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].

Four advisers also belonged to the members of the Holy Synod, their number increased to five in 1722 after the introduction of Archimandrite Theophylact Lopatinsky, rector of the Moscow Academy and a supporter of Stefan Yavorsky, into the Synod. In 1723, Lopatinsky, having retained his place in the Synod, became Bishop of Tver [218]. Along with advisers, the Synod also included assessors appointed from among the white clergy [219]. The privileges of bishops who were members of the Synod included the right to wear a mitre with a cross, and archimandrites had the right to wear a pectoral cross [220]. [

The tsar's decree of January 28, 1721 provided for an allowance of 3000 rubles for the president of the Synod, 2500 rubles for vice-presidents, and 600 rubles for assessors. The payment of salaries was irregular, since its sources were not precisely determined, and in 1723 the tsar suspended the payment of salaries until the payment of tax arrears from the lands under the jurisdiction of the Synod. Only in 1724 Peter ordered by decree to deduct salaries from the income from these lands. The size of the salaries, by the way, is truly royal [221].

Сперва Синод был озабочен протокольными вопросами. Епископы — члены Синода могли иметь целую свиту из своих епархий. Архимандритам, согласно предписанию, позволялось держать при себе только келейника из монахов, повара, прислужника, кучера с тремя лошадьми, а летом — четырехвесельный ялик с пятью матросами и жить в собственном доме. При богослужениях духовенство — члены Синода пользовалось облачениями прежних патриархов. Патриарший трон, находившийся в Успенском соборе, был оттуда удален. По установленному Синодом распорядку на понедельники, среды и пятницы приходилось Присутствие с участием всех членов Синода, включая советников и асессоров. Однако кворум имелся не всегда. Этот распорядок сохранялся вплоть до конца синодального периода [222]. Синод имел при себе канцелярию и большое число административных органов [223].

б) Московский патриарх осуществлял управление Церковью в полном смысле слова, т. е. обладал законодательной, исполнительной и судебной властью. Манифестом от 25 января 1721 г. и «Духовным регламентом» все три власти передавались Святейшему Синоду. Первой задачей Синода было довести этот свой статус до сведения епархиальных архиереев. Когда последние вместо отчетов стали подавать ему только справки, Синод писал епископам: «Духовная коллегия имеет честь, славу, власть патриаршескую, или едва и не бóльшую, понеже Собор» [224].

Законодательная власть Синода описана в манифесте следующим образом: «Должна же есть коллегия сия и новыми впредь правилами дополнять «Регламент» свой, яковых правил востребуют разные разных дел случаи. Однако ж делать сие должна Коллегия духовная не без Нашего соизволения». Эти ограничения дополнены указом от 19 ноября 1721 г.: «А буде во отлучении Нашем такое (срочное. — Ред.) дело случится, а обождать до прибытия Нашего будет невозможно, то Синоду согласиться с Сенатом и подписать и потом публиковать» [225]. В этом установлении заключался зародыш той зависимости Святейшего Синода от Сената, к которой постепенно пришло дело на практике. В инструкции царя обер–прокурору последнему дается только право надзора: «Он должен накрепко смотреть, дабы Синод в своем звании праведно и нелицемерно поступал», и в противном случае «докладывать тотчас же» царю (пункт 2) [226].

Первым значительным документом синодального законодательства стало «Прибавление» к «Духовному регламенту» от апреля 1722 г., опубликованное Синодом без санкции императора. За это Синод получил выговор от царя, тираж был конфискован, а «Прибавление» отредактировано Петром и затем опубликовано вместе с «Духовным регламентом» 14 июля 1722 г. [227]

Из указов Святейшего Синода, приравненных к закону, мы можем упомянуть лишь о самых важных. Уже в 1721 г. Синод запретил пострижение монахинь без своего разрешения, издал предписание о крещении детей от смешанных браков только по православному обряду и правила по поновлению икон [228]. В результате совместной конференции Сената и Синода Святейшим Синодом 16 июля 1722 г. был издан указ, состоявший из следующих пунктов: 1) приходские священники обязывались вести списки прихожан и поименно отмечать приходящих к причастию, равно как и уклоняющихся от исповеди; 2) последние подлежали наказанию; 3) священники должны были контролировать присутствие прихожан в церкви по праздничным дням; 4) старообрядцам запрещалось совершение святых таинств и распространение своего учения; 5) распоряжения относительно крещения детей старообрядцев и их венчания по православному обряду [229].