|
The enmity of the clergy against John was greatly increased by
Serapion, his archdeacon. He was an Egyptian, naturally prone to
anger, and always ready to insult his opponents? The feelings of
hostility were further fostered by the counsel which Olympias received
from John. Olympias was of most illustrious birth, and although she
had become a widow while young, and was zealously attached to the
exercises of monastic philosophy according to the laws of the church,
yet Nectarius had ordained her as deaconess. John, perceiving that
she bestowed her goods liberally on any one who asked her for them, and
that she despised everything but the service of God, said to her:
"I applaud your intentions; but would have you know that those who
aspire to the perfection of virtue according to God, ought to
distribute their wealth with economy. You, however, have been
bestowing wealth on the wealthy, which is as useless as if you had cast
it into the sea. Know you not that you have voluntarily, for the sake
of God, devoted all your possessions to the relief of the poor. You
ought, therefore, to regard your wealth as belonging to your Master,
and to remember that you have to account for its distribution. If you
will be persuaded by me, you will in future regulate your donations
according to the wants of those who solicit relief. You will thus be
enabled to extend the sphere of your benevolence, and your mercy and
most zealous care will receive reward from God."
John had several disputes with many of the monks, particularly with
Isaac. He highly commended those who remained in quietude in the
monasteries and practiced philosophy there; he protected them from all
injustice and solicitiously supplied whatever necessities they might
have. But the monks who went out of doors and made their appearance in
cities, he reproached and regarded as insulting philosophy. For these
causes, he incurred the hatred of the clergy, and of many of the
monks, who called him a hard, passionate, morose, and arrogant man.
They therefore attempted to bring his life into public disrepute, by
stating confidently, as if it were the truth, that he would eat with
no one, and that he refused every invitation to a meal that was offered
him. I know of no pretext that could have given rise to this
assertion, except that, as I have been assured by a man of undoubted
veracity, John had, by rigorous asceticism, rendered himself liable
to pain in the head and stomach, and was thus prevented from being
present at some of the choicest symposia. Hence, however, originated
the greatest accusation that was ever devised against him.
|
|