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.

Much more important are the accusations of deviations allegedly allowed by Chrysostom in the performance of the sacrament of priesthood. In this respect, the witnesses are tireless and shine with the variety of their testimonies. Witnesses, or, more precisely, false witnesses, said: Chrysostom "ordained priests and deacons without an altar (i.e., standing outside the altar). He consecrated four bishops at a time. He performed divine services without the participation of other clergy, and without the consent of the clergy allowed himself to be ordained to church offices; he ordained many without witnesses" (secretly, in the absence of the people), and so on. There is no way to understand all these accusations. One researcher of the life and work of Chrysostom (Tilmon), having conveyed the essence of the accusations we have just mentioned, remarks: "From this we learn not what really happened, but something about which it is impossible to judge unmistakably." Only Chrysostom himself could explain the essence of the matter, i.e. reveal where there is direct slander and where there is a distortion of some real fact; but he is silent, and this is understandable: he himself could only answer many accusations by simply denying that this or that did not happen at all in his practice.

But Chrysostom defends himself with great force and energy against one accusation, which, judging by many reasons, was also brought at the council, and which reproached him for insulting the most holy sacrament of Communion. It was said that "he admitted some people to Communion after they had eaten." In response to this accusation, the saint says with fervour: "If I have done this, then let my name be blotted out of the book of bishops, and let it not be written in the book of the Orthodox. If I have done anything like that, let Christ cast me out of His kingdom. However, if they have already said this against me and accuse me for it, then let them also condemn Paul, who after the supper baptized the whole house (Acts 16:33); let them also condemn the Lord Himself, Who after Supper gave Communion to the Apostles" (Letter to Bishop Kyriakos). Another accusation was made against Chrysostom regarding the same sacrament of the Eucharist. The accuser at the council declared: "On the bishop's throne he eats flour cake (παστίλον = pastillum)." This is "the only true accusation against Chrysostom" (Hefele). Here, in obscure words, something is expressed that is generally known and is preserved to this day in church practice. We are talking about one custom introduced by Chrysostom into church practice. He began - immediately after Communion - to receive what we colloquially call "warmth". He himself did and ordered others after partaking of the Eucharist to eat a small loaf of bread (now: prosphora) and drink a little water, so that not a single drop of the Eucharist would remain in the mouth and would not be inadvertently thrown to the floor with saliva. Here is the crime of Chrysostom, about which one of the accusers reported to the council.

Chrysostom's preaching activity also did not escape, as we noted above, from the attention of spies, who followed every step and every word of the saint. As a preacher, Chrysostom was credited by his accusers with revealing thoughts that were either harmful or impious. For example, one accuser said at the council that Chrysostom allegedly gave "permission for people to sin when he preached: if you sin again, then repent again, and no matter how much you sin, only come to me and I will heal you." The witness did not reach this accusation with his own mind: his accusation is the echo of someone else's voice. The fact is this: in Constantinople in the time of Chrysostom there were many Novatians who taught that there is not and cannot be any other kind of absolution of sins on earth than that which is given in the sacrament of Baptism. Chrysostom considered the teaching of the Novatians to be pride and foolishness, and often in his sermons he refuted the thoughts of these sectarians. Such an attitude of Chrysostom did not please the Novatian bishop in Constantinople - Sisinnius. He began to spread the rumor that Chrysostom had once said in a sermon: "If you have already repented a thousand times, you can still repent." Obviously, instead of the real words of Chrysostom, Sisinnius used, to confuse the faithful, some kind of parody of the words of the great preacher. Not only that: he published a caustic book on this subject against Chrysostom. Here is the source from which came the accusation that Chrysostom taught to sin as much as you like. This accusation is the fruit of the Novatians' dissatisfaction with Chrysostom. Thus, it is revealed that the accusers made use of ready-made material, which had been created in a sphere completely hostile to the Constantinople orator. - In the sermons of Chrysostom, the accusers tried to find even direct impiety. Thus, the accuser declared: "He allows himself blasphemy in the church when he says (in sermons): Christ's prayer was not heard, because He did not pray as He should." In all likelihood, this is a malicious perversion of the preacher's words. It is possible that the following words of one of Chrysostom's discourses are thus distorted: "When Christ said, 'If it be possible, let this cup pass by,' He manifests something human; but when he adds, 'Let it not be as I will, but as Thou wilt,' He teaches us to follow the Divine, even though nature may oppose it." In the same preaching activity of Chrysostom, the accusers tried to discover other shortcomings. Thus, they called him to account for the fact that he used in church in teachings such expressions (of a poetic nature) that are not customary to use in such a holy place as a temple. They blamed him for saying: "a throne filled with furies"; "I jump, I am beside myself" (ακιρτπ, μαίνομαι). As for the first of the above expressions ("throne", etc.), it is not found at all in any of the numerous words and discourses of Chrysostom, and the second of the above expressions is literally found in one of his inspired sermons, delivered on the occasion of an outstanding, joyous event. But can Chrysostom be reproached for his use of the phrase in question? Of course not. Obviously, the preacher puts himself (mentally) in the position of David galloping before the ark of the Covenant. The expression under analysis indicates religious enthusiasm, delight. And if Chrysostom had had to justify himself in this case in the face of the council ("at the Oak"), then, without a doubt, he would not have found it difficult to point out the presence of exactly the same expressions in the members of the council themselves, in their sermons. Poetic figures of speech were then in the habit of Christian preachers (Neander).

