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.

He quite consciously put all these qualities at the service of Peter's reforms, and as soon as after Peter's death the reforms began to change their character and even come to naught, this was reflected in the personal fate of Theophanes. The fact is, Pekarsky continued, that "Prokopovich remained in an isolated position, and his numerous enemies did not fail to renew with greater persistence their attacks on him, attacks that could have important consequences, because Theophan was accused of nothing more nor less than unorthodoxy. Prokopovich realized that after Peter the Great there came a time when neither his knowledge nor his talents could help him, and he threw himself into the squabbles of intrigues and intrigues with which our history of that era is so rich.

Pekarsky gives a concise and apt description of Theophan and the reasons that made him the most sincere and devoted collaborator of Peter. At the same time, the historian explains why it happened that in the last years of his life this highly gifted man turned into a low intriguer and egoist, to whom the bishop's vestments were so little suitable. These vestments undoubtedly played a huge role in the fate of Prokopovich. Had it not been for them, Theophanes' merits as a statesman would have enabled him to rise even higher. Had it not been for them, then perhaps his life, which in the end brought him so much sorrow, would have ended as tragically as the lives of many Russian dignitaries of the eighteenth century.

Theophan should be looked upon not as a bishop, according to I. Chistovich, who studied Theophanes' life and time, but "as a statesman, although his closest sphere was church affairs" [175]. Perhaps Theophan himself looked at himself in this way. However, the historian of the Russian Church has no right to forget that Theophan bore the rank of Orthodox bishop. Therefore, it will be permissible for us to look at his activity and its consequences only as the activity of a bishop and reformer, and not as a statesman.

In the fate of Theophan Prokopovich there are some features reminiscent of the life path of Stefan Yavorsky. However, they were very different people in their temperament, and when fate brought them together, they clearly felt it. It is no accident that they differed greatly in theological questions, and these differences also made them opponents. Theophanes was born on June 8, 1681 in the family of a Kiev merchant and was thus much younger than Stephen. At the time of his meeting with Peter, Theophanes' character had not yet been established to the extent that Stephen had. Therefore, it was easier for him to be imbued with the reforming plans of the tsar. Theophanes, in the world Eleazar (Elisha), became an orphan at an early age. His upbringing was supervised by his uncle, Theophan Prokopovich, rector of the Kiev Collegium and abbot of the Bratsk Monastery. Until 1698, Eleazar studied at the Kiev Collegium; then, like Stephen Yavorsky, he went abroad, went over to the Unia and accepted monasticism with the name Samuel. In the Basilian Order, to which Prokopovich now belonged, they paid attention to the young talented Uniate monk and sent him to Rome. Here he entered the College of St. Athanasius, whose task, with the blessing of Pope Gregory XIII, included missionary work. There he took a full course of Catholic scholastic theology. The collegium tried to persuade Prokopovich to stay in Italy, but he was drawn back to his homeland [176]. In 1702 he returned to Kiev with a stock of Catholic theological scholarship, but completely rejecting Catholicism itself. Thus, the consequences of studying abroad with Prokopovich and Yavorsky were different, which later manifested itself in their religious writings, the writings of the two opponents. Like Yavorsky, upon his arrival in Russia, Prokopovich returned to Orthodoxy and took the monastic name Theophan upon tonsure. Given his education, it would be natural to expect a teaching career from him, and indeed, already in 1704 we see Prokopovich among the lecturers of the Kiev Academy. He taught poetics, rhetoric (1706–1707), philosophy (1707–1711), and finally theology (1711–1715). At this time, his literary activity began, which will be discussed later. Prokopovich's first sermons and the improvement of his oratory belong to the same period. Here, in Kiev, the humble hieromonk and preacher attracted Peter's attention when Theophanes had the honor of addressing the tsar with a welcoming speech on the occasion of Peter's visit to the Kiev St. Sophia Cathedral on July 5, 1706. Prokopovich's welcoming speech to the tsar was built precisely in accordance with these principles, which Peter greatly valued in his sermons. The speech was also successful in content: Prokopovich touched on contemporary events, skillfully and opportunely praising Peter's military successes. Three years later, on July 10, 1709, when the Tsar was passing through Kiev after the victory of Poltava, Theophan again gave him a eulogy in the same St. Sophia Cathedral, shining not only with the beauty of his style, but also with his political profundity: he understood how important the victory at Poltava was for Peter and what significance it could have for the future. Theophan also managed to attract the attention of Prince Menshikov. In 1711, Peter summoned Theophanes to his camp in Iasi, where he delivered a panegyric on the anniversary of the Poltava victory. This trip was the first step on the path of Theophanes' elevation. In 1711, Peter appointed him rector of the Kiev Academy and abbot of the Kiev-Brethren Monastery. At this time, Theophanes wrote "Dogmatics", in which he broke with the scholastic method. At the same time, the influence of Protestantism on him became apparent, expressed in the introduction of a scientific-historical approach to the teaching of theology at the Kiev Academy.

