CHAPTER XVI

PORPHYRIUS

The Deacon’s Inquiry

Deac. Pardon me, father; such deeds overpass drunkenness, and madness, and youthful folly. Madmen, drunkards, and young men, when they are sober again, or have digested their food, or when they have come to years of discretion, as the case may be, are ashamed of their disgraceful or disorderly doings or sayings, and renounce them; these people, after all they have done in mature age and apparently in a sober frame of mind, so far from repenting of their deeds, hope and pray that their wickedness may be permanent and undisturbed. When men have not shrunk from placing the gospel on a polluted head, upon which coarse women have danced; with whom are they fit to be ranked, but with those who put the crown of thorns about the head of the Son of God? However, if you have personal knowledge of the circumstances of the consecration of Porphyrius to the bishopric of Antioch, or of those who performed the act of consecration, or of the previous life of the man, whether it was distinguished or not, and of his teaching, whether it be true or false, tell us what you know; especially as he has sent a letter to the Church of Rome, and was not considered worthy of an answer.

A Protestation of Veracity

Bish. My words shall again be the words of truth, for I will not forget the voice of the Master, which says, “For every idle word shall men give account in the day of judgment.” Let me venture to add a clause, and say, “For every idle hearing.” Do you then guard yourself; if you find me not speaking the truth, do not let my grey hair weigh with you, but only the veracity of my statements. For what profit shall I have from what I have said to-day, or yesterday, if I have told lies, when I am put to shame for ever before the unerring judgment throne? And how shall I bear the mill-stone of slander cast about the neck of my mind, when I am cast down into the pit of hell for the souls who have been caused to offend by my lies?

Porphyrius’ Career

Well, this Porphyrius had long been in the Church; and held office both as deacon and as priest in the presbytery; but his character was quite out of keeping with his long tenure of office, and he was never of the slightest spiritual benefit to the Church. He was always in opposition to the devout bishops in his neighbourhood, and used his position as bishop of the most important city, with the magistrates under his jurisdiction, to make ordination a matter of barter; he exerted his ingenuity to prevent seemly ordinations, and by his uncanny abilities wormed himself into friendship with the bishops in office for the moment, as one may call them, even dragging them down with him against their will, to hold ordinations blasted by the wind. Flattery, coupled with an evil disposition, is a terrible thing; as the comic poet Menander says, “It is hard, Pamphile, for an honest woman to fight with an harlot.”

Porphyrius’ Character

The more such a man knows the more harm he does. He is ashamed of no one, but the worse a man is, the more he flatters him. As the wise Solomon says, “The words of flatterers are soft; they smite upon the innermost chambers of the belly.” He is as much a stranger, or rather an enemy, to self-control in the pleasures of the flesh, as the vulture is to scent; indeed, common report credits him with the unnatural wickedness of Sodom. Nature imposes upon our pleasures laws, and limits, and barriers; if what they say is true, he has trodden down the barrier, burst the limit, and made despite of the law, until he has produced the impression that he takes the chair and joins in the convivial gatherings of jugglers, and jockeys, and actors who represent incidents of ancient times with improper posturings and distortions of the leg. He had the hardihood to enter into contests of skill with jugglers, and have friendly intercourse with them; indeed, charges of so doing are entered in the records of several of the magistrates. He has not read the gnomic poet’s words, “What thou oughtest not to do, do not even think.” [Thanks to him the Mediator was slain with blows, and “he who found was exiled, and the juggler was put to flight.”]

They say that besides all this wickedness, he was guilty, after his ordination, of melting down (Church) plate, and lavishing the proceeds upon the magistrates, to produce the appearance of having the authority, not of a spiritual guide, but of a tyrant, over those who unhappily fell into his power.

