When Metropolitan Varlaam in January 1700 sent an ambassador to Patriarch Adrian for the affairs of the Kievan Metropolia, Hegumen Stefan Yavorsky was among those accompanying him. Stefan could hardly have imagined that, leaving Kiev, he was just beginning his career, embarking on a path that would take him to dizzying heights, but it would also turn out to be so thorny. He did not stay in Moscow even a few weeks when, thanks to an unexpected incident, the young tsar drew attention to him. It so happened that just at that time one of the closest collaborators of the tsar, the boyar Shein, died, and Peter wished that a proper funeral speech be delivered, he was recommended to the hegumen Stefan Yavorsky from the metropolitan embassy. Peter liked the funeral sermon spoken by Stephen, as well as the orator himself, so much that a week or two later he turned to Patriarch Adrian, wishing that Stephen be placed on one of the episcopal cathedras closer to Moscow. However, Yavorsky did not intend to become a bishop at all, as can be concluded from the letter of the patriarch to the tsar of March 17, 1700, although in the end Stephen had to submit to the will of Peter, and he was ordained metropolitan of Ryazan and Murom. It is not entirely clear why Stephen opposed the acceptance of the episcopal dignity. Later, he himself explained his indecision to the tsar by the fact that during his illness he had vowed to take the schema and spend the rest of his life in a monastery and did not want to break this vow. It seems more correct to assume that the hesitation and uncertainty characteristic of Stephen later, when he became the head of the Russian Church, stemmed from his inconstancy and weakness of character. Had Stephen been more resolute and energetic, had he been able to explain himself directly and openly to Peter, who valued these qualities, then perhaps Peter's actions in the ecclesiastical sphere would have been different, and Stephen would have become a real companion of the tsar. But it was the lack of these qualities that prevented Stephen from getting closer to Peter, moreover, made him a hidden opponent of the tsar. Their relations deteriorated every year, which had a negative impact on the entire course of church affairs [152].

Soon after Yavorsky's consecration as metropolitan, the case of Grigory Talitsky, the author of the "notebooks", close in content to the writings of the Old Believers, arose. In these "notebooks", according to the witness, there were various kinds of inappropriate statements about the tsar, which could not even be listened to. Talitsky really called Peter the Antichrist, and Moscow Babylon. He managed to write two "notebooks": 1) "On the Coming of the Antichrist into the World and on the Summer of the Creation of the World Before the End of the World" and 2) "The Gates". The arrested Talitsky admitted during interrogation that he had written "thieves'" words against the tsar, in which "it was forbidden for the people to listen to Peter and pay taxes." He also said that he "threw his "notebooks" to the people without money. During the interrogation, it turned out that Bishop Ignatius of Tambov, who was in Moscow, favored Talitsky and rejoiced when reading his "notebooks." Prince Romodanovsky, the head of the Preobrazhensky Prikaz, tortured Talitsky, and Stephen was instructed to teach him and force him to repent of his "theft". Talitsky confessed to everything and was burned at the stake. In order to refute the rumors circulating among the people about the appearance of the Antichrist, Stephen some time later wrote a work that was published in 1703 under the title "Signs of the Coming of the Antichrist and the End of the Age" [153]. Stephen's participation in the investigation and Talitsky's quick confession strengthened the tsar's sympathy for Yavorsky, and on December 16, 1700, Stephen was appointed locum tenens of the patriarchal throne.

b) As already mentioned, Stephen's powers in the field of church administration were less than those of the patriarchs. But even here, at every step, and more and more, he felt the interference of state power. His duties as locum tenens included taking care of the replacement of episcopal sees. During his tenure as locum tenens, many cathedras were occupied by Little Russians, firstly, because Stephen knew how much Peter valued their learning, and secondly, because he himself knew from his own experience the difference between the Great Russian and the Little Russian bishops [154]. Peter also appointed Stephen protector of the Moscow Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, where he introduced Latin among the subjects, and attracted scholars from Kiev to teach. Among them was Theophylact Lopatinsky, who later became archbishop, who received the post of prefect (1706-1722) and belonged to the most sincere admirers and adherents of Stephen.