For Theophanes, these years were filled with pedagogical work and concerns about the management of the Academy. This was the time of his all-round development [178]. At the height of his activity, at the end of 1715, he was summoned to the capital, where, however, due to illness, he was able to appear only on October 14, 1716. Theophanes, of course, understood that now the road to the rank of bishop was opening before him, but very soon it became clear to him how many obstacles there were on this path. It is impossible to say with certainty whether Stefan Yavorsky immediately saw his possible rival in the newly arrived thirty-year-old hieromonk. One thing was clear: with the cooling of relations between Peter and Stephen at that time, Theophan was summoned to St. Petersburg not only for the sake of preaching. Fortunately for Stephen, he had a weapon against Prokopovich, which, if necessary, he could use – the Protestant elements in Theophanes' Dogmatics, with the content of which, of course, Stephen was familiar. Theophanes, on the other hand, was most interested in the question of how to quickly and easily take up a position so strong that it could serve as a defense against all kinds of vicissitudes. Neither his scholarship nor his theological works gave such a guarantee, it was given only by one thing - active participation in the state reforms of Peter, which the tsar carried out with full conviction, but against the will of the majority of those around him. Therefore, it is not surprising that Theophan directed all his talent as a preacher to the defense of state reforms. Skillfully linking fundamental and personal moments, he knew how to turn things around in such a way that he always received Peter's approval. Theophan was one of the few contemporaries of Peter who knew what and how the tsar wanted to do. We must pay tribute to Theophanes' subtle intuition: he understood Peter perfectly, in a certain sense he even ran ahead of himself, thus creating in Peter a firm conviction that he was facing a man on whom he could rely. All this was the reason that Theophan received the task of developing a plan for the reorganization of church administration. His sermons of these pre-synodal years are characteristic: there is little concern for the religious needs of the faithful, and we have before us a secular orator who, from the historical, legal, and theological points of view, explains and justifies the practice of reforms. Theophan understood that the reforms could be carried out in full only by force, and only on the condition of complete subordination of everyone to the will of the tsar. In Theophanes' speeches, both ecclesiastical and secular, and in all his journalism and other writings, we find the idea of serving absolutism. No one before or after him put so much effort into substantiating this idea as Theophanes. It was also the core motif of his "Spiritual Regulations," because for Theophan the relationship between the Church and the state was conceivable only as the subordination and service of the Church to the state. With his religious convictions, which were strongly influenced by the Protestant idea of canonical territorialism (Landeskirche), such views contained nothing unnatural; he saw no other way out, because only with such relations between the Church and the state could the Church help the reforming work of Peter.

We believe that Theophanes' point of view, which took shape in the mainstream of contemporary Western science of the state, was sincere, and not only an expression of obedience to Peter. Already in one of his first sermons, delivered by him upon his arrival in St. Petersburg, on the occasion of the birth of Tsarevich Peter Petrovich (November 28, 1716), Prokopovich, in the presence of Peter, proved the advantages of absolute monarchy and its necessity and expediency in secular and ecclesiastical affairs (this "predicate" was published in a separate edition under the title "Hope for Good and Long Years of the Russian Monarchy"). He also spoke about the reforms of the tsar, extolling them in every possible way. Theophan brought special joy to the tsar with his sermon on the namesday of Catherine Alexeevna, November 24, 1717, and his speech on April 6, 1718, "On the Power and Honor of the Tsar," which became famous, is also intrinsically connected with his sermon on November 28, 1716, in which he formulated his views even more sharply [179].

Theophanes' sermons bore fruit, and Peter gave him the vacated Pskov diocese, despite the protests of Stephen, who accused Theophan of being infected with the "Calvinist plague" [180]. On June 2, 1718, Theophan was ordained bishop of Pskov. He retained this cathedra until the death of Peter. Theophan lived for the most part in St. Petersburg, helping Peter in the matter of church administration. When in 1718 the tsar first spoke about the need to introduce collegial leadership of the Church, it was clear that only Theophan Prokopovich could be entrusted with the development of the foundations of the future system.