All these events served as a powerful impetus for theoretical thought, at the same time directing it along a very definite channel. From now on, it was Muscovite Rus that was the guarantor who ensured the preservation of Orthodoxy in its purity and integrity. The sovereign of Moscow became the legal owner of all the rights and duties of the Byzantine tsar. Consequently, he was now the "Orthodox Tsar," without whom the entire religiously conditioned system of the Old Russian worldview would have lost its foundation. The Byzantine doctrine of symphony proved to be quite applicable to the conditions of Moscow. The Russian Church was the only one that preserved the treasure of Orthodox teaching in purity, and the Tsar was its defender and guardian. And when Ivan IV (1533-1584) officially assumed the title of tsar in 1547, it was quite a consistent step. After all, even before that, the grand dukes were called tsars in Moscow written monuments [41]. Thus, the concept of official church writing and Moscow journalism of the second half of the 15th and the beginning of the 16th century became a living state and ecclesiastical-legal reality: the only Orthodox tsar in the world sat on the Moscow throne as an autocrat [42].

It is hardly possible to find another period in Russian history when the problem of relations between the state and the Church would so vividly interest minds. As a result of the intellectual work that took place at that time, a state-political concept was created, which existed for several centuries, which could not be completely destroyed by either Peter the Great's reforms, or the Europeanization that followed them. The core of this concept is the idea of the future of the Muscovite state, of "Moscow as the Third Rome"[43] – a theory that is not primarily political, but rather religious and messianic. In the journalism of that time, Moscow, the last legitimate heir to the "second Rome", or Tsargrad, was viewed not so much as a political center with imperial prospects, but as the guardian of true orthodoxy throughout the world – until the end of time. The eschatological character of the Old Russian worldview, by virtue of which everything earthly was considered from the point of view of its transience, led to the fact that the political side of the problem, i.e., the earthly, was pushed far into the background. We emphasize this point in view of the presence of other, unsubstantiated, interpretations of the idea of "Moscow is the Third Rome."

As a consequence of the idea of the "third Rome" [44], a special theory of the Orthodox tsar arose. The latter acts as a "righteous tsar", subject only to Divine justice, "truth", concerned about the preservation and maintenance of the Orthodox faith in all its forms and institutions, with its churches and monasteries. The tsar governs according to the will of God in the name of the salvation of souls, in the name of protecting his subjects from bodily and spiritual disturbances [45]. On the basis of these prerequisites, new rights of the tsar in the religious sphere were asserted. From the time of Ivan IV, the tsars viewed interference in church affairs as the fulfillment of their duty to preserve the purity and inviolability of the Orthodox Church. Neither the tsar nor the church hierarchy saw in this any "tyranny" on the part of the state power. The legal side of the matter was completely ignored. It never occurred to anyone to use individual cases of state interference as precedents for building a system of "Moscow state churchliness." Thus, for example, the fact that the tsar handed a staff to the newly ordained metropolitan, and later to the patriarch in the church, in no way signified investiture, i.e., it did not testify to the legal subordination of the Church to the tsar [46]. This was a symbol of the fact that in Muscovite Rus the state and the Church pursued a common goal. Since the absolute power of the tsar, limited only by the will of God and the responsibility of the tsar before God, was not enshrined in any law, there was no definition of royal rights in relation to the Church. Moscow did not know the norms of Roman law. More important, however, is that peculiar feature of Old Russian thinking, which left life itself to melt down the duties of the tsar in relation to the Church into norms of law [48]. Thus, the practice of the tsar nominating candidates for the episcopal and metropolitan sees, as well as the patriarchal throne, developed. The Moscow tsars, beginning with Ivan IV, who took an active part in the Council of the Hundred Chapters, began, following the example of the Byzantine emperors, to convene Local Councils of their own free will and to confirm their decisions [49]. When the correction of church books at the behest of Patriarch Nikon (1652-1667) led to a schism in the Old Believers, the state acted as a defender of orthodoxy in the struggle against the schismatics [50]. And the Old Believers, with their petition for the restoration of the "old faith," appealed precisely to the "Orthodox Tsar," and not to the Patriarch of Moscow [51].

