CHAPTER XII

A DEFENCE OF CHRYSOSTOM’S ABSTEMIOUS HABITS

THEODORUS, amazed at what he had heard, here asked a question, quoting scripture words—

The “Cyclopean Meals”

Deac. As it is written, “Neglect not the recital of elders, for they also have learnt from their fathers,” I will trouble you to tell us what was the reason for his custom of eating alone, and whether it is true that he used to eat alone, as they say he did.

Bish. I admit that he used to eat alone; but I am sorry to find such a very careful person as you, Theodorus, asking the questions that greedy children put. A grown man like you ought to inquire about the virtues which belong to men; what was his disposition in regard to courage, wealth, self-control, gentleness and righteousness, almsgiving, practical wisdom, manliness, memory or forgetfulness. For meat does not commend us to God, neither if we eat nor if we do not eat; but knowledge working with activity.

Personal Reasons

Yes, he did eat alone, and I know that in part at least it was for the following reasons: first of all, he drank no wine, because it sent the blood to his head, except that in the heat of summer he took rose-water. Secondly, owing to some ailment, his stomach was disordered, so that often he found the food prepared for him distasteful, and asked for something not on the table. Next, at times he forgot his meals, and put them off until evening; either because he was occupied in ecclesiastical concerns, or because he was absorbed in spiritual meditation. For he was ever striving to grapple with every difficulty in holy scripture, and such researches require a light diet, or no diet at all. Again, bons vivants, if they have a friend to sit at table with them, or to swill with them, or to cackle with them in unseemly mirth, with the cup of warm wine held in the tips of his fingers, generally turn the good fellowship of the table into malicious gossip.

Delicate Living an Abuse of Stewardship

But in my opinion, the whole secret, and the truer explanation, was this: he was careful to excess in dealing with men of pleasure, counting the expenditure of money on such people as sacrilege. At the same time, it was a way of minimizing opportunities for theft on the part of his stewards, preventing them from multiplying by ten the costs of the food, and securing for themselves what the poor needed. Besides this, with the whole population of the city in his mind, he considered that as the steward of Christ he ought to regard every one, of whatever rank, as worthy of the honour of dining with him, or else to grant the privilege to none. And he dwelt upon the bad behaviour which occurred at table, and the many expenses which fell upon the poor, until he detested the whole business, and would put out of his mind the malicious comments you mention, repeating to himself the words of the Acts, “Men and brethren, it is not meet that we should serve tables; but let us appoint devout men over the matter, and let us give ourselves to the word and to prayer.”

The Snare of the Table

When a racehorse is too old to run a race, he is relegated to the mill, and tramps round and round in an endless circle. In the same way, a teacher, if he lacks the spirit to speak the words of virtue, sets himself to catch men with the net of the table. And well for him, if it be among the hungry and the needy, from whom he may win the blessing promised by the Lord, “I was hungred, and ye gave me meat.” Alas, it is often only among the rich that he lays his snare, to earn a good name, or reputation which fades away, or to secure return-invitations of the same kind, or at least to avoid having a bad name. Such a man forgets the curse pronounced by the Lord, “Woe unto you, when all men speak well of you.” He did not say, “All the poor,” but, “All men.” “For even so did their fathers unto the false prophets.” Let us not, then, Theodorus, seek for the reputation of a false prophet, as the vainglorious do. “For John came neither eating nor drinking, in the way of righteousness, and they say, He hath a devil. The Son of Man came eating and drinking, and they say, Behold a gluttonous man, and a wine-bibber, the friend of publicans and sinners.”

The Need of Discretion in Hospitality

Deac. It was not, O excellent father, to blame, or to run down such austerity, that I put my inquiry to your accuracy; for I knew the mind of the man from common report, and from those writings of his, homilies and letters, which have come into our hands. I wished to learn his aim, and so to emulate his actions. Who could be so absolutely stupid, as to be unaware that one loses more than one gains from the table, unless there be need to entertain saints in their necessity?

Bish. Nor did I say what I did, Theodorus, most careful seeker after truth, to belittle the virtue of our fathers, least of all their virtue of hospitality. It is one of the many virtues which make for piety, practised by the lord patriarchs. One caught in the snare of his table the Saviour God, another entertained the angels; one was rewarded by a son in his old age, another by deliverance, with his daughters, from Sodom. The apostle himself speaks of them, urging us to follow their example. “Be not forgetful,” he says, “of hospitality; for by it some have entertained angels unawares.” But an host must have the practical wisdom of the serpent, as well as the harmlessness of the dove; he must give heed to both the oracles, “Give to every man that asketh of thee,” and also “Admit not every man into thine house,” or else he will entertain a wolf instead of a sheep, or a bear instead of an ox, and barter away his gain for loss. And first he ought to investigate the place in which a man has been set—whether it be desolate or populous; and then his own fitness for the position of host—whether he can bear with the manners of other people. Then he must use discrimination in regard to the man who claims his services—whether he be rich or poor, well or ill, in need of food, or of clothes; for it is with these things that operative charity deals.

