Historical outline of the existence of the Orthodox Church in Russia from 1613 to the present day

The article by the future saint Archimandrite Hilarion (Troitsky) was written for the 300th anniversary of the House of Romanov. The author was a professor at the Moscow Theological Academy at the time of writing this work. The article is an overview of the main events in the Russian Church over three centuries. It reveals the views of the holy martyr on Russian church history and on the relationship between the Church and the state. Three hundred years ago, the Russian kingdom experienced a time of deep and dangerous upheaval. The ruling royal dynasty of the Rurikovichs ended, and the “time of troubles” came, a time of “hard times”, when the Russian people, especially those belonging to the highest circles, “fell heartless.” But the Russian people were then deeply devoted to the Orthodox faith. The Orthodox Church was a powerful national and state force in Ancient Rus'; this power saved Rus' from ruin and from the gorges of unrest led it again to the broad path of revival and further prosperity. The beacon of Orthodoxy showed the Russian people the true national path even in the darkness of general devastation. The crown and bars of Monomakh 1 fell into the hands of the impostor, but the impostor was surrounded by infidels, his bride was a “girl of the Lutheran faith,” he took the “unbaptized wife of the Besermen faith,” his retinue was “the Poles and the Lutari and the Roman law sectarians in the Holy Church of God” - and this was enough not only for the people’s heart to turn away from the new king, but even for so that the indignant people would desecrate the corpse of a mysterious person in the Kremlin. Desperate to establish order on their own, the boyars decide to ask the Polish prince Vladislav 2 to become Moscow king and allow the Poles into Moscow. The Polish king Sigismund 3 himself is not averse to becoming the Tsar of Moscow. But there was in Moscow, as solid as adamant, “the first man of the Russian land,” His Holiness Patriarch Ermogen 4, ready to “lay down his soul for the Christian faith without a doubt.” He demanded that Vladislav be baptized first and that the Lithuanian people leave Moscow. In vain did the boyars “disgrace and bark” at the patriarch, in vain did they say that “priests do not rule the state” - “the champion of the Orthodox faith and the Russian Fatherland” was unshakable, cursed the traitors and blessed the people for the uprising, for the defense of national shrines from the desecration of non-believers. The Russian people found themselves with the patriarch and against the traitors. The Russian land responded with people's militias to the voice of the patriarch. Hermogen paid the price of his life for his loyalty to the Church and the fatherland. In the gloomy dungeon of the Moscow Chudov Monastery - there the mighty spirit of the Orthodox patriarch gave a new direction to Russian history. On February 17, 1612, the patriarch died of starvation, and a year later Moscow welcomed its Russian Orthodox Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov 5 . Since 1619, the Patriarchal throne was occupied by the father of the young Sovereign, Filaret 6. The Russian kingdom began to be governed by a dual power: the tsar and the patriarch. Both were equally written by “great Sovereigns” on all state acts; both were presented with foreign ambassadors. The Patriarch took an active part in all government decisions. The Tsar himself once declared that “as he is, the Sovereign, so is the father of his sovereigns, the great Sovereign, His Holiness the Patriarch, and their Sovereign Majesty inseparably.” The most pressing concern of the tsar and the patriarch was “how to organize the land,” which is why Patriarch Filaret was primarily concerned with state affairs, establishing the autocracy of his son and improving the system of government. It is clear that under such a patriarch the Church enjoyed the fullness of its rights and was dependent only on the patriarch. The Patriarch even received the right of civil court in ecclesiastical areas. The patriarchal courtyard was almost as good as the royal palace. Near the patriarchal court there was a complex mechanism of church government. The Patriarch took care of the church school, the correction of church books, and the organization of the diocese in Siberia. The patriarch also took measures to protect Orthodoxy from other faiths: it was ordered to baptize Latins and Lutherans turning to the Church. Complete unity between the tsar and the patriarch continued after the death of Philaret (1633). The “Consecrated Council” of the highest hierarchs, headed by the Patriarch, was part of the Boyar Duma. The patriarch was the tsar's personal adviser, and the tsar was, for example, the executor of the deceased hierarch. But, of course, Philaret’s successors – Joasaph I (1634–1640) 7 and Joseph (1642–1652) 8 could not have the same church-state significance as their predecessor. Compared to Filaret, these were people, although virtuous, but “not daring towards the king.” Under them, magnificent church rituals developed in the Kremlin cathedrals, but in its administration the Church lost some of its recent independence. Along with the streamlining of public life, there was a need to improve legislation. During the reign of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich 9, the drafting of the “Code” 10 began. The “Code” affected some important aspects of church life. The Orthodox Church owned vast estates, free from many state taxes. The Church also had its own court not only in spiritual matters, but in almost all secular matters. These two state privileges of the Orthodox Church were significantly affected by the Code. Some of the church estates were transferred to the treasury, and the further expansion of land holdings was put to an end. The judicial independence of the Church was also reduced: civil cases between secular and clergy, and even between two clergy, came under the jurisdiction of a national court. A special body of state court over clergy was created - the monastic order. Thus, the Moscow government established “equal justice and punishment.” The monastic order was not limited only to judicial activities. He influenced the election of priests in monastic estates, even the appointment of monastic “authorities”, abbots and treasurers. It was the body through which the secular government gained influence on the internal life of the Church. Only the region of the patriarch himself remained independent from the secular government. In 1652 Nikon 11 became patriarch. Nikon is the greatest personality of ancient Rus'. He was a hero in both spirit and body, a special chosen one of God. The son of a peasant, who suffered a lot from an evil stepmother, an ascetic from early childhood, a strict ascetic of the severe Anzersky monastery in Solovki, was brought by Providence to the patriarchal throne and became a remarkable church and statesman, whose personality in different centuries attracts the attention of both Russian and foreign scientists, arouses controversy around him, arouses the reverent admiration of some and the irritated slander of others. It is not surprising that such a personality, even before becoming the patriarch, charmed and won the heart of the quiet Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, in whom all the best spiritual qualities of ancient Russian pious people were happily combined. While still in the rank of Archimandrite of Novospassky, Nikon became the Tsar’s “sobin’s friend.” Appointed Metropolitan of Novgorod, he revealed his outstanding administrative abilities and selfless devotion to church and state affairs. After the death of Patriarch Joseph Nikon, a circle of progressive Moscow people nominated him as capable not only of steering the ship of the Church, but also of authoritatively directing it along a new path. Nikon agreed to become patriarch only after the tsar, boyars and people in the Assumption Cathedral swore an oath to “listen to him in everything” and let him “establish the Church.” The days of Patriarch Filaret and Tsar Mikhail have returned again in the Moscow Kremlin. The closest, sincere and tender friendship united Patriarch Nikon and Tsar Alexei: they prayed together, did business together, and ate together. The Patriarch began to be called the “Great Sovereign,” received ambassadors, entered into relations with foreign rulers, in the absence of the Tsar, he single-handedly ruled the state and protected the royal family. Not without Nikon’s influence, Little Russia found a “most gracious refuge” under the “sovereign hand” of Alexei Mikhailovich. The Moscow government accepted Little Russia into its citizenship “for (the sake of) the Orthodox Christian faith and the holy churches of God,” “for deliverance from the lak persecution of Orthodox people, not wanting to hear that fellow Orthodox Christians are being ruined by the Latins and by the papacy of existence.” In the church sphere, the patriarch was a completely independent ruler and independent of the secular government. Restrictive measures against the Church, taken shortly before Nikon’s patriarchate, lost all force under him. The monastic order was nothing for the all-powerful patriarch, who persuaded his friend the king to even have the “Code” replaced by a book of church rules - “The Helmsman”. The Patriarch was a determined opponent of the new state legislation. “The laid down lawless book,” according to Nikon, contains “demonic laws” written by the “council of the Antichrist.” The compiler of the Code, boyar Odoevsky, is “a god-fighter and a truth-fighter, an unrighteous writer.” The splendor of churches and the solemnity of divine services reached their highest level of development under Nikon. The most precious objects of the patriarchal sacristy were built precisely under this patriarch. Spiritual enlightenment and science found their constant patron in Nikon. The seeds of science have just begun to be sown on Moscow soil by the 12 Kyiv learned monks summoned by the okolnichy Feodor Mikhailovich Rtishchev. Nikon settled them near the Kremlin and even in the Kremlin itself. The Patriarch took care of the organization of monastic life, founded new monasteries: Iversky, Valdai and Resurrection, called “New Jerusalem”, the monasteries still serve as witnesses to the original plans and even artistic talents of the great patriarch. But the name of Patriarch Nikon is associated with the saddest phenomenon in Russian church life - the emergence of the Old Believer schism. It is hardly possible to point out another similar case in church history when such a significant falling away from the Church had such insignificant reasons. Nikon made some minor changes in the church rite in order to harmonize this rite with the practice of the Greek Church; The text of the liturgical books was corrected in places. But these unimportant changes in church appearance seemed to some narrow and one-sided scribes of that time to be a violation of the purity of the dogmatic teaching itself. Nikon indicated that everyone should be baptized with three fingers, and not two fingers, the proskomedia should be performed on five prosphoras, and not on seven, “Alleluia” should be sung three times, and not twice, they should write “Jesus”, and not “Jesus” (an outline that does not correspond at all to either Hebrew or Greek), etc. In this the fanatics of the ritual saw the destruction of faith, the overthrow of the Church. Because of these little things, many sincerely pious but ignorant people broke with the Church, reviled Nikon and the Orthodox Church with the most indecent abuse, and embarked on the path of centuries-long wandering outside the Church in the wilds of schism. According to the views of the leaders of the schism, for example, Archpriest Avvakum 13, one must suffer and die for the single letter “az”. The ritual is unchanged, like dogma; Russian church life should, as it were, freeze in those forms that took shape at the beginning of the 17th century. It is clear that fanatical and unreasonable conservatives became opponents of Patriarch Nikon, who, with his reforms, wanted to combine the practice of the Russian Church with the practice