assessors (including representatives of black and white clergy). Note that the composition of the Synod was similar to the composition of the secular collegiums. The persons who were at the Synod were the same as those at the collegiums; The representative of the sovereign's person in the Synod was the chief prosecutor; 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 college.

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 the general system of government. The significance of the Synod in church life is clearly defined by the Spiritual Regulations, according to which the Synod has “patriarchal power and authority.” All spheres of jurisdiction and the fullness of the ecclesiastical power of the patriarch are inherent in the Synod. The diocese of the patriarch, which was under his personal control, was also transferred to him. The Synod ruled this diocese through a special board called the dicastery, or consistory. (Based on the model of this consistory, consistories were gradually established 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 completely inherit patriarchal authority. We have different opinions about the significance of the Synod in the overall composition of the administration under Peter. Some believe that “the Synod was compared in everything to the Senate and, along with it, was directly subordinate to the sovereign” (this 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 the significance of the Senate. Although the Synod strives to become independent of the Senate, the latter, considering the Synod as an ordinary college for spiritual affairs, considered it subordinate to itself. This view of the Senate was justified by the general thought of the reformer, which formed 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 above the Theological College, as the supreme administrative body in the state (this view was expressed in one of the articles by Prof. 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 stood (about the beginning of the Synod, see P. V. Verkhovsky “Establishment of the Spiritual Collegium and Spiritual Regulations,” two volumes. 1916; also G. S. Runkevich " Establishment and initial structure of the Holy Ave. Synod", 1900).

Thus, with the establishment of the Synod, Peter I emerged from the difficulty in which he had stood for many years. His church-administrative reform retained authoritative power in the Russian Church, but deprived this power of the political influence with which the patriarchs could act. The question of the relationship between church and state was resolved 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 issue and in the same direction. Therefore, Peter's church reforms, being a sharp novelty in their form, were built on the old principle bequeathed to Peter by Muscovite Russia. And here, as in other reforms of Peter I, we encounter the continuity of historical traditions.

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

Church jurisdiction under Peter was very limited: a lot of cases from church courts were transferred to secular courts (even the 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 this 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 tendency was reflected.

The same close connection with ancient Russia can be seen in the measures of Peter I regarding immovable church property. The land estates of the clergy under Peter were first subjected to strict control by state authorities, and were subsequently removed from the economic management of the clergy. Their management was transferred to the Monastic Order; they turned into state property, as it were, part of the income from which went to the maintenance of monasteries and rulers. This is how Peter tried to resolve the age-old question of the land holdings of the clergy in Rus'. At the turn of the XV and XVI centuries. the right of monasteries to own estates was denied by part of monasticism itself (Nile of Sorsky); by the end of the 16th century. The government drew attention to the rapid alienation of lands from the hands of service people into the hands of the clergy and sought, if not to stop completely, then to limit this alienation. In the 17th century zemstvo petitions persistently pointed out the harm of such alienation for the state and the noble class; the state lost lands and duties from them; the nobles became landless. In 1649, the Code finally introduced a law prohibiting the clergy from further acquisition of land. But the Code has not yet decided to return to the state those lands that were 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, “nothing different from the arable men,” as a contemporary put it. Through a series of decrees, Peter tried to cleanse the environment of the clergy by forcibly diverting its excess members to other classes and occupations and persecuting its bad elements (wandering clergy). At the same time, Peter tried to better provide for the parish clergy by reducing its number and increasing the area of ​​parishes. He thought to improve the morality of the clergy through education and strict control. However, all these measures did not produce great results.

Peter I treated monasticism not only with less concern, but even with some hostility. She proceeded from Peter’s conviction that the monks were one of the reasons for 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 of monks become monks “from taxes and laziness, so that they can eat bread for nothing.” Without working, the monks, according to Peter, “eat up other people’s labors” and, in inaction, breed heresies and superstitions and are doing something other than their own: stirring up the people against innovations. With this view of Peter I, it is understandable that he wanted 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: practicing 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 his “Announcement on Monasticism” (1724). According to this view, monasteries should have a charitable purpose (the poor, sick, disabled and wounded were placed in monasteries for charity), and in addition, monasteries should serve to prepare people for higher spiritual positions and to provide shelter for people who are inclined to a pious contemplative life . With all his activities regarding the monasteries, Peter I sought to bring them into line with the indicated goals.

