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.

If we now look at the Constantinople intelligentsia, there were not a few stains. The intelligentsia was touched by the harshness of his language. Chrysostom really did not look at the faces. Three widows felt the most affected - Marsa, Castritia and Eugraphia. From Palladius of Helenopolis we know that Chrysostom, both in his sermons and during his personal visits to homes, did not hesitate to denounce widows who were becoming younger. "Why do you curl your curls? he spoke; respectable women are ashamed to look at you." Chrysostom's arrows began to be attributed to the widows named above, and especially to Eugraphia. But other persons, not particularly high-ranking ones, were also touched upon by Chrysostom. In Constantinople, the widow of a noble citizen, Olympias, was famous for her charity. As long as Nectarios lived, anyone who was in need or showed the appearance of needy could receive generous help from Olympias. Chrysostom, taking a closer look at this charity, said that to do good in this way means to throw money into the water. The generous hand of Olympias then became more cautious, and accusations began to be heard against Chrysostom that he hindered charity. It came to curiosities. It was said that a separate bath was prepared for Chrysostom. This was also seen as something bad. Chrysostom's seclusion gave rise to wild suspicions that he fasted only in front of his eyes, and secretly spent his time in the feasts of the Cyclops. They reinterpreted Chrysostom's attitude to Olympias, which sought guidance in him. A close circle of persons loyal to him and the entire mass of Constantinople deeply loved John, but, nevertheless, there was not a few hostile element. Under such circumstances, Chrysostom had to enter into a matter with Theophilus of Alexandria.

At this time, one of the long brothers, Dioscorus, had already been deposed. The Council of Alexandria drew up a formidable definition against Origenism. Wishing to acquire an accomplice in the person of Epiphanius of Cyprus, a zealous champion of Orthodoxy and an enemy of Origenism, Theophilus sent him a message that Chrysostom was introducing Origenism in Constantinople. Elder Epiphanius arrived in Constantinople. Chrysostom wanted to show him respect, but Epiphanius, already prejudiced against Chrysostom, did not want to enter into communion with him as a heretic. He celebrated the Liturgy in the country church of St. John the Baptist and even ordained a deacon. The canonical rules were violated; however, Chrysostom reacted to this complacently, and invited Epiphanius to his place. But Epiphanius demanded that Chrysostom condemn the long brothers and subscribe to the definitions against Origenism. Chrysostom saw no reason for such an act. Then Epiphanius began to fight for Orthodoxy. Persons hostile to Chrysostom urged Epiphanius to appear in the church of the Holy Apostles, pronounce an anathema against the Origenists and reproach Chrysostom, who did not want to condemn the long brothers. But among the bishops there were also those who (p. 168} protested against the impetuosity of Epiphanius; at their head stood Theotimus, bishop of the city of Tom. He said that one should not condemn a person who was not judged by his fathers during his lifetime. But Epiphanius wanted to insist on his own. However, Chrysostom was also warned. On the appointed day, he sent a deacon to the church of the Holy Apostles to tell Epiphanius that he was causing trouble, which could not bring good to the church. Epiphanius (in which justice must be done to him) realized his mistake and withdrew from the temple. On leaving Constantinople, he said: "I leave you the capital, the court, and hypocrisy."

После Епифания прибыл в Константинополь и Феофил. Когда александрийский папа прибывал в какой-либо город, или торговый порт, то он умел устроить себе почетный прием. Александрийцы — это англичане нашего времени; они находились во всех портовых городах. Немало было их и в Константинополе. Они, понятно, встретили своего папу торжественно. Как много успел Феофил сделать в свою пользу, можно судить потому, что, прибыв в качестве обвиняемого, он был помещен в одном из дворцов. С Златоустом он не хотел входить в общение и не виделся с ним в течение двух недель. Нужным людям Феофил раздавал подарки, которые на языке того времени назывались «благословеньями» [εολόγια]. Светскому лицу нельзя было отказаться от такого подарка, ибо то было епископское благословение. Но и епископу нельзя было отказать в подарке, когда таковой у него просили, ибо то значило бы отказать в благословении. На низших лиц Феофил действовал пышными обедами. Вскоре он достиг того, что лица, посаженные Златоустом в тюрьму, были отпущены. Между тем на собор стали собираться епископы, и в числе их 28 египетских епископов.

Златоуст знал, что творится у Феофила, и все-таки оставался заседать только с преданными ему епископами. Вдруг однажды он получает от Феофила приглашение явиться на собор [в предместье Халкидона Руфиниану, «при Дубе» επι δρύν, куда переправился Феофил из Константинополя]. Приглашение было выражено в такой форме: «святый собор епископов — Иоанну. Против тебя подано много обвинительных заявлений; поэтому приходи на собор и захвати с {стр. 169} собою Серапиона и Севириана». Епископы, заседавшие с Иоанном заметили, что Феофил не имеет права так поступать с Иоанном. С ним заседают 40 епископов и в том числе 7 митрополитов, а с Феофилом — только 36. К тому же лучше собраться собору в Константинополе, чем в Руфиниане. Златоуст благодарил собор и — с своей стороны — заявил, что он готов идти на собор Феофила, только чтобы исключены были из числа судей его явные враги — Феофил, который еще по пути рассказывал, что едет низложить Иоанна, Акакий верийский, который, недовольный приемом Златоуста, говорил: «я ему заварю кашу» (έγώ αύτω άρτύω χύτραν), также Севириан и Антиох. Эти требования не были уважены, и отцы приступили к суду в отсутствие Иоанна.

Дело тогда поставлялось так. Если обвиняемый не являлся, то он, хотя еще не оказывался через то виноватым, но тем самым создавал для себя новый пункт обвинения. 13 заседаний держал этот собор при Дубе (403), 12 заседаний против Златоуста и одно против Ираклида ефесского. Главными обвинителями были диакон Иоанн и монах Исаак сириец. Диакон Иоанн был низложен Златоустом за убийство; но на соборе, обвиняя Златоуста, он заявил, что епископ, лишив его сана, поступил с ним слишком строго. Подобного рода обвинения были вполне законны на соборе, уже заранее решившемся осудить Иоанна. Златоуст был обвинен этим собором по всем тем пунктам, которые были представлены, и объявлен лишенным сана. А так как в числе обвинений было и обвинение в оскорблении величества (causa majestatis), то отцы собора предоставили расследование этого обвинения власти гражданской.

Роль свою Феофил провел мастерски. Судим был первый епископ востока, a Феофил поставил дело не так. С точки зрения Феофила выходило, что он только присутствовал с своими епископами на этом соборе, а судил Иоанна Павел ираклийский, — судил митрополит подчиненного ему епископа. Император имел слабость утвердить приговор собора при Дубе, и Иоанн присужден был к ссылке.

Но последовавшее вскоре за отъездом Златоуста землетрясение побудило императора, вследствие усиленных просьб императрицы, снова возвратить Иоанна в Константинополь, {стр. 170} и святитель торжественно вступил на свою кафедру. Иоанн получил собственноручное письмо императрицы, в котором она писала Златоусту, что у нее нет слов, чтобы выразить свое горе, что она нисколько не виновата во всем случившемся, что она не может забыть, как от Златоуста её дети получили крещение. Таким образом, в верхних кругах горизонт расчищался.