Isidore the presbyter was consecrated under Athanasius. He took the place of the chief and head of church charity. Theophilus owed him much in the following case. In 394, Emperor Theodosius went to war against the usurper Eugene. The battle was supposed to take place in Italy. Theophilus sent Isidore to Italy to greet the victor on his behalf as emperor. Isidore prepared two messages and undertook to carry out this delicate task, which could have cost him his head. His secret was discovered and Isidore escaped in shame. Nevertheless, Theophilus could not help appreciating the devotion of this man and at one time thought of thanking him. In 397 the cathedra of Constantinople became vacant. The court decided not to elect from among the local candidates, but to follow the advice of the eunuch Eutropius, who pointed to the famous John Chrysostom. John was secretly kidnapped and brought to Constantinople, and there it was decided to consecrate him bishop in the presence of a whole host of bishops, among whom Theophilus was invited. But he wanted to leave this place to Isidore, having wider views. He wanted to have on the Constantinople cathedra people devoted to himself, and thus weaken the growing influence of the bishop of Constantinople. But then he was confronted with the will of Eutropius, who made it clear to him that he must agree to the election of a new bishop. Theophilus submitted, and John, the presbyter of Antioch. he became bishop of Constantinople (398).

The excellent relations between Isidore and Theophilus were finally broken, and, as always happens in such cases, because of trifles. Theophilus remembered that 18 years earlier Isidore had taken 1000 chervonets from a woman without declaring it to Theophilus. Isidore openly declared that he had taken 1000 chervonets, but did not tell Theophilus because the woman who gave them had sworn him not to tell Theophilus about them, so that he would not spend the money on church needs, not giving anything to the poor. An investigation was opened, at which such dirty deeds were discovered that Isidore was forced to flee to Nitria, to four famous monks, known for their tall stature άδελφοί μακροί: Dioscorus, Eusebius, Euthymius and Ammonius.

Theophilus' attitude towards them is evident from the following. In general, the monks were most afraid of women and bishops, because neither of them gave them peace. Bishops tried to appoint monks to the highest ecclesiastical places. Thus, Dioscorus was appointed bishop of Hermopolis, and Eusebius and Euthymius were presbyters. Then the choice fell on Ammonius. But when the messengers from Theophilus came for him, the resolute Ammonius snatched a lancet, cut off his left ear and exclaimed: "Now I am carno-eared and – according to the law of Moses – I have no right to the episcopacy!" The messengers returned to Theophilus in despondency, but the latter declared that he would have consecrated Ammonius even if he had been without a nose. The messengers again went after Ammonius, but the latter promised to cut out his tongue and thus make it impossible for himself to be bishopric.

Now Theophilus sent out messages in which he declared that three persons in Nitria should be expelled. Ammonius and his two brothers came to Theophilus, asking the cause of his anger, but Theophilus threw his omophorion around the neck of Ammonius and beat him, saying: "Heretic, pronounce an anathema on Origen." The council was convened by Theophilus (at the beginning of the year 400). The sessions of the council were very stormy. A great many passages from Origen were cited which could not be defended. Some of the Fathers considered these passages to be genuine, while others said that because of these passages it is impossible to reject all the writings of Origen, in which there is undoubtedly much good. However, the conciliar condemnation took place, and Theophilus appealed to the secular authorities to carry out the sentence. The consequence of this was first an attack on Dioscorus and then a night attack on Nitria and plunder. Up to 300 monks fled to Palestine.

(3) The impression of the attack and excommunication of the monks for Origenism was so great that they went farther and farther, and finally fifty of them arrived in Constantinople and appealed to John Chrysostom, who was touched by their unfortunate situation. The monks, the "long brothers," asked him to judge them and said that if John did not judge them, they would appeal to the emperor. John inquired about them from the Alexandrian presbyters who were in Constantinople, who recognized the long brothers as innocent, but asked him not to irritate Theophilus and not to receive them into communion as excommunicated. John did not receive them into ecclesiastical communion, but gave them refuge and wrote to Theophilus.

The latter unfavorably accepted John's interference and sent monks to Constantinople, who before the emperor accused John of violating church rules and of accepting heretics. The long, brothers turned to John with a formal request, and John again wrote to Theophilus, but received a harsh and cold answer. "You must know," he wrote to John, "the decrees of the ecumenical council; it is not you who will judge me, but the bishops of Egypt: cases must be decided within the boundaries of the accused." The exiles petitioned Augusta. Thus, the secular authorities intervened and began to investigate the matter in the praetorium. moreover, such abuses and so much filth were revealed, that many of those sent by Theophilus were worthy of death. True, they recognized themselves only as tools in the hands of Theophilus, but still some died in prison. Bishop Theophilos was summoned to the court of the bishop of Constantinople, because the bishop of Constantinople had the primacy of honor.

Thus, de facto, the bishop of Alexandria submitted to the bishop of Constantinople. John did everything to prevent this, but he did not have time. In fact, it turned out to be quite different: Theophilus became the judge, and John became the accused.

In order to understand this strange circumstance, it is necessary to pay attention to the personal character of John and the manner in which he was chosen. John was chosen by the influence of Eutropius. John found himself in a city of mixed religious faith and had to reckon with persons in high public positions. His predecessor Nectarios was all tact, which John lacked. John's electors wanted to have in him a beautiful decoration, an eloquent preacher for solemn days, but they met something different, that is, a true pastor. John combined the features of two famous fathers: Basil the Great and Gregory the Theologian. Vasily V.'s nature was domineering, but his actions were tempered by extreme calmness. St. Gregory the Theologian presented ideal demands, in all his impetuosity one could feel contemplation; but his encounters with the gloomy phenomena of the time and his denunciations were tempered by his lofty theologizing: Gregory faced them only sideways, and not face to face.