The decrees of December 16, 1700 on the abolition of the patriarchal administration and on the restoration of the Monastic Order (January 24, 1701) narrowed the field of Stephen's activities both in the Ryazan diocese and in the former Patriarchal region, which was subordinate to him as locum tenens. This was all the more tangible since the boyar I. A. Musin-Pushkin, who headed the Monastic Prikaz, often interfered in the affairs of the spiritual administration, which were subject to the authority of the locum tenens. Peter himself cared little about the observance of the delimitation of powers established by him, issuing through the Monastic Prikaz on his own behalf decrees on confession, attendance at church on feast days, the education of children by clergymen, the registration of those who did not come to confession, and ordination to the episcopate when filling vacancies [155]. The dependence of the locum tenens on state power became especially noticeable after the establishment of the Senate as the supreme governing body. The decree on the Senate of March 2, 1711 gives an idea of the great powers that Peter gave him: "We command everyone who should know about it, both spiritual and temporal... that We, for Our constant absences in these wars, have appointed a governing Senate, to whom everyone should be obedient to their decrees as We Ourselves are, under severe punishment or death, depending on the fault" [156]. It was the uncertainty in the decree about what and how the clergy were obliged to obey the Senate that gave the latter the opportunity to interfere in those affairs of the Church which, in its opinion, were within its competence. A careful study of the facts of the Senate's interference in the administration of the Church shows how broadly it interpreted its powers, without taking into account the decree of December 16, 1700, in which the area subject to the special administration of the locum tenens was determined. From now on, the decision of church affairs proper depended not only on the decrees of the tsar himself, which often happened under the patriarchs, but also on a purely administrative body, and this was already completely alien to Muscovite Russia. During the period of locum tenens, the Senate issued many decrees testifying to changes in the position of the supreme church administration and its dependence on the Senate. Characteristically, these decrees did not at all concern some borderline issues affecting both the state and the church spheres, but mainly questions of the spiritual nourishment of the faithful. Thus, for example, the question of candidates for priestly positions, i.e., a purely ecclesiastical question, was considered by the Holy Council together with the Senate. In 1715, the Senate ordered the elevation of some monks to the rank of archimandrite, ordering it to be performed in the Alexander Nevsky Monastery. The construction of temples and the distribution of holy myrrh also took place in accordance with the decrees of the Senate. The Kiev-Pechersk Lavra was declared a stavropegia - and again by decree of the Senate. In 1716, as a supplement to the decree on the restoration of the Monastic Order, a new decree was issued on the obligatory annual confession and on the compilation of lists of those persons (suspected of belonging to the schism) who evaded it. These lists were to be delivered by the priest's wardens not only to the bishops, but also to the governors, and the latter were authorized to punish those who did not come to confession. The Senate introduced punishments for idle conversations in church during divine services [157]. The Senate discussed issues of faith and measures against apostasy and schism, and it also issued corresponding decrees. As will be said below, the problem of the schism was apparently considered to be both ecclesiastical and state-owned, a view that dates back to the decree of 1685. The Senate also turned its attention to the spread of the faith. He issued decrees on the conversion of Tatars and other foreigners to Orthodoxy, determining a reduction in taxes for the newly-baptized and allocating special sums of money to the Metropolitan of Kazan to support those who were ready to be baptized, as well as for the construction and arrangement of churches. At the same time, the Senate in the same decrees forbade the baptism of representatives of other confessions and foreigners [159]. In the field of the former church administration, which in 1701 came under the jurisdiction of the Monastic Prikaz, the orders of the Senate were not something unusual, since the Monastic Prikaz itself was a secular institution. Earlier, before the founding of the Senate, the Monastic Prikaz was an independent body, subordinate only to the decrees of the tsar.