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

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

Seminars classes.

TOPIC No. 1

Russia on the path of modernization inXVII – XIXcenturies

1. Reforms of Peter I: goals, content, result. The price of Peter's reforms.

At the turn of the XVII – XVIII centuries. The transformations that took place in Russia covered almost all aspects of life: the economy, domestic and foreign policy, science, everyday life, and the political system. In many ways, these transformations are associated with the activities of Peter I. His merit lay in the fact that he correctly understood the complexity of the tasks that the country faced and began to implement them purposefully.

Basically, the reforms were subordinated to the interests not of individual classes, but of the state as a whole: its prosperity, well-being and inclusion in Western European civilization. The purpose of the reforms was Russia's acquisition of the role of one of the leading world powers, capable of competing with Western countries militarily and economically. The main tool for carrying out reforms was consciously used violence. In general, the process of reforming the country was associated with an external factor - the need for Russia to access the seas, as well as with an internal one - the process of modernization of the country.

Military reform.

The new military system was created according to Western European models. The main and highest unit in the infantry was the regiment. Artillery has finally become an independent branch of the military with a clear organization. Engineer troops were created (as part of the artillery). To manage the armed forces, instead of orders, the Military Collegium and the Admiralty Collegium were established. A unified training system was established in the army and navy, and military educational institutions were opened (navigation, artillery, engineering schools). The Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky regiments, as well as a number of newly opened special schools and the Naval Academy, served to train officers.

Severe discipline was established in the troops and navy, to maintain which corporal punishment was widely used. A hierarchy of ranks and ranks has been introduced in the army and navy.

The military reforms of Peter I had a positive impact on the development of Russian military art and were one of the factors that determined the success of the Russian army and navy in the Northern War.

Reforms in the economy Russia covered agriculture, large and small production, crafts, trade and financial policy.

Agriculture under Peter I developed slowly, mainly in an extensive way. However, there were attempts at reforms here too (new crops, new breeds of livestock, etc. were introduced)

The development of industry was dictated solely by the needs of warfare and was Peter's special concern. During the first quarter of the 18th century, about 200 manufactories were created. The main attention was paid to metallurgy. The growth of industrial production was accompanied by increased feudal exploitation, the widespread use of forced labor in manufactories: the use of serfs, purchased peasants, as well as the labor of the state (black-growing) peasantry, which was assigned to the plant as a permanent source of labor.

The reforms also covered the sphere of small-scale production and contributed to the development of crafts and peasant crafts. Craft schools were introduced at manufactories. A guild system was introduced in the cities. All artisans, led by an elected headman, were assigned to workshops depending on their specialty, where they became masters, apprentices and apprentices.

In the field of domestic and foreign trade, a large role was played by the state monopoly on the procurement and sale of basic goods (salt, flax, hemp, furs, lard, caviar, bread, etc.), which significantly replenished the treasury. The expansion of trade relations with foreign countries was encouraged in every possible way. Much attention was paid to the development of waterways - the main mode of transport at that time.

Financial policy state during the reign of Peter I was characterized by unprecedented tax oppression. The growth of the state budget, necessary for waging war, active domestic and foreign policy, was achieved through the expansion of indirect taxes and an increase in direct taxes:

more and more new sources of income were sought (banya, fish, honey, horse and other taxes were introduced, including a tax on beards);

direct taxes were also introduced (recruitment, dragoon, ship and “special” taxes);

considerable income was brought in by minting coins of lighter weight and reducing the silver content in it;

introduction of the poll tax, which replaced household taxation.