The Danger to a Priest of Excess in Hospitality

The blessed Abraham did not entertain governors, or generals, or the great men of the world around him, vaunting horses with glittering bits and bridles, or trousers set with metal bells, eructating their conceited tinkling far abroad. He lived in a desolate district, and entertained those who visited it; they came to the patriarch across the desert, either attracted by his virtue or under the stress of penury and poverty. Poverty is a mean between excess and deficiency; the excess of wealth, and the deficiency of penury. In the same way, Lot lived in a city which was worse than a desert, and entertained the strangers who visited it, because of the bad manners of its inhabitants. But a priest living in a very well-ordered city, like Constantinople, where everybody entertains, may easily come to neglect the ministry of the word, even to excess, and be always busy with food-bills. Such a man unconsciously comes to regard himself as an innkeeper, rather than as a teacher, till pure knowledge vanishes in wishy-washy talk; and he earns the reproach of the prophet, “Thine inn-keepers mingle the wine with water.” For teaching is as much superior to hospitality, as wine is to water if one is run down. The one benefits a man’s contemporaries, the other posterity; the one does good to those present at the time, the other to those who are not present as well; those present, by word of mouth, those not present, by writing. So it was with the Saviour, in the days of His flesh. He fed five thousand men with the loaves, not in a city, but in a wilderness; but He taught those who were present by word of mouth, while He saved the world through the written gospels. This is true especially of the words of inspired men.

Bodily and Spiritual Food

And do not be impressed, Theodorus, when a man satisfies the hungry with food, but when he delivers a soul from some form of ignorance. For plenty of people can be found to feed the belly, either gratis, or for money, with bread or vegetables, in case of need; while it is rare to find one who provides the nourishment of the word, and when he is found, he wins acceptance for his message with difficulty, if at all. For the evil spirits always do their best to prevent the salvation of souls. It was this famine of the word of teaching, that the Lord God threatened to bring upon the people by way of punishment, when He said to the prophet, “I will bring upon them a famine, not a famine of bread and water, but a famine of hearing the word of the Lord.” Moreover, in the case of a famine of material food, it is always possible to leave the city or the country where the shortage exists, and find safety in another, as the holy patriarchs did, when they went down to Egypt from Palestine; while in regard to famine of mental food, which befalls the Churches only for want of teachers, the prophet said again, “They will run from the east to the west, seeking the word of God, and shall not find it.”

Old Testament Warnings against High Living

Why, what good thing is there, that does not spring from teaching? And what trouble, that is not to be traced to errors of eating and drinking? I mean ailments, quarrels, disorders in the sub-gastric regions, and the sequelæ of these. When was it that Eve was expelled from Paradise? Was it not when she ate of the tree at the serpent’s suggestion, instead of being satisfied with her appointed food? When did Cain commit the foul crime of fratricide? Was it not when he kept the best for his own greedy self, and ate the first-fruits before offering them to God? When did the children of Job meet with the disaster which at a moment’s notice made their table a grave? Was it not when they were eating and drinking? When did Esau lose the blessing? Was it not when he yielded to the lure of the kitchen, a slave to his belly? When did Saul lose his kingdom? Was it not when he ate the best of the sheep, contrary to the law? And when did the people of Israel provoke God? Was it not when they lusted after the table of Egypt, and required of the teacher flesh and cauldrons? Why were Hophni and Phinehas, the sons of Eli, slain in one hour, in the war? Was it not because they used to draw the meat which belonged to the sacrifice out of the cauldrons with their flesh-hooks? And why did Jacob, the blamed, kick? Was it not when he was “filled with bread, and anointed, and waxen fat, and enlarged”? When did the people of Sodom run unnatural riot? Was it not when they had ruined their powers of sound judgment by continual drinking? So they are scornfully referred to by the prophet Ezechiel, in the words, “In abundance of wine and fulness of bread they lusted, themselves” (that is, the city) “and her daughters” (that is, the villages, which always follow the example of the city). When was it that the principle of moderation passed away from the people of old? Was it not when they, too, had grown old upon their beds, as the prophet complains, “They that eat the lambs out of the flock, and sucking calves out of the stalls, that drink strained wine, and anoint themselves with the chief ointments, and they were not grieved for the affliction of Joseph.” Upon whom did Isaiah pronounce the woe? Was it not upon those who rise up early to drink? Here are his words: “Woe unto them that rise up early, and follow strong drink; who tarry late into the night; for wine shall inflame them; for with the harp and the lute they drink wine, but they regard not the work of the Lord.” When were the priests of Bel put to shame by Daniel? Was it not when the dust ensnared them, and proved their guilt by means of food and drink?