M. Gorchakov, who studied the history of the Monastyrsky Prikaz, notes that after its restoration in its former form, "the main activity of the renewed Prikaz was directed to the question of transferring church patrimonies and revenues to the management of the state... In its position among other state institutions, the Petrovsky Monastic Prikaz of 1701 was the highest, central for the whole of Russia in a special department, institution specially devoted in the general result of its activity to the reforming goals of Peter in relation to the Church." The activity of the Monastic Prikaz, established in 1701 and existing until the middle of 1720, falls exactly on the period of locum tenens. It was abolished on August 17, 1720 with the introduction of collegiums, the competence of which also transferred the affairs of the Monastic Prikaz [160]. The transfer of the administration of church patrimonies to the Monastic Prikaz caused extreme discontent among the clergy. Nothing is known about any energetic objections on the part of Stefan Yavorsky. The protest of the Nizhny Novgorod Metropolitan Isaiah (1699-1708) against the activities of the clerks of the Monastyrsky Prikaz cost him the cathedra by order of Peter: in 1708 Isaiah was exiled to the Kirillo-Belozersky Monastery. The monastic prikaz began its work with the clarification of the size of the patriarchal, bishopric and monastery patrimonies and the treasury. The results were recorded, according to another order of Peter, in the census books of 1701, and in that year the Monastic Prikaz had 137,823 peasant households under its jurisdiction (the church patrimonies of the Pskov and Astrakhan dioceses and Siberia are not included in this number, since they were outside the competence of the Monastic Prikaz) [161]. Immediately, however, the question arose about the maintenance of episcopal sees and monasteries. By the decree of December 30, 1701, the ration for monks, both elementary and subordinate, was established at 10 rubles and 10 quarters of bread. In connection with military expenditures, it was reduced by half by the decree of 1705 and the Table of 1710, remaining so until the staff of 1724. The table of 1710 made further changes to them. Thus, for example, the Archbishop of Rostov was entitled to an allowance of 1,000 rubles [162]

Having taken over the management of church patrimonies, the Monastic Prikaz gradually lost some of them. By decree of Peter, the income from some monastic possessions was directed to the maintenance of various departments, such as the Naval Department, the Transfiguration Department, as well as all kinds of factories. Another part of the monastic patrimonies was assigned "to the sovereign". In addition, Peter was in the habit of very generously bestowing former church estates on his entourage. Some lands were leased by the Monastyrsky Prikaz in order to obtain greater profits, if, of course, the rent exceeded the income that these lands brought under the administration of the Prikaz itself. It often happened that the Church regained its own lands for a certain rent. This method of extracting income appeared soon after the establishment of the Monastic Order, and with the publication of the Table of 1710 it became commonplace, as M. Gorchakov notes [163]. In August 1720, the Monastic Prikaz was abolished. Fluctuations in the government's policy show that its intention to seize the church patrimonies was not yet fully mature. Peter was interested not so much in the legal side of the matter (who owned the monastery patrimony or who managed it), but in the practical side. The old Moscow rule remained in full force: "so that the treasury does not lose." If the estates gave more profit under the management of the previous owners, then the issue was resolved by mutual consent.

After the emergence of the Senate, the Monastic Prikaz was subordinated to it. Thus, the degree of responsibility of the order became less and it lost its freedom of action. From the documentary materials it is clear that the Senate gave instructions to the Monastic Prikaz and received reports from it. Since, according to Peter's decree, the Senate was the highest control body, the Monastic Prikaz was obliged to submit to him monthly, quarterly and annual reports on income from church patrimonies, as well as on expenses and so on. The Senate, without the knowledge of the Monastic Prikaz, determined the budgets of the monasteries and the annual allowance of the bishops. There are decrees of the Senate regulating the distribution of church revenues among the dioceses, for example, the decree on the allocation of sums for hospitals and wounded soldiers [164].

