* It should be noted that Chrysostom did not appear at the council "at the Oak" and therefore could not give explanations about the accusations, as we will say below.

______________________

Chrysostom was accused of something that at first glance seems completely incomprehensible. The accuser declared: "The bath is heated not for one (Chrysostom), but when he is washed, Serapion (a presbyter close to Chrysostom) locks the door, so that no one else can wash in the bath." Such is the amazing accusation brought at the council! What could it mean? From the point of view of modern concepts and customs, there can be nothing criminal in whether one washes in his own bath alone or in a public bath, but also alone. In order for the matter to be quite clear to us, it is necessary to enter into some details that are little known and concerning the everyday aspect of the ancient Greek Church. In antiquity, from the fourth century to the later centuries of the Greek Church, it was customary to arrange public baths at Christian churches, which were sometimes called "episcopal" and sometimes "church." For that time, there was nothing unnatural and strange in this. Since people must enter the church, especially to receive the sacrament of Communion, in the possible bodily purity, Christians from very ancient times have formed a view of the baths as something that complements the church, as something additional to it. And for this reason, it became customary to build baths at the churches themselves, in the church fences; It even happened that baths were located not only at churches, but even under the churches themselves, in the lower floors. Emperor Constantine the Great built baths at the famous Church of the Holy Apostles in Constantinople (which served as the burial vault of the Byzantine emperors, beginning with Constantine himself (See: Eusebius, Life of Constantine, IV, 59)). Emperor Theodosius the Great, in one of his decrees, ranks the baths located at churches in their enclosures among such church buildings to which the "right of asylum" extends*. It is about one of these church baths in Constantinople that the accuser speaks at the council "at the Oak". These baths, as buildings related to temples, were decorated somewhat like churches: they contained icons and crosses. These baths were public. Access to them was free, but we do not know whether it was free or paid. That the entrance to them was open to all Christians is beyond doubt. Subsequently, the only question that arose was whether the "unbelieving Hagarians," i.e., the followers of the Mohammedan law, could wash in church baths on an equal footing with Christians. - When we learned what church baths were like in ancient times, the accusation against Chrysostom under consideration becomes clear to us. Chrysostom's poor health required as many visits to the bath as possible as a strengthening agent (Tilmon). Without a doubt, he went to the church bath no other. When he washed or took a bath in the bathhouse, he closed access to it to the outside public. This means that, in the sense of the accusation leveled against Chrysostom, he turned the public property, the public church bath, into personal property, disposed of at his own will what did not belong to him alone. Is there any fault on the part of Chrysostom or not? He would certainly be guilty if there really were any definite rules restricting the bishop's rights to the church bath; but there is no news of such rules. However, the essence of the accusation, it seems, was not that Chrysostom abused his rights to a church bath, but that he was so proud, so disdainful of others, that he did not want to take a bath or wash in the bath together with others. In all likelihood, in this case a significant difference was found between Chrysostom's predecessor - Nectarios and Chrysostom himself. The former archbishop, as a man of secular morals (he was one of the senators), probably liked to be in society, liked to live, as they say, in public, and was not in the habit of denying himself society even when he was in the bathhouse. In ancient times, the bathhouse, it must be said, was the same as a club today - a place for conversation and entertainment. It was not so under Chrysostom. He wanted to be alone in the bathhouse, as well as at the table, because he did not tolerate idle conversations, did not want to make amusements out of physical necessity. All this is so natural in Chrysostom; but, nevertheless, Byzantine society judged the saint for his most innocent actions and reproached him with that which deserved praise.

______________________

* Such church baths were found in Ancient Russia. Cm. "History of the Russian Church" by Prof. E.E. Golubinsky. The first half of the first volume. P. 566 (here are also the sources from which you can get acquainted with the question of church baths in the times of church antiquity).  ** Patriarch Arsenius of Constantinople (13th century) was accused of allowing the Sultan of Iconium to wash in the church bath along with Christians. In response to this accusation, Arsenius gives some information about the church bath. See: Pachymer. Church. history. Pp. 235-236. Russian. Translated.

______________________

In one indictment it was said that Chrysostom, "going out of the house to church, did not pray." How can it be admitted with regard to such a person as Chrysostom that he, who understood the meaning of prayer so perfectly, did not pray on such occasions where the soul itself involuntarily asks to do this deed (Neander)? Of course, such a phenomenon seems completely incomprehensible. But it can be assumed that Chrysostom, on these occasions, did not reveal a prayerful disposition of spirit in any external, conspicuous forms – he did not fall to the ground, did not raise his hands to heaven, but was content with a living, but mental prayer: this is so natural in a humble ascetic! But Chrysostom had a misfortune in general: he was not understood in the capital, or they pretended not to understand him.