In the present case we are not dealing with a dogmatist, but with a teacher of practical morality. From his earliest childhood John indulged in excessive ascetic feats, which upset his health. When he arrived at Constantinople, he was quite ill, and could eat nothing but rice soup, and drank only weak heated wine. Hence the isolation in life and absence from public dinners. The dinners thus stopped. The people of Constantinople had to get acquainted with such a bishop, who himself had never been anywhere and did not invite him to his place. Many bishops who came to Constantinople were dissatisfied with the fact that they were not given worthy meetings. If we imagine John in Constantinople near the monarch of the eastern half of the empire, we will understand what an abyss of difficulties arose for him in carrying out his ideas. John was a man of ideas and carried out his ideas unswervingly, stopping at nothing. Many people found that he spoke extremely harshly; in his denunciations they saw hints clear enough to know at whom they were directed. They were dissatisfied with John. Even Eutropius, who summoned John, was displeased with him for his denunciations.

Thus, the authorities were disappointed in John Chrysostom, because he was not only a brilliant orator, but also a pastor who defended the interests of the church. Chrysostom's attitude towards the clergy seems mysterious. His outcast rivals could be reconciled by the election of a third person, but they could also unite together against the new bishop. How their personal relations with Chrysostom developed is unknown; Only among the clergy of Constantinople were there many who were dissatisfied with the new bishop.

The presbyters and deacons, in the person of the new bishop, received the author of a book on the priesthood, who developed the ideal of the priesthood to such a height that it could only be realized by angels; and meanwhile, in the Constantinople clergy there were not a few weak persons, who irritated Chrysostom with their obvious shortcomings. In the Constantinople clergy, of course, there were also persons loyal to him. Such was the archdeacon Serapion, animated by the ideals of Chrysostom. But for the historical course of things and for the personal human happiness of Chrysostom, it would have been good if a person of the opposite character had come together with him, who would moderate his impulses. None of this happened. In Serapion, Chrysostom met a man who sympathized with him even in his harsh methods. — who said of the clergy of Constantinople: "They should all be driven away with one stick." And Chrysostom himself called the clergy worthless people, worthless people, worth three copper pennies. Of course, Chrysostom irritated the clergy with all this. In addition, Chrysostom was not imbued with clericalism. He did not intercede before the secular authorities for a clergyman, if he was guilty. There was a case when he betrayed two guilty presbyters to the authorities. This put him at a great disadvantage among the clergy. Chrysostom was under the eyes of countless spies, who watched his every step, reinterpreted his words in a bad way, read between the lines of his writings a meaning that they did not have.

It was all the more convenient for the presbyters and deacons to agitate, since Chrysostom was of an autocratic nature. It was not without reason that such an accusation could be brought against Chrysostom that he autocratically disposed of church property. They pointed out the facts. For example, marbles were bequeathed for the decoration of the church, and Chrysostom sold them (of course, to help the poor). Further, Chrysostom was accused of not consulting with the clergy at the consecration of bishops, since he liked a certain person for his merits. Chrysostom also freely looked at the local liturgical practice. Once, as his accusers said, he ordained four bishops at one Liturgy, and ordained deacons not even at Liturgy. So broadly did he look at the grace of the priesthood. It was noted that once he entered the church and left it without praying, that he used to undress himself, sitting on a high place, and eat marshmallow (John actually demanded that after communion they either eat marshmallow or wash it down with warmth).

If you look at the more distant environment, it wasn't quite smooth here. The case of Antoninus, bishop of Ephesus, against whom accusations of sacrilegiarity were made, surfaced. The investigation revealed that there were six bishops of Asia who had bought their rank; yes, there were seven of them in Lydia. This partly depended on economic reasons. People became bishops in order to get rid of taxes and the duties of decurions. Chrysostom did not disguise this fact; he, without oppressing persons, tried {p. 166} to mitigate their guilt. But still the fact remained that he defrocked thirteen bishops.

In Constantinople itself, two Syrian bishops appeared, Antiochus of Ptolemais and Severian of Gabala. The latter became famous for his eloquence. During Chrysostom's absence from Ephesus to investigate the case of Antoninus, Chrysostom even left him as his deputy in Constantinople. But he had a deal with Archdeacon Serapion. When Severian once passed by Archdeacon Serapion, the latter did not get up, because, as he justified afterwards, he did not notice him. Chrysostom reprimanded Serapion and forbade him to serve for a while. However, Severian was not content with this and demanded that he be forbidden to serve forever. Chrysostom declared that, as a person interested in this matter, he refused to try Serapion and handed the matter over to the council. He got up and went out. The council also came out after him, thereby recognizing the cause of Serapion as right. Sevirian was left alone. Thus, a major quarrel arose between him and Chrysostom. Then Chrysostom suggested that Severian leave Constantinople and go to his diocese, because it was inconvenient for the church to remain without a pastor for a long time. Reconciliation between Severian and Chrysostom took place only through the intermediary of the Empress herself. In the church of the Holy Apostles, during the ministry of Chrysostom, the empress laid on the latter's lap the infant Theodosius, the future emperor, the godson of Chrysostom, begging him to be reconciled with Severian. "In this way, a relationship was established between John and the bishops, which could later be used by his enemies.