ncultivated
state of ecclesiastical antiquity, were almost inevitable. 3. The
learned Tillemont, (Mem. Ecclesiastiques, tom. xi. p. 1-405, 547-626,
&c. &c.,) who compiles the lives of the saints with incredible patience
and religious accuracy. He has minutely searched the voluminous works
of Chrysostom himself. 4. Father Montfaucon, who has perused those
works with the curious diligence of an editor, discovered several new
homilies, and again reviewed and composed the Life of Chrysostom, (Opera
Chrysostom. tom. xiii. p. 91-177.)]

[Footnote 42: As I am almost a stranger to the voluminous sermons of
Chrysostom, I have given my confidence to the two most judicious and
moderate of the ecclesiastical critics, Erasmus (tom. iii. p. 1344)
and Dupin, (Bibliotheque Ecclesiastique, tom. iii. p. 38:) yet the
good taste of the former is sometimes vitiated by an excessive love
of antiquity; and the good sense of the latter is always restrained by
prudential considerations.]

The pastoral labors of the archbishop of Constantinople provoked, and
gradually united against him, two sorts of enemies; the aspiring clergy,
who envied his success, and the obstinate sinners, who were offended by
his reproofs. When Chrysostom thundered, from the pulpit of St. Sophia,
against the degeneracy of the Christians, his shafts were spent among
the crowd, without wounding, or even marking, the character of any
individual. When he declaimed against the peculiar vices of the rich,
poverty might obtain a transient consolation from his invectives; but
the guilty were still sheltered by their numbers; and the reproach
itself was dignified by some ideas of superiority and enjoyment. But
as the pyramid rose towards the summit, it insensibly diminished to a
point; and the magistrates, the ministers, the favorite eunuchs, the
ladies of the court, [43] the empress Eudoxia herself, had a much larger
share of guilt to divide among a smaller proportion of criminals. The
personal applications of the audience were anticipated, or confirmed, by
the testimony of their own conscience; and the intrepid preacher assumed
the dangerous right of exposing both the offence and the offender to
the public abhorrence. The secret resentment of the court encouraged
the discontent of the clergy and monks of Constantinople, who were
too hastily reformed by the fervent zeal of their archbishop. He had
condemned, from the pulpit, the domestic females of the clergy of
Constantinople,