Constantius desired as Bishop

Now the death of Flavianus, Bishop of Antioch, coincided with the exile of John to Armenia. Porphyrius observed that the whole population, men and women alike, hung upon the neck of Constantius the priest, longing to have him (as bishop). He had been the servant of the Church from his earliest childhood; an ambidextrous man, to use a term from the book of Judges. What is generally considered the left hand, was in him stronger than the right of other men. He had first rendered service by writing letters, and been found blameless in regard to unrighteous gain and bribes; next he had been promoted to be reader and deacon, and without an effort had mastered the sexual delights which reign among men. As the author of Proverbs says, “The hand of the elect shall easily prevail.” For possibly even the vilest of men can master pleasure; either through fear of consequences, or from shame, they may by great exertion restrain their bodily impulses. But it is only those that love God, who through love of the higher can rise superior to the lower—those whom the scripture calls “elect,” in the text, “The hand of the elect shall easily prevail.” If ever a man was gentle, it was he; or if ever a man was self-disciplined, penetrating of vision, sharp of comprehension, slow to punish, thoughtful, able to draw inferences by reflection, merciful, generous, just in judgment, long-suffering under insults, of ability to win men, oft continuing fasting until evening, so as to relieve the oppressed, of dignified appearance, stern of look, swift of step, celibate, as a bishop should be, ever wearing upon his face, even in sickness, the blossom of a smile.

Porphyrius’ Private Ordination as Bishop

Such a man it was whose banishment Porphyrius set himself to bring about by means of bribery; and his method was this. He sent to the capital a message addressed to the officials in authority over the bishops, and procured his exile to Oasis by royal edict, as a seditious agitator. Constantius, however, at once heard of this, and with the help of his friends escaped to Cyprus. But Porphyrius himself had Cyriacus and Diophantus, priests, and other clergy, put under arrest; and then, keeping by his side in hiding the party of Acacius, Severianus, and Antiochus, he waited for the occasion when the whole city went abroad to the suburbs on one of the great pagan festivals, observed every four years in honour of the labours of Hercules, called Olympia, upon which flocks of women stream out with the crowds to Daphne, to see the sports. Bursting into the church, with the bishops I mentioned, and a few clergy, he was privately ordained, with closed doors, and in such haste, through fear of discovery, that they did not give themselves time to finish the prayer. Such is adultery, its offspring and its deeds ever bastard.

Porphyrius’ Acts of Violence

Severianus and his friends took their bribe-money, and fled through mountains and pathless wastes; they escaped the terror of man, but were pierced through by the terror of God, which they had ignored. Now when the public theatre emptied, and the crowds re-entered the city, they were told what had been done to Porphyrius, and of the drama that Acacius had played. That evening the people forbore, like men flogged for adultery; but next day they rose, and poured through the streets in a great throng, with fire and faggots, determined to destroy Porphyrius with his house. Porphyrius, however, quite aware of the hatred in which he was held, deserted God, and fled to the officer in command of the camp, put money in his hands; and so diverting him from the war with the Isaurians, opened a campaign against the disciples of the Saviour. So the marauding Isaurian savages ravaged Rhosus and Seleucia, while Porphyrius and Valentinus the governor pillaged the Church of the orthodox with an armed force; trampling with their own feet upon the most awful sign of the Cross, which they (the orthodox) bore upon their shoulders to be their teacher, while they offered litanies upon the desolated land.

The Indignation of the People

A few days afterwards, Porphyrius sent to the capital in great haste, and urged upon the magistrates, who were such men as himself, that a certain creature of their own, old but active, and of an evil disposition and a twisted mind, should be appointed night-prefect, that he might so make himself master of the city by bringing false charges against the good citizens without fear of consequences. It was a fine imitation of the ways of Nero the fighter against God. It is not in him to win men by reason, but to vex them with unreason and cruelty; since he does not make it his aim to please God by leading to Him wandering souls, but to fill his serpent-like belly that crawls upon its chest. So a certain number of the laity, in fear of rough treatment, unwillingly assembled in the church, for the sake of appearances, but in reality, they vituperated the lives of the men, and awaited succour from God.

Cruelty Preferred to Flattery

At this point Theodorus said, in a mazement—

Deac. I note something contrary to natural order in these events, father. As a general rule, vainglorious persons are men-pleasers, and prove to be flatterers, and provide sumptuous tables, to get themselves liked and well spoken of. Often they will even let people spit upon them. So I cannot see how Porphyrius, or any one else, can have practised methods of threats, and punishment, and banishment.

