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.

Not a few other accusations against Chrysostom were brought at the Council of the Oak, but we will speak of them briefly. The fifth group of charges may consist of charges of inciting popular riots and the sixth - of violence allegedly committed by the accused. Of course, nothing of the kind happened. For example, he was accused of "inciting the people to revolt in general, against the council (at the Oak) in particular." What is probably meant here is that the people of Constantinople, who ardently loved Chrysostom, when they learned that the bishops of the council were intriguing against him, openly and strongly expressed their displeasure with the government; but Chrysostom did not at all encourage the people to such actions. On the contrary, he tried to calm the people, pointing out that the fate of people is controlled by God. As for the violence allegedly committed by Chrysostom, the accusers accused him of the following: "Some monks who had church communal letters he not only did not accept into communion with him, but even threw them into prison." Here we are not talking about monks of holy life and behavior, but about those minions of Theophilus whom this archbishop sent to the capital in order to damage Chrysostom and denigrate the so-called "Long Brothers". These persons did go to prison, but in the opinion of even Protestant writers (Neander), they "fully deserved such a punishment according to the laws."

Such is how much spiteful vain was uttered at the Council "at the Oak" against Chrysostom.

At the time when these slanders and malicious denunciations were presented and considered at the council under consideration, Chrysostom himself remained in the capital, in his episcopal house, performing his pastoral duties. But he was not alone. With him were forty bishops, who loved and deeply revered him. They gathered for a well-known council, which had the purpose of considering the case of Theophilus of Alexandria; but since there was no need for this council, due to unexpectedly changed circumstances, they remained with Chrysostom mainly in order to share with him his sorrows. They were all in great confusion. They already knew that Theophilus did not act spontaneously, but relying on the court party, which did not favor Chrysostom. The confusion was all the greater the more persistently the rumors persisted (as it turned out, well-founded) that the archpastor of the capital, among other things, was accused of insulting the Imperial Majesty (the Empress) and that the accused was facing the death penalty. Namely, they tried to accuse Chrysostom of calling Eudoxia Jezebel. The basis for such an accusation could be that in the above-quoted letter of Chrysostom to Eudoxia he really hints, but only hints, at the identity of one act of the empress and Jezebel (the taking away of the vineyard). Another reason could be that in his sermons he denounced the Constantinople aristocratic women, who led no better lives than Jezebel - and this could easily be interpreted as an attack on the person of the empress. No matter how great was the confusion of the bishops surrounding Chrysostom, the great saint himself, however, did not lose heart. When some of them wept, and others, unable to bear the sad sight, wanted to leave, Chrysostom said to them: "Sit, my brothers, and do not weep, by this you only tear my heart. Death is a common lot. Are we better than the patriarchs, prophets, and apostles, who were not also immortal?" Chrysostom, hearing these words, struck with the index finger of his left hand (his usual gesture during meditation) and answered: "I was not the first to be a teacher of the Gospel, and I will not be the last. Did not Joshua act after the death of Moses? Was not Baruch found after Jeremiah's death? Did not Elisha begin to prophesy after Elijah was taken into heaven?" Another bishop replied: "Woe: if we wish to remain in our Churches, we shall be compelled to have communion with those who pronounce an unjust sentence against thee, and we shall even be compelled to sign this sentence." Chrysostom answered: "Remain in communion with them, it is necessary, otherwise a schism will appear in the Church; but do not under any circumstances subscribe to an unjust sentence, for I am aware that I have done nothing for which I deserve to be defrocked."

