Великих людей чаще всего посещают великие искушения. Так было и со Златоустом. Быть может, и нельзя сделаться великим человеком, не перенеся великих искушений. Это подтверждает и собор "при Дубе". Он показывает нам не только степень злобы людской, направляющейся против истинной святости, но и дает ясное представление о высотах духа истинно-добродетельного мужа, не смущающегося при виде всей ярости почти нечеловеческой вражды.

В этом главный интерес указанного собора. Но, кроме того, история этого собора переносит нас в начало V века, в столицу Империи - Константинополь. Здесь встречается для нас много явлений, обычаев, фактов, возбуждающих полное любопытство. Словом, читаем такую страницу церковной истории, которая мало кому известна.

Но обращаемся к нашему рассказу*.

______________________

* Актов этого собора до нас не сохранилось. Но, несомненно, они существовали в свое время. Их читал патр. Фотий и сделал из них извлечения, которые и заменяют для нас акты этого собора. Эти извлечения напечатаны у Манси: Concilia. Т. III. Р. 1141-1148 (здесь же помещены более существенные отрывки из "Жизни Златоуста", описанной Палладием, р. 1149-1154). Кроме этого издания, в нашей статье мы будем пользоваться следующими сочинениями: Hefele. Conciliengesch. Bd. II; Neander. Der heilig. Iohan. Chrys.; Thierry. St. Jean Chrysost.; Tillemont. Memoires. T. XI и некоторыми другими.

______________________

Чтобы мог составиться собор, поставивший себе целью очернить имя великого святителя и наделать ему много неприятностей, для этого, само собой понятно, должны были быть у Златоуста не только непримиримые, но и сильные по своему внешнему положению враги. О них прежде всего и скажем.

At the head of those who were hostile to Chrysostom stood the Empress Eudoxia, the wife of the weak and inactive Emperor Arcadius. Eudoxia was not distinguished by moral virtues. This alone was enough for the Empress to feel dislike for John Chrysostom, a zealous and fearless preacher of Christian morality. Among the shortcomings of Eudoxia, a prominent place was occupied by the fact that she was extremely greedy and, moreover, helped her retainers and favorites to enrich themselves at the expense of the people, especially at the expense of wealthy persons who had fallen into disgrace. Chrysostom did not remain silent about these abuses in his sermons, however, avoiding all personalities. Of course, the flatterers of Eudoxia tried to interpret any such sermon of the famous preacher as a direct attack on the empress. This gave rise to a dull enmity of the Empress towards Chrysostom. But the matter did not stop there. Soon the enmity becomes apparent. Eudoxia allowed herself an act that deeply struck the philanthropic soul of the archpastor. She brought to death a certain famous man in Constantinople - Theognost - and deprived his widow of the last possessions, taking away from her the last vineyard located in the vicinity of the capital. Chrysostom, having learned of this, wrote a powerful letter to the Empress, in which he revealed the idea of the vanity of acquisitiveness. The saint directly demanded that the queen return the vineyard she had taken away, if she wished to gain God's favor on the day of Judgment. This letter infuriated Eudoxia, and she complained about the archpastor to her husband. From that time on (and this was in the year 401, 4 years after Chrysostom's accession to the Constantinople cathedra), the empress sought an opportunity to take revenge on Chrysostom. Any sermon of Chrysostom of a denunciatory nature, especially if it concerned the vanity of a woman, was accepted at court as a more or less clear and indecent allusion to Eudoxia. Enmity flared up more and more in the heart of the indignant empress.

