______________________

* All these bishops will be discussed below.

______________________

We have said above that Theophilus of Alexandria, summoned by the emperor to Constantinople for trial in the case of the "Long Brothers," hesitated for a long time to carry out the order of the sovereign. This slowdown was not accidental and was not the sluggishness of a man who was stunned with fear. Theophilus hesitated to calculate. He hesitated because, before arriving in Constantinople, he wanted to enter into relations with persons hostile to Chrysostom. He succeeded in this. Those dissatisfied with Chrysostom in Constantinople willingly extended their hand to Theophilus, this resolute enemy of the capital's archbishop. When Theophilus finally arrived in Constantinople in 403, he immediately felt here, as they say, in his own sphere. The court and several of the most necessary clergymen were on his side. Arriving in Constantinople, Theophilus did not want to know Chrysostom. The latter, not knowing his true dispositions, invited him to stay in the bishop's house, wishing to enter into ordinary church communion with him. But the Archbishop of Alexandria did not come to the house of Chrysostom, did not wish to have communion with him, behaved as if he had come not to a foreign episcopal city, but to his own bishop's residence. Chrysostom wondered what such behavior of Theophilus meant. But soon all misunderstanding was dispelled. Something happened that could not have been foreseen and expected, something that contradicted all customs and church rules.

It turned out that Theophilus had decided to convene a council against Chrysostom himself. Of course, such a council could take place only with the permission of the government. But it cost nothing to persuade the spineless Arcadius to do this, as soon as the Empress Eudoxia was on Theophilus' side, burning with anger and vengeance against the Constantinople archpastor.

The only question was: where, in what place to assemble the cathedral? Where are the members to be found for a criminal council, or rather a gathering? The place for the council was indicated by the wary Byzantine government, and the recruitment of bishops as members of the assembly was undertaken by the prudent Theophilus. Of course, at first glance it seems that there could not have been a question about the location of the cathedral. What is better than Constantinople? Eudoxia lived here, there were many enemies of Chrysostom here, there were police here, and beautiful palaces were located here. But, nevertheless, it was impossible to choose Constantinople for the meeting of the lawless council. Great was the malice of the government and the aristocracy against Chrysostom, but even greater was the love of the people for the great saint. No matter how reckless malice can be, this time the leaders of malice showed themselves to be prudent. It was feared that the mass of the people, devoted in their souls to the Chrysostom orator, in the heat of anger and rage against this council, would destroy the house where the lawless judges would gather, and deal with the judges themselves as a crowd usually deals with its enemies. We must remember that we are talking about the Byzantine people, who did not allow themselves to be trifled with. Therefore, it was decided not to choose the capital as the place for the meetings of the council. For this purpose, a country place was chosen on the Asian coast, not far from Constantinople, near Chalcedon, a place called "at the Oak" (έπί δρΰν). It was something like a luxurious dacha, built by the sovereign minister of Theodosius the Great, Rufinus, who was executed under Arcadius, and whose property went to the treasury. There was a luxurious palace, a miracle of building art and splendor; There was also a church in honor of App. Peter and Paul; There was also a monastery here. All this was built with the money collected by Rufinus' avarice. The place was very good for the work that had to be done; it was secluded, separated from the capital by the water element, but could have convenient relations with the capital.