of the Greek East. Nikon was the bearer of the idea of ​​universal Orthodoxy, the universal Church, while for some Russian people of the 17th century Orthodoxy was limited to the Russian national framework. The turmoil that arose in the Russian Church from the protest against the “book correction” was complicated especially by the vicissitudes of the personal fate of the most famous of the patriarchs. The high position and influence of Patriarch Nikon was based not so much on the historically established mutual relations between the tsar and the patriarch, but on his personal closeness and friendship with the tsar Alexei Mikhailovich, although Nikon held the view that all his advantages belonged to him by the very title of patriarch. “The priesthood is higher than the kingdom,” and therefore the Church not only must be completely independent in its internal governance, but the state itself must be under the moral control of spiritual authority. Already in the 17th century, Moscow statesmen could not all sympathize with such views of the First Hierarch of Moscow. The Moscow state autocracy, which developed on the ruins of the former appanage independence, sought, on the contrary, to subjugate the Church. The boyars of the 17th century were more likely to lean towards the principle of the state Church, which in the West a century and a half ago was proclaimed by the German Reformation. Already on the basis of this ideological disagreement, a break should occur between the patriarch and the Moscow “advanced” boyars. But the decisive and powerful Nikon also had many personal enemies, to whom it was clear that if the patriarch had not been around the tsar, they themselves would have had more power and importance. Such and such enemies from among the Moscow boyars quarreled Nikon with Alexei Mikhailovich. The Tsar was told at every opportunity that “the Tsar’s authority was no longer heard.” The tsar lost interest in the patriarch, stopped inviting him to his place, did not protect him from insults, and did not attend patriarchal services. Finally, on July 10, 1658, through Prince Yuri Romodanovsky 14, the Patriarch was declared: “The Tsar’s Majesty is angry with you, you have neglected the Tsar’s Majesty and are being called the Great Sovereign, from now on you will not be written or called the Great Sovereign.” This was said to the patriarch before the liturgy, and after the liturgy the patriarch responded by publicly renouncing the patriarchate in the Assumption Cathedral, despite the pleas of the people, leaving the church and leaving for his Resurrection Monastery. To justify his action, Nikon pointed to the dominance of state power in church affairs: “the court and all church administrations were taken over by the tsarist power and we had nothing left to be, let him, the sovereign, have more space without me.” “And there have become many insults to the universes of the great Church, both the divine commandments of Christ and St. apostle and saint Father did not begin to observe the rules, as he promised in our decree.” There was no patriarch in Moscow for eight years. Church turmoil grew. There was even a literary controversy between the tsar and the patriarch. The party opposed to Nikon was strengthened by the Greeks living in Moscow; One of them especially stood out as the very suspicious in his moral qualities, but smart and cunning Gaz Metropolitan Paisius Ligarid 15, who cared only about currying favor with the Moscow government. At the same time, opponents of book correction united among themselves. Finally, they decided to invite the Eastern Patriarchs to Moscow for the trial of Nikon and for the organization of church affairs. In 1666, only two of the eastern patriarchs arrived - Paisius of Alexandria 16 and Macarius of Antioch 17. The main goal of the long and difficult journey of the patriarchs was not so much the trial of Nikon, for which they were not authorized by the other patriarchs, but the collection of rich alms. It is clear that in the case of Patriarch Nikon they were ready to make a decision pleasing to the government. Two former close friends - the tsar and the patriarch - appeared before the cathedral court. Nikon was accused of unauthorized abandonment of the patriarchal throne, “annoyance” to the king, and much more. On December 12, a strict verdict was announced by the obsequious judges: “His creator, Nikon, is not involved in any sacred rite, who ordered him from now on to be imputed and called a simple monk Nikon, and no one the Patriarch of Moscow.” The Tsar’s “sobin’s friend” and “great Sovereign” was imprisoned in the Ferapontov Monastery, and then in Kirillov. Nikon spent fifteen years in captivity. Already the son of Alexei Mikhailovich, Tsar Feodor Alekseevich 18 in 1681, decided to transport the Kirillovsky prisoner to his beloved New Jerusalem. But on the way near Yaroslavl, the hero-patriarch, broken by cruel adversities, died, and the brethren of the monastery he created met only his lifeless body for a solemn burial. The tsar asked the eastern patriarchs for letters of permission that would restore the deceased hierarch to patriarchal dignity. With the participation of the same two of the Eastern Patriarchs, the “Great Moscow Council” was formed in 1667. Here the question of the relationship between royal and patriarchal power was discussed. The obsequious Greek hierarchs were inclined to answer in the opposite sense to Nikon’s opinion: “the kingdom is higher than the priesthood.” “The patriarch should be obedient to the king, as if he was placed in the highest dignity.” But the Russian hierarchs did not agree with this solution to the issue and entered into a dispute with the patriarchs, so the council settled on a conciliatory formula: “the tsar has priority in civil affairs, and the patriarch in ecclesiastical affairs, so that, in this way, the order of the church institution is preserved intact and unshakable.” When the council touched upon the protest against book correction, the patriarchs, of course, condemned the opposition of the Church by supporters of the old rite and old books, since these supporters were, after all, opponents of the Greeks. From that moment on, the Old Believer schism began to exist, as a religious society separated from the Church. The same council made a number of decrees to streamline Russian church life. The Council demanded that the bishops gather twice or at least once a year in the reigning city to judge church affairs and that the number of dioceses and bishops be increased. The Council made a decision on the non-jurisdiction of clergy to the secular court and, in pursuance of this council resolution, the Spiritual Order was established, which soon merged with the Patriarchal rank. A whole series of smaller decrees were also made concerning the deanery of the church, the clergy and monasticism. The actions of the conciliar depict the state of the Russian Church in very unsightly terms and are everywhere of a sharply accusatory nature. As one of the measures to improve church life, the patriarchs convinced the Moscow government to establish schools. Patriarch Joasaph II 19, elected at the council of 1667, and his successor Pitirim 20 did not leave any noticeable mark on the history of the Church. Joasaph was quiet and meek, completely obedient to the king and did not insist on the implementation of even the decrees of the council of 1667, and Pitirim occupied the patriarchal throne for only ten months. Since July 1674, on the Moscow patriarchal throne we again see a remarkable church figure - Joachim 21. His activities were varied. Under him, at the council of 1675, decisions were confirmed that clergy were not subject to the jurisdiction of the secular court, after which the Monastic Order, which had so much upset Patriarch Nikon by its existence, was even closed. Patriarch Joachim insisted on the independence of the internal governance of the Russian Church. The patriarch cared a lot about improving the material well-being of the clergy. Despite the complete lack of sympathy from the boyars, the patriarch, however, ensured that the churches were endowed with lands. Another measure of the patriarch was the reduction and equalization of diocesan fees from the clergy. In 1682, a council was convened in Moscow to discuss internal church affairs and especially to develop measures to combat the schism. The schismatics condemned by the council of 1667 became hostile opposition to both the Church and the state. The leaders of the schism were exiled to remote outskirts, and there, far from the secular and ecclesiastical government, they spread the schism. Even the Solovetsky Monastery did not accept new books; the monks “sent out all the ambassadors with dishonor,” and in 1668 the royal archers were met with cannon shots, after which an almost ten-year siege of the monastery began, or the “Solovetsky seat,” after which the rebels were either executed or exiled. In 1682, in Moscow, in connection with the Streltsy riots, a schismatic riot broke out under the leadership of Nikita Pustosvyat. The schismatics and their leaders came to the council in the Chamber of Facets with a petition, where they wrote, “that the kings are exhausted, the bishops are fallen.” In vain did the patriarch try to reason with the rebels; Nikita and his associates covered all the arguments of the patriarch and bishops with shouting and noise. With a cry: “prepreho! victorious!” The schismatics left the Kremlin for the execution. After this, strict measures began to be taken against schismatics. Nikita was executed the next day. The Moscow Council approved the persecution of the schism even earlier, during the life of Tsar Theodore, by whose decree the dissenters Avvakum, Lazarus and others were executed. Many resolutions of the cathedral of 1682 related to the improvement of monastic life. The council considered disorder in church life to be a convenient ground for a schism led by the enemies of the Church. Around the same time, the literary struggle of representatives of the Church against the schism began. The patriarch himself compiled a detailed refutation of the schismatic petition entitled “Spiritual Complaint.” Kholmogory Archbishop Athanasius 22 wrote “The Shield of Faith.” Of the church events during the patriarchate of Joachim, the subordination of the Kyiv metropolis to the Moscow patriarch is especially striking. The Kyiv Metropolis experienced very difficult times throughout the 17th century. Orthodoxy in Western Rus', which was under Polish-Catholic rule, was persecuted and persecuted. At the end of the 16th century, many hierarchs, under pressure from the Catholic government, changed Orthodoxy and entered into a union, submitting to the Pope and accepting Roman dogmas, but maintaining the Orthodox rite. Amid persecution and persecution from Catholics, many Western church leaders were already turning their gaze to Moscow. Strife and disagreement, however, tore apart the Orthodox hierarchy of the Western Russian Church. The Kiev Metropolitan was at that time only nominally dependent on the Patriarch of Constantinople, but in fact was completely independent. That is why the idea of ​​church unity with Moscow found more supporters in the lower ranks of the people than in the hierarchical tops. Meanwhile, without the support of the Moscow Patriarch and the Moscow Tsar, the Western Russian Church could easily fall under Polish-Latin influence. This circumstance concerned Patriarch Joachim and prompted him to communicate with the Little Russian Hetman Samoilovich 23 on issues of church improvement. The hetman expressed his consent to the subordination of the metropolis to the patriarch, but wanted to negotiate for the metropolitan as many privileges as possible. Negotiations were brought to the desired agreement, and on November 8, 1685, in the Assumption Cathedral, Bishop Gideon of Chetvertinsky 24 was installed as Metropolitan of Kyiv. This is how Patriarch Joachim completed the work of Nikon and Bogdan Khmelnitsky 25: Little Russia was united with Russia not only civilly, but also churchly. The decree of the Kyiv Metropolitan in Moscow was reported to the Patriarch of Constantinople Dionysius 26, who with a special letter expressed his consent to the