The third group of accusations consists of accusations against Chrysostom of improper management of church property and of appropriating by him what did not belong to him. We will speak very briefly about accusations of this kind, since they are either absurd or represent a distortion of ideas about his charitable work. The false witnesses of the council said: "He sold many church jewels; he put on sale the marble that had been prepared by Chrysostom's predecessor Nectarios for the decoration of the Constantinople Church of Anastasia (i.e., the Resurrection); no one knows on what and where he spends church revenues; he sold the property bequeathed by Thekla in favor of the Church; in general, he forcibly appropriated other people's inheritances for himself." In order to understand the essence of the accusations, it is necessary to take into account the fact that Chrysostom did sell some church jewelry, obviously superfluous, using the proceeds for the needs and assistance of the poor and needy. But who can blame Chrysostom for this? St. Ambrose of Milan and Blessed Augustine did the same in those days. The latter in their writings also indicated the reasons why they did so. As for the accusation of the Constantinople hierarch of stealing what did not belong to him, it is devoid of any foundation. It is known that when Chrysostom was already in exile and, of course, needed money, no matter how much he received from the generously loving inhabitants of Constantinople, he did not spend any of this money on himself, but sent it to the needs of missionary work. After this, could Chrysostom have used anything illegally for himself personally at a time when he was the archbishop of the capital and, of course, did not need anything?

The fourth group consisted of such accusations as were made in order to prove that Chrysostom allowed himself to defamate and insult both some bishops and the clergy of Constantinople. Thus, one of the accusers of the saint asserted that he called St. Epiphanius, Bishop of Cyprus, his contemporary, "a fool and a demon." Pure slander! Here is a brief history of the real relationship between Chrysostom and Epiphanius. Epiphanius, before the time of the council under consideration, at the suggestion of the well-known Theophilus, arrived in Constantinople in order to force Chrysostom to expel the so-called "Long Brothers" from the capital and pronounce an anathema against Origen. Chrysostom received Epiphanius in a friendly manner, but, of course, did not do what his guest desired. Epiphanius remained in the capital for some time and took certain measures, unfavorable to Chrysostom, in order to achieve the fulfillment of his wish. The Archbishop of Constantinople did not yield. In the end, Epiphanius reconciled with Chrysostom and began to harbor good feelings for the "Long Brothers". Then he went back by ship to the island of Cyprus - the place of his ministry, but on the way to the sea he died. Byzantine society, which was excessively fond of witting and inventing anecdotes, as a result of the not entirely friendly temporary relations of Epiphanius with Chrysostom, created several fabulous tales. Thus, for example, the Byzantines said that during the farewell meeting of both bishops, they exchanged the following prophecies: Epiphanius allegedly said to Chrysostom: "I hope that you will not die bishop of the capital." To which the latter allegedly answered: "And I hope that you will not reach your island of Cyprus." Of course, this is a fable, because it is reliably known that both saints parted peacefully before the death of Epiphanius. To the realm of similar legends, created by the fervent imagination of the Byzantines, belongs the accusation, declared at the council, that Chrysostom called Epiphanius "a fool and a demon."

Concerning the relations of Chrysostom with another bishop, Acacius of Verra, one of the accusers said at the council that the former had behaved insultingly towards the latter. It was said that Chrysostom was arrogant towards Akakios and did not want to say a word to him. Of course, nothing of the kind happened. And it was this: Acacius was in Constantinople on some business. Chrysostom, as usual, invited him to stop at the episcopal metochion of Constantinople. Acacius accepted the offer, but was dissatisfied with the reception of Chrysostom. Aged and respected, Akakios expected that the Archbishop of Constantinople would arrange his life with all possible comfort. But nothing of the kind followed. Leading an extremely simple life, Chrysostom did not consider it necessary to make any preparations for the reception of the guest: he received him quite easily. Acacius imagined that Chrysostom had done this for some second purpose, became angry with his master, and, leaving John, said to the Constantinople clergy: "Very well, I will make him porridge" (ollam condio). This is the historical ground on which the accusation that Chrysostom mistreated the respected Bishop Akakios grew.