Relations between the Church and the Senate are characterized by the latter's decree of January 22, 1716, which was brought to the attention of all bishops. By this decree, they undertook under oath: 1) to leave their dioceses only as a last resort; 2) to treat the opponents of the Church gently; 3) not to build churches more than necessary; 4) to appoint clergymen only as needed; 5) to visit their dioceses at least once every two or three years and not to interfere in worldly affairs [165]. Thus, the supreme ecclesiastical administration was forced to endure constant interference in its affairs not so much on the part of the tsar himself, as on the part of secular state institutions. This interference eventually became commonplace, preparing the situation of the Church which, after the publication of the "Spiritual Regulations" and the establishment of the Holy Synod, also received a legal basis.

c) During the entire period of his tenens, Stephen Yavorsky, as the head of the Russian Church, did not speak a courageous and open word in defense of her interests, against the interference and guardianship of the tsar. The reasons for this were, firstly, in the indecisiveness of the locum tenens, who did not like open struggle and preferred hidden opposition, which was also characteristic of his predecessor, Patriarch Adrian; secondly, the personal relations between the tsar and Stephen never reached the degree of mutual understanding that existed, for example, between Peter and Theophan Prokopovich. In addition, Stephen was to some extent involved in the affair of Tsarevich Alexei, and this also caused a chill between him and Peter. The changes in their relations are easy to trace from the sermons of the locum tenens. From the content, or rather from the vague hints and inconsistencies of the cautious preacher, it is clear how alienation grew and what kind of ecclesiastical-political situation developed as a result of this. Stephen's early sermons on Peter's military successes – the capture of the Shlisselburg fortress, the foundation of St. Petersburg, the victory at Poltava – are purely panegyric, although they cannot be suspected of insincerity. But this attitude towards Peter and his affairs changed little by little. Dissatisfaction with his position in the course of time began to weigh on Stephen, although it must be admitted that he was neither a proud man, nor a careerist, nor a "prince of the Church" – qualities of which his contemporaries were reproached: Theophan Prokopovich and Theodosius Yanovsky. In 1706, Stephen traveled to Kiev, from where he returned to Moscow with great reluctance. When in 1707 the Kiev metropolitan Varlaam died, Stephen appealed to the tsar to release him from the locum tenens and appoint him metropolitan in Kiev, but Peter did not agree. In a sermon delivered on November 13, 1708, Stephen gave some hints, from which it could be concluded that he did not approve of the economic activity of the Monastic Prikaz and the civil administration of church patrimonies. The mention of Belshazzar's feast and the king drinking wine from church vessels could also be understood as an allusion to the "most joking council". Stephen expressed his harsh condemnation of the tsar's ecclesiastical policy in his sermon "On the Observance of the Commandments of God," delivered by him on the day of St. Alexis, the Man of God, March 17, 1712. In it, Stephen criticized, first of all, the creation of the institution of the so-called fiscals, who were controllers on the part of the secular authorities in matters of the spiritual court. This was the first act of serious and open resistance to the government, committed publicly, in the face of the people gathered in the church. Stephen also allowed himself extremely harsh remarks about the internal state of the state, which "is agitated in bloody storms." "The sea is fierce, the sea is a lawless man! Why do you break, crush, and ravage the shores? The shore is the law of God, the shore is not to commit adultery, not to lust after your neighbor's wife, not to leave your wife; the shore is to preserve piety, fasts, and especially the Forty Days, the shore is to venerate icons." This was already a clear hint at the circumstances of the tsar's family life, at his divorce from Tsarina Eudoxia and at his relationship with his future wife Skavronskaya, at the tsar's non-observance of the fasts prescribed by the Orthodox Church. That Peter understood this hint is evident from his notes on the margins of the text of the sermon, which they hastened to present to him: "First alone, then with witnesses," i.e., Stephen should have first spoken to the tsar face to face, and not immediately reprimanded him in public and in church. However, in this sermon there were also hints of another kind, which had in mind Peter's relations with his unloved son Alexei. The locum tenens concluded his Sermon with a prayer to St. Alexis, the man of God, in which Stephen's sympathy for the prince, who openly disapproved of his father's innovations, an adherent of the former old Moscow way of life, of everything that Peter had broken and destroyed, was clearly expressed. At the end of his sermon, Stephen exclaims: "We pray, O holier than God! Cover your namesake, our only hope, cover him in the shelter of your wings, like a beloved chick, like an apple, protect him unharmed from all evil!" It was for this reason that Stephen was forbidden to preach for three years. From that moment on, the estrangement between Peter and Stephen increased. The Senate, meanwhile, summoned the locum tenens to its meetings, as if he were subordinate to the Senate, and demanded an account from him. Seeing the precariousness of his position, Stephen sent a petition to Peter to release him from the post of locum tenens (March 21, 1712). Peter hastened to calm Stephen down and left his request unsatisfied, entrusting him to continue to lead the Church. However, it was felt that the former relations between them could no longer be restored [167]. Stephen's worries had not yet completely subsided, when new ones were added to them, which brought him trouble, humiliation and again dissatisfaction on the part of the tsar. This was the case of the physician Tveritinov, in the course of which the full extent of the locum tenens' lack of freedom in the spiritual sphere was revealed, where, on the basis of previous tsarist decrees, he could act at his own discretion and with full responsibility.