Reorganization of public administration(test task 7)

The Church and the liquidation of the patriarchate. A radical church reform was carried out, eliminating the autonomy of the church and completely subordinating it to the state. The patriarchate in Russia was abolished, and a special Spiritual College was established to govern the church, which was soon transformed into the Holy Governing Synod. It was in charge of purely church affairs: interpretation of church dogmas, orders for prayers and church services, censorship of spiritual books, the fight against heresies, etc. The Synod also had the functions of a spiritual court. The presence of the Synod consisted of 12 highest church hierarchs appointed by the Tsar. A chief prosecutor (I.V. Boldin) was appointed to oversee the activities of the Synod. All property and finances of the church, the lands and peasants assigned to it, were under the jurisdiction of the Monastic Prikaz, subordinate to the synod.

Social politics.

In 1714, the “Decree on Single Inheritance” was issued, according to which the noble estate was equal in rights to the boyar estate. The decree marked the final merger of the two classes of feudal lords into a single class. From that time on, secular feudal lords began to be called nobles. The decree on single inheritance ordered the transfer of fiefs and estates to one of the sons. The remaining nobles had to perform compulsory service in the army, navy or government bodies.

In 1722, the “Table of Ranks” was published, dividing the military, civil and court services (14 ranks).

In 1724, an attempt was made to eradicate beggary in Russia in one day. All the sick and crippled were ordered to be re-registered and sent to almshouses set up at monasteries, and those able to work were to be returned to their original place.

Reforms in the field of education and culture.

State policy was aimed at educating society and reorganizing the education system. Theological subjects at school gave way to natural sciences and technology: mathematics, astronomy, geodesy, fortification, and engineering. Navigation and Artillery schools, an Engineering School, and a Medical School appeared. Publishing has developed.

The foundations for the development of Russian science were laid. In 1725, the Academy of Sciences was created in St. Petersburg.

On January 1, 1700, a new chronology was introduced in Russia according to the Julian calendar (before that, chronology was carried out from the creation of the world according to the Gregorian calendar). As a result of the calendar reform, Russia began to live at the same time as Europe.

There was a radical breakdown of all traditional ideas about the everyday way of life of Russian society (barber shaving, European clothing, wearing uniforms by military and civilian officials).

Decree of 1718 on holding assemblies with the mandatory presence of women.

The result of Peter's reformsI.

Peter's reforms marked the formation absolute monarchy.

The transformations significantly increased the efficiency of public administration and served as the main lever for the modernization of the country. Russia has become a Europeanized state and a member of the European community of nations. Industry and trade developed rapidly, and great achievements appeared in technical training and science. Authoritarian rule is becoming established, the role of the monarch and his influence on all spheres of life of society and the state are growing enormously.

The price of Peter's reformsI.

Multiple increases in taxes led to the impoverishment and enslavement of the bulk of the population.

A cult of institution has developed in Russia, and the pursuit of ranks and positions has become a national disaster.

Peter tried to realize his desire to catch up with Europe in economic development through accelerated “manufacturing industrialization,” i.e. through the mobilization of public funds and the use of serf labor. The main feature of the development of manufactories was the fulfillment of government orders, primarily military orders, which freed them from competition but deprived them of free economic initiative.

Instead of a civil society with a market economy emerging in Europe, Russia, by the end of Peter’s reign, was a military-police state with a nationalized monopolized serf-owning economy.

The Europeanization of Russia brought with it new political, religious, social ideas that were accepted by the ruling classes of society before they reached the masses. A split arose between the top and bottom of society.

The main psychological support of the Russian state - the Orthodox Church at the end of the 17th century was shaken in its foundations and gradually lost its significance.

There was an aggravation of political and social problems. The abolition of zemstvo councils, which removed the people from political power, and the abolition of self-government in 1708 also created political difficulties.

Weakening contacts between the government and the people. It soon became clear that the majority did not sympathize with the Europeanization program. In carrying out its reforms, the government was forced to act cruelly.

The cost of the transformations was prohibitively high: when carrying out them, the tsar did not take into account the sacrifices made on the altar of the fatherland, nor with national traditions, nor with the memory of his ancestors.