Chrysostom was also accused of having treacherously behaved in relation to Bishop Severian of Gabala - it was said that he had plotted against this bishop and stirred up the Constantinople archimandrites against him. The slander was probably used by Severian himself, a vain and empty man. Severian remained in Constantinople for a long time in the time of Chrysostom. But the very motives for which he did this do not compel respect for Severian. A certain Phoenician bishop, named Antiochus (Ptolemais), came to Constantinople and preached sermons there, but not for nothing. He took money for his sermons - it is not known whether it was in the form of a gift, or in the form of a pre-arranged payment from the listeners. It goes without saying that this could only be done if the Byzantines liked Antiochus' sermons. Spiritual eloquence brought Antiochus great financial profits. Severian, bishop of Gabala (in Syria), was carried away by the example of Antiochus; he, too, arrived in the capital, began to preach for money, and also became rich. Chrysostom's complacency is remarkable: he did not in the least prevent Severian from preaching sermons along with himself, he even treated him in a friendly manner. But for all this, Severian paid the great saint with ingratitude. He ingratiated himself into the mercy of the royal court, began to behave haughtily, preparing troubles against Chrysostom. Since there was a danger that Severian's further stay in the capital would lead to disorders, Chrysostom ceased to receive the troublemaker and wrote him a letter with the following content: "It is not good, Severian, to leave the diocese entrusted to you for so long without supervision and a bishop. Return quickly to your Church and do not neglect the gift that dwells in you." Severian had to obey and left, but was returned from the road back to the capital at the request of Eudoxia. Here is the attitude of Chrysostom to Severian, which gave rise to the unjust accusation that the saint had plotted against the bishop of Gabala and incited the archimandrites against him. Slander is inventive, and can weave an accusation out of everything. Even more than about Chrysostom's allegedly insulting attitude towards certain bishops, the accusers complained to the council about the insults and reproaches that he allegedly allowed himself to inflict on the Constantinople clergy. Chrysostom was denounced for giving insulting names to the Constantinople clergy, calling the clergy of the Church entrusted to him "worthless, corrupt people, penny people" (more precisely: "people of the three obols"; the obol was a small coin like a penny). Whether Chrysostom really called his clergy in this way will remain unknown. But if he had ever called them so in private conversation or in a moment of righteous anger, would it constitute a great crime? The clerics of Constantinople, from among whom came the false witnesses against their archpastor at the Council "at the Oak," the clerics who themselves at the same Council without a twinge of conscience recounted their fights with their servants as a most ordinary and shameless affair – did these people really deserve praise, and not cruel censure from their closest priest? Among the particularly offensive actions of Chrysostom, the accusers attributed the following fact: once Chrysostom invited three Constantinople deacons to the assembly of the entire Constantinople clergy, accusing them of having stolen the omophorion from him, and the archbishop added: "And who knows what use they made of my omophorion?" He knew that. Why could he not speak of such a shameful affair in the presence of all the clergy? But Chrysostom's accusers seem to be most displeased with the archpastor's interrogative remark: "And who knows what they (the deacons) used the omophorion for?" If so, then the three deacons were guilty not of simple theft, but also of blasphemy. Let us suppose that the saint only suspects the latter crime. But, of course, the truth-loving Chrysostom had reason to express suspicions. The question arises: what could the clergy find especially offensive in the above words of his? How difficult it was for Chrysostom to live among such pretentious and dissolute clergy as those of Constantinople! But most of all the Constantinople clergy were irritated against Chrysostom for his strong and direct denunciations of their disorderly moral life. The accuser of this archpastor accused him of the following: "He wrote a book filled with slander against the clergy." Here, without a doubt, is meant his extensive sermon under the title "A Word Against Those Who Lived with the Virgins" (Adversus eos, clericos, dui habent virgines subintroductas). This word, or book, was indeed supposed to irritate the clergy, but it is not the writer (Chrysostom) who should be blamed for this, but the persons who caused the appearance of the book by their behavior. The essence of the matter is as follows: in some, mainly large, cities, for example, in Constantinople, a very suspicious custom was established: unmarried clergymen (and there were many of them) took virgins to live with them under the pretext of mutual asceticism and mutual assistance. It is understandable that some of these clerics fell into sin, or at least stirred up seductive public rumors. It was this disorder that Chrysostom wished to put an end to, for which purpose he wrote the above-mentioned work. That the book was written not in Antioch (where Chrysostom had previously been a presbyter), but in Constantinople, is evident from the authoritative tone in which the writer speaks, which is befitting only an archpastor. A detailed exposition of the contents of this book in the present case would be inappropriate, although it gives a vivid description of the licentiousness of the Constantinople clergy.