The vagueness of legal norms, or, more precisely, the absence of such norms, led in the end to a tragic clash between Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Under the influence of the Epanagoge, which had just been translated in Moscow, which demanded a symphony of secular and spiritual powers, Nikon sought this symphony in Moscow and, not finding it, in the heat of polemics he even began to express claims to the priority of spiritual power [52]. The trial against Nikon (meeting of the Council of 1667) unfolded not in the form of a debate of the legal parties, but in the form of a purely personal conflict between the tsar and the patriarch, mired in partialities and intrigues [53]. The Tsar was victorious thanks to the diplomatic sophistication of the Eastern Patriarchs who were invited to Moscow and supported him [54]. Such an outcome could, of course, be regarded as the subordination of the Church to the state. But, assessing the matter on the merits, it is impossible not to notice that the state, which felt confident within the framework of the old traditional relations with the Church and the usual ideas about the rights of the tsars, refrained from officially formulating its position. The tsar entrusted this task to the Eastern Patriarchs, who had received in advance from Moscow very skillfully composed questions without any specific information about the essence of the conflict. The Reply (Tomos) of the patriarchs rested in part on the Epanagoge, although in its exaltation of royal power it went far beyond the theory of symphony. Thus, in the Reply (Chapter 13) it is said that the Patriarch has no right to interfere in state affairs and even to take any part in them at all, if the tsar does not wish it. Chapter 5 emphasizes the unlimited power of the tsar, but the vagueness of the wording leaves open the question to what extent it extends to the Church. Therefore, the official translation of the Answer into Russian appeared under the title: "Answers of the Four Ecumenical Patriarchs to 25 Questions Concerning the Unlimited Power of the Tsar and the Limited Power of the Patriarch" [56]. As is known, the most serious accusation brought against Nikon was the accusation of interference in the affairs of the state, allegedly committed by the patriarch. The same accusation played an important role later, for example, during the creation of the "Spiritual Regulations" by Theophan Prokopovich. In justifying the abolition of patriarchal authority, Theophan unequivocally referred to the case of Nikon. However, the latent goal of the boyars' intrigues against Nikon was not at all to obtain from the patriarchs a theoretical definition of the tsarist and patriarchal power in their relationship with each other. The decisive considerations were of a highly practical nature, proceeding from the class and economic interests of the boyars and service people in the tsar's entourage. It was about the question of increasing the patriarchal lands and the new privileges associated with it, which had been raised again under Nikon. Thus, here too one can notice an internal connection with Peter's later policy regarding church land ownership, a policy that was by no means something entirely new. The ecclesiastical jurisdiction to which these vast territories were subject was disadvantageous to the boyars, service people and Moscow officials, since the latter could not count on receiving estates here or on winning a potential litigation on certain local lands. In 1649, in the Code (Chapters 12, 13), the question of jurisdiction was resolved to the detriment of the Church [57]. After a number of vain attempts to protest against this decision, Nikon finally managed in 1657 to obtain from Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich confirmation of the right to his own administration and court in the patriarchal lands [58]. The development of Nikon's personal relations with the tsar turned out to be decisive: Nikon had such authority in the eyes of the tsar that the 23-year-old Alexei Mikhailovich himself begged him to take over the patriarchate, promising to follow his advice in everything. A little later, Nikon, like Patriarch Filaret, received the title of "great sovereign and patriarch" [59]. In the absence of the tsar during the war with the Poles and Swedes (1656-1657), Nikon, at the request of Alexei Mikhailovich, autocratically ruled the country on behalf of the sovereign. Upon his return, the tsar, not without the influence of the boyars, wished to free himself from Nikon's tutelage, but he behaved too uncompromisingly. In the summer of 1658, a rupture occurred between the tsar and the patriarch, which led to the trial of Nikon.

We have dwelt in some detail on this conflict between the two authorities for the reason that it was not least that it served as a pretext for Peter's church reform. At the end of the seventeenth century and the beginning of the eighteenth century, the clash between the tsar and the patriarch was still fresh in memory. Objecting to the accusations brought against him, Nikon put forward the doctrine of "two powers", which asserted the priority of the priesthood over the kingdom and destroyed the image of the "Orthodox tsar" with his duties and rights. In the event of Nikon's victory, clericalism would have triumphed in Russia. The tsar, for his part, although theoretically did not question the doctrine of Moscow as the "Third Rome", in practice ceased to be guided by it. The Church fell into actual subordination from the state, and this was already a step in the direction of Peter's reform. Peter feared the appearance of a second Nikon, which could jeopardize his plans for reforms in Russia. Peter also knew that under Patriarch Joachim (1674-1690) the Church regained part of the land it had lost under Nikon [60]. These were the very "swings" that Peter could not forget and which gave Nikon's case a very definite color in his eyes.

