In general, it was assumed that M. Pavel incurred the displeasure of the government in the same case in which M. Arseniy Matseevitch suffered, namely in the case of the confiscation of church property. But in reality it was not like that. The very chronology of events speaks against this assumption. The confiscation of church property took place in 1764, Metropolitan Arseny Matseevich was sent into exile even earlier, precisely in 1763, and the dismissal of Metropolitan Pavel took place already in 1768. Further: the question of church property almost did not concern the Tobolsk diocese, where Metropolitan Pavel had a see, for this, colonized and semi-wild, the area did not know serfdom, neither landlord nor monastic. Finally, authentic documents, showing how things were, take away space from any arbitrary assumptions. And it was like that.
Pavel Bonyuskevich, who was elevated to the metropolis of Tobolsk in 1758, was distinguished, apparently, by the severity of his morals and severe zeal in correcting the morality of his subjects and flock. And such and such a strict shepherd had to be an archpastor in a diocese where the proverb arose: God is high, the king is far away, where the former hierarchs complained about the unbridled arbitrariness and passions, where people, although they were baptized into Christ (some, however, very recently), but had not yet put on Christ.
A zealous shepherd with a scourge of ropes began to expel all unworthy from the church. He excommunicated from church communion, dissolved marriages that, in his opinion, were wrong, tonsured widowed priests under duress, humbled erring clergymen,
F. A. TERNOVSKY,
according to the old custom, corporal punishment, physical labor and involuntary polishing. There was a murmur. The complainants, overcoming the difficulties of the journey, walked from Siberia to St. Petersburg and served St. to the synod with their complaints. During the 9-year reign of Metropolitan Pavel, there were 30 complaints. The Empress knew about the harsh management of Metropolitan Pavel, and since this contradicted her liberal way of thinking and her own system of management, the motto of which was: live and let others live, then naturally she could not look at Metropolitan Pavel otherwise than as a fanatic and persecutor 1). Members of St. Synod, knowing about Catherine’s views, also did not sympathize with M. Paul, were burdened by the many complaints received against him and demanded from him a detailed answer and justification. But M. Paul, in the inner consciousness of his rightness, continued to rule in his own way, and from the requests of St. Synod either remained silent or unsubscribed without proper thoroughness.
Let us cite as an example one of the complaints brought against metropolitan Pavel in the synod, which is interesting for us especially because the complainants are residents of Kyiv. “Hieromonks Savvaty and Veniamin, who were in Tobolsk for a time in the teaching rank of the Kyiv Pechersk Lavra, sent a report to the Synod that they were asked by the Metropolitan to leave the Lavra for only two years in order to return there, but due to many of their requests he would not dismiss them, and for this they asked for dismissal. And besides, a particular letter was announced in the Synod by a member of the Rev. Demetrius, Metropolitan of Novgorod, written from the disturbed hieromonk Savvaty to the court priest Eornilito, concluding that in Tobolsk seminarians are mostly in work, teachers are punished with punishment, and The hieromonks expect the same in terms of threats to the bishops. Moreover, it is written about the utterance of obscene, defamatory words by the bishop about the Synod.”
Finally, at the meeting of St. Synod on June 22, 1767 Met. Novgorod Dimitri Sechenov announced the highest will of the Empress to summon Metropolitan Paat of Tobolsk to Moscow. It was sent properly
') XVIII century over. Barteneva III, 334, IV, 342 - 354, 376.
F THE Kyiv TH CENTURY.
a decree from the synod, but M. Pavel did not travel according to either the first or the second decree and continued to live in Tobolsk and govern the diocese. After six months of delay and two unfulfilled decrees of St. synod, but at the insistence of the synodal chief prosecutor d.s. With. Melissino, decided to resort to energetic measures and at a meeting on March 22, 1768, he decided: “The Most Reverend Paul, Metropolitan of Tobolsk, to confirm by decree, if His Eminence, in fulfillment of Her Imperial Majesty’s conduct according to the two decrees sent, has not yet left Tobolsk, then the Holy Synod now the last term believes that he certainly set out on the road after receiving this decree within a week; and if he continues on his journey after this, then send a decree to the lord governor of Tobolsk, without any excuses.