To this text of the "Spiritual Regulations," written by Theophan and corrected by Peter, are appended "points" that were compiled by the Ecclesiastical Collegium itself and approved by the tsar.

Peter's resolution read: "Be it so" [205].

Soon after the first edition of the "Spiritual Regulations" on September 16, 1721, in May 1722 a second one appeared with an addition, the authors of which were apparently Theophan and Theophilus the Rabbit, "An Addition on the Rules of the Church Clergy and the Monastic Order." The legal basis for the "Addition" was the manifesto of January 25, 1721, but the Holy Synod did not ask the tsar for the necessary consent to the publication of the "Addition", as a result of which Peter was reprimanded [206].

In the first part of the "Addition" it is said about the white clergy: "about presbyters, deacons and other clerics." The second part is entitled "On Monks" and deals with monastic life. The content of both of these parts will be considered in detail later in the corresponding paragraphs on the parish clergy and monasticism.

Already on July 7, 1721, Theophan published his work "Historical Search", which is an apology for church reform. According to Theophanes, the monarch's right to reform also extends to the sphere of church organization and administration: "Sovereigns can be called bishops of the people, subject to themselves. For the name bishop means overseer... The sovereign, the supreme power, is a perfect, extreme, supreme, and all-effective overseer, that is, one who has the power of commands, and of extreme judgment, and punishment over all his subjects by ranks and powers, both temporal and spiritual. Which I have sufficiently shown from both the Old and New Testaments in the "Discourse on the Tsar's Honor," preached on the Flower-bearing Sunday of 1718, and for this reason I do not repeat here. And since the sovereign's supervision is established by God over the spiritual rank, for this reason every highest lawful sovereign in his state is truly a bishop of bishops" [207]. In the same year, Theophan wrote a treatise "On the Exaltation of the Name of the Patriarch in Church Prayers, for the Sake of which It Is Now Left in the Churches of Russia" (May 1721). And in the end, Theophan also published "A Treatise Explaining from What Time Patriarchal Dignity in the Church Began, and How the Church Was Governed For 400 Years Without Patriarchy, And To This Day Some Are Not Subject to the Ecumenical Patriarchs" [208].

Theophanes' arguments in defense of church reform, set forth in the "Regulations" and in the above-mentioned treatises, can be summarized as follows: contrary to the doubts of the Old Believers, Peter I is the legitimate sovereign; he is an autocrat and a Christian monarch at that; as a Christian autocrat, he has the right to reform the Church; all subjects, both ecclesiastical and temporal, owe him obedience and recognition of his state and church reforms.

d) Because of attempts to give at least some canonical justification to the Holy Synod, historians have essentially forgotten to ask what were the real ideological sources of its fundamental document, the "Spiritual Regulations." The question of what kind of circumstances influenced Peter I and Theophan when they compiled this document of Russian church law remained unexamined or touched upon only superficially [210]. Later researchers were content with describing the actual functions of the Holy Synod as an organ of state power.

The problem of the Protestant origins of the "Regulations" first surfaced in 1900 in the course of a discussion about the book of a high-ranking official of the Holy Synod, S. G. Runkevich, "The History of the Russian Church under the Rule of the Holy Synod." Critics have established that it is a mere apology, a proof of the ecclesiastical-political and state-political expediency of Peter's church reform without investigating its sources, and that the Protestant influence is felt not only in the text of the "Regulations," but also in the administrative practice of the Holy Synod itself. It was only in 1916 that P. V. Verkhovskoy in his fundamental study "The Establishment of the Ecclesiastical Collegium and the "Spiritual Regulations"" gave a thorough scientific analysis of the sources of the "Regulations", which deserves a detailed consideration.

In the introduction, Verkhovskaya gives a lengthy review of Russian and foreign literature, both contemporary to the Regulations and later historical works, which, although not going into the consideration of sources, are unanimous in the fact that in the creation of the Ecclesiastical Collegium, and later of the Holy Synod, and in the writing of the Spiritual Regulations, there was an imitation of Protestant models. Then the author analyzes Western European Protestant sources, which Peter I and Theophan could have been guided by, and comes to the conclusion that the model for the Ecclesiastical Collegium was the Protestant consistories of Western Europe, primarily Livonia and Estonia. "Peter the Great not only knew intimately the main features of the structure of the Protestant Church and its typical collegiate institutions, the consistories, but also exercised over them himself (in Livonia and Estonia. — I. S.) on the basis of territorialism, the power of the Protestant Landesherr, which was obvious and seemed normal both to him and to his contemporaries, including Theophan Prokopovich." From here there remained one step to the organization of the administration of the Russian Church according to the same principle. "The model of the Ecclesiastical Collegium for Theophan was precisely the foreign and Russian collegiums and Protestant consistories... It seems difficult to have two opinions about their significance as models of the Spiritual Collegium and ideological sources of the Spiritual Regulations." At the same time, "Protestant theories of power... in church affairs convince us that they could serve as a very convenient material for Theophan Prokopovich to substantiate in the "Spiritual Regulations" the rights of Peter as a Christian sovereign, guardian of orthodoxy and every holy deanery in the Church." In addition, this was supported by "the views of individual philosophers of the school of natural law... With all these ideas, as can be seen from his biography, Theophan was well acquainted..." As for the general plan and spirit of the "Regulations", it cannot be compared in any way not only with any canonical collections or conciliar acts, but even with the same regulations of other Peter the Great's collegiums. The "Spiritual Regulations" bear the specific imprint of the Protestant church statutes — Kirchenordnungen... Moreover, in the "Spiritual Regulations" there are rather curious coincidences of certain thoughts and passages with the Swedish church rule of 1686 of Charles XI, extended to Livonia and Estonia, although these coincidences do not give us the right to see in the latter the direct source of the "Regulations". Verkhovskoy comes to the following conclusion: "The Ecclesiastical Collegium, as it was conceived by Peter and Theophanes, is nothing but a general church consistory of the German-Swedish type, and the "Spiritual Regulations" are a free copy of the Protestant church statutes (Kirchenordnungen). The Ecclesiastical Collegium is a state institution, the creation of which completely changed the legal position of the Church in the Russian state" [212]. It seems to us that Verkhovsky's conclusions and his disappointing summary cannot be refuted either by sophistic reasoning in the manner of Metropolitan Philaret Drozdov, or by any other official arguments.