Another person who also became hostile to Chrysostom was Archbishop Theophilos of Alexandria. Theophilus belonged to the number of power-hungry and extremely self-loving people, who did not tolerate anyone standing in their way. Chrysostom tried in every possible way not to affect the vanity of Theophilus, but his efforts were unsuccessful. Circumstances forced him to encounter this difficult man, and this clash became a source of great trouble for the Archpastor of Constantinople. From the time when Constantinople became the capital of the Empire in the East, the Archbishop of Constantinople naturally became one of the influential hierarchs of the Eastern Church. This circumstance aroused envy in some of the archbishops of Alexandria, who considered their Church to be the first and main Church in the East. As a result, they looked with an unfriendly eye at the hierarchical elevation of Constantinople and its primate. In the simplest actions and orders of the Archpastor of Constantinople, the Archbishops of Alexandria were ready to see an encroachment on the rights that belonged to them. From similar suspicious relations of Theophilus to Chrysostom arose the enmity of the former to the latter. It was like this. Theophilus allowed himself an extremely outrageous act. He dispersed the monks of one monastery of Nitria, subject to his authority, on the pretext that they adhered to the errors of Origen; we say: under the pretext, since in reality Theophilus had other, purely personal motives to act so cruelly with the Nitrian monks.

Some of the exiles sought refuge in Palestine, while others went to Constantinople in the hope of finding protection in the capital. Among the persons who directed their feet to Constantinople were three famous Nitrian ascetics, known under the name of the "Long Brothers"*, very educated, highly moral people, who served as an adornment of Nitrian monasticism. They asked for protection from Chrysostom. The latter, being a friend of justice, decided to help the unfortunate. He looked after them, beginning to intercede with Theophilus for the unfortunates. But this only inflamed the hatred of the Archbishop of Alexandria. He saw in the actions of Chrysostom interference in the affairs of another diocese, was angry with him, and sent accusers on his behalf to Constantinople, who were supposed to depict the behavior and life of the Nitrian monks in the darkest light. It must be said that Chrysostom did not give the slightest reason to reproach him for interfering and appropriating someone else's power: out of caution, he did not enter into ecclesiastical communion with the "Long Brothers", not allowing them to receive Communion until their case was clarified and they were acquitted. The state of affairs was confused. The unfortunate exiles saw no means of salvation for themselves, and in a sense of despair they turned to the emperor Arcadius himself with a complaint against Theophilus. The emperor, having considered their request, took their side, ordering that the archbishop of Alexandria should come to Constantinople and give an account of his actions at the council presided over by Chrysostom. One can imagine how this news must have affected Theophilus! Theophilus did not go to Constantinople for a long time (the case of the "Long Brothers" began in the capital in 401), but when he arrived in the capital, he managed to make the relationship change quite unexpectedly: Chrysostom turned from a judge into a defendant, and Theophilus got away with it - a council was formed not against Theophilus, but against Chrysostom: the council "at the Oak". How such an extraordinary transformation happened, we will talk about it a little later.

______________________

* They were indeed brothers and were distinguished by their unusually tall stature.

______________________

The two above-mentioned personalities - the Empress Eudoxia and Archbishop Theophilus - became the centers around which all the people who were dissatisfied with Chrysostom for some reason united. Around Eudoxia formed a circle of persons dissatisfied with Chrysostom and belonging to the aristocracy. In this circle, the largest place was occupied by women, who were extremely displeased with the sermons of the Archpastor of Constantinople against the predilection of women for dress, especially in old age, when it is more decent to think about death than about refinement in dress. The Constantinople matrons took Chrysostom's speeches personally and did not want to forgive the speaker's boldness. Around Theophilus grouped persons of the clergy, who harbored hostile feelings towards St. John. First of all, we have in mind some bishops: Severian of Gabala, Antiochus of Ptolemais, Acacius of Verrae. Each of them had reason to be dissatisfied with Chrysostom, but not one of them had a good reason to be hostile to the virtuous archpastor. In addition to these bishops, Theophilus' hostility to Chrysostom was shared by some Constantinople clerics: presbyters and deacons. Chrysostom occupied the Constantinople cathedra after Nektarios, a worthy man, who to a large extent dismissed the capital's clergy. Chrysostom, as a zealous archpastor, concerned about the introduction of stricter morals in the Constantinople clergy, was forced to remove some clergy from their posts; All this aroused discontent among the members of the capital's clergy. Some clergymen were also angry with Chrysostom because he directed the generous charity of the Christians of Constantinople not to the enrichment of the clergy, but to the benefit of the poor and unfortunate.