Peter the Great's abrupt church reform, introduced in spite of almost universal psychological opposition, in fact proved to be unusually strong, stable, and deeply rooted in the consciousness of all the governmental generations of the eighteenth and nineteenth centuries. The ideology of enlightened absolutism, totalitarianly subjugating the church to its control, became adequate to the state legal consciousness of the ruling class, which was quickly re-educated in the European spirit under the name of the Orthodox ruling class. In spite of the personal piety of the individual bearers of the crown, the new fundamental laws which were gradually being formed formulated almost crudely and cruelly formulated the new position of the Church in the absolutist state. The Orthodox Patriarch sitting next to the Tsar disappeared, and the idea of a special autonomous canonical legislation disappeared. The source of all law, including for the church, is the only one: the power of a secular monarch. The Church in the subordinate apparatus of ministries and departments is only one of the ministries or departments, namely the "Department of the Orthodox Confession," abbreviated: "V. P. I." — the classic stamp on all official papers of the entire church administration of the Synodal period.

From this state-absolutist point of view, there was no place within the framework of the Russian State for another parallel source of legislation. This closed canonical lawmaking for the Russian Church. Extraordinary bodies of canon legislation, church councils, were forbidden by their complete silence in the Spiritual Regulations. And the current petty legislation in the manifesto accompanying the Rules of Procedure was submitted to the Synod, but not uncontrollably, "not without Our permission," as Peter put it. Thus, the only source of law-making for the church was only the supreme secular power. And not once did the law-abiding Russian hierarchy, and under the control of the chief procurators, and in rare moments of personal reports to the tsars, even try to break through this blockade. A clear formulation of this canonical lack of rights of the Russian Church and absolutely all the right to absorb the authority of the Russian emperors was later given by the bright mind of Speransky, together with his precise pen. Speransky also had a clear awareness of the need for Russia to have the so-called "Fundamental Laws." Speransky's formulas include dated references to the former supreme legislation, beginning with Peter. This is what was written in these Fundamental Laws in 1832, only slightly modified in their new edition of 1906 after the manifesto on the State Duma. The power of our emperors in relation to the church is thus stated in articles 42 and 43, ed. 1832:

"Art. 42. The Emperor, as a Christian sovereign, is the supreme defender and guardian of the dogmas of the prevailing faith and the guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church." the following note is appended to this article; "1721 Jan. 25 (3718) Part I, introduction. In this sense, the Emperor in the Act of Succession to the Throne of 1797 Apr. 5 (17810) is called the Head of the Church."

"Art. 43. "In the administration of the Church, the Autocratic Power acts through the Most Holy Governing Synod, established by it."

Note: "1721 Jan. 25 (3718) introduction. and Part I, 3".

The dated references here refer, in addition to the reference to the decree of Paul I on the succession to the throne, to the Spiritual Regulations. This is the meaning attached by the letter of the law to the Spiritual Regulations, both logically and on the basis of the past century of practice. All the rights ascribed to the emperor by Article 42 are literally applicable to the supreme hierarchical power and, of course, more accurately and literally express its rights, and not the rights of the secular power. But it is no accident that the presence of ecclesiastical authority is silent here. It was necessary to emphasize the totality of autocratic power. The rights and duties of the hierarchical power proper are enumerated, but they are ascribed to the secular autocratic power, so that there is no doubt that it controls all these rights and duties, as the only supreme power, even if it is secular. In Article 43 this is explained indirectly, namely, that the Holy Synod, which practices the above-mentioned rights and duties, was established by none other than it, i.e., by the autocratic power, as the only supreme power from which alone can derivative ecclesiastical authority flow. Speransky was a believing Orthodox theologian. But at the same time, a brilliantly clear-thinking mind. He conscientiously reflected the legal reality with mathematical accuracy. Speransky did not silence the crude formula of Paul I "head of the church". This is a logical conclusion from Peter's legislation and it formally justifies the captious Roman Catholic polemics, mercilessly castigating the former system as Caesar-papism. In the 1906 edition of the Basic Laws, Articles 42-43 are repeated literally under numbers 64-65. But in the context of the new constitution, which limited the autocracy in the legislative sphere to the participation of the State Council and the State Duma, the words of Articles 64 and 65 acquire a new limited meaning, corresponding to the self-limitation of the autocratic power in the field of legislation. Therefore, the expression of Article 65 that "the autocratic power acts through the Holy Scriptures. Rules. of the Synod, established by Her, in the administration of the Church" acquire a new restrictive meaning. "Management" henceforth became limited, "subordinate". Consequently, from this moment on, two higher legislative institutions are also thought to be accomplices in the legislation on ecclesiastical affairs: the State Council. The Council and the State. Duma. But the old Petrine principle, revealed by Speransky, remains untouched: there is no purely ecclesiastical authority, independent of the secular, in the Russian State, the Fundamental Laws do not know it. Only in the draft of a new concordat law on the relations between church and state, worked out by the All-Russian Council of 1917, the canonical right of self-government, legislation and court, inalienable to the church, was again affirmed.

