b) If the higher Russian clergy was forced to submit to the wishes and commands of Peter, remembering his severity in the case of Tsarevich Alexei, then the attitude of the Eastern Orthodox patriarchs to all this was by no means clear to Peter. Meanwhile, their approval was of great importance for ecclesiastical and political considerations: 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 struggle against the ever-widening schism. When the Moscow Patriarchate arose in 1589, the Eastern Patriarchs recognized it as equal to the rest of the Eastern Patriarchates, and the Russian Church as independent in matters of internal administration. But as part of the Catholic Orthodox Church, it could not be completely independent of the latter. Much later, in the 19th century, the Church historian A. N. Muravyov formulated the essence of the matter as follows: "This Conciliar Government (i.e., the Holy Synod. — I. S.) throughout Russia, but the recognition of the other Eastern Churches was still required for its eternal firmness, so that the unity of the Catholic Church might be inviolable" [195].

Peter's Epistle to Patriarch Jeremias III of Constantinople (1715-1726) contains a Greek translation of the manifesto of January 25, 1721, with significant changes in the text.

In the next sentence, the word "collegium" is translated by the Greek word "synod," which adds ambiguity to the text. The end of the manifesto is completely different: "To the same Spiritual Holy Synod We have determined through the instructions (meaning "Spiritual Regulations"). — I.S.), so that the Holy Church would be governed in all things according to the dogmas of the holy Orthodox Catholic Churches of the Greek confession irrevocably, and these dogmas would have as an infallible rule of their rule, in which they (i.e., the members of the Synod — I.S.) and by oath in the holy Catholic Church, by kissing the holy cross and signing with their own hands. And we hope that Your All-Holiness, as the first bishop of the Orthodox Catholic Eastern Church, will deign to recognize this Our institution and the composition of the Spiritual Synod as good, and about this you will make a report to the other Patriarchs of Alexandria, Antioch and Jerusalem." In conclusion, it is said that the Holy Synod will continue to keep in touch with the Patriarchs on church issues, after which Peter adds: "In your demands we promise to show every leniency." This phrase is a diplomatic hint that the patriarchs may in the future apply to the tsar for the subsidies they have hitherto received from Moscow.

This letter, sent to Constantinople on September 30, 1721, tells the historian a great deal. The absence of an ecclesiastical-political (canonical) foundation for the church reform shows, first of all, that Peter and Theophanes, who, without a doubt, compiled this charter, were clearly aware that there were no canonical foundations for the reform. The changes in the text of the manifesto leave no doubt that the Patriarch was informed not only inaccurately, but completely incorrectly. The Epistle presents the matter as if it were a question of replacing the Patriarch with a Synod with the same powers. Only a certain "instruction" is mentioned in passing, but the Patriarch is not informed that it refers to 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 state administration, about the subordination of the Church to the will of the monarch and about the state's control over the Church.

In his first reply, 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 the other Patriarchs. On September 23, 1723, the emperor received the long-awaited answer from the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch.

September 23, 1723." In the additional epistle of Patriarch Jeremiah to the Holy Synod, he informs about the recent death of the Patriarch of Alexandria and the serious illness of the Patriarch of Jerusalem, and expresses the assurance that the confirmation letters of both these patriarchs will arrive later. Thus, Peter's desire to receive sanction for his reform was fulfilled. The readiness of the Patriarchs of Constantinople and Antioch to make concessions with regard to the uncanonical actions of the emperor is explained not only by the reinterpretation of the essence of the matter that took place in Peter's letter, but also by the dependence of the patriarchs under Turkish rule on Russian subsidies.

c) Thus, the Holy Governing Synod, placed at the head of the administration of the Russian Church, was henceforth to be guided in its activities by the "Spiritual Regulations."

The "Spiritual Regulations" are divided into three parts, which are divided into "paragraphs" containing legislative orders, comments and excursions of the compiler. They give an idea of the views of Theophan (or Peter) on this or that question of church administration, so the "Spiritual Regulations" are for us not only a monument of church legislation, but also a source for judging the views of Theophan and, to some extent, of Peter.