The later renaming of the Ecclesiastical Collegium into the Most Holy Governing Synod, made with due regard for the religious psychology of the Russian people, did not change anything in the essence of the Russian state churchliness created by Peter. Considering the history of the Holy Synod and the entire Synodal system in its relations with both the state authorities and the faithful people, we will be convinced of the justice of this idea at every step.

§ 4. The Holy Synod: Its Organization and Activities under Peter I

a) The Ecclesiastical Collegium, renamed the Holy Synod soon after its inception, began its activities immediately after its grand opening.

According to the tsar's manifesto of January 25, 1721, the Holy Synod consisted of eleven members, while the "Spiritual Regulations" provided for twelve. Peter I insisted on strict adherence to the principle of collegiality. "The very name of the president," says the "Spiritual Regulations," "is not proud, for it means only the chairman." Thus, the president had to be primus inter pares, first among equals. The first and, as it turned out later, the only holder of this title was, by order of Peter, the former locum tenens of the patriarchal throne, Metropolitan Stefan Yavorsky of Ryazan, with whom the tsar often disagreed in recent years. Perhaps Peter considered it inexpedient to ignore Yavorsky in terms of continuity in church administration, hoping at the same time that Stephen's influence would be neutralized by virtue of the collegiality of the body itself. Yavorsky's rival in the Synod was Feofan Prokopovich. Despite the protest of its president, the Synod decided to abolish the commemoration of Orthodox patriarchs during divine services. On May 22, 1721, Theophanes' pamphlet appeared under the title "On the Exaltation of the Name of the Patriarch," and already in early June the president presented a memorandum to the Senate: "Apology, or Verbal Defense, on the Elevation in the Prayers of the Church's Holy Orthodox Patriarchs" [214]. The conflict ended with the fact that the Senate rejected Stephen's memorandum, reprimanding him in writing, "so that he would not communicate such questions and answers to anyone, as they were harmful and outrageous, and would not use them in the announcement" [215]. Even more offensive for the metropolitan was the fact that, by order of the tsar, he was subjected to interrogation in the Senate in the case of the monk Varlaam Levin. Varlaam was arrested by the secret state police, the so-called Preobrazhensky Prikaz, on charges of rebellious speeches against the Tsar that threatened the state order, and during interrogation he testified that he had been in contact with Stefan Yavorsky. The metropolitan denied before the Senate any connection with the monk, who was forced to confess that he had lied. Varlaam was condemned for his "political" and "blasphemous" speeches, and after his tonsure he was burned in Moscow on August 22, 1722. He was buried in the Ryazan Cathedral on December 27, 1722 [216]

The tsar did not appoint a successor to him. By decree of the tsar, Theophan Prokopovich became the second, and the Novgorod Archbishop Theodosius Yanovsky became the first vice-president of the Holy Synod. Peter recognized and was able to appreciate Theodosius Yanovsky even before his meeting with Theophanes. Theodosius was born in 1674 or 1675 in a noble family in the Smolensk region. At the end of the century, he took monastic vows at the Moscow Simonov Monastery and, after some hitches at the very beginning of his monastic career, earned the favor and patronage of Archimandrite Job of the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. When in 1699 Job was made metropolitan in Novgorod, he took with him his ward, here in 1701 he made Theodosius hegumen, and in 1704 he appointed him archimandrite of the Khutyn monastery. Yanovsky did not prove himself as a writer, nor was he noticeable as a preacher, but he showed remarkable abilities as an administrator. Peter I, who was looking for talents and supported them wherever he found them, appreciated Yanovsky and ordered to appoint him as a spiritual judge of St. Petersburg, Yamburg, Narva, Koporye and Shlisselburg. Invested with the rights of a diocesan bishop, Yanovsky showed great activity in the construction of churches and supervision of the clergy. He also took an active part in the creation of the Alexander Nevsky Monastery, and in 1712 he became its archimandrite, receiving special privileges. Arrogance and arrogance appeared in him, even in relation to his patron, Metropolitan Job. Yanovsky, not without success, became involved in ecclesiastical and political intrigues. On January 31, 1716, he became the successor of Metropolitan Job, who died in 1716 [217].