subordination of the South Russian Church to the Patriarch of Moscow. But especially remarkable are the concerns of Patriarch Joachim about planting true enlightenment in Moscow. Even earlier, learned people who came to Moscow from Kyiv met patrons in the person of the patriarchs. In the second half of the 17th century, learned monks of the Latin way of thinking began to appear from Kyiv. Such was especially Simeon of Polotsk 27, the teacher of the royal children Theodore and Sophia, a walking encyclopedia for all court assignments in terms of composing poetry and even composing comedies for the court theater. Under the influence of Simeon of Polotsk, Polish-Latin education even began to become fashionable at court and high Moscow society. To counteract Latin influence, the patriarch established a Greek school in Moscow at the printing house. “Almost every week, the Tsar and the Patriarch came to the printing house, separately and together, both openly and secretly, in order to console themselves with a new and unheard of thing, they provided the students with clothes and ducats.” Soon the Tsar and Patriarch conceived the idea of ​​establishing an Academy. Meanwhile, Latin Catholic influence in Moscow was growing. Even the Jesuits penetrated the German settlement in Moscow, established a Latin school there, finding support for themselves in the influential prince V.V. Golitsyne 28. In Moscow in the 17th century, it was possible that candidates for teaching positions in the Academy, which had not yet been opened, were people from Western Rus' like Yan Belobodsky, for whom Lutheranism, Calvinism and Catholicism were indifferent, and whom his contemporaries compared to a gypsy. After the death of Simeon of Polotsk, the most prominent scientist was the builder of the Zaikonospassky Monastery, Sylvester Medvedev, 29 who was a faithful student of Polotsk and held firm Catholic opinions on many issues. Not only Patriarch Joachim was worried about the strengthening of Western Catholic influence in Moscow - even in the East, especially the famous zealot of Orthodoxy, Patriarch Dosifei of Jerusalem, was worried about this 30 . Patriarch Joachim tirelessly fought with Catholic scientists. Patriarch Dosifei invariably supported the Patriarch of Moscow and even encouraged him to eradicate Catholicism in Moscow. To support Orthodox scholarship, in 1685 Patriarch Dosifei sent two Greek scholars, brothers Ioannikios and Sophronius Likhudov, 31 and from that time on, intense disputes and intensified literary polemics with Catholicism continued in Moscow for five years. The controversy revolved around the question of the time of transubstantiation of the Holy Gifts at the liturgy, because Sylvester Medvedev and his like-minded people openly taught in the Catholic way that the Gifts are transubstantiated not during the invocation of the Holy Spirit on them, but when the priest says: “Take, eat,” etc. What kind of controversy this was, can be judged by the titles of polemical works, such as “Testing the truth on the psoneistic nonsense”, “Akos, or healing from the remorse of the serpent”. In 1690, the Patriarch at the council condemned the “bread-worshipping heresy,” and with it many books written in Kiev, “newly created Kiev books, from which Senka Medvedev was deceived.” Many of the works of Simeon of Polotsk were condemned and banned from reading. At the insistence of the patriarch, the Jesuits were removed from Moscow and even all foreigners were restricted from entering the Moscow state. Meanwhile, the Likhud brothers, soon after their arrival, began organizing a course of academic training, first at the Epiphany Monastery, and then in a special building at the Zaikonospassky Monastery. The plans of the Patriarch and the Moscow government for the Moscow Academy were very broad. Even earlier, a document on the privileges of the Academy was drawn up. Here the Academy is portrayed as a completely independent scientific and educational institution similar to Western European universities of that time. She gave the highest rights to public service, she was supposed to be in charge of all Russian enlightenment and education, test the faith of foreigners coming to Russia, and counteract the spread of forbidden books; She also had the right to judge in matters of faith and piety; she could sentence people to death by burning. The Academy, opened with the arrival of the Likhuds, was a more modest institution. The brothers taught the Holy Scriptures, the Church Fathers, grammar, literature, rhetoric, logic and physics. Teaching was conducted in Greek and Latin. Thus, under Patriarch Joachim, through his labors and blessing, the beginning of Russian scientific education was laid within the walls of the Moscow Zaikonospassky Monastery. Meanwhile, not only for the Russian Church, but also for the Russian state, the time of great and decisive changes was coming, the time of Peter I 32. The last year of the patriarchate of Joachim was the first year of the reign of Peter. The Patriarch had previously disapproved of the young tsar’s trips to the German settlement and protested when the tsar began to transfer his friends there to the Moscow Kremlin. In 1690, Joachim died, leaving a will in which he begs the kings not to introduce foreign customs into Rus', not to place foreign heretics at the head of Orthodox regiments, and not to build German pickaxes in Russia. Joachim's successor, Patriarch Adrian 33, was a zealot of antiquity and at the beginning of his patriarchate opposed the innovations that Peter introduced with cruel determination. The Patriarch wrote messages admonishing him to stick to antiquity, but soon, seeing the futility of his struggle for Orthodox antiquity, he fell silent and almost withdrew from people's life. However, even then the patriarch was, as it were, the moral center of all opponents of foreign novelty. Many were dissatisfied with the patriarch, who did not denounce the king; “He takes care of his robes and white cowl, and then does not denounce him.” In October 1700, the patriarch died; no new patriarch was installed, only the “locum tenens of the patriarchal throne,” Metropolitan of Ryazan Stefan Yavorsky, a graduate of Catholic schools, was appointed. The period of locum tenens extended over 20 years. At this time, the tsar restricted the judicial and property rights of the Church by all means. The tsar was especially attracted to church estates, from which he tried to extract as much benefit as possible for his military and state enterprises. The Monastic Order was restored, where the administration of church estates was concentrated in secular hands. Income from these estates went to the state treasury, from where church institutions were given only minimum staff salaries. The tsar did not spare the people's faith and people's feelings: he openly communicated with foreign heretics, did not respect the clergy, did not observe ancient Russian customs, and introduced seductive foreign customs. There was open persecution of ancient Russian appearance. The old Russian beard and long dress were in the eyes of the tsar like a red flag of a state rebel. The legislation of the immoderately decisive reformer “interfered with the department of the hairdresser and tailor.” With the beating of drums in the squares and streets, the royal decree was announced that everyone, except clergy and peasants, should wear Hungarian caftans. A year later, another decree: wear Saxon and French dress. Selling Russian dresses was punishable by whipping and hard labor. There was a persecution against monasticism and monasteries, these centers of ancient Russian piety. From the narrow state point of view of Peter, the monks “most of them flee from taxes and laziness, so that they can eat bread for nothing.” Peter took measures to reduce the number of monks in monasteries. Taking monastic vows was very difficult, and was temporarily even completely prohibited. It was ordered to send retired soldiers to the vacant places. They began to send everyone to the monastery's care and support - tramps, criminals, orphans, foundlings, even the mad. The tsar used the monastic treasury very widely for his military and state needs. But the converter allowed himself a lot without any state need. Such was the establishment of the “all-joking and all-drunken council” headed by the “patriarch of Prezburg, Yauza and all Kukui,” where the tsar was a protodeacon, diligently engaged in massacres with “Ivashka Khmelnitsky” with his “campaign.” The people's dissatisfaction with the tsar is quite understandable, from whose transformations the benefits were not yet visible, but the burdens were already felt. The dissatisfaction with the tsar in the ranks of the clergy is even more understandable, since Peter’s reforms threatened the Church and Orthodoxy with no small danger. The hierarchy of the Old Russian Church was popular, living one life with the people. Peter began to create, so to speak, a government hierarchy, summoning the learned monks of Kyiv and installing them as bishops in Great Russia, so that they would be the advocates of the tsarist reforms in the church department. This was also Stefan Yavorsky 34 . However, Stefan Yavorsky could no longer, due to his Catholic education, sympathize with all the reforms of Peter, especially since they concerned the subordination of the Church to the state; He was not satisfied with the king’s personal behavior, for example, with his second marriage from his living wife. That is why Stefan soon took the side of those dissatisfied with Peter and even in his sermon called Tsarevich Alexei Petrovich “the only hope of Russia,” quite transparently hinting at the tsar in his denunciations. In addition, Stefan very zealously fought against Protestant false teaching and against Russian heretics of the Protestant trend, for example, Dmitry Tveritinov 35 and Foma Ivanov 36. This activity of the metropolitan was displeasing to the tsar, a constant friend of German Protestants. The case of Tsarevich Alexei 37 finally armed Peter against the Great Russian church hierarchy, some of whose representatives the tsar sent into exile and even put to death. In the second half of his reign, those who were alien to the Russian people, not firm in Orthodoxy, but very talented hierarchs of the most liberal church trend and of southwestern origin - Theodosius Yanovsky 38 and especially Feofan Prokopovich 39 - became close to the tsar in the second half of his reign. The latter was an associate of Peter in all his reforms concerning church affairs. Together with Theophan, Peter decided to abolish the patriarchate, generally canonical autocracy in the Russian Local Church (Apostolic Canon 34), replacing it with collegial governance. On the instructions of Peter, Theophan drew up the Spiritual Regulations, which, among other things, is an attempt to justify the proposed church reform and where one can see the true reasons that motivated the reformers. The advantages of a collegium over individual management are indicated in the fact that the collegium can work without long interruptions, that the truth is more accessible to many than to one, that the collegium is more impartial, more authoritative and independent of the influence of individuals. But this is the real goal of destroying the patriarchate, as the Regulations talk about it. “This is also great, that from the conciliar government the fatherland will not be afraid of rebellions and confusion, which come from its own spiritual ruler. For the common people do not know how different spiritual power is from autocratic power, but amazed by the great honor and glory of the greatest shepherd, they think that such a ruler is a second sovereign, equal to or greater than the autocrat. Such simple hearts are corrupted by this opinion that they do not look at their autocrat as if they were looking at the supreme shepherd in any matter. And when some kind of discord is heard between them, everything will be agreed upon by the spiritual ruler rather than by the worldly ruler, even blindly and madly... This seemed to be the most prophetic thing more than once in many states... May we not remember such former attempts in our country.” It is clear that Peter declares the independence of the patriarchal