First of all, the importance of the "Regulations" as a law is emphasized: "The Regulations, or the Spiritual Statute, according to which it (i.e., the Spiritual Collegium. – Ed.) to know his duties and those of all the clergy, as well as lay persons, since they are subject to spiritual administration, and at the same time he has to act in the administration of his affairs." In comparison with this somewhat vague characterization of the legislative significance of the "Regulations", the manifesto of January 25, 1721 states directly that the Ecclesiastical Collegium "has the right to administer all spiritual affairs in the All-Russian Church." Consequently, the manifesto is to a certain extent a part of the "Regulations", which is why it was always published together with it. Theophan entitled the first part of the "Regulations": "What is the Ecclesiastical Collegium, and What Are the Important Faults of Such a Board?" Along with the "Regulations", according to Theophanes, the canonical rules and regulations remain in force invariably and in full: "And the foundation of the Regulations, that is, the law of God, proposed in the Holy Scriptures, so are the canons, or the canons of the conciliar Holy Fathers, and the civil regulations, which agree with the word of God, require their own books, but here they do not fit." Then follows the definition of the Ecclesiastical Collegium: "A governmental collegium is nothing but a governmental assembly, when the affairs of a certain person, not of a single person, but of many, pleasing to him and established by the highest authority, are subject to management" [198]. Here Theophan points out that the Ecclesiastical Collegium was established by the monarch. According to the definition of Theophanes, it is necessary to distinguish between "one-time" and "permanent" collegiums. The former include, for example, the "ecclesiastical Synods", the latter the "ecclesiastical Sanhedrin" or the "civil court of the Areopagites in Athens", as well as the collegiums of Peter the Great, founded for the good of the state. "And as a Christian sovereign, he is the guardian of orthodoxy and all the holy deanery in the Church (this formula was included in the nineteenth century in the Fundamental Laws of the Russian Empire. — I. S.), having looked at the spiritual needs and desiring any better management of them, he deigned to establish a Spiritual Collegium, which would diligently and tirelessly watch, for the benefit of the Church, so that all may be in order, and may there be no disorder, if there is the desire of the Apostle, or even more so the favor of God Himself." Therefore, "let no one think that this administration is not pleasing and that it would be better for a single person to rule the spiritual affairs of the whole society." Theophan cites nine "faults" for the fact that "this conciliar government is always more perfect and better than a one-man government, especially in a monarchical state, which is our Russian government."

The first "guilt" is a practical consideration: "What one does not comprehend, the other will comprehend." The second "guilt" consists in the fact that the collegial judgment has greater authority: "For the conciliar verdict inclines more to assurance and obedience than to the individual decree." Thirdly, "there is a governing collegium under the sovereign monarch and is established by the monarch"; From this it is clear that "the collegium is not a faction (i.e., a group, a party. — I. S.), secretly formed for its own interest, but for the common good, by the command of the autocrat, and his and other considerations of the persons assembled." Fourth, under a collegial system of government, death does not lead to the suspension of affairs that continue in an "unstoppable course." Fifthly, there is no place in the collegium for "partiality, deceit, and covetous judgment." Further, the advantage of the collegium is that "it is by no means possible secretly for all (i.e., the members of the collegium. — I. S.) to compose." Here comes Peter's distrust of the opposition-minded clergy: "Bishops, archimandrites, abbots and from the authorities of the white priesthood, truly do not see here how such they are to each other and will dare to reveal some insidious intention, not only agree to be wrong." Therefore, here, in the collegium, there are no "strong" who influence others, and, as the sixth "guilt" says, "the collegium has the freest spirit in itself for justice."

The seventh "guilt" is of an ecclesiastical and political nature and reflects Peter the Great's assessment of the previous period in relations between the state and the Church, first of all, the conflict between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. It is set forth by Theophan in particular detail and is indeed central to the system of his arguments in favor of reform. Theophan explains the main political motive that guided the tsar, and proves that Peter pursued primarily state interests, and not some narrow ecclesiastical reform goals. In terms of their content, Theophanes' reasoning is closely connected with the thought briefly expressed in the manifesto that "in a single person there is not without passion." "Great is this," writes Theophanes, "that from the conciliar government the fatherland should not fear revolts and confusion, for the Fatherland comes from one spiritual ruler of its own. For the common people do not know how spiritual power differs from autocratic power, but is amazed at the honor and glory of the great supreme pastor, and thinks that such a ruler is a second sovereign, equal to or even greater than the autocrat, and that the spiritual rank is a different and better state, — and behold, the people are accustomed to think of themselves. What, then, when the spittle of power-hungry spiritual conversations are added to it, and fire is poured on dry hrustity? Such are simple hearts corrupted by this opinion, which is not the way they look at their autocrat as they look at the supreme pastor in any matter" [199]. To prove the lust for power of the clergy, Theophanes also turns to the history of Byzantium and the papacy and warns against such encroachments: "Let us not remember such past sweeps. Such evil cannot take place under a conciliar government. And when the people still see that this conciliar government has been established by a royal decree and a senate sentence, then they will remain in their meekness and will greatly postpone the hope of having help for their revolts from the spiritual rank."