No need for me to talk of those who have chosen to go by the broad way, and abuse the narrow; the words of the Saviour are to my mind sufficient condemnation of the roast-hunters, in the passage in which he shows the unnamed rich man, who fared sumptuously every day in this life present, longing for the poor man Lazarus to bring him crumbs and drops of water, and not getting them. Let us look, too, at the company of the saints of old, and see what kind of teaching they employed; whether that of a devout life and words of uprightness, or that of drinking parties and high living. Enoch was the first to be translated; was it by faith, or by joining in drinking parties? Then Noah preserved the human race on the face of the earth, by faith, in the ark of wood, when the world around was purified; was this through a course of drinking parties and unclean works, or by fasting and prayers? And when after this tremendous flood he found a little relief in drinking, do not the scriptures proclaim his disgrace, and not his honour? When the blessed Abraham overcame the five kings at Sodom, and rescued Lot, was it by faith and righteousness, or by eating and drinking?

A Single Instance no Basis for a Universal Rule

Then Theodorus said—

Deac. If you bring Abraham into the discussion, let me call your attention to this point; some one will tell you, that he won the war by faith, but he ensnared God, as you yourself explained just now, by means of the table.

Bish. What an idea! As Abraham ensnared God by means of the table, had we not all better abandon faith and the rest of the virtues, and cultivate drinking parties? Then we shall be no better than inn-keepers and caterers, who line the streets with buildings for the purpose, for filthy luere’s sake. And then the virgins, who strive to be holy in body and spirit, for the glory of God, had better bear children, because Mary bore Christ; if they do so, they will be no better than prostitutes. If our teachers must furnish the pleasures of the table because Abraham did so, then our virgins should bear children because Mary did so.

No, no, my honoured friend; we must not bring ridicule upon things which have been done, or are being done, with the justification of special circumstances; for each man’s conscience tells him his duty, if he will have it so.

Further Old Testament Illustrations

Again, did Jacob the wrestler carry off the goods of Laban by austerity, or by taking the chair at drinking parties? “I was consumed by the heat,” he said, “and by the frost at night, and sleep departed from me.” And he asked in his prayer for no more than bread and clothes: “If thou wilt give me bread to eat, and raiment to put on, of all that thou shalt give me I will give the tenth part unto thee.” He did not say, “I will spend it on tables.” What sort of table did Moses, the spokesman and faithful minister of God, prepare, when he gathered the people to the assembly upon the mountain? What sort of drinking cups did he have? He melted the rock with his rod, because of the unbelief of the people; he led six hundred thousand men out of Egypt; he carried the tables of the law to guide the people in the right way; was it transparent bowls, and pork haggis, and birds from Phasis, and fish from the sea, and Tyrian wine well refined, and snow-white loaves, that he set before those under instruction, or was it words?

Deac. But some one will meet your argument by saying, Give me too manna, and the water that Moses produced, and I ask for no more.

Bish. Who is so dull of wit as to prefer material manna, and water from the stream, to spiritual teaching? Let us pass on. Whom did Samuel, the teacher of the people, after his twenty-five years of retirement at Armathem, ever turn away from idols by means of the table, and not by words? And the king who was at the same time prophet and psalmist; he who said, “I have eaten ashes as bread, and mingled my drink with weeping”; when did he set a luxurious table? Elijah the Tishbite, who brought about a fast all the world over, and made the greedy to go short of food against their will for three years and six months—by what sort of table did he deliver them from their sin? What cooks had he? Did he not receive his daily bread through ravens?

Daniel the wise, the seer of the future—by what sort of table did he instruct the Assyrians? Was it not by prayer and fasting that he destroyed the dragon, and overthrew Bel, and stopped the mouths of the lions, and moved the king to deny his ancestral gods by the confession of the God who essentially is? What tables, and what sort of good cheer, did the rest of the company of prophets, or of apostles, employ? Were they not teachers? Was not the whole world entrusted to them? Are we not their successors? Does not the word wish us to be imitators of them and observant of their ways, as Paul teaches, when he says, “And considering the issue of their manner of life, imitate their faith”?

The Teaching of John the Baptist

What sort of honey-cakes had John the Baptist, the herald of repentance, in the wilderness; he who was so far from providing meals for those who came to him, that the bitterness of his reproofs actually offended his visitors’ taste? His fierce looks, and even his appearance, shook their defiled consciences like an earthquake; much more did his words cut away the abscesses of their souls like knives. “Ye offspring of vipers, who warned you to flee from the wrath to come? Bring forth therefore fruits worthy of repentance,” and do not rely upon baptism by itself, or upon your descent from Abraham.