Social (class) reforms of Peter I - briefly

As a result of the social reforms of Peter I, the position of the three main Russian classes - nobles, peasants and urban residents - changed greatly.

The service class nobles , after the reforms of Peter I, they began to perform military service not with the local militias they themselves recruited, but in regular regiments. The nobles now (in theory) began their service from the same lower ranks as the common people. People from non-noble classes, along with nobles, could rise to the highest ranks. The procedure for obtaining service degrees has been determined since the time of the reforms of Peter I, no longer by birth and not by customs such as localism, but by the law published in 1722. Table of ranks" She established 14 ranks of army and civilian service.

To prepare for service, Peter I also obliged the nobles to undergo initial training in literacy, numbers and geometry. A nobleman who failed the established examination was deprived of the right to marry and receive an officer rank.

It should be noted that the landowner class, even after the reforms of Peter I, still had quite important service advantages over ordinary people. Nobles who entered military service, as a rule, were assigned not to ordinary army regiments, but to privileged guards regiments - Preobrazhensky and Semenovsky, stationed in St. Petersburg.

Major change in social status peasants was associated with the tax reform of Peter I. It was carried out in 1718 and replaced the previous household(from each peasant household) method of taxation per capita(from the heart). According to the results of the 1718 census, capitation tax.

This purely financial, at first glance, reform had, however, important social content. The new poll tax was ordered to be collected equally not only from peasants, but also from privately owned serfs who had not previously paid state taxes. This order of Peter I brought the social position of the peasantry closer to that of the powerless serfs. It predetermined the evolution of the view of serfs by the end of the 18th century not as sovereign tax people(as they were considered before), but how on complete master slaves.

Cities : the reforms of Peter I were aimed at organizing city government according to European models. In 1699, Peter I granted Russian cities the right of self-government through elected representatives burgomasters, which should have been town hall. The townspeople were now divided into “regular” and “irregular”, as well as into guilds and workshops according to their occupation. By the end of the reign of Peter I, the town halls were transformed into magistrates, which had more rights than town halls, but were elected in a less democratic way - only from “first-class” citizens. At the head of all magistrates was (from 1720) the capital's Chief Magistrate, who was considered a special collegium.

Peter I. Portrait by P. Delaroche, 1838

Military reform of Peter I - briefly

Administrative and government reforms of Peter I - briefly

Financial reforms of Peter I - briefly

Economic reforms of Peter I - briefly

Like most European figures of the second half of the 17th - early 18th centuries, Peter I followed the principles of mercantilism in economic policy. Applying them to life, he tried in every possible way to develop industry, built factories with state funds, encouraged such construction by private entrepreneurs through broad benefits, and assigned serfs to factories and manufactories. By the end of the reign of Peter I, there were already 233 factories in Russia.

In foreign trade, the mercantilist policy of Peter I led to strict protectionism (high duties were introduced on imported products to prevent them from competing with Russian products). State regulation of the economy was widely used. Peter I contributed to the construction of canals, roads and other means of communication, and the exploration of mineral resources. The development of the mineral wealth of the Urals gave a powerful impetus to the Russian economy.

Church reform of Peter I - briefly

As a result of the church reform of Peter I, the Russian church, previously quite independent, became completely dependent on the state. After the death of Patriarch Adrian (1700), the king ordered don't elect a new patriarch, and the Russian clergy then did not have one until the council of 1917. Instead was appointed king“Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne” - Ukrainian Stefan Yavorsky.

This “uncertain” state of affairs persisted until the final reform of church government, developed with the active participation of Feofan Prokopovich, was carried out in 1721. According to this church reform of Peter I, the patriarchate was finally abolished and replaced by a “spiritual college” - Holy Synod. Its members were not elected by the clergy, but appointed by the tsar - the church had now legally become completely dependent on secular power.

In 1701, the church's land holdings were transferred to the management of the secular Monastery Prikaz. After the synodal reform of 1721, they were formally returned to the clergy, but since the latter was now completely subordinate to the state, this return was of little significance. Peter I also placed monasteries under strict state control.