The eighth "guilt" is seen in the fact that such "swings" within the collegium itself are impossible, since not only each of its members, but also the chairman himself is subject to a collegial court, "if he sins in any way." Therefore, there is no need to convene an Ecumenical Council, which is impossible because of the dominion of the Turks over the Eastern Patriarchates. The ninth "guilt" betrays Peter's concern for the improvement of the education and culture of the clergy: the Ecclesiastical Collegium should be in a certain sense a school of spiritual administration: "Everyone can conveniently learn spiritual politics from his neighbors... Therefore, the most pleasing persons from the number of colleagues, or neighbors, will come to the rank of bishop worthy to ascend. And so in Russia, with God's help, rudeness will soon fall away from the spiritual rank, and hope for the best."

Such are the foundations of the reform carried out, as they are seen by Theophanes. There are no considerations of a canonical nature among them. On the other hand, the views of Peter and Theophan himself are clearly expressed, and the reader of the "Spiritual Regulations" has no doubt that disobedience to the Ecclesiastical Collegium, i.e., to the Holy Synod, is tantamount to resistance to the monarch. Theophan repeatedly emphasizes that the Holy Synod is a "conciliar government" and, consequently, is more than just a body of collegial administration. Already in the manifesto, this expression is deliberately used in order to evoke associations with church councils in the reader. In the official textbook of Russian church history of 1837, the Holy Synod is directly referred to as the "uninterrupted Local Council" [200]. In the "History of the Russian Church" by Philaret Gumilevsky it is said: "The Holy Synod in its composition is the same as a lawful Church Council" [201]. As early as 1815, Philaret Drozdov, later Metropolitan, made an attempt to present the Holy Synod as the embodiment of the conciliar principle of the ancient Church. In his work "Conversations between the Inquirer and the Confident About the Orthodoxy of the Eastern Catholic Church," the doubter is given an explanation that "every time in any Church the Patriarch died, a Council met in it, and in Greek the Synod, which took the place of the Patriarch." This Council had the same power as the Patriarch. When the Russian Church received the Holy Synod as the supreme instance of its administration, it "came closer to the ancient image of the hierarchy." If in ancient times the Patriarch himself was in the habit of convening one or two such Councils a year, then "in the space of the Russian Church, as well as in the present way of doing things, it was impossible for the Synod to be in Russia once or twice a year, but it was necessary to always be." To the question of the doubter: "Who should be considered supreme in the hierarchy – the Patriarch or the Synod?" – the following answer is given: "The General Synod of the entire Russian Church could judge the Patriarch himself (Filaret obviously had in mind the trial of Patriarch Nikon in the seventeenth century – I.S.). The Private Synod of Elected Bishops, in its unity, enjoys rights equal to those of the Patriarch, which is why, like the Patriarch, it is called His Holiness. The Patriarch is the Synod in one person. The Synod is a patriarch in a few chosen consecrated persons. That is how the Orthodox Patriarchs of the East viewed the state of affairs, giving their consent to the establishment of the Holy Synod in the Russian Church and recognizing for it the very authority that the Patriarch of All Russia had until then" [202]. Filaret Drozdov probably believes that by doing so he proved the legitimacy of the Holy Synod from the canonical point of view. Here we observe the same tendency, sanctified by the authorities of Peter I and Theophanes, which is essentially unjustified by an appeal to the conciliar idea of providing the Holy Synod with a kind of canonically conciliar justification. Both points so clearly formulated by Theophan – the "statehood" and the "conciliarity" of the Holy Synod – became, in the nineteenth century, on the one hand, the main bastions in the state's defense of the synodal system, and, on the other, those weak points on which the opposition directed the fire of its criticism.

If the first part of the "Spiritual Regulations" serves as an introduction, then Theophan entitled its second part: "Matters Subject to This Administration" and divided it into: 1) "Common Matters of the Whole Church" and 2) "The Kind of Deeds Necessary by Their Own Order" (implying, of course, the spiritual order).