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.

The inclination to travel to places revered by saints can be said to lie in the religious nature of man. Travels to these places began not in Christian times, but much earlier. Until the time of Christ, the pagans went to worship those places where, in their opinion, the gods revealed their special presence and special power, beneficial to man. The Old Testament believers also had their holy places and undertook pious journeys to them.

The pagans generally preferred local shrines to the shrines of other countries and peoples; however, such pagans as the Greeks and Romans had several revered shrines, to which all of them, without distinction of country or nationality, paid general religious veneration. The most famous shrines of the Greeks and Romans were Delphi, Dodona, and the temple of Jupiter-Ammon. Delphi, in Phocis, where there was a temple of Apollo, enjoyed special fame. Delphi was revered as the center of the whole earth. Travelers from all countries and peoples flocked here. In order to be worthy of knowing the will of the god Apollo, through the priestess-Pythia, pilgrims had to enter the temple after performing the prescribed purification sacrifices, with music and in a solemn procession. The temple of Apollo was filled with various precious gifts brought here by kings, princes and rich private individuals. After that, Delphi attracted many of Dodon's travelers to Epirus. The local oracle was known for its antiquity. The main shrines of this place were a spring and a grove, to which miraculous actions were attributed. The temple in Dodona was magnificent and abounded in gifts brought by religious travelers. In ancient times, the temple of Ammon in Thebes, in Egypt, was also famous. The most famous traveler who visited this sacred place of the pagans was Alexander the Great, who came here to worship with his entire army. There were places that enjoyed special religious veneration of pagans outside Greece and the Roman Empire, for example, in Persia and India.

______________________

* Augusti. Denkwurdigkeiten d. Christl. Archeologie. Bd. X. S. 91.

______________________

Journeys to holy places are also found in the Old Testament Church. It is known that Abraham, the forefather of the Israelites, by God's command, goes with his son Isaac and two servants to sacrifice Isaac - there (to the land of Moriah), where God has indicated to him. Why does God command him to leave his home, make a three-day journey, and choose a special place for sacrifice? Is it not because travel for religious purposes is pleasing to Him, and that there are places in which His favor rests predominantly? Abraham unquestioningly makes a journey to a place that is especially pleasing in the eyes of the Lord (Gen. 22). A second example of the same kind is to be found in the history of the patriarch James. The place where he saw in a dream vision a ladder reaching to heaven, by which angels ascended and descended, he called "the house of God" and "the gates of heaven." Awakening from sleep, he makes the following vow: "If God be with me, and keep me in this way in which I am going, and give me bread and raiment, and I return in peace to my father's house, then this stone, which I have set up as a monument, shall be with me the house of God" (Gen. 28:20-22). Two sides draw our attention to this event. Firstly, Jacob decided to venerate this place as the most important shrine and, secondly, to testify to his veneration as it should in relation to the house of God, by appropriate worship, i.e. by sacrifice. James vows to visit the place where God's favor towards him has been revealed. And indeed, on his return, Jacob visited the place of the house of God and made a drink offering; but whether James visited this place afterwards, the Bible does not say. For the descendants of Jacob and for the prophets of Israel, Bethel always remained sacred. They traveled here, offered sacrifice to the Lord, and God showed His good pleasure to them (1 Sam. 10:3; 2 Kings 12 and 13; 2 Kings 2:23). James and his descendants provide examples of voluntary travel to places of special holiness. The prophets Samuel, Elijah, and Elisha not only approved of visits to Bethel, but also made sacrifices there. - Moses in the Book of Deuteronomy decreed that all male Israel should come three times a year to the place that God (Jerusalem) would choose, namely on the Feast of Unleavened Bread, the Feast of Weeks, and the Feast of Tabernacles (16:16). Such a place was Jerusalem, both before the temple of Jehovah was built in it, and after it was built in the capital of Judah. When Solomon built the temple, glorified by God himself, even such persons began to flow here from whom the law did not require it: what the male sex of the Israelites did according to duty, the female sex in Israel began to fulfill of their own free will. For example, it is known from the Gospel that Joseph the Betrothed and the Virgin Mary came to Jerusalem for the feast of Pascha. Jews and Gentiles converted to Judaism from distant lands flocked to Jerusalem for the feast; namely, the Parthians, the Medes, the Elamites, the Cappadocians, the inhabitants of Pontus, Asia, made religious journeys to Jerusalem*. Even pagans came here to worship on the feast (John 12:20). In general, journeys to the Holy Mount of Zion, to the Temple of Jerusalem with its greatest shrines, were a phenomenon that perhaps served as a model for Christian travelers to the Holy Trinity. The earth in antiquity, for in this land the Founder of a new religion suffered, died, and rose again. The Israelites traveled to Jerusalem not only at the request of the law, but also at their own will, as can be seen from the example of the Israelite women, and this circumstance brings the travels of Christians even closer to those in Judea, since Christians have previously made and now make a journey to the Holy Scriptures. The earth is drawn by the heart, not by prescription.

______________________