Bish. Yes, this is the extraordinary thing, Theodorus, that they reached such a pitch of wickedness, that so far from being anxious to please men, they did not even give a thought to the disgraceful character of their doings; for wickedness outdoes wickedness in wickedness. Wickedness casts the net of vainglory, when it hopes to catch simple folks by means of flattery; but when the quarry proves to be superior to flattery and the pleasures of the table, it brings up threats and torments, to terrify by cruelty and fear those whom it could not seduce by the pleasures of the table or by flattery. We have seen this in the case of the martyrs. Both methods were employed against them; the snare constructed of bribes and honours, which caught those, who had their mouths open for worthless reputation, and also the threat of punishment, which provided the roasting iron, the rack, and the wild beasts, and every kind of horrible torture, and revealed the courageous and the lovers of God. But to return to my story. The leading clergy of Antioch met in secret, without even going near the walls of the church, and all the leading women, for whose sake more particularly the covetous prelates have gone out of their wits. I need not tell you what happened in Constantinople, or what numbers of people, as I told you before, left the church, and gathered in the open air, so that not even our rulers in ecclesiastical affairs had so many auditors—of their silence, for they never tried to speak.

Olympias and Theophilus

Deac. You have relieved the doubts which were in my mind, father, by your presentation of the facts to my eyes. The consistency of your narrative, and your ingenuous explanation, convinces me that these events really happened; for a fictitious narrative cannot be consistent with itself. If it will not burden you, please tell us about Olympias, if you know anything of her.

Bish. Which Olympias? There are several ladies of that name.

Deac. The deaconess of Constantinople, who was the wife of Nevridius the ex-prefect.

Bish. I know her very well.

Deac. What sort of a woman is she?

Bish. Do not say woman, but manly creature; she is a man in everything but body.

Deac. How so?

Bish. In life, and in work, and in knowledge, and in her patience under afflictions.

Deac. Why then did Theophilus revile her?

Bish. Which Theophilus?

Deac. The Bishop of Alexandria.

Bish. You appear to me, Theodorus, to have buried in oblivion oceans of words.

Deac. How so?

Bish. The man who did not spare the truth, but trod it underfoot, as my narrative has established, and did not respect the Church universal, for whose sake the Only-begotten, as we proclaim, was done to death, that He might make it one, but disgraced it by his behaviour—has he it in him to spare a widow woman, who spends her life in prayer? Look all round, and see if he ever reviled a bad man; he always has hated devoutness. Why do you not gather from his very letters, how contrary they are one to another? He vituperated Epiphanius, the blessed Bishop of Constantia in Cyprus, who for thirty-six years ruled the Church there, as a heretic, or a paltry schismatic, in the time of Damasus or of the blessed Sericius; but afterwards, in his letter to Pope Innocent, in which he reviled the blessed John, we find him calling Epiphanius a most holy saint. How often do you suppose he kissed Olympias’ knees, when he hoped to get money from her, the woman whom he now reviles; while she threw herself upon the ground in vexation, and shed tears at such things being done by a bishop. However, what were the grounds on which he reviled her?

Olympias’ Reception of the Monks

Deac. He said that she had received into her house the monks whom he had expelled.

Bish. Well, is it right or fitting for a bishop to expel any disciple whatever; to say nothing of a monk?

Deac. Yes, if they have offended him, or slandered him.

Bish. Even if they did, ought he to have satisfied his personal indignation? How then shall Theophilus look for the insults which Christ endured, when he is always thinking of his own reputation? Why did he never imitate the teacher who said, “Being reviled, we bless”?

Deac. Then what was he to do, if the monks were unorthodox?

Bish. Whatever they were, he ought to have corrected them and convinced them, not to have expelled them.

Deac. But what if he did this, and they were so contentious, that they refused to be convinced?

