tradition, rather these educated bishops were refreshing and re-energizing the faith
in a confessionalizing approach from within Orthodoxy.
While learned bishops addressed issues of pastoral concern, the state turned to
the Church instrumentally. With the death of Patriarch Adrian in 1700, Peter I let
the Church languish without leadership. Some of the reforms in his time were
simply revenue generating: the Monastic Chancery was reinstated in 1701; taxes
were introduced for the previously tax-free clerical estate (until 1722); a large body
of monastic and diocesan property was designated for special tax assessment (but
church land was not formally confiscated under Peter I). Most significantly, in
1722 the institutional structure of the Church was redesigned to better fulfill what
Peter and some of his Orthodox advisors saw as the Church’s pastoral roles. This
reform followed the lead of Feofan Prokopovich.
Prokopovich applied theories of social contract derived from Grotius in his work
justifying Peter I’s declaration of appointive succession (The Justice of the Monarch’s
Will, 1722) and took what some called a Protestant collegial emphasis in the
Spiritual Regulation, commissioned in 1721. Here Prokopovich presented a Prus-
sian- and Swedish-influenced consistorial model, but at the same time respected
Orthodox traditions of church autonomy. Peter I had initially called for the Church
to become a mere department in the secular state, equal to a College, but
Prokopovich insisted that it have higher status and autonomy. He proposed
elevating it above the Colleges and calling it the Holy Governing Synod, composed
of a governing council of twelve bishops overseen by a secular official, the Ober-
Prokurator. Even though the 1722 reform formally ratified the existing abolition of
the patriarchate, Prokopovich ensured that the Church be given stature equal to the
Senate. Prokopovich’sSpiritual Regulation emphasized the pastoral role of the
Church, citing goals of reform that had been discussed in the Church since the
sixteenth century such as regulating monastic life and condemning unorthodox folk
beliefs and treatment of relics and icons. He also introduced new practices from
confessionalizing Christian Churches across Europe: he mandated seminaries and
schools for laymen and prescribed that priests keep records and report parishioners’
observance of key religious holydays and sacraments. Notoriously, according to the
Regulationpriests were also to report any subversion heard in confession, but this
administrative role faded over the century as parish clergy proved unreliable and
secular administration improved. As much as it seemingly adopted Protestant-style
practices, Prokopovich’s vision of the Church adhered to Orthodox tradition, as in,
for example, his vigorous defense of the veneration of icons, saints, and relics. The
Spiritual Regulationremained the guiding model of church organization and work
until 1917.
For the next two generations most bishops in the Russian Orthodox Church
were Ukrainian or Belorussian (over 67 percent between 1700 and 1762) and they
continued to bring a vibrant Orthodoxy, evident in seminary curriculum, writings,
and sermons. As Andrey Ivanov notes, Russian clerics steered clear of what they
considered extremes of European Enlightenment religious thought—deism, anti-
clericalism, and excessive rationalism, but they found many trends attractive. They
found in Pietism and Anglicanism an Enlightened spirituality that tried to integrate
412 The Russian Empire 1450– 1801