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. 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.