While these sad conversations were going on, two representatives of the council appeared, who were instructed to invite Chrysostom to defend and explain the accusations to the meeting "at the Oak." These plenipotentiaries were young and unimportant Libyan bishops, very similar in character to their head Theophilus: they were, according to historical reports, men devoid of moral merit. To these two persons, as a special secretary, was added a certain boy. Obviously, with the intention of insulting Chrysostom, the most insignificant persons were elected to his deputies. But the great hierarch did not pay any attention to this. He politely invited the messengers to the hall and gave them the opportunity to fulfill the council's commission with all honor. The secretary of the council read aloud the following note, by which Chrysostom was invited to the council: "The saint (?) the council assembled "at the Oak" to John (the saint is deliberately not called either archbishop or venerable as a sign that the council does not recognize him as an archpastor). We have received complaints against you, accusing you of a thousand bad deeds. Therefore appear before our judgment seat, and take with you the two presbyters, Serapion and Tigris, whose presence is necessary." Serapion and Tigry were persons close to Chrysostom, and were apparently involved in the crimes attributed to the Archbishop of Constantinople. Two answers were given to this invitation: one from the bishops surrounding Chrysostom, the other from Chrysostom himself. In the reply of the bishops to Theophilus, it was said: "We ourselves must judge you first, because we have an indictment containing 70 counts of crimes committed by you. In addition, our council is much more numerous than yours: there are only 36 of you and almost all of you from one district, while we are 40 from different districts, and among us there are seven metropolitans." For his part, Chrysostom answered the name not of Theophilus, but of the whole assembly. In his letter, he did not directly refuse to appear at the council, but announced that he would come here for justification only on the condition that his personal enemies - Theophilus, Acacius, Severian and Antiochus of Ptolemais - were excluded from the council. Four times the council invited Chrysostom to appear for justification, and each time Chrysostom gave the same answer. He gave the same answer when the same invitation was delivered to him through the imperial secretary, i.e., with the knowledge of the emperor. It is said that the council took out its anger against Chrysostom, because of his failure to appear there, on three bishops, with whom he sent his first reply to the members of the council: one of these bishops was beaten at the council, another had his vestments torn to shreds, and the third was put in chains, the same chains that had been prepared for the archpastor of Constantinople if he had dared to come to the council "at the Oak."

The Council did not conduct its investigation of the complaints against Chrysostom in his presence, and it is not known exactly how. One thing is clear, that the council pretended to believe all the senseless slanders against the great hierarch. During the 12th session of the council, a sentence was pronounced against him. The number of members of the council by this time had increased, increasing to the figure of 45. Probably, some weak bishops, under the pressure of the court party, perhaps not without a struggle in their souls, went over to the side of Theophilus and began to fight against the saint. Here is the verdict of the council regarding Chrysostom, immediately communicated to the emperor Arcadius: "Taking into account that John was accused of many crimes and that, recognizing himself guilty, he did not want to appear at the council, the council on the basis of the law (against those who were stubborn and did not want to appear for trial) dismissed him from office. The complaints against him, moreover, accuse him of a crime against the imperial dignity. Therefore, let the pious emperor order him to be expelled from the Church and punished for a crime against the imperial dignity, since the last point of the accusation is not subject to the judgment of the council." The emperor, fearing popular unrest, agreed only to exile Chrysostom, but did not dare to execute him, although the council clearly suggested to Arcadius that he should punish Chrysostom with death, as was customary to deal with those who despise the imperial dignity. The emperor even found it difficult how to arrange the expulsion of Chrysostom. The fact is that the people, who loved their archpastor so much, crowded around the bishop's dwelling day and night and, obviously, did not want to give the opportunity to carry out the sentence of exile without a struggle with the government. Chrysostom himself led the government out of an awkward position. He secretly placed himself at the disposal of the police, who sent him to Bithynia, to the city of Praeneta, awaiting further orders. But not only were no such orders given, but, on the contrary, all the efforts of the government were directed towards summoning the exiled archbishop back to the capital as soon as possible. On the very next night after the departure of Chrysostom, Constantinople was visited by a powerful earthquake. Houses and palaces wavered. Empress Eudoxia was horrified and considered the terrible phenomenon to be God's punishment for the unjust condemnation of Chrysostom. She begged the emperor to return the latter to his episcopal cathedra and begged the exile in a letter with her own hand not to blame her for anything and to come to the capital. Chrysostom followed this invitation, or rather these entreaties. His return to his pulpit was a majestic sight. Shouts of popular enthusiasm resounded throughout Constantinople, even the Jews took part in this festivities. The Bosphorus was covered with ships and boats, crowded with a multitude of people, looking for an opportunity to catch a glimpse of their beloved archpastor. The shore of the Bosphorus from the side of the capital was dotted with masses of people with candles in their hands. People of all classes, of different ages - men, women, children - are mixed into one whole here. Everything rejoiced. Thus was accomplished the second establishment of Chrysostom among his flock!

Pilgrimage to the Holy Land in the Time of the Ancient Church

Religious travels of the times of Christianity among pagans and Jews. - Little is known about travels to St. John's. The earth in the first three centuries of Christianity; examples of travels from the II and III centuries. - Increase in the number of people traveling to St. John's Cathedral. Earth in the IV and V centuries; the example of St. Helena. - Enumeration of the most remarkable persons of the IV and V centuries who traveled to St. Earth, and the presentation of the impressions they took away from here. Remarks on how people traveled during this time and for what reasons. - What monuments and places attracted travelers to Palestine of the IV and V centuries? - Remarkable temples in Palestine, which aroused the attention of travelers of these centuries.