The appearance of a large number of Protestants in Moscow and the measures taken by Peter to protect them could not remain without consequences. Protestant views began to spread among the Russian people as well. One of the adherents of Protestantism was the physician Dmitry Tveritinov, who studied with doctors from the German Quarter [168]. Tveritinov was an intelligent man, with diverse interests, inclined to criticism and rationalism. There were already such people in the Muscovite state - it is worth remembering at least Matvey Bashkin or Theodosius Kos. Tveritinov's views first became known from the words of a student of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy, Ivashka Maksimov. He said that Tveritinov criticizes the teaching of the Orthodox Church, does not recognize the sacred tradition, the Church and the hierarchy, the veneration of the Mother of God, angels and saints. In addition, Tveritinov allegedly denied the sacraments of holy baptism and the holy Eucharist, as well as, of course, church rites, the veneration of icons, the observance of fasts and monasticism. However, Tveritinov cannot be considered a supporter of liberal Protestantism, since some of his views were in no way compatible with the latter. Thus, he did not agree with the Protestant thesis that a person is justified by faith alone, on the contrary, Tveritinov definitely asserted that personal merits and good deeds are required for the salvation of a person. He studied the Bible with great zeal, made extracts from it in support of his views, which he recorded in his "notebooks", mainly for the purpose of polemics against the teaching of the Protestant Church. These "notebooks" with the Russian translation of Luther's "Catechism" attached to them were circulated among Tveritinov's acquaintances, thus spreading his religious ideas, which found admirers and supporters not only in Moscow, but also in the provinces. This lasted for 10 years, and only in 1713 the case was opened. The investigation was carried out by the Preobrazhensky Prikaz and spiritual judges appointed by Stephen. It revealed Tveritinov's apostasy, as well as the great popularity of his views among the population. Nevertheless, Peter was against the public condemnation and punishment of Tveritinov and his followers, demanding that Stephen limit himself to imposing penance on the guilty. But Stephen could not be satisfied with such an outcome of the matter. Meanwhile, Tveritinov managed to escape from Moscow to St. Petersburg, where he found defenders in the circle of senators. Now the Senate itself took over the conduct of this matter. On June 14, 1714, he recognized Tveritinov as Orthodox and ordered Stephen to solemnly announce the Orthodoxy of Tveritinov and his supporters. Stephen was not going to carry out the order of the Senate, and on October 28 of the same year he submitted a detailed report on this matter to Peter; he explained in what ways Tveritinov had deviated from the Orthodox faith, and pointed out that he considered it impossible for himself to obey the decree of the Senate. The Emperor did not like Stephen's disobedience, as well as his attacks on Protestant foreigners, whose help the tsar valued so much. Circumstances took a very unfavorable turn for the locum tenens. On December 14, a Senate decree followed, summoning Stephen to St. Petersburg, not as a representative of the Russian Church, but as a witness in the case of Tveritinov. Thus, a situation arose in which Stephen turned from a prosecutor into an accused, which he felt immediately after the beginning of the trials. Later, Stephen described in a letter to Peter how he was humiliated in the Senate and how the senators "with great shame and pity" expelled him from the "judicial hut". The Senate, however, did not succeed in fully realizing its intentions in this matter, because some of Tveritinov's adherents turned out to be more stubborn than their teacher. For example, Thomas Ivanov, who was sent to the Chudov Monastery for repentance, split several icons there with an axe, as a result of which he was sentenced to be burned at the stake as an unrepentant heretic (1714). Others, after completing repentance, were sent to monasteries. Tveritinov himself, who showed due repentance, was released after some time, in 1718. Having repented, he asked the Holy Synod for mercy. In 1723, the Synod lifted his excommunication and again accepted him into the bosom of the Church. Stephen's well-known work "The Stone of Faith", directed against Protestantism in general and against its spread in Russia in particular, was written, among other things, under the impression of the Tveritinov case.