power intolerable from the state point of view. By establishing the “Spiritual Collegium,” Peter wanted to create a body of church government obedient to himself. Members of the Collegium are appointed by the state authorities and, upon entering into the performance of their duties, take the following oath: “I confess with the oath of the extreme Judge of the Spiritual Council of the existence of the All-Russian Monarch Himself, our All-Merciful Sovereign.” The state and secular power come to the forefront of people's life, while the Church and spiritual power must step back and hide in the shadows. The Spiritual Regulations take care of “to reduce the great cruel glory of the bishops.” Peter established an order in which “even our former attempts” would no longer be possible, when the patriarch and “great Sovereign” Nikon entered into the struggle with the tsar for the freedom and independence of the Church. On February 14, 1721, the Spiritual College was opened - the “Holy Governing Synod”, two years later recognized by the Eastern Patriarchs in equal dignity. Initially, the Collegium included only three bishops. Members of Little Russian origin predominated, whom the Great Russian hierarchy looked at with suspicion, and the College, contrary to the promises of the Regulations, from the very beginning did not have an authority anything like the patriarchal authority. In the state, the Synod was soon equated to the Senate, although the Rules of Procedure treat the Synod as nothing other than a collegium similar to others previously established. Peter created collegiums, but did not trust collegiums either. Hence the chief prosecutor's office in the Senate and Synod. “The eye of the sovereign and solicitor in state affairs” is how the Chief Prosecutor of the Synod was named in the instructions of 1722. According to the instructions, the chief prosecutor is the guardian of state interests in the highest church institution, who has no influence on the church administration itself. The activities of the synodal chief prosecutors at first did not go beyond the boundaries specified in the instructions; these were guardians of almost nothing but the economic interests of the state. People who did not occupy a high position in the system of state bureaucracy were appointed chief prosecutors. So the first chief prosecutor I.V. Boltin 40 was just a dragoon colonel, the second A.P. Baskakov 41 – Life Guards captain, third N.S. Krechetnikov 42 – General Provisioner. But it is especially important that the supreme power very often communicated with the Holy Synod either through the “president” or through one of the members; The chief prosecutor was further from the sovereign than the Synod itself. Peter himself transmitted his decrees either through Feofan Prokopovich, or through Theodisius Yanovsky. Peter's transformative activity had innumerable consequences for the life of the church. The supreme state power alienated representatives of the hierarchy, who ceased to have any significance in national life. The Orthodox hierarchs were, as it were, replaced by various German immigrants. The Tsar, together with his court, left the center of his former state and church life, historical Moscow, and moved to a city to which he gave his name in an alien language. The tsar brought closer to himself hierarchs who were strangers to Great Russia, who were alien in spirit to the entire Russian Orthodox Church. Under the influence of these hierarchs, the Latin direction in theological science was established, especially since the Tsar himself ordered the establishment of “Latin teachings” at the Moscow Academy. Gradually, this Latin school educated new generations of church leaders in a spirit alien to Old Russian Orthodoxy. This is how a gap arose between the hierarchy and the people. Peter and his church government cared little about the lower clergy. To increase the material security of the clergy, an unsuccessful and unhelpful measure from the church point of view was used - reducing the number of parishes and reducing staff. This measure created great inconvenience in church and parish life and did not achieve its goal, so the priests of Peter’s time were “nothing different from arable peasants: a peasant for a plow - and a priest for a plow. If he doesn’t plow the arable land, then I’ll be hungry.” After the death of Peter I, a time of troubles began again in Russian history, the era of palace coups, when “the palace and the fortress exchanged residents.” The multi-tribal “chicks of Petrov’s nest,” as the historian puts it, “played the fool on Russia.” There was a period when “the groom of Courland tried on the crown of Monomakh.” One could then observe a strange and offensive phenomenon. The vast Russian kingdom was ruled by foreigners who hated everything Russian and had neither the right nor any sufficient talent to do so. All this time was difficult for the Russian land in general and especially difficult for the Russian Orthodox Church. The foreign government, of course, felt the precariousness of its position and saw its enemies everywhere. Every word in defense of Orthodoxy and denunciation of Western heresies was considered a call to political rebellion, and all this was fought in the most cruel and merciless way. The entire Orthodox hierarchy was placed under suspicion. There were endless searches and torture, followed by exile, imprisonment and execution. Peter’s “associate” Feofan Prokopovich caused a lot of trouble to the Great Russian hierarchy. Soon after Peter's death, the Russian hierarchs began to fight Feofan. He was accused - and not without reason - of being inclined towards Protestantism, but Feofan, a friend of Biron 43 and Osterman 44, brought charges of political unreliability against his enemies. Together with the entire German-Courland party, Theophan was a persecutor of Orthodox bishops. It was enough to publish or distribute Stefan Yavorsky’s book “The Stone of Faith,” directed against Protestants, in order to be put on trial, lose his pulpit, and find himself in prison. With genuine delight, the Russian hierarchs welcomed the fall of the Bironovism and the accession of the “daughter of Peter.” “A great persecution against the most pious defenders, against the most sacred mysteries of ministers, the spiritual rank: bishops, priests, monks were tortured, executed, cut off, and so frightened that even the very shepherds, the very preachers of the word of God were silent and did not dare to open their lips about piety.” This is how Archbishop Dimitri Sechenov 45 recalled the terrible past recently in a sermon on March 25, 1742. “Osterman and Minikh 46 with their host entered Russia, like emissaries of the devil, and under the guise of ministry and faithful service to the Russian state, they will not only transform orthodoxy and piety in Russia, but will also eradicate it,” said Bishop Kirill of Florinsky in a sermon on December 18, 1741. “Not only teachers, but also teachings and books were knitted, forged, and locked in dungeons, those who were ready were imprisoned in darkness, and others were forbidden to write under the death penalty” (From the sermon of Bishop Ambrose Yushkevich 47 on the day of Elizabeth’s coronation 48, February 28, 1742). Elizabeth's twenty-year reign was perhaps the best time for the Church during the entire 18th century. Empress Elizabeth combined the most diverse and even contradictory qualities in her personality. Among these qualities was a kind of piety, or at least piety. Under her, at court there was no longer that disdain for the Church for its statutes, which had been established there since the time of Peter himself. The Empress was under the influence of her confessor, Archpriest Dubyansky, a member of the Holy Synod. The constant defender of the Church and the clergy before the empress was a man very close to her, Count A. G. Razumovsky 49, who himself owed much to the clergy in his youth. For the sake of church issues, this original nobleman “forgot both natural laziness and aversion to business.” With the accession of Elizabeth, a favorable summer began for the unfortunate victims of Bironovism. Knowing the empress's disposition towards the clergy, prominent hierarchs even talked about restoring the patriarchate or, at least, expanding the independence of the Synod in some areas of church government. However, during the reign of Elizabeth, the chief prosecutor's influence on the church administration began to increase. The chief prosecutor was then Prince. Ya.P. Shakhovskoy 50, a very active and persistent person. In his “notes” he himself admits that “the clergy present at the Synod surpassed him in intelligence and eloquent interpretation of their affairs.” However, he soon achieved the full trust of the empress and received the right to a permanent personal report on synodal affairs; Through him, royal decrees were often given to the Synod. The Chief Prosecutor began to make “proposals” to the highest body of church power and himself reformed the synod’s office work. With his vigilant and even captious control, Shakhovskaya greatly annoyed the members of the Synod, and there were a great many clashes between the chief prosecutor and the Synod. Although the Empress sometimes took the side of the Synod members in these clashes, Shakhovskoy retained the empress’s favor and trust to the end: she did not fire him even when the Synod members came to her and begged on their knees to free them from Shakhovsky. The Orthodox Church was threatened with innumerable disasters by the appearance on the imperial throne of the Holstein Duke Peter III 51, an admirer of the Prussian King Frederick II, 52 after the death of Elizabeth. The new emperor flaunted his disdain for the Church, the clergy and worship. During the service in the church, he made receptions, walking around the church and talking loudly. Dislike for the Church was ready to spill over into legislative forms. An order had already been given to clear Russian churches of icons, priests to shave their beards and throw off their robes. The Tsar was surrounded by the Germans, and the time of Bironovism threatened to return. Fortunately for the Russian Church, the reign of Peter III was short-lived: on July 25, 1762, the Synod was given a decree on the equality of all Christian confessions, on the optionality of fasting, etc., and on June 28, the emperor was overthrown and Catherine II reigned 53, who in her first manifesto condemned the attitude of her predecessor towards Orthodoxy. In the person of Catherine II, a woman philosopher came to the throne, influenced by the liberal philosophical ideas of her time, which taught to look at religion exclusively from a political point of view. Catherine considered it possible to look at herself as the head of the Church: she recognized the need for complete dependence of the Church on the state. Catherine began her reign with the secularization of church property, fashionable at that time. A bold and decisive protest against the confiscation of church property came from the Rostov Metropolitan Arseniy Matsievich, 54 who stated that even the Tatar khans did not do this to the Church. Catherine handed Arseny over to the Synod for trial, and the Synod, composed of members pleasing to the Empress, condemned Arseny as “an impudent and insane fanatic, criminal in an enterprise contrary to the Orthodox faith and supreme power.” Arseny was first imprisoned in a monastery, and then deprived of monasticism and imprisoned in the Revel fortress under the name of Andrey the Liar. After this, Catherine began to look at the Synod as an obedient instrument of the supreme power, which she expressed in her speech to the members of the Synod on the secularization of property, where she called the hierarchs “state persons” under the authority of the monarch. “The members of the Synod had to obediently listen to the imperial speech, full of exquisite reproach and undisguised contempt for them.” “They, like slaves, betrayed Arseny to secular power; now secular power has enslaved them” (Bilbasov 55). The general liberal nature of Catherine's reign greatly contributed to the expansion of the chief prosecutor's influence in the Synod; Moreover, the chief prosecutors were persons whose mood was