CHAPTER XIII

A DEFENCE AGAINST THE CHARGE OF TYRANNICAL DEPOSITIONS

No Exception made for Bishops

Deac. You have delivered yourself with sincerity and learning; your contention is sound. “Woe unto him that calleth sweet bitter, and bitter sweet. Woe unto him that setteth darkness as light, and light as darkness.” Still, some one will say, We do not assert, any more than you do, that John was given to such tables as these. It is true that extravagant ambition is at the bottom of the love of pleasure; excessive parsimony is equally a proof of slovenliness and pettiness of mind. He might have invited bishops only, especially the more devout bishops; if not bishops, at least his own clergy, after the example of the Lord when He ate with the twelve apostles.

Bish. The objection you raise, most truth-loving of men, would be most valid, if only the clergy would have been content to have their meals with John, and get their food an hour, or a day, late; but they expected lavish hospitality, and great style, punctually to the minute. It would have been absurd to waste the food of the sick or the poor on feasting the healthy. Besides, what an idea it is, for the pupils to lay down the law for the teacher, or the patients for the doctor, or the passengers for the pilot. It is always the doctor who cures the sick, the teacher who instructs the pupils, the pilot who woos the welfare of the passengers. Moreover, the love of life makes those who take the advice of a doctor or a pilot willing to bear any pain or hardship, though they cannot guarantee success; the teacher of the higher life is entrusted with the duty of eradicating diseases and infirmities, and trained to overcome the fiercest waves of lust. Yet people do their utmost to oppose him with their unbridled tongues, and stir up all the mud with unwashed feet. And if John had surrendered himself, and given himself over to tables, how many of the important people could he have satisfied, living as he did in a great city, where every one wanted to dine with him, either to get a blessing, or because he was poor, or because he was greedy? And how could he have found time for religious meditation, the ministrations to his flock, the study of holy scripture, the care of the widows, the en couragement of the virgins, the nursing of the sick, the assistance of those in distress, the conversion of those in error, the anxious thought for the broken in heart, the visiting of the prisoners? How could he have escaped the reproachful curse of God, pronounced in Ezekiel? “Woe unto the shepherds who feed themselves, and feed not the flock! Ye did not bring again that which had wandered, that which was lost ye sought not, the weak ye visited not, that which was broken ye bound not up; the fatlings ye killed and ate.” Of whom Paul writes, “Ye bear with a man, if he bringeth you into bondage, if he devoureth you, if he taketh you captive.” “And ye clothe yourselves with the wool, but ye feed not the flock.” And He says in Jeremiah of the idle shepherds, “Many shepherds have destroyed my vineyard.”

The Good Name of a Priest

Deac. In time, he might have paid his respects to these people, without neglecting ecclesiastical duties, so as not to get himself a bad name, when in everything else he was so eminent.

Bish. This is just what is wanted in a priest—not to get himself a bad name, so as to have full scope for his gifts of speech, his energy, his zeal, and all the other right dispositions of a priest. Do you not know, my most honoured Theodorus, that one of the beatitudes laid down by the Lord deals with unreasonable accusations? “Blessed are ye, when men shall reproach you, and say all manner of evil things against you. But woe unto you, when all men shall speak well of you; for so did their fathers to the prophets.” And how could lips trained in divine oracles, and an ear accustomed to listen to divine precepts, endure the gossip of the table, when the Lord says, “No man can serve two masters,” continuing, “Ye cannot serve God and mammon”? We had better find out what is mammon, or we may find ourselves not even serving the two masters, but mammon only. For in this passage He does not mean by “mammon” “the devil,” but the vain industry of this world, from which the word of God bids His disciples to stand aloof.

True Priestly Work not in Earthly, but in Spiritual Things

Deac. I am quite satisfied with the light you have thrown upon this question of the table. Now, most holy father, come back to your narrative of events. And do not be vexed with me for raising objections; it is only because I wanted to learn more that I kept questioning your abundant learning at greater length than you liked.

Bish. Let me make this point still more clear to you, Theodorus, most earnest lover of learning. I was myself once one of those who are bent on pleasing the masses with the table; and I say that a bishop, especially the bishop of a large city, who leaves the ministry of the word, and has not in his hands by night and day the tables of the law, and performs his ministrations to the poor not in person, but by proxy, is quite a different person from those who said, “Lo, we have left all, and followed thee; what shall we have therefore?” He must be ranked with those who said, “Lord, did we not in thy name do this or that?” and like them, he will hear the answer, “Depart from me, ye cursed; I know you not whence ye are.”