The Teaching of the Apostle Paul

What of the teacher of the Gentiles, who abolished circumcision, to establish the circumcision of faith, the chosen vessel, Paul? Do we find him busying himself with a table? He was a debtor; but this was the last item of his debt. Does he owe it to the unbelieving Gentiles, first of all, to have table relations with them?

Again, what does he write to Timothy, Bishop of Ephesus? “Take heed unto”—the splendour of thy table? Or “Unto the reading, the exhortation, the doctrine”? These were just the duties in which the blessed John was diligent and strenuous. “Be instant out of season, in season,” he continues. “Reprove, rebuke, exhort.” No one raises the objection that two of these methods of address are bitter, and one pleasant; or suggests that he brings in the third with a touch of leniency. The exceedingly bitter “Reprove, rebuke,” are coupled with “Exhort” (not “flatter”). Exhortation, given scientifically, is more bitter to lovers of pleasure and degenerates, than reproofs, though they may find these the more vexatious. For under the influence of some passion, the soul may perhaps set itself in opposition to reproof, and remain indifferent to what is said; but by exhortation, gently and gradually administered in kindly and truthful language, it is consciously devoured, so to speak, in a slow fire, and sawn in pieces. Now of what does he remind Timothy? Of drinking parties and festivities, or of the revered stories of his tribulations? “Thou hast fully known,” he says, “my manner of life,” how in my persecutions I set myself with purpose of heart to do all to the glory of God. Does he anywhere mention a table, when reproving error?

Again, let us see what he writes to Titus, Bishop of Crete. Does he discuss meat and drink, or reproofs and teaching? This is what he says: “For this cause left I thee in Crete, that thou mightest set in order the things that are wanting, and persuade them not to teach a different doctrine, nor to give heed to tales and endless genealogies”; and he adds the kind of reproof needed: “The Cretans are always liars, evil beasts, idle gluttons.” We may ask the belly-olaters, and table-giants, and women-preying hawks, who find fault with John’s asceticism, to look through the Old and the New Testaments, and tell us when they find drinking commended, except perhaps in dealing with aliens, and that only as a pledge of peace, since barbarians, like wild beasts, are softened by table law?

The Mischief wrought by Excess

And when did drinking parties lead to anything but sin? When I say “sin,” I ought perhaps rather to say, “more grievous idolatry, and fratricide”; as it is written, “The people sat down to eat and drink, and rose up to play.” The play was the issue of drunkenness. “Come, let us make gods, who shall go before us.” They were so much shaken by wine, that they looked for gods who could be moved, and departed from the God Who is unshaken, and fills all things without walking a step. And what says the prophet? “The priest’s lips should meditate upon drinking parties, for they shall seek from him dinners and lunches”? Or that, “The priest’s lips shall guard law, and they shall seek the word from his mouth”? “For he is a messenger of the Lord,” and not a cook. Once more, when was it that the tower was built in Chalane? Before wine, or after wine? Was it not with wine, when Noah had planted the vine-stock, and was the first to gather the fruit of reproach? This shows that it was not the result of drinking, or of planting, but of excess.

When was Joseph sold by his brethren? Was it when they were busy tending the sheep, or when they were killing and eating the best of the flock in idleness, and devising malicious schemes against him over their cups? When did they deliver the head of John the Baptist on a charger to the young harlot? In an assemblage of the wise, or at a drinking party of the lawless? Was it in drinking and eating that the blessed Paul continued his discourse until midnight, or in fasting and teaching, and leading to faith those who knew not God?

As for the Chief of shepherds, the Chief of teachers, the Chief of wise men, Jesus the Christ, the Corrector of human error, where do we find Him eating in a city, except at the Passover?—and this was the fulfilling of mysteries. And what do we find Him discussing with His disciples, when they were anxious? Food, or reading? “Labour,” He says, “not for the meat which perisheth, but for that which endureth.”

Chrysostom’ s Action Justified

So the good John may well say, with the Lord, My drinking-party is the teaching and distribution of the word, for which I was chosen, for the salvation of the people. For meat does not commend us to God, neither if we eat it, nor if we do not eat it. It is with the Gentiles that the custom prevails, of winning with tables those whom they seek to ensnare; as they cannot persuade them with words, they say, “Let us eat and drink, for to-morrow we die.” The apostle launches upon them an unusually severe correction: “Be not deceived; evil communications corrupt good manners.” By “evil communications” he means the whirl of talking which goes on over such things.