completely alien to Orthodoxy and unworthy of the high church institution under which they served. This was I.I. Melissino 56, who, regarding the drawing up of a new Code, proposed to the Synod to discuss the following questions: should fasts be shortened, the wearing of icons in homes should be prohibited, some of the long church rites should be removed, whether it would be useful to abolish all-night vigils and vespers and replace them with the reading of prayers and sermons, whether “bishops should also have cohabitation with their legal wives,” whether the clergy should be allowed to wear “more decent dress,” whether the custom of commemoration should be abolished deceased, should we provide complete freedom for mixed marriages and fourth marriages, and the like. Melissino's successor, Brigadier P.P. Chebyshev 57 did not hesitate to publicly say that he was an atheist. It is clear that such a chief prosecutor deserved only curses from the synodal members. It must be said, however, that in the second half of her reign the Empress had a more favorable attitude towards the Church and the hierarchy. Persons of a completely different mood and behavior than Melissino and Chebyshev were appointed chief prosecutors; at the same time, the influence of Metropolitan Gabriel of St. Petersburg, 58 who sometimes served as an intermediary between the Synod and the Empress, increased. Under Emperor Paul 59, church power enjoyed a significant degree of independence, due to the fact that the sovereign was disposed towards the St. Petersburg Metropolitans Gabriel and Ambrose 60, who therefore had great influence and completely overshadowed even the chief prosecutors. Under Paul, Chief Prosecutor Prince V.A. Khovansky 61 was even dismissed following a complaint from members of the Synod, who were tasked with choosing a successor for him. However, Paul viewed the bishops as government officials and began to award them, despite protests, with government orders. Even the emperor’s teacher, the famous Moscow Metropolitan Platon 62, aroused no small displeasure against himself by asking to be allowed to die as a bishop, and not as a cavalier. The Metropolitan completely retired from general church affairs and lived out his days in his favorite solitude - in Bethany near the Trinity-Sergius Lavra. It was amidst such constraints that ecclesiastical authority existed in the Russian Church throughout the entire 18th century. The position of the lower clergy was not easy either. Since the time of Peter I, the clergy has become isolated into a closed class. The clergy increased in number, so that there were quite a few extra clergy. The clergy was poor and, moreover, subject to various duties for state and church needs. In case of arrears and non-payments, merciless justice was threatened: until the end of the 60s of the 18th century, even corporal punishment was applied to the clergy. Nevertheless, the clergy did their job of spiritual guidance and spiritual enlightenment of the Russian people. During the 18th century, the clergy class was the most educated of all others, since almost every diocese had its own theological schools with a multi-year course of study, and education in these schools was mandatory for the children of the clergy. Unfortunately, the Latin direction was established in the theological school from the very beginning; even the teaching itself was in Latin. Such a school, while giving the children of the clergy and future priests a formal education, alienated the pastors from popular Orthodoxy and popular piety. In addition, theological schools of the 18th century were extremely poor. Teachers received meager salaries: the rector of the seminary received 300 rubles a year; The “students” often represented a crowd of half-starved beggars. Before Catherine's time, theological schools did not have state support, and under Catherine they received this support in very meager amounts. Theological schools did not have unity of management and unity of organization; everything in them was determined by the will of the diocesan authorities. Among the diocesan bishops there were many outstanding figures in church life and spiritual enlightenment. They had no relation to the central synodal administration, but at the place of their ministry they combined administrative activities with holiness and asceticism of personal life. Such were the St. Mitrophan of Voronezh 63, whose death even Peter I regretted, is St. Demetrius of Rostov 64, learned ascetic, fighter against schism, compiler of the famous Chetya-Menya, through the reading of which Orthodox Russian people are still brought up in piety - St. Tikhon of Zadonsk 65, meek shepherd, lover of nature and solitude, ascetic writer, St. Joasaph of Belgorod 66, a strict and demanding administrator, but a stern ascetic and ascetic in his personal life. In the 18th century, the upper classes were cut off from national life; under the leadership of foreigners, mainly Germans, they adopted European customs, European views, and European indifference to matters of faith. The people still lived under the leadership of the Church and the clergy, preserved their ancient Russian Orthodox customs, supported church life and were, in their entirety, faithful to the Orthodoxy of their ancestors. What happened in the new northern capital had little impact on the life of the people, and this life was still churchly and pious. The highest St. Petersburg society, torn away from the primordial Russian historical principles, torn away from the age-old folk faith and life, rejecting any guiding authority of the Church and the Orthodox hierarchy, throughout the entire 18th century succumbed to all the influences of the West, although all these foreign hobbies of Russian society did not have solid ground, and therefore changed with the speed of change of any fashion. In the age of Catherine, along with a passion for the most extreme rationalistic teachings of the French encyclopedists, Freemasonry also emerged on Russian soil. High society agreed on only one thing - disgust from everything national and native and especially from the Orthodox Russian People's Church. The church view of life as a feat of cleansing the soul from sins and vices was only ridiculed, and fashionable European views, of course, greatly contributed to the spread of depravity and depravity of social morals. Church leaders who could not approve of this mood of high society were looked upon as backward people who could not be taken into account. The new century and the new reign were marked from the very beginning by important changes in Russian church life. Under Alexander 67, the system of public administration was reformed; Ministries were created to replace Peter's colleges. In the field of church administration, this reform was reflected in the increased importance of the chief prosecutor's office. From the beginning of the 19th century, the Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod became, as it were, a minister: the emperor himself compared his attitude towards the Holy Synod with the attitude of the Minister of Justice towards the Governing Senate. For the emperor, who had little interest in the prestige of church power, the Synod itself was only a “synodical department.” In the new state of affairs, the chief prosecutor of the Synod received a particularly strong influence on the entire church administration from the very beginning because already in 1803 the sovereign appointed to this post a person close to himself, his “confidant” and friend of Prince A.N. Golitsyna 68. Book Golitsyn was least prepared to be at the head of church administration and was least suitable for this. A man of the most liberal way of thinking about religion, he himself openly admitted: “What kind of chief prosecutor am I, because I don’t believe in anything!” “By serving here,” he told the sovereign, “I will stand directly in defiance of my conscience and contrary to my convictions.” However, having taken up the position at the insistence of the sovereign, Prince. Golitsyn turned out to be a very active chief prosecutor and contributed greatly to strengthening the chief prosecutor's influence on church life. Along with other ministers, the chief prosecutor received the right to personally report to the monarch on the affairs of the department subordinate to him. A personal friend of the sovereign, Golitsyn eclipsed in his importance the influence of certain members of the Holy Synod, and soon gained the opportunity to influence the composition of the Synod itself, since from 1805 diocesan bishops began to be attracted to participate in the affairs of the Synod, whose summons and dismissal depended on the personal will of the sovereign, guided by the instructions of the chief prosecutor. Using his influence, Prince. Golitsyn began to interfere in the affairs of the diocesan administration of various bishops, so that some bishops submitted their other decisions for the consideration of His Excellency, sometimes calling him “benefactor and patron.” Previously, there was often a struggle between the chief prosecutor and the synodal members, which sometimes ended in the resignation of the chief prosecutor; since the time of the book. Golitsyn, “everything calmed down and the spirit of the monarch settled in the Synod.” In accordance with his new position, the chief prosecutor no longer cared only about state interests in the highest church institution, but began to introduce ecclesiastical interests into the scope of his activities. Book Golitsyn, on his own initiative, raised the issue of transforming theological schools and providing for the clergy, and entrusted the development of projects to those persons whom he himself chose. A new source of funds was found for the maintenance of schools and the clergy, namely, church income from the sale of candles. It was destined to carry out only the transformation of theological schools, since a significant part of the collected capital (up to five million) was donated by the church authorities for the needs of the Patriotic War. Spiritual education was brought into a fairly harmonious system. Theological schools were established in higher, middle and lower levels. The management of secondary and lower schools was entrusted to academies, of which three were opened, each of which had its own special district. A central spiritual educational body was also established - the commission of theological schools. The transformation of theological schools had just begun, before the proposed theological academies had even opened, when the threat of the Patriotic War broke out over Russia. “About their own zealous instruction, they have violent and beastly enemies.” From that very France, from where the Russian people were accustomed to receiving their fashionable philosophical liberal views, from where they borrowed teachers and even the language itself, from where they adopted religious free-thinking and a negative attitude towards the Church and the clergy - from there came military hordes, reached Moscow itself and violated the historical shrines of Orthodox Rus'. This was God’s punishment for neglecting one’s native faith and native people and for admiring everything, even the bad, if it came from the enlightened West. But Orthodox people's Russia was still alive and powerful: it burned its ancient capital and with it destroyed the worldwide glory of the conqueror, the evil genius Napoleon 69. Russia not only liberated itself, but liberated all of Europe and gave it peace. Unfortunately, even after the Patriotic War, higher Russian society, having overthrown the French idols, did not return to the people's faith in their father's home - the Orthodox Church. A fascination with German Protestant morbid mysticism began. The emperor himself set an example. Having been educated by free-thinking foreigners, he did not want to know the advantages of Russian Orthodoxy. For him, there was no single Church of Christ, but only an abstract Protestant concept of Christianity, the concept of something sublime and vaguely vague. Naturally, the unsuccessful idea of ​​a holy union matured in the head of such an Orthodox emperor. The mystical teachings of modern, mainly German, mystics could not have satisfied the