Bish. He ought to have carried out the apostle’s precept, “The man that is an heretic after one or two admonitions refuse, knowing that such an one is perverted.” He does not say, expel him, and rob him, and drive him from his native land, under threat of magistrate’s sentence.

Deac. You tell me of rules for a perfect man, a lover of God, enduring of evil.

Bish. And yet it is not a matter for great praise, to bear with an inferior. But if a man is not perfect, so far as is possible, how can he be a bishop? The imperfect will never have consideration for the imperfect. And how can he be called Theophilus, if he does not love God, for Whose sake he ought readily to have borne the insults of men? And if he does not love God, clearly he does not love himself either; and how shall he who is his own enemy love others? So it is not at all strange, that he blamed Olympias for receiving the monks.

Deac. I admit that Theophilus was carried away by his temper when he expelled them, whether they were orthodox or heretical; still, the deaconess ought not to have received them.

The Rightfulness of Olympias’ Action

Bish. Well, what did you think of it? That she did right or wrong?

Deac. I said, that she did wrong.

Bish. And doing good is sometimes judged?

Deac. Most certainly, when good is done to bad people, and people who ought not to be treated well.

Bish. Then what were the five thousand, whom the Saviour fed with five barley loaves—good or bad?

Deac. As they were fed by the Saviour, clearly they were good.

Bish. If they were good, why did He feed them with loaves of barley?

Deac. Perhaps because wheaten loaves were scarce, and they were hungry.

Bish. Then how is it that they are reproved for want of faith; as good, or as bad men?

Deac. If they are reproved, clearly they were bad.

Bish. Well, can the same man be both good and bad?

Deac. Certainly.

Bish. How?

Deac. They can be good in comparison with the worse, and bad in comparison with the better.

Bish. Splendid. According to this, the monks were both good and bad. And the most faithful deaconess provided hospitality for them, as good men, but our wonderful bishop expelled them, as bad. He ought not to have done so.

Deac. But he will say to you, “You received my enemies, to my hurt.”

Bish. I object. It was wrong for him to call them enemies at all. As an imitator of Christ he ought to endure insults.

Deac. One moment; where are the five thousand reproved, as you said they were, by the Saviour? There is no record of reproof of them in scripture.

Bish. When they assembled and came to Jesus the second time, and were told, “Ye seek me, not because ye saw signs and wonders, but because ye did eat of the loaves, and were filled.”

That is very clear, said Theodorus.

Bish. If a man is blamed, he is so far bad.

Deac. Very true.

Bish. Then were those whom the Saviour fed bad, or good?

Deac. I admit that they were bad; for “they that are whole have no need of a physician, but they that are sick.”

Bish. Well then; did Olympias do wrong in imitating her Lord, who “maketh his own sun to rise, and sendeth rain, upon righteous and unrighteous”? Even though the Pharisees reproach Him, and say to the disciples, “Your master eateth and drinketh with publicans and sinners.”

Deac. It appears that, contrary to the general instincts of mankind, noble actions are being condemned, and disgraceful actions approved.

Bish. What makes you say that, Theodorus, most truth-loving of men?

Deac. I mean that, if you had not made the matter clear to me, by your logical explanation, I should have been led astray to hold the same senseless opinion as other people; the babblings of Theophilus caught my attention more than the ideal of truth.

Bish. Then conversely, if these holy men are proved not only to be not bad men, but men who have turned many from vice to virtue, clearly their persecutor deserves not to be persecuted in his turn, but to be pitied, as one who is always oppressing the good, and receiving the bad.

Deac. Just so. Even if they cannot be proved to be wise and holy men, as most people say they are; by the lines of reasoning we have been following, Olympias must be freed from blame, as she put into practice the imitation of the Saviour.

Bish. And which testimony to the value of actions do you regard as strongest; that of the gospels, or that of Theophilus?

Deac. Hush, I beg you; I admit that he expelled the men through ill temper and love of domination, and that he reviled Olympias through superstition and enmity, making the monks his excuse. The fact is, that when he found his servile flatteries fail in getting anything out of her beyond food and hospitality, he turned and reviled her; this is his way with every one.