* * *

The institution of the Synodal Ober-Procurator's Office has always been considered a popular and well-known symptom of the absorption of church power by the state power in imperial Russia. Its appearance was required by the system of the highest Petrine administration. The Senate had its own Prosecutor General. The Synod, after a long struggle for some equality with the Senate, had to have its own prosecutor. Peter V., being in the Senate on 11/V.1722, personally wrote a decree: "To the Synod to elect a good man from among the officers, who would have the courage and could know the management of the Synod's affairs, and to be his chief procurator and give him instructions in accordance with the instructions of the Prosecutor General of the Senate." Soon a memorable ober-procurator's instruction was developed and published on 13/VI.1722:

«Ст. 1. Обер-прокурор повинен сидеть в Синоде и смотреть накрепко, дабы Синод свою должность хранил… по Регламенту и Указам отправлял… также накрепко смотреть, чтоб в Синоде не на столе только дела вершились, но самым действом по указам исполнялись.

Ст. 2. Также должен накрепко смотреть, дабы Синод в своем звании праведно и нелицемерно поступал. А ежели что увидит противное сему, тогда в тот же час повинен предлагать Синоду явно, с полным изъяснением, в чем они, или некоторые из них, не так делают, как надлежит, дабы исправили. А ежели не послушают, то должен в тот же час протестовать и иное дело остановить и немедленно донести НАМ, если весьма нужное. А о прочих в бытность НАШУ в Синоде, или помесячно, или понедельно, как указ иметь будет».

Ст. 9. «Обер Прокурор ничьему суду не подлежит, кроме нашего».

Ст. 11. «И понеже сей чин, яко око НАШЕ и стряпчий о делах государственных, того ради надлежит верно поступать, ибо перво на нем взыскано будет».

По своему началу синодская обер-прокуратура не имела в виду возглавлять и направлять церковное управление. Это был только орган надзора и контроля, как и во всех коллегиях (министерствах) петровской административной системы. Но поскольку этот скромный чиновник заменял «око наше», т. е. власть реального Главы церковного управления, таившиеся в нем потенции власти были для Синода неодолимы. Это и обнаружилось в ХIХ веке с момента учреждения министерств. В течение всего ХVIII века синодские обер-прокуроры были фигурами с ограниченным влиянием в зависимости от характера самих носителей этой должности и степени непосредственной близости правящих иерархов ко Двору. Никто из иерархов ХVIII в. не подозревал даже, что «око Наше» со временем из отвлеченного принципа превратится в конкретную действительность. Поэтому все трения и конфликты Синода с обер-прокурорами ХVIIІ в. носят характер сравнительно мелочных споров, в которых синодалы третировали этих контрольных чиновников, как ненужное пятое колесо в телеге, и нередко Сенат и Государи, уступая бойкоту Синода, убирали неугодных обер-прокуроров и заменяли другими. Факт немыслимый в ХIХ в., когда обер-прокурор из чиновника превратился в носителя реальной власти, в министра над церковью.