The second group of accusations against Chrysostom consists of those that were supposed to indicate that he violated the church canons and the rules of church deanery. The number of accusations of this kind is very significant in number.

First of all, he was reproached for his alleged inadmissible leniency towards the pagans. One of the accusers complained about Chrysostom: "He received some pagans, great enemies of Christianity, gave them refuge in the church and defended them." Obviously, here Chrysostom is accused of his great Christian humanity, for the sake of which he did not prevent the pagans from enjoying the well-known "right of refuge" in the Christian church. But in this case he acted as he taught to act publicly in his sermons. Chrysostom always impressed upon his flock that neither reproach nor anger should take place in the attitude of Christians towards pagans. For example, he said: "Without a special motive, do not call a pagan impious. If he asks you how you judge his religion, then say that it is impious; but if you are not asked about it and are not forced to talk about it, then you must not show enmity. If anyone (of the pagans) asks you about our religion, then say what is relevant to the matter, and then be silent. If we (Christians) argue with the pagans (about religion), then we should try to bring them to silence, but do it without anger, without cruelty. If we do this with meekness, we arouse true trust in the pagan. Where there is anger, the Holy Spirit is not present." Obviously, Chrysostom, in defending the unfortunate among the pagans, only applied to the deed those principles which he revealed in words, and if his words are quite just, then activity based on just words cannot deserve anything but praise.

One petitioner said that "he (Chrysostom) invaded foreign ecclesiastical regions and installed bishops there." This refers mainly to the activity of Chrysostom in the Ephesian ecclesiastical region. It is true that Chrysostom made his own deacon Heraclides bishop of Ephesus and dismissed six bishops of the same ecclesiastical region for simony. But in this case he did not act arbitrarily, but according to the desire and demand of the Ephesian church itself. It must be said that the power of the archpastor of Constantinople after the Second Ecumenical Council, the further it went, the more it grew, although the rights of this archbishop over the neighboring districts were canonically defined only at the Council of Chalcedon. If Chrysostom, acting as he did in this case, had done something illegal and intolerable, then his closest successors would not have followed his example. But history shows the opposite. Even St. Proclus of Constantinople acted in exactly the same way as Chrysostom.

Chrysostom was accused of several cases of improper actions - as an archpastor - in his own diocese or Church. But all these cases are either fiction or distortion of real facts.

He was accused, as an illegal act, of handing over two priests (Porphyrius and Verenia) into the hands of secular power for punishment by exile. But such a course of action was decidedly not part of the rules of Chrysostom; it is very possible that these priests were guilty of some important crimes that brought upon them the punishment of civil laws (Thierry). The accuser, Archdeacon John, presents Chrysostom as a violator of church laws, since his archbishop, John, "dismissed him from office only because he killed his slave, the boy Eulabius." To this it must be said that John, if he had been a truly worthy man, would not have pointed out this incident from his life - in his plaintive letter. Is it not shameful that the archdeacon of the capital resorts to fist-fighting in his domestic life? If Chrysostom deprived him of his office, then in this case he acted not as a trampler on the laws, but as a defender of the oppressed. Perhaps an instructive example was needed for the other clergy. And most importantly, it is not clear what the archdeacon is complaining about: he was only temporarily deprived of his post by Chrysostom, and then again received into the clergy. If some clergymen, according to the accusers, Chrysostom illegally dismissed from office, then, according to the testimony of the same accusers, he illegally elevated others to ecclesiastical degrees. In particular, the accusers insisted on the fact that he had ordained a certain Serapion to the priesthood. The accusers said: "He made Serapion a priest at a time when this man was on trial and had not yet been acquitted." Serapion was one of the most devoted disciples of Chrysostom: he enjoyed great confidence with the archpastor of Constantinople. It is clear why the prosecution chose Serapion as the target. They wanted to point out the fact of partiality in the hierarchical activity of Chrysostom. In vain. Never would this archpastor allow himself to bring a person suspicious of anything closer to him. Chrysostom knew that he had many enemies; for this reason alone he could not ordain Serapion to the priesthood if the latter did not satisfy all the canonical requirements.

A great many accusations were woven by slanderers regarding the liturgical practice of Chrysostom, including his celebration of the most important sacraments and his preaching activity.

The most innocent among these accusations seems to be the following: "He undressed and dressed on the episcopal throne" (cathedra). The meaning of the accusation is difficult to grasp. It is believed that the accusers pointed out that "the archbishop, wearing ordinary, generally accepted clothes, put on spiritual clothes only when he was performing divine services" (Neander); But it is difficult to say whether this assumption is correct. Would it not be more correct to assert that Chrysostom did not wear the sacred vestments in the deacon's vestment, as some bishops probably did, but on the episcopal throne, i.e. the so-called "high place". But no matter how we begin to understand the above words, it is still clearly seen that the accusers tried to present something accidental as a matter of importance and importance.