As we have said, Theophilus undertook to recruit members for the council. Here the malicious foresight of the Archbishop of Alexandria was expressed in all its splendor. He understood that it was not so easy to recruit bishops who were disposed to act in his spirit in Constantinople and its environs; therefore he brought with him from Egypt a ready staff of bishops to sit at the council. Counting him, Theophilus, a total of 29 bishops came from Egypt. These may be completely unknown, not at all famous bishops, but they were the most obedient tools of the Archbishop of Alexandria. His word is law for them. With such bishops, it cost nothing to organize a council against Chrysostom. Of the bishops who did not belong to the Egyptian Church, few, even very few, were included in the council. Since there were 36 bishops at the opening of the council, excluding the number of Egyptian bishops (29), it turns out that only 7 bishops joined the Egyptians, who were not at the hands of Theophilus. Such were the above-mentioned Acacius, Severian, Antiochus, and Paul of Heraclius, formerly a friend of Chrysostom, but now suddenly became his enemy, Cyrinus of Chalcedon, an Egyptian by birth, a certain Marutha from Mesopotamia, and, finally, Isaac, apparently made bishop at the council itself. Prosecutors were needed. There was no shortage of them. All the clergy of Constantinople were summoned to the council one by one. What they said at the Council is unknown. But it is very likely that for various reasons some of them said what was pleasing to the council and the powers that be. There were 13 sessions of the council. Of these, 12 sessions (i.e. 12 days) were devoted to the presentation of accusations or, more precisely, slander against Chrysostom. In other words: 12 days were spent on sorting out the dirt and rubbish that had been brought from the capital to Chalcedon. At the present time we know very little about the accusations that were heaped on the head of Chrysostom at the council. But even what we know is too sufficient to see how infinitely great is the malice of men, which rises up against true holiness. Two abridged notes have survived to this day, which were presented by two persons at the council as indictments against Chrysostom. What has not been said here! Crimes against all the commandments of the Decalogue are almost indicated! One of the above-mentioned notes was submitted to the Council by the Constantinople Archimandrite John, a man of bad morals and malice, who was temporarily suspended from serving by the archbishop, removed from office, but who, at the same time, by condescension, was again returned to the clergy. This accuser spewed 29 accusations against his archpastor. Another accuser of Chrysostom was Isaac, one of those unworthy monks who love worldly squabbles more than feats of piety. This Isaac the Syrian, honored by the council with the rank of bishop, exudes the poison of his slander against the saint, pointing out the 17 crimes of Chrysostom. All these accusations, presented by Archdeacon John and Isaac, did not contain anything true - at the very least, the truth in them is mixed with falsehood and presented in a distorted form; But these accusations are in many respects characteristic, which is why we will consider them in some detail.

The accusations made against Chrysostom can be divided into several groups. The first group embraces accusations concerning his personal character and behavior. The accusers asserted: "He eats immoderately, like the Cyclops, always eats alone, and shuns hospitality." This strange accusation arose, it seems, from the fact that he really liked to dine alone, and did not like to invite him to dinners and go to other people's feasts. We have accurate historical information that the accusation of Chrysostom of immoderate consumption of food is the purest slander. Chrysostom's health was always very weak, and, nevertheless, he sometimes completely forgot about food; it happened that he remained completely without food until the evening. Busy studying the Holy Scriptures. Scriptures and the works of the Church, he forgot about material food. He ate a small amount of light meat, since his painfully weak stomach could not tolerate heavy dishes*. He did not drink wine at the table. Only on hot days did he take a little wine as a refreshing drink and to quench his thirst. Such was the immoderation in the table that the accusers attributed to him!

______________________

* Of course, here we are talking about a meat-eater, and not about fast days. At the same time, it should be remembered that Chrysostom did not take monastic vows.

______________________

Another accusation, that Chrysostom shunned hospitality, arose from a desire to present in a bad light Chrysostom's habit of dining alone and not going to visit, which did not contain anything criminal. He liked to dine alone, firstly, because his table was poor and often very late: it would be inconvenient to invite guests to such a table; secondly, he did not tolerate long and useless conversations, those indispensable companions of so-called dinner parties. Not receiving guests, Chrysostom did not go to visit others for dinner. He had many reasons for this. He was afraid to allow himself to be excessive, and this, with his weak stomach, could be accompanied by harmful consequences for his health. Further, Constantinople was the capital, so there were a lot of people who wanted to see the archbishop as his guest, and if he were to visit all those who invited him, then he would waste a lot of time in vain. And if he had accepted some invitations and rejected others, then in this case those who have not been honored with his visit would have considered themselves offended. Finally, Chrysostom did not attend the feasts of others because of the conviction that no one, and especially an archpastor, had the right to indulge in a sweet morsel at a time when there were beggars and hungry people in the city, to whom the surplus of the rich table could be allocated. That is why Chrysostom ate food alone, without guests, and did not like to visit guests. Will anyone reproach Chrysostom for acting in this way and not otherwise? And yet there were people in Constantinople who dared to think that he was aloof from society because he was proud and despised everyone. This, in the main, was the accusation that he dined alone and did not go to dinner parties.

In one of the accusations, it was said about Chrysostom: "He receives women in private, in which case the doors are closed to other persons." The essence of the accusation is clear. The accuser cast a shadow of suspicion on his chaste life. Chrysostom himself later replied to this accusation in one of his letters (to Bishop Kyriakos): "They say that I reclined with a woman; but uncover my body, and you will find that the body I drag is no more than a corpse."

______________________