soul of Alexander, this dreamer on the throne, as much as possible. The mystical trend very quickly established itself at court and in general in high society in St. Petersburg. Therefore, a difficult time came for the Church immediately after the Patriotic War, since the vague pan-Christianity that the mystics preached of that time was in its very essence a negation of the Church. Protestant admiration for the Bible immediately appeared as the only source of doctrine, which, however, everyone could interpret in their own way. In 1813, following a foreign model, the Bible Society was established to distribute the books of the Holy Scriptures. However, the society’s activities were broader: it was generally engaged in the distribution of spiritual books. Society was not only subordinate to church authority, but did not even want to have anything to do with it. Meanwhile, the emperor entrusted this society with the translation of the Bible into Russian. For the mystical direction, all religions were, of course, equal, and therefore the idea soon arose to unite the management of the affairs of all religious societies in one special ministry. In 1817, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs was established, with which the Ministry of Public Education was also connected, “so that Christian piety would always be the basis of true enlightenment.” Chief Prosecutor of the Synod, Prince, was appointed minister. A.N. Golitsyn. Thus, in addition to the Chief Prosecutor, the Minister of Spiritual Affairs also appeared between the Synod and the monarch. The Holy Synod was equated with secondary government institutions, subordinate to the authority of the minister. The existence of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs therefore promised complete subordination of the Church to the state, turning the spiritual department into one of the wheels of the general state mechanism. The time of complete triumph of mysticism has begun, or, more precisely, the time of a general disease of mysticism. Quakers, prophets like the Baltic Baroness Krinder, frenzied Khlystyism, and Doukhoborism appeared. All this met with the most cordial welcome, complete patronage and approval. Only the Orthodox Church received its share of mockery, ridicule, hostility and even persecution. Everything that was aimed at defending Orthodoxy against mystical sectarianism was recognized as “contrary to the principles guiding our Christian government.” Books that refuted mysticism and defended Orthodoxy were banned, and censors who approved such books for publication were sent into exile separate from the capital. Metropolitan Ambrose, who did not sympathize with mysticism, was sent to retire to Novgorod. Finally, fighters against mysticism were found. The spiritual censor Archimandrite Innocent 70 achieved the ban on the journal “Zionsky Messenger” 71 and even denounced Golitsyn himself, for which he suffered. Ambrose's successor, Metropolitan Michael (Desnitsky) 72 wrote a letter to the Emperor with a plea to “save the Church from a blind minister.” Two weeks after the letter, the Metropolitan died, and his letter made a strong impression on the sovereign. The next metropolitan, Seraphim 73, was also a definite opponent of Golitsyn’s mysticism. It was as if he made his instrument the very unique personality of Archimandrite Photius (Spassky) 74, this stern ascetic, unusual in behavior, fearless accuser and even fanatic. Photius gained access to the sovereign, who received him several times and talked with him for a long time. Photius spoke about the salvation of the Church. Soon, having met the prince. Golitsyn in the house of Countess Orlova, Photius publicly anathematized him. Metropolitan Seraphim came to the sovereign, laid his white hood at his feet and took it only when the sovereign promised to resign Golitsyn. On May 15, 1824, the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs was destroyed, and Prince. Golitsyn has lost its significance. Some of the mystical books were confiscated, and it was forbidden to print books of spiritual content in the future without the permission of spiritual censorship. The Holy Synod again became one of the highest independent state institutions. The wave of mystical hobbies quickly rolled over the horizon of metropolitan life, but it left a mark even in the life of the people, where from that very time mystical, often fanatical, sectarianism began to spread and take hold. The short-term existence of the Ministry of Spiritual Affairs had, however, a significant impact on the assertion of the power of the synodal chief prosecutors, to whom some of the ministerial advantages of the prince seemed to be transferred. Golitsyn, especially the right to communicate with the supreme authority on behalf of the Holy Synod. The era of Emperor Nicholas I 75 had arrived, a knight on the throne, a man of strict discipline, who loved simplicity, clarity, certainty and systematicity in management, who wanted the entire state mechanism to be as straightforward and strong as the buildings of Nicholas’s time, bearing the imprint of the emperor’s engineering talents. Under Nicholas I, the supreme administration of the Russian Church took shape almost in its final form. The Chief Prosecutor is no longer only in fact, but also legally vested with ministerial authority over his department. Already the first two chief prosecutors of the Nikolaev era, Prince. P.S. Meshchersky 76 and S. D. Nechaev 77 revealed a desire to influence the course of synodal administration in the same way as any other minister gives direction to the activities of his ministry. The position of the synodal members became unbearable, since they were not yet accustomed to unconditional obedience to the will of the chief prosecutor. In 1836, members of the Synod submitted a report to the Emperor, where they asked to relieve them of Chief Prosecutor Nechaev and appoint Count N.A. to this position. Pratasova 78. The Emperor complied with the request of the Holy Synod, and Pratasov’s appointment met with the most sympathetic attitude in spiritual circles, but this Chief Prosecutor, elected by the Synod itself, completed the development of Chief Prosecutor’s power, equating it with ministerial power and completely subjugating the entire Synodal government. With his reforms, Pratasov gave a bureaucratically coherent organization to the central body of church power. Under him, the office of the Holy Synod received its full organization, a special office of the chief prosecutor and an economic department were established; finally, the independent commission of theological schools was closed and in its place a special spiritual and educational administration was opened under the Synod. All these government institutions, namely, were only under St. Synod, but were placed under the direct control of the chief prosecutor, who considered them as separate departments of his ministry. Pratasov, who enjoyed the personal favor of the Sovereign, became the sovereign master in the synodal department, depriving the members of the Holy Synod of any influence. A contemporary wrote about him that he “commanded a host of bishops like a squadron in training.” “Please know me and no one else! Do not be afraid of anyone lower than your bishops,” this is what the powerful chief prosecutor himself said to one clergyman upon his appointment to the post. All the activities of Chief Prosecutor Pratasov were of a protective nature, like the entire internal policy of the Nicholas era, which represented a reaction against the liberal and baseless cosmopolitanism of the Alexander era. Mystical sectarianism went from being protected to being persecuted, and some sects were completely prohibited. Restrictive measures against schismatic Old Believers were greatly strengthened. The Bible Society was closed back in 1826. The ghost of this society, hovering before the eyes of the Nicholas government and especially the chief prosecutor, made the very thought of translating the Bible into Russian a sign of political unreliability. Pratasov wanted Greek and Slavic texts to be declared the only acceptable ones; These texts, according to the Chief Prosecutor, should also be studied in theological schools. Translations of Old Testament books into Russian from the Hebrew original were considered a violation of state law: they were confiscated, and the translators suffered a well-deserved punishment. Pratasov made accusations of involvement in the transfer case even in the fight against members of the Synod he disliked and achieved that in 1842 two metropolitans - Kiev Filaret 79 and Moscow Filaret 80 - were dismissed from members of the Synod to their dioceses. Having subordinated the synodal department, the government of the time of Nicholas I determined the advantages of the Orthodox Church as dominant in the state. The Orthodox Church alone received the full right not only of confession, but also of propaganda, while heterodox confessions could only convert non-believers. Apostasy from Orthodoxy was declared a state crime subject to legal liability. The Church, as it were, was forced to keep in its midst everyone who had already fallen away from it, at least internally. Of the events in church life during the reign of Nicholas I, the most remarkable was the reunification of the Uniates with the Orthodox Church in 1839. The Union was designed as a transitional step to Catholicism. The loss of the people's faith easily turned into the loss of national Slavic identity. The Russian people in Western Rus' suffered a lot from the Latin propaganda of the Jesuits. The desire for reunification with the faith of the entire Russian people often arose among the Uniates, but these aspirations previously found little support in the Russian government, which sometimes wanted to be cosmopolitan, sometimes under the influence of the Jesuits. The policy of the government of the Nicholas era was national. With the abolition of Polish self-government, the union lost its solid ground. At first, the Uniates in government were separated from the Catholics. Catholic elements were forced out of the Uniate rite. Finally, on February 12, 1839, a council of the Uniate clergy was convened in Polotsk, where they decided “to remain henceforth in unanimity with the most holy Eastern Orthodox patriarchs and in obedience to the Holy Governing All-Russian Synod. In memory of the reunion, a medal was knocked out with the inscription: “those separated by violence - 1596 - reunited by love - 1839.” Chief Prosecutor Pratasov reformed theological schools. The purpose of the reform was to adapt learning to the practical needs of life. The priest must be not only the spiritual shepherd of the parishioners, but also a doctor and a farmer. Therefore, medicine, land surveying, and agriculture were introduced into the secondary school course. Since the 40s, schools have also appeared for girls of clergy. The purpose of these schools was also determined to be practical - to prepare future wives for the rural clergy. The Nicholas era in the Russian Church was at the same time the Filaret era. On the day of his coronation, Nicholas I made Philaret Moscow Metropolitan. A man of outstanding intelligence and administrative abilities, Filaret acquired a famous name for himself from a young age. Removed from the Synod by Pratasov, Filaret retained his influence on church life. They could not do without his advice in resolving church and sometimes state issues. With his leadership, Filaret raised entire generations of hierarchs, for whom his name was sacred. He himself was a hierarch from morning to evening, without losing his vigor and insight until his death at the ripe old age of 85 (†November 19, 1867). Since the reign of Emperor Nicholas I and Chief Prosecutor Count Pratasov, the organization of church government and the form of the relationship between church and state power did not change until the end of the historical period under consideration. Only the attitude towards the Church and church affairs changed depending on the changes that took place in the Russian public mood. The society of the sixties and seventies, saturated with the anti-religious views of Western positivists and materialists, had a negative attitude towards