Summing up, it should be said that the relations between the state and church authorities in the 17th century developed in full accordance with the actual situation in the country and none of the numerous theories of the 15th-16th centuries had any significant influence on them. The power of the tsar connected with the people and the traditional (autochton) power of the patriarch created concrete prerequisites for a diarchy, which, on the condition of recognition of church authority in all spheres of public life, turned into a symphony. Without idealizing this symphony, it must nevertheless be admitted that before Peter introduced the state church, the Church had never degraded to the level of a state institution. In spite of all the conflicts between the two powers, the Church has always stood outside the state institutions. The interference of the state in church affairs and the subordination of the Church to the tsar's will in matters of government, which took place at certain moments, were never based on any legal norms that would regulate the relations between the state and the Church. The Church considered these cases as an inevitable consequence of the sinfulness of the world and man. It was all the easier for the Church to put up with this state of affairs because its ancient Christian eschatological worldview remained unshaken until the Petrine reform. Therefore, the Church did not attach primary importance to issues of state, public and social order, which in practice meant non-interference in state affairs and a passive reaction to the actions of the state in the church sphere. It was believed that it was more important not so much to improve the conditions of earthly life as to prepare for life in heaven. It can be asserted, and this will become clear from what follows, that the Russian Church did not lose her eschatological position even in the synodal period.

With such a worldview and such a perception of history, there was nothing to fear from any active resistance of the Church to state reforms. Nikon's idea of the priority of church power over secular power in the sense of practical leadership of earthly affairs on the part of the Church did not have the slightest chance of finding understanding among people of the Old Russian constitution with an eschatologically oriented consciousness. Nevertheless, Peter feared such a possibility, because he underestimated the eschatological-liturgical character of the Russian faith. Therefore, it seemed to him that it was not enough simply to benefit from the conservatism of this faith, he considered it necessary to point out to the Church its new foundation – on the basis of state legal norms.

B. Sources and Literature on the History of the Synodal Period

a) The very nature of the sources on the history of the Synodal period proves that the Russian Church has entered a new period, different from the previous one. If before the 18th century state legislation in the form of tsarist decrees played a secondary role in church life and was carried out for the most part in consultation with the head of the Church, the metropolitan or patriarch, then in the synodal time we see a completely different picture. The government is issuing an increasing number of decrees and laws on issues of church administration without any prior agreement with the church leadership. These decrees concerned not only the central governing body of the Church, the Holy Synod, but also the departments and institutions subordinate to it and the entire life of the Church: diocesan administration, parish clergy, monasteries, theological schools, pastoral work, missionary work, and even the position of the Church in relation to other Christian confessions or non-Christian religions of the empire. In view of such a deep penetration of state legislation into church life, the study of the synodal period cannot do without the involvement of numerous legislative acts from the field of secular history.

Ниже (§ 6, 11) будет подробно показано, какие главные правовые источники, церковно–канонические и государственные, служили основой для деятельности церковной администрации — Святейшего Синода и епархиальных управлений во всех их ответвлениях. Здесь же мы ограничимся перечислением источников, которые необходимы для изучения синодального периода.

Источники официального характера: указы, законы, всевозможные постановления или распоряжения, составлявшие правовую основу церковного управления, содержатся в официальных сборниках и публикациях, изданных от имени правительства или Святейшего Синода. Епархиальные архиереи также издавали распоряжения, которые опирались на государственное законодательство или на указы Святейшего Синода.

Другую группу источников образуют такие памятники, которые хотя и не имеют официального характера, но, несмотря на это, не менее важны для истории синодального периода. Сюда относятся докладные записки, отчеты, письма, наконец, мемуары. Здесь следует обратить внимание на довольно обширный круг воспоминаний — не только представителей Церкви (епископов, священников, монахов и др.), но и светских лиц, которые либо сообщают о церковных событиях, либо высказывают свое мнение о различных обстоятельствах церковной жизни в России.

После смерти последнего патриарха Адриана (15 октября 1700 г.) и передачи Петром I управления Церковью в руки местоблюстителя патриаршего престола началась эпоха энергичного государственного законодательства, которое касалось почти всех сторон церковной жизни. Важнейшими юридическими документами являются правительственные указы, так как в то время в России еще не было Свода законов [61].

Начиная с Петра I, источником законодательства становится воля императора. Следствием же возникновения государственной церковности явилось то, что и Церковь оказалась вовлечена в сферу этого законодательства. Императорские законы или постановления, издававшиеся в виде указов, уставов или даже манифестов, — как, например, манифест об учреждении Духовной коллегии, переименованной позднее в Святейший Синод, — являются актами первичного и наиважнейшего законодательства, составляя основополагающий материал по истории Русской Церкви от петровского времени до 1917 г. Существенным источником, особенно для периода с 1700 по 1825 г., являются указы, собранные в Полном собрании законов Российской империи. Наиболее значительные из них содержатся также в специальных собраниях актов, издававшихся Святейшим Синодом в XIX в.