d) The disagreements between Peter and his son, Tsarevich Alexei, very quickly turned from a purely family feud into a conflict of a political nature.

Alexei was born on February 19, 1690 and was the son of Peter and his first wife Evdokia Fyodorovna Lopukhina. This marriage was concluded at the behest of Tsarina Natalia Kirillovna on January 27, 1689, but family life showed that Peter and his wife were and remained complete strangers to each other. Eudoxia, who grew up in the atmosphere of the old Moscow terem, did not share either Peter's views or his plans for the reorganization of the state, and this was well known to Peter, despite his frequent absences. In his first years, Peter paid little attention to his son Alexei, born from an unhappy marriage. In 1698, when an open break occurred between Peter and Eudoxia, the tsar forced her to take monastic vows. Until that time, Alexei had been brought up by his mother, and after her exile to the monastery, he fell into the hands of Peter's sisters, where the atmosphere was no different from that in which the Tsarevich had been before. Then a foreign tutor was assigned to Alexei, but it was too late, since the inclinations and sympathies of the boy had already been determined. "The Tsarevich absorbed pre-reform views, pre-reform theological science and pre-reform tastes: the desire for external piety, contemplative inactivity and sensual pleasures. The flabby nature of the son further strengthened his sharp opposition to his father. Fearing his father, the prince did not love him and even wished him a speedy death; to be with his father for Alexei was "worse than hard labor," as he admitted... The son remained a passive, but stubborn opponent. In 1711, Peter arranged the marriage of his son to Princess Sophie-Charlotte of Wolfenbüttel. It must be thought that by this he still hoped to remake his son, to change the conditions of his life, opening access to the influence of a cultured woman on his son... When Alexei's son Peter was born and his wife died (1715), Tsar Peter began to look at his son differently: with the birth of a grandson, it was possible to remove a son from the throne, because another heir appeared. In addition, Peter could count on having sons himself, since in 1712 he formally entered into a second marriage" [170]. The rejection that Alexei demonstrated in relation to his father, the sovereign, as well as to his reforms, could not, of course, go unnoticed by those around him. And among them there were many who held the same thoughts as the Tsarevich and hoped that with Alexei's accession to the throne it would be possible to return to the old Moscow order. This "old Moscow party" could have become a dangerous opponent of Peter if Alexei himself had been more energetic or if there had been a person in his entourage capable of leading an open struggle against Peter. Among the many clergy around Alexei, the main role was played by the priest Yakov Ignatiev, who hated Peter and his reforms. His influence on Alexei was very great. Once, during confession, he asked the prince if he wished for his father's death. Having received an affirmative answer, Yakov calmed the embarrassed Alexei with the words: "God will forgive you, because we all wish him death." Among the tsarevich's entourage were bishops who were in opposition to the tsar, for example, the Rostov bishop Dositheus Glebov, the Krutitsy metropolitan Ignatius Smola, and the Kiev metropolitan Joasaph Krokovsky. The locum tenens of the patriarchal throne was not connected with Alexei, but if we recall Stephen's sermon of 1712, it is not difficult to draw a conclusion about his attitude to the Tsarevich. It is very likely that in the event of a complete break with his father, Alexei counted primarily on the support of the Church. "When I have time without a priest," he said more than once in a close circle, "then I will whisper to the bishops, the bishops to the parish priests, and the priests to the parishioners, then they will reluctantly make me the ruler" [171]. Thus, the family discord between father and son eventually grew into a state-political conflict. Later, during the investigation of the case in 1718, it was discovered