the Orthodox Church. This attitude of society was sometimes echoed in government orders. After the regicide on March 1, 1881, society, and especially the government, began to treat the Church favorably, seeing in it a powerful conservative force that could protect the Russian people from materialistic and anarchic corruption. The beginning of the new century and the end of the period being characterized are again marked by a deterioration in public attitudes towards the Orthodox Church. In the person of the recently outstanding Chief Prosecutor K.P. Pobedonostsev 81, this rare statesman, the Church had an imperious ruler who suppressed the independence of the hierarchy, but also found in him an influential defender in public administration. But whatever the external position of the Orthodox Church in the 19th century, it has always served greatly to spread and strengthen the cause of Christ among the Russian people. Constrained in its governance, the Church, however, extended its influence even beyond the borders of Russia and the Russian people. At that time, she was restoring Orthodoxy in the Caucasus, enlightening the foreigners of Siberia with the light of Christian truth, and laying the foundation of Christianity on the shores of the Great Ocean - in Japan, the Aleutian Islands and America. Usually, with the conversion of foreigners to Christianity, their introduction to the cultural life of Christian peoples began. Church missionaries compiled alphabets of foreign languages; translations of liturgical services and books of the Holy Scripture were the first monuments of foreign writing. But church leaders worked especially hard in the field of educating their native people. Throughout the entire 19th century, until the early sixties, according to official government recognition, “clergymen were almost the only teachers in rural schools; they not only taught children, but also supported schools with their own funds.” Only in the early sixties did the government and society come to realize the need for public education, and by this time the clergy had already opened and served up to 20,000 public schools and was ready to expand their educational activities. But in this service to her native people, the Church in the sixties encountered only obstacles from liberal society. In the newly opened zemstvo and in the Ministry of Public Education, the desire to remove the Church and clergy from the matter of public education prevailed. These aspirations were realized in the regulations on primary public schools published in 1864 and 1874. Church schools founded by the clergy quickly decreased in number, and the zemstvo and the ministry increased the number of their schools very slowly, spending, however, large sums. This suppression of the educational activities of the clergy revealed only the biased and hostile attitude of Russian society of that time towards the Orthodox Church, which could not, of course, educate the people in the spirit desirable for a society infected with unbelief and materialism. The legislative injustice to the clergy of the sixties was corrected already in 1884, when Emperor Alexander III 82 approved the rules on parochial schools and literacy schools. Church parish schools differed from zemstvo and ministerial schools only in that they paid more attention to the study of the Law of God, the Church Slavonic language and church singing. A church school is always close to the church and the priest, just as the people themselves are close to them. Since 1884, church schools received state support, quickly multiplied and gradually improved, in no way inferior to secular schools, but immeasurably surpassing them with their good influence on the education of the people in the spirit of faith and the Church. Under the Holy Synod, a special governing body for church schools was formed - the School Council, which is in charge of a whole network of public schools, numbering up to 38,000 by the end of our period, where, along with teachers, the rural clergy also work, and work selflessly, since they receive almost no remuneration for their work. Initially, those teaching in parish schools received the meager remuneration, and members of church clergy teaching letters in schools worked for free. State material support for church schools especially increased during the reign of Emperor Nicholas II 83, from 1896. From that time on, improvements in provision for students in church schools began. Church schools have their own special teachers who received church education either in theological seminaries or in special church teaching schools. In the 19th century, the successes of Russian theological science, which was concentrated around four theological academies, were very noticeable. The works of academic scientists in the field of studying native history and ancient Russian literature were especially important for Russian education. The church-historical direction of scientific work has been especially established since the 30s at the Moscow Theological Academy, where this direction was created by the scientific activity of Philaret (Gumilyovsky) 84, later Archbishop of Chernigov, and professor and rector Archpriest A.V. Gorsky 85. Especially lively and fruitful scientific activity in theological academies began in the sixties. Since that time, Russian theological science has given Russian society many scientific works in all branches of theological knowledge. Since that time, the number of spiritual magazines has increased. Church journalism appeared. Through scientific works and journalistic articles, academic scientists have always defended the truth of holy Orthodoxy and waged a tireless struggle against the fashionable hobbies of Russian educated society, when these hobbies threatened the dominance of anti-Christian materialism. During the 19th century, theological academies experienced a number of transformations that affected the internal structure of academic life, but scientific activity in the academies steadily moved forward, delving into the study of scientific issues and expanding the scope of the research itself. Unfortunately, in the field of systematic theology - dogmatic and moral - Russian theological science still adhered to the previous scholastic direction, created under the influence of Latin Catholicism and retaining very noticeable traces of this influence. But in the eighties, a new theological direction arose, which set itself the goal of liberating Orthodox school dogma and school moral teaching from elements of Catholicism alien to the Church and returning them to the purity of ancient church patristic models. This new theological direction has already produced many substantive works on individual issues of Orthodox theology, it has also given a negative judgment about the Catholic and Protestant systems in their entirety and in particular, but there is still no system of dogmatics completely free from the influence of scholastic examples of medieval papism. Russian monasteries also took an active part in educating the people. In monasteries, people saw examples of churchliness and pious life, found spiritual guidance and received excellent spiritual reading in monastic printed publications. In the very last years of the period of Russian church history under review, already at the beginning of the new twentieth century, the position of the Orthodox Church in Russia changed quite significantly. In 1905, the government decided to change its religious policy, which was carried out according to the manifesto of April 17th. All religious societies - schismatics, sectarians - were given freedom of internal life. Only the Orthodox Church, which did so much for the glory and power of the Russian state, remained in the shadows, since over the past two centuries state power subjugated church administration, completely destroying the canonical conciliar system of this administration. Foreseeing such an abnormal situation of the Orthodox Church in the near future, the Holy Synod in March 1905 addressed the Sovereign Emperor with an all-submissive report on the need to restore the patriarchate and convene a council of the local Russian Church to discuss the following issues: “about the division of Russia into church districts under the control of metropolitans, caused by the need to transfer matters of secondary importance from the highest administration to local institutions; on the revision of legal provisions on existing bodies of diocesan administration and court and their transformation in accordance with canonical conciliar principles; on the improvement of the parish in religious, moral, charitable and educational relations; on the improvement of religious educational schools; on the revision of laws concerning the procedure for the acquisition of property by the Church; about diocesan congresses of clergy; on granting the highest representatives of the church hierarchy the right to participate in meetings of the State Council and the Committee of Ministers on matters that concern the interests of the Church, on granting priests the right to participate in local city, zemstvo and rural institutions.” In the accompanying address, the hierarchs wrote to the monarch, “The Church of God is strong and opens in all its strength only when it preserves the entire God-given structure that promotes the increase of good on earth and the eternal salvation of people. It is not based on human laws, but lives by the guidance of the Divine Spirit. The highest rule of her life is the mutual love of Christians, which has as its necessary expression ecumenical and local councils, among which Christ is invisibly present according to His false promise. The urgent need of the Russian Church lies in the restoration of such a conciliar principle, which is no longer active, for in it lies its creative power and highest moral dignity, and the patriarchs and metropolitans who govern local churches, thinking of themselves as servants of all, according to the word of God, are trying to ensure that the normal course of church life continues in strict accordance with the conciliar decrees.” At the report of the Holy Synod, the Sovereign Emperor put forward the following resolution on March 31: “I recognize it as impossible to accomplish in the troubled times we are currently experiencing such a great undertaking, which requires both calm and deliberation, such as the convening of a local council. I grant Myself, when the time is favorable for this, following the ancient examples of the Orthodox Emperors, to give this great cause movement and convene a council of the All-Russian Church for a canonical discussion of the subjects of faith and church government.” This Highest resolution, with the promise to convene a church council, which has not existed in Russia for more than two centuries, to restore the canonical system in church government, opens up the possibility of a new era in the life of the Russian Orthodox Church, when it will acquire the former freedom and independence in the Orthodox Russian kingdom, but this era has not yet arrived. Russia in its past and present. St. Petersburg; M.: Type. B. Smirnova, 1913. pp. 1–16. Publication and notes by N. A. Krivosheeva Vladimir Vsevolodovich Monomakh; baptized Vasily (1053–19.05.1125), Grand Duke of Smolensk (1073–1078), Chernigov (1078–1094), Pereyaslavl (1094–1113), Kiev (1113–1125), statesman, military leader, writer, thinker. Wladyslaw IV (1595–1648), King of Poland since 1633, took the oath of office to the Moscow government and people on August 27, 1610, as Moscow Tsar. Sigismund III (1556–1632), King of Poland and Grand Duke of Lithuania from 1587, King of Sweden from 1592 to July 1599, father of Władysław IV. Hermogenes (in the world Ermolai) (1530–1612), martyr, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia since 1606, after the capture of Moscow by the Poles, forbade Muscovites to swear allegiance to the Polish king Sigismund III. In 1610–1611 sent letters to Russian cities calling for an uprising against the interventionists. Captured by the Poles, imprisoned in the Chudov Monastery and starved to death. Canonized in 1913 Mikhail Feodorovich Romanov (1596–1645), Russian Tsar from 1613, founder of the Romanov dynasty. Filaret (Romanov