For the Word knows not wordless workers; His eye is too pure to look upon evil things. For many so-called bishops, anxious to get rid of the quite reasonable hatred in which they are held, owing to their own characters, and their indifference to spiritual things, do but exchange one evil affection for another—covetousness for vain-glory. While with one hand they do wrong without stint for the sake of unrighteous gain, with the other they set elaborate tables, and rear pillars for lofty buildings, so as to gain a reputation for being good and laborious workers, and win honour instead of dishonour. They forget the Ecclesiast, who built great buildings, and hated them; and clearly forbad such things, when he wrote, “I built me houses and gardens,” etc., “and behold, all are vanity; and I hated all my labour, wherein I labour under the sun.” He did not say, “Above the sun,” or he would have brought spiritual toil into disrepute. In saying this, I do not include in my condemnation those who build reasonably, and of necessity, or beautify Church property; I am thinking of those who waste the money of the poor on hanging corridors, and water-cisterns raised into the air three storeys high, and disreputable baths, hidden from sight, for effeminate men; or spend their gifts of energy upon buildings, either as an excuse for collecting more money, or again, to win the esteem of popular favourites. That is simply to sacrifice everything to give pleasure to sinners. As for me, God forbid, famous Theodorus, that I should ever please bad people, for I shall never please them, except by methods which do not please Christ.

The Alleged Deposition of Sixteen Bishops

The deacon, much impressed by these remarks, here made a request to the bishop:—

Deac. Your observations are perfectly sound, and there is nothing to be said against them. Now, if you have any knowledge of the arrangements made by the holy John in Asia, as it is with him that our discussion is concerned, let me share it.

Bish. Certainly I have such knowledge.

Deac. From being personally present? Or did you gain your information from others?

Bish. No; I did not miss a word of the trial.

Deac. Then tell me in detail what followed, and how it ended, and how it began. I especially wish to know, because Theophilus said in his indictment, in his anxiety to dignify or to hide his own rash conduct, that the blessed John was so much influenced by the love of power, that he deposed sixteen bishops in a single day and ordained creatures of his own in their stead.

Bish. It was just what one would expect from the character of this wonderful person, to write, and to write falsehoods, against John. By the very steps which he took to hide his own shame, he made it the more conspicuous, and involuntarily established the innocence of John; just as it was in the case of Balaam. If he had succeeded in deposing him, there would have been no need of indictment, or of banishment, as the deposition is enough to disgrace a deposed person; but as our bishop stood firm in his virtue, against the attempts to depose him, and won victory in defeat, his opponent’s malice is as fierce as ever, bearing the palm of defeat for its senseless victory. He swells like a bubble, chafing against himself, writing tracts and detractions. This is what Isaiah meant, when he cried woe upon him who seizes every opportunity of doing, and telling, and writing, lies; “Woe unto them,” he says, “who write; for they write iniquity.”

The Accusation brought by Eusebius against Antoninus

The number of the bishops whom John deposed in Asia was not sixteen, but six; I make the assertion as at God’s judgment throne, not subtracting a single unit from the figures, nor adding a single qualification of his action. My statements are in exact accordance with the facts.

In the thirteenth year of the sixth indiction some bishops from Asia came to Constantinople on business and stayed with us. Besides these, there were other bishops, including one from Scythia, Theotimus, one from Thrace, Ammon the Egyptian, and one from Galatia, Arabianus—all metropolitans, advanced in years; making a total of twenty-two bishops. A certain Eusebius, from the district known as Kilbia, Bishop of Valentinopolis, took the opportunity of these being assembled and holding communion together to come forward in the assembled synod, on the first day of the week, and lay memorials before it, against Antoninus, Bishop of Ephesus; to these charges, so as to be in order, he of course prefixed the name of John. The charges fell under seven heads; first, that he had melted down Church plate, and placed the proceeds to the account of his son; second, that he had carried away marble from the entrance of the baptistery, and used it for the improvement of his own bathroom; next, that he had set up pillars belonging to the Church, which had been in position for many years, in his own dining-room; fourth, that his servant had committed murder, and that he was still keeping him in his service, without bringing him to trial; fifth, that he had sold some land bequeathed to the Church by Basilina, the mother of King Julian, and kept the money; sixth, that after separating from his married wife, he had taken her again, and had had children born to him by her; seventh, that he regarded it as law, and dogma, to sell consecration to bishopricks at prices in proportion to the emoluments. He added that there were persons present who had paid such money, and been consecrated, as well as the man who had received it; and that he had proofs of his statements.