and weak as he was, declaring that they could not protect him, that the monks were more furious than wild beasts, and that they would rather have to do with an army of the fiercest Barbarians, than fight these desperadoes *.

Learn from these things, and not from Ecclesiastical Historians, what sort of saints most of these monks were t.

The reputation of Chrysostom was re-established thirty-five years after his decease.

"It is a matter of wonder, says Socrates, how it came to pass, that the malice of envy attacked Origen after his death, and yet spared John Chrysostom: for the former, two hundred years after his decease, was excommunicated by Theophilus; the latter on the five and thirtieth year after his death was received to communion by Proclus. Such was the difference of manners in Proclus and Theophilus. But how these things have been done, and are now done, is no secret to men of sense."

Upon which Valesius makes this solemn and pious

remark:

"Socrates here gives us broad hints of his own sentiments. He means, that such procedures flow from the partiality of envy, or of favour. The condemnation of Origen, so long after his death, he ascribes to the envy which Theophilus bare to Origen himself, or to the monks who were called Longi; honours paid to Chrysostom, whose body was brought back to his own country, he imputes to the fond af

*

Chrysostom, Epist. 13. ad Olymp.

the

fection

+ Concerning the disorderly conduct of the monks see Stillingflect, vol. v. 635.

vii. 45

pit

an

fection of Proclus and of the people of Constantinople. But I cannot acquiesce in this judgment of Socrates. For although in transactions of this kind, human passions bear some share; yet the divine justice and providence, which presides over the church, is always the first mover. Origen therefore was and is condemned for the impiety of his doctrines; and Chrysostom, for the integrity of his life and the orthodoxy of his opinions, was justified, and is received by the church amongst the saints."

So then, the divine providence is particularly concerned in the canonization of saints, in exalting John to a place in the calendar,. and in excommunicating Origen by the ministry of the wicked Theophilus ! This puts me in mind of Pope Urban VIII. who, having received ill treatment from some considerable persons at Rome, said, How ungrateful is this family! To oblige them, I canonized an ancestor of theirs who did not deserve it.

Did Valesius give himself these airs, to please the French clergy? or did he deliver his real sentiments? He insults the memory of Origen, and yet he was a strenuous defender of Eusebius, who, if tried by the same rules of judging, was as to some of his theolo gical notions not less reprehensible than his master, Origen. But Valesius by publishing Eusebius contracted perhaps a fondness for him; and therefore it is a pity that he did not publish Origen likewise.

Basnage*, who commends Chrysostom, yet censures him for one nothing, for allowing too much to human power and human liberty in the performance of religious actions. The charge is so far just enough, that John Chrysostom, to be sure, did not talk on

those subjects like John Calvin, and the rest of the Christian fatalists.

A. D. 398. The fourth council of Carthage was now held. Their sixteenth canon is:

Episcopus Gentilium libros non legat, Hæreticorum autem pro necessitate.

The bishops soon began to relish this good advice, and not to trouble their heads with literature.

Another canon is;

No woman shall teach in the church, or administer baptism: we must understand this, says Fleury, except in case of necessity: which is a false gloss, in favour of the practice of the church of Rome; for whether the practice be allowable or not, certain it is that these Carthaginian bishops did not permit it.

A. D. 399. Rufinus and Jerom fell out.

"It must be confessed that Rufinus, though extremely ill used by Jerom, was one of the most able men of his time. He was not perhaps as learned as the saint, but he had more sedateness. His phrase is not pure, but his stile is more uniform. Though accused of many errors, he hath been convicted of none, and he justified himself very well-So that, in my opinion, many of the moderns have most unjustly insulted his memory †."

Rufinus, says Noris, published an orthodox con-a fession of faith. Basnage justifies him, and shewsr that Jerom began the quarrel; and Cave & also favours d him.

v. 85. + Du Pin.

+ Histor. Pelag.

§ i. 268.

A. D.

iii. 174.

A. D. 399. This year some scandalous diversions were put down by Arcadius.

There was a festival called Majuma, held in the month of August for seven days; during which time. the theatres were open for the most indecent sights; women were exhibited naked, and swimming in large baths, and all sorts of debaucheries were practised. This festival had been abolished once before; but being restored to please the populace, it was a second time put down. Chrysostom's eloquence and authority contributed much to this reformation, who in his sermons severely rebuked his Christian audience, for their fondness of such obscene and wicked entertainments. The graver Pagans were no less offended at this licentiousness, and Libanius mentions it with detestation *.

If Chrysostom had lived in our days, he would have exerted himself against masquerades, which surely are no better schools of morality, than this Majuma.

At the latter end of this fourth century, the number of Egyptian monks only, upon a moderate computation, is supposed to have been seventy-six thousand; and that of the nuns twenty-one thousand. But in following times, the number of these religious persons in the Christian world was doubled and trebled †.

A. D. 400. About this time lived Posidonius, a famous physician, who held that there were no damoniacs, and that they who were accounted such, either were impostors, or laboured under a mere bodily distemper. Philostorgius mentions this, but was not himself of the opinion of Posidonius.

Fabiola died at Rome, a lady greatly commended by Jerom*. He says that she was the first who founded an hospital there for the sick and needy, Νοσοκομείον.

"THE works of Chrysostom †, who flourished under Theodosius the Great, and his Son Arcadius, throw much light on the customs and manners of the fourth and fifth centuries. This popular orator hath introduced in his discourses and in his other writings all that passed in his time at the emperor's court, and amongst the consuls, the nobles, and the common people. He describes the circus, the theatres, and all kind of spectacles, the form and the ornaments of houses, the house-keeping, the feasts, and many other things, often entering into a remarkable detail.

"The emperors, says he, wore either a diadem, or a crown set with the most precious stones, and a purple tunic. This distinguished them from others. They also wore silken robes embroidered with gold, in which dragons were represented."

These dragons on the robe of Theodosius have excited my curiosity, to search whether the subsequent emperors ever had the like ornament on their robes. I have examined those which Du Cange hath caused to be engraved, and others which came not to his knowledge, and find nothing of the like kind.

Our author says more than once that their throne was of solid gold. In another place he informs us how the emperors were represented in pictures :

"The ground of the picture is blue. The emperor appears on his throne, having at his sides his horses

and