that, although there were no plans for a revolution among the clergy, the spirit of opposition was still strong and widespread in them. It became clear to Peter that he had to take certain measures to protect his reforms from opponents in church circles. As early as 1715, after the death of the Tsarevich's wife, Peter wrote a lengthy letter to his son, in which, pointing out his inability to deal with state affairs, he called on him either to change or to renounce the right to the throne. Alexei agreed to the latter, which aroused the Tsar's suspicion of his son's insincerity, and he demanded that Alexei retire to a monastery. The Tsarevich agreed to this as well. Since Peter was too busy with other matters, the question remained open. Meanwhile, in 1716, Peter went to Denmark and soon summoned his son there. But the prince, out of fear of his father and on the advice of his entourage, did not go to him, but went to the Austrian emperor, from whom he asked for protection. The emperor sent Alexios to Naples. The people sent by the tsar discovered the whereabouts of the Tsarevich and persuaded him to return to St. Petersburg. Here, in exchange for a promise to forgive him, Alexei betrayed those who helped him escape, and in addition, those with whom he used to grieve over the bygone Moscow times and criticize his father. During the investigation of the case, the participation of persons of religious rank in it was revealed. The senators, who acted as investigators, did not skimp on torture, and Peter cruelly settled accounts with the oppositionists: he ordered the priests Yakov Ignatiev and Fyodor Pustynny, as well as the Rostov bishop Dositheus, to be executed; the more dexterous and cautious Metropolitan Ignatius Smola was transferred to the Irkutsk diocese, but preferred to retire to a monastery. Metropolitan Joasaph Krokovsky of Kiev was spared from punishment by death, which overtook him on the way to interrogation. Tsarevich Alexei was also sentenced to death, but he died before the execution of the sentence, on June 27, 1718, in the casemate of the Peter and Paul Fortress, physically and spiritually broken by the tortures that the senators used during the investigation. When the Senate began to consider the case of Tsarevich Alexei, Stefan Yavorsky was summoned to St. Petersburg on May 18, 1718 to participate in the trial of the heir to the throne. Peter turned to Stephen for clarification whether he had the right to execute his son. Stephen spoke in favor of a pardon. He also protested against the execution of Bishop Dositheus. But all Stephen's requests were unsuccessful, and he himself was forced to perform the last rites over the body of the dead Tsarevich and perform the burial (June 30, 1718) [172].

Shortly after the end of this affair, Peter for the first time, as far as we know, declared the need to change the structure of church administration. When in the autumn of 1718 Stephen informed the tsar that it was inconvenient for him to live in the capital, since because of this the administration of the Ryazan diocese was suffering (perhaps Stephen simply tried to be relieved of the post of locum tenens once again), Peter answered: "For the affairs of Ryazan, it is necessary to arrange a bishop... and for better management in the future, it seems convenient for the Ecclesiastical Collegium, so that it would be more convenient to correct such great deeds" [173]. These ideas arose in Peter not without the influence of Bishop Theophan Prokopovich, a man whom Peter liked more and more and who was destined to become one of the main participants in the creation of a new supreme church administration, the Synod.

e) Of all Peter's contemporaries, Theophan was, without a doubt, the most suitable collaborator in the work of reforming Russia, for he shared Peter's views both in reason and feeling, and was convinced that old Muscovite Russia had outlived its usefulness. P. Pekarsky quite correctly notes that "Theophanes, undoubtedly, belongs to the most remarkable and most outstanding personalities in Russian history of the first half of the eighteenth century. In his field, he was the same innovator as Peter the Great in the state sphere.