Feodor Kuzmich, 1554–1633), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia since 1619. Father of Tsar Mikhail Feodorovich. Joasaph I, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia in 1634–1640. Patriarch Joseph († 1652), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia in 1642–1652. Alexei Mikhailovich Romanov (Quiet) (1629–1676), Russian Tsar from 1645 The Code of Alexei Mikhailovich (1649), one of the monuments of the law of the Russian state. It consisted of 25 chapters and 967 articles (sections: “The trial of the peasants”, “About the townspeople”, “On the local lands”, “On the court”, “On robbers and Tatin affairs”, etc.). The draft Code was drawn up by the Commission under the leadership of N.I. Odoevsky and approved by the Zemsky Sobor, receiving the name of the Cathedral Code. Nikon (Minin-Larionov Nikita Minich; 1605–1681), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (1652–1666). Rtishchev Fedor Mikhailovich (1626–1673), Russian educator. Avvakum Petrov (1620 or 1621–1682), archpriest of the city of Yuryevets-Povolozhsky, opponent of the liturgical reform of Patriarch Nikon in the 17th century; spiritual writer. Romodanovsky Yuri Ivanovich († 1683), prince, boyar, associate of Tsar Alexei Mikhailovich. Metropolitan Paisius Ligarid (in the world Panteleimon; 1610–1678), bishop of the Jerusalem Church; Metropolitan of Antioch, Metropolitan of Gaza. An active participant in the church-political struggle in the Moscow state in the 1660s. Paisios, Patriarch of Alexandria in 1657–1677/78. Macarius, Patriarch of Antioch in 1648–1672. Feodor III Alekseevich (1661–1682), Russian Tsar from the Romanov dynasty in 1676–1682. Joasaph II, Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia in 1667–1672. Patriarch Pitirim († 1673), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia (June 1672 - April 1673). Joachim (Savelov-First Ivan Petrovich 1621–1690), Patriarch of Moscow and All Russia in 1674–1690. Afanasy (Lyubimov Alexey Artemyevich; 1641–1702), Archbishop of Kholmogory from 1682. In 1690 he published the polemical work “The Shield of Faith.” Samoilovich Ivan, hetman of Little Russia from 1672 to 1687 Gideon Svyatopolk, Prince. Chetvertinsky († 1690), Metropolitan of Kiev, appointed to the Kyiv Metropolis in Moscow. The Council in Constantinople confirmed this provision and adopted a determination that henceforth the Kyiv Metropolis would be under the jurisdiction of the Moscow Patriarchate. This ended the division of the Russian Metropolis into Moscow and Western Russia that arose in 1458. Khmelnitsky Bogdan (Zinovy) Mikhailovich (1595–1657), hetman of Little Russia. After the decision of the Russian government to reunite Ukraine with Russia, Khmelnitsky headed the Pereyaslav Rada (1654), which solemnly confirmed this act, and was at the head of the hetman's administration until his death. Dionysius IV Muselimis, Patriarch of Constantinople in 1671–1673, 1676–1679, 1682–1684, 1686–1687 and 1693–1694. Simeon of Polotsk (Petrovsky-Sitianovich Samuil Emelyanovich, 1628–1680), church leader, theologian and writer. Golitsyn Vasily Vasilievich (1643–1714), prince, diplomat and statesman of pre-Petrine Russia; the de facto head of the Moscow government during the regency of Princess Sophia (1682–1689). Sylvester (Medvedev Simeon Agafonovich; 1641–1691), book guardian of the Moscow Printing House, spiritual writer, court poet. Dositheos II (Notara; 1641–1707), Patriarch of the Holy City of Jerusalem and All Palestine 1669–1707 Ioannikios Likhud (1633–1717) and Sophronius Likhud (1652–1730), Greek Orthodox monks, founders of the Slavic-Greek-Latin Academy. Peter I the Great (1672–1725), Russian Tsar (1682), first Russian Emperor since 1721 Adrian (Andrey; 1627–1700), tenth All-Russian Patriarch from 1690 Stefan (Yavorsky Simeon Ivanovich; 1658–1722), metropolitan, church leader, Locum Tenens of the Patriarchal Throne. Dmitry Tveritinov (Deryushkin Dmitry Evdokimovich; 1667 - no earlier than 1741), Russian thinker and heretic. Founder of the sect of evangelists. Born in Tver, where he got his nickname. He was a Sagittarius, then a Slobozhan. In 1692 he moved to Moscow. Around 1700, he entered the pharmacy of I. Gregory in the German settlement, where he studied Latin and practiced medicine. Influenced by the ideas of Protestantism and based on Russian heresies of the 15th–16th centuries. created his own teaching, denying external rituals and church hierarchy. In 1713, the clergy, led by S. Yavorsky, began an investigation against Tveritinov on charges of heresy. Tveritinov renounced his views and, thanks to the intercession of the courtiers and Peter I, was released on bail in 1718. In 1723, the Synod lifted the church curse from him. Ivanov Foma, barber, relative and follower of Dmitry Tveritinov, was convicted in 1714 and burned at the stake on Red Square. Alexei Petrovich (1690–1718), prince, heir to the Russian throne, eldest son of Peter I. Theodosius (Yanovsky Theodore Mikhailovich; † 1726), archbishop. In 1721 he was consecrated Bishop of Novgorod and Velikolutsk and elevated to the rank of Archbishop. In 1725 he was defrocked and exiled to the Nikolo-Korelsky Monastery, where he died. Feofan (Prokopovich Eliazar (Elisha); 1681–1736), archbishop, church and political figure, writer and scientist. Faithful companion of Peter I in the reforms of the Russian Orthodox Church. In 1718 he was consecrated Bishop of Pskov, Izborsk and Narva. Since 1720 archbishop. Since 1725, Archbishop of Novgorod and Velikolutsk. Boltin I.V., colonel, first chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1722–1725. Baskakov A.P., captain of the Life Guards, second chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1725–1726. Krechetnikov N.S. - Provision Master General, third Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod in October–December 1741. Biron Ernest-Ioann (1690–1727), son of a Courland landowner. From 1718 at the court of the Duchess of Courland Anna Ivanovna and in 1724 he became her favorite; upon her accession to the throne in 1730, he became the unlimited ruler of Russia. Osterman Heinrich Johann Friedrich, in Russia - Andrei Ivanovich (1686–1747), count from 1730, admiral general from 1740, stripped of his rank in 1741, Russian diplomat of German origin. Dimitry (Sechenov Daniil Andreevich; 1709–1767), since 1762 Metropolitan of Novgorod and Velikolutsk, preacher and missionary. Burkhart Christopher von Minich (in Russia he was known as Christopher Antonovich Minich; 1683–1767), Russian field marshal general. Ambrose (Andrey Yushkevich, 1690–1745), Archbishop of Novgorod from 1740, preacher. Elizaveta Petrovna (1709–1761), Russian Empress from 1742 from the Romanov dynasty, daughter of Peter I. Razumovsky Alexey Grigorievich (1709–1771), count, field marshal general from 1756, favorite of Empress Elizabeth Petrovna. Shakhovskoy Yakov Petrovich (1705–1777), prince, Russian statesman, memoirist. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod from 12/31/1741 to 03/29/1753. Peter III (Peter Fedorovich, born Karl Peter Ulrich of Holstein-Gottorp; 1728–1762), Russian Emperor in 1761–1762, the first representative of the Holstein-Gottorp (Oldenburg) branch of the Romanovs on the Russian throne. Frederick II the Great (1712–1786), King of Prussia from 1740 Catherine II Alekseevna (1729–1798), Russian Empress from 1782 Arseny (Matseevich Alexander Ivanovich; 1697–02/28/1772), martyr, metropolitan. Since 1741, Metropolitan of Tobolsk and Siberia; since 1742 Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl. In 1763 he was defrocked and exiled to the Belozersky monastery; in 1767 he was stripped of his hair. Died in custody. Bilbasov Vasily Alekseevich (1838–1904), historian. Melissino Ivan Ivanovich (1718–1795), statesman and church leader. Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod since 1763 Chebyshev Pyotr Petrovich (circa 1735–not earlier than 1775), Russian nobleman, officer, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod under Catherine II in 1768–1774. Gabriel (Shaposhnikov-Petrov Petrovich; 1703–1801), metropolitan, spiritual writer. In 1763 he was consecrated Bishop of Tver and Kashin. Since 1770, Archbishop of St. Petersburg and Revel; from 1775 it was called “St. Petersburg and Novgorod”. Since 1783, Metropolitan. Since 1799, Metropolitan of Novgorod and Olonets. In 1800, he was dismissed for refusing to accept the Catholic Maltese cross. Paul I (1754–1801), Russian Emperor from 1796 Ambrose (Andrey Ivanovich Podobedov, 1742–1818), Metropolitan of Novgorod and St. Petersburg from 1799 Khovansky Vasily Alekseevich (1755–1830), prince, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1797–1799. Platon (Levshin Pyotr Gavrilovich; 1737–1812), metropolitan. In 1770 he was consecrated Archbishop of Tver and Kashin. Since 1775, Archbishop of Moscow and Kaluga. Since 1787, Metropolitan of Moscow. Retired since 1811. Mitrofan of Voronezh (Mikhail, in the schema Macarius; 1623–1703), saint, Bishop of Voronezh since 1682, shortly before his death he accepted the schema. Demetrius of Rostov (Tuptalo Daniil Savvich; 1651–1709), saint, famous church figure, writer, orator. Metropolitan of Rostov and Yaroslavl since 1702. Author and compiler of collections of the lives of saints (the most famous in four books - the Fourth Menaions), sermons, dramas, poems. Tikhon, Zadonsk Wonderworker (Timofey Savelievich Sokolov; 1724–1783), saint, Bishop of Voronezh in 1763–1767. Joasaph of Belgorod (Gorlenko Joachim Andreevich; 1705–1754), saint, wonderworker. Since 1748, Bishop of Belgorod and Oboyan. Alexander I (1777–1825), Russian Emperor from 1801 Golitsyn Alexander Nikolaevich (1773–1844), prince, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1818–1824. Napoleon Bonaparte (1769–1821), French Emperor 1804–1914 and in March–June 1915 Innokenty (Smirnov Ilarion Dmitrievich; 1874–1819). In September 1813, Archimandrite Innocent was confirmed as the rector of the St. Petersburg Theological Seminary and professor of theology, as well as a member of the Committee of Spiritual Censorship, while remaining at the same time a teacher of church history at the academy. In March 1819 he was consecrated Bishop of Penza and Saratov. “Zionsky Messenger” is a monthly religious and moral magazine with a mystical direction, published by A.F. Labzin in 1806 and 1817–1818. in St. Petersburg. Mikhail (Desnitsky Matthew Mikhailovich; 1761–1824), Metropolitan of St. Petersburg from 1818. Seraphim (Stefan Vasilyevich Glagolevsky; 1757–1843), from June 19, 1821, Metropolitan of Novgorod, St. Petersburg, Estonia and Finland, senior member of the Holy Synod. Photius (Spassky Pyotr Nikitich; 1792–1838), archimandrite, abbot of the Novgorod Yuryevsky Monastery. Nicholas I Pavlovich (1796–1855), Russian Emperor from 1825 Meshchersky Pyotr Sergeevich (1778–1857), prince, Russian statesman, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1818–1833. Nechaev Stepan Dmitrievich (1792–1860), historian, archaeologist, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod in 1833–1836. Pratasov Nikolai Alexandrovich (1799–1855), count, chief prosecutor of the Holy Synod since 1836 Filaret (Amphiteatrov Feodor Georgievich; 1779–1857), saint, Metropolitan of Kiev and Galicia since 1837. Filaret (Drozdov Vasily Mikhailovich; 1783–1867), saint, outstanding church figure, theologian and preacher, Metropolitan of Moscow and Kolomna in 1825–1867. Pobedonostsev Konstantin Petrovich (1827–1907), lawyer and statesman, publicist, author of historical, legal and literary works. In 1880–1905 Chief Prosecutor of the Holy Synod. Alexander III (1845–1894), Russian Emperor since 1881 Nicholas II Alexandrovich (1868–07/17/1918); holy passion-bearer, Russian emperor 1894–1917. Filaret (Gumilevsky Dimitry Grigorievich; real name Konobeevsky; 1805–1866), archbishop, theologian, patrolologist, historian and biblical scholar. In 1935–1841 rector of the Moscow Theological Academy. From 1841 he occupied the Riga department, from 1848 the Kharkov department, and from 1859 the Chernigov department. Gorsky Alexander Vasilievich (1812–1875), archpriest, church historian and theologian, rector of the Moscow Theological Academy since 1862, Doctor